Single-issue radicals are not practical: They will say that if Harris/Walz loses, it will have taught the Democratic party a lesson. And that the disaster that follows will pave the way (in some nihilistic fantasy chain of events that would make even Karl Marx blush) to a new glorious day of Palestinian self-determination. One other thing: Just like Trumpians, they go after the 'heretics' of their own party with much more vitriol than they go after the other side.
Agreed, they are allowing their emotion to get the better of themselves, and they want their pound of flesh, regardless of the fact that Biden didn’t start the war.
I’ve tried to reach some of them; telling them that Trump would make it demonstrably worse, giving Netanyahu Carte Blanche to completely level Gaza and force millions into refugee camps in neighboring Arab states.
Of course, it always falls on deaf ears. They’re fine with throwing out the baby with the bathwater…:)
Definitions need to change based on new patterns of bad behavior. There wasn't such a thing as genocide until the word was retrospectively created in the light of World War II. It's pretty hard to kill 30,000 civilians, most of them by virtually indiscriminate bombing, and it not be genocide. The definition will catch up with the evil.
You are relying on statements made by Hamas, who are far better at propaganda than warfare. They still haven't discriminated civilian casualties from military, which is a tell. And no one employing expensive weapons does so indiscriminately: the question is whether their deliberate choices do or do not violate the law of war. If the IDF were bent on genocide, they all would be dead already.
Genocide is trying to systematically wipe out an ethnic or religious group. Like the Holocaust. There still are fewer Jews in the world than before the Holocaust. That’s genocide.
So the allies committed genocide when they firebombed the Germans and Japanese? It was harsh, perhaps misguided, but to call it genocide robs the term of all meaning.
The radical left and radical right share a trait of blurring definitions in order to get people riled up. In fact, I'd suggest (though I cannot prove) that the tendency to be imprecise in definitions is a telltale sign that the movement doing this is demagogic and, in the end, antidemocratic. Trump set about to redefine 'fake news' for example. All of the sudden mainstream media were the enemy of the people.
I believe Colleen, I believe these folks are so bummed out by the callousness of Israel toward human life that they have become monomaniacal. Meaning there's only one thing they can think about. Everything else falls by the wayside. I'm two thirds of the way there myself, but I have to balance the evil of Israel against the evil of Trump. BTW, the PETA people are also monomaniacal.
Americans are just as callous toward (non-American) human life as Israel... and this is not just an American or Israeli thing. Humans can be astoundingly callous towards anyone seen as Other.
It isn't a bug, but a feature.
One of the hallmarks of higher civilization/culture is that we struggle against that natural tendency at times. But when push comes to shove, the Other gets shoved, with as much regret (usually) as a cat has for shoving something off the edge of the table to watch it fall.
We literally burned down Japan and Germany during WW2. The "conventional" firebombing raids killed more people than the atomic bombs. We killed a lot of French people in the lead up to the Normandy invasions and destroyed a lot of French property. We killed, directly or indirectly a LOT of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I do not point this out to say that we are evil because of that. However, it does show that we are human... and we often kinda, sorta feel bad about it afterwards (even if that doesn't actually change things or no real restitution is made).
There are a lot of things to be bummed out about in life. Unfortunately it is usually difficult to do anything about those things.
When has there been a lasting peace? Maybe when the Roman army took charge of most of Europe. But at that time there were conflicts in Asia. Now, the difference is we study history and we are supposed to have learned something such as wars only lead to more wars. The only way to create a lasting peace is when the victor in the war helps rebuild the loser, as the US did after WW II. That’s what Israel is refusing to promise to do.
For the first time in many years, I believe there are savvy people in the Democratic leadership. I'm pretty confident that the Harris/Walz campaign and the Chicago mayor's office who have been doing some intelligent planning about this.
Technically I'm a single-issue voter. This year at least. No other issues will matter if the party that endorses the "big lie" returns to power, now minus all the "guardrails" (Kelly, Mattis, Bolton, even Pence & Barr). The GOP is now a literal cult, that demands that their "leader" not be held accountable for the insurrection, election interference, and stealing classified documents. Imagine what all those "protectors" - who are prepared to steal this election too, and don't even pretend otherwise - would do if given another chance.
Touche. I and a number of Republicans and ex-Republicans are single issue voters in that respect. I'm not able to formulate an appropriate response yet :)
Agree. No issue matters except defeating Trump. When that is done, they can be productively active about the US policy toward Israel. Peter Beinart has a good piece in the NYT on this. He says KH should simply pledge now that she will follow the law, specifically the Leahy Law [1997] that prohibits the US from "assisting any unit of a foreign security force that commits ‘gross violations’ of human rights". It has never been applied to Israel, even though Israel has been charged with human rights violations, certainly by the vigilantes in the West Bank.
A party's radicals typically loathe their own party's moderates more than they do another party. MAGA members hate Never Trump Republicans with the fire of a thousand suns.
Never Trumpers might be moderate in tone, but we're certainly not more moderate on policy. MAGA people are quite often to the left of Never Trumpers, advocating more and bigger government. Bill Kristol is hardly a moderate. Neither is George Will or George Conway. The people who are most dedicated to conservative political principles tend to be the ones most anti-MAGA.
I remember coming out of college and going to Republican meetings. While I was a Republican due to the conservative beliefs I had developed in college, I was shocked to find so many Republicans had no strong convictions. Rather, to them, it was "Republicans Good, Democrats Bad." It is those Republicans, people not driven by political ideology, who are the most fervent supporters of Trump and MAGA.
The activists equate “being seen” with “ridding the world of evil.” Which is ridiculous. There was some truth to it back in the day when our information sources were 3 network news channels and the local newspaper, and you had to create a scene to make the cut for those 4 sources. Now? They just look ridiculous and erode support for the very cause they say they support. It’s selfish behavior, honestly.
Sure, that makes sense. I meant more of our modern impulse to assume social media is real life. I think those protestors are more interested in a performance than engaging in the messy reality of politics. If they were cognizant of that reality, I think they’d realize how much they help Trump and other aspiring demagogues on the right.
Before the Civil War, abolitionists were often accused of helping slave owners because of their extremist views. Single issue activists eventually can move the world. People, like me, who compromised seldom do
Doesn’t it trivialize American slavery to compare it with a foreign country’s excessive response to a terrorist attack? It is perverse for immigrants to chant “death to America” over American military aid.
A great analysis. Neotoddlerism is a very apt term, capturing very well many protests we've been seeing lately. However I will not dismiss ALL protests as neotoddlerism. The big civil rights demonstrations and marches of the 60s were non-violent, non-destructive, impactful actions. And in our day, there should be no objection to any orderly march or demonstration, non-obstructive, with civil language, whether the issue is Gaza, climate change, police brutality, whatever. and whether one agrees or not with the positions being taken But we don't see much of that in the US these days. Nevertheless, I am a more than a bit troubled by the idea of some folks that all protesters today (and maybe in Eric Hoffer's day too) are motivated by boredom, or have empty lives they are seeking to provide with meaning through passionate hatred of some group, or are just getting together noisily and seeking attention, or have other primarily ignoble motivations. There are people with consciences who are genuinely distressed by what is happening in Gaza, there are people who understand the workings of the natural world who recognize we are indeed heading toward a type of ecological catastrophe. I confess to being one of the latter. I would participate in an action that was orderly, non-destructive and used only civil language IF I could see that it might actually have some impact. In February 2003 I went to NYC with husband and daughter to join the march to the UN against the war against Iraq that President Bush was about to launch. My daughter and I also participated in the 2014 climate march in NYC. In both cases I hoped that sheer numbers of participants might affect decisions and policy. That did not happen, and I have not participated in any marches since then. For people who, as I said, are genuinely distressed by government or societal behavior they see as very immoral or just very bad in a practical way for humanity, what effective actions are available to individuals? I ponder this but have no good answer.
There does seem to be a meeting of the minds between the two extremes on certain issues—particularly the Israel-Palestine issue. Extreme Netanyahu allies and extreme Hamas supporters shake hands on the desire to have a general cataclysm in the region where one side or the other emerges victorious over the ruins.
At least one Palestinian-American I know is voting for Trump because he wants the Great Carpet Bombing you mention to happen—he imagines it will be less frustrating than seeing Dems support Israel. Really. :/
Netanyahu, as I recall, propped up Hamas in Gaza because he wanted them to serve as evidence that Palestinians couldn’t be trusted. Some Palestinians in the West Bank toasted with coffee when Netanyahu won the PM because it would show the world that Israelis couldn’t be trusted. They seem to deserve each other.
Extrapolate that lunacy to pro-Trump leftists in the U.S. It makes sense, in a bonkers way. :/
I do not believe that protests accomplish much these days, other than grab some attention for the protestors--and the way things tend to work thee days, that attention generally seems to be negative.
IOW, protesting, especially if it is near-violent or violent or generally disruptive, tends to be a net negative.
Regardless of how important you believe your cause to be, there are likely just as many people who either do not care or oppose you. Probably actually more. TBH, I do not think that there are really a lot of Americans (especially older Americans) that actually care about what happens to the Palestinians in other than the vague abstract.
And when you disript things (espeically their lives) over such a thing, they do NOT like it. It doesn't move them to change, it moves them to be against your cause.
As pointed out, proptests had more effect when they were more curated (because one of the big three had to decide to give it oxygen).
If you want results, buy some politicians. That's what works. That's how our system works. The problem is that politicians can be expensive and they do not always stay bought.
Ironic isn't it... In a weird way I almost think that these protests against Harris can be a positive to draw a clear line between her and these protestors. It will be difficult for R's to paint her as a Palestinian protestor sympathizer when they're calling her "Killer Kamala"
i want to stop the war for a different purpose, a fact that most here fail to grasp[&the effect israelis economy is tanking],is iran is bent on retaliation for the israeli assassination in its capital of a guest of its newly elected leader..they have said they will not retaliate if a ceasefire deal is agreed...we might have a week to settle that[if ever]if no deal, their attack goes ahead, and if any israelis are killed[highly likely] then israel are gonna retaliate even harder[they are not listening to biden now]....and iran is gonna do the same? would i prefer a ceasefire here or would i want a middle eastern war with american troops[even uk troops] involved ? No...and for america, its a winner for trump, for he could announce biden and the democrats are weak, want war, and that he didnt bring war for the american people because he is strong?[sighs] , yes rage against the protestors for having different principles[although i sorta admire them a little for standing up for something they beleive in] ,for having a different mindset that they think that protesting changes things, but ultimately if biden doesnt get a ceasefire here, then bibi and trump might be the only winners here ] :(
People are comparing Harris’ momentum to Obama’s in 2008. But this is different and more intense. People know that the stakes are greater now. Obama was running against McCain, who was a conservative and a very decent person. The symbolism of America having a Black president was great. The Harris candidacy is much less about her being a woman or Black than it is about having a competent, smart, honest, capable person as president. The contrast between her and a furious, hateful, intellectually limited Trump could not be greater. Everyone suspected that Biden would lose and the world would suffer. Now, we realize there is a strong movement that will change the direction of the entire 21st century. Either Harris wins or we go into 50 years of the dark ages. The momentum needs to carry us through.
"McCain....who was a conservative and very decent person"
I spent a couple of hours on FoxNews yesterday battling with MAGAs who think that Walz is practically a Benedict Arnold for retiring before his unit mobilized. I constantly brought up the disparity of Walz, who actually did serve, vs Trump who didn't serve and denigrated McCain by calling him not a hero. Most didn't respond at all, but one guy said..."McCain was a despicable guy anyway so it didn't matter"
This is what we're dealing with on the other side these days. The Left speaking more highly about McCain than the Right is.
There is always a fallacy on the GOP’s respect of the military. They elected W twice when facing two Vietnam War vets and destroyed former Senator Max Clelland in Georgia, who was a triple amputee. It has always been the messaging and not substance, and the media feeds this false narrative.
Exactly. Even if he knew of the deployment (which it's pretty clear he didn't), he had every right to retire instead of deploying overseas. The military could have overridden that decision if necessary. Nothing wrong with what Walz did. I'm more troubled by the apparent lies regarding his DUI arrest than I am the stolen valor nonsense.
Yeah, I saw the same thing online last week. The Right throwing McCain under the bus. I guess if they want to keep re-litigating his record, it's more of them wallowing in the past hits, and wallowing in an especially gross one.
Not doubting your comment, Griff, but I'm a Nam vet -medic, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment- and, had it not been for the Republican nomenklatura torpedoing McCain by leaning on him to put Sarah Palin on the ticket, I would have had a really tough decision to make in the voting booth. In a sense, this is also a response to Kate, and arguing that, in essence, the Right "threw McCain under the bus in '12 with its insistence on Palin.
I'm gratified to see how little the "first woman president," or "first Black/Indian woman president" identity play is being emphasized. I think that 's an old message, and the critical thing is to beat Trump and wound MAGA. Doing that with a woman, man, dog, or potted plant, doesn't matter. Not to compare Kamala Harris to dogs or potted plants, of course!
There's also some issues that transcend the racism and misogyny. Abortion, Project 2025, and the Trump/Vance ticket. Women are driving the vibe and that certainly isn't hurting Harris.
Very true, but the gender gap is concerning. Hopefully concern about the issues you mention and not overly focusing on firsts can keep some likely trump voting guys at home. I know several guys that will never vote for Harris, but maybe they'll stay home.
Jon Favreau had a great discussion with David Axelrod on PSA about the 2008 race. Summarized, McCain was a really good guy with good principles who’d have made a fine POTUS. He just wasn’t Obama.
I for one am looking forward to Tim Walt’s speech. You guys at the Bulwark need to nibble on a little crow over the Shapiro v Walz question. Where Shapiro reads as a politician, however talented, Walz’s folksy charm and Nebraska connection have been great for the campaign.
Musk is a dilettante who embodies an old saying: "If you have money, you are wise and good looking. And can sing well too". He's the Henry Ford of current times.
At least Henry Ford did really craft the modern way of building a car. Luckily his antisemitism did not influence America which was already somewhat antisemitic.
Another difference is that Ford had deeply held (albeit bigoted) beliefs. Musk just gets off on being a troll, breaking things, being 'edgy', wielding influence for its own sake, and indulging in casual cruelty (his reckless promoting of conspiracy theory concerning the attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband is a good example of the latter). When certain people have everything, they fill their lack of purpose with finding destructive ways to fill the holes in their souls.
Should be an uplifting convention, and unlike the GOP convention, I plan to watch this one. As for the protests, just keep it civil and let's not spark a backlash that gets a Republican elected like in 1968. That was a pretty major own goal that did nothing to shorten the war they were protesting.
I’m tempted to ask whether they really think our country was better off with Nixon as president than we would have been with Humphrey. But I worry the reply would be, “Who?”
Agreed Bill, you’re being a bit harsh. Although you make a compelling case as to why the conventions don’t really matter, this year is different. What we need to understand is that the normal standards don’t apply. Nine out of ten times you’d be correct, but this time is different; it’s an anomaly year, when most of this nation thought the election was lost to Trump.
Let’s remember, in 2020 Biden didn’t really win. No one was psyched at having Biden as the nominee, but we were all aligned in defeating Trump as the number one goal. Pragmatism won the day, and it is the same reason Biden isn’t on the ticket today.
We no longer felt he could win. No hard feelings to Biden (he outperformed as president), but Biden was given a choice; to be shown the door after his pathetic debate performance, or he would have been kicked through it. Thankfully, he chose wisely.
That said, by Biden passing the torch to a younger generation it signals hope and change; more so than in 2008 when the very fabric of our nation’s identity wasn’t on the menu. So there is a high degree of inspiration and passion that has permeated the party and the country for that matter.
Today is the beginning of the end of MAGA. Harris will shine, and the Democratic convention will outperform expectations. Every one knows what’s at stake. And thankfully, Trump will do most of the work after the convention for us.
Vote Blue this November and take this country back from all the cheap snake-oil charlatans that have infested our government…:)
Although puzzled by Klain and Anita Dunn spewing nonsense about the campaign, I for one believe Biden will be gracious and go all in for Harris because he is a statesman and a patriot. Also, he does not appear to be mad at Kamala, but is still upset at Pelosi, Obama and Schumer.
Agreed, and he also realizes if Trump wins, his legacy will be tarnished forever, as all his accomplishments will be null and void.
That said, after the entire party quickly coalesced around Harris, with such energy, inspiration and vigor, he understands that he made the right decision…::)
Ever since Joe re-announced I've wondered why at 80+years old Joe wanted to hold onto what is arguably the hardest and most demanding job in the world. Sure, power is an addiction, but at some point a person just wants to sit back and take it easy and have the biggest challenge of the day deciding what to have for dinner. For his own sake I hope Joe is sighing a big sigh of relief and saying to himself, "Christ, am I glad all that's finally over."
I'd hope so too, but I think we discount too easily the ego it takes to seriously seek out the Presidency, and then the ego boost one gets from winning. Trump's ego and pathologies overshadow everyone who has come before, but they ALL have very strong egos which have been fed for years and or decades.
The thought of "Yeah, I'm pretty sure I've got what it takes to run this country" is one that's never been inside my skull. And the people who actually believe that about themselves are operating at a level of confidence or ego or narcissism or whatever that I cannot relate to.
"And thankfully, Trump will do most of the work after the convention for us." Yes he will. Harris and Walz just need to stay on the side of the pit and occasionally add some more water.
The biggest test of the week might be how the press and democracy supporters react to pro Palestine demonstrations.
Walz and Harris do not want violence or massive disruption at the convention.
Let’s not conflate the protesters with Democrats. Let’s not ascribe their actions to what would happen during a Harris administration. Trump will, like he ascribes Minnesota BLM protests to Walz even though he was president. The rest of us can do better.
The rightwing nutters have also pulled out the 'Harris is a drunk' card amongst other unfounded slurs. As JVL predicted, the mud pit is here.
Joe is too astute a politician to shiv the Harris campaign. He knows if he does anything remotely like that he invalidates his own sacrifice and makes a mockery of his legacy. Won't happen.
Oh no. I'll take Kamala 'Caliente' Harris as Presidential material. You eat a whole bag of those and I've got no worries of how you'll face down Putin or Xi.
"An old pro on the Bush team told me to relax: 'The only night that really matters is Thursday night. Just don’t screw up, and no one will remember what your boss has said, or what anyone else except the president has said. The presidential nominee’s speech can make a difference. The rest? Nah.'”
I have to admit that for the first time in my long life, I am actually very much looking forward to this year's VP Candidate's speech. Walz is so GOOD! Both in terms of seriousness and in terms of just plain, laugh-out-loud funny and feel good, at all the right moments! But point taken for the usual way of the VP Convention speech!
I've been feeling hopeful these last few weeks. I'm still holding my breath, though. It's too close, still. And I worry about the convention - specifically the pro-Palestine faction - causing ill will and sappng the momentum. I sure hope the campaign has a plan. Not like this has been a secret.
One possibility is to broker a cease-fire immediately. Blinken seems to be turning up the heat. Another would be to remind everyone that taking and keeping hostages is a war crime, and that Israel's willingness to retain control of the Philidelphi corridor in lieu of completely and utterly destroying Hamas is a significant concession that Hamas should jump on.
IF Blinken can get a cease fire while the convention is going on that would make Biden and the Dems look like super-heroes, while Trump and Vance continue to look like Bevis and Butthead.
Nothing will help the DNC if Republicans, as they have in Arizona, purge democrats from the rolls. They are trying to purge 40,000 people to start. Students, native Americans and our service men and women, which are normally Democrats in voting. How many republicans do you think they will attempt to purge in other states? Yep zero. So how will democrats respond? Throw themselves on the mercy of this Supreme Court? How many people registered to vote presented their birth certificates when they registered?
They are trying and others are trying to stop them. Nothing is a done deal yet.
This is a complicated issue because it happens at the state level and every state is different.
Arizona is an especially complicated state. I can throw a few details in there:
(1) For most US citizens with Arizona driver licenses, their DMV record will show their citizenship status, and the elections office pulls data directly from the DMV. So for this large # of people, it won't be a problem. (It will have already been settled when they got their license or non-driver ID.)
(2) Arizona goes a pretty good second mile with voters, working with them to get their documentation up to date. For example, you don't have to go in person and show an original birth certificate, you can mail in a photocopy.
(3) Arizona currently has an arrangement (theoretically possible in other states, but I think it only happens here right now) where if you can't show citizenship documentation, you can still vote on federal races, but not state and local ones.
(4) Being purged from the rolls and being allowed to vote when you show up on election day are two different issues. Both serious and worrisome but different.
(5) Arizona actually has a rule that anyone who shows up to vote can vote (and they'll sort out later whether the vote can be counted). If you haven't met the requirements, you get a "provisional" ballot and you have x number of days to bring in the missing information and "cure" your ballot.
Lawsuits are currently under way challenging point #3 above, so it could change again before November. Beware when reading articles about this because they are pretty confusing and involve a lot of double or triple negatives so it's easy to mix up the players.
The Brennan Center for Justice (https://www.brennancenter.org/), which is affiliated with the New York University School of Law, has a xit ton of good information on elections rights issues.
I do hope so. The war on citizen’s rights by Republicans has to be called out and aired. Why don’t Democrats call out the Republicans for trying to rig the election? The message is predominantly from the right (who are great at projecting their evil intent on others).
No, no, no. That's Stacey Abrams type nonsense. The National Voter Registration Act requires that states purge people who have not voted in several elections. This usually involves not voting a single time in a four year cycle. (Some states use 8 years.) Purging these non-voters is a way of cleaning up the voter registration rolls. (And, no, they don't purge people based on party affiliation.) The notion that these people who are purged are active voters being denied the right to vote is a blatant misrepresentation. They are almost always people who have moved and/or who have died. I have worked with voter registration rolls on numerous occasions. What percent of those purged from the rolls for not voting, then show up and are denied the right to vote? Less than 1%. Probably more like .1%. And even with those people who are purged, they can re-register. In some states, they can often do a provisional ballot.
Why should people eligible to vote not allowed to vote because they had not done so in the past? They have a right to vote if they are a citizen of this country. Voting is a choice
Trying to set aside possible political motivations, periodic purging of voter registrations based on activity males sense from a data management perspective. When people move their registration isn't automatically removed from their old location. When someone dies their registration isn't automatically purged. Etc, etc. That is "junk" data clogging the system. Not only does it add up in terms of storage, it presents legitimate data risks from privacy and hacking perspectives. So I am fine with periodic data cleanups.
The solution to this is to have liberal day-of voting policies with provisional ballots, and ways to easily notify people that their registration is set to be purged and option to renew. They do it with driver's licenses. There isn't a reason that can't do it with voter registrations.
I certainly think that 4 is way too soon. Beyond that, I'm open to arguments and concrete examples of why the purges have to happen as frequently as they do. Maybe 12 or 16 has some concrete problems I can't think of right now. But yeah, 4 is a no go for me.
One thing I'd caution is to not necessarily expect a post convention bounce. Usually, the VP pick is announced at the convention, and there's some speculation that that is where the bounce comes from.
As long as the momentum is maintained and no harm is done, I think the convention will have been a success.
I do expect a bounce. She is still largely unknown and I expect her reintroduction will do her some good. (I will only say this in The Bulwark section where we don't have to play the setting expectations game.)
I think we need to consider throwing out many of the previous convention experiences with this one. Post-pandemic....Trump...the insurrectionists being nominated by his party...a party that pushed their incumbent out....a black female Presidential candidate with a left of center charismatic white guy....
I don't buy Surowiecki's "most politically ignorant" characterization; Musk has thrown his weight behind Trump and all sorts of despicable fringe ideas and I suspect he knows exactly what he's doing politically..
Not a moron, but a fragile narcissist who wants to be loved and in taking over Twitter he turned himself into a highly visible version of the old message board admins that created cults of personality around themselves. The people who'd tend to cluster around a dickish richboy are rightwingers and he feeds on their adulation so he feeds them the red meat.
That said he doesn't demonstrate deep knowledge on any subject that I'm aware of, just that sort of shallow "keeping up with trends and opinions" wisdom.
(And heck, I tend to keep my eyes on a lot of topics but I also consciously try to have the grace to recognize and accept when somebody with deeper knowledge on the topic steps forward.)
I don't think Musk has a clue what he's doing politically.
Musk has shown he's smart when it comes to making money running a company that sells electric cars. As to everything else, he's proven himself quite clueless.
The R convention was all Trump worship and conspiracy boogeymen. The D convention will honor America, its ideals, and its future. The contrast ads will write themselves. Really hoping they execute a pretty straightforward playbook. No need for any double reverses or flea-flickers. Just move the chains.
I think we're going to see 8 years of pent up emotion coming out in complete jubilation this week. I never watch conventions but will be checking this one out closely!
To my way of thinking, the primetime schedule is way too heavy on the Obama and Clinton past. I would rather see more of a seizing-the-future vibe embodied by a parade of pretty great Democratic governors. The contrast between these youngish faces energetically moving their states forward and a weird cult around an angry old man would be striking.
Monday night sounds like it’s set to be, “Thank you, Joe, for having the grace and humility to step aside for the love of democracy”, and “take your curtain call, old guard Dems, we’ll take it from here”.
I think the governors will also be front and center. Everyone knows Obama and Clinton. Outside of political junkies, Whitmer, Shapiro, and Newsome aren’t “headliners.” But I can’t imagine that popular swing state governors won’t get prominent spots that put a spotlight on their message and presence.
Agree. I think this is navel-gazing by politicos who think that having former elected officials within the tent is important and contrasting versus Trump.
Further Hilary is unpopular outside the party and Bill is considered to have contributed to the rise of Tea Party/Freedom Caucus/Maga with NAFTA and embrace of Corporate America...whether right or wrong. I think it was generally good to not be so anti-business.
I guess these conventions need to be for the base so Hulk Hogan and Hilary make sense from that perspective.
Those protestors should be doing everything they can to elect Harris because I’m pretty sure Trump would let Israel carpet bomb the entire region.
Single-issue radicals are not practical: They will say that if Harris/Walz loses, it will have taught the Democratic party a lesson. And that the disaster that follows will pave the way (in some nihilistic fantasy chain of events that would make even Karl Marx blush) to a new glorious day of Palestinian self-determination. One other thing: Just like Trumpians, they go after the 'heretics' of their own party with much more vitriol than they go after the other side.
Then they’re just as delusional as Trump…:)
In my book they are more like PETA...not able to stop themselves from engaging in activity that winds up trashing the cause they believe in.
Agreed, they are allowing their emotion to get the better of themselves, and they want their pound of flesh, regardless of the fact that Biden didn’t start the war.
I’ve tried to reach some of them; telling them that Trump would make it demonstrably worse, giving Netanyahu Carte Blanche to completely level Gaza and force millions into refugee camps in neighboring Arab states.
Of course, it always falls on deaf ears. They’re fine with throwing out the baby with the bathwater…:)
That the word "genocide" is again coming up convinces me that they are not serious people. How hard is it to check a dictionary?
Definitions need to change based on new patterns of bad behavior. There wasn't such a thing as genocide until the word was retrospectively created in the light of World War II. It's pretty hard to kill 30,000 civilians, most of them by virtually indiscriminate bombing, and it not be genocide. The definition will catch up with the evil.
You are relying on statements made by Hamas, who are far better at propaganda than warfare. They still haven't discriminated civilian casualties from military, which is a tell. And no one employing expensive weapons does so indiscriminately: the question is whether their deliberate choices do or do not violate the law of war. If the IDF were bent on genocide, they all would be dead already.
That is absurd. How many civilians did the US kill in its various wars?
And you know perfectly well the bombing wasn't indiscriminate.
If Israel had wanted to commit actual genocide, it would have killed at least a million Gazans by now.
People like you ignorantly throw around the word "genocide" the way the middle schoolers of my youth threw around the word "faggot."
That’s ridiculous. It’s war.
Genocide is trying to systematically wipe out an ethnic or religious group. Like the Holocaust. There still are fewer Jews in the world than before the Holocaust. That’s genocide.
There are more Arabs every year.
So the allies committed genocide when they firebombed the Germans and Japanese? It was harsh, perhaps misguided, but to call it genocide robs the term of all meaning.
The radical left and radical right share a trait of blurring definitions in order to get people riled up. In fact, I'd suggest (though I cannot prove) that the tendency to be imprecise in definitions is a telltale sign that the movement doing this is demagogic and, in the end, antidemocratic. Trump set about to redefine 'fake news' for example. All of the sudden mainstream media were the enemy of the people.
I believe Colleen, I believe these folks are so bummed out by the callousness of Israel toward human life that they have become monomaniacal. Meaning there's only one thing they can think about. Everything else falls by the wayside. I'm two thirds of the way there myself, but I have to balance the evil of Israel against the evil of Trump. BTW, the PETA people are also monomaniacal.
Americans are just as callous toward (non-American) human life as Israel... and this is not just an American or Israeli thing. Humans can be astoundingly callous towards anyone seen as Other.
It isn't a bug, but a feature.
One of the hallmarks of higher civilization/culture is that we struggle against that natural tendency at times. But when push comes to shove, the Other gets shoved, with as much regret (usually) as a cat has for shoving something off the edge of the table to watch it fall.
We literally burned down Japan and Germany during WW2. The "conventional" firebombing raids killed more people than the atomic bombs. We killed a lot of French people in the lead up to the Normandy invasions and destroyed a lot of French property. We killed, directly or indirectly a LOT of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I do not point this out to say that we are evil because of that. However, it does show that we are human... and we often kinda, sorta feel bad about it afterwards (even if that doesn't actually change things or no real restitution is made).
There are a lot of things to be bummed out about in life. Unfortunately it is usually difficult to do anything about those things.
When has there been a lasting peace? Maybe when the Roman army took charge of most of Europe. But at that time there were conflicts in Asia. Now, the difference is we study history and we are supposed to have learned something such as wars only lead to more wars. The only way to create a lasting peace is when the victor in the war helps rebuild the loser, as the US did after WW II. That’s what Israel is refusing to promise to do.
Consciousness is the start. the realization that smoking causes lung cancer started a slow revolution.
Monomaniacal is right. Unfortunately it literally blinds you from assessing the fruits of your labor.
Nothing like pissing people off to their causes whether it is PETA or protests that shutdown hi ways and freeways. :)
Good analogy. I support several animal rights' organizations, none of which is PETA, which often seems to do more harm than good.
Cold comfort, though, if they derail the campaign.
For the first time in many years, I believe there are savvy people in the Democratic leadership. I'm pretty confident that the Harris/Walz campaign and the Chicago mayor's office who have been doing some intelligent planning about this.
Agree. As KH said, if you want Trump to win, then just say that as you disrupt the convention.
It seems there's real danger only in Michigan as far as I can tell.
They don’t have that power. They’re a tiny group and many aren’t voters anyway.
They are always delusional. Hard to see it any other way.
Most ideologues tend to be.
Yes, they are.
Technically I'm a single-issue voter. This year at least. No other issues will matter if the party that endorses the "big lie" returns to power, now minus all the "guardrails" (Kelly, Mattis, Bolton, even Pence & Barr). The GOP is now a literal cult, that demands that their "leader" not be held accountable for the insurrection, election interference, and stealing classified documents. Imagine what all those "protectors" - who are prepared to steal this election too, and don't even pretend otherwise - would do if given another chance.
Touche. I and a number of Republicans and ex-Republicans are single issue voters in that respect. I'm not able to formulate an appropriate response yet :)
Agree. No issue matters except defeating Trump. When that is done, they can be productively active about the US policy toward Israel. Peter Beinart has a good piece in the NYT on this. He says KH should simply pledge now that she will follow the law, specifically the Leahy Law [1997] that prohibits the US from "assisting any unit of a foreign security force that commits ‘gross violations’ of human rights". It has never been applied to Israel, even though Israel has been charged with human rights violations, certainly by the vigilantes in the West Bank.
A party's radicals typically loathe their own party's moderates more than they do another party. MAGA members hate Never Trump Republicans with the fire of a thousand suns.
Never Trumpers might be moderate in tone, but we're certainly not more moderate on policy. MAGA people are quite often to the left of Never Trumpers, advocating more and bigger government. Bill Kristol is hardly a moderate. Neither is George Will or George Conway. The people who are most dedicated to conservative political principles tend to be the ones most anti-MAGA.
I remember coming out of college and going to Republican meetings. While I was a Republican due to the conservative beliefs I had developed in college, I was shocked to find so many Republicans had no strong convictions. Rather, to them, it was "Republicans Good, Democrats Bad." It is those Republicans, people not driven by political ideology, who are the most fervent supporters of Trump and MAGA.
The activists equate “being seen” with “ridding the world of evil.” Which is ridiculous. There was some truth to it back in the day when our information sources were 3 network news channels and the local newspaper, and you had to create a scene to make the cut for those 4 sources. Now? They just look ridiculous and erode support for the very cause they say they support. It’s selfish behavior, honestly.
Another example of mistaking attention for action I suppose.
You can't win any cause without first drawing attention to it. The abolitionist got started decades before the Civil War.
Sure, that makes sense. I meant more of our modern impulse to assume social media is real life. I think those protestors are more interested in a performance than engaging in the messy reality of politics. If they were cognizant of that reality, I think they’d realize how much they help Trump and other aspiring demagogues on the right.
Before the Civil War, abolitionists were often accused of helping slave owners because of their extremist views. Single issue activists eventually can move the world. People, like me, who compromised seldom do
"Single issue activists eventually can move the world."
Of course, that can apply to both good and bad movements.
Doesn’t it trivialize American slavery to compare it with a foreign country’s excessive response to a terrorist attack? It is perverse for immigrants to chant “death to America” over American military aid.
Were they? Not sure this analogy works.
Abolitionists were originally faith-based. They had more than one core belief or issue.
Agree.
Best explanation of this is here: https://www.gurwinder.blog/p/the-outrageous-rise-of-neotoddlerism
“Neotoddlerism” is the perfect description of these protest movements.
Just seeing the word, I'd have initially attributed it Donald Trump.
A great analysis. Neotoddlerism is a very apt term, capturing very well many protests we've been seeing lately. However I will not dismiss ALL protests as neotoddlerism. The big civil rights demonstrations and marches of the 60s were non-violent, non-destructive, impactful actions. And in our day, there should be no objection to any orderly march or demonstration, non-obstructive, with civil language, whether the issue is Gaza, climate change, police brutality, whatever. and whether one agrees or not with the positions being taken But we don't see much of that in the US these days. Nevertheless, I am a more than a bit troubled by the idea of some folks that all protesters today (and maybe in Eric Hoffer's day too) are motivated by boredom, or have empty lives they are seeking to provide with meaning through passionate hatred of some group, or are just getting together noisily and seeking attention, or have other primarily ignoble motivations. There are people with consciences who are genuinely distressed by what is happening in Gaza, there are people who understand the workings of the natural world who recognize we are indeed heading toward a type of ecological catastrophe. I confess to being one of the latter. I would participate in an action that was orderly, non-destructive and used only civil language IF I could see that it might actually have some impact. In February 2003 I went to NYC with husband and daughter to join the march to the UN against the war against Iraq that President Bush was about to launch. My daughter and I also participated in the 2014 climate march in NYC. In both cases I hoped that sheer numbers of participants might affect decisions and policy. That did not happen, and I have not participated in any marches since then. For people who, as I said, are genuinely distressed by government or societal behavior they see as very immoral or just very bad in a practical way for humanity, what effective actions are available to individuals? I ponder this but have no good answer.
And Jared would sell off beach-front Gaza to his oligarchic pals.
Yeah.
There does seem to be a meeting of the minds between the two extremes on certain issues—particularly the Israel-Palestine issue. Extreme Netanyahu allies and extreme Hamas supporters shake hands on the desire to have a general cataclysm in the region where one side or the other emerges victorious over the ruins.
At least one Palestinian-American I know is voting for Trump because he wants the Great Carpet Bombing you mention to happen—he imagines it will be less frustrating than seeing Dems support Israel. Really. :/
Netanyahu, as I recall, propped up Hamas in Gaza because he wanted them to serve as evidence that Palestinians couldn’t be trusted. Some Palestinians in the West Bank toasted with coffee when Netanyahu won the PM because it would show the world that Israelis couldn’t be trusted. They seem to deserve each other.
Extrapolate that lunacy to pro-Trump leftists in the U.S. It makes sense, in a bonkers way. :/
I do not believe that protests accomplish much these days, other than grab some attention for the protestors--and the way things tend to work thee days, that attention generally seems to be negative.
IOW, protesting, especially if it is near-violent or violent or generally disruptive, tends to be a net negative.
Regardless of how important you believe your cause to be, there are likely just as many people who either do not care or oppose you. Probably actually more. TBH, I do not think that there are really a lot of Americans (especially older Americans) that actually care about what happens to the Palestinians in other than the vague abstract.
And when you disript things (espeically their lives) over such a thing, they do NOT like it. It doesn't move them to change, it moves them to be against your cause.
As pointed out, proptests had more effect when they were more curated (because one of the big three had to decide to give it oxygen).
If you want results, buy some politicians. That's what works. That's how our system works. The problem is that politicians can be expensive and they do not always stay bought.
Ironic isn't it... In a weird way I almost think that these protests against Harris can be a positive to draw a clear line between her and these protestors. It will be difficult for R's to paint her as a Palestinian protestor sympathizer when they're calling her "Killer Kamala"
i want to stop the war for a different purpose, a fact that most here fail to grasp[&the effect israelis economy is tanking],is iran is bent on retaliation for the israeli assassination in its capital of a guest of its newly elected leader..they have said they will not retaliate if a ceasefire deal is agreed...we might have a week to settle that[if ever]if no deal, their attack goes ahead, and if any israelis are killed[highly likely] then israel are gonna retaliate even harder[they are not listening to biden now]....and iran is gonna do the same? would i prefer a ceasefire here or would i want a middle eastern war with american troops[even uk troops] involved ? No...and for america, its a winner for trump, for he could announce biden and the democrats are weak, want war, and that he didnt bring war for the american people because he is strong?[sighs] , yes rage against the protestors for having different principles[although i sorta admire them a little for standing up for something they beleive in] ,for having a different mindset that they think that protesting changes things, but ultimately if biden doesnt get a ceasefire here, then bibi and trump might be the only winners here ] :(
...and he and Bibi will build beachfront condos to sell to Russian oligarchs and the ultra wealthy.
Trumpster said,"get it over with".
People are comparing Harris’ momentum to Obama’s in 2008. But this is different and more intense. People know that the stakes are greater now. Obama was running against McCain, who was a conservative and a very decent person. The symbolism of America having a Black president was great. The Harris candidacy is much less about her being a woman or Black than it is about having a competent, smart, honest, capable person as president. The contrast between her and a furious, hateful, intellectually limited Trump could not be greater. Everyone suspected that Biden would lose and the world would suffer. Now, we realize there is a strong movement that will change the direction of the entire 21st century. Either Harris wins or we go into 50 years of the dark ages. The momentum needs to carry us through.
"McCain....who was a conservative and very decent person"
I spent a couple of hours on FoxNews yesterday battling with MAGAs who think that Walz is practically a Benedict Arnold for retiring before his unit mobilized. I constantly brought up the disparity of Walz, who actually did serve, vs Trump who didn't serve and denigrated McCain by calling him not a hero. Most didn't respond at all, but one guy said..."McCain was a despicable guy anyway so it didn't matter"
This is what we're dealing with on the other side these days. The Left speaking more highly about McCain than the Right is.
There is always a fallacy on the GOP’s respect of the military. They elected W twice when facing two Vietnam War vets and destroyed former Senator Max Clelland in Georgia, who was a triple amputee. It has always been the messaging and not substance, and the media feeds this false narrative.
Hard to imagine how Fox can attack a guy who served more that 20 years as an enlisted man - who simply moved on to a new chapter in his life.
Exactly. Even if he knew of the deployment (which it's pretty clear he didn't), he had every right to retire instead of deploying overseas. The military could have overridden that decision if necessary. Nothing wrong with what Walz did. I'm more troubled by the apparent lies regarding his DUI arrest than I am the stolen valor nonsense.
Yeah, I saw the same thing online last week. The Right throwing McCain under the bus. I guess if they want to keep re-litigating his record, it's more of them wallowing in the past hits, and wallowing in an especially gross one.
I know veterans who are throwing McCain under the bus. Very sad.
Not doubting your comment, Griff, but I'm a Nam vet -medic, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment- and, had it not been for the Republican nomenklatura torpedoing McCain by leaning on him to put Sarah Palin on the ticket, I would have had a really tough decision to make in the voting booth. In a sense, this is also a response to Kate, and arguing that, in essence, the Right "threw McCain under the bus in '12 with its insistence on Palin.
Sure, I could see that!
I'm gratified to see how little the "first woman president," or "first Black/Indian woman president" identity play is being emphasized. I think that 's an old message, and the critical thing is to beat Trump and wound MAGA. Doing that with a woman, man, dog, or potted plant, doesn't matter. Not to compare Kamala Harris to dogs or potted plants, of course!
There's also some issues that transcend the racism and misogyny. Abortion, Project 2025, and the Trump/Vance ticket. Women are driving the vibe and that certainly isn't hurting Harris.
Very true, but the gender gap is concerning. Hopefully concern about the issues you mention and not overly focusing on firsts can keep some likely trump voting guys at home. I know several guys that will never vote for Harris, but maybe they'll stay home.
I'm hoping Tim Walz can start making a small dent in that gender gap. A guy with a gun who is not a complete a**hole but won't be pushed around.
Jon Favreau had a great discussion with David Axelrod on PSA about the 2008 race. Summarized, McCain was a really good guy with good principles who’d have made a fine POTUS. He just wasn’t Obama.
Total 180 from today.
I would say that right now the idiot fretting upon the stage telling a tale signifying nothing is Donald J. Trump.
Or maybe Elon Musk? It's so hard to choose.
I for one am looking forward to Tim Walt’s speech. You guys at the Bulwark need to nibble on a little crow over the Shapiro v Walz question. Where Shapiro reads as a politician, however talented, Walz’s folksy charm and Nebraska connection have been great for the campaign.
Musk is a dilettante who embodies an old saying: "If you have money, you are wise and good looking. And can sing well too". He's the Henry Ford of current times.
At least Henry Ford did really craft the modern way of building a car. Luckily his antisemitism did not influence America which was already somewhat antisemitic.
Another difference is that Ford had deeply held (albeit bigoted) beliefs. Musk just gets off on being a troll, breaking things, being 'edgy', wielding influence for its own sake, and indulging in casual cruelty (his reckless promoting of conspiracy theory concerning the attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband is a good example of the latter). When certain people have everything, they fill their lack of purpose with finding destructive ways to fill the holes in their souls.
Should be an uplifting convention, and unlike the GOP convention, I plan to watch this one. As for the protests, just keep it civil and let's not spark a backlash that gets a Republican elected like in 1968. That was a pretty major own goal that did nothing to shorten the war they were protesting.
I’m tempted to ask whether they really think our country was better off with Nixon as president than we would have been with Humphrey. But I worry the reply would be, “Who?”
“. . .but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.” Okay,
Agreed Bill, you’re being a bit harsh. Although you make a compelling case as to why the conventions don’t really matter, this year is different. What we need to understand is that the normal standards don’t apply. Nine out of ten times you’d be correct, but this time is different; it’s an anomaly year, when most of this nation thought the election was lost to Trump.
Let’s remember, in 2020 Biden didn’t really win. No one was psyched at having Biden as the nominee, but we were all aligned in defeating Trump as the number one goal. Pragmatism won the day, and it is the same reason Biden isn’t on the ticket today.
We no longer felt he could win. No hard feelings to Biden (he outperformed as president), but Biden was given a choice; to be shown the door after his pathetic debate performance, or he would have been kicked through it. Thankfully, he chose wisely.
That said, by Biden passing the torch to a younger generation it signals hope and change; more so than in 2008 when the very fabric of our nation’s identity wasn’t on the menu. So there is a high degree of inspiration and passion that has permeated the party and the country for that matter.
Today is the beginning of the end of MAGA. Harris will shine, and the Democratic convention will outperform expectations. Every one knows what’s at stake. And thankfully, Trump will do most of the work after the convention for us.
Vote Blue this November and take this country back from all the cheap snake-oil charlatans that have infested our government…:)
Although puzzled by Klain and Anita Dunn spewing nonsense about the campaign, I for one believe Biden will be gracious and go all in for Harris because he is a statesman and a patriot. Also, he does not appear to be mad at Kamala, but is still upset at Pelosi, Obama and Schumer.
Agreed, and he also realizes if Trump wins, his legacy will be tarnished forever, as all his accomplishments will be null and void.
That said, after the entire party quickly coalesced around Harris, with such energy, inspiration and vigor, he understands that he made the right decision…::)
Ever since Joe re-announced I've wondered why at 80+years old Joe wanted to hold onto what is arguably the hardest and most demanding job in the world. Sure, power is an addiction, but at some point a person just wants to sit back and take it easy and have the biggest challenge of the day deciding what to have for dinner. For his own sake I hope Joe is sighing a big sigh of relief and saying to himself, "Christ, am I glad all that's finally over."
I'd hope so too, but I think we discount too easily the ego it takes to seriously seek out the Presidency, and then the ego boost one gets from winning. Trump's ego and pathologies overshadow everyone who has come before, but they ALL have very strong egos which have been fed for years and or decades.
The thought of "Yeah, I'm pretty sure I've got what it takes to run this country" is one that's never been inside my skull. And the people who actually believe that about themselves are operating at a level of confidence or ego or narcissism or whatever that I cannot relate to.
I don’t think the president is nearly as mad at Pelosi, Obama and Schumer as the First Lady is. It was a feeling I had
Her hand written note was a bit of a tell
“To those who never wavered, to those who refused to doubt, to those who always believed, my heart is full of gratitude.”
I don’t think he’s mad at anybody.
She loves her husband. Sticking up for him is part of her vow.
He gave a speech with Harris last week and it was mutual admiration and affection.
I don’t think he’s mad at anybody. You can’t bully the most powerful man in the world and they’re all lifelong pols, not kids.
"You can’t bully the most powerful man in the world"
"No way."
"Way!"
"And thankfully, Trump will do most of the work after the convention for us." Yes he will. Harris and Walz just need to stay on the side of the pit and occasionally add some more water.
If more liquid is needed, just give me a couple of minutes to finish my beer, and I'll be delighted to contribute.
Well said…:)
The biggest test of the week might be how the press and democracy supporters react to pro Palestine demonstrations.
Walz and Harris do not want violence or massive disruption at the convention.
Let’s not conflate the protesters with Democrats. Let’s not ascribe their actions to what would happen during a Harris administration. Trump will, like he ascribes Minnesota BLM protests to Walz even though he was president. The rest of us can do better.
I hope things go well in Chicago.
The rightwing nutters have also pulled out the 'Harris is a drunk' card amongst other unfounded slurs. As JVL predicted, the mud pit is here.
Joe is too astute a politician to shiv the Harris campaign. He knows if he does anything remotely like that he invalidates his own sacrifice and makes a mockery of his legacy. Won't happen.
One of Fox's T-loving ladies opined that because Harris ate a bag of Doritos when T won in '16 she's obviously unqualified to be prez.
If they were Cool Ranch, I agree.
😆
They had to have been Nacho Cheese.
Well then that's a nothing-burger.
Or those fire ones.
Oh no. I'll take Kamala 'Caliente' Harris as Presidential material. You eat a whole bag of those and I've got no worries of how you'll face down Putin or Xi.
"An old pro on the Bush team told me to relax: 'The only night that really matters is Thursday night. Just don’t screw up, and no one will remember what your boss has said, or what anyone else except the president has said. The presidential nominee’s speech can make a difference. The rest? Nah.'”
I have to admit that for the first time in my long life, I am actually very much looking forward to this year's VP Candidate's speech. Walz is so GOOD! Both in terms of seriousness and in terms of just plain, laugh-out-loud funny and feel good, at all the right moments! But point taken for the usual way of the VP Convention speech!
Yes, I'm actually planning on watching the VP speech for the first time in a long time.
I've been feeling hopeful these last few weeks. I'm still holding my breath, though. It's too close, still. And I worry about the convention - specifically the pro-Palestine faction - causing ill will and sappng the momentum. I sure hope the campaign has a plan. Not like this has been a secret.
One possibility is to broker a cease-fire immediately. Blinken seems to be turning up the heat. Another would be to remind everyone that taking and keeping hostages is a war crime, and that Israel's willingness to retain control of the Philidelphi corridor in lieu of completely and utterly destroying Hamas is a significant concession that Hamas should jump on.
IF Blinken can get a cease fire while the convention is going on that would make Biden and the Dems look like super-heroes, while Trump and Vance continue to look like Bevis and Butthead.
Jim Jordan and Matt Gates have intellectual property rights to the Beavis/Butthead comparison.
You sure? Don and Eric come to mind.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/matt-gaetz-and-jim-jordan-beavis-and-butt-head-photo/photos
Good, I'll grant. However there is also:
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-360713c758ecd811b6a978896110713a-lq
Agree as long as it is not a repeat of the Doha agreement/Biden pull out by Sept 11 2021---it has to be solid not a vanity play.
So much competition. So hard to choose.
You can be sure the press will cover the pro-Palestinian protestors with about the same amount of time as the actual convention. Bad news sells.
Now imagine she’d picked Josh Shapiro.
The NEA would be POed.
Yes, and she’d NEVER be able to dodge Gaza questions.
Historian Timothy Snyder makes a great point: Trump is not "strong", but he is violent.
Trump's account of his No-way-Way conversation with Putin didn't convince you of his strength?
Word.
He is not worthy.
Nothing will help the DNC if Republicans, as they have in Arizona, purge democrats from the rolls. They are trying to purge 40,000 people to start. Students, native Americans and our service men and women, which are normally Democrats in voting. How many republicans do you think they will attempt to purge in other states? Yep zero. So how will democrats respond? Throw themselves on the mercy of this Supreme Court? How many people registered to vote presented their birth certificates when they registered?
The rigged election has started for real.
They are trying and others are trying to stop them. Nothing is a done deal yet.
This is a complicated issue because it happens at the state level and every state is different.
Arizona is an especially complicated state. I can throw a few details in there:
(1) For most US citizens with Arizona driver licenses, their DMV record will show their citizenship status, and the elections office pulls data directly from the DMV. So for this large # of people, it won't be a problem. (It will have already been settled when they got their license or non-driver ID.)
(2) Arizona goes a pretty good second mile with voters, working with them to get their documentation up to date. For example, you don't have to go in person and show an original birth certificate, you can mail in a photocopy.
(3) Arizona currently has an arrangement (theoretically possible in other states, but I think it only happens here right now) where if you can't show citizenship documentation, you can still vote on federal races, but not state and local ones.
(4) Being purged from the rolls and being allowed to vote when you show up on election day are two different issues. Both serious and worrisome but different.
(5) Arizona actually has a rule that anyone who shows up to vote can vote (and they'll sort out later whether the vote can be counted). If you haven't met the requirements, you get a "provisional" ballot and you have x number of days to bring in the missing information and "cure" your ballot.
Lawsuits are currently under way challenging point #3 above, so it could change again before November. Beware when reading articles about this because they are pretty confusing and involve a lot of double or triple negatives so it's easy to mix up the players.
The Brennan Center for Justice (https://www.brennancenter.org/), which is affiliated with the New York University School of Law, has a xit ton of good information on elections rights issues.
It is definitely true that there are some bad efforts underway to purge voter rolls (eg, https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/29/politics/voter-rolls-ballot-challenges-true-the-vote-elections/index.html).
But there are people fighting back.
I do hope so. The war on citizen’s rights by Republicans has to be called out and aired. Why don’t Democrats call out the Republicans for trying to rig the election? The message is predominantly from the right (who are great at projecting their evil intent on others).
Next time Trumps says the election is going to be rigged, say, “you’re right, you should know because you and the republicans are the ones rigging it.
No, no, no. That's Stacey Abrams type nonsense. The National Voter Registration Act requires that states purge people who have not voted in several elections. This usually involves not voting a single time in a four year cycle. (Some states use 8 years.) Purging these non-voters is a way of cleaning up the voter registration rolls. (And, no, they don't purge people based on party affiliation.) The notion that these people who are purged are active voters being denied the right to vote is a blatant misrepresentation. They are almost always people who have moved and/or who have died. I have worked with voter registration rolls on numerous occasions. What percent of those purged from the rolls for not voting, then show up and are denied the right to vote? Less than 1%. Probably more like .1%. And even with those people who are purged, they can re-register. In some states, they can often do a provisional ballot.
Why should people eligible to vote not allowed to vote because they had not done so in the past? They have a right to vote if they are a citizen of this country. Voting is a choice
Trying to set aside possible political motivations, periodic purging of voter registrations based on activity males sense from a data management perspective. When people move their registration isn't automatically removed from their old location. When someone dies their registration isn't automatically purged. Etc, etc. That is "junk" data clogging the system. Not only does it add up in terms of storage, it presents legitimate data risks from privacy and hacking perspectives. So I am fine with periodic data cleanups.
The solution to this is to have liberal day-of voting policies with provisional ballots, and ways to easily notify people that their registration is set to be purged and option to renew. They do it with driver's licenses. There isn't a reason that can't do it with voter registrations.
Four years is ridiculous.
Voting is a right, not a privilege.
Not voting is also a right.
“Cleaning up the rolls” is jabberwocky.
4 or 8 years is way too soon to purge voters. Should be 12-16 years at a min.
Even one person denied the right to vote because they haven't in a nominal amount of time is ridiculous. Stop making it hard for people to vote.
I certainly think that 4 is way too soon. Beyond that, I'm open to arguments and concrete examples of why the purges have to happen as frequently as they do. Maybe 12 or 16 has some concrete problems I can't think of right now. But yeah, 4 is a no go for me.
I’m a poll worker. Moves and deaths and non-voting is why God made provisional ballots.
Everything is corrected after every election.
One thing I'd caution is to not necessarily expect a post convention bounce. Usually, the VP pick is announced at the convention, and there's some speculation that that is where the bounce comes from.
As long as the momentum is maintained and no harm is done, I think the convention will have been a success.
I do expect a bounce. She is still largely unknown and I expect her reintroduction will do her some good. (I will only say this in The Bulwark section where we don't have to play the setting expectations game.)
I think we need to consider throwing out many of the previous convention experiences with this one. Post-pandemic....Trump...the insurrectionists being nominated by his party...a party that pushed their incumbent out....a black female Presidential candidate with a left of center charismatic white guy....
This is historic!
I don't buy Surowiecki's "most politically ignorant" characterization; Musk has thrown his weight behind Trump and all sorts of despicable fringe ideas and I suspect he knows exactly what he's doing politically..
Somewhere in between.
Not a moron, but a fragile narcissist who wants to be loved and in taking over Twitter he turned himself into a highly visible version of the old message board admins that created cults of personality around themselves. The people who'd tend to cluster around a dickish richboy are rightwingers and he feeds on their adulation so he feeds them the red meat.
That said he doesn't demonstrate deep knowledge on any subject that I'm aware of, just that sort of shallow "keeping up with trends and opinions" wisdom.
(And heck, I tend to keep my eyes on a lot of topics but I also consciously try to have the grace to recognize and accept when somebody with deeper knowledge on the topic steps forward.)
I don't think Musk has a clue what he's doing politically.
Musk has shown he's smart when it comes to making money running a company that sells electric cars. As to everything else, he's proven himself quite clueless.
The R convention was all Trump worship and conspiracy boogeymen. The D convention will honor America, its ideals, and its future. The contrast ads will write themselves. Really hoping they execute a pretty straightforward playbook. No need for any double reverses or flea-flickers. Just move the chains.
I think we're going to see 8 years of pent up emotion coming out in complete jubilation this week. I never watch conventions but will be checking this one out closely!
To my way of thinking, the primetime schedule is way too heavy on the Obama and Clinton past. I would rather see more of a seizing-the-future vibe embodied by a parade of pretty great Democratic governors. The contrast between these youngish faces energetically moving their states forward and a weird cult around an angry old man would be striking.
I wonder though about getting the eyeballs to watch. Clinton will draw eyeballs in a way that Witmer, Shapiro, etc. won't. Same with Obama.
I'd toy with the idea of running a bit late on purpose so that people tuning in to see Clinton or Obama get a bit of the speaker beforehand.
I get your point. I would argue that part of the passing-the-torch theme is making the case that the new generation is ready to take the torch.
Monday night sounds like it’s set to be, “Thank you, Joe, for having the grace and humility to step aside for the love of democracy”, and “take your curtain call, old guard Dems, we’ll take it from here”.
I think the governors will also be front and center. Everyone knows Obama and Clinton. Outside of political junkies, Whitmer, Shapiro, and Newsome aren’t “headliners.” But I can’t imagine that popular swing state governors won’t get prominent spots that put a spotlight on their message and presence.
Agree. I think this is navel-gazing by politicos who think that having former elected officials within the tent is important and contrasting versus Trump.
Further Hilary is unpopular outside the party and Bill is considered to have contributed to the rise of Tea Party/Freedom Caucus/Maga with NAFTA and embrace of Corporate America...whether right or wrong. I think it was generally good to not be so anti-business.
I guess these conventions need to be for the base so Hulk Hogan and Hilary make sense from that perspective.