Podcasts about democratic presidents

What would your reaction be if a Democratic President withheld aid for hurricane-ravaged Louisiana because he didn't like the way Republicans ran the state?

“Leadership is about doing the right thing - beyond politics - for the purpose and values of the country.” Once again, this election may be the most important of our lifetime, so we hope you've made your plan to VOTE.  Bob McDonald - former P&G CEO and US Secretary of Veterans Affairs - returns to our podcast to share his unique perspective on service, leadership, people, and values and the choice we are making at this moment in our history. Beyond being a P&G Alum and an army veteran, Bob's served Republican and Democratic Presidents. His political engagement is wide, and purpose-driven - always seeking to transcend party politics. This is a reply of our conversation from October 2020 - in the midst of our LAST presidential election - but much of what we discussed is still relevant in THIS election.  Many of our leaders - across both sides of the aisle - have expressed their concerns in THIS 2024 election for our community and country. On one hand, we face a retreat and possible return to our nation's darker impulses of grievance and division. On the other, a new path forward, rooted in a greater purpose, values and principles, for the next generation. No matter what generation you belong to...if you can vote, please do. If you have friends who are on the fence, talk to them, make the case rooted in our common purpose values, and principles, and get them to vote. It's all on the line. And the next generation of leaders is counting on all of us.

In this week's study, I continue in Chapter 21 with verses 10 to 12. Before I get into the study, I talk about Joe Biden nominating his 12th LBGTQ judge to the Philadelphia Federal Court. Also I talk about an article title “Has God Changed His Mind on Homosexuality?” A book written by Richard Hays, professor of New Testament at Duke Divinity and his son Christopher who is professor of Old Testament at Fuller Seminary. Then I talk about Kamala Harris where she once boasted of 'behind the scenes' work to get 'every' trans inmate access to gender surgeries during her bid for the 2019 Democratic President campaign In our last study we finished up with verse 9, where John is visited once again by one of the angels of bowl judgments showing John the bride, the Lambs wife. We see this angel come to John and begin to show his that Yahweh has finally and completely dealt with the devil and all his evil forces. And Yahweh has even created a new world for his people. 10.   And he carried me away in the spirit = Gave him a vision of the city; seemed to place him where he could have a clear view of it as it came down from heaven. To a great and high mountain = The elevation, and the unobstructed range of view, gave him an opportunity to behold it in its glory11   John's description of the New Jerusalem seems to be in three parts. First, in Revelation 21:11-14, he describes the city as he saw it from a distance). Then he approached the city and the angel measured it. That gave John the opportunity to examine the city's walls and gates more closely. Finally, it seems that John entered the city. Revelation 21:22 to 22:5 describes what John saw inside the city. Everything that John saw there was beautiful, precious and wonderful. It shone with the glory of Yahweh, which was like a bright light. John could recognize Yahweh's glory; he had a previous experience of that glory. Having the glory of Yahweh = A glory or splendor such as became the dwelling place of Yahweh. And her light = In verse 23 it is said that “the glory of Yahweh did lighten it.” That is, it was made light by the visible symbol of the Deity - the “Shekinah.”  The word here rendered “light” - φωστὴρ  phōstēr - occurs nowhere else in the New Testament except in Philp. 2:15. It means, properly, a light, a lightgiver, and means commonly a “window.” It is used here to denote the brightness or shining of the divine glory, as supplying the place of the sun, or of a window.Like unto a stone most precious = A stone of the richest or most costly nature.Even like a jasper stone = On the jasper. It is used there for the same purpose as here, to illustrate the majesty and glory of Yahweh.Clear as crystal = Pellucid (allowing the maximum passage of light, as glass) or stunning like crystal.  The stone is essentially quartz, and the word “crystal” here is used to show that the form of it referred to by John was clear and bright 12.   And had a wall great and high = Ancient cities were always surrounded with walls for protection, and John represents this as enclosed in the usual manner. The word “great” means that it was thick and strong. And had twelve gates = Three on each side. The number of the gates corresponds to the number of the tribes of the children of Israel, and to the number of the apostles. Twelve = Denotes  Governmental perfection.  It is the number of factor of all numbers connected with government:  whether by Tribes or Apostles, or in measurements of time, or in things which have to do with government in the heavens and the earth.And at the gates twelve angels = Stationed there as guards to the New Jerusalem. And names written thereon = On the gates.Have any questions? Feel free to email me; keitner2024@outlook.com 

Welcome to The Mike and Ron: Here to Help Post Presidential Debate analysis! Your favorite podcasters discuss the debate between Donald Dump and Kamala Harris...WOW... from the lies about tariffs being paid by other countries, Haitian migrants eating dogs and cats being debunked in real time to the looks Harris was giving Trump, his frothing mouth, the barrage of lies to how anyone could look at him and think he should be President. We also discuss how Darth VAder himself Dick Cheney endorsed Harris, how the republican party as we know it is dead, to how much better Democratic Presidents do better than Republicans economically but Jimmy Carter gave the party a bad rap to what Ron called the most influential endorsement in modern politics Taylor Swift coming out for Harris moments after the debate and MORE! Don't forget to Subscribe to our Podcast here, and follow us at: @mikesasson & @ronbushofficial on Instagram and @mikeandronheretohelp on Youtube.

Democratic President nominee Kamala Harris has unveiled Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota as her running mate, ending days of speculation. What does Walz bring to the table? We discuss reactions to the nomination with Justin Vaughn of Coastal Carolina University.Image Credit: shutterstock.com

Virginia spent much of the last decade voting for Democratic Presidents but now Republicans in the Commonwealth are hoping a lack of enthusiasm for President Joe Biden could help flip Virginia this fall. And as Brad Kutner found out at a bus stop in downtown Richmond, they might get their wish.

Nobel Prize Laureate Joseph Stiglitz is one of the most influential economists in the world, having advised multiple Democratic Presidents of the US and the World Bank, where he worked as Chief Economist and senior Vice President. His latest book, called “The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society,” argues that the economic right's concept of “freedom” doesn't take into account the necessary trade-offs, that one person's freedom often comes at the expense of another's. And that “free” - unregulated - markets, far from promoting growth and enterprise, in fact lessen economic opportunities for majorities and syphon wealth from the many to the few. Stiglitz, now 81, is a Professor at Columbia University in New York, where freedom of speech and the right to protest have been making headlines in recent weeks, with hundreds of pro-Palestinian student protesters occupying the campus and clashing with police. The movement has now spread from the US, and encampments around the world are being launched, where the common demand is asking universities to divest and disclose their financial support of the war in Gaza. In this episode of Ways to Change the World, economist Joseph Stiglitz tells Krishnan Guru-Murthy why more government intervention is desirable, whether campus protests in the US are going “over the line” and why stalling living standards “create a fertile field” for demagogues like Donald Trump. Produced by Shaheen Sattar and Silvia Maresca  

President Joe Biden, and former presidents, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, all met together at a large Democratic fundraising event tonight at Radio City Music Hall in New York City. West Side Jeff fills in for Chris to share his thoughts on this event, and how cool it would be to be in the same room as three living presidents. It shouldn't matter if they're Democrat or Republican, just being able to see and interact with the president, and presidents, of your country, should be, and is, one of the coolest things you could ever experience!Support the show: http://www.wbap.com/chris-krok/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The Defence production act and AI policy, published by NathanBarnard on March 2, 2024 on LessWrong. Quick Summary Gives the President wide-ranging powers to strengthen the US industrial base Has been around without changing that much since 1953 Has provisions which allow firms to make voluntary agreements that would normally be illegal under antitrust law Provided the legal authority for many of the provisions in Biden's recent Executive Order on AI The Defence Production Act The Defence Production Act (DPA) has been reauthorised (and modified) by Congress since 1950, and in 1953 its powers very significantly reduced. I'm confident that it will continue to be passed - in a roughly similar form - for the foreseeable future. The current version was passed in 2019 under a Republican senate and is due for reauthorisation in 2025. Since the Obama Presidency, there's Republicans have begun to try to prevent bills proposed by Democrats from being passed by default. This is particularly easy for non-spending bills since for non-spending bills, 60 votes are needed to break the filibuster - a method used to prevent bills from being voted on - in the Senate. However, not only are defence bills consistently bipartisan, they have consistently high degrees of support from Republicans in particular. Therefore, I'm not concerned about the DPA not being passed by a Republican senate and a Democratic President when it's next due for reauthorisation. The DPA gives the President very wide-ranging powers since the goal of the act of the act is to ensure that the US industrial base is strong enough to fight and win any war the US might need to undertake. Concretely, this allows the President to instruct firms to accept contracts; incentive expansion of the industrial base; and a grab bag of other specific provisions aimed at making sure that the US production base is strong enough to win a war. Until 1953 the act was much more powerful and essentially allowed the President to take control of the US economy. The act now doesn't give the President authority to set wage or price ceilings, control consumer credit or requisition stuff. Antitrust provisions Various AI governance proposals rely on explicit, voluntary agreements between leading AI labs. For instance, this paper proposes a scheme in which AI firms agree to pause the rollout out and training of large models if one doesn't pass an evaluation which indicates that it could act dangerously. I think it's plausible that this agreement would be illegal under antitrust law. An agreement like this would be an explicit agreement amongst a small number of leading firms to limit supply. This skirts pretty close to being a criminal violation of US antitrust law. Under this law, various forms of agreements between firms to fix prices are considered illigal no matter what firms say is the justification for them (this is known as per se illegal.) Agreements to limit production are considered just as illegal. It's not at all clear that such agreements would be illegal - for instance, professional standards are not considered per se illegal but instead are judged under a rule of reason where their competitive effects need to be outweighed by their procompetitive effects. I won't comment on this further but instead, refer the reader to this excellent by that looks specifically at anti-trust and AI industry self-regulation. Section 708 of the DPA gives the President authority to allow firms to make agreements for that would normally be considered antitrust violations. Recently, this provision was used by the Trump administration during Covid-19. Use in the Biden executive order Some of the most AI safety-relevant elements of the recent Biden executive order on AI were authorised under the legal authority of the DPA. This includes: Requiring AI firms t...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The Defence production act and AI policy, published by NathanBarnard on March 2, 2024 on LessWrong. Quick Summary Gives the President wide-ranging powers to strengthen the US industrial base Has been around without changing that much since 1953 Has provisions which allow firms to make voluntary agreements that would normally be illegal under antitrust law Provided the legal authority for many of the provisions in Biden's recent Executive Order on AI The Defence Production Act The Defence Production Act (DPA) has been reauthorised (and modified) by Congress since 1950, and in 1953 its powers very significantly reduced. I'm confident that it will continue to be passed - in a roughly similar form - for the foreseeable future. The current version was passed in 2019 under a Republican senate and is due for reauthorisation in 2025. Since the Obama Presidency, there's Republicans have begun to try to prevent bills proposed by Democrats from being passed by default. This is particularly easy for non-spending bills since for non-spending bills, 60 votes are needed to break the filibuster - a method used to prevent bills from being voted on - in the Senate. However, not only are defence bills consistently bipartisan, they have consistently high degrees of support from Republicans in particular. Therefore, I'm not concerned about the DPA not being passed by a Republican senate and a Democratic President when it's next due for reauthorisation. The DPA gives the President very wide-ranging powers since the goal of the act of the act is to ensure that the US industrial base is strong enough to fight and win any war the US might need to undertake. Concretely, this allows the President to instruct firms to accept contracts; incentive expansion of the industrial base; and a grab bag of other specific provisions aimed at making sure that the US production base is strong enough to win a war. Until 1953 the act was much more powerful and essentially allowed the President to take control of the US economy. The act now doesn't give the President authority to set wage or price ceilings, control consumer credit or requisition stuff. Antitrust provisions Various AI governance proposals rely on explicit, voluntary agreements between leading AI labs. For instance, this paper proposes a scheme in which AI firms agree to pause the rollout out and training of large models if one doesn't pass an evaluation which indicates that it could act dangerously. I think it's plausible that this agreement would be illegal under antitrust law. An agreement like this would be an explicit agreement amongst a small number of leading firms to limit supply. This skirts pretty close to being a criminal violation of US antitrust law. Under this law, various forms of agreements between firms to fix prices are considered illigal no matter what firms say is the justification for them (this is known as per se illegal.) Agreements to limit production are considered just as illegal. It's not at all clear that such agreements would be illegal - for instance, professional standards are not considered per se illegal but instead are judged under a rule of reason where their competitive effects need to be outweighed by their procompetitive effects. I won't comment on this further but instead, refer the reader to this excellent by that looks specifically at anti-trust and AI industry self-regulation. Section 708 of the DPA gives the President authority to allow firms to make agreements for that would normally be considered antitrust violations. Recently, this provision was used by the Trump administration during Covid-19. Use in the Biden executive order Some of the most AI safety-relevant elements of the recent Biden executive order on AI were authorised under the legal authority of the DPA. This includes: Requiring AI firms t...

In this episode of The Decade Investor Podcast, Kolin talks about the question of Does the stock market do better with a republican or democratic president? Kolin looks at historical data to see how the S&P 500 has performed with each sitting president's political party. 2024 is an election year & so Kolin thinks it is important to look at data to help you understand that no matter who is president, historically speaking, the market has always gone up & to the right over the long term. This episode is really to remind you to remove the noise that can come with investing & just stick to your plan!A tool to look at historical data with President's returns: HereBe sure to follow Decade Investor on all socials & join the FREE weekly newsletter!TwitterInstagramWeekly Newsletter

Presidential historian Jon Meacham told an inconvenient truth as the panel discussed the better-than-expected economic growth numbers. The economy always does better under Democrats vs Republicans. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/politicsdoneright/message

Steven Sadow, legal counsel for former American President Donald Trump, stated on a recent Friday that any attempt to charge Trump with attempts to overturn the 2020 Georgia election results should be put on hold, especially if he is victorious in the upcoming election. This discourse unfolded as the presiding judge in the case attempted to carve out a date for the trial amidst Trump's existing legal issues and the fast-approaching political race. Trump, presently leading the pack for the Republican nomination for the 2024 Presidential race, is geared up to rival current Democratic President, Joe Biden. Arguing for his client's interests, Sadow contends that should Trump win in the next elections, calls for the postponement of his trial until his term concludes would be made, maintaining that an ongoing trial would disrupt his presidential duties. Despite facing an array of state and federal prosecutions, Trump has shown an inclination towards delaying the cases until after the November 5, 2024 election. These observations reinforce the possibility that Trump could make use of his campaign, and a potential second term in the Presidency, as buffers to impede these trials. This is even the case in state courts wherein Trump stands without the ability to grant himself pardons or directly influence the prosecutorial processes.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ignoring the mistakes made in 2016, the American media is again approaching the 2024 election as if it's just another election cycle with the Democratic President facing a Republican challenger.  They take horse race polls, report on the results, act as if these are normal times and continue to give Trump a platform to repeat and spread his lies.  Legitimate journalists are no match for someone who steamrolls them in interviews and only offer up meek resistance using words like "disproven" or "debunked".  When will someone sit forward when interviewing him and challenge him by calling him a "goddamned liar", or threatening to stop the interview and toss him from the studio if he continues to show such contempt to their audience by lying? And what do we hope to possibly gain from presidential debates when they are packed with a studio audience full of supporters and no fact checkers willing to call them out on their lies?Oh, and if you roll your eyes with comparisons between Trump and Hitler, see if today's discussion and examples doesn't at least give you pause.Minyard.minyardpodcast@gmail.comMusic by David Horton

In this episode, we dive into the highly publicized indictment of Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden. From the charges laid against him to the collapse of his previous plea agreement, we unravel the legal complexities surrounding his case. Join us as we analyze the potential defenses, including a surprising Second Amendment argument, and examine the political backdrop against which this indictment unfolds. Stay tuned as we shed light on what this indictment means for Hunter Biden's future and the implications it holds for American politics. Here are the three key takeaways from the episode:1️⃣ Hunter Biden is facing three felony charges related to gun possession and his gun purchase. He allegedly lied on a federal form when purchasing a gun, stating that he was not using controlled substances when he actually was. Additionally, he was in possession of a firearm when he shouldn't have been allowed to.2️⃣ The plea agreement that was previously in place fell apart in open court. Part of the agreement included a pretrial diversion program, which would have allowed Hunter Biden to avoid prosecution on these gun-related charges. However, the judge expressed concern about the structure of the plea deal, and the Department of Justice couldn't reach an agreement with Hunter Biden's defense team.3️⃣ Hunter Biden may present two key defenses. First, he may argue that the pretrial diversion agreement still remains in effect and should be honored. However, the Department of Justice maintains that it was never signed by a probation officer and is null and void. Second, Hunter Biden may claim protection under the Second Amendment, arguing that the law prohibiting certain drug users from possessing a gun violates his rights.Follow Our Host:On Twitter @LevinsonJessica

John, Joe and Cody discuss who would be the ideal Democratic President for this next upcoming election.   Hosts: John Ubaldi, Joe Bitz, Ray Krause Producer: Gloren Liberato  www.Ubaldireports.com   ubaldireports | Twitter, Facebook, TikTok | Linktree linktr.ee

Tune in as we reflect on the life of Rick Jeanneret and dive into the dangers of being a cook for a Democratic president and how you're more likely to die being a cook vs serving in WW2. Join the conversation as we honor a broadcasting legend and gain new insights into the lesser-known aspects of politics. #PodcastReflections #RememberingRick #HistoricalPerspectives --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/ok-terrific/message

Slicing a couple of trillion bucks off the deficit is one of the easiest things in the world... said no one EVER. Especially not President Obama. A Democratic President faces pressure to trim the deficit, and so he meets with the Republican Speaker of the House and strikes a deal. They agree to disappear $900 billion in government spending... and send their work to the House of Representatives. It didn't work-- Congress realized it couldn't cut that deep.  James Curry, Associate professor of Political Science U of U.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode #71: The Debt Ceiling Question The U.S. Government hit its legal debt limit of $31.4 trillion in debt on January 19, 2023, and we're getting closer and closer to June - when the 6-month extension expires. So, will Congress take measures to reset the limit? Will we have another close call? What does it all mean for the markets? I answer these questions and more in this episode. Want more Flourish Insights? Check out our insights blog at https://www.flourishinsights.com EPISODE TRANSCRIPT: Hi everyone, Jay Pluimer here with Flourish Insights. As the director of investments at Flourish Wealth Management, I take pride in providing our clients, colleagues, and friends with resources and information that can help them make strategic and effective choices regarding their investments. If you've been enjoying the show, be sure to subscribe on Apple, Spotify, Google, or wherever you get your podcasts, so you'll never miss an episode. Today, we are discussing The Debt Ceiling Question.   An interesting comment about recording this episode in late February is that over 95% of the articles I looked at about the debt ceiling were dated in mid- to late-January. That's odd because we are a month closer to running out of money but conversations about the debt ceiling are no longer grabbing headlines or being featured in doom-and-gloom articles. Just a guess, but debt ceiling articles will become all rage again and grabbing attention at some point in June because that's when the debt ceiling will be approaching a final expiration date. The US Government hit its legal debt limit of $31.4 trillion in debt on January 19th, 2023. By definition, the debt ceiling sets the limit that the US Government can borrow to keep the country running. The US has used debt ceilings since 1917 to cap government spending, although its been a very flexible cap that has been raised or suspended 102 times over the past 104 years. The US can continue to spend and borrow money for a few months due to “extraordinary measures” by the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve, but those can't keep the government afloat for more than about 6 months. Congress is in charge of the debt ceiling and is responsible for resetting the debt limit as needed. The last extension took place with minimal fanfare back in 2021 when Covid relief spending still had bipartisan support. In contrast, partisanship is all the rage in Washington DC these days as both sides of the political aisle are using the debt ceiling topic as a beach ball to whack back and forth in the Halls of Congress. The odds are in favor of a deal happening at some point over the next few months because there has never been a time when the US failed to increase the debt ceiling or defaulted on debt payments. The closest call to a default took place in 2011 when negotiations concluded just 2 days before the US was going to run out of money. The close call resulted in the first and only downgrade for the US Credit Rating from AAA to AA+, plus the US Dollar sold off and the stock market dropped by over 16%. An uncomfortable similarity between now and 2011 is that we had the exact same political configuration then as we do today with a Democratic President and Senate paired with a Republican majority in the House of Representatives. Many analysts and commentators have expressed surprise that the US Stock Market is up over 8% through the first 7 weeks of the year with the debt ceiling crisis looming over the markets. Without getting into the weeds of political discourse in Washington DC, both parties have legitimate arguments about how the US Government should or shouldn't spend money in the future. Although there don't seem to be any adults in the room to help politicians put their egos on the back burner and negotiate in good faith at the moment, there is hope that fear will eventually provide the motivation necessary for a solution to take place. And there is good reason for politicians from whichever party looks most responsible for failing to negotiate in good faith to be fearful because Republicans took the brunt of the blame for the debt ceiling crisis in 2011 and then performed poorly at the polls during the 2012 election. From my perspective, the debt ceiling crisis will most likely get lumped into conversations about persistently high levels of inflation that will continue to be a problem through the first half of 2023. Although these considerations are independent of each other, it's hard to argue with the coincidence when two worrisome things are happening at the same time. However, if the stock and bond markets start to dip in April and May due to these concerns that will put additional pressure on Congress to make a deal. The most likely outcome is increased market volatility with the potential to give up most or all of the gains from the first couple of months of 2023 until a deal happens. At that point we expect the Fed to be closer to the end of their interest rate increases which should provide a dual tailwind for the markets during the second half of the year. What is the worst-case scenario? There are scenarios where hardliners from either or both political parties refuse to negotiate and commit to turning the global markets upside down. That could put not only the credit rating of US debt at risk but it would also likely result in a significant downfall for the US Dollar, creating a powerful double whammy that would be hard to recover from. The global economy does not want this scenario to take place because there isn't another great option for a default currency or a safe lender that issues as much debt as the US does on an annual basis. I don't want to go too far down this line of thought because the chances of a default happening are low…but they aren't zero. What should investors do to prepare for something that may or may not create significant market turmoil? Historical evidence consistently demonstrates that the best option is to stay fully invested, maintain a diversified portfolio, add money if possible during a downturn, and make sure you have an emergency reserve to support at least 6 months of spending if a worst-case scenario takes place. Our Team at Flourish will provide as much education as possible throughout the political negotiating process, staying optimistic for a timely resolution while also being prepared for a default. In addition, I recommend that you avoid getting too invested in watching headlines or articles while the politicians in Washington DC play beach volleyball with the debt ceiling topic. None of us can influence this conversation until the next time we vote, so it won't help anybody to get too wrapped up in the debt ceiling conversation.   If you enjoyed this episode, please take a moment to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts so that more investors like you can find the show. And don't forget to check out Flourish Wealth Management's other podcast, Flourish Financially with Kathy Longo, available on all your favorite podcast providers. Thanks for listening, and don't forget to stay focused and think long-term.   Send us your feedback online: https://pinecast.com/feedback/flourish-insights/a384097b-b182-4f0a-8201-423014e67b99

We debrief President Biden's State of the Union speech. Does Biden progressive economic agenda represent a break with recent Democratic Presidents? We preview Governor Tony Evers' plan to increase state shared revenue in his state budget he will release next week. We encourage him to follow Biden's lead, and include forcing the ultrarich to pay their fair share. We welcome Citizen Action Northcentral Co-op organizer Joel Lewis to discuss thedoor canvass in Wausau this Sunday from 10am - 2pm at the Labor Temple. We also discuss the City of Wausau Climate Action planning process. We close the show by welcoming back Tobita Chow from Justice is Global to talk about the balloon kerfuffle and how too many American politicians are fixin' for a dangerous Cold War with China that will unleash more anti-Asian hate.

On this Wednesday episode of THE POLITICRAT daily podcast: Omar Moore on the defensive pushback from some white Democratic voters when Black people say that a white Democratic president, in this case President Joe Biden, has so far not done enough to implement parts of much of the issues that are pertinent to Black people in the US--the vast majority of whom voted for him. Is this pushback by some white Democratic voters borne of white privilege, racism, partisanship, resentment, anger or all of the above? A must-listen episode.

Now that Mr. Biden is halfway through his presidential term, we want to find his place in US history. In other words, we want to weigh his presidency against prior US presidents. For example, how do Mr. Biden's successes or failures stack up against his predecessors? How does his age compare to prior US presidents? I know that's a big concern for lots of people. And related to that, here is another question: have any former US presidents died of old age while in office? How about classified documents? Has that been an issue with other sitting presidents? Also, there is the matter of the Democratic Party itself. Would Andrew Jackson, the first president of the Democratic Party, recognize President Biden's democratic party? How about FDR - a more modern Democratic President? Would he recognize President Biden's Democratic Party? Would either of them vote for a Biden second term? To learn more about this history, and to get some insights into what's happening now, in our present moment, I spoke to Dr. Thomas J. Balcerski. He is a visiting professor in US History at Occidental College, also known as Oxy, where he teaches courses on U.S. Presidents and First Ladies as well as the history of the Democratic Party, from Thomas Jefferson to Joe Biden. In addition to Oxy, Dr. Balcerski is a professor of American history at Eastern Connecticut State University. Dr. Balcerski is also a Long-Term Fellow at the Huntington Library, where he is conducting research for his forthcoming book The Greatest Party Ever Known, which we discuss in this episode…. He is the author of Bosom Friends: The Intimate World of James Buchanan and William Rufus King. Among his many publications and projects with the White House History Quarterly, Civil War History, Journal of Social History, and others, he recently appeared on the Discovery+ series “The Book of Queer” to discuss the sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. To learn more about Dr. Balcerski, you can visit his academic homepage, In addition, below are links to two other fascinating episodes: S3E1: Principles & Roots of the GOP, Prof. Joel Richard Paul S2E41: A 2nd Trump Term? Prof. Michael J. Gerhardt I hope you enjoy these episodes. Adel Host of the History Behind News podcast HIGHLIGHTS: get future episode highlights in your inbox. SUPPORT: please click here and join our other supporters in the news peeler community. Thank you.

As Hitler's army advanced through Western Europe in the spring of 1940, Democratic President, Franklin D. Roosevelt was faced with an extremely serious situation. He was keenly aware of the need for the United States to confront global fascism, yet he also knew the overwhelming sentiment of the American people at that time was one of isolationism. As a result of the horrific losses suffered during the country's involvement in WWI, most Americans feared entanglement in another foreign war. In this episode of Your History Your Story, we will be speaking with author, Peter Shinkle about his recently released book, “Uniting America: How FDR and Henry Stimson Brought Democrats and Republicans Together to Win WWII.” Peter will tell the story of how FDR took huge political risks by nominating two prominent Republicans to the positions of secretary of war and secretary of the navy in order to unite the country in a concerted effort to defeat the enemies of freedom and democracy. Music: "With Loved Ones" Jay Man Photo(s): Courtesy of Peter Shinkle Your History Your Story Social Links To purchase a copy of "Uniting America" CLICK HERE to use our Amazon Associate link. Thank You! #yhys #podcast #history #America #UnitingAmerica 

John Hancock and Michael Kelley talk about the Brittney Griner prison swap and why it didn't include Paul Whelan, and Kelley explains why President Biden has been so successful. Next, they talk about holiday traditions. CBS News Correspondent Jim Krasula joins the show to talk about the power outage in the Carolinas and what it means to the power sub stations around the country.  Hancock and Kelley also debate if early voting is a good thing. John Hancock Jr. joins the show talking about Thursday Night Football and the addition of Willson Contreras

On this midweek show, we present Part 1 of the Hacks & Wonks 2022 Post-Election Roundtable which was live-streamed on November 15, 2022 with special guests political consultants Dujie Tahat and Kelsey Hamlin. In Part 1, the panel breaks down general election results with discussion of why the feared Republican red wave did not materialize and what lessons Democrats should learn and act upon to maintain and increase the structural advantages they now hold across Washington state. The example of Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez's surprise win in the 3rd Congressional District can be a roadmap for Democrats looking to expand into other areas, and the increase of Democratic majorities in the State Legislature point to the importance of institutional support for candidates outside the conventionally-accepted norms who aren't afraid of being bold. Stay tuned for Part 2 of the roundtable releasing this Friday for more election analysis! As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-hosts, Dujie Tahat at @DujieTahat and Kelsey Hamlin at @ItsKelseyHamlin. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources Hacks & Wonks 2022 Post-Election Roundtable Livestream | November 15th, 2022   Transcript   [00:00:00] Bryce Cannatelli: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Bryce Cannatelli – I'm the Post Coordinator for the show. You're listening to Part 1 of our 2022 Post-Election Roundtable that was originally aired live on Tuesday, November 15th. Audio for Part 2 will be running this Friday, so make sure you stay tuned. Full video from the event and a full text transcript of the show can be found on our website officialhacksandwonks.com. Thank you for tuning in! [00:00:38] Crystal Fincher: Good evening and welcome to the Hacks & Wonks Election Roundtable - Post-Election Roundtable. I'm Crystal Fincher - I'm a political consultant and the host of the Hacks & Wonks podcast. And today I'm thrilled to be joined by two of my favorite hacks and wonks to break down what happened in this 2022 general election. We're excited to be able to livestream this roundtable on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. Additionally, we're recording this roundtable for broadcast on KODX and KVRU radio, podcast, and it will also be available with a full text transcript on officialhacksandwonks.com. Our esteemed panelists for this evening are Dujie Tahat. Dujie is CEO and Managing Director of DTC. He's a political and cultural strategist with deep expertise across emerging and established nonprofit advocacy organizations, legislative and electoral campaigns, and Fortune 500 companies. They've developed countless strategic messaging and narrative guides that center Black, Indigenous, and people of color, immigrants, queer folks, elderly Washingtonians, and those experiencing homelessness across a range of issues from environmental justice to housing and labor rights. Informed by their background organizing in the Yakima Valley then among artists and social justice advocates in and around Seattle, Dujie has built a career ensuring people at the margins are pulled to the forefront of political power building, organizational priorities, and communication strategies. Welcome, Dujie. [00:02:17] Dujie Tahat: Thanks, Crystal - that sounds very impressive. [00:02:19] Crystal Fincher: It does sound very impressive, doesn't it? Kelsey Hamlin is a Principal Consultant at DTC. She's a communicator, organizer, and researcher who worked for four years as a journalist across the Puget Sound before switching over to nonprofit and campaign work. Much of her skillset centers writing, strategic messaging, design, and politics. She's both covered the Legislature and worked to advance policies through it, coordinating with legislators and lobbyists, gathering data and research, and organizing testimony across coalitions that position proposals for the best success as conditions change. Kelsey's personal advocacy, chosen journalistic coverage, and work focus on social justice and the moments, legalities, and policies that touch people's everyday lives. She treasures keeping things accessible to all in spite of deliberately convoluted and racist systems. Welcome, Kelsey. [00:03:16] Kelsey Hamlin: Thank you, and thanks for having us both here. [00:03:18] Crystal Fincher: Yes, and we were going to have Djibril Diop join us this evening, but he actually had an emergency pop-up, so we are thinking about him and his family and wish them the best. I'm Crystal - I'm a political consultant. I also have the Hacks & Wonks podcast and am excited to get to breaking down and talking about what happened on Election Night. We will start with the Congressional races and one of the biggest upsets, if not the biggest upset, in the country with - in the Third Congressional District, Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez defeating MAGA Republican Joe Kent. So we now see that this is - the race has been called for Marie, she is back in Washington DC now doing her orientation - but this was a long shot. Looking at this race, why was she able to be successful, Dujie? [00:04:17] Dujie Tahat: Yeah, I think that Marie Gluesenkamp - I think that coming out of Election Night, John Fetterman, the new senator from Pennsylvania, got a lot of headlines for progressive populism and running a campaign of good fundamentals. I think everything that got him to the Senate, you could say about Marie's campaign as well. It was really strong in terms of messaging. She came up against an opponent who was clearly unfit for the office that they were seeking. And I think, not for nothing, voters are smart enough to see through that. The fundamentals for that campaign were really, really good. I think the ecosystem, the progressive ecosystem, also came together and rallied around Marie Gluesenkamp, which is a really fantastic thing and obviously, every little bit mattered for her race in particular. I'm really, really interested in seeing her brand of progressive populism begin to take hold within Washington state in particular. I think that our Democratic Party infrastructure is a little bit afraid to go left sometimes. And I think she's laid out a pretty strong and compelling case for what it might actually look like to lead, to be really, really forward with your values. I'm really excited by that campaign and the implications for future races. [00:05:44] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely - and Phil Gardner, who managed that campaign and did an excellent job, talked about this not being a fluke. This wasn't a chance. This wasn't a shock to them. They had a plan. They nailed strategy. They nailed execution - just from the outside looking in. And their take on it, just seeing what Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez said - how did you win this race? What did you do to win people who may not have always voted for Democrats, may generally vote Republican? - and it really is two parts. They made sure they knew how awful - they made sure that everyone knew how awful Joe Kent's views were, and they were extreme. And they gave them an alternative they can be enthusiastic about. And I think, to your point, Dujie, that is the key. It wasn't just, hey, this guy is really bad and scary bad - and to be clear, he was scary bad. But that's not enough, and you have to paint a vision of what you're going to do for people in the district, how you can help people. This is a district that is both suburban and rural, and she had to reach people in all of those areas. And really, it was her strength in the rural areas that allowed her to hang on in this race - when we've seen in prior years, late ballots have allowed Republicans to overtake Democrats in this area. As you looked at this race, Kelsey, what did you see? [00:07:20] Kelsey Hamlin: Yeah, we definitely had a couple of folks in Clark doing other campaign stuff. And when push came to shove, once Marie made it through the primary, a lot of folks on the ground were - point blank - we're going to pivot and focus on this campaign, because that's where the movement needs to happen and that's what we're going to focus on, because it's that important. So on the ground, you just saw door knocking, you saw volunteers really putting their feet in and digging in their heels to make sure that she made it. And ultimately, that's because she went out there and talked directly to people. You see that with AOC, you see that with Fetterman - and so at the end of the day, what matters is these conversations that Democrats choose to have with people or not with people, and where they choose to have those - because Marie was popular across Clark County, not just in the specific town hubs or city hubs. She was popular in various setups and demographics and in different land use areas, so it wasn't like she stuck to one place and called it good. [00:08:29] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And in part of a plan, part of a memo that Phil Gardner shared was a breakdown of just kind of what it's going to take to win. And it says to beat Kent and win the election, Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez needs the resources to accomplish three goals. The first one was maximize Democratic turnout in vote-rich Clark County - certainly maximizing in the more Democratic areas was necessary. But also number two - show up everywhere and make the race closer in rural areas. One third of the voters in the district live outside of Clark County in rural areas, and so improving on past performance was absolutely vital. Marie hails from one of those counties, knows how to connect with those voters. She is a rural voter and has talked about her frustrations of being painted with a broad brush as either nonexistent or only concerned with a narrow set of issues. And she talked about everything passionately from abortion to health care coverage, to the economy, to the extremism - back and forth. And then the third thing on the list was build a cross-party coalition for this unique election, recognizing that there were going to be a lot of disaffected people who had traditionally voted Republican, but never for a Republican like Joe Kent, and really giving them an alternative - to her point - that people could be enthusiastic about, not just - well, let me choose between the lesser of the evils. But someone who actually painted a vision for what life could be and how life could improve in that district. And mission accomplished in that way, and so that was absolutely exciting to see - was as excited about that race personally as any of them that I worked on this cycle - just really incredible to see. And then, we've talked through on the show a lot of times, but we had the Senate race with Patty Murray and Tiffany Smiley. We had another competitive Congressional race between Kim Schrier and Matt Larkin. As you look at those, as you heard some of the rhetoric about whether a red wave was coming, how close this may be, seeing some of the polling showing it being a very close race - how did you evaluate this race and were the results surprising for you, Dujie? [00:11:01] Dujie Tahat: Yeah, I think my main takeaway - and I think Schrier's race was a good sort of object lesson and - is that some of the fundamental structural advantages the Democratic Party has in Washington state are set. All the polls had Schrier winning by 6, even though she wasn't securing a majority - and basically all the entire undecided block came over to the Schrier camp and she ended up winning by 6. I think that for decades now, everybody whose job it is to elect Democrats focused on swing districts, particularly suburban white women. And as the sort of national politics has gotten really rancorous and Republicans have basically turned off that block here in Washington state, I think that block is increasingly more and more entrenched, and I think you see that come through in all of these national races. I think when we dig into some of the legislative races here shortly, too, I think you see the same thing bear out. But I think Schrier, I think for a number of reasons - because of the district she represents in particular, because of its historic swinginess, because of I think also the decisiveness of that outcome, she won by over 6 points, which I think holds with what everyone predicted - all of the FiveThirtyEight projections were around that same mark. I think that that's a really good bellwether in terms of where we're at, and I think it also provides a really interesting opportunity to think about - all right, what's our job now? If that stuff is true - if it's true that we have the sort of structural advantage, now what do we need to do? And I'd like to echo back to showing up everywhere, which is how Pérez won her district. [00:12:51] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. What about you, Kelsey? [00:12:55] Kelsey Hamlin: Yeah, I'm really proud of our firm for kind of calling out and seeing that the entire red wave rhetoric was really just fluff. It was just fluff and nice things to say for the GOP to get out there - that a lot of folks were rather mindlessly just proliferating out into the ether and making a big sensation of it across a lot of outlets and polling places. And yeah, I think we were pretty clear that it wasn't going to be as dramatic as it was painted out to be. At max, there are about 2-4 places where we were really watching to see and knowing it was going to be close. But outside of that, we weren't worried about Democratic majorities here in Washington state anyway - and especially too with our Legislature - I know there was a lot of moving parts for our state, but yeah - we saw the whole red wave thing and saw right through it for what it was. Dujie namely had a post about that from our firm pretty early on, and I think as soon too as the primaries came in - once you collected the votes along party lines for how that was going to play out in the general, it practically played right along party lines - with the only time that that did not was in the 42nd LD. So I think Washington is - Washington Democrats have more space for growth and Washington Republicans have hit their ceiling at this point, which is really good news for us as long as we decide to capitalize on it instead of just repeating talking points from the other side. [00:14:37] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I absolutely think that is correct and the framing of this and these races especially is curious. And I think moving forward, there is some introspection about who we listen to, what kinds of polling firms and what kinds of polls do we take to be serious and credible, exploring - okay, is what I'm talking about backed by data? Do we see anything besides a couple of firms with strong house effects saying something, or is this shown across the wider spectrum and ecosystem of polling and conversations? - so interesting to see. In these races, certainly abortion - humongous issue with the Dobbs decision - was it just about that or was it about other issues too? [00:15:40] Kelsey Hamlin: Yeah, I feel like it's silly that we silo abortion the way we do. I think that, as a topic of conversation, has come up more and more in the past couple of weeks. But it's never only about abortion. Abortion itself isn't only ever about abortion. The decision to keep or not keep a would-be child is an economic decision at the end of the day. It's a very - do I have enough money to put food on the table for a whole another person in my life? Do I have enough money to put them in daycare when I have to go to work if I'm a single mom, or if I'm a mom who already has three kids? These decisions are ones that people make in very highly contextual situations that are not solely about abortion. So when we're talking about whether or not we're going to force people to have births and carry them to term no matter what's happening to them, that conversation is pretty silly and detached from reality. So when it comes to voters, the top of my things were inflation - we can't talk about inflation and abortion as if they're separate. They have to do with each other. We're not sitting here in our lives and being like - hmm, am I going to invite another child into my life, but then not thinking about the fact that food costs so much more now, and rent costs so much more now, and insurance costs so much more now - all these things are what we as everyday people factor into our lives about all of our decisions. So it's never just about abortion at the end of the day. [00:17:12] Dujie Tahat: Yeah, I think Kelsey is sort of spot on, right? I think that abortion is a - one, it is protecting the right to abort if you want that. But it is also a placeholder for, I think, fundamentally an attack on freedom. I think about all of the ways that like Republicans have basically ceded freedom as a core value as they've adopted proto-fascist policy positions. And I think - and related to what Kelsey was saying, I think nationally the second and third top-of-mind issues for voters in some early exit polling was abortion and threats to democracy. And I think the thing that threatens both of those are just our core fundamental freedoms, like the choices that we get to make about my own body and then what we as a collective sort of decide for ourselves. And I think, related to also - Republicans have hit a ceiling here in Washington state. It's because they've ceded - to the extent that's true - it's because they've ceded a lot of that ground. Now, it's up to us on the left, it's up to Democrats to actually take that and then paint a positive vision. What does it actually mean to be a party of freedom? And with progressive values - bundle that up with other progressive values and tell a different story, beyond abortion access. What does abortion access actually get us? What is that future and how are we going to get there? [00:18:40] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. Now we have a slew of legislative races, and the Legislature - this is really interesting this year. Because early on this year, there was a lot of talk about being very concerned about a number of these races, a number of these districts across the state and control of the State Legislature. So we have - in the beginning of the year, it was just like - okay, the 5th, 10th, 26th, 28th, 30th, 42nd, 44th, 47th - several battleground districts. And at the end of the day now - as we looked at the primary results in those, they were certainly encouraging. But even throughout the general, pretty hard fought general elections - a lot of these races had - were very competitive, had quite a lot of spending in these legislative races. I guess looking at a number of them, what overall was your take in the Legislature? And then we might talk about some of these individual races. But overall, how did you see that shaping up early on, and what is your take on how things wound up? [00:19:59] Dujie Tahat: Yeah. I think a good starting point is contrasting the results of 2022 with 2014, which is the equivalent midterm during a Democratic President. And in 2014, the Senate majority, Democratic majority flipped 25-24, even though it was not a real majority because Rodney Tom was doing his majority caucus thing with the Republicans. They lost the majority. At the same time, the House majority shrank from 54 to 40, setting the table for basically a decade of prioritizing political decisions protecting swing districts over maybe doing the right thing. And that was the context in which I think people were walking into this year. And people were afraid - we have bigger majorities than we had in 2013. And everyone is, and we have a historically unpopular president. You have this increase - a really high enthusiasm, even though it's a small sliver - of far-right noisemakers - we'll call it that. And the most amazing thing is that we increase majorities in both of the houses, right? The - I think for me, and I think that in addition to and maybe on top of just increasing majorities on both houses, I think looking at the Senate side in particular, because that's the highest leverage races is - of the 25 Senate races total that happened this year, Democrats only lost seven of them, five of which a Democrat didn't even run in, right? So you want to talk about showing up everywhere, I think it starts right there, right? There's a - I think there's another, based on some analysis Kelsey did - of the 120-something races in the Legislature, a full third of them had no Democrats running. Republicans had twice, nearly twice as many, first-time candidates running. I think we have to get - we have some structural advantages here, but it means nothing if we don't get back to the fundamentals and one of those fundamentals is showing up everywhere. Because it has a compounding effect of - we had some races and we worked out in Eastern Washington. I grew up in Eastern Washington. And when you don't run races, if you don't show up over and over again - when you show up finally with an argument, it doesn't actually land. And so I think that there is this - to my mind, having the structural advantage is great. We have that now. We prioritized that because everybody has been afraid of 2014 repeating again. We have baked that in over the last decade. But now, again, everybody's job whose it is to elect Democrats has to really have some introspection and some self reflection about - what does it mean now that we have these majorities? Now that these things are set - at least our base is - the people who we thought were persuadables have more or less become our base. Who now is the next set of persuadables? Because we need to keep growing that, otherwise we're going to be in the same position as the Republicans are in. [00:23:06] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that is - I think that makes a lot of sense. And coming into this year, I think you're right - people were in a different mindset - obviously looking at trying to hold on and feeling like they're going to be more on defense. Especially with more of a traditional midterm election field - just those oftentimes are tougher for the party in power. But to your point, the map seemingly has expanded. And Republicans look like they may have challenges with recruiting and being as competitive as they have been in all of these districts before. So it seems - one, it's a mandate for action. People elect people to do things and to make things better, so certainly voters are expecting action. But to your point, this allows the party, organizations, allies to really look at the state and look at how things are on the ground. I look at the 17th and 18th Legislative Districts, which didn't wind up being winning districts for Democrats. But these are districts that have been close and that are still close - 48%-52%, 49%-51% races. And that if there is sustained activation on the ground, if there are candidates running at all different levels, if there are field programs even in off-years, and just real engagement with voters in those districts - in two years, that's ripe for turning blue in a number of these districts across the state. I think that needing to show up and talking with voters, we have a blueprint right there with what Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez just did. Showing up is half the battle. And really connecting and talking with voters there really makes a difference. What did you see here, Kelsey? [00:25:11] Kelsey Hamlin: Yeah, along a very similar vein - you mentioned the 17th and 18th LDs - what I noticed when I ran a lot of data right before, and then right after the primaries - something as a pattern that I noticed was that in these districts where Democrats and Republicans along party lines were - where there was a ton of candidates - they were really close at the end of the day. But then you look at the funds that are given to the Democratic candidates in those districts, and it's comparatively really low. So I'm looking at, again, post-primary finalization election going to general numbers. You're seeing someone who got 45% have about $7k at the end of the primary and their challenger has $92k at the end of the primary - at the same time. And you're seeing a lot of situations where these are winnable districts - they are really close with people that do not have the funds to make it closer. And at the end of the day, you need funds on a campaign - a lot of people don't know this because campaigns are a black box in the public's eye, but the amount of money that it takes just for sheer voter outreach, just for calling people, just for texting people, just for getting to the doors with some literature for folks to look at and reference for later costs a lot of money. And so does all the postage that you add to for all of the mailers that you send to people - costs a lot of money. And so $7,000 at the end of the primary isn't even going to reach one-third of the voters that you need with mail. So it's stuff like this where I really wish, as a pattern, the Democratic Party was a lot more willing to invest funds in candidates who are showing up in these districts with or without the party backing them - have cropped up and said, I'm going to do this because it needs to happen. And then we need to meet them where they are and show up to make sure that it happens and it pushes through at the end of the day. You see that also in Skagit County - there's a race there that's really close, but not maybe not the best narrative set, but regardless - a 49.99%-47.64% race right now. And that's against - I might be looking at the wrong numbers - but very close. [00:27:29] Crystal Fincher: Is that the Shavers race in the 10th? [00:27:31] Kelsey Hamlin: Yes. [00:27:31] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. [00:27:32] Kelsey Hamlin: Yeah - that's a Republican and a Democrat. And to me - I come from Skagit County, so I've always known that on the ground, it had every potential to shift blue. And we know too, with the last presidential primaries, that that was an overwhelmingly pro-Bernie district. So there's places where all of these patterns are happening, we can see on the ground and in data numbers that this is a place where Democrats can expand - and then it's not happening on the money side and it needs to. We need to quit operating with fear and with gatekeeping to only fund people that don't even need the funds at the end of the day - some of them are operating without a challenger and they still got more than some of our swing candidates. So that's a pattern that I see. [00:28:17] Crystal Fincher: Well, and, that's a flip one, because there was actually a lot of Independent Expenditure spending in the 10th Legislative District and a number of these others. And part of the - part of, as you talk about, campaigns are like a black box to a lot of people - and it actually takes a village to elect a candidate is kind of the thing. It takes the campaign and all of their supporters, all of their donors and their operation. In legislative races, the State Party with the Coordinated Campaign often works in conjunction with them, also with the Congressional races. And then there's Independent Expenditures - I work a lot with Independent Expenditures - and that's where that these organizations, who can't coordinate with the campaigns directly, but can participate in electioneering activity in these districts. And so when you see commercials sometimes and you hear "No candidate authorized this ad, this was paid for by some other entity" - that is an Independent Expenditure and there was a lot of Independent Expenditure spending in this district and a number of other districts - to your point, because keeping them is so important and really activating in these districts is so important. I think another thing that was notable to me, just overall, before we talk about some individual races was just looking at the candidates that were running. And I don't know about you two, but I certainly have heard more than my share of statements like - this guy's an ideal candidate. And by that, they mean - usually - older guy, business owner, veteran, well-off, often - just this is someone Republicans can like and warm up to - it feels like code for that. And it's usually just a version of some veteran business owner - someone who they feel can connect with white, suburban, and rural America. But what we're actually seeing is that candidates who are Black, Indigenous, people of color, queer candidates are actually activating voters in suburban and rural areas to a greater degree than some of those white male business owner veteran type candidates. Higher turnout, higher percentages that they're getting, so they seem to be activating the base needed to win to a greater degree. And now whether that's because they're oftentimes more willing to speak more strongly to issues, more boldly to issues, many issues that they may be closer to feeling the impacts to than other people in the community and understand the urgency of addressing some of those things - whatever that is, voters and all types of voters, whether they're, white, Black, Brown seem to respond at this point in time, at least in over the past couple of cycles, to those candidates as much as anyone. So I do hope that as, especially as consultants, and we have these conversations and we're talking to candidates who are interested in running, that we don't discount someone who may live in a rural area but is Black, someone who may be in a suburban area but is Latino, someone who may be in an area but is queer - those are the candidates who are energizing voters and pumping up turnout and building the winning coalitions of today. That's my two cents on that one. [00:32:14] Dujie Tahat: Can I ask you a question, Crystal? [00:32:15] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. [00:32:16] Dujie Tahat: I'm thinking - even in hearing what you're saying, I think - as an ecosystem - IEs, the party apparatus - everybody's job is to elect Democrats, right? I think we overcorrect and over rely on voters with a high propensity for voting, right? So and you're seeing that, I think, in Washington state - that would be places like South King County, east of Lake Washington, basically the outer Seattle metro area. And it feels like we're maybe at a point potentially where that is now, like what I'm saying earlier, that's maybe part of our structural advantage now, maybe we've done that. I'm curious what you see as what would it take, framing-wise, courage implications - what would it take for all of our various apparatuses to be like - okay, now we have to maybe shift towards motivating - instead of propensity to vote, it's likelihood to vote if they're motivated, right? Give them something to vote for in other places like Skagit or in Yakima, or just some of these places where we haven't built much of an infrastructure. [00:33:27] Crystal Fincher: I think - to your question, right now is the perfect time to be having those conversations, because I do think that we're at a point where we can pivot to basically offense, and offense everywhere on the ground in the state. And I do think that - I think for the Democratic Party's survival overall - that if we only focus on talking to people who have been frequent voters, that we're missing out on so many others. And there are plenty of reasons why people don't vote and don't vote with regularity. And the worst thing we can do is sit from a place of judgment, which I don't think - I know that you guys are not, but there have been others in this ecosystem who have - and understand that we better be coming to people with solutions that improve their lives on a daily basis and change they can feel. So some of that - talking about action in the Legislature, action from people who have been elected - so they come back and they say, you put your faith in me to make a positive change, here is that change. And that they're doing things that people can feel on the ground, which won't be everything that everyone does all the time. Sometimes people do things that affect different people and different populations, and sometimes I may feel it and sometimes I may not. But there better be things going on that everybody can feel, there better be something you can point to and be like - okay, I heard you, I see what you're going through, and I have taken action to ease a burden that you were feeling and to make things better. So I think it really starts with governing for everyone in the district now. And whether people are documented or undocumented, whether people are of voting age or not of voting age, and whether people are regular voters or not - that you're governing for everyone in the district and taking tangible action that they can see. And connecting with those people and being in community and conversation, I think, is a very important thing. We see turnout increase when people are engaged. We've seen turnout increase, sometimes not even attached to a candidate, but attached to an initiative or an issue in an area, and people turning out for something that they can see - okay, this makes a difference. But we also have to contend with some of the reality that people have heard a lot of rhetoric from a lot of people for a while. And sometimes they're just like, okay, everybody promises something. Until I see something, I'm going to tune out. And there's a lot that's not easy to see, right? And sometimes there's inaction that makes it easy not to see anything. So I think it is really action coupled with connection and community. And listening - I think that we have a mandate to listen as much as we do to act, and to be in community and just to say - okay, what are you going through? I'm not in your specific situation, but tell me what you're feeling, tell me what your challenges are, and let's see if we can do something about it. The more that people are doing that in community - and I think of Emily Randall, I think of Jamila Taylor, I think of April Berg, I think - there's so many that I can name that I know do a great job of that now. And that's just a model to emulate for even more people. Did that answer your question? [00:37:15] Dujie Tahat: Yeah. Yeah, totally. I love the - govern first. Do good things. [00:37:21] Crystal Fincher: Do good things. [00:37:22] Dujie Tahat: Yeah - good things. Take the credit for it, show up and talk to everybody - yeah, fundamentals. [00:37:31] Crystal Fincher: And lots of people think that political consulting and like we're sitting here, you know, with wizard hats on in the background and crunching numbers and coming up with magical stuff - and really it's just about trying to inform people about who someone is. And to let people know that there is someone who wants to help, but also making sure that they're out there and talking to people and in community. And I guess I will also say - for people who are political consultants - that we also have a responsibility in this whole thing. And who we choose to work for, who we choose to work with, the people who we lend our time and talent to help get elected - that matters, and the candidates that we choose to work with matter. It's really consequential and so, there's also just accountability to be had on our part too for what we put out there, who we help do things, and all that. I do think that that is valid and that we all have to answer for what we're doing and what direction we're moving. [00:38:57] Bryce Cannatelli: You just listened to Part 1 of our 2022 Post-Election Roundtable that was originally aired live on Tuesday, November 15th. Audio for Part 2 will be running this Friday, so make sure to stay tuned. Full video from the event and a full text transcript of the show can be found on our website officialhacksandwonks.com. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler. Our assistant producer is Shannon Cheng, and our Production Coordinator is Bryce Cannatelli. You can find Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks, and you can follow Crystal @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered straight to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave us a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thank you for tuning in!

The LGBTQ agenda is finding some stiff resistance in Randolph, Vermont. On this edition of the PAC-Man Podcast, Ted Flint tells us about some parents who are fired up about what they view as an invasion of their daughters privacy rights. Also, a former Democratic President is sounding the alarm over the numbers of illegals entering our country. And a new study confirms what many of us already know: masks do NOT stop the spread of Covid in schools.

Like in 1933, a Democratic President is calling out fatcats and fascists in the GOP while uniting Americans in a great project to rebuild our nation- will he be successful? Plus - Dr Richard Wolff on what the real cost of sanctioning Russia may be.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Matt Taibbi speaks with Eve Eurydice about America's crises, now and past, and how crises upend trust in government as more citizens in different ways are learning the extremely painful lesson that all government is griftopia and we have nowhere to turn politically. We are watching the Breakup Of the American Empire happen as a Game of Musical Chairs played between the mainstream political parties fighting over the silent majority—the working class, the immigrant class, the middle class. ⚡️ We are at a time of reckoning. It's a nervous time in American history. A year from now we may be in a two-front war with two other world powers; a couple of wars that will feel not real because we are not being invaded and we don't live the trauma of war which cultivates pacifism. A Quinnipiac poll just showed that 66% of Americans believe that democracy may be coming to an end. America has scandal-mongering & warmongering instead of Governing—even with a Democratic President supported by the progressive wing. Whether it's the Tea party or AOC, Jan 6th or the FBI raid, the theater of politics & the theater of war keep us distracted. Superstructure is politics elections cultural wars grift. Substructure is the plutocracy (the minority in control of the means of production, the 3,000 people who own 85% of the economy, the 1% that controls 85% of the wealth and runs the country that runs the world). America has a winner takes all economy that keeps wealth in the hands of a tiny minority. The people in the minority may change but not the minority system. Ten years after Occupy Wall Street, the household debt in the US is $15.8 trillion, more than the US deficit even, and that's how are all beholden to this system. The Financialization of the Digital Network, the Monetization of Internet Technology, the growth of Crypto only accelerated the massive transfer of wealth to the few. The FED added $4.6 trillion to its balance sheet during the pandemic, hooking us deeper into the monetary feed. ⚡️Matt was an early critic of the big banks bailout under Obama & Bernanke. ⚡️Noam Chomsky just said that the US is tearing itself apart from within. The public hungers for objectivity as public trust in the media and institutions has been broken in our financialized digital era. What is the future of America? ⚡️ Matt Taibbi is a political author, journalist, podcaster, and a contributing editor for Rolling Stone. Matt publishes a popular newsletter on Substack at https://taibbi.substack.com/ ⚡️ For podcast, merch, art, go to https://Eurydice.net and https://SpeakwithEve.com For Apple podcast go to https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/speak-sex-w-eve/id1448261953?uo=4 ☀️For videos, go to https://YouTube.com/SpeakSexwithEveEurydice

The Jan 6th Committee's star witness doesn't go over so well, as her accusations were quickly shown false. American adults apparently don't know what July 4th is about?? A major news organization felt compelled to post an article targeted at adults about the significance of July 4th. Graham gives his predictions for the 2024 Democratic President and VP candidates, and let's hope he's wrong.  www.BlackRifleCoffee.com www.BirchGold.com Text: Graham to 989898 www.GoodRanchers.com/Graham CODE: Graham See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

President Joe Biden will call on Congress to suspend federal gasoline and diesel taxes for three months — an election-year move meant to ease financial pressures greeted with doubts by many lawmakers.The Democratic President will also call on states to suspend their own gas taxes or provide similar relief, the White House said.At issue is the 18.4 cents-a-gallon federal tax on gas and the 24.4 cents-a-gallon federal tax on diesel fuel. If the gas savings were fully passed along to consumers, people would save roughly 3.6 per cent at the pump when prices are averaging about $5 a gallon nationwide.It's unclear, though, if Biden could push such a proposal through Congress, where many lawmakers, including some in his own party, have expressed reservations. And even many economists view the idea of a gas tax holiday with skepticism.Barack Obama, during the 2008 presidential campaign, called the idea a "gimmick" that allowed politicians to "say that they did something". He also warned that oil companies could offset the tax relief by increasing prices.Biden energy adviser Amos Hochstein pushed back on Wednesday, saying consumers could save about 50 cents per gallon if Congress and the states heed the President's call and the oil industry doesn't pocket the savings."That's not a gimmick," Hochstein, senior adviser for global energy security at the State Department, said on CNN. "That's a little bit of breathing room for the American people as we get into the summer driving season."It was not immediately clear if the White House has the votes in Congress to suspend the federal tax.High gas prices pose a fundamental threat to Biden's electoral and policy ambitions. They've caused confidence in the economy to slump to lows that bode poorly for defending Democratic control of the House and the Senate in November.Biden's past efforts to cut gas prices — including the release of oil from the US. strategic reserve and greater ethanol blending this summer — have done little to produce savings at the pump, a risk that carries over to the idea of a gas tax holiday.Biden has acknowledged how gas prices have been a drain on public enthusiasm when he is trying to convince people that the US can still pivot to a clean-energy future. In an interview with the Associated Press last week, Biden described a country already nursing some psychological scars from the coronavirus pandemic that is now worried about how to afford gas, food and other essentials."If you notice, until gas prices started going up," Biden said, "things were much more, they were much more optimistic."The President can do remarkably little to fix prices that are set by global markets, profit-driven companies, consumer demand and aftershocks from Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the embargoes that followed. The underlying problem is a shortage of oil and refineries that produce gas, a challenge a tax holiday cannot necessarily fix.Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, estimated that the majority of the 8.6% inflation seen over the past 12 months in the US comes from higher commodity prices due to Russia's invasion and continued disruptions from the coronavirus."In the immediate near term, it is critical to stem the increase in oil prices," Zandi said last week, suggesting that Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and a nuclear deal with Iran could help to boost supplies and lower prices. Republican lawmakers have tried to shift more blame to Biden, saying he created a hostile environment for domestic oil producers, causing their output to stay below pre-pandemic levels.Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell mocked the gas tax holiday as an "ineffective stunt" in a Wednesday floor speech. "This ineffective administration's big new idea is a silly proposal that senior members of their own party have already shot down well in advance," he said.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other congressional Democrats have long worried that suspending the gas t...

Recent tapes of Senator Lindsay Graham talking to New York Times reporter Jonathan Martin on the afternoon of Jan. 6th, 2021 have now been released. It reaffirms what many Republicans were thinking that day about the riot that Donald Trump had just unleashed upon the US Capitol. And expressed hope that the new Democratic President, Joe Biden, could lower the temperature and bring the country together. But as Martin and his Times colleague Alex Burns document in their new book, This Too Shall Pass, that sentiment amongst most GOP lawmakers, Graham prominent among them, didn't last long. And Graham's prognosis that the trauma of Jan. 6th would lead to great national unity couldn't have been more wrong. The United States according to Martin and Burns is facing a political emergency with two parties, who authors write, are not merely advisories but enemies in a domestic cold war that had started to run hot. How hot can it get? And is there any way at this point to cool things down? Jonathan Martin and Alex Burns join to discuss. GUESTS:Jonathan Martin (@alexburnsNYT), New York Times Reporter and authorAlex Burns (@jmartNYT), New York Times Reporter and authorHOSTS:Michael Isikoff (@Isikoff), Chief Investigative Correspondent, Yahoo NewsDaniel Klaidman (@dklaidman), Editor in Chief, Yahoo NewsVictoria Bassetti (@VBass), fellow, Brennan Center for Justice (contributing co-host)RESOURCES:You can pick up Jonathan Martin and Alex Burns' new book This Too Shall Pass - Here.The Lindsay Graham Jan. 6th tapes - Here.Follow us on Twitter: @SkullduggeryPodListen and subscribe to "Skullduggery" on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.Email us with feedback, questions or tips: SkullduggeryPod@yahoo.com. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

John F. Kennedy was one of the greatest and wises statesmen in the history of the United Sates. In a century that was plagued with the holocausts of war, President Kennedy sought to make peace at all costs. He came into office in the middle of the Cold War and the tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union were volatile. There were many moments in Kennedy's short time as president that the wrong actions or even the wrong rhetoric could have escalated the Cold War into a hot nuclear war. In every instance you find President Kennedy using diplomacy and working vigorously to deescalate tensions and make peace. It stands in stark contrast to the current President, Joe Biden. The two men are of the only Irish, Roman Catholic, Democratic Presidents in the history of this country, and with all they have in common, they could not be more different in their approach to foreign policy. How is Joe Biden escalating tensions with Russia, and how is he making a peaceful solution less possible? Join the conversation and get answers to these questions and more on According2Sam episode #111.

Putin Reportedly Fled To Nuclear Bunker, Pulls Troops From Kyiv Sparking Fears Of Nuclear War, WW3. Flight trackers suggest Russia nuclear command has fled to nuclear bunkers. While this is all just speculation and possibly fear there are real reasons to believe Russia could move to use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. If reports are true that the war is not going well for Russia, Vladimir Putin could be preparing to end the war with a surgical nuclear strike which Biden and NATO would likely not retaliate over But in the event the Democratic Presidents administration feels threatened and they do retaliate it would mean world war 3 #Ukraine #NuclearWar #WW3 Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Biden Declares A New World Order Is Coming Triggering Viral Trend And Journalists Crying FAKE NEWS. The Democratic President said a new world order is coming and we need to lead it. Theories are flying all over the internet as the media tries to claim the new world order is fake news. but the idea is very real and Biden meant there will be a new order to the world. Media for some reason is desperate to claim the theories are exaggerated or insane yet many presidents, candidates, and even a Ukrainian MP have expressed a desire for a new world order. The reality is these people are working towards international laws and norms that some view as authoritarian or wrong. The media lying about makes more people think the conspiracies are real #Biden #Democrats #NewWorldOrder Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Scoot delivers a monologue about the rank hypocrisy in right-wing media when it comes to blaming Democratic Presidents for fluctuations in the price of gasoline

Hawaii Republicans View Ukraine Invasion. The host for this show is John Waihe'e. The guest is Gene Ward. In this episode, we discuss: 1) How is Russia viewed by contemporary Republicans 2) Is there a difference between the "Trump" wing of the party and rest of the Party 3) How does Russia's ally China fit into the current strategy 4) What course should America pursue? Hawaii? 5) Will the Republican Party unite behind a Democratic President "for the good of the Country". The ThinkTech YouTube Playlist for this show is https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQpkwcNJny6nz0VV6Nr1pYDkz6ZzUfXZV Please visit our ThinkTech website at https://thinktechhawaii.com and see our Think Tech Advisories at https://thinktechadvisories.blogspot.com.

Jimmy Carter, in many ways, was the true 20th century Presidential anomaly. As one of the most religious and solely local politicians to win a Presidential election -- Carter took pride in embracing his outsider appeal to an American public who had grown accustomed to how institutionalized and predictable the presidency had become. Carter's brand that he cultivated, as a devoutly honest and morally pure figure, however, alienated the American public just as effectively as the lies of Vietnam and Watergate. With a sputtering economic performance and few other domestic accomplishments, Carter showed how his inexperience in dealing in politics on the national stage rendered him incapable of capitalizing on his incumbency advantage. Jimmy Carter's presidency tells a story of an administration that never figured out how to operate effectively, especially when it came to influencing Congress and overall public opinion of the nation's performance. Even in the arena that Carter enjoyed the most success -- foreign policy -- is also where he made his most catastrophic mistakes. As he never became aligned with his party or with any political establishment, Carter had few friends he could count on, and stubbornly crashed out as the only Democratic President of the 20th century not to win re-election, which would continue to haunt the party until the more modern Clinton years came in presidential politics. Keywords: Presidents American Presidents America USA United States Politics History Biography Biographical Republicans Democrats Political Parties Senate House of Representatives Constitution American Anthem White House American Flag --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

"Abortion-seekers don't hate children. Indeed, perhaps the most unexpected statistic in either Guttmacher or CDC's data, to someone who is both pro-life and pro-autonomy, is that 59 percent of abortion seekers already have a child. The linchpin of the cultural argument against abortion is that its proponents hate children, or at least devalue them, and should be forced to love them. (Ohio Senate candidate J.D. Vance, take a bow). It's false, and insulting. Give or take the moment when you discover the zillionth dirty diaper, people with children don't hate them. Any parent knows this. Another thing that parents of all incomes know is that children cost a fortune — for food, for babysitters, for doctors, you name it. And guess who doesn't have it? A majority of abortion patients. Do the math. If the extra help convinced 60 percent of the abortion-seekers who are already moms that they could handle one more mouth to feed, that would mean 300,000 fewer abortions a year across the US. That's 1,000 times what Mississippi's law alone would do. 5. Abortion-seekers skew very poor. It's about the money. Congress bars federal funding of abortions, and only 16 states use state Medicaid money to pay for them. Yet 24 percent of abortions are covered by Medicaid, which isn't available to single women who make more than $17,000 in my state (your state may vary), CDC says. What does that tell you? Abortion patients are overwhelmingly poor. Guttmacher says 75 percent are either in poverty or living just above the poverty line. Did you think the 16 states with the overwhelming reliance on Medicaid are a fluke? That all the spoiled-brat abortion-seekers go to states like Mississippi so they can pay out of pocket? Come on. Patients in Alabama and Arkansas are poor, too. They simply find the money somewhere. Because the $500 for an abortion isn't the issue. The issue is supporting an extra child." --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/antonio-myers4/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/antonio-myers4/support

Today on the Rudy Giuliani Show: Biden an incompetent idiot. Nothing new here though. Who was the last respectable Democratic President? Dr. Fauci a liar. Eric Adams already losing credibility as mayor.

Today on the Rudy Giuliani Show: Biden an incompetent idiot. Nothing new here though. Who was the last respectable Democratic President? Dr. Fauci a liar. Eric Adams already losing credibility as mayor.

Which of these alternatives sounds more radical to you — abolishing the filibuster to save our democracy, or destroying our democracy to save the filibuster? Make no mistake. This is the choice. And whichever way it goes will be Joe Biden's most enduring legacy.Not long after Biden assumed the Presidency, Freedom House, a democracy-watchdog group, ranked the state of democracy in the United States below that in Chile, Costa Rica, and Slovakia. Freedom House pointed to the increasing use in the United States of precise gerrymandering, the growing influence of money in American politics, and the continuing disenfranchisement of people of color.Since then, the anti-democratic tide has risen substantially in the United States. Nineteen states have enacted thirty-three laws that make it more difficult for citizens to vote. Several states have replaced nonpartisan election administrators with partisan hacks. In other states, nonpartisan election officials have been threatened and harassed by Trump supporters, causing many to leave their positions. Republican legislatures in states that have begun to swing toward the Democrats, such as North Carolina and Texas, have redrawn electoral maps to disenfranchise communities of color. Legal challenges to the new maps are likely to be unsuccessful, given the increasingly Republican composition of the federal courts.For years, Republican strategists had predicted that any enlargement of the American electorate would work against the election of Republicans. The 2020 election proved them right. Voters turned out in great numbers and sent a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress to Washington. Not surprisingly, Republicans have responded by doing everything in their power to shrink the electorate and make it harder to vote for those they assume will choose Democrats.What will be the nation's response to this noxious anti-democratic tide? We know there will be a few speeches about America's commitment to democracy. In the weeks ahead, Joe Biden will be hosting a virtual “Summit for Democracy.” Invitees will represent more than a hundred countries. When he announced the Summit in August, its apparent goal was to reestablish America's moral authority in the aftermath of Trump's squalid foreign policy.According to the State Department, the Summit will “aim to show how democracies can deliver on the issues that matter most to people: strengthening accountable governance, expanding economic opportunities, protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, and enabling lives of dignity.” The State Department goes on to promise that “The U.S. government will announce commitments in areas such as bolstering free and independent media; fighting corruption; defending free and fair elections; strengthening civic capacity; advancing the civic and political leadership of women, girls, and marginalized community members; and harnessing technology for democratic renewal. The United States will also hold itself accountable to these commitments on a global public stage.”But how exactly will the Biden Administration be accountable to those commitments when Republicans at every level are working so hard to undermine them? As Biden said in February, “Democracy doesn't happen by accident. We have to defend it, fight for it, strengthen it, renew it.”Yet in that fight so far, Biden has been AWOL. He hasn't used his bully pulpit to inform Americans of the clear and present dangers to democracy now underway. He hasn't used his administration, including his Justice Department, to push back against the anti-democratic forces. He hasn't acted forcefully in support of voting rights legislation and against the filibuster. His absence from the fight is fast becoming one of the most glaring omissions of his administration — a moral vacuum that is growing by the day. Last spring, Democrats in the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1, the For the People Act, a set of minimum national election standards intended to eliminate partisan gerrymandering, reduce the influence of money in politics, expand voting rights, and increase election security. But H.R. 1 was stymied in the Senate by Republicans who voted against bringing it to the floor for debate. Senate Republicans also sunk the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, designed to correct the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, that gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and allowed many of the state voter-suppression laws that have been passed since.In September, Democratic senators, led by a group including Amy Klobuchar and Joe Manchin (who says he is committed to preserving the filibuster) presented a new election-related bill, the Freedom to Vote Act. It contains several new provisions to protect election workers, as well as measures in the For the People Act, such as same-day voter registration, a ban on partisan gerrymandering, and a restoration of voting rights to former felons. But in October, Senate Republicans filibustered the Freedom to Vote Act into oblivion.Let's be clear. As long as the filibuster stands, this will be the fate of all election-related legislation proposed by Democrats. There should no longer be any doubt about the choice ahead: It's the filibuster or democracy. Senator Angus King, the Maine Independent who caucuses with the Democrats and who had earlier rejected calls to reform the filibuster (and whom I'm proud to claim as an old friend) recently concluded that “democracy itself is more important than any Senate rule.” Exactly. Biden must use the full strength of his presidency – his bully pulpit, the power of the executive branch, his influence inside the halls of the Senate (and over his old putative friend, the senior senator from West Virginia), and the credibility that comes with being President of the United States – to end the filibuster, and thereby open the way for voting rights. It is necessary. It is time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

The Senate passed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act on Saturday after over 24 hours of Vote-a-Rama, which will almost undoubtedly be the biggest legislative package of progressive welfare and stimulus spending ever created and will hopefully help folks get through the end of the Covid-19 pandemic. It is truly an incredible legislative accomplishment worth celebrating.  And yet, a Democratic President and several Democratic Senators still managed to make everyone upset by letting a $15 an hour minimum wage provision get stripped out by deciding not to overrule an unelected Senate Parliamentarian."Why are you so mad?" ask many of the smarmy pundits and politics knowers. "You can't just make things happen in politics by willing it into existence - the President and those Senators aren't like, Green Lanterns"Eric and Jackson dig into how Democrats tarnished what is otherwise a great and important piece of legislation by allowing the president and Joe Manchin (among others) to sabotage the $15 minimum wage, why the huge dorks who use the "Green Lantern Theory of Politics" strawman are total dopes and losers, reveal Eric's alternative theory - the Dr. Eggman Theory of Governance - and explain how deeply disappointed we are in the several U.S. Senators who let us all down (and praise the ones who didn't).Also enjoy, interludes about getting the Senate parliamentarian to do whatever you want them to do, how it's well past time for Nebraska to elect some offensive linemen to the Senate,  and Jackson cussing a lot about pundits he doesn't like and also everything else. Class is *clap clap* in session

Many economists and writers have told the undeniable truth for some time, the economy does almost twice as good under Democratic presidents. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/egbertowillies/support

(Jan. 6) Democrats' hopes of taking control of the U.S. Senate received a huge boost early Wednesday after the party captured one seat in the Georgia runoff elections and waited on the outcome of another race that remained too close to call. To secure a narrow majority, Democrats need to win both Senate seats, which would split the chamber 50-50 between Republicans and the Democratic caucus, with Vice President-elect Kamala Harris casting tie-breaking votes. Senate control, paired with the Democrats' narrow majority in the House, would give Democratic President-elect Joe Biden full control of the U.S. government and allow him to implement major pieces of his agenda. Benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury yields rose past 1% for the first time since March and S&P 500 futures fell as traders evaluated the implications of a potential Democratic control of the Senate, such as additional fiscal stimulus and tax hikes. Nasdaq 100 futures tumbled, a sign of concern about the possibility of stepped up antitrust scrutiny of internet giants under a so-called “blue wave.” Democrat Raphael Warnock defeated Republican Senator Kelly Loeffler in one of the runoff races, the Associated Press reported Wednesday, making him the first Black senator in Georgia history. Republican Senator David Perdue trailed Democrat Jon Ossoff by about 16,000 votes early Wednesday, with some of the outstanding votes coming from Democrat-heavy precincts. But it could take days to get the final tally, as 17,000 military and overseas ballots can still be counted as late as Friday. The narrow results will almost certainly spark legal challenges or recounts that also could delay a final determination of Senate control. Jon Ossoff (D) gives remarks after taking the lead against incumbent Sen. David Perdue (R) in the Georgia Senate runoff race. CNN has not yet made a projection in that race. #CNN #News #Democrats #Georgia #GeorgiaRunoff What does all of this mean for America and how did we get here? Tune in! https://linktr.ee/chrisbenji Discord: https://discord.gg/WHhQrj3yzm Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ChrisChrisYo... IG: https://www.instagram.com/chrisbenjiii/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/Chris_Benjiii Chris Chris Twitter: https://twitter.com/ChrisChrisYTC Snap Chat: ChrisBenjiii

A podcast created by Decolonising Contraception collective, an interdisciplinary collective of Black and people of colour, working across sexual and reproductive health (SRH) . Hosted by Edem Ntumy (She/her) - community engagement officer and Dr Annabel Sowemimo (She/her) community sexual & reproductive health doctor. Each episode gives a round up of sexual health news, social justice issues and focuses on the work of those working to dismantle the everyday prejudice in our sector. Series edited by Veronique Belinga.  Episode 10 - Telling Our Stories is the season finale of Season 1 of the Sex Agenda. Whew, thanks for sticking with us and we are already grinding for season 2

Pres. Trump fired the top Department of Homeland Security official, Chris Krebs, who has repeatedly rejected his baseless claims of widespread voter fraud. Krebs was the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and has said there “is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.” Miles Taylor is a former DHS Chief of Staff in the Trump administration. He was hired on the same day as Krebs and worked closely with him. He tells Anderson Cooper “the President is very afraid to hear the truth and Chris Krebs knows more about the truth of the security of this election than anyone in the government.” Plus, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina admitted and defended his outreach to officials in Arizona, Nevada and Georgia, all states that Democratic President-elect Joe Biden won. Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia Secretary of State, accused Graham of asking him to “look hard and see how many ballots you could throw out” referring to absentee ballots that heavily favored Biden. The Senator denied the accusation calling it “ridiculous” and claims he was pushing Raffensperger to strengthen signature verification rules for mail-in ballots ahead of the Senate runoffs that will determine the next majority in the Senate. Gabriel Sterling, Georgia’s voting system implementation manager, was also on the call and corroborated Raffensperger’s claims. Sterling joins AC360 to discuss what he heard on the call. Airdate: November 17, 2020 Guests: Miles Taylor Gabriel Sterling To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

With a new seat open in the United States Supreme Court, what will President Trump do? What does the constitution say? What do you think the Democrats would do if a Democratic President was in office? What did Obama do while he was a sitting president? Join us to find out! --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/politicalanalytical/support

Today we are in conversation with investigative reporter and documentary filmmaker John Carlos Frey.  He grew up at the US-Mexico border witnessing how the border has been militarized in a non-declared war in the last 30 years. He has dedicated his award-winning journalistic carer to covering border issues. We discuss the history about how we have got to where we are now concerning immigration issues and the role a Democratic president played in it during the 1990's. John Carlos Frey is the author of the new book Sand and Blood: America's Stealth War on the Mexico Border (Hachette /Bold Type Books, 2019).   The post The 1990's, A Democratic President and the War Against Immigrants appeared first on KPFA.

“But why,” the Democratic politicians will insist, “why do we need anything more than simply elect Democrats? What's the need for a Reform Caucus when the Democratic Party is already committed to a platform of reform? Why complicate what could be so simple: a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress committed to passing the changes that reform obviously requires?”