#(like. just look at buttigieg.)

[uncivilliberties]

>unfairly banned

>checks internet archive of her blog

>99% of the posts are completely unlabeled pornographic text and fantasies, not even a tag

>checks tumblr guidelines:

"Nudity and other kinds of adult material are generally welcome. We’re not here to judge your art, we just ask that you add a Community Label to your mature content so that people can choose to filter it out of their Dashboard if they prefer. You have the option to add a community label when making a new post, reblogging a post, or editing an existing post. Depending on your content, you can label it as generally mature or choose a specific category such as “Sexual Themes” if your post contains sexually suggestive subject matter."

if you actually give a shit about transfems who are getting harassed left and right then stop martyring people who are getting banned for not labeling NSFW content they post.

and god before anyone tries to have a fit and accuse me of some bullshit, i do not have anything against NSFW, i'm not a puritan asshole, what i DO have an issue with is people posting sexual content without any content labels (yet alone tags) meaning people who don't want to see that content can end up getting exposed to it anyway, even if they've taken the time to filter tags.

What are you fucking talking about? 99%? She posted about music and chatted with friends and made shitposts. It would take an extremely bad faith reading of her blog to find out uniquely objectionable UNLESS you were already inclined to find trans women's existence inherently sexual.

In your reply to this post you accuse her of constantly posting about her kinks and fetishes, helpfully including a link to the Internet archive. Let's take a look, hmmm? Wow, that's a lot of posts about music. In the limited snapshot available at that link I see one (1) masturbation joke that wouldn't even be a blip on the radar if this were anyone else's blog, a goofy ask about breasts that she answered in kind, and a couple of references to being a deergirl. Oh, I see what you mean. The crazy thing about this is that it took one single word to turn it horny. She could have said deer and not deergirl. You absolute dipshit.

"I'm not a puritan asshole, I just wear puritan asshole pants and a big puritan asshole hat and shout puritan asshole bullshit." Even if there was NSFW material somewhere in her history it would still be the thinnest possible excuse for banning her. It would still be blatant selective application of the terms of service weaponized against trans existence. Do we really need a community label on every single dick joke on this site to keep the children safe from harm? Cis people get to make dick jokes with impunity!

"People who don't want to see that content can end up getting exposed to it anyway" This is not the foundation for any sort of moral imperative! This cannot serve as the basis for any sort of course of action! The idea that we need to tag and police and bubble wrap any potentially objectionable thing online is exactly the excuse they are using for KOSA. It's no kink at Pride discourse. It's this post about Pete Buttigieg.

Straight people don't get policed like this. Cis people don't get held to these standards. Are you Staff in a wig and fake nose pretending to be a user supporting their rationale?

[noonesgaylikegatson]

Here's the thing: Republicans are the party of the rich, but policies that help the rich fuck everyone else up, so they are inherently unpopular. Republicans hitch their wagons to white supremacists and religious fanatics who will gladly vote for them in hopes of bringing their own agenda. Rich people believe that their money is able to keep them unaffected by their social policies that harm mostly minorities.

Present day: Religious Fanatics and White Supremacists have gone too far. Their plans are so corrosive that they will actually affect the rich; Not to mention, there are a lot of nouveau rich who are also these fanatics.

So now, these rich people, "never-trumpers" want to join the democratic party and make it into a party for them. They are anti-progressive because they don't want to pay more taxes and they don't want more regulations. They want a milquetoast white democrat leader, and not one like Joe Biden who has embraced progressive policies and is now further left than 2008.

They don't want Kamala or Pete Buttigieg or Corey Booker or that skater boi from texas. They were to the left of Biden when they ran in the 2019 primary. They want someone to the right of Biden. A more corporate friendly democrat.

And keep in mind, these republicans have always been racist. And have always been white supremacist for them. This departure from the republican party is not a moral one. It's because the oppression that these Trump Republicans want isn't profitable.

These republicans were fine with rounding up Black people on bullshit charges and sending them to prison to do make them money on prison labor. (Biden ended the use of private prisons on a Federal Level fyi). They're not fine with rounding up 20 million undocumented people and putting them in internment camps and deporting them, that would cost so much money that would be better spent giving to them via tax cuts. (I bet you they'll get on board when someone touts the idea of using the undocumented people for unpaid labor)

They're okay with banning abortions or just limiting. They're not okay with stripping all of woman's freedoms (because many of them are women and like to spend the money they have) because women going back into the homes, means the spending power of the economy shrinks.

Less Women and Men of color going to college means less student loan payments. Not to mention, the policies that Trump will enact with Project 2025, would just wreck the economy. Government workers would lose their jobs. Facilities and infrastructure would crumble. The middle class would all but disappear, the gap between the poor and rich would grow, to the point where there is just no more money to extract from anyone in the lower classes. The money would have to come from them.

If trump gets in office by 2028 there will be so many evictions, its impossible to keep up. The rich would have to bribe police officers (made legal by the supreme court btw) to get people evicted. Not all rich people are rich equally. Those who can afford to bribe will be new upper class, those who can't will be suckers.

FDIC will be gone. So imagine you're one of those rich suckers, and the bank you have your money goes belly up cause the new upper class used it to fund their next yacht?

You can't be a tech mogul in a country with poor infrastructure. All that AI requires massive amount of electricity. How can you have any developments if your company shuts off the power every few weeks and there is no policy in place to keep it going, to fix it. Look at texas? Every hurricane gets rid of the power for weeks. Imagine when Project 2025 gets in and there really is no regulation at all.

What is the point of all this? Biden is the correct choice. He is the incumbent, he won the primary, and the election is less than four months away. This talk about replacing him is a bunch of rich assholes trying to take over the democratic party and making it into the new republican party. The literal worst night mare: socially liberal, financially conservative. They are antagonist towards the democrat's base: Black voters, because black voting population support centralized government, regulations, higher taxes, and a robust social safety network (because its literally the best way to govern)

Focus on getting people to vote for Biden or just not vote for Trump.

[klbmsw]

Superstar Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg goes viral for a knockout takedown of Donald Trump's collapsing presidential campaign.

This is one for the books…

"I think you were exactly right to describe it as distraction. The challenge of course is you have to say something if he attacks the service of military service members who earned the Medal of Honor," Buttigieg said to MSNBC's Joe Scarborough.

"If he, you know, goes to the National Associaton of Black Journalists and blurts out something racist, obviously you have to deal with that," said Buttigieg. "But you have to deal with that quickly and then come right back to our message."

"Because I do think this is a kind of strategy. You might ask why would a politician do things like that but you know going all the way back to the days of him denigrating the service of John McCain, it's very clear that he does this for a reason," he continued.

"It's a twofold reason," Buttigieg explained. "One, is he wants people talking about him. And then two, he wants people not talking about the difference between our agenda and his agenda especially when you look at Project 2025."

"It's an amazing thing that Project 2025 is kind of the scandal of the year for the Republicans, the thing that they have had to do the most damage control around," he went on.

"Because look at what Project 2025 is. It's just their policies. It's nothing but a write-up of what they plan to do and they really don't want the American people focused on how Trump is about tax cuts for the rich and we're trying to make sure we have a fairer tax code," said Buttigieg.

"Or Donald Trump demolished the right to choose in this country. Now, Kamala Harris will lead the work to restore that right to choose," he continued.

"Or any other issue from climate to gun safety to education. You name it. Where the American people strongly agree with us and strongly disagree with him," he went on. "They don't want us talking about that. They don't want us talking about his record, results that even if you go by the measures that conservatives tend to pay the most attention to — like crime rates — that was worse under Donald Trump."

"If you're one of those folks who thinks of the economy in terms of the stock market — you know there's a lot more to the economy than the stock market but to some people that's pretty much the same thing — the DOW and S&P were worse under Donald Trump than they were under Biden and Harris," said Buttigieg.

"Energy production! One of the things you hear Republicans talk the most about. Domestic energy production is higher under Biden and Harris than it was under Trump,” he continued. “He can't afford for us to be talking about that so every couple days he's going to blurt out something outrageous so that we're talking about that instead."

As usual, Buttigieg's analysis is incisive and spot-on. Trump has no popular policies to run on so he's resorting to cheap tricks and distractions.

Meanwhile, Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are offering a vision of a brighter future. Under their leadership, America will flourish and leave the fascist MAGA movement in

[theoutcastrogue]

the internet is rotting, as Jonathan Zittrain noted in an important (but paywalled) 2021 Atlantic article. A huge percentage of the links on the internet are broken, and there is no single authoritative, accessible universal repository that keeps track of everything. It is frighteningly easy for crucial information to slip away. ...

The practice of making changes to an article without noting that you’ve made them is called “stealth editing,” and even the New York Times does it. ... The existence of stealth editing means that it’s difficult to trust that the version of an article you click on at any given moment is the article as it was originally published. ...

I also, to my alarm, realized just how dependent we are on private publications themselves to give us access to records of their own work. Often, they keep it payawalled behind locked gates and charge you admission if you want to have a look. There are lots of sources in the Chomsky book to which you have to subscribe if you want to verify, such as this 1999 story in the Los Angeles Times about NATO’s bombing of a bus in Yugoslavia. This is a story of national importance, far too overlooked at the time, but if you don’t subscribe to the LA Times, you need research library access or a workaround if you want to read it.

Thank God for the Internet Archive, whose Wayback Machine preserves as much of the internet as they can and is invaluable for researchers trying to figure out what was once housed at now-dead links. But the Internet Archive has its limits. Social media posts, YouTube videos, paywalled Substack posts, PDFs—all can be very difficult to track down after they disappear. If a politician tweets something embarrassing, for instance, and then deletes it, it might be preserved in a screenshot. But we know screenshots are easy to fake. So where do you turn to prove satisfactorily that something was in fact said? ...

it’s very easy to lose pieces of information that seem permanent. E-books, for instance, can be changed by their publisher without the changes even being noted. You might read a book on your Amazon Kindle one day and open it up the next day to look for a quote only to find that the quote has disappeared without a trace. The Guardian, for twenty years, hosted a copy of Osama bin Laden’s “letter to the American people,” an important historical document. After the letter went viral on TikTok, the Guardian removed it from the site entirely. The New Republic did the same after an article of theirs about Pete Buttigieg caused controversy. The documents in question can still be found, but only by digging through the Internet Archive. If that ever goes down, researchers will find that trying to piece together the online past is like trying to learn about a lost civilization from excavated fragments. ...

I think that in an age where people (rightly) don’t trust the information they’re getting to be true, it needs to be as easy as possible to do research. Instead, while we have better technology than ever for sifting through information, it’s still the case that the truth is paywalled and the lies are free. If you want to “do your own research” to check on the veracity of claims, you will run headlong into a maze of broken links, paywalls, and pop-ups. How can anyone hope to find the truth when it’s so elusive, trapped behind so many toll gates? 

[vaspider]

I have a question about your post about the garbage you get having a large follower count. I didn't see it mentioned in the reblogs.

How does this work with Tumblr? For example, say you made a post about some relatable trans masc experience. By the time I'm seeing it, it's got a bunch of really good additions but no one on any of the reblog chains has mentioned some connected trans masc experience that I've had.

It doesn't seem that screenshotting it and cropping out all the usernames is the best option (everyone deserves credit for their good info). But if that post has 10k notes, it's probably making your notifications unusable. So, it seems like it might be a risk to add my 2 cents and further blow up your notifications because my 2 cents might be 0 cents to you or others reading it. On the other hand, it also might be a whole dollar to someone who was a whole dollar short and since I don't have a large follower count, if I made my own post with that addition it might never get seen by someone that needs it.

Am I making sense? I'm worried that my 4am lack of sleep brain is making me not make sense. But I wanted to ask because I would really hate to be doing it wrong and cause you and any other large blogger here frustration they don't need.

The thing that matters to me is that people are like, taking a moment to look in the notes before they add to stuff, just to see if it's been mentioned 20 times, and that they're not, like, super shitty if I'm like "hey, we talked this to death already and you didn't see it in the notes bc I blocked the person so it won't show up in the notes, if you want to keep talking about this, make your own post."

And also that it's not like ... giving the most obvious advice to me as OP. You know, the "well have you tried yoga" kind of reply.

If you're putting a good faith effort in to not be a douche, don't worry too much about my notifications. It only really bugs me when people are either openly dickweeds (shit like tags that say "vaspider sucks so much and I hate him but he makes a good point so I'm reblogging JUST THIS ONCE" or whatever are just evidence of being a truly unbearable human being) or get shitty when I say like "please drop this particular line."

I would rather prefer people not screenshot my writing and blot out my name, though, bc that shit happens an annoying amount. Oftentimes it's people who are using my words for clout (weird) or attaching their own ko-fi links (weirder, and happened more than once with the Pete Buttigieg essay), and both of those things kinda suck. I am a lot of things, but two things I'm not are an object or a public resource.

So, yeah.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Matt Gertz at MMFA:

Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance is facing a week-long firestorm after video of a 2021 Fox News interview resurfaced in which Vance smeared Vice President Kamala Harris and other Democratic leaders as “childless cat ladies” who “don't really have a direct stake” in the country.  Vance has responded to the ensuing backlash by claiming that Democrats took him out of context. But Media Matters and other outlets have uncovered numerous occasions in which he offered similar attacks on people who don’t have biological children — on Twitter, in campaign emails, on right-wing podcasts, and on Fox. Vance specifically attacked Harris, a stepmother of two, in several of those comments. Vance, then a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio, was courting support from right-wing media figures and their audiences by aping their hard-edge culture war rhetoric. Winning over weirdos like Tucker Carlson helped Vance win the GOP primary in 2022 and a spot on the Republican presidential ticket in 2024 — but required saying things that horrify and offend normal people.

Amid “childless cat ladies” firestorm, Vance claims he was taken out of context

Vance attacked “childless cat ladies” who lack “a direct stake” in the country during a 2021 Fox interview. Vance said during a July 29, 2021, interview on Carlson’s Fox News show that the United States is “effectively run … by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they've made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too.” He added: “You look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC — the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children, and how does it make any sense that we've turned our country over to people who don't really have a direct stake in it?” [Media Matters, 7/26/21] Vance was responding to criticism of his earlier speech on the need to “take aim” at the “childless left.” Five days before the Carlson interview, Vance said at the conservative Intercollegiate Studies Institute that the right needed to “take aim” at “the childless left.” Targeting Harris and other Democratic leaders, he asked: “Why have we let the Democrat party become controlled by people who don’t have children? Why is this just a normal fact of American life, that the leaders of our country should be people who don’t have a personal and direct stake in it via their own offspring, via their own children and grandchildren?” [Media Matters, 7/26/24; Semafor, 7/25/24]

J.D. Vance has disparaged childless people at least 13+ other times, per MMFA.

[deadpresidents]

Beshear seems like the most obvious pick if youre trying to both do no harm and also get some sway with the rust belt, educators, and just looking for a guy that can comfortably speak to the concerns of more southern and rural voters. Plus he's one of, if not the most popular governors around (at a minimum the most popular democratic governor). Kelly half halfheartedly endorsed the pro-act only very recently and seems like he'd be appealing to the most centrist democrats which Kamala already has good pull with. Shapiro seems like he would more just anger voting bases that were already hesitant with Biden like educators, college age voters, and palestinian/muslim communities (plus potentially trying to waive #metoo concerns about staffers). Beshear is looking a guy that you can't really hate regardless of position.

Personally i'd like in to be Tim Walz but thats probably out of the question at this point.

I really like Beshear. I don't think Governor Walz is out of the question at all. I think he's a real contender. The thing I'm curious about with Josh Shapiro is that the first major event with Kamala and her running mate is scheduled for Tuesday in....Philadelphia. Now, that makes sense because Pennsylvania is arguably the most important battleground state of the race (as well as the location of the campaign headquarters), but Shapiro is also the Governor of Pennsylvania. Plus, it looks like he's been cancelling some events that were on his calendar. But that could also just be the campaign throwing reporters off the scent. I'd pick Beshear, Buttigieg, Kelly, or Walz before Shapiro, but I'm fine with Shapiro if he's the choice. I just don't think he brings as much to the table as the others, and I think he's the least qualified of the group.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The learned helplessness of Pete Buttigieg

The apocalyptic airline meltdown over the Christmas break stranded thousands of Americans, ruining their vacations and costing them a fortune in unexpected fees. It wasn't just Southwest Airlines' meltdown, either - as stranded fliers sought alternatives, airlines like AA raised the price of some domestic coach tickets to over $10,000.

This didn't come out of nowhere. Southwest's growth strategy has seen the airlines add more planes and routes without a comparable investment in back-end systems, including crew scheduling systems. SWA's unions have spent years warning the public that their employer's IT infrastructure was one crisis away from total collapse.

But successive administrations have failed to act on those warnings. Under Obama and Trump, the DoT was content to let "the market" discipline the monopoly carriers, though both administrations were happy to wave through anticompetitive mergers that weakened the power of markets to provide that discipline. Obama waved through the United/Continental merger and the Southwest/AirTran merger, while Trump waved through Virgin/Alaska.

While these firms were allowed to privatize their gains, Uncle Sucker paid for their losses. Trump handed the airlines $54 billion in covid relief, which the airlines squandered on stock buybacks and executive bonuses, while gutting their own employee rosters with early retirement buyouts:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-05-04/airlines-got-the-sweetest-coronavirus-bailout-around

Incredibly, the airlines got even worse under the Biden administration. In the first six months of 2022, US airlines cancelled more flights than they had in all of 2021, while the airlines increased their profits by 45% - and kept it, rather than using it to pay back the $10b in unpaid refunds they owed to fliers:

https://www.economicliberties.us/press-release/economic-liberties-releases-model-legislation-to-eliminate-airlines-liability-shield/

Dozens of state attorneys general - Republicans and Democrats - wrote to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, begging him to take action on the airlines. After months without action, they wrote again, just days before the Christmas meltdown:

https://www.levernews.com/state-officials-warned-buttigieg-about-airline-mess/

For his part, Secretary Buttigieg claimed he was doing all he could, trumpeting the order to refund fliers as evidence of his muscular regulatory approach (recall that these refunds have not been paid). He assured Americans that the situation "is going to get better by the holidays."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FlD6fHq8-g&t=145s

But the numbers tell the tale. Under Buttigieg, the DOT "issued fewer enforcement orders in 2021 than in any single year of the Trump and Obama administrations."

https://www.economicliberties.us/press-release/economic-liberties-releases-model-legislation-to-eliminate-airlines-liability-shield/

As the crisis raged, enraged fliers and opponents of unchecked corporate power blamed Buttigieg. So did opportunistic, bad-faith Republicans looking to score political points. The "liberal" media lumped all this criticism together, insisting that Buttigieg had done everything in his power and declaring it unreasonable to expect the Transport Secretary to prevent transportation catastrophes:

https://www.levernews.com/the-partisan-ghost-in-the-media-machine/

Buttigieg's defenders trotted out a laundry list of excuses for the failure, ranging from the nonsensical to the implausible to the contradictory - Pete's Army continued to claim that the aviation meltdown was the weather's fault, even after Buttigieg himself went on national TV to say this wasn't the case:

https://twitter.com/GMA/status/1608075800254767105?s=20&t=wmaJq3OWU0r0e6TS9V-9sA

Buttigieg is the Secretary of a powerful administrative agency, and as such, he has broad powers. Neither he nor his predecessors have had the courage to wield that power, all of them evincing a kind of learned helplessness in the face of industry lobbying. But there is a difference between being powerless and acting powerless.

To see what a fully operational battle-station looks like, cast your eye upon Lina Khan, chair of the FTC, another agency that has a long history of dormancy in the face of corporate power, but which Khan has transformed - not through ideology, but through competence. Khan - and her fellow Biden administration trustbusters Jonathan Kantor and the recently departed Tim Wu - have an encyclopedic knowledge of their powers, and they haven't been shy about using them:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/18/administrative-competence/#i-know-stuff

Over the Christmas break, even as the airline industry was stranding Americans far from their families, Khan proposed a rule to ban noncompete agreements, which are widely used to prevent low-waged workers like fast-food cashiers from quitting their jobs and seeking better pay from competitors:

https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/antitrust-enforcers-to-ban-indentured

These are, as Matt Stoller writes, a form of indentured servitude, used by private equity crooks to lock in their workforces. "30% of hair stylists works under a non-compete, as do 45% of family physicians." Noncompetes destroy the livelihoods of workers who start their own businesses, too: "One comment to the FTC came from a graphic designers for signage who was bankrupted by a lawsuit from her control-hungry former boss and a small town judge":

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2019-0093-0015

Noncompetes are a scourge, and there should be bipartisan agreement on this. If you're a Democrat who believes in labor rights, noncompetes are manifestly unfair. But that's also true if you're a Republican who believes in competition and the power of entrepreneurship.

Nevertheless, noncompetes have trundled on, with neither Congress nor the administrative branch showing the courage to act - until now. Khan's proposed rule bypasses Congressional inaction by invoking powers that she already has, under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Section 5 gives the FTC broad powers to prohibit "unfair methods of competition" - an incredibly broad power to wield, and one that the FTC hasn't bothered to use since the 1970s (!):

https://casetext.com/case/national-petroleum-refiners-assn-v-f-t-c

Which brings me back to Secretary Buttigieg and the airlines. Because Chair Khan isn't the only federal regulator with these broad powers. As David Dayen writes for The American Prospect, "the Department of Transportation has the exact same authority":

https://prospect.org/infrastructure/transportation/ftc-noncompete-airline-flight-cancellation-buttigieg/

Under USC40 Section 41712(a), Buttigieg has the power to unilaterally ban transportation industry practices that are "unfair and deceptive" or "unfair methods of competition." Per the DOT's own guidance, this provision is "modeled on Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act":

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2020-title49/pdf/USCODE-2020-title49-subtitleVII-partA-subpartii-chap417-subchapI-sec41712.pdf

The are a lot more recent examples of the DOT using this power than there are of the FTC using its Section 5 authority, like the Tarmac Delay Rule. But as Robert Kuttner writes, the airlines reneged on their end of the $54b bailout, slashing staffing levels and failing to invest in IT modernization - examples of the "unfair and deceptive" practices that the DOT could intervene to prevent:

https://prospect.org/infrastructure/transportation/ftc-noncompete-airline-flight-cancellation-buttigieg/

As Dayen writes, "The definition of 'deceptive' is 'likely to mislead a consumer, acting reasonably under the circumstances.' If the airline scheduled a flight, took money for the flight, and knew it would have to cancel it (or, if you prefer, knew it would have to cancel some flights, all of which it took money for), that seems plainly deceptive."

This is the same authority that Buttigieg used to fine 5 non-US airlines (and Frontier, the tiny US carrier that flies 2% of domestic routes) for cancelling their flights - his signature achievement to date. But as Dayen points out, this authority isn't limited to taking action after the fact.

The DOT can - and should - act before Americans' flights are canceled. It can use its authority under 41712(a) to "say that the cancellation itself is an unfair and deceptive practice and issue a fine for each canceled flight." It could "promulgate a rule saying that cancellations due to insufficient crews, or due to dysfunctional computer scheduling systems, are unfair and deceptive, with stiff fines for each violation."

Both of these were within Buttigieg's power months ago, when the State AGs begged him to take action to prevent the mounting epidemic of cancellations. Both of these are within his power now. Heads of federal agencies are among the most powerful people in the world and they can use that power to materially improve the lives of the American people.

Just ask Lina Khan.

Image: Gage Skidmore (modified) https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/49560191032

CC BY-SA 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

[Image ID: A vector drawing of a man slumped at a desk with his face on his laptop. The man's face has been replaced with that of Transport Secretary Pete Buttigieg. He has a DOT logo on his shoulder. There are also DOT logos on a coffee-cup on the desk and behind the desk, on the wall.]

[evilelitest2]

Was Sander's Robbed in 2020?

Ok so lets walk to the past for a bit. Its 2020, the Democratic primary is getting heated. Biden keeps leading in all the polls, but after three primary elections, he has been coming off short. Moderates are panicking and it looks like Bernie Sanders might be able to get the nomination after all. He was counted out after the heart attack, and yet he kept on going.

So Sanders going in 2020 had two options for how to run his campaign. About 30% of the party loved him, about 20% of the party absolutely hated him, and 55% were mixed more ambivalent about him. He could either

Try to win over the parts of the party that aren't already supporting him, in particular the black community (Sanders does this a bit with the Latino democrats, his latino outreach very impressive and very underreported in the Democratic party

Try to hold unto your 25-30% of the party and hope rest of the vote is split between all the different moderates, so he can win with a plurality of the vote. due to the weirdness of the Democratic primary rules he can still win the nomination even without the majority, the winner only needs a plurality. if the moderate votes are split between Biden, Mayor Pete, Bloomberg, and Klobuchar, then Sanders could squeak in a victory with less than a third of the party.

Biden is the frontrunner, is polling ahead of everybody else, particular among the all important African-American segment of the democratic electorate. However he isn't beloved and there are a ton of Moderates running against him, and all of them are focused on attacking Biden in the hopes that they could take his place.

Sanders too option 2, which was risky. Winning with a plurality rather than a majority always leaves a lot of sore feelings, and had Sanders won the 2020 primary he would have to have dealt with the 70% of the electorate who didn't vote for him feeling sore, but maybe he could have handled it, we will never know. The advantage of his plan is that he just needed to hold unto his base, who already loved him. The danger is that if the moderates ever managed to rally around a single candidate, suddenly he is very outnumbered. Risky play but he did it. This is the same plan that trump use to win the Republican primary in 2016 (to be clear, that isn't a moral judgement on sanders, Trump isn't bad because he won with a plurality, he is bad because he is a fascist). There is one key difference though the Republican primary uses a winner takes all approach, so who ever wins the state gets all of the points, which allowed Trump to expand his lead. This is because Republicans don't believe in democracy.

Those are some great mittens

So far this plan has been working well for Sanders. The moderates have split the vote, Sanders won Nevada, New Hampshire and either won Iowa or it was so close that he basically won Iowa. Biden has yet to do well in any of the first three states.

But Then, South Carolina, the first state with a large black electorate. Biden secures a key endorsement from US Representative and Civil Rights activist Jim Clyburn. The results were a pretty stunning turnaround for Biden, who won 49% of the votes and got 39 of the delegates. Sanders came in second, with 20% of the vote and 15 of the delegates. Buttigieg, Warren, Steyer, and Klobuchar didn't get a high enough percentage of the vote to get any delegates.

Biden almost won more than the rest combined.

So lets take a moment to talk about the US primary system, because it is both illogical and needlessly complicated. Rather than have all the states vote at once like a normal fucking country, each individual state plus the territories plus DC hold there own primary, most of which are not in order. So for example, the great state of NY, fourth largest state in the country and the center of the global economy, has its primary at the literal end of the process. So yeah, I've never in my lifetime gotten to have any effect on a presidential primary, because the race is already over by the time it gets to NY. So who wins a primary is not necessarily the most popular person with the party, its who ever can stay in the race longest, its a marathon. A super popular candidate could still drop out if they aren't popular in the first few state. Maybe Elizabeth warren was super popular in New York and if she had been able to hold unto those state she would have won, but we will never know. this system sucks, and I hate it.

So the way the primary goes down is that you have 4 elections from individual states. Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina. Then you have something called Super Tuesday, where Virginia, North Carolina, Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, California, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Colorado, Alabama, Arkansas, and Utah all go at once. So basically you go from 4 individual states to a fuck tone of state (including the two largest) all at once).

So another critical thing about the democratic party is demographics. While the republican party is a white Christianity identity party, the democratic party is a diverse coalition. The most important part of that is the African American vote, who have steadily become the deciding vote in the Democratic party since the 60s. About 90% of African American voters are democratic, and African Americans make up just over a quarter of the Democratic party. They are also by far the most organized and proactive voters, due to years of having to fight against voter suppression (especially in the South). The black electorate in the democratic party is one of the parties greatest advantages, and it also why the party has become steadily less racist every year (Obama really accelerated this process). To be clear this is a good thing, the Democratic party is better for it.

For a series of very complicated reasons I could get into another time, Sanders had never done particularly well with African American voters and Biden has. This isn't universal, the African American community is not a monolith and has a diversity of views but that is how the demographics played out generally in the primary. Most importantly, apart from Biden was the only candidate, moderate or progressive, who seemed to excite the African American voting bloc.

The reason why this matters is that Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada don't have very large black populations, Iowa and new Hampshire are lily white, and Nevada is less than 10% African American. Despite being more than a fourth of the party, the first three states are not representative of the African American vote (maybe we should have one nation wide election eh?)

So once biden won South Carolina, it became obvious that A) Biden's defeats in the first three states were not affecting his popularity in the larger states B) none of the other moderates had any real African American support. This is what leads to the supposed "betrayal"

The Day before Super Tuesday, Obama called up the remaining moderates, and convinced most of them to drop out and endorse Biden. They did so, and it basically shattered Sander's chance of winning. With most of the moderates unified, Biden won 10 states to Sander's 4, wracking up 726 delegates to sanders 505. Biden got 286065 votes to sanders 74,755. Not only was this a great victory for Biden, after super Tuesday all of the other moderates withdrew, allowing him to crush Sanders going forward. Biden had 2709 Delegates to Sanders 1,113, but more importantly Biden won 51% of the votes, with sanders getting 26%. Some Sanders fans have blamed Elizabeth Warren for not dropping out, but even if Warren had and every one of her votes had gone to standers (and there is a lot of evidence to suggest a third of her votes would have gone to Biden), that would only make Sanders at 33% to 51%.

To put this in raw numbers, Biden won 19 million votes. Sanders had just under 9.7 million. Biden won 10 million more votes than Sanders (Elizabeth warren got 2.8 million)

So I see a lot of leftist types claim that this was an example of democratic treachery, that the DNC party robbed sanders of his chance of winning, this was Nixon style Ratfuckery that destroyed Sander's populist campaign to put Biden, who nobody likes anyway, in charge. And as a progressive who didn't want Biden to win, I have to say it sucked...but that wasn't a cheat.

Biden won the popular vote, love him or hate him, he did win more than half of the democratic votes, that makes him the candidate, that is how democracy works, sometimes you lose. Some have claimed that Obama calling up the other moderates and getting them to drop out was a cheat but....how? The moderates knew they couldn't win after South Carolina, and they were ideologically closer to Biden, so they dropped out and endorsed the person they agreed with more. Most Sanders fans wanted Warren to drop out, so I knew you guys understand that importance of consolidating behind a winning candidate. Thats just good politics, the fact that Sanders didn't bother to try to court other candidates to drop out is actually a major weakness of him as a candidate. If the situation had been reversed, and the moderates were trying to win with only 30%, wouldn't you guys want the other progressives to drop out behind sanders

Because Sanders is a populist, and his rhetoric is so tied to the idea of "The people rising up against the elites" that idea that he lost demographically is sort of a trauma his more radical followers can't really deal with, so they retreat to conspiracy theories. Remember, a conspiracy theory is something people turn to to avoid facing a difficult truth. If you identify yourself as populist, and you lose demographically, you have to face some difficult questions. Maybe sanders was the wrong candidate? Maybe he made mistakes? Maybe his fanbase sabotaged his chance of winning, maybe his hardcore fans make a mistake in there understanding of the political situation. Maybe he didn't do anything wrong, it just wasn't the year for a progressive? Or maybe Sleepy Joe Biden actually was a more cunning political operator than they gave him credit for and they were duped.

Or most difficult of them all. Maybe most Americans just don't agree with Sander's position?

Those are hard questions, but you kinda of have to answer them if you want to be a progressive who accomplishes things. I might do later posts that address them if people are interested.

There is a segment of the left who are moving into purple

However, for those who can't face difficult choices, they retreat to conspiracy, and they claim that Sanders was robbed

Hey you know who hasn't been saying that Sanders was robbed by the DNC? Bernie Sanders, because he is an adult who understands how democracy works. He lost, he took it gracefully and then he endorsed and campaigned for the winner, cause sanders actually cares about the cause and not faux revolutionary nonsense.

(Fun fact, Biden and Sanders are friends Irl. Like no joke, those two get along personally)

I didn't vote for Biden in the primary and I was not happy when he won the Primary. However I never thought Biden was senile, or a fool, or a hack, I think that he is a very cunning politician who has a public persona that encourages people to underestimate him And become people can't stand the idea that they could lose to Biden, they retreat into fantasy. This is why MAGA denies the election, they can't face the reality that most of the country doesn't like them, and they can't admit that they lost to a man who doesn't fit there mental image of an impression leader

Yeah...that ends well.

[theglamorousferal]

Just came to the unfortunate realization that Pete Buttigieg looks like if the Onceler went into politics instead of product design

[tomorrowusa]

Donald Trump still hates American veterans.

In an interview with the Atlantic, Mark Milley, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said Trump had been irritated after Luis Avila – who lost a leg and suffered brain damage after an IED attack in Afghanistan – sang at Milley’s 2019 welcome ceremony. “Why do you bring people like that here? No one wants to see that, the wounded,” Milley said Trump told him after the ceremony. Milley told the Atlantic that Trump said Avila should never appear in public again.

Trump is a hideous-looking narcissistic draft dodger. HE is somebody who should never appear in public again.

On Sunday, Buttigieg – who was a lieutenant in the US navy reserve and served a tour of duty in Afghanistan in 2014 – told CNN that Trump’s alleged order was “just the latest in a pattern of outrageous attacks [by Trump] on people who keep this country safe”. Military members wounded in combat, Buttigieg said, “deserve respect and a hell of a lot more than that from every American, and definitely from every American president”.

Trump the draft dodger demanded Soviet-style military parades and filled the Oval Office with battle flags. It was a high profile variation of stolen valor.

Trump previously called Americans who died in action "losers" and "suckers".

Trump disparaged U.S. military casualties as ‘losers,’ ‘suckers,’ report says

Donald "Bone Spur" Trump also took a pass on a visit to a US military cemetery in France because it was raining and he didn't want to get his bizarre hair wet.

French army trolls Trump for not getting his hair wet at WWI cemetery

Disrespecting veterans is not a way to encourage enlistments.

[azeutreciathewicked]

This is how most good policy gets made and managed - real discussions and negotiations done quietly with only the relevant people in the room. No cameras, no bluster. It also seems "boring" because it's not a spectator sport. But it's important and valuable, and essential to a functioning society.

And it wasn't just Buttigieg doing it - he had a whole team of people doing research, looking at policy, bringing people to the table, etc.

People who have experience with politics and policy know this, but a lot of people don't know this. We need to make sure people adjust their expectations to recognize when effective and good governance is happening.

Remember that social media is but a pinhole into the world and what people are thinking and doing. If there is political theater happening, it's probably because someone is trying to influence you. And sometimes this is good - getting people excited to vote is important.

But that's only a small part of the story. The rest is quiet work like this, that requires expertise, nuance, and an interest in working with people who have different interests but want a fair deal.

[abigailspinach]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/27/magazine/pete-buttigieg-interview-election-democrats.html

Tear down obstacles — I mean, the obstacle many would say was President Biden himself. A new New York Times/Siena poll shows that over 80 percent of voters are happy that Biden dropped out. Clearly voters were hungering for something different. Why did the party ignore that desire for change for so long? I think this is something the party was wrestling with for a long time. And then the president wrestled with it personally. And then he did something that is world-historically rare, for not just the leader of a country, but the most powerful person in the world to lay power aside.

CNN reported that there haven’t been any full cabinet meetings since late last year, so I don’t know how often you were meeting with President Biden himself, but as a surrogate, did you not have any questions or doubts about his abilities? The last time I was working with President Biden really closely was during a disaster a few months ago. I’m reminding myself I’m not supposed to appear in my official capacity, so I won’t delve into that. But look, nobody’s denying that he’s 10 years older than he was 10 years ago. The point is that he’s really good at being president and in my view still is.You have framed this as, he sacrificed for his country, that this was a noble act. But the reality was that he was facing sliding polling numbers and a defection of donors and members of his party. He could have made that choice weeks ago, giving Vice President Harris or any eventual nominee a much longer runway and time to defeat Donald Trump. And he didn’t do it. Did he wait too long? One of the things you sign up for when you go into politics, and certainly when you’re in high office, is everybody else telling you what you should have done. And we can all say he should have done this, or he should have done the same thing but a different time, or should have done it in a different way. But the fact stands that he did an extraordinary thing.

But it wasn’t unfair. Well, certain dimensions I think were unfair. For example, the fact that in a given day, you might have almost identical flubbing of names by the two major candidates, but only one of them would have that plastered in certain people’s commentary.

They’re calling her a D.E.I. hire. And worse stuff that I don’t want to repeat. And I just wonder, as a surrogate, how you combat that? Well, I do think that those attacks have been a bad look for Republicans. And you can tell because, when you’ve got somebody like Mike Johnson, who is a very, very conservative figure, the speaker of the House, telling his own caucus, hey, cool it, he’s basically saying that they are embarrassing the party, and I think acknowledging that they are diminishing the party’s chances by indulging in that kind of rhetoric. The fact that they can’t think of what else to do besides go right to race and gender isn’t just revealing about some of the ugliest undercurrents in today’s Republican Party. It’s also just profoundly unimaginative, because it means that they can’t speak to how any of this is going to make people’s lives better. In other words, they can’t conceive of a politics that isn’t just about the personalities. And their inability to explain how your life as an American every day will be any different, certainly any better, is revealed in the fact that they immediately reach for one of two things, saying she’s too far left, which is what literally every Republican says about literally any Democrat who is running against the Republicans. If Joe Manchin were the nominee, they’d say the same thing about him. It’s just standard and therefore boring. Or these really ugly attacks, which maybe are meant to get attention, but they are very much telling on themselves when they go there.

 I am thinking about how you see your role right now, because while Biden rarely talked to the press, you not only engage with people like me, but you also go to Fox News. And I am wondering why you do that. Because I know that there are so many people who tune in in good faith. I don’t always feel that the corporation that runs Fox News is acting in good faith, but I know that the viewers might be tuning in in good faith and getting their information from this news source. So I, as a political figure, can hardly blame a voter for not being responsive to our message if they literally have never heard it. And we’re in a very fragmented environment. Honestly, we’re lucky if we can get to somebody through TV, versus just even more fragmented internet sources. And I know that if I’m on that network, I’m one of relatively few voices with our message, and so if I didn’t go there to give that message, somebody might never hear it. I also know that you cannot assume who somebody is or how they’re going to vote just based on what network they watch. Of course, there are a lot of strong patterns, but there are a lot of people who can be moved. And sometimes the person who picked the channel is not the same as the other person who’s also in the house, listening to what’s being said. Sometimes when you explain what you believe to somebody, even if they don’t completely agree with you, they respect you more, and are inclined to maybe trust you and give you the benefit of the doubt. So that’s why I’m there.

[bookgeekgrrl]

My media this week (21-27 Jul 2024)

it is objectively 50% more hilarious when alex comes for someone's neck. them deciding to kick izzy's character when she was down was *chef's kiss*

📚 STUFF I READ 📚

🙂 Look sometimes you just wanna spend a hot Sunday reading porny omegaverse crack. The heart (or whatever organ) wants what the heart wants. I went thru 3 Lacey Daize KU offerings (all novellas): Team's Omega (Gimme MMMMMore #1) [15K] & Neighbors' Omega (Gimme MMMMMore #2) [18K], both porny omegaverse poly crack and Breedable Boys from Outer Space [20K] which honestly? not enough breeding of Boys from Outer Space! like, girl, we're here for one thing!

🥰 (i'll keep) my tongue behind my teeth (greatunironic) - 40K steddie modern AU where they both move back to Hawkins for their 2nd acts in life - REALLY LOVED THIS - loved the backstories! loved the supporting characters esp Heather (hilarious). You can see the miscommunication/angst coming but it's so right for the character I wasn't mad about it! (miscommunication done badly is one of my personal bugbears). The reconciliation was equally believable. And the sex was super hot: visceral, wet, messy.

🥰 from love, obviously (bizarrestars) - 52K drarry - very funny, great characterizations, stayed up too late to finish which is always a compliment to a fic

😊 The Queen of Poisons (The Marlow Murder Club #3) (Robert Thorogood, author; Nicolette McKenzie, narrator) - still loving the characters - I am fully 75% of the way to becoming Judith tbh. didn't love the fatphobia element, even as the text made an attempt to rebuke it. like. just don't. but wasn't enough to spoil the experience entirely.

😍 I'll Light Your Way Home series (BeaArthurPendragon) - 61K, no powers Vietnam era au - just fucking love this series; both characterizations are incredible, their journey together is great -

💖💖 +174K of shorter fic so shout out to these I really loved 💖💖

Frost Caught Fire On Our Lips (the1918, author; kocuria-arts (kocuria), artist) - MCU: stucky, 7K - short, hot, Bucky works at a diner, Steve comes thru on the regular

in the heat of the summer (you know that you should be my boy) (greatunironic) - Stranger Things: steddie, 17K - LOVED THIS - rockstar Eddie thirsts on main for Olympic swimmer Steve

the valentine experience (greatunironic) - Stranger Things: steddie, 15K - "In which Mike and Eddie have a bet, Steve is the victim of circumstance, and he's not super mad about it."

baby what's the scene? (carbonbased000) - Stranger Things: steddie, 8K - great fic! - "Horny in Indy. 5’11’’, long hair, tats, Top wants bottom, 20-30. Into athletic types, good boys, roleplay, bondage. Tell me your fantasies & let me hurt you just the way you like. Write to: Ed, Box #2177 . Or: Steve responds to a personal ad and has an extremely casual hook-up."

Savage God (LenneWithMilkAndHoney, PottersPink) - MCU: stucky, 36K - absolutely fantastic alt timeline AU where 2014 WS Bucky spends 3 days in 1936 with preserum Steve

Let Me Be Your Good Night (indelicate) - Stranger Things: steddie, 9K - "Or, Steve interrupts Eddie’s hookup and comforts him through a subdrop after. That's how it starts." (OMG they were ROOMMATES)

📺 STUFF I WATCHED 📺

Taskmaster - s12, e6-10; s13, e1-2

Make Some Noise - s3, e3

Dropout Presents: Bigger! With Brennan and Izzy

Thousandaires - s1, e5

D20: Never Stop Blowing Up - "Double Death Doggy Style" (s22, e5)

D20: Adventuring Party - "Ziggy Zany Yeah" (s17, e5)

🎧 PODCASTS 🎧

99% Invisible - The Power Broker #07: Sec. Pete Buttigieg

Overinvested - Ep. 302: AMC's Interview with the Vampire

Consider This - 'Twister,' 'Twisters' and the actual practice of storm chasing

You're Dead to Me - LGBTQ Life in Weimar Germany

Re: Dracula - July 22: Rough Weather

NPR's Book of the Day - Griffin Dunne's memoir chronicles fame, art and tragedy in his Hollywood upbringing

The Atlas Obscura Podcast - Meet the Man Who Sets America’s Living Rooms on Fire

The Sporkful - Cookbooks That Need ‘The Grandma Disclaimer’ (Live)

Imaginary Worlds - Fantasy and Fascism & Fantasy and Fascism Part II: When Democracy Fails

Short Wave - Outer Space Changes You, Literally. Here's What It Does To The Human Body

Pop Culture Happy Hour - Three great karaoke songs

Switched on Pop - Is country the new hip hop?

The Atlas Obscura Podcast - The Arrow Stork

Re: Dracula - July 24: There Will be Some Trouble

Vibe Check - Hold Onto Your Wigs

Short Wave - Dancing Yeti Crabs, Morphing Cuttlefish, Other Stories From The Deep Sea

⭐ Code Switch - The return of the U.S.'s oldest drag king

⭐ It's Been a Minute - 'Cats: The Jellicle Ball' gets 10s across the board

99% Invisible - The 2024 Olympics Spectacular

NPR's Book of the Day - Khushbu Shah's cookbook 'Amrikan' honors the Indian American diaspora

Pop Culture Happy Hour - In The Decameron, the Black Death makes for black comedy

The Atlas Obscura Podcast - Our Lives Through Hollywood’s Eyes

Shedunnit - Christianna Brand's Impossible Crimes

You Are Good - Do the Right Thing w. Ify Nwadiwe

Our Opinions Are Correct - Dinosaurs and Furries, with Riley Black

Re: Dracula - July 26: Just Starting for Home

What Next: TBD - Is Silicon Valley Trump-Vance Country?

Dear Prudence - My Brother-In-Law’s Girlfriend Wore A Transparent Dress To My Wedding. Help!

Dear Prudence - Prudie Plus: I Came Home From Errands and My Fiance Got A Dog. Help!

Pop Culture Happy Hour - Deadpool & Wolverine and what's making us happy

It's Been a Minute - Olympic hurdles for women athletes; plus, big trucks and big questions

Today, Explained - Breaking the Olympics

Endless Thread - The American Lean

Re: Dracula - July 27: No News

Hit Parade - The Bridge: Getting Hot in Herre

Re-Creative - Tanya Davis and Dirty Dancing

🎶 MUSIC 🎶

Shaun Cassidy Radio • Upbeat

Soft Rock Ballads

Rob Zombie

Rock Sugar

Iron Maiden Radio • Popular • Familiar

Reinas

Old-School Reggaeton

The Go-Go's

The Donnas

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ed Pilkington at The Guardian:

The football coach and the “Yale law guy” go head-to-head in New York City on Tuesday night, as two midwesterners with very different styles and vastly diverging messages slug it out over the future of the US.

Tim Walz, the Democratic governor of Minnesota, faces the Republican senator from Ohio, JD Vance, in a vice-presidential debate that promises to be unusually significant in this white-hot election year. They will joust for 90 minutes under the moderation of CBS News as they seek to give their respective running mates – Kamala Harris and Donald Trump – a leg up to the White House. Walz has been prepping for the debate in Minneapolis with the US transportation secretary, Pete Buttigieg, masquerading as Vance. (Buttigieg may have been suffering deja vu – he posed as Mike Pence during Kamala Harris’s prep sessions ahead of the 2020 VP debate.) Vance has been holding mock debates with the Republican whip in the US House, Tom Emmer, standing in as Walz. Emmer is a fellow Minnesotan, so has the benefit of having studied Walz up close. The two running mates bring contrasting strengths to the gladiatorial ring. Vance is an experienced debater who will relish confrontation under the glare of the TV lights. “Look, he’s a Yale law guy,” Walz has said about his opponent. “He’ll come well prepared.”

Walz by contrast will be able to lean on skills learned in the school classroom. Walz spent 17 years as a public school teacher, so he knows how to think on his feet – and deal with a disruptive kid. “I expect to see a very heated debate,” Robby Mook, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign manager, told CBS News. One of the big questions of the night is likely to be whether Vance can redeem himself after a troubled start to his candidacy. Will he be able to get past all the “weirdness”, as Walz has framed it, and bring consistency to the messaging of an often chaotic Trump campaign? From awkward encounters with doughnut shop workers, to the ongoing furor around his “childless cat ladies” remark, Vance has been the subject of online mockery that has at times appeared to engulf him. He also seems to be stuck on the same culture war issues that consume Trump. “Vance does not seem to have drawn additional voters to the Trump ticket, as the controversies he gets into are exactly the same as those the former president gets into,” said Barry Burden, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Most egregiously, Vance has doubled down on the false and racist narrative that Haitian immigrants are eating family pets in Springfield, Ohio, despite categorical denials from local authorities. He recently confessed to CNN that he was willing to “create stories” if it meant that he attracted media attention. Such comments have sunk Vance underwater in the opinion of the voting public – his unfavorability rating is 11 points higher than his favorable, according to FiveThirtyEight. Walz by contrast is basking in the glow of a positive four-point gap between his favorability ratings, which poses him with a completely different set of challenges on debate night. He will need to parry Vance’s attempts to frame him as the misinformation candidate based on misrepresentations Walz made about his military record, defuse his rivals claims that he is dangerously liberal, and refuse to be knocked off track. “Walz just needs to get in and out of the debate without causing trouble for his ticket,” Burden said.

Tomorrow is the big VP debate between Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) and Ohio Senator JD Vance (R) that is being originated by CBS that will air on numerous outlets, beginning at 9PM ET/8PM CT. The debate will be moderated by CBS Evening News host Norah O’Donnell and Face The Nation host Margaret Brennan.

[angelmotifs]

how is jeremy strong playing bruce springsteen's manager and ROY COHN before pete buttigieg in any context when he sounds and looks just like him sort of kind of