He just misses telling the horrible truth that the anti-democratic right are the legitimate offspring of their elders and legitimators in spite of themselves, the anti-democratic left.
It happened in Spain.
It happened in Weimar.
The Trap The Democrats Walked Right Into
But here’s one thing I have absolutely no conflict about.
Rioting and lawlessness is evil. And any civil authority that permits, condones or dismisses violence, looting and mayhem in the streets disqualifies itself from any legitimacy.
This comes first.
If one party supports everything I believe in but doesn’t believe in maintaining law and order all the time and everywhere, I’ll back a party that does.
In that sense, I’m a one-issue voter, because without order, there is no room for any other issue.
Disorder always and everywhere begets more disorder; the minute the authorities appear to permit such violence, it is destined to grow.
And if liberals do not defend order, fascists will.
I don't live where the rioters are running free, and I doubt AS does.
And my one issue is that I will never vote for a party sworn to kill me, but will instead vote for the party sworn to keep me alive.
I crucially need both Social Security and Medicare to avoid ending my life sleeping in an alley, fighting stray dogs for pizza out of a dumpster.
The GOP is profoundly devoted to destroying both of those, called "entitlements", by the way, because having paid to support both all our working lives we who now depend on them are entitled to count on them.
And so far the Dems are committed to coming through for us.
And as I’ve watched protests devolve over the summer into a series of riots, arson expeditions, and lawless occupations of city blocks, along with disgusting and often racist profanity, I’ve begun to feel similarly.
And when I watched the Democratic Convention and heard close to nothing about ending this lawlessness, I noted the silence.
. . . .
When a political party finds itself so wedded to a new and potent ideology it cannot call out violence when it sees it, then it is walking straight into a trap.
When the discourse on the left has become one in which scholars and editors and Tweeters vie with one another to up the ante on how inherently evil America has always been, redescribe it as a slaveocracy, and endorse racist books that foment the most egregious stereotypes about “whiteness”, most ordinary people, who love their country and are mostly proud of its past, will rightly balk.
One of the most devastating lines in president Trump’s convention speech last night was this:
“Tonight, I ask you a very simple question: How can the Democrat Party ask to lead our country when it spends so much time tearing down our country?”
A cheap shot, yes.
But in the current context, a political bullseye.
. . . .
And look at the icons Trump invoked: Wyatt Earp, Annie Oakley, Davy Crockett, and Buffalo Bill. You can mock.
But in the midst of a culture being redescribed by the left as a form of foul and relentless “white supremacy”, and in a moment of arson and rioting, it felt like a kind of balm.
All this reassurance played out against a backdrop of Kenosha, which was burning, and Minneapolis, where a suicide led to a bout of opportunistic looting, and Washington DC, where mobs of wokesters went through the city chanting obscenities, invading others’ spaces, demanding bystanders raise fists in solidarity, with occasional spasms of violence.
These despicable fanatics, like it or not, are now in part the face of the Democrats: a snarling bunch of self-righteous, entitled bigots, chanting slogans rooted in pseudo-Marxist claptrap, erecting guillotines — guillotines! — in the streets as emblems of their agenda.
They are not arguing; they are attempting to coerce.
And liberals, from the Biden campaign to the New York Times, are too cowardly and intimidated to call out these bullies and expel them from the ranks.
. . . .
It was a sign that the establishment left were willing to tolerate disorder and chaos if they were directed toward the ideologically correct ends — which is how Democratic establishments in Minneapolis and Seattle and Portland responded.
The NYT, CNN and the rest tried to ignore the inexcusable, and find increasingly pathetic ways to dismiss it.
This week, their staggering bias was exposed as absurd.
. . . .
And let’s be frank about this and call this by its name: this is very Weimar.
The center has collapsed.
Armed street gangs of far right and far left are at war on the streets.
Tribalism is intensifying in every nook and cranny of the culture.
The establishment right and mainstream left tolerate their respective extremes because they hate each other so much.
And so on.
He pretty much predicts the worst, even if Biden wins.
Showing posts with label Kamala Harris. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kamala Harris. Show all posts
Sunday, August 30, 2020
Saturday, August 29, 2020
Where is Biden? Where are the Democrats?
This Is How Biden Loses
Increasing numbers of Americans are seeing Democrats as complicit in or at best tolerant and indulgent toward the mad rioters who are trashing so many cities.
This article and the alarm of so many Democrats are so many confessions.
George Packer at The Atlantic joins Don Lemon and others calling for Biden and Democrats to hammer away at the riots and rioters.
Every day of silence makes credible the Duce's charges Biden is weak, putty in the hands of radicals and a party taken over by revolutionaries and America haters, a Trojan horse for friends of antifa, the worst of the BLM crazies, and the Red Guards and Culture Warriors smashing and burning American cities.
Every day the Republicans turn up the volume on exactly these accusations and attacks.
But it may already be too late for the late conversion at the top Packer is calling for.
And too little.
The whole party is stained.
In the crude terms of a presidential campaign, voters know that the Democrat means it when he denounces police brutality, but less so when he denounces riots.
To reach the public and convince it otherwise, Biden has to go beyond boilerplate and make it personal, memorable.
Harris, a Black former prosecutor and now an advocate for police reform, seems uniquely positioned to speak to the crisis.
But she has said little all week, which suggests that there might be things she doesn’t want to say.
On Thursday, Harris directly addressed the events in Kenosha, affirming that Americans “must always defend peaceful protest and peaceful protesters. We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence.”
She quickly moved on.
Democratic leaders, from the nearly invisible mayor of Kenosha up to those on the presidential ticket, are reluctant to tarnish a just cause, amplify Republican attacks, or draw the wrath of their own progressive base (Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut deleted a tweet saying that both the Blake shooting and the riots were wrong after commenters accused him of equating the two).
So Democrats continue to mute their response to the violence and hope it will subside, even though it has persisted straight through the summer.
. . . .
On Tuesday night, the CNN host Don Lemon warned his colleague Chris Cuomo that riots were hurting Biden and the Democrats: “Chris, as you know and I know, it’s showing up in the polls, it’s showing up in focus groups. It’s the only thing right now that’s sticking.”
Lemon urged Biden to speak out about both police reform and violence.
With Kenosha and the political conventions, the coverage seems to be changing. On Thursday, the Times ran a piece headlined “How Chaos in Kenosha Is Already Swaying Some Voters in Wisconsin.”
Half a dozen Kenosha residents, reckoning with damaged buildings and businesses, expressed displeasure with the uncertain response of Democratic officials.
Ellen Ferwerda, an antique store owner, “said that she was desperate for Trump to lose in November but that she had ‘huge concern’ the unrest in her town could help him win. She added that local Democratic leaders seemed hesitant to condemn the mayhem.”
Increasing numbers of Americans are seeing Democrats as complicit in or at best tolerant and indulgent toward the mad rioters who are trashing so many cities.
This article and the alarm of so many Democrats are so many confessions.
George Packer at The Atlantic joins Don Lemon and others calling for Biden and Democrats to hammer away at the riots and rioters.
Every day of silence makes credible the Duce's charges Biden is weak, putty in the hands of radicals and a party taken over by revolutionaries and America haters, a Trojan horse for friends of antifa, the worst of the BLM crazies, and the Red Guards and Culture Warriors smashing and burning American cities.
Every day the Republicans turn up the volume on exactly these accusations and attacks.
But it may already be too late for the late conversion at the top Packer is calling for.
And too little.
The whole party is stained.
In the crude terms of a presidential campaign, voters know that the Democrat means it when he denounces police brutality, but less so when he denounces riots.
To reach the public and convince it otherwise, Biden has to go beyond boilerplate and make it personal, memorable.
Harris, a Black former prosecutor and now an advocate for police reform, seems uniquely positioned to speak to the crisis.
But she has said little all week, which suggests that there might be things she doesn’t want to say.
On Thursday, Harris directly addressed the events in Kenosha, affirming that Americans “must always defend peaceful protest and peaceful protesters. We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence.”
She quickly moved on.
Democratic leaders, from the nearly invisible mayor of Kenosha up to those on the presidential ticket, are reluctant to tarnish a just cause, amplify Republican attacks, or draw the wrath of their own progressive base (Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut deleted a tweet saying that both the Blake shooting and the riots were wrong after commenters accused him of equating the two).
So Democrats continue to mute their response to the violence and hope it will subside, even though it has persisted straight through the summer.
. . . .
On Tuesday night, the CNN host Don Lemon warned his colleague Chris Cuomo that riots were hurting Biden and the Democrats: “Chris, as you know and I know, it’s showing up in the polls, it’s showing up in focus groups. It’s the only thing right now that’s sticking.”
Lemon urged Biden to speak out about both police reform and violence.
With Kenosha and the political conventions, the coverage seems to be changing. On Thursday, the Times ran a piece headlined “How Chaos in Kenosha Is Already Swaying Some Voters in Wisconsin.”
Half a dozen Kenosha residents, reckoning with damaged buildings and businesses, expressed displeasure with the uncertain response of Democratic officials.
Ellen Ferwerda, an antique store owner, “said that she was desperate for Trump to lose in November but that she had ‘huge concern’ the unrest in her town could help him win. She added that local Democratic leaders seemed hesitant to condemn the mayhem.”
Thursday, August 27, 2020
Harris on Trump: His plan to kill the payroll tax will kill Social Security in less than two years, and his Justice Department is in court right now trying to kill every bit of Obamacare, including the only protection for people with preexisting conditions
On the wrong side of the Blake affair and the Floyd/BLM riots.
But right on the rest.
Trump plan to scrap payroll tax would reduce benefits by 2021, top Social Security actuary says
But right on the rest.
Trump plan to scrap payroll tax would reduce benefits by 2021, top Social Security actuary says
Saturday, August 15, 2020
KH rather woodenly says Joe B "had the audacity to choose a black woman." And she asks "How amazing is that?"
Not at all.
It would have been amazing if he hadn't.
His handlers made him promise that way back during the Democratic debates.
It would have been amazing if he hadn't.
His handlers made him promise that way back during the Democratic debates.
Friday, August 14, 2020
Harris "birtherism" appearing, say CNN and BBC. "Racism, racism!" they scream, as does every Democrat they interview on the subject, lawyers included.
Well, not racism, and not the same as the baseless conspiracy theories about O being born in Kenya that doubtless gained currency largely because of white racism.
Instead, an accurate allusion by some conservatives to a lacuna in the settled understanding of the rarely self-explanatory US constitution and the federal law regarding US citizenship, to which Trump referred to broadcast media.
The claim is not that she wasn't born in the US but that the then immigration status of her parents makes her qualification questionable.
Similar questions, you may recall, were raised during the campaign of 2016 by some Republicans about Ted Cruz because he was born in Canada.
(John McCain was born at a naval air station in the then US Panama Canal Zone.)
Of course, this is Trump, the King of Chaos, trolling KH and the Democrats.
After a conservative law professor questioned Ms Harris' eligibility based on her parents' immigration status at the time of her birth, Mr Trump was asked about the argument at a press conference on Thursday.
The president said: "I just heard it today that she doesn't meet the requirements and by the way the lawyer that wrote that piece is a very highly qualified, very talented lawyer.
"I have no idea if that's right. I would have assumed the Democrats would have checked that out before she gets chosen to run for vice-president.
"But that's a very serious, you're saying that, they're saying that she doesn't qualify because she wasn't born in this country."
The reporter replied there was no question that Ms Harris was born in the US, simply that her parents might not have been permanent US residents at the time.
Earlier on Thursday, a Trump campaign adviser, Jenna Ellis, reposted a tweet from the head of conservative group Judicial Watch, Tim Fitton.
In that tweet, Mr Fitton questioned whether Ms Harris was "ineligible to be vice-president under the US constitution's 'citizenship clause'".
He also shared the opinion piece published in Newsweek magazine by John Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University in California, that Mr Trump was asked about.
Prof Eastman's argument, which he claims is also being made by other "commentators", hinges on the idea that Ms Harris may not have been subject to US jurisdiction if her parents were, for example, on student visas at the time of their daughter's birth in California.
"Her father was (and is) a Jamaican national, her mother was from India, and neither was a naturalized US citizen at the time of Harris' birth in 1964.
That, according to these commentators, makes her not a 'natural born citizen' - and therefore ineligible for the office of the president and, hence, ineligible for the office of the vice president."
In 2010, Prof Eastman ran to be the Republican candidate for California attorney general. He lost to Steve Cooley, who went on to be defeated by Ms Harris, the Democratic candidate, in the general election.
Following furious backlash to the Newsweek op-ed, its editor-in-chief Nancy Cooper stood by the decision to publish, arguing on Thursday that Prof Eastman's article had "nothing to do with racist birtherism" and was instead "focusing on a long-standing, somewhat arcane legal debate".
BBC and every Democratic news source are denouncing this as racist garbage, but it is true that not just everyone born here is a citizen on that account, at all.
And even generally liberal Wikipedia reports there are areas of unclarity in the law where there are competing theories about who, born here, is automatically a citizen and the Supremes have never ruled in such a way as to cover all questions.
On the other hand, if immigration authorities at the time did not require her naturalization but accepted her birthright, would a court balk now?
And, personally, I would favor a generous reading of the constitution on this matter, even allowing birthright citizenship and qualification for the presidency to children born here to illegals.
And KH's parents were not illegals, but legal immigrants not yet granted permanent residency when she was born in Oakland, reportedly.
As I have suggested more than once, it is a flaw in our constitutional arrangements that we do not have a clear account of citizenship settling all questions of eligibility and no formal authority conducting formal reviews of persons coming forward as candidates whose OK is legally necessary to even being a candidate.
<Update>
And, personally, I would favor a generous reading of the constitution on this matter, even allowing birthright citizenship and qualification for the presidency to children born here to illegals.
And KH's parents were not illegals, but legal immigrants not yet granted permanent residency when she was born in Oakland, reportedly.
As I have suggested more than once, it is a flaw in our constitutional arrangements that we do not have a clear account of citizenship settling all questions of eligibility and no formal authority conducting formal reviews of persons coming forward as candidates whose OK is legally necessary to even being a candidate.
<Update>
BBC just now indicated on the air the lawyer who brought up the issue in Newsweek sees daylight between being a birthright citizen under the 14th Amendment and relevant US law on the one side and being "a natural born citizen" in whatever is the sense required by Article II, Section 1.
He did not question, as I took the article above to indicate, whether KH is a birthright citizen under the 14th Amendment but whether she is a natural born citizen.
The article above cited and quoted has the two questions rather muddled.
Cruz and McCain were not even born here but were accepted by most people as natural born.
Why really should we accept that someone who was born here and is a citizen on that account is not natural born?
Has any court ruled on the general question?
Could anyone seek a ruling?
I personally would have thought anyone who did not need to be naturalized is natural born.
This is Article II, Section 1.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States</Update>
Thursday, August 13, 2020
Actually, she seemed awkward and unprepared. She did not know her lines or read them well
During the campaign she was very good in front of audiences.
Maybe not enough time reading over her prepared remarks and also not yet comfortable talking to an empty room as if it were full.
Rather like baseball players complaining it's weird playing in empty stadia.
Trump is not the only campaigner who misses the crowds.
Even Biden's energy level in an empty room isn't what it is when speaking to a real, enthusiastic, and responsive audience.
Kamala Harris just showed why Biden chose her as his running mate
Eh. Not so much, really.
Maybe not enough time reading over her prepared remarks and also not yet comfortable talking to an empty room as if it were full.
Rather like baseball players complaining it's weird playing in empty stadia.
Trump is not the only campaigner who misses the crowds.
Even Biden's energy level in an empty room isn't what it is when speaking to a real, enthusiastic, and responsive audience.
Kamala Harris just showed why Biden chose her as his running mate
Eh. Not so much, really.
But would that make it Trump v. Harris?
If Joe, for whatever reason, dropped out.
Bernie and his supporters would sure as heck question that, I think, if Joe was out before the convention anointed anyone.
Anybody might question that, given the GOP might well run better against a woman of color not so well known they can't paint her as a crazy radical, which they are already doing without too much trouble.
Interesting question which way AOC and the Squad would jump.
Of course, Bernie actually is a crazy radical, but he's an old and well known white guy as well as a crazy radical, and that's probably a better combination for white voters Trump needs in battleground states than a relatively little known woman of color.
Though if Bernie bumped her off the ticket that might cost him nearly all the black support he would absolutely have to have to win.
Fox News host baselessly claims that 'something's going to happen' to Joe Biden
She just went a little over the line, maybe, in course of playing her part in Fox's propaganda onslaught that Old Dodderin' and Sleepy Joe is just a Trojan horse for flaming, insane radical black woman nutjob Kamala Harris.
All of Fox's talking heads are fairly shouting it's really Trump vs Harris and Joe is at best a signature monkey for the craziest, darkest (heh, heh) elements of the "Democrat Party".
More of that by now infamous Republican projection, I'd say.
Claiming Joe will not even make it to election night is just making the prospect all the more terrifying, eh?
The Fox News opinion host Jeanine Pirro baselessly suggested on Wednesday evening that "something's going to happen" to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, and that it would cause the former vice president to be removed from the ballot during the presidential election in November.
Bernie and his supporters would sure as heck question that, I think, if Joe was out before the convention anointed anyone.
Anybody might question that, given the GOP might well run better against a woman of color not so well known they can't paint her as a crazy radical, which they are already doing without too much trouble.
Interesting question which way AOC and the Squad would jump.
Of course, Bernie actually is a crazy radical, but he's an old and well known white guy as well as a crazy radical, and that's probably a better combination for white voters Trump needs in battleground states than a relatively little known woman of color.
Though if Bernie bumped her off the ticket that might cost him nearly all the black support he would absolutely have to have to win.
Fox News host baselessly claims that 'something's going to happen' to Joe Biden
She just went a little over the line, maybe, in course of playing her part in Fox's propaganda onslaught that Old Dodderin' and Sleepy Joe is just a Trojan horse for flaming, insane radical black woman nutjob Kamala Harris.
All of Fox's talking heads are fairly shouting it's really Trump vs Harris and Joe is at best a signature monkey for the craziest, darkest (heh, heh) elements of the "Democrat Party".
More of that by now infamous Republican projection, I'd say.
Claiming Joe will not even make it to election night is just making the prospect all the more terrifying, eh?
The Fox News opinion host Jeanine Pirro baselessly suggested on Wednesday evening that "something's going to happen" to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, and that it would cause the former vice president to be removed from the ballot during the presidential election in November.
"For some reason, I just have this feeling that Joe Biden isn't going to be on the ticket," Pirro said during a Fox News segment.
"I have a sense that something's going to happen before the election and he's not even going to be on the ticket, so don't even ask me if he's going to make the four years," she added.
So far as I can tell, she actually is further to the left than Joe B, and she was that at the beginning of the campaign, at the end of the campaign, and in response to the Floyd killing, protests, and riots.
And as she so painfully and forcefully pointed out during the debates, she was and all but incontestably still is to his left of racial matters.
I am truly not sure where that puts her relative to registered Democrats or Democrat-leaning independents.
But she is definitely to the left of this guy, my very own Democratic Congressman, and apparently also to the left of my Democratic Senator.
So far as I can tell, she actually is further to the left than Joe B, and she was that at the beginning of the campaign, at the end of the campaign, and in response to the Floyd killing, protests, and riots.
And as she so painfully and forcefully pointed out during the debates, she was and all but incontestably still is to his left of racial matters.
I am truly not sure where that puts her relative to registered Democrats or Democrat-leaning independents.
But she is definitely to the left of this guy, my very own Democratic Congressman, and apparently also to the left of my Democratic Senator.
Wednesday, August 12, 2020
It's Trump vs. Harris, says Fox
60 % of Americans think Biden won't finish his first term, say Ben Shapiro and others at Fox.
He's a Trojan horse for Harris, it's Trump v. Harris.
This is today's Fox line.
It's Harris
Qualified?
Well, Bozo lowered the bar, anyway, didn't he?
If you're worried, I mean.
And I'm not.
I do wonder whether we're going to see the country put through a bussing wringer, again.
She beat Biden up about that during the debates, pretty hard.
Hostiles will throw that in their faces again and again during the campaign.
Are they ready for that?
Both of them?
Fox black woman talker says she's not descended from slaves, she's descended from slave owners.
She's not "black like me".
And complains it's all just shameful race pandering.
Tax and spend, 90 trillion for the green new deal, job crushing radical, blah, blah.
Thursday, August 6, 2020
MSNBC likes Kamala Harris more than Susan Rice for VP?
Edward Luce on Morning Joe.
Susan Rice is a foreign policy wonk with no experience in electoral politics.
KH was a prosecutor and is a senator.
Neither is exactly from the AOC wing of the party.
Openly concerned about the likelihood Joe B's VP will have to step up to the presidency in the first term and how that's a reason for all of us to be concerned she appears and is someone who can do that and someone Joe's voters will be comfortable with doing that.
Considerations opposite to ticket balancing.
Being a black woman under sixty is maybe all the balancing there is going to be.
A healthy black woman under sixty.
Neither Harris nor Rice is a choice to please the antifa types or Bernie bros.
Hmm.
Thursday, June 11, 2020
Trump steps on Juneteenth
It is impossible to say how big a role enabling his return to the arenas has played in motivating Trump's push to end the virus lockdowns.
We have to wonder how far precautions will be observed, if at all.
Donald Trump plans rallies in Florida, Oklahoma, Arizona, Texas, North Carolina
President Donald Trump said Wednesday he plans to headline his first political rallies of the COVID-19 era in five states in the weeks ahead, at least three of them key battlegrounds that could decide whether he remains in the White House.
Revivals of his signature political events will begin in Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, Arizona and North Carolina, Trump said, previewing a new phase in a race in which he has fallen behind Democratic challenger Joe Biden in several states – the main reason the president is eager to get back on the road.
"We're going to start our rallies back up now," Trump told reporters at the White House. "We've had a tremendous run at rallies. ... It's been an amazing thing to behold."
Trump plans to return to the stage on June 19 – a week from Friday – at a "beautiful new venue" in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a state that is considered very friendly to him.
The president said there will be future allies in Florida, Arizona and North Carolina – all states he carried in 2016 but which are expected to be closely contested this time around.
The campaign is also planning a rally in Texas, he said, a state that is viewed as reliably Republican but where recent polls show a tight race with Biden.
Just before Trump's announcement, his re-election campaign put out a video showing clips of past rallies, and announcing that "this month, we're back."
On social media, critics of Trump noted that the June 19 rally in Tulsa is being scheduled on Juneteenth, a holiday to commemorate the end of slavery in the United States.
Tulsa is also the site of an infamous race riot in 1921 in which whites attacked black residents.
Juneteenth is a state holiday in almost all states. It is not a national holiday.
There should have been a national holiday celebrating the end of slavery since the end of the Civil War.
And you know as well as I what it says about our country that we still have no national holiday to celebrate the signal and sole justifying achievement of the Civil War.
It could have been set at the issue date of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, or its effective date, or the date of the ratification or adoption of the 13th Amendment.
Historically, different states and communities have adopted different dates to celebrate.
Lately, June 19th has become the leading national contender.
My guess is the people who planned Trump's return to the arenas had no idea of any of this.
Few whites do. Or did.
But the racial left is insisting Trump and his gang knew and this is a deliberate affront.
Harris: Trump throwing white supremacists a 'welcome home party' with Tulsa rally
In a tweet, [Senator Kamala] Harris linked to a Los Angeles Times story that noted that Trump's June 19 rally would take place in a city that was the site of a racist riot and massacre in 1921.
"This isn't just a wink to white supremacists—he's throwing them a welcome home party," the senator tweeted.
We have to wonder how far precautions will be observed, if at all.
Donald Trump plans rallies in Florida, Oklahoma, Arizona, Texas, North Carolina
President Donald Trump said Wednesday he plans to headline his first political rallies of the COVID-19 era in five states in the weeks ahead, at least three of them key battlegrounds that could decide whether he remains in the White House.
Revivals of his signature political events will begin in Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, Arizona and North Carolina, Trump said, previewing a new phase in a race in which he has fallen behind Democratic challenger Joe Biden in several states – the main reason the president is eager to get back on the road.
"We're going to start our rallies back up now," Trump told reporters at the White House. "We've had a tremendous run at rallies. ... It's been an amazing thing to behold."
Trump plans to return to the stage on June 19 – a week from Friday – at a "beautiful new venue" in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a state that is considered very friendly to him.
The president said there will be future allies in Florida, Arizona and North Carolina – all states he carried in 2016 but which are expected to be closely contested this time around.
The campaign is also planning a rally in Texas, he said, a state that is viewed as reliably Republican but where recent polls show a tight race with Biden.
Just before Trump's announcement, his re-election campaign put out a video showing clips of past rallies, and announcing that "this month, we're back."
On social media, critics of Trump noted that the June 19 rally in Tulsa is being scheduled on Juneteenth, a holiday to commemorate the end of slavery in the United States.
Tulsa is also the site of an infamous race riot in 1921 in which whites attacked black residents.
Juneteenth is a state holiday in almost all states. It is not a national holiday.
There should have been a national holiday celebrating the end of slavery since the end of the Civil War.
And you know as well as I what it says about our country that we still have no national holiday to celebrate the signal and sole justifying achievement of the Civil War.
It could have been set at the issue date of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, or its effective date, or the date of the ratification or adoption of the 13th Amendment.
Historically, different states and communities have adopted different dates to celebrate.
Lately, June 19th has become the leading national contender.
My guess is the people who planned Trump's return to the arenas had no idea of any of this.
Few whites do. Or did.
But the racial left is insisting Trump and his gang knew and this is a deliberate affront.
Harris: Trump throwing white supremacists a 'welcome home party' with Tulsa rally
In a tweet, [Senator Kamala] Harris linked to a Los Angeles Times story that noted that Trump's June 19 rally would take place in a city that was the site of a racist riot and massacre in 1921.
"This isn't just a wink to white supremacists—he's throwing them a welcome home party," the senator tweeted.
Sunday, March 8, 2020
If they're competing for VP I think I like Senator Harris
Kamala Harris endorses Joe Biden for president ahead of key contests
California senator and former Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris has endorsed Joe Biden for president.
Biden has “served our country with dignity and we need him now more than ever,” Harris tweeted on Sunday. “I will do everything in my power to help elect him the next President of the United States.”
California senator and former Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris has endorsed Joe Biden for president.
Biden has “served our country with dignity and we need him now more than ever,” Harris tweeted on Sunday. “I will do everything in my power to help elect him the next President of the United States.”
Friday, July 12, 2019
Fake news about the Fake News Summit in the White House
Trump touts the 'power' of extremist social media activists at White House summit
Hours before the meeting, the Southern Poverty Law Center called the meetup “a gathering of groups and individuals who have no business at the White House,” saying the invite list included “conspiracy theorists and extremists.”
“For years we’ve watched social media serve as a gateway to radicalization and, far too often, real-life violence.
Bringing these groups together is beyond irresponsible; it is essentially conducting a hate summit at the White House,” a statement from the SPLC reads.
Attendees included right-wing personalities Ali Alexander, who had pushed the false conspiracy theory that the California-born Sen. Kamala Harris was not an “American black".
But that claim is neither clearly false nor a conspiracy theory.
Sen. Harris is of a racial mix the least part of which is Afro-Jamaican, the largest being Indian, specifically Dravidian.
She's an American black only courtesy of the one drop rule, her appearance, and the needs of Democratic politics.
Hours before the meeting, the Southern Poverty Law Center called the meetup “a gathering of groups and individuals who have no business at the White House,” saying the invite list included “conspiracy theorists and extremists.”
“For years we’ve watched social media serve as a gateway to radicalization and, far too often, real-life violence.
Bringing these groups together is beyond irresponsible; it is essentially conducting a hate summit at the White House,” a statement from the SPLC reads.
Attendees included right-wing personalities Ali Alexander, who had pushed the false conspiracy theory that the California-born Sen. Kamala Harris was not an “American black".
But that claim is neither clearly false nor a conspiracy theory.
Sen. Harris is of a racial mix the least part of which is Afro-Jamaican, the largest being Indian, specifically Dravidian.
She's an American black only courtesy of the one drop rule, her appearance, and the needs of Democratic politics.
Sunday, June 30, 2019
Kamala Harris and busing
KH was indeed bused.
Harris began her elementary education during the second year of Berkeley's historic public school desegregation busing program, which pioneered the extensive use of busing to bring racial balance to all the city's schools.
Her parents divorced when she was seven, and her mother was granted custody of the children.
After the divorce, when Harris was 12, her mother moved with the children to Montreal, Québec, Canada, where Shyamala accepted a position doing research at Jewish General Hospital and teaching at McGill University.
After graduating from Westmount High School in Westmount, Quebec in 1981, Harris attended Howard University in Washington, D.C., where she majored in political science and economics.
At Howard, she was elected to the liberal arts student council as freshman class representative, was a member of the debate team, and joined the Alpha Chapter of Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority.
Harris returned to California, where she earned her Juris Doctor (J.D.) from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, in 1989.
She was admitted to the State Bar of California in 1990.
According to this, she was bused the very year she entered the school system to a previously mostly white school.
She had not before been assigned any school.
According to data published by the school district, in 1963 “Negro” students comprised only 2.5% percent of the student body at Thousand Oaks Elementary School, while “Caucasian” students comprised 95.1% of the student body.
Due to the district’s integration efforts, by 1969 those figures had shifted to 40.2% and 53.4%, respectively.
Harris began her elementary education during the second year of Berkeley's historic public school desegregation busing program, which pioneered the extensive use of busing to bring racial balance to all the city's schools.
Her parents divorced when she was seven, and her mother was granted custody of the children.
After the divorce, when Harris was 12, her mother moved with the children to Montreal, Québec, Canada, where Shyamala accepted a position doing research at Jewish General Hospital and teaching at McGill University.
After graduating from Westmount High School in Westmount, Quebec in 1981, Harris attended Howard University in Washington, D.C., where she majored in political science and economics.
At Howard, she was elected to the liberal arts student council as freshman class representative, was a member of the debate team, and joined the Alpha Chapter of Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority.
Harris returned to California, where she earned her Juris Doctor (J.D.) from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, in 1989.
She was admitted to the State Bar of California in 1990.
According to this, she was bused the very year she entered the school system to a previously mostly white school.
She had not before been assigned any school.
According to data published by the school district, in 1963 “Negro” students comprised only 2.5% percent of the student body at Thousand Oaks Elementary School, while “Caucasian” students comprised 95.1% of the student body.
Due to the district’s integration efforts, by 1969 those figures had shifted to 40.2% and 53.4%, respectively.
Kamala Harris, racial imposter? No. But there is nuance.
Quick fact check with Wikipedia.
Kamala Harris was born on October 20, 1964, in Oakland, California, to a Tamil Indian mother and a Jamaican father.
Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan Harris, was a breast cancer scientist who immigrated to the United States from Madras (present-day Chennai) in 1960.
Her father, Donald Harris, is a Stanford University economics professor who emigrated from Jamaica in 1961 for graduate study in economics at University of California, Berkeley.
Recalling the lives of his grandmothers, Donald Harris wrote that one was related to a plantation and slave owner while the other had unknown ancestry.
Looks like most of her coloredness comes from her mother's side.
Anyway, she is not descended from American slaves, or indeed American Negroes, at all.
And it looks like at least some of her ancestors owned slaves.
(As is undoubtedly true of many American blacks, come to that, given that before the Civil War free blacks or even slaves in some states could and did own black slaves, themselves.)
In a 2019 interview, Kamala Harris said, "'I am black and I am proud of it.'"
Harris's family lived in Berkeley, California, where both of her parents attended graduate school.
She was close to her maternal grandfather, P. V. Gopalan, an Indian diplomat.
As a child, she often visited her extended family in the Besant Nagar neighborhood of Chennai, Tamil Nadu.
She grew up going to both a black Baptist church and a Hindu temple.[12] She has one younger sister, Maya Harris.
They both sang in a Baptist choir.
Personally, I would say she is an American with an obvious dose of non-white ancestry.
Is she in any shape or form an African-American?
Ali himself admits she is.
People (on the Left and Right) need to stop sharing this picture. This is not her father, Donald Harris, Jr.
Her father is a mix of Afro and white Jamaican.
Her mother is Tamil Indian (upper caste).
Kamala Harris is Indian-Jamaican and a first generation American.
So, less than half African, but truly African in part.
Yet neither she nor her supporters have pointed that out.
So who cares? you might ask.
Why all the fuss?
Well, Ms Harris, her supporters, leading Democrats, and the PC police are all wedded to the claim she is, entirely sans nuance, an African American.
She who so clearly wants and really, really needs to play that race card; and they, who so want her to be able to - though preferably not against other Democrats.
Anyway, "Death to deniers!", say she and they.
"Birther" tweet targets Kamala Harris. 2020 Democrats rushed to her defense.
2020 Democratic hopeful Kamala Harris was the target of a birtherism-like attack — retweeted and then deleted by President Trump's son Donald Trump Jr. — targeting her identity as "not an American Black."
. . . .
Harris was born in Oakland, California to parents who had emigrated to the U.S. from India and Jamaica.
The viral tweet by right-wing personality Ali Alexander — whose Twitter bio claims that he "exposed" Harris and includes the hashtag #NeverKamala — mentioned her parents' background and said
Trump Jr. wrote "Is this true? Wow" on Thursday, but soon deleted it.
A spokesman told The New York Times Trump Jr. was "asking if it was true that Kamala Harris was half-Indian because it's not something he had ever heard before."
Yes, it is true.
But AA was accusing her of being a racial imposter even while admitting her African ancestry, far more substantial (apparently) than Elizabeth Warren's Indian ancestry.
She is more Indian than African, sure.
But still.
If KH were an American with one African grandparent and the other three snow-white Swedes, would she count as African-American?
God, what do we say to that, in an America apparently still wed to the one-drop rule for blackness?
Harris' campaign manager, Lily Adams, said in a statement to CBS News "this is the same type of racist attacks used to attack Barack Obama. It didn't work then and it won't work now."
Harris' husband, Douglas Emhoff, expressed his gratitude on Twitter to those who came to his wife's defense. "...Thx to all the 2020 candidates and everyone else for calling out this crap for what it is"... Emhoff tweeted.
On Saturday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts was the first 2020 candidate to tweet in support of Harris.
"The attacks against @KamalaHarris are racist and ugly. We all have an obligation to speak out and say so. And it's within the power and obligation of tech companies to stop these vile lies dead in their tracks," Warren tweeted.
Pocahontas Warren, American Indian by the tiniest of hairs (and since when is there a one-drop rule for Indian-ness? Is half the NHL Indian?), defends Harris from the accusation of being a racial imposter?
What will the right make of that, eh?
And look at her, calling for the tech companies to collude in suppression of the charge.
A charge Ms. Warren just barely escaped, herself, by proving herself to be a thousandth, or hundred thousandth, or millionth red Indian with a DNA test, to pretty much universal laughter on the right and universal condemnation on the left.
Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey chimed in with a tweet saying "@kamalaharris doesn't have sh[**] to prove."
Strong remarks also came from Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, former U.S. Rep. Beto O'Rourke and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
Biden, the current frontrunner, tweeted on Saturday "The same forces of hatred rooted in 'birtherism' that questioned @BarackObama's American citizenship, and even his racial identity, are now being used against Senator @KamalaHarris.
"It's disgusting and we have to call it out when we see it. Racism has no place in America."
Kamala Harris was born on October 20, 1964, in Oakland, California, to a Tamil Indian mother and a Jamaican father.
Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan Harris, was a breast cancer scientist who immigrated to the United States from Madras (present-day Chennai) in 1960.
Her father, Donald Harris, is a Stanford University economics professor who emigrated from Jamaica in 1961 for graduate study in economics at University of California, Berkeley.
Recalling the lives of his grandmothers, Donald Harris wrote that one was related to a plantation and slave owner while the other had unknown ancestry.
Looks like most of her coloredness comes from her mother's side.
Anyway, she is not descended from American slaves, or indeed American Negroes, at all.
And it looks like at least some of her ancestors owned slaves.
(As is undoubtedly true of many American blacks, come to that, given that before the Civil War free blacks or even slaves in some states could and did own black slaves, themselves.)
In a 2019 interview, Kamala Harris said, "'I am black and I am proud of it.'"
Harris's family lived in Berkeley, California, where both of her parents attended graduate school.
She was close to her maternal grandfather, P. V. Gopalan, an Indian diplomat.
As a child, she often visited her extended family in the Besant Nagar neighborhood of Chennai, Tamil Nadu.
She grew up going to both a black Baptist church and a Hindu temple.[12] She has one younger sister, Maya Harris.
They both sang in a Baptist choir.
Personally, I would say she is an American with an obvious dose of non-white ancestry.
Is she in any shape or form an African-American?
Ali himself admits she is.
People (on the Left and Right) need to stop sharing this picture. This is not her father, Donald Harris, Jr.
Her father is a mix of Afro and white Jamaican.
Her mother is Tamil Indian (upper caste).
Kamala Harris is Indian-Jamaican and a first generation American.
So, less than half African, but truly African in part.
Yet neither she nor her supporters have pointed that out.
So who cares? you might ask.
Why all the fuss?
Well, Ms Harris, her supporters, leading Democrats, and the PC police are all wedded to the claim she is, entirely sans nuance, an African American.
She who so clearly wants and really, really needs to play that race card; and they, who so want her to be able to - though preferably not against other Democrats.
Anyway, "Death to deniers!", say she and they.
"Birther" tweet targets Kamala Harris. 2020 Democrats rushed to her defense.
2020 Democratic hopeful Kamala Harris was the target of a birtherism-like attack — retweeted and then deleted by President Trump's son Donald Trump Jr. — targeting her identity as "not an American Black."
. . . .
Harris was born in Oakland, California to parents who had emigrated to the U.S. from India and Jamaica.
The viral tweet by right-wing personality Ali Alexander — whose Twitter bio claims that he "exposed" Harris and includes the hashtag #NeverKamala — mentioned her parents' background and said
"I'm so sick of people robbing American Blacks (like myself) of our history.The tweet appeared to get the attention of Donald Trump Jr., who has more than three million followers.
"It's disgusting. Now using it for debate time at #DemDebate2? These are my people not her people."
Trump Jr. wrote "Is this true? Wow" on Thursday, but soon deleted it.
A spokesman told The New York Times Trump Jr. was "asking if it was true that Kamala Harris was half-Indian because it's not something he had ever heard before."
Yes, it is true.
But AA was accusing her of being a racial imposter even while admitting her African ancestry, far more substantial (apparently) than Elizabeth Warren's Indian ancestry.
She is more Indian than African, sure.
But still.
If KH were an American with one African grandparent and the other three snow-white Swedes, would she count as African-American?
God, what do we say to that, in an America apparently still wed to the one-drop rule for blackness?
Harris' campaign manager, Lily Adams, said in a statement to CBS News "this is the same type of racist attacks used to attack Barack Obama. It didn't work then and it won't work now."
Harris' husband, Douglas Emhoff, expressed his gratitude on Twitter to those who came to his wife's defense. "...Thx to all the 2020 candidates and everyone else for calling out this crap for what it is"... Emhoff tweeted.
On Saturday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts was the first 2020 candidate to tweet in support of Harris.
"The attacks against @KamalaHarris are racist and ugly. We all have an obligation to speak out and say so. And it's within the power and obligation of tech companies to stop these vile lies dead in their tracks," Warren tweeted.
Pocahontas Warren, American Indian by the tiniest of hairs (and since when is there a one-drop rule for Indian-ness? Is half the NHL Indian?), defends Harris from the accusation of being a racial imposter?
What will the right make of that, eh?
And look at her, calling for the tech companies to collude in suppression of the charge.
A charge Ms. Warren just barely escaped, herself, by proving herself to be a thousandth, or hundred thousandth, or millionth red Indian with a DNA test, to pretty much universal laughter on the right and universal condemnation on the left.
Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey chimed in with a tweet saying "@kamalaharris doesn't have sh[**] to prove."
Strong remarks also came from Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, former U.S. Rep. Beto O'Rourke and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
Biden, the current frontrunner, tweeted on Saturday "The same forces of hatred rooted in 'birtherism' that questioned @BarackObama's American citizenship, and even his racial identity, are now being used against Senator @KamalaHarris.
"It's disgusting and we have to call it out when we see it. Racism has no place in America."
Friday, June 28, 2019
What is fair and what is unfair
Kamala Harris responds to criticism that she delivered "low blow" to Joe Biden
The low blow is the charge - or even suggestion - that he supported or liked segregationist senators in the past.
That is untrue.
But it is not a low blow and is indeed true that in the past he opposed the use of busing to correct what was then and is still now called "de facto segregation", of which there was and is no such thing, though there was and is residential separation resulting in far from uniform representation of the races across schools even within the same school systems or districts.
A lack of uniformity in the schools many Democrats and perhaps all liberals felt then and now to be a social evil in need of remedy, often by such means as simply busing children.
2020 contender Kamala Harris came out swinging with a memorable performance in the second night of Democratic debates in Miami.
It was Harris' confrontation with former Vice President Joe Biden where she pressured to get him on the record on his past support of segregation-endorsing Democrats and as well as his past stance against busing to desegregate public schools, that left a mark on would-be voters' minds.
In her only network TV interview, Harris responded to criticism from Biden's camp that the contentious moment was a "low blow."
"It was about just speaking truth and as I've said many times, I have a great deal of respect for Joe Biden...but he and I disagree on that," Harris told "CBS This Morning" on Friday.
She added, "My purpose was to really just make sure that in this conversation we are appreciating the impact on real people of policies that have been pushed in the history of our country."
The low blow is the charge - or even suggestion - that he supported or liked segregationist senators in the past.
That is untrue.
But it is not a low blow and is indeed true that in the past he opposed the use of busing to correct what was then and is still now called "de facto segregation", of which there was and is no such thing, though there was and is residential separation resulting in far from uniform representation of the races across schools even within the same school systems or districts.
A lack of uniformity in the schools many Democrats and perhaps all liberals felt then and now to be a social evil in need of remedy, often by such means as simply busing children.
2020 contender Kamala Harris came out swinging with a memorable performance in the second night of Democratic debates in Miami.
It was Harris' confrontation with former Vice President Joe Biden where she pressured to get him on the record on his past support of segregation-endorsing Democrats and as well as his past stance against busing to desegregate public schools, that left a mark on would-be voters' minds.
In her only network TV interview, Harris responded to criticism from Biden's camp that the contentious moment was a "low blow."
"It was about just speaking truth and as I've said many times, I have a great deal of respect for Joe Biden...but he and I disagree on that," Harris told "CBS This Morning" on Friday.
She added, "My purpose was to really just make sure that in this conversation we are appreciating the impact on real people of policies that have been pushed in the history of our country."
The Harris version of Medicare for All
Kamala Harris says she misinterpreted question on abolishing private insurance
NBC's Lester Holt asked for the 10 candidates on stage [Thursday night] to raise their hands if their health care plans would "abolish their private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan?"
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Harris were the only two candidates who put their hands up, but Harris said Friday she does not support getting rid of all private insurance.
The California Democrat said she misunderstood the question and believed it was about whether she, personally, would give up her private plan in favor of Medicare.
. . . .
"I am supportive of a Medicare for All policy, and under a Medicare for All policy, private insurance would certainly exist for supplemental coverage," she added on CBS.
Not at all Bernie's goal, is it?
NBC's Lester Holt asked for the 10 candidates on stage [Thursday night] to raise their hands if their health care plans would "abolish their private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan?"
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Harris were the only two candidates who put their hands up, but Harris said Friday she does not support getting rid of all private insurance.
The California Democrat said she misunderstood the question and believed it was about whether she, personally, would give up her private plan in favor of Medicare.
. . . .
"I am supportive of a Medicare for All policy, and under a Medicare for All policy, private insurance would certainly exist for supplemental coverage," she added on CBS.
Not at all Bernie's goal, is it?
Saturday, May 4, 2019
Bernie is third?
Quinnipiac
Former Vice President Joe Biden still commanded a sizeable lead, earning 38% of support among respondents.
Second place went to Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who enjoyed a light surge to earn 12% in the poll.
Sanders earned 11%, just enough to place third, according to the poll published by Quinnipiac University Tuesday.
Harvard, two days later.
Former Vice President Joe Biden still commanded a sizeable lead, earning 38% of support among respondents.
Second place went to Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who enjoyed a light surge to earn 12% in the poll.
Sanders earned 11%, just enough to place third, according to the poll published by Quinnipiac University Tuesday.
Harvard, two days later.
Forty-four percent of Democratic voters surveyed said they are most likely to vote for Biden in the 2020 Democratic primaries.
Sanders comes in second place at 14 percent, while Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) places third with just 9 percent, the poll found.
Wednesday, April 24, 2019
Most real people don't have an opinion, or a preference, for every political issue
As opposed to dogmatists, fanatics, died in the wool ideologues, and the like.
Harris Has Absolutely No Idea What She Believes About Allowing Incarcerated People to Vote
Candor annoys some people.
Harris Has Absolutely No Idea What She Believes About Allowing Incarcerated People to Vote
Candor annoys some people.
Tuesday, April 23, 2019
Joe still ahead, and he's not even in it yet
It may be that Biden has the best chance of winning, but he does not seem likely to be able to do anything with the victory.
He is too wedded to all that obsolete "across the aisle" and "bipartisan" bullshit.
He will not pack the court.
He may not even try to roll back the GOP tax cuts.
Still, any Democrat is better than any Republican, and at least his victory would get the Duce out of the White House.
Biden Still the Leader with 27%
In a field of 24 announced and potential contenders, Joe Biden currently has the support of 27% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters, which is similar to his 28% support in March and 29% in January, according to this morning’s Monmouth University Poll.
Support for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is currently at 20%, which is down slightly from 25% in March, but still higher than his 16% support in January.
. . . .
South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg currently has 8% support. He registered less than 1% in prior Monmouth polls.
California Sen. Kamala Harris has 8% support, off just slightly from 10% in March and 11% in January.
Rounding out the field of top contenders are Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 6% (from 8% in both March and January) and former Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke at 4% (6% in March and 7% in January).
Others who score at least 1% include New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker (2%, from 5% in March and 4% in January), former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (2%, from 1% in priorpolls), Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (1%, from 3% in March and 2% in January), and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (1%, from 1% in March).
The remaining 14 names asked about in the survey receive support from less than 1% of Democratic voters at this time, which is basically unchanged from their support levels in prior national Monmouth polls.
. . . .
Race and gender do not seem to be important factors for Democratic voters when considering who the party should choose to run against Trump.
Fully 87% say the race of the nominee does not matter.
Just 5% say it would be better for Democrats to nominate a person of color, which is offset by 6% who say it would actually be better for the party to nominate a white candidate.
Similarly, 77% say the gender of the nominee does not matter.
Just 7% say it would be better for Democrats to nominate a woman, while slightly more (12%) say it would actually be better for the party to nominate a man.
He is too wedded to all that obsolete "across the aisle" and "bipartisan" bullshit.
He will not pack the court.
He may not even try to roll back the GOP tax cuts.
Still, any Democrat is better than any Republican, and at least his victory would get the Duce out of the White House.
Biden Still the Leader with 27%
In a field of 24 announced and potential contenders, Joe Biden currently has the support of 27% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters, which is similar to his 28% support in March and 29% in January, according to this morning’s Monmouth University Poll.
Support for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is currently at 20%, which is down slightly from 25% in March, but still higher than his 16% support in January.
. . . .
South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg currently has 8% support. He registered less than 1% in prior Monmouth polls.
California Sen. Kamala Harris has 8% support, off just slightly from 10% in March and 11% in January.
Rounding out the field of top contenders are Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 6% (from 8% in both March and January) and former Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke at 4% (6% in March and 7% in January).
Others who score at least 1% include New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker (2%, from 5% in March and 4% in January), former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (2%, from 1% in priorpolls), Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (1%, from 3% in March and 2% in January), and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (1%, from 1% in March).
The remaining 14 names asked about in the survey receive support from less than 1% of Democratic voters at this time, which is basically unchanged from their support levels in prior national Monmouth polls.
. . . .
Race and gender do not seem to be important factors for Democratic voters when considering who the party should choose to run against Trump.
Fully 87% say the race of the nominee does not matter.
Just 5% say it would be better for Democrats to nominate a person of color, which is offset by 6% who say it would actually be better for the party to nominate a white candidate.
Similarly, 77% say the gender of the nominee does not matter.
Just 7% say it would be better for Democrats to nominate a woman, while slightly more (12%) say it would actually be better for the party to nominate a man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)