The Dems blow the election again

[SteveMDFP]

The reason the Dems are in such a state is their inability to field anything new and positive. The on-going mantra of "vote for us, we're not Trump" just isn't exciting. 

Completely disagree.  This is a reasonable start:

https://dpcc.house.gov/abetterdeal

[ritter]

The reason the Dems are in such a state is their inability to field anything new and positive. The on-going mantra of "vote for us, we're not Trump" just isn't exciting. 

Completely disagree.  This is a reasonable start:

https://dpcc.house.gov/abetterdeal

Other than childcare, that sounds an awful lot like the MAGA talking points. Lots of wind and no HOW. Maybe I'm just jaded.

[Daniel B.]

The reason the Dems are in such a state is their inability to field anything new and positive. The on-going mantra of "vote for us, we're not Trump" just isn't exciting. 

Completely disagree.  This is a reasonable start:

https://dpcc.house.gov/abetterdeal

Other than childcare, that sounds an awful lot like the MAGA talking points. Lots of wind and no HOW. Maybe I'm just jaded.

Not just that, but it sounds like a bigger government deal.  That does not have broad support.

[TerryM]

When the MIC pays your bills - you can't call for peace.
When Big Pharma pays your bills - you can't call for free medicine.
When the AMA pays your bills - Medicare for all is off the table.


And so it goes.


If you're sponsored by the same groups that fund the other side, you're positions are not going to be too dissaperate, then the only way to get people to vote for you is to point out your opponents faults.
When both sides do it the voters lose interest and the status quo continues.


Terry

[JimD]

http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/02/reuters-poll-black-male-approval-for-trump-doubles-in-one-week/

Black male support for President Donald Trump doubled in just one week, according to a Reuters poll on presidential approval.

A poll taken on April 22, 2018 had Trump’s approval rating among black men at 11 percent, while the same poll on April 29, 2018 pegged the approval rating at 22 percent. It should be noted that Reuters only sampled slightly under 200 black males each week and slightly under 3,000 people overall.

Trump experienced a similar jump in approval among black people overall, spiking from 8.9 percent on April 22 to 16.5 percent on April 29...

What?! 

The Kanye West effect.

I'm dizzy now.  Think I will take the dog for a walk.

[Pmt111500]

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/2/1761310/-HHS-officials-say-they-can-t-find-1-500-migrant-kids-they-placed-with-U-S-sponsors

[AbruptSLR]

http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/02/reuters-poll-black-male-approval-for-trump-doubles-in-one-week/

Black male support for President Donald Trump doubled in just one week, according to a Reuters poll on presidential approval.

A poll taken on April 22, 2018 had Trump’s approval rating among black men at 11 percent, while the same poll on April 29, 2018 pegged the approval rating at 22 percent. It should be noted that Reuters only sampled slightly under 200 black males each week and slightly under 3,000 people overall.

Trump experienced a similar jump in approval among black people overall, spiking from 8.9 percent on April 22 to 16.5 percent on April 29...

What?! 

The Kanye West effect.

I'm dizzy now.  Think I will take the dog for a walk.

Since you feel good about quoting the Daily Caller, I provide a link to a TeenVogue article about West's mental challenges; which may explain his emotional bond with Trump:

Title: "Kanye West Opened Up About His Mental Health"

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/kanye-west-opened-up-about-his-mental-health

Extract: "Kanye told Charlamagne that after having a mental breakdown, which he called a "breakthrough," last year, he's been recovering through talking with family and friends at length."

[Neven]

Kyle Kulinski explains what Dems seem unable to grasp:

[JimD]

Neven

I have never heard of the Kyle guy before but he knows what he is talking about.

[Rob Dekker]

Kyle Kulinski explains what Dems seem unable to grasp:

Interesting that the guys you are quoting (Kyle and Jimmy Dore) all attack the most liberal talk show hosts in the US (Rachel Maddow and Bill Maher).

I have not seen even one post of yours where either of your favorite talk show hosts question right-wingers like Alex Jones or Fox News's Hannity.

Mmmm. wonder why that is.

[Daniel B.]

Kyle Kulinksi is a liberal Democrat, and is pointing out to the Democratic base some of their problems.  This is much better than constantly blaming the Republicans.  At some point, the Dems have to take some responsibility of their own.  By all accounts, there is no way the Democrats should have lost to someone the likes of Donald Trump.  Yet, they did.

[Martin Gisser]

Kyle hasn't really listened.

[Neven]

Jimmy Dore dares to criticize Saint Hillary again (shoot him down, quick, don't listen to what he says):

[Neven]

I have not seen even one post of yours where either of your favorite talk show hosts question right-wingers like Alex Jones or Fox News's Hannity.

Mmmm. wonder why that is.

Kyle Kulinsky, today, May 4th 2018:





But never mind. 

[TerryM]

How hard is it going to be to run against Hillary, Pelosi and DiFi? - Especially a Hillary, Pelosi & DiFi who promise not to vote for the programs that you want?


Terry

[Rob Dekker]

Kyle Kulinsky, today, May 4th 2018:

But never mind. 

Thanks Neven. That is the first segment I see actually somebody questioning the Alex Jones show...

although..

Not quite.. because at 3:50 min in, he says that ISIS was created by the US, that "we gave them arms and funding and we set them loose on Syria", and that Alex is right that about that.

Seems that Kyle and Alex and Trump (Obama founded ISIS) are still very much in agreement.

On the second video about Iran, Kyle seems to be very critical of Hannity and spot-on in my opinion.

So in my book Kyle is still an order of magnitude better than Jimmy Dore, who seems to agree with the right wingers all the time.

[TerryM]

Seems that Kyle and Alex and Trump (Obama founded ISIS) are still very much in agreement.

Facts Are sometimes like that. Even opposite ends of the political spectrum can sometimes agree on them.
Terry

[Rob Dekker]

Seems that Kyle and Alex and Trump (Obama founded ISIS) are still very much in agreement.

Facts Are sometimes like that. Even opposite ends of the political spectrum can sometimes agree on them.
Terry

OK. Terry, show me some evidence of any of the claims. Like that "we gave them arms and funding" (as in the US gave ISIS arms and funding). Or that Obama was the founder of ISIS.

If these are 'facts' as you assert, it should not be difficult to provide the evidence.

[TerryM]

OK. Terry, show me some evidence of any of the claims. Like that "we gave them arms and funding" (as in the US gave ISIS arms and funding). Or that Obama was the founder of ISIS.

If these are 'facts' as you assert, it should not be difficult to provide the evidence.

Find your own rocks.
Bye
Terry

[Rob Dekker]

"find your own rocks".

That's the response from the far left ?

Are you even surprised that people who use common sense and evidence and rational reasoning to make up their mind are not impressed with what the far left/right have to offer ?

[sidd]

The origin of ISIS is interesting. I have posted a reply on the thread "US intervention in foreign lands"
since strictly speaking, the issue is not germane to this thread;  and the policies employed by the USA in Iraq arguably contributed to the rise of ISIS.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2204.msg152980.html#msg152980

sidd

[Rob Dekker]

.... the policies employed by the USA in Iraq arguably contributed to the rise of ISIS.

Arguably they did, indirectly, contribute if your really twist your thoughts.

But that does not mean "we gave them arms and funding" as Kyle and Alex Jones suggest, nor does it mean that Obama was the founder of ISIS as Trump blurts out.

[Pmt111500]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/04/native-american-students-colorado-state-college-tour-police

[TerryM]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/04/native-american-students-colorado-state-college-tour-police

Someone at the Guardian has been watching far too much RT.  Now they are trying to break our spirit and dissolve our very Americanness.


As well as stealing our precious bodily fluids.
Terry

[TerryM]

The Democrats are having a bad week, a bad month, and a bad year.

Trump is beating Harry & Gerry & Jimmy & Ronny for this day into their respective terms.
Trump is now the choice of 44.5% of registered, likely voters.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/voters/

Republican still trail Democrats, but only by 6.3%.
If the election were held today it would be a real nail biter. Gerrymandering usually accounts for a 6% edge to the Republicans.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/?ex_cid=irpromo

You don't think it's possible that the Damn Deplorables and the Sicko Socialists are again turning their backs on Pelosi and DiFi's Party?

I can't imagine what goes through Hillary's mind when she blames the traditional base of the Democratic Party for her defeat. We've never been the party of the Capitalists or the Warmongers, they vote for Republicans.

If we can send her off some place where the internet hasn't penetrated for the duration, nominate a bunch of candidates that campaign for things that voters want, instead of things that Capitalists want, we still might be able to pump some water back into the Blue Wave that was supposed to sweep all before it.

We need a historic win at the state level, or they'll gerrymander us out of any chance at all in 2020.
Terry

[Neven]

Terry, if the Blue Wave doesn't come about, it'll be your fault.

[Daniel B.]

Terry,
I agree with most of what you say, with two exceptions.  First, the Republicans did not take over the warmongering distinction until Reagan. Prior to that, the Democrats held that title.  Second, there will be no gerrymandering for the 2020 election.  Districts will not be redrawn, until after the census.  That will go into effect until the 2022 midterms.

[TerryM]

Terry,
I agree with most of what you say, with two exceptions.  First, the Republicans did not take over the warmongering distinction until Reagan. Prior to that, the Democrats held that title.  Second, there will be no gerrymandering for the 2020 election.  Districts will not be redrawn, until after the census.  That will go into effect until the 2022 midterms.

I'll give you your second point - the redistricting from the 2020 census won't take effect until the 2022 elections - My Bad

I can't agree with your earlier remark. Nixon was certainly no pacifist and Ike was a G.D. General. Wilson was elected for promising not to enter WWI, but rather than being a Democrat he turned out to be nothing more than a liar. Roosevelt did get into WWII, but it can, and has been argued that he was very late to the party.
Truman was a moral midget and an embarrassment to the human race, as well as the Democratic Party.

Neither party has fielded many peace candidates,  but the Republicans have traditionally been the ones more concerned with building and maintaining a strong military presence. I had been happy supporting Democrats ever since we ousted LBJ.
Terry

[sidd]

Bill once won on the slogan "It's the Economy, Stupid."

“You can’t win just by saying how awful Trump is,”

"Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), a co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), is warning his colleagues not to settle for an agenda that merely “sands down the rough edges of the status quo” and goes soft on economic injustice “in the name of moving cautiously.”

“That is not ‘liberalism,’” he wrote recently in a Washington Post op-ed. ” It’s conservatism that doesn’t want to admit what it is.” "

“It’s one thing to say we should lower pharmaceutical prices — Donald Trump will say that — it’s another thing to say we’re going to take on the pharmaceutical companies and we’re going to pay the same prices that people in other countries pay,”

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/386231-dems-face-pressure-to-focus-on-economy-not-trump

sidd

[JimD]

.... the policies employed by the USA in Iraq arguably contributed to the rise of ISIS.

Arguably they did, indirectly, contribute if your really twist your thoughts.

But that does not mean "we gave them arms and funding" as Kyle and Alex Jones suggest, nor does it mean that Obama was the founder of ISIS as Trump blurts out.

First let us get back to the point of the topic as this stuff is way off.  Second I can't help responding to the trolling by Rob.

Rob

I am not going to be polite here because there is no point.

Stop being an idiot please.  You have no idea what you are talking about.  I gave you plenty of links which if you had bothered to read you could not have come to any other conclusion but that the US has funneled arms to Al Queada and by proxy (through giving arms to groups who were subservient to them) to ISIS in Syria.  There is tons of evidence from reliable sources including the US govt.  When we gave arms to groups which immediately turned them over to Al Nusra or just flat joined them on several occasions there could have been no doubt that our personnel absolutely knew what was going on.  I also know this from my former time in the USG.  This is 'easy' stuff.  To deny it blows any possible credibility for you completely out of the water.  This crap of yours "Arguably they did, indirectly, contribute if your really twist your thoughts."  is just another instance of some US apologist avoiding responsibility.  Read some history for craps sake! Actions have consequences and US lack of taking into consideration the possible downsides to policies resulted in the rise of Al Queada and later to the rise of ISIS.  Just a fact of life. It is called blowback. 

So yes the US is completely responsible for providing weapons to those entities in Syria because we knew where the arms were going to end up.  We also are fully knowledgeable of the Saudi's doing the same thing.  And Bush is responsible for ISIS because they started an unjustified and illegal war in Iraq and ISIS was formed in the US pow camps by captured Al Queada combatants during the conflict. You reap what you sow.

One could tattoo the facts on some peoples foreheads and they would say show me the evidence anyway because they could not figure out how to read it in the mirror. If you can't reason there is no point in participating. Just because you have not seen it written down in black and white from a US policy document does not give you an excuse to deny it exists. 

The arms transfer info does not come from right wing news sites as you imply. It comes from the international press observing who we gave the arms to and what those people did with them, and from the US Special Operations operatives who were on the ground providing the arms. The ops guys complained bitterly about it.

There is no upside to being a dumb apologist for US actions which are immoral, unethical, that hurt our national security, that helped the folks who perpetrated 9/11 and killed a few friends of mine not to mention almost killed me a few times. I fought in these wars for years long before 9/11 ever happened and you could see these issues and trouble coming as sure as the rising sun (but of course it was not written down so it would have gone over your head). 

Daniel

This should probably be in a separate post as I am not putting you in Robs box I am just saving time.

..First, the Republicans did not take over the warmongering distinction until Reagan. Prior to that, the Democrats held that title.  ...

A reading of history would show that this statement is completely wrong.  There has never been a time in the last 150 years where any president of any party in power did any thing but rush into a possible conflict with open arms.  Warmongering (or Empire building as it is better known as) is a fully bipartisan policy and has been since at least the 1840's.  And my native american relatives would respond to that statement with a "When did you say this started again!!? Kimosabe. Try about 1620."

Anyway folks back to the topic.  (ahh Sidd is on it - I should have written faster)

[Daniel B.]

Terry,
I agree with most of what you say, with two exceptions.  First, the Republicans did not take over the warmongering distinction until Reagan. Prior to that, the Democrats held that title.  Second, there will be no gerrymandering for the 2020 election.  Districts will not be redrawn, until after the census.  That will go into effect until the 2022 midterms.

I'll give you your second point - the redistricting from the 2020 census won't take effect until the 2022 elections - My Bad

I can't agree with your earlier remark. Nixon was certainly no pacifist and Ike was a G.D. General. Wilson was elected for promising not to enter WWI, but rather than being a Democrat he turned out to be nothing more than a liar. Roosevelt did get into WWII, but it can, and has been argued that he was very late to the party.
Truman was a moral midget and an embarrassment to the human race, as well as the Democratic Party.

Neither party has fielded many peace candidates,  but the Republicans have traditionally been the ones more concerned with building and maintaining a strong military presence. I had been happy supporting Democrats ever since we ousted LBJ.
Terry

Throughout most of the 20th century, the Republican party was the more isolationistic, while the Democratic party was the more interventionist.  Both parties, and most of the public opposed entry into WWI.  After the war, Republican opposition to the Treaty of Versailles, and Wilson's fourteen points, prevented passage, and keep the U.S. from joining the league of nations.  In 1940, Roosevelt supported Churchill and Stalin, and urged the country to join in the fight.  He was opposed by the isolationists, largely, but not exclusively from the Republican party.  He was only late to the party, because he could not garner enough support to go to war earlier.  Eisenhower was an Independent, and both parties sought to have him run in the 1952 election.  In reality, he was probably more of a Democrat, than Republican, with a myriad of speculations as to why he chose the Republican party instead of the Democrats. 

No, neither party has fielded so-called peace candidates.  However, the Democratic party was the more aggressive when it came to using force overseas throughout much of the 20th century.  That changed during the 1970s, and the Reaganistic takeover of the Republican party.  Since then the GOP has been the party pushing intervention, while the Democratic party has been more isolationist. 

[JimD]

President Donald Trump's approval rating is holding steady in a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, but his numbers on handling several key issues are climbing, as almost 6 in 10 say things in the country are going well.

Overall, 41% approve of the President's work, and 53% disapprove. Those numbers are about the same as at the end of March.

On the issues, however, Trump's numbers are climbing. Approval is up 4 points on the economy to 52%, the first time it's topped 50% since March 2017; up 5 points on foreign trade to 43% approval; and his numbers on immigration have improved 4 points since February, with 40% now approving. On handling foreign affairs, Trump's approval rating tops 40% for the first time since April of 2017, though the increase since March is not statistically significant (42% approve currently)...

Wow.  6 in 10 think things are going well. lol

As always it is the economy and national security which are the most important.

North Korea and Iran will have a dramatic effect I expect.  We will see what that effect is....  Gas prices are rising fast and this is a big negative on the economy of course - screwing with Iran could make them worse so those two items might work against each other.  Any good news on NK will be a big boost.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/07/politics/cnn-poll-trump-steady-right-direction-rises/index.html

[sidd]

This kind of thinking is why the democrats are in trouble:

"After the former girlfriend ended the relationship, she told several friends about the abuse. A number of them advised her to keep the story to herself, arguing that Schneiderman was too valuable a politician for the Democrats to lose. "

Pitiful. The guy is a liability. Cut him loose.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/four-women-accuse-new-yorks-attorney-general-of-physical-abuse

sidd

[Pmt111500]

Two more: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/stunning-developments-on-trump-black-ops

[Rob Dekker]

Rob

I am not going to be polite here because there is no point.

Stop being an idiot please.  You have no idea what you are talking about.  I gave you plenty of links which if you had bothered to read you could not have come to any other conclusion but that the US has funneled arms to Al Queada and by proxy (through giving arms to groups who were subservient to them) to ISIS in Syria.

Tut tut. Calm down, JimD. You are foaming at the mouth, and it doesn't look pretty.

Let's check the facts on your claims.
You gave me ONE link, and ONE link only, and that was this one :
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/
which I addressed in this reply :
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2204.msg149320.html#msg149320

which I concluded with :

So, in summary of this article, yes, some US weapons made it to Al Nusra.
But it came there not directly from the US, but by a violation of Qatar and by Al Nusra attacking CIA vetted groups that DID receive weapons from the US.
Also, Russia did not have any problems having their weapons shipped to Al Nusra.

So it is a gross exaggeration that the US "supplied Al Queada fighters". According to your reference it was indirect and out of US control.

And there is no evidence at all yet that "In Syria we have trained ... Al Queada fighters".

I thank you for your reference, and I hope this perspective and fact-check of your reference is helpful in separating truth from propaganda in the mess that is Syria.

Thank you very much.

[Pmt111500]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/07/climate/epa-pruitt-emails-secrecy.html

[sidd]

Democrat edge eroding:

"The Democrats' advantage in the generic ballot dipped from 16 points in February to six points in March to just three points now."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/09/politics/cnn-poll-generic-ballot-narrows/index.html

sidd

[TerryM]

Democrat edge eroding:

"The Democrats' advantage in the generic ballot dipped from 16 points in February to six points in March to just three points now."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/09/politics/cnn-poll-generic-ballot-narrows/index.html

sidd

Wait for Donald to get his Nobel Prize for N. Korea.  Hillary was at 25 and dropping last time I looked, so Corporate Democrats aren't seeing a surge in popularity.


A little off topic, but here in Ontario the first televised debate was held and Conservatives had a huge cheering section. It turned out that they were wearing the T-shirts and waving the placards because they were being paid to be there, bonuses for the most vocal!


Ain't democracy wonderful
Terry

[sidd]

Democrats cant stop talking about Russia, and that might cost them:

Klobuchar: "her voters care more about soybean exports than Russian bots."

"That is what his opposition is doing to itself, because it can’t resist the scandal temptation."

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/05/16/the-russia-temptation-218401

sidd

[sidd]

Democrats better get their ground game going now: Republican PAC is putting thousands of boots on the ground and dozens of field offices already.

"includes 34 offices running mini-campaigns for vulnerable Republicans throughout the country. It has built its own in-house research and data teams and recruited 4,000 student volunteers, who have knocked on more than 10 million doors since February 201"

"hauled in more than $71 million."

"midterm strategy, which emphasizes long-term voter engagement"

"The organization’s expansive operation has surpassed even the NRCC in its first year"

"overshadows that of its Democratic rival, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s House Majority PAC, which has no field locations."

"Jeb Fain said CLF represents no threat, arguing that Democrats partner with other progressive organizations with get-out-the-vote field programs."

Talk about complacency.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/17/republicans-midterms-shadow-army-591872

sidd

[sidd]

Now this doesn't help either. Dems blew  "a real chance to defeat President Donald Trump’s CIA director nominee Gina Haspel over her ties to torture."

"Haspel’s successful confirmation vote was far from a foregone conclusion."

"She’s probably a really nice woman ..."

Rand Paul warns, and he's right: “Some of them want to buy off the Republican vote in their state by appearing to side with a Trump nominee,” Paul said. “It’s probably a mistake for them politically to think it’s going to help them.”

Because voters will pick a republican over a democrat in republican's clothing.

“They needed Democratic votes to confirm her, and Democrats gave that to them.”

The ones who voted to confirm Haspel have no moral center. But i suspect some took the heat on this vote, coz they like rotating the blame. Someone else will knucke under in the next vote. They figger enuf people forget.

Unfortunately, more and more dont. So sad.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/17/gina-haspel-cia-confirmed-democrats-596784

sidd

[JimD]

Bad news for Dems: Trump’s rating is rising where it counts in California

All that talk of a Democratic blue wave sweeping congressional races in California could be for naught if a new poll is on target: It shows President Trump’s approval rating surging to 50 percent in Orange County, site of four tight races that could determine if Republicans hold the House.

A more popular Trump is bad news for Democrats, who are trying to grab seven GOP-held congressional districts statewide that Hillary Clinton won in 2016, including the four in Orange County. That would give Democrats a big jump on their goal of flipping 23 seats nationally to regain the House.

Democrats are banking on the president’s unpopularity to help them win those seats. In April, the nonpartisan Berkeley IGS Poll indicated that Trump had just 38 percent support in Orange County. A March poll from the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California indicated that a mere 36 percent of all adults in Orange and San Diego counties approved of the president.

Two months ago, Republican pollster John Thomas did a survey in Orange County that found Trump’s approval rating at 43 percent. But last week, his poll of 450 likely voters in the county showed that 50 percent of respondents viewed the president favorably. The margin of error was three percentage points.

So:
March 36%
Now 50%

This is a horrible trend for the Dems. 

A CBS News poll released Sunday showed that 68 percent of the adults surveyed thought Trump’s policies “were responsible for the current state of the economy.”

“We’re having a November-level effort and it’s June,” Wessel said. “It’s a life-or-death situation for progressives and we’re treating it like such.”

Here in AZ where I live the Dems are invisible pretty much.  Even though I consider Sinema the Blue Dog running for Senate a moderate Repug I have tried to volunteer for her campaign repeatedly since last Oct and have had 2 totally minor responses - they need to get their act together (her opponents are crazy people). I don't see urgency here at all. My neighbors are actually very happy with Trump and support for him seems highest ever.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Bad-news-for-Dems-Trump-s-rating-is-rising-12932492.php

[Daniel B.]

For better or for worse, the economy will always be the lead issue in an election.  When times are rough, it is bad to be an incumbent (or of similar party).  When times are good, the opposite is true.  This occurs regardless of whether the party in power has any responsibility.

[JimD]

And another says it is now dead even.

Reuters poll shows Republicans leading generic ballot for first time
BY BRETT SAMUELS - 05/22/18 01:39 PM EDT

Republicans hold a slim lead over Democrats in a generic ballot among registered voters, a new Reuters poll found, marking the first time the survey showed the GOP ahead in this election cycle.

The poll showed 38.1 percent of registered voters said they would vote for a Republican candidate if midterm elections were held today, compared to just under 37 percent who said they’d vote for a Democrat.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/388832-reuters-poll-shows-republicans-leading-generic-ballot-for-first-time

[Neven]

It is really, really important to the establishment that progressive politicians (really progressive, not the fake ones) get into places of power. Then, when the Blue Wave (TM) turns out to be low tide, the progressives will be made the scapegoat by Corporate Democrats, their dog whistle eagerly obeyed by most Democratic voters.

This is the game that is being played. The Dems MUST blow the election. It's what the masters want.

[colchonero]

Neven are you TYT fan? Not trying to disrespect or whatever, I'm just curious cause they have similar talking points as far as I know.

[JimD]

Neven

The same thought has occurred to me.  I kind of hope it is not true however.

Given that Bernie is about as far to the right as I can come politically I don't have much of a dog in this fight. 

The Progressives working with the mainstream D's (the moderate Repugs in our country) I think of as sort of like the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War - the 'liberals' of the D party (the communists in that war) are going to sacrifice them and lay the blame on them when it is their own actions which result in defeat. Then they are going to work with the 'victors' and help them strip the country bare.

But this is the tide of history when the empire is in decline.  A declining resource base necessarily results in a lot more losers than winners.  And those with advantages see threats to them and will go out of their way to protect those advantages when in other circumstances they might have been more inclined to spread them around a bit.

(I had to go look up TYT as I did not know what that was.  Sort of like the refs to the right wing guy the other day - Alex Jones - who I did not know who he was. I find it interesting that so many always seem to think that one cannot figure things out for themselves by some kind of scholarship and assume one gets their opinions from the media.  Which I guess is true for most people.)

[colchonero]

No of course not, I don't think one can't figure out something, however that does not mean you can't be a fan of the show that has same/similar views (feels the same way) on some (most) of the issues. It's like having friends. You want to have friends, that you can get along with pretty well. And to like some show is not a bad thing at all ( I'm talking about normal shows left or right wing, it doesn't matter, not some creepy lunatic shows). I just wanted to ask does he like them, because they have similar views on many issues as Neven does, so their opinions are usually compatible and they are somewhat famous, that's why I asked him if he's a fan(like me being a fan of Giants, Real Madrid etc.).

[Neven]

TYT is okay, but in some respects not radical enough for me (which is why Jimmy Dore had and still has a lot of problems over there). I think the alternative media outlet I like best is The Real News Network.

[Susan Anderson]

Having a lemon session on hardworking people who face real enemies is not helping. Here's some other information in the news lately: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/stacey-abrams-makes-history-in-the-georgia-primary

Stacey Abrams Makes History in the Georgia Primary, Charles Bethea May 23, 2018

Erick Erickson, the occasionally controversial conservative commentator, who lives in Macon, Georgia, has interviewed many political figures during his career. But his best interview, by his own reckoning, took place in February, in Atlanta, when he had an hour-long televised conversation with Stacey Abrams, the forty-four-year-old former minority leader of the Georgia House of Representatives, who, on Tuesday, won the Democratic nomination for governor, defeating Stacey Evans, another young former state representative and lawyer with progressive credentials, by a three-to-one margin.

“I’d been strongly critical of her in the past, and she was still willing to come on air with me,” Erickson said of Abrams, on Monday. “We actually found a lot of common ground, even though we disagreed on stuff,” he added. “I came away really liking her.” Abrams, Erickson told me, “gave a better answer on keeping the income tax than Casey Cagle,” the state’s lieutenant governor, who won the Republican primary on Tuesday—but who received less than fifty per cent of the vote, meaning that he now faces a runoff in July. “It was an easy to understand answer,” Erickson said. “Everyone in the crowd, including the Republicans, nodded along with it.” After the interview, Erickson wrote on Twitter that he found Abrams to be, “Super sharp, very witty, and self-deprecating. She’ll be formidable as a candidate.” The praise did not sit well with many of his conservative followers. One exasperated Twitter commenter wrote, “Good grief Erickson....her website reads like the Communist Manifesto.” Another added, “Nope. She wants to sandblast the Confederate carvings off Stone Mountain. Too much of a loony tunes Democrat.”

The latter commenter was referring to Abrams’s public statement, in the wake of the violent white-supremacist uprising in Charlottesville, Virginia, last August, that the world’s largest monument to the Confederacy, a giant carving of Confederate generals on the side of a granite monolith outside of Atlanta, should be destroyed. “It remains a blight on our state and should be removed,” Abrams said. This is not something Democratic candidates for governor in Georgia have said before, even if they’ve thought it—which makes it of a piece with Abrams’s candidacy as a whole. As has been noted by state and national media many times in the past few months, Abrams’s candidacy is historic: she is now the first black woman to receive a major party’s nomination for governor. And her path to this point has not been a traditional one. Rather than court white moderates to win a state that hasn’t had a Democratic governor since 2003, Abrams emphasized bringing new voters to the polls—particularly minority voters, whom she’s been working to register since founding the New Georgia Project, in 2013. (Some have cast doubt on the efficacy and cost of that project, and on Abrams’s claims about the number of people it has registered—doubts that Stacey Evans seized upon during her campaign.)

“Over sixty per cent of the Democratic primary vote is African-American,” Phil Kent, who runs InsiderAdvantage, an online daily-news service focussed on Georgia politics, told me. That, he said, gave Abrams a demographic advantage in Tuesday’s vote. And her endorsement by Bernie Sanders was also helpful in “cutting into white millennials,” Kent added. But, looking ahead to November, Kent believes that the Sanders endorsement will ultimately be a “poison pill” for Abrams. “Republicans and even centrists are going to be worried about extreme, even socialist-type positions,” he said, pointing to Abrams’s stances on Medicaid expansion, universal health care, and a mandatory minimum wage. One also wonders about the utility, in rural Georgia, of the endorsement that Hillary Clinton offered Abrams a few days ago. The Georgia Republican Party, minutes after Abrams’s victory, sent out an e-mail that read, in part, “Georgia Democrats have nominated the most extreme, far-left statewide nominee in their party’s history. But you need to know something else about Stacey. In the past few days, both Hillary Clinton AND Bernie Sanders endorsed Stacey Abrams race for Governor.”

“It’s still a center-right state politically,” Kent said. “And there’s going to be no appeal for Abrams beyond the liberal environs of Atlanta and a few other liberal cities.” He noted that Trump won Georgia with fifty-five per cent of the vote. “Never Trumpers have faded here,” he said. “I think that the high-water mark for Democrats statewide has basically been forty-six per cent, and I don’t see Abrams getting more than that in a statewide election.”

Tharon Johnson, a Democratic strategist in Georgia, has been working in state politics for twenty years. “This is a historic moment for Georgia Democrats,” he told me, after Abrams declared victory around 9 P.M. on Tuesday. “It’s also an opportunity for us to take advantage of this blue wave in Georgia.” He went on, “We’re a slight pink state that’s trending purple. The general is just going to depend on how Abrams is able to fire up the base, Independents, moderates, and disaffected Republican women. We need to figure out how to get two hundred and fifty thousand voters to come out.” How? “Health care, HOPE”—a financial-assistance program for Georgia college students—“and a strong economic plan.”

Shirley Franklin, who was the mayor of Atlanta from 2002 to 2010, and the first African-American woman to hold the position of mayor in any major city in the Southern United States, is optimistic. Although she didn’t endorse Abrams or Evans—both of whom she has known and liked for years—she is bullish on Abrams’s chances in November. “When I moved to Georgia some forty years ago, there were only two million people,” Franklin told me. “Metro Atlanta is now more than five million. It’s full of people born in other parts of the world and other parts of the country. Georgia hasn’t been a slow-growth state. And with that growth has come a lot of different opinions, a lot more diversity. Stacey Abrams has black and white support, which she’s been growing for years with her grassroots efforts around the state.”

I asked Franklin what it meant to her that Abrams had secured the nomination. “It means that we’ve arrived at the twenty-first century,” she said. “Where a woman and an African-American can represent a diverse population of voters.”