The rules and bylaws dictating access are hardly new, and several state Democratic parties allow full access to VoteBuilder for all candidates. But the 2016 election created a groundswell of energy among first-time progressive candidates, looking to challenge sitting members of Congress not only in red districts, but in blue ones they believe need shaking up. For many Democrats mounting a primary challenge, the process of merely gaining access to the party's voter data is emblematic of the entrenched system they’re running against.
“The machine protects incumbents,” says Clark, who is running against representative Danny Davis, who has held his seat for 20 years. “What’s one more way you can stack the deck against me? Deny me access to valuable information and data.”
I get a sense of dejavu when reading your reply, for some strange reason, I feel like I've read that somewhere else before.
you're shocked and I'm aroused!
any opinions on the local races having a $3,000 budget? what about the loss of 1200 seats comment? how about the part where she says the budget committee is "fu(king corrupt"? how about who she blames for women seeking abortions in Arizona?
Like it or not this is a glimpse into the future of the Democratic party!
I get a sense of dejavu when reading your reply, for some strange reason, I feel like I've read that somewhere else before.
you're shocked and I'm aroused!
any opinions on the local races having a $3,000 budget? what about the loss of 1200 seats comment? how about the part where she says the budget committee is "fu(king corrupt"? how about who she blames for women seeking abortions in Arizona?
Like it or not this is a glimpse into the future of the Democratic party!
I didn't watch it. Some links I don't click on.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I get a sense of dejavu when reading your reply, for some strange reason, I feel like I've read that somewhere else before.
you're shocked and I'm aroused!
any opinions on the local races having a $3,000 budget? what about the loss of 1200 seats comment? how about the part where she says the budget committee is "fu(king corrupt"? how about who she blames for women seeking abortions in Arizona?
Like it or not this is a glimpse into the future of the Democratic party!
Booker is not the only high-profile Democratic senator to announce his support for the plan. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and California Sen. Kamala Harris have already announced they are co-sponsoring Sanders’ bill. Warren, Harris and Booker are widely considered to be top contenders for the 2020 democratic presidential nomination.
Got me blue wave, got me a blue wave, blue blue wave! scoreboard watchers! 2017 1 U.S. Senate seat (AL) 1 governorship (NJ) 1 chamber (WA Senate) full control in 2 states (NJ, WA)
sweep VA statewide no change in U.S. House pick up 32 leg seats, (GOP pick up 4) Maine expands Medicaid
check my accuracy, did I miss anything? Im feeling the effects of GMO poisoning this morning. Waiting for the "cleansers" to kick in!
Post edited by JC29856 on
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,261
Got me blue wave, got me a blue wave, blue blue wave! scoreboard watchers! 2017 1 U.S. Senate seat (AL) 1 governorship (NJ) 1 chamber (WA Senate) full control in 2 states (NJ, WA)
sweep VA statewide no change in U.S. House pick up 32 leg seats, (GOP pick up 4) Maine expands Medicaid
check my accuracy, did I miss anything? Im feeling the effects of GMO poisoning this morning. Waiting for the "cleansers" to kick in!
Don’t fret 2018 is just around the corner , so when do you think Muller gets fired & HRC gets indicted any time frame will help me plan my 5 weeks vacation for this upcoming yr ..
Too long and boring. Can you cherry pick some quotes out of context for me? Or were you not distributed the talking points when you got to work today?
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
3D, D’ing. “We have nothing to hide.” “There was no collusion with Russia.” “I don’t know anyone from Russia nor do I have any business in Russia.”
400,000 documents, 2,000 with stickies. 36 electronic devices. 4 indictments, 2 with guilty pleas. 2 cooperative witnesses. A continuing, expanding investigation into the RNC and Team Trump Treason with indictments to follow.
3D, what do you have to defend your conspiracy theory of the deep state?
3D, D’ing. “We have nothing to hide.” “There was no collusion with Russia.” “I don’t know anyone from Russia nor do I have any business in Russia.”
400,000 documents, 2,000 with stickies. 36 electronic devices. 4 indictments, 2 with guilty pleas. 2 cooperative witnesses. A continuing, expanding investigation into the RNC and Team Trump Treason with indictments to follow.
3D, what do you have to defend your conspiracy theory of the deep state?
Someone in the FBI didn't like Trump. What more do you need? Game, set, match.
3D, D’ing. “We have nothing to hide.” “There was no collusion with Russia.” “I don’t know anyone from Russia nor do I have any business in Russia.”
400,000 documents, 2,000 with stickies. 36 electronic devices. 4 indictments, 2 with guilty pleas. 2 cooperative witnesses. A continuing, expanding investigation into the RNC and Team Trump Treason with indictments to follow.
3D, what do you have to defend your conspiracy theory of the deep state?
Someone in the FBI didn't like Trump. What more do you need? Game, set, match.
Oh right. Oops. Sorry. I’ll just wait for it to blow over. Everyone can go home now. It’s over.
Too long and boring. Can you cherry pick some quotes out of context for me? Or were you not distributed the talking points when you got to work today?
For about a week after the election, pundits
discussed the possibility of a more capacious Democratic strategy. It
appeared that the party might learn something from Clinton’s defeat.
Then everything changed.
A story that had circulated during the campaign without much effect
resurfaced: it involved the charge that Russian operatives had hacked
into the servers of the Democratic National Committee, revealing
embarrassing emails that damaged Clinton’s chances. With stunning speed,
a new centrist-liberal orthodoxy came into being, enveloping the major
media and the bipartisan Washington establishment. This secular religion
has attracted hordes of converts in the first year of the Trump
presidency. In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other
formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim
childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s.
The
centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief
that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by
ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump.
The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness.
Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and
Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American
democracy. Responsibility for the absence of debate lies in large part
with the major media outlets. Their uncritical embrace and endless
repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli
in the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new
orthodoxy, but it does not seem to be merely a creed of Washington
insiders. If you question the received narrative in casual
conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt
hostility – even from old friends. This has all been baffling and
troubling to me; there have been moments when pop-culture fantasies
(body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind.
Like any orthodoxy
worth its salt, the religion of the Russian hack depends not on evidence
but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative
institutions and their overlords. Its scriptural foundation is a
confused and largely fact-free ‘assessment’ produced last January by a
small number of ‘hand-picked’ analysts – as James Clapper, the director
of National Intelligence, described them – from the CIA, the FBI and the
NSA. The claims of the last were made with only ‘moderate’ confidence.
The label Intelligence Community Assessment creates a misleading
impression of unanimity, given that only three of the 16 US intelligence
agencies contributed to the report. And indeed the assessment itself
contained this crucial admission: ‘Judgments are not intended to imply
that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are
based on collected information, which is often incomplete or
fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation and precedents.’ Yet the
assessment has passed into the media imagination as if it were
unassailable fact, allowing journalists to assume what has yet to be
proved. In doing so they serve as mouthpieces for the intelligence
agencies, or at least for those ‘hand-picked’ analysts.
Too long and boring. Can you cherry pick some quotes out of context for me? Or were you not distributed the talking points when you got to work today?
This approach animates Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis,
a 33-page document whose authors include Norman Solomon, founder of the
web-based insurgent lobby RootsAction.org. ‘The Democratic Party’s
claims of fighting for “working families” have been undermined by its
refusal to directly challenge corporate power, enabling Trump to
masquerade as a champion of the people,’ Autopsy announces. But
what sets this apart from most progressive critiques is the cogent
connection it makes between domestic class politics and foreign policy.
For those in the Rust Belt, military service has often seemed the only
escape from the shambles created by neoliberal policies; yet the price
of escape has been high. As Autopsy notes, ‘the wisdom of continual war’ – what Clinton calls ‘global leadership’ –
was
far clearer to the party’s standard bearer [in 2016] than it was to
people in the US communities bearing the brunt of combat deaths,
injuries and psychological traumas. After a decade and a half of
non-stop warfare, research data from voting patterns suggest that the
Clinton campaign’s hawkish stance was a political detriment in
working-class communities hard-hit by American casualties from
deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Francis
Shen of the University of Minnesota and Douglas Kriner of Boston
University analysed election results in three key states – Pennsylvania,
Wisconsin and Michigan – and found that ‘even controlling in a
statistical model for many other alternative explanations, we find that
there is a significant and meaningful relationship between a community’s
rate of military sacrifice and its support for Trump.’ Clinton’s record
of uncritical commitment to military intervention allowed Trump to have
it both ways, playing to jingoist resentment while posing as an
opponent of protracted and pointless war. Kriner and Shen conclude that
Democrats may want to ‘re-examine their foreign policy posture if they
hope to erase Trump’s electoral gains among constituencies exhausted and
alienated by 15 years of war’. If the insurgent movements within the
Democratic Party begin to formulate an intelligent foreign policy
critique, a re-examination may finally occur. And the world may come
into sharper focus as a place where American power, like American
virtue, is limited. For this Democrat, that is an outcome devoutly to be
wished. It’s a long shot, but there is something happening out there.
Wow.. So compelling. Opinion pieces are really high value because they are chocked full of empirical information. Good job, keep posting. All the people on the board that thought Trump is a pig, narcissist and white collar criminal are becoming supporters.
Wow.. So compelling. Opinion pieces are really high value because they are chocked full of empirical information. Good job, keep posting. All the people on the board that thought Trump is a pig, narcissist and white collar criminal are becoming supporters.
It is not the first time the intelligence agencies have played this
role. When I hear the Intelligence Community Assessment cited as a
reliable source, I always recall the part played by the New York Times
in legitimating CIA reports of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s
putative weapons of mass destruction, not to mention the long history of
disinformation (a.k.a. ‘fake news’) as a tactic for advancing one
administration or another’s political agenda. Once again, the
established press is legitimating pronouncements made by the Church
Fathers of the national security state. Clapper is among the most
vigorous of these. He perjured himself before Congress in 2013, when he
denied that the NSA had ‘wittingly’ spied on Americans – a lie for which
he has never been held to account. In May 2017, he told NBC’s Chuck
Todd that the Russians were highly likely to have colluded with Trump’s
campaign because they are ‘almost genetically driven to co-opt,
penetrate, gain favour, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique’.
The current orthodoxy exempts the Church Fathers from standards imposed
on ordinary people, and condemns Russians – above all Putin – as
uniquely, ‘almost genetically’ diabolical.
It’s hard for me to
understand how the Democratic Party, which once felt scepticism towards
the intelligence agencies, can now embrace the CIA and the FBI as
sources of incontrovertible truth. One possible explanation is that
Trump’s election has created a permanent emergency in the liberal
imagination, based on the belief that the threat he poses is unique and
unprecedented. It’s true that Trump’s menace is viscerally real. But the
menace posed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney was equally real. The
damage done by Bush and Cheney – who ravaged the Middle East,
legitimated torture and expanded unconstitutional executive power – was
truly unprecedented, and probably permanent. Trump does pose an
unprecedented threat to undocumented immigrants and Muslim travellers,
whose protection is urgent and necessary. But on most issues he is a
standard issue Republican. He is perfectly at home with Paul Ryan’s
austerity agenda, which involves enormous transfers of wealth to the
most privileged Americans. He is as committed as any other Republican to
repealing Obama’s Affordable Care Act. During the campaign he posed as
an apostate on free trade and an opponent of overseas military
intervention, but now that he is in office his free trade views are
shifting unpredictably and his foreign policy team is composed of
generals with impeccable interventionist credentials.
Comments
https://www.wired.com/story/justice-democrats-denied-access-party-voter-data/amp
The rules and bylaws dictating access are hardly new, and several state Democratic parties allow full access to VoteBuilder for all candidates. But the 2016 election created a groundswell of energy among first-time progressive candidates, looking to challenge sitting members of Congress not only in red districts, but in blue ones they believe need shaking up. For many Democrats mounting a primary challenge, the process of merely gaining access to the party's voter data is emblematic of the entrenched system they’re running against.
“The machine protects incumbents,” says Clark, who is running against representative Danny Davis, who has held his seat for 20 years. “What’s one more way you can stack the deck against me? Deny me access to valuable information and data.”
you're shocked and I'm aroused!
any opinions on the local races having a $3,000 budget?
what about the loss of 1200 seats comment?
how about the part where she says the budget committee is "fu(king corrupt"?
how about who she blames for women seeking abortions in Arizona?
Like it or not this is a glimpse into the future of the Democratic party!
dejavu all over again
look it up Google "Gillibrand"
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/12/08/the-year-of-the-headless-liberal-chicken/
if your scared to click Google "the year of the headless liberal chicken" search result #1
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
2017
1 U.S. Senate seat (AL)
1 governorship (NJ)
1 chamber (WA Senate)
full control in 2 states (NJ, WA)
sweep VA statewide
no change in U.S. House
pick up 32 leg seats, (GOP pick up 4)
Maine expands Medicaid
check my accuracy, did I miss anything? Im feeling the effects of GMO poisoning this morning. Waiting for the "cleansers" to kick in!
From 97% of the vote to 48% in just a few short years.
#cashforclunkers
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The Democrats’ Wave Could Turn Into A Flood
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-democrats-wave-could-turn-into-a-flood/https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n01/jackson-lears/what-we-dont-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-russian-hacking
400,000 documents, 2,000 with stickies. 36 electronic devices. 4 indictments, 2 with guilty pleas. 2 cooperative witnesses. A continuing, expanding investigation into the RNC and Team Trump Treason with indictments to follow.
3D, what do you have to defend your conspiracy theory of the deep state?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
A story that had circulated during the campaign without much effect resurfaced: it involved the charge that Russian operatives had hacked into the servers of the Democratic National Committee, revealing embarrassing emails that damaged Clinton’s chances. With stunning speed, a new centrist-liberal orthodoxy came into being, enveloping the major media and the bipartisan Washington establishment. This secular religion has attracted hordes of converts in the first year of the Trump presidency. In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s.
The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility – even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind.
Like any orthodoxy worth its salt, the religion of the Russian hack depends not on evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and their overlords. Its scriptural foundation is a confused and largely fact-free ‘assessment’ produced last January by a small number of ‘hand-picked’ analysts – as James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, described them – from the CIA, the FBI and the NSA. The claims of the last were made with only ‘moderate’ confidence. The label Intelligence Community Assessment creates a misleading impression of unanimity, given that only three of the 16 US intelligence agencies contributed to the report. And indeed the assessment itself contained this crucial admission: ‘Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation and precedents.’ Yet the assessment has passed into the media imagination as if it were unassailable fact, allowing journalists to assume what has yet to be proved. In doing so they serve as mouthpieces for the intelligence agencies, or at least for those ‘hand-picked’ analysts.
This approach animates Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis, a 33-page document whose authors include Norman Solomon, founder of the web-based insurgent lobby RootsAction.org. ‘The Democratic Party’s claims of fighting for “working families” have been undermined by its refusal to directly challenge corporate power, enabling Trump to masquerade as a champion of the people,’ Autopsy announces. But what sets this apart from most progressive critiques is the cogent connection it makes between domestic class politics and foreign policy. For those in the Rust Belt, military service has often seemed the only escape from the shambles created by neoliberal policies; yet the price of escape has been high. As Autopsy notes, ‘the wisdom of continual war’ – what Clinton calls ‘global leadership’ –
Francis Shen of the University of Minnesota and Douglas Kriner of Boston University analysed election results in three key states – Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan – and found that ‘even controlling in a statistical model for many other alternative explanations, we find that there is a significant and meaningful relationship between a community’s rate of military sacrifice and its support for Trump.’ Clinton’s record of uncritical commitment to military intervention allowed Trump to have it both ways, playing to jingoist resentment while posing as an opponent of protracted and pointless war. Kriner and Shen conclude that Democrats may want to ‘re-examine their foreign policy posture if they hope to erase Trump’s electoral gains among constituencies exhausted and alienated by 15 years of war’. If the insurgent movements within the Democratic Party begin to formulate an intelligent foreign policy critique, a re-examination may finally occur. And the world may come into sharper focus as a place where American power, like American virtue, is limited. For this Democrat, that is an outcome devoutly to be wished. It’s a long shot, but there is something happening out there.
It is not the first time the intelligence agencies have played this role. When I hear the Intelligence Community Assessment cited as a reliable source, I always recall the part played by the New York Times in legitimating CIA reports of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s putative weapons of mass destruction, not to mention the long history of disinformation (a.k.a. ‘fake news’) as a tactic for advancing one administration or another’s political agenda. Once again, the established press is legitimating pronouncements made by the Church Fathers of the national security state. Clapper is among the most vigorous of these. He perjured himself before Congress in 2013, when he denied that the NSA had ‘wittingly’ spied on Americans – a lie for which he has never been held to account. In May 2017, he told NBC’s Chuck Todd that the Russians were highly likely to have colluded with Trump’s campaign because they are ‘almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favour, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique’. The current orthodoxy exempts the Church Fathers from standards imposed on ordinary people, and condemns Russians – above all Putin – as uniquely, ‘almost genetically’ diabolical.
It’s hard for me to understand how the Democratic Party, which once felt scepticism towards the intelligence agencies, can now embrace the CIA and the FBI as sources of incontrovertible truth. One possible explanation is that Trump’s election has created a permanent emergency in the liberal imagination, based on the belief that the threat he poses is unique and unprecedented. It’s true that Trump’s menace is viscerally real. But the menace posed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney was equally real. The damage done by Bush and Cheney – who ravaged the Middle East, legitimated torture and expanded unconstitutional executive power – was truly unprecedented, and probably permanent. Trump does pose an unprecedented threat to undocumented immigrants and Muslim travellers, whose protection is urgent and necessary. But on most issues he is a standard issue Republican. He is perfectly at home with Paul Ryan’s austerity agenda, which involves enormous transfers of wealth to the most privileged Americans. He is as committed as any other Republican to repealing Obama’s Affordable Care Act. During the campaign he posed as an apostate on free trade and an opponent of overseas military intervention, but now that he is in office his free trade views are shifting unpredictably and his foreign policy team is composed of generals with impeccable interventionist credentials.