HomeUncategorized8/12 News Roundup and OT

83
Leave a Reply

avatar
Photo and Image Files
 
 
 
Audio and Video Files
 
 
 
Other File Types
 
 
 
38 Comment threads
45 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
BennyDon midwestwi63evepolarbear4 Recent comment authors

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

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
LieparDestin

DNC members grow frustrated over increasing White House influence

Democratic National Committee (DNC) members are growing increasingly frustrated by the White House’s influence on their political operation, causing friction between aides to President Biden and the leading party organization promoting its agenda.

Regular interactions between an aligned administration and party-level figures are common. But the amount of participation from top Biden allies has been significant so early into the president’s first term and has happened before some committee-wide decisions have been settled internally.

For some within the DNC, it’s all just a little too much too soon.

“People are super frustrated in the trenches around what’s happening with the DNC and the White House’s control of it,” said a DNC member, who asked to speak on the condition of anonymity to candidly discuss the internal dynamics at play.

“The White House is not thinking about how to build the electorate writ large, but they’re concentrating on [a] few states,” the source said. “It’s all about [the] presidential re-elect.”

The strong footprint from Biden’s inner circle is becoming an annoyance for some within the DNC structure who argue the White House is attempting to mount a reelection effort at a time when state members are trying to build an infrastructure to last well beyond the next presidential cycle.

That omnipresence has left the impression that Biden, 78, is “clearly posturing” to run again in 2024, said a second well-placed and seasoned DNC member, with little discussion about any other prospects to replace him.

“What’s happening is a bit of a split within the DNC between ‘Team Biden’ and people who are trying to run an election cycle,” added the first DNC member.

“I think that Jaime Harrison is definitely caught in the middle of this,” the source said.

A third DNC member described Harrison as being “hamstrung” and cited an overall frustration about the committee’s “inability to implement even basic changes” including certain policy priorities like reinstating the Obama-era ban on corporate donations. 

orlbucfan

How about eliminating the entire DNC/ Turd Way for starters?

Aint Supposed to Die A Natural Death
Aint Supposed to Die A Natural Death

Oiyee. smdh

orlbucfan

T and R, Ms. Benny!! ☮️😊👍

LieparDestin

Sure wish tiktok vids would embed

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMRJu9Lmj/

(Worth the watch to the end)

LieparDestin
jcitybone

Interesting article about the problems with Nina’s campaign. She had sufficient resources but the campaign probably didn’t spend wisely.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/nina-turner-ohio-special-election/

Nina Turner has been criticized for a lot of things in the wake of her loss in the Cleveland, Ohio, special election last week. The conventional wisdom is that her politics were too leftist, and that she was too confrontational, to win in a time when Biden-like moderate politics are the order of the day. Those takes are nonsense; the race was eminently winnable. If there is a single critical mistake Turner made, it was placing her campaign in the hands of strategists who squandered her financial firepower on ineffective and ill-conceived expenditures.

I grew up in Cleveland; former Representative Marcia Fudge attended my grandfather’s church; and I’ve known and supported Turner since her 2014 run for Ohio secretary of state. (She was a guest on my podcast two weeks ago.)

Looking through Turner’s spending reports, it’s clear that the people who ran her campaign defaulted to the typical playbook of putting far more money into television and digital ads than into the nitty-gritty work of getting people to cast ballots.

This strategic blunder is especially egregious because the formula for winning special elections, which are typically low-turnout affairs, is to focus on that humble work. That’s how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez prevailed in her 2018 upset win. Her communications coordinator, Corbin Trent, explained that their campaign strategy identified a universe of 75,000 potential supporters, and “then we knocked on their doors, we sent them mail, we knocked on their doors again, we called them.

That is the path to victory—knocking on doors, calling people, identifying supporters, and then getting those supporters to the polls. It is simple in concept, yet challenging in execution. And it is made more challenging to pull off in the realm of professional politics, because it is meticulous, nonglamorous, and not profitable for consultants. Developing and running television and digital ads is far easier than hiring, training, and tracking dozens of volunteers going door to door. A get-out-the-vote operation isn’t cheap, either. But when you have more than $4 million, it is eminently achievable.

But Turner’s team squandered the bulk of her money, spending nearly $2 million of the $3.7 million expenditures on television and digital ads, according to the mid-July filing with the Federal Election Commission. (Ocasio-Cortez’s 2018 campaign, by contrast, spent no money at all on television ads, according to their FEC report.) There is scant evidence in the FEC filings of any meaningful Turner campaign resources going to canvassing and voter turnout: The category for GOTV lists just $5,000 in expenditures.

Had Turner’s team focused on funding teams of canvassers and phone bankers to identify supporters and then encourage those supporters to cast their ballots, she would almost certainly have secured the 38,000 votes necessary to win. In their benchmark study on get-out-the-vote efforts, Yale professors Donald Green and Alan Gerber quantified the costs, and The New York Times summarizedtheir findings, writing, “Door-to-door canvassing, though expensive, yields the most votes. As a rule of thumb, one additional vote is cast from each 14 people contacted. That works out to somewhere between $7 and $19 a vote, depending on the pay of canvassers…. Canvassers who matched the ethnic profile of their assigned neighborhoods were more successful.” Green and Gerber updated their findings in the 2019 edition of their book, reaffirming the efficacy of canvassing, while upping the cost per vote to roughly $33 per vote secured. By those metrics, Turner’s $4 million could have yielded something like 121,000 votes in a race where she needed 38,000 to win.

The people who were responsible for spending the biggest chunks of the Turner campaign were consultants from the white-run firms Canal Partners Media, Aisle 518 Strategies, and Devine, Mulvey, Longabaugh. The political director was Trevor Elkins, a white man from small, largely white Cleveland suburb. Who among these folks had the relationships, experience, or network to hire dozens of local residents and run a full-fledged canvassing operation in the Black neighborhoods of that district where nearly 300,000 African American voters live?

This is the most urgent lesson from Turner’s defeat. The United States is in the middle of a modern-day Civil War, with the neo-Confederate forces having taken over the Republican Party and unleashed an aggressive assault on democracy and the very notion that America is anything but a white nation. Too many in the Democratic Party hierarchy fail to appreciate the nature of this battle and accordingly underinvest in leaders of color who will be fierce fighters for justice. The Sanders movement has the potential to embrace and elevate the kinds of leaders who will take the fight to the right, but opportunities will be lost if campaigns are run by consultants who lack the cultural competency and commitment required to win elections in communities of color.

jcitybone

It will be interesting to see how much the “moderates” can cut before Bernie refuses to play ball.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/08/11/bernie-sanders-muses-3-5-trillion-bill-and-hurdles-ahead/5549910001/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatoday-newstopstories

Bernie Sanders stands at the fringe no more.

The quirky independent from Vermont, once seen as more likely to lead a protest than pass a law, was at center stage early Wednesday when the Senate approved a historic $3.5 trillion budget blueprint. If congressional Democrats can hold together – and that is no small “if” – Sanders will have been one of the key architects of the biggest expansion of America’s social safety net since FDR.

He sounds just a little surprised about that journey himself.

“Ideas that I talked about when I ran for president in 2016, five years ago, were considered radical, like ‘Medicare for All’ or boldly addressing climate change or making sure that children had quality, affordable child care or demanding that the wealthy and large corporations are paying their fair share of taxes,” Sanders told USA TODAY in an exclusive interview a few hours after the vote, hardly pausing for breath, unwilling to leave any priority unmentioned.

Now, he said, “those have really become mainstream.

Sanders’ role in bringing that all about is notable not only because he chairs the Senate Budget Committee. Through a 40-year political career and two credible presidential campaigns, in 2016 and 2020, he has been the loudest and most persistent voice in pulling the Democratic Party to the left.

Over the decades, he hasn’t changed his label – he was calling himself a democratic Socialist before other ambitious politicians would have dared – or his open admiration for the governments of Scandinavia. But in the past year, since Democrats regained Senate control and seniority made him chair of one of Capitol Hill’s most powerful panels, he has adjusted some of his strategy and tactics.

“When you’re outside, running for office, that’s one thing,” he said. “When you’re a chairman of a committee in the Senate, where you have the members in the Democratic caucus, obviously, you know, your role changes.”

For instance, he declined to take a shot at West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin or Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, Democrats who have called the budget price tag too high. That guarantees a conflict with progressives, especially in the House of Representatives, who complain that $3.5 trillion is just barely enough.

Even Sanders originally proposed a budget bill of $6 trillion, but now he is careful not to draw any lines in the sand.

“People have got to appreciate we are not operating with a significant majority,” he said. “(Speaker) Nancy Pelosi has three or four votes in the House, zero votes to spare in the Senate. So we are operating with the thinnest possible majority, and it’s going to require an enormous amount of work to bring people together who have different points of view.”

The budget plan is breathtaking in its scope. It calls for tuition-free pre-kindergarten and community college, paid family leave and child tax credits, and expanded Medicare benefits for seniors. Provisions would encourage clean energy and address climate change. With Republican opposition expected to be solid, Democrats’ task of first drafting the massive bill and then passing it will be daunting.

Sanders suggested he could play a part in persuading restive progressives, a group with whom he is familiar, to make the deals necessary to get the bill passed. “I am absolutely confident that while we fight to get as strong a package as we can, at the end of the day I think all of us will recognize that we are in the process of bringing forth transformative legislation,” he said.

orlbucfan

Yahoos like Sinema won’t be re-elected. Plus, Bernie is looking at 80 soon.

polarbear4

oh great. no action taken and now it’s too late. wth

magsview

Do you mean “no action taken” on gerrymandering?

I just saw this on the Dan Crenshaw trending twitter thread:

Sometimes I’m not sure if Dems fail to act because:

a) they’re bought
b) they’re lazy
c) they’re afraid to take those tools Repubs use to such great advantage away in case they (Dems) want to use those tools themselves at some point down the road..so hypocritical cowards?

I suppose they could just be inept.

I’m certainly over how Dems complain about the issue but never seem to do anything about it.

polarbear4

yes and thank you. grrrrr.

Aint Supposed to Die A Natural Death
Aint Supposed to Die A Natural Death

My answer is a)

polarbear4
polarbear4

m2. lol

polarbear4

thanks so much, liberals.

polarbear4


@wi63 i can never remember the number, wi.

magsview

I love Dr Kazoo, one of my favorite follows. Mixes humor with info, and very personable for such a large account.

But this made me nervous for orl-please be careful orl!

orlbucfan

I still follow the COVID precautions I read about 2 years ago. I am so disgusted and fed up with the lies and deliberate unreliable info courtesy of state government. 🤮💩

polarbear4

magsview