#Heitkamp says

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Adam Edelman at NBC News:

When Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz showed up on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” last week to blast Donald Trump and JD Vance as “weird” — part of a recent media blitz — the line of attack quickly gained traction among Democrats.

Key among them was de facto presidential nominee Kamala Harris, who days later started using the same word in her campaign messaging against the GOP ticket, including at a fundraiser in Massachusetts on Saturday. The simple phrase quickly highlighted why Walz — a popular two-term Midwestern governor, former congressman, military veteran and former public school teacher — had suddenly landed on Harris’ short list of prospective running mates. But Walz’s allies, friends and current and former colleagues note that his canny folksiness is just one of the attributes that make him uniquely suited to be the Democratic vice presidential nominee. In addition to a relatable personal story, they say, the 60-year-old Walz has a background representing rural communities that is needed in the party, as well as a record of progressive policy accomplishments.

These Democrats argue that Walz’s background and resume would translate to broad appeal across the critical nearby “blue wall” states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — something few other VP contenders can offer. “If you’re looking for balance on the ticket in terms of life experience, and who’s going to bring that life experience to the administration with a whole series of credentials in solving problems for middle class and American families, Tim Walz has a pretty damn good resume,” said former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., who became close friends with Walz during the time they overlapped in Washington, D.C. She added that Walz prompts voters, particularly across the upper Midwest, to think, “Hey, I know that guy,” and to feel “a comfort level you have with a shared human experience, a shared lived experience.”

A veteran, teacher and red-district Democrat

Walz, a Nebraska native, enlisted in the Army National Guard when he was 17, and served for more than two decades with both domestic and overseas deployments. He later worked as a high school social studies teacher and football coach in Mankato, about 80 miles south of Minneapolis, before shifting to politics. In 2006, he successfully ran for a congressional seat in a largely rural and agricultural district in southern Minnesota. He represented the 1st Congressional District for 12 years, and has been the only Democrat to represent what has typically been a red-leaning district — which spans the entire southern chunk of the state — in nearly 30 years. “He’s highly capable of reaching out to and connecting with the voters in small towns and rural places in the Midwest — that’s where he’s from, that’s where he was [representing] as a member of Congress,” said Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn. “Those are the voters that Democrats need to do better with, voters where we have to demonstrate that we understand what’s going on in their lives, and that we understand that we should be working to make their lives work better.”

[...] Harris’ current VP short list is filled with governors as she seeks to potentially balance the ticket with a voice outside Washington. Walz has built a robust network of influence across several states in his role as chair of the Democratic Governors Association, a job he took on last year. But he also has 12 years of congressional experience that could be put to use in the White House. “Think about what Joe Biden brought to Obama. In essence, all those relationships in Washington,” said Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn., who is openly advocating for Harris to select Walz. “He’s got all those relationships with members of Congress, including on the other side.” [...]

Progressive and working-class appeal

Minnesota has been consistently Democratic at the statewide level in recent elections, but it’s a place where Republicans are competitive. Still, Walz has overseen the enactment of a bevy of progressive priorities as governor, particularly during his second term, with Democrats controlling both chambers of the Legislature. He signed laws protecting abortion rights, legalizing recreational marijuana, restricting gun access and providing legal refuge to transgender youths whose access to gender-affirming and other medical care has been restricted elsewhere. “He’s got the progressive receipts to bring it home to a more broad appeal across the Democratic base,” Craig said. Walz also enacted several laws geared toward farmers and the working class, including bills that expanded paid family leave, banned most noncompete agreements, provided universal school meals for students, expanded public child care support programs and capped the price of insulin in Minnesota (three years before Biden did so nationally).

[...]

Reinforcing the ‘blue wall’

Of course, the prospect of putting Walz on the ticket with Harris presents some downsides. He’s not well known nationally and may not bring the same youth or energy as other potential running mates. He’s also not from a battleground state, like Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro or Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, that could tip the presidential election. But Walz’s allies say he could still help the Democratic ticket in other critical states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — that are home to many of the same types of voters he’s won over in Minnesota. “He speaks farm, suburban and urban,” joked Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., who has publicly urged Harris to select Walz.

She and others noted that Walz is not reluctant to go on Fox News — a recent appearance even drew a complaint from Trump — to reach more conservative voters. Some Democrats said Walz could also counter Trump’s efforts to make further inroads in the Rust Belt with his selection of Vance as his running mate.

NBC News reports on how Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) can be an asset for Kamala Harris’s VP pick, as he could help lock down the 3 Upper Midwest/Great Lakes swing states.

[wilwheaton]

A swarm of lobbyists is gearing up against Democratic efforts to tax corporations and the wealthy to fund major investments in our people and in preserving the future home of human civilization. One thing the lobbyists want to protect is a loophole allowing untold inherited wealth to escape taxation. When people say the economy is “rigged," this is what they’re talking about. As it is, wealth and investment income are not taxed as labor income is, so those amassing large fortunes often already receive privileged tax treatment. But in addition, when estates are passed down to heirs, for tax purposes, assets are assigned the value they have at that point of transfer. If assets are then sold later, they’re taxed based on their appreciation in value from that point, effectively allowing all the appreciation before then to permanently escape taxation. This is one way billionaires can get away with paying so little in income taxes relative to their wealth, whereas most Americans have income taxes taken from each paycheck. Biden’s plan would combat this. It would tax those assets based on their appreciation from the original point of acquisition, thus taxing all that unrealized value. That’s what lobbyists want to prevent.

 Heidi Heitkamp is using an old Trump-GOP scam against Biden’s reconciliation plan

[dhaaruni]

Okay as someone that openly declares that "abortions are good and there should be more of them" on and off my public Instagram story, I totally disagree with this post lol.

About 70% of Americans want Roe to stay as law, but that doesn't mean a majority of people support abortion "on demand and without apology," and it definitely doesn't mean that they don't think abortion is ideologically "bad." These people will still judge women they know who get abortions, they will still go on and on about how we can and should minimize the number of abortions with better sex education and birth control and economic justice, and these people are much more likely to vote than people like me who are extremely liberal on abortion and think there should be an abortion clinic on every street corner.

My point is, if saying abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare" keeps abortion accessible in as much of this country as possible, even in red states, I'll opt for that messaging even if I personally loathe the idea that we have to play into the conservative framing of "abortion should be minimized." Once again, politics means that we have to do what's popular and that means Democrats have to utilize messaging that lines up with what the voters believe so we can get elected, even if I, a 20-something college-educated woman that lives in Washington D.C., believe they're backwards misogynists.

Also, once elected, legislators can and do move left, which is why we have to elect Democrats!! Conor Lamb is pro-life on paper because he's a devout Catholic and flipped a district Trump won by 20, but once in office, he co-sponsored Judy Chu's Women's Health Protection Act, and publicly condemned the Supreme Court's latest anti-choice shenanigans. Former Democratic senator Heidi Heitkamp allowed and even encouraged pro-life organizations think she was anti-choice so she could get elected as a Democrat in North Dakota, but once she took office, she ghosted them, and flat out ignored them when they called her a baby-killing psycho for her votes. And, Heitkamp ultimately lost her seat (while Manchin kept his seat) in part due to her "no" vote on Brett Kavanaugh, which I'll always respect her for.

[bustedbernie]

You say "Democrats don't fight and are the same as republicans." But when Heidi Heitkamp voted against confirming Brett Kavanaugh even though she lived in a red state, where were you on election day? Where were you on election day in 2010 to defend democratic representatives who fought for the ACA and voted for it WITH the public option? Democrats fight. And then they lose because YOU don't show up. So shut the fuck up and take some damn responsibility. Voting matters, and if you don't show up, then how do you expect there to be a fight at all?

[libertyfreak2014]

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-christie-says-far-left-president-bidens-capital-gains-tax-is-socialism-as-angela-rye-heidi-heitkamp-audibly-laugh/

[mostlysignssomeportents]

One of the CIA's waterboarding torturers called himself "The Preacher" and shouted religious nonsense while performing executions

More word from the ongoing attempt to bring the people responsible for years of CIA torture to justice: one of the three waterboarding specialists at Guantanamo was called "The Preacher" because while he was drowning suspects to the point of near death, he "would at random times put one hand on the forehead of a detainee, raise the other high in the air, and in a deep Southern drawl say things like, 'Can you feel it, son? Can you feel the spirit moving down my arm, into your body?'"

The sadistic torturer's real name isn't known. He was codenamed NZ7.

Tales of The Preacher's behavior first surfaced in "Enhanced Interrogation," the torture apologia penned by James Mitchell, the rogue psychologist who designed the CIA's torture program (his company was paid $80m for this work, which also included instructions for anal rape, freezing people to death, and shoving hummus and nuts up men's asses).

Mitchell testified again about The Preacher this week during a pre-trial hearing for five of the men charged with planning and abetting the 9/11 attacks.

Mitchell's testimony paints him as a moderate torturer who was locked in internecine struggle with the CIA's in-house "interrogation chief," codenamed NX2 and believed to be Charlie Wise, a notorious torturer who practiced his craft in Nicaragua for the Contras (Wise died in 2003).

Mitchell describes how, on his tours of CIA torture sites, he would express concern that the techniques employed would maim the victims, and was silenced and even effectively incarcerated -- confined to an overseas base with no contact with the outside world. He said he was only released because the "tension" was "damaging morale."

CIA Director Gina Haspel was complicit in both torture and the subsequent coverup. In May, 2018, she was confirmed as Trump's CIA chief. Six Democrat Senators voted to confirm her: Joe Manchin [WV], Heidi Heitkamp [ND], Joe Donnelly [IN], Bill Nelson [FL], Mark Warner [VA] and Jeanne Shahee [NH].

https://boingboing.net/2020/01/27/james-mitchell-war-criminal.html

[actuallyanansi]

people hating on "establishment" "centrist" democrats here on the tungl dot hell will always be my least favorite political trope, and it's always to shit on People who Get Things Done in service of hypocritical and useless "progressives™" who are usually the exact same flavor of ideologically fluid center-left, or worse, complete fuckwads like tulsi gabbard. like, can y'all start shitting on racist blue dogs and also the entire GOP instead of complaining that people on twitter were rude to local bernie stan nina turner for saying something kinda racist and fully unnecessary

[scottbcrowley2]

Heitkamp renews ad apology; Cramer says she’s not bipartisan - Fri, 19 Oct 2018 PST

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp opened her debate Thursday against Republican challenger Kevin Cramer with a renewed apology for a newspaper ad attacking her opponent that improperly identified some survivors of domestic ... Heitkamp renews ad apology; Cramer says she’s not bipartisan - Fri, 19 Oct 2018 PST

[billmaher]

HBO Real Time Guests: Friday, Oct. 23, 2020

Guest List: October 23, 2020

  The Interviews:

 Matthew McConaughey is an Oscar and Golden Globe award-winning actor whose new book is called “Greenlights.”

 Twitter: @McConaughey

  Ben Sheehan is the former award-winning executive producer at Funny or Die, founder of OMG WTF and author of “OMG WTF Does The Constitution Actually Say?”

  Twitter: @ThatBenSheehan

  The Panel:

 Heidi Heitkamp is the former Democratic U.S. Senator from North Dakota and co-founder of the One Country Project.

   Twitter: @HeidiHeitkamp

  Anthony Scaramucci is the former White House Communications Director under President Trump and author of “Trump: The Blue-Collar President.”

  Twitter: @Scaramucci

   Overtime will return at a later date. Watch previous episodes on the Real Time YouTube channel.

[investmart007]

MANDAN, N.D.  | Heitkamp says it's not all about resisting Trump

New Post has been published on https://is.gd/4ghCxm

MANDAN, N.D.  | Heitkamp says it's not all about resisting Trump

MANDAN, N.D.  — Heidi Heitkamp has no time for resisting.

That’s what the North Dakota Democrat in one of the most Donald Trump-friendly states says, though it would seem she also doesn’t have that luxury of avoiding the resistance.

The first-term U.S. senator, among the most vulnerable in her party seeking re-election this year, is maneuvering herself at once as an ally of the Republican president on policy, and a polite opponent at other times.

“If you simply focus on resistance, if that’s your sole motivation and purpose, I don’t know how you’d ever get anything done,” Heitkamp said during an Associated Press interview at a coffee shop in Mandan, her hometown. “When we agree, we work together.”

Heitkamp’s record of championing some of Trump’s proudest deregulation moves has frustrated Republicans, who would like nothing more than to paint her as obstructing the president. That has been the more combative approach of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, seeking re-election in Democrat-friendly Massachussetts.

Heitkamp’s Republican opponent  in North Dakota, U.S. Rep. Kevin Cramer, is competing with the incumbent to stand out as the better friend to Trump.

It’s a tack that Heitkamp says overstates Trump’s popularity.

Heitkamp is among 10 Democratic senators seeking re-election this year in states Trump carried in 2016. Their fate will go a long way to deciding whether Democrats stand a chance at capturing the majority in November. Republicans now hold a 51-49 edge.

On the surface, Heitkamp’s challenge may appear greater than those faced by her peers: In 2016, Trump won North Dakota by 36 percentage points, a margin exceeded only in West Virginia.

But Heitkamp, 62, is a near-40-year political veteran of this deeply conservative state. She comes to this moment with a background of statewide political success, heartbreaking defeat and deep insight about the issues of agriculture, energy and trade which drive this lightly populated but pivotal state.

“I’ve won elections by big margins, by little margins. And I’ve lost elections,” said Heitkamp, a former state attorney general and failed candidate for governor who won her Senate seat by 3,000 votes in 2012. “And that’s not what motivates me to do this work — winning and losing elections. It’s the work.”

Heitkamp has championed Trump’s move to loosen federal rules that she has called onerous for North Dakota’s farmers and mining industry. Last month, she stood gleefully alongside Trump as he signed a measure easing regulations on community banks and credit unions, on which many farmers and rural businesses rely.

Heitkamp also has voted to confirm 21 of Trump’s 26 Cabinet-level nominations. Only West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, another Democrat facing re-election in a conservative state, has voted for more. Heitkamp has voted for the vast majority of Trump’s judicial nominees, including Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Cramer, whose main campaign claim is his devotion to the president, has criticized Heitkamp for voting in December against Trump’s tax cuts, his chief domestic achievement.

Heitkamp also voted against move forward on a bill that would make nearly all abortions illegal after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and that’s a sore spot with North Dakota’s active evangelical conservatives.

She did lead a bipartisan effort to lift the 40-year ban on U.S. oil exports in 2015, against the wishes of Democratic President Barack. But she faced a backlash from the petroleum industry this year for voting to keep in place limits on burning excess natural gas released from oil drilling sites. Heitkamp, a former natural gas company director, argued that the excess could be captured and sold.

Cramer said Heitkamp is in a bind.

“She has a big dilemma,” he told the AP. “On one hand, she wants to portray herself in North Dakota as a Trump supporter. On the other hand, she wants to be a Democrat and not torque off her big-money, liberal friends. People aren’t falling for it.”

But Heitkamp is a known entity in North Dakota, recognizable to many with her unruly red hair, barn coat and booming laugh.

She visited a grain cooperative and ethanol processing plant in the high, green plains west of Bismarck during the Senate’s Memorial Day recess. Republican Mike Appert, a farmer who met Heitkamp for the first time last week at Red Trail Energy, said she gets high marks from conservatives for her support of the ethanol industry.

Appert, disappointed by her tax-cut and abortion bill opposition, said he appreciates her willingness to work with Trump.

“From a lot of people I’ve talked to, people who voted for Trump for president are going to vote for Heidi,” said Appert, who is undecided in the Senate race, but said Heitkamp “deserves a close look.”

Heitkamp’s up-front spot at Trump’s banking bill signing recalled the time when she joined him on stage for a rally in North Dakota last fall, a symbol of their uncommon bond.

She flew aboard Air Force One from Washington to Bismarck for a September rally. That was nine months after Trump invited her during the presidential transition to Trump Tower, where she rejected his offer of a Cabinet-level position.

Cramer, who initially turned down challenging Heitkamp early this year, changed his mind after a multiple attempts by Trump, including a White House dinner with Cramer and his wife, to recruit him. “He begged me,” Cramer told the AP last week.

Cramer has used the sales job to portray himself as close to the president in a state where Trump’s approval runs well ahead of his national rating.

“She can’t use my support for the Trump agenda against me,” he said. “She’s essentially saying ‘vote for me because I’m going to be like Kevin.’ I’m telling voters to vote for me because I am Kevin.”

But Heitkamp said no one agrees with Trump all of the time, even in North Dakota.

“Do I want to have a relationship so I can pick up the phone and talk about things like farm policy, trade policy? Yeah. I think that’s in the best interest of North Dakota,” she said. “I say if you want someone who is going to vote with the president 100 percent of the time, that’s not going to be me. Because I don’t think he’s 100 percent right.”

__

By THOMAS BEAUMONT,By Associated Press

___

[goodbonesassembling]

HEY

are you an American and live in Alaska, Arizona, Maine, North Dakota, or West Virginia?

YOUR SENATORS ARE THE DECIDING VOTES IN WHETHER OR NOT KAVANAUGH MAKES IT ONTO THE SUPREME COURT

Please, call their offices now, the official voting process is supposed to start tomorrow morning, we need them to know voting “yes” is unacceptable to their constituents

Alaska: Lisa Murkowski 202-224-6665

Arizona: Jeff Flake 202-224-4521

Maine: Susan Collins 202-224-2523

North Dakota: Heidi Heitkamp 202-224-2043 (she has only in the last few hours come out saying she intends to vote no so pls call to thank her for making the right choice and to stick with it!)

West Virginia: Joe Manchin 202-224-3954

If you aren’t in these states you can still call your senators to voice your anger with their choice to vote yes or to thank them for choosing to vote no. You can find their phone numbers here (this link leads to a .gov site)

[dhaaruni]

@heylabodega yes! And sorry, for the long rant lol.

It honestly boils down to Joe Manchin being a Democrat and Lisa Murkowski being a Republican like, when it comes down to the wire, Manchin, like Bernie, votes with Democrats, and Murkowski votes with the Republicans. With the American Rescue Plan for instance, Murkowski got her amendment in (something about seafood processors in Alaska), but she ultimately voted against the bill while Manchin fell in line (albeit after Kyrsten Sinema, Jon Tester, and Joe freaking Biden all implored him to).

Also, Manchin was one of the first elected officials to endorse both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden (he endorsed Hillary before Bernie iirc), and he voted to convict Trump twice, while Murkowski didn’t endorse either Democrat, and only impeached Trump once, after the insurrection. Manchin’s a big labor guy too like he’s very supportive of unions and he's cosponsored the PRO Act.

Also, even though he’s pro-life, Manchin has voted to preserve Planned Parenthood funding multiple times before, so just for that, he’s leaps and bounds better than 95% of Republicans even without his saving the ACA multiple times (albeit with guns lmao). Like, back in 2017, people were protesting outside Susan Collins' and Lisa Murkowski's and John McCain's houses so they'd vote against the ACA repeal, but nobody had to protest outside Sherrod Brown's or Jon Tester's or Joe Manchin's houses, who are all red state Democrats, not least since Manchin put out this ad! Do I love guns? No. But I like that Manchin voted to save the ACA (multiple times), and this is how he did it.

This is the Manchin Cycle basically:

Manchin is very performative and annoying at times but he’s also never the deciding vote to tank a Democratic policy! And, the rest of the Democratic caucus that’s to the left of him definitely uses Manchin as a scapegoat when they don’t want to say or do something that they’ll get more flack for than Manchin will because he represents West Virginia and not like, Rhode Island. Even with Manchin tanking Neera Tanden’s nomination for OMB director, he was definitely covering for Bernie who was being mighty petty since Neera’s a huge Hillary Clinton surrogate and supporter and criticized him before, but Bernie would get much more criticism for tanking a nominee of his own party’s president than Manchin because Biden got 66.1% of the vote in Vermont and 29.7% of the vote in West Virginia. That makes sense right?

Like, I hated that Manchin voted for Brett Kavanaugh, but he only did so after Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, who voted yes and present on Kavanaugh, ensured Kavanaugh was in no matter how Manchin voted. It was the month before the 2018 midterms when he was up for re-election in a state Trump won by 40 so I get why Manchin ultimately voted for Kavanaugh. And a month later, during the midterms, Heidi Heitkamp, Claire McCaskill, and Joe Donnelly, all red state Democratic senators, lost their seats to Republicans after voting no on Kavanaugh. Manchin won by about 2%, his lowest margin of winning ever, and in all likelihood, Manchin and Jon Tester are toast in 2024 if Trump is on the ballot since Trump draws out low-propensity Republicans, and Sherrod Brown’s got an uphill fight. And, it’s only because Manchin and Tester barely eked out wins in states that voted for Trump by ~40 and ~20 respectively that we even have a 50-50 Senate at this point, which isn’t sustainable at all.

Anyways, like I always say, Democrats need to figure out how to stop losing white non-college voters so badly because our major losses with that demographic make it nearly impossible for us to hold the Senate, and those losses are also why Biden was barely 40,000 votes across Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia from a 269-269 electoral college tie with a 6-3 Supreme Court.

And finally, this is a great and very catchy song:

[kmtam]

Some of my thoughts on the thing.

I’m feeling mostly good about the election. Not great, but not bad, and nothing like The Day After in 2016. Regardless of how you slice it, we’re in a better position today than we were yesterday, even if some of our preferred candidates lost, or our preferred narratives didn’t fully pan out.

I’ll start with the bad. Apparently my moving to a GOP district did not magically flip it blue, which is a bit surprising but OK, whatever. Katie Porter lost, and this is the biggest disappointment of the night for me (I think?) because this district was actually winnable. Mimi Walters, the incumbent, is an uncharismatic, do-nothing who rubber-stamps her party line without fanfare. This county, if not the district, is now majority Democrat, and this election was a chance to rebuke the past two years of Republican governance. But Katie Porter lost, and I think she lost because she ran a bad campaign. I saw very few Porter signs on the streets (and the streets here are FILLED with signs around election time); I knew nothing about what Porter actually stood for (I just found out this morning she supported repealing the gas tax!); and she cancelled on multiple in-person events during the primaries and general. Now, maybe all of her resources were spent in more conservative parts of the district, I don’t know, but I do know that I got multiple people knocking at my door over the past few days, in an ivory tower neighborhood literally filled with liberal professors, asking me to vote for Katie Porter, which seems like misspent energy to me.

Oh well, there’s always 2020.

The senate is a tough loss, especially Heitkamp and very especially McCaskill. But despite media narratives to the contrary, the senate was always an extreme long-shot for the Democrats. The map and schedule were historically difficult, and the fact that Beto actually got within a few points in a race that started out with about a 20 point difference is extraordinary. Sure, it would have been great to take the senate, and it sucks that there are now fewer Dems in the senate than before, but in terms of actual legislative power etc., there’s not really any difference from the status quo. Now the Dems will lose by a slightly higher margin. But at least there’s a check in the House.

Florida and Georgia are bad. And in both cases there’s some electoral irregularities, along with outright vote suppression. Democrats absolutely must make voting access — and gerrymandering and voting machines — a top priority in their agenda, at all levels of government.

The defeat of Prop 10 -- which would have allowed the expansion of rent control in California -- is bad. The margin by which it was defeated is baffling. Who the hell are all these people who really don’t like rent control? And who are all these people voting to force EMTs to remain on call while they take their breaks? And why does California legislate so many stupid things through ballot initiatives?! At least the greedy boomer home-owners didn’t get their tax break.

There’s more bad stuff. Like that everyone I gave money to lost, except one person, and she’s not even in my state (Jacky Rosen in NV). And my longtime nemesis Diane Feinstein took her race handily. And literal white supremacist Steve King narrowly won back his seat in Iowa.

But there’s plenty of good stuff, too.

More women, and especially more women of color, will now be serving in Congress than ever before. Two of them are Muslim American, two of them are Native American. My home state of Massachusetts elected its first Black woman to Congress (uh, why’d it take so long?), and Boston elected a Black woman as District Attorney.

Medicaid expansion passed in Utah, Idaho, and Nebraska.

Scott Walker lost in Wisconsin (which I assume is due to the presence of @tnelms and @suchasuperlady), and Kris Kobach lost in Kansas (!).

Voter turnout was massive, in comparison with previous midterm elections.

Kim Davis, whom none of us should ever have heard of in the first place, was booted from office.

Massachusetts re-affirmed trans rights.

And lots more.

Here’s the thing. The “blue wave” thing was a media construction that was designed to either work or fail spectacularly — that is, there either would be a wave or there wouldn’t. There’s no in-between, mostly because there’s no room in the metaphor for in-betweenness. Focusing on and thinking through stupid metaphors like this -- and then trying to work within those metaphors, like referring to the “blue trickle” or the “blue particles” (har har) -- distracts us from seeing what has actually happened.

And what actually happened is that the Democrats took a lot of seats in the House, despite what is, according to traditional measures (if not direct experience), a really good economy. One of the only tried-and-true metrics that has held over the decades is that the relative health of the economy dictates whether the incumbent party gains or loses seats in an election. If the economy is doing well, the incumbents tend to hold seats or gain some, but if it’s doing badly, they lose. It’s virtually unheard of for incumbents to lose seats when the economy is doing well, but that’s exactly what happened last night, at least in the House.

And look at those Medicaid expansions in very conservative states. Republicans began the campaign by running on only three issues: healthcare, tax cuts, and racism. They basically gave up talking about the tax cuts they passed, because they were very unpopular, and they ended up outright lying about their position on healthcare since, as it turns out, even in red states, people overwhelmingly want affordable healthcare. So all they’re left with is racism. Now I’m not saying this is a good thing, of course. Obviously not. But it demonstrates that the “issues” that the GOP touts are all smoke and mirrors, and the Democratic positions on those are in fact widely preferred. Plainly, all the GOP has at this point is racism. Once we all understand that, and stop pretending like the GOP is a legitimate, issues-based political party, the better equipped we are to organize around them in the future. Which is to say, anti-racism needs to be a basic building block of everything the left, including the Democratic party, puts forward from now on.

Remember, this is all about power, not just aesthetics or feelings (those matter, too, but only really in relation to power). And the medium and long games are just as important, if not more important, than the short ones. The short game played from 2016-2018 wasn’t perfect, but it was a good step forward because the unfettered power of the GOP now has a few more checks on it. There’s another short game to play starting today, and this one is even more important than the one we just finished. As I’ve said before, I have no love for the Democratic party, but for better or worse, they’re the only force we have right now for stopping a political cult from destroying our fragile democracy, so the best thing to do, from point of view, is help them win this game. I really hope they can do it.

[alltheswift]

HEY HEY HEY! Just think while you've been getting down and out about the liars and the dirty, dirty cheats of the world, YOU COULD HAVE BEEN CALLING YOUR GOD DAMN SENATORS to say KAVA-NOT TODAY SATAN. Here are some really really important ones!!

Joe Manchin (D-WV)

Phone: (202) 224-3954

Joe Donnelly (D-IN)

Phone: (202) 224-4814

Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)

Phone: 202-224-2043

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

Phone: (202) 224-6665

Susan Collins (R-ME)

Phone: (202) 224-2523

Doug Jones (D-AL)

Phone: (202) 224-4124

If you care about your rights as a human; if you care about your reproductive future; if you care about the rights of others; CALL YOUR SENATORS AND TELL THEM TO VOTE NO ON KAVANAUGH.

[alwaysbewoke]

PAY ATTENTION!! THIS IS HOW THEY STEAL BLACK WEALTH!!! Why is there bipartisan support in the Senate to cover up evidence of discrimination in banking?

Last week, a report from the Center for Investigative Reporting found banks discriminated against minorities in 61 US cities. The report was based on mortgage data that banks are required to report to the government. Now, the Senate is poised to pass a law that would allow almost all of the nation’s banks to hide some of their mortgage lending data.

The bill, nicknamed by advocacy groups the Bank Lobbyist Act, would be a giant step backwards for the public and national groups who use this data to ensure banks treat all borrowers equally. That’s not just a nice idea. It’s the law – and government regulators use Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data, known as HMDA (“humdah”), to make sure banks lend fairly to all qualified borrowers.

The data suggests that many banks do not - so banks are trying to get rid of the data.

Some of the HMDA data reporting is a relatively new requirement for an industry that has a long and dark history of discrimination. The reporting requirements were strengthened in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which was passed after the 2008 financial crisis.

Today, the data shows dramatic discrepancies in loan denials for minorities compared to white applicants. In Philadelphia, qualified black applicants were almost three times as likely to be denied a home mortgage compared to white applicants. The HMDA data from 2015 and 2016 shows a trail of denials to minorities in Atlanta, Detroit, Philadelphia, St. Louis, San Antonio and other cities across the nation.

This suggests discrimination in lending is a nationwide problem that deserves more scrutiny, not less.

HMDA data is also used as evidence of discrimination in legal actions to force banks to change their practices.

In 2015, the Department of Justice settled a case against Eagle Bank and Trust, which was referred by the Metropolitan St. Louis Equal Housing and Opportunity Council, or EHOC, for rampant redlining across Saint Louis. The enforcement action, which led to a $975,000 settlement with the bank, used HMDA data analysis from the National Community Reinvestment Coalition to show an absence of loans and bank branches in communities of color.

“All of our cases, and we have been involved in six since 2009, included HMDA data as evidence of redlining and failing to lend to African American communities,” said Elisabeth Risch, Assistant Director of EHOC. “Without the HMDA data, we would have no way to identify potential discriminatory practices and address significant disparities.”

HMDA data offers evidence of discrimination. Other research shows how discrimination in lending occurs. Last year, "mystery shopper" tests conducted by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition found that bankers were three times more likely to invite follow-up appointments with white borrowers seeking small business loans THAN BETTER-QUALIFIED BLACK BORROWERS.

It’s painful to see signs of discrimination linger, and on such a scale, a half-century after Civil Rights-era laws aimed to eradicate discrimination in all spheres of the economy. It’s also painful to see bipartisan support for a move to hide that troubling story from the public. The bill has 25 co-sponsors, including 11 Democrats.

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) justified her sponsorship of S. 2155 by arguing that banks that were once “too big to fail” became "too small to succeed" because of the regulatory burdens under Dodd-Frank.

The burden of data collection and reporting is trivial. Banks already collect the very same data for their own confidential files. This bill simply allows all but the biggest banks to keep secret certain data about their lending records. It enables them to hide the truth.

Banks also argue the HMDA data doesn’t tell the whole story. They say additional information that banks are not required to disclose, like debt-to-income ratios and creditworthiness of borrowers, accounts for lending discrepancies in loan denials for minorities. But debt-to-income ratios and other critical loan terms and conditions are precisely the data mandated by Dodd-Frank that this bill would now shroud in a veil of secrecy.

The public needs sunshine, not secrecy. If this bill passes, journalists, government regulators and independent watchdogs won’t have a full picture of the housing market. They won’t be able to ask simple questions like, is our mortgage market fair? Will my bank evaluate my loan application the same way it evaluates every loan application – or will it deny me because I’m black, or Native American or a woman?

There’s ample evidence that discrimination in bank lending is widespread – and the Senate appears poised to help banks get rid of the evidence. That will protect the interests of banks, not the interest of average working-class Americans.

why does this matter? real estate is the NUMBER 1 cause of the racial wealth gap!! 

http://www.alwaysbewoke.com/post/119813744772/the-roots-of-the-widening-racial-wealth-gap

call these motherfuckers especially!!

[modernart2012]

Judge Kavanaugh Confirmation

So I don't normally do politics on Tumblr but this is something I think we all need to be talking about.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh is in the process of being questioned closely about his potential as a US Supreme Court Justice, a lifetime appointment. And he's .... pretty damn good at not giving an answer, but he's on paper anti-abortion, pro-not investigating the sitting president for crimes, and other general Pro-conservative Republican agenda things. Like Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms - aka, he can’t or refuses to, differentiate between semi-automatic handguns as being for safety and semi-automatic rifles and machine guns (like AR-15s) as being different and one being a clear and present danger. (To note, he is backed by the NRA. Further evidence he’s a puppet.) He is also involved in some shady stuff from 2004 when M. Miranda was tried for stealing unpublished documents from Democratic member of Congress to push through controversial nominees under the Bush era. That’s a whole different ball game, but speaks to the fact he is failing at basic right-wrong.

He has also openly dissented on cases where everyone else (no matter their party lines) assented. He might pose himself as a person who follows precedent, but in a dissent he wrote that nonlegal immigrants are not “employees” and do not have the legal right to organize and unionize even though the Supreme Court previously had stated that they were and could (precedent, that he jumped through hoops to say didn’t apply). Which isn’t following precedent and since there are 15-20 abortion cases headed to the Supreme Court in the next 2 years he will have ample time to undo Roe v. Wade (the precedent). He is also pro-deregulation and tearing down mandates of government bodies like the EPA. He refuses to answer if the President can pardon himself, though he keeps spouting ��no one is above the law” (If no one is above the law, then no, the President cannot pardon himself.) He also has previously stated that he believes there should be no prosecution of a sitting president. (You can see why the Republicans and Trump are salivating to get him appointed, can’t you?)

So, in short, we Americans need to call in to our senators, especially in places where the Senator is not a confirmed “no” to let Congress know we don't back Kavanaugh and that his confirmation is a mistake. Because frankly, if we don't try, we will get Roe v Wade overturned (though Kavanaugh keeps mouthing the line about precedent, its bullshit every Republican nominee has mouthed and we all know it) and then who knows what else.

I won’t pander to you and break down every last point he said today during his hearing - go to CNN or Fox or MSNBC or NBC or what have you for that. But, I will tell you to call your Senators. Protest their offices. Make noise and make them know you will not stand for Kavanaugh to be appointed. There are a few crucial votes needed to stop him. We only have until the end of the month, but we can do it.

The most crucial Senators to contact are as follows:

Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp  of North Dakota

Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin

Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio

Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania

Sen. Joe Donnelly of Indiana

Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia

Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri

Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida

Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan

Sen. Jon Tester of Montana

You may phone the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. A switchboard operator will connect you directly with the Senate office you request.