GOP control of redstate electoral administration renders the majority of states extremely resistant to democratic reform.
The only possible way to overcome that is via a turnout surge of sufficient magnitude that it overwhelms GOP efforts at voter suppression. “Likely” voters won’t cut it; unlikely voters are required.
None of the establishment candidates have the slightest chance of generating the required turnout surge. The working class simply will not come out in sufficient numbers for yet another neoliberal imperialist.
Bernie might be able to do it, although even then it’s a long shot. A new left candidate would have been better, but so far none have appeared.
The Dem establishment and their tame media proxies will once again work flat-out throughout the primary campaign in order to prevent any non-establishment candidates from succeeding.
If, by some miracle, a non-establishment left candidate makes it through the biased primary, the majority of the Democratic establishment will continue to work against them throughout the general. The Dem establishment would rather see a second Trump term than a leftist victory.
Even if a general election victory occurs, the fight isn’t over. We still have an out-of-control militaristic empire, structural white supremacy, millions of fascists and climate change to deal with. And the clock is running very short.
Interesting read. Maybe at an inflection point, at least on the Dem side? Will be a stark contrast between the Rep and Dem campaign this time around I suspect. May serve to push both sides more toward their own corners, but we shall see.
Given Mueller’s past behaviour (e.g. publicly refuting the dodgy Buzzfeed story), it seems very unlikely that he would just be quietly sitting by if Barr had falsified that quote.
Comey back-and-forthed or kept his silence on what public statements he made to the press, even when he had opinions that directly contradicted the public story of the day. She’s quoting the summary from Barr, not Mueller. Time will tell what the report says, but this is carrying water for Trump, which is probably not the most helpful position for a Democratic hopeful.
Worth noting that Mueller was looking at this from the point of view of prosecution. The key wording is “did not establish” as in cannot prove beyond the shadow… Not to split hairs, but this is not the same as “he did not” or even “there is no evidence that he did” but more along the lines of “I can’t take this to court.” Not certain how the “You cannot indict a sitting president” plays into this, but it is absolutely not the "COMPLETE EXONERATION!!!" that the Trumpkins would like to portray it as. The report needs to come out to make an actual evaluation. And that is, I suspect, why they will do everything in their power to make sure that it never seen the light of day.
I think it’s sometimes hard to remember the long, long lifespan of public disclosure for political stories like this.
A lot of dodgy stuff that presidents like Nixon, or even Kennedy, did, were learned from material that didn’t come out for a generation after they were out of office.
With Trump, so much of the scandals seem and feel Twitter-immediate, but there’s a long tail of waiting stories. I’m thinking of Gen Zers retiring, and there’s still Trump discovery stories being released, and people going, “Huh, I guess he really was more awful than we thought.”
President Elisabeth Warren? Yes, please! Just as good!
President Bernie Sanders? I guess, but he just seems too old.
President Beto O’Rourke? I guess, but he seems like another Obama centrist. Which isn’t bad, so yes.
President Joseph Biden? I guess, but see my critique of President Sanders.
President Cory Booker? Seems okay enough, so, er, yes?
President Pete Buttigeig? Sorry, with that name, I keep thinking Arschgeige. I mean, the guy may be good, but not on my radar.
President Amy Klobuchar? Has a nice ring, but you seem like a B lister. Sorry.
all the other Democratic candidates? Well, I’d vote for you in the unlikely event that you get the nomination, but I won’t vote for you in the Democrats Abroad primary.
And the Howard Schulz guy? Ick. Ick ick ick. Someone tell him there are other vanity projecys out there.
I don’t know, I found a deadpan, down-the-barrel “would have precipitated a TERRIBLE CRISIS [emphasis in closed captions…] that could have led to a civil war” a little unsettling. Besides, Donald Trump is a TERRIBLE CRISIS that could lead to a civil war. I find it distasteful to endorse the idea that successfully holding someone atrocious accountable is not worth the risk, or is inherently destructive.
That’s why I gave it the high praise of “fine” instead of something like “good.” Her legislation is good and something to actually be excited about, but wrapping it up into a package pandering to people who want to move beyond Trump’s behavior compared to addressing people that want voting reform was a bad call.
Who are all these people that supposedly love him? In the polls I mean. I haven’t met any of them. I used to kinda like his combative snarky debating style, but the more I look into him the less I care for him. I mean I’ll say it again, any democrat in the general, but please let’s not choose him in the primaries. Would be cool if these controversies convince him to stay out of it and save his goodwill to help whomever else wins the party nomination.
That is the Gods honest truth. He could be a difference maker campaigning in semiTrumpian areas of PA, Wisconsin or Michigan, but only if it is for the democratic candidate, not as the candidate. I’ve said before, be loyal to party in the general, but let’s be smart in the primaries.
They’re people who don’t follow politics closely, and who recognize Biden’s name and remember he was Obama’s VP. At this point, the whole thing is a question of name recognition.
