Marijuana (Law) Stinks

Time to go down a legal rabbit hole to fuck Bernie, Trump, and the NRA. Recently I was criticizing Dana Loesch, as is my want, and brought up the NRA had never responded to or said anything about Philando Castille. Someone clued me into a tweet where Loesch basically said that possession of marijuana (which Castille had on him) and a gun is a felony.  Putting aside the fact that this is not always the case and it has nothing to do with his legal right to possess a firearm and the fact that he was executed for no reason, it left me, for lack of a better word, triggered. Marijuana is used to persecute people, the poor and minorities in particular, but what drives me nuts about it is not people getting arrested and punished (rarely but too often prison) for possession. Let’s go down the rabit hole.

The 4th amendment, in its most basic form, basically says you can’t be searched, nor can people or evidence be seized, without a warrant. The most extreme and literal interpretation of this rule would mean no one could ever be searched or arrested, nor any property impounded under any circumstances unless a warrant was obtained first.   Clearly this is absurd, as you wouldn’t expect to need a warrant to arrest anyone you see committing a crime, nor a separate warrant to search someone you are arresting regardless whether they pose a threat. So there are exceptions. So far pretty simple and makes sense.

So, basic exceptions.  If you arrest someone you can search them. Arrests are inherently dangerous, I don’t think anyone is gonna argue with that. Also, if cop sees someone committing a crime they can arrest them.  That seems very simple and fair right? If a cop sees a guy punch a woman in the face we expect the guy to get arrested. But, what about when the crime is just something existing? Like, a bomb for example.  IEDs are illegal, so if you are just holding one you are committing a crime. If the police see that, or drugs, or something else that constitutes a crime, they can seize it, and arrest whom is connected to it if they have probable cause. This area of 4th amendment law is known as plain view.

Still with me so far? You see a crime you can do something about it, you see an illegal item you can seize it.  Seems simple.  Now the limitations on the plain view rule are that the officer has to be where he is viewing the item legally, and “incriminating characteristics” of whatever the item is must be “immediately apparent.”  Fairly straightforward- if a police officer has a right to be standing in my living room and sees a ziploc bag of white powder next to a straw he can take it, but we don’t want him taking all my medication and holding me until the lab determines if any of it is illegal.

Let’s take another detour before we return to plain view.  If police have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is occurring, they have the right to conduct whatever investigation is necessary in order to confirm or allay that suspicion.  So if the cops come to my work and my boss says he saw me stealing things, the cops can detain me for a “reasonable period” until they have conducted an investigation to confirm or allay the accusation to the degree necessary to keep me there. Or to put it another way, if the police see me changing lanes without signaling, they are only allowed to detain me long enough to confirm or allay their suspicion, i.e. demand my license and write me a ticket.  However, if they are looking for a particular person or car in the area and I fit the description they can pull me over and detain as long as necessary for them to figure out whether I am the person who they are looking for.  Remember this idea of an investigation, we are gonna come back to it.

Let’s get back to plain view. If a cop sees marijuana he “knows” is marijuana, he can seize it. If he can connect it to someone, i.e. in their vehicle, they can be arrested and the marijuana used against them if it’s in plain view. I don’t like marijuana being illegal, but all that is fairly straightforward.  But…But!  Unlike other types of drugs, such as methamphetamine or heroin, marijuana isn’t just subject to plain view. Marijuana can be seized or investigated under plain smell.  A long standing area of jurisprudence gives police the absolute right to act the same whether they see marijuana or if they smell it. Cop pulls you over and smells weed? He gets to turn you and the cab of the car inside out. Or call the dog, even if you have to wait 90 minutes. Cop is just driving down the street and smells weed? He can pull over and look around and see if he can identify the source.  And if the cop is walking through a neighborhood smells weed from a group of young black men standing around? You see where this is going.

It doesn’t end there. As a public defender I have very few clients in prison for possession of marijuana. I have a lot in there where marijuana was used as the reason for investigation or search that led to more serious drugs or other felonies. Or an active warrant. But those are just the ones arrested and prosecuted. That doesn’t include the people where the police don’t find anything. Or where they decided marijuana was just a reason to search and they didn’t find anything. Police walking or driving through black neighborhoods with the right to detain anyone who smells like weed. This doesn’t take into account of course the ones who resist arrest or detention, or get shot fleeing, or have stuff planted on them.

Socialism doesn’t change that. The fight for 15 doesn’t change that. Income inequality doesn’t change that. Medicare for all doesn’t change that. And it is definitely not a fucking distraction.

A History Nerd Takes On Steve King

Oh for Christ’s Sake.  Let’s start with the obvious.  In 1859 John Brown, several of his sons, some followers, and a few freed slaves tried to raid the Federal Armory at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. They had already killed multiple pro-slavery men with swords (See Pattowattomie Massacre), but the goal that night was to steal weapons with which to arm local slaves and foment an uprising. It failed, ended up in a standoff, and eventually Brown and his surviving followers were captured by U.S. Army Col. Robert E. Lee. (Interesting note- Lee’s Lieutenant who personally led the attack that captured John Brown and his band was future Confederate General J.E.B. Stuart, the namesake of a school just renamed for Barack Obama.) Seven people died overall in the incident, so clearly that is analogous to protesters shutting down a government office. The American flag being taken down and bringing up Fort Sumter is clearly supposed to evoke the fact that the bombardment and eventual surrender of Fort Sumter lead to the American flag being lowered and the Confederate flag being raised.  Because a rebel force dedicated to preserving slavery and attacking the U.S. government is clearly the same as “Welcome Refugees.”

Now that we got that out of the way, let’s dive deeper into Harpers Ferry, Fort Sumter and civility. Herman Melville referred to John Brown as the “meteor of the war.” One could write a thesis on how that developed, but if I were to summarize the effect John Brown had in one word, that word would be paranoia. The South got scared shitless after John Brown convinced them abolitionists were plotting to murder them all in their beds.  This transferred to the 1860 election. Why am I bringing this up? Abraham Lincoln, that’s why. Abraham Lincoln was nominated as a moderate on slavery, promising only to restrict its spread in the territories, and repeatedly stated he had no intention of interfering with it where it already existed.  He said this constantly.  It didn’t matter what he said or did, no one in the south believed him. South Carolina seceded five weeks after his election.  There was nothing he could ever do that would convince the South he did not wish to abolish slavery.  After the first states seceded Lincoln endorsed (along with his predecessor) the Corwin Amendment, which would have amended the constitution to prevent any federal interference with slavery in the southern states.  But it still wasn’t enough.  The south was convinced Lincoln was coming for their slaves, and he would turn a blind eye to radical abolitionists coming for their throats.  Put this where you want- illegals have a low crime rate, Black Lives Matter, the NFL protests, Dems want to repeal the 2nd amendment, MS-13, Sarah Huckabee Sanders not being served, an office being shut down by protesters when the department is kidnapping children- the real analogy here puts King squarely on the side of the Confederates.

Let’s talk about the battle of Fort Sumter. On the date of Lincoln’s first inaugural address on March 4, 1861, seven states had already seceded. Lincoln talked of many things, but he promised to defend federal installations, that he would not attack the confederacy unless attacked, and finished with a famous plea: “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.” Lincoln was going high when his enemies were going low, and we all know how that works out. Anyway, Fort Sumter. Fort Sumter was federal property. The governor of South Carolina demanded it because he felt offended by a broken promise from former President Buchanan. Lincoln said no, and sent a relief expedition to ensure the fort was properly supplied. The confederates spent a month investing the fort. Jefferson Davis then ordered that the fort be fired upon if it would not surrender and the fort was to be resupplied.  Again, Lincoln was content to let his men pretty much just sit there.  But he couldn’t convince the confederates of anything. He refused to abandon all federal property in the south, nor did he ever consider recognizing the Confederacy as a legitimate government. So the bombardment started, and then the war. Even throughout the first year, when every abolitionist was screaming at him to fight the confederacy by ending slavery, Lincoln refused. The confederacy was undeterred.

So you see Steve King, Fort Sumter was not about a group of protesters seizing a federal office to welcome refugees. It was about a group of extremely paranoid racist traitors refusing to listen to reason, facts, or the better angels of their nature.  It was about militant, violent, white supremacist, incredibly paranoid people living in their own fantasy world and getting a lot of other people killed in the process. You know, Trump.

After Fort Sumter President Lincoln declared the confederacy in rebellion, and issued an initial proclamation for 75,000 volunteers to put it down. Any time my president Hillary Clinton wants to call for 75,000 volunteers to put Steven King and his fuckers down I will be first in line.

No, Hillary Clinton Is Not Costing Democrats Anything

I finally read that nonsensical article complaining that Hillary Clinton is Not Happy About Having the Election Stolen from Her. The article’s author is mad Clinton has the unbelievable gall to point out this a bit in her various speeches.  Which of course means she will destroy the Democrats’ chances on November 6, 2018.

What utter crap.

Michelle Cottle acknowledges that Clinton hates the media and then goes on to show exactly why Clinton is 100% justified in this.

Cottle doesn’t cite any studies, any polling, anything really other than a few politicians who are as tired of the media harping on Clinton as she is.  Instead Cottle focuses on what the Republicans will do.  After all they are the sole arbiters of reality these days for the media.

The Republicans have decided to run against Hillary Clinton. She isn’t on the ballot anywhere. She doesn’t endorse candidates. She does hold fundraisers but usually she does so well away from the news. She has a PAC that does not even give to candidates. Instead it is a clearing house for various groups so that way no candidate runs the risk of being seen with her. (Granted plenty of the women running would be thrilled if she showed up.)

What will the Republicans run on?  Partly on tying their primary opponents to Clinton.  The other part? Abusing their power as much as they possibly can against her. Once again, Clinton will be investigated to the nth degree while every part of it will be leaked to the press. The press, which has not learned a damn thing since 2016, will endlessly repeat whatever is leaked ignoring how it is a gross abuse of power.

After all, it is Hillary Clinton.  It is perfectly okay to treat her like shit.  You might get some push back from her fans on Twitter.  Some emails.  This article calling the author a jackass.  But nothing like the “have to go into hiding because she said something bad about Republicans or Bernie Sanders.”  I have rarely heard of Clinton fans threatening to kill someone for being a jerkface to Clinton.

But in addition to Ms Cottle being a jackass jerkface, Ms Cottle is wrong.

Let me show with some actual evidence.  In December of 2017 there was a hotly contested Senate race.  And for the first time in almost 40 years, a Democrat was within reach of winning a seat in ALABAMA. Not simply because he was running against a child molesting crook who was forcibly removed twice from elected office for flouting the law but because he was focused on local issues and helping his people out.

Clinton gave speeches and interviews from December 1 to the 12th.  She even edited a copy of Teen Vogue. The very day of the election she had a book tour stop.

Doug Jones beat Roy Moore in one of the best wins in a very long time for Democrats in the South. Hillary Clinton going all over the place and talking to people and saying things the press loves to twist wrong, her doing so had no impact on the race.

Hillary Clinton is not a factor in any general election race anywhere in the country.  Even though the media and the Republicans dearly wish she was.

 

A Final Word on 2016 (I Hope)

Again and again the media makes the claim that Hillary Clinton lost the easiest election ever.  By Damon Linker (twice).  By ostensibly professional Democratic partisan Jon Favreau. Chris Cillizza of course. They often do this because they assume her campaign was terrible and she did nothing right.  They often do not not explain exactly what her campaign did that was so terrible except that she did not go to Wisconsin. After all, Cheato was the worst candidate in history therefore it must be her fault.

But this isn’t true.

The Fundamentals Were Against Her From the Start

When it comes to any given election, there are a group that will always vote Democratic and a group that will always vote Republican.  The rest of voters are what need to be persuaded.  In the 2016 election many of these were individuals who had voted for Obama but were ready for something new.

This is what is called third term fatigue.  Generally, a third termer can win when the opponent is one of two things: bland and boring, or simply bad at campaigning.  History gives us three examples.

In 1940, Republicans nominated as a surprise candidate when their convention deadlocked a former Democrat Wendell Willkie.  He was a tough campaigner, but he was indistinguishable from the Democrats based on what he was proposing.  He lost.

In 1948, Republicans nominated a very bland but popular governor of New York who was an extremely lazy campaigner who did not even endorse his party’s platform.  But he was beloved by the media (sounds familiar) and they gave him all sorts of advantages in the press.  Meanwhile Truman was barnstorming the country and giving rip-roaring speeches.  In the days before real mass media like TV, he was a good in person entertainer.  He also was the current president who in a masterful stroke, called the majority Republican Congress back into session to pass their priorities as listed in the platform.  They failed.

In 1988, Democrats nominated Michael Dukakis.  He was a passionless fellow who had a couple of problems. First, he had no passion. Second, he was governor of state where a black guy was given a furlough and killed a woman.  George H.W. Bush seems like a sad old man now but he okay’d using a racist ad against Dukakis and it won him the election. (Racism will return again and again in this story.)

Donald Trump Was A Formidable Candidate

Next, the fallacy that Cheato was somehow a terrible candidate.  He didn’t do what he needed to do of course. He didn’t fundraise. He only did one event a day. He was and is extremely stupid. He had to fire two campaign managers mid-campaign. (Lewandowski and Manafort)

He was a formidable candidate for other reasons-he was entertaining as a clown often is. Because of that, he got almost 5 billion dollars in free advertising. Much of it was negative but all of it was free.  Hell, his podium got more airtime than Clinton even when she was making major speeches.

He had the clear assistance of Russia. From direct help in the form of stolen information, active interference on social media, and of course indirect assistance by way of pouring money into the NRA, the entity that spent 30 million dollars for Cheato’s win.

Russia is also the group that handed Wikileaks most of the non-Clinton emails to be dropped for the media to blather relentlessly and pointlessly over.

He was not a normal politician so didn’t care about the general.  Remember, before the general, Cheato had to face 15 Republicans, some of whom were extremely good politicians.  Despite Rubio’s whining, he has been elected numerous times in Florida.  He even won re-election in 2016 while complaining about how much he hated being a senator.

John Kasich was no joke when he ran. Kasich is one of those smiling Republicans who gut you while you are complimenting them on how nice they seem. He won re-election in 2014 by thirty points. Even now he is above 50% as governor despite Ohio’s economy not being that great.

Ted Cruz was another major contender who had no reason to suspect he would lose.  He had, after all, been the guy who gave one of history’s biggest political upsets with his surprise win in 2012 in the Texas Republican primary. David Dewhurst, his then opponent, had what appeared to be an insurmountable lead after the initial primary in May when he got 10 points over Cruz but was flipped by the runoff election in July. That is a shift of over 10 points in two months.

Jeb Bush was always going to suck.

But with those three other opponents, it should have been simple for them to beat Cheato.  Why didn’t they?

I believe a large part of it was Cheato simply didn’t care enough to moderate his tone for the general.  Republicans had been playing with fire since 1972 and the invention of the Southern Strategy. They use racist policies that they paper over so those who have zero interest in dealing with it can pretend that no, the Republicans are not the home of white supremacy.  Their news organizations (Fox, Sinclair, and others) go to a great deal of effort to magnify racial tensions by overreacting to the slightest expansion of rights of non-whites while steeply underreacting to real world racist results.  In addition, Republican state legislatures have been openly racist for years with the North Carolina legislature being so racist a court took extreme measures to point this out.

The national politicians (including Kasich, Cruz, Rubio, and Bush) had long been playing cute, so they usually were using dog whistles to hide the racism.  2016 and Cheato blew past the dog whistles and gave the Republican base what they wanted-a racist candidate who was happy to play up all the same conspiracies that they had been fed for years by Fox News.

But wait! What about the fact that many voters voted for Obama before they voted for Cheato?  Racial resentment plays a large part in this. It is dressed up as “cultural anxiety” but it is plain ol’ racism.

“I voted for Obama but Black people didn’t stop demanding things.”

A co-worker said that to me.  I don’t know why it is weird that they would demand to not be shot but then I try to actively work on my privilege.

Let’s Talk Sexism

The 2016 election was one of the ones where cultural issues hold great sway.  Why?  The economy was humming along okay, the world was mostly at peace, and there wasn’t a sense of urgency like there had been in 1992 and 2008.  Both of those years had pick ups by Democrats because the US was worried about the economy. 2008 was bad enough that a guy named Barack Hussein Obama won in a landslide.

The 800 lb gorilla in the room that is rarely spoken about except by Hillary Clinton fans like myself is the sexism.

It is extremely hard for a woman to run for President of the United States.  Here is a table of only the national party candidates who got at least on the nominating ballot at the convention.

evidence 276

Of the 10 women who have run for the national parties, only Margaret Chase Smith, Shirley Chisholm, Hillary Clinton, and Carly Fiorina have been taken seriously enough to win delegates. And of those four, only one has made it to the general election.  Every other woman has been a third-party candidate who was there mostly for symbolic reasons.

Gee, looking at it like that shows it is kind of hard does it not?

Further, we have numbers to back up the fact it was sexism and not simply Hillary Clinton being somehow uniquely unlikable. We also have confessions from Republicans.

Let us look at the numbers for Hillary Clinton and her “likability”:

Evidence 275

 

If she was not running for anything and was a subordinate to another person, Clinton was popular for a politician.  She hit a peak of 60% in 2011.  But then Benghazi happened, and she decided to leave office, which the media assumed was so she could run for the White House.  The Republicans, as confessed here by Kevin McCarthy, decided to abuse their power once again to try to stop her.

Note that word in there: untrustworthy.

Lies, Damn Lies, and the Truth

Clinton is not much of a liar.  She has had very few outright lies-31 in ten years.  (I disagree with some of Politifact’s characterizations of her statements since obviously some of them were hyperbole that all politicians fall prey to but whatever.)

Barack Obama had 71 in that time frame.  Donald Trump set the webpage on fire. Mitt Romney (they stopped tracking him after 2012) had 32.

In fact, if you want honesty out of a politician, go ask a Democrat.  They usually will tell you the truth.

evidence 277

Yet she is assumed to be lying all the time.  Why?  Women tend to be more honest than men but Clinton has been called a liar since William Safire’s column on her being a congenital liar in 1996 despite her generally being honest.

Which means it isn’t about Clinton’s actual honesty.  It is about the people who lie about her.

Republicans have been doing that since she showed up on the national scene as Bill Clinton’s wife (prior to that, she was her own person but when Bill ran for the presidency, things changed a wee bit.)  The media has usually and gleefully joined in.  This has happened again, and again, and again, and again.

(A good example of this is Judicial Watch who were the ones who sought her emails from her time at State and repeatedly made up claims about them that the media swallowed whole scale. Judicial Watch is not a clean actor.  They have a vendetta against Clinton and the media has never particularly cared.)

Because of this, Clinton spent most of 2015 and 2016 being as precise as possible in her speaking.  She obviously failed since multiple times she had to go back and explain something when it was distorted by the press (who then distorted what she explained.)  She is still having to do that when the brouhaha flared up over her accurate statement in India about where she won and where Cheato won and why.

Yet even though she is no more of a liar then say Obama, she is treated much worse by the press. Even her husband isn’t treated as badly as she is. It is why he is at 45% and she is at 36%. Part of the reason is of course that Fox News has been acting like she is currently President despite her repeated attempts to resign as their President in Fake.

There is also some other data that show it was about sexism that is little looked at.

I have used this before to explain why Clinton lost and I think it is important to look at. Firefighters are one of the last main bastions of white masculinity. The group is mostly white, mostly male.

evidence 266

They voted for Obama at barely more than 50% in 2008 and less than 50% in 2012.  But they dropped to 27% for Clinton. The only thing that really explains both (since they voted for Bill Clinton at a much higher rate) is racism for Obama and sexism for Clinton.

They don’t even hide it. The president of the Firefighters Union flatly stated that they didn’t like Clinton or Democrats being focused on minorities and college educated whites instead of them.

James Comey

And finally, the last part about sexism is James Comey.  He of the impeccable reputation that somehow viewed his women bosses as less than reasonable.  First up is Loretta Lynch.  He thought she had a credibility gap.  Why? There was no reason to assume it this time. He had to use a doctored email that was thoroughly debunked by his own team to assume she was going to be discredited by the partisan press.

Yet the entire time he could have gone to Sally Yates about his concerns because he may have thought that Lynch was not impartial enough. Never went to her. Didn’t go to her again when he found out about the email messages that were on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. Didn’t go to her when she was acting AG with Cheato’s behavior after the election.

(This probably should not be a surprise since the mostly male FBI has a bit of an issue with the sexism against Hillary Clinton being as obvious as the ones against Lynch and Yates:

“Besides, as one bureau official after another has made clear to me in recent months, Comey never expected Clinton to lose. He saw The Letter as the politically expedient thing to do to help bolster the legitimacy of her victory – and preserve the FBI’s apolitical reputation. “The worst-case scenario [in his mind] was she was going to be really pissed [at him],” one executive told me. “But then we’d sit her down and tell her it was her fault we were in this position.”)

Summary

The 2016 election is one that still rankles for so many reasons that we aren’t going to finish grappling with them any time soon.  There are many actors who refuse to take a hard look at their behavior. From the media refusing, almost to a person, to look at what they obviously did wrong;  to average Americans who do not want to admit they were acting in sexist and racist ways; to the lack of caring by Republicans as they have been turned into traitors for Russian money.

Even I have not admitted my errors.  While I was active online campaigning I did little in person and even less phonebanking.  I had reasons. My loss in 2014 made physical campaigning extremely painful, but I should have done more.  That is on me.

Clinton looked at her behavior in What Happened which was a bit self-serving as all memoirs are, but she did look at what she did wrong. She admitted she screwed up.  As far as I can tell, she is the only one who has admitted their screw-ups. Amy Chozick comes somewhat close in her memoir Chasing Hillary: Ten Years, Two Presidential Campaigns, And One Intact Glass Ceiling however the excerpts posted online are extremely clueless and self-serving.

There is a great deal to be learned from the 2016 election.  Some has been with Eric Holder’s group to combat gerrymandering. DNC’s efforts to quietly help campaigns get the vote out. But the problems of racism, sexism, Russia, and the media’s right wing behavior have not gone away and will not any time soon.

Portents of Doom…For Republicans

Another special election has occurred that, more than anything, shows what is building for the upcoming November election.
In the soon to be redistricted out Pennsylvania 18th district, Conor Lamb won the seat as a Democrat for the first time since 2002. Representative-elect Lamb (results are not certified yet) showed that if you match the district to the candidate, you can win. But he needed help along the way.

Republican Help

Republicans gave him that help repeatedly.
First by having the former Congressman have to resign due to not simply having had an affair (practically de rigueur for Republicans these days) but
pressuring the woman to have an abortion. As is the norm with anti-choicers, only abortions that don’t affect them are bad. So his pressuring her caused him to have to resign because her abortion didn’t affect the rest of the Republican caucus. That leaves voters distasteful of Republicans to start.
Then they nominated a fairly boring uninspiring candidate which would normally have won the race because he followed the party line to a T(ea party, yes he was a tea partier first running in 2010 where he barely beat his Democrat opponent twice). When your opponent comes off looking like a dynamic, fresh, and talented guy you would like to see marry your daughter, well, it doesn’t help.
They tried to tie Lamb to Nancy Pelosi. Lamb said he wouldn’t vote for her as the leader (most likely with the party’s blessing). Pelosi’s no fool; she knows Republicans use her as a boogeyman like they have anytime there isn’t an equally competent woman *cough* Hillary *cough* around to bash.
Then the Republicans in the House passed the ACA repeal. Among the many things it did was show how precarious the state of health insurance for people was. Lots of voters didn’t like that.
Then the Republicans passed a giant tax giveaway — The Great Tax Scam Bill of 2017 — to corporations and the rich that took money from the middle class in the form of higher health care premiums. The Great Tax Scam Bill was designed to be signed in 2018 so it would make it politically unfeasible for the Democrats to reverse anything. Instead, the mentally failing Cheato signed the bill right away — in 2017. This caused automatic cuts in popular spending programs like Medicare, which (unsurprisingly) ticked off all the old people.
Finally, in the days leading up to the final vote, the Republicans in the House released the “final” report on the TrumpRussia issue. To no one’s surprise, they freely admitted they are trying to cover up what happened by saying nothing occurred between Russia and Trump’s campaign. Democrats then released a comprehensive list of what the Republicans refused to do. (Now many of the Republicans on the committee are backtracking.)
You could say that the final factor was actually Cheato himself. But he’s an eternal problem that was there back in the early days of special elections.

Democratic Help

Additionally, Lamb benefited from the rage that is still in many Democratic voters who realized that they were too complacent in 2016. We know, now, that the election was likely stolen. The party has started instituting quiet reforms. And there is a great deal of effort to register, ID,verify, and vote among Democratic activists. All of the Democratic committees and subcommittees are working to get our likely voters registered and verified to vote.
We also are donating in small but consistent amounts. While Lamb had plenty of large contributions, 50% of his financial support came from small donors of $200 or less. There are over a thousand candidates generating excitement (in the case of California, too many candidates because of its “top two” voting system) in the congressional races.

The Takeaway

It’s hard not to see Lamb being helped more by the Republicans than the Democrats. Lamb’s opponent, Republican State Representative Rick Saccone, ran as “Trump before TrumTrump before Trump was Trump.”  This might seem like a stupid move, but Sacone didn’t have much choice.
The Republicans have put themselves in a bad situation. Trump is extremely unpopular. But in the Republican Party, he’s very popular. So if Saccone had abandoned Trump, a bit chunk of his Republican voters would have abandoned him. That’s especially true in a special election where it is very easy to decide to stay home.
But this is a problem that Republicans face everywhere. And it will be just as true November 6, 2018. And the Republican Party is freaking out.

The Problem With Ohio

Vox had an article out about how Ohio is trending Republican. They did this boogity boogity thing where they said that without winning the Senate seat this year, Democrats will lose the state in 2020 because Clinton was defeated by 8 points in 2016 while Obama won by 3 points.

Vox is Wrong

Ohio has been a presidential flipper before.  While Obama won both in 2008 and 2012, it went for Bush in 2004 as well as 2000.  In all of those results the numbers were fairly close-2008 Obama won by 5 but otherwise it was around 2-3% for the other three times.  Why they call it part of the blue wall, I don’t know.  Probably due to the fact that Ohio was a fairly heavily union state until the 1990s when it has made the slow decline due to offshoring of industrial jobs.

That hasn’t been the case though since the 1990s.  It does have a long history of very masculine work industries from steel manufacturing to cars and still is dominated by those industries despite their declines.  That type of workforce has an impact on certain things such as how gender is viewed.

It is a very white state-82% of the state is white although the population is 51% female.  Religion isn’t as important as it was as only 44% of the state has people who consider themselves religious. But it has a fairly high married rate at 50% of the population.

Racism in Ohio

Despite the fact that the state vote for Obama twice, it has a racism issue like many predominately white states.  Even in 2012 there were out and proud racists happily talking to the media. As recently as 1999 they had continuous KKK rallies including a big one in Cleveland who had a black mayor at the time.  And there have been no small issues when it comes to policing and the Black community.

With these problems, it shouldn’t be much of a surprise that the Obama to Trump voters trend happened in Ohio.  While Obama himself was low key for the most part on racism, the very existence of a Black man in the White House caused a lot of white people to have issues that was expressed in 2016.  Part of the reason they were so expressive was because Hillary Clinton was one of the few national candidates to say to whites “We need to check our own behavior.”  Her private speech calling people who were racists deplorable was another factor because it was pretty obvious she was talking about the racists.

Sexism in Ohio

What is less talked about is the role that sexism played in the 2016 election in the state and elsewhere. While a white woman might consider voting for a Black man because after all she doesn’t want to be seen as racist–voting for a white woman who was telling her that wasn’t good enough was going to make her angry.  Add in all of the other ways that women tend to internalize misogyny against one another and you have the 2016 results.  Clinton only won 39% of white women in Ohio per the exit polls. (She won 92% of Black women because they know better then to take any risk.)

Those twin factors are not going to occur in 2018 with the Sherrod Brown race. He is a white male and while Dems are definitely trending away from white males as candidates, he’s their incumbent and they won’t vote for any primary challengers.  He also isn’t really vocal on the issue with racism.  With him, economics will help.

Why Vox is hyperventilating over this I don’t know.  Ohio wasn’t viable for the Democrats because we don’t shy from confronting racism and while we still have a major problem confronting the sexism on our own side, we are looking like the sane option more and more as Republicans continue to have the stench of corruption all over them.

That, more than anything, will be why we win in 2018 as well as 2020.

What I Didn’t See at the Democratic National Committee Meeting

As a Democratic activist and a host of a political podcast, I have keen interest in the current situation of the Democratic Party. Like any active Democrat, it’s been impossible to ignore reports of the constant infighting between the so-called Bernie Wing and the rarely called Clinton wing.  But I’m also skeptical of these reports.  In the in person meetings I’ve attended in the past, the focus has been on how to better engage with voters to ensure they have what they need to vote.  So, when DNC made the decision to hold their quarterly meeting in Las Vegas, I decided to drive up from my home in Phoenix.

This morning, as I write this, the DNC is holding their general session where they, the entire committee of the Democratic National Committee, will vote as a single body on many of the things that have been brought up by the Resolutions Committee.  Naturally, the media narrative has already been set.  Leading the way is Buzzfeed:

Evidence 78

To only read the Buzzfeed article or this one from the Huffington Post , is to believe that the meeting was full of histrionics and people feeling betrayed.  That attendees were skulking in corners whispering behind their hands to each other, eyes darting around the room to ensure that the evil mastermind of Tom Perez wasn’t listening of their planned coup attempt.  And that Keith Ellison would be sitting all by himself crying into his free drinks because this is Vegas.

Thursday, October 19th

The Native American Council had enough members to become a caucus.  This is important as it gives Native Americans a bigger voice in how the Party is run and provides an opening and opportunity to increase fundraising for Native American candidates like Debra Haaland, who is seeking to become the first Native American woman in Congress.  I attended the Native American Council caucus in place of a colleague who wasn’t able to attend.  There was no drama, even for the election of the chair, but some nice speeches including from Deputy Chair Ellison.

Across the convention area, which looks literally like every other convention area in the US, there were small groups of three to five people huddled talking.  While at the time, it didn’t seem exceptional, I later learned that there were elections abrewing and these people chatting was actually focused on hustling votes.

The elections were for positions in the various caucuses that the party has.  Democrats have a lot of caucuses.  They are the four regional, LGBT, Native American, Hispanic, Black, Women’s, Asian American and Pacific Islander caucuses. And they all had elections.

The second meeting I went to was the Western, which is specific to where I live and vote. I live tweeted it poorly.

There were 9 spots to be elected-the ones I caught were chair, male and female vice chairs, secretary, treasurer, at large committee spots.  While I had a preference towards the former executive director of my state  Luis Heredia, being elected caucus chair, honestly, both candidates Luis and Jess Durfee were awesome and would do a good job of herding cats.  I mean, Democrats, amirite.

So what was the drama? There were some mix-ups with proxies.  Two of the proxies that were supposed to have been counted weren’t apparently counted.  One of them was Representative Maxine Waters.  Woops!  The upshot was that the two candidates for chair of the Caucus were too good and there was an even split between the votes so they had to do a coin toss. Luis Heredia who HAD won before the proxies were appropriately counted lost the coin toss and the other candidate, Jess Durfee, was elected. They shook hands after and wished each other well. That’s about as dramatic as it got.

Everyone else was just “I’m BORED AND WANT TO GO GET DRUNK” after the fourth vote.  Which is normal.  Having been to dozens of Democratic meetings in the past from the district level to the national, it is common that after a period of time most people are tired of business and want to find something more enjoyable.  Especially when in a fun place like Las Vegas.

One of the highlights was being able to talk to the highly entertaining and extremely competent Chair of California Democratic Party, Eric Bauman. A transplant from the Bronx to California, he has a New Yorker’s knack for easily cutting straight through any noise to the main issue and get things moving. If it wasn’t for the fact that running California’s Democratic Party is a more than full time job (he had an actual assistant!) I would have supported Bauman for chair of this meeting.

Reason to Hope

While the media paints the DNC meeting as a super dramatic week for the Dems, it wasn’t.  The attendees are the chairs and top members of their state parties.  They aren’t going to be throwing fits, they aren’t going to be acting like divas.  They were there to network, share ideas and figure out how to win as many seats as possible, at every level of government.

The state chairs may not be happy with all the decisions of the officers obviously since no one wants to lose but they weren’t going to storm out. If there is one thing that Democrats know, it’s compromise.  There were a lot of great ideas, as well as positive news of getting farm teams of city council and state legislative candidates, efforts to do more in depth person to person canvass and a lot of energy.

Getting those farm teams is important.  By having these positions filled by Democrats you have experienced candidates who have learned to do the basics of governing: talking to voters, holding meetings, voting on laws and ordinances that have the greatest impacts on people’s lives.  Those that do well are able to raise their name ID and move onto larger offices.  Don’t forget that our last Democratic President was a former State Senator.

That’s what I saw at the meeting.

Additional observations: Keith Ellison appears to be a night owl, way more hyper in the evening then in the mornings.  But he most certainly wasn’t sitting crying, drunk in the corner.