HomeUncategorized12/27 News Roundup & Open Thread
avatar
Photo and Image Files
 
 
 
Audio and Video Files
 
 
 
Other File Types
 
 
 
39 Comment threads
40 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
11 Comment authors
Spring TexanBennypolarbear4EyeRoundmagsview Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
jcitybone

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/12/27/beyond-repulsive-outrage-after-trump-dhs-secretary-blames-parents-and-open-borders

As human rights groups, Democratic lawmakers, and the United Nations demanded an independent probe into the deaths of two Guatemalan children in U.S. Border Patrol custody, President Donald Trump’s Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen sparked outrage on Wednesday by declaring that “open borders” advocates and the kids’ “own parents”—not Trump’s inhumane treatment of immigrants—are to blame.

“Our system has been pushed to a breaking point by those who seek open borders,” Nielsen said in a statement just hours after eight-year-old Felipe Alonzo-Gomez died in U.S. custody on Christmas day. “Smugglers, traffickers, and their own parents put these minors at risk by embarking on the dangerous and arduous journey north.”

Nielsen, who signed off on the Trump administration’s internationally condemned family separation policy, was immediately denounced for attempting to deflect attention and blame away from the White House’s anti-immigrant agenda.

orlbucfan

Happy New Year’s Eve LD/JD and fellow TPWERS! LD: need updated snail mail donation info as I avoid PayPal. Thanks! Signed the Petition. The Turd Way/DLCraporate factions are definitely worried about us. Their media isn’t our main source of info now either. I hope this momentum keeps building. The reality of Climate Change makes it beyond imperative. 2019 will be active! T and R to the usual excellent TPW suspects!!

humphrey

He just can’t stop being a DICK!

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/422952-trump-most-of-the-people-not-getting-paid-in-shutdown-are-democrats

President Trump early Thursday resumed his feud with Democrats on Capitol Hill over funding for a border wall, claiming that most of the hundreds of thousands of federal employees furloughed or forced to work without pay due to a partial government shutdown are Democrats.

“Have the Democrats finally realized that we desperately need Border Security and a Wall on the Southern Border. Need to stop Drugs, Human Trafficking, Gang Members & Criminals from coming into our Country,” he tweeted.

jcitybone

This is a good thing.

The most surprising thing about the list though is that Kamala Harris nearly matches Bernie in % of <$200 donors. Bernie is at 74.71% while Harris is at 74.43%. Next in line are Warren (63.19%), Merkley (62.86%), and Beto (45.89%). Gillibrand, Brown, Booker, and Klobuchar range from the low 30s down to the low 20s in that order. Biden the only one whose figures are not from a Senate campaign is about 34%

https://theintercept.com/2018/12/27/dnc-primary-grassroots-fundraising/

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE Chair Tom Perez is setting a kind of cover charge to get onstage for the Democratic presidential primary debates, but not just any money will do. In addition to the usual polling metrics required to join the debate, candidates will also have to meet a to-be-determined criteria for “grassroots fundraising.”

Including small-dollar fundraising as a necessary element for debate participation would have two effects. First, it incentivizes candidates to invest — strategically, financially, and emotionally — in growing a small-donor base. Second, it will force potential billionaire self-funders like Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, and Howard Schultz to demonstrate some level of popular enthusiasm for their campaigns, meaning they can’t just flash their own cash and buy their way onstage.

This is a remarkable decision for any political party, and it reflects a growing shift in how campaigns are run and won. It also previews what will be an important way to measure the success of candidates in the Democratic primary: not just looking at how much money candidates raise, but how much of their money comes from small-dollar donors.

A word of caution before getting too excited about the idea of “grassroots fundraising” being a new standard for whether Democratic Party sanctions candidates: The only way it will be a meaningful metric is if the party defines it as how much of a candidate’s money comes from people donating $200 or less, which is the federal definition of an “unitemized,” or small-dollar, contribution. This dividing line is a useful way to understand the amount of money a candidate can raise from people who don’t necessarily have $200 of disposable income for political contributions, but who still feel compelled to donate.

Of course, candidates try to use a looser definition to make their grassroots support seem more impressive than it actually is, most commonly by touting how many of their contributions came from $200 or less. A candidate can say that 90 percent of their contributions came from small-dollar donors, but that means 90 people contributed $1 each and 10 people contributed $2,700 each, then 99.6 percent of the candidate’s money came from big-dollar donors.

It’s not easy raising money from small-dollar donors. Only two of the 435 members of the House of Representatives elected in 2018 raised the majority of their money from small dollars: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and John Lewis. Just eight more representatives pulled in 31 percent or more of their money from the grassroots.

Of the potential 2020 contenders who have filed federal fundraising reports, only four — Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.; Kamala Harris, D-Calif.; Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.; and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. — have raised the majority of their money in the current election cycle from small-dollar donors. Beto O’Rourke is right behind, with $36.8 million, or 45 percent, of his money coming from the grassroots. (In absolute terms, his record-breaking haul puts him well in first place, whereas Merkley’s 63 percent only netted him $2.2 million.)

wi60

Hang on to your donor list Bernie, that will be a call to arms when you run and show the DNC how powerful your small donor base really is. I expect it to grow over all as more younger voters will join and over come the ones that may drop off.

magsview

Yes, I remember when Hillary’s campaign got the bright idea to ask for of $1 donations. Then there was that ‘Woman Card’ which I think you could get for as low as $10 (now on sale for only $5 on Ebay).

Hillary Clinton Asks For One Dollar Donations To Lower Embarrassingly High Donor Average

orlbucfan

Harris is a bad joke. Someones are playing footsies with her donations.

Spring Texan

Yep. Some funny business going on there I think.

magsview

For a little bit of closing bell humor:

polarbear4

Benny

Obviously Gallup didn’t look at our Nest to which of the following we admire around here:

The top 10 most admired men were:
Barack Obama – 19 percent
Donald Trump – 13 percent
George W. Bush – 2 percent
Pope Francis – 2 percent
Bill Gates- 1 percent
Bernie Sanders – 1 percent
Bill Clinton – 1 percent
Dalai Lama – 1 percent
Joe Biden – 1 percent
Elon Musk – 1 percent

More about the Most Admired Annual Poll:

Gallup points out two noticeable absences from this year’s list – Sen. John McCain and Rev. Billy Graham, both of whom passes away this year. McCain finished in the top 10 six times, while Graham had more top 10 finishes than any other person, a record 61 times. Graham was in the top 10 every year from 1955 through 2017, with the exception of 1962. Graham never finished first, but he was second eight times, most recently in 1999.

jcitybone

Two anti-Bernie articles

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2018/12/six-reasons-bernie-sanders-has-lost-his-2016-mojo.html

In 2016 Senator Bernie Sanders was a reasonably close runner-up to Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination. By losing that contest he also evaded the blame for an unexpected loss to Donald Trump, and was also able to keep his political organization intact beyond election day. With the retirement of Barack Obama, moreover, Sanders looked suddenly prescient in taking left-bent policy positions that the president did not share but was no longer in a position to proscribe. And his most intense following in the primaries was among young voters that you’d expect to have bonded with him like baby ducks, following him henceforth as their political hero.

But as the 2020 presidential contest begins to unfold, Bernie Sanders is something of an afterthought, if not quite a has-been. Instead of initially clearing the field of major rivals like Hillary Clinton did in her return to the campaign trail after finishing second to Barack Obama in 2008, Sanders faces a historically large list of competitors if he runs. In scattered national polling, he’s mired in the teens, well below Joe Biden and barely leading Beto O’Rourke. He’s not doing much better in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire, where he invested so much time and so many resources in 2016. He had a mixed record at best in the candidates that he and the Our Revolution organization he founded decided to back in the 2018 midterms.

As the New York Times suggests, Sanders seems to have lost his mojo:

“Mr. Sanders may have been the runner-up in the last Democratic primary, but instead of expanding his nucleus of support, in the fashion of most repeat candidates, the Vermont senator is struggling to retain even what he garnered two years ago, when he was far less of a political star than he is today.”

What’s happened to Sanders? I would cite six factors contributing to the decline in his support:

Benny

Add the MSM as a CC:

Dear Dem Party 2020.jpg
orlbucfan

(Snort!) 🙁

jcitybone

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/claire-mccaskill-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-interviews-abortion.html

McCaskill’s theory of electable moderation—and her belittling of those who contravene it—betrays a vision of leadership that’s massively ill-equipped for the challenges and threats of today’s political climate. In an interview with a Bloomberg reporter who once called her “the best Democratic senator,” McCaskill touted “a bill that brought down the price of hearing aids” as one of her major accomplishments that “nobody wrote about.” By contrast, she said, “There is so much drama over that New York woman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, like she’s the new shining object. … And some of us are passing good old-fashioned bills, and we get nothing. Gimme a break!” Reducing hearing aid costs might save elderly and disabled Americans a few hundred dollars each, a great service to vulnerable populations who absolutely deserve a spot on any elected official’s priority list. But politicians who laud incremental, bipartisan, widely popular accomplishments while scoffing at more-sweeping, riskier legislative goals that could do far more good have no right to be angry when advocates for those goals are hailed as the future of a political party. In all her condescending remarks about Ocasio-Cortez—including those about the importance of working-class whites and their jobs—McCaskill never once responded to the incoming legislator’s vision for a Green New Deal, a package of policies that would simultaneously address two of the country’s most pressing issues, climate change and economic disparities. It’s the kind of jobs-focused policy idea you’d think McCaskill would support if she’d been able to see past the rhetoric (talk about cheap!) of the right.

If McCaskill thinks it’s unfair that the media is more excited about a gutsy, grassroots-y newcomer with big ideas than it is about a hearing aid price-reduction bill, she might take the opportunity to extrapolate it into a lesson about what motivates voters. Those she encountered at her meet-and-greets might have said they cared most about policies that affect their prescription drug prices and health care, but Missouri’s voting record says otherwise. If Republicans and moderates voted based on practical policy and legislative priorities, they wouldn’t have elected, by a margin of more than 18 points, a lying grifter with no political experience and an unwillingness to absorb basic facts about the economy. If their priority was health care, they wouldn’t have gone for a Senate candidate from the party that’s spent the past several years trying to shred the Affordable Care Act. Voters need a vision, a bold plan for change, and, yes, rhetoric as much as they need small policy wins. Trump and his supporters, including Sen.-elect Hawley, have been willing to exploit the racist fears of the electorate to promote their vision of a “great” America. It’s despicable, galling, and terrifying for anyone who cares about the future of the nation. But it’s not the progressives’ fault.

polarbear4

Skip to toolbar