#i would like to vote in primaries without falling into the two-party system

[comas-are-for-sleeping]

growing up and watching my mom radicalize and realizing that my dad is less left than i thought he was

[therealvinelle]

I've always wondered this, but what do you think the Cullen's political viewpoints would be, given their individual backgrounds? if vampires don't change after they turn, then surely they would all be extremely racist (especially Jasper). would this not come up at some point? they aren't like the Volturi because the Volturi are too old to care, but the Cullens are young enough that they have been brought up with opinions on stuff like sexism, racism, homophobia and the like.

Oh fuck.

You get an early answer because otherwise I'll just chicken out and delete this one, pretend I never saw it.

UMMM.

Since I'm guessing you meant American political viewpoints, we need a disclaimer. I am not American, and not too knowledgeable about your politics. Not just in the sense that I don't follow the day-to-day drama, but as I am not an American citizen there are several things I don't know, can't know because I've never lived in your country and therefore can't know what the effects of living in a country ruled by American policies is like. What I do know is based off of the news in the foreign section, social media (by which I mean tumblr posts), and Trevor Noah's Daily Show.

I am an outsider looking in.

Which is really rather appropriate, since the Cullens are too.

The Cullens go to high school and college, Carlisle works, they pay taxes, they own real estate, and submerge themselves in American culture. Esme, Edward, Rosalie, Emmett, and Bella are young enough that this is in many ways their world, and apart from timeouts they've more or less spent their entire lives, human and vampire, integrated into American society.

Not fully integrated, mind you, they do what they need to to fit in and get to school or, in Carlisle’s case, to work. They go no further. No extra-curriculars for the kids, no book clubs for Esme, no game nights for Carlisle. They walk parallel to humans, not among us.

In addition to this they're obscenely rich, which puts them another thousand miles from the experiences of your average American. They won't deal with the health system, which means healthcare is a non-issue, they're not going to need welfare or other social programs, unemployment is another non-issue. Name your issue, and the Cullens don't have personal stake in it. Even the climate crisis won't be a problem for them the way it will for us.

What I'm trying to say is, American political issues are a concept to them, not a lived reality. Just like they are for me. So hey, you made a great choice of blog to ask.

I'll also add here that you say the Volturi are too old to care, and I agree- from an ancient's point of view, racism is a matter of "which ethnicity are we hating today?", and it all looks rather arbitrary after a while. Same with every other issue - after a while it all just blends together into "what are the humans fighting over today? Which Christian denomination is the correct one? Huh. Good for them, I guess."

I can't put it any better than this post did, really. The Volturi are real people, humans are nerds and tumblr having Loki discourse. Aro thinks it's delightful and knows entirely too much about Watergate (and let's be real, Loki discourse as well), but the point I wanted to get at is that politics really don't matter to vampires.

And I don't think they matter to the Cullens either.

So, moving on to the next point while regretting I didn't put headlines in this post, I'll just state that I don't think vampires' minds are frozen. Their brains are unable to develop further, and they can never forget anything, but... well, this isn't the post for that, but in order for this to be true of vampires they would barely be sentient. They would not be able to process new impressions, to learn new things, nor to have an independent thought process. Yes, we see vampires in-universe (namely, Edward, who romanticizes himself and vampires) believe they're frozen and can never change, but there is no indication that this is a widespread belief, or even true. Quite the contrary - Carlisle went from a preacher's son who wanted to burn all the demons to living in Demon Capital for decades and then becoming a doctor and making a whole family of demons. Clearly, the guy has had a change in attitude over the years. Jasper, in his years as a newborn army general, slowly grew disenchanted with his life and developed depression. James initially meant to kill Victoria and hunted her across the earth, then became fascinated and changed his mind about it.

Had these people been incapable of change, Carlisle would still be hating demons, Jasper would be in Maria's army, and James would still be hunting Victoria.

It goes to follow, then, that they are able to adapt to new things.

The question is, would they?

Here I finally answer your question.

So, we have these people who don't really have any kind of stake in politics, who keep up to date all the same (or are forcibly kept up to date because high school) and are generally opinionated people.

Where do they then fall, politically?

(And this is where you might want to stop reading, anon, because I'm about to eviscerate these people.)

Alice votes for whoever's gonna win. She also makes a fortune off of betting each election. Trump's 1 to 10 victory in 2016 was a great day to be Alice. MAGA!

The actual policies involved are completely irrelevant, she does this because it's fun. Election means she gets to throw parties. Color coded parties for the Republican and Democratic primaries, and US-themed parties for Election Night! (Foreigner moment right here: I at first wrote "Election wake" before realizing that's not what y'all murricans call it.)

Alice loves politics. Doesn't know the issues, but she sure loves politics.

Bella votes Democrat. She actually knows about the issues, and cares about them. This girl is a Democrat through and through.

Carlisle doesn't vote. I can't imagine it feels right. Outside of faked papers he's not a US citizen, this is meddling in human affairs that he knows don't concern him.

More, this guy has never lived in a democracy.

In life, Carlisle lived under an absolute monarchy that, upon civil war, became an absolute theocracy. From there he learned that vampires live under a total dictatorship.

For the first 150 years of his life, democracy was that funky thing the Athenians did in history books thousands of years ago, no more relevant to him than the Ancient Egyptian monarchy is to me. Then the Americans, and later other European countries started doing this.

Good for them.

There's this mistake often made by those who view history from a... for lack of a better term, a solipsistic standpoint. A belief that the present day is the culmination of all of history. “My society is the best society, the most reasonable society; all the others had it backwards. Thank god we’re living in this enlightened age!”

The faith in our current system of government is one such belief. We (pardon me if this doesn’t apply to everybody reading this post) have grown up in democracies, being told this is the ultimate form of rule, and perhaps that is true - but remember the kings who have told their subjects they had were divine and the best possible ruler based on that. Remember also that most modern democracies haven’t actually been democracies for very long at all, America is the longest standing at some 230 years (not long at all in the grand scope of things) and they have a fracturing two-party system to show for it.

Every society, ever, has been told they’re the greatest, and their system of government the most just. Democracy is only the latest hit.

This is relevant to Carlisle because he’s immortal and decidedly not modern. Democracy has not been installed in him the way it was the rest of the Cullens, Jasper included. To him- well, it’s just not his world. He has no stakes in our human politics, and as he is older than every current democracy and has seen quite a few of them fall, he’s not going to internalize the democratic form of rule the way a modern human has.

I think the concept of voting is foreign to him.

It requires a level of participation in human society that he’s simply not at. He does the bare minimum to appear human so he do the work he loves, but nothing more, and I find that telling.

As it is I think he'd be iffy about his family doing it. He won’t stop them, but in voting they’re... well it’s kind of cheating. They’re not really citizens, none of this will affect them, and by voting they’re drowning out the votes of real human voters. He does not approve.

Edward votes Democrat. He's... well he’s the kind of guy who will oil a girl’s bedroom window so he can more easily watch her sleep without being discovered, justifying it to himself as being okay because if she were to tell him to get lost he’d stop immediately. Same guy is so sure that he’d leave and never return again if she wanted him to, except this is the man who returned to Forks to hang around his singer, knowing there was a significant chance he might kill her. To say nothing of his Madonna/Whore complex, or of the fact that he tried to pimp out his wife twice, and was willing to forcibly abort her child.

This guy is very much in love with chivalry, with being an enlightened and feminist man who supports and respects women, while not understanding the entire point of feminism, which is female liberation.

He votes Democrat because he’s such an enlightened feminist who cares about women’s rights.

Emmett doesn’t care to vote, but if he has to he votes Republican. The guy is from the 1930′s, and has major would-be-the-uncle-who-cracks-racist-jokes-if-he-was-older vibes.

Esme doesn’t vote, that would require getting out of the house.

More, I just... can’t see it. I can’t see her being one to read up on politics and The Issues, period, but if she has to then I doubt she’d be able to decide.

Jasper doesn’t vote. Alice can have her fun, he does not care.

There’s also the whole can of worms regarding the last time he went to bat for American politics.

I imagine he stays out of this.

Renesmée doesn't vote. She has no stock in the human affairs. Who would she vote for, on what grounds? When Bella tries to pull her to the urns, she points out that she's three years old.

Rosalie, guys, I’m sorry, but that girl is definitely gonna vote Republican. Perhaps not right now as it’s become the Trump party of insanity, but the Mitt Romney type of Republicans? Oh yes.

And for the record, yes I imagine she does vote. To step back from politics would be another way she was relinquishing her humanity, and that’s not allowed to happen. So, yes, she goes to the urns, less for the sake of the politics involved and more because like this, she’s still a part of society in some way.

Now, onto why I think she’s Republican, I think it’s both fiscal and social.

This girl was the daughter of a banker who somehow profited off of the Depression, and who then became part of a family with no material needs that would soon become billionaires thanks to Alice. Poverty to Rosalie is a non-issue, as it is I imagine she views it as a much lesser issue than what she’s had to deal with. The humans can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, Rosalie’s infertility is forever.

Rosalie’s empathy is strongest when she’s able to project onto others, and she won’t be able to project onto the less fortunate at all.

Then there’s the fact that the Republican party is all about traditional family values, and pro-life.

Rosalie, a woman from the 1930′s who idolizes her human life and who‘d love nothing more than to get to live out this fantasy, is down for that. And as of Breaking Dawn she’s vocally pro-life, so there’s that.

This all being said I don’t think Rosalie cares to sit down and fully understand these politics she’s voting for, the possible impact they’ll have- that’s not important. What’s important is what voting does for her.

TL;DR: I bet anon regrets asking.

[robertreich]

THE STATE OF THE DIS-UNION

An impeached president who was on trial and is up for re-election will be delivering a state of the union address to the most divided union in living memory. He will be giving his address to both his jurors and prosecutors, and most importantly, to the voters that will decide his fate in November.

It’s not unprecedented for an impeached president to give a state of the union address. Bill Clinton delivered his State of the Union in 1999 while in the middle of his Senate trial. But that’s where the similarities end. Clinton was not up for re-election when he gave his speech, so he didn’t need to employ any campaign-style rhetoric. Trump is a polarizing, divisive president who is addressing an America that has never been so divided. But this begs the question: why are we so divided? We’re not fighting a hugely unpopular war on the scale of Vietnam. We’re not in a deep economic crisis like the Great Depression. Yes, we disagree about guns, abortion, and immigration, but we’ve disagreed about them for decades. So why are we so divided now? Ferocious partisanship is not new. Newt Gingrich, the Republican Speaker of the House who led the House’s impeachment investigation into Clinton, pioneered the combative partisanship we’re used to today. But today’s divisions are far deeper than they were then. Part of the answer is Trump himself. The Great Divider knows how to pit native-born Americans against immigrants, the working class against the poor, whites against blacks and Latinos, evangelicals against secularists — keeping everyone stirred up by vilifying, disparaging, denouncing, defaming, and accusing others of the worst. Trump thrives off disruption and division. But that begs another question: Why have we been so ready to be divided by Trump? One theory is the underlying tension that an older, whiter, and less educated America, concentrated in rural areas, is losing out to a “new” America that’s younger, more diverse, more educated, and concentrated in urban areas. These trends, while much more prominent these days, have been going on since the start of the 20th century. Why are they causing so much anger now? Another hypothesis is that we are geographically sorting ourselves into Republican and Democratic regions of the country, surrounding ourselves with like-minded neighbors and friends so we no longer talk to people with opposing views. But why are we doing this? The rise of social media sensationalizing our differences in order to attract eyeballs and advertisers, plays a crucial role in exacerbating the demographic and geographic trends I just mentioned. But it alone isn’t responsible for our polarized nation. Together, all of these factors contribute to the political schism we’re experiencing today. But none of them alone point to any large, significant change in the structure of our society that can account for what’s happened. Let me have a go. In the fall of 2015, I visited Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Missouri, and North Carolina for a research project I was doing on the changing nature of work. I spoke with many of the same people I had met twenty years before when I was secretary of labor, as well as with some of their grown children. What I heard surprised me. Twenty years ago, many said they’d been working hard and were frustrated they weren’t doing better. Now, that frustration had been replaced by full-blown anger — anger towards their employers, the government, Wall Street. Many had lost jobs, savings, or homes in the Great Recession following the financial crisis of 2008, or knew others who had. By the time I spoke with them, most were back in jobs but the jobs paid no more than they had two decades before in terms of purchasing power. I heard the term “rigged system” so often I began asking people what they meant by it. They spoke about flat wages, shrinking benefits, and growing job insecurity. They talked about the bailout of Wall Street, political payoffs, insider deals, soaring CEO pay, and “crony capitalism.” These complaints came from people who identified as Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. A few had joined the Tea Party, while a few others had been involved in the Occupy movement. With the 2016 political primaries looming, I asked them which candidates they found most attractive. At the time, Democratic Party insiders favored Hillary Clinton and Republican insiders favored Jeb Bush. Yet no one I spoke with mentioned Clinton or Bush. They talked instead about Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. When I asked why, they said Sanders or Trump would “shake things up” or “make the system work again” or “stop the corruption” or “end the rigging.” In the following year, Sanders – a seventy-four-year old Jew from Vermont who described himself as a democratic socialist and wasn’t a registered Democrat until the 2016 presidential primaries – came within a whisker of beating Clinton in the Iowa caucus, routed her in the New Hampshire primary, and ended up with 46 percent of the pledged delegates from Democratic primaries and caucuses. Trump – a sixty-nine-year-old ego-maniacal billionaire reality-TV star who had never held elective office or had anything to do with the Republican Party and who lied compulsively about everything – won the Republican primaries and then went on to beat Clinton, one of the most experienced and well-connected politicians in modern America (although he didn’t win the popular vote, and had some help from the Kremlin). Something very big had happened, and it wasn’t due to Sanders’s magnetism or Trump’s likeability. It was a rebellion against the establishment. That rebellion is still going on, although much of the establishment still denies it. They have come up with myriad explanations for Trump’s ascendance, some with validity; some without: It was hatred of Obama, it was hatred of Hillary, it was people voting third party, it was racism and xenophobia. It’s important to note that although racism and xenophobia in America date to before the founding of the Republic, they have never before been so central to a candidate’s appeal and message as they’ve been with Trump. Aided by Fox News and an army of right-wing outlets, Trump used the underlying frustrations of the working class and channeled them into bigotry, but this was hardly the first time in history a demagogue has used this cynical ploy. Trump convinced many blue-collar workers feeling ignored by the powers that be that he was their champion. Hillary Clinton did not convince them that she was. Her decades of public service ended up being a negative, not a positive: She was indubitably part of the establishment, the epitome of decades of policies that had left these blue-collar workers in the dust. (It’s notable that during the primaries, Bernie Sanders did far better than Clinton with blue-collar voters.) A direct line connects the four-decade stagnation of wages with the bailout of Wall Street, the rise of the Tea Party (and, briefly, Occupy), and the successes of Sanders and Trump in 2016. By 2016, Americans understood that wealth and power had moved to the top. Big money had rigged our politics. This was the premise of Sanders’s 2016 campaign. It was also central to Trump’s appeal (“I’m so rich I can’t be bought off”), which he quickly reneged on once elected, delivering everything big money could have imagined. The most powerful force in American politics today continues to be anti-establishment fury at a rigged system. Vicious partisanship, record-breaking economic inequality, and the resurgence of white supremacy are all byproducts of this rigged system. The biggest political battle today isn’t between left, right, or center: it’s between Trump’s authoritarian populism  and democratic (small “d”) populism. Democrats cannot defeat authoritarian populism without an agenda of radical democratic reform, an anti-establishment movement that tackles runaway inequality and heals the racial wounds Trump has inflicted. Even though he’s a Trojan Horse for big corporations and the rich – giving them all the  tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks they’ve ever wanted – he still has large swaths of the working class convinced  he’s on their side. Democrats must stand squarely on the side of democracy against oligarchy. We must form a unified coalition of people of all races, genders, sexualities, and classes, and band together to unrig the system. Trump is not the cause of our divided nation; he is the symptom of a rigged system that was already dividing us. It’s not enough to defeat him. We must reform the system that got us here in the first place to ensure that no future politician will ever again imitate Trump’s authoritarian demagoguery. For now, let’s boycott the State of the Union and show the ratings-obsessed demagogue that the American people refuse to watch an impeached president continue to divide us.

[cle-guy]

I am disappointed with Bernie Sanders

Which brings me to Joe Biden. I supported Biden this campaign less because his political positions align with mine; in some ways they do, but in other ways they fall short. I support Biden for two big reasons. The first is how Biden desires to govern. Biden calls for national consensus, which is important. All of our best legislative achievements (and the founding of the country itself) rests on reaching a consensus that a majority of the country backs. I support consensus, and hope we can find a way to reach it again, as we did in 2009-10. The second is because I firmly oppose political revolution as a vehicle for change. From my experience with Bernie supporters, I find them intractable and obstinate in their refusal to accept any path besides their own. The charitable reading is this is a hard negotiating position, which can be walked down. The straight reading is its a hill to die on, which will achieve little. For me our country faces numerous problems, and they require a national consensus to fix. Bernie Sanders, and his supporters, argue for specific fixes to these problems. Some of them are reasonable, but with problems. A single payer healthcare system is a reasonable system, and it has immense benefits, but it also runs into numerous problems. If your goal is universal coverage, its one method to achieve it but clearly it is also not the loan method. To many Berniecrats: single payer and universal healthcare are one and the same, and I reject the notion. If healthcare is a problem which requires attention (and it is) then we need to reach a consensus on how to fix it. Medicare for All is only one potential solution, not the only one. Other issues stand out on this as well. Climate Change being a big one, but others as well. Consensus must be reached to fix these problems, and Bernie's movement is not a movement to reach consensus: it's a movement to shut everyone else out. Joe Biden already displays his ability to build bridges by adopting proposals from his rivals. He adopted an Elizabeth Warren plan to address insurance, and a Bernie Sanders plan on education. He's shifted some positions on his healthcare platform since Bernie dropped out. Throughout his career, Biden has done the same with the Republican Party. Biden is also the candidate preferred by the most marginal Democratic members of the US House of Representatives and Senate. It is notable that the people who flipped the House support Joe Biden and his message, and not Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Doug Jones, the most vulnerable senator, also supports Biden. This is important because consensus does not just require reaching agreement with your ideological opponents, but also your peers. The ACA and Social Security Act required a massive consensus effort to get the Democratic Party on board due to differences within their own caucus. Joe Biden has the coalition building ability to reach that, Bernie Sanders has not shown this strength (which is not to say he does not have it). For me, Joe Biden is less a man I yearn for, but a politics I pray for: the country cannot survive if we continue to retreat to our factional sides and snipe at the other side. Biden promises a return to consensus building, and an opportunity to address problems which require redress. In some ways, it's a restoration of the political soul of the nation. It's a message I support, and feel the country needs now more than any time in my lifetime. No, not because he lost: the positions he chose for the 2020 cycle pushed me away emphatically.  I am disappointed because Bernie did not have to choose the path he did; he chose vitriol when an embrace was available.  He chose truculence when the party remained persuadable.  In short: Bernie's revolution chose its path.  Purity was preferable to victory, and now Bernie is not the nominee.  

I am disappointed because Bernie could have reversed course.  Despite what many of his supporters claim: I do not believe their movement extends far beyond their personal candidate, and I offer a clear recent case for why: Elizabeth Warren.  Warren's platform was in lock step with Bernie's, she ran on Medicare for All (and even provided a clear path to achieving it, one I feel was superior to Bernie's).  However, despite the fact Warren clearly fell in Bernie's camp she was consistently victimized by his camp.  The cases of Bernie supporters decrying Elizabeth, calling her a snake, and rejecting here are too numerous to recount here.  Which leads me to believe, even if Bernie's supporters think the revolution extends beyond Bernie: they've struggled to find other politicians they're willing to trust with it. The reality is: Bernie could have ran differently.  He had four years in the Senate to convince his colleagues to back him.  Four years to actually join the party he yearned to lead.  He chose, instead, to fight.  Jim Clyburn could have been approached, Obama could have been mollified, Chuck Schumer convinced.  Bernie did none of these things.  He, instead, continued the 'revolution' which he started in 2016.  As a result, the Democratic Party allowed the primary to largely continue on its own.  

Lets consider: there were four major elected leaders in the Democratic Party before voting started: Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House), Chuck Schumer (Senate Minority Leader), Jim Clyburn (House Majority Whip), and Dick Durbin (Senate Minority Whip).  Other leaders included Tom Perez (leader of the DNC), Governors of some big US States like Andrew Cuomo (New York Governor), Gavin Newsom (California Governor), and Illinois (JB Pritzker).  Major Senators (who did not run for President): Debbie Stabenow (Michigan), Mark Warner (Virginia), Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota), Joe Manchin (West Virginia), Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin), and Chris van Hallen (Maryland).  Former presidents and Vice-Presidents: Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Walter Mondale, and Barack Obama.  How many of these leaders endorsed Biden before his win in South Carolina?  Answer: two, Jim Clyburn and Andrew Cuomo.  A majority of these leaders still have not endorsed a candidate.  So, in fact, the Democratic Party largely allowed the primary to function normally.  Furthermore, it is not at all clear Biden was the favored choice of the party.  Many of the above endorsed other candidates; Gavin Newsome endorsed Kamala Harris, for example.  Unlike 2016, many party leaders hoped Biden wouldn't run including potentially (it must be said) Barack Obama.  

Obama picked Biden as his vice-president for many reasons, but one of the biggest was Biden's age.  Obama wanted a veep who would not run as his political heir.  Obama also discouraged Joe from running in 2016.  There is also evidence Obama doubts Biden's political ability to win the primary.  Obama, of course, was not alone.  Biden doubters were common, and loud, in both 2018 and 2019.  Entire primary campaigns were built on the idea of Biden's collapse.  The fact so many senators and governors ran in spite of Biden's entrance suggests the party was not convinced Biden was the right choice.

Furthermore, unlike 2016, Biden (now the presumptive nominee) did not benefit from much money.  Biden not only raised less money than Bernie Sanders, he also raised less money than other leading rivals.  The 60 billionaires who donated, donated the max to his personal campaign.  On Super Tuesday, Biden won in states he never campaigned and spent almost nothing in advertising.   This cycle, in short, is fundamentally different than 2016 when Hillary Clinton benefited from early, and resounding, support from the entire Democratic Party, and was fueled by business interests (and grassroots support).  Joe Biden defeated Bernie Sanders without the party apparatus shoving him over the line.  This occurred in part (not entirely) because Sanders chose to run against the establishment, and push away his rivals.  After his victory in Nevada, when Bernie was the presumptive nominee, Bernie chose to thumb his nose at the party he wanted to lead, and did nothing to persuade his rivals to back him.  It is telling of Bernie that Warren, for example, chose to not endorse Bernie when she left the race, not of Warren.

To close, Bernie could have ran to unite the party.  He chose not to, and that choice had consequences.

On Joe Biden

I supported Biden this campaign less because his political positions align with mine; in some ways they do, but in other ways they fall short. I support Biden for two big reasons. The first is how Biden desires to govern. Biden calls for national consensus, which is important. All of our best legislative achievements (and the founding of the country itself) rests on reaching a consensus that a majority of the country backs. I support consensus, and hope we can find a way to reach it again, as we did in 2009-10. The second is because I firmly oppose political revolution as a vehicle for change. From my experience with Bernie supporters, I find them intractable and obstinate in their refusal to accept any path besides their own. The charitable reading is this is a hard negotiating position, which can be walked down. The straight reading is its a hill to die on, which will achieve little. For me our country faces numerous problems, and they require a national consensus to fix. Bernie Sanders, and his supporters, argue for specific fixes to these problems. Some of them are reasonable, but with problems. A single payer healthcare system is a reasonable system, and it has immense benefits, but it also runs into numerous problems. If your goal is universal coverage, its one method to achieve it but clearly it is also not the loan method. To many Berniecrats: single payer and universal healthcare are one and the same, and I reject the notion. If healthcare is a problem which requires attention (and it is) then we need to reach a consensus on how to fix it. Medicare for All is only one potential solution, not the only one. Other issues stand out on this as well. Climate Change being a big one, but others as well. Consensus must be reached to fix these problems, and Bernie's movement is not a movement to reach consensus: it's a movement to shut everyone else out. Joe Biden already displays his ability to build bridges by adopting proposals from his rivals. He adopted an Elizabeth Warren plan to address insurance, and a Bernie Sanders plan on education. He's shifted some positions on his healthcare platform since Bernie dropped out. Throughout his career, Biden has done the same with the Republican Party. Biden is also the candidate preferred by the most marginal Democratic members of the US House of Representatives and Senate. It is notable that the people who flipped the House support Joe Biden and his message, and not Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Doug Jones, the most vulnerable senator, also supports Biden. This is important because consensus does not just require reaching agreement with your ideological opponents, but also your peers. The ACA and Social Security Act required a massive consensus effort to get the Democratic Party on board due to differences within their own caucus. Joe Biden has the coalition building ability to reach that, Bernie Sanders has not shown this strength (which is not to say he does not have it). For me, Joe Biden is less a man I yearn for, but a politics I pray for: the country cannot survive if we continue to retreat to our factional sides and snipe at the other side. Biden promises a return to consensus building, and an opportunity to address problems which require redress. In some ways, it's a restoration of the political soul of the nation. It's a message I support, and feel the country needs now more than any time in my lifetime.

[hearthandgnome]

Heres a little PSA for why you should never vote third party and why it DOES matter regardless of what state you live in.

I'm not gonna waste anyones time trying to explain the obvious reasons. By now we all know what the electoral college is, and if you dont, then go google it and then come back to me.

Point is, splitting the vote leads to bad outcomes almost exclusively for the liberal end of the spectrum and basically never for the conservative end. They aint falling for that trap so why should we? Be smart.

Now I hear alot of people who KNOW how that system works but because they live in states that lean heavily in one direction or another they assume it no longer matters. First off, thinking like that is how states shift from blue to red. But second off, and arguably even more importantly, it would still matter. And heres why: it dosnt matter that california will "always vote blue" what matters is that your local neighborhood has made a clear statment on wether or not you are willing to tolerate hate.

Every election the data is collected, analyzed, and released, showing how many people in each district voted for each person. And if the local racists see a smaller number of democratic voters in there area it makes them think they are in the clear to go be racist.

If you dont see the correlation between trumps win and the massive inflix of bigots then I dont know what to tell you. Pay attention maybe?

We were seeing a steady decline of people being openly bigoted. Each year that went by saw advancments being made in all forms of social justice. Things were going good because we had them scared. Then they saw trump get away with murder and they realized it was safe for them again.

If we want to see a decrease in hate we need to make racists scared again.

And the only way to do that is by slapping a big old blue dot over there district. Seeing an overwhelming number of people voting against bigotry in your area will make you way more hesitant to go do bigoted shit.

And no, Grey isnt good enough. Third party is too neutral. It has to be a hard, fast, no give, all in, "NO" to everything they stand for. Or it won't be effective in silencing them.

In an ideal world, one without the electoral college and extreme hate mongering, youd be able to vote for whoever you want. But thats not this world.

This world only has two options that are allowed to win it. And one of them is rounding people up in concentration camps. If that alone isnt enough to make you get over yourself and vote for whoever wins the primaries, then clearly this whole speech will be lost on you. But if you care at all about your fellow man, you'll vote democrat.

I dont care if they are your first choice or not. I dont care if you want to protest against whatever trivial little problematic thing they did was. Fact is your dude literally can't win, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that if you didnt know it already. But its literally impossible. And whatever bs thing the dem nominee did that you dislike? It will never be as bad as trump.

Your vote makes your local racists scared and helps the not trump candidate win and that literally THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IN THIS NEXT ELECTION.

So regaurdless if you think your area will "always be blue" or "always be red" your vote still matters. This is a numbers game now, its about who has the most soldiers. Thats all there is to it.

I agree that it sucks.

I agree that you shouldnt have to.

I agree that this system is wrong.

But thats the situation we have going right now. Theres no room for neutrality in this next election. Your either pro trump or anti trump. Vote accordingly.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

There has been a debate, both in the run-up to and since last week’s launch of Beto O’Rourke’s presidential campaign, about his ideology and policy positions. It has two dimensions. First, people are asking whether O’Rourke actually stands for much of anything — or if his candidacy is just about his perceived charisma and electability. And second, they are asking whether he is a true liberal/progressive — or if he should be classified as a moderate (compared with the other 2020 candidates) or as a more centrist Democrat (based on his voting record in Congress).

I’m not sure how to define O’Rourke’s policy views in one word, and I’m not sure how important that is anyway. But from his 2018 Senate candidacy in Texas to his presidential campaign launch, O’Rourke has taken positions on many major issues, and some of those stances are decidedly left-wing, particularly on cultural issues. O’Rourke may not be an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-style “Super-Progressive,” but he has plenty of positions that Republicans would aggressively attack in a general election.1

Those stances from O’Rourke include:

Supporting the abolition of for-profit and private prisons.

Supporting a ban on so-called assault weapons.

Supporting the elimination of bail sentences that require people to pay money to be released from jail ahead of trial.

Criticizing not only Trump’s border wall, but also some of the existing barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border and the increase in border security spending over the last decade. (“Yes, absolutely, I’d take the wall down,” he said in February, referring to the border fencing in the El Paso region.)

Supporting the impeachment of President Trump (O’Rourke took this stance during his Senate campaign. I doubt that he will push this issue during his presidential run, but it was somewhat surprising that he adopted it last year. Other Democrats, like 2020 hopeful Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, didn’t take this stance even as they were running in more liberal states than Texas.).

Supporting a proposal to allow anyone who wants to enroll in a Medicare-like insurance plan the option to do so.

Supporting an increase of the minimum wage to $15 per hour.

Supporting marijuana legalization.

Opposing the death penalty.

Supporting NFL players kneeling during the national anthem in protest of racism.

Describing himself as benefiting from “white privilege.”

This isn’t an exhaustive list or a representative sample of issues, obviously. And O’Rourke is taking some more centrist policy positions — for example, his refusal to embrace putting all Americans in a single-payer health care system puts him to the right of Bernie Sanders. O’Rourke has been somewhat cautious about the Green New Deal too, although last week he said he hadn’t “seen anything better” in terms of environmental policy ideas.

O’Rourke has also adopted some bipartisan rhetorical flourishes, emphasizing that he wants politics to be less divisive and more focused on finding common ground. And no one should ignore his fairly centrist political history. He wasn’t known as a liberal firebrand and often eschewed liberal positions during his political rise in Texas. In Congress, his voting record put him to the right of the average House Democrat in 2017-18. He was a member of the New Democrat Coalition, a more centrist wing of the party.

But as I have written before, the policy promises that a candidate makes during his or her campaign are usually a better predictor of future stances than votes or positions taken well before the campaign. So O’Rourke’s more recent liberalism is important. And many of his current stances, the ones highlighted above, are decidedly not centrist.

To cherry-pick a few: Public opinion is divided on the NFL player protests, with nearly universal opposition among Republicans to kneeling. And just 17 percent of Republicans and 39 percent of Americans overall oppose the death penalty for people convicted of murder, according to a Pew Research Center poll from last year. That position doesn’t even unify Democrats, with 59 percent against the death penalty and 35 percent in favor. A 2018 Gallup poll showed similar results. Lots of white Americans think they are the ones facing discrimination, so I doubt that they will relate to O’Rourke’s white privilege comments.

I might classify O’Rourke as fairly liberal on issues around culture and identity and left-leaning but maybe not particularly liberal — compared with, say, Sanders or Elizabeth Warren — on economic issues. (Cory Booker and Kamala Harris probably fall in this camp with O’Rourke.) Part of what’s confusing in assessing O’Rourke’s ideology is that the results are different depending on what benchmark you choose. Is he liberal compared with previous Democratic presidential candidates? Yes. Is he liberal compared with the activists dominating the discourse in the party now? No.

O’Rourke’s current positioning may seem fairly politically safe in a general election (and hence not particularly progressive), but I’m not so sure that’s true. O’Rourke’s liberalism on questions of culture and race might help him woo college-educated white voters and minorities, but it might also be fodder for Trump in appealing to GOP voters, many of whom are wary of an America growing more racially diverse. Part of Trump’s success in 2016, scholars have found, was getting white voters thinking about and defending their whiteness. O’Rourke is planning a campaign that will highlight his heavily Latino hometown of El Paso and will emphasize the close ties between El Paso and neighboring Ciudad Juárez, Mexico — the kind of multiculturalism that Trump has been attacking for years. Indeed, Republicans are already attacking him on immigration. In a tweet on Monday, Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said that the Texan is “one of the most extreme Democrats running,” noting his opposition to some existing border barriers.

And it’s not just O’Rourke’s pro-immigration and pro-Latino stands that would likely be heavily contested in a general election. Ted Cruz, whom O’Rourke unsuccessfully challenged in the Texas Senate race last year, highlighted O’Rourke’s defense of NFL player protests during the 2018 campaign, suggesting that the Republican thought the issue would help him more than it would help O’Rourke. And we haven’t seen a recent presidential candidate have to defend opposition to the death penalty (neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton ran for president as death penalty opponents). But O’Rourke seems to have left himself little wiggle room by saying that his stance is based on “moral grounds.”

Overall, I’m not sure how primary voters — or general election voters, if he gets that far — will perceive O’Rourke. He has a mix of traits and positions that could result in perceptions of him as fairly moderate (white, male, not supportive of single-payer health care) and traits and positions that could come off as liberal (pro-immigrant, pro-pot, anti-death penalty). “How liberal is Beto?” will likely remain a question throughout the campaign, particularly if he surges in the polls and his ideology and policy views become more relevant.

[chiseler]

Israel and the Far-Right American Left

Presidential elections are, for the most part, psychic events. Chimeras. Deceptions. Or, as Noam Chomsky calls them, “personalized quadrennial extravaganzas.” But Chomskyites are often puzzled to hear their anarchist role model, one election cycle after another, touting the mainstream Democrat.

So why does Chomsky, with a saddened, syllable-dragging and demoralized voice, encourage voters to participate in their own exclusion – i.e., the electoral process? His under-read Goals and Visions holds some answers. The essay, dating back to Dr. Chomsky’s heyday, makes a beautiful (and deeply counter-intuitive) case for anarchists supporting strong centralized government in the near term.

Voting is a provisional bulwark against absolute corporate tyranny, which must, so the argument goes, be defeated first – I’m not persuaded that Chomsky’s theory illuminates his latest White House hopeful, Bernie Sanders. If, as Chomsky argues, our American Democracy is some terrifying variety show, beamed into politically atomized brains, then certainly he's able to see the emperor has no clothes here. That is, Bernie (pardon the image): a butt naked cipher. I recently asked the MIT linguist a simple question.

"What has Bernie Sanders ever done to help Palestine?"

For years, international activists have been putting Palestinian dignity at the center of their program. And Chomsky's laconic response — "Not much" — won't surprise them. No stranger to equivocation where BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) is concerned, I hoped to tease out whatever nuances might have created this strange contradiction on the American Left, in essence to answer my own query: "How can otherwise principled boycott supporters drop the ball and say 'oops' as historical Palestine experiences a genocide?"

If that word frightens you, you're in good company: Bernie Sanders, Noam Chomsky, and even Norman Finkelstein refuse it — despite a growing chorus that includes Israeli historian Ilan Pappé, who coined “incremental genocide” to define The Holy Land's occupation/annexation/extermination agenda. I'm sitting here in Brooklyn firing off emails in a chair designed by Ray and Charles Eames (so, please, don't call me an "armchair activist") — criticizing figures in my own personal pantheon.

Forgive me for what I do.

Stoop shouldered, he gazes out over his audience like a tortoise, half as old as time, in vain and reflexive search of the shell he left behind somewhere. Now, wouldn’t it be wonderful if this self-styled socialist were running for President? Sure, but Senator Bernie Sanders’ deportment and general appearance constitute a sadly instructive, big old honkin’ “tell” – only chumps and chuckleheads could possibly miss it. Outward displays of Hard Leftism fall away whenever Bernie aids and abets the Democratic Party in strange, stentorian Brooklynese.

Remember that solemn promise he made at the outset of his 2016 campaign not to run as an independent? And another obvious tip-off: pledging support for the Party’s foreknown nominee — i.e., the Monsanto shillaber with whom Sanders was so nauseatingly flirtatious. I keep these facts firmly in mind as I await honest responses to my pestering missives. Critical of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement, Noam Chomsky also fails to advance any feasible alternatives.

Nor, by his own admission, has Bernie lifted a finger: "He’s moved towards support for Palestinian rights, more so than any other candidate, but he’s focusing on domestic policy." To wit, Bernie "knows very well that any word on the topic will let loose the familiar and cynical litany of ‘anti-Semitism’." But isn't it even more "cynical" to suggest, as Chomsky does, that ordinary citizens be held to a higher standard than his pick for US President? Some of us risk opprobrium, and worse, every day because party politics are obtuse to suffering in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders exploits disaffected voters by herding them back into the Democratic Party fold, under a primary assumption about their malleability, laziness and glib call for “revolution.” Though he claims to be a serious socialist, he actively supports a murderous wingnut Zionism. Take his resounding stamp of approval on “Operation Protective Edge,” which killed over 550 Palestinian children in 2014, serving Israel’s long-term agenda of land grabs, water theft, indefinite detention... a nigh endless atrocities list which includes the systematic torture of little kids (see UNICEF's Children in Israeli Military Detention, available as a PDF online).

I next decided to bother Chomsky’s old friend and political ally Dr. Norman Finkelstein, son of two Holocaust survivors and decades-long champion of the Palestinian cause. In recent years, Finkelstein has become something of a pariah on the Left thanks to his anti-BDS stance: "I think Bernie should be let alone in the primary to focus on his domestic agenda." This was getting monotonous.

Finkelstein unintentionally loops back to his mentor's essay, Goals and Visions, torpedoing its thesis as our half-assed interview progresses — acknowledging, for instance, that if Bernie couldn’t tax Jeff Bezos, and instead funded New Deal economics with attempted military cuts: “It could literally trigger a coup plot.” Responding to that same question, Chomsky answers with a devastating blow to his own theory: "Even if he were elected — a long shot — he would not be able to do much without a supportive Congress — an even longer shot.”

In plain language, Sanders and the rest of Congress are tied to the defense industry. So what about Uncle Noam’s (imagined) boundary line — the one supposedly separating captains of industry from democratically elected representatives? It’s a sham, though possibly a well-meaning one, like some avuncular bedtime story offered in lieu of reality-based hope.

Genocide kind of rubs me the wrong way.

I’m not sure there’s anything particularly “revolutionary” about pulling a bloodstained lever for state-sponsored carnage in slow motion. But, hell, that’s just my opinion. So let’s listen to Bernie himself — the old Bernie, who spoke a modicum of truth about our so-called electoral options. "Essentially, it's my view that the leadership of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are tied to big-money interests and that neither of these parties will ever represent the people in this country that are demanding the real changes that have to take place."

It’s axiomatic that we don’t launch revolutions in the ballot box. And yet, here we have Sanders fans, crowding around a Smurf with dyspepsia as if he were Big Bill Haywood. To his followers, I’d say: If you’re counting on some latter-day Dem to save you from capitalism’s war-mongering and general rapaciousness, then listen to Bernie’s earlier, slightly less dishonest incarnation. “You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.” Now there’s a sentiment I can agree with.

Bernie’s sheep-dogging dovetails with his oft-stated support for pugnacious Israel, since both positions coincidentally strengthen Monsanto. The agribusiness colossus, known mainly for genetically modified crops, produced Agent Orange during America’s illegal assault on Vietnam, and now makes white phosphorous doted on by the Holy Land and that (surprise!) melts human flesh. Israel routinely and, yes, illegally drops the stuff on civilians in Gaza, since... well, a bunch of Arabs live there... Go ahead and Google the images – if you can stomach them – of civilian “collateral damage” roasted by Bernie and his newfound Democrat pals.

Who needs an American Left that parses us into a hopeless corner of complicity with the ghouls over at Monsanto; or into an equally occult alliance with Bernie Sanders’ favorite arms manufacturers at Lockheed Martin: death-peddlers spanning generations which, to the surprise of no one, have their own rollicking relationship to The Holy Land’s psychopathic ethno-nationalism. The same corporations profiting on Israel’s crimes are destroying the biosphere. So what's an impressionable, idealistic soul to do? It's either make common cause with an artlessly compromised left, or enter a nihilistic hellscape populated by the likes of Ben Shapiro, or Dr. Jordan Peterson. Some choice.

Israeli talking points, a species of American PR industry-calibrated blather and Labor Day Telethon sanctimony, relentlessly fuse democracy and religious statehood – two distinct conditions which will never mesh -- into grotesque synonyms. But as of this writing, 97% of the water in Gaza is contaminated; electricity has been cut to 4 hours per day; Israeli courts convict 99.74% of Palestinian defendants (not that many people are guilty); 85% of Israel’s “security fence” (The Apartheid Wall) is on land rightfully and legally belonging to the people of Palestine.

Standing opposed to it all -- and indeed ridiculed by America's preeminent professional anti-Zionist, Dr. Norman Finkelstein, whose sole income these days derives from working the college lecture circuit where he finds himself harangued night after night by 20 year old corn-fed Methodist William Henry Harrison High School Irgun-wannabes, for daring to suggest that the state of Israel might possibly have its own problem with mass-murder -- the amateurs in BDS, wielding the kind of principled Internationalist vision which helped bring down Apartheid in South Africa, chase one last hope.

It is a movement which has become beautifully amorphous, internalized by artists who refuse to perform in Tel Aviv, or inspiring students to tell the truth. Again. Finally. Without fear. Meanwhile, courageous young people within Israel are choosing prison and the death of their social lives over a collusion so easily embraced, and even sought, throughout the rest of the industrialized world. In a Land of Soldiers and unceasing bloodshed, this requires the kind of backbone and resolve that once inspired folk tales.

Ahed Tamimi, to whom this editorial is dedicated 

by Daniel Riccuito

Special thanks to R.J. Lambert

[kindabraveandlittlestupid]

This isn't a point of nostalgia, I am only 32 and have only paid attention to so many debates over the years. Mostly the last three Presidents, so basically from 2000 to 2018 which you think would be a long time but in truth that's basically only 5 Presidential Campaigns. I cannot fathom a moment in my life where I was proud of how we conduct American debates. This is not a Right or Left issue, this is not a Media or Politicians issue... this is a failure on all fronts including that of us Citizens.

News channels capitulating to the demands of candidates who wish to establish the rules of the debate they are participating in. American citizens wanting a good show on stage over measuring the content of these men and women's character. Politicians being asked a question, ignoring said question and talking about whatever the fuck they want and no one stepping up saying “Hey Fuck Wit. We asked about Medicare and you just wasted your time talking on The Border. AGAIN!”

I am quite honestly ashamed that we allowed this to happen. The contestants of a game show don’t get to put forward the questions they have have the answers too. They don’t get to have a ‘correct’ answer when answering a different question that was never asked. Softball questions like “Who is your favorite musician?” to make them more likable is a hell of a lot less important than how they plan to conduct themselves diplomatically. The host should not be kissing the ass of the man or woman on stage they are supposed to be grilling for the sake of establishing a better democracy by allowing the American people to see who doesn't have a clue what they are doing and who actually has a plan/vision for the country.

As I said this is a failure across the board and the people who benefit from News Channels kowtowing and Publics complacency are the Shittiest Politicians who can say taglines like “Make America Great Again” without ever explaining how he plans to pay for his wall, what sort of statesmen he plans to conduct himself as or even how they even plan to MAGA. Which is how we got ourselves into this mess of someone who has increased the deficit by a trillion and has systematically weakened our relationships across the world. Am I taking a shot at Trump again? Fuck yeah, I am because the debates didn't take him to task and that perhaps would have put someone more qualified in the White House (Democrat or Conservative) in his place. Let’s face it, he is a fuck wit.

So we are at this point now where Politicians pick their voters (gerrymandering and a topic for another time), they pick their debater, the debate questions, they pick the answers they want to give regardless of the questions asked, and they get to lie about their intentions and beliefs with no adults holding them accountable to what they said before. This is why I am writing this article and calling it a “The Crucible” not to tie a stone to their feet to see if they sink or float but rather to live up to the definition of the word.

A situation of severe trial, or in which different elements interact, leading to the creation of something new.

This should be the aim of American Politics to put the men and women in power in intense scrutiny be they liberal or conservative. I am not saying we do not conduct ourselves without empathy or forgiveness of the past mistakes that some men and women might have made in their early life but look at the values they hold as they step into Office. Values that define how they will vote and judge issues that come across their desk.

So here is a list of ideas that I think will improve debate in the US allowing us to separate the pretenders from the visionaries, the dunces from the intellectuals, the reality TV stars from the patriotic civil servants.

Cutting the Mic/Refocusing

On small thing we can add to debates is the ‘cut the mic’ option for the moderators. Far to often insults will be thrown between candidates, rants on none answers to an important question, and the domination of moderators is exploited on stage. If a candidate is asked about a subject he/she should answer said subject and if they try to switch topics the moderator should step in and cut their mic, repeat the question and reminding that individual to stay on topic. This might upset some individuals on stage but let's be honest they (the Politicians) serve the people and they don't get to change the narrative when we are asking them what their thoughts or beliefs are.

Equal Time for 3rd Parties/Alternative Candidates

I think we Americans are pigeon held by the two-party system. We forgo third parties because MOST Americans understand the Spoiler Effect and the consequences of splitting the vote between two like-minded candidates will ultimately elect the other party which is furthest from their values. Pretty much the reason while Republicans fall in line behind their nominee which sadly the Bernie fans didn't get the memo on.

Anyways the Equal Time for 3rd Parties/Alternative Candidates is essential for a healthy democracy and the exploration of ideas. In the 2016 election, there were 6 people running under the Democratic Primary. Can you name them? Do you know what they believed in? It’s not Jill Stein (Green Party) or Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party). Don’t feel bad I only remembered 1 of the other 4 candidates besides Bernie and Hillary. This is mostly because the media provided heavy coverage to Hillary and Bernie while ignoring other options. This was much the same for Stein and Johnson having no memorable debate moments.

When we conduct the debate we need to ensure that each candidate receives an equal amount of serious questions and time to answer them. If a candidate wants to use his/her whole five minutes to speak, great! If they decide to turn over their remaining time to another candidate or back to the moderator, that would also be acceptable.

Call Backs

Very often a politician will be asked to answer for something they said in the past and explain their intent/context of what they are saying. Some will say “I never said that. Go back and read what I said.” We all know who’s said that in the past but the beauty of modern technology is we can summon those video clips instantly on a computer and we can share it with an audience right then an there with very little effort. It’s a very simple idea of pulling up videos, images, and quotes behind the candidates but an effective one because it will either A) Make candidates honestly answer what their intent/position was on the past and encourage them to avoid the call back or B) Immediately turn off the valve when a Politician attempts to gaslight an audience. It’s instant karma for those who attempt to lie their way through the questioning.

No Fluff Questions

We all know what Fluff Questions are, little softballs placed on a T-Ball stand for Candidates to answer to make them more likable. What kind of soda do you drink, who is your favorite band, what's your favorite football team and so on. None of these fucking questions matter. I don't care about the music they like, I don't care about ketchup on steak, and I don't care about the fo faith that some politicians pretend they have said they regularly read the bible and blah blah blah.

If candidates want to share these falsehoods and image during the campaign trail, fine I am ok with that. Even better if they decide to post it on their website in a bio page so people can see what they are into. However, during a debate, these individuals should be answering hard questions on policy, their vision for the country, questioned about past votes and/or judicial decisions, and should be held accountable for the beliefs/views they bring with them.

In a debate like this, we need questions on policies, beliefs, values, vision, and a fucking plan if they have one. Fluff questions just make you feel closer to the individual making you think he is just like you before he or she cuts your healthcare and runs up the debt. We smarter then this and the moderators are just as much to blame for tossing these questions out instead of asking real questions to root out the shit candidates.

Questions By The People, For The People

On occasion, an individual might stand up and asked a very important question that puts a gravity to a topic that may have not had before. These questions are important but also very rare as most people might have trouble articulating the right question to ask. I admit I sometimes do when thinking of questions on the spot. I believe this is where the Media, Journalists, and the Citizens work together to share their concerns and questions with moderators who will be conducting the debate and let them sift through the questions and turn them razor sharp inquiries to ask the candidates. This isn't to say people can't/shouldn't ask their questions but the beauty of having the people share their questions with an experienced moderator is that follow questions can be crafted ahead of time by a news team that can dig further and deeper than the vast��majority of citizens. 

Conclusion

Debates, Interviews, Confirmation Hearings, and even Town Halls all suffer from these issues of Politicians deciding what they will and will not talk about. I would prefer to have a candidate say “I don’t know.” “I haven't thought about that.” ‘I will get back to you later on that” then go off on a rant to try and stir up the rest of the room with rhetoric. We collectively as citizens need to raise the bar for these men and women because if they had their way they would keep it as low as they possibly could to slither over it.

The Moderators IE the Media need to stop having this love affair with the RNC and DNC trying to charm them into letting them be the moderators. I know this is hard to do because they will take their candidates to another channel but the News Organizations are providing a civil service of keeping the public informed. If the organizations can come together and decide on a proper debate format/rules together and leave them (the candidates) no other options but to appear on one of their channels then it will no longer be the Politicians deciding the rules of debate but the moderators and the people. Thanks for reading.

Regards, Michael California

[patriotsnet]

Are There More Democrats Or Republicans Registered To Vote

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/are-there-more-democrats-or-republicans-registered-to-vote/

Are There More Democrats Or Republicans Registered To Vote

New York City Voters Shifted From Republican Or Independent To Democratic Party Ahead Of Primary

More Republicans registered to vote than Democrats

Voters

The Democratic Party in New York has consistently grown its voter base over the years and has also drawn previously party-unaffiliated and Republican voters to its ranks. In the last year alone, more than 88,000 voters who either had no party registration or were registered with the Republican Party switched their affiliation to the Democrats, potentially creating a new bloc of voters that candidates may seek to woo in races such as the crowded and competitive primary contest to replace term-limited Mayor Bill de Blasio.

According to data from the state voter file analyzed by Prime New York, a political consulting firm, 67,965 unaffiliated voters and 20,528 Republicans joined the Democratic Party, for a total of 88,493 new Democrats. In that same period, 20,136 Democrats switched over to the Republican Party.

Just 209 voters from the Republican and Democratic Parties gave up their party affiliation and became so-called blank or independent voters.

New York has a closed primary system, where only those with a party affiliation can vote in party primary elections. With 3.7 million registered Democrats in the city as of February 21, compared to just over 566,000 Republicans and about 1.08 million independents, the Democratic primaries all but decide the winner of the general election as well, at least for almost all citywide, boroughwide, and district-specific seats.

Political Party Strength In Us States

Political party strength in U.S. states is the level of representation of the various political parties in the United States in each statewide elective office providing legislators to the state and to the U.S. Congress and electing the executives at the state ” rel=”nofollow”>U.S. state governor) and national level.

Can I Register To Vote If I Don’t Have A Fixed Address

Yes. If you don’t have a fixed residence or are homeless and otherwise qualified to vote in Delaware, you may register by completing the proper registration form. If registering in-person you must provide two pieces of identification containing your name. Additionally, one of the pieces must include the address that you listed on the application. The address can be a shelter, agency or another location where you receive your mail.

Recommended Reading: Donald Trump Republicans Are Stupid Video

First How Many Of The Newly Registered Democrats Are Breathing

Still undecided and want to become more politically aware? How many republicans switch to democrat as compared to democrats switching to republican, in public and in office. From this point on, democrats stuck with this stance â favoring federally funded social programs and benefits â while republicans were gradually driven to. First, it could foster greater confidence among republican. Allow registered voters to indicate a party preference when registering to vote;

Biggest Influencers: Democrats Or Republicans

To understand who influences politics, you can easily find out who the wealthy support. For example, the Walton family, the owners of the retail giant Walmart, has traditionally donated to Republican candidates. Alice Walton, the daughter of Walmarts founder, hasnt strayed from that too much. That is, until the 2008 election. In 2008 and 2016 the Walton family donated to Hilary Clintons campaign.

She isnt the only person from a wealthy family to change tradition where politics are concerned either. Many of the younger individuals in Americas richest families have begun to sway from their familys political associations as well. Below youll find the affiliation and overall net worth of the top 10 richest families in America.

You May Like: Did Republicans Cut Funding For Benghazi

Will More Republicans Die From Covid Than Democrats

| 509 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.Influencer2 mo People lie, right and left. Youre looking not at a number comparing those immunized or not immunized against voter rolls, but asking two questions at random, what party do you affiliate with, and do you plan to get vaccinated.Either way, its a brain dead question. More people would die regardless. Lets say that 45% between both parties is only 30% of Americans , thats enough to fall short of the unknown number that we would need to reach for herd immunity, which to the best of my knowledge no country has reached yet to find that sweet spot.It will simply mutate more and more and recircle the globe again and again. Which honestly is fine by me. The panic and blow to the economy were worse than the virus. Maybe sars-cov-3 will be more exciting though. I was in panic mode until there were more concrete numbers a few months in with cov-2.You also have to figure that if a virus becomes too deadly it wipes itself out as the hosts for that virus die faster than they can transmit it, like ebola, some strains of flu or dysentery. Im not too concerned as me and my family caught it already, and kind of figured on this sticking around like the flu. 0|0

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

Americas Top 10 Richest Families

Walton;Republican; The family owns the Walmart corporation.;The Walton family fortune is estimated to be about $130 billion.

Koch;Republican; Businessmen, owners of Koch Industries, a manufacturing company.;Koch brothers have a net worth of about $41 billion each .

;Republican; Own the Mars candy company.;The three children of founder Forrest Mars are worth about $78 billion together.

Cargill-MacMillan;Republican; The Cargill-MacMillan family owns 90 percent of the largest privately-owned corporation in the U.S.;The family, as a whole, is worth about $49 billion.

Cox;Democrat; The Cox family owns a number of auto consumer sites and services . They have an estimated net worth of $41 billion.

Johnson ;Republican; The Johnson family is known for their cleaning products and hygiene products.;They are valued at $30 billion.

Pritzker;Both; Founders of Hyatt.;The family has a combined value of $29 billion in 2017.

Johnson ;Republican; Overseers at Fidelity, ensuring the cash of millions of Americans.;The family has a combined net worth of $28.5 billion.

Hearst;Republican; The Hearst family owns one of Americas largest media companies.;The family is valued at $28 billion.

Duncan;Republican; The Duncan family works mostly with oil and pipelines.;The family is valued at about $21.5 billion.

Also Check: Republicans And Democrats Switch Platforms

Poring Over Party Registration

This is not the best of times for the Democratic Party. No White House; no Senate; no House of Representatives; and a clear minority of governorships and state legislatures in their possession. Yet the Democrats approach this falls midterm elections with an advantage in one key aspect of the political process their strength in states where voters register by party.

Altogether, there are 31 states with party registration; in the others, such as Virginia, voters register without reference to party. Among the party registration states are some of the nations most populous: California, New York, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Arizona, and Massachusetts.

The basic facts: In 19 states and the District, there are more registered Democrats than Republicans. In 12 states, there are more registered Republicans than Democrats. In aggregate, 40% of all voters in party registration states are Democrats, 29% are Republicans, and 28% are independents. Nationally, the Democratic advantage in the party registration states approaches 12 million.

Still, Republican Donald Trump found a route to victory in 2016 that went through the party registration states. He scored a near sweep of those where there were more Republicans than Democrats, winning 11 of the 12, while also taking six of the 19 states where there were more Democrats than Republicans a group that included the pivotal battleground states of Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.

Chart 1 And Table : Nationwide Party Registration Trends Since 2000

More than 8 million Ohioans registered to vote November 3

Since 2000, the nationwide proportion of registered Democratic and Republican voters in party registration states have both gone down, while the percentage of registered independents has steadily grown. The latter has nearly reached the nationwide percentage of registered Republicans, which has long been second nationally to the Democrats. Altogether, the combined number of registered Democrats and Republicans, which was 77% in October 2000, is now down to 69%, while the proportion of registered independents over the same period has increased from 22% to 28%.

Note: Based on active registered voters in states where the number of active and inactive registrants is listed. In the election-eve 2000, 2008, and 2016 entries, Independents include a comparatively small number of registered miscellaneous voters who do not fit into a particular category. Percentages do not add to 100 since the small percentage of registered third party voters is not included.

Richard Wingers monthly newsletter, Ballot Access News, for election-eve party registration numbers in 2000, 2008, and 2016; the websites of state election offices for July 2018.

You May Like: When Was California A Republican State

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

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

Republicans Could Make A Difference In Tuesdays Preliminary Election In A Race This Close Every Vote And Every Constituency However Small Counts

Nobody would ever confuse Boston with a Republican stronghold; the city hasnt elected a GOP mayor since the 1920s, and these days the party almost never bothers even to run a candidate in mayoral or city council elections. This year, all five major candidates are Democrats.

Still, almost half of Bostons voters backed Republican Charlie Baker for governor in 2018. Even Donald Trump won 45,000 votes in the city, about 15 percent of the electorate, with clusters of support in South Dorchester, West Roxbury, and South Boston.

With this years preliminary mayoral campaign entering its final days, and polls predicting an extremely close race, those numbers loom large. Boston might not have enough Republicans or Republican-leaning voters to actually elect a mayor but its still a rich, often-overlooked trove of votes that could help boost one of those Democrats.

Openly courting Republican votes, of course, carries risk, since it could antagonize far more numerous Democrats. But Republicans are choosing sides, in ways that reflect their own divisions.

Nassour is openly supporting Andrea Campbell for mayor. As for how her Republican fellows will vote, she said that she encourages them, ven if you cant get a candidate who is exactly like you in all policies, its important to find a candidate who represents the character of the person youd like to see in office.

Marcela García can be reached at . Follow her on Twitter .

Read Also: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

Turnout Patterns Across States Show Large Increases And Notable Shifts

National turnout shifts between 2016 and 2020 were broadly evident across individual states. Turnout rose in 44 states as well as Washington, D.C. .

Among the states with double-digit turnout gains was the swing state of Arizona, where turnout rose from 60% to 72%. New Jersey increased turnout from 61% to 78%, giving it the highest 2020 turnout rate of all states. Similarly, all but nine states showed turnout gains for their 18- to 29-year-old populations

Most notable are turnout shifts among white non-college and white college graduate populations. Only six states registered 2016-to-2020 turnout drops for non-college white voters, whereas 15 states showed such drops for white college graduates. In all but 11 states, turnout gains were greater for non-college white voters than for college-educated white voters. And particularly relevant for the 2020 election, both Michigan and Wisconsin registered turnout gains for non-college white voters and declines for college-educated white voters.

Back to top

Florida Republicans Close Voter Registration Gap With Democrats

The gap between Floridas registered Democrats and Republicans, which has been steadily closing nearly every year since 2012, is a few thousand voters away from the GOP pulling ahead for the first time in state history.

Despite two decades of Republican dominance on a statewide level, Democrats in Florida have managed to maintain their edge in the number of registered voters. But that lead is now down to about 24,000, according to data from the Florida Department of State far from the 558,000-voter-advantage Democrats had nearly a decade ago.

There are about 5.1 million Republicans and just slightly more Democrats listed in state data showing active voters as of Aug. 31. There are about 3.8 million voters registered without party affiliation and about 250,000 who registered with minor parties.

Florida Democratic Party Chair Manny Diaz said that, despite the narrowed gap, hes feeling good. Part of what motivated him to run the party was the lack of infrastructure Democrats had, he said. Since hes taken over, the partys been making an active effort to set up a statewide voter registration system that operates year-round.

Diaz pointed to the 2008 and 2012 boom Democrats had in registered voters, which he attributed to the Florida campaigns of Barack Obamas successful runs for president and his reelection. But when those campaign officials left, they took their resources with them and the statewide party lost ground.

Don’t Miss: What Is The Lapel Pin The Republicans Are Wearing

Republicans Narrow Voter Registration Gap In Swing States

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

There are multiple forces at play: Republicans are making strides with registering voters, the two-party system is losing its appeal especially with young people and Democrats are being purged from the rolls as they either move out of those states or arent showing up at the polls.

The people who have been removed from the file since are more Democrats than Republicans, said Tom Bonier, CEO of TargetSmart, a nonprofit politics data firm. Overwhelmingly, those people didnt vote in 2016. What that tells you is these are people who had already either moved from the state or already died prior to November 2016, and they just hadnt been removed at that point.

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

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

by Jenny Smedraon ~

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

Read Also: Which States Are For Trump

Are There More Democrats Than Republicans In The United States

I have been thinking about the Democratic Party and whether or not its members are more numerous than the opposing faction.

Evidence to suggest this is the case:

This party is expected to win the popular vote for president seven out of eight times since 1992. Please don’t say “this hasn’t happened yet”. If this bothers you, say 6 out of 7.

The party has received 51.9 percent of the votes cast in presidential elections from 1992 to 2016 for it or its opponent, the Republican Party. This shows that 2012 was the mean election in popular vote as of 2016.

Party registration in states that register by party says this same thing.

Trump’s approval has not gone above 50 percent ever as president on 538.

A plurality of Americans consistently supported impeachment by 2 to 5 points while it was happening.

This suggests that the partisan lean the American electorate is about D+4. I believe that it might be closer to D+5 now for various reasons and the fact that 2012 was the mean result. This can get a little bit fuzzy because of independents.

If we look at opinion polling, Gallup has collated party affiliation polls back to 2004. The most recent poll at the time of writing gives a D+11 advantage. Looking just at the net Republican/Democrat advantage, ignoring Independents, we can create the graph below – with positive percentages representing a Democrat lead, and negative percentages representing a Republican lead.

To give a theoretical perspective on this:

When Was The Republican And Democratic Parties Formed

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

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.

Also Check: Why Do Republicans Hate Ted Cruz

Florida Republicans Close Registration Gap With Democrats To Historically Narrow Margin

Floridas Republicans have narrowed the voter registration gap behind Democrats to historically close levels in the final tally of voters before the Nov. 3 election.

Democrats hold only a 134,000-voter lead over Republicans in the nations largest swing state, according to a Thursday report from the Florida Department of State that shows how many active registered voters registered in time to participate in the 2020 general election. Four years ago, when Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton by 113,000 votes, Democrats held a 327,000-voter edge.

There are more than 14.4 million active registered voters in Florida.

Democrats in 1980 boasted twice as many registered voters than Republicans, but the gap between the two parties has steadily closed. Democrats saw a boost in their registrations during the 2008 election of President Barack Obama, but Republicans have regained that ground in subsequent years.

Florida Democrats had hoped to reverse the trend in 2020. Former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum at one point aimed to register or re-engage 1 million voters.

Republicans crowed Thursday that their strategy would lead to victories on Nov. 3

Florida Democrats, meanwhile, have been talking up Democrats’ early turnout numbers in returned vote-by-mail ballots this election cycle.

[newstfionline]

Thursday, September 2, 2021

UN: Weather disasters soar in numbers, cost, but deaths fall (AP) Weather disasters are striking the world four to five times more often and causing seven times more damage than in the 1970s, the United Nations weather agency reports. But these disasters are killing far fewer people. In the 1970s and 1980s, they killed an average of about 170 people a day worldwide. In the 2010s, that dropped to about 40 per day, the World Meteorological Organization said in a report Wednesday that looks at more than 11,000 weather disasters in the past half-century. The report comes during a disaster-filled summer globally, including deadly floods in Germany and a heat wave in the Mediterranean, and with the United States simultaneously struck by powerful Hurricane Ida and an onslaught of drought-worsened wildfires. In the 1970s, the world averaged about 711 weather disasters a year, but from 2000 to 2009 that was up to 3,536 a year or nearly 10 a day, according to the report, which used data from the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters in Belgium. The average number of yearly disasters dropped a bit in the 2010s to 3,165, the report said. Most death and damage during 50 years of weather disasters came from storms, flooding and drought.

Ontario to require COVID-19 vaccine certificates (AP) Ontario on Wednesday became the fourth Canadian province to announce residents will have to show proof of vaccination against COVID-19 to enter restaurants, theaters, gyms and other indoor public venues. Premier Doug Ford said the vaccination certificate program will take effect Sept. 22. Initially, residents will show a PDF or printout of the vaccination receipt they received when they got their COVID-19 shots, along with a government-issued piece of ID such as a photo health card or driver’s license. The province is expected to launch a system in late October that will send everyone a QR code to accompany their vaccination receipt. It will also launch an app that will allow service providers to scan the QR codes as proof of vaccination.

Biden defends departure from ‘forever war,’ praises airlift (AP) A defensive President Joe Biden called the U.S. airlift to extract more than 120,000 Americans, Afghans and other allies from Afghanistan to end a 20-year war an “extraordinary success,” though more than 100 Americans and thousands of others were left behind. “I was not going to extend this forever war,” Biden declared Tuesday from the White House. “And I was not going to extend a forever exit.” He is under heavy criticism, particularly from Republicans, for his handling of the evacuation. But he said it was inevitable that the final departure from two decades of war, first negotiated with the Taliban for May 1 by former President Donald Trump, would have been difficult, with likely violence, no matter when it was planned and conducted. “To those asking for a third decade of war in Afghanistan, I ask, ‘What is the vital national interest?’” Biden said. He added, “I simply do not believe that the safety and security of America is enhanced by continuing to deploy thousands of American troops and spending billions of dollars in Afghanistan.” The president lamented an estimated $2 trillion of taxpayer money that was spent fighting the war. “What have we lost as a consequence in terms of opportunities?” Biden asked.

Flames Threaten Lake Tahoe (1440) California’s Caldor Fire continued its steady advance toward one of the state’s most popular natural tourist destinations, with the flames just 3 miles from the town of South Lake Tahoe as of yesterday afternoon. The town, along with neighboring resort destinations, had mostly emptied out Monday, as a mileslong line of cars marched toward Nevada to avoid the danger. More than 50,000 people are under mandatory evacuation orders, and officials estimate 33,000 structures may be at risk if it continues to advance. As of this morning, the fire had burned almost 200,000 acres and is currently at 18% containment. The flames are advancing from the southwest side of the lake eastward, and have engulfed a large portion of Route 50, the primary eastbound road into the region.

Officials urge those who evacuated to escape Ida not to return (Washington Post) More than a million people began a second day in darkness in storm-stricken Louisiana, facing the possibility of days or weeks without power. Local and state officials continued to urge those who evacuated to stay away, warning that coming home now could mean returning to an area largely without water and power, struggling with limited services. Louisiana officials said those in particularly hard-hit places who chose not to evacuate may end up leaving anyway, as they find themselves dealing with the strained resources. The near-total failure of the region’s energy grid coincides with a sweltering southeastern summer and little respite for residents. Cars and generators will eventually run out of fuel; service stations can’t pump gasoline without electricity. Cellphone batteries will expire. Water treatment systems will buckle without a reliable power system.

Homeschooling reaches critical mass (Axios) The number of U.S. kids who are homeschooled has nearly doubled during the pandemic. Nearly 2.6 million kids have switched from traditional school to homeschooling since the pandemic began, according to a new report from the Bellwether Education Partners, commissioned by the Walton Family Foundation. Now the total number of homeschooled kids sits at about 5 million. According to census data, more than 11% of U.S. households are now homeschooling. Some parents have lost faith in traditional schools, others fear exposing their kids to the coronavirus. On top of the families who have pivoted to homeschooling, there are millions more who have moved their kids from public school to private school. In fact, the total number of kids who have switched schools is a whopping 8.7 million, per the Bellwether report.

Venezuelan opposition declares end to boycott, agrees to participate in local and state elections (Washington Post) Venezuela’s main opposition parties on Tuesday announced an end to their three-year boycott of elections organized by the government of President Nicolás Maduro, abandoning one of the main tactics of their long struggle to oust the authoritarian socialist by agreeing to field gubernatorial and mayoral candidates in upcoming races. The opposition, whose candidates in past elections have been harassed and banned by Maduro’s government, has boycotted all votes since 2018. On Tuesday, its leaders acknowledged the likelihood that the local and regional elections in November would again be rigged against them. They portrayed the decision to field candidates as a last-ditch effort to reignite their base and restore democracy to this beleaguered South American nation. Others, however, saw the move as simply a nod to the new reality in Venezuela, where Maduro has significantly strengthened his grip on power. Several people familiar with the inner workings of the opposition conceded the decision came in part because rank-and-file opposition members were clamoring for an end to the stalemate that has left them jobless for years. Many saw no endgame to the opposition’s strategy or any real chance that Juan Guaidó, recognized by the United States and more than 50 other countries as Venezuela’s legitimate leader, will ever assume power.

Polarizing Decision (Reuters) Relations between the EU and Belarus have worsened sharply over the past year since President Alexander Lukashenko claimed victory in an election his opponents and Western countries say was rigged. The EU slapped economic sanctions on Belarus and has accused Lukashenko of deliberately encouraging hundreds of illegal migrants to cross into Poland and the Baltic states Latvia and Lithuania in a form of “hybrid warfare.” Poland began building a barbed wire fence last week along the border in an effort to curb the flow of migrants from countries like Iraq and Afghanistan coming through Belarus. On Tuesday, Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki’s government formally asked President Andrzej Duda to impose a state of emergency for 30 days in parts of two regions. That would give Polish authorities the power to restrict the movement of people, including non-governmental organizations in the border areas. Human rights groups strongly criticized Poland’s approach, saying Warsaw must provide more humanitarian aid to those stranded on the border. Morawiecki said the blame lies with the Lukashenko regime that “decided to push these people onto Polish, Lithuanian and Latvian territory in an effort to destabilize them.”

Sri Lanka declares economic emergency to contain food prices amid forex crisis (Reuters) Sri Lanka has declared an economic emergency empowering the authorities to seize stocks of staple foods and set their prices, to contain soaring inflation after a steep devaluation of its currency due to a foreign exchange crisis. The president of the island nation, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, on Monday declared an emergency under the public security ordinance to maintain the supply of food items such as sugar and rice at fair prices. The emergency came into effect from midnight. The government has appointed a former army general as commissioner of essential services, who will have the power to seize food stocks held by traders and retailers and regulate their prices.

Australia now aims to ‘live with virus’ instead of eliminating it (Reuters) Australian authorities on Wednesday extended the COVID-19 lockdown in Melbourne for another three weeks, as they shift their focus to rapid vaccination drives and move away from a suppression strategy to bring cases down to zero. Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews flagged a staggered easing of the tough restrictions once 70% of the state’s adult residents receive at least one dose, a milestone he hopes to reach at least by Sept. 23, based on current vaccination rates. “We have thrown everything at this, but it is now clear to us that we are not going to drive these numbers down, they are instead going to increase,” Andrews told reporters in Melbourne, the state capital, after a lockdown for nearly a month failed to quell the outbreak.

Taliban focus on governing after US withdrawal (AP) After the end of the US airlift, “Afghanistan is finally free,” Hekmatullah Wasiq, a top Taliban official, told The Associated Press on the tarmac. “Everything is peaceful. Everything is safe.” He urged people to return to work and reiterated the Taliban’s offer of amnesty to all Afghans who had fought against the group over the last 20 years. “People have to be patient,” he said. “Slowly we will get everything back to normal. It will take time.” A long-running economic crisis has worsened since the Taliban’s rapid takeover of the country in mid-August, with people crowding banks to maximize their daily withdrawal limit of about $200. Civil servants haven’t been paid in months and the local currency is losing value. Most of Afghanistan’s foreign reserves are held abroad and currently frozen. A major drought threatens the food supply, and thousands who fled during the Taliban’s lightning advance remain in squalid camps. “Afghanistan is on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe,” said Ramiz Alakbarov, the local U.N. humanitarian coordinator. He said $1.3 billion is needed for aid efforts, only 39% of which has been received. The challenges the Taliban face in reviving the economy could give Western nations leverage as they push the group to fulfill a pledge to allow free travel, form an inclusive government and guarantee women’s rights. The Taliban say they want to have good relations with other countries, including the United States. There are few signs of the draconian restrictions the Taliban imposed last time they were in power. Schools have reopened to boys and girls, though Taliban officials have said they will study separately. Women are out on the streets wearing Islamic headscarves—as they always have—rather than the all-encompassing burqa the Taliban required in the past. When the Taliban last ruled the country, from 1996 to 2001, they banned television, music and even photography, but TV stations are still operating normally and the Taliban fighters themselves can be seen taking selfies around Kabul.

Taliban takeover propels tiny Qatar into outsize role in Afghanistan (Washington Post) When the United States was forced to relocate its diplomatic mission from Afghanistan on Monday, it chose Qatar, a longtime mediator between the West and the Taliban and more recently the only government viewed as capable of coaxing the Afghan militants to stay engaged with the world. Qatar’s relationship with the Taliban stretches back years, reflecting the affinity of the small Persian Gulf state with Islamists and its wish to be a regional power broker. Its unique position has paid huge dividends in the last few weeks as Qatar played a pivotal role in helping the United States and other countries extricate tens of thousands of their citizens and allies from Afghanistan after the rapid Taliban advance. Qatar’s connections with the Taliban have made Doha the ­go-to contact for countries seeking influence in Afghanistan, as well as for desperate Afghans trying to leave and news media and nongovernmental organizations seeking help with evacuations. But Qatar also runs the risk of tarnishing its reputation if it is seen as too quick to embrace a brutal Taliban government, analysts said. “Qatar is happy to be important again, but it is also worried about the optics,” said Cinzia Bianco of the Berlin-based European Council on Foreign Relations.

Hezbollah hammered with criticism amid Lebanon’s crises (AP) Driving back to base after firing rockets toward Israeli positions from a border area last month, a group of Hezbollah fighters was accosted by angry villagers who smashed their vehicles’ windshields and held them up briefly. It was a rare incident of defiance that suggested many in Lebanon would not tolerate provocations by the powerful group that risk triggering a new war with Israel. As Lebanon sinks deeper into poverty, many Lebanese are more openly criticizing Iran-backed Hezbollah. They blame the group—along with the ruling class—for the devastating, multiple crises plaguing the country, including a dramatic currency crash and severe shortages in medicine and fuel. Critics say that rather than push for reform, Hezbollah has stood by its political allies who resist change. They say the group is increasingly pulling Lebanon into Iran’s orbit by doing its bidding, and that U.S. sanctions against Iran and Hezbollah have made things harder. Where Hezbollah was once considered an almost sacred, untouchable force fighting for a noble cause—the fight against the Israeli enemy—it is now seen by many simply as part of the corrupt political clique responsible for the country’s epic meltdown.

Doctor’s orders: ‘Nature prescriptions’ see rise amid pandemic (Reuters) When Annette Coen went for a health check-up last summer in Washington state, she and her doctor discussed concerns around her weight and asthma. Then her doctor offered a novel prescription: regular hikes in the woods. He gave Coen a one-year pass to Washington’s state park system and told her to “go for walks, go camping, do what you need to do,” Coen, now 53, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation. A year on, she said the park prescription was a “great experience” for her and her whole family. “I have lost 30 pounds (13.6 kg) since April this year ... just being out and about,” she said. With the COVID-19 pandemic highlighting the health benefits of spending more time outdoors, a growing faction of the U.S. medical community is prescribing time outside the same way they would traditional medication. In more than 500 scientific studies in recent years, researchers have linked time spent in nature with decreased anxiety, reduced risk of obesity and even reduced overall mortality, said Maryland-based pediatrician Stacy Beller Stryer.

[statetalks]

Should Republicans Vote In Democratic Primary

Official Disinvites For Us Indys

Republican Caller: Should I Vote in the Democratic Primary to Undermine Bernie?

Because we’re disrupting the coronation. It has to be us, right? It can’t be that the candidate they are putting a thumb on the scale for is the problem…

The share of independents in the public, which long ago surpassed the percentages of either Democrats or Republicans, continues to increase. Based on 2014 data, 39% identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans. This is the highest percentage of independents in more than 75 years of public opinion polling.I was a registered democrat for over 40 years and left the party last Jan, changed back to caucus for Bernie here in CO and left the democratic party the day after.

Is It Common For Democrats To Participate In The Republican Primary And Vice Versa

In short, no. According to Elizabeth Simas, a political science professor at the University of Houston who spoke about this with Texas Standard, cases of strategic voting dont happen much in primary elections. Certainly, there are people who do it but we just dont see it happening as much as theres potentially this fear for it to happen, Simas said.

In areas dominated by one party, especially rural areas, voters might cross party lines in the primary to have more of a say in their local races.

In my county, all the local races are Republican. Judges, sheriff, district attorney, Martha Mims, a Democratic voter who lives Williamson County, wrote in The Texas Tribunes Facebook group, This is Your Texas. If I want to have a say in local government, I have to vote in the Republican primary.

Voters like Mims can do that, thanks to Texas open primary. Do you have more questions about voting in Texas? Submit them to our Texplainer series.

Disclosure: The University of Houston has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

How Do You Choose

When you show up to your polling location, youll decide whether you want a Democratic or Republican primary ballot.

But after choosing a side in the primary, you have to stay in that lane through the runoff. You cant vote Republican in the primary election and then participate in a runoff election between top Democratic candidates.

That said, voting in a primary does not commit you to vote for a particular candidate in the general election. You can vote for either partys candidate in the November election.

You May Like: Is There Any Republicans Running For President Besides Trump

Sorry Kid It Just Doesn’t Work That Way

This is not a high school glee club. If an independent wants to change their registration every four years for six months in order to vote in the Democratic or Republican party in NY, they can. You do not get to do one fucking thing to stop it. It has been happening for some time, and it will happen more and more as time marches on. I am a leftist. I have every god damned right to have a voice in who the leftist candidate in the GE is going to be. Tough shit if you and other loyalists don’t like it. And I have every right to say, well, that candidate that won does not represent me so I will vote for someone else even if that is a third party. Isn’t democracy a grand thing? This attitude is going to ensure future losses not wins. 47%. That is the number. That is the math!

Invite Independents Into The Process

The Democratic Party ought to open the nominating process to voters registered as independents, allowing them to sign up as Democrats on primary day. Sixteen states have created open primaries through laws or referendums, according to the nonprofit group Open Primaries, although the parties have the authority to do so unilaterally. Yet Democrats have done so in only six states, the group notes.

James Zogby is president of the Arab American Institute and a member of the Democratic National Committees executive committee. Bernie Sanders appointed him to the partys primary reform commission.

Reaching out to such voters currently alienated by the two major parties would increase the chances that the Democratic nominee can win in November. At the same time, the party needs to work to strengthen its bonds with its existing members.

The sad but simple truth is that being a Democrat no longer means very much to many Americans. According to the most recent Gallup poll, only 27 percent of voters identify as Democrats, and 30 percent say they are Republicans. At the same time, 42 percent call themselves independents, including half of millennial voters . This share of American voters who dont identify with any party has held constant for well over a decade.

The Democratic Party needs to give voters, including independents, a reason to become engaged in party-building. Since we need the votes of independents in the fall, shouldnt we give them a voice in the spring?

Recommended Reading: What News Channel Do Republicans Watch

Well No That Defeats The Purpose Of Primaries

But I do think that they should be open. It was different when the majority of the populace was divided between the two parties, but now that Independents make up the largest voting group, it seems wrong to exclude them unless there is same day voter registration at polling sites. Too many states make it as hard as possible to vote now that the voting rights act was gutted, so we need to make changes to make the process as inclusive as possible. The more hurdles that people have to jump through to vote, the more discouraged and cynical people will be. That serves the interests of the PTB, but it doesn’t serve the country’s interests. We need and informed, engaged citizenry or our democracy-what’s left of it-will lose all legitimacy. That, at least, is my view now.

The Present Process Is Prone To Chaos And Capture

We need not recount here the devastating effectiveness with which Donald Trumps insurgent candidacy steamrolled the traditional gatekeepers, commandeered media attention, and mobilized what some of his backers called his troll army. However, the weakening of gatekeeping was not limited to one candidate or one party. The Democratic Party establishment found itself barely able to contain the insurgency of Sanders, even though he was not a Democrat and he did not win a majority of self-identified Democrats except in his home state of Vermont and neighboring New Hampshire.

Neither candidate changed the system all by himself. Rather, both saw and exploited the invisible primarys fragility. Candidates could bypass traditional moneymen by reaping donations online, tapping deep-pocketed tycoons, or funding themselves. They could bypass traditional media by using social platforms like Twitter and Facebook, and they could hijack traditional media by behaving outrageously. They could treat their lack of endorsements as a mark of authenticity.

he nomination process makes unrealistic demands on voters, not because voters are lazy or stupidtheyre notbut because they are human.

You May Like: Did Republicans Riot After Obama Was Elected

With No Republican Primary Gop Supporters Are Free To Vote For ‘chaos’

With no Republican presidential primary this year, Republicans are free to make what political scientists call negative strategic votes for Democrats without having to sacrifice the chance to vote for their own party.

Voters can cast ballots in only one primary per election, but they can vote however they choose in general elections despite the primary they choose.

A large crowd of candidates means smaller vote counts can swing elections and being early in the national process could also be expected to add to a particularly strong chances for crossover voting, said D. Sunshine Hillygus, a Duke University political science professor who has studied crossover and negative strategic voting.

She said the crossover votes can be negatively strategic, “trolling or throwing a wrench in it,” or they can be positively strategic as a backstop.

The only cost for Republicans who are so inclined to instigate “chaos?” They’ll get on a Democratic mailing list.

And, indeed, crossover votes could be a factor in the primary, said David Woodard, a retired Clemson University professor who has consulted with Republicans for decades.

Republicans who otherwise wouldn’t want to interrupt their Republican voting record could actually brag about crossing over this year, Woodard said. Fueled by impeachment and memories of Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Republicans will be highly motivated this year, Woodard said.

Get Rid Of Superdelegates Completely

Will President Trump encourage Ohio Republicans to vote in the Democratic Primary

Superdelegates had some of their power stripped from them after the contentious 2016 Democratic primary contest. Now its time to finish the job: They ought to be neutered entirely.

Selina Vickers was a delegate for Sen. Bernie Sanders at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. She is a candidate for the West Virginia House of Delegates, in District 32.

Superdelegates debuted at the 1984 Democratic convention, after the party reworked its rules to respond to President Jimmy Carters calamitous defeat in 1980. The idea was that these special delegates typically politicians and senior party officials wouldnt be bound by the decisions of state primary voters and caucusers: They could throw their weight behind whichever candidate they thought would perform best in the general election. This year, there are 771 superdelegate votes and 3,979 pledged delegates . The problem is that there can be a chasm between the judgments of party insiders and the grass roots about which candidates are most electable.

A certain number of elected party leaders could retain the title of automatic delegates, but they should not have a free or wild card vote at any stage. Instead, they should pledge to a candidate before their states primary or caucuses. If their candidates dont earn votes at the state level, they wouldnt have a say so they couldnt interfere in the democratic selection of a nominee.

Read Also: How Many Democrats Republicans Are In The Senate

What Is A Party Primary Election

The Democratic and Republican Parties are required to use primary elections to choose their candidates for the general election. Although it is up to the parties to decide who may vote in their primaries, generally only registered voters affiliated with the Democratic or Republican Parties may vote in that party’s primary election.

Democrats Plan To Keep Their Primary Strategy

Morgan Carroll, chairwoman of the Colorado Democratic Party and a former state Senate president, said a proposal to forgo primaries would never receive serious consideration among state Democrats.

She called the idea ridiculous and undemocratic. 

If we had a candidate that recommended it, I think theyd be driven out of town, Morgan Carroll said. 

She sees the push as part of a larger pattern by Trump and his loyalists to basically move in an authoritarian direction, take away choices from voters, make it harder to vote, make it hard for the people to decide, and make it easier for them to install whoever they want in whatever position they want.

Want exclusive political news and insights first? Subscribe to The Unaffiliated, the political newsletter from The Colorado Sun. Thats where this story first appeared. Join now or upgrade your membership.

If the Republican proposal passes, she said its hard to know whether more unaffiliated voters would participate in 2022 Democratic primaries because they would be the only primary left they could vote in. 

She thinks the move would backfire for Republicans as theyve struggled to win elections in Colorado in recent years. If I were a rank-and-file Republican person, Id be furious.

Colorado Sun staff writer Jesse Paul contributed to this report.

Read Also: Are There Any Other Republicans Running For President

Enhance The Role Of Superdelegates

We recommend doing the opposite of what the DNC chose to do with its Unity Reform Commission. Instead of diminishing the role of superdelegates by preventing them from voting on the first ballot or reducing their numbers, the party should augment their influence.

The purpose of superdelegates has never been to overturn the choice of voters in primaries. True, in principle they might act as a last barrier to a manifestly unacceptable candidate, like George Wallace or Henry Fordbut even that is unlikely, if a candidate has won a decisive victory in the primaries. Rather, their real importance is their indirect influence on the upstream end of the process. Their convention votes incentivize candidates to reach out to them in the early stages of campaigns. A candidate who seeks superdelegates support will need to listen to them and promise to work with them. Also, superdelegates commitments early in the process help establish party support and momentum for favored candidates. Superdelegates do not decide the nomination, but they do influence the nominees, the media, and the votersand that is exactly as it should be.

We recommend doing the opposite of what the DNC chose to do with its Unity Reform Commission. Instead of diminishing the role of superdelegates , the party should augment their influence.

Its Primary Day In Pennsylvania Heres What Voters Need To Know

By

Laura Benshoff

May 18, 2021

Voters, wearing protective face masks as a precaution against the coronavirus, stand at a distance from each other as they wait in line to casts their ballot in the Pennsylvania primary in Philadelphia, Tuesday, June 2, 2020.

Its Primary Day in Pennsylvania.

Voters around the commonwealth will pick representatives from their parties to put on the ballot for the November general election. In Philadelphia, where Democrats outnumber Republicans seven to one, the primary can be more determinative than the general election.

Judicial races, school board seats, and the Philadelphia District Attorneys office are all in the running.

Recommended Reading: What Percent Of Republicans Approve Of Trump

Over 150 Companies Sign Letter Supporting John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act

One reason Republicans in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts may have focused their initiatives solely on voter ID laws, rather than including other election changes, is because public polling has shown those requirements have broad backing by members of both parties. A recent Monmouth University poll found that 80 percent of Americans back requiring voters to show photo ID in order to vote.

“The struggle with ballot initiatives are always getting the actual initiative on the ballot to start with,” said Garrett Bess, vice president of Heritage Action for America, a conservative advocacy group. “But if the question is put to the voters, then I think it’s an almost certainty to pass.”

Still, the effort marks a new chapter in the broader national Republican effort to advance new limits on elections following former President Donald Trump’s campaign of lies about last fall’s vote. A number of leading backers of the ballot initiatives have boosted Trump’s false claims of fraud.

Voter fraud in U.S. elections is exceedingly rare. Although there is no evidence of widespread malfeasance in last fall’s election, more than a dozen states have so far enacted changes this year.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 36 states already ask voters to provide some form of ID, with most of them allowing voters without ID to cast ballots if they sign a form under oath.

Using An Analogy Such As A Private Club Or A Sports Team Is Neither Naive Nor Dishonest

If you are an Independent or non-aligned voter, you simply change your voter registration to Democratic if you want to vote for a Democrat in a Primary, or to Republican if you want to vote for Republican in a primary. There is absolutely no restriction on doing this, other than the need to do it a certain number of days before the primary. Whether or not the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are de-facto institutionalized political parties, sports teams, or clubs does not change this. If you want to vote in a closed primary, you simply change to the party that you want to be in within the allotted time before the primary. One can always change back to Independent or non-aligned afterward if one chooses. Why do you think this is “s***ting” on people? Candidate preference:Biden

You May Like: What Year Did The Democrats And Republicans Switch

Professional Vetting Provides Quality Control

Our case so far has dwelt on the shortcomings of the plebiscitary nominating process. So, we ought to re-emphasize: We are not saying that primary elections bring nothing to the table. To the contrary, they surface all kinds of important information about candidates and voters. What we do believe is that two filters are better than one. Electoral and professional perspectives check each others excesses and balance each others viewpoints; and, more than that, they complement and improve each other. Each provides the other with vital information which otherwise might be missed. Perhaps most important, professional input aids in winnowing the field to those who will likely govern competently.

wo filters are better than one. Electoral and professional perspectives check each others excesses and balance each others viewpoints

Insiders look for whether candidates are able to work with others, and whether they have sound judgment, adaptability, a nuanced way of dealing with problems, and influential relationships inside and outside government. Insiders also observe candidates character, and they can detect personal flaws that might affect sound decision-making. Insiders know from experience the attributes and talents necessary for effective governing. Voters are not privy to that kind of detailed, hands-on knowledge.

Vetting not only evaluates politicians; it also helps equip them to govern.

Virginia Voter Guide: The 2021 Primaries

Will President Trump encourage Ohio Republicans to cross-over to vote in Democratic primary?

The 2021 election season in Virginia has begun.

The 2021 Virginia primary election, which will determine the candidates who will face off in the fall, will be held Tuesday. Voters are weighing in on the contest for the Democratic nomination for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general among other races. Most of the Republican races were already decided in a series of remote conventions May 8, although there will be a few GOP races on the ballot.

Most of the changes to voting in Virginia adopted last year due to the pandemic are still in place, but there are a few differences. Heres what you need to know.

Read Also: Do Republicans Vote In The Primary

Trump Has Zero Desire To Be Speaker Of House Spokesman Says

Oregon progressive Senator Jeff Merkley and Minnesotas Senator and former Democratic presidential candidate, Amy Klobuchar, introduced the For the People Act, along with majority leader Chuck Schumer, in the Senate in March.

Jeff Merkley

. is absolutely right. This bill is critical for our country. We must fight with everything we’ve got to pass the For the People Act and save our democracy.

Today they probably know it is going to be parked in a cul-de-sac and the Republicans, aided by Democrat Joe Manchin, are going to throw away the keys.

Heres what Merkley tweeted yesterday.

Jeff Merkley

Make no mistake: Our democracy is in crisis. Republican lawmakers are trying to restrict Americans’ right to vote all across the country. Tomorrow we have a chance to right these wrongs by passing the For the People Act. We must get it done!

And heres Klobuchar earlier today reminding everyone that Barack Obama has spoken out to support a compromise version of the bill put forward by Manchin .

Amy Klobuchar

Voters Need Help: How Party Insiders Can Make Presidential Primaries Safer Fairer And More Democratic

Summary

Presidential-nominating contests in both major political parties are at risk of producing nominees who aren’t competent to govern and/or don’t represent a majority of the partys voters. Raymond La Raja and Jonathan Rauch argue this is a result of the declining role of party insiders in the nomination process and call for the reversal of that trend. Primaries function best, they claim, when voters and party professionals work in partnership.

Don’t Miss: How Many Registered Republicans In Texas

The Republicans Planning To Vote In South Carolinas Democratic Primary

Save Story

Save this story for later.

Save Story

Save this story for later.

Twelve years ago, Rush Limbaugh, who had not yet received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, urged the listeners of his enormously popular and very conservative talk-radio show to vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries. In the patchwork process that is employed to nominate Presidential candidates, more than a dozen states have open primaries, which allow registered voters to participate in either contest. Limbaugh wanted Clintons close but seemingly losing fight with Barack Obama to go on for as long as possible, on the theory that a protracted battle would weaken the eventual nominee. He called the plan Operation Chaos. Limbaugh didnt think that Clinton was necessarily the weaker of the two candidatesin fact, he ultimately concluded that Obama was; by May, 2008, he was pushing his fans to vote for the senator from Illinois. Barack Obama has shown he cannot get the votes Democrats need to winblue-collar, working-class people, Limbaugh said. He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that.

Oh You Don’t Want My Vote In Nov

I’m an Indy that votes Dem. My state has closed Repug primaries/caucuses. If I were Right leaning I’d be insulted that I have to change my affiliation to them and back afterward to have a say in who the best candidate to run for GE is.The Dem party is now smaller than the Indies, and will be even smaller in a few months after Hillary’s scorched earth antics. I don’t think you want to disinvite us all at this point.

You May Like: How Many Democrats And Republicans Are Currently In The Senate

From Ohio To Florida Your Cheat Sheet For The Next Crucial Primaries

Five states voting Tuesday could be make-or-break for some presidential candidates. A primer on whos voting and what outcomes are likeliest

Tue 15 Mar 2016 11.00 GMT Last modified on Fri 9 Feb 2018 19.15 GMT

On 15 March, the names of the remaining presidential candidates Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich on the Republican side, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders for the Democrats will be on ballot papers in five states and one US territory. Although this Tuesday will be less frantic than Super Tuesday two weeks ago, when 12 states and one territory held primary elections, its just as important. By 16 March, the race for the White House could look very different depending on how Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio vote.

Thats partly because the delegate numbers in those states are so high in total, 367 Republican and 792 Democratic delegates are available on 15 March. That brings us significantly closer to the finish line of having just two presidential candidates: at the moment, 33% of Democratic delegates have been pledged but by the time the polls have closed on 15 March, that number will rise to 50%. For Republicans, pledged delegates will jump from 46% to 61%.

Those percentages just mean that playing catch-up gets harder from here. Clinton is still on track for the Democratic nomination to change that, Sanders needs to pick up at least 326 of the pledged delegates .

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/should-republicans-vote-in-democratic-primary/

[toshootforthestars]

via Alex Pareene, posted 19 Aug 2020:

In a June primary, a photogenic Zoomer Republican named Madison Cawthorn beat a candidate endorsed by President Donald Trump to fill the North Carolina House seat formerly occupied by his chief of staff, Mark Meadows. In the breathless aftermath, CNN ran a story introducing the “political newcomer” as “a staunch conservative” who was “partially paralyzed in a 2014 car accident” and who “is an owner of a real estate investment company and a motivational speaker.”

NPR described his profession succinctly as “real estate investor.” He had “campaigned as ‘pro-Trump, pro-life and pro-Second Amendment’ and emphasized his family’s deep roots in the state.” None of that is particularly notable; the same could be said of any “normal” Republican. The unusual, and hence newsworthy, thing about Cawthorn was his youth: If elected (the seat is Republican-leaning), he will be the youngest member of Congress by some years.

Without rendering judgment on his politics—which may have been considered extreme in another era but are now coded as “normal” simply because they reflect the politics of the current regime—outlets like CNN and NPR treated the novelty of his youth as an interesting and laudatory thing. He was one of the political media’s favorite animals: a Rising Star.

Of course, to be a 24-year-old fervid Donald Trump supporter, as Cawthorn proudly claims to be, is itself highly unusual. (“I support our great president,” he said in a statement clarifying that he didn’t believe his upset victory was a repudiation of Trump.)

Fewer than 30 percent of registered voters between the ages of 18 and 29 plan to vote for Donald Trump in November, according to Pew. Even that number overstates his true support among young people: A mere 14 percent of Americans between the ages 18 and 29 “very strongly approve” of his performance as president; 59 percent “very strongly disapprove.”

Yet until recently, no one had bothered to ask how Cawthorn came to love Donald Trump, the president so many of his peers and contemporaries despise. In the news stories published in the days after he won his primary, Cawthorn just seemed to love tradition, the Second Amendment, and the armed forces, which he nearly joined before his car accident.

Then, prompted by messages from North Carolina residents, Jezebel’s Esther Wang did the slightest bit of additional digging and found some details that seemed to cast doubt on his campaign biography.  Cawthorn oddly seems to have no regular source of income, at least none that he has publicly disclosed.

He is a “real estate investor” in the sense that at one point last year he formed an LLC that bought a single property. He writes on his financial disclosure form simply that he “made most of my money in the New York Stock Exchange.” His account of his thwarted military ambitions also turned out to be misleading, and he had been suspiciously vague about his single semester at Patrick Henry College, a school The New Republic has described as “a training ground for the religious right and a pipeline to conservative jobs in Washington.”

In other words, this is a young man with money who attended a right-wing finishing school—again, nothing out of the ordinary in today’s GOP.

More suspicious than his résumé were a few odd elements of his self-presentation: The name of Cawthorn’s phony real estate LLC includes a Latin phrase now commonly used as a white nationalist dog whistle; his home is decorated with a flag beloved by the so-called “Patriot Movement”; he posted to Instagram, and eventually deleted, a bizarre family photo taken at Hitler’s vacation spot, saying the trip “has been on my bucket list for years.”

Prompted by Wang’s digging, other suspicious details accumulated. Cawthorn oddly follows precisely 88 people on Twitter. (88 is white supremacist numerical code for “Heil Hitler.”) He posed for a photo wearing a gun holster emblazoned with a Spartan soldier’s helmet, a symbol associated with far-right gun culture in general and the Oath Keepers specifically.

These details are all suggestive rather than definitive. But the suggestiveness is telling in and of itself.

As countless observers of the far right have noted, part of the game the far right plays online is to maintain what writer Talia Lavin calls “a winking plausible deniability.” Maybe Cawthorn managed to follow precisely 88 people by accident. Or, if it was intentional, maybe he was “just” making a joke. But it would be surprising if Cawthorn wasn’t at the very least willing to indulge in white nationalist tropes and dog whistles.

There is basically no path to becoming a Trumpist 20-something that doesn’t involve flirting with extremist beliefs and communities.

In 2017, in the immediate aftermath of the white supremacist “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, at which James Alex Fields Jr., a young neo-Nazi, killed a left-wing anti-racism activist, Heather Heyer, I wrote that the rally amounted to a “preview of the future of the Republican Party.”  I argued, based in part on the number of (identified) College Republicans in attendance at the rally, that the near complete collapse of support for conservatism and the Republican Party among younger generations would have the perverse effect of making the future leadership of the conservative movement even more extreme.

Even if the Republican Party loses seats in the coming years, it will still win plenty of elections, locally and often nationally.

As Adam Kotsko once wrote, the United States is in many respects “a variant on the party-state form” but with “two parties instead of just one.” It is not simply that our political, legal, and constitutional institutions inexorably gave rise to a two-party system while multiparty democracy flourished elsewhere; due to how ballot access is controlled, the rules essentially require that these two specific parties run everything. We are stuck with a Republican Party for the foreseeable future. And the Republican Party, right now, is recruiting its future leaders from a pool of people attracted to the furthest fringes of far-right thought simply because those are the only young people currently interested in being associated with organized Republican Party politics under Donald Trump.

Jeet Heer recently made a similar case. Writing this week for The Nation, he argued that the future of the GOP can be glimpsed in Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Republican nominee for Georgia’s 14th congressional district. Greene, Heer writes, is “an adherent of QAnon, the amorphous conspiracy theory that holds that Donald Trump is battling a secret cabal of Satanic cannibalistic pedophiles who control the Democratic Party, Hollywood, and the American government.”

As Obama administration veteran Dan Pfeiffer points out, “Greene is one of eleven QAnon supporting Republican congressional nominees on the ballot this fall.”

After yesterday’s elections, that number has probably risen. Many Republicans have avoided calling these candidates out seemingly due to the belief that supporting or tacitly tolerating people like Greene is the price of maintaining power.  As Heer writes, “If we understand QAnon as a conciliatory myth that evolves to excuse the horrific truth about Trump and Trumpism, then it is likely to have a long life after he is defeated. It’ll become a Lost Cause myth about how a great man was felled by a sinister conspiracy.”

I think Heer is right that QAnon, or whatever it morphs into, will be with us for a long time, fueling the paranoia and resentment of the conservative base. It may even turn, as he warns, more violent than it already is.

But the GOP has made room for grotesques like Greene for years, with the only thing distinguishing her from a Michele Bachmann or a Louie Gohmert being that her brand of conspiratorial thinking is more baroque and Facebook-poisoned.

Republicans tolerate their Steve Kings while generally not allowing them near leadership. If QAnon does represent the future of the official GOP, as opposed to the rank and file, it will be through a successful campaign of entryism (into leadership).

(X)

[gibberingcultist]

Return to the Dunwich Legacy

There is only one h in Dunwhich. There is only one h in Dunwhich. There is only one h in Dunwhich. . .

Designers: Matthew Newman, Adam Sadler, Brady Sadler Artists: Lots and lots! I’ll do my best to credit the imagery utilized. Cover image by Tomasz Jedruszek. Playtime: 60-120 minutes per scenario. BGG Weight: 4 / 5 (based on 1 vote. Pshh!) Mechanisms: Action Point Allowance System, Cooperative Play, Deck / Pool Building, Hand Management, Role Playing, Variable Player Powers

Our Investigators

What’s a smelly drifter doing teaming up with a famed astronomer? I have…no idea. I chose “Ashcan” Pete primarily because he was an investigator from the Dunwich expansion that I have yet to play. But also Ashcan seems pretty flexible with his trusty dog Duke which starts immediately in play. Duke can assist Ashcan Pete in either investigating and or attacking monsters while not taking up his crucial ally slot. Lets just hope nothing bad ever happens to Duke. Ashcan seems pretty flimsy without him. My GF chose or rather settled for Norman Withers (replacement) because he is the last Seeker Investigator that she has yet to play. She loves the Seeker Class. He will be able to cast some spells which will help us with combat and encounter deck mitigation perhaps. It also helps that both our investigators have high willpower in preparation for some barn-busting bastards that may or may not be coming to a country side near you.

Ashcan Pete allows for up to 5 level 0 cards from any other class. I went for all Guardian cards. Trusted to help boost Duke’s health and sanity, and in-turn Ashcan’s overall success. I also grabbed a few trusty weapons from the Guardian deck and most importantly Dynamite. The Forgotten Age has scarred me. Besides that, I love my Lucky‘s and my Resourceful‘s from the Survivor class.

It does make sense for Norman Withers to have connections with Dr. Henry Armitage. I’m going to imagine Ashcan to be like Mack from Cannery Row. And Norman would be Doc. Ashcan is going to work real hard to get Norman some frogs. But first Norman will need to lend Ashcan some gas money. . . and a car.

The House Always Wins

I thought one of the two primary purposes of the Return To boxes was to fix any errors or problems with the original scenarios and yet the creators didn’t think to fix that lack of instruction about criminal enemies losing their aloof keyword after Agenda 1a. We should have realized sooner but because the scenario didn’t specifically state that they lost the aloof keyword, we didn’t even think of it until we already moved onto Agenda 3a. There was no turning back three rounds. It wouldn’t have even been an issue had they become hostile sooner either. I was prepared to fight anything and everything by Agenda 2a. It’s just frustrating to do something wrong and so soon in the campaign. I would like to see the necessary reprinting of specific cards included in these Return To boxes. I suppose FFG has plans to sell us errata packs later or a RE-Return to…

Beyond that one miscommunication, The House Always Wins is a very thematic and enjoyable scenario. We are tasked by our old mentor Dr. Henry Armitage to seek out two of his colleagues, Francis Morgan and Warren Rice. Armitage is in distress about Warren Rice potentially being in danger and Armitage is unable to contact either individual. Francis Morgan will know where to find Warren so we decide to find Francis first in hopes that he will give us some sort of benefit later on. So off to Francis’ favorite casino and lounge.

One doesn’t only get clues through the conventional method of taking an investigation action but rather he/she needs to press their luck gambling, grease some wheels by purchasing drinks for patrons at the bar, tip the performers for some inside information, and or just plain cheat your way through. The aloof hunter pit-boss will follow you around the establishment making sure you aren’t putting your nose anywhere it doesn’t belong. I only wish I could have killed him myself for his victory point before allowing the Conglomeration of Spheres to devour him. The conglomeration moved through, consuming everything and anyone in it’s path a la The Blob. Using any melee weapons against the blob also devours the weapons in the process. Fun! In the end we did manage to knock Francis Morgan out of his trance and run out into the back alley before any serious harm was done. Overall a very fun scenario.

Extracurricular Activity

Turns out Dr. Henry Armitage has separation anxiety issues. It’s been only 5 hours since he has last seen Professor Rice and already he’s digging in the trash, having accidents, barking at the door. I wonder what kind of extracurricular activities were going on between these two. Anyway, now that we have Francis Morgan in tow. . . never mind, Francis didn’t help one bit. Extracurricular Activity was another incredibly enjoyable scenario, this time taking place late at night, at the Miskatonic University. Being that we chose to find Professor Rice second, he was no longer in his office. Where could he have gone? Meanwhile a strange biological experiment breaks out of the Chem labs, and starts making it’s way towards student housing. Both Ashcan and Norman rush to warn the kids and successfully manage to wake them before the foul experiment conducts a few experiments of it’s own on the sleeping students. But instead, I suppose it just slinks off into the woods. Who knows!  

The need to locate and request the help of the night janitor to gain access to the offices was top notch. Immediately soon after finding and making friends with “Jazz” Mulligan, we are forced to make the decision between finding Professor Rice or saving the students while the clock quickly ticks down. Everything in this scenario worked at making you discard as many of your cards as possible. That in combination with the Beyond the Veil treachery card, a dire feeling of dread from running out of time is established. Beyond the Veil would almost certainly eliminate most investigators unless you have a ton of allies to help soak some of that damage. So between a quickly thinning deck and the ever creeping experiment, decisions need to be made. I hope we made the right one. In the end, Professor Rice is believed to be kidnapped. Armitage ends up joining our party as he can’t handle staying home alone any longer.

The Miskatonic Museum

Several months ago, Armitage and his colleagues stopped a rampaging horror from tearing through Dunwich, a backwater town several hours north and west of Arkham (read The Dunwich Horror for a better understanding of what all went down). Shortly after, a bestial citizen of Dunwich, named Wilbur Whateley recently made an attempt to steal the Latin translation of a book called The Necronomicon but died in the process. Armitage feels that this book, currently located at the Miskatonic Museum, will once again be the target for theft. So in order to protect it we are tasked with stealing it first. Makes total sense! Harold Walsted, curator of the museum, might also be able to help us. Upon breaking and entering into the museum, a monster called the Hunting Horror is also discovered to be perusing the exhibits long after visiting hours has ended. The Hunting Horror is a persistent winged snake creature that grows stronger the longer the scenario runs. We end up killing it three or four times over the course of the break-in, yet it manages to keep coming back from the void.

This scenario was just as fun as the other two played so far. We seem to be on a whirl-wind tour of some of Arkham’s notable locations. Gaining control of the night security guard was a god-send for my character as both Ashcan’s personal-weakness cards have double action resolutions. So having good old Adam Lynch with us helped save me many actions through-out the scenario.  He even made it easier for us to know which exhibit halls we should or shouldn’t enter. Adam Lynch should get a raise. Harold Walsted was unfortunately ripped to shreds at some point during the night. We eventually gained access to the restricted hall, where we once again decimated the hunting horror and retrieved the cursed Necronomicon. The Hunting Horror is like a backwoods version of the Harbinger of Valusia.

We choose to keep the Necronomicon because destroying books, even evil ones, are against our nature. If evil did exist, I would want there to be some sort of record or compilation of the knowledge of evil rather than to live in ignorance of it. Not knowing doesn’t keep the evil from happening. So in direct opposition to that of HP Lovecraft’s written stories. Afterwards, we decide it’s best to lay low for a while after all that we have seen and done. So we catch the next train to Dunwich to continue our investigation into what else is possibly going down. I only wish Adam Lynch could have submitted vacation time to come with.

The Essex County Express

Zebulon Whateley and a Earl Sawyer meet us at the station. We are so exhausted from the events on the train that we fall asleep upon the drive to Dunwich and wake up naked in a stranger’s bed. Actually I don’t know if we were naked. Probably though. This is a horror game after all. Upon our waking, we find a mostly abandoned Dunwich to explore and to judge with great disdain. You know Blood on the Altar is going to be fun when you are instructed to assemble a stack of potential sacrifices. Investigators are tasked with exploring the streets and back alleys of Dunwich in search of missing citizens. Something strange is going down and we aren’t getting any warm welcomes from those still too present to not be missing (?). In our thorough search we find a hidden chamber (and the key for admittance) that was housing a massive grotesque abomination. We find this hidden chamber very quickly strangely enough. Armitage must have had some prior knowledge of its where-abouts from his previous gallivant through the scenic Dunwich countryside. We somehow make the determination that this abomination, a mass of flesh, meat, and bones is that of Silas Bishop, one of the missing townsfolk. Or perhaps many of the missing townsfolk. Not sure. We quickly resort to the Necronomicon and cast a restoration spell as if this wasn’t our first abomination rodeo. Someone seems to be turning people into mini Yog-Sothoths. Somehow in the process, Zebulon Whateley gets himself scarified to Yog-Sothoth. I do hate when that happens. Sorry friend.

Kidnapped was especially terrifying for me as Ashcan because if Duke had been kidnapped and sacrificed to Yog-Sothoth. . . I’m pretty sure Ashcan would have just given up on life and drank himself into an early grave. Or at least that’s the story I would make up in my head as I file his investigator card away and build a new deck for my new investigator.

Blood on the Altar

Zebulon Whateley and a Earl Sawyer meet us at the station. We are so exhausted from the events on the train that we fall asleep upon the drive to Dunwich and wake up naked in a stranger’s bed. Actually I don’t know if we were naked. Probably though. This is a horror game after all. Upon our waking, we find a mostly abandoned Dunwich to explore and to judge with great disdain. You know Blood on the Altar is going to be fun when you are instructed to assemble a stack of potential sacrifices. Investigators are tasked with exploring the streets and back alleys of Dunwich in search of missing citizens. Something strange is going down and we aren’t getting any warm welcomes from those still too present to not be missing (?). In our thorough search we find a hidden chamber (and the key for admittance) that was housing a massive grotesque abomination. We find this hidden chamber very quickly strangely enough. Armitage must have had some prior knowledge of its where-abouts from his previous gallivant through the scenic Dunwich countryside. We somehow make the determination that this abomination, a mass of flesh, meat, and bones is that of Silas Bishop, one of the missing townsfolk. Or perhaps many of the missing townsfolk. Not sure. We quickly resort to the Necronomicon and cast a restoration spell as if this wasn’t our first abomination rodeo. Someone seems to be turning people into mini Yog-Sothoths. Somehow in the process, Zebulon Whateley gets himself scarified to Yog-Sothoth. I do hate when that happens. Sorry friend.

Kidnapped was especially terrifying for me as Ashcan because if Duke had been kidnapped and sacrificed to Yog-Sothoth. . . I’m pretty sure Ashcan would have just given up on life and drank himself into an early grave. Or at least that’s the story I would make up in my head as I file his investigator card away and build a new deck for my new investigator.

Undimensioned and Unseen

This is the most frustrating scenario in the history of scenarios. I refuse to believe anyone is able to kill all the Dunwich Horror’s that are running amok. Armitage and his buddies only had to deal with one within the story of The Dunwich Horror. Why do we have to deal with five of them! Seems a bit excessive don’t you think? I do appreciate the variety of them within the Return To campaign. Each horror has unique stats, conditions, and artwork. I did not realize the first time playing this campaign that these horrors are supposedly invisible and are only detectable through Armitage’s special dust concoction. Or the transferring of clues from specific map locations. I suppose that makes sense why we can’t damage them through normal means although I feel like dynamite would still do damage to anything, invisible or not. The title makes me think they are undimensioned as well. But diminsioned enough to destroy everything in their path

These massive horrors wander randomly from place to place, completely without purpose. Half the time you hope they don’t move into your location because it’s a terrible place to try to combat them. The other half of the time, you are finally ready to sink some damage into them, but now they moving away from you! It’s like herding cats. Giant hideous cats with lots of tentacles and mouths. So much of your time is spent either taking location-specific actions to draw them a particular way or you are taking the move action, one to three times in round, just to chase them down. Still a very thematic scenario. It’s just a scenario that you are meant to lose. We did what we could until eventually we just ran out of time.

Where Doom Awaits

Armitage & Friends™ speak of Sentinel Hill as a known site for dark rituals. Someone is making or calling these creatures into being, so we head there looking for anything out of the ordinary. The Dunwich townsfolk all seal their doors for the night, aware of something sinister is just on the horizon. The path up to the peak of sentinel Hill is long and winding. We get turned around quite a bit but eventually make our way to the peak where a Seth Bishop is conducting some sort of foul sorcery. Seth has managed to open up a rift in time and space, allowing for unknown horrors to escape through. We manage to appeal to Seth’s humanity by showing him what was left of Silas Bishop. Or perhaps it was the constellation pendant (elder sign?) that brought him back to reality. Anyway, his ritual was interrupted and we… enter the rift?! Yeah sure why not.

I enjoyed the struggle of getting up to the peak by exploring all the ascending and winding paths. Each path holding unknown dangers of losing time, resources or cards. My Ashcan was defeated by the infamous Beyond the Veil treachery card. But at least I died at the peak. Exactly how I imagine a real hike would be like, for me. Doom awaits at the peak it seems. I don’t quite follow all the different characters’ backgrounds and story lines but I do enjoy the thematic aspects of the Dunwich Legacy. I suppose the next step is to enter the gate and fight Yog-Sothoth itself.

Yog-Sothoth knows the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the key and guardian of the gate. Past, present, future, all are one in Yog-Sothoth. He knows where the Old Ones broke through of old, and where They shall break through again. He knows where They have trod earth’s fields, and where They still tread them, and why no one can behold Them as They tread.

Lost in Time and Space

We entered, we stumbled around different times and spaces, we got stumped on what to do with the small rift just beyond our reach at the Edge of the Universe. Fortunately the Necronomicon seemed to understand our desires and worked through us to recite the proper verbiage to close the rift. Or something like that happened. Not sure how we suddenly knew what to do to close it. Then we high-tailed it out of there all the while avoiding Yog-Sothoth’s unwanted gaze. Some Yithian creatures make their appearance. Less scholarly then those from the Forgotten Age campaign.

The Return To made the scenario slightly more challenging in that when forced to move via a treachery card’s effect, you are instead returned to the terrifying presence of Yog-Sothoth. Yog-Sothoth can not be dealt damage and every so often, it’ll strike out at you from Realms Beyond. So Yog-Sothoth seems to be very much like an Azathoth in that it seems to be a destroyer of worlds.  So big and so beyond one’s comprehension that he’s not killable per say. Luckily it has been banished and locked outside the universe and now will remain so for the duration of this campaign.

In Summary

This has been a very enjoyable campaign. Having as many additional cards in your investigator deck would be key to surviving and doing well in this campaign. Most of the treacheries or scenario specific effects will force you to discard cards from your deck. This can be great if you have some weaknesses get discarded this way. Terrible if you have a Beyond the Veil hiding down there waiting for you to exhaust your deck. So you play knowing full well you only have a few rounds left before you are straight up killed. Building a good deck can feel somewhat less worthwhile considering half the time you will end up just discarding your nice upgraded cards from these treachery effects anyway. So there’s a higher chance you won’t even see the cards you put into your deck.

I felt like the story was a little lacking, or perhaps you have to understand what just took place in the Dunwich Horror (story) to best enjoy this narrative in this campaign. I would say the story doesn’t matter as much because the scenarios were fun to play. There’s the Miskatonic University, The Clover Club Casino, and the Miskatonic Museum. Then we take a treacherous journey on a midnight train to Dunwich where we explore the sodden streets and decrepit shanty town and uncover a series of sinister rituals to help Yog-Sothoth escape into our realm. Why anyone would ever want that is beyond me. Time for “Ashcan” Pete, Duke, and Norman Withers to retire.

Final Score (AVG): 4.375

[patriotsnet]

Which Democratic Candidate Would Republicans Vote For

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/which-democratic-candidate-would-republicans-vote-for/

Which Democratic Candidate Would Republicans Vote For

How Are Primary Elections Conducted In California

Why lifelong Republican voted for a Democratic candidate in GA

All candidates for voter-nominated offices are listed on one ballot and only the top two vote-getters in the primary election regardless of party preference move on to the general election. Write-in candidates for voter-nominated offices can only run in the primary election. A write-in candidate will only move on to the general election if the candidate is one of the top two vote-getters in the primary election.

Prior to the Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act, the top vote-getter from each qualified political party, as well as any write-in candidate who received a certain percentage of votes, moved on to the general election.

The Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act does not apply to candidates running for U.S. President, county central committee, or local office.

Why You Need To Vote In The Primary Elections

True or false. You only need to vote in the November presidential election and not the primary elections.

FALSE!

For most American voters, the presidential primary elections matter more than the general election. Like Ive said before, if you live in a red state or a blue state, your vote in the presidential election wont make a difference. The rest of your state will overwhelming vote for a Democrat or a Republican. Your vote wont change your states outcome. .

But the primary elections are an entirely different story.

The presidential primaries determine who will represent the Republicans and the Democrats during the November election. Instead of voting between just 2 candidates, you have the choice of 3 Democrats or 12 Republicans. Unlike the general election, you actually have a chance of voting for your preferred candidate, not just the lesser of two evils.

How Do I Register To Vote

You have a few options:

If you have a New York drivers license or state ID from the Department of Motor Vehicles, you can register online using this tool from NYC Votes and TurboVote.

If you dont have a New York drivers license or state ID, the law requires that you sign a form and mail it to the Board of Elections office.

You can use this site to have the forms mailed to you, or you can and print the forms yourself to fill out and mail in. If you request to have the forms sent to you, they come with a pre-addressed envelope to return them.

You will be asked to plug in your name as it appears on your state ID. If you dont have one, thats OK. Just put how your name appears on official documents.

If you need language access or you want to help someone register to vote in another language, you can download the registration forms and FAQs in a bunch of languages here.

You can also request voter registration forms in various languages by calling 1-866-VOTENYC.

Lastly, you can pick up voter registration forms at any library branch, any post office or any city agency office.

After you fill them out, mail them to the BOEs main office:

Board of Elections

New York, NY 10004-1609

And make sure its postmarked by May 28.

Other materials needed: If you dont have a state ID, you will need to provide the last four digits of your Social Security number.

Don’t Miss: Democrats More Educated Than Republicans

Listen To The Podcast Episode

A dizzying selection of 46 candidates appear on the ballot in California’s recall election. Here’s a closer look at four of them three Republicans and one Democrat.

Aired: August 23, 2021 |

Early voting is underway in the Sept. 14 recall election that will decide whether California Gov. Gavin Newsom will be removed from office. The first question on the ballot is a simple yes or no: Should Newsom be recalled?

The second question who should replace Newsom if the recall passes has many voters scratching their heads. Forty-six candidates appear on the ballot, most of them longshots with little to no name recognition or political experience.

KPBS chose to examine the four replacement candidates who have most frequently polled near the top and have raised the most money. Here are details on those four.

Conservative radio host Larry Elder has led in most polls, likely helped by his national profile. But his right-wing politics would be a dramatic departure from the leftward trend in California.

Elder, who is Black, denies the existence of system racism. He opposes gun control, abortion rights and clings to the outdated term “illegal alien” to describe immigrants who are in the country without legal permission.

Elder also believes the minimum wage should be abolished.

Aired 8/23/21 on KPBS News

Listen to this story by Andrew Bowen.

Democratic Majority Whip Says He’s Disappointed But Not Surprised Republicans Voted To Block The Bill

Sen. Dick Durbin, the Democratic Majority Whip, said on CNN that he was “disappointed but not surprised” that Republicans voted to block the sweeping voting rights bill today.

“I thought perhaps some of the;Republicans would step up and;say that this national strategy;of changing state laws and;making it more difficult was;just wrong, but they didn’t.;They stood together,” he said.

Durbin went on to criticize Republicans as “the party that is supporting voter suppression.”

“I hope they understand, as we;do, that going in history as a;party that is supporting voter;suppression is not a good place.;For many decades, the Democratic;party of the early 20th century;was that party.;I’m not proud of that moment,;and I don’t make any excuses for;it.;I don’t want to be part of it in;the future, and I hope many;Republicans feel the same,” he said.

You May Like: Why Does Donald Trump Wear Red Ties

What You Need To Know

The Democrats voting and election bill failed to advance in the Senate after a procedural vote to open debate on the legislation was defeated by a tally of 50-50, falling short of the 60 votes needed to succeed.

Senate Democrats pitched the legislation as necessary to counter efforts by GOP-led legislatures to swiftly pass state laws that would impose restrictions on voting.;

All 50 Senate Republicans united in opposing the bill, having decried it as a partisan power grab and federal overreach into state voting and election systems.

Our live coverage has ended. Read more about today’s vote here.

List Of Registered 2024 Presidential Candidates

The following table lists candidates who filed with the FEC to run for president. Some applicants used pseudonyms; candidate names and party affiliations are written as they appeared on the FEC website on the date that they initially filed with the FEC.

Candidates who have filed for the 2024 presidential election Candidate

Also Check: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

Democrats Are United In Support Of Cooperation With Us Allies Differ On Importance Of Us Military Superiority

Democratic registered voters overwhelmingly agree that the United States should address the interests of its allies when conducting foreign policy. This view varies little among supporters of Democratic presidential candidates.

Fully 87% of Democratic voters say the U.S. should take into the account the interests of its allies when making foreign policy decisions, even if it means making compromises with them. Few say the U.S. should follow its own national interests, even when its allies strongly disagree.

Republican and Republican-leaning voters are divided over whether the United States should follow its own national interests, even when allies disagree or address the interests of allies, even if this means compromises .

There is far less agreement among Democrats in views of whether U.S. policy should work to maintain its global military superiority. Among Democratic voters who name Warren as their first choice for the nomination, 65% say that in the future it would be acceptable if another country became as militarily powerful as the U.S.; just 31% say U.S. policies should try to maintain its position as the worlds only military superpower.

Majorities of those who support Sanders and Buttigieg also say it would be acceptable if another country became as militarily powerful as the U.S.

Republican voters, by a margin of about 4-to-1 , say U.S. policies should try to keep it that America is the only military superpower.

Recent History Isn’t As Bleak As Dems Might Think

California Primary 2020: Why independents can vote for Democrats, but not for Republicans

In 2020, national Democrats looked to Texas with hope and helped raise money for State House races they thought could be flipped to take control of the chamber in Austin. The goal was to have Democrats steering the wheel when redistricting maps were drawn in 2021.;

The Democrats didnât lose any seats, but they didnât pick up any either.;

That election came on the heels of 2018 when Texas Democrats flipped 12 seats in the State House and former congressman Beto OâRourke came within 2.5 percentage points of beating Republican Sen. Ted Cruz.;

While 2020 may have been a disappointment after 2018, the Democratsâ position needs to be put into perspective, Van Meter said.

“Texas Democrats have spent the last 20 years trying to build up infrastructure in a state where everyone believes that it’s not possible to elect a Democrat,â she said.;

More and more Democratic candidates have entered local and state races in recent years after decades of election cycles when there would often be no opposition challengers to the Republican candidates.

Democratsâ momentum in 2020 continued with increased registration and voter turnout, she said.;

âIt just so happened that so did the Republicans,â Van Meter said.

The fact that Donald Trump was on the ballot proved to be a huge motivator for Republicans who previously werenât registered to get to the polls.

Read Also: What Caused Republicans To Gain Power In Congress In 1938

Democrats’ Recall Dilemma: Should They Cast A Vote For A Candidate To Replace Gavin Newsom

For many Democrats and other opponents of the recall, question No. 1 is easy. They plan to vote ‘no’.

But what about question No. 2?

That’s a dilemma for Democrats because the best-known recall candidates are Republicans like Newsom’s 2018 opponent John Cox and conservative talk radio host Larry Elder. By not voting on question No. 2, Democratic voters risk ceding the recall election to a candidate whose views they oppose.

Elder, for instance, believes that the minimum wage should be abolished and supports former President Donald Trump. Cox courted Trump’s endorsement in 2018. Former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, another well-known candidate, supported Trump’s 2020 campaign.

There are 46 candidates on the recall ballot, including nine Democrats.

The California Democratic Party is urging left-leaning voters not to select anyone on the recall ballot’s second question.

“The California Democratic Party is activating voters to vote no on the Republican Recall and leave the second question blank. It’s the only way to stop Republicans who want to take California back to some very dark days,” said party spokeswoman Shery Yang.

Former Newsom spokesman, Nathan Click, reiterated Yang’s advice for Democratic voters.

“Leave it blank. Voting no is the only way to block the Republican power grab and prevent the Republican takeover of California,” Click said.

‘No on recall, yes on Bustamante’

Bustamante told his supporters to vote “no on recall, yes on Bustamante.”

Rutherford B Hayes: Campaigns And Elections

The Campaign and Election of 1876

As the favorite son of Ohio, Rutherford B. Hayes had much in his favor. Both regular and reform Republicans liked him. He was a war hero, had supported Radical Reconstruction legislation, and championed African American suffrage. He also came from a large swing state. His reputation for integrity was excellent, and his support of bipartisan boards of state institutions endeared him to reformers. Hayes ultimately, though, realized that his simple “availability” was his greatest strength. Distasteful to no one, he was the second choice among the supporters of the other leading candidates. Nevertheless, Hayes insisted on a united Ohio delegationand at the same time did nothing to lessen his availability.;

Moreover, the 1876 Republican convention was in Cincinnati, which teemed with Hayes supporters. “Availability” did work for Hayes. James G. Blaine, the frontrunner and the favorite of partisan Republicans, was tarnished by allegations of corruption; Oliver P. Morton, the favorite of Radicals, was in ill health; Benjamin H. Bristow, the favorite of reformers, was anathema to Grant; and Roscoe Conkling, the quintessential spoils politician, was unacceptable to reformers and to Blaine. In the end, none of these candidates could muster the votes of the majority of the convention. By the fifth ballot, Hayes had picked up votes; by the seventh, he had clinched the nomination.

The Disputed Election of 1876

Read Also: Donald Trump Saying Republicans Are Stupid

Harris: The Fight Is Not Over

Vice President Kamala Harris’ told reporters that “the fight is not over” after Republicans unanimously blocked the Democrats’ sweeping election and voting reform bill.

Harris expressed that she and President Biden intend to continue to push for voting reform, including the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which is likely to come to the Senate floor later this year.

This what Harris told reporters after leaving the Senate floor where she presided over the vote:

“I was here today because obviously this is one of the most critical issues that the United States Congress could take up, which is about the fundamental right to vote in our country. And I think it is clear, certainly, for the American people that when we’re talking about the right to vote, it is not a Republican concern or a Democratic concern. It is an American concern. This is about the American people’s right to vote unfettered. It is about their access to the right to vote in a meaningful way. Because nobody is debating, I don’t believe, whether all Americans have the right to vote. The issue is the access to the voting process. Or is that being impeded? And the bottom line is that the President and I are very clear. We support S-1. We support the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the fight is not over.”

Watch Harris’ remarks:

Cancellation Of State Caucuses Or Primaries

The Washington Examiner reported on December 19, 2018, that the South Carolina Republican Party had not ruled out forgoing a primary contest to protect Trump from any primary challengers. Party chairman Drew McKissick stated, Considering the fact that the entire party supports the president, well end up doing whats in the presidents best interest. On January 24, another Washington Examiner report indicated that the Kansas Republican Party was likely to scrap its presidential caucus to save resources.

In August 2019, the Associated Press reported that the Nevada Republican Party was also contemplating canceling their caucuses, with the state party spokesman, Keith Schipper, saying it isnt about any kind of conspiracy theory about protecting the president; Hes going to be the nominee; This is about protecting resources to make sure that the president wins in Nevada and that Republicans up and down the ballot win in 2020.

Kansas, Nevada and South Carolinas state committees officially voted on September 7, 2019, to cancel their caucus and primary. The Arizona state Republican Party indicated two days later that it will not hold a primary. These four were joined by the Alaska state Republican party on September 21, when its central committee announced they would not hold a presidential primary.

Virginia Republicans decided to allocate delegates at the state convention.

You May Like: What Is Donald Trump A Republican Or Democrat

The 2024 Republican Presidential Candidate Wild Cards

The first Democratic debate back in 2019 had 20 TWENTY! candidates, so dont be surprised if the Republican field is just as large or larger. We could have some more governors or representatives run, or even other nontraditional candidates, like a Trump family member, a Fox News host or a celebrity, like Dwayne The Rock Johnson, whos said hes seriously considering a run. Stranger things have happened.

No Party Preference Voters: Pay Attention

Registered Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians and other party members, rest assured. You are guaranteed a primary ballot with all of your partys presidential contenders on it.

But voters who dont belong to a political party the fastest growing voting block in the state will have to navigate a more daunting set of obstacles to cast a presidential primary vote.

Some parties have members only policies:

The Republican Party

The Green Party

The Peace and Freedom Party

If you want to vote in one of these three primaries, youll have to join that party. You cant do it as a member of any other party, or even as a no party preference independent. No exceptions.;

The following three parties do allow political independents to cast ballots in their presidential primaries :

The Democratic Party

The Libertarian Party

The American Independent Party

But and this is an important caveat these voters do have to specifically request the ballot they want.

For those who vote in person, this is a cinch. Just go into your polling place when its time to vote and ask. But independents who vote by mail need to let your county know which ballot they want ahead of time.

Maybe you received a postcard that looks like this:

And if youve already received a ballot in the mail and were disappointed by the lack of presidential candidates, do notfill it out. You can always request a new ballot, but trying to vote twice is frowned upon .

Recommended Reading: Did Republicans And Democrats Switch Names

Counties Are Doing Things A Little Differently This Time

If you live in one of the counties highlighted below, voting might look a little different this year.

In 2016, California passed the Voter Choice Act, a law aimed at modernizing the states election system, such that:

Every registered voter gets a ballot in the mail

Voters are no longer required to go to a specific polling place, but can vote at any number of voting centers or drop-off points

Voters can cast their ballots in person beginning 11 days before, and up to and including, Election Day

In 2018, five counties rolled out the new system. This year, 10 more will join their ranks. Thats fifteen counties in all containing 49% of the state population.

This is key for no party preference voters living in these counties who may not get the ballot they want in the mail. See the previous section for details.