Jump to content
IGNORED

2020: The Two Year Long Election


Cartmann99

Recommended Posts

"Trump is building a chaos machine"

Spoiler

In 2016, it was common for everyone watching the presidential campaign — operatives, pundits, journalists, voters — to remark that the whole thing was just crazy. Donald Trump had smashed all the spoken and unspoken rules about how a mature democracy was supposed to conduct an election, leaving much of the country shaking their heads in wonder, alternately amused and bemused, when perhaps more of us should have reacted with horror and panic.

But that was nothing. For his 2020 reelection campaign, Trump is building an engine of chaos. That engine has the president at its head but will also rely on the efforts of his allies, the media outlets that have devoted themselves to his cause, and in all likelihood more help from abroad, especially the Russian government.

All these participants will try to convince voters that Trump has been an excellent president who deserves reelection, but alongside that straightforward attempt at persuasion will be a comprehensive and far-reaching effort to sow mayhem and madness across the entire political landscape so that lies swallow truth and nobody has any idea what to think.

That effort is just beginning to roll, but we can already see it at work in the political story of the moment.

Right now Trump is whipping up racist animosity against four Democratic congresswomen while simultaneously arguing that his attacks have nothing to do with race. When, for instance, he argues that he never spoke about them with the aid of talking points, though there are photographs of him holding the talking points, it’s hard not to think he’s trying to send the media chasing one bizarre lie after another, to drive us all mad.

He’s also fabricating and distorting quotes the congresswomen allegedly said, and those are being repeated and magnified on the news outlets that have devoted themselves to Trump’s service.

You know about Fox News, and you may know about the Sinclair Broadcast Group, a conservative company that requires many of its stations to air pro-Trump commentary. But there’s also the One America News Network, a more recent addition to the cable dial that is almost comically pro-Trump, which he has repeatedly promoted on Twitter.

Kevin Poulsen of the Daily Beast reports on this colorful aspect of OANN’s coverage:

If the stories broadcast by the Trump-endorsed One America News Network sometimes look like outtakes from a Kremlin trolling operation, there may be a reason. One of the on-air reporters at the 24-hour network is a Russian national on the payroll of the Kremlin’s official propaganda outlet, Sputnik.

That’s right, a “reporter” who is literally on the Kremlin payroll works at a news network endorsed by Trump, where he airs stories alleging bizarre conspiracy theories, including one claiming that “Hillary Clinton is secretly bankrolling antifa through her political action committee.”

Meanwhile, BuzzFeed reports that major Republican donors with ties to Ukraine are still working with Rudolph W. Giuliani in an effort to convince that country to help dig up dirt on Joe Biden.

Now let’s step back for a moment. One of the things that emerged from the Mueller investigation was that the joint effort by the Russian government and the Trump campaign was not a “conspiracy” in the way the movies have taught us to think about it, a tightly choreographed and highly efficient operation. They both pursued the same goal, but in many ways it was haphazard and ad hoc, involving a lot of people of varying levels of knowledge and competence.

If anything, the 2020 Trump reelection effort will likely be even more randomly organized, a seething carbuncle of misinformation oozing out in all directions. Some of it will come directly from Trump himself, some will come from his campaign, some will come from the army of trolls and bots that Russia will likely employ on his behalf once again. At times it will seem formless and random, with no clear intent other than the creation of mass confusion and uncertainty.

Much of it will be directed at the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, a cloud of conspiracy theories and ludicrous allegations intended to follow them wherever they go. And while I’m sure the Trump campaign will be happy if it can create a new version of But Her Emails, a single unifying attack that the mainstream media enthusiastically amplify, the Trump campaign may be almost as happy just to create that cloud.

As of yet we’ve seen no evidence that either the Democratic Party or the media themselves have any idea how to to deal with that kind of campaign. They’re both still built for a more “normal” affair, in which the two sides offer biographical stories and policy arguments, and yes, there is deception and demagoguery from time to time, but it’s kept within reasonable limits and we’re able to maintain something resembling an agreement on what’s true and what isn’t.

Now imagine it’s October of 2020. Every day, Trump comes out with some preposterous new lie about the Democratic nominee, making up things they supposedly said and did. As soon as he does so, the lies are pushed through every arm of the conservative media and repeated by Republican politicians. And while news organizations are dutifully writing their factual rebuttals, Trump debuts another, even more preposterous lie a day later.

Meanwhile, voters’ social media feeds are inundated with fake organizations and fake people offering a dizzying array of misinformation, leaving them stumbling from one supposed blockbuster revelation to the next and utterly unable to figure out what is real. The whole thing begins to take on a feeling of madness, where the only safe harbor lies is in the tribe that offers you belonging and the conviction that the people you hate are even worse than you thought.

That’s what’s coming. And it hasn’t even begun.

My manager is a big fan of OAN. He says it's...and I quote..."even better than Fox." I am quick to bring up another topic when he mentions it.

  • WTF 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sweet little Rufus!

 

  • Upvote 2
  • WTF 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting comparison:

 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because of course: "Rep. Ilhan Omar’s Republican Challenger Appears to be a QAnon Conspiracy Theorist"

Spoiler

A Republican House candidate challenging Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has made frequent references to the pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy theory, potentially making her the latest QAnon believer to run for federal office in 2020.

Danielle Stella, a Minneapolis special education teacher, made a stir on the right-wing internet in June when she launched her campaign against Omar, a frequent target of President  Donald Trump. But her campaign strategy appears to include outreach to QAnon fans, with Stella’s Twitter account posting twice last week using the hashtag “#WWG1WGA” — a reference to the QAnon motto “Where we go one, we go all.” 

Stella’s Twitter account also follows a number of prominent QAnon promoters.

Stella went further on Monday, tweeting a picture of herself wearing a “Q” necklace in a tweet that was first reported by QAnon tracker and podcast host Travis View. 

While Stella didn’t clarify the meaning of the necklace, her campaign account favorited a series of tweets from QAnon believers who took the necklace as a sign of support for QAnon. One of the favorited tweets included a series of pictures of QAnon believers at Trump rallies. Another warned Stella to “be stealth about certain symbols and things” — apparently a suggestion that she downplay any belief in QAnon. 

While someone who appeared to work for the campaign told Right Wing Watch that Stella stood “100 percent” behind Q, former aides told The Daily Beast it was actually a ruse. Jodi Larson, a former Stella campaign staffer who has since backed another candidate, said Stella is just posing as a QAnon believer to gain campaign support.

“She tries to portray herself as she supports it, but she doesn’t even understand it,” Larson said. 

Larson accompanied Stella on a trip to Washington, D.C. early this month, where she claims Stella wore the QAnon necklace.

“She just wears it to get attention,” Larson said. 

Stella didn’t respond to a request for comment.

QAnon believers have become convinced—through a series of cryptic clues posted online by an anonymous figure known as “Q”—that top Democrats are engaged in a Pizzagate-style pedophile conspiracy and will soon be arrested and either imprisoned or executed by Trump. 

A Republican House candidate openly embracing QAnon marks the conspiracy theory’s latest progress within the GOP tent. For over a year, QAnon believers have been showing up at Trump rallies. And the president even invited QAnon promoters to the White House for a “social media summit.” A South Carolina state representative endorsed QAnon in March, although she later claimed she didn’t believe in it anymore, while a California councilmember quoted from the conspiracy theory in the council dais. There is no member of Congress who openly believes in QAnon, though there are several individuals who are trying to make such history. In addition to Stella, Matthew Lusk, a longshot Republican House candidate in Florida, voiced his support for the conspiracy theory in April. 

 

  • Upvote 2
  • WTF 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Because of course: "Rep. Ilhan Omar’s Republican Challenger Appears to be a QAnon Conspiracy Theorist"

  Reveal hidden contents

A Republican House candidate challenging Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has made frequent references to the pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy theory, potentially making her the latest QAnon believer to run for federal office in 2020.

Danielle Stella, a Minneapolis special education teacher, made a stir on the right-wing internet in June when she launched her campaign against Omar, a frequent target of President  Donald Trump. But her campaign strategy appears to include outreach to QAnon fans, with Stella’s Twitter account posting twice last week using the hashtag “#WWG1WGA” — a reference to the QAnon motto “Where we go one, we go all.” 

Stella’s Twitter account also follows a number of prominent QAnon promoters.

Stella went further on Monday, tweeting a picture of herself wearing a “Q” necklace in a tweet that was first reported by QAnon tracker and podcast host Travis View. 

While Stella didn’t clarify the meaning of the necklace, her campaign account favorited a series of tweets from QAnon believers who took the necklace as a sign of support for QAnon. One of the favorited tweets included a series of pictures of QAnon believers at Trump rallies. Another warned Stella to “be stealth about certain symbols and things” — apparently a suggestion that she downplay any belief in QAnon. 

While someone who appeared to work for the campaign told Right Wing Watch that Stella stood “100 percent” behind Q, former aides told The Daily Beast it was actually a ruse. Jodi Larson, a former Stella campaign staffer who has since backed another candidate, said Stella is just posing as a QAnon believer to gain campaign support.

“She tries to portray herself as she supports it, but she doesn’t even understand it,” Larson said. 

Larson accompanied Stella on a trip to Washington, D.C. early this month, where she claims Stella wore the QAnon necklace.

“She just wears it to get attention,” Larson said. 

Stella didn’t respond to a request for comment.

QAnon believers have become convinced—through a series of cryptic clues posted online by an anonymous figure known as “Q”—that top Democrats are engaged in a Pizzagate-style pedophile conspiracy and will soon be arrested and either imprisoned or executed by Trump. 

A Republican House candidate openly embracing QAnon marks the conspiracy theory’s latest progress within the GOP tent. For over a year, QAnon believers have been showing up at Trump rallies. And the president even invited QAnon promoters to the White House for a “social media summit.” A South Carolina state representative endorsed QAnon in March, although she later claimed she didn’t believe in it anymore, while a California councilmember quoted from the conspiracy theory in the council dais. There is no member of Congress who openly believes in QAnon, though there are several individuals who are trying to make such history. In addition to Stella, Matthew Lusk, a longshot Republican House candidate in Florida, voiced his support for the conspiracy theory in April. 

 

She is such a fine and upstanding citizen. /s

 

  • Upvote 2
  • WTF 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Texas Republican Rep. Pete Olson announces he won’t run for reelection"

Spoiler

Rep. Pete Olson of Texas announced Thursday that he will not run for reelection, becoming the fifth House Republican to decline to run in 2020.

In a statement, Olson called his time serving in Congress a “tremendous blessing” but said that it “has also come at great personal sacrifice to my family.”

“My amazing wife, Nancy, has carried the lion’s share of parenting our two great children,” the six-term lawmaker said. “Her mother has suffered health issues that require more care and attention. As someone who has long advocated for policies that put our families first, it’s time for me to take my own advice and be a more consistent presence to help our family.”

Olson’s move comes one day after Rep. Paul Mitchell (R-Mich.) announced he would not run for reelection, voicing frustration that “rhetoric overwhelms policy” in Washington.

Since 2009, Olson, 56, has represented Texas’ 22nd congressional district, a minority-majority district that is one of the most diverse in the country.

The district, which was drawn to be safe for Republicans, has grown more Democratic in the past few years. In 2012, Mitt Romney won the Sugarland-area district in Houston’s suburbs by 25 points; four years later, Donald Trump won it by just eight points.

In 2018, Democrat Sri Kulkarni, a former diplomat, gave Olson an unexpectedly close race, coming just 4 points short as Republicans lost ground in Texas’s cities and suburbs -- and after Olson accused Kulkarni of being an “Indo-American carpetbagger.”

Kulkarni, who is running again for the seat, had raised $415,249 as of the last FEC filing period this month, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had put an expected Olson-Kulkarni rematch on its 2020 target list.

Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, thanked Olson in a statement and predicted that his district “will remain a Republican district for the foreseeable future.”

The DCCC countered that Texas Republicans “are terrified of losing their seats in 2020 and we can’t blame Pete Olson for choosing to retire instead of being thrown out of office next year.”

“One of the most diverse districts on the battlefield, Democrats can win this open seat and we look forward to Congressman Olson spending his golden years deep in the heart of Texas,” DCCC spokesperson Avery Jaffe said in a statement.

Olson has been among the most conservative members of the House during his time in Congress, although he recently expressed criticism of President Trump’s comment that four minority congresswomen should “go back” to their countries.

“The Tweet President Trump posted over the weekend about fellow Members of Congress are not reflective of the values of the 1,000,000+ people in Texas 22,” Olson tweeted. “We are proud to be the most diverse Congressional district in America. I urge our President immediately disavow his comments.”

 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's done an in depth study of Trump's speech patterns.

 

  • WTF 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Rep. Martha Roby is second House GOP woman to decide not to seek reelection"

Spoiler

Rep. Martha Roby announced Friday she will not seek reelection, making her the second of the House GOP’s 13 women in six weeks to retire ahead of 2020.

The Alabama congresswoman’s departure complicates Republican efforts to shore up the party’s female contingent after losing half of its members in the last election. Rep. Susan Brooks (Ind.), the House Republicans’ recruitment chair, announced her retirement in June, and Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.), the House GOP conference chairwoman, is mulling a run for the Senate.

House Republicans had expected to add another woman to their ranks in a North Carolina runoff nominating contest earlier this month. But the female candidate, Joan Perry, lost to state Rep. Greg Murphy, putting the GOP on track to add another white man to its caucus in the fall.

Perry’s defeat came despite having the backing of all of the House GOP women as well as the Winning for Women Action Fund, a GOP super PAC created for the sole purpose of electing more female Republicans in congressional races.

The House has a record number of women, but 89 of those 102 seats are held by female Democrats.

The National Republican Congressional Committee downplayed the significance of losing another female member.

“Chairman [Tom] Emmer is committed to making the House Republican caucus more diverse,” NRCC spokesman Chris Pack said. “We’ve already met with over 200 women considering running for Congress and will continue doing so. We look forward to having many more women as part of our new Republican Majority after the 2020 elections.”

Roby’s decision comes the same week that Reps. Paul Mitchell (R-Mich.) and Pete Olson (R-Tex.) announced their retirement. House Republicans recently lost another member, Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.), who quit the party over his objections to Republicans’ embrace of President Trump.

Roby did not provide a reason for her retirement, instead thanking her constituents and touting her work on issues related to the “miliary, veterans, agriculture community and the unborn.”

“We are not finished yet,” she said in a statement. “While my name will not be on the ballot in 2020, I remain committed to continuing the fight for Alabama and the people I represent until I cast my last vote on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.”

Roby was elected in the tea party wave of 2010, unseating a conservative Democratic incumbent, Bobby Bright. The district was redrawn to be more conservative, giving Republican presidential candidates more than 62 percent of the vote, and Democrats did not seriously challenge Roby in 2012 and 2014.

But the 2016 election shook her standing in the district. After the release of the now-infamous “Access Hollywood” tape that showed Trump boasting about sexually assaulting women, Roby said the then-GOP nominee’s behavior “makes him unacceptable as a candidate for president” and that she could not vote for him.

“The best thing for our country and our party is for Trump to step aside and allow a responsible, respectable Republican to lead the ticket,” Roby said. “Hillary Clinton must not be president, but with Trump leading the ticket, she will be.”

Republicans in Alabama were outraged. One month later, Roby won only 49 percent of the vote, as many conservatives refused to support her. Roby’s un-endorsement of Trump haunted her into 2018, when she was forced into a runoff with Bright — who was now a Republican and an avowed Trump supporter.

“Roby turned her back on President Trump when he needed her most,” said one of Bright’s TV ads.

But Bright had his skeletons, too, mostly his vote in support of Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for House speaker on his first day in Congress in 2009.

Trump ultimately endorsed Roby, calling Bright a “recent Nancy Pelosi voting Democrat” and effectively sinking Bright’s chances.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this paperwork issue knocks this jerk out of his comfy seat: "Missing paperwork could force Va. Republican to run as write-in"

Spoiler

Del. Nicholas J. Freitas (R-Culpeper) might have to run for reelection as a write-in candidate because of delays in filing paperwork, a situation that would present a serious setback for Republicans fighting to defend a razor-thin majority in November.

Freitas, who narrowly lost his party’s U.S. Senate nomination last year to Corey Stewart, did not face a Republican primary challenge this year.

But state election officials said his local Republican legislative committee never submitted a required form indicating Freitas was the party’s nominee. The state said another form, which Freitas personally should have filed, was also missing.

Freitas’s largely rural district, which includes Madison, Orange and Culpeper counties, has been reliably red territory, where President Trump beat Hillary Clinton 61 percent to 34 percent in 2016. Running as a write-in would pose a significant hurdle in a pivotal election year.

All 140 seats in the state legislature are on the ballot in November. Republicans have a 51-to-48 edge in the House of Delegates and a 20-to-19 advantage in the Senate, with one vacancy in each chamber.

Two years ago, as Democrats picked up 15 House seats in an anti-Trump wave, Freitas beat Democratic challenger Ben Hixon 62 percent to 38 percent, despite being outspent nearly 2 to 1. Freitas will face a stiffer challenge if he has to rely on voters to write in his name. This year, he faces Democrat Ann Ridgeway, a former teacher and juvenile probation officer.

Freitas first won a seat in the House in 2015. Some Republicans have embraced the former Green Beret with libertarian leanings as a fresh face who could help rebrand a party that has not won a statewide election since 2009.

Freitas began the election year seemingly poised to play an outsized role. Breaking with House protocol, he waded into a nasty nomination battle against a Republican colleague, Del. Chris Peace (R-Hanover), who ultimately lost to GOP challenger Scott Wyatt. Freitas’s wife, Tina Freitas, mounted a primary challenge against Sen. Emmett W. Hanger Jr. (R-Augusta). She was soundly defeated.

“Maybe he should have spent less time trying to create a family political business or meddling in his colleagues races,” Peace tweeted this month, as Freitas’s ballot troubles began unfolding.

Freitas referred questions to his campaign manager, who did not respond to a request for comment.

Bruce Kay, chairman of the GOP’s 30th legislative district, said he emailed the nomination form to the state, but sent it to an outdated email address.

“It wasn’t kicked back to me to my knowledge,” Kay said. Kay could not provide evidence that he sent the email, saying he had a problem with his computer that caused two years of email to be lost. As for the form Freitas should have submitted, Kay said the state normally would have sent a reminder to the candidate, but since the first form was not received, that did not happen.

Jessica Bowman, deputy elections commissioner, declined to comment.

The board was scheduled discuss Freitas’s case at a meeting July 19, but Freitas withdrew his candidacy the day before. The move was meant to prevent the board from disqualifying him as a candidate.

Under state law, the legislative district committee may nominate a new candidate after normal filing deadlines have passed if a candidate withdraws or dies, but the replacement cannot be someone the state board has disqualified.

“Nick and an attorney looked at state law and said as long as he hadn’t been disqualified by the state, the committee could replace him. That’s why he withdrew his nomination,” Kay said Friday.

The committee met Wednesday and nominated Freitas as the candidate. Kay said he filled out the requisite form and hand-delivered it to elections officials in Richmond on Thursday.

The board of elections now has to decide whether to allow Freitas to be placed on the ballot as a “replacement candidate” in a race where there had not been a certified GOP candidate in the first place.

“We’re still waiting to hear from the state,” Kay said late Friday afternoon. “Who knows what could happen . . . Our standing is we’ve done everything that is required by the state code and by the Republican Party of Virginia bylaws. [But] you never know.”

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Georgia election officials accused of destroying evidence in voting machine lawsuit

Quote

Lawyers representing election integrity advocates filed a federal lawsuit Thursday accusing Georgia election officials of destroying evidence that was "ground zero for establishing hacking, unauthorized access, and potential of manipulation of election results."

The lawsuit, filed by the Coalition for Good Governance, argues that state officials "almost immediately" began destroying evidence after a 2017 lawsuit alleged Georgia's voting machines were outdated and vulnerable to hacking.

"The evidence strongly suggests that the State's amateurish protection of critical election infrastructure placed Georgia's election system at risk, and the State Defendants now appear to be desperate to cover-up the effects of their misfeasance — to the point of destroying evidence," the lawsuit reads.

Georgia's Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger rebuffed the accusations in a statement -- pointing to a US Senate Intelligence Committee report, which concluded that no machines were manipulated and no votes were changed.

Raffensperger went onto say, "The office is also in the process of replacing the state's current voter machines with machines that print a paper ballot for an added layer of security. Those new machines will be in place by the March 24, 2020 Presidential Preference Primary".

The current machines however, are still planned to be used for special and municipal elections this year.

Thursday's lawsuit alleges a broad effort from state officials to "intentionally" destroy "fundamental" evidence.

"This type of evidence is not merely relevant and unique, it is fundamental, and it is forever gone. After abundant notice of their well-known duty to preserve evidence, the State Defendants did not simply neglect to disable some automated purge function in their IT systems. Rather, they intentionally and calculatingly destroyed evidence," the lawsuit states. "Such conspicuously outrageous conduct can only raise the question: What were the State Defendants trying to hide?"

Georgia's voting system drew significant scrutiny in 2018 after Republican Brian Kemp's narrow win over Democrat Stacey Abrams in the state's governor race. Voters in the state reported malfunctioning machines and long wait times. Kemp served as the Georgia secretary of state overseeing elections from 2010 to 2018.

 

  • WTF 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like Pete Buttigieg has taken Tim Rice's advice. Lately he's been directly addressing Trump and Trump's bullying.

 

Edited by fraurosena
conjugation
  • Upvote 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMFG:

 

  • Angry 1
  • Disgust 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMFG:
 


You're kidding right? [emoji87][emoji87][emoji87] This can't be real [emoji15][emoji15][emoji15] I know you're serious it's just... I can't believe it.
  • I Agree 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I Played Trump in Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Debate Prep. Here’s What It Takes to Beat Him."

Spoiler

Before any of them takes the debate stage on Tuesday and Wednesday, the 2020 Democratic candidates will already have put in dozens of hours each preparing. But here’s what they need to understand: Nothing they do to prepare for the primary debates will feel remotely similar to when the nominee faces Donald Trump in a debate.

My perspective on this is unique: I was assigned the role of playing Trump during Hillary Clinton’s general election debate prep in 2016. His stand-in. Her sparring partner. The ball machine. Over 17 years of working for her, I’ve argued with and annoyed Hillary plenty. But this time, I was supposed to. And without question, she did the debates right. They were her most successful three days between the high of accepting the nomination and the low of Election Day.

To prepare myself for her grueling debate prep, I watched the 15 Republican primary debates and forums in which Trump participated three times each: once the whole way through; a second time focusing entirely on the exchanges he was part of; a third time with the sound off to watch his mannerisms and body language. I might know his debating style—if you want to call it that—better than anyone on the planet (aside from Hillary Clinton, of course).

These are the qualities that make Trump such a tough opponent in a debate, despite the fact that he is possibly the worst debater in presidential history. If Democrats are serious about nominating a candidate who can beat Trump, these are also the qualities that their nominee should be able to respond to—and how. What better time to start figuring that out than now?

The bluster, vulgarity, innuendo and refusal to admit he’s wrong. We all speak differently during a job interview or on a date than we do at home to our loved ones or pets. The difference is a healthy mindfulness of being evaluated, with success yielding something beneficial, failure being costly. All parties involved know it’s a social convention: Profanity might be fine with your friends, but nobody is hiring someone who curses like a sailor during the interview.

But imagine if you didn’t care whether you got the job. Or worse, imagine if you’ve gotten every other job simply by being your obnoxious self, with no filter. A malevolent George Costanza. That guy is Donald Trump. This dynamic was on full display throughout the 2016 Republican primary debates. Remember his exchange about his hand size with Sen. Marco Rubio? He wasn’t talking about his hands.

Here’s the problem with most of the 2020 Democrats: They are all politicians or former politicians, and most of them sound like it. The fact that you sponsored bipartisan legislation in the last Congress might be accurate, but phrasing it that way in a debate against Trump is just going to look weak.

Democrats need to be able to communicate and attack in the same kind of blunt language that has until now been inappropriate in national politics—or at least not get caught flat-footed when Trump makes a typically rude or crass comment. Blunt and direct does not, however, mean juvenile or immature. In the first primary debate of this cycle, Mayor Bill de Blasio’s willingness to interrupt former Congressman Beto O’Rourke to make his own point about health care illustrated the kind of scrappiness that might be necessary in a debate against Trump.

Another debate tip: Never admit you’re wrong. It is safe to say in a debate against Trump that he or the moderator will press a weakness in your past you’ve likely addressed countless times before. You could spend your allotted time repeating yourself, or you can say, “Are you kidding? You’re asking about some lobbyist I met with a decade ago while this guy has installed a revolving door in the White House? No. Let’s talk about how people are paying him $200,000 to get into his club and then getting their money’s worth out of him. If there’s still time, you can come back to me.” As an example, former Vice President Joe Biden was criticized after the first debate for not taking full responsibility for past positions and statements. Not only did he not apologize, he went further and also emphasized that he had been a public defender, not a prosecutor—a not-so-subtle dig at Sen. Kamala Harris.

So forget the “glass houses” rule and get out your slingshot. Setting aside what’s right or wrong, Biden’s reluctance to admit mistakes might be the exact right approach to Trump’s rampant hypocrisy.

The lying. This one’s a problem on so many levels, but specifically to debating him there are at least two dynamics to contend with:

1. Volume: As we see every day, the sheer number of Trump’s lies overwhelms even the most diligent media outlets trying to fact check him. Doing so in real-time is all the tougher. So our nominee should know that Trump will lie throughout their debate, but can’t count on the moderator to call them all out and can’t expect the audience to know on their own. So our nominee needs to be able to say, “You’re lying.” Easier said than done. Especially if Trump lies every time he opens his mouth.

One possible tactic is to simply, and calmly, count out loud. First time he lies, the nominee should say, “That was the first of many lies to come because that’s what he does best.” After that, when Trump lies again, the nominee should interject with a simple “Lie number two,” or, “That was a few, so we’re up to six.” The moderator might scold the candidate for interrupting, but he or she should respond, “If you were calling out his lies, I wouldn’t have to. But someone has to. He gets away with it all day every day. But not here, not now.”

2. Target: A good chunk of Trump’s lies will be about the nominee prior to the debates, and to their face during the debates. Even a grizzled and jaded politico like me would never suggest the answer to this problem is to lie about him. Just stick with the truth—it provides more than enough fodder.

So who is best able to call out his lies in real time, while standing a mere 10 feet away from him?

Looking at the field, 11 of the 20 candidates debating this week in Detroit are sitting or recently serving members of Congress. Why is that relevant? Because they question witnesses for a living. The two obvious standouts in this respect are the two senators who previously served as their states’ attorneys general and currently sit on the Judiciary Committee: Harris and Sen. Amy Klobuchar. We saw their ability to drill for the truth during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. Klobuchar had an exchange for the books—or at least “Saturday Night Live”—when she hammered Kavanaugh about whether he had a drinking problem, which clearly irritated him. He ended up turning the question around on her and asking Klobuchar if she had a drinking problem. “And she asked me a question at the end that I responded by asking her a question and I didn’t—sorry, I did that,” Kavanaugh eventually apologized, essentially admitting that he had cracked under the pressure. Klobuchar did not. Harris also had a direct exchange with Kavanaugh about contacts he had regarding the Mueller investigation, and her background as a prosecutor was on full display.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, also a trained lawyer, sits on the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee. Her ability to go right at a witness was clear earlier this month during her questioning of then-nominee for Defense Secretary Mike Esper. After a back-and-forth about whether he would ever seek a waiver from his blanket recusal of any matters involving a top defense contractor, for which he ha been a top lobbyist, Esper seemed to give her a compliment: “I think this is a good debate.” “I’m not trying to have a debate,” Warren shot back.

The macho routine. Like it or not, many people associate Trump with strength—and they find it appealing. He knows that, too, which is partly why he loomed over Hillary during the October 2016 town hall-style debate. For at least some people, that menacing show of physical size made him appear the dominant candidate.

To be sure, this particular dynamic is part of larger and more complicated age and gender disparities. Even so, several candidates seem to know that it is a strength of Trump’s to contend with—which they choose to do by impersonating him. Recently, Sen. Cory Booker said his testosterone, “sometimes makes me want to feel like punching Trump.” Biden has said that he “would take Trump behind the gym and beat the hell out of him.” Both men—probably to the eye rolls of many across the country—might try to out-muscle Trump on a debate stage. It’s also worth noting—no matter how unlikely a matchup—that at 6 foot 5, de Blasio would tower above Trump. (Watching the Republican debates, it seemed to me Jeb Bush’s height advantage unnerved Trump.)

The bottom line is that watching a candidate share a debate stage with nine others might be one of the most important ways of deciding whom you like the most, but less useful in determining who is best to debate Trump.

If that were our sole criterion, we should skip the thoughtful policy discussions and instead require each candidate to debate a 10-year-old boy who responds to everything with, “I know you are, but what am I?”

We’ve all had to. That kid is obnoxious. Juvenile. Insufferable. Detestable. Smackworthy. Most of all, the very definition of predictable.

But that kid is hard to beat.

 

  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope more states follow this example!

 

  • Upvote 10
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Winners and losers from Night 1 of the second Democratic debate"

Spoiler

The candidates seeking the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination began their second debate on Tuesday night, with the first 10 contenders facing off in Detroit.

Below are some winners and losers.

Winners

Elizabeth Warren: Neither of the two leading candidates in Tuesday’s version of this week’s debate — Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — ran into too many problems. But on balance, Warren seemed to be better at enunciating her liberal policy proposals and parrying attacks from those challenging her. She is also more ascendant in the polls than Sanders, which means a debate that more or less adheres to the status quo suits her.

“Republican talking point”: Warren on two occasions struck back at criticisms from moderates of her policies on health care and other issues by characterizing them as a “Republican talking point." At another point, Sanders attacked the line of questioning from CNN’s Jake Tapper. “And, Jake, your question is a Republican talking point,” he said. Both were responding to repeated questioning of their liberal policies. What’s clear is that if either of them is the Democratic nominee, Republicans did get some talking points out of Tuesday’s debate.

CNN’s moderators: Sanders’s complaint was misplaced. CNN’s moderators — Tapper, Dana Bash and Don Lemon — challenged the candidates by accurately summarizing the arguments against their policies. The moderators did it on single-payer health care, on decriminalizing illegal border crossings, and on free college tuition and several other topics. There were also lots of substantive back-and-forths, without the constant interruptions that marred the second night of the first Democratic debate. When candidates tried to jump in to get more time, the moderators kept it moving and didn’t let themselves be bullied.

There was a drawback though, which we’ll get to.

John Delaney: The former Maryland congressman has been a bit player in the 2020 race, and that was definitely the case in the first debate. At the start of Tuesday’s debate, though, Sanders was asked about Delaney’s criticisms of his health-care proposal. They went back and forth before anyone else got a chance to weigh in. At another point, Delaney earned a rebuke from Warren, too, with the senator from Massachusetts decrying Democrats like Delaney who are running “just to talk about what we can’t do and shouldn’t fight for.” It was a big applause line. But Delaney got a chance to make his case, over and over, serving as the main foil to Sanders and especially Warren. That’s about the best he could have hoped for. Whether liberal primary voters are buying what he’s selling? That’s another issue.

Pete Buttigieg: For the second straight debate, the South Bend, Ind., mayor may not have been a standout, but he again showed himself to be a skilled debater, navigating the divide between the more moderate candidates and the liberals. He’s shown a deft touch at appealing to both wings of the party. He hasn’t built much after an early plateau, but thanks to steady debating and strong fundraising, he’ll continue to be a player.

Marianne Williamson: Williamson was widely savaged for her at times bizarre performance in the first debate. But on Tuesday night, she had some of the biggest applause lines of the entire debate, including perhaps the biggest one, on reparations. When asked about the water crisis in Flint, Mich. — just up the road from Detroit — she said, “What happened in Flint would not have happened in Grosse Pointe.” (Williamson has lived in Grosse Pointe, Mich., which is far less diverse than Flint.)

Losers

The big Sanders vs. Warren clash: Or not. One of the drawbacks of the crowded Democratic field is that the debates split up the leading candidates. Given that Sanders and Warren were not in the same debate last month and that Warren has risen in the polls while Sanders has fallen — while appealing to similar voters — everyone was girding for them to actually, you know, debate each other.

Instead, they largely agreed to a cease-fire. At one point when Sanders was being attacked, Warren tried to cut in to (apparently) defend him. Another time, Sanders attempted to return the favor. Warren was asked if her statement that she was a capitalist was meant to contrast herself with Sanders, the democratic socialist, and she demurred. At another point, Sanders said of Warren, “Elizabeth is exactly right.” They may have to joust eventually, but it wasn’t happening Tuesday night.

The format: What CNN’s moderators gave, the format took away. CNN spent about 20 minutes at the start on candidate introductions, a commercial break and then (canned) opening statements. And then they held to a very rigid time limit on rebuttals, often cutting substantive responses short. The first debate, put on by MSNBC, was better about getting right to it. Maybe spend less time on the buildup and allow a little more response time.

Medicare-for-all: Single-payer health care has been on the march in the Democratic Party. But on Tuesday night, it got some pushback — a lot of pushback — from Democratic presidential candidates. The first 25 minutes of the debate was devoted to the topic, and the also-rans of the Democratic contest used it to argue that the likes of Sanders and Warren were promoting pie in the sky. In fact, those two were generally outnumbered.

Delaney said moving Americans from private to government insurance would be telling them “their health care is illegal.” Montana Gov. Steve Bullock called it “wish-list economics” and said Democrats were promoting the type of “repeal and replace” strategy Republicans have. Former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke said it would be “taking away people’s choice.” Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) said the plan would tell union members who have negotiated their private insurance that they “will lose their health care because Washington is going to come in and has a better plan.”

Sanders and Warren pushed back and got applause. If the crowd mirrors the electorate, they will be just fine — but it won’t exactly. The question is whether this presages a reexamination of this issue or whether this was just a fluke thanks to some of the most moderate candidates being put on a stage with Sanders and Warren.

Beto O’Rourke: Anonymous in the first debate. Lackluster second quarter of fundraising. Falling poll numbers. Anonymous at the second debate. The magic hasn’t re-materialized for him.

Steve Bullock: The Montana governor was the new entry in the debates, after getting a late start on qualifying for the first one. And he cued up a contrast with Sanders, saying in his opening statement that struggling Americans “can’t wait for a revolution.” But he didn’t really deliver on that angle and often stumbled over his words. Delaney wound up being the foil to Sanders and Warren that Bullock aspired to be.

 

  • Thank You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In Detroit, Democratic fringe debaters mount a move to the fore"

Spoiler

At Tuesday’s debate of Democratic presidential contenders, the fringe candidates breathed oxygen into their campaigns.

Self-help author Marianne Williamson took it to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), urging them to be less wonky and connect better with the American people.

Montana Gov. Steve Bullock accused his competitors of being out of touch with reality.

Former Maryland congressman John Delaney, polling near the bottom of the pack, repeatedly assailed more liberal candidates, making the case for moderation within the party.

As candidates, they have struggled to meet polling and fundraising thresholds set by the Democratic National Committee. But on Tuesday night, the hopefuls demanded attention, lobbed accusations, tossed off memorable one-liners and loftily expounded on the virtues of America.

In large part, they followed the example of Sen. Kamala D. Harris (Calif.) who assailed former vice president Joe Biden’s stance on busing in the first debate and saw a bump in polling and fundraising in the days that followed.

From the opening statement, many of the lower-profile candidates made it clear that they would seek to draw contrasts between Warren and Sanders — the liberal edge of the field — and themselves.

Former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper, for example, assailed candidates who support the Green New Deal, which he said would be “a disaster at the ballot box.”

“Might as well FedEx the election to Donald Trump,” he said.

At one point, Bullock, who won his governor’s race in 2016 even as Trump handily won the state of Montana, tangled with former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke over competing health-care plans.

Later, during a debate about decriminalizing illegal immigration, Bullock used the moment to make a broader argument. He said such wrangling was where Democrats go wrong in trying to lure blue-collar voters who are deciding whether to cast another ballot for Trump.

“Look, I think this is the part of the discussion that shows how often these debates are detached from people’s lives,” Bullock said. “We’ve got 100,000 people showing up at the border right now. If we decriminalize entry, if we give health care to everyone, we’ll have multiples of that.”

“Don’t take my word, that was President Obama’s Homeland Security secretary that said that,” he added. “The biggest problem right now that we have with immigration, it’s Donald Trump. He’s using immigration to not only rip apart families, but rip apart this country.”

Delaney also forcefully tried to highlight distinctions between himself and the more liberal candidates onstage. During a lengthy debate on health care, Delaney pointed out that he was the only person onstage who had worked in the insurance industry and took on Sanders’s Medicare-for-all plan, saying it would negatively affect existing insurance plans.

“Why do we got to be the party of taking something away from people?” he said. “We don’t have to do that.”

He framed the debate as a battle between liberal and more moderate candidates onstage that wouldn’t fly with voters in the general election.

“Folks, we have a choice. We can go down the road that Senator Sanders and Senator Warren want to take us, which is with bad policies like Medicare-for-all, free everything and impossible promises that will turn off independent voters and get Trump reelected,” he said.

“That’s what happened with McGovern. That’s what happened with Mondale. That’s what happened with Dukakis. Or we can nominate someone with new ideas to create universal health care for every American with choice, someone who wants to unify our country and grow the economy and create jobs everywhere.”

Later, he said Democrats needed to prove they could offer voters workable plans, “not fairy tale economics.”

Hickenlooper, the former governor of Colorado who was also the mayor of Denver, made a similar argument, saying it was imperative that Democrats explain how they will pay for their proposals. He took on Medicare-for-all, saying, “You can’t just spring a plan on the world and expect it to succeed.”

And Williamson struck an emotional chord as she outlined how much she thought the government should pay to descendants of slaves as reparations.

“And I believe that $200 billion to $500 billion is politically feasible today, because so many Americans realize there is an injustice that continues to form a toxicity underneath the surface, an emotional turbulence that only reparations will heal.”

Rep. Tim Ryan (Ohio), who has staked his candidacy on an appeal to Midwestern voters, also cautioned that candidates should stay away from policies that were too extreme.

“I hope tonight at some level I captured your imagination, your imagination about what this country could be like if we united, if we put together real policy that weren’t left or right, but new and better. That’s how we win the future. It’s new and better.”

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, fraurosena said:

I hope more states follow this example!

 

Proud to be a Californian!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank goodness. This two night - twenty candidates thing was hard to manage and none of the candidates could really say much at all except for a couple of soundbites. I hope there won't be many more joining these seven.

Only 7 Candidates Have Qualified for the Next Democratic Debate

Quote

So you made it through the second set of Democratic debates. Congratulations! Ready to talk about the next ones?

The Democratic National Committee has set stricter criteria for the third set of debates, which will be held on Sept. 12 and Sept. 13 in Houston. If 10 or fewer candidates qualify, the debate will take place on only one night.

Candidates will need to have 130,000 unique donors and register at least 2 percent support in four polls. They have until Aug. 28 to reach those benchmarks.

These criteria could easily halve the field: The first two sets of debates included 20 of the 24 candidates, but a New York Times analysis of polls and donor numbers shows that only 10 to 12 candidates are likely to make the third round.

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

Seven candidates have already met both qualification thresholds and are guaranteed a spot on stage. They are:

  • Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
     
  • Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey
     
  • Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind.
     
  • Senator Kamala Harris of California
     
  • Former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas
     
  • Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont
     
  • Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts

Three other candidates are very close: The former housing secretary Julián Castro and the entrepreneur Andrew Yang have surpassed 130,000 donations and each have three of the four qualifying polls they need, while Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota has met the polling threshold and has about 120,000 donations.

Beyond them, only three candidates have even a single qualifying poll to their name: the impeachment activist Tom Steyer (2 polls), Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii (1) and former Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado (1).

We asked all three of their campaigns to provide donor numbers so we could assess where they stood. Ms. Gabbard had just under 114,000 donors as of Wednesday night. A spokesman for Mr. Steyer said he was “on track to collect the required number of donors to make the September debate stage” but did not give a number. Mr. Hickenlooper’s campaign did not respond, but Politico reported a month ago that he had only 13,000 donors.

The other 11 candidates in the race have no qualifying polls to their name, and they all went into this week’s debates seeking a viral moment that would attract new donors and lift them, even briefly, in the polls.

The qualification rules do not require enduring support. Even a small post-debate surge could push a 1 percent candidate up to 2 percent in the small handful of polls he or she needs.

But for those who have not qualified, the Aug. 28 deadline is an existential threat. Candidates like Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York or Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington could be washed out of the race if they don’t get momentum from this week’s debates. And if you’re wondering whether they’re anxious, the answer is yes.

Ms. Gabbard’s campaign has calculated that she needs a new donor every minute to reach 130,000 by the Aug. 28 deadline, so if you go to her website, a timer next to the donation button begins counting down 60 seconds. Then the text changes.

? Oh no!” it says. “The time expired and you didn’t donate!”

 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • GreyhoundFan locked and unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.