All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[wjowski]

"Polls show Bernie Sanders popularity among all voters is plummeting"

"One of the arguments Bernie Sanders' fans made during the 2016 Democratic primary was that he was more electable than Hillary Clinton. His favorable ratings with the general electorate were far higher than Hillary Clinton's. Indeed, Sanders maintained fairly high favorable ratings with all voters as late as 2018.

Sanders' popularity among all voters seems to be declining considerably in the last few months, however.

Our new CNN poll puts Sanders favorable rating at 46% compared to an unfavorable rating of 45% among registered voters. This is only the latest poll to have Sanders at basically even in his net favorability rating (favorable-unfavorable). A Quinnipiac University poll from late December gave the Vermont senator a net favorability of just +2 points. An average of all recent polls put Sanders' net favorability at about -1 points.

Compare that to where Sanders was at the end of his 2016 presidential bid. Sanders had a 59% favorable rating to 36% unfavorable rating among all voters in a CNN poll taken in June 2016. Sanders was able to hold onto much of his popularity through last year. A CNN poll taken in early December 2018 gave him a +13 net favorability rating with all voters. A Gallup poll in September 2018 had him at a +15 net favorability rating with all adults.

So, what's changed? I'd argue that Sanders was benefiting from not being in a competitive campaign. (Former Vice President Joe Biden, who has garnered the most support in general election polls among the Democrats, may be benefiting from a similar effect.) When you're not being thought of a viable threat to win a party's nomination, opponents tend to lay off. The last time Sanders was thought of as at least a minor threat to win the Democratic nomination was in March 2016. His net favorability rating back then among all voters was +3 points in a CNN poll.

The good news for Sanders is that his net favorability rating is at about the same level as the other people who have declared their candidacy for the Democratic nomination. Most of these other candidates, however, are relatively unknown. At least at this point, it's not the case that Sanders is less electable than the average Democrat. It's just that he cannot make the case that he is more electable based on national polling.

Sanders, though, may have to convince Democratic voters that he electable. In our poll, just 30% of Democratic voters believe the party has a better chance of winning the presidency with him than someone else as the nominee.

The vast majority, 59%, think they have a better shot of winning with someone else."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/20/polit...ing/index.html

Not surprising. There's a number of hard-left candidates this time and they're probably eating into Bernie's base.

[aja_christopher]

Minority voter disenfranchisement is key to Republican success.

------
"Florida Republicans Move to Limit Felon Voting Rights Despite Constitutional Amendment"

"Florida legislators advanced a bill on Tuesday that is expected to limit the number of former felons who can vote, in part by requiring former felons to pay back all court fees and fines before they can register.

Critics say the measure hits lower-income Floridians hardest and is designed to defy the will of the voters, who passed a constitutional amendment last year restoring voting rights to some felons who have completed their sentences without any mention of fines and fees. Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., wrote on Twitter that the measure was "a poll tax by any other name."

“What the barriers proposed in this bill do is nearly guarantee that people will miss election after election …because they cannot afford to pay financial obligations,” said Julie Ebenstein, a voting rights attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union. “It’s an affront to the Florida voters.”

In November, 65 percent of Floridians voted to approve an amendment to the state's constitution, Amendment 4, that restored voting rights to certain former felons “after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation.” Those who were convicted of “murder or sexual offenses” were not eligible for rights restoration.

The constitutional amendment, which took effect January 2019, said voting rights would be restored to eligible Floridians — an estimated 1.5 million. Many have registered to vote in the months since then. Still, there was confusion about implementation, such as what qualified as a "sexual offense." The Republican-controlled legislature, at the encouragement of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, decided to write legislation on how the state would implement the change.

On Tuesday, a Republican-controlled committee passed a measure that would require felons to pay back all court fees and fines — even if they are slowly paying those costs back in a court-approved payment plan, for instance — before they can register to vote.

Ebenstein said the bill "subverts" the will of Florida voters, who she said couldn't have considered the legislature's method of implementing the amendment when voting.

"Keeping voters who can’t afford to pay their fees immediately, keeping them disenfranchised for additional years, decades, or for the rest of their life, is not what was contemplated by voters who passed this amendment," she said.

The Republican chair of Florida's state House Criminal Justice Subcommittee, Rep. James "J.W." Grant, denied suggestions from advocates the bill was politically motivated and rejected the idea that it amounted to a poll tax, according to The Associated Press.

Grant did not return a request for comment from NBC News."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...ndment-n985156

[TheDarman]

That sticks out a bit.

A hundred thousand less donations, and they are using the term "Unique Donations".

Not really. They use the same number to identify voter bases for all other candidates. And the maximum is still $2,700 and the average would likely be higher if they were doing those kinds tactics. I’m sure there were high profile donors. Absolutely. But that doesn’t mean they made up the majority of it.

Look, it is your prerogative not to like the guy. But I don’t understand the effort to downplay his support among ordinary folks to make him out to be this evil corporatist. I mean, it’s not like anyone denied Bernie has a large donor base with grassroots support. They only said that it was early and the favorite, after fundraising, was Jen Bush in 2016. Which is true and the same could be certainly true with O’Rourke too. But these conspiracies with the donation stuff are a step too far. His platform, or perceived lack thereof, is certainly fair game. But without PACs or SuperPACs supporting him, it is time we let pretty much all these candidates running off the hook for being beholden to big interests.

[Robotman]

This is pretty damn scary and it explains a lot about our losing efforts against misinformation. Russia has weaponized our gullibility.

https://www.businessinsider.com/russ...ry-2019-3?IR=T

[Tendrin]

Not surprising. There's a number of hard-left candidates this time and they're probably eating into Bernie's base.

Not just that but several of Bernie's loudest advocates are in the 'actually, Obama was bad' camp. While that may or may not be accurate depending on your personal politics, it is probably not a winning strategy for the democratic primry or the country at large.

The only good thing I can see about Bernie's 2020 run is that he's going to need to push even further left to separate himself from a pack of further left candidates. He's not running against someone he can demonize with nebulous wall street speeches this time.

[numberthirty]

Not really. They use the same number to identify voter bases for all other candidates. And the maximum is still $2,700 and the average would likely be higher if they were doing those kinds tactics. I’m sure there were high profile donors. Absolutely. But that doesn’t mean they made up the majority of it.

Look, it is your prerogative not to like the guy. But I don’t understand the effort to downplay his support among ordinary folks to make him out to be this evil corporatist. I mean, it’s not like anyone denied Bernie has a large donor base with grassroots support. They only said that it was early and the favorite, after fundraising, was Jen Bush in 2016. Which is true and the same could be certainly true with O’Rourke too. But these conspiracies with the donation stuff are a step too far. His platform, or perceived lack thereof, is certainly fair game. But without PACs or SuperPACs supporting him, it is time we let pretty much all these candidates running off the hook for being beholden to big interests.

Put simply...

- Didn't put out any numbers with the total right away.
- There's around one hundred thousand less donors.
- There's more than one hundred thousand dollars more in donations.
- The campaign is using phrases like "Unique Donations".

When you know those are the facts, it's not exactly unusual to think "I wonder just how much bundling might have happened there?"

If they have more specific numbers that would completely put that to bed, they aren't exactly in a hurry to put them out.

While what they have put out certainly doesn't look like it's "That Crooked Phat Cash!", they also don't really look like "We're Leveling With You!" grassroots numbers either.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Prime Minister: New Zealand To Ban Military-Style Semiautomatic Weapons After Massacre

The ban will include military-style assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and tools to modify firearms.

**********

Trump: ‘I Didn’t Get Thank You’ For Approving John McCain’s Funeral Arrangements

“I gave him the kind of funeral he wanted,” the president said during a speech about the economy on Wednesday. No, you didn't, Pissy POTUS. Enough with the petty attacks on John McCain who obviously can't defend himself. Meanwhile....

**********

GOP Sen. Johnny Isakson Slams Trump’s ‘Deplorable’ Attacks On McCain

“America deserves better,” the Georgia lawmaker said. Meanwhile, not a peep from McCain's so-called best friend, Lindsey Graham. Guess he's too damn gutless to slam Trump.

**********

Kentucky Governor Says He Exposed His 9 Kids To Chickenpox Instead Of Vaccinating Them

Gov. Matt Bevin thinks the government shouldn’t mandate vaccines because “This is America.” What. The. Flaming. ****? Oh, WBE........

**********

Mexicans Are Stealing Border Wall Materials, Using Them For Home Security

Who’s paying for what, now? Oh, this is hilarious!

[TheDarman]

Put simply...

- Didn't put out any numbers with the total right away.
- There's around one hundred thousand less donors.
- There's more than one hundred thousand dollars more in donations.
- The campaign is using phrases like "Unique Donations".

When you know those are the facts, it's not exactly unusual to think "I wonder just how much bundling might have happened there?"

If they have more specific numbers that would completely put that to bed, they aren't exactly in a hurry to put them out.

While what they have put out certainly doesn't look like it's "That Crooked Phat Cash!", they also don't really look like "We're Leveling With You!" grassroots numbers either.

Again, the bundles would be maxed out at $2,700 for individual campaign contributions. In a pool of $6.1 million, that doesn’t altogether mean a whole lot. That’s not different from the maximum one could’ve contributed to Bernie. Now, we can see Bernie’s base is bigger and offered a lower average donation than O’Rourke’s. But the most that can be contributed is $2,700 and the averages and total donation base refutes the point that it was something carried out on that level. Even if every single dollar raised was bought by bundling (which is unlikely), that’s still 2,250 unique donors. That doesn’t track particularly well with the people he’s getting out to rallies and the like, but that still is a number of people. Certainly large enough where talks of influence by corporations are overblown, at best. Also of note, getting an average of $48 is mathematically difficult to get to in bundles of $2,700, which has $48 go in a total of 56.25 times to that limit of $2,700. So, even under that worst case scenario, where it is overblown at best, it seems unlikely that that it is what is going on.

[worstblogever]

All the comments online about how Beto's 6 million day one numbers came from a total of 5 donors, etc., is pretty funny to me now.

Beto O'Rourke's $6.1 million came from 128,000 donors, averaging $48 each
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/poli...s-averaging-47

You don't suppose that someone would be disingenuous online in comments? (Or that that might have been spread through a bot campaign combined with easily fooled supporters of Sanders who are threatened by another candidate who's an actual Democrat.)

[worstblogever]

In 2015, in 2016, and in 2017, “Crazy Stupid Republican of the Day” published profiles of former Washington State Senator Pam Roach, who we noted for a quarter century was a terror in the Washington State Legislature, with reports of her mistreating or threatening staffers (including once reportedly brandishing a firearm to do so), and giving the middle finger to a colleague over the terrible offense of moving her beloved bouquet of roses that she insists on having delivered every day (not caring that her colleague moved them because they’re allergic). She was forced into anger management classes by her own caucus, and when they allowed her back from them too soon, they were sued for allowing her to return and “create a hostile work environment”. Roach, of course, believes she is being unfairly treated in all of these incidents, and played the victim card, saying that she has fewer rights than “somebody who burgles the house, who rapes a child that causes a fire and causes a building to go down”. The Washington GOP set up a primary challenger for her in 2014, who lost to her because he was a convicted sex offender. Her temper tantrums make the fact that she’s pro-death penalty, anti-LGBT rights, pro-transphobic bathroom bans, and anti-abortion including in cases of rape or incest seem almost forgettable, in comparison to the drama she brings. Pam Roach barely won re-election in the 2014 elections after the state GOP attempt to give her a primary challenger, so she took a hint and decided to not run for her seat in the Washington State Senate in 2016. We will retire her CSGOPOTD profile at this time and go ahead and take a look at a different wacky Republican today instead. (Current crazy/stupid scoreboard, is now 663-25, since this was established in July 2014.)


On this date one year ago, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” first profiled Mark Cole, a member of the Virginia House of Delegates representing District 88 since 2001, and man voted most likely to be a chin transplant recipient in his high school yearbook.

And, suffice to say, there’s not much interesting to say about the first half of his career. Since 2010 though…

In February of 2010, Mark Cole made a name for himself for sponsoring legislation to outlaw medical insurance companies or employers from implanting microchips in people. Which… wasn’t actually a thing that anyone was doing, but Mark Cole wanted to fear-monger and convince he would put a stop to. Specifically, he started to rant about how he was on a mission to prevent the Anti-Christ.

"My understanding -- I'm not a theologian -- but there's a prophecy in the Bible that says you'll have to receive a mark, or you can neither buy nor sell things in end times. Some people think these computer chips might be that mark."

Now, that’s pretty nutty, even for a lot of the fear Republicans wanted to propagate around the time the Affordable Care Act passed. Well, that’s not the only piece of legislation that Mark Cole sponsored that’s cringeworthy. In January of 2016, he sponsored a piece of transphobic bathroom legislation aimed at school children that actually asked that the genitals of the children be inspected to determine their “anatomical sex” and then assign which restroom they should be allowed to use in school. Because THAT isn’t inherently creepy. Let’s hire people to inspect the kiddos’ bits and pieces.

While Cole did survive the bloodbath the Virginia GOP endured in the 2017 election, he hasn’t changed much in the new term, including that he blocked the passage of an Equal Rights Amendment in the state. He countered by sponsoring anti-immigrant legislation to prohibit the creation of sanctuary cities. The rest of his voting record, of course, shows him as being wildly anti-choice, pro-gun, and pro-death penalty.

Mark Cole is up for re-election this fall, and it will be interesting to see if the momentous efforts Democrats made only two years ago continue to trend in their direction, or if current events for Virginia Democrats hurt their chances in November.

[Tendrin]

You don't suppose that someone would be disingenuous online in comments? (Or that that might have been spread through a bot campaign combined with easily fooled supporters of Sanders who are threatened by another candidate who's an actual Democrat.)

"But bundling!"

[numberthirty]

You don't suppose that someone would be disingenuous online in comments? (Or that that might have been spread through a bot campaign combined with easily fooled supporters of Sanders who are threatened by another candidate who's an actual Democrat.)

You're buying into that said comments actually exist.

Far as I can remember, no actual examples of "People Are Calling Harris "White Hillary"" have actually turned up.

[numberthirty]

"But bundling!"

Since it seems like this one might have been something folks missed...

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/14/form...e-in-2020.html

Former Obama bundler reaching out to top Democratic Party donors to gain support for Beto O’Rourke’s 2020 candidacy

[Tendrin]

Since it seems like this one might have been something folks missed...

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/14/form...e-in-2020.html

So, yes. You're going with that.

[numberthirty]

So, yes. You're going with that.

I'm pointing out that...

- A bundler would appear to be involved.
- Campaign ain't exactly being up front about what's what.
- Campaign ain't exactly being up front about what's what.

Could be that it doesn't amount to much. Doesn't mean that what they've coughed up rules bundling out.