HomeUncategorized10/30 News Roundup & Open Thread – How AOC’s Endorsement Is Impacting Bernie in Polls, Kyle Kulinski Chats With Joe Rogan & More

Leave a Reply

Photo and Image Files
Audio and Video Files
Other File Types
112 Comment threads
83 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
magsviewpolarbear4orlbucfanwi61Torabs Recent comment authors

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

newest oldest most voted
Notify of


Is a candidate a centrist? This question matters because many voters like to think of themselves as moderates or centrists. Other voters, not heavily engaged in the political process, are responsive to labels. Therefore the candidate who captures the label in the eyes of the corporate media has a leg up. But before accepting media designations more careful scrutiny of the candidate and the historical context is in order. The question of who is a centrist should be broken down. How do the views of the candidate stack up against grass roots perspectives, consensus views within the beltway, and historic or international norms.

By these standards the Republican Party is as extreme as any major party in our history. Given the unpopularity of its views not surprisingly it has ceased any pretense of practicing parliamentary democracy. And recognizing its own isolation many members of the party are willing to countenance any available means to hold power and promote its agenda. Applying comparable standards one can reasonably conclude that the Sanders campaign stands well within the confines of earlier democratic reform movements.

Sanders wants to increase the benefits that lifetime low-income workers will receive so that they’ll be higher than the national poverty level. He would finance the provisions by increases in taxation of the income above the current Social Security tax cap.

This of course brings up the question of the popularity of the Social Security system itself and of progressive taxation. Here once again Sanders is not the radical extremist. It is the Republican Party that has abandoned the center. The party has abandoned even its own voters.


Disappointing. I wonder what Krasner thinks of Bernie’s plans on economic justice. Possibly Krasner is ambitious and believes Warren has a better chance to win, and an early endorsement might give him a better chance at a federal job in a Warren Administration. Also the Philadelphia political heavyweights seem to be getting behind Warren, which is bad news for Biden in his birth state. Philadelphia is also very close to Delaware and where he has his campaign offices.


Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has picked up another major Philadelphia endorsement after the city’s district attorney announced his support of her campaign.

Larry Krasner, considered one of the country’s so-called progressive prosecutors, issued the endorsement in a Wednesday morning news release in which he highlighted the Massachusetts senator’s focus on economic justice, and said her message dovetails with the issues of race and criminal justice reform.

“She’s been very, very clear that she understands the direct connection between racism and law enforcement in communities of color and its consequences, in terms of a discriminatory and disproportionate use of jail cells, and prosecutions, and legal resources against people of color,” Krasner said.

An endorsement video from Kasner showed him discussing criminal justice reform with Warren, who backed the “notion that we should be spending a whole lot less money on locking people up and a whole lot more money on lifting people up.”

The district attorney’s endorsement follows Mayor Jim Kenney’s own endorsement of Warren a week earlier.

Along the way, Krasner has received endorsements from progressive organizations like Our Revolution, which backed his campaign for office in 2017. The group, which recruits progressive candidates and helps them run for office, famously backed Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a democratic socialist who last year unseated an incumbent Democrat in New York’s 14th District.

Krasner pointed to Warren’s own progressive credentials as he issued his endorsement.

“I’m endorsing Elizabeth Warren because her plans fundamentally change how we address crime. She is trying to make our system fair, Krasner said. “… She is here to serve the interests of working people, middle-class people, and poor people. It’s clear to me that this is also about criminal justice — it’s two sides of the same coin. It’s not just words, it is actions.”


It appears as if Krasner failed to read Bernie”s policies on crime.


bummer! wth. I wonder if Bernie’s Camp needs to do a little more diplomatic reaching out to some of these people that seem naturals for him


Can’t get them all. But I am surprised.

Having said that, he fits Warren’s demographic. Bernie is truly building a diverse coalition.


I don’t like this either. Philly’s Berniecrats need to make some noise.


That is disappointing. Where has Warren been on criminal justice reform for all of these years? Personally, I didn’t see her there.

Do you remember this interview? She was evasive, vague and seemingly unprepared.



I think of this scene whenever I am forced to reckon with the wisdom of Nate Silver, the baseball statistician-cum-polling analyst turned Twitter pundit. Silver is by no means a communist; he’s not even a leftist. He presents himself as a kind of libertarian, and like so many tedious, self-styled iconoclasts, I suspect he would call himself “fiscally conservative, socially liberal.” He has, at various points, expressed support for Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and even the two-time third-party candidate Gary Johnson.

Increasingly, one suspects that despite his claims to analytical rigor, at some very basic level, Silver does not actually know what a poll is. He is not alone in this; a fair portion of the country’s political punditry and opinion-making class is equally misinformed. In their conception, polls of opinion and sentiment represent not a snapshot of the present as informed by the past, but rather a hazy but prescient view into the future; not a measurement, but a prediction. “[Y]ou can actually write down what will happen in the future, with as much confidence as you write down the history of the past. Because it’s science!” This is why so much media discourse around polling emphasizes a framework that paints polls of present attitudes as a form of absolute constraint on where sentiment will go.

But even as Silver continues to present himself as an analytically rigorous alternative to the entrails-reading punditry of the “Morning Joe” variety, he also has shown an increasing affinity for precisely that brand of unquantifiable storytelling and third-scotch-at-the-hotel-bar pontificating for which his original project was supposed to be a remedy. During a recent round of the never-ending free speech debates, he opined that “false statements of fact” aren’t protected by the First Amendment, eliciting howling derision from the lawyers in the cloud. Just this week, he logged on to complain, after Trump was—entirely predictably, and without polling!—booed by a crowd at a Washington National’s baseball game on the same day he’d announced that the U.S. had supposedly killed the alleged leader of Islamic State, that “many Libs can’t even permit Trump to have *one good day* … after US forces kill perhaps the world’s most wanted terrorist.” (He has since issued a tweet suggesting, unconvincingly, that he was trolling.) It’s a curious stance from a man who claims, among other self-imposed limits and constraints, that his empirical models deliberately seek to ignore those major public events that move—usually briefly—opinions about politics and events. To use Silver’s preferred turn of phrase, isn’t one good day just more “noise”?


That guy Nate seems out of touch and he credibility severely damaged. I’m thinking less and less people will be listening to his opinions on anything going forward.

Skip to toolbar