#there's a meme going around about one of the vice presidential candidates doing things with a couch in his youth | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

chickorita305 · 4 years ago

Text

Election Day is Nigh

It’s unavoidable: Election Night is coming.

The news tonight is running several news stories related to things in the election. As I type this, my dad is listening to the local news headlines, including one that says the governor of Oregon, Kate Brown, is preemptively putting the National Guard on call for potential violence on Election Night. Upon looking it up an OPB article about it ("Oregon Gov. Kate Brown will declare emergency, ready National Guard ahead of election" on their website), I find that these National Guard troops will only be stationed around "the Portland area," if they are deployed at all, in part as a way to discourage people from discouraging voters to drop off their ballots. With the civil unrest and nightly protests that have been occurring in Portland since the start of the George Floyd protests on May 28, 2020, and the clarification in the OPB article that this could provide authorities with special permission to use crowd-control tactics that have otherwise been banned due to the backlash from their use in those protests, I can only imagine how poorly this will go over with the residents of Portland.

Despite the high tensions in Portland, and the Donald Trump rallies that have been held in the city and around the state, most polls project Oregon to be very likely to give their electoral votes to Joe Biden. As a state that has given their electoral votes to the Democratic nominee for president in the past 8 election cycles (a tradition that dates back to 1988 and which may have been influenced by the influx of people to Oregon due to companies like Intel moving their headquarters to the state), it is not unusual for polls to be projecting Oregon as in "safe Biden" territory, as websites like 270towin.org have phrased it. As someone hoping for the end to the Trump presidency, this projection seems both accurate and comforting. However, my concern, and the concern for most people anxiously watching the election as my family and friends have been doing, is not with Oregon.

Our concern dates back to the 2016 presidential election cycle, when then-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton faced off against soon-to-be-president Donald Trump. The polls back then were projecting a win for Hillary Clinton.

To people like myself, this seemed like a foregone conclusion: Hillary Clinton had years experience in politics, having served in several different capacities for the federal government. She lead delegations, served in the US Senate, and had been First Lady and Secretary of State throughout her career. Donald Trump, meanwhile, had built his career being known by putting his name on brands and making appearances in shows like The Apprentice, where his tagline quote was "You're fired!" It is true that Hillary Clinton was known to be out of touch with the youth, something that was often shown in her awkward uses of the slang of the day and popular trends such as the Nae-Nae. However, when compared to Donald Trump's platform, which he had built out of exclusion, disparaging people who did not agree with him or fact-checked his statements publicly, and reactionary policies, Clinton's out-of-touch image did not deter me.

There are a number of instances just during the days of Trump's first campaign that should have disqualified his bid for the presidency in any prudent voter's mind. Donald Trump mocked people with disabilities when he mocked the appearance of a reporter on the autism spectrum after the reporter, Serge Kovaleski, called Trump out for creating and spreading a lie that a "large Arab population" celebrated as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were hit. He called people coming over the border from Mexico, people who he lumped together as "Mexicans" despite the fact that more Mexicans were moving to Mexico from the US than vice versa after the Great Recession of 2008 according to the Pew Research Center ("More Mexicans Leaving Than Coming to the U.S." from 2015 on their website) and the fact that, by the time Donald Trump was running, the majority of undocumented immigrants crossing that border were from other Central American nations than Mexico, rapists, criminals, and drug-dealers. He was a big contributor to the spread of interest in claims that former president Barrack Obama was actually a citizen of Kenya, a conspiracy theory often referred to as "Birtherism" that has racist undertones for relying on the fact that Obama's father was born in Kenya and had British and Kenyan citizenship. His comment spoken and recorded in 2005 in a trailer with Billy Bush where he claims that he could do anything to women, including "grab them by the pussy," since women would let him do anything came to light and ignited backlash that later found prominence in the #MeToo movement and was incorporated into the 2017 Women's March with the appearance of knitted Pussyhats.

With all of these instances, the polls predicting his demise, and the experience of the Democratic presidential candidate after what seemed to me a leap forward in leadership domestically under a Democratic president for 8 years, it seemed clear to me that Donald Trump was destined to lose. Men like him didn't win offices like the presidency. In my world, fostered by fictional stories from a young age of strong women who worked hard and proved their place at the table with their competence and forged in the faith that the citizens of a nation cared more for uplifting each other than focusing on their own short-term, personal, material gain or the fear-mongering for the need of a strong military against a hazy, foreign (read: Middle Eastern) enemy in the minds of those that had lived through the attacks of 9/11, there could only be one choice. I went to bed that night believing that I would wake up to the news of the first woman elected to be President of the United States.

The world that I had believed myself to be living in proved to be just as fictitious as the stories that had nurtured them. I woke up the next day in my maternal grandmother's house, a comfortable 3-bedroom attached house an hour north of London, England, to the sobering news that Donald Trump had won enough electoral votes to take the election. Over the course of the week, when it became clear that Hillary Clinton had won the majority of votes cast, a sense that the presidency had been stolen was born among left-leaning voters. On that first day in a post-Trump win, however, I wasn't thinking of that. I was roiling with confusion as to how my fellow Americans could believe that a vote for Trump would be in anyone's best interest and struggling with a sense of grief as to what this would mean for the next 4 years to come.

It turns out that there are many Americans who do not place themselves into the shoes of the people who struggle to make a living for themselves and their families. A more forgiving interpretation might be that many Americans were not convinced that a Clinton presidency would provide the security that a Trump one would, though I have always questioned with how much veracity the people claiming this truly believe it to have. I had also underestimated the power with which then-director of the FBI James Comey's "October Surprise" (that is, his announcement that the FBI had "learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation [Clinton's handling of sensitive information that pertained to Benghazi, which had Trump rallying his supporters to chant "lock her up" in reference to Hillary Clinton].") would have in the minds of voters.

Perhaps more importantly, I had ignored how deeply unpopular Hillary Clinton was as a political figure. I had several friends and family members with whom I had talked about the presidential candidates, among whom many had expressed a dislike for Clinton whether or not they saw Donald Trump as a good alternative. That sentiment was widespread across the United States: In a 2016 Gallup poll ending the week of November 6, Hillary Clinton's favorability rating was 40% to Trump's 35%, while their unfavorability ratings were 52% and 61% respectively ("Trump and Clinton Finish With Historically Poor Images" on Gallup's news webpage). Stuck between a Democratic candidate from an established political family facing yet another scandal and a Republican one that preached the need for undoing all the policies of the past eight years, many voters chose the one they felt was at least better than the other candidate or, in many cases, didn't show up to the polls at all.

We know now that there was foreign interference in the 2016 US presidential election. It showed up in divisive memes online that hardened people's political stances and disrupted conversations that the right and left were having, polarizing our communities. It showed up in the discouragements of people, such as those in key swing states and BIPOC, to vote by convincing people that voting for officials never changed anything. It showed up in the access that Russian actors gained to voter registration and personal information in some circumstances. And it was Russian hacking of the Clinton campaign that lead to the leaking of tens of thousands of e-mails to WikiLeaks that would later become the October Surprise that James Comey would unleash near the Election Day of 2016. Much of this worked in Trump's favor to win the election.

Today, every news caster, website, or pundit that talks about poll numbers includes a disclaimer to the effect that "polls are not infallible" and stresses that "although the poll numbers are in Biden's favor, there is still a path for Trump to victory in this race." Behind these disclaimers are the memory of the 2016 presidential election. YouTube channel TLDR News US, which has reported on US national issues since June 2019, has made this a topic for more than one video on their channel. Their two videos "Can You Trust Polling Data? Is Biden Really Set to Win the Presidency" from August 11, 2020 and "If Polls Were Wrong in 2016, Can We Trust Them in 2020? Why Polls are More Reliable" from October 28, 2020 have been viewed for a total of 185,085 views as of November 2, 2020, with the majority of those views (specifically, 143, 683 of them) accounted for in the last 5 days for that latter video. Having watched these videos to help myself understand the reliability of the polls, I know first-hand how the anxiety of the election results drives people like me to search out information like this.

As we go into Election Day, this anxiety comes with me. While our election results will likely not be fully accounted for until all ballots can be counted, something that is unlikely to happen until later in November due to the record number of voters casting their ballots early through mail-in ballots and early voting events to avoid crowding the polls on Election Day and/or avoid the long lines typical of the day. While there is evidence that Trump has already decided to declare himself the victor on Election Night if the initial numbers look to be in his favor, polls are showing that Biden still has a lead in most states and could potentially deliver a crushing defeat through the electoral college...while also showing potential outcomes where Trump wins enough electoral votes to secure a second term of his presidency.

Tonight, I have more hope for the chances of a Biden presidency with the guidance of Kamala Harris than I do fear that Donald Trump will win the presidency again. What frightens me is that the fear that is there is so much heavier than the hope. It is not without recognition of the fact that any presidency will be flawed with overseas policy that aims to undermine the self-determination of people or acknowledgement of the fact that the presidency can only mean so much when the rest of the government is at odds with it that I watch this election with dreadful anticipation.

Only time will tell if the polls this election cycle are just as misguided as the 2016 election polls were, and whether I am hopeful or despondent about the path that the White House will take for the next four years. Time that has passed so slowly and yet come all too quickly.

#election day 2020 #us politics #2020 election #political #musings #rants

0 notes

xtruss · 4 years ago

Text

US Elections 2020

The age of the elderly candidate: how two septuagenarians (a person who is from 70 to 79 years old) came to be running for president

Biden and Trump have been eager to prove their virility, calling into question what effect old age has on the leader of the US

— The Guardian USA | David Smith in Washington | Thursday, 29 October 2020

Donald Trump, 74, is fighting an lection against an even older Joe Biden, 78. Photograph: Patrick Semansky/AP

“I woke up and I felt good,” Donald Trump told supporters at a campaign rally in Arizona, slamming the side of his lectern as he described hospitalisation with the coronavirus. “I said, ‘Get me out of here’. Boom! Superman!”

As the US president mimed Clark Kent ripping up open his shirt to reveal the Man of Steel’s “S” logo, the crowd chanted: “Superman! Superman! Superman!” The rally ended with loudspeakers booming Y.M.C.A by Village People: “Young man, there’s no need to feel down …”

Seventy-four years old and clinically obese, Trump appears eager to prove his virility. He is fighting an election against a man who is even older – Joe Biden turns 78 next month. If Biden wins, he will eclipse Trump’s own record as the oldest person to be sworn in as president.

The statistics are counterintuitive in a society that can often seem obsessed with youth. Voters’ thirst for change did not prevent this election being contested by two septuagenarian white men. But it has fuelled debate over whether the mental and physical toll of old age could impair the decision-making of the person with the nuclear codes.

Former president Jimmy Carter, 96, is the longest-lived US president in history. Photograph: John Amis/AP

“I hope there’s an age limit,” Jimmy Carter, who at 96 is the longest-lived US president in history, told an audience in Atlanta last year. “If I were just 80 years old, if I was 15 years younger, I don’t believe I could undertake the duties I experienced when I was president. You have to be able to go from one subject to another and concentrate on each one adequately and then put them together in a comprehensive way.”

Carter was 56 when he was beaten by Ronald Reagan, who at 69 was then the oldest person elected to the presidency. Reagan endured a gentle decline over two terms and was sometimes mocked for memory lapses and self-contradictions. Five years after leaving office he was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease.

Ronald Reagan, at 69, was the oldest person elected to the presidency in 1980. Photograph: Chuck Robinson/AP

Aware of the concerns, Biden’s campaign released a medical report last December saying he is a “healthy, vigorous, 77-year-old male, who is fit to successfully execute the duties of the presidency”. Trump, meanwhile, “remains healthy” according to the results of his latest physical exam, which the White House made public in June.

But the president has sought to weaponise the issue. As the election draws near and he barnstorms the country at campaign rallies, he is making baseless claims that “Sleepy Joe” is suffering cognitive decline, senility or even dementia. “He’s mentally gone,” Trump told Fox News. He also tweeted a meme that said “Biden for resident”, picturing the Democrat in a wheelchair seated among elderly people in a nursing home.

Biden responded in kind during an interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes programme last Sunday. “Hey, the same guy who thought that the 911 attack was a 7-Eleven attack,” he said. “He’s talking about dementia? All I can say to the American people is watch me, is see what I��ve done, is see what I’m going to do. Look at me. Compare our physical and mental acuity. I’m happy to have that comparison.”

Critics have suggested that Trump’s crude tactics could be seen as insulting by elderly voters and backfire. They also point to examples when the president slurs or uses the wrong word, and an incident when he walked gingerly down a ramp after speaking to West Point military cadets.

Donald Trump works in a conference room while receiving treatment for coronavirus. Photograph: Joyce N Boghosia/The White House/EPA

Trump’s age came under further scrutiny earlier this month when he was infected with the coronavirus, which severely affects the elderly. He made a speedy recovery but then said in a confusing video message: “We’re taking care of our seniors. You’re not vulnerable but they like to say you’re vulnerable. You’re the least vulnerable but for this one thing, you are vulnerable. So am I.”

It is Biden, however, who is more historically unusual. The last five Democratic presidents were John F Kennedy (aged 43 on taking office), Lyndon Johnson (55), Carter (52), Bill Clinton (46) and Barack Obama (47). For Republicans, Trump fits a more familiar pattern.

Wendy Schiller, a political science professor at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, said: “He was by no means the first ‘older’ nominee from the GOP [Grand Old Party]; Reagan was 69, John McCain was 71 and Mitt Romney was 65. The Democratic candidates have trended younger as far back as JFK in 1960, and they have only been successful at winning the presidency after 1964 with candidates under the age of 55.

“The party presidential nominating system tends to produce nominees who are older because of the type of electoral political experience typically required of successful nominees and the networking that is involved with state party activists over time to win state primaries.”

The nominees’ seniority in years raised the stakes in the recent vice-presidential debate between Mike Pence, 61, and Kamala Harris, who has since turned 56. Both candidates were asked whether they had discussed with their respective nominees the question of presidential incapacity; both avoided giving a direct answer.

Schiller added: “Americans are living longer than ever, and in better shape, so Joe Biden at 77 may very well be in better shape than Ronald Reagan was at 69. Donald Trump has proven to be a vigorous campaigner out on the road at the age of 74.

Joe Biden bounds up the steps of a plane in Delaware. Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

“However, I do think that in Biden’s case, as it was with John McCain, the VP choice carries more weight than it would if he were younger because voters are taking into account the fact that the VP could step in to serve as president.”

Trump and Biden are old politicians in American terms but not in global terms. Winston Churchill was 76 when he was re-elected as British prime minister in 1951 and the Queen is the world’s oldest head of state at 94. She is followed by Raúl Castro of Cuba at 89, Colville Young of Belize at 87, the Cameroonian president, Paul Biya, at 87 and the Lebanese president, Michel Aoun, at 85, according to Wikipedia. US supreme court justices continue to sit on the highest court until death.

Drexel Heard, the youngest Black executive director of the Los Angeles county Democratic party, said: “Ruth Bader Ginsburg was 87 and I think that people still respected her legal mind and everything she stood for. She still had a few more years left on her and nobody questioned her fitness for the supreme court.”

Heard, 34, added: “I don’t think that age has been a big factor in this election but, in down-ballot races, we are seeing more and more younger candidates across the country run for office. That’s the silver lining to a lot of that question, which is, what happens next?

“Joe Biden has always said he’s essentially a transitional president and he knows what’s coming up next. That’s part of the reason why he chose Senator Harris as his running mate and certainly why he continues to endorse candidates up and down the ballot at a younger age.”

Senator Bernie Sanders, 79, showed that age is no barrier to campaigning. Photograph: Nicole Hester/AP

During the past two Democratic primary cycles Senator Bernie Sanders, now 79, showed that age is no barrier to campaigning hard or exciting young voters. There are still questions over whether Biden can prove similarly inspiring but, among those in the demographic who do vote, there is little doubt he will crush Trump.

Coby Owens, 25, a civil rights activist from Biden’s home city of Wilmington, Delaware, said: “It was a difference between ideology when it came to the young people excited about Bernie and the young people who are excited about a Biden campaign. But I think, at the end of the day, you’re seeing all the youth-led organisations coming together and coalition-building for Biden.

“One of the things that we know is that, regardless of where he stands on a policy right now, we have a better chance of getting what we want and what we need for our future with a President Biden and Vice-President Harris rather than a President Trump and Vice-President Pence.”

A more surprising shift is taking place at the other end of the age spectrum. Republicans have led among the elderly by around 10 percentage points in the past four presidential elections. But Covid-19 has hit this group especially hard – about four in five of the Americans killed by the virus are above 65 – and appears to have dragged down Trump’s popularity.

The president trails among elderly voters by more than 20 points, according to recent CNN and Wall Street Journal/ NBC News polls. This swing could prove critical in states such as Arizona and Florida, which have a high number of retirees. Both campaigns are making huge investments in ads targeting older voters.

On a recent visit to The Villages retirement community in Florida, Trump claimed: “Biden’s plan would mean America’s seniors have no air conditioning during the summer, no heat during the winter and no electricity during peak hours. It’s true.” It is not true.

0 notes

theliberaltony · 5 years ago

Link

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Whether he’s dancing the Cupid Shuffle or wearing a button pledging to “Make Americans Think Harder,” tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang has run anything but a normal presidential campaign. That seems fitting for a political novice whose background in law and technology has given his campaign an unusual top issue: a signature proposal for a universal basic income — Yang calls it the “Freedom Dividend” — to mitigate the effects of automation and job loss on the economy. At one debate, Yang even announced that his campaign would give 10 families $1,000 per month for the next year as a case study for his UBI proposal.

And although Yang’s support continues to hover in the single digits — about 3 percent nationally, on average — he is one of seven candidates who made the December debate, and he is also the only candidate of color to make the cut. So here’s a look at what we know about Yang’s small, but loyal support — the “Yang Gang” — and what it can tell us about his presidential bid.

Yang’s base is young

Yang’s strength comes primarily from voters under the age of 45, especially those between the ages of 18-to-29. Take Morning Consult’s large-sample weekly tracking poll where they interviewed more than 13,000 likely Democratic primary voters nationwide from Dec. 9 to Dec. 15. In that survey, Yang received 9 percent support among 18-to-29 year olds, which put him fourth behind Sen. Bernie Sanders (44 percent), former Vice President Joe Biden (18 percent) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (12 percent). So even though Yang had far less overall support in the poll than Sanders (4 percent versus 22 percent), Yang actually had the largest share of supporters under the age of 45 (74 percent compared with Sanders’s 69 percent).

Yang’s support mostly comes from younger voters

Share of overall support for Democratic presidential candidates from primary voters younger than 45 vs. those 45 or older, according to Morning Consult’s weekly tracking survey

Share of support by age group Candidate Overall support 18 to 44 years old 45 years or older Andrew Yang 4% 74% 26% Bernie Sanders 22 69 31 Cory Booker 3 41 59 Tulsi Gabbard 2 40 60 Elizabeth Warren 15 40 60 Tom Steyer 3 32 68 Joe Biden 31 29 71 Pete Buttigieg 8 27 73 Michael Bloomberg 7 24 76 Amy Klobuchar 2 20 80

Data for Morning Consult weekly tracking poll conducted Dec. 9-15, with sample size of 13,384 respondents. Only candidates polling at 2 percent or higher were included. Calculations were made with data rounded to the tenths place.

Source: Morning Consult

Additionally, Yang enjoys less overall support among the older half of the 18-to-44 range, with the backing of about 5 percent of 30-to-44 year olds, putting him fifth behind Sanders, Biden, Warren, and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

As for why Yang has an outsized appeal among younger voters given his overall standing, he has without question run an internet-savvy campaign, leaning into the meme culture popular among his supporters online. He’s also appeared on well-known podcasts, answered questions from users on Reddit and Quora and promised to give one Twitter user $1,000 per month just for retweeting him, which attracted over 100,000 retweets. But Yang also hasn’t shied away from discussing the dark underbelly of technology. That’s an issue that resonates with many young people, who have grown up in an era where tech giants like Amazon, Facebook and Google have dominated the marketplace and are helping alter the future of work. Yang thinks a UBI is necessary to counteract this sort of economic disruption, especially as things continue to change in the coming years.

Yang, who has been called a “doomer” because of his outlook, believes President Trump won in 2016 because people were worried about losing their jobs in a fast-changing world. And as young people are most familiar with the ins and outs of new technology, it’s understandable why a candidate who is heavily engaged with technology’s benefits and pitfalls may be so attractive to younger voters.

Yang’s base is also very male

In addition to Yang’s support trending young, it is also very male. For instance, in that Morning Consult survey, Yang earned 11 percent among 18-to-29 year-old men versus just 6 percent among women in that same age group. And according to The Economist’s polling with YouGov, his support among men in this age group is about 10 percent, while his support among women is in the low-to-mid single digits. Interestingly, differences between men and women largely disappear among older age groups.

There’s also evidence of Yang’s appeal to younger male voters aside from the polls, however. For example, an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics in November found that women were less likely than men to contribute to his campaign — only 29 percent of Yang’s itemized contributions have come from female donors so far.1 (Only Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has raised less among women donors — 24 percent.) Another sign is Yang’s share price in betting markets, whose participants are predominantly young men. As of publication, PredictIt prices Yang’s shares around 8 cents for winning the Democratic nomination — analogous to a slightly less than 10 percent chance — despite polling at around 3 percent nationally.

Yang also draws meaningful support from Asian Americans

Asian Americans are also a very important part of Yang’s base. While Asian Americans will make up only around 5 percent of the primary electorate, Morning Consult found Yang at 19 percent among them, behind only Biden (24 percent) and Sanders (22 percent). And Yang’s support among Asian Americans has consistently outdistanced his overall numbers. Back in September, for instance, Yang polled at 8 percent in a survey from AAPI Victory Fund/Change Research of just Asian American and Pacific Islander primary voters even though he was polling at about 2 percent nationally.

Part of this may be because so few Asian Americans have run for president. There were Asian American Hawaiians like Republican Sen. Hiram Fong, who got a handful of votes at the 1964 and 1968 GOP conventions, and Democratic Rep. Patsy Mink, who won a small number of votes in the 1972 primary, but their bids were a long time ago. Granted, former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who is Indian American, ran for the Republican presidential nomination last cycle, but he struggled to attract more than 1 percent in the polls and suspended his campaign in November 2015, well before any votes were cast. So in the 2020 primary, Yang, along with Sen. Kamala Harris (who is part Indian American but has since dropped out), have perhaps given Asian American voters at long last someone from their constituency to back, which can help explain why so many have rallied to Yang’s side.

Yang is also an outsider candidate

As a fellow outsider candidate, Yang’s appeal also shares some traits with Gabbard’s in that Yang also broke through in part via nontraditional venues, including outlets that are considered part of the Intellectual Dark Web, a politically amorphous network that generally criticizes concepts such as political correctness and identity politics. Like Gabbard, Yang also hasn’t shied away from going on conservative talk shows, doing interviews with Fox News personality Tucker Carlson and conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, whereas some Democrats have refused to appear on Fox News. Yang’s donor count also exploded after appearing on The Joe Rogan Experience, one of the most popular podcasts in the country, which also helped Gabbard’s campaign.

Still, for being an outsider candidate, Yang doesn’t get as much support from Trump supporters or conservatives as Gabbard does. In last week’s poll from The Economist/YouGov, for instance, 25 percent of Trump voters who said they plan to vote in the 2020 Democratic primary said they intended to support Gabbard, versus just 2 percent who said they would support Yang. Similarly, in that Morning Consult poll, Gabbard received 5 percent among very conservative and conservative primary voters (and very little support among more liberal voters), whereas Yang’s support was more ideologically balanced, ranging anywhere from 2 to 4 percent across all five ideological groups.2

Nor does Yang get as much disproportionately liberal support as another outsider in the race: Sanders. That’s despite notable overlap between Sanders’s supporters and Yang’s supporters, according to Morning Consult’s second choice voter data. That Morning Consult survey found that 8 percent of Sanders’s supporters picked Yang as their second choice, while a whopping 33 percent of Yang’s backers said Sanders was their backup option. Yet in that same poll Sanders got the most support from very liberal and liberal voters (29 percent and 22 percent, respectively) and less from moderate and conservative voters as a whole, so his support was more weighted toward more liberal voters than Yang’s.

However, one thing that all three candidates have in common is that all three attract higher levels of support from self-identified independents than Democrats. This isn’t exactly a surprise for Sanders, considering he did better among independents than Democrats in the 2016 primary. But in that Morning Consult poll, the trend is obvious: Sanders earned 28 percent support among independents, compared with 21 percent among Democrats, while Yang earned 6 percent support from independents, compared with 3 percent among Democrats. Gabbard also picked up 4 percent among independents and only 1 percent among Democrats. This generally holds up across other polls, too, in which all three candidates get higher percentages among independents than Democrats, though obviously there be will more self-identified Democrats voting in the primary than independents.

With only seven candidates making the cut for December’s debate, it’s fair to say that Yang’s outsider candidacy has broken through in the Democratic primary — in large part thanks to enthusiasm for him among younger voters and Asian Americans.

The question now is whether he can expand his appeal beyond 3 or 4 percent nationally. Raising nearly $10 million in the third quarter certainly helps his case — that’s real money he can use to build an on-the-ground campaign structure in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire. And with an army of small donors, Yang may have a reliable source of money to broaden his reach. Still, the crowded group of four candidates at the top of the polls will make it tough for him to actually win the nomination.

Nonetheless, Yang’s continued presence in the primary — when other candidates with more traditional resumes have already dropped out — speaks volumes to his appeal. Perhaps Thursday night will be an opportunity for him to gain real momentum. After all, despite speaking the fewest words in the last debate, Yang’s net favorability improved the most of any candidate on stage in our polling with Ipsos. Maybe don’t write Yang off just yet, even if a lot would have to go right for him to break into the top four.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #Geoffrey Skelley

0 notes

187days · 5 years ago

Text

Day Sixty-Three

Today I was at ninth grade house meeting, and The Principal interrupted to speak to The Vice Principal. I heard him say my name, and my immediate reaction was, “I didn’t do it!”

Actually, I did do it, but it was a good thing that I did, so all was well in the world.

The rest of the meeting was a rollercoaster. For the most part, it was good, and we were definitely productive, but some of our discussions got a little heated. No one really got angry, but... maybe tense is a good word for it? Plus, I’ve mentioned once or twice before that I have one colleague who just does not like me and tends to dismiss everything I say, and there was some of that going on. It’s grating, but I try not to let it really get to me. On a funny note, we were informed by The Vice Principal that our students have a memes page, so we obviously had to go look at it.

The rest of the day was good. It was another day of drafting, conferencing, and revising book papers today in World/English. I got to read a beautiful paper about Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Purple Hibiscus; I think we might use it as one of our model papers in the future, with the author’s permission. I also got to read a first draft from a student who’d never written more than paragraph-length work before this year; I want to show that one to everyone who doesn’t understand what kids can achieve with proper supports in place.

During flex time, two of my APUSGOV students came and asked to go over the test they took yesterday, but the MfoL kids had commandeered my room to present research they’d done on presidential candidates and watch some debate highlights, so what did I do? Let the group’s officers run the show, propped my classroom door open, and sat in the hall with the APUSGOV students. As I said, it was originally just two of them, but a couple of their classmates were on their way elsewhere, and saw us in the hallway, and asked if they could join us. So then there were six of us sitting on the floor, talking about complex political things. Because most of the students in that hall during flex time are ninth graders (since every teacher in that hall teaches ninth grade), we got some bemused looks from passersby, but it was a really good use of time and available space. The students I was sitting with got to ask all their questions about the test, have a better understanding of the material, and know how to prepare for a retake- and for future tests. Meantime, MfoL had a great, well-attended meeting that we weren’t disturbing by talking through it, but I could still see and hear them all through the doorway, so they weren’t unsupervised.

It’s a win all around!

#teaching #teachblr #edublr #educhums #education #teacher #high school #social studies #interdisciplinary fabulousness #Mrs. T #The Epic Book Paper and Research Project #ninth grade house #meetings meetings meetings #The Principal #the Vice Principal #teaching in the hallway #MfoL #cue the music of triumph #day sixty three

0 notes

ramajmedia · 5 years ago

Text

Veep: 10 Hilarious Amy Brookheimer Quotes That Were Just Plain Vicious

Amy Brookheimer was a complicated character. She had no illusions about the game of politics and could play it as well as the next person. She had a moral compass. She didn’t always follow it, but it was there. Mostly, though, she had no time for incompetence, idiocy, or anything that didn’t forward her goal of putting Selina Meyer in the Oval Office.

She did not suffer fools gladly. Unfortunately for her, fools surrounded her. She spent so much energy trying to save Selina from her own worst instincts, she didn’t have any left to prevent her from being brutally honest with those around her. This led to some truly wonderful rants and insults.

RELATED: Veep: The 5 Best Episodes (& The 5 Worst)

10 “You are like an earlobe. You’re just there, just wobbling.”

One of the most incompetent people on Team Meyer was Communications Director Mike McClintock. Aside from Gary he’d been with Selina the longest, but he’d never been particularly good at his job. In the episode “Catherine”, he avoided making an announcement that he knew would be met unhappily. His continual reluctance drove Amy crazy. They finally laid down a concrete event where he had to make the announcement but when asked if he had informed people, he was still avoiding it, not wanting everyone to be angry at him. In the end, everyone still yelled at him, including Amy.

9 “Dan is a shit… He’s a massive and totally shit. When you first meet him, you think surely to God this man can’t be as big a shit as he seems, but he is.”

Amy and Dan dated before Selina hired him in the first episode. Before Selina hired him, she wanted to find out more about him, so she asked Amy what she thought about him. Amy let her know immediately what she thought of Dan and held nothing back.

RELATED: Veep: 10 Selina Meyer Quotes That Represent All Of Us

Amy continued, “Because like if there were a book with covers made of shit, you’d think, ‘That’s intriguing. I wonder what’s in this book that they saw fit to give it covers made of pure shit.’ And then you open it and… shit.” Despite Amy’s vivid descriptor, Selina still invited Dan to join the team, and he more or less proved Amy right.

8 “You’re not even your mother’s favorite Jonah, Jonah.”

With the amount of abuse he took in the show, Jonah would almost be a pitiable character. Instead, with everything he does and says, he just makes himself worthy of the bile thrown at him. The sole reason he worked at the White House is because his uncle Jeff owned the New Hampshire vote. But he acted as though he was the most powerful person in Washington.

As the White House liaison to the VP’s office, Selina’s team had to deal with him. But they didn’t have to like it. So when Jonah enters the office with, “Look who it is, everybody. It’s your favorite Jonah,” how else can Amy respond.

7 “Hello Leon. It’s always good to see the most left-swiped face on Tinder.”

Amy tried to play nice with the press. She knew that staying on their good side was the smart thing to do. The one person she couldn’t really manage that with was Leon West. Working for the Washington Post, Leon had a huge audience. But he was also an enormous pain in the ass of Team Meyer. He always lurked, trying to catch them out on something.

Leon ambushed Amy in the grocery store, trying to get her to spill which of Selina’s staff members had called her a c***. (It turns out it was everyone, with the exception, of course, of Gary.) When he approached with an insult, she had to respond in kind. She couldn’t help herself.

RELATED: HBO's Veep Characters By Myers-Briggs Personality Type

6 “She’s offering you vice president, you monument to vaginal dryness.”

In the final season, Amy left Selina’s staff after being offered a better, more challenging job as Jonah’s campaign manager. Her years in Washington had taken any idealism she had left and ground it into a pulp. She didn’t believe in anything Jonah stood for, but she knew if she managed to have him be a real contender for president, her credentials in Washington would go way up.

Managing Jonah was an arduous task. He wouldn’t listen to anyone, he insulted everyone, and his most heinous ideas always took off with his base supporters. But he did have a strong base, which, in order to secure the nomination, meant that Selina had to offer him VP to get his numbers. But Jonah, as always didn’t understand what was going on, leading Amy to snap at him.

5 “You have three kids by two different men. Maybe your last word should have been, ‘no’.”

Possibly the most contentious relationship in Amy’s life was that with her sister, Sophie. Other than sharing parents, the only other thing they had in common was an attraction to Dan. Very occasionally they got along for a short amount of time, but it always ended with them sniping at each other.

When their father had a health scare, Amy went to the hospital even though it’s during the mid-term elections. It turned out to be nothing, and Amy was frustrated that her sister made it seem like their father was dying. In their argument, Sophie accused Amy of always needed to have the last word. Amy certainly did in that fight.

4 “Gary, your inner child needs to grow an outer man.”

For the most part, as long as they didn’t threaten her position in Selina’s administration, Amy got along with the rest of Team Meyer. That included Gary, who many others made fun of or ignored. Of her whole team, with the exception of Mike, they were with her the longest and were the closest to her. That being said, occasionally she would be frustrated with his meekness. When he avoids telling Selina about a painting that he had moved, leading to problems with Native Americans, Amy and Sue both tell him that he has to just do it.

3 “Were you sent from the future to destroy me? ‘Cause it’s working! ‘I think that each candidates has merits and demerits, and I don’t know my left butt cheek from my right butt cheek, but I believe in listening to both butt cheeks and farting out my asshole mouth.’”

Amy never hated anyone the way she hated Karen Collins, an old friend of Selina’s who joined the campaign as advisor. Karen was infamously indecisive, never coming down on one side or the other. As Selina’s campaign manager, Amy kept trying to get Selina to make firm decisions, but she’d be swayed by Karen each time. Finally, when Doyle dropped out as Selina’s running mate, Amy tried to get her to ask Tom James as his replacement. Selina asked Karen’s opinion, and as always she equivocated.

Amy continued, “That’s not even bullshit. Bullshitting takes talent. You have none. You’re just a blah-blah-blah bitch.” An excellent take-down and something everyone had wanted to say.

2 “You are not Michael Jordan. You are a seven-foot-seven, goony-looking Lithuanian who’s going to drop dead of Marfan Syndrome.”

Again the target of some of Amy’s most poisonous bile was Jonah. But he set her up perfectly. In Nevada, Amy and Dan tried to get a recount of the presidential votes as Selina lost by a very narrow margin. They were forced to take along Richard who had in depth knowledge of Nevada’s voting system, as well as Jonah, who had been regulated to Richard’s assistant. Jonah, of course, chafed at that, saying, “You guys have Michael Jordan sitting on the bench here, but you’re starting Hakeem Olajutwat.” Never has a Jonah insult been more deserved.

RELATED: Veep Season 7: Every Celebrity Cameo

1 “You have achieved nothing apart from one thing. The fact that you are a woman means that we will have no more women presidents because we tried one and she f***ing sucked.”

In the same scene where Amy took down Karen Collins, she also turned on Selina. The fact that Anna Chlumsky didn’t win an Emmy for this scene alone was a travesty. For years Amy offered Selina sound advice only to have it ignored and then be blamed when things went wrong. She’d finally had enough and told Selina exactly what she thought of her on her way out.

The lead-in to the above quote was just as good. “You have made it impossible to do this job. You have two settings – no decision and bad decision. I wouldn’t let you run a bath without the Coast Guard and the fire department standing by, but here you are running the country. You are the worst thing that has happened to America since food in buckets. And maybe slavery.” Brilliant.

NEXT: Best Reaction Memes To Stranger Things Season Three

source https://screenrant.com/funny-amy-brookheimer-quotes/

#screenrant

0 notes

fullspectrum-cbd-oil · 5 years ago

Text

Bloomberg’s Big Bet: Can Money Beat Biden’s Momentum?

In his brief three-month campaign for president, Michael Bloomberg poured nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars into building an advertising and data-mining juggernaut unlike anything the political world had ever seen.

But a big part of the strategy hinged on a wildcard named Joe Biden.

Bidens’s resurgence after a dominant victory on Saturday in South Carolina has upset that calculation in the critical do-or-die sprint before “Super Tuesday,” when Democrats in 14 states vote for the candidate to challenge Republican Donald Trump in November’s election.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. The billionaire former New York City mayor’s strategy was partly based on expectations that Biden would falter in the first four states. Bloomberg, who skipped the early contests, would then become the moderate alternative to frontrunner Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator and self-described democratic socialist.

Although Biden underperformed in Iowa and New Hampshire, he did better in Nevada and bounced back in South Carolina on a wave of African-American support to end Sanders’ winning streak and establish himself as the race’s top-tier moderate Democrat.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg’s once-ascendant campaign has struggled after he came under fire in debates over past comments criticized as sexist and a policing policy he employed as New York’s mayor seen as racially discriminatory. He has apologized for the policing policy and for telling “bawdy” jokes.

Advisors and people close to the Bloomberg campaign say they are still in the race and rebuff criticism that he’s splitting the moderate vote and making it easier for Sanders to win.

The campaign’s internal polling showed that Bloomberg’s supporters have both Biden and Sanders as their second choices, contrary to the perception that he was mostly peeling off Biden’s support, one campaign official said.

If Bloomberg dropped out, Sanders would be on a stronger path to victory, the official said.

Bloomberg has hovered around 15% in national polls, suggesting he will earn some delegates on Tuesday. If those polls are correct, he will likely earn fewer delegates than Sanders and Biden.

Another moderate, Pete Buttigieg, dropped out on Sunday, driven in part by a desire not to hand the nomination to Sanders, a top adviser said. “Pete was not going to play the role of spoiler.”

Bloomberg, however, has vowed to stay in the race until a candidate wins a majority of delegates needed to clinch the nomination. His campaign has spent heavily on advertising in states that vote on Tuesday, when a third of the available delegates that help select a Democratic nominee are awarded in a single day.

And it’s pinning some of its hopes on Virginia, the fourth-biggest state at stake on Tuesday and a key testing ground for Bloomberg. He made his first campaign visit here last November, and has visited another six times since. Last week, his campaign had hopes he could win or come close.

But even that plan is facing new headwinds.

After Biden’s win in South Carolina, the former vice president picked up endorsements from former Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe and Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, the 2016 Democratic vice presidential candidate — underlining how Biden’s comeback is drawing establishment Democrats who might have otherwise backed Bloomberg.

Dan Blue, a prominent Democrat in the North Carolina State Senate who endorsed Bloomberg last week, said Biden’s strong showing in South Carolina reset the race. But he said he still believes that Bloomberg can win by playing the long game and gradually accumulating delegates.

“There’s no question in my mind that this thing is very fluid and not absolute,” he said.

‘HUGE NATURAL EXPERIMENT’

Bloomberg’s heavy advertising spending, however, makes him a uniquely powerful candidate even if he lags in opinion polls.

He has spent more than half a billion dollars on ads ahead of Tuesday, more than four times the combined ad spending of his four remaining main rivals – Sanders, Biden, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Amy Klobuchar, according to data from ad tracker Advertising Analytics.

The biggest chunk was spent in Super Tuesday states, $214 million through Feb. 25, including more than $63 million in California and $50 million in Texas, where one analysis said 80 percent of the ads were Bloomberg’s.

Already, Bloomberg has spent more on television ads than Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton did in their entire 2016 campaigns.

“It’s truly astonishing,” said Michael Franz at Bowdoin College in Maine, a leading researcher on political advertising. “He is giving us a huge natural experiment.”

Many of his ads feature Trump, mocking the president as a “bully.” Others introduce his life story. When he drew criticism for sexist comments and past treatment of women on the job, one ad countered with endorsements from longtime women employees.

The campaign also has pushed beyond old frontiers with digital spending. More than $106 million have been poured into Google and Facebook ads, according to disclosures by the social media giants.

Without a young network of enthusiasts on social media like the one enjoyed by Sanders, Bloomberg has tried to boost his online presence by paying for one: he has hired influential meme accounts to post messages on Instagram, and paid others $2,500 a month to share pro-Bloomberg messages on texts and social media.

Inside his campaign headquarters in New York, the staff of Hawkfish, a start-up digital analytics company, sift through huge tranches of voter data to help chart his campaign strategy.

Bloomberg decided Hawkfish was necessary because Democrats haven’t kept up with Trump’s ability to target voters and bombard them with messages, said Dan Kanninen, the campaign’s states director. “It’s a very potent, very difficult-to-overcome weapon.”

‘HOW MUCH CAN IT BUY HIM?’

His unprecedented spending has likely fueled his rise in public opinion polls from just around 5% when he entered the race on Nov. 24 to about 16% in recent polls.

“The question is, how much can it buy him, and there’s definitely a ceiling,” said Amanda Wintersieck, a political science professor at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia.

In South Carolina, where he was not on the ballot but had still spent $2.3 million on advertising through Feb. 25, two thirds of the primary voters said they viewed Bloomberg unfavorably, according to Edison Research exit polls. About 77% and 51% of these voters had favorable views of Biden and Sanders, respectively.

The spending has also provided a target for opponents who say Bloomberg is stark proof that the wealthy wield too much influence over U.S. elections.

In conversations with dozens of mostly Democratic voters across seven states last week, Reuters found that Bloomberg’s spending blitz had won him a little enthusiasm, and some respect. “He might be the one,” said Garolyn Greene, 41, as she waited at a bus stop in Houston where Bloomberg held a rally on Thursday.

Others were less forgiving. Bloomberg has apologized for overseeing an increase in the use of a police practice called “stop and frisk” in New York City that disproportionately affected black and other racial minority residents.

On Sunday, as Bloomberg started to speak about racial inequality at a chapel in Selma, Alabama — one of the 14 Super Tuesday states — about 10 people, mostly black, stood up and turned their backs. Biden was seated in a place of honor with the pastor at the same church.

“I think it’s just an insult for him to come here,” said Lisa Brown, who is black and a consultant who traveled to Selma from Los Angeles, referring to Bloomberg.

The incident underlined Bloomberg’s continued struggles to win over black voters — a core constituency for the Democratic Party.

A VIRGINIA BATTLEGROUND

Bloomberg’s supporters say they hope his spending will deliver dividends in battleground states that favor moderates like Virginia, where some polls put him ahead of Biden but at a close second behind Sanders.

Bloomberg made friends in Virginia long before his campaign, spending millions to elect Democrats to state offices and congressional seats, culminating with Democrats taking control of the state legislature last November. Last week, those legislators gave final approval to a sweeping set of gun control laws – a signature cause for Bloomberg.

“I think people are appreciative,” said Lori Haas, Virginia director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and a Bloomberg supporter.

Bloomberg has opened seven field offices in the state, part of a national network of offices and paid staff that has far outpaced his rivals. The campaign had more than 2,000 paid workers and 214 offices in 43 states, not counting the several hundred in his New York headquarters, said Kanninen, the campaign’s states director.

Whatever happens on Tuesday, Bloomberg and his campaign staffers have been stressing that he will keep spending into the fall to defeat Trump, whether he’s the candidate or not.

“Someone said you shouldn’t be spending all that money,” Bloomberg said on Saturday at a get-out-the-vote rally aimed at women in McLean, Virginia. “I said, ‘Yes, well I’m spending it to remove Donald Trump,’ and he said, ‘Well, spend more.’”

(Additional reporting by Joseph Ax, Elizabeth Culliford, Tim Reid and Trevor Hunnicutt Editing by Soyoung Kim and Jason Szep)

from IJR https://ift.tt/2IbS7UK via IFTTT

#IFTTT #IJR

0 notes

thisdaynews · 5 years ago

Text

Why the fight against disinformation, sham accounts and trolls won’t be any easier in 2020

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/why-the-fight-against-disinformation-sham-accounts-and-trolls-wont-be-any-easier-in-2020/

Why the fight against disinformation, sham accounts and trolls won’t be any easier in 2020

1) American trolls may be a greater threat than Russians

Russia-backed trolls notoriously flooded social media with disinformation around the presidential election in 2016, in what Robert Mueller’s investigators described as a multimillion-dollar plot involving years of planning, hundreds of people and a wave of fake accounts posting news and ads on platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Google-owned YouTube.

This time around — as experts have warned — a growing share of the threat is likely to originate in America.

“It’s likely that there will be a high volume of misinformation and disinformation pegged to the 2020 election, with the majority of it being generated right here in the United States, as opposed to coming from overseas,” said Paul Barrett, deputy director of New York University’s Stern Center for Business and Human Rights.

Barrett, the author of a recent report on 2020 disinformation, noted that lies and misleading claims about 2020 candidates originating in the U.S. have already spread across social media. Those include manufactured sex scandals involving South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and a smear campaign calling Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) “not an American black” because of her multiracial heritage. (The latter claim got a boost on Twitter from Donald Trump Jr.)

Before last year’s midterm elections, Americans similarly amplified fake messages such as a “#nomenmidterms” hashtag that urged liberal men to stay home from the polls to make “a Woman’s Vote Worth more.” Twitter suspended at least one person — actor James Woods — for retweeting that message.

“A lot of the disinformation that we can identify tends to be domestic,” said Nahema Marchal, a researcher at the Oxford Internet Institute’s Computational Propaganda Project. “Just regular private citizens leveraging the Russian playbook, if you will, to create … a divisive narrative, or just mixing factual reality with made-up facts.”

Tech companies say they’ve broadened their fight against disinformation as a result. Facebook, for instance, announced in October that it had expanded its policies against “coordinated inauthentic behavior” to reflect a rise in disinformation campaigns run by non-state actors, domestic groups and companies. But people tracking the spread of fakery say it remains a problem, especially inside closed groups like those popular on Facebook.

2) And policing domestic content is tricky

U.S. law forbids foreigners from taking part in American political campaigns — a fact that made it easy for members of Congress to criticize Facebook for accepting rubles as payment for political ads in 2016.

But Americans are allowed, even encouraged, to partake in their own democracy — which makes things a lot more complicated when they use social media tools to try to skew the electoral process. For one thing, the companies face a technical challenge: Domestic meddling doesn’t leave obvious markers such as ads written in broken English and traced back to Russian internet addresses.

More fundamentally, there’s often no clear line between bad-faith meddling and dirty politics. It’s not illegal to run a mud-slinging campaign or engage in unscrupulous electioneering. And the tech companies are wary of being seen as infringing on American’s right to engage in political speech — all the more so as conservatives such as President Donald Trump accuse them of silencing their voices.

Plus, the line between foreign and domestic can be blurry. Even in 2016, the Kremlin-backed troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency relied on Americans to boost their disinformation. Now, claims with hazy origins are being picked up without need for a coordinated 2016-style foreign campaign. Simon Rosenberg, a longtime Democratic strategist who has spent recent years focused on online disinformation, points to Trump’s promotion of the theory that Ukraine significantly meddled in the 2016 U.S. election, a charge that some experts trace back to Russian security forces.

“It’s hard to know if something is foreign or domestic,” said Rosenberg, once it “gets swept up in this vast ‘Wizard of Oz’-like noise machine.”

3) Bad actors are learning

Experts agree on one thing: The election interference tactics that social media platforms encounter in 2020 will look different from those they’ve trying to fend off since 2016.

“What we’re going to see is the continued evolution and development of new approaches, new experimentation trying to see what will work and what won’t,” said Lee Foster, who leads the information operations intelligence analysis team at the cybersecurity firm FireEye.

Foster said the “underlying motivations” of undermining democratic institutions and casting doubt on election results will remain constant, but the trolls have already evolved their tactics.

For instance, they’ve gotten better at obscuring their online activity to avoid automatic detection, even as social media platforms ramp up their use of artificial intelligence software to dismantle bot networks and eradicate inauthentic accounts.

“One of the challenges for the platforms is that, on the one hand, the public understandably demands more transparency from them about how they take down or identify state-sponsored attacks or how they take down these big networks of authentic accounts, but at the same time they can’t reveal too much at the risk of playing into bad actors’ hands,” said Oxford’s Marchal.

Researchers have already observed extensive efforts to distribute disinformation through user-generated posts — known as “organic” content — rather than the ads or paid messages that were prominent in the 2016 disinformation campaigns.

Foster, for example, cited trolls impersonating journalists or other more reliable figures to give disinformation greater legitimacy. And Marchal noted a rise in the use of memes and doctored videos, whose origins can be difficult to track down. Jesse Littlewood, vice president at advocacy group Common Cause, said social media posts aimed at voter suppression frequently appear no different from ordinary people sharing election updates in good faith — messages such as “you can text your vote” or “the election’s a different day” that can be “quite harmful.”

Tech companies insist they are learning, too. Since the 2016 election, Google, Facebook and Twitter have devoted security experts and engineers to tackling disinformation in national elections across the globe, including the 2018 midterms in the United States. The companies say they have gotten better at detecting and removing fake accounts, particularly those engaged in coordinated campaigns.

But other tactics may have escaped detection so far. NYU’s Barrett noted that disinformation-for-hire operations sometimes employed by corporations may be ripe for use in U.S. politics, if they’re not already.

He pointed to a recent experiment conducted by the cyber threat intelligence firm Recorded Future, which said it paid two shadowy Russian “threat actors” a total of just $6,050 to generate media campaigns promoting and trashing a fictitious company. Barrett said the project was intended “to lure out of the shadows firms that are willing to do this kind of work,” and demonstrated how easy it is to generate and sow disinformation.

Real-life examples include a hyperpartisan skewed news operation started by a former Fox News executive and Facebook’s accusations that an Israeli social media company profited from creating hundreds of fake accounts. That “shows that there are firms out there that are willing and eager to engage in this kind of underhanded activity,” Barrett said.

4) Not all lies are created equal

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are largely united in trying to take down certain kinds of false information, such as targeted attempts to drive down voter turnout. But their enforcement has been more varied when it comes to material that is arguably misleading.

In some cases, the companies label the material factually dubious or use their algorithms to limit its spread. But in the lead-up to 2020, the companies’ rules are being tested by political candidates and government leaders who sometimes play fast and loose with the truth.

“A lot of the mainstream campaigns and politicians themselves tend to rely on a mix of fact and fiction,” Marchal said. “It’s often a lot of … things that contain a kernel of truth but have been distorted.”

One example is the flap over a Trump campaign ad — which appeared on Facebook, YouTube and some television networks — suggesting that former Vice President Joe Biden had pressured Ukraine into firing a prosecutor to squelch an investigation into an energy company whose board included Biden’s son Hunter. In fact, the Obama administration and multiple U.S. allies had pushed for removing the prosecutor for slow-walking corruption investigations. The ad “relies on speculation and unsupported accusations to mislead viewers,” the nonpartisan site FactCheck.org concluded.

The debate has put tech companies at the center of a tug of war in Washington. Republicans have argued for more permissive rules to safeguard constitutionally protected political speech, while Democrats have called for greater limits on politicians’ lies.

Democrats have especially lambasted Facebook for refusing to fact-check political ads, and have criticized Twitter for letting politicians lie in their tweets and Google for limiting candidates’ ability to finely tune the reach of their advertising — all examples, the Democrats say, of Silicon Valley ducking the fight against deception.

Jesse Blumenthal, who leads the tech policy arm of the Koch-backed Stand Together coalition, said expecting Silicon Valley to play truth cop places an undue burden on tech companies to litigate messy disputes over what’s factual.

“Most of the time the calls are going to be subjective, so what they end up doing is putting the platforms at the center of this rather than politicians being at the center of this,” he said.

Further complicating matters, social media sites have generally granted politicians considerably more leeway to spread lies and half-truths through their individual accounts and in certain instances through political ads. “We don’t do this to help politicians, but because we think people should be able to see for themselves what politicians are saying,” Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in an October speech at Georgetown University in which he defended his company’s policy.

But Democrats say tech companies shouldn’t profit off false political messaging.

“I am supportive of these social media companies taking a much harder line on what content they allow in terms of political ads and calling out lies that are in political ads, recognizing that that’s not always the easiest thing to draw those distinctions,” Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state told POLITICO.

#Easier #Foreign #Politics #trolls

0 notes

theconservativebrief · 6 years ago

Link

Brazil elected far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro in its presidential runoff on Sunday, breaking a nearly two-decade-old tradition of almost exclusively electing leftist presidents.

Bolsonaro, a Congress member and ex-military officer, started off his campaign as a fringe candidate from a fringe party who was mostly known for his streak of racist, misogynistic, and anti-LGBT remarks and for his professed fondness for the country’s brutal military dictatorship.

But his promises to restore security amid endemic violent crime and to stamp out the country’s rampant political corruption won him support among voters looking for a change.

Many in Brazil have grown frustrated with the status quo due to a slew of political and economic crises that have gripped the country in recent years. The current center-right president, Michel Temer, is deeply unpopular in the wake of a struggling economy and a massive corruption scandal that has engulfed all levels of government.

Temer took over for former leftist President Dilma Rousseff, who was impeached in 2016. Her leftist predecessor, Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, is serving a 12-year sentence for corruption charges. But while Lula himself is still very popular in Brazil, his handpicked successor Fernando Haddad was soundly defeated by Bolsonaro.

On the eve of the Brazilian elections, I called up Benjamin Junge to get a deeper understanding of voters in Brazil supported the far-right candidate. Junge is an anthropology professor at the State University of New York at New Paltz and a Fulbright fellow at the Federal University of Pernambuco in Brazil who studies working-class and middle-class families in Brazil.

Our conversation, edited for length and clarity, is below.

Jen Kirby

Are the Brazilian voters you talk to mostly rejecting the leftist Workers’ Party — or are they actively choosing Bolsonaro?

Benjamin Junge

My observation is that actual ideological, hard-right voters within working class communities — which is to say people who are voting for Bolsonaro because they love him, and they’ve analyzed his plans, and they think they’re great — are a small minority.

I would say the same about the old-school Workers’ Party supporters, too. They’re still there. I see them marching around with T-shirts that have images of Lula from four years ago.

The issue is the mass of working-class voters in between those two poles. The question is why is it that so many of them seem to be open to a guy who has expressed a disregard for democracy and said such foul things.

People are definitely talking a lot about security and violence in their neighborhoods, and they’re genuinely fed up with that they perceive as a failure of the state to take care of security issues. And that’s a real thing.

Jen Kirby

But doesn’t Lula still have a lot of popular support?

Benjamin Junge

Let me give you a quick little anecdote: Right before Lula was found guilty and went to prison last January, the matriarch of a family that I’ve been following very closely, who is a widow and is 66 years old, she’s was watching TV. At one moment she said, “Oh my god, is there any way I can still love this man [Lula]?”

When he went to prison, she posted something on Facebook, saying she was indignada — fed up. She alternates between a deep love for Lula and a kind of hate for him because he seems to have screwed everything up. The guy who did a lot of good and could have done much more but didn’t.

Jen Kirby

So they love Lula the man, but don’t love the system around him.

Benjamin Junge

Yes, very strongly. This is what political scientists are all scratching their heads about, and anthropologists maybe not quite so much. Political scientists say, “Wait, that’s very irrational, if they love Lula so much, why don’t they just vote for the other guy whom Lula anointed, Fernando Haddad?” But that’s not happening.

Jen Kirby

Can you explain exactly why that disconnect is happening?

Benjamin Junge

This woman I mentioned is typical in another respect, which is she has never really taken politics seriously. So she came to love Lula. She would definitely be voting for him if he were on the ballot, but it wasn’t for what he represented — it was just for the kind of man he presented himself to be.

She’s in her mid-60s and she has five grown children who are all in their 30s and 40s, most of whom have children of their own. They all live in the same building in different households, and what is creating stress in this family — and it’s playing out in the family’s WhatsApp group, which is the way that it’s happening across Brazil.

This family’s WhatsApp group was set up for social events and to send memes. But the oldest son is a Bolsonaro supporter. He’s that rare, and somewhat uncommon variety of very ideological serious supporter. He posts stuff about Bolsonaro in the family WhatsApp group. There’s a grandson who’s 18 years old, in his first year of college, and he responds with, “What what are you talking about? That doesn’t make any sense.”

The matriarch has become infuriated — not because she agrees more with her oldest son versus her grandson or vice versa — but because politics has contaminated her family and that’s almost unendurable for her. She doesn’t lose sleep about corruption because she hasn’t had high expectations of the state in a long, long time.

She’s just upset that her family, which is the most important thing in her life, is now this base of disputes and intergenerational tensions. I think that sets her up for an inclination to vote for Bolsonaro. Because his weird discourse is that he will restore order to society.

Jen Kirby

How does Bolsonaro’s image as a strongman factor in here? He has praised the military, and expressed some nostalgia for the military dictatorship. Is that the kind of order people are yearning for, or is it more nuanced than that?

Benjamin Junge

Among people who study cultural memory in Latin America — so places like Brazil that had some kind of authoritarian regime in the 1970s and 1980s, like Argentina, Chile, Uruguay — there is a broad consensus that Brazil did not really do a very good job in the first 20 years after the dictatorship ended in 1985 in promoting cultural dialogue about what that meant, and how it could be avoided, in contrast with places like Chile and Argentina.

Brazil didn’t really get on that bandwagon until later. These days, public high schools typically have modules about the military dictatorship. So in this family that I was mentioning to you, the person who knows the most about the dictatorship is the grandson because he did a whole year-long module on remembering the dictatorship in school.

Whereas his father and his mother, they’re in their 40s, and they were alive during the very tail end of the dictatorship, but they don’t have any real living memories of it, they have a much more idealistic — and from my perspective, problematic — way of remembering that period.

Jen Kirby

When it comes to Bolsonaro, how strong is his support among working-class people?

Benjamin Junge

One of the hypotheses is that the Workers’ Party prioritized social assistance programs but failed to link those incredible welfare benefits to any kind of political position or policy position among the beneficiaries; that the Workers’ Party failed to bring into being a kind of new citizen consciousness — they just created this new middle class of consumers.

I hope that by the time we’ve analyzed all of our data, we’ll be able to chime in on that hypothesis and see if our data supports it or not.

It’s too early for me to do that, but I think there’s something there. That certainly bodes well for Bolsonaro. He’s trying to make his appeal to voters who, when they reflect on having risen above the poverty line during the years the Workers’ Party was in power, they don’t connect it to that policy paradigm, they connect it to their own individual discipline and efforts — it’s more of a meritocracy.

Or if they’re evangelicals, which is a whole another set of issues, they explain it in terms of their religious beliefs.

Jen Kirby

But what about the actual economic situation? Are the working-class and middle-class families you’re studying significantly worse off economically than they were even a few years ago, or it more a perception because of everything that’s happening around them?

Benjamin Junge

We know that around 2014, unemployment rates started to go up and household family income started to go down, after having gone up for several years. We know that the number of people who have private health insurance policies, which is considered a class marker of middle class, started going down. We know that experiences with crime started going up.

So there are certainly objective markers that people who had experienced some kind of upward socioeconomic mobility during the Workers’ Party years have seen those patterns either stall or actually reverse.

Jen Kirby

How does Bolsonaro’s controversial rhetoric fit in? I know race is a complicated issue in Brazil, but his racially charged comments, his sexism, his anti-LGBT statements — how do voters ignore or justify those? I hate to make the comparison, but is it similar to Trump where some of his supporters say, “I don’t love all the things he says, but I’m willing to give him a chance”?

Benjamin Junge

There is something similar to the US, but there’s also something distinctively Brazilian. Brazilians have a kind of cultural image of themselves as playful, lovable troublemakers. It’s a recognized kind of cultural trait that people reflect on and talk about, and sometimes they talk about it in a loving way: “We’re romantic but you can’t really count on us to show up on time, oh well, that’s Brazil.”

When Brazilians — the people that I’m hanging out with in this working-class neighborhood — when they see in Facebook clips or WhatsApp clips that are circulating or on the television news, when they see these of Bolsonaro saying just saying horribly nasty, problematic things about blacks, gays, Indians, and plenty of other groups down the list, one way of interpreting that is to say, “You know all Brazilians are like that, he’s just being honest.”

And that sounds a little bit like the way people were talking about Trump, but I don’t think in the US we have a sense of “Well, we’re all actually playful like Trump, he’s just being a little more extreme and more honest.” Whereas Brazilians have this idea that it’s all playful.

Having said this, I know some people who can’t get beyond it, who will not vote for Bolsonaro. I’m thinking of someone who has a gay father, specifically because of that one statement that Bolsonaro said about how if he had a gay son, he’d rather die in a car accident. That alone they cannot get beyond. There are Brazilians who are reacting to a specific statement that they view as irredeemably problematic, and that includes plenty of Afro-Brazilians.

And here enters the thorny topic of fake news. Because if you were a Bolsonaro supporter you might respond to me by saying, “Wait a minute, let me show you a clip of some black Brazilians telling us how much they like Bolsonaro,” which are circulating. I would immediately say it’s maybe not fake, but it sure is a minority because most Afro-Brazilians in the popular class — lower-middle class or working-class — I think are quite offended by the way he talks about race.

Jen Kirby

You mentioned fake news. It seems that’s played a huge role in the election. How have you seen that play out?

Benjamin Junge

Facebook and WhatsApp are [where we see] the fake news issue. A couple of weeks ago this matriarch who I’ve been talking about, we bumped into each other, and I’m always bugging them with questions about the election. This was before the first round of elections. She showed me a picture of this clip that was circulating of some woman in some public space who took her shirt off and bared her breasts.

She shows this to me and says, “I don’t want this kind of a society, is this what we want?” And I said, “Wait a minute, who is this person?” And she says, “This is what we would get if we support the [Workers’ Party], or at least this is what will be fixed if Bolsonaro gets elected.” And it was just some ridiculous fake news thing, who knows if it was actually the Bolsonaro people who put it into circulation, but it was circulated by Bolsonaro supporters.

Jen Kirby

You’ve mentioned WhatsApp a lot — as something used by the family to communicate, but also to get information about the election. How important is it in influencing the vote?

Benjamin Junge

I don’t even fully appreciate just how pervasive WhatsApp groups are — I think that every family in Brazil has a WhatsApp group that has more than one cellphone user in it. And I believe that that cuts across class in a big way. The way that it might be a little different is that working-class families tend to be bigger than elite families.

Every kind of like religious community, every evangelical church, every individual kind of Catholic church has a WhatsApp group. Uber drivers in different neighborhoods and cities have WhatsApp groups, taxi drivers, students, groups of friends, teachers use WhatsApp,

I’m teaching two classes — one graduate and one undergraduate — at the university here this semester, and I have a WhatsApp group for both classes. I can’t even really imagine what this election would look like without WhatsApp.

And secondarily, Facebook. Facebook is also hugely important, but my intuitive sense is that WhatsApp is where the real frictions and kind of circulation of content is happening. And possibly where opinion formation, the actual congealing of voter sensibility, is concentrated.

Original Source -> Corruption, fake news, and WhatsApp: how Bolsonaro won Brazil

via The Conservative Brief

#IFTTT #The Conservative Brief

0 notes

news-mashable-yahoopartner-blog · 6 years ago

Text

8 pre-internet political moments that would have spawned huge memes

Believe it or not, there's a storied history of presidential blunders that stretch back years and years, all the way to before they could become instant memes — because there was no internet.

Shocking, but true.

These moments were "viral" in that they were everywhere — TV, radio, newspapers — but there was no widespread internet to give them a second life as pure meme bliss, like just about everything that happens in the Trump White House these days.

SEE ALSO: Trump insider who wrote anonymous op-ed inspires glorious memes

So what moments would go super viral, saturating our culture to the point you can't get away, if they happened today? You know, like the "Dean scream" or when Dick Cheney shot a friend in the face?

History is rife with political screw-ups, all the way back to the country's founding, but we combed through the last 40 years or so to find the stand outs from modern political history.

Here goes.

Ronald Reagan's mic drop (1980)

Ronald Reagan was known for being quick with a quip, but the one that really signaled his ascendency on the way to the White House came at the GOP's New Hampshire primary debate in February 1980.

When the FEC told the Nashua Telegraph, a local newspaper, that paying for a two-man debate between Reagan and then-frontrunner George H.W. Bush would violate regulations by showing favor to those two candidates over several others that were also running (and amount to a contribution to Reagan and Bush), Reagan offered to pay for it and invited those other candidates to participate. (These types of situations would eventually be remedied in 1987 by the formation of the Commission on Presidential Debates, which would sponsor all debates beginning with the 1988 election cycle.)

Meanwhile, both the Telegraph and Bush held firm in their insistence on a one-on-one debate between Bush and Reagan during a long, protracted process of negotiations.

This led to a heated argument at the beginning of the debate, during which Telegraph editor Jon Breen asked for Reagan's microphone to be cut. An angered Reagan answered with a red-hot one-liner about the microphones that doubled as a Grade A Alpha Dog moment.

youtube

High drama followed in which no one appeared to back down. Eventually, after Bush used his opening statement to stand his ground for a one-on-one debate, the other candidates begrudgingly left the stage and the debate became just Bush versus Reagan.

More important: That thunderous Reagan line reverberated with voters, portraying Reagan as someone standing up for his Republican comrades/competitors while painting Bush in an unfavorable light. It all came to a head with a blowout Reagan win in New Hampshire that launched him to the front of the pack and an on to an eventual White House win in November over incumbent Jimmy Carter.

Walter Mondale asks "Where's The Beef?" (1984)

Reagan was always the king of the one-liner, but it was Walter Mondale who laid down the best quip of the 1984 campaign during a Democratic primary debate against Gary Hart. Mondale's zinger harnessed the pop culture zeitgeist of 1984 by lifting the line from an incredibly popular Wendy's ad.

youtube

"Where's the beef?" was ripe for leveraging in a political campaign as a question begging for substance. And Mondale did so, beautifully.

youtube

The two candidates remained locked in a battle throughout the campaign, with Mondale winning the nomination. But "win" is a relative term. He was later steamrolled by Reagan in the general election, proving that the beef is relative.

Dukakis tanks (1988)

Nearly 30 years before the Trump campaign there was the completely bonkers 1988 campaign. It was filled with so much drama, intrigue, and a succession of moments that would have crashed Twitter a few times over. The legendary Richard Ben Cramer book What It Takes is a must-read for absorbing it all from beginning to end.

There was the Gary Hart scandal that involved a boat called "Monkey Business" (that's the subject of the upcoming Hugh Jackman film The Frontrunner), the Joe Biden plagiarism scandal, George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips: no new taxes" promise (that he wound up breaking), and one of the great debate burns in U.S. history when Lloyd Bentsen, the Democratic VP candidate, slammed Republican VP candidate Dan Quayle.

youtube

But perhaps the most would-be viral moment of the 1988 campaign was a September photo-op gone awry. It was a moment that had nothing to do with politics or qualifications and everything to do with optics: when Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis rode around in a tank.

The story behind the infamous incident is now legend, but here's a quick recap. The visit to a General Dynamics facility in Michigan was meant to make Dukakis seem strong on defense. Part of that trip wound up being a ride in an M1A1 tank, but the General Dynamics team insisted Dukakis wear a helmet for safety. The helmet dwarfed the diminutive candidate, making him look like a child and prompting guffaws from reporters covering the event.

It was such a disaster that video of Dukakis riding around in the tank was used in an attack ad by the Bush campaign.

youtube

It wasn't the only reason Dukakis' early campaign poll leads evaporated — effective attack ads by the Bush team (Roger Ailes!) and poor debate performances by Dukakis and Bentsen (burn aside) also contributed — but it was a major misstep that definitely played a part.

A grocery list of campaign mishaps (1992)

While not quite as crazy as the 1988 election, the 1992 election had plenty of memorable moments — Bill Clinton's sax-tastic appearance on the Arsenio Hall Show, those Clinton and Al Gore jogging photos, Bill's love of McDonald's (which spawned a classic SNL sketch), and the entrance of third party candidate Ross Perot, who turned things upside down for a few months.

But three particular moments perfectly show what an appetite voters had (and still have) for political stumbles, and how much they were willing to overlook the quiet truth of what actually happened.

Bush's first misstep, in January 1992, was a messy one. Fighting a vicious case of the flu while on a diplomatic trip to Japan, The incumbent Bush became ill at dinner and wound up vomiting on Japan's prime minister.

youtube

Vomiting on a head of state, no matter the circumstances, is, well, not great. That said, it's not like Bush chose to vomit on Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa. As the story goes, Bush had already toughed out a full slate of diplomatic duties, including a game of tennis with the emperor of Japan.

It's also worth noting that a lapful of vomit has not come close to doing the damage Trump has done in his behavior toward our allies.

Bush's next misstep came a month later when he appeared to be amazed by a grocery store scanner during a visit to the National Grocers Association convention. One thing led to another, a famous photo was taken, and it was assumed that Bush, who came from wealth, had been exposed as being out of touch.

youtube

The truth, though, seems far more innocuous: Bush was apparently marveling at a new feature in grocery store scanner technology that had the machine correctly read a torn and jumbled bar code, proving he wasn't quite as out of touch with grocery store behavior as a future Republican president would prove to be.

Vice President Dan Quayle's slip-up was worse. While visiting a New Jersey school in 1992, he watched a student write the word "potato" on a chalkboard and then told the student he was missing an (erroneous) 'e' at the end of the word. The confused student — who would later say, "I knew he was wrong, really. He's the Vice President and I couldn't argue with him with all the people there" — complied.

youtube

If there's a saving grace for Quayle, it's that he was reportedly reading from a school-provided cue card that had the word misspelled with the extra 'e.' But Quayle didn't catch the mistake, simply parroting it, and wound up with a scene that wouldn't have appeared out of place on Veep.

Clinton's secret signal (1998)

It's hard to think of a moment in the Lewinsky-Clinton affair that wasn't "viral," as we'd call it today. The internet was becoming a force in the United States, spreading first reports of the scandal thanks to online bomb thrower Matt Drudge.

Remember the infamous line from Clinton's grand jury testimony, in which he questioned the definition of the word "is"?

youtube

Of all the moments from the sordid affair, there's a smaller one that feels as intriguing and ripe for virality as anything else that happened: the time Bill Clinton allegedly wore a tie Lewinsky had gifted him on the day she testified before a grand jury in the Ken Starr investigation.

Clinton wearing the tie on August 6, 1998, less than 2 weeks before he would admit to having an affair.

Image: Corbis via Getty Images

It was said to be a signal of solidarity between Clinton and Lewinsky, coming at a time when Clinton still denied the affair. (He would publicly admit to it less than two weeks later.) Clinton played the whole thing off, but the story has held on for 20 years.

The sigh heard 'round the country (2000)

The 2000 presidential election would be remembered for far more important things, like a presidential election being decided by the Supreme Court, the phrase "hanging chads," and Florida being unable to get its act together.

But then-Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, didn't do himself any favors during the presidential debates against GOP nominee George W. Bush, letting his body language speak louder than anything he actually said, sighing, rolling his eyes, and even trying intimidate Bush during the town hall debate only to have that backfire.

Gore is hardly alone, as we've seen, in making debate mistakes, but his behavior made him seem aloof and irritated compared to the "folksy" Bush. It even got the SNL treatment, one surefire way to know you've transcended into the mainstream.

youtube

Gore's behavior called to mind Bush's father's watch-checking mistake in the 1992 debates, but we also saw shades of Gore during the 2016 debates when Trump infamously stalked Hillary Clinton on stage.

Trump is just creepin' around the stage now #debate pic.twitter.com/MajNvjuFZX

— Mashable GIF (@mashablegif) October 10, 2016

The latter moment exploded across the internet, an early example of the way our current digital culture came to consume things at a lightning-fast pace. While these moments got play in newspaper, on national news, and late-night comedy, they didn't become ubiquitous, ever-evolving memes the way they do now.

The 2000 election felt like the tipping point, the moment when internet shifted into something all-consuming. Then, as social media evolved in time for the 2008 election, the minute-by-minute accounts of politics and elections took on a life of their own.

It's not so much that more is happening in our hyper-connected era — though certainly politician's direct access to citizens on social media has changed the way things unfold slightly. But mostly it's that we're more aware of every single thing that occurs now and we're able to weigh in now with more speed and in more places than ever before.

Every slip-up, misquote, and awkward handshake is inescapable, occupying every conceivable nook and cranny of our lives if we let it. It's all grist for the never-ending content mill that doesn't just occupy television and the few remaining newspapers, but every platform we use, be it Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat.

Now we can both look back at the moments of the past and forward to the fresh hell of a 24-hour news cycle that awaits us as we wade further into the Trump administration and closer to the 2020 election.

WATCH: Sarah Huckabee Sanders' most ludicrous moments as press secretary

#_uuid:7b8be353-635f-344c-bdcb-1d94eaa65302 #_category:yct:001000002 #_lmsid:a0Vd000000DTrEpEAL #_author:Marcus Gilmer #_revsp:news.mashable

1 note · View note

nickyschneiderus · 6 years ago

Text

Who’s going to challenge Trump in 2020? Here are 17 super-early contenders

While the 2020 presidential election is still several years away, that hasn’t stopped Democrats from speculating about who may decide to run against President Donald Trump.

Trump has his eyes on 2020. In February he named Brad Parscale, the head of the president’s 2016 campaign digital operation, as his campaign manager.

But picture is less clear for the Democrats, and there is speculation a large field of contenders may throw their hats into the ring to take on Trump in the next presidential election.

As the campaign inches closer, every move and speech (particularly among the bigger names in the party) is analyzed and deconstructed as possible hints of a presidential run being launched.

But things can change quickly for Democrats with their eyes on the White House. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was considered a liberal rising star and possible 2020 candidate until he resigned from office after several women came forward with sexual misconduct allegations.

There are a number of things that can happen between now and the 2020 election, but here are several names that could be gearing up for what is sure to be a brutal campaign against Trump in a few years.

2020 presidential election: Potential Trump challengers

1) Sen. Bernie Sanders

Photo via Phil Roeder/Flickr (CC-BY)

It shouldn’t be a shock that Sen. Bernie Sanders’ name comes up in nearly every 2020 election talk. His surprising showing in the 2016 Democratic primary rocketed Sanders into the national consciousness, and he is arguably the most popular politician currently serving in office.

However, there are some drawbacks. While his impressive ability to lure younger voters to his campaign is something any person vying for the Democratic 2020 nod is sure to try to replicate, there will always be the question of whether his policy agenda would actually work without Congress firmly on his side. (Of course, there’s always that pesky S-word.)

Some Democrats may even hold a grudge against Sanders, who is technically not part of the party, for his grueling primary against Hillary Clinton in 2016. There have been arguments that Sanders’ attacks against Clinton may have helped Trump win the election and sway some voters views on her ahead of the election.

Could Bernie Sanders run — and win — in 2020?

Bernie Sanders’ new plan offers every American work, living wage

However, there is no denying that if he decided to run, he’d have a large number of supporters and many people willing to donate to his campaign from the start.

In early 2018, reports suggested that Sanders has begun talking to advisers about a 2020 election campaign. The discussions focused on other possible opponents in the 2020 primaries and how Sanders could defeat them.

Politico reported in June that Sanders was one of several possible 2020 Democrats who have met with former President Barack Obama in recent months.

Sanders and Obama talked about the future of the Democratic party and what it should focus on moving forward, according to the report.

IS BERNIE SANDERS RUNNING IN 2020?: Almost certainly.

2) Sen. Elizabeth Warren

Photo via Edward Kimme/Flickr (CC-BY-SA)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), like Sanders, would tap into the growing number of Democrats hoping for a more progressive candidate to challenge Trump’s hard-right base.

Warren is also an outspoken critic of Trump, helping raise her profile among disenfranchised Democrats. She saw her profile skyrocket when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) silenced her as she was criticizing now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

What’s stopping Elizabeth Warren from running president in 2020?

Why can’t Elizabeth Warren win the White House?

In particular, Warren could tap into the populist fervor that has overcome the American electorate. Her tough stance on Wall Street and championing projects like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would likely play well with voters on the left who are upset with the economy. That said, Republicans already think they have a game plan to crush any possible 2020 hopes Warren may have.

While it’s still early, Warren seemed to try and quell 2020 speculation when she spoke with Fox News. “I’m not running for president,” she told Fox News Sunday in mid-March. However, not everyone is sold on that.

Warren was also among the possible 2020 candidates who has met with Obama in recent months, according to Politico.

With a consistently liberal voting record, Warren would please large swaths of the Democrats’ progressive wing of the party—and maybe Republicans, too, but for very different reasons.

IS WARREN RUNNING IN 2020?: Maybe. Too early to tell.

3) Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand

Photo via personaldemocracy/Flickr (CC-BY-SA)

Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York senator, took the seat that was vacated by Clinton in 2009 and has moved consistently left in her policy and voting record since taking office.

Like Warren, she has been a constant critic of Trump, even casting more “no” votes against Trump’s cabinet nominees than any other Democrat.

Gillibrand has also been lauded for her commitment to gender equality and is in the spotlight with her strong support of women who have come forward asking for a congressional investigation into Trump’s alleged sexual misconduct. She also was the first senator to call on Sen. Al Franken to resign following his own sexual misconduct allegations.

Gillibrand was targeted by billionaire Democratic contributor George Soros in June, who said she pushed for Franken’s ouster to “improve her chances” in a possible 2020 campaign. The donor’s comments were criticized as being sexist.

Gillibrand was attacked on Twitter by the president in late 2017, who said she would do anything for campaign donations, a reference that many took to have sexual implications.

Gillibrand responded by saying she would not be silenced by the president.

2020 Democrat contenders voted against the shutdown deal—here’s why

Sen. Kristen Gillibrand on Trump: ‘Has he kept his promises? No. F**k no.’

The New York senator was among several possible 2020 candidates who attended a “We the People” summit in Washington where she blasted Trump for his attacks on immigrants, press freedom and other issues.

During her speech, she touched on several liberal themes including paid family leave, tax laws and a women’s right to decide about her reproductive rights.

In early 2018, Gillibrand was asked by the hosts of The View about a possible 2020 run and the senator replied coyly.

“No. No,” she said, laughing. “I’m running for Senate… and I do hope New Yorkers will allow me to continue to serve. I really value this opportunity to be a voice for them.”

IS GILLIBRAND RUNNING IN 2020?: Probably.

4) Former Vice President Joe Biden

Photo via Marc Nozell/Flickr (CC-BY)

Many Democrats were hoping Joe Biden would decide to run in 2016. But he decided not to, following the death of his son, Beau. Biden has not ruled out a 2020 bid and announced that a cross-country speaking tour to promote his book—sparking speculation of a 2020 run once more.

Biden would obviously have to tackle questions about decisions made by former President Barack Obama’s administration, but that hasn’t hurt his polling numbers. There are also questions about his conduct with women. However, many Democrats appear to have a very favorable view of the former vice president and Delaware senator.

A recent poll by Public Policy Polling found that Biden would beat Trump in a hypothetical 2020 match-up by a 54-to-41 percent margin.

Biden continued to fan the flames of a possible 2020 run in November when he said he wasn’t “closing the door” on seeking the Democratic nomination during an interview on The Today Show.

“No, no, I’m not closing the door,” Biden said. “I’ve been around too long. I mean, I’m a great respecter of fate. But who knows what the situation is going to be a year and a half from now.”

More recently, Biden told MSNBC in April that he was “hoping that some other folks step up” into the 2020 Democrats field, but didn’t close the door on running, saying that he would decide by the end of 2018, according to the Washington Post.

The best Joe Biden memes that stand the test of time

Trump says Biden would ‘go down hard and fast’ in a fist fight

The questions swirling around the former vice president’s future aspirations also cropped up as he began campaigning amid the 2018 midterm elections.

A Politico report in March shed light on possible plans Biden’s team may have for announcing his 2020 candidacy. Some of the scenarios included the former vice president announcing his candidacy early, skipping the first votes in Iowa and New Hampshire, or possibly running with the promise of a one-term presidency.

Biden entering the race could impact who else decides to join the fray.

“He’ll have competition, obviously. But that field’s going to get narrow if Joe Biden’s in it,” New Hampshire state Sen. Lou D’Allesandro told NBC News in early June.

IS JOE BIDEN RUNNING IN 2020?: Probably.

5) Sen. Kamala Harris

Photo via Mobilus In Mobili/Flickr (CC-BY-SA)

Seen by many as a rising star in the Democratic Party, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) is the country’s first Indian-American and second female African-American senator. As a former state attorney general, Harris would likely match up well against Trump in a debate.

Harris also champions liberal causes such as criminal justice reform and marriage equality, which would please a large portion of the Democratic base.

Her national profile was lifted earlier this year when she grilled Attorney General Jeff Sessions during a hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee amid the ongoing Russia probe.

Harris also gained attention for her questioning of CIA Director Gina Haspel and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

Why Kamala Harris 2020 is a real possibility

Sen. Kamala Harris rips into Trump’s ‘many sides’ response to Charlottesville

In April, Harris drew ire from conservatives when she laughed at a joke on the Ellen Degeneres Show where the host asked her who she would prefer to be stuck in an elevator with: Trump, Vice President Mike Pence or Sessions.

In response, Harris laughed and jokingly said: “Does one of us have to come out alive?”

During the same interview, Harris brushed off questions about a possible 2020 presidential run.

“Right now we are in the early months of 2018, and at this very moment in time, there are people across America who have priorities around their health care, have priorities around can they get through the end of the month and pay the bills, pay off their student loans, can they afford to pay for gas, housing?” she said, adding: “There are so many pressing issues… these are immediate needs and these are the things I’m focused on right now.”

While she hasn’t announced any plans for 2020, signs are pointing toward a run. In July 2017, there were reports that Harris met with top Clinton donors, and Politico reported in April that she has begun spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on web advertising and digital campaign consulting.

Harris also pledged not to accept donations from corporate political action committees, which could be a sign she would try and emulate Bernie Sanders’ success with small individual donations during the 2016 primary.

However, Harris is also relatively new to politics, which could dent her. Although, that didn’t stop Obama from running, and eventually winning, the presidency, to say nothing of Trump.

IS KAMALA HARRIS RUNNING IN 2020?: Yes.

6) Sen. Cory Booker

Photo via TechCrunch/Flickr (CC-BY)

The New Jersey senator has had star-power for many years, even during his time as mayor of Newark (where he carried a woman out of a house fire).

Sen. Cory Booker would likely appease more center-left Democrats and at least be palatable to more progressive voters. While Booker does have ties to Wall Street, he has also been a major critic of Trump and outspoken proponent of criminal justice reform.

Booker is also a talented public speaker and made a much-lauded speech during the 2016 Democratic National Convention. There were even rumors Clinton was considering him as a potential running mate in 2016 before she ultimately chose Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine.

When asked in mid-March about a possible 2020 run and the message Democrats need to send to voters, Booker seemed to hint at a possible strategy. “I’m saying this to Democrats who will listen to me—we can’t make our elections about being against Trump. They have to be about what we’re for,” Booker told the Atlantic.

In May, Booker was asked on The View about his 2020 aspirations but demurred.

“I’m a contender for the 2018 midterms where I’m going to be fighting for every Democratic candidate,” he said. “This is the most important midterm election of our lifetime… for folks who are looking beyond that… don’t look beyond.”

Similarly, at a University of Chicago event in May, Booker seemed to think someone else would be at the top of the Democratic ticket in 2020.

“In the mosh pit of all the names that are talked about, maybe there is going to be a person where you and I both will say ‘she is the one’ and let’s get involved in supporting them,” he said.

However, Booker also met with Obama like other possible 2020 candidates—so he could just be playing coy as the time gets closer for an announcement.

IS CORY BOOKER RUNNING IN 2020?: Maybe. Could be a VP candidate.

7) New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo

Photo via MTA of New York/Flickr (CC-BY)

Gov. Andrew Cuomo‘s recent push to beef up New York’s infrastructure and transportation—not to mention his recent decision to hire 12 staffers who worked for Obama’s White House, the federal government, or a presidential campaign—has put him firmly in the realm of 2020 speculation.

In his annual state-of-the-state address in 2017, Cuomo clearly positioned himself—and the state of New York—as anti-Trump, rejecting the ideas that got Trump elected. In his address, Cuomo touched on the middle class and how progressive policies “created the nation’s middle class in the first place.” He also proposed executive orders to reduce the wage gap for women in New York, as well as criminal justice reform.

In February, Cuomo also ended a speech with union supporters by sending not-so-subtle barbs at Trump.

“We will make America America again!” Cuomo said.

The idea of Cuomo running has crossed the minds of at least some Republicans–with one former Trump adviser telling Politico that a face-off against the New York governor makes him “nervous.”

“Hillary Clinton wouldn’t take the gloves off. There isn’t a counterpunch Andrew Cuomo won’t throw,” Michael Caputo told the news outlet.

However, Cuomo might not have the star-power outside of the Northeast to make a realistic run at the nomination in 2020, and clearly he may not have the liberal chops people in his home state are hoping for. Cuomo is being tested by an insurgent left-leaning primary campaign by Cynthia Nixon ahead of his re-election bid in November.

Despite this, all signs appear to be that he has presidential aspirations in the future.

IS ANDREW CUOMO RUNNING IN 2020?: Probably.

8) Sen. Amy Klobuchar

Photo via Tony Webster/Flickr (CC-BY)

While Sen. Amy Klobuchar doesn’t have the name recognition as some other lawmakers on this list, she certainly has a résumé that can compete. The Minnesota senator has served in Congress since 2007 and has high approval ratings.

Klobuchar is also from the Midwest, an area that Democrats arguably overlooked during the 2016 election and could have swayed the election in favor of Clinton.

The rumors of a possible 2020 bid for Klobuchar were fanned when she traveled to a Democratic fundraiser in Iowa—a frequent stop for politicians ahead of announcing their presidential bid.

IS AMY KLOBUCHAR RUNNING IN 2020?: Not likely.

9) Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson

Photo via 惡龍~Stewart/Flickr (CC-BY-SA)

Perhaps one of the more “out there” ideas for the 2020 nomination, there has been an inordinate amount of buzz surrounding Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson running for president.

The actor has not shied away from the rumors—in fact, it seems that at times he has actively encouraged them to continue.

In an interview with GQ earlier in the year, the Rock said it was a “real possibility” that he would run against Trump in 2020. And in May, the Rock “announced” his candidacy for 2020 with his “running mate” Tom Hanks during the season finale of Saturday Night Live.

The actor seemed to downplay the idea of him making a bid for the White House in 2020 during an interview with Rolling Stone in April.

“I mean, look people are very excited, and it’s so flattering that they’re excited,” he told the magazine. “I think it’s also a function of being very unsatisfied with our current president. But this is a skill set that requires years and years of experience. On a local level, on a state level and then on a national level. I have the utmost respect for our country and that position, and I’m not delusioned in any way to think, ‘Oh, absolutely, if Trump can do it, I can do it, and I’ll see you in 20-whatever, get ready.’ Not at all.”

The Rock’s 10 best Instagram moments

For what it’s worth, some polls suggest that he would beat Trump in a hypothetical 2020 matchup. Public Policy Polling found that Johnson would beat Trump 42 percent to 37 percent and would actually pull in 15 percent of people who voted for Trump in 2016.

IS THE ROCK RUNNING IN 2020?: No.

10) Mark Zuckerberg

Photo via nrkbeta/Flickr (CC-BY-SA)

Like the Rock, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is another less traditional choice given his lack of political or military experience. However, he would fit the mold created by Trump as a “businessman turned politician.”

For quite a while, the co-founder of Facebook stirred the presidential run rumors, particularly when he announced he would visit every state in America as a way to meet people—the kind of tour that politicians make before announcing a presidential bid. Zuckerberg also hired a chief strategist from Hillary Clinton’s campaign in August 2017, fueling speculation.

Don’t start printing “Zuck for Prez” buttons yet.

Besides Zuckerberg denying any intention of running for president, there was the extreme public backlash against Zuckerberg and the social media giant following the revelations that Cambridge Analytica, a data firm that caters to businesses and political campaigns, harvested data on more than 80 million Facebook users without their knowledge.

Not to mention his testy testimony before Congress that was watched by millions of Americans.

Before the news of Cambridge Analytica broke, Trump seemed to view Zuckerberg as a possible threat, with reports surfacing that White House aides have started “informally monitoring” Zuckerberg and other potential Democrats who might run in 2020.

IS MARK ZUCKERBERG RUNNING IN 2020?: Not after this year’s fracas.

11) Oprah Winfrey

Screenshot via OWN/YouTube

Oprah Winfrey’s name has come up for years as a potential presidential candidate–and 2020 is no different.

Talks of an impending Oprah run heated up when, on Sept. 28, Winfrey tweeted out an article endorsing her for president, calling the former talk show host the Democrats’ “best hope” to challenge Trump. In the tweet, Winfrey thanked the writer for a “vote of confidence.”

In fact, Trump’s election may have sparked some more interest in Winfrey. Speaking with Bloomberg News, Winfrey said with Trump’s win, she may have overestimated what it takes to become president.

“I thought, ‘Oh, gee, I don’t have the experience, I don’t know enough.’ And now I’m thinking, ‘Oh,’” she said.

The whole idea of an Oprah vs. Trump election gets weirder when you consider that Trump considered having her as a running mate when he toyed with the idea of running for president under the reform party in 2000.

Donald Trump’s dream vice president is Oprah

Trump watches ’60 Minutes,’ goes off the rails on Oprah

Donald Trump Jr. slams NBC for tweet endorsing Oprah’s 2020 presidential run

A speech Winfrey gave at the Golden Globe awards sparked intense speculation about a 2020 presidential run, but in late January, she seemed to put it all to rest, saying that running for president is “not something that interests me.”

While she says she isn’t running, at least one poll says she would beat Trump in a hypothetical 2020 matchup. A poll by Zogby Analytics found 53 percent of likely voters would choose her, compared to 47 percent who would choose Trump.

However, former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer disagrees with that notion.

IS OPRAH RUNNING IN 2020?: No.

12) Eric Holder

North Charleston/Flickr (CC-BY-SA)

Eric Holder, the former attorney general during President Barack Obama’s time in office, has fanned speculation about running in several interviews he’s given in recent months.

Holder, who was the first African American attorney general in United States history, is also the chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.

In March, he told Viceland that he would decide about his 2020 intention by the end of 2018.

“What I’ve said is, I’m going to decide by the beginning of next year and see if there is going to be another chapter in my public service career. We’ll see,” he said.

Holder also blasted Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ decisions in the job.

During his time as attorney general, Holder said the Justice Department would not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act and fought against discriminatory voting restrictions—both of which could appeal to liberal voters.

IS HOLDER RUNNING IN 2020?: Maybe. Let’s see later this year.

13) Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley

Photo via Edward Kimmel/Flickr (CC-BY-SA)

You may have forgotten Martin O’Malley, given how crazy the 2016 election and primaries were. But O’Malley did compete against Sanders and Clinton during the Democratic presidential primaries.

O’Malley didn’t score very well in any of the primaries, finishing a distant third in Iowa before suspending his campaign.

But perhaps he’ll take another crack at the presidency in what is expected to be a wide-open Democratic field ahead of 2020. As FiveThirtyEight points out, O’Malley spent more time in Iowa between 2013 and 2016 than Clinton or Sanders and has visited early voting states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina in recent months.

O’Malley did push for same-sex marriage in Maryland, signing a law in 2012 and repealing the death penalty in the state–issues that are core to many Democrats.

In April, O’Malley told NBC News that he is keeping an “open heart and an open mind” about running for president again.

A month later, a local news channel spoke with O’Maley in New Hampshire–a state anyone seriously considering running would spend a lot of time in–where he said he “might” run in 2020.

In the interview he took swings at Trump that would likely be standard fare in any primary or general election matchup.

“I believe that the Trump administration is an administration whose malice has been tempered only by their own incompetence,” he said.

IS O’MALLEY RUNNING IN 2020?: Probably, but it won’t matter.

14) Sen. Sherrod Brown

Photo via John Beagle/Flickr (CC-BY)

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) was also considered by Clinton to join her 2016 ticket as a running-mate.

Coming from Ohio, a crucial swing state, does play into his favor, as does his progressive background. As he runs for reelection 2018, how Brown plays with Rust Belt states could be a roadmap for those serious about unseating Trump in 2020.

Brown was a proponent of reenacting the Glass-Steagall Act, which made sure commercial and investment banks could not be linked, and was an advocate for a larger stimulus package during Obama’s first term.

However, Brown is expected to have a tough re-election battle in the 2018 midterms.

Of all the names on the list, Brown could be the darkhorse to watch in the Democratic primaries leading up to 2020.

IS BROWN RUNNING IN 2020?: Check again after the midterms

15) Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper

Photo via Aranami/Flickr (CC-BY)

Gov. John Hickenlooper is in his second term as governor of Colorado and has become popular in the state that is seen as “purple,” or a mix of Republicans and Democrats.

The governor was reportedly considered by Clinton to be her vice presidential nominee before she ultimately chose Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.).

Hickenlooper ruffled a few feathers earlier this year when reports surfaced that he and Republican John Kasich–a frequent critic of Trump–had explored running on an independent ticket during the 2020 election with Kasich leading the team. However, in an interview with Rolling Stone in April, he downplayed that possibility.

In early 2018, Hickenlooper made a trip to Iowa–the first caucus in presidential primaries—raising some eyebrows about his presidential aspirations. As the Denver Post points out, the governor met with “veteran political players” ahead of the trip.

Speaking with CNN in April, Hickenlooper said he wanted to take some time to explore his options.

“This summer we’ll see how it begins to feel,” he said. “You’d have to get much more polished than what I am now, in terms of what my message would be and what I would bring that’s different than other candidates.”

IS HICKENLOOPER RUNNING IN 2020?: It’s looking likely.

16) Rep. John Delaney

John K. Delaney/YouTube

Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.) is the only candidate to officially announce their candidacy for 2020.

The congressman announced way back in July that he would be seeking the Democratic nomination, telling Business Insider that he thinks voters will be “open-minded and wants to do what’s best for their party and most importantly their country.”

Delaney is known as moderate and supported a measure to raise money to build infrastructure by allowing corporations in the United States to avoid taxes on overseas profits if they purchase bonds to be used for infrastructure, the AP reports.

“I kind of view myself as sort of a long-distance swimmer, and I view this as a long race, and so, part of the challenge, obviously, in running for president, is to build the kind of name ID you need, so that you’re relevant when the race really starts,” he told the news outlet. “It’s a lot easier to build name recognition over a year and a half than it is across two months.”

As of April, Delaney has spent more than $1 million on ads in Iowa and made 110 campaign stops in in the state, according to Politico.

“I think I’m the right person for the job, and I have the right vision, but not enough people know who I am,”he told the news outlet. “The way you solve that problem is by getting in early.” IS DELANEY RUNNING IN 2020?: Yes. 17) Rep. Tim Ryan

Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) is relatively unknown, but raised his profile earlier this year when he challenged House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to lead the Democrats following Trump’s surprise election victory.

Ryan’s name has been subject to rumors of a possible 2020 bid for months, and when asked in September by Hardball host Chris Matthews about possibly running for president he responded with “I don’t know.”

Around the same time, Ryan spoke in Iowa and urged Democrats to focus on an economic message in future elections that starts “with letting these working-class people know that we see them, we hear them and we know what they are going through, and we have a plan.”

IS RYAN RUNNING IN 2020?: Too early to tell

Honorable mentions

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.), New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, Former Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, Montana Governor Steve Bullock, Sen. Chris Murphy (Conn.), Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.)

Editor’s note: The Daily Dot will periodically update this list as people begin to make it clearer whether they will seek the 2020 Democratic nomination.

from Ricky Schneiderus Curation https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/2020-presidential-election-democrats/

#Ricky Schneiderus Curation

0 notes

takenews-blog1 · 7 years ago

Text

These Politicians Completely Failed At Sporting Occasions

New Post has been published on https://takenews.net/these-politicians-completely-failed-at-sporting-occasions/

These Politicians Completely Failed At Sporting Occasions

The politicians who serve us could have had their glory days taking part in sports activities, however these days are lengthy gone and making an attempt to play sports activities in your older years solely equals one factor: A barrel of snickers. Nevertheless, a technique for politicians to attach with folks is thru sports activities, which these people from Capital Hill and past all tried. Do you suppose the next politicians nonetheless have it? Or are their glory days a factor of the previous?

In 2014, former London Mayor Boris Johnson went to Tokyo on a commerce go to. He simply occurred to catch a sport of rugby. Johnson then determined to play some rugby with a gaggle of youngsters. Are you able to guess what occurred from the picture?

Let’s get one factor straight. Initially, this isn’t the WWE. This isn’t what you name a shoulder block both. The kid that you simply see on this picture, Toki Sekiguchi, was 10 years previous on the time and he simply occurred to be in the way in which of Boris the bull. You’ll be able to guess what occurred subsequent as poor little Toki ended up on the bottom. Johnson apologized for the unlucky deal with instantly afterward, and Johnson gave Toki a rugby ball.

In 1997, British Prime Minister Tony Blair tried to advertise convergence between Scotland and England via the game of soccer. As soon as once more, right here is a kind of occasions the place a politician tries to attach with the folks. As Blair would put it, he was “obsessed” with this concept to develop into culturally aligned with Scotland. “I do know it sounds a bit unusual however I used to be for a time fairly obsessive about the concept, for instance, for soccer we needs to be opening up the English league and the Scottish league and having them collectively as a result of I all the time thought we needs to be methods of creating positive that folks felt a connection. ” He felt the connection alright. Simply check out him.

Why did Chris Christie get grabby with Jerry Jones?

A joyous event was had by all when the Dallas Cowboys made a comeback in opposition to the Detroit Lions. The sound of joyous laughter stuffed the sector, and Cowboys proprietor Jerry Jones felt the entire love. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie simply occurred to be within the field with Jerry Jones having fun with the sport throughout the 2015-2016 soccer season. Because the Dallas Cowboys made their comeback, Christie jumps up in pleasure and embraces Jerry Jones.

Christie simply occurs to be a Cowboys fan. He’s a lot of a Cowboys fan that the Philadelphia Eagles followers had been offended at him. They had been offended as a result of they felt “betrayed” by his alternative of a favourite soccer group. The hug seen around the globe made for some fairly humorous memes as properly.

This time, Boris finally ends up on the bottom. What occurred to poor Boris Johnson?

Yep, he’s again for extra. For no matter purpose, Boris Johnson joined in on a sport of tug-of-war. It’s not his first or second sports activities flub. The truth is, in 2016, the Mayor of London additionally tripped over a nine-year-old boy throughout a kickabout close to Tower Bridge. Perhaps he ought to do some steadiness and coordination coaching earlier than signing up for these occasions, as he appears ill-prepared to deal with all these video games.

No less than he’s displaying that he’s on the market mingling with the frequent folks between getting issues achieved for the folks of London. We simply want he was slightly extra sleek.

What’s the neatest thing to drink after jogging? See the dynamic duo up subsequent.

Former President Invoice Clinton and former Vice-President Al Gore had been caught on digital camera after a morning jog. Clinton was an avid runner and would typically be seen jogging with different politicians, or his daughter Chelsea. Right here it seems that Clinton and Gore opted for McDonald’s over the breakfast served on the White Home that morning. They’re each holding McDonald’s cups whereas sporting their very brief jogging shorts that had been completely okay within the ’90s. Trying again at this photograph, nonetheless, it’s fairly comical, particularly Clinton’s enthusiastic expression as he’s caught being a goofball.

Did Marco Rubio make an entire move or an entire fail within the subsequent slide?

It is a web site to behold. Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney climbs into the ring for a struggle. Now, this isn’t the political ring that politicians climb into as a way to persuade you to vote for them in an election, however an precise boxing ring. He climbed into the ring with none apart from Evander Holyfield.

Holyfield is a five-time boxing champion. In the course of the 2012 presidential election, Romney obtained within the ring with Holyfield. Fortunately, this was not an actual boxing bout. This boxing bout was really for charity. Romney was 68 on the time and Holyfield was 52. You’ll be able to see the age distinction and fortuitously Romney was the one throwing the punches.

Former Purple Sox’s pitcher Curt Shilling doesn’t appear very blissful. He was rightfully upset at former Massachusetts Legal professional Common Martha Coakley due to her mistake that occurred in January 2010. Not solely was Shilling upset, however Boston Purple Sox followers in every single place had been upset and embarrassed over slightly mistake.

Martha Coakley appeared on a radio present and acknowledged that former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani was a Yankees fan. Coakley went on to say that Curt Shilling was additionally a Yankee’s fan. This was clearly a mistake and radio host Dan Rea caught the error. She went on to say: “I’m improper.” She additionally acknowledged: “I’ve been known as a number of issues…however by no means, I imply by no means, may anybody make the error of calling me a Yankee fan.”

Did George Bush Sr. begin the unhealthy bowling pattern?

It’s possible you’ll suppose that the grody bowling sneakers they offer you whenever you pay in your lane are extraneous, and when you simply sneak out along with your common sneakers on, you’ll be simply nice. Right here to show why you don’t try this, maybe, is Former President George H. W. Bush. Apparently Bush had slightly hassle with the sneakers he wore again in 1989. He may need given the ball slightly an excessive amount of momentum, which then shifted again to him and precipitated him to go for a glide himself. Whereas hilarious, this fall seems a bit painful as his knee makes contact with the alley wooden. Ouch!

How did John Kerry fare when he gave windsurfing a strive?

You’ll be able to infer that John Kerry is an outside sort of man. Because the saying goes, age ain’t nothing however a quantity, and John Kerry proves this again and again. Talking of again and again, you may even see John Kerry once more when you hold studying. Some folks simply need to recapture these youthful years with slightly sporting exercise.

John Kerry went windsurfing on August. 30, 2004, throughout the election 12 months. His browsing was greater than an outside exercise. It was designed for use for a photograph op, however the opposing celebration used it to capitalize on Kerry’s change in stance on points. The Bush-Cheney candidacy promoted this photograph with the caption, “John Kerry. Whichever approach the wind blows.” It didn’t fairly work out for him and Bush was reelected in 2004.

Did Harry Reid get right into a scuffle with somebody?

There simply comes a time when the weights and machines must be put apart and good previous calisthenics must be employed. Senator Harry Reid was at one time an newbie boxer. Boxing is a really powerful sport which requires pace, agility and preventing skill. It seems like Reid obtained into some sort of a scuffle from the picture above. Was he making an attempt to relive his glory days as a boxer?

Nope. Reid was understanding on an elliptical machine. As I acknowledged earlier than, calisthenics would have achieved him some good. He fell off of the machine and ended up getting damage fairly badly. He additionally sustained an harm to his eye utilizing a resistance band.

Are you able to guess what Nick Clegg’s favourite sweet bar is?

Nick Clegg is the previous Deputy Prime Minister of the UK. He was very passionate in regards to the sport of Rugby. He has achieved varied duties and actions devoted to the game and he was even going to type a rugby basis. He went to the obvious supply as a way to promote the thought of the inspiration and that was the kids of Leeds.

There’s a video of Nick Clegg displaying off his rugby expertise for everybody to see. He did some fancy footwork whereas he was on the sphere, however the kind of footwork that he did made him fumble the ball.

He’s again as soon as once more. Care to take a guess of who it’s?

As soon as once more, John Kerry provides it his all, and he comes up very brief one other time. Kerry can also be identified for a lot of of his sports activities ventures on-line and the numerous laughs that go together with them. One time he was in a room with the group house owners of the Inexperienced Bay Packers. He referred to Lambeau Area as “Lambert Area” which didn’t sit properly with them. Okay, many individuals could not know the title of the Inexperienced Bay Packer’s house discipline. It looks as if Kerry has an enormous curiosity in sports activities. Will this be the final time Kerry seems on this article?

Would you prefer to play some desk tennis? Gordon Brown tried.

Former Prime Minister and Labor Celebration member Gordon Brown had a pleasant sport of desk tennis with English soccer supervisor Harry Redknapp. In January 2008, Brown was making an attempt to launch a sports activities initiative and he thought it might be greatest to play a sport of desk tennis to advertise the initiative.

Each time the ball was hit in direction of Brown’s route, he would all the time miss the ball. Brown tried to make up for it by shortly recovering the ball practically each time. Sadly, he solely managed to return one rally throughout the sport. I believe the swimsuit could have restricted his actions.

Up subsequent, Chris Christie provides the massive league a shot.

Nobody can say that governor Chris Christie lacks the athletic spirit. In June 2015 Governor Chris Christie obtained his flip to bat and he took it in stride. He was taking part in a softball sport at Yankee Stadium which was really a charity softball sport for households who misplaced their family members whereas serving for the NYPD.

The worth of admission was $12 to get into the sport and it was properly definitely worth the worth not solely to boost funds for the households of the slain NYPD officers, however Christie additionally hit a fly ball as properly.

Do you suppose that you may guess who has essentially the most fails?

John Kerry seems worn out on this picture. He doesn’t seem like a contented camper. This photograph was taken in August 2014. He sustained an harm to his proper femur in a biking accident in France. He should have been recovering as a result of he seems like he’s in some immense ache. It may both be that, or he was embarrassed due to what he was driving. In the event you pay shut consideration, you’ll be able to see that the bicycle is pink. In the event you additionally haven’t seen, he’s driving a woman’s bicycle.

Subsequent, Rob gave soccer some effort. Would you be prepared to guess what occurred to Rob?

The late Rob Ford was a former Mayor of Toronto and a businessman. One in every of his enterprise ventures concerned the game of soccer. Though Rob Ford was a fan, he by no means performed soccer in highschool. He could have seen many individuals play, however the sport is far completely different when somebody really takes to the sphere.

Ford tried to faux a handoff at this CFL Gray Cup occasion which occurred November 2013. He finally ends up doing a spin however falls to the bottom. To make mild of the autumn, Ford will get up smiling and one other gentleman runs in direction of him and playfully grabs him as if to deal with him. Hey, you’ll be able to solely chuckle it off, so the following time you see a politician give an try at a sport, simply go forward and chuckle.

The sport of bowling is just not as simple because it appears. It entails slightly bit extra than simply rolling a ball down a lane and hitting a couple of pins. In the course of the 2008 marketing campaign path, Barack Obama visited Pennsylvania and determined to go to a bowling alley. He was making an attempt to hook up with the blue-collar employees in that space, and what higher strategy to do it by bowling.

Barack Obama got here up brief, like, actually brief, throughout his try to attach with the voters that day. He solely scored a 37. One pundit was quoted as saying: “He bowls like my four-and-a-half-year-old daughter.” Obama even had one thing to say about his unlucky sport: “My financial plan is healthier than my bowling.”

Why did Tony Blair have a nasty hair day?

We’ve an image of Senator Marco Rubio taking part in a pleasant sport of pigskin. The objective of throwing the ball is to throw the ball to the open man, or youngster on this case. Because the ball connects, it ought to go into the arms of the one who is making an attempt to catch the ball, after which its finish zone metropolis from there.

A video exhibits Marco Rubio throwing a ball to a toddler who seems to be about four or 5 years previous. The kid catches the ball, however not in his arms. He will get hit within the face with the ball. You can take a look at this in a single or two methods: Both Rubio threw a nasty move, or the kid didn’t clasp his arms collectively in time to catch the ball. Rubio went on Twitter in regards to the accident and mentioned:

“The QB all the time will get the blame.”

Each baseball fan waits for the Opening Day sport. Baseball is certainly one of our favourite previous occasions apart from watching tv and different actions. Barack Obama was attending a sport on April 5, 2010, on the Nationals Park in Washington DC. The Washington Nationals had been taking part in in opposition to the Philadelphia Phillies.

Obama stepped as much as the plate and obtained into the pitching place. He obtained an excellent wind-up for the pitch, and what occurred subsequent was completely superb. The ball floated off digital camera and he missed the strike zone. The ball went approach left, actually.

John Kerry will get on the grid-iron. Do you suppose John Kerry was prepared to present it his all or was he about to fall?

Do you discover one thing misplaced on this picture? It needs to be very apparent. Everybody is prepared for grid-iron motion besides one particular person. Everyone seems to be “suited up” as we use to say again then. Everybody has their sport gear and their sport face on, aside from the coach, and naturally, John Kerry.

Who performs soccer sporting an unusual shirt and khakis? This appears hilarious and it’s hilarious. It’s very arduous to run with these khaki’s on. That’s the reason soccer pants have elastic in them so that you could maneuver. John Kerry was clearly making an attempt to do one thing with the ball and issues obtained buttery.

0 notes

saltyshakira-blog · 8 years ago

Text

A Critique on Erick Mink’s Article:”Trump: A President Without Honor”

President elect, Mr. Donald J. Trump has been an equally popular and infamous topic around the world in news articles and memes alike. Mr. Trump has been hated on for his campaign strategies about it being too extreme and at some points offensive, but we all have to see him in the light as a human being just like us, we all have our opinions some wrong and some right, we have our moments of shame and we all definitely make mistakes. Trump has been put to shame due to the many moments that he has made for himself where he lets something slide that could be offensive, but he is human after all so cut him some slack. According to most articles on the internet, Trump is a very blunt person who does not care much about past relations between the United States and other countries when making deals or past instances where countries came to help the United States in their time of need, but this isn’t a bad thing at all. It’s called efficiency. Donald Trump is a businessman at heart, his “Trump Organization” does own more than 500 businesses to this day, and are still up and running to this day. Trump may not be a very good speaker but a good businessman; those businesses did not make themselves prosper did they? Seeing this result, I believe Donald Trump has a certain skill and ability level when it comes to efficiency, because it’s essential in running those 500 businesses. So I think there is a deeper reason as to why Trump is being “blunt” in his transactions with other countries.

Trump has also been a popular topic due to his racist propaganda when it comes to how he relays messages. Contrary to popular belief, Donald Trump is not a racist. According to Google, the definition of racist is “a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.” Trump’s charge that Judge Curiel cannot fairly adjudicate the Trump University lawsuit is based on his belief that Curiel’s Mexican heritage creates a natural bias against a presidential candidate that wants to build a wall between the judge’s born nation and nation of his family ancestry. While the merits of this charge are certainly debatable (they seem to have earned precious little merit in the court of public opinion), there has been no statement from Trump that indicates that he actually feels superior to Judge Curiel based on the judge’s Hispanic descent. Rather, it’s just another example of Trump demonstrating that he is an unapologetic nationalist. In fact, counter to the racism charge, Trump is actually telegraphing to the nation, through psychological projection, that he would most likely behave the same way as the judge given the same situation. This is not racism. This is Trump reminding us that his entire life has been defined by winning, at any cost. President Donald J. Trump has been bashed on social media for the things his supporters do, but these actions do not in any way relate to how Trump may perform as a President. The article to be critiqued embodies most of the popular negative beliefs about Mr. Donald J. Trump that at the same time are mostly untrue or inaccurate.

This article has a varying collection of claims that I may agree or disagree with. The line that starts with “ensuring fair treatment” in bold continues to pry at the emotions of the readers due to the author presenting relatable topics like: “those infirm with age and people just trying to maintain their health” and “the land we all inhabit.” These are claims according to Aristotle’s Appeal on Pathos, due to its style of trying to affect the readers with relatable subjects and realities that surround them for his point to come through to them. Another point attacking Trump about his actions was followed by the line: “Americans who are struggling to get ahead and feeling overwhelmed in a complex modern society.” It is clear that the author wanted to have his claim have a bigger impact and he did well in trying to sympathize with the Americans who are reading the article since mostly Americans are concerned about his topic. Another claim he made was “Based on the broad positions and actions… Trump’s presidency is shaping up to be something close to the exact opposite of what marketing man Trump sold it as.” Now this claim is to be answered easily by a yes or no, he based his claim off the fact that Trump’s actions are not focused on one thing and are very much broad, thus he claims that his presidency will not fulfill his promises based on that fact, making it a Claim of Fact. Now in the title we can see a claim already, the author claims that Trump is a President without honor, and this is judging Trump on his value as a person based on how he acts and what he does and can be answered by stating what makes him a man without honor.

“What Trump will do with this power and authority − beyond authoring or approving Twitter messages strewn with mistakes and continuing to act like a pathetically sore winner− is far from clear.” This claim is actually quite unrelated to the topic being “Trump: A President without Honor” and according to this site this is an ad hominem fallacy due to the claim being irrelevant to the stance that he has previously taken judging from the title. You do not judge a president’s aptitude based on how he/she tweets, very irrelevant.

President Donald J. Trump apparently has been stated to have no knowledge on the national policy of the United States in this statement: “Early in the campaign, Trump’s lack of knowledge of, passion for or even curiosity about national policy was glaring. He didn’t become any better informed after he secured the nomination” This statement has no basis stated by the author in any way, because as he states this he does not follow up with data that show supporting details as to why his claim is true. Although, Donald J. Trump has shown interest in the United States’ national policy as stated: For example, On January 27, 2017, Trump signed an order banning residents from seven countries from entering the United States. Those countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The ban is in effect for 90 days. During that time, the Secretary of Homeland Security will determine which countries do not supply enough information in their visa applications. Trump has showed some competency when it comes to national policy in the previous stated action he took because of his fear that these countries’ people have a history of being dangerous to the people of America.

Trump has also been believed to be uninterested in National Policy in this statement: “Vice-president elect Mike Pence, not Trump, seems to be the go-to guy for face-to-face activity and explanations approaching coherence when it comes to the future administration’s policy positions and actions.” The previous claim was stated right after the previous claim so this claim was in effect to the point stating that Donald Trump lacks interest in the actual job of being President. Now the claim is not appropriate since you cannot take that single factor and equate it to this multi-factored conclusion. Regardless of the performance of Donald Trump in the beginning of his campaign, his performance as President cannot be predicted solely on the opinion of him “not having interest.”

Trump has also been scrutinized for the people he put into certain positions based on this statement: “Based on the broad positions and actions taken so far − and considering the track records of people nominated for key administration positions − Trump’s presidency is shaping up to be something close to the exact opposite of what marketing man Trump sold it as.” This is clearly a fallacious statement due to it oversimplifying the factors of an entire presidency by factoring it to a single component being the people appointed to such positions without knowing their potential. Presidency according to this site is determined through Organizational Capacity, Effectiveness as a Public Communicator and Cognitive Style, and not only the people assigned to certain positions.

The article had some very strong and reinforced points accompanied by the hyperlinks that helped in reinforcing the claims even more and these links also helped me, as a reader, understand what he based his claims on. On the other hand, some claims were quite uncalled for and some just unrelated to him being a President, while most of his claims were stated with substance, some of them lacked the information required of such claims.

0 notes

theliberaltony · 5 years ago

Link

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): You may have thought that with former Vice President Joe Biden as the presumptive Democratic nominee our 2020 drafts were finally over. Well, no such luck. There’s still the question of whom Biden will pick as his vice president. We know thanks to his announcement at an earlier presidential debate that he plans to pick a female running mate, but that’s it.

So we’re back with a snake draft of whom Biden should pick for his VP. How it works is simple: Three rounds total, so between the three of us, nine potential 2020 Democratic veeps. And the draft line up is …

Nathaniel

Sarah

Geoffrey

OK, you’re up, Nathaniel.

nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): Ahhh, I wanted the second pick.

geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, elections analyst): Hahaha, really?

nrakich: Yeah — I think there are two equally strong contenders for the first overall pick. But I will go for the more obvious one: Sen. Kamala Harris.

Harris obviously ran for president already, which means she’s been vetted. She has also long been considered a rising star in the party. Plus, she would make history as both the first African American and first Asian American vice president, and African American voters are probably a group that Biden should reach out to given that he won the nomination thanks largely to their support. And this goes without saying, but Democrats will want to try to get African American turnout in the general election closer to where it was for former President Barack Obama than where it was for Hillary Clinton.

There will inevitably be some “ooh, remember how they attacked each other in that first primary debate” chatter, but I think that moment is overblown. Harris was doing what she had to do to win. And both before and after that incident, Biden and Harris have reportedly gotten along quite well.

geoffrey.skelley: Some say the first rule of vice presidential selection is to “do no harm,” and Harris would probably fit that bill on a number of fronts. She’s been in the spotlight and vetted as a former presidential candidate, as Nathaniel said. In other words, she’d meet the “Ready on Day 1” test that I think is pretty key for Biden.

Additionally, California isn’t a swing state, but Harris’s Senate seat would likely remain in Democratic hands. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom would appoint her replacement and when her seat is up in 2022, Democrats would be very likely to hold onto it.

nrakich: Yeah, I think the home-state effect of vice-presidential candidates is slim to none. That’s going to inform a lot of my picks.

sarahf: In their veepstakes feature on Tuesday, Politico set up Biden’s VP decision as a choice between appealing to black voters and appealing to the progressive wing of the party. So if he were to select Harris — whom I agree does seem like a very solid pick for him — I guess that only checks one of those boxes. But arguably, it’s not really possible for Biden to check both boxes with one VP.

geoffrey.skelley: I think the Biden campaign would argue Harris gives them some of both — she is a cosponsor on Sen. Bernie Sanders’s Medicare for All legislation, for instance.

sarahf: That’s true, but I still think about how she infamously raised her hand in one of the early debates to say she supported Medicare for All, only to walk that back later.

nrakich: Yeah, one downside to Harris is that the progressive wing of the party doesn’t really trust her. (Think of the “Kamala is a cop” meme.) But I agree, it’s hard to appeal to both, and I think African Americans are the more important constituency for Biden.

sarahf: Well, and to the point you raised initially, Nathaniel, Biden won the nomination thanks in large part to black Democrats’ support — think South Carolina in particular — so it’s hard to not think that is a major consideration for Biden when weighing options.

But OK, I’m up. Ugh. At least I don’t have to go last in this draft.

geoffrey.skelley: Sigh.

sarahf: So I’m not totally sure I agree with my own pick, but if part of the optics around Biden’s VP pick requires appealing to black voters or progressive voters, I wonder if he can’t try and do both by picking Rep. Ayanna Pressley.

I know Sen. Elizabeth Warren would be a more natural, high-profile pick to represent the progressive wing of the party, especially considering she ran for president, and Pressley is only a one-term House representative, but I’d argue Pressley, like fellow Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, represents a new direction for the party, which I think is an important characteristic for Biden’s VP to have.

I suppose that Pressley’s lack of experience is what hurts her chances to be Biden’s running mate the most. Massachusetts isn’t exactly a swing state either.

nrakich: Bold pick! Although I have learned the hard way not to bet against Sarah in these drafts…

I think Pressley is an interesting choice, but ultimately, I think the lack of experience dooms her. Biden, at 77, is the oldest major-party presidential nominee ever. That means the top consideration for the Biden campaign should be picking someone who will be ready to become president on day one.

geoffrey.skelley: Yeah, Pressley is fascinating, and it’s no coincidence that her name popped up in discussions about what might happen to Warren’s Senate seat if Warren had won the nomination (or maybe the vice presidency, still). But I agree with Nathaniel that Biden is unlikely to pick a one-term House member.

She’s a rising star, but maybe the 2020 election is just too near.

sarahf: The lack of experience definitely cuts against Pressley. But if Biden’s top VP considerations are appealing to black and progressive voters, I think it’s impressive she can check both boxes. I also thought she was a pretty effective endorser of Warren in the primary, but yeah, I admit that I’m not convinced this will actually happen.

OK, you’re up Geoffrey!!

geoffrey.skelley: Alright, I think my first pick is a bit predictable, but she would obviously fit in nicely with Biden’s political outlook: Sen. Amy Klobuchar.

nrakich: Oh, bad pick.

Maybe my alternative first choice will still be on the board after all…

geoffrey.skelley: She ran for president and has a long history of doing well in a purple state. Plus, she endorsed Biden right after dropping out of the Democratic presidential primary, so that may have also nicely positioned her for consideration.

And again, if the idea is to do no harm, she’s a fairly safe choice. But whereas I can see some progressives coming around to Harris, it’s harder to see that happening with Klobuchar.

Nevertheless, I think that after Harris, she’s probably the second-most-likely senator to get picked.

sarahf: That’s true, Geoffrey, I don’t see progressives warming up to Klobuchar like they might with Harris. In some ways, picking Klobuchar would be Biden doubling down on his base — i.e., appealing to more moderate voters, right?

Why do you say, bad pick, Nathaniel?

nrakich: I just don’t see what Klobuchar adds. She is incredibly redundant with Biden in terms of ideology and appeal to swing voters. Biden should try to pick someone who appeals to a different constituency.

geoffrey.skelley: There’s a chance Biden will view that redundancy as a good thing, though.

nrakich: I’m also not sure that Klobuchar wouldn’t do any harm … While I could see the left grumbling about, but ultimately accepting, Harris, I think they would be much more actively opposed to Klobuchar, who was always toward the center of the Democratic presidential field.

geoffrey.skelley: That’s fair, but at the same time, I suspect Klobuchar wouldn’t turn off some of the voters in the middle the way Harris might.

nrakich: Also, it’s not necessarily a dealbreaker in the same way it would be for some other potential VP picks (cough Tammy Baldwin cough), but if Klobuchar resigns from the Senate, her seat would go to a special election in November 2022, two years ahead of schedule, putting a Senate seat unnecessarily in danger.

geoffrey.skelley: But that’s a concern with almost every senator outside of Harris!

Democrats have a fairly deep bench in Minnesota, too, so that might not be that risky of a move.

nrakich: Hm, I disagree there. Other senators are on different schedules or hail from bluer states than Minnesota.

geoffrey.skelley: Out of the people likely to get picked, though?

Maybe Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.

nrakich: Shhh, spoilers!

geoffrey.skelley: Lol, the Senate special election discussion could take up half the chat.

Anyway.

nrakich: Was that not the plan??

In all seriousness, though, it’s a very important factor in the veepstakes discussion. A President Biden would need every Democratic vote in the Senate he can muster to pass his agenda.

sarahf: That’s a good point, but OK — you’re up again, Geoffrey.

geoffrey.skelley: My next pick is Sen. Tammy Duckworth. The Illinois senator flies a little under the radar, but she’s got a fascinating background as an Asian American veteran who lost both her legs as a helicopter pilot fighting in Iraq. She’s also from a blue state, so her seat would be more likely to remain in Democratic hands (it’s up in 2022).

However, as 2010 showed, weird things can happen — the GOP captured this very same seat that year, formerly held by Obama, so it’s worth noting that Illinois isn’t California.

nrakich: Ah, dammit. Duckworth was my second choice. She would be a great pick, for all the reasons Geoffrey says.

geoffrey.skelley: She also gave birth while in office, the first senator to do so!

There’s just a lot to her story that I could see winning the Biden campaign over.

nrakich: Yeah, she has a great story to tell, on many different dimensions.

And her low national name recognition right now could be seen as a reason not to pick her, but it’s also an opportunity.

sarahf: Right, I mean it’s not like Sen. Tim Kaine had a huge national profile prior to when Clinton picked him in 2016.

nrakich: Yeah, I think people generally overrate people who ran for president and lost when thinking about veep contenders.

geoffrey.skelley: Yeah, honestly the main reason I picked Klobuchar ahead of Duckworth was Klobuchar ran for president and has more of a national profile. But Duckworth might be the better pick — it’s less clear that she would offend any part of the Democratic coalition.

sarahf: OK, let’s see. It undercuts my first pick (Pressley), but I also think Warren would be interesting. Clearly, I have a Massachusetts bias.

nrakich: Massachusetts bias is nothing to be ashamed of, Sarah.

sarahf: But assuming national profile matters somewhat in who a candidate picks for VP (to be clear, the political science on this isn’t really clear, but it does seem to matter to party elites), Warren has got that covered. And apparently, when Biden was still considering running in 2016, he wanted Warren as his running mate! That’s interesting to me, considering the visible bad blood between the two during the debates (thinking about their heated exchange over who deserves credit for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau).

What Warren would bring to the ticket is an ideological balance that I think few other candidates could give Biden, but I could also see her being a potential general election risk for Biden. I’m also not sure if the other constituency she appeals to — college-educated whites — is where Biden needs the most help?

geoffrey.skelley: Warren would certainly meet the Ready on Day 1 test, plus she’d unify the party pretty well. I do wonder if she’s a case where the Biden campaign might be concerned that the VP pick outshines the presidential nominee. That’s on top of the concerns that her progressive views might alienate some in the middle.

nrakich: Yeah, Warren was also pretty high on my board. If you decide your goal is to appeal to progressives, there’s no better choice (other than, I guess, Sen. Bernie Sanders, although that isn’t going to happen for many reasons). She has the experience to be president and demonstrated that she has a loyal following with her strong presidential campaign.

geoffrey.skelley: That’s true, but there is still the always-thorny electability question about whether Warren’s progressive positions would harm Biden’s attempts to have a broader appeal.

nrakich: Yeah, I wonder how that would play, Geoffrey. In this age of polarization, it’s debatable whether a presidential nominee on the ideological extremes still puts the ticket at a disadvantage; would a vice-presidential nominee on the extremes do the same thing? I’m not so sure.

geoffrey.skelley: I will say that a Warren pick would be interesting in that, at 71 years old by Election Day, Warren would be less likely to end up running for president should Biden win, so the VP pick wouldn’t necessarily be a launch pad for the next presidential contender.

nrakich: Eh, I don’t know, she could probably run in 2024 if she wanted. (I think there’s a strong possibility that Biden would not run for a second term.)

geoffrey.skelley: That’s true, but with most of these other names, the VP would very likely run in the future if the ticket won — or even if it didn’t. But we’re probably getting a little ahead of ourselves here.

sarahf: OK, Nathaniel, you’re up with your second and third picks!

nrakich: OK, next on my list is Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada. She has risen quickly in the Senate ranks; though she was just elected in 2016, she has already become chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. (I guess you could ding her for being inexperienced, but she was also state attorney general for two terms before that — in other words, she’s as experienced as Harris.) And, as a Latina, she would bring some racial diversity to the ticket, although I don’t want to imply that means she will automatically boost the ticket with Latino voters. Latinos are not a uniform group, and picking a Mexican American woman from the West wouldn’t necessarily resonate with, say, Cuban American voters in Florida.

(And, for you Senate special-election nerds, Cortez Masto’s seat will be up for election in 2022 regardless, so the only difference will be whether it is an open seat or not.)

geoffrey.skelley: Definitely a good pick. She’s under the radar, sort of like Duckworth, but has a very strong resume and a history-making backstory.

But with the Senate stuff, you wonder if the Biden team’s mindset is, ‘Look, we’ll probably lose the Senate in 2022 even if Democrats overcome a tough map to narrowly gain control of it in 2020, so we should make the best pick regardless of what that means for the Senate.’

nrakich: Yeah, maybe. But there is definitely a downside to picking someone like Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin, who I suspect will go unchosen in this draft. Baldwin’s seat would go immediately to a special election in 2021, and Wisconsin of course is a purple-to-light-red state. So that would cripple Democrats’ hypothetical Senate majority almost right away.

sarahf: That’s a good pick, Nathaniel, and could be a good way for Biden to broaden his base, considering his struggle to win the Latino vote in Nevada relative to Sanders. Although, of course, that has its limitations. What do we know about Cortez Masto’s politics, though? Isn’t she more of a moderate Democrat?

geoffrey.skelley: According to VoteView.com’s ideological scoring, she’s more or less around the middle of the Democratic Party, maybe slightly to the left of it.

nrakich: I think because she is unknown to many voters, she (and/or Biden) could define her ideology however they want, which I think is a plus. (Although she is a member of the establishment, as evidenced by her leadership of the DSCC.)

sarahf: OK, last round — take us away, Nathaniel.

nrakich: For my last pick, I’ll go with New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham. She’s arguably the best pick among Democratic governors, many of whom were just elected in 2018 and therefore aren’t that experienced. However, Lujan Grisham also served six years in the House of Representatives, so I think her combined experience passes the bar. Plus, as a Latina, she is Democrats’ only nonwhite woman governor.

sarahf: I was wondering if we were going to get around to including any governors in this draft!

geoffrey.skelley: I think some folks may be surprised she was the first governor taken!

But agreed, she has an experience level that surpasses some other newly-elected 2018 governors.

nrakich: Yeah, even though many governors are getting high marks for how they’re handling the coronavirus crisis right now, Democrats’ gubernatorial bench is just pretty weak thanks to their drubbings in the 2010 and 2014 midterms. Plus, Democrats really love picking senators as running mates — 15 of the last 18 Democratic vice-presidential candidates have been senators!

sarahf: Is that some foreshadowing of your last pick, Geoffrey?

geoffrey.skelley: I guess that may depend on what you do, Sarah!

sarahf: So for my last pick, I’m going to go with Stacey Abrams. Working against her is the fact that she probably has the least amount of government experience of all the picks named. Yes, she was a Georgia state representative for 10 years, but she isn’t currently a public official. That said, her 2018 gubernatorial bid against Gov. Brian Kemp was close, which is impressive in a red state like Georgia.

It’s a testament to how skilled of a politician she is too, considering she’s been able to stay in the national conversation, even though she’s not currently in office. The way she’s breaking the (unspoken) rules by actively campaigning for VP is fascinating to watch, too. She had this powerful line in a recent interview where she explained her decision to push for the job, saying, “If you don’t raise your hand, people won’t see you.”

I understand how her outspoken desire for the job will be portrayed as a power-hungry move and alienate some in the party because it violates the norms around how nominees pick their running mates, but I could also see that drive resonating with a lot of voters.

nrakich: Yeah, Sarah, I’m also fascinated to see where her unorthodox strategy of campaigning for the job leads. But ultimately, I think Abrams would be a bad pick for Biden because there would be lots of questions about whether she is prepared to step into the role of president.

geoffrey.skelley: “Unorthodox” is the right word — it’s atypical for someone to actively seek the vice presidency in the press.

nrakich: I could see it rubbing a lot of people the wrong way, but also, I think there would be a racial and gendered element to any criticism. Would a white man be criticized for being outspoken about his ambitions?

sarahf: Exactly, Nathaniel, that’s why I think it’s so interesting to see Abrams campaign for the job in this way. You’re right that it probably does irritate some party veterans, but I think it’s a powerful message that could resonate with a lot of rank-and-file voters.

geoffrey.skelley: Abrams could be an energizing force for Biden’s campaign, too. She’s only 46 and has such a strong profile built off her narrow loss in the 2018 gubernatorial race in Georgia. Maybe there’s a case that she helps Biden with black voters and younger ones whom Biden didn’t do as well with during the primary.

sarahf: True. But OK, Geoffrey, take us home! Last pick!

geoffrey.skelley: Alright, for my last pick, I was a bit torn because there are a fair number of directions I could see the Biden campaign going. But I’ll pick “that woman in Michigan” — Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Her experience level is a question mark — she only won her office in 2018. But she’s had a lengthy political career in Michigan, and if her approval holds up on her handling of the coronavirus crisis despite becoming a national political figure, maybe that strengthens her resume enough.

While I, too, am skeptical of there being a significant home-state benefit to vice-presidential picks, Whitmer is from Michigan, a state Trump very narrowly carried in 2016. And more broadly, she might serve Biden well in the region as a whole. She’s also only 48 years old, making her one of the younger possibilities we’ve mentioned today. That could give the ticket a nice generational balance.

nrakich: Yeah, on the experience front, I dunno… She might get a pass from the media or low-information voters because she’s been governor during this time of crisis. And she was the Democratic leader in the Michigan Senate, which isn’t nothing. But I just don’t know if that’s enough to be prepared to be leader of the free world.

Her handling of the coronavirus crisis may not be the selling point that many analysts assume it is either. She got in trouble recently for giving a no-bid state contract for tracking coronavirus cases to Democratic-connected firms. That’s the kind of rookie mistake that comes with inexperience.

Plus, how would it look for her to take a leave of absence from the governorship amid a pandemic to go campaign?

sarahf: One other thing that’s been weighing on me as we’ve chatted about Biden’s potential VPs is the kind of weird place we find ourselves in. On the one hand, we know Biden is going to pick a woman, but we just don’t know who.

And that’s complicated because whomever Biden picks, she’ll be tasked with defending his alleged track record with women, which is daunting — there’s the inappropriate touching claims from earlier in 2019 and now former Biden staffer Tara Reade has accused Biden of sexual assault. That’s something that his VP, especially because she will be a woman, will have to speak to no matter who she is.

nrakich: Yeah, I’ll be watching how these latest allegations play out.

For whatever reason — no room in the coronavirus news cycle? media bias? Trump and Republicans aren’t harping on it? — Reade’s allegations haven’t gotten a lot of traction yet. But with Business Insider finding someone whom Reade told about the alleged assault at the time, it seems like they aren’t going away either.

So far, though, female politicians (not that women are the only ones who care about this issue), including some we mentioned in this chat, are still supporting Biden, or at least aren’t saying anything about the accusations. Hillary Clinton even endorsed Biden on Tuesday.

sarahf: Yeah, it’s hard at this point to say how this will all shake out for Biden. If more women step forward or if we get more corroboration around Reade’s allegations, I have to think this causes Biden serious trouble. But even if that doesn’t happen, whoever Biden’s VP is will have to talk about his relationship with women, and as Rebecca Traister wrote for New York Magazine, that might be a hard pill to swallow.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #A FiveThirtyEight Chat

0 notes

thisdaynews · 5 years ago

Text

Why Is Andrew Yang Still in This Race?

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/why-is-andrew-yang-still-in-this-race/

Why Is Andrew Yang Still in This Race?

BEAUFORT, S.C.—Andrew Yang was sitting here in a rented silver Suburban outside a black chamber of commerce surrounded by five members of his rapidly growing campaign staff when he saw a new Fox News poll in which he was tied for fifth in the sprawling Democratic presidential primary.

He stared at the screen of his phone and scrolled.

Story Continued Below

“Three percent!” Yang said, in his characteristically dry, droll way. “This team. Is the team. That’s going to go … all. The. Way. To the White House!”

Yang breezily walked into the chamber building and got onto a packed elevator. To the county party chair squeezed into a corner, Yang excitedly passed along the results of the poll, listing in order the only people who were ahead of him—a former vice president (Joe Biden) and three high-profile senators (Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris).

“And thenme!” he exclaimed, flashing a goofy, exaggerated smile.

Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but Andrew Yang is … surging? It sounds crazy, and who knows how long it lasts? But for now he is one of 10 candidates who have qualified through sufficiently robust polling and fundraising for this fall’s third and fourth debates. The exhausting cluster of Oval Office aspirants, at least for these purposes, has been whittled to this: the aforementioned top four, two more senators, a mayor, a former member of Congress and … this guy. Yang is a 44-year-old entrepreneur from New York and a father of two young sons who’s never run for any office of any kind before this, and whose campaign is fueled by a deeply dystopian view of the near future (trucker riots, anybody?), a pillar of a platform that can come off as a gimmick (a thousand bucks a month for every American adult!), and a zeitgeisty swirl of podcasts, GIFs, tweets and memes. Last week, as a successful governor from a major state dropped out and the bottom half of the bloated field continued to flounder, Yang passed the 200,000 mark for unique donors—outpacing an array of name-known pols. He’s gotten contributions, on average $24 a pop, from 88 percent of the ZIP codes in the country, and he’s on track, he says, to raise twice as much money this quarter as he did last quarter. Just the other day, he made his Sunday news show debut.

It’s a phenomenon hard to figure—until you get up close and take in some strange political alchemy. At the heart of Yang’s appeal is a paradox. In delivering his alarming, existentially unsettling message of automation and artificial intelligence wreaking havoc on America’s economic, emotional and social well-being, he … cracks jokes. He laughs easily, and those around him, and who come to see him, end up laughing a lot, too. It’s not that Yang’s doing stump-speech stand-up. It’s more a certain nonchalant whimsy that leavens what he says and does. Sometimes his jokes fall flat. He can be awkward, but he also pointedly doesn’t appear to care. It’s weird, and it’s hard to describe, but I suspect that if Yang ever said something cringeworthy, as Jeb Bush did that time in 2016—“Please clap”—the audience probably would respond with mirth, not pity. Critics ding his ambit of proposals as fanciful or zany (getting rid of the penny, empowering MMA fighters, lowering the voting age to 16) and question the viability of his “Freedom Dividend,” considering its sky-high price tag (“exciting but not realistic,” Hillary Clinton decided when she considered the general notion in the 2016 cycle). And his campaign coffers are chock-full of small-number contributors and even $1 donors. Still, at this angry, fractious time, and in this primary that’s already an edgy, anxious slog, Yang and his campaign somehow radiate an ambient joviality. Of his party’s presidential contestants, he’s the cheerful doomsayer.

His most foolproof laugh line—“the opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math”—suggests that his candidacy is premised on distinguishing himself from the president the same way as his fellow challengers. But it’s not quite that simple. He’s attracting support from an unorthodox jumble of citizens, from a host of top technologists, but from penitent Trump voters, too. He’s one of only two Democrats (along with Sanders) who ticks 10 percent or higher when Trump voters are asked which of the Democrats they might go for—a factoid Yang uses as evidence that he’ll win “easy” if he’s the nominee come November of next year. Trump, of course, is the president, and Yang (let’s not get carried away) remains a very long long shot to succeed him.

But to spend any time with Yang is to grapple with this unexpected Trump-Yang Venn diagram. While Yang talks in different, far less overtly divisive ways, identifies different scapegoats (robots, not immigrants) and offers different solutions (cash, not walls), he’s zeroed in on the same elemental problem Trump did en route to his shock of a win in ’16: A large portion of the populace is being left behind, and it’s not remotely OK. Similarly, Yang’s campaign packs an anti-Washington, convention-bucking, on-the-fly, filter-free vibe. There are four-letter hats—not MAGA, but MATH (Make America Think Harder). And his Trump train? It’s the Yang Gang. Yang is not thenot Trumpof the 2020 trail. “Yang is thenewTrump,” a traveling Trump-voter-turned-Yang-Gang-YouTuber told me.

There are plenty of differences, too, of course. To wit: In the chamber building, after the elevator disgorged a floor up, a lobby was filled with the bouncy beats of line dancing emanating from a different room. One of his staffers joked that Yang should join in. And then … he did. Apparently unafraid of looking silly, or potentially creating an embarrassing, indelible, campaign-altering moment with the presence not just of me but also a state-based reporter from The Associated Press, Yang proceeded to team up with a handful of senior citizens for what most onlookers ultimately agreed was a quite credible, rhythm-keeping rendition of the catchy “Cupid Shuffle.”

“Down, down, do your dance, do your dance,” went the lyrics—and Yang did.

“Get it, Andrew!” the group leader called into her microphone. “Lookin’ good!”

When it was over, Yang jogged around the room to hearty cheers, grinning and giving everybody high fives.

“Thanks for letting me crash your class,” he said to the head of Family Slide Dancers.

“Thank you all!” he said to the members of her class.

By the time we got back to the Suburban, my phone was buzzing nonstop in my pocket. A tweet of the video I shot was starting to zoom around the internet.

***

“We are basically fucked,”Yang said, sitting in the Suburban, earlier in the day, not too long after we met, “unless we un-fuck ourselves, systematically and collectively.”

This blunt declaration didn’t surprise me. That’s because I’d read his most recent book. It’s one heck of a downer.

InThe War on Normal People, which came out last year, Yang sketched a stark picture of “broken people” and “jobless zones” and “derelict buildings” and “widespread despair” and “hundreds of thousands of families and communities being pushed into oblivion” and “a society torn apart by ever-rising deprivation and disability” and a “best-case scenario” of “a hyper-stratified society like something out ofThe Hunger Games.”

“It’s possible that we may already be too defeated and opiated by the market to mount a revolution. We might just settle for making hateful comments online and watching endless YouTube videos with only the occasional flare-up of violence amid many quiet suicides,” he wrote.

“The group I worry about most is poor whites,” he added. “There will be more random mass shootings in the months ahead as middle-aged white men self-destruct and feel that life has no meaning.”

My copy of his book is littered with my disconsolate scribbles.

“Yikes.”

“… bleak …”

“… hellscape.”

Know what else, though, I penned into the margins?

“Ha!”

“When I was 13,” Yang wrote, for instance, “I had to have four teeth pulled in preparation for wearing braces. I was actually kind of excited about it because I saw my dad’s teeth and was like, ‘whatever it takes, let’s not have those.’” He said the answer for out-of-place workers was not a career as a home health care aide because “former truck drivers will not be excited to bathe grandma.”

And as we traveled around, a busy, six-stop day in this sweaty, marshy terrain—from Bluffton to Okatie to Beaufort, from town halls to meet-and-greets with local Democratic clubs to a quiet, private stop at a shelter for abused women and children—the laughter never stopped for long.

Nibbling on a belVita vanilla oat biscuit, he praised the company for marketing the product as a healthy option. “It’s, like, you’re clearly good for me,” he said, “and then it’s a fucking cookie for breakfast!”

He referred repeatedly to his $24 average donation. “My fans are cheaper than Bernie’s!”

Entering a Mexican restaurant for a town hall, he said, “The best thing about running for president is I walk into a room and people clap!” The crowd roared.

He wasn’t always this way. His parents came to America from Taiwan. His mother was a computer services administrator before becoming a pastel artist. His father grew up poor on a peanut farm and got a Ph.D. in physics at the University of California at Berkeley and worked for General Electric and IBM in New York. Yang described him as a “workaholic” and “a brusque lab geek.” Growing up in the suburbs of Westchester County, Yang as a kid was “angsty,” “brooding” and “sad,” he said. He read science fiction and fantasy and Herman Hesse and listened to Pearl Jam and Soundgarden and Sarah McLachlan and played piano and decent tennis and lots of Dungeons and Dragons. He was, for a time, a tad goth. He suffered racist slurs. At prep school at Phillips Exeter in New Hampshire, and then at college at Brown, where he majored in economics and political science, he began to come out of his shell. He started to lift weights, mostly to try to get dates, and was proud to be able to bench press 225 pounds eight to 10 times in a row.

Now, here in the Suburban, as we crossed the Broad River, I brought up “Rex and Lex.” That’s what Yang named his pecs, “Rex” for the right, “Lex” for the left, when he was lifting all those weights. I knew about this because he wrote about in his other, earlier book,Smart People Should Build Things. He “could jostle them on command,” he had written, “to make them ‘talk.’” Obviously, I wanted to hear more.

Yang obliged. Having shed his blue sport coat, he looked down at his chest, and he … channeled “Rex.”

“He’s, like, almost mute,” he said, “but he’s still like”—and here the candidate for president made his dad-bod-dormantpectoralisundulate under his checked, collared shirt and assumed a diminutive, sing-song cadence—“‘Andrew, I still have a little bit of voice left. You haven’t fed me in a long time. You used to looooove meeeeeee.’”

Zach Graumann, Yang’s 31-year-old campaign manager, looked some combination of mesmerized and mortified. “You’re such a tool,” he said.

Yang was undeterred. He was on a roll. He turned his attention to “Lex.”

“Oh man,” he lamented, “Lex is wimpier than Rex!”

Everybody inside the Suburban laughed and laughed.

***

At the town hall in Hilton Head—a standing-room-only crowd of mainly older folks wearing boat shoes and flip-flops—it was hard to miss the young guys in the pink hats.

They listened intently as Yang introduced himself. “Hello, everyone! I’m Andrew Yang, and I’m running for president! … I’m going to be honest. I’m the last person anyone thought was going to run for president, in terms of my high school, my upbringing. My parents were not like, ‘You’re gonna be president someday.’” This assertion drew laughs. After Brown and law school at Columbia and five unhappy months as a corporate attorney, he started a company (Stargiving.com) that failed, he said. He was the CEO of a company that succeeded. He launched a non-profit that did a little bit of both. Then Yang gave his political pitch, about truckers, and soon-to-be self-driving trucks, and so many other kinds of workers, and automation, and artificial intelligence, and the real reason he thinks Trump won—millions of jobs automated away in the most important Midwest swing states—and the coming “buzz saw” and “the race to the bottom” and “suicides, drug overdoses, anxiety, depression,” and how the average American life expectancy has declined for three straight years for the first time in a century, and how “D.C. is not up to it at all,” and about $1,000 a month for every adult.

“How am I doing so well?” he said. “It’s because Americans recognize the truth when they hear it.”

The guys in the pink hats were impressed.

“He nailed it,” Mike Gallagher, 29, told me after Yang finished.

“Awesome,” said Wayne Boyce, 28.

They had driven the hour or so up from Savannah, Georgia, and both of them said they had voted for Trump but would not be doing it again.

Ditto for their other friend. “He’s an asshole,” Jordan Snipes said of the president. “And he hasn’t done anything he said he was going to do.”

They were members, they all said, of the Yang Gang now.

I asked if there were others like them where they’re from.

“Most of our friends,” Snipes reported.

A few hours later, at the Mexican restaurant, I met the Yang Gang YouTuber. Russell Peterson, 43,from Union County, North Carolina, was with his wife, Elasa, who was wearing a MATH shirt, and their toddler son, Zephaniah—“country folks,” Peterson said, and “former Trump supporters.” He had a lot to say.

“We all saw a problem, and that’s why we elected Donald Trump,” he told me. “Because he was saying he was going to go in and he was going to drain the swamp. He was a larger-than-life figure, you know? We all knew that there was a problem. We just didn’t know what that problem was. But then, when you listen to Andrew Yang, you realize: Oh, yeah, it is automation—it’s not immigrants. It’s automation. We’re all losing our jobs. We’re all being phased out. I’m an ex-landscaper. I just saw yesterday they’ve got a mower that just goes and mows your yard, just like a Roomba, you know, does your house.”

And what’s he do for work now?

“This is what we do,” he said. “We follow Andrew Yang full-time.”

He doesn’t work for the campaign, but …

“This has become my passion. There is nothing more important than getting this man elected,” he said, breaking down his video equipment.

“I’m tired of politicians. I don’t want a politician. I want somebody who’s going to tell me the fuckin’ truth, tell me what’s going on, and thenprovidesomething that’s actually going to impact my life! Since I’ve been an adult, there’s not beenonepolitician that has directly impacted my life, but I promise you that freedom dividend and putting $2,000 a month into my household would directly impact my life. I mean,game over.”

He wasn’t finished.

“People are so disillusioned,” he said. “Donald Trump? He was the WWE superstar guy. You know, he was going to take his metal chair into Washington, and he was just going to use it on everybody. We were finally going to be working like we were supposed to be working—and I’ve only seen the country get more and more divided. And then when you have Trump acting like he’s acting, I can’t support that, bro’. And then there’s a lot of people in the center who are like me who are moving over to Andrew Yang because we don’t like what we see. Wedon’tlike what Trump has done to the country. He’s only divided us more and more. So now we actually have some solutions and a guy who’stalkingabout solutions—so, like, let’s get this guy in, because he makes too much damn sense!”

All day long, everywhere we went, Yang was asked about Trump. How was he going to handle him? How was he going to debate him? How was he going to beat him?

He said he “would make him seem ridiculous.” He said he “would just diminish him by dismissing his arguments and making him seem like the buffoon and joke that he is.” He said Trump was “fire”—and he said he was “ice.” He told people he was on the debate team in high school that went to the world championships in London. He said he would “use humor.”

And at the last stop of the day, here at the Grand Army of the Republic Hall, outside of which I spotted parked a red Ford F250 pickup truck with a bumper sticker that read TRUMP, the throng of a couple hundred that had gathered couldn’t fit inside. They spilled out onto the lawn off to the side. “Let’s do it!” Yang hollered. He had no microphone. “Let’s project!”

And at this last event the last question was about Trump.

“When you become the nominee,” a woman asked, “how will you stand up to that nastiness in the White House?”

“Voters around the country have said to me they cannot wait to see me debate Donald Trump,” Yang said. He was all about “logic and reason and problem-solving” while Trump was “all bluster, and Americans can tell the difference very quickly,” he said, snapping his fingers. “There’s a reason he hasn’t touched me,” Yang continued. “Because he knows I’m the wrong person to touch. His supporters are all coming my way. … I’m peeling off Trump supporters right and left.” And one more thing: “I’m better at the internet than he is!”

More laughter.

“On that note …”

A snaking line of people waited for pictures. The sun set. Through the buggy, muggy haze, a single orange orb of a streetlight glowed past clumps of spectral Spanish moss. Yang autographed MATH hats. Flashes from phones pulsed in the dark.

#Andrew #Foreign #Politics #still

0 notes