Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kansas and Oklahoma

I just have to point out that there's a chance each of those states may soon have a Democratic governor.

It's not likely that all 5 will, and it would be devastating if we lose all 5 of those races. But it's pretty remarkable that they could each have a Democratic governor.

Edit: I regret that I hadn't included Arizona.

9-year-old boy commits suicide after being bullied.

Update on the transgender student who was threatened by parents.

If we want to do long-term damage to the Republican Party...

Democrats must hammer home the message that the rise of Trump (and the enabling of Trump) or someone like him was the inevitable result of 50 years of Republican rhetoric and policy. With an immense amount of help from an irresponsible infotainment industry that chases ratings, promotes false equivalencies, denies responsibility for fact-checking, and often implies that every statement is an equally valid opinion (there are no facts, there are no lies; there are only opinions), all in the name of boosting profits and not upsetting advertisers. It's not enough for a few pundits on MSNBC or CNN to state the obvious.

When Trump is gone, I guarantee you that the dominant narrative will be that everything is hunky-dory, that Trump was merely a bump in the road. Unless Democrats preemptively establish a different, more honest narrative.

The Republican Party has fomented and exploited racism (including xenophobia), sexism, religious bigotry, jingoism and extreme selfishness for decades. The pre-Trump Republican Party is directly responsible for Trump. They need to own that, which the anti-Trump Republicans who appear on TV or who are retiring from Congress aren't doing--they're all pushing this idea that the pre-Trump Republican Party was just fine. When in reality they need to make drastic changes or close shop and let a new party fill the void.

If Democrats don't start hammering home that message (which, yes, involves taking the media to task via the media...something Republicans started doing decades ago to great success) and take control of the narrative, the post-Trump Republican Party and the media will claim all is well because we've returned to normalcy. As if that's acceptable. As if everything was just fine pre-Trump. As if the Republican Party hasn't long been built upon a foundation of bigotry, greed and lies. As if the Republican Party hasn't long been morally and ethically bankrupt. As if the Republican Party hasn't relied heavily upon race-based gerrymandering and voter suppression. As if the "liberal media" lie of the last 30+ years wasn't bullshit from day one.

It would be a mistake to think the Mueller investigation and removal of Trump and convictions for other Republicans will be enough to destroy the Republican Party as we know it. Memories and attention spans are short. Democrats must establish the dominant narrative, or Republicans will. And repetition is utilized for a reason. It works, and it's necessary. Make Republicans own the monster they've created. The monster isn't Trump but the environment that gave rise to the Republican Party of Trump.

Why are "Democratic Socialists" attempting to establish a whole new definition of socialism?

We've already had discussions on DU about what socialism is, and that's not my purpose here. It's indisputable that there is a long-standing, established definition--and it's not what is being advocated by Democratic Socialists. It doesn't seem, at least, like any of the prominent Democratic Socialists are advocating for actual socialism. Instead, Sanders (and I imagine other Democratic Socialists) advocate for Social Democracy (the Nordic Model).

What I can't understand, for the life of me, is why they've chosen to conflate Social Democracy and socialism (with the latter being extremely polarizing, and also widely misunderstood--by supposed adherents, as well as opponents). Why not just call yourself a Social Democrat? Social Democracy already exists, it is most definitely not socialism, and Sanders frequently praises the Nordic Model (understandably so).

So, why?!? Why identify as a Democratic Socialist? Why go to the trouble of trying to re-define socialism when it's absolutely unnecessary? This just seems to me to be an incredibly idiotic choice. If you want to promote (understandably) the Nordic Model, why shoot your cause in the foot?

I really don't get it.

It's amazing Democrats do as well as we do.

When I consider all of the barriers in our way (gerrymandering, voter suppression, the infotainment industry, Russia, and a system that lends itself to overrepresentation of rural America), it speaks volumes that Democrats have as much power as we have (and are likely to have next year).

Should we be rooting for Kobach?

Do we have any Kansas experts here?

Kelly has a better shot against Kobach than against Colyer, right?

How likely is it that Kelly becomes governor of Kansas?

***Edit: That last question (about Kelly's chances) is what I should have led with. In a Democratic-friendly year, is there any chance a Democrat gets elected governor of Kansas? More specifically, is Kelly capable of winning?

Junior admitted publicly over a year ago that the meeting...

...was called for the purpose of getting info about Clinton. So, why is it news that Senior repeated that admittance this morning?

If he were to admit that he knew about the meeting ahead of time or that he participated in the meeting, that would be news.

But admittance regarding the purpose of the meeting is old news. Are folks just hard up for excitement on a lazy Sunday?

I'm not saying this whole matter isn't a big deal. It is, of course. But I don't get the reaction to this morning's tweet.

So-called "feel-good" stories that "ought to make you throw up."