SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[The Romulan Republic]

Whatever you may think of Trump and the actions he's taken so far, his campaign is nailing Democrats to the wall. This time with Pelosi and her ice cream in this ad.

So now we're outright posting and praising Trump campaign propaganda? Not even bothering with the pretense of a principled Never Biden vote, you're just going full Trumper, eh?

[Straha]

Whatever you may think of Trump and the actions he's taken so far, his campaign is nailing Democrats to the wall. This time with Pelosi and her ice cream in this ad.

So now we're outright posting and praising Trump campaign propaganda? Not even bothering with the pretense of a principled Never Biden vote, you're just going full Trumper, eh?

Propaganda can be discussed in an abstract about being powerful and compelling without any implicit endorsement of the message. See, at the extreme: just about any discussion in the modern era of Leni Riefenstahl's films.

[Soontir C'boath]

Ok, I'll post a shitty ad by the Biden campaign to be fair and balanced that shows how pretentious little shits the Democrats are. And I say that because that's what people are going to think when they see this ad.

[Soontir C'boath]

Propaganda can be discussed in an abstract about being powerful and compelling without any implicit endorsement of the message. See, at the extreme: just about any discussion in the modern era of Leni Riefenstahl's films.

Also, I'm pretty sure he's missing the point that this effective ad aired on television, internet, etc and that means plenty of eyeballs who can and were definitely swayed by it that outweighs anyone who reads it here on this forum. lol

[Darth Yan]

I mean, it's pretty clear, TRR, and you need to accept that fundamentally your position is that given the choice - and it is a choice in America - of voting for a rapist to defeat a fascist rapist, you'll vote for the rapist. That is supporting a rapist. It's really that simple. Just own it.

It's the equivalent of eating a shit sandwich. US politics is bullshit to the point only two candidates can go. That means the options are a rapist and a rapist who's also a fascist. He's not condoning Biden's crimes, but pointing out that as unpalatable as it is he's the least evil option

[The Romulan Republic]

I love how the Soontir is literally just posting Trump propaganda. So much for the "principles" of the Never Bidens. Children in cages, inciting civil war, sacrificing tens of thousands of Americans to the Stock Market, destroying the entire global ecosystem... no big deal, 'cause at least he's sticking it to them Dems!

That's not principle. That's petty spite, and fiddling while the world burns.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm just going to remind you all that Trump just banned all immigration into the US, and that they've reportedly set up the COVID relief checks so that neither immigrants nor spouses of immigrants can receive them:

https://latimes.com/world-nation/story/ ... immigrants

The man is a fascist, engaged in an escalating campaign of ethnic cleansing. There is every reason to believe that if he isn't stopped, this will continue to escalate to a full-blown genocide the likes of which the world hasn't seen since the Holocaust. But don't take it from me, take it from an actual expert on genocides:

https://newsweek.com/us-showing-many-ge ... ed-1483817

But yeah. Your protest vote is more important.

Just remember: history won't care why you were a collaborator. Only that you were one.

[Gandalf]

Then shouldn't the Democrats have nominated someone who doesn't force the voter to have the "lesser of two rapists" argument?

[Ralin]

Just remember: history won't care why you were a collaborator. Only that you were one.

Could you tell us which collaborators you're talking about? Because I'm not voting for Trump and I don't see anyone else in this thread saying they plan to.

[The Romulan Republic]

Then shouldn't the Democrats have nominated someone who doesn't force the voter to have the "lesser of two rapists" argument?

Of course they fucking should have. Why are you telling me this? I backed Bernie Sanders, remember?

But at this point, it is Biden, and saying "well they should have picked somebody else" is irrelevant. Presuming that neither of them kicks the bucket between now and election night, its going to be either Joe Biden, or Donald Trump.

You, at least, don't have to decide who to vote for, since you're not American. I, on the other hand, am a voter in a swing state. I don't get the luxury of neutrality.

Stop the evasions, stop the smears, and answer me straight: Do you believe that a protest against Biden is worth enabling another genocide, as well as the wholesale destruction of the entire planetary ecosystem? Do you regard that as a "principled" course of action? Yes or no? Because that's what this comes down to.

Just remember: history won't care why you were a collaborator. Only that you were one.

Could you tell us which collaborators you're talking about?

Bernie or Bust/Never Biden generally.

On this board specifically, Soontir just posted Trumpist propaganda and praised its supposed effectiveness and sticking it to them nasty Dems.

Because I'm not voting for Trump and I don't see anyone else in this thread saying they plan to.

No, of course not. You're just saying that you won't vote for the only person who has a realistic chance of beating him, urging others not to vote for him, trying to guilt/shame us into not voting for him by repeatedly libeling me with accusations of supporting rape, ignoring the likely consequences of Joe Biden not winning the election while demanding that I take responsibility for the consequences of supporting him, and then pretending that because you're merely attacking the opposition to Trump, rather than directly supporting him, that you have no responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

[Ralin]

Stop the evasions, stop the smears, and answer me straight: Do you believe that a protest against Biden is worth enabling another genocide, as well as the wholesale destruction of the entire planetary ecosystem? Do you regard that as a "principled" course of action? Yes or no? Because that's what this comes down to.

No it doesn't. I don't have to vote for Biden to prevent those things because the Democratic Party could do the right thing and nominate another candidate.

On this board specifically, Soontir just posted Trumpist propaganda and praised its supposed effectiveness and sticking it to them nasty Dems.

So, you're being delusional. Gotcha

the only person who has a realistic chance of beating him

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA!!!!!

urging others not to vote for him

Damn straight I'll urge people not to vote for a racist serial groper who has been publicly accused of being a rapist.

trying to guilt/shame us into not voting for him by repeatedly libeling me with accusations of supporting rape,

It's not libel to describe you as normalizing and excusing rape when you've repeatedly stated you plan to vote for someone you're pretty sure is a rapist. Do you not know what those words mean?

ignoring the likely consequences of Joe Biden not winning the election while demanding that I take responsibility for the consequences of supporting him, and then pretending that because you're merely attacking the opposition to Trump, rather than directly supporting him, that you have no responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

Not relevant

[The Romulan Republic]

No it doesn't. I don't have to vote for Biden to prevent those things because the Democratic Party could do the right thing and nominate another candidate.

And if Biden is confirmed as the nominee at the convention, what then? What about on election day? At some point, you will have to admit its an either/or choice.

If another alternative presents itself, I'll back it, but we both know that's not remotely likely.

So, you're being delusional. Gotcha

Gaslighting and ad hominem.

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA!!!!!

Empty jeering- the fallback of those who have no argument.

But of course, I get your point: like all the Never Bidens, you insist that there's no way Biden can possibly win- thereby conveniently freeing you of any responsibility for the consequences of opposing him.

You fucking coward.

Damn straight I'll urge people not to vote for a racist serial groper who has been publicly accused of being a rapist.

And presumably, your goal is to successfully persuade them not to vote for him. If enough people do that, Trump wins. Ergo, logically, your goal is the re-election of Donald Trump. Because that's somehow an anti-rape/anti-racist statement.

It's not libel to describe you as normalizing and excusing rape when you've repeatedly stated you plan to vote for someone you're pretty sure is a rapist. Do you not know what those words mean?

Where have I "excused" rape, you lying sack of shit?

You are systematically libeling me, trying to paint me as pro-fucking-rape so you can prance around on your moral high ground, so you don't have to admit that you're trying to help a fascist win.

ignoring the likely consequences of Joe Biden not winning the election while demanding that I take responsibility for the consequences of supporting him, and then pretending that because you're merely attacking the opposition to Trump, rather than directly supporting him, that you have no responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

Not relevant[/quote]

Translation: you have no answer, because I'm fucking right, and you're too cowardly to admit it.

[Ralin]

And if Biden is confirmed as the nominee at the convention, what then? What about on election day? At some point, you will have to admit its an either/or choice.

Democrats aren’t the only party.

Gaslighting and ad hominem.

Nah. Statement of fact. You’re perceptions clearly don’t match up with reality.

Hey Soontir, don’t let me put words into your mouth. Do you support Donald Trump winning a second term as president?

But of course, I get your point: like all the Never Bidens, you insist that there's no way Biden can possibly win- thereby conveniently freeing you of any responsibility for the consequences of opposing him.

You fucking coward.

Reade had publicly accused Biden last year of touching her shoulders and neck and making her feel uncomfortable. Now, according to the Times, she alleges that in 1993, Biden had "pinned her to a wall in a Senate building, reached under her clothing and penetrated her with his fingers."

Where have I "excused" rape, you lying sack of shit?

I think that Joe Biden is probably a rapist.

I've said Biden is guilty. I've said I'm going to vote for him.

You are systematically libeling me,

Factually untrue.

so you don't have to admit that you're trying to help a fascist win.

I am not attempting to help a fascist win.

Translation: you have no answer, because I'm fucking right, and you're too cowardly to admit it.

I realize you have difficulty grasping this, but Trump being bad doesn’t mean Biden should be president. Nor does it obligate me to support Biden or stop attacking him when he says racist shit and whatever other Things We’re Supposed To Ignore When Our Side Does It he spews in the coming months.

But you know, go on pretending that Biden is suddenly the only man who can defeat Trump and we all just need to accept that he’s the protagonist here.

[bilateralrope]

Democrats aren’t the only party.

Do any of those third parties have any chance of winning the presidency this year ?

[Ralin]

Do any of those third parties have any chance of winning the presidency this year ?

Not likely. But if there isn't a candidate worth voting for, I won't vote. And that's on the Democratic Party. Not me.

[The Romulan Republic]

Democrats aren’t the only party.

Yeah, and they'll all be having a fantastic year if they crack three percent.

Nah. Statement of fact. You’re perceptions clearly don’t match up with reality.

Spoken like a true gaslighter.

Hey Soontir, don’t let me put words into your mouth. Do you support Donald Trump winning a second term as president?

I'll actually respect him a little more if he says yes, but I expect he'll deny it, just like you.

But of course, I get your point: like all the Never Bidens, you insist that there's no way Biden can possibly win- thereby conveniently freeing you of any responsibility for the consequences of opposing him.

You fucking coward.

Reade had publicly accused Biden last year of touching her shoulders and neck and making her feel uncomfortable. Now, according to the Times, she alleges that in 1993, Biden had "pinned her to a wall in a Senate building, reached under her clothing and penetrated her with his fingers."

This isn't actually an answer to anything I said. If anything, its cynically using a rape victim's trauma to emotionally manipulate people into siding with you.

Where have I "excused" rape, you lying sack of shit?

I think that Joe Biden is probably a rapist.

I've said Biden is guilty. I've said I'm going to vote for him.

At no point, however, did I say that rape was okay, acceptable or justifiable. I simply weighed holding Biden accountable against the entire world burning.

That's what you don't get, what you refuse to get. There is no zero-cost option here. If I am guilty for supporting Biden, then it is literally impossible to be innocent.

Also, I note you're not constantly calling the other Biden supporters on this board pro-rape (and there are some). Just me. Its almost like you don't actually believe a word you're saying, and you just know that screaming "TRR IS (insert libel/smear here)" is an effective deflection tactic, due to the personality conflicts and culture of bullying on this board.

Factually untrue.

I guess you have your alternative facts.

I am not attempting to help a fascist win.

Then you're in denial about the consequences of your actions.

I realize you have difficulty grasping this, but Trump being bad doesn’t mean Biden should be president. Nor does it obligate me to support Biden or stop attacking him when he says racist shit and whatever other Things We’re Supposed To Ignore When Our Side Does It he spews in the coming months.

I have never said we should ignore anything because "our side" does it.

I've acknowledged Biden's crimes. I've acknowledged his racism. I think they're both despicable. I simply don't think it justifies making a literal genocidal fascist Dictator of America. And yes, those are the only two options.

By law, you have the right to vote for whoever you want (at least until Fuhrer Donald does away with that). But that doesn't mean your choices don't have consequences.

But you know, go on pretending that Biden is suddenly the only man who can defeat Trump and we all just need to accept that he’s the protagonist here.

Theoretically, almost nominee could beat him.

In practice, Joe Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee.

[bilateralrope]

Do any of those third parties have any chance of winning the presidency this year ?

Not likely. But if there isn't a candidate worth voting for, I won't vote. And that's on the Democratic Party. Not me.

Do you want Trump to win ?

This is a yes/no question.

[The Romulan Republic]

Do any of those third parties have any chance of winning the presidency this year ?

Not likely. But if there isn't a candidate worth voting for, I won't vote. And that's on the Democratic Party. Not me.

So, you admit that the likely outcome of people pursuing the course you advocate is the reelection of Donald Trump.

You just refuse to take any responsibility for knowingly acting in a manner that makes his reelection more likely, and encouraging others to do so.

Coward.

[The Romulan Republic]

FDR was a racist, probably much more so than Joe Biden. Churchill certainly was. Stalin was a mass murderer. Does that mean that we should not have fought the Nazis, if it meant being on the same side as them?

[Straha]

Shockingly, the only people responsible for electing Donald Trump are the people who voted for him. Blaming other people for not voting for a shitty candidate is both grade-A blame deferral but completely misunderstands how democracy works both conceptually and in practice.

There is, to be clear, a legitimate argument that Trump is a proto-fascist who the left has to unite against at all costs because of what happens when people don't unite against them.

There has also been a clear line drawn in the sand over the last four years that says that sexual assaulters are to be ostracized from society and that being a sexual assaulter is enough to call for a blood-in-the-streets political battle. The democrats (rightly) threw Al Franken out of the senate for this, were willing to go to the mattresses to fight Kavanaugh over that same issue, and have used this to great effect against Trump and other republicans (notably Susan Collins). This has been part and parcel of a tremendous shift in sexual politics over the last four years, and something worth fighting over in its own right.

To turn around and just declare "Shut up and get in line because the other person is worse" is A. exactly the same line taken by Republicans over Trump and Kavanaugh, which doesn't just cede the moral high ground on this issue but also lets them deploy the argument that the outrage the Democrats trot out sexual issues to discredit politicians is purely for self-interested gain (and they would be right), B. gives up significant progress over sexual assault in the public sphere, and C. is absolutely heartless to victims of sexual assault.

To ignore this isn't just heartless but terrible politics, and to shout down people who raise legitimate issues is to replay the exact same errors of 2016 that doomed the Democratic candidacy at the time.

[The Romulan Republic]

Shockingly, the only people responsible for electing Donald Trump are the people who voted for him. Blaming other people for not voting for a shitty candidate is both grade-A blame deferral but completely misunderstands how democracy works both conceptually and in practice.

There is, to be clear, a legitimate argument that Trump is a proto-fascist who the left has to unite against at all costs because of what happens when people don't unite against them.

There seems to be a contradiction between these two paragraphs.

In theory, people can vote for whoever they want and they don't have responsibility for any other candidate. In practice, either Joe Biden or Donald Trump will be the next President, and attacking ones' candidacy, refusing to vote for them, and urging other people not to vote for them (by, say, accusing anyone who supports them of being pro-rape) has the effect of helping to elect the other.

I'm not talking about any political theory here. I am talking about the facts of how elections work.

There has also been a clear line drawn in the sand over the last four years that says that sexual assaulters are to be ostracized from society and that being a sexual assaulter is enough to call for a blood-in-the-streets political battle. The democrats (rightly) threw Al Franken out of the senate for this, were willing to go to the mattresses to fight Kavanaugh over that same issue, and have used this to great effect against Trump and other republicans (notably Susan Collins). This has been part and parcel of a tremendous shift in sexual politics over the last four years, and something worth fighting over in its own right.

I agree with all of this unconditionally.

To turn around and just declare "Shut up and get in line because the other person is worse" is A. exactly the same line taken by Republicans over Trump and Kavanaugh, which doesn't just cede the moral high ground on this issue but also lets them deploy the argument that the outrage the Democrats trot out sexual issues to discredit politicians is purely for self-interested gain (and they would be right), B. gives up significant progress over sexual assault in the public sphere, and C. is absolutely heartless to victims of sexual assault.

I can't speak for everyone else, but I am not arguing that people should just "Shut up and get in line". If I was, you'd be absolutely right to condemn it, and you are right to condemn Biden supporters who take that position. Tara Reade's story, and the stories of other women mistreated by Biden, should not be ignored, silenced, surpressed, or attacked, and I have consistently argued that they should not.

The one thing I will not do is take the position that holding Biden accountable outweighs the safety of the entire planet. That's all. You yourself acknowledged above that an argument can be made "that Trump is a proto-fascist who the left has to unite against at all costs..." Which is really the crux of what I'm saying here.

Regarding A) Kavanaugh is not an accurate comparison, because in selecting a Supreme Court judge, its not a binary pick between two candidates, either in theory or in practice. The Republicans could have nominated someone else was a conservative Republican but not accused of rape.

Equating my position to Republicans' support of Trump in 2016 is false for two reasons.

First, it implies that both sides are equally bad- that viewing Trump as a threat that must be stopped at all costs is as reasonable a position as viewing Hillary as a threat that must be stopped at all costs. This is just more "Both Sides"-ism.

Secondly, I have never denied Biden's faults, or demanded that he be uncritically praised in all circumstances. I would never want my party to show the level of cultish loyalty and servile deference to Biden or any other President that Republicans do to Trump (nor would it- the Democratic Party isn't like that). If Biden is President, I and other progressives will constantly demand accountability for his actions. We will demand that he enact progressive policies, including policies to prevent sexual abuse and protect and support survivors. And we will probably primary him in 2024.

Regarding B) I do not see how reelecting Trump would cost us less ground on sexual assault in the public sphere than electing Biden. Not only is Trump a serial rapist and probable pedophile who has openly boasted about being able to get away with molesting women, but he also supports a wide range of policies that will actively harm survivors of sexual abuse.

Regarding C) This is the question that weighs most heavily on me. It is certainly not my intention to disregard the feelings of those who have suffered a sexual assault. It is for that reason that I will not judge or criticize survivors of sexual assault who choose not to support Biden. I will also not judge the many who will choose to vote for him. My attacks are not meant to be directed at them, and I sincerely apologize if they ever appeared to be. They are, rather, directed at the disingenuous Bernie or Bust/Never Biden crowd who are in many cases cynically seizing on Ms. Reade's story as a justification for what they wanted to do all along, and to guilt/bully others into doing likewise. And against those who hypocritically demand that Biden supporters own responsibility for rape culture while refusing to accept any responsibility for their own actions.

To ignore this isn't just heartless but terrible politics, and to shout down people who raise legitimate issues is to replay the exact same errors of 2016 that doomed the Democratic candidacy at the time.

Ralin isn't just "raising legitimate issues". He is insisting that everyone should refuse to vote for Biden no matter what, and portraying me (and by extension anyone who disagrees with him on this issue) as a rape apologist, while pretending that there are no consequences for doing so and that he has no responsibility for his actions. He, and others like him, have also made it clear that they will not support Biden under any conditions, so what is the point in trying to reach out to them?

Also, while I can at least understand the argument that Biden should not be supported under any circumstances because of the rape allegations, "I'm not going to vote Democrat because you told me I had to vote Democrat" is about the most petty, petulant, privileged reason for voting/not voting imaginable.

[The Romulan Republic]

While I ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT be the topic here, since people insist on making my character a topic, again, I'm just going to say this:

-I am to the best of my knowledge the only Biden supporter on this board who is honest enough to admit that Tara Reade's story is probably true, and to not engage in victim-blaming.

-I am to the best of my knowledge the only person who acknowledges Biden's guilt who is also honest enough to admit the likely consequences of not voting for him.

As a result, I have been portrayed as a heartless rape apologist who thinks that the accusations should be ignored (lie) and that sexual assault is okay as long as the rapist is on my team (lie). While also being criticized from the pro-Biden side for not attacking or dismissing Tara Reade.

I'm not trying to sing my own praises, I'm a piece of shit and I know it. But I think that there's something pretty fucked up about all that. I think, frankly, that I am once again being used as a distraction so that people like Ralin can dodge any responsibility for their words and views. And unfortunately, it works, partly (I admit) because I am easy to provoke, and partly because of long-standing personal conflicts on this board.

[The Romulan Republic]

United Auto Workers union endorses Joe Biden:

https://cnbc.com/2020/04/21/joe-biden-e ... paign.html

DETROIT — The United Auto Workers union said Tuesday that it is endorsing former Vice President Joe Biden for president, citing an “assault on worker rights to organize and fair wages” under President Donald Trump.

The union said it chose to endorse Biden because of his experience under the Obama administration during the 2009 auto bailout and “anti-worker federal appointees” by the Trump administration.

“In these dangerous and difficult times, the country needs a president who will demonstrate clear, stable leadership, less partisan acrimony and more balance to the rights and protections of working Americans,” UAW President Rory Gamble said in a statement.

The endorsement by the UAW, which represents more than 400,000 workers, is a win for Biden but not unexpected. The union historically endorses Democrats for president, including Hillary Clinton in 2016 and two-term former President Barack Obama.

The Trump campaign, in an email response to the UAW’s endorsement, said that while Biden “may have the support of union leaders,” the “workers know that it was under President Trump’s leadership that jobs increased and wages grew.”

“Workers will be reminded that Biden voted for NAFTA and shipped hundreds of thousand of jobs overseas,” the Trump campaign said. “And they know President Trump always puts America first, that his policies built the greatest economy in history before it was artificially interrupted, and that he is the only one who can restore us to that position again.”

Despite the UAW endorsing Clinton four years ago, blue-collar workers such as those in the union assisted Trump in winning office, including a surprising victory in the union’s home state of Michigan. Trump, a Republican, has continued to tout the support of auto workers and other unions, as many have voiced support for his America-first policies. He also won the support of the AFL-CIO union federation for the revised U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

However, Trump has not fulfilled campaign promises of auto manufacturing and jobs returning from Mexico. Most notably, Trump told a crowd at a rally in Ohio in 2017 that jobs were “all coming back.” Two years later, General Motors shut down its massive Lordstown assembly plant in the state.

Progressive Latino groups endorse Biden:

https://thehill.com/latino/493784-latin ... w-of-unity

Major progressive Latino groups are bulking up their political operations and rallying behind former Vice President Joe Biden faster than they did with Hillary Clinton.

The surge in Hispanic support is mainly driven by opposition to President Trump's policies and rhetoric — as well as four years of changes in how the Democratic Party approaches Hispanic voters.

The endorsements come as Biden is looking to unite the moderate and progressive factions of the Democratic Party after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) left the race earlier this month.

Latinos are expected to be a critical voting segment in November with many Hispanics opposed to the Trump administration's policies, including on immigration.

"The Trump presidency represents a clear and present danger," said María Teresa Kumar, the president and CEO of Voto Latino, an organization dedicated to registering Hispanic voters.

Voto Latino last week endorsed Biden, breaking with the organization's former policy of not endorsing presidential candidates.

"We have never done a presidential endorsement because we deeply believe that should be in the realm of political parties," said Kumar.

It was a decision driven by what the organization called the Trump administration's attacks against the Hispanic community.

"This is our first presidential endorsement in our history. This is not one we take lightly. It comes at a time when the Trump administration continues to attack the Latinx community," Voto Latino said in a tweet last week.

And Democratic Party leaders are touting the importance of reaching Latino voters, based in large part on the Hispanic electorate's role in netting Democrats a House majority in 2018.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez Friday headlined a conference call to kick off Latinos con Biden, or Latinos with Biden, a digital campaign spearheaded by Latino Victory Fund, a progressive Hispanic advocacy group that endorsed Biden in February.

Chuck Rocha, the consultant who implemented Sanders's successful Latino vote strategy, said he sees a tangible difference in how party leaders are approaching Hispanic voters, compared to 2016.

"They're saying all the right things. They used to not even say it. Now all that's left is hiring [culturally competent] consultants," said Rocha.

The shift in rhetoric has led to tangible gains, including the Voto Latino endorsement.

Kumar said her organization sent Biden a two-page document of policy positions necessary for an endorsement, and was pleasantly surprised to receive back a 22-page document that expanded on her requests.

"They were really thoughtful," said Kumar.

But the general election campaign is still in its early stages, and what a campaign amid coronavirus shutdowns will look like is anyone's guess.

One thing that's clear is Latino organizations are expecting to be treated — and funded — like core components of the Democratic coalition.

"None of these endorsements matter if nobody puts money behind these organizations," said Rocha.

With presidential campaigns sucking up donor money and fundraising upended by the coronavirus lockdown, there are doubts about how to raise cash to implement campaign strategies.

"That's the outstanding question. You see Latino-led organizations wanting to do more. Whether the donors will react is the giant question," said Orson Aguilar, executive director of UnidosUS Action Fund, the political wing of UnidosUS, the country's largest Hispanic civil rights organization.

UnidosUS Action Fund endorsed Clinton in 2016, and its officials are in the process of deciding when to roll out endorsements for 2020. Anything but a Biden endorsement would be a huge surprise.

"There is concern that Latino organizations could get overlooked," said Aguilar.

"That's why organizations are coalescing and endorsing early, so folks can wave the flag and say, 'we're here and if you invest in us we can help you get the Latino vote,' " he added.

That could strike up tension between the relative newcomers and establishment organizations who have in the past acted as funders and kingmakers.

"The challenge with the Hillary campaign was that they did wholesale politics: They would basically fund the PACs, and then expect the PACs to give money to smaller groups," said Kumar.

"If 2016 taught us anything, it's that wholesale politics do not work," she added.

The 2016 and 2018 election cycles proved the power of local engagement, a strategy that Sanders and Rocha used to great effect in the early stages of the 2020 primaries

For instance, Kumar said that for Voto Latino, 2018 was an opportunity to create a positive track record for the organization, which has already registered more than 100,000 people in the 2020 cycle, and is aiming for half a million.

That's prompted Voto Latino's expansion on the political side — as opposed to focusing exclusively on registration — as well as Latino Victory's Latinos con Biden initiative and Rocha's foray into the PAC world through Nuestro PAC.

But Trump continues to be a powerful motivator for progressive Hispanics to expand their political clout.

"The motivation is Donald Trump is the most racist president against Latinos we've ever seen in the history of our country," said Rocha.

[The Romulan Republic]

A strong argument for who Biden should pick for VP:

https://washingtonpost.com/opinions/202 ... ning-mate/

This is the latest in a series where I make the best case for each of Joe Biden’s possible vice-presidential candidates. The other pieces can be found here.

In presidential elections, winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing. Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden can spend all day in his basement designing a fantasy platform, imagining his ideal Cabinet and drafting soaring speeches to heal our political divides — but it’ll all be for nothing if he fails to get 270 electoral votes.

That makes Biden’s equation for picking a running mate simple: He needs a qualified candidate who can help him win a key swing state such as Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin. Every other consideration — age, ideological fit, working relationship — should take a back seat to this straightforward election math. And according to those numbers, Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin is the right, and arguably the only, choice.

Baldwin is obviously qualified: She’s been in the Senate since 2013 and was in the House for 14 years before that. She’d make history as the fourth woman — and the first out lesbian — on a presidential ticket for a major party. And, as a progressive, she’d bring ideological balance to the ticket.

But most important, she’s from Wisconsin: the state that gave Trump his 270th electoral vote in 2016. If Baldwin brought Biden a mere two points in Wisconsin, that would be a huge help.

And Biden doesn’t have any other options like Baldwin in the swing states.

In Florida, both senators and the governor are Republicans, and Biden probably should stick to politicians who have shown they can win a marquee statewide race. Biden has also pledged to pick a woman as his vice president, so Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf and Pennsylvania Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. are out.

Biden has two options in Michigan — Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer — but neither would be a stronger addition to the ticket than Baldwin. Stabenow doesn’t look like a good bet right now: She underperformed expectations in 2018, when she beat Republican challenger John James by only 6.5 points, while Baldwin won her latest race by double digits. Whitmer is a gamble, too. By the end of the novel coronavirus crisis, she could be wildly popular or completely toxic in her home state, depending on how the Trump-stoked protests against her social distancing orders play out.

There’s also Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, who would make history as the first openly bisexual candidate, and might even be to the right of Biden. But Baldwin has more Senate experience than Sinema, and Wisconsin is still a touch more purple than Arizona.

Baldwin is simply head and shoulders above the other contenders. She’d give Biden a boost where he needs it, and she would avoid the pitfalls of similar candidates, though she has some weaknesses, too.

Baldwin hasn’t run for president, so she doesn’t have as much experience in the national spotlight as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar or California Sen. Kamala D. Harris. And if she left her Senate seat, Republicans would have the chance to take it in a special election, complicating Biden’s path to passing legislation.

But neither of those problems is a dealbreaker. Vice-presidential candidates don’t need to be electrifying campaigners for the ticket to win — just ask vice presidents Mike Pence and Al Gore. And Baldwin may be a sympathetic figure on a debate stage next to Pence, who is very conservative on LGBT issues. While Democrats should be concerned about losing Baldwin’s seat, if Biden believes that Baldwin is the best choice for vice president, he should pick her and sort out the down-ballot consequences later.

Biden has a huge responsibility in this election. If Trump wins a second term, Americans will understandably start to see him as the new normal. Attacks on the press, Twitter outbursts, constant lying, authoritarian saber-rattling, complete incompetence, disregard for expertise — all these features of Trumpism will be permanent parts of our politics. Biden has a chance to make Trump a historical aberration. If he’s serious about taking that chance, he’ll make smart moves such as picking Baldwin as his running mate.

I have serious misgivings about any pick that could give the Republicans a Senate seat, but other than that, this seems to be a pretty solid argument.

[The Romulan Republic]

New York is reportedly considering removing Sanders from the primary ballot, effectively cancelling the primary and denying him delegates and influence at the convention:

https://commondreams.org/news/2020/04/2 ... ng-sanders

New York state election officials are poised to remove Sen. Bernie Sanders from the ballot in June's primary election, a move that would deny the Vermont lawmaker's supporters the chance to cast a vote for him as president and would harm his chances of using his delegate count to influence the party's direction and push for reforms.

"Hard to imagine a pettier decision more perfectly calibrated to infuriate and depress younger and progressive voters," tweeted Jewish Currents editor David Klion.

As HuffPost's Daniel Marans reported Tuesday, Board of Elections co-chair Douglas Kellner and commissioner Andrew Spano, both Democrats, will meet Wednesday to decide on whether or not to remove Sanders' name from the ballot. Kellner believes that a provision in the 2019-2020 budget saying the board "may" remove a candidate from the ballot if they make clear they are no longer seeking the office in question rquires Sanders' removal.

Under Kellner's interpretation of the statute, Sanders, who suspended his campaign on April 8, falls under that category.

"It's not very controversial that Bernie Sanders has suspended his campaign," Kellner told HuffPost. "I anticipate that we will be removing him."

Such a decision by Kellner and Spano, under the statute, would have to be unanimous—both men would have to agree.

Progressives in New York had been anticipating such a move after Gov. Andrew Cuomo postponed the state's election due to the coronavirus outbreak and pushed for the inclusion of the language in the bill.

"We think this is a power play on the part of the governor who wants to control the entire delegation," said New York activist George Albro.

A letter (pdf) from a number of advocacy groups in the state said that removing Sanders from the ballot would constitute a "suspension of democracy" and warned that disenfranchising the Vermont senator's New York supporters was not a path to unity.

"We urge you to prioritize saving lives and defeating Donald Trump over the possible implementation of this clause," the groups wrote. "Cancelling the presidential primary is not the right way to address our current challenges."

As HuffPost explained, removing Sanders from the ballot would cut off the ability of the senator and his supporters to influence the party platform due to New York's delegate count:

When Sanders withdrew from the primary earlier this month, he promised to remain on the ballot in states that had yet to cast votes to maximize his influence over the Democratic Party platform and nominating rules. (He endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden, the party's presumptive nominee, a few days after dropping out.)

Sanders partisans are hoping, for example, to make permanent a rule change in effect in the 2020 cycle that bars the party officials known as "superdelegates" from backing a presidential candidate on the first convention ballot that differs from the candidate their state's voters chose in a primary election or caucus.

In an April 15 letter (pdf) aimed at staving off the move by the board to take Sanders off the ballot, New York candidates for delegates to the convention backing Sanders urged the state not exercise the authority in the budget line.

"To cancel the presidential primary would be an affront to democracy, to the efforts and dedication of our delegate candidates, and to common decency and fairness," the group wrote.

Biden and Obama better intervene and urge them not to do this. Because as the article notes, it a) comes off as extremely petty, and b) is practically tailor-made to enrage progressives. The Bernie or Busters could hardly be handed a better excuse to scream "Rigged Primary!"