SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[The Romulan Republic]

Cuomo has also cut the Medicaid budget and rolled back needed criminal justice reform recently.

He was the reason why the IDC existed in the first place preventing liberal policies from being passed in the state. He's always been a piece of shit.

Also, that Bloomberg article seems to be misleading. Every other publication states it's just the Presidential primary cancelled.

The Bloomberg article suggests the two decisions happened one after the other, not simultaneously. May be just the one is getting more coverage than the other.

If Bloomberg is lying on that, then they're engaging in voter surpression.

The Sanders campaign is not happy, and Weaver is calling for a full review, and that New York be stripped of all delegates to the convention:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... o-american

An adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said the decision to cancel New York's Democratic presidential primary is "a blow to American democracy" and called on the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to reverse the move.

"No one asked New York to cancel the election," Jeff Weaver said in a statement. "The DNC did not request it. The Biden campaign did not request it. And our campaign communicated that we wanted to remain on the ballot."

Weaver accused New York of violating its delegate selection plan, saying the state should lose all of its delegates ahead of the party's convention and be subject to a "broader review" over what he called "the Democratic Party of New York's checkered pattern of voter disenfranchisement."

Democrats on the state's Board of Elections voted on Monday to cancel the party's presidential primary on June 23 amid the ongoing coronavirus outbreak. Congressional and state-level elections will take place on June 23.

The vote came after Sanders's presidential campaign sent a letter to the state Board of Elections asking that he remain on the June 23 ballot. The campaign warned that the party would be damaged if it did not grant the request.

Sanders suspended his campaign earlier this month, but he pledged to remain on upcoming primary ballots to continue accumulating delegates in an effort to pressure the DNC to adopt a more progressive platform at the party's convention in August.

Weaver acknowledged in the statement that the campaign understood that they did not have the votes to win the nomination, but added that "people in every state should have the right to express their preference."

[Straha]

It should be noted that part of the reason for cancelling the Presidential primary is to severely depress turnout for down-ballot progressive campaigns (see, for instance, Emily Gallagher's campaign for assembly.)

Which loops back to an earlier discussion here of "Should progressives/the Left operate inside the democratic party?" In a world where the party will actively try to hurt your chances of participating and directly screw you over, how long does it take to get the hint that you're not welcome?

[Straha]

And per two people I know personally (one a former NYS Board of Elections person and currently a candidate for county level office, the other managing a campaign) the down-ballot primary is absolutely not cancelled.

[Soontir C'boath]

Which loops back to an earlier discussion here of "Should progressives/the Left operate inside the democratic party?" In a world where the party will actively try to hurt your chances of participating and directly screw you over, how long does it take to get the hint that you're not welcome?

Hopefully more people realize that Republicans are used as scapegoats for the Democratic Party's own lack of not giving a shit of average folks like "you and me".
Anyway, Business Insider reports Reade's neighbor had talked with her around the time the incident happened and had urged Reade to file a police report back then. This is not looking good for Biden and the #MeToo movement.

[The Romulan Republic]

And per two people I know personally (one a former NYS Board of Elections person and currently a candidate for county level office, the other managing a campaign) the down-ballot primary is absolutely not cancelled.

So Bloomberg's flat-out lying and vote supressing.

My apologies, and thank you for the correction. I'll add them to the list of sources I do not cite.

It should be noted that part of the reason for cancelling the Presidential primary is to severely depress turnout for down-ballot progressive campaigns (see, for instance, Emily Gallagher's campaign for assembly.)

Which loops back to an earlier discussion here of "Should progressives/the Left operate inside the democratic party?" In a world where the party will actively try to hurt your chances of participating and directly screw you over, how long does it take to get the hint that you're not welcome?

Because there aren't enough progressives to win a national election. And because however uphill a fight it may be for progressives to win in the Democratic Party, it is vastly harder for them to win via third party/independent runs. There is exactly one progressive who has achieved notable national success as an Independent, and that's Bernie Sanders- and even he caucuses with the Democrats, and had to seek the Democratic nomination to push his agenda into the national spotlight. So, what makes you think you know better than them what it takes to achieve a progressive agenda or elect a progressive candidate? Or do you not actually care about achieving anything, and just want the cartharsis of saying "Fuck the Dems", regardless of the cost?

And also because its not as simple as "progressives aren't welcome". There are many progressives (AOC being the most notable) who have successfully gained office through the Democratic party. They have a gained increasing influence in the party, if not as fast as some (including myself) might like. And as I have noted repeatedly, the decision in New York was NOT done at the behest of Biden or the DNC- it was an action by the New York election Commission, possibly with the conivance or at least the acceptance of Governor Cuomo. Even Jeff Weaver, who is not exactly one of the most conciliatory people on Bernie's team, isn't blaming the DNC. The DNC are as much the victims as Sanders here. The biggest victims, of course, are the Democratic electorate in New York as a whole,who have been disenfranchised.

You are clearly an intelligent and educated enough person to be aware of all of the above, which tells me that you are either letting your emotions get the better of your judgement, or you are being deliberately deceitful in an effort to encourage progressives to split the vote.

Which loops back to an earlier discussion here of "Should progressives/the Left operate inside the democratic party?" In a world where the party will actively try to hurt your chances of participating and directly screw you over, how long does it take to get the hint that you're not welcome?

Hopefully more people realize that Republicans are used as scapegoats for the Democratic Party's own lack of not giving a shit of average folks like "you and me".
Anyway, Business Insider reports Reade's neighbor had talked with her around the time the incident happened and had urged Reade to file a police report back then. This is not looking good for Biden and the #MeToo movement.

How does it reflect badly on the MeToo movement? This proves its point, if anything.

Well, except the ones who conveniently contradicted their previous position when the accused was a Democratic front-runner/presumptive nominee. Those ones look bad, yeah.

[The Romulan Republic]

I want to ask everybody who says that progressives should leave the Democratic Party because "we're not welcome" or "its rigged", or whatever:

Do you seriously think, even for a second, that you have better odds of electing progressive candidates and implementing progressive policy via third party/independent runs? Really?

Or are you essentially saying "I'm frustrated with the Democrats, so I'm just going to give up on accomplishing anything and try to burn it all down?"

Maybe that's how you feel. But if so, then you should admit, honestly, that that is what you are doing. Because it seems to me that for progressives, "Leave the Democrats" is basically an act of political nihilism.

[Straha]

It should be noted that part of the reason for cancelling the Presidential primary is to severely depress turnout for down-ballot progressive campaigns (see, for instance, Emily Gallagher's campaign for assembly.)

Which loops back to an earlier discussion here of "Should progressives/the Left operate inside the democratic party?" In a world where the party will actively try to hurt your chances of participating and directly screw you over, how long does it take to get the hint that you're not welcome?

Because there aren't enough progressives to win a national election. And because however uphill a fight it may be for progressives to win in the Democratic Party, it is vastly harder for them to win via third party/independent runs. There is exactly one progressive who has achieved notable national success as an Independent, and that's Bernie Sanders- and even he caucuses with the Democrats, and had to seek the Democratic nomination to push his agenda into the national spotlight. So, what makes you think you know better than them what it takes to achieve a progressive agenda or elect a progressive candidate? Or do you not actually care about achieving anything, and just want the cartharsis of saying "Fuck the Dems", regardless of the cost?

And also because its not as simple as "progressives aren't welcome". There are many progressives (AOC being the most notable) who have successfully gained office through the Democratic party. They have a gained increasing influence in the party, if not as fast as some (including myself) might like. And as I have noted repeatedly, the decision in New York was NOT done at the behest of Biden or the DNC- it was an action by the New York election Commission, possibly with the conivance or at least the acceptance of Governor Cuomo. Even Jeff Weaver, who is not exactly one of the most conciliatory people on Bernie's team, isn't blaming the DNC. The DNC are as much the victims as Sanders here. The biggest victims, of course, are the Democratic electorate in New York as a whole,who have been disenfranchised.

It's interesting to me that you:
- respond to a position by taking a nugget of a reasonable stance, then rhetorically work yourself up into a lather over that stance
- then straw man me ("or do you not actually care about achieving anything")
- then try to lecture me about what I've said despite being clearly wrong about what you think I'm saying (yes, I know that this was a New York decision. The fact that I have talked to friends who are deeply involved in New York politics about this would indicate that I am both aware of that and more cognizant of what's going on than you)
- and end your diatribe in a huffy snit

Which:

You are clearly an intelligent and educated enough person to be aware of all of the above, which tells me that you are either letting your emotions get the better of your judgement, or you are being deliberately deceitful in an effort to encourage progressives to split the vote.

Makes the accusation of me of letting emotions get the better of my judgment amusing. Physician, heal thyself.

So let's try this to get this conversation back on track. Why don't you respond to my post again, and think of it as coming from someone who is intelligent and being reflective on the situation and not someone taking the blanket stances based on ignorance you try to read into my post?

Which loops back to an earlier discussion here of "Should progressives/the Left operate inside the democratic party?" In a world where the party will actively try to hurt your chances of participating and directly screw you over, how long does it take to get the hint that you're not welcome?

Hopefully more people realize that Republicans are used as scapegoats for the Democratic Party's own lack of not giving a shit of average folks like "you and me".
Anyway, Business Insider reports Reade's neighbor had talked with her around the time the incident happened and had urged Reade to file a police report back then. This is not looking good for Biden and the #MeToo movement.

How does it reflect badly on the MeToo movement? This proves its point, if anything.

Well, except the ones who conveniently contradicted their previous position when the accused was a Democratic front-runner/presumptive nominee. Those ones look bad, yeah.

If the national group that has absolutely tried to take the reins of the "we fight against sexual assault" narrative is willing to unceremoniously kick you to the curb, it's a bad sign for your movement.

[The Romulan Republic]

It's interesting to me that you:
- respond to a position by taking a nugget of a reasonable stance, then rhetorically work yourself up into a lather over that stance

Whether you like my tone is not relevant to whether my stance is valid.

- then straw man me ("or do you not actually care about achieving anything")

It wasn't a strawman- I'm genuinely asking. Because I do not understand how one could be frustrated at the obstacles faced by progressives in the Democratic Party, and believe that those obstacles would be less outside of the party. It is simply a position that does not make sense to me.

- then try to lecture me about what I've said despite being clearly wrong about what you think I'm saying (yes, I know that this was a New York decision. The fact that I have talked to friends who are deeply involved in New York politics about this would indicate that I am both aware of that and more cognizant of what's going on than you)

Then why did you treat it as representative of the party's attitude toward progressives?

- and end your diatribe in a huffy snit

That is not a fair characterization of my post, nor is it an attempt to address the substance of my arguments. Its just more personal attacks, which is pretty rich coming from someone who's constantly lecturing me on my tone.

Makes the accusation of me of letting emotions get the better of my judgment amusing. Physician, heal thyself.

Saying "You're guilty too" doesn't actually prove that I'm wrong.

So let's try this to get this conversation back on track. Why don't you respond to my post again, and think of it as coming from someone who is intelligent and being reflective on the situation and not someone taking the blanket stances based on ignorance you try to read into my post?

How about you actually address the substance of my last post, which you acknowledged above has some merit, rather than just insulting me and my tone.

To summarize, my points are:

-There is no practical advantage to be gained for progressives by leaving the Democratic Party, because winning as a third party/independent candidate is almost universally even harder.

-Prominent progressive politicians recognize this, as shown by the fact that they continue to work with the Democratic Party.

-The actions of the New York election commission do not reflect the view toward progressives of the Democratic Party as a whole, or even its moderate/Centrist wing, and in fact go against the interests of the entire party.

-It is therefore false to treat this as representative of the party's views, or to use this as an argument for why progressives should leave the party. Which, yeah, you did:

In a world where the party will actively try to hurt your chances of participating and directly screw you over, how long does it take to get the hint that you're not welcome?

That clearly characterizes the New York election commission's actions as representative of the attitude of the party as a whole toward progressives, and then rhetorically asks when progressives will "get the hint". The implication, that progressives are unwelcome in the party and should leave, is very clear.

If the national group that has absolutely tried to take the reins of the "we fight against sexual assault" narrative is willing to unceremoniously kick you to the curb, it's a bad sign for your movement.

This is also an oversimplistic analysis. Many prominent Democrats have said that Reade's accusations should be taken seriously, and the party as a whole has not repudiated the MeToo movement. Once again, you are oversimplifying the issue, falsely portraying the party as a whole as hostile to MeToo just as you falsely portrayed it as hostile to progressives.

The reality is considerably more complicated, in both cases, because its a big tent party with many competing factions and views.

[Straha]

Look, friendo.

There are three ways this can go down:

1. This becomes a debate. Wherein, to be blunt, I will clown you. You are out of your depth and have not engaged with the questions at hand in the background (that is broader political theory) or the specifics being discussed (the makeup and nature of the New York State Democratic machine and the party machinations that motivate it both downstate and in Albany, or the state of local New York politics) with any sort of serious study. Worse for you, I know how you handle debates like this, and it's the same every time:

- Somebody offers a structural critique.
- You offer a token recognition of the critique but then insist that a path of least-resistance pragmatism is the best way forward.
- The same person explains how that pragmatism doesn't actually respond to the critique

And then you engage in Manichean foot stomping about how the person is throwing away all hope of a future and secretly in bed with fascists. The debate becomes tedious, and dull, and uninteresting. It's like if and had a baby.

I just don't want to do that. You don't engage with what people say. There's no challenge to it. And there's no growth. There's just no fun in that, for anyone.

2. We can have a discussion. You're not a bad guy and not a total nincompoop and I wouldn't mind having a conversation with you about this. But, that requires that A. the conversation not become lame attempt at a line-by-line from you, and B. that you actually take what I'm saying at good faith. So, for instance:

- then straw man me ("or do you not actually care about achieving anything")

-

It wasn't a strawman- I'm genuinely asking. Because I do not understand how one could be frustrated at the obstacles faced by progressives in the Democratic Party, and believe that those obstacles would be less outside of the party. It is simply a position that does not make sense to me.

If you think I'm politically engaged (which, yes) and that I care about achieving progressive goals (which, yes), then do you think I don't care about achieving anything? Obviously not. So, perhaps, approach this from a constructive instead of combative angle. Perhaps we can have a friendly discussion about different avenues of organizing and political engagement. Perhaps we can have a discussion about the nature of New York state politics and the democratic machine therein coupled with the external opportunities that exist. Perhaps we can discuss more broadly our relationships to electoral politics and the benefits and pitfalls thereof. This approach you're taking? Not the way to start it.

3. No engagement. Look, I know Loomer just did a similar thing to what I did, and you blew right past it, which makes this kind of a Sisyphean/Quixotic attempt on my part. But I wouldn't be doing it if I didn't think there was some possible productive outcome. And, bluntly, unless you're willing to show some kind of improvement and growth on your part in engaging with discussions like this I don't see what's in it for me to engage. It's a waste of my time and the resources of the board to respond. So, I won't.

[The Romulan Republic]

Look, friendo.

There are three ways this can go down:

1. This becomes a debate. Wherein, to be blunt, I will clown you. You are out of your depth and have not engaged with the questions at hand in the background (that is broader political theory) or the specifics being discussed (the makeup and nature of the New York State Democratic machine and the party machinations that motivate it both downstate and in Albany, or the state of local New York politics) with any sort of serious study. Worse for you, I know how you handle debates like this, and it's the same every time:

- Somebody offers a structural critique.
- You offer a token recognition of the critique but then insist that a path of least-resistance pragmatism is the best way forward.
- The same person explains how that pragmatism doesn't actually respond to the critique

And then you engage in Manichean foot stomping about how the person is throwing away all hope of a future and secretly in bed with fascists. The debate becomes tedious, and dull, and uninteresting. It's like if and had a baby.

I just don't want to do that. You don't engage with what people say. There's no challenge to it. And there's no growth. There's just no fun in that, for anyone.

While I will acknowledge that I can be a stubborn asshole at times, I do not feel that this is an entirely fair characterization of me or my arguments.

I do not claim that anyone who disagrees with me on these issues is secretly a fascist, though I do wonder about some "progressives" (not you) who go out of their way to promote or defend Right wing policy and propaganda. I would argue that deliberately undermining the Democratic Party under the current circumstances has the practical effect of aiding fascists, whether or not that is ones' intent.

I would not generally characterize myself as an advocate of "least-resistance pragmatism". I do believe that there are things which one should not sacrifice for expediency. Among those things, however, are the existence of democracy and the survival of the planetary ecosystem. And even if I am willing to take a "principled", idealistic stand on sexual assault, or political corruption, and to hell with the practical consequences, I am not convinced that there is any action I could take that would better advance the interests of those causes than voting Democrat. Protests votes against Biden are unlikely to help end sexual abuse, or provide effective support for survivors. Nor are they likely to bring about an end to political corruption or voter supression. In fact, it is the people who reliably show up and support the party who are most likely to end up swaying the decisions of that party.

You say that I am not adequately responding to your critiques. That is probably true. I don't claim to have any deep knowledge or academic expertise when it comes to political theory, though that is something I would like to remedy (I do have some practical experience in political campaigning, albeit only at a local level). But I likewise feel that your critiques do not adequately respond to or acknowledge the reality of the situation, or the practical argument for voting Democrat which I am trying to make. So we end up arguing at cross-purposes, because we're to some extent debating two different things. You are debating political theory, and I am debating what course of action people should take this November to keep the country and the planet from falling apart.

So I think we need to be clear what we are talking about: are we discussing political theory, or are we discussing how best to win the election and advance a progressive agenda in 2020?

2. We can have a discussion. You're not a bad guy and not a total nincompoop and I wouldn't mind having a conversation with you about this. But, that requires that A. the conversation not become lame attempt at a line-by-line from you, and B. that you actually take what I'm saying at good faith. So, for instance:

- then straw man me ("or do you not actually care about achieving anything")

-

It wasn't a strawman- I'm genuinely asking. Because I do not understand how one could be frustrated at the obstacles faced by progressives in the Democratic Party, and believe that those obstacles would be less outside of the party. It is simply a position that does not make sense to me.

If you think I'm politically engaged (which, yes) and that I care about achieving progressive goals (which, yes), then do you think I don't care about achieving anything? Obviously not. So, perhaps, approach this from a constructive instead of combative angle. Perhaps we can have a friendly discussion about different avenues of organizing and political engagement. Perhaps we can have a discussion about the nature of New York state politics and the democratic machine therein coupled with the external opportunities that exist. Perhaps we can discuss more broadly our relationships to electoral politics and the benefits and pitfalls thereof. This approach you're taking? Not the way to start it.

All of those are topics I would be happy to discuss, but again, I think its a bit rich to accuse me of being too combative, after spending most of your last two posts critiquing my tone, debating style, knowledge, etc.

I would be particularly interested to hear your thoughts on the subject of how this decision will affect downballot races in New York, as it is the one that seems most directly relevant to a thread on the 2020 elections.

3. No engagement. Look, I know Loomer just did a similar thing to what I did, and you blew right past it, which makes this kind of a Sisyphean/Quixotic attempt on my part. But I wouldn't be doing it if I didn't think there was some possible productive outcome. And, bluntly, unless you're willing to show some kind of improvement and growth on your part in engaging with discussions like this I don't see what's in it for me to engage. It's a waste of my time and the resources of the board to respond. So, I won't.

It is true that I sometimes ignore or fail to answer posts. This is generally because I tend to get dog piled by half a dozen people at once, I have a limited amount of time and energy, and as hard as it may be to believe, I do actually have a life outside of this board.

If I have misunderstood or failed to address anything you said here, please believe me that it was unintended, and not a result of deliberate deceit.

[The Romulan Republic]

Jesse Ventura is "testing the waters" for seeking the Green Party nomination:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... -president

Jesse Ventura, who served as Minnesota governor as a member of the Reform Party, said Monday that he is "testing the waters" for a potential 2020 run for president on the Green Party ticket.

In a pair of tweets, the former wrestling star, who has repeatedly floated a White House bid, said he endorses the Green Party's platform and had authorized a letter to the party signaling his interest in running for its presidential nomination.

"OK, I've decided I'm going to test the waters. IF I were going to run for president, the GREEN party would be my first choice. I've endorsed the party and I'm testing the waters," Ventura tweeted.

To be clear: I haven't filed anything. I authorized a letter of interest that was sent on my behalf to the Greens and I'm testing the waters for Green Party nomination. I'm an independent. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican because I know they're not the solution.

— Jesse Ventura (@GovJVentura) April 27, 2020

If he entered the race, Ventura would be one of several declared candidates for the Green Party's nomination. The hopeful currently leading the pack is Howie Hawkins, a New York trade unionist and activist who co-founded the Green Party and is already endorsed by the Socialist Party, another third party.

Ventura said in an interview with TMZ in 2018 that he was considering a run as an independent and echoed those ambitions in an interview with a Los Angeles news station last year. Ventura claimed at the time that he would easily defeat President Trump in a head-to-head match-up.

"If I do do it, Trump will not have a chance," Ventura said in 2018.

"For one, Trump knows wrestling. He participated in two Wrestlemanias. He knows he can never out-talk a wrestler, and he knows I'm the greatest talker wrestling's ever had," he said.

Well fuck. The Greens might be getting a fairly high-profile celebrity candidate who's actually won high office as a third party candidate. It won't be enough for them to win, of course- they'll be lucky to crack five percent. But it might easily be enough to cost the Democrats the entire Midwest except for Illinois.

Oh, FYI, Ventura currently hosts a show on RT, has denied Putin is a dictator and said we should thank Russia for interfering in the election, in case anyone is wondering who will ultimately be backing and pulling the strings on his campaign:

https://wccoradio.radio.com/articles/je ... ction-if-0

Jesse Ventura visited the Chad Hartman show last week and had a lot to say about Russia. If you haven’t been keeping up with the former governor, he’s been contributing to Russia Today, Russia’s the state-run media outlet, since 2016, and has had his own shown “The World According to Jesse” since 2017. It runs on Friday nights.

Listen to the full interview below. It covers his thoughts on the NFL anthem controversy, his run for the governor, and how he manages without a cell phone, among other topics:

Last year, RT was forced to register as a foreign agent in the United States, after US intelligence concluded that it was a propaganda arm of the Kremlin, and had played a role in Russia’s attempt to influence the 2016 election in favor of Donald Trump.

Ventura said that as a consequence, he can no longer lobby politicians, despite being a former mayor and governor. He suggested that the decison to label RT as a foreign agent was part of a larger plan to create a new cold war with Russia to fuel the military industrial complex.

“'I’m a mayor. I'm a governor and I'm a tax paying citizen my entire life. I cannot go in to the legislative process in Washington now because I work for a foreign agent, RT. Yet we don't do that to the BBC. We don't do that to the Chinese. We don't do it to Al Jazeera. We only censor RT here,” he said. "I'll tell you what's going on here, Chad. We live in an economic society of war. We have to be at perennial war for the economy to move."

As for Russia’s alleged attempts to influence the 2016 election, Ventura said that, if Russia did it, we should thank them for revealing that the Democratic primary contest between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton was "rigged."

“Why is it that the media during this whole Russian investigation is going after allegedly the messenger instead of the message? Because what came out of this, through the Democratic convention and the emails, was the fact that Democratic thing was fixed, it was rigged. Bernie could not win, Hillary was going to win,” Ventura said. “That's your story, and yet they've deep-sixed that and they're going after who allegedly exposed it — the Russians. We should be thanking them for exposing the corruption of our election. If they did it.”

When pressed by Hartman as to if he could be critical of Putin on his RT show, Ventura said it’s not a subject he would cover as Russia is not his area of expertise. “I don't know that much about Russia. They didn't hire me to talk about Russia. They hired me to talk about the United States and what I know here,” he said.

Yet, Ventura did have opinions on Putin and Russian elections. He and Hartman had an exchange on the issue:

Ventura: “You know what bugs me, Chad? We're always referring to Putin as a dictator… He is not a dictator. He's elected.

Hartman; Do you think they have free elections?

Ventura: Yes. You want to know why?

Hartman: No...No pressure at all?.

Ventura: You want to know why?

Hartman: His enemies vanish though, would you agree with that?

Ventura: I don’t know, but you want to know why?

Hartman: Yes, you do.

Ventura: You want to know why? When Putin took over as president, the average Russian was making $21,000 a year. Today that same Russian is making $71,000 a year. Why do you think he wins with 80 percent?... you got your personal wealth tripled or better than tripled. I think I’d be voting for him.

On the free election point, many Russian observers based outside of Russia would disagree with Ventura’s assertion that the elections there are "free.” Russia does hold elections, but the state-controlled media coverage favors Putin, and there are questions about who is allowed to actually run for office as well as allegations of electoral fraud. As an op-ed in the Guardian put it in February:

“Putin’s control of Russia’s television outlets and other media means political opponents are virtually invisible, unless they are in court on a charge. By contrast, his own public appearances receive fawning blanket coverage. There are no presidential debates, no unsanctioned opinion polls. Rival candidates do exist, but they resemble sparring partners whose task is to legitimise the process while helping the champ show off his best punches.”

As Ventura noted, average salaries did rise in Russia after Putin took control, from 2000-2012, but then plummeted in 2014 following a drop in oil prices and the imposition of economic sanctions following the country’s annexation of Crimea. They started to climb back up in 2016, and appear to be rising again this year.

Some arguments Ventura made were good for radio, but are difficult to fact check. “We don't elect our president. The electoral college does. They are bound by nothing. So unless Russia got to the electorate... and see media don't talk about this stuff... So unless Russia got to our electoral college, how could they possibly affect our election?” he said.

Ventura also argued that RT was designated a foreign agent because they held third party debates in the 2016 presidential election. “We held third party debates, we gave the Constitution Party, the Libertarians and the Green Party a platform. And for that, we've now been penalized.”

Ventura referred to a declassified version of a report from The Office of the Director of National Intelligence on "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Election”.

The report has an annex devoted to RT, which does cite the fact that the network held third party debates. It suggests the way the network framed them, with hosts claiming that the “US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a ‘sham,’” was part of a larger effort by the Russian government to undermine faith in the US electoral process.

The US government has made no explicit claim that the third party debates were the reason why RT was designated as a foreign agent, but Ventura, who ran as an independent and has long been a champion of third parties, connected those dots.

[The Romulan Republic]

Full letter from Jeff Weaver on behalf of the Sanders campaign:

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/statu ... 04/photo/1

"Today's decision by the State of New York Board of Elections is an outrage, a blow to American democracy, and must be overturned by the DNC. Just last week Vice President Biden warned the American people that President Trump could use the current crisis as an excuse to postpone the November election. Well, he now has a precedent thanks to New York state.

While we understood that we did not have the votes to win the Democratic nomination our campaign was suspended, not ended, because people in every state should have the right to express their preference. What the Board of Elections is ignoring is that the primary process not only leads to a nominee but also the selection of delegates which helps determine the platform and rules of the Democratic Party.

No one asked New York to cancel the election. The DNC didn't request it. The Biden campaign didn't request it. And our campaign communicated that we wanted to remain on the ballot. Given that the primary is months away, the proper response must be to make the election safe - such as going to all vote by mail - rather than to eliminating people's right to vote completely.

New York has clearly violated its approved delegate selection plan. If this is not remedied, New York should lose all its delegates to the 2020 Democratic National Convention and there should be a broader review by the Democratic Party of New York's checkered pattern of voter disenfranchisement.

If this decision isn't rectified, and if the DNC and Biden remain silent, then Sanders should threaten to un-suspend his campaign, in order to ensure that no more of his supporters are disenfranchised in similar fashion.

[The Romulan Republic]

A bit of good news: Trump is trailing in a lot of polls, as are Republicans in key Senate races. Also, while Trump currently enjoys a fundraising lead over Biden, downballot the Republicans are getting their asses kicked in funding.

Republicans are starting to panic, and quietly conceding that if the election is about Trump, they lose, and their best chance is to get him to keep his fucking mouth shut for five minutes (Hah). The comparison to the 2006/2008 cycle is also interesting.

https://nytimes.com/2020/04/25/us/polit ... fings.html

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s erratic handling of the coronavirus outbreak, the worsening economy and a cascade of ominous public and private polling have Republicans increasingly nervous that they are at risk of losing the presidency and the Senate if Mr. Trump does not put the nation on a radically improved course.

The scale of the G.O.P.’s challenge has crystallized in the last week. With 26 million Americans now having filed for unemployment benefits, Mr. Trump’s standing in states that he carried in 2016 looks increasingly wobbly: New surveys show him trailing significantly in battleground states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, and he is even narrowly behind in must-win Florida.

Democrats raised substantially more money than Republicans did in the first quarter in the most pivotal congressional races, according to recent campaign finance reports. And while Mr. Trump is well ahead in money compared with the presumptive Democratic nominee, Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democratic donors are only beginning to focus on the general election, and several super PACs plan to spend heavily on behalf of him and the party.

Perhaps most significantly, Mr. Trump’s single best advantage as an incumbent — his access to the bully pulpit — has effectively become a platform for self-sabotage.

His daily news briefings on the coronavirus outbreak are inflicting grave damage on his political standing, Republicans believe, and his recent remarks about combating the virus with sunlight and disinfectant were a breaking point for a number of senior party officials.

On Friday evening, Mr. Trump conducted only a short briefing and took no questions, a format that a senior administration official said was being discussed as the best option for the president going forward.

Thanks for reading The Times.
Subscribe to The Times
Glen Bolger, a longtime Republican pollster, said the landscape for his party had become far grimmer compared with the pre-virus plan to run almost singularly around the country’s prosperity.

“With the economy in free-fall, Republicans face a very challenging environment and it’s a total shift from where we were a few months ago,” Mr. Bolger said. “Democrats are angry, and now we have the foundation of the campaign yanked out from underneath us.”

Mr. Trump’s advisers and allies have often blamed external events for his most self-destructive acts, such as his repeated outbursts during the two-year investigation into his campaign’s dealings with Russia. Now, there is no such explanation — and, so far, there have been exceedingly few successful interventions regarding Mr. Trump’s behavior at the podium.

Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma, said the president had to change his tone and offer more than a campaign of grievance.

“You got to have some hope to sell people,” Mr. Cole said. “But Trump usually sells anger, division and ‘we’re the victim.’”

There are still more than six months until the election, and many Republicans are hoping that the dynamics of the race will shift once Mr. Biden is thrust back into the campaign spotlight. At that point, they believe, the race will not simply be the up-or-down referendum on the president it is now, and Mr. Trump will be able to more effectively sell himself as the person to rebuild the economy.

“We built the greatest economy in the world; I’ll do it a second time,” Mr. Trump said earlier this month, road-testing a theme he will deploy in the coming weeks.

Still, a recent wave of polling has fueled Republican anxieties, as Mr. Biden leads in virtually every competitive state.

The surveys also showed Republican senators in Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina and Maine trailing or locked in a dead heat with potential Democratic rivals — in part because their fate is linked to Mr. Trump’s job performance. If incumbents in those states lose, and Republicans pick up only the Senate seat in Alabama, Democrats would take control of the chamber should Mr. Biden win the presidency.

“He’s got to run very close for us to keep the Senate,” Charles R. Black Jr., a veteran Republican consultant, said of Mr. Trump. “I’ve always thought we were favored to, but I can’t say that now with all these cards up in the air.”

Republicans were taken aback this past week by the results of a 17-state survey commissioned by the Republican National Committee. It found the president struggling in the Electoral College battlegrounds and likely to lose without signs of an economic rebound this fall, according to a party strategist outside the R.N.C. who is familiar with the poll’s results.

The Trump campaign’s own surveys have also shown an erosion of support, according to four people familiar with the data, as the coronavirus remains the No. 1 issue worrying voters.

Polling this early is, of course, not determinative: In 2016 Hillary Clinton also enjoyed a wide advantage in many states well before November.

Yet Mr. Trump’s best hope to win a state he lost in 2016, Minnesota, also seems increasingly challenging. A Democratic survey taken by Senator Tina Smith showed the president trailing by 10 percentage points there, according to a Democratic strategist who viewed the poll.

The private data of the two parties is largely mirrored by public surveys. Just last week, three Pennsylvania polls and two Michigan surveys were released showing Mr. Trump losing outside the margin of error. And a pair of Florida polls were released that showed Mr. Biden enjoying a slim advantage in a state that is all but essential for Republicans to retain the presidency.

To some in the party, this feels all too similar to the last time they held the White House.

In 2006, anger at President George W. Bush and unease with the Iraq war propelled Democrats to reclaim Congress; two years later they captured the presidency thanks to the same anti-incumbent themes and an unexpected crisis that accelerated their advantage, the economic collapse of 2008. The two elections were effectively a single continuous rejection of Republican rule, as some in the G.O.P. fear 2018 and 2020 could become in a worst-case scenario.

“It already feels very similar to the 2008 cycle,” said Billy Piper, a Republican lobbyist and former chief of staff to Senator Mitch McConnell.

Significant questions remain that could tilt the outcome of this election: whether Americans experience a second wave of the virus in the fall, the condition of the economy and how well Mr. Biden performs after he emerges from his Wilmington, Del., basement, which many in his party are privately happy to keep him in so long as Mr. Trump is fumbling as he governs amid a crisis.

But if Republicans are comforted by the uncertainties that remain, they are alarmed by one element of this election that is already abundantly clear: The small-dollar fund-raising energy Democrats enjoyed in the midterms has not abated.

Most of the incumbent House Democrats facing competitive races enjoy a vast financial advantage over Republican challengers, who are struggling to garner attention as the virus overwhelms news coverage.

Still, few officials in either party believed the House was in play this year. There was also similar skepticism about the Senate. Then the virus struck and fund-raising reports covering the first three months of this year were released in mid-April.

Republican senators facing difficult races were not only all outraised by Democrats, they were also overwhelmed.

In Maine, for example, Senator Susan Collins brought in $2.4 million while her little-known rival, the House speaker Sara Gideon, raised more than $7 million. Even more concerning to Republicans is the lesser-known Thom Tillis of North Carolina. Republican officials are especially irritated at Mr. Tillis because he has little small-dollar support and raised only $2.1 million, which was more than doubled by his Democratic opponent.

“These Senate first-quarter fund-raising numbers are a serious wake-up call for the G.O.P.,” said Scott Reed, the top political strategist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The Republican Senate woes come as anger toward Mr. Trump is rising from some of the party’s most influential figures on Capitol Hill.

After working closely with Senate Republicans at the start of the year, some of the party’s top congressional strategists say the handful of political advisers Mr. Trump retains have communicated little with them since the health crisis began.

In a campaign steered by Mr. Trump, whose rallies drove fund-raising and data harvesting, the center of gravity has of late shifted to the White House. His campaign headquarters will remain closed for another few weeks, and West Wing officials say the president’s campaign manager, Brad Parscale, hasn’t been to the White House since last month, though he is in touch by phone.

Then there is the president’s conduct.

In just the last week, he has undercut the efforts of his campaign and his allies to attack Mr. Biden on China; suddenly proposed a halt on immigration; and said governors should not move too soon to reopen their economies — a week after calling on protesters to “liberate” their states. And that was all before his digression into the potential healing powers of disinfectants.

Republican lawmakers have gone from watching his lengthy daily briefings with a tight-lipped grimace to looking upon them with horror.

“Any of us can be onstage too much,” said the longtime Representative Greg Walden of Oregon, noting that “there’s a burnout factor no matter who you are, you’ve got to think about that.”

Privately, other party leaders are less restrained about the political damage they believe Mr. Trump is doing to himself and Republican candidates. One prominent G.O.P. senator said the nightly sessions were so painful he could not bear watching any longer.

“I would urge the president to focus on the positive, all that has been done and how we are preparing for a possible renewal of the pandemic in the fall,” said Representative Peter King, Republican of New York.

Asked about concerns over Mr. Trump’s briefings, the White House press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, said, “Millions and millions of Americans tune in each day to hear directly from President Trump and appreciate his leadership, unprecedented coronavirus response, and confident outlook for America’s future.”

Mr. Trump’s thrashing about partly reflects his frustration with the virus and his inability to slow Mr. Biden’s rise in the polls. It’s also an illustration of his broader inability to shift the public conversation to another topic, something he has almost always been able to do when confronted with negative story lines ranging from impeachment proceedings to payouts to adult film stars.

Mr. Trump is also restless. Administration officials said they were looking to resume his travel in as soon as a week, although campaign rallies remain distant for now.

As they look for ways to regain the advantage, some Republicans believe the party must mount an immediate ad campaign blitzing Mr. Biden, identifying him to their advantage and framing the election as a clear choice.

“If Trump is the issue, he probably loses,” said Mr. Black, the consultant. “If he makes it about Biden and the economy is getting better, he has a chance.”

[aerius]

Trump screwed the pooch when he completely fucked up his response to covid-19 along with allowing the Federal Reserve and banking buddies to commit blatantly illegal crimes and collect trillions in free money while fucking over the everyone else. Basically, he owns the covid disaster, and he also owns the economic collapse. Even better, the idiot is doubling down on his losing hand, he's burying himself hard and he doesn't even know it. Too bad he has to fuck over the rest of the country in the process.

Biden's gonna have a hell of a mess to clean up, and unless he's smart enough to pin all the blame on Trump where it belongs he's gonna get royally fucked in 4 years.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump screwed the pooch when he completely fucked up his response to covid-19 along with allowing the Federal Reserve and banking buddies to commit blatantly illegal crimes and collect trillions in free money while fucking over the everyone else. Basically, he owns the covid disaster, and he also owns the economic collapse. Even better, the idiot is doubling down on his losing hand, he's burying himself hard and he doesn't even know it. Too bad he has to fuck over the rest of the country in the process.

Biden's gonna have a hell of a mess to clean up, and unless he's smart enough to pin all the blame on Trump where it belongs he's gonna get royally fucked in 4 years.

This is quite true, except I'd amend "four years" to "two years". The Republicans are already plotting to pull an Obama on him- blame him for the economic crisis they caused, use it to retake the Congress in the midterms, and then obstruct everything he tries to do for the rest of his Presidency.

[Ralin]

This is quite true, except I'd amend "four years" to "two years". The Republicans are already plotting to pull an Obama on him- blame him for the economic crisis they caused, use it to retake the Congress in the midterms, and then obstruct everything he tries to do for the rest of his Presidency.

Why not go the extra mile and try to impeach him every week?

[The Romulan Republic]

This is quite true, except I'd amend "four years" to "two years". The Republicans are already plotting to pull an Obama on him- blame him for the economic crisis they caused, use it to retake the Congress in the midterms, and then obstruct everything he tries to do for the rest of his Presidency.

Why not go the extra mile and try to impeach him every week?

I wouldn't put it past them. Back when the Democrats impeached Trump, there was talk of retaliatory impeachment of the next Democratic President. Because the sole constitutional check on a criminal or despotic President is just a tool for petty partisan revenge.

[The Romulan Republic]

Biden's VP search is picking up steam. His campaign is reportedly divided over whether he needs a black VP to ensure high black turnout, or has the black vote secured and needs a more Left-wing VP to mobilize progressives:

https://politico.com/news/2020/04/28/bi ... ons-212555

Joe Biden’s advisers and allies have become torn over whether it is more important to choose an African American or a progressive running mate.

While the two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, there is an ongoing debate about whether Biden “has the black vote locked up” or “whether the bigger need we have is to put someone left-leaning” on the ticket, a strategist familiar with discussions said.

The strategist was one of multiple Democrats who described a debate in and around the periphery of Biden’s campaign about the significance of race and ideology in the vice presidential selection. They are also debating how wary Biden should be of selecting someone who has not been tested by the rigors of a presidential campaign.

The need to generate enthusiasm within the Democratic base is a driving force in every scenario — and potential running mates and their supporters are well aware of it. In an effort to frame Biden’s thinking, a number of them are now mounting early and, in some cases aggressive, lobbying and counterlobbying campaigns.

Stacey Abrams, a former Georgia lawmaker and unsuccessful candidate for governor, has been privately calling Democratic power brokers, asking them to tell Biden campaign officials that she should be vice president, according to multiple labor leaders familiar with the discussions.

Elizabeth Warren is cranking up her small-dollar machine. The Biden campaign has noticed that in media appearances, Warren, the progressive senator from Massachusetts, consistently plugged JoeBiden.com and urged people to donate — an appeal that a Biden adviser said did not come from the campaign.

“She’s doing it on her own,” the adviser said.

Other prospects are following different routes. Kamala Harris is exhibiting her party-building credentials, scheduling virtual events with Senate candidates in Maine, Montana and South Carolina and setting up a joint fundraising operation with the Democratic National Committee. And the California senator is engaging in the kind of outreach that could be valuable to a white, male, 77-year-old nominee — writing an op-ed in Refinery 29, whose target audience is young, progressive women, and doing press reaching young black and Asian American people.

On Monday, Harris participated in a virtual town hall for the Biden campaign on the disproportionate effect of the coronavirus on communities of color.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who also held a virtual town hall for Biden, has appeared on Biden’s podcast and is drawing attention for her efforts to expand vote by mail, an increasingly salient campaign issue.

Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, said of the jockeying, “I think it’s a good thing the candidates are campaigning for the position because it gives us a chance to evaluate.”

With the Biden campaign’s vetting process soon to begin, supporters of potential running mates are also getting involved: opposition research that was shelved at the end of the presidential primary is now starting to recirculate in an effort to stealthily drag down prospective vice presidential rivals. Harris, Warren and to a lesser extent Klobuchar — who gained traction relatively late in the campaign — all faced intense scrutiny during the presidential primary. Now, in conversations with reporters, Democrats working to hobble them are reupping old criticisms about their records.

Advertisement

“There are definitely internal and external battles over who’s going to leak the most shit on people,” one Democratic strategist said.

Overt campaigning for the vice presidency has traditionally been frowned upon, weakening those who appear overly eager or insufficiently deferential to the nominee. And with the exception of Abrams — who has said “I would be an excellent running mate” — most top-shelf candidates this year have been guarded about their ambitions, even as they position themselves for a potential selection.

“I just know that, you know, you don’t run for that,” Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer told POLITICO Playbook on Monday — one of many national media appearances Whitmer has made in recent weeks — when asked about the vice presidency, adding, “That is a selection of the top of the ticket, and everyone else should be just busy doing their jobs.”

Harris has said she would “be honored to serve.” When Warren was asked by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC whether she would take the job if Biden offered it, she replied, simply, “Yes.”

The most vocal pressure on Biden is to nominate a black woman. Biden would not be the presumptive nominee if not for his victory in South Carolina, and black voters — particularly black women — are critical to the party’s prospects in the general election.

Harris, who fielded a robust presidential campaign operation but dropped out before the Iowa caucuses, has a large number of former staffers promoting her — many of them with ties to prominent Democrats inside Biden’s orbit. But Abrams and Val Demings, the Florida congresswoman and former Orlando police chief, also have groups of supporters.

“Donors have known about her for a decade,” one strategist said of Demings.

Of all the contenders, Abrams has been the most assertive on the issue of race, telling ABC’s “The View” that it would be a “concern” if Biden did not choose a woman of color.

“As a young black woman, growing up in Mississippi, I learned that if you don't raise your hand, people won't see you, and they won't give you attention," she recently told CNN.

But navigating the Biden campaign’s internal politics may be tricky for Abrams given Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms’ close relationships with Biden brass. Bottoms has long been an Abrams rival, declining to endorse her in the 2018 gubernatorial primary and speaking positively about her opponent, Stacey Evans.

“What a black female candidate would bring is an ability to heighten the enthusiasm … and we’re going to need that in an election that is unlike one that we’ve ever seen before,” said the Rev. Leah Daughtry, a longtime Democratic operative who served as CEO of the 2008 and 2016 Democratic National Convention committees.

Daughtry, who wants Biden to select a black woman, said the Biden campaign is now confronting “the age-old bet … is it better to place your fortunes on turning out the base of your party, increasing that turnout, or is it better to go after voters you may or may not get.”

Of the Democratic Party’s African American base, Daughtry said, “That’s your sure bet.”

But Biden is also laboring to win over progressive Democrats, and he has a history with Warren.

Before Biden decided not to run for president in 2016, Biden wanted Warren to be his running mate. After they met in August 2015, Warren came away pleasantly surprised despite their past ideological battles, a close ally said during the primary when the two were fighting for the nomination.

Biden also thought Warren would have been a smart choice for Hillary Clinton — and he was not alone.

In a July 2016 memo to Clinton, Philippe Reines, a longtime Clinton confidant, advised that “purely to get you elected, meaning in a perfect world where you’d run with someone but then ditch them for the person you’d prefer as a governing partner, it’s hard to argue that Warren wouldn’t be the most effective running mate. I don’t think it’s close.”

Reines called Warren a “superstar fundraiser” and told Clinton that aside from President Barack Obama, “nobody has Trump’s number like she does. Nobody gets under his skin more. She’s head and shoulders above every other name I’ve seen floated, or out there. I think that would be comforting to you to have such firepower watching your back, and someone who can so easily bait him. That has real strategic value.”

This year, Warren has been casting herself as a governance-first pick, releasing a wave of policy plans and proposed reforms to address the health and economic fallout from the coronavirus.

But she has also been subtly trying to demonstrate her political upside on the ticket. After endorsing Biden, she tried to brandish her small-dollar fundraising machine that raised over $100 million in the primary, deploying her email list on behalf of Biden. It’s not known how much the email raised, but one Democrat familiar with the effort said it impressed at least some Biden staffers.

Several Democratic digital strategists said the strength of the candidate’s social media and email lists may be an underrated factor in the vice presidential search, especially given Biden’s relative weakness in online fundraising.

“This would be maybe the first time in history someone considers grassroots fundraising prowess as a pro for a VP candidate,” said one strategist. “Like, ‘how big of an email list are you bringing us’ is as important as any number of other traditional factors."

One disadvantage for potential candidates who did not run for president is that they have not been subjected to as rigorous a vetting as those who did. While most of the former presidential candidates’ liabilities are already widely known, less certain are the potential weaknesses of contenders who did not run for president, including their ability to perform in debates and on other platforms in a national campaign.

Of the lesser-known commodities, Whitmer is appealing to many Midwestern Democrats because of her forceful response to the coronavirus pandemic in a swing state. But many Democrats also worry about how the electorate would respond to a governor joining a ticket in the midst of the pandemic raging in her state. And if conditions in Michigan worsen, it could become a drag on the campaign.

Biden, who has committed to picking a woman running mate, is expected to announce his vice presidential selection committee by May 1. But the selection itself may not come until July.

Most Democrats familiar with campaign staffs’ discussions about the nomination believe the former vice president will make a decision based largely on personal chemistry and on his confidence in a running mate’s ability to not only help him win — but to govern.

Many Democrats are inclined to give him room to make that decision. Despite calls from Reps. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) and John Lewis (D-Ga.) for Biden to pick a black woman as his vice president, some black lawmakers are hesitant to add to the pressure.

“If [Biden] got somebody black or brown, I'm happy, I'm in heaven, but I want to win,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) “And if Mary Lou, who lives in Pennsylvania, can help him win, I don't care what color she might be.”

“We're going to do ourselves a disservice ... if we fence him in,” Cleaver said. “I don't want to be a part of the fencing-in group.”

To which my answer is "Why not both?" Its not a binary choice between a black person or a progressive- there are, in fact, black progressives.

I've been worried for a while about the progressive movement's vulnerability to infiltration by racist views, and the tendency of some on the Left to frame social justice issues as a distraction from the "real" economic issues. It would be extremely unfortunate for progressivism and the Democratic Party as a whole (and for the entire country) if the perception took root that there is a conflict between the interests of black Americans and progressives, and that one can only succeed at the expense of the other (and I think there's a real danger of that, after two consecutive election cycles of South Carolina thwarting progressives' primary ambitions, and the (exaggerated) narrative that Sanders lacks black support).

Framing it as a choice between a black person and a progressive is, therefore, a really bad idea. The smart move would be to sidestep that no-win choice by picking a black progressive.

[Darth Yan]

If we’re lucky it won’t just be Trump leaving. If McTurtle Graham and some other rethugs are also beaten than a democratic majority could forestall impeachment. But those guys are just a symptom as well. Unless the Republicans suffer a MASSIVE defeat they’re never going to change

[Gandalf]

Why not go the extra mile and try to impeach him every week?

I wouldn't put it past them. Back when the Democrats impeached Trump, there was talk of retaliatory impeachment of the next Democratic President. Because the sole constitutional check on a criminal or despotic President is just a tool for petty partisan revenge.

Back in the Bush II era, Republicans were whining that the Democrats shouldn't impeach, because the Rapeublicans would just go tit for tat. Evidently they were right about their own pettiness.

[The Romulan Republic]

Even the Washington Post, which is owned by Jeff Bezos and was frequently viciously anti-Sanders prior to him dropping out, is calling bullshit on New York:

https://washingtonpost.com/opinions/202 ... emocratic/

Hardcore fans of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have long thought that the Democratic establishment would do anything to stop him. Monday’s foolish decision to cancel the New York Democratic presidential primary will simply fan those flames.

New York justified its curious decision, which the state Democratic Party supported and advocated for, by noting that Sanders suspended his presidential campaign this month. Since there was no longer an active contest, the Democrats on the state’s election board reasoned, there was no longer a reason to hold the primary. Sanders immediately protested, calling the decision “an outrage” and “a blow to American democracy.” He’s right.

States typically do not cancel their primaries after every candidate but one drops out. Democrats held their regularly scheduled primaries in 2000 and 2004 even after opponents of eventual nominees Al Gore and John Kerry left the race. Republicans held their primaries in 2000, 2008, 2012 and 2016 after their eventual nominees were effectively unopposed. New York’s decision is unprecedented in modern history.

The transparently flimsy excuse made the decision even more unpalatable. The state board of elections cited the coronavirus pandemic as a reason not to hold an apparently useless election, but the election will still go forward — largely through absentee ballots — because many other races are on the ballot the same day. Public health is not served by taking away voters’ choices.

The decision also violates the Democratic Party’s rules for selecting delegates to the national convention. Those rules require each state to submit a plan for the selection of delegates, and only delegates selected via that plan can be validly seated. New York’s plan established that delegates would be selected via the primary, with different numbers of delegates allocated according to the vote in each of the state’s 27 congressional districts in addition to a certain number awarded via the statewide vote. If there is no primary, there presumably can be no delegates — unless the state awards all the delegates to former vice president Joe Biden since he is, by their fiat, the only candidate on the ballot.

This possible outcome points to what could be the real reason behind the power play. New York sends 274 pledged delegates to the Democratic convention, the second-most of any state. Convention delegates vote on important matters such as the party’s platform and the vice-presidential nominee, on which Sanders supporters would likely have very different views than Biden backers. Sanders would likely have won a large number of New York delegates since Democrats award delegates to any candidate who gets 15 percent of the vote. Giving all the delegates to Biden would seriously weaken the influence of the party’s left wing.

Sanders explicitly said he wanted to remain on state ballots despite his decision to suspend his campaign so that he could amass delegates dedicated to progressive causes and thereby influence the party’s course. That’s clearly something the Biden campaign is worried about, as many polls have shown that policies supported by Sanders and his backers are unpopular with swing voters. Reducing the number of delegates from Sanders’s camp would theoretically let them craft a more centrist platform and help them in the general election against President Trump. Many Sanders supporters might even think Biden’s campaign was behind New York’s decision.

The decision could also boost Trump, who has been courting Sanders voters via tweet, saying that the Democratic establishment is again fixing the race to ensure Sanders’s defeat. This gives him something concrete to point to. It also insulates Trump from the charge Biden levied against him last week that he intends to postpone the November election. Trump has denied he wants to do that, and now he can say that it’s the Democratic establishment that wants to cheat to maintain power. This is an unforced error that gives Trump a new talking point.

Biden should call for the party to undo that error immediately. He should issue a statement demanding that New York’s Democrats reinstate the primary and keep Sanders’s name on the ballot. This would help him as he continues to try to unite the party for the fall campaign and also head off a new talking point for Trump. The longer that he does not do this, the more it will appear that he is behind New York’s undemocratic putsch.

Biden says he’s running the restore America’s soul. Regular, free and democratic elections are at the heart of that soul. If Biden can’t stand up for democracy within his own party, how can Americans trust him to stand up for it at all?

They're right. Biden needs to object to this, publicly. The longer he keeps his mouth shut, the more it looks like he condones this disenfranchisement, and that he is playing Sanders and his supporters false.

[The Romulan Republic]

Rep. Amash launches exploratory committee for a Libertarian run:

https://cnn.com/2020/04/28/politics/jus ... index.html

(CNN)Justin Amash, a Republican-turned independent congressman from Michigan, announced Tuesday night that he is launching an exploratory committee for long-shot presidential bid as a Libertarian.

Amash launched a website announcing he has formed an exploratory committee for a presidential campaign.

"Americans are ready for practical approaches based in humility and trust of the people," he said in his announcement. "We're ready for a presidency that will restore respect for our Constitution and bring people together. I'm excited and honored to be taking these first steps toward serving Americans of every background as president."

His potential entry into the race comes after more than a year of deliberation.

In recent days it became more evident that Amash was likely to launch a campaign for the presidency. Earlier this month, he said he was looking "closely" at a bid and two weeks ago he said in a statement that he stopped actively campaigning for his House seat in mid-February while he considered jumping into the presidential race.

He was facing a tough reelection in Michigan's 3rd District. National Republicans were eager to defeat him, and several Republicans have been running for the seat.

If he is to run in the general election for president, Amash will have to win the Libertarian Party's nomination at their convention in Austin, Texas, which is currently set for the end of May. That timing could change depending on the coronavirus pandemic.

While it is very unlikely a third-party candidate could win the presidency, a high-profile third-party contender has the potential to reshape the race. In 2016, Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson, a former governor of New Mexico, was on the ballot in every state and won a little over 3% of the national vote.

Whether a strong Amash showing on Election Day could hurt the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate more remains unclear.
President Donald Trump has continually earned high approval ratings among the overwhelming majority of self-identified Republicans throughout his presidency, but Amash could win support among traditionally Republican or conservative voters who are dissatisfied with Trump. He could also appeal to progressive voters who are unhappy with Joe Biden's candidacy and agree with Amash on issues like civil liberties and foreign policy.

Amash was first elected to represent Michigan's 3rd congressional district in the 2010 tea party wave. A traditional libertarian, he stood out from many of his House Republican colleagues to begin with, opposing expansive federal surveillance powers and American intervention abroad.

Over the years, Amash has been consistently willing to take controversial votes according to his view of limited government, often being one of the only House members to vote against legislation with broad bipartisan support, such as an anti-lynching bill in February
In 2015, Amash was one of the founding members of the House Freedom Caucus, an influential group of hardline conservatives that clashed with House Republican leadership and pushed for a more open legislative process and curtailed federal spending. During Trump's first two years in office, it became clear that Amash — a vocal Trump critic — and his Freedom Caucus allies who are known today for being some of the President's most ardent supporters in Congress — had different priorities.

He made waves last May when he announced his support for impeaching Trump over the findings in former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. He was the first and only House Republican to support impeachment, eventually voting for both articles of impeachment against the President as an independent late last year. In early June, not long after coming out for impeachment, he stepped down from the House Freedom Caucus and the HFC board, telling CNN at the time that he didn't want "to be a further distraction for the group."

On July 4 of last year, Amash announced he was leaving the Republican Party for good.

"The Republican Party, I believed, stood for limited government, economic freedom and individual liberty — principles that had made the American Dream possible for my family," he wrote in a Washington Post op-ed. "In recent years, though, I've become disenchanted with party politics and frightened by what I see from it. The two-party system has evolved into an existential threat to American principles and institutions."

Amash, 40, is the son of a Syrian immigrant mother and a Palestinian refugee father. Before entering Congress, he worked as a lawyer for his family's business and served a term from 2008-2010 in the Michigan state house.

In recent days, he has criticized the President's comments about federalism amid the coronavirus pandemic. On Monday, Trump said at his daily press conference when discussing states staying locked down that "when somebody's president of the United States, the authority is total, and that's the way it's got to be."

"Americans who believe in limited government deserve another option," Amash said of Trump's remarks.

Amash has repeatedly told reporters he would only run for president if he believes there is a path to victory. In March 2019, he told CNN he never stops thinking about possibilities like running for president "because there is a big problem with the current two-party system we have, and someone has to shake it up."

"Now, is it possible for anyone to shake it up and make a difference?" he asked at the time. "I don't know."

This is a breaking story and will be updated.

Well, if he gets the Libertarian nomination, we can expect him to siphon a good chunk of the Never Trump Republicans and conservative independents picking Biden was supposed to win over. And we'll have Ventura with the Greens pulling in the Bernie or Busters/collusion denier crowd.

If it weren't for the pandemic and recession, I'd say we were pretty much finished if these two run. With that wild card? Who the hell knows?

[The Romulan Republic]

While Bernie hasn't spoken publicly about the New York decision as far as I can find (I'd guess he is trying to work things out behind the scenes without the appearance of a public rift with Biden or the DNC), there was another outsider candidate who was apparently still on the ballot, despite suspending their campaign.

Yes, he's back- Andrew Yan has filed suit against the State of New York:

https://politico.com/news/2020/04/28/an ... ary-217349

Andrew Yang, the former presidential candidate, is suing the New York State Board of Elections in federal court after the state election commission effectively canceled the Democratic presidential primary there.

Yang, along with seven New Yorkers who filed to serve as Yang delegates to the Democratic National Convention, filed suit on Monday arguing that they should not be removed because they had otherwise met the requirements to be on the ballot.

The decision to remove Yang “denies voters due process and denies voters the right to vote, and therefore must be invalidated removing the authority for the Defendant to take the actions complained of herein,” reads the lawsuit, which was shared with POLITICO. The lawsuit notes that neither Yang nor the delegate candidates asked to be removed from the ballot.

The New York State Board of Elections effectively canceled the presidential primary on Monday, when the two Democratic commissioners voted to strip every candidate, except former Vice President Joe Biden, off the ballot because they were no longer actively seeking the presidency.

The move infuriated supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders, in particular. Sanders, like Yang, has also suspended his campaign but publicly said he wished to remain on the ballot for the remaining primaries so he could continue to be awarded delegates to sway the national convention.

The suit filed by Yang also argued that axing the Democratic presidential primary would hurt down-ballot candidates.

The lawsuit argued that canceling the presidential primary would be “suppressing voter turnout as voters will have less incentive to vote if they cannot cast a vote for the highest office in the land, and thereby negatively impact challenger candidates” such as Jonathan Herzog, who is running a longshot primary bid against Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler in New York's 10th District. Herzog is also a party to the lawsuit.

New York’s presidential primary was originally consolidated with the state”s other federal and state primaries on June 23. For the remaining primaries, Gov. Andrew Cuomo ordered that any New Yorker could vote absentee (typically, New York requires a valid excuse for voters to cast an absentee ballot), and that every voter in the state be mailed an absentee-ballot request form.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hillary endorses Biden:

https://cbc.ca/news/world/hillary-clint ... -1.5547923

Not sure it means anything, really. I am skeptical that there are many people who are still against Biden but will be swayed by a Hillary endorsement. People who have an issue with him over the Tara Reade allegations won't be, since Hillary (fairly or not) has little credibility on the issue due to her association with Bill, and progressives if anything will take it as another reason to oppose Biden.

[The Romulan Republic]

More corroboration of Tara Reade's accusations:

https://democracynow.org/2020/4/28/head ... _joe_biden

New developments in the sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden broke Monday as two more people who knew Tara Reade in the 1990s have come forward to corroborate details of her account. Rich McHugh reports in Business Insider that a former neighbor of Tara Reade said the pair discussed the assault in detail, in which then-Senator Biden allegedly pushed Reade up against a wall and digitally penetrated her. The alleged assault happened in 1993, when Reade was working as a staffer in his office. A former colleague who also knew Reade in the mid-’90s said she had spoken of being sexually harassed by her former boss in Washington, D.C.

The latest news broke as Joe Biden gained two significant endorsements Monday — from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Washington Congressmember Pramila Jayapal, who co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus.