Gerrymandering and the Benjamins did Nina Turner in, and sent Shontel Brown to Washington DC, agenda in tow?

 The idea is from DWT, here, stating in part -

Nina Turner Won In Cleveland & Akron, But Got Creamed In The Jewish Suburbs

Nina Turner vs Mark Mellman

Last Tuesday, centrist corporate Democrat Shontel Brown beat progressive Nina Turner 37,666 (50.2%) to 33,420 (44.5%) [winning margin of 4246 votes]. As Matt Karp explained for Jacobin readers, "Turner won five of Cleveland’s nine black-majority wards and lost four (all of them narrowly, by less than two points). She won the city of Cleveland overall, as well as the black-majority city of Akron."

And that leads to the question everyone is wondering: "If Turner outperformed [Cori] Bush among black working-class voters, why did she lose while Bush won? In Ohio-11, the key difference came in the more affluent suburbs.

[...] Yes, Brown also did well in black working-class suburbs near her home base of Warrensville Heights, which she has represented as a city and county council member for over a decade. But by far the heaviest blow against Turner came in the richer burbs. In just six suburban towns-- Pepper Pike, Beachwood, Orange, Broadview Heights, University Heights, and Shaker Heights-- Brown netted 4,390 votes over Turner, more than her total margin of victory.

This is just one special election. The progressive left as a whole still has work to do to win over working-class black voters.

But for pessimistic observers tempted to over-read the results-- either as an ideological defeat for the Left, or a repudiation of Turner’s confrontational style-- the actual results in Northeastern Ohio offer a measure of hope.

Nina Turner, after all, referred to the sitting Democratic president as “half a bowl of shit,” and the establishment spent millions making sure every Democratic primary voter in her district knew about it. She still won Cleveland, Akron, and-- probably-- a larger share of black working-class voters than most victorious progressives. Her defeat is a setback for the Left, but it was nothing like a defeat for class politics.

And then there's this:

[click the image to enlarge and read - it is important]

DMFI-- Democratic Majority For Israel PAC-- is a racist organization funded by conservatives-- both Democrats and Republicans-- and headed by racist swine Mark Mellman. It sure looks like they spent more money smearing Nina than all the other groups spent in the race combined. Shontel Brown won in the Jewish neighborhoods, where Nina was painted as an anti-Semite, a lie. Greater Cleveland is home to nearly 100,000 Jews, many of the more recent ones, extremely right-wing Orthodox Jews, in Lakewood and Tremont, where Brown (the not-Nina-Turner-candidate) won overwhelmingly. [...]

And that is gerrymandering in its essence. A heavily Dem district, where if Black voting is evenly split, the rich Jewish burbs hold the hammer. Brown is cogent enough to know the hand that fed her win, and will not bite the hand. 

So, is the story only local? Or is it a nationwide way of weakening the power of black progressive voters by such district packaging? 

A related question: What can progressives do about it, when fair districting is always absent; two parties trying to game each other while allowing some incumbencies to florish into senile seniority, each side, by the way Gov. Gerry did things, back then? 

Last thought - that spending chart proves elections can be bought, clearly so, which means they will be. If I were in charge wanting to engineer fairness into things, I'd be assassinated.

 

UPDATE: Hello, NIna. Think about this -----

United States Senators from Ohio Contact your Senator Name Politics Residence Term Expires Rob Portman Republican Terrace Park 01/03/2023 Sherrod Brown Democrat Akron 01/03/2025
Mellman's Benjamins will be spread nationwide, 2022, and Nina Turner running against Portman would be a lightning rod for individual small-dollar large-volume progressive donors. Turner would stand out in a crowded field. Turner should file tomorrow, or today if the papers are ready. Start the donor interest.

A very sad and disturbing story of dumb young people, one ending dead, others facing prison - a story which would not have happened under sane recreatioal marijuana law.

 Link. Are there studies about how this kind of situation is quelled in states where allowed and taxed recreational marijuana sale is readily available? Where you go to the store to buy? Where risk of injury or death is not a part of wanting to recreationaly use mj? 

One expects such error does not happen after legalization, but having definitive studies to bolster the argument in favor of legalization would surely help make progress, even among hide-bound drug warriors, with libertarians saying, "Why not?"

It seems the reported situation is more troubling because it did not have to happen, had going to the store to buy been an option to dealing in shady ways with shady, dangerous people. As in sanity says, legalize it. Regulate it. Tax it. Put the thuggish dimension of things into the past. Repurpose related policing toward better use of police resources. Taxation could help fund reform/retraining of officers, while the ones in it for love of having a heavy badge could be easily weeded out, kicked off the force with a record, to where moving to another jurisdiction is forestalled.

It just makes sense.

UPDATE: FOX9 - same story. When you lack buy it at the store safety, things happen. It is a message deserving repetition. Said often enough - The wisdom may sink in.

Dan Burns is writing critically about me? Oh no. The HORROR. Or - not exactly, there are counter arguments.

 Link at Left.mn

And notice how artfully the following quote teases about the antecedent thought so that readers will be motivated to go there and read - 

Now, below, the ending of that post Dan published.

Which is related to another manifestation, which is those who publicly scaremonger worst-case scenarios every chance they get, because if the worst does happen, they can point out that they were right. And if good things happen instead, well, everyone’s happy enough to forget about what an incessant bummer they were.

Getting back on point, the key question is whether all the negativity from the professional online left significantly depresses our voter turnout. I don’t know the answer to that. There has been substantial research done on whether attack-ad campaigning really works (with many researchers saying it doesn’t, but obviously most candidates’ campaign teams aren’t buying it). But I haven’t been able to find anything, really, about whether all the scaremongering aimed at our own side helps, hurts, or neither, in terms of winning elections.

I strongly suspect that the staffs at places like Daily Kos are themselves unsure about this. But as noted before, the bottom line is that they’ll do what they have to do, to get enough donations to keep going. And the only thing that will change that is if people in general start responding more enthusiastically to more positive messaging. And given how fundamental negativity bias is, that’s hard to see happening.

Well, "professional online left" and "they’ll do what they have to do, to get enough donations to keep going" give an easy footing for denial. If people want to give me money, line up, I will take it, but this blog has no advertising, paywall, or other such structure, and I do not solicit. As one Republican once said to me, "If they contribute it is because they like what I have stood for and done. But once they give my campaign their money, it's my campaign's money and I owe them nothing." That got that politician through the need of money to effectively run. Whether hedged in the least or a hundred percent solution.

The nub is that in ways I have been less negative than Dan - who saw Trump as far worse than I did - Trump got us into no Bush wars, and had no Nixon's Kissinger, so worse things than Trump have happened. Beyond that, I am positive. I see evolution of a third party and ultimate movement to Medicare for All as inevitable, just not likely in my lifetime even if I live to a hundred. I hold the positive hope that prols on the right will ultimately see that prols on the left are not the enemy; but that the enemy is the money driving the divide and conquer ploy is the common enemy. Again, a likelihood in my lifetime is not postured, reality being real, but inevitable change is not only my hope but also my expectation. I am vexed by the Education Question, because a ghost in the current machine does turn out Trump voters, and Clinton fans, so some manner of reform is needed.

I read Breitbart less for their slant in writing than to see what they editorially choose to emphasize that CNN sorts suppress while pointing at other stuff. It is the same with RT and aljazeera.com - and left.mn - a "what else" curiosity.

But as to Biden - he always came across as both a mean fucker and a deep conservative, so I hold no illusions after having voted for him with Trump the other choice. And he became a millionaire as a career politician, which is vexing.

That is not negative thinking. It is according reality its due respect. I do not clutch pearls over 2022 perhaps shifting both Houses of Congress Republican, and if that happens Biden will experience a harder time than Clinton, cigar and such, experienced. Money will feature rather than indiscretion, but he is in the kitchen so he knows the heat may be dialed up if schlock Dem candidates are recognized as schlock, with turnout being uninspired to turn out. What happens will be weathered.

Getting to one last detail, Dan wrote, "Getting back on point, the key question is whether all the negativity from the professional online left significantly depresses our voter turnout."

Much more words should have been added to that loaded sentence as to who "our" represents, in Dan's mind. That is where I suspect he and I diverge in viewpoint.

I am an independent because of a strong compelling belief both party establishments suck. Degrees of conservatism exist, yes, but conservatism is conservatism either way. I think Dan sees it a bit differently. I do not see Dan posting ever the sidebar "Yoda teaches" item, but I believe most sincerely that he should shift a bit in that direction; for us (citizenry of the U.S. of A.) to have a chance.

__________UPDATE_________

A long update: I sent Dan notice I was critiquing his post, and his response is worth posting - that his concern with some range of progressive posting currently on the internet is over "whether it helps sustain non-participation based on general cynicism, disgust, and/or defeatism. That's been going on since long, long before progressive blogs, or for that matter the internet, came to be." 

He is correct. It is a worry that some practical level of wisdom is needed to understand the adage, half-a-loaf is better than no bread at all.

If you do not get what you want, yes, continue to want more. But don't be a counterproductively sore loser. I am incensed that Clyburn's finger on  the balance did what it did and I cannot do one thing about it while establishment figures in the Dem party like what he did, and like Biden-Harris. 

That pair, short of a half-loaf for certain, was still a better offering than stale bug-ridden bread offered in its place, a/k/a Mr. Trump; Mr. Pence.

Hence, as a practical matter, I bit the bullet and voted Biden-Harris, with another old saying coming to mind, don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

In 2022, after Dem primaries, there will be the choice, Dem vs GOP, with the scale tipped by nose-count - i.e., that even a Joe Manchin votes with Bernie on Senate leadership and organization. 

Yet, the opinion here, is once you see what you like and do not like as much, follow your instincts to put your always limited contribution budget where you see it doing the most good. 

An example - I would croak before having to give even a single dollar to Schumer's DSCC, instead wanting to see who runs where with whatever apparent general election chances; and optimize my giving toward the most promising options in terms of quality and politics - and likelihood of winning - be it among federal or more local government office seekers.

In short, spend smart. You don't gain by being intransigent, since that can segue into stupid, blind vindictiveness. 

As an immediate example, Shontel Brown won her primary against Nina Turner, who to me was a clearly higher quality choice. Brown, against some Republican, be it a Trumpist, neocon war monger, whoever, would be superior, even in the hold your nose and vote for the better of two unappealing choices. 

Surely that promotes progressives being taken for granted and thought to not need cultivation by the Clintons, Pelosis, Clyburns and Klobuchars of Dem politics. 

However, taking a wrong stand where progress gains nothing and obstreperousness benefits a worse outcome seldom meets the, "Well, I'll show them" intent, since "they" are hard-headed too, and will take offense. 

It is a dilemma where again the answer here is pick-and-choose your "statements" to where they may be effective, and will minimize negative consequence such as one or both Houses of Congress going GOP.

Ultimately, I figure Burns and I think in harmony, with him less distressed by inevitable compromise. 

The feeling, however, remains that flagging his post was a positive step. And, indeed, I had my line in the sand with Goldman-Sach's six hundred grand to Ms. Clinton personally and not to a campaign, and I voted accordingly. Third party. 

Trump won, and that should have been a lesson to run higher quality, but Biden? Why, why, why, why? 

Both times it was a real stinker of a choice. I fault Clyburn for it, second time around.

A Minnesota jurist dumps his fandom for the Vikings professional football team - for an excellent reason. Opinions can differ.

 Strib link. Headline and excerpt -

I'm through with the Vikings

Cousins' apparent vaccine refusal has me reassessing my loyalty once more. 

By Paul H. Anderson -- August 5, 2021

 

[...] I was once an avid Vikings fan. Sunday afternoons centered around their games, chips, hot sauce, a good beer and the company of a good friend. That ended after I heard and then authored the Minnesota Supreme Court's opinion in the case dealing with the death of lineman Korey Stringer.

That opinion describes the negligent disregard the Vikings exhibited for Stringer's well-being, a disregard that resulted his death. What transpired with respect to Stringer was so disturbing that for years I could not bring myself to watch a Vikings game.

The team did institute some reforms, which allowed my interest in the Vikings to return, especially during Brett Favre's first year with the Vikings. That renewed interest was short lived, however. It ended quickly during the New Orleans playoff game when the New Orleans coaches, enabled by incompetent referees, promoted a vicious on-the-field assault upon Favre.

[... Present Vikings starting quarterback Kirk Cousins declines Covid vaccination.] The apparent failure of this $31 million salary-cap player to be vaccinated is unwise and demonstrates a profound lack of loyalty to his teammates and Vikings fans. I am unable to find rational scientific, philosophical, theological or ethical grounds to support his decision.

Cousins is a native of Holland, Mich., and a graduate of Holland Michigan Christian School, a legacy he shares with the likes of Betsy DeVos and her brother Erik Prince. Holland has a strong Dutch Reformed Christian tradition dominated by postmillennial evangelical fundamentalist thinking. This may explain, in part, Cousin's apparent refusal to get vaccinated. Many who share these religious beliefs believe it is against God's will to get vaccinated and that God will protect them from COVID-19.

[...] What Cousins and others like him fail to comprehend is that God is protecting us. God has given humankind the ability to discover, within a very short time, a vaccine that protects us from this deadly disease. I believe that it is God's will that we accept this gift and get vaccinated. It is wrong for us not to accept God's grace.

Cousins' decision has caused me to reassess my interest in the Vikings. I ask why should I once again invest time and loyalty in a team whose franchise player is so willing to toy with that loyalty?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian executed by the Nazis said, "Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice." He said we are often defenseless against stupidity because stupidity is deaf to reason and pushes facts aside, treating them as inconsequential.

[italics added] Of course one can applaud scientific achievement without any recourse to mythological constructs. Anderson does otherwise, but that is him thinking like a lawyer. That is not the message. The message is italicized in the last quoted paragraph, and applies to Trump voters, Cleveland Shontel Brown voters, and space-takers in the White House and both houses of Congress. Of which some are rational thinkers, the bought ones, licking the feeding hand, not biting.

As the Crabgrass headline notes, opinions can differ. Beyond that, Cousins is not Farve, not Brady, not Rogers. Nor Broadway Joe. Not a big-stage winner. Given the contract, yes. Deserving that contract and pay level, you decide, vaccine or not. The impecunious unquestioning market-loving capitalist will say the market worked, the contract exists. Again, the message is the italicized content in the final quoted paragraph. The super-wealthy capitalists, the Bloombergs among us, will say the system works like clockwork. We built it that way, bought, paid for. 

Our way or the highway.

DWT author Howie Klein wrote of the Nina Turner defeat.

Link, in part -

 One of Nina's early backers, Marianne Williamson, told me this morning that "Turner’s defeat feels like it might be the final nail in the coffin, an end to any illusion that corporatist Democratic leadership will allow a progressive to get anywhere near the seat of power. It’s like they feel they were out-maeuvered by the squad getting past the gates and they’re going to make sure it doesn’t happen again. They used every trick in the book, every cheap and nasty and corrupt tool in their toolbox, to defeat Nina's extraordinary American voice for the people and instead bring in a party pol who will presumably do as she is told. Where we go with that I’m not sure. But after two elections in which Bernie’s candidacies were suppressed, my own experience as a presidential candidate, and now Nina’s defeat at the hands of their shenanigans, I’m at the point you come to in any relationship when you realize the other person isn’t going to change and it’s ridiculous to think they will."

She said that she'll "continue to work hard for grassroots Democratic candidates. But we need to start thinking about 2024 and this makes it clear that all Democrats will be willing to offer is a Biden, Harris, Amy, Pete, or some facsimile thereof; any progressive running for the nomination will be on a fool’s errand. Once again, I don’t know the answer. But according to the poet Rilke, when you don’t know the answer you simply live the question. The answer will come. In the meantime, my heart is with Nina today. She fought the good fight. She didn’t win the political war but she won the moral one. She stood up for the people, she stood up for justice and she stood up for love." Please consider helping Marianne support progressive candidates by clicking on the thermometer above and contributing what you can.

" I’m at the point you come to in any relationship when you realize the other person isn’t going to change and it’s ridiculous to think they will," reads as if Rilke's resolution might be third party. Likely the contemplation of the rift would be greater than the rift itself, if the gumption develops to do it. Resuming -

One of those candidates is Alexandra Hunt, running against a garden variety status quo Democratic incumbent. Today Hunt told me that "Nina’s race demonstrates the corruption of the establishment and just how far they’ll go to maintain power with a spread of lies and manipulative tactics. Progressive power comes from hope & our relentless belief in a better world (and certainly not from a lack of integrity). Nina Turner’s run is inspirational. More of us need to run and run hard. Winning an election is a stepping stone-- the mission is to bring down the machine. My takeaway from Nina’s race is how important it is for progressives to work together as a team and just how concerned the establishment is of the left gaining power. It means we’re close."

Saying, "the mission is to bring down the machine" is reminiscent of Leonard Cohen's, "They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom, for trying to change the system from within," as opening lines of First We Take Manhattan, And Then We Take Berlin. And - we do not need to take Berlin, whether Rilke would want it or not.

Continuing - 

Alan Grayson has a strong sense of history. This morning he suggested we ask "these right-wing Democrats-- who take such pride in beating a progressive-- what plan they have for avoiding the Great New Dem Apocalypse next year. They have no plan." Yeah... but at least they beat Nina, a powerful advocate for working families.

Another strong progressive is Mayor Bryan Osorio, who is taking on David Valadao in the Central Valley of California. "As we continue to hear and read about Ohio’s Democratic primary results, I hope we don’t forget about the significance of Nina Turner’s exceptional ability to energize young voters and volunteers. She represents a growing base of progressive candidates that stand up to corporate interests and understand Americans’ frustration with status quo politics. And, as we ask ourselves, how are we going to win in 2022? It means reflecting on how Democrats can acknowledge the significance of progressive politics and candidates. Young people simply don’t represent 2022 voters. They represent voters of future elections where environmental disasters, the student debt crisis, the housing crisis, and other issues will continue dominating political rhetoric if bold policies aren’t supported now. Yesterday’s results might seem like a loss to the progressive movement, but we know it’s far from over. In districts all across the country, we will continue fighting and advocating until more of us are in Congress fighting for working-class families and our futures."

Jason Call, who is flying back to Washington state and his own congressional campaign today, after spending a week canvassing with Nina, noted that "The establishment has corporate money and character assassination, and apparently that’s good enough to muddy the waters and sway public opinion. Ohio’s 11th passed on the opportunity to have a real champion for the working class, the poor, and marginalized communities. We will have to pause and do some deep analysis on what happened and why. Being on the ground here for over a week, I truly believed this was a winnable seat. My concern now is that whatever we do to rebound from this includes some solidarity building on the left, and to not let a loss like this further divide us."

As to the thinking in there of the young as the future, facing the sellouts of today and effect of the selling, there is on the Trump side a simmering rage to face, as troublesome, tending toward dangerousness.

 

Cleveland voted, plus a Republican Ohio seat went for a Trump surrogate.

 LA Times report. Both contests.

Glad to not be living in Ohio. It is as it is.

A lot of money was spent.

Turner clearly was favored here.

Clyburn? Second win, Biden now this.

Don't like what you cannot change? Welcome to the club.

If people do not want better healthcare and reins on Big Pharma, there is nothing I can do to change it. The Republicans are the ones pissing over K-12 education in the nation. Something in the process is not working toward progress. Progressives should be looking at the other end of how education produces voters who do as they do, rioters who riot for Trump. When they could have been rioting about how crooked the Capitol crowd is, instead.

The Chinese will soon eat our lunch. Taking over a planet past a climate tipping point, and there are so many of them. If we lacked the power to brain-drain other nations we'd be in deep trouble. Best and brightest vote Shontrel? Get real.

It is nothing to stop the world spinning on its axis, but it is a sign of distress.

________UPDATE_______

The bankers, billionaires, Republican and other conservatives have shills, who will  gloat, the entire nutshell of evidence of this, an op-ed The Hill ran, ending:

Turner's loss in Ohio underscores anew the reality that the left's voice is more pronounced than their votes.

Al Hunt is the former executive editor of Bloomberg News. He previously served as reporter, bureau chief and Washington editor for the Wall Street Journal. For almost a quarter century he wrote a column on politics for The Wall Street Journal, then The International New York Times and Bloomberg View. He hosts Politics War Room with James Carville. Follow him on Twitter @AlHuntDC.

At least Turner had enough class to not blame her loss on James Comey. Nor did she bullshit about an election being stolen. She's not an asshole that way.

This was a special election with the seat up again in 2022. Without trying to research the question, under Ohio law is there any bar to Turner running as an Independent in 2022? There's one top notch Independent in the Senate who's been voting on organizing with the Democrats (it got him a Committee chair); so having one in the House doing the same would have equal charm. 

In a general election where gerrymandering makes Republicans irrelevant in Ohio CD11, how would Brown-Turner shake out in such a general election?

Surely Turner could again seek the seat in 2022 as a Democrat. The question is whether more good would result, win or lose, if she ran Independent?

FURTHER: Brown, in turn, should consider a 2022 Senate run against Portman. (Becoming the second sitting Ohio Senator named Brown.) She's on a roll. 

Schumer needs another female of color in the Senate with Harris having moved upstairs. Indeed, Ohio like California is a populous state. Ms. Brown could use Harris as a template. Being less abrasive than Harris, her career upgrade chances would be interesting. It would be Pelosi wanting a good foot soldier to stay and Schumer having a shot at another nose to count, the two with friction between them over who best could utilize one such as Ms. Brown. It would be worth popping popcorn to sit and see that drama play out.

FURTHER: Of interest, word searching, =Brown, and =Ohio, no hits on the Breitbart homepage, https://www.breitbart.com/,  i.e., NOT quickly featuring or even covering the Trumpist's win in Ohio CD15.

Why not? 

Equally informative, compare, that site, word search = border.

Cleveland votes Aug. 3

 Latest Guardian coverage.

___________UPDATE__________

While that election will say much about urban national mood, federal spending may or may not happen, one way, or another. Juxtapose two directions.

The Clinton-Podesta loser bloc, saying and trying to convince us that real and actual progressives have been "defanged" by Biden in a simplistic way. That is throwing a gauntlet, whether the suggestion proves true or false.

Where the rubber will meet the road: Insistence over The Green New Deal has been reemphasized, symbolically, and by House members in an arguably stronger counter gauntlet throw.

Either the House members holding swing-vote power back up their intent with action, or cave in, by declining to kill the Republican Senate/Biden "infrastructure" joke/insult (which kisses the rear of fossil fuel wealth (them roads, them bridges) while showing a direct intentional blindness to any and all climate worry). 

Whichever way things unfold will be a key observation related to things to come, and arguably the Cleveland special election outcome dynamics strengthen one bloc or the other. 

Dem labor unions are frothing at the mouth for jobs/jobs/jobs to the point of being willing to see climate considerations thrown under the bus. Biden has that part of things in his back pocket. 

The Choice: Kill the bill if climate is not suitably and sincerely addressed, or tell the Podesta-Clinton operation's post author "You nailed it."

Compromise of one sort or another may kick the can down the road, but Dem hopes for the 2022 election will not be helped, the longer the problem lingers.

The feeling here is you either carry out killing the bad bill, or you become irrelevant and powerless. Related links, Axios. CBS, Common Dreams, The Hill.

BOTTOM LINE: If when the time comes progressives are unwilling to "Manchin" their leverage, they have none.