republican-ad

anonymous asked:

Bernie very clearly lost to Hillary because he failed to recieve the vote of the DNC, one the clear problems with the Democratic party? Bernie ran the most successful grassroots campaign in recent western history and was set to be a stronger candidate against Trump on every level but lost because the Democratic party is run with moneyed interests. #god i hate diehard democrats

Totally right that he ran a very successful grassroots campaign, I think Obama ran the better grass roots campaign in 2008, but we can say he did if you want. 

However, saying that Bernie absolutely would have won is just categorically false. I mean I guess he might have, who knows, but hear me out - the reason why Trump spoke favorably about Bernie during the race was for two reasons: (1) he wanted to exploit the growing rift between democrats, and (2) he wanted to run against Bernie because the opposition research on Bernie was considered stronger than the research on Clinton. Now, here’s the part where you’re like, “oh my god, what opposition research on Bernie? He’s a cinnamon roll!”

Well, the thing is, Clinton never actually hit Bernie very hard during the primary because she was scared that doing so would alienate his base, but here’s a taste of the sort of attack ads Republicans would have run against Bernie Sanders if he’d won the nomination.

`1.  In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it — a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.

2.  Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s

3.  He stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills

4.  He co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped.

5. Sanders violated campaign finance laws

6. Criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for

7. Voted against the Amber Alert system. 

8. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. 

9. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”

That’s not even taking into account his pro-gun record that would have put him at odds with his own base, his pro-Castro statements that would have lost him FL, his record on immigration reform that would have lost him hispanic votes, the fact that the numbers on a lot of his big economic proposals didn’t add up, and just the general fact that his campaign had literally never been able to make inroads with communities of color. 

Don’t get me wrong, I hear you when you say the DNC is a short-sighted and money driven, often choosing to elevate candidates that can bring in money rather than ones that can actually win seats, but I honestly don’t think that was the case in this go-around. Despite the fact Sanders was never even really a democrat, had a history fighting democrats on key legislation throughout his career, and just generally bashing the democratic party in general - the leaked DNC emails show they still complied with all his requests and only ever expressed annoyance with him, which like… can you really blame them?

The fact of the matter is that this narrative that Sander would have won is only true because he never experienced the scrutiny and pressure that a general election campaign puts someone through. You can hate me for saying that, but I’m not a die hard democrat that blindy supports whoever they prop up, I just genuinely don’t think Sanders was ever a good candidate. Maybe consider why you think a man who never held a position of actual consequence in government and who’s background you didn’t really know about was a better option to you than a woman who was probably, on paper at least, the most qualified candidate to ever run. Not saying everything is about gender, but gender should definitely be a lens we consider analyzing this through when we discuss the 2016 election. We can’t just take for granted that democrats are magically exempt from sexist biases. 

Democrats start out with advantage in Virginia’s general election
We witnessed a highly competitive race in last night’s gubernatorial primaries — but it wasn’t on the closely watched Democratic side, where Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam beat former Rep. Tom Perriello by 12 points, 56%-44%. Instead, it was the Republican contest that turned out to be the nail-biter, with GOP frontrunner Ed Gillespie edging Prince William County Chair Corey Stewart by just 4,000 votes, 44%-43%. What was especially stunning is that Gillespie had the money, the establishment support, the higher name ID, and was facing a highly flawed challenger in Stewart (who had made protecting Confederate monuments a pillar of his campaign) — and he barely won.

Democrats start out with the advantage in this fall’s Northam-vs.-Gillespie general election. One, turnout suggests Democrats have enthusiasm on their side: There were more than 540,000 votes in the two-person Dem race, while the three-person GOP contest had 366,000 votes. (That turnout disparity looks like New Jersey, not Virginia.) Two, Democrats today hold a unity event with Northam and Perriello, while Republicans aren’t unified. “There is one word you will never hear from me, and that’s ‘unity,’” Stewart told supporters, per the Washington Post. And three, President Trump’s job approval rating in Virginia is in the 30s. Add them all up, and you’d rather be Ralph Northam than Ed Gillespie, although we still have five months to go.

Virginia is no longer a purple state

One way to look at the closer-than-expected Gillespie-vs.-Stewart race is that Trump’s wing of the party is one the rise; this is no longer your Bush 43 party in which Gillespie served. The other way is that GOP moderates fled the party, with Northern Virginia Republicans voting in the Democratic contest (Virginia voters can pick which primary they want to participate in). “There’s a new name for the voters most people thought of as VA’s moderate Republicans a few years ago: Democrats,” observed the Cook Political Report’s David Wasserman. “VA is not a swing state,” he added. Indeed, Republicans have now gone 1-9 in major Virginia statewide races (for president, governor, U.S. Senate) since 2004.

Sing it sister.

Regarding the shooting at the baseball field this week, Pelosi was asked Thursday about “the possibility that this incident could be used against Democrats or the Democratic Party politically” because some conservatives had suggested “vitriolic rhetoric from the left being in some way to blame.”

Here’s how she responded:

“I think that the comments made by my Republican colleagues are outrageous, beneath the dignity of the job that they hold, beneath the dignity of the respect that we would like Congress to command. How dare they say such thing? How dare they? Well I won’t even go into the whole thing. I can’t even begin, probably as we sit here, they’re running caricatures of me in Georgia once again, earned over a hundred million dollars of vitriolic things that they say, that resulted in calls to my home constantly, threats in front of my grandchildren. Really, predicated on their comments and their paid ads. So this sick individual does something despicable and it was horrible what he did, hateful. But for them to all of a sudden be sanctimonious as if, they don’t, never seen such a thing before. And I don’t even want to go into the President of the United States. But in terms of some of the language that he has used.”


from:http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/15/politics/nancy-pelosi-steve-scalise/index.html?sr=fbCNN061517nancy-pelosi-steve-scalise0830PMStoryLink&linkId=38749100 

Georgia special election: the debate over Jon Ossoff's "outsider” status reveals the core of the race
Democrat Jon Ossoff has spent much of his campaign for the House fending off the charge that he is an “outsider” and “carpetbagger” who will undermine the traditional culture of Georgia. “He’s just not one of us,” says one of the ads by Republican Karen Handel, Georgia’s former secretary of state, ahead of Tuesday’s nationally watched special election. Ossoff was born and raised in Georgia, but, in a way, Handel is onto something. Read more
youtube

This may not have been the best time to paint Obama as an abusive boyfriend, Republicans

A new Republican ad called “Dating Profile” paints Obama as the bad, abusive boyfriend in an attempt to woo female voters. What could go wrong with that analogy?

“In 2008, I fell in love,” the actress in the video says. “His online profile made him seem so perfect. Smart, handsome, charming, articulate, all the right values. I trusted him. … By 2012, our relationship was in trouble. But I stuck with him because he promised he’d be better.”

The whole premise of this is degrading and sexist | Follow micdotcom 

Twelve Years A Slave, The Great New Orleans Kidnapping Case, and the Ghosts of the Past in the Louisiana Cane Fields

Today, much of Rapides Parish, Louisiana seems just like everywhere else.  Around Alexandria, the suburban subdivisions, box stores, and crowded roads could be anywhere in the South. But, outside the city, there are still rural roads that run through the sugar cane fields where the past is close at hand. In the nineteenth century, the famous memoir Solomon Northrup wrote about being kidnapped and sold into slavery—Twelve Years a Slave—made the Rapides Parish cane fields synonymous in the North with harsh servitude and injustice. And today when the wind whips up before a thunderstorm on a summer afternoon, it can feel as if the ghosts of Northup and the other men and women who toiled in those fields still haunt the land.

Less well known, but also evocative, were the events of 1870, after the Civil War and emancipation, when the cane fields of Rapides Parish became part of the frenzied pursuit of two African American women accused of abducting a white baby in what became known as the Great New Orleans Kidnapping Case. The case made national headlines after rumors had circulated that Mollie Digby, the daughter of Irish immigrants, had been abducted for use as a human sacrifice in a Voodoo ceremony. A huge reward offered by the state’s Republican governor added to the intensity of the search.  In August 1870, a deputized posse from New Orleans arrived in Rapides Parish after a tip reached police that Mollie Digby’s abductors were hiding her in the former slave quarters of the Compton plantation, near Bayou Boeuf and the town of Cheneyville.

When the posse reached the Compton place, they proceeded directly to the former slave quarters where many of the freedmen and freedwomen still lived. Once home to over 400 slaves, the plantation had been one of the largest in Rapides Parish before the war. Solomon Northup noted in Twelve Years A Slave the large number of his fellow bondsmen the Comptons bought at an auction where he was also sold. Following emancipation, some of the Comptons’ slaves stayed on, now working for wages.

Because the posse reached the quarters in the afternoon when almost all of the residents were still in the fields, the only person in sight was a young black girl, about eleven years old. To their surprise, the child seemed to know precisely why they were there. The visitors had not yet uttered a word when she asked, “Where is that little white girl?” “What do you know about a white child?” a posse member replied. Two women, she said, had been there with a white baby several times and had that morning left for a secret spot on the plantation, saying that someone was after them. That, she said, was all she knew. Elated by their good fortune and convinced they were close to capturing the kidnappers, the posse headed for the plantation’s “big house” to alert the Comptons that fugitives were hiding an abducted child on the grounds.

Toche Compton, the plantation’s owner, agreed to aid the investigation. Louisiana planters strived to keep their work force, now free, under tight control, and Compton must have been alarmed when emissaries from New Orleans arrived to tell him that black kidnappers were hiding on his land. Springing into action, Compton summoned some of his most trusted black employees and offered them cash rewards if they could find out where the kidnappers were concealed. He and his men also paid their own visit to the old slave quarters to interrogate the girl who had reportedly seen the women with the stolen baby. The frightened girl initially denied knowing anything, but after close questioning claimed “that the lady had given her some money and promised her a new dress” to keep quiet.

By Tuesday morning, word of the search for the kidnapped baby had spread. The Comptons’ neighbors had followed the story—and news of the mounting rewards—in the newspapers, and they “flocked in from all points” to assist. When the initial search of the Compton estate failed to turn up the kidnappers, the dragnet expanded to include the surrounding plantations, roads, and piney woods. “Before night,” a posse member reported, “the whole section of the country was aroused into action.”

For three days and nights, search parties fanned out across the parish, questioning field hands and any black people walking on public roads. For African Americans along the Red River, it must have been a harrowing week. At a time when terrorist organizations such as the Knights of the White Camellia were prowling the countryside, parties of white men on horseback with torches could not have been a welcome sight, even if in this case they were aiding a search authorized by the Republican governor.

Late in the afternoon on August 12, a traveler arrived claiming that he had seen two black women with a white baby driving in an old wagon on the road to Alexandria. A half-dozen riders rode off to overtake them. Reports also circulated that clothing belonging to Mollie Digby had been found near the road a few miles away. Certain they were “only three hours” behind the culprits, additional rescuers began “saddling horses to proceed with the search.”

Standing on those same roads today in August at dusk in the cane fields, it is easy to imagine that scene in 1870, the armed men on horses at full gallop riding off shouting about kidnappers and rewards.

youtube

“Republicans Are People Too” ad backfires.

Bernie Sanders calls for ‘political revolution’ against billionaire class

Self-described socialist and 2016 presidential candidate takes aim at influence of big money and criticises Clinton Foundation, Koch brothers and others

Heralding what he called “the most unusual political career in the US Senate”, the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Sunday called for “a political revolution” against “the billionaire class”.
He then seemed to include the overwhelming favourite for the Democratic nomination, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, in that “billionaire class”.


Appearing on ABC at the end of a week in which he declared a run for the Democratic nomination well to the left of Clinton, the independent senator from Vermont said on his first day as a candidate he had attracted 100,000 supporters and raised $1.5m at an average donation of $43.
The self-described socialist aimed his fiercest fire at the influence of much bigger money.


“For the last 30 years I’ve been standing up for the working families of this country,” he said, “and I think I’m the only candidate who’s prepared to take on the billionaire class which now controls our economy and increasingly controls the political life of this country.
“We need a political revolution in this country involving millions of people who are prepared to stand up and say enough is enough, and I want to lead that.”


Asked by host George Stephanopoulos to comment on continuing controversyover foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation and their alleged influence over decisions made by the former secretary of state while in office, Sanders said: “It’s not just the Clinton Foundation.
“Here are my concerns … and it should be the concern of every American. Can somebody who is not a billionaire, who stands for working families, actually win an election into which billionaires are pouring millions of dollars?”

Naming prominent and controversial rightwing donors, he said: “It is not just Hillary, it is the Koch brothers, it is Sheldon Adelson.”
Stephanopoulos seized the moment, asking: “Are you lumping her in with them?”


Choosing to refer to the 2010 supreme court decision that removed limits on corporate political donations, rather than address the question directly, Sanders replied: “What I am saying is that I get very frightened about the future of American democracy when this becomes a battle between billionaires. I believe in one person, one vote. I believe we need a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.”
Sanders also outlined some policy positions, saying that if successful he would make the wealthiest corporations pay a fair share of taxes. He also said he would tackle climate change and oppose international trade agreements.


Asked if it was possible that “someone who calls himself a socialist” could win election to the White House, he said: “Of course, if we know what democratic socialism is.”


He added: “If we know that in countries in Scandinavia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, they are very democratic countries – the voter turnout is a lot higher than in the United States – and in those countries healthcare is a right, college education and graduate school is free, retirement benefits and childcare benefits are stronger … and in those countries government works for ordinary people and the middle class rather than, as is the case right now in our country, for the billionaires.”
“I can see the Republican attack ad right now,” Stephanopoulos said. “He wants America to look more like Scandinavia.”


“That’s right,” said Sanders. “That’s right. And what’s wrong with that? What’s wrong when they have more income and wealth equality? What’s wrong when they have a stronger middle class in many ways than we do, a higher minimum wage than we do? They’re stronger on the environment than we are.


“The fact of the matter is that we do a lot in our country that is good, but we can learn from other countries.”


Asked if he might weaken Clinton – who leads polls regarding potential Democratic candidates in 2016 by 50% or more – by competing against her, thus damaging her chances of maintaining Democratic control of the presidency, Sanders said: “Few would argue that [mine] is the most unusual political career in the United States Senate.


“Nobody thought that I would be elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont. Very few people thought I would beat an incumbent Republican to become a United States congressman for Vermont by 16 points. And people weren’t so sure I could beat the richest person in Vermont to become a United States senator.


“So I would say: ‘Don’t underestimate me.’”

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/03/bernie-sanders-political-revolution-billionaire-democratic-2016-race


anonymous asked:

Can u explain the republican political ad targeted at women?? In not American so idgi

I’m guessing you meant this one.

Basically, the ad (gifs 1-2, 5-7) is attacking Obama and Obamacare (the new healthcare system) and saying that he doesn’t know what American women need/want.

It’s funny because most women are happy with how Obamacare makes most women’s health checks/treatments/prescriptions free or at least very cheap… meaning that it’s the Republican party that doesn’t know what American women want/need, which is what the sarcastic satire was pointing out. 

I don’t really know how to explain it other than that, see the whole video here

youtube

”You don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.” 
You can rarely call a male “Dumb Bitch” and this is that rare occasion.

The New Billionaire Political Bosses

Charles and David Koch should not be blamed for having more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of Americans put together. Nor should they be condemned for their petrochemical empire. As far as I know, they’ve played by the rules and obeyed the laws.

They’re also entitled to their own right-wing political views. It’s a free country.  

But in using their vast wealth to change those rules and laws in order to fit their political views, the Koch brothers are undermining our democracy. That’s a betrayal of the most precious thing Americans share.

The Kochs exemplify a new reality that strikes at the heart of America. The vast wealth that has accumulated at the top of the American economy is not itself the problem. The problem is that political power tends to rise to where the money is. And this combination of great wealth with political power leads to greater and greater accumulations and concentrations of both – tilting the playing field in favor of the Kochs and their ilk, and against the rest of us.

America is not yet an oligarchy, but that’s where the Koch’s and a few other billionaires are taking us.   

American democracy used to depend on political parties that more or less represented most of us. Political scientists of the 1950s and 1960s marveled at American “pluralism,” by which they meant the capacities of parties and other membership groups to reflect the preferences of the vast majority of citizens.

Then around a quarter century ago, as income and wealth began concentrating at the top, the Republican and Democratic Parties started to morph into mechanisms for extracting money, mostly from wealthy people.

Finally, after the Supreme Court’s “Citizen’s United” decision in 2010, billionaires began creating their own political mechanisms, separate from the political parties. They started providing big money directly to political candidates of their choice, and creating their own media campaigns to sway public opinion toward their own views.

So far in the 2014 election cycle, “Americans for Prosperity,” the Koch brother’s political front group, has aired more than 17,000 broadcast TV commercials, compared with only 2,100 aired by Republican Party groups.

“Americans for Prosperity” has also been outspending top Democratic super PACs in nearly all of the Senate races Republicans are targeting this year. In seven of the nine races the difference in total spending is at least two-to-one and Democratic super PACs have had virtually no air presence in five of the nine states.

The Kochs have spawned several imitators. Through the end of February, four of the top five contributors to 2014 super-PACs are now giving money to political operations they themselves created, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

For example, billionaire TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts and his son, Todd, co-owner of the Chicago Cubs, have their own $25 million political operation called “Ending Spending.” The group is now investing heavily in TV ads against Republican Representative Walter Jones in a North Carolina primary (they blame Jones for too often voting with Obama).

Their ad attacking Democratic New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen for supporting Obama’s health-care law has become a template for similar ads funded by the Koch’s “Americans for Prosperity” in Senate races across the country.

When billionaires supplant political parties, candidates are beholden directly to the billionaires. And if and when those candidates win election, the billionaires will be completely in charge. 

At this very moment, Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson (worth an estimated $37.9 billion) is busy interviewing potential Republican candidates whom he might fund, in what’s being called the “Sheldon Primary.”

“Certainly the ‘Sheldon Primary’ is an important primary for any Republican running for president,” says Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary under President George W. Bush. “It goes without saying that anybody running for the Republican nomination would want to have Sheldon at his side.”

The new billionaire political bosses aren’t limited to Republicans. Democratic-leaning billionaires Tom Steyer, a former hedge-fund manager, and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have also created their own political groups. But even if the two sides were equal, billionaires squaring off against each other isn’t remotely a democracy.

In his much-talked-about new book, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” economist Thomas Piketty explains why the rich have become steadily richer while the share of national income going to wages continues to drop. He shows that when wealth is concentrated in relatively few hands, and the income generated by that wealth grows more rapidly than the overall economy – as has been the case in the United States and many other advanced economies for years – the richest receive almost all the income growth.

Logically, this leads to greater and greater concentrations of income and wealth in the future – dynastic fortunes that are handed down from generation to generation, as they were prior to the twentieth century in much of the world.  

The trend was reversed temporarily in the twentieth century by the Great Depression, two terrible wars, the development of the modern welfare state, and strong labor unions. But Piketty is justifiably concerned about the future.

A new gilded age is starting to look a lot like the old one. The only way to stop this is through concerted political action. Yet the only large-scale political action we’re witnessing is that of Charles and David Koch, and their billionaire imitators.

How Republicans Will Make Life Hell for Barack Obama

​Call it the subpoena surge of 2015. ​Republicans are now preparing to take control of the Senate for the first time eight years-a political power shift that gives the GOP free rein to torment President Barack Obama, and unleash the full weight of Congressional oversight to investigate, subpoena, and generally make trouble for Democrats in the next two years.

Privately, Obama advisers have been complaining in recent weeks about how much more time they will presumably have to spend dealing with Republican-led congressional investigations once GOP leaders take over as committee chairs in the Senate. After four years of beating back investigations from the House, the new subpoena blizzard would come from the upper chamber, whose 100 members are often (though not always) more polished, camera ready, and far more potent adversaries than the lower chamber’s motley assortment of Tea Party street fighters.

“When you have the opposition party to the White House calling the shots in the Senate, I think there would be more oversight and more critical oversight, albeit with the greater measure of decorum that is typical of the Senate,” said Adam Zagorin, a senior fellow at the Project on Government Oversight.

A senior Senate GOP investigator agreed: “We’re salivating at the opportunity,” one senior GOP Senate investigator told me, “and not because anyone has a hit list or anything but because there’s just been an absolute gulf of oversight from the Senate for nearly a decade.”

“People [want] to give the Federal Administration an appropriate level of scrutiny,” the investigator added.

Republicans have said little publicly about what they plan to do with Senate subpoena power. But it’s easy to see how things could get ugly fast once GOP committee chairs have gavels in their hands. Expect investigations into the president’s use of executive privilege to push through his agenda on issues like climate change and immigration, as well as probes into the Obama administration’s handling of various foreign policy conflicts, from the deadly attacks on Benghazi in 2012 to the mission to recover Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Not to mention what will likely be an endless string of hearings on the botched rollout of Obamacare.

Continue

Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat, has blasted comments by Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, that the Senate will try to block President Obama from nominating a new justice to replace Justice Scalia.

“Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes,” Ms. Warren, a former Harvard Law School professor, said in a statement.

“Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate,” she wrote. “I can’t find a clause that says ‘…except when there’s a year left in the term of a Democratic President.’”

She added: “Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that – empty talk.”