|
Quote:
This poll did not specify any margin of error. The sample group was selected from “registered voters“. Obviously not all of them and no other selection criteria was listed. Leading me to the conclusion: Quote:
|
Quote:
One polls is simply that - one poll. It is the trend over time or what a group of respected polls are saying that is important - or you can just think of them as malarkey if you wish, lol. I also look at the 538 website to see which polls they rank as most reliable. |
Quote:
|
Thoughts on Polls and our state Super Tuesday Primary results
I have a moderate interest in polls, mostly because one gets some sort of 'report' (if you will) on voter sentiment or how voters might respond to incumbents or nominee's featured on the voting ballot. I find it interesting, but I don't give poll results too much weight because it's only a snapshot of a particular pool of responders and we don't always know who those people are or X, Y or Z reasons (et al).
But I am super curious how fast the Super Tuesday Primary votes will tell who the voting public in our home state has voted for. According to my ballot, the deadline for ballots to be received by voting headquarters is May 19th. Whether that is an actual deadline for ballots to actually count toward our state's Primary results, is given a wide berth because people might not mail their ballot until the actual day it is due, which is scary because not making sure your ballot is mailed and received *BEFORE* the due date can make a difference -- how wide of a difference, I don't know, but we have had mail-in balloting for years now and we are a swing state with vested interest in Democrats being elected and occupying seats not only in the House of Representatives but we'd like to see more Democrats in the Senate and I can't speak for others in my home state, but I sure as hell voted to make sure Joe Biden becomes the nominee and that the monster in the WH is ousted (promptly). So, although the deadline for ballots is May 19th, I presume that it will take a week or two for all the ballots to be counted and know with some reasonable means that we have an accurate count on who people voted for and if our state will go down in history as saying ultimately that our swing state power tilts toward electing a Democrat for POTUS and not another 4 years of psycho-babbling GOP stranglehold that is killing our democracy and leaving our nation in serious trouble. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that my home state lands in the ball park as a land slide of support for Joe Biden. Because our future as a country is on the line and it, in my estimation, will never recover from the past four years of murderous greed and political retaliation the current administration has subjected to US allies and to its own citizens, as a whole. |
NYT's article in today's news headlines (Stacey Abrams)
And I quote from the NYT's article:
Quote:
I agree with Ms. Abrams. She's hella smart. She's got a conscience. She's got her mind on an important mission, which I believe is both centered upon voting rights (in general, and in Georgia) and becoming Georgia's first Afro-American Governor. What ever she decides to do, I support her 100%. Stacey Abrams Wants More Than The Vice-Presidency (NYT, May 2020). |
Trump will lose in a landslide because of the economy, new election model predicts
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/20/busin...obs/index.html |
Biden nicknamed Trump ~ " President Tweety " << perfect !
|
Remember this when you head out to vote, if you're in South Carolina, come election day! |
[QUOTE=Martina;1268444]Trump will lose in a landslide because of the economy, new election model predicts
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/20/busin...obs/index.html[/QUOTE?] While this sounds like good news the fact remains that nearly every poll showed Clinton winning.. While she did in fact win the popular vote by a decent margin it wasn't enough. Trump can lose by a substantially larger percentage and still win the electoral. |
Quote:
|
It's official, FOX news followers are stupid.
The scientists worded it more politely... Cognitive Ability and Vulnerability to Fake News https://getpocket.com/explore/item/c...=pocket-newtab The subjects in the experimental condition initially rated Nathalie much more negatively than did the subjects in the control condition. This was not surprising, considering that they had just learned she was a thief and a drug dealer. The interesting question was whether cognitive ability would predict attitude adjustment—that is, the degree to which the subjects in the experimental condition would rate Nathalie more favorably after being told that this information was false. It did: subjects high in cognitive ability adjusted their ratings more than did those lower in cognitive ability. The subjects with lower cognitive ability had more trouble shaking their negative first impression of Nathalie. This was true even after the researchers statistically controlled for the subjects’ level of open-mindedness (their willingness to change their mind when wrong) and right-wing authoritarianism (their intolerance toward others), as assessed by the personality test. Thus, even if a person was open-minded and tolerant, a low level of cognitive ability put them at risk for being unjustifiably harsh in their second evaluation of Nathalie... ... Research on cognitive aging indicates that, in adulthood, this ability declines considerably with advancing age, suggesting that older adults may also be especially vulnerable to fake news. *Quelle surprise. NOT |
Good News, Bad News (Oregon Primary results via Politico)
Here is the report via Politico about 2020 Primary results (some of which are still not in).
It tells a very chilling political future, if you ask me. Joe Biden came in very strong. (good news) Earl Blumenauer came in VERY strong. (excellent news) Peter DeFazio did not receive the support he needed to stay in his district. :( Kurt Schrader, so far, has a VERY strong show of support (very good news). Politico has included many charts and graphic results. It's not hard to understand, but it affirms what I have been saying for the past ten years or so. The GOP is creeping in slowly and in critical districts outside the PDX metro area, they are winning. Peter DeFazio's district is a critical area inside the metro area and I am ever so sorry he didn't get the support he needed to stay in office. It's just a matter of time before the GOP gains enough control of critical seats of legislative power in Oregon to ruin all the progress gained by Democratic governors and legislators we've had over the past 40 years in Oregon. It makes my heart sad, to see the charted results by Politico, the coverage of our 2020 Primary. We're only a swing state, so the 46 delegates (electoral votes?) garnered by Biden SEEMS like good news. It can be, but only for a brief stretch in time. I've seen electoral votes in our state not given the full weight they deserve, when it comes to electing a Democrat for POTUS. Super concerning news coverage about my home state. |
Will Bill Barr Try to Help Trump Win the Election?
Will Bill Barr Try to Help Trump Win the Election?
Two investigations appear to be potential fodder for pre-election political machinations. By Ryan Goodman and Andrew Weissmann Mr. Goodman, editor in chief of Just Security, and Mr. Weissmann, a senior prosecutor in the Mueller investigation, teach law at N.Y.U. https://i.postimg.cc/wvT7G5yt/merlin...uper-Jumbo.jpg President Trump and Attorney General William Barr. Credit...Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Today, Wednesday, marks 90 days before the presidential election, a date in the calendar that is supposed to be of special note to the Justice Department. That’s because of two department guidelines, one a written policy that no action be influenced in any way by politics. Another, unwritten norm urges officials to defer publicly charging or taking any other overt investigative steps or disclosures that could affect a coming election. Attorney General William Barr appears poised to trample on both. At least two developing investigations could be fodder for pre-election political machinations. The first is an apparently sprawling investigation by John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, that began as an examination of the origins of the F.B.I. investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. The other, led by John Bash, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, is about the so-called unmasking of Trump associates by Obama administration officials. Mr. Barr personally unleashed both investigations and handpicked the attorneys to run them. But Justice Department employees, in meeting their ethical and legal obligations, should be well advised not to participate in any such effort. The genesis of the department’s admirable practice of creating a protective shell surrounding an election recognizes that unelected officials at the Justice Department should not take action that could distort an election and influence the electorate. If someone is charged immediately before an election, for instance, that person has no time to offer a defense to counter the charges. The closer the election, the greater the risk that the department is impermissibly acting based on political considerations, which is always prohibited. It is not mere conjecture that Mr. Barr could weaponize these investigations for political purposes. In both cases, he has already run roughshod over another related longstanding department practice. It holds that department officials should refrain from making public allegations of wrongdoing before prosecutors decide to bring charges, particularly since no charges may emanate from the investigation. Mr. Barr and President Trump have shown no compunction in publicly discussing these investigations, suggesting wrongdoing by Democrats and deep staters. Mr. Barr promised on Fox News that “there will be public disclosure in some form” in the Durham probe. It should be no surprise that Mr. Barr has followed the lead of his boss; after all, Mr. Trump urged Ukraine to announce an investigation into Mr. Biden, an action that was at the center of his impeachment. Not so long ago, Mr. Barr and Mr. Trump denounced Jim Comey’s negative public commentary in the 2016 election on Hillary Clinton. Indeed, the president claimed that Mr. Comey’s violation of these bedrock policies contributed to his being fired. During his nomination hearing, Mr. Barr told a Senate committee that he would adhere to these policies. “If you are not going to indict someone, then you do not stand up there and unload negative information about the person,” he testified. “That is not the way the Department of Justice does business.” He also “completely” agreed with Rod Rosenstein when Mr. Rosenstein wrote in a memo that Mr. Comey’s transgressions during an election season were “a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.” Indeed, in his nomination testimony, Mr. Barr captured the risk of an attorney general acting for political purposes. Members of the incumbent party, he said, “have their hands on the levers of the law enforcement apparatus of the country, and you do not want it used against the opposing political party.” He was correct then and is wrong now. Nevertheless, Mr. Barr may claim that an extraordinary public justification exists for releasing a report, citing the Mueller report as precedent. But there is a very clear difference: The Mueller report was not issued in the run-up to any election. Mr. Barr has another move to try to justify his actions. He recently told a conservative radio host that the policy on interference with an election applies only to indictments of “candidates or perhaps someone that’s sufficiently close to a candidate, that it’s essentially the same.” That’s an invention. The policy itself refers to actions that give “an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.” Mr. Barr himself recognizes the political effect of department actions beyond those against a candidate. In February, in response to the Justice Department inspector general’s recommendation for a clear policy to open or take actions in significant political investigations, Mr. Barr issued a directive that centralized his control over such investigations. The new Barr requirements covered investigations that “may have unintended effects on our elections” and notably included candidates, senior campaign staff members, advisers, members of official campaign advisory committees or groups, and foreign-national donors. Take an example from the Mueller investigation. The special counsel’s office knew it could not indict Russian military intelligence officials for the 2016 hacking operation in the run-up to the 2018 midterm elections. That’s right: The office could not indict the Russians — not only political candidates or aides. Such matters were so politically fraught that such an action by the special counsel might affect the election. A key consideration should not be lost: There’s no urgency for the department to take any overt investigative steps or make disclosures until after the election. Even if there has been criminal wrongdoing — which is by no means clear — charges can still be brought in November after the election. What can be done if Mr. Barr seeks to take actions in service of the president’s political ambitions? There are a variety of ways for Justice Department employees in the Trump era to deal with improper requests. Employees who witness or are asked to participate in such political actions — who all swore an oath to the Constitution and must obey department policies — can refuse, report and, if necessary, resign. Other models include speaking with Congress under subpoena or resigning and then communicating directly to the public. Reputable organizations are at the ready to advise whistle-blowers about the risks and benefits of pursuing these paths. Above all, with the election around the corner, it’s critical to ensure its integrity and that the Justice Department steer clear of political interference. ______________________ Ryan Goodman is the editor in chief of Just Security. Andrew Weissmann was a senior member of the Special Counsel’s Office and is the author of the forthcoming book “Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation.” They are professors at N.Y.U. School of Law. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/05/o...gtype=Homepage |
Quote:
|
Ya, we need to elect someone who can't even pronounce Yosemite...
Yo, Semite': Trump Mispronounces Yosemite While Touting National Parks Legislation |
Trump is going to steal the election and I don't think anyone is going to stop him. He's got lots of tricks up his sleeve. This one should take care of mail in ballots.
https://www.alternet.org/2020/08/fri...top-officials/ ‘Friday Night Massacre’ at US Postal Service as Postmaster General—a major Trump donor—ousts top officials Government watchdogs, Democratic lawmakers, and pro-democracy advocates declared it a “Friday Night Massacre” for the U.S. Postal Service after news broke in a classic end-of-the-week dump that Louis DeJoy—a major GOP donor to President Donald Trump and the recently appointed Postmaster General—had issued a sweeping overhaul of the agency, including the ouster of top executives from key posts and the reshuffling of more than two dozen other officials and operational managers. According to the Washington Post: "The shake-up came as congressional Democrats called for an investigation of DeJoy and the cost-cutting measures that have slowed mail delivery and ensnared ballots in recent primary elections. Twenty-three postal executives were reassigned or displaced, the new organizational chart shows. Analysts say the structure centralizes power around DeJoy, a former logistics executive and major ally of President Trump, and de-emphasizes decades of institutional postal knowledge. All told, 33 staffers included in the old postal hierarchy either kept their jobs or were reassigned in the restructuring, with five more staffers joining the leadership from other roles." Already under fire for recent policy changes at the USPS that mail carriers from within and outside critics have denounced as a sabotage effort to undermine the Postal Service broadly as well as disrupt efforts to carry out mail-in voting for November’s election amid the Covid-19 pandemic, the moves unveiled late Friday were viewed as an overt assault on democracy and a calculated opportunity to boost Republican’s long-held dream of undercutting or privatizing the government-run mail service while also boosting their election prospects in the process. “Another Friday night massacre by this administration—and this time dealing another devastating blow to our postal service,” said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.) “The American people deserve answers and we’re going to keep fighting for them.” Scanlon was among more than 80 congressional lawmakers who sent a letter to DeJoy earlier in the day expressing “deep concerns” about operational changes he has made for mail carriers that have delayed deliveries and lowered standards. “It is vital that the U.S. Postal Service not reduce mail delivery times, which could harm rural communities, seniors, small businesses, and millions of Americans who rely on the mail for critical letters and packages,” the letter stated. “Eliminating overtime and directing postal workers to leave mail on the floor of postal facilities will erode confidence in the Postal Service and drive customers away, resulting in even worse financial conditions in the future.” As Common Dreams reported earlier Friday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren was among those who signed the letter and also called for DeJoy’s efforts to be investigated by the Inspector General of the USPS. Since 2016 alone, DeJoy has donated more than $2.5 million to the Republican Party and candidates. In 2020, prior to his appointment as Postmaster General by the GOP-controlled board of governors, DeJoy had already given approximately $360,000 to a Super PAC supporting Trump’s reelection. As the Post notes in its reporting, the reshuffling of top managers and executives—as well as a hiring freeze and push for early retirements—”worried postal analysts, who say the tone of DeJoy’s first eight weeks and his restructuring have recast the nation’s mail service as a for-profit arm of the government, rather than an essential service.” In a video posted to Twitter, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Oreg.) characterized DeJoy as a “political crony” of the president’s and also denounced the brazen efforts now on display as a “Friday Night Massacre” scenario: https://help.twitter.com/using-twitter/election-labels Appearing Friday afternoon on Capitol Hill, DeJoy brushed off accusations that he is acting as a political bag man for Trump. “While I certainly have a good relationship with the president of the United States, the notion that I would ever make decisions concerning the Postal Service at the direction of the president or anyone else in the administration is wholly off-base,” DeJoy said. But outside critics like Walter Shaub, former head of the Office of Government Ethics and a fierce critic of Trump’s behavior as president, said the latest move should be seen as nothing less than a direct effort by DeJoy to exploit his authority at the Postal Service to further the president’s political interests and reelection prospects. "America is in a dead sprint to authoritarianism. The man is pulling out all the stops to prevent the citizens of this country from holding a legitimate election in which he might face removal from office." According to Brian Tyler Cohen, a liberal commentator and podcast host, “Congressional Democrats need to do something about this” immediately. “If we wait until October/November, it’ll be too late,” said Cohen. “Trump is actively sabotaging the election under our noses—this isn’t theoretical, it’s happening RIGHT NOW.” Cohen said this situation should be treated like a “fucking five-alarm fire” and said action must be taken by both lawmakers and the U.S. public without delay. Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.), chair of the House subcommittee which has oversight for the USPS, said what DeJoy is trying to pass off as simple organizational restructuring is actually “a Trojan Horse” designed to destroy one of the nation’s most trusted and valued institutions from within. Connolly on Friday night called it, “Deliberate sabotage to disrupt mail service on the eve of the election—an election that hinges on mail-in ballots.” |
Quote:
This is super scary, and why i won't mail my ballot in. I am taking it directly to voting headquarters, in person, the day i get my ballot. My guess is that a majority of us will act like phone trees, by getting the word out to use other means to make sure our ballots actually end up at headquarters, rather than letting current admim steal the election process. It will get so ugly, as each day goes by. So very, very ugly. Thanks for posting the news article by Alter-Net, Cin. ETA: Peter DeDazio has not been unseated yet, but GOP challenger has critically impacted his ability to maintain his seat. If DeFazio remains in the 4th district it will be a miracle. He has been in the 4th district since the late 1980s. |
Trump has something going on. He is too unconcerned for the position he is in causing his base and those who are apathetic to go on worrying only about themselves and their families.
He believes he is in firm control of the Presidency, that he is King. The economy and Covid-19 are enough to make the average unthinking man or womon will accept what he says at face value. People are worried about finances, food, and pushing out all these surplus products of unneeded and unplanned conception. Now is not the time for a population increase. If we get enough of those ignorant people as in 2016, I am truly worried for this country. I can see him along with other members of his family taking the country in an Authoritarian Fascist Nepotistic coup, refusing to give up the power that he rightfully lost. He will refuse to accept the Rule of Law as he has during his entire elected presidency. Now do the doubters that he will not rule according to the Constitution and accept the checks and balances therein believe now. He wants to own the US not merely be her leader. |
This is an article written by a couple of psychiatrists and a dr of clinical psychology examining the reasons that some people, maybe even enough people to get him reelected, believe in Trump. I found the article interesting and while the reasoning is nothing most haven't already concluded, it does flesh it out a bit.
I'm not sure I agree that you can change the minds of Trump supporters but I guess it's worth a shot. But I seriously hope the election doesn't hinge on that possibility. I mean if enough people want this guy as their leader what chance does humanity have anyway. Chaos, shared irrationality and fear: Experts explain why supporters are still clinging to Trump — despite his many failures A looming question in today’s political climate is: Why do Donald Trump’s devotees continue to support him despite the carnage of his well-documented failures? Although we are in the middle of a deadly pandemic that is surging and not contained, Trump seems to maintain a base support of 35% to 40%. What are the psychological factors that influence or underpin his supporters’ attraction to him? And might this provide some perspective on how to change these supporters’ minds? Multiple psychological factors seem to influence and explain his supporters. We have divided these factors into four major categories: Rebelliousness and Chaos; Shared Irrationality; Fear; and Safety and Order. Rebelliousness and Chaos Some Trump supporters have a strong desire for rebelliousness and chaos, and view Trump as the perfect vehicle for achieving their personal goals. These supporters tend to become “anti-establishment and anti-government,” even when it is against their best interest. Many are unhappy with their station in life and believe chaos in the political system will bring them important gains. They seek immediate and sweeping changes and believe a rebellious attitude and rebellious behavior are what is necessary. They would rather have chaos, even dangerously or regressively so, than the status quo. These supporters believe in Trump’s professed anger and rebelliousness, while often ignoring the content of the issues at hand. Trump’s talk of “draining the swamp” and of eschewing “political correctness” is attractive to them. They react emotionally and irrationally in embracing Trump’s decisions to create chaos, such as by sending federal troops into American cities to provoke hostile conflict with protesters. They enjoy and thrive upon Trump disavowing norms, rules, and laws. Rebelliousness and chaos can be a major psychological influence, but it can have serious negative consequences such as undermining the chance for real change. Shared Irrationality The Dunning-Kruger effect. Some people are under-informed and misinformed and are completely unaware of their lack of information. They tend to overestimate their level of knowledge and hold onto that position. They develop “illusory superiority” from their inability to recognize their true lack of knowledge. In other words, some people think they know more than they do and hold firmly to their opinions. These people are resistant to change their political thinking because they believe they are the knowledgeable ones. Trump and some of his supporters have this psychological phenomenon in common; they are unable to remedy their own limitations of knowledge and their inaccurate thinking. Magical thinking. This is the belief that one’s thoughts, feelings, ideas, or words can bring about effects in the world. Or, similarly, that one’s thoughts, feelings, ideas, or words can cause something to happen. Magical thinking presumes a causal link between one’s internal, personal experience and the external physical world. This often emerges from an inability to distinguish fully between emotions and logical thoughts. Relying totally on emotion or “gut reactions” results in magical thinking. Trump engages in magical thinking almost constantly. This is especially dangerous regarding the pandemic: “It will disappear very quickly,” “We have it under control,” “We may have some embers or some ashes…” Many supporters engage in magical thinking and are encouraged and validated by Trump, leading them to align strongly with him. Obsession with celebrity. Some people are obsessed with celebrities and reality television. Trump entertains them and amuses them. Some supporters are always waiting to see what outrageous thing he says or does next. These supporters are happy as long as they are being entertained by him. They act as if life is a “game” or a “show” that is somehow disconnected from the difficult realities of everyday life, but it is not. Fear Brain reactivity to threats. Research shows that some people have an exaggerated fear response to threats. When presented with specific perceived threats–immigrants, democrats, protestors, socialism–conservatives’ brains light up in activity and experience a need to seek safety. Trump actively encourages his supporters to experience exaggerated fear responses, such that their brains remain energized. Fear mongering. Terror management theory explains why fear mongering works. When people are reminded of their mortality, which happens with fear mongering, they reflexively defend those who share their world view and their natural and ethnic identity. Tribal identification is an outgrowth of fear mongering. Racism and bigotry are related to fear. Trump appeals to racist and bigoted supporters when he calls Muslims “dangerous” and Mexican immigrants “rapists and murderers.” This fear mongering by Trump is aimed at supporters who are vulnerable to racist and bigoted thinking because it fits with their world view. Another major fear among Trump supporters is falling behind financially and losing the economic capacity to control their lives and protect themselves. A third major fear among Trump supporters is of socialism and believing that capitalism is being threatened and even destroyed. Trump is very adept at focusing on these specific fears among his supporters, using key words and names to trigger and stoke their emotional concerns. Trump supporters believe that he is capable of protecting them from their fears. And when they feel protected, they overlook his offensive and outlandish behavior. Conspiracy theories. Certain people are attracted to conspiracy theories because of their vulnerable personalities and even by mental illness. Life is complex and perplexing and at times dangerous. It is not simple or safe. Research shows that feelings of anxiety make people think more conspiratorially. A conspiracy theory can provide comfort by identifying a convenient scapegoat and thereby making the world seem much more straightforward and controllable. Fantasies that remove fear and doubt can be especially attractive, even if they are unrealistic and irrational. People who believe in conspiracy theories are more likely to overestimate the likelihood of co-occurring events, to attribute intentionality where it is unlikely to exist, and to have lower levels of critical thinking. Trump has voiced many conspiracy theories: Spygate, Obamagate, Deep state, Trump Tower wiretapping, and others. Security and Order Social dominance orientation. People who score high on social dominance orientation prefer an established societal hierarchy. They are attracted to Trump because he promotes and normalizes the belief that high-status people and groups should be dominant over low-status people and groups. Trump’s clear distinction between groups on top of society (Whites) and those “losers” on the bottom (immigrants, Blacks, and Latinos) is a classic social dominance view. Individuals who are high on social dominance orientation are typically domineering, tough-minded, disagreeable, and relatively uncaring seekers of power. As such, these individuals have an attraction to authoritarianism. Authoritarianism. Several traits characterize authoritarianism: deference to authority, aggression toward outgroups, a hierarchical view of the world, and the belief that the world is dangerous and threatening. Some people believe in having an authoritarian leader because they feel protected and safe by a strong, powerful presence. Trump’s authoritarian leanings are highly attractive to these supporters. Interestingly, research studies have shown the joint power of authoritarianism and social dominance orientation to predict far-right-wing voting in the United States and Europe. How To Change Supporters’ Minds Based on our understanding of these psychological influences, each Trump supporter must be considered individually. Not all supporters are connected to Trump in the same way or for the same psychological reasons. For each Trump supporter, an individual assessment is required as to whether it might be best to address rebelliousness and chaos; shared irrationality; fear; and/or security and order. Rational arguments aimed at each of these categories, separately or in some combination, might be most effective. Trump supporters are tied to him based on multiple and complex psychological principles and phenomena. To continue to respond to them as if they are psychotic or evil is a grave mistake and will not lead to change. Identifying the category or categories of psychological influence for each person can be a much more productive strategy. There are three months to go before our presidential election. Let us use this time to focus our energies on changing minds based on an understanding of psychology. Name-calling and dismissive statements will not work. Lumping all supporters together will not work. Psychology holds the answer. https://www.alternet.org/2020/08/cha...many-failures/ |
Interesting POV
Freedom Rider: How Trump Can Steal the 2020 Election Margaret Kimberley, BAR senior columnist 05 Aug 2020 The election was stolen from Clinton four years ago and the even weaker 2020 candidate can expect the same fate. “No one in the media or the Democratic Party gives a basic civics lesson or talks about how elections are really stolen.” Republicans win the presidency when they steal votes. Democrats need a huge turnout to undo the impact of so-called “spoiled ballots,” electronic vote machine theft and the removal of Democratic voters, i.e. Black people, from the rolls. These methods will of course be used in November and ought to be the basis for concerns regarding any electoral malfeasance. It is important to remember the real electoral threats when Donald Trump decides to have fun with America’s collective reptile brain. When he tweeted that he might postpone the election, people who should have known better immediately began responding with anger and fear. The corporate media, who love the president because he is always good copy, failed to inform the public about American law and how presidential elections are regulated. Simply put, election day can’t be changed absent congressional action. Nor can a president stay in office if he loses. If Trump loses he will no longer be president on January 20, 2021. While the Trumpian desire to mess with our heads continues, no one in the media or the Democratic Party gives a basic civics lesson or talks about how elections are really stolen. Once again Trump is used as the perfect foil, a poster child for vote blue no matter who. His every nonsensical remark is a substitute for policy change that would motivate the high voter turn-out that democrats need. “Trump is used as the perfect foil, a poster child for vote blue no matter who.” This year presents a new opportunity for wrong doing. Many states are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic with increased availability of voting by mail instead of at polling places. That process solves one problem but creates many new ones. In New York City mailed ballots are still being counted six weeks after a primary. Not only was there a deluge of 400,000 ballots but rules about whether postmarks were or were not needed led to disqualified votes and court challenges. Voting by mail presents the prospect of a delayed count and a possibility that the outcome may not be known until long after Election Day. Meanwhile Republicans in states like Wisconsin are still working to remove 120,000 people from the rolls. Wisconsin is among those states that were supposed to be safe for Hillary Clinton but voter identification laws and restrictions on college student voting took thousands of votes away from her. During primaries in 2000 long lines resulted when people who requested mail-in ballots didn’t receive them. They didn’t receive them because they had been purged from the rolls. They may have been given provisional ballots but those are nearly always thrown out and are worthless. But none of these tried and true methods are discussed by the corporate media which prefers to give credence to Trump’s rants. They don’t give attention to the possibility of Trump doing something that would be extraordinary but quite legal. He can contest the election and the electoral college results and demand a vote in the House of Representatives as the 12th amendment to the Constitution allows. Despite a Democratic majority, more state delegations are under Republican control and would give Trump the victory. “Provisional ballots but those are nearly always thrown out and are worthless.” Polls showing a Biden win must be ignored. The same pollsters said Hillary Clinton would prevail in 2016 but she isn’t the one in the White House. The election was stolen from her and the even weaker 2020 candidate can expect the same fate. But Republican treachery is not solely at fault. Despite having the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections stolen from them, the Democrats won’t point out the obvious. They cynically go along because their corruption steals votes from progressives. Bernie Sanders lost 500,000 votes in the 2020 California primary through a complicated system meant to keep challengers at bay. Election integrity would put the power of the Democratic Party establishment at risk. It would also force them to stand up as a real political party and not a happy member of the duopoly who masquerade as an opposition. Trump can steal the election but not in the ways we have been told. Election theft is an American tradition. Denying that it exists is also a tradition and 2020 may look like 2016. https://www.blackagendareport.com/fr...-2020-election |
The idea that Biden is a weaker candidate than Clinton is absurd. A lot of that is thanks to good old sexism, but Biden is polling much better than Clinton ever did at her peak.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...n-at-her-peak/ Also, states like Texas and Georgia were never in play for Clinton. Also, Biden is taking votes away white working class, suburban, and older voters from Trump - largely due to his horrible handling of COVID-19, but again what makes Biden a strong candidate is because he does appeal to voters who might peel away from Trump. The idea that Biden is a weak candidate is so completely absurd. It makes me laugh and very angry at the same time. Trump will indeed try to cheat in every way possible and we do need to take it very, very seriously. But we need to back that up with action not just doom and gloom. It is up to us to fight against it in every way possible to take our country back. Like Katchen, I play to vote early. In the past, I have voted in person on the day of the election or voted by mail when I lived in Oregon. When I mailed in my ballot I often did it at the last minute. There is no way I would do that this year, even though I live in a state where there won't be any hijinks. Our early voting starts on October 6 and I will be mailing in my ballot as soon as possible after that to make sure it is there well ahead of time. Or I might drop it off in town if we have somewhere to do it - I need to check on that. Things you can do: - Support Biden and all our Democrats on the ballot - now until election day. Bashing is NOT HELPFUL. We don't need a repeat of 2016. - Check to make sure you are registered - even if you think you are. Encourage others to do the same. - Vote as early as possible - by mail or in person. Encourage others to do the same. Help people understand the process, give rides to the polls, etc. - If there is a way to check your ballot after you have voted - do so. A friend of mine had his rejected in Washington state in the primaries due to a signature issue. He was able to check the status of his ballot online and when he discovered there was an issue he was able to get it straightened out. - There is a good chance we won't know the outcome on election night. Don't panic. A lot of Democrat votes will end up being counted later. That happened in the blue wave of 2018. People need to be educated on this. We can overcome! |
Thanks for your post Bulldog, and Cin too!
It has been less than 4 weeks and already, T---P's puppet at USPS has ousted every person with tenure and seniority so that they can upend USPS as a vital way for American's to cast their vote. It is definitely a serious situation. An " All Hands On Deck" rally cry. :firetruck: <<<<<~~ x5 alarm fire call for help. I also read today that Biden's VP pick will be between two candidares. Rice or Harris. Harris for the win, Rice to serve in Biden's cabinet? It is such a cliff-hanger. Also, i wonder if Stacy Abrams will possibly use her voting organization to help provide safe ways for voter's votes to be delivered, if possible? So little time, with big BIG problems brewing every second of the day that ticks by. |
Quote:
I did find some interesting thoughts in the article. The thing about Trump contesting the election and electoral college results and demanding a vote in the House as the 12th amendment allows is one. Supposedly more state delegations are under Republican control despite a democratic majority in the House. This might be the most important election in my lifetime. As was stated in the article "Democrats need a huge turnout to undo the impact of so-called “spoiled ballots,” electronic vote machine theft and the removal of Democratic voters, i.e. Black people, from the rolls." It is imperative that people vote anyway they can. |
Quote:
I have plenty of energy and I am DONE with the bashing of our Democratic Presidential nominee. Done. Done. Done. |
Quote:
|
Thoughts...
I dont watch Fox news at all.
But as long as its a freaking GIANT BLUE WAVE that runs that horrible person and his cronies out of town, this is what matters most to me. |
Kamala Harris Is VP Pick
Joe Biden has announced his VP choice. It is Kamala Harris.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1293280411150217219 My two picks were Susan Rice and Kamala Harris. There is less controversy surrounding Harris (although the Benghazi crap is ridiculous it is there) and she is an excellent pick. I'm happy and excited for the virtual convention next week! |
Quote:
Quote:
I AM FINALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS CAMPAIGN |
~
Quote:
|
Quote:
I am excited too. Hoorah for team Biden & Harris. :) |
Quote:
I just finished watching Rachel Maddow and learned a few interesting things about Kamala Harris that I didn't know. First, in 2011, in her first year as AG in California, she was working with other states to try to get a settlement from the big banks for the foreclosure crisis for their states. The banks offered a settlement but she turned it down and withdrew California from the negotiations because she said it was too small. She took a lot of heat for it. But then her and Beau Biden (AG of Delaware and late son of Joe Biden) and other AGs worked out a settlement that was much better. Standing firm - reminds me of Nancy Pelosi! Also, an interesting guest on Rachel's show was a long-time public defender named Niki Solis who faced off against Harris many times. She has written an op-ed and also talked on Rachel's show about how Harris' record as California DA has not been discussed accurately and that Harris is a progressive and she wants to set the record straight even though Harris was on the opposing side of her. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/3334668001/ |
Quote:
V e r y Interesting! So, See? Harris has a good track record on things not readily remembered or were not covered much in the news, years ago. And I like that Niki Solis can attest to her character and how Harris' record as a DA in California has not been accurately portrayed. That's a big deal, not only for Harris, but for other public servants, elected - appointed - or otherwise, who have not been given credit where it is due, etc. So that is positive news to learn about tonight. I thank you, as others will most likely thank you too! I suspect until November gets here, that the battle lines are drawn and that little to no missteps will take place and that nothing but a biggo giant GREEN LIGHT beams brightly for the Democratic Party and for new beginnings under highly qualified leadership of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Indeed, excitement abounds. :hk28: |
Quote:
|
Wow!! I just listened to Joe Biden and Kamala (Momma-la) Harris in their 1st appearance, live streamed via ABC news.
I got shivers, felt relief that we have two outstanding people to lead our country out of the dark situation that the GOP/TP administration has done to us all and to global partnering countries (our allies). What a great message of introduction to listener's everywhere. Can't wait to hear more good news! |
Kamala Harris’s Cultural Impact
Kamala Harris’s Cultural Impact
Biden’s pick for vice president comes with important advantages, but also some complexities. By Charles M. Blow, Opinion Columist, New York Times https://i.postimg.cc/htDw2hdP/merlin...uper-Jumbo.jpg Senator Kamala Harris spoke with reporters after the first Democratic presidential primary debate, in Miami in 2019. Damon Winter/The New York Times Joe Biden’s selection of Kamala Harris, the daughter of a Jamaican father and a South Asian mother, both immigrants, is both historic and inspiring. Biden had an embarrassment of riches among his options. Any of the women among the top contenders, including other Black and Asian women, could have been an impressive choice. But, Harris comes with the benefit of being tough as nails, a true fighter, and one who has already been tested in this cycle on the trail. But, it’s important to assess not only the impact of her policy positions and credentials, but also the cultural resonance of her selection. She is the first Black woman in such a position on a major party ticket, one who embraces her mixed race heritage. That comes with important advantages, but also some complexities. First, let me condition all that follows by plainly asserting this: I wish that policy was the primary driver of all our electoral decisions, and that personality, personal story and passions were minimal considerations. But wishful thinking is precisely what that is. Unfortunately, sadly, the presentation of a candidate matters to an enormous degree in our elections. That said, one thing Harris brings to the ticket is the enthusiasm she generates, and that is no small thing. One misstep Hillary Clinton made in 2016 was the selection of Tim Kaine as her running mate. No matter how nice a person he was or how strong his résumé or how great the chemistry was between the two, his selection as her vice president plopped down like a wet rag. There was no real enthusiasm around the pick. Harris arrives with an abundance of enthusiasm, sorely needed by Biden, especially among those who relish inclusion. She is a smart, accomplished woman who will no doubt appeal to many other women, particularly when the inevitable sexist attacks begins. But sexism is a stubborn and insidious thing in society, and the benefit the ticket gets from her being a woman may be counterbalanced by the shadowy gender bias that helped undermine Clinton. Harris’s mixed-race, daughter-of-immigrants, interracial (her husband is white) marriage story also has appeal, particularly in America’s big liberal cities that attract many immigrants. She is also multiracial at a time when numbers of people identifying as such are on the ascent, especially in the West, where Harris is from. In the South, her amazing, very American story, could find some resistance from those who look askance at it, even if they never verbalize it. The southern states, with the notable exceptions of Texas and Florida, have the fewest immigrants and their residents are the most opposed to interracial marriage. Most southern states aren’t swing states, but it seems to me that while voting matters most within states, the amorphous “feelings” people get about a candidate, positive or negative, transcend states and wash over the whole country. As with many mixed-race people in America, Harris has made identity choices that link her to particular parts of herself, finding a way to make a oneness of twoness. Harris chose to attend a historically black university and enter a prominent and powerful Black sorority. This positioning should place her in good stead with many Black people, particularly women. But that must be weighed against the fact that some other Black people, particularly Black men, still have real reservations over her record as a prosecutor. This is something to keep an eye on. Although Black people as a group consistently vote overwhelmingly for Democratic presidential candidates, a gap between Black men and Black women has been growing in recent elections. According to exit polls in 2008, that gap was just one percentage point. In 2012, it was nine percentage points. In 2016 it was 12 percentage points. Over that period, Black women’s support of the Democratic candidate held relatively steady, from 96 to 94 percent. It was the support of Black men that fell appreciably. Harris’s record in the Senate has been exemplary, including on the issue of social justice. If she were just being judged by this chapter of her life and not the previous, this would all be a nonissue. But, of course we know, that will not be the case. Trump believes that it is among Black men that he can shift the math a few percentage points with his focus on the economy, his own steps on criminal justice reform and his demonizing Latin American immigrants as threats to Black prosperity. Even the odd foray by Kanye West plays into this. Furthermore, it would be a mistake to overplay a connection between the recent racial justice and police reform protesters and Harris. They may not be on the same page as she is. In some cases, they are on opposite pages. They are protesting a system that Harris was part of. Biden, with his problematic record on criminal justice, is already an issue. And while Harris’s sorority, Alpha Kappa Alpha, is indeed powerful within the Black community, the Black sorority and fraternity class is not always aligned with the Black activist class. Many civil rights leaders of the 1960s were members of historically black fraternities and sororities — the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Ralph Abernathy, Jesse Jackson, Thurgood Marshall. But for decades now, including when I was in college, there has been a real tension between young activists and these Greek-letter organizations. Spike Lee illustrated this tension beautifully in his movie “School Daze.” The Greek-lettered groups are seen by many as elitist and out of touch, not at the vanguard of the fight. (I became a member of one of these groups in college.) Months of campaigning are still ahead of us and only the election result will truly tell us about the impact of Harris’s being chosen by Biden, but it’s wise to avoid oversimplifying from the start. Harris, like any politician and any person, is complex and her addition to the ticket will come with pros and cons, even among Democrats, even among Black people. __________________ Charles Blow joined The Times in 1994 and became an Opinion columnist in 2008. He is also a television commentator and writes often about politics, social justice and vulnerable communities. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/12/o...gtype=Homepage |
Interesting Op-ed today over on CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/14/opini...dup/index.html
The link above is to a very interesting and thought provoking article, ideas offered by certain Democratic Party members. Several were interviewed about what they feel should happen to help the Democratic Party develop and take a stronger stand, politically. I agree, with many views expressed within today's Op-ed. Democrats should go big. Go big in terms of addressing social grievances and stand up for policy changes in fundamental ways, rather than incremental change. This is a big deal, I think, for American citizens, during this Presidential election, no matter where a voter sits on the voting spectrum. Thought I would leave the link here today, in case others might like reading this article. |
Democratic Party Convention Starts Tonight!
The Democratic Convention runs from Monday, August 17 to Thursday, August 20 from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Eastern
ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox News will carry the convention from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. each night. C-SPAN, CNN, MSNBC and PBS will cover the full two hours each night. Livestream at the official website or the Youtube channel (I believe there are also other live streams). https://www.demconvention.com/watch-the-convention/ https://www.youtube.com/demconvention (you should be able to watch the videos later if you can't catch them live). Schedule Monday: Speakers include Michelle Obama, Bernie Sanders, James Clyburn, Andrew Cuomo, Gretchen Whitmer, Amy Klobuchar & more I'm really looking forward to Michelle Obama's talk, so I'm glad she's on Monday! Tuesday: Includes Jill Biden, Bill Clinton, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Sally Yates, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry Wednesday - Kamala Harris accepts Nomination for Vice President Speakers include Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Gabby Giffords, and of course Kamala Harris Thursday - Joe Biden accepts Nomination for President Speakers include: Joe Biden & family, Pete Buttigieg, Keisha Lance Bottoms, Cory Booker, Tammy Baldwin, Tammy Duckworth, Andrew Yang This will definitely be different. They have a lot of speakers and musical entertainment crammed into these 2-hour segments so I guess everything will be pretty short. Better than nothing! |
Quote:
I read another interesting Op-ed over on CNN. Apparently, T---P can be arraigned on criminal charges if he refuses to vacate the WH if American's kick him out of office. There is a clause in the US Constitution, amendment 22 or 28? If Capt Chaos and his minions wont leave, then Speaker of The House, Nancy Pelosi is installed as Interim President, and then T---P will be charged with treason (...). CNN OP-Ed: https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/17/opini...lan/index.html I dont know if anybody else might think the same way I do, but I do not like it that once a person has served as POTUS, they they seem to still be on some type of payroll for compensation the rest of their lives. I am not down with that practice. Especially since T---P will be collecting money off the backs of tax payers for the rest of his life. (Gross Injustice no. 1, among many). But thanks for the links Bulldog!! |
Well, I liked day 1. I liked how they wove different types of content togeher and showed a lot from ordinary people and not just politicians.
Michelle Obama's speech was outstanding. I'm just in awe. My second favorite was the part they did on Joe riding Amtrack every day and the connections he made with the workers and people on the train. Quintessential Joe. |
Watching the DNC and RNC? Here’s where to find coverage.
Watching the DNC and RNC? Here’s where to find coverage.
Each of the major networks has laid out convention coverage plans, yet they admit they're wading into uncharted waters with 2020's atypical convention. https://i.postimg.cc/0ynQrL65/Chuck-...-2048x1536.jpg Chuck Todd, Lester Holt and Savannah Guthrie during NBC’s coverage of the 2016 Republican National Convention. (Courtesy: NBC News) The 2020 political conventions will be unlike anything we’ve seen before. So, what actually will we see? Each of the major networks has laid out convention coverage plans, and yet they admit they are wading into uncharted waters with conventions that won’t look like the typical convention because of the coronavirus. The Republican convention — moved from Charlotte, North Carolina, to Jacksonville, Florida, and then back to Charlotte — has been so scaled back that it has been relocated from an arena to a convention center. More notably, President Donald Trump announced on Aug. 10 that his acceptance speech will come from either the White House or Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The Democratic convention, too, will look different. While anchored in Milwaukee, most of it will be held virtually. That means we aren’t going to see the normal scenes of network anchors hunkered down inside arenas with reporters spread out all over the host city. We’re also not going to see wall-to-wall coverage on the main networks, although the networks’ streaming services will have complete convention coverage. Here’s what the major network coverage will look like: ABC ABC will have programming each night of the conventions from 10 to 11 p.m. Eastern. George Stephanopoulos will lead the coverage and will be joined by “World News Tonight” anchor David Muir and “ABC News Live Prime” anchor Linsey Davis. The coverage will be rounded out by “Nightline” anchor Byron Pitts, Martha Raddatz, correspondents Jonathan Karl, Pierre Thomas, Tom Llamas, Cecilia Vega, Terry Moran, as well as FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver and a host of correspondents. Senior congressional correspondent Mary Bruce, White House correspondent Rachel Scott, and correspondent Alex Perez will report live from the actual conventions. CBS CBS News will air special convention coverage on the main network from 10 to 11 p.m. Eastern each night of the conventions. “CBS Evening News” anchor Norah O’Donnell will lead the coverage from the CBS studio in Washington, D.C. She will be joined there by John Dickerson, Maria Elena Salinas, Jamal Simmons and Leslie Sanchez. Convention programming also will include “Face the Nation” moderator Margaret Brennan, political correspondent Ed O’Keefe and other correspondents Major Garrett, Weijia Jiang and Nikole Killion, as well as contributors: former Barack Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, former Trump chief of staff Reince Priebus, former Hillary Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook, Democratic strategist Joel Payne and former Marco Rubio campaign manager Terry Sullivan. NBC and MSNBC NBC News will air a special report each night of the conventions from 10 to 11 p.m. Eastern. Lester Holt and Savannah Guthrie will anchor from the NBC News headquarters in New York, while Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell will be stationed at the network’s Washington bureau. For more extensive coverage, MSNBC will be live each night from 7 p.m. to 2 a.m. Eastern. That includes special editions of Joy Reid’s 7 p.m. show and Chris Hayes’ 8 p.m. show. Then Reid will join Rachel Maddow and Nicolle Wallace at 9 p.m. from the New York studios. Brian Williams will take over at 11 p.m. and Ari Melber at 1 a.m. Reporters Hallie Jackson, Peter Alexander, Kristen Welker, Mike Memoli, Ali Vitali, Shaquille Brewster, Geoff Bennett, Vaughn Hillyard and Monica Alba will be stationed at various locations. Fox News Fox News will kick off its convention coverage on Sunday at 10 p.m. Eastern with a special “Democracy 2020: Convention Kickoff.” Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum will host. Baier and MacCallum also will co-anchor convention coverage, which, like the networks, will air nightly at 10 p.m. They will be joined by political analyst Brit Hume, “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace, “The Daily Briefing’s” Dana Perino, “The Five’s” Juan Williams and contributors Donna Brazile, Karl Rove and Katie Pavlich. For the convention weeks, Laura Ingraham’s show will move to 11 p.m. and Shannon Bream’s show will air at midnight. CNN CNN will have special convention coverage from 8 p.m. to 2 a.m. each day of both the DNC (Aug. 17-20) and RNC (Aug. 24-27). The special coverage will be hosted by Wolf Blitzer, Jake Tapper, Anderson Cooper, Dana Bash, and John King, with Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon joining the conversation from midnight to 2 a.m. CNN will have reporters at both locations of the conventions. Commentators for the DNC will include Van Jones, Jennifer Granholm, Andrew Yang, and Scott Jennings. Commentators for the RNC will include Granholm, Rick Santorum, David Urban and Amanda Carpenter. In addition, Daniel Dale will contribute real-time fact-checking and Dr. Sanjay Gupta will provide any updates regarding the coronavirus. PBS Most PBS stations will have special coverage from 8 to 11 p.m. Eastern. “PBS NewsHour” anchor Judy Woodruff will anchor convention coverage from PBS’s studio in Arlington, Virginia. Coverage also will include reports and commentary from senior national correspondent Amna Nawaz, correspondent Lisa Desjardins and White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor. Guests will include “Cook Political Report” national editor Amy Walter, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks, Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post national political reporter and moderator of PBS’s “Washington Week” Robert Costa, “American Greatness” editor Chris Buskirk, and former Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter. https://www.poynter.org/reporting-ed...find-coverage/ |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:44 PM. |
ButchFemmePlanet.com
All information copyright of BFP 2018