« Look! A brand-new thread! | Main | About that interview »

November 07, 2020

Comments

that's a lot of verifiable things. some are even verifiable.

He’s never given a chance

The siren call of Trump and his supporters. It's always somebody else's fault.

Dow futures up 1750 points this morning on Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine news and Biden's victory.

Meanwhile, shitheads abound:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/11/8/1994205/-I-have-Republican-friends-neighbors-co-workers-etc-Here-is-what-they-told-me-after-Biden-won

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-appointee-wont-give-biden-materials-required-to-begin-full-transition-process

Do the newcomers in Texas from blue states get rammed by right wing Trump terrorists in ISIS pickup trucks on the highways for their trouble?

Do they get a free AR-15 and ammo at the border (not that one) to protect themselves?

lj,
This not very interested 'marxist' took a (very brief) look at the link. You didn't include the best part:

Did you research the effects of UV light, which is used to disinfect school buses and medical equipment and is also being used as a treatment for bacteria and respiratory infections by injecting it into humans (search Healight, but don’t use Google –use Duckduckgo). They want you to believe he is stupid, because if you figure out he isn’t, they will lose billions of dollars and all their control. I know … it is hard to let go of what you believed to be true for most of your life. You are not alone. But your blind hatred of this man who is literally trying to save us from the far left, radical socialists is going to be detrimental to our country if you continue to support their hatred.

How such whackadoodlism maintains a prominent place in our politics is a mystery.

That TPM story is why I was being glad, earlier, about Trump firing competent people recently. It gives Biden's people sources for briefings on what is happening in their (ex-)agency currently. Not as good as a proper transition process. But could be a big step up over nothing.

don't know how I left out that part. I can see why we are to blame cause we don't take them seriously...

But I thought we weren't supposed to take them literally....

That is, they don't really believe the actual words they are saying either. (Because if we thought they did, it would be very hard NOT to think they are seriously stupid.)

how about we don't take them at all?

they can join us in reality after they've had their tantrums.

Dedicated as I am to the destruction of private property in all its odious forms and to the promotion of pure communism, I must say this editorial in the Times was interesting and raised some good points:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/opinion/how-to-protect-america-from-the-next-donald-trump.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

FWIW, Healight.

One thing I look forward to in a post-Trump world is not having to chase every lunatic bugaboo down the rabbit hole in the interest of "being fair".

Shoving a UV-emitting catheter down your throat is not likely to cure you of COVID-19.

Some of the stuff in the screed is legit. Prison reform, all good.

Some is legit, but not specifically an accomplishment of Trump's.

And some of it is just BS.

I don't want a POTUS who makes fun of crippled people, thinks violent white supremacists and Nazis include some "very fine people", and generally has no understanding of or regard for the responsibilities of his office or the basic functioning of government.

Good bye, DJT.

Another good essay here.

Just look at how we were treated when we asked our closest friends to pay their fair share into NATO. Suddenly we were risky as an ally and no one should trust us.

When Obama politely asked the other NATO countries in 2014 to increase their defence spending, they agreed, and did increase their spending. Nor did they later change their minds in the face of Trump's offensive bluster on the subject.

When Trump in 2016-17 refused to affirm his commitment to article 5 of the NATO treaty, he made the USA an unreliable ally.

The climate accords required levels of sacrifice from us demanded of literally no one else in the world.

The US pledged in the Paris accords to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26% by 2025 compared with 2005 (which would be about a 9% reduction from 1990). The EU pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 compared with 1990.

This in the context that US per capita emissions are currently about double EU per capita emissions.

What sacrifice?

The damage, the pointless damage, continues
https://mobile.twitter.com/Timodc/status/1325647191701037056?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1325647191701037056%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fopinions%2F2020%2F11%2F09%2Fhow-trump-can-still-try-burn-place-down-way-out%2F

I had missed this detail. Unless new funding is approved, the Federal government is due to shut down December 10th. That's a funding bill passed by Congress and signed by President Trump.

If he's still sulking (likely), I could see Trump refusing to sign it. In particular, not doing a formal veto, but just waiting until the time runs out ("pocket veto"). Which, of course, delays when Congress can vote to override -- assuming Republicans could be persuaded to.

What America needs now is a flood of info and advice for those who've been supporting efforts at mass harm and mass death, on how to start being better people, responsible adults capable of leaving liars and con artists behind. Something in the spirit of those wonderful tips on rape reduction some while back, aimed at those who've helped join in trashing the country and their own souls but who may now wish to start doing better.

https://i.redd.it/bvssjlpweke11.jpg

bobbyp: good pieces, thanks.

I think that a "pocket veto" is only effective if Congress goes into recess.
Otherwise, the prez has about a week to sign or veto, and otherwise the bill becomes law without his signature.

NOBODY EXPLAIN THIS TO TRUMP PLZ.

Just days after Biden wins the election, a 90%-effective COVID-19 vaccine is announced. Commence conspiracy-theorizing!

Biden Cures COVID!

Too late for Ben Carson, though.

The idea that Pfizer, which developed the vaccine with its own resources, and has pointedly hung on to the IP rights for the vaccine, might be conspiring with the socialists is... a curious one.

just shows you how deep the conspiracy runs

True.

Still more suspiciously, Pfizer’s German partner, which developed the technology, was set up by two Moslem sons of Turkish immigrants.

The idea that Pfizer, which developed the vaccine with its own resources, and has pointedly hung on to the IP rights for the vaccine, might be conspiring with the socialists is... a curious one.

Well, they stayed out of Trump's "Warp Speed" program. So obviously they are socialists!

Commence conspiracy-theorizing!

The process for creating the vaccine is described in documents found ON HUNTER BIDEN'S LAPTOP!!11!!!!1

Does Ben get the same experimental treatments that Trump did?

HUNTER BIDEN'S LAPTOP!

if a real investigation had been done earlier, we could have saved so many lives. a lot of people are saying this. so, you never know.

And the people who are saying this always start their comments with "Sir...."

"Just days after Biden wins the election, a 90%-effective COVID-19 vaccine is announced."

So, just like the AMAZING vanishing of Ebola after the 2012 election?

Well, except for the 200,000+ dead 'crisis actors', that is.

Either a number of old men are having their last pitiful hurrah, or there is a genuine and dtermined effort ongoing to usurp the election.
It’s currently rather hard to distinguish between the two things.

It's been mentioned about AOC's interview in the NYTimes, which I think should provoke a lot of discussion.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/07/us/politics/aoc-biden-progressives.html

A counter balance to that is this LGM post for Dan Nexon

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/11/neither-progressives-nor-moderates-deserve-blame-for-the-outcome-of-the-2020-election

My take, slightly high and inside as it were.

I agree with Nexon's analysis, but in order to move the needle, the (correct, I think) lesson that AOC has taken is that you don't let up. The forces of inertia are just too overwhelming too overcome. A brief dive into twitter has tons of people crying 'oh, it's too soon' and 'we need time to heal!' I believe that AOC knows that this is just asking for trouble. If the past 4 years have taught us anything (and what the current transition limbo is reinforcing), it is that the forces that gave rise to Trump haven't just magically disappeared because of the election.

Go with pitiful last hurrah. For them, at least some of them, it probably is thought to be a ganuine and determined effort. But that's just because they have mostly lost their connection to the real world. (Well, except for the ones who know its nonsense, but still feel it's worth their time to kowtow to Trump even now.)

NOBODY EXPLAIN THIS TO TRUMP PLZ.

LOL!!!!!! It wouldn't make any difference if they did.

lj: If the past 4 years have taught us anything... Well, you are not going back far enough. This goes back to the French Revolution. The players change, but the forces of reaction are relentless....just like in the zombie horror movies. The Obama years alone should have brought that home in the most apparent manner. Anybody in the center or center-left should know this....but alas, many seem to pretend this evil can be warded off by magic incantations, giving them a few bite out of our ass, or a good rousing speech...Um, no.

Esper: “Why? Who’s going to come in behind me? It’s going to be a real ‘yes man.’ And then God help us.”

but the Marxism

i'd really not like to start left v left™ before Biden spends a night in the WH.

AOC might want to reflect on the fact that just saying "socialism" really does scare the pants off "conservatives" - almost as effectively as she does.

cleek, I normally am with you, but after being told I'm a marxist over and over, I'm at the point where I don't really give a shit what scares them or not....

I'm at the point where I don't really give a shit what scares them or not

I still care that we win elections, and we have an important one coming up on January 5.

Is it not possible to talk about policies, specific policies, without using trigger words? I'm not suggesting that we hide our values.

If you use thpse trigger words, you're basically making things easy for their politicians. (And what did they ever do for you that you owe them favors?)

Whereas if you just lay out policies, they actually have to address the substance. Or risk their voters noticing what it is that they're just slapping labels on. Some, not all but some, of those voters might notice enough to reconsider their alliances.

What wj said.

Defund, abolish, redistribute, etc.

They might be cathartic to say but they terrify a lot of people who couyhelp win elections.

Sapient - The fact that Sanders and AOC exist and call themselves Democratic Socialists means that the Rs will incite themselves with the S word no matter what the Ds do. Nothing anyone on the D side says will change that no matter what words are used at whatever volume. Half of them are convinced that Harris is already planning to remove Biden, take power and try to steal all the Rs guns while declaring a worker's paradise.

The Rs want to be incited.

The Rs lose all self-identity and connection to their justification myth if they cease to be incited.

A big chunk of the Rs are struggling with The Albright Question as told by Powell: "What's the point of having this superb military you are talking about if we can't use it?" They are all dressed up in camo with no place to go.

We just have to try to ride this storm out because we can't steer around it.

Well, also in the interview is a lot of discussion about how the national party did not organize very well, leaving it to progressives to have to build a lot of these networks from scratch. Might be good to make a post about the article and discuss it rather than just take the notion that AOC's tone is off.

If you look at the interview as negotiation, AOC is timing this right--you want us to work hard in Georgia, you better make sure we see the upside.

If you use thpse trigger words, you're basically making things easy for their politicians. (And what did they ever do for you that you owe them favors?)

Here we go again. Only Democrats have agency.

Whereas if you just lay out policies, they actually have to address the substance.

This assertion is so demonstrably untrue that I don't even know where to begin.....

I don't completely disagree, nous, but please see comments by cleek and wj. It matters at the margins.

Only Democrats have agency.

If I'm not mistaken, bobbyp, you live in a non-swing state. Please come visit Abigail Spanberger's district for three months close to her next reelection.

This assertion is so demonstrably untrue that I don't even know where to begin.....

So, in a swing state, saying "socialist!" is better than saying "We'll give you healthcare despite your pre-existing conditions."

Okay, again, talk to those politicians.

And I agree - lots of it is just robotic racism or non-racism. But at the margins, it matters.

So y'all are going to believe what you will, but when I write postcards to GA people, I'm not going to call myself a socialist.

This assertion is so demonstrably untrue that I don't even know where to begin

I was obviously unclear on the rest of the statement. The part about or else their voters may notice the substance and decide they like it. Sorry. (You do realize, I assume, that you have a lot of policies that poll really well when voters are asked about them without the partisan labels. Might be an idea to work with that.)

My conception of the margins has been indelibly altered by the last four years. In 2016 I would have been in full agreement and be thinking of my own family when that argument was made.

Then we had the last four years and that argument was made. Repeatedly. Gently. With as much kindness and understanding as anyone could muster.

They went with the lies from their own side.

We have not changed hearts and minds. We've had an exchange of prisoners. They gave us some suburban white women. We gave them some latinx men.

We won because we registered and mustered more voters than they could disenfranchise this time around. Everything else is mood lighting.

I'm not suggesting that we hide our values.

With all due respect, sapient, to my way of thinking, that is exactly what you are asking us to do.

Perhaps it would be better to address the organization holes in the party (which are legion). Might be a more worthwhile discussion to have.

Look back at the wave elections of 2006, 2008, 2018 when some timorous center Dems won in swing or lean GOP districts, only to be washed away the next time around. They did not lose on the rebound because some lefties used the "s" word. Let's try to figure out the real reasons, and go from there.

Like lj said, AOC is right that there's organizing that needs to happen. (Insert here standard bobbyp carp about only Democrats having agency.) Georgia, this time, is a pretty dramatic illustration of what can come of that.

We won because we registered and mustered more voters than they could disenfranchise this time around.

Don't count your chickens. We haven't won until Biden is inaugurated. And they registered voters too, using some kind of freaking "logic". Some commenter on LGM said the "logic" was Trump's signature on their COVID check.

If we did not win because they refuse to go and blow up the country to avoid leaving, then it has nothing to do with AOC and Bernie using a hurtful word.

With all due respect, sapient, to my way of thinking, that is exactly what you are asking us to do.

If Stacey Abrams uses the word "socialist", I'll consider using it too. When AOC proves that "socialist" didn't discourage Latinx voters in Florida, I'll be more comfortable with using "socialist". I'm not going to use it in my neck of the woods by listening to someone from NYC or the Pacific Northwest, much as I love those places.

If we did not win because they refuse to go and blow up the country to avoid leaving, then it has nothing to do with AOC and Bernie using a hurtful word.

Touche, but doesn't address GA.

Like lj said, AOC is right that there's organizing that needs to happen.

AOC is all about Facebook, and she's probably right. But where are the voices about "Facebook is corrupt!" as the accusations went against Hillary "She made speeches to Wall Street!"

Sure, we should be courting people on Facebook (which means, necessarily, supporting Facebook, ugh). This is the same moral dilemma as asking courting Wall Street.

But AOC good, HRC bad.

So, in a swing state, saying "socialist!" is better than saying "We'll give you healthcare despite your pre-existing conditions."

Show me where I have ever said that.

Show me where I have ever said that.

Whereas if you just lay out policies, they actually have to address the substance.

This assertion is so demonstrably untrue that I don't even know where to begin.....

And did I mess with italics?

Good.

If Stacey Abrams uses the word "socialist", I'll consider using it too. When AOC proves that "socialist" didn't discourage Latinx voters in Florida, I'll be more comfortable with using "socialist".

Why does AOC have to 'prove' anything, especially prove a negative (as an attorney you should absolutely know better...I mean really).

As for Florida, this may come as a big surprise, but the Cuban American community has been overwhelmingly in the GOP camp for decades. Let's cool it for a bit until we get better election data.

Let's cool it for a bit until we get better election data.

I'm totally for that. AOC is the one who complained immediately that Democratic outreach to LatinX people was lacking.

For the record, I love a lot of what she does and says, but she's not a freaking expert on the southeastern swing states.

I don't blame cleek for not making common cause with me, the unpopular one, who sometimes freaks out here in an annoying way, but cleek lives in NC, and I live in VA. "Socialism" doesn't sell where we live. It doesn't sell in a lot of places. Healthcare despite pre-existing conditions sells better.

Georgia, this time, is a pretty dramatic illustration of what can come of that.

If by "that" you mean a muscular and permanent ground game, well, count me in.

That lunatic Loomis at LGM just put up a post that is germain to this discussion. Check it out.

You do realize, I assume, that you have a lot of policies that poll really well when voters are asked about them without the partisan labels.

But when you tell them how much it will cost...

But when you tell them how much it will cost...

But when you tell them how much they are already paying ....

Good article and good question, bobbyp.

I see that no one will speak to AOC's support of Facebook. I haven't seen squat. We all hate Facebook, right? Right?

cleek lives in NC, and I live in VA. "Socialism" doesn't sell where we live. It doesn't sell in a lot of places.

Just for the record, the list of places where "socialism" doesn't sell includes most of California. The label gets thrown around a lot by others. But NOT by Democrats looking to win elections here.

I've over-commented, but just want to thank wj. I'm done for this evening.

Thanks, y'all, for being here to receive my rants.

Here we go again. Only Democrats have agency.

we're talking about Democrats persuading voters not to vote GOP, right? the GOP isn't going to do that for us. that's on Democrats. in fact, the Dems have to beat the GOP at the game. so yes, Democrats better get some agency.

i didn't see anything, not one thing, from the NC Democratic party. i saw ads from the national party.

but if i didn't go look it up, i wouldn't have even known who my D Congressional candidate was.

i'm not the volunteering type, but i am definitely the donating type. they didn't even ask me for money.

muthhafukka italexio

I'll try and get a post about AOC's interview. I don't think that 'she's all about facebook' and I'll try and highlight the interesting parts if everyone will give me a day.

Totally welcome, sapient. I see us as an example of how two people with very different political views can still agree on some stuff. And have civilized disagreements on others.

Sorry, but:

What are we doing about the Trumpists' attempted coup? Are we hoping that ignoring it will make it go away?

But NOT by Democrats looking to win elections here.

Or just about anywhere, I'd wager. I live in the 34th LD in Seattle. The GOP doesn't even bother to run candidates. The "far left" (as commonly understood by, inexplicably, most) rules with an iron fist (being sardonic here). Pramila Jayapal is our Congressperson (I'm very proud of her work).

Until COVID, I used to attend some of the monthly meetings. I've been to a lot of them over the years. I could drink a glass of wine (available for purchase...you gotta' raise money however you can!) every time somebody said the word "socialism" and never even get high, much less drunk. We start every meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. Not once has the assembled broken out in song to the ringing words of the internationale (more's the pity).

Just sayin'. And for the record, AOC was responding to attacks on "those progresssives". She didn't start this by any means.

Let's chill a bit and keep our eyes on the ball....fighting fascism.

Thanks.

"Thanks, y'all, for being here to receive my rants."

No problem. Thanks for being on our side. Sometimes we forget we are, in the bigger scheme of things, allies.

All the best

muthhafukka italexio

I'm with you. Will you sign my petition? :)

I see that no one will speak to AOC's support of Facebook.

AOC's point there, if I'm not mistaken, is that the (D)'s haven't made effective use of social media in general, and FB in particular.

Not pro FB or con FB. Just FB is there, it's a thing, we should make use of it.

I generally agree with the idea that the (D)'s are not doing a good job building relationships and infrastructure outside of their (current) core areas. Folks have recognized, and commented on, that for years.

It's not hating on (D)'s to say that, it's just saying they need to get better at it.

Health care - not just insurance, but availability of and access to providers and facilities like hospitals. Education. Reliable high-capacity broadband. Stable commodity markets. Rational immigration policy, in some areas. All things that are important to rural Americans. All things where (D)'s have a good story. They need to get it out there.

Dreher just before the election wrote a piece proving that Kamala Harris is a totalitarian communist or something like that. I’m not exaggerating. In Rod’s case, I no longer believe in his honesty. I think he has a book to sell. He has always been an hysterical twit, but sincere in his terror of whoever the current boogeyman was. But now I think he is a bit of a grifter.

People past a certain point of the spectrum see everyone left of center as Pol Pot. So fine, don’t use the term socialist down there, but they will hear that AOC and Bernie use the term and so they will think Biden is just cover for the coming Bolshevik takeover.

And Conor Lamb in PA is upset that some Democrats want to end fracking. At some point, like right fracking now, if you take climate change seriously, we really do have to get out of the fossil fuel industry and create new jobs for these people. So argue about how to do it. But we have run out of time to be pandering to climate change denialism, even if it is in the Democratic Party.

Are we hoping that ignoring it will make it go away?

Well, "hope" is a start, but overall, the tenor of this question strikes me as rather loaded.

A new Tea Party is in the works.

We need to oppose this with all we can muster.

People past a certain point of the spectrum see everyone left of center as Pol Pot. So fine, don’t use the term socialist down there, but they will hear that AOC and Bernie use the term and so they will think Biden is just cover for the coming Bolshevik takeover.

If you're saying those people are simply not reachable, no argument. But those are far from the only folks voting Republican. Even if they are most of the attendees at Trump rallies.

It's the folks who aren't that far off the deep end that you're trying to attract.

I will say one thing in Lamb’s defense— he is implicitly making the argument that some people might vote Republican out of fear for their jobs — economic anxiety, in other words. Well,yeah, and we do have to think about how to reconcile the policies needed to fight climate change with the fear that some people have of losing their jobs.

WJ— if people in the South, where I am from, are repelled by the existence of people like AOC then they can’t be reached. If people on the left are told we aren’t welcome to say what we think, how much appeal is that going to make on the left side?

I am actually fine with people making rhetorical adjustments. “ Defund the police” is just a bad way to sell the idea that we need more social workers dealing with problems that are given to police. And I don’t think a CIA veteran running in the South wants to be seen as a socialist. But I wouldn’t vote for her unless I absolutely had to. One thing I have not been enamored with over the past four years is the lionizing of intelligence agencies. But sure, if that’s what wins in the south then I would expect her to distance herself from AOC. It doesn’t mean AOC should be quiet.

But I also think politicians in general should stop treating voters like idiots. They should make their best case for the policies they think are right. Much of what is called pragmatic politics strikes me as cynical manipulation and people know it. They often forgive their own side for doing it, but they know to some degree it is happening.

he is implicitly making the argument that some people might vote Republican out of fear for their jobs

I am not convinced that these "some people" are voting GOP out of fear of losing their jobs. They are voting GOP out of fear of losing social status. They have jobs, perhaps crappy ones, but they have them.

We have to get people on board with the idea that THERE WILL BE NO MORE CRAPPY JOBS.

'nuff said.

But those are far from the only folks voting Republican.

Again, wj, can you provide ANY evidence for this assertion? Any? A "lot"? Really? Back it up.

There are not enough of these kind of imaginary voters to make a meaningful difference in a national election.

Why do you incessantly insist that we defer to them?

There is absolutely no evidence, none, that appeals to these types of voters (I accept they exist...the question is how many) exist in any meaningful numbers.

But perhaps I repeat myself. Not the first time.


Again, wj, can you provide ANY evidence for this assertion? Any?

Well, for "any" the obvious would be friends and family. Not for Trump, of course, but vote folks like Bush I or Romney? Sure. Voted for them in some cases; basically see themselves as conservative/Republican. And yet have no problem viewing folks like McConnell or Graham or Cruz, and all their works, as scum.

There are not enough of these kind of imaginary voters to make a meaningful difference in a national election.

Right back at you. Do you have evidence that there are not? Especially given how narrow some recent races have been.

Why do you incessantly insist that we defer to them?

I by no means insist, or even suggest, that you defer to them. At least, not as I understand the word "defer." What I persist in suggesting is that it is possible to present yourselves and your positions** in such a way as to attract some votes from them. Pointing out that, in a fair number of races, it only takes a few votes to flip the result. And it only takes a few victories to flip some legislatures. And then do stuff (not everything, perhaps, but some stuff) that you would really like to see done.

** OK, I'll admit that you, personally, may hold positions far enough left that you can't attract them. But for the typical center-left, or even solidly left, Democrat? Like several of those here.

They are really trying to steal this election, and the bulk of the Republican party is standing on the sidelines.

Barr tells prosecutors to investigate 'vote irregularities' despite lack of evidence
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/09/william-barr-vote-irregularities-donald-trump-election
Within hours of the news, the New York Times reported that the justice department official overseeing voter fraud investigations, Richard Pilger, had resigned from his position.

“Having familiarized myself with the new policy and its ramifications,” Pilger reportedly told colleagues in an email, “I must regretfully resign from my role as director of the Election Crimes Branch.”

Doubts about Barr’s intentions were heightened after it was reported that a few hours before the letter to prosecutors was disclosed, he met with Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate majority leader....

Not pro FB or con FB. Just FB is there, it's a thing, we should make use of it.

Corporations similarly. So, I'd prefer not to hear any more about "her speeches" or whatever they were spouting about "corporatism". And maybe we need our own Cambridge Analytica as well. These things are not value neutral.

the bulk of the Republican party is standing on the sidelines.

They're helping. Not standing by. They're emulating the NC Republicans' 2016 move. This is who they now are.

They're helping. Not standing by. They're emulating the NC Republicans' 2016 move. This is who they now are.

I'm drawing a blank on this. can you give some more details?

good morning, wj. You write:

"Right back at you. Do you have evidence that there are not?"

Why yes, I certainly do.

Interesting theory. Your turn.

An article about North Carolina 2016.

It's now the Republican playbook.

bobbyp, your link @09.46 not working, unless it's just me?

[there's no url in that link.]

bobbyp is not very good at this, and needs to hire a consultant. Another try.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944

OK, so I've been getting calls which fall into two categories on the election result itself:

1. It will be OK despite the shenanigans, Trump will have to go, Biden will be president on 20.1.21

2. Oh noes (h/t cleek)! The DOJ's Head of Election Crimes having resigned when Barr authorised prosecutors to probe voter fraud claims, and Trump having sacked Esper, he will now sack the heads of the FBI and CIA. Since the GOP senators have gone along with everything so far, the election is really likely to be deligitimised and stolen.

1. Was my view, but I am getting nervous.

2. Seems a bit alarmist to me, because I think if DJT sacks the head of the FBI and the CIA, having sacked Esper, the GOP senators like McConnell and Graham will start to panic and fear civil breakdown and unrest, so will back down.

My question is: what does the commentariat here think?

Nobility, as in this individual's action, must be put aside.

Doing the right thing is the null option against this Republican evil.

Do NOT resign. Stay on the job and bring a weapon to work and police the corrupt Trump Deep State filth from within.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/doj-head-of-election-crimes-branch-resigns-after-barr-allows-baseless-voter-fraud-probes

My question is: what does the commentariat here think?

I have no idea.

If they find a way to FUBAR things enough to somehow prevent Biden from taking office, then we are in some deep poo. That actually would be a coup - there is no legitimate basis for a continued Trump presidency.

The only thing that makes this place work is the willingness of all parties to follow the rules and consent to the outcome.

And if anyone is tempted to weigh in with "yeah, but what about all the resistance to Trump?!?" I say bring it. Let's have the conversation about the difference between Trump in 2016 and Biden in 2020.

Long way to go until January 20.

I find Bitecofer's case reasonably persuasive (though these things are never 100% right or wrong).

But it gets to a larger truth, which is that spending, for instance, $100m on a single senatorial race is of very limited use indeed without years of work on the ground (supported by party funding) beforehand.

Doug Jones put it quite well, after his bruising loss.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/10/democrats-anxious-after-election-performance-435600
...Jones, the sole incumbent Democratic senator to lose, said both party campaign arms need to change their mission. He said Stacey Abrams’ work in Georgia should be a model for the party’s work in individual states, while he contends the “DSCC and DCCC spend too much time investing in candidates and not the electorate. They don’t invest in House districts, they don’t invest in states.”

“ am not convinced that these "some people" are voting GOP out of fear of losing their jobs. They are voting GOP out of fear of losing social status. They have jobs, perhaps crappy ones, but they have them.”

This is too sweeping and it is the problem with the discussion over the past four years— either it is all racism or all economic anxiety. A huge amount is racism or fear of change, but people are complicated and they are also driven by economic worries. It never used to be controversial to say this. If people have good jobs or had them, then they want to keep them or become bitter about losing them. This doesn’t explain affluent Trump voters. I see that type in the TAC comment sections. Frack them. But people who really are struggling or fear losing good jobs don’t always react in the manner that lefties wish they would. They might scapegoat.

That actually would be a coup - there is no legitimate basis for a continued Trump presidency.

(...)

And if anyone is tempted to weigh in with "yeah, but what about all the resistance to Trump?!?" I say bring it.

Yes. The "coup" against Trump was impeachment - a process built into our system of government during which evidence is presented before members of the Senate vote for or against, and all after members of the House voted for the proceedings to happen in the first place. The result was that Trump was acquitted and stayed in office. Legislators voting for or against impeachment and removal from office is pretty much the opposite of a coup. (Not that I need to tell anyone here that. I just needed to get it off my chest.)

bobby, Bitecofer has a theory: that there are essentially no swing voters. And she has model based on that. Which isn't quite the same as evidence.

But consider, "her model tells her the Democrats are a near lock for the presidency in 2020, and are likely to gain House seats and have a decent shot at retaking the Senate." But in fact, the Democrats lost House seats. And while she was less sure about the Senate, that's not looking too great either (unfortunately). Not least because Collins won in Maine at the same time Biden did. I'd say a split ticket is a pretty good indication of a swing voter.

P.S. Let me say in passing that I do realize that I am essentially asking you to prove a negative. Which is never easy. But still, some evidence ought to be available.

if anyone is tempted to weigh in with "yeah, but what about all the resistance to Trump?!?" I say bring it. Let's have the conversation about the difference between Trump in 2016 and Biden in 2020.

For that matter, the resistance to Trump was pretty small beer compared to the McConnell-led resistance to Obama.

My question is: what does the commentariat here think?

No one is going to steal the election this way. Barr had to do something to make his boss less unhappy. The memo says "specious, speculative, fanciful or far-fetched claims should not be a basis for initiating federal inquiries." The time frame for DOJ investigations and indictments is far too long -- votes will be certified, electors will vote, and Congress will accept those results long before the DOJ is ready to show up in court with their case.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Blog powered by Typepad