Delaware Liberal

First Read says the Iran Deal is done, but the fighting over it isn't. Yesterday, four Democratic Senators came out in support, bringing the total to 42 Democrats in support, which means that there are more than enough Democrats to filibuster the disapproval resolution so as to prevent it from ever getting to the President's desk. Chris Coons might vote with the Republicans on the filibuster, since he has said that he wants up or down vote. Whatever. I could criticize him for that, but I won't. He has already been damaged by his summer of Angst and Grandstanding, that my only reaction to the latest news that me might not filibuster is to roll my eyes. “If you looked at all of today’s events, you’d think that we’re at some tipping point in the debate over the Iran deal. The Democratic and GOP frontrunners — Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump — are making dueling arguments regarding the deal. And Congress is equally fired up today. But much like the Battle of New Orleans, all of these rhetorical guns are being fired as the war over the Iran deal is essentially a done deal. The story is over, but the talking (or fighting) isn’t.” “We found that out yesterday after the Obama White House got 42 Senate Democrats to support the deal — one more than what’s needed to filibuster a resolution of disapproval, which would prevent the president from even having to issue a veto. (Now all of these 42 Senate Dems might not be committed to a filibuster right now, but do they want to have to take additional votes? That’s the question they’ll be facing.) So consider today a day full of sound and fury signifying nothing. As for Obama, the Iran deal represents his biggest achievement of his second term. But like with his other wins, it’s never pretty or easy. He may be getting what he wants, but it’s hardly a victory lap when bipartisan majorities in Congress and in the public aren’t celebrating with you." Once again Chuck Todd gives one last handjob to the ghost of Bipartisanship. Who the fuck cares about bipartisanship? I care about Partisanship. I don't want the Republicans agreeing with me, for it makes me think I am being tricked into something or that I am wrong in some way.

I am a Democrat. I am a progressive Democrat, but I am a Democrat. And being a Democrat means I care about the Democratic Party. I care about building out the Democratic Party. Electing more and better Democrats across the land. Recruiting more and better candidates. Taking over state legislatures and Governorships. One of the reasons I am very resistant to a Bernie Sanders campaign is that he is not a Democrat. He does not care about the party or party building. In order for Bernie Sanders to win my vote in the primary he would first have to personally register as a Democrat in Vermont. I'm serious. Until he does that, I am not even considering voting for him, no matter how much I might agree with him. One of the negatives of the Obama Presidency has been the massive losses the Democratic Party suffered at the state and local level in 2010 and 2014. It is not necessarily President Obama's fault personally, as the same thing happened to President Clinton. Both Presidents came into office in economic downturn with an ambitious reform agenda and majorities in both Houses of Congress that allowed them to enact much of their plans. Benefits from the reforms do not come immediately (i.e. within 18 months), and thus voters more disposed to support the President are discouraged and stay home in the midterms, while angry conservatives who are eager to vote against the President's party turn out in droves. One of the reasons I am currently leaning towards supporting Hillary is that she and her campaign are attempting to build the party back up again, like Obama did in his first run for the Presidency....

When you look at the northern most and southern most parts of your standard Mercator projection map, you see vast landmasses in Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Australia and Russia. What if I told you Alaska and its great vast frontier was actually no bigger than Colombia? If you are a visual learner, this is a neat tool. Go play this interactive map and discover the true size of many countries.

Heather Cox Richardson:

Today’s Republican Party is enslaved to Movement Conservatism, and Trump trumpets the rhetoric of that movement in crude sound bites. Since the 1950s, Movement Conservatives have been determined to roll back the business regulations of the New Deal. But those protections are popular. So to undermine them, Movement Conservatives hammer home the idea that legislation protecting workers, people of color, or women is socialism, a con that sucks money out of the pockets of hard-working whites and siphons it into the pockets of grasping workers, shiftless blacks, or slutty women. [...] Trump’s danger to the Republican Party is not simply that he rips the veneer off the racism, sexism, and religious hypocrisy of Movement Conservatism, exposing its rhetoric about taxes and lazy takers for the elitism it is. Trump also articulates the anger of a generation of voters who see that they have been taken for a ride. Movement Conservatives promised voters who were falling behind in the modern world that if they voted Republican, tax cuts and a smaller government would create a roaring economy and they would prosper.