Her campaign had record-setting grass roots donations. She didn’t need to kow-tow to wealthy donors to get enough funding–that is not the reason she’s running as moderate. It’s because she needs lots of votes from moderates and anti-trump republicans if she’s going to win (and I do think she will). And by the way, “stealing votes”?! That’s not stealing votes ffs, it’s winning them. Even then the race is way too close.

I don’t think you realize how many Democratic men can’t, won’t, or have a real hard time bringing themselves to vote for her because she’s a woman. Lots of interviews on video showing them. It’s so ironic to me that their main reason is they say “women are too emotional to be given the responsibility.” When trump is the biggest ketchup-throwing cry baby ever to occupy the Oval office? I can’t count how many times I’ve seen male senators and congressmen losing their shit while the women are the calm adults in the room. John Boehner, who was Speaker of the House, used to burst into tears on the House floor at the drop of a hat. But I digress.

Point is, not even Democrats are as liberal as you think they are. Only a faction of them are very liberal. (Out of curiosity, do you live in a blue state, and/or a large urban area? I wonder why you think there are that many truly liberal voters in the United States.)

I do agree with your first sentence that intense anti-trumpism is the reason we might finally get a woman president. Under normal circumstances it wouldn’t happen. The US is just not like other democracies that way.

Wow, you have a very unrealistic understanding of where the American electorate is if you think running as “the most progressive Democrat in history” could get anywhere close to a majority, If someone could win that way, they’d certainly be trying it. Enjoy living in that bubble!

There’s no way she’d have even a chance of winning if she hadn’t campaigned that way.

“on the market” means available to us, regardless of whether we would have to pay for them or not. They don’t want us to have access to vaccines at all. This is not a joke.

Thanks for the additional info. I’d call this “anticipatory worry/outrage” as a parallel to how the oligarchs ceding to Trump is called “anticipatory obedience”.

Just because Cuban supports her and may expect obedience in return, I seriously doubt Harris would do it, especially as she is running as a previous DA/AG who went after lenders and others to protect the consumer, and has campaigned on going after ‘price gougers’ and others who harm the middle class. For her to turn around and get rid of Khan would fly in the face of all that and wreck her credibility right off the bat. I can’t see why she would consider doing that.

“recent calls from some allies …”

Who? What allies? Could this be any more vague. The article gives no hints as to who these mysterious unnamed “allies” are and no evidence of anyone, donor or not, calling for her removal. Nor has Harris or anyone from her campaign so much as hinted of any plans or feelings of wanting to oust Khan. Other than Mark Cuban, all the tech bro/oligarch types are Trump allies, not Harris donors.

Sounds like just another piece trying to stoke rumors and stir up division.

Some excerpts:

The co-chair of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s transition team promoted the debunked theory that vaccines cause autism in a CNN interview Wednesday. He also said Trump ally Robert F. Kennedy Jr., hopes to get “data” through a Trump administration to have vaccines pulled “off the market.”

Kennedy told supporters earlier this week that Trump had promised to give him “control” over key public health agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The key that I think I’m — you know, that President Trump has promised me is — is control of the public health agencies,” Kennedy said in a livestream, video of which CNN obtained. He cited the Department of Health and Human Services, the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health, among others."

That’s what I came here to say. I’m so sick of seeing that picture.

But now we’re really here. It’s all blatantly out in the open now as it never has been before, and they are explicitly running on it, not keeping it behind the scenes.

My first reaction was that it was cowering in fear, since trump keeps threatening newspapers. But after thinking about it, why would Bezos give a fuck if trump threatens the paper? He wants his paper to be a trump propaganda outlet because he wants trump to win. Not because he likes trump but because he wants the fascist movement to win so he can get richer (see Blue Origin govt contracts for one thing). Because having hundreds of billions of dollars is simply not enough, so fuck democracy.

The only people he’s going to exempt from taxes are billionaires.

edit: OK, maybe also some multi-millionaires

And she did still win the popular vote.

Not from an AR-15

“snap to join” Ah, now it makes sense.

You hit it on the head. The unmarked vans, unbadged troops, people “disappearing”–those were their practice drills and how they’ll do it. Uniformed troops will also be used in some situations (like the mass deportations), but the ones doing the daily dirty work against any demonstrators, specific political targets, etc. (“the enemy within”) will be those incognito forces. 😧

As a European, the whole registering to vote thing is honestly one of the wildest parts of the US elections to me. It’s so unnecessary complicated and prone to errors/manipulation. I just have to show up with my ID, doesn’t matter if it’s for the EU parliament or the local city senate.

I see comments like this a lot. Most important and apparently most difficult for Europeans (and others but it’s almost always Europeans) to understand is that the US is a very large country, made up of 50 semi-independent states, each with its own government and laws-- about many things, not just elections. So that’s why things are more complex here–we’re not a small monolithic nation with one single, centralized government and set of laws that apply to everyone no matter where in the country they live.

Each US State runs its own elections; a person obviously can’t be allowed to vote in more than one state. Since people can move from one state to another at any time, and even have residences in more than one state at the same time (such as college students and well-off people), it’s necessary to register with the state you will be voting in, so that you are officially able to vote in that state and no other.

update response to the replies: Funny, the replies to this post comparing the situation to that of their country with the EU is basically the relationship I was trying to explain, yet they think they have somehow refuted what I said, when actually they validated what I said. Here’s what’s really “wild”: First you call our system stupid, then when I explain our system to you, you say, “But that’s just like our system!” and then downvote me for making you realize that what you called stupid is what you also have. 😄

Read the original comment condescendingly asking “Why do you have to register to vote?” yet they are also registered to vote in their own country, but don’t even realize it because it was done automatically for them as a citizen. Your government has to track who is eligible to vote[1] and therefore in EU elections as well, one way or another, even if you don’t use the word “registered” for it.

BTW, Many US States also automatically register their residents to vote (though a person can optionally refuse that); other US states expect you to register for it yourself (perhaps some European countries too?). Each state makes its own laws about that. Once registered in a state, we can also vote in our Federal elections, just like you can vote in EU elections.

[1] Example: Germany voter eligibility:

Generally, to be allowed to vote in Germany, you need to be a German citizen who is at least 18 years old. You must also have been officially registered in the place where you’re voting, such as Berlin, for at least three months, and you must not be excluded from voting for other reasons (for example, if a court took away your right to vote because you were deemed legally incapable of making your own decisions).

Who said electoral victories translate into pressure for a given policy? Voting them into office gets them to where they have power and can then be pressured to wield it for our benefit, which is a different type of political action than an election. Voting in elections is how you try to get people who are closest to the values you’re looking for into office–and the primaries are as important as the general for that.

Organizing around an issue, speaking out with meetings, in the media, with protests, etc., calling attention and building up support for a cause–all those things exert pressure on elected officials. Read about movements in American history – the civil rights movement, women’s liberation, etc. and BTW you want to know a movement that was very effective? The fucking Tea Party movement, which led to the maga takeover of the republican party.

For some reason (lack of proper civics education in schools is part of the problem), people have this simplistic idea that all they have to do is go vote for a president every four years, get pissed that they don’t like the choices, and assume that the POTUS is supposed to somehow magically fix everything, not understanding the other branches of government involved, and when it doesn’t happen fast enough or at all, they get pissed and either vote for someone else or give up and don’t vote or fall for a populist conman or get violent or whatever. That’s not how it works!

No wonder we’re where we are today. I’m sick of even talking about it any more. If people refuse to educate themselves about how our system of government is supposed to work and act accordingly then it’s over, and we as a country deserve to fall into the fascism brought to us by the people who did make the effort to figure out how to achieve their agenda and went out and did it.

I clicked on this story just to make sure someone posted that.

I’d rather have a linux OS on the phone that can run Android apps.

Maybe this columnist thinks he’s “shaken”, but I doubt it. The reason he acted in a more moderate way before was that the Christian Nationalist justices didn’t have a strong majority and the ability to impose their agenda with impunity. The minute they had a 6-3 majority, he knew they could do whatever they wanted, and they have.

The only thing we can do about it now is elect as many Dems as possible to the House and Senate and pressure them to impose term limits and expand the Court, things that should have been done a long time ago.

And please, regardless of whether you think your vote for POTUS will count, vote anyway and fill out your full ballot because you have much more influence on your State legislature and local offices, which is where so many things that affect your life are decided.