HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » EffieBlack » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 29 Next »

EffieBlack

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Feb 2, 2007, 11:43 PM
Number of posts: 14,205

Journal Archives

Tweet: "What if we just elected the black woman?"

THIS!
https://twitter.com/JillFilipovic/status/1078964973022240769

Slate: Path to the Presidency Could Be Harder for White Democrats in 2020

The Path to the Presidency Could Be Harder for White Democrats in 2020
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/2020-democratic-primary-white-candidates-trump-racism.amp

Before Barack Obama’s election in 2008, the relationship between white racial views and partisanship wasn’t as clear-cut as one might think. Yes, Republicans won the large majority of white voters who believed black disadvantage could be attributed to a lack of hard work or effort—a key measure in the “racial resentment scale”—but a substantial minority of white voters was part of the Democratic coalition as well. But once Obama was in office, whites—and especially those with less formal education—“became better able to connect racial issues to partisan politics,” according to a recent book charting these changes to American politics.

Still, in his 2012 re-election race, Obama won a portion of whites with negative views of blacks. The reason has everything to do with the campaigns. Obama didn’t emphasize race or speak explicitly on racial issues. Neither did Mitt Romney. Race mattered, but white racial views—and white identity—weren’t as crucial to the outcome.

This changed in 2016. And the way it changed has important implications for the upcoming presidential election—and the Democratic race in particular.

In Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America, political scientists John Sides, Lynn Vavreck, and Michael Tesler provide a short but useful summary of what happened: “In 2016, the presidential campaign focused on issues tied to racial, ethnic, and religious identities and attitudes. The two candidates took very different positions on those issues, and voters perceived those differences. People’s attitudes on these issues were then ‘activated’ as decision-making criteria and became even more strongly associated with white voters’ preference for Clinton or Trump.”

From the start, Donald Trump ran an openly racist campaign of agitation and disdain toward immigrants, Muslims, and black Americans, and likewise, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign emphasizing tolerance and racial diversity. They were asking Americans to vote on the basis of national identity: Who should America be for? In response, white voters sorted themselves according to their racial views: If you held negative attitudes toward blacks and immigrants, believed racial inequality was a result of individual laziness or cultural pathology, or thought nonwhites threatened the economic advancement of whites, you were more likely to back Trump. If you believed the reverse, you were more likely to back Clinton. Account for education, and the result is the same.

The number of white Republicans with liberal racial views was low enough that there weren’t many defections. But the number of white Democrats with conservative racial views was significant—and critically, those voters were clustered in key Midwestern states like Michigan and Wisconsin, enough to give Trump his narrow but decisive advantage in the Electoral College...One possible implication of all of this is that black candidates may have the strategic advantage in the Democratic primary. Not because they’ll automatically win black voters, but because they won’t have to demonstrate the same social solidarity. Like Obama, they can stay somewhat silent on race, embodying the opposition to the president’s racism rather than vocalizing it and allowing them space to focus on economic messaging without triggering the cycle of polarization that Clinton experienced ... {T}here’s a certain irony in the possibility that to get some Trump voters back into the Democratic fold, the party may have to choose another black messenger.

The only thing worse for Trump than having a Democratic woman as Speaker

is the fact that that woman is Nancy Pelosi, the baddest of the baddasses who is on her second tour of duty as Speaker so she has no learning curve ...

She's hitting the ground running ...

Is arguing that older elected officials should make way for younger ones "Identity Politics?"

If not, why not?

Well, whattaya know? CJ Roberts sided with the 4 liberals to smack Trump down on asylum



Supreme Court Won’t Revive Trump Policy Limiting Asylum

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to revive a Trump administration initiative barring migrants who enter the country illegally from seeking asylum.

The court was closely divided, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the four-member liberal wing in turning down the administration’s request for a stay of a trial judge’s order blocking the program.

The court’s brief order gave no reasons for its action. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh said they would have granted the stay.

In a proclamation issued on Nov. 9, President Trump barred migrants from applying for asylum unless they made the request at a legal checkpoint. Only those applying at a port of entry would be eligible, Mr. Trump said, invoking what he said were his national security powers to protect the nation’s borders.

https://nyti.ms/2GJIoa6


I have a feeling this won't be the last time. Roberts doesn't want his legacy to be too closely tied with Kavanaugh.

WaPo: Ethics officials actually advised Whitaker to recuse but advisers told him not to- then lied

Apparently, the DOJ ethics lawyers actually told him he should recuse himself, but he refused. They also lied about the advice given to him by DOJ ethics officials - who, no doubt, had something to do with the rapid retraction.


A senior Justice Department ethics official concluded acting attorney general Matthew G. Whitaker should recuse from overseeing special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe examining President Trump, but advisers to Whitaker recommended the opposite and he has no plans to step aside, according to people familiar with the matter.

The latest account of what happened underscores the high stakes and deep distrust — within Congress and in some corners of the Justice Department — surrounding Whitaker’s appointment to become the nation’s top law enforcement official until the Senate votes on the nomination of William P. Barr to take the job. Earlier in the day, a different official, who spoke on the condition they not be named, said ethics officials had advised Whitaker need not step aside, only to retract that account hours later.

Whitaker never asked Justice Department ethics officials for a recommendation, nor did he receive a formal recommendation, this official said.

However, after Whitaker met repeatedly with ethics officials to discuss the facts and the issues under consideration, a senior ethics official told the group of advisers on Tuesday that it was a “close call,” but Whitaker should recuse to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, the official said. Whitaker was not present at that meeting, they said.

Those four advisers, however, disagreed with the ethics determination and recommended to Whitaker the next day not to recuse, saying there was no precedent for doing so, and doing so now could create a bad precedent for future attorneys


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/ethics-officials-say-whitaker-need-not-recuse-from-supervising-special-counsel-probe-according-to-a-person-familiar-with-the-matter/2018/12/20/76332392-046b-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html?utm_term=.89b999c9a043

Let's take a breath about the Whitaker "no recusal" opinion

Whitaker has been overseeing the investigation for the past month and it's been going gangbusters. It doesn't seem, at least so far, that he has been meddling or quashing it. In fact, he's been letting Mueller move forward just as before

Of course, that could always change, but at this point, I'm taking a wait and see attitude.

Judge Emmet Sullivan is a Howard University grad - law school and undergraduate

Just saying ...

https://hbcudigest.com/judge-emmet-sullivan-read-michael-flynn-for-treasonous-filth-and-hes-a-howard-university-grad/

If you listened to "Bag Man," you might see why Mueller's deal with Flynn was right and smart

I think will eventually find out that Flynn gave the prosecutors some invaluable information and, thus it was worth it to them to cut him a sweet deal - just as Eliot Richardson did with Agnew.

But this upside Richardson didn't have: surely Mueller knew that, while the judge wouldn't give Flynn less time than recommended, it was very likely he would give him more.

Mueller's not stupid and he's not corrupt. I have no doubt that, like Richardson, he made the deal he needed to make to achieve the result we will all eventually realize was the right one

Why do people keep saying that past government shutdowns were "disasters" for Republicans

Yes - the two 1995 shutdowns had a very negative impact on Republicans.

But what harm did the 2013 shutdown do to the Republicans, besides getting them a lot of bad press at the time? A year after they shut down the government, the Republicans went on to to take back the Senate and then, two years later, they took the White House. If that's a "disaster," I'd hate to see what a success would have looked like for them.

Am I missing something?
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 29 Next »