#guess who wins? and guess which party consistently shows up to EVERY ELECTION?

[halfricanloveyou]

it’s okay to be angry and hate this shit and you’re right about this but you NEED to vote. local and state laws are always included in the elections. and biden is bad but when you don’t vote people like trump get elected into office and do things like turn the supreme court into a republican majority and take away abortion rights and actively support multiple state level and national level candidates who’s platforms are based on hate, which influences hateful people to vote FOR those candidates.

voting CAN fix this but you all have to register and vote. and show up to every single election every time. you have to research your local and state candidates on TOP of the ones running for president. you have to vote in the primaries.

it’s not like you can go and get mad and storm government buildings to guillotine public officials. if you try you’ll be up against the US military. the only reason the last attack on the capitol was successful is because if they succeeded in killing democratic officials it would benefit the party that holds the most power. and right wing candidates love to spend trillions on the military (and let’s be real, even the democrats do but the republicans do it to a higher degree) so guess who the military is going to protect? guess who the military is going to target as the enemy? do you really think any number of everyday citizens you can try to rally would stand a chance?

biden won’t fix this. your rage and your feelings of helplessness won’t fix it either. voting WILL. you just fall for the propaganda being spread that it’s pointless to vote because persuading far left anti fascists to feel that way keeps them out of the polling lines.

“nothing you do will change the system so why bother voting? it will always be this way, so any candidate that has a platform you support will never win and won’t be able to make change anyways” is also facist propaganda. it’s just targeted towards the opposition instead.

NPR is a great resource to keep informed on political issues. despite what right wing racists claim, it’s fairly unbiased and goes into detail to get the full story without leaving parts out intentionally to turn their stories into propaganda. and please just fucking vote. don’t listen to anyone who tells you it’s pointless and won’t fix anything so you might as well not bother. they’re fucking stupid and they are literally spreading facist propaganda. revolution is great but educating yourself and the people around you is far far more effective than getting angry at people online.

right now it’s almost halfway through 2023, and 2024 is an election year in the US. I have started to see a growing proliferation of posts suggesting that there is no difference between the republican and democratic parties–the exact same kind of posts I saw an awful lot of before the last major election here. I am unfollowing folks who post or reblog these sort of posts, as I consider these posts to be fascist propaganda framed as leftist discourse, designed to suppress anti-fascist votes and voters. 

[bustedbernie]

what do you have to say to a leftist who has most of the same criticisms of the Democratic Party as other leftists, but who has also voted for them in every election in which she's been eligible? "well you didn't vote dumbass" like, literally can't be the sum of your defense for every Democratic political failure, can it?

To be patient, that patience brings fruit. Large-scale change happens over timescales that exceed a presidency or two and if you’re not invested in the long-haul, you’re going to be disappointed. To hold officials accountable, write letters, show up to council meetings and other easily-accessible things, even go to congressional offices. And be aware that what we say and do can affect others and their perceptions. That a lot of what Bernie Bros said in the primaries were directly copy/pasted by republicans to attack us (and it worked in a lot of places) hah. That getting voter participation way up is one of our largest goals regardless of where you sit on the left and being hyper-critical of democrats, calling them failures or corrupt, just doesn’t help that cause. And on that point, democrats have universally excelled at expanding voter access in every place they’ve been empowered to do so. But then, I also don’t think democratic failures as presented by leftists are often democratic failures at all. 

The ACA is pointed to sometimes as a democratic failure by this type, but I just don’t see it as a failure. It was a massive step forward. I think too, on this issue, people see the UK with its NHS, Canada with its various provincial single-payer plans, or France with its Sécurité-Sociale and they want something like that here. But, all of those systems were constructed over time and continue to evolve. And we’re not starting in the aftermath of the war. I think our efforts also need to be framed in the context of our politics. And that’s just not a pill that’s easy for this type to swallow. I mean, how can democrats have failed truly in the last 10 years when Mitch McConnell hasn’t even allowed votes on the most basic of democratic proposals? Are democrats really failing or have we been deprived of the power to make effective change? Despite that, we made some decent progress just with Obama at the helm. When they criticize us for being happy that Trump is gone, are you (or your friend) forgetting that Obama DID somehow get some good things through? It was less stressful? That there was that hope that we could keep making those changes as time passed? 

I think it’s also facetious when they spend so much time talking about democratic failures. Regardless of whether or not this particular friend votes, there are many others like them that don’t. Doesn’t this friend bear some of the onus for these “failures” for not getting others like them to vote Democratic? Democrats have routinely been punished for progressive legislation proposals since the 90s. Part of why the ACA was such a massive win was due to the leftover bruises from when Clinton tried to pass his healthcare proposals. What is this friend doing to change the environment to make these proposals less scary? How do you get people that are open-minded to making changes but who currently are comfortable with the system on board? Because Bernie’s “ban private insurance” chased a lot of folks that would perhaps be in favor of wide healthcare reform away. Or “Castro was chill, he taught people to read...” This is a pretty consistent thing leftists do. If we aren’t meeting people where they are and where they are now, how can we win? 

I guess I’d tell your friend that democrats already do reflect on their failures and it’s an attribute that is built into the party apparatus. I’d ask them why they fail to reflect on their own failures, the failures of the progressive caucus in the most general sense, and the failure of the left itself to take accountability? At what point is this “democratic failure” just a projection to escape accountability? Because I’ve noticed that when AOC says most people in swing districts that supported M4A got reelected, she blocks people on twitter for pointing out that many of those “swing-districts” she cites are D+20 districts. Xochitl Torres-Small was hurt by AOC and Bernie Sanders in a R+2/5 district. How do leftists think anything we want (yes, we, because even most “moderate” dems want many of the same things as the leftists despite their claims), without those marginal districts? And how do we win the Senate at all if we can’t field candidates that can win state-wide? 

I think me and lot of the folks that follow this blog do call themselves leftists, or would call themselves leftists, but don’t want to associate with very vocal people like your friend because though we may be pleased that they are voting well, we are frustrated that this friend is hurting us in other ways. We are frustrated that they call our policy accomplishments half-measures or failures. We are frustrated by how many of our leftist allies are willing to sacrifice the need for social justice for perceived economic gains. There are so many domains and areas where we could really increase our margins that are stymied because we get written off as extreme. Progressives that have won council seats now talk about how getting progressive legislation is almost impossible with progressive language (and i use progressive to reference Bernie Sanders-type followers). Yet, they note that you can start making progress with other language. Parking minimums can be voted away by talking about more liberty for development, options for renters and owners, a healthier market, etc. “Incentive programs” are easier to pass than a new tax. Maybe leftists see these things as failures and an abortion of progressive values. But I think we see it as getting things done in a way that CAN be done, and be done now. 

I would ask your friend to look to examples where incrementalism has helped cement democratic power and led to real, physical changes. In this country, the slow embracing of public transit by a larger number of people is a good example. Those first light rail lines in Denver, Houston and Phoenix were heated. Pulling teeth. Sometimes even violent rhetoric was used. For a silly little train. But once you get that first little segment of light rail, over a decade or so, people adjust and it’s not so bad. Then they might even want it to serve THEIR neighborhood. Maybe so they could get to an airport without driving, or see a ball game without parking, or get drinks with friends and enjoy the conversation rather than pay attention to the road. They might even want to use it to get to and from work everyday. Or to run errands. And that’s exactly what has happened in each of those cities. Phoenix in particular defeated a Koch-backed ballot measure and voted to fund multi-mile extensions to its system and begin planning even more. Hopefully, in two more decades, those will bear lots of fruit, leading to more sustainable, humane cities, that are more accessible, cleaner, and dense. We also saw Maricopa County vote blue. Small things, over time, add up. Change happens. Attitudes move.  We can do that with healthcare. If we can get a public option added to the ACA, it will just naturally expose how wasteful insurance actually is. People will be more likely to buy into it. And it will help build trust with people who “don’t want the government involved with my doctor.” And given how we’ve seen the politics shift just since the ACA was passed, something akin to M4A would likely be right around the corner. 

So yeah, hold democrats accountable. But the thing is, we already mostly do that. I’d tell them to remember who the real enemy is, and if they are criticizing Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden or Kamala Harris or whomever more than they criticize Mitch McConnell and his fascist army, then i have to doubt how progressive your friend is in the first place, regardless of their voting habit. 

[fantastic-nonsense]

@geisterwand I’m bringing you up from the replies into a whole post because you need to sit down and listen

You are a disingenuous asshole. Bernie never chose the precise location in Texas for the waste disposal, and if you store it somewhere wet it contaminates the groundwater table. You're just posting disinformation. Next, the "wow how DARE he run against a wamen!!1" whinging is stupid as fuck

Bitching and concern trolling because Rogan, who committed the horrible crime of having 5 year old bad tweets endorsed Sanders, but being completely silent with the NYT endorsement of Warren despite the NYT's role in starting the Iraq War which killed hundreds of thousands of people, displaced many more and pushed the region into further chaos. But hey I guess to you, bad tweets are just SO much worse than dead citizens in the ME

you're also, of course, intentionally and dishonestly misquoting him about Castro but I think it's pretty clear at this point that even a fleck of honesty is too much to expect from you

and ALSO if it's apparently misogynistic to dare to run against warren, then it's also anti-semitic for warren to run against sanders. go figure out which of those ranks higher on the idpol totem pole and get back to me

You are a nearly 30-year-old man with an anime blog ranting at me in the notes of my own post because you can’t conceive of holding a man accountable for his own electoral failures. You are a grown-ass adult man talking like this in the year 2020. You have ZERO basis to stand on here.

I am not, in fact, a “disingenuous asshole.” You are the one that came onto MY post (SEVERAL of my posts actually. Like...bro. Get a fucking life) to genuinely tell me that, because I said that y’all have been rude-ass motherfuckers to everyone for five years and trashed anyone that remotely disagreed with you and I was no longer going to hold your hand about your shitty behavior, said that “performative woke class reductionism is not "progressive"” AS IF that hasn’t been Bernie Sanders’ playbook his entire goddamn life. You’re an utter joke.

But to actually answer your rant:

Bernie put his name on that legislation and advocated for it. He supported dumping Vermont’s nuclear waste in Sierra Blanca, a poor Latino community in Texas. He said on the fucking House floor he was in “strong support” of the measure. And he refused to talk to environmental activists about it in 1998, because “My position is unchanged, and you’re not gonna like it.” When they asked if they would visit the site in Sierra Blanca, he said AND I QUOTE: “Absolutely not. I’m gonna be running for re-election in the state of Vermont.” It’s not disinformation. It’s pure hard fact. 

He did the same kind of nonsense with black people from the 60s until 2015...so well that the only thing his supporters can dredge up for how much he’s “supported” the black community can be distilled down to “well he was arrested that one time at a de-segregation protest in the 60s!” Vermont has one of the absolute lowest percentages of black people in the entire country and they make up nearly 10% of the criminal justice system. He did nothing. I can name more.  Sorry your fave isn’t pure and doesn’t actually give a shit about non-white people until he needs their votes. 

“How dare he run against women” that’s not what I meant and you know it. If he was so desperate for Warren to run in 2016? If he was SO SURE a woman could win the presidency? Why the FUCK did he declare his candidacy two weeks after she declared? For someone that supposedly begged her to run in 2016, he and his campaign did every damn thing he possibly could to undercut her run this go around, from declaring another run 2 weeks after she declared to the smears and “lying snake” shit to the "fauxgressive" nonsense. You know how he could have PROVED he thinks a woman can win the presidency? By throwing his full support and fundraising apparatus behind her after she declared her intent to run. Instead he, a 78-year-old white guy who just had a whole-ass heart attack 6 months ago, decided he needed to make another failed presidential run to appease his ego. I have no sympathy. 

Acting like Joe Rogan, a racist, misogynistic, and transphobic fool that peddles in conspiracy theories, is in any way equivalent to one of the largest and generally most-respected newspapers in the United States (and one whose staff has changed several times over in the past twenty years) is utterly ridiculous and you know it. 

Also, Bernie Sanders courting Joe Rogan fans before a single vote had been cast in the Democratic primary is a PRIME example of why he lost so terribly on Tuesday. He showed his true colors too early. He showed where he’d go hunting for votes in the general election. He looked at black voters and said “I care more about the votes of racist Trump voters than I do you.” He looked at women and said “I care more about the people who listen to Joe Rogan’s sexist drivel more than I care about you.” He looked at the LGBT community and said “I care more about the people who agree with his comments over you.” And they saw that...and they voted accordingly. That’s on y’all...and it’s a prime example of Bernie Sanders’ terrible political judgment and uh........what was that? “Woke class reductionism?” That’s a good term; thanks for using it. It’s apt for what he thought he was doing with that nonsense.

And no, I’m not. This is a consistent thing with Bernie; he’s all like ‘oh I oppose authoritarianism and of course they did shitty things!’ but then he keeps praising authoritarian regimes that murdered millions of people because they were socialist/communist and “damn we need that economic system here!!!!” There is a time and place for nuanced discussion about what a regime did well or badly. Making those kinds of comments when you’re trying to win the votes of people whose families were literally murdered by those regimes and fled to the United States to escape them? Not the time or place. Again: terrible political judgement, class and economics over intersectional solidarity and empathy for their multi-generational trauma.

It’s not misogynistic to run against Warren. What’s misogynistic is the way he and his campaign ran against her and treated her the entire damn primary. Keep the fuck up.

Thanks for misrepresenting me and my opinions. Thanks for deigning to grace me with your shitty political viewpoints on my posts. Thanks for “getting involved with politics bullshit” since your blog bio says you don’t like it. And thanks for deciding that I apparently give one single solitary fuck about what a Bernie Sanders apologist has to say to me today, because I don’t and I am exceedingly glad you gave me this lovely, wonderful opportunity to show you just how much I no longer care about appeasing y’all’s nonsense after five years of listening to y’all WHINE about how Bernie was “cheated” and how it “wasn’t fair.” 

Life’s not fair, buddy, and you’re going to find that out when Bernie Sanders loses to ANOTHER subpar moderate candidate for the second time in a row because y’all spent five years straight trashing 70% of the party and then spent the last 8 months trashing your ideological allies, and then arrogantly assumed you are still entitled to their votes because “his policies are popular!” Go back to your anime and video games, grow the fuck up, and learn from this experience.

[mamthew]

Why you should vote for Sanders in the Democratic Primary

I know this took me too long to write, and the Super Tuesday polls are closing soon, but to anyone who somehow hasn't voted yet, here's my...pitch, I guess, for Sanders over Warren, or Biden (or Bloomberg? God I hope I don't have anyone I interact with who's dumb enough to support Bloomberg). Or at least, here's my thoughts on where we are now and where we can go from here. The argument people tend to use when defending a vote for Biden is that the only issue that matters this year is that we must defeat Trump, and Biden - by being essentially a Republican - can do it by attracting moderate and Republican voters to his candidacy. Biden himself even floated the idea of choosing a Republican running mate for this very purpose.

Obviously, I agree that we have to stop Trump; he may be a mostly inept dumbass but he's still clearly and definitionally a fascist, and the policies that have managed to hold his attention long enough for him to pass are essentially just...unimaginable cruelty for the sake of inflicting unimaginable cruelty. We must, however, also stop Trumpism, the larger fascist movement that has grown out of Trump's rise. It's not enough to replace a Fascist figurehead with a Neoliberal figurehead, because there will still be the issue of millions of alienated people whose lives have been destroyed by the status quo and who have been distracted from the real cause of their situation by a man who will by then be painted as a martyr. The Democrats and Republicans have batted this voting bracket between parties over the decades, doing something small for them, then rolling it back, cyclically breeding cynicism and discontent. So here's something I've said so many times elsewhere that it might be a little divorced from meaning for folks who know me: Left-wing populism is the only way to beat Fascism.

Fascism is the use of aesthetics in politics to keep working people from getting too mad at those in power. These aesthetics (or illusions, or falsehoods, if you prefer) vary wildly from country to country and movement to movement, but they always ALWAYS include the framing of one or more minority groups and "the Left" as being enemies of the people. Obviously, "the Left" means different things in different places, but America's overton window has been pulled so far to the right that here it means Liberalism, a center-right ideology. Thanks to the wild success of Fascist propaganda in the '50s, it's considered the baseline that Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists are considered enemies of the people, which means America has always been this close to outright Fascism. Trump wasn't a bug, he was simply what we've been building towards kinda since the country's inception.

The reason, then, that left-wing Populism is the most effective way to stop Fascism is that it does not use aesthetics when identifying the issues hurting working people. There is no distraction from the machinations of those in power. You're not suffering because of "Liberals" or immigrants, or trans folks, you're suffering because for centuries backroom deals within corporations, within the government, and between corporations and the government have eroded away any semblance of human dignity for working-class people. You're a bargaining chip in a larger political game, but it's not your fault and it's also not the fault of the person next to you at whom Trump has been wildly gesticulating, who is also a bargaining chip in the same game.

Now, left-wing Populist movements don't often crop up in electoral politics, because of both the nature of electoral politics and the nature of the Left. These movements usually happen on the micro level, when communities work together to help each other, or groups of individuals try to lift up others. When they're larger, they're usually activist movements, or painted as terrorists, like with Occupy, Black Lives Matter, or the Black Panthers and Rainbow Coalition. Electoral left-wing Populist movements usually get kneecapped by corporate or government interests before they can do much (imagine if Eugene Debs wasn't in prison). But American culture has married politics to electoralism for so long that it's hard to get a large political movement going that isn't directly tied to an elected official or an electoral campaign. There are lots of left Populist movements right now that have been fighting the results of Trump's Fascism and the the results of the larger American Fascist experiment on grassroots levels, without involving themselves in electoralism in any way, but they haven't gained the same traction as Bernie Sanders, and they haven't stopped Trump, because those aren't their purposes.

Sanders' base is the most diverse, by far. It skews the youngest, and it polls best in working-class demographics. In 2016, Sanders won literally every single district in West Virginia. He won all but nine districts in Michigan. He absolutely cleans up with Hispanic voters - one of the minority groups that Trumpism frames as enemies of the people. Obviously, y'all know I care about Appalachia the most, and he speaks to Appalachia, both literally and figuratively. Counties that were painted as "Trump Country" in dishonest thinkpieces by journalists putting down six figures had more people vote for Sanders in the primary than voted at all in the general, and it's because what he said about the establishment rang true in a way that Trump's words didn't. If you want to attract a voter base who usually doesn't vote, you have to tell them the truth or spin them a convincing enough lie, and Clinton's lies, in the end, weren't as convincing as Trump's, just as Trump’s aren’t as convincing as the truth.

If the Democratic party is going to survive (and I'm not sure it even deserves to, at this point), it needs to stop engaging in aesthetics to protect those at the top, flirting with fascist strategies. We need to stop letting party elites hem and haw about what "moderates" might or might not want while selling our rights to the highest bidder and letting folks die because insulin cost them more than a month's income. I put "moderate" in quotes, because the "moderate voter" is mostly an invention; we all have things we care about and things we care less about, and very few people are actually that enlightened centrist strawman who believes there's a good midpoint between helping people and hurting them, corporations and working folks, concentration camps and no camps, etc.

Everything Joe Biden says about actually improving material conditions falls apart when you look at his record, because he's consistently voted for cutting social programs to benefit elites, he supported segregation, hell, he was on tape last year saying he has no empathy for young people struggling financially. His facade breaks easily, and he no longer has the mental acuity to even formulate a convincing enough lie to convince most Liberals, let alone nonvoters or former Trump voters. Sanders tells the truth about the reasons for living conditions in America, has the record to back up his convictions, and has the grassroots support to further back him up at the grassroots level, because (as much as every publication tries to make it a scare word) that's how Populism works.

If Sanders gets the nomination, it'll still be a hard fight against Trump. I'm not 100% believing those maps placing him at 474 electoral votes, especially because Trump's aesthetics have the backing of every corporate interest and centuries of disenfranchisement behind them. But Biden's fight just won't win, and if somehow we end up in the 1% of timelines where he somehow convinced enough people to show up at the ballot box for him, we still would have no defense against Trumpism. A burgeoning Fascist movement who still believe the same lies distracting them from the ruling classes and now with a martyr as a political figurehead will have no path to recuperation because primary voters believed it when the news said the word "socialism" was too scary.

Anyway, that's my piece, and it's where my mind has been for...honestly a few years, now. I'll see you on the other side of Super Tuesday.

[feministdragon]

okay, so here's this fantastic rant that I want to share

http://gaslitnation.libsyn.com/mafia-state-usa  

https://www.gaslitnationpod.com/episodes-transcripts-20/2019/11/19/mafia-state-usa-1

@44:50

Andrea Chalupa: There was a study how in political journalism white men talked to other white men and women get shut out of the conversation, and therefore women are locked out essentially of being prominent political journalists. There are very few of us. And there's no greater example of that than just now, Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo and Jon Favreau of Pod Save America saying that I am the former DNC contractor who has been called before the House. Andrea Chalupa.  [It’s Alexandra Chalupa, her sister]

Sarah Kendzior: [laughter] Oh my God.

Andrea Chalupa: And I'm sort of like, wait a minute, you guys. I want to say to Josh Marshall and John Favreau of Pod Save America: the Kremlin, the Kremlin can tell me and my sister apart, which is why we in America here, our media, and our government has been played so successfully by the Kremlin. If you here in America cannot even tell that my sister and I are two very different people, what is wrong with you? How can we trust you to accurately, successfully, effectively cover one of the greatest crimes in human history? Get it straight. On the heels of the Steele dossier being dropped by BuzzFeed, Putin's Sean Hannity did a segment on how my sister created the Trump Russia scandal and how I helped her. The only solace I took in that was that, "Okay, well, at least the Kremlin is smart enough to know that we're two different people. I wish my own media would catch up."

Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, I mean, it's pathetic. It's a sign of their laziness. It's a sign of their incompetence, but their incompetence puts people's lives at risk.

Andrea Chalupa: It's a sign of their arrogance. It's a sign of their arrogance. We've had this show for a year. We have members of Congress that follow this show. We've had outreach from members of Congress. We've had impact with what we've had to say. And yet our colleagues in the political journalism world, we don't register with them. We don't count on their radar, because they're busy talking to each other. If we were two men that launched a successful podcast within a year, there's over half a million podcasts out there. Very few rise to the surface. Gaslit Nation within a year was able to do so, within its first few episodes was able to do so. Our trailer announcing the show went viral. If we were two men who managed this on our own, we would have profiles written about us. Instead, Sarah and I continue to be ignored, even though we're at the center of this and our lives are threatened by this and we're getting harassment and phishing emails and other things as a result of the reporting we're doing. And yet, we're still continually sidelined by our colleagues who are also covering the story.

Sarah Kendzior: Right, and it's only by a certain type of colleague, to be honest. It's by rich white men who live in New York and D.C., because we do have a very large audience. We have a very diverse audience. We have an international audience. You have a movie; I have a bestselling book. We both do media appearances regularly. Like, we're not exactly languishing in obscurity. What I find frustrating about this is like, you know, I certainly do not need the validation of like Pod Save America, or, God help me, Josh Marshall to get through my day. I can live without that. What is frustrating is that the information that we're putting out there is coming months in advance of other publications and that it's because of our expertise, because we both spent our lives studying the former Soviet Union. And of course, in your case, your sister is caught up in this whole mess. And so when we come out in April and May with warnings about Giuliani's activity in Ukraine and about how he is the new Manafort and about everything else that we were like, "Please, Congress, look at this. Please, U.S. media with more resources and money than us. You need to look at this. You need to examine this, or we're going to end up with something like, oh, I don't know, Trump conducting an extortion scheme in July." Maybe if you would actually pay attention to what's going on and listen to people who have experience with this region, despite the fact that we happen to be women, maybe you’ll fucking know a thing or too, instead of just running out your mouth like, "Wow, I can't figure out why in the world Trump is connected to Putin." It's like, holy fucking shit, man. Like, there are books about this. Like there are books, you know, there are books written by me, but there are books written by many other people. There are television shows run by women like Rachel Maddow or Joy Reid that have been documenting this for years. You've got to catch up. You suck at your job. Like, either quit your job or catch up, because lives are on the line.

Freedom of speech is one of the few weapons that we have at our disposal that we more or less control. Free speech, free media. Guess what? It's probably not going to last forever, so it's your duty as an American citizen, as a journalist, to try to inform the public. And if your information is marred by your inability to actually consider women as human beings and listen to their expertise, then we're in a lot of trouble, because as we see again, as they pointed out in the beginning of the show, people who are bringing the truth forward are often women. It is Fiona Hill. It's the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. It's whistleblowers like Reality Winner. It's the journalists I just mentioned. And it's a very consistent phenomenon of being marginalized in this discussion. And again, this is not about ego. We've been around long enough that we really don't give a fuck. It's about facts.

Andrea Chalupa: It's about facts. Let me break it down to you like this. So I have a friend who is an executive coach, and she said that her clients primarily come from mediocre white men who are so shocked that they keep getting promoted that they need help managing the extra responsibilities, and women who are doing all the work and never being promoted. That's her client pool.

Sarah Kendzior: And that's how things are. That's how things are in the United State of America.

Andrea Chalupa: That's political journalism. That's journalism. That's government. That's the space we're in.

Sarah Kendzior: And we encourage women to just keep speaking out and keep telling your stories and to, you know, if you can, run your own podcast or your own publication. Like, media is dying. We've seen a gutting of independent journalism. We're losing outlets right and left. The mainstream media is largely co-opted not just by government pressure, but by corporate constraints. We have barriers to entry where you have to be quite wealthy a lot of times to work for a pittance at one of these prestigious publications in the most expensive cities in America. We've got one out of every four journalists living in a very expensive place, while people like Missouri can afford to shoot their mouths off. And so I just encourage, you know, I don't want women to listen to this and feel discouraged, feel like no one's going to listen to them, because that's a really funny thing. Every day I get probably a hundred to a thousand tweets of people saying that, you know, "No one listens to Sarah Kendzior." [laughter] I'm like, well, if no one's listening to me, why are my mentions just an endless stream of people telling me that no one listens to me? And really, the key word in that sentence is "no one," because what they mean by "no one" is wealthy, white men, because everybody else is listening and is, you know, quite aware. It's this very narrow group, a kind of tyranny of the minority within journalism that, you know, part of it is they cannot come to grips with the breakdown of American exceptionalism. They cannot come to grips with the fact that they missed the story. They missed the boat. This all went right over their head while they were busy rambling on about Hillary's emails and how she was destined to win the election and all the other shit they got wrong. They cannot handle that. It's incredibly humiliating, because our very existence is a slap in the face to that establishment. And it's like, well, you know what, tough shit. We're all on the same sinking boat. We're all Americans living under this incredibly corrupt administration. We should all be trying to do our part to get the facts to the people. So yeah, I'll leave it at that.

Andrea Chalupa: And let's end it with Elizabeth Warren. You have Biden potentially crumbling as a frontrunner because he doesn't have what it takes. And it's just a simple fact of Biden not reading the room, not being part of the zeitgeist right now and giving the terrorist organization fueled by blood money—the Republican Party—way too much credit, saying that if only the Republicans can free themselves of Trump, we can have a united country. The Republican Party created Donald Trump. They are complicit. They're all in this together. This was the inevitable. The Trump Frankenstein monster was the inevitability of the Republicans party's ideology of hate, which has been growing in this country for so long, and so Biden's not reading the room. And what you're having is this emergence of Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren has been doing such an incredible job in having this common-sense platform where she has these plans on how she's going to confront the corruption that allowed Donald Trump to come to power. Elizabeth Warren is framing the debate accurately that the 2020 election is going to be about corruption. It's just corruption, plain and simple, and that is what her plans are about, is tackling gross income inequality, tackling the inhumane policies in America, where people are continuing to fall through the cracks as a society where any sort of health problem can make you lose your house and go bankrupt. And yet, you have a cable news bubble that continues to demonize her because they are afraid of losing their own power. What we're hearing on cable news is the familiar sound that all women know, and that is the entitled scream of the mediocre white man, because they know that we are coming for them because they have had power for far too long and they did not use it responsibly. So now nobody, nobody gives up power willingly, especially idiots. So what we need to do is arm ourselves with our grassroots armies, wait for nobody to save us but ourselves and show up, and show up for each other, and do not give in to their gaslighting. Elizabeth Warren has what it takes. She's a well-balanced candidate, and she has solutions to all of the social ills that gave rise of Donald Trump. And she understands. She has called the enemy by name, and the enemy is corruption.

Sarah Kendzior: Absolutely. And you know, on the final note, what they were chastising Warren for this week was being, quote, "angry and antagonistic." Which, quite honestly, I'm glad she's angry. She's angry at injustice. She's angry at the corruption of billionaires who are influencing and breaking our institutions, who have run this nation roughshod. And so yeah, she's antagonistic toward them. To be clear, she's not alone in this. You see this kind of rage from Sanders, you saw it from Beto O'Rourke, you see it sometimes from Kamala Harris, from Julian Castro. You see it from many of the candidates, and it's a good thing. We should be angry right now. That type of anger is a form of compassion. It is the opposite of hate or spite. It is the opposite of apathy, and I think people oppose this, people in the media from high positions of power who have been entrenched in that power despite their lack of merit, because it makes them very uncomfortable. It reminds them that there is an alternative to godlessness and to moral failure, and so I encourage all the candidates to continue speaking out in the way Warren has, and I encourage female journalists and other female activists to keep speaking out despite these sexist caricatures and attacks, and this insistence that we play nice, because quite honestly, there's a difference between nice and good, and I think that what we need to do is do good, is do things that are morally sound, things that are beneficial and helpful to vulnerable people, instead of just valuing this, quote-unquote "civility" above all else, because all civility is is a cloak for corruption.

[patriotsnet]

Why Is There Republicans And Democrats

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/why-is-there-republicans-and-democrats/

Why Is There Republicans And Democrats

How Things Got This Bad

Why Democrats and Republicans have different priorities on COVID relief

6) The Republican turn against democracy begins with race

Support for authoritarian ideas in America is closely tied to the countrys long-running racial conflicts.

This chart, from a September 2020 paper by Vanderbilt professor Larry Bartels, shows a statistical analysis of a survey of Republican voters, analyzing the link between respondents score on a measure of ethnic antagonism and their support for four anti-democratic statements .

The graphic shows a clear finding: The higher a voter scores on the ethnic antagonism scale, the more likely they are tosupport anti-democratic ideas. This held true even when Bartels used regression analyses to compare racial attitudes to other predictors, like support for Trump. The strongest predictor by far of these antidemocratic attitudes is ethnic antagonism, he writes.

For students of American history, this shouldnt be a surprise.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act cemented Democrats as the party of racial equality, causing racially resentful Democrats in the South and elsewhere to defect to the Republican Party. This sorting process, which took place over the next few decades, is .

7) Partisanship causes Republicans to justify anti-democratic behavior

This chart is a little hard to parse, but it illustrates a crucial finding from one of the best recent papers on anti-democratic sentiment in America: how decades of rising partisanship made an anti-democratic GOP possible.

Taking The Perspective Of Others Proved To Be Really Hard

The divide in the United States is wide, and one indication of that is how difficult our question proved for many thoughtful citizens. A 77-year-old Republican woman from Pennsylvania was typical of the voters who struggled with this question, telling us, This is really hard for me to even try to think like a devilcrat!, I am sorry but I in all honesty cannot answer this question. I cannot even wrap my mind around any reason they would be good for this country.

Similarly, a 53-year-old Republican from Virginia said, I honestly cannot even pretend to be a Democrat and try to come up with anything positive at all, but, I guess they would vote Democrat because they are illegal immigrants and they are promised many benefits to voting for that party. Also, just to follow what others are doing. And third would be just because they hate Trump so much. The picture she paints of the typical Democratic voter being an immigrant, who goes along with their party or simply hates Trump will seem like a strange caricature to most Democratic voters. But her answer seems to lack the animus of many.  

Democrats struggled just as much as Republicans. A 33-year-old woman from California told said, i really am going to have a hard time doing this but then offered that Republicans are morally right as in values, going to protect us from terrorest and immigrants, going to create jobs.

Reality Check 3: The Democrats Legislative Fix Will Never Happenand Doesnt Even Touch The Real Threats

Its understandable why Democrats have ascribed a life-or-death quality to S. 1, the For the People bill that would impose a wide range of requirements on state voting procedures. The dozensor hundredsof provisions enacted by Republican state legislatures and governors represent a determination to ensure that the GOP thumb will be on the scale at every step of the voting process. The proposed law would roll that back on a national level by imposing a raft of requirements on statesno excuse absentee voting, more days and hours to votebut would also include public financing of campaigns, independent redistricting commissions and compulsory release of presidential candidates’ tax returns.

There are all sorts of Constitutional questions posed by these ideas. But theres a more fundamental issue here: The Constitutional clause on which the Democrats are relyingArticle I, Section 4, Clause 1gives Congress significant power over Congressional elections, but none over elections for state offices or the choosing of Presidential electors.

Vaccine Advocacy From Hannity And Mcconnell Gets The Media Off Republicans’ Backs But Won’t Shift Public Sentiment

Sean Hannity, Mitch McConnell and Tucker Carlson

Amid a rising media furor over the steady stream of vaccine disparagement from GOP politicians and Fox News talking heads, a number of prominent Republicans spoke up in favor of vaccines early this week.

On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters, “shots need to get in everybody’s arm as rapidly as possible” and asked that people “ignore all of these other voices that are giving demonstrably bad advice.” House Minority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, got the vaccine after months of delay and then publicly said, “there shouldn’t be any hesitancy over whether or not it’s safe and effective.” And Fox News host Sean Hannity, in a widely shared video, declared, it “absolutely makes sense for many Americans to get vaccinated.” This was treated in the press as an unequivocal endorsement, even though the use of the word “many” was clearly meant to let the Fox News viewers feel like he’s talking about other people getting vaccinated. 

Is this an exciting pivot among the GOP elites?  Are they abandoning the sociopathic strategy of sabotaging President Joe Biden’s anti-pandemic plan by encouraging their own followers to get sick? Are the millions of Republicans who keep telling pollsters they will never get that Democrat shot going to change their minds now? 

Ha ha ha, no.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

Matthew Gertz July 20, 2021

Jefferson And Jeffersonian Principles

Jeffersonian democracy was not a one-man operation. It was a large political party with many local and state leaders and various factions, and they did not always agree with Jefferson or with each other.

Jefferson was accused of inconsistencies by his opponents. The “Old Republicans” said that he abandoned the Principles of 1798. He believed the national security concerns were so urgent that it was necessary to purchase Louisiana without waiting for a Constitutional amendment. He enlarged federal power through the intrusively-enforced . He idealized the “yeoman farmer” despite being himself a gentleman plantation owner. The disparities between Jefferson’s philosophy and practice have been noted by numerous historians. Staaloff proposed that it was due to his being a proto-; claimed that it was a manifestation of pure hypocrisy, or “pliability of principle”; and Bailyn asserts it simply represented a contradiction with Jefferson, that he was “simultaneously a radical utopian idealist and a hardheaded, adroit, at times cunning politician”. However, Jenkinson argued that Jefferson’s personal failings ought not to influence present day thinkers to disregard Jeffersonian ideals.

, a European nobleman who opposed democracy, argues that “Jeffersonian democracy” is a misnomer because Jefferson was not a democrat, but in fact believed in rule by an elite: “Jefferson actually was an Agrarian Romantic who dreamt of a republic governed by an elite of character and intellect”.

Reality Check #4: The Electoral College And The Senate Are Profoundly Undemocraticand Were Stuck With Them

Because the Constitution set up a state-by-state system for picking presidents, the massive Democratic majorities we now see in California and New York often mislead us about the partys national electoral prospects. In 2016, Hillary Clintons 3-million-vote plurality came entirely from California. In 2020, Bidens 7-million-vote edge came entirely from California and New York. These are largely what election experts call wasted votesDemocratic votes that dont, ultimately, help the Democrat to win. That imbalance explains why Trump won the Electoral College in 2016 and came within a handful of votes in three states from doing the same last November, despite his decisive popular-vote losses.

The response from aggrieved Democrats? Abolish the Electoral College! In practice, theyd need to get two-thirds of the House and Senate, and three-fourths of the state legislatures, to ditch the process that gives Republicans their only plausible chance these days to win the White House. Shortly after the 2016 election, Gallup found that Republican support for abolishing the electoral college had dropped to 19 percent. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, a state-by-state scheme to effectively abolish the Electoral College without changing the Constitution, hasnt seen support from a single red or purple state.

History Of The Democratic And Republican Parties

The Democratic Party traces its origins to the anti-federalist factions around the time of Americas independence from British rule. These factions were organized into the Democrat Republican party by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other influential opponents of the Federalists in 1792.

The Republican party is the younger of the two parties. Founded in 1854 by anti-slavery expansion activists and modernizers, the Republican Party rose to prominence with the election of Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president. The party presided over the American Civil War and Reconstruction and was harried by internal factions and scandals towards the end of the 19th century.

Since the division of the Republican Party in the election of 1912, the Democratic party has consistently positioned itself to the left of the Republican Party in economic as well as social matters. The economically left-leaning activist philosophy of Franklin D. Roosevelt, which has strongly influenced American liberalism, has shaped much of the party’s economic agenda since 1932. Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition usually controlled the national government until 1964.

The Republican Party today supports a pro-business platform, with foundations in economic libertarianism, and fiscal and social conservatism.

Adams And The Revolution Of 1800

Shortly after Adams took office, he dispatched a group of envoys to seek peaceful relations with France, which had begun attacking American shipping after the ratification of the Jay Treaty. The failure of talks, and the French demand for bribes in what became known as the XYZ Affair, outraged the American public and led to the Quasi-War, an undeclared naval war between France and the United States. The Federalist-controlled Congress passed measures to expand the army and navy and also pushed through the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Alien and Sedition Acts restricted speech that was critical of the government, while also implementing stricter naturalization requirements. Numerous journalists and other individuals aligned with the Democratic-Republicans were prosecuted under the Sedition Act, sparking a backlash against the Federalists. Meanwhile, Jefferson and Madison drafted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which held that state legislatures could determine the constitutionality of federal laws.

Sign Up For The Weeds Newsletter

Why Democrats and Republicans Are Claiming A Midterm Win

Voxs German Lopez is here to guide you through the Biden administrations burst of policymaking. Sign up to receive our newsletter each Friday.

They go further than merely believing the 2020 election was stolen, a nearly unanimous view among the bunch. Over 90 percent oppose making it easier for people to vote; roughly 70 percent would support a hypothetical third term for Trump .

The MAGA movement, Blum and Parker write, is a clear and present danger to American democracy.

2) Republicans are embracing violence

The ultimate expression of anti-democratic politics is resorting to violence. More than twice as many Republicans as Democrats nearly two in five Republicans said in a January poll that force could be justified against their opponents.

It would be easy to dismiss this kind of finding as meaningless were it not for the January 6 attack on Capitol Hill and the survey was conducted about three weeks after the attack. Republicans recently saw what political violence in the United States looked like, and a large fraction of the party faithful seemed comfortable with more of it.

These attitudes are linked to the party elites rhetoric: The more party leaders like Trump attack the democratic political system as rigged against them, the more Republicans will believe it and conclude that extreme measures are justifiable. A separate study found that Republicans who believe Democrats cheated in the election were far likelier to endorse post-election violence.

Early Life And Career

John Quincy Adams entered the world at the same time that his maternal great-grandfather, John Quincy, for many years a prominent member of the Massachusettslegislature, was leaving ithence his name. He grew up as a child of the American Revolution. He watched the Battle of Bunker Hill from Penns Hill and heard the cannons roar across the Back Bay in Boston. His patriot father, John Adams, at that time a delegate to the Continental Congress, and his patriot mother, Abigail Smith Adams, had a strong molding influence on his education after the war had deprived Braintree of its only schoolmaster. In 1778 and again in 1780 the boy accompanied his father to Europe. He studied at a private school in Paris in 177879 and at the University of Leiden, Netherlands, in 1780. Thus, at an early age he acquired an excellent knowledge of the French language and a smattering of Dutch. In 1780, also, he began to keep regularly the diary that forms so conspicuous a record of his doings and those of his contemporaries through the next 60 years of American history. Self-appreciative, like most of the Adams clan, he once declared that, if his diary had been even richer, it might have become “next to the Holy Scriptures, the most precious and valuable book ever written by human hands.”

c.

Democratic View On Healthcare

Democrats have always been in favor of governmental involvement in the wellbeing of Americans, especially the most vulnerable among us. Healthcare reform has been a primary focus for the party since the middle of the Twentieth Century. Medicare, Medicaid, Childrens Health Insurance Program , and the ACA are all major reforms the Democrats fought for and got passed into law. During this election season, healthcare is arguably the hottest topic of debate, and Democrats are pushing for further expansion across the board. The key phrase to remember is quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

Obama And Trump Healthcare Policies Compared

There could not be a more radical divide between administrations than there is between these two. The Obama administration worked against almost insurmountable opposition from the GOP in order to pass the ACA. The Trump Administrations quest is to dismantle everything the Obama Administration has done. They even have court cases pending in order to do so.

When Was The Republican And Democratic Parties Formed

The Democratic Party was founded by Andrew Jackson Martin Van Buren on January 8, 1828, in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. He was the United States seventh president but the first democratic President.

The Democratic Partys shocking emergence can be linked to the countrys anti-federalist factions. It was during that time the United States of America gained independence from British colonial masters.

The anti-federalist factions, which democrats originated from, were also grouped into the Democrat-Republican party. This was done in 1792 by James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and other federalists influential opponents.

On the other hand, the Republican Party is pretty much younger than the Democratic Party. It was formed in 1854 by anti-slavery modernizers and activists.

The republicans were against the expansion of slavery in Western territories. They fought hard to protect African Americans rights after the civil war.

The Republican Party is often known as GOP. The meaning is Grand Old Party. The first Republican President was Abraham Lincoln. From Lincolns emergence, Republican Party started gaining ground in America.

The Legal Fight Over Voting Rights During The Pandemic Is Getting Hotter

Or as former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, told NPR, there are no “fair” maps in the discussion about how to draw voting districts because what Democrats call “fair” maps are those, he believes, that favor them.

No, say voting rights groups and many Democrats the only “fair” way to conduct an election is to admit as many voters as possible. Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams, who has charged authorities in her home state with suppressing turnout, named her public interest group Fair Fight Action.

Access vs. security

The pandemic has added another layer of complexity with the new emphasis it has put on voting by mail. President Trump says he opposes expanding voting by mail, and his allies, including White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, call the process rife with opportunities for fraud.

Even so, Trump and McEnany both voted by mail this year in Florida, and Republican officials across the country have encouraged voting by mail.

Democrats, who have made election security and voting access a big part of their political brand for several years, argue that the pandemic might discourage people from going to old-fashioned polling sites.

Democrats Or Republicans: Who Has The Higher Income

In the end, many people assume Republicans are richer based on these figures. Although, this is only a look at the richest families and politicians in America though. In everyday American households, it seems that Democrats have a higher mean salary. Its true that many of the wealthiest families in the country are contributing to Republican campaigns. On the contrary, families registered as , statistically speaking.

These findings still have some loopholes in them, of course. For instance, the data was collected over the last 40 years or so. Moreover, it is only based on the most recently collected information. As you know, demographics are constantly changing. These figures may have been affected as well. There is also a margin of error with every type of data collection like this. So, what do you think? Who is richer? Democrats or Republicans?

Where Do Trump And Biden Stand On Key Issues

Reuters: Brian Snyder/AP: Julio Cortez

The key issues grappling the country can be broken down into five main categories: coronavirus, health care, foreign policy, immigration and criminal justice.

This year, a big focus of the election has been the coronavirus pandemic, which could be a deciding factor in how people vote, as the country’s contentious healthcare system struggles to cope.

The average healthcare costs for COVID-19 treatment is up to $US30,000 , an Americas Health Insurance Plans 2020 study has found.

Presidential Election Of 1808

This mayor joining the GOP says theres no Democratic Party anymore’

Speculation regarding Madison’s potential succession of Jefferson commenced early in Jefferson’s first term. Madison’s status in the party was damaged by his association with the embargo, which was unpopular throughout the country and especially in the Northeast. With the Federalists collapsing as a national party after 1800, the chief opposition to Madison’s candidacy came from other members of the Democratic-Republican Party. Madison became the target of attacks from Congressman , a leader of a faction of the party known as the . Randolph recruited James Monroe, who had felt betrayed by the administration’s rejection of the proposed with Britain, to challenge Madison for leadership of the party. Many Northerners, meanwhile, hoped that Vice President could unseat Madison as Jefferson’s successor. Despite this opposition, Madison won his party’s presidential nomination at the January 1808 . The Federalist Party mustered little strength outside New England, and Madison easily defeated Federalist candidate . At a height of only five feet, four inches , and never weighing more than 100 pounds , Madison became the most diminutive president.

What Is Thomas Jefferson Remembered For

Thomas Jefferson is remembered for being the primary writer of the Declaration of Independence and the third president of the United States. The fact that he owned over 600 enslaved people during his life while forcefully advocating for human freedom and equality made Jefferson one of Americas most problematic and paradoxical heroes.

Thomas Jefferson, , draftsman of the Declaration of Independence of the United States and the nations first secretary of state and second vice president and, as the third president , the statesman responsible for the Louisiana Purchase. An early advocate of total separation of church and state, he also was the founder and architect of the University of Virginia and the most eloquent American proponent of individual freedom as the core meaning of the American Revolution.

What Republican And Democrats Believe

Lets start with this example. There are one or more reasons why you chose that person to be your friend. It could be because of how he or she talks, sense of humor, intelligence, educational background, ideology, or other factors.

The bottom line is you made the individual your friend because of one or more factors you discovered in that person that pleases you. This explains why most people would prefer joining republicans than Democrats and vice versa.

Republicans and Democrats have diverse ideologies and beliefs. These beliefs or ideology is part of what draws people to join either political party.

Lets start with Republicans. What do Republicans believe in?

Republicans boast libertarian and centrist factions. But they primarily believe in social conservative policies. They abide by laws that help conserve their traditional values. These include opposition to abortion, marijuana use, and same-sex marriage.

So the Republican Partys platform is generally centered on American conservatism. It comprises establishment conservatives, Freedom Caucus, or Tea Party members, described as right-wing, populist, and far-right.

The Republican Partys position has changed over time. They now transcend beyond traditional values, which often includes Christian background. The Republicans evolved position now includes fiscal conservatism and foreign policy.

Heres a quick summary of what the Republican Party believes in:

Heres a quick look at what Democrats believe in:

Was The Donkey Originally A Jackass

Thomas Nast was an American cartoonist who joined the staff of Harpers Weekly in 1862. Nasts cartoons were very popular and his depiction of Santa Claus is still the most widely used version of the holiday icon we see today. During his career, Nast also drew many political cartoons that harshly criticized the policies of both parties.

Nast first used a donkey to represent the Democratic party as a whole in the 1870 cartoon A Live Jack-Ass Kicking a Lion in which Nast criticized the dominantly Democratic Southern newspaper industry as the Copperhead Press. While he did popularize the donkey, Nast wasnt the first person to use it in reference to the Democrats.

Over 40 years earlier during the presidential campaign of 1828, opponents of Democrat Andrew Jackson referred to him as a jackass. Jackson actually embraced the insult and used donkeys on several campaign posters. Nevertheless, cartoonist Anthony Imbert would use a Jackson-headed donkey to mock Jackson an 1833 political cartoon.

However, the donkey never really caught on after the end of Jacksons presidency, and Thomas Nast apparently had no knowledge that it ever was used to represent the Democrats.

Election Of 1796 And Vice Presidency

In the presidential campaign of 1796, Jefferson lost the electoral college vote to Federalist John Adams by 7168 and was thus elected vice president. As presiding officer of the Senate, he assumed a more passive role than his predecessor John Adams. He allowed the Senate to freely conduct debates and confined his participation to procedural issues, which he called an “honorable and easy” role. Jefferson had previously studied parliamentary law and procedure for 40 years, making him unusually well qualified to serve as presiding officer. In 1800, he published his assembled notes on Senate procedure as . Jefferson would cast only three in the Senate.

During the Adams presidency, the Federalists rebuilt the military, levied new taxes, and enacted the . Jefferson believed that these laws were intended to suppress Democratic-Republicans, rather than prosecute enemy aliens, and considered them unconstitutional. To rally opposition, he and James Madison anonymously wrote the , declaring that the federal government had no right to exercise powers not specifically delegated to it by the states. The resolutions followed the “” approach of Madison, in which states may shield their citizens from federal laws that they deem unconstitutional. Jefferson advocated , allowing states to invalidate federal laws altogether. Jefferson warned that, “unless arrested at the threshold”, the Alien and Sedition Acts would “necessarily drive these states into revolution and blood”.

[lokidiabolus]

Oh man, I don't even know if you're still taking prompts for the challenge, but here goes my contribution: "You have one hour. Go."

I used the sentence at the end though, I hope it’s alright ^^

Ao3 version.

“Thomas, this is Newton.”

Newt sort of expected this type, tobe completely honest. Maybe a little more buffed, or with slightly differenthairstyle you had seen on about every other jock boy at school that remindedyou of a parrot, but the result was more or less the same – a boy about thesame height as Newt, but wider in shoulders and build, with big, brown eyes andmessy brown hair, and with an annoyed look in his face that was completelyexpected and basically identical to any other slacker Newt had to tutor.

They were all the same, when Newtthought about it. Either living a partying life where staying at home equalleda sin for them and not able to keep it social a torture, or jock types thatjust had to do their daily dose oftestosterone sports to feel manly enough, drank protein shakes and loved technomusic, therefore not having enough time for studying – or brain capacity onthat matter (Newt blamed the techno music – loud enough it definitely had tokill some braincells).

“Um,” the boy let out and criticallylooked Newt over, like he was analysing him. Newt didn’t need to guess what hewas thinking right now, it perfectly showed on his unhappy face. “Hey. Iguess.”

“I had about three days in a week inmind, minus the weekends, one to three hours per day,” the boy’s mother said andNewt was kind of glad she gave him a reason why to stop watching this guy’s distastefor a moment. His mother seemed like a strict type, but she probably shouldhave whipped him to obedience a little sooner than when it was practically toolate with all the failed subjects. “It depends on your schedule, mostly. And Iguess on Thomas’ progress as well.”

“It’s fine by me,” Newt shrugged. Itwas about the same as everybody. “I may have a little irregular hours schedulethough, if it’s not a problem.”

“Not at all,” Thomas’ mother assuredhim and glanced at her son like an executioner. It was roughly translated to you fuck this up and you’re dead and Newtkind of found this equally hilarious and sad – if she needed to look at himthat way, then it meant Newt was going to have a hard time with him. “He’sgrounded anyway, so he has all afternoons free.”

Thomas rolled his eyes, butthankfully didn’t say anything else and Newt was grateful.

***

Thomas wasn’t a jock, and probablynot exactly a partying type either. He did go out a lot though and apparentlyfound school too boring to bother doing anything else than sit there and yawn. Hewas one year older than Newt and it probably made him pissier that he was goingto be tutored by a 17years old who knew more than him. Maybe that was also whywhen Newt asked him about the subjects he was failing the most, he dumped thewhole content on his bag on the table, probably in revenge.

“Aren’t you a little too young fortutoring?” Thomas uttered when Newt ordered him to sit at his desk, not reallyknowing where to start. He was a damn case of a lost soul and Newt had afeeling he was going to spend a bit too long here for his comfort. His tutoringusually consisted of few months before big exams, but with Thomas it didn’tlook very black and white, more like with too much grey in between.

“Aren’t you a little old for not understandingwhat equals one and one?” he shot back and when Thomas opened his mouth tocounter with something, New crossed his arms on his chest. “If you play ittough and refuse to learn anything, you’ll never get out of here, because yourparents won’t let ya. So either cooperate or say bye bye to freedom.”

Thomas visibly deflated like aballoon and Newt counted it as a win.

***

“Does anybody call you Newt?”

Newt raised an eyebrow and glancedup from homework he had to do while he bestowed a history article on Thomas toread so he could give him a test later. It had been reasonably peaceful untilnow (for about fifteen minutes, which was a success, Thomas usually started tobe restless after five minutes of silence), but it apparently bored Thomas outof his mind already. Newt didn’t have too high hopes for the boy to rememberanything too clearly, since he usually just blurted something out that wasn’teven related to what Newton asked, probably out of spite.

“You’re supposed to read thearticle,” he uttered icily. He had homework due tomorrow and with today’sschedule he simply didn’t have when todo finish it, so he hadto sacrifice at least half an hour of tutoring time to get Thomas bend toself-studying.

“I’m reading. It’s a special case ofboring,” Thomas drawled. “So, doesanybody call you Newt?”

“You’re allowed to ask questionsabout the article only,” the blondshot back. “Any other questions are bothering me.”

“Pretty sure there is somebodycalling you Newt,” Thomas didn’t let himself to be bothered by Newt’s attitude,as always, and pushed the book away while staring at him like he wanted tosolve him somehow.

“Read.”

“After you answer my question,”Thomas opposed.

“You didn’t do anything for thewhole day and you want a reward? That’s not how it works,” the blond glanced upat him from under his fringe and his eyes were piercing. He just needed alittle more time, for fuck’s sake. This guy was a torture.

“I only asked about your name,”Thomas shrugged. “How’s that a reward?”

“Something you want is considered a reward,” Newt stated simply and scribbled aresult of one of the exercises. With the amount of disturbances today he wasn’tentirely sure it was right, but at least there was something and he tried. “Therefore for a reward there has to be aquest done.”

“God, you talk like Gandalf,” Thomasgave up and pulled the book back with a heavy sigh.

“Well, at least you read something,”Newt commented with a snort and Thomas only rolled his eyes and looked like hewas willing to stay quiet for a bit longer.

It took another twenty minutes untilNewt was actually done with his own homework and put it away while lookingexpectantly at Thomas’ book. It was a fairly long article, he had to admit, butprobably not as long as the time hegave Thomas to read it. He must have gone through it several times in that case– or maybe he simply ignored it until Newt was done.

“So during which years the civil warlasted?” he asked while fishing his bag for the test he managed to get made andprint it at school. Giving it Thomas with his own handwriting wouldn’t reallyprove helpful, since rarely anybody could read it after him.

“I dunno, from what century areyou?” Thomas shrugged and Newt rolled his eyes. “Gee, like 1861 to 1865 orsomethin’?”

“You’re going to be a hard work,”Newt mumbled more to himself than to Thomas, but nodded anyway. “What about thepresidential election? Who led the Republicans and when?”

“Lincoln,” Thomas answered with asigh. “1860.”

Newt nodded again and handed him thetest. It proved better for Thomas to answer right than when he asked verbally,because at that point Thomas simply made something up to vex him.

“My friends call me Newt,” he saidsimply. After all he earned the answer. “My family sticks to Newton.”

“Oh,” Thomas blinked in an evidentsurprise. “’kay.”

Newt didn’t really say anything elseuntil Thomas was done with the test.

He got an A.

***

“Are you always creeping in therooms of people you’re tutoring like that?”

It was Friday and Newt was tired. Heskipped the last lesson at school because he had too much to do and too littletime with today’s tutoring day as well. He managed to arrive sooner than Thomasthough and his mother let him in to wait in Thomas’ room in meantime, which inretrospect probably seemed a little weird.

“I usually wait for them to inviteme, but you’re a special case, so I skipped the pleasantries,” Newt offeredwithout hesitation and glanced at his watch. “Not to mention you’re lateanyway. I was here on time.”

Thomas shrugged and threw his bag tothe corner as he did every day and Newt was starting to get used to it. Thewall already looked like it lived through it for some years anyway, so itapparently wasn’t a fleeting occurrence or an anger part on Thomas’ side forthe tutoring punishment.

“How did the test go?” he tilted his head tothe side and Thomas stopped mid-move like it just occurred to him. He turnedaround and walked back to the bag and took out the paper with a nice, red A onit. He only made the paper a little more presentable from the state it was inand handed it to his tutor without a word.

“Not bad,” Newt spoke up afterseveral seconds of reading and his lips curled up in a smile. There werequestions Newt didn’t even go through with him and yet he got them rightwithout a problem, which proved he wasn’t stupid at all. “You’re actuallypretty smart, aren’t you? Why the bad grades when you know what’s going on?”

“I don’t know,” Thomas mumbled andtossed his bag back to the corner. “I don’t like studying.”

He circled the table and crashed onhis bed and it looked like he was in a pretty bad mood.

“You study nicely,” Newt opposed,glancing at him from the paper. “An hour on Wednesday and you got the test onA, so what’s the problem? Lazy?”

“I guess,” Thomas shrugged.

“Maybe motivation would be inorder,” the blond offered, putting the test on the desk. He usually did thatwith students that were really trying hard to get better, because motivationwas always the best thing to reach the right result, and even though Thomasusually seemed like studying physically pained him, he did get an A on the test today.

“Maybe,” Thomas said shortly, watchingNewt intently. There was something calculating in his stare and before Newtcould come up with the right offer that could actually interest a guy likeThomas, the brunet leaned back in his bed and smirked. “How about a kiss?”

“I’m sorry?” Newt blinked. Surely heheard wrong?

“A kiss,” Thomas repeated calmly.“So I have something to look forward to after a day of school and another dose of boring here that,quite frankly, is slowly killing me.”

“That’syour motivation?” Newt pinched the bridge of his nose. Why did he offer it inthe first place? He should have known Thomas would try to make fun of himsomehow.

“Yep,” the brunet didn’t lookapologetic at all and Newt still waited for him to start laughing and maybe pullout a camera to snap a photo of his shocked face, but he just sat there andsmiled like he swallowed a canary. “You said it’s in order, so I’m telling youwhat I want in exchange.”

He didn’t look like the type, Newtmused. Why the hell would he even askabout something like that?

“Do I look like a kissing booth toyou?” he sighed in defeat, because sometimes it was really difficult to winagainst guys like Thomas. He could always tell his mother, of course, but thatwas low even for him.

“No, the price tag is missing,”Thomas opposed simply. “But you do look kinda kissable, just sayin’.”

“I can’t believe you even have theaudacity to ask about such stupid thing,” Newt shook his head. “Think again.”

“You’re no fun,” Thomas faked adramatic sigh and plopped back on the bed.

Newt was really, really having a badday.

***

“Do you even like kissing?”

Newt actually stopped writing andlooked at Thomas as if he grew another head. It was Monday and Newt all butforgot about Thomas’ weird-ass proposition from Friday over the weekend, justso it could bite him in the ass today.

“Why do you ask?” Newt inquiredrather unhappily, even though he knew he was not going to like the answer.

“I wanna know more about you,”Thomas shrugged like it was no big deal and Newt wanted to hit him withsomething heavy over the head. Maybe it would light up some synapses, finally.

“Cuz my opinion on kissing is vitalinformation,” Newt frowned and Thomas had the nerve to nod in agreement.

“Well, I wanna know.”

“I don’t mind it, I guess,” Newtuttered. It wasn’t like he had a huge experience in that field – he kissed fewpeople, yes, but it wasn’t anything special. He didn’t dislike it but he alsowasn’t a fanboy of it either. It was kind of… meh.

“With or without tongue?” anotherquestion and Newt banged his head against the table in frustration. Whobestowed him with such aggravating pupil? Was it a punishment from above?

“Seriously, why are you asking such stupid questions?”

“To stay motivated,” Thomas pointedat the test Newt had been correcting. “I’ll need the knowledge soon.”

“Wha-,”

“Would be a faux pas if you actuallyfancied French kissing more than normal one, you see,” Thomas grinned anddidn’t look that surprised when Newtthrew the pen at him. Too bad it didn’t leave permanent consequences.

***

“Are you a virgin?”

“An Aries,” Newt countered withoutmissing a beat and Thomas snorted.

Not again.

“Single?” he didn’t give up thoughand Newt gripped the pen he was correcting the test with tighter.

“Yes,” he bit out. This guy kept itup for a week already, and eachquestion was more embarrassing than the previous one.

“How so? No girl for tutoring whowould catch your eye?” Thomas leaned back in his chair and Newt let out asuffering sigh. “Or a boy. I don’t judge.”

“Unfortunately I tutor only the dumbones and they don’t exactly hold much of an appeal,” Newt glared at him withfrom his spot. “Like you, for example.”

“Ouch.”

“Your score is 40 %,” Newt scribbledthe mark on the paper and pushed it back towards Thomas. “Care to explain?”

“I’m not motivated,” Thomas shruggedwithout even looking at the test. Newt was pretty sure he got it wrong onpurpose and it was making his blood boil. He was gathering the tests forThomas’ mother, as a proof of her son’s progress, and as good as the first oneswere, the last ones during this week were getting worse and worse, and for apetty reason on top of that. “It had been a week and I still didn’t get mykiss, what do you expect? I had been working hard without a reward, and I’m fedup already.”

“Bloody hell, Thomas,” Newt groanedand rubbed his eyes. “How long are you going to keep this up? It’s not a game.You’re studying for yourself, not for me.”

“A kiss or we’re done talking,”Thomas replied stubbornly and Newt wanted to strangle him. What the hell washis aim? He seriously waited for Newt to agree so he could make a video aboutit or why the bloody hell would he want that?

“You’re insane.”

“Well, that wasn’t a no,” Thomas commented and stood up, justso he could flop down in front of Newt who was sitting on the floor. “Not goingto bite, I swear.”

Newt could only stare – this guycouldn’t be serious, could he? He definitely meant this as a way of teasing,because otherwise there simply wasn’t even a tiniest sense to it. But whenThomas’ hands fell on Newt’s thighs to pull him closer, the blond realized thiswas not just for a show. He wasreally going to do it.

“I told you I’m not here to do youany pleasantries,” he blurted out when Thomas started to lean in, and at leastit halted the approach a little.

“You’re motivating me,” Thomas opposed with a shrug and grabbed him tighterso he could pull him closer. Newt’s hands immediately flew up towards hischest, pushing against it. “That’s different.”

“Are you out of your mind?!”

“Nah, not yet,” the brunet respondedand one of his hands changed the location, so he could hold back of Newt’shead. His touch was surprisingly gentle and if Newt really wanted, he could getaway easily. “Getting my reward now.”

Newt was probably too stunned toreact properly, and his half-hearted defence was so lame even he had to admitit didn’t look very refusing, so when Thomas actually did press his lipsagainst his, he remained stiffly on the spot.

It wasn’t anything big or mindblowing, really. Maybe more like a peck, soft and not even forceful and beforeNewt could actually analyse the situation, it was already over and Thomas waspulling away with a blank expression, only silently watching the blond fromunder long, black eyelashes (Newt never noticed he actually had really niceeyes, which was obviously not good tothink right bloody now!).

“Oh look,” the brunet said lazily.“You’re still alive.”

Newt stared dumbly without any wordscoming to him, and when Thomas disentangled them and reached for the test hefilled today, he took the liberty and let out the breath he didn’t know he washolding.

Ten minutes of Thomas’ work laterand one more Newt’s correction after the test’s mark changed to B+.

***

“Focus.”

“My head hurts.”

“My condolences, now focus.”

Thomas groaned but actually lookedlike he focused back at the math problem as he should have. He had been terriblyrestless from the first hello today and it slowly flooded Newt’s mind as well.

“Can we leave it for tomorrow?”

“No, you have a test tomorrow,” Newtrefused sternly and Thomas clicked his pen several times with a sufferingexpression.

“I don’t want to do anything,” hemumbled. “I feel like shit and this is not going anywhere.”

“Thomas, please be a good boy andsolve at least this one problem, so I don’t need to worry about you fucking itup tomorrow,” Newt sighed tiredly. He too was not in the mood for math,especially not for equations and all the rubbish around it, but Thomas’ exam wasscheduled for tomorrow and they knew about it since Monday, so no matter howThomas struggled to delay it, Newt was not letting him. Not to mention the motivation system Thomas decided toestablish was officially on, and as much as the first Friday reward wasbasically a peck with nothing to be worried about, the Monday one actually gotlonger and little surer and Newt realized that even though it was stupid andprobably with a really bad intent behind it that was going to bite him in theass in the end, it kept Thomas on the track. Most of the tests Newt gave himafter a lecture were getting good results, and if not, it was in fact becauseThomas didn’t properly understand it. At that point at least Newt found outwhat they needed to focus on without his pupil playing the lazy card.

Thomas made a disagreeing noise, butactually did what he was asked to do and started writing, then crossed it outand started anew.

“Do you need me to explain itagain?” Newt asked while watching him struggling and Thomas shook his head.

“I get it,” he grumbled, visiblyaggravated. “I just can’t concentrate.”

“Take a break then,” Newt took thepen out of his hand and Thomas let out a long sigh. “Maybe go take a pill orsomething, if your head hurts?”

“I’ll sleep it off,” the brunetshrugged and dragged himself up and on the bed. “It had been a long fuckingday, I’m just tired.”

“You’re going to sleep now?” Newt turned to him with wide eyes;because really, he was paid forspending time here and Thomas wanted waste it while taking a nap? If his motherknew she would probably rage like a nine headed dragon.

“A lil nap,” Thomas mumbled whilecurling on the mattress. “Wanna join me?”

“Not at all,” Newt rolled his eyesand pulled his bag closer to him so he could take out his own work. He planneddoing his stuff in the evening, but since the opportunity presented itself, hewasn’t going to waste it. “I have a work to do anyway.”

“Spoilsport,” Thomas chuckledsleepily and before Newt could actually react, he was out cold.

***

It was a gentle tugging on his hairthat brought him back from the focused reading, and for a second he wasn’t surewhat was happening until he realized he had been propped against the side ofthe bed and Thomas just woke up.

“You’ve really nice hair,” thebrunet said while raking his hand through it and Newt let out a small sigh. Heseriously couldn’t read this guy – demanding kisses and petting him like a dog,was there more to it or was he simply so bored he decided to bother the onlyperson he could?

“Thanks, I grew them myself,” heretorted and closed the book he was reading. He heard Thomas laughing, but thetouch didn’t disappear, and quite frankly it didn’t feel bad at all. “Feelingbetter?”

“Mhm,” came a hum. “Sluggish tho.”

“Ready to try to solve the problemagain?” Newt avoided another touch and reached for the paper Thomas had beenworking on before, handing it to him. “At least that one.”

“You’re a slaver,” the brunetgrumbled, but when Newt gave him the pen and the book he could use as a table,he actually started writing.

He was a strange guy, Newt mused.The first impression told him he was going to be problematic, but outside ofhim being a little pushy with rewardshe turned out to be surprisingly docile and obedient, even worked hard. Newtcouldn’t say he disliked him, which usually happened with these types of guys.He actually grew to like him in a sense, his humour and lazy smile.

“Ha!” Thomas’ voice almost made himjump out of his skin, and then there was the paper with the math problem, allsolved, with Thomas grinning victoriously. “Is this the right result?”

Newt quickly went through it andsmiled.

“Yeah, good job,” he praised himproudly. “Guess you’re ready for tomorrow.”

“Ayyy,” Thomas slid down the bed andNewt yelped right the moment he got grabbed under his knees and pulled almoston Thomas’ lap, with his legs resting on Thomas’ thighs. Before he couldprotest against such manhandling, Thomas was already pushing insistently intohis personal space and capturing his mouth in a kiss.

It was different now – they were sodamn close Newt could feel Thomas’heartbeat against his chest, and the hands that usually only rested somewherenow kept on traveling over Newt’s back and sides and hips, like he was mappinghim curiously. This wasn’t only a peck either, Thomas was pushing him more,even sucking on his lower lip occasionally as if he was teasing him, and Newt’sblood was roaring loudly in his ears and his heart rabbited in his chest likecrazy.

Newt distinctly thought he shouldhave been offended somehow – this wasn’t justa kiss anymore, it was like they were making out, and it wasn’t somethingthey agreed on (hell, Newt didn’t even agree to the normal kissing part, Thomasbasically decided it on his own and Newt tolerated it because it improved hispupil’s grades, as lame as it sounded). But he didn’t fight it, he participated and if he wanted to refusethe fact he liked it, he would haveto hit himself for lying.

He just didn’t understand why was this happening.

When Thomas pulled slightly way,Newt realized he was out of air and gulped it down like a drowning man. He felthot, on board of feverish, and the proximity they had seriously didn’t help himto calm down.

“Wha-,”

“I can’t think of any suitableexcuse,” Thomas didn’t let him finish and Newt noticed how his pupils wereblown wide like crazy. He kept on skimming from Newt’s lips to his eyes andback up and Newt felt the hungry gaze somewhere deep inside of his chest, slowlytraveling to his abdomen like butterflies. Thomas was still holding him close,his grip firm like he was afraid Newt would run away, and quite frankly Newtshould have, but somehow couldn’t bring himself to do so.

“Can I get motivated in advance?”the brunet asked breathlessly and Newt’s stomach made a somersault. “Because Ireally, really want to kiss you again.”

No, hethought of saying. No, because it wasa bad thing, Thomas wasn’t the right person, couldn’t be – their worlds weredifferent, their schedules didn’t match up, and once the tutoring was over,what then?

“You have one hour,” he let out. “Go.”

Thomas didn’t wait for anything elsebefore swallowing any possible protest Newt could possibly say later. One hourwas simply not enough.

[gerryconway]

Dad Republicans vs. Crazy Uncle Republicans. Reading Jennifer Rubin, a long time reasonable conservative, express hopes for a "responsible conservative" candidate who can draw on a supposedly moderate conservative middle American electorate, I found myself pondering the idea of archetypes in politics. It's my belief most voters don't make electoral decisions based on a rational appraisal of policy choices. The proof of this is that polling consistently shows a vast super majority of voters prefer "liberal" social policies yet, politically, there's an almost even amount of self-identified conservatives and liberals. Clearly political decisions are driven more by emotions than reason, so political archetypes are crucial to understanding how and why people vote. It seems to me there has been one primarily successful Republican Presidential archetype since 1924: the Republican Dad. The Republican Dad is sober, soft spoken, mature, reliable, firm but kindly. He's older, and presents as wiser. He's a comfortable, familiar, reassuring figure, the picture of Stability. Every time the Republican party has run a Dad candidate against most typical Democratic candidates, they've won. Examples of Republican Dads are Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, both George Bushes, John McCain and Mitt Romney. You'll notice several of those Dad candidates lost their elections against Democratic opponents. Democrats have been successful in Presidential elections since 1932 when they embrace their own particular "progressive" archetype-- the Energetic Newcomer Activist. The Energetic Newcomer Activist archetype may be a generational rebellion against the Dad archetype. Typical Democratic Energetic Newcomer Activist candidates were Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barrack Obama. They ran against Dad archetypes like Hoover, Nixon, Ford, Bush, McCain and Romney. In every case, except Carter in 1980 against Reagan (which I would contend is consistent with the overall premise because by 1980 Carter was no longer perceived as a newcomer, energetic, or activist) the Democratic archetype beat the Republican archetype. What about the unsuccessful non-archetypical candidates put forward by both parties in various elections? For Democrats, the typical unsuccessful candidate is an establishment liberal. From a policy view the establishment liberal and the energetic newcomer activist are indistinguishable, but they represent two distinct archetypes. The establishment liberal is thoughtful, dispassionate, well-versed in policy and highly principled; they represent Reasonable Authority, vaguely unpleasant, like a school guidance counselor or high school principal. Typical unsuccessful Democratic candidates fitting the Reasonable Authority archetype are Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, George Dukasis, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton. All lost their respective elections, though in every way their policies and philosophy were indistinguishable from their successful energetic newcomer activist archetype predecessors. Policies and philosophy weren't rejected: archetypes were. The Republicans, too, have a consistent unsuccessful archetype (though, unlike Democrats, they're far less likely to nominate their unsuccessful archetype): the Crazy Uncle. The Crazy Uncle Republican has a similar political and policy philosophy to the Dad Republican but expresses it with less coherence, more emotion and a blatant appeal to intemperate part of society. He's the antithesis of Dad reassurance. Wendell Wilkie (undisciplined and amateurish), William Taft seeking the Republican nomination in 1952, Barry Goldwater, and Donald Trump are all examples of the Crazy Uncle Republican archetype. Notably, unlike the Reasonable Authority Democratic archetype, the Crazy Uncle archetype has had little success in internal Republican politics, achieving the party's nomination only three times in the last eighty years. That's because, until recently, the Republican party has had better internal discipline than the Democratic party. Republican leaders understood their party brand and knew what worked for them. The typical Republican Dad archetype will always prevail against the typical Democratic Reasonable Authority archetype. The only effective counter to the Republican Dad archetype is the Democratic Energetic Newcomer Activist archetype, which, for some reason, the Democratic institutional party seems loathe to nominate. Whenever the institutional Democratic party prevails, pitting a Reasonable Authority against an institutional Republican Dad candidate-- as with Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukasis, Gore, Kerry-- it fails. Institutionally, from the 1920s until 2016, the Republican party's default Presidential candidate was a better bet than the default Democratic candidate. Then came 2016. The election of 2016 presented something new and untested: the atypical Crazy Uncle Republican archetype versus the typical Reasonable Authority Democratic archetype. For the first time ever the Reasonable Authority archetype faced something other than a Republican Dad archetype. Given that Reasonable Authority archetype never prevail against the Republican Dad archetypes, Democrats might have expected a win in this unique matchup. And, in fact, the Reasonable Authority archetype did win the popular vote. But for the electoral college, as in 2000, for the first time ever a Reasonable Authority Democrat might have won the Presidency. And sometimes, in poker, you can win drawing on an inside straight. Doesn't mean it's a smart play. I bring all this up in response to Jennifer Rubin's opinion piece because both political parties face a reckoning with the future. The Republican Party is clearly in crisis, with its historical identity as the party of the Dad archetype in jeopardy. A party that orients itself around the Crazy Uncle archetype is a fundamentally different party than a Dad party. Many Republicans now fully embrace the Crazy Uncle archetype, in Congress, in state government, and in party-supporting outside institutions. Whether the party can recover from that embrace, or whether it even wants to, remains to be seen. If Rubin is right, a future Dad party might arise elsewhere. It's entirely possible-- the Dad archetype is a powerful electoral model, in most circumstances unbeatable by the typical Reasonable Authority alternative. Which is why the Democratic party is also in crisis. For decades the institutional Democratic party has resisted supporting its most viable electoral archetype-- the Energetic Newcomer Activist. That archetype is the only consistently successful alternative to the Dad archetype in Presidential elections. My guess is an Energetic Newcomer Activist candidate would have prevailed over Trump's Crazy Uncle (an argument can be made that Trump's Crazy Uncle was perceived by some in the electorate as, in fact, an Energetic Newcomer Activist). Because of internal Democratic party politics the only candidate presenting himself as an Energetic Newcomer Activist was Bernie Sanders--someone who probably wouldn't have stood a chance in the general election for entirely different reasons. The party needed a genuine Democratic Energetic Newcomer Activist candidate, not a disruptive outsider who, like Trump, sought to hijack the party without becoming part of it. As the Democratic party moves forward, it needs to resolve this contradiction between its institutional bias toward unelectable Reasonable Authority candidates and the political reality of the American electorate preference for Energetic Newcomer Activists. Elections are a war of archetypes, not policy or logical argument. It's a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors. Republican Dad beats Democratic Reasonable Authority. Democratic Energetic Newcomer Activist beats Republican Dad. What beats Republican Crazy Uncle? That's the critical question going forward.

[robininthelabyrinth]

Heatwave for President

Fic: Heatwave for President (ao3 link)

Fandom: Flash, DC's Legends of Tomorrow Pairing: Mick Rory/Leonard Snart

Summary: Mick Rory will go down in history for being the first person to start his campaign for President of the United States by saying, "I really don't want to do this, but seriously, look at my opponent."

A/N: Birthday present for @oneiriad! Happy birthday!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Do you have any regrets about the process?" the reporter asks as they all stare at the giant television showing the projected results as the exit polls start trickling in from the states. "Anything you would change?"

"What kind of question is that?" Iris mutters under her breath.

Mick - to whom the question had been directed - hums for a moment. "I think - the time travel," he says. "That bit. Wouldn't do it."

The reporter frowns. "But wasn't it your association with the, quote, 'Legends of Tomorrow' that originally propelled you on your current path towards politics and, eventually, your present run for President?"

"Yeah," Mick says glumly. "Exactly."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technically, it's a bit more complicated than that.

First, of course, there was the Flash. Everything always starts there - oh, shut up with your stupid 'Green Arrow was first' bullcrap, no one cares that he was first because he was just some weird serial killing vigilante to start off with, and anyway barely anyone outside of Starling (Star City, whatever) knew about it - because it was by watching the Flash's epic battles with what have come, retrospectively, to be known as his "Rogues" that Mick first became famous. He even had his own action figure, which most people running for president could only imagine happening in relation to political satire.

Of course, back then they called him Heatwave.

Then Snart - that's Captain Cold to you, reporter - had the bright idea of hooking up with some time travelers for a lark. Mick hadn't thought much of the idea at the time, even tried to quit a few times - quit with prejudice, one might say, and there'd been that whole Kronos business that you're not finding out any more about, the news media already knows more than Mick would like on the subject - and it hadn't taken.

And then Snart died.

Yes, Mick is perfectly aware that Snart's back now, but for a while there he'd been absolutely and totally convinced that he was gone for good (he was dead - how was Mick supposed to know that it hadn't fully taken?!) and it'd been pretty shattering.

That was the period with the Legends. Saving history, fucking up history, all of that.

Yes, that's when he met Georgie Washington. Stop asking about it. Mick's already told you all he knows.

No, he refuses to go get him for the Inauguration, should it happen! The guy didn't even like politics towards the end of it! Leave Georgie alone!

Okay, maybe a dinosaur. Mick makes no promises.

Well, yeah. He guesses it would be pretty cool to ride to the White House on a dinosaur. You might have a point there.

Anyway, where was he? Oh, right, the Legends. Anyway, when the first alien attack came - the Dominators - Mick was there with the Legends. It was a state secret and all that at the time; that's when he got a pardon for everything he'd previously been involved with. Very hush-hush, though how the pres was planning on keeping the details of how a nation- or world-wide invasion was defeated a secret is anyone's guess. Sure, keep it a secret from the American media, that's one thing, but those British tabloids are vicious weasels that will stop at nothing.

Okay, yeah, Mick taking a selfie with a downed Dominator and posting it to Instagram - instantly making it one of the only good pictures anyone had of the damn things, which were resistant to being recorded on any type of media unless you did some special adjustments to the settings, like, say, the sort Gideon did automatically when upgrading their camera phones, and by sheer scarcity thereby became famous worldwide as the definitive Dominator photo - probably didn't help with the whole secrecy thing.

Hell yeah Mick's going to put a copy of that in the White House if he wins, you kidding? That picture won photo of the year, and that was the year of the solar eclipse, so it had some pretty stiff competition.

Anyway, yeah, that's how Mick's rep started shifting from supervillain to - you know what, let's just avoid any use of the terms 'superhero' (Mick is not) or 'hero' (also not).

Good guy?

Ugh. Fine. Out of lack of better options.

Anyhoo, that's when the buzz started, y'know? A couple of pranksters - whose names shall remain nameless but who know exactly who they are, Barry Allen and Cisco Ramon - uh, that last part's off the record - anyway, these fucking assholes decided to start up a fake Super PAC called 'Heatwave for President'.

Yeah, Mick knows it was just meant as a contrast to the current incumbent. Sort of a "if this idiot can become president, why not Heatwave the famous supervillain" sort of deal. Mick's cool with that. It was a funny joke and, yeah, the incumbent was worse than useless. You'd think getting the job when your predecessor was shot by aliens would give them the sympathy vote, at least for a bit, but wow did they blow it. Who the fuck tries to kill health care for kids as their first official push in action? Seriously, who?

Yeah, you can definitely write that down. “Mick Rory still ticked off about asshole move”. Honestly, just keep that handy for copy-paste purposes, it’s probably going to be relevant a lot in the future.

What? No, Mick hadn’t thought about running for office as far back as the whole joke Super PAC thing. Mick was traveling through space and time at that time. Keep your chronology straight. If Mick can do it – and, again, not to over-emphasize this, but do you know how hard it is to keep track of time on a time-traveling spaceship? – then you can do it when you've got your feet firmly set down on planet earth in a consistent timeline.

So yeah, things were going along that way, Mick with the Legends, going around, doing shit, messing shit up, fighting with people. The whole thing wasn't exactly all sunshine and roses, but they did well enough. Well, they managed to keep the timeline more or less intact, at least.

No, you wouldn’t know it if they’d failed. Time doesn’t work that way.

No, the current incumbent isn’t a result of a horrific failure by time travelers to prevent an evil catastrophe from –

Huh. You know what, Mick’s not going to give a definitive answer on that one. Just assume that if the Legends had failed, things would be even worse.

No comment on North Korea. Just – no comment. Ever.

Yes, ever.

The Legends are on it, okay?!

Not the point Mick was trying to get at here. More what he was trying to get at is – Len. Snart. Captain Cold.

Fuck it, Mick's just calling him Len for the rest of this interview -

Yes, thank you Len, your commentary that you are “always the point” is incredibly helpful here.

Fucking drama queens.

Anyway.

That's about when it turns out (or rather, when they all discover) that Len didn’t, in fact, die – or maybe he did, and it got reversed, or something like that – and he ended up in a different universe. Fighting Nazis.

Listen, if there’s one thing that Mick’s going to take a permanent never-gonna-change-it-no-matter-what-new-evidence-appears-no-matter-what position on, it’s gonna be Nazis. Mick fucking hates Nazis.

Yes, neo-Nazis count.

Yes, they have a First Amendment right to free speech, meaning no government oppression.

Yes, Mick realizes that means he’ll have to stop punching them all the time if he gets elected President. It’s okay. He’s sure that some fine, upstanding people will take up the slack and keep on the good work for him.

Listen, if Super PACs are “sufficiently unrelated” to a presidential campaign to raise money on behalf of some asshole – and yes, Mick’s counting himself here – then the Nazi-Punching Party which endorsed Mick and which he may or may not go to regular meetings of is “sufficiently unrelated” for the purposes of government oppression of free speech. You get me?

Fine, Mick will probably stop attending meetings.

Probably.

Len can still go, though, right?

See, Lenny, you can still go. Bring a goddamn camera.

Fuck, being President is going to be no fun at all. Why is he doing this again?

Oh, right, because the World’s Worst Caricature is running for office and the Legends and Gideon have all agreed that letting that guy get elected would literally mean the end of the world. That’s it, kaput, no more history, everyone’s all back to using sticks to write in the dirt again – what weird mutated creatures are left over anyway.

Ugh.

Trust Mick, you don't want to see the things Mick has seen. It's bad.

Mick would like it known that he does not approve of things going in a political drama-slash-mutated creature sort of way. Sci-fi was always more Len’s things. Mick prefers ninjas.

Yeah, that meeting with Tokyo’s Prime Minister went awesomely, why do you ask?

Shut up, Len. There was some discussion of policy; it wasn’t all about what classic ninja movie was the best. Though the last five hours were definitely all movie marathon. Not gonna lie.

Where was he?

Right, Len. Fighting Nazis. Terrible nearly world-ending invasion of the present Earth by the Nazi forces of that Earth, including the superhero and meta equivalents, repelled only by the combined forces of basically everybody.

Len and Mick teamed up to save the day, just like old times.

Okay, old times, they teamed up to steal things. Basically the same thing.

Listen, Nazis from another dimension invaded. That trumps everything.

For anyone other than the current incumbent, anyway. Fuckhead.

Yes, that’s on the record.

What? What the fuck is “Presidential decorum”? Listen, you, unlike you, Mick’s actually met George Washington, and if you think that every three words he uttered wasn’t some variation of ‘fuck’, ‘shit’, or ‘damn’, then that’s just because you’re reading the cleaned up history version. He was a soldier. And before he was a soldier, he was a surveyor, which as far as Mick can tell means “walked out into the forest with a compass and came back out hating bears”, and if that doesn’t make a man swear, then nothing will.

No comment on whether or not Mick hooked up with him.

Just give up. You’re never going to get a comment.

So while everybody else was being scared shitless at how the Nazis from another dimension – and yeah, Mick’s perfectly aware that the usual term is “another Earth”, but fuck it, “another dimension” sounds like a crappy 1950s sci-fi “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” and makes Len grin every time, so Mick’s sticking with it – were invading, especially when they got all the white supremacists on this Earth to join up with them, taking advantage of all those so-easy gun laws to arm up into an actual local army, the current incumbent decided to throw a temper tantrum because the attention wasn’t 100% focused on them for five fricking minutes.

Also, Mick’s pretty sure they’re actually not-so-secretly a Nazi supporter. All that talk of cooperating and seeing what they have to say and how they were “good people” – total fucking crap, obviously. That asshole was probably disappointed when Mick and Len had their Moment of Awesome sending them all back to where they came, right into the trap Len’d been setting up with the other resistance forces on that Earth.

Either way, as everyone knows, as soon as the Nazis were gone, the next thing the current incumbent decided to do was push a horrible law outlawing any metahumans – and they defined metahumans in the stupidest possible way, and all because they wanted it to cover people who actually didn’t have any powers like Len and Mick, which didn’t even make sense – and trying to make Earth-1 full on fascist.

Yeah, fascist. They put lots of fancy words and stuff – no, that’s not right, their speechwriters put fancy words and stuff around it, but that law was – is – fucking dystopia nightmare fuel right there, okay?

Listen, Mick literally has someone from 2042 going around and testifying to how awful that law makes literally everything. What more evidence do you fucking need?

So, yeah. Horrible future. World's Worst Caricature running for office, almost certain to pass it if they get in.

And that means -

Someone was gonna have to man up (woman up? non-gender up? human up? wait, is the last one specieist?) to stop it.

Now, you’d think the other party would do something about that, wouldn’t they? But noooo, they decide to shoot themselves in the foot by nominating some old geezer taking a hard line about how everything’s going to change now that everyone’s “together” – never mind the details, togetherness is what’s important, right guys? the movement's gonna fix everything! because it's a revolution! of feelings! Of all the dumbass hippie-dippie crap... – and coming up with increasingly more stupid ideas that wouldn't work. Doesn't matter, of course, Mick was all set to vote for the fucker anyway, along with everyone else, just to keep Worst Caricature outta office, but no. See, then, three fucking months before the election, the asshole gets found out to be corrupt as fuck! Except he won’t resign and let anyone else run! And his fanboys have made their way into the levers of power, so the party can’t kick him out, either! And all the goddamn ballots have already gone to the printers!

That’s how this whole thing really got started, you know. Three fucking months, and the only other person who’d been entered to run for President in all 50 states before the deadline passed is – you guessed – Heatwave for President.

Fucking hell.

At the time, the entire freaking organization was being run by the people who now make up Mick’s circle of advisors – Felicity Smoak, Oliver Queen, Barry Allen, Cisco Ramon, Caitlin Snow, and Iris West – because they’d all thought it was freaking funny or something, and everyone suddenly had to change gears real fast to try to make it into an actual thing.

Not that anyone thought it would work. You know, they just thought - might as well give it a try. Can't just roll over and give in; gotta go for the Hail Mary pass if that's all that's left to you.

No one actually thought it would work.

At least, no one thought it would work until the polls started changing. First time they polled it, Mick got, like, 5%.

Second time they polled it, he got 30%.

Now he’s somewhere near 50%.

Jesus.

If Mick wins, Mick’s taking a weekend to go sit quietly in a room and hyperventilate for, like, an hour.

Thanks for the hug, Len. Means a lot; Mick knows very well how much you hate public displays of affection. Or emotion. Or anything but drama, drama, drama.

Huh? Yeah, Len and Mick are partners. They’ve always been upfront and clear about that.

No – no – partners.

Yes, criminal partners. But also, you know, partner partners. If you get what Mick’s saying.

Oh, for fuck’s sake, they’re married. Len’s going to be the First Supervillain or whatever they call it when it’s a guy.

What do you mean, nobody…? It’s fucking legal and everything! Central City’s Hall of Records has a copy of the goddamn certificate!

…oh, okay, yeah. Fair point. Can’t even imagine the type of backlog you’d have to go through to get Central City bureaucracy to do anything, much less respond to a freaking FOIA request. They'll probably get around to responding to it sometime in the 2030s.

You mean people really didn’t know?

Huh.

Well, that’s gonna surprise a lot of people, then.

First ever non-straight resident of the White House? Don’t be ridiculous. Haven’t you met Lincoln?

Right. Not everyone time travels. Sorry, keep forgetting.

Yes, Mick’s met Lincoln.

No, Mick’s not going to comment on if he hooked up with him, either. Jesus. Stop asking.

Why hadn’t Mick mentioned meeting Lincoln before? Because it wasn’t important? It never came up!

It’s not like anyone asked for a listing of all the time eras he’s visited!

Of course the Legends never mentioned it; it wasn’t when Mick was with them. It was during his Kronos period. Listen, it’s a long story, okay? And they’re getting close to actually starting to yell out states, so maybe everyone should pay attention to that instead.

Yes, Mick is totally aware that he’s being weaselly. He’s a politician now. He’s allowed to be weaselly sometime.

What’s everyone got against weasels, anyway? Perfectly nice animals.

Mick has a pet rat, you know. If Mick wins – yes, he’s still using fucking “if”, nothing gets decided until we hit Ohio and Florida, Iris – does that make Ratigan the First Pet or something now?

Is there a First Pet position?

Wait, there is? Kickass.

Never been a rat before? So what? Mick’s got nothing against dogs, you know, but he doesn’t have a dog. He has a rat. People will just have to deal.

Heh. Not Mick’s fault you don’t know what part of this interview you should make the headline.

…thank you, Len, he’s not going to go with “Bisexual Rat-Owner Wins Presidency; Husband Approves”.

No, “President-Elect Uses ‘Fuck’ More Often In Last-Minute Interview Than Any Prior Candidate” isn’t a good choice either, Iris. Probably historically inaccurate, too; LBJ was real big on the whole swearing thing - no comment on the hook-ups! Jesus!

What? No, Ramon, no one is running a headline that goes “Time Traveler Confirms Academic Suspicions Regarding Lincoln’s Sexuality”. No one cares!

Fine, maybe the history journals care. But no one else. Not like it’s a big deal. People can sleep with whoever they want.

Oh, it’s still a big deal in some ways? That sucks. Okay, that’s going on the agenda of things to do to fix in the next four years.

Eight years?

No.

Yes, he means it! Why the hell would he run for office twice? How bad can the next option be?!

And Sara just ran into the room. Please say that you’re not here to tell everyone that some horrible thing has happened in the future that –

Actually, never mind. Please be here to tell everyone that some horrible thing has happened in the future and that you desperately need everyone here to go take care of it immediately.

No?

Damn.

Wait.

What do you mean, Mick won?

Oh fuck.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“So, what are you planning on doing now, Mr. President-Elect?” the reporter asks, beaming like a maniac, as the giant television shows the explosive celebrations occurring immediately outside – literally explosive, since Mick had insisted on bonfires and fireworks and at least four different pyrotechnics teams. “What’s your first move?”

"What kind of question is that?" Iris laughs as Barry swings her around. “We can worry about that tomorrow! Tonight we party!”

“The world is saved!” Cisco cheers.

“I’m doomed,” Mick says, his head rolling back. “They’re never gonna let me quit.”

“Probably not,” Len, who is perched right next to him, says to him, not without sympathy. “But it’s okay. I’ll do the work for you.”

“You’re the best, boss,” Mick says, not without feeling. “Why couldn’t you have been Vice President?”

“Because they can’t be in the same building for too long,” Len explains. "Meteorite strikes."

"Oh," Mick says glumly. "Right."

Len pats Mick’s arm comfortingly. “Don’t worry. There’s a long, storied precedent of First – uh, First Spouses – running the joint for their husbands.”

“Damn right there is,” Mick says, rubbing his face. “Thank god for Woodrow Wilson, that's all I'm saying - don't you even ask," he warns the reporter.

“Besides,” Len continues, sounding quite practical. “Sara makes a great Vice President. After all, if you die, who would you want to avenge your murder if not Sara?”

Mick nods.

“Um,” the reporter says, blinking at the two of them. “That’s…not what a Vice President does?”

“Really? Are you sure?”

“…moderately sure. I’ve been reporting on political matters for a long time now.”

“If it makes you feel better, I’m pretty sure she’s gonna let Jax, Stein and Ray do most of her work,” Len offers. “Even after all that trouble we had to go to in order to get her declared alive again…”

“It…really doesn’t,” the reporter says. “But thanks for the update?”

“No problem,” Len says. “C’mon, Mick. Let’s go watch things burn.”

Mick brightens and climbs to his feet.

“Hey,” Len asks the reporter, “you’re the politico here. Do Presidential spouses get immunity from prosecution?”

The reporter frowns. “Why?”

“No stealing stuff, Snart,” Barry says.

“Oh, fine.”

“For four years.”

“Wait, what?!”

"You're a role model now!"

"No! I refuse!"

"Too late now," Iris cackles.

Mick starts laughing. “Well,” he says, looping an arm around Len’s waist and dragging him towards the flame, Len’s face still frozen in a rictus of horror. “At least I won’t be the only one suffering!”

“Look on the bright side!” the reporter shouts after them. “Politicians are basically just thieves on a much larger scale!”

[progressiveparty]

Bernie Sanders can beat Trump

Real Change - Join our team to help reach 1 million supporters  

STUNNING Bernie Sanders can beat Trump

We can hardly believe our eyes. This changes everything. THE WEEK just reported that Bernie Sanders is closing in on Trump!

This race is closer than ANYONE ever expected -- including President Trump. He’s FUMING. He just called in an emergency meeting to demand his base voters turn out. Trump knows that if he loses even votes in the heart of Trump country, his chances of keeping the White House are as good as dead. We have to act now and hand Trump this massive loss in the 2020 Election! We need 2,551 gifts before 7pm immediately wired to the Progressive Party to strengthen the progressive movement and weaken Trump’s rally. Urgently -- will you rush $1 to crush Trump, win the election, and win the White House? Chip in immediately >>

Bernie Sanders can beat Trump

When trying to guess which candidate will be strongest against Donald Trump in 2020, you would be equally well-served by a dowsing rod, Ouija board, tea leaves, or deck of tarot cards as you would by the informed judgment of cable news pundits or political reporters. Yet polls show the Democratic primary electorate, apparently still scarred by Trump's surprise win in 2016, are attempting cast their own political yarrow stalks by lining up whoever has the best chance to win next year. Only God knows which Democratic candidate will be the strongest in 14 months' time. However, we can say one thing with as much confidence as can be mustered in this fallen world: Bernie Sanders could beat Donald Trump. Polls are obviously rather fluid at this early stage in the election cycle, but they're also the only data we have on how candidates would stack up against Trump in a head-to-head race. They have consistently shown Sanders ahead of Trump by about 5 points (while former vice president Joe Biden is ahead by about 8 points). Sanders' approval rating has also been consistently in the mid-50s, with disapproval in the high 30s. That is far, far better than either Trump's or Hillary Clinton's numbers in 2016. More importantly, given how he dominates media coverage, Donald Trump is quite unpopular. His disapproval rating is rock-solidly in the low 50s, and his approval rating hasn't exceeded the low 40s since the very first days of his term (only Charlottesville and the government shutdown briefly worsened his position). Given all the incredible chaos of his administration, it seems fair to conclude that attitudes are pretty well baked in — and broadly speaking, the American people are not fans of Trump. It's also important to remember that the eventual Democratic nominee does not need any Trump voters to win. Indeed, Trump got a smaller fraction of the vote than Mitt Romney did in 2012 — Hillary Clinton just lost a ton of support from Obama voters in critical regions who either voted for third-party candidates or didn't vote at all in 2016. Just repeating Obama's 2012 performance would surely do the trick — indeed, even performing just slightly better than Clinton in the three key swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (in none of which did Trump get a majority) would do it. The point is that despite his shocking come-from-behind victory and awful carnage he has inflicted as president, Donald Trump is eminently beatable. Yet the Democratic base seems to be stuck in a terrified crouch, desperately playing amateur pundit to deny Trump a second term by any means necessary — as Biden supporters tell reporters. (Why anybody would trust pundit-style prognosticating, professional or otherwise, after that backfired disastrously in 2016 is beyond me, but that's a topic for another article.) Now on the other hand, Sanders is certainly not a shoe-in. Trump is an incumbent president, and winning reelection is generally much easier than taking office in the first place — plus the economy is doing generally well, at least for the moment. Moreover, you never know what could come up in the course of the campaign, whether it's opposition research, some international development, or what. But that is true of every candidate. The arrogant, fickle big-shot political press could decide that they will prove their even-handedness by blasting Elizabeth Warren's dumb DNA controversy every single day of the campaign, creating the impression she was somehow illegally cloned from the remains of Crazy Horse and driving down her popularity. FBI Director Christopher Wray could decide to abuse his position to help Trump defeat Biden for fear of criticism from the conservative rank-and-file at the agency. The risk of a third-party splitter candidate also goes both ways. Sanders might draw a billionaire challenger like Howard Schultz who cynically tries to help Trump win to protect his tax cuts. But a centrist nominee like Biden might draw a left-wing challenger from the Green Party. Either might draw some loopy crank from the Libertarians. Indeed, that's precisely what happened to Clinton, with Jill Stein and Gary Johnson respectively. In sum, there is no simple, guaranteed way for Democrats to win in 2020 — but it definitely could be done, by Sanders and by others. A recent poll found both Sanders and Biden equally ahead of Trump in Texas, for crying out loud. This Piece Originally Appeared in theweek.com Read the full article

[helloworlddemo1122-yahoopar-blog]

EXCLUSIVE: John Mulaney and Nick Kroll on ‘Oh, Hello,’ Whoopi Goldberg and Ghosts

Unfortunately, this article about Nick Kroll and John Mulaney is about Nick Kroll and John Mulaney. That's just one of the countless jokes from Oh, Hello on Broadway that will make your sides split from laughter. 

The hilarious Broadway play is about the two comedians' longtime alter egos: the elderly Upper West Side bachelors Gil Faizon and George St. Geegland. Gil is a "Tony Award-viewing actor that looks like Steven Spielberg if he hadn't made any money," and George describes himself as a "party man going through the coats."  The show ran for 138 performances last fall at the Lyceum Theatre and was taped for an original comedy special now streaming on Netflix. 

MORE: A-List Stars Who Took Their Talents to Netflix

There's always “Too Much Tuna” for Kroll, who says he's allergic to the fish. Any form of it -- canned, sushi or seared. But audiences couldn't be hungrier for more of their well-known bit, where, roughly halfway through the 90-minute performance, Gil and George bring up a celebrity guest to be interviewed on their cable-access show with a diner-like setting. Judd Apatow and his family, Will Forte, Stephen Colbert, Laura Benanti, Bobby Cannavale, Katie Couric and Fred Savage have all joined in on the meal, which consists of an extra-large Katz's Deli-style tuna fish sandwich that floats down onto the stage. 

Last year, while the show was running during the presidential election, Kroll wanted former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders to fill one of the coveted cameo slots. “He’s playing hardball with us,” he previously told ET. On the Netflix special, Steve Martin gets the special seat. 

Joan Marcus

Kroll, 39, and Mulaney, 34, have been performing and perfecting these characters for years. Perhaps they work so well together because they've known each other since they were students at Georgetown University. "He was like the coolest older brother," Mulaney says of Kroll, "I just wanted to go to his place all the time." As for Mulaney, he got himself into trouble shortly after the pair met. "I remember we had our first improv rehearsal," Kroll recalls. "It was going to be on a Saturday and he said, 'I can’t make it -- I have an appointment. I thought, Oh, he’s so professional. A nice, young man, he’s got an appointment." The appointment, as it turns out, was a Phish concert, where Mulaney was caught with an open container. "It’s so weird, I did that a lot at that age," Mulaney explains. "They found out later because I was like, 'I have a court date.'”

In honor of the play's Netflix release, ET caught up with the dynamic duo to talk about their favorite guests on the show, appearing at the Tony Awards for the first time and where you might see Gil and George perform next.  

ET: Who were your favorite celebrities to join you onstage during the run for “Too Much Tuna”?

Nick Kroll: John Oliver was a very fun night and fun to pound. He’s English and very polite, but so funny and sharp. He’s a great listener, so it becomes this really popping conversation.

John Mulaney: He and I were looking at each other during the interview and I said, “Gil has a question about Israel now.” He started laughing so hard.

Kroll: Truthfully, Alan Alda, who did our opening night.

Mulaney: That was the best guest ever.

Kroll: He was the show.  When we used to describe the characters, we used to say they were Upper West Side bachelors who were obsessed with Alan Alda. So, the idea that he did our opening was very special.

I saw it with Whoopi Goldberg. 

Kroll: Whoopi had done her show, Whoopi, at the Lyceum in 1984. We loved having her. But then the show itself was a weird one. There was lighting and sound issues.

Mulaney: There was a hook that fell down very fast. 

Kroll: I felt like the crowd was a little strange that night. So I got off the stage and said, “Boy, that crowd stunk.” You were great.

I had to be, I was laughing so loud.

Kroll: [Then] I found out that our mics were still live. Everything that could have gone wrong for us went wrong. It was our belief that the ghost of the Lyceum was not happy that the two shows were crossing over. 

Mulaney: Whoopi had said she was experiencing the ghost of the Lyceum a lot.

Kroll: If anyone would be an expert on ghosts, it would be Whoopi. 

Who was the most unexpected guest that agreed to do it?

Kroll: One night we pulled out of the crowd -- because our guest fell through -- Katie Couric, who was randomly in the [audience]. We asked if she’d be the guest and she did. In the middle of being on stage with us, she quietly looked at me and very quietly said, “You guys are so weird.”

Mulaney: David Letterman did our last night. I’m still shocked he did it. Truly, I can’t express how delighted we were but how surprised, with how wonderfully selective he is.

Kroll: I think that was the height of it for our last show. We had the guy who doesn’t want to do anything -- do it.

John, what was one thing that made you break character?

Mulaney: I broke a lot. Every night, [Gil] had this ridiculous walk that I never got to see. A few times, Gil would have an upset stomach and would go to part of the stage to let it out. I would have to cross over there, and I could never mention it. He would look at me like a 4-year-old would.

Kroll: It was so fun farting onstage and having John walk through it.

Mulaney: What I couldn’t laugh at that made me want to laugh every night is that we’d get into a fight. Gil’s threatening to leave and every night, I’d turn my back and say, “If you don’t apologize, our friendship is over.” And he said, “I guess I’ll say my goodbyes.” It’s such a weird line.

Kroll: As if you’d say goodbyes during a play.

Nick, same question. 

Kroll: John makes me break constantly. There’s a noise [he made] -- it’s actually in the trailer for the Netflix special. Oooowah. So much of the show is improvised and kept and tweaked. If something really made us laugh, it would oftentimes stay in the show and we would laugh less as we polished it. 

What was the writing process like? 

Mulaney: We would sit and write a lot of it, but it kind of came from improvising. We kept having live shows to do and kept being able to throw new lines in.

Kroll: I don’t want to ruin it for the audience, but Gil has a pretty serious affair with a raccoon named Lisa and it’s a love affair. It’s sexual, physical and emotional. That whole plotline was improvised onstage on Broadway. We slowly wrote about an affair between a man and a raccoon.

What was the funniest audience reaction?

Mulaney: When they would legitimately gasp at dramatic moments in the play. 

Kroll: George has a moment where it’s a revelation.

On Sunday, you both announced the Radio City Rockettes’ performance at the Tony Awards. What was it like being there for the first time? 

Mulaney: So fun. During the opening number, I leaned over to my wife and I said, “I love entertainment.”

Kroll: You get the sense, more than the Oscars or Emmys or other awards, that people who are there are so excited. It was cool to feel the audience feel so excited for people winning and performing in a way that you don’t feel at other award shows.

Will we see Gil and George in the near feature putting on their shtick anywhere else? 

Kroll: Yeah; we think it’s a mistake, but they’re going to audition for American Idol on ABC.

[taiey]

I’d like to ask you to imagine that you live in a very repressive country—there are elections but they are fake. The leader wins 100% of the vote each time. Security forces beat up opposition leaders with impunity, and they harass everyone else. This is a country where being in this room right now would get you on a list. Now let’s say you’ve had enough, and so have many other people that you talk to in low whispers. I’m not talking about the Hunger Games although that would be awesome. Unfortunately I’m talking about real world conditions that many people find themselves in right now.

Assuming you’ve decided to act, what would be the best way for you to challenge the system and create major change?

My own answer to this question has changed over the past five years. In 2006 I was a PhD student in political science here at CU-Boulder, and I was finishing my dissertation about how and why people use violence to seek political goals. As for the scenario I just described? Well, back then I bought into the idea that “power flows from the barrel of a gun.” I would have said that although it was tragic, it was logical in such cases for people to use violence to bring about change.

But that June, I was invited to an academic workshop put on by the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. They were giving a week-long primer on nonviolent resistance to encourage people like me to teach about it in our courses. Now, my view of all this stuff was that it was well-intentioned, but dangerously naïve. The readings they sent me argued that the best way for people to achieve political change was through nonviolent or civil resistance. The authors described civil resistance as an active form of conflict where unarmed civilians used tactics like protests, demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, and many other forms of mass noncooperation to confront oppression. They brought up cases like Serbia, where a nonviolent revolution toppled Slobodan Milosevic—the butcher of the Balkans—in October of 2000, or the Philippines where the People Power movement ousted Ferdinand Marcos in 1986.

At the workshop, I said things like, “Well, for every successful case you guys mention, I can think of a failed case like Tiananmen Square. I can also think of plenty of cases where violence worked pretty well, like the Algerian, French, and Russian revolutions. Maybe nonviolent resistance works if you’re seeking labor rights, gender rights, or environmental reform, but it generally can’t work if you’re trying to overthrow a dictator or become a new country. Serbia and the Philippines–they were probably exceptions. And there’s no way nonviolent resistance can work against a ruthless opponent.”

By the end of the week, as you can imagine, I wasn’t too popular.

My soon-to-be co-author—Maria Stephan–came up to me and said something like, “If you’re right, prove it. Are you curious enough to study these questions empirically?”

Believe it or not, no one had systematically done this before. Although I was still skeptical, I was curious. If they were right and I was wrong, I figured somebody had better find out. So for the next two years, I collected data on all major nonviolent and violent campaigns for the overthrow of a government or territorial liberation since 1900. The data cover the entire world and include every known campaign that consists of at least a thousand observed participants, which constitutes hundreds of cases.

Then I analyzed the data, and the results blew me away. From 1900 to 2006, nonviolent campaigns worldwide were twice as likely to succeed outright as violent insurgencies. And there’s more. This trend has been increasing over time—in the last fifty years civil resistance has become increasingly frequent and effective, whereas violent insurgencies have become increasingly rare and unsuccessful. This is true even in extremely repressive, authoritarian conditions where we might expect nonviolent resistance to fail.

So why is civil resistance so much more effective than armed struggle? The answer lies in people power itself.

Researchers used to say that no government could survive if five percent of its population mobilized against it. But our data reveal that the threshold is probably lower. In fact, no campaigns failed once they’d achieved the active and sustained participation of just 3.5% of the population—and lots of them succeeded with far less than that. Now, 3.5% is nothing to sneeze at. In the U.S. today, this means almost 11 million people.

But get this: Every single campaign that did surpass that 3.5% threshold was a nonviolent one. In fact, campaigns that relied solely on nonviolent methods were on average four times larger than the average violent campaign. And they were often much more representative in terms of gender, age, race, political party, class, and urban-rural distinctions.

Civil resistance allows people of all different levels of physical ability to participate—including the elderly, people with disabilities, women, children, and virtually anyone else who wants to. If you think about it, everyone is born with an equal physical ability to resist nonviolently. Anyone who has kids knows how hard it is to pick up a child who simply doesn’t want to move, or to feed a child who simply doesn’t want to eat.

But for lots of people, violent resistance is much more physically demanding. You have to train to be good at it. When I was in college, I took military science classes because I wanted to go through the ROTC program and become an army officer. I liked the rappelling, the uniforms, map-reading, and shooting at the range. But I wasn’t stoked about getting up in the wee hours of the morning to run until I vomited. I quit–and chose the far less strenuous career of professor.

Not everyone wants to take the same chances in life, and many people won’t turn up unless they expect safety in numbers. The visibility of many civil resistance tactics, like protests, helps to draw these risk-averse people into the fray. Put yourself back in that repressive country for a minute. Say your neighbor comes to you and says, “We’re going to have a demonstration in the main square down the street at 8pm tonight. I hope you can make it.” Now, I don’t know about you all, but I’m not the person who is going to show up at 7:55 to see what’s up. I’m going to wait until about 8:30 or so, check out my window, and see what’s going on. If I see only 6 people assembling in the square, I’m probably going to sit this one out. But if I see 6,000 and more coming down the alleyway, I might join them.

The point here is that nonviolent campaigns can solicit more diverse and active participation from ambivalent people. And once those people get involved, it’s almost guaranteed that the movement will then have some links to security forces, the state media, business or educational elites, religious authorities, and civilian bureaucrats who start to question their allegiances. No regime loyalists in any country live entirely isolated from the population itself. They have friends, they have family, and they have existing relationships that they have to live with in the long term, regardless of whether the leader stays or goes. In the Serbian case, once it became clear that hundreds of thousands of Serbs were descending on Belgrade to demand that Milosevic leave office, policemen ignored the order to shoot on demonstrators. When asked why he did so, one of them said: “I knew my kids were in the crowd.”

I’ll bet some of you are thinking, “Is she insane? I watch the news, and I see protestors getting shot at in the streets all the time!” Sometimes crackdowns do happen. But even in these cases, nonviolent campaigns outperformed violent ones by two-to-one. When security forces beat up, arrest, or even shoot unarmed activists, there is, indeed, safety in numbers. Large and well-coordinated campaigns can switch from concentrated methods (like protests) to dispersed methods, where people stay away from places they were expected to go. They do strikes, they do stay-at-home demonstrations, they bang on pots and pans, they shut off the electricity at a coordinated time of day — these tactics are much less risky. They’re very hard or at least very costly to suppress, while the movement stays just as disruptive.

What happens in these countries once the dust settles? It turns out, the way you resist matters in the long run too. Most strikingly, nonviolent campaigns were far more likely to usher in democratic institutions than violent insurgencies. And countries where people waged nonviolent struggle were 15% less likely to relapse into civil war.

The data are clear: When people rely on civil resistance, their size grows. And when large numbers of people withdraw their cooperation from an oppressive system, the odds are ever in their favor.

So. Many people in my field had largely ignored the millions of people worldwide who were skillfully using civil resistance in favor of studying things that blow up. I had a few questions about the way I used to think. Why was it so easy and comfortable for me to believe that violence works? And why did I find it acceptable to simply assume that violence happens—almost automatically—because of circumstances, or by necessity—that it’s the only way out of some situations? In a society that celebrates battlefield heroes on national holidays, I guess it was natural to grow up believing that violence and courage are one and the same—and that true victories can’t come without bloodshed on both sides.

But the evidence I’ve presented here today suggests that for people serious about seeking change, there are realistic alternatives. Imagine now what our world would look like if we allowed ourselves to develop faith in them. What if our history courses emphasized the decade of mass civil disobedience that came before the Declaration of Independence, rather than the war that came after? What if Gandhi and King were the basis of the first chapter of our social studies textbooks, rather than an afterthought? What if every child left elementary school knowing more about the Suffragist movement than they did about the Battle of Bunker Hill? And what if it became common knowledge that when protests become too dangerous, there are many nonviolent techniques of dispersion that might keep participants safe and keep movements resilient?

So here we are in 2013 in Boulder, Colorado. Maybe some of you are thinking, “OK, I get that civil resistance is the best bet, but what can I do?”

Encourage your children to learn about the nonviolent legacies of the past two hundred years and explore the potential of people power. Tell your elected representatives to stop perpetuating the misguided view that violence pays by supporting the first groups in a civil uprising to take up arms. Although nonviolent campaigns can’t be exported or imported, it’s time for our officials to embrace a different way of thinking—that in the short and long term, civil resistance tends to leave behind societies in which people are able to live more freely and more peaceably together.

Now that we know what we know about the power of nonviolent conflict, I see it as our shared responsibility to spread the word so that future generations don’t fall for the myth that violence is their only way out.

Thank you.

https://rationalinsurgent.com/2013/11/04/my-talk-at-tedxboulder-civil-resistance-and-the-3-5-rule/

[patriotsnet]

What Do Republicans And Democrats Stand For

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-do-republicans-and-democrats-stand-for/

What Do Republicans And Democrats Stand For

History Of The Democratic And Republican Parties

Where Do Democratic Candidates Stand On Gun Control?

The Democratic Party traces its origins to the anti-federalist factions around the time of Americas independence from British rule. These factions were organized into the Democrat Republican party by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other influential opponents of the Federalists in 1792.

The Republican party is the younger of the two parties. Founded in 1854 by anti-slavery expansion activists and modernizers, the Republican Party rose to prominence with the election of Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president. The party presided over the American Civil War and Reconstruction and was harried by internal factions and scandals towards the end of the 19th century.

Since the division of the Republican Party in the election of 1912, the Democratic party has consistently positioned itself to the left of the Republican Party in economic as well as social matters. The economically left-leaning activist philosophy of Franklin D. Roosevelt, which has strongly influenced American liberalism, has shaped much of the party’s economic agenda since 1932. Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition usually controlled the national government until 1964.

The Republican Party today supports a pro-business platform, with foundations in economic libertarianism, and fiscal and social conservatism.

A Division Of Power In Government Is Common In The Us With The Republicans And The Democrats Often Splitting Control Of The White House And Congress

Joe Biden may have been announced as President Elect but there are still some crucial decisions to be made on how America will be governed for the next four years. The presidential election appears to have been a pretty resounding win for the Democrats but the picture is less clear in the Senate, when both parties retain hope of having a majority when the Upper House reconvenes next year.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer released a statement after Bidens victory was called, saying: âA Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate would be the biggest difference maker to help President-elect Biden deliver for working families across the country.

Sen. Chuck Schumer: âThere has been no evidence of any significant or widespread voter fraud. Joe Biden won this election fair and square. The margins of his victory are growing by the day.â

The Hill

All elections in Georgia, not just those for the Senate, require the winning candidate to pick up over 50% of the votes cast. This year neither of the states two Senate races had a majority winning so a run-off will be held on 5 January, with both the Democrats and the Republicans holding out hope of securing the vital seats needed to give them a majority in the Senate.

Why is control of the Senate so important?

Although President Elect Biden will be the head of the government, he would rather govern by concensus than executive order. Therefore most large-scale bills will need to pass Congress before they can be signed into law.

Taking The Perspective Of Others Proved To Be Really Hard

The divide in the United States is wide, and one indication of that is how difficult our question proved for many thoughtful citizens. A 77-year-old Republican woman from Pennsylvania was typical of the voters who struggled with this question, telling us, This is really hard for me to even try to think like a devilcrat!, I am sorry but I in all honesty cannot answer this question. I cannot even wrap my mind around any reason they would be good for this country.

Similarly, a 53-year-old Republican from Virginia said, I honestly cannot even pretend to be a Democrat and try to come up with anything positive at all, but, I guess they would vote Democrat because they are illegal immigrants and they are promised many benefits to voting for that party. Also, just to follow what others are doing. And third would be just because they hate Trump so much. The picture she paints of the typical Democratic voter being an immigrant, who goes along with their party or simply hates Trump will seem like a strange caricature to most Democratic voters. But her answer seems to lack the animus of many.;;

Democrats struggled just as much as Republicans. A 33-year-old woman from California told said, i really am going to have a hard time doing this but then offered that Republicans are morally right as in values, going to protect us from terrorest and immigrants, going to create jobs.

Also Check: Trump On Oprah Saying Republicans Are Stupid

Widest Perception Gap At Political Extremes

In one of the largest national studies of Americas polarization ever conducted, More in Commons Hidden Tribes report identified seven political tribes:

The Hidden Tribes of America

The Perception Gap study builds on these insights. It finds that the most partisan, politically active Americans a group we call the Wings have deeply distorted perceptions of the other side. The two groups with the widest Perception Gaps are the Progressive Activists and the Devoted Conservativesthe most ideological and committed groups of Democrats and Republicans.

And which is the most accurate segment? Surprisingly, its the Politically Disengaged. They are fully three times more accurate in their estimates of political opponents than members of either of these Wing groups. The V-shaped Perception Gap shows that the less invested you are in politics today, the less distorted your perception of politics.

You May Like: Did Republicans Free The Slaves

Most Republicans Say Critics Of Trump Should Not Be Accepted In The Gop While Most Democrats Say Their Party Should Be Accepting Of Biden Critics

Large majorities of both Republicans and Democrats say their party should be accepting of elected officials within the party who disagree with it on some important issues. At the same time, very few in either party say their party should be welcoming of elected officials who support groups advocating for violence against members of the other party.

But there are clear distinctions between the two coalitions in their appetite for accepting members of the party who criticize the partys standard bearers: While most Democrats say the party should be at least somewhat accepting of elected officials who criticize Joe Biden, the majority position among Republicans is that the GOP should not be welcoming toward Republican elected officials who criticize Donald Trump, and an even smaller share of Republicans say that those who voted to impeach Trump should be accepted in the GOP.;

Eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic leaners say the Democratic Party should be very or somewhat accepting of Democratic elected officials who disagree with Democrats on important issues, while 71% of Republicans and Republican leaners say their own party should be very or somewhat accepting of Republican officials who disagree with the GOP on some important issues. Just 4% of Democrats and 7% of Republicans say their parties should be not at all accepting of elected officials who disagree with the party on some important issues.

The changes did not affect the reports substantive findings.;

Don’t Miss: Donald Trump Calls Republicans Stupid

Open Forum: So What Do Republicans Really Stand For

CHARLES MARKERT

Save

We stand against the destructive and evil policies of the Democrats. That should be adequate reason to vote for Republicans at all levels of government. In a nutshell Republicans stand for common sense and logic while Democrats stand for emotional demonstrations and parental control of the masses.

The Republican Senate has done an excellent and admirable job of holding off the onslaught of dangerous and evil legislation flooding in from the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives. The Democrats are crying for people to unite, which means join a union and do what Democrats want. This canard of bringing people together reminds me of a quote from M. Stanton Evans when he said “there are 2 parties in Washington, the evil party and the stupid party. Every now and then the evil party and the stupid party get together and agree on something evil and stupid. That is called bipartisanship.”

Democrats have proven that they only have one interest and that is to overthrow President Trump. The Democrats are continuing to accuse Trump of everything that Democrats are already doing or intend to do.

I find it amazing how Mister Kennedy, can describe President Trump in the totally opposite terms from the truth and it gets published front and center. In the spirit of bringing people together, I would say that Mister Biden is nasty, cruel, corrupt, racist, Marxist, immoral and is a shill for the Communist Party USA and is clearly dangerous. There, I said it.

What Do Republicans Stand For

Republicans are considered more conservative than Democrats.However, there are liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats.The Republicans tend to favor less government when dealing withdomestic problems, and individual and states’ rights. Republicanstend to favor economic laws that regulate as little as possible.They tend to favor ways to help the states and local governments,and allow private charities to help individuals in need instead offederal programs. Republican tend to favor more defense spendingand to be against funding for abortions. They favor enforcement ofImmigration laws and are against giving voting rights to illegalimmigrants. They want to balance the budget and find a way toslowly reduce the national debt.

Don’t Miss: Should Republicans Vote On Super Tuesday

Republican Vs Democrat: What Are The Differences

When it comes to U.S. politics, two prominent parties dominate democrats and republicans. Each party, despite some of their common grounded principles, stands for a very different system where beliefs and applications might vary.

Here is an unbiased breakdown of some of the major differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

The Plausible Solution: Just Win More

What Do Democrats Stand For?

Whether the public sees Democratic demands for these structural changes as overdue or overreaching, the key point is that they are currently exercises in futility. The only plausible road to winning their major policy goals is to win by winning. This means politics, not re-engineering. They need to find ways to take down their opponents, and then be smarter about using that power while they have it.

They certainly have issues to campaign on. In the few weeks, we have learned that some of Americas wealthiest people have paid only minimal or no federal income tax at all. Even as the Wall Street Journal editorial writers were responding to a Code Red emergency , the jaw-dropping nature of the reportfollowed by a New York Times piece about the impotence of the IRS to deal with the tax evasions of private equity royaltyconfirmed the folk wisdom of countless bars, diners, and union halls: the wealthy get away with murder.

Of course this is a whole lot easier said than done. A political climate where inflation, crime and immigration are dominant issues has the potential to override good economic news. And 2020 already showed what can happen when a relative handful of voices calling for defunding the police can drown out the broader usage of economic fairness.

Filed Under:

You May Like: How Many Seats Do The Republicans Control In The Senate

America Should Deport Illegal Immigrants

Republicans believe that illegal immigrants, no matter the reason they are in this country, should be forcibly removed from the U.S. Although illegal immigrants are often motivated to come to the U.S. by companies who hire them, Republicans generally believe that the focus of the law should be on the illegal immigrants and not on the corporations that hire them.

What Does The Democratic Party Believe In

The Democratic Party is generally associated with more progressive policies. It supports social and economic equality, favouring greater government intervention in the economy but opposing government involvement in the private noneconomic affairs of citizens. Democrats advocate for the civil rights of minorities, and they support a safety net for individuals, backing various social welfare programs, including Medicaid and food stamps. To fund these programs and other initiatives, Democrats often endorse a progressive tax. In addition, Democrats notably support environmental protection programs, gun control, less-strict immigration laws, and worker rights.

Read Also: Do Republicans Need To Vote On Super Tuesday

Reality Check : Biden Cant Be Fdr

Theres no question that Biden is swinging for the fences. Beyond the emerging bipartisan infrastructure bill, he has proposed a far-reaching series of programs that would collectively move the United States several steps closer to the kind of social democracy prevalent in most industrialized nations: free community college, big support for childcare and homebound seniors, a sharp increase in Medicaid, more people eligible for Medicare, a reinvigorated labor movement. It is why 100 days into the administration, NPR was asking a commonly heard question: Can Biden Join FDR and LBJ In The Democratic Party’s Pantheon?

But the FDR and LBJ examples show conclusively why visions of a transformational Biden agenda are so hard to turn into reality. In 1933, FDR had won a huge popular and electoral landslide, after which he had a three-to-one Democratic majority in the House and a 59-vote majority in the Senate. Similarly, LBJ in 1964 had won a massive popular and electoral vote landslide, along with a Senate with 69 Democrats and a House with 295. Last November, on the other hand, only 42,000 votes in three key states kept Trump from winning re-election. Democrats losses in the House whittled their margin down to mid-single digits. The Senate is 50-50.

Reality Check : The Fight Is Asymmetricaland Favors The Gop

While Democrats gesture on Twitter at building new systems, Republicans are working the current one with ruthless effectiveness.

The threats to a free and fair election that have emerged since last November are realand require nothing more than the willingness of state legislators to use and abuse the existing tools of government. Arizona, whose two new voting rules were just validated by the Supreme Court, also took the power to litigate election laws away from the Secretary of State and gave the power to the Attorney General. In at least 8 states, Republicans are advancing legislation that would take power away from local or county boards. Many more states are moving to make voting harder. It might be anti-democratic, but it falls well within the rules.

Also within the rules: How McConnell helped build a federal bench almost certain to ratify the power of those legislatures to pass laws far more restrictive than the Arizona rules upheld last week. He creatively eviscerated Senate norms to keep Merrick Garland off the Supreme Court and hand Donald Trump an astonishing three nominations in a single term. And hes recently suggested that, should a Supreme Court vacancy open, hed block even consideration of a Biden nominee if the Republicans take the Senate back in 2022. This is abnormal, anti-democratic and a cynical abuse of powerbut its legal within the existing rules.

Recommended Reading: Who Gives More Democrats Or Republicans

Views Of The Democratic And Republican Parties

Just under half of Americans have a favorable view of the Democratic Party, while a slightly larger share have an unfavorable view.

The GOP is viewed more negatively 38% say they have a positive view of the Republican Party, while 60% rate it unfavorably. These views are modestly changed since last summer, with the share of Americans rating the GOP unfavorably slightly higher than it was in August and the share of Americans with a negative view of the Democratic Party down slightly .

About three-quarters of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents view the GOP favorably, while 81% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents view the Democratic Party positively.

Nearly all Republicans who say they strongly identify with the Republican Party express a favorable opinion of the GOP. Among Republicans who say they not so strongly identify with the party, 77% say have a favorable view, while 56% of independents who lean toward the Republican Party say the same.

Democrats who very strongly identify with the Democratic Party nearly universally view their party favorably, as do 87% of Democrats who describe themselves as not-so-strong Democrats. About six-in-ten Democratic leaners have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party.

Within both partisan groups, views of the opposing party are overwhelmingly unfavorable across-the-board, with more than eight-in-ten strong partisans, not so strong partisans and leaners alike saying this.

Democrat Vs Republican: Us Political Parties

What do Republicans and Democrats stand for in the US? The Democrat vs Republican debate is the biggest division in American politics today, but that was not always the case. While the Democratic and Republican political parties now seem like a universal feature of American politics, there is actually no discussion of political parties in the American Constitution. Indeed, parties have shifted and evolved over time, and the Democratic and Republican parties are only the current largest parties in the country. The most recent Democratic president in the US is Joe Biden, who was elected in 2020. The most recent Republican president was Donald Trump, who was elected in 2016.

The symbol of the Democratic party is a donkey, while the symbol of the Republican party is an elephant. The exact origins of these images are not entirely clear, but they were popularized and codified by cartoonist Thomas Nast in the late 1800s. Today, the symbols are highly recognizable and are ubiquitous ways of depicting the two parties.

An error occurred trying to load this video.

Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support.

Also Check: Why Are Republicans Siding With Trump

The Republican Party General Policy And Political Values

The Republican Party is often referred to as the GOP. This abbreviation stands for Grand Old Party. Its logo is an elephant. The Republican Party is known to support right-leaning ideologies of conservatism, social conservatism, and economic libertarianism, among other -isms. Thus, Republicans broadly advocate for traditional values, a low degree of government interference, and large support of the private sector.

One main standpoint of the Republican Party platform is a strong focus on the family and individual freedom. Generally, the Republican Party therefore often tends to promote states and local rights. That means that they often wish for federal regulations to play a lesser role in policymaking. Furthermore, the GOP has a pro-business-oriented platform. Thus, the party advocates for businesses to exist in a free market instead of being impacted by tight government regulations.

[sneaksite]

This past week, Donald Trump’s campaign did what one senior aide on the president’s 2020 team described to The Daily Beast as the “dumbest thing I’ve read in a long time.”In a cease-and-desist letter dated June 9, 2020, the president’s re-election staff demanded that CNN retract and apologize for a recently released poll that had presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden leading Trump by 14 points. The letter, which the cable news network immediately laughed off, heavily cited the work of Trump pollster John McLaughlin, whose company alleged that CNN had somehow engaged in a “defamatory” act of “misinformation” and deliberately “skewed” data in an attempt to depress the president’s supporters. The legal threat quickly became a punchline in political media and even in some sectors of Trump’s own political operation. In one respect, it was just the latest effort by the president’s aides to attempt to satisfy the boss’ appetite for retribution. But it also revealed an element of the Trump political operation that has increasingly demanded time, money, and attention—mainly, the task of convincing Trump that the electoral landscape and polling deficits he faces aren’t as dire as he’s been hearing. “This helps keep the president from flying into a rage as much as he otherwise would,” said a White House official who’s been in the room for these types of sessions.On June 4, for instance, the president convened multiple meetings at the White House with top officials in his administration and from his campaign, including his son-in-law and White House aide Jared Kushner and campaign manager Brad Parscale, to have a series of discussions about strategy and communications. According to a person familiar with one of those gatherings, Trump sounded impressed that the support among his conservative base had remained solid in the presented data given recent media coverage and the maelstrom of crises he’d been facing.At one point, members of the president’s team began briefing him on the campaign’s own private polling, much of which did not look favorable. They sought to reassure the president by telling him that their numbers showed a large “enthusiasm gap” between Trump and Biden voters, and that much of the public polling wasn’t to be trusted, according to two sources familiar with the meeting. In particular, they argued that public polls skew in favor of the Democratic Party at this time because polling firms were polling registered voters and not “likely voters.” In the characterization of one source close to the president, a chunk of the re-election team focuses on proving to the president that his “dumpster-fire numbers” aren’t as bad as they seem, or reinforcing Trump’s conviction that pollsters get it wrong “all the time.”Trump World Thrilled That Their Terrible Poll Numbers Aren’t Worse But not everyone on Team Trump is buying the spin. In fact, efforts to pacify the president about the polls and his campaign’s position ahead of November have been undercut from within, with several key advisers making personal entreaties to Trump in the past few weeks to try to convince him that he should not brush off the numbers, even unpleasant ones that comes from news organizations such as CNN. “I have told the president that the numbers are real and that I believe he can and will win, but that right now it looks bad,” said a Republican who recently spoke to Trump. “He said, ‘Come on, don’t you know that’s all fake?’ But in a lot of these internal numbers [that I’ve seen], we’re way down right now.”“Something needs to change,” the Trump ally added.This person wasn’t the only one sounding the alarm over the past month. Two other sources who’ve spoken to the president lately—one of whom is a senior administration official—said that when the topic of polls came up they advised Trump that the surveys on swing states and key demographics seemed bleak. Both said they were concerned the president wasn’t taking them as seriously as they had wished. Outside the campaign, a belief has grown that the Pollyannaish advisers surrounding the president—and who are feeding him news that won’t puncture his feel-good bubble—are doing a disservice to both their clients and their professions. “There are a few pollsters who are bought and paid for, and they will tell you [the client] what you want to hear,” Frank Luntz, a famed-GOP pollster and Trump-skeptical conservative, said, without naming names. “There are pollsters [for whom] if the check is big enough, the lie will be big enough.”“I don’t envy those who have to tell Donald Trump what he doesn’t want to hear,” Luntz continued. “I’ve met him several times, I’ve met Biden several times. I would rather present bad [polling] information to Biden than Donald Trump. Presenting bad information or tough information to Joe Biden, you’ll break his heart, if you present tough information to Donald Trump, he breaks your arm.”GOP Stimulus Plan Is a Trillion-Dollar Trump Re-Election FundBut some Trump confidants are more willing to take the chance of harm than others. Late last month, David Bossie and Corey Lewandowski, two prominent informal advisers to the president, visited the White House to warn Trump that his electoral prospects were deteriorating in certain states crucial to securing a second term in office. Lewandowski, who also serves as a senior adviser to Trump 2020, has often second-guessed official campaign strategy, while whispering in the president’s ear that his current aides are failing him.The Trump campaign counters that the surveys that have shown him trailing Biden do not account for the economic turn around that they believe is taking place, which the president and his allies have dubbed the “Great American Comeback.” The campaign has also argued that their own secret polls give Trump the edge over a “defined” Joe Biden—a descriptor that is both unscientific and a concession that the campaign has so far failed to effectively define its opponent with just a few months left before election night.When The Daily Beast reached out for comment on this story on Friday, the Trump campaign’s communications director Tim Murtaugh wrote back: “2016 proved that public polling is routinely wrong about President Trump, otherwise Hillary Clinton would be in the Oval Office right now. Our internal data consistently shows the President running strongly against a defined Joe Biden in all the states we track. And we know the President’s supporters are more enthusiastic than Biden’s. Trump supporters would run through a brick wall to vote for the President. Nobody is running through a brick wall for Joe Biden.”But Trump’s approval rating on his handling of the coronavirus fallout has itself dipped dramatically in recent weeks. And there is no evidence that the pandemic is truly fading. And on top of that, Republican senators facing competitive reelection fights this year have been far less sanguine in their rhetoric on the economic fallout, suggesting they’ve opted for empathy rather than triumphalism. It’s not an enviable position, Luntz concedes. But it’s not yet fatal either. “It’s not doomsday. We are too early in the election process. We never anticipated we would be where we are [today, even] two days ago,” Luntz stressed, citing the economic implosion, the coronavirus pandemic that has a U.S. death toll upwards of 100,000, and the mass protests following the police killing of George Floyd. “The changes in racial awareness and opinion is the story of a generation and we got all three of them happening at the same time. Nobody knows what’s going to happen in November. Nobody knows what’s going to happen next Friday. Everybody would be wise to just keep quiet.”Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://news.yahoo.com/trump-advisers-tell-him-poll-084107336.html