The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Maiello's picture

    You Can Never Undo Losing an Election

    Picture it... November 2000.  George W. Bush loses the popular vote to Al Gore but is declared President anyway because a Supreme Court made up of key people appointed by George W. Bush’s father decided that vote counting should cease in a state where George W. Bush’s brother was governor.  I was 25 years old.  I thought, for a months, “there’s no way this will be allowed to stand.”

    It was allowed to stand.

    It was so allowed to stand that about halfway through the first year of George W.’s first term, it seemed silly to even still complain about the popular vote.  It was quickly water under the bridge.  I’d been brought up to believe that the possibility of an electoral college victory without at least a plurality of the popular vote was just something that could theoretically happen, not something that would be accepted with a shrug.  I thought maybe W’s election would lead to a reconsideration of the electoral college.


    Guy brought us to a disastrous war on false pretenses and it didn’t even matter.  Heck, he was re-elected.

    Trump lost the popular vote by way more than Bush did.  His electoral college victory was secured by razor slim majorities in a few places.  We had the gerrymandering and the restrictive voter ID laws and the Russians and the sense that the guy who won had never wanted to win in the first place and surely... somebody will do something about the fraudulent president?

    Nope.  We’ve now seen it twice.  It doesn’t matter how you lose an election, it only matters if you lose an election.  My goodness, remember the days when we talked of not “normalizing” this guy as if he’d be gone soon?  I never had much faith in Mueller’s project, by the way.  Impeachment is impossible without a willing Senate and I do think people have given Putin way too much credit as a mastermind.  In 2000, I think Al Gore’s decision to distance himself from the very successful Bill Clinton killed him worse than Ralph Nader did.  He should have won by a wide enough margin that Nader shouldn’t have mattered.  Similarly, Hillary Clinton should have trounced Donald Trump.  The race shouldn’t have been so close that “Fake News” decided it.  But, that’s all over now.

    2020 is coming.  If His Fraudulency wins again, it doesn’t matter how.  Our system protects its winners.




    Well what I am starting to see is that to win, liberals may have to deal with the fact that you need some white men to vote for your candidate. I am seeing that because I just went over to Drudge for the first time in eons, and what do I find there near the top but this grab at a chance to strip Joe of his friend-of-the-working-man brand:


    ‘This is English jurisprudential culture, a white man’s culture’

    Mar 27, 2019 3:33 AM 

    It's a really strong meme out there that the right is playing to the hilt, is all I am saying.

    This one I read yesterday affected me too, it wasn't the usual "Trump voter described" article. It was about Arkansans, Bill Clinton people. Who hate "the swamp", they hate Washington DC and the elites, since way before Trump, they dislike Mueller and they also disliked Ken Starr. They feel they just won one against the elite beast always dissing them. One scholar argues its rooted in Reconstruction. And their kind are very much the electoral college problem.

    ‘Exonerated’: The verdict on Mueller from Trump's heartland by Tara McKelvey, BBC News, Russellville, Arkansas, 26 March 2019

    The wrong candidate who is seen as bashing white men too much and turns off suburban women at the very same time could very well do the trick of Trump (or a substitute if it comes to that) winning again.

    enlightened Maybe forget everything I said above because: If a presidential candidate hasn't paid any can probably run anyone against him who has paid their taxes and win.

    It is a little funny to see Joe Biden rail against the "white men's culture," though.  I think there's a mannequin of him in the window of the White Men's Culture outlet shop off of route 88 in Massasauga.

    It is interesting that Hillary too the backlash for the crime bill, while Bernie got a pass. Kamala is being criticized for her role as a prosecutor, while the police abuse while Booker was mayor has not drawn as much scrutiny.There is a recent NYT article addressing the issue.

    Biden has to apologize for his superpredator comments, just like Hillary.



    Biden is famous for his lead role in crafting the 1994 crime bill, or, as the senator preferred to call it (as recently as 2015), the “1994 Biden Crime Bill.” Some aspects of that legislation remain popular within the Democratic Party — among them, the Violence Against Women Act, a federal assault-weapons ban, and funds for “community oriented” policing. But in 2019 America — a place where our nation’s violent crime rate is near historic lows, while its incarceration rate hovers around world-historic highs — the bill’s broader legacy is ignominious. The Brennan Center succinctly summarized that legacy on the 20th anniversary of the bill’s passage:

    It expanded the death penalty, creating 60 new death penalty offenses under 41 federal capital statutes. It eliminated education funding for incarcerated students, effectively gutting prison education programs. Despite a wealth of research showing education increases post-release employment, reduces recidivism, and improves outcomes for the formerly incarcerated and their families, this change has not been reversed.


    And the bill created a wave of change toward harsher state sentencing policy. That change was driven by funding incentives: the bill’s $9.7 billion in federal funding for prison construction went only to states that adopted truth-in-sentencing (TIS) laws, which lead to defendants serving far longer prison terms. Within 5 years, 29 states had TIS laws on the books, 24 more than when the bill was signed. New York State received over $216 million by passing such laws. By 2000 the state had added over 12,000 prison beds and incarcerated 28 percent more people than a decade before.


    Edit to add:

    Stacey Abrams does not appear interested in running for second place on a Biden ticket




    And Biden voted for the Iraq AUMF, but never ever will he face criticism for that,
    and each year he goes to talk to JP Morgan week plus super close ties to MBNA- guess that's ok -
    and his son Hunter (along with John Kerry's stepson) have a number of questionable
    foreign business deals including ones that seemed to leverage his father's VP access,
    and Joe recently muffed yet again any apology to Anita Hill (putting it all in that
    passive 3rd person ~ "mistakes were made" sotto voice w/o quite acknowledging
    what those mistakes are...

    But i guess he's the Great White Hope for some.

    And interesting snippet on Biden & the War on Drugs (note I usually don't care for Counterpunch, but the personal anecdote was interesting) -

    Oh please. All tax returns already have a government oversight agency, the IRS. If they say something, I'll listen to them. Otherwise, I couldn't care less about a candidate's tax returns.

    What's legal and whether a candidate's returns synch with what a candidate for higher office says and does are two different things. I'll grant you that many Trump supporters would probably be cool with him getting away with not paying anything at all in the past, but not all of them. And turning just some of them would be the key. And he fears that, or he would have done it long ago, as is usual practice.

    No, they don't give a shit - he illegally funneled his inheritance through shell companies to the tune of hundreds of millions shirking his taxes, and the GOP collectively yawns. I'm looking for the arrest, not some social shunning.

    All I was getting at with my original comment is that if his tax filings were made public, there might be adequate support for an impeachment, which right now Dem House leaders judge as too divisive. I was basically referring to him losing a considerable amount of his current approval rating if he was shown to be a recent tax cheat. I am not talking about readers of the NYTimes here, I talking about people who say he's doing an okay job. I don't think I am alone here, I believe that is the main reason the House is asking for them.

    It might cause *some* loss in his base, but I'm not optimistic - they've been pretty tenacious through 2 years of this mess. Again, I'm looking for backing evidence for money laundering crimes, etc. - I figger everything else will look flashy on CNN for 2 days, then be forgotten like the 1000 things that came before. Remember - welching on his taxes "makes me smart".

    While you might think it of little interest, I see the Washington Post thinks it's clickbait, they have this as their headline right now:

    House Democrats seek six years of Trump’s tax returns, setting stage for fight

    “This request is about policy, not politics,” the Ways and Means Committee chairman said. The president has said he does not plan to hand over his tax returns to Congress — and that he would fight it to the Supreme Court, according to two administration officials.

    Nope, Trump won't make it to 2020. The Barr-boozle will buy him a few weeks of pseudo-respite, but the wheels are coming off. The difference with Bush is any illegality he had/did was connected to policy, bad or not. Trump's crimes are mostly just criminal behavior, occasionally with a thin guise of policy as distraction. The investigation has mestasized, spread into too many parts of his corrupt body, his apparatus. That doesn't mean it will be too quick - and sure, he's fighting back. But he's losing, bad. His foundation's being fined $6 million. His lawyer's testifying against him with relish. His shill on the Supteme Court is voting against him. His backers at AMI/National Enquirer have been shut down. The NRA is hemmhoraging money, fundraising stagnant post-Parkland and post-Butina. Fox News is butting heads with him. McConnell shut down his Wall emergency and has gone lukewarm. Most of his cabinet is gone, a few replaced with nameless placeholders - Whitaker was deadlocked, and even his A.G. shill Barr barely got out a transparent cover job that may as well have been a ploy cooked up with Mueller - more damaging than helpful mid-term (even tho carefully technically correct, as Louise Mensch noted). He forced a security clearance for Jared and Ivanka, sealing contempt from the intelligence services. The Never Trump brigades have rebirthed, found their voice. Trump is losing 80% of his court cases. The new House has more and more of his finances while Deutsche Bank is cooperating.

    Screw your courage to the sticking place, or however that saying goes, and damned be he who cries "Hold! Enough!"

    Seems like a scam to get more money into the NRA

    Surely the purpose of a fund-raising letter, but I'd guess they've lost a lot of support the last year.

    NRA does have problems. Aside from the Russia ties, an NRA official sent emails supporting a conspiracy theory to a person known to harass Parkland survivors.

    The NRA is as nutty as the GOP.

    These aren't problems for the right - they're self-promotion and sticking it to the libs.

    FWIW, you might be interested:

    In 2000 I was working for a rich lawyer painting his house. He was center left. Most of the rich doctors and lawyers I was working for at the time were center left. We'd occasionally chat for a bit. A month or two after the Supreme Court selected Bush for president he told me he was surprised how angry he was about it. And how he couldn't let it go. It may not matter how a president is elected. But I sense there's a growing anger about it. That can't last forever. Something has to change or break.

    Maybe we're getting there.  Certainly, Electoral College reform is a more mainstream topic now than it was 19 years ago.  But we're still decades from action, I think.

    It reminds me of the old joke about bankruptcy, 'it happened slowly at first then all at once.' I'm a proponent of the plateau theory. I think gradual change is rare. There may be a slow evolution in changed minds but little change on the policy level. Then a sudden change to a new plateau, a new way of doing things. We don't know when the jump to a new level will happen. One election where the republican won the popular vote and the democrat won the electoral college would change everything. But I'll admit with the current skew in the electoral college that's unlikely

    RNC seems pretty confident Mueller report is not going to hurt but help:

    Rep. Adam Schiff has a powerful response to Republicans defending Trump.


    My colleagues might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think that’s OK.

    “My colleagues might think it’s OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president’s son did not call the FBI; he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help – no, instead that son said that he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians.

    “You might think it’s OK that he took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s OK that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think that’s OK.

    “You might think it’s OK that when it was discovered, a year later, that they then lied about that meeting and said that it was about adoptions. You might think that it’s OK that it was reported that the president helped dictate that lie. You might think that’s OK. I don’t.

    “You might think it’s OK that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that’s OK, I don’t.

    “You might think it’s OK that that campaign chairman offered polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don’t think that’s OK.

    “You might think it’s OK that the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, if they were listening. You might think it’s OK that later that day, in fact, the Russians attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don’t think that’s OK.

    “You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don’t think that’s OK.

    “You might think it’s OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, that is considered a hostile intelligence agency. You might think it’s OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say in terms of dirt on his opponent.

    “You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser designate secretly conferred with the Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s OK that he lied about it to the FBI.

    “You might say that’s all OK, that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s OK. I don’t think it’s OK. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt – and evidence of collusion.”

    That's a pretty damn nice summary. A lot more understandable than Barr's, and morr related to the evidence we knew even without Mueller.

    The video that accompanies Schiff’s response should be required viewing. 

    House Dems have made at least one fabulous hire on this:


    So here's what Never Trumpers are saying:

    My favorite part: 

    GOP consultants and elected officials know that Trump’s secret weapon was weaponizing grievances. They desperately want this to be a culture-war election.

    But it doesn’t need to be. Kamala, Bernie, Elizabeth and others: How can you guys not get this?

    Your base is so fired up that they’ll kick down doors to vote. They’ll crawl over broken glass. They’re all in, all done, and ready to kick Trump’s orange ass to the curb.

    This isn’t about revving up your base. Trump does that for you with every manic tweet and every cruel act and gives you the rarest of luxuries in the American political landscape: the chance to talk to the middle, not the edge, and to do so from early on.

    Winning the AOC primary is all the rage, but in poll after poll voters tell us what they want their elected leaders to talk about and focus on. Even the big-picture issues Democrats think are game-changing winners often come with massive electoral trade-offs.

    After four years of lying and kleptocracy, 2020 presents Democrats with a chance to recapture the center on markets, opportunity and freedom. Trump has ceded every single one of these areas. Those traditional Republican strengths have been blown apart by Trumpism: crony capitalism, lobbyist giveaways, and a D.C. swamp that’s dirtier than ever are killer apps in 2020. 

    the following is good, too, by J.D. Scholten  a former Democratic candidate for Iowa's 4th Congressional District. He lost to Republican incumbent Rep. Steve King by 3 points. (I especially like the label he uses that's a new one to me: "Dollar General Districts". This applies not just to farm rural as he does here, nor rust belt alone.  Anyone who has traveled outside of major urban areas recently knows what kind of town or area that means when there are Dollar General stores allover the place and little else but Domino's; they are allover the country, they exist even in the southern tri-state NYC area. )

    Democrats still need rural voters to defeat Trump

    BY J.D. SCHOLTEN, Opinion Contributor — 03/31/19 05:00 PM EDT @\

    [....]To win back the White House, Democrats can’t just rely on “Whole Foods” districts of educated, affluent suburbanites. Democrats can do well in “Dollar General” districts if they show up and address the issues. No one gave me much of a chance against when I ran againt Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), but I only lost by 3 points in a district President Trumpwon by 27 points. Often overlooked in the discussion about how Democrats can recreate the “Obama Coalition” of minorities, young folks and educated suburbanites is that he took 41 percent of the rural vote in 2008. Hillary Clinton only received 29 percent in 2016. Democrats may not win in rural America, but they surely cannot get blown out.

    Democrats should focus on how corporate consolidation and lack of antitrust enforcement was squeezing farmers on both the input side and output side, issues central to my own campaign. Seed prices have tripled in the last 20 years as our government, under both parties, allowed three big seed companies to control the market, with Bayer taking over Monsanto and DuPont merging with Dow Chemical. Meanwhile, four companies control 85 percent of the meat industry, two of which are foreign-owned by Brazil and China.

    Iowa has also seen the devastating loss [....]

    Kind of amazed at all the left groups this self-described "Staunch Democrat" tweeted Locke's tweet to, he obviously felt strongly that Wilson was saying things that they should be thinking about and are not:

    this poll graph showing a massive generation gap on the Dem primary frontrunners actually made me laugh (made me think of how my parents must have felt when as a 14 yr. old I was a big Gene McCarthy supporter!  I do remember my dad saying no he couldn't put the poster up at work and me being disappointed he was so lily-livered....cheeky)

    Last 3 live interviewer national primary polls: Biden overall - 28%, 31%, 29%. Under age 45 (or 50 in last case): 19, 19, 22. Biden age 45+ (or 50+ in last case): 36, 41, 37. Attached is Sanders/Biden support by generation. Age so far is the KEY breakdown of this primary season

    — (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) April 2, 2019

    related discussion on topic on another thread in case you are interested

    (it's like dejasvus alloveragin hanging chads thing as far as I am concerned....wink)

    Axelrod on Sanders tax returns:

    Would "fuck you, I dont wanna" be any clearer?

    Nate Silver making a crucial point on topic, mho:

    Too much 13-dimensional chess among 25 candidates.

    True, but strikes me in that situation, instinctual is good, is it not? Go with your gut and be who you are? 25 consultant-created plastic Ken and Barbies is surely not going to work?

    Edit to add: like I have opined before, Bernie's instinctively being the real Bernie: cranky old guy mad at the world, the "fuck you" answers included. As Dana Milbank pointed out here, that very strong part of him is not exactly an alternative to Trump.

    Here's a reminder on reality and realistic expectations:

    "compared to what?" indeed. My favorite part of his entry is bringing up the gerrymandering thing. I'd so like to say to those passionate about racism or white privilege or some other culture wars thing like 1980's minstrel costumes or  too close hugging: EYES ON THE PRIZE. And that prize is: redistricting fairly. Then you'll be in a real democracy.

    Perfect example how Israel/Palestine can easily be played tit for tat for a zero sum game if there is a smart person retorting. Despite Trump's horrifically Nazi-like tweet, a follow up like this makes it all better, returns it to zero sum game:

    WH spokesman @hogangidley45 on Beto O'Rourke's "Third Reich" comparison:

    — Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) April 6, 2019

    Is it all true? No. Doesn't matter. This is how the game is played.This is why I yelled nooooo when I saw Rep. Omar raising the issue the way she did. It was just going to feed the culture wars trolling. May the smartest troll "win" who is less appalling to the swings. Palestinians or Israelis? Forget them, they have nothing to do with it. This is contest to see who really supports the worst victims and who doesn't. It's all about why Godwin's Law was invented.

    Sad but not unexpected to me what I read elsewhere that she's getting death threats now. The idjits have been riled and she has let herself be labeled "that kind of Muslim". When just a little less snark would have avoided it all.

    Roseanne Cash on #MeToo and touring and the music industry and when we can & can't forgive...
    (not sure how convincing guys speaking up about how harmless male behavior is - one female reporter can remember when a brash up-and-coming presidential candidate called her "sweetie" - no one knows her name, or at least outisde of Michigan, but I imagine it hurts to this day even though he didn't rub her shoulders or giver her a peck on the cheek - he sucked out her pride as a professional, made her just some girl cub reporter for the high school paper).

    As Cash notes, this isn't a "job" - it's her life as an artist - she was enrolled in the "Tower of Song" before she was even aware. There's not really a choice to quit.


    Mayor Pete Buttigieg campaigns in Concord, NH: "Where is it written that a so-called red state, red county, has to be red forever? They didn't start out Republican, they don't have to be Republican in the future."

    — The Hill (@thehill) April 8, 2019

    I can answer that because I learned it @ dagblog: they are all hopeless racists and we don't need their vote. cheeky

    The point is that Trump’s racism does not make his supporters hesitate to cast a vote for him.

    Bernie calls Trump a racist

    Kamala calls Trump a racist

    Trump’s racist remarks boosted down ballot Republicans in 2016

    Democrats focus on GOTV to out vote those who have no problem voting for a racist.

    Democrats are mounting GOTV in rural areas





    It's also clear Trump's campaign strategy is border racism border racism border, chaos, cages, tear gas, MS 13, ....on his trip there last Friday he instructed agents to break the law:


    CNN Behind the scenes, two sources told CNN, the President told border agents to not let migrants in. Tell them we don't have the capacity, he said. If judges give you trouble, say, "Sorry, judge, I can't do it. We don't have the room."

    After the President left the room, agents sought further advice from their leaders, who told them they were not giving them that direction and if they did what the President said they would take on personal liability. 


    Trump is obsessed with keeping the racism and fear going as he has nothing else to run on. Judges and "liberals" stopping ICE "heroes" from unlawful, rogue actions, would be fodder for relentless Trump twitter attacks over "open border" Democrats.

    We cannot treat Trump and his supporters as normal. Trump refers to asylum seekers as an infestation. People who support Trump cannot wash their hands from what is happening. Trump is a racist.

    Democrats are doing outreach. Trump has slandered minorities He has given classified information to Russians. He loves dictators. He wants to go back to kidnapping babies at the border. In the midterms, Democrats were able to reach out to rational people. They will continue to do outreach, but don’t expect large results from people who in April 2020 say that they still support Trump. Perhaps their tax returns will change their minds.

    Don't fall for the trolling this time. Ain't gonna happen. Is just red med kabuki for the fans, even many of them know it's kabuki show, they don't care, they just want to see someone pretend.

    Again, ain't gonna happen. Maybe one third to half of GOP is pro-immigrant as well. Last GOP first lady was horrified at family separation policy.Trump having usual loony temper tantrum. Furthermore, a lot of the left of center commentariat I am seeing on Twitter about Nielsen is "good riddance"....

    Before we say good riddance I want to see who replaces her. That sigh of relief is often followed by a gasp of horror.

    Ain't gonna happen:

    Behind the scenes, two sources told CNN, the President told border agents to not let migrants in. Tell them we don't have the capacity, he said. If judges give you trouble, say, "Sorry, judge, I can't do it. We don't have the room."

    After the President left the room, agents sought further advice from their leaders, who told them they were not giving them that direction and if they did what the President said they would take on personal liability. You have to follow the law, they were told. [.....]

    According to multiple sources, the President wanted families separated even if they came in at a legal port of entry and were legal asylum seekers. The President wanted families separated even if they were apprehended within the US. He thinks the separations work to deter migrants from coming.

    Sources told CNN that Nielsen tried to explain they could not bring the policy back because of court challenges, and White House staffers tried to explain it would be an unmitigated PR disaster.

    "He just wants to separate families," said a senior administration official. 

    Last night, on the second floor of the East Wing of the White House residence -- in a room called the yellow oval -- Nielsen, Mulvaney and the President met. Nielsen tried to present a path forward that was legal and in compliance with US laws but the President said to her, "This isn't working." And Nielsen did not disagree.

    "At the end of the day," a senior administration official said, "the President refuses to understand that the Department of Homeland Security is constrained by the laws."

    from Jake Tapper's behind the scenes leak fest @ CNN, April 8, 4:33 pm

    It's gonna be Jared vs. Stephen Miller and whoever wins manipulating the nut case will work with the Senate Committee. They have to approve any nomination. They are not going to cut their own throat. Whoever is the new nominee will have to follow the law. Trump meanwhile can continue to rant about the judges and separating families or whatever so that his fans will think he is putting on a nice kayfabe show for them, against "the swamp."

    God I hate this terminology. No, he doesn't "refuse to understand" - he's a fucking lawbreaker and he's intent on breaking any law as long as he thinks it helps him. And he so often gets away with it - even if reversed, he buys time and chaos by being a criminal prick.

    I wonder about that, it's just that so often I see stuff like this where there's not exactly a criminal genius mind at work:

    Well, sure, but if Trump puts in some little tinhorn to gum up the works, doesn't quite matter if it's encoded in law - they'll slow down the imports anyway through misinterpreting that law & then it has to go to a court to decide, and then they'll misinterpret *that* decision, lather, rinse, repeat until someone finally puts sanctions on the decision.

    If it's immigration, well, Trump controls the executive branch, illegal orders or not, and that's even harder than a country like Mexico contesting - it's the ACLU or other advocacy group that has to fight.

    If it's releasing taxes, at least it's Congress with quite a lot of its own power, ability to subpoena, etc.

    The people who voted for Trump and were horrified by the kidnappings at the border have already left the GOP. 

    Trump approval is at 42.3%

    drives me nuts how all your rhetoric, and seemingly all your thinking is oriented, to how everyone in this country is required to belong to, declare allegiance to, one party or the other

    July 2016, before Trump elected: The share of independents in the United States stands at its highest point in more than 75 years of public opinion polling...Independents outnumber either Democrats or Republicans.....

    You come off as so extremely partisan, if not tribal too, in any analysis; hence I have a tendency to trust zero of your analysis of any political situation.

    Trump has actually caused a terrible schism in the GOP. They haven't all suddenly been sold on the Dems.

    Furthermore, when a citizen tell the pollster that they generally approve of a president's performance, that does not mean they like everything he/she does. Nor does it mean they keep up with everything he/she is doing, a large percentage of those answering favorably may not know much about that at all. Generally approval rating is known to be highly affected by it's the economy stupid and jobs jobs jobs

    So basically I get the impression you still think that Dem candidates should give up on not a third, but 42% of the population. From what you've been saying here, that's the impression I get.

    I am a partisan. I am a Democrat. I noted that Democrats are working to GOTV. I also noted that Democrats are reaching out to rural communities. They obviously reach out to the white working class. They reach out to minority communities. Using these methods, Democrats did better than expected in 2018.

    Obviously, Independents broke for the Democrats

    Given that the 42.3% sticks with Trump through all the atrocities, what message do you have to appeal to them?

    We are not Rwanda

    In Rwanda, talk shows referred to people as”cockroaches” and other people were silent. In the United States, when Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, and Jeanine Pirro spew hatred, they are called out. Trump supporters stay silent when he calls immigrants an infestation. Thankfully, there are people who call him out. Trump is a racist. His supporters cannot claim ignorance. They know that he is a racist and they simply don’t care. Thank goodness for the partisans who speak out and resist.

    Watch William Barr testify today and you will see a man willing to cover up the evil deeds of Donald Trump. There are no respectable Republicans who will speak out. The people with a conscience have left the GOP. Trump, Steven Miller, and Mulvaney are the Republican Party now. William Barr is a member in good standing.

    Note: Susan Collins will cry crocodile tears, but she will vote with Trump.

    Edit to add:

    Israel is at a similar crossroads. Re-electing Netanyahu means that a significant number of Israelis are comfortable with his racism.

    We cannot turn a blind eye.

    that didn't take long:  Trump says he's 'not looking' to restart family separation immigration policy

    President also falsely claimed ‘Obama separated children’ as White House plans to remove more homeland security personnel

    @ TheGuardian. com, with video clip, 9 Apr 2019 15.12 EDT

    Donald Trump has said he will not reinstate the widely-condemned policy of separating children from parents who had illegally crossed the US-Mexico border, amid concerns over a renewed hardening of the White House’s stance on immigration.

    “We’re not looking to do that,” the president told reporters on Tuesday before a meeting with Egypt’s president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, adding a raft of criticisms of US immigration policy and Congress [....]

    I'm starting to surmise how this flip flop thing works. He has a temper tantrum about some policy and also may blurt out about it publicly, via Twitter or in blathering off topic to a gaggle. Then if the White House leakers who don't think it is wise are savvy about which outlets they leak to about his temper tantrum (Jared is that you?) he gets angry at how he is depicted in "the lying media" as being out of control, and just to prove the "lying media" wrong, he flip flops on it....Nobody can tell him what to do. But they can manipulate him like a pre-schooler if they just do it right.

    Here’s the key point: The 2018 elections did not make the Democrats a more left-wing party. It had the opposite effect: A large share of the new Democrats in the House hails from districts — many of them suburban — that in the past would have happily elected Republicans with moderate-to-progressive inclinations.

    ~ liberal op-ed writer E. J. Dionne, March 3, in A bigger challenge to Democrats than socialists: Their liberal Republicans 

    And do check out Dionne's embedded link there if you have WaPo access. It's his op-ed from Feb. 20: A very British lesson for the American left, with an illustration labelled: Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn speaks at the EEF Manufacturers Conference in London on Tuesday

    Very interesting memes here. I would think you would find it interesting too, Michael:

    Wow, some really impressive walking by Trump. It's inspiring. But I think there's a better choice.




    That really is amazing in how emotionally manipulative it is as far as the inspirational.  I dare anyone not to be stirred watching it! Impossible not to get at least a little verklempt. Movie making is really somethin'

    The MAGA film, on the other hand, in comparison, looks even more glaringly bitter about supposed slights by the some supposed elite bogeymen --- the determined "walking" is about "we'll show them."

    Wondering wassup with this!  Fox News has basically done a summary of Politico Magazine's story on how  ‘Liz Was a Diehard Conservative’ Elizabeth Warren doesn’t like to talk about it, but for years she was a registered Republican. Why she left the GOP—and what it means for her campaign. and embellished it with a few things and posted it on their site as Elizabeth Warren described as ‘diehard conservative’ in school. And even though the story is only 55 min. old, it's now the #2 "trending" story on the Fox site.

    Fox is providing cover for a coup attempt by Trump. Anything to divert his followers from his illegal acts. It is filler.

    Where Fox points, bottrolls will follow. Don't get simpler.

    11,122 shares: Kamala Harris: 'I am a gun owner' for personal protection @ April 11

    throw another one on the pile:

    Oh jeez. Everybody in Virginia hated this asshole. They just hated the republican he ran against more.

    I'm even willing to hold my nose and vote Biden if it'll get us through this awful constitutional/societal crisis & prevent the GOP from taking tje White House. Even though I think Obama's "don't make waves" approach helped get us here (I don't think Hillary would have been so sanguine taking their shit, while Joe just wants to be nice middle-class Joe, pretty easy to buy off).

    Though maybe Pete or someone else is a better safety choice - can't quite get going back to the 80's/90's.

    James who? winkThe Politicians Who Love “Ulysses”

    By Kevin Dettmer @, April 23, 3:20 P.M.

    [...] Pete Buttigieg and Beto O’Rourke have gone out of their way, in interviews and public events, to embrace the Irish master; Joe Biden has been name-dropping and crypto-quoting him for year. As a Joyce scholar, I have a Google alert for the author, and the notifications typically skew plagiaristic (offering term papers on, say, Joyce’s story “Araby”). But, during the past few weeks, I have been inundated with stories from Vulture, the Irish Times, the Washington PostVogue, and Esquire discussing the candidates’ positions on “Ulysses” and “Finnegans Wake.”

    Buttigieg’s Joyceolatry comes across as the best informed and the most authentic. I’ve known how to spell (if not how to pronounce) “Buttigieg” for a long time, because Mayor Pete’s father, Joseph A. Buttigieg, was a literary scholar who wrote a book about Joyce’s “A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.” Taking that volume down from my shelf the other day, I saw that Buttigieg writes in the preface that “our son Peter Paul has contributed an uncommon measure of patience and tolerance” to the writing of the book. It was published in 1987, when Pete was five—patience and tolerance were no small thing [....]

    Edit to add: I was going to make a crack along the lines of "is this some kind of elite Irish Illuminati kind of thing?". However I took a moment and checked Wikipedia for Pete Buttigieg, I see I'd have to drop the Irish part: His father, an immigrant from ĦamrunMalta, initially studied to be a Jesuit priest before immigrating to the United States and embarking on a secular career as professor of literature at The University of Notre Dame at South Bend.[12][13] The surname Buttigieg is Semitic; "alab (الآب)" meaning "father" in Arabic and "tiġieġ" meaning "poultry" in Maltese.[14]His mother was a professor at Notre Dame for 29 years.[15]


    “He’s the one Dem candidate who appeals to the white working-class voters who handed the election to Trump—and could hand 2020 to Biden instead.”

    @ Vanity Fair, April 24

    The Onion just put another stake in John Hickenlooper:

    Latest Comments