March 9, 2020

NYT OP-ED : The Simple Reason the Left Won't Stop Losing

Progressives need to care more about winning. They are conflating their own opinions with smart political advice. They are choosing to believe what they want to believe.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/08/opinion/sanders-democratic-primary.html

How did the political left squander the opportunity that was the 2020 primary campaign?

The Trump presidency has created tremendous energy among progressives. More than half of Democratic voters now identify as liberal. Most favor “Medicare for all.” A growing number are unhappy with American capitalism. This year’s campaign offered the prospect of transformational change, with a Democratic nominee who was more liberal than any in more than a half-century. Instead, the nominee now seems likely to be a moderate white grandfather who first ran for president more than 30 years ago and whose campaign promises a return to normalcy.

True, Bernie Sanders could make a comeback, but it would need to be a big one. Among people who voted on Super Tuesday itself — rather than voting early, before Joe Biden won South Carolina — Biden trounced Sanders. The race would have to change fundamentally for Sanders to win. If he doesn’t, the obvious questions for progressives is what went wrong and how they can do better in the future. I think there are some clear answers — empirical answers that anybody, regardless of ideology, should be able to see. I’d encourage the next generation of progressive leaders to think about these issues with an open mind.

The biggest lesson is simply this: The American left doesn’t care enough about winning. It’s an old problem, one that has long undermined left-wing movements in this country. They have often prioritized purity over victory. They wouldn’t necessarily put it these terms, but they have chosen to lose on their terms rather than win with compromise. You can see this pattern today in the ways that many progressive activists misread public opinion. Their answer to almost every question of political strategy is to insist that Americans are a profoundly progressive people who haven’t yet been inspired to vote the way they think. The way to win, these progressives claim, is to go left, always.

Immigration? Most Americans want more of it. Abortion? This is a pro-choice country. Fracking? People now understand its downsides. Strict gun control? Affirmative action? A wealth tax? Free college? Medicare for all? Widely available marijuana? Americans want it all, activists claim. This belief helps explain why so many 2020 candidates hoping to win the progressive vote — including Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris — embraced ideas like a ban on fracking and the decriminalization of the border. The left persuaded itself that those policies were both morally righteous and politically savvy. To reject any one of them was to risk being labeled a neoliberal sellout.

snip

March 9, 2020

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo switches disease name to 'Wuhan virus' as it spreads in the US

Top US diplomat ignores pleas from Beijing and world health officials over the use of names for the Covid-19 disease that incite racial discrimination. New nomenclature comes with President Donald Trump’s administration under fire over its response to community transmission of the virus in the US

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3074050/coronavirus-us-secretary-state-mike-pompeos-wuhan-virus

The US and China appeared headed towards a fresh row on Friday after Washington’s top diplomat Mike Pompeo for the second day running referred to the coronavirus as the “Wuhan virus” – ignoring pleas from Beijing and world health officials for the public to avoid using names for the Covid-19 disease that could incite racial discrimination.

Pompeo's new nomenclature for the virus coincided with a rising tide of criticism that President Donald Trump’s administration is facing over its response to community transmission of the virus in the United States. Questions have been swirling over a range of policy hiccups, including a shortage of diagnostic test kits in the US and increasing signs that the Trump administration’s bullish view of the effectiveness of travel restrictions in the early days of the outbreak may have been off the mark.

Pompeo’s use of the term also follows assertions by Chinese officials this week that the virus did not originate in the central Chinese city of Wuhan, as has been widely presumed. The virus has spread far and wide since infections began in the city in December, with the number of people sickened by it worldwide surpassing 100,000 on Friday.

In interviews with CNBC and Fox News on Friday, Pompeo referred to the virus as the “Wuhan virus”. In response to a question by Pete Hegseth – the host of the Fox and Friends morning talk show closely followed by Trump – the secretary of state said “as a first matter, the Chinese Communist Party has said that this is where the virus started”.

snip

March 9, 2020

WaPo Fact Checker Analysis : Sanders vs. Biden on Social Security: A guide to the claims

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/08/sanders-versus-biden-social-security-guide-claims/

“Joe Biden claims in a new ad that he has always protected Social Security. That’s patently false. He can’t hide 40 years of working with Republicans to cut Social Security.”

— Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), in a Twitter thread, March 7, 2020

Now that the Democratic primary race has narrowed to Sanders and former vice president Joe Biden, Sanders has begun attacking Biden for supposedly wanting to cut Social Security. Biden cried foul in a new ad. In a Twitter thread, the Sanders campaign highlighted comments or votes by Biden dating back almost four decades.

Regular readers of The Fact Checker know we often warn about campaign attacks highlighting certain votes or comments that are so old they often lack context. Overall, Sanders offers a misleading portrayal. So here’s a guide to these statements.

“In 1983, Biden pushed to raise the Social Security retirement age.”

Sanders cites a newspaper clip from Jan. 11, 1983, that says, “Biden suggested a gradual increase in the retirement age would help improve the Social Security system.” This was not a controversial position at the time. Two months after these comments, large bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate agreed to the Social Security amendments of 1983, which included raising the retirement age to 67 and increasing payroll taxes to improve the solvency of the program.

The broad outlines of the plan was recommended by the National Commission on Social Security Reform and is believed to have strengthened the long-term health of Social Security. Sanders, in 1999, praised the 1983 law an example of bipartisan cooperation. “We should remember that in 1982, Social Security was within a few months — a few months — of not being able to pay out all benefits owed to Americans,” Sanders said. “And then people came together and said of course we want to save Social Security. They worked together, and they did.”

snip

much much more at the main link above

March 9, 2020

Trump COMPLETELY self-owns (Nero, (even though it never really happened), anyone????)

Can you say coronavirus fool???

What a fucking truly numpty piece of shit!



https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1236778368533700609

March 7, 2020

He is so fucking horrible I just want to sob, we are so fucked :(

https://twitter.com/davidgura/status/1236074596580933634

Of course the orange blost appoints this fuckstick as well.

https://twitter.com/LarryBoorstein/status/1236076196556943367

March 6, 2020

Biden should HAMMER Trump on COVID-19 IMHO, set the damn narrative NOW. Trump the fuckup!!

March 6, 2020

The current state of the 13 flippable 2020 Senate seats

Here is my completely up to date, most detailed post yet on the state of the races.

We need a plus 4 net to flip the Senate to a 51-49 Dem advantage (so no power sharing agreements needed at all) as it stands, and a plus 5 net if we lose Doug Jones, which is, unfortunately likely as Paedo Moore was crushed in the Rethug Primary, and I fear either Tuberville (probably the favourite to win the Rethug run-off) or Sessions will win.

We should absolute hold all our other seats. Jeanne Shaheen in NH is the only one that is probably not a 99% lock, with the Rethugs choosing between Don Bolduc, former U.S. Army brigadier general, Bill O'Brien, former Speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, Kelly Ayotte, former U.S. Senator and former Attorney General of New Hampshire, Scott 'Pickup' Brown, U.S. Ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa, former U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, and 2014 Republican nominee for U.S. Senate from New Hampshire.

These are all the remotely possible races where we can flip, all 13 of them. Some are very much a stretch, and also we are having a lot of big names refuse to run, in fact, all the arguably best candidates in 10 of the 13 seats have all refused, so far, to run.


These are the only 3 states ATM with our strongest possible candidates running:

Arizona Mark Kelly has a great chance at beating McSally. This was (until Hickenlooper got smart) the only state so far that we had the best potential candidate already running.

Colorado Hickenlooper now running makes it 90-95% that we flip this. Even if you do not think he is the best on policy, he still is the most electable. All I ask is that he knocks it off with the red-baiting (saying progressives are bringing back Stalin and Marx's policies), which is asinine and plays into the Rethug's hands. I would much prefer Joe Neguse or Andrew Romanoff to Hickenlooper strictly on policy.

Montana Bullock finally decided to run, and he gives us a great chance to flip this Blue.


Now the ones who do NOT have our strongest candidates running as of yet:


Alaska (I hope Mark Begich, our ex US Senator there, runs versus Sullivan, he has said he was not, but now may change his mind.) If Begich ends up completely declining, then it will probably up to Independent Al Gross, as Ethan Berkowitz, mayor of Anchorage, and Forrest Dunbar, Anchorage assemblyman and nominee for Alaska's at-large congressional district in 2014 have both also declined. If no Begich, this is a hard one to win.

Maine (Susan Rice, who has said no quite emphatically, would have been the best to knock out the POS hypocrite Collins IMHO, but hopefully we can find another great one, it looks likely to be Sara Gideon atm, I think Gideon can take out Collins, just was more sure on Rice, but she is not going to run.).

Tennessee (open Rethug seat, due to Alexander retiring, I so hope Tim McGraw (yes the superstar singer, who said for years he would run when he was 50, and he is 52 now) reconsiders his turndown, he would have the best shot from all I have seen, most of the other candidates we have are already one time losers, some just last year, or pretty unknown. The two I see who are the best should McGraw not change his mind are Jeff Yarbro and especially James Mackler)

Georgia With Isakson retiring (there will be an interim Repug appointed for the last year) There are now TWO seats we can flip. Stacey Abrams and Sally Yates would have had the best chances by far to beat Perdue and Rethug X, but each one has said no over and over, so it is going to be much harder I fear, even though Perdue is weak, and a shit campaigner. Jon Ossoff has now declared for David Perdue's seat, as have Teresa Tomlinson, and Sarah Riggs Amico.

In the other race, the Special Election, we REALLY need Sally Yates to change her mind, as so far we have no really strong candidates there, and it deffo is winnable as the Rethugs have a NASTY fight on their hands, between White Power Barbie Kelly Loeffler (currently sitting) and then Trump arse-licker uber scum, Doug Collins. So far the Dems who have declared are Matt Lieberman, businessman and son of Joe Lieberman, former U.S. Senator from Connecticut, Ed Tarver, former United States Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia and former state senator, Raphael Warnock, reverend and pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church, and Richard Dien Winfield, professor and candidate for Georgia's 10th congressional district in 2018.


Kansas Open Rethug seat due to Roberts retiring, the right candidate for us has a shot, and that is Kathleen Sebelius, but she also just said no, and a big local paper says that really hurts our chances This is a carbon copy of Montana, just swap in Sebelius for Bullock, its a Red state and all the insiders say she is only Dem who can win. Sebelius needs to follow Bullocks' lead and jump in!!!

Iowa (Cindy Axne and Vilsack, probably our 2 best chances to beat the detestable Joni Ernst, both have declined to run, but I have hope Theresa Greenfield will be the Dem winner and has a great shot at beating the POS Ernst) Chet Culver (not declared) also has a decent shot, but my money is on Greenfield.

North Carolina Our two best candidates by far, Foxx and Stein, have both said no, and Cal Cunningham is now our nominee. I still think he can beat the really weak Tillis, who is very unpopular there.


now the two wishful thinking states:

Kentucky This is probably the 2nd toughest. Andy Beshear might have had a shot at dumping McTurtle, but he ran (and won!!!) the Governorship. Amy McGrath is who we are probably going to have to roll with, and it is not impossible, due to McConnell being truly hated even by some Rethugs, his overall approval numbers are worse than Rump by far, amongst the bottom in all the Senate. Overall a huge reach, but so hope Moscow Mitch goes DOWN. McGrath needs to make no more errors like the one she did right at kickoff (saying she would have voted yes for Kavanaugh for SCOTUS. The same thing crushed Bredesen in TN in 2018, it so depressed our base turnout.)

Texas Cornyn in Texas is the toughest reach, Cornyn is streets ahead of Cruz in terms of TX popularity. I like Amanda Edwards a lot, but she lost in the Primary, so now it is a runoff between MJ Hegar and Royce West. I think Hegar wins the runoff. I wonder if Democratic House member Henry Cuellar (who unfortunately won his primary in his deep blue district on Tuesday) will campaign for and fundraise for Rethug Corbyn against Hegar, as he sabotaged her in 2018 by campaigning and fundraising for her Rethug opponent, the despicable bigot and climate change denialist, John Carter. He seems to have a true dislike for her. If he does that again, I think he should be kicked out of the Party. He voted around 70% of the time with the Trump in the last full congress, is anti-LGBTQ, Pro Life, and A - rated by the NRA.

Schumer and Cortez Masto have been so poor at recruiting the best candidates, it is one of the biggest stories of 2020 so far, although they FINALLY (I think it was Obama who got him) changed Bullock's mind. I am going to give up on pulling the people who I think are strongest in ME, IA, (those two I can be happy with who we have) NC, (already decided, it is Cal Cunningham) TX, GA, (the regular one, as zero chance Stacey Abrams will run now) and KY. We just have to roll with who we have there now. AZ, CO and MT (yay!) now have our best possible, so that leaves:

AK (Begich run!)
TN (McGraw run!)
KS (Sebelius run!)
GA (Special election) (Yates run!)


IF all those above change their minds and run, I can say, with at least 60% or more confidence, we will hit at least 6 flips, and maybe, IF Rump just gets crushed, win as many as 9 or 10.

March 6, 2020

Alabama executes inmate Nathaniel Woods

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/05/us/alabama-nathaniel-woods-execution/index.html

Alabama has executed inmate Nathaniel Woods for the 2004 murders of three Birmingham police officers, the state corrections department said. Woods, 42, did not give a final statement. He was pronounced dead at 9:01 p.m. local time, the department said in a statement Thursday.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey refused to stop the controversial execution, and the US Supreme Court denied a last-minute stay, after first ordering a temporary halt only minutes before Woods had been scheduled to die.
Woods was convicted in 2005 of capital murder, but there were questions about his culpability, his representation at trial, and his co-defendant, Kerry Spencer said Woods was innocent.

Just hours before Woods was slated to die, Woods' attorneys petitioned the Supreme Court to block the execution, citing concerns about the method by which he was to be executed.

In a phone interview from William C. Holman Correctional Facility in Escambia County, Spencer told CNN that he alone fatally shot the three officers in 2004 when they stormed the crack house where he was sleeping. A fourth officer was shot but survived. Woods wasn't involved, he said. In fact, Spencer said, Woods ran when the gunfire erupted. "Nate is absolutely innocent," said Spencer, who also is on Alabama's death row. "That man didn't know I was going to shoot anybody just like I didn't know I was going to shoot anybody that day, period."

snip

March 6, 2020

Twitter is testing disappearing posts called 'Fleets'

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/04/tech/twitter-disappearing-tweets/index.html

New York (CNN Business)

Twitter is hopping on the disappearing content bandwagon.

On Wednesday, the social network said it's testing a new feature called Fleets, which are posts that disappear after 24 hours. The test, which rolled out the same day, is currently only available in Brazil. Unlike normal tweets, Fleets do not receive retweets, likes or public replies. Users can only react or respond to them with direct messages, much like Instagram's Stories feature. Snapchat pioneered the concept of content that disappears after 24 hours in 2013, and many platforms including Facebook, YouTube and LinkedIn have since released their own versions.

Fleets will not appear on people's Twitter (TWTR) timelines like regular tweets. Instead, they can be viewed by tapping on someone's avatar. "People often tell us that they don't feel comfortable Tweeting because Tweets can be seen and replied to by anybody, feel permanent and performative (how many Likes & Retweets will this get!?)," Kayvon Beykpour, product lead at Twitter, wrote in a tweet announcing the news.

"We're hoping that Fleets can help people share the fleeting thoughts that they would have been unlikely to Tweet," he added. As it is, Twitter can be something of a permanent record, meaning people might hesitate posting mostly harmless thoughts that they still might need to explain in, say, a job interview. Twitter has a long history of people's old tweets being dug up and used to attack them.

However, Twitter's move raises questions over how it will handle misinformation in disappearing posts. Though the inability to retweet, like or reply will surely limit a post's potential reach, it could still be widely seen, especially if the user has a large following.

snip

March 6, 2020

Can Sweden's cherished 'right to roam' survive in 2020?

https://www.thelocal.se/20200305/allemansratten-can-swedens-cherished-right-to-roam-survive

Freedom to discover Swedish nature and to be able to enjoy being outdoors. That's at the core of 'allemansrätten', a unique right which grants everyone equal rights to Swedish nature. But how sustainable can it be in the face of changes in tourism, outdoor recreation, and lifestyle?

"Allemansrätten (The Right to Public Access) is of really great importance for Sweden. It is the foundation of outdoor activities for each and every Swede," says Nils Hallberg, a legal adviser at the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (Naturvårdsverket).

"You're welcome to go almost everywhere you want. It's one of those bits and pieces on an international scale that defines Swedes and Sweden." Yet the Swedes have partly lost their connection with nature over recent decades, he says. According to the urban development agency of the European Union, 85 percent of the Swedish population today live in towns and cities. "As in many other parts of the world we see an urbanization trend going on," notes Hallberg.

"People are moving to the larger cities. For Sweden these areas are Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö. You can meet people who are born and raised within the city limits of Stockholm that have never been outside the paved roads. That part of the population is less connected to nature these days." "But then we also have a strong trend around friluftsliv [literally 'outdoor lifestyle']. It's based on the belief that you should live a sound life, that you activate yourself, work out a lot, eat healthily and be healthy. It makes people want to go out in nature."

snip