The Democratic Party and it's institutional allies are as you describe: screrotic. We got outcampaigned by a foolish egomaniac who knows how to rally his troops on air and very little else.
We lost the campaign and are losing the time since. We are led by folks who are not commited to winning the way Trump is. We failed to make our case agsinst this crazy man. Crazy as a fox.
Now, we will watch the deconstruction of our liberal norms and live through Trump's irrational pettyness and hateful revenge.
I had to look “sclerotic” up. Good use of the word.
Thomas, how do you or me or anyone change the Democratic Party’s decision-making process to be more agile as you suggest? Do you run for some sort of party office to get the authority to make structural modifications? I’d vote for you.
Although I am not a constitutional scholar, if I understand Griffin’s argument correctly, he is stating that votes should be invalidated for individuals who registered to vote but did not comply with a regulation enacted after their registration. This argument appears to involve "ex post facto" considerations, which clearly violate the following constitutional provisions:
• Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: This clause restricts Congress from passing any ex post facto laws. It states, "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
• Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: This clause restricts states from passing any ex post facto laws.
These provisions ensure that laws do not apply retroactively, upholding the principle of fairness and protecting individuals from being punished for an act that was not illegal at the time it was committed. Therefore, if a court attempts to apply a new law or a new interpretation of an existing law to an action that was committed before the new law or interpretation took effect, it should be deemed unconstitutional.
If my reasoning is correct, why is this matter still in the court system at public expense? These funds could be used to assist with the rebuilding efforts in Western NC communities.
Doug, you are right, but I think courts have circumvented this prohibition of ex post facto laws by declaring that the clause applies only to criminal laws (in spite of the clause plainly not being limited to criminal laws). Sometimes judges lie to reach the ends they desire, just like other people sometimes do. That’s a particularly big problem when you get a majority of judges at the highest courts who value the same ends above the rule of law. The Court becomes an advocacy group for political ends instead of an advocacy group for the law.
The check against that happening is the popular vote, but when the popular vote favors the likes of anti-constitutional candidates, the popular vote fails as a check.
Walter, I understand that while the Ex post facto clause specifically pertains to criminal law, certain principles of fairness inherent in this clause may influence judicial considerations in civil cases, although they are not directly governed by it.
In bodied in ex post facto is due process. My training prohibits me from using the word lie in connection with judicial matters. I prefer the word ERROR. It is human to error, but against policy to forgive.
The “Government actions” here retroactively affect fundamental rights unfairly can be contested on due process grounds, even if the matter is not criminal. Voting is acknowledged as a fundamental right essential to democracy.
In Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, the Supreme Court invalidated a retroactive statute affecting employee health benefits, underscoring the importance of fairness under the Due Process Clause. Similarly, in Montgomery v. Louisiana, the Court examined the retroactive application of a previous ruling, highlighting issues related to retro-activity and due process concerns.
1. Where are our billionaires? I don't think we have any.
2. In my opinion, the Democratic Party's executive committee plan of organization prevents the party's rapid response as it seems its primary purpose is to keep our "alliance of interest groups" together.
I totally agree with Thomas. Now, at the time when the Democrats are in total disarray, knowing that we have to change our positive message, we should go negative to the extent that we call out every Republican action, tactic, and strategy that trashes our traditional, American and Democratic traditions. Call out every lie , every time they cheat, every action they take that insults democracy, and ads to economic and financial and inequality.
You asked where are our Billionaires. Think of them like investors. Our party hasn’t shown them we’re smart enough and quick-responding enough to spend their money effectively. Like us, they want to win. Build a responsive organization with a core purpose and a focused message and they will come. But we need to do the groundwork to justify their investing.
.
The Republicans show their Billionaires that their money gets their desired results.
A big problem for us Democrats is that our efforts and campaigns are financed with modest individual contributions. During the campaign I would receive about 40-50 emails and text messages every day. After the campaign it did not stop and is still goes on now, but to a lesser degree. I am sick of it! Then there are the issue campaigns which in many cases are basically scamming operations that ask for money for campaigns that are presently an impossibility. Take for example, pleadings for cash to “repeal Citizens United.” Citizens United is a Supreme Court decision that will only be changed by replacing at least 2-3 current Supreme Court justices. That will take decades to occur. Where do the raised funds now go?
As Joe Trippi says, the tipple match BS (he uses the actual words) that's all Democrats took away from the Howard Dean campaign. The Republicans on the other hand learned that you could actually use those contacts to organize and create alternative communication networks.
I think your criticism on this issue is misplaced. Anderson Clayton and other state Democrats have been talking about this issue on a daily basis and effectively so. Their tactics have been good, such as publishing the names of the voters sought to be disenfranchised. But they probably don’t have the money for the type of ad campaign you are pushing.
For anyone who missed today's Bryan Anderson's chat with Anderson Clayton, NCDP Voter Protection Dir Cat Lawson, retired NC Supreme Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr, and one other...I strongly recommend checking that out. Bryan Anderson is a bit more strict about his paywall, but he has a lot of absolutely original content re NC.
There's another issue and it's money. Right now, Allison Riggs is raising money for her lawyers. The reason that 5 of the Democrats running for Council of State seats lost is because they didn't have the money for the TV ads. Thomas, have you contacted the NCDP or Allison Riggs or others with the idea of TC ads?
Yep. Where indeed are our messengers? Tired, I'm sure, been a rough winter, but being first in a battle like this matters. First and loudest. C'mon, folks!
The other issue with the dems is that they "allow" the special interests to get in the way of many messages
The GOP mandate a talking point for the week/day/hour and everybody in the eco-system toes the line and carries.. no one is upset that their pet schtck is not on the TV this week... they know it will come around and then be amplified to the heavens.
GOP message gets heard loud and clear. Dem message? Lost in the noise
Very insightful. I've always thought that the Democratic party, as a whole, has a respect for the truth that the GOP neither share or in some cases may not be aware of. Tired of hearing that both side lie or at least exaggerate? because I am. there is no equivalency and in their case it must be contagious. I think we must be much more aggressive in defending the truth and calling out liars. In 2026 there are 33 US Senate seats up for election. The Republicans defend 20 seats and the Dems only 13. There are only two seats held by Democrats that went to Trump in 2024 (by miniscule margins). We're pretty sure what lies in wait for our friend Thom Tillis.
We know the midterms in the US House favor the party not in power (2022) and I'm convinced we will take congress and impeach Trump. We will know their fears by watching SCOTUS and see if Thomas and Alito retire before 2026.
So far as I can tell, Thomas Mills and Rachel Maddow are the only folks leading the charge. Where is everybody? Hellooooo! The Holidays came and went. Time to get on our high horse!
John Flannery’s daily YouTube walks and talks are straight up. His background as former federal prosecutor lends tons of history and background. This week he’s been on Ari Melber.
I think you might be mixing up the purpose of national or state organizations, like the Human Rights Campaign, and these smaller and more focused right-wing PACs and organizations that pop up for awhile and go away.
HRC and some of the other groups you mention really work more like the Heritage Foundation - they're big efforts with certain goals that do lobbying and work directly with lawmakers. Their public efforts are more general and broad-based.
The right has perfected the art of these special purpose PACs that pop up, do a bunch of advertising, then fade away. Often you see them around election time, but they're also active between election cycles, shaping public opinion about very specific issues.
The problem isn't that Democratic organizations are "top down", it's that there isn't anyone on the left organizing and managing PACs to do this kind of short-term messaging about pieces of legislation or the actions of the Republicans and their leadership, saying things that the longer-term and larger organizations might not be willing or able to say at a particular time.
My granddaughter is comms specialist for Emily's List and I'm amazed at how effectively they are managed. They're a one issue PAC and they're staffed at a level that is amazingly fluid and reactive. They are also not equipped to expose Republicans other than political opponents to their recruited candidates.
The Democratic Party and it's institutional allies are as you describe: screrotic. We got outcampaigned by a foolish egomaniac who knows how to rally his troops on air and very little else.
We lost the campaign and are losing the time since. We are led by folks who are not commited to winning the way Trump is. We failed to make our case agsinst this crazy man. Crazy as a fox.
Now, we will watch the deconstruction of our liberal norms and live through Trump's irrational pettyness and hateful revenge.
Keep up the analysis, Thomas. We're listening.
I had to look “sclerotic” up. Good use of the word.
Thomas, how do you or me or anyone change the Democratic Party’s decision-making process to be more agile as you suggest? Do you run for some sort of party office to get the authority to make structural modifications? I’d vote for you.
Although I am not a constitutional scholar, if I understand Griffin’s argument correctly, he is stating that votes should be invalidated for individuals who registered to vote but did not comply with a regulation enacted after their registration. This argument appears to involve "ex post facto" considerations, which clearly violate the following constitutional provisions:
• Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: This clause restricts Congress from passing any ex post facto laws. It states, "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
• Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: This clause restricts states from passing any ex post facto laws.
These provisions ensure that laws do not apply retroactively, upholding the principle of fairness and protecting individuals from being punished for an act that was not illegal at the time it was committed. Therefore, if a court attempts to apply a new law or a new interpretation of an existing law to an action that was committed before the new law or interpretation took effect, it should be deemed unconstitutional.
If my reasoning is correct, why is this matter still in the court system at public expense? These funds could be used to assist with the rebuilding efforts in Western NC communities.
Doug, you are right, but I think courts have circumvented this prohibition of ex post facto laws by declaring that the clause applies only to criminal laws (in spite of the clause plainly not being limited to criminal laws). Sometimes judges lie to reach the ends they desire, just like other people sometimes do. That’s a particularly big problem when you get a majority of judges at the highest courts who value the same ends above the rule of law. The Court becomes an advocacy group for political ends instead of an advocacy group for the law.
The check against that happening is the popular vote, but when the popular vote favors the likes of anti-constitutional candidates, the popular vote fails as a check.
Walter, I understand that while the Ex post facto clause specifically pertains to criminal law, certain principles of fairness inherent in this clause may influence judicial considerations in civil cases, although they are not directly governed by it.
In bodied in ex post facto is due process. My training prohibits me from using the word lie in connection with judicial matters. I prefer the word ERROR. It is human to error, but against policy to forgive.
The “Government actions” here retroactively affect fundamental rights unfairly can be contested on due process grounds, even if the matter is not criminal. Voting is acknowledged as a fundamental right essential to democracy.
In Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, the Supreme Court invalidated a retroactive statute affecting employee health benefits, underscoring the importance of fairness under the Due Process Clause. Similarly, in Montgomery v. Louisiana, the Court examined the retroactive application of a previous ruling, highlighting issues related to retro-activity and due process concerns.
1. Where are our billionaires? I don't think we have any.
2. In my opinion, the Democratic Party's executive committee plan of organization prevents the party's rapid response as it seems its primary purpose is to keep our "alliance of interest groups" together.
I totally agree with Thomas. Now, at the time when the Democrats are in total disarray, knowing that we have to change our positive message, we should go negative to the extent that we call out every Republican action, tactic, and strategy that trashes our traditional, American and Democratic traditions. Call out every lie , every time they cheat, every action they take that insults democracy, and ads to economic and financial and inequality.
You asked where are our Billionaires. Think of them like investors. Our party hasn’t shown them we’re smart enough and quick-responding enough to spend their money effectively. Like us, they want to win. Build a responsive organization with a core purpose and a focused message and they will come. But we need to do the groundwork to justify their investing.
.
The Republicans show their Billionaires that their money gets their desired results.
A big problem for us Democrats is that our efforts and campaigns are financed with modest individual contributions. During the campaign I would receive about 40-50 emails and text messages every day. After the campaign it did not stop and is still goes on now, but to a lesser degree. I am sick of it! Then there are the issue campaigns which in many cases are basically scamming operations that ask for money for campaigns that are presently an impossibility. Take for example, pleadings for cash to “repeal Citizens United.” Citizens United is a Supreme Court decision that will only be changed by replacing at least 2-3 current Supreme Court justices. That will take decades to occur. Where do the raised funds now go?
As Joe Trippi says, the tipple match BS (he uses the actual words) that's all Democrats took away from the Howard Dean campaign. The Republicans on the other hand learned that you could actually use those contacts to organize and create alternative communication networks.
I think your criticism on this issue is misplaced. Anderson Clayton and other state Democrats have been talking about this issue on a daily basis and effectively so. Their tactics have been good, such as publishing the names of the voters sought to be disenfranchised. But they probably don’t have the money for the type of ad campaign you are pushing.
This is excellent. It will be shared widely.
For anyone who missed today's Bryan Anderson's chat with Anderson Clayton, NCDP Voter Protection Dir Cat Lawson, retired NC Supreme Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr, and one other...I strongly recommend checking that out. Bryan Anderson is a bit more strict about his paywall, but he has a lot of absolutely original content re NC.
As with Howard's too. Greatly appreciated both.
There's another issue and it's money. Right now, Allison Riggs is raising money for her lawyers. The reason that 5 of the Democrats running for Council of State seats lost is because they didn't have the money for the TV ads. Thomas, have you contacted the NCDP or Allison Riggs or others with the idea of TC ads?
What is a “TC ad”?
The Democratic Cavalry is not coming. I’m done supporting them.
Yep. Where indeed are our messengers? Tired, I'm sure, been a rough winter, but being first in a battle like this matters. First and loudest. C'mon, folks!
The other issue with the dems is that they "allow" the special interests to get in the way of many messages
The GOP mandate a talking point for the week/day/hour and everybody in the eco-system toes the line and carries.. no one is upset that their pet schtck is not on the TV this week... they know it will come around and then be amplified to the heavens.
GOP message gets heard loud and clear. Dem message? Lost in the noise
Very insightful. I've always thought that the Democratic party, as a whole, has a respect for the truth that the GOP neither share or in some cases may not be aware of. Tired of hearing that both side lie or at least exaggerate? because I am. there is no equivalency and in their case it must be contagious. I think we must be much more aggressive in defending the truth and calling out liars. In 2026 there are 33 US Senate seats up for election. The Republicans defend 20 seats and the Dems only 13. There are only two seats held by Democrats that went to Trump in 2024 (by miniscule margins). We're pretty sure what lies in wait for our friend Thom Tillis.
We know the midterms in the US House favor the party not in power (2022) and I'm convinced we will take congress and impeach Trump. We will know their fears by watching SCOTUS and see if Thomas and Alito retire before 2026.
So far as I can tell, Thomas Mills and Rachel Maddow are the only folks leading the charge. Where is everybody? Hellooooo! The Holidays came and went. Time to get on our high horse!
John Flannery’s daily YouTube walks and talks are straight up. His background as former federal prosecutor lends tons of history and background. This week he’s been on Ari Melber.
I think you might be mixing up the purpose of national or state organizations, like the Human Rights Campaign, and these smaller and more focused right-wing PACs and organizations that pop up for awhile and go away.
HRC and some of the other groups you mention really work more like the Heritage Foundation - they're big efforts with certain goals that do lobbying and work directly with lawmakers. Their public efforts are more general and broad-based.
The right has perfected the art of these special purpose PACs that pop up, do a bunch of advertising, then fade away. Often you see them around election time, but they're also active between election cycles, shaping public opinion about very specific issues.
The problem isn't that Democratic organizations are "top down", it's that there isn't anyone on the left organizing and managing PACs to do this kind of short-term messaging about pieces of legislation or the actions of the Republicans and their leadership, saying things that the longer-term and larger organizations might not be willing or able to say at a particular time.
My granddaughter is comms specialist for Emily's List and I'm amazed at how effectively they are managed. They're a one issue PAC and they're staffed at a level that is amazingly fluid and reactive. They are also not equipped to expose Republicans other than political opponents to their recruited candidates.