I kept thinking about this and wondering when, since Johnson, it would NOT have been applicable...Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
Printable View
I kept thinking about this and wondering when, since Johnson, it would NOT have been applicable...Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
The last few months have been the quietest that I can remember in my lifetime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
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.
Completely agree. Biden's speech today I think was a step towards the right direction. Jennifer Rubin had a good article yesterday about just this:
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.Quote:
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.”
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.Quote:
I think that things will calm over the next few weeks like it has before and the news can focus on COVID 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/2020/6/16/212866...ing-the-police
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?Quote:
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).
The Republican soul. If only police had the restraint of customer-facing staff.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1299914167525216256 [VIDEO]
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!'Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
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, about that...)
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:
Attachment 23928
Orgah Idaho's signature is a good start.
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.Quote:
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.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ele...oting-n1112436
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.Quote:
The most aggressive Democrats have been against Trump was their narrow and somber impeachment inquiry.
An interesting read from a week ago:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-loses/615835/
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
A further knock on the Democratic response to the shifting public attention:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...-strife-405578
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:Quote:
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?”
The same reason why he should have already been in Kenosha:inquisitive:Quote:
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.”
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.Quote:
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.
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/magazi...arassed-325676
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
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 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. 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. Of course, video game political ads are not unprecedented, as Obama did the same thing in 2008.
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
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?Quote:
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 subliminal answer is: unleash the full fash.)
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?"Quote:
What do you think of Biden's Pittsburgh speech?
Here's where I think Wizard's First Rule [which I alluded to earlier] applies:Quote:
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
"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/2020/6/16/212866...ng-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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
From an article two years ago:Quote:
Or does he just not think his voters will care? Im guessing thats the case.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...licans-passive
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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:Quote:
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.
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 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, 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.
Agreed.Quote:
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
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.Quote:
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.
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......Quote:
makes me think that the media isn't really interested in the bills or the messaging- just the drama.
I mean I think impeachment really got to him. I remember his unhinged rants rather well.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
And one might argue that Hillary is still living rent-free in his head too.
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.Quote:
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......
Edit: on the topic of effective ads, I think this new Biden ad really does a good job.
Edit #2: interesting data out of the most recent Fox News poll (in a day that is already packed with new polls)- 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.
Aphorism for the day: "It's easier to be the conservative in a liberal church than a liberal in a conservative church."
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
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.
Biden seems to be hammering just this point a lot.Quote:
and start asking the American public---Do you feel safer today than four years ago?
https://twitter.com/joebiden/status/1299164296329523200
https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/stat...98329852280832 [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.
See also:Quote:
Smart money, dumb money, and dead money all say, nine weeks before Election Day, that the presidential race is pretty much a coin flip:
My friend JJ is a very successful gambler, and he has a theory:Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate Silver
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
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.)Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020...acy-study.html
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.Quote:
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.
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.)Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
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.
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.Quote:
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......
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.Quote:
weary of the BS in Congress at not getting anything done.
I think David Frum of all people put it best:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Sadly we are seeing this coming true now right before our eyes.Quote:
If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
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
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:
Quote:
Barack Obama called Donald Trump a "fascist" in a phone conversation with Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia during the 2016 presidential election, Kaine says in a video clip featured in an upcoming documentary about Hillary Clinton.
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:Quote:
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.
https://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-...-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:
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...dle-is-a-myth/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ers-are-there/
Turnout is important! But it's generally seen as a separate issue from capturing "swing" voters.Quote:
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:
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.Quote:
https://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-...-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.
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.Quote:
I think it's a safe bet to say that SCOTUS will be deciding the outcome of the presidential election in 2020:shrug:
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
2
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
5
Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
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
Interesting that this has gone completely under media radar:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/antifa-...acist-threats/
Such "fine people".
:no:
Interesting read:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...navirus-408631
Quote:
“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.
Hilarious article about Trump and the military.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...uckers/615997/
Kind of throws me that Levitt repeats a paragraph almost verbatim at the end, but anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
Seems Trump has been saying this lately.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN25U0KK
He said it in 2016 as well.
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/ne...111519972.html
Someone who followed his directive last time.
https://twitter.com/TheGoodLiars/sta...78831749730307
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, 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.
Portent of things to come?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...latile/616054/
This is going to get real ugly:shame:Quote:
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.”
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.
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:Quote:
I'd be surprised if it turned into a major thing.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-X48fnUH8gQuote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
Maybe this 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).
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.Quote:
Maybe this soothes some of the jitters in your gut.
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:
Its why Ive been trying to encourage people to vote early in-person.
Edit: something on the lighter side-
Attachment 23931
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/...ts-biden-trump
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?Quote:
“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.
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.Quote:
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.
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:Quote:
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.”
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?Quote:
“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.”
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?Quote:
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.
Ahhh...give me my lollypop, and we'll be good little boys and girls.:no:Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Far left is far left, in the US as in the UK.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
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.
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-tan...ederal-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.
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 for the overwhelming case that (white) evangelicals are moral monsters whose religion is neoconfederatism and who revel in cruelty unto others.
https://i.imgur.com/DDW6ik7.pngQuote:
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/vy9onwz.png
Sanders: America must be prepared for when Trump refuses to leave office
Tell 'em boyQuote:
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.
btw
https://i.imgur.com/89ZcF7v.jpgQuote:
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.
lol
Prayerfully, in 10 weeks
Quote:
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.
I mean, as should be clear from all my posting - I agree!Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
But there are multiple layers to this business that we need to sort.
Long live King Prospero in his White Palace.Quote:
The "Red Mirage" seems more and more plausible.
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.)Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
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.)Quote:
Can someone explain to me how that last statement makes any sense?
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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
it's all about the symbolism and aesthetic rather than the pursuit of power.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Now I dont think the threat of Bernie voter defections is as bad now as it was in 2016, when roughly 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.
It occurs to me, many thousands of Democrats may be (unnecessarily) rioting the day after Election Day, as a shocking number 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. 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 are starting to get desperate.
Go even further.Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Chris Murphy
Some more typical stuff about Trump finances and subornation of government.
Quote:
President Trump 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.”
Quote:
In a highly unusual 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.
Flashback to 2016:Quote:
Money was supposed 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.
As a Scorcese movie this would be unwatchable. Especially with no one getting killed.Quote:
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.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...r-backs-biden/Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Even Richard Spencer 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.)
It's too hot in CA to think about politics right now.
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 to this. [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.
Quote:
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:
Classic.Quote:
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.
Par for the course polling result:
Quote:
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.
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/b...-woodward.html
Though it's unclear if Szalai is pointing a complicit finger at Woodward or at Fearless Leader's staff...:shrug:Quote:
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?
As a follow-up, Woodward defending his decision to sit on information contained in his book:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...49c_story.html
:inquisitive:Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
So what meaningful changes do you see in the coming weeks as a result of the fallout from all of this?
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 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.
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....Quote:
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.
:shame:
A speculative insight on why the Senate Republicans or Mitch McConnell may be refusing to legislate new pandemic relief. The discussion in comments is also very worthwhile.
Quote:
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...sappear-again/
From Woodward's book:
Look, it's more history for us. :shrug: Hopefully it's useful to some postdoc when we're dead.Quote:
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.”)
(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!)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
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."Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
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.
It does seem liable to congeal the dwindling of Trump's polling lead among elderly white voters, particularly in Florida.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
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 of all people seems to recognize this. This article, by Tom Nichols from yesterday is probably the best summation of why the GOP is beyond saving:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Quote:
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 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. 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.Quote:
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.
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:
Well I guess we now have some numbers as to the potential impact of the Woodward tapes plus the Atlantic story about the troops:
The interesting takeaway here seems to be that the Atlantic story seems to have had a bigger impact than the Woodward story.Quote:
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.
You just don't screw with loyalty to the military. Especially if you've never served....Quote:
The interesting takeaway here seems to be that the Atlantic story seems to have had a bigger impact than the Woodward story.
As damning as the Woodward story is, this is equally damning, if not more so:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...ovid-19-412809
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.Quote:
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.'"
Less inept and more malicious and deceitful in my opinion.
And re: the military, him entering his most recent rally to Fortunate Son is really something else. Hes the definition of a chickenhawk.
We're less than 2 months to go and it's getting even nastier.
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/2020/0...-nevada-412990
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.~DQuote:
“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.”
https://www.mediamatters.org/roger-s...loses-election
https://i.imgur.com/TM9g64s.gifQuote:
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.
I am exquisitely triggered.
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.
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.
I saw someone on twitter comment that Trump isnt trying to win, he is trying to get within cheating distance, which I thinkQuote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
he ishe is getting there.
wtf ffs smh nagl nglQuote:
The top 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.”
Every day is Flight 93 day.
:laugh4:Quote:
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 only truthful part of his entire statement:inquisitive:Quote:
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.”
:juggle2:Quote:
“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.”
https://i.imgur.com/TM9g64s.gifQuote:
“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.”
QAnon is already in Washington:boxedin:
Good read on a critique of media in the US:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...stakes/616222/
On "Both-Sides-Ism":Quote:
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 Horse-Race-Ism:Quote:
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 the "Spectacle":Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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."
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 was written. Really quite a humorous read:
Quote:
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.
On fires and militias in the Pacific Northwest, where the decline of the American state into failure is especially stark.
https://twitter.com/R3volutionDaddy/...47303066869762
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.
https://time.com/5887437/conspiracy-...2020-election/Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
[I remembered this short from all the way back in the early days of Youtube. If the shoe fits...]Quote:
They are impervious to messaging, advertising or data. They aren’t just infected with conspiracy; they appear to be inoculated against reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La6T8Bq6CsU
Quote:
Why the stability of the 2020 race promises more volatility ahead
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 knew it was Petri without clicking. But this abuser logic has been properly (if not widely enough) mocked since at least 2017.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
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...
Dunno what this says about what motivates people:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/202...es-if-you-vote
Oops:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-race-abc-news
It didn't take long for The Lincoln Project to jump on that one:
https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/s...61951705858048
:elephant:
It's over. The last thing we wanted to happen, happened. So fucked.
Quoi?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Liberal SCOTUS justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died.
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.
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.
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 is a good summation of what might happen, which wont be pretty any way one puts it:
Edit: this is some motivation- ActBlue (the Dem online donation website) processed 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.Quote:
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.
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.
Attachment 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
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 Republicanfixerselders 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 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). Also:
https://prospect.org/blogs/tap/elect...-senate-races/
But of course:Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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
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:Quote:
Trump needs to keep the focus from being on his leadership. It is exactly what he needs — the greatest possible distraction.
https://www.newsweek.com/democrat-mi...ominee-1439995
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.....Quote:
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."
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/trum...nell-says.html
Quote:
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.