#and voter engagement is key

[poppinelle]

It’s very telling that all of the Democratic fundraisers are still using images of Obama in their solicitations.

[qqueenofhades]

Look, I know things are rough out there, and critical thinking skills, especially on social media, are still, uh. Questionable (to say the least). But credit where credit is due, because I have also seen (to a degree I did not see in the last two major presidential elections, 2016 and 2020) the following things, a lot:

General hype posts for voting/democracy/Kamala Harris/Democrats (and even before Biden dropped out, a lot of hype posts for him too);

Blockbuster engagement with my recent pro-voting/pro-blue/pro-Kamala posts, to the point where I had to turn off notifications not because there was fuckery happening in my notes (as had OFTEN been the case before) but because I simply couldn't keep up;

Lots of high-note (10k+) posts regularly crossing my dash, written to cater to every kind of leftist/liberal/blue-leaning voter, encouraging and exhorting them to vote no matter what;

Information about Project 2025 and Republican extremism;

Forceful corrections of misinformation about Kamala's record;

Comparisons of Trump and Kamala on key issues;

Mince-no-words callouts of Trump and Republican fascism;

A tutorial!!! On how to identify an obvious psy-op anti-voting blog!!! And encouraging people to do the same/block/report!!

A constant stream of information about how to register to vote/check your voter registration/make sure you haven't been purged;

General slapdowns of tired old anti-voting narratives;

Whenever I put tags on political posts, the suggestions are always in the vein of "vote democrat, vote blue, vote kamala, please vote," etc, even though I have not used them all, indicating that those are the site-wide popular tags for similar posts;

And more!

And like. Guys. I realize there is always the task of emptying the ocean with a bucket when it comes to combating misinformation/disinformation, ESPECIALLY election misinformation/disinformation. I also tend to be grumpy, short-tempered, and cynical (and generally have zero tolerance) about its presence, just because I am old and tired and have seen this all before and know how it ended. But as I said: credit where credit is due. I have never seen all this happening on Tumblr before, and it gives me hope. Kudos.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

A.B. Stoddard at The Bulwark:

1. Trump’s Not Taking the L. . .

The last two weeks—the unveiling of the Harris-Walz ticket, and Kamala Harris’s surge in the polls—feels like some surreal dream state. Everything has changed. Have you noticed Harris has pushed Donald Trump right out of the comfy lead he’s held for an entire year? He’s noticed. From FiveThirtyEight to RealClearPolitics—pick your polling average—they all now show Harris out in front after only two and a half weeks.

Trump is no longer on track to win the election—which he has been for more than six straight months. Instead, the momentum, money, voter registration, volunteering, grassroots organizing, polling, and online engagement all favor the Democrats and it looks now like Trump could easily lose. But that won’t happen, because Trump doesn’t lose. He beat Joe Biden in 2020—remember? So if he’s not the rightful victor on November 5, an entire army of Republicans is ready to block certification of the election at the local level. No need to worry about mayhem on January 6, 2025 when Congress meets in joint session; the election deniers plan to stop a result right away if it looks like Harris is winning. Their goal: Refuse to certify anywhere—even a county that Trump won—and prevent certification in that state, which prevents certification of the presidential election. A Harris victory could become a nightmare.

An investigation by Rolling Stone identified “in the swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania . . . at least 70 pro-Trump election conspiracists currently working as county election officials who have questioned the validity of elections or delayed or refused to certify results.” Of those 70, 22 of them already have “refused or delayed certification” in recent past elections. Nationwide, Republicans have refused to certify results at least 25 times since 2020, in eight states—the most in Georgia.

The article describes social media posts from the zealots who have infiltrated election administration as showing “unapologetic belief in Trump’s election lies, support for political violence, themes of Christian nationalism, and controversial race-based views.” There are more than enough such individuals in these key posts to bring us to a constitutional crisis. “I think we are going to see mass refusals to certify the election” in November, Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias told Rolling Stone. “Everything we are seeing about this election is that the other side is more organized, more ruthless, and more prepared.” Sit with that.

Then there is this. Trump’s self-destructive attacks on Georgia’s popular governor made the headlines from his Atlanta rally last Saturday, but he also singled out for praise three little-known Georgians—Janice Johnston, Rick Jeffares, and Janelle King—calling them “pitbulls fighting for honesty, transparency, and victory.” Who are Johnston, Jeffares, and King? They are three of the five members of Georgia’s State Election Board. Three days after Trump’s speech, this past Tuesday, those three Republicans approved a new rule requiring a “reasonable inquiry” prior to election certification that—while vague and undefined—could be exploited to delay certification and threaten the statewide election certification deadline of November 22.

The law in Georgia, where Trump and fourteen1 others are charged with plotting to overturn the 2020 election result, requires county election boards to certify results “not later than 5:00 P.M. on the Monday following the date on which such election was held”—so this year, by the evening of November 11. The secretary of state is then to certify the statewide results “not later than 5:00 P.M. on the seventeenth day” after the election, so November 22.

Across the country, the November election results will have to be certified in more than 3,000 counties, and all state results must be final by the time electors meet in each state on December 17. Members of county election boards are not tasked with resolving election issues; certification is mandatory and “ministerial,” not discretionary. Disputes over ballot issues are separate from the certification process—investigated and adjudicated by district attorneys, state election boards, and in court. Election experts say the new rule could disrupt the entire process across the state by allowing local partisans to reject results. And Georgia appears to be at the center of Trump’s plans. Casting doubt on Fulton County, which makes up the bulk of Democratic votes in the state, will help him claim he won the Peach State as the rest of the results come in red.

But even without an explicitly permitted “inquiry” like the new Georgia rule provides, Republicans in other swing states still plan on acting at the county level to slow or stop certification. Because questioning the outcome at the very start of the process will create delay. Any doubt and confusion, and perhaps even violence, makes it easier to miss essential deadlines and can threaten the chance that the rightful winner prevails. Election deniers also hope that sowing chaos might prompt GOP legislatures to intervene—in Georgia, Arizona, or Wisconsin for example—a dangerous scenario I wrote about in April.

[...] It’s crucial that these plans are widely publicized. And they can be. Just like Project 2025, which was virtually unheard of and is now in the forefront of the political debate. Putting a media spotlight on this issue will force Republican officials to address what they are well aware of and are refusing to call out. Yesterday CBS News reported Biden said in his first interview since leaving the presidential race he is “not confident at all” there will be a peaceful transfer of power if Trump loses. Harris isn’t likely to talk about this in her campaign, so it’s critical that other high-profile surrogates do. President Obama, President Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and others must educate voters about the plot underway to force more public pressure and accountability on the process. Every Republican must be asked about local certification of elections, electors honoring the popular vote of their state, preventing political violence—all of it. Repeatedly. As Elias told an interviewer, there are things we can do, as citizens willing to invest some time, to take action. This isn’t a threat from abroad. This year—and likely for years to come—we will all have to continue to fight against what our fellow Americans are doing to subvert elections. Because without free elections—and facts and truth—we cannot be a free country.

A.B. Stoddard wrote in The Bulwark that Republicans will seek to cause chaos post-election to try to block certification of a potential Kamala Harris win.

[republicansaredomesticterrorists]

This is just one of many ways that Republican oligarchs influence elections with their unlimited dark money. The Koch and Walton families will each spend about a billion dollars supporting every Republican candidate for office in a presidential election year. The Republicans have been doing this since the ‘60s with their political foundations. Democrats have nothing even close to this level of organization or funding.

There are dozens of other Republican oligarch mega-donors doing the same; Mercer, Crow, DeVos, Prince, Thiel, Leo, Mellon, Stephens, Navarro, Buckley, Brodie, Murdoch…all donating millions each and these are just some of the better known right-wingers. Many siphon money through right-wing political foundations to cover their tracks.

[robertreich]

Does the Constitution Ban Trump from Running Again? 

Donald Trump should not be allowed on the ballot.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prohibits anyone who has held public office and taken an oath to protect the Constitution from holding office again if they “have engaged in insurrection” against the United States.

This key provision was enacted after the Civil War to prevent those who rose up against our democracy from ever being allowed to hold office again.

This applies to Donald Trump. He cannot again be entrusted with public office. He led an insurrection!

He refused to concede the results of the 2020 election, claiming it was stolen, even when many in his inner circle, including his own attorney general, told him it was not.

Trump then pushed state officials to change vote counts, hatched a plot to name fake electors, tried to pressure his vice president into refusing to certify the Electoral College votes, had his allies seek access to voting-machine data, and summoned his supporters to attack the capitol on January 6th to disrupt the formal recognition of the presidential election results.

And then he waited HOURS, reportedly watching the violence on TV, before telling his supporters to go home — despite pleas from his staff, Republican lawmakers, and even Fox News.

If this isn’t the behavior of an insurrectionist, I don’t know what is.

Can there be any doubt that Trump will again try to do whatever it takes to regain power, even if it’s illegal and unconstitutional?

If anything, given all the MAGA election deniers in Congress and in the states, Trump is less constrained than he was in 2020. And more power hungry.

Trump could face criminal charges for inciting an insurrection, but that’s not necessary to bar him from the ballot.

Secretaries of State and other chief election officers across the country have the power to determine whether candidates meet the qualifications for office. They have a constitutional duty to keep Trump off the ballot — based on the clear text of the U.S. Constitution.

Some might argue that voters should be able to decide whether candidates are fit for office, even if they’re dangerous. But the Constitution sets the bar for what disqualifies someone from being president. Candidates must be at least 35 years old and a natural-born U.S. citizen. And they must also not have engaged in insurrection after they previously took an oath of office to defend the Constitution.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has already been used to disqualify an insurrectionist from continuing to hold public office in New Mexico, with the state’s Supreme Court upholding the ruling.

This is not about partisanship. If a Democrat attempts to overthrow the government, they should not be allowed on ballots either.

Election officials must keep Donald Trump off the ballot in 2024. 

Democracy cannot survive if insurrectionists hold power in our government.

[truth-has-a-liberal-bias]

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot, ruling that he isn’t an eligible presidential candidate because of the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”

“Because he is disqualified, it would be wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot,” the court said.

Here are several of the key findings the court issued in its decision:

Colorado state law allows voters to challenge Trump’s eligibility under the federal constitution’s “insurrectionist ban.”

Colorado courts can enforce the ban without any action from Congress.

The insurrectionist ban applies to the presidency.

The January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol was an insurrection.

Trump “engaged in” the insurrection.

Trump’s speech “inciting the crowd” on January 6 was “not protected by the First Amendment.” [...]

[mariacallous]

U.S. President Joe Biden’s approach to the Israel-Hamas war, especially his seemingly preternatural support for Israel, has been criticized across much of the U.S. political spectrum. An NBC News poll published Nov. 19 found that just 34 percent of registered voters approve of how Biden is handling the war. Many younger voters in particular are angry; and some Arab and Muslim Americans are telling pollsters they won’t vote for Biden in 2024 because of his stance.

The Democratic Party itself is deeply divided on the issue, with even some moderate Democrats urging Biden to do more to restrain Israel. And inside the administration, the president is seeing dissent from staff in the White House and State Department of a kind these two authors never witnessed during our government careers. Biden has even been accused of supporting “the genocide of the Palestinian people” by a member of his own party.

Yet given the president’s long and deep attachment to Israel, the brutality of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, and the lack of policy alternatives in the first several weeks of the crisis, it’s doubtful that Biden could have followed another course that would have been more successful. Standing by Israel, deterring Hezbollah and Iran from escalating the conflict, and pursuing negotiations to secure the release of hostages as well as buy time and space to ameliorate—though admittedly not end—the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza have proven to be the right, though hardly perfect, choices.

Still, having tethered U.S. policy to Israel’s war aims—the eradication of Hamas—Biden now finds himself in a bind. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the exponential rise in the deaths and suffering of Gaza’s civilian population have undermined U.S. credibility at home, in the Arab and Muslim world, and in the international community. Going forward, the success or failure of U.S. policy may well rest on whether Biden can reshape Israel’s military campaign, alleviate the humanitarian situation, and engage Israel and other partners in coming up with a workable plan for post-war Gaza.

Like most of the world, the Biden administration was stunned by the timing and severity of the Hamas attack. But the potential damage to U.S. interests was clear from the get-go. The administration had previously concluded that a major effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue given the Netanyahu government’s priorities would be futile and had shifted focus instead on negotiating an Israeli-Saudi normalization accord. The Hamas attack, along with Israel’s punishing response and the rising death toll it has caused in Gaza, put that on hold, as did the increasing danger of a new front opening along the Israel-Lebanon border.

Preventing an escalation and widening of the war that could pull in the United States was now a key priority, as was trying to limit the damage to U.S. relations with the Arab and Muslim world as Israel’s military action claimed thousands of Palestinians lives. Securing the release of the estimated 240 hostages—including at least 10 Americans—kidnapped by Hamas also moved to the top of the administration’s priorities, both for moral reasons and to create humanitarian pauses in fighting in exchange for their release. In an effort to regain some ground with the Arab states and Palestinians, the administration began to talk about the importance of not going back to the Oct. 6 status quo, the U.S. commitment to a two-state solution, and the need to create a new post-conflict reality in Gaza.

For Biden, though, backing Israel wasn’t a hard choice; it was virtually guaranteed. His Oct. 10 speech—one of the most powerful of his presidency to date—set his frame: The United States would give Israel the time, space, and support to do what it believed it needed to do against Hamas. U.S. policy began to evolve as the deaths of Palestinians and destruction in Gaza began to rise. But despite growing opposition, that frame has remained remarkably consistent.

Biden faced an Israel that had already been moving sharply to the right and was now thoroughly traumatized by Hamas’s sadistic and indiscriminate killing of Israeli civilians on Oct. 7. An Israel, in other words, primed to respond with extreme violence and disinclined to worry too much about Palestinian civilians. Indeed, like Hamas, which doesn’t regard Israeli civilians as innocent, some Israelis—especially Netanyahu’s far-right political allies—consider Gaza’s population to be complicit in Hamas’s atrocities. The fact that Hamas uses civilians as shields against attack reinforces this attitude.

The Biden administration also faced an Israel that saw this moment as an opportunity to deal decisively with threats from Lebanon and Gaza that it has been living with, if uneasily, for years. And because Hamas’s rage was unleashed on Gaza’s border communities, which contained a disproportionate number of liberal Israelis who notably detest their current government and favor a two-state solution, it unified Israeli support on the right and left for a crushing response. Moreover, because the attack was made possible by Israel’s own blunders, the government felt that it needed to restore perceptions of power and its willingness to use it. This all pointed to a no-holds-barred counteroffensive.

Biden has dealt with these obstacles as well as anyone could.

To manage the risk of escalation, Biden did two things—one privately and the other publicly. Privately, he told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israeli preemption against Hezbollah in Lebanon—a very real possibility early in the crisis—was a nonstarter. Washington would not support it, and for Israel to proceed would damage U.S. interests; not a good idea when Israel was isolated internationally. Biden then deployed two carrier strike groups—a total of 180 fighter bombers—to the Eastern Mediterranean and beefed-up U.S. military power in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf.

The message to Hezbollah and Iran was clear: Don’t start anything. Thus far, both adversaries have indicated publicly and privately that they got the message. Yes, Hezbollah-Israel exchanges have been at their heaviest since the 2006 war. But both parties have pushed but not exceeded the rules of the game. The threat of a regional war that could suck in the United States is, for the time being, in abeyance.

Through Biden’s visit to Israel, as well as U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s repeated trips and U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s visit, Biden made it impossible for Israel to launch its ground offensive in Gaza until the United States had at least weighed in and the Israeli fury had cooled somewhat. He bought time for Washington to influence the pace and scope of Israel’s campaign. The reason U.S. Marine Corps Lt. Gen. James Glynn, who commanded the U.S. forces that participated in the anti-Islamic State campaign in Raqqa, Syria, and Mosul, Iraq, was dispatched to Israel ahead of the planned ground offensive was to caution the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) against a scorched earth strategy and suggest ways they could meet their military objectives in Gaza without the kind of wholesale destruction the United States unleashed on Islamic State-occupied cities in Syria and Iraq.

Granted, there was no way this warning would influence the Israeli air campaign already underway in Gaza, especially in its initial phase—partly because the violence was expressive but also because Hamas had deliberately tunneled under heavily populated civilian areas, and the IDF had no good ideas about how to deal with the situation without bombing.

Biden was also successful in compelling Netanyahu to accept the need for humanitarian corridors and resume the flow of water and now fuel to Gaza. Without Biden’s intervention, it’s a safe bet that none of these Israeli concessions would have been forthcoming. Indeed, it’s unlikely the current humanitarian pause, which has allowed more aid into Gaza and significant hostage releases, would have happened without Biden’s personal effort and U.S. intervention. Israel on its own would not have gotten there until things were much worse, if ever.

Could the Biden administration have forced Israel to embrace a more permanent ceasefire, as many have urged Biden to do? What threats might it have used? A halt to U.S. military assistance would have sparked a firestorm in Washington, destroyed Biden’s demonstrated influence on Israel’s crisis response, and pushed Israel to rely on less precise weapons, leading to more civilian deaths—and all likely without changing Israel’s actions.

Imposing conditions on Israel’s use of U.S.-supplied weapons is another option being raised not just by progressive Democrats but by a few more centrist ones as well, though the latter group is so far just asking questions and requesting information rather than pressing for restrictions. Such an approach would have to involve looking at individual weapons: how they are deployed, what are legitimate military targets, and whether Israel has carefully calibrated the impact on civilians in the area. This seems almost impossible in the middle of an active warzone and in any event likely would not alter Israel’s operations.

Should the United States have withdrawn military support for Israel in other ways, such as by redeploying the carriers in the eastern Mediterranean, the U.S. destroyer in the Red Sea, and the U.S. X-band air defense radar installation in Israel’s Negev desert? Doing so would undermine the U.S. objective of deterring Hezbollah and Iran from escalating the conflict and likely trigger an Israeli preemptive war against Lebanon. Such a step would, in effect, play into Iranian hands and undermine, not strengthen, deterrence.

Recalling the U.S. Marine expeditionary force whose missions include embassy and country evacuations, hostage rescue, and other special operations would undermine U.S. readiness for any number of contingencies. Voting against Israel in the United Nations can be guaranteed not to move Israel’s needle one bit. The administration might have considered using U.S. forces to protect aid convoys entering Gaza against Israeli wishes, but this would pose risks that would truly be incalculable.

As the Israeli ground campaign now renews, so do the greatest challenges for the Biden administration’s policies. The United States cannot prevent Israel from resuming military action in northern Gaza or the more worrisome unfolding of a major military campaign to root out Hamas’s infrastructure and kill its leadership in the south. With nearly half of Gaza’s population displaced into the south and disease and lack of necessities taking their toll, a massive ground campaign in densely populated areas there would be disastrous. Indeed, when comparing pre-Oct. 7 Israel-Hamas conflicts with the appalling Palestinian death toll of the past month and a half, it’s clear that Israel is being far less discriminating this time around and has expanded its rules of engagement in attacking Hamas targets embedded in or near civilian areas.

The question is whether Biden can, through pressure and persuasion, reshape Israel’s thinking and create the requisite time and space not just for safe zones but for reliable channels to deliver humanitarian assistance. Having had Israel’s back over the past 50-plus days, the U.S. president is in a position to wield influence over what may well be the most important juncture in Israel’s war against Hamas. Still, Biden must be realistic: Stopping Israel from dealing Hamas’s military capacity a death blow was never in the cards.

The other issue is how to bring the Israelis around on the elusive question of an endgame in Gaza. Privately, the Biden administration has been hammering the Israelis to think this through, though Netanyahu has been reluctant to engage largely because of the demands of his extreme right-wing coalition partners.

Blinken has already laid out publicly a number of “nos” for post-conflict Gaza, including no reduction in territory, no forced relocation of Gazans, and no use of Gaza as a platform for launching terror attacks. We still have no idea how Israel sees the future, other than the certainty of some Israeli presence and perhaps buffer zones until some new reality that can guarantee Israel’s security could be established. But who does Israel envision governing Gaza? And what will Gaza’s relationship to the West Bank be? Biden has called for renewed negotiations for a two-state solution. Both that issue and the future of Gaza will ultimately depend on whether and how the war reshapes Israeli and Palestinian politics.

Uncertainties abound—hardly an unusual state of affairs in the middle of a major Middle East conflict. Yet despite all of the criticism and the grim death toll among Palestinians and Israelis, and given the constraints and things beyond his control, Biden has fared pretty well so far in preserving U.S. interests and preventing matters from getting worse. For a crisis with so many moving parts, that is no small achievement.

[marksmangeek]

What’s Next After Joe Biden Steps Down from the 2024 Elections?

The political landscape in the United States has shifted dramatically with President Joe Biden’s decision to step down from the 2024 presidential race. As the Democratic Party grapples with this unexpected development, several key questions and potential scenarios emerge about the future of the party and the upcoming election.

Immediate Reactions and Interim Leadership

Following Biden’s announcement, Vice President Kamala Harris has become the most likely interim leader of the Democratic Party. Her role as vice president positions her as a natural successor, and she has already garnered significant attention and support from various factions within the party. However, her potential candidacy will need to be officially endorsed by the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Potential Candidates and Primaries

The race for the Democratic nomination is now wide open, with several high-profile politicians likely to throw their hats into the ring. Potential candidates include:

Kamala Harris: As the current vice president, she has a strong platform but will need to consolidate support from various party factions.

Gavin Newsom: The Governor of California has been seen as a rising star in the party, known for his progressive policies and strong leadership.

Pete Buttigieg: The Secretary of Transportation and former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, has maintained a significant national profile since his 2020 presidential run.

Elizabeth Warren: The Senator from Massachusetts remains a powerful voice within the progressive wing of the party.

Amy Klobuchar: The Senator from Minnesota offers a more centrist approach that could appeal to moderate voters.

The DNC will need to organize a series of debates and primaries to allow these candidates to present their platforms and vie for the nomination.

Impact on the General Election

Biden’s decision to step aside has significant implications for the general election. The Democratic Party must quickly rally around a new candidate who can unite the party and appeal to a broad base of voters. This includes addressing concerns about Biden’s health and ensuring that the new candidate can effectively challenge the Republican nominee, presumably former President Donald Trump.

Strategic Shifts and Campaign Focus

With a new candidate, the Democratic Party may need to adjust its campaign strategies. Key issues that will likely be emphasized include:

Healthcare and Pandemic Response: Continuing Biden’s efforts in managing the COVID-19 pandemic and improving healthcare access.

Economic Recovery: Building on the current administration’s efforts to strengthen the economy and address income inequality.

Climate Change: Promoting aggressive policies to combat climate change, a central issue for many Democratic voters.

Social Justice: Ensuring that issues of racial and social justice remain at the forefront of the campaign.

Republican Response

The Republican Party will closely monitor the Democratic transition, adjusting their strategies accordingly. Trump’s campaign is likely to capitalize on the perceived instability within the Democratic Party, using it as a point of criticism. However, the Republicans will also need to address their internal challenges and unify their base.

Voter Mobilization and Engagement

The uncertainty surrounding Biden’s departure places a premium on voter mobilization and engagement. Both parties will intensify efforts to reach out to key demographics, including young voters, minorities, and independents. The importance of voter turnout cannot be overstated, especially in swing states that will determine the election’s outcome.

Conclusion

Joe Biden’s decision to step down from the 2024 election marks a significant turning point in American politics. The Democratic Party faces the urgent task of selecting a new candidate who can inspire and unite voters. Meanwhile, the Republicans will seek to exploit this transition to their advantage. As both parties navigate this evolving landscape, the 2024 election promises to be one of the most consequential in recent history, shaping the direction of the United States for years to come.

[crazyintheeast]

Seeing you accuse people that I know, who I've been following for several years, of being psyops is actually counterproductive in whatever it is you're trying to accomplish because it makes it glaringly obvious that you're just blindly accusing everyone that disagrees with you of being a Russian propaganda bot.

And of course it’s from an anon . Look at how it’s phrased . “Several people “ Even though I have only accused the obvious Russian troll https://www.tumblr.com/decolonize-the-left who the absolute same playbook as the 2016 trolls and a random account who pretended go on a causal rant while at the same time putting in a dozens of tags with every possible variation to gain maximum coverage .

So it’s obvious that the person behind this anon is the Russian troll https://www.tumblr.com/decolonize-the-left left or probably one of his small accounts . They are trying desperately to go viral like they did in 2016 so they are deadly terrified of being exposed as the Trump agents they obviously are . So don’t fall for it . Here is a good way to spot them . If account is :

Heavily advocating for yoj to throw your vote away ones their party or to abstain from voting to “reach democrats a lesson “

Deny VERIFIED facts like the fact that the 2016 elections was so close that if their party voters had voted for Hillary in several key states she would have easily won . Same with the Gore Bush election which was one of the close sets in history and Bush won by 537 votes

They often pretend to be people of color and post a ton of progressive posts so they fit in ( Trump supporters have started copying this tactic as well . We had several republicans caught pretending to be black people )

Tags .They love posting dozens of tags to get maximum engagement while trying to pretend their posts are natural and just normal venting

They refuse to acknowledge facts , they constantly evade questions and try to redirect towards emotional responses . They don’t want you to think about how much worse things are going to be under Trump . They just don’t you to be pissed that democrats are not perfect candidates and discourage you from voting There is a huge chance they Russians trolls or undercover maga . Don’t fall for it . Don’t respond , don’t try to educate them or talk to them unless it’s to expose them for what they . They want engagement. Report them and block them

[tomorrowusa]

House Republicans may be relieved that they finally have a Speaker after 22 days of infighting. But the rest of the country should worry that there's a far right extremist second in line to the presidency. "MAGA Mike" Johnson is even more extreme than Trump on some issues.

Election denier, climate skeptic, anti-abortion: seven beliefs of new US House speaker Mike Johnson

He tried to overturn the 2020 election In the modern Republican party, supporting Donald Trump’s lie about voter fraud in his defeat by Joe Biden is hardly an outlandish position. But Johnson took it further. After the election, he voiced support for Trump’s conspiracy theory that voting machines were rigged. Later, he was one of 147 Republicans to object to results in key states, even after a pro-Trump mob attacked Congress on January 6, a riot now linked to nine deaths and hundreds of convictions. [ ... ] He was a spokesperson for a ‘hate group’ Before entering politics, Johnson worked for the Alliance Defending Freedom – designated a hate group by the Southern Law Poverty Center, which tracks US extremists. According to the SPLC, the ADF has “supported the recriminalisation of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ+ adults in the US and criminalisation abroad; defended state-sanctioned sterilisation of trans people abroad; contended that LGBTQ+ people are more likely to engage in paedophilia; and claimed that a ‘homosexual agenda’ will destroy Christianity and society”. [ ... ] He opposes LGBTQ+ rights In state politics and at the national level, Johnson has worked to claw back gains made by LGBTQ+ Americans in their fight for equality. In 2016, as he ran for Congress, he told the Louisiana Baptist Message he had “been out on the front lines of the ‘culture war’ defending religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and biblical values, including the defense of traditional marriage, and other ideals like these when they’ve been under assault”. He has since led efforts for a national “don’t say gay” bill, regarding the teaching of LGBTQ+ issues in schools, and is also opposed to gender-affirming care for children. On Wednesday, Rev Jasmine Beach-Ferrara, executive director of the Campaign for Southern Equality, said: “Johnson has made a career out of attacking the LGBTQ+ community at every turn." His positions are out of touch with the clear majority support for LGBTQ+ equality in our country. His new leadership role is just further proof of the dangerous priorities of the GOP and the critical stakes for our democracy – and for LGBTQ+ Americans – in 2024.” [ ... ] He is stringently anti-abortion Johnson has maintained a relatively low profile in Congress but when last year the supreme court removed the right to abortion, Johnson celebrated “a historic and joyful day”. Though Dobbs v Jackson returned abortion rights to the states, Johnson has co-sponsored bills for a nationwide ban. And as he neared his position of power, footage spread of striking remarks in a House hearing. “Roe v Wade did constitutional cover to the elective killing of unborn children in America, period,” Johnson said. [ ... ] He wants to cut social security and Medicare As those comments indicate, Johnson wants to cut programs on which millions rely. Such cuts are widely regarded as a political third-rail – Trump has used the issue to attack Republican presidential rivals, saying only he will defend such benefits – but Johnson is far from alone in wanting to swing the axe. He is an advocate for ‘covenant marriage’ When he married his wife, Kelly, in 1999, the couple agreed to a “covenant” marriage: a conservative Christian idea that makes it harder to divorce. The Johnsons promoted the idea on ABC’s Good Morning America. [ ... ] He is a climate skeptic In 2017, Johnson told voters in his oil-rich home state: “The climate is changing, but the question is, is it being caused by natural cycles over the span of the Earth’s history? Or is it changing because we drive SUVs? I don’t believe in the latter. I don’t think that’s the primary driver.”

You'd really have to try hard to find somebody worse than MAGA Mike. But we're not without the power of the vote; we need to use that power every chance we get.

November 7th is Election Day in many parts of the US. Most notably...

Ohio's statewide ballot measure to restore reproductive freedom by placing a woman's right to choose in the Ohio Constitution. A YES vote on Issue 1 takes abortion out of the hands of the gerrymandered GOP legislature.

Kentucky's Democratic governor is up for re-election.

The Virginia legislature is up for election. If Republicans gain control of both chambers they will try to ban abortion; reproductive tyranny is part of the GOP agenda whenever they hold a trifecta in a state. There's also a special election to fill a vacancy for a US House seat in VA-04.

The state legislature in New Jersey is up for election.

There are judicial elections in Pennsylvania including for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. There's also a special election to fill a vacancy in the Penn House of Representatives which is currently tied 101 Democrats – 101 Republicans.

All state offices in Mississippi including governor and legislature are up for election. Surprisingly, polls show the GOP incumbent governor ahead by just 1% with 10% undecided.

Like Mississippi, all state offices in Louisiana are up for election.

Rhode Island has a special election to fill a vacancy for a US House seat in RI-01.

^^^ Those are just the highlights. There are elections of some sort in most states on November 7th.

Republicans may grumble at times, but they always turn out for elections. They have a disproportionate amount of power in the US because they vote while many of their liberal neighbors stay home or become too ideologically persnickety.

Allegedly "moderate" GOP House members ultimately fell in line and unanimously backed a far right Speaker.

Elections at all levels count. Speaker "MAGA Mike" Johnson got his start in politics in the Louisiana legislature. He is now the highest ranking GOP elected official in the US.

There's no such thing as an unimportant election. Vote in the November 7th election and actively encourage like-minded friends, family, and neighbors to do so as well.

Be A Voter - Vote Save America

[totallyclevertitlehere]

Kamala will be the nominee

See the bigger picture--the current Dem reps were there on January 6. Many stated first hand they thought their lives were in danger. The Dems know if they don't win this election, they will be dead. Not metaphorically. This is a guy who loves autocrats and Putin. Who would have Presidential Immunity. Current Democrats in office know Trump will come after them, arrest them, possibly even execute them as part of his plan to go after his political enemies.

Dems also know it's been publicly messy, trying to get Biden to drop out. But they have polling data showing that he's rapidly losing the confidence of those bellwethers in swing states like my Ma - otherwise not that informed or engaged but still CONSISTENT moderate voters who don't like Trump, but see their elderly father with dementia in Biden and Are Concerned™. They don't event need to vote Trump - all it takes is those voters staying home to throw the election his way. So Dems know they needed to pivot from Biden, and they are ready to minimize the damage done.

Now, they know it's time to unify, because the stakes are too great. Literally, this decision is life or death for any current Democratic politician.

They don't want mess. They don't want brokered convention. They DO want to take advantage of a convention that maximizes ratings; they will make this look simple; that Kamala is really the only choice, as the current VP and they will coalesce around her.

She already has some key endorsements including politicians from swing states who are quite popular with their electorate and progressives in the squad. The convention will be the chance to vet the best new VP and contrast with the RNC by showing America an actual unifying message, with Harris at the top of the ticket.

Plus, the message writes itself: Kamala the Prosecutor vs. Donald the Felon.

[ngdrb]

Inside MAGA’s game plan if Harris wins

When around 14,000 Philadelphians packed Temple University's Liacouras Center for 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris' first campaign rally with her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the vice president made a point of describing herself as an "underdog" — a word she went on to use again in subsequent rallies. Harris' use of that word is quite strategic: For all the campaign's energy, she wants to make sure that her Democratic supporters don't become complacent.

Nonetheless, many of the polls released in early August have found Harris with small single-digit leads over GOP nominee Donald Trump.

Although Trump leads Harris by 2 percent in a CNBC poll released on August 8, Harris is ahead by 4 percent in a Morning Consult poll and 3 percent in polls from NPR/PBS/Marist and Survey USA. A Marquette University poll released on August 7 showed Harris with a 6 percent lead.

But in an article published by the conservative website The Bulwark on August 8, journalist A.B. Stoddard warns that if Harris wins in November, an "entire army of Republicans" is "ready to block certification of the election at the local level."

"Trump is no longer on track to win the election — which he has been for more than six straight months," Stoddard explains. "Instead, the momentum, money, voter registration, volunteering, grassroots organizing, polling, and online engagement all favor the Democrats, and it looks now like Trump could easily lose. But that won’t happen, because Trump doesn't lose.…. No need to worry about mayhem on January 6, 2025 when Congress meets in joint session; the election deniers plan to stop a result right away if it looks like Harris is winning."

Stoddard continues, "Their goal: Refuse to certify anywhere — even a county that Trump won — and prevent certification in that state, which prevents certification of the presidential election. A Harris victory could become a nightmare."

Stoddard notes that according to Rolling Stone, "pro-Trump election conspiracists" in key swing states like Arizona, Pennsylvania and Georgia are working as "county election officials" and plan to refuse to certify the election results if Harris wins.

Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias, publisher of Democracy Docket, told Rolling Stone, "I think we are going to see mass refusals to certify the election…. Everything we are seeing about this election is that the other side is more organized, more ruthless, and more prepared."

Stoddard warns that "there are more than enough such individuals in these key posts to bring us to a constitutional crisis."

"So Trump knows there are millions among us who believe him when he says Democrats can only win if they cheat and who believe dark forces are at work to thwart him again," Stoddard explains. "And Trump needs to be president again. He wants to get his criminal cases thrown out, and to stay out of jail. There is nothing he won't try."

[lingering-sunrise]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/21/kamala-harris-campaign-2024-biden/

So let’s assume that Harris would head the ticket. What then? She could make this a very different race in multiple ways.

First, the 59-year-old, fit, energetic Harris would shed the party’s burdens of Biden’s age and health. Nearly 20 years younger than Trump (who would be 82 at the end of a second term), she would finally move the country past the baby boomer generation and embody a fresh, younger generation of Americans. Without Biden attracting questions about his physical and mental fitness, perhaps the media might finally focus on Trump’s unhinged rants, compulsive lying and utter lack of policy knowledge. [...]

Second, instead of a referendum on Biden personally, Harris would shift the campaign to being about making a choice: between the Biden administration’s successful, economically productive, forward-looking, inclusive record, and the scary, paranoid and authoritarian vision set out in Trump speeches and the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which might guide a second Trump administration. [...]

Third, Harris is far more articulate and succinct than Biden, as she demonstrated in dissecting the Trump agenda during an appearance in North Carolina on Thursday. [...]

Fourth, Harris is uniquely capable, given her prosecutorial background and her role on the Senate Judiciary Committee, to run against a radical Supreme Court that is at the lowest level of approval in history. She has the verbal acuity, for example, to denounce the wide grant of criminal immunity to presidents, the evisceration of voting rights and the substitution of a judge’s discretion for experts’ judgments in the administrative state.

Fifth, to the extent that Biden saw erosion in his support among younger voters (including non-White voters), Harris offers the energy to engage and excite them, as seen on her college tours, where she has spoken to standing-room-only crowds on issues that affect their generation in particular (e.g., gun violence, climate change, abortion rights).

And finally, Harris can inherit the mantle of international leadership (having toured the world, met with leaders and represented the U.S. at international conferences) without Biden’s burden of personal criticism, deserved or not, on some hot-button issues, including the war in Gaza. [...]

She offers excitement, eloquence, effectiveness on key issues and, most of all, the power to turn attention back on Trump’s substantial character flaws, criminal record and disturbing plans for the future. That is more than Biden can do presently.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Meredith Lee Hill at Politico:

Vice President Kamala Harris is bringing on a new campaign hire as part of her team’s push to clinch must-win states this fall by keeping former President Donald Trump from running up the score in rural counties. Harris is tapping Matt Hildreth of the progressive Rural Organizing group as her rural engagement director, according to four people familiar with the plans who were granted anonymity to discuss the matter. Democrats have been hemorrhaging support in rural America for years, but making even a small dent in Trump’s steep rural margins could determine the outcome in battleground states that may be decided by razor-thin margins.

Hiring Hildreth, whose grassroots organization is already knocking doors for Harris and Democratic candidates across the country this fall, signals the campaign is looking to seriously expand a resource-intensive ground game to reach rural voters who could swing the election. The Harris-Walz team doesn’t expect the ticket to flip many rural counties. But some of Harris’ top advisers have argued that simply losing by slightly fewer percentage points in these areas could help carry her and down-ballot Democrats to victory. In recent memos, the campaign has argued “the key to decreasing margins in rural areas is to show up and compete everywhere — which is exactly what we’re doing across the country.”

A Harris campaign spokesperson confirmed the hire. The campaign is now looking to ramp up an aggressive ground game from Wisconsin and Arizona to Georgia and other battleground states, to peel away even a few percentage points from Trump’s rural margins. The move comes weeks after Democrats in battleground districts feared President Joe Biden’s debate fallout would cost them another wave of votes, including some of the party’s few remaining rural House seats. Harris’ deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks helped Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) cut down GOP rural margins in his 2022 Georgia Senate win, and he was a key part of organizing Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s recent bus tour in rural Georgia — a rare step for a national Democratic ticket as local Democrats argue the party has increasingly overlooked rural organizing at its peril.

Local organizers also note that the party has a solid opportunity to gain support in some rural communities, especially in pockets of Georgia, North Carolina and Arizona with younger voters and voters of color. The Biden-Harris administration and Democrats have poured billions in federal investments into rural communities, with Biden just this week touting new funding in a largely rural swing district in southwest Wisconsin. At the same time, Democrats in battleground districts have been worried that Harris may do worse than Biden in key rural counties against Trump, especially among older, white voters in the upper Midwest. Biden managed to make some small gains in rural counties, including with Obama-Trump pockets, in 2020 after Trump blew out Hillary Clinton in rural areas in 2016. Harris’ team is hoping that’s where Walz can boost the ticket.

The Harris/Walz campaign’s hiring of a rural voters director is a good idea, as Democrats need to learn how to reach rural voters and cut the margins.

[stackthedeck]

Hey, we've been mutuals for a while, and I think of you in a good light. I'm disappointed to see you post infographics that are clearly designed to persuade left leaning youth to not vote in the upcoming election. If you actually think Trump and Biden are equivalent, you've been badly mislead. Anything that convinces people their vote doesn't matter is dangerous and unethical to post.

Literally just google a list of things they did during their presidencies. Here's a list for each, from the same website: trump, biden. It's different. This doesn't even include the price cap on insulin Biden just mandated, since his list was made before that. He also reversed a policy, that trump put in place, permitting medical professionals to discriminate based on religious values (aka turn away gay and trans patients.)

If not that, look at who Trump appointed to the supreme court, and then look what happened to Roe v. Wade. The justices a conservative appoint are going to vote differently than the ones a liberal will appoint.

Like, I'm sorry if this is coming off as rude, but please think a little more critically and actually look at what they each have done and will continue to do. You are discouraging people from voting and you are responsible for the impact this has. You're spreading misinformation.

Frankly this does come off as rude. That post did not say don’t vote for Biden and it made incredibly valid criticism of Biden. Has the Biden administration put in place good policy? Yes of course. Are citizens right to also criticize that the administration hasn’t and isn’t doing enough? Also yes.

Listen I’m a political science student this doesn’t make me and expert by any means but I have done work in government so idk. I’m registered to vote in a red state I’ve voted third party for president in every election and I vote for candidates I agree with and know are effective in local and congressional elections. I’m not saying don’t vote. Even people saying don’t vote Biden aren’t saying don’t vote at all but encouraging voting at all the other levels

I don’t want trump to win but public pressure from key groups of voters such as Arab Americans of all ages (because framing this as a lazy ungrateful younger generational issue is incredibly ignorant) and yeah younger voters could encourage the Biden administration to actually change its policies especially about the ongoing genocide in Palestine. Biden does not get my vote or anyone’s vote because he’s not trump, that’s not democracy it is a hostage situation. Biden must be responsive to the people not just on election day and on the campaign trail but every day. I donated money to his campaign and grassroots organizations that empowered people to vote in 2020. I will not do so again until the Biden administration ceases all aid and weapons to Israel.

I don’t live in a swing state Biden doesn’t care about me. I’ve been harassed in the schools I’m employed at by teachers and parents alike because I’m visibly queer and because I live in a red state I have no legal recourse. Why doesn’t the Biden administration do anything to stop the hundreds of anti trans and anti queer bills in the states? Why don’t I have federal anti discrimination laws protecting me? My trans health care was denied under a blue president what difference does it make.

Vote blue no matter who is just as damaging to democratic values and thinking as make America great again. Either way the parties are complacent because they just have to be not the other guy instead of being responsive to the will of the people. We have to demand better.

Hopefully by 2024 I will be registered to vote in a swing state and Biden will have made the changes to earn my vote. But I know that I will be voting for state and local candidates and it will be coordinated with other truly civically engaged voters who want to see real change in their communities

[stitchlingbelle]

So I recently saw this post and decided to be completely self-indulgent and write about the two specific characters who turned me into the person I am: Belle and Honor Harrington.

Belle* is a fairly easy one to explain. I'm a brunette who grew up on Disney movies and was just old enough to be hit with a lot of "you can't be the princess, you have brown hair". I'm also a voracious reader. And then, I switched schools and became The Weird New Girl overnight.

So when a brown-haired book-reading princess who everyone thought was weird appeared on the screen, I imprinted on her like a baby duckling. Here was all the validation I craved, that I could look like me and be me and read books and still have a happy ending. I clung to that all the way through middle school, high school and into college before I finally made it out the other side (ie, found my people and some self-esteem of my own.)

Honor Harrington is a bit more complicated. I have a deep and abiding love for that book series, and have for going on fifteen years now, but Honor herself is actually not my favorite character.** I didn't see myself in her, or aspire to be her.

What I eventually realized was that I wanted to live UP to her. Every time there was a passage about Rafe or Scotty or some other junior officer doing their best for her, I wondered if that would be me. If I would be good enough, try hard enough, be clever and brave and compassionate enough, to be one of 'hers'.

There's a scene where she has a bunch of cadets over for dinner and one asks a question that reveals they've had a look at some files that are officially off-limits, but unofficially are juuuust barely accessible if you're very, very dedicated. And it's said that caring enough to find them is a mark of being 'the right stuff' in senior officers' minds. I found myself caught up in wondering, would I have found them?

And that was all fantasy to me for the first bit of the series, which is heavy on the military action, a career I have never been cut out for. In-this-alternate-universe-would-I-be-a-Jedi levels of engagement. But it nagged at me.

And then the rest of the series happens, which is increasingly political and increasingly fraught and increasingly personal, as Honor actually becomes one of the people doing the politics. And while Weber leans a lot more monarchist than democratic in the books, the necessity of participating in your politics-- and thus your government and your society-- is one of Honor's major areas of growth and a key ideal set out by her and the people around her.

And I thought, I can't be a war hero. But I can do that.

I'd always been a voter, but I became a write-to-your-senator person, and then a donate-money person, and then a protest-march person, and then a volunteer-who-specializes-in-legislation person. Slowly I became more and more the sort of person I think Honor would be proud of.

So thank you to both my girls, and the people who made them, for making me.

*The Beast, being a miserable outcast, also spoke to me pretty strongly in middle school, but it took a lot more maturity to see that later on.

**That would be Thomas Theisman. Definitely also a character to live up to, but his impact on his junior officers gets a lot less page-time. And most of his storyline revolves more around direct action than civic engagement. (God, I'd love to see a committed lefty tackle that theme in restored-Republic Haven...)