US elections leading up to and including the 2018 midterm elections

Ocasio-Cortez Supports Nancy Pelosi in House Speaker Race

https://nypost.com/2018/11/20/ocasio-cortez-supports-nancy-pelosi-in-hou...

"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is in Nancy Pelosi's corner. The 29-year old progressive star, who will become the youngest member of Congress, criticized a letter signed by 16 Democrats calling for new leadership and announcing they will not vote for Pelosi as House Speaker..."

Ocasio-Cortez to Support Pelosi as Top Democrat and House Speaker

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/11/21/pelo-n21.html

"...That the Democratic Party is now choosing between the continued leadership of Pelosi, one of the richest members of Congress and a diehard defender of Wall Street and American imperialism, and an even more right-wing figure backed by the militarist Seth Moulton and his group of 'CIA Democrats', only testifies to its reactionary character. 

Ocasio-Cortez has been heavily promoted, not only by the DSA, but by a large section of the corporate media and the Democratic Party establishment itself, to give the Democratic Party a 'left' cover while Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer pursue an accommodation with the Trump administration..."

Revealed: Foreign Country Completely Bought Midterm Elections (and vid)

https://twitter.com/LeeCamp/status/1065397699279650816

"The numbers have come out - A foreign country DID INDEED heavily manipulate the US midterms. In fact it funded 28 political action committees to corrupt Congress! Unfortunately, it's not Russia. It's Israel. So the mainstream media can't mention it."

Abby Martin on Trump V Clinton: "I actually don't know who is less evil"

I was reflecting on her Real News appearance on the night of the election. She was one of, if not the youngest, person there speaking to the panel. Everyone else has had more time to witness the usual cycle of Democrats shifting left rhetorically, then letting down their base, then the Republicans get elected, then people are so fed up with the Republicans that the Democrats are re-elected based on platitudes, wash, rinse, repeat. The fact that she was by far the most pessimistic of the panelists on that question speaks volumes.

It's great that Ocasio Cortez was able to oranize the demonstrations on Capitol Hill asking for a Green New Deal. Unfortunately, the fossil fuel interests that donate to the Democratic Party will block that agenda. Soon, Ocasio Cortez will have to either side with the Democratic Establishment or the people who elected her to Congress. She is one member of a 200-plus Caucus that is controlled by people opposed to the policies she mentioned in her tweet upthread. And as NDPP pointed out, after criticizing Pelosi, she is now backing Pelosi because all the other people who have come forward are actually worse! Can you believe that?

To any outside observer, there is no clear progressive takeover of the Democratic Party, and the matter of going in a more progressive or centrist direction is no more settled than it was 2 years ago. Besides, if the progressive wave is that strong within the Democratic Party, then why did Christine Hallquist, Ben Jealous, Andrew Gillum, Stacy Abrams, and Cynthia Nixon fail in their bids for Governor?

Aristotled24 wrote:

"Besides, if the progressive wave is that strong within the Democratic Party, then why did Christine Hallquist, Ben Jealous, Andrew Gillum, Stacy Abrams, and Cynthia Nixon fail in their bids for Governor?"

Voter suppression? Election fraud?

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Jealous and Hallquist lost their races to incumbent Republican governors by large margins. Nixon didn't even make it onto the ballot in New York state, and again, she lost her challenge to Cuomo by a large margin. There is a case that voter supression and voter fraud had an impact in Georgia and Florida, but frankly I think that's just an excuse the Demorcats are making to excuse their underperformance. Obama was President for 8 years, 2 of which he had complete control of the House and the Senate. If voter supression was that important to the Democrats, why did they not move on that file when they could have essentially done anything they wanted?

What could they have done? States run elections in the U.S.

@ everyone talking about voter suppression 

From my limited understanding, this voter suppression thing is nothing but. In Alabama or Georgia if a voter ha not voted for several cycles, a letter is sent to them asking them if they would still like to vote. If there’s no response then they are taken off the list. Apparently this is done at the state level not federal 

Also in the case of Georgia were that tight race was, it was the Democrats who made these so called voter suppression laws. 

Liberal Fascism Rears its Ugly Head in the #ProtectMueller Campaign

https://blackagendareport.com/liberal-fascism-rears-its-ugly-head-protec...

"Enemies of the people do not become heroes of the people just because Trump dislikes them or they dislike Trump. The desire to defend a bankrupt investigation into the nothing burger that is the claim of Russian interference has driven Democrats to openly defend and align with the most heinous white supremacist elements that the US state has to offer.

The accusation that Trump 'colluded' with Russia to win the 2016 election remains evidence-free despite over two years of non-stop media coverage and investigation into the matter. This bankrupt narrative essentially blames Russia for Trump. It is a desperate attempt on the part of the Democrat Party to flee from accountability for its own shortcomings and drum up war sentiments toward Russia in service of Wall Street, the Pentagon and US spy agencies.

The left has no dog in this fight. Yet no viable or visible left formation other than independent media such as Black Agenda Report, MintPressNews, RT and the like have taken the time to condemn Miller and his ruling class minions. The tendency of the left to condemn Trump and Trump alone has become a diseased excuse to move politically in the direction of fascism under the guise of 'resistance'..."

A very alarming phenomenon to behold but not surprising if you've been exclusively immersed in establishment propaganda msm house organs such as NYT or WaPo etc

josh wrote:

What privatization moves did Obama make.

Right here:

Quote:

Even as the country struggled to beat back double-digit unemployment, addressing the debt became among the most pressing issues in Washington. Think tanks and pundits on all sides of the spectrum lined up to warn of the dire consequences of avoiding an “adult” conversation about the unsustainable costs of Social Security and Medicare.

And the Obama administration -- rather than fight the narrative of out-of-control debt tooth and nail -- chose to accommodate it.

Just a year into Obama's presidency, the White House began to pivot away from fiscal stimulus and toward austerity. The president convened a bipartisan debt reduction commission in February 2010, co-chaired by Morgan Stanley director Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wy.), and charged it with forging a fiscal “grand bargain.” That became the catchphrase of choice on the Bowles-Simpson commission -- and in budget talks in subsequent years -- for a compromise agreement to reduce the long-term debt, through a combination of Social Security and Medicare cuts historically anathema to Democrats and revenue increases and defense cuts hard for Republicans to swallow.

josh wrote:

And the party is more to the left than even two years ago and way more than in the 1990s.

By what measure are you stating that the party has moved to the left in recent years? More importantly, how can we trust that this time, the Democrats really mean it, since being in opposition (even with control of the House) they can say whatever progressive platitudes they want, only to turn their backs on it once elected?

Aristotleded24 wrote:

josh wrote:

What privatization moves did Obama make.

Right here:

Quote:

Even as the country struggled to beat back double-digit unemployment, addressing the debt became among the most pressing issues in Washington. Think tanks and pundits on all sides of the spectrum lined up to warn of the dire consequences of avoiding an “adult” conversation about the unsustainable costs of Social Security and Medicare.

And the Obama administration -- rather than fight the narrative of out-of-control debt tooth and nail -- chose to accommodate it.

Just a year into Obama's presidency, the White House began to pivot away from fiscal stimulus and toward austerity. The president convened a bipartisan debt reduction commission in February 2010, co-chaired by Morgan Stanley director Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wy.), and charged it with forging a fiscal “grand bargain.” That became the catchphrase of choice on the Bowles-Simpson commission -- and in budget talks in subsequent years -- for a compromise agreement to reduce the long-term debt, through a combination of Social Security and Medicare cuts historically anathema to Democrats and revenue increases and defense cuts hard for Republicans to swallow.

josh wrote:

And the party is more to the left than even two years ago and way more than in the 1990s.

By what measure are you stating that the party has moved to the left in recent years? More importantly, how can we trust that this time, the Democrats really mean it, since being in opposition (even with control of the House) they can say whatever progressive platitudes they want, only to turn their backs on it once elected?

Obama never supported the recommendation of that commission.  The creation of which was to get someone’s vote as I recall.  And the point I was responding to was the claim that the Democrats would protect those programs from privatization.  Not that they would expand them.  And since they control only one house, leadership can support things, like a public option, knowing that it won’t become law.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

josh wrote:

Misfit wrote:

1. The Democrats took over control of the house.

That will impact ordinary every-day Americans how?

At minimum, prevent the effort to cut and privatize such programs as Social Security and Medicare.  Prevent a total reactionary tax policy.

You trust the Democrats to defend Medicare and Social Security given that they won't push Medicare for all and the moves the Clinton and Obama Administrations made towards privatizing Social Security?

Excuse me while I laugh. By the way, I own some ocean front property in Saskatchewan that I think you might be interested in buying.

Little Manitou Lake, the mighty Dead Sea of Canada located at Watrous, Saskatchewan.

video

Everything you need is right here in Saskatchewan. And if we don't have it then you really don't need it anyway.

Little Manutou Lake is the second saltiest body of water in the world second only to the Dead Sea. This lake is well renowned for its healing properties.

bekayne wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

2) Pelosi just announced one of her major priorities is to push legislation allowing for automatic voter registration. If she can push for this legislation now, what stopped them from doing that before?

Republicans running the House for 20 of the last 24 years?

You're absolutely right! The Democrats had absolutely no power during the 4 years of the last decade where they controlled both houses of Congress, the second half of that controlling the Presidency as well.

Maybe if the Democrats had pushed for legislation protecting voting rights during the first half of Obama's term, that would have enfranchised and motivated their own voting base to turn out, thereby preventing the disasters that were the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms?

Aristotleded24 wrote:

bekayne wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

2) Pelosi just announced one of her major priorities is to push legislation allowing for automatic voter registration. If she can push for this legislation now, what stopped them from doing that before?

Republicans running the House for 20 of the last 24 years?

You're absolutely right! The Democrats had absolutely no power during the 4 years of the last decade where they controlled both houses of Congress, the second half of that controlling the Presidency as well.

Maybe if the Democrats had pushed for legislation protecting voting rights during the first half of Obama's term, that would have enfranchised and motivated their own voting base to turn out, thereby preventing the disasters that were the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms?

Perhaps they should have.  But most of these impediments arose after the 2010 election, when they lost control of the house.

Hakeem Jeffries Emerges as New Face of House Democrats

https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1068073268404543488

"Hakeem Jeffries is the new face of Wall Street and the Israel lobby that originally installed him..."

Medicare for All: As Healthcare Costs Soar, Momentum Grows to Guarantee Healthcare for All Americans

quote:

The U.S. midterms have made history with an unprecedented 100 women elected to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives, among them the first Native American women, Muslim women and the youngest woman ever elected to Congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But there’s another first that has been far less covered—the record number of new lawmakers who campaigned for Medicare for All. There are nearly 50 of them. Also in the last year, 123 incumbent House Democrats co-sponsored Medicare for All legislation. That’s double the number who supported the bill in the previous legislative session.

But there is a group that’s paying close attention. That’s the pharmaceutical, insurance and hospital industry. As The Intercept's Lee Fang reports, over the summer the groups formed a partnership to fight the growing support for expanding Medicare. Documents obtained by The Intercept reveal the group aims to “change the conversation around Medicare for All and minimize the potential for this option in healthcare from becoming part of a national political party's platform in 2020,” unquote. Despite this, the movement for single-payer healthcare is growing. There is now a Medicare for All Caucus, co-chaired by Congressmember Pramila Jayapal, which advocates say is a sign of lawmakers’ increasing interest in the issue.

..there are alternatives to dem vs rep.

California’s Political Revolution

Gayle McLaughlin is one of the leading political revolutionaries in the United States today. She is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and one of the founders of the Richmond Progressive Alliance (RPA), an independent political organization based in Richmond, California that unites left activists across party lines. She served as a Richmond city council member from 2005-7, mayor from 2007–2015, and again as a city council member from 2015–17.

During this time, the RPA has distinguished itself as one of the most important political organizations in the country. Through electoral activity and community organizing it has challenged the power of Chevron, the oil company that dominated Richmond for decades, and implemented a wide array of local reforms including rent control and a $15 minimum wage. McLaughlin is currently working to expand the RPA model to towns and cities across California and connect corporate-free organizations through a new statewide formation called the California Progressive Alliance (CPA).

Here, we’ve reprinted McLaughlin’s interview with DSA’s Socialist Forum. They discuss her recent campaign for lieutenant governor, the RPA and the CPA, democratic socialism and the role of elected officials in the movement, and the meaning of political revolution today.

SF

You just ran for lieutenant governor in California. Why did you run, and how did the campaign go?

GM

I ran for the statewide office of lieutenant governor because I have served nearly thirteen years in elected office in Richmond: eight years as mayor and over four and a half years as a city council member. Overall we did some major work in Richmond by beating back this big oil giant in our city, Chevron. Over the course of about a decade, we beat Chevron’s money to the point where we have five city council seats filled by corporate-free council members. That’s out of seven total, so it’s a supermajority.

That’s because we have an alliance called the Richmond Progressive Alliance (RPA). I am a co-founder of the RPA, which we started back in 2003 to build a local movement and run corporate-free candidates. Because we had success in the electoral realm and building our local movement, we were able to do some major things like reducing crime by addressing the roots of violence and giving people opportunity — the homicide rate is down 75 percent.

We also won over $100 million in additional city taxes from Chevron, and we were able to limit their pollution. We’ve raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour and passed the first rent control law in California in thirty years, and we’ve implemented many green policies and supported our immigrants as a sanctuary city.

All of these things came about because we had our local movement and our corporate-free representatives in office. People started asking us, all over the state and even in other parts of the country, how we did it. So I began giving presentations around the state about the RPA model and that led to running a statewide campaign. When you run a statewide campaign, you have a larger stage, and we wanted large numbers of people to hear our message about building local political power.....

The Jimmy Dore Show

https://youtu.be/zby7gBL8tMY

"18 Dems block reinstating net neutrality for cable cash."

The Jimmy Dore Show

https://youtu.be/WE6RXOwQYPI

"Obama & Clinton staffers join to crush Med4All."

When Clinton was in the White House, didn't Hillary try to set up a single-payer healthcare program that was government funded like Canada but met strong resistance by the AMA, the insurance industry, and the pharmaceutical industry?

IIRC, Hillary's 2008 primary campaign centred on health care reform. It was Obama who was wishy-washy about discussing any specifics on Medicare, and his Obamacare only boosted the interests of the insurance companies.

the major health care lobbyists are very powerful, and they don't want change.

Here is the summary of Hillary Clinton's 1993 Task Force on Health Care Reform...

Article

..moved

With New DC Policy Group, Dems Continue to Rehabilitate and Unify with Bush-Era Neocons

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1078637466335301633

"This (re)union between the most bloodthirsty neocons & establishment Dems couldn't be more blatant if they put it in neon lights..."

And this in 2017. Worse now.

NDPP wrote:

Alabama Election Swayed by Dems

https://youtu.be/vivYF1ak1pE

"It turns out that a pro-Democratic billionaire funded a US group that created more than a thousand fake Russian bots on social media."

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

So we have a Russian financed propaganda outfit claiming that Russian financed interference went ot the Democrats.

Could it be to counter the accusation that the Russians finance Republicans? To confuse where people think the propaganda is going?

But most surpirsing is this poster who does not believe in any Russian meddling except when it is the Russians themselves claiming they finance the Democrats.

How do you ask to have it both ways with a straight face?

This post is a stupid joke.

So Sean which spies do you believe? Me, I believe spies all lie and to believe anything they say is foolishly naive. I also believe that even any Russian attempt to influence the election was marginal at best. Trump got none stop coverage by US media from the time of the Republican nomination. He was the focus of 80 to 90% of news items. Bernie on the other hand was barely mentioned at first and the amount of air space compared to Trump was deliberate and not orchestrated by Russian spies.  If I was a betting man I would bet that the members of the oligarchy that own the main stream media thought exposing Trump's stupidity would make him lose. They were wrong.  If the Democrats run a old guard candidate against Trump they are going to lose again because most Americans seem to distrust the DNC and many voters loved the Apprentice, especially the dismissals.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

If I was a betting man I would bet that the members of the oligarchy that own the main stream media thought exposing Trump's stupidity would make him lose. They were wrong. 

This was confirmed by Wikileaks in the Podesta emails - the pied piper strategy.

https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentiona...

"In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more 'Pied Piper' candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party," the Clinton campaign wrote.

As examples of these "pied piper" candidates, the memo named Donald Trump — as well as Sen. Ted Cruz and Ben Carson).

"We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously," the Clinton campaign concluded.

"Teams I clearly prefer"

Sean that is the difference between you and I. I don't cheer for any of the "teams."  CHineses neo-colonialism is just another Western moral equivalency fallacy. If China is an imperial power just like NATO please show me a comparative list of military bases for the two powers. If China is just like the US please show me the School of the America's where they are training torturers for countries under their influence. Then finally you can tell me all about the coups China has orchestrated in the last decade or two compared to NATO. I answer your posts because you call people stupid because they do not share your repulsive and reprehensible moral equivalency argument. No all countries are not the same. China is just not in the same imperial league and when you equate it to the Western oligarchy's imperialism you are merely absolving yourself of the responsibility for changing our governments actions in the world.