#and they are worse than the republicans and democrats and right wingers and leftists they claim to hate. they’re them with an axe | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

qqueenofhades · 2 years ago

Note

You're pretty smart, and you know your politics, so I have a question I want to ask. Leftists claim Biden has enough power to cancel student debt, and I'm wondering if that's actually true? So can he? Or is it a lie?

WELP. This has been one of the biggest talking points ever since Biden took office, and there have been rampant bad-faith misinformation, exaggeration, and general disingenuous attacks that have largely or entirely come from said Online Left. Right-wingers are screaming about how Biden's an illegitimate fraud who stole the election from God King Trump and is a socialist and evil Plotter Against America and so forth, but the left? They think Biden's the devil because "he hasn't cancelled all student loans!!!" Which, you may remember, he a) never actually promised to do outright, and b) this whole "Biden is worse than Trump because he hasn't given ME a pony, and therefore I am morally justified in withholding my vote from the Democrats yet again" is about as immature, sociopathic, and selfish as it's possible to get, especially when the other party has gone full masks-off fascist and is preparing its second coup attempt and end of American democracy in plain sight. So.... yeah.

The actual facts as to whether Biden has the authority to just wipe out the $1.7 trillion of current outstanding federal student debt are, to say the least, complicated. As I have said before, I am not unconcerned about the issue. I voted for Elizabeth Warren in the primaries largely because she made full cancellation a priority, and I have a lot of debt from three degrees (especially my master's degree) which I am, barring a sudden economic windfall, deeply unlikely to ever actually pay off. So yes, I would like to see the development of a policy to both permanently get rid of my loans and make sure that future generations don't have to be saddled with this unjust lifetime economic burden. As with most things, this is Ronald Reagan's fault. Once Reaganomics became the central economic planning strategy, and taxes for wealthy individuals and corporations were drastically slashed as a result, that meant there was no more money left over to either automatically pay for college or have it average $50 a semester. The student loan debt crisis is a predictable result of deliberate and repeated Republican policy: make the rich richer and make the poor poorer by forcing them to take out loans that they are unlikely to pay back, because we need to keep more money for the richest 1%.

Biden is the first president since Reagan to actually and forcefully denounce "trickle-down economics" and state outright what we can all see: that the policy doesn't work. However, since it's been the guiding principle of American and global capitalism for 40+ years, you can't just snap your fingers and reverse all the effects, and that's where the student debt debate gets really stupid. Online Leftists are the kind of people who strongly believe that all the problems in America could just be fixed if Biden and the Democratic Party "tried hard enough," and the fact that they "haven't tried" and/or succeeded in everything is proof that they don't care and that they're evil and etc etc worse than Trump voting is bad I am a very moral and progressive person who performs purest wokeness on the Internet!! So that's the approach that they're taking to the debt crisis. The fact that Biden hasn't snapped his fingers and wiped out the $1.7 trillion existing debt means that he doesn't care and he's evil, end of story.

You might recognize this as a risibly simplistic and nonsensical "analysis" that doesn't take into account any actual facts and mostly serves to stoke outrage and increase anti-voting and anti-Democratic sentiment in leftist online circles. And yet, it's pretty much the dominant philosophy, because fantasy worlds and magical thinking are much easier than comprehensively reasoning through the problem and coming up with a realistic, tenable, and long-term solution. It's substantially unclear whether Biden has the executive authority to just handwave away almost 1/20th of the USA's entire GDP (which was $23 trillion in 2021). That debt is managed by large companies, tied up in other investments, traded on the stock market, and otherwise treated like any other financial commodity, and it's unclear what just evaporating it would do. It's not fair, you say? Welcome to capitalism! Student debt is currently an integral part of the American economy, and with inflation and gas prices staying high and dark whispers of a recession that could hit just before the November midterms, Biden is going to be cautious about taking sweeping and unprecedented actions that might have a knock-on effect and hamper the ability of Democrats to be elected and/or keep the House and Senate, which is already going to be an uphill battle. Which is... not wrong.

This also involves a fundamental misreading of what the executive branch is and is not able to do. As noted, a significant chunk of the Online Left thinks that Biden can just wave a magic wand and fix everything, and/or write an executive order and solve the problem. First, executive orders are NOT magic wands, and second, they're temporary fixes at best, because the American system is purposefully designed NOT to centralize all unaccountable power in the executive branch, because it was founded on the kind-of-important idea that we shouldn't have a king. Obviously, recent Republican presidents have tried to use it in exactly that way, which has led to the grossest abuses of power that we have seen in possibly the entire history of the institution. If Biden did issue an executive order to cancel all student debt, it wouldn't be a magical and instantaneous fix; it would direct the relevant federal departments to come up with and implement a solution. That would still take time and effort to figure out and would involve all the factors previously mentioned, and I can guarantee that 48 hours after he did issue such a hypothetical order, there would be Online Leftists bitching about how it hadn't happened yet and therefore wasn't good enough for them.

Obama's second term and most of Trump's ill-fated single term were run by executive orders, because Obama had a hostile Republican-controlled Congress blocking everything and Trump was just too dumb and impatient to go through the legislative process, because he didn't care about anything except his own power and grift. That was why, in both cases, it was easy to get rid of some of the most egregious policies; you just issue an executive order to reverse the last one. It's also why any executive-order-based solution would be vulnerable to reversal by any Biden successor. If, God forbid, Ron DeSantis or some other aspiring Trump clone won the presidency in 2024, he could just issue an order cancelling the program. But Online Leftists don't get that either and likewise don't have the patience or understanding of the deeply flawed American legislative system, especially now that one of the two major parties has abdicated all interest in responsible government and just exists to pursue white grievance and fascism. Plus, the Democrats have a barely operable Senate majority thanks to Manchin and Sinema essentially functioning as Republicans. If you want a legislative solution that will be more workable, wide-reaching, and harder to undo, yet again, you need to elect more and better Democrats. But since voting is anathema to certain types of Online Leftists, God forbid they do that.

Besides, I don't know if they've heard of a certain branch called the federal judiciary, but it's been making major problems for both Biden's administration and the rest of us. (I'm expecting SCOTUS to drop Dobbs either next Monday or the last Monday in June, so... farewell to legal abortion in much of the country because "SCOTUS isn't important and I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton!") Anything that Biden does via executive action is subject to challenge and review in the courts, and since there have already been plenty of Trump-appointed judges striking down his policies, it’s foolish to think that such a drastic action as student debt cancellation would just slide right on through without being challenged by the latest asshole Republican AG who wants partisan points for stonewalling “Biden’s reckless economic policies!” And as noted, due to the four years Trump and McConnell spent stuffing the benches with partisan hacks, there’s every chance that said challenge would succeed. Then that would somehow also be Biden’s fault for doing it via executive order and not legislation, which the Online Left would suddenly remember as existing after all. There’s really no way it could ever be good enough for them, because their entire brand is built on positioning themselves as smarter and more morally correct and more progressive than The Establishment, even if their rhetoric is largely dangerous nonsense that is needlessly driving young voters away from the Democratic Party at one of the most fragile political moments in recent memory. But y’know, gotta get that Twitter clout.

Besides, all this overlooks that Biden has cancelled student loan debt to a degree unprecedented by any of his predecessors! Aside from the multiple extensions to the COVID-era loan freeze, which mean that no borrower anywhere has paid a single penny in either loans or interest since he took office, he has cancelled billions for low-income, defrauded, or otherwise cheated borrowers who attended defunct for-profit schools such as Corinthian College, who basically took students’ money, saddled them with unworkable debt, and didn’t provide them with an actual degree at the end. You know, the people who actually need debt relief the most, and yet you won’t find any so-called progressive talking about that, because Biden hasn’t personally cancelled THEIR debt or given THEM a pony. For people who claim to care about others, this is, again, profoundly selfish and short-sighted. Plus they behave outright abominably; in January, Biden’s POTUS Twitter account sent out a post solemnly commemorating Holocaust Remembrance Day, and there were plenty of gremlins in the replies attacking him for... not cancelling student debt yet. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think a Holocaust remembrance post is the right forum to bully and scream about that.

As I’ve said, I do have problems with how the administration is sticking too closely to the old-school model of “bipartisanship” and “due process,” especially in regard to the prosecutions of the Trump cabal for their endless and brazen criming. We’re having the January 6 hearings now, and it’s still not clear if it’ll lead to full charges, conviction, and imprisonment for Trump. We’re having to push and press and divine tea leaves for any sign that Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice are really doing their job; taking down the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers is all well and good, but everyone knows this is ultimately the Trump crime family’s fault. All of them need to be in jail for the future survival of the oldest democratic republic in the world, and yet Garland still seems to think that it’s too “political” or “partisan” to actually pursue an investigation with the necessary aggressiveness. I am hoping to eat my words, and as I have also said, I recognize that complex and unprecedented investigations into a former president with an extensively corrupt support system take time and effort. But also... nobody has any actual faith that Trump is going to be convicted and imprisoned for the rampant damage that he did and continues to do via proxy, and that speaks to a larger failing to grasp the seriousness of the moment. No matter what’s going on behind closed doors, public communication is important, and I just don’t believe the DOJ gets it.

All of this is to say: I have policy differences with Biden’s administration and think that it needs to be visibly more innovative and aggressive in several areas (aside from the J6 prosecutions, why the hell are you waiting for Dobbs to drop to issue an executive order on abortion rights? Just do it now for God’s sake! People will need time to plan and implement!) But the argument about “why hasn’t Biden cancelled student loans yet!” is fanciful, malicious, has very little relation to how anything actually works, and is pushed by Online Leftists who are doing unnecessary and serious damage to the Democratic Party in one of the most volatile and uncertain moments for American democracy in the history of the country. And for that, frankly, I feel like they don’t deserve to get their own loans cancelled, after behaving so terribly about it and spreading so much harmful outrage, defeatism, and misinformation. Oops.

#anonymous #ask #politics for ts #long post

102 notes · View notes

jewish-privilege · 4 years ago

Link

(...)

I was a 12 years old when I was attacked by a mob of children and called "Christ killer" — the same age Jesus was, according to the Gospel of Luke, when he lingered in the Temple of Jerusalem and impressed the elders with his intellect — so this issue is undeniably personal. That wasn't the first or last time I was bullied for being Jewish, but it was the only time I nearly died because of it: Those kids held my head underwater, chanting, "Drown the Jew!"

This incident sprang back to mind this month as Republicans tried to figure out what to do about Greene, a particularly obnoxious Christian right-winger who has suggested that a "space laser" affiliated with Jewish banking families caused the 2018 Camp Fire in California, expressed sympathy for the anti-Semitic QAnon fantasies, promoted a video that claimed Jews are trying to destroy Europe, posed for a picture with a Ku Klux Klan leader and liked a tweet linking Israel to the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

(...)

None of this is surprising for anyone who is familiar with the history of American anti-Semitism. Greene is not an aberration, some inexplicable pimple of hatred that blemishes the American right's otherwise Jew-friendly visage. The American right has long had an anti-Semitism problem, and she's just the latest symptom.

This history of hatred "tells us much more about the anti-Semite than it tells us about Jews," Dr. Jonathan Sarna, a professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis University, told Salon. After citing an Israeli historian who refers to anti-Semitism as a "cultural code," Sarna explained that beliefs that vilify Jews as malevolent plotters who secretly control the world have a long history in American political life. "These ideas, which I think many on the left frankly had thought were done and over with, we suddenly see them full blown," he said

Before the 19th century, Sarna explained Jews were stereotypically depicted as being cursed: They were "wandering Jews" for their supposed role in killing Jesus Christ. In the modern era, however, the stereotype emerged that Jews secretly controlled the world and were responsible for everything that a given anti-Semite might regard as sinister. During the Civil War, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant blamed the Jews for cotton smuggling and expelled the entire Jewish community from areas he controlled in Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi. When the populist movement arose to address agrarian economic concerns in the 1890s, Jewish bankers like the Rothschilds were a frequent target among ideological leaders like William Hope "Coin" Harvey.

(...)

There's a direct line between those conspiratorial fantasies ideas from previous decades and the anti-Semitic attacks of the 21st century. "Conspiratorial thinking, by its nature, argues that everything is connected," Sarna explained. "There are no coincidences and it eschews complexity. It believes there are simple explanations based on sinister individuals who are manipulating the universe. Unsurprisingly, in a Christian setting, those are Jews."

Those ideas can evolve — Sarna pointed out that the QAnon belief in a giant child abuse ring run by Jews is analogous to the "blood libel," the medieval myth that Jews used the blood of Christian children for rituals — but the underlying assumptions have been consistent. It just so happens that, in the modern right-wing incarnation, Donald Trump's cult-like following believes that "all the enemies of Mr. Trump are now child molesters."

(...)

[Jewish comedian Larry Charles] brought up community organizer and political theorist Saul Alinsky, a favorite target of the right. "He is almost like the devil in a way," Charles observed. "He's like this radical leftist Jew, he fits all the categories. He checks all the boxes."

"Shooting some of these movies, we would see reasonable people who have this blind spot," Charles said. "They have this crazy belief, and there were all different applications and manifestations of it, that the Jews control everything. That is like a mantra amongst a certain segment of the population."

(...)

With the election of Trump in 2016, those ingrained belief systems — which for many years had been kept outside the American political mainstream — became more prominent, and their adherents more emboldened. David Weissman, a military veteran and former conservative Republican who stopped being a self-described "Trump troll" after a 2018 conversation with comedian Sarah Silverman, told Salon about his encounters with anti-Semitism on the right.

Back when he still supported Trump, Weissman recalled, he got into a "little spat" with an alt-right commentator who calls himself Baked Alaska, who was recently arrested after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Ultimately they moved past it, Weissman said: "We both realized we were Trump supporters" who believed "Democrats were the bad guys." Once he left MAGA world, however, Weissman said "the anti-Semitism definitely escalated" in interactions with his former allies.

"When I became a Democrat, I was called 'the k-word'" and targeted by "anti-Semitic slurs and tropes," Weissman said. Trump supporters sent "memes of me being Jewish in the oven," and "put my name in parentheses," a common tactic used by the far right to target someone for being Jewish.

(...)

"Anti-Semitism certainly did not start with Marjorie Taylor Greene, nor did it start with Donald Trump, but we have seen an exponential increase in violent anti-Semitic incidents during Donald Trump's presidency," Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, told Salon. "That is no doubt related to the fact that he emboldened and aligned himself with white nationalism." She mentioned Trump equating the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville with the peaceful protesters by "commenting that there were very fine people on both sides," refusing to denounce white nationalism and telling the right-wing Proud Boys during one of the campaign debates to "stand back and stand by."

"White nationalism had existed in our country prior to that, and anti-Semitism as an element of it, but white nationalists had never had an ally in the White House until Donald Trump," Soifer said.

(...)

Donald Trump's supposed pro-Israel policies were closely aligned with those of Benjamin Netanyahu, and did nothing to correct for Trump's history of anti-Semitic words and actions. He accused Jewish Democrats of "great disloyalty" toward Israel (feeding into the stereotype that Jews have dual loyalties), removed any specific reference to Jews from a 2017 State Department statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day and has frequently used anti-Semitic dogwhistle terms by opposing "globalists" and describing himself as a "nationalist." When I interviewed Charlotte Pence, the daughter of former Vice President Mike Pence, she talked about her family's love of Israel but refused to answer a question about whether she believes Jews are going to hell — or discuss the creepy messianic theories underpinning the Christian right's support for Israel.

When I asked Larry Charles whether, based on his experiences, there's an opportunity to build bridges with anti-Semites, he was skeptical. "I have not seen a lot of opportunities for bridge building in the situations that I've been in," Charles explained. "The people that I've met through Sacha [Baron Cohen] were very rigid and dogmatic in their prejudices. There was no crossing that gulf with them. There might be tolerance, temporarily. There might be patience, temporarily. But there's no changing that belief."

I hope that Charles is wrong but suspect he is right, which raises the question of how American Jews should react to the Marjorie Taylor Greenes of the world. For want of a better alternative, I think the only solution is to be intolerant toward intolerance. House Democrats were right to strip Greene of her committee assignments, but that is not nearly enough. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter need to do more to limit hate speech, even if conservatives cry foul in bad faith (the First Amendment only protects people from government censorship, not consequences from private corporations). Right-wing politicians who attack prominent Jews in ways that can be plausibly construed as anti-Semitic, or by denouncing "globalists," need to lose their funding. People who oppose anti-Semitism must lead boycotts against right-wing media figures who cover for people like Greene, such as Fox News' Sean Hannity.

On a broader level, critics of anti-Semitism must recognize that this form of bigotry is part of America's long history of hate — a history which holds that only white, straight Christian "manly" men have a right to rule — and recognize our responsibility to be allies to African Americans and the Latinx community, Muslims and the LGBT community, women suffering under the patriarchy and the poor struggling to make ends meet. If we limit our empathy merely to other Jews, the implicit message is not that systemic oppression is wrong, but only that we happen to dislike it when our group is targeted. The Jewish tradition at its best instills a moral responsibility to see all the layers of oppression, and align ourselves with its victims.

[Read Matthew Rozsa’s full piece in Salon]

#marjorie taylor greene #antisemitism #american antisemitism

137 notes · View notes

c-bassmeow · 5 years ago

Note

Trump versus Biden. You’re going to vote for Biden right?????

nope. I don’t capitulate to the right wing democrats and fall in line just cus everyone is scared of Trump. A few reasons:

1.A-- I live in a SOLID blue state. So i can vote for whoever I want. I did in 2016 and I will continue to do so. Politicians are not owed your votes in fact its the inverse, they have to earn your vote.

1. I don’t think liberals/lefties/dems/progressives should immediately capitulate and proclaim loudly: “I’m going to support the nominee no matter what!” before the primary has even fucking ended because strategically it is stupid. The only leverage we have is with our vote, and even that is suspect since we have so much voter suppression in this country. If we at least threaten to not vote, we may retain a modicum of leverage. The issue with democrats is that they are so deranged from Trump is bad syndrome, that they immediately give away any power they may have and immediately admit they will vote for any democrat no matter what. So where do we draw the line? Would you have really voted for sexist, racist, billionaire Mike Bloomberg if he were the nominee? Would you really rather have eight years of Bloomberg over just four of Trump? Mitt Romney? Where do you fucking draw the line? Not only that, but centrists on TV and in the news threatened not to vote for Bernie if he were the nominee (one Biden surrogate said it was because of his supporters mean tweets.... im not even kidding) so it’s okay when THEY do it, but not when WE do it. The center and the right wing, as much as i hate them, actually stick together and fight for what they want. The left, because we are a bunch of pussies, immediately capitulate handing over any fucking power we had.

2. Trump is not that much different from past presidents. His corruption and hatred is simply put out there in the open which is actually a good thing. At least with Trump the media is slightly on edge and his actions are more scrutinized than with Obama (who droned people yet the chaos was because he put mustard on his food or wore a tan suit lol). Bush created ICE, NSA spying, got us into several wars, passed the Patriot Act, etc etc etc .....Obama came into office and passed/extended the same things, passed made Bush Tax cuts permanent, bailed out wall street and he was the deporter in chief. The children in cages debacle was not a Trump creation. Yes trump had utilized these tools and made them worse .... but the point is he didn’t create these things.

3. Although I’m not fully endorsing accelerationism, there is something to be said that under a Republican president the left is awake. Think about it, under Trump the pro choice movement, feminist movement, movement for universal healthcare, climate change movement, and anti-war movement as well as socialist movements have all gotten stronger. Under Obama the left was asleep. It’s sad but a true phenomenon that under democratic presidents the left falls asleep and pays less attention than when we have a republican. Sometimes things have to get worse in order to get better, and if we have Biden he will do damage to this country BUT it’ll be okay since he’s a democrat.

4. I am a believer (there is empirical evidence for this) that neoliberalism, austerity, and centrism practiced by the Democrats actually causes more harm in the long term. The danger with democrats is that they couch their rhetoric, they co-opt social justice language, leftist language, pro working class language, yet they execute as right wingers. This is dangerous to the left because the right will simply tell the American people: “you see? These socialists can’t actually improve your lives, so come further to the right.” We have seen this phenomenon happen in UK and all throughout the world, where centrists masquerading as lefties failed to deliver any material improvement of people’s lives and so the people fall victim to right wing reactionary movements that promise to deliver. Mark my words: if Biden wins, the right will come back with a greater vengeance.

66 notes · View notes

newtgeiszler · 4 years ago

Text

i don't even know if i wanna make this post or not because i'm so conflicted. i know my fellow leftists like to make fun of liberals who make stupid "blue no matter who" memes and say "a vote is not a marriage" and i totally agree that those things downplay just how similar democrats (especially right wing establishment democrats like biden) and republicans are i mean just the other day i posted this screenshot in disgust

i am under no delusion that a biden presidency would help minorities, women, lgbt people, the left, medicare, homelessness, etc etc etc. i don't even trust him to put a liberal in the supreme court, the One Thing he'd need to do in his whole presidency to be successful in even the most minor way. in fact i think there's a chance voting for far right democrats instead of republicans hurts the overton window in the long run by tricking this gullible, propaganda stuffed nation into thinking biden is left wing.

HOWEVER

when liberals say that trump is worse than other right wingers, i don't think they're 100% wrong. face it, can you picture biden gassing protesters just for a lazy fucking photo op where he holds someone else's bible upside down? an act that gets him praised by his base that supposedly hates "virtue signaling?" anyone?

maybe other republicans would but i can say that i don't think most democrats would. that's one of the few things they don't have in common.

this post isn't here to say "i'm voting for biden" it's here to say "i haven't made up my mind yet." i agree with the general leftist consensus that the differences between republicans and democrats are miniscule but i'm still weighing on the question of whether those tiny differences are enough to reward them with power.

and unfortunately the true and objective answer is impossible to find without looking into a crystal ball and seeing the universes where either wins, so for now all i can do is ponder really hard about it, do my research, and wait. a leftist saying they have the true answer is just as foolish as a liberal who does the same 😔

4 notes · View notes

corollarytower · 2 years ago

Text

Joe Biden, like all politicians from AOC to Trump, wants power to advance his agenda. If you look at what he's accomplished it seems clear that his agenda aligns well with

economic stability

reducing harm done to immigrants from deliberate to systemic

reforming the judiciary (as in appointing more federal judges than Trump did, and appointing mostly women and people of color)

acting on covid

opposing Putin and supporting Ukraine

It also aligns opportunistically with:

LGBT+ rights

climate change

police reform (as a way to save the public image of the institution, not as a way to address systemic racism and classism)

His agenda clearly does not include:

radical electoral reform

radical action on income and wealth inequality

radical action on the housing crisis

But it also excludes:

embracing a post-truth media landscape

using the military to put down protests

appointing judges who think privacy/lgbt rights/abortion were a mistake to be corrected

skimming millions of dollars from the secret service

appointing millionaire campaign donors to the cabinet

Like, I get it. Biden is not the solution to the problems in america today. His middle of the road policies are only capable of stopping the bleeding, and the next right winger to take over will find a nation even more saturated with grievance.

But we need to take this moment to breathe to fight for the things we need. We need to organize and protest and get our ducks in a row because things will get worse again. This is the eye of the storm, and we have a limited amount of time to get ready for the next republican takeover, legitimate or not.

And consider what sort of person puts up a sign saying 'Biden doesn't care about you, nor do the following democratic politicians. They're stealing your money. Fight them.' It seems like that's the sort of person who's very interested in starting democratic infighting just before the midterms. Midterms which will decide control of the senate, and therefore who gets to put justices on the supreme court in 2023-2024.

This is right wing propaganda. It's designed to demoralize you and keep you from voting, and hopefully move control of the senate to the republicans. Where we will get another two years of obstructionism and demoralizing whining about how Biden isn't doing enough. It happened to Obama, and can easily happen again.

Don't fall for it. Participate in civic life. Vote for leftists. Clean house in the primaries. But never forget that the republican party is the arm of the rich and powerful. There are no voices of reason left there. They will erode our democratic institutions, gaslight the public, and participate in regulatory capture as long as they get the power and wealth they feel entitled to.

Don't let them.

"Joe Biden doesn't care about you, and neither does Kamala, Nancy, Elizabeth or Chuck.

The politicians are padding their pockets while the world burns.

How long will you let them?"

Poster seen in NYC

#politics #propaganda #right wing propaganda

8K notes · View notes

fapangel · 6 years ago

Note

SO what do you what will happen now with the whole fake Bomer guy supposedly be a trump supporter? Do you think the blue wave will restart or is it too little to late?

The most significantrevelation of the mail-bomber incident was that the Republicanmainstream – not the usual fringe kooks, but the levelheaded,respected commentators – immediately suspected it to be amanufactured “October Surprise.”

Some of those knee-jerktweets have since been deleted, likelyfor the same reason that I was more alarmed that I could entertain a“false flag” theory in the first place than I was by the possible“false flag” itself. Embracing asinine conspiracy theoriesis, to me, a hallmark of left-wing agitprop, an indelible impressionfrom my formative Bush-era youth when ~Halliburton~ and~Bush’s cabinet of puppeteers who have Jewish last names~was unceasingly invoked in anypolitical argument. And yet, despite knowing theoverwhelming odds of a lone lunatic being the perp (as indeed theywere) and my own decades-old biases against conspiracy theories, Istill found myselfmuttering dubiously.

Iwasn’t alone in that impression – the NewYork Times picked up on it too, and as is their wont managed todisclose their unique myopia as well. In their effort to equate allright-wing media to Alex “Lizardman Chemtrails” Jones’s usualconspiracytainment bullshit, theydrop this revealing paragraph:

Mr.Jones has been largely pushed tothe fringes of the internet — kicked off Twitter, Facebook and adozen other services — and his cries for attention now seem mostlypitiful. (This week, he was filmed yellingat a pile of manure outsidea rally for President Trump in Texas.) Buthis spirit lives on in the larger universe of pro-Trump media, whichhas fused the conspiratorial grandeur of Infowars with an unshakablefaith in Mr. Trump’s righteousness.

Theyautomatically equate media exposure of an idea with how manyviewers believe the idea. The thesis of the article lies inthese two sentences; Alex Jones has been silenced, but the moremainstream right-wing media has picked up his ideas, and that’s whythey’re still alive.

Thisalone speaks volumes about the media’s worldview, but to reallydrive it home see thisarticle wherein the reporter blames Trump’s attacks on themedia for their plummeting popularity, as if the Great PresidentialPumpkin can sway millions of Americans into hating themainstream media via his eldritch mind-control rays. This is why theyspeak of “an unshakable faith in Mr. Trump’s righteousness-”leftists view the world in terms of stupid mobs and the influentialdemagogues that sway and lead them. They simply cannot comprehendthat their own actions have shattered the public’s trust in them,despite the problem long predating Trump (one of my Journalism 101professors cited trust polling that consistently put Journalistsbelow used car salesmen back in 2007!) They find it easier tobelieve that their vast media empires’ combined megaphone is beingdrowned out by RumpleTrumpskien pied piping on his magical racistdogwhistle than to admit that people might think for themselves longenough to call them out on their egregious lies.

Thisdovetails nicely with recent revelations thatthe FBI leaked information to the press, then cited said “reporting”to the Justice Dept. as justification for further investigations,including FISA wiretapping warrants. Whilethe media’s lunacy is frequently amusing – reporters leaningdramatically into nonexistent wind, CNN’sfit over a panel truck blocking their stalker peephole in the hedge,or going bugfuck insane because Trumphad dinner without informing the media – nobody’s laughinganymore. And it’s precisely because of the growing understandingamong the populace of how the media has wantonly abused its power toaid the abuse of Federal power to nullify the results of a democraticelection.As Ian Miles Cheong said; “if the media can lie about somethingas insignificant as a koipond feeding ceremony, what else are they lying about?”

Well,now we know – and the people don’t seem amused.

I’vecovered the media’s worldview and demonstrable myopia before; Iaddress it in this instance to show thatthe media simply cannot adapt their message. Indeed,the NYT article on fringe-to-mainstream cites the mocking/pol/ “suspicious devices” meme without apparentunderstanding of how it undermines their implicit assumptions mereparagraphs prior of deplatforming speakers equalingthe silencing of their ideas. Theleft-wing “mobs and demagogues” is more than theory to them; it’show they organize – which is why John Oliver’s sick Friday nightburns are being repeated ad nauseam on Facebook by early Saturdaymorning. Theleft truly cannotmeme;it’s simply how they function. So when RumpleTrumpskien needles themedia into talking All About Themselves instead of the issues at handyetagain, iteffectively makes the mediathe issue at hand – and given that pollingconsistently shows that many Democrats are coming to distrust themedia of late, that’s not a strong issue for the DNC.Conversely, right-wingers will be shitposting the latest dank memeswith or without Alex Jones’s Twitterfeed, comehellor Maxine Waters.

Thusly,I conclude the mail bomber incident won’t have a significant impacton the electoral map – notjust because of widespread cynicism engendered by constant mediafalsehoods, but also because the structural problems that producedsuch alsocripple the media’s ability to exploit such incidents. In fact, themedia’s incredible blindness makes them likely to harmthe left-wing’s cause by doubling down on narratives that wereasinine the first time around. There is no bad news for the DNC thatthe media’s mental illness cannot make worse. Takethe latest example of thesynagogue shooter thatturnedout to be a Trump-hater who thought POTUSwas controlled Jews. Theusual hate-mongeringWaPo crowd actuallydug up the “star-shapedbackground graphic in a campaign ad” gem that was laughablelunacy beforeTrumpmoved the US embassy to Jerusalem and made defending Israel in the UNa cornerstone of US foreign policy. Thisis placed at the topofthe article, as if it’s a powerful and convincing lead-in to thelong-winded paranoid rambling of “troll armies” motivated by theusual mystic ~coded signals~ mentioned later on. Eventhe more sober-sounding takes likethis NYT hit-piece must open by blaming Trump for the crimes ofTrump-supporters andTrump-haters,which obliges the author to afascinating attempt in pissing up a rope without getting wet.

Itnaturally follows, then, that breathless media polling reports citing85% and upwards chances of a “blue wave” retaking the House areabout as trustworthy as similar polling in 2016. Even Nate Silver’smuch-vaunted “538” polling agency has come under prettypointed criticism for the number of times they’ve shrugged offsimilar “80%” predictions that haven’t come to pass – froma Harvard professor, no less. Furthermore,midterm elections are different in many ways – local issues oftenhave people more fired up (read, pissed off,) especially regardinggubernatorial elections. Since midterms are traditionally very lowturnout, a popular gubernatorial candidate can have a huge impact on“down-ballot” races – i.e. people show up to vote for thegovernor, and vote straight party ticket for alltheother candidates, US House included. In short, the polls mean jackdiddly squat, soeveryone’s simply reporting what they want (if you don’t believeme, look no further than Fox News’s reportinga nail-biting dead heat currently, then thisSeptember 22ndarticle on how dismissing “blue wave” rhetoric as the bullshit itis could suppress the Republican vote via overconfidence.A “dead heat” narrative is the safest way to turn out votes; norisk of overconfidence or hopelessness keeping people away from thepolls.) Soto evaluate the potentials, we must turn to the murkiest of allpolitical-forecastingcrystal balls - “energy levels.”

There’sbeen multiple media-exacerbated own-goals for the left in thatregard, most notably the mind-blowingly vicious smear campaignagainstJustice Kavanaugh that only managed to rile the right wing via sheeroutrage even more than the left. I could roll this one around fora while – talking about the surprising pluralities (note therelatively high numbers of Democrats and low numbers of Republicans“Very Angry” over Kavanaugh’s suffering; a surprisinglycenter-right plurality,) or how big the Republican benefit really was(Republicans being moderately more outraged than Democrats amounts toa low gain if Democrats enteredthe fray with high outrage already; but it’s likely that manyRepublicans who didn’t care at all before are outraged now).Butthere’s a larger factor to contend with – the historical realitythat the party controlling the Executive usually loses seats in theHouse in midterm elections. It happens with regularity for the samereason PoliSci101 shows you a “standardized plot” of Presidential approvalratings over time – human nature. Whoever’s in charge gets blamedfor everything bad, simply enough – so even popular Presidents willshed a few seats in the mid-terms. Combine this with the importanceof turnout in midterm elections and the oft-lamented anti-Trumpobsession on the left, and everything seems to point to Democratsbeing more motivated.

However,I’m not so sure they are.

Youtuber“Aydin Paladin,” an advanced psych student who usually talksabout psychology in a political context, did a video 11 months agotitled “LeftistLethargy and Low Energy,” specifically addressing how aconstant state of horror and outrage at every single damn Trump tweethas the inevitable consequence of emotional burnout. One cannot stayoutraged forever. At some point, you simply stop caring. Onecould debate Ayadin’s point that the left was demonstrablyhittingthis point a year ago, or posit that they’ve had time to recover –but I personally believe the lethargy lingers. Myevidence? A quick jaunt through the New York Times’ editorial page:

*A Halloween op-ed about Trump literally being worse than the fuckingbogeyman (“WhenNightmares Are Real” by Jennifer Finney Boylan,)

*An article begging Democrats not to take a usually-safe votingdemographic for granted, Native Americans

*An article on “how to turn people into voters,” featuring a modelspecific to “black Southerners,” who are a safe Democraticdemographic – but only when they actually turn up to vote,

*Andmost tellingly, an article titled“You’redisillusioned. That’sfine. Vote anyway.”

Blindand narcissistic they may be, but I trust the media to know their owntribe – and theiroutlookon the base’s revolutionary fervor looks rather dim. Once again themedia’s endless talent for own-goals is apparent. The continuingdemonizingof Trump as theworst nightmare ever onlyensures that a choir that tired of the preaching a year ago willremain so. The struggle to get black voters to actually turn out isan old and ongoing one, but pissed-off Native Americans isn’t justElizabethWarren’s fault – it was mostly the media that accepted her DNAtest showing some squillionth of a percent of native DNA asvindication,andthen gallopedover to Trump to triumphantly flaunt it at him, giving him a goldenopportunity to mock it on national TV – on their own live networkbroadcasts, even.

You’llnote that the point regarding the media’s self-sabotage of theleft-wing movement was made many paragraphs ago, but it continues torear its awful head as a salient factor in almost every exampleillustrating any otherpoint in this article – this is how pervasive it is.

There’smore to Democratic lethargy than the media pissing off key left-wingDemographics in western states with important House races, however –there’s also the overall lack of a message. Instead of coalescingon a single one, Democrats appear to be taking a local-issuesapproach, which is rather awkward given they – and the media –have spent the last two years making absolutelyeverything aboutTrump. They’re stillmaking everything about Trump (e.g.synagogue shooter) even now,inthe eleventh hour. Thenthere’s the notable and growing strain between old-schoolblue-collar union Democrats and the “progressive wing” (viz.privileged wealthy white socialists) whichdivides their messaging on the economy – especially tellingconsidering the record-low unemployment and rapidlyrising wages. (It’s hard to tell people they’re living inObama’s economy whenyou were telling them it was Trump’s climate a few months ago.)

Andof course, the cherry on this shitstorm sundae is the latest greatestmigrant caravan advancing through Mexico – seven thousandstrong, originally – which took Trump’s single greatest electionissue and slam-dunked it in the middle of the debate again. Thecaravan is significant because it tangiblyprovesTrump’s long-standing point regarding immigration problems, and isexactly the kind of thing a big wall would hinder – awall Trump can’t build if he can’t get a funding bill through theHouse.

Insum, the left still lacks a coherent message, is still desensitizingtheir electorate with constant panicked screeching, is frequentlypissing off their own key constituencies with their ham-handedagitprop, and are helping to suppress their own vote by portraying anelection that’s all but won. Meanwhile the Republicans have aPresident who’s actually delivered on many of his promises, has agreat recent event to showcase how delivering on the rest rides onthis next election, and, in general, have optimism.Somethingabout Kanye West’s recent visit to the White House stood out to me– he saidhe had nothing against Hillary’s campaign slogan, but when he puton a MAGA hat, he “felt like Superman.”

“Feltlike Superman.” That’s a sentiment of empowerment.Obamaunderstood the power of positive messaging – it’show “Hope and Change” swept him into office in his first term.Democratsthis year simply don’t.

Ican’t call it either way. But I cantell you that anyone who thinks this election is all over but for thecounting isnuts. The battle lines of 2016 have only been dug deeper, and thesimple truths of human nature make for an uphill fight – but by thesame token, Democrats have badly misplayed the hands they have, arecompletely incapable of real self-reflection on any significantscale, and Trump’s been President for two years with realsuccesses, with the much-ballyhooed Trumpocolypse yet to descend.

Insofaras I can call anything, I’d say this election is going to be close.I’d tell you to go out and vote, especiallyif you don’t want to see the party encouraging mob intimidation andstoking racial hatred controlling the House – which they’ll useto launch endless sham investigations of Trump long after Mueller’scharade finally gives up the ghost, in addition to impeaching himjust for the hell of it. If Trump loses the House he- and his agenda- will be a lame-duck for the next two years, because any seriousbill needs to be passed by both House and Senate.

Onceagain, everything is on the line.

I’mnot sick of winning yet.

7 notes · View notes

portablefrailty · 2 years ago

Text

Storm of Echoes

Throughout the fall leading up to election day it was kind of hard to miss the drumbeat of stories about how, despite the run of policy wins and concurrent polling bump they enjoyed over the summer, the Democrats were hemorrhaging public support down the stretch and all but screwed on election day. The polls seemed to back this up with line graphs depicting comfortable leads vanishing and competitive races turning sour. Around Halloween I began seeing more and more before-the-fact autopsies show up in my newsfeeds excoriating Dem extremism and how out of touch the woke left is with average Americans. These little gems came from writers up and down the spectrum, mind you: self-flagellating leftists, popcorn munching right wingers basking in the schadenfreude and concerned centrists offering advice and morality lessons for better confronting Trumpism next time around. Following this progression of stories and analyses something increasingly kept nagging at me: nothing had actually happened in the news cycle to turn public opinion so dramatically. Inflation is high, gas is expensive and Biden's approval rating sucks, I know. But both of those barometers have been running shitty for some time now. The war drags on, but continues to follow the trajectory of grinding Ukrainian advance that seems to justify US aid to the defenders. Hurricane Ian was probably the biggest story of the past two months--but the brief moment of cooperation between Biden and Desantis was a net-positive for both men. The clock ran out on this election with no fourth-quarter game-changing moments down the stretch remotely on par with the infamous Comey announcement in 2016. The uptick in Dem-bashing stories made me angry because nothing fundamentally had changed since things were looking up in the summer and so I didn't feel like the pile-on was justified. Now that the mid-terms have come and gone, it's clear that even if the GOP runs the table on the outstanding races, the results won't even remotely approach the Republican romp that every pundit and journo was predicting a week ago. For me, the results feel like a validation of my gut reaction--since nothing occurred over the fall to change the fundamentals, the results are pretty much what they would have been if the race had been held back in August. The entire narrative surrounding the election for the past two months was bullshit. Now I'm no conspiracist: I don't believe the media was trying to screw the Democrats. I don't believe all those writers and prognosticators were colluding to shape the narrative in order to drive up clicks, either. Some were but not the entire chaotic, bipartisan apparatus. No, the truth, as with most clusterfucks of human folly, is far more banal. Lazy thinking and sloppy journalism are the real culprits. Back in the days of Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb baseball writers were paid next to nothing to tap out an endless stream of copy over the course of a 154 game season spanning half the year. Worn down by the unholy trinity of boredom, alcoholism and writer's block--the journos of yore often took certain liberties in the performance of their duties. Newspapers regularly printed recaps that were little more than vanilla descriptions stitched together by cliche and hyperbole. Some writers extrapolated full recaps of half-seen games and only revised in the event of a comeback or, worse yet, would skip games entirely and reverse engineer their work from the box score, freely making up details as they went. Prognosticating is not for the faint hearted. It doesn't matter if you're predicting the weather, crude oil prices or pennant winners, perfection is unattainable and cynics love to see a prophet get it wrong. Election forecasting in these hyper-partisan times is about as soothing on the nerves as blind-folded bomb defusal. Faced down by a virtual lynch mob of pundits and trolls, the temptation to play it safe must be strong, to dutifully scrutinize the tea leaves while grounding one's prophesies primarily in past experience, accepted wisdom and the law of probability. A prognosticator with a nose for the ordinary will be right most of the time. However, probabilistic, risk-averse analysis has a way of screening out anomaly as noise. Thus the risk-averse seer is blind to the extraordinary--like the weather man who can predict sunny days but not the coming of a hurricane. The historic pattern of midterm elections has been for the ruling party to lose seats. I don't know enough about election analytics to name reliable indicators of an election that breaks this pattern. Not polling data--the polls did get worse for Democrats in the fall. But clearly there were anomalies in the data that were ignored. I believe the prognosticators were so enthralled by the lessons of past midterms that broke one of the most important rules of scientific inquiry: to formulate theory to fit the data and not the other way around. A minor hiccup in the polls was interpreted as a sign that law of midterm beat downs would reassert itself. The more the negative coverage circulated, the more self-reinforcing the narrative became. The perception that the Democrats were going to lose was reflected in the polls which then fed back into the journalistic narrative. The more the polls dropped, the more negative the coverage became. The echo chamber was so powerful that by election day there was a widespread feeling that the Democrats were doomed, that they had fumbled away their advantage and even that the election was a complete repudiation of the party. The whole thing spiraled like panic caused by the War of the Worlds broadcast. In the end people voted in November the way they would have in August but I do believe this whole feedback loop needs to be studied and more care has to be taken in the future to prevent runaway narratives from further eroding trust in media, polling and the election system.

0 notes

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

Who Has More Registered Voters Republicans Or Democrats

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/who-has-more-registered-voters-republicans-or-democrats/

Who Has More Registered Voters Republicans Or Democrats

Republicans Narrow Voter Registration Gap In Swing States

More Republicans registered to vote than Democrats

There are still more people registered as Democrats than Republicans in the battleground states of Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, but Republicans have been gaining ground.;

There are multiple forces at play: Republicans are making strides with registering voters, the two-party system is losing its appeal especially with young people and Democrats are being purged from the rolls as they either move out of those states or aren’t showing up at the polls.

“The people who have been removed from the file since are more Democrats than Republicans,” said Tom Bonier, CEO of TargetSmart, a nonprofit politics data firm. “Overwhelmingly, those people didn’t vote in 2016. What that tells you is these are people who had already either moved from the state or already died prior to November 2016, and they just hadn’t been removed at that point.”

The latest national CBS News Battleground Tracker poll shows Joe Biden with a 10-point lead among likely voters, but that lead narrows to within the margin of error in several key states, meaning the race could come down to who shows up at the polls on or before Election Day.

Map 2 And Table : Party Registration And The 2016 Presidential Vote

Of the 31 party registration states, 24 were carried in the 2016 presidential election by the party with the most registered voters in it. Donald Trump swept 11 of the 12 states with a Republican registration advantage, while Hillary Clinton won 13 of the 19 states which had more registered Democrats than Republicans. Four of the Democratic registration states that Trump took were in the South, led by Florida and North Carolina. He also overcame Democratic registration advantages in West Virginia and Pennsylvania to win both. The only state with more registered Republicans than Democrats that Hillary Clinton carried in 2016 was New Hampshire, where the outcome was very close.

Notes: An asterisk indicates states where there were more registered independents than either Democrats or Republicans in October 2016. Independents include a comparatively small number of registered miscellaneous voters who do not fit into any particular category.

Richard Wingers Ballot Access News for October 2016 party registration data; America Votes 32 for 2016 presidential election results.

For The First Time There Are Fewer Registered Republicans Than Independents

For the first time in history, there are more registered independents in the United States than there are registered Republicans.

It may not be for the reason you think, though.

New data from Ballot Access News, which tracks registrations in the 31 states that require voters to register by party, shows that independents account for 29.09 percent of voters in them, compared with 28.87 percent for Republicans. As recently as 2004, Republicans outpaced independents by nearly 10 percentage points.

There are still way more registered Democrats; 39.66 percent of voters are registered with that party.

This marks the first time since party registration began in the early 1900s that the number of registered independents in the United States has surpassed members of either major political party, according to Ballot Access News.

Heres the data going back to 2004:

But before anybody chalks this up as having to do with the current occupant of the White House, its worth parsing the trends.

While independents have surpassed Republicans, there actually hasnt been a huge drop in GOP party registration since President Trump took office. Since October 2016, GOP registration has dropped by half a percentage point. The number of registered Democrats declined by nearly a full point over the same span. Independents have benefited from both drops.

You May Like: Trump Triangle Pin

Who Is Richer Democrats Or Republicans The Answer Probably Wont Surprise You

Which of the two political parties has more money, Democrats or Republicans? Most would rush to say Republicans due to the partys ideas towards tax and money. In fact, polls have shown about 60 percent of the American people believe Republicans favor the rich. But how true is that? ;can help you write about the issue but read our post first.

Key Point From This Article

Altogether, there are 31 states with party registration; in the others, such as Virginia, voters register without reference to party. In 19 states and the District, there are more registered Democrats than Republicans. In 12 states, there are more registered Republicans than Democrats. In aggregate, 40% of all voters in party registration states are Democrats, 29% are Republicans, and 28% are independents. Nationally, the Democratic advantage in the party registration states approaches 12 million.

Don’t Miss: I Bet My Numbers Would Be Terrific

Tech Taxes Could Shifts Conservatives Fiscal Approach

In all three of these states, the policy goal was to keep tax rates as low as possible, but some Republican lawmakers are increasingly of the view that, when it comes to Big Tech, higher taxes may be preferable.;

As weve discussed before, 2021 saw a proliferation of bills seeking to levy new taxes on digital advertising, datamining, and social media companies, with legislation coming from both Democrats and Republicans. These bills sponsors often justified their proposals by saying that they were necessary to promote fairness in the tax system, an argument that is common among left-leaning politicians, but more unusual for the GOP. From state capitols to the halls of Congress, however, Republicans are increasingly arguing that conservatives are facing censorship or worse by tech platforms and that higher taxes could be a way of curtailing this trend.;

So far this rationale has only led to a handful of introductions across the country and none of these bills have become law, but recent statements from Texas Governor Abbott and Governor DeSantis could presage increased activity in the future.

In The 2012 Election Cycle More People Registered As Independent Voters Then As Republicans

Registered democrats have a 10,133,829 ballot request lead over registered republicans. But its also a sign of how centuries. There are now more registered independents than republicans, marking a first for the u.s. In the 2012 election cycle, more people registered as independent voters then as republicans. How many states are democrat and how many are republican? Does that mean the person has signed something or theyre a member of do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view. To be clear, there are still more registered democrats than republicans in all three of these states. Get more help from chegg. Weve heard it over and over: Republicans who worked with democrats were traitors in the war for seats in congress. Neither party pursued civil rights. How many republicans switch to democrat as compared to democrats switching to republican, in public and in office. Democratic supporters accounted for 35% of the electorate.

Recommended Reading: How Many Republicans Voted Against Budget

Democrats Have 12 Million More Registered Voters Than Republicans

UVA Center for Politics Larry Sabatos Crystal Ball posted the latest numbers of registered Democrats, Republicans and Independents in the 31 states that require party registration to vote. Democrats and their friends in the media have been great at getting people to register as Democrats .

Democrats lead the GOP by 12 million registered voters in states that are key in the mid-terms.

Its not good news for the GOP in the mid-terms. Important states now have more registered Democrats than Republicans, and in many, its by a significant amount.

Democrats now account for 40% of the registered voters in those states, Republicans are only 29% and Independents account for 28 percent. Its shocking when one considers they are successfully running on high taxes and spending, a loss of freedoms, Stormy Daniels, and open borders.

There arent many states that are solid red and many are close to becoming blue.

It gives Democrats a decided advantage.

VENEZEULA, HERE WE COME

Its concerning when you consider states like North Carolina and Colorado now have more Democrats than Republicans and others like Arizona are close. We can thank the invasion of leftists coming in from foreign nations for some of this. Certainly, it is what changed California. Foreigners loyal to their native lands are deciding our policies.

THE CHART

Which Party Is The Party Of The 1 Percent

Do more registered voters and mail in ballot requests favor democrats or republicans?

First, both parties receive substantial support. Much of it comes from registered voters who make $100K+ annually. However, Democrats actually come out ahead when it comes to fundraising for campaigns. In many cases, Democrats have been able to raise twice as much in private political contributions. But what about outside of politicians? Does that mean Democrats are the wealthier party? Which American families are wealthier? Republicans or Democrats?

Honestly, it is probably Republicans. When it comes down to it, the richest families in America tend to donate to Republican candidates. Forbes reported out of the 50 richest families in the United States, 28 donate to Republican candidates. Another seven donate to Democrats. Additionally, 15 of the richest families in the U.S. donate to both parties.

Read Also: Did Trump Say Republicans Are The Dumbest

Nationwide Voter Registration Data By Party

In the 32 jurisdictions that have registration by party, here are the number of registered voters in each party and the number of independents:

Democratic: 47,106,084Reform: 9,004oth parties 1,814,973

This data uses the most available figures for each jurisdiction. All are as of September or October 2020, except that New York has no data newer than February 2020, and Massachusetts is August 2020.

In February 2020 the numbers were:

Democratic: 45,715,952Reform: 6,665oth parties 1,712,747

The February 2020 tally is the only one in U.S. history in which the number of voters registered independent and miscellaneous was greater than the number in either major party. But between February and now, Republicans regained their second-place position.

The print issue of Ballot Access News for November 1, 2020, has this information by state. All the numbers in that edition are correct for the state-by-state figures and for the national totals for the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian Parties, and the number of independents. Unfortunately the totals for the other parties, as printed, are not, and the national percentages as printed are not. I forgot to update some of the national totals when I was working with the template of the February 2020 data. A correction will be made in the December 1 issue.

Tens Of Thousands Of Voters Drop Republican Affiliation After Capitol Riot

More than 30,000 voters who had been registered members of the Republican Party have changed their voter registration in the weeks after a mob of pro-Trump supporters attacked the Capitol an issue that led the House to impeach the former president for inciting the violence.

The massive wave of defections is a virtually unprecedented exodus that could spell trouble for a party that is trying to find its way after losing the presidential race and the Senate majority.

It could also represent the tip of a much larger iceberg: The 30,000 who have left the Republican Party reside in just a few states that report voter registration data, and information about voters switching between parties, on a weekly basis.

Voters switching parties is not unheard of, but the data show that in the first weeks of the year, far more Republicans have changed their voter registrations than Democrats. Many voters are changing their affiliation in key swing states that were at the heart of the battle for the White House and control of Congress.

Nearly 10,000 Pennsylvania voters dropped out of the Republican Party in the first 25 days of the year, according to the secretary of states office. About a third of them, 3,476, have registered as Democrats; the remaining two-thirds opted to register with another party or without any party affiliation.

In all of those areas, the number of Democrats who left their party is a fraction of the number of Republican defectors.

You May Like: Which Republicans Voted Against The Budget Resolution

Which Political Party Has The Most Voters

The two major American political parties, the Democrats and Republicans, have wide political bases of support that they have grown over the last 150-plus years. This has given both parties the ability to count on millions of votes in their favor during presidential and congressional elections.

The Democratic Party has more voters than the Republican Party, and by a wide margin. But this advantage in raw numbers can be deceiving. Despite the clear Democratic advantage, Republicans in recent years have still won presidential elections and elections giving them control of the House and Senate.;;

Crime Statistics Show Democrat Voters Much More Criminal Than Republicans But What About Democrat Politicians

It has been know for a longtime that heavily Democrat voting areas have much higher violent crime than heavily Republican voting areas. The chart at the left takes one swing state, Ohio, then compares the Violent Crime Rate of the biggest city, Celina, in the most Republican voting county at 77%, Mercer County;;;to the state as a whole and then to the most Democrat voting city, Cleveland, and then to an extremely Democrat voting neighborhood in Cleveland the 96%+ Democrat Cedar Ave Area.;

The Violent Crime Rate geometrically skyrockets as the percent of Democrat voters goes up.; From 1 in the least Democrat area to 114 in the most Democratic area.; This is all documented in the movie Who Wins When America Loses.

Recommended Reading: How Many Electoral Votes Do Republicans Have

Map 1 And Table : Party Registration Totals By State July 2018

Democrats no longer control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, or for that matter most of the governorships or state legislatures. But they still maintain a toehold in the political process with their edge in the realm of voter registration. At least that is the case in the 31 states and the District of Columbia that register voters by political party. As of this month, 13 of these states boast a Democratic plurality in registered voters, compared to eight states where there is a Republican plurality. In the other 10 states, there are more registered independents than either Democrats or Republicans, with Democrats out-registering the Republicans in six of these states and the GOP with more voters than the Democrats in the other four. They are indicated in the chart as I or I. Nationally, four out of every 10 registered voters in party registration states are Democrats, with slightly less than three out of every 10 registered as Republicans or independents. Overall, the current Democratic advantage over Republicans in the party registration states approaches 12 million.

Recent party registration numbers used here are from state election websites and are based on totals compiled in early July 2018. Registration data are as of the following months: October 2016 ; February 2017 ; November 2017 ; January 2018 ; March 2018 ; April 2018 ; May 2018 ; June 2018 ; and July 2018 .

At Least 60 Afghans And 13 Us Service Members Killed By Suicide Bombers And Gunmen Outside Kabul Airport: Us Officials

Two suicide bombers and gunmen attacked crowds of Afghans flocking to Kabul’s airport Thursday, transforming a scene of desperation into one of horror in the waning days of an airlift for those fleeing the Taliban takeover. At least 60 Afghans and 13 U.S. troops were killed, Afghan and U.S. officials said.

Read Also: Who Raises Taxes More Democrats Or Republicans

The Income Tax Arrives

190119021904190619071908190919101913A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every mans business; the eye of the Federal inspector will be in every mans counting house . . . The law will of necessity have inquisitorial features, it will provide penalties, it will create complicated machinery. Under it men will be hailed into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the tax payer. An army of Federal inspectors, spies and detectives will descend upon the state . . . Who of us who have had knowledge of the doings of the Federal officials in the Internal Revenue service can be blind to what will follow? I do not hesitate to say that the adoption of this amendment will be such a surrender to imperialism that has not been since the Northern states in their blindness forced the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments upon the entire sisterhood of the Commonwealth.1914-1915191619171918-1919Audio clip:McAdoo on the need for tax reduction, probably 1919.1920Audio clip: George White, on Republican tax promises1921Andrew Mellon19241926against19281929-1932whether

Dont Miss: How Many Seats Did The Republicans Win In Senate

Why We Wrote This

The Backstory: Has Texas elected more Democrats or Republicans to the U.S. Senate? | KVUE

For decades, Democrats feared being labeled as the party of tax and spend. But now, as calls grow for those at the top to pay a fair share, many believe there is a political opening to act.

GOP lawmakers argue that such tax hikes will disincentivize productivity and cut jobs, hurting average workers and the overall economy.

But polls show a majority of Americans have long agreed that corporations and the wealthy dont pay their fair share in taxes. According to;Gallup, 69% of those surveyed in 2019 believed that corporations pay too little the same number as in 2004. And many Democrats believe the pandemics exacerbation of economic inequality has given Mr. Biden an opening to press the argument.

Public opinion has been pretty consistent for the past 20 years, says Vanessa Williamson of the Brookings;Institution. What I think has changed is the willingness of Democratic leaders to put forward plans that are often really quite bold.

As President Joe Biden works to sell his massive infrastructure bill, hes making a big bet that tax hikes, which would pay for much of the plan, are no longer a political liability for Democrats.

You May Like: Can Republicans Vote In The Democratic Primary In South Carolina

0 notes

beesandwasps · 4 years ago

Text

@marvelsmostwanted: you’re… actually just wrong about a lot of that extended reply you made in comments. (Which is a profoundly annoying way to do replies, since it means they can’t be used in a real reply post.)

The Democrats held both houses of Congress for six years under Obama. (Look it up.) Like many people, you have concluded that because the Democrats refused to do away with the filibuster and did not hold a filibuster-proof majority, they must not have controlled the Senate — but they did; they didn’t even have to rely on holding the VP’s deciding vote like they are right now with Harris, because at no point between 2008 and 2014 did they have fewer than 51 seats in the Senate.

It was a conscious choice the Democrats made; the Republicans said outright on the day of Obama’s inauguration in 2009 that they were going to refuse to cooperate on absolutely everything, no matter what the Democrats did, but the Democrats refused, through 3 sessions of Congress, to take a stand and say “the Republicans are acting in bad faith so we’re just going to cut them off.” Worse yet, they didn’t force the Republicans to do “real” filibusters of the “you have to keep talking or else we can just hold a vote and pass things with a simple majority” type, which is how the filibuster originally worked. During the Obama administration, Democrats deliberately permitted the Republicans to kill bills without debate by simply announcing “we’re going to filibuster this”. This was a choice. The filibuster is not a part of the Constitution, it’s just a procedural rule which the Senate can remove at the start of any session of Congress.

(But the Democrats did force Bernie Sanders to do “real” filibusters, because to most Democrats, a leftist like Sanders is much more of an enemy than the far right wing as represented by Republicans. For that, all by itself, every Democrat in Congress over the last 12 years should burn in hell, but wow is there a lot more.)

You’re also wrong — whether you’re wrong on this because you’re a right-winger or because you’ve been getting your news from Democratic Party apologists I don’t know — about the Democrats moving leftward since the 80s.

Every Democratic Presidential candidate who was in Congress at the time voted for the war in Iraq (Kerry, Clinton, and Biden); Obama was not in Congress, but attempted to negotiate to prolong the Iraq war, as previously stated. (And, as previously stated, the reason he obeyed Bush’s original timetable was because the Iraqi government refused to renew the agreement Bush coerced from them which protected the US from war crimes accusations.)

Both Obama and Biden have offered to cut Social Security and Medicare in order to have a “bipartisan” budget deal. (That Biden has already offered these cuts at the beginning of his term shows that he’s actually eager to do so.)

The Democrats have also been complicit in the creation and expansion of DHS and ICE — Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton were both supporters of it. When the Obama administration was taken to court because it was separating immigrant children from parents (a case which they lost, so that they stopped doing it), Biden wrote a passionate defense of the practice, which is why nobody should be surprised that “we will immediately stop separating immigrant children from parents” was the very first campaign promise he broke, on the very day of his inauguration. Obama famously deported more immigrants than any previous president. When the contractors running those ICE concentration camps people like you think are Trump’s fault got the US government sued for the inhumane conditions (a suit which the government lost, but which did nothing to stop said conditions because Obama refused to let it do so), Obama renewed all their contracts.

The PATRIOT Act — which is unquestionably an evil, Orwellian attack on civil liberties — originally had sundowns, which had to be renewed every 4 years. When the Republicans (admittedly out of spite) refused to renew it under Obama, Democrats wrote and passed the FREEDOM Act, which made it all permanent. (And, incidentally, Elizabeth Warren, who is usually pointed to as why we don’t need an Independent like Bernie Sanders when the Democratic Party exists, was one of the crucial votes for the FREEDOM Act. She’s a jack-booted authoritarian at heart like the rest of them.) (Incidentally: it has now been 20 years since the original PATRIOT Act. If any of the powers the government gave itself at that point were actually useful in fighting terrorism, they would by now have examples to give which no longer needed to be classified, and they would publish them to justify the whole thing. They have not done so, because the PATRIOT Act, so beloved by both parties, was totally unnecessary.)

GWB proposed a massive domestic spy program, to be called “Total Information Awareness”. Since it was an obvious horrible police state nightmare, it was overwhelmingly denounced by the press and by Democrats, and was not put into action. Obama ditched the name but implemented all of the proposals.

In nearly all of the cities where there were BLM protests which turned into riots over the last 2 years, the riots were caused by police violence against protestors, and the police violence was under the orders of Democratic mayors, city councils, and governors. Practically the only major violence which wasn’t deliberate Democratic violence was Trump’s use of force in Seattle, the whole unmarked van abduction program — but Seattle already had violence against protestors before that, with its Democratic mayor, and the violence continued after Trump withdrew his “troops”.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, but she critically lost several states which had been Democratic strongholds until then, and she did so by being an arrogant clueless asshole who fully backed the destruction of those states’ economies in the 90s and refused to repudiate any of it, or even admit it was a mistake. (In one of the three critical states, I think it was Wisconsin, she had precisely one post-primary appearance schedule, which she canceled. She instead spent the time in Arizona, a state which she lost by a much wider margin, because she was an imbecile who thought Republicans would vote for a Democrat.)

Incidentally, that last point is worth discussing in more detail. Since Obama, both Democratic Presidential campaigns have been run on the basis of kicking the base in the teeth to chase Republican votes. It failed dramatically in 2016, and if Democrats were actually intelligent that would have been the final time it was ever employed — the Democratic base, even now, is larger than the Republican one, so getting the base to turn out is absolutely crucial to winning the election. Instead, Biden did the same: he refused to discuss a wealth tax (which would be popular with Democrats and Independents), said absolutely that he would veto Medicare For All even if it passed Congress (which would be popular with Democrats and Independents, and even had a bare minority of approval with Republicans), said he would increase federal funding for police (only popular with Republicans), refused to back a minimum wage increase, and just in general ran on a platform of “I will be a Democrat in name only”. The result was that by percentage, the election was fairly close — if Trump had not been Trump, or if there had been no coronavirus epidemic, Biden would pretty certainly have lost outright, and Democrats lost a lot of elections down-ticket they had been projected to win in the weeks beforehand; the projection, I remind you, was for Democrats to win a fairly solid majority in the Senate, and instead they barely squeaked by in a runoff election in Georgia, which they outright lied to win. (“Those $2000 checks will go out the door”; Biden himself said that that was a literal statement and not a metaphor, but now we’re supposed to expect maybe $1400, in a few months. When the Democrats lose even more Congressional seats in 2022, which it seems very likely they will, you can look back on that specific broken promise as the reason why.) The Democrats who actually won their Congressional races? Supported the leftist policies Biden doesn’t. IIRC, every pro-Medicare-For-All candidate won. Supporters of Team Biden, on the other hand, were the people who lost all over the map. (Hell, even Florida, the Republican stronghold which rejected Biden and his down-ticket picks, passed the minimum wage increase Biden wouldn’t endorse — even Republican states are politically to the left of the Democratic Party’s official candidates, now.

Republicans always vote Republican. Democrats, when they vote, vote for Democrats. Poll after poll shows that there are shockingly few actual undecided voters who are Independents; the overwhelming majority of them are basically aligned with one of the parties and simply decide whether or not to vote, rather than who to vote for. Polls also show that the main reason people don’t vote is a sense that neither party will actually do anything useful.

A sane person with even the slightest amount of intelligence who was running as a Democrat would fight like crazy to prove they wanted to help people, would move mountains to keep every last campaign promise (and make sure that if the Republicans prevented it from happening, that fact would be so well-publicized that nobody could possibly miss it), and would focus on getting Democratic supporters to show up and vote.

Clinton and Biden (and the Democratic Party’s national committee) have, instead, continued to pursue a proven failure of a strategy which only strengthens the Republicans. The campaign team used by both of them was the same one used by Obama in 2012… which doesn’t sound bad until you realize that that team said, flat out, that campaign promises were tools to get the gullible to vote for right-of-center “centrist” candidates and that nobody should believe them.

Someone who spends too much time on political Twitter: Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema are the real problem in American politics. The Democratic Party is just as bad as Republicans

Me watching footage of the deadly coup attempt 6 weeks ago being replayed in front of Republicans who still refused to convict the man who tried to kill them and end democracy in America as we know it:

318 notes · View notes

politicaltheatre · 6 years ago

Text

Schadenfreude

Go ahead, laugh.

Roger Stone's indictment and arrest were a long time coming. Donald Trump's shutdown face plant only felt like, especially if you were "furloughed" or, worse, working for Trump for free. It couldn't have happened to two nicer guys.

The story of Stone's arrest was the latest "devastating news" for Trump, outdone perhaps only by Trump's self-own hours later. Given the amount of suffering both men have caused and celebrated in their careers, and especially in the past two years, it really is easy for a majority of Americans to feel good about either of them feeling bad.

The elation at seeing someone who has gained from hurting others brought low may only be topped by the anticipation of seeing someone who has "gotten away with it" for so long finally about to be caught and punished. You're damned right, we feel good.

And yet, that feeling should concern us. We should be wary of enjoying the suffering of others. That it seems to be hard-wired into us is no excuse.

To enjoy something to the point of being driven by its pursuit has never not led a culture to disaster. We want it, then we want it now, then we want it to the exclusion of all other things. We reach a point at which we can no longer imagine our world without it. We hunger for it and will not accept anything less, and woe be to anyone who dares get in the way of that.

This is fanaticism. It's different than rooting against a hated sports team, or celebrating a bit of karma come to the sorest of sore winners. It isn't choosing a team and enduring losing season after losing season as a member of a tribe, building an identity and a bond with others through that loss.

No, this is cheering for the arrest or murder of a political opponent, or of a journalist or public figure who dared to criticize your side. This is excusing atrocities you would normally condemn but instead defend because they were committed by those you need to get what you want.

Those hypocrisies we like to point out in political opponents, when they criticize behavior one day then embrace it the second they win power, or lose it, how are they phrased? On what platform are those ideas and freshly twisted ideals presented?

The politicians know they're contradicting themselves. They know, on some level, that we know, too. And yet, they go on, pushing us to extremes, asking us to choose to enjoy the suffering of others, the "losers", as we win.

Take the episode of the Catholic schoolboys facing off against the Native Americans. "Episode" seems like the right word. So much of the coverage felt selective and directed. For a few days, the main video, the one of the boy seeming to smirk as the man chanted in front of him, did provide something of a Rorschach test for Americans. We all felt comfortable deciding who was the aggressor, and we were all right.

At the end - can we call it an "end"? - the media and the public got so caught up in absolutes that the proven failure of one meme, that the boys chanted "Build The Wall", was used to discredit criticism of everything else they did, from wearing MAGA hats while confronting Native Americans to many of them mock chanting while they did a group tomahawk chop. Yes, folks, that was very racist and it was caught on video.

Our fear of others, which could have lessened as a result of confronting our own capacity for cruelty, was instead twisted and exploited, as the boys and their families complained of harassment, including death threats, from leftists and other MAGA hat haters.

So, we're back at fear and offered a choice of extremes. The entire narrative of immigrants threatening the southern border has followed this. It was designed to follow this. At its root is rooting for others to suffer, for seeing others, others not like us, fail. Their tribe, not ours. They lose, we win.

The shame of it is, we should feel good about Roger Stone's arrest and what was revealed in his indictment. It gets us closer to understanding how our electoral system was and continues to be corrupted. It points us, yet again, to recognizing that corruption is about money, not ideology.

Which brings us back to Trump and his month long temper tantrum. Seeing him fail actually means very little. For one thing, two years of failure haven't made much of a dent in his polling numbers. For another, we have only a three week reprieve before the government again faces being shut down.

Federal workers hurt by the 35 day shutdown have no guarantees. Right now, most of them are busy trying to undo damage done by their forced absences. The damage done is greater than it may seem. On the surface, we all saw TSA and IRS workers suffer, and national parks filling with garbage, but the damage done to regulatory agencies could have been even worse.

What happens to the environment when there are no EPA agents in the field? What happens to the food supply without the FDA? Concerned about border security, are you? Who's inspecting shipping containers at our ports in a shutdown? How many resources are directed to any of those things when the government is open? Who do we need protection from? Exactly.

The right wing may love it when government doesn't work - that is, ultimately, what the right wingers in Congress and the White House (and their financial backers) have been pushing for all along - but competent government benefits them just as well as anyone, and even if they won't admit that, their polling numbers made it clear. That's why Trump caved. That and that alone.

If they stay down that far or near it, the Republican Party will lose in 2020, enough that the Democrats will regain the Senate and the presidency. There will be cheering. There will be dancing in the streets. There will be a flood of social media posts by those calling themselves winners on how much they hope the losers are suffering.

And then we'll all have to clean up, because the damage done by destroying a government's ability to function is enormous and expensive. We can only hope we have found enough common ground to see it through for the benefit of all and not just our side. If we fail, if we let government fail, the damage done these past two years will be nothing.

Worst case, with the return of regulation and oversight threatening to eat into corporate profits and the undoing of the Republicans' 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy, we'll see a rush to remove money from where a federal government with teeth can find it. We'll see economic bubbles propped up by loose money start to collapse, one by one, each initiating the next, until our economy and any economy tied to ours suffers in ways we have not seen in almost a century.

That could really happen. It has before, and for the same reasons.

Go ahead, laugh.

- Daniel Ward

0 notes

somethingusefulfromflorida · 3 years ago

Text

13 Keys to the White House

I hate politics with a burning passion. The whole subject just makes me depressed and stressed, but like a moth to the flame I find myself unable to escape it. My politics posts were topical and relatively popular during the lead up to the 2020 election, but things have quieted down considerably a we adjust to the new normal under a sane but useless president. For this reason, I've decided that the best way to spend my time is to try and make prediction about 2024, because it makes me feel like I have some semblance of control over my life when in reality these things are well out of my hands.

Allan Lichtman is a political analyst who has correctly predicted every presidential election since 1984, and working backwards his method correctly accounts for every election since 1860; with the only hiccup being 2000 when he predicted Al Gore would win (by all rights he did; he won the popular vote and he would have won the Florida recount if George W. Bush's brother hadn't illegally stopped it and delayed it until it was too late to restart).

Lichtman gives 13 yes or no statements to assess the performance of the incumbent party over the last four years, and has determined that if eight or more are true then the incumbent party wins another term. If six or more are false, the challenging party wins instead. From Wikipedia they are:

Midterm gains: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.

No primary contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.

Incumbent seeking re-election: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.

No third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.

Strong short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.

Strong long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.

Major policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.

No social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.

No scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.

No foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

Major foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.

Charismatic incumbent: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.

Uncharismatic challenger: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

In 2020 the chips fell thusly:

False: the Democrats won more seat in 2018 than the Republicans in 2014

True: Trump was the only Republican candidate, and in fact many states canceled their primaries to give it to him

True: Trump was running for another term

True: the libertarians and the greens didn't get nearly as much air time as they did in 2016

False: Covid recession

False: Trump dug a hole so deep it'll take us years to crawl our way back out of it

True: McConnell's court packing scheme, 3 justices, America First foreign policy, sucking up to dictators, alienating our allies

False: George Floyd protests

False: too many to name

True: not failing doesn't necessarily mean succeeding

False: case in point, he didn't accomplish any of his goals like ending the war in Afghanistan or disarming North Korea

False: although his base worships him as the second coming of Christ, they only make up 40% of the country, and the other 60% HATES him

True: Biden is a boring old man that both right-wingers hate and progressive leftists hate. Only moderates and centrists really like him

That's 6 true and 7 false. Trump needed 8 true to win, so Lichtman called it for Biden in summer. While we can make some assumptions about the future, we can't predict everything, so there will be a lot of unknowns that prevent us from drawing solid conclusions. I'll update this post as time goes on; we should have a fairly solid picture by early 2023 after the midterms.

Almost certainly false: the Democrats are hanging on by a thread as is, and 2022 will see dozens of competitive House seats redrawn by Republican to give themselves an advantage going forward. I'm pretty sure the Republicans will take back the House, but even if they don't there's no way the Democrats will manage to hang onto as many seats in 2022 as they won in 2018 (235)

Probably true: to hear Biden tell it, he's a spring chicken at the top of his game and wholeheartedly intends to run for re-election in 2024. I give it 50/50 odds that he bows out due to declining health and gives it to Kamala Harris, but either way they have the nomination in the bag. Nobody is going to challenge Biden, and nobody serious will challenge Harris.

Unknown: see above

Unknown: this one is leaning towards true, but it's too soon to tell. We think of third-party candidates as being fringe, but they played major roles in 1980, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2016. I don't expect the networks to give as much airtime to the libertarians and the greens as they did in 2016, but then again all the media outlets made off like bandits during the Trump years. Love him or hate him, he made them a shit load of money, and helping a third-party campaign will ensure another candidate like Trump gets elected

Probably true: it'll be hard for Biden to fuck things up more than they are now. I don't think we'll see ANOTHER recession in less than 4 years, but then again we thought the Great Recession of 2008 would be a once-in-a-lifetime event.

Absolutely true: Obama's second term was prosperous, Trump's term put us deep in the red, so they average out to neutral; as long as Biden can do better than literally nothing, he has this one in the bag.

I don't think so: 2021 was the Democrats' best chance at changing things, but they fumbled like we all expected them to. They have majroties in both houses of Congress and could conceivably railroad through any legislation they want, as Trump did in his first 2 years, but no, they want to play fair, they want to be bipartisan. They extend an olive branch when the other side wouldn't piss on them to put them out if they were on fire. None of Biden's campaign promises will get done.

Probably true: I don't think things can get worse than 2020. Biden is, if nothing else, inoffensive. Republicans are trying to make him out as this socialist boogeyman, but nothing really sticks because he is nearly economically identical to Trump (both party establishments are economically neoliberal). If we were going to go to war, it would have been last year. I don't think there's anything Biden can do to screw things up that badly.

Probably: like I said, Biden is boring, which means he's not take any risks. I think even he has sense enough to realize that the entire country is watching him with a magnifying glass, waiting for him to make any mistake. He's playing it as safe as possible with relative transparency, so I don't see him doing anything shadier than any other president. If the Republicans take back the House they might impeach him as revenge for Trump, but he'll be acquitted and public opinion will probably be on his side.

Unknown: Democrats love to fumble, so this one's up in the air

Unknown: pulling out of Afghanistan might be a success, but the Taliban will just retake control once we're gone and it'll be back to square one. It'll be this generation's Vietnam; a 20 year long waste of time that we ended up losing. I'm still not convicned the withdrawal will even go through.

False: Lichtman didn't call Biden charismatic in 2020, I know for a fact he won't suddenly become MORE popular by 2024. Hes boring. If he didn't run and gave it to Kamala Harris I still don't see this flipping true. She has more energy, sure, but she's disingenuous at best and a two-faced enemy of the revolution at worst. She's a cop.

True: calling it now, nobody the Republicans choose will have national appeal. Lichtman noted that these last two keys are incredibly subjective, but you know it when you see it. For his definition of charisma he cites presidents like Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, Ronald Reagan, and Barack Obama (2008 Obama, not 2012 Obama; the novelty wore off real quick and we realized he was the Republicans' doormat and a war criminal). If Trump tries for a second term, he'll be even less popular then than he is now, and none of his underlings inspire as much confidence in the party. Ron DeSantis, my state's governor, appears to be the front runner of non-Trumps, but he's so dumb he makes that whole family look like a Rhodes Scholars. America is so divided that I don't think there will ever be another super charismatic candidate with bipartisan appeal.

That's 3 false, 4 unknown, and 6 true. Biden needs 8 true to win a second term, but he has plenty of unknown keys which would turn in his favor. Even Trump avoided a major foreign policy failure, so I'm sure Biden can cinch that key, bringing him up to 7. That and the third-party key seem the most likely to flip true, meaning Biden will probably win, though I could very well see this becoming a repeat of 2000 and 2016 where he wins the popular vote and loses the electoral college. In that case, I expect civil unrest going into whatever Republican's term, verging on total civil war.

One-term wonders are exceedingly rare. Trump was a historically weak candidate who only won because of low voter turnout in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. He saw an Alabama senate seat flip blue, as well as all four seats in Arizona and Georgia, he lost the house and the senate in quick succession, and was impeached twice. He was a loser through and through, and I don't think he'll be coming back.

At least I certainly hope so.

#politics #2024 #prediction #election

0 notes

queernuck · 5 years ago

Text

again, i think that it is necessary to look at critiques and judge them based on their value, not just as flippant “takes” and so on

some great examples include discussing US Imperialism in Syria, the US support for the YPG and other Kurdish groups was absolutely, without a single doubt, conditional and was based on a shift from “YPG are terrorists” to “YPG are brave and fighting against ISIS” that was conditional on the YPG accepting US Aid, allowing for US military power to direct their actions, effectively using the Kurdish people as a kind of extension of military power. This meant that the US could go to war against ISIS, could do so in a way that opposed Assad, and kept with the general direction of US imperialist violence while only committing air assets and small deployments of Special Operations troops, ones who could be themselves part of the propaganda used to sell this to American audiences.

Now? The recoil of accepting American aid, of allowing American Imperialist support to dictate one’s own goals is occuring, and another American ally, Turkey, is almost certainly going to commit atrocities against the Kurdish people. This is going to go unanswered, America is not going to do anything about this and moreover any discussion of “our allies in Syria” leaves out the reasoning both behind Turkey’s actions and the way in which establishing a certain sort of governance was a goal of the YPG, how the YPG was at least nominally (if one does not want to claim genuinely) leftist. American joint patrols with Turkish forces, allied on the basis of NATO, American use of Turkey in strategic nuclear and other military considerations, American sales of arms to Turkey are not contradictory with this, but in fact a continuing policy of America using Kurds to justify imperialism before themselves watching the violence continue so long as it is convenient.

Liberals decrying this move are not doing so because they believe in. the YPG, its principles, or likely even particularly care about what will follow. They will do little, if anything, to discuss the role of Turkey as an American ally in breaking the YPG. Instead, ISIS and its supposed-existential threat to America will become the focus, will become part of what is discussed. It is not in support of the YPG that these politicians speak, it is in support of the Forever War, it is from the same place of imperialist ideology that criticizes Trump for attempting to better relations between the RoK and the DPRK by cancelling military exercises, it is Democrats determined to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan to continue Obama’s legacy and Republicans who will claim that, in fact, it is still Bush’s legacy but this is in fact a good thing.

discussing American imperialists leaving Syria is a question that genuinely at once poses two other questions: was the support given to the YPG ultimately worthwhile considering how it made them vulnerable to attack by ISIS and Turkey at the same time? and as a result, what exactly is a meaningful position when discussing it? weak and ineffective sanctions, war with a NATO member, misdirection at Iran? The meaningful discussion of exactly why accepting American imperialist support is counterrevolutionary, will lead to this exact kind of downfall, is coupled with how groups like Turkish Marxist-Leninists joined the YPG: the genuine ability to fight ISIS was an opportunity that was new, genuinely potentially-revolutionary, but Kurds were simply being used as a buffer between a target of invasion (Syria) and an ally (Turkey) until it was no longer so much. Leaves plenty of troops to go to Mali, or say, get ready for an invasion of Iran.

Similarly, the means by which large corporations such as the NBA, Disney (through ESPN), Blizzard, and others discuss Hong Kong in relation to China, two converging scandals (both involving voicing support for protests in Hong Kong) provides a phenomenal insight into how right-wing ideology is inserted into supposedly left-leaning discussions through various ideological maneuvers.

For players, they are well aware that their paycheck can be on the line when it comes to discussing issues, and so they often are sticking to ones where the demographics are on their side, where the league can monetize their supposed protest and use it to portray an image as a league that is socially conscious, that is self-aware, something beyond the corporation at hand. However, the careful means by which this is done become apparent rather quickly: discussions of racial justice and police brutality are allowed when it comes to NBA stars too big to shut down, but WNBA players can be silenced if they break too many boundaries. There is an awareness that they can only make so much critique before they begin to make themselves targets.

And indeed, American media thrives off of a kind of dual-acknowledgement: there is a recognition of China as an irreconcilable Other, but none at all of the means by which similar measures are instituted in American contexts. A right-winger talks about how easily China crumbles, comparing it to a “paper tiger” while talking about an effort to hamstring Blizzard in response to proactive censorship on their own part. Another discusses the way in which “free speech” should not be determined by corporations, a worthwhile discussion perhaps but one being offered specifically because it allows for an easy reactionary reading, because it dovetails with various platforms attempting to purge fascist content (again, not because fascism is to be opposed, but because it is harder to monetize in a polite, neoliberal fashion)

so much of politics has been signified by processes of consumption-production, so much of it is linked to the way in which one identifies with regard to acts of consumption, and this is not to contrast the “West” with that “Other” in China. Again, the NBA is at a crossroads here specifically because of how it is widely-watched across China, and it was the Rockets’ owner who started the whole thing, one of the most-watched teams within the league in China. The superficiality of expression in American culture begins to become clear when one looks at how exactly American companies control speech in America, couple willingly with a surveillance state, and the discourse on China coming from the right being openly anticommunist when linking it to various conspiracies, imagined or worse, resignified, that allow for the stoking of their fascist libidos.

the simplification of protests in Hong Kong to “pro-democracy” is so often a euphemism for the kind of protest supported by The Economist, a paper whose triumph-of-colonialism ideology is well-known, perhaps one of the most neoliberal and neocolonial publications running today. it is in desire of liberalization that they support these protests, in interest of creating embarrassments for the PRC in order to gain leverage within trade rather than any genuine concern for Hong Kongers, for the implication of extradition on leftist thought with regard to leftist criticism of China.

more generally, this ties into just how deeply-embedded fascism and its ironic aesthetics are in this website. equistrianrepublican is back as vaporwavevocap, fun or funny blogs are only a step or two removed from posters like thivus or porko-rosso (who have certainly not abandoned previous tendencies in posting) and the ability of posts of various sorts to find their way over to reactionary sides of tumblr is abundant. and yes, this includes reactionary leftism like stalin-defender having great posts about the IRA but worrying about how transness is a honeypot on tumblr and the REAL reason Yahoo let the website get devalued, how attempts to critique liberal ideation of sex work are supported as being against degeneracy, rather than in defense of sex workers, in defense of their arming and the recognition of exploitation in sex work as a fundamental issue and the changing of the work-form more generally a necessary discussion, in the way that some reject postmodernism as decadent and unnecessary in ways that attract reactionaries like flies and honey. it is in official-mugi being the person who least deserves that good url. it is in a lot of things, so many of them deniable or subtle, so many of them based on accepting a good-faith reading and spreading implicitly reactionary ideologies.

0 notes

beesandwasps · 3 years ago

Note

Like so many other things wrong with the Democratic Party, this goes back to the Democratic Leadership Council and Bill Clinton’s election in 1992.

It is hard to see any resemblance between the Democrats of the 1960s and 1970s and the modern party. They used to be the party of farmers and union labor, they were willing to alienate southern whites (and a lot of other whites) to pass the Civil Rights Act, they gave some serious support to the Equal Rights Amendment, they were sufficiently anti-war to hold the military responsible for the My Lai massacre, they held back a lot of Reagan’s worse ideas and even came close to running Jesse Jackson for President. Can you imagine, say, Nancy Pelosi doing any of that?

In 1992, the (unelected, self-selected, neoliberal) Democratic Leadership Council succeeded in its plans to get a right-of-center anti-populist member nominated for President, that nominee being their former chair, Bill Clinton. This was the test case — despite not actually being a leftist, Jimmy Carter was the last Democrat before Clinton to win the Presidency and the last one to win who ran a campaign on the ideals of the New Deal and the 1960s, and Bill Clinton’s candidacy was floated as a rejection of all that.

In that election, there was the last of the really credible third-party candidacies, the self-funded one of the millionaire Ross Perot. Now, Ross Perot was something of a loony, and probably would have been as incapable of Trump, but he still got a surprising number of votes — mostly from people who hated both the other candidates (see? It’s nothing new!). The popular vote count was 43% Bill Clinton, 37.4% GHW Bush, 18.9% Perot. Clinton won the election on a smaller percentage of the popular vote than Donald Trump, who famously lost it.

This has been taken by the Democratic Party, ever since, as absolute proof that The People Want A Right-Leaning Democrat (or, at least, that a Right-Leaning Democrat will get more votes than a hand-wavy left-leaning Democrat like Jimmy Carter). Of course, it has been 30 years since then and the only non-incumbent Democrats to win the Presidency in that interval were Obama, who campaigned as though he was going to be left of center (even if he wasn’t in practice) and Joe Biden (who had associations with Obama and was running against the humanoid slagheap Donald Trump, and barely pulled out a win). But Clinton’s win is still held up as the gold standard for how Democrats should roll, despite that and despite the fact that we’re now a full generation (at least!) later in history. (In addition: polls consistently show that people who do not vote — who outnumber the voters of either party on a regular basis — lean Democratic by an overwhelming margin, but do not vote because they do not trust right-leaning Democrats like the Clintons. If Democrats could get 1 out of 4 nonvoters to vote, they would have an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress and the Popular Vote of the Presidency, but insist on chasing mythical undecided right-wingers instead. But I digress.)

And every election, the party moves further right as a baseline. If the latest right-winger wins, then the popular wisdom is that they won by appealing to Republicans. If they lose, then the popular wisdom is that they lost because they didn’t push right hard enough. This despite polls showing that Obama and Biden won strictly due to minorities, who strongly skew Democratic anyway. Thanks to this idiotic interpretation, it’s heads-I-win-tails-you-lose for neoliberal authoritarian warmongers like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.

There’s a little snag, though, that the DLC and the Clintons and establishment characters like Pelosi and Biden and Harris don’t want to talk about: exit polls in 1992 showed that Perot voters had Bush as their second choice, as opposed to Clinton, by a factor of 5 to 1. So: if Perot had not run, the popular vote count would have presumably been Bush 53.8%, Clinton 46.2%. Clinton would have lost; Perot was a spoiler; the public never really wanted a right-of-center Democrat. But Clinton “proved” they did, and once he was President he stacked the Democratic National Committee — the official, central group which actually runs the party — with fellow DLC members who have insisted on the “popular wisdom” above, so we have been stuck with the party moving right ever since.

I am very worried about the 2024 presidential election.

It seems like we're just going through what happened right before Trump's presidency with a lukewarm milk-toast mediocre moderate establishment democrat failing to meet the needs of the country and betraying the communities that were vital to their victory.

It feels like deja vu and I am not looking forward to watching all of that play out again but this time with a vengeance.

History certainly has a way of repeating itself, doesn’t it. Unfortunately, that’s often not a good thing… Don’t you feel like screaming “we told you so!”?

47 notes · View notes