POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath [Archive]

ReluctantSamurai

06-25-2020, 15:00

The Dems have a lot of work to do. Just choosing an African American woman as a running mate isn't going to be enough, if this discussion is any indication:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/24/letter-to-washington-grosse-pointe-woods-325641

Most of my audience was Black—save for a few white men with their collared shirts tucked into khakis—but this wasn’t the target demographic I had imagined for this article. These were professional, affluent Black people. These were Black people who spent Sunday afternoons sipping Mimosas and playing spades. These were Black people who were going to vote.

Griffith will vote this November. But she isn’t excited about it. And truth be told, she doesn’t know anyone who is. “I bet our numbers come up, because nobody liked Hillary Clinton, but I don’t think they come up much. And I know they don’t get back to those record numbers from Obama,” Griffith said of Black voter turnout. “We look at Joe Biden and see more of the same. It’s about the era he came up. It’s about his identity—he’s a rich, old white man. What are his credentials to us, other than Obama picking him? It’s nice that he worked with Obama. But let’s keep it real: That was a political calculation. Obama thought he needed a white man to get elected, just like Biden thinks he needs a Black woman to get elected. We can see through that.”

These sentiments resurfaced in almost every conversation I had. First, that Biden choosing a woman of color might actually irritate, not appease, Black voters. Second, that the inferno of June would flicker by summer’s end and fade entirely by November. And third, that Biden does little to inspire a wary Black electorate that views him as the status quo personified. It was thoroughly convincing. Here were high-information voters, giving their personal opinions while also analyzing the feeling of their community, all making the same points in separate conversations.

“There’s no excitement for Biden,” Moore said. “Trump can get his people riled up. Biden can’t. That’s why there’s all this talk of putting a Black woman on the ticket. But that’s not going to help him win.” Sitting in a chair nearby, ERIC BENJAMIN snickered. “He’s just the lesser of two evils.”

“Biden’s a politician, same as the rest of them, same as Trump. But at least with Trump you know where he stands,” he said. “If we were sitting here, me and you, and you’re pretending we’re friends, but then behind my back, you act like you don’t even know me, that’s the worst. I’d much rather you just tell me to my face that we’re not friends. That’s Trump. I respect that. The Democrats always be acting like we’re friends.”

“Now, the Democratic Party takes us for granted. But it has always taken us for granted. So, it is what it is. But I’ll be for whoever is against Trump. Am I excited about Joe Biden? Is he going to make my life better? No. But I need to send a message that Trump is unacceptable.”

If you talk to younger people, they’re not going to automatically look past his history just because he was Obama’s VP. And the party had better realize that. He had better realize that. You know, that stuff on ‘The Breakfast Club,’ suggesting we’ve got to vote for him because we’re Black—young people do not respond to that.” “Exactly,” Yancey said. “It’s not a question of them voting for Trump. It’s a question of them not voting at all.”

The cross-section of those at that gathering was interesting: an ex-cop, a couple of local magistrates, a retired school teacher, a couple of real-estate agents, and an ex-convict. Sleepy Joe better pay attention...:inquisitive:

Hooahguy

06-25-2020, 19:02

In the article they state that Biden should not have committed to picking a woman VP. I actually agree with that. This sounds harsh, but I dont think we are ready as a country for a woman on the ticket. The average American voter has too much unconscious sexism for that to happen. Like how people still ask if a woman is too emotional to lead which isnt only a dumb question since men get just as emotional, its also sexist as hell. And its sad.

Anyways, the most recent VP poll (https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/cjd35jrh5o/econTabReport.pdf) has the two front runners, Harris and Warren, with high unfavorables as they have favorables. And the rest of the people on the list are mostly unknowns with many of them having ~50% of respondents having no idea who they are. I really like Harris, I think shes very well spoken and very accomplished, Im just skeptical of her in the VP spot due to her record as DA/AG which has been overall good and progressive, but some dark spots that cloud her record and I think unfairly gives her a bad name. Plus as the article clearly states, probably not the best choice if you want to boost turnout in the Black community. To clarify though, I do think theres a lot of misinformation about her record but as we saw in 2016, it might be too much and hobble Biden's campaign. As the saying goes, "A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on."

Personally I am rooting for Congresswoman Karen Bass who recently made the list as being vetted. Shes a great congresswoman, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, sits on Judiciary and Foreign Affairs, just a really great record all around. And none of the baggage that Harris or Val Demmings have in terms of law enforcement.

Anyways, the latest poll out from Siena College/The New York Times (A+ rating from 538) looks pretty good for the swing states, but not good enough:

FLORIDA:
Biden 47% (+6)
Trump 41%

ARIZONA:
Biden 48% (+7)
Trump 41%

NORTH CAROLINA:
Biden 49% (+9)
Trump 40%

PENNSYLVANIA:
Biden 50% (+10)
Trump 40%

MICHIGAN:
Biden 47% (+11)
Trump 36%

WISCONSIN:
Biden 49% (+11)
Trump 38%

Beskar

06-27-2020, 02:26

Montmorency

06-27-2020, 03:18

Wow, it's been a year-and-a-half but someone has decided Trump's was being excessively-naughty with the impoundment on another occasion.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/06/trump-wrongly-diverted-billions-build-wall-appeals-court-200626190949915.html

A federal appeals court on Friday ruled against the administration of United States President Donald Trump in its transfer of $2.5bn from military construction projects to build sections of the US border wall with Mexico, ruling it illegally sidestepped Congress, which gets to decide how to use the funds.

The Dems have a lot of work to do. Just choosing an African American woman as a running mate isn't going to be enough, if this discussion is any indication:

That's a very pessimistic slice of the Black upper-middle class. As a focus group I'm not sure what it really tells us. In the end - correct me if I missed something - but every person the author interviewed there affirmed their vote for Biden in November.

In the 2018 midterms black turnout was higher than it had been in perhaps generations. It's hard to imagine that relative enthusiasm would suddenly evaporate in a few months. And in the latest Siena/NYT poll (see also Hooah's post), the results are about as grim for Trump as they've ever been. In that poll, only 10% of black respondents - registered voters engaged enough to respond to a major poller, so comparable to the Politico piece's subjects - offered disapproval of Biden, compared to half of white respondents.
https://scri.siena.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/US0620-Crosstabs062420_84731937.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/upshot/poll-2020-biden-battlegrounds.html

It's not just that poll either. Polls for the past month have been overwhelmingly favorable to Biden, to the point of opening the possibility of a Democratic EC landslide.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/new-polling-shows-trumps-electoral-college-advantage-is-slipping/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/biden-has-a-historically-large-lead-over-trump-but-it-could-disappear/

https://i.imgur.com/kLMRji1.png
https://i.imgur.com/VqefapX.png
https://i.imgur.com/wc1nubz.png

As Alex Burns puts it, "Biden isn’t ahead by double digits because of his own runaway popularity. It’s because he’s broadly acceptable as an alternative to a strongly disliked incumbent." It's the economy, stupid. And the pandemic, and the civil unrest, and all the crimes and scandals and failures piled atop each other like a chain of tortoises. Now, if all that shit costs Trump 5 percentage points off his baseline it's still a horrifying sign for our country, but as far as the election itself goes it's better news than most would have allowed one to contemplate as of a year ago.

[Interesting tangent: In the NYT poll above the disapproval for BLM is roughly the same - similarly low - as that for the police.]

Anyways, the most recent VP poll (https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/cjd35jrh5o/econTabReport.pdf) has the two front runners, Harris and Warren, with high unfavorables as they have favorables. And the rest of the people on the list are mostly unknowns with many of them having ~50% of respondents having no idea who they are. I really like Harris, I think shes very well spoken and very accomplished, Im just skeptical of her in the VP spot due to her record as DA/AG which has been overall good and progressive, but some dark spots that cloud her record and I think unfairly gives her a bad name.

All that I read suggested she prioritized adopting a more conservative law-and-order persona (and we know what that means) than was justified electorally, as may have been discussed here. One can weight different factors, or emphasize aspects of her more recent career trajectory, but overall I wouldn't call her LE record progressive.

Hooahguy

06-27-2020, 05:05

I disagree. Even Republicans are willing, remember Palin ?
Just because they too are willing doesnt mean it was a great idea electorally. Palin was a terrible terrible choice as we all know. But what I am trying to say is that woman candidates are largely still unfairly treated compared to male candidates.

All that I read suggested she prioritized adopting a more conservative law-and-order persona (and we know what that means) than was justified electorally, as may have been discussed here. One can weight different factors, or emphasize aspects of her more recent career trajectory, but overall I wouldn't call her LE record progressive.
I think this take is missing major context of what was going on at the time and a "tough on crime" stance was electorally justified. In 2004 when she first took office as DA of San Francisco, they were in the middle of a major crime wave with a homicide rate of 11.57. By her last year in office, 2010, the homicide rate was 5.86. So basically cutting it in half. Her predecessor Terence Hallinan (who was regarded as super progressive) had a terrible conviction rate of just 50% which frankly means that he was pretty bad at his job. Harris on the other hand had a conviction rate of the mid to high 80 percentage range. But I digress. I can list you 40 different actions she's taken as either DA or AG that were pretty significant progressive initiatives. Things like the country's first Back on Track program that reduced recidivism and was later adopted by other jurisdictions across the country. As DA she created the LGBT Hate crimes unit, the environmental justice unit, and the child sexual assault unit. As AG, Harris created the Bureau of Children’s Justice; Division of Recidivism Reduction and Re-Entry; Mortgage Fraud Strike Force; Human Trafficking Work Group; Racial & Identity Profiling Advisory Board; eCrime Unit; Privacy Enforcement & Protection Unit. The list goes on and on if you want me to expand on this.

Of course there will be missteps. Nobody in the DA or AG position has a spotless record. I think it comes with the territory. For example, progressive Keith Ellison is the current AG of Minnesota and we all know whats been going on there. Where I think Harris tends to trip up on is explaining some of the actions shes taken. Like let's take the whole truancy thing. Despite being on the books as a law since the 70's, shes still being criticized for it even though a lot of those criticisms are being made with incorrect or missing information. But the thing is, studies show that fighting truancy helps kids stay in school which then helps prevent them from ending up in prison or worse. In SF, 94% (https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Tough-solutions-for-high-school-truancy-rate-3178477.php) of homicide victims under the age of 25 were dropouts. Where Harris was involved was refining the current law to make it so the school district could better identify at-risk children and find the best times to intervene to make sure they stayed in school. It wasnt about throwing parents in jail, it was about making sure that schools, students, and parents had the resources to fix the truancy issue with harsher penalties only being used as a last resort. But the narrative is already past this sort of explanation and I think a big part of it is Harris' inability to effectively counter these sorts of misconceptions. That being said, I do think she is the frontrunner for the VP spot (its clear she really wants it despite being the best at hiding it *cough cough Stacey Abrams*) since shes the only one who seems to be doing events with not only Joe, but his wife and top advisors too. So I guess we will see in the next month who gets picked in the end but my money is on Harris.

ReluctantSamurai

06-27-2020, 12:46

That's a very pessimistic slice of the Black upper-middle class. As a focus group I'm not sure what it really tells us. In the end - correct me if I missed something - but every person the author interviewed there affirmed their vote for Biden in November.

Pessimistic...yes. Every interviewee voting for Biden...yes. But my main take was for all those blacks who won't vote at all because as a 78 year-old, rich white man, Biden is just 'more of the same'.:shrug:

Hooahguy

06-27-2020, 19:47

Pessimistic...yes. Every interviewee voting for Biden...yes. But my main take was for all those blacks who won't vote at all because as a 78 year-old, rich white man, Biden is just 'more of the same'.:shrug:
Same question can be asked about how many young people wont vote for the same reason. Or how many Hispanics, Asians, etc. I dont think its a question that pertains only to one demographic. But at the same time how many are voting for him because hes a fundamentally decent person, especially with the dumpster fire thats been going on in the White House for the past 3.5 years? One moment that stands out to me is his interaction at the New York Times with Jacquelyn, the elevator operator. The video (https://twitter.com/joebiden/status/1219350885521858562?lang=en) of that encounter had 6 times more views than the video the NYT put out about the candidates they did endorse, Warren and Klobuchar. Of course he wont be pleasing everyone. I think its unrealistic to expect that any candidate this cycle would. There was no Obama-level candidate despite the huge field. But I think a lot of people underestimate the appeal of a compassionate leader who has known great personal loss at a time when the whole nation is going through great loss. So no, Biden most likely wont be an agent of huge change and I think he will only serve the one term. But I do think he will stabilize things and make the ground fertile for better Dem candidates to succeed moving forward.

Montmorency

06-28-2020, 00:03

White supremacist officers fired over genocidal rantings. There's a recording out there too.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article243779512.html

Three members of a North Carolina police department have been fired after a department audit of a video recording captured one of the officers saying a civil war was necessary to wipe Black people off the map and that he was ready.
[...]
At the 46-minute mark of the video, Piner and Gilmore began talking from their respective cars, at which time Piner criticized the department, saying its only concern was “kneeling down with the black folks.” About 30 minutes later, Piner received a phone call from Moore, according to the investigation, a segment in which Moore referred to a Black female as a “negro.” He also referred to the woman by using a racial slur. He repeated the use of the slur in describing a Black magistrate, and Moore used a gay slur to describe the magistrate as well.

Later, according to the investigation, Piner told Moore that he feels a civil war is coming and that he is ready. Piner said he was going to buy a new assault rifle, and soon “we are just going to go out and start slaughtering them (expletive)” Blacks. “I can’t wait. God, I can’t wait.” Moore responded that he wouldn’t do that.

Piner then told Moore that he felt a civil war was needed to “wipe them off the (expletive) map. That’ll put them back about four or five generations.” Moore told Piner he was “crazy,” and the recording stopped a short time later.

":daisy: Negro magistrate" etc.

I think this take is missing major context of what was going on at the time and a "tough on crime" stance was electorally justified. In 2004 when she first took office as DA of San Francisco, they were in the middle of a major crime wave with a homicide rate of 11.57. By her last year in office, 2010, the homicide rate was 5.86. So basically cutting it in half. Her predecessor Terence Hallinan (who was regarded as super progressive) had a terrible conviction rate of just 50% which frankly means that he was pretty bad at his job. Harris on the other hand had a conviction rate of the mid to high 80 percentage range. But I digress. I can list you 40 different actions she's taken as either DA or AG that were pretty significant progressive initiatives. Things like the country's first Back on Track program that reduced recidivism and was later adopted by other jurisdictions across the country. As DA she created the LGBT Hate crimes unit, the environmental justice unit, and the child sexual assault unit. As AG, Harris created the Bureau of Children’s Justice; Division of Recidivism Reduction and Re-Entry; Mortgage Fraud Strike Force; Human Trafficking Work Group; Racial & Identity Profiling Advisory Board; eCrime Unit; Privacy Enforcement & Protection Unit. The list goes on and on if you want me to expand on this.

Of course there will be missteps. Nobody in the DA or AG position has a spotless record. I think it comes with the territory. For example, progressive Keith Ellison is the current AG of Minnesota and we all know whats been going on there. Where I think Harris tends to trip up on is explaining some of the actions shes taken. Like let's take the whole truancy thing. Despite being on the books as a law since the 70's, shes still being criticized for it even though a lot of those criticisms are being made with incorrect or missing information. But the thing is, studies show that fighting truancy helps kids stay in school which then helps prevent them from ending up in prison or worse. In SF, 94% (https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Tough-solutions-for-high-school-truancy-rate-3178477.php) of homicide victims under the age of 25 were dropouts. Where Harris was involved was refining the current law to make it so the school district could better identify at-risk children and find the best times to intervene to make sure they stayed in school. It wasnt about throwing parents in jail, it was about making sure that schools, students, and parents had the resources to fix the truancy issue with harsher penalties only being used as a last resort. But the narrative is already past this sort of explanation and I think a big part of it is Harris' inability to effectively counter these sorts of misconceptions. That being said, I do think she is the frontrunner for the VP spot (its clear she really wants it despite being the best at hiding it *cough cough Stacey Abrams*) since shes the only one who seems to be doing events with not only Joe, but his wife and top advisors too. So I guess we will see in the next month who gets picked in the end but my money is on Harris.

I really don't want to refresh myself on a topic that is now moribund, but to preface with my take (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153737-Democrat-2020?p=2053790233&viewfull=1#post2053790233) from 1.5 years ago:

The clip is somewhat-dishonestly presented. She's not hailing the threat delivered - which would make her look like a Saturday-morning cartoon villain - she's expressing pride that the mother was found, so that she could be offered services and the children placed in school.

Stick with the good point that the immediate and only response in that case should have been the provision of services; the threat of criminal liability should (almost?) never play a role.

The "evil cop" narrative is silly. Her record is mixed (no innuendo intended), but from what I've seen she's certainly been one of the more liberal DAs in the country (not sure as compared to blue states). Not liberal enough for you, or you don't think she'll change to be liberal enough if promoted to President? Fine. But don't fall for mischaracterizations her past.

1. The instinct toward caution that Harris and many other Democrats have displayed with respect to electoral politics was IMO not indicated for the constituencies Harris sought to represent at the time she did, smounting IOW to over-cautiousness.

2. That's a list of offices, some of which have no political valence, without reference to results or practices. In what sense was Harris progressive according to some independent, or even contextual, metrics of progressive law enforcement (to the extent one accepts such a thing can exist)? The benchmark should not be 'less punitive than the most traditionally conservative Democratic DAs or AGs in the country,' such as the Queens County DA or (so I heard) the Oregon AG - or else everyone becomes almost definitionally progressive.

3. Other than the multiple parents prosecuted, the truancy policy of threatening parents was overall not overtly harmful beyond the psychological component (!), but the justice system did not offer material assistance to parents who needed it (e.g. addressing problems leading to childrens' nonattendance) because social services are outside the justice system's remit; it does not determine what services are available nor provision them, though it can integrate administratively to some extent with what is available. That situation is a failure of state and society that Harris had no control over, but critics have contended it would have been better for her not to use the coercive nature of her office at all in the way she did. She certainly had the discretion to avoid the big stick.

4. Part of her cautiousness manifested in the admittedly-near universal habit of avoiding interfering with constituencies more powerful than poor minorities. Compare:

While the (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-gagnier/avoiding-the-big-stick_b_3054066.html) Attorney General has made it clear that consumer protection and application transparency are top priorities for her office, Harris pointed out that her office seeks not to aggressively go after all application developers with a “big stick,” but rather make sure that application developers are knowledgeable of what the law is and are empowered to take steps to make sure they are compliant with the law.

In San Francisco (https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/n2021_final_speech.pdf), we threatened the parents of truants with prosecution, and truancy dropped 32 percent. So, we are putting parents on notice. If you fail in your responsibility to your kids, we are going to work to make sure you face the full force and consequences of the law.

A useful lens would be to reckon with which of Harris' dispositions in DA and AG offices should be considered substandard in all blue states today, including to Harris herself.

Pessimistic...yes. Every interviewee voting for Biden...yes. But my main take was for all those blacks who won't vote at all because as a 78 year-old, rich white man, Biden is just 'more of the same'.:shrug:

Of course that is a narrative frame that will influence the behavior of some, but what are you comparing to?

In 1964, black turnout was 58.5% according to this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/upshot/black-turnout-in-1964-and-beyond.html

That was the presidential election in which the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act were on the line, at the height of the civil rights movement in the country. Here is Census Population Survey dataset on black turnout in recent elections, back to 1986. I'll refer to the overreport-correction weighting (presidential in bold).
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l5fpK7ysQhQbZPv9hnZ_-PO1J1zBVPXSSQjNejTXecY/edit#gid=0

1986: 35.8%
1988: 46.8%
1990: 33.0%
1992: 50.6%
1994: 33.2%
1996: 48.1%
1998: 36.0%
2000: 52.9%
2002: 37.7%
2004: 61.4%
2006: 36.6%
2008: 69.1%
2010: 41.6%
2012: 67.4%
2014: 36.4%
2016: 59.9%
2018: 51.3%

Presidential Average: 57% (2004-16 pres elections higher than average; 1964 too, but I don't have data on hand for other elections prior to 1986)
Midterm Average: 38% (only 2010 and 2018 above average)

Black turnout in 2016 was about the same as in 1964, and in 2018 it was potentially the highest ever for a midterm. We can't judge these things against some hypothetical super-Obama Mr. Unbeatable pulling 80% turnout.

More than being turned off or unenthused by any particular candidate, our concern about black turnout should be centered around the intense and continual suppression, which we know manifests when Republicans control the electoral infrastructure, of eligible black people who would like to vote.

Hooahguy

06-28-2020, 02:15

I really don't want to refresh myself on a topic that is now moribund, but to preface with my take (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153737-Democrat-2020?p=2053790233&viewfull=1#post2053790233) from 1.5 years ago:
I agree with this take.

2. That's a list of offices, some of which have no political valence, without reference to results or practices. In what sense was Harris progressive according to some independent, or even contextual, metrics of progressive law enforcement (to the extent one accepts such a thing can exist)? The benchmark should not be 'less punitive than the most traditionally conservative Democratic DAs or AGs in the country,' such as the Queens County DA or (so I heard) the Oregon AG - or else everyone becomes almost definitionally progressive.
I listed the offices as broader progressive (at the time) initiatives she put in place but I can certainly give concrete examples: as Deputy DA she fought against Proposition 21 which would have increased criminal penalties against crimes committed by children; as DA she created the first Back on Track re-entry program as I mentioned earlier; as DA refused to seek the death penalty even when pressured by other Dems; as DA worked to get the first safe house in SF for girls who wanted out of the sex trade; again as DA she changed how underage men/women were treated in cases of prostitution from criminals to victims; as AG she refused to defend Proposition 8 (the anti-gay marriage law and her actions led to Hollingsworth v. Perry which overturned Prop 8); as AG she issued guidance to state LE to track and report civilian complaints alleging racial profiling as well as collect data when the use of force was involved; created the first of its kind LE training that focused on implicit bias training; mandated body cameras for DOJ personnel in the field; arranged law firms to provide pro-bono legal services to unaccompanied children crossing the border. I can go on.

Was she perfect? Was she 100% progressive? Hell no. She opposed legalizing marijuana nor did she back an initiative to have independent investigations into police shootings during her time as DA and AG. As a senator shes changed her positions on those issues and has become way more progressive. But as DA/AG she was, to a point, progressive, especially for those times and saying that she wasnt I think does a disservice to the gains made under her watch. And applying purity politics to someone who has valuable insight into how the justice system works I think does a greater disservice to the cause, especially if that person is willing to own up to their mistakes and fix them going forward.

3. Other than the multiple parents prosecuted, the truancy policy of threatening parents was overall not overtly harmful beyond the psychological component (!), but the justice system did not offer material assistance to parents who needed it (e.g. addressing problems leading to childrens' nonattendance) because social services are outside the justice system's remit; it does not determine what services are available nor provision them, though it can integrate administratively to some extent with what is available. That situation is a failure of state and society that Harris had no control over, but critics have contended it would have been better for her not to use the coercive nature of her office at all in the way she did. She certainly had the discretion to avoid the big stick.
As AG, Harris created the Bureau of Children’s Justice which formed private/public partnerships to increase resources available to educators and parents to reduce truancy and was successful at that. Of course her office wasnt personally able to step in and help parents in need, but thats why the partnership was created to work with the education department. Some cases do need a big stick unfortunately. I am lucky that my parents valued my education and stayed on top of me and my schooling. However I have friends whose parents were far more lax, and skipping school for them was no big deal and that showed. In more extreme cases I could see how the threat of persecution could help make the parents care.

4. Part of her cautiousness manifested in the admittedly-near universal habit of avoiding interfering with constituencies more powerful than poor minorities.
Its hard to tell. In that same speech you linked to she said she was going to go aggressively after perpetrators of mortgage fraud (which she did). During her tenure she also went after eBay, Walmart, Johnson & Johnson, Volkswagen, and Bank of America for various violations. So I think the characterization that she went soft on rich constituents is not a correct one.

A useful lens would be to reckon with which of Harris' dispositions in DA and AG offices should be considered substandard in all blue states today, including to Harris herself.
This is a fair take, and Harris herself has said that there would be things she would have done differently now and she has become more progressive as a senator since then. Actually if statistical rankings (https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate) mean anything, shes one of the most progressive senators we got. Anyways my overarching point wasnt that she had a flawless or super progressive record, it was that for the time it was a decently progressive record. Of course it wouldnt be considered that progressive today, because as a country our attitudes have changed even just over the past 4 years. But if we look at everything through the lens of today, we are going to be toppling statues of Lincoln. Which apparently people now are trying to do which is just... ugh.

More than being turned off or unenthused by any particular candidate, our concern about black turnout should be centered around the intense and continual suppression, which we know manifests when Republicans control the electoral infrastructure, of eligible black people who would like to vote.
Exactly this. Case in point, the shenanigans going on in Georgia. The primary was just a practice run.

ReluctantSamurai

06-28-2020, 03:12

Same question can be asked about how many young people wont vote for the same reason. Or how many Hispanics, Asians, etc. I dont think its a question that pertains only to one demographic.

Agreed.

One moment that stands out to me is his interaction at the New York Times with Jacquelyn, the elevator operator.

Trump would cut off his hand before he ever did anything like that:shrug:

More than being turned off or unenthused by any particular candidate, our concern about black turnout should be centered around the intense and continual suppression, which we know manifests when Republicans control the electoral infrastructure, of eligible black people who would like to vote.

Like maybe this:

https://twitter.com/joesonka/status/1275557397042548737

Scroll down to the door banging cuts...

...although they were eventually let in:embarassed:

Beskar

06-28-2020, 12:02

Like maybe this:
https://twitter.com/joesonka/status/1275557397042548737

Scroll down to the door banging cuts...

...although they were eventually let in:embarassed:

Couldn't find those, but the replies I saw make me want to claw my eyes out. With hashtags such as #MaskFascists saying it is a conspiracy to get everyone in masks with taglines of "healthy people don't spread disease, no masks" etc.

ReluctantSamurai

06-28-2020, 15:13

I believe you have to expand the original discussion by clicking the 'view more replies' link. I tried it again and got the video of voters banging on the polling site doors to be let in (and for some reason you have to scroll back to the top) , which is what I was trying to highlight:shrug:

With hashtags such as #MaskFascists saying it is a conspiracy to get everyone in masks with taglines of "healthy people don't spread disease, no masks" etc.

And there is THE problem. I wonder how those same people would feel if surgeons in an operating room wore no mask? I also have to wonder how these same people feel about having to wear a seat belt while driving a vehicle? They save lives, as do masks, but there's no hashtag rebellion that I know of to ban their use!?!

:rolleyes:

Viking

06-28-2020, 16:49

I believe you have to expand the original discussion by clicking the 'view more replies' link. I tried it again and got the video of voters banging on the polling site doors to be let in (and for some reason you have to scroll back to the top) , which is what I was trying to highlight:shrug:

Suspect you mean these two messages:

"Door banging getting really aggressive now:" (https://twitter.com/joesonka/status/1275553317637230592)
"The scene right outside the locked doors in Louisville:" (https://twitter.com/joesonka/status/1275553817350856706)

ReluctantSamurai

06-28-2020, 17:51

Yes. :2thumbsup:

Hooahguy

06-28-2020, 22:01

a completely inoffensive name

06-28-2020, 22:33

Hooahguy

06-29-2020, 00:01

ReluctantSamurai

06-29-2020, 00:46

Sad and absolutely, frickin' hilarious:

https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/status/1276965068048158720

As one commenter put it---AntiqueFa.

~D.....:shame:

Montmorency

06-29-2020, 01:38

Rumor (https://twitter.com/CGasparino/status/1277280827462868994) has it that if his poll numbers keep falling Trump could drop out of the race. Like this guy says though, I am skeptical. But say he does for "health reasons" or some other excuse, would the GOP run Pence or someone else? I could see one of the Trump kids stepping up to keep the Trump/Pence thing going. Plus with a cult around Trump Im not entirely sure that everyone would follow Pence. But that would probably be balanced out with a stronger showing of evangelicals.

I greatly doubt his ego and the perquisites of the presidency will be overridden by the desire to quit (though of course Trump is notorious for cutting his losses when he fails). This is a pretty unique situation, but in the end his office is what gives him his (in his mind) absolute authority. He won't drop it just because he feels bad.

Yes it would be like a hereditary dictatorship, but this is the GOP we are talking about. They will toss democracy if they felt it suited them. I cant remember exactly when this was but a poll taken over the past year with potential 2024 candidates ranked had Don Jr in the #1 spot. Their trend towards autocracy is worrisome to say the least.

Best case, Trump runs from prison in 2024 like an anti-Debs, splits the GOP ticket like a Roosevelt, and his idiot children subsequently take up the mantle of driving the national party's elections into the ground.

Yes. :2thumbsup:

Some needed context (https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/06/suppression-of-a-different-kind) on the situation (https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/06/the-latest-in-kentucky) in Kentucky (https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/06/kentucky-the-day-after).

Hooahguy

06-29-2020, 02:04

I greatly doubt his ego and the perquisites of the presidency will be overridden by the desire to quit (though of course Trump is notorious for cutting his losses when he fails). This is a pretty unique situation, but in the end his office is what gives him his (in his mind) absolute authority. He won't drop it just because he feels bad.

We're still ~4 months out so a lot can still change in ways we probably cant fathom right now (it is 2020 after all) but should his polling remain where it is now or worse, the scenario I envision is that he resigns for "medical reasons" so he can save face by saying that he quit before he could lose the election and later spin some yarn about stepping down for the good of the country. If he does quit I dont think he would ever run again (he can then claim he is undefeated), but he would prop up one of his sons or proteges in congress one day (presidential candidate Matt Gaetz *shudder*).

a completely inoffensive name

06-29-2020, 02:25

Yes it would be like a hereditary dictatorship, but this is the GOP we are talking about. They will toss democracy if they felt it suited them. I cant remember exactly when this was but a poll taken over the past year with potential 2024 candidates ranked had Don Jr in the #1 spot. Their trend towards autocracy is worrisome to say the least.

They will toss Democracy for everyone else. I am specifically talking about the internal political structure of the GOP. Republicans have no problem with a single party dictatorship as long as they as an individual have a path to party leadership.
Don Jr. is an idiot and is not a good politician, it chafes current conservatives to work under his father, why would they willingly be led by Don the II.

Hooahguy

06-29-2020, 02:57

They will toss Democracy for everyone else. I am specifically talking about the internal political structure of the GOP. Republicans have no problem with a single party dictatorship as long as they as an individual have a path to party leadership.
Don Jr. is an idiot and is not a good politician, it chafes current conservatives to work under his father, why would they willingly be led by Don the II.
Sure but since when has the internal GOP power structure been good at opposing anyone from within? I have zero confidence they learned anything from 2016 considering almost every single prominent Republican who opposed Trump in 2016 is now a lapdog. I dont think the GOP base would care if Don Jr was a good politician, his dad sure ain't. Good at campaigning sure, but at anything else he fails. All Don Jr needs is his dad to stump for him which Im sure he'd be glad to do in order to continue the Trump name. Or for Ivanka. You are right that one of the kids probably wont ascend after their dad, but I can definitely see them playing a prominent role within the party itself in some form or another. As the story goes, if Trump lost in 2016 he was going to create a news network and feature prominently in it and I could see that path being taken.

ReluctantSamurai

06-29-2020, 15:23

Some needed context on the situation in Kentucky.

Point taken.

Lawyers, Guns and Money? So Kirkland & Ellis meets NRA meets Wall Street....:quiet:

Seamus Fermanagh

06-30-2020, 19:20

As Monty noted, I have little or no doubt that Trump will continue his bid for a second term. He was the underdog in 2016 and I suspect he believes that he can repeat that performance yet again. He is NOT a scientific campaigner; he goes with his gut.

That said, if he DOES drop out prior to the convention, then the delegates would be committed to vote for him anyway on the first ballot. He would then be offered the nomination. Were he to refuse, it would go to open balloting on the floor.

If he has been nominated and has accepted, but then drops out after the convention has been adjourned, the RNC committee members would meet to decide a new nominee voting, the for the appropriate number of delegates in their jurisdiction by proxy (no re-assembly of the convention would be made). They would be free to choose whomever they saw fit as long as a majority of those proxy votes supported the nomination and that nominee agreed to run.

Hooahguy

06-30-2020, 21:44

A winner has finally been called (https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/politics/kentucky-primary-amy-mcgrath/index.html) in the KY Dem primary, with McGrath eking out a win. I was rooting for Booker since it seemed like he was the favorite of actual Kentucky Dems plus I just dont think that McGrath is a very good campaigner at all (and I like Booker more personally). But lets be honest here, neither of them were going to win against McConnell, but I do hope that Booker goes on to challenge Rand Paul in 2022 since Paul is just a gigantic all-around moron. At least McGrath and her massive amount of funding will hopefully tie up McConnell's resources. But mark my words, Booker is one to watch for the future, I have really high hopes for him.

Hooahguy

07-03-2020, 19:24

Its exactly 4 months until the general election. Things are only going to get crazier as a rumor (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/07/trump-despondent-as-numbers-crater-loser-label-looms) comes that GOP leadership is giving Trump until Labor Day to "turn things around" and if not, he's on his own. I think this rumor is utter :daisy:, the GOP is too intertwined with Trumpworld to cut it loose. They had their chance to cut themselves loose of Trump with impeachment and they failed miserably. No reason to think they wont go down with the ship even as his polling keeps dropping. Also didnt they say something similar in 2016 after the Access Hollywood tape?

rory_20_uk

07-04-2020, 20:38

Hooahguy

07-05-2020, 03:51

So because this timeline is the dumbest timeline, Kanye West (https://twitter.com/kanyewest/status/1279575273365594112?s=20) is claiming hes running for president. I'm pretty sure he's just saying this to stir up controversy/get in the news cycle but who knows, he's similar to Trump in the sense that he has delusions of grandeur.

Obviously this means that Biden needs to pick Taylor Swift as VP.

https://giphy.com/gifs/taylor-swift-look-what-you-made-me-do-l4EoVKDYkme6xfmdGhttps://media.giphy.com/media/l4EoVKDYkme6xfmdG/giphy.gif

Csargo

07-05-2020, 04:09

Hooahguy

07-05-2020, 04:16

He's got an album coming out, so it's probably just for publicity. :shrug:

Oh I am 95% sure that this is the case too. Especially since for the states in which the filing deadline hasnt passed yet, he would need literally thousands of signatures to get on the ballot to run as an independent. In Florida he would need over 130,000 signatures. But even if he just pushes for a write-in campaign I think its not going to hurt Biden or Trump as it feels like the only people who would vote for him are the ones who werent planning on voting for either main party anyways.

Also didnt he do this in 2016 too?

Csargo

07-05-2020, 04:23

Oh I am 95% sure that this is the case too. Especially since for the states in which the filing deadline hasnt passed yet, he would need literally thousands of signatures to get on the ballot to run as an independent. In Florida he would need over 130,000 signatures. But even if he just pushes for a write-in campaign I think its not going to hurt Biden or Trump as it feels like the only people who would vote for him are the ones who werent planning on voting for either main party anyways.

Also didnt he do this in 2016 too?

Yeah, I don't think it he actual said it in 2016 but sort of hinted at running iirc.

Hooahguy

07-05-2020, 04:28

Well I'll believe Kanye when he actually files so :shrug:

Montmorency

07-05-2020, 07:32

They delayed (https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2020/06/30/board-of-elections--absentee-ballot-counting-to-begin-next-week) counting the absentee ballots in the New York Democratic primary, originally July 1, now set to begin 2 weeks after election day (June 23) fhsdgegagahrgek

November is going to be pure sex in this country.

Granted that New York is neither a battleground state nor has extensive experience handling mail ballots, but I wonder how the midwestern and southern states that matter will operationalize.

On an interesting note from available non-mail returns, a substantial proportion of the ballot decisions on the presidential primary left the party delegate section blank (on the New York ballot you vote for the candidate and for the delegates who would vote for them at the DNC). I can't comment on the significance of that since for all I know it happens that way every presidential primary, but it does suggest to me a measure of contempt for the system of voting both for party candidates (directly) and for party electors pledged to vote for those candidates at the party convention.

White House Trade and Manufacturing Policy director and assistant to the president Navarro with the white supremacy foghorn
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1279142640055812096 [VIDEO]

Navarro: They spawned the virus, they hid the virus, they send hundreds of thousands of Chinese nationals over here to seed and spread the virus

a completely inoffensive name

07-06-2020, 00:51

The GOP elites may very well be pressuring Trump, but it is a bluff and one that even Trump should be able to see.

Hooahguy

07-06-2020, 01:19

They delayed (https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2020/06/30/board-of-elections--absentee-ballot-counting-to-begin-next-week) counting the absentee ballots in the New York Democratic primary, originally July 1, now set to begin 2 weeks after election day (June 23) fhsdgegagahrgek

November is going to be pure sex in this country.

Granted that New York is neither a battleground state nor has extensive experience handling mail ballots, but I wonder how the midwestern and southern states that matter will operationalize.

On an interesting note from available non-mail returns, a substantial proportion of the ballot decisions on the presidential primary left the party delegate section blank (on the New York ballot you vote for the candidate and for the delegates who would vote for them at the DNC). I can't comment on the significance of that since for all I know it happens that way every presidential primary, but it does suggest to me a measure of contempt for the system of voting both for party candidates (directly) and for party electors pledged to vote for those candidates at the party convention.

I have a feeling that we might not know who won the election for a week at least after especially in states where it might be very close like Florida or Pennsylvania.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-06-2020, 17:33

I believe Santoris should ask for special funding to set up the re-count and pay for it NOW -- it is foregone that it will be required.

I am predicting Trump takes Florida by fewer than 10k.

Damnit.

a completely inoffensive name

07-06-2020, 18:25

I am predicting Trump takes Florida by fewer than 10k.
Damnit.

Why? Biden is showing a great lead. The two latest polls that show a more even matchup are both rated C- by 538. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/florida/
A- polls show Biden with a clear lead.

ReluctantSamurai

07-06-2020, 18:50

I'll be far more interested in what the polls in Florida have to say in early August when the death toll from the current COVID wildfire there gets logged:inquisitive:

Seamus Fermanagh

07-08-2020, 06:19

I'll be far more interested in what the polls in Florida have to say in early August when the death toll from the current COVID wildfire there gets logged:inquisitive:

So far, the toll is falling heaviest among Dem districts. Though there are a lot of "purple" swaths in Florida.

Montmorency

07-08-2020, 08:10

So far, the toll is falling heaviest among Dem districts. Though there are a lot of "purple" swaths in Florida.

Very interesting cohort survey (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/2020-polls-trump-coronavirus-democracy.html) that suggests the toll of CV19 on a county is correlated with reductions of support for Donald Trump, also implicating the increasingly-evident shift among older Americans.

When the vast majority of new cases are coming out of red states, or even red counties, and concentrated in swing states like Florida, Arizona, and *gulp* Texas, then Trump has a lot to worry about this summer.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-08-2020, 16:31

It is rather macabre that Trump's most ardent supporters may be enhancing their chances to die just prior to the election as an expression of their support for Trump (not masking, refusing to social distance, etc.). It could even affect the margins in states such as Florida and North Carolina where the margins are thin.

Not sure if this is something Sartrean or more like Poe would have written...

a completely inoffensive name

07-12-2020, 21:19

This is unrelated to thread topic, but we still got 4 months to go so it's meh right now. I've been thinking of what I would promise when running for local government given the current climate of US politics and the fact I have been hopping around from purple district to purple district, following work.

The US is really in need of new ideas and while I myself identify as a Progressive or maybe a very left Neoliberal, it's been difficult to really expand my mind's horizon of what is possible besides mainly data driven, targeted neoliberal reforms. Big ideas are just as likely to get sabotaged 5-8 years down the line as they are to fail before they even get to the presidents desk. My way of thinking is perhaps Democrats and the left in general need to be more clever and pursue policies in the background that mainly improve the efficiency and outputs of government so we can change the social meme of government being naturally ineffective and wasteful. But how would I do that on a city level?

There are some ideas I have kicking around like transitioning to an LVT and repealing NIMBY laws to allow medium density, mixed residential/commercial zoning...but I am afraid whether we are at the point that any and all reform is now painted as a 'leftist' policy. For example, Republican commenters in the local papers make it clear that the expectation in the wrongful application of police force is not to rectify with any policies but to demand that people's expectations of what is proper compliance needs to shift to what the most hawkish law enforcement imagine it to be. This move of the GOP to go from a right-wing liberal party to a nationalist reactionary party has really set us up for the culture wars Fox News has been raving about for decades.

Montmorency

07-13-2020, 00:23

My way of thinking is perhaps Democrats and the left in general need to be more clever and pursue policies in the background that mainly improve the efficiency and outputs of government so we can change the social meme of government being naturally ineffective and wasteful. But how would I do that on a city level?

That's the Democratic party brand, it's what they already do.

Sorry, did I say brand? :mean:

The Holy Grail of leftist ideology is really to create a sort of perpetual motion machine by empowering the "common person" to self-radicalize and self-organize, which grassroots we know by now was the engine of social democracy and civil rights around the world in the 20th century (as compared to top-down action alone). Neoliberals and technocrats in a meta-sense are perhaps too focused on what they might accomplish with dictation, but that is clearly a vulnerable strategy even when at its best (and when it's not at its best it reproduces many of the social flaws carried over by the agents, or just results in outright bad or damaging policy).

This move of the GOP to go from a right-wing liberal party to a nationalist reactionary party has really set us up for the culture wars Fox News has been raving about for decades.

Culture war is a long-term move that began at least with the Birchers and patriarchal reactionary evangelicals in the 50s, make no mistake.

Anyway, socialists are gaining an increasing presence in city governments across the country today, so adjusting for local conditions I'm not sure how scared you ought to be of Republican op-eds. Even in Seattle, Amazon won the battle against the head tax in 2018 but in the subsequent election it lost the war and now an even higher tax is being imposed. If you really want a taste of power do the research on your target jurisdiction, the target office, and on what makes an effective political campaign.

a completely inoffensive name

07-13-2020, 02:24

That's the Democratic party brand, it's what they already do.
Hmm, they do a tremendous job of not promoting that aspect. On the national level it is hard to really shake the assertion that Democrats love to bring attention to Big Bills once they are in power and spend everything they have on these Big Bills. Both Obama and Clinton would have done better to spend their political capital on less controversial, efficiency driven improvements rather than harping on universal health care for the past 30 years. Even now there is no clear path to universal health care, assuming Biden gets everything he is promising. So what exactly have Dems done, cause as far as I can tell the Veterans are still struggling to get healthcare, the Post Office is broke, funding for research and development in some fields is not being expanded, and the IRS is still trying to move beyond computers older than me.

The Holy Grail of leftist ideology is really to create a sort of perpetual motion machine by empowering the "common person" to self-radicalize and self-organize, which grassroots we know by now was the engine of social democracy and civil rights around the world in the 20th century (as compared to top-down action alone). Neoliberals and technocrats in a meta-sense are perhaps too focused on what they might accomplish with dictation, but that is clearly a vulnerable strategy even when at its best (and when it's not at its best it reproduces many of the social flaws carried over by the agents, or just results in outright bad or damaging policy).
There are already plenty of radicalized socialists spending all their time talking theory over the internet, radicalizing other people. They never leave their room though, so there is a missing component beyond being part of a grassroots organization. Anyone can stand in a march with friends for a day. Some can march in the streets for a few weeks. Few actually carry out their lives as political agents, despite the strength of their opinions.

Culture war is a long-term move that began at least with the Birchers and patriarchal reactionary evangelicals in the 50s, make no mistake.
I don't think the situation we find ourselves in was part of anyone's Grand Plan. Evangelicals of the 1950s would have balked if you said they would be defending someone with the record of Donald Trump.

Anyway, socialists are gaining an increasing presence in city governments across the country today, so adjusting for local conditions I'm not sure how scared you ought to be of Republican op-eds. Even in Seattle, Amazon won the battle against the head tax in 2018 but in the subsequent election it lost the war and now an even higher tax is being imposed. If you really want a taste of power do the research on your target jurisdiction, the target office, and on what makes an effective political campaign.
Even slight degrees of public attention can change things, especially on the local level, even more especially for purple districts.
My understanding is that socialists continue to lose on national and state levels in primaries or in the general elections when compared to moderates and neoliberals. It's great if progress is made within cities, but those by definition are the easy pickings for a socialist candidate, once in the suburbs and rural areas they seem to fall apart although I can't explain why.

Montmorency

07-13-2020, 02:42

Hmm, they do a tremendous job of not promoting that aspect. On the national level it is hard to really shake the assertion that Democrats love to bring attention to Big Bills once they are in power and spend everything they have on these Big Bills.

Really? One of the major left criticisms of the Democratic Party is exactly that it doesn't publicize it's accomplishments.

For example (read a couple pages):
https://books.google.com/books?id=oi7jzMcoOvMC&pg=PT68&lpg=PT68#v=onepage&q&f=false

Both Obama and Clinton would have done better to spend their political capital on less controversial, efficiency driven improvements rather than harping on universal health care for the past 30 years.

Uh, the ACA? I think you may be talking about something else. You're not referring to how Democrats advertise/message their record in government, but on their framing of tentpole priorities in elections?

So what exactly have Dems done, cause as far as I can tell the Veterans are still struggling to get healthcare, the Post Office is broke, funding for research and development in some fields is not being expanded, and the IRS is still trying to move beyond computers older than me.

Incremental improvements. :shrug:

There are already plenty of radicalized socialists spending all their time talking theory over the internet, radicalizing other people. They never leave their room though, so there is a missing component beyond being part of a grassroots organization. Anyone can stand in a march with friends for a day. Some can march in the streets for a few weeks. Few actually carry out their lives as political agents, despite the strength of their opinions.

That's why one priority is reestablishing labor militancy, since labor is both a major component of people's lives and a locus of the expression of power in real-time.

I don't think the situation we find ourselves in was part of anyone's Grand Plan. Evangelicals of the 1950s would have balked if you said they would be defending someone with the record of Donald Trump.

Maybe not if they saw the man firsthand, since ultimately Trump really is an expression of everything they admire (ignore what they claim to admire, that's always been a put-on). It's not a conspiracy dude, it's just ideology congealing over time. You really have to understand the deep movements and philosophies influencing the Republican Party and its base over the past century if you want to understand the past decade.

Even slight degrees of public attention can change things, especially on the local level, even more especially for purple districts.
My understanding is that socialists continue to lose on national and state levels in primaries or in the general elections when compared to moderates and neoliberals. It's great if progress is made within cities, but those by definition are the easy pickings for a socialist candidate, once in the suburbs and rural areas they seem to fall apart although I can't explain why.

Well, I'm not sure there have been many socialist candidates trying to run in rural areas. The bench isn't exactly unlimited or evenly spread across the country, so putative electoral support isn't the only limiting factor. Here's a relevant article.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/can-democratic-socialism-rise-in-rural-america

The most important thing is not to run a shitty campaign (e.g. Eliot Engel), after that your program or ideology is almost an afterthought. On the local level retail politics and institutional cooperation (e,g. endorsements) is key.

a completely inoffensive name

07-13-2020, 03:15

Really? One of the major left criticisms of the Democratic Party is exactly that it doesn't publicize it's accomplishments.

For example (read a couple pages):
https://books.google.com/books?id=oi7jzMcoOvMC&pg=PT68&lpg=PT68#v=onepage&q&f=false

I will take a read, maybe my perception is incorrect.

Uh, the ACA? I think you may be talking about something else. You're not referring to how Democrats advertise/message their record in government, but on their framing of tentpole priorities in elections?
The ACA can be said to be an improvement in the sense that more people are now covered under private health insurance...but as far getting to end goal, this ended up being a terrible waste of effort. Midterm backlash, catering to private insurance companies, lack of public option. Then the inevitable sabotage from SCOTUS (either that or Robert's had to toss the whole thing) which allowed much of the Medicaid expansion to be withheld by GOP Governors. Then the GOP removed the mandate which was one of the key components of the policy, and basically tinkered with the requirements for coverage to the point where I don't know how well of a metric insurance coverage even is anymore.

Yeah I think I am more talking about priorities. It's not so much "let's upgrade department infrastructure and increase R&D to maintain competitive advantages" it's "we need to dismantle entire systems and we promise that the replacement will be better". Whether or not you actually agree the gov can and will do some things better, it feels like Dems are always asking for these priorities and big issues to be accepted on faith that execution will go well.

Incremental improvements. :shrug:
But improvements could have been much better and less costly to achieve, I think.

That's why one priority is reestablishing labor militancy, since labor is both a major component of people's lives and a locus of the expression of power in real-time.
What does leftist theory say about the acceptance of militarist mentality among manufacturing vs service vs other types of jobs.

Well, I'm not sure there have been many socialist candidates trying to run in rural areas. The bench isn't exactly unlimited or evenly spread across the country, so putative electoral support isn't the only limiting factor. Here's a relevant article.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/can-democratic-socialism-rise-in-rural-america

The most important thing is not to run a shitty campaign (e.g. Eliot Engel), after that your program or ideology is almost an afterthought. On the local level retail politics and institutional cooperation (e,g. endorsements) is key.
I think that could be said on any level. Bernie certainly could have used some of the endorsements he threw away. I'm not a campaign manager, but to my eyes it seems it comes down to voter engagement and turnout, at least for a purple/swing district. Finding friends in the establishment is probably the way to go for NYC where a single party is dominant.

Montmorency

07-13-2020, 04:10

I will take a read, maybe my perception is incorrect.

The point is that the Obama Dems (and I believe pre-Obama as well) were very reluctant to 'toot their own horn' or emphasize what government was accomplishing for people, believing either that it would be unseemly and counterproductive to do so, or that people would just recognize good government on their own.

The ACA can be said to be an improvement in the sense that more people are now covered under private health insurance

Well, it includes regulatory improvements relating to scope, quality, or reliability of coverage. And of course Medicaid expansion, though I grant that in theory a Medicaid expansion would be an easier 'lift' than the ACA package - but then again just look at the recent history of Republican opposition to Democratic priorities. So does it really make sense to charge Obama with trying to deliver less than the ACA? Since that is what is implied by prioritizing lower-profile and more targeted policies. Obama gained 60 votes for the ACA, but he should have settled for 60 votes for just Medicaid??? Or Bill Clinton, who passed what he did with the votes he had, and it's far from clear that he would have accomplished more or better by being less ambitious.

TBH the only available venue for sub rosa tinkering is the executive or judiciary, and both branches have processes that are protracted and detailed, with many opportunities for public apprehension.

Whatever your theory is, it doesn't seem relevant.

Then the GOP removed the mandate which was one of the key components of the policy,

It turned out the mandate, one of the most legacy-Republican ideas in the ACA, wasn't worth jack, so whatever. The most deleterious development surrounding the mandate is that it has been and still is used by Republicans as a lever to try to get the whole program declared unconstitutional.

and basically tinkered with the requirements for coverage to the point where I don't know how well of a metric insurance coverage even is anymore.

For most people the coverage standards and subsidies still apply, you're thinking of a small minority of plans on the exchanges for "catastrophic" insurance that have been promoted and authorized by the Trump admin.

Yeah I think I am more talking about priorities. It's not so much "let's upgrade department infrastructure and increase R&D to maintain competitive advantages" it's "we need to dismantle entire systems and we promise that the replacement will be better". Whether or not you actually agree the gov can and will do some things better, it feels like Dems are always asking for these priorities and big issues to be accepted on faith that execution will go well.

No one actually cares to hear "let's upgrade department infrastructure and increase R&D to maintain competitive advantages", it's already part of what Biden is saying, and "we need to dismantle entire systems and we promise that the replacement will be better" is not something you ever hear from Dems at the presidential level other than Sanders. Maybe Kucinich or Dean were like that, I don't know anything about their rhetoric. I just don't accept your characterization of the Democratic Party as it is.

But improvements could have been much better and less costly to achieve, I think.

As I was saying, there just isn't evidence for this, that adopting the least-ambitious platforms would generate greater electoral success at any point in recent history.

Here is the Dukakis platform from 1988.
http://www.4president.org/brochures/1988/mikedukakis1988brochure.htm

What does leftist theory say about the acceptance of militarist mentality among manufacturing vs service vs other types of jobs.

I don't know what you mean by "militarist mentality," but what you'll generally hear from the intersectional left today is that the women and POC of the service sector are the "real" modern working class.

The more culturally-conservative anti-anti-Trump horseshoe theory kind of leftists might be more bullish about the white working class (WWC), but they seem moribund to me.

I think that could be said on any level. Bernie certainly could have used some of the endorsements he threw away. I'm not a campaign manager, but to my eyes it seems it comes down to voter engagement and turnout, at least for a purple/swing district. Finding friends in the establishment is probably the way to go for NYC where a single party is dominant.

Uh, sure. But orgs and endorsements on the local level are important not just because they can give you money - which of course you probably also need - but because they can activate the networks of people that they mediate. At the local level people are also especially likely to be checking endorsement lists because they have no idea otherwise who the candidates are; this person is supported by the NRA, this person is supported by a teacher's association, etc.

Strike For The South

07-17-2020, 18:15

I mean at this point a Biden win is a foregone conclusion.

What we are looking at now is who he surrounds himself with to pull the levers. Will it be the "Bernie" wing or the "Biden" wing?

Montmorency

07-17-2020, 19:26

I mean at this point a Biden win is a foregone conclusion.

What we are looking at now is who he surrounds himself with to pull the levers. Will it be the "Bernie" wing or the "Biden" wing?

Just to quickly jump in, check out the revamped climate action plan produced by the Sanders-Biden unity committee. As Eric Levitz points out, a moderate presidential candidate doesn't tack left during the (effectively) general election, having defeated his leftist challenger, unless he puts stock in the substance of the policy.

Papewaio

07-17-2020, 23:58

Montmorency

07-18-2020, 04:59

I thought Brexit II was a foregone loss. It turned into a landslide and reinforced Brexit. Now they have more COVID cases in UK than USA.

Like a herd animal, right wingers keep their identity publicly quiet hence polls around the world being skewed to the left, also right wingers vote as a herd.

Left wing is like a bag of cats, so I expect a lot of hissing and scratching and then a lot of protest votes. Donkey votes match the mascot after all.

I mean, Labour started the 2019 election season about 10 points behind in polling, were about 10 points behind on election day, and secured 32.1% to 43.6% at the ballot box.

There's just not much evidence for the second sentence that I can identify, past or present. Now, it's possible that in the future all our cohort of old right-wing people for the pool of respondents will die and the rest will systematically reject engagement with polling as an arm of The Evil Medias, resulting in a permanent uncorrectable skew towards left or liberal parties, but that's not manifested yet.

Hooahguy

07-18-2020, 05:15

Civil rights legend John Lewis has passed away. (https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/17/politics/john-lewis-dead-at-80/index.html)

I knew this day was coming since he got diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer last year, but I am absolutely devastated. Not only was he my congressman when I lived in Georgia, I had the wonderful opportunity to meet him a number of times, and each time he was the single nicest person in congress. And he remembered my name when I met him for the final time last year which was extremely touching. He was the definition of a living legend and whoever takes his seat next will have very large shoes to fill.

Papewaio

07-18-2020, 08:32

Polling around the world tends to be more left than the results. UK, USA and Australia all showed stronger shifts to the left in polls vs the actual election results.

a completely inoffensive name

07-18-2020, 21:57

Montmorency

07-19-2020, 03:25

Polling around the world tends to be more left than the results. UK, USA and Australia all showed stronger shifts to the left in polls vs the actual election results.

Why do you think there is a systematic tendency across elections?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/poll-averages-have-no-history-of-consistent-partisan-bias/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-accurate-have-state-polls-been/

If you skim through those articles, you will see that in US presidential elections the national polling bias changes every election, often toward alternating parties, and state polls may have their own bias divergent from national polls' bias.

The 2012 Obama-Romney election was the latest episode of significant Republican bias in polling. Usually problems with polls can be explained in methodological terms. For example, in 2016 it was found that a major factor underrepresenting Republican support in polls was nonweighting of education (i.e. non-college voters, especially non-college whites). These and other oversights have been adjusted for this cycle.

Partisan bias in sub-presidential races also constantly fluctuates.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-were-skewed-toward-democrats/

Another recent non-American case, but where the polls were off:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/macron-won-but-the-french-polls-were-way-off/

Emmanuel Macron’s 32-percentage-point victory in France’s presidential election runoff may end up being touted as a triumph for French pollsters, who consistently gave him a huge advantage. But it shouldn’t be. The polls leading up to the contest between the centrist Macron and his far-right opponent were the least predictive in French history, underestimating Macron’s support, rather than Marine Le Pen’s, to the surprise of some. ... The average poll conducted in the final two weeks of the campaign gave Macron a far smaller lead (22 percentage points) than he ended up winning by (32 points), for a 10-point miss. In the eight previous presidential election runoffs, dating back to 1969, the average poll missed the margin between the first- and second-place finishers by only 3.9 points.

Sorry, but this just seems like one of those common political myths.

ReluctantSamurai

07-19-2020, 03:59

Montmorency

07-19-2020, 04:17

I don't pay much attention to polls, just a big distraction, IMHO. What bodes dire for Fearless Leader is that since 1900, only one president has ever won a second term when a recession started in the last term of presidency...William McKinley in 1900.

:book2:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/17/politics/white-house-portraits-clinton-bush-trump/index.html

The official portraits of former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were removed from the Grand Foyer of the White House within the last week, aides told CNN, and replaced by those of two Republican presidents who served more than a century ago.

White House tradition calls for portraits of the most recent American presidents to be given the most prominent placement, in the entrance of the executive mansion, visible to guests during official events.
That was the case through at least July 8, when President Donald Trump welcomed Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. The two stood in the Cross Hall of the White House and made remarks, with the portraits of Clinton and Bush essentially looking on as they had been throughout Trump's first term. But in the days after after that, the Clinton and Bush portraits were moved into the Old Family Dining Room, a small, rarely used room that is not seen by most visitors. That places the paintings well outside of Trump's vantage point in the White House. In their previous location, the pictures would have been seen daily as Trump descends the staircase from his third floor private residence or when he hosts events on the state floor of the White House. Now, they hang in a space used mainly for storing unused tablecloths and furniture. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The portrait of former President Barack Obama is not expected to be unveiled for a formal ceremony during Trump's first term, a sign of the bitter relationship between the 44th and 45th presidents. Trump has accused Obama of unsubstantiated and unspecified crimes, and has questioned whether Obama was born in the US for years.

The Bush portrait has been replaced by that of William McKinley, the nation's 25th president, who was assassinated in 1901, and the Clinton portrait has been replaced by one of Theodore Roosevelt, who succeeded McKinley, three people who have seen the portraits this week tell CNN. Trump has shown more of an affinity for those predecessors than his more recent ones.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

ReluctantSamurai

07-19-2020, 04:34

The Bush portrait has been replaced by that of William McKinley, the nation's 25th president

You can bet your a$$ he knows the significance of William McKinley:deal:

Papewaio

07-20-2020, 05:01

Why do you think there is a systematic tendency across elections?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/poll-averages-have-no-history-of-consistent-partisan-bias/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-accurate-have-state-polls-been/

If you skim through those articles, you will see that in US presidential elections the national polling bias changes every election, often toward alternating parties, and state polls may have their own bias divergent from national polls' bias.

The 2012 Obama-Romney election was the latest episode of significant Republican bias in polling. Usually problems with polls can be explained in methodological terms. For example, in 2016 it was found that a major factor underrepresenting Republican support in polls was nonweighting of education (i.e. non-college voters, especially non-college whites). These and other oversights have been adjusted for this cycle.

Partisan bias in sub-presidential races also constantly fluctuates.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-were-skewed-toward-democrats/

Another recent non-American case, but where the polls were off:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/macron-won-but-the-french-polls-were-way-off/

Sorry, but this just seems like one of those common political myths.

I wouldn't use French politics as the basis. They have a very strong united but small right wing base, and a very broad disjointed left. In the first round it is quite common to have the right wing candidate poll higher than most if not all of the left wing candidates. Then in the final round all the left wing voters rally around a single choice.

What works differently in the USA is that it isn't a two round system nor a preferential voting system. Nor is there compulsory voting either, and by all means it seems stacked with gerrymandering (straight out corrupt in most nations) and making it difficult to vote. So whilst the polls are of a random sample of the voting age people, it doesn't reflect how many are going to actually vote.

UK has a slightly different issue where it is difficult for the younger lefter crowd to take time off to vote at the elections.

Australia - election boundaries are set by an independent commission, voting it is on a weekend, postal votes are common, preferential voting is (technically) compulsory with a fine for not attending. The votes still tend to be more right voting than left than indicated in polling. This might be due to the preferential voting and the more extreme right wing groups with a smaller base not getting polled (literally had an idiot Senator from One Nation in on 12 votes - need a massive sample size to capture that in a poll).

Idaho

07-22-2020, 19:00

The tactics seem pretty clear from trump and pompeo: attack China/communism and conflate those with "enemies within".

I've become slightly obsessed with watching right-wing nut job YouTube and Twitter. The level of detachment from reality is terrifying. There is a clique of people who genuinely think trump is some kind of moral genius who is the only defence we have to communism (the latter being I'll defined other than is being "Stalin" and "bad").

ReluctantSamurai

07-23-2020, 00:29

The level of detachment from reality is terrifying. There is a clique of people who genuinely think trump is some kind of moral genius who is the only defence we have to communism

What's actually scary is that these people are too stupid to realize that if he gets re-elected, what you're seeing in Portland Oregon (and coming soon to a city near you), will be repeated as long as he can get away with it. Won't hear these morons bitching about a loss of personal freedoms until such tactics involves them. Republicans should also be concerned as this is definitely not the kind of federalism they espouse. But it's not surprising since Fearless Leader admires such people as Putin, Kim Jong-un, and others like them.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-23-2020, 05:35

What's actually scary is that these people are too stupid to realize that if he gets re-elected, what you're seeing in Portland Oregon (and coming soon to a city near you), will be repeated as long as he can get away with it. Won't hear these morons bitching about a loss of personal freedoms until such tactics involves them. Republicans should also be concerned as this is definitely not the kind of federalism they espouse. But it's not surprising since Fearless Leader admires such people as Putin, Kim Jong-un, and others like them.

It is not the kind of federalism conservatives such as myself espouse. Max Boot, George Will, P.J. O'Rourke, Jennifer Rubin...conservatives true to their principles have great trouble supporting that yutz.

But make no mistake, Trump has taken the reins of the party and the GOP now embodies -- overtly or tacitly -- has own brand of Demagogic Pseudo-fascism. Trumpers want to kick ass and ignore the names because they have to oppose the people who are really destroying America -- liberal socialists.

The GOP needs to be handed a soup-to-nuts electoral debacle that keeps the party out of power for the better part of a decade. THEN, perhaps they will re-think the "kill the left at all costs" mantra crap that is gutting American conservatism.

Hooahguy

07-23-2020, 05:56

I give credit to the Lincoln Project for actually committing (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/20/does-lincoln-project-have-secret-agenda-answer-is-surprising/) to not turning around to oppose Dems after the election if Biden wins:

The group is preparing to vehemently oppose efforts by GOP senators to obstruct and stymie Biden’s agenda, should he win the presidency, Weaver confirmed.
...

But will the Lincoln Project remain committed to concrete expansions of voting rights after Trump is gone? Weaver said yes, noting it will keep advocating for automatic voter registration and a restored Voting Rights Act, and continue fighting efforts to “make it difficult for black people or poor people to vote.”

Even though I love their ads, Ive been wary of the LP. If they actually follow through with this then maybe Ill begin to trust them a bit more. I think having two main parties that operate in good faith is good for America, so if they can rebuild the GOP (or something else) into a party that doesnt want to turn us into a dictatorship, then more power to them.

Montmorency

07-24-2020, 02:30

I wouldn't use French politics as the basis. They have a very strong united but small right wing base, and a very broad disjointed left. In the first round it is quite common to have the right wing candidate poll higher than most if not all of the left wing candidates. Then in the final round all the left wing voters rally around a single choice.

Why was the polling gap in 2017 France greater than in all national elections since at least 1969? 10.2% compared to a prior average of 3.9%. The nearest polling gap was in 2002 between Chirac and Le Pen pere. What's the theory here?

And further down in the article, a look at other Euro elections:

Some analysts have argued that people are afraid to admit that they are voting for a far-right candidate such as Le Pen because they don’t want to give a socially undesirable response. That theory was bolstered twice last year, both when the “leave” vote in the U.K. referendum over leaving the European Union did slightly better than polls suggested and when Trump outperformed his polling. But the “shy insert-far-right-candidate here” theory doesn’t hold up when you look at a larger sample of European elections. And it didn’t hold up in France: There was no systematic bias in the polling against the far-right candidate (Le Pen).

As my colleague Nate Silver has pointed out, right-wing populist candidates and parties (in local and parliamentary elections) have, on average, pretty much matched their polling averages3 in European elections since 2012.

Indeed, the French presidential election is the sixth consecutive European election in which the populist right-wing candidate or party underperformed its polling.

None of this is to say that there aren’t “shy voters” in the electorate. It’s just that we may be thinking about them in the wrong way. Instead of undercounting conservative support because people are afraid to give a socially undesirable response, the polls may simply be missing unenthusiastic supporters — people who aren’t excited about their candidate enough to answer a poll but still vote. In fact, when the idea of a “shy” voter was originally formed in 1992, it had nothing to do with right-wing populists. Instead, pollsters were underestimating the strength of the mainstream and relatively milquetoast Conservative Party in the U.K.
[...]
Maybe we should talk less about “shy” voters and more about “apathetic” voters or “reluctant” voters.

What works differently in the USA is that it isn't a two round system nor a preferential voting system. Nor is there compulsory voting either, and by all means it seems stacked with gerrymandering (straight out corrupt in most nations) and making it difficult to vote. So whilst the polls are of a random sample of the voting age people, it doesn't reflect how many are going to actually vote.

Here is the Florida GOP and the federal courts conspiring to suppress the votes of ex-felons, upon whom the former have been striving to impose an unconstitutional poll tax in the form of conditioning voter registration on payment of fines. They've been at it for 1.5 years, since the Florida electorate approved reenfranchisement in a referendum. For extra Kafkaism, Florida does not even maintain proper records on what fines a given applicant owes, with the cherry on top being that the backlog of applications cannot be completed before the 2024 election at current staffing levels. Of course, trying to vote without the satisfaction of the state would be another felony...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/07/supreme-court-florida-felons-poll-tax.html

You all might recall that I was much more sanguine about the success of reenfranchisement in early 2019.

Process factors beyond the immediate scope of polling, such as Democratic-intending voters going through more trouble voting or getting suppressed by the government, can certainly skew results in theory, assuming pollsters don't try to correct for it. But does it in practice? And to the extent it does, it would have to - in the US - manifest in specific states where these are extant factors. They wouldn't be in all or even most states. You would expect it in Southern and midWestern states in particular. Supporting evidence might be the polling in 2018 that had Dems as mild favorites for the Senate and Gov seats in Florida, but turned into narrow Republican victories. For most recent presidential elections Florida polling has indeed had a Democratic skew. On the other hand, Florida polls - like state polls in general - had a Republican skew in 2012 (when Obama won the state again). This occurred in the context of a national Republican skew in polling that cycle, which implicates internal polling design and not government action.

At all levels, the valence and magnitude of bias change every election, and tends to be associated with identifiable methodological choices that can be adjusted. If one simply assumes a particular static bias, their predictions of electoral outcomes will not be very accurate going by history. Systematic polling bias for left parties has to be measured and analyzed, not just hypothesized.

Australia - election boundaries are set by an independent commission, voting it is on a weekend, postal votes are common, preferential voting is (technically) compulsory with a fine for not attending. The votes still tend to be more right voting than left than indicated in polling. This might be due to the preferential voting and the more extreme right wing groups with a smaller base not getting polled (literally had an idiot Senator from One Nation in on 12 votes - need a massive sample size to capture that in a poll).

The problem is that in the second-party preferred vote the mainstream center-right and center-left parties each typically pull about 50% of the vote. That means polling in aggregate will fall within a single polling error at least. Every election. These are close elections. From what I can see on Wiki Australian polling is precise.

Bottom line is, Biden is multiple polling errors (MOE) ahead of Trump currently, and if that continues to hold until November then going by the entire history of polling a Trump victory would be a vanishingly-unlikely event. The real bias might be the lure of licentious, if often relevant, speculation on tail-end probabilities.

(I will admit that there is clearly an elevated vulnerability in this cycle to unprecedented "rigging" measures, but almost definitionally polling cannot account for lawlessness on such an unprecedented (in our context) scale, so that's kind of beside the point of just how such a hazard might manifest. No poll can weight for a coup, for example. And in practice, as I've been saying, to the extent the electoral process functions semi-normally, sufficient key states to do not have Republicans in charge of the electoral apparatus that the threat remains a mostly-rhetorical one.)

a completely inoffensive name

07-25-2020, 09:35

I give credit to the Lincoln Project for actually committing (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/20/does-lincoln-project-have-secret-agenda-answer-is-surprising/) to not turning around to oppose Dems after the election if Biden wins:

Even though I love their ads, Ive been wary of the LP. If they actually follow through with this then maybe Ill begin to trust them a bit more. I think having two main parties that operate in good faith is good for America, so if they can rebuild the GOP (or something else) into a party that doesnt want to turn us into a dictatorship, then more power to them.

They arn't looking to take back the Republican Party 'after Trump', they have crossed the Rubicon so to speak they can't return. They are looking to bolster a conservative faction within the Democratic Party.

Once Trump is OOO and the Dem coalition is in power they will be running campaign ads targeting moderate and conservatives Dems to push out Progressive agenda. They are still neocons at heart.

Idaho

07-30-2020, 14:49

BBC News - Donald Trump suggests delay to 2020 US presidential election

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53597975

So surprised by this development. Really didn't see this coming ~;)

So the election (if he loses) will be put down to fraud by the trumpians and conspiraloons.

Get ready US - full scale fascism is on its way, all orchestrated by Putin.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-30-2020, 16:12

OF COURSE he wants a delay. He isn't a reader and has the attention span of a gnat apparently, but he can read a poll summary. And they ain't pretty.

But he will not achieve his sought-for delay.

The only delayed election ever was the first one in 1788 (actually 10 Jan 1789). None have since been delayed regardless of natural disaster, pandemic, or wars both foreign and domestic.

He has about 100 days to change the predicted results.

And full fascism will not be coming any time soon. Any actual attempt to impose it will generate a civil war and Trump's cadre, however ardent, would lose.

drone

07-30-2020, 19:58

Montmorency

07-31-2020, 02:30

Tangentially, I have been informed that I should not use the terms "skew" and "bias" interchangeably, as bias is a systematic statistical error whereas skew refers to the mathematical asymmetry of a statistical distribution. A statistical bias might not involve skew, and a statistical skew might not be biased.

Op-ed (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/29/opinion/trump-republican-party-racism.html) by former Republican operator:

I spent decades working to elect Republicans, including Mr. Romney and four other presidential candidates, and I am here to bear reluctant witness that Mr. Trump didn’t hijack the Republican Party. He is the logical conclusion of what the party became over the past 50 or so years, a natural product of the seeds of race-baiting, self-deception and anger that now dominate it. Hold Donald Trump up to a mirror and that bulging, scowling orange face is today’s Republican Party.

I saw the warning signs but ignored them and chose to believe what I wanted to believe: The party wasn’t just a white grievance party; there was still a big tent; the others guys were worse. Many of us in the party saw this dark side and told ourselves it was a recessive gene. We were wrong. It turned out to be the dominant gene.

As always, who already knew this 4, 10, 20, 40 years ago? Why weren't they listened to?

Racism is the original sin of the modern Republican Party. While many Republicans today like to mourn the absence of an intellectual voice like William Buckley, it is often overlooked that Mr. Buckley began his career as a racist defending segregation.

In the Richard Nixon White House, Pat Buchanan and Kevin Phillips wrote a re-election campaign memo headed “Dividing the Democrats” in which they outlined what would come to be known as the Southern Strategy. It assumes there is little Republicans can do to attract Black Americans and details a two-pronged strategy: Utilize Black support of Democrats to alienate white voters while trying to decrease that support by sowing dissension within the Democratic Party.

That strategy has worked so well that it was copied by the Russians in their 2016 efforts to help elect Mr. Trump.

In the 2000 George W. Bush campaign, on which I worked, we acknowledged the failures of Republicans to attract significant nonwhite support. When Mr. Bush called himself a “compassionate conservative,” some on the right attacked him, calling it an admission that conservatism had not been compassionate. That was true; it had not been. Many of us believed we could steer the party to that “kinder, gentler” place his father described. We were wrong.

How did this happen? How do you abandon deeply held beliefs about character, personal responsibility, foreign policy and the national debt in a matter of months? You don’t. The obvious answer is those beliefs weren’t deeply held. What others and I thought were bedrock values turned out to be mere marketing slogans easily replaced. I feel like the guy working for Bernie Madoff who thought they were actually beating the market.

Mr. Trump has served a useful purpose by exposing the deep flaws of a major American political party. Like a heavy truck driven over a bridge on the edge of failure, he has made it impossible to ignore the long-developing fault lines of the Republican Party. A party rooted in decency and values does not embrace the anger that Mr. Trump peddles as patriotism.

This collapse of a major political party as a moral governing force is unlike anything we have seen in modern American politics. The closest parallel is the demise of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, when the dissonance between what the party said it stood for and what citizens actually experienced was so great that it was unsustainable.

Conservatism is always nothing more than an elite legitimating casuistry. It's just that in the America of our lifetimes it shed the semblance of an intellectual core for the plain guttural shriek.

Only fear will motivate the party to change — the cold fear only defeat can bring.

From the comments:

There is nothing so bracing as the foxhole conversion of a Republican who manifests a convenient crisis of conscience.

Sadly, Mr. Stevens’ mea culpa comes just a bit too late, and only after polls have begun to indicate that the nation is turning against Republicans, generally, and some of them specifically. Many of us saw the disturbing trends of party policy long ago, courtesy of clearly visible immorality and selfishness that has long characterized its true raison d’etre. It’s faux fiscal responsibility, bootstrap policies and morality ploy has been nothing more than a long-con, designed to feather its own nest. Many of us saw it long ago. Not, apparently, Mr. Stevens.

It’s more than time for his likes to own up to Republicans’ sorry evolution toward totalitarianism, racism, ultra-nationalism and selfish irresponsibility, not to mention his own part in it. That he waited, however, until the handwriting was on the wall, courtesy of a roused public which has increasingly had enough, should best be viewed as yet another example of too little too late.

The GOP’s self-immolation has been apparent to many of us before Donald Trump expropriated it for his own political purposes. Instead of claiming that “we lost the battle” and hiding behind NYT opinion piece, let’s see whether Mr. Stevens rises to the occasion and demonstrates some true bravery by meaningfully walking his nascent talk. As Donald Trump would say, we’ll just have to wait and see.

I like the photo of Trump embedded in the article.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/07/28/opinion/28Stevens/28Stevens-articleLarge.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp

OF COURSE he wants a delay. He isn't a reader and has the attention span of a gnat apparently, but he can read a poll summary. And they ain't pretty.

But he will not achieve his sought-for delay.

The only delayed election ever was the first one in 1788 (actually 10 Jan 1789). None have since been delayed regardless of natural disaster, pandemic, or wars both foreign and domestic.

He has about 100 days to change the predicted results.

And full fascism will not be coming any time soon. Any actual attempt to impose it will generate a civil war and Trump's cadre, however ardent, would lose.

The military leadership already told him following the Lafayette Square incident during the height of the BLM protests, in so many words, to jog on.

Without the military all Trump has is a few thousand sicherpolizei and the hypothetical ardor of his militias. He's done.

One of Trump's saving graces is that, though he's a fascist, he's too lazy and stupid to actually attempt to suborn the whole bureaucratic apparatus to a long-term agenda, of which he has none other than 'steal whatever I can.' The same applies to his functionaries. The closest he's come is with immigration and border security, but even there he could have accomplished more with some dedication and legal suavity. Everything Trump does is ad hoc and oriented toward short-term satisfaction of personal corruption or his perception of the media cycle. All told, Trump's fascism is therefore defensive (rather than ambitious) and someone without his astonishing medley of personal and mental defects could be much more dangerous in office. I mean come on, what kind of proper fascist utterly bungles a served-up opportunity in the form of a public emergency to consolidate personal control over the central government and central control over daily life? If even Tucker Carlson were switched out for Trump immediately following impeachment, his approval rating would be 52% (though trying to repress civil rights protests would be an inexorable loser for these people).

None of this is to diminish or dismiss the unprecedented damage done by Trump to our institutions and cultures of governance, only to point out that there can be (will be?) even worse with just a little, normal, non-debility at the head.

Montmorency

07-31-2020, 02:41

We will never reach a full understanding of how bad at politics Trump is, following from his total inability to act as something other than a dumb criminal bigot.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/07/polling-trumps-protest-response-could-cost-him-2020

If Donald Trump loses in the fall, the first week of June might have marked the beginning of the end. On June 1, with the country consumed by historic protests against racism and police brutality, some of them violent, Trump decided to position himself as the “law-and-order” president, made clear by his tweets and his now infamous march that evening across Lafayette Square, outside the White House. His path cleared by the National Guard and D.C. police who used chemical agents on lawfully assembled protesters and roughed up journalists, Trump walked across the street to stand in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church for an inscrutable and buffoonish photo op, in which he held up a Bible and said nothing much at all about the cities on fire and the country’s dismal legacy of racism. “We have a great country,” Trump said. “That’s my thoughts.” The moment was an emblem of Trump’s presidency: attention-seeking, bereft of empathy, gut over strategy. It was so embarrassing and borderline anti-American that one of his generals, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Mark Milley, apologized for participating in the walk and reportedly considered resigning. Like so many of Trump’s decisions, it was a sugar-high tactic designed to please his base and get TV ratings, with almost no thought about the larger sweep of American history, let alone his reelection campaign.

Politically, it was a disaster. In the days that followed, Trump’s approval ratings tumbled to their lowest point in over a year, and their lowest point of the coronavirus pandemic, according to FiveThirtyEight’s poll tracker. The first two weeks of June also saw Trump fall even further behind his Democratic rival, Joe Biden. Before June, Biden steadily held a four-to-six-point lead over Trump in national polls, fueled in part by massive support among the independent voters whom Trump won in 2016. Shortly after Lafayette Square, though, Biden began to open up an even bigger lead, a nine-point average lead over the president, with a Washington Post–ABC News poll this week showing Biden winning by as many as 15 points.

Trump’s reaction to the protests was not the only reason for his summer collapse. Most pollsters say that Trump’s continuing inability to respond to the coronavirus pandemic, and the economic havoc that’s come with it, has been the dominant factor. And last week, for the first time, polls began to show Biden beating Trump on the question of who would best handle the economy, the only decent card left in Trump’s deck. But if Trump loses in November, the nationwide protests against racism and police brutality that erupted in early June have to be seen as a significant breaking point. Not just because they threw an exhausted nation into even more chaos, and not just because they forced Trump into the most astoundingly dumb photo op in presidential history, surpassing George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished!” blunder. In fact, new polling and research provided to Vanity Fair suggests that the protests themselves changed America’s opinions about race so quickly, and so profoundly, that Trump unknowingly planted himself even further on the wrong side of public opinion than previously understood.

Shortly after the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25, the Democratic research firm Avalanche went into nine battleground states—Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Georgia, North Carolina, Iowa, and Pennsylvania—to measure how segments of Americans were reacting to the protests. Unlike most pollsters at the time, Avalanche surveyed two large back-to-back samples of 6,986 registered and unregistered total voters—one on June 1 and a second on June 10 and 11—allowing it to track how sentiments changed during what might have been the most consequential chapter of the protests. Like most polls, Avalanche found widespread support for the protests by June 11, with 68% of respondents saying the protesters were “completely right” or “somewhat right.” But rather than measuring responses by self-identified partisanship—Democrat, Republican, independent—Avalanche measured by vote choice. It organized respondents into five segments: Vote Trump, Lean Trump, Mixed Feelings, Lean Biden, and Vote Biden.

Avalanche found resounding support for the protests not just among Biden supporters, but among persuadable voters and even soft Trump supporters. The hardcore Vote Trump respondents were against the protests, with 56% opposing them. But among the softer Lean Trump set, an eye-opening 59% said the protesters were “completely right” or “somewhat right”—probably not what the president had in mind when he commandeered Lafayette Square. And 72% of Americans with Mixed Feelings about the presidential race—precious undecided voters—said the protesters were right too. “There’s not a lot of issues where you get even a strong majority of Americans on the same page,” said Michiah Prull, the CEO of Avalanche. “It speaks to that historic moment, and it speaks to a degree of national alignment on something that's honestly pretty rare these days.”

But just as remarkable were the shifts among those persuadables in the 10 days between June 1 and June 11, a window that opened with burning cities and Trump’s march to St. John’s Church, but concluded with mostly peaceful demonstrations nationwide. During that period Avalanche found that support for the protests grew 10 points among Mixed Feelings voters, 14 points among Lean Biden voters, and a head-spinning 25 points among Lean Trump voters. “I had never in my research career seen public opinion shift on the scale in this time frame,” Prull said. “When we look at this from electoral context, when you see a 25-point swing in Lean Trump supporters from disapproving of the protests to at least somewhat agreeing with them, that’s just a scale of public opinion shift you don’t see in this line of work very often.”

a completely inoffensive name

07-31-2020, 07:08

Theory is that Trump brought up delaying the election to distract from 2 pieces of bad news: the report that we had the worst GDP decline (32.9%) over Q2 in history, and that he killed Herman Cain. Trump does this all the time, "bad news coming? say something outrageous!" He floated it to see the reaction, but he would do it if he thought he could get away with it.

How sad is it that it was considered "smart PR" for a President to make fascistic statements that undermine the democratic process rather than god forbid talk about the economy.

The efficacy of this strategy is directly tied to the degree that American culture among the white middle class has become indulgent and narcissistic.

Hooahguy

07-31-2020, 19:09

I mean when even one of the co-founders of the Federalist Society says calling to delay the election is fascistic you know you are starting to lose people.

Seamus Fermanagh

08-03-2020, 20:42

What I think is needful: Punitive anti-GOP voting come November. Aside from those GOP'ers who have consistently opposed Trump (3? fewer?) we should pick the Dem and fire for effect.

Pannonian

08-03-2020, 21:12

What I think is needful: Punitive anti-GOP voting come November. Aside from those GOP'ers who have consistently opposed Trump (3? fewer?) we should pick the Dem and fire for effect.

On a related note, would you say that proponents of the Second Amendment as the guarantor of liberty who have also supported Trump's violations of constitutional norms have lost all authority?

Hooahguy

08-03-2020, 23:35

What I think is needful: Punitive anti-GOP voting come November. Aside from those GOP'ers who have consistently opposed Trump (3? fewer?) we should pick the Dem and fire for effect.
To quote my second favorite Never Trumper, "every last one of them has to go."

On a related note, would you say that proponents of the Second Amendment as the guarantor of liberty who have also supported Trump's violations of constitutional norms have lost all authority?
Oh absolutely. I really hope that the protesters can take back the Gadsden flag from the gun-toting, beer-bellied idiots its been appropriated by.

Oh and if anyone is wondering why the NRA has been suspiciously quiet, its probably because they are treading water financially (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/29/nra-financial-crisis-layoffs-furloughs) and have laid off a huge number of their staff.

Thoughts and prayers.

Seamus Fermanagh

08-06-2020, 05:23

On a related note, would you say that proponents of the Second Amendment as the guarantor of liberty who have also supported Trump's violations of constitutional norms have lost all authority?

They have the same "authority" they had before -- the suffrage.

If you meant, 'do I believe that they have lost the moral high ground to preach about the vital nature of one aspect of the Constitution by championing a fumbling would-be pseudo-autocrat who is at best operating extra-constitutionally and quite possibly in direct contravention of other portions of that document' I would say "yes" -- while noting that they will never recognize much less acknowledge the logical and ethical fallacy in which they are engaged.

I once had a chap on this forum ask me how I, a small government conservative, could oppose abortion -- since any legislation thereupon by government would be intrusive to the individual. As in, how could I keep calling myself a small government somewhat-libertarian and, at least implicitly, call for greater government intervention into people's everyday lives.

It was a darned good question. And one I not only took days to answer for myself, but to which I still review/consider my stance every once in a while.

I would not expect that level of reflexive evaluation from the Trumpian Core.

Hooahguy

08-11-2020, 21:55

Joe has picked Kamala Harris to be his VP.
(https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/2020-election-biden-vp-pick/index.html)
Can't say I didn't see this coming, despite all the cloudiness over the past couple weeks regarding the pick. I figured she would be a very strong VP candidate for whoever won the primaries after she dropped last December. She is a good choice and definitely brings more excitement to the ticket. Would also love to see Karen Bass take over her senate seat if they win in November. Very glad he didnt pick Rice though, she would have dredged up a bunch of stuff like Benghazi and the whole unmasking thing that would be easy red meat for Trump's base.

Greyblades

08-12-2020, 00:38

At least now the VP debate might be as amusing as the president, pity it wasnt the scientologist, would have been fun watching Mike "Taze the Rainbow" Pence share a stage with Xenu.

Hooahguy

08-12-2020, 01:42

Considering that Jeff Sessions admitted that he got nervous when she questioned him, its going to be a fascinating VP debate.

Edit: the GOP attacks on her are amusing so far. Doesnt seem like they really know what to do with her. Trump didnt really seem to have a good line about her either. Called her phony as I recall from the presser but that seems pretty weak. Meanwhile The Federalist is selling (https://twitter.com/notcapnamerica/status/1293330931500163072?s=20) "Kamala is a cop" tshirt which just make me confused who its supposed to appeal to? I thought the GOP liked cops? If its for the people on the left who don't like her, why would they be buying anything from The Federalist in the first place? Meanwhile in GOP talk show land they are claiming (https://twitter.com/GoAngelo/status/1293356609138286594) she isnt really the pick and its just a smokescreen. And others trying to connect (https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1293338452101128192) her to Epstein or something? Weird. I'm sure they will figure out a more coherent line of attack later but for now they just seem confused. But in the meantime, Palin has some surprisingly wholesome words (https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1293302505133268992) for Kamala.

Greyblades

08-12-2020, 04:04

Harris' problem isnt so much across the aisle, its in-house.

Expect Gabbard's takedown to resume circulating in liberal circles, as the BLM "all cops are bastards" tone of the last two months crashes against the symbol of all that is corrupt in law enforcement being selected VP.

A twist of the knife in the bernie bros, no mistake.

Hooahguy

08-12-2020, 04:20

a completely inoffensive name

08-12-2020, 05:28

A twist of the knife in the bernie bros, no mistake.

*checks primary voter turnout stats* W H OMEGALUL

rory_20_uk

08-12-2020, 11:23

This is the perennial pragmatism vs purity. Biden's pick is a solid one for trying to get minorities and as many "law and order" types from the middle as humanly possible. They are the ones which are required to win elections.

I imagine that there are some Democrats who wanted Bernie to team up with AOC and the rest of The Squad who can then all snipe at Trump from Twitter for the next four years as he does further damage. But Bernie and AOC is the wonderfully "pureist" choice of proper Left wing politics which is quite some way from the "average" voter and would probably galvanise a nasty mix of money, racists and xenophobes to ensure that the Useful Idiots stay in power.

~:smoking:

Hooahguy

08-12-2020, 17:46

I mean Trump is already (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1293517514798960640?s=20) going full-blown dog whistle and its not even September yet.

Seamus Fermanagh

08-12-2020, 19:04

I mean Trump is already (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1293517514798960640?s=20) going full-blown dog whistle and its not even September yet.

He never stopped. He is always on the attack. It is his metier.

Greyblades

08-12-2020, 22:28

I dunno, I feel like the vast majority are fine with the pick, even if some are grumbling about it not being Warren or Bass. The fact that some of her biggest critics early on such as Shaun King are expressing their support now speaks volumes. The loudest people complaining about Harris being picked are the very online folks who Biden has been successfully ignoring during the campaign. If any lesson is learned from all of this its probably that Twitter isnt real life when it comes to electoral politics.

Forgive me, I periodically forget liberal is paradoxically synonymous with progressive in america.

My point is she's a nightmare for those who are less than enthused with the drug war, for-profit prisons, wrongful death sentances and pretty much every other thing people have been railing against the last two months in the american legal system. They might be happy enough now but Biden's got to keep Harris' AG record an obscurity for another three months else people start realizing she has an even deeper "tough on crime" authoritarian streak than he does.

Hooahguy

08-12-2020, 22:51

Forgive me, I periodically forget liberal is paradoxically synonymous with progressive in america.

My point is she's a nightmare for those who are less than enthused with the drug war,
She was far better than any of her white counterparts at the time.

During Harris tenure, people charged with petty drug crimes were given a chance at diversion as an alternative to prosecution. Harris’ diversion program was so successful it became a national model. That didn’t exist before she was in office — she championed that program specifically as a route to reduce the injustices that POC face against the system.

The agency’s data shows there were 1,883 admissions to state prison on marijuana offenses during the years Harris was attorney general. There were another 92 admissions for crimes related to hashish, a drug made from cannabis resin. Notably, the figures dropped dramatically during Harris’ tenure, from 817 marijuana-related admissions in her first year in office to 137 in her last.

SOURCE:
23916

So let’s be clear: Kamala was sworn into office in 2011 and within the very first year used her prosecutorial discretion to reduce marijuana related prosecutions by 70% — despite that marijuana remained illegal and her role as AG requires she enforce the existing laws on the books regardless of her personal feelings.

70%! That’s a whole lot of discretion favoring would-be defendants. By the time she ended her tenure in 2016, she reduced marijuana related prosecutions by 83%. Again, marijuana was still illegal in California the entire time she was AG. Yes, she has discretion, but discretion doesn’t mean refusing to enforce the laws that are on the books ever again.

Dropping 83% of prosecutions for marijuana isn’t nothing.

for-profit prisons,
The state prison population went down (https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/CA_Prison_Jail_Rate_1978-2015.html) under her watch.

wrongful death sentances
Do you mean the Kevin Cooper case? Because by the time she became AG he had already exhausted all appeals, and the only avenue left was clemency which is solely up to the governor. Other than that, shes pretty infamous in California for being anti-death penalty, refusing the death penalty for a cop killer which really angered the police unions and Senator Feinstein who famously held a grudge against her when Kamala was running for senate.

and pretty much every other thing people have been railing against the last two months in the american legal system.

Biden's got to keep Harris' AG record an obscurity for four months else people start realizing she has an even deeper authoritarian streak than he does.

If you want justice in criminal justice, you need diversity inside the system. To me, a portion of the people hating on her career seem to be saying that we should leave all policing matters to white people. That doesn’t sit right with me.

You can’t judge her record in a vacuum. She didn’t build the system and isn’t personally responsible for failing to singlehandedly rectify a century and a half of racial oppression from the CA Attorney General’s office. Was she perfect? Of course not. But she definitely deserves far more credit than a lot of people give her. Kamala intentionally entered public service as a prosecutor at a time criminal justice was often led by very anti-Black, anti-immigrant, anti-sex work white men. Kamala was the first Black person to be AG of California - a state of 40 million in the 2000s tough on crime era. Any attorney general’s record for a state and department that huge (the largest state DOJ in the US) can be cherry picked.

Anyways, apparently the campaign raised (https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/08/12/us/biden-vs-trump/bidens-record-breaking-day-actblue-processes-30-million-in-24-plus-hours-after-harris-pick) a record-breaking $30 million in a single 24-hour period after Harris was named VP. The enthusiasm is definitely there.

Greyblades

08-13-2020, 03:52

I spent way too many hours on this.

She was far better than any of her white counterparts at the time.

During Harris tenure, people charged with petty drug crimes were given a chance at diversion as an alternative to prosecution. Harris’ diversion program was so successful it became a national model. That didn’t exist before she was in office — she championed that program specifically as a route to reduce the injustices that POC face against the system.

I am doubtful that being better than her counterparts is much of a compliment considering... well, California.

I looked up the california diversion laws and the only two I could find were proposition 36 (2000) and Penal code: Pt2: Title 6: chapter 2.5: 1000-1000.65, amended Jan 1st 2018, neither appear to make any mention of her supporting either.

Could you clarify what law you refer to and how it could be considered to be of Harris making?

The agency’s data shows there were 1,883 admissions to state prison on marijuana offenses during the years Harris was attorney general. There were another 92 admissions for crimes related to hashish, a drug made from cannabis resin. Notably, the figures dropped dramatically during Harris’ tenure, from 817 marijuana-related admissions in her first year in office to 137 in her last.

SOURCE:
23916

So let’s be clear: Kamala was sworn into office in 2011 and within the very first year used her prosecutorial discretion to reduce marijuana related prosecutions by 70% — despite that marijuana remained illegal and her role as AG requires she enforce the existing laws on the books regardless of her personal feelings.

70%! That’s a whole lot of discretion favoring would-be defendants. By the time she ended her tenure in 2016, she reduced marijuana related prosecutions by 83%. Again, marijuana was still illegal in California the entire time she was AG. Yes, she has discretion, but discretion doesn’t mean refusing to enforce the laws that are on the books ever again.

Dropping 83% of prosecutions for marijuana isn’t nothing.

What agency do you refer to and from where did you get this table?

Posession of less than an ounce was demoted to a misdemeanor in Senate Bill No. 1449, Sep 30th 2010, came right before her tenure and coincides with a major arrest dip but I find no involvement of Harris in its favour.

How do you determine the cause being her discretion and not any other factor?

The state prison population went down (https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/CA_Prison_Jail_Rate_1978-2015.html) under her watch.

Again how do you determine it was caused by her?

Far as I can tell her opinion was a closely guarded secret; making no comment during two sentancing reform referenda and her only action appears to be when she represented the governer fighting against reform in 2011

She publically recused herself on the topics; failed to blow the whistle (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/magazine/kamala-harris-a-top-cop-in-the-era-of-black-lives-matter.html“]I have a client, and I don’t get to choose my client,”[/URL] she was quoted; a professional noncomittal, one in opposition to her behavior the year before when she [URL="https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Judge-rips-Harris-office-for-hiding-problems-3263797.php) when her deputies discovered a police lab technician had been intentionally sabotaging her work, putting over 600 drug cases in question.

Also in opposition to her attempting to appeal a dismissal (https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/F068833.PDF) of a case where a prosecutor had witheld and tampered with evidence as well as lying under oath (https://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-lying-prosecutors-20150201-story.html).

And especially opposed to her being handed an investigation into into a sheriff’s deputies placing informants in cells next to inmates who were awaiting trial (https://www.ocregister.com/2015/11/30/register-special-report-how-jailhouse-informants-and-the-snitch-tank-put-orange-county-justice-system-in-turmoil/) and using thier testemony as evidence without knowledge of judge or jury, (https://www.ocregister.com/2015/11/30/register-special-report-how-jailhouse-informants-and-the-snitch-tank-put-orange-county-justice-system-in-turmoil/) only to sit on it till her term was up and 4 years later it was closed by her successor (https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-oc-jail-informant-investigation-20190419-story.html).

I would say the amount of effort she has put into not investigating potential false convictions indicates reducing numbers was not her highest priority. Apparantly maintaining the state's prison labour population (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/kamala-harris-office-sought-to-keep-inmates-locked-up-so-that-california-could-use-them-for-cheap-labor) was to some of her underlings.

(The NYT also wrote a claim about a George Gage whose prosecutor supposedly witheld evidence that Harris defended in the article I have been using as a starting point (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html) but they didnt corroberate it with a source so I cant be sure if this george gage exists.)

Do you mean the Kevin Cooper case? Because by the time she became AG he had already exhausted all appeals, and the only avenue left was clemency which is solely up to the governor. Other than that, shes pretty infamous in California for being anti-death penalty, refusing the death penalty for a cop killer which really angered the police unions and Senator Feinstein who famously held a grudge against her when Kamala was running for senate.
A NYT article alledged Harris had been in the position to refuse to allow DNA testing (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/17/opinion/sunday/kevin-cooper-california-death-row.html?fbclid=IwAR0QnPnAovTl2EONmzrXS2a4L48545M2I6OoerTVXCSRk-SQFymU7sQPr4A) when Harris became aware of the article instead of refutating the idea she had the power to do so she gave this statement. (https://www.facebook.com/KamalaHarris/posts/10156769408692923)

Puts us into a wierd position where death row abolishonist either had refused to allow a potentially exonerating DNA test (one that is apparantly being done as we speak) or a death row abolishonist is refusing not to refute a false accusation that she did so.

If you want justice in criminal justice, you need diversity inside the system. There is nothing just about a quota and corruption knows no race.

To me, a portion of the people hating on her career seem to be saying that we should leave all policing matters to white people. That doesn’t sit right with me. To me a portion of the people caling her a good pick seem to be saying race and sex should matter over capability when selecting people for pretty much anything. That hasnt sat right with me for about 10 years now.

Anyways, apparently the campaign raised (https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/08/12/us/biden-vs-trump/bidens-record-breaking-day-actblue-processes-30-million-in-24-plus-hours-after-harris-pick) a record-breaking $30 million in a single 24-hour period after Harris was named VP. The enthusiasm is definitely there.

Where did it come from, where will it go... something something cotton eye joe.

Hooahguy

08-13-2020, 04:35

I'll do a more in-depth rebuttal tomorrow since its almost midnight here, but just to quickly point out before I go to bed, the table about marijuana prosecutions says where its from in the top left corner and the diversion program I mentioned is called Back on Track (https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/Publications/BackonTrackFS.pdf) (pdf warning).

Montmorency

08-13-2020, 08:47

On QAnon overwhelming the Republican party and base, as confessors increasingly run for office.
https://www.mediamatters.org/qanon-conspiracy-theory/here-are-qanon-supporters-running-congress-2020

Oddly, of the 75 examples listed 2 were running in Democratic primaries for the House. Both were also big believers in Pizzagate. Thankfully, both turned out to be marginal nonentities.

Papewaio might be interested in this stuff.

Sections 11 and 12 of AB4 are also unconstitutional. Those sections set forth the
number of in-person polling places for early voting (Section 11) and vote centers for day-of-election
voting (Section 12). Under those sections, the number of in-person voting places a county must
establish is tied to the county’s population, resulting in more in-person voting places per capita for
voters in urban counties than in rural counties. [Ed. Do they know what "per capita" means?] This disparate treatment of Nevada voters based on
county population violates rural voters’ rights under the Equal Protection Clause.

This is the Trump administration suing Nevada over the alleged unconstitutionality of a new law that provides for mail ballots to be issued to all Nevada voters (and extends the deadline for their valid submission), and mandates per-capita minimums for in-person polling locations. The Trump administration insists this violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The argument is reliant on Bush v. Gore, which was explicitly rendered as non-precedential at the time, and has never been used in case law in the 20 years since. The premise here is that the Trump administration believes the Nevada law will deny equal access of the franchise to some voters, even though the law is designed and provisioned to do the opposite, and the Trump administration and other Republican actors have persistently acted to deny voters equal access of the franchise (https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/03/02/voter-suppression-is-a-key-part-of-the-gops-electoral-strategy/). Very 1984.

The suit also claims that because the law would permit non-postmarked ballot mail to be accepted up to 3 days after election day - preexisting law allowed much the same but required a legible postmark - it creates the possibility that ballots mailed after election day could be counted, which could potentially conflict with federal election law that "electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.” It is unclear why the potential for a ballot cast after election day would conflict with this clause if states failing to complete their counts or call the election before midnight of election day is not also in conflict with the law. In fact, in the subsequent clause of the legal code:

Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.

lol

LOL

But wait, there's more to this business than Nevada.

Trump just told us how mail delays could help him corrupt the election (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/31/trump-just-told-us-how-mail-delays-could-help-him-corrupt-election/)

It’s telling that after President Trump was widely rebuked for suggesting a delay of the election, he wasn’t remotely chastened. Instead, he floated another scenario that could help him accomplish the same goal of avoiding a free and fair election:

He suggested that only the votes that can be tallied on Election Day should count.

This may seem like Trumpian bluster. But it’s much more alarming in light of an important new exposé in The Post that reports on big backlogs in mail delivery due to “cost-cutting” by the new head of the U.S. Postal Service — who, by spectacular coincidence, just happens to be a top Trump fundraiser.

And here’s an additional reason for alarm that needs more attention: The impact of those delays could be dramatically exacerbated by state laws that invalidate ballots that are mailed before Election Day but arrive after Election Day.

Guess which key presidential swing states have such provisions invalidating ballots that arrive after Election Day?

All of them do, with the exception of North Carolina.

“In states where ballots won’t count if they are received after Election Day, the impact could be devastating," Vanita Gupta, the CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, told me, adding that this could “result in potentially hundreds of thousands of ballots getting rejected.”

“The delays are going to be unpredictable with the cuts being made on the postal service,” Gupta continued. “That impact could turn a swing state completely.”

The Post exposé reports that Postmaster General Louis DeJoy is implementing changes that have critics charging that mail delays may be “the result of a political effort to undermine absentee voting.”

These changes, The Post reports, include “prohibiting overtime pay, shutting down sorting machines early and requiring letter carriers to leave mail behind when necessary to avoid extra trips or late delivery on routes.” The result:

The new policies have resulted in at least a two-day delay in scattered parts of the country, even for express mail, according to multiple postal workers and union leaders. Letter carriers are manually sorting more mail, adding to the delivery time. Bins of mail ready for delivery are sitting in post offices because of scheduling and route changes. And without the ability to work overtime, workers say the logjam is worsening without an end in sight.

A spokesperson for the USPS is vowing that the changes are temporary and are not intended to delay the transmission of mailed ballots. But delays could nonetheless end up having a massive disenfranchising effect whatever the USPS’s motives, due to the precise confluence of factors coming together right now.

What’s more, USPS officials can plead innocence all they want, but Trump himself is banking on these delays to save his reelection hopes. Trump is basically telling us so himself.
[...]
It’s all there. Trump is looking to declare himself winner on Election Day, no matter how many mail ballots remain uncounted. He will say they are fraudulent. And if they tip the result against him, he will say that outcome is rigged, something he has already said publicly is inevitable.
[...]
This sheds more light on an important piece by David Wasserman predicting a disaster brewing around absentee ballots. Democrats will use vote-by-mail in far higher numbers than Republicans — due to Trump’s nonstop attacks on it — yet absentee ballots get rejected at disproportionate rates, due to procedural complexities.
[...]
“This is particularly unreasonable during a pandemic,” Weiser said. “We’re already experiencing substantial delays in the mail that will make it exceedingly difficult for many to meet those states’ deadlines, through no fault of their own.”

There is recourse here: Top Democratic lawyer Marc Elias tells me Democrats are litigating against these laws in every swing state, with an eye toward getting ballots counted that are postmarked before but arrive after Election Day. The absurdity of that deadline amid a pandemic and postal cutbacks might boost their legal case.

How the Media Could Get the Election Story Wrong (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/02/business/media/election-coverage.html)

The coronavirus crisis means that states like Pennsylvania may be counting mail-in ballots for weeks, while President Trump tweets false allegations about fraud. And the last barriers between American democracy and a deep political crisis may be television news and some version of that maddening needle on The New York Times website.

I spoke last week to executives, TV hosts and election analysts across leading American newsrooms, and I was struck by the blithe confidence among some top managers and hosts, who generally said they’ve handled complicated elections before and can do so again. And I was alarmed by the near panic among some of the people paying the closest attention — the analysts and producers trying, and often failing, to get answers from state election officials about how and when they will count the ballots and report results.

“The nerds are freaking out,” said Brandon Finnigan, the founder of Decision Desk HQ, which delivers election results to media outlets. “I don’t think it’s penetrated enough in the average viewer’s mind that there’s not going to be an election night. The usual razzmatazz of a panel sitting around discussing election results — that’s dead,” he said.

The changes the media faces are profound, with technical and political dimensions.

First, there’s already a shift underway from a single-day, in-person election. In the 2018 midterms, only 60 percent of the votes were cast in person on Election Day. More votes will probably be sent in this year by mail or cast in September and October. That risks coverage misfires: In 2018, cable news commentators spent election night suggesting that the “blue wave” hadn’t arrived. But they were simply impatient: The Democratic surge showed up when the final California races were called weeks later. If the 2016 election had been conducted amid the expected surge in mail-in voting because of the coronavirus crisis, the Pennsylvania results might not have been counted until Thanksgiving.

Postal Service overhauls leadership as Democrats press for investigation of mail delays (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/08/07/postal-service-investigation-dejoy/)

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy unveiled a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s mail service, displacing the two top executives overseeing day-to-day operations, according to a reorganization memo released Friday. The shake-up came as congressional Democrats called for an investigation of DeJoy and the cost-cutting measures that have slowed mail delivery and ensnared ballots in recent primary elections.

Twenty-three postal executives were reassigned or displaced, the new organizational chart shows. Analysts say the structure centralizes power around DeJoy, a former logistics executive and major ally of President Trump, and de-emphasizes decades of institutional postal knowledge. All told, 33 staffers included in the old postal hierarchy either kept their jobs or were reassigned in the restructuring, with five more staffers joining the leadership from other roles.
[...]
The Postal Service will implement a hiring freeze, according to the reorganization announcement, and will ask for voluntary early retirements. It also will realign into three “operating units” — retail and delivery, logistics and processing, and commerce and business solutions — and scale down from seven regions to four.

The structure displaces postal executives with decades of experience, moving some to new positions and others out of leadership roles entirely, including McAdams, Williams and chief commerce and business solutions officer Jacqueline Krage Strako, who previously held the title of executive vice president and chief customer and marketing officer.
[...]
A letter signed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), House Oversight Committee Chair Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) and seven other Democrats, including Connolly, urged Postal Service Inspector General Tammy L. Whitcomb to examine how DeJoy came to implement policies that prohibit postal workers from taking overtime or making extra trips to deliver mail on time, and how such delays specifically affect election mail.

“Given the ongoing concerns about the adverse impacts of Trump Administration policies on the quality and efficiency of the Postal Service, we ask that you conduct an audit of all operational changes put in place by Mr. DeJoy and other Trump Administration officials in 2020,” the letter states.

It also asks Whitcomb to review the finances of DeJoy and his wife, Aldona Wos, the nominee for ambassador to Canada. The couple’s holdings include between $30.1 million and $75.3 million in assets in USPS competitors or contractors, according to a financial disclosure Wos filed with the Office of Government Ethics when she was nominated. Postal Service mail processing contractor XPO Logistics — which acquired DeJoy’s company New Breed Logistics in 2014 — represents the vast majority of those holdings. Their combined stake in competitors UPS and trucking company J.B. Hunt is roughly $265,000.

During the USPS’s quarterly board of governors meeting Friday, DeJoy said he negotiated the loan terms with Mnuchin. Upon accessing the loan, the Postal Service, subject to confidentiality restrictions, will hand over proprietary contracts for its 10 largest service agreements with private sector shippers. Those businesses use the mail service for “last mile” package delivery from distribution centers to consumers’ homes or businesses.

Mnuchin had sought sweeping operational control of the Postal Service in previous loan terms, including provisions that would allow the Trump administration to approve senior postal personnel decisions, service contracts with third-party shippers, collective bargaining negotiation strategies and high package prices.

In April, shortly after Congress authorized the loan, Trump called the Postal Service “a joke” and said he would not approve any emergency funding unless the USPS quadrupled package delivery prices, a move analysts said would quickly bankrupt the agency by chasing away customers to private-sector competitors.

As for mail voting for its own sake, let's just say I'm glad New York isn't a swing state. After what happened with the primary in June - I'm not sure if they've finally fully certified the results, but if they have it took them almost 7 weeks, taking 2 or 3 just to start tallying. Tens of thousands of ballots have been invalidated on technicalities. I'm not even going to bother in November. Between walking to the county board of elections to hand-deliver a ballot, and walking to an early voting location, I'll cut the middleman (requesting a ballot) entirely and opt for the latter. Universal mail voting (with ancillary in-person option) is a great goal for streamlining the electoral process and promoting consistency and access, but this country needs a little more stability and competence to fully adopt it, despite reaching the milestone (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/08/11/us/politics/vote-by-mail-us-states.html) of designating the vast majority of voters eligible to vote by mail for the first time in history.

Florida is relatively good with the logistics of mail voting at least, or so I hear. Just this week, the city of Portland, Oregon held a special election, counted 170K votes, and certified the results by morning of the day after. Oregon is a state that runs ALL-MAIL ELECTIONS, and has done so for 20 years, so this shit is not impossible.
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/politics/race-for-nick-fish-seat-on-portland-city-council/283-3099591e-42ca-489b-acc5-a85fda859208

Montmorency

08-13-2020, 08:51

What I think is needful: Punitive anti-GOP voting come November. Aside from those GOP'ers who have consistently opposed Trump (3? fewer?) we should pick the Dem and fire for effect.

Redpilled. Based.

If you meant, 'do I believe that they have lost the moral high ground to preach about the vital nature of one aspect of the Constitution by championing a fumbling would-be pseudo-autocrat who is at best operating extra-constitutionally and quite possibly in direct contravention of other portions of that document' I would say "yes" -- while noting that they will never recognize much less acknowledge the logical and ethical fallacy in which they are engaged.

The closest I've seen any of them come is Ammon Bundy distancing himself from organized anti-government groups because of backlash against him for suggesting that maybe immigrants aren't evil vermin.

...

Those who expect Trump to be memory holed or quasi-rehabilitated, like Bush II, or mythified like Reagan, are probably wrong.

There will be a new Lost Cause legend. Because it satisfies both the impulses to flatter oneself and one's commitments and to account for how a perfect ideology could be rejected on a national scale, which were the motivations toward the first Lost Cause (besides reinsinuating Southern power in an active way). The first Confederacy lost the fight but won the peace, enabling its adherents to advance the first Lost Cause. We must not allow it to happen again. The framework for permanent struggle is already here in QAnon.

(I do expect the name of Donald Trump to have more clout in the mouths of national Republicans than the man himself.)

This is the perennial pragmatism vs purity. Biden's pick is a solid one for trying to get minorities and as many "law and order" types from the middle as humanly possible. They are the ones which are required to win elections.

I imagine that there are some Democrats who wanted Bernie to team up with AOC and the rest of The Squad who can then all snipe at Trump from Twitter for the next four years as he does further damage. But Bernie and AOC is the wonderfully "pureist" choice of proper Left wing politics which is quite some way from the "average" voter and would probably galvanise a nasty mix of money, racists and xenophobes to ensure that the Useful Idiots stay in power.

~:smoking:

As a reminder, Harris was for the elimination of private health insurance before she was against it, and post-California her record has been one of the most liberal for national Democrats (including working with AOC on climate policy and Sanders on economic relief). There is not a useful dichotomy between pragmatism and purity when what's really going on is fundamentally a difference in policy preferences and political priors, one that shifts over time. Few speak of the ideological purity of the hard-right Republican politicians (functionally the whole party), who are far more ideologically rigid than almost any national Democrat, including Sanders. (For example, in the categorical rejection of more government spending on pandemic relief.) But I've never even heard of a putatively non-partisan discourse of a tension between Republican "purity" and pragmatism, perhaps because it is widely assumed that only liberals have the agency or desire to seek to accomplish things, and therefore only liberals can be held to account for their aspirations and performance.

Most candidates run to the center in the general election. Biden is moving left. (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21364527/joe-biden-kamala-harris-vice-president-2020-bernie-sanders-democrats-moderate-liberal)

Admittedly, it may be an advantage that Biden has over Trump that polling has evinced a perception among the electorate of Biden being more moderate. Whereas in 2016 similar polling reported that Clinton was seen as more extreme than Trump. This comes despite Biden's platform being well to the left of where Clinton's started or ended. The electorate is malinformed, underinformed, and full of idiots. Politics should be understood in terms of mechanically manipulating these tendencies to maximal advantage, rather than allowing them to manifest as disadvantage. The chief example of a Sandersite "purist" illusion/handicap is the heartfelt belief that top-down persuasion is an available and useful component of organization (contrasted with mobilization) in electoral politics.

I'm not super-enthused in the context of the Democratic VP pick being the presumptive nominee in 2024 or 2028, but Harris has time to grow. As usual, Eric Levitz (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/08/kamala-harris-joe-biden-vp-running-mate-announcement-pros-cons.html) does very good syllogistic analysis (though this one is a rehash).

(It occurs to me that in a scenario of long-term single-party governance, the presidential field would become narrower than it ever has. Not that we're yet at the point of anticipating a Democratic lock on national politics, and a Republican single-party state would have the oligarchic politics of Putin's Russia, I'm just saying that given the current norms around the VP position a baton relay is what would naturally emerge in any long period of single-party rule).

rory_20_uk

08-13-2020, 15:15

CrossLOPER

08-13-2020, 17:55

I have suspicion that many Republicans want the low taxes / high corporate profits and are prepared to voice the gay bashing, bible thumping gun shooting rhetoric to keep in line. I don't even think that Trump really gives a damn about most of the stuff he pretends to be the leader of - and as long as he helps big business / places conservative judges and ensures no gun laws it all sort of all stays together.

In essence, they are collectively held together with their hatred of the "Left" with the views that differing not really conflicting.

~:smoking:

I am somewhat taken aback by the fact that this seems new to you.

The man is trapped in his own world. Anything he does is of benefit to him alone. I don't think the Republicans have any ideas or new concepts for anything. The world is changing and the country is dealing with difficult problems, and half of the Republican senators think that if they sit back and do nothing, that everything will sort itself out. If only they extended this concept to their own campaigns.

Seamus Fermanagh

08-13-2020, 23:44

Agreed. He has, as the classic demagogue, been USING the frothy fringe for his own ends. He doesn't truly give a rat's patoot about them.

Hooahguy

08-14-2020, 03:44

I am doubtful that being better than her counterparts is much of a compliment considering... well, California.
You would be surprised at how ideologically diverse California is. Dont forget that Schwarzenegger, who ran as a Republican, was the governor until 2011.

I looked up the california diversion laws and the only two I could find were proposition 36 (2000) and Penal code: Pt2: Title 6: chapter 2.5: 1000-1000.65, amended Jan 1st 2018, neither appear to make any mention of her supporting either.

Could you clarify what law you refer to and how it could be considered to be of Harris making?
As I mentioned earlier, it was the Back on Track program, not a law.

What agency do you refer to and from where did you get this table?

Posession of less than an ounce was demoted to a misdemeanor in Senate Bill No. 1449, Sep 30th 2010, came right before her tenure and coincides with a major arrest dip but I find no involvement of Harris in its favour.

How do you determine the cause being her discretion and not any other factor?
Well according to one of the public defenders (https://www.usatoday.com/amp/3334668001) who opposed her in court, she would routinely reduce marijuana sales cases down to misdemeanors and just not charge possession cases at all. (the whole article is a good read)

Far as I can tell her opinion was a closely guarded secret; making no comment during two sentancing reform referenda and her only action appears to be when she represented the governer fighting against reform in 2011
The role of a DA and AG is executorial, meaning they manage the office that prosecutes on behalf of the state/district law. They do not create laws It is their job to do this regardless of their personal feelings on the law. This is similar to how public defenders must enforce all citizens rights to fair representation regardless of what evil what those people might have committed.

As for the rest of your post, I mentioned earlier that no AG record is perfect. Mistakes and bad calls happen. Harris ran for senate because she saw the problems with law enforcement and the criminal justice system in this country, and she wanted to change them. As prosecutor it wasn't within her power to fully challenge the system and change the rules, but as a senator it was, and it will be as VP. There's a reason she ran on legalizing weed, there's a reason she's running on a ticket with decriminalization, there's a reason she ran on criminal justice reform, there's a reason she ran on ethics in government, and it's because she saw the problems with the system and wants to fix them. Having a lack of diversity in the criminal justice system is how we got to where we are in the first place. A diverse criminal justice system isnt an automatic fix, but we need more people in it from different backgrounds who have a better understanding of the fixes that need to be in place to right the wrongs dealt to their communities. I know you are just concern trolling, but I feel confident that the majority of voters are fine with her, and the data supports this (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/13/voters-approve-kamala-harris-vp-pick-394734).

Anyways, the racist birther attacks against her have already started (https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/kamala-harris-was-born-in-the-us/). Not as bad as in 2008 so I'd call this diet birtherism.

rory_20_uk

08-14-2020, 17:32

I am somewhat taken aback by the fact that this seems new to you.

The man is trapped in his own world. Anything he does is of benefit to him alone. I don't think the Republicans have any ideas or new concepts for anything. The world is changing and the country is dealing with difficult problems, and half of the Republican senators think that if they sit back and do nothing, that everything will sort itself out. If only they extended this concept to their own campaigns.

My point was that the Right's interests whilst often being mutually exclusive do not often actually get in each other's way where as often the Left's ideas are mutually contradictory. Hence one can appear more unified than the other.

~:smoking:

Seamus Fermanagh

08-14-2020, 21:35

Redpilled. Based.

As a Boomer, I had to have the latter term explained to me by my son. He suggested it is (started as?) some kind of alt-right code language. I will assume you meant it, given the Matrix reference, in the context of me finally having "seen the light" in my vehemence in opposing the current President of the USA. I will note, however, that I am in no way, shape, or form a proponent of the alt-right agenda. They are anathema to a conservative such as myself.

As you are no doubt aware, the underpinnings of my disdain for the current occupant of 1600 PA Ave are quite different than your own, though we have come to share a short term political objective for reasons of our own -- some similar, others I suspect not so.

Montmorency

08-15-2020, 01:11

I realize I didn't include a link to the Nevada Trump campaign lawsuit I discussed above.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.144953/gov.uscourts.nvd.144953.1.0_1.pdf

There have been more developments on the postal front:

Trump openly admits that he wants to hinder the postal service from functioning as a component of the electoral system.
https://factba.se/transcript/donald-trump-interview-fox-business-maria-bartiromo-august-13-2020

Well they’re right, and it’s their fault. They want $3.5 billion for something that will turn out to be fraudulent, that’s election money basically. They want 3.5 trillion -- billion dollars for the mail-in votes, OK, universal mail-in ballots, 3.5 trillion. They want $25 billion, billion, for the Post Office. Now they need that money in order to have the post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots. Now, in the meantime, they aren’t getting there. By the way, those are just two items. But if they don’t get those two items, that means you can’t have universal mail-in voting because they’re not equipped to have it.

But how are they operationalizing sabotage? Well, this is certainly ominous.
https://www.axios.com/usps-pennsylvania-mail-voting-ballots-6a8861d6-042b-4cee-842b-ea3bc83461d6.html

The U.S. Postal Service told Pennsylvania officials in a July letter that "there is a significant risk" that mail-in ballots may not be delivered on time for the November election because the state’s election deadlines are "incongruous with the Postal Service's delivery standards," according to a Thursday court filing.

Why it matters: The letter comes as President Trump has repeatedly attacked mail-in voting and vowed that he will block demands to fund mail-in voting and the USPS, claiming without evidence that the ballots produce widespread voter fraud.

The big picture: Pennsylvania's Department of State submitted the filing containing the letter to the state Supreme Court, asking it to order that mail-in ballots will remain countable as long as election officials receive them up to three days after the election, the Philadelphia Inquirer first reported.

The results of the presidential race in Pennsylvania, a battleground state, may not be known for days after Nov. 3 if the court agrees to issue the order.
What they're saying: Thomas Marshall, general counsel and executive vice president for the Postal Service, sent the letter to Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar on July 29.

In it, Marshall writes that "under our reading of Pennsylvania's election laws, certain deadlines for requesting and casting mail-in ballots are incongruous with the Postal Service's delivery standards."
"This mismatch creates a risk that ballots requested near the deadline under state law will not be returned by mail in time to be counted under your laws as we understand them."
The other side: Pennsylvania's Department of State told the court that Marshall's letter represented “a significant change to the outlook for voting by mail in the general election.”

"[T]he Postal Service had not indicated the likelihood of widespread, continuing, multiple-day mail-delivery delays presenting an overwhelming, statewide risk of disenfranchisement for significant numbers of voters utilizi

Add it to the list of the greatest impeachable offenses in American history. To be clear, this is subverting a national government institution, one of the most respected and non-partisan there is, providing one of the most vital services, in a naked attempt to fix the election. It's really hard to top this in the authoritarian playbook. Maybe - purging the military of the disloyal and secretly inducing the remaining leadership - financially or otherwise - to support a palace coup? The US can probably be categorized as a hybrid state at this point. Do Republicans want a Maidan? This is how you get a Maidan.

Meanwhile, the GAO has confirmed what has long been known, that for the past year Trump has illegally filled vacant leadership positions in the Department of Homeland Security (which is the parent organization of ICE). Wolf and Cuccinelli have not had their appointments confirmed by Congress, as is required. Trump could easily just have them confirmed, but he never even bothered to put them up before the Senate. It's almost a parallel to all the vacancies he's failed to staff at all (on top of all the vacancies created by firing professionals or driving them out of public service), except actively illegal. Trying to damage the independent civil service is one thing, but trying to circumvent it by centralizing power outside legitimate frameworks is a step beyond.

If you think violation of the Vacancies Reform Act or circumvention of the Senate's constitutional prerogative to advise and consent sound relatively unimportant compared to the other things, you misunderstand fascism. The impunity and the outlawry are the point.

My point was that the Right's interests whilst often being mutually exclusive do not often actually get in each other's way where as often the Left's ideas are mutually contradictory. Hence one can appear more unified than the other.

~:smoking:

Pursuant to your previous post, don't underestimate how Republican politicians and voters:

1. Prioritize social reaction and White grievance.
2. Reject the idea of a common good.
3. Truly have a maximalist belief in their worldview and interpretation of reality.

But regarding the second one, it can get more complicated in that now there are some trad-cons and alt-righters who - in seeking to turn the clock back onto the 19th or 18th century - are inching toward criticizing the modern financial/capitalist system. I say regarding the second one because these types will claim they're looking out for their own version of the communal good (as opposed to the bog standard plutocratists who either ignore or reject the concept in any definition).

If that ideological conflict gains prominence, it would be a much bigger contradiction than anything that comes with existing in a party-coalition comprising moderate socialists down to Euro-style Liberals.

As a Boomer, I had to have the latter term explained to me by my son. He suggested it is (started as?) some kind of alt-right code language. I will assume you meant it, given the Matrix reference, in the context of me finally having "seen the light" in my vehemence in opposing the current President of the USA. I will note, however, that I am in no way, shape, or form a proponent of the alt-right agenda. They are anathema to a conservative such as myself.

As you are no doubt aware, the underpinnings of my disdain for the current occupant of 1600 PA Ave are quite different than your own, though we have come to share a short term political objective for reasons of our own -- some similar, others I suspect not so.

Seamus, I was trying to approbate your commitment to defeating Trump above. I'm sorry to have used opaque language.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=red%20pill
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Based

CrossLOPER

08-15-2020, 19:25

As a Boomer, I had to have the latter term explained to me by my son.
I actually happened to look into this a while ago. It's a Matrix reference, obviously. It's supposed to mean taking a close look at the world and its wrongs around you, instead of burying your head in the sand. With incels and the alt-right, it means that all women are gold-digging whores because they don't want to have sex with you, blacks just want to steal your TV, and some other nonsense that takes minimal brainpower to think of. Mostly I remember the stuff about women. It's amazing how much people build their identity around being socially inept.

Montmorency

08-17-2020, 08:58

https://i.imgur.com/gkkpraM.png

One hundred Pinocchios.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag1o3koTLWM

Somehow with Republicans I typically manage to apprehend the shape of things to come, but inevitably find myself shocked by the dimensions. For example, I think I was pointing out a few months ago that by all evidence universal mail voting would not disadvantage either party in abstract; yet I didn't consider the effect of engineered partisan polarization over sub-universal mail voting. Some things are just overdetermined I guess.

The following should allow you to draw inferences about what November will look like. (First is Pew (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/08/13/views-of-the-2020-campaign-and-voting-in-november/), second is Marquette (https://law.marquette.edu/poll/) (Wisconsin), third is ABC/WaPo (https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/july-12-15-2020-washington-post-abc-news-poll/05fce27c-2660-4808-9f10-e5bda90e3faa/?itid=lk_inline_manual_56).)

https://i.imgur.com/MNrsxRj.png

https://i.imgur.com/FUbW66n.png

https://i.imgur.com/8FR2A1f.png

https://i.imgur.com/hQocqCy.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/2w2f4vU.jpg

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-absentee-voting_n_5f357da4c5b6960c06723348

President Donald Trump stunned even hardened observers when he admitted on national television Thursday morning that he would not agree to additional U.S. Postal Service funding because it would make mail-in balloting easier.

“Now they need that money in order to make the post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots,” he said. “But if they don’t get those two items, that means you can’t have universal mail-in voting.”

Later Thursday, Vice reported that the Postal Service is removing machines that sort mail ― including ballots ― from offices without an explanation, further raising alarms that Trump will degrade the post office to hurt mail-in voting.

But starving the Postal Service of funding is just one tool at the president’s disposal to slow or stop the counting of ballots sent by mail. Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are already engaged in litigation to prevent voters from easily casting absentee or mail-in ballots. In Pennsylvania, they are trying to block the implementation of ballot drop boxes ― curbside boxes where voters can drop their absentee ballots to be picked up by election officials. In California, the RNC tried to stop the mailing of ballots to all voters, but failed. And the Trump campaign is also challenging a new Nevada law that would mail ballots to all active voters.

Trump administration figures are also discussing potential executive actions that could curb mail-in balloting in an effort to undermine democratic elections, according to Politico. These include directing the Postal Service not to deliver mailed ballots and ordering state officials to stop counting absentee ballots on Election Day, even though the president doesn’t have legal authority to do either of these things.

The plot is simple: Trump hopes to emerge from Election Day with a slim lead, but with millions of absentee ballots still left to count. Then he will fight tooth and nail to stop those ballots, which he has long painted as “fraudulent,” from ever being counted.

This means that Trump could come out ahead on Election Day with millions, or tens of millions, of absentee and provisional ballots still left to count.

Trump can’t exactly wave a wand and stop absentee ballots from being counted. He would likely need to file lawsuits in each state that he wanted to challenge, and the suits would need to target some aspect of that state’s election laws that were theoretically being violated. While post-election litigation over ballots is a long-standing bipartisan affair, an effort like this would be unprecedented in scope — essentially a nationwide challenge to mailed or otherwise delayed ballots, seeking to either count or discount certain ballots.

Already, the Trump campaign is trying to preemptively hamper the mail-in balloting process.

Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak (D) signed legislation on Aug. 3 that would authorize the mailing of absentee ballots to all active Nevada voters. Trump called the bill’s passage “an illegal late night coup” in a tweet. The next day, Trump’s reelection campaign sued to overturn the new law. The lawsuit argued that mailing absentee ballots to voters would make fraud “inevitable,” and sought to overturn provisions, like the acceptance of ballots with unclear postmarks received up to three days after Election Day, that existed as Nevada law before the bill was enacted.

The Trump campaign and the RNC are suing every county election office in Pennsylvania to stop them from allowing voters to return absentee ballots to drop boxes. Ballot drop boxes are exactly what they sound like: secure, sealed mailboxes solely to be used by voters dropping off their ballots. Those ballots are then collected by election officials and sorted and counted. Approximately 16% of voters used drop boxes in the 2018 election, mostly in states like Oregon and Utah that conduct their elections solely through the mail. The judge overseeing the case ordered the Trump campaign on Thursday to produce any evidence it has of voter fraud linked to drop boxes. (There is no existing evidence linking drop boxes to fraud.) In California, the RNC withdrew its lawsuit challenging Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s May 8 executive order to mail every active voter in the state an absentee ballot after the Legislature passed a bill that did the same thing as Newsom’s order.

Strike For The South

08-17-2020, 15:33

Harris record as a AG says more about the American justice system as a whole than it does anything about her individually. It is an unyielding meat grinder. If any of you ever find yourselves arrested the only words out of your mouth should be your name and your lawyers (or a request for one).

I understand why the more leftist, younger crowd is upset. This is not really a dream ticket by any means. I will offer my thoughts as Harris was my orginal pick for nominee. She knows exactly how the system works and can pull the exact right levers to enact lasting change. There is value in that.

I am wary of any concern trolling the Harris pick considering Trump has literal unmarked vans rolling around the pacific northwest. I understand that a candidate has to earn ones vote but sill

Seamus Fermanagh

08-17-2020, 17:14

This Dem ticket would lose to any number of Conservative or Moderate/conservative tickets. Against this incumbent they have a great chance.

a completely inoffensive name

08-18-2020, 05:10

This Dem ticket would lose to any number of Conservative or Moderate/conservative tickets. Against this incumbent they have a great chance.

This ticket would have been competitive against Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz. Would have struggled against Marco Rubio or Chris Christie.

a completely inoffensive name

08-18-2020, 05:14

stuff

Is it really any surprise? We've already know that the base shifts at the slightest hint that Trump decides a certain idea or policy is no longer in his best interest.
Were you thinking that this would be the lone case that the hard truth convinces Republicans that mail-in voting has never hurt either political party?

Anything to own the libs man. As soon as Trump says something is bad, Republicans will immediately disavow it and anyone who says otherwise.

Montmorency

08-18-2020, 05:33

The trope that politicians need to "earn" votes is a narcissistic one. Politicians are tools toward our political objectives, which it is our civic duty to rationally contemplate and contextualize. This isn't like finding a restaurant on Yelp.

On the Biden platform for the first weeks of his term, if anyone cares to know. Aspirationally Reaganite in a good way. The bigger the Congressional majorities, the more that gets done. Vive la disjonction.
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/21340746/joe-biden-covid-19-coronavirus-recession-harris

This ticket would have been competitive against Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz. Would have struggled against Marco Rubio or Chris Christie.

Seamus' feeling is difficult to assess, but this is straight unsubstantiated. Yet, the 2016 primary process demonstrated that the once-rising stars Cruz and Rubio just aren't well-received by the Republican base. That's the data we do have.

Republicans would never nominate Jeb Bush or Chris Christie to anything.

Is it really any surprise? We've already know that the base shifts at the slightest hint that Trump decides a certain idea or policy is no longer in his best interest.
Were you thinking that this would be the lone case that the hard truth convinces Republicans that mail-in voting has never hurt either political party?

Anything to own the libs man. As soon as Trump says something is bad, Republicans will immediately disavow it and anyone who says otherwise.

Not surprising, but shocking.

To develop what we discussed privately, by the morning of November 4th almost no states will have counted their absentee ballots (most will not even have begun), therefore most states will remain uncalled, countless millions of ballots will remain outstanding, based on in-person returns alone Trump will appear to lead Biden by Lukashenko margins, and he will declare victory on the spot and litigate everything up to the Supreme Court to prevent counting of mail ballots.

If Roberts calls the election for Trump and/or the rest of the Republican slate, we launch the national liberation front and watch the Joint Chiefs's response.

a completely inoffensive name

08-18-2020, 05:55

Seamus' feeling is difficult to assess, but this is straight unsubstantiated. Yet, the 2016 primary process demonstrated that the once-rising stars Cruz and Rubio just aren't well-received by the Republican base. That's the data we do have.
Seamus's scenario could only take place in an alternate reality where Trump didn't win. When does anyone see the GOP returning back to the middle against Trumpism?

Republicans would never nominate Jeb Bush or Chris Christie to anything.
IF Trump wasn't in the race, Jeb had a chance. Christie not so much. I think Rubio would have overtaken the pack if it wasn't for the whole Christie dismantling him moment.

Not surprising, but shocking.

To develop what we discussed privately, by the morning of November 4th almost no states will have counted their absentee ballots (most will not even have begun), therefore most states will remain uncalled, countless millions of ballots will remain outstanding, based on in-person returns alone Trump will appear to lead Biden by Lukashenko margins, and he will declare victory on the spot and litigate everything up to the Supreme Court to prevent counting of mail ballots.

If Roberts calls the election for Trump and/or the rest of the Republican slate, we launch the national liberation front and watch the Joint Chiefs's response.

If SCOTUS rules another election, this country falls apart into chaotic violence. There is no national organization to mobilize the public unless the Democratic Party quickly takes on a leadership role as the democratic resistance to the political coup.
Per our previous convo, only a national strike would work to facilitate change in the absence of democratic channels in politics.

Hooahguy

08-18-2020, 17:25

Seamus's scenario could only take place in an alternate reality where Trump didn't win. When does anyone see the GOP returning back to the middle against Trumpism?

Exactly this. I think the Never Trumper's fantasy of "reclaiming the party" from the trumpists is just that, a fantasy. I dont know how anyone who can look at the cult of personality around Trump and still think that these people are going to go back to your garden-variety republican. My prediction is that every GOP presidential candidate for the foreseeable future is going to be a flavor of Trump and potentially more dangerous. We got lucky that Trump is a total moron, but we might not get that lucky again.

Seamus Fermanagh

08-18-2020, 21:28

Seamus' feeling is difficult to assess, but this is straight unsubstantiated. Yet, the 2016 primary process demonstrated that the once-rising stars Cruz and Rubio just aren't well-received by the Republican base. That's the data we do have.

Republicans would never nominate Jeb Bush or Chris Christie to anything.

I think ACIN is on track as to how the tickets he noted would fare in a general election against this Dem ticket. I was noting that this Dem ticket was pretty "stock" in many ways.

As 2016 demonstrated, and as you rightly assert, however, the GOP of 2016 through the present would not nominate such a ticket as none of those named are they kinds of leaders who want victory without negotiation and aggression across the board against anything labeled as "liberal." Inculcated by Limbaugh and Hannity with the mantra that compromise means the liberals won, this GOP base sees any form of negotiation over substance as anathema.

a completely inoffensive name

08-19-2020, 03:10

Exactly this. I think the Never Trumper's fantasy of "reclaiming the party" from the trumpists is just that, a fantasy. I dont know how anyone who can look at the cult of personality around Trump and still think that these people are going to go back to your garden-variety republican. My prediction is that every GOP presidential candidate for the foreseeable future is going to be a flavor of Trump and potentially more dangerous. We got lucky that Trump is a total moron, but we might not get that lucky again.

We will get a smarter Trump, but even a smarter Trump will be 'less bad' in a practical way. Much of the damage Trump has caused has come at his own incompetence and inability to achieve his goals in a productive manner.

A smart fascist would have seen the pandemic for the PR opportunity it was and jumped on it. Democracy would have been for the worse, but we wouldn't have 170,000 dead at this point.

Hooahguy

08-19-2020, 05:21

Hooahguy

08-19-2020, 23:50

If anyone had any doubts about the direction of Trump's GOP, infamous alt-right troll Laura Loomer won the GOP nomination (https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/19/politics/laura-loomer-donald-trump-florida/index.html) for Florida's 21st district election. Of course, Trump tweeted his support for her. Thankfully its a very safe Dem seat so she wont be coming to Congress anytime soon. Same can't be said though of Qanon conspiracist Marjorie Taylor Greene who is unfortunately very likely be elected as she is in a very republican district (dammit Georgia). Assuming that the House stays in Dem control, Im not really sure how someone like Greene can be contained from further spreading her bat:daisy: views but in a more official capacity especially as GOP leadership has shown zero willingness to stifle such nuttery. I just have no hope anymore for a GOP thats even slightly resembling a passably sane party. With Trump refusing to criticize Qanon and going after Goodyear Tire today and no Republican speaking against it, theres nothing left of what the party was even four years ago.

a completely inoffensive name

08-20-2020, 05:38

I guess thats one way to look at it, if you aren't a POC or immigrant of course.

POC's are the worst hit by this pandemic.

Problem with having someone this fucking dumb is that burning everything down due to sheer ignorance also hurts POC and immigrants just as much as a Ted Cruz in office.

a completely inoffensive name

08-20-2020, 05:38

edyzmedieval

08-20-2020, 13:42

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

Leaving this here.

Hooahguy

08-20-2020, 18:14

POC's are the worst hit by this pandemic.

Problem with having someone this fucking dumb is that burning everything down due to sheer ignorance also hurts POC and immigrants just as much as a Ted Cruz in office.
I dont disagree, just pointing out that for vulnerable groups, the difference between Cruz and Trump is like being shot or set on fire. Both do harm even though arguably one might hurt less. Though this point is now moot as Cruz is among the worst of the Trump toadies.

Ben Sasse is a term used for cats.
He did speak out against Trump's comments today but considering he's helped enabled Trump for most of the past 3.5 years I dont buy it.

Idaho

08-20-2020, 18:32

Bannon being nicked by the post office - really put me in a good mood. This is hopefully the start of the collapse of the trumpian world.

Hooahguy

08-20-2020, 20:59

It certainly was a great way to start the day, but I am super skeptical that anything will come of it as I think Trump will end up giving out more pardons before too long.

Montmorency

08-20-2020, 23:44

We will get a smarter Trump, but even a smarter Trump will be 'less bad' in a practical way. Much of the damage Trump has caused has come at his own incompetence and inability to achieve his goals in a productive manner.

A smart fascist would have seen the pandemic for the PR opportunity it was and jumped on it. Democracy would have been for the worse, but we wouldn't have 170,000 dead at this point.

Right-wing leaders have not had a good record on pandemic response this year. The classic fascists themselves actually ran their countries awfully - they were incompetent administrators. I think a fascist who has what it takes to gain and hold control of a nation cannot achieve technocratic success by the nature of the attributes that delivered him to power. One factor is that authoritarianism in itself is incompatible with the observance or iteration of scientific or evidence-based policymaking.

Trump is a particularly harsh case because he is both a narcissist and a lackwit, but you see the same sorts of impulses in less psychologically-deviant rulers.

Pannonian

08-20-2020, 23:52

Right-wing leaders have not had a good record on pandemic response this year. The classic fascists themselves actually ran their countries awfully - they were incompetent administrators. I think a fascist who has what it takes to gain and hold control of a nation cannot achieve technocratic success by the nature of the attributes that delivered him to power. One factor is that authoritarianism in itself is incompatible with the observance or iteration of scientific or evidence-based policymaking.

Trump is a particularly harsh case because he is both a narcissist and a lackwit, but you see the same sorts of impulses in less psychologically-deviant rulers.

The alt right puppet masters are experts at peddling dreams. They understand the system. Then when they're elected, they run all sorts under the umbrella of democracy. Unfortunately, democracy doesn't solve everything. For instance, when reality has to be faced, no amount of appealing to a democratic mandate will change reality.

However, you lot have at least woken up and look set to turf out your set of alt righters. Over on our side of the water, our alt righters are still going strong.

Montmorency

08-21-2020, 02:59

However, you lot have at least woken up and look set to turf out your set of alt righters.

On net hardly anyone's woken up in this sense, though in the sense of the Great Awokening many people who were already liberals... many Republicans have admittedly been swayed to a degree by the tide of social liberalism, but that doesn't seem to affect their preferences in Republican politicians.

George W. Bush's approval rating moved in a range from ~90% to ~25% (65). Obama's range was within ~60% to ~40% (20). Trump's range has been within 46% to 36% (10). Trump has basically never been below 40% since the Republicans passed their tax bill at the end of 2017. His current approval rating is about where he was a year ago - despite, you know, everything.

It is possible that Trump as a personality commands uniquely stronger loyalty from the Republican base than a generic Republican would even now, but that's not testable for a long time, and the fact remains that around 40% of the electorate are unshakable partisans of a death cult, and these people will still exist come January. There is no reason to think they won't continue to degenerate, indeed, along the same monotonic trend of many years.

Hooahguy

08-21-2020, 04:26

If anyone hasn't watched Biden's acceptance speech from tonight, I'd highly recommend people watch it. Its really superb. Even Republicans are saying (https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1296652802513567744?s=20) its a great speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSpHLq2STvY

Seamus Fermanagh

08-21-2020, 05:41

As far as I know, this was Biden's best ever.

Crandar

08-21-2020, 10:04

Firstly, I just wanted to say that the level of the discussion here is probably one of the highest in the Internet sphere. The difference in quality becomes even starker, when compared to the usual alt-right troll fests that some of the forums (including TWC's mudpit) have devolved into.

Secondly, just my personal thoughts on the possible implications of mail voting, time delays, legal challenges, polarisation and the rest. I don't think that the republican institutions are at any risk, despite the recent decline of the political discourse, social cohesion and income equality. They are rooted deeply enough to easily resist the relatively minor crisis the pandemic, the unbalanced recovery since 2008 and Donald represent.

In my opinion, what Trump and his staff are trying to achieve is the construction of a post-election narrative that will keep safe the myth of his invincibility. We didn't lose the approval of the absolute majority, no, we were defeated, because the establishment, media, Chinese and the rest conspired against us. He had tried something similar in 2016, although in the end Hillary managed to get stomped by one of the most unpopular candidates in history, which rendered Trump's strategy redundant.

Thirdly, the paranoid part: If he loses the 2020 elections, provided he establishes a convincing stab-at-the-back myth, he could use it to nominate himself successfully in 2024. After all, given the solidity of his base, his presidential past and his vulgar rhetoric, he can easily dominate the Republican primaries. So, focusing on 2020 but aiming at 2024?

Hooahguy

08-21-2020, 19:05

I'm a bit skeptical that Trump would try to run again if he loses in November. I just dont see what he would gain from putting himself out there again when he can run his own news channel and be able to rant all day every day. Probably super lucrative too. I could definitely imagine that he could become the new "party boss" that anoints the next GOP nominee by the virtue of endorsing candidates. Assuming he loses in November and doesnt run in 2024 (and is still alive), there is no way that the nominee becomes the nominee without the approval of Trump himself.

ReluctantSamurai

08-21-2020, 19:41

when he can run his own news channel and be able to rant all day every day. Probably super lucrative too. I could definitely imagine that he could become the new "party boss" that anoints the next GOP nominee by the virtue of endorsing candidates.

I'm betting he'll have to do that from jail.

a completely inoffensive name

08-21-2020, 20:37

ReluctantSamurai

08-21-2020, 21:47

If he loses, watch him attempt to pardon himself sometime Jan 2021

Interesting weigh-ins by legal counsel:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/here-is-what-9-experts-say-about-whether-president-trump-can-pardon-himself.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/can-trump-pardon-himself/578074/

Montmorency

08-22-2020, 00:43

Re: Biden speech, in Eric Levitz' words, "Joe Biden is a normal human who knows what he’s doing. This was the core message of the final night of the Democratic National Convention... [T]he Democratic nominee has now set a standard that his rival can’t possibly meet."

Secondly, just my personal thoughts on the possible implications of mail voting, time delays, legal challenges, polarisation and the rest. I don't think that the republican institutions are at any risk, despite the recent decline of the political discourse, social cohesion and income equality. They are rooted deeply enough to easily resist the relatively minor crisis the pandemic, the unbalanced recovery since 2008 and Donald represent.

In my opinion, what Trump and his staff are trying to achieve is the construction of a post-election narrative that will keep safe the myth of his invincibility. We didn't lose the approval of the absolute majority, no, we were defeated, because the establishment, media, Chinese and the rest conspired against us. He had tried something similar in 2016, although in the end Hillary managed to get stomped by one of the most unpopular candidates in history, which rendered Trump's strategy redundant.

Preface: Much of the functioning and integrity of institutions is psychological and normative. A president spending years attacking their legitimacy and taking steps to degrade their administration and operation is always injurious to these aspects, even if their total usurpation or subversion has not yet been achieved. It makes it harder for individuals who actually constitute these institutions as organizations to have a sense of 'doing the right thing' and following the rules, especially if they are punished for doing so. Our institutions are almost certainly more resilient and better-developed than those in Belarus or Mali, for example, but the damage sustained is already deep and durable. Much of Biden's task will be trying to start cleaning up Trump's mess within the government, re-recruiting/replacing thousands purged or driven away by Trump, purging hundreds emplaced by Trump, and trying to restore a measure of accountability and legitimacy to the civil service. If Trump remains in power, then the institutions we have already observed not to be exceptionalistic or invincible will continue to be corroded in both measurable and intangible ways. As Bernie Sanders said in his DNC address this week, "the price of failure is too high to imagine."

Prologue: Almost all states do not begin counting mail ballots until at least the day after election day, in general not for days after, and they take longer to complete. Mail ballots are therefore not reflected in the ongoing vote counts we have always been familiar with. Usually this is not a problem because mail ballots have not typically been decisive to the outcome of elections at any level (see the 2019 New York District Attorney race for an election that hinged on mail ballots). The 2020 election promises to be one in which the number of mail ballots submitted is at least an order of magnitude higher than ever before due to the expansion of eligibility and the incentives of a human environment conditioned by high disease risk. It will not be possible to certify results for many states accurately without having these counted, which could take weeks (see the debacle of the New York 2020 Democratic primary, which occurred June 23 but was not certified until August). The President has relentlessly eroded public confidence in the legitimacy of the election in general, and in the particulars of the mail voting method (though he insists on a distinction between the bad fraudulent mail voting and the good absentee voting, by mail, that has sometimes been favored by Republican voters.) Polling is strongly suggestive as to a bifurcation in expected voting behavior (see my earlier post):

The majority of Democrats will vote by mail and the majority of Republicans will vote in-person.* There is a significant chance that the vote count opens with a Lukashenko-sized lead for Trump over Biden that will diminish and eventually flip in a stepwise manner under normal circumstances.

So. Trump is by his own admission, and with years of his own priming, attempting to potentiate rejection of an outcome where he loses, that much is indisputable and well-known among political observers. There is a certain sense in which your intuition about our institutions's resilience is narrowly correct, or presumably so. We can identify the relevant institutions here to start:

Electoral - tabulating, assembling, counting, votes. These systems are unique for all the states and is subject to minimal/nonexistent central control and oversight. Because there are so many battleground states, many of which have put their electoral infrastructure under the control of Democrats, it's still a somewhat sound assumption that the process will not be outright subverted in any of the battleground states (although in the midterms Republicans in one House district in North Carolina, currently a battleground state, were formally found to have engaged in the electoral fraud of misappropriating mail ballots; the election was court-ordered to be redone!). NOTE: Due to hundreds of billions in 2020 budget shortfalls, states and counties will have a harder time ensuring the timely administration of electoral functions even absent criminal interference. Aid to states and municipalities is one of the impasses preventing the implementation of a new pandemic relief program; Republicans don't want it.

Postal - facilitates movement of mail applications and mail ballots between voters and election officials. Due to billions in budgetary shortfalls and statutory liabilities, the postal service is already having a hard time carrying out its normal operations even absent criminal interference, 2 months before the election. Funding for the post office is one of the impasses preventing the implementation of a new pandemic relief program; Republicans don't want it. But there is interference on top of this, as the Trump-loyalist administration of the postal service has been limiting its operations in a way that is apt to produce delays, especially in such a high-volume situation as the presidential election. Delays in the timely delivery of mail ballots to election officials will result in the invalidation of many, perhaps millions, of ballots. AFAIK none of the battleground states accept the delivery of ballots past election day, even if the ballots are postmarked.

Supreme Court - mediates legal and constitutional disputes predicated on harm. On November 4th, the day after the election, if Trump maintains large but inconclusive majorities in many states, and the counting of mail ballots threatens this status, then by all presentation he would be prepared to sue for their counting to be declared improper or fraudulent, or at least delayed fatally. There could be a Supreme Court case as to whether real or imagined irregularities should prompt states to halt or discard their counts. And if that means a critical number of states are certified for Trump, well...

So the crux of the election comes down to this: will the Republican-controlled Supreme Court seize an opportunity to extra-legally hand deliver the presidency to Donald Trump? There is precedent for this in the notorious case of the 2000 election, where the Republican-controlled Supreme Court halted vote tallying in Florida and gave Bush the state, tipping him into victory. That decision was explicitly rendered as somehow being non-precedential (which didn't stop the Trump admin from citing it in their case against Nevada voting laws this month, see my earlier post), but the very fact that it happened at all and the polity accepted it as valid means the only question of whether or not it could happen again is one of power.

The current Supreme Court is stocked with 5 reactionaries, all of whom have a record of being hostile to voting rights and friendly to Republican interests. Chief Justice John Roberts is the more moderate of the group, making him the likeliest candidate for swing vote toward the 4 liberal justices. Roberts' jurisprudence is marked by, besides hostility to voting rights and market regulation, a concern for the legitimacy of the SCOTUS in public image (see his negotiation with liberal justices in 2013 over which provisions of Obamacare to spare and which to declare unconstitutional), and a tendency to be more considerate of long-term consequences and peripheral matters than his copartisans (see his spate of centrist major decisions this summer, joining the liberals in the midst of unprecedented national protests). He has been known to reject at least some Trump administration arguments that are nakedly pretextual power grabs, such as when Trump illegally attempted to impose a citizenship question onto the census last year for the purpose of driving immigrants into hiding and reducing the formal representation of the Democratic states in national government.

If Donald Trump comes to the Supreme Court demanding that they stay or order halted counting in key states - say, with the effect of freezing counts such that Trump is ahead of Biden - would he have 5 votes for his argument? Based on what is relayed above on John Roberts' mentality and record, I do not believe he will side with Trump. If he does not side with Trump, the counts will go on, with the overwhelming eventual likelihood of a Biden majority or plurality in enough states to award him with an Electoral College majority - and thus the presidency. For Roberts to do otherwise would genuinely push the country to the brink of civil rupture, as Republicans would have no choice but to ride full steam ahead on the fascism train, Joe Biden would reject the decision and absolutely refuse to concede, tens of millions would flood the streets of American cities, the paramilitaries would be emboldened in response, and this country would look a lot like Lebanon, Belarus, Mali have this summer. Whereas if Roberts declines to rescue Trump (in the short-term), a contentious election would galvanize the Republican electorate, demoralize Democrats and centrists, and hopefully (from Republicans' perspective) sufficiently weaken or cripple the Biden government/Congress to the point where they cannot govern effectively, with the result that a neutered Democratic government would be rejected by feckless voters in 2022 and 2024 without Trump as a locus of popular rage.

It all comes down to the character of John Roberts, and I think we know enough about him to come to a prospective conclusion.

So my perspective ultimately aligns with yours, or runs into the same direction, but I think it's clear that there will be a lot of institutional and social damage along the way. There will be physical violence here and there. The chaos will be protracted over weeks at least. There is even a possibility that the election will be thrown to the House, who are empowered constitutionally to select the President if the Electoral College cannot produce one; this might occur if counts are so protracted that the deadline for convening the Electoral College (in late November) is passed and no one has been assigned a majority of EC votes. This election is set to be the most institutionally and constitutionally challenging in our entire history, even if hypothetically crazier shit has happened at other times in other countries. Moreover, millions of ballots lost or invalidated through shenanigans and delays could have consequences in down-ballot races, reducing the size of Biden's ultimate working majorities in Congress, even if he himself skirts by. If Biden doesn't have strong working majorities, he will deliver no results on his progressive manifesto or even on basic pandemic relief (overly-conservative economic stimulus in 2009 is one of the things that, among other effects, damaged Democrats electorally all through 2016). If Biden cannot govern in 2021, the Republicans will have their revenge in 2022 and 2024, this time even more unified against liberal democracy and multiculturalism, and even more rabidly unhinged in their epistemology.

But yes, unless the entire Republican Party decides to unify around Trump as the front of a coup against the Republic, he will ultimately leave office in January 2021.

*I expect whatever cohort of late-deciding voters there are to swing heavily Democratic, and to the extent these are voting by mail, their ballots are at a very elevated risk of being discarded consequent to aforementioned issues of timing and delivery.

Thirdly, the paranoid part: If he loses the 2020 elections, provided he establishes a convincing stab-at-the-back myth, he could use it to nominate himself successfully in 2024. After all, given the solidity of his base, his presidential past and his vulgar rhetoric, he can easily dominate the Republican primaries. So, focusing on 2020 but aiming at 2024?

We've touched upon this in the thread as a potentially-overdetermined consequence of this cycle and his character, but if Trump is planning for it he's been doing a very bad job in developing a political base of patronage among the constantly-rotating pool of lackeys in the White House he always betrays, or a convincing link between himself and the Republican elites he can never seem to coordinate well with (e.g. almost all productive negotiations on pandemic response since March have been between Congressional Democrats and the White House, bypassing McConnell's Senate majority). It's unclear what he can count on from any allies in the context of a private citizen being hunted by state and federal justice after his term. Now, just because he's bad at something doesn't have to mean he isn't planning it, but it's hard to imagine because Trump never seems to plan anything ahead of time. The simplest explanation is that he reacts impulsively to assuage the blows to his ego (e.g. tweeting in all-caps about Biden and Obama during Obama's DNC speech condemning Trump) and since he's a narcissist he will always have the inclination to devalue anything that doesn't further his own self-importance or personalistic authority. "Planning" also implies he's either been planning to destroy his chances of winning this election, or his behavior now is somehow rational but it wasn't in the past, he having acquired some peculiar rationality only in the past months. He really kind of just does the same shit all the time and pushes it further when he sees his base likes it; it's a conditioning loop. The strongest argument against a Trump in cognitive decline, really, is that Trump in 2020 is the same as Trump 2016, just intensified to be more egregious, entitled, and paranoid.

It will certainly be interesting, however, to see how the reception of Trump the man evolves among the Republican base, and to what extent his supporters may have only rallied around him while he has been the formal standard bearer of their movement and in an actual position to deliver them the psychological wages they demand. Trump is a whiny loser, but it's a lot easier to see him that way even if you like him if he's been pushed out of office by "Sleepy Joe."

Hooahguy

08-22-2020, 02:07

ReluctantSamurai

08-22-2020, 12:35

Or, and this is harsh, we just have to take the risk and encourage people to stand in the voting lines on election day. Take that risk for the sake of our democracy.

I think the Wisconsin spring elections show that people are willing to do just that...:shrug:

Seamus Fermanagh

08-23-2020, 18:36

This election's results will be finalized in court just before the college meets.

Montmorency

08-24-2020, 08:02

I agree with your post completely. The delay for counting mail-in ballots is part of the reason why I think Trump has a good chance of winning re-election. Wouldnt matter who was the Dem candidate- Biden, Bernie, Kamala, Yang, whoever. All would have this same fundamental issue. If he does win due to stopping counting ballots, there will be violence like we have never seen. I just cant see it ending in any other way. With early voting beginning in just a couple weeks or so in some places, the Biden campaign absolutely needs to start emphasizing to go out and vote in person early. And I dont mean putting out little ads on Instagram or Facebook posts, I mean concentrated tv and radio ads plastering the airwaves in all 50 states, or at least the battleground states. Or, and this is harsh, we just have to take the risk and encourage people to stand in the voting lines on election day. Take that risk for the sake of our democracy.

Edit: Boris Shcherbina's speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G7seJ6bSOQ) to the Chernobyl workers in the HBO miniseries is surprisingly relevant.

Except instead of going into that water, its standing in line to vote for potentially hours during a pandemic.

In February one would have had to be a freaking visionary to see this whole scenario playing out like it has. Even on Super Tuesday I still had some latent expectation that we would kind of, you know, handle the pandemic. And without a raging pandemic, mail voting isn't a flashpoint or major factor.

The Obamas and IIRC other DNC speakers did mention voting early.

An addendum to my post on the election and mail voting: I can't believe I overlooked this earlier, but due to the strict and complicated rules of the process, mail ballots are frequently invalidated (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/21/heres-problem-with-mail-in-ballots-they-might-not-be-counted/) even in the best of times (unrelated to delivery time)! Granted that nullifying a million votes in New York (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/nyregion/nyc-mail-ballots-voting.html) and California (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/california-rejected-100000-mail-in-ballots-because-of-mistakes) wouldn't affect the presidential race (it could matter a lot in House or local races upstate!), but for the swing states the baseline attrition rate alone on mail ballots would be of major concern even if electoral administration were on the level and the postal service were up to the task.

That alone is bad, but of course it gets worse. A massive partisan imbalance in mail voting just when mail voting becomes a major, if not majority, component of a national election, is an unmitigated disaster-in-waiting regardless of the circumstances surrounding it. But the circumstances make this the most important election of our lives (so far)! Promoting the absentee alternative seemed to make sense in the spring, but logistics and bureaucratic hurdles AND partisan imbalance make it a fool's errand. This is where the hard-left critiques of the Democratic establishment's constitutional mildness and understatement may prove meritorious, if Dem leaders don't go apeshit on this point right about now. Like this sort of thing, but much more:

https://i.imgur.com/TcuUPdo.jpg

I'm not going to bother with mail voting again until we transition to proper all-mail elections like some of the Western states. My polling place is a damn 15-minute walk from my home. Why go to *extra* trouble and delay just to have the opportunity of doing something wrong or the administrators doing something wrong and having your vote rubbished (like mine probably was in July)? Having time to review and research the ballot is nice, but you can usually get the full slate for your locality ahead of time on various resource websites. If a normal person needs a nerd reviewing their ballot and envelope to guarantee they're up to standard, just vote in-person. If you do vote by mail, you can do so early and you can torture your county officials into looking up whether your ballot was received, but they can't divine beforehand if your ballot has any defects that will lead to its nullification.

And I also forgot to mention that the baseline of voter suppression in states under Republicans, that old standby, is going to be elevated as well. Voter rolls, polling locations... forget about access or early voting for AAs in North Carolina or Georgia.

We're facing a lot of problems.

The Republican Embrace of QAnon Goes Far Beyond Trump (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/20/us/politics/qanon-trump-republicans.html)

Late last month, as the Texas Republican Party was shifting into campaign mode, it unveiled a new slogan, lifting a rallying cry straight from a once-unthinkable source: the internet-driven conspiracy theory known as QAnon. The new catchphrase, “We Are the Storm,” is an unsubtle cue to a group that the F.B.I. has labeled a potential domestic terrorist threat. It is instantly recognizable among QAnon adherents, signaling what they claim is a coming conflagration between President Trump and what they allege, falsely, is a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophile Democrats who seek to dominate America and the world. The slogan can be found all over social media posts by QAnon followers, and now, too, in emails from the Texas Republican Party and on the T-shirts, hats and sweatshirts that it sells. It has even worked its way into the party’s text message system — a recent email from the party urged readers to “Text STORM2020” for updates. The Texas Republicans are an unusually visible example of the Republican Party’s dalliance with QAnon, but they are hardly unique. A small but growing number of Republicans — including a heavily favored Republican congressional candidate in Georgia — are donning the QAnon mantle, ushering its adherents in from the troll-infested fringes of the internet and potentially transforming the wild conspiracy theory into an offline political movement, with supporters running for Congress and flexing their political muscle at the state and local levels.
[...]
Fearful of inviting similar blowback, few other elected Republicans have been willing to speak out publicly. Mostly, they avoid questions about it, demonstrating the thin line some officials are trying to walk between extreme elements among their base who adore Mr. Trump and the moderate voters they need to win over.

According to CNN, "Over four days, roughly 122 million people watched the [Democratic National] convention – including 85.1 million on television and 35.5 million livestream views." That's more than I expected. But it doesn't matter. Over the past year my greatest misfire of political analysis was in watching the Democratic primaries. I overlooked the fundamentals of the electorate as apparent from the outset, and focused too much on the weft and slew of the process over time. Biden beat Sanders because his floor of support was similarly high but his ceiling was higher, and the number of people who preferred Sanders was always less than the number of people who preferred someone other than Sanders. Knock together any sort of optimality model with these facts, and to the extent they don't change significantly - they didn't - then the model would announce a Biden victory over all other competitors was always the most plausible outcome from April 2019. Personalistic speculation has to justify itself against fundamentals. (Though on that count, many on the left overlooked that while Biden isn't a good leader, he's a good politician.)

By the same tokens, Trump almost always loses on paper because the fundamentals are stacked against him; more people are always against him than are for him, and he's only ever bled support on net. But in this race the process takes on a hardly-imaginable importance. That it would come to matter so much is... I'm just slow to put pieces together, though I'm far from alone. I didn't think the confluence of terribles could get this bad!

Seamus Fermanagh

08-24-2020, 14:39

Levitz' line on Biden speech. LOL

Yes. The GOP that Trump has enacted over the past 4 or so years, following the long efforts of Limbaugh and Hannity in shaping the mindscape of the non-"country club" republicans, is a party that considers conspiracy theories as something that need to be seriously considered and according them the same mental "weight" as hard-won intelligence and confirmed facts.

Just one of the reasons that the house-cleaning needs to be so thorough (though I fear it will not be thorough enough).

ReluctantSamurai

08-25-2020, 04:12

Ehhh, you folks might want to redo this a bit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/us/politics/republican-platform.html

“The survival of the internet as we know it is at risk,” the platform reads. “Its gravest peril originates in the White House, the current occupant of which has launched a campaign, both at home and internationally, to subjugate it to agents of government.”

“The Middle East is more dangerous now than at any time since the Second World War,” the platform reads. “Whatever their disagreements, presidents of both parties had always prioritized America’s national interests, the trust of friendly governments, and the security of Israel. That sound consensus was replaced with impotent grandstanding on the part of the current President and his Secretaries of State. The results have been ruinous for all parties except Islamic terrorists and their Iranian and other sponsors.”

:bounce:

Montmorency

08-25-2020, 04:31

I'd already heard two months ago that the RNC would formally adopt no (new) platform, other than the greatness of Trump I guess.

Cool new idiom I learned: "The game is not worth the candle."

Hooahguy

08-25-2020, 05:11

Still trying to figure out if it was done out of laziness, an actual sworn fealty to Trump, or perhaps just waiting to see where the wind blows to leave open the potential of starting from scratch in 2024. I'm guessing a mix of all three.

ReluctantSamurai

08-25-2020, 12:33

An interesting take on the real GOP platform:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/new-gop-platform-authoritarianism/615640/

The challenge for Republicans in the week ahead is to hope that President Trump can remember, night after night, to speak only the things he’s supposed to speak—not to blurt the things his party wants its supporters to absorb unspoken.

Hooahguy

08-26-2020, 04:07

Well the RNC is going roughly as well (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/25/rnc-speaker-retweets-anti-semitic-rant-401851) as expected.

A speaker for the Republican National Convention retweeted an anti-Semitic screed on Tuesday morning, the same day she was slated to take the stage to praise President Donald Trump’s hard-line immigration policies.

A person familiar with the matter confirmed to POLITICO on Tuesday evening that the speaker, Mary Ann Mendoza, was no longer appearing at the RNC.

https://imgur.com/SuekLPahttps://imgur.com/mtTZy75.jpg

Hooahguy

08-27-2020, 21:08

An article (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/democrats-are-strongly-pushing-mail-voting-its-pitfalls-could-boost-n1235289)which goes into some of what Monty mentioned earlier, and how mass voting by mail is a trap.

For a moment, imagine a swing state where 42 percent of ballots are cast by mail and Biden carries them 80 percent to 20 percent, while Trump carries all other ballots 70 percent to 30 percent. If every ballot were to count, Biden would win the state 51 percent to 49 percent. But if 8 percent of absentees were ruled invalid for various reasons - and the invalidated votes were reflective of the overall absentee pool — Trump would prevail by two hundredths of 1 percent.

This scenario explains why both sides are pouring tens of millions of dollars into litigating states' mail-in ballot rules and procedures this year.

Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias, who represented Franken in the 2008 Minnesota recount, is quarterbacking Democrats' efforts to prevent mail-in votes from being rejected. Elias is actively engaged in lawsuits in 18 states on everything from witness requirements and signature matching protocol to drop-off boxes and postmark/return deadlines — all of which differ by state.

"The rejection rates we've seen in the primaries have almost uniformly been above historic ranges," Elias said, pointing to Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as particular litigation hot spots. "I take Republicans at face value, that they don't want people to vote by mail."

If the Biden camp keeps publicly pushing for voting by mail by those who do not absolutely need it, then I think theres a good chance Trump gets a second term, Id say in the 75% range. Especially since the latest round of riots have given (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/26/us/kenosha-wisconsin-trump.html?smid=tw-share&fbclid=IwAR2IH_Bjy-T2GiXRueTSRkaDvOa2rx-2jvH4NdfkqcfEbaBfw_5RDB9s5k0) Trump more ammunition and may push the needle towards him in a really key state.

In Kenosha County, where the president won by fewer than 250 votes in 2016, those who already supported Mr. Trump said in interviews that the events of the past few days have simply reinforced their conviction that he is the man for the job. But some voters who were less sure of their choice said the chaos in their city and the inability of elected leaders to stop it were currently nudging them toward the Republicans.

Montmorency

08-28-2020, 03:02

An interesting take on the real GOP platform:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/new-gop-platform-authoritarianism/615640/

Well the RNC is going roughly as well (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/25/rnc-speaker-retweets-anti-semitic-rant-401851) as expected.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/08/24/republicanmeltdown-trump-convention-400039

“Owning the libs and pissing off the media,” shrugs Brendan Buck, a longtime senior congressional aide and imperturbable party veteran if ever there was one. “That’s what we believe in now. There’s really not much more to it.”

How many times do we need them to tell us who they are? This isn't new information.

With Election Day just a few months away, I was genuinely surprised, in the course of recent conversations with a great many Republicans, at their inability to articulate a purpose, a designation, a raison d'être for their party.

War against Humanity.

An article (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/democrats-are-strongly-pushing-mail-voting-its-pitfalls-could-boost-n1235289)which goes into some of what Monty mentioned earlier, and how mass voting by mail is a trap.

If the Biden camp keeps publicly pushing for voting by mail by those who do not absolutely need it, then I think theres a good chance Trump gets a second term, Id say in the 75% range. Especially since the latest round of riots have given (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/26/us/kenosha-wisconsin-trump.html?smid=tw-share&fbclid=IwAR2IH_Bjy-T2GiXRueTSRkaDvOa2rx-2jvH4NdfkqcfEbaBfw_5RDB9s5k0) Trump more ammunition and may push the needle towards him in a really key state.

If the cited recent study finding four percent total attrition of mail ballots in the 2016 election is correct, that's significantly higher than the 1% (for 2016) commonly referenced. Volume, first-time mail voters, and any postal service delays could easily be expected to push that up considerably. Interactions with individual state baselines are unpredictable.

Conservatively assuming a partisan imbalance of only 33% of Republicans voting by mail against 50% of Democrats, and granting an elevated and uniform attrition rate for in-person ballots (say 1%), then even a 5% uniform attrition rate for mail ballots knocks about 0.6% off the Democrat's vote share in a given two-way race. A more extreme partisan imbalance in mail modality of 25(R)-75(D), with a staggering 10% attrition rate, would ceteris paribus reduce the Democrat's vote share by 4.5%. In terms of the winning margin in a two-way contest, then in the former case a 50-50 race would go 50.15:49.84, and in the latter case a 50-50 race would go 51.2-48.9.

Taking those sets of parameters on partisan split in voting modality and attrition rate of the modalities as upper and lower bounds, we would expect Democrats to see a penalty of between 0.3 and 2.4 points relative to Republicans in a typical race (not taking other variables into account, such as voter suppression). Anyone can naturally recognize that a worst-case penalty of more than 2 points from the final margin* for Democrats could be fatal in a close race. In 2018, for example, 21 of 435 House races had a margin of victory within 2.3%, 14 of which changed parties, 13 of which were Democratic flips. The Democratic capture of the Arizona Senate seat in 2018 was by a 2.34% margin. The Republican victories in Florida's Senate and gubernatorial races were within a 0.5% margin. And of course, there were 6 states within 1.5% margins in 2016, though 4 were won by Trump.

Base scenario Republican and Democrat 1000 votes each, or 50:50 ratio.

If mail 33-50, 5% mail attrition, 1% in-person attrition:

R: 1000*1/3*1/20 = 16.66 mail down; 1000 *2/3*1/100 = 6.66 in-person down >>> ~24/1000 = 2.4% votes down
D: 1000*1/2*1/20 = 25 mail down; 1000*1/2*1/100 = 5 in-person down >>> 30/1000 = 3% votes down
Net Attrition: -0.6% Dem
Margin Change: 50.15:49.84 = -0.31 Dem

If mail 25-75, 5% mail attrition, 1% in-person attrition:

R: 1000*1/4*1/20 = 12.5 mail down; 1000*3/4*1/100 = 7.5 in-person down >>> 20/1000 = 2% votes down
D: 1000*3/4*1/20 = 37.5 mail down; 1000*1/4*1/100 = 2.5 in-person down >>> 40/1000 = 4% votes down
Net Attrition: -2% Dem
Margin Change: 50.52:49.48 = -1.03 Dem

If mail 33-50, 10% mail attrition, 1% in-person attrition:

R: 1000*1/4*1/10 = 25 mail down; 1000*3/4*1/100 = 7.5 in-person down >>> 32.5/1000 = 3.25% votes down
D: 1000*3/4*1/10 = 75 mail down; 1000*1/4*1/100 = 2.5 in-person down >>> 77.5/1000 = 7.75% votes down
Net Attrition: -4.5% Dem
Margin Change: 51.16:48.78 = -2.38 Dem

*Because of math reasons I don't quite understand anymore, a reduction of x% of the value of one side of a ratio changes the margin between sides by roughly, but not exactly, x/2%

One practical consequence is that you can kiss Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio goodbye as EC contenders this cycle. Arizona and Florida might still be in play (both due to size of margins and better historical experience with mail voting), but shoring up the heavy Biden leads in the basic frontline states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (all currently under Democratic leadership) should be the priority.

It's not the end of the world if even 10 gettable/Dem-lean House seats flip to Republicans on net, but we could easily whiff on a couple of Senate seats, which would dramatically stymie Biden's entrance.

I'm still astonished these fellows haven't been criminally charged in 3 years of wacky crime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVodAUh9kL0

rory_20_uk

08-28-2020, 11:35

Many, many years ago, when life was simple, the only messages people received were from a few major broadcasters, the USA was a beacon that people in other countries looked up to and in many cases were inspired at what humanity could achieve.

Now, the message is somewhat more nuanced. It is a warning as to what can happen in democracies in a short time (1930's Germany is too long ago). It is a reminder that reality and what was shown on the News rarely are the same - the USA was, is and and shows no sign of changing from being a very racist, semi-apartheid state; the American Dream and Values were at best a form of Cold War propaganda. Finally it is a signal lesson that almost unfettered neoliberalism will concentrate all money in the hands of those who can buy off the handlers.

When Biden is the best hope for a brighter tomorrow, we truly realise how dark it has become.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

08-28-2020, 12:34

CrossLOPER

08-28-2020, 18:53

When Biden is the best hope for a brighter tomorrow, we truly realise how dark it has become.
It's supposed to be a stepping stone, not the final answer. The overall problem is the general laziness/apathy of the populace. I know a lot of people, particularly those under the age of 30, that do not vote because "it doesn't matter" or they are "too busy". You need to have a follow up. If you buy tools but don't do anything with them, the job is never going to be finished or started. It takes constant work.

It was annoying to hear, during the first year of the Trump presidency, to hear journalists complaining about how "demeaning" and difficult it was to deal with the predictable problems associated with Trump being in office.

No one wants to do their job.

Montmorency

08-29-2020, 00:46

Sounds like one of the more useful books by Republican wiseguys, but I can't recommend it as I don't know anything else about its contents. Hopefully it properly educates the public about what the Republican Party is and has been.
It Was All a Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump (https://www.amazon.com/Was-All-Lie-Republican-Became/dp/0525658459) by Stuart Stevens

Stuart Stevens spent decades electing Republicans at every level, from presidents to senators to local officials. He knows the GOP as intimately as anyone in America, and in this new book he offers a devastating portrait of a party that has lost its moral and political compass.

This is not a book about how Donald J. Trump hijacked the Republican Party and changed it into something else. Stevens shows how Trump is in fact the natural outcome of five decades of hypocrisy and self-delusion, dating all the way back to the civil rights legislation of the early 1960s. Stevens shows how racism has always lurked in the modern GOP's DNA, from Goldwater's opposition to desegregation to Ronald Reagan's welfare queens and states' rights rhetoric. He gives an insider's account of the rank hypocrisy of the party's claims to embody "family values," and shows how the party's vaunted commitment to fiscal responsibility has been a charade since the 1980s. When a party stands for nothing, he argues, it is only natural that it will be taken over by the loudest and angriest voices in the room.

It Was All a Lie is not just an indictment of the Republican Party, but a candid and often lacerating mea culpa. Stevens is not asking for pity or forgiveness; he is simply telling us what he has seen firsthand. He helped to create the modern party that kneels before a morally bankrupt con man and now he wants nothing more than to see what it has become burned to the ground.

Many, many years ago, when life was simple, the only messages people received were from a few major broadcasters, the USA was a beacon that people in other countries looked up to and in many cases were inspired at what humanity could achieve.

Now, the message is somewhat more nuanced. It is a warning as to what can happen in democracies in a short time (1930's Germany is too long ago). It is a reminder that reality and what was shown on the News rarely are the same - the USA was, is and and shows no sign of changing from being a very racist, semi-apartheid state; the American Dream and Values were at best a form of Cold War propaganda. Finally it is a signal lesson that almost unfettered neoliberalism will concentrate all money in the hands of those who can buy off the handlers.

When Biden is the best hope for a brighter tomorrow, we truly realise how dark it has become.

~:smoking:

Many years ago, when life was superficially simple, the US was an actual apartheid state. It is today more and more successfully multiethnic than any European country. With the troublesome face of white supremacy set against us, but American whites are more racially liberal than whites almost anywhere else in the world, including the UK. I would say the same about American POC. Biden is not our great hope - the sacred, enduring fury of the American people is our hope. Only the People, in sufficient numbers and with appropriate zeal and commitment over years, can take the first step by making Trump a Carter and Biden a Reagan (in the structurally-disjunctive sense). It would be useful for the British and Europeans to model good government for us, so that it might eventually roll over the map like a tidal wave, but I understand; if not us first, then who?

For God's sake, don't forget that we're all in this together, in a more-than-trivial way. Don't act like our fates are so dissociable.

Seamus Fermanagh

08-29-2020, 23:35

Ehhh, you folks might want to redo this a bit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/us/politics/republican-platform.html“The Middle East is more dangerous now than at any time since the Second World War,” the platform reads. “Whatever their disagreements, presidents of both parties had always prioritized America’s national interests, the trust of friendly governments, and the security of Israel. That sound consensus was replaced with impotent grandstanding on the part of the current President and his Secretaries of State. The results have been ruinous for all parties except Islamic terrorists and their Iranian and other sponsors.”

I kept thinking about this and wondering when, since Johnson, it would NOT have been applicable...

Pannonian

08-30-2020, 00:17

I kept thinking about this and wondering when, since Johnson, it would NOT have been applicable...

The last few months have been the quietest that I can remember in my lifetime.

ReluctantSamurai

08-31-2020, 19:36

What we are now seeing, is the expression of the one thing Trump excels at---subterfuge. He knows his SARS-2 response is more than abysmal, and he knows it's difficult to campaign on the economy when the economy has disappeared down the shit-hole. The one single thing he and his campaign can do, and do quickly, is to fulminate anger and unrest so that enough Americans will forget about the first two and hand him the White House for a second term.

What's frustrating is how media has bought into this, and therefore heavily influencing the general public. When was the last time you viewed mainstream media content of any kind where the pandemic or the economy held the lead story and had articles and opinions in support. Now it's unrest in Portland, Chicago, New York, and the latest media love interest, Kenosha Wisconsin. If Trump is one thing, it's an opportunist. When presented with these "opportunities" to advance his "Law & Order" platform (and by advance I mean do everything possible to make the situation worse), he's made hay, so-to-speak. He's using Terry Goodkind's "Wizard's First Rule" to perfection.

Democrats have run a sensible campaign, up to this point, but are now simply reacting to what the President says or does. Voicing outrage Trump's latest flaunting of law (for which he knows nothing will be done about it) is not going to cut it. If the Dems don't start acting pro-actively, they will see their large leads in the polls vanish as the election approaches.

Hooahguy

08-31-2020, 20:09

Completely agree. Biden's speech today I think was a step towards the right direction. Jennifer Rubin had a good article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/30/its-time-challenge-cockeyed-reaction-violence/) yesterday about just this:

Trump amplifies White fears. Brookings explains: “His efforts to claim that the legitimate protesters are all Antifa, blame ‘liberal Governors and Mayors’ for the unrest, and declare that ‘when the looting starts, the shooting starts’ all exacerbate tensions. Such statements are likely to provoke strong and divergent reactions from across the political spectrum rather than bring Americans together in outrage over George Floyd’s murder and the need to reject violence in favor of genuine reform.”

Republican elected officials feel comfortable reverting to the Southern Strategy, portraying themselves as the only thing standing between White people and violent Black people. It is a tune they have been singing since 1968.

Naturally then, the news media is holding Trump accountable for violence, insisting that he condemn police excesses and … no, that is not happening. Instead, they amplify Trump’s demand that Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden do something about the violence. Biden’s weak-kneed supporters (playing into Trump’s hands) blame Biden for not denouncing violence — which Biden has repeatedly done. That in turn generates a spate of “Democrats worried violence hurts Biden” articles. The media focus on the same few incidents of violence drowns out reports (mostly in print, rarely on TV news) explaining White instigators’ role in these events. (When the role of White provocateurs does make the news, there is rarely video to accompany the brief reference to White agitators.) And you wonder how Trump gets away with rabid race-baiting?

A few Democrats have figured out what is going on. Appearing on CNN, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) observed, “They believe the violence is helpful to them. And the president is only motivated by one thing: ‘What is in it for him?’ He sees this violence — and his ability to agitate more of it — as useful to his campaign.” He added, “What it does to the country, the loss of life, he doesn’t care.”

I think that things will calm over the next few weeks like it has before and the news can focus on COVID again, but the real question will be what will happen if there is another killing and it all kicks off again right before the election.

ReluctantSamurai

09-01-2020, 03:04

I think that things will calm over the next few weeks like it has before and the news can focus on COVID again

That, I'm afraid, the Trump Administration will not allow to happen. The call to 'defend our cities' will only increase in the coming weeks, and Kenosha will be repeated again and again.

Rather ironic that Fearless Leader attacks Biden for wanting to 'defund police' when it's actually the other way around:

https://www.vox.com/2020/6/16/21286669/donald-trump-is-defunding-the-police

President Trump has repeatedly proposed cuts in federal funding for police, criticized landmark legislation that boosted financial support for police departments, and is currently involved in blocking legislation that would greatly reduce pressure on local governments to cut police funding.

This dispute about budgeting — where Democrats are fighting against austerity and Republicans are fighting for it — is different from the theoretical argument police abolitionists want to have about the future of law enforcement. But it’s a real one playing out this summer in Congress with real consequences for the lives of hundreds of millions of people. And in this debate, it’s Trump who wants to defund the police.

In early February of this year, the Trump administration proposed a 58 percent cut in the federal government’s COPS Hiring Program, a federal program that supports police department staffing. That’s not a one-off; his administration’s budget proposals have routinely called for huge cuts to this program, which was inaugurated in the 1990s as part of Bill Clinton’s pledge to hire 100,000 new police officers (Congress keeps declining to do this).

Why the Dems don't focus in on this, and tie the actual defunding of local and state governments (and therefore police departments) to the economic downturn as a result of the abysmal pandemic response, is a mystery to me. What the eff are they waiting for?

Montmorency

09-01-2020, 08:01

The Republican soul. If only police had the restraint of customer-facing staff.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1299914167525216256 [VIDEO]

What we are now seeing, is the expression of the one thing Trump excels at---subterfuge. He knows his SARS-2 response is more than abysmal, and he knows it's difficult to campaign on the economy when the economy has disappeared down the shit-hole. The one single thing he and his campaign can do, and do quickly, is to fulminate anger and unrest so that enough Americans will forget about the first two and hand him the White House for a second term.

What's frustrating is how media has bought into this, and therefore heavily influencing the general public. When was the last time you viewed mainstream media content of any kind where the pandemic or the economy held the lead story and had articles and opinions in support. Now it's unrest in Portland, Chicago, New York, and the latest media love interest, Kenosha Wisconsin. If Trump is one thing, it's an opportunist. When presented with these "opportunities" to advance his "Law & Order" platform (and by advance I mean do everything possible to make the situation worse), he's made hay, so-to-speak. He's using Terry Goodkind's "Wizard's First Rule" to perfection.

Biden has kind of boxed himself out of running on 'the entire Republican party is a fascist conspiracy (and a pretty overt one) toward the overthrow of republican government. Get mad you son of a bitches, peace was never an option!'

One might suggest, boss-man don't need to say it, his allies and operatives do, while Biden waxes about decency, harmony, and the Light side of the force. The problem is that the bipartisan comity mentality is fractal down the layers of Democratic politics. They desperately believe in the need for love and unity among Americans - which we don't and can't have in the status quo. Also, they fear alienating moderates and the politically passive. Same logic as Obama
putting the lid on Russian active measures intel in fall 2016 (by the way (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/30/us/politics/trump-russia-justice-department.html), about that (https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/29/politics/office-of-director-of-national-intelligence-congress-election-security/index.html)...)

It's taken all of - THIS *waves at last 4 years* - for at least some Democratic electeds to reach the point of: being uncustomarily disrespectful toward the President and his performance; voicing their fear that the character/future of the country is at stake; considering thinking about bypassing some of the procedural barriers of government.

The most aggressive Democrats have been against Trump was their narrow and somber impeachment inquiry.

Half a year ago Democrats eagerly helped Trump take up the biggest economic relief program in American history, sacrificing trillions in transfers to big business and billionares in exchange for hundreds of billions for desperate families and small businesses. The stimulus was successful enough that Republicans have stonewalled all further legislation even as accumulated savings run dry and evictions kick up as we close on the election. Does that sound like the Republicans care about how the mood of the electorate will manifest at the ballot box? Should the Dems then not have played hardball? I wouldn't necessarily go that far, but it's clearly a sign of a mindset trapped in "normal" politics.

I don't mean to rag on Democrats too much. The electorate, and not just at the margins, is clueless, disengaged and performatively cynical (disclosure: I was like that 4 years ago); the fears of alienating them, to say nothing of the mainstream media, are not entirely unreasonable. And besides overcoming deeply-held personal beliefs, the path dependence of messaging-as-ideology is a hell of a thing. The longer you spend doing the same thing, the more difficult it is to overcome that inertia. It would take true leadership to move the whole party culture on a dime and change strategies. Circling back, naturally, Biden is, and was chosen for being, the exact last person who could demonstrate this kind of pathbreaking leadership. But this is a unique world-historical moment, and the people in power have a responsibility to the gravity of the situation and to posterity.

If I had my druthers, every Democratic elected from Biden down would (have) spend/t each day hammering the stakes in this register (http://sovietposter.blogspot.com/2007_08_07_archive.html):

23928

Orgah Idaho's signature is a good start.

Democrats have run a sensible campaign, up to this point, but are now simply reacting to what the President says or does. Voicing outrage Trump's latest flaunting of law (for which he knows nothing will be done about it) is not going to cut it. If the Dems don't start acting pro-actively, they will see their large leads in the polls vanish as the election approaches.

Marginal fluctuations in public opinion are now less relevant as a threshold matter than the looming extinction of free and fair elections in this country.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/online-vulnerable-experts-find-nearly-three-dozen-u-s-voting-n1112436

ReluctantSamurai

09-01-2020, 12:37

The most aggressive Democrats have been against Trump was their narrow and somber impeachment inquiry.

And it's obvious that isn't going to cut it any longer. Fearless Leader has finally found a chink in the Dems armour, and is hammering away with full force. If there is any backbone to their leadership, they need to take the fight to the President. Bleating like a bunch scared sheep is no longer an option.

An interesting read from a week ago:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/how-biden-loses/615835/

Here is a prediction about the November election: If Donald Trump wins, in a trustworthy vote, what’s happening this week in Kenosha, Wisconsin, will be one reason. Maybe the reason. And yet Joe Biden has it in his power to spare the country a second Trump term.

Events are unfolding with the inevitable logic of a nightmare. A white police officer shoots a Black man as he’s leaning into a car with his three sons inside—shoots him point-blank in the back, seven times, “as if he didn’t matter,” the victim’s father later says. If George Floyd was crushed to death by depraved indifference, Jacob Blake is the object of an attempted execution. Somehow, he survives—but his body is shattered, paralyzed from the waist down, maybe for life. Kenosha explodes in rage, the same rage that’s been igniting around the country all summer long, fading in Minneapolis only to flare up in Portland. In Kenosha, as elsewhere, what starts in peaceful protest soon leads to violence: cars burned, shops smashed, local businesses destroyed. Police and rioters incite one another to escalate; armed vigilantes take matters into their own hands; and a teenager from out of state kills two local men with an AR-15-style rifle. The authorities are overwhelmed and ineffectual, offering little in the way of information or protection. Within a couple of days, much of the small city is a ruined landscape.

It’s no use dismissing their words as partisan talking points. They are effective ones, backed up by certain facts. Trump will bang this loud, ugly drum until Election Day. He knows that Kenosha has placed Democrats in a trap. They’ve embraced the protests and the causes that drive them. The third night of the Democratic convention was consumed with the language and imagery of protest—as if all Americans watching were activists.

Harris, a Black former prosecutor and now an advocate for police reform, seems uniquely positioned to speak to the crisis. But she has said little all week, which suggests that there might be things she doesn’t want to say. On Thursday, Harris directly addressed the events in Kenosha, affirming that Americans “must always defend peaceful protest and peaceful protesters. We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence.” She quickly moved on. Democratic leaders, from the nearly invisible mayor of Kenosha up to those on the presidential ticket, are reluctant to tarnish a just cause, amplify Republican attacks, or draw the wrath of their own progressive base (Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut deleted a tweet saying that both the Blake shooting and the riots were wrong after commenters accused him of equating the two). So Democrats continue to mute their response to the violence and hope it will subside, even though it has persisted straight through the summer.

Nothing will harm a campaign like the wishful thinking, fearful hesitation, or sheer complacency that fails to address what voters can plainly see. Kenosha gives Biden a chance to help himself and the country. Ordinarily it’s the incumbent president’s job to show up at the scene of a national tragedy and give a unifying speech. But Trump is temperamentally incapable of doing so and, in fact, has a political interest in America’s open wounds and burning cities.

Unfortunately, Fearless Leader has beaten them to the punch, and is visiting Kenosha today. Lost opportunity for Biden, Harris, and the Dems. They should have already been there and pre-empted The Bully from using Kenosha to further his agenda of sowing more chaos. This isn't the Karate Kid where the loud mouthed bully gets felled in the end by the Crane Kick.

A further knock on the Democratic response to the shifting public attention:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/31/biden-trump-campaign-racial-strife-405578

For months, the contrast of Biden's caution with Trump's Twitter tirades reinforced Democrats’ claims that the president never took the virus seriously enough — and never would. Biden's constant presence in his basement over the summer was mocked by Trump but seemed to help the candidate with voters who welcomed the Democrat's restraint.

“He’s trying to model what national leadership should look like. It’s not about yourself, it’s about protecting others,” said Michigan state Senate Minority Leader Jim Ananich, a Democrat from Flint. “It’s been the reality TV star versus someone acting responsibly.”

As polls have shown modest tightening in the race, Biden surrogates and Democratic strategists said in interviews that they’ve been urging the campaign to be more explicit in linking Trump’s early failures on coronavirus with the sluggish economy and high jobless rates.

“Trump and the RNC are preying on legitimate fears to lie about defunding police, destroying suburbs, and more, labeling the vice president as `Joe the destroyer,’” one questioner said to Harris. “What's our strategy to cut through all of this and communicate a simple, clear understandable message that will resonate with undecided voters?”

Your strategy needs to be to get your ass out on the campaign trail and show people what was voiced at the DNC wasn't just political rhetoric, as put by a Republican pollster in Arizona:

Biden needs to "show that he cares about Arizona, and that he’s attentive to Arizona,” said Paul Bentz, a Republican pollster in the state. “If Biden wants to win Arizona, he has to come here.”

The same reason why he should have already been in Kenosha:inquisitive:

Marginal fluctuations in public opinion are now less relevant as a threshold matter than the looming extinction of free and fair elections in this country.

Marginal in the national sense, perhaps, but it's obvious that the election will come down to the Rust Belt states again, and if Fearless Leader carries those, the 'extinction of free and fair elections' won't matter much.

Montmorency

09-02-2020, 04:30

Is this like the fifth piece I've posted on the Org that makes the implicit case for disestablishing DHS? (Though no doubt having Trump in office has emboldened the supremacists in the service beyond baseline.) It's about the horrific racism a black diplomat was subjected to by our border thugs, like the extended version of what AOC described on her day trip to one of the ICE camps.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/08/30/black-us-diplomat-customs-border-protection-cbp-detained-harassed-325676

Marginal in the national sense, perhaps, but it's obvious that the election will come down to the Rust Belt states again, and if Fearless Leader carries those, the 'extinction of free and fair elections' won't matter much.

How would you be able to tell? The only firm indicator would be a heavy polling shift before the event, which isn't evident yet. But in abstract, I would prefer Biden to emphasize Trump's failure to resolve unrest as well as his contributions toward it (which Biden has been doing to some extent), as well as outlining simple steps - in a campaign we can allow them to be simplistic - that he would take/encourage in office to resolve it. What do you think of Biden's Pittsburgh speech?

Hooahguy

09-02-2020, 04:51

Montmorency

09-02-2020, 05:09

I agree that Biden should have gone to Kenosha. Though consider the governor asked Trump not to come, I wonder if a similar request was made to the Biden campaign, just less public. Biden has also launched a $45 million ad buy (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-riot-speech-tv-ad_n_5f4ed898c5b69eb5c035c657) with a focus on the swing states about how Trump is fanning the flames of unrest (though to be honest I'm not really sure I like the ad so much, to me it kinda starts off weirdly). Good to put some of that over $300 million the campaign got in donations in August alone, which apparently broke a record (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/514610-biden-campaign-expected-to-have-raised-more-than-300-million-in-august). As I've mentioned before, every dollar needs to be spent plastering the airwaves with ads. I was amused to hear that they even got some ads going in Animal Crossing (https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/1/21409727/biden-harris-animal-crossing-campaign-new-horizons-yard-signs-election). Of course, video game political ads are not unprecedented, as Obama did the same thing in 2008 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-videogames/obama-buys-first-video-game-campaign-ads-idUSTRE49EAGL20081017).

Now we're getting into the minutiae whose utility I can't help but be skeptical of. Presidential elections are decided more by the fundamentals than anything, and this matchup is almost a Platonic form. Unless the process takes precedence, which it has. Between fundamentals and process, there isn't much space left. (Look at Biden winning states in the primary he barely had a campaign or ads in.) The standard inside baseball campaign stuff is probably overrated in political analysis.

On a side note, the Trump folks posting a photo of Trump surveying damage in Kenosha with the caption about how this is what Joe Biden will do to America is... :inquisitive:

The premise is that, if this is happening when Biden isn't president, imagine how it will be if he is (because white Democrat race traitors love nothing more than loosing black animals to prey on the god-fearing, hard-working Real Americans). To which the obvious retort, if Trump isn't make scary thing go away now, how is he supposed to do it in his second term?

(The subliminal answer is: unleash the full fash.)

ReluctantSamurai

09-02-2020, 07:52

What do you think of Biden's Pittsburgh speech?

It's a start, as Hooahguy stated. However, it's reactionary as opposed to being proactive. It's possible that Gov. Evers privately talked to the Biden campaign asking him not to come, but Biden should have anticipated Trump would, and pre-empted his visit and the resulting camapign-op, by being the first one there and speaking to local government and the protesters, IMHO. We all know Trump's visit is a BS campaign-op, but the visual looks like "Look, the President cares enough to show up in person. Where's Joe Biden?"

Presidential elections are decided more by the fundamentals than anything, and this matchup is almost a Platonic form. Unless the process takes precedence, which it has. Between fundamentals and process, there isn't much space left

Here's where I think Wizard's First Rule [which I alluded to earlier] applies:

"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true."

And Fearless Leader will continue to bang his drum of "Law & Order" and more and more stupid people will believe him because they see the scenes of burned-out businesses promoted by news media to garner ratings, or they are afraid that he might be right about those "Marxist, Left-Wing Radicals" disguised as Democrats. Look, I know many folks see through Trump's BS, but I'm talking about taking the offensive and use a variation of Reagan's 1980 catch phrase by asking Americans: Are you safer today than you were 4 years ago? 184,686 Americans can't even answer the question because they're dead. I'd venture that the over 16 million unemployed would probably say they aren't. Three months of this pandemic cost more people their jobs than two years of the Great Recession. Ask the over 12 million who have lost their job-related health insurance if they feel safer today than 4 years ago.

All I'm hoping to see is to attack Fearless Leader where he believes he's strong---Law & Order. Don't let the Law & Order battleground be simply daily pictures of riots and looting, which is the drum Trump will constantly beat. Tie his worse than abysmal pandemic response, the accompanying economic catastrophe, the fact that he is actively stoking racial tensions by calling on right-wing radicals to 'defend their cities', (and as I pointed out in an earlier post [https://www.vox.com/2020/6/16/21286669/donald-trump-is-defunding-the-police] it's actually Trump who is defunding the police) and start asking the American public---Do you feel safer today than four years ago?

Hooahguy

09-02-2020, 11:38

The premise is that, if this is happening when Biden isn't president, imagine how it will be if he is (because white Democrat race traitors love nothing more than loosing black animals to prey on the god-fearing, hard-working Real Americans). To which the obvious retort, if Trump isn't make scary thing go away now, how is he supposed to do it in his second term?

(The subliminal answer is: unleash the full fash.)
I got their meaning behind it, its just absurd to me. I just find it weird that he is arguing that he can fix all this, but for some reason isnt fixing it now. Or does he just not think his voters will care? Im guessing thats the case.

ReluctantSamurai

09-02-2020, 17:14

Or does he just not think his voters will care? Im guessing thats the case.

From an article two years ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/09/democrats-oppose-trump-republicans-passive

Support for Trump is intensifying even as it shrinks. This makes sense. Trump has slashed taxes for the rich, significantly relaxed regulations for business and will soon have named two conservative supreme court justices. He is delivering for his base – which is overwhelmingly white and suburban or rural. And with every gratuitous attack on a black sports star or the media, and every xenophobic aside or outburst on the global stage, they love him more. It’s not that they don’t know how it looks to the outside world or his opponents; it’s that they don’t care.

Democrats have, so far, been the passive beneficiaries of the outrage that has ensued. The large marches in the capital, demonstrations at the border and gun-control protests all illustrate significant enthusiasm for combating the Trump agenda. But there is a disconnect between these electoral gains and this political energy. The Democratic leadership has decided to stand not so much against Trump’s agenda as in the way of it. A Washington Post poll last year showed a majority of registered voters thought the Democratic party stood for nothing other than being against Trump.

A year and a half after the most bigoted, misogynistic, jingoistic president in living memory won the election and polluted the political culture, Democratic leaders are still just letting him talk because they aren’t clear what they have to say for themselves.

For now, letting Trump talk every single day, virtually uninterrupted, appears to be the official Democratic party game plan. With three months to go until the midterms they have proved they can provide opposition; they have yet to indicate they are willing to provide an alternative.

Have a familiar ring? The Dems have two months to lay out a concrete platform, and then present it to the American public. Countering Fearless Leader's rhetoric is only half the battle:inquisitive:

Hooahguy

09-02-2020, 19:39

Here is where I find issue with all of this: the Dems have laid out a concrete platform, its just not being covered it seems. How much news coverage was there of the DNC platform, as opposed to the RNC platform which they just went all-in for Trump. I've heard over and over that Biden stands for nothing except being not-Trump, despite having pages (https://joebiden.com/joes-vision/) of pretty detailed policies on everything from education to foreign policy, not to mention a bunch of interviews and speeches about said policies. I didn't really pay attention to his campaign when it first launched so perhaps when he started he came off as being just merely being anti-Trump, but whatever happened its proving hard to shake off that narrative which the media decided to run with. And its not a Biden issue, the media definitely treats Dems differently as a whole. The article you posted from 2 years ago feels a bit disingenuous since while the national Dem stance was "oppose the GOP as much as possible" (don't forget that at the time the GOP had full control of congress so what more could they do?), the individual candidates had strong messages that would be tailored to their districts. For example Lucy McBath from my home state flipped a red district with a very strong anti-gun platform. Harley Rouda, who flipped Dana Rohrabacher's seat in California, ran on an anti-corruption message. And most Dem candidates ran on protecting and expanding healthcare. So while there might not have been an ironclad platform, there was an overarching one that still allowed for flexibility in some places that resulted in wins where victory was not assured (for example, Conor Lamb pre-redistricting).

I started my stint in the House in the early spring of 2019 and I distinctly recall there being heavy messaging about the House Dem's priorities, namely healthcare/drug prices, governmental ethics, voting rights, and immigration. Like every non-Speaker press conference had these large signs we had to print stating the various pillars of the platform and our social media was always drumming about some new bill being passed in the House or something. Even the first bill introduced, H.R.1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_People_Act_of_2019), was meant to be a statement of values when it comes to voting rights and ethics in government (currently sitting on McConnell's desk to nobody's surprise). But because Trump drama hogs the spotlight, you don't really hear much about those bills in the media. Another example is the whole kente cloth thing back in June. There was such a hubbub about it and how the Dems weren't doing anything except being performative, seemingly ignoring the fact that at that same conference they introduced the Justice in Policing Act. Merits of the bill aside, the fact that people freaked out about the kente cloth while mostly ignoring the bill makes me think that the media isn't really interested in the bills or the messaging- just the drama.

ReluctantSamurai

09-02-2020, 21:22

but whatever happened its proving hard to shake off that narrative which the media decided to run with. And its not a Biden issue, the media definitely treats Dems differently as a whole

Agreed.

The article you posted from 2 years ago feels a bit disingenuous since while the national Dem stance was "oppose the GOP as much as possible"[...]the individual candidates had strong messages that would be tailored to their districts.

Point taken. I wasn't attempting to go down the rabbit hole of "remember what happened in 2016" as 2020 is definitely not. But when was the last time the Dems said or did something to get in Trump's head? The Lincoln Project certainly did, but dealing with them is likely a deal with the devil.

makes me think that the media isn't really interested in the bills or the messaging- just the drama.

As I said earlier, the media seems to have gone the way of many Americans...weary of COVID-19, and weary of the BS in Congress at not getting anything done. Burning buildings, shootings, right-wingers vs. left-wingers, all the crap that grabs ratings (not that it shouldn't get press, but press to the exclusion of a lot of other things). And right now it seems to me that Fearless Leader is dictating the pace, and the circumstances. That needs to change......

Hooahguy

09-02-2020, 22:22

Point taken. I wasn't attempting to go down the rabbit hole of "remember what happened in 2016" as 2020 is definitely not. But when was the last time the Dems said or did something to get in Trump's head? The Lincoln Project certainly did, but dealing with them is likely a deal with the devil.

I mean I think impeachment really got to him. I remember his unhinged rants rather well.

And one might argue that Hillary is still living rent-free in his head too.

As I said earlier, the media seems to have gone the way of many Americans...weary of COVID-19, and weary of the BS in Congress at not getting anything done. Burning buildings, shootings, right-wingers vs. left-wingers, all the crap that grabs ratings (not that it shouldn't get press, but press to the exclusion of a lot of other things). And right now it seems to me that Fearless Leader is dictating the pace, and the circumstances. That needs to change......
I think the media has learned absolutely nothing from the past four years. If they haven't learned by now they aren't going to magically change in the next two months.

Edit: on the topic of effective ads, I think this new Biden ad (https://twitter.com/AndrewSolender/status/1301304880959754240?s=20) really does a good job.

Edit #2: interesting data out of the most recent Fox News poll (https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1301279928579751937) (in a day that is already packed with new polls (https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1301279445228154880))- it seems like Trump's approval post-Kenosha on handling policing and criminal justice is down 5 points in Wisconsin. So perhaps racial unrest doesnt automatically mean its better for Trump.

Montmorency

09-03-2020, 04:02

Aphorism for the day: "It's easier to be the conservative in a liberal church than a liberal in a conservative church."

"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true."

And Fearless Leader will continue to bang his drum of "Law & Order" and more and more stupid people will believe him because they see the scenes of burned-out businesses promoted by news media to garner ratings, or they are afraid that he might be right about those "Marxist, Left-Wing Radicals" disguised as Democrats. Look, I know many folks see through Trump's BS, but I'm talking about taking the offensive and use a variation of Reagan's 1980 catch phrase by asking Americans: Are you safer today than you were 4 years ago? 184,686 Americans can't even answer the question because they're dead. I'd venture that the over 16 million unemployed would probably say they aren't. Three months of this pandemic cost more people their jobs than two years of the Great Recession. Ask the over 12 million who have lost their job-related health insurance if they feel safer today than 4 years ago.

All I'm hoping to see is to attack Fearless Leader where he believes he's strong---Law & Order. Don't let the Law & Order battleground be simply daily pictures of riots and looting, which is the drum Trump will constantly beat. Tie his worse than abysmal pandemic response, the accompanying economic catastrophe, the fact that he is actively stoking racial tensions by calling on right-wing radicals to 'defend their cities', (and as I pointed out in an earlier post [https://www.vox.com/2020/6/16/21286669/donald-trump-is-defunding-the-police] it's actually Trump who is defunding the police) and start asking the American public---Do you feel safer today than four years ago?

Voters, it's been shown time and again, don't base their behavior on concrete policy; they care about values and feelings. In the abstract it's helpful for Biden to convey the impression that he can be trusted to competently administer on X issue (besides the decency/empathy schtick).

On the bold count we're aligned insofar as I think it's costless for Biden to explicitly say "Our approach will reduce unrest now and in the future by building trust and healing wounds; Trump's only increases it. Trump isn't for law and order, he's pro-brutality and pro-riot and pro-greedy old men stealing everything they can in the bust out while he waves at the messes he made to distract you." Or insert whatever you please. I just don't think it has an additive electoral value. Trump's net support basically hasn't budged since the tax reform was signed into law. The set of persuadables has been absorbed by the set of the persuaded. This can be hard to swallow - and, no offense, harder for people of your generation - because it goes against everything mainstream political culture and theory and media presentation has inculcated into the popular consciousness throughout living memory; indeed, past elections really just were more fluid.

and start asking the American public---Do you feel safer today than four years ago?

Biden seems to be hammering just this point a lot.

https://twitter.com/joebiden/status/1299164296329523200
https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1300498329852280832 [VIDEO]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPhMz4dEytE
https://time.com/5885180/biden-speech-pittsburgh

See, here's the thing. I think you overestimate the persuadability of voters, any voters. Persuadable voters have long been persuaded by now, and the cohort that remains - maybe as little as 1% of people who vote - are habitual late deciders because they have no coherent ideology or grasp of issues; their vote, if at all, is decided by essentially random stimuli at the last minute. There's no systematic or reliable means of communicating to those people. So sure, we can watch the polling, but what really matters is if the underlying factors are changing. If the underlying factors are changing they'll drive changes in polling anyway (i.e. a supervenient relation). But this post basically captures my thinking on the issue so well that I have to reprint it in whole (https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/09/fair-rigged-and-fake-elections-or-why-donald-trump-is-even-money-to-get-re-elected).

Smart money, dumb money, and dead money all say, nine weeks before Election Day, that the presidential race is pretty much a coin flip:

President Donald Trump continued to gain ground on Joe Biden over the weekend in betting odds on the U.S. presidential election, which now appears to be a toss-up.

Democratic nominee Biden dipped from a -130 favorite over Trump to -118 on Thursday following the Republican National Convention. But the election is now a pick’em at offshore sportsbook Pinnacle (-108/-108) and at William Hill sportsbook in the United Kingdom.

“It’s a coin flip,” William Hill U.S. sportsbook director Nick Bogdanovich said.

How is this possible? After all, the polls have for many months and with great consistency shown Biden with a big lead at both the national level and in terms of the situation in the swing states that will determine the actual outcome.

My friend JJ is a very successful gambler, and he has a theory:

My gambling site has Trump as a slight favorite, with Biden as an even money bet. You’re so sure of the polls? Get rich!

Or do you hate money?

*Nobody* doubts the polls. In any remotely kind of fair democratic election, Biden walks.

It’s not going to be that.

We’re not “on the path to fascism” – we’re there. The election is going to be a joke on order of a banana republic. It should be monitored by the UN, for as exactly little as that always achieves.

The polls literally mean nothing to me. This isn’t going to be like the election of 1980, or aught-four, or that other time we had something like democracy. We elected a fascist, and now our country is fascist.

Their side hasn’t even *begun* to pull out all the stops – it’s all going to happen in the last few weeks, when it’s too late to appeal to the referees (which, right now, is THEM!!!) Our side will win all kinds of court cases in 2021 that set future precedents, they’ll have won the presidency.

The people betting on Trump aren’t stupid – the polls are baked into the line. And he’s still a fucking favorite.

This, I think, is the best explanation for why the betting markets are predicting at a minimum a far closer contest than what the polls currently reflect. This election is going to be rigged by the ruling party, because the ruling party has zero commitment, as in none, to holding anything even vaguely resembling a fair election. Fascists don’t do fair elections, any more than communists do. They don’t believe in them. Indeed, democracy is affirmatively bad, because unless it’s a herrenvolk democracy the wrong people — people who this country doesn’t belong to — often win. And that’s wrong.

That’s why Obama was an illegitimate president. That’s why the birther stuff — the key element in Donald Trump’s rise to political prominence — was always the most sincere reflection of the actual beliefs of Republican voters. Birtherism was always more of a metaphor than a literal belief: it didn’t matter where Obama was actually born, because he and what he represents aren’t really American.

And why should people who aren’t really American rule America? The answer is they shouldn’t, and that cheating to stop them from winning elections isn’t even cheating: it’s actually protecting America from the ultimate form of cheating, which is how the Left is even now stealing America from Americans, via the unfair bias of the media, the education system, the woke corporations (the NFL is going to put social justice messages in the end zones!), and via the biggest and most systematic fraud of all, which is the constant importation of yet more non-white people to pollute our blood, while the queers keep doing God knows what to the soil.

When I say the election is going to be rigged, I’m referring to a spectrum, that runs from an actually free and fair election on one end, to a fake election on the other. In a fake election, the outcome is preordained, and the election process is pure kayfabe. We’re not there yet. What we have is a rigged election, in which the process is heavily weighted by illegitimate factors in favor of one party, but not in a fashion that literally guarantees that party victory.

Some of those factors, such as the Electoral College, are even legal.

But make no mistake: if we were having a free and fair election over the next nine weeks, Donald Trump would have as much chance of getting re-elected as I have of winning the gold medal in the next Olympic 100 meters. This is not hyperbole: Donald Trump has never been supported at any point during his presidency by a majority of American voters. He’s the only president in US history — or at least in the 70+ years since the advent of modern polling — that anything even remotely like that could be said about. And now the course of events, mostly notably a plague and the economic crisis it has caused, should make it completely impossible for him to win this election.

But from crippling the USPS to blocking election reform to functionally overturning the Voting Rights Act to welcoming election interference from foreign sources, the Republicans are not going to allow anything even vaguely resembling a fair election to take place. They are now cheating and will continue to cheat at every turn, because again, they don’t see it as cheating: they see it as saving their country from the invaders who are stealing America from Americans. It’s the castle doctrine as applied to the whole culture, basically.

That doesn’t mean it will work. Again, a rigged election is not a fake election. But make no mistake: the refs are being worked and bought every day. We’re going to have outscore the other team by three touchdowns just to win by a last-second field goal. And if we don’t, the next election will be fake.

See also (https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1301190941110341632):

Chance of a Biden Electoral college win if he wins the popular vote by X points:

0-1 points: just 6%!
1-2 points: 22%
2-3 points: 46%
3-4 points: 74%
4-5 points: 89%
5-6 points: 98%
6-7 points: 99%

Montmorency

09-03-2020, 04:06

I got their meaning behind it, its just absurd to me. I just find it weird that he is arguing that he can fix all this, but for some reason isnt fixing it now. Or does he just not think his voters will care? Im guessing thats the case.

From an article two years ago:

More on why the presidential race is static in terms of sentiment. What you have to understand is that when Trumpists say Trump is doing a good job, aside from any lies or delusions what is meant is that Trump is leading an uprising against threats to White Power (the more perverse of the alt-right have called it a Warsaw Ghetto uprising.)

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/09/many-gop-voters-value-whiteness-more-than-democracy-study.html

One explanation for Republican indifference to such deeds is that Republicans aren’t aware of them: Fox News’s programming and Facebook’s algorithm have simply kept red America blissfully ignorant of the commander-in-chief’s most tyrannical moods. (If a president executes a political prisoner in the middle of Fifth Avenue and no right-wing pundit is inclined to report it, does his shot make a sound?)

But a new paper from Vanderbilt University political scientist Larry Bartels suggests an alternative hypothesis: Many Republican voters value “keeping America great” more than they value democracy — and, by “keeping America great,” such voters typically mean “keeping America’s power structure white.”

In a January 2020 survey fielded by YouGov, a slim majority of GOP voters agreed with the statement “The traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it.” Nearly three-fourths agreed with “It is hard to trust the results of elections when so many people will vote for anyone who offers a handout.” More than 40 percent agreed that “a time will come when patriotic Americans have to take the law into their own hands.” More than 47 percent concurred with the premise that “strong leaders sometimes have to bend the rules in order to get things done.” And on all of these questions, most of those who did not agree were merely unsure.

The reality is, as I've sometimes pointed out over the years, that right-wing Americans have about as much regard for democracy as the most radical Salafist extremists have.

Bartels’s study therefore aimed to discern the nature of popular indifference to liberal democracy on the American right. Which is to say: What ideological or cultural forces lead Republican voters to subordinate democracy to their desired political outcomes?

The study entertains a range of possibilities. By examining the answers that YouGov’s respondents gave to other survey questions, Bartels explored the degree of correlation between six voter dispositions and anti-democratic sentiment: partisan affect (i.e., a voter’s level of avowed love for Republicans and hostility for Democrats), enthusiasm for President Trump, cynicism about actually existing democracy, ideological commitment to economic conservatism, ideological commitment to cultural conservatism, and white “ethnic antagonism.” That last category refers to a voter’s level of concern about the political and cultural power of nonwhites in the United States. For example, if respondents agreed that “things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country,” that “discrimination against whites is as big a problem today as discrimination against blacks and other minorities,” and that speaking English is “essential for being a true American,” they would post a high score on the ethnic-antagonism scale.

Of course, many of these dispositions are heavily correlated. To gauge the independent influence of each factor, Bartels controlled for five of the dispositions (freezing them at the average value among Republican voters) and then looked at how closely a high score on the remaining one correlated with anti-democratic sentiment. Applying this method to all six variables, he found that ethnic antagonism is a better predictor of a Republican’s indifference to democratic niceties than anything else.

Notably, what Bartels calls “cultural conservatism” (essentially, attitudes on all “culture war” issues except those concerning race, such as “patriotism, traditional morality … and disdain for big cities, rich people, journalists, and college professors”) is actually negatively correlated with anti-democratic attitudes. In other words: A GOP voter who espouses average levels of ethnic antagonism, partisan affect, and support for Trump — but exceptionally high levels of cultural conservatism — is less likely to agree that defending America’s traditional way of life justifies the use of force than the average Republican is. This suggests that popular support for authoritarianism within the GOP is not animated primarily by concerns with conservative Christianity’s declining influence over public life but rather with that of the white race.

This result has been discovered in I-don't-know-how-many studies over the past few years. The definitive struggle with American Darkness is that over malignant Whiteness. Without Whiteness, no army of evangelical hucksters or grasping plutocrats can maintain dominion, and they know it. I don't say this in allusion to the old trope that racism is a trick used by the elites to deceive the common folk, because the "elites" feel the same way to their bones. (The failure, then, of populism is that its inherent dichotomies between Elites and The People have always been incomplete and self-soothing.)

Point taken. I wasn't attempting to go down the rabbit hole of "remember what happened in 2016" as 2020 is definitely not. But when was the last time the Dems said or did something to get in Trump's head? The Lincoln Project certainly did, but dealing with them is likely a deal with the devil.

Pelosi has gained a reputation for trolling Trump in their dealings since 2017, latest example being her dismissiveness of Trump's stature vis-a-vis debates. As to how distemperate that makes Trump or what it achieves, it's probably impossible to say.

He was demonstrably angered and shaken by all the inquiries into his finances and dealings with Russia, to the point that much of his rhetoric has been geared around them. Also, many of the crimes he's committed in office. In these - especially in 2019 - there may have been too much of a reliance on the maxim of 'allowing the enemy to make mistakes,' in the absence of clear alternatives within our power. It's more that we can hold a minimal measure of relief in Trump's bungling and incompetence - it's not actually good or helpful that he feels he has and does have impunity to do whatever he whims.

As I said earlier, the media seems to have gone the way of many Americans...weary of COVID-19, and weary of the BS in Congress at not getting anything done. Burning buildings, shootings, right-wingers vs. left-wingers, all the crap that grabs ratings (not that it shouldn't get press, but press to the exclusion of a lot of other things). And right now it seems to me that Fearless Leader is dictating the pace, and the circumstances. That needs to change......

It's a nice thing to have, I just don't think there's a way to configure it toward extracting material advantage. One of the things one comes to realize over time paying attention to politics is that, as a truism, media coverage of a candidate's platform, attitudes, actions, and the like is wholly determined by how media entities choose to portray them. A political actor has very little control over that. Trump doesn't get anywhere without the media giving him a leg up.

Regarding my stance wishing the Democrats would get militant and speak of the fascist threat in the tenor Republicans use for black women suggesting children eat vegetables, all I can say with confidence about its media representation to the public is that it would certainly take command of the discourse in the way you'd like. The quality of the effects themselves is more debatable.

weary of the BS in Congress at not getting anything done.

Speaking of media narratives, to the extent this isn't being reported as "Republicans refuse to negotiate" or "Republicans have made the affirmative decision not to legislate pandemic/economic relief" it is a disservice done by the media.

Hooahguy

09-03-2020, 04:27

The reality is, as I've sometimes pointed out over the years, that right-wing Americans have about as much regard for democracy as the most radical Salafist extremists have.
I think David Frum of all people put it (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/frum-trumpocracy/550685/) best:

If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.
Sadly we are seeing this coming true now right before our eyes.

Regarding my stance wishing the Democrats would get militant and speak of the fascist threat in the tenor Republicans use for black women suggesting children eat vegetables, all I can say with confidence about its media representation to the public is that it would certainly take command of the discourse in the way you'd like. The quality of the effects themselves is more debatable.

Speaking of media narratives, to the extent this isn't being reported as "Republicans refuse to negotiate" or "Republicans have made the affirmative decision not to legislate pandemic/economic relief" it is a disservice done by the media.
The problem seems to me that when Dems do refer to the GOP as being fascist (or similar terms), people accuse them of being apoplectic. But then when the GOP does something out of the control of the Dems, the pundits start yelling at the Dems "to do something." Example A of this is when the eviction moratorium ran out recently, and my god were all the pundits screaming "DO SOMETHING" at the Dems, seemingly unaware that the Dems in the House passed a longer term eviction moratorium a couple months ago and that it was sitting on McConnell's desk. I mean I guess the House could hold more hearings about it but unfortunately that doesn't do much to solve the issue.

I don't know the root cause of the problem, but I will say that if I was in the media right now I'd be very embarrassed for the profession.

Or maybe they just don't know how the legislative process works? :shrug:

Also quick bit about the betting market thing, is there any data to show that its accurate in any way, or is it just random people placing bets depending on how they feel that day?

In about 30 mins it will be exactly 2 months until election day. Trump trails Biden by an average of 7.4 points. In the battleground states he trails Biden by at least an average of 4.2 points (Florida), with most of the other battleground states Biden is leading by a number of points more. The last 3 incumbent presidents who trailed after the conventions were defeated, but this isn't a normal election so its anybody's game.

Montmorency

09-03-2020, 04:42

I think David Frum of all people put it (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/frum-trumpocracy/550685/) best:

Sadly we are seeing this coming true now right before our eyes.

The problem seems to me that when Dems do refer to the GOP as being fascist (or similar terms), people accuse them of being apoplectic. But then when the GOP does something out of the control of the Dems, the pundits start yelling at the Dems "to do something." Example A of this is when the eviction moratorium ran out recently, and my god were all the pundits screaming "DO SOMETHING" at the Dems, seemingly unaware that the Dems in the House passed a longer term eviction moratorium a couple months ago and that it was sitting on McConnell's desk. I mean I guess the House could hold more hearings about it but unfortunately that doesn't do much to solve the issue.

I'm not aware of a Democratic elected who has called Republicans a fascist threat to the existence of the country. I'd be surprised if there's even a state Assemblyperson who's come close, and if one did they'd be lucky not to be expelled/forced to resign, to say nothing of being denounced by their caucus. There is a clear and massive disparity between parties.

The leadership needs to be top-down to start because only then can the discourse broaden through the ranks. Elite signalling. To illustrate what I have in mind:

Alternative Obama DNC 2020 Address

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpDYuc3XwKQ

Hooahguy

09-03-2020, 04:50

ReluctantSamurai

09-03-2020, 05:13

Persuadable voters have long been persuaded by now, and the cohort that remains - maybe as little as 1% of people who vote - are habitual late deciders because they have no coherent ideology or grasp of issues; their vote, if at all, is decided by essentially random stimuli at the last minute.

Even if 1% is accurate (far too low an estimate, IMHO), that means, using voter turnout numbers in 2016, that about 1.4 million voters are 'late deciders'. Even not considering how those who didn't vote at all impacted the 2016 election, a look at the 10 closest races from 2016:

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-2016/articles/2016-11-14/the-10-closest-states-in-the-2016-election

Adding up the margin of difference for the entire list of ten, the number comes to 585,319. So in 2016, your 'late deciders' could have carried 10 states and then some.

I think it's a safe bet to say that SCOTUS will be deciding the outcome of the presidential election in 2020:shrug:

all I can say with confidence about its media representation to the public is that it would certainly take command of the discourse in the way you'd like. The quality of the effects themselves is more debatable.

Not suggesting that Dems go all King Leonidas (though the imagery of Kamala Harris giving the nod, and Biden kicking Trump into the Abyss is enticing:laugh4:). As an example, NOW Biden is going to Kenosha, AFTER Trump has already been there. Now it's still possible Biden/Harris gain some gravitas if they meet personally (and sincerely) with the Blake family, and just as importantly, with leaders of the protests. But they should have already been there.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-03-2020, 05:23

I think the lack of any "bounces" post convention is indicative of most folks having decided. The chronic late deciders don't bother paying attention at all until after Labor Day, and usually not until mid-October.

Hooahguy

09-03-2020, 05:24

I think it's a safe bet to say that SCOTUS will be deciding the outcome of the presidential election in 2020:shrug:
At least when it comes to states counting mail-in ballots, yeah. Its a sobering thought that our democracy might end up in the hands of John Roberts, who will probably be the swing vote. Unless Gorsush pulls another upset which he might end up doing, who knows. But what I am fairly sure of is that there is a low chance we will know who won on election night.

Montmorency

09-03-2020, 05:39

Well I was referring in general to Dems as a whole, not necessarily just elected officials. But then again, we aren't sure of what is being said behind closed doors (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/obama-called-trump-fascist-during-phone-call-sen-kaine-says-n1122316):

The point is that Obama-types refuse to say this out loud. Interestingly, Hillary Clinton has been more aggressive since her retirement, but in an inconsistent way and from the sidelines. If it were possible for Obama to say "We are occupied by an illegitimate usurpation of popular sovereignty. Arise now to throw off the fascist yoke or we face one-hundred years of darkness. From this day on all patriotic Americans must commit themselves to all peaceful means of resistance against the mortal threat" - that could change a lot of patterns of thinking.

I don't believe Obama is capable of such rhetoric, and it probably is too extreme for the electorate in practical terms, and as I said it may even be too late to pivot from the normal party line. But I wish the consensus were somewhere in that vicinity. I value directness personally. The CNN headlines about such a statement might be 'Former President Obama sees "mortal threat" in "fascist" Trump,' or it might be 'Obama agitates for partisan rage in caustic rant against Republicans.' Obviously all the chinstroking MSM centrist pundits would condemn such rhetoric out of hand. The Republicans might take it as license to even more openly pursue single-party rule. But it sure feels appropriate to the situation.

Even if 1% is accurate (far too low an estimate, IMHO),

I'm talking about the subset of people who: actually vote; are actually swing voters; who remain undecided up to Election Day or shortly before. That's a very small population and studying them - as well as more qualitative political fieldwork - indicates that they're very idiosyncratic and have few similarities to each other as a group. Putting all that together, you have a small, inconsistent group of people whom you can't reliably influence - so why base a strategy around them? Here's some relevant articles.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-a-myth/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/just-how-many-swing-voters-are-there/

that means, using voter turnout numbers in 2016, that about 1.4 million voters are 'late deciders'. Even not considering how those who didn't vote at all impacted the 2016 election, a look at the 10 closest races from 2016:

Turnout is important! But it's generally seen as a separate issue from capturing "swing" voters.

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-2016/articles/2016-11-14/the-10-closest-states-in-the-2016-election

Adding up the margin of difference for the entire list of ten, the number comes to 585,319. So in 2016, your 'late deciders' could have carried 10 states and then some.

Since votes are by state and not distributed around the country, assuming every state had a similar proportion of late deciders, they might only have had an effect in the tipping point midwestern states, if also assuming that they overwhelmingly broke for Republicans over Dems/3P.

I think it's a safe bet to say that SCOTUS will be deciding the outcome of the presidential election in 2020:shrug:

Well, it is likely they will have some role to play, but I wouldn't use that wording, "decide." If Biden wins because of the Supreme Court, it will be according to its non-interference basically.

Notwithstanding my prior analyses, if the Supreme Court really overturns the electoral process in favor of Trump, and Biden and the Dems decide to gut it out and refuse to concede, there are five ways this can go down in order of decreasing preference.

1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution)
2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Benito_Mussolini)
3: Actually we just give up and slink away as Trump deploys the standard move of despots and waits for the opposition to exhaust its outrage.
4 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Muammar_Gaddafi)
5 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution)

ReluctantSamurai

09-03-2020, 06:05

Putting all that together, you have a small, inconsistent group of people whom you can't reliably influence - so why base a strategy around them?

Since votes are by state and not distributed around the country, assuming every state had a similar proportion of late deciders, they might only have had an effect in the tipping point midwestern states

Methinks you understate these "undecided". Am I overstating their importance? Perhaps. However, when one looks at many potential maps of election results, those Rust Belt states may very well decide the election, as they did in 2016. Basing a strategy around these undecided? Of course not, but ignoring them or considering them insignificant, is done at peril, IMHO.

Interesting that this has gone completely under media radar:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/antifa-hunter-daniel-mcmahon-florida-prison-racist-threats/

Such "fine people".

:no:

ReluctantSamurai

09-04-2020, 02:36

Interesting read:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/03/2020-election-lawsuits-trump-voting-coronavirus-408631

“Remember, this is a president who claimed that there was a massive fraud in an election he won,” says Levitt. “We have had peaceful transitions of power because We, the People, have believed that it is possible that more people who disagree with us actually cast ballots—that the possibility exists that we might be in a minority. And if that is not even a conceptual possibility, that’s a real danger to democracy and to the election process. If you cannot conceive that you might be in the minority, there’s no possibility of achieving change through voting nor of achieving legitimacy through voting.”

With respect to voting in the general election, there’s another “it depends”: It depends whether the case is consequential based on what it is arguing in theory, or whether it’s likely to work in practice. There are some cases asking for a fairly mammoth reconfiguration of local election practices, both to restrict access and to improve access—different cases in different places. Each is unlikely to succeed. Courts don’t like micromanaging all the aspects of an election. There are discrete elements that courts will address, but they don’t like putting themselves in charge of an election administration. And getting this close to an election, we’re just running out of time to make very big changes to the process. Those cases would be enormously consequential if they yielded an outcome, but it’s extremely unlikely they’re going to.

Honestly, there aren’t many ways that the courts have accepted to clamp down on present procedures. The main claim for clamping down on present procedures, is “these procedures cause fraud”—lots of screaming, all caps. Whatever the efficacy of that position in the court of public opinion, the courts that are actually courts demand evidence. So I don’t know that there’s much utility in using the courts to restrict voting if we’re starting from the status quo.

The rhetoric the president has used implies that if he doesn’t win, it’s been stolen by “fill in the blank.” That is profoundly dangerous. And I don’t want to minimize the danger of that at all. We have had peaceful transitions of power because We, the People, have believed that it is possible that more people who disagree with us actually cast ballots—that the possibility exists that we might be in a minority. And if that is not even a conceptual possibility, that’s a real danger to democracy and to the election process. If you cannot conceive that you might be in the minority, there’s no possibility of achieving change through voting nor of achieving legitimacy through voting. So that is scary.

Montmorency

09-04-2020, 03:51

Hilarious article about Trump and the military.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/trump-americans-who-died-at-war-are-losers-and-suckers/615997/

Interesting read:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/03/2020-election-lawsuits-trump-voting-coronavirus-408631

Kind of throws me that Levitt repeats a paragraph almost verbatim at the end, but anyway.

Seems Trump has been saying this lately.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-vote/trump-encourages-supporters-to-try-to-vote-twice-sparking-uproar-idUSKBN25U0KK

He said it in 2016 as well.
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article111519972.html

Someone who followed his directive last time.
https://twitter.com/TheGoodLiars/status/1301678831749730307

Every accusation is a confession etc. (But for the record studies have long found that virtually all identified voter fraud is Republicans, and we know all about the electoral fraud...)

I forgot to say, but I should have mentioned that there really was a space in 2016 for marginal people to change their decision to vote, or for whom to vote, in the immediate runup to the election. You know what I'm talking about (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/), right? Such black swan events one really has no hope of guarding against or countering. If Republicans or Russians aren't completely numb in the lower half they'll have some October Surprise to spring. Another item to keep in the back of our heads next month.

ReluctantSamurai

09-05-2020, 00:18

Portent of things to come?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/trump-biden-transition-could-be-volatile/616054/

Should the election drag on or should their candidate lose, Trump’s most aggressive supporters might consider it a patriotic act to publicly contest what they see as a fraudulent election.[...] After holding exercises to game out a potential post-election crisis, one conclusion the group reached was that “President Trump and his more fervent supporters have every incentive to try to turn peaceful pro-Biden (or anti-Trump) protests violent in order to generate evidence that a Democratic victory is tantamount to ‘mob rule,’” as was described in a recent report.

In interviews at the rally here yesterday afternoon, Trump supporters told me a Biden victory is so implausible that it could come about only through corrupt means. Latrobe sits in a county where Trump defeated Hillary Clinton four years ago by a 2–1 margin, and no one I spoke with thought Trump was in any real danger of losing this race either.

Walker spoke of a potential “revolution” were that to happen. “He ain’t got a prayer,” Walker said of Biden. “He can only win with fraud.

“That’s the only prayer, and that will cause the third and final revolution in this country,” he added, citing the Revolutionary War and the Civil War.

Before I entered the airplane hangar where the rally was held, I spoke with John and Michele Urban, a couple from Latrobe, as they waited in line to get inside. “Either way, there’s going to be turmoil,” Michele Urban said. “A revolution. I’d never thought I’d live to see it. I’m 66 years old.” Her husband, 68, told me: “Democrats have sealed their own fate. They’ve proven they’re not true Americans. They’re not for this country, and they’re not for our freedom. We’re just not going to take it any more. Trump is a godsend.”

This is going to get real ugly:shame:

Hooahguy

09-05-2020, 00:57

I wonder how much of that is talk (much like the "Im going to move to X country if Y wins the election" sayings) and how much is an actual commitment. Hard to tell I think until November comes. Things could get ugly, or it could fizzle out before anything serious happens. I do think that there will be some random Qanon-linked incidents here and there, but I'd be surprised if it turned into a major thing.

ReluctantSamurai

09-05-2020, 01:37

I'd be surprised if it turned into a major thing.

I hope you are right. But the record sales of guns in the US this year, the millions of Americas out of work, or tossed out of their homes, a President giving tacit approval to right-wing extremists, it doesn't bode well:shrug:

Hooahguy

09-05-2020, 03:43

Well I said I'd be surprised if it turned into a major thing. I think there is a 99% chance of deadly violence regardless of outcome, the question remains on what scale.

Montmorency

09-05-2020, 04:01

Portent of things to come?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/trump-biden-transition-could-be-volatile/616054/

This is going to get real ugly:shame:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-X48fnUH8g

Maybe this (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/09/2020-polls-biden-trump-odds-better-than-ever.html) soothes some of the jitters in your gut.

As for mass violence, it is dispositive that Trump does not have the military (and probably has never even understood his position vis-a-vis the military). There is little calculation to his convulsions, but a lot of inconvenient commitment forced on his minions and copartisans. Now, we know by this that Republicans are in too deep to repudiate their war on us, but that doesn't help Trump himself; watch just how quickly Fox News and the like pivot from extolling Trump himself to doubling down on the communistic nefariousness of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris (to the extent I am familiar with Fox's coverage there may have been subtle probes in this direction already).

ReluctantSamurai

09-05-2020, 05:20

Maybe this soothes some of the jitters in your gut.

A rather conspicuous omission from that discussion is voter tampering and repression by the White House. The "Red Mirage" seems more and more plausible. And you can bet Fearless Leader will claim victory and have his lap-dog Barr ready to go with cease-and-desist injunctions against states in the process of counting mail-in votes, as soon as he is ahead by one vote at the stroke of midnight.

Still my opinion that SCOTUS determines the winner, not by politics, but by either allowing the states to finalize their mail-in counts, or terminating them prematurely:shrug:

Hooahguy

09-05-2020, 17:53

Its why Ive been trying to encourage people to vote early in-person.

Edit: something on the lighter side-
23931

ReluctantSamurai

09-06-2020, 15:51

Although I agree with a lot of what progressives are trying to accomplish, I just don't get this:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/06/bernie-or-bust-left-democrats-biden-trump

“I don’t want to vote for Joe Biden and I don’t want to vote for Trump,” said Jason Kishineff, who is running for city council in American Canyon, California. “I think either choice is going to lead to human extinction.”

Kishineff is part of a progressive, far-left group of voters who say they will not vote for Biden, even if it means a Trump victory, largely because of the candidate’s failure to adopt a progressive agenda on healthcare, mass incarceration, the environment and policing.

So, let me get this straight, you can't get your party candidate to give you everything you want, you would rather see someone who is actively trying to dismantle healthcare in this country, would like nothing better than to see immigrants all deported or jailed, who is rescinding one environmental policy after another, who thinks climate change is a hoax, and seems determined to militarize law enforcement as much as possible, get elected because you're having a temper tantrum over policy?

While Cruse is staunchly against Trump and the Republican party, he said Biden represents many of the same ideals as the current president when it comes to corporate politics.

There aren't many politicians these days who don't. Biden is probably no exception. No candidate has a pristine record. It's a function of how screwed up the election process is in this country. The amount of money required to run an election is staggering, and it's difficult not to accept donations from people who you might become beholden to later on.

Angelica Whipple agreed that avoiding a Trump re-election was not enough reason to vote for Biden.

Whipple had voted for Barack Obama in previous elections but said that her political views changed in 2016, when Sanders ran for president. The Medicare for All platform, and legalization of marijuana, became non-negotiable to her. Biden has not committed to either of those policies, though he supports a public option health plan.

“He’s very steadfast in not doing anything for progressives,” Whipple said. “I don’t see how he’s that much better than Trump. At least with Trump we see it out front.”

Can someone explain to me how that last statement makes any sense? Fearless Leader is "out front" with how he's going to fuck you, and that makes it ok.:rolleyes:

“He’s been doing all of these horrendously centrist things and surrendering to the Republican narrative of protesters being rioters,” said Matt Myers, a software engineer in Seattle. “Making the false equivalence … it’s just not acceptable. He’s basically kicking the left in the teeth.”

But it's somehow ok to give tacit support (by not voting his ass out of office) to a man who thinks that protesters should all be put in jail, and is actively encouraging the far-right radicals in this country to show up to protests and shoot people exercising their First Amendment rights?

Even so, several of the progressive voters said they would consider voting for Biden if he were to adopt some of their key platforms, such as Medicare for All, which has widespread support among Democrats. So far, they said, that hasn’t come to fruition. “If Biden is willing to support [those policies] I will sacrifice my own integrity and vote for him,” Kishineff said.

Your integrity? What about the integrity of our democracy, which this president is actively trying to dismantle? Or how about the integrity of the voting process central to that democracy?

Cruse also said he would vote for Biden if he were to adopt Medicare for All and legalization of marijuana. But, he said, that would still be a “huge compromise”. And Jessica, a voter in Texas that the Guardian spoke to earlier this year said she still plans to vote for the Green party.

Myers is hoping Biden will also reform student debt, which left him bankrupt after he went to college for the first time. While he is already planning to vote for Biden, he continues to be a vocal critic to help try to push the platform left, which he said is not only ideological but a better strategy for Democrats.

Ahhh...give me my lollypop, and we'll be good little boys and girls.:no:

But for some of the #BernieorBust crowd, voting for a third-party candidate or withholding their vote is not only about Trump and Biden. It’s about trying to diminish the country’s two-party system, in which Democrats and Republicans both have compromised on what they care about the most.

Until then, and perhaps in spite of that, this group of voters have no plans to lend their support to what they see as an establishment candidate. Kishineff said he will vote for Gloria La Riva, from the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Cruse plans to vote Green party, he said, to send a message to the Democrats. Whipple plans to write in Bernie Sanders.

Now the central idea to this I can agree with. The two-party system is broken, perhaps beyond repair. But first you have to rid this country from a wannabee tyrant who might just make that point moot.

Pannonian

09-06-2020, 17:00

Far left is far left, in the US as in the UK.

Hooahguy

09-06-2020, 18:31

Although I agree with a lot of what progressives are trying to accomplish, I just don't get this:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/06/bernie-or-bust-left-democrats-biden-trump

The leftist youtuber Vaush had a really great retort to all the Bernie or bust leftists who wont vote for Biden. I don't agree with him on much but I appreciate his realistic take on things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHcFtUdcPhE

Probably one of the best quotes from it is "I won't be the wokest person in the mass grave."

But anyways until leftists learn how to actually work within the political system I dont think they will ever hold meaningful political power. Some, like AOC, understand this. Others clearly do not.

ReluctantSamurai

09-06-2020, 20:06

My biggest takeaway was that if large portions of the left either don't vote, or cast a meaningless vote for some third party noname, and Trump wins, guess where the DNC turns to in 2024? Yep...disenfranchised Republicans. And yes, the current political system sucks, but for now it's all you have to work with. Something else the far left isn't considering is the impact that even more Trump appointees to courts will have on the direction this country takes. He's already appointed judges to 194 federal positions, with 54 of those Appeals Court Justices---the most of any president in 40 years:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/15/how-trump-compares-with-other-recent-presidents-in-appointing-federal-judges/

The impact of his choices will be felt for many years, and given another 4 years, his impact on the judiciary process will be felt for a generation. So go ahead and whine lefties, and watch your work to change this country get exponentially harder.

A political party never gets everything it wants, unless of course, you have a dictatorship. That's why the word Compromise exists.

Montmorency

09-06-2020, 23:14

Latest Trumpist line of reasoning I peeped: If Biden is elected he will enable his children to engage in corruption of public trust, one piece of evidence being that Biden lied about one of his children dying not too long ago. Fake news! He probably had plastic surgery and was put on the take somewhere.

More evidence (https://twitter.com/ryanburge/status/1296587917230514176) for the overwhelming case that (white) evangelicals are moral monsters whose religion is neoconfederatism and who revel in cruelty unto others.

There's a refrain that everyone tells me about white evangelicals. They vote for Republicans, in large part, due to abortion policy.

But, here's the thing. I honestly don't think that it's true. Or at least it wasn't in the case of Donald Trump.

Let me illustrate why (1/4)

This is Trump's approval among white evangelical Republicans by their views on abortion policy.

Note that even white evangelicals who take pro-choice positions still give Trump broad approval. In most cases the difference in approval is less than 10 pct pts.

But, if policy shifts to immigration, there are larger gaps in approval. 20+ pts. in several cases.

It looks like among white evangelical Republicans, those who are pro-choice are much more willing to give Trump a pass than those who disagree with him on immigration.

Said another way, pro-choice white evangelicals didn't hold their nose and vote for Trump in 2016. They were happy with their choice in 2018.

The real defection is among evangelicals who don't take hard line stances on immigration, that seems to be the litmus test now.

https://i.imgur.com/DDW6ik7.png
https://i.imgur.com/vy9onwz.png

Sanders: America must be prepared for when Trump refuses to leave office (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/sanders-trump-refuses-leave-office-409242?)

According to an embargoed copy of his coming email, Sanders is planning to state, “This is not just a ‘constitutional crisis.’ This is a threat to everything this country stands for.” Sanders is also going to lay out in his message to his supporters a series of steps that should be taken now to prepare for the election. He will say news organizations need to alert people that the election results may not be known on Nov. 3. Social media companies “must finally get their act together” to ensure that election officials are not harassed and disinformation is not spread on their platforms, he said.

Tell 'em boy

btw (http://upyernoz.blogspot.com/2020/08/did-trump-foresee-his-loss-of-support.html)

One puzzling thing about Trump's recent attacks on mail-in ballots is that, prior to Trump's attacks on mailed ballots, it wasn't at all clear that vote by mail favored Democrats over Republicans. Just last year (before Trump started his anti-mail voting tirades) the Republican controlled legislature in Pennsylvania passed universal mail-in voting with pretty bipartisan support. (If you don't believe that just last year this was widely supported by Republicans just last year, check out this page from the PA Republican House caucus touting the vote-by-mail law) If anything, vote-by-mail was viewed as possibly favoring Republicans just because the two groups that most heavily rely upon vote-by-mail were members of the military and senior citizens with mobility issues, two demographics that leaned Republican.

So when Trump decided that vote by mail was a Democratic plot earlier this year, I chalked it up to the fact that he is a demented fucking idiot. There was no devious strategy behind it. Trump, once again, is probably shooting himself in the foot. He definitely created a self-fulfilling prophecy. With Trump claiming that mailed ballots are a Democratic plot to steal the election, Republican requests for mail-in ballots are way down and Democratic requests are way up, which is different from every prior year. But still, even just starting an anti-mail ballot backlash was seemed so dumb. Why raise questions about the validity of the military's (largely mailed-in) vote? Maybe this is why (https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/08/31/as-trumps-popularity-slips-in-latest-military-times-poll-more-troops-say-theyll-vote-for-biden/).
https://i.imgur.com/89ZcF7v.jpg

lol

Prayerfully, in 10 weeks (https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/world/hitler-ranted-germans-deserve-to-perishquot-wartime-diaries/article20519564.ece)

Hitler ranted that the German people had not fought with enough heroism and they “deserved to perish”, according to the documents.
[...]
During a conference on April 22nd, 1945, Hitler gave a speech to his assembled generals and Heinrich Himmler, his minister of the interior. The report states: “Hitler came in at 8:30 a completely broken man. Only a few army officers were with him. Himmler urged Hitler to leave Berlin. Suddenly, Hitler began to make one of his characteristic speeches”.

“Everyone has lied to me, everyone has deceived me, no one has told me the truth. The armed forces have lied to me and now the SS has left me in the lurch. The German people have not fought heroically. It deserves to perish,” Hitler had said according to the report. “It is not I who have lost the war, but the German people,” he had said.

Still my opinion that SCOTUS determines the winner, not by politics, but by either allowing the states to finalize their mail-in counts, or terminating them prematurely:shrug:

I mean, as should be clear from all my posting - I agree!

But there are multiple layers to this business that we need to sort.

The "Red Mirage" seems more and more plausible.

Long live King Prospero in his White Palace.

There aren't many politicians these days who don't. Biden is probably no exception. No candidate has a pristine record. It's a function of how screwed up the election process is in this country. The amount of money required to run an election is staggering, and it's difficult not to accept donations from people who you might become beholden to later on.

AGAIK studies have found that Democratic large donors are economically and socially left of the median Democrat. To the extent this holds it would upend yet another progressive shibboleth about politics. And Biden and other Dems this cycle are pulling in record small donations. (Of course, this is all a separate matter from industrial or special interest lobbies.)

Can someone explain to me how that last statement makes any sense?

The Biden-Sanders unity committee has produced hundreds of policies and actions that (if implemented, granted) would clearly be Biden moving left. I mean look, a lot of this depends on how many Senate and House seats the Republicans can steal this cycle. But not taking yes for an answer is unseemly. The same holds true of other national Democrats as well, who haven't been this left on economics in 50 years. (The House is planning a vote on marijuana decriminalization and expunction of some legal derogations that marijuana-offense convicts have been subject to fwiw.)

Now the central idea to this I can agree with. The two-party system is broken, perhaps beyond repair. But first you have to rid this country from a wannabee tyrant who might just make that point moot.

The two parties match up with the vast majority of voters, though. We've always had a duopoly because both the electorate and structure of elections and governance condition it.

If you want more parties we'll need to replace the Constitution and adopt a parliamentary system (which is probably a good idea, but that's another conversation.) But in other countries you get governing coalitions between centrist and left-wing parties, so any governing majority with Biden will have AOC on the same side, and vice versa, in this country.

Far left is far left, in the US as in the UK.

For the record, most of the Communist organizations in the country - not that they are many or electorally-significant - are endorsing Biden. I see no indication in polls or otherwise that a significant subset of the left is breaking from the Popular Front this election. The whining of fringe holdouts shouldn't unnerve us as observers.

There have always been third-party wank candidates in America - less than in the UK I might add - and at its core it's a personality type, not an ideology. For example, for someone like this

Even so, several of the progressive voters said they would consider voting for Biden if he were to adopt some of their key platforms, such as Medicare for All, which has widespread support among Democrats. So far, they said, that hasn’t come to fruition. “If Biden is willing to support [those policies] I will sacrifice my own integrity and vote for him,” Kishineff said.

it's all about the symbolism and aesthetic rather than the pursuit of power.

Hooahguy

09-07-2020, 00:03

For the record, most of the Communist organizations in the country - not that they are many or electorally-significant - are endorsing Biden. I see no indication in polls or otherwise that a significant subset of the left is breaking from the Popular Front this election. The whining of fringe holdouts shouldn't unnerve us as observers.

There have always been third-party wank candidates in America - less than in the UK I might add - and at its core it's a personality type, not an ideology. For example, for someone like this

That is interesting, any links about this? I would be interested to learn more especially because the DSA explicitly said they would not endorse Biden. So if thats the case it seems pretty odd that the communists would endorse Biden, but the democratic socialists would not.

Now I dont think the threat of Bernie voter defections is as bad now as it was in 2016, when roughly (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/24/16194086/bernie-trump-voters-study) 20-25% of Bernie voters did not vote for Clinton. They primarily went to Trump and third-party, with a small percentage staying home. Yes, a higher percentage of Clinton voters defected to McCain in 2008, but I think the location of those defections matters a lot too, as the article points out. But after 4 years of Trump I think far more of the Bernie voters are going to stick with Biden this time around. I guess we will find out in a couple months (crazy, isnt it?).

The only thing that irks me is when prominent people on the left who should know better advocate for not voting for Biden. Unfortunately I think at least some of them are refusing to endorse because they can gain more clout online to further their careers.

Montmorency

09-09-2020, 04:30

It occurs to me, many thousands of Democrats may be (unnecessarily) rioting the day after Election Day, as a shocking number (https://www.axios.com/axios-ipsos-poll-election-results-f0f50a06-ece6-40ce-b08c-d488156429e9.html) of uninformed people still don't apprehend the shape of things to come. Then the reports of mail ballot counts will emerge. And then the murders begin. (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/and-then-the-murders-began)Expect Brooks Brothers boogaloos to resort to measures like physically occupying post offices and canvassing sites, to disrupt counts and impound or destroy caches of ballots.

Fox News doesn't bear thinking about, but I'm curious as to how the network news or major cable channels are educating their audiences about the issue, if at all.

Got a text from the city today: "NYC will lose billions for COVID-19 relief and seats in Congress. Complete the census. No questions about immigration."

The states (https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-cuomo-new-york-city-coronavirus-dining-schools-numbers-20200908-5nq6egubszbrxc5oktezkl2r7q-story.html) are starting to get desperate (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Deus_Ex#Introduction_sequence).

Re masks/social distancing (https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1301245789012885504), I know when I say "Trump is deliberately killing people" it sounds harsh. But our language thus far has been egregiously weak.

If I drive on the sidewalk, no matter if my reason is to "own the libs", I go to jail for a long time if I run people over.

Go even further.

Some more typical stuff about Trump finances and subornation of government.

President Trump (https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2020%2F09%2F05%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-campaign-funds-legal-bills.html%3A9vhjscnhS6TuZpzh1kotPMG9lK8&cuid=5155794) was proudly litigious before his victory in 2016 and has remained so in the White House. But one big factor has changed: He has drawn on campaign donations as a piggy bank for his legal expenses to a degree far greater than any of his predecessors.
[...]
Mr. Trump’s tendency to turn to the courts — and the legal issues that have stemmed from norm-breaking characteristics of his presidency — helps explain how he and his affiliated political entities have spent at least $58.4 million in donations on legal and compliance work since 2015, according to a tally by The New York Times and the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute.
[...]
The legal work, he said, is being used to defend violence at political rallies, chill the free speech of former aides and fight allegations of unethical actions by Mr. Trump himself. And it is being paid for in part by large individual donors who could seek help from Mr. Trump in dealing with government actions that affect their own interests at a time when the Justice Department has moved from simply defending the president to helping protect his personal finances, he said. “It is an astounding nexus of corruption,” Mr. Weissman said. “And the legal system in the United States is the one that is supposed to be defending justice.”

In a highly unusual (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/08/nyregion/donald-trump-jean-carroll-lawsuit-rape.html) legal maneuver, the Department of Justice moved on Tuesday to replace President Trump’s private lawyers and defend him against a defamation lawsuit brought in a New York state court by the author E. Jean Carroll, who has accused him of raping her in a Manhattan department store in the 1990s.
[...]
Citing a law called the Federal Tort Claims Act, the department lawyers asserted the right to take the case from Mr. Trump’s private lawyers and move the matter from state court to federal court. The law gives employees of the federal government immunity from lawsuits, though legal experts said that it has rarely, if ever, been used before to protect a president.

Money was supposed (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/07/us/politics/trump-election-campaign-fundraising.html) to have been one of the great advantages of incumbency for President Trump, much as it was for President Barack Obama in 2012 and George W. Bush in 2004. After getting outspent in 2016, Mr. Trump filed for re-election on the day of his inauguration — earlier than any other modern president — betting that the head start would deliver him a decisive financial advantage this year.

It seemed to have worked. His rival, Joseph R. Biden Jr., was relatively broke when he emerged as the presumptive Democratic nominee this spring, and Mr. Trump and the Republican National Committee had a nearly $200 million cash advantage.

Five months later, Mr. Trump’s financial supremacy has evaporated. Of the $1.1 billon his campaign and the party raised from the beginning of 2019 through July, more than $800 million has already been spent. Now some people inside the campaign are forecasting what was once unthinkable: a cash crunch with less than 60 days until the election, according to Republican officials briefed on the matter.

Brad Parscale, the former campaign manager, liked to call Mr. Trump’s re-election war machine an “unstoppable juggernaut.” But interviews with more than a dozen current and former campaign aides and Trump allies, and a review of thousands of items in federal campaign filings, show that the president’s campaign and the R.N.C. developed some profligate habits as they burned through hundreds of millions of dollars. Since Bill Stepien replaced Mr. Parscale in July, the campaign has imposed a series of belt-tightening measures that have reshaped initiatives, including hiring practices, travel and the advertising budget.

Flashback to 2016 (https://www.propublica.org/article/the-myths-of-the-genius-behind-trumps-reelection-campaign):

In 2016, Trump was anathema to the GOP’s traditional wealthy donors. But small-dollar contributors — “the Army of Trump,” Parscale would later call them — loved him. Trump’s supporters were uniquely responsive to donation appeals on social media; his celebrity and gut-level appeal commanded eyeballs. “The hardest thing in digital advertising is getting people’s attention,” says Coby. “You got a cheat code with Trump.”

Trump’s online and email fundraising generated a record $239 million in small-dollar donations, far more than Hillary Clinton’s and more than two-thirds of his donation total, according to the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute. This made Trump competitive in a race where he was outspent nearly 2 to 1.

Parscale’s growing role remained pretty much a secret for weeks into the general election race. But in mid-August, a new FEC filing was about to reveal that Giles-Parscale, an obscure San Antonio firm, had become the campaign’s biggest vendor, receiving $12.5 million to date. That prompted Wired to run a quick, flattering profile of him. Trump, according to a former RNC official, soon began referring to Parscale as “my $10 Million Man.”

By the October FEC filing, that figure had multiplied. Giles-Parscale had received more than $20 million in the previous month, on its way to a jaw-dropping final $94 million tally from the Trump committees. After Trump read media reports spotlighting Parscale’s most recent take, he erupted. Making a rare descent to the campaign’s makeshift offices in Trump Tower, he cornered his digital director in the kitchen and flew into a spitting rage, screaming, “Where the fuck is my money?”

Parscale told Trump that the vast majority was simply passed through his firm and went toward buying ads. After salaries and various consulting fees, he insisted, he’d received only a small percentage — far below what’s typical — as profit. Deputy campaign manager Dave Bossie, who had jumped between the two men, backed Parscale’s story. According to two witnesses, the confrontation ended when Kellyanne Conway sneezed on Trump, distracting him from his fury.

As a Scorcese movie this would be unwatchable. Especially with no one getting killed.

That is interesting, any links about this? I would be interested to learn more especially because the DSA explicitly said they would not endorse Biden. So if thats the case it seems pretty odd that the communists would endorse Biden, but the democratic socialists would not.

Now I dont think the threat of Bernie voter defections is as bad now as it was in 2016, when roughly (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/24/16194086/bernie-trump-voters-study) 20-25% of Bernie voters did not vote for Clinton. They primarily went to Trump and third-party, with a small percentage staying home. Yes, a higher percentage of Clinton voters defected to McCain in 2008, but I think the location of those defections matters a lot too, as the article points out. But after 4 years of Trump I think far more of the Bernie voters are going to stick with Biden this time around. I guess we will find out in a couple months (crazy, isnt it?).

The only thing that irks me is when prominent people on the left who should know better advocate for not voting for Biden. Unfortunately I think at least some of them are refusing to endorse because they can gain more clout online to further their careers.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/3/revolutionary-communist-party-leader-backs-biden/

Even Richard Spencer (https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/white-supremacist-richard-spencer-didnt-endorse-joe-biden) backs Biden! In the sense of allegedly planning to vote for him, at least.

Democrats 2020: Our coalition has never been bigger. We have Communists and Nazis! (And maybe even, dare I say, the radical centrists.)

a completely inoffensive name

09-09-2020, 04:57

It's too hot in CA to think about politics right now.

Montmorency

09-10-2020, 02:47

It still amazes me that Trump has jurisdiction flipped a state civil suit against him to federal remit (i.e. the Justice Department) by the premise that when he injured the plaintiff he was acting in his official capacity as President. Leave aside any notion of "the dignity of the office," there's no such thing. The problems here, in escalating order:

1. The federal government will now be his lawyer and pick up his costs.
2. If he loses the suit, it is probably the federal government that will have to pay out.
3. He's arrogating the clout and power of the federal government to defend himself in a private civil matter.

Maybe actual dictators are less corrupt than Trump has been, simply because they have stable institutional arrangements tailored to their interests.

But that's trivial compared (https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/9/9/21429166/trump-woodward-rage-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic) to this (https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/bob-woodward-rage-book-trump-coronavirus/index.html). [AUDIO]

(Listen to Trump admit in early February that nCoV-19 is serious business, much deadlier than the seasonal flu, and on March 19 that its threat isn't limited to the old yet he insists on "playing it down" in order to avert "panic." For reference, March 19 was the day the California lockdown was announced. New York issued the order the next day or so. Congress was about to reach a deal on pandemic relief legislation.)*

One way or another the pandemic response has been a crime against humanity, but this is the sort of thing that alone - alone! - should get his estate expropriated and/or him thrown behind bars for life.

Also, screw Woodward, before 2016 I knew him as a legend (to be fair I didn't realize he was still alive). But he's a hack for getting multiple groundbreaking scoops on Trump's malfeasance during his term only to sit on them until they could get published for personal profit. Did the old man badly need the money, given the 20 other books on presidents he's written? Little better than every culpable (and often themselves criminal) asshole in the White House or in Trump's orbit who waited until they were out of government or had a book deal secured before speaking out.
... Actually, you know, I'm not sure I even feel that way after all. One could argue from what we have learned about partisan epistemology that Woodward's numerous taped interviews with Trump over the course of this year are more valuable toward the historical record than one of them curtailed would have been as a short-term news event dumped into the media cycle. Whatever...

*Note also how, yet again, Trump sounds like a :daisy: moron when discussing factual matters most candidly. The indicators have been unending, but it's presented just as a reminder that this has never been a man concealing more cleverness or awareness than he displays. Although, this material is part of the body of evidence that he is capable of consciously lying, as opposed to being totally delusional.

It goes, it goes through the air, Bob. That's always tougher than the touch. You know, the touch, you don't have to touch things. Right? But the air, you just breathe the air and that's how it's - passed. And so, that's a very tricky one. That's a very delicate one. Uh, it's also more deadly than your, you know, your, even your more strenuous flus.

Tangentially:

Woodward: But let me ask you this. I mean, we share one thing in common. We’re White, privileged, who- my father was a lawyer and a judge in Illinois, and we know what your dad did. Do you have any sense that that privilege has isolated and put you in a cave to a certain extent, as it put me, and I think lots of White, privileged people in a cave. And that we have to work our way out of it to understand the anger and the pain, particularly Black people feel in this country. Do you feel–

Trump: No. You really drank the Kool-Aid, didn’t you? Just listen to you. Wow. No, I don’t feel that at all.

Classic.

Par for the course polling result (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-law-and-order-message-isnt-resonating-with-most-americans/):

A new HuffPost/YouGov survey suggests that Trump now dominates the Republican Party he leads. Among Republicans1 who voted for Trump in 2016, 49 percent considered themselves more Trump backers than GOP backers, while 19 percent said they were more supporters of the GOP than they were supporters of Trump. Another 28 percent said they were supporters of both. And if there were a conflict between Trump and congressional Republicans, 61 percent said they’d be more likely to support Trump, compared with just 13 percent who would be predisposed to back Republicans on Capitol Hill instead.

ReluctantSamurai

09-10-2020, 11:44

None of this means squat. On numerous occasions, Fearless Leader's total lack of respect for American democracy, American law, the American people themselves, and even the office of the presidency, has had little to no consequences. Members of the GOP are so brow-beaten, that they only raise an occasional bleat for fear of being ostracized, and the Dems are nothing more than a weak, pathetic collection of toothless politicians who do nothing to defend the democracy they were elected to uphold.

Woodward is a money-grubbing scum bag, pure and simple. Hopefully, some prosecutor figures out a way to sue his ass for being complicit in negligent homicide.

I'm tired of this Rocky & Bullwinkle Show that we've been subjected to for the last six months. Tired of seeing the latest block tumble from our democracy, while Congress and the rest of the morons on Capital Hill do little or nothing to stop the bleeding. While millions of Americans are out of work, and dying by the thousands due to their incompetence, they check the daily reports on their stock portfolio's. While a megalomaniac president continually prods us down the road of fascism, Congress does nothing. AFAIAC, they are all the same brand as Woodward----capitalists at their worst.

The only media outlet that I can find (so far), that treats this Woodward "bombshell" with the disparaging review it deserves, is this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/books/review-rage-donald-trump-bob-woodward.html

Woodward ends “Rage” by delivering his grave verdict. “When his performance as president is taken in its entirety,” he intones, “I can only reach one conclusion: Trump is the wrong man for the job.” It’s an anticlimactic declaration that could surprise no one other than maybe Bob Woodward. In “The Choice,” his book about the 1996 presidential campaign, he explained something that still seems a core belief of his: “When all is said and sifted, character is what matters most.” But if the roiling and ultimately empty palace intrigues documented in “Rage” and “Fear” are any indications, this lofty view comes up woefully short. What if the real story about the Trump era is less about Trump and more about the people who surround and protect him, standing by him in public even as they denounce him (or talk to Woodward) in private — a tale not of character but of complicity?

Though it's unclear if Szalai is pointing a complicit finger at Woodward or at Fearless Leader's staff...:shrug:

ReluctantSamurai

09-10-2020, 23:31

As a follow-up, Woodward defending his decision to sit on information contained in his book:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/should-bob-woodward-have-reported-trumps-virus-revelations-sooner-heres-how-he-defends-his-decision/2020/09/09/6bd7fc32-f2d1-11ea-b796-2dd09962649c_story.html

Woodward told me that — contrary to speculation — he did not have any signed agreement or formal embargo arrangement with Trump or the White House to hold back their conversations until the book published.
“I told him it was for the book,” he said — but as far as promising not to publish in real time, or signing such an agreement, “I don’t do that.”
Woodward said his aim was to provide a fuller context than could occur in a news story: “I knew I could tell the second draft of history, and I knew I could tell it before the election.” (Former Washington Post publisher Phil Graham famously called journalism “the first rough draft of history.”)
What’s more, he said, there were at least two problems with what he heard from Trump in February that kept him from putting it in the newspaper at the time:

First, he didn’t know what the source of Trump’s information was. It wasn’t until months later — in May — that Woodward learned it came from a high-level intelligence briefing in January that was also described in Wednesday’s reporting about the book.
In February, what Trump told Woodward seemed hard to make sense of, the author told me — back then, Woodward said, there was no panic over the virus; even toward the final days of that month, Anthony S. Fauci was publicly assuring Americans there was no need to change their daily habits.
Second, Woodward said, “the biggest problem I had, which is always a problem with Trump, is I didn’t know if it was true.”

But why not then write such a story later in the spring, once it was clear that the virus was extraordinarily destructive and that Trump’s early downplaying had almost certainly cost lives?
Again, Woodward said he believes his highest purpose isn’t to write daily stories but to give his readers the big picture — one that may have a greater effect, especially with a consequential election looming.
Woodward’s effort, he said, was to deliver in book form “the best obtainable version of the truth,” not to rush individual revelations into publication.

:inquisitive:

Hooahguy

09-11-2020, 01:40

I'm conflicted. While I think he should have released the info months ago, I do wonder if he is onto something in the sense of impact. I remember very clearly that the info in the first month or so was very confusing with people saying different things, like first to not wear masks and then we needed to, so I wonder if it would have just been another story that got lost in the chaos that was the first month. But now, after nearly 200,000 deaths? I think it packs more of a punch.

ReluctantSamurai

09-11-2020, 04:07

so I wonder if it would have just been another story that got lost in the chaos that was the first month. But now, after nearly 200,000 deaths? I think it packs more of a punch.

I guess noone will ever know if the story would've gotten lost in the noise. And what kind of "punch" is worth tens of thousands of excessive deaths? Do you really believe that anything meaningful will occur to improve our abysmal coronavirus response? In a couple of weeks, there will be a new "crisis" that dominates media, and all of this will just fade into the background noise that has pervaded the last 8 months. States will still be left to their own discretion and devices for dealing with the pandemic; our economy will still be in the shit hole because with a pandemic still rampant, you can't truly get economic recovery; the lies and mis-information in dealing with the virus will continue unabated; and this administration will probably severely damage the effectiveness of an eventual vaccine by undermining the already shaky public confidence in it's efficacy.

So what meaningful changes do you see in the coming weeks as a result of the fallout from all of this?

Hooahguy

09-11-2020, 04:55

I'm not disagreeing with you that he should have released it sooner, but hopefully you also remember how there were constant contradictions flying around regarding Covid in the early days so I am skeptical that it would have made much of a difference. Nor will it improve things now. The only way for our Covid response to get better is to vote Trump out. Thats it. There is no "better" with Trump at the helm. We won't ever truly know if it would have broken through the noise or not and make things better. But speaking from a strictly election-focused point of view, it being released now is far more impactful since we are less than two months away from the election and is more likely to sway voters on the fence. This is morbid, but the mantra (https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1304096798060019713?s=20) of "Trump lied, people died" is far more effective after nearly 200,000 deaths.

Again let me be clear: I do think he should have released this info sooner to save lives. However, considering Woodward stated that he was looking to make the greatest effect, I understand why he did what he did despite disagreeing with it.

ReluctantSamurai

09-11-2020, 05:45

But speaking from a strictly election-focused point of view, it being released now is far more impactful since we are less than two months away from the election and is more likely to sway voters on the fence.

I truly hope that that is the case. It's a horrendous condemnation of the state of affairs in this country, that it takes the deaths of so many of our fellow citizens, rather than all of the other destructive things this man has done, to realize he is killing democracy, as we know it, in this country. I suspect it was already dead, and his ascending to the presidency, and what he's done since, is merely pointing out the Walking Dead that we've become....

:shame:

Montmorency

09-11-2020, 09:06

A speculative insight (https://twitter.com/EricLevitz/status/1304148863809458176) on why the Senate Republicans or Mitch McConnell may be refusing to legislate new pandemic relief. The discussion in comments is also very worthwhile.

Best hypothesis I've heard is that many GOP Senators:

1) Expect Trump to lose.

2) Expect the right to react to this the same way it did to Bush II (renewed fervor for conservative purity).

3) Fear a big Covid stimulus would be the new TARP/that they will get primary-ed for it.

Another interesting flashback to the fundamentally Nixonian (at best) character of the Republican party:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/08/ohios-2004-presidential-election-records-mysteriously-disappear-again/

From Woodward's book (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bob-woodward-rage-book-trump/2020/09/09/0368fe3c-efd2-11ea-b4bc-3a2098fc73d4_story.html):

Trump was taken with Kim’s flattery, Woodward writes, telling the author pridefully that Kim had addressed him as “Excellency.” Trump remarked that he was awestruck meeting Kim for the first time in 2018 in Singapore, thinking to himself, “Holy shit,” and finding Kim to be “far beyond smart.” Trump also boasted to Woodward that Kim “tells me everything,” including a graphic account of Kim having his uncle killed.

Trump did not share his letters to Kim — “Those are so top secret,” the president said — but Woodward obtained them independently. He writes that Trump sent Kim a copy of the New York Times featuring a picture of the two men on the front page. “Chairman, great picture of you, big time,” Trump wrote on the paper in marker. (Trump falsely boasted to Woodward: “He never smiled before. I’m the only one he smiles with.”) (https://i.imgur.com/GDg4DWj.jpg)

Look, it's more history for us. :shrug: Hopefully it's useful to some postdoc when we're dead.

(This kind of stuff demonstrating Trump's diminished mental capacity is why I've never really been able to hate him. Yes, I know he's technically sapient, fully capable of overt lies, and one of the worst people ever, but - he's just so pathetic!)

I'm tired of this Rocky & Bullwinkle Show that we've been subjected to for the last six months. Tired of seeing the latest block tumble from our democracy, while Congress and the rest of the morons on Capital Hill do little or nothing to stop the bleeding. While millions of Americans are out of work, and dying by the thousands due to their incompetence, they check the daily reports on their stock portfolio's. While a megalomaniac president continually prods us down the road of fascism, Congress does nothing. AFAIAC, they are all the same brand as Woodward----capitalists at their worst.

The Trump administration's relentless incompetence, malice, and overt venal lawlessness are a psychic burden and a Promethean wound on the whole country. I can't count how many people have expressed this feeling, like meat boiling off a bone.

None of this means squat. On numerous occasions, Fearless Leader's total lack of respect for American democracy, American law, the American people themselves, and even the office of the presidency, has had little to no consequences. Members of the GOP are so brow-beaten, that they only raise an occasional bleat for fear of being ostracized, and the Dems are nothing more than a weak, pathetic collection of toothless politicians who do nothing to defend the democracy they were elected to uphold.

I wish, per my previous statement, that they were screaming about it more, and maybe somehow teaming up with activists to organize their communities 'outside the system' in anticipation of a long period of popular uprising. But the reality we've all been forced to confront by now is that in terms of institutional power Congress or individual lawmakers just can't impose their will if the executive and judiciary collectively militate against it. Frustrating as it may be to be stuck in the position of crying "DO SOMETHING" at Dem electeds, they are almost helpless in their official capacity if the opposition plays hardball and feels unconstrained by laws or ethics or reason. What power they do still have is largely rhetorical, e.g. "screaming."

This is no mere defense of Capitol Hill Democrats but a reminder that unless we wrangle a revolutionary force that can sweep away Republicans outside the ballot box, we're left to keep taking the punches for the time being. (This isn't to say that Trump hasn't been rebuked by the courts, more often than not he has, but the consistent outcome of the Congressional complaints against Trump has been decisively in favor of executive time and power. Trump can give a damn.)

Biden as President - or more properly his administration's Justice Department - needs to open a few hundred criminal investigations as soon as physically possible though, as that's our only recourse to Republican crimes this side of the decade. Failure to acknowledge and operate on this wound would be a damning mark well beyond his time in office.

As a follow-up, Woodward defending his decision to sit on information contained in his book:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/should-bob-woodward-have-reported-trumps-virus-revelations-sooner-heres-how-he-defends-his-decision/2020/09/09/6bd7fc32-f2d1-11ea-b796-2dd09962649c_story.html

:inquisitive:

Admittedly, in this treatment he doesn't answer the narrow question of whether this bit of information was worth going public with given the technical possibility that its dissemination could prompt policy changes.

I'll split the difference and say he should have arranged for the info to be leaked to the NYT. He could have been Deep Wood! Truly a full circle finish, of a sort.

So what meaningful changes do you see in the coming weeks as a result of the fallout from all of this?

It does seem liable to congeal the dwindling of Trump's polling lead among elderly white voters, particularly in Florida.

Hooahguy

09-11-2020, 15:18

This is no mere defense of Capitol Hill Democrats but a reminder that unless we wrangle a revolutionary force that can sweep away Republicans outside the ballot box, we're left to keep taking the punches for the time being. (This isn't to say that Trump hasn't been rebuked by the courts, more often than not he has, but the consistent outcome of the Congressional complaints against Trump has been decisively in favor of executive time and power. Trump can give a damn.)
As I have long argued, the GOP needs to be burned to the ground completely. More people seem to be coming around to this point. I mean even Bill Kristol (https://thebulwark.com/american-conservatism-b-1955-d-2020/) of all people seems to recognize this. This article (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/i-used-think-gop-should-be-saved/616189/), by Tom Nichols from yesterday is probably the best summation of why the GOP is beyond saving:

I’m not advocating for voting against the GOP merely to punish Republicans for Trump’s existence in their party. Rather, conservatives must finally accept that at this point Trump and the Republican Party are indistinguishable. Trump and his circle have gutted the old GOP and stuffed its empty husk with the Trump family’s paranoia and corruption.Indeed, the transformation of the GOP into a cult of personality is so complete that the Republicans didn’t even bother presenting a platform at their own convention. Like a group of ciphers at a meeting of SPECTRE, they nodded at whatever Number One told them to do, each of them fearing an extended pinkie finger pressing the button that would electrocute them into political oblivion.
...
Conservatives must also let go of fantasies about saving the “good” Republicans, a list that is virtually nonexistent. (You can’t count Mitt Romney more than once.) The occasional furrowed brow—a specialty of the feckless Susan Collins of Maine—is not enough. The few, like Romney, who have dared grasp at moments of sanity have been pilloried by Trump and other Republicans. In any case, Romney is chained to the GOP caucus, a crew that includes the jabbering Louie Gohmert and calculating Elise Stefanik in the House, and the sniveling Ted Cruz and amoral Mitch McConnell in the Senate.

Biden as President - or more properly his administration's Justice Department - needs to open a few hundred criminal investigations as soon as physically possible though, as that's our only recourse to Republican crimes this side of the decade. Failure to acknowledge and operate on this wound would be a damning mark well beyond his time in office.

Biden himself has said that he won't stand in the way of investigations into the Trump admin, but also said that he wouldn't order investigations either. Rather he would let the Justice Department decide (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/joe-biden-says-he-wouldnt-order-investigation-into-trump-as-president.html). The rule of law part of me is encouraged by this, but at the same time I'm a little disappointed as the crimes of the current administration need to be explored and punished. I guess it will depend on who is picked for AG.

Montmorency

09-12-2020, 00:10

The Wisconsin Supreme Court - yes, that majority - has just ordered Wisconsin to stop mailing absentee ballots. The state had printed more than 2 million ballots, and mailed hundreds of thousands, with a deadline to send them by September 17; they had been prepared for the general E following the April chaos. But their SC halted all that and is considering nullifying all existing ballots.

This was all done at the request of the Green Party presidential candidates who failed to meet the criteria for being included on the ballot.

JFC can we have a reality where not every downballot election is critical to every other election? I'm sick of all the narrative threads! :wall:

Hooahguy

09-12-2020, 00:12

Well I guess we now have some numbers (https://twitter.com/NumbersMuncher/status/1304556715581595648?s=20) as to the potential impact of the Woodward tapes plus the Atlantic story about the troops:

Yahoo News/YouGov poll: Biden now leads Trump by 10, 49-39 (was Biden +6 post-RNC)

15% say the Woodward tape makes them less likely to vote for Trump

23% of independents say the Atlantic troops story makes them more likely to vote for Biden

Following the Atlantic story about Trump's comments on the troops, "six percent of 2016 Trump supporters say they have moved toward Biden as a result."

Overall, 8% of Trump 2016 voters have switched to Biden compared to just 1% of Clinton voters to Trump.

The interesting takeaway here seems to be that the Atlantic story seems to have had a bigger impact than the Woodward story.

ReluctantSamurai

09-12-2020, 11:30

The interesting takeaway here seems to be that the Atlantic story seems to have had a bigger impact than the Woodward story.

You just don't screw with loyalty to the military. Especially if you've never served....

As damning as the Woodward story is, this is equally damning, if not more so:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/11/exclusive-trump-officials-interfered-with-cdc-reports-on-covid-19-412809

In some cases, emails from communications aides to CDC Director Robert Redfield and other senior officials openly complained that the agency’s reports would undermine President Donald Trump's optimistic messages about the outbreak, according to emails reviewed by POLITICO and three people familiar with the situation.

CDC officials have fought back against the most sweeping changes, but have increasingly agreed to allow the political officials to review the reports and, in a few cases, compromised on the wording, according to three people familiar with the exchanges. The communications aides’ efforts to change the language in the CDC’s reports have been constant across the summer and continued as recently as Friday afternoon.

But since Michael Caputo, a former Trump campaign official with no medical or scientific background, was installed in April as the health department's new spokesperson, there have been substantial efforts to align the reports with Trump's statements, including the president's claims that fears about the outbreak are overstated, or stop the reports altogether.

Caputo and his team have attempted to add caveats to the CDC's findings, including an effort to retroactively change agency reports that they said wrongly inflated the risks of Covid-19 and should have made clear that Americans sickened by the virus may have been infected because of their own behavior, according to the individuals familiar with the situation and emails reviewed by POLITICO.

In one clash, an aide to Caputo berated CDC scientists for attempting to use the reports to "hurt the President" in an Aug. 8 email sent to CDC Director Robert Redfield and other officials that was widely circulated inside the department and obtained by POLITICO.

Alexander also called on Redfield to halt all future MMWR reports until the agency modified its years-old publication process so he could personally review the entire report prior to publication, rather than a brief synopsis. Alexander, an assistant professor of health research at Toronto's McMaster University whom Caputo recruited this spring to be his scientific adviser, added that CDC needed to allow him to make line edits — and demanded an "immediate stop" to the reports in the meantime.

"The reports must be read by someone outside of CDC like myself, and we cannot allow the reporting to go on as it has been, for it is outrageous. Its lunacy," Alexander told Redfield and other officials. "Nothing to go out unless I read and agree with the findings how they CDC, wrote it and I tweak it to ensure it is fair and balanced and 'complete.'"

So not only lying about the threat of SARS-2 in February, but actively suppressing ongoing data transmission that made the Trump Administration look inept.

Hooahguy

09-12-2020, 17:31

Less inept and more malicious and deceitful in my opinion.

And re: the military, him entering his most recent rally to Fortunate Son (https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1304195541195206656?s=20) is really something else. Hes the definition of a chickenhawk.

edyzmedieval

09-12-2020, 23:04

We're less than 2 months to go and it's getting even nastier.

ReluctantSamurai

09-13-2020, 12:31

Oh, it's just warming up:yes:

Like this ad:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuBX50zVY5g

Lincoln Project hits home again:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/13/trump-reno-rally-nevada-412990

“But you know the good part?” Trump continued. “Now I can be really vicious. Once I saw that ad, I don’t have to be nice anymore.”

These guys have shown the ability time and time again to get into Fearless Leaders head. People of questionable integrity, but they make killer ads the Dems won't, although they don't have enough funding to air them 'prime-time' on mainstream media. The ability of these ads to influence voters is likely quite limited, but still, it's fun to watch Fearless Leader squirm.~D

Montmorency

09-14-2020, 05:46

https://www.mediamatters.org/roger-stone/roger-stone-calls-trump-seize-total-power-if-he-loses-election

Roger Stoneis making baseless accusations of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election and is urging Donald Trump to consider several draconian measures to stay in power, including having federal authorities seize ballots in Nevada, having FBI agents and Republican state officials “physically” block voting under the pretext of preventing voter fraud, using martial law or the Insurrection Act to carry out widespread arrests, and nationalizing state police forces.

Stone, a longtime confidant of the president, made the comments during a September 10 appearance on far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ Infowars network. On July 10, Trump commuted a 40-month prison sentence that was handed down to Stone after he was convicted of lying to Congress and tampering with witnesses as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into 2016 election interference. Namely, Stone lied to Congress about his contacts with WikiLeaks, which released hacked emails with the aim of boosting Trump’s prospects [which Stone appears to have mediated]. In the weeks leading up to the commutation, Stone made a number of media appearances where he asked Trump to grant him clemency and said that in exchange, he could be a more effective campaigner for the president’s 2020 reelection efforts.

Stone’s efforts are now underway, and his aim appears to be to spread conspiracy theories about voter fraud and call for actions that would likely intimidate potential Joe Biden voters.

During his September 10 appearance on The Alex Jones Show, Stone declared that the only legitimate outcome to the 2020 election would be a Trump victory. He made this assertion on the basis of his entirely unfounded claim that early voting has been marred by widespread voter fraud.

Stone argued that “the ballots in Nevada on election night should be seized by federal marshalls and taken from the state” because “they are completely corrupted” and falsely said that “we can prove voter fraud in the absentees right now.” He specifically called for Trump to have absentee ballots seized in Clark County, Nevada, an area that leans Democratic. Stone went on to claim that “the votes from Nevada should not be counted; they are already flooded with illegals” and baselessly suggested that former Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) should be arrested and that Trump should consider nationalizing Nevada’s state police force.

Beyond Nevada, Stone recommended that Trump consider several actions to retain his power. Stone recommended that Trump appoint former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) as a special counsel “with the specific task of forming an Election Day operation using the FBI, federal marshals, and Republican state officials across the country to be prepared to file legal objections and if necessary to physically stand in the way of criminal activity.”

Stone also urged Trump to consider declaring “martial law” or invoking the Insurrection Act and then using his powers to arrest Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Apple CEO Tim Cook, “the Clintons” and “anybody else who can be proven to be involved in illegal activity.”

Stone is no stranger to interfering in elections. He was reportedly an organizer of the so-called “Brooks Brothers riot” [Ed. see #202 in thread] during the 2000 presidential election that led to vote counting being suspended in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

https://i.imgur.com/TM9g64s.gif

I am exquisitely triggered.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-14-2020, 14:43

Listening to Limbaugh last week. Biggest worry among the call-ins was not whether or not Trump would win -- they are presuming a 2016 repeat -- but of who would take up the Trump agenda and style of leadership once Trump left office.

There exists a cadre who actually REVEL in this style of leadership environment.

So many folks who I thought conservative in orientation were simply selfish in orientation. Always knew that to be true, but I am saddened it was such a large chunk of the "conservative" segment.

Idaho

09-14-2020, 15:17

Conservatism is, at root, a feel-don't-think proposition. It's about fear of loss, aversion to the unknown, "we are right" kind of deal. As such, the effects and process are irrelevant. The most important thing is to maintain the right feeling.

Hooahguy

09-14-2020, 15:55

https://www.mediamatters.org/roger-stone/roger-stone-calls-trump-seize-total-power-if-he-loses-election

I am exquisitely triggered.
I saw someone on twitter comment that Trump isnt trying to win, he is trying to get within cheating distance, which I think he is he is getting there.

Montmorency

09-15-2020, 00:50

The top (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/14/us/politics/caputo-virus.html) communications official at the powerful cabinet department in charge of combating the coronavirus accused career government scientists on Sunday of “sedition” in their handling of the pandemic and warned that left-wing hit squads were preparing for armed insurrection after the election.

Michael Caputo, 58, the assistant secretary of public affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services, said without evidence that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was harboring a “resistance unit” determined to undermine President Trump.

Mr. Caputo, who has faced criticism for leading efforts to warp C.D.C. weekly bulletins to fit Mr. Trump’s pandemic narrative, suggested that he personally could be in danger.

“You understand that they’re going to have to kill me, and unfortunately, I think that’s where this is going,” Mr. Caputo, a Trump loyalist installed by the White House in April, told followers in a video he hosted live on his personal Facebook page. Mr. Caputo has 5,000 Facebook friends, and the video has been viewed more than 850 times. It has been shared by 44 followers.

The department said in a statement: “Mr. Caputo is a critical, integral part of the president’s coronavirus response, leading on public messaging as Americans need public health information to defeat the Covid-19 pandemic.”

Mr. Caputo said Monday, “Since joining the administration my family and I have been continually threatened” and harassed by people who have later been prosecuted. “This weighs heavily on us, and we deeply appreciate the friendship and support of President Trump as we address these matters and keep our children safe.”

Mr. Caputo delivered his broadside against scientists, the media and Democrats after a spate of news reports over the weekend that detailed his team’s systematic interference in the C.D.C.’s official reports on the pandemic and other disease outbreaks. Former and current C.D.C. officials described to Politico, The New York Times and other outlets how Mr. Caputo and a top aide routinely demanded the agency revise, delay and even scuttle the C.D.C.’s core public health updates, called Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports, that they believed undercut Mr. Trump’s message that the pandemic is under control.

Those reports, deemed “the holiest of the holy” by one former top health official for their international respect and importance, have traditionally been so shielded from political interference that political appointees see them only just before they are published.

Mr. Caputo on Sunday complained on Facebook that he was under siege by the media and said that his physical health was in question and his “mental health has definitely failed.”

“I don’t like being alone in Washington,” he said, describing “shadows on the ceiling in my apartment, there alone, shadows are so long.” He then ran through a series of conspiracy theories, culminating in a prediction that Mr. Trump will win re-election but his Democratic opponent, Joseph R. Biden Jr., will refuse to concede.

“And when Donald Trump refuses to stand down at the inauguration, the shooting will begin,” he said. “The drills that you’ve seen are nothing.” He added: “If you carry guns, buy ammunition, ladies and gentlemen, because it’s going to be hard to get.”

wtf ffs smh nagl ngl

Every day is Flight 93 day.

ReluctantSamurai

09-15-2020, 02:44

on his personal Facebook page. Mr. Caputo has 5,000 Facebook friends, and the video has been viewed more than 850 times. It has been shared by 44 followers.

:laugh4:

Mr. Caputo on Sunday complained on Facebook that he was under siege by the media and said that his physical health was in question and his “mental health has definitely failed.”

The only truthful part of his entire statement:inquisitive:

“And when Donald Trump refuses to stand down at the inauguration, the shooting will begin,” he said. “The drills that you’ve seen are nothing.” He added: “If you carry guns, buy ammunition, ladies and gentlemen, because it’s going to be hard to get.”

:juggle2:

“To allow people to die so that you can replace the president is a grievous venial sin, venial sin,” Mr. Caputo said. “And these people are all going to hell.”

https://i.imgur.com/TM9g64s.gif

QAnon is already in Washington:boxedin:

ReluctantSamurai

09-15-2020, 14:57

Good read on a critique of media in the US:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/media-mistakes/616222/

Many of our most influential editors and reporters are acting as if the rules that prevailed under previous American presidents are still in effect. But this president is different; the rules are different; and if it doesn’t adapt, fast, the press will stand as yet another institution that failed in a moment of crucial pressure.

Who knows how the 2016 race might have turned out, and whether a man like Trump could have ended up in the position he did, if any of a hundred factors had gone a different way. But one important factor was the press’s reluctance to recognize what it was dealing with: a person nakedly using racial resentment as a tool; whose dishonesty and corruption dwarfed that of both Clintons combined, with most previous presidents’ thrown in as well; and whose knowledge about the vast organization he was about to control was inferior to that of any Capitol Hill staffer and most immigrants who had passed the (highly demanding) U.S. citizenship test.

Now it’s four years later. And we’re waking up in Groundhog Day, so far without Bill Murray’s eventual, hard-earned understanding that he could learn new skills as time went on. For Murray, those were things like playing the piano and speaking French. For the press, in these next 49 days, those can be grappling with (among other things) three of the most destructive habits in dealing with Donald Trump. For shorthand, they are the embrace of false equivalence, or both-sides-ism; the campaign-manager mentality, or horse-race-ism; and the love of spectacle, or going after the ratings and the clicks.

On "Both-Sides-Ism":

This is the shorthand term for most journalists’ discomfort with seeming to “take a side” in political disputes, and the contortions that result.

Of course, taking a side is fundamental to the act of journalism. Everything we write or broadcast is something we’re saying deserves more attention than what we’re not discussing. The layout of a front page, in print or online; the airtime given to TV or radio reports; the tone and emphasis of headlines; and everything else down the list of communication tools reflect choices. When we investigate and present exposés, we are taking a side in favor of the importance of these subjects, and the fidelity of our account.

On Horse-Race-Ism:

Decades ago in Breaking the News, I wrote about the near-irresistible impulse to convert the substance of anything into how it would seem from a political operative’s point of view. Much as football commentators can remain neutral between teams, but express sharp opinions on the three-four defense or whether the blitz pays off, political writers can avoid taking a side by expressing their judgment with tactical commentary.

This brings up one other tell, of people struggling with the both-sides impulse: the could-raise-questions technique.

On the "Spectacle":

Entertainment will always draw a bigger audience than news. During 2015 and 2016, the audiences drawn by Trump’s spectacles proved irresistible for TV programmers. Now the novelty has worn off, and the audience has been distilled to the believers. But still you can see the temptation to cover whatever he does, live, and—most of all—to be diverted by his latest stunt or outrage. Trump’s greatest strategic advantage is distraction: forcing, or tempting, the public mind to forget what happened yesterday, because of the new fireworks he has launched today. The tragedy at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya—when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state—was in the news for years and was the subject of at least 10 congressional hearings. Less than three months have passed since news broke of Russia paying bounties for the deaths of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and it’s rarely covered.

Donald Trump is weak on book-learning but extremely canny about attention management. The challenge for reporters and editors is to maintain attention on the “yesterday’s news” items that will matter tomorrow—in the state of the economy, in America’s standing in the world, in the structures of democratic governance. It is to see things steady and see them whole.

When a presidential confidant who has been convicted of felonies—one of several in that category—and then spared punishment by Trump’s direct intervention calls for “martial law” if election results go against Trump, that should not be just a one-day story. Roger Stone, who made that call last week, is known for histrionics. But if we have learned anything about Trump and his colleagues, it is to question their facts but be deadly earnest about their intent. (Take him “seriously but not factually,” we might say.) So too with Trump’s efforts to delegitimize in advance any vote count that does not go his way. His endless harping that “it’s rigged, folks, rigged” is so destructive that it has only one obvious precedent in modern U.S. history. That was Trump’s insistence on the same point four years ago, until the Electoral College swung his way. We can’t be sure now which is more destructive: a president openly encouraging much of the public to mistrust the democratic process, or that same president openly welcoming foreign interference in the process. Both are steps toward authoritarianism and danger, and awareness of them should shape coverage every single day.

For as long as the press has existed, it has been shambling and imperfect and improvisational. At our best we get things right on average, and incrementally, with a lot of getting things wrong along the way. Most of us in this business do our imperfect best. But any hope of doing better depends on the ability to learn. Soon the clock will show 6:00 a.m. once more; the alarm will start blaring “I Got You Babe” another time. This day, we can do better.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-15-2020, 18:05

As it stands, Biden will win the popular vote by a substantial number.

DO NOT assume the Electoral votes are a done deal. Yes, many of the states that took Trump to a win in 2016 are leading Biden, who plays better with working America than Hillary ever dreamed of doing, but the margins among likely voters are fairly slim in places like PA, MI, arguably WI as well, with the Trafalgar pollers (some folks think they suck, others not) showing Trump leads as little as three weeks ago.

Get anyone you know to go vote. Do not sit back and think "Joe's got this."

Hooahguy

09-15-2020, 21:56

I've seen a couple of articles from center-right folk who are saying things like "I really don't like Trump but the Dems are controlled by the far left so I have to vote for Trump." In response, this article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/15/i-cant-believe-youre-forcing-me-vote-trump-which-i-definitely-didnt-already-want-do/?hpid=hp_opinions-float-right-4-0_opinion-card-c-right%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans) was written. Really quite a humorous read:

Believe me when I tell you that the LAST THING I could POSSIBLY want would be to vote for Donald Trump. That’s why I am so stunned that you have taken it upon yourself to go to such lengths to FORCE me to vote for him! You sick, sick monster! I don’t even like him, not even one little bit. So I hope you’re happy with what YOU are making me do, which comes to me as a total surprise and is definitely not a foregone conclusion in any way.

Over the past four years, Trump’s ominous shadow has devoured everything that was precious about America, chewed on it and spat out only bones and gristle. This has slightly obscured the accomplishments of his administration, which include, if I am remembering right (DON’T TELL ME IF I’M NOT; THAT WILL MAKE ME ANGRY, AND YOU KNOW WHO ANGRY PEOPLE VOTE FOR), ending the budget deficit and doing whatever it was Abraham Lincoln did, but better and faster.

Do I think Trump has the attributes necessary for governing? Absolutely not! He is a dangerous man, and every day we spend under his leadership is a day we lose a precious share of the world’s respect that we may never regain. There’s definitely not a “But!” coming after such a strong and overwhelming condemnation of his leadership.

But! (You MONSTER! I can’t BELIEVE you put a “BUT” right here in my otherwise full-throated condemnation! That is the only explanation for how it could have gotten there; I know I would not have put it there.) I am more afraid that Joe Biden is the unwitting puppet of dangerous socialists, something you forced me to think using a mind ray. God! You’re even more disgusting than I imagined.

It is also bizarre and, frankly, counterproductive of you to insist that I not read any of Biden’s policy positions on anything, or how you have expended all this effort to make me baselessly paranoid that some shadowy, unseen figure is pulling his strings — something I would not think on my own! Can’t believe you’ve pushed me to this point.

I should also note that, much as I hold deep, principled reservations about Trump’s leadership, I just want to say that if anyone makes me feel the least bit uncomfortable about the legacy of racism in this country or urges me to learn one particle of history that I would not like to learn, I will panic, and when I panic, I vote for Trump (which is, I admit, weird given that I have ZERO desire to do so).

Also, I am sick of media bias. Journalists never quote the president saying anything that makes him look good or sound competent. But just statistically a person must sometimes sound at least kind of competent. Like the monkey-typewriter-Shakespeare thing! So if I see anywhere that the president said something that makes him look bad, malicious or incompetent, you know what that means: I’m going to have to vote for him. Twist my arm, why don’t you!

I am not worried about any dictatorial tendencies from Trump. Yes, he says all the time now that he deserves a third term and that his first one should not be counted, and he constantly implies that he will not accept the results of the election as legitimate if they involve the counting of mailed-in ballots. He also loves nothing better than to embrace creepy strongmen abroad! But (whoa, another “but”! You must be really messed up) I just kind of don’t think he really will follow through on any of it? And what if Biden, whom I have no reason to believe would do any of these things, were secretly planning something much, much worse?

Are there people on the right as bad as the people on the left who are really what is wrong with America? Yes, I think? You made me frame that very confusingly. Sure, it’s bad that the president is giving aid and cover to white supremacists, but — I can’t BELIEVE you would make me put another “but” here! This isn’t a sentence that should have a “but” in it! Though while we’re here, I guess I would say, since you’ve forced me to — but how much do we really need to care about that? You’ve given me no choice but to vote for Trump.

Is there anything any of you could say or do that would make me not vote for him? Wow, it’s condescending questions like this that have really forced my hand.

So I am going to hold my nose and vote for Donald Trump. It would be a real shame for the country, I think, but then again, it might not be such a shame. It almost feels like you WANT me to do it. Okay, I’ll do it.

Montmorency

09-16-2020, 03:52

On fires and militias in the Pacific Northwest, where the decline of the American state into failure is especially stark.
https://twitter.com/R3volutionDaddy/status/1304147303066869762

Good news: In a 4-3 decision, the WISC denied the Greens their petition and allowed election officials to resume sending out mail ballots. To be clear, the viability of mail voting in a key battleground state swung on the whim of a single conservative justice. But the Greens are trying much the same scheme in Pennsylvania currently, which is worth twice as much as Wisconsin in the Electoral College... At some point it really seems like the entire national third party apparatus in the US is a transideological con meant to separate contrarian fools from their money at any cost. If a third party wants our votes it should run for something, not just against something.

QAnon is already in Washington:boxedin:

https://time.com/5887437/conspiracy-theories-2020-election/

They are impervious to messaging, advertising or data. They aren’t just infected with conspiracy; they appear to be inoculated against reality.

[I remembered this short from all the way back in the early days of Youtube. If the shoe fits...]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La6T8Bq6CsU

Why the stability of the 2020 race promises more volatility ahead (https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/15/politics/2020-election-american-voter-worldviews/index.html)

Trump's approval ratings and support in the presidential race against Democratic nominee Joe Biden have oscillated in a strikingly narrow range of around 40%-45% that appears largely immune to both good news -- the long economic boom during his presidency's first years -- and bad -- impeachment, the worst pandemic in more than a century, revelations that he's disparaged military service and blunt warnings that he is unfit for the job from former senior officials in his own government. Perhaps the newest disclosures, in the upcoming book from Bob Woodward, that Trump knew the coronavirus was far more dangerous than the common flu even as he told Americans precisely the opposite, will break this pattern, but most political strategists in both parties are skeptical that it will. The durability of both support and opposition to Trump shows how the motivation for voters' choices is shifting from transitory measures of performance, such as the traditional metrics of peace and prosperity, toward bedrock attitudes about demographic, cultural and economic change. The immovability of the battle lines in 2020 captures how thoroughly the two parties are now unified -- and separated -- by their contrasting attitudes toward these fundamental changes, with Trump mobilizing overwhelming support from the voters who are hostile to them, no matter what else happens, and the contrasting coalition of Americans who welcome this evolution flocking toward the Democrats.
[...]
What's more, Biden's national advantage over Trump isn't meaningfully different than it was a year ago, despite the searing intervening event of a pandemic that soon will have claimed 200,000 American lives. To take one measure, the Real Clear Politics average of national polls last October showed Biden at 50.1% and Trump at 43.4%; the result last weekend was 50.5% to 43% -- virtually unchanged. "Things are very locked in because the reason you're voting for Trump is not because of the economy or the response to coronavirus that he's delivering but rather the image of protecting White people in America," says Manuel Pastor
[...]
But the most powerful factor in the new stability may be the shift in the basis of voters' allegiance to the parties. Increasingly, campaign strategists and political scientists agree, voters are choosing between the parties more on their views about fundamental demographic and cultural change than on their immediate financial circumstances or even their views of economic policies, such as taxes, spending and regulation.
Partisan allegiances grounded in these fundamental measures of personal and national identity -- such as whether the nation must do more to assure equal opportunity for people of color and women -- appear highly resistant to reconsideration based on immediate events. In important research, Schaffner and his colleagues found that the denial that racism or sexism exists in America was the best predictor in the 2016 election of support for Trump, far more than any measures of economic distress. On the other side, Schaffner found that the belief that racism and sexism are serious problems predicted support for Clinton more powerfully than economic attitudes, as well. [Ed. Don't forget immigration]
[...]
If Biden holds his national lead, Democrats will win the popular vote in November for the seventh time in the past eight presidential elections -- something no party has done since the formation of the modern party system in 1828. That underscores the reality that the groups drawn toward the Democrats in this cultural resorting of the electorate -- what I've called the "coalition of transformation" -- are clearly larger at this point than the competing "coalition of restoration" aligning with the GOP.
[...]
Pastor isn't alone when he grimly predicts, "We're really getting ready for a very deep culture war coming."

I've seen a couple of articles from center-right folk who are saying things like "I really don't like Trump but the Dems are controlled by the far left so I have to vote for Trump." In response, this article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/15/i-cant-believe-youre-forcing-me-vote-trump-which-i-definitely-didnt-already-want-do/?hpid=hp_opinions-float-right-4-0_opinion-card-c-right%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans) was written. Really quite a humorous read:

I knew it was Petri without clicking. But this abuser logic has been properly (if not widely enough) mocked since at least 2017.

As it stands, Biden will win the popular vote by a substantial number.

DO NOT assume the Electoral votes are a done deal. Yes, many of the states that took Trump to a win in 2016 are leading Biden, who plays better with working America than Hillary ever dreamed of doing, but the margins among likely voters are fairly slim in places like PA, MI, arguably WI as well, with the Trafalgar pollers (some folks think they suck, others not) showing Trump leads as little as three weeks ago.

Get anyone you know to go vote. Do not sit back and think "Joe's got this."

Democrats should of course continue to act as though the race is not won, and indeed it isn't until there is widespread institutional acceptance that Trump has lost. Democrats should, as I said, be priming and educating and warning the public and their constituents about what is very predictably coming.

But if Biden were to win the national popular vote by 6% (in final returns) and lose the EC, with favorable battleground states sharply deviating from the latest polling, then mathematically speaking that would ipso facto demonstrate the presence of fraud; we would instantly recognize that fact in any other election in any other country, unblinkered by any remnants of exceptionalism. Conveniently, we already know Trump and his party are trying strenuously to secure a fraudulent result...

ReluctantSamurai

09-16-2020, 13:52

Dunno what this says about what motivates people:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/sep/16/samuel-l-jackson-will-teach-you-to-swear-in-15-languages-if-you-vote

ReluctantSamurai

09-17-2020, 02:57

Oops:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/16/trump-tv-town-hall-coronavirus-race-abc-news

It didn't take long for The Lincoln Project to jump on that one:

https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1306061951705858048

:elephant:

a completely inoffensive name

09-19-2020, 01:22

It's over. The last thing we wanted to happen, happened. So fucked.

Pannonian

09-19-2020, 01:50

It's over. The last thing we wanted to happen, happened. So fucked.

Quoi?

Hooahguy

09-19-2020, 03:20

Liberal SCOTUS justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54214729).

Well I guess we are court packing if Biden wins and the Senate flips. But will Biden have the stones to do it? Guess we will see.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-19-2020, 03:31

Sadly, this is a huge windfall for Trump 2020.
If he nominates someone and McConnell brings it to the floor then this fight becomes the mudpit crazy show Trump needs to keep the focus from being on his leadership. It is exactly what he needs — the greatest possible distraction.

On a personal note. I am not a liberal and often sided with the other position on issues. Despite which, she was a great justice who embodied a voice that is needed on the SCOTUS. She championed equality and worked tirelessly to make this country a better place to live, work, and enjoy personal freedom. She will be missed.

Hooahguy

09-19-2020, 03:50

Alternatively it also really motivates the left. So far three Republicans have stated that they wont vote on a nominee- Susan Collins, Chuck Grassley, and Lisa Murkowski. But if McConnell holds a vote, will they vote yes? Thats the giant question.

I think this (https://thebulwark.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-and-the-coming-political-crisis/) is a good summation of what might happen, which wont be pretty any way one puts it:

We are now 46 days away from a presidential election that the current president is—just as a statistical matter—more likely to lose than win.

Republicans still control the Senate, but this majority is also in jeopardy.

And so President Trump faces a decision:

(1) Will he and the Republican Senate attempt to ram a replacement for Ginsburg through the Senate before voters render a verdict on them?

(2) Will he wait until after the election, but before January 20, to replace Ginsburg?

(3) Or will he abide by the same rationales that were deployed in the case of Merrick Garland, and allow the next president and Senate to attend to this matter?

It is not clear that any of these pathways leads to a good outcome for the country. This may be—forgive the mixed metaphor—the black swan that breaks America’s back.

Edit: this is some motivation- ActBlue (the Dem online donation website) processed (https://twitter.com/hjessy_/status/1307155658807144448?s=20) over $11 million in under two hours tonight. As the tweet says, that's $105,404.41 per minute, $1,756.74 per second. Thats a crazy amount of money.

a completely inoffensive name

09-19-2020, 07:04

The worst aspect of GOP rule is not even the policies, it's the fundamental truth that such a state would be increasingly unstable.

You cannot have a party in charge whose claim to power rests on a single demographic, while every other demographic is moving away.
23948

This country is rapidly moving to a majority-minority society and the end state of a GOP government is total electoral collapse and a massive power vacuum or a authoritarian ethnostate.

a completely inoffensive name

09-19-2020, 07:07

On a personal note. I am not a liberal and often sided with the other position on issues.

In times like these, how do you not fundamentally challenge the basic tenets of conservatism when you see how quickly, and how boldly, it devolved itself into conspiratorial cults.

Montmorency

09-19-2020, 09:20

This is what happens when I don't headline-surf for breaking news.

1. Court packing, electoral reform, pandemic relief, healthcare reform - and that just the legislative agenda, and the agenda for the first 100 days at that. And I might be forgetting some bigger or smaller items. Somehow I struggle to entertain the thought that an upcoming Democratic Congress with even relatively-dramatic majorities (itself far from certain) will rise to being one of the few most productive in history...

2. Ted Cruz says that "you can't run an election on 8 justices." So, uh, a reminder that all of our talk is for nothing here (more nothing than baseline) if Roberts is not even the median vote on election cases now.

3. :daisy: history. Does it turn on the weft of small events and personalistic bifurcations, or does the sweep of centuries and macro forces grind out all individual effects? Regardless, it's not mere temporal flattery to call 2020 an epochal year.

4. If Ginsberg had died but a month later, the spectacle of the Republicans ramming through a 40-year-old hack in a couple weeks in order to exert judicial dominance over the election might be enough to convince at least the Democratic base that extreme measures are called for.

5. Surprised Hooah hasn't posted here about AG (head of federal law enforcement) Barr's latest antics, including declaring Democratic mail ballots to be presumptively fake and maybe or maybe not ordering that prosecutors pursue sedition charges against dissidents (including the Democratic mayor of Seattle). Funny how the guy balls-deep in Iran-Contra coverups (yet one of the most respected Republican fixers elders prior to joining Trump) turned out to be one of the very worst and most dangerous people in Trump's administration, from the day he was confirmed.

6. North Carolina (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/north-carolina-is-already-rejecting-black-voters-mail-in-ballots-more-often-than-white-voters/) is already rejecting black voters' mail ballots at 4X the rate of white voters'.

7. In rare good-ish news I've seen recently that polling onthe partisan gap in mail-in voting choice continues to narrow (Dems may be getting the message (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/opinion/trump-election-day.html)). Also:
https://prospect.org/blogs/tap/election-night-could-be-smoother-for-senate-races/

The disaster scenarios for voter suppression and Election Day sabotage leave out one piece of hopeful news. The Senate election story could be very different from the presidential.

The reason is that most of the states where Democrats have a good shot at picking up Republican-held seats have reasonably honest election administration.

By contrast, several key swing states needed for a Biden victory risk all manner of voter suppression and manipulation—notably Florida and Wisconsin, but also Michigan and Pennsylvania, which have Democratic governors but Republican legislatures.

But the Senate breaks differently.

Colorado and Maine, two of the most likely Democratic pickups, have exemplary election procedures. North Carolina, which was one of the worst suppressors in 2016, now has a Democratic governor and a state Board of Elections headed by a nonpartisan chief. North Carolina mischief has also been constrained by court orders. [Ed. ROFL hopefully so, see #6.]

Montana, where Gov. Steve Bullock has a shot at taking a seat from Republican incumbent Steve Daines, has a history of honest election administration.

Alaska, which has been trending Democratic, now shows incumbent Republican Dan Sullivan running even in the polls against challenger Al Gross; it’s another state with a history of basically honest election administration.

Arizona, another good possibility for Democrats, abused purges last time. It has a Democratic secretary of state and less prospect of mischief than in some years past.

Even Kentucky, where Mitch McConnell faces a challenge from Amy McGrath, now has a Democratic governor and only limited suppression.

In Iowa, where Republican Joni Ernst faces a close race against Democrat Theresa Greenfield, the Republican legislature passed a very restrictive voter ID law in 2017, which will disenfranchise an estimated 260,000 voters.

The extreme case is Georgia, with two Senate races this year. It is the reeking center of purges, manipulated polling places, and other forms of voter suppression.

But of course:

The presidential election, of course, is a whole other story. Even if Biden is the runaway winner, it will be trench warfare between now and January 20.

Montmorency

09-19-2020, 09:32

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfXMbZTMP4k

Ye Jacobites by name lend an ear, lend an ear
Ye Jacobites by name lend an ear
Ye Jacobites by name your faults I will proclaim
Your doctrines I must blame, you shall hear, you shall hear
Your doctrines I must blame, you shall hear.

What is right and what is wrong by the law, by the law
What is right and what is wrong by the law
What is right and what is wrong, a short sword and a long
A weak arm and a strong for to draw, for to draw for to draw
A weak arm and a strong for to draw.

Refrain

What makes heroic strife famed afar, famed afar?
What makes heroic strife famed afar?
What makes heroic strife, to whet the assassin's knife
Or hunt a parent's life with bloody war, bloody war
Or hunt a parent's life with bloody war.

Refrain

Then leave your schemes alone in the state, in the state
Then leave your schemes alone in the state
Then leave your schemes alone, adore the rising sun
And leave a man alone to his fate, to his fate
Oh leave a man alone to his fate.

Refrain

ReluctantSamurai

09-19-2020, 12:22

Trump needs to keep the focus from being on his leadership. It is exactly what he needs — the greatest possible distraction.

Despite the "OMG we're so screwed" mentality, this is probably the biggest benefit to Fearless Leader, for now. Although the House has no power to stop a nominee from being appointed, they can realistically delay it for as long as two months. I find this article rather prescient:

https://www.newsweek.com/democrat-mitch-mcconnell-trump-supreme-court-nominee-1439995

Senate filibuster rights that used to slow down the nomination process were gutted by Republicans in 2017.

But that doesn't mean Democrats can't use some leverage to fight back against President Donald Trump's nominee if a Supreme Court seat were to become vacant before the 2020 election. The only problem is that Democrats have a track record of letting judicial issues fall by the wayside.

"Democrats have limited tools but the key is a willingness to use what they've got," Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, told Newsweek. "They can demand quorum calls, they can slow down votes and they can make a big public issue of it. That's the one thing they've never done before."

Exit polling even showed that the Supreme Court vacancy may have had a significant role in Trump getting elected. According to one CNN survey, one in five voters said the high court was one reason they voted. Of those who said it was the "most important factor" in casting a ballot, 56 percent supported Trump.

Democrats, on the other hand, barely mentioned the court during the 2016 election—even in the wake of Garland's snub from the Senate. John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign adviser, told The New York Times in 2018 that Democrats "have ignored this field of battle for too long."

But in order to block a third Trump nominee from ascending to the lifelong court position, House Democrats are going to need to commit themselves to using their appropriations and oversight powers to tip the scales. They can also withhold support for certain legislation until a controversial nomination is withdrawn.

"Politics is a game of give and take. The president and the Republicans are going to need something that the Democrats will need to cooperate in giving them," Fredrickson said. "Is it the debt ceiling, is it an appropriations bill with funding for some pet project of the president? We'll see."

On that last part, given the current possibility that SCOTUS might well be determining the next president, the Dems might not have anything the GOP would want, but they better grow some cahonees and fight it tooth and nail.....

Dunno how much of this is pertinent to the times (geesus, this was only two years ago) but at least it's an interesting historical read on the nomination process (minus Brett Kavanaugh):

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44234.pdf

Finally, there seems to be at least three GOP senators that might give Moscow Mitch some trouble:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/18/trump-nominee-to-replace-ruth-bader-ginsburg-on-supreme-court-will-get-senate-vote-mcconnell-says.html

The nomination will not be solely up to McConnell. The Republicans hold a 53-seat majority in the Senate, meaning the party can only tolerate three defections from its ranks, assuming every Democrat votes against a potential new nominee.

While Trump’s first nominee, Justice Neil Gorsuch, easily gained enough GOP support, Justice Brett Kavanaugh faced a tougher time, following sexual misconduct allegations which he denied.

One GOP senator who voted against Kavanaugh’s nomination, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, has previously said that she opposed filling a hypothetical Ginsburg vacancy. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who voted for both of Trump’s nominees, has also in the past expressed opposition to filling a 2020 vacancy.

Grassley did not respond immediately to requests for comment on Friday evening, while Collins and Murkowski put out statements praising Ginsburg’s life but not indicating whether they would support a vote on a nominee ahead of November. Another moderate, Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, who was not in office when Kavanaugh was confirmed, did the same.

Collins voted to confirm Kavanaugh, but has said that she would not vote to confirm a justice in October, because of its proximity to the election.

Hooahguy

09-19-2020, 18:48

Trump supporters physically blocking people from early voting in Virginia (https://twitter.com/AnthonyTilghman/status/1307360544559706113?s=20).

They got cleared out by security but I never thought I would ever see so many Americans whole-heartedly endorse fascism.

Greyblades

09-20-2020, 07:55

Forum's as neurotic as ever I see.

The current threat of reproductive rights being retracted wouldnt be an issue if they hadnt been implemented through judicial shenaniganry. Her replacement also wouldnt be a threat if not for her own party setting a precident that lead to lowering the requirements to get in a judge.

I'd say there's a moral lesson about taking shortcuts in there, another about changing rules for short term gain assuming they will never be used against them.

Not that the democrats are going to learn, to them restraint and foresight are as alien concepts as why elder abuse is wrong.

Hooahguy

09-20-2020, 21:03

I'd say there's a moral lesson about taking shortcuts in there, another about changing rules for short term gain assuming they will never be used against them.

Not that the democrats are going to learn, to them restraint and foresight are as alien concepts as why elder abuse is wrong.
Now thats rich.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Montmorency

09-22-2020, 04:34

Donald Trump on the Supreme Court vacancy (there's no such thing as a subtext anymore, only Zuul): "We should act quickly because we're going to have probably election things involved here, you know, because of the fake ballots that they'll be sending out."

So basically every major Democratic elected official, even some of the traditionally-conservative and institutionalist ones, are warning of constitutional armageddon (https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1307372988606676992) flowing from recent events. Hooah discussed Rep. Nadler dismissing the cause of impeaching Barr just a few months ago; now he's talking packing (https://twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/status/1307379171354652673). Even the remaining Never-Trump conservatives seem to agree that Democrats have warrant to pack the courts to thwart subordinating configurations. Republicans really thought they could dissolve all restraints of civic peace toward a Bolshevik seizure of power and Democrats would perpetually crouch and surrender.

If the righteous ire has indeed boiled over, then - forgive me for resorting to such crass pop-culture memery - this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFh2SXYxcZo) may be the prescient thumotic analogy.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/09/26/voter-enthusiasm-at-record-high-in-nationalized-midterm-environment/#top-issues-for-voters-supreme-court-health-care-economy

However, more voters view Supreme Court appointments as a very important issue today than did so in June 2016, during the presidential election. At that time, 65% of voters (70% of Republicans and 62% of Democrats) said court appointments were very important.

There are sizable partisan gaps over the importance of a number issues. As in the past, Democratic voters (82%) are far more likely than Republicans (38%) to say the environment will be very important.

https://i.imgur.com/2UkuyE3.png

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/19/politics/democrats-motivated-supreme-court-poll-rbg/index.html

A new Marquette University Law School poll paints the landscape well. Nationally, it finds that 59% of Biden voters say that appointing the next Supreme Court justice is very important to their vote. Compare that with only 51% of Trump voters.
This finding matches what we saw in a CNN/SSRS poll last month. In that poll, 78% of Biden backers told pollsters that nominating the next justice was extremely or very important to their vote. That compared with 64% of Trump supporters. (It was 47% Biden supporters and 32% Trump supporters who said it was extremely important.) Compare these numbers to what we saw heading into the 2016 election. The final CNN/ORC poll in that cycle showed that 58% of Trump supporters said that nominating the next Supreme Court justice was extremely important to their vote, while only 46% of Hillary Clinton voters said the same. In the 2016 exit poll, Trump beat Clinton by a 15 point margin among those who put Supreme Court appointments as the most important factor to their vote.

Republicans post-Clinton could probably have attained permanent majorities just by toning down the sexism and racism. But like true fascists to the core, they had to go all-in as a revolutionary movement.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/09/16/why-donald-trump-is-losing-support-from-whites-without-college-degrees

https://www.economist.com/img/b/1000/590/90/sites/default/files/20200919_WOC599_0.png

Interesting thread about loose Trump-supporters and abortion politics.
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1307300610044297217

Forum's as neurotic as ever I see.

The current threat of reproductive rights being retracted wouldnt be an issue if they hadnt been implemented through judicial shenaniganry. Her replacement also wouldnt be a threat if not for her own party setting a precident that lead to lowering the requirements to get in a judge.

I'd say there's a moral lesson about taking shortcuts in there, another about changing rules for short term gain assuming they will never be used against them.

Not that the democrats are going to learn, to them restraint and foresight are as alien concepts as why elder abuse is wrong.

Wrong at each step. Typically-illiterate contribution. Maybe ACIN would care to lecture you about the political context of Marbury v. Madison.

ReluctantSamurai

09-22-2020, 13:02

Even the remaining Never-Trump conservatives seem to agree that Democrats have warrant to pack the courts to thwart subordinating configurations. Republicans really thought they could dissolve all restraints of civic peace toward a Bolshevik seizure of power and Democrats would perpetually crouch and surrender

I think it would be a mistake on the Dems part to get sucked into all the hysteria surrounding this SCOTUS pick. In the end, unless 4 GOP senators break with party line, and all 47 Dems vote as a single bloc, there's nothing the Dems can do to stop it. That doesn't mean they should just run up the white flag, but allowing the GOP to divert the focus from the abysmal pandemic response, the shit-hole economy, the rampant white supremacy in the White House, the lack of respect for military veterans, etc, etc, etc, is exactly playing into Fearless Leaders game. If all of that is allowed to fade into the current noise about court-packing, and veiled threats about 'retaliation', then the Dems simply continue to be bringing a knife to a gun fight. They will lose. Stay focused on COVID-19, the economy, and the subversion of democracy.

Montmorency

09-23-2020, 06:39

Still not jealous, Pannonian?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/health/coronavirus-testing-cdc.html

A heavily criticized recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last month about who should be tested for the coronavirus was not written by C.D.C. scientists and was posted to the agency’s website despite their serious objections, according to several people familiar with the matter as well as internal documents obtained by The New York Times.

The guidance said it was not necessary to test people without symptoms of Covid-19 even if they had been exposed to the virus. It came at a time when public health experts were pushing for more testing rather than less, and administration officials told The Times that the document was a C.D.C. product and had been revised with input from the agency’s director, Dr. Robert Redfield.

But officials told The Times this week that the Department of Health and Human Services did the rewriting and then “dropped” it into the C.D.C.’s public website, flouting the agency’s strict scientific review process.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/ruth-bader-ginsburg-death-mitch-mcconnell.html

Many of us are coping with that lacerating redefinition by knowingly rolling our eyes. Ginsburg’s death hurts, but more than one strain of political grief is operative. This is why so many political reactions at present seem to orbit around the question of whether an unwanted outcome was unexpected. “And you’re surprised?” is a frequent response to some new instance of Trumpian corruption. This brand of cynicism has spread, quite understandably: It’s an outlook that provides some cognitive shelter in a situation that—having historically been at least somewhat rule-bound—has one side shredding the rules and cheering at how much they’re winning. Folks who at one point gave Republican declarations of principle the benefit of the doubt (I include myself) feel like chumps now. Conversely, the cynical prognosticators who used to seem crabbed and paranoid just keep getting proven right. Whatever the worst thing you imagine McConnell doing might be, he can usually trump it.

:smug::creep:

GOP appointees (https://twitter.com/jtlevy/status/1308162118840188928) have been a majority of the Supreme Court since I was six months old.

With a new confirmation, they could easily remain a majority until I am 65 and possibly until I am 70, even if the GOP never wins the presidency or Senate again.

California Senator Feinstein on filibuster (https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1308165969022464001): “I don't believe in doing that. I think the filibuster serves a purpose. It is not often used, it's often less used now than when I first came, and I think it's part of the Senate that differentiates itself.” :shame:

Trump on Supreme Court vacancy: 'When you have the votes, you can sort of do what you want' (https://news.yahoo.com/trump-rbg-replacement-scotus-when-you-have-the-senate-you-can-sort-of-do-what-you-want-152627811.html)

When we have the votes, overhaul the federal judiciary, admit new states, curtail gerrymandering and voting rights restrictions.

I think it would be a mistake on the Dems part to get sucked into all the hysteria surrounding this SCOTUS pick. In the end, unless 4 GOP senators break with party line, and all 47 Dems vote as a single bloc, there's nothing the Dems can do to stop it. That doesn't mean they should just run up the white flag, but allowing the GOP to divert the focus from the abysmal pandemic response, the shit-hole economy, the rampant white supremacy in the White House, the lack of respect for military veterans, etc, etc, etc, is exactly playing into Fearless Leaders game. If all of that is allowed to fade into the current noise about court-packing, and veiled threats about 'retaliation', then the Dems simply continue to be bringing a knife to a gun fight. They will lose. Stay focused on COVID-19, the economy, and the subversion of democracy.

I basically agree, but beyond messaging the issue itself I want to highlight the significance vis-a-vis the Democratic agenda - and it's something that has become an emergent motivator of Democrats and Independents. It's reassuring to see how many have been at least halfway-radicalized, by not just the concrete power seizure and threat to American life but the sheer insult of it. As they should be! I made two mistakes in my previous post, first using "civic" where I meant "civil," and "Bolshevik" where "Bolshevist" would have been apter as an allusion. I hope you understand.

Regardless of what kind of rhetorical posture or focus individual Dems adopt around it during the campaigning - and Biden surely would never be the standardbearer here - the Supreme Court is on almost everyone's mind; positive indicators as to the Dems' willingness and ability to respond appropriately remind us of what's needful and give us confidence that the party will fight on our behalf. The Dems shouldn't try to shut down the government over this, but once in power the only way forward is structural reform.

Pannonian

09-23-2020, 08:49

You've got me on the sheer cynicism of US Republican politics; while our lot are similarly cynical, it's on a smaller scale, eg. Commander in Chief Dom Cummings editing his blog to make it seem as though he'd predicted the pandemic. However, our lot still has Brexit coming up, and the lovely matter of food supplies (2 day queues at the border, mmm). And your lot will be out of office this time next year. Our lot has another 4 years at least.

ReluctantSamurai

09-23-2020, 13:50

positive indicators as to the Dems' willingness and ability to respond appropriately remind us of what's needful and give us confidence that the party will fight on our behalf. The Dems shouldn't try to shut down the government over this, but once in power the only way forward is structural reform.

There's an immense gulf between what is needed, and what will be possible. This is where Biden falls flat on his ass as a president. He still believes in the "old school" way of bi-partisan action, and ideologically, that's the way you'd like to see a democratic government work. However, the word "compromise" is as foreign to today's Capital Hill politics as a White Rhino, which is to say non-existent. If Biden gets elected as president, he will face a Republican party that will be actively trying to limit the policies he can enable, and working diligently to recapture the White House in 2024, rather than enact legislation that benefits the American people. If the Dems somehow manage to gain the Senate this fall, reacquaint yourself with the term filibuster.

As a recent indicator, Biden's appeal to GOP senators on delaying the SCOTUS appointment: “Please, follow your conscience,” [...] “Don’t go there. Uphold your constitutional duty, your conscience; let the people speak.” The result? Basically an 'eff you, we are in a position of power, right now, and there's nothing you can do about it.' This article says it much better than me:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/bidens-illusory-bipartisanship/616431/

“The thing that will fundamentally change with Donald Trump out of the White House, not a joke, is you will see an epiphany occur among many of my Republican friends,” he said in May 2019. This prediction echoed something he said back in 2012, just before his ticket with President Barack Obama won reelection: “We need leaders that can control their party, and I think you’re gonna see the fever break.”

The return to this theme is evidence of Biden’s sincere, long-standing belief in bipartisanship. It is also evidence that his theory, though it may be popular with voters, reflects a failure to grapple with the challenge of contemporary power politics. The second Obama term did not see any fevers break. In the most blatant example of the new power politics, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stonewalled Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. It worked, and Trump appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch to fill the open seat.

Now another Supreme Court seat has opened shortly before an election. McConnell promptly promised to fill the seat, tacitly admitting what had been clear to most people all along: The Garland blockade was always about power politics, not precedent or procedure. Biden continues to act, however, as though appeals to propriety can work. Granted, he is not the president—at least not yet, though he believes he will be soon. Still, his appeal to GOP senators has provided a good test run for how his aisle-reaching might go, and it’s not encouraging.

This is how Republicans think:

Trump was able to pull off the hundreds-of-judges feat by turning the process almost entirely over to conservative legal activists and to the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, who created many of the vacancies in the first place by blocking Barack Obama appointees.

Trump told Woodward those vacancies were “golden nuggets” and it is quite clear what Trump bought with them: the faithful support of evangelical Christian and conservative Republican voters for whom restrictions on abortion and immigration, the elimination of environmental regulations and the ability to restrict access to voting are top political objectives.

“You know what Mitch’s biggest thing is in the whole world? His judges,” Trump told Woodward. “He will absolutely ask me, please let’s get the judge approved instead of 10 ambassadors.”

Until the Dems understand that the GOP are street brawlers who don't fight fair, and adjust their thinking to deal with that, their stay in the White House, should Biden gain it, will be brief.