HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Celerity » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 51 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: London
Home country: USA/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 06:25 PM
Number of posts: 7,774

Journal Archives

Bernie cannot win FL in the general, and that means if he loses ANY of the following he loses it all

given the following postulations. If he loses FL then he HAS to win ALL of the flowing states or pairings or he loses the EC, in some cases by a nation ripping-apart 269-269 tie where the Rethugs 26 (or more post election) House delegations will elect the monster Rump.The only 2 state House delegations (ironically WI and FL) where we have a chance to remove a delegation from the Rethugs are gerrymandered up the arse, have Rethug massive voter suppression programmes as well, and are basically insanely hard to flip, PLUS there is a tied state (PA) who the Rethugs very likely may win back if Bernie is at the top of the ticket. ALL those Blue Wave flips in the House that are from pink, purple and red districts are in serious trouble with a Sanders-topped ticket. There is more than a decent chance we lose the House with a Bernie-led ticket.

For arguments sake I will keep ME-2 and NE-2 in the Trump category as Trump won ME-2 (the 2nd most rural district in the US House) by 10 points, and NE-2 voted down a progressive in favour of a Trumper-humper in the massive Blue wave 2018 elections. Obama won it by 1 % in 2008, then lost it in 2012, Hillary lost it in 2016 with only 44.98% of the vote. Those one or two (IF we flip both) EV's only come into play in certain losses of states or pairs, those being worth 9 or 10 EV's. If worth 10 EV's, we would need to flip BOTH or lose 269-269 with the House electing Trump if we flip only one. If we lose 11 EVs or more from the list below, those 2 districts do not matter at all. The odds of Bernie flipping AZ or NC are very, very low, and IA (Hillary won only 41.74% of the vote in 2016) chances are also very low, especially if Bernie loses FL and WI. OH, TX, IN, GA, and MO are in the delusional category as states to place as possible R to D flips with Sanders at the top of the ticket, especially if the economy holds up to any sort of extent.

Lose FL and then ONE of the following states or pairs (given the 2 split districts I already covered, and those only matter for the 9 or 10 EV states/pairs anyway) and we lose





























CT+NH (CT as a pair partner is added due to it being an insurance centre, which Sanders puts at risk)







Bloomberg's Paid "Volunteers" Are Telling Voters to Support Other Candidates


Billionaire Michael Bloomberg is trying a novel strategy to win the Democratic presidential nomination. The former New York City mayor, who was a Republican up until 2013, is skipping the first four races completely and has bet big on Super Tuesday—when a third of the delegates are up for grabs—and the primaries that come after. Bloomberg, who is worth about $61 billion, has already put $460 million into his campaign so far, blowing the rest of the candidates out of the water.

With its 415 pledged delegates, California is one of the big prizes on Super Tuesday, and Vermont senator Bernie Sanders currently has a commanding lead in polls there. According to FiveThirtyEight, recent polls have Sanders in first, with an average of 26.7 percent, while Bloomberg comes up second with 14.4 percent—15 percent is the threshold to qualify for any delegates. To bolster his support there, the Los Angeles Times reports, the campaign has hired 500 "deputy field organizers," paying them $2,500 each to promote Bloomberg on social media to their friends and family. A Bloomberg spokesperson said in a statement that the goal is to meet "voters everywhere on any platform that they consume their news."

Based on documents and interviews with some of these organizers, the Times found that many of them are using accounts that are only one or two months old, and that some have fewer than 20 followers. One organizer described the training they received, saying the campaign told them the average person has a network of 750 people on their phones. "They told us, 'We want you to reach out to those friends you’re comfortable talking to and then also those friends you might not have talked to in a while, but might be interested in politics.'"

This is in line with some other unusual approaches that the Bloomberg campaign has taken so far, including funding a massive meme-production effort and a proposed $150 to social media micro-influencers to make content that "tells us why Mike Bloomberg is the electable candidate who can rise above the fray, work across the aisle so ALL Americans feel heard & respected," according to the campaign's listing.


Socialism doesn't freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans.That's a problem


For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

But the problem goes beyond Sanders supporters. Rank-and-file Democrats, as a whole, are significantly more pro-socialist than independents are. And while Republicans, conversely, are more anti-socialist than independents are, the gap between Democrats and independents, on average, is about 10 points bigger than the gap between Republicans and independents.


more background

Jacobin Magazine is one of the major driving forces behind the Sanderite movement. They, like the vast majority of the DSA (and many DSA members are actual communists, far beyond garden variety socialists), ARE actual socialists, not social democrats. They want state or socialised control of the means of production. Bernie plays semantic games by labelling as a democratic socialist, but then sort of semi-denies the core tenants of it, whilst leaving himself a lot of wiggle room. He presents himself as a bog standard social democrat but then tries to reinvent our basic language by applying a false definition to the term democratic socialism.

Here is a new (will not be published until April) book by two of the main authors at Jacobin, including Meagan Day, who was the driving force behind the Warren pregnancy controversy pushed hard by the RW (they got it from her first.)

They definitely do NOT see the end game as FDR-style government, they want an overall destruction of the entire capitalist system. Bernie needs to be put on the griddle and grilled hard, not let off the hook, until he dissociates himself from the actual socialists and communists who are some of principal drivers of support and intellectual energy behind his campaign. Divide et impera works, and IF we are serious about stopping his march to the nomination (and thus a probable crushing electoral defeat in the general, making even losing control of the House a distinct possibility), our other candidates need to start to fracture his base by making him denounce the ultra radicals, and if he refuses, to then expose him as a possible Trojan Horse who is trying to have his cake and eat it too.



Bigger than Bernie
How We Go from the Sanders Campaign to Democratic Socialism

by Meagan Day and Micah Uetricht


The political ambitions of the movement behind Bernie Sanders have never been limited to winning the White House. Since Bernie first entered the presidential primaries in 2016, his supporters have worked to organize a revolution intended to encourage the active participation of millions of ordinary people in political life. That revolution is already underway, as evidenced by the massive growth of the Democratic Socialists of America, the teachers Bernie motivated to lead strikes across red and blue states, and the rising new generation of radicals in Congress—led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar—inspired by his example.

In Bigger than Bernie, activist writers Meagan Day and Micah Uetricht give us an intimate map of this emerging movement to remake American politics top to bottom, profiling the grassroots organizers who are building something bigger, and more ambitious, than the career of any one candidate. As participants themselves, Day and Uetricht provide a serious analysis of the prospects for long-term change, offering a strategy for making “political revolution” more than just a campaign slogan. They provide a road map for how to entrench democratic socialism in the halls of power and in our own lives.

Bigger than Bernie offers unmatched insights into the people behind the most unique campaign in modern American history and a clear-eyed sense of how the movement can sustain itself for the long haul.

more by Day and Uetricht

Why Bernie Sanders is just the beginning of an American turn to the left
The United States may be on the verge of a huge leftward shift. Here's what to expect


FEBRUARY 22, 2020 3:00PM (UTC)


Chris Maisano describes the democratic road as a strategy that pursues "election of a left government (likely over multiple contested elections) mandated to carry out a fundamental transformation of the political economy, coordinated with a movement from below to build new institutions and organizations of popular power in society."

Eric Blanc offers a similar formulation. Eventually, after the Left has won significant gains at the ballot box and in civil society, the capitalist class will take the gloves off against socialists and do whatever it takes to destroy our movement. We'll need to fight back. The democratic road to socialism seeks not to elide this confrontation, but to make it possible. To replace capitalism with socialism, writes Blanc, " ( a ) socialists should fight to win a socialist universal suffrage electoral majority in government/parliament and ( b ) socialists must expect that serious anti-capitalist change will necessarily require extra-parliamentary mass action like a general strike and a revolution to defeat the inevitable sabotage and resistance of the ruling class."

Though socialists are likely to be met with capitalist resistance that at times will turn violent, "revolution" doesn't necessitate mass bloodshed — and though we believe in self-defense, we certainly do not advocate violent means. A future socialist government, the late Marxist thinker Ralph Miliband wrote, "has only one major resource, namely its popular support." To pull off a revolution in our circumstances, that popular support would need to be mobilized both inside and outside of government.

Justice Sotomayor warns the Supreme Court is doing special favors for the Trump administration

The ordinary rules no longer apply when the Trump administration shows up in court.


The Supreme Court voted along ideological lines Friday evening to allow a Trump administration rule restricting low-income immigrants’ ability to enter the US to take full effect. All four of the Court’s Democratic appointees dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing a sharply worded dissenting opinion accusing her Court of “putting a thumb on the scale in favor of” the Trump administration.

“It is hard to say what is more troubling,” Sotomayor wrote. “That the government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it.”

The Court’s decision in Wolf v. Cook County is a significant development in and of itself because of its potential impact on millions of immigrants. Last August, the Trump administration announced a new rule governing who would be classified as a “public charge” — essentially someone reliant on government aid programs — and thus potentially unable to enter the United States, extend their visa, or obtain a green card. The new rule gives immigration officials leeway to turn away immigrants deemed “likely to be a public charge,” based on a wide range of factors including use of certain public benefits and English language skills.

As much as 69 percent of the more than 5 million individuals who received a green card over the past five years have at least one negative factor against them under the new rule, and thus might have been denied immigration benefits had the new rule been in effect.


With the UK's European door closed, it's open season for xenophobia

Paul Mason explains how, even after the UK has technically left the EU, ‘Brexit’ has escalated into a culture war over immigration.


Two million people saw it live and at least six million have watched it on ‘social media’: last week on the BBC’s prime-time political show, Question Time, an audience member launched a passionate tirade against immigration, littered with hatred and falsehoods. ‘We should completely close the borders,’ she said. ‘You’ve got people flooding into this country that cannot speak English … In the NHS everything’s written in different languages … You arrive on a plane, you get free service, you can have your babies …’


None of the claims was factual—and nobody was surprised when, within 24 hours, the woman was revealed to be an active supporter of the English far-right leader ‘Tommy Robinson’. Members of the discussion panel tried to set her straight—but as a moment in British politics it will be hard to forget. It shows that, within three weeks of the chauvinist jamboree that was Brexit night (January 31st), Britain’s xenophobic right is unassuaged. Even as the candidates for Labour’s leadership succession are trying to assure pro-Brexit working-class voters that ‘the argument is over’, the argument actually continues.

Clearest signal

Those on the English plebeian right don’t just want to leave the European Union—they want all trace of the UK’s multi-ethnic and globalised society eradicated. Also last week, Boris Johnson’s government gave the clearest possible signal that it will go on stirring up their anger against all the old targets in the Brexit debate. In a speech in Brussels, the UK’s lead Brexit negotiator, David Frost, warned the EU that Britain was prepared to walk away from any meaningful trade dialogue if it could not get a Canada-style trade deal by December, when the transition period ends. The UK intends to undercut the EU on food standards, labour-market rules and financial regulation, rejecting demands for common standards in favour of what Frost called ‘sovereignty’. And if it can’t get permission to do so through a trade deal, it will do it anyway.

Sharing rejected

Rejecting the entire basis of the multilateral global system, where sovereignty is effectively shared through trade treaties which can be adjudicated in common courts, Frost warned: ‘We take the opposite view. We believe sovereignty is meaningful and what it enables us to do is to set our rules for our own benefit.’ I expect this stance to be moderated by diplomats when the UK presents its negotiating document to the European Commission this week, but not by much. It is an ultimatum, designed as much for the consumption of the racist woman on Question Time—and her equivalents in every one of the EU27—as for the commission.


88% of NV now in, Sanders is at 40.7%, Biden 19.7%, and Pete 17.1% (raw final alignment votes)

sorry for all the confusion

edited to add the raw vote totals as well, the 47% number for Sanders is the CCD's (County Convention Delegates)


they are

insanely complicated, undemocratic and exclusionary

Joe Biden slams Trump as a racist at African American church in South Carolina. Full Remarks

Buttigieg campaign alleges irregularities in Nevada caucuses vote


Washington (CNN) Pete Buttigieg's campaign sent a letter to the Nevada State Democratic Party on Sunday, alleging that there are "material irregularities pertaining to the process of integrating early votes into the in-person precinct caucus results" and asking the party to take three concrete steps to address the purported issues.

The letter asked the state party to "release early vote and in-person vote totals by precinct​," "correct any outstanding second alignment errors identified by presidential campaigns, including ours" and "explain anomalies in the data." The allegations make Buttigieg's campaign the first to question the Nevada results, which -- with 50% of precincts reporting -- found Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders with a significant lead, former Vice President Joe Biden at 19% and Buttigieg at 15%. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren trailed Buttigieg at 10%.

The claims from the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, follow the chaos surrounding the Iowa caucuses weeks earlier. That chaos delayed reporting results from the first-in-the-nation state and undercut the legitimacy of the caucus process. Nevada's process did not experience the same disorder that impacted the Iowa caucuses, but the results have taken hours to report, with thousands still left unreported nearly 24 hours after the caucuses began.

Molly Forgey, communications director for the Nevada State Democratic Party, responded to the letter in a statement to CNN on Sunday.
"We laid out our early vote and Caucus Day processes step by step and we communicated these processes to all campaigns. We are continuing to verify and to report results," Forgey said. "We never indicated we would release a separate breakdown of early vote and in-person attendees by precinct and will not change our reporting process now. As laid out in our recount guidance, there is a formal method for requesting a challenge of results."


Here's a screenshot of the most astonishing & distressing page from the private JP Morgan report

that I have been able to help leak. “[It] is clear that the earth is on an unsustainable trajectory. Something will have to change at some point if the human race is going to survive”


The Strokes - Bad Decisions (Official Video)

The Strokes ‘The New Abnormal’ Available 4.10.20 Pre-Order Now: https://smarturl.it/TheNewAbnormal?iqID=yt
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 51 Next »