When it comes to creating a nation that works for all of us,

[Uncle Joe]

Link to tweet

[Garrett78]

1. Great ad. It speaks to pains and fears but offers hope.

Something I posted elsewhere:

Russia will do anything to undermine any candidate who becomes the frontrunner. I'm sure Russia is aware of the perception that Sanders can't win, so they're going to exploit that for all it's worth.

I think that perception is false. I know you disagree and I respect your opinion. But that perception seems to be based largely on false assumptions about so-called independents, moderates, undecideds, etc. And the notion that 2018 was the result of Trump voters switching sides (stated repeatedly by a DU poster and echoed by others). I say false assumptions because of the following:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-a-myth/

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-independent-voters/

https://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814522/independents-voters-facts-myths

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/10/18076872/trump-46-percent-solition

Regarding the first 3 articles, those who self-identify as such and such are all over the map ideologically-speaking and the vast majority of so-called independents are completely wedded to a particular party. It's a myth that there's this large mass of astute, consistent middle-of-the-roaders with some well-defined "moderate" ideology, who are just waiting to see which party will put up the candidate closest to the center.

Many people, especially young people, are starving to vote for someone who dreams big and will fight for a future that isn't filled with misery (many people recognize that that's where we're headed with the status quo, Trump or no Trump). From the first article: "Anybody who claims to have the winning formula for winning moderate, independent or undecided voters is making things up. Perhaps more centrist policies will appeal to some voters in each of these categories — but so will more extreme policies." Many of those so-called "extreme policies" poll very, very well.

As for the 4th article, what happened is we saw Dems break turnout records. It wasn't that Trump voters switched sides, or that anti-Trump Republicans came to our rescue in droves. That simply isn't what happened. So, what did happen? Well, for instance, every single major ethnic and racial group had a greater increase in turnout from one midterm to the next (in this case, 2014 to 2018) than ever before in US history. And the age group that had the greatest increase in turnout between 2014 and 2018 was the 18-29 age group (20% in 2014 to 36% in 2018).

Yes, it's true that many moderates flipped districts (while some others lost statewide races for the US Senate). It's also true that some very progressive candidates got elected. We can have a more moderate candidate win a district while also having a very progressive candidate win a national election. Those aren't mutually exclusive events, especially at a time when the driving force in the US as a whole is an opposition to the status quo, a general sense that we're in grave danger and that the US is - in the words of Howard Zinn - "topsy-turvy." A whole lot of people desperately want fundamental change.

So, yeah, I think Sanders can win states such as PA, MI, AZ, etc. Regardless of who our nominee is, I think it'll be a close election.

[Uncle Joe]

2. Thanks for sharing Garrett.

[Garrett78]

3. And then there's this:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/19/knight-nonvoter-study-decoding-2020-election-wild-card-115796

Nonvoters are an eclectic faction with distinctive blocs that support Democrats and Republicans—but don’t show up to cast their ballots—and an even larger group that is alienated from a political system it finds bewildering, corrupt, irrelevant or some combination thereof.

And some nonvoters are more likely than others to engage:

Like other scholars, their research identified a substantial cohort of would-be Democratic voters who rarely participate in the political process. These “passive liberals” are weakly engaged but progressive on most issues when they are, isolated from “the system” and fatalistic about how it will affect their lives, and far more likely to be African American and to feel the world is becoming more dangerous. They constitute 15 percent of the voting age population.

“They’re younger, more urban, more female, more black and Hispanic on average and have a clear orientation toward the Democratic Party,” says Stephen Hawkins, More in Common's director of research. “But they feel disaffected and cynical toward the system so they are less inclined to vote as a whole.”

This group closely mirrors one of two camps that Ibram X. Kendi, founding director of American University’s Antiracist Research and Policy Center, has called the “other swing voters,” the ones who chose not between voting for the Democrats or the Republicans but rather between Democrat and not voting at all....These “passive liberals” stand in stark contrast to a larger mass of nonvoters who are far more profoundly disengaged from and disinterested in politics.

[Uncle Joe]

5. I thought that was a fascinating study as well. n/t

[jmg257]

4. Wow - terrific video _ Very nice!

[Uncle Joe]

6. I thought so as well jmg.