#democrats&8217;

[bronva]

DCCC chair choice puts House Democrats' new leader in the hot seat

DCCC chair choice puts House Democrats’ new leader in the hot seat

Incoming House Democratic leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., has a tough decision to make.  As he prepares to take on the role of House minority leader when Republicans take control of the House of Representatives in January, he’s been tasked with picking the person who’ll be responsible for leading the party’s campaign arm, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), into the 2024…

[petnews2day]

Endangered Blue Dog Democrats mainly hang on, bucking midterm expectations

New Post has been published on https://petnews2day.com/pet-news/dog-news/endangered-blue-dog-democrats-mainly-hang-on-bucking-midterm-expectations/?utm_source=TR&utm_medium=Tumblr+%230&utm_campaign=social

Endangered Blue Dog Democrats mainly hang on, bucking midterm expectations

M coal of heaven Dog Democrats, a centrist wing of the celebration, fared much better in the midterm elections than anticipated, with a bulk in the most competitive districts winning reelection or surpassing their Republican challengers in the races that have yet to be called. The fiscally conservative, pro-national security caucus within the Democratic Celebration […]

See full article at https://petnews2day.com/pet-news/dog-news/endangered-blue-dog-democrats-mainly-hang-on-bucking-midterm-expectations/?utm_source=TR&utm_medium=Tumblr+%230&utm_campaign=social #DogNews

[bighermie]

Dailywire Article

That was the plan all along

[abigailspinach]

Thunderdomism’s Last Stand

But the idea that the ‘establishment’ anointed Kamala Harris and locked the nomination down for her turns the whole matter pretty much on its head. What locked in Harris was the overwhelming resistance of Democratic voters and activists to anyone else. It was national columnists and a significant number of Democratic elites who were pushing for the thunderdome primary.

A good bit of this was support for Harris herself. A lot of it was the fact that with the incumbent president and presumed nominee out and no time to run anything other than a fake primary Harris had democratic legitimacy on her side. Eighty million voters literally chose her in 2020 to be the person who took over for Joe Biden if he couldn’t serve. Democratic primary voters in effect reconfirmed that this Spring since Biden and Harris were again running as a package deal. Few things are more embedded in American political culture than the idea that vice presidents succeed presidents.

Democratic legitimacy in this context isn’t some political science concept. It is what makes her the one person who most or all party stakeholders could rally behind even if she wasn’t necessarily their personal choice. That was never going to be possible with any other potential nominee. If the pick was somehow Gretchen Whitmer, on what basis would Shapiro or Newsom supporters – or Harris supporters, for that matter – ever think that was fair? Most people who actually operate in politics realized this from the first moments people began to suggest Joe Biden should leave the race almost a month ago. It applied even more to the millions of Biden loyalists who had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept Biden’s withdrawal from the race. For most of them Harris was the only acceptable alternative since she was his loyal deputy.

Finally, the Democratic Party is defined by the support of women and African-Americans, and especially African-American women. The idea that in an unprecedented electoral emergency situation they were going to skip over the President’s loyal black woman vice president for no clear or tangible reason but the opposition of elite columnists and consultants never made any sense if you’re familiar with the Democrats’ voting coalition. It would be the equivalent of deciding to toss a few sticks of dynamite into the Democratic coalition at a moment of unprecedented crisis.

The thunderdome primary and convention idea was always the fantasy of the DC chattering class. From its very beginnings early this year it was premised on the need to shunt Harris aside. One New York Times columnist referred to it, in a gentle but awkward tone assuming immediate recognition, as “the Kamala Harris problem.” What shut it down was the rush of support for Harris from people across the Democratic Party, high and low, who understand its inner workings and the points made above. You only imagine those are the actions of “the establishment” if what you understand as the Democratic Party is only what you see in Washington, DC. The Thunderdome primary crowd was always either oblivious to or at war with the actual mass of the party itself. They were simply invisible. If you can’t see those people, you’ll think the DC power players are acting on their own. But they weren’t. But they were very clearly reacting to what the mass of the party would allow.

There is one exception that proves the rule: one endorsement that was key to Harris’ rapid ascent to the nomination, that of Joe Biden. From one perspective who is more the establishment, who more wields its powers than an incumbent Democratic president? But that’s the point. What finally made Biden’s departure from the race inevitable is that he had been abandoned by almost every elected official and power broker in the Democratic world, either explicitly or by silence. Biden had been abandoned by every part of what passes for the Democratic establishment and had lost his ability to control it. It was his tweet endorsing Harris that did not cause but triggered the rush toward Harris, resulting in something like a million individuals contributing roughly $100 million in 36 hours.

Harris’ key role in this has hidden in plain sight. A crisis at the pinnacle of leadership is always a most dangerous moment for any heir apparent. She had to prepare herself for the task of taking over for Biden in all its details (not to do so would have been the height of irresponsibility) while simultaneously not allowing even the hint or glimmer that she was taking even the slightest steps to hasten or encourage openness to his fall. For all the stories about Harris’ office drama she appears to have managed this flawlessly, with not so much as a single leak or even speculation about her actions. Once Biden made his announcement she moved rapidly to channel and direct support for herself in a way that all potential challengers threw their support to her within 24 hours. The “establishment” didn’t shut down the Thunderdome contested convention that columnists and reporters were demanding. The convention remains wholly open. Once Biden ended his campaign all the delegates had a total free choice. What killed Thunderdome was the mass of the party making it impossible for anyone to challenge Harris.

[darkmaga-retard]

“​Being an enemy of the US can be dangerous, but being a friend is fatal”

(Henry Kissinger)

The Kindu Massacre, or Kindu Atrocity, took place on 11 or 12 November 1961 in Kindu Port-Émpain, in the Congo-Léopoldville (the former Belgian Congo).

Thirteen Italian airmen who were members of the United Nations Operation in the Congo who were sent to deal with the Congo Crisis were killed and eaten by locals.

The Italian aviators manned two C-119s, twin-engine transport aircraft known as Flying Boxcars, of the 46ª Aerobrigade based at Pisa Airfield.

The DR Congo was known to have vast natural resources including, but not limited to, copper, tantalum, cobalt, gold, and diamonds.

In order to gain control of these resources, Belgium (backed by other European powers) colonized the DRC in the mid-1800s and oversaw a brutal regime of abuse, slavery, and resource extraction.

After protests, democratic movements, increasing cost, and international pressure made their continued position untenable, Belgium agreed to a transition to Congolese self-governance.

Belgium left Congo-Léopoldville (today known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo) as agreed but political and administrative chaos ensued.

Major Cold War and financial interests played a part in making the situation even more serious by favoring the secession of two regions, South Kasai and Katanga.

Katanga was the richest province in the country with important mining activity.

[trukker94gurl]

Could Hillary Clinton Be Democrats’ New Choice for 2024? | Live With Josh

Could Hillary Clinton Be Democrats’ New Choice for 2024? | Live With Josh https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/epochtv/could-hillary-clinton-be-democrats-new-choice-for-2024-post-5535871?utm_source=andshare

This is SCARY

[mitchipedia]

House Republicans are taking the US economy hostage by threatening to default on the US debt—again—and they won’t say what their demands are or even who the Democrats should negotiate with.

The White House argues — quite reasonably — that the time to argue over what the government spends is when you pass a bill about what the government spends (i.e., a budget), not when the government has to raise money to pay for spending the Congress has already mandated by law. Republicans haven’t even come up with a budget yet. So they’re demanding negotiations over the debt ceiling, which is wrong in itself. But they’re not willing to say what their demands are....

[Meanwhile], the House Freedom Caucus is telling everyone who will listen that Kevin McCarthy is a chump who doesn’t control anything. If you want to resolve the crisis you need to talk to the people in charge … which is them, the House Freedom Cacuus.

[mightyflamethrower]

10 Biden Allies Who Promised Us He Was Fine Weeks Ago

[minhhhh123]

Week 5: Digital Citizenship, Hashtag Publics, Political Engagement and Activism

Different views of digital citizenship

With the development of technology, the Internet has become a necessary part of every individual's daily routine. Additionally, social media has emerged as the most widely used platform for entertainment and communication. In today's interconnected world, where virtually every aspect of our lives is influenced by digital technology, the concept of digital citizenship has become increasingly relevant. Digital citizenship expands the concepts of traditional citizenship to the online sphere, while traditional citizenship concentrates on rights and obligations inside a physical nation-state (MediaSmarts, 2023).

Hashtags

A hashtag is a term or phrase that appears before the hash symbol (#) and is used in a post on social media to help people who are interested in a particular topic find it when looking for a tag or hashtag that starts with #. Its goal is to increase interaction and draw attention to the post (O’Brien, 2023). It is obvious that hashtags facilitate communication, give context, allow users to join in on conversations, and request information. Hashtags have significantly aided in connecting with not just politics, but also other events or topics. Hashtags can connect many people around the world about an event or issue that is being discussed a lot on social networks such as Twitter and Tumblr.

Political Impact

The Internet has brought about profound changes in how citizens engage with politics, transforming the practices of stimulation and organization. Political engagement has transcended among traditional methods, with the advent of digital technologies allowing individuals to participate in active citizenship and involvement in politics (Weare, 2006). People are aware of the importance of communication platforms in advancing social justice, bringing important topics to people's attention, and inspiring collective action. They gain knowledge on how to use their virtual voices to support constructive change, take part in significant projects, and contribute to a more democratic society.

References

O&#8217;Brien, C 2023, ‘How to use hashtags effectively on social media’, Digital Marketing Institute, Digital Marketing Institute, viewed 24 March, 2024, <https://digitalmarketinginstitute.com/blog/how-to-use-hashtags-in-social-media#:~:text=A%20hashtag%20is%20a%20word,your%20posts%20and%20encourage%20interaction.>.

Smarts, M 2023, ‘What is Digital Citizenship?’, MediaSmarts, viewed 24 March, 2024, <https://mediasmarts.ca/digital-media-literacy/general-information/digital-media-literacy-fundamentals/what-digital-citizenship>.

Weare, C 2006, ‘(PDF) the internet and democracy: The causal links between technology ...’, THE INTERNET AND DEMOCRACY: THE CAUSAL LINKS BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND POLITICS, viewed 22 March, 2024, <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240242229_The_Internet_and_Democracy_The_Causal_Links_between_Technology_and_Politics>.

[fadingsunsjvj]

Huckabee Sanders to deliver Republican response to Biden&#8217;s State of the Union https://t.co/sY6jbEu03N a suggestion: Arkansas Democrats should push for more employee ownership of businesses and workplaces.— James Vernon Jennings the Video and Playlist Host (@fadingsunsjvj_v) February 2, 2023

[bighermie]

Dailywire Article

[abigailspinach]

I’m reading through a Puck newsletter, sent out under the heading “The Vibes Election.” Some of this is similar to what I discussed in yesterday’s Backchannel — Happy v. Mad, etc. But most of it zeroes in on the idea that Harris’ campaign is all vibes and no substance, a sugar high, something that can’t last. Will it be enough to carry her to Election Day? Here’s one snippet.

Put another way: Vibes, baby! Harris has not outlined any specific economic agenda, speaking only in generic terms about corporate greed, standing with labor unions, protecting Social Security and Obamacare, and fighting for the middle class. She is framing the election simply as “the choice about what direction this country will go in”—conveying an agreeable set of center-left values against Trump rather than a 10-point plan for this or a white paper for that.

In his defense, the author, Peter Hamby, follows this paragraph by saying that elections are about symbols and images and many voters are okay with that. But I think we can say more about this. Because this conversation is of a piece with the complaints about Harris not yet giving any major press interviews, not having released a sufficient number of policy white papers, not yet having a fully fleshed out policy section on her website.

To start, we should note that major national campaigns take months, even years, to put out fleshed-out policy programs. Those are hugely complex projects with myriad policy, coalitional and campaign dependencies. You’re not going to do that from a cold start in three weeks. But there’s a different point here. For years on this site I’ve discussed the Democrats’ problem with what I’ve called “policy literalism,” the idea that campaigns are won or lost on the basis of fleshed-out policies ready to be implemented on day one as opposed to directional signals about values and goals. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with having those fleshed-out policies. That’s one of the good things about Democrats. There’s a big cultural priority on policy work in Democratic politics. Those are important when it comes time to govern, and you can routinely see that in how each party governs. In Republican politics, policy is often backfill to service campaign slogans. And it shows. Having the people who do the serious policy work is great and important as long as you don’t confuse yourself into thinking it’s part of campaigning. It’s not. Campaigning is about directional signals about values and goals. Way too often Democrats and Democratic campaigns get confused about this. “We have all these great policy proposals. And when we explain them to people, they say they support them. So how did we lose the election?”

That’s not what campaigns are about. Repeat it to yourself three times. That’s not what campaigns are about.

Even that line above in the Hamby quote sets out something very clear: she is speaking about protecting Social Security and Obamacare, supporting labor unions. Hamby was talking about economic policy, but the Harris campaign is also saying just as clearly: protect abortion rights everywhere, continue Biden’s climate policies. She also keeps saying on the campaign trail that she’ll sign the border bill that Donald Trump killed earlier this year. Not everyone in the Democratic coalition is crazy about that. But that’s very specific, both directionally and in policy terms. And let’s be frank: she’s the incumbent Vice President. Unless there are specific statements to the contrary, we should and the public unquestionably does assume her policies will be generally the same as Biden’s.

Harris’ central campaign slogan and message is “freedom,” which she is using as a catch-all to bring together fighting right-wing efforts to restrict personal privacy and autonomy (abortion), the MAGA threat to democratic government itself and support for bread-and-butter economic policies (unions, Obamacare, tax support for families with kids, etc.) which allow working people to live dignified and secure lives. This is a rhetoric that is progressive and rooted in ideas venerated in American political culture. Many have recommended something like this. Pete Buttigieg, interestingly, was one of the first I saw employing this rhetoric way back when he was still a little-known midwestern mayor. Now Harris is doing it. It’s working.

We could make a separate point that it’s risible to be demanding policy particulars from Harris when Trump changes his policies from one day to the next. Even calling them “policies,” as opposed to impulsive grunts, is charitable.

At present, Trump’s main’s policy action is disclaiming Project 2025, which until a few months ago was widely believed to be his de facto governing document, as embraced as such by the campaign itself. But we don’t need to grade Harris on a Trumpy curve. Presidential campaigns are about defining choices about the direction of country.

Having people getting excited about your campaign and your vision about the future of the country is a good thing, not some frivolous sugar high. I’m sure Harris will do some sit-down interviews. But we should remember that the purpose of a campaign is to win an election. It’s not an exercise in civics education. Campaigns do interviews when they want to get a message out or in response to popular demand. Journalist push for interviews. That’s their job. Campaigns respond when they deem it in their interests.

From Republican partisans these cries are expected. You hammer on what you think might be potential vulnerabilities. It’s the business of reporters to be pushing for more access and interviews. But more generally there’s a kind of impatience with a fairly dramatic shift in the trajectory of the election. It must not be real. It must be emotion and not reason. It must be cheap. We’re almost two and half months before Election Day. Given how much has happened in the previous six weeks, a universe of things can happen in ten. But there’s nothing cheap or vibesy or anything less than robust about the campaign Harris is now running. She’s putting out a vision and creating a choice and the public is responding to it. It’s working. Why on earth would she shift gears or respond to anyone trying to break her stride?

[darkmaga-retard]

Trump’s second assassination attempt on September 15 shows just how charged the political atmosphere in the United States is. It came just a bit over two months after he was nearly killed on July 13, when the US Secret Service (SS) virtually failed at its primary task. However, instead of making up for these “mistakes”, the SS couldn’t guarantee Trump’s safety (or perhaps it didn’t want to). Their “solution” was to limit his rallies to indoor venues. It should be noted that this would’ve certainly been a major setback for the Trump campaign, as enormous outdoor rallies are one of his most powerful election assets. Worse yet, even this wouldn’t have guaranteed Trump’s safety, as the SS has proven to be spectacularly incompetent, or worse, somehow involved in the assassination attempt. Namely, the sheer number of safety snags during the nearly fateful Trump rally in Butler indicated that these weren’t exactly snags, but a series of preplanned events. Although it may seem like a “crazy conspiracy theory” now, there’s very serious and disturbing speculation that precisely this happened.

The testimony of the then-SS Director Kimberley Cheatle led to her resignation, but this hardly changed the calculus, as the corrupt federal institutions have proven their unrelenting hostility toward Trump. The mainstream propaganda machine is still in lockstep with them, presenting the assassination attempt as a “minor incident”, while numerous Democrats were openly lamenting that the bullet didn’t kill Trump. Similar reactions were also heard during the second attempt on Trump’s life. However, instead of dealing with this, the new (acting) SS Director Ronald Rowe Jr. was busy making up excuses. Namely, during a West Palm Beach press briefing on September 16, Rowe described “the challenges of protecting Trump and lessons learned going forward”. Interestingly, this is a common US trope when it fails at something. Numerous security experts pointed out the SS’s glaring failures that allowed two assassination attempts in just two months. However, Rowe kept defending the disgraced agency, insisting it had put in place the “highest levels of protection”.

His comments indicate that the SS is possibly expecting more attacks on Trump. Rowe spoke about the need for a “paradigm shift” and even touched upon geopolitical affairs, mentioning that the US could find itself in a direct “kinetic conflict or some other issue”. The obvious question arises, why would the (acting) Director of SS talk about something that’s completely outside the scope of his powers and profession?

[trukker94gurl]

House Democrat Calling for Biden to Freeze Iran&#8217;s $6 Billion Has History of Backing Gaza Aid

House Democrat Calling for Biden to Freeze Iran’s $6 Billion Has History of Backing Gaza Aid https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/us/house-democrat-calling-for-biden-to-freeze-irans-6-billion-has-history-of-backing-gaza-aid-5509743?utm_source=andshare