It presently is looking like a massive victory is possible.
But I can't help but looking past that to the critical issues for Democrats to do within the first two years IF we manage to run the tables, Senate, House and Presidency: abolish the filibuster and add 5 seats to the Supreme Court.
The Court have now definitely shown it's in Dumps pocket, we can expect more unreasonable partisan decisions defying precedent.
Some Democrats have historically found reasons to reject one or both solutions.
If we get the chance, we have to get this done this time, our Democracy depends on it.
He needs to be put in prison. Until then he'll never go away . We Americans are now spending $93,000 a day for his SS . This before the new passing of costs for more protection . Think about those $$. He's costing us $2.8 million a month . He's costing us
32,000,000 a year . How long can Americans afford to pay for this clowns 32 million a year protection from himself ?
We need a massive win is an understatement. There are many who have crossed the line an have said they are now voting for country not party. I think if we speak to the women we know and reiterate to them that VOTING IS PRIVATE. Many women, especially Christian Nationalists, believe they have to do what their husbands say even about who to vote for in the election. We also need to emphasize voting blue up and down the ballot. We need to win House and Senate. That way we can deal with SCOTUS, the electoral college and everything else.
Ah, the "This experiment..." paragraph. When you say that "if we fail, we will face decades...," I should point out that I am 74, and I don't have decades left. For me, if we fail, it's all over.
I would not agree, however, that the movement Donnie represents isn't going anywhere. They still feel heady to themselves, but they are already waning. The crowds of supporters are smaller, more and more former supporters are jumping ship, and, for what it's worth, there have been two suicide attempts on Donnie, and both have come from avid supporters or former supporters. The air is coming out of this balloon. All that's left, if we can either ignore the reported polls, or declare them not possibly correct, is for someone like Harris to connect with what are possibly the real people who had been supporters. And of course, the most important, if seemingly impossible, ingredient, is to get private money out of politics, so that we can have a real representative democracy.
I wonder if a "decisive victory" is necessary, or if any victory will be good enough. They're skating on very thin ice (Vance openly, if mistakenly and reluctantly, admits he invents things), and there will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces if/when they lose. Donnie is done after this. And if his most extreme stooges see the difference, and realize they've been had, we're potentially back on "originalist" track. (The "originalists" claim to want to follow the Constitution, but it's clear they've never read it, and don't know what it says.) But we still need the private money out. If we can't manage that, then at the very least, we need to be free of the "dark money," PACs, and Citizens United. At the very least, mano a mano allows individual people to deal with individual people.
Good, if concise, piece, Mark. (I think we'll win big, too, and I strongly suspect these polls can't be right.)
They are all automated. Getting to anybody who will listen requires that you be a constituent or have enough money and contacts to leverage a large contribution. It’s a rotten system.
You are right. I don’t know how to force them to accept removing money from politics. It is also called the incumbent protection program. Small contributions are having some effect, though. Not surprised about the contribution and the request for a meeting. That’s how they all roll. If you had showed up with a million, now that would have been different.
I could have shown up with $10, and they would have taken it. My point was that when they send out these solicitations for money, even though they don't say "no reply," in fact no one monitors them. They're not looking for a conversation. They just want the money.
And if I showed up to Ocasio-Cortez's office, assuming I could get in, I would frankly like to think she wouldn't take $1M from me, even though I'm not a corporation. I really just wanted to talk to her and anyone else who has to make rules about something that is totally alien to them, and I offered them a deal the only way I knew how to do it.
I suppose I could have shown up with $1000, but I didn't only want to talk to her. I wanted to talk to as many as I could get in a room. And I can't afford to pay a lot of people $1K. Frankly, they should pay me. I'd be giving them an education it's taken me about 50 years to acquire. But as long as 1) it takes money for them to run, and 2) it takes a lot of money, in part because 3) the campaign takes so long, and they want to succeed because 4) as many as possible make a career out of it, then they really just want the money, and not the chit-chat. By the way, I'd vote for Ocasio-Cortez and whoever was the other person, except I live in Florida, and they don't, so I can't vote for them.
I'm not right on one count. No one is going to get private money (especially larger amounts) out of politics, at least any time soon, because electeds/incumbents don't want to get rid of it. That's their living and the foundation of their re-election war chests. They would never want to level the playing field. Even the Dems who proclaim a refusal to take large/"corporate" donations don't say they won't take ANY donations, and find a different way to fund (and dramatically shorten) campaigns. And as long as we continue to have these protracted campaigns, and candidates have to find tits to suckle, we're just not going to be a real representative democracy.
I'll confide this in you, Mark. I don't believe in private money in politics, and I don't donate. (But I did this year, because I lost my nerve.) But I have written to Ocasio-Cortez's campaign and someone else's to tell them that although I don't believe in it, I would make an exception, and donate $1000 to them if I can talk to the candidates (I sent them my phone number!), or, better yet, go to DC and meet with them and anyone they know who's interested, to explain about the huge problem with the American medical industry (things they couldn't know if they weren't in it), and I never even heard back. Nobody monitors these outreaches. They just want the computerized donations. They're busy collecting small or large amounts, and they have no system for considering what this arrangement does and doesn't do. They would have taken $1000 in a heartbeat if I just put it on my credit card, and didn't propose to bother them with a conversation.
I believe it will. A large vote, say 10 million margin, will win the electoral college. As for the courts, Trump while he was in power filed 60 lawsuits and had them all thrown out including by Trump judges and the Supreme Court. I know nobody believes it but there is unacceptable risk to the judiciary if it tries to steal an election that isn’t close. If it is close, though, all bets are off.
Not only is it important to defeat the orange man-baby but we must also address the damage the maga right have already done weakening our democracy by installing election deniers in county election offices, state election officials, even local school boards, etc. I believe the underlying “cancer” of unrest and chaos will not be eradicated by tfg’s defeat. His minions will work diligently for the next four years, to regroup and plan how and with whom they might succeed. There are too many JD Vance’s and Mark Robinsons in this country, who will not be deterred.
There has to be a way to bring considered accord with the vicious right. We must reach out with an olive branch, and find common ground, as we eventually did after our Civil War, to mend the fabric of our nation. There’s a great sickness that needs addressing in our society. Hatred will not prevail, unless we surrender to it, and feed the beast. Vote blue and reason with your neighbor.
I’d like to shove this post into Bret Stephens’ face. I’m no fan of Bill Maher anymore, but check out the clip of the interchange between Stephens and Stephanie Rule. He is such an ass
Ed and Joan Bailey are very pessimistic. Bo Bowley seems to think we "mend[ed] the fabric of our nation" after the Civil War. It's better than it was before the Civil War, but we have a long way to go. I agree with Paula Simmons and Mark about Stephens. Maher does have an ideology, Mark. It's a slightly different version of that of whom Joan Bailey calls the "orange man-baby:" his ideology is himself. And just as with the "orange man-baby," he is most certainly obnoxiously provocative, just as you say, Mark.
It presently is looking like a massive victory is possible.
But I can't help but looking past that to the critical issues for Democrats to do within the first two years IF we manage to run the tables, Senate, House and Presidency: abolish the filibuster and add 5 seats to the Supreme Court.
The Court have now definitely shown it's in Dumps pocket, we can expect more unreasonable partisan decisions defying precedent.
Some Democrats have historically found reasons to reject one or both solutions.
If we get the chance, we have to get this done this time, our Democracy depends on it.
I believe we will win big, but we need a massive turnout to pull it off. That will fix a lot of things.
He needs to be put in prison. Until then he'll never go away . We Americans are now spending $93,000 a day for his SS . This before the new passing of costs for more protection . Think about those $$. He's costing us $2.8 million a month . He's costing us
32,000,000 a year . How long can Americans afford to pay for this clowns 32 million a year protection from himself ?
Yes. It can not be overstated.
We need a massive win is an understatement. There are many who have crossed the line an have said they are now voting for country not party. I think if we speak to the women we know and reiterate to them that VOTING IS PRIVATE. Many women, especially Christian Nationalists, believe they have to do what their husbands say even about who to vote for in the election. We also need to emphasize voting blue up and down the ballot. We need to win House and Senate. That way we can deal with SCOTUS, the electoral college and everything else.
Ah, the "This experiment..." paragraph. When you say that "if we fail, we will face decades...," I should point out that I am 74, and I don't have decades left. For me, if we fail, it's all over.
I would not agree, however, that the movement Donnie represents isn't going anywhere. They still feel heady to themselves, but they are already waning. The crowds of supporters are smaller, more and more former supporters are jumping ship, and, for what it's worth, there have been two suicide attempts on Donnie, and both have come from avid supporters or former supporters. The air is coming out of this balloon. All that's left, if we can either ignore the reported polls, or declare them not possibly correct, is for someone like Harris to connect with what are possibly the real people who had been supporters. And of course, the most important, if seemingly impossible, ingredient, is to get private money out of politics, so that we can have a real representative democracy.
I wonder if a "decisive victory" is necessary, or if any victory will be good enough. They're skating on very thin ice (Vance openly, if mistakenly and reluctantly, admits he invents things), and there will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces if/when they lose. Donnie is done after this. And if his most extreme stooges see the difference, and realize they've been had, we're potentially back on "originalist" track. (The "originalists" claim to want to follow the Constitution, but it's clear they've never read it, and don't know what it says.) But we still need the private money out. If we can't manage that, then at the very least, we need to be free of the "dark money," PACs, and Citizens United. At the very least, mano a mano allows individual people to deal with individual people.
Good, if concise, piece, Mark. (I think we'll win big, too, and I strongly suspect these polls can't be right.)
They are all automated. Getting to anybody who will listen requires that you be a constituent or have enough money and contacts to leverage a large contribution. It’s a rotten system.
You are right. I don’t know how to force them to accept removing money from politics. It is also called the incumbent protection program. Small contributions are having some effect, though. Not surprised about the contribution and the request for a meeting. That’s how they all roll. If you had showed up with a million, now that would have been different.
I could have shown up with $10, and they would have taken it. My point was that when they send out these solicitations for money, even though they don't say "no reply," in fact no one monitors them. They're not looking for a conversation. They just want the money.
And if I showed up to Ocasio-Cortez's office, assuming I could get in, I would frankly like to think she wouldn't take $1M from me, even though I'm not a corporation. I really just wanted to talk to her and anyone else who has to make rules about something that is totally alien to them, and I offered them a deal the only way I knew how to do it.
I suppose I could have shown up with $1000, but I didn't only want to talk to her. I wanted to talk to as many as I could get in a room. And I can't afford to pay a lot of people $1K. Frankly, they should pay me. I'd be giving them an education it's taken me about 50 years to acquire. But as long as 1) it takes money for them to run, and 2) it takes a lot of money, in part because 3) the campaign takes so long, and they want to succeed because 4) as many as possible make a career out of it, then they really just want the money, and not the chit-chat. By the way, I'd vote for Ocasio-Cortez and whoever was the other person, except I live in Florida, and they don't, so I can't vote for them.
I hope you’re right on all counts Fred!
I'm not right on one count. No one is going to get private money (especially larger amounts) out of politics, at least any time soon, because electeds/incumbents don't want to get rid of it. That's their living and the foundation of their re-election war chests. They would never want to level the playing field. Even the Dems who proclaim a refusal to take large/"corporate" donations don't say they won't take ANY donations, and find a different way to fund (and dramatically shorten) campaigns. And as long as we continue to have these protracted campaigns, and candidates have to find tits to suckle, we're just not going to be a real representative democracy.
I'll confide this in you, Mark. I don't believe in private money in politics, and I don't donate. (But I did this year, because I lost my nerve.) But I have written to Ocasio-Cortez's campaign and someone else's to tell them that although I don't believe in it, I would make an exception, and donate $1000 to them if I can talk to the candidates (I sent them my phone number!), or, better yet, go to DC and meet with them and anyone they know who's interested, to explain about the huge problem with the American medical industry (things they couldn't know if they weren't in it), and I never even heard back. Nobody monitors these outreaches. They just want the computerized donations. They're busy collecting small or large amounts, and they have no system for considering what this arrangement does and doesn't do. They would have taken $1000 in a heartbeat if I just put it on my credit card, and didn't propose to bother them with a conversation.
A large vote for Kamala/Walz won’t be enough. Trump’s Supreme Court & the Electoral College are major obstacles.
I believe it will. A large vote, say 10 million margin, will win the electoral college. As for the courts, Trump while he was in power filed 60 lawsuits and had them all thrown out including by Trump judges and the Supreme Court. I know nobody believes it but there is unacceptable risk to the judiciary if it tries to steal an election that isn’t close. If it is close, though, all bets are off.
Not only is it important to defeat the orange man-baby but we must also address the damage the maga right have already done weakening our democracy by installing election deniers in county election offices, state election officials, even local school boards, etc. I believe the underlying “cancer” of unrest and chaos will not be eradicated by tfg’s defeat. His minions will work diligently for the next four years, to regroup and plan how and with whom they might succeed. There are too many JD Vance’s and Mark Robinsons in this country, who will not be deterred.
VOTE💙BLUE🇺🇸!!!
There has to be a way to bring considered accord with the vicious right. We must reach out with an olive branch, and find common ground, as we eventually did after our Civil War, to mend the fabric of our nation. There’s a great sickness that needs addressing in our society. Hatred will not prevail, unless we surrender to it, and feed the beast. Vote blue and reason with your neighbor.
I’d like to shove this post into Bret Stephens’ face. I’m no fan of Bill Maher anymore, but check out the clip of the interchange between Stephens and Stephanie Rule. He is such an ass
x.com/PettyLupone/status/18373379804675…
Stephens is a first class jerk. And I can do without Maher. He has simply become obnoxiously provocative, often lacking any definable ideology.
Ed and Joan Bailey are very pessimistic. Bo Bowley seems to think we "mend[ed] the fabric of our nation" after the Civil War. It's better than it was before the Civil War, but we have a long way to go. I agree with Paula Simmons and Mark about Stephens. Maher does have an ideology, Mark. It's a slightly different version of that of whom Joan Bailey calls the "orange man-baby:" his ideology is himself. And just as with the "orange man-baby," he is most certainly obnoxiously provocative, just as you say, Mark.