Mediaboss Marketing

At some point, nonbiased historians (hard to find these days) will take a deeper dive into our recent presidential elections. When they do, an irony should jump out at them: Both Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonBiden says Putin will 'pay a price' for 2020 election meddling The Memo: Biden team's Obama criticisms draw some blowback USintel says Russia, Iran sought to influence 2020 election MORE and Donald TrumpDonald TrumpBorder surge scrambles Senate immigration debate GOP looks to measures barring trans athletes to rally voters House GOP holdouts muddle Trump vaccine message MORE are personally responsible for the losses they suffered. Two larger-than-life personalities and egos, who seemingly cant stand each other, will forever share an asterisk in political history. Who says karma cant be humorous?

Clinton twice lost the chance to become president. The first time, in 2008, the Democratic nomination was taken from her by a relatively unknown Illinois senator, Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaThe Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - Forget about comity in Congress The GOP bets against American recovery Obama on Atlanta shootings: We've neglected 'epidemic of gun violence in America' MORE. The second time, in 2016, as the Democratic nominee, she lost the general election to Trump.

Both losses clearly stung. But to lose the presidency to a man with no political experience and virtually no campaign, someone who was belittled and laughed at from one end of the progressive spectrum to the other, must be the stuff of recurring nightmares.

In 2008, most of the conventional wisdom had then-Sen. Clinton pegged as the inevitable nominee. So, what went wrong? Its simple: candidate and campaign hubris.

Clintons campaign team truly believedit was invincible. Because of that,it underestimated Obamas toughness, his campaign and the excitement he generated with a constituency that long felt abandoned. Just weeks before he announced his run, the Clinton campaign was assuring the world that Obama would not become a candidate for president. On top of that embarrassingly wrong prediction, strategically and logistically, the campaign team couldnt get out of their own way.

When Clinton registered a shocking third place in the Iowa caucus, it showed the political world that the Obama campaign not only had figured out how to navigate the complex caucus system which Clintons campaign mostly ignored but was not going to concede a single delegate.

Quite ironically, and seemingly forgotten by many in the news media, as Obama racked up delegate after delegate, it was then that Clinton first rolled out the argument But Ive got more popular votes than him.

Most pundits believed Clinton had learned her lessons from the tactical errors of 2008 and once again installed her as the prohibitive favorite to win the presidency in 2016. Just weeks before the election, the RealClearPolitics average put Clinton up 7 points over Trump, a theoretically unbeatable number until it wasnt.

Inexplicably, Clinton decided she didnt need to campaign in Wisconsin and barely did so in Michigan. More than that, she apparently thought it was a winning political move to label potential Trump supporters as deplorables and, in March 2016, at a Democratic town hall meeting in Ohio, to declare,We are going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business. That was a jaw-dropping gaffe considering that she needed to win coal-rich Pennsylvania in the fall.

She went on to lose all three of those states by close margins. As accurately summarized by the liberal authors of the book Shattered, While Hillary was measuring the drapes in the Oval Office, her team was mis-measuring the electorate.

Next, we come to Trump and his 2020 campaign. The argument can be made that Trump lost because he was a flat-out jerk at times, one who shamefully turned the office of the president into a WWE SmackDown chamber as he continually barked out insults.

As Trump supporter Conrad Black more delicately put it in a recent column for American Greatness, Americans demand more dignity of the president and a president who is less exhausting and constantly in the face of the country not only during all waking hours but, through his Twitter account, during much of every night.

In the end, Trump could not deliver such dignity.

Consider the state of Arizona, historically a reliably red state, which Trump managed to lose by about 11,000 votes. How? Well, to start with, he repeatedly had bashed the late Sen. John McCainJohn Sidney McCainMeghan McCain and Joy Behar argue over whether antifa 'does exist' Trump and Hillary: Forever connected by self-created failure Democratic Arizona Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick says she won't seek reelection MORE, Arizonas war hero. That presumably cost Trumpmore than 10,000 votes among the more than 3 million cast.

Several Republican political professionals with whom I spoke believe that Trumps bullying tactics directly cost him 10 percent of the vote. Lets assume they are being much too punitive and dial down that estimate to, say, 1.5 percent of voters who were turned off by Trumps infantile affronts after initially intending to vote for him.

Even giving him that generosity, Trump lost Arizona and its 11 electoral votes by three-tenths of 1 percent of the vote. He lost Georgia and its 16 electoral votes by two-tenths of 1 percent of the vote. He lost Wisconsin and its 10 electoral votes by seven-tenths of 1 percent of the vote, and he lost Pennsylvania and its 20 electoral votes by 1.2 percent of the vote. If we add up the electoral votes lost to Trumps churlishness, we get 57. Had Trump won these states along with those he did win in November, his Electoral College votes would have totaled 289instead of 232and President BidenJoe BidenThe Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - Forget about comity in Congress Border surge scrambles Senate immigration debate GOP looks to measures barring trans athletes to rally voters MOREs total would have dropped from 302 to 245, making Trump the winner.

Tens of millions of Americans collectively put their faith in Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and their respective visions for our nation. Sadly for those voters, the vanity and condescending attitudes of these two candidates betrayed that trust. It is, as former two-term President Obama might say, a teachable moment regarding outsize egos and political hubris.

Douglas MacKinnon, a political and communications consultant, was a writer in the White House for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and former special assistant for policy and communications at the Pentagon during the last three years of the Bush administration.

See the original post here:
Trump and Hillary: Forever connected by self-created failure | TheHill - The Hill

Reactions to the shootings at three Atlanta-area massage parlors that left eight dead, mostly women of Asian descent:

Racially motivated violence must be called out for exactly what it is and we must stop making excuses for it or rebranding it as economic anxiety or sexual addiction. Words matter. Leadership matters. We must all loudly condemn actions and language rooted in fear and bigotry that harms all of us. Democratic U.S. Rep. Marilyn Strickland of Washington, the first Korean-American woman elected to Congress.

While the details are still emerging, the broader context cannot be ignored. The shootings happened under the trauma of increasing violence against Asian Americans nationwide, fueled by white supremacy and systemic racism. Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta.

Last night was an act of pure racist hatred. This is very personal to me as a mom of a child who is both Black & Asian. Shonda Rhimes, TV writer and producer.

Im angry. This is terrorism. This is a hate crime. Stop killing us. Margaret Cho, comedian.

Were not yet clear about the motive. But I do want to say to our Asian American community that we stand with you and understand how this has frightened and shocked and outraged all people. Vice President Kamala Harris, first Black and South Asian woman to hold the office.

I am deeply saddened that we live in a nation and world permeated by hate and violence. I stand with Asian members of our World House, who are a part of our global human family. The Rev. Bernice King, daughter of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Hate crimes against Asian Americans are a result of the hateful rhetoric and dangerous narratives espoused from Americans, including our former president, who believe their words dont have dangerous consequences. Lets be clear, domestic terrorism is cancerous, and it is growing in our country. We must work together, regardless of race and political affiliation, to stop it. The Rev. Al Sharpton, president of the National Action Network.

Once again we see that hate is deadly. Praying for the families of the victims and for peace for the community. U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia.

Yesterdays shootings are another tragic reminder that we have far more work to do to put in place commonsense gun safety laws and root out the pervasive patterns of hatred and violence in our society. Although the shooters motive is not yet clear, the identity of the victims underscores an alarming rise in anti-Asian violence that must end. Former U.S. President Barack Obama.

The surge in violence against Asian Americans over the last year is a growing crisis. We need action from our leaders and within our communities to stop the hate. Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

A disgusting and disturbing example of how the spread of domestic terrorism has been allowed to torment communities. These acts are the visible manifestation of hateful words birthing hateful acts! An attack on One is an attack on ALL! NAACP.

We can draw a straight line between white supremacist violence and the rhetoric of leaders who scapegoat our communities. These incidents are no different. We oppose harmful and inaccurate narratives that paint Asian American and Asian immigrant communities with one brush in an effort to diminish their lives and their contributions. The Movement for Black Lives

To my Asian American family, please take time to grieve but know youre loved, seen and IMPORTANT. We have to keep standing up, speaking out, rallying together and fighting for change. We cannot lose hope!! Jeremy Lin, NBA player.

These shootings are a vicious and vile act that compound the fear and pain that Asian-Americans face each day. Our entire nation must come together to speak out to Stop Asian Hate. U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The race of the person committing the crime matters less than the simple fact that if you act with hate in your heart, you are part of the problem. And to those with the power to help and yet sit idly by, your silence is complicity. Daniel Dae Kim, actor.

Continued here:
Public reaction to killings at Atlanta-area massage parlors - The Republic

What is the deal with Alamance County?

Thats a question that many caring and thinking North Carolinians have posed a lot in recent decades as theyve confronted and digested repeated reports of racial tensions, discriminatory misconduct by law enforcement, and displays of white supremacy.

At first blush, Alamance seems an unlikely locale for such issues. With a population of more than 160,000, bisected by a major interstate, and sandwiched between two large and increasingly diverse and tolerant metro areas (the Triad and the Triangle), Alamance is no off-the-beaten-path, Old South backwater.

Indeed, North Carolinas 17th largest county is home to a sizable private university of growing renown and at one point, its textile industry was a thriving economic engine that employed thousands and attracted skilled transplants from around the country. Alamance has also elected at least a smattering of progressive politicians to public office down through the years, and in 2020, it elected the first Latinx Democrat to ever serve in the North Carolina House a son of Salvadoran immigrants named Ricky Hurtado.

Sadly, however, as Alamance looks ahead the 175th anniversary of its founding in just under three years, such attributes arent the things for which it has come to be best known.

While the county is increasingly diverse and home to many forward-looking residents determined to build a 21st Century economy and a community of real and sustainable tolerance, Alamances chief cause clbre in 2021 is its status as locus of reaction, repression, and conflict.

Just last year, the county seat of Graham was the site of multiple racially charged incidents involving demonstrations against abusive law enforcement and jail practices, access to the polls, and the future of Confederate monuments incidents that gave rise to several highly questionable arrests and multiple complaints of civil rights violations.

And of course, these events happened in a county whose best-known politician Sheriff Terry Johnson is a hard-right law enforcement officer who has gained regional and national attention for targeting Latinx immigrants and uttering Trump-like pronouncements for nearly two decades. Trump himself bested Joe Biden in the county by 8.4% in 2020 and Hillary Clinton by 12.6% in 2016.

So, what gives? How did this complex situation arise? What does one find today when one looks beyond the headlines? And what might the future hold?

Over the coming weeks the NC Policy Watch team of journalists will provide at least partial answers to these and some related questions in a series of special reports examining different aspects of the Alamance story.

Today, we begin the series with a fascinating but sobering report from Investigative Reporter Joe Killian on the deep-seated racism and frequently horrific incidents of violence and repression that have long plagued the county.

Reports in the coming weeks will include:

Its our hope that, taken together and in the best tradition of investigative journalism, these reports will shine a spotlight on several important problems that have remained hidden below the surface too long, and ultimately, lead to the kind of open and honest discussions that are a necessary predicate to progress.

We welcome your questions, feedback, and suggestions for additional reporting going forward.

See the original post:
The battle for Alamance: Check out the new Policy Watch special report | The Progressive Pulse - The Progressive Pulse

Watch the CBSN Originals documentary Do We Still Need the Electoral College? in the video player above. It premieres on CBSN on Sunday, March 21 at 8 p.m., 11 p.m. and 2 a.m. ET.

When Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, he became the fourth president in American history and the second since 2000 to win a presidential election despite losing the popular vote. Clinton received nearly 3 million more votes nationwide. But in the Electoral College which ultimately decides who wins the presidency Mr. Trump received 306 votes to Clintons 232. In 2020, despite Joe Bidens commanding 7 million vote lead in the popular vote, just a few thousand votes in key states could have swung the election for Donald Trump.

Cases like these have fueled efforts to reform the Electoral College or do away with it entirely, but some say it still serves an important purpose.

How did we end up with this system for choosing a president? Stanford University professor of history and political science Jack Rakove says the Founding Fathers had little precedent for the institution they were creating.

Executive power in the 18th century was either monarchical, king-like, or ministerial, the sense of a British Cabinet, Rakove explained. So you had to create an office that was completely new.

The founders considered three main proposals for electing the president: direct democracy, election by Congress, and an election by state-based electors.

The idea of direct democracy whoever gets the most votes, wins was appealing to many of the founders. In states like New York and Massachusetts, direct democracy was already being used to elect governors. However, it was unclear how voters of that era would be able to identify qualified national political figures, and some worried that the general population would be too ill-informed to take on the responsibility of choosing the president.

The problem was what you could do at the state level might not be transferable to the national level, Rakove said. The thing that happens from the 1790s on is that the growth of the popular press, and the growth of an evolving political press, where newspapers are committed to particular candidates or particular parties, became a prominent feature of American politics.

For the founders coming from Southern states, direct democracy would also mean that executive power would likely be dominated by the North because it had a larger voting bloc. At the time of the constitutional convention, nearly 40% of people living in the South were enslaved Black people who were not allowed to vote.

A big part of the Southern population consisted of African American slaves, who have no political existence whatsoever, Rakove said. If you have a truly popular election for a single officer chosen from the whole nation, there would be a big regional disadvantage for the South.

For Southern states at the time, having Congress choose the president would solve both of their main concerns with direct democracy. Congressional representatives, the countrys political elite, would have no problem identifying qualified national political figures.

And Congress had also already addressed potential Northern dominance with the so-called three-fifths compromise. The compromise stated that 60% of a states enslaved population would be counted towards the states total population for the purpose of allocating seats in Congress giving Southern states more political clout.

That was emboldening and empowering the South, said Wilfred Codrington III, an associate professor of law at Brooklyn College. It really disincentivized the desire to get rid of slavery because the more slaves you had, the more political power you had.

A presidential election by Congress, however, would infringe on the founders desire to establish a separation of powers.

If we have a congressional election and the president is ambitious then the president will become, in their terms, the lackey or the tool, the toady of Congress, Rakove said.

The compromise that was eventually enshrined in the Constitution is a system of state-based electors based roughly on state population. For the founders, this solved a whole array of potential problems: the risk of leaving too much power in the hands of an ill-informed public, Northern dominance of the executive branch, and breaching the separation of powers.

The upshot is the system having presidential electors became attractive, not because it was attractive in itself, but because it was the least unattractive option, Rakove said.

The Constitution specifies that each state gets same number of electors as its total number of representatives and senators in Congress, and the founders left it up to the states to determine how to they would choose their electors. All but two states Maine and Nebraska have adopted a winner-take-all system that awards all their electoral votes to whichever candidate won the popular vote in the state.

Advocates of the Electoral College celebrate its check on the power that large cities would have in a purely popular vote election.

Tara Ross, author of The Indispensable Electoral College, says it forces presidential candidates to court the votes of a more diverse electorate across the country.

We have a system where you have to win simultaneous victories in multiple parts of the country and the only way to get there is to build the biggest coalition you can, Ross said. Because of the Electoral College, presidential candidates serve themselves best if they try to appeal to a wide variety of people.

But in recent years, as discrepancies between electoral votes and the popular vote have become more common, reform efforts have gained momentum. Electoral College reformers and opponents say the system is confusing, outdated and anti-democratic.

Critics note that states with small populations have disproportionately more clout under the current system. And the winner-take-all rules mean a handful of battleground states have an outsized influence on determining the winner, leading presidential candidates to devote much of their campaigning to just a few states.

One leading reform initiative is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which calls on states to agree to allocate their electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote. So far, 15 states and Washington, D.C. have signed on not enough for it to take effect.

Saul Anuzis, a former chair of the Michigan Republican Party who now works with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, says determining the president by who wins the popular vote would be more truly democratic and could help restore public confidence in the system.

I think unfortunately too many people in this country think their vote doesnt matter, Anuzis said. I think that has a horrible effect on politics in those states that are ignored, as well as public policy.

Malcolm Kenyatta, a Pennsylvania state legislator who served as a presidential elector in 2020, has seen the system from the inside and thinks it needs to change.

The Electoral College sets up a system where every vote is not equal. And a vote in one place is more important than a vote somewhere else. Thats unfair, he said.

Kenyatta believes our democracy will only endure if we work towards improving the institutions it relies on.

I think we dont always think about the fact that this thing that were doing, its an experiment, he said. Theres nothing written on some tablet somewhere that says America has to succeed. It happens because every generation recognizes the role we play in ensuring that theres something to pass on.

Read the rest here:
Why does America have the Electoral College and should we keep it? - WSGW

March 1993: Nominated by President Bill Clinton, Janet Reno was sworn in as the first female attorney general of the United States.

January 1997: Also nominated by Clinton, Madeleine Albright was sworn in as the nations first female secretary of state.

January 2007: U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) became the House's first female speaker. In 2019, she reclaimed the title, becoming the first lawmaker to hold the office two times in more than 50 years.

Probably taken outside Margaret Sanger's Brownsville clinic trial at the King's County Court of Special Sessions, Jan. 30, 1917.

January 2013: The U.S. military removed a ban against women serving in combat positions.

July 2016: Hillary Clinton became the first woman to receive a major political party's presidential nomination. During her speech at the Democratic National Convention, she said, "Standing here as my mother's daughter, and my daughter's mother, I'm so happy this day has come."

January 2021: Kamala Harris was sworn in as the first woman and first woman of color vice president of the United States. "While I may be the first woman in this office, I will not be the last," Harris said after getting elected in November.

Womens economic status:

You would think with the passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that women in general and women of color would have wage equality with white men. However, this is far from the case. Today in the U.S., women in general make 82 cents for every $1 men earn. For women of color, it is even worse, with Black women earning 62 cents and Latina women earning 54 cents for every white mans dollar. On the surface, this would seem to be racism and sexism. However, it is much more complicated than that, and white men are not the villain.

Read more:
Judith Dale: Womens History Month are we there yet? - Lompoc Record