On Counts and Balances

    As confirmed this week yet again, a piece of salacious gossip spun silly can travel the world before we put our adult hats - analytic minds for Kahneman fans - back on and rein it in. On the "plus" side, as one commenter noted, we now know the DNC was pants, an accident that already 'appened. On the minus side, we now know:

    1) the DNC was a huge anchor weight instead of a presumed usual help

    2) the Russians hacked the Dems emails & planning strategies and voter databases, tried to hack voting machines 

    3) the Trump campaign worked with them to get spun malicious dirt out there

    4) the Russians pulled a massive disinfo campaign

    5) large amounts of unreported thus illegal money flowed into the anti-Clinton campaign

    6) the Republicans kept millions of likely Dems from voting through administrative hoops, intimidation and legal restrictions

    7) the head of the FBI bizarrely released scandalous unverified and disproved-within-days claims less than a week before the election

    8) Republicans have been using LLC's and other tricks to hide money laundering foreign and domestic, hiding behind property transfers misvalued at 3x real amount and other scams to create a RICO-like scheme behind the party as a whole (money laundering revelations  out of Russia through Deutsche Bank, Cyprus, Moldova, etc last year - including convictions to confirm - reaching 10's of billions) - which creates a lot of trickle into down-ticket/local community campaigns along with personal bank accounts

    9) don't even know where to put the activities of Giuliani, Erik Prince, Hannity... 

    10) and for those expecting a new wave of female candidates, a woman  has to spend up to 600 hours in the makeup chair (that's roughly 25 calendar days) over the length of the campaign or receive more front page ridicule than the unusually high-pitched "nasty woman", "lock her up", "2nd Amendment her", "makes me want to cross my legs" media comments that became the new normal last year. [I personally can hit the shower, put on a suit & be out the door in about 3 minutes, 4 if I shave]. Imagine the additional load with children.

    And yet

    1) the Democratic candidate won the popular vote by 3 million votes and lost electoral by fewer than 100,000 votes combined over 3 critical swing states

    2) we call the candidate who endured this onslaught "failed" and "damaged" and insist we have to change all her tactics and platforms to compete in the future

    3) the future being adopting the methods and platform of the Dem opponent who lost 3:2 despite the disinfo campaign and other hurdles against his opponent.

    4) one of our apparent lessons is that the Dems should not attack foul-mouthed, eye-punching, pussy-grabbing Republican throngs as "deplorables", comparing the use of that word to showing Republican gangs going throuh Latino neighborhoods pogrom-style (tx to Andrew Sullivan for that bit of false equivalence)

    5) apparently trying to convert more moderate Republicans is also seen as a failed strategy, even as we claim Democrats need to become more relevant to the masses - apparently there's an invisible ether of progressive voters out there waiting to be tapped, presumably from legislatures on up.

    6) and our new mantra is money out of pollitics at all cost, preferring untrackable $27 donations (where could that go wrong, oh Twitter and Paypal fans) to the kind of massive Citizens United-inspired GOP money tsunami that would have made 2016 even more disastrous had the Dem candidate unilaterally disarmed.

    So where in all of this is our people-inspiring message going forward? Rather than tear down the real ideas that informed 65 or so million votes, how do we polish up the rough edges, find spokeswomen and men to represent them, attract more aspirants to create a values-led mivement rather thann another populist ploy of a lot of sound and noise without much behind the curtain?

    Europe, despite all the attacks, is running quite well despite all the attacks, bringing together 26+ different cultural, economic, olitical and linguistic divides. A combination of social good with economic/enterprise competence PLUS new experimentation IS workable. It may or may not be economically as successful as Silicon Valley, but it experiments successfully with social sustaining programs, various models of universal healthcare, Denmark's remarkable commitment to full renewable energy, even Finland's rolling out a Minimum Sustainable Income prototype. Follow the good news, create the good examples - this is our better future, our better angels, not focusing on appeasing a bunch of torch-bearing deplorables on the march.

    There's a movie coming out about 2 British women in WWII who would fly into Germany to attend opera shows and managing to smuggle out dozens of Jews. Undoubtedly funded by someone's secret service, it's an example of the advantage of *NOT* having statistics to tell us things can't be done. No one can predict the rise of a successful Google or Twitter beyond our wild imaginings. No one can predict what can rise as a new Democratic Party if reinvented clever enough. But I guarantee you Larry and Serge in their dorm room were looking carefully and accurately at the failed approaches their search competitors were using and how they might do it better, and not parroting facile irrelevant or misleading tropes about enterprise or open source software or other well-entrenched canards of the time. 

    We're halfway to a new people-focused approach to fixing our societal ills and building a distributive economy, while ensuring to some degree security and peace. We shouldn't tear it all down to think we can start again, a failed strategy that sentenced Mozilla to 6 years of failed rewrites in the 90's by which time they were doomed. Instead we should get back to figuring out what actually works, pet belief or not, and move it forward.

    PS - Also worth remembering that for a decade or more, Amazon was somewhat sneered at as it never made an actual profit. 20 years in it's a behemoth of our enterprise system - for books and devices, for cloud computing, a newspaper on the side, and now even grocery chains. Our measures of success aren't always up to date - often "fighting the last war" so to speak, or simply too parochial or partisan or stuck in the familiar.



    Those independents we needed to woo over?

    But I've been told here many times they are all racists so you don't want their vote even if they don't need to be wooed.

    Actually, I just looked up the Wikipedia entry on "Basket of Deplorables"  since I didn't have much time to keep detailed attention to the news in 2016. And I see that Hillary very clearly said more than once that you could separate Trump supporters in half into two baskets, and only one half was the "deplorables" and the other half she was trying to woo:

    During campaign fundraisers in August 2016, Clinton reportedly explained her divide and conquer approach to courting Republican voters by putting Trump supporters into two "baskets": everyday Republicans whom she would target, and the alt-right crowd.[6] During a September 8, 2016 interview on Israel's Channel 2, Clinton said: "You can take Trump supporters and put them in two big baskets. There are what I would call the deplorables—you know, the racists and the haters, and the people who are drawn because they think somehow he's going to restore an America that no longer exists."[7]

    This isn't new. Getting enough of the Independent  or opposing party votes in the right districts is how the presidency has been won for a couple of decades now.

    I'm no campaign expert but I do have to say I think she made a mistake with her "divide and conquer" approach, but only in using the name-calling of "deplorables." The rest of her language and methodology about this seems fine to me and probably actually came from polling. (Anyone who has been a forum moderator knows what the problem is with the name calling. You especially don't want to see name calling screamed in response to haters and name callers.That takes you nowhere fast, because then everyone is giving permission to express hate.)

    BOTH parties have a problem in that there are an ever growing number of Independents that don't want to be a part of either of them. That has also been a decades-long phenomenon.

    Gerrymandering by the GOP when they have been in power is the only reason it seems the GOP is more popular.They are not. Independent is actually the "party" that is growing in popularity. You actually do have to parse groups like Hillary was doing because there are so many people now who don't vote party line, if you are a Dem you especially have to do that down to district level because of the gerrymandering. Best to leave the public name calling out of it, mho. You never know when a "racist" or "deplorable" might vote for you without even being wooed in the least for those particular proclivities. If the candidate makes it clear that they won't support racism in any way, shape or form, what's the problem there?

    We are waiting on the Supreme Court on gerrymandering. Meanwhile, I don't think Schwarzenegger gets enough credit for pushing positive action on this front. It really is the main problem why we can't have "honest" elections as to the will of the majorities, why candidates have to twist themselves into knots to pander to weird Independents and swings. It should be the other way around: if you are a weird bird outlier like Andrew Sullivan, strongly pro gay rights Catholic and conservative economically, you are the one who should be in the quandary, that's democracy.


    I'd also like to add that the whole Brazile issue is germane not to the presidency as she is making it, but to congressional races. To the point where Hillary had to bail them out. You have two unpopular parties funded by a few rich people and lobbies, and one has richer rich people and lobbies. Virtually none of the little people want to give either of them money unless something happens like a Trump gets elected or a Bill or Hillary Clinton gets elected. Little people would rather give to individual candidates (on the power of their charisma, like it or not, I think that in this day and age, that's here to stay!) or more focused special interest groups. The two parties, they just don't fit, I can't see how two big tents can still work. It's not working in Congress right now, there is no big tent GOP. And with micro-targeting and immediate internet input about what your constituents want, it's not going to.

    Throw a whole lot more special interest groups and lobbies into the hopper, as per your "Fetus College Savings Plan" news article:

    The bill also contains a sought-after change by the religious right: repeal of the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits tax-exempt organizations like churches from engaging in political activity.

    Eliminating it was an early campaign promise of Mr. Trump’s, and it has been a cause long championed by religious conservatives.

    “Repealing the bigoted Johnson Amendment is long overdue,” Ralph Reed, the head of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, said in a letter on Thursday to members of Congress.

    “This clearly unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech has been used by the Internal Revenue Service to harass, intimidate and persecute the faith community for over six decades,” he wrote. “It is long past time to repeal it and we strongly support this legislation’s provision restoring the full First Amendment rights of people of faith.”

    Still, doing away with the Johnson Amendment is not a cause that unites all conservatives, nor is it one that liberals are likely to let go quietly because of the considerable clout it would give pastors in the electoral process.

    Up next: foreign entities? cheeky Why not, on Facebook, there are no countries. Do you want one-world gummint or doncha?

    Non-deplorable Republicans and Independents both seem good prospects. Of course Independents fall on both the right and left, and rang from whacky to disenchanted or disinterested. In any case, the landscape has changed greatly from Rockefeller Republicans and labor-invested Democrats back in the 60's.

    Yes, Arnie has been a good egg in all this - hoping he gets some respect and some results.

    I was also thinking about MLK & the idea that these aren't bad people, just infested with bad ideas (not close to MLK's words, but whatever...) - as I read this piece about an internet & community scam that preyed on people's good intentions. Even in those 'hateful" places, people often think they're doing bad things for good reasons. Deconstructing that is quite difficult. Of course deplorables seldom think they're deplorable (I think).

    There are as many shades and varieties of "racism" as there are colors of skin. Let me be blunt: take Joe Whiter-than-white-Irish-Lunchpail of South Boston who would never have sex with a black woman, but he has no problem with voting for Barack Obama for president. You want his vote or doncha?

    Of course I want his vote - we'll sort it out *post* election. Think I'm stoopid or what? (and yes, this bit about refunding money from deplorables bothers me too - once in my hands, money loses all smell and taint)

    You will gain racist votes and lose black votes, including mine.

    Let’s go get the racists.Do you listen to yourselves? Let’s go for the misogynists too.

    The Democratic Party and LBJ knew they would lose the South after the Civil Rights bill passed. To keep the racists, the party would have to abandon the Civil Rights bills. The racists already have a home in the GOP. The racists left during the Obama years. The racists want a Wall and deportations. They want to punish Muslims. There is no message that will bring them into the Democratic Party.

    This is truly pathetic.

    LBJ never turned down a vote based on its source.

    He just chose his values and issues and stuck with them.

    (of course he also used graveyard voters to make sure he got elected, but that's another issue).

    So to be clear - he didn't tell Southern voters not to vote for him and the party - he told them what he was offering and they chose that way. Subtle difference? I think not - seems quite obvious.

    Now, if it's possible to get the racists interested in voting Democrat because of some other issue - making corporations pay their fair share, revitalizing the job & education market for newcomers and laid-off workers - happy to have them.  May not be the best beer partners I ever had, but I'm sure I've done worse as well. Main thing is not to compromise the issues - just because they vote for a jobs platform doesn't mean they turn out the racial inclusivity platform.

    LBJ knew that the votes were leaving the Democratic Party.

    This is what black voters note

    1. Perez and Sanders do outreach to the white community 

    2. Perez and Sanders do no outreach in the black community 

    3. Jon Ossoff does outreach to the white community 

    4. Ossoff does no outreach in the black community

    5. Ossoff loses

    6.  Northam does outreach to the white community

    7. Northam does no outreach in the black community 

    8. Northam leaves the black Lt Governor off of campaign literature 

    9. Northam finds himself in a tight race

    10. Sanders and others dog-whistle about identity politics.

    11. Blacks are chastised for labeling deplorables as racist

    12. We are now told that we need to accept the deplorables despite their racism

    Try selling this nonsense to black voters.

    Short-sighted. As long as you're putting in office who you want, why do you care who pays or votes for them?

    Better to be idealistic and choosy *AFTER* you've won.

    Pigfucker Andy 'opportunist' Sullivan uses his NY Mag piece today to turn Moore's transgressions back to "Hillary covering up for Bill" as told to the *Drudge Report*¡!!??! He deserves a bit of good old Catholic Inquisition, the piece of shit. So just as Brazile's unfair piece last month raked over old coals with a dishonest light, Andrew's back with his irrational Clinton hate to balance his irrational Austrian school fanboism. And did he mention he's a devout considerate Catholic when the fucker's not busy pontificating and talking badmouth shit about people? "Do unto others as you would like to see in a Tarantino film". Classy work there, Andy boy. Did I mention you're a pig fucker? - not sure if there's a space there, or whether those erudite Brits do it the other way, so here you can have it both ways as you like it - fake pretending intellectual and fawning pretending populist lowbrow - or "dumb and dumber" as they say in the movies. Two middle fingers up, as Roger Ebert might say.

    The poll seems to be of all Americans, not just Trump supporters. The 40% of voters who thought Trump would do well on issues of race is not surprising. Trump’s base was about 0% of voters. Now 28% of think Trump again is doing well on issues of race. Some interpret that 12% change to believe that those with a negative view of handling race are now magically convertible into Democrats. Is there any data that these voters actually vote based on where they stand on race relations. 

    The reason we need to evaluate the change in Trump’s handling on race is that we may simply be noting that they don’t like Trump’s style on race issues. They may not support praise for Nazis or attacking Representative Wilson, but they probably still support overall actions to keep blacks in their place. I need data that shows hearts have changed.

    There is an argument that Obama won the votes of some racists. Some think that it follows that these voters can be won back to the Democrats. How these voters are going to won back when the Republicans are openly appealing for racist votes is unclear. The racists left the Democrats during the Obama years.


    It is pathetic that some argue that the deplorables are racist and then argue Democrats should appeal for the votes of racists. The racists have found a home with the Republicans. However you try to placate the racists, they are no longer Democrats.

    Oh, I think many racists voted for Obama  -it was too easy a way to show you're not racist - like going to confession after a night at the whorehouse. Yes I want their votes anyway if not too compromising. Maybe reform them, maybe just use their "goodwill" for better purposes.

    Follow the good news, create the good examples - this is our better future, our better angels, not focusing on appeasing a bunch of torch-bearing deplorables on the march.

    This is a beauty!  So many good points here.  What seems to be lost in the Democratic "autopsy" is that millions more people wanted things Hillary's way.  They understood her message and voted for it.  If the GOP were populated with adults, they would acknowledge this, and forge programs and policies that would truly work for the country.  Since they are incapable of that, we must show the way.  And the way to do that is not by copying the liar who got into office by cheating, or the loser who never formulated a policy to accomplish his goals.

    50.5      51.0

    62.0      59.0

    59.9      69.1

    58.1.     61.1

    62.9      65.8


    1. Identify the above numbers 

    2. Define a "Dying Party".

    3. In three words explain what to do  about something that "ain't broke" ?

    First prize is permission never again to read anything submitted by

     ..................................................(submit any name other than Flavius)



    Flavius, we don’t need to play a numbers game. No one is saying things are OK. The debate is about how to change things. Bernie wants Socialism. Blacks are tired of being ignored. Others think Democrats need better appeal to white voters. Some are willing to invite racists into the party.

    If I'm the "some" for racists, 1) we're all racist to some degree, just not all deplorable, 2) wecan't really *stop* racists from being part of the party, aside from overt excluding KKK members or such, 3) my point was simply if racists vite Dem because of a jobs program without me dog whistling or overtly offering racist programs, I'm fine with that - I'll take the win. 4) of course a key constituen for Dems is the black vote, and besides catering to them/asking what they want, some of their needs are obvious and should be part of any sensible platform.

    As for numberwang, worth pkaying Flav's game - I figger barometer readings before a hurricane.

    The racists already have a home in the GOP.Democrats have done outreach to whites and ignored blacks. They lost races that they might have won. Repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result is insanity. It is time to do outreach to both whites and blacks to see if the outcome changes.

    Hint: 65.8 stands for  65,844,610 and the first two words of the answer to 3 are "don't fix...."

    Must have been tired, as i've played with these runes enough times. Answer to 3 might be Bond's "stirred, not shaken". Martinis can be damaged.




                    Presidential Election Vote             

                       Republicans       Dying Party


        2000            50.5M               51.0M

        2004            62.0                  59.0

        2008            59.9                  69.1

        2012            58.1.                 61.1

        2016            62.9                  65.8

    The arts of Gerrymandering & voter obstruction are not to be idly dismissed. We keep trying to appeal in bulk - they just figure which palms need to be greased, judges need to be installed to get over the line. But yes, they're winning this way. Less talk of platforms, more about the plumbing. I got into this business for the excitement.

    Do you call redistricting gerrymandering when democrats are in control and use this for their own advantage? Gerrrymandering is illegal and any redistricting that even gets close to appearing like gerrymanding is challenged and usually rejected by the courts. Redistricting usually occurs after the census but the party in control had to have already been elected to power under the old districts. This snowflake whimpering about victimhood, denial and loss of voters only displays more weakness and few people are inclined to begin supporting whining losers.

    This is both sides do it BS that is often used by Conservatives to hide their crimes


    The Legal problem is that often you have to wait until an election is over to file suit.

     Most recently Republican voting scams I have been overturned in North Carolina


    and Wisconsin 


    Conservatives bloviate and never provide links to support their thesis. The only purpose Conservatives serve is to provide amusement on a Monday. It is amazing how scrambled their brains must be.

    Oh, do you characterize Arnold Schwarzenegger as a snowflake?

    (I've been registered as an Independent since 1980, haven't been a fan of either party since that time. Though I very much tend to have preferred Dems for all national offices,  I have by no means liked all of them running for local offices. And I hate the effects of gerrymandering, period.)

    If Democrats repeatedly do outreach for white votes and keep losing, perhaps they need to focus on other racial groups.

    I don't understand this, as *when* did we just do outreach to white votes? Certainly not in last year's presidential elections, and I don't recall this happening in recent contests.

    As a  politician friend puts it,  "they don't weigh 'em ,they count 'em".

    If the final vote that gives us a democrat a win comes from  a racist, white supremacist , female  harassing, pederast  we won't turn it down. Nor should we. 

    Nor choose our policies  to make that  happen. 

    If we happen to know that marching in an East Overshoe protest will cause us to get the vote of its

    r.ws.fh.p , we should march in the protest -if that otherwise makes political sense. But if asked , should state that all r.w. etc. etc.  should be prosecuted and if found guilty, appropriately punished.




    That is BS. Look how fast many politicians returned money from Weinstein. If this is what the party has become, it is disgusting. LBJ knew the Southern racists would bolt from the party. Now you want to invite the scum back in . What are you willing to give up to get the white supremacist vote? If you are not willing to give up anything, how do you think you will attract them to the Democratic Party? 

    Oh, that talking tour that pissed me off....

    agree with Flav, count, don't weigh.

    And Weinstein? who knows, not my problem, fortunately.

    You are going to have to give up something to attract racists and white supremacists. What are you willing to give up?

    Republicans thought they could control the racists. Now we have Trump, Sessions, and Miller in the White House. Kelly was thought to be the rational one but he slandered a black woman and is a Confederate apologist. Invite these folks in and you verify the two parties are the same.

    Certainly not - they're attracted to my rural charm and boyish good looks. Why would I need to give up anything?

    Not all Republicans are racist, but if you are a racist you are voting Republican.

    No one has shown a plan regarding turning racists into Democrats. What is the message that will attract the racists?

    Sorry, but don't agree - there are still plenty of racists who vote Democratic.

    In any case, I think I made it clear if they were interested in jobs proposals or say universal healthcare or ending the useless war on drugs or ...., happy to have their vote. Don't need to adopt their stance on racism, do I?

    Besides of which, I'm not a candidate so it doesn't really matter what crap I say.

    It is a theoretical argument, can’t see a Democratic argument that would be convincing to them. Keeping minorities in their place is more important than economic or health issues.

    All of this is rather theoretical and nonsense. Aside from that dumb bernie-perez tour & something in Virginia you showed, I haven't seen any big hunting whites at expense of blacks. The Georgia runoff - how did that go?

    I have provided multiple links today and in the past.

    It is hard to believe that people are unaware of the differences in outreach

    Hillary Clinton


    Bernie Sanders


    Look, you've made it clear in the past that Bernie punted on black voters.

    Re: Hillary, yes, she was running a campaign where the swing states mattered and non-swing states didn't. Donna Brazile held up $5 million to push towards Chicago and New Orleans for the "urban vote" to run up the popular vote, rather than focusing on actually winning swing states - brilliant. Meanwhile, I think Hillary had done quite a lot of outreach during the primaries - including Michigan that she's blasted so much for, Cleveland, Miami, Phillly, etc - urban areas with black voters that we needed to get to the polls. Was the GOTV bus-ride to vote lacking? maybe, I don't know. Do I know how down-ticket races went? No, not really. But the Nation starts off with the surprise that most spending would go towards swing states - duh. If we'd spent that $5 million and the $20+ million spent bailing out the DNC instead on Pittsburgh and Grand Rapids and Milwaukee and Youngstown, maybe this past year wouldn't have been so depressing.

    If you want to say the Dems weren't strong enough on police brutality, I agree. Would the black vote have been better with more money spent on it? I doubt much. Was the Democratic platform focused on issues that would help blacks? largely. Would blacks have been much better represented had HIllary won? Certainly, including significant representation in her cabinet. But I must admit most of my attention has been on the presidential race, and I don't know what the DNC and DCCC did, how they cultivated the black community, etc.

    As AA notes, swingstates matter - live in California? you'll never see a candidate except for fundraising dinners. Iowa & NH? at least for the primaries they'll be so far up your butt you'll feel them ticklying your tonsils. General elections - move to FL, PA, OH, MI, NC - that's where the action was this year, slightly less in WI and AZ as a longshot.

    The "Overall picture" link by Lauren Burke @ The Root is the one that reads as reality-based about how political parties work if you don't like what they are doing:


    “We have to raise our own money and make our own decisions,” said Congressional Black Caucus PAC Chair Greg Meeks (D-N.Y.) as he walked to the CBC’s weekly meeting the day before. That’s an understatement.


    There have been recent efforts to control the game. New efforts like The Collective and Higher Heights have specifically targeted African-American candidates as young activists get tired of waiting for the Democratic Party to confront the reality of the new American majority. It won’t take long to find the answer.

    Same here

    Obama seeks to spark U.S. civic activism with Chicago event

    Sitting on the couch threatening not to vote until someone decides you are worthy of "outreach" is acting like a child.

    In a gerrymandered country of two parties, this is the reality: the "outreach" is going to be done in swing districts. If you are not in a swing district, your vote is going to be taken for granted. It's just that simple. Has nothing to do with race, has to do with practical realities. As I have said elsewhere, most of NYC gets no "outreach" from national candidates running, either.

    You want to change that without active participation in a party: move to a swing district! They will then reach out to you, I guarantee it, they'll be knocking at the door and robocalling until you are driven mad.

    P.S. Look, the Sanders people know how to do it!. They did not sit on the couch waiting for "outreach", threatening to withhold their votes. They are trying to inject themselves into the party. That's how political parties work! You want to shape it, you participate in it! Not sit and wait for it to come to you.

    I know, I happen to be one of those who chose not to participate, I sit and wait and see what they offer. And by doing that, I give up my right to complain about what they offer. Have to make do with the choices the ones who decide to put in sweat equity come up with. I do follow with interest the attempts at big tent, and how they fail. I think they all do fail in that some way or another for a very long time, some groups always get the short end of the stick, it varies.

    Let me be clear: gerrymandering is evil. But doing away with it will mean more of: majority rules.  Which means: if you are a minority interest group of any kind and you haven't convinced a majority to go along with you somehow, some way, what you got is: the courts. That's the way democracy is supposed to work. You convince others. Others who vote.

    What you can learn from Barack Obama's 4 rules for networking

    @ CNBC.com 9 Hours Ago
    How to win friends and influence people by a smart guy, bi-racial, won the presidency twice, first time as an upstart. I don't see: "threaten not to vote unless someone comes and begs me to" anywhere there.

    Big picture, I strongly agree with your last three paragraphs. It just seems so clear to me that the whole Trump thing is the last gasp of the 20th-century troglodytes unable to deal with the future that is already halfway here now. Like you say We're halfway to a new people-focused approach to fixing our societal ills and building a distributive economy, while ensuring to some degree security and peace Trumpism and its analogues in other countries and Russian meddling with elections worldwide, is like a blatant catalyst, it's showing us what we don't want to happen with the new populism that is an inevitable result of how technology has give communications power to nearly everyone. It's a revolutionary period like the Industrial Revolution. Trump Russia et. al.has just made it so we don't have to go through it slow motion. All these "bad guys" happen to be skilled at using 20th-century version demagoguery, we see it in effect, we see what will still work and what won't. For us older folks, it sucks to be us because we won't live to see it all shake out. For younger people, not so bad.

    Also seems to me that Islamic terrorism was the first leg of this. Islam first had to make it to the 20th-century from the 15th. There always was quite a bit of grain of truth to the Neo-Con thing about "war of civilizations", it's just that their prescriptions were teh stupid. Neo-con theorizing in the end was healthy, better than staying "Paleo-con" in the 21st century. Look at them all now: most of the big names simply aghast at Trump.

    Whatever is going on in Saudi Arabia right now, it's very important how it shakes out. The horrors of Syria and Yemen are what got the Mideast where they are now and it's a quite different place than 20 years ago. Probably more important than how the situation in the U.S. shakes out? Though the decline in the importance of oil will make the whole Mideast less powerful, Saudi v. Iran is still really important, because Saudi is Sunni central and Iran Shia central. On the other hand, all those old mullahs are going to die soon, too....

    Millenials rule the world with their cellphones as part of their bodies since they were little kids, they just don't realize how much yet. Except they are right that the environment is important. If you are in Puerto Rico right now, you've been dragged back to the 15th century.

    Pretty quickly the ghettoes of the world will have no political power at all if they can't get with the globalization, whether they are in Appalachia, Ferguson, Harayana, Khandahar or  I really don't get where Steve Bannon is coming from, he knows how to use the tools, why does he think the nation state is the way it's going to go?

    51% of Saudi's population is under 25. I'm pretty sure they don't give a fuck about a lot of stuff we or their elders cared about. They also likely understand what electric cars and solar/windfarms mean. They are existentially threatened - okay, they have a lot of cash to burn at the moment, but in 20-30 years, they'll be just some guys living in the desert if they're not careful.

    We can be thankful that those failed commie ideas about some fantasy distributive economy and its focus on destroying peoples spirits only made it half way back from the dead ideas heap. We have already seen what globalizing the ghettos means, flooding the first world with third world immigrants and refugees. This may be great for creating no-go zones but not too helpful in improving anything including the residents political power. Steve Bannon represents the idea that in a representative republic the elected officials must actually represent the voters and he has shown that they can be removed with the power of populism if they fail. The globalist Stalinist NWO some people crave is not attractive to most people who can still think clearly. Battling with our often abusive citizen leaders is posssible now but battling with faceless unelected NWO technocrats is designed to be impossible.

    Um, you've sort of got your commie-name-calling backwards. Bannon, the nationalist protectionist, is the Leninist. Globalist cosmopolitan free-traders are the capitalists. The first would be more commie than the second, for sure.


    You seem to believe most anything you read in the fake news media but this third hand claim is a doozie. Bannon publicly proclaims his desire to dismantle the administrative state and he did help to overthrow the globalist's hold on the government but that is hardly Leninist. The snowflakes continue to justify their lying media's behavior by claming that Trump's and Bannon's confronting their proven fake news is an attack on the first amendment which they want people to believe should protecttheir lying. A typical liberal response to claim victimhood after their bad behavior is exposed.

    overthrow the globalist's hold on the government but that is hardly Leninist

    No, that is Leninist. You are in denial of what you are agreeing with by calling your opponents commie redistributionists.

    This, too is Leninist:

    “I don’t need the affirmation of the mainstream media. I don’t care what they say. They can call me an anti-Semite. They can call me racist. They call me nativist. You can call me anything you want. Okay? As long as we’re driving this agenda for the working men and women of this country, I’m happy.”

    from http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/11/steve-bannon-25-key-quotes-60-minutes-interview/

    Bannon is far more of a Leninist than your opponents. In his own rhetoric Bannon is against the "elites" and "the working people" are supposedly on his side.

    From the Wikipedia entry

    Hence, the purpose of the Leninist vanguard party is to establish a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat; supported by the working class, the vanguard party would lead the revolution to depose the incumbent Tsarist government, and then transfer power of government to the working class, which change of ruling class—from bourgeoisie to proletariat—makes possible the full development of socialism.[8]

    This type of cynical snowflake projection is only convincing to the snowflakes while everyone else sees desperation and fear of powerful ideas. Bannon is leading a wave of populism and some people are terrified saying and doing most anything to make the bad man go away. It's not working and this along with the Putin Did It meme is opeaning them up to more mocking and ridicule along with more losses at the polls. FYI, Lenin screwed the people of Russia while becoming the party elite.

    Trump's Party purges, the obsequious sycophants he surrounds himself with, the attacks on critics, and even threats to prosecute and lock up political opponents, the "only I matter", "only I can fix it", the ignoring of reality and desire for a controlled press,  and the Adoration Cult Rallies make Trump a demagogue, a modern Stalinist. 

    Democratic Party leadership needs to do some kissing of black butts to win races. Jon Ossoff ignored black voters and lost.


    Democrats can tell black voters that they have no choice except to vote for the Democratic Party. Democrats can blame blacks when Democrats lose elections. Democrats can say that they welcome white supremacists. Democrats can tell blacks who want their butts kissed to take a hike. We will see how this works out.

    The first rule of Obama’s networking tips was to form new relationships. How this gets turned into some nonsense about not voting until someone begs me is amazing. Barack Obama is saying that the politician has to go begging voters to vote for him. The voters are in the driver’s seat. If voters need their butts kicked, the politician should get his/her lip balm/ lipstick ready. Obama had much less popularity in the black community than Hillary Clinton in 2007. What did he do when confronted with his hurdle? Obama begged the black community for votes.

    From Obama’s first rule

    "Find somebody who is not like you, who doesn't look like you, who doesn't think the way you do, who has a set of experiences that you don't – on the surface at least – and share," Obama said.

    Obama had to beg for votes in the black community because he was not the typical black candidate

    From the Economist

    If Mr Obama is unique among American presidents, his biography makes him an outlier among black Americans too. He was descended not from slaves, but from an immigrant African father and a white mother. His mother raised him in Hawaii (just 2% black) and Indonesia. In 2007 Hillary Clinton had much higher favorable ratings among blacks than Mr Obama did. Many of Mr Obama’s earliest prominent supporters were white and Jewish, and indeed he has faced consistent criticism, first as a candidate and then as president, for being too aloof from the black community.


    Obama went toe to toe fighting for the black vote in South Carolina. He begged for votes. He applied Rule No. 1


    Democrats need to follow Obama’s example

    Kiss some black butt

    Let me clarify something. Blacks are not begging for politicians to pay attention to them. Blacks are demanding that politicians pay attention to them. The image of blacks begging public servants for attention is demeaning and I should have made that point from the beginning. Politicians come begging for votes. If the politician’s message connects, voters will turnout (unless the GOP suppresses votes). Politicians are obligated to reach out to voters. Politicians cannot demand that people vote for them. If you are a political party that believes people of a certain ethnic background have to vote for you, your party will die.

    Blacks have been mistreated by political parties before. Democrats had the Klan controlling the party in the South. Democrats were the major party in the South in the past. Blacks in the South voted for Democrats. Democrats blocked Fannie Lou Hamer and The Mississippi Freedom Party. Whites left the Democratic Party after passage of the Civil Rights Act. Republicans were the home of black voters after the Emancipation Proclamation and the end of the Civil War. Republicans invited blacks out of the party when whites objected to too many blacks were in the GOP. There were the Lily-Whites and Blacks and Tans. Republicans again invited blacks out of the GOP with the nomination of Barry Goldwater. Richard Nixon had the Southern Strategy. We now have the full on racism of Donald Trump. Democrats are now talking about wooing white supremacists and identity politics. 

    What do you do when both parties are hostile? Blacks are demanding respect. Screw Democrats if they can’t deliver. Time for Democrats to do some begging.

    Blacks don't need respect from politicians. They need concrete things done, good policies enacted, laws enforced.  If they do it willingly, great, if they come to you, great, if you have to travel 500 miles and shove your arm down their throats and pull it out yourself, not so great but it gets done. Not voting and letting them ignore you quietly? Dumb as dogshit.

    I get where blacks are concerned about respect but its an Achilles heel, like that girl who'll do anything as long as she thinks guys "respect" her, and the number of black charlatan leaders is as legion as any good ones. But blacks have crises and long-term critical needs.

    Most politicians wouldn't respect me, at least not when younger and crazier, and I had fewer problems to worry about - I could afford to ignore them, they could afford to ignore me. Better to stay away from asshole police. But it wasn't existential.

    Democrats need to beg the black community for votes just like Barack Obama begged black voters for votes. Do ignore the black vote is insane. In 2012, blacks voted at a higher rate than whites. Obama did outreach.Talk of identity politics and inviting white supremacists will suppress black votes. If black people are threatening not to vote, the most rational thing. to do is craft a message to encourage people to vote. If you dismiss this subset of the black vote while white voters never vote in the majority for Democrats, you invite disaster.Democrats better kiss black butt.


    Polling shows that black women are not pleased with the Democratic Party. Go ahead, tell these black women to screw themselves and lose. You argue that you will beg for the votes of white supremacists, yet you cast black votes to the side. It is a position that will result in people staying home. Obama got votes out. Perez and Ellison need to take their heads out of their behinds.


    Black votes are there for the taking as Obama showed in 2012. Beg. Democratic Party. Beg.

    I suggest holding your breath til you turn blue - a strategy that's worked so well for so many.

    I won’t be holding my breath. Democratic leadership needs to hold its breath if it thinks alienating its must reliable voter base is wise. We have a nail biter in Virginia because of the stupidity of Democratic leadership. If Northam wins, it will be because blacks came out in support of Justin Fairfax.

    And did Justin Fairfax beg for their votes?


    Even down to his frat brothers

    Edit to add:

    Fairfax went begging for votes in the black community. He overcame being ignored by state party leadership.


    Turns out there's no holding of breath in VA.

    There's this

    Activists eye post-Charlottesville surge in black voting in Virginia

    All eyes are on turnout for Tuesday's gubernatorial race.

    @ Politico.com, Updated 11/05/2017 08:16 AM EST

    and elsewhere:

    4 State Elections That Could Prove How Much Everybody Hates Black Voters

    @ TheRoot.com Nov. 7

    I googled
    Good to see the language there. Not at all what I have been reading here
    That is indeed how this gets done.
    Just like you, all I was ever saying was that if a special interest group feels their issues are not being addressed by a political party, threatening to stay home until you are blue in the face is not the way to get attention. If the NRA members did that, we'd have no problem outlawing guns.
    Furthermore, I just find it offensive to the black members of my family and to my black friends and acquaintances to see one person on the internet continually claim that all blacks are going to do this and all blacks are thinking this and that. That one person on the internet is speaking for all blacks. Whether the point in question is largely true or not!  Though in most cases I can ignore it, at a a certain point I feel I should say something because I think that implying all people with black skin think alike is racist and I hope someday that it's the situation that we don't have to do that in a political context. Makes me cringe that the situation is like that, that we refer to color of skin as a political denominator, that we can even tell how people will vote by the color of their skin. I.E., hopefully some day it will be "working class", not "white working class" and "black working class." I think that day is coming sooner than we think, only because the number of mixed race people in this country is skyrocketing.

    New @ TheRoot.com, making the point of the Dem party losing some black voters a totally different way, not by sitting out the election but running for office as an anti-Dem:

    Meet Shalira Taylor, the Black Trump Supporter Vying for a Cleveland City Council Seat

    By Terrell Jermain Starr, 20 minutes ago

    There are a lot of stereotypes about black folks who back Donald Trump, but Shalira Taylor doesn’t epitomize any of them when you speak to her. For one, she isn’t particularly bombastic in her support of Trump, who is widely seen by the black community as a racist.

    Also, unlike the president she supports, Taylor speaks with compassion when she talks about crime and the practice of overpolicing for crime reduction. As a candidate for Ward 12 representative on the Cleveland City Council in Ohio, Taylor hopes to bring a criminal justice reform-minded approach to the area [.....]

    A lifelong Catholic, Taylor views herself less a Republican (though she is very much active in Cleveland’s GOP scene) and more of a fiscal and social conservative who feels black people have been cheated by the Democratic establishment who takes black people’s votes for granted. Black people in Cleveland have not progressed under Democratic leadership, Taylor believes [.....]

    Like Trump, Shalira asks for your vote by saying what have you got to lose.

    Cut the crap. I’ve got black family too. I post articles and polling to support my position. When I say blacks are threatening to stay home, I provide data. You don’t like my articles. You don’t like placing importance on race. But race appears to be the major factor in Virginia 

    Excepts from your Politico article

     1. But one issue loomed above all. Sharon Williams, a disabled middle-aged woman, mentioned how her mother used to talk about the Ku Klux Klan when she was growing up. Williams thought the stories were just to scare her, until one day she saw some hooded men drive down her street.

    “They’re trying to start that all over again,” Williams said.

    2. Framing a vote as a way to stand up to racism increased willingness to turn out. Now, nearly 90 percent of those contacted by BlackPAC during door-to-door canvassing are willing to sign a pledge card to vote, and organizers said Gillespie’s ads accusing Northam of trying to “erase history" and take down “our statues” are part of the reason why.

    3. BlackPAC’s closing-argument ad uses images of the violent protests in Charlottesville and the civil rights movement.

    “White supremacy stormed into Charlottesville and is being used for political gain,” a female narrator says in the 30-second ad. “We’ve fought too hard for progress to watch it pushed back in the name of Making America Great Again.” 

    That’s a much more direct tack than Northam’s campaign has been willing to take — a sore spot for some Democrats worried that Northam missed an opportunity to sew up the election by focusing his campaign on white moderates instead of African-Americans.

    Steve Phillips, a major donor to the Democratic Party who is also a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said Northam should have talked more about the “most high-profile presidential-backed white supremacist march in this country,” and about affirmative action and criminal justice reform.

    I note that your second link from the Root agrees with what I have been saying

    1. In Virginia, Democrats should have easily leveraged Charlottesville into battle cries, especially when their nominee Ralph Northam’s lieutenant governor hopeful and running mate is the black, young and photogenic Justin Fairfax(who bears the name of the state’s most powerful and wealthiest county). 

    But you barely know that Fairfax exists. And Northam is opting to run flat-ass responses to Gillespie’s (hate to say it) really effective and constantly looping white-fearmongering commercials, along with vanilla campaign ads that exclusively court the same white women who mostly bolted for Trump last year


    If black turnout increases in Virginia that is a good thing. My family in Virginia is voting today despite being disappointed in Northam. At some point, Democrats are going to have to recognize who represents the base of the party and do better and earlier outreach. Democrats can’t rely on Nazis to be the ones driving turnout.

    The Google tells me that the Politico article about outreach is an outlier

    Most articles reflect my position that Democrats need to do a better job with black voters.


    ​Again, I am posting articles to support my position. Your nonsense about my being the lone black voice on this issue is a straw man argument. I note what the articles and polls say. We are not post-racial. 


    The Politico article says this to me: the black activist group BlackPAC has done a great job of presenting to the Democratic party leadership how they can help them win VA by getting out the black vote.

    This is the way the two big tent political parties in this country work.

    Myself, I'd rather see new and more parties and a more parliamentary system. But that's what we got, that's how it works now.

    Threatening to stay home simply does not work. For decades, Democratic-leaning people of all colors don't bother to vote in midterm elections, while older, while more conservative voters consistently show up, rain or shine, is why we get Republican legislatures in Washington D.C. and around the country. Activists win power in the parties and if those activists are strategically smart as well, they win races.

    If Democrats want to win nationwide, they better get their butts into black communities early and often. You see low black turnout and say someone should do something about that. Democratic leadership has to learn that that is what they are supposed to be doing. Your laissez-faire advice will result in losses. If people who have voted are feeling neglected and threatening to stay home, you get out and energize them or you loose. Don’t you want to win?

    Is it more important to prove a point that not voting is bad than it is to get out the vote?

    Nope, not for national races it's like Peracles says upthread:

    swingstates matter - live in California? you'll never see a candidate except for fundraising dinners. Iowa & NH? at least for the primaries they'll be so far up your butt you'll feel them ticklying your tonsils. General elections - move to FL, PA, OH, MI, NC - that's where the action was this year, slightly less in WI and AZ as a longshot.

    That's reality.

    Blacks in Florida will be targeted along with everyone else there, I guarantee it.

    Local races are a whole different story but there is often the gerrymandering problem there too.

    I'm white and glad I don't live in a swing state or even a swing district. Vote all the time, never get courted by politicians with GOTV efforts and like it that way. Think I got two robocalls in my life.

    Like I said upthread, we'd all be better off if voting was required.

    Shortsighted. You energize the base every time. You win local elections down to the school board. You create the bench to produce candidates for higher office.

    Edit to add:

    1.We are not post-racial

    2. Voting is not mandatory

    3. We don’t have a parliamentary system

    Outreach is necessary, even when people threaten not to vote.


    You should encourage your black family members to post at dagblog.

    Basta, prego.

    Why is it that AA can bring her black family members into the discussion but I cannot respond?

    The image of blacks begging public servants for attention is demeaning and I should have made that point from the beginning.

    Yes. I thought it demeaning when it seemed you were basically saying that often. You may not intend your rhetoric to come across that way, but that's the way it has come across to this reader. So it's possible that others are reading your language that way too. If I was just someone stopping by dagblog for first time, I might think you are a Russian bot trying the plant the meme that all Americans with black skin are lazy asses who don't bother to vote unless someone comes to the door and bribes them with promises of social welfare.

    How about something like this: Democratic leadership is ignoring the concerns of black political activists.Works for me.

    See my response above.

    My argument is that whites don’t vote for Democratic Party members, yet the Democrats chase these voters

    From HuffPost 

    Since the 2016 election, all I’ve heard about are rural white voters and how they were so distraught about the economy they elected Trump, even as Republican policies will negatively affect the majority of them. There has been town hall after town hall to talk to these voters, and numerous articles on all the liberal media. It was particularly frustrating because no one went into black communities to ask them why they voted for Hillary. There weren’t numerous op-eds to discuss why the black communities did what they did, because people didn’t care.

    The DNC, in its effort to appease the unappeasable Bernie Sanders and his supporters, have started again chasing these rural white voters, too. The DNC actually created a unity commission with a bunch of people except the people who vote time and time again for Democrats, black voters. Our needs and wants are pushed to the background to make way for fickle, millennial supporters of Bernie Sanders. Now, with an election on the line which will be the first real test of the Trump presidency, Democrats want to lay a loss at the feet of black voters.

    Right now, Northam is polling around 37 percent with white voters. That’s after all the blatant racists’ ads from the Gillespie campaign. Why aren’t white voters coming out to stop the white supremacists in Virginia? Why aren’t they coming out to send a message that Virginia is better than what happened in Charlottesville? Northam is running on expanding Medicaid, sensible gun legislation, investment in schools and infrastructure. This isn’t a “black-centric” platform, so why is his support with white Virginians so low.

    Either way, if Northam squeaks out a win, white voters will be applauded. If Northam loses, black enthusiasm will be blamed. It is mind-boggling that after the 2016 election, the only lesson the democrats have learned is to chase even harder after unicorns: rural white Democrats


    I heard about rural white voters for a couple months; the solliness seems to have subsided a fair bit.

    I link to articles and polls showing black voter’s dissatisfaction with Democrats. Northam’s ham-handedness is a case in point. There are few black voices at dagblog. I support my opinions with links. I am then accused of taking the position of the sole black voice. This is garbage. 

    Regarding outreach, local Democrats say that outreach is important.


    “Part of our perspective in engaging black voters is that it has to be a long-term engagement and it has to start early,” Shropshire said. “The idea of engaging voters and black voters in particular in the final two weeks really isn’t the path to winning long term.”

    “Deep long-term engagement with elections is important, part of the lesson in all of this is we have to start talking to voters earlier.”


    ​Democrats can continue to show up late and lose elections


    Hopefully, black turnout for Justin Fairfax will drag Northam’s behind to victory in Virginia.

    Latest Comments