All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[Mister Mets]

Never said I support Biden -- said I'll decide after the debates and support the eventual nominee against Trump, regardless.

If you want a better perspective on why some black voters might support Biden, though, it's not rocket science -- whether you accept it or not, most people (including black voters) see Biden as the best -- and most pragmatic -- option against Trump.

The article also points out that once Obama showed he could win in Iowa, many black voters shifted support to him from Hillary -- it's important to note, however, that both were more "centrist" than "progressive".

-----
"For Many Black Voters, Beating ‘The Donald’ in 2020 Trumps Race, Gender or More Progressive Concerns"

"When it comes to looking ahead to the 2020 presidential election, many black voters aren’t focused on race, gender or who can out-progessive who. They’re focused on ousting Donald Trump from the White House.

That’s according to the Los Angeles Times, which notes that while the more progressive nature and strong black base of the Democratic Party could have one thinking the next Democratic nominee will be a person of color or a woman, many black voters are setting aside thoughts of racial or gender pride to focus on who can best beat Trump at the polls.

“They are so sick and tired of being sick and tired of Trump, there’s this almost unconscious feeling they’re going to go with the candidate that is more likely to beat him,” Ron Lester, a Washington pollster who studies the attitudes of black voters, told the Times.

For many, Lester added, “that is probably a white male,” the Times reports, “given their deep-seated belief ‘that America is still a very racist place and a very misogynistic place and that a candidate who doesn’t get any white votes is probably going to lose.’”

And that has political watchers giving centrist (read: politically safe) white men like former Vice President Joe Biden the edge. Some black women voters the Times spoke with seemed to back up this assumption.

“My pragmatic side says that the person that can win this election is someone more in the middle, that’s not going to come out for [repealing] the death penalty and reparations,” said Faya Touré, a 74-year-old veteran civil rights activist in Selma, Ala. “I would love a candidate that would do that. But I don’t think that candidate’s going to win this election.”

https://www.theroot.com/for-many-bla...tru-1835315599

In addition to electability, there do appear to be other reasons African-American voters are going for Biden. They have a preference for politicians who offer incremental change, which may be one reason they didn't go for Sanders.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/...ck-voters.html

In addition, they do like Biden. They see him as an important ally, who helped the first African-American President get elected and succeed.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-biden/589402/

Columnist Keli Goff summed it up on an appearance on Left, Right and Center.

“To succeed in primarily nonblack spaces––you only do it when you have really good allies,” she declared. “And I think that one of the things Biden gets credit for, rightly or wrongly, is this idea of being the blue-collar white guy who helped give Obama legitimacy with some of the blue-collar, white, male voters who voted for Obama-Biden and then crossed over for Donald Trump. I think African Americans give credit for that. Especially when the Obama campaign was really struggling, not always fairly, with some of these race-baiting attacks, sending Biden out on the campaign trail to fight some of those fights made a difference.”

This might not last, although if the Top 4 in the Iowa polls are in the top three when the caucuses come around, he might be the main beneficiary of their support, since he has more appeal to this group than Sanders, Warren or Buttigieg.

[Mister Mets]

I've been calling them that from the beginning:

Call immigrant detention centers what they really are: concentration camps

The problem with referring to it as a concentration camp is that they're not supposed to be here. The World War 2 era concentration camps referred to citizens of their respective nations taken away from their homes by force. It would be pretty bad for Democrats if the argument about whether or not detained immigrants are sent to the moral equivalent of concentration became a proxy for whether the party is correct on immigration.

There is the counterargument that they're treated poorly by their countries of origin, although the majority of asylum claims are ultimately rejected, which undercuts that point.

[aja_christopher]

In addition to electability, there do appear to be other reasons African-American voters are going for Biden. They have a preference for politicians who offer incremental change, which may be one reason they didn't go for Sanders.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/...ck-voters.html

In addition, they do like Biden. They see him as an important ally, who helped the first African-American President get elected and succeed.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-biden/589402/

Columnist Keli Goff summed it up on an appearance on Left, Right and Center.

“To succeed in primarily nonblack spaces––you only do it when you have really good allies,” she declared. “And I think that one of the things Biden gets credit for, rightly or wrongly, is this idea of being the blue-collar white guy who helped give Obama legitimacy with some of the blue-collar, white, male voters who voted for Obama-Biden and then crossed over for Donald Trump. I think African Americans give credit for that. Especially when the Obama campaign was really struggling, not always fairly, with some of these race-baiting attacks, sending Biden out on the campaign trail to fight some of those fights made a difference.”

This might not last, although if the Top 4 in the Iowa polls are in the top three when the caucuses come around, he might be the main beneficiary of their support, since he has more appeal to this group than Sanders, Warren or Buttigieg.

Makes sense -- as I see it though, it's still a wide open race since there are a lot of quality candidates involved.

Interesting that Newt Gingrich sees Kamala as the eventual nominee -- she will definitely have an opportunity to shine during the debates.

Part of me wants to see Kamala and Beto (VP) together just for the symmetry of aligning California and Texas together in an election, even though I like Warren, Biden, and most of the other nominees as well.

-----
"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich thinks California Sen. Kamala Harris is "most likely" to be nominated to the Democrats pick to challenge President Trump in the 2020 presidential race. Gingrich, speaking to CBSN on Monday, said Harris' base of California and general likability make her a serious contender for the nomination.

"She's very articulate and I think a likable person, and I think that she represents a new generation in a way that [Joe] Biden and [Bernie] Sanders are going to work very hard to be able to match," Gingrich added.

The lifelong Republican said that while Biden and Sanders both have the advantage of national name recognition, the larger dynamic of the Democratic party as it stands now leans so far left that it presents a potential challenge for traditional candidates like the former vice president and the Vermont senator. "It's also [open] to newer faces in a way that I think Sanders has a hard time coping with."

Gingrich's forecasting isn't far off either, according to recent polling by Monmouth University, Harris placed third, behind both Biden and Sanders with 8 percent support."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/heres-w...idential-race/

[JCAll]

Easiest way to win back the white working class:

"Guys, you realize the GOP is a bunch of rich morons who are suckering you with empty promises and ridiculous claims that minorities are to blame... when it's the rich who are to blame for all your woes? No, really, there's proof of this. They literally have their campaign strategies spelled out that this is how they stay in power. F*** them, and don't fall for it ever again."

Nah, they'll just do whatever and blame the Democrats for the fallout. I still have the election mailers from last year where the GOP were blaming Democratic tariffs for ruining Missouri. And yet now Trump HAS to tariff Mexico to keep the Mexicans out.

[Dalak]

The problem with referring to it as a concentration camp is that they're not supposed to be here. The World War 2 era concentration camps referred to citizens of their respective nations taken away from their homes by force. It would be pretty bad for Democrats if the argument about whether or not detained immigrants are sent to the moral equivalent of concentration became a proxy for whether the party is correct on immigration.

There is the counterargument that they're treated poorly by their countries of origin, although the majority of asylum claims are ultimately rejected, which undercuts that point.

Did you read the story or look at the photos mentioned in it? Does the technicality of them fleeing horrible conditions excuse them being treated like this?

Photos from a Border Patrol processing center in El Paso showed people herded so tightly into cells that they had to stand on toilets to breathe. Memos surfaced by journalist Ken Klippenstein revealed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s failure to provide medical care was responsible for suicides and other deaths of detainees. These followed another report that showed that thousands of detainees are being brutally held in isolation cells just for being transgender or mentally ill.

Also last week, the Trump administration cut funding for classes, recreation and legal aid at detention centers holding minors — which were likened to “summer camps” by a senior ICE official last year. And there was the revelation that months after being torn from their parents’ arms, 37 children were locked in vans for up to 39 hours in the parking lot of a detention center outside Port Isabel, Texas. In the last year, at least seven migrant children have died in federal custody.

By defending these actions because of 'technicalities' you are doing exactly what the article accuses - working to prevent the mass outrage that such behavior rightly causes.

[Mister Mets]

It would take a sequel to 9/11 carried out by not just radical non-Christians, but one carried out by a superteam of every non-white minority that were also had women, gays and lesbians. It's the only way they could justify all their bigotry.

Republicans never winning again barring emergency is probably wishful thinking on your end. Parties don't die quickly. When they win, they tend to peak and lose support (a pattern for every presidential election since 1924.) Republicans bounced back after LBJ's 1964 landslide. Democrats lost 49 states in 1972, and still won the next presidential election. They lost 49 states in 1984 and 40 states in an open election in 1988, and still won in '92.

Donald T doesn’t strike me as a very attractive candidate. And followed a strategy that wasn’t really aimed at winning the popular vote...he aimed to win under the existing rules. (0ne of the few sensible things he did...)

And didn’t lose popular vote by that big a margin. I’d be amazed if you theory isn’t disproved in your lifetime.

Plus, the bulk of the protest vote in 2016 went to the ticket with two former Republican Governors. This suggests that the only reason the election was close was that Republicans had a weak nominee, rather than a national preference for Democrats.

The Trump campaign definitely wasn't strategizing on that or any other level, they were barely even trying to win. The election was just a combination of disillusioned left wingers who stayed home out of protest or apathy, and racist rednecks who were far more motivated than anyone could have predicted to vote Trump to own the libs.

Some people in the campaign knew what they were doing.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...lege-strategy/

They were going after the states that were necessary for a win.

Yes..maybe he wasn’t even fully committed to winning. That makes closeness of popular vote even more remarkable, surely.

If he runs again I think he will lose...as long as Democrats avoid running a disastrous candidate against him.

But in long term, losing next Presidential election is better for Republicans I suspect than another term for Trump.

Let’s assume that happens...and Democrats have run a fairly elderly candidate to win the Presidency (eg. Bernie Sanders or Hilary Clinton)..then in election after Republicans run a decent young candidate against the incumbent Democrat...straightaway I think Republicans would be favourites to win popular vote.

I really don’t buy theory that Republicans will never will popular vote again.

There may be an electoral advantage to Biden for Democrats because he'll be a one-termer. It might provide a better chance of the party getting the White House for three terms. 2024 would likely have an open election, but that would come before voters get tired of Democrats in charge, and if Democrats can win that, they'll probably have an incumbent President running for reelection in 2028. That will provide a small bump, and the last time Democrats ran for a third straight term in the White House (2000, 2016) a bump of one percent would have been enough to change the outcome.

There are complicating factors including how Biden governs as President. it's possible he'll be less effective as an immediate lame duck. But it could also be that he'll be able to get more done because Republicans will be less worried about giving him credit than they could someone who is running for reelection. That can in turn complicate the 2024 race if the popular parts of the Biden agenda are implemented, and the argument shifts to other stuff.

They will change when their present strategy fails...they will do what is necessary to win elections.

I think it’s unrealistic to believe Republicans will sit back and not change policies and attitudes as demographic and social attitudes change. They are more pragmatic than that!

The likeliest reason for a Republican revival would be Democratic overreach. Check out the way Democrats are positioning themselves on unpopular topics such as reparations, late-term abortions and Abolish ICE.

[PwrdOn]

I wouldn’t pretend for a second that racism isn’t a factor in European politics (or Chinese, African, Japanese, American, etc, etc).

But in Europe over the years think class division has been far more important in real terms....at least in country (UK) I know the best.

The thing is though, racism is very much part of the foundation of Western civilization itself because modern Europe, and the UK especially, was largely built on the colonization and exploitation of the rest of the world, justified through various slapdash racial theories. Cut out the racial politics, and the entirety of Europe would be wholly unrecognizable to us today, and what we think of as America would of course not even exist. While Asians and Africans have plenty of racist viewpoints as well, they're not really central to their civilizational fabric and removing it from their value system wouldn't alter their societies nearly as much.

[Kirby101]

The likeliest reason for a Republican revival would be Democratic overreach. Check out the way Democrats are positioning themselves on unpopular topics such as reparations, late-term abortions and Abolish ICE.

Hmm, Let's acknowledge slavery was terrible and not keep fantasizing how wonderful the Confederacy was. Maybe we should allow abortions when the mother will die or her health severely jeopardized. Maybe we should look at the Jackboot tactics of ICE and see if we can build a better agency to enforce immigration. RADICAL!!!

[JCAll]

Republicans never winning again barring emergency is probably wishful thinking on your end. Parties don't die quickly. When they win, they tend to peak and lose support (a pattern for every presidential election since 1924.) Republicans bounced back after LBJ's 1964 landslide. Democrats lost 49 states in 1972, and still won the next presidential election. They lost 49 states in 1984 and 40 states in an open election in 1988, and still won in '92.

Oh, I know Republicans will keep winning, Democrats and Republicans will continue to trade wins forever. It's just that I don't think the popular vote will be any sort of reflection on wins and losses going forward.

[Tami]

Trump Laments his Lack of China-Style Control of Fed Policy

President Donald Trump renewed his attack on the Federal Reserve, complaining it doesn’t “listen” to him and contrasting that lack of obedience with the control that China’s leader wields over its central bank.

“The head of the Fed in China is President Xi,” Trump told CNBC television in a telephone interview Monday. “He can do whatever he wants. They devalue. They loosen” monetary policy to help offset the burden of tariffs, he said. The People’s Bank of China lacks the political independence of counterparts like the Fed, meaning Chinese President Xi Jinping and his colleagues must approve major PBOC decisions.

You know this is what Trump dreams of

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Trump Laments his Lack of China-Style Control of Fed Policy



You know this is what Trump dreams of

The fact Dolt45 doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing is proof he shouldn’t be allowed to do whatever he wants. PERIOD!

[PwrdOn]

Trump Laments his Lack of China-Style Control of Fed Policy



You know this is what Trump dreams of

This actually makes Trump much worse than the Chinese if you think about it. The Chinese leadership is unelected and so people have no reason not to believe that what they instruct their central bank to do is what they think is best for their economy. Trump just wants to be able to use the Fed to **** with the economy in order to swing elections in his favor, which can have serious long term consequences for the country.

[Tendrin]

Amash has officially left the house Freedom Caucus.

[Tendrin]

As President Obama once said, elections have consequences.
Florida brought the latest reminder of that on Friday, when Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law a bill that makes it much harder to change the state constitution via citizen-led ballot measures.

As Matt Shuham reports, this move puts a major dent in what is essentially the last lever of power Democrats have in the Sunshine State, which is currently overseen by a Republican governor, legislature, secretary of state and attorney general. Every member of the state Supreme Court has also been appointed by Republicans.Progressive voices have long relied on the ballot initiative process as their best last resort. In recent years, they have successfully mobilized voters to restore voting rights to felons, legalize medical marijuana, and reduce class sizes. But they now face laborious signature-gathering requirements and hundreds or thousands of dollars in fines for errors.

Elections have consequences, like the article says, and the republican party will do anything and eveything it can to keep the people from making themselves heard. How better to breed the sort of apathy that they rely on to stay in power?

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog...atives-florida

[Iron Maiden]

Well, well, well and Sen. Mitch McConnell and his wife, Elaine Cho may have got themselves into a conflict of interest problem. Was watching this story being reported a few hours ago on Rachel Maddow's show. The story comes from Politico Elaine Cho's position as Secretary of the Dept. of Transportation along with her "special intermediary" for the state of Kentucky, got some key road projects pushed to the top of the line, a total of 78 million worth. One project had been rejected twice before for a grant but voila, Elaine and her assistant Todd Inman got it OK'd. Inman even helped put the grant together for them so that it would get approved. Besides acting as her chief of staff, Inman was working as a special intermediary for the state of Kentucky. BTW, no other states has a person assigned to them to work on getting their grants approved. This is not sitting well with other GOP senators who'd like to get a similar boost for their projects. McConnell is up for re-election in 2020 so this is something he can tout in his campaign.