blatham
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 Dec, 2019 01:36 pm
@revelette3,
Brooks is an interesting character. He's quite bright and is definitely one of the saner Republicans writing on politics, mainly, I suppose, because he's an honest fellow and I don't think I've ever found him being unkind. His parents were both academics. He moved into the right wing world after writing a satirical piece (for a college paper at U of chicago) on William Buckley which Buckley read and then offered Brooks a job at National Review.

I became familiar with him when he became a Friday night regular on the PBS Newshour about 25? years ago. His ideology and mine (or yours, I suspect) differ in some significant ways but he's the sort of conservative with whom one could have a valuable conversation.
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 Dec, 2019 02:14 pm
On the topic of disinformation, Greg Sargent gets this all exactly right. This deserves a careful read by everyone. This is the information/disinformation world we are in right now and we better be a lot smarter about it than we have been.
Quote:
Rudolph W. Giuliani just confessed to the crime in broad daylight — or, more precisely, in broad cyber-daylight. Yet he did so defiantly, with a middle finger unfurled in our faces, without the slightest concern that it would harm him or his “client,” as he describes President Trump.

How is this possible? Because of the power of disinformation, which has the capacity to convert the most flagrantly corrupt misconduct into virtue.

We don’t talk enough about how central disinformation is to the Ukraine scandal. The extortion of Ukraine was at bottom an effort to enlist a foreign power’s help in waging disinformation warfare in the 2020 election, to Trump’s benefit. Disinformation was central to the 2016 Russian attack on our political system, which Trump eagerly embraced. Now disinformation is being employed to escape accountability for all of it.

Two new developments attest to this point: a remarkable pair of revelatory tweets from Giuliani, and a tour de force of reporting in The Post, which reveals that Trump routinely communicated throughout the whole saga with Giuliani on unsecured devices, which may have been vulnerable to monitoring by Russia.

Giuliani’s tweets are revealing, and not in a good way
“The conversation about corruption in Ukraine was based on compelling evidence of criminal conduct by then VP Biden,” Giuliani tweeted, referring to Joe Biden, the intended target of “investigations” Trump and Giuliani pressured Ukraine to announce.

To empirically grounded observers, this will blow up a key Trump defense: that in conditioning official acts on getting Ukraine to announce the investigations he wanted, he was correctly concerned with cleaning up corruption there.

After all, Giuliani just confirmed that in pressuring Ukraine, “investigate corruption” actually meant, “smear Trump’s political rival.” We already knew this — Giuliani and Trump have said it publicly for months — but that’s an unusually stark way to admit it.

Yet Giuliani doesn’t view this as an admission at all. Why not? Because he also stated that Biden was, in fact, guilty of unstated “criminal conduct,” that Biden and other Democrats had conspired with Ukrainian corruption, and that Giuliani would produce proof.

The Biden corruption narrative Giuliani has worked to validate has been thoroughly debunked. But Giuliani can make it true by saying it, and by producing fake “evidence” backing it up.

This amounts to more than conventional political lying. You see this in Giuliani’s crucial next step: the creation of a disinformational narrative hermetically sealed off from outside facts can magically transform even a demand for investigations into Biden from a corrupt demand that a foreign power help rig our election by smearing a political opponent into a virtuous demand for investigations into “corruption.”

This scandal is all about disinformation
Making this narrative “true,” via the triumph of disinformation, is at the core of this entire scandal. It is why the White House meeting and hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid were conditioned on getting Ukraine to release statements validating that narrative with disinform, along with another fictional narrative that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in 2016, in collusion with Democrats.

Meanwhile, Giuliani is literally producing a fake “documentary” that will “prove” these theories. Trump’s attorney general, William P. Barr, is traveling the world to try to validate parts of the Ukraine-2016 lie, and he’s even preparing to dispute the Justice Department inspector general’s conclusion that it’s nonsense.

You cannot watch House Republicans, or Sean Hannity, rant about this bundle of theories without concluding we’re witnessing something very different from routine political lying here.

Our own intelligence services have confirmed that the 2016-Ukraine lie has been a mainstay of Russian disinformation for years. This is the through line back to 2016: The Russian attack on our political system was in large part disinformation warfare, to sow social discord and undermine liberal democracy.

Even the GOP-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee has elaborated on this disinformation warfare in great detail. Perversely, the current disinformation effort is about making that 2016 disinformation warfare disappear. Trump and Russia have a common interest in doing that, because Trump benefited from and participated in that effort.

Trump’s unsecured connection
The Post documents in extraordinary detail that unsecured communications between Trump and Giuliani were vulnerable to Russian eavesdropping throughout their efforts to extort Ukraine. As experts note, this likely means Russia knew of them in real time — possibly before the whistleblower first exposed them.

All this meant Moscow could “exploit” this knowledge:

Insight into Giuliani’s discussions with Trump could enable Moscow to adapt or amplify its propaganda promoting the baseless claim that Ukraine, rather than Russia, hacked the Democratic National Committee in the 2016 U.S. election. That claim is now widely embraced by Trump’s Republican allies. Russia is already using its disinformation capabilities to target U.S. citizens, officials said, and could enlist its own operatives in Ukraine to feed false information to Giuliani.

In other words, Trump’s unsecured conversations left us further vulnerable to Russian disinformation.

None of this is to endorse in any way the “Trump is a Russian asset” narrative, and no one should assume Trump has deliberately left us vulnerable to Russian disinformation. Indeed, it’s often hard to say where Trump’s own disinformation ends and where Russia’s begins.

But what we can say is that the disinformation employed by Giuliani, Trump and his GOP defenders in many ways overlaps with Russian disinformation. They share tropes and narratives, and some common goals.

And it’s evident that Trump may not care if we’re more vulnerable to Russian disinformation, since he benefited from it so extensively last time, and is now heavily trafficking in its offshoots himself. As Giuliani’s latest confession shows, their commitment to employing and benefiting from it is only escalating.
0 Replies
 
revelette3
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Dec, 2019 03:24 pm
@blatham,
I disagreed with some of his summations, but I guess I was struck by the last:

Quote:
These problems are not signs that capitalism is broken. They are signs that we need more and better capitalism. We need a massive infusion of money and reform into our education systems, from infancy through life. Human capital-building is like nutrition: It’s something you have to attend to every day. We need welfare programs that not only subsidize poor people’s consumption but also subsidize their capacity to produce.

We need worker co-ops, which build skills and represent labor at the negotiating table. We need wage subsidies and mobility subsidies, so people can afford to move to opportunity. We need tax subsidies for health care, to make it easier for people to switch jobs. We need a higher earned-income tax credit, to give the working poor financial security so they don’t get swept away amid the creative destruction. We need a carbon tax, to give everyone an incentive to reduce carbon emissions without pretending we know the best way to do it.
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 6 Dec, 2019 03:31 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
One thing I know is since you informed Rev that loving this article situates her as an extreme righty conservative, someone else here has admonished you for giving people like me ammunition against Rev and the rest of the galloping centrists (David Brooks/Hillary Clinton conservatives).

Even though you’d never admit it, you are beginning to see them for what they are politically — and how they’ve contributed to this shitshow we still call the United States of America.
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 Dec, 2019 03:32 pm
@Brand X,
Unexpected by me!!! I was sorta thinking Castro might be good as #2 for the Bern.
0 Replies
 
revelette3
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Dec, 2019 03:57 pm
@Lash,
Who said I loved it? I said it was a different way to look at things. There were quite a few points I disagreed with. I just like this thought that you got to invest in people in order to make the economy better and the people who live in it have better lives. You know like making students grants more available for all low income groups or more job training sites for people who live in coal mining states; to give my own examples. I don't see anything wrong with wanting to help people to get a good paying job and/or career. Capitalism is not the new dirty word.
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 Dec, 2019 04:00 pm
@revelette3,
Yes. My experience reading or listening to Brooks is that I'll agree with some arguments or positions and disagree with others.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 Dec, 2019 04:01 pm
@revelette3,
He makes a good case for capitalism. But I'll bet that 80% of Republicans would have nothing to do with the kind of capitalism he envisions — as illustrated in the two paragraphs you quoted. That kind of benevolent capitalist economy will never happen. Nor will we ever live in a socialist paradise. We're much more likely to experience the worst of both systems.

I'm glad you posted the David Brooks link. I almost posted that column but ended up choosing the "Lefty Lingo" article instead. I definitely didn't want to post them both — such an inappropriate microaggression would be problematic, and simply invite further marginalization.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Dec, 2019 04:09 pm
@revelette3,
Quote:
Re: Lash (Post 6935344)
Who said I loved it?
Of course you didn't. Lash does this rather constantly. She is either straight up lying or she's completely careless and dull in reading and thinking. Or both.

Her move to make Brooks and Clinton ideological equivalents is another such case. But here she clearly does not know what the **** she's talking about.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Dec, 2019 04:13 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
I'll bet that 80% of Republicans would have nothing to do with the kind of capitalism he envisions
Exactly.

Quote:
simply invite further marginalization.
I'd be speaking for many others beside myself in an assurance that your participation is always welcomed and missed when you're absent.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Fri 6 Dec, 2019 10:55 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

One thing I know is since you informed Rev that loving this article situates her as an extreme righty conservative, ---
No, I didn't.

But that would be kind of his position here, there are quite a few in our federal (and my state) government with such a position and opinion.

I thought, most A2K'ers know that our European left/right isn't the same as that in the USA., especially those interested in politics.
Sturgis
 
  4  
Reply Fri 6 Dec, 2019 11:42 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
I thought most A2K'ers know...


The keyword here is most.

Quote:
...especially those interested in politics.

Lash is more interested in causing chaos.

The fact of the matter is, a large number of people with no real interest in politics are aware of the difference in meaning of the terms between the U.S. and Europe. Again, Lash hangs in a different space.
Real Music
 
  3  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2019 12:29 am
House passes voting rights package aimed at restoring protections.



Published December 6, 2019


Quote:
The House on Friday passed a package of bills aimed restoring protections of the Voting Rights Act rolled back by a key Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling.

The Voting Rights Advancement Act would, among other things, update the formula used to determine which states must preclear their voter registration practices, require public notice for voting registration changes, and allow the attorney general to send federal observers anywhere in the U.S.

The package passed 228-187, with GOP Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick joining all Democrats in favor of the measure.

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) — a former Freedom Rider who spoke at the March on Washington in 1963 — sat in the chair to gavel in the final vote, prompting a round of applause from his colleagues when it passed.

The bill’s chief sponsor, Rep. Terri Sewell, whose Alabama district includes Selma’s infamous Edmund Pettus Bridge, called the bill’s impending passage “incredibly personal and special to me and my district.” Sewell has introduced the bill in each of the last three Congresses.

“We protect the legacy of the foot soldiers of the voting rights movement” with the package, the Alabama Democrat said in a press briefing before the vote, which she argued ensures “that voting equality is alive and well today.”

She singled out praise for Lewis, one such “foot soldier,” who stood at her flank in the briefing. “So many of us walk the halls of Congress because of this legislation,” she said, referring to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, before telling Lewis: “To say thank you ... doesn’t seem adequate.”

In brief remarks at the event, Lewis called voting "the most powerful nonviolent tool we have in our Democratic society," but said Friday's vote came in the midst of an "ongoing struggle to redeem the soul of America, and we’re not there yet."

"While literacy tests and poll tax no longer exist, certain states and local jurisdictions have passed laws that are modern-day barriers to voting,” Sewell said on the floor before the vote. “That is why it is critically important that we fully restore the protections of the Voting Rights Act by passing H.R. 4.”

Speaking on the House floor before the vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi argued that the legislation merely made “improvements insisted upon” by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in the 2013 decision, Shelby County v. Holder. House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said the bill restores the "central enforcement tool of that critical statute" in reference to the landmark civil rights legislation.

Republicans have largely dismissed the legislation as a messaging bill, and House Judiciary ranking member Doug Collins (R-Ga.) pointed out that the White House has threatened to veto the measure, though he added he was willing to work with Democrats on other improvements.

“We do not in this body vote on ideas. We do not vote on thoughts. We vote on words on paper. And the words on paper here do not fulfill what is being said about this bill,” Collins said on the floor prior to the vote.

Still, Republicans took pains to emphasize that their opposition was not to voting rights on the whole, calling the package an attempt at forcing control over state and local elections into the hands of the federal government.

The Voting Rights Advancement Act is key plank in House Democrats’ legislative agenda — one of a series of bills they campaigned on in their successful effort to take back the House in 2018.

And the package is one of a number of election-related bills the House has passed this year, following its sweeping package of election and campaign finance reforms approved this spring and a foreign election interference bill passed last month.

Democratic leaders have long planned to vote again on key pieces of that bill in a bid to put pressure on Republicans while reminding the public about a signature proposal.

But the legislation, like many of the marquee messaging bills the House has already passed this year tackling gun violence, climate change and election interference, will be ignored by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has boasted about being the “grim reaper” for Democrats’ legislative priorities.

“We have 400 bills sitting on Mitch McConnell's desk,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said during a CNN town hall Thursday night. “And he keeps saying, ‘All they do is impeach’ — no, we have 400 bills, 275 of them are bipartisan bills.”

In the pre-vote press briefing, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), sponsor of the companion bill in the Senate, demanded McConnell bring up the bill and “undo the damage done by the Shelby County decision.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/house-passes-voting-rights-package-aimed-at-restoring-protections/ar-BBXSaod?ocid=UE13DHP
blatham
 
  5  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2019 05:23 am
@Sturgis,
Quote:
Lash hangs in a different space.
She does. In this case, she couldn't resist the temptation to equate Brooks, Hillary Clinton and all of us here as being "far right" or "capitalists" or "neo-liberals" or any other such hot-button terms that a lot of folks in the pro-Sanders camp wield, almost always with very little understanding or reflection. This is an unfortunate aspect of the culture of many Bernie supporters.

It is, in one sense, understandable. Sanders, like all candidates, has to differentiate himself from the others. Nothing wrong with that. But it is very clear that the pro-Sanders community culture has been profoundly influenced by bad faith actors who wish to use that community to cause dissent of the sort that will work damage on Dem electoral chances.

As I've noted before, I watched these same techniques play out in real time during the Clinton/Obama contest followed by the Obama versus McCain cycle. GOP operatives were broadly organized (and clearly well-funded) to cause dissent within Dem ranks through the use of fake identities, fake websites and fake MySpace pages. With the coordination of right wing "news" entities like Hannity at FOX, they pushed this stuff into the broader media universe (that is the standard dissemination pattern). The number of people involved who were just lying through their teeth was an eye-opener for me. And it was my introduction to organized social media manipulation through misinformation/disinformation.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  4  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2019 05:27 am
@Real Music,
This vote was frightening. The GOP now are right up front about their dedicated opposition to voting rights and maximal voter participation. This vote demonstrates they have confidence that they've rigged the system well enough that they can now get away with being honest about their intentions.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2019 10:36 am
Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says
https://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/index.html

By Tami Luhby February 8, 2016: 6:35 PM ET
Median income would soar by more than $22,000. Nearly 26 million jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%.
Those are just a few of the things that would happen if Bernie Sanders became president and his ambitious economic program were put into effect, according to an analysis given exclusively to CNNMoney. The first comprehensive look at the impact of all of Sanders' spending and tax proposals on the economy was done by Gerald Friedman, a University of Massachusetts Amherst economics professor.
This more sweeping analysis was not commissioned by the candidate, though Sanders' policy director called it "outstanding work." Friedman has worked with Sanders in the past, but has never received any compensation. The Vermont senator asked Friedman to estimate the cost of Sanders' Medicare-for-all plan -- which came out to $13.8 trillion over 10 years -- and included the analysis when he unveiled his proposal last month.
revelette3
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2019 10:49 am
@Lash,
Quote:
Friedman has worked with Sanders in the past
revelette3
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2019 11:06 am
Quote:
MASON CITY, Iowa — With just under two months until the Iowa caucuses, the already-volatile Democratic presidential race has grown even more unsettled, setting the stage for a marathon nominating contest between the party’s moderate and liberal factions.

Pete Buttigieg’s surge, Bernie Sanders’s revival, Elizabeth Warren’s struggles and the exit of Kamala Harris have upended the primary and, along with Joseph R. Biden’s Jr. enduring strength with nonwhite voters, increased the possibility of a split decision after the early nominating states.

That’s when Michael R. Bloomberg aims to burst into the contest — after saturating the airwaves of the Super Tuesday states with tens of millions of dollars of television ads.

With no true front-runner and three other candidates besides Mr. Bloomberg armed with war chests of over $20 million, Democrats are confronting the prospect of a drawn-out primary reminiscent of the epic Clinton-Obama contest in 2008.

“There’s a real possibility Pete wins here, Warren takes New Hampshire, Biden South Carolina and who knows about Nevada,” said Sue Dvorsky, a former Iowa Democratic chair. “Then you go into Super Tuesday with Bloomberg throwing $30 million out of his couch cushions and this is going to go for a while.”

That’s a worrisome prospect for a party already debating whether it has a candidate strong enough to defeat President Trump next November. The contenders have recently begun to attack one another more forcefully — Ms. Warren, a nonaggressor for most of the campaign, took on Mr. Buttigieg on Thursday night — and the sparring could get uglier the longer the primary continues.

A monthslong delegate battle would also feature a lengthy public airing of the party’s ideological fissures and focus more attention on contentious policies like single-payer health care while allowing Mr. Trump to unleash millions of dollars in attack ads portraying Democrats as extreme.

The candidates are already planning for a long race, hiring staff members for contests well past the initial early states. But at the moment they are also grappling with a primary that has evolved into something of a three-dimensional chess match, in which moves that may seem puzzling are taken with an eye toward a future payoff.

Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders, for example, are blocking each other from consolidating much of the left, but instead of attacking each other the two senators are training their fire on Mr. Buttigieg, the South Bend, Ind., mayor. He has taken a lead in Iowa polls yet spent much of the past week courting black voters in the South.

And Mr. Biden is concluding an eight-day bus tour across Iowa, during which he has said his goal is to win the caucuses, but his supporters privately say they would also be satisfied if Mr. Buttigieg won and denied Ms. Warren a victory.

It may seem a little confusing, but there’s a strategy behind the moves.

Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren each covet the other’s progressive supporters but are wary about angering them by attacking each other. So Ms. Warren has begun drawing an implicit contrast by emphasizing her gender — a path more available now with Ms. Harris’s exit — and they are both targeting a shared opponent whom many of their fiercest backers disdain: Mr. Buttigieg.

The mayor has soared in heavily white Iowa, but has virtually no support among voters of color. So he started airing commercials in South Carolina spotlighting his faith and took his campaign there and into Alabama this past week — an acknowledgment that Iowans may be uneasy about him if he can’t demonstrate appeal with more diverse voters.

As for Mr. Biden, his supporters think he would effectively end the primary by winning Iowa. But they believe the next best outcome would be if Mr. Buttigieg fends off Ms. Warren there to keep her from sweeping both Iowa and New Hampshire and gaining too much momentum. They are convinced she’s far more of a threat than Mr. Buttigieg to build a multiracial coalition and breach the former vice president’s firewall in Nevada and South Carolina.

Meanwhile, no other hopeful is drawing more chatter in Iowa as a compromise choice among moderates than Senator Amy Klobuchar, who has spent more time in the state than any of the top candidates.

Taken together, the shadowboxing, bank shots and sheer uncertainty of it all reflect what a muddle this race has become. Besides the party’s unifying hunger to defeat Mr. Trump, the only clarity is the rigid divide among voters along generational, ideological and racial lines.

These fractures could ensure different outcomes in the first four nominating states — mostly white Iowa and New Hampshire and more diverse Nevada and South Carolina — going into Super Tuesday on March 3.

That’s the day on which Mr. Bloomberg is staking his candidacy, when 14 states are up for grabs. The former New York mayor, a political centrist, is skipping the early states and pouring tens of millions of his money into Super Tuesday in hopes that the field remains split by then or that one of the progressives is pulling away.

If he gains traction, that could augur a primary that may not be over by the time the party gathers in Milwaukee next summer for its convention.

Of course, it’s hardly a foregone conclusion that the Democratic contest will drag on. The front-loaded calendar means that if one candidate does rattle off early victories, he or she will be able to amass a fearsome delegate advantage.

The last time the party confronted such an uncertain primary, in 2004, John Kerry revived his campaign shortly before voting began and captured Iowa and New Hampshire, allowing him to quickly secure the nomination.

Yet no candidate today may prove capable of extinguishing the embers of the primary the way Mr. Kerry did. Four candidates — Mr. Sanders, Ms. Warren, Mr. Buttigieg and Mr. Bloomberg — are well funded or enjoy reliable streams of money.

Perhaps more significantly, the divisions in the party are now wider than they were in the previous decade, with opposing ideological factions far less willing to settle.

Nowhere is the Democratic race more fluid than in Iowa, where 70 percent of caucusgoers said in a Des Moines Register-CNN poll last month that their minds were not made up.

Mr. Buttigieg emerged atop the field in the survey, but he is now under attack on multiple fronts.

Ms. Warren is assailing him for not being more transparent about his donors, Mr. Sanders is targeting him for not offering a more expansive free college proposal, and a super PAC supporting Senator Cory Booker is on the air in Iowa favorably contrasting Mr. Booker to Mr. Buttigieg.

And Iowa allies of his rivals are taking on Mr. Buttigieg even more aggressively.

“Mayor Pete is vanilla ice cream,” said Claire Celsi, an Iowa state senator supporting Ms. Warren. “He’s just somebody that people can agree on, but the problem is that we live in a way more complicated world than that.”

The former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, who is backing Mr. Biden, likened Mr. Buttigieg to a Democrat many in the party would just as soon forget.

“He reminds me of, not in terms of character, but in terms of people reacting to him, as John Edwards in 2004,” Mr. Vilsack said. “He’s something new, he’s a comer.”

Lis Smith, an adviser to Mr. Buttigieg, said the attacks were a result of voters “gravitating toward his campaign.”

“They can attack Pete all they want, he’s going to be laser focused on talking about why he’s the best person to bring this country together on Day 1 of a post-Trump presidency,” she said.

But Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign recognizes how urgently he must broaden his coalition — and prominent Democrats have nudged the campaign to focus less on the details of his plans for black voters and do more to emphasize his Christianity and military service. He is now up on television in South Carolina quoting scripture and in Iowa with a spot that features an African-American veteran recalling their service.

Mr. Biden is counting on these efforts to fall short and for Mr. Buttigieg to meet the same fate of previous Democratic hopefuls who lost because they could not expand their support beyond upscale white voters.

“There is no one else who is in a position to all of a sudden to do what Barack was able to do,” Mr. Biden told reporters this past week, suggesting that Mr. Buttigieg would not gain support with black voters by winning Iowa, as Mr. Obama did in 2008.

Ms. Warren is less inclined to discuss tactical matters, but her recent moves reflect a candidate very much concerned about the direction of the race.
She has drastically cut her stump speech, leaving more time for questions from voters, and after saying for months that she does not want to criticize her fellow Democrats she is now confronting Mr. Buttigieg over his high-dollar fund-raising.

Just as striking, she is taking more overt steps to highlight her history-making potential. After Ms. Harris dropped out, Ms. Warren sent a fund-raising email noting that “two women senators,” Ms. Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand, “have been forced out of this race while billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg have been allowed to buy their way in.”

Addressing voters in Iowa City, Ms. Warren announced to booming applause that she planned to wear a pink Planned Parenthood scarf at her presidential inauguration and in a discussion about her plans won cheers for another reference to her gender.

“I will do everything that, oh, I love saying this, a president can do all by herself,” Ms. Warren said.

What has been puzzling to her rivals, though, is what she has not done as a candidate: namely, spend more money on advertising in Iowa.

She ceded the airwaves here to rivals like Mr. Sanders and Mr. Buttigieg for all of October, and her spending in November was less than half of theirs, according to Advertising Analytics, an ad tracking firm.

Ms. Klobuchar has also not had much of an advertising footprint, but many Iowa Democrats believe she is the most likely candidate to make that late push.

Strolling into a Des Moines coffee shop recently, Connie Boesen, a city councilor, pronounced that she was leaning in Ms. Klobuchar’s direction because “she’s realistic,” a reference to the senator’s moderate politics.
For many Democrats, especially those in Northern Iowa, the Minnesota senator is a familiar figure who has more experience than Mr. Buttigieg but is not as old as Mr. Biden.

Asked who they were considering after a Biden town hall meeting this past week, three voters from outside Mason City all cited Mr. Biden and Mr. Buttigieg — but also added a third name: Ms. Klobuchar.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/07/us/politics/democrats-2020.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2019 11:11 am
@revelette3,
revelette3 wrote:

Quote:
Friedman has worked with Sanders in the past


, but has never received any compensation.
revelette3
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2019 11:24 am
@Lash,
The fact he never received compensation does not mean he is not biased towards Sanders.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 05/07/2024 at 11:33:29