#The New York Times Siena poll is all by phone

[in-sightjournal]

Ask A Genius 979: The Never-Book "Dumbass Genius"

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: A question from someone else: When is your book coming out? Rick Rosner: Yeah, well, I don’t have an autobiography coming out. I semi-abandoned that. It’s still there if somebody wants to pay me to write it. But before that book comes out, I’m writing this other book that’s a more fictionalized version of what it’s like to be competent in the world with a whole different…

[beardedmrbean]

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden, in a letter to congressional Democrats, stood firm against calls for him to drop his candidacy and called for an end to the intraparty drama that has torn apart Democrats since his dismal public debate performance.

Biden's efforts to shore up a deeply anxious Democratic Party came Monday as lawmakers returned to Washington confronting a choice: Decide whether to work to revive his campaign or try to edge out the party leader, a make-or-break time for his reelection and their own political futures.

Biden wrote in the two-page letter that “the question of how to move forward has been well-aired for over a week now. And it’s time for it to end.” He stressed that the party has “one job,” which is to defeat presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in November.

“We have 42 days to the Democratic Convention and 119 days to the general election,” Biden said in the letter, distributed by his reelection campaign. “Any weakening of resolve or lack of clarity about the task ahead only helps Trump and hurts us. It’s time to come together, move forward as a unified party, and defeat Donald Trump.”

Anxiety is running high as top-ranking Democratic lawmakers are joining calls for Biden to step aside despite his defiance. At the same time, some of the president’s most staunch supporters are redoubling the fight for Biden’s presidency, insisting there’s no one better to beat Trump in what many see as among the most important elections of a lifetime.

Biden followed up the letter with a phone interview with MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” show, on which he insisted that “average Democrats” want him to stay in the race and said he was “frustrated” by the calls from party officials for him to step aside.

“They’re big names, but I don’t care what those big names think,” Biden said.

He threw the gauntlet at his critics, saying if they’re serious they ought to “announce for president, challenge me at the convention” or rally behind him against Trump.

Democratic voters are split on whether Biden should remain the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, or whether there should be a different Democratic nominee, according to a New York Times/Siena College poll.

As lawmakers weigh whether Biden should stay or go, there appear to be no easy answers.

It’s a tenuous and highly volatile juncture for the president’s party. Democrats who have worked alongside Biden for years — if not decades — and cherished his life's work on policy priorities are now entertaining uncomfortable questions about his political future. And it's unfolding as Biden hosts world leaders for the NATO summit this week in Washington.

Time is not on their side, almost a month from the Democratic National Convention and just a week before Republicans gather in Milwaukee to renominate Trump as their presidential pick. Many Democrats are arguing the attention needs to be focused not on Biden but on the former president's felony conviction in the hush money case and pending federal charges in his effort to overturn the 2020 election.

It's what Biden himself might call an inflection point. As he defiantly says he will only step aside if the Lord almighty comes and tells him to, Democrats in the House and Senate are deciding how hard they want to fight the president to change his course, or if they want to change course at all.

In an effort to “get on the same page,” House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries is convening lawmakers for private meetings before he shows his own preference, according to a person familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. He planned to gather on Monday some Democrats whose bids for reelection are most vulnerable.

A private call Sunday including some 15 top House committee members exposed the deepening divide as at least four more Democrats — Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state and Rep. Mark Takano of California — privately said Biden should step aside.

Nadler, as one of the more senior members on the call, was the first person to say that Biden should step aside, according to a person familiar with the call who was granted anonymity to discuss it. He did so aware of his seniority and that it would allow others to join him.

Many others on the call raised concerns about Biden’s capability and chance of winning reelection, even if they stopped short of saying Biden should step out of the race.

Still other members, including Rep. Maxine Waters of California and Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia, both leaders in the Congressional Black Caucus, spoke forcefully in support of Biden, as did Rep. Richard Neal of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the powerful Ways and Means Committee.

And several lawmakers appeared frustrated that leadership was not providing direction or a path forward, according to people familiar with the call. One Democratic lawmaker said regardless of the decision, the situation has to “end now,” one of the people said.

Neal said afterward that the bottom line is Biden beat Trump in 2020 and “he’ll do it again in November.”

The upheaval also is testing a new generation of leaders, headed by Jeffries and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. Both New Yorkers have refrained from publicly directing lawmakers on a path forward as they balance diverse opinions in their ranks.

Behind the scenes is Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, who continues to field calls from lawmakers seeking advice about the situation, and is widely viewed as the one to watch for any ultimate decision on Biden's future because of her proximity to the president and vote-counting skills in party politics.

Pelosi spoke up last week, saying Biden's debate performance raised “legitimate” questions he needed to answer, but she has remained supportive of the president. And Biden called her last week when he reached out to other party leaders.

When Biden's prime-time ABC interview on Friday appeared to do little to calm worried Democrats, and some said made the situation worse, Pelosi stepped forward to publicly praise Biden on social media as a “great President who continues to deliver for America’s kitchen table.” She added, "and we're not done yet!”

Schumer has kept a lower profile throughout the ordeal but will convene Democratic senators Tuesday for their weekly lunch when senators are certain to air many views.

One Democrat, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, had intended to gather senators Monday to discuss Biden privately, but a person familiar with his thinking said those conversations will take place in Tuesday’s regular caucus luncheon with all Democratic senators.

Another Democrat, Sen. Alex Padilla of California, said it was “time to quit the hand-wringing and get back to door knocking.”

Padilla spoke with Biden over the weekend, and urged his campaign to “let Joe be Joe.”

“Given the debate, I think the campaign has no choice,” Padilla said Sunday, explaining that Biden needs to hold town halls and unscripted events to show voters “the Joe Biden I know, and that most people in American have come to grow and love.”

While some deep-pocketed donors may be showing discomfort, strategists working on House and Senate races said they posted record fundraising as donors view congressional Democrats as a “firewall” and last line of defense against Trump.

House Democrats have had some of their better fundraising days yet, including a $3 million haul last Friday night after the debate at an event with former President Barack Obama and Jeffries in New York City. That’s on top of $1.3 million that rolled into the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during the debate and its immediate aftermath.

Senate Democrats are also seeing a “surge” of support, according to a national Democrat with knowledge of Senate races.

As Democratic candidates campaign alongside Biden, the advice has been to focus on building their own brands and amplifying the way the work that’s done in Congress affects their local districts.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Once in a blue moon, you see a poll that makes you blink twice to make sure you’re not seeing things. This morning’s ABC News/Washington Post survey of Wisconsin was just such a poll. It showed Joe Biden 17 points (not a typo) ahead of President Trump, 57 percent to 40 percent, among likely voters. To put it mildly, this is a stunning margin in what is supposed to be one of the most competitive swing states in the country — a place that Trump carried by less than 1 percentage point in 2016.

And this is not an easy poll to disregard. ABC News/Washington Post adheres to what we consider the gold-standard methodology (meaning they use live phone interviewers, call cell phones as well as landlines and participate in the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s Transparency Initiative or the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research archive) and earns an A+ grade in FiveThirtyEight’s pollster ratings database.1 The poll single-handedly increased Biden’s lead in our polling average of Wisconsin from 7.1 points to 9.0 points, and it is currently the most influential poll in our forecast of Wisconsin, where Biden’s chances of winning the state have reached a new high as a result — 93 in 100.

That said, ABC News/Washington Post is definitely an outlier; no other poll has shown Biden with that big of a lead in Wisconsin since June. (And then it was a Hodas & Associates poll sponsored by the conservative Restoration PAC that put Biden 17 points ahead.)

On the other hand, this poll doesn’t exactly exist in a vacuum. Biden has also gotten a lot of very strong polls from some of the states that border Wisconsin. To wit:

RABA Research was out with a poll yesterday showing Biden at 50 percent and Trump at 46 percent in Iowa. Last week, the A+ pollsters Monmouth University and Siena College/The New York Times Upshot found similar margins. Iowa, remember, is a fairly red state, having been carried by Trump by 9 points in 2016. And for the first time, our forecast now gives Biden a better chance than Trump of winning the state, although it’s still basically a coin flip (Biden’s odds are 51 in 100).

Yesterday, Gravis Marketing released a survey of Minnesota in which Biden led Trump by 14 points. Biden’s chances of winning Minnesota have now reached an all-time high of 94 in 100.

On Sunday, we also got a Gravis poll of Michigan that gave Biden a 13-point lead. That’s on top of last week’s Fox News poll of Michigan showing Biden 12 points ahead. And this morning, ABC News/Washington Post also released a Michigan poll giving Biden a smaller 7-point lead. Overall, our forecast gives Biden a 94 in 100 chance of winning the Wolverine State.

What might be going on here? Well, Biden has led in some of these states for a while, but it’s also possible that Trump could be losing support in the Midwest due to the recent spike in COVID-19 cases there. Much of Wisconsin is currently a hot spot; on Tuesday, the state reported more new cases (5,262) and deaths (64) than any other day of the pandemic. The same day, Iowa and Minnesota announced a record number of hospitalizations, and cases are on the rise in Michigan as well.

Nationally, the coronavirus is a losing issue for Trump — 58 percent of Americans disapprove of his handling of the pandemic, on average, compared with just 40 percent who approve — and Wisconsin is no different. According to ABC News/Washington Post, Trump’s net disapproval rating on the coronavirus in Wisconsin is -20 percentage points — double what it was in mid-September. And 63 percent of registered voters there say they are worried about catching COVID-19. What’s more, Biden leads by a whopping 75 percent to 22 percent among members of this bloc who say they are likely to vote.

As recently as Saturday, Trump said at a rally in the Milwaukee suburbs that the pandemic was winding down. But that’s clearly not the case in Wisconsin, or in these other Midwestern states that Trump probably needs in order to win reelection. (There’s a 20 percent chance that one of Wisconsin, Michigan or Minnesota will provide the decisive electoral vote, and Trump has a less than 1 in 100 chance of winning if he fails to carry Iowa.) The surge of illness in the region is obviously bad news first and foremost for its impact on people’s lives. But for an incumbent president widely seen as having failed on the issue of the pandemic and facing reelection in less than one week, it’s also terrible timing politically.

[day0one]

Warning signs keep mounting for Trump, from polls to primaries

America’s problems are significant, if not growing. The coronavirus pandemic is expanding with new cases once again, and the country’s shaky effort to climb out of its economic hole is at risk. Things won’t be back to normal anytime soon.

Things almost certainly won’t be back to normal by the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, the day when Americans head to the polls — or must have postmarked their ballots — to weigh in on whether President Trump deserves a second term. And as rocky as the country’s path forward seems at the moment, Trump’s path to a second term doesn’t seem much smoother.

The past 24 hours have brought more bad news for Trump after a rough few weeks. A spate of bad polls revealed his electoral weakness, as did his failure to generate promised turnout at a rally in Tulsa on Saturday. The negative implications of those two developments — that Trump is faring poorly both overall and with his ability to motivate his base — were bolstered by the news overnight.

Potential softness in Trump’s base When Trump appointed then-Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) to be his fourth chief of staff, Meadows’s seat in the House came up for grabs. On Tuesday, voters in the district went to the polls in the Republican primary to replace Meadows. Trump won the district by 17 points in 2016, so it’s safe to assume that the winner of the Republican primary would win the seat.

Both Meadows and Trump endorsed Lynda Bennett to replace Meadows. Trump did so twice on Twitter, declaring her both times to be “Strong on Crime, Borders, Military, our Great Vets & 2A” — promises that were part of his standard patter in 2018.

Bennett embraced the endorsement. The morning after the contest, her campaign website still touted Trump’s endorsement as the primary bit of information it presented to voters.

a screen shot of Donald Trump in a suit and tie: (Screen capture of Bennett's website, June 24, 2020.)(Screen capture of Bennett's website, June 24, 2020.) It didn’t work. Bennett was beaten easily by 24-year-old Madison Cawthorn, who, if he wins the general election, would become one of the youngest members of the House in history.

During the 2018 elections, Trump regularly touted his track record on primary endorsements as evidence of his political strength. Generally, that boasting was valid; his endorsed candidates did usually win Republican primaries. It was his general-election endorsements that had an iffy record, with about half of Trump’s endorsed candidates winning election in the year’s races. Later research suggested, in fact, that his endorsements in some general-election races might have cost Republicans more than a dozen seats.

But this year, even Trump’s party endorsements aren’t seeing much success. Ballotpedia has been tracking Trump’s endorsements, and, of the four general endorsements he has made (including at the state level) for which results have been determined, Trump is 0 for 4.

Not included in Ballotpedia’s endorsements was Trump’s tacit support for Todd McMurtry in Kentucky. Trump never endorsed McMurtry, but he did say this about his opponent, incumbent Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.):

In another tweet, Trump implored … someone to “throw Massie out of Republican Party!”

Massie won by 70 points, according to early results.

These are isolated examples, certainly. But it does suggest that Republican voters aren’t exclusively taking their cues from Trump. If that reflects a softness in support for Trump, the president might see lower turnout in November, if not Republicans bailing to support former vice president Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic Party nominee. This wouldn’t be the only indicator that the energy of Trump’s base is waning somewhat; polling offers similar hints.

Polling, of course, also has other bad news for Trump.

The national polling picture is growing worse When a CNN-SSRS poll determined that Trump was trailing Biden by 14 points, Trump went ballistic. He tweeted a laughable analysis of the poll, and his campaign followed it with an even more laughable lawsuit accusing CNN of bias. Since then, three other major polls have shown Biden with a double-digit lead: one from CNBC showing Biden up 10 points, one from Fox News showing him up 12 and, on Wednesday, one from the New York Times and Siena College showing him up once again by 14 points.

The Trump campaign’s legal team will apparently be busy filing specious lawsuits this month.

That spate of polls has pushed Biden’s lead in the RealClearPolitics polling average to more than 10 points, his largest lead since late last year, before Biden locked up the Democratic nomination. Trump has never led Biden in the RealClearPolitics polling average and, in fact, has never fared better than trailing Biden by four points.

a screenshot of a cell phone If you round each candidate’s average, Biden has most commonly been at 50 percent and Trump at 42 percent. Trump’s highest position in the average is 45.6 percent; Biden’s lowest is 46.8 percent.

As Hillary Clinton and Al Gore can tell you, national polling isn’t everything, particularly more than four months from Election Day. But it’s certainly not the case that the polls are good news for Trump. What’s more, it’s not the case that things are getting better for the incumbent president. That CNN-SSRS poll was conducted from June 2 to June 4. The Times-Siena one was in the field two weeks later, with a similarly poor showing by Trump.

This race is all about Trump and Trump’s handling of his job as president — and Trump has been consistently unpopular as his approval numbers have been consistently low. Biden is more popular than Clinton, and Trump has been unable to significantly budge that. He doesn’t have the benefit of being a blank political slate anymore, meaning that he is less likely to get the benefit of the doubt from voters.

Here comes the required caveat: Things can and will change, and Trump has obviously proved predictions wrong before. But when Trump weighs in on a House race in a red state and his preferred candidate in the Republican primary gets beaten easily as national polls show him trailing by double digits, it’s safe to say that he is not in a good position.

[deniscollins]

Amazon Pulls Out of Planned New York City Headquarters

Amazon reached an initial agreement, supported by the Governor of New York and New York City mayor, to build its second new headquarters in Long Island City, which would create more than 25,000 new jobs, in exchange for nearly $3 billion in government incentives. Then a number of state and local politicians, and social justice activists, strongly denounced the deal. If you were an Amazon executive, would you: (1) continue to pursue the deal or (2) withdraw from the initial agreement? Why? What are the ethics underlying your decision?

Amazon on Thursday canceled its plans to build an expansive corporate campus in New York City after facing an unexpectedly fierce backlash from some lawmakers and union leaders, who contended that a tech giant did not deserve nearly $3 billion in government incentives.

The company, as part of its extensive search for a new headquarters, had chosen Long Island City, Queens, as one of two winning sites, saying that it would create more than 25,000 jobs in the city.

But the agreement to lure Amazon stirred an intense debate about the use of public subsidies to entice wealthy companies, the rising cost of living in rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods and the city’s very identity.

“A number of state and local politicians have made it clear that they oppose our presence and will not work with us to build the type of relationships that are required to go forward,���’ Amazon said in a statement.

The company’s decision is a major blow for Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio, who had set aside their differences to bring the company to New York.

But it was at least a short-term win for insurgent progressive politicians led by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose upset victory last year occurred in the area where Amazon had planned its site. Her win galvanized the party’s left flank, which mobilized against the deal, and on Thursday she seemed to revel in the company’s retreat.

As opposition mounted, the governor and the mayor met on Monday in Albany and discussed how to save the deal, according to a person familiar with the conversations but who was not authorized to discuss them.

After the meeting, Mr. de Blasio spoke to a senior Amazon executive by phone on Monday and the mayor was told that the company remained committed to coming to New York, the person said. Mr. de Blasio was in the process of connecting with Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive, the person said. It was unclear if he did.

Both the mayor’s and the governor’s offices reassured Amazon executives that, despite the vocal criticism, the deal they had negotiated would be approved. But the company appeared upset at even a moderate level of resistance, the person said.

To lure Amazon, city and state officials had offered the company one of the largest-ever incentive packages in exchange for a much larger return in jobs and tax revenue.CreditHiroko Masuike/The New York Times

Amazon’s leadership agreed to pull out of New York on Wednesday evening, according to two people familiar with the decision. The company did not inform the governor or the mayor until Thursday morning, shortly before posting its announcement.

Mr. Cuomo and Mr. de Blasio reacted in starkly different ways to Amazon’s decision. The governor blamed newly emboldened Democrats who now control the State Senate for derailing the project.

He said in a statement: “A small group of politicians put their own narrow political interests above their community — which poll after poll showed overwhelmingly supported bringing Amazon to Long Island City — the state’s economic future and the best interests of the people of this state.”

For his part, Mr. de Blasio seemed to shift away from his backing of the deal.

“We gave Amazon the opportunity to be a good neighbor and do business in the greatest city in the world,’’ Mr. de Blasio said. “Instead of working with the community, Amazon threw away that opportunity.”

But Kathryn S. Wylde, the chief executive of the Partnership for New York City, an influential business group, said the reception Amazon had received sent a “pretty bad message to the job creators of the city and the world.”

“How can anyone be surprised?” Ms. Wylde said. “We competed successfully, made a deal and spent the last three months trashing our new partner.”

As recently as Wednesday, Mr. Cuomo had brokered a meeting between Amazon executives, including Brian Huseman, who had represented the company at the City Council, and union leaders who had been resistant to the deal — including from the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store union and the Teamsters, according to two people briefed on the sit-down.

The meeting ended without any compromise on the part of Amazon, according to the people. But Stuart Appelbaum, of the retail union, who was part of the meeting, said, “Amazon and the governor and everybody agreed yesterday on a way to move forward.’’ The company, he said, had agreed to keep talking.

“It was a productive meeting,’’ Mr. Appelbaum added. “Shame on them. The arrogance of saying ‘do it my way or not at all.’’’

Some unions supported the deal, and even those who had been opposed appeared willing to work with Amazon if the company agreed to not actively work against the unionization of its employees in New York.

An Amazon representative, during one City Council hearing, pointedly said the company would not agree to such terms.

The company had enjoyed public support in two polls of voters, conducted by Quinnipiac University and Siena College, after the deal was announced. While the subsidies were less popular, the deal to bring Amazon, and tens of thousands of jobs, was popular across a variety of groups.

In recent days, backers of the deal had begun mobilizing and some could be seen wearing pins in support of Amazon.

State Senator Michael Gianaris, a vocal critic who was chosen for a state board with the power to veto the deal, said the decision revealed Amazon’s unwillingness to work with the Queens community it had wanted to join.

“Like a petulant child, Amazon insists on getting its way or takes its ball and leaves,” said Mr. Gianaris, a Democrat, whose district includes Long Island City. “The only thing that happened here is that a community that was going to be profoundly affected by their presence started asking questions.’

“Even by their own words,’’ he added, pointing to the company’s statement on the pullout, “Amazon admits they will grow their presence in New York without their promised subsidies. So what was all this really about?”

Both Mr. Gianaris and Jimmy Van Bramer, a City Councilman who represents Long Island City, had shifted from being proponents to opponents of the deal. Mr. Van Bramer called Amazon’s decision “a victory against unchecked corporate welfare.’’

While small protests greeted the company after its initial announcement in November, the first inkling that opposition had taken hold among the city’s Democratic politicians came during a hostile City Council hearing the next month. Protesters filled the seats, unfurled banners and chanted against the company. Not a single council member spoke up in defense of the deal or the company.

Company executives fared no better at their second appearance, in January, though supporters, lobbyists and consultants were better prepared. Unions supporting the deal, including the powerful 32BJ Service Employees International Union and the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York, held a rally outside City Hall immediately after one by opponents.

Still, the company did not hire a single New Yorker as an employee to represent it in discussions with local groups. Its main representatives traveled between Washington and Manhattan, and only one had moved into an apartment to work with community members and foster support.

To attract Amazon, city and state officials offered the company one of the largest-ever incentive packages in exchange for a much larger return in jobs and tax revenue.

They agreed to remake plans for the Queens waterfront and move a distribution center for school lunches. They even agreed to give Mr. Bezos access to a helipad.

Under the plan, within 15 years the company could occupy as much as eight million square feet of office space, including office buildings for as many as 40,000 workers.

But almost as soon as it was announced, the deal was met with resistance, from local elected officials like Mr. Gianaris and progressive groups. Many critics were angered that the deal-making circumvented the normal land-use process and essentially eliminated any veto power by the City Council.

The idea of scaling back plans for the New York campus was a subject that had become increasingly discussed among Amazon’s board, according to a person familiar with the board’s deliberations. The meetings between Amazon and Mr. Cuomo and Mr. de Blasio before the company decided to come to New York led executives to believe that there would be greater political support than turned out to be the case.

The company had chosen New York, as well as a site in Northern Virginia, for major expansion. On Thursday, it said it had no plans to reopen a search for a second location.

Amazon still planned to add 25,000 jobs in Northern Virginia and 5,000 in Nashville, where it announced a project to build a center for its operations. It will take the 25,000 jobs that would have gone to Queens and spread them out over its 17 tech hubs across the United States and Canada, including Manhattan.

[lrmartinjr]

The race for Rep. Dave Brat’s bid for a third term in Virginia’s 7th District appears to be tightening, according to a new Monmouth University poll that shows the conservative House Freedom Caucus member trailing former CIA officer Abigail Spanberger by 5 points.

Spanberger captured support from 47 percent of the 400 potential voters pollsters surveyed by phone from Sept. 15 through Sept. 24. Brat garnered 42 percent support among potential voters — which the Monmouth poll characterizes as voters who have participated in at least one election since 2010 or have newly registered to vote (a group that represents roughly nine in 10 of all registered voters in the district).

Spanberger's lead in the full sample is within the margin of error of +/- 4.9 percent.

A New York Times/Siena College poll of likely voters earlier in September showed Brat with a 4-point lead.

The race splashed across national headlines in late August after multiple media outlets reported that the United States Postal Service, where Spanberger was an inspector at the agency’s law enforcement branch in the mid-2000s, had improperly released her confidential security clearance form to a Republican political opposition research firm, America Rising.

The USPS Inspector General is investigating the release, Roll Call reported, even after the USPS issued a nostra culpa the day after The New York Times first broke the story.

[restless-stirring]

A Verizon lobbyist is trying to become the attorney general of New York in the upcoming November election.

Verizon executive Leecia Eve is one of four candidates in the Democratic primary for the seat vacated when Eric Schneiderman resigned after assault allegations from four women.

If elected, Eve says she would recuse herself from Verizon matters and New York State's appeal of the federal net neutrality repeal.

"As Vice President for Government Affairs for Verizon for New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, Leecia oversees policy and ensures governmental compliance for a company that innovates and invests billions in New York State and puts nearly 20,000 New Yorkers to work every day," Eve's bio on her campaign site says. "She also serves as a Commissioner of the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey."

Recent polls put Eve in last place behind the other Democrats running for the office. Polls were led by New York City Public Advocate Letitia James, who fought Comcast's attempt to buy Time Warner Cable in 2015 and applauded last year when New York City sued Verizon for allegedly failing to meet broadband construction obligations.

As a Verizon executive, Eve defended the company from the city's allegations. Still, Eve has argued that her Verizon experience will help her prosecute "bad corporate actors"—but without being so harsh that businesses would stop coming to the state.

"Her Verizon experience, Eve contends, is 'extremely helpful: I know how corporations work,' leaving her 'best prepared to go after bad corporate actors,' but 'not to radiate to business not to come to New York,'" news organization City Limits wrote Tuesday after interviewing Eve.

Eve made a similar statement last month to City & State.

"I'm proud of the work that I do, so I view that as an asset, not a negative," Eve told the publication. "I'm the person with the experience who knows best how to go after bad corporate actors and hold them accountable."

Past experience working for a telecom doesn't always prevent government officials from taking aggressive anti-industry stances. Former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler (a Democrat) became a thorn in the broadband industry's side despite previously being the top lobbyist for both the cable and cell phone industries. Of course, current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai used to work for Verizon and has largely given the broadband industry everything it wants. But Pai is a Republican and Eve is a Democrat.

Eve would recuse herself from Verizon matters

Eve would not be involved in investigating Verizon if she won the election. "Under ethics rules, Eve confirms, she'd recuse herself from cases involving Verizon or other telecom issues, leaving policy decisions to senior staff," City Limits reported.

Eve also confirmed that she would recuse herself from the New York attorney general office's ongoing lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission. Along with more than 20 other states, New York has asked a federal court to reverse the FCC's repeal of net neutrality rules, a repeal that was supported by Verizon.

"The litigation would continue were she elected, Eve affirmed, though because of her promise to recuse herself from all matters Verizon, she'd play no role in it," City Limits wrote. "Eve says she's always supported net neutrality, and that Verizon has taken issue with how it was being implemented."

Eve has been a Verizon executive since 2013, but she's on leave from the company while she runs for office. She previously worked in government as counsel to then-Senators Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton and as deputy secretary for economic development for New York under Governor Andrew Cuomo.

NY officials clash with Verizon

It isn't unusual for the attorney general and other New York government officials to clash with Verizon. For example, the New York State Public Service Commission began reviewing Verizon service quality in March 2016, seven months after then-Attorney General Schneiderman asked for an investigation into "whether Verizon is adequately upgrading or repairing its copper wire infrastructure." That investigation led to a settlement in which Verizon agreed to fix failing copper networks and boost fiber deployment.

Separately, the New York City government has been trying to force Verizon to finish fiber builds that were supposed to have been completed by 2014. Eve, like other Verizon executives, has argued that Verizon met its obligations. Verizon claims that it fulfilled a requirement to "pass all households" with fiber, even though it hadn't actually installed fiber in front of every building.

Telecom analyst and frequent Verizon critic Bruce Kushnick argued that Eve's work at Verizon makes her unfit to be attorney general. Among other things, Kushnick pointed to Eve's involvement in Verizon obtaining a settlement from New Jersey regulators that eliminated an obligation to provide broadband service to the whole state.

In the Democratic primary, Eve's opponents are James, US Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), and law professor Zephyr Teachout.

James was in first place with 25 percent of the vote in a Siena College Research Institute poll conducted in late July. The poll had Maloney in second place at 16 percent, Teachout in third at 13 percent, and Eve in fourth at four percent. Forty-two percent were undecided.

A Quinnipiac University poll found almost identical results.

[in-sightjournal]

Ask A Genius 978: Immediate Pre-Debate Thoughts on Trump and Biden

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I’m looking at the 538 polls from June 25 to June 17. As far as I can tell from the favorability and unfavorability ratings, Trump is about 10 or 11% unfavourable. Rick Rosner: Trump’s net unfavourable rating is about 11.5%.That doesn’t look good. So, he’s in the hole by 11.5%, which seems good for Biden, except Biden’s in the hole by more than 17%. Jacobsen: Why do…