Trump is on track to win re-election even while losing the national vote by as much as 5 percentage points

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:30 pm

In my view this is an excellent, sobering analysis.

THE NEW YORK TIMES

Trump’s Electoral College Edge Could Grow in 2020, Rewarding Polarizing Campaign

Analysis

Re-election looks plausible even with a bigger loss in the national popular vote.

By Nate Cohn

President Trump’s approval ratings are under water in national polls. His position for re-election, on the other hand, might not be quite so bleak.
His advantage in the Electoral College, relative to the national popular vote, may be even larger than it was in 2016, according to an Upshot analysis of election results and polling data.
That persistent edge leaves him closer to re-election than one would think based on national polls, and it might blunt any electoral cost of actions like his recent tweets attacking four minority congresswomen.
For now, the mostly white working-class Rust Belt states, decisive in the 2016 election, remain at the center of the electoral map, based on our estimates. The Democrats have few obviously promising alternative paths to win without these battleground states. The president’s approval ratings remain higher in the Sun Belt battlegrounds than in the Rust Belt, despite Democratic hopes of a breakthrough.
The president’s views on immigration and trade play relatively well in the Northern battlegrounds, including among the pivotal Obama-Trump voters.
There are signs that some of these voters have soured on his presidency, based on recent polling. There is also reason to think that white working-class voters who supported Mr. Trump were relatively likely to stay home in last November’s midterm elections.
A strategy rooted in racial polarization could at once energize parts of the president’s base and rebuild support among wavering white working-class voters. Many of these voters backed Mr. Trump in the first place in part because of his views on hot-button issues, including on immigration and race.
Alone, the president’s relative advantage in the Electoral College does not necessarily make him a favorite to win. His approval rating is well beneath 50 percent in states worth more than 270 electoral votes, including in the Northern battleground states that decided the 2016 election.
And just because racial polarization could work to the president’s advantage in general doesn’t mean that his particular tactics will prove effective. The president’s campaign rally on Wednesday night seemed, for a time, to go too far even for him: on Thursday he disavowed the “send her back” chants that supporters directed toward a congresswoman who immigrated to the United States as a refugee. (By Friday, he was declining to condemn the chants.)
But Mr. Trump’s approval rating has been stable even after seemingly big missteps. And if it improves by a modest amount — not unusual for incumbents with a strong economy — he could have a distinct chance to win re-election while losing the popular vote by more than he did in 2016, when he lost it by 2.1 percentage points.
The president’s relative advantage in the Electoral College could grow even further in a high-turnout election, which could pad Democratic margins nationwide while doing little to help them in the Northern battleground states.
It is even possible that Mr. Trump could win while losing the national vote by as much as five percentage points.

The State of the Electoral College, 2018
The best available evidence on the president’s standing by state comes from the large 2018 election surveys. Their quality is generally high, and unlike most surveys, they have been adjusted to match actual election results, ironing out many potential biases of pre-election polls. Although these surveys are nearly nine months old, the stability of the president’s overall approval ratings means, for our purposes, that they remain a decent measure of the distribution of his support.
Taken together, the president’s approval rating among midterm voters stood at about 45.5 percent, excluding the voters who did not express an opinion (for comparability, measures of the president’s approval will exclude voters without an opinion).
By state, the president’s approval rating was beneath 50 percent in states worth 310 electoral votes: the states carried by Hillary Clinton, along with Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, Arizona and North Carolina. This is not exactly good news for the president, but not as bad as it typically would be given an approval rating of 45.5 percent. John McCain, for instance, lost states worth 365 electoral votes in 2008 while winning 45.7 percent of the vote.
The most important measure of the president’s strength in the Electoral College, relative to the national vote, is the difference between the national vote and the “tipping-point state” — the state most likely to push a candidate over the Electoral College threshold.
Wisconsin was the tipping-point state in 2016, and it seems to hold that distinction now, at least based on the president’s approval rating among 2018 midterm voters.
Over all, the president’s approval rating was 47.1 percent in Wisconsin, above his 45.5 percent nationwide. This implies that the president’s advantage in the Electoral College, at least by his approval rating, is fairly similar to what it was in 2016.
A closer look at the underlying evidence suggests there’s reason to think the president’s ratings could be higher than estimated in the state. The estimates are based on four measures of the president’s standing, and there is one outlier: the Votecast survey, which places the president’s net approval rating at minus 13, or 43.6 percent approval. The other three are in close agreement, placing the president’s rating between 47 percent and 48 percent.
There is an additional piece of evidence, unique to Wisconsin, that’s consistent with a stronger position for the president: the Marquette University poll, which gave Mr. Trump a minus 5 net approval among likely voters in its final poll before the midterms. Over the longer run, the president has averaged a minus 5 net approval among registered voters (not midterm voters) in Marquette polls since October.
In other words, most measures suggest that the president’s rating is higher than 47.1 percent in Wisconsin. If you excluded the Votecast data and added the final Marquette poll, the president’s approval rating would rise to 47.6 percent — or a net 4.2 points higher than his nationwide approval.
It is important to emphasize that it is impossible to nail down the president’s standing in Wisconsin, or any state, with precision. But Wisconsin is the pivotal state in this analysis, and a one-point difference there could potentially be decisive.
One reason that such a small swing in Wisconsin could be so important is that the Democrats do not have an obviously promising alternative if Wisconsin drifts to the right.
In 2016, Florida was that obviously promising alternative: It voted for Mr. Trump by 1.2 percentage points, compared with his 0.8-point victory in Wisconsin.
But all of the measures indicate that Florida has shifted to the right of the nation since 2016, at least among 2018 midterm voters. The president’s approval rating in Florida was essentially even — and by our measure, slightly positive. Republicans narrowly won the Florida fights for Senate and governor, and also the statewide U.S. House vote.
The next tier of Democratic opportunities doesn’t provide an easy backstop to Democratic weakness in Wisconsin either. There’s Arizona, where Democrats had a good midterm cycle, but where the president’s approval rating is plainly stronger than it is nationwide or in Wisconsin. The same is true of Iowa or North Carolina, though the president’s standing in those states is somewhat more uncertain in the absence of an exit poll or a high-profile statewide result.
In the end, these states, particularly Arizona, could prove to be a better opportunity for Democrats than Wisconsin. But at least based on this evidence, it would probably be more a reflection of Democratic weakness in Wisconsin than strength elsewhere.

Milwaukee and MiamiDade
In both Wisconsin and Florida, the president’s resilience seems grounded in two regions: the Milwaukee area and Miami-Dade County.
The president’s average approval rating in the Milwaukee media market stands at 48 percent — virtually unchanged from what it was in 2016, in a compilation of Marquette University polls since October. His approval has declined in the rest of the state, according to both the Marquette data and the exit polls, which also showed the president holding firm in the Milwaukee area. A similar pattern has showed up in statewide election results, where Republicans have tended to run strongly in the area.
The president’s approval rating in Miami-Dade may even be better than his standing there in 2016, based on three Times/Siena surveys of two districts there, Florida’s 26th and 27th. These polls were also highly accurate, coming within a point of the election results. On average, the president’s approval rating stood at 45.7 percent among the likely electorate in the two districts — well above his 40.8 percent share of the major-party vote there in the 2016 presidential election.
At first glance, these regions might seem to have little in common. But in terms of politics, their idiosyncrasies have played out in similar ways.
Both are regions where the Republicans do better than demographics would lead you to expect. Milwaukee is one of the last Northern metropolitan areas where Republicans still rule the suburbs; Miami-Dade is one of the few places where Republicans win Hispanics, in this case Cuban voters.
Both areas were, or still are, represented by major establishment figures in Republican politics: Scott Walker, Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. Many fought hard against Mr. Trump in the primary. These areas were some of Mr. Trump’s weakest of the primary season — he won 22 percent in the primaries in Miami-Dade and in Waukesha, Wis.
Hillary Clinton improved over Barack Obama in both areas in 2016. The president’s apparent resilience or recovery in these regions contrasts with what has happened elsewhere in the country. But it is possible that the real anomaly was his weakness in 2016, which was perhaps in part because of the president’s hostility to his prominent skeptics in these areas. The Republican establishment is now unified, if belatedly, behind the president; perhaps these voters have unified behind him as well.

The consequences of higher turnout
Many assume that the huge turnout expected in 2020 will benefit Democrats, but it’s not so straightforward. It could conceivably work to the advantage of either party, and either way, higher turnout could widen the gap between the Electoral College and the popular vote.
That’s because the major Democratic opportunity — to mobilize nonwhite and young voters on the periphery of politics — would disproportionately help Democrats in diverse, often noncompetitive states.
The major Republican opportunity — to mobilize less educated white voters, particularly those who voted in 2016 but sat out 2018 — would disproportionately help them in white, working-class areas overrepresented in the Northern battleground states.
If everyone who was eligible to vote turned up at the polls, the gap between the Sun Belt and Rust Belt would close. Texas, astonishingly, would emerge as the tipping-point state. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, by contrast, would barely budge.
Of course, a full-turnout election is not going to happen. In recent months, analysts have speculated about a 70 percent turnout among eligible voters, up from 60 percent in 2016.
In this kind of high-turnout presidential election, by our estimates, the tipping-point state would drift to the right as people who voted in 2016 but not in 2018 return to the electorate and nudge states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin toward the president. At the same time, the Sun Belt would drift left. Arizona could overtake Wisconsin as the tipping-point state. But even in this hypothetical high-turnout election, the president’s approval rating in Arizona would be higher than it was in 2018 in Wisconsin. It becomes harder for the Democrats to win the presidency.
In such an election, the tipping-point state could have a net approval rating that is five points higher than the president’s national net approval rating, potentially allowing the president to win re-election while losing the popular vote by a wide margin.

2018 isn’t destiny
This analysis mainly covers the opportunities available to both parties; we can’t know which side will take better advantage of them. And it’s important to emphasize that the kind of slight difference in measuring Wisconsin is beyond our ability to discern with great confidence, even using high-quality, calibrated data.
All of this is based on the president’s approval rating — well ahead of the election. Most presidents manage to improve their approval rating between this point and the election, particularly with a strong economy. But unforeseen events could also hurt his approval rating; it is even imaginable that the president could go too far on immigration for some of his more moderate supporters.
If the president’s ratings improve, the crucial question will be where. The answer is likely to be influenced by the contrast he can draw with his still-undetermined opponent.
Democrats could nominate a candidate who tries to win the presidency by mobilizing a new, diverse coalition with relative strength in Sun Belt states, while making little or no effort to secure the support of the white working-class voters with reservations about the president.
The Democrats could certainly win in the Sun Belt states, even in Texas. Perhaps this kind of Democrat could generate such a favorable turnout that it helps the party even in relatively white states.
But it’s also a strategy that would tend to increase the risk of a wide gap between the Electoral College and the national vote. It’s also hard to see how it would be the easier way forward for Democrats, at least as long as the president’s approval rating in the Rust Belt remains so much lower than in the Sun Belt states.
Of course, the campaign season has barely begun. The election could wind up being a simple referendum on the president, and his approval ratings suggest he could lose, perhaps even decisively. But his relative advantage in the Electoral College could ensure his political survival.

Nate Cohn is a domestic correspondent for The Upshot. He covers elections, polling and demographics. Before joining The Times in 2013, he worked as a staff writer for The New Republic.

Rach3 · Post by **Rach3** » Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:58 pm

Proving once again PT Barnum was right about suckers and Abe Lincoln was right about fools.

CEO of Germany's giant Siemens AG said today Trump's attack on "The Squad" was racist.As he said in 2018:

"I'm there to represent the company and be accountable to the shareholders; on the other hand, if people turn their head away. ... Well, we had that time in Germany," Kaeser told the Financial Times in May 2018.
"Nobody spoke up. Then it was too late," he added.

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:12 pm

Even if impeached in the House and somehow miraculously convicted in the Senate, would he be likely to relinquish office without first calling on his supporters to take to the streets?

And the mere advance hint of that could cause congressional resolve to wilt, even among Democrats. Certainly, with the possible exception of Mitt Romney, there is no Barry Goldwater nor John McCain left in the GOP with either the stature or the cojones to confront tyranny — the place is full of trimmers, Sen. Lindsay Graham being the poster-boy of this new GOP.

Rach3 · Post by **Rach3** » Mon Jul 22, 2019 9:17 pm

Too bad the Dems are not this "wise" :

https://uproxx.com/viral/tim-wise-trump-2020/

david johnson · Post by **david johnson** » Tue Jul 23, 2019 3:08 am

I believe the electoral college is the best way to go. The Democrats will self-destruct as they did in the previous election. I am not particularly a Trump supporter, but the 'progressive' gang is even more untrustworthy.

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Tue Jul 23, 2019 6:19 am

david johnson wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 23, 2019 3:08 am
The Democrats will self-destruct as they did in the previous election.

As a matter of fact, the Dems gained a slew of Congressional seats and control of the House in the previous election. And the election before that, the Dems won by 2.1 percentage points in the the national vote count but lost in the Electoral College. I agree that could very well happen again in the 2020 Electoral College, because the Populist demagogue that currently occupies the White House, the first white supremacist to reside there since Dixiecrat Woodrow Wilson, has cleverly and effectively revived the Lost Cause of the Confederacy.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:03 am

Yes this is very worrisome-and of course tomorrow's Mueller hearings bring still another worry! Regards, Len

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/07 ... -testimony

Mueller Report
William Barr’s Deputy Warns Mueller to Keep His Mouth Shut

Any information that's not in the public Mueller report is off limits, according to Trump's DOJ.
By Alison Durkee
July 23, 2019

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:22 am

If Trump is reelected, as seems more and more possible given the current profile of the Electoral College, I would not be surprised to see the South install a watered-down version of Jim Crow. RBG would step down, the Supremes would hand abortion back to the states, and the judiciary would soon resemble what it looked like in the 19th century. Also, true conservatism (as represented by honorable public servants like Mitt Romney and John Boehner) would become a thing of the past as Trump drives deficit spending to the economic brink.

On the international front, a neo-Axis Alliance consisting of the US, China and Russia might well carve the world up into spheres of influence: Iran would fall to Russia, N. Korea to China, the UK and Japan to America. In Europe, NATO could well become a paper tiger after the US cuts the financial legs out from under it, the UK our post-Brexit poodle and Germany and France our chief adversaries. One thing for certain: democracy would be in retreat globally in the face of authoritarian post-fascist regimes in D.C., Moscow and Beijing. Hope I am wrong: it wouldn't be a pretty picture for lovers of liberty.

I might still change my mind, but right now a centrist Biden/Klobuchar Dem ticket seems most likely to be able to take the critical Rust Belt, especially Wisconsin. I am firmly opposed to coastal leftists like Sanders, Warren and Harris and might not even vote for them should one be nominated, though I'd probably wind up in divorce court if I did that. Maybe I would punt and hand my ballot to my wife to fill out, like I usually do. It makes little difference since OHIO is firmly in the TRUMP column right now.

I think the Dems should write off the South as a lost cause electorally speaking. Concentrate resources on the Northeast, the Rust Belt, and the Southwest including Texas. Make the GOP sweat to retain Texas. Forgettabout Florida and Ohio, they appear at this point to be lost.

Anorher thing I hope for is Trump primaried by Sanford (NC) or maybe even Kasich (OH). Also a viable conservative 3rd party candidate to lead a "Anybody but Trump" movement.

But I also think a 3rd party candidate on the left could do the opposite and get MGP (Mar-a-Lago Garbage Patch) re-elected.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Tue Jul 23, 2019 6:41 pm

jserraglio wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:22 am
Anorher thing I hope for is Trump primaried by Sanford (NC) or maybe even Kasich (OH). Also a viable conservative 3rd party candidate to lead a "Anybody but Trump" movement.

I've been impressed by this guy-okay it's a very big long shot!

https://ballotpedia.org/Bill_Weld_presi ... aign,_2020

Rach3 · Post by **Rach3** » Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:30 pm

None of the current Dems front-runners have a chance. It's like Chamberlain vs. Hitler, Munich,1938.

The Dems " progressives " may be naive, or inexperienced, or "socialist" ( like ,for example, "socialist" Medicare,Medicaid, Social Security, farm programs, tariffs,VA benefits,FEMA,et.al.), but Trump's "socialism for the rich " tax cut will run up historic deficits that would make even an Obama fan blush,and Trump is not only inexperienced, but also a lying,corrupt, racist,meglomaniac on a scale unprecedented in American history, that requires a whole,separate definition " untrustworthy" is nowhere close to describing. Trump told a bunch of "TrumpJugend" at a speech today that Article Two of the Constitution means that as President, " I can do anything I want to do." Nice going,Trump supporters.Election Day 2016 is another " day that shall live in infamy."

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 2:21 am

Rach3 wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:30 pm
Election Day 2016 is another "day that shall live in infamy."

david johnson · Post by **david johnson** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 3:46 am

jserraglio wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 23, 2019 6:19 am

david johnson wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 23, 2019 3:08 am
The Democrats will self-destruct as they did in the previous election.
As a matter of fact, the Dems gained a slew of Congressional seats and control of the House in the previous election. And the election before that, the Dems won by 2.1 percentage points in the the national vote count but lost in the Electoral College. I agree that could very well happen again in the 2020 Electoral College, because the Populist demagogue that currently occupies the White House, the first white supremacist to reside there since Dixiecrat Woodrow Wilson, has cleverly and effectively revived the Lost Cause of the Confederacy.

I think branding him a white supremacist is inaccurate. He is not involved in a "Lost Cause" revival, but I will read your definition of said Cause. The dems are going to self-destruct again, as I earlier stated.

John F · Post by **John F** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 5:18 am

To call Woodrow Wilson a Dixiecrat is stretching it. Aside from the fact that the Dixiecrats did not exist as a breakaway splinter of the Democratic Party until 1948, Wilson was twice elected president as nominee of the national party, and in all respects but race he was pretty liberal for his time. That said, his beliefs and policies were undoubtedly racist and now, a century after he left office, they are a blot on his record and his character.

A personal note. My mother's father was from Staunton, VA, Wilson's birthplace. He died before I was born so I have no idea of his racial attitudes. My grandmother was from rural Louisiana, Ku Klux Klan country; I knew and loved her well, and never did she say or do anything prejudicial against African Americans, including those who she hired as domestic help and whom she helped when they needed it. My mother was as neutral on racial matters as her mother and possibly her father, though I don't know that. Being a native of the South, then, did not necessarily cause racist attitudes and conduct. That said, I heard gratuitous racist remarks from others in southwest Virginia as late as the 1980s, educated and professional people from whom I would never have expected such talk.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 6:35 am

david johnson wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 24, 2019 3:46 am
e. The dems are going to self-destruct again, as I earlier stated.

Today's a big day to see if you're right! Regards, Len

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 6:50 am

david johnson wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 24, 2019 3:46 am
I think branding him a white supremacist is inaccurate. He is not involved in a "Lost Cause" revival, but I will read your definition of said Cause. The dems are going to self-destruct again, as I earlier stated.

John F wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 24, 2019 5:18 am
To call Woodrow Wilson a Dixiecrat is stretching it.

By calling Wilson Dixiecrat, I intended to speak metaphorically. That allusion was the most euphemistic epithet I could think of off the top of my head to conjure up WW's racial views. What I meant to say and should have said baldly, putting aside my admiration for Wilson's other achievements, is that, in my view, President Wilson was a racist outright, pure and simple.

But as a matter of fact, the term Dixiecrat has not been narrowly confined to Southern Dems who split from the party in '48; I have heard that term used many times to describe Southern white supremacists who remained Democrats. In actual English usage, Dixiecrat came to mean simply a conservative Democrat from a Southern US state who supported segregation. I think Wilson fits that definition to a T.

As for Lost Cause. I am unsure exactly how to interpret david johnson's objection to my comments. I did not mean to imply that it was Wilson who drew upon the Confederacy's Lost Cause ideology, rather that in our day Trump, many times the demagogue Wilson was not, has cleverly and successfully done so. The point being that Lost Cause thinking, especially as it was expressed by the erection of Civil War monuments thruout the South in the wake of Reconstruction, was triumphalist, not defeatist: it viewed the Confederacy's ideals at their heart not as a lost cause at all but as noble and just, and essentially still achievable. I'm saying that Trump's flirtation with white supremacism, particularly his offensive comments in response to Charlottesville, coupled with his defense of its Civil-War monument, is a modern attempt to re-connect with such Lost-Cause-era thinking. His outlook and policies evoke the Jim Crow era. In my view, Donald Trump, like Woodrow Wilson before him, is racist to his core.

About the Dems, I agree to some extent with david johnson. But even if they don't self destruct (which they may well do), they are likely to lose the electoral college (the retention of which I along with david johnson support).

There is, however, a chance their nominee might come to see that the nation is in such peril from fascist-tinged populism that she (or he) has to make a moral appeal instead of rehashing the tired, utopian policy proposals I read about during the Dems' first round of debates. BTW, who among the Dems that regularly appear in front of TV cameras is NOT running for president? Adam Schiff is the only one I can think of offhand. It's a 'running' joke.

Any nominee who can counter Trump's vision for America with her own vision on moral, not policy grounds has a decent chance to win by a slim margin, in my view. But she would have to convince voters in three states: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Ohio, sad to say given its generally glorious history as a bastion of liberty and refuge for the enslaved and downtrodden, has already forfeited its birthright for a mess of pottage.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 8:07 pm

This made me think of Woodrow Wilson and the film Birth of A Nation. Regards, Len

Criticism

Like Dixon's novels and play, Birth of a Nation received considerable criticism, both before and after its premiere. Dixon, who believed it entirely truthful, attributed this to "Sectionalists", i.e. non-Southerners who in Dixon's opinion were hostile to the truth about the South.[26]:301, 303 It was to counter these "sinister forces" and the "dangerous...menace" that Dixon and Griffiths sought "the backing" of President Wilson and the Supreme Court.[26]:296

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) protested at premieres of the film in numerous cities. According to the historian David Copeland, "by the time of the movie's March 3 [1915] premiere in New York City, its subject matter had embroiled the film in charges of racism, protests, and calls for censorship, which began after the Los Angeles branch of the NAACP requested the city's film board ban the movie. Since film boards were composed almost entirely of whites, few review boards initially banned Griffith's picture".[75] The NAACP also conducted a public education campaign, publishing articles protesting the film's fabrications and inaccuracies, organizing petitions against it, and conducting education on the facts of the war and Reconstruction.[76] Because of the lack of success in NAACP's actions to ban the film, on April 17, 1915, NAACP secretary Mary Childs Nerney wrote to NAACP Executive Committee member George Packard: "I am utterly disgusted with the situation in regard to The Birth of a Nation ... kindly remember that we have put six weeks of constant effort of this thing and have gotten nowhere."[77]
Newspaper editor and activist William Monroe Trotter led a demonstration against the film, which resulted in a riot.

Jane Addams, an American social worker and social reformer, and the founder of Hull House, voiced her reaction to the film in an interview published by the New York Post on March 13, 1915, just ten days after the film was released.[78] She stated that "One of the most unfortunate things about this film is that it appeals to race prejudice upon the basis of conditions of half a century ago, which have nothing to do with the facts we have to consider to-day. Even then it does not tell the whole truth. It is claimed that the play is historical: but history is easy to misuse."[78] In New York, Rabbi Stephen Samuel Wise told the press after seeing The Birth of a Nation that the film was "an indescribable foul and loathsome libel on a race of human beings".[25]:426 In Boston, Booker T. Washington wrote a newspaper column asking readers to boycott the film,[25]:426 while the civil rights activist William Monroe Trotter organized demonstrations against the film, which he predicted was going to worsen race relations. On Saturday, April 10, and again on April 17, Trotter and a group of other blacks tried to buy tickets for the show's premiere at the Tremont Theater and were refused. They stormed the box office in protest, 260 police on standby rushed in, and a general melee ensued. Trotter and ten others were arrested.[79] The following day a huge demonstration was staged at Faneuil Hall.[15][80] In Washington D.C, the Reverend Francis James Grimké published a pamphlet entitled "Fighting a Vicious Film" that challenged the historical accuracy of The Birth of a Nation on a scene-by-scene basis.[25]:427 When the film was released, riots also broke out in Philadelphia and other major cities in the United States. The film's inflammatory nature was a catalyst for gangs of whites to attack blacks. On April 24, 1916, the Chicago American reported that a white man murdered a black teenager in Lafayette, Indiana, after seeing the film, although there has been some controversy as to whether the murderer had actually seen The Birth of a Nation.[81] The mayor of Cedar Rapids, Iowa was the first of twelve mayors to ban the film in 1915 out of concern that it would promote race prejudice, after meeting with a delegation of black citizens.[82] The NAACP set up a precedent-setting national boycott of the film, likely seen as the most successful effort. Additionally, they organized a mass demonstration when the film was screened in Boston, and it was banned in three states and several cities.[83]

Both Griffith and Dixon in letters to the press dismissed African-American protests against The Birth of a Nation.[84] In a letter to The New York Globe, Griffith wrote that his film was "an influence against the intermarriage of blacks and whites".[84] Dixon likewise called the NAACP "the Negro Intermarriage Society" and said it was against The Birth of a Nation "for one reason only—because it opposes the marriage of blacks to whites".[84] Griffith—indignant at the film's negative critical reception—wrote letters to newspapers and published a pamphlet in which he accused his critics of censoring unpopular opinions.[85]

When Sherwin Lewis of The New York Globe wrote a piece that expressed criticism of the film's distorted portrayal of history, and said that it was not worthy of constitutional protection because its purpose was to make a few "dirty dollars", Griffith responded that "the public should not be afraid to accept the truth, even though it might not like it". He also added that the man who wrote the editorial was "damaging my reputation as a producer" and "a liar and a coward".[39]

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 8:16 pm

lennygoran wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 24, 2019 8:07 pm
This made me think of Woodrow Wilson and the film Birth of A Nation. Regards, Len

I'll add this:

"The Birth of a Nation is a landmark of film history.[6][7] It was the first 12-reel film ever made and, at three hours, also the longest up to that point.[8] Its plot, part fiction and part history, chronicling the assassination of Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth and the relationship of two families in the Civil War and Reconstruction eras over the course of several years—the pro-Union (Northern) Stonemans and the pro-Confederacy (Southern) Camerons—was by far the most complex of any movie made up to that date. It was originally presented in two parts separated by another movie innovation, an intermission, and it was the first to have a musical score for an orchestra. It pioneered close-ups, fade-outs, and a carefully staged battle sequence with hundreds of extras (another first) made to look like thousands.[9] It came with a 13-page "Souvenir Program".[10] It was the first American motion picture to be screened in the White House, viewed there by President Woodrow Wilson. "

david johnson · Post by **david johnson** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:51 am

jserraglio wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 24, 2019 6:50 am

david johnson wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 24, 2019 3:46 am

Jserraglio, I offered no objection to your use of the term. I have, however, learned that not everyone who uses it knows of what the speak. I just wanted to know what you meant.
Leave the monuments alone

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:41 am

david johnson wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:51 am
Leave the monuments alone

Sorry, but we disagree on that point, though I think we would both agree they should not be destroyed. The monuments along with the flag of the Confederacy are relics of the South's counterrevolution (and a very effective counterrevolt it was) against Reconstruction. In my view, all that material evidence of another time should be preserved, but removed to museums or archives. If that is impossible, they should be exhibited in their historical context.

Though we seem to be coming at politics from opposing perspectives, I find that I agree with your assessment that the Dems currently are in disarray and are on course to self-destruct in the next election cycle.

"Leave the Electoral College alone." We agree about that too. Not that there is even a sliver of a chance of abolishing it and moving to a direct national vote.

So the calculus is fairly simple. Ohio and much of the old South already are lost. Write 'em off. The Dems will need to win Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, retain Minnesota and tie the Trumpist Party down in Texas, Arizona, Virginia and Florida even while expecting to lose them all. If they cannot do that, they will lose and deserve to lose. And to do that, they will need a moderate candidate with moral authority, I would like to see somebody in the mold of Elijah Cummings or John Lewis take up the Democratic Party mantle against Trumpism. Next question, Does that person exist? I'm not sure she does.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 5:27 am

jserraglio wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:41 am
Next question, Does that person exist?

My favorite right now is Adam Schiff! Regards, Len

The last minutes of Mueller’s testimony made the best case for the Russia investigation

“If you are lying about something that can be exposed, then you can be blackmailed,” Rep. Adam Schiff asked Mueller. His reply: “True.”

Former special counsel Robert Mueller made one thing clear in his marathon testimony before Congress on Wednesday: Russia interfered in the US election, and the threat to American democracy remains in 2020.

“They’re doing it as we sit here,” Mueller said at one point during his appearance before the House Intelligence Committee, “and they expect to do it during the next campaign.”

Mueller’s underlying warning — that more needs to be done to prevent Russia, and other hostile foreign powers from trying to influence US elections — frequently got lost in the politics of the hearing, as Democrats sought to incriminate President Donald Trump and Republicans sought to discredit the entire Russia investigation.

But Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, ended the second of two hearings with a clear, precise exchange with Mueller.

It got to the core of why Russia’s efforts, combined with the Trump campaign’s well-documented links to Russians during the 2016 election, warranted investigation. Even if, as Mueller concluded, the probe did not establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

Schiff, in his closing questions to Mueller, asked if “knowingly accepting assistance from a foreign government,” to which Mueller responded “a crime.”

Schiff continued, adding that if knowingly accepting assistance from a “foreign government during a presidential campaign is an unethical thing to do.”

“And a crime in certain circumstances,” Mueller responded.

Schiff continued: “To the degree that it undermines our democracy and our institutions, we can agree that it’s also unpatriotic.”

“True,” Mueller replied, in a rare instance of directly answering a question outside the confines of the report. "

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... dam-schiff

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 5:46 am

I agree about Schiff. Problem is, he's the ONLY Dem not running.

The Dems need to ditch their pie-in-the sky rhetoric about universal health care and get a grip. The nation is polarized; there are only a few undecideds that can make a difference and they reside in 4 states: Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Minnesota. The candidate needs to make a moral case that Trump is asking them to sell out American democracy at home. And that abroad he is leading us into a post-fascist Orwellian world consisting of a Trump-ruled Oceania, a Putin-ruled Eurasia and a Xi-ruled Eastasia. The only democracies that can challenge that outcome (the U.K. and Japan having already capitulated to Trump) are France and Germany, and they will be overwhelmed once Trump reelected cuts them loose by undermining NATO.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 5:57 am

I pretty much agree with just about everything you said! Too bad Mueller came off so weak yesterday in the first hearing-he did better imo in hearing 2 but after 7 hours of listening I walked away disappointed. They better get McGahn-I wonder if opening up an impeachment hearing would help with this? Regards, Len

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:14 am

Only watched about an hour of it. Actually, I was deeply moved by the implicit challenge Mueller sent to Congress with his halting delivery and tremorous body language:

I AM OLD & SPENT. I've given my all for my country. I cannot and will not play the role of the MESSIAH! IT'S YOUR TURN, KIDS, TO STEP UP NOW.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:19 am

jserraglio wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:14 am
I loved the implicit challenge Mueller sent to Congress with his halting delivery and tremorous body language.

So how should that challenge be answered iyo? Regards, Len [kind of clueless]

And while you're at it your choice for the Dems for President should be....

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:35 am

lennygoran wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:19 am
So how should that challenge be answered? And while you're at it your choice for the Dems for President should be....

Impeachment? Listen to the wisdom of Nancy and forgeddabout it.

Joe Biden, this is your testing time. Step up and assume the mantle.

Take counsel from Barak and Michelle Obama, John Lewis and Elijah Cummings on how to craft a moral appeal.

If nominated, don't smile or do a victory lap at the Convention. Instead, play to your strengths as a bipartisan. Consider throwing down the gauntlet to the "I have a plan for that" kiddies in your party by asking Mitt Romney to run with you on a unity ticket in this time of national emergency, or put OHIO in play by asking John Kasich.

When they decline, flip the coastal-radicals in your party the bird by putting moderate MN senator Amy Klobuchar on the ticket.

During the ensuring campaign, treat Trump as illegitimate and a pariah. One way to convey that message would be to refuse to appear on a debate stage with him.

Or something along those lines. I trust you to figure it out.

If Biden should win, the next round will be fought out in the courts.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:51 am

jserraglio wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:35 am

If Biden should win, the next round will be fought out in the courts.

Thanks, interesting ideas! Meantime I sure hope we can get Trump's taxes before then-we gotta see just how much he's been compromised-we gotta follow the money! Regards, Len

Rach3 · Post by **Rach3** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:20 am

Unfortunately, the Mueller testimony optics, substance were bad, lacking clarity often, many " I wont answer that " most folks wont understand even though a good legal reason to decline, and even leaving questions to what extent Mueller was in charge, and failing to address GOP attacks on legitimacy of FBI investigation, McCabe,Strzok,Page, et.al. Trump,GOP now emboldened, no series of hearing sound bites will help.I have reluctantly switched to the Pelosi view that 2020 election is the way, and I'm not optimistic about that election given Trump's 45 % approval rating ( which may go up now ), and the mishmash of messages coming from Dem candidates so far, unless the House gets off its rear and gets subpoenas out and goes to Court when the subpoenas are ignored , but that legal process will probably take too long.Of course, Trump could do something even more stupid than he has to date before 2020, angering even his lapdog base,but if so whatever it is will harm USA greatly, may kill people.

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:35 am

I think Robert Mueller could give a flying frigate about the optics. He wanted to show Americans exactly who and what he was, as if to say: "I'm done, boys and girls, I'm tired. I'm not gonna prostitute myself because you dragged me up here or allow you to set me up to be your Savior. So you're either gonna have to take the hill I pointed you to, or turn tail and run." That was aimed at the Majority. For the TOP [Trump Owned Patsies] I saw barely masked contempt.

I was deeply affected by his testimony. By what he didn't say and even more so, how he wouldn't say it. I've never heard any other congressional witness remotely like him.

So let the TOP high-five each other. All the more likely then they will shoot their wad before election day. What the Dems need now is a leader. Is anybody out there up to the task?

Rach3 · Post by **Rach3** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 8:17 pm

jserraglio wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:35 am
I think Robert Mueller could give a flying frigate about the optics. He wanted to show Americans exactly who and what he was, as if to say:
What the Dems need now is a leader. Is anybody out there up to the task?

He does not care about optics, but what he may (?) have wanted to show Americans , and what the Dems hoped for, did not come across. No current Dem is up to the task ; even Schiff is now backing off impeachment.

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 8:57 pm

I heard Schiff on Tuesday night state unequivocally that as a former prosecutor he was not ready to support impeachment until the case for it had been nailed down.

It was not Mueller's job to prosecute the President. Enough for Mueller to state point blank that Trump was generally untruthful in his answers to his office.

That embracing Wikileaks was more than unethical (Schiff's word), it was a crime (Mueller's word).

That Trump was subject to prosecution after leaving office. Which Mueller stated repeatedly to both sides.

To mention just three damning statements Mueller made. There were enough for about a baker's dozen impeachments.

If the House would ever decide to pick one and do it.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Fri Jul 26, 2019 6:54 am

jserraglio wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 25, 2019 8:57 pm
To mention just three damning statements Mueller made. There were enough for about a baker's dozen impeachments.

GENERALLY! Regards, Len

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:11 am

Q: "Director Mueller, would it be fair to characterize the President's actions as as unethical?

A: "Well, uh, I ... I would say . . . criminal."

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:53 am

jserraglio wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:11 am
Q: "Director Mueller, would it be fair to characterize the President's actions as as unethical?

A: "Well, uh, I ... I would say . . . criminal."

Yep a great one! The Dems have to keep playing Nadler's opening questions with Mueller and Schiff's opening and closing questions! There were of course other great moments but like many operas I attend Mueller needed a better director-still this substance was very good in deed. Now let's get McGhan out there and we gotta follow the money. As an aside I see the polls in your state put Biden ahead of Trump-please keep that going! Regards, Len

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Fri Jul 26, 2019 6:05 pm

Mueller didn't act like he gave a tinker's toot about playing a role in anybody's political drama.

He wanted outta there like yesterday's Tuesday, but he still answered more q's for Congress than most anyone ever has, and he's gotta hold the record too for the most not answered.

I watched an hour or so of each round and loved the way he conducted himself.

In three years, maybe Trump has spoiled us. We now expect every public figure to primp himself out for the platform, turn his back, shake his hips and show us his duckass do, no?

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Sat Jul 27, 2019 6:30 am

jserraglio wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 26, 2019 6:05 pm
We now expect every public figure to primp himself out for the platform, turn his back, shake his hips and show us his duckass do, no?

Yep that's what I want from my operas and what I wanted from Mueller! Regards, Len:lol:

Seriously though I do hope we can hear from McGhan, Hicks, Christie, Lewandowski, etc--my desires on this front are I guess in the hands of the courts.

BTW just this morning I learned something that I had never known:
"Donald Trump could be impeached in the House but not tried in the Senate for the sole purpose of presidential censure, Harvard professor of constitutional law Laurence Tribe tells AM JOY with Joy Reid."
https://www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trum ... 1562949645

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Sat Jul 27, 2019 6:52 am

Impeached I'd love. But in my heart I know Nancy's right: that's just a sideshow.

The Election's the tune whereby we'll test the pow'r of Monsieur Pantaloon.

At least Nixon's was Greek tragedy. Trump's is opera buffa.

Rach3 · Post by **Rach3** » Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:32 am

I remain pessimistic especially since Trump's approval ratings remain ucomfortably high, and Dems have shot themselves in both feet so far. Hope I'm wrong.

Most Americans did not watch any of the recent hearings so most points "scored " fell on absent ears. Main headlines were often just "Mueller warns Russia still trying to influence US elections."

MSNBC analyst Chuck Rosenberg,who worked for Mueller a couple years, said Mueller at the hearings was " not the same Bob Mueller I knew."

David Leonhardt, NYT, July 25 , 2019:
" I can’t escape the feeling that Robert Mueller ultimately failed to do his job.
Yes, he conducted a thorough, fair investigation of President Trump and Trump’s 2016 campaign. But when that investigation was over, Mueller ducked the tough decisions. He refused to clear Trump in the areas where no evidence implicated him in a crime, and Mueller refused to conclude that Trump had broken the law when the evidence clearly indicated he had.
Instead, Mueller tossed the hard decisions to Congress — a Congress rived by partisanship, where fact-based, widely accepted conclusions are all but impossible.
I imagine that Mueller may not mind the criticism he has received since issuing his report. It has come from both the political left and right, which can make his critics appear partisan and him appear interested only in the truth. Unfortunately, he didn’t help the American people get nearly as close to the truth as he could have.
Based on his report and testimony, I think he should have said that he found no evidence of several of the accusations that Trump’s critics have made: that Russia has salacious compromising material on him; that an aide held a secret meeting in Prague; that Trump was a Russian intelligence asset.

At the same time, Mueller should have stated that the evidence strongly suggested that Trump committed obstruction of justice and campaign finance crimes. Because Justice Department policy holds that sitting presidents can’t be indicted, Mueller could have explained that the right place to hear these cases was Congress. In the congressional proceeding, Trump could have defended himself, and the members could have made a decision about his guilt and the appropriate sanction, if any.
That approach would have been consistent with Mueller’s role as a prosecutor in this case. It would have been fair to Trump, and it would have been fair to the country.Mueller chose an easier path, though."

Court actions, appeals, even if Courts are willing to expedite, and even if Courts ultimately order compliance with subpoenas, may take too long, and any testimony, tax returns,etc. received timely may not be a strong as hoped. Too may Americans are willing to put up with Trump's high crimes, racism , corruption,as long as they think he's giving them what they want, eg. tax cuts, less regulation,judges who will overrule Roe v.Wade,crackdown on migrants,4% unemployment,record Stock Markets, talks tough to rest of World.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:45 am

Rach3 wrote: ↑
Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:32 am
Main headlines were often just "Mueller warns Russia still trying to influence US elections."

Still there was more than just that imo-the Dems can point to accepting help from the Russians, calling for dirt and wiki material, then he wasn't truthful and tried to cover it all up, he tampered with witnesses, dangled pardons-Nadler and Schiff got many points in-well we'll see. Regards, len

Who is online