Independent News
Twitter reportedly close to a deal to sell itself to Elon Musk
This post was originally published on this site
Twitter’s board is close to a deal allowing Elon Musk to buy the company and take it private, in alarming news for anyone who doesn’t want a major social media platform controlled by an egomaniacal billionaire ranting about free speech while his signature company is being sued for racial discrimination.
Musk’s initial offer/threat to buy Twitter drew skepticism, but talks turned serious after he made progress in lining up financing, though it’s not yet a done deal and could—especially given who we’re talking about here—fall apart, perhaps in spectacular fashion.
RELATED STORY: Elon Musk offers to buy Twitter, attaching something he insists is ‘not a threat’
According to The New York Times, “An agreement is not yet final and may still apart, but what had initially seemed to be a highly improbable deal appeared to be nearing an endgame. The situation involving Twitter and Mr. Musk remains fluid and fast-moving, the people with knowledge of the situation said.”
Musk has claimed he wants to turn Twitter into a “platform for free speech around the globe,” but basically every expert on social media and speech says he has no clue what he’s talking about. The major social media companies, including Twitter, have invested a lot of time and money into figuring out what works, and while no one’s saying they’ve perfected it, the likelihood that Elon Musk can manifest a better answer directly from his ego is low.
”What Musk seemingly fails to recognize is that to truly have free speech today, you need moderation,” Katie Harbath, a former Facebook executive, told The Washington Post. “Otherwise, just those who bully and harass will be left as they will drive others away.”
”A platform that allows people to spam misogynist and racist abuse is unsafe for pretty much anyone else and would lose advertisers, corporate partners and sponsors rapidly, leaving it a commercially unviable husk within months,” said the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate’s Imran Ahmed.
Speaking of racist abuse, Musk’s signature company, Tesla, lost one racism discrimination lawsuit, with an initial judgment of $137 million recently reduced to $15 million. Other Black employees describe a horrifyingly, overtly racist environment at Tesla’s California plant, spurring a major discrimination lawsuit by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. That’s important context for Musk’s “free speech” talk. This is someone who presided over a company at which Black employees are assigned particularly difficult work in a section of the factory referred to as “the plantation,” a Black worker was fired after complaining that a supervisor called him and other Black workers “monkeys,” and use of the N-word was “the norm. It was Tesla’s tradition.”
Another interesting piece of context for Musk’s effort to buy Twitter is that in 2018, he had to step down as Tesla’s chair and paid $40 million in penalties ($20 million from himself and $20 million from Tesla) after—in a fascinating precursor to his current effort—he used tweets to claim he was taking Tesla private, causing “significant market disruption.”
Over the weekend, Musk continued to use his own high-profile Twitter account to show the kind of chaos he likes to bring to the platform, attacking Bill Gates with a crude, fat-shaming graphic, and suggesting that his hyperloop would work better than other forms of transportation because “Underground tunnels are immune to surface weather conditions (subways are a good example), so it wouldn’t matter to Hyperloop if a hurricane was raging on the surface. You wouldn’t even notice.” This howler drew a flood of responses with pictures of subway stations flooded after hurricanes or even just major rainstorms. The guy never lets not knowing what he’s talking about stop him from saying it through a huge megaphone.
Twitter may announce a deal with Musk as soon as Monday, though it could fall apart even after a public announcement.
RELATED STORIES:
Man who climbed up government-funded ladder endorses burning ladder now that he’s safely at the top
Don’t buy a Tesla unless you’re okay with Black workers being brutalized by racist managers
21 millionaires in Congress have helped 25 billionaires pay almost nothing in taxes
Elizabeth Warren has clearly had enough of Kevin McCarthy's antics
This post was originally published on this site
Sen. Elizabeth Warren was quite clear on Sunday when she appeared on CNN’s State of the Union and addressed The New York Times report that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy lied when he said he would urge former President Donald Trump to resign following the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Audio published by the Times revealed on Thursday that he did intend to.
“Kevin McCarthy is a liar and a traitor,” Warren said. “This is outrageous, and that is really the illness that pervades the Republican leadership right now.”
RELATED STORY: Awkward recording of Kevin McCarthy emerges hours after his denial. What else do reporters have?
She continued:
“That they say one thing to the American public and something else in private. They understand that it is wrong what happened, an attempt to overthrow our government. And that the Republicans instead want to continue to try to figure out how to make 2020 election different instead of spending their energy on how it is that we go forward in order to build an economy, in order to make this country work better for the people who sent us to Washington. Shame on Kevin McCarthy.”
In the audio in question, Rep. Liz Cheney asked McCarthy if there any reason he thinks Trump might resign.
“I’ve had a few discussions. My gut tells me no,” McCarthy responded. “I am seriously thinking about having that conversation with him tonight. I haven’t talked to him in a couple days.”
He went on to say: “Again, the only discussion I would have with him is that I think this will pass, and it would be my recommendation you should resign.”
McCarthy told reporters in remarks covered by CBS News on Friday that he “just walked through different scenarios” and that he “never thought that he should resign.”
He tried to lay blame with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
”I think the phone call was overblown,” McCarthy said, “because as we worked through this and we learned days later that Nancy Pelosi has denied the National Guard there to be able to protect that Capitol. That made people much more upset.”
The Associated Press revealed in its investigation that the claim earlier tweeted by Indiana Rep. Jim Banks is false. Pelosi doesn’t decide when to use the National Guard. That decision is made by the Capitol Police Board, a body composed of sergeants at arms in the House and Senate and the architect of the Capitol, the AP reported.
“The Speaker believes security officials should make security decisions,” Drew Hammill, a spokesperson for Pelosi, told the Associated Press in an emailed statement. “The Speaker immediately signaled her support for the deployment of the National Guard when she was presented with that recommendation on the afternoon of January 6th. Public testimony confirms the fact that the Speaker was not made aware of any request for such a deployment prior to then.”
Another day, another McCarthy lie.
Michigan Republican sends horrid anti-trans solicitation after fundraising shortfall
This post was originally published on this site
The Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest is compiled by David Nir, Jeff Singer, Stephen Wolf, Daniel Donner, and Carolyn Fiddler, with additional contributions from David Jarman, Steve Singiser, James Lambert, David Beard, and Arjun Jaikumar.
Subscribe to our podcast, The Downballot!
Leading Off
● MI-07: Republican state Sen. Tom Barrett, who is challenging Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin in Michigan’s new and competitive 7th Congressional District, recently sent out a fundraising appeal by text message falsely telling recipients that “your child’s gender reassignment surgery has been booked,” complete with a phony time for the appointment. Barrett, a far-right politician who has worn a “naturally immunized” wrist band and refused to say if he’s vaccinated, deployed this tactic after David Drucker of the conservative Washington Examiner reported that he’d badly missed his own team’s fundraising goals.
We know about Barrett’s underperformance because a Democratic operative provided Drucker with a vivid recording of one of his top aides. “We announced just before Thanksgiving, you know, really, you know, we chained him to a desk and had him on the phones,” said the staffer in February, “and he raised, you know, 310 grand. He’s raising more money now—our goal is a million by the end of March.” However, the senator hauled in only $456,000 during the first three months of 2022, which left him with $396,000 on hand. Slotkin, by contrast, took in $1.32 million during the first quarter and had a gigantic $5.5 million on hand.
One thing Barrett doesn’t need to worry about, though, is the Aug. 2 primary. Candidate filing closed Tuesday, and the only other Republican to turn in paperwork was insurance agency owner Jacob Hagg, who hasn’t reported raising any cash at all. This constituency in the Lansing area would have supported Joe Biden by a 50-49 margin, a small improvement for Slotkin from Trump’s 50-49 edge in the old 8th District. But even an underfunded extremist like Barrett has an opening in a district this close.
Now that filing has passed in the Wolverine State, we’ll be taking a look at Michigan’s other big competitive races, starting with our MI-Gov item below. It’s possible that some candidates who submitted signatures won’t appear on the ballot, though, because election authorities in Michigan have disqualified contenders in past years for not meeting the state’s requirements. In 2018, for instance, seven House hopefuls—including a few notable names—were thrown off the ballot after the secretary of state ruled that they’d failed to turn in the requisite number of acceptable petitions.
Redistricting
● FL Redistricting: Gov. Ron DeSantis signed his state’s new congressional map—which he himself proposed—on Friday, following party-line votes that advanced the map in both chambers of the Republican-run legislature. (We previously detailed the map’s impacts in this post.) The same day, several advocacy groups and Florida voters filed a lawsuit in state court alleging that the map violates the state constitution’s prohibitions on partisan gerrymandering and diluting minority representation.
● NY Redistricting: A five-judge panel on New York’s Appellate Division, the state’s intermediate appellate court, upheld a recent lower court ruling that the new congressional map drawn by Democrats violates the state constitution as an illegal partisan gerrymander and gave lawmakers until April 30 to craft a replacement. However, Democrats have already said they’ll appeal to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, with oral arguments scheduled for Tuesday.
In its ruling, the Appellate Division also overturned the trial court’s finding that the legislature lacked the power to draw new maps for the state Senate and Assembly, allowing those maps to be used. It’s not yet clear whether Republicans plan to pursue their own appeal regarding this issue.
Senate
● AR-Sen: We have yet to see any polls indicating whether former NFL player Jake Bequette poses a serious threat to Sen. John Boozman in the May 24 Republican primary, but the incumbent did recently air an ad taking a swipe at his foe. Most of Boozman’s spot, which praises him as a “workhorse, not a show pony” is positive, though it employs a photo of Bequette as the narrator hits those last words.
Bequette’s allies at Arkansas Patriots Fund, meanwhile, have been going directly at Boozman with a commercial faulting him for having “voted to confirm six in 10 Biden cabinet picks” in the first 40 days of the administration. The ad goes on to accuse the senator of backing “amnesty for illegals, tax dollars for abortions, bailouts for Wall Street, even allowed the feds to confiscate your firearm records.” The super PAC received $1 million from conservative megadonor Dick Uihlein last year, which Politico’s Alex Isenstadt says makes up most of its budget.
● AZ-Sen: The NRSC is commencing what they call a “seven figure” ad buy that starts off with a spot attacking Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly over immigration. This appears to be the first ad of the cycle going directly after a candidate from any of the “big four” party groups (which in addition to the NRSC includes the Senate Leadership Fund super PAC on the GOP side and the DSCC and Senate Majority PAC for Democrats).
● CO-Sen: Wealthy construction company owner Joe O’Dea has announced he’s spending $250,000 over three weeks to air an ad that touts his business record and portrays him as a conservative outsider. O’Dea faces state Rep. Ron Hanks in the June Republican primary.
● NC-Sen: Former Gov. Pat McCrory has debuted a new commercial ahead of the May 17 GOP primary where he calls Rep. Ted Budd weak on Vladimir Putin before claiming that Budd is backed by billionaire philanthropist George Soros. Soros is a Hungarian-born Holocaust survivor whom the far-right both here and abroad has frequently used as a target of and a stand-in for age-old conspiracy theories about wealthy Jews using their power to exert a nefarious influence over the world.
However, McCrory’s accusation that Soros, who is well known for openly funding progressive causes, would secretly support Budd, who has compiled a hard-right voting record in his three terms in office, relies on very dubious facts. The Charlotte Observer reports that a Soros-affiliated investment firm once owned a 7.6% stake in a company led by Budd’s father that filed for bankruptcy in 2000, and there’s no indication the congressman even had any role in the company’s day-to-day operations, which is a very far cry from Soros actually supporting his contemporary political activities.
Budd himself has launched a new ad that features footage of a rally where Trump effusively endorses Budd and McCrory goes unmentioned. While the two Republican front runners dominate the airwaves, the pro-Budd Club for Growth is notably training its focus on former GOP Rep. Mark Walker with an ad that criticizes him for frequently missing votes, including one involving Trump’s impeachment. The polls have shown Walker in a distant third place, but the Club likely views his hard-right support base as overlapping with potential Budd supporters.
● OH-Sen: Undeterred by Trump’s recent endorsement of venture capitalist J.D. Vance in the May 3 Republican primary, the Club for Growth is once again running an ad that uses Vance’s lengthy past history of anti-Trump statements against him. The ad campaign reportedly angered Trump so greatly that he had an aide text Club president David McIntosh, “Go f*^% yourself” (which presumably wasn’t censored). A spokesperson for the Club, which is supporting former state Treasurer Josh Mandel, tersely responded to the news about Trump’s message by saying, “We are increasing our ad buy.”
Meanwhile, former state GOP chair Jane Timken has been struggling to gain traction in the polls, and she has reportedly been off of broadcast TV in much of the state for weeks and is only continuing to run limited cable ads on Fox News.
Governors
● AL-Gov: Republican Gov. Kay Ivey has commissioned a poll from the Tarrance Group that shows her holding a dominant 57-14 lead over former Ambassador to Slovenia Lindy Blanchard ahead of the May 24 Republican primary, with businessman Tim James taking just 12%. There have only been a few polls here from reliable firms, but every one of them this year has found Ivey far ahead of her rivals and in good shape to surpass the simple-majority threshold needed to avoid a June runoff.
● GA-Gov: A group called Take Back Georgia with ties to pro-Trump state Sen. Brandon Beach has unveiled a $2 million ad buy for a spot that goes all-in on 2020 election denial to highlight Trump’s endorsement of former Sen. David Perdue ahead of the May 24 GOP primary against Gov. Brian Kemp. Perdue has only been running a modestly sized ad buy recently after struggling to keep up in fundraising with Kemp, whose allies at the RGA have also spent millions airing their first-ever ads backing an incumbent against a primary challenger.
It’s unclear whether Trump himself, whose super PAC recently reported it had over $120 million on hand, will increase its support for Perdue beyond the meager $500,000 it allocated a few weeks ago toward backing his endorsee. However, with the polls showing Kemp in striking distance of the outright majority needed to avoid a June runoff, time is quickly running short for Perdue.
● IL-Gov: Far-right billionaire Dick Uihlein has given another $2.5 million to the June primary campaign of Republican state Sen. Darren Bailey, bringing his total contributions to $3.5 million in addition to another $1 million that Uihlein gave to a third-party group opposing Aurora Mayor Richard Irvin. In yet another election that has turned into a battle of rival billionaires thanks to Illinois being one of just a few states without any limits on direct contributions to candidates, Uihlein’s involvement so far still trails far behind the $20 million that fellow billionaire Ken Griffin, a hedge fund manager who is Illinois’ wealthiest resident, has given to Irvin’s campaign.
● MI-Gov: A total of 10 Republicans are competing to take on Democratic incumbent Gretchen Whitmer, which would make this the largest gubernatorial primary field in state history. The few polls that have been released show former Detroit Police Chief James Craig as Team Red’s frontrunner, but he’s had to deal with several major campaign shakeups: Craig, most notably, parted ways with his first campaign manager in December, and his second left last month.
The August primary also includes two wealthy businessmen, Kevin Rinke and Perry Johnson. Conservative radio host Tudor Dixon doesn’t have the same resources as her intra-party foes, but she sports endorsements from Reps. Bill Huizenga and Lisa McClain. Also in the running are chiropractor Garrett Soldano, Michigan State Police Captain Mike Brown, and five others.
● OR-Gov: The May 17 primary is rapidly approaching, and the Portland Monthly’s Julia Silverman has collected several TV spots from the candidates. On the Democratic side, former state House Speaker Tina Kotek talks about the progressive policies she helped pass, while state Treasurer Tobias Read’s narrator argues that “Oregon has lost its way. It’s time for a new approach.” Silverman notes that this messaging is “all in keeping with Read’s efforts to portray himself as a change agent, though he has been in state government about as long as Kotek.”
For the Republicans, former state House Minority Leader Christine Drazan declares that she’s “led the fight against [Democratic Gov.] Kate Brown’s radical agenda.” Sandy Mayor Stan Pulliam, meanwhile, goes all-in with courting right-wing outrage with spots where he calls for getting “critical race theory out of our schools” and “not allow[ing] transgender athletes to compete in girls’ sports.” Former state Rep. Bob Tiernan uses his messaging to attack Brown and Kotek, saying that their approach is “bull****.” (A different Republican, consultant Bridget Barton, also tried to stand out with some censored potty mouth.) Finally, 2016 nominee Bud Pierce alludes to the Big Lie with the mention of “broken elections.”
House
● AK-AL: The Alaska Republican Party has endorsed businessman Nick Begich III ahead of the top-four special election primary this June, where Begich has emerged as one of the leading Republicans in the crowded all-party contest alongside former Gov. Sarah Palin.
● MI-03: Rep. Peter Meijer, who was one of the 10 House Republicans to vote to impeach Trump, faces primary opposition from conservative commentator John Gibbs, who is Trump’s endorsed candidate. (We recently took a closer look at this primary.) Little-known attorney Gabi Manolache is also running, though “MAGA bride” Audra Johnson did not end up filing. The winner will take on 2020 nominee Hillary Scholten, who faces no intra-party opposition for her second bid, in a Grand Rapids-based seat that redistricting transformed from a 51-47 Trump seat to one Joe Biden would have carried 53-45.
● MI-04: Republican Rep. Bill Huizenga, who represents the existing 2nd District, has no primary opposition following fellow Rep. Fred Upton’s retirement announcement earlier this month. This seat in southwestern Michigan would have favored Trump 51-47, and the one Democrat to file, Joseph Alfonso, has not reported raising any money.
● MI-08: Democratic Rep. Dan Kildee is defending a seat in the Flint and Saginaw areas that would have favored Joe Biden only 50-48, a small but potentially important shift from Biden’s 51-47 showing in Kildee’s existing 5th District. The Republican frontrunner is former Trump administration official Paul Junge, who lost to Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin 51-47 in the old 8th District in 2020. (The old and new 8th Districts do not overlap.) Former Grosse Pointe Shores Councilman Matthew Seely and businesswoman Candice Miller (not to be confused with the former congresswoman with the same name) are also in, but neither opened fundraising committees until recently.
● MI-10: Five Democrats are competing to take on John James, who was Team Red’s Senate nominee in 2018 and 2020, in an open seat in Detroit’s northeastern suburbs that would have gone for Trump 50-49. James, who only has a little-known primary foe, had $1.25 million stockpiled at the end of March, which was considerably more than the Democrats had combined.
Warren Council member Angela Rogensues finished the quarter with $160,000 on hand, while attorney Huwaida Arraf and former Macomb County Judge Carl Marlinga were similarly situated with $145,000 and $135,000 to spend, respectively. Sterling Heights City Council member Henry Yanez, though, was far back with only $22,000 in the bank, while former Macomb County Health Department head Rhonda Powell had less than $5,000.
● MI-11: The Democratic primary is a duel between Reps. Haley Stevens and Andy Levin for a constituency in the Detroit northern suburbs that Biden would have won 59-39. Stevens’ existing 11th District makes up 45% of the new seat, while Levin represents only 25%. (Several Democrats grumbled to Politico recently that Levin should have instead run for the new 10th, where he already serves most of the residents.)
Stevens has the support of retiring Rep. Brenda Lawrence, who represents the balance of this district, and EMILY’s List, while the SEIU is in Levin’s corner. The two have largely voted the same way in Congress, though while Levin has emphasized his support for Medicare for all and the Green New Deal, Stevens has portrayed herself as more pragmatic. Stevens ended March with a $2.79 million to $1.47 million cash-on-hand edge over her fellow incumbent.
● MI-12: Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who is one of the most prominent progressives in the House, faces three Democratic primary opponents in this safely blue Detroit-based seat. Tlaib, whose existing 13th District makes up 53% of the new 12th, ended March with a $1.62 million to $221,000 cash-on-hand lead over her nearest foe, Detroit City Clerk Janice Winfrey; Winfrey, for her part, has faulted Tlaib for casting a vote from the left against the Biden administration’s infrastructure bill. Also in the race are former state Rep. Shanelle Jackson and Lathrup Village Mayor Kelly Garrett, neither of whom reported raising any money during the last quarter.
● MI-13: A total of 11 Democrats have filed to run to succeed retiring Rep. Brenda Lawrence, who is Michigan’s only Black member of Congress, in this safely blue seat, which includes part of Detroit and its southern suburbs. Lawrence, who supports Michigan Civil Rights Commissioner Portia Roberson, has argued that it’s vital to keep a “qualified, committed” African American representing the state, something that several other Black candidates have also emphasized.
However, the candidate who ended March with the most money by far is self-funding state Rep. Shri Thanedar, who is originally from India. (Thanedar, who lived in Ann Arbor when he unsuccessfully ran for governor, moved to Detroit ahead of his victorious bid for a state House seat in the city two years later.) Thanedar had over $5 million on hand, which was more than ten times as much as the $453,000 that his nearest foe, state Sen. Adam Hollier, had available.
Other candidates to watch include hedge fund manager John Conyers III, who is the son and namesake of the late longtime congressman; Detroit School Board member Sherry Gay-Dagnogo; Teach for America official Michael Griffie; former Detroit General Counsel Sharon McPhail; and Detroit city official Adrian Tonon, who is one of the few other non-Black contenders in the primary.
● MN-01: In what appears to be the first TV ad from anyone ahead of the special May 24 Republican primary, former Freeborn County party chair Matt Benda plays up his farming background and pledges to “protect our children from indoctrination in the classroom [and] ensure election integrity.”
● NC-11: Axios reports that Results for North Carolina, a super PAC close to Sen. Thom Tillis, is spending $310,000 on an ad campaign against Rep. Madison Cawthorn, which makes this the first major outside spending of the May 17 Republican primary. The commercial focuses on reports that the incumbent “lied about being accepted to the Naval Academy” and declares he’s “been caught lying about conservatives.” The narrator, who brands the congressman “an attention-seeking embarrassment,” does not mention Tillis’ endorsed candidate, state Sen. Chuck Edwards.
● TN-05: Tennessee has finalized its list of candidates for the Aug. 4 primary ballot now that each party has had the chance to eject contenders who did not meet their “bona fide” standards, an option the GOP utilized in the 5th District in order to bounce three notable candidates. The 5th will also likely be home to the only seriously contested House race, and we’ll be taking a look at the field now that we know who’s on the ballot.
There are nine Republicans remaining in the race to succeed retiring Democratic Rep. Jim Cooper in the 5th, which GOP mapmakers transmuted from a 60-37 Biden district to a 54-43 Trump constituency by cracking the city of Nashville. The only three who appear to be serious contenders are former state House Speaker Beth Harwell, who took a disappointing fourth place in the 2018 primary for governor; Maury County Mayor Andy Ogles; and retired Brig. Gen. Kurt Winstead, who has the largest war chest by far, though it’s possible another candidate will catch fire. On the Democratic side, state Sen. Heidi Campbell has the field to herself.
Ad Roundup
It’s that time of the election cycle again when campaign ads have grown too numerous for us to detail every one, so we’re bringing back a feature from past cycles where we’ll round up any remaining ads that we don’t have space to cover in greater depth. Today’s list only has a few entries, but the roundup will be sure to grow longer as the year progresses:
- AL-Sen: Mike Durant (R)
- PA-Gov: Bill McSwain (R) – anti-Doug Mastriano (R)
- WI-Gov: Rebecca Kleefisch (R) – anti-Tony Evers (D-inc)
Cartoon: Meanwhile on parallel Earth
This post was originally published on this site
As always, if you enjoy this work, please consider helping me keep it sustainable by joining my weekly newsletter, Sparky’s List!
Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: La France a voté contre Poutine
This post was originally published on this site
Chris O’Brien/Twitter:
The @nytimes has a dangerous obsession with Le Pen. A quick review of headlines from the past month:
Marine Le Pen Is as Dangerous as EverMacron May Keep the Presidency, but Le Pen Has Already Won
Le Pen Closer Than Ever to the French Presidency (and to Putin)
A Reinvented Marine Le Pen Threatens to Upend French Elections
Macron to Face Le Pen for President as French Gravitate Toward Extremes
French Election Opens Up as Marine Le Pen Surges
In Le Pen Territory, as France Votes, Anger at a Distant President
A Problem for Macron in France’s Election: ‘The Hatred He Arouses’
Even if the tone toward her is negative, she has absolutely dominated the way the Times covers and thinks about this election. In much the same way Trump used to drive media narratives. Lessons not learned, I guess.
This was a solid win for Macron, a bit larger than expected. And nothing beats losing like winning does. So, expect all the coverage to be about the loser.
Stanley Pignal/Twitter:
France votes today.
A lot of the focus has been on Le Pen. We’ve had weeks of “What if she wins?” or “Even if she loses, she’s changing France!”
But the candidate who matters is the one who wins.
That’s going to be Macron. And his re-election matters more than his 2017 win.…
So everyone can find something they dislike about Macron (I have a pretty long list, who doesn’t?).
But the most usual feeling among the most voters is that he’s done a good job. Yes, some strongly disagree. Someone always does. But look at who’s going to win.The key point is that Macron is the candidate who matters, not Le Pen. Elections matter because they tell us who voters think ought to run the country. Not who protests loudest, not who nearly won, not who you think ought to have won.
Shades of U.S. political coverage.
Michael Kofman/Twitter:
I’ve been traveling and not writing much these past two weeks. Some brief thoughts about the second phase of the war, Russia’s offensive to retake the Donbas, and implications. Thread. (map from Nathan below)…
Russian forces have taken heavy losses in manpower and equipment, with far fewer combat effective formations available. Not clear what we are calling ‘BTGs’ at this point and their level of manning. Russian reinforcements are far from sufficient to replace earlier losses…
I think it is fair to say that the decisive period of the war was the first three weeks (maybe even first 4 days). Whatever happens in this next phase, the Russian military is likely to exhaust its offensive potential in the near term.Does this presage a stalemate? Not necessarily. UKR has its own offensive options. Russia may next try to consolidate control over territory held and pressure UKR via blockade. Its too early to predict what the next phase might look like & it depends on what UKR chooses to do.
Kamil Galeev/Twitter with a Mariupol history lesson:
Mariupol was founded by the Crimean Christians deported by Russia in 1770s. Deportation of Christians from Crimea received surprisingly little international coverage. So let’s discuss it. Until XVIII century Muslim Tatar Crimean Khanate was a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire…
Being so archaic, Crimean Khanate was very diverse. Ruling class was Tatar (=Kipchak Turkic). But there also lived Greeks, Armenians, Jews, etc. According to Jacob Ziegler, it was the last place where the Gothic language, dead elsewhere, was still spoken in the late Middle Ages.
Brett Kelman/Twitter:
Tennesseans who won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine describe “no one” as more trusted source of info than their own doctors, hospitals, pharmacists, public health experts and politicians of either party, per a new vaccine hesitancy survey the state didn’t publicize. A quick thread.The Tennessee Department of Health published a vaccine hesitancy survey last April and announced a second round would follow. The second round was done just before the Omicron wave but the state decided not to push it out like the first. They gave me the results when I asked.The findings are bad. High levels of misinformed and politicized hesitancy were expected, but vaccine resistance appears more entrenched than I feared. Of those responders who are currently unwilling to be vaccinated, 64% said they “will NOT” reconsider.We already knew unwillingness is most common among rural, conservative whites, which makes up the bulk of Tennessee and the survey group. Of those rural, conservative whites in the survey, less than 1% were vaxxed & boosted. In a smaller quantitative study, none were vaxxed. Zero
Charlie Sykes/Bulwark:
The Humiliation of Kevin McCarthy
Lordy, there were tapes
So what happens now? Politico’s Playbook is asking: “Is Kevin McCarthy toast?”
For years now, through controversy after controversy, House Minority Leader KEVIN MCCARTHY has bent over backward to stay in former President DONALD TRUMP’s good graces, all to serve one major purpose: He wants to be speaker someday.
That hope may have just blown up on the launchpad.
But, if he is toast, it’s not because he has just been caught in a lie, because that’s not really a disqualification in today’s GOP. If his dreams of becoming speaker have been torched, it’s only because he’s seen as disloyal by Trump. And because he’s a cynical moron.
Roger Sollenberger/Daily Beast:
Trump’s Most Loyal Lawmakers Are Actually Losing Money
The members of Congress trying to mirror Donald Trump’s politics the most are spending an awful lot.
Last year, it was a fundraising feast for the MAGA Goon Squad. But in 2022, without the donor stimulus of an attempted insurrection, things are going in the wrong direction.
The first three months of the year took more than $275,000 combined out of the pockets of Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Madison Cawthorn (R-NC), and Matt Gaetz (R-FL)—the foursome of America First, Donald Trump-loving, exhibitionist election objectors. All told, it was their worst showing to date.
It wasn’t always like this.
James McAuley/New Yorker:
The French Far Right Comes on Little Cat Feet
After years of seeing Marine Le Pen as a dangerous extreme, many voters now see her as a politician like any other.On my trip to Saint-Cloud, I wanted to understand where she came from. In 2015, in an attempt to distance herself from her father’s Holocaust denial after he repeated his remark, yet again, that the Nazi gas chambers had been a mere “detail in the history of World War Two,” she announced that she was banishing him from the Front National—now renamed the Rassemblement National, or National Rally. For years, their relationship was one of performative estrangement, although an organization that Jean-Marie controlled loaned his daughter’s 2017 campaign six million euros. This year, she has given up the performance. If elected, she told France’s BFM TV, her father would be at her side when she entered the Élysée Palace. “I am my father’s daughter,” she said. “I think that yes, he would want to be there, clearly.”
Ukraine Update: Mariupol holds (and is resupplied!), and is Russia really reaching for Kryvyi Rih?
This post was originally published on this site
Today was day 60 of this war. Two full months. Feels like a lifetime out here, in safety. Imagine what it must be like in Ukraine. (Even my own experience in El Salvador’s civil war was nowhere near the intensity of this all-out conventional war.)
Russian forces have no hope of taking Azovstal metal factory in Mariupol, literally designed to withstand a nuclear attack. I wondered on Friday whether Ukraine could supply defenders from the the Azov Sea on the factory’s southern approach, and it turns out that’s exactly what they’re doing:
Secretary of the National Security Council Alexei Danilov said that the supplies of the necessary to Mariupol took place with the help of helicopters, the defenders of the city asked only for ammunition.
The city’s defenders had plenty of time to stock the vast network of tunnels under the factor with food and water, and this report confirms that the only thing they’re lacking is ammunition. Too bad helicopters can’t safely land, would be nice to evacuate the children trapped in the complex. Not to mention, the last time Russia was able to interdict a helicopter run to the city, they shot two of the birds down. The kids are likely safer in the tunnels, for the time being.
If you haven’t seen this video yet, it provides great context of the scale of the factory. It covers four square miles, and with a perimeter measuring around nine miles and all those tunnels leading to who knows where, it’ll be extremely difficult for a reduced Russian presence to corral its defenders. As is, Russia was trumpeting the capture of a couple of warehouses on the factory’s perimeter. Okay, great! Only about a thousand more to go.
Down in southern Ukraine, the most curious thing is happening.
Remember claims that Russia would march on Dnipro, and I was like lol no? Same as claims that Russia would attack Odesa via amphibious landing, and that Belarus was going to invade western Ukraine? All of that was nonsense, virtual impossibilities, and you can add this to that list. No matter how much Vladimir Putin might want this symbolic strike, it just ain’t gonna happen. The Russian push toward Kryvyi Rih has always been a bizarre side-show in this war, never fully resourced or considered. Ukrainian defenders stopped the original push north well short of the city, and Russia has actually lost ground the last few weeks.
It isn’t a particularly strategic operation, either. Capturing Kryvyi Rih wouldn’t cut any key supply lines, or trap Ukrainian forces, or accomplish anything of military value. Kryvyi Rih has a population of around 635,000 people (comparable to Memphis or Detroit). If Russia had any capability to capture urban centers, they’d be working on Mykolaiv—the gateway to the extremely strategic Black Sea port city of Odesa! Instead, they’re still struggling to pacify Mariupol, a city with 200,000 less people and smaller footprint, which Russia has surrounded since the start of the war.
Also, they already failed to take Mykolaiv.
Meanwhile, the tug-of-war near Kherson appears to be moving in Ukraine’s direction, at least for the moment. Ukraine claims the liberation of 13 settlements in the northern approach toward Kherson.
Note, the terrain here is flat and unforgiving for offensive operations. Both sides have gone back and forth, as incoming artillery forces the abandonment of forward positions. This is why armored personnel carriers will work wonders in this region—allowing Ukrainian infantry to move through artillery barrages, protected from the shrapnel that would otherwise chew up unprotected infantry.
Ukraine also claims they killed two generals in an attack on Kherson airport—a claim so fantastical that it seems beyond belief. Yet Russia has consistently moved forces back to that airport for subsequent elimination. So … who knows? Russia hasn’t hidden the funerals for its fallen generals, so we’ll know soon enough if it’s true.
Several Kherson locals claimed on Telegram that they could hear fighting outside the city, and at least one video I was unable to confirm claimed Russian artillery was firing from inside Kherson, which means Ukrainian troops were close enough to engage. This is all rumor until official confirmation or geolocated video evidence. But regardless, we do know Ukraine is advancing for the time being.
So consider this:
- Russia is sending all available reinforcements to Donbas.
- Russia still dreams of a land bridge from Donbas, all the way to Odesa and the adjacent Russian-occupied region of Transnistria, in Moldova.
- Ukrainian forces are nipping at Kherson, which would cut off supply lines to Russian forces on the Kryvyi Rih axis.
So what the hell is Russia thinking keeping those forces near Kryvyi Rih, much less massing troops for a new offensive? Is the rationale really as stupid as a “Zelenskyy is from there lol” troll? Meanwhile, Russia simply doesn’t learn from its past mistakes, reaching toward a distant objective while leaving its long supply lines exposed near a Ukrainian-held stronghold (Mykolaiv).
Or maybe it’s all a feint to fix Ukrainian forces in place. Russia pretends to have designs on Kryvyi Rih, and Ukraine rushes troops to defend. But this is all so improbable, I’d guess there’s nothing there to defend beyond Territorial Defense forces. Really no reason for anything heavier. Just a bunch of locals with Javelin and NLAWS should be enough. My guess is no such attack ever materializes.
There are oblique reports on a Ukrainian resistance in the south, particularly around Melitopol, but increasingly in Kherson as well. Russia inadvertently confirmed those reports with this video:
Ukrainian intelligence claims that the Melitopol resistance has killed around 70 Russians, which would average out to around 1-2 per day since the city was occupied. Among the claim successes has been the sabotage of rail lines from Crimea supplying Russians around Mariupol. In Kherson, we’ve heard about the assassination of at least two collaborators. Working with the Russians is not a healthy profession.
Out east, Russia pressed on the entire Donbas front, and finally found a meaningful hole in Ukraine’s defensive lines.
Russian troops bypassed a couple cities south of Izyum to surprise-take the settlement of Kurulka, roughly five miles north of a critical rail line supplying Russian forces along that entire front. (Honestly, Russia should be bombing that rail infrastructure instead of targeting civilian apartment complexes, but there’s a reason they’re losing this war.)
Russia is pressing on the settlement of Pashkove, the last line of defense before Russia physically tramples that rail line. I’d expect a furious Ukrainian response to hold Pashkove and retake lost ground over the next couple of days. Russia notched additional minor gains all around the front, but none anywhere near as strategically valuable or significant as Kurulka. Ukraine claimed heavy Russian losses throughout those advances. While video usually takes a few days to filter out, the claims are believable given the trends in this war, and in the Donbas front over the past week since everyone screamed about Russia’s big offensive.
This is about 200 miles from Ukraine’s northeastern border.
Weird coincidence how all these strategically important Russian targets keep burning, huh?
The plot thickens:
If this is a false flag operation, I’m kinda okay with them taking out their fuel or artillery storage sites. Either one is fine! It’s better than killing civilians, which is the pretext they used during the second Chechnya war.
Meanwhile, the fires are already showing up on NASA’s FIRMS satellite imagery.
Woah, the video is INTENSE:
Certainly dramatic enough for Putin to use as justification for full mobilization. Posting this for the video, not the stupid tweet prematurely claiming this was Ukrainian strikes, or somehow tying them to the high-level American delegation in Kyiv.
Here’s more video capturing both explosions in one frame. One is definitely a fuel depot. The other location is literally a fuel depot adjacent to an artillery military base. Either could be hit. But both fires are burning identically, which suggests both were fuel depots explosions.
No way this was accidental. Someone set these off.
Former Nebraska Rep. Brad Ashford, who switched parties four times during long career, dies at 72
This post was originally published on this site
Former Rep. Brad Ashford, whose 2014 win gave Democrats their only victory in a Nebraska House race since the 1994 GOP wave, died Tuesday at the age of 72 two months after he announced that he had brain cancer. Ashford previously served as a Democrat, Republican, and independent during his two stints in the state’s unicameral legislature, though he was never fully at home in either party during his long career in local and national politics.
Ashford, whose parents ran a prominent clothing store in downtown Omaha, got his start in politics in the 1970s as an intern for Republican Sen. Roman Hruska, and he made the first of what would be many party switches in 1982 to back Democrat Bob Kerrey’s successful bid for governor. Ashford, who had accepted an appointment by Kerrey to serve on the state’s Court of Industrial Relations, first considered running for the Omaha-based 2nd Congressional District in 1986 against Republican Rep. Hal Daub, but he instead won a seat in the legislature that year.
Ashford initially still identified as a Democrat when he reached the officially nonpartisan state Senate, but news broke during his first months in office that he was considering rejoining the Republicans. He initially turned the GOP down only to finally make the jump in 1989, but he announced the very next day that he’d still serve on the finance committee for Kerrey’s ultimately victorious bid for the Senate. Ashford, who was a supporter of gun safety measures during his time in office, later gave up his place in the legislature to run for Congress only to badly lose the GOP primary 53-25 to Jon Christensen, who went on to narrowly unseat Democratic incumbent Peter Hoagland that fall.
Listen and subscribe to Daily Kos Elections’ The Downballot podcast with David Nir and David Beard
Ashford, though, was far from done with politics. Daub, who was mayor of Omaha by this point, appointed him in 1996 to the Omaha Housing Authority, a body Ashford would later chair. Ashford also initially supported Republican Chuck Hagel’s campaign for the Senate that same year, but he announced that he would no longer back him after Hagel adopted more conservative positions on abortion and gun safety issues. “I thought Chuck Hagel would bring the party to the center and away from the right-wing in those issues,” explained the former state senator, adding, “It’s very disappointing.”
Ashford, who remained active in local issues during his time out of office, returned to the legislature in 2007, and he retained his image as a moderate Republican. In late 2011, though, he announced that he was giving up his party affiliation altogether to become an independent, saying, “My political heroes always have been those people who work from the middle in a collaborative manner. Good ideas come from both sides.” The state senator sought a promotion in 2013 when he challenged Omaha’s Democratic mayor, Jim Suttle, but he took a distant fourth in the nonpartisan primary with 13%. (Republican Jean Stothert went on to unseat Suttle.)
However, Ashford had one more party switch ahead of him months later. Democrats were looking to target Rep. Lee Terry, who had only won 51-49 in 2012 even as Mitt Romney was carrying the 2nd District 53-46, and they successfully recruited Ashford after Omaha City Council President Pete Festersen dropped out. The newly-reminted Democrat had a very tough task ahead of him, especially as the political climate worsened for Team Blue, but Terry, who had declared during the 2013 government shutdown that he would keep taking his salary because “I’ve got a nice house and a kid in college,” proved to be an especially weak incumbent.
This contest attracted over $1 million from outside groups on each side, and Republicans sought to protect their endangered incumbent by portraying Ashford as weak on crime. The GOP ran ad after ad charging that Ashford supported a law that would allow a Black inmate named Nikko Jenkins to get out of jail early for murder, messaging that Democrats compared with George H.W. Bush’s still-infamous Willie Horton ads. Jenkins, though, gave Terry the most unwanted endorsement imaginable, though, when he used a hearing to proclaim, “Hey you guys, vote for Lee Terry! Best Republican ever!” Ashford, who campaigned as a centrist, ultimately unseated Terry 49-46, giving Democrats a rare pickup on an overall awful night.
The new congressman immediately was one of the GOP’s top 2016 targets, but this time, he had a much tougher foe than Terry. Team Red nominated former Air Force Brig. General Don Bacon, who unseated Ashford 49-48 as Donald Trump was carrying the seat 48-46. Ashford sought a rematch in 2018, but while he once again had the support of national Democrats, nonprofit head Kara Eastman put up an unexpectedly tough fight in the primary. Eastman, who ran to Ashford’s left, ran ads saying that she was tired of hearing that Democrats don’t stand for anything, and she upset him 52-48 before narrowly losing to Bacon.
Eastman ran again in 2020, and she easily won the nomination against the former congressman’s wife, Ann Ferlic Ashford. However, while Democrats hoped that Eastman could finish the job in the fall, Brad Ashford once again defied his party by endorsing Bacon and even starring in one of his commercials. Ashford’s seal of approval likely gave Bacon a boost, as he fended off Eastman 51-46 even as Joe Biden was winning the district 52-46.
Nuts & Bolts—Inside the Democratic party: Stop counting on young people to bail out the party
This post was originally published on this site
This week in the Nuts & Bolts Guide to the Democratic party, we should take some time to discuss why the Democratic party should not count on young people bailing out the party when election time comes.
There are several significant problems with this analysis, but some of the conclusions are also incorrect. Many conclusions revolve around voter registration efforts, turnout efforts, and making sure we motivate young people to get out there and work in campaigns. This all sounds great, but it is missing the biggest component: listening. Votes are not guaranteed, votes are earned. The process of earning votes means you reflectively listen and you act accordingly.
Young people are with us!
Do you know how often I hear this phrase? I have heard this off and on for decades. Young people will reach voting age, and they will vote Democratic, and the tide will turn on Republicans. There are some significant problems with this analysis. The first is problem is the assumption of how many young people are Democratic to begin with, as many grow up as, and are as a result, cradle Republicans. Small town residents live in a fairly insulated world where everyone around them has common cause, and that cause is often Republican. It is very difficult to develop empathy for people you don’t see or have experience with.
Just saying out loud that “young people are with us” is also a terrible way to take votes for granted. Campaigns come to the conclusion early that young people do not vote. Statistically, there is truth to this in every election cycle. Youth turnout is far lower than the turnout percentages you see as you get older. This means that the older electorate has an oversized input in the outcome of an election. The cycle gets serious. Some people then say: “Well, they aren’t voting, but they are with us.” Let me explains what happens: Young people are with us on social issues and the state of the country by and large. They reject Trumpism. When it comes to turning out votes, though, we run into a problem. Let’s say that we have a room full of 100 people under 25. The group is 60% Democratic, 40% Republican. Fine. So, 60/40 members. Republicans turn out 87% of their vote, roughly 34 votes. Democrats turn out roughly 63% of the vote. That’s roughly 38 votes. What began as a 20-vote bump turned into a bump of four votes.
What causes the percentage drop?
The answer is simple: Young voters can be excited and interested. The year 2018 is a perfect example of that outcome. What caused that excitement and that outcome? I would contend that part of it is that candidates directly addressed issues young people care about. If you want votes, you have to reflectively listen, understand, and put forward something that shows you took the concerns seriously. CNN recently documented this:
Even more important may be Biden finding ways to generate more progress than he has so far on issues important to younger generations, particularly combating climate change and reducing the burden of student debt.
We spend so much time moving away from issues or not talking about them because campaigns are concerned that it will turn off older voters. Rarely considered is that the failure to address these issues can completely turn off young voters who will simply sit at home. That outcome is devastating for Democratic campaigns.
In 2020, nearly 50% of young people turned out and voted. That is up significantly from 39% in 2016. That turnout helped make a difference in several states.
Youth turnout in midterms is typically miserable. In 2014, youth turnout was roughly 13%. In 2018, when Democratic candidates swept into the House, youth turnout surged to nearly 28%, doubling prior performance. The result? Democratic candidates took the house back.
Talk to them
There is a simple lesson for the party here: Talk to young people like human beings. This should not be difficult. You can excite young people to get behind you and go quite far in the right turnout. Address issues seriously and be committed to them.
Instead of chasing moderate Republican voters, work hard to get young voters to turn up in a midterm by talking to them about their concerns. Be serious and open about why their future matters.
We take for granted that young people will save the party, and candidates don’t listen or get involved, so we cause young voters to feel jaded and left out. Inclusion builds better campaigns and a better party.
Fulton County DA to begin selecting special grand jury in Trump election tampering case on May 2
This post was originally published on this site
Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis will begin selection of a special grand jury on May 2 to hear testimony about whether former President Donald Trump tried to illegally overturn the election results in Georgia in 2020, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC) reported.
Willis told the newspaper that the special grand jury won’t hear testimony from witnesses until June 1. The reason for the delay, Willis said, was because she wanted to wait until after the May 24 primaries in the state—to avoid the perception that her actions are politically motivated. But Republicans can be expected to allege such motives, whatever Willis does.
Willis said the nearly month-long gap would give grand jurors a chance to approve subpoenas for reluctant witnesses, and for the Atlanta-area district attorney’s office to serve the subpoena documents.
“I don’t want anyone to say ‘oh, she’s doing this because she wants to influence the outcome of this upcoming election,’” Willis told the newspaper. “The people will decide the outcome of this upcoming election. It will have nothing to do with this district attorney’s office.”
Among potential witnesses are Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Gov. Brian Kemp, and Attorney General Chris Carr, who are all on the May primary ballot. All three are targeted by Donald Trump-endorsed challengers, for their roles in certifying Joe Biden’s narrow victory in the state in the 2020 presidential election.
Raffensperger was the recipient of Trump’s Jan. 2, 2021 phone call requesting that he “find” enough votes to reverse the ex-president’s Georgia defeat. Kemp and Carr also received calls from Trump following the November 2020 election.
Recent polling has shown that Raffensperger, and possibly Kemp, may be forced into primary runoffs on June 21, which might delay their testimony, the AJC reported.
The special grand jury is authorized to meet until spring 2023, unless it wraps up its work earlier. So June could be a pivotal month in efforts to hold Trump accountable for his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
The House Jan. 6 committee has indicated that it could start its public hearings in May and they would likely continue into June.
RELATED: Fani Willis: ‘I am conducting a criminal investigation of former President Donald J. Trump’
Willis launched her probe 14 months ago, putting together a team of 10 prosecutors and investigators. In January 2022, WIllis was granted permission by Fulton County Superior Court judges to seat a special grand jury to assist in her investigation. Willis made the request because a significant number of witnesses had refused to cooperate with her investigation absent a subpoena requiring their testimony.
The special grand jury can compel reluctant witnesses to testify because of that subpoena power. It can also maintain focus on the Trump investigation, and serve a term longer than that of a typical grand jury. It lacks the authority to return an indictment, but it may make recommendations concerning criminal prosecutions. Then it would be up to a regular grand jury to issue indictments.
In a request that same month to the FBI for security assistance, Willis said that she is “conducting a criminal investigation of former President Donald J. Trump” and his associates regarding alleged attempts to improperly influence the administration of Georgia’s 2020 presidential election.
At least 50 people have voluntarily testified before prosecutors, and subpoenas could be sought for at least 30 others who had previously declined to be interviewed, the newspaper reported. Willis added that there are another 60 or so people her team is hoping to interview in the weeks ahead. Willis told the AJC that she’d ordered bulletproof vests for her team, and also increased security, because of multiple threats tied to the Trump investigation as well as unrelated gang cases.
Among the Trump associates who could be potential targets of Willis’ investigation are his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Department of Justice official Jeffrey Clark, and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. All of them reportedly had contact with Georgia election officials and/or state legislators aimed at overturning the election results.
Willis’ team is also looking at the sudden resignation of the Atlanta-based U.S. Attorney Bjay Pak, a telephone call Graham made to Raffensperger, and false claims made by Giuliani at a hearing before the state Senate’s Judiciary Committee.
Willis has said her office was looking into such potential violations of Georgia law as criminal solicitation to commit election fraud, intentional interference with the performance of election duties, conspiracy, and racketeering. The jury’s still out, however, as to whether this investigation will result to indictments against Trump and his associates given that so far, Trump has managed to avoid being held responsible for his crimes … for decades.
I am so lost. Republican rabbit-hole logic needs decoder rings to make any sense
This post was originally published on this site
Every time I read the news, I find myself completely baffled by Republicans. Sometimes, I wonder if just being exposed to the winding logic is making us lose our grasp on reality, because I am absolutely lost on how anyone can make sense of these conclusions.
Republicans are supposedly concerned with little girls being violated in bathrooms, trans books, and any teaching of history that involves members of the Black and brown communities. The solution for Republicans boils down to legal bans. Legal bans are the solution. This has left me completely lost.
Let me see if I understand.
Banning trans people from bathrooms will prevent sexual crime.
Banning books from libraries that reflect critical race theory, LGBTQ characters, or complex issues that impact the Black and brown communities will solve the problem of having to admit to children that people exist in many intersections and that marginalized people have been treated badly for a long time. But I guarantee you those books are still sold on Amazon and everywhere else. In fact, banning them probably makes young people more interested in reading them.
Banning trans youth from competing in athletes solves a problem for Republicans, completely addressing the issue.
Banning abortion means that there will be no abortions, and that ends the issue.
Banning companies from having their own internal policies around masks or safety in the name of freedom succeeds in limiting the scope of government—truly a backward asserion.
Bans have become the major solution for Republicans, I get that. Every day I read more and more about the next new ban in a new red state.
If banning something can stop critical race theory, if banning abortion can stop abortion, if banning mask policies stops mask policies, and if banning people from bathrooms is a solution for them, proving that bans work—
THEN WHY THE HELL ARE THEY SO OPPOSED TO STRONGER GUN LAWS AFTER MASS SHOOTINGS IF THESE BANS WORK SO DAMN WELL? WHAT LOGIC IS THIS??
Listen and subscribe to Daily Kos Elections’ The Downballot podcast with David Nir and David Beard