All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[BeastieRunner]

Given past problems with Trump nominees who quickly flamed out because they were inept and/or unqualified, I’m not surprised he went this route so he can install cronies without going through the annoying process of proper vetting by Congress.

Looking at his list that are currently blocked, 99 of them have bipartisan votes AGAINST.

So 99 of 129 are so bad, even the "moderate" GOPers won't touch them.

[Tendrin]

Posted that one on the last page, including a pic of her and a bunch of others recreating one of the opening scenes from the first Dead Rising.

Didn't see it. Only saw what Tami posted. XD

But... yeah. It's special.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

McConnell is a tool, something Trump is using to get what he wants. So, occasionally he throws MCConnell a bone to make him happy. If Trump loses, then he no longer has any use for McConnell or the Republican Party. If there are vacancies that Biden can fill, Trump will just blame McConnell for it.

That Trump wants to put his own people in certain positions is all about his ego. Trump wants to surround himself with as many bootlickers, butt kissers, ego strokers, & yes men as he can find.

I've been of the opinion it's the other way around, that it's Moscow Mitch who's using Trump to ram through tax cuts for the rich and stack the courts with right wing ideologues. Hell, McConnell is already on record saying he'll block and and all bills if Trump loses in November but Republicans retain the Senate. However, I would agree that Trump and Turtle Boy enjoy quite the relationship that borders on incestuous.

====================

Trump Looks To Ease Distancing In Places; CEOs Urge Caution

The president says he’s prepared to announce new guidelines allowing some states to quickly ease up on social distancing, but business leaders are asking for more testing first.

**********

DOJ Watchdog To Inspect Prisons After Hundreds Of Inmates Sickened With COVID-19

As of Wednesday, 451 federal inmates and 280 Bureau of Prisons staff members had tested positive for the coronavirus.

**********

Senate Democrats To Trump: You Failed At Managing National Stockpile

The Democrats sent a letter urging Trump to explain what happened with the national stockpile and what Jared Kushner’s role in the coronavirus task force is.

**********

Donald Trump Wants To Fight Coronavirus As A ‘Wartime President.’ He Can’t.

War, as a metaphor, what is it good for? Having dodged the Draft, Trump wouldn't know how anyway.

**********

Evangelical Pastors Seize Political Opportunity in Coronavirus Crisis

The real reason some parishioners are being encouraged to hug in church.

**********

Fox News Host Blasts ‘Incorrect’ Coronavirus Models, Claims Reopening Is ‘Key’

Martha MacCallum compared numbers to the 2018 flu season in her argument for opening the country back up “soon.” Death Panel network, yo!

[Mister Mets]

For Republicans and viewers of The Apprentice, this was likely a feature, not a bug.





As I stated before, this is often not the case. Nearly 50% of the time, one candidate or the other gets less votes than the candidate from that Party in the previous Election. If Trump was a 'weak' opponent, he would have gotten fewer votes than his predecessor in the previous Election, despite the increase in population.



Except when you look at the comfortable lead that she had before the statement as opposed to after. Apply those margins to the states that she lost (not entirely statistically accurate, I know), and she would have won those states handily. I agree, though, everything does matter! Felony disenfranchisement matters. Voter ID to combat a crime that is virtually nonexistent matters. Closing polling places in poor neighborhoods matters. Purging 'black sounding' names from voter rolls matters. Spoiler votes matter. Manufacturing false equivalencies that 'both Parties are exactly the same' matters.

Trump could outperform previous candidates by being a stronger politician, or by running in a more favorable environment.

If Hillary were a significantly weaker nominee than Obama, her general election opponent could outperform McCain and Romney without being a better politician.

It's a mistake to not consider the context in which candidates ran when assessing their strengths and weaknesses.

The Occupy Wall Street movement and the vocal repudiation of Obama's performance during his 2nd term by key figures who were longtime Democratic Party advocates are just a few key indicators that demonstrated a loss of support.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-house/606985/

There are countless of historical examples that show that a lack of a meaningful left program will leave the working class vulnerable to far-right galvanizing. It is practically the story of the 20th century. The liberal center has done an awful job at mediating social forces that, in reality, it can not control or overcome.

As for Obama not appearing progressive, his messaging of "Hope and Change", promise of healthcare reform, and running as the first black presidential candidate was plenty to signify a break from convention in US political culture. (Unfortunately it was anything but.)

But Occupy didn't have much of an impact.

Part of it is that there weren't that many of them. They didn't have close to the numbers of the tea party. It seemed to be a movement built on getting outsized attention to a relatively small group of people protesting in major media markets. It was never clear whether a large enough percentage of the population was politically simpatico, but it's hard to get the numbers when going for something that requires days-long commitment, which weeds out people who have personal responsibilities.

[aja_christopher]

It's a mistake to not consider the context in which candidates ran when assessing their strengths and weaknesses.

You're the one who didn't consider the "context" -- s/he brought up voter suppression and similar issues relevant to Republican election chicanery, which have repeatedly been deemed illegal by courts of law, and you just ignored them.

Your party literally struck down the Voting Rights Act so that they can continue to routinely engage in voter suppression against minority voters.

Why? Because they know one of best ways for them to win election and re-election is to suppress African-American votes.

[aja_christopher]

"GOP war on Voting Rights Act"

"In 2006, Congress reauthorized Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act with nearly unanimous Republican support. In 2012, Republican officials declared war on minority voting and have challenged the constitutionality of Section 5 — which requires states and localities with egregious histories of voting discrimination to seek federal approval before making any election changes — in multiple court cases. What happened?

Consider: Republican support among African-Americans for presidential nominee Mitt Romney finally hit zero in a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll and the GOP’s strength among Latino voters is nearly as anemic. These numbers make minority voters, sadly, irresistible targets for Republican vote suppression efforts.

In many states, only the Voting Rights Act is standing in the GOP’s way. Rather than showing respect for the voting rights of minorities and winning their votes with appealing policies, Republicans appear to have instead decided to try to expel them from the electorate and attack the biggest legal obstacle to their expulsion — the Voting Rights Act.

The rights of minority voters, however, are not fair game in partisan battles. Partisanship must not be allowed to trump equal opportunity in voting. Republicans have whipped up a phony frenzy over the extent of voter fraud to justify their assault on minority voters.

Rather than working overtime to stir up fears, they should join in efforts to broaden the franchise to include as many Americans as possible. The true scandal in our electoral process is our shockingly low turnout level. Nearly every other advanced democracy has higher voter participation. Yet we now have one political party working mightily to reduce that turnout through unwarranted restrictions that disproportionately burden minority voters.

The math is simple. The Voting Rights Act increases the number and effectiveness of minority voters. And minority voters now overwhelmingly support Democrats. President Barack Obama’s support among African-Americans has reached 94 percent. Latinos have voted increasingly Democratic since California Gov. Pete Wilson launched the GOP’s war against undocumented immigrants with Proposition 187 in 1994. The Republicans’ current hard-line immigration policies have only advanced this trend.

Reduce the minority vote and Republicans improve their chances of winning."

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/...hts-act-081050

[TheDarman]

Trump could outperform previous candidates by being a stronger politician, or by running in a more favorable environment.

If Hillary were a significantly weaker nominee than Obama, her general election opponent could outperform McCain and Romney without being a better politician.

It's a mistake to not consider the context in which candidates ran when assessing their strengths and weaknesses.

Another key point of context: 2016 was the first election without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act since 1966. This allowed for new laws that suppressed a number of votes in key states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—all of whom had been working for years, under Republican governors and gerrymandered legislatures to disenfranchise voters were they couldn’t be contained to districts that were packed or cracked.

For further context, Wisconsin gerrymandered their state districts so much that a 55% win stateside for the Democratic Party only resulted in Democrats holding a little over a third of the state house seats. That is absolutely ludicrous. Admittedly, especially in states like Wisconsin, it is more likely that Democrats would have fewer seats relative to their vote share given their propensity to pack districts anyway. But a 20% vote differential between vote share and representation allocated is clearly a bit of foul play.

[TheDarman]

Black VP seems to be best choice for Biden and boosts him in polling relative to other choices.

Among these prospective black female VP choices, Kamala Harris and Stacey Abrams do extraordinarily well with net favorability ratings above 30% for both.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Black VP seems to be best choice for Biden and boosts him in polling relative to other choices.

Among these prospective black female VP choices, Kamala Harris and Stacey Abrams do extraordinarily well with net favorability ratings above 30% for both.

Too soon for Abrams, she doesn't have the experience for VP. Harris would be the best bet.

[ed2962]

Too soon for Abrams, she doesn't have the experience for VP. Harris would be the best bet.

I dunno...at this point, I don't think experience is that much of a factor for most mainstream voters anymore.

[TheDarman]

Too soon for Abrams, she doesn't have the experience for VP. Harris would be the best bet.

Abrams also has a reputation that she had carefully cultivated as a person who would be willing to work across the aisle. That might work for Georgia and even as a general election candidate (we picked Biden after all), I don’t think it necessarily pairs well with Biden. She might boost support among this key demographic, but it becomes difficult to excite anyone who probably wasn’t already at least interested in voting for Biden.

Harris, meanwhile, is one of the few senators who co-introduce bills with Sanders on a frequent basis. Her history as a prosecutor, despite being an issue in a primary, could play well with white moderates who were drawn to Trump’s “law and order” candidacy in 2016. And, of course, she has that high favorability with black voters that Biden needs to draw in the Obama coalition. That’s the kind of person you want on a ticket, one that is likely to grow support and/or electrify parts of the base that aren’t particularly enthused about your candidacy.

[ed2962]

Abrams also has a reputation that she had carefully cultivated as a person who would be willing to work across the aisle. That might work for Georgia and even as a general election candidate (we picked Biden after all), I don’t think it necessarily pairs well with Biden. She might boost support among this key demographic, but it becomes difficult to excite anyone who probably wasn’t already at least interested in voting for Biden.

Harris, meanwhile, is one of the few senators who co-introduce bills with Sanders on a frequent basis. Her history as a prosecutor, despite being an issue in a primary, could play well with white moderates who were drawn to Trump’s “law and order” candidacy in 2016. And, of course, she has that high favorability with black voters that Biden needs to draw in the Obama coalition. That’s the kind of person you want on a ticket, one that is likely to grow support and/or electrify parts of the base that aren’t particularly enthused about your candidacy.

Maybe it's the circles I run in, but I've seen the exact opposite on black social media. A lot of black folks don't like Harris at all.

[TheDarman]

Maybe it's the circles I run in, but I've seen the exact opposite on black social media. A lot of black folks don't like Harris at all.

I just linked to a poll that shows that she has an above 30% net favorability rating with black voters. This might be a classic case of allegorical evidence not being worth too much.

[aja_christopher]

I dunno...at this point, I don't think experience is that much of a factor for most mainstream voters anymore.

No point in taking unnecessary risks -- which is why I'm open to Kloubachar as well.

It would also be wise to choose someone who has the necessary experience in politics and Congress to act as president if anything should happen to Biden or should he choose to step down from his post.

Kamala's Senate seat is safe -- I don't know enough about Minnesota to say whether the same is true for Kloubachar.

I just linked to a poll that shows that she has an above 30% net favorability rating with black voters. This might be a classic case of allegorical evidence not being worth too much.

Most of the black people I've spoken to have no problem with her and those who are educated on politics actually see her as a good choice.

The only place I saw any real criticism of her was from online Sanders supporters but that applies to every Democratic candidate.

[TheDarman]

No point in taking unnecessary risks -- which is why I'm open to Kloubachar as well.

It would also be wise to choose someone who has the necessary experience in politics and Congress to act as president if anything should happen to Biden or should he choose to step down from his post.

Kamala's Senate seat is safe -- I don't know enough about Minnesota to say whether the sand is true for Kloubachar.

I think Biden’s guiding star was Obama’s advice to pick someone who was strong in areas he wasn’t. I don’t think Kloubachar is necessarily that candidate. I think she is strong in all the areas that Biden, himself, has largely proved he is strong with—namely the white, working class voters who vacated Clinton last time. What he needs is someone who can also energize and activate folks who just plain did not show up last time and will be willing to go through heck to get registered and vote. I don’t think Kloubachar was particularly strong in those areas.