All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[InformationGeek]

Racist says what now?

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Kamala is out and Bloomberg bought his way in. What a load.

Bloomberg jumped in and immediately hit 4% in the polls nationally according to RCP. That puts him ahead of Harris (3.4%), Yang (2.8%), Klobuchar (2.4%), Booker (1.8%), Steyer (1.6%). Castro (1.4%), Gabbard (1.0%), Bennet (0.8%).

Honestly all those candidates should drop out if a guy with decent name recognition can jump in and instantly poll over people who have been in it and been on stage for months.

[aja_christopher]

That I am not a Democrat would probably explain not losing sleep over the party shooting itself in the foot with a nominating process slanted in favor of states it currently is.

Like it did with Obama?

Again -- constantly attacking Democrats just makes you look like a Republican, or at the very least their ally.

The fact that you can't even own up to being wrong when called out for it -- as with Obama or Hillary and BLM -- just makes you even more suspect.

That you're not "losing sleep" over not attempting to prevent a white nationalist from taking office is obvious -- in the same vein, don't pretend to be concerned about "minorities" in the future just to bash the Democratic party and/or promote your chosen candidate.

[Tami]

Bloomberg jumped in and immediately hit 4% in the polls nationally according to RCP. That puts him ahead of Harris (3.4%), Yang (2.8%), Klobuchar (2.4%), Booker (1.8%), Steyer (1.6%). Castro (1.4%), Gabbard (1.0%), Bennet (0.8%).

Honestly all those candidates should drop out if a guy with decent name recognition can jump in and instantly poll over people who have been in it and been on stage for months.

I'd give it more time, Bloomberg maybe doing well now, but that could easily fade away by Janauary.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I'd give it more time, Bloomberg maybe doing well now, but that could easily fade away by Janauary.

Oh no, Bloomberg will fade away imo. My point is that, he's sort of litmos test to how viable you are. If he can get in and jump you this fast off really just a name (and not a popular name at that) it shows how much of a non factor you really are.

[aja_christopher]

This is not my opinion -- just an article that lays out the problems inherent in assuming that Democrats will win more voters by moving to the "left".

It's good to have an ideal, but not to ignore the reality of politics in the process.

No matter what my opinion is on the matter, votes have the final say in elections.

-----
"Half of Americans think the Democratic Party has moved too far left"

"There's zero question that President Donald Trump has moved the Republican Party to the right -- tonally and on things like immigration policy -- over the past few years. What is less well-covered is how far Democrats have tacked to the left in recent years, and how there appears to be some level of unhappiness within the American electorate about the liberalness of the opposition party.

New data from a Quinnipiac University poll paints that unrest in stark relief.

Asked whether the "Democratic Party has moved too far to the left, too far to the right, or would you say the Democratic Party hasn't moved too far in either direction", nearly half -- 47%! -- of respondents say that the party has moved too far left. Asked hat same question of the Republican Party and just 37% say it has moved too far right.

Almost 6 in 10 men (57%) say Democrats have moved too far left as do 55% of whites with a college degree. Whites, generally speaking, are much more likely to say the party has moved too far left (53%) as compared to Hispanics (33%) and blacks (17%).

All of which is very interesting -- and should be worrisome for a Democratic Party establishment already worried that several of their leading presidential candidates are too liberal for the country at large.

Remember that the positions that one or several Democratic candidates for president had advocated for during the primary season so far include:

* Eliminating all private health insurance in favor of a single, government-run system
* The "Green New Deal," a massive (and massively expensive) overhaul of the way in which we consume and think about energy in this country
* Mandatory buybacks of AR-15s and AK-47s
* Decriminalization of illegal immigration

These are not views that a majority of the country holds. (Worth noting: Not all Democrats in the race hold any or all of these positions.) In some cases -- Medicare for All's elimination of private insurance, for example -- what these Democratic candidates are for are not even supported by a strong majority of Democrats.

The origins of this shift are varied and have been happening for years. Some of it is a reaction to Trump, some of it came out of the bitterness of the 2016 Sanders-Clinton primary fight. But it all puts the party at danger of losing moderates (if there are any left).

The last-minute desire for a new candidate is also driven by the fear of what Trump will say and do to someone like Warren or Sanders -- deride them as socialists who want to take your guns and your money -- in a general election setting. (I'd argue Trump will say that about whoever Democrats nominate, but that's a different argument.)

All primaries push candidates to the left. And typically the general election is spent tracking back to the middle to court moderate and swing voters. But the Q poll suggests that Democrats need to be very aware that their current positioning is decidedly too far left for a big chunk of America's liking."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/24/polit...oll/index.html

[Tendrin]

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/willi...041058389.html

U.S. Attorney General William Barr said Tuesday that if some communities don’t begin showing more respect to law enforcement, then they could potentially not be protected by police officers.
The country’s top cop made the questionable remarks while giving a speech at the Attorney General’s Award for Distinguished Service in Policing.
“But I think today, American people have to focus on something else, which is the sacrifice and the service that is given by our law enforcement officers,” Barr said. “And they have to start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves ― and if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need.”

$%# you, Bill Barr.

Some of those communities are probably better off without police 'protection' but the threat here is wild.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

This is not my opinion -- just an article that lays out the problems inherent in assuming that Democrats will win more voters by moving to the "left".

It's good to have an ideal, but not to ignore the reality of politics in the process.

-----
"Half of Americans think the Democratic Party has moved too far left"

"There's zero question that President Donald Trump has moved the Republican Party to the right -- tonally and on things like immigration policy -- over the past few years. What is less well-covered is how far Democrats have tacked to the left in recent years, and how there appears to be some level of unhappiness within the American electorate about the liberalness of the opposition party.

New data from a Quinnipiac University poll paints that unrest in stark relief.

Asked whether the "Democratic Party has moved too far to the left, too far to the right, or would you say the Democratic Party hasn't moved too far in either direction", nearly half -- 47%! -- of respondents say that the party has moved too far left. Asked hat same question of the Republican Party and just 37% say it has moved too far right.

Almost 6 in 10 men (57%) say Democrats have moved too far left as do 55% of whites with a college degree. Whites, generally speaking, are much more likely to say the party has moved too far left (53%) as compared to Hispanics (33%) and blacks (17%).

All of which is very interesting -- and should be worrisome for a Democratic Party establishment already worried that several of their leading presidential candidates are too liberal for the country at large.

Remember that the positions that one or several Democratic candidates for president had advocated for during the primary season so far include:

* Eliminating all private health insurance in favor of a single, government-run system
* The "Green New Deal," a massive (and massively expensive) overhaul of the way in which we consume and think about energy in this country
* Mandatory buybacks of AR-15s and AK-47s
* Decriminalization of illegal immigration

These are not views that a majority of the country holds. (Worth noting: Not all Democrats in the race hold any or all of these positions.) In some cases -- Medicare for All's elimination of private insurance, for example -- what these Democratic candidates are for are not even supported by a strong majority of Democrats.

The origins of this shift are varied and have been happening for years. Some of it is a reaction to Trump, some of it came out of the bitterness of the 2016 Sanders-Clinton primary fight. But it all puts the party at danger of losing moderates (if there are any left).

The last-minute desire for a new candidate is also driven by the fear of what Trump will say and do to someone like Warren or Sanders -- deride them as socialists who want to take your guns and your money -- in a general election setting. (I'd argue Trump will say that about whoever Democrats nominate, but that's a different argument.)

All primaries push candidates to the left. And typically the general election is spent tracking back to the middle to court moderate and swing voters. But the Q poll suggests that Democrats need to be very aware that their current positioning is decidedly too far left for a big chunk of America's liking."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/24/polit...oll/index.html

Issues with this are, half of Americans thinking it's too far left, means half don't think that. So if you go center do you just piss off the other half and end up where you started?

Then you get into a philosophical argument over which side needs to win out? Conventional wisdom across both parties says that it's generally the center turns out and the more fringe that you need to drive out to get a win. On the flipside, many in the center frame these polls as a need for compromise (which usually ends up meaning, eat a centrist candidate because we are afraid).

The other issue is that, yeah it's white a person issue. Since the Democrats foster more minority support, it's really apt to believe that it's more of an issue amongst non Democrats (Republicans). I mean just based off those numbers alone it makes it virtually impossible for the makeup of the Democratic voter base to think the party moved to far left. So now do you go against a plurality of your own voters?

Because if it's mostly Republicans skewing that, you have to start to wonder how many non Democrats you can win going right? Which tends not to track once you get ingto the minutia out of it.

Also polling is framing. Eliminating private insurance doesn't poll well if you ask that alone. But Medicare 4 All does and all the prominent plans of that have that feature.

Also then it goes to an unproven diatribe about "there's a left and right and everyone is fighting for the center". But that tends not to be true. Both parties saturate the center with politicians and policies. The people that are independents, undecided, or not likely to vote.... those are generally are either far right or far left people who need to be driven to come out. For Republicans they won and lost off whether the Tea Party supported the candidates. For Democrats that's progressives. Those are the people that break the lock.

[aja_christopher]

Issues with this are, half of Americans thinking it's too far left, means half don't think that. So if you go center do you just piss off the other half and end up where you started?

Do you mean back to when Obama won or when Bill Clinton won?

Democrats' main problem lies with their lack of midterm support -- they've rarely had trouble winning presidential elections in terms of actual voting numbers and those numbers will only increase in the future by virtue of demographics alone. Democrats tend to lose due to gerrymandering and the suppression of "minority" voting rights -- not because they run on "moderate" policies.

Say what you will about Republicans but at least they know exactly who to target when they want to beat Democrats in elections.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetwb...-black-voters/

Democrats don't need to change their whole platform due to one highly controversial presidential election -- they just need to focus on ensuring the equal voting rights of the "minorities" who form the backbone of the party, since said votes are usually the difference between winning and losing major elections.

Again -- it would be one thing if progressives had a winning record, especially in comparison to moderates, but the political reality is that progressives don't win most elections, and they don't have the votes to pass legislation in Congress.

-----
"House Democrats to vote on restoration of Voting Rights Act this month"

"House Democrats will vote this month on a bill intended to lay the foundation for a restoration of the full Voting Rights Act, a significant step in a years-long effort to respond to a 2013 Supreme Court decision that significantly weakened the law.

“I think we’re very close to getting that on the floor,” House Administration Committee Chair Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., told Yahoo News in an interview, predicting a vote in the House before the end of the year.

For the past year, the House subcommittee on elections, chaired by Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, has conducted a series of eight field hearings in states across the country, compiling evidence to support the assertion that voter suppression not only remains a problem but has increased since the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision.

In mid-November, Fudge released a 139-page report documenting what her committee found. It will provide material that will be added to the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019, which was introduced in February by Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Ala. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said last Friday in a letter to the House that he expects to “consider” the legislation in December.

The report produced by Fudge’s subcommittee found that “many legacy voter suppression tactics are still pervasive,” and that “a new wave of surreptitious tactics has also emerged” after the Shelby decision.

The Supreme Court ruled in Shelby that states no longer needed to seek Justice Department approval for major changes to voting procedures. The 1965 Voting Rights Act had instituted “pre-clearance” for a number of Southern states with a history of race-based voting discrimination. But Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the 5-4 majority opinion in Shelby that pre-clearance was based on outdated criteria, and that if Congress wanted to reinstitute it, lawmakers “must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions.”

The Fudge report represented the House Democrats’ effort to capture “current conditions.”

The report said that, among the examples of voter suppression, “states have aggressively purged otherwise eligible voters from the voter registration rolls, made cuts to early voting and same-day registration, moved, closed, or consolidated polling places without adequate notice to voters, required exact name or signature match, engaged in discriminatory gerrymandering, and restricted language access and assistance.”

Even if House Democrats pass the resolution, the Republican-controlled Senate will not see the legislation as a priority, and will be almost certain to let it languish without a vote.

The Democrats’ strategy, however, is to have the legislation ready for the possibility that they retake control of the White House and Senate in the 2020 elections.

Barring that, the Fudge report could also serve as evidentiary support for a court challenge to the Shelby decision."

https://news.yahoo.com/house-democra...190706108.html

[Tami]

The share of Republicans who say presidents could operate more effectively if they did not have to worry so much about Congress and the courts increased 16 percentage points over the past year, from 27% in March 2018 to 43% this past July.

Twitter Link

[numberthirty]

Like it did with Obama?

Again -- constantly attacking Democrats just makes you look like a Republican, or at the very least their ally.

The fact that you can't even own up to being wrong when called out for it -- as with Obama or Hillary and BLM -- just makes you even more suspect.

That you're not "losing sleep" over not attempting to prevent a white nationalist from taking office is obvious -- in the same vein, don't pretend to be concerned about "minorities" in the future just to bash the Democratic party and/or promote your chosen candidate.

The way The Democratic Party currently runs it's primary system is seriously slanted in the wrong direction. That is simply a fact.

If making that "Attack" makes me look like a Republican, that's another thing I am not about to lose much sleep over.


As for what's in green, what I said I wouldn't lose much sleep over is The Democratic Party shooting itself in the foot with the above slanted primary process.

If they intend to run things in a way that seems like it has a good chance to alienate minority voters?

Again, not going to lose much sleep over the party executing that unsound strategy. Not a "First", and I don't really believe it will be a "Last".

[numberthirty]

I'd give it more time, Bloomberg maybe doing well now, but that could easily fade away by Janauary.

On the one hand, sure.

On the other hand, Harris herself said this was about money.

Even if folks aren't backing Harris in polls, they could be donating to keep her campaign viable. Sanders hasn't seemed to have any trouble keeping enough cash coming in to stay in the running.

If Harris is correct in that she doesn't have the money, that could point to her potential viability as a candidate. As it stands, we aren't even to Iowa, and money is seemingly an issue.

[Tendrin]

Twitter Link

Fash gonna fash.

[aja_christopher]

As for what's in green, what I said I wouldn't lose much sleep over is The Democratic Party shooting itself in the foot with the above slanted primary process.

But you're absolutely fine with not voting against white nationalists and supremacists running our country.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[aja_christopher]

"Stephen Miller is no outlier. White supremacy rules the Republican party"

"...would Miller’s resignation change anything? While Miller might be behind the concrete policies that harm immigrants, he is not the main white supremacist in the White House. And Trump can easily find someone else to do Miller’s work, particularly now that almost the whole Republican party has fallen in line with their president.

It also externalizes white supremacy, as if it lives in the margins. But it has been hiding in plain sight within the Republican Party for decades. Miller wrote the emails to Breitbart when he was still an aide to Senator Jeff Sessions, who has been a consistent voice of white supremacy in Congress since 1997. And the Alabama Senator was not alone in Congress either. Representative Steve King has been the most open and unapologetic voice for the cause since 2003. Others, like representatives Louie Gohmert, Paul Gosar, Tom Tancredo and Dana Rohrabacher, might not be as open in their support, but they all encourage white nationalism to varying degrees.

But white supremacy in the Republican party is not limited to just these individual congressmen and women. It runs much deeper than them. White supremacy was at the core of the “Southern Strategy”, dating back to the unsuccessful 1964 presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater, which was formative for the future conservative movement. Perfected by President Richard Nixon, with the help of speechwriter Pat Buchanan, dog whistles to white supremacy have been at the heart of virtually every Republican campaign since the 1970s.

Talking of Buchanan, more than 25 years ago he gave his now famous “culture war” speech at the 1992 Republican convention. While the term has become mainly linked to the religious right, Buchanan is at least as much a white supremacist as a Christian fundamentalist. In many ways, he is the intellectual father of the Trump administration, personifying Mike Pence and Donald Trump in one.

This is why calling for Stephen Miller’s resignation wouldn’t change much. Neither Miller nor Bannon “made” Trump the white-supremacist-in-chief. And Trump is not the only problem either, as Joe Biden seems to believe. He won the Republican primaries, and presidential elections, not despite white supremacy but because of it.

In short, it is time for Democrats to face and name the ugly truth: the Grand Old Party is a party steeped in white supremacy. It is the basis of its electoral support and this will not change in the near future. By focusing on the most brazen examples, like Stephen Miller, Democrats strengthen the misguided belief that the Republican party is a good party with some bad apples.

Ultimately, this will help the Republicans more than the Democrats."

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...publican-party