#i guarantee you that a democrat run poll or even a neutral poll for the whole senate would look different!!

[too-many-plants]

For the love of God please stop filling out that Senate survey post that I've seen floating around. It's not even a survey being put on by the Senate. It's being put on by Senator Tillis (hard right conservative). You can see it in the url when you click the link it says "ttillis". This survey isn't going to be used to inform policy choices, it's going to be used by the GOP as something like proof of how social media is biased against conservatives or something equally as stupid.

That's why the questions are so obviously biased and misleading

[wakandama2]

To my Black people who live in rural or small town Trump heavy areas with those fuckers on lifted trucks with them big ass flag who are about to harass your streets and you. Who will have to tread carefully around and pray they don't get as bold as their KKK predecessor. Here's what you're going to do:

- Get your phone/laptop. Then get a pot of dirt, an regular ass American flag, and a gun.

- First of all, if you were dumb enough to be a visible minority in a place like that and put up Harris or Biden 2024 signs over the course during the campaign run. You are going to take those down and pray no trumper marked down your address.

- Wipe connections to Democrats or Third Party from your social media.

- When Trumpers get in your face(with or without cameras) don't say or show anything that would help them track down your name or social media.

- Matter of fact private all your social media and purge it to just close friends and family that you can trust. Take you and/or your child off any Media use policies for schools, work, hobby organizations ect.

- THOUGHLY REVISE WHO YOU HAVE MADE COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS WITH!!! This can be an outright Trump supporter you tolerated or a person who hangs in those groups yet only tells you they aren't affiliated. They are too close, cut them out and off.

- Idc if you are atheist or agnostic, find a Black church of some kind to make community connections with. In the environment of our new situation this is probably the only community source you will be able to rely on wholeheartedly

-Coach your Black children on situational awareness. Help them recognize when it safe to speak out and when shutting the fuck up and keeping your head down is the only safe option.

- Next you are gonna stick the flag into the pot and put it on your porch or at the end of your driveway. This is an appeasement cover, Trumper will think your pro-America/neutral and you'll have a higher chance of not being harassed, not a guarantee to those if you have been vocal but it's worth a shot.

The gun is your last defense. You may have to shoot them or give yourself mercy. I pray neither option will happen.

I'm dead ass, as a Black girl who's lived a small town/ rural lifestyle all my life. It was those very area votes and gerrymandering that led to the flip of the key battle ground states. You need to be prepared because these are crazed orange dick sucking cultists are going to be a Frontline danger to you, those trucks were outside the polling station in my own hometown intimating and harassing visible brown or Democrat people.

Trust no other minority but your own, and even then tread carefully around those loudly ignorant or have forgotten that they will never receive the benefits of white supremacy.

[jadagul]

I've been thinking lately about the difference between good policy and responsive policy.

The news hook for this, of course, is net neutrality. It's a fact that the real feedback the FCC has gotten has been overwhelmingly pro-NN. And it's a fact that Ajit Pai and the other FCC commissioners are basically ignoring that feedback. And in most circles I read, this is being treated as an obviously horrible violation of good governance.

But let's assume, for the moment, that Ajit Pai genuinely believes that net neutrality is bad policy. (This isn't that outlandish. A number of conservative thinkers think that. And even if you want to ascribe some of this to motivated reasoning, we can still assume that he has convinced himself to believe it's a good idea).

Ajit Pai thinks net neutrality is harmful, and that most people are wrong about that. Learning that most people disagree with him isn't actually going to affect that calculus---he already knew that most people don't agree with him. (This is especially true when the messages come from relatively-uninformed citizens responding to an advocacy campaign. He's heard the advocacy campaign's arguments already). Why should the feedback change his mind?

There are actually two good answers to that question I can think of. One is simple political expediency: "Don't pick fights that will get you thrown out of office". "Save your political capital for winnable battles." But Pai isn't directly elected; this battle is eminently winnable, which is why so many people are freaking out; and what bigger issue is he, hypothetically, saving capital for?

The second reason is a belief in something closer to direct democracy, the government-by-poll. In this theory we think politicians should try to enact popular policies, regardless of their personal views; they serve as executors of the popular will.

But this is specifically not how our system is supposed to work. Think about how much crap a politician gets when it looks like they're "cynically responding to polls", and how much praise we heap on them for "being genuine" and "telling it like it is". We have a representative system with multiple layers of insulation on purpose.

And government-by-poll is also a terrible idea. Most poeple do not have the time to become informed on every issue. This is not a criticism of most people. There are vast numbers of issues, and many of them are quite complex. Actual congresspeople have this as their full-time job and they still can't develop informed opinions on more than a small fraction of the issues.

(This is a major reason that aides, lobbyists, and civil servants have so much power. Paul Ryan and Kamala Harris can each become informed on a few issues they, respectively, think are important, but only a few, and everything else is by necessity farmed out to subordinates. On the other hand, "the tax lobby" or "the treasury department" each have a ton of people, and in aggregate they can have definite opinions about all the issues on the table).

So if you do government by poll, then the vast majority of the time you ask the country "what should we do about harmonizing fruit tariffs with Ecuador?" and you get back a giant "meh." And a small fraction of the time, you get back a strong answer---which is generated basically at random. Some issue got a catchy slogan, and now everyone has an opinion for no goddamn reason.

(My favorite example of this is the whole "depreciation schedule for corporate jets" thing that became a big issue during the Obama administration. People had very clear opinions about whether corporations should be able to amortize the deduction of expenses related to corporate jet purchases over a five-year or a seven-year period.

One group wanted to stick it to the rich and fight inequality by keeping the policy as it was; the other wanted to support businesses and stimulate economic growth by changing the policy to be more business-friendly. It was a big deal.

I can't remember for the life of me which side favored five years, and which side favored seven.)

This isn't to say that the populace doesn't sometimes have coherent views on an issue. And these views should be expressed. (And they definitely get expressed, with force, at least every other year). But it seems, on the whole, reasonable for representatives who strongly and genuinely believe that the public is wrong about what makes good policy, to enact the policy they think is good rather than popular.

Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him....It is his duty to ...prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

You're not convinced. "Net Neutrality is terrible policy, and this is exactly the sort of awful decisions the government makes when it ignores the public will."

Tell me: what do you think about Obamacare?

Here's a graph of the history of opinion polling on the PPACA:

You can see that the public was strongly (though not uniformly) opposed to the bill throughout the writing debate, and implementation; it didn't reach net favorability until some time in the past year.

And Democrats knew that perfectly goddamn well. They knew the polling was against them, and if they hadn't known that, the Scott Brown election would have made it totally clear.

But they thought it was good policy, and an important policy priority. Passing it might lose them a couple elections, but what's the point of winning elections if you can't use them to improve policy? And still they look back and say "we may have lost a bunch of elections but we guaranteed health care to millions of Americans."

And hey. The ones who said that Obamacare would eventually become more popular, and really difficult to repeal, once people got used to it---apparently they were reasonably correct.

You might object that Obamacare was guaranteeing important and fundamental rights, while net neutrality is just a giveaway to big companies. But that's just assuming the conclusion.

I assure you that Ajit Pai can make his case in the language of rights if he wants to. And he doesn't actually think it's just a giveaway to corporations. He thinks it will benefit corporations in a way that will, in the long run, benefit everyone else.

He may be wrong about this. I don't actually know; for all the righteous certitude I've seen in most of the internet, this seems like a fairly complicated issue and I don't have a clear opinion. (If you made me vote right now I'd vote for neutrality; but I'd actually vote for "give me a month and a copule of research assistants to study the issue").

But if he's wrong, he's wrong on the merits. He's wrong because it's actually bad policy. And in that case he'd still be wrong if he were getting thousands of letters in favor of the repeal.

That's the relevant case. Complaining that he's ignoring people he thinks are badly wrong is silly. That's his job.

[opedguy]

Pelosi Calls House Into Urgent Session

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), Aug. 16, 2020.--Accusing 74-year-old President Donald Trump of voter suppression, 80-year-old House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the House back in session to deal with a the U.S. Postal Service [USBS] budget shortfall, throwing a roadblock into Democrat plans for universal mail-in balloting for the Nov. 3  Presidential Election.  Instead of dealing with longstanding mismanagement of the USPS, Pelosi accuses Trump of voter suppression for refusing to open up the Treasury to bailout the Post Office.  Democrats accuse 63-year-old Trump donor U.S. Postmaster William DeJoy of deliberately  sabotaging postal delivery, pulling up mailboxes, removing sorting machines and cutting overtime hours to suppress the vote   Rumors have been flying about DeJoy ordering automated mail sorting machines shut down and postal boxes removed from neighborhoods needed for the Nov. 3 election.         

    Pelosi and her Democrat caucus passed the $3.4 trillion HEROES Act May 31, expecting Republicans to go along no matter what the damage to the National Debt and federal budget deficits.  Republican economists fear that adding to the already astronomical National Debt now pushing $27 trillion would have negative consequences on future economic growth.  In the HEROES Act, Pelosi wants to give the Postal Service $25 billion to bailout its current $8.8 billion deficit for fiscal 2020, running $77 billion in deficits over the last 13 years.  “In a time of a pandemic, the Post Service is Election Central,” Pelosi wrote today to her House colleagues.  “Lives, livelihoods, and the life of our American Democracy are under threat from the president,” Pelosi said, blaming Trump but not herself for failing to negotiate a realistic relief bill.  Peslosi thinks throwing billions at the Post Office will save the election.     

        Trump couldn’t disagree more with Pelosi about how to run the Nov. 3 presidential election. Trump expressed grave concerns about putting the onus on an already stretched Post Service, unable to handle even a primary race in New York state, where six weeks after the election there’s still no definite result.  Trump sees that if Pelosi gets her way of universal mail-in ballots with the Postal Service guaranteeing timely delivery of ballots.  Reports of thousands of ballots either lost or delayed in the New York primary doesn’t bode well if Democrats push for universal mail-in ballots thinking it’s the best way to encourage high voter turnout   “Given recent customer service concerns the Postal Service will postpone removing boxes for a period of 90 days while we evaluate our customers’ concerns” said Postal Service spokeswoman Kimberly Frun.        

     Pelsoi hopes to pass legislation “Delivering for America,” requiring the Post Service to provide at the same level of service agreed to Jan. 1.  Trump said he was reluctant to give the Postal Service the $25 billion requested or the extra $3.6 billion proposed in the HEROES Act.  Trump was at odds with Pelosi over her $3.4 trillion request to fund the USPS fully but, more importantly, gives cities, counties and states the capital needed to make up massive budget deficits from economic lockdowns to slow the spread of the virus.  Trump’s wanted to negotiate but Pelosi has said “take it or leave it,” if he doesn’t accept the entire $3.4 trillion in the HEROES Act.  “What you are witnessing is a president of the United States who is doing everything he can to suppress the vote, make it harder for people to engage in mail-in balloting . . .” said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), one of Trump biggest critics.  

           Sanders or other Democrats have no clue what universal mail-in balloting will do to the integrity of the vote.  Instead of extending voting deadlines and time periods, Democrats think that depending the Postal Service is the best way to preserve the integrity of the vote.  Judging by what happened on a much smaller scale in New York State, universal mail-in voting could delay-and-distort the results indefinitely.  Pelosi thinks throwing billions at the Post Service will reverse voter suppression—in fact the opposite might happen.  Bernie likes to rip Trump but he’s no expert in voter suppression or anything else, promising that universal mail-in ballots will help Democrats this fall.  If the Postal Service implodes, loses millions of ballots or can find a way to count them, it won’t help Democrats or Republicans.       

      Whatever Trump thinks about the potential for fraud with universal mail-in ballots, the real problems doesn’t involve fraud but gross incompetence and mismanagement by the Post Service, overwhelmed and not up to the task of handling mail-in ballots around the country.  Whatever the risks of Covid-19, instead of reinventing voting, it would be far better for both parties to extend voting to two-or-three days, giving people plenty of time to vote with appropriate social distancing guidelines.  There’s no reason in the age of Covdi-19 the government can’t extend polls opening for two full days, allowing all citizens to vote by absentee or in polling places just like it’s been done in every U.S. election.  Advocates of universal mail-in ballots don’t have any idea how such a plan would actually work, potentially hurting both Democrats and Republicans in the Nov. 3 election. 

 About the Author  

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

[thisdaynews]

'Don't tell me it doesn’t matter': Impeachment trial hurts presidential campaigns

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/dont-tell-me-it-doesnt-matter-impeachment-trial-hurts-presidential-campaigns/

'Don't tell me it doesn’t matter': Impeachment trial hurts presidential campaigns

The standoff between the House and Senate on Trump’s impeachment trial has created a massive headache for the five Senate Democrats running for president. Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Michael Bennet and Cory Booker can’t skip a historic impeachment trial for the campaign trail, and so they look set to be stuck in Washington during the climax of the race for Iowa and New Hampshire.

And though there are some upsides to being in the middle of one of the biggest political stories in a generation, Senate Democrats are beginning to concede that they will be at a disadvantage — whilesupporters of Pete Buttigieg and Joe Bidensee an opportunityfor their candidates to have a stage all to themselves.

“There are lots of ways to reach out and talk to people,” Warren added. “But the best and most important one is the face-to-face, handshake, a hug and being able to hold up the children so they can take pictures with you, to ask a question to do a pinky promise. And all of that is lost is if we can’t be there in person.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said that “my job is to be here and that’s where I will be,” but the uncertainty of the timing made it difficult to plan. Booker, a clear underdog candidate, told the Associated Press that even a two-week trial would mean “literally dozens of events we won’t be able to do.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has so far declined to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, arguing that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) should lay out the rules to a fair trial with the guarantee of considering witness testimony and new evidence before moving forward. McConnell has rejected those entreaties and has secured the votes to pass a rules package endorsed only by Republicans.

But there are signs that standoff could be ending, with the Senate thrust into an impeachment trial as soon as next week. Heightening the intrigue: a presidential debate is scheduled for Tuesday, potentially the first day of the trial, though DNC Chairman Tom Perez has said the debate could be moved to avoid a conflict.

“If this were my campaign, I’d want to be right there with the voters to the last minute. So that part hurts,” said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, which borders Iowa. The veteran Democrat is neutral in the primary.

During the trial, the Senate is expected to be in for six days a week rather than its usual four;logistics alone will throw the early-state advantage to Biden, Buttigieg, Andrew Yang and Tom Steyer.

However, the trial’s focus on Biden could be awkward. Trump was impeached in December over charges he abused his power by pushing Ukraine to investigate the former vice president and his son. Trump and some GOP allies are still demanding to subpoena both Joe and Hunter Biden, who served on the board of a Ukrainian energy company. But Biden and the rest of the field outside the Senate can at a minimum stay in Iowa and New Hampshire without worrying about an uncertain Senate schedule.

“It depends, in part, on how well Joe performs while all of my colleagues are stuck here for the impeachment trial. If he tears it up and knocks the ball out of the park all over the early primary states, then it’s a plus,” said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), a Biden supporter. “There’s going to be more attention on him. … And it should be an overall positive.”

“It definitely helps [Buttigieg] because there’s nothing like being there. I mean Joe got a bounce in Iowa because he came and did a six-day tour, his Malarkey tour,” said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), who backs the former South Bend mayor. Iowans “really take it seriously. So because of that, the fact that three of the important candidates aren’t there really makes a difference.”

Still, the closely-bunched top tier of the nomination fight could make the early states less significant. And the trial could easily conclude before the Feb. 3 Iowa caucuses, giving the senators a chance to catch up late groundin Iowa and New Hampshire.

But in those two small states, retail campaigning is key. Iowa’s senators visit all 99 counties each year while New Hampshire has just 1.3 million residents to meet — fewer than the other early states.

“It’s an advantage for candidates like Biden and Buttigieg to continue their campaigning and their retail politics on an uninterrupted basis,” said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster. “While there is a significant opportunity cost for the Democratic senators, voters understand that they are doing their duty and not blowing them off.”

Given the still-lingering uncertainty about when the Senate will officially kick off the trial, candidates don’t yet have firm plans about how to handle the coming days. But all five senators running for president were in Washington this week for critical briefings on Iran and intel on the impeachment trial.

And being in the middle of an impeachment trial of a president loathed by the Democratic base also has its benefits.

“They will be free to be on TV every moment that the trial doesn’t command their presence. And they will be sought after talking heads,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). “I don’t really buy the fact that it really affects them. It frankly puts them in the center of the national conversation.”

Despite its consequential nature, impeachment has rarely beenthe focal point of the 2020 primary. Though Warren has been talking about impeaching Trump since last spring, it’s never been the center of her campaign and has rarely provoked fireworks between the Democratic candidates.

Polls show other issues are more important to voters, at least ahead of the trial. And Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who recently suspended her campaign, said that while impeachment is not the top subject on voters’ minds, it still matters.

“The biggest issues are health care, the economy, basic issues, kitchen-table issues,” Harris said. “But the underlying issues on the impeachment are issues that people do care deeply about.”

John Bresnahan, Marianne LeVine and Heather Caygle contributed to this report.

Read More

[courtneytincher]

A Clash Over Obama's Legacy? Democratic Voters Don't Want to Hear It

In some of the tensest moments of the 2020 debates, a viewer might have concluded that Democrats were poised for a large-scale clash over the legacy of President Barack Obama.There have been heated arguments about whether to stick with Obama's architecture for health care policy or to pursue a single-payer system, and flashes of direct criticism over his record on immigration. In televised debates, Democratic rivals like Julian Castro have pressed his former vice president, Joe Biden, to repudiate the large-scale deportations carried out under Obama's watch.There have also been defiant professions of loyalty, delivered as if Obama were under siege from fellow Democrats. Biden, the Democratic front-runner, has made these moments a hallmark of his candidacy: "I stand with Barack Obama all eight years, good, bad, indifferent," he said at the last debate.Yet among the vast majority of Democratic voters, there is little appetite for a brawl over the merits of Obama's record. And while Obama's consensus-seeking liberalism appeals to many Democratic voters, few appear to be thinking about the 2020 primary as a forum for determining which candidate would follow Obama's exact policy blueprint.Interviews with Democratic voters and party leaders found near-unanimous admiration for the former president and his policies, a sense of nostalgia for what they recall as his dignified conduct -- and, at the same time, a hunger for something new.Obama remains immensely popular among Democrats: In a poll published Tuesday by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal, nine in 10 Democrats said they viewed him in positive terms. More than three-quarters said they believed Obama "did as much as was possible at the time in addressing the issues facing the country."Obama has kept a low profile in the presidential race, meeting privately with many of the Democratic candidates but telling associates that he does not see it as his place to direct the party's future. He has expressed interest, at different times, in rising stars like former Rep. Beto O'Rourke of Texas and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana. Obama had issued a warm statement about Biden's entry into the primary but had declined to endorse him or anyone else.Some of the aura around Obama surrounds Biden, too, granting him much of the party's good will."He was with President Obama," said Tajshiek Nehemiah, 31, who watched Biden deliver a speech in Birmingham, Alabama, last Sunday. "I like the way he spoke as vice president, what he stood for, what he believes."But Democrats supporting other candidates have no difficulty reconciling that preference with their affection for Obama. And they do not necessarily connect the social problems the left is most focused on, like economic inequality and health care costs, to the agenda Obama pursued on those issues."I love Obama," Maureen Conboy, a lawyer in New York, said Monday after watching Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts give a speech in Washington Square Park. "He made mistakes but he's honest, he really cared -- you could just tell he's a good person."Conboy also said that was the past."I think re-litigating what happened, making this about Obama, the Obama administration, is the wrong thing," she said, adding, "We've got to look forward, and if it's Biden, we're going to do nothing but looking back."Patrick Dillon, Obama's former deputy political director in the White House, said many Democrats shared that mindset. He said candidates had to offer new ideas, but saw little evidence that skepticism of Obama was growing."I think every candidate has to talk about how they're going to build forward from the Obama legacy," said Dillon, who is married to O'Rourke's campaign manager but is not working for the campaign. "The notion of 'building on' seems to have won the conversation, versus the notion of aggressively reassessing or tearing down."A spokesman for Obama declined to comment.That any Democrat might consider running as an Obama clone underscores his unusual political stature. No recent former president has enjoyed a comparable glow immediately after leaving office. Even relatively popular presidents were seen as more tainted: for Ronald Reagan, there was Iran-Contra; for Bill Clinton, the lurid ripples of impeachment.Obama is different, especially for Democrats. If elements of his political ethos have gone out of vogue -- his peacemaking with Wall Street, for instance, or his championing of free-trade agreements -- the Democratic candidates who have departed from his approach have shown no desire to make that split explicit.The two most prominent liberals in the race, Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, have couched their calls for sweeping policy change within praise for Obama, all but erasing disagreements they had with him in the past. In demanding a single-payer health care system, they have praised the Affordable Care Act and called "Medicare for All" a logical next step. Whether Biden can successfully brand that stance as a rejection of Obama, as he attempted to do at the last debate, remains to be seen.For now, the liberals' approach has worked with some Democrats in the early-voting states. Zach Simonson, a Democratic county chairman in Wapello County, Iowa, said if Democrats took the view that Obama "made zero mistakes, or that he didn't even leave anything unfinished, then we have nothing to run on but undoing the Trump presidency.""We can't be the party of 'Make America 2016 Again,'" Simonson said. "Being for hope and change and progress is the best way to carry on the Obama legacy."JoAnn Hardy, a party leader in Iowa's Cerro Gordo County, said she saw Biden as "best positioned to carry on Obama's legacy" because of their close relationship. But she said she believed all the candidates had "respect for Obama and his policies.""I think some of those proposing policies different from Obama are just moving the policies another step toward realization," Hardy, who is neutral in the race, said.Blunter criticism of Obama has been left to more desperate candidates, like Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City, who have sought traction by courting activists with intense but narrow grievances about Obama-era policies, particularly on immigration, trade and national security.John Anzalone, a pollster for Biden who worked for Obama, said there was no strong Democratic constituency for such criticism. According to his research, Anzalone said, primary voters were pining not just for Obama as a person but for his steady, pragmatic approach, something he suggested Biden was well positioned to provide."They wish they could get back to the normalcy of someone like Barack Obama," Anzalone said.Obama's enduring popularity owes much to his status as the first black president of the United States. And Biden's standing in the race flows from his role as Obama's steadfast defender, with his lead built on strong support from African-Americans."He had no problem with defending the president when asked to do so," said Lashunda Scales, an Alabama Democrat who is president pro tempore of the Jefferson County Commission. She wasn't making an endorsement, she said, but added, "that, to me, said a lot about his character."But African-American voters are far from uniform in preferring Biden, or in seeing the primaries as a referendum on Obama.Elizabeth Bowens, a retired hospitality worker in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, said that she disliked the contentious tone of the Democratic race and that she longed for the Obama years. "Him and Michelle, that's a beautiful couple," she said.But Bowens did not seem to be leaning toward Biden."It's time for a woman," she said.To Obama's sharpest critics on the left -- chiefly activists and policy experts concerned with issues like financial regulation, drone warfare, immigration and criminal justice -- his Teflon reputation can be frustrating.Matt Stoller, a fellow at the liberal Open Markets Institute who is a scathing critic of Obama's economic record, said he saw Democrats as caught between their personal reverence for Obama and the reality that the country faces "existential crises" -- on matters like climate change and economic inequality -- that Obama did not resolve.At some point, Stoller said, Democrats might face a stark choice between Obama's center-left policy framework and the agendas of liberal candidates they now favor. But Stoller acknowledged no such test had yet arrived."I'm still waiting for that moment when Democrats are going to have to make that choice," he said.There is no guarantee that it will ever arrive. And the choice Democratic primary voters see before them now has less to do with Obama's policies than with the immediate challenge of ousting President Donald Trump.Susan Chase, a retiree in Southport, North Carolina, said candidates who attacked Obama would not get her vote, and she criticized Sen. Kamala Harris for attacking Biden in the first debate. But that does not mean she will vote for Biden."Part of me says it's time for something really new and different," Chase said, "but then the other part says we've got to have somebody who can beat Trump."This article originally appeared in The New York Times.(C) 2019 The New York Times Company

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

In some of the tensest moments of the 2020 debates, a viewer might have concluded that Democrats were poised for a large-scale clash over the legacy of President Barack Obama.There have been heated arguments about whether to stick with Obama's architecture for health care policy or to pursue a single-payer system, and flashes of direct criticism over his record on immigration. In televised debates, Democratic rivals like Julian Castro have pressed his former vice president, Joe Biden, to repudiate the large-scale deportations carried out under Obama's watch.There have also been defiant professions of loyalty, delivered as if Obama were under siege from fellow Democrats. Biden, the Democratic front-runner, has made these moments a hallmark of his candidacy: "I stand with Barack Obama all eight years, good, bad, indifferent," he said at the last debate.Yet among the vast majority of Democratic voters, there is little appetite for a brawl over the merits of Obama's record. And while Obama's consensus-seeking liberalism appeals to many Democratic voters, few appear to be thinking about the 2020 primary as a forum for determining which candidate would follow Obama's exact policy blueprint.Interviews with Democratic voters and party leaders found near-unanimous admiration for the former president and his policies, a sense of nostalgia for what they recall as his dignified conduct -- and, at the same time, a hunger for something new.Obama remains immensely popular among Democrats: In a poll published Tuesday by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal, nine in 10 Democrats said they viewed him in positive terms. More than three-quarters said they believed Obama "did as much as was possible at the time in addressing the issues facing the country."Obama has kept a low profile in the presidential race, meeting privately with many of the Democratic candidates but telling associates that he does not see it as his place to direct the party's future. He has expressed interest, at different times, in rising stars like former Rep. Beto O'Rourke of Texas and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana. Obama had issued a warm statement about Biden's entry into the primary but had declined to endorse him or anyone else.Some of the aura around Obama surrounds Biden, too, granting him much of the party's good will."He was with President Obama," said Tajshiek Nehemiah, 31, who watched Biden deliver a speech in Birmingham, Alabama, last Sunday. "I like the way he spoke as vice president, what he stood for, what he believes."But Democrats supporting other candidates have no difficulty reconciling that preference with their affection for Obama. And they do not necessarily connect the social problems the left is most focused on, like economic inequality and health care costs, to the agenda Obama pursued on those issues."I love Obama," Maureen Conboy, a lawyer in New York, said Monday after watching Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts give a speech in Washington Square Park. "He made mistakes but he's honest, he really cared -- you could just tell he's a good person."Conboy also said that was the past."I think re-litigating what happened, making this about Obama, the Obama administration, is the wrong thing," she said, adding, "We've got to look forward, and if it's Biden, we're going to do nothing but looking back."Patrick Dillon, Obama's former deputy political director in the White House, said many Democrats shared that mindset. He said candidates had to offer new ideas, but saw little evidence that skepticism of Obama was growing."I think every candidate has to talk about how they're going to build forward from the Obama legacy," said Dillon, who is married to O'Rourke's campaign manager but is not working for the campaign. "The notion of 'building on' seems to have won the conversation, versus the notion of aggressively reassessing or tearing down."A spokesman for Obama declined to comment.That any Democrat might consider running as an Obama clone underscores his unusual political stature. No recent former president has enjoyed a comparable glow immediately after leaving office. Even relatively popular presidents were seen as more tainted: for Ronald Reagan, there was Iran-Contra; for Bill Clinton, the lurid ripples of impeachment.Obama is different, especially for Democrats. If elements of his political ethos have gone out of vogue -- his peacemaking with Wall Street, for instance, or his championing of free-trade agreements -- the Democratic candidates who have departed from his approach have shown no desire to make that split explicit.The two most prominent liberals in the race, Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, have couched their calls for sweeping policy change within praise for Obama, all but erasing disagreements they had with him in the past. In demanding a single-payer health care system, they have praised the Affordable Care Act and called "Medicare for All" a logical next step. Whether Biden can successfully brand that stance as a rejection of Obama, as he attempted to do at the last debate, remains to be seen.For now, the liberals' approach has worked with some Democrats in the early-voting states. Zach Simonson, a Democratic county chairman in Wapello County, Iowa, said if Democrats took the view that Obama "made zero mistakes, or that he didn't even leave anything unfinished, then we have nothing to run on but undoing the Trump presidency.""We can't be the party of 'Make America 2016 Again,'" Simonson said. "Being for hope and change and progress is the best way to carry on the Obama legacy."JoAnn Hardy, a party leader in Iowa's Cerro Gordo County, said she saw Biden as "best positioned to carry on Obama's legacy" because of their close relationship. But she said she believed all the candidates had "respect for Obama and his policies.""I think some of those proposing policies different from Obama are just moving the policies another step toward realization," Hardy, who is neutral in the race, said.Blunter criticism of Obama has been left to more desperate candidates, like Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City, who have sought traction by courting activists with intense but narrow grievances about Obama-era policies, particularly on immigration, trade and national security.John Anzalone, a pollster for Biden who worked for Obama, said there was no strong Democratic constituency for such criticism. According to his research, Anzalone said, primary voters were pining not just for Obama as a person but for his steady, pragmatic approach, something he suggested Biden was well positioned to provide."They wish they could get back to the normalcy of someone like Barack Obama," Anzalone said.Obama's enduring popularity owes much to his status as the first black president of the United States. And Biden's standing in the race flows from his role as Obama's steadfast defender, with his lead built on strong support from African-Americans."He had no problem with defending the president when asked to do so," said Lashunda Scales, an Alabama Democrat who is president pro tempore of the Jefferson County Commission. She wasn't making an endorsement, she said, but added, "that, to me, said a lot about his character."But African-American voters are far from uniform in preferring Biden, or in seeing the primaries as a referendum on Obama.Elizabeth Bowens, a retired hospitality worker in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, said that she disliked the contentious tone of the Democratic race and that she longed for the Obama years. "Him and Michelle, that's a beautiful couple," she said.But Bowens did not seem to be leaning toward Biden."It's time for a woman," she said.To Obama's sharpest critics on the left -- chiefly activists and policy experts concerned with issues like financial regulation, drone warfare, immigration and criminal justice -- his Teflon reputation can be frustrating.Matt Stoller, a fellow at the liberal Open Markets Institute who is a scathing critic of Obama's economic record, said he saw Democrats as caught between their personal reverence for Obama and the reality that the country faces "existential crises" -- on matters like climate change and economic inequality -- that Obama did not resolve.At some point, Stoller said, Democrats might face a stark choice between Obama's center-left policy framework and the agendas of liberal candidates they now favor. But Stoller acknowledged no such test had yet arrived."I'm still waiting for that moment when Democrats are going to have to make that choice," he said.There is no guarantee that it will ever arrive. And the choice Democratic primary voters see before them now has less to do with Obama's policies than with the immediate challenge of ousting President Donald Trump.Susan Chase, a retiree in Southport, North Carolina, said candidates who attacked Obama would not get her vote, and she criticized Sen. Kamala Harris for attacking Biden in the first debate. But that does not mean she will vote for Biden."Part of me says it's time for something really new and different," Chase said, "but then the other part says we've got to have somebody who can beat Trump."This article originally appeared in The New York Times.(C) 2019 The New York Times Company

September 19, 2019 at 08:16PM via IFTTT

[gozel]

Ahmet Şık’s Defense Statement: The organization that you are looking for, is ruling the country Tarih: 28 Temmuz 2017

I will start with a quote from the prologue of my book “We walked parallel on these roads”, published in 2014, three years ago. The foreword of this review-research book explaining how the mafia-governing coalition between the AKP and the Gülen community is dispersed begins as follows: “The AKP and Gulen congregation, two forces that turn Turkey into political and social coexistence and continued together with the support of partisans, so-called powerhouse, sewage exploded. The two forces that built the so-called ‘New Turkey’, a Machiavellian understanding that is appropriate to apply any kind of rush to achieve it, AKP and Gulen Congregation split.

Both do not want the democratization of the system and society, they are the foci of power that seeking to conquer the state, they are trying to organize it by making their authority predominant.

These two foci, with an understanding of trying to make the commitment to the authority of the state, which they think they will be the only power to speak in the long run, have accumulated material for destroying each other while fighting common enemies on the other hand.

The closeness of the day that these materials could be used was apparent from the fact that the stench in the drainage was spreading out over for a long period of time. Threats from media columns, underhanded liquidations, occasionally leaked phone calls, and police-judicial operations based on illegality were the signs that they would be targeted at the constituents of the government after common enemies.

When they were convinced that there were no enemies to be destroyed, they were aiming at each other by holding onto the fight that the state’s owner would be. Yes, it was a mess and still it is a mess. Apparently it will be like this for a while. In this battle where ethics and religion are used, the lies that meet the needs of the parties are more prevalent than the truths. So, do not be fooled by the defenses made by them. This war is not for democracy and clean society, nor for peace or civilization as somebody claimed. They just fight for being the owner of the state.

After these lines were published, the war between the AKP and the Gülen congregation worsened. The period of a false history writing process, which started with the Ergenekon investigations in 2007, who took more share on the plundering of the state and the country by the ruling and crime partners, extended to a coup attempt. On 15th July 2016, 250 people were killed in a bloody upheaval.

There is serious doubt that this attempt, which we are forced to believe is the sole responsibility of the Gülen Community, was already known by the government. Despite the fact that over a year has passed and numerous investigations have been launched, suspicions have increased rather than decreased. The July 15 coup d’etat, which is required to remain in the dark with many signs, which led us to believe that the needed ‘Controlled Chaos’ was being yielded, was the most important milestone of the fake historiography that spanned the last 10 years.

The only truth of this fakeness which has been constructed with the words “democratization-civilization” and lies, is the people slaughtered by the coup plotters.

It is worth to ask questions about what is wanted to be left in the dark and saying “Controlled Chaos” to this situation. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is the target of the coup attempt, has spilled the beans by expressing his intention while the country was in the middle of a bloodshed, and said “This coup is a blessing from God to us”. We have seen what ‘blessing’ means and have witnessed it together and are still witnessing it. We pass through the dark and increasingly darker days, where those who voiced the truth, those who objected to the crime order, those who demanded their usurped rights, are the voices being muted and strangled.

The Coup was stopped but, all basic rights and freedoms were suspended by the State of Emergency (OHAL).

Tens of thousands of people have been detained on charges of ‘Supporting Coup-FETO’, more than 50,000.00 arrested. Some people have been tortured. With Executive Orders, the state and the society have been speeded up in the design of Turkish-Islamic form. By the practices that justify their suspicions that the distinction between “’those who are with us’ and ‘those who are not’” are considered as the only criteria, more than 110,000.00 public officials were purged. The gap created in the public sector, especially the basic organs of the state, such as security, judiciary and education, was filled with AKP staff based on allegiance, not capability. The scientists who educated students for years, teachers, have been left unemployed by ruling that they are “terrorists”.

Even the response to the hunger strike of the struggle to get back their rights, was prison. The way of the regulations, to officially abolish the principle of separation of forces, which had actually been removed from the scene, was opened under a controversial referendum in the conditions of State of Emergency (OHAL), without ballot-box security. Judicial independence and neutrality, which are always troubled in Turkey and tried to prove their existence with exceptional examples, were completely hidden away by the judges and prosecutors who appointed themselves to the interests of the government. The violation of the freedom which seized by arresting terror, has been extended to Parliament’s third-largest party which represents the will of the 6 million voters. HDP’s co-chairs, deputies and several mayors who were elected by the polls were also captured.

And even, the main opposition party, the CHP, endorsed the legal regulation which will open the way for these arrests, by the fearing of “CHP protects the terrorists” propaganda; and these arrests extended to a deputy of the CHP.

Many non- governmental organizations (NGO) were closed. Those who defended rights have been arrested. Many companies have been seized.

Several media organizations including the press and have visual and audial broadcasts have been shut down in a country which is proud to have achieved a great democracy after stopping the coup. Aside from a few media organizations and journalists who are still trying to resist even against threats resist of Investigations, lawsuits, and arrests along with economical pressures there are not many remaining who are trying to uncover the truth. After imprisoning 150 journalists, Turkey has obtained the title of “the world’s largest journalist prison.” So much so that, Turkey, alone, has more incarcerated journalists than the entire number of journalists in prison all over the world.

If we add the journalists who are not in prison but are still “under arrest” through censorship and auto- censorship to the list, the picture we paint is even more pessimistic. Because of the dark shadow of censorship even though there exists many media organizations under the ownership of private investment groups, a single-voiced news broadcasting has taken over the country.

On the tv channels which must do live broadcasts, even if President Erdoğan talks in his sleep, they cannot broadcast any political programs without permission of government commissioners.

When the media is in this state, the only platform remaining for political criticism is social media. As long as the access is not blocked, as long as the internet is not cut off due to government censorship, and as long as you have not written anything to offend AKP’s internet trolls and informant citizens and prosecutors, then there are no barriers for you to use your right to criticise. However, there is no guarantee that you will not be arrested for using this right.

This is the summary of the current pessimistic state of the country on the aftermath of a failed coup. Actually, it is easy to summarize all of this in one sentence: On July 15th a coup was diverted but the junta came to power.

In the indictments prepared after the coup attempt, the aims of the Gulen Congregation (Cemaat) is described as follows:

“To take control of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Constitutional organizations government of the Turkish Republic and once this is accomplished, to redesign the government, public, and individuals in the ideology of FETO; to control the economical, societal, and political power with a coterie hand which has oligarchical traits.”

When we look at the period since the bloody attempt, that is seen as a favor, and the picture we have described, who could say that these goals were not achieved?

Did the takeover of executive, legislative, and judicial branches The Government of the Turkish Republic not occur?

Using the state of emergency (OHAL) and law- amending ordinances (KHK), are they not trying to design the government and society according to their own ideologies and interests?

Are they not using a coterie hand with oligarchical traits to control the economical, societal, and political power in their determination to pillage the government’s and country’s resources?

This is the reason that the biggest defeat of the Gülen congregation (Cemaat) that is The July 15th coup attempt, is also their biggest victory. Because, the model Fetullah Gülen idealised for the government, society, and individuals, was put into motion after the July 15 coup attempt.

The patent of this system, construction of which is moving along rapidly and which is one that all who side with democracy should oppose, belings to Fetullah Gulen, even if the system might be in someone else’s hands. Thus is exactly the reason why Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the AKP government gave Fethullah Gulen and his congregation everything they wanted. Now, they act as if they had nothing to do with the transformation of the Gulen congregation, who were undeniably one of the parties involved in the bloody coup attempt, into a monster referred to as FETO. They want us to keep silent about their guilt and to not tell the truth. They are using the blood of the victims killed by the putschists as a demagogic part of a cheap and shallow political strategy. Because, those who hold power in their hands have only one goal in mind: to continue their totalitarian rule no matter what.

And for this, they will do very bad things and they will have a mindset where anyone is dispensable. Journies of long term sovereignties have histories which include many examples of ending relationships with your initial travel mates. They leave those who no longer serve a purpose and are no longer needed, behind. They disposed of their supporters, accomplices, co-conspirators, and even their comrades.

Undoubtedly, the ones who remain and the new ones who have been added will also get their turns. Those who have made the media to toot their (government) own horn are trying to silence those who are trying to show thie guilt and bad intentions by incarcerating them. They think we will be scared and be silenced. To show them how wrong they are one more time, let’s continue to tell the story…

The Gulen Congregation, which has a history of 45 years, completed its horizontal organization within the state in the first 30 years, finalizing its vertical growth in the last 15 years. No obstacles were left for its crafting the state parallel to itself by utilizing the opportunities provided to it by the AKP government to whose power it became a non-official partner. The congregation accumulated enormous power within the police and judicial organizations and the operational units of the military. It was not difficult for it to ensconce itself in strategic positions by using the AKP government.

Subsequently, they were successful in establishing a domain of influence to impose their priorities, by eliminating the people or institutions in the governmental and civil domains, which may have become an alternative option or a possible rival.

To state the truth, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who confessed to his crime by stating “What did we not give that they asked for” and “apologized for the help he gave to them” and AKP which has been in power in the last 15 years, is the most responsible for the Gulen congregation to secure its power in the government and society, thus, rendering them dangerous.

I will explain this with a few examples; however, it will be useful to call your attention to a point first. A large number of officers, who were not members of the Gulen Congregation, were purged from the Turkish military by staging several trials such as Ergenekon, Balyoz, Military Espionage and several other investigations.

The ones, who were not imprisoned, were not promoted by using cruel defamation tactics. Erdogan, who was the prime minister at the time, had announced that he was the prosecutor of these lawsuits. AKP government had shielded the plotters from the criticisms and accusations directed to them, while also acting as an accomplice since it was the political authority.

However, now, they are trying to put the burden of all these crimes and sins on the Gulen Congregation and to hide their role and crimes in these events. At the time, there were a lot of people who were imprisoned due to the conspiratorial plots of the congregation or were subjected to public defamation by the hatchet men of the AKP-Congregation partnership in the media.

We should not neglect to mention that some of these people, among whom there were journalists, acted as the facilitators/partners in hiding the crimes of AKP and even were on stage as the executors of defamation tactics during that period. If we go back to what we were discussing, Gulen Congregation opened the path for their members into the Turkish Military by shaping the promotion list and order according to their benefits and goals by exploiting the conspired trials mentioned above. The officers in the Turkish Military, who were not members of the Congregation, were not limited to the ones prosecuted by these trials. AKP government ran to the help of the Congregation to eliminate the remaining ones.

Let us see what happened… The compulsory service period for the military personnel was reduced from 15 to 10 years according to a change in the code realized in May 2012. Congregation was calculating that some of the officers not on their side may retire from the military. And they were right. Several officers resigned because of the climate of apprehension generated by the plotted trials and the loss of dignity suffered by the Turkish Military. Interestingly, some important regulations were achieved after this first legal change, even after the battle between the AKP and the Congregation has begun.

The investigations on the corruption charges on December 17/25 2013 were the culprit in the transformation of the battle between the AKP and Congregation into a big war, and severing their relationship beyond repair. The MİT trailer operation where weapon and ammunition aid was provided to the Salafi jihadist groups fighting against the regime during the Syrian civil war. During the period when the relationship was broken off, some regulations related to the military were realized in the Parliament according to changes in the law based on the demand, proposal, and votes of some members of the parliament from AKP.

Firstly, AKP with its majority in the Parliament adopted a regulation on February 11, 2014, which brought the promotions in the Turkish Military forward by one year. Thus, the colonels of four-year service and generals of three-year service who are members of the congregation were included in the Supreme Military Council (YAS). The officers who were not members of the congregation and did not get promotion due to the decision taken by the YAS would, thus, be retired and purged from the Turkish Military.

The second change was realized two months later. According to the Turkish Military Supreme Disciplinary Board Regulations, that went into effect on April 12, 2014, new Supreme Disciplinary Boards were established with the goal of investigating the purges from the military.

The amendment to the Officer’s Personnel Record Code, which outlines the working guidelines of these boards, was eliminating the purges from the Turkish Military due to reactionary religious activities. Another amendment was proposed to the Parliamentary Speaker’s Office on December 30, 2015 by 37 AKP members of the parliament. This amendment was decreasing the waiting period for the promotion from rank of colonel to general to four years.Thus, the promotion of the colonels who did not qualify for promotion, but were members of the Congregation, to the rank of general was enabled. The last change resulted in a code established to make amendments to the Turkish Military Personnel Code article number 6722 and some other codes. In 1988 and the years before that, the officers who graduated from the Military Academy made up a group where the influence of the Gulen Congregation was the weakest.

The amendment mentioned above foresaw some arrangements which will reduce the service in the military to 28 years. Thus, the Congregation will have the power to purge the officers, which constituted the largest group of officers with no connection to the Congregation, from the Turkish Military en masse. This amendment was prepared by the generals Mehmet Disli and Mehmet Partigoc, who are suggested to be the most prominent actors of the July 15 coup attempt; and it was projected to become effective, except one article, as soon as it was adopted.

The article that was projected to go into effect after the August 2016 Council meeting is the one on the en masse purge of the group of officers, who graduated in 1988 and before and among whom the Congregation was the least organized. By the resolution presented by the AKP group on June 23, 2016 during the discussion of the proposal in the Parliament, it was ensured that the said amendment will become effective as soon as it is adopted. The purges that the Gulen Congregation had targeted in the Turkish Military were realized by the staged trials put into action through the support of the AKP government and by the amendments realized in several codes by the government. The picture that emerged after July 15th demonstrates the significance of all these events.

To make it easier to understand what I mean, I will use a quote from an opposition commentary on the TBMM Research Commission Report on the 15 July Coup, prepared by the CHP: “The Predicted, Yet Not-Prevented and Exploited `Controlled Coup’ ” According to the report, almost all of the generals promoted after YAS decisions in 2011, 2012, and 2013 are now accused of being members of FETO. Same accusations have been addressed to the 80 percent of soldiers who were promoted from colonel to general with 2014 and 2015 YAS decisions, which were made following the legal amendments and changes made by the AKP government that I mentioned earlier.

By the way, it should be emphasized that a total of 400 personnel were purged from the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) between 1985 and 2003, the time when AKP came to power, based on the claim that they were members of the Gülen movement; but that there were no purging from 2003 until when the coup attempt took place.

I will close this section in which I have tried to explain AKP government’s undeniable contributions to the strengthening of the Gulen Movement within the TAF to such an extent that they made a coup attempt. But before, let me also talk about the National Security Board (NSC) decisions made in 2004 but not put into effect. When the MGK meeting was held on August 25, 2004, the AKP was about to fill its second year in power. As you know, the NSC is a meeting where the highest-level military and civilian officials come together, discuss national security issues, and make advisory decisions. Its decisions are kept strictly confidential. However, the 2004 NSC rulings have been known for several years. They hit the headlines of the Taraf newspaper, which is well-known for its contributions made to the construction of today’s Turkey, on 28 November 2013. We learned the decisions of the NSC meeting through this headline, which was a sign that the conflicts between AKP and the Movement will become even more intense.

The topic of this NSC meeting, which was held 12 years before the 15 July coup attempt, pointed to the danger that the Gülen Movement would create in the future. For this reason, at the meeting, an advisory decision suggesting to prepare an action plan against the Movement with the title “Measures to be Taken Against the Activities of Fethullah Gülen Group” was made and reported to the AKP government. The signatures under the decision belonged to the then President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul and five other ministers, as well as Commander of Turkish Armed Forces Hilmi Özkök and other military members of the NSC: Aytac Yalman, Özden Örnek, Ibrahim Fırtına and Şener Eruygur. TAF, which was the owner of the proposal, recommended radical measures to be taken against the threats that the Gulen movement could create in the future, by closely monitoring the activities of the Gülen community, both within and outside the country.

Let’s continue by reminding that three of the commanders who signed this decision were arrested through the scandalous cases, as well as what the government did during this period. After the decision was published in Taraf newspaper, the government made a series of explanations upon the reactions from conservative groups, who form the electorate base of AKP. The common point of the explanations was that it was an advisory decision and was never put into effect by the government. Yalçın Akdoğan, the Chief Advisor to the Prime Minister back then, wrote on his Twitter account that “the NSC decision in 2004 was null and void, it was not accepted by the Ministers Board, and no action was made”.

Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc also declared “None of the decisions accepted in the NSC has been put into effect since 10 years, and we have never passed any decision that could victimize any religious person and group. (On the contrary) We stopped the functioning of the National Security Politics Document.” It is also important that Arinc emphasizes the National Security Politics Document in his statement. National Security Politics Document defines the groups that the government has designated as internal and external threats.

The Gülen Movement was also considered as an internal threat group in this document until 2010. However, as Arinc emphasized, the Gülen Movement was removed from the threat list by the AKP government itself. Let’s look how the Former MIT (National Intelligence Agency – NIA) Deputy Undersecretary Cevat Ones interprets the 2004 NSC decisions not having been implemented: “Despite the various concerns expressed, the fact that the 2004 NSC decision was not evaluated in time with respect to political and legal measures needed to be taken has accelerated not only the Gulen Movement’s invasion of the Armed Forces but also that of the Republic of Turkey and its institutions. ” This is how Mr. Öneş, who was a senior manager at NIA, pointed out the AKP government as one of the major actors responsible for the occupation of the state by a religious organization.

There are also statements that the AKP government has made regarding the issue and are criminal confessions. Those who had not listened to the criticisms and warnings until the Movement targeted them, those who handed the state and all institutions over to the gang and partnered with their crimes, now want us to believe that they were just “deceived”, No, you have not been deceived. On the contrary, you tried to fool us together.

I would also like to address that, although we have been saying this for years, the judiciary of Turkey is entering into a futile effort such as presenting the Cumhuriyet newspaper as a (terrorist) organization and us as FETOists, while it did not open any investigations about the suspects and found their explanation “we were deceived” sufficient. Let’s look at how AKP handed the judiciary over the Gulen Congregation.

I will again quote from the report prepared by CHP about the 15th July coup attempt. After the coup attempt, several thousands of judges-prosecutors were expelled from the judiciary, in which the Gulen Congregation had considerable importance, on the grounds that they were “members of FETÖ”. Many of them were arrested.

CHP’s report includes striking findings about the staffing of judiciary members who are now purged. The report states that among the members of the judiciary who were purged with Executive Orders after the coup, the oldest member of the judiciary entered the profession in 1980. Since 1980 until 2002, the year AKP came to power, a total of 7,672 judges and prosecutors were appointed by different governments. Of these, the number of people who were purged after the coup attempt was 1,210. Proportionally speaking, among the members of the judiciary, which came to the office within the last 23 years, the percentage of those who have been purged given the allegation of having a connection with the FETÖ is about 16 percent.

Let us now look at the period after AKP came to power. The report defines the years between 2003 and 2010 as the first AKP period. In this period, 3,637 judges-prosecutors were appointed and 1,255 of them got purged. In a proportional statement, the share of those who were purged in total assignments is about 35 percent. The ministers of justice of this period were Cemil Cicek, Mehmet Ali Sahin and Sadullah Ergin. The report examines the period between the 2010 Constitutional Referendum, in which demagogy of bringing the tutelage within the judiciary to an end was undertaken, and 17/25 December 2013, when the corruption investigations against the AKP were held, as the second AKP period. The ministers of justice in this period were Sadullah Ergin and Bekir Bozdag. Among the 2, 876 judges/prosecutors, who were appointed in the period of these two ministers, 1,192 appeared in the lists of expulsion. The share of expulsions in total assignments is about 42 percent.

The report elaborates the period after the end of the AKP’s partnership with the Congregation, that is from 2014 until the July 15, 2016 coup, as the third AKP period. The Minister of Justice was Bekir Bozdag. Due to the intensification of the AKP-Congregation war, there was a certain level of decrease in the share of congregation in the judicial appointments in this period. Among the appointed 2,281 judges-prosecutors, 582 were purged. That’s about 26 percent. If we give the total numbers for these three periods of the AKP by comparison, in the 23 years between 1980 and 2002, the Congregation’s staff within jurisdiction was about 16 percent, while in the 14 years between 2003-2016 when the AKP government was in power uninterruptedly, it was 35 percent. In these 14 years, 3,029 of the 8,794 judges-prosecutors appointed by the AKP have been purged. Proportionally speaking, the proportion of members of the judiciary that were purged due to the connections to the FETO in total assignments was 35 percent. Even the export ratios for the period after December 17/25, 2013, which the AKP government has adopted as a milestone in investigations against FETO just to exempt its own government from the crime with a shallow cunning, are above the average of the period between 1980 and 2002.

Let us finalize this issue by opening a parenthesis with regard to Bekir Bozdağ, who was the Minister of Justice until last week. Bekir Bozdag is one of the four people who served as Justice Minister in AKP government’s 14-year rule. In his speech in the Parliament on 24 March 2011, Bozdag spoke about Fethullah Gülen as “a valuable asset that this country produced; a wise person. Everything about him is clear.” On June 9, 2012 Bozdag shared the following message from his personal twitter account: “From Antalya, I convey my greetings to Venerable Hodja Effendi.” On February 15, 2012 in a television program on the CNN TURK Channel, it was Bekir Bozdag who answered the question “is there a congregation organization in the judiciary?” by saying that “it cannot be possible.” On August 15, 2013, in the beginnings of the war between the Congregation and the AKP, it was Bekir Bozdag who owned the twitter message “they will not be able to burn an instigative fire between the Congregation and the AKP.” Bekir Bozdag, who responded to the claims about the Congregation’s organization within the judiciary by stating that “it was not possible”, has an adventure of Ministry of Justice which lasted from 2013 until today.

In these 4 years, until 15th July coup, Bozdag appointed 3,614 judges-prosecutors. In other words, 41 percent of the total of 8,794 appointments, which happened during the 14 year long AKP government, was made by Minister Bozdag in 4 years. 1,228 judges-prosecutors (which corresponds to the 34 percent of the total) who were the appointed by Bozdağ, who did not see possible the organization of the congregation in the judiciary, were purged with the claim that they were members of FETO.

These numbers and ratios tell us that: Bekir Bozdag is one of the main people responsible of handing the judiciary over the Congregation. However, while we were imprisoned by the accusation of being connected to FETO, Bekir Bozdag ruled the purge of the members of the judiciary appointed by him as the head of the Judges and Prosecutors’ Board in the capacity of Minister of Justice, until the last week when his task was decided to be changed.

Let’s also look at the situation within the National Intelligence Organization (MIT) where Hakan Fidan is the undersecretary, who received information about the 15th July coup hours ago but still could/did not prevent the bloody attempt. One of the names that gave testimony to the Parliamentary Investigation Commission on July 15th Coup was the former MIT Undersecretary, Emre Taner. In his testimony, retired Undersecretary Taner refers to the period between 2005 and 2010 when he was in service and says: “In the period I was working, the infiltration of FETO to MIT was almost zero. You will not hire them unless you want it.

If you have a good examination, you will not hire them. I do not know after then. The next administration will answer. Now, when it is said that “70-80 people separated from MIT due to connections to FETO,” it is not even possible not to find it strange. This does not belong to the past. Maybe 2,3,5 people. We have no objection to that. But in the recent period I have the impression that these entries became more comfortable and clearer. I can easily say that.

MIT is the cleanest organization within the state institutions with regard to FETO and in the sense of other destructive organizations.” The former undersecretary Taner, who clearly accused Hakan Fidan of the Congregation’s infiltration in MIT, thinks that MIT is the “cleanest organization” with regard to FETO. Let’s see whether there is any truth in it. MIT Undersecretary Hakan Fidan, who did not even go to the Parliamentary Investigation Commission on the July 15th Coup to give his testimony or was not allowed to do so, on request, sent a report on the MIT staff connected to FETO. Journalist Müyesser Yildiz, my “old organization friend” with whom I was arrested and confined through the Congregation’s caliber on the basis of the lie that we were members of Ergenekon, explained the content of this report on the news portal named Oda TV. According to MIT report, within 2,5 years since December 17, 2013 until July 15, 2016, action was taken against 181 personnel and after the coup against 377 personnel. In other words, a total of 558 personnel with FETO connections have been identified in the institution, which is claimed to be “clean”. 167 of them have been removed from public service.

As a result of the termination of the contract or resignation, the association of 70 has been cut off. The temporary assignment of 272 Turkish Armed Forces/Police personnel have also been terminated. In total, 509 MIT personnel were cut off from the organization, while the rest of the 49 personnel were undergoing various actions, while 5 were reinstated. There is no information on how many of the 558 personnel mentioned were appointed to MIT by the undersecretary Hakan Fidan since 2010. However, let me recall once again that the former undersecretary, Emre Taner, has accused his successor undersecretary Hakan Fidan about the Congregation’s infiltration to MIT. It is not only the former undersecretary who voiced his accusations or skeptics about Hakan Fidan. Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım is one of those who voiced their suspicions.

Let’s explain… Today, we all know that from the statement made by the informant Major O.K. in the investigation by the Chief Public Prosecutor of Ankara, on 15 July 2016 at 14:00 he went to MIT and notify them that there would be a coup. However, MIT Undersecretary Hakan Fidan continues to insist that the notification was not a coup attempt. Chief of General Staff Hulusi Akar also gave a statement confirming Hakan Fidan, saying that the Undersecretary had come to the headquarters and mentioned an air operation on MIT and a plan for his abduction. General Akar, although he said, “We thought it was part of a bigger plan”, the tanks were on the streets about 7 hours after the notice to MIT. The war jets bombed the Parliament.

Although the coup attempt was unsuccessful, 250 people were massacred. Because, it was not realized that military operation to MIT by using attack helicopters and the abduction plan of Undersecretary Hakan Fidan were parts of the coup attempt. Or that’s what they want us to believe. Now we are in the prison for telling these things, our doubts, and writing them. But those who admit that they do not have a capacity to understand that it was part of a coup attempt, continues to direct the army and the MIT. We know that no one could reach Hakan Fidan for a few hours after the coup attempt had begun. Moreover, it is still an unknown why undersecretary Fidan informed neither Prime Minister Binali Yildirim nor the President Erdoğan, who calls Fidan as “My Secret Cube”, about the coup attempt.

On 2 August 2016 night, the Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, who was a guest of the joint live broadcast of CNNTurk and Kanal-D television channels,: “I asked to MIT Undersecretary why he had not told me. How come the Prime Minister, the President did not know?”. I said, ‘It is natural to say to the Chief of General Staff, but also you needed to tell the Prime Minister.’ “He could not answer.” In other words, the Prime Minister underlined the fact that MIT’s weakness was not only the lack of intelligence on the coup attempt. In an interview with Prime Minister Yildirim, a year after the coup attempt, he squeezed an information between the lines which raises our doubts. Prime Minister Yıldırım’s interview with Fikret Bila was published in the Hürriyet newspaper’s “15 July Anniversary” edition. Yıldırım explains that he reached the conclusion after making phone calls to Istanbul and Ankara police headquarters that they were confronted with a coup attempt on July 15. He states that he was able get a hold of MIT

Undersecretary Fidan 2 hours after the attempt started at around 22.30 – 23.00. Yıldırım says: “Information was not passed on to us, neither to me nor to the President. The Undersecretary (Hakan Fidan) did not say anything at that time. He did not say anything about the coup. I asked to him, ‘There is a coup attempt, what are you doing?’ . He told me: ‘ No, there is nothing, it is normal. We are working.’ “There is something different”.

Let’s recall what was happening at that time when MIT Undersecretary Hakan Fidan explained Prime Minister Yıldırım as “There is nothing, it is normal”. At 21:00: The coup plotters captured the headquarters of the General Staff and the commanders. As they began to clash with those who resisted, gunfire began to be heard. At 22:00: Guns were heard at the headquarters of the General Staff and the helicopter opened fire on those outside. At 22:05 am: Although Chief of the General Staff did not allow to fly, war jets in Ankara have begun flying over the sound wall. Time 22:28: In Istanbul, the tanks closed the Bosphorus Bridges. At 22:35: Istanbul Atatürk and Sabiha Gökçen Airports were occupied by coup plotters.

All these developments were first announced by social media and soon afterwards by national television channels. Let’s also mention, shortly after the hours that Prime Minister Yıldırım said he spoke with Undersecretary Fidan, at 23:00, the headquarters of MIT in Yenimahalle, Ankara, was attacked by attack helicopters. But Hakan Fidan said to the Prime Minister that “There is nothing, it is normal”. As the Prime Minister stated “That business is different ” indeed. And we will continue to look for the answer to the question of that ‘different business’ since, everyone has the right to know the facts especially the bereaved parents of those who put their lives in the line to prevent the coup.

There is no doubt that, one of the stronghold of Gulen congregation within the state, is the Police Department. The major proof to this statement would be the different roles of the cops who are also members of the congregation in Ergenekon, Balyoz, Devrimci Karargah, KCK, Şike, Oda TV and similar conspiracy investigations and claims. After July 15 th , more than 13 thousand police officers were removed from their positions due to the alleged connection to FETÖ. The vast majority of were arrested. However, we need to indicate that the number of the officers who are the member of the congregation is much more than that. The restructuring process of the Congregation’s organization in the police force has started in the 1980s.

Therefore, AKP is not the only party who is responsible for this movement. Nevertheless, condonation of the AKP government of the cheating activities of the police force candidates in their exams or leaking the questions to Gulen’s teaching institutions before the exams, or ignoring the criticisms made them the sole responsible.

Let’s give some examples:

-The questions of the police officer exam, that was performed in August 26, 2007 and more than 71 thousand candidates all around Turkey have participated in, were appeared to be stolen before. After the topic took media’s attention it’s been claimed that it’s been cheated in the exam and the questions were leaked to the groups implying the Congregation. The Interior Minister of the period, Besir Atalay claimed that knowing the exam questions in advance or the leakage of the questions is not likely to happen. -8 months later, Besir Atalay’s ambitious statement was proven unsound. The Vocational Police School exam questions were leaked to the FEM training centers that are owned by the Congregation and serviced to some of the students with the answer key in September 13 th , 2009. The exam, that more than 60 thousand candidates have participated, was cancelled when the subject was on the news.

-It’s been identified that in the exam, that was performed by General Directorate of Security on March 12, 2012 to meet the deficit of intermediate level of chief officers and taken by more than 50 thousand police officers, it’s been cheated. 68 of those winners were related and 485 of those who were the strongest personnel that the Congregation has in the organization, the Intelligence and Anti-smuggling units, Prime Ministry Directorate of Protection, and Principal Clerk of the Ministry, have scored between 85-90. It is also emerged that the winners of 2011 exam have answered correctly the 19 questions that were already erroneous by the Court. The Congregation was picking its members from the police academy students in the 1980’s, while they have been directly placing their own members into the Police Organization by plagiarizing the exam questions during the AKP government. During the examinations, the AKP government preferred to ignore these claims that were subject of the complaint and reported on the news as well. Only after the investigations on the corruption charges on December 17/25 2013 that the Congregation has targeted AKP with, the AKP government opened judiciary and administrative investigations on the examinations. So far this is the summary of the iceberg’s tip including the military and judicial organizations who fired their guns towards their own people with the coup attempt, the Police Organization and MIT(National Intelligence Agency – NIA)’s situation and, AKP government’s responsibility. Obviously, the Gulen Congregation proceeded for their ultimate goal without striking a snag for 14 years during the AKP government. Moreover, the Congregation continued to raise and protect their gains within the system and didn’t face with a deterrent drawback, despite the MIT (National Intelligence Agency – NIA) investigation in February 7, 2012 that made their intentions very clear towards AKP and the investigations on the corruption charges on December 17/25 2013. It is possible to summarize the government response to the people who continued to criticize and warn AKP while noticing the growing danger by only one quotation. The AKP Deputy Chairman of the time, Huseyin Celik, responded to critics about the Congregations organized power in government as; “They mention that the Congregation seized the government, exuded into the government. These words would amuse the crows. Well, let’s end this paranoia.”

There is one more anectode that I would like to evoke. Gulen Congregation’s most powerful time was 2011. The members of AKP government, the majority of the media, and the vast majority of the members of the judiciary who are imprisoning everybody to prove that they are enemies with FETÖ, were afraid to mention neither the name Fethullah Gulen nor the Congregation. They obeyed the government powerful force, the Congregation, for their own benefits like they obey Recep Tayyip Erdogan and AKP now.

I was arrested at that time as well due to Congregation conspiracy and the reason for that was also a professional activity as it is now. I was working on a book that was intended to investigate the Congregation’s police and judicial organized gangs during the Ergenekon investigation and its role in the case. The name of the book was “Imamin Ordusu” (“Imam’s Army”) at that time, when everyone was afraid of the Congregation, being allegiant, and could not even mention its name.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan was the Prime Minister of the period and he was stating that “Some books are dangerous than a bomb.” For journalists held in prison, as he often did now, he said, “Not journalists, but terrorists.” Certainly, we do not have such an expectation, but if Erdoğan had read, listened to and understood the relationship between books, writers and journalists instead of keeping it at a criminal level, most likely we would not be here today.

Moreover, if Erdogan was someone who read, he would also be aware of what Salvador Allende said to Fascist junta of Chile; ” History is ours, and people make history.” Yes, history is on our side once again. So you will not be able to create an illegal organization neither in the Cumhuriyet Newspaper or terrorists from us.

You must have understood from what I’ve told you so far. What I say is not defense or expression. On the contrary, it is an accusation. Because; As it states at the beginning of this text “The Indictment” that prepares the legal cover of this political operation does not legalize the shame that must be treated as trash. Just as some people who have their roles as judges and prosecutors before and after this political operation did not make themselves jurists.

This operation directed at us is nothing but a persecution aimed at the freedoms of thought and expression and the freedom of press; and some members of the judiciary undertook the task of being the lynch mob of this persecution. In developed democracies, judiciary operates according to the international norms of law. It is a regulating power responsible for the establishment of justice; but in Turkey, some members of the judiciary themselves have become the grave diggers for justice.

It is not surprising that in a country where dictatorship-aspiring people who are after the institutionalization of a system not bound by the regulations of democracy, to find a judiciary suffering in a political and intellectual destitution. If you take away rights, justice, conscience and merit from judiciary, what remains is the current status of the Turkish judiciary.

We know perfectly well from our experiences that the summons of humanity for rights, justice, legality do not reach you. Therefore, I will not have a request from you. I would only like to tell you that the robes that surround you like a protective armor, are made of human lives and freedoms.

The organization that you are looking for in Cumhuriyet Newspaper, is ruling the country under the disguise of a political party. The media that has become “his master’s voice” is serving the lies of this organization of vice as the truth to the public. They cover up the crimes and perform the task of proliferating the vice and making it banal. That is, spreading the Organization’s propaganda. Because, a well known truth is once again in front of us: Crime is the most potent adhesive in the world. It is this adhesive that binds the political power, bureaucracy, judiciary, plundering capital and the media that has become “his master’s voice”.

Those who think that this dirty system, this crime dynasty will last forever are wrong. Like all the dictatorships that darken the pages of history, those who toil to progress with the insatiable hunger of their hates and ambitions, always prepare their own ends. When they arrive at their own hells the roads of which they themselves paved, there will be nothing left of their glorious arrogance and mind boggling condescension. No one should doubt that the seige of this organization of vice will be broken with all its persons and institutions. Because in this country;

– Despite the enemies of democracy, there are those who fight for a sustainable and far-reaching democracy.

– Despite those who slaughter justice, there are those who defend the supremacy of law. – Despite those who glorify war and death to perpetuate their profits, there are those who struggle to make peace and life essential.

– Despite the child murderers and protectors of pedofiles, there are those who work to make the dreams of children realities.

– And despite those who want to strangle the truth, there are those who still want to be a journalist.

This is all I want to say to an operation that wants to criminalize my journalistic activities. This is not a statement for my defense, because I consider doing so as an insult to journalism and to the ethical values of my profession. Because journalism is not a crime.

Criminalization of journalistic activities is a common feature of totalitarian regimes. My experience shows that because of my journalistic activities I have managed to become the offender of the judiciary of every government and of every period. I am proud of this inheritance I will be leaving to my daughter. I know this government and its judiciary also has some issues with me. Because I am trying to practice journalism.Today, I am practicing journalism depending on the power of the truth, not depending on the power of the government or other power centers as it is broadly practiced in Turkey. Because practicing journalism under the regimes that are not closely associated with democracy and gradually becoming more totalitarian, means crossing the line. And journalism cannot be practiced by toeing the line and you cannot call it journalism if it is done toeing the line.

If you write and talk by permission, you will be crushed under the weight of your inaptness. For this reason, what I am going to say is that I was a journalist yesterday. I am a journalist today. And I will continue practicing journalism tomorrow. That means the irreconcilable contradiction between us and those who want to strangle the truth will never end. In these dark days what we need is not the further loss of the truth. More than anything we need more truth.

Therefore, I will continue to respect truth more than myself and continue to refuse being one of the conformists that deny the truth. For this , it is obvious that a price must be paid. But do not think that this scares us. Neither I nor the “journalists on the outside” that I am proud to be friends with, are not afraid of you whomever you might be.

Because we know that what scares the tyrants most is courage.

And the tyrants should know that no cruelty can prevent the progress of history. Down with tyranny, long live freedom.

[patriotsnet]

Are There Any Republicans Running Against Trump

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/are-there-any-republicans-running-against-trump/

Are There Any Republicans Running Against Trump

Republican Party Presidential Primaries

Republican National Convention

  First place by first-instance vote

  Donald Trump

Presidential primaries and caucuses of the Republican Party took place in many U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories from February 3 to August 11, 2020, to elect most of the 2,550 delegates to send to the Republican National Convention. Delegates to the national convention in other states were elected by the respective state party organizations. The delegates to the national convention voted on the first ballot to select Donald Trump as the Republican Party’s presidential nominee for president of the United States in the 2020 election, and selected Mike Pence as the vice-presidential nominee.

President Donald Trump informally launched his bid for reelection on February 18, 2017. He launched his reelection campaign earlier in his presidency than any of his predecessors did. He was followed by former governor of MassachusettsBill Weld, who announced his on April 15, 2019, and former Illinois congressmanJoe Walsh, who declared his candidacy on August 25, 2019. Former governor of South Carolina and U.S. representativeMark Sanford launched a primary challenge on September 8, 2019. In addition, businessman Rocky De La Fuente entered the race on May 16, 2019, but was not widely recognized as a major candidate.

Why Donald Trump Is Republicans’ Worst Nightmare In 2024

Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large

Earlier this week, amid a rambling attack on the validity of the 2020 election, former President Donald Trump said this: “Interesting that today a poll came out indicating I’m far in the lead for the Republican Presidential Primary and the General Election in 2024.”

this on Trump’s future political ambitions from Politico“Trump is confiding in allies that he intends to run again in 2024 with one contingency: that he still has a good bill of health, according to two sources close to the former president. That means Trump is going to hang over the Republican Party despite its attempts to rebrand during his exile and its blockade of a Trump-centric investigation into January’s insurrection.”new Quinnipiac University national pollhis growing legal and financial entanglementsAs CNN reported on Wednesday night“Manhattan prosecutors pursuing a criminal case against former President Donald Trump, his company and its executives have told at least one witness to prepare for grand jury testimony, according to a person familiar with the matter — a signal that the lengthy investigation is moving into an advanced stage.”

Mcconnell Helps Gop On A Trump Tightrope

McConnell, known for bringing home the political bacon to Kentucky, looked to give GOP colleagues a way out when he announced the Senate’s schedule was shifting.

Lawmakers, he said, are returning to Washington next week to take up a $500 billion relief bill that seems to be a guaranteed dead on arrival proposal for House Democrats, who have held fast to their $2.2 trillion proposal.

The timing of the GOP bill came a day after McConnell was criticized by McGrath, his Democratic challenger, about the results of his influence amid the coronavirus pandemic during Monday’s debate.

“His one job is to help America through this crisis right now in passing legislation to keep our economy afloat so that people can make ends meet,” McGrath, a retired Marine fighter pilot, said. “Instead of doing that, he is trying to ram through a Supreme Court nominee right now.”

More:McConnell says Senate will vote on a $500 billion stimulus plan before Election Day as Trump tells GOP to ‘go big or go home’

McConnell blamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the lack of a deal during the debate, but McGrath pounced on the comment.

“You’re hearing it all night long: More excuses,” she responded. “He’s the Senate majority leader, and he still can’t get it done.”

Where do Americans stand on election issues? Let them tell you how they feel about this policy

The president went further when he indicated on FOX Business Network that he would be willing to raise the price if necessary to get a deal done.

Republicans Who Could Run Against Trump

Save Story

Save this story for later.

Like many people, James Comey, the former F.B.I. director, has been thinking about the best way for the Presidency of Donald Trump to end. Interviewed in New York last week, Comey said that his own, possibly “weird” thought is that impeachment is not the ideal course; for one thing, it would let voters “off the hook” in 2020. “We need a clear jump upward, and it will come from tens of millions of Americans,” he told his interviewer, Nicolle Wallace. But Comey put the burden on the Democrats, saying, “They have to win.”

In response, Trump tweeted that Comey had “just totally exposed his partisan stance by urging his fellow Democrats to take back the White House in 2020.” He added, “Comey had no right heading the FBI at any time, but especially after his mind exploded!” The date and the circumstances of the alleged detonation were not clear, but the message was: to speak about confronting Trump at the polls is to speak as a Democrat.

Trump knows that, which is why his campaign is already working to engineer a preëmptive endorsement in the New Hampshire primary, the first in the nation, from the state Party, which traditionally remains neutral. He could be much more vulnerable by August of 2020, when the Republican National Convention meets in Charlotte, North Carolina, depending on, among other things, how the Mueller investigation develops.

December 24 & 31, 2018Amy Davidson Sorkin

Roque Rocky De La Fuente

An entrepreneur and businessman who’s had a career in car sales, banking, and real estate development, Roque De La Fuente, known as “Rocky,” is accustomed to running for public office. in 2016, he sought the Democratic party nomination, then ran as Reform Party and self-funded American Delta Party candidate in the same election, coming in eight in the popular vote. In 2018, he sought the nomination in nine senate races—winning none. In May 2019, De La Fuente announced his candidacy to challenge Trump in the 2020 election.

De La Fuente’s name is on the ballot in a dozen states, and he owns businesses and property in several of them. His program reflects the candidate bipartisan inclination. De La Fuente talks about gun control, immigration reform that “unites families, not divides them,” promises to match immigrants with job shortage, and supports environmental protection and investment in renewable energy.

Age: 65 Years in political office: 0

Who gives him money: Himself.

Biggest idea for the economy: Match immigrants with job shortages, invest in renewable energy to create new jobs. 

Social media following: 65,400, : 241,000.

Who will like this candidate: Moderate Republicans, conservative independents.

Who will hate this candidate: Trump supporters. 

Florida Gov Ron Desantis

DeSantis, 42, has quickly emerged as a Republican rising star. He finished second in the Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll in February behind Trump, and some see him as the best positioned heir to the Trump mantle.

If Trump doesn’t run again, “I think he’s the odds-on favorite to be the next president,” Florida Republican Party chair and state Sen. Joe Gruters told NBC News of DeSantis.

DeSantis’ appeal is due in part to his combative relationship with the news media — he regularly spars with journalists, interrupting or pushing back against their questions in a way Trump fans would appreciate — and also because of his handling of the pandemic.

In a recent Wall Street Journal , DeSantis wrote that Florida’s less-restrictive response to COVID-19 bucked faulty intel from “the elites” and the state still ended up with “comparatively low unemployment, and per capita COVID mortality below the national average.” Florida’s COVID-19 death rate per 100,000 people is similar to California and Ohio, and so far, about 33,500 Floridians have died from the virus. New research in the American Journal of Public Health suggests the state is undercounting COVID-19 deaths.

Escaping The President’s Shadow

With Election Day less than three weeks away, McConnell and other Senate Republicans have taken more deliberate steps to distance themselves from Trump.

The majority leader said recently he hadn’t been to the White House for weeks because of lax coronavirus protocols, a revelation that seemed to undercut the president’s message that he deserves “an A-plus” for his handling of the pandemic.

It’s a balancing act for Republican Senate candidates running for reelection in battleground states who need the GOP base to win as well as a significant share of independents who may be turned off by Trump’s rhetoric, behavior and policies.

More:Trump, Biden dueling town halls gave voters a different view of the candidates Lately, they’ve been trying to escape the president’s shadow.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., is trying to win a second term in a state Trump won in 2016 by nearly 4 percentage points but where polls showed the president now trailing Biden by a similar margin.

So it was not unusual to see Tillis recently try to appeal to both groups recently, said Taylor who analyzes Senate races for the Cook Political Report.

He was quick out of the gate to back Trump’s move to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death last month of Ruth Bader Ginsburg seat, giving his support even before Barrett was chosen as the nominee. Then, last week, the Tar Heel state Republican threw shade on the president by telling Politico he’s running to be “a check on a Biden presidency.”

The 2024 Republican Presidential Candidate Wild Cards

The first Democratic debate back in 2019 had 20 — TWENTY! — candidates, so don’t be surprised if the Republican field is just as large or larger. We could have some more governors or representatives run, or even other nontraditional candidates, like a Trump family member, a Fox News host or a celebrity, like Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, who’s said he’s “seriously considering” a run. Stranger things have happened.

Republican Presidential Nomination 2020

Presidential election changes in response to the coronavirus pandemic

The Republican Party selected President Donald Trump as its presidential nominee at the 2020 Republican National Convention, which was held from August 24-27, 2020.

Prior to the national convention, individual state caucuses and primaries were held to allocate convention delegates. These delegates vote at the convention to select the nominee. Trump crossed the delegate threshold necessary to win the nomination—1,276 delegates—on March 17, 2020.

George H.W. Bush was the last incumbent to face a serious primary challenge, defeating political commentator Pat Buchanan in 1992. He was also the last president to lose his re-election campaign. Franklin Pierce was the first and only elected president to lose his party’s nomination in 1856.

Sixteen U.S. presidents—approximately one-third—have won two consecutive elections.

In Gop Poll From Hell Republicans Say They Want Donald Trump Jr To Be President In 2024

To revist this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories.

Save Story

To revist this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories.

A recurring nightmare among millions of Americans is that come 2024, Donald Trump will forget the fact that he actually being president, decide to run again, and win. Seriously, can you think of a more horrifying scenario, except perhaps falling through a sidewalk into a rat-filled chasm, which some people might still prefer? We maintain that you cannot. But an equally terrifying, skin-crawling situation would definitely be to turn on the TV on January 20, 2025, and see Donald Trump Jr. being sworn in as president of the United States, which a number of Republican voters apparently actually want to happen.

The poll, which was conducted between July 6 and 8, did not include Donald Trump Senior, who maintains an inexplicable grip on voters despite the mass-death stuff, an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election, and a mental state that suggests he should be in a home or studied by a team of Swiss doctors.

And the fact that Don Jr. came out on top is not where the scary news ends. Because apparently if Republicans can’t have Sheep Killer over here, their second-favorite choice is Florida governor Ron DeSantis, the man currently responsible for :

If you would like to receive the Levin Report in your inbox daily, click  to subscribe.

More Great Stories FromVanity Fair

Former Us Ambassador To The United Nations Nikki Haley

Haley, 49, stands out in the potential pool of 2024 Republican candidates by her resume. She has experience as an executive as the former governor of South Carolina and foreign policy experience from her time as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Haley was a member of the Republican Party’s 2010 tea party class. A former South Carolina state representative, her long shot gubernatorial campaign saw its fortunes improve after she was endorsed by Sarah Palin. Haley rocketed from fourth to first just days after the endorsement, and she went on to clinch the nomination and become her state’s first female and first Indian-American governor.

As governor, she signed a bill removing the Confederate flag from the state Capitol following the white supremacist attack at the Emanuel African Methodist Church in Charleston. She left office in 2017 to join the Trump administration as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and Quinnipiac poll found she was at one point the most popular member of Trump’s foreign policy team.

“I think that she’s done a pretty masterful job in filling out her resume,” said Robert Oldendick, a professor and director of graduate studies at the University of South Carolina’s department of political science.

Haley criticized Trump following the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by his supporters, saying she was “disgusted” by his conduct. Oldendick said he thought her “pretty pointed criticism of the president will potentially cause some problems.”

Wheres Kamala Last Person In Room Harris Silent 6 Days Amid Afghan Pullout Chaos

Democrats are increasingly fearful Vice President Kamala Harris’ missteps will open the door for Republicans to regain the White House, a new report said Friday.

Dems, including senior White House officials, fear that Harris will lose to any Republican she faces — including former President Donald Trump— if President Biden does not seek reelection in 2024, Axios reported.

At 56, Harris is more than two decades Biden’s junior — and has been considered the heir apparent to the 46th president since he selected her to be his running mate last year.

While Harris will still be the presumptive nominee if Biden becomes the first president since Lyndon Johnson to not seek a second full term, Axios reports that a series of blunders have left officials and operatives concerned.

Right now, one operative told Axios, the feeling among Democrats isn’t “‘Oh, no, our heir apparent is f—ing up, what are we gonna do?’ It’s more that people think, ‘Oh, she’s f—ing up, maybe she shouldn’t be the heir apparent.’”

Harris has repeatedly been criticized for her handling of the illegal immigration crisis along the US-Mexico border, a problem Biden dumped in her lap in March by tasking her to deal with the “root causes” of the issue.

According to Axios, several White House officials have also described Harris’ office as a “sh—tshow,” poorly managed, and staffed with people who don’t know the vice president well.

Maryland Gov Larry Hogan

Hogan, 64, is a two-term governor and cancer survivor who underwent chemotherapy while in office. He was declared cancer-free in 2015. A moderate, Hogan told The Washington Post that he saw the 2024 Republican primary as a competition between “10 or 12 or more people fighting in the same lane to carry on the mantle of Donald Trump” and another lane “straight up the middle” that would be much less crowded. Though he said it was too early to say whether he saw himself in that lane, Hogan wrote in his 2020 memoir “Still Standing” that members of Trump’s cabinet approached him about challenging Trump in the GOP 2020 primary.

Will Trump Be Spoiler As California Gop Seeks Newsom Recall

In this July 26, 2021 file photo Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks at a news conference in Oakland, Calif. California could witness a stunning turnabout if voters dump Newsom and elects a Republican to fill his job in a the September recall election.

LOS ANGELES — California could witness a stunning turnabout in a nation of deeply polarized politics if the liberal state dumps Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and elects a Republican to fill his job in a September recall election.

With the country’s political center largely vanished, it’s rare to see governors win elections on adversarial ground, making the notion of a Republican upset in one of the nation’s Democratic strongholds seem implausible. Republicans haven’t won a statewide race in California since 2006.

But there are exceptions: Republican governors have defied the odds in solidly Democratic territory — Vermont, Massachusetts and Maryland. Their success looks even more striking when considering those states delivered the largest percentage victories for Joe Biden in the presidential election last year.

That could provide a dose of encouragement for Republican recall candidates, but the circumstances don’t square neatly with California, starting with the unavoidable shadow of former President Donald Trump.

“All three of those governors are pretty significant critics of Donald Trump,” noted Kyle Kondik, an analyst at the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

South Dakota Gov Kristi Noem

Noem, 49, has seen her profile rise during the pandemic, and she also had a high-profile moment last summer when she hosted Trump at Mount Rushmore for the Fourth of July. Noem gifted Trump with a Mount Rushmore replica that included his face, and her growing connection with Trump fueled speculation that he was considering swapping her for Pence as his running mate. She reportedly visited Washington, D.C., weeks later to smooth things over with Pence, according to The New York Times.

Noem isn’t one to back down from culture wars fights. She recently came under fire from social conservatives for not signing a bill she originally said she supported barring transgender athletes from competing in sports. Noem cited her concern that the state would be punished by the NCAA, but followed up last week with executive orders restricting transgender athletes in K-12 schools and colleges.

Noem also recently got in a Twitter fight with Lil Nas X over his limited-edition “Satan Shoes.” The rapper responded to her tweet by saying, “ur a whole governor and u on here tweeting” about the shoes. Noem fired back with a Bible verse from Matthew 16:26.

Like DeSantis, Noem has played up her state’s more hands-off approach to handling COVID-19, but the virus has devastated South Dakota. More than 1,900 people have died in the rural state, and it has the eighth-highest death rate per 100,000 people in the U.S., according to data compiled by .

Former Ambassador To The United Nations Nikki Haley

Haley has changed her tone when it comes to Trump. After saying he “let us down” and “lost any sort of political viability he was going to have” following Jan. 6, Haley is, at least publicly, a fan again. During her remarks at the Iowa Republican Party dinner on June 24, Haley praised Trump and told a story about him asking if he should call Kim Jong Un “little rocket man” during his speech at the U.N. Haley said she cautioned him to treat the audience like church instead of a rally, but he went ahead and used the term.

Haley even sounded kind of Trumpian during her speech, telling Republicans they were too nice. “We have to be tough about how we fight,” she said. “We keep getting steamrolled and then whine and complain about it. The days of being nice should be over.”

She also didn’t shy away from her gender, opening the speech by saying, “America needs more strong conservative women leaders and less of Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris,” and praising female Iowa Republicans like U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst and Gov. Kim Reynolds. “I wear heels,” Haley said. “It’s not for a fashion statement. I use it for kicking. But I always kick with a smile.”

Whos Running For President In 2020

Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is the presumptive Democratic nominee to challenge President Trump in the 2020 race.

The field of Democratic presidential candidates was historically large, but all others have dropped out. Mr. Trump had also picked up a few Republican challengers, but they have also ended their campaigns.

Running

Has run for president twice .

Is known for his down-to-earth personality and his ability to connect with working-class voters.

His eight years as Barack Obama’s vice president are a major selling point for many Democrats.

Signature issues: Restoring America’s standing on the global stage; adding a public option to the Affordable Care Act; strengthening economic protections for low-income workers in industries like manufacturing and fast food.

Main legislative accomplishment as president: a that chiefly benefited corporations and wealthy investors.

Has focused on undoing the policies of the Obama administration, including on health care, environmental regulation and immigration.

Was impeached by the House of Representatives for seeking to pressure Ukraine to smear his political rivals, but was acquitted by the Senate.

Signature issues: Restricting immigration and building a wall at the Mexican border; renegotiating or canceling international deals on trade, arms control and climate change; withdrawing American troops from overseas.

Ended his second bid for the Democratic nomination in April 2020, after a series of losses to Mr. Biden.

Sen Marco Rubio Of Florida

Like Cruz, Rubio would enter the 2024 presidential race with heightened name ID and experience from his 2016 run. One of Rubio’s biggest challenges, though, could be his fellow Floridians. If DeSantis and fellow Sen. Rick Scott run, there could be just one ticket out of Florida, a Republican strategist said.

Rubio, 49, is married to Jeanette Dousdebes and they have four children. He graduated from the University of Florida and University of Miami School of Law and was speaker of the Florida House of Representatives before running for U.S. Senate in 2010.

Heres Whos Running Against Trump

So who’s decided to try to run against Trump so far?

Former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, who ran in the Libertarian VP spot in 2016, is running for President as a Republican.

Donald Trump, by turns arrogant and paranoid, has made no secret of the fact that he wishes to be crowned as President rather than elected. That might be fine in a monarchy, but we overthrew ours two centuries ago.

Cancellation Of State Caucuses Or Primaries

The Washington Examiner reported on December 19, 2018, that the South Carolina Republican Party had not ruled out forgoing a primary contest to protect Trump from any primary challengers. Party chairman Drew McKissick stated, “Considering the fact that the entire party supports the president, we’ll end up doing what’s in the president’s best interest.” On January 24, another Washington Examiner report indicated that the Kansas Republican Party was “likely” to scrap its presidential caucus to “save resources”.

In August 2019, the Associated Press reported that the Nevada Republican Party was also contemplating canceling their caucuses, with the state party spokesman, Keith Schipper, saying it “isn’t about any kind of conspiracy theory about protecting the president … He’s going to be the nominee … This is about protecting resources to make sure that the president wins in Nevada and that Republicans up and down the ballot win in 2020.”

Kansas, Nevada and South Carolina’s state committees officially voted on September 7, 2019, to cancel their caucus and primary. The Arizona state Republican Party indicated two days later that it will not hold a primary. These four were joined by the Alaska state Republican party on September 21, when its central committee announced they would not hold a presidential primary.

Virginia Republicans decided to allocate delegates at the state convention.

[opedguy]

Biden and Warren Hear That Sucking Sound

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), Feb. 15, 2020.--Both front-runners in the Democrat presidential campaign, 77-year-old former President Joe Biden and 71-year-old Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) hear that sucking sound as their campaigns go down the tubes.  Biden presented himself as the heir apparent to the Democrat nomination, citing his eight years as former President Barack Obama’s Vice President. He asked voters on the campaign trail to allow him to continue the Obama legacy, even though he’s received no endorsement from Obama. Joe thought that name recognition would be enough to get him over the top, having difficulty handling the rigors of day-to-day campaigning.  Unlike his rival, 78-year-old Bernie Sanders, Biden lacks the energy necessary to energize the Democrat base, looking for the best candidate to go up against 73-year-old President Donald Trump.  Biden’s looked lethargic at campaign events.

            Warren doesn’t lack the energy but she’s watched her fortunes change now running in 4th place with 12.4% in aggregate national polling.  Like Biden, she’s been outflanked on the left wing of her party by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) whose supporters have shown far more enthusiasm at campaign events.  Warren finds her message getting old but, more importantly, her delivery of the message, seems shrill, screeching at her audience to back her campaign.  Unlike Bernie, Warren always seems pressing, pushing too hard, turning off voters from her message.  Bernie, on the other hand, delivers his populist message with force-of-conviction, whether or not his proposals are realistic or could ever get approved by Congress. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) questioned today whether or not Bernie’s proposals, especially Medicare-for-al,l could get approved in a divided Congress.

            Voters don’t care whether or not any of Bernie’s proposals, including Medicare-for-all, climate change, retiring student debt or paying for free college tuition get passed.  What voters care about is that they know Bernie is sincere when it comes to trying to get change.  While the same thing can be said for Warren, especially her tax proposals on the rich or plans to restructure Wall Street, voters don’t like the way in which she delivers her message. Warren sounds angry much of the time, leaving voters questioning her intentions.  Some pundits think that Warren can take Bernie’s lane, leaving her left out of the race.  But voters have had a good chance to evaluate Warren and find themselves turned off to her campaign.  You can’t build a campaign only on ripping Trump or calling for Atty. Gen. Bill Barr to resign.  Warren’s lost credibility because she spends too much time ripping Trump.

            As Nevada approaches its caucus Feb. 22, Bernie has over taken Biden, once commanding an insurmountable lead until he tanked in Iowa and New Hampshire.  No matter how much Iowa and New Hampshire are outliers, Nevada and South Carolina voters watch carefully to see who has momentum going into their contests.  If Bernie takes Nevada, it’s going to have an effect on South Carolina voters where Biden currently clings to a small lead in the polls.  Losing in Nevada could pull the plug on Biden’s Super Tuesday strategy, hoping to salvage bad results in Iowa and New Hampshire.  Biden, like Warren, has spent too much time slamming Trump, not enough time talking about what he’d do differently on the economy or foreign policy. While Warren has plenty of energy, Biden looks like he’s going through the motions, not enjoying himself campaigning.

            Unlike Biden, Warren isn’t positioned well for Super Tuesday where 14 sates, plus overseas ballots, cast their votes. Biden still has an edge over Sanders in Super Tuesday but that doesn’t take into account the effect of Nevada and South Carolina on upcoming contests.  Losing in Nevada could stop what’s left of Biden’s momentum built largely off name-recognition, certainly not campaign performances.  Judging by how things went in Iowa and North Carolina, no one expected Biden to take a 4th and 5th place finish in both states.  If Biden loses in Nevada, it could spell doom in South Carolina where the 77-year-old Senator hopes to get saved by Black voters.  But Black voters have their own preferences for Democrat candidates, giving Biden no lock on their votes.  When you consider how things have gone, there’s no guarantee it gets much better for Biden in Nevada and South Carolina.

            Warren finds herself pushed out of her left-most lane by Bernie, capturing the youth vote heading into Super Tuesday.  Trying to keep a stiff-upper-lip won’t be easy for Biden or Warren as more primary losses pile up.  Whether liked or not by the Democrat Party establishment, Sanders has seized the momentum, with only one candidate, 77-year-old former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sucking oxygen out the race.  Outspending his opponents 10-fold, Bloomberg’s Super Tuesday strategy could derail Biden and Warren, where Democrat voters see Bloomberg as the clear alternative.  Bloomberg’s strategy is unprecedented, spending more on political ads than any other candidate.  Candidates like Sen. Amy Klobushar (D-Minn.), who’s polling 4.6% nationally, have almost zero chance of making up lost ground.  Only Bernie looks like he’s got momentum heading into Nevada and South Carolina.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

[thisdaynews]

‘The rock star’ vs. ‘The rock’: Warren and Biden hurtle toward collision

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/the-rock-star-vs-the-rock-warren-and-biden-hurtle-toward-collision/

‘The rock star’ vs. ‘The rock’: Warren and Biden hurtle toward collision

With Sen. Elizabeth Warren rising in the polls and former Vice President Joe Biden’s lead narrowing since late spring, Warren’s message is igniting progressives. | Mario Tama/Getty Images

2020 Elections

A clash of opposites was on full display on the campaign trail the past week.

SEATTLE — Elizabeth Warren has the crowds. Joe Biden has the lead.

The split-screen story of one of the most intriguing matchups of the Democratic presidential primary is unfolding in a glaring contrast of style and substance.

Story Continued Below

On Sunday, Warren stood on the biggest stage of her presidential campaign for a rally here that drew an estimated 15,000 people — eclipsing an estimated 12,000-person event she held in Minnesota earlier in the week, according to her campaign. Across the country, Biden presided over a series of intimate, subdued events in New Hampshire and Iowa, hosting crowds that numbered in the low hundreds.

Warren roused her supporters with calls for “big, structural change,” and the crowd roared with chants of “Two cents! Two cents” while waving two fingers in the air as Warren discussed her 2 percent “wealth tax.” Biden pounded away at President Donald Trump, his campaign subtly and overtly reminding voters that polls consistently show him as the party’s best general election candidate and the primary’s front-runner.

The parallel displays by two of the three leading Democratic candidates offered a possible preview of the collision course looming if Biden and Warren maintain their current trajectory. It would be a clash of opposites: the progressive firebrand against the establishment favorite; the cerebral candidate of big, bold plans vs. the elder statesman offering himself as a safe haven for people who simply want a return to pre-Trump normalcy.

With Warren rising in the polls and Biden’s lead narrowing since late spring, her message is igniting progressives.

“Warren is on fire,” said Howard Dean, who in 2004 ran a Warren-like campaign as the unapologetic progressive outsider.

But Dean flamed out against John Kerry 15 years ago, reflecting the penchant of primary voters to nominate the safe choice to challenge the president of the opposition party running for reelection. And Dean, who is neutral in the race, acknowledged that Biden could benefit from similar circumstances in this cycle.

The primary, he said, will come down to “the element in the party that wants real change and the element that just wants to beat Trump.” Right now, Democrats are more focused on beating Trump, and those voters favor Biden most.

But today’s Democratic Party is far more progressive and Warren is far better organized than he was in 2004, he added.

“There has been a huge sea change,” Dean said. Democratic voters are “much more [people] of color and they’re much more female and they’re young.” And Biden is no Kerry, he said: “Biden is the old establishment, but he has cred because he was Obama’s vice president.”

Along the bucolic shores of Loon Lake in New Hampshire after a Biden speech Friday, former state House candidate John Streeter summed up the contrast between the two candidates.

“Warren is a rock star,” Streeter said.

And Biden?

“Joe Biden is a rock,” Streeter said. “We know him.”

In light of Biden’s standing atop the polls and the number of endorsements of influential Democrats, his campaign has grown weary as reporters and critics — including Trump — use crowd size as a metric to judge him.

“Are we worried about Elizabeth Warren’s crowd size? No, we’re not. I get it and I understand that it’s an easy metric to measure or to view,” said Pete Kavanaugh, Biden’s deputy campaign manager and point man in the early states.

“Some people — not local press but national press — are wondering, ‘Why did you have only 130 people on Wednesday in Prole [in Iowa].’ Well, it’s a town of 900 people,” Kavanaugh said. “We think it has strategic importance in the caucus. We’re not going to Cedar Rapids and Des Moines every trip. I get it. It would be lovely to have a crowd of 1,000 people every day. But it does not matter on Feb. 3,” the date of the state’s caucuses.

Still, Biden’s advisers are taking Warren seriously, and others on the team have privately acknowledged they see Warren as his strongest challenger of the nearly two dozen Democratic candidates.

Where Biden is dominating with traditional campaign donors, Warren is building a small-dollar money machine that makes her more of a financial threat than many had anticipated.

In June, Warren raised $7.8 million from 320,000 donations, compared with Biden’s $2.2 million from 111,000 donations, according to data from ActBlue, the online fundraising tool. (That is the most recent information available from the site.) Their small-dollar performances have been going in opposite directions, with Biden’s best days coming the week of his launch and Warren gaining steam over time.

But while Biden, for now, has the centrist, establishment path largely to himself, Warren still has Bernie Sanders in her progressive lane. Sanders has an even bigger small-dollar army, and also drew big crowds this week in Sacramento, Calif. and Louisville, Ky. The two are projecting similar messages, railing against the ultra-wealthy, asking people to join a broader movement, and subtly hitting Biden by warning against incrementalism.

Sanders isn’t viewed by Biden’s campaign as having as much room to grow as Warren. But Biden’s camp does see the continued strength of Warren and Sanders as an advantage, each limiting the other’s ability to expand their own base of support. Sanders’ campaign thinks he can eat into Biden’s support because of demographic overlap between their voters.

The two African-American candidates in the race, Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, have so far been unable to chip away at Biden’s solid lead among black voters, who give Biden a huge advantage especially in South Carolina and other Southern states.

Biden’s campaign also thinks his core message — prioritizing beating Trump and referring nostalgically to President Obama — resonates powerfully across the Democratic electorate.

“We have to reach beyond our party. We have to unify the country. We have to restore the soul of the nation,” Biden said Saturday to a crowd of about 300 at Keene State College in New Hampshire.

“We have to be a nation that values honesty and decency, treating everyone with respect and dignity, giving everyone a fair shot and leaving no one behind, giving hate no safe harbor.”

In response to an audience question about how she’d take on Trump, Warren said, “We’re not gonna win this by just saying, ‘not Trump.’” She added that “[w]hat is ugly, we can call it out. But that’s not enough. It’s not enough to be ‘not Trump.’”

Warren and Biden also diverge on style.

He meanders off-message and sometimes flubs his facts. At his first stop at Dartmouth College over the weekend, Biden veered into a discussion about the instability of the 1960s and early 1970s. But he mistakenly gave the wrong number of fatalities during the Kent State shootings, unexpectedly wondered aloud about what would have happened if Obama had been assassinated and confused being in New Hampshire with being in Vermont.

On the stump, Warren is resolutely on message. Where Biden is running as an extension of Obama’s presidency, Warren seldom mentions the last Democratic president. Her campaign markets her as the leader of a movement, selling “I’m a Warren Democrat” T-shirts. Some of her organizers invoke the Hamilton musical lyric, “This is not a moment, it’s the movement.”

Liberal hot spots like Seattle guarantee big, attention-drawing crowds as well. As at her other speeches, Warren on Sunday framed her campaign as an opportunity for Democrats to advance a cause, invoking the earlier efforts of suffragettes, union organizers, and civil rights foot soldiers.

“But they didn’t quit. They got organized. They built a grass-roots movement, theypersisted, and they changed the course of American history,” she said. “This is our moment in American history. Dream big. Fight hard. Let’s win.”

Marc Caputo reported from New Hampshire and Alex Thompson from Seattle. Maggie Severns contributed to this report.

Read More