All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[numberthirty]

I mean, we're over a year removed from Bernie being completely eliminated from the primary mathematically, and 11 months since he conceded at the DNC. And yet...

The head of the DNC took the guy on a tour, and Senate Dems gave him a leadership position.

We are aware.

[jeanvaljean]

I mean, we're over a year removed from Bernie being completely eliminated from the primary mathematically, and 11 months since he conceded at the DNC. And yet...

It's to a big part the fault of the Democratic Caucus for giving Sanders so much influence over the caucus. They are probably feeling buyer's remorse about that after his latest attacks against their party.

[numberthirty]

Even though Handel's debate performance should have reduced her chances to ashes...

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/6th-...ided/534524963

POLL: Ossoff leads Handel by less than 2 points

ATLANTA - With just a few days to go before Georgia’s 6th Congressional District runoff, Democrat Jon Ossoff and Republican Karen Handel are still very, very close.

Our latest WSB-Landmark Communications poll of 800 likely voters has Ossoff leading Handel 49.7 percent to 48 percent.

The poll has just 2.3 percent of people saying they’re undecided. At this time last week, 3.3 percent said they were undecided.

With the poll's margin of error at nearly 3.5 percent, pollster Mark Rountree believes the race is still up for grabs.

"Ossoff has the lead. He's right at the edge of 50 percent. Handel is very close behind him, essentially a point and a half behind. So either candidate could win," Rountree said.

As we know, the 6th District stretches from DeKalb County through North Fulton County and into Cobb County. President Donald Trump won this district in November, but not by much.

Now, the numbers show that while his name is not on the ballot, he's a factor in the race.

The poll shows 91 percent of Ossoff voters have an unfavorable opinion of President Trump. On the flip side, 78 percent of Handel voters have a favorable opinion.

The 6th District election is sort of a referendum on the Trump presidency.

According to Rountree, early voting seems to favor Ossoff. Numbers seem to show Handel could do better on election day.

HANDEL RESPONSE

"It's about where we would've expected. It's a dead heat, neck and neck, and is all about turnout. We're working hard to get people to the polls," Handel said.

OSSOFF RESPONSE

"This race is neck and neck, and over the next four days our campaign is going to continue to work as hard as we ever have to ensure we don't send another career politician to Washington," Ossoff said.

[numberthirty]

That said, it is only eight hundred likely voters polled. Will be interesting to see if the results reflect earlier polling, or wind up being closer to this poll.

[numberthirty]

It's to a big part the fault of the Democratic Caucus for giving Sanders so much influence over the caucus. They are probably feeling buyer's remorse about that after his latest attacks against their party.

“The Democratic party needs fundamental change. What it needs is to open up its doors to working people, and young people, and older people who are prepared to fight for social and economic justice.

“The Democratic party must understand what side it is on. And that cannot be the side of Wall Street, or the fossil fuel industry, or the drug companies.”

Seems like a pretty reasonable "Attack".

Also from the piece in question...

Against that backdrop, Sanders’s criticism of the Democratic party as out-of-touch and elitist appeared to ring true for activists at the summit, including those who are planning to run for office for the first time in the coming months.

Brandy Brooks, who is running in the Democratic primary for the Montgomery County council in Maryland, told the Guardian that until recently she “didn’t think politics was for someone like me”.

“I am a short, black, slightly overweight-ish woman,” Brooks said.

“I’m not a person who’s been in law, not a person who’s ever run for office, I’m not hooked up with party infrastructure.”

Brooks is running on a progressive agenda that includes providing better housing for those in need, improving public transport and increasing the wage. She said her run for office was inspired, in part, as a response to Trump’s victory, but that she also felt an obligation to show other people of color what was possible – and in doing so create the kind of diversity Sanders addressed in his speech.

“I’m running because communities around the county have been told to think of themselves as not enough. As not worth anything. I am running first and foremost to counter that,” Brooks said.

One purpose of the summit, which is in its second year, is to provide training to people, such as Brooks, who want to run for office. A session called “down-ballot revolutionaries” featured Khalid Kamau, a Black Lives Matter activist who was elected to city council in South Fulton, Georgia, in April.

Kamau, who Sanders name-checked in his speech, was backed by Our Revolution and People for Bernie – two of the co-hosts of the People’s Summit – and said that was crucial to his success.

“If you can get backing from groups, revolutionaries from around the world will donate money and make phone calls,” Kamau said.

Not really seeing the downside to that.

[worstblogever]

At this time, I would like to recognize the Senator from Arendelle on the floor:



Thank you, Senator Elsa. Long version:
Bernie lost, wasn't a Democrat, isn't now, and I watched personally as his die-hard supporters spent most of last summer on social media re-posting articles from Russia today about how evil Hillary was, and even when explaining that they were spreading Russian propaganda to help Trump win, and to stop and think about it, they dug in. To this day, I have yet to see a single one of them accept that they f***ed up with this move, and that it would in any way help aid in the election of the most dangerous president in American history. And you'll never see Sen. Sanders do so, either, as he could barely get them to calm down to give his concession speech at the DNC after the Democratic Party adopted almost EVERY SINGLE PLATFORM PLANK he wanted in there.

So, at this point, quit trying to explain how all the obvious examples of unhinged people in the Sanders or Stein camp don't actually exist with incidental evidence, when we watched them throw tantrums on cable news for weeks on end last summer, and on our social media feeds from there through the fall. Just admit you f***ed up, and bad, and move on. It won't kill you.

Then again, some people just have hills they love to pick to go and die on, metaphorically speaking.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Democratic and GOP Governors Urge Senate To Rethink Health Care Bill

Seven governors express concern about Medicaid cuts, ask for help stabilizing insurance markets. A bipartisan effort to change minds on a bad bill. Good.

**********

There Is No Justice In America For Black People Killed By Cops

“The system continues to fail black people.” And with Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, things won't get any better.

**********

Alexandria Shooting Exposes More Republican Hypocricy

A chorus of right-wing opportunists want the country to believe that somehow the Bernie Sanders campaign and “the Left” are responsible. Fortunately, no one with a working brain (which excludes right wing nutbags) is buying that garbage.

**********

When Will Trump Lose His Base?

After the Trump White House careened through another terrible week, Washington insiders wonder how long Trump can survive. The answer is: as long as he holds his base. Trump and his voters are locked in a deadly embrace: his base desperately wants to believe he will address their grievances and Trump is willing to lie to keep their support.

In her latest insightful Trump analysis, in the New York Review, Elizabeth Drew observed, “Trump is, for all his deep flaws, in some ways a cannier politician than [former President] Nixon; he knows how to lie to his people to keep them behind him ... People can have a hard time recognizing that they’ve been conned. And Trump is skilled at flimflam, creating illusions.”

Despite Trump’s “flimflam,” his approval ratings steadily decline. FiveThirtyEight finds that 56 percent disapprove of the job trump is doing versus 38 percent that approve. Nonetheless, 82 percent of Republicans approve of Trump.

[worstblogever]

When will Trump lose his base?

My theory is if the Mueller investigation really is following the money, nothing alienates someone from a blue-collar base faster than being caught in white-collar crime. And sure, Trump's going to scream about conspiracies and "fake news" when his shady business dealings are inevitably exposed (especially if the full tax forms turn up), but even a yokel who likes Trump for being a d*** to minorities is going to be upset to learn they're still poor, and the only reason Donald's as rich as he is, is that he thinks he's above the law.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

My theory is if the Mueller investigation really is following the money, nothing alienates someone from a blue-collar base faster than being caught in white-collar crime. And sure, Trump's going to scream about conspiracies and "fake news" when his shady business dealings are inevitably exposed (especially if the full tax forms turn up), but even a yokel who likes Trump for being a d*** to minorities is going to be upset to learn they're still poor, and the only reason Donald's as rich as he is, is that he thinks he's above the law.

A darn good theory too. Mess with a man's pocketbook, even if there's not much in it, and all hell will be unleashed. If, and when Trump loses his blue collar backing, the rest of the dominoes will quickly fall.

[jeanvaljean]

My theory is if the Mueller investigation really is following the money, nothing alienates someone from a blue-collar base faster than being caught in white-collar crime. And sure, Trump's going to scream about conspiracies and "fake news" when his shady business dealings are inevitably exposed (especially if the full tax forms turn up), but even a yokel who likes Trump for being a d*** to minorities is going to be upset to learn they're still poor, and the only reason Donald's as rich as he is, is that he thinks he's above the law.

His base is really middle class and well-to-do white guys who don't like minorities, and probably cheat on their taxes, too.

He'll lose those if Bannon quits and gets replaced with Don King.

[Handsome men don't lose fights]

I mean, we're over a year removed from Bernie being completely eliminated from the primary mathematically, and 11 months since he conceded at the DNC. And yet...

In fairness, W.B.E., Sanders was conspired against by the democratic establishment. The real kind of conspiracy, not the Alex Jones sort. I'm (mostly) over it, but it still stung. My vote for Hillary was a concession to the fact that option number 2 was the talentless Mr. Bigly. I honestly believe Bernie would beaten him one-on-one.

[worstblogever]

A darn good theory too. Mess with a man's pocketbook, even if there's not much in it, and all hell will be unleashed. If, and when Trump loses his blue collar backing, the rest of the dominoes will quickly fall.

He'll lose those if Bannon quits and gets replaced with Don King.

jeanvaljean has a point, too, here. There's the old LBJ quote about racism as a political tool, that, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." Well, we'll see where the line on pick-pocketing by the rich on the poor ends, on the racism play begins.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

In fairness, W.B.E., Sanders was conspired against by the democratic establishment. The real kind of conspiracy, not the Alex Jones sort. I'm (mostly) over it, but it still stung. My vote for Hillary was a concession to the fact that option number 2 was the talentless Mr. Bigly. I honestly believe Bernie would beaten him one-on-one.

And I've maintained that if Sanders was the Democratic candidate, he would've lost to Trump too. Because while Bernie probably would had the support of midwesterners which Hillary didn't, more than likely, he wouldn't have had the black vote as minorities didn't much trust him. And don't discount the GOP smear machine which would've worked overtime painting Sanders and his socialist views as being hand in hand with Russian communism, a negative in the eyes of the low I.Q. voters Republicans attracted. On top of that, it's been almost thirty years since one party won the presidency three straight times (Republicans: Reagan in 1980 & 1984, George H.W. Bush in 1988), so the Dems were up against history, hell, if Barack Obama had been allowed to run for a third time, there was no guarantee even he would've won, so what chance would Sanders have had? Short answer, none.

[worstblogever]

In fairness, W.B.E., Sanders was conspired against by the democratic establishment. The real kind of conspiracy, not the Alex Jones sort. I'm (mostly) over it, but it still stung. My vote for Hillary was a concession to the fact that option number 2 was the talentless Mr. Bigly. I honestly believe Bernie would beaten him one on one.

See, I voted for Bernie in the primary, too. This point of view isn't absurd. The primary deck was stacked against Bernie, but not out of reach. His own press secretary admitted as much. Sure, the leaked DNC hacked e-mails showed that the insiders wanted Hillary. But of course they did, she was a lifelong and dedicated member of the party, and Bernie was only there out of convenience for a couple months (and did little to support any other candidates down ballot).

What still baffles me are the die-hard Berners, the ones that were writing him in anyway or voting for Jill Stein and more importantly, spreading negative stories about Hillary up until election day or even beyond that had no basis in reality. Most of the people who I know who fell in this category were Green Party registered. Because they learned f*** all after the 2000 election, and are trying to crunch the numbers about how Stein's vote total "wouldn't have changed anything", which is gleefully ignorant of their participation in the propaganda campaign against the most viable liberal on the ballot going into election day. There's... this weird block, where they don't want any actions they took that played literally into Putin and Trump's playbook to sabotage Hillary's chances to have actually been what made Trump's victory happen. Like, the intelligence community can say, "Putin wanted Bernie supporters to spread negative Hillary stories and screw her chances", and they just do not connect that those reports are literally identifying what they did as the end game that stole the election. They were the active suckers, but they're still the only ones who don't know it.

[worstblogever]

And I've maintained that if Sanders was the Democratic candidate, he would've lost to Trump too. Because while Bernie probably would had the support of midwesterners which Hillary didn't, more than likely, he wouldn't have had the black vote as minorities didn't much trust him. And don't discount the GOP smear machine which would've worked overtime painting Sanders and his socialist views as being hand in hand with Russian communism, a negative in the eyes of the low I.Q. voters Republicans attracted. On top of that, it's been almost thirty years since one party won the presidency three straight times (Republicans: Reagan in 1980 & 1984, George H.W. Bush in 1988), so the Dems were up against history, hell, if Barack Obama had been allowed to run for a third time, there was no guarantee even he would've won, so what chance would Sanders have had? Short answer, none.

They absolutely would have red-baited Bernie. And it would have worked. The easiest thing you can do is to accuse your opponent of that which you are most guilty of. "I'm not in league with Russia, BERNIE IS! He and his wife Jane went to the USSR for their honeymoon! Who does that!?!?"

We would have seen four months of that.