#this was right around the time of the obama-mccain election too so we were at the end of

[alphacrone]

my villain origin story is that my tenth grade english teacher misunderstood the ending of 1984 and argued with me over it in front of the entire class and would not even consider that i was right (i was)

#winston doesn’t die physically he dies mentally the bullet in his brain is a metaphor!!!!!! #she was like idk why they didn’t kill him at the end of the movie adaptation and i was like???? #bc they didn’t have to???? that’s the point????? #the govt doesn’t have to kill you physically to stop you #they kill your mind and spirit #this was right around the time of the obama-mccain election too so we were at the end of #eight years of dubya and cheney so i was i suppose an annoying radicalized 15 year old #but still like idk how you can read an obvious metaphor and take it so literally #it’s almost a throwaway line #she was still one of my favorite teachers but i never forgave her for this #i suppose no teacher wants an insufferable know it all to call them out in front of everyone #but she was making herself look bad first

[xhxhxhx]

At the end of June, the New York Times national poll had Joe Biden ahead of Donald Trump nationally by a 14-point national margin and in battleground states by smaller but substantial margins.

Last week, the Times is profiling voters in battleground states who voted for Trump in 2016, but don’t support him now. Most of his 2016 voters still support him -- 86 percent -- but a small but critical number don’t. 

6 percent say they don’t support Trump and there’s no chance they’ll support him again. That small share is enough to flip Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Florida, and with it, the election.

I’m posting this here because these voters’ reasons surprised me. 

I expected the economy to be critical to these voters. The United States is in a deep recession, with a 13 percent unemployment rate and more out of the labor market. GDP fell sharply and will fall further.

Although the federal government has supported families -- personal disposable income is actually up this year -- spending has fallen sharply, businesses have closed, and many employees have been permanently laid-off. 

Those are the sort circumstances that cost leaders elections. Nixon lost to Kennedy, Carter lost to Reagan, Bush lost to Clinton, and McCain lost to Obama largely because their party held office during a recession. 

If anything, this more severe recession should have focused attention on the economy and persuaded Trump’s voters to switch. But these voters focused on something else: race.

The Times found that Trump “lost voters because of his handling of the growing movement against police brutality and entrenched racism”:

More than 80 percent of those who won’t vote for him again say that Mr. Biden would do a better job on race relations or unifying America. Of the Trump voters who have not ruled out voting for him again, only around 10 percent said they trusted Mr. Biden to do a better job on race relations.

I would have assumed that the switchers would have been more college-educated or younger, but they weren’t. They were similar to his supporters in their age, education, and race.

Their differences were about beliefs, especially about race. Half of them believed that Trump would be worse than Biden on the economy, but four-fifths of them believed that he would be worse on race.

The Times spoke to one of the switchers:

Cathleen Graham, 53, a nurse who lives in a mostly white suburb of Grand Rapids, Mich., has had very different life experiences, but came to the same conclusion. She said she had been shocked to learn how much racism still existed.

“I understand the movement and why it’s going on a lot better than I did than when the gentleman was kneeling at the football game,” she said, referring to Colin Kaepernick. “Even speaking up to support it, I’ve lost friends, friends that were crude, and I was like, ‘How can you even think that of another race?’”

Mr. Trump fits in that category, she said. She plans to vote for Mr. Biden.

Nearly everything about this surprised me. 

It surprised me that the economy was not more decisive for switchers. It surprised me that race was decisive. And more than anything, it surprised me that race helped Biden, and hurt Trump.

It surprised the Times’s Nate Cohn, too:

Michael Barbaro  So what about the second big issue that you said voters disapprove of the president’s management of, which is race and the protests over race and policing?

Nate Cohn  Right. Just a whole spectrum of different issues relating to race and criminal justice and the protests, the president’s ratings are even worse on those issues than they are on the coronavirus. And here again, the president has this fundamental disconnect with the electorate, where his priorities aren’t the same as theirs. I mean, we asked whether they would rather have a candidate who says that we need to be tough on protests that go too far, or whether they would rather have a candidate who says we need to focus on the cause of protests, even when they go too far. And voters said, by a 40-point margin, that they would rather have the candidate who focuses on the cause of the protests, even when they’re going too far. And it’s also including a significant number of people who backed the president.

Michael Barbaro  So the gulf between how the president is talking about these protests and how voters across the battleground states are thinking about these protests is enormous.

Nate Cohn  Yeah. And I wouldn’t have guessed that, personally.

I wouldn’t have guessed it either. I wouldn’t have guessed that white American Trump voters would come around on Trump and race. I worried they might be beyond persuasion. 

I worried the protests wouldn’t work. I thought they would open an old wound and turn white Americans against Black and Brown Americans. I worried they would end like the last wave of protests, in disappointment and reaction. 

I am as surprised as anyone that the protests did something else: They changed minds. They made a small number of Americans change their minds and embrace something better.   

That made me a little more hopeful about America.

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

Losing candidates of the last 60 years

1960: Richard Nixon, Vice President (1953 - 1961), unsuccessfully ran for governor of California in 1962 after which he threw a piss baby shit fit press conference where he vowed to retire from politics, but rescinded that vow to run for president again in 1968, this time successfully because the Democratic vote was split between liberal northerner Hubert Humphrey and conservative southerner George Wallace (Nixon won with 43.4% of the vote, a record low not broken until Bill Clinton with 43.0% in 1992)

1964: Barry Goldwater, Senator from Arizona (1953 - 1965, 1969 - 1987), segregationist, staunch "states rights" activist, mentor to Ronald Reagan, father of modern conservatism, retired in the 80s, replaced by the more moderate John McCain

1968: Hubert Humphrey, Vice President (1965 - 1969), former senator from Minnesota (49 - 64) father of modern liberalism, would be considered a progressive by today's standards, pro-civil rights, later re-elected to the senate (71 - 78, died in office).

1968b: George Wallace, governor of Alabama (63 - 67), staunch segregationist, made Barry Goldwater look like MLK, famously stood on the school house door to try and stop integration, didn't let black people vote, nearly assassinated in 1972, paralyzed, continued serving as governor (71 - 79, 83 - 87), renounced racism later in life, claimed he was never truly racist, just pretended to be because he supported "states rights" (bullshit). Most recent third-party candidate to win a state.

1972: George McGovern, senator from South Dakota (63 - 81), lost every state but Massachusetts and DC, in part because President Nixon cheated (Watergate scandal, Nixon hired goons to wiretap DNC and steal intel from their HQ, forged a letter to discredit strong candidate Edmund Muskie to he would drop out and give the nomination to weak McGovern, tried to plant McGovern's campaign literature in Wallace's assassins apartment so conservative southerners would associate the attack with the Democratic Party and vote for Nixon instead)

1976: Gerald Ford, President (74 - 77), Republican House leader (65 - 73), became VP in 73 after Spiro Agnew resigned due to a bribery scandal. Democrats controlled Congress, so Nixon nominated Ford because he was a popular bipartisan mediator who the Democrats wouldn't object to, became president when Nixon himself resigned due to Watergate (Ford is the only president who was never elected to the presidency of vice presidency), started out super popular but tanked his credibility when he pardoned Nixon for his crimes

1980: Jimmy Carter, President (77 - 81), governor of Georgia (71 - 75), elected as a Washington outsider, humble peanut farmer, boring, malaise, fumbled Iran thrice (the revolution, recession, and hostage crisis), lost re-election to actor turned governor Ronald Reagan (segregationist Goldwater's protege; started his career giving anti-union speeches in the 60s despite being the president of the Screen Actor's Guild, a major union), had a much more successfully post-presidency than presidency, Habitat for Humanity, philanthropy

1984: Walter Mondale, Vice President (77 - 81), Senator from Minnesota (64 - 76), protege and successor to Hubert Humphrey, decent man, very boring, lost every state but Minnesota and DC, would later become ambassador to Japan under Clinton (93 - 96)

1988: Michael Dukakis, governor of Massachusetts (75 - 79, 83 - 91), army specialist (55 - 57), rode in a tank wearing a bullet proof vest and doofy headphones, looked like an idiot, actually polled ahead of VP Bush for a while, forgettable

1992: George HW Bush, President (89 - 94), VP (81 - 89), relatively moderate before becoming Reagan's VP (referred to trickle down as "voodoo economics"), said "read my lips, no new taxes," then raised taxes, oversaw Gulf War, sent the troops in, Iraq retreated without a fight, war was over in a couple days. Didn't invade Iraq, didn't topple Saddam; his son claims this is why he lost re-election, so he invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam in 2003, to finish what his daddy started. Faced opposition from both Democrats under Clinton and Independents under Perot; Perot didn't win a single state, but took 19% of the vote, the strongest third-party campaign all century

1992b: Ross Perot, businessman, independent, very strong candidate, qualified for debates with the major party candidates, closest thing to a 3-way race we've had since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 (Wallace won some states in 68, but only had regional appeal; he was only on the ballot in the South, only conservatives liked him, whereas Perot was a nationwide spoiler)

1996: Bob Dole, senator from Kansas (69 - 96) senate majority leader (85 - 87, 95 - 96), fought in WW2, has a bum arm, the senate's version of Newt Gingrich, helped defeat Clinton's healthcare plan (he's part of the reason we can't have nice things). He was VP candidate under Ford in 76; Ford's VP Rockefeller was too liberal (yes, liberal Republicans used to exist, just as conservative Democrats exist), so Ford replaced him with the conservative Dole to appeal to Nixon and Reagan voters (Reagan almost unseated Ford in 76 for the nomination)

1996b: Ross Perot again, Reform Party, didn't get nearly as much support this time around (only 8.4%)

2000: Al Gore, Vice President (93 - 01), senator from Tennessee (85 - 93), very boring, but competent, actually won the election but Bush's brother was governor of Florida and illegally stopped the recount, delaying it until it was too late to restart it (subsequent investigation shows Gore would have won the recount and therefore the presidency), used his post-VP career to be a climate change advocate

2004: John Kerry, senator for Massachusetts (1985 - 2013), unremarkable but competent, lost because Bush started 2 wars and the country didn't want to change horses midstream, later became Secretary of State under Obama (13 - 17), and climate envoy under Biden (a position Biden made up to try and appeal to green advocates, but it doesn't really mean anything because he opposes the green new deal)

2008: John McCain, senator from Arizona (1987 - 2018, died in office), succeeded Goldwater but not nearly as conservative (at least, not a segregationist; he defended Obama as "a good man" when a Karen called him an Arab, got booed for it), Vietnam veteran, war monger (wanted to bomb Iran after Bush bombed Iraq and Afghanistan), actually saved healthcare by voting against Trump and McConnell's Obamacare repeal (he didn't support Obamacare, he just didn't want millions of Americans to lose their insurance; the Republicans didn't have a replacement plan, they were solely dedicated to getting rid of Obama's)

2012: Mitt Romney, governor of Massachusetts (03 - 07), relative moderate (Massachusetts is the bluest state in the country), super Mormon, hates poor people, kind of racist in a grandfatherly way ("oh, peepaw doesn't hate black people, he just grew up in a different era"), once wore brown face to try and appear tan to Hispanic voters, later became senator from Utah (2019 - present), first senator to ever vote to convict a president of their own party in impeachment (twice!)

2016: Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State (09 - 13), senator from New York (01 - 09), First Lady (93 - 01), boring gramma, disingenuous, moderate but pretends to be progressive, wasn't responsible for Benghazi but blamed for it anyway, out of touch, thinks she's the hottest shit since sliced bread, coasted to second place because she thought she didn't have to try, thought she deserved to be President, actually won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college because of low voter turnout, high third-party media coverage, and a major rightward swing in the Rust Belt

2020: Donald Trump, president (17 - 21), no prior experience, dumbest person to ever hold the office (makes George W Bush look like. Rhode's Scholar), diet Fascist: all the ideology, none of the appeal (fascists are usually good speakers, but Trump only had a base of about 35 - 40% of the country, which he couldn't grow, so instead he tried to shrink the opposition by attacking voting rights and calling the election fraudulent), super racist, super sexist, petty, vindictive, cruel, childish, spent the first two years just undoing everything Obama did for no other reason than he just hated the man (there are legitimate reasons to hate Obama, but Trump chose racism and jealousy over valid criticism), first president to be impeached twice, first president to have members of his own party vote to convict him, had a cult-like following among Republicans, close to zero support from everyone else

2024: TBD

#elections #history #American history #us history #long post

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Former Vice President and presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden announced Sen. Kamala Harris as his running mate today. Here’s a look at what this choice means and … what it doesn’t.

It’s a historic choice, with the potential for even more history to be made.

Harris is the first Asian American and the first Black woman in American history to be a general election candidate for president or vice president for either of the two major political parties. (Harris’s mother was born in India, her father in Jamaica. They met as graduate students at the University of California at Berkeley, in the 1960s.) Harris is just the second Black person (after Barack Obama) and the fourth woman (after Democrats Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and Hillary Clinton in 2016, and Republican Sarah Palin in 2008) to be on a presidential ticket for one of the two major parties. If she and Biden win the November election, she would be the first Asian American, the first woman of any race or ethnicity and the second Black person in U.S. history to be vice president or president.

Harris’s selection is the latest sign of the increasing diversity of the Democratic Party. Democrats last had an all-white, all-male ticket in 2004, with then Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards. This vice presidential process, with Biden committing to choosing a woman fairly early on and then choosing a Black woman, suggests the Democrats may rarely in the future have a ticket of two white men. They may also rarely in the future have a ticket of two white people (as in 2016 with Clinton and Tim Kaine) or two men (as in 2012, with Obama and Biden).

It’s another illustration of the power of Black Americans in the Democratic Party.

A clear plurality of Black voters favored Biden throughout 2019, helping keep the former vice president near the top of polls through most of the Democratic primary race. Black voters in South Carolina and then other states, particularly in the South, strongly supported Biden and played a key role in his winning the nomination despite lackluster showings in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada.

After it was clear Biden would be the party’s nominee, a lot of prominent Black Democrats — mostly notably Rep. James Clyburn, the highest-ranking Black Democrat in the House — pushed for Biden to pick a Black woman as his running mate. With Harris’s selection, their wish was granted.

It’s another defeat for the party’s left wing.

With Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren losing the nomination contest, many liberal activists pushed Biden to pick Warren as his running mate. They were unsuccessful. Harris has a fairly liberal voting record in the Senate, but she’s not nearly as far to the left as Warren. Harris hasn’t called for the breakup of Facebook, for example, or supported a wealth tax.

The Democratic Party is moving left ideologically. But liberal activists may have a hard time getting their main policy goals adopted, even if Democrats control the House, Senate and the presidency next year. The most important figures in Washington in 2021 might be Biden, Harris, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer, all of whom have kept some distance from the party’s left wing.

Let’s pause there for a moment. I could have made the preceding three points — the history of the selection, the power of Black voters and the loss for the Left — and even used nearly the exact same words in some of those sections if Biden had selected one of the other Black women who was reportedly being considered for vice president. That list includes former Georgia House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams, Rep. Karen Bass, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, Rep. Val Demings and former National Security Adviser Susan Rice.

The implications of Harris’s selection, however, become more complicated when you look at Harris specifically, as opposed to the selection of a Black woman more generally. So here’s what’s not clear:

We don’t know if Harris will help or hurt Biden win the general election.

Research suggests that the electoral impact of vice presidential candidates is fairly limited. I would expect Harris to follow the same pattern. Harris is a sitting senator who was competent during the debates she participated in during the 2020 Democratic primary process, so she is unlikely to make huge gaffes that raise questions about why Biden selected her (in the way that Palin became a problem for John McCain in 2008). At the same time, a senator from California doesn’t provide an obvious electoral boost in a key swing state. Also, overall, Harris wasn’t a particularly effective candidate when she ran for president last year.

So the most likely outcome is that Harris’s selection doesn’t change much — either Biden keeps his current lead and wins the presidency or Trump comes back based on factors that don’t have a lot to do with Harris. But politics is dynamic, so I’m not sure that prediction will come true.

We don’t know if Harris will boost the ticket with Black voters.

I don’t want to downplay Harris’s Indian American roots. But Black voters are expected to account for about 13 percent of the expected 2020 electorate, a much bigger share than Asian Americans (5 percent). Black voters are also a particularly sizable and important bloc in key swing states such as Florida (13 percent), Michigan (13 percent), North Carolina (23 percent), Pennsylvania (11 percent) and Wisconsin (5 percent.) I am addressing Harris’s potential appeal to Black voters specifically not because I think Black voters are likely to be particularly energized by a Black woman like Harris, but rather because much of the conversation around the vice presidential selection has implied that picking a Black person will create extra enthusiasm for the ticket with Black voters.

The percentage of Black voting-eligible people who cast ballots was significantly higher in 2008 (65 percent) and 2012 (66 percent), when there was a Black candidate on the ticket, compared to 2004 and 2016 (both around 60 percent) when there was not. Some political science research shows that Black people vote at higher rates when a Black candidate is on the ballot, although that finding is somewhat contested, and that research is about voting for a Black candidate at the top of the ticket, not a white candidate with a Black running mate.

So it’s not a crazy idea that Harris might boost the ticket with Black voters. It has some empirical basis. But I think the stronger case, at least based on what we know right now, is that she won’t have much of an effect in terms of Black voters.

Why not? First of all, while it happened in 2008 and 2012, it’s just really hard for Democrats to get that much more support from Black voters, who even in elections like 2004 or 2016 vote at fairly high rates (significantly higher than Asian American or Hispanic voters) and overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates.

Second, it’s not 2008 or 2012, when Black voters had the chance to elect and then reelect the first Black president. Third, Harris herself seems unlikely to particularly excite Black voters. This is not a random guess — Harris ran for president for much of last year and was not the preferred candidate of older Black voters in the Democratic primary (that was Biden) or younger Black voters (that was Sanders or Warren in earlier stages of the race). Obama, in contrast, had very strong Black support during his 2008 primary run, previewing what would happen in his two general election campaigns.

We don’t know how Harris’s selection affects the protest movement that has emerged since the police killing of George Floyd.

Another part of the discourse has been that the selection of a Black woman became more necessary in the wake of the national protests around racial inequality over the last several months. But it’s not clear the Black Lives Matter activists organizing these protests view a Black woman being picked as vice president as a major priority in terms of addressing racial inequality in America (as opposed to, for example, reducing spending on policing.) And some more liberal Black people are wary of Harris because they felt she was too punitive toward people who committed minor crimes like truancy when she was the district attorney in San Francisco and then the attorney general of California.

I would emphasize all of this is a bit unknown. Maybe Harris’s choice will be applauded by BLM activists; it’s just not a given.

We don’t know if Harris is now the most-likely Democratic nominee in 2024.

If Biden and Harris lose, Harris’s presidential ambitions are likely over. (Just ask Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan and Tim Kaine.) But if they win, remember that Biden will enter office at age 78 and that in March he described himself as a “bridge” figure who will help usher in the Democratic Party’s next generation of leaders.

So is Harris being set up to be the Democratic front-runner and likely nominee in 2024? I don’t know. And honestly, Biden and Harris may not know either. But this matters, for two big reasons. First, in the 2020 election, expect Trump and his campaign, who have had a hard time casting Biden as an extremist or a radical, to make attacks on Harris with sexist and racist undertones, cast her as an ultra-liberal Californian out of touch with Middle American values and suggest that voting for Biden in November means that Harris will be running the country for 12 years.

Second, if Harris is vice president, she would need to make sure she is ready to run for president in 2024 — in case Biden either doesn’t want to run for a second term or isn’t up to it — while also ensuring she isn’t portrayed by the media as constantly planning her 2024 campaign, which would likely to irritate Biden and other Democrats.

Biden made the predictable pick (in fact, we kind of predicted it in March). Harris is more liberal than Biden but not Sanders/Warren-left, and she is an Asian and Black woman in a party that always wants to show it cares about traditionally marginalized groups and probably feels the need to showcase its racial diversity even more in the wake of the Floyd protests. So Biden choosing someone with Harris’s political, biographical and demographic attributes makes a lot of sense.

The biggest unknowns are around Harris herself and her electoral skills. Harris is a good politician based on these facts alone: She was elected senator in the nation’s most populous state and in a country with a lot of race and gender discrimation, Harris is the second Black woman ever elected to the Senate, and arguably the first to be a serious presidential candidate. That said, it’s still not clear if she is a particularly strong politician on the national stage, and therefore if she will be that helpful for Democrats in the No. 2 slot in 2020 or as the main candidate in a future presidential election.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #Perry Bacon Jr.

[houseofbrat]

Losing hope of it ever happening now 🤣

This year is really, really weird. I’ve noticed a bunch of astrologers, who would normally have no problem laying out who they think is going to win, are straight-up avoiding the situation at this point. I mean, we’re talking about people who predicted Trump winning in 2016, so I’m not referring to people who are lightweights. 

It’s without question for me that Trump loses and loses big. That’s been obvious--to me, at least--for a very, very long time.

The problem comes in with Biden’s chart. If Trump loses big, then why doesn’t Biden’s chart indicate a home run?

The first election I watched astrologically was in 2008 with Obama & McCain. Looking at Obama’s chart--even as a complete beginner--it was obvious that Obama would win. Same with 2012.

2016 was difficult because there is no accepted birth time for Hillary Clinton. Seriously, the story behind whatever her birth time is...is a complete mess. But even still, there were astrologers who were able to predict Trump’s winning correctly (Juliana Swanson, Joni Patry, James Kelleher, etc.).

So why is there such hesitation around 2020? Well, Biden’s chart doesn’t indicate a home run, so that’s a problem right there. Actually, it’s big problem because due to that, many astrologers are picking Biden to lose. 

So if Trump loses big, but Biden’s chart doesn’t indicate a big win, what does this mean? Well, because of that, I’ve seen a lot of speculation that we’re in for a similar Bush v. Gore situation from 2000; however, I believe there is not much astrological basis for this. It looks to me that the end result will be in a landslide, against Trump. 

If Biden were to win yet die after the election, then we would expect to indications of a rise in position in Kamala’s chart, except we don’t see any such indications. I wouldn’t expect her to become president until she reaches another Venus sub-period. Except that doesn’t start until 2024. 

There aren’t any real indications that the president inaugurated in 2021 will die in office, based on the 2021 inauguration chart. However, there are indications that the president inaugurated in 2025 will likely die in office. The 2025 inauguration chart was something I took a look at before I made my initial post all the way back in March. 

There was a weird thing that happened in the 20th century where almost all of the presidents who won elections in years ending in zero, died in office. McKinley won re-election in 1900 and assassinated in 1901. Warren Harding won in 1920, died in 1923. FDR elected in (1932, 1936) 1940 and 1945 and died in 1945. Kennedy won in 1960 and assassinated in 1963. Reagan broke the trend in the 1980s since he survived his assassination attempt (to Jodie Foster’s relief).

So I still suspect that the president who wins in 2020 will die in office but not until 2025 at the earliest. Just my theory based on everything I’ve looked at. I have a really hard time seeing how Biden can make it that long. 

I still suspect that some crazy thing is going to happen. There’s just too much that says Biden doesn’t likely win yet Trump also loses. @talkingtarot mentioned last month that she couldn’t see the election clearly enough to read on it. I think if Biden was going to win in a landslide, then she’d say so. She’s obviously a very good tarot card reader, yet 2020′s whack-a-doodle energy struck again. 

But here’s another tarot card reader saying crazy shit of some sort is going to go down.

#ask #election 2020 #Joe Biden #Donald Trump #Kamala Harris #vedic astrology #bernie sanders #Black Swan Year 2020

[arcticdementor]

My article “Why is Everything Liberal?” has gotten a great deal of attention. See in particular thoughtful commentary from Bryan Caplan and Robby Soave at Reason.

This post is a followup, with two main goals. First, I’ve discovered additional evidence that liberals care more about politics, which I will just add on to what already was an extremely strong case.

Second, some people criticized the piece for not addressing what has changed recently. I think I’ve found the answer to that too, which is that the mobilization gap increased precipitously in 2016. It is at that time that we see Democrats overtake Republicans in fundraising, liberals overtake conservatives in signing petitions, and the left’s already sizable lead in protesting become much larger. While it seems that liberals have always cared more about politics if we are looking at the tail end of the distribution–i.e., those who become activists, journalists, or academics–it is only in 2016 that we see more noticeable and significant gaps open up in the next level down in the pyramid.

Since 2016, liberals have achieved true mass mobilization in a way conservatives never have in the modern era.

…

In 2016, fewer than 1% of conservatives had been to a protest in the last year, compared to 15% of extreme liberals, 10% of regular liberals, and 5% of the slightly liberal. Even moderates, at 2.4%, protested more than conservatives. Remember, this was before the Women’s March and the peak of BLM! The estimates for protest size used in the original post were pretty crude, but it’s nice to see self-reported data match what we see in the real world. Petitions tell the same story, but the differences are not as extreme: 61% of very liberal individuals had signed one in the last year, compared to just 26% of the very conservative.

…

Liberals already tended to protest more in the years leading up to 2012. But conservatives used to at least hold their own. This matches what we know from the real world, as this was the height of the Tea Party. Glenn Beck’s largely forgotten “Restoring Honor Rally” in summer 2010, for example, drew a lot of people, though nobody really knows how many. Wikipedia says “a scientific estimate placed the crowd size around 87,000, while media reports varied wildly from tens of thousands to 500,000.” This was also the time of Occupy Wall Street, so liberals weren’t exactly sitting on their hands, but conservatives at least made a showing. By 2016, conservative protesting had collapsed to practically nothing, while liberal protesting stayed at similar levels or, more likely, increased (hard to know for sure because of the time frame of the 2012 question being different).

…

In 2012, liberals were more likely to sign petitions than conservatives, but the gap was pretty small and there were many more conservatives in the country, which meant the right actually had more total people signing petitions. By 2016, more Americans than before were calling themselves liberals, and liberals were more mobilized, giving the left a substantial advantage.

Another thing we can do to see how relative mobilization has changed over time is to look at campaign donations. In the previous essay, I went all the way back to 2012, and showed that for every recent presidential election cycle Democrats brought in more money. I didn’t go back to 2008, as I was sure Obama outraised McCain, and I was of course right.

However, if you expand the analysis to midterm elections and all federal candidates, we see the Democrat advantage does not open up until 2016. Here are numbers I’ve gathered from Open Secrets for every election from 1990, as far back as data go.

…

In response to my piece, Ezra Klein argued that liberal domination of institutions was better explained by age and education polarization than liberals caring more. This is an argument I’ve seen him make elsewhere before (see also this and this from Josh Barro on Woke Capital).

…

Romney won college educated whites by somewhere between around 5% and 15%, while according to CNN’s 2020 exit polls, Biden won the same demographic by 12%. CNN actually has Trump barely winning college educated whites in 2016 (48%-45%). Education polarization is real, and the fact that college educated whites vote something like 15-30% more Democrat than they did in 2012 should be having some effects on board rooms and the larger mobilization gap. Yet educational differences do not seem nearly massive enough to explain the total liberal domination of institutions, as Republicans hold their own well enough with degree holders.

As far as the age gap, it can cut both ways. When I was growing up in the 1990s, the stereotype was that retirees had a lot of time on their hands and were therefore politically powerful, while young people were largely indifferent. Old people certainly have more money, and so you’d expect age polarization to actually give Republicans an advantage in donations. Yet since 2016 the trend has been the opposite. As parties have polarized more by age, Democrats have started winning the competition over fundraising. Maybe young people are inherently more likely to protest, but wouldn’t you expect old people to be just as capable of signing petitions? Thus, I’m pretty confident that age and education gaps are less important than the simple fact that liberals care more about politics.

…

The left has always had an advantage in committed activists. Yet, no matter whether you look at donations, protests, or signing petitions, the mobilization gap increased in 2016. Liberals had always protested more, but in 2016 the ratio was absolutely massive, being around 3.7x larger than it was around the time of the invasion of Iraq. This was before an upsurge of liberal protest activity that has included BLM, March for Our Lives, and most importantly, the Women’s March. Finally, the parties raised about an equal amount of money from 1990 until 2016, when Democrats took a lead that has now lasted three straight election cycles (2008 was an exception to the rule of parity in the pre-2016 era, when Democrats ran a fresh faced Barack Obama against John McCain, who seemed good at exciting Republican elites and MSNBC pro-war centrist types but not actual voters).

So what about “Woke Capital”? In many ways, business was the last domino to fall. Yes, liberals have always had more noisy activists, and corporations tended to bow to them on some issues when they got really agitated, like MLK day. But big business is more directly answerable to a wider swath of the population than are schools or non-profits, and so held out the longest. Coca-Cola and Walmart care more about what the median citizen thinks than does Harvard, The New York Times, or the ACLU. Yet after 2016, when the mobilization gap exploded, almost nothing in society could remain neutral, and pressure has come from both within and outside corporations for them to take a stand on almost all hot button issues.

Why was 2016 the year everything changed? Take a wild guess.

…

Just as the previous post raised further questions, this one does too. The most interesting thing to me is not simply protests and donations, but why one side has for over half a century now drawn more idealistic people who want to dedicate their lives to changing the world. The journalist-academic-activist complex is ultimately where power lies, and it has grown much stronger in the last 5 years because it has started to engage many more people at the intermediate level in the mobilization pyramid, among those who give money, sign petitions, and go to protests, and who find themselves between true elites on top and the mass of the largely indifferent voting public at the bottom.

If the rise of Trumpism explains the last five years, why did the left begin with such a strong built-in advantage? I hope to explore this question soon.

…

Moreover, right-wing protest culture has collapsed since the time of the Tea Party. It’s hard to know for sure, but other forms of conservative activism may have fallen off too. So even the degree to which Trump has actually mobilized the right must come with a caveat: he has turned out more Republican voters and gotten more people to donate small amounts of money, but few seem to want to make more substantial sacrifices, even compared to 2012.

Overall, the Trump era has provided mixed electoral results for Republicans. They won unified control of government in 2016, lost the House but kept the Senate in 2018, and came extremely close to winning again in 2020. Yet it has been an awful 4 years for conservatives who care about controlling institutions, or at least keeping them neutral, although even here it hasn’t been a complete loss. After all, the Trump era has given conservatives a comfortable majority on the Supreme Court, probably the most important single institution of all.

Federal court appointments last until death, while the widening of the mobilization gap is relatively new. Best case scenario for Republicans is that Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh live for a very long time, while the Trump era ends up being an anomaly in mobilizing the left to an unusual degree, with things going back to something resembling the pre-2016 historical norm. Worst case scenario is that things continue as they have for the last 4 years, with anti-Trump hysteria combining with the Great Awokening having created a class permanently mobilized for confronting racism and other evils, plus Republicans not even getting the mobilization on their own side that Trump gave them. A generation shaped by the experience of Trump and a party currently led by such uninspiring figures as Kevin McCarthy and Liz Cheney may end up giving conservatives the worst of all worlds.

#richard hanania #substack #data

[quakerjoe]

Biden, #MeToo, and why I can’t support him.

Anyone who supports Biden, by my reckoning, is fine with putting their name to yet another sexual predator in the White House

Where’s the outrage, people? All you #MeToo supporters out there are fantastically quiet about the accusation leveled against Biden. Where are all of you who were appalled at the recording of trump bragging how the rich and powerful can just walk up and grab a woman by the pussy? That’s what Biden actually DID (allegedly). If you’re fine with Biden, hand in your #MeToo card and strike the word ‘feminist’ or ‘humanist’ from your personal bios. 

If you don’t know a woman who’s a survivor, then you don’t know women. That means that none of them have trusted you enough to tell you their stories. I’ve heard many. Once upon a time, I was in a relationship with one and I heard her horror story. She felt that her freaking out when we tried to get intimate with me was unfair so she left. Then she killed herself.

Is Biden REALLY better than trump? Really? Really? Of trump, whom I loathe more than anyone else on Earth, I can say, with all honesty, this much: I KNOW where I stand with him and his band of fuckwits. ALL of his fuckery has been mostly done out in the open. While everyone’s freaking out over it, they’re all huddling behind Biden; many out of such sheer desperation to remove trump that they’ve literally allowed the Democratic party to compromise them and their morals and core beliefs. IF you’re supporting Biden, you’re not compromising, YOU’VE BEEN COMPROMISED. You ALLOWED the Democratic party to lower their own standards SO low they’re practically as filthy as the GOP only there’s one sad, horrible difference between them and just one- While the GOP is openly vile, reprehensible, and are more than willing to fuck you all to your face; fuck you and fuck yours and go fuck yourself... Democrats smile, say nice things, then stab you in the back. Democrats now only pay lip service, make half-baked and half ass attempts to try to convince you that they’re Left in some way, all while being far right of where they were years ago. There IS no Left anymore, and you’ve been dragged along with them. When is enough, enough, people?

There’s clearly only ONE person the Democrats hated more than trump- Bernie Sanders. Between mainstream media ignoring him and Dems ganging up to defeat him, clearly the party doesn’t give a flying fuck about YOU. They’re just not into you, baby; it’d interrupt the cash flow from their donors, most of them being the same rich twats buying GOPers. Look how fast Bloomberg bought Dems!

Now you’re all acting like trump supporters for the BlueMAGA. Seriously? Really? The rapist? The guy whose motto is essentially “Don’t worry, I won’t change shit; I’ll just bring us back to normal (meaning back to the era that brought us trump in the fucking FIRST place).

How many of you BOTHERED reviewing Biden’s super-shitty policies and actions over his career? (crickets) How many of you have any spine enough to see just how fucking useless he is at this stage? Fuck me, man; this asshole can’t even speak! We already have that. He’s already got various degrees of sexual assault on the books. We already have that. He’s all to eager to work with the GOP and cater to the rich. We already have that! He’s boring as fuck, abrasive and he does NOT inspire voters to come charging out this November.

Trump does, though. His fanatics are breaking down the gates during a pandemic; you can bet your privileged asses that they’ll be out come November assuming they did’t keel over dead from COVID-19. That may be the only edge that Biden gets as he does and says fuck-all nothing except hope that trump screws up enough to get his base to stay home and enough of his own Biden Bros to show up. That’s his big plan, kids.

Kiss your $15/hr good-bye. You don’t seriously thing team biden will really pull that off, do you? For fuck sake, according to Liz Warren, if the min. wage  kept up with cost of living and inflation, it should be at $23/hr NOW. According to Robert Reich, it’s even higher. $15/hr was what we needed well over a decade ago. If biden does pull it off, it’s a token fist in your ass at best, you puppet.

Kiss M4A good-bye. It’s evident that you’d rather dump your cash into the overpriced, empty promises of insurance companies, big pharma, and stoke the fires of endless war with financing the Military Industrial Complex than live a safe, healthy life.

Kiss any sort of Green New Deal good-bye while Pelosi and the others sneer at it and look down their noses at you.

I certainly don’t WANT more of trump...

...but thinking biden will make things better is foolish. Trump will happily stab you through the chest, but the likes of biden prefer to smile while they stab you through the back using the blade forged out of empty promises and lip service. Fuck, if you’re keeping track of the Dem. pundits, they’re already lining up to blame biden’s apparent loss on Sanders and people like me. They’re ALREADY gearing up for him to LOSE. What does THAT tell you? His popularity is utter shit compared to HRC back in 2016.

Let’s not forget that most of Bernie’s supporters backed HRC in 2016 and voted for her. Before that, let’s not forget HER followers’ loyalty when MOST of them bailed on Obama to support McCain. 

I won’t put my name to a vote for Biden. I won’t. I’ve heard too many tales of horror from Survivors and given that Al Franken’s career was burned for much less, I don’t appreciate the HYPOCRISY of the #MeTooExceptBiden rhetoric. MY moral compass, my values, my principles will no longer be something I give the DNC permission to shit on and compromise. If the US needs another 4 of trump burning the house down to wake the fuck up and LEARN that the Dems are a band of feckless twats on the take and actually start voting for PROGRESSIVES and those who are actually LEFT, then so be it. Let the children learn by touching the hot fucking stove; I’ve warned them enough, for years and years now. It’s time to grow a pair of whatever inspires you and wake the fuck up and stop fronting rich, white guys who are all for helping the rich scam us into tax breaks and socialism for them and their corporations while fucking us all in the ass without a kiss first, a grease up, or so much as a reach-around.

Year after year we do this shit and it’s getting worse. Yay, we won the House. So fucking what? What have they ACHIEVED? Pelosi scoffs at saving lives with M4A and we, as a party and a nation failed to get the Senate. The GOP is still cock-blocking everything, good or bad, passed by the House, so really, no big “blue wave” there to brag about.

These people are not stupid. They know the general population is complicit and disinterested in change. Look at all the anti-gun protest after every school shooting? Has much been done since? Technically, trump’s been more hard-ass over gun control than Obama! Holy shit, guys! The “Pussy Hat” march. What’s changed? Meh. Not much. To the GOP and corporate/establishment Dems, women are cheap and nobody cares. Point gone like a fart in the wind. The GOP and the Dems alike know that they can keep you all punching DOWN instead of taking a moment to glance up and see who’d really punching YOU. So long as they let you march, protest, bitch and scream now and then, you’ll get it all out of your system and then it’ll settle down and go back to “normal”.

“Normal” didn’t used to be finding it acceptable to have a documented sexual predator in the White House.

IF you have no problem with Biden, then you must also have no problem with Weinstein, right? Cosby? Judge Kavenaugh?

Uh huh.

I don’t want trump. I want him gone. I refuse to do it with biden taking his place because seriously, the guy wanted to shitcan SS and Medicare/Medicaid. He was gung-ho for Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s a bucket of charred turds.

Look all the women you love, if you have the courage to do so, and you tell them “Hey, I’m fine with electing another rapist for president!” because that’s literally what you’ll be doing. Why don’t you beat and slap her around for a bit before you go out to vote while you’re at it. Backing biden only continues giving permission to the Dems to offer you the worst possible candidate so they can keep their cash flow going.

Have some courage. Have some dignity. Have some fucking empathy and compassion, for fuck sake. Then, maybe, a woman might trust you enough to tell you HER horror story of survival.

#MeToo #MeTooExceptBiden #BlueMAGA #SayNoToJoe

[giftofshewbread]

For Those Who Don’t Get It!

Now you understand why there was never any action against the Clintons or Obama, how they destroyed emails and evidence and phones and servers, how they spied and wiretapped, how they lied to FISA, had conversations on the tarmac, sent emails to cover their asses after key meetings, how Comey and Brennan and Clapper never were brought to any justice, how the FBI and CIA lied, how the Steele Dossier was passed along, how phones got factory reset, how leak after leak to an accomplice media went unchecked, why George Soros is always in the shadows, why Romney and Paul and Bush and McCain were all involved, why they screamed Russia and pushed a sham impeachment, why no one ever goes to jail, why no one is ever charged, why nothing ever happens. Why there was no wrongdoing in the FISA warrants, why the Durham report was delayed. Why Hunter will walk scott free. Why the FBI sat on the laptop. Why the Biden’s connection to China was overlooked as was unleashed the perfect weapon, a virus that could be weaponized politically to bring down the greatest ever economy and usher in unverifiable mail in voting. Why the media is 24/7 propaganda and lies, why up is down and down is up, right is wrong and wrong is right. Why social media silences the First Amendment and speaks over the President of the United States. This has been the plan by the Deep State all along. They did not expect Trump to win in 2016. He messed up their plans. Delayed it a little. They were not about to let it happen again. Covid was weaponized, Governors helped shut down their states, the media helped shame and kill the economy, and the super lucky unverifiable mail in ballots were just the trick to make sure the career politician allegedly with hands in Chinese payrolls that could not finish a sentence or collect a crowd, miraculously became the most popular vote recipient of all time. You have just witnessed a coup, the overthrow of the US free election system, the end of our constitutional republic, and the merge of capitalism into the slide toward socialism. What will happen next? Expect the borders to open up. Increased immigration. Expect agencies like CBP and INS and Homeland Security to be muzzled or even deleted. Law enforcement will see continued defunding. The electoral college will be gone. History erased. Two Supreme Court Justices might be removed. The Supreme Court will be packed. Your 2nd Amendment will be attacked. If you have a manufacturing job or oil industry job, get ready. If you run a business, brace for impact. Maybe you will be on the hook for slavery reparations, or have your suburbs turned into Section 8 housing. Your taxes are going to go up, and businesses will pay more. I could go on and on. There is no real recovery from this. The elections from here on will be decided by New York City, Chicago, and California. The Republic will be dead. Mob rule and appeasement will run rampant. The candidate who offers the most from the Treasury will get the most votes. But the votes voted will not matter, just the ones received and counted. That precedent has been set. “Benjamin Franklin was walking out of Independence Hall after the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when someone shouted out, ‘Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?’” Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Ladies and gentlemen, you will now lose your Republic. You turned from God. You turned from family. You turned from country. You embraced degeneracy culture. You celebrated and looked to fools. You worshipped yourselves selfishly as you took for granted what men died to give you. You disregarded history and all it teaches. On your watch, America just died a little. It’s likely she’ll never be the same again. Some of you have no idea what you have done. Sadly, some of you did. 

Author Unknown.

( My 2cents worth about writing above, it was share with me thru email and just so critical to hear, so important to know, what's going on around us at this time )

This is Just an Absolute TRUTH ! It Says it All !

It should be framed and in every household, to inform & remind us. But I think it's too late, I keep saying, 'are there enough good people to stop this evil'?  Sadly I don't believe so, especially if we read the Bible, Read Revelation, We all should read Revelation, to know what's coming, in fact we get a crown in heaven, for reading the last book in the Bible, 'Revelation', so we know what's coming & are not afraid, as God Wins!

Sadly America cannot win, it has to 'Fall', ( it's Prophecy ) it has to become part of the 1 World System, 'NWO' New World Order as it's called, or now it's called 'The Great Reset', it's reset alright, we go from a natural world to a super natural one and Satan is King on Earth, God is Removed. But God is very much in control and though He allows Satan and his puppet the coming AntiChrist to Rule over the Earth and mankind, God is absolutely in control and though the greatest evil is coming to our world, God is not done, if we cling to Him, we will be Saved....  But WOW, if the world knew What the Book of Revelation Speaks of Coming, it's unimaginable and this world has never seen before the Great Evil Soon Coming.  

If Biden/Harris get in, then all will be accelerated, America will be sold out to the 1 world system and everybody, every nation will bow to the AntiChrist when he comes on the scene...God help us all.

What a message below, all should see, read, understand, This is what happens and What's coming When we Reject GOD & Truth!

Leho

#Rapture Imminent #Jesus is Coming Any Moment #Are you Saved?

[realtalkingpoints]

Opinion:  How social media and the Obama administration lead to the Impeachment of Donald Trump.

Placed historically, the real explosion in social media use occurred during the Obama administration. Advances in technology were allowing developers to create new platforms and new versions of old platforms faster and faster, each time learning from previous builds.  Big data was coming into it's prime, learning more about user habits than ever before. For the first time in history, millions and millions of people had not just cell phones in their pocket, but smart phones that could access the internet.  And cell phone services, along with internet capabilities were expanding to handle the new demand.  The Obama administration created subsidy programs offering low cost or no cost smart phones and service providers to low income households that qualify.  And apps for phones were developed, to be small versions of popular websites, to run fast, efficient, and anywhere people wanted to pull out their phones and surf them.  The stage was set for a social media explosion.

All different kinds of platforms were introduced.  We know the most popular ones, because they've gone viral and turned into the worlds most powerful platforms, and some are still growing.  Perhaps startups today, will topple the giants in tomorrows media fad. But what we know now, is that people love to chat with each other, and interact with each other in real time, at the speed of the internet, across continents.  People want to share stories and photos, promote businesses, and discuss the news of the day.  The people of the world have never had an exchange of information that was this fast, this easy, and this accessible to literally billions of people.  It was only a matter of time before news and politics moved at the pace of social media, and not the other way around.

Having not done or even read any case studies, and cannot conclusively say, but it seems obvious to me that younger generations were the first to adopt the internet, and social media.  If you have seniors in your life, it's no secret, that they struggle at times with internet technology.  The internet didn't even exist for most of their life, and now suddenly in twenty or thirty years its users have gone from thousands of college geeks and researchers, to billions of excited people trying to find one another.  Our youngest generations don't know a world without the internet, some don't know a world without smartphones, google or twitter.  And when a new platform idea comes along, even one with a seemingly silly name like 'Twitter', there's plenty of young people comfortable enough with internet and smart phone technology, to give it a try.  They don't fear the unknowns, the hacking and 'spying' and data collection that has the older generations so apprehensive. To the younger crowd, the worst that can happen is they don't like it and they delete the app.  But the good ones don't get deleted.  The ones that are effective at capturing people's attention with reality tv type stimulation and peer to peer interaction, grow exponentially into massive social media networks. According to my theory, the first massive waves of users were younger.

These days, younger means more progressive, more liberal in political leaning.  Their comfort level with the internet means they look there first to answer any question they might have, or for things the want to purchase.  They have developed a sense of enlightenment, confident that they can find instantly, the answer to any of life’s mysteries.  While waiting for a latte, while sitting on a bus, beach, or the couch at home, they can satisfying their deepest curiosities, and perhaps too often, accepting the veracity of the information delivered to them without question.  

It doesn't take a genius to see the gold mine of opportunity that influencers of all types saw in social media platforms.  Millions upon millions of young impressionable minds, looking for answers and perspective from their peers.  Advertisers and retailers have embraced the social media craze, inventing creative new strategies to reaching new customers, specially those willing to try something new.  It has literally created new industries because someone tried something, told their friends, and now everyone is selling it.  For example, what is 'goat yoga'?  Don't know, just google it.  Its a thing, it's out there, and it owes it's success to social media.  It's a revolution in the exchange of information like never before in history.  Before long, social media would also be recognized as an essential tool in the fight over politics.

How better to potentially reach millions and millions of people with your political message than to put it on social media, and allow people to share that idea just by clicking a button.  It's too easy.  In the 2008 Presidential election, Barack Obama harnessed the networking power of social media for the first time in a Presidential election.  Using still developing platforms like Twitter and Facebook, he connected with millions of young, progressive thinking voters, most of whom were willing to share his message with their peers. It was a major advantage to his campaign, since supporters of his opponent, John McCain were much older on average, and therefor much less likely to even be on social media.  It gave a free soapbox to Obama that was heard by millions and millions of progressive Americans, and it was virtually all his.  The voices of opposition just weren't there.  The hoards of young impressionable minds thought that everyone agreed with the exciting ideas they were hearing from an enthusiastic Barack Obama.  They had accidentally created their own media bubble of like minded, similarly motived, ideologues, all enjoying a strong confirmation bias.  Slowly, the older more conservative Americans did adopt social media platforms, but they had a lot of catching up to do.  When re-election came around, Obama's opponent in 2012, Mitt Romney made a modest effort to connect with supporters on social media.  Reporting at the time was something like $8 million by Romney vs $45 million spent by the Obama campaign on social media advertising.  It was clear, that the social media advantage was still firmly in the hands of the progressives, and the number of users was growing rapidly.

A skillful politician, Obama quickly learned how to generate large swells of social media activity to support his various agenda items.  I'm sure they had lots of data, certainly from intelligence agencies, about the habits of trending topics on social media.  Being the first American presidential administration to preside over a social media crazed nation, there must have been moments of epiphany with regards to the reaction(s) of social media communities on various policy decisions and press releases.  As Facebook has acknowledged, social media cause the Arab spring.  How much the Obama administration had to do with that is still up for debate.  Ideas were ready to go viral in their respective communities, they just needed to be put out there at the right time, by the right influential people.  

Just as politicians saw the obvious advantages to social media messaging, so did the press and news media.  Journalists would use their own social media accounts to post their news stories and build followings that would supplement their print or tv audiences.  I would assume the same principles apply, that younger more progressive journalists migrated toward the platforms first, giving them a jump on their older more conservative counterparts.  Furthermore, the fact that these platforms are presumed to be populated first with predominantly young progressives, the approval rate and popularity of ideas and stories reported by early journalists on social media is likely skewed towards liberalism.  Many of these young progressive reporters and the networks employing them rode the social media bubble to prominence and challenged their older more conservative colleagues on the national stage in popularity ratings, often successfully.  The result of this effect was a national news media that favored a  more progressive, liberal narrative.  An unfortunate side effect of this, was the reality that popularity of news stories among social media followers, not accuracy or factual reporting, was driving viewership ratings.  As news outlets realized that their new social media followers enjoyed stories about successful progressive policies and praise for the Obama administration, they began to build their staff and organizations around a strategy to deliver just that.  Seemingly out of no where, Obama became the darling of the liberal press and social media.  

The endless stream of positive feedback from the press and social media had it's effect on the Obama administration.  They soon realized that blunders and mistakes could get washed up in a circular round of praise and applause on other topics of the day, while the bad news went completely ignored by a majority of the news media.  Their audience simply didn't want to hear the bad news, so they just didn't report it.  Knowing their misdeeds would go largely forgiven by a lapdog media, the Obama administration began to push the norms of public approval with their progressive policies.  The highly controversial Affordable Care Act, was signed into law despite zero Republican votes for the package.  Republicans were waiving their hands in the isles of congress, shouting as loudly as they could that the math didn't work, and that millions of hard working middle class Americans were going to carry the burden of this bloated package.  But they didn't have the social media push or news media support to get their message out, and those Republicans were labeled as one of many hateful stereotypes by the social media mob. Other Obama moves like the targeting of conservative non-profit groups by the IRS during the 2012 presidential election, and the dreadful Iran deal, which should have received much media scrutiny, all got passing grades from news reporters and their social media echo chambers.

It was probably during Obama's second term, conservatives woke up to realize that social media was where the real conversation is.  Not that they hadn't been participating thus far, but as a whole, the conservatives had been sluggish to migrate toward social media platforms.  But watching liberalism taking over news media, and frightened for the future of their nation, conservatives began to challenge progressive liberals on social media in numbers large enough to cause a stir among their ranks.  And many of them reacted poorly.  Platforms that had long been safe spaces for liberal rants and conservative defamation were suddenly being challenged by patriotic Americans who showed up and said, 'I disagree, here's why, and here's the evidence'.  The young, progressive ideologues who had populated social media en masse had never needed evidence to back up their opinions, nor encountered such opposition to their group think, and began to lash out at their new critics.  Twitter battles flared, and for the first time, young progressive social media users were forced to examine their hardened ideals in the light of contradicting evidence.  But many of them had taken very public, emphatic positions based on liberal policies and news reporting that they had taken as gospel.  For many liberal ideologues, backing down from their stated positions was more injury than they could conceivably sustain, and instead would band together with their news media heroes to defend their proclaimed moral high ground at all costs.

Enter Donald Trump.  No stranger to the media spot light, real estate developer and reality tv star Donald Trump was a natural at using news media to reach the American public.  He saw the trends and recognized how to maximize his influence.  He grew his Twitter audience with constant engagement and used even bad press coverage to get his message out.  Much like Obama in 2008 and 2012, Trump used social media to achieve victory in the 2016 presidential election, this time by appealing to the millions of new, perhaps more conservative minded social media users, who felt alienated and bullied by the entrenched liberal social media mob.  The liberal reaction was swift and often unruly.  Think Women's March, Antifa, and Russia Collusion.  Unable to manifest their desired reality through social media and news stories, the liberals resorted to real world activism in an all out effort to undo an election result that they could not fathom.  They looked to their hero Obama and his collection of bureaucrats installed in the nation's intelligence community to dig for evidence that he had cheated the election.  We know now, that multiple efforts (likely underhanded in nature) to sabotage his election were underway.  The social media mob and their news media cohorts pushed relentlessly to add credibility to claims of Russian Collusion by the Trump campaign and worked 24/7 to drive incriminating headlines into the homes and minds of Americans.  Biased, partisan investigations lead to a special counsel investigation that progressives hoped would finally get the goods and rid them of the surprise President that had popped their media bubble paradise.  But this time, the social media push was from the right, and verifiable evidence of corruption and bias of investigators was plastered on social media for everyone to see.  Conservative news media had finally landed a foothold on social media platforms and began to tell its side of the story to an American public eager to hear some truth.  

Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation ended with no hard evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russians to cheat the 2016 election, delivering yet another heavy blow to liberal America, who had spent many years under Obama, assuming that their positions would always be supported by bureaucrats and news reports.  Trump blamed 'the deep state' for the internal attempts to sabotage his presidency.  He asked the DOJ inspector general to investigate the investigations that had targeted individuals from is campaign, and the IG report has confirmed, that many inside the FBI and DOJ were willing to bend or break the rules to obtain surveillance approvals on Trump campaign members.  This provided conservatives with yet another huge victory over their liberal activist counterparts, who still can't believe what is happening.  Many of the young progressives who had driven the political agenda through social media activity had never experienced a news cycle that they couldn't control with their activism.  And many liberal politicians and deep staters who relied on the media mob for support and cover for their potential misdeeds had never considered what they would do if suddenly all the negative news stories actually got printed.  Claims of political favoritism, liberal election rigging, and big money foreign policy peddling are now a daily occurrence, and both the politicians and the media mob are in a panic.

So that brings us to our current situation.  The liberal's last stronghold of power in American government resides in Nancy Pelosi and the House of Representatives.  They have engaged in partisan investigation after investigation, hoping to find something to re-ignite their liberal base, that would warrant the removal of Trump from office.  Impeachment.  Special counsel and IG investigations delivered reports that devastated the credibility of the liberal news media, along with politicians and intel personalities that still claim Trump is the one lying.  Seemingly out of nowhere, a whistleblower report lands on the desk of discredited intel committee chair Adam Schiff, that President Trump has been bribing the Ukrainian government to interfere in the 2020 presidential election by investigating Joe Biden.  Unable to stunt the flow of news and information the way they once had, media mob liberals are as aware as there rest of us, that the origins of said whistleblower complaint are highly questionable, and that there are credible allegations of Biden's mis-dealings in Ukraine.  Indeed, congressional impeachment hearings produced a parade of witness testimonies that stated, one after another, they had heard from others, sometimes others who had heard from others, that the president had done something wrong.  Literally no one was able to testify that they had been instructed to withhold foreign aid to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation of the Bidens.  American news polls show Americans are tiring of the endless investigations of Trump and the push for impeachment. Once again, the liberal news media and the progressive social media ideologues had been unable to sway the news cycle in a decidedly favorable direction.  But they pushed hard.  So hard in fact, that Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler are moving forward with the impeachment of the president of the United States of America.  

It appears that they will have the votes in the House to impeach the president.  Democrat house members appear to be unaffected by the lack of hard evidence against Trump, or the mounting pile of evidence that this was a setup to oust Trump and protect a swamp of corruption from being exposed by impending DOJ criminal investigations.  Instead, a Trump re-election is what they fear the most.  Most Democrats in Washington see impeachment as their most destructive tool in the fight against Donald Trump.  Impeachment is their destructive response to a power vacuum they never saw coming.  Having become complacent with years of favorable media coverage, and friendly social media audiences, the liberals and Democrats let their corruptions run unchecked.  They did not predict the storm that is Donald Trump, or the urgency with which the conservatives would take to social media to defend truth in news reporting and accountability in government.  The Democrats have lost control of the narrative and they know it.  They now see no other option but the Hail Mary impeachment of Donald Trump.  Polls suggest it still won't prevent his re-election, but they are out of ideas, and out of time.  Considerations that this impeachment on flimsy evidence will lead to many unfounded future impeachments are not in their calculation.  This is purely desperation.  I for one, hope that the news media, social media and the American public will punish the Democrats for decades over this irresponsible abuse of their constitutional authority.  

#news #politics #trump #impeachment #social media

[baseballlibertarian]

Hillary Gets Emotional On Campaign Trail

The pressure of a surge by Barack Obama may be overwhelming Hillary Clinton as she choked up Monday unexpectedly when answering a question about how she keeps up the pace on the campaign trail.

Leave a Comment

This entry was posted on Monday, January 7th, 2008 at 3:27 pm and is filed under Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Pingback by » Clinton Feels Heat, Lashes Out at Obama Ahead of New Hampshire Primary You Decide 08!

January 7th, 2008 at 3:34 pm

[…] Click here to watch the report on Clinton getting emotional. […]

Comment by Chad

January 7th, 2008 at 3:44 pm

ohhh, she’s good! I don’t buy it for a second! She’s desperate and is tugging at the heart strings. When Ahmadine-Whack-o-jad gets nasty…I don’t think I want a President that tears up when the times get tough and they will.

Comment by Florida gal

January 7th, 2008 at 3:46 pm

FOXNEWS, you should not make it soooo obvious that your an Obama “Hussein” supporter. You are doing an injustice to this country!! Keep your opinions to yourself and report the news!!

Comment by eisenmond

January 7th, 2008 at 3:46 pm

This is not a shocker to me. Clinton’s experience is balled up in watching her husband be president. Watching her break down due to this stress is going to be nothing comparred to those long lonely nights when your ratings are in the tank, the world is up in arms against us, and the economy is crumbling under the pressure of your increased taxes.

The only difference is that, for now, she can break down without her finger on the button!

Comment by David

January 7th, 2008 at 3:47 pm

How would she handle the pressures that the presidential office requires? This is a fatal campaign move. I can also guarantee the great presidents have shed tears during tough times…privately.

Comment by Kat

January 7th, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Fox news has become ridiculous. I used to watch you exclusively but I can’t believe that you are taking this comment in which she was totally composed yet sincere and turning it into something weak. You are turning me toward her because of your disgusting tactics.

Comment by drew

January 7th, 2008 at 3:50 pm

couldn’t happen to a better person. tough when you’ve been exposed as a complete fraud!

Comment by Citizen Gal

January 7th, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Reframe this: she’s talking about the democratic process, and the meaning of participating in a campaign—-her meaning and that of others running. Her voice and expression seems motivated with meaning—-emotion, yes, but not weakness. I am not going to vote for Senator Clinton, primary or otherwise, but this reporting seems like a real stretch to me. Even if she or Huckabee or Obama or McCain cry, haven’t we evolved as a nation more than this? Emotion as weakness. What baloney. GW Bush cried and cries—is he not a strong leader? No. Same, too, for Senator Clinton.

Comment by Peter Stockdale

January 7th, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Next stop Hollywood with a performance like that!

Comment by Renegade

January 7th, 2008 at 3:59 pm

If you think this is the peak of pressure the Presidential candidates and Presidents get, think again. I don’t think it would be a good idea to vote for someone who got emotional this early in the elections.

Comment by RANDY BRIDGEMAN

January 7th, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Mrs. Clinton is not strong enough to lead this country, in my view. We need a leader who is strong in every sense of the term. She would be better off ministering to husband Bill on a full-time basis. Pollitics is too rough and tumble for the young lady. GOD bless her, though.

Comment by David Olson

January 7th, 2008 at 4:02 pm

If Hilary gets emotional over something like Obama surging in the polls, then how will she react to a nuclear crisis? If she can’t handle the pressure of the race, then she certainly will not handle the pressure of being this country’s President. Hopefully, she will drop out of the race after she loses a few more primary elections.

Comment by Polly/Arizona

January 7th, 2008 at 4:02 pm

I don’t buy it. She is probably tired and feels sorry for herself. But as for feeling sorry for the working man and our country, she is play acting! She and husband Bill have an agenda they planned years ago and nothing will deter them from walking over anybody or anything. If she was really a good person, good things would be said about her. Nothing nice is ever said about her.

Comment by skies11

January 7th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Another example of her incompetence.

Comment by ChristforBarackObama

January 7th, 2008 at 4:04 pm

I watched the video @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfRLEvQsv9A and I’m still doubting whether she faked the tears as part of her ‘warm personality tour’ or whether she was emotional because she is too fatigued. Which makes me think she will not be ready on Day One to be our president in the White House.

Comment by Jan L.

January 7th, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Hillary is obviously feeling overwhelmed, at least momentarily, and very, very challenged. After all, she was expecting something akin to a coronation, and now it dawns on her that she is in a genuine political decision. Do the tears make her more “human”? Sort of, but they also leave one to realize that she might not be as tough a commander-in-chief as we truly require.

Comment by Michael Thomas

January 7th, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Well heck, Hillary, cry me a river. Just make sure it’s a river in New York, not in Arkansas or the White House.

Comment by Ken Wendt

January 7th, 2008 at 4:12 pm

At least she is not afraid to show her feelings. She feels strongly about this country and the direction it has gone in the past 8 years under Mr. Bush. I think the news media is blowing this out of proportion. I didn’t see any tears when I watched this.

I hope this country wakes up and puts someone in the White House that will fight for the white collar - that person is Hillary Clinton.

Comment by Elsa St-Pierre

January 7th, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Go ahead Mrs. Clinton, you has shown compasion, love for our country, commitment , most of all humanity and soul.

I don’t see anything wrong showing emotion when we believe and love our country. We don’t need another President of the United States that doesn’t care what happen to this wonderful country, we need someone with Hart, Soul and Human emotions.

God Bless you and I am praying and hoping to be my President. Thank you very much for all your time and efforts to make us better, not only in this country but around the world.

Please help us and the United States to be “number one again”. Thank you very much. Elsa

Comment by Tom Colley

January 7th, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Take a look at La Gov Kathleen Blanco at a post Katrina news conference, crying. When I saw that I knew we were in for a long bad experience and history proved me right. It goes on even as she is leaving office. Hillary gave me chills, I thought I was ahving a flashback!

Comment by T. Graves

January 7th, 2008 at 4:20 pm

There is no crying in baseball and there is no crying in politics. Growup.

Comment by Pattie in Parker, CO

January 7th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

As a Republican, I find it hard to appreciate much of anything from the Clintons. Having said that, I truly understood Hilary and her “emotional” reaction to questions regarding dealing with the enormity of this campaign. I perceived her repsonse as true passion for this country and I appreciated it. Maybe what Washington needs is a little more realistic emotion versus the scripted, rehearsed garbage we are continually force-fed from Democrats and Republicans alike.

Comment by DWilson

January 7th, 2008 at 4:34 pm

It’s obvious that Hillary is not up to the task of being President…..The President will face much more serious things in the future and we need a strong leader……

Comment by mike

January 7th, 2008 at 4:36 pm

I think that Hillary is showing her limit. How can she possibly lead a big and great country such as America with all thechallenges that are awaiting our country if she can not hold the pressure during her own party’s primary elections. Come on! we are not even yet in the midst of the presidential. What did she expect? Great leaders are ones who show what they are truly made of in time of challenges and pressure. Where is her smile, where is her confidence? Being the president of United States of America isn’t a easy task. She still have enough time to drop off the course if not she will become creasy before the end the primaries because the pressure has just started.

Comment by Philip Marsala

January 7th, 2008 at 4:36 pm

Regarding Clinton’s emotions coming to surface. Because of His identification with humanity, “JESUS WEPT.” John 11:35. I’d say this verse speaks volumes regarding Jesus and all of humanity. Needless to say, there is absolutely no major reason to decry one who displays his or her tears. Needless to say, human tears may well be the spirital expression of the heart at it’s very best. Don’t knock it!

Comment by tony

January 7th, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Oh, Pa-lease!!! Yeah, I want her to be my president. One day Iran goes nutty like today only worse, and she starts crying to their leaders, “Oh, this is so tough! Stop attacking us!”. Gimmie a break!

Comment by LaDonna Bangeman

January 7th, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Okay, that’s scary. She is getting emotional over the polls on the campaign trail. Think about it folks…..is she going to cry if things don’t go well when she meets with the heads of foreign countries. I am a woman but I doubt I would ever vote to elect a woman as president. We are loving and nurturing………but we are also too EMOtional.

Comment by j

January 7th, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Hillary can’t take the heat in the kitchen, so she should get out. Immagine her losing her temper to world leaders as she did in the debate. There are much better, more experienced people on both sides of the isle.

Pingback by The Dan Lee Report » Blog Archive » There’s a lifeboat waiting for Hillary, unless she jumps too late.

January 7th, 2008 at 4:53 pm

[…] does not look like someone who can overcome her lack of likeablity, & her little sniffle festwhen she was “talking” to the girls at that cafe in Portsmouth? Completely planned […]

Comment by jackie

January 7th, 2008 at 4:54 pm

YEAH… that’s what this country needs for a leader - an emotional cry baby

Comment by richard tyler

January 7th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

God help the Islamofascists if President Clinton starts her mences while in office.

Comment by James E. Settle

January 7th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

She is NOT qualified - she does NOT have the emotional stability - she does NOT have the judgement - she does NOT have the experiecne needed - to be President of the United State of American

Comment by John Bacon

January 7th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

It is about our Country! We Don’t want Hillary!

Pingback by Hillary’s Emotional Moment « FOX Embeds « FOXNews.com

January 7th, 2008 at 5:01 pm

[…] her full response from my imperfect vantage point, or check out Major Garrett reporting on the incident — complete with a head-on […]

Comment by Richard Goddard

January 7th, 2008 at 5:07 pm

I am an observer from a far distant country and feel that my views are nonpartial. However I must state here that I do not know your viewing audience very well, but do feel that if they believe you are reporting news completely in a nonbiased position they must be brainwashed, or that far into persuasion that like an adicted drug they are drawn into argreement without a reasonable question. Sorry but this comes from a person firmly in the middle of the road that can see both sides. Thank you for taking the time to read my views. A small shout from England RJ Goddard

Comment by Travis Nave

January 7th, 2008 at 5:13 pm

This will probably happen every 28-days or so if she gets elected.

Comment by Victoria

January 7th, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Some people will say that it makes her look weaker, but I think it makes her look more human and more likeable, and may well translate into more votes from women…

Comment by LM

January 7th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

She is DONE!!!

You might as well stick a fork in her!!! I dont care how human, she may seem and all that. The American public does not a want a soft president.

Comment by Jeff Jacob

January 7th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Yeah, she’s ready to be commander in chief on day 1. NOT. Back to being the Senator from New York. Go Obama!

Comment by Steve Russell

January 7th, 2008 at 5:22 pm

This is typical Clinton trickery. Don’t think that everything she does is not scripted. She is desperate. Her one and only ambition on earth is to be the president. She probably had an advisor tell her this would make her more likeable or bring voters closer to her. Her ambition is unprecedented. She cracks a joke in Jan. 2007 about how she is used to dealing with “bad men” an obvious slam to her husband but she still stayed with him for political ambitions. Her newest rediculous line is that everyone that voted for George Bush did so because he was someone you would want to have a beer with. Personally I wouldn’t want to have a beer with someone that is a self-professed alcoholic that has turned away from that life and has become a better man for it. That shows her lack of respect for the office and the man. We all know what respect her husband had for the office. President Reagan wouldn’t walk into the oval office without his suit jacket on he had such a high reverance for the office. Clinton didn’t even feel the need to wear pants!

Comment by David Robertson

January 7th, 2008 at 5:28 pm

Desperate times call for desperate acts, literally. This was nothing more than a staged attempt to rescue a dying campaign in New Hampshire.

David Robertson Danville Iowa 52623

Comment by Tom

January 7th, 2008 at 5:28 pm

go hard or go home. See ya Billary, and take Bill with y’all. Try agin in ‘02

Comment by Linda Wilson

January 7th, 2008 at 5:33 pm

Poor Hillary. The Clinton’s have somehow gotten the misguided idea that they own American politics. Sorry Hill, welcome to the world of reality. If she is elected, we will go right back where we used to be just like the pictures from Iowa of her surrounded by Bill and Madelaine Albright. God help us! And what’s this about Chelsea can’t speak to the media, except to say “your cute” ? She’s an educated 27-year-old woman! Why does she need to be protected from the media. I am glad to see American is waking up and hopefully we will put the Clinton’s back where they belong. They are sickening!

Comment by Chuck

January 7th, 2008 at 5:44 pm

No surprises here!…. Hope all Clinton supporters remember this in November.

Comment by Lauren Delpesce

January 7th, 2008 at 5:49 pm

On Hillary getting emotional….give her a break! The last thing I am is a Hillary fan, but these candidates have been keeping a 24/7 pace for at least a month. Anyone could have an emotional moment. She never lost composure and quickly regained her steely demeanor. Let’s not make a mountain out of a molehill!

Comment by Melinda McAfee

January 7th, 2008 at 6:01 pm

I am not a fan of Hillary’s - not by a long shot - but I do think that people who campaign so relentlessly and who have invested themselves so much are bound to be subject to emotional glitches. She is tired. It might actually be a plus for someone who is perceived at times as hard, manipulative and calculating. I don’t think anything negative about her having tears in her voice any more than I would President Bush’s voice cracking when he is concerned about the troops. She cares a LOT if she makes this campaign work. Melinda in Oklahoma

Comment by Terri Garcia

January 7th, 2008 at 6:05 pm

And, if the Iranians point nuclear warheads at us, what will she do?? Cry? What an unfortunate display!

Comment by Brian

January 7th, 2008 at 6:07 pm

Hillary gets emotional and you Fox bag on her. Well then what is arrogance but another emotion? One we have repeatedly seen from W. W is very emotional…mostly negative emotions which have twisted the American perspective into something our founding fathers and mothers would be aghast at.

Hey, emotion and passion are what founded this nation. Americans should never become robots or cyborgs, responding only to convoluted logic supported by lies and secret agendas.

You guys at Fox are incredible, and that ain’t a compliment. Yellow journalism and mud slinging. My emotion to your reporting…YUCK!

Comment by david devore

January 7th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Hillary is phoney and a loser. I still can’t figure out why my party caters to her and her adulterous husband!!!!

Comment by TS Cooke

January 7th, 2008 at 6:19 pm

Major,

Your story about Hillary’s emotions makes me concerned you’ve been following her too closely, too long. You’re starting to sip the Clinton Kool-Aid.

Don’t forget Bill’s ability to manufacture emotions at opportune, made-for-TV moments, such as getting teary over the white rocks on Omaha Beach back in ‘94. Nothing about any of the Clintons is genuine. The last thing we need is for someone we count on, like you, getting sucked into their web.

Other than that, I think you and Carl Cameron are absolutely the best campaign reporters in TV history.

Major Tim Cooke, USAR (ret.) Keauhou-Kona, HI

Comment by Esther Plexico

January 7th, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Hillary Clinton did not show weakness. She is a GENUINE person. We love you Hillary.

Comment by allen bradley

January 7th, 2008 at 6:26 pm

She is a woman. she responds like a women; not like an exective, not like a Leader, but a confusioned, disapointed, disillusioned woman who NO management no business being in the us senate let alone the white house. The spouse of a president who counts her husbands years of demonstrated political experience as Hers; at best has no concept of reality. HILLARY HAD LESS EXPERIENCE UNDER BILL THAN MONICA LEWINSKI!!!!!!!!!!!!

Better now, than later (after elected to show tlhis cruical FLAW.

Comment by Katherine

January 7th, 2008 at 6:31 pm

It was a breath of fresh air to see real humanity coming from a strong, multi faceted, human, woman, such as Ms. Clinton. A focused, dedicated, insightful, capable, woman forging ahead in a male dominated system that is in need braking through it’s strong hold on an old, greedy, pit of a thought system.

I believe it would be difficult for any person with humanity and emotion to deal with physical, mental and emotional exhaustion in an un-relentless, un-natural, political game.

What she showed me through this interview was humanity. I have seen where others in such a situation deal with pressures and truth with a false face, almost hidden under a cold well rehearsed, liner, non-dimensional, robotic, political responses, then head for that “end of the evening party” and a well deserved cocktail, most likely paid by “WE THE PEOPLE”

I believe “This humanity” she holds does not affect her ability in any way to lead this country. On the contrary……I see a dimension to Ms. Clinton that most candidates (with the exception of Thompson) in both parties appear to lack…..

I hope we as Humans “REALLY ” look a the mess that “WE THE PEOPLE” have allowed to unfold, while we blindly covered the eyes of our souls……selling out our future for “OIL”

I am but a pimple on the cheek of the creator…..And still I have a haunting question….. It’s the same question I had all those years ago while waiting in those long gas lines back in the 70′S ……How could we have allowed ourselves be so over powered and reliant on one commodity…..

Comment by Jan Neveu

January 7th, 2008 at 6:44 pm

Although I am a Republican … I found it interesting to read about Clinton’s emotional moment … there is no room for this kind of behavior from a presidential candidate … tears are inappropriate coming from candidates on either side of the contest … I didn’t like her before … now I really don’t like her and feel that she will resort to anything to become a winner … even crying like a big baby. Or shall I say ‘tearing up’ like a bigger baby.

Comment by Lloyd Johnson

January 7th, 2008 at 6:53 pm

Hillary needs to take acting lessons to try to appear to be emotional.

Comment by Julia

January 7th, 2008 at 6:55 pm

This really scares me…I cannot imagine a President in a world crisis and falling apart and crying or getting emotional…talk about loosing clout with the world!

Interesting…Condolesa Rice has been under heavy stress, pressure, and even attack and I have never seen her get emotional or loose it! There’s a contrast for observation.

Julia CA

Comment by Advance!

January 7th, 2008 at 6:59 pm

Awwwww. Poor wittuw Hiwwawy don’t get to be a princess. I love it. She’s weak. We’ve known of her weakness since the Monica scandal. She’s never had what it takes to be president, she should have known better. I’d like to see her drop out, but she’ll force herself on us no matter what until she just can’t do it anymore, probably after the 8th round of recounts somewhere.

Comment by gene

January 7th, 2008 at 7:06 pm

mrs. clinton left a definite question in my mind. how would she react to a difficult negotiation if she were president ? she allowed her feminine side show. not strong in a foreign table negotiating. they now have her weak side. especially the far east where women are 2nd class citizens

Comment by mary

January 7th, 2008 at 7:20 pm

If she can’t stand the pressure she needs get out of the race.

Comment by Ike

January 7th, 2008 at 7:25 pm

When opposition comes, she gets angry. When the pressure comes up, she cries. What a mess !!!! Ready to lead? She can’t even lead her own self.

Comment by John Graham

January 7th, 2008 at 7:25 pm

I will start out by saying I am conservative. I have NEVER voted Democrat … and, I NEVER WILL vote for a Democrat … I couldn’t stand Bill Clinton, and I don’t like Hillary Clinton… but for the average undecided, uninformed voters who are swayed by things like Hillary almost crying and getting emotional … It will HELP HER POLL #’s. That is what this is all about. I don’t mind emotion. I like emotion. I am emotional. Some people out there will say to themselves that- that is what they were looking for … actual genuine emotion from her. And, now, they will feel more compelled to VOTE FOR HER because of it. I -actually- believed her for a moment; that she was actually human! That DOESN’T mean she should be the President of the greatest, most powerful, and most influential country in the world! Almost, to the contrary. She almost fell apart emotionally from a simple question, from an admirer, on the CAMPAIGN trail, to maybe win a PRIMARY, to maybe win enough primary’s to be on the ballot as the Democrat candidate, to maybe be elected as President of THE UNITED STATES! What would happen to her, if, GOD FORBID, she actually would become the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? There are some pretty tough questions coming your way. Thank GOD that she will never get that opportunity. I did believe her though. But…. NO… I would never vote for her.

Comment by Jean

January 7th, 2008 at 7:31 pm

How refreshing to see some real emotion from Hillary. I like seeing this side of her instead of the usual forced smile.

Comment by Lisa

January 7th, 2008 at 7:38 pm

While I am not a Hillary fan, I do not think this was staged…unfortunate for her that through the actions of some of her campaign people, this thought entered my mind, as well as a lot of other peoples, too. I think she gets the short end of the stick on some things that don’t seem “fair” to me, and again, I am not a supporter. While she didn’t gain the ire of so many by having a lot of these moments, I don’t wish for this to be a big issue for her, or our country.

Comment by Ed Kenneth

January 7th, 2008 at 8:28 pm

Is Major reporting the news or trying to creat a story about Hill’s “crying” Why don’t you folks just report the facts and let us viewers do our own analysis? Or do you not think we are smart enough? Or maybe we whould come up with a different view then major’s? Ed

http://bourbonroom.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/01/07/hillary-gets-emotional-on-campaign-trail/#respond

Comment by Chuck

January 7th, 2008 at 8:39 pm

I just watched the video of Hillary and it made me sick to my stomach. Hillary talking about what’s good for our country and the what’s good for the future of our children? Give me a break. All Hillary cares about is what is good for Hillary.

Comment by JUDI FULKERSON

January 7th, 2008 at 9:13 pm

WHY IS IT CONSIDERED WEAK FOR SOMEONE TO SHOW EMOTION ABOUT THEIR COUNTRY? IT GIVES ME HOPE TO KNOW THAT HILLARY IS ABLE TO SHOW FEELINGS. ISN’T IT ABOUT TIME THAT WE LOOK COMPASSIONATELY AT WHAT WE AS HUMANS ARE DOING TO THIS EARTH AND EACH OTHER. I FIND IT DISTASTEFUL TO TRY TO CREATE NEGATIVE DRAMA JUST SO SOMEONE CAN HAVE A STORY WHEN EMOTION IS SUPPOSED TO BE WHAT MAKES US AS HUMANS ONE STEP ABOVE OTHER CREATURES ON THE EARTH.

Comment by Katherine Murray

January 7th, 2008 at 10:06 pm

It’s too much of a microscope. Campaigning can be exhausting. Hillary Clinton is a human being. Let’s move on.

Comment by Harv Holley

January 7th, 2008 at 10:26 pm

If Hillary has a MELTDOWN at this point in just running for the highest office in the land, how would she handle a REAL CRISIS when our nation and our security is being threatened?

Comment by Gervis Webb

January 7th, 2008 at 10:45 pm

I am an independant; but may god help us if Hillary Clinton becomes president of this USA. The baggage she carries of her unfaithful husband and the fact she was a part of Whitewater is too much to bear. May the Clinton’s just disappear from the political scene and bring some decency to our political process. She cares nothing for this country except for what this country can give to her. She as Bill think they are above the law in their business dealings and personal relationships; may they drown in their own ambitions. May God bless America by removing the Clinmton’s from ever governing any part of this country. Gervis Webb.

Comment by Morris Lentz

January 8th, 2008 at 12:20 am

what a fake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment by Niki

January 8th, 2008 at 12:24 am

IF Hillary is already showing such turmoiled emotion this early in the race, what can we expect as her being the leader of our country in the reality of the world today? I’m a woman and it is a known fact that our hormones are different from males - we cant afford for her to break down when times get tough or she gets tired - the President of the United States must always be tough!

Comment by Terry Moore

January 8th, 2008 at 1:32 am

I think this “show of emotion” was as contrived as the dance on the beach with Bill. Or the Southern Black dialect. I simply will never trust either Clinton.

Oddly enough, it crossed my mind that if she always used the same tone of voice and vocal inflections as in the “emotional” moment, she would be much more likable than with her usual strident and condescending tone of her speeches. OH NO! Please don’t tell her. The last thing Republicans need is for her to actually be LIKABLE!

Comment by Kannan

January 8th, 2008 at 2:49 am

I felt sorry for her. Some say it is a sign of wekness. I think it is a sign of her heartfelt empathy. She became emotional not when she was talking about her electoral prospects but only when she was talking about America and its future. Give her a break please.

Comment by Chris

January 8th, 2008 at 7:11 am

Whether I would vote for Hillary or not matters not. I LOVE a candidate that shows themselves human! The compassion that showed in her inflection was awesome. I have a new reverence for Hillary now. I used to think she was made of stone. I am very glad to see her compassion!! Whomever I vote for, I want to know that they care about me, my family and my country. I saw that in her today!

Comment by Jana

January 8th, 2008 at 7:22 am

Oh Please! Men are stupid! If this country wants change get men out of the White House. This is all the men saying “Oh look she’s crying”. They are worse, they are lying. Everyone needs to look at Obama on all the news reports. Look at the difference in how cockey he is acting. He acts like he has already won. Hillary keep doing what you have been doing. Stick to your program and what you believe in. He will crash and burn all on his own.

Comment by Setmose

January 8th, 2008 at 7:38 am

She’s up against Oprah Winfried, what do you expect? Look at the way she’s holding the microphone even as she is getting emotional. You couldn’t do better on an Oprah segment about chronic cheaters and the wives that stand by them. Completely manufactured.

Comment by Joan Garrison

January 8th, 2008 at 8:23 am

My comment is I am worried about Hillary,but after hearing her this morning on c span her speech yesterday, she hit on every concern that the people of the people of US are concerned about, If the independent vote for Obama, in the end they will realize that all he has said was Change, but how.Hillary has said what she will do for the people . This speech should help her get more votes in NH, and onto the other states.If Obama gets the votes, The democrats will not make it in Nov’ because of his inexpierence. Good Luck Hillary

Comment by Barbara Aiello

January 8th, 2008 at 8:44 am

Dear Friends,

Quite interesting to see how New Hampshire is shaping up. As I sit here in my studio in southern Italy, I reflect on my ex-pat status and what these primaries mean to those of us Americans who live and work in Europe. Hillary is “verklempt” over her heavy campaign schedule. Oh my. We here in Europe who watch the daily rise of Islamist extremism, who see honor killings now go vitrually unreported because there are so many of them they have become commonplace and who see unrestrained immigration and its consequent parallel societies dominate Europe’s major cities… we get the message. Blow your nose, dry your eyes and give me Giuliani and McCain.

Comment by patriciajsasha

January 8th, 2008 at 10:27 am

I don’t care about her emotion however let us not forget her campaign speech after she lost in IA. She stated it ws a game, she stated she would be the winner. She brought the on the comparision of the electorial process in our country to being as little as “a game”. After I saw that speech and heard her myself say “its a game” one day and “its not a game” the next I have offically changed my vote. I was questioning Hilary before since I didn’t care for her husbands time in office and I don’t agree with most of what she says. But I have had enough of double politics and flip floppin. So good bye Hilary.

Comment by patriciajsasha

January 8th, 2008 at 10:37 am

I was a Hilary supporter until I saw this, and not because of the break down. For those of you who are following her campaign like I was(I saw her 3 times, shook her hand twice) you will remember her speech after she came in 3rd in IA. Now in that speech she compares the election to a game. She states she will win the game of approval. She will up the stakes in “the game of politics”. That jarred with me when she said it because I don’t think of the election process of the leader of our nation as a game, however even if she hadn’t have “broken down” or “fake cried” or whatever her words were “it’s not a game, it’s peoples lives ect” now that I don’t understand. 6 days ago with a different crowd it was a game and now it’s not. I had my disagreements with Hilary and some mistrust but really felt she was the one to be behind. Now I SEE and HEAR differently. I have had enough two sided in the White House. I’ve had enough “I will do this” and then nothing gets done. You have lost my vote Hilary!!! You need to get a better speech guy, one who remembers what he had you say last week either that or you need to remember what you said last week.

Comment by David Finch

January 8th, 2008 at 11:31 am

You have to ealize that Hillary has had her eye on the presidency since she was very young, but ambitious. For having this final ambition be crushed in defeat was and is a terible moment for Hillary. She never criticized her husband or divorced him because it would hurt her chances to become president. Every moment in Hillary’s life has been to be elected as president of the United States. So imagine what this potential major defeat means to her. I am an independent voter and I always vote for the candidate that I feel will do the best for our country, therefore I will vote AGAINST Hillary because of her crooked politics, business and life. Don’t forget the time she and Bill took furniture and other items from the White House that belonged to the country and not her and Bill! Don’t forget “White Water” and all the other things that represented her corruption in seeking the ultimate position. How could you elect someone that you couldn’t trust with your country or your money! Hillary is morally corrupt!

Comment by Terry

January 8th, 2008 at 11:47 am

Heaven help us. I can just imagine the Arab leaders watching a laughing while Hilary was “showing her emotional side.” Vote for her, not a chance.

Comment by Andrea

January 8th, 2008 at 11:49 am

I didn’t see Hillary breaking down, but something deep within her that finally broke through the ice and came to surface. I think I’d be able sense crocodile tears or breaking down–but when I saw the clip, I saw it was someone who felt so deeply about wanting the best for her country and that she was somewhat overwhelmed with emotion at that time–”caught in the moment”, so to speak. If anything, no matter her views, it shows she really does care about the US. That small moment showed that Hillary is not the Ice Queen that many of us believe–perhaps she should have the courage to be herself more often.

Comment by Billy D

January 8th, 2008 at 12:03 pm

I can’t help but wonder if the question that her so “emotional” was PLANTED lol

Comment by Deborah

January 8th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

What a good actress. She is such a manipulator. You just wait until she gets some real power and you’ll see the show of your life. Be afraid; be very afraid. She has nothing but her own personal interest in her heart; not Bill; not anyone but herself. She has hungered for this office and has done everything in her entire life to get there. I really feel sorry for her because she has subjected herself to a lot of scrutiny but it cannot compare to what she has done to other people. What goes around comes around. Obviously I do not like her but I do pray for her because I am commanded to pray for my enemies and I consider her a true threat to our country and our children and grandchildren. I can’t even imagine how difficult it is to campaign but surely it can’t compare to the schedules and decisions that have to be made by the President of the United States. She can’t handle it if she can’t handle this. It is so easy to say anything you want to say when you are out there campaigning. So many empty promises. Everything she says scares me.

Comment by Jennifer

January 8th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

I think some of you are missing the point. It’s not about showing emotion or seeming more human. This is not about how tough campaigning is or how rigorous her schedule is. HRC is a consumate liar (as is her husband) and will do ANYTHING to further her agenda. She will scheme, double-cross, and trample on whoever she has to in order to achieve what she believes she rightfully deserves. I am an intelligent woman who will NOT vote for a woman for President just because she is a woman. HRC isn’t strong enough to handle leaders of nations who treat women worse than dogs. She wouldn’t be able to handle it without getting her feminazi sensibilities in a twist. She is a socialist/communist who hides behind the “liberal” (which is just another word for socialist/communist) mask just waiting to pounce so she can make America into a socialist state (it’s half way there already, Thank you FDR!!). She’s a pandering fraud who will have us overrun with terrorists in no time.

Comment by PCM 01

January 8th, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Hmm…wrong political experience…questionable acting abilities…tendency to crack under pressure…Next!

Comment by sinna mani

January 8th, 2008 at 2:33 pm

In the company of a senior Labour politician I spent a few minutes talking to Hillary at UN development conference when she was first lady and realised how shallow her thinking was. She was very uptight when you critisised her position. She belongs to celeb culture and sound bites scripted by others whereas Obama seem to bea thinker as well as listener. I hope I am right.

Comment by Edward Primeau

January 8th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Hillary has had a good life and enjoyed being first lady for eight years. Let put it to rest Hillary and GO HOME!!

Comment by Edward Primeau

January 8th, 2008 at 2:58 pm

One last comment, I have been married for 38 years and know how moody a woman can get we don’t need a female holding a button that can bring it all to an end. Think about it !!

Comment by Mark

January 8th, 2008 at 3:20 pm

My comment is you have an eight year first lady with a failed healthcare program running against a one term Senator running against a failed Vice Presidential candidate. Where’s the experience? They can talk all they want, and promise the world, but without proven concrete actions of fixing problems, enhancing a person’s lifestyle, and making you feel confident in the leadership of this country, what gives a person hope in future success by supporting one of the three?

Comment by AmyDGC

January 8th, 2008 at 5:02 pm

I gotta say I just don’t get it. I heard about this on the radio and they made it sounds as if she were balling her eyes out or having some sort of weeping, sobbing, ranting PMDD episode. And I just watched the video…her voice shook slightly people. I’m not a Hillary fan…quite frankly I’m surprised to be defending her…but I see no proof or indication here that she’s either incapable of being a decent President (couldn’t be any worse than our current one…as if that should be the gold standard) or that she’s attempting to fake anything to show her “softer side”. Fox News is comparing this to Muskie’s breakdown, perhaps somebody needs to pull that footage from the vault and compare and contrast. This was quite simply no big deal and anyone who lets it color their opinion of the candidate is clearly not interested in issues or substance.

Comment by Jennifer

January 8th, 2008 at 5:03 pm

LOL I agree w/the other Jennifer from 1/8 @ 12:42. When I ran for State House, I knew better than to have a crying fit in front of the press. Hillary should too. I fully believe that it was staged to try to grab the soccer mommy vote. She reminds me of Eva Peron on the balcony of the Casa Rosada — the only difference is America’s not a dictatorship (yet).

Maybe the above Jennifer and I should run on the same ticket… I think we’d do better than Hilly and the NOW gang ( or shall I say the NAG gang?!?!?) Besides, if she were a real feminist, she would have gotten rid of Bill a long time ago.

Comment by California Jack

January 8th, 2008 at 5:49 pm

If Hillary cries over something petty like that, how will she be able to hold up under the pressure of making command decisions in tense national security related incidents? I can’t put any faith or trust in her! Jack

Comment by Ronda Pullen

January 8th, 2008 at 6:47 pm

I wonder where her tears were for “the country” and her “deep” feelings about it when she and her husband watched Americans killed and injured in the first terrorist bombing in NY, our embassies and our ships being bombed, and did nothing about it … until the Monica story broke … and her husband agreed to bomb an aspirin factory to get the news away from that sordid mess with all his affairs. I could certainly see she had no feelings for Americans as she watched friends go to jail for deals the Clintons were deeply involved wth, or when Foster committed suicide, or her husband was impeached in the House, or Berger stuffed documents in his socks … the list goes on and on. This woman “feels” nothing for anyone but herself and her blinding ambition to turn this country into a socialist one. Talk about fear … she scares me as almost as much as terrorists do.

Comment by republicanmommy

January 8th, 2008 at 7:19 pm

I’ve heard so much about Hillary cying that I was curious to see it for myself. COME ON! I can’t stand Hillary, I would never vote for her, but get over this crying thing. She wasn’t even crying, she was just a little emotional when someone asked a sympathetic question. I’ve seen strong leaders, male and female, do the same. I tear up more than she did at some commercials. This time, I have to side with Hillary and tell the world- define crying. Just because I don’t like her doesn’t mean that she can’t have an ounce of humanity in her.

Comment by michelle

January 8th, 2008 at 7:36 pm

There are plenty of sexist pigs commenting today I see. I have seen plenty of politicians cry and I have never heard anything about their leadership abilities because of it, but as soon as a woman cries she is woman and not able to compete, an actress, manipulator,contrived, weak etc….. one poster said if she is cries now how can we expect her to lead this country. All the Presidents in my life that I remember have cried at one time or another including both Bushes and Bill. This is ridiculous and sexist and some of the women on here disappoint me the most. Saying that a woman cant do it because of differences in horomones!!! You are an embarrassment to women everywhere.

Comment by Becky

January 8th, 2008 at 8:30 pm

I don’t think it is sexist.. this is minor situation and won’t compare to some days in the life of the President. If she can’t take the heat, get out of the fire.

Pingback by everyone was wrong | This Is Me Ranting

January 9th, 2008 at 3:51 am

[…] data to start making new type of predictions. Two days ago the only thing you could see on TV was how Hillary cried, how they’re campaign is out of money, how they’re so desperate they’re sending […]

[nothingman]

No political organization in the recent history of the world has had a gift for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory quite like the Democratic Party. This is the party that has managed to lose three of the last five presidential elections, despite only once in that period getting fewer votes than the opposition. Although the Democrats nominally hold positions with broad majority support on a wide range of issues, following the heavy losses of the 2010 and 2014 midterms the party found itself in its worst nationwide position since the early 1930s.

For much of the 20th century, Democrats understood themselves to be the party of permanent hegemony on Capitol Hill, no matter who was in the White House: Between the Franklin D. Roosevelt election of 1932 and the Newt Gingrich election of 1994, the party held a House majority for 58 out of 62 years, and a Senate majority for 52 of 62. Sam Rayburn, a Democrat from an east Texas district that is now (of course) solidly Republican, was House speaker for more than 17 years, a record that will surely never be broken. That history has almost become a curse from the past, haunting the Democratic present; it’s like a lost paradise, and every few years a new messiah shows up to tell the faithful that (s)he knows the true path that will lead them back. Or it’s like the idyllic garden in “Alice in Wonderland,” which Alice knows she can reach if she can only squeeze through the door.

There is no garden, no path and no door. This mythic certainty that their kingdom will come again — expressed more recently in the mantra that “demographics is destiny” — has prevented Democrats from perceiving the true nature of their predicament. Over the last three decades, the party has been virtually wiped out in numerous states between the coasts where it was once competitive (or even dominant). It now holds a legislative majority in just 14 states. You can slice and dice the history of American party politics in all sorts of tedious ways, but there is no clear precedent for such an imbalance. More to the point, there’s no precedent whatever, in the United States or anywhere else, for a situation where one party appears to represent majoritarian opinion and typically gets more votes, but has conclusively been shut out of power.

Oh but wait, you say: Blue wave incoming! Yeah, whatever. Presented with the powerful unifying force of a massively unqualified and uniquely divisive president, Democrats may indeed win a House majority this fall. (The Senate remains unlikely.) But I don’t feel like betting the ranch on that outcome, do you? What may be even more impressive than the Democratic record of losing winnable elections is the party's aptitude for finding someone else to blame every time it happens. It was the Russians. It was Ralph Nader. It was the Swift-boat ads. It was liberal complacency. It was gerrymandering. It was all the mean things Republicans said. It was the unfortunate fact that the voters don’t like us all that much, which definitely isn’t our fault.

READ MORE: Bill Browder and Vladimir Putin: A tangled tale of two nations, two centuries and a lot of history

Over the past few weeks, ever since Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's startling primary victory over Rep. Joe Crowley, D-N.Y., we’ve seen a remarkable display of intra-party, bad-faith concern trolling — an area where Democrats have set a high standard. Various “mainstream” or “moderate” figures in or around the party are already seeking to pin blame for a hypothetical November defeat, in advance, on the insurgent “socialist” faction associated with Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders. My daring analysis: This does not bespeak enormous confidence.

To be fair, Democrats of all factions and ideologies were united this week in telling former FBI director James Comey — a lifelong Republican, at least until he worked for President Donald Trump — to shut up and go away after offering unsolicited advice to Democratic voters:

Democrats, please, please don’t lose your minds and rush to the socialist left. This president and his Republican Party are counting on you to do exactly that. America’s great middle wants sensible, balanced, ethical leadership.

— James Comey (@Comey) July 22, 2018

Lordy, no -- not the socialist left! As many people observed, the guy who may have single-handedly tipped the balance in the 2016 presidential election should perhaps not view himself as a fount of political wisdom. But at least Comey’s tweet seemed like a sincere opinion, consistent with his grandiose view of himself as a white knight who embodies all the most honorable tendencies of America in one extremely tall white man.

Joe Lieberman, however, the onetime Connecticut senator and 2000 Democratic vice-presidential nominee, is just an odious little garden gnome, in constant danger of being peed on by the family Schnauzer. He seems, in fact, to have undergone the same process of physical and intellectual shrinkage as Rudy Giuliani: Was this a bargain offered by an evil sorcerer, which conveys immortality at the cost of one’s soul, stature and spine?

Lieberman was purely trolling, in especially distasteful fashion, in writing a July 17 Wall Street Journal op-ed that Red-baited Ocasio-Cortez with an extraordinary assortment of lies and urged Crowley, the 10-term incumbent she defeated in the June Democratic primary, to run against her on a third-party line in the fall. Since the Journal article is behind a paywall, here's a taste:

Because the policies Ms. Ocasio-Cortez advocates are so far from the mainstream, her election in November would make it harder for Congress to stop fighting and start fixing problems. Thanks to a small percentage of primary votes, all of the people of New York’s 14th Congressional District stand to lose a very effective representative in Washington.

Fortunately, Joe Crowley and the voters in his district can prevent this damage. On Election Day, his name will be on the ballot as the endorsed candidate of the Working Families Party. But for Mr. Crowley to have a chance at getting re-elected, he will have to decide if he wants to remain an active candidate. I hope he does.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a proud member of the Democratic Socialists of America, whose platform, like hers, is more Socialist than Democratic. Her dreams of new federal spending would bankrupt the country or require very large tax increases, including on the working class. Her approach foresees government ownership of many private companies, which would decimate the economy and put millions out of work.

First of all, Lieberman surely knows that Crowley will do no such thing — he’s a decent guy and a party loyalist, and the PR damage would be enormous — and that Crowley would lose even worse the second time around. (I live in the 14th district; I doubt Lieberman has been here in 30 years, except crossing overhead on the Cross-Bronx Expressway.)

Secondly, the actual point here may be to none-too-subtly remind Journal readers that Lieberman himself ditched the Democratic Party after his own primary defeat in 2006, and endorsed John McCain against Barack Obama in 2008. Whose interests is he serving by encouraging Democrats, in the pages of the house organ of Big Capital, to sabotage a young, progressive woman of color?

None of this makes clear why powerful people like Comey and Lieberman are so worried about a small-scale insurrection within the Democratic Party that is nowhere near as "far from the mainstream" as they pretend, and is also a long way from staging a coup and hanging portraits of Trotsky and Che in DNC headquarters. Socialist-dread syndrome also appears to have driven the recent gathering of “moderate” Democrats in Columbus, Ohio, under the aegis of the think tank Third Way, as reported in a widely circulated piece by Alex Seitz-Wald of NBC News (a former Salon staffer).

Several attendees said they were worried that single-payer health care and abolishing ICE and other Bernie-fied policy proposals of the “angry left” would alienate swing voters and damage the party’s prospects for victory in the midterms. That’s at least a valid debating point, although it has been the Democratic default setting for decades. (And has led to that, um, amazing record of uninterrupted winning.)

I was struck by the comments of former Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, who admitted that Democratic moderates find themselves on the defensive in ideological terms: "The only narrative that has been articulated in the Democratic Party over the past two years is the one from the left," he told Seitz-Wald. "I think we need a debate within the party. Frankly, it would have been better to start the conversation earlier."

Markell is absolutely right: A debate is overdue. But a debate about what? The problem for Democratic moderates is precisely that they will not define or explain their positions clearly, except in wonky, granular, political-calculus terms, in large part because their ideas are widely discredited and massively unpopular.

Rep. Cheri Bustos of Illinois told reporters in Columbus that she stands for "a silent majority who just wants normalcy. Who wants to see that people are going out to Washington to fight for them in a civil way and get something done. ... There's a lot of people that just don't really like protests and don't like yelling and screaming." As Seitz-Wald observes, Bustos sounded more like a Nixon-era Republican than a traditional Democrat, but in any case that's a statement about messaging and style that deliberately avoids any discussion of ideology or specific policy proposals.

At the Democratic convention in 2016, I tried to find a single elected official or candidate who would tell me, straight up, that the financial deregulation and free-trade agreements and welfare cuts and mass incarceration policies of the Bill Clinton years had generally been good ideas, whatever bumps we might have encountered along the way. Nobody would do it — but I don’t think that was because none of them believed it.

Attendees at the Third Way conference were clearly aware that middle-path Democrats will need big, new ideas in order to compete successfully with Medicare for all, a $15 minimum wage, debt-free college and the other dangerous pinko proposals that would have had near-unanimous support in the pre-Reagan Democratic Party. Here's what they came up with: A private-sector, employer-funded universal pension plan to supplement Social Security. OK, I'm just spitballing, but that probably isn’t going to suck the wind out of the red sails of Bernie’s fleet and sweep Mitch Landrieu (or whomever) into the White House.

I’m not saying that so-called moderate or mainstream Democrats don't have  ideas worth discussing or don’t possess a legitimate ideology. I am saying, with Jack Markell, that it’s long past time for them to tell us clearly what they believe and defend it forcefully. Because there’s a widespread sense that the Democratic Party has some hidden agenda or obscure set of motives beneath its bland, corporate, coalition-building exterior, and that has been infinitely more damaging than any amount of socialist fervor. On the right, it has fueled the perception that Democrats are a pack of conspiratorial scolds who want to limit the freedoms of others -- and so has driven conservatives to the polls. On the left, it has fueled the perception that the party is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman Sachs and its ilk -- and so has driven progressive apathy. (If neither stereotype is fair, neither is entirely false.)

This quantum ideological uncertainty is what drove people crazy about Hillary Clinton, I think, fueling the Trumpian narrative that she was deceptive or dishonest. (Which was hilarious in that context, needless to say.) She seemed impossible to pin down, first attacking Bernie Sanders as a wild-eyed radical, then gradually embracing the “progressive” label and finally running on a platform that incorporated most of his ideas. She seemed insulted by the suggestion that her Goldman Sachs speeches created any kind of political problem or required any explanation.

Clinton's political flexibility or malleability -- according to the conventional Democratic playbook -- was supposed to be a source of strength, a sign that she was a hard-headed, pragmatic decision-maker who would not be guided by doctrine. Amid the reversed magnetic field of the 2016 election, against an opponent who repeated the same forceful (if meaningless and insincere) phrases over and over again, it just looked like mendacity.

Like her entire generation of Democrats, Clinton had been programmed down to the cellular level with the early-‘90s creed that ideology itself was dangerous and toxic and likely to scare away suburban voters who just wanted civility and decency and problem-solving. Well, folks, I’m not a liberal or a conservative. I’m more of a Republibservatron! This avoidance or denial of ideology — the ideology of no-ideology — had perverse results: It elected two Democratic presidents to two terms apiece but left their party rootless and in ruins, seemingly defenseless before a deranged radical minority with a decaying relationship to reality (but no shortage of fervent ideology).

It’s tempting to say that a specter is haunting the Democratic Party and it’s the specter of socialism, blah blah blah. But that’s largely untrue: The specter is imaginary and so is the socialism, pretty much. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and their loose array of allies across the country are a modest contingent within the party. Only a handful of them will win elections this year, and in any case they’re closer to being old-time left-wing populists, with a 21st-century overlay of multiculturalism and intersectionality, than, you know, to this:

VIDEO

Hubert Humphrey, the leading Democratic moderate of Hillary Clinton’s youth, would find little to object to in Ocasio-Cortez’s platform, beyond the labeling on the package. (Once the Happy Warrior figured out what ICE and super PACs were, and what they had done to America, he’d go out and ring doorbells in her district.) Then again, Humphrey had no fear of open and often heated ideological conflict, which was a staple of Democratic discourse for decades and is exactly what the “democratic socialist” insurrection has reintroduced since 2016.

Those who shut down such internal conflict and purged the activist left from the Democratic Party, on the premise that it was the only possible way to win elections in a "centrist," anti-ideological nation, have never faced the consequences of their historic blunder. They have lost repeatedly and on a grand scale, insisting every time that they really should have won — or in some other, better world, did win — and that whatever went wrong was somebody else’s fault. They are the ones who appear committed to an inflexible, dogmatic ideology that is out of step with political reality. They are surprised and outraged to learn that if they want to continue their losing streak, they will have to fight for it.

Does the Democratic Party need an overhaul?

New York congressional candidate Max Rose hopes to flip NYC's lone Republican seat -- but says his party must change.

via Salon

#IFTTT #Feedly #Nothingman uses feedly

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

Alternate Cold War Elections

Democratic Presidential Nominees

1960: John F. Kennedy/Lyndon B. Johnson

1964: John F. Kennedy/Lyndon B. Johnson

1968: Lyndon B. Johnson/Hubert Humphrey

1972: Lyndon B. Johnson/Hubert Humphrey

1976: Hubert Humphrey/Fred Harris

1980: Ted Kennedy/Mo Udall

1984: Gary Hart/Jesse Jackson

1988: Gary Hart/Jesse Jackson

1992: Jesse Jackson/Al Gore

Republican Presidential Nominees

1960: Richard Nixon/Henry Cabot Lodge Jr

1964: Barry Goldwater/William E. Miller

1968: Nelson Rockefeller/Ronald Reagan

1972: Ronald Reagan/George Romney

1976: Ronald Reagan/Bob Dole

1980: Ronald Reagan/Bob Dole

1984: Bob Dole/George Bush

1988: Pat Robertson/Pat Buchanan

1992: Ted Stevens/Pat Saiki

1960 occurs as it did in our timeline, but 1964 sees Kennedy survive his assassination attempt and win re-election against segregationist and father of modern conservatism Barry Goldwater.

1968 sees Vice President Johnson as the front runner following the assassination of the president’s brother and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. Johnson still picks Hubert Humphrey as his running mate in this timeline as he did in our 1964, because Humphrey was a civil rights activist and father of modern liberalism (he’d be a progressive today, but in the 60s that was seen as a Republican term because of Teddy Roosevelt). Because Kennedy is still alive, Richard Nixon doesn’t stand a chance at securing renomination; he won in our 1968 because he positioned himself as less extreme than loser Goldwater, but in this timeline it would be a close race between moderate governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York and conservative governor Ronald Reagan of California. Rockefeller would probably pick Reagan as his VP to balance the ticket, east and west, liberal and conservative, while in our timeline the non-extremist but still conservative Nixon chose moderate governor Spiro Agnew of Massachusetts. Rockefeller/Reagan loses because Johnson’s messaging is clear (liberal), while Rockefeller’s is muddled (mixed ticket).

1972 sees Johnson and Humphrey narrowly win re-election because of their handling of the 1969-1970 recession and their promise to end the Vietnam War. Johnson died in 1973 in our timeline, so it’s possible he might bow out and let Humphrey get the nomination in 72, but I think he would be more likely to stay on as president and die in office. Ronald Reagan would be the front runner for the Republicans, and I see him likely winning the popular vote, with moderate governor George Romney of Massachusetts as his running mate. For a long time, Republicans tended to run on split tickets; liberal Eisenhower and conservative Nixon, conservative Nixon and moderate Agnew then moderate Ford, moderate Ford and conservative Dole, conservative Reagan and moderate Bush, years later we saw moderate McCain and conservative Palin, moderate Romney and conservative Ryan. That ship had sailed though, it’ll be noting but conservatives from here on out. But in this version of 72, Reagan plays it safe with moderate Romney (father of Mitt)

1976 sees president Humphrey run for re-election and lose in a landslide to Reagan who was so popular with Republicans that they would nominate him again despite losing. This is what they did to Nixon in our timeline, and it’s what the Democrats did to Adlai Stephenson in the 1950s. At first I thought Humphrey would run with former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter because he needed a moderate southerner to stand a chance, but Carter was not nationally known; he only won our 1976 because he positioned himself as a non-corrupt Washington outsider in the wake of Watergate. No Nixon in this timeline means no Watergate, so no need for Carter to run. Humphrey is super liberal, and he actually considered picking Oklahoma senator Fred Harris as his running mate in our 1968, so I’ll go with him instead. Harris supported Johnson’s Great Society (New Deal 2.0, War on Poverty), but didn’t support his war crimes in Vietnam. He ran himself in 72 and 76, losing both times, so I think he’s the perfect choice for Humphrey’s Vice. Reagan chooses fellow conservative Bob Dole as his VP this time because he figured Romney and the moderates were a liability last time; he goes full conservative (in for a penny in for a pound). I chose Dole because that’s who Gerald Ford picked in our 1976; moderate Ford originally had moderate Rockefeller as his VP, but replaced him with conservative Dole because he didn’t want to alienate conservative voters with a moderate/liberal Republican ticket against the moderate/liberal Democratic ticket of Carter and Mondale.

1980 would be much closer in this timeline than in ours. The economic policies that made Reagan king of the 80s make him royal fool of the 70s. The 1980 recession is seen as his fault instead of Carter’s, he pushes for wars against Iran after the revolution and the Soviets after they invade Afghanistan, which are unpopular so soon after Vietnam. Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, brother of the still alive former president John F. Kennedy, is the frontrunner for the Democrats, and he picks representative Mo Udall as his VP. Udall was super liberal and the frontrunner in our 1976, only losing because Carter had less baggage; he would have been the first sitting representative to be elected president since James A. Garfield in 1880. When Kennedy challenged Carter in the 1980 primaries, Udall was his main supporter, so it makes sense for her to unite in this version of 1980. I think Reagan would win because he has a slight incumbency advantage, but it’s nowhere near the landslide of his 84 re-election in our timeline. I expect he would be impeached by House Democrats over his dealings with Iran and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan; in this timeline there was no Watergate, so this would become the defining scandal of the 20th century. Reagan wouldn’t resign because he was too proud and figures he had enough support to survive impeachment; he’s probably right, becoming the second president to be impeached and acquired after Andrew Johnson in 1868. But this means he is reviled by both parties after leaving office, going down in history as a middling-to-bad president like Nixon or George W. Bush

Senator Gary Hart of Colorado was a frontrunner in both 84 (losing to the late VP Walter Mondale, liberal protege of Hubert Humphrey), and 88 (dropping out of the race because of reports of an extramarital affair). Without Mondale as a challenger, he would win the 84 nomination hands down. I have him pick Reverend Jesse Jackson as his running mate to mirror our Mondale’s choice of Geraldine Ferraro. Ferraro would have been the first female VP, and Jackson would become the first black VP. After the economic collapse brought on by the scandal plagued Reagan administration, the Democrats were all but guaranteed to win back the White House as they did in our 76. Reagan’s VP Dole would be the front runner, and he would go back to the split ticket strategy, picking moderate CIA director George Bush as his running mate. Bush was the frontrunner in our 80 because he was the most experienced candidate with the highest qualifications, a foreign policy expert who lost to Reagan because he was REALLY boring. Regan picked him as VP to unite the party’s wings, so I can see Dole trying that here.

Side note: President Hart would have a very different relationship with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of the UK (if the Conservative Party was still in power in this timeline; they won in part because Democrat Carter was a terrible president, making their UK analog Labour Party look bad). In our timeline, Obama chose Hart as Envoy to Northern Ireland (like an ambassador, but Northern Ireland isn’t an independent country), so this Hart would be integral in opposing Thatcher’s death squads, helping to ease tensions during the Troubles

1988 sees Hart/Jackson re-elected, though his affair might become an analog to Clinton’s Lewinski Scndal, leading to the Republican Revolution in the 80s instead of the 90s. Reagan would be redeemed in the eyes of conservatives, and the Democratic sex scandal would lead them to pick another far-right evangelical as their nominee, televangelist Pat Robertson, who came in third in the Republican primaries in our 88 against VP Bush and senator Dole. No Bush and no Dole means Robertson is the frontrunner, and I figure he’d pick equally conservative columnist Pat Buchanan as his VP; Buchanan challenged Bush from the right in the 92 primaries, winning nearly a quarter of the vote (for the record, most incumbents run unopposed). Robertson and Buchanan are both non-politicians, so think of them as Double Trump.

1992, VP Jesse Jackson would be the frontrunner for the Democrats, though challenged from the right by moderate governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas. I think Jackson would get the nomination, but I don’t know if he would win because of conservative opposition to the super liberal Hart administration; it would be like Al Gore’s race in the 2000, with everybody comparing him to the divisive Clinton. Jackson would stand a better chance than Gore though because he would make history as the first black presidential nominee, a proto-Obama. A Midwesterner, I figure he’d want to distance himself from westerner Hart by picking a southerner like Clinton, though Clinton would reject him because he wants the top spot, not the #2. He might then go for governor Douglas Wilder of Virginia, the first black governor since reconstruction, though having two black candidates on the same ticket would be a pipe dream in the 90s. He would probably end up with senator Al Gore, just like our Clinton; Gore chose not to run for president in 92 because his son had been hit by a car, which wouldn’t happen in this timeline because of the butterfly effect. Republicans in our timeline rallied behind senate majority leader Bob Dole; if he were VP under Reagan and the failed nominee in 84, they would probably gather around Ted Stevens of Alaska instead. Stevens was the Republican whip (#2) and frontrunner for majority leader in 1995 before narrowly losing to Dole, so he would probably be leader in this timeline, making him the presidential frontrunner in 96, though he was more moderate because he was personally pro-abortion and eventually pro-environmentalism (conservative Nixon created the EPA, so maybe Stevens would be similar). He might pick Patricia Saiki, former Republican representative from Hawaii, just to create a totally Pacific ticket as a gimmick, as well as nominating the first woman VP like Ferraro in our 84.

I have no clue who would win in this 92. If Jackson, he would run again in 96, but I have no idea who against. If Stevens, he would run again in 96 against Bill Clinton; Clinton was like Reagan, extremely ambitious, he would not stop until he took the White House.

I’m open to suggestions going forward from here. 1992 largely depends on whether or not Ross Perot runs as an independent and gains as much traction as he did in our timeline. Most third party candidates have either no national appeal or exclusively regional appeal, but Perot was a legitimate contender, qualifying for debates with Bush and Clinton and eventually winning nearly a fifth of the popular vote. It would also depend more on the Cold War; without Reagan in the 80s, US-Soviet relations would be very different, and there’s no guarantee that the USSR would collapse. The Berlin Wall would definitely fall, but I don’t know what 1991 would look like in this alternate Russia.

What do you guys think?

#alternate history #alternate reality #alternate universe #American history #politics #political #elections #20th century #1900s #Cold War #usa #us #United States #Kennedy #Johnson #Humphrey #Reagan #Hart #1960s #1970s #1980s #1990s #ah

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

President Trump’s quest to win a second term is not in good shape. He entered Tuesday night’s debate with roughly a 7- or 8-point deficit in national polls, putting him further behind at this stage of the race than any other candidate since Bob Dole in 1996.1

If we look at potential tipping-point states, the race is a bit closer, but not that much closer. After a couple of strong polls for Joe Biden earlier this week in Pennsylvania — the state that’s currently most likely to decide the election — Trump now trails there by 5 to 6 points. He’s down by about 7 points in Michigan and Wisconsin, meanwhile. Those states, along with Minnesota, Maine and New Hampshire — where Biden has also polled strongly lately — suggest that Biden is winning back some of the Obama-Trump white working-class voters who flocked to Trump four years ago. Indeed, Biden is as close to winning South Carolina or Alaska as Trump is to winning Michigan and Wisconsin, based on recent polls of those states.

At a time when Trump desperately needed a boost, the debate probably didn’t help him either — it may have hurt him. Every scientific poll we’ve seen had Trump losing the debate, some by narrow margins and some by wide ones.

That includes the poll FiveThirtyEight conducted with Ipsos, which surveyed the same group of voters before and after the debate. While the poll didn’t show a massive swing — most voters stuck to their initial preferences — more voters did rate Biden’s performance favorably, and Biden gained ground relative to Trump based on the number of voters who said they were certain to vote for him, roughly tantamount to a 3-point swing toward Biden in head-to-head polls.

Now, I’m not predicting this will happen, but if Biden’s national lead were to expand to 9 or 10 points, which is consistent with the sorts of polling bounces we’ve seen in the past for candidates who were perceived to win debates — especially challengers debating an incumbent for the first time — Trump’s situation could become quite desperate.

To be clear, none of this means that Trump’s chances are kaput. As of this writing, our forecast still gives him around a 21 percent chance of winning the Electoral College. That’s not great, but it’s a lot better than zero.

But it’s possible Trump’s chances may decline further after post-debate polling begins to roll into our forecast. Furthermore, the mere passage of time helps Biden in our model, because every day that Trump doesn’t gain ground is a day when his fate becomes slightly more sealed. (Lots of people have already voted!) Case in point: In an election held today — Trump has no more time to make up ground — his chances would be 9 percent, not 21 percent, according to our forecast.

Then again, there are some possibilities that our model doesn’t account for, and they have become more pertinent after Trump has repeatedly refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power and declined to commit to respecting the election results. As we wrote when launching the forecast:

We assume that there are reasonable efforts to allow eligible citizens to vote and to count all legal ballots, and that electors are awarded to the popular-vote winner in each state. The model also does not account for the possibility of extraconstitutional shenanigans by Trump or by anyone else, such as trying to prevent mail ballots from being counted.

Let’s back up for a second. This is FiveThirtyEight’s fourth presidential election campaign. And in the previous three, there was at least some question about who was ahead in the stretch run of the race. John McCain, for instance, briefly pulled ahead of Barack Obama following the 2008 Republican convention, and Obama didn’t really solidify his lead until early October. In 2012, national polls were very tight between Obama and Mitt Romney following the first presidential debate, and remained fairly tight thereafter (although Obama always maintained an Electoral College edge). And people forget how close the 2016 race was for stretches of the campaign; it was not such a huge upset. In fact, Hillary Clinton led by only 1.4 points in our national polling average heading into the first debate that year.

But there isn’t any of that ambiguity this time. Since we launched our general election polling averages on June 18, Biden has never led by less than 6.6 points nationally. Literally only one national poll — a Rasmussen Reports poll that put Trump ahead by less than a full percentage point — has shown Trump leading by any margin during that period. It’s been an exceptionally stable race.

But, amazingly, that hasn’t really shaken people’s confidence in Trump’s ability to win. In our own poll with Ipsos, we found respondents thought Biden and Trump had roughly equally likely chances of winning. And maybe that boils down to three perpetual sources of anxiety I hear in conversation with liberal friends or liberal readers:

Trump could win the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote by a wide margin.

There could be a large polling error in Trump’s favor.

Trump could somehow steal the election.

All three are legitimate sources of concern for Biden backers. The first two are relatively easy to quantify, however. Indeed, the whole purpose of a model like FiveThirtyEight’s presidential forecast is to answer questions like those. The third one, however, is harder to get a handle on, so let’s talk about No. 1 and 2 first..

The Electoral College could still help Trump, but it only goes so far

The possibility of an Electoral College, popular vote split remains a point in Trump’s favor. In fact, there’s an 11 percent chance that Trump wins the Electoral College but not the popular vote in our forecast (but less than a 1 percent chance the other way around). At the same time, Biden’s strength in the Upper Midwest relative to Clinton’s — at least, if polls are correct there — potentially mitigates this disadvantage to some extent. The table below shows Biden’s probability of winning the Electoral College given various popular vote margins, according to our forecast as of Wednesday afternoon. And as you can see, Biden is only truly safe to win the Electoral College once he has a popular vote margin of 5 points or more! But, he’s a fairly heavy favorite with a 3- to 5-point margin, and has roughly break-even odds with a 2- to 3-point margin.

Biden’s favored, if he wins the popular vote by +2 to +3 points

Chances of Biden winning the Electoral College under different popular vote scenarios, according to the FiveThirtyEight presidential forecast, as of Sept. 30

POPULAR VOTE MARGIN scenarios Biden’s chances of winning the ELECTORAL COLLEGE Biden +6 to Biden +7 >99% Biden +5 to Biden +6 98 Biden +4 to Biden +5 93 Biden +3 to Biden +4 77 Biden +2 to Biden +3 54 Biden +1 to Biden +2 29 TIE to Biden +1 11 Trump +1 to TIE 3 Trump +2 to Trump +1 <1

So, for practical purposes, you can take Biden’s lead in national polls and subtract 2 or 2.5 points from it to infer his margin in tipping-point states. In other words, if he’s ahead by around 7.5 points in national polls, that’s more like the equivalent of a 5-point lead in the Electoral College. That’s still a reasonably large advantage; empirically, it’s not that easy to overcome a 5-point deficit at this stage of the race.

A big polling error could help Trump … or Biden

One of the misconceptions I hear about FiveThirtyEight’s forecast is that “it assumes that polls are right.” Actually, in some sense the whole purpose of the forecast is to estimate the chance that the polls are wrong. In 2016, the polls did show Clinton ahead, but between tight margins in tipping-point states and the large number of undecided voters, there was a fairly high probability — around 30 percent, according to our forecast — that Trump was going to win anyway.

So while a polling error is possible — indeed, our forecast assumes there’s likely additional error this year because of an uptick in mail voting — it would still take a bigger error than in 2016 for Trump to win.

Assume that current polls hold until Election Day, and subtract 3 points from Biden’s margin in every state (roughly the average error in swing state polls in 2016) … Biden still wins Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin fairly comfortably, and therefore, the Electoral College; he’d also be a slight favorite in Arizona. And as our friends at the Upshot have calculated, even if you had a polling error of the exact same magnitude in the exact same states as in 2016, Biden would still win, albeit narrowly.

Of course, nothing intrinsically rules out a larger polling error. We had one in 1948 — when Dewey didn’t defeat Truman, after all — and in 1980, when Ronald Reagan won in an epic landslide instead of the narrow margin that polls predicted.

But there’s no guarantee such an error would favor Trump. Historically, the direction of polling bias has not been predictable from cycle to cycle; the same polls that underestimated Trump in 2016 tended to underestimate Obama and Democrats in 2012, for instance. If anything, to the extent there are polling errors, they sometimes come in the opposite direction of what the conventional wisdom expects.

I want to spend more time on this topic in the coming days, so I won’t go on at too much length here. But for now, know that a 7-point Biden lead on Election Day could, indeed, turn into a 2-point Biden popular vote win where Trump narrowly wins the Electoral College.

As I wrote earlier in the piece, our forecast gives Trump about a 9 percent chance of winning an election held today despite his current deficit in polls — not bad when you’re 7 points down! But it’s about equally likely that a 7-point Biden lead could translate into a 12-point Biden win, in which he’d not only carry states like Georgia and Texas, but would also have a shot in South Carolina, Alaska and Montana.

Trump’s comments on respecting the election outcome are deeply worrisome, but it’s hard to estimate his chances of overturning the result

Hoo, boy. At some point I’m going to have to write a column about this too, I suppose. As I said at the outset, our forecast assumes that the election is free and fair — at least to the extent that past elections that we used to train the model were free and fair. (Throughout American history, there has always been plenty of voter suppression and voter disenfranchisement.)

But for now, let me advance a few propositions:

Even a small probability that the U.S. could become a failed or manifestly undemocratic state is worth taking seriously.

There are a wide range of things that Trump could attempt to do, many of which would be quite damaging to the country, but they are not necessarily equally likely to succeed.

Trump’s actions are much more likely to actually change the result of the election if the outcome is close, and right now, the most likely scenario is that Biden wins by a not-so-close margin.

Beyond that, it’s hard to estimate the probability that Trump could steal the election to any degree of precision. It requires, at a minimum, some knowledge of the probabilities in a free and fair election plus some knowledge of election law and how many votes could realistically come under dispute plus some theory of the institutional incentives of the Supreme Court and various other courts plus some opinions on how Congress might interpret the Constitution in the event of a disputed election. Maybe a panel of experts could get together and try to put together some reasonable bounds on the probability of various scenarios, but I don’t know that any individual could — certainly not me.

After Trump’s actions over the past few weeks, though, I wonder if there’s some tradeoff between Trump’s chances of winning legitimately and his willingness to engage in authoritarian rhetoric and behavior, even if it probably wouldn’t succeed at stealing the election. It’s not like this is coming entirely out of left field; Trump also said in 2016 that he wouldn’t necessarily respect the election results. But his recent statements have come at a moment of increasing peril for his campaign. It’s hard to know for sure, but I think Trump’s comments might be more tempered if he were 2 points ahead in Wisconsin instead of 7 points down.

It’s not easy to see which cards Trump has left to play or which contingencies could work in his favor enough for him to win — other than if the polls have been wrong all along.

Consider that Trump’s convention produced, at best, a very meager bounce in his favor. His attempt to pivot the campaign to a “law and order” theme fell completely flat in polls of the upper Midwest. He’s thrown the kitchen sink at Biden and not really been able to pull down Biden’s favorables. His hopes that we’d turn the corner on COVID-19 before the election are diminishing after cases have begun to rise again in many states. His campaign, somehow, is struggling to hold on to enough cash to run ads in the places it most needs to run them. The New York Times and other news organizations are likely to continue publishing damaging stories on his taxes and personal finances from now until the election. And now he’s seemingly lost the first debate.

If Trump intuits that he’s unlikely to win legitimately — it’s not hard to imagine him escalating his anti-democratic rhetoric and behavior. It’s also not hard to imagine this rhetoric further eroding his position in polls. It’s highly unpopular in focus groups (yes, take those with a huge grain of salt) and Trump’s polling over the past several days has been particularly bad (although there’s been a lot of other news, too).

So we could be headed for a vicious cycle where Trump increasingly gives up on trying to persuade or turn out voters and voters increasingly give up on him. But from a polling standpoint, this is one of the clearer elections to diagnose: Biden isn’t home-free, but he’s in a strong position. Nonetheless, the outlook for what’s actually in store for America has rarely been more cloudy.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #Nate Silver

[conservativemalarkey]

paradoxcase replied to your post

“Okay, now I'm curious about what you saw of the Tea Party. (Not a new...”

This is fascinating. Can you offer any insight into why McCain picked Palin as his running mate? It seemed very out of character. Was he trying to appeal to the Tea Party?

As I remember it- note, I was a young teenager and may be misremembering things- that was one of the biggest factors (the Tea Party was a bloc by then, though I don’t remember if they were going by that name yet-- I think that wasn’t until after the election). But there was other stuff at work here and it’s all pretty fucking interesting.

See... McCain has always been a pretty establishment Republican, for all his I’M A MAVERICK! A MAVERICK, I TELL YOU!!! spiel. Where he does diverge from the party line, it’s to the left, not the right- for example, he has a principled objection to torture because he was a POW.  And... I don’t quite understand how it works, but in the establishment chunk of the Republican party, there’s a practice where sometimes in an election there’s an understanding that it’s one particular candidate’s turn this time and the party leadership will throw their effort behind getting that person elected. It’s quiet, genteel, unspoken, but it’s there. 

In 2008, it was McCain’s turn. He won the primary without too much fuss- sure, there were other candidates, but it was his turn. He was getting older, 2008 was probably the last year he could run for president and serve a full eight-year term, and he had built up a lot of political capital. So party leadership backed him and the primary went... relatively smoothly.    

But when he won, there were two things he just plain hadn’t counted on.

1. Barack Obama, not Hillary Clinton, had won the Democratic nomination for president. 

No one on the Right saw this coming. No one. Before 2008 Obama was a senator with a not-especially-flashy record; sure, he was an up-and-coming politician, he’d had a distinguished career as a lawyer and he’d written a few books. But no one thought he had the political capital to run for president, and he was super young. In 2008, he was the guy you kept your eye on to see what he’d be in 10 years- and then he won the nomination. He was charismatic, funny, and relentlessly optimistic-- while also being intelligent, diplomatic, and statesmanlike.

In 2008, Hillary was almost as anointed as she was in 2016. Before the primaries really got under way, the media consensus on the right was that it was going to be Hillary vs. McCain, and McCain would win. Because, as everyone knows, Hillary is kind of a wonk and is bad at playing to the crowd. She didn’t have the ~folksy, down-home charm~ that McCain was planning to bank on. 

Obama had it in spades. And Obama had the youth vote. And the black vote. And the Hispanic/Latino vote. If he was elected, it’d be historic- he’d be the first black president. His campaign managed to get people who almost never voted to vote in the primaries, just out of sheer faith in the guy and knowledge that they were making history. 

 He came out of nowhere and zoomed to prominence overnight. He did everything they’d hoped their candidate would do, and did it better, while clearly being smarter and more Presidential. And he did it all while being black. 

By the time the primaries were done, conservatives were fucking terrified of him.

2. The bloc that would become the Tea Party haaaaaated how close McCain was to the party establishment. Haaaaaaaaaaaated. 

You could have seen this one coming, even if you were on the right. But most people didn’t care enough to pay attention until the end of the primaries, because it was McCain’s turn. Ron Paul (among other hopefuls) got a fair amount of the vote, because people wanted something Different. Something that the main branch of the party wasn’t going to give them. They wanted someone who’d be like Bush, but even more so- someone ‘dumb’ and folksy, a ‘man of the people’ in the pejorative sense. someone who held their positions on Moral Issues and wasn’t going to back down, or someone who wouldn’t support the neoliberal economic agenda the Clintons and Bushes more or less consistently had. 

And what they got was McCain, who looked to be more of the same. They weren’t too happy. 

So when it came time to pick a Veep, the qualities they were looking for were something like this: 

Culture warrior 

Outsider- not a mainstream Republican

Can pick up southern and/or Midwestern states that McCain can’t grab

Can get disgruntled Ron Paul + etc. voters interested in the election again

Can get disgruntled Hillary voters to consider voting R

If possible, black and/or female 

Yeah, at least half of the reason for choosing Sarah Palin was really naked, ugly identity politics that would make your most identitarian leftist indignant. See, both Obama and Hillary were historic candidates- if she’d been elected, Hillary would have been the first female President, and of course Obama was the first black president. McCain was... well, just another white dude. No one wanted to vote for McCain because he was historic; it was just business as usual.

So McCain’s campaign thought, rather cynically, that they could peel off some disaffected Hillary voters by putting A WOMAN!!1! in the vice presidency. See? It’s historic if you vote for us, too??? We have A Girl????? You voted for Hillary because you wanted A Girl President, right?????    

The other thing was, of course, the kind of identity politics even Republicans think is valid; IE: dealing with the voting bloc that would become the Tea Party. Since McCain had never been much of a culture warrior and stuck with the massively-unpopular ‘establishment’ side of the Republican party most of the time, they did what they could to counteract that- mostly, McCain played up how much of a MAVERICK he was in all his ads and the debates, and they picked a vice president who was about as hard line of a culture warrior as they could get.

Sarah Palin has a huge family, a child with Downs’ Syndrome and a pro-life stance based almost 100% around using said child as a prop, a gun fixation, and that frontier backwoodsy kind of “HEY, I’M FOLKS LIKE YOU” thing that Republican voters like. She’s perky and snarky, but nonthreatening. She’s much more traditionally femme than Hillary and in general reminds most conservatives of the women around them- their mothers, wives, sisters, + etc. She’s a culture warrior. She set herself up to be sort of an avatar the Tea Party bloc could project their hopes on. And after all, McCain was pretty old, whoever he picked to be his VP could wind up much more prominent than expected...... 

Of course, Sarah Palin wound up being much, much more of a liabiliy than an asset, and she’s one of the things that cost McCain the election IMO. She was supposed to be an anti-Obama, anti-tea party nuke, and someone forgot that nukes don’t just blow up the people you point them at. 

But that was the reasoning behind them picking her, instead of a ‘safer’, better choice. 

#paradoxcase #politics #us politics #conservative malarkey #recent history #2008 election #john mccain #sarah palin

[jennielim]

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Even if you knew in advance about the “blue shift” that would occur in states like Pennsylvania — and we did know in advance about it! — it’s been hard to make enough of a mental adjustment for it this week. Numbers flashing across a TV ticker have a certain magnetic power and certitude to them. It was easy to forget that Joe Biden would gain ground once mail votes were added to the tallies because such votes were overwhelmingly Democratic this year in Pennsylvania and most other states.

But just because of that blue shift — and the red shift that occurred in states where mail votes were counted first — that doesn’t mean the presidential race was all that close in the end. Joe Biden’s win was on the tighter side of the likely range of outcomes suggested by polls, but it was a thoroughly convincing one judged on its own merits.

So put aside your anxieties of the past few days and the premature media narratives that have been circulating since Tuesday night. Suppose, instead, that you’d been on one of those weekslong rafting trips in the Grand Canyon (sounds pleasant, doesn’t it?) and woke up to this map:

It’s not a landslide, by any means, but this is a map that almost any Democrat would have been thrilled about if you’d shown it to them a year ago. Biden looks to have reclaimed the three “blue wall” states — Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin (ABC News has announced that Biden is the “apparent winner” in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin1) — that were central to Hillary Clinton’s loss. He may also win Arizona (he would become the first Democrat to do so since 1996) and, in the opposite corner of the country, Georgia (the first Democratic winner there since 1992). Additionally, Biden easily won Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, which could be a thorn in the side of Republicans going forward. He also ran far ahead of Clinton in rural northern states such as Maine, Minnesota and New Hampshire.

Extrapolating out from current vote totals, I project Biden winning the popular vote by 4.3 percentage points and getting 81.8 million votes to President Trump’s 74.9 million, with a turnout of around 160 million. This is significant because no candidate has ever received 70 million votes in an election — former President Barack Obama came the closest in 2008, with 69.5 million votes — let alone 80 million. That may also be a slightly conservative projection, given the blue shift we’ve seen so far and the fact that late-counted votes such as provisional ballots often lean Democratic. I’d probably bet on Biden’s popular vote margin winding up at closer to 5 points than to 4, and 6 points isn’t entirely out of the question either.

The margin is also a bit more impressive in the context of our highly polarized political era, which has tended to produce close elections. If I’m right about the popular vote margin, Biden’s win would come via the second-largest popular vote margin since 2000, exceeding Obama’s 3.9-point margin against Mitt Romney in 2012 but lagging behind Obama’s 7.3-point win over John McCain in 2008.

Biden also defeated an elected incumbent, which is relatively rare. Since World War II, five elected incumbents who sought reelection have won it — Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Obama. Trump is now the third sitting president to lose his reelection bid in that time, along with Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush.

What about the polls? Didn’t they show a wider margin for Biden? Yes, they did — Biden led in the final national polls by around 8 points. So we’re probably going to wind up with a polling error of around 3 to 4 points, both nationally and at the state level. (Although that will reflect a combination of states like Georgia, where the polls were spot-on, and others like Wisconsin, where there were big misses.) This is, of course, a subject on which we’ll have more to say in the coming days. For now, it’s safe to say that pollsters will have some questions to answer, especially about how they missed in the same direction (underestimating Trump) in some of the same states two elections in a row.

At the same time, this election’s polling error may wind up being fairly normal by historical standards. Indeed, the final polls miss by around 3 points, on average, in presidential elections. The error this year may be somewhat wider than that, but we should wait for all the votes to be counted because margins may shift substantially in some states before results are certified.

In any case, Biden’s ability to survive a polling error of the size that sank Clinton was precisely the reason he was a fairly heavy favorite in our forecast. Biden won (or is likely to win) several states — Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona2 — by margins that will probably be between 0 and 2 percentage points, in contrast to Clinton, who lost Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida by margins of 1 percentage point or less. Biden’s 89 percent chance of winning the Electoral College included the possibility of nail-biter wins in critical states — although, again, it’s hard to know if this race would be regarded as that much of a nail-biter if not for the timing of ballot counting and the blue shift.

The bigger problems — both for Democrats and for the polls — were in races for Congress.

There weren’t necessarily any huge upsets in the Senate; it’s just that Democrats lost most of the tossup races. Among races where winners have been projected so far, Democrat Sara Gideon is the only Senate candidate favored in our forecast to have lost, and she had only a 59 percent chance of beating Sen. Susan Collins, according to our final forecast. Gideon, however, is likely to eventually be joined by Cal Cunningham in North Carolina once that race is projected, who had a 68 percent chance, although the polling in that Senate race had tightened in the closing days of the campaign following a Cunningham sexting scandal. Republican Joni Ernst held off challenger Theresa Greenfield in Iowa, although Ernst was a narrow favorite in our forecast.

Democrats do retain a chance at a Senate majority, or more likely a 50-50 split in which Vice President-elect Kamala Harris would be the deciding vote. Democrats currently hold 48 seats,3 but there are two runoffs in Georgia on Jan. 5 that are sure to attract hundreds of millions of dollars worth of advertising. I’m a little too exhausted to prognosticate about the Georgia runoffs all that much, but Democrats are at least mathematically alive here in a state that Biden appears likely to win. They also retain some outside chances at winning a Senate seat in Alaska, where mail votes have not yet been counted.

But Democrats underperformed in the U.S. House, where they’ve lost almost every toss-up race that has been projected so far and Republicans have made a net gain of 5 seats and counting. It also appears as though Democrats will underperform in the House popular vote relative to the presidential vote and the generic ballot, where Democrats led by about 7 percentage points. That looks like a significant polling miss (although the House popular vote can take a long time to finalize). In that sense, the election could be described as more of a repudiation of Trump specifically than of Republicans writ large.

Biden did have some shortcomings, however. One major one was his apparent underperformance among key groups of Hispanic voters, especially Cuban Americans in South Florida and Mexican Americans in South Texas. As you can see in this chart from The New York Times, there were huge shifts toward Trump in these areas:

Indeed, even with the addition of Georgia and Arizona in their column, Democrats’ Electoral College coalition is somewhat fragile if it doesn’t contain Florida and/or Texas. It’s not clear yet what the tipping-point state will be in this election — but mostly likely it will be Arizona or Wisconsin, where it appears as though Biden will win by around 1 percentage point. That could mean there’s around a 4-point gap between the roughly 5-point popular vote victory that we eventually expect from Biden and his margin in the tipping-point state, a bigger Electoral College disadvantage than Clinton had in 2016 (3 points).

Still, this brings up one last point: This is the seventh election out of the past eight in which Democrats have won the popular vote for president. If American elections were contested on the basis of the popular vote, this race could probably have been called fairly early on Tuesday night, and we could all have gotten a lot more sleep the past few days. But don’t let bleary eyes obscure Biden’s accomplishment.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #Nate Silver