newyorker--2020-02-19--At the Democratic Debate, Can the Other Candidates Halt the Rise of Michael Bloomberg?

Political commentators often overemphasize the importance of televised debates , but Wednesday night ’ s Democratic gabfest in Las Vegas may turn out to be one occasion when the hype is justified .
Having risen in the polls , after reportedly spending more than three hundred and fifty million dollars on political ads , Michael Bloomberg is making his prime-time début .
The manner in which the former New York mayor has barged into the race , knocking candidates with far fewer resources out of the spotlight , harkens back to what Donald Trump did in the 2016 Republican primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the debate , particularly the moderates , their best chance of stopping the Bloomberg steamroller is to push it off course immediately .
That ’ s what they will try to do at the Paris Theatre .
Arguably , Bloomberg has no right even to be there .
He ’ s not competing in the Nevada caucuses , on Saturday , and the lack of individual donations to his self-funded campaign meant that he hadn ’ t qualified for the debate until the Democratic National Committee changed its rules , a couple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With ample justification , Bernie Sanders has complained about this decision by the D.N.C .
In recent days , however , some of the other candidates have made a different argument .
“ I ’ m never going to beat him on the airwaves , but I can beat him on the debate stage , ” Amy Klobuchar , who turned in a strong performance at the last debate , said over the weekend .
On Tuesday , Bloomberg formally qualified for the debate when a new PBS/Marist poll showed him in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elizabeth Warren , the onetime front-runner , wrote on Twitter , “ It ’ s a shame Mike Bloomberg can buy his way into the debate .
But at least now primary voters curious about how each candidate will take on Donald Trump can get a live demonstration of how we each take on an egomaniac billionaire.
” Comments like this reflect a perfectly understandable frustration .
In any other election year , Klobuchar , who finished third in the New Hampshire primary , and Pete Buttigieg , who finished second , would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along with Sanders , going into Nevada and South Carolina .
But , in recent days , Bloomberg , whose unprecedented spending had already given him a lock on the paid-media market , has virtually swallowed up the free-media market , too .
At noon on Tuesday , the politics page of the New York Times ’ Web site featured eight stories about Bloomberg and not a single one about Buttigieg , as Nate Silver , of FiveThirtyEight , pointed out .
The story count at other news sites was similarly imbalanced .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ home pages of the Washington Post and Politico each had a half-dozen stories about Bloomberg , including news reports and columns .
On Wednesday night ’ s debate stage , Bloomberg will be returned to equal footing with the other candidates .
According to a report by the Associated Press , he “ is expecting fire from all angles , particularly on his status as a billionaire self-funding his campaign and on the ‘ stop-and-frisk ’ police practice he employed in New York.
” At a town-hall event hosted by CNN on Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to buy the election , and said that it was “ obscene ” for him to skip the early primaries .
He also criticized Bloomberg ’ s support for stop-and-frisk policies , which he said “ humiliated and offended hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people.
” The ongoing furor over stop-and-frisk represents a serious challenge for Bloomberg .
The problem isn ’ t merely his support for the discriminatory policy , which he has already apologized for several times , going back to last November .
It is the threat that his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from his past—including claims that he helped to create a culture rife with sexism and sexual harassment at his company , Bloomberg L.P.—and raise larger questions about his character .
“ He has to answer for his treatment of others , ” Buttigieg told NBC News on Tuesday , adding that Bloomberg seems to have “ dismissed the humanity of a lot of people.
” As far back as December , Warren said that Bloomberg should respond to allegations that he made offensive comments about women who worked for his company , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the women involved in cases against him or his company from nondisclosure agreements .
The Massachusetts senator could well renew these criticisms on Wednesday night .
As a longtime critic of Wall Street , she may also bring up Bloomberg ’ s history of defending his pals in the financial sector ; his seeking to shift the blame for the 2008 financial crisis onto the fact that Congress forced banks to stop “ redlining ” poor areas ; and criticizing parts of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 , which imposed tougher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Perhaps in an effort to blunt such an attack , Bloomberg reversed himself on Tuesday and called for stricter financial regulation . )
Joe Biden has already criticized Bloomberg ’ s remarks about redlining .
As he tries to reboot his campaign and restore his claim to be the Democrat with the best chance of defeating Trump , the former Vice-President desperately needs a strong debate performance .
He is certainly in a unique position to deflate and mock Bloomberg ’ s repeated efforts to tie himself to Barack Obama , which have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does Biden have the ability to stay disciplined and deliver a killer blow ?
Bloomberg , for his part , will need to display a combination of humility when it comes to some of the offensive statements he has made in the past , as well as an ability to counter-punch , which Democratic voters will want to see in a candidate billing himself as a Trump-slayer .
He is seventy-eight , and hasn ’ t participated in a televised debate for almost a decade .
And even during his campaigns for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than stellar .
When he first ran , as a Republican , in 2001 , he relied heavily on the endorsement of Rudy Giuliani , who had just served two terms .
His final debate with Mark Green , the Democratic public advocate , was a fractious affair .
Bloomberg tried to blunt Green ’ s claims that he was an out-of-touch billionaire looking to buy the election—his campaign budget was about seventy million dollars—by going on the attack and accusing Green of being a careerist politician who had smeared Fernando Ferrer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democratic primary .
In 2009 , he engaged in another contentious final debate , with Bill Thompson , the Democratic comptroller , who had defied another huge imbalance in campaign spending to keep the race close .
Again , Bloomberg went on the attack , lambasting Thompson for accepting campaign contributions from people who did business with the city .
When I looked back on these two debates , I saw the Bloomberg I remembered : direct , charmless , and well prepared .
But in 2001 and 2009 , it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positioning rather than his debating skills that got him through the campaigns .
On both occasions , he ran as a nonpartisan technocrat who could deal with the aftermath of a crisis—the 9/11 attacks and a near financial collapse—and restore stability .
This year , Bloomberg is following a similar strategy , claiming that he is the only one who can rid the country of the existential crisis that is Trump .
“ Mike will get it done ” is his campaign slogan .
First , though , he has to deal with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Pete .
They will all be waiting for him in Vegas .

Political commentators often overemphasize the importance of televised debates, but Wednesday night’s Democratic gabfest in Las Vegas may turn out to be one occasion when the hype is justified. Having risen in the polls, after reportedly spending more than three hundred and fifty million dollars on political ads, Michael Bloomberg is making his prime-time début. The manner in which the former New York mayor has barged into the race, knocking candidates with far fewer resources out of the spotlight, harkens back to what Donald Trump did in the 2016 Republican primary. For the five other Democrats participating in the debate, particularly the moderates, their best chance of stopping the Bloomberg steamroller is to push it off course immediately. That’s what they will try to do at the Paris Theatre.
Arguably, Bloomberg has no right even to be there. He’s not competing in the Nevada caucuses, on Saturday, and the lack of individual donations to his self-funded campaign meant that he hadn’t qualified for the debate until the Democratic National Committee changed its rules, a couple of weeks ago, to accommodate him. With ample justification, Bernie Sanders has complained about this decision by the D.N.C. In recent days, however, some of the other candidates have made a different argument.
“I’m never going to beat him on the airwaves, but I can beat him on the debate stage,” Amy Klobuchar, who turned in a strong performance at the last debate, said over the weekend. On Tuesday, Bloomberg formally qualified for the debate when a new PBS/Marist poll showed him in second place nationally, behind Sanders. Elizabeth Warren, the onetime front-runner, wrote on Twitter, “It’s a shame Mike Bloomberg can buy his way into the debate. But at least now primary voters curious about how each candidate will take on Donald Trump can get a live demonstration of how we each take on an egomaniac billionaire.”
Comments like this reflect a perfectly understandable frustration. In any other election year, Klobuchar, who finished third in the New Hampshire primary, and Pete Buttigieg, who finished second, would have been the focus of attention, along with Sanders, going into Nevada and South Carolina. But, in recent days, Bloomberg, whose unprecedented spending had already given him a lock on the paid-media market, has virtually swallowed up the free-media market, too. At noon on Tuesday, the politics page of the New York Times’ Web site featured eight stories about Bloomberg and not a single one about Buttigieg, as Nate Silver, of FiveThirtyEight, pointed out. The story count at other news sites was similarly imbalanced. According to my quick tally, the home pages of the Washington Post and Politico each had a half-dozen stories about Bloomberg, including news reports and columns.
On Wednesday night’s debate stage, Bloomberg will be returned to equal footing with the other candidates. According to a report by the Associated Press, he “is expecting fire from all angles, particularly on his status as a billionaire self-funding his campaign and on the ‘stop-and-frisk’ police practice he employed in New York.” At a town-hall event hosted by CNN on Tuesday night, Sanders slammed Bloomberg for trying to buy the election, and said that it was “obscene” for him to skip the early primaries. He also criticized Bloomberg’s support for stop-and-frisk policies, which he said “humiliated and offended hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people.”
The ongoing furor over stop-and-frisk represents a serious challenge for Bloomberg. The problem isn’t merely his support for the discriminatory policy, which he has already apologized for several times, going back to last November. It is the threat that his opponents will link it to other issues from his past—including claims that he helped to create a culture rife with sexism and sexual harassment at his company, Bloomberg L.P.—and raise larger questions about his character. “He has to answer for his treatment of others,” Buttigieg told NBC News on Tuesday, adding that Bloomberg seems to have “dismissed the humanity of a lot of people.”
As far back as December, Warren said that Bloomberg should respond to allegations that he made offensive comments about women who worked for his company, and she also called on him to release some of the women involved in cases against him or his company from nondisclosure agreements. The Massachusetts senator could well renew these criticisms on Wednesday night. As a longtime critic of Wall Street, she may also bring up Bloomberg’s history of defending his pals in the financial sector; his seeking to shift the blame for the 2008 financial crisis onto the fact that Congress forced banks to stop “redlining” poor areas; and criticizing parts of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, which imposed tougher regulations on the financial sector. (Perhaps in an effort to blunt such an attack, Bloomberg reversed himself on Tuesday and called for stricter financial regulation.)
Joe Biden has already criticized Bloomberg’s remarks about redlining. As he tries to reboot his campaign and restore his claim to be the Democrat with the best chance of defeating Trump, the former Vice-President desperately needs a strong debate performance. He is certainly in a unique position to deflate and mock Bloomberg’s repeated efforts to tie himself to Barack Obama, which have irked some former Obama aides. But does Biden have the ability to stay disciplined and deliver a killer blow?
Bloomberg, for his part, will need to display a combination of humility when it comes to some of the offensive statements he has made in the past, as well as an ability to counter-punch, which Democratic voters will want to see in a candidate billing himself as a Trump-slayer. He is seventy-eight, and hasn’t participated in a televised debate for almost a decade. And even during his campaigns for the mayoralty, his debate record was proficient rather than stellar.
When he first ran, as a Republican, in 2001, he relied heavily on the endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, who had just served two terms. His final debate with Mark Green, the Democratic public advocate, was a fractious affair. Bloomberg tried to blunt Green’s claims that he was an out-of-touch billionaire looking to buy the election—his campaign budget was about seventy million dollars—by going on the attack and accusing Green of being a careerist politician who had smeared Fernando Ferrer, the Bronx borough president, during the Democratic primary. In 2009, he engaged in another contentious final debate, with Bill Thompson, the Democratic comptroller, who had defied another huge imbalance in campaign spending to keep the race close. Again, Bloomberg went on the attack, lambasting Thompson for accepting campaign contributions from people who did business with the city.
When I looked back on these two debates, I saw the Bloomberg I remembered: direct, charmless, and well prepared. But in 2001 and 2009, it was Bloomberg’s money and his over-all positioning rather than his debating skills that got him through the campaigns. On both occasions, he ran as a nonpartisan technocrat who could deal with the aftermath of a crisis—the 9/11 attacks and a near financial collapse—and restore stability. This year, Bloomberg is following a similar strategy, claiming that he is the only one who can rid the country of the existential crisis that is Trump. “Mike will get it done” is his campaign slogan. First, though, he has to deal with Amy and Bernie and Elizabeth and Joe and Pete. They will all be waiting for him in Vegas.


newyorker--2020-02-19--“Real Life” Is a New Kind of Campus Novel

Early in “ Real Life , ” Brandon Taylor ’ s brooding début novel , a biochemistry student named Wallace removes his agar plates from a shared incubator to find that mold has tainted several days ’ worth of work .
Wallace , who breeds nematodes , has spent the summer trying to induce a specific genetic mutation .
Alone in the bay of a laboratory , he oversees the creatures ’ feverish reproductive cycles under a microscope , “ herding desired chromosomes and wicking away the undesired ones , ” in search of the “ sought-after strain.
” Magnified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ one of those horrible re-creations of a volcanic event—whole civilizations frozen in ash and soot and coarse white stone.
” It also seems “ entirely unaccidental.
” Wallace suspects sabotage but is too shrewd to try to prove it to his supervisor , a harried white woman who conveys constant doubt about his competence .
The last time he denied an accusation of carelessness , she sided with a colleague , forcing Wallace to sort and then re-sort a set of reagents that someone else had mixed up .
“ This isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wallace was told .
“ This is to make you better.
” Condescension of this kind recurs throughout “ Real Life , ” a campus novel imagined from the vantage of a character who is usually shunted to the sidelines .
Taylor ’ s début shadows Wallace , a gay black student from a small town in Alabama , through a series of personal and professional skirmishes that complicate the last weekend before his fourth year of graduate school .
When the book opens , Wallace is pondering whether he ought to leave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Midwestern town that houses it .
The loss of his nematodes is the second death that is introduced in the opening pages .
Taylor relegates the first to a numb aside : Wallace ’ s father has just died .
His decision to skip the funeral scandalizes his breezy white friends—one of whom , a histrionic Swede , spent the summer before graduate school summiting a mountain to mourn the death of his grandfather .
“ It was your dad , ” another friend reminds Wallace , as though he does not remember @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of all Miller , a surly , mercurial scientist , and the quietest in their group—but none of them manages to comprehend the “ curious shape of his grief , which does not bear the typical dimensions.
” Wallace holds his friends at a remove , leaving unexplained the childhood trauma that has predisposed him to introversion and distanced him from his family in the first place .
The memories emerge drip by drip , as if from the tip of a pipette .
Raised in poverty by parents who allowed an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left home in search of reprieve .
At graduate school , he discovers not a fresh start but another site of suppression .
His doctoral group , we learn at the novel ’ s outset , is the first in more than three decades to include a black person .
In springtime , at fund-raising garden parties , “ wealthy white people fling bits of bread at koi and talk in hushed , slurred voices about the changing demographics of the university.
” Wallace recalls being introduced , at one such event , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ a heavy , bearded man ” who reeks of “ sweat and oak leaves.
” His narrative clarifies a punishing paradox of academia ; the gatekeepers of Wallace ’ s university at once subjugate him and imply that such subjugation is a requisite for success , even a blessing for someone from his “ background.
” When Wallace voices his ambivalence about staying in the program , a snarling , French acquaintance cites the “ prospects for .
.
.
black people ” —dismal , apparently—and questions his gratitude .
Without a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the stats are what they are.
” One clear achievement of “ Real Life ” is that it instantiates the indignities of this setting without invoking the hackneyed language that has come to dominate contemporary discussions of campus culture .
Taylor , a graduate of the Iowa Writers ’ Workshop who , like Wallace , trained as a biochemist , endows his narrative with the precision of science and the intimacy of memoir .
Wallace isn ’ t one to whine about “ microaggressions ” ; he doesn ’ t carp at “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and what Taylor catalogues with aplomb , is a relentless abrasion of dignity that is familiar to many people of color on such campuses .
In line at a corner store , waiting to buy deodorant and soap , Wallace is mistaken for a drug dealer by a drunk fraternity brother .
At the front door of a friend ’ s home , he ’ s rebuffed by a vegan acquaintance who wrinkles her nose at his potluck offering and asks whether he is lost .
In the lab , he endures the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have sabotaged his experiment , a “ panting , miserable ” white girl .
Interrupting Wallace ’ s work one morning , she calls him a misogynist , accuses him of feeling that he ’ s “ got the corner on oppression , ” and declares , almost unbelievably , in the next beat , that “ women are the new niggers , the new faggots.
” It would be easy for Taylor ’ s novel to settle on an indictment of this culture , whose exhausting absurdity—Why report a racist colleague ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no better ?
—is a worthy subject of satire .
But “ Real Life ” doubles as a sophisticated character study of someone squaring self-preservation with a duty to tolerate people who threaten it .
The book teems with passages of transfixing description , and perhaps its greatest asset is the force of Wallace ’ s isolation , which Taylor conveys with alien strangeness .
Watching white friends eat dinner , Wallace fixates on “ their shining eyes ” and “ their greasy fingers working at each other ’ s knees ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night before , students revelling on the shore of the university ’ s lakeside campus had “ pried their mouths apart and beamed their laughter into each other ’ s faces.
” The flip side of Taylor ’ s exquisite rendition of Wallace ’ s remove is that it can blunt the rendition of his surroundings .
Loneliness occasions moments of melodrama that bloat the prose .
Mugs crouch in Wallace ’ s cupboard like “ children in foster care.
” Of a table that tilts under the shifting weight of his friends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold them ?
Would it last ?
” These moments expose both the burden of Wallace ’ s trauma and the liability of transcribing it ; at times , Wallace ’ s problem threatens to become the novel ’ s .
His tendency to discount the “ clumps of white people ” who crowd his daily life—the Harvard alumna with “ expensive teeth ” who mentions , offhand , that she did her “ undergrad in Boston , ” or all of those strangers by the lake , “ white and in ugly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and smiling ” —risks skimming the book ’ s secondary cast of a meaningful specificity .
Wallace ’ s most disdainful observations reduce even a few of his better friends to the sort of schematic creations that appear under his microscope .
And yet schematism is the essence of the very real ill that these people evince—prejudice—so Wallace ’ s judgments rarely feel unfair .
“ When you tell white people that something is racist , ” he thinks , “ they hold it up to the light and try to discern if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than interrogate themselves , “ they always trust their own judgment.
” Wallace comes to implicate himself in this theme .
He often acknowledges that his own pain has blinded rather than attuned him to the experiences of his peers , and some of the book ’ s most thrilling passages occur when he reckons with his instinct to underestimate the suffering of his friends—when he concedes that apparent privilege often coincides with unseen trauma , however minor its magnitude .
He scolds himself for dismissing a kind , Chinese-American colleague—the daughter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wallace at first assumes , could not possibly resent their lab for the same reasons that he does .
Listening to a friend lament his partner ’ s infidelity , Wallace interjects , “ Oh , stop playing at somber.
” His unspoken thoughts extend the interruption : “ Stop playing at morose , at mystery , as if you aren ’ t living every moment of your life on the surface or just below it .
”

Brandon Taylor’s début, “Real Life,” shadows Wallace, a gay black student from a small Southern town. Photograph by Vivian Le / NYT / Redux
Early in “Real Life,” Brandon Taylor’s brooding début novel, a biochemistry student named Wallace removes his agar plates from a shared incubator to find that mold has tainted several days’ worth of work. Wallace, who breeds nematodes, has spent the summer trying to induce a specific genetic mutation. Alone in the bay of a laboratory, he oversees the creatures’ feverish reproductive cycles under a microscope, “herding desired chromosomes and wicking away the undesired ones,” in search of the “sought-after strain.” Magnified, the contamination on his plates resembles “one of those horrible re-creations of a volcanic event—whole civilizations frozen in ash and soot and coarse white stone.” It also seems “entirely unaccidental.” Wallace suspects sabotage but is too shrewd to try to prove it to his supervisor, a harried white woman who conveys constant doubt about his competence. The last time he denied an accusation of carelessness, she sided with a colleague, forcing Wallace to sort and then re-sort a set of reagents that someone else had mixed up. “This isn’t to punish you,” Wallace was told. “This is to make you better.”
Condescension of this kind recurs throughout “Real Life,” a campus novel imagined from the vantage of a character who is usually shunted to the sidelines. Taylor’s début shadows Wallace, a gay black student from a small town in Alabama, through a series of personal and professional skirmishes that complicate the last weekend before his fourth year of graduate school. When the book opens, Wallace is pondering whether he ought to leave his university and the predominantly white, Midwestern town that houses it. The loss of his nematodes is the second death that is introduced in the opening pages. Taylor relegates the first to a numb aside: Wallace’s father has just died. His decision to skip the funeral scandalizes his breezy white friends—one of whom, a histrionic Swede, spent the summer before graduate school summiting a mountain to mourn the death of his grandfather. “It was your dad,” another friend reminds Wallace, as though he does not remember. Wallace seems to like these people—perhaps most of all Miller, a surly, mercurial scientist, and the quietest in their group—but none of them manages to comprehend the “curious shape of his grief, which does not bear the typical dimensions.” Wallace holds his friends at a remove, leaving unexplained the childhood trauma that has predisposed him to introversion and distanced him from his family in the first place.
The memories emerge drip by drip, as if from the tip of a pipette. Raised in poverty by parents who allowed an adult friend to abuse him, Wallace left home in search of reprieve. At graduate school, he discovers not a fresh start but another site of suppression. His doctoral group, we learn at the novel’s outset, is the first in more than three decades to include a black person. In springtime, at fund-raising garden parties, “wealthy white people fling bits of bread at koi and talk in hushed, slurred voices about the changing demographics of the university.” Wallace recalls being introduced, at one such event, to his fellowship’s benefactor, “a heavy, bearded man” who reeks of “sweat and oak leaves.” His narrative clarifies a punishing paradox of academia; the gatekeepers of Wallace’s university at once subjugate him and imply that such subjugation is a requisite for success, even a blessing for someone from his “background.” When Wallace voices his ambivalence about staying in the program, a snarling, French acquaintance cites the “prospects for . . . black people”—dismal, apparently—and questions his gratitude. Without a doctorate, the acquaintance adds, “the stats are what they are.”
One clear achievement of “Real Life” is that it instantiates the indignities of this setting without invoking the hackneyed language that has come to dominate contemporary discussions of campus culture. Taylor, a graduate of the Iowa Writers’ Workshop who, like Wallace, trained as a biochemist, endows his narrative with the precision of science and the intimacy of memoir. Wallace isn’t one to whine about “microaggressions”; he doesn’t carp at “cultural appropriation.” What he endures, and what Taylor catalogues with aplomb, is a relentless abrasion of dignity that is familiar to many people of color on such campuses. In line at a corner store, waiting to buy deodorant and soap, Wallace is mistaken for a drug dealer by a drunk fraternity brother. At the front door of a friend’s home, he’s rebuffed by a vegan acquaintance who wrinkles her nose at his potluck offering and asks whether he is lost. In the lab, he endures the degradations of the peer who seems to have sabotaged his experiment, a “panting, miserable” white girl. Interrupting Wallace’s work one morning, she calls him a misogynist, accuses him of feeling that he’s “got the corner on oppression,” and declares, almost unbelievably, in the next beat, that “women are the new niggers, the new faggots.”
It would be easy for Taylor’s novel to settle on an indictment of this culture, whose exhausting absurdity—Why report a racist colleague’s comments to a supervisor who seems no better?—is a worthy subject of satire. But “Real Life” doubles as a sophisticated character study of someone squaring self-preservation with a duty to tolerate people who threaten it. The book teems with passages of transfixing description, and perhaps its greatest asset is the force of Wallace’s isolation, which Taylor conveys with alien strangeness. Watching white friends eat dinner, Wallace fixates on “their shining eyes” and “their greasy fingers working at each other’s knees” in “a pantomime of intimacy.” The night before, students revelling on the shore of the university’s lakeside campus had “pried their mouths apart and beamed their laughter into each other’s faces.”
The flip side of Taylor’s exquisite rendition of Wallace’s remove is that it can blunt the rendition of his surroundings. Loneliness occasions moments of melodrama that bloat the prose. Mugs crouch in Wallace’s cupboard like “children in foster care.” Of a table that tilts under the shifting weight of his friends, he wonders, “Would it hold them? Would it last?” These moments expose both the burden of Wallace’s trauma and the liability of transcribing it; at times, Wallace’s problem threatens to become the novel’s. His tendency to discount the “clumps of white people” who crowd his daily life—the Harvard alumna with “expensive teeth” who mentions, offhand, that she did her “undergrad in Boston,” or all of those strangers by the lake, “white and in ugly, oversize clothes, sunburned and chapped and smiling”—risks skimming the book’s secondary cast of a meaningful specificity. Wallace’s most disdainful observations reduce even a few of his better friends to the sort of schematic creations that appear under his microscope.
And yet schematism is the essence of the very real ill that these people evince—prejudice—so Wallace’s judgments rarely feel unfair. “When you tell white people that something is racist,” he thinks, “they hold it up to the light and try to discern if you are telling the truth.” Rather than interrogate themselves, “they always trust their own judgment.” Wallace comes to implicate himself in this theme. He often acknowledges that his own pain has blinded rather than attuned him to the experiences of his peers, and some of the book’s most thrilling passages occur when he reckons with his instinct to underestimate the suffering of his friends—when he concedes that apparent privilege often coincides with unseen trauma, however minor its magnitude. He scolds himself for dismissing a kind, Chinese-American colleague—the daughter of a cardiologist and a retired techie—who, Wallace at first assumes, could not possibly resent their lab for the same reasons that he does. Listening to a friend lament his partner’s infidelity, Wallace interjects, “Oh, stop playing at somber.” His unspoken thoughts extend the interruption: “Stop playing at morose, at mystery, as if you aren’t living every moment of your life on the surface or just below it.”
This tic becomes clearest in Wallace’s dalliance with Miller, the enigmatic friend who protests that he is straight, despite initiating their intense, sometimes violent fling. Though Wallace sees in him a kindred spirit—both the first in their families to attend college, they are “unusual among their friends” for being “unaccustomed to the easiness of life”—his dismissiveness diminishes their connection. (“They ought to be close,” Wallace thinks, but “are not because of some early, critical miscalculation.”) Their trysts illustrate to Wallace that he is capable of inflicting the same pain that ails him. Abandoning Miller one morning, with no farewell, Wallace fails to anticipate that his friend might end up “harboring such frustration or anger.” (Only later does he concede that he is “guilty of myopia.”) The truth of his solitude, it turns out, isn’t simply that his peers lack the sensitivity to relate to him. Just as often, it’s Wallace’s presumptions that prevent him from relating to them. He comes closest to overcoming this block toward the end of the novel, during a sleepless night in which Miller discloses a traumatic secret of his own:
This too could be his life, Wallace thinks. This thing with Miller, eating fish in the middle of the night, watching the gray air of the night sky over the roof next door. This could be their life together, each moment shared, passed back and forth between each other to alleviate the pressure, the awful pressure of having to hold on to time for oneself. This is perhaps why people get together in the first place. The sharing of time. The sharing of the responsibility of anchoring oneself in the world.
It’s a fine passage, with a promise of resolution, that happens to reprise the book’s title. Taylor’s writing revolves around and around the term “real life,” creating a current that worries its meaning throughout the novel. It becomes a fantasy, a nightmare, a feint at superiority. (“This is real life,” a character scolds Wallace, after he instigates a conflict at a dinner party. “Do you understand that?”) For most of the book, Wallace quietly disdains his peers, who have spent their entire lives “in this world of programs”; he longs to be “out there with a real job, a real life.” He looks askance at people who are unaffiliated with the university, at their “bloated faces and missing teeth,” but they alone are the ones whom Wallace calls “real people.” Miller, who belongs to both worlds, comes to confound this dichotomy and also Wallace’s pretensions to uniqueness. Their meetings are among the few in which Wallace’s aloofness yields, at last, to affection—which often, for survivors of trauma, feels like “an undue burden,” a betrayal of routine unease. That intimacy cannot offer Wallace complete relief is both a curse and a kind of confirmation: the pain is what makes it real.


newyorker--2020-02-19--Daily Cartoon: Wednesday, February 19th

Daily Cartoon: Wednesday, February 19th

© Do Not Sell My Personal Information may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our @ @ @ @ @ Affiliate Partnerships with retailers .
The material on this site may not be reproduced , @ @ @ @ @ or otherwise used , except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast .

“Based on Internet advertising alone, both Michael Bloomberg and the Shen Yun dancers qualified to participate in the debate.”


newyorker--2020-02-19--Our New Business Plan: Go Viral

Our New Business Plan: Go Viral

Today is an exciting day .
We ’ ve finally finished our yearlong , extensive company review and we have the results .
After some comparative analysis with other companies of our size and structure , we are ready to lay out a plan for the future that will keep EdenVirtual growing !
The results were conclusive and specific .
Our new business plan is : go viral .
Our current processes will stay intact up to a point .
When we get to Ethan ’ s team , things will change a bit .
That ’ s when we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go viral , Eric ’ s team will just rake in the money .
Then we ’ ll rinse and repeat until we can go public .
Should be six months or so if we go viral every day .
We ’ ll also be changing our corporate structure so that Miranda ’ s team will be dedicated to going viral .
Thank you for stepping up , Miranda !
We additionally want the company to grow our viral base , so everyone should log on to Twitter and create an account .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have more than twelve thousand followers by E.O.D .
We have data suggesting that going viral involves more retweets than likes .
If you have any questions , Dean ’ s team will be running point for retweets .
We ’ ll also be doing some basic restructuring .
The C.E.O.
’ s nephew Brad went viral a few weeks ago for getting scared by his roommate on camera a lot , so we ’ ll be hiring him ( welcome , Brad ! )
as our new S.V.P .
of communications .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ scare him three times in the office during Q3 .
Joshua , our current S.V.P .
of communications , will transition out of that role .
We ’ ll be live-streaming as he packs up his office next week , so please make sure to hop on Instagram during that time and check it out .
It ’ s more of a re-boxing than an unboxing , but we ’ re excited to see how viral it can go .
Another small change : our office will now serve as overflow housing for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s team will be focussed on our animal diversification .
Though we ’ ll mostly be using dogs and cats to go viral , optics are better if we throw in a duck or a llama every six weeks or so , and an ugly dog every eight posts .
We ’ ve seen that the cute quotient goes through the roof for other posts when they follow a disgusting dog .
We ’ re also preparing for more hedgehog-forward content in Q4 .
While our values won ’ t change , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our company .
We will always value “ Integrity , Client Services , and Growth , ” but our new official pillars will be “ Cat Memes , Stoner Funny Stuff , and Retweets.
” Retweets is just cool Internet language for growth .
Growth will always be a strong pillar of our business !
Kelly and her team have been doing an amazing job over the last six months , and we ’ ll be changing their role slightly .
Instead of focussing on account management , they ’ ll now be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Really Satisfying Stuff—well-poured frosting , videos of glossy paint , perfectly sliced food , etc .
Kelly ’ s attention to detail has always made her stand out , and we ’ re proud to refocus her department !
We know that this is an outside-the-box strategy , but , like Mayor Pete , we ’ re just trying to keep up with the kids .
Taking another page from his book , we now have a company dance .
I ’ ve attached the file to this e-mail .
Please learn it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at lunch .
If you thought , Wow !
This memo from my boss is # lol , please feel free to share and retweet and like .
Let ’ s make this memo go viral !
It ’ s good for business—always remember that .

Good morning, EdenVirtual team!
Today is an exciting day. We’ve finally finished our yearlong, extensive company review and we have the results. After some comparative analysis with other companies of our size and structure, we are ready to lay out a plan for the future that will keep EdenVirtual growing! The results were conclusive and specific.
Our new business plan is: go viral.
Our current processes will stay intact up to a point. When we get to Ethan’s team, things will change a bit. That’s when we’ll go viral. After we go viral, Eric’s team will just rake in the money. Then we’ll rinse and repeat until we can go public. Should be six months or so if we go viral every day. We’ll also be changing our corporate structure so that Miranda’s team will be dedicated to going viral. Thank you for stepping up, Miranda!
We additionally want the company to grow our viral base, so everyone should log on to Twitter and create an account. We’d like each employee to have more than twelve thousand followers by E.O.D. We have data suggesting that going viral involves more retweets than likes. If you have any questions, Dean’s team will be running point for retweets.
(Side note: Lisa, we need to add a hundred thousand followers to the company account by E.O.D. Thx!)
We’ll also be doing some basic restructuring. The C.E.O.’s nephew Brad went viral a few weeks ago for getting scared by his roommate on camera a lot, so we’ll be hiring him (welcome, Brad!) as our new S.V.P. of communications. We’ll be hiring someone to scare him three times in the office during Q3. Joshua, our current S.V.P. of communications, will transition out of that role. We’ll be live-streaming as he packs up his office next week, so please make sure to hop on Instagram during that time and check it out. It’s more of a re-boxing than an unboxing, but we’re excited to see how viral it can go.
Another small change: our office will now serve as overflow housing for A.A.C.R. animal rescue. Angela’s team will be focussed on our animal diversification. Though we’ll mostly be using dogs and cats to go viral, optics are better if we throw in a duck or a llama every six weeks or so, and an ugly dog every eight posts. We’ve seen that the cute quotient goes through the roof for other posts when they follow a disgusting dog. We’re also preparing for more hedgehog-forward content in Q4.
While our values won’t change, we’re relabelling the foundational pillars of our company. We will always value “Integrity, Client Services, and Growth,” but our new official pillars will be “Cat Memes, Stoner Funny Stuff, and Retweets.” Retweets is just cool Internet language for growth. Growth will always be a strong pillar of our business!
Kelly and her team have been doing an amazing job over the last six months, and we’ll be changing their role slightly. Instead of focussing on account management, they’ll now be working closely with Dean in retweets on Really Satisfying Stuff—well-poured frosting, videos of glossy paint, perfectly sliced food, etc. Kelly’s attention to detail has always made her stand out, and we’re proud to refocus her department!
We know that this is an outside-the-box strategy, but, like Mayor Pete, we’re just trying to keep up with the kids. Taking another page from his book, we now have a company dance. I’ve attached the file to this e-mail. Please learn it so that we can film it tomorrow at lunch.
If you thought, Wow! This memo from my boss is #lol, please feel free to share and retweet and like. Let’s make this memo go viral! It’s good for business—always remember that.
O.K., Boomer!
Mark
C.E.O., EdenVirtual


newyorker--2020-02-18--The Republicans Planning to Vote in South Carolina’s Democratic Primary

Twelve years ago , Rush Limbaugh , who had not yet received the Presidential Medal of Freedom , urged the listeners of his enormously popular and very conservative talk-radio show to vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries .
In the patchwork process that is employed to nominate Presidential candidates , more than a dozen states have open primaries , which allow registered voters to participate in either contest .
Limbaugh wanted Clinton ’ s close but seemingly losing fight with Barack Obama to go on for as long as possible , on the theory that a protracted battle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called the plan Operation Chaos .
Limbaugh didn ’ t think that Clinton was necessarily the weaker of the two candidates—in fact , he ultimately concluded that Obama was ; by May , 2008 , he was pushing his fans to vote for the senator from Illinois .
“ Barack Obama has shown he can not get the votes Democrats need to win—blue-collar , working-class people , ” Limbaugh said .
“ He can get effete snobs , he can get wealthy academics , he can get the young , and he can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not win with that.
” Karen Martin , a freelance editor and pet-sitter who lives in Spartanburg , South Carolina , believes that her plan is more strategic than chaotic .
Martin is the creator of Trump 2-29 , which is encouraging Republicans to vote for Bernie Sanders in the state ’ s upcoming Democratic primary , on February 29th .
“ We ’ re really mad , ” Martin told me recently , referring to her fellow-conservatives .
“ Mad at how our President has been treated for the past several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Voting for Trump isn ’ t an option : South Carolina ’ s Republican primary was cancelled in October , out of deference to the President .
( “ With no legitimate primary challenger and President Trump ’ s record of results , the decision was made to save South Carolina taxpayers over $ 1.2 million and forgo an unnecessary primary , ” South Carolina ’ s G.O.P .
chairman , Drew McKissick , announced in a statement at the time .
A former Republican state representative sued to block the cancellation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s former Vice-President , Joe Biden , was expected to perform well in South Carolina ; Martin wanted to vote for someone who could ruin it for him .
As Iowa neared , she said , “ We decided it ’ ll be Bernie.
” Martin doubts that Sanders will ultimately be the Democrats ’ nominee—though , if that happens , “ It would be a great lesson in American Civics 101 , ” she said , adding , “ To have those final debates be between an avowed socialist and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump does , that would be really a contrast to see .
Bernie makes it poetic.
” The South Carolina Republican Party has no official involvement in Martin ’ s efforts , but it hasn ’ t discouraged them , either .
The executive director of the South Carolina G.O.P.
, Hope Walker , issued a statement acknowledging the existence of “ activists that may decide to participate in the open Democratic Presidential Preference Primary ” and explaining that the Party “ has taken no official stand on this matter.
” Meanwhile , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Greenville County Republican Party , told the Charleston Post and Courier , “ I think we can easily affect the outcome .
This is going to catch on like wildfire.
” Leupp told me that he had talked not only to local activists but to the five other upstate-county G.O.P .
chairmen about the plan ; they concluded that it would be best for “ the grassroots activists to make this push , ” he said .
( The Post and Courier story mentioned a planned press conference ; after the story ran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so much attention that “ we didn ’ t need a conference at that point.
” ) Independently from Martin , a political and public-relations consultant from Greenville named Christopher Sullivan has launched a campaign that nods more explicitly to Limbaugh ’ s influence : Operation Chaos 2020 .
“ We ’ ve put up a Web site , and we ’ re doing some digital work and communicating with our members and supporters , ” he told me .
Operation Chaos 2020 flyers were handed out at a Party meeting and garnered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ radio advertising , too , Sullivan said .
Both the flyers and the Web site note that the effort is a project of the Conservative Defense Fund , the name of which may suggest a large organization ; Sullivan is the chair of the group and , he said , its only full-time employee .
( Karen Martin told me , of her own campaign , “ The other day somebody asked , ‘ So how much money is behind this effort ?
’ And I had to laugh .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ) But Sullivan is optimistic that even a modestly funded campaign could have real effects .
He noted that , in South Carolina primaries , Republicans typically turn out at twice the numbers of Democrats—so even a small percentage of Republican crossover voters could be decisive in a reasonably close race .
Unlike Martin , Sullivan is not pushing any particular candidate .
“ One of the things is that the Democratic primary is in such disarray of their own making that it ’ s kind of hard , even at this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate is gon na be the best one to choose , ” he said .
“ Six weeks ago , Joe Biden was the front-runner , and everybody was saying he was assured of the nomination .
And now he ’ s dropping like a rock .
It might be the best vote would be to prop up Joe Biden.
” Sullivan set up a poll on the Operation Chaos 2020 Web site asking “ which crazy Democrat candidate ” participants in the operation should vote for .
Late last week , Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , over the weekend , thousands of new votes came in for Elizabeth Warren .
“ I think her socialist policies would be a big loser in the general election , so I can see why Republicans would want her to be at the top of the ticket , ” Sullivan told me .
It may be that deciding which candidate is the least likely to beat Trump is no easier than deciding which is most likely to do so .
The kind of voting that Martin and Sullivan are pushing for is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been around for a long time .
Measuring its effect is difficult , but it is usually thought to be very small .
( In 2008 , when Limbaugh was pushing Clinton , some Obama supporters were convinced that bad-faith Republican voters had won the Indiana primary for her , but this was disputed . )
That said , South Carolina in 2020 is a “ perfect storm of crossover-voting incentives , ” according to Josh Putnam , a political scientist based in Wilmington , North Carolina , who runs the election-consulting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the earliness of the primary and the absence of a G.O.P .
contest in the state and noted that , in South Carolina , unlike in many other states , primary participants don ’ t have to publicly proclaim that they belong to the party whose primary they are voting in .
It may not hurt that President Trump has openly encouraged party raiding : at a rally in Manchester the night before the New Hampshire primary , Trump said , “ So I hear a lot of Republicans tomorrow will vote for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Does that make sense ?
You people wouldn ’ t do that !
” ( New Hampshire has a semi-open primary : those who are not registered as a member of a party can vote in either race . )
Trump added , “ My only problem is I ’ m trying to figure who is their weakest candidate—I think they ’ re all weak !
” The South Carolina effort “ has the potential to not only affect the race but how the field of candidates continues to winnow , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ variable is promotion.
” Martin has been trying to spread the word on Facebook , where , on the official Trump 2-29 page , you can see debates about the plan unfold in real time .
“ Bernie is leading in the polls , ” a Charleston resident named Sheri Irwin wrote .
“ Why on earth would we vote for him ?
” A man named Paul Fallavollita responded by highlighting South Carolina ’ s importance to Biden , adding , “ A lot of corporations and banks have said they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Party if Bernie is the nominee .
Here ’ s an opportunity to starve them of funds .
Plus , if Bernie wins most of the primaries and the DNC cheats him , his voters will stay home in November.
” Irwin wasn ’ t convinced .
“ This is how we got the usurper Obama , ” she wrote .
Then another South Carolina voter , Clark Mccauley , chimed in .
“ Democrat party don ’ t want Bernie that ’ s why we need to vote for him , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the craziest.
” Lisa S. Marie wasn ’ t sold .
“ Good to know that the Tea Party is now pro abortion and for socialism , ” she commented .
“ Good luck selling that !
”

Twelve years ago, Rush Limbaugh, who had not yet received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, urged the listeners of his enormously popular and very conservative talk-radio show to vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries. In the patchwork process that is employed to nominate Presidential candidates, more than a dozen states have open primaries, which allow registered voters to participate in either contest. Limbaugh wanted Clinton’s close but seemingly losing fight with Barack Obama to go on for as long as possible, on the theory that a protracted battle would weaken the eventual nominee. He called the plan Operation Chaos. Limbaugh didn’t think that Clinton was necessarily the weaker of the two candidates—in fact, he ultimately concluded that Obama was; by May, 2008, he was pushing his fans to vote for the senator from Illinois. “Barack Obama has shown he cannot get the votes Democrats need to win—blue-collar, working-class people,” Limbaugh said. “He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that.”
Karen Martin, a freelance editor and pet-sitter who lives in Spartanburg, South Carolina, believes that her plan is more strategic than chaotic. Martin is the creator of Trump 2-29, which is encouraging Republicans to vote for Bernie Sanders in the state’s upcoming Democratic primary, on February 29th. “We’re really mad,” Martin told me recently, referring to her fellow-conservatives. “Mad at how our President has been treated for the past several years and wanting to do something now.” Voting for Trump isn’t an option: South Carolina’s Republican primary was cancelled in October, out of deference to the President. (“With no legitimate primary challenger and President Trump’s record of results, the decision was made to save South Carolina taxpayers over $1.2 million and forgo an unnecessary primary,” South Carolina’s G.O.P. chairman, Drew McKissick, announced in a statement at the time. A former Republican state representative sued to block the cancellation but lost in court.) Obama’s former Vice-President, Joe Biden, was expected to perform well in South Carolina; Martin wanted to vote for someone who could ruin it for him. As Iowa neared, she said, “We decided it’ll be Bernie.” Martin doubts that Sanders will ultimately be the Democrats’ nominee—though, if that happens, “It would be a great lesson in American Civics 101,” she said, adding, “To have those final debates be between an avowed socialist and a capitalist with the economic record that President Trump does, that would be really a contrast to see. Bernie makes it poetic.”
The South Carolina Republican Party has no official involvement in Martin’s efforts, but it hasn’t discouraged them, either. The executive director of the South Carolina G.O.P., Hope Walker, issued a statement acknowledging the existence of “activists that may decide to participate in the open Democratic Presidential Preference Primary” and explaining that the Party “has taken no official stand on this matter.” Meanwhile, Nathan Leupp, the chairman of the Greenville County Republican Party, told the Charleston Post and Courier, “I think we can easily affect the outcome. This is going to catch on like wildfire.” Leupp told me that he had talked not only to local activists but to the five other upstate-county G.O.P. chairmen about the plan; they concluded that it would be best for “the grassroots activists to make this push,” he said. (The Post and Courier story mentioned a planned press conference; after the story ran, Leupp said, the effort got so much attention that “we didn’t need a conference at that point.”)
Independently from Martin, a political and public-relations consultant from Greenville named Christopher Sullivan has launched a campaign that nods more explicitly to Limbaugh’s influence: Operation Chaos 2020. “We’ve put up a Web site, and we’re doing some digital work and communicating with our members and supporters,” he told me. Operation Chaos 2020 flyers were handed out at a Party meeting and garnered some attention on Twitter—there are plans for radio advertising, too, Sullivan said. Both the flyers and the Web site note that the effort is a project of the Conservative Defense Fund, the name of which may suggest a large organization; Sullivan is the chair of the group and, he said, its only full-time employee. (Karen Martin told me, of her own campaign, “The other day somebody asked, ‘So how much money is behind this effort?’ And I had to laugh. It’s when I can, in between dog-walking.”) But Sullivan is optimistic that even a modestly funded campaign could have real effects. He noted that, in South Carolina primaries, Republicans typically turn out at twice the numbers of Democrats—so even a small percentage of Republican crossover voters could be decisive in a reasonably close race.
Unlike Martin, Sullivan is not pushing any particular candidate. “One of the things is that the Democratic primary is in such disarray of their own making that it’s kind of hard, even at this late date, to know exactly which candidate is gonna be the best one to choose,” he said. “Six weeks ago, Joe Biden was the front-runner, and everybody was saying he was assured of the nomination. And now he’s dropping like a rock. It might be the best vote would be to prop up Joe Biden.” Sullivan set up a poll on the Operation Chaos 2020 Web site asking “which crazy Democrat candidate” participants in the operation should vote for. Late last week, Sanders was winning in a landslide, but, over the weekend, thousands of new votes came in for Elizabeth Warren. “I think her socialist policies would be a big loser in the general election, so I can see why Republicans would want her to be at the top of the ticket,” Sullivan told me. It may be that deciding which candidate is the least likely to beat Trump is no easier than deciding which is most likely to do so.
The kind of voting that Martin and Sullivan are pushing for is often called party raiding, and it has been around for a long time. Measuring its effect is difficult, but it is usually thought to be very small. (In 2008, when Limbaugh was pushing Clinton, some Obama supporters were convinced that bad-faith Republican voters had won the Indiana primary for her, but this was disputed.) That said, South Carolina in 2020 is a “perfect storm of crossover-voting incentives,” according to Josh Putnam, a political scientist based in Wilmington, North Carolina, who runs the election-consulting firm FHQ Strategies. Putnam pointed to the earliness of the primary and the absence of a G.O.P. contest in the state and noted that, in South Carolina, unlike in many other states, primary participants don’t have to publicly proclaim that they belong to the party whose primary they are voting in. It may not hurt that President Trump has openly encouraged party raiding: at a rally in Manchester the night before the New Hampshire primary, Trump said, “So I hear a lot of Republicans tomorrow will vote for the weakest candidate possible of the Democrats. Does that make sense? You people wouldn’t do that!” (New Hampshire has a semi-open primary: those who are not registered as a member of a party can vote in either race.) Trump added, “My only problem is I’m trying to figure who is their weakest candidate—I think they’re all weak!” The South Carolina effort “has the potential to not only affect the race but how the field of candidates continues to winnow,” Putnam said. “The final remaining variable is promotion.”
Martin has been trying to spread the word on Facebook, where, on the official Trump 2-29 page, you can see debates about the plan unfold in real time. “Bernie is leading in the polls,” a Charleston resident named Sheri Irwin wrote. “Why on earth would we vote for him?” A man named Paul Fallavollita responded by highlighting South Carolina’s importance to Biden, adding, “A lot of corporations and banks have said they’ll pull their donations away from the Democratic Party if Bernie is the nominee. Here’s an opportunity to starve them of funds. Plus, if Bernie wins most of the primaries and the DNC cheats him, his voters will stay home in November.” Irwin wasn’t convinced. “This is how we got the usurper Obama,” she wrote. Then another South Carolina voter, Clark Mccauley, chimed in. “Democrat party don’t want Bernie that’s why we need to vote for him,” he wrote. “He is the craziest.” Lisa S. Marie wasn’t sold. “Good to know that the Tea Party is now pro abortion and for socialism,” she commented. “Good luck selling that!”
Marie is not the only South Carolina conservative who simply can’t stomach voting for someone whose views diverge so sharply from her own, regardless of the potential payoff. Hal Roach, a fifty-eight-year-old lawyer in Greenville, told me that he had friends who were originally “on board to vote for Bernie, but, after looking at some of these debates, they’re saying, ‘They’re all crazy, and there’s no way I can possibly and in good conscience ever vote for anybody up there,’ ” even to help Trump. Still, most Republicans, he believes, are less conflicted about crossing over than they are about who to choose. “Do you pick the most sane—the least crazy, as I view it—Democratic nominee?” he said. “For me, that would be Amy Klobuchar. Or do you pick the biggest whack job—that’s one of my favorite words—who I believe to be Bernie.” Roach has settled on Sanders.
Gaye Holt, a “very conservative, Christian-based Republican” who works for a family-owned screen-printing business in Greer, first heard about the Trump 2-29 effort on Facebook and has been fully convinced by the case for Sanders. “I think he’s a Communist, a Marxist,” she told me. “He wants to give everything for free and have no capitalism in America, even though he flies around on his private jets and town cars.” Holt also told me that she had seen the Democrats doing their own party raiding during a previous election. In the 2012 Republican primary, she was a poll worker, she said, and one of her jobs was to ask those who showed up which primary they had arrived to vote in. “A number of people said they wanted to vote in the Democratic primary,” she recalled. “And I would explain, ‘Well, there’s no Democratic primary today, there’s only a Republican’ ”—that year, the two contests were scheduled a week apart—“and their response, every single time, was ‘Oh, I want to vote for Rick Santorum,’ ” the former Republican senator from Pennsylvania. She added, “Not to judge anyone, but I knew these people were not Republicans.” Holt is convinced that these people had been “guided by someone” to vote for Santorum, “because he would be the easiest for Obama to beat.” If this reflected a concerted effort, it was not a successful one: in 2012, Newt Gingrich won the state’s Republican primary. Santorum finished third.
Among the reasons that party raiding is unlikely to have a tremendous effect on the Democratic nomination is that, in most states, including South Carolina, the Party awards delegates proportionally, according to the percentage of the vote received. (The Republican race, on the other hand, features many winner-take-all states.) When Clinton eked out a win over Obama in Indiana, in 2008, Obama still received thirty-four of the state’s seventy-two pledged delegates.
But Martin emphasized that upending the Democrats’ nominating process is, for her, a secondary goal. Martin is an organizer for the Spartanburg Tea Party and a former member of the South Carolina Republican Platform Committee, and she has been advocating for closed primaries for more than a decade. “Anytime a Democrat comes and votes in a primary that I’m also voting in, my vote is diluted,” she told me. “So it’s a very personal thing. It impacts who represents me.” Sullivan, the consultant, is also in favor of closed primaries, as is Leupp, the Greenville G.O.P. chair. “I go to a Baptist church,” Leupp told me. “When we go to pick a new minister, my Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, and Mormon friends shouldn’t have a say.” He went on, “This Democratic primary has brought attention to something we feel needs to be changed. If it also disrupts the Democrats, so be it.”
In this respect, at least, the campaigns led by Martin and Sullivan have already made some headway. The state senator Marlon Kimpson, a Democrat who represents Charleston, has introduced a bill to end open primaries in South Carolina, and he cited Republican efforts to vote in the 2020 Democratic primary in his argument for the legislation. Martin posted a video of Kimpson’s remarks on Facebook, writing, “LOOK! Listen! this is what our Trump 2-29 Campaign activists have accomplished in just the first few days . . . Welcome to the team Senator Marlon Kimpson!”
“This is not targeted at the dissatisfied Republicans who are in good faith voting in our primary this time,” Kimpson told me. “It’s designed to send a message to the people who want to unfairly influence our process by voting for the weaker candidate.” Kimpson agrees with Martin about who that is. “The Party is searching for a moderate candidate, and Bernie has seized on the division in the Party. But, by every indication, a democratic socialist is problematic. I think the national data bears that out.” In a recent Gallup poll, a majority of Americans said that they wouldn’t vote for a socialist—but Sanders comes out ahead of Trump in an average of head-to-head national polls and has performed better in such polls than most of his Democratic competitors. (Sanders, who is running as a Democrat for the Presidency but is still an Independent in the Senate, has also expressed support, in the past, for open primaries, in which he has often done well.) It’s possible that conservative party raiders, like Limbaugh twelve years ago, have too much confidence in their political forecasting. As for the likelihood of his bill passing, Kimpson said, “I’ve asked for an expedited hearing. I don’t know that the judiciary chairman will give it to me. We’ll be talking this week.” He doubts that it will be addressed before February 29th.


newyorker--2020-02-15--Seven Questions for Michael Bloomberg

Seven Questions for Michael Bloomberg

Michael Bloomberg is now a serious contender for the 2020 Democratic Presidential nomination .
His unprecedented spending on campaign ads—more than three hundred million dollars , according to some accounts—has lifted him to third place in the Real Clear Politics national poll average .
A new poll on Thursday , from the firm St. Pete Polls , showed him leading in Florida .
He ’ s also spending heavily on the ground .
Even in Maine , the Bangor Daily News reports , he has hired twenty staffers and dozens of volunteers .
The only other candidates with local offices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who are both from nearby states .
The skeptics about Bloomberg ’ s viability , myself included , underestimated the power of money , and also , perhaps , the strength of Bloomberg ’ s personal brand .
With a résumé that includes being a successful entrepreneur , serving three terms as mayor of New York City , and providing gobs of financial support to various liberal causes such as gun control , abortion rights , and voter-registration efforts , he has earned ( or bought ) good will , especially among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ askance at Sanders ’ s rise .
But now the game is going to become more challenging for Bloomberg .
As he takes part in debates and competes in actual primaries , beginning with Super Tuesday , on March 3rd , he ’ ll get asked some awkward questions , and not just about stop-and-frisk , the controversial and discriminatory policing technique that he championed as mayor , which has already dogged his campaign .
Here are seven more questions for Bloomberg to answer : 1 .
If you win in November , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employs more than twenty thousand people and reportedly has annual revenues of more than ten billion dollars ?
Bloomberg has called Donald Trump corrupt , but he hasn ’ t fully spelled out how he would differentiate himself from the incumbent President , who held onto his business empire after the 2016 election and merely transferred day-to-day control of it to his sons .
When Bloomberg became mayor , he removed himself from day-to-day control of Bloomberg L.P. but maintained ownership and retained the right to take part in major decisions involving the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had already been mayor for five years , the New York Times reported that he still spoke regularly with senior executives at Bloomberg L.P .
In December , 2018 , Bloomberg intimated that if he was elected as President , he might sell Bloomberg L.P. , saying , “ I think at my age , if selling it is possible , I would do that.
” But he has also raised the possibility of maintaining ownership and placing the company in a blind trust .
2 .
Why won ’ t you allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ L.P. to speak out publicly ?
According to ABC News , at least seventeen women have taken legal action against the company over the past three decades , “ with three of the cases specifically naming Bloomberg for his role in creating a toxic corporate culture , ” although none of the cases has made it to trial before dismissal or settlement .
One woman alleged that , after she announced she was pregnant , he said to her , “ Kill it.
” ( Bloomberg has repeatedly denied having said this .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sexist comments in the office , including , “ I ’ d like to do that piece of meat.
” Although Bloomberg has expressed regret about past “ bawdy jokes , ” he has refused to release any women from the nondisclosure agreements that they signed with his company as part of settlements .
“ We do n't have anything to hide , ” he said on “ The View , ” in January , “ But we made legal agreements which both sides wanted to keep things from coming out.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your policy be on charter schools ?
As mayor , Bloomberg championed charters in New York City , and he has contributed to other Democrats who support them .
Many Democrats , including the major teachers ’ unions , are strongly opposed to charters ; Sanders and Warren have both pledged to eliminate federal funding for them .
During the 2016 Democratic primary , Hillary Clinton reversed her prior support of charters .
Bloomberg seems highly unlikely to do that , but what is his plan ?
4 .
Do you support Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulations that Congress adopted after the financial crisis ?
Speaking at a securities-industry conference in 2014 , Bloomberg criticized the landmark 2010 Dodd-Frank Act .
According to a report from Buzzfeed News at the time , Bloomberg said that some of the new rules “ can be dysfunctional , ” and added , “ You don ’ t write a piece of legislation that way by letting Congress do it.
” The legislation should have been “ created by the people who really understand how the world works , how financial services work.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ stricter regulations in general , arguing that restricting the amount of risk-taking in the financial system could do the economy great harm .
“ If you reduce the risk , they can ’ t make the money , they can ’ t provide the financing that this country and world needs to create jobs and build infrastructure , ” he said .
5 .
Why did you say that the end of “ redlining , ” the discriminatory practice by which banks refused home mortgages in nonwhite areas , was responsible for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all started back when there was a lot of pressure on banks to make loans to everyone , ” Bloomberg said at a forum , in 2008 , according to the Associated Press .
“ Congress got involved—local elected officials , as well—and said , ‘ Oh that ’ s not fair , these people should be able to get credit.
’ ” This theory of the crisis ignores , or downplays , the role of Wall Street banks , including the successor to one that Bloomberg used to work for , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big profits by issuing questionable loans and dicing them up into various exotic securities .
Virtually all of Bloomberg ’ s Democratic rivals have said that they would look to set up a nationwide system of day care for children of preschool age .
Under the plans rolled out by Joe Biden , Sanders , and Tom Steyer , the service would be free to everybody , with taxpayers in general picking up the tab .
Pete Buttigieg , Amy Klobuchar , and Warren have said they would provide free pre-K to poor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , subsidies that would gradually phase out at higher income levels .
As mayor of New York , Bloomberg expanded pre-K programs for poor families , but stopped short of setting up a universal program .
That step was left to his successor , Bill de Blasio , whose own Presidential bid fizzled last year , and who has recently endorsed Bernie Sanders .
7 .
If you were elected , would you do anything to reduce the influence of money in politics ?
Would Democratic voters , whom Bloomberg is asking to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ type of assurance that he would be the last plutocrat President ?
On his campaign Web site , Bloomberg pledges to revitalize the Voting Rights Act and end gerrymandering .
There is nothing , however , about limiting the sort of spending that he is engaging in , curbing the power of lobbyists—a number of whom are working on his campaign—or appointing Supreme Court Justices who are committed to overturning Citizens United .
( His campaign said he would mirror the anti-lobbying measures he introduced as mayor . )
Unless Bloomberg embraces an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he is essentially offering the voters a form of benign oligarchy .
To be sure , that would be better than Trump ’ s malignant oligarchy .
But can ’ t American democracy do better than that ?
Over to you , Mike .

Michael Bloomberg is now a serious contender for the 2020 Democratic Presidential nomination. His unprecedented spending on campaign ads—more than three hundred million dollars, according to some accounts—has lifted him to third place in the Real Clear Politics national poll average. A new poll on Thursday, from the firm St. Pete Polls, showed him leading in Florida. He’s also spending heavily on the ground. Even in Maine, the Bangor Daily News reports, he has hired twenty staffers and dozens of volunteers. The only other candidates with local offices there are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who are both from nearby states.
The skeptics about Bloomberg’s viability, myself included, underestimated the power of money, and also, perhaps, the strength of Bloomberg’s personal brand. With a résumé that includes being a successful entrepreneur, serving three terms as mayor of New York City, and providing gobs of financial support to various liberal causes such as gun control, abortion rights, and voter-registration efforts, he has earned (or bought) good will, especially among moderate Democrats and independents who are looking askance at Sanders’s rise. But now the game is going to become more challenging for Bloomberg. As he takes part in debates and competes in actual primaries, beginning with Super Tuesday, on March 3rd, he’ll get asked some awkward questions, and not just about stop-and-frisk, the controversial and discriminatory policing technique that he championed as mayor, which has already dogged his campaign. Here are seven more questions for Bloomberg to answer:
1. If you win in November, will you sell Bloomberg L.P., which employs more than twenty thousand people and reportedly has annual revenues of more than ten billion dollars?
Bloomberg has called Donald Trump corrupt, but he hasn’t fully spelled out how he would differentiate himself from the incumbent President, who held onto his business empire after the 2016 election and merely transferred day-to-day control of it to his sons. When Bloomberg became mayor, he removed himself from day-to-day control of Bloomberg L.P. but maintained ownership and retained the right to take part in major decisions involving the company. In 2007, when he had already been mayor for five years, the New York Times reported that he still spoke regularly with senior executives at Bloomberg L.P. In December, 2018, Bloomberg intimated that if he was elected as President, he might sell Bloomberg L.P., saying, “I think at my age, if selling it is possible, I would do that.” But he has also raised the possibility of maintaining ownership and placing the company in a blind trust.
2. Why won’t you allow women who filed sexual-harassment cases against Bloomberg L.P. to speak out publicly?
According to ABC News, at least seventeen women have taken legal action against the company over the past three decades, “with three of the cases specifically naming Bloomberg for his role in creating a toxic corporate culture,” although none of the cases has made it to trial before dismissal or settlement. One woman alleged that, after she announced she was pregnant, he said to her, “Kill it.” (Bloomberg has repeatedly denied having said this.) Other women recalled him making lewd, sexist comments in the office, including, “I’d like to do that piece of meat.” Although Bloomberg has expressed regret about past “bawdy jokes,” he has refused to release any women from the nondisclosure agreements that they signed with his company as part of settlements. “We don’t have anything to hide,” he said on “The View,” in January. “But we made legal agreements which both sides wanted to keep things from coming out.”
3. As President, what will your policy be on charter schools?
As mayor, Bloomberg championed charters in New York City, and he has contributed to other Democrats who support them. Many Democrats, including the major teachers’ unions, are strongly opposed to charters; Sanders and Warren have both pledged to eliminate federal funding for them. During the 2016 Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton reversed her prior support of charters. Bloomberg seems highly unlikely to do that, but what is his plan?
4. Do you support Republicans’ calls to relax the stricter financial regulations that Congress adopted after the financial crisis?
Speaking at a securities-industry conference in 2014, Bloomberg criticized the landmark 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. According to a report from BuzzFeed News at the time, Bloomberg said that some of the new rules “can be dysfunctional,” and added, “You don’t write a piece of legislation that way by letting Congress do it.” The legislation should have been “created by the people who really understand how the world works, how financial services work.” Bloomberg also questioned the need for stricter regulations in general, arguing that restricting the amount of risk-taking in the financial system could do the economy great harm. “If you reduce the risk, they can’t make the money, they can’t provide the financing that this country and world needs to create jobs and build infrastructure,” he said.
5. Why did you say that the end of “redlining,” the discriminatory practice by which banks refused home mortgages in nonwhite areas, was responsible for the financial crisis of 2008?
“It all started back when there was a lot of pressure on banks to make loans to everyone,” Bloomberg said at a forum, in 2008, according to the Associated Press. “Congress got involved—local elected officials, as well—and said, ‘Oh that’s not fair, these people should be able to get credit.’ ” This theory of the crisis ignores, or downplays, the role of Wall Street banks, including the successor to one that Bloomberg used to work for, in creating an entire subprime-loan industry that made big profits by issuing questionable loans and dicing them up into various exotic securities.
6. Do you support universal pre-K?
Virtually all of Bloomberg’s Democratic rivals have said that they would look to set up a nationwide system of day care for children of preschool age. Under the plans rolled out by Joe Biden, Sanders, and Tom Steyer, the service would be free to everybody, with taxpayers in general picking up the tab. Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, and Warren have said they would provide free pre-K to poor families, and, to other households, subsidies that would gradually phase out at higher income levels. As mayor of New York, Bloomberg expanded pre-K programs for poor families, but stopped short of setting up a universal program. That step was left to his successor, Bill de Blasio, whose own Presidential bid fizzled last year, and who has recently endorsed Bernie Sanders.
7. If you were elected, would you do anything to reduce the influence of money in politics? Would Democratic voters, whom Bloomberg is asking to support his billion-dollar campaign, get any type of assurance that he would be the last plutocrat President?
On his campaign Web site, Bloomberg pledges to revitalize the Voting Rights Act and end gerrymandering. There is nothing, however, about limiting the sort of spending that he is engaging in, curbing the power of lobbyists—a number of whom are working on his campaign—or appointing Supreme Court Justices who are committed to overturning Citizens United. (His campaign said he would mirror the anti-lobbying measures he introduced as mayor.) Unless Bloomberg embraces an aggressive agenda to reform the political system, he is essentially offering the voters a form of benign oligarchy. To be sure, that would be better than Trump’s malignant oligarchy. But can’t American democracy do better than that? Over to you, Mike.


newyorker--2020-02-20--Barry Blitt’s “All That Money Can Buy”

Barry Blitt’s “All That Money Can Buy”

Any number of issues could have posed problems for Bloomberg on Wednesday evening , but the most incendiary were related @ @ @ @ @ has allegedly made to female employees and accusations of gender discrimination at his company .
@ @ @ @ @ Hallie Jackson , one of the moderators , confronted Bloomberg directly about the charges , @ @ @ @ @ expect better from their nominee ?
” Bloomberg tried to pivot , responding that a @ @ @ @ @ that the most senior member of his administration in City Hall was a woman , @ @ @ @ @ of his city commissioners were women .
But Senator Elizabeth Warren , who appeared energized @ @ @ @ @ a blunt rejoinder .
“ I hope you heard what his defense was , ” @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ve been nice to some women.
’ ” Warren then challenged Bloomberg to @ @ @ @ @ complaints against him from their nondisclosure agreements .

Any number of issues could have posed problems for Bloomberg on Wednesday evening, but the most incendiary were related to the degrading comments he has allegedly made to female employees and accusations of gender discrimination at his company. Early in the debate, Hallie Jackson, one of the moderators, confronted Bloomberg directly about the charges, asking, “Should Democrats expect better from their nominee?”
Bloomberg tried to pivot, responding that a woman runs his foundation, that the most senior member of his administration in City Hall was a woman, and that forty per cent of his city commissioners were women. But Senator Elizabeth Warren, who appeared energized on Wednesday night, had a blunt rejoinder. “I hope you heard what his defense was,” she said. “ ‘I’ve been nice to some women.’ ” Warren then challenged Bloomberg to release women who had filed complaints against him from their nondisclosure agreements.


newyorker--2020-02-20--A Young Swiss Photographer’s Transfixing Portraits of the Women in Her Orbit

The topless figure in “ Laurence , ” mostly obscured and radically foreshortened , is perched on something , swinging her legs .
Or maybe she ’ s jumping .
Simond must have lain on the floor below her to snap the photo , peering up through the diagonal frame of her friend ’ s calves .
Only one of Laurence ’ s breasts is visible , in shadow , and we can see just half of her face .
A single kohl-rimmed eye , in sharp focus , glances dispassionately down at the lens .
“ Tamara ” shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the waist down , bent forward and turning away ; one leg is propped up , her long thigh running almost parallel to the photo ’ s bottom edge .
Again , the vantage is low , but this time Simond brings the foreground into focus , to show the curves and crease of Tamara ’ s butt and the pale fuzz on her body glinting in the light .
Her bobbed hair swings forward , and her elbow is thrown out behind her .
Like “ Laurence , ” the photo is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be less compelling or less aggressive—more clear-cut , perhaps simply come-hither—were it not for the cryptic movements that Simond captures .
These photos have a vintage cinematic quality , but Simond ’ s exact allusions are hard to pin down .
She maintains an ambiguous relationship to time , in part through her subtle styling .
The scant clothing that her subjects wear is often difficult to place .
The dark-maned woman in a portrait titled “ Soumeya , ” for instance , has on a white poet ’ s blouse ; taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be from yesterday , from the early twentieth century , or from a period drama—set in which period , though , it ’ s hard to say .
The crew-neck shirt worn in the closeup “ Sunna , ” which shows a blonde in reverie , does date it as contemporary—but only within a window of several decades .

The topless figure in “Laurence,” mostly obscured and radically foreshortened, is perched on something, swinging her legs. Or maybe she’s jumping. Simond must have lain on the floor below her to snap the photo, peering up through the diagonal frame of her friend’s calves. Only one of Laurence’s breasts is visible, in shadow, and we can see just half of her face. A single kohl-rimmed eye, in sharp focus, glances dispassionately down at the lens. “Tamara” shows a woman in profile, nude from the waist down, bent forward and turning away; one leg is propped up, her long thigh running almost parallel to the photo’s bottom edge. Again, the vantage is low, but this time Simond brings the foreground into focus, to show the curves and crease of Tamara’s butt and the pale fuzz on her body glinting in the light. Her bobbed hair swings forward, and her elbow is thrown out behind her. Like “Laurence,” the photo is an action shot. Both images would be less compelling or less aggressive—more clear-cut, perhaps simply come-hither—were it not for the cryptic movements that Simond captures.
“Soumeya.”
These photos have a vintage cinematic quality, but Simond’s exact allusions are hard to pin down. She maintains an ambiguous relationship to time, in part through her subtle styling. The scant clothing that her subjects wear is often difficult to place. The dark-maned woman in a portrait titled “Soumeya,” for instance, has on a white poet’s blouse; taken out of context, the image might be from yesterday, from the early twentieth century, or from a period drama—set in which period, though, it’s hard to say. The crew-neck shirt worn in the closeup “Sunna,” which shows a blonde in reverie, does date it as contemporary—but only within a window of several decades.


newyorker--2020-02-20--Pop Smoke’s Majesty and Menace

Pop Smoke’s Majesty and Menace

There was nothing about Pop Smoke that suggested fragility .
The rapper , from Brooklyn ’ s Canarsie neighborhood , was at once larger than life—luxury cars , high fashion , glitzy jewelry—and too cool for any of it .
His music was all bravado and swagger , topped off by a preternatural charm that could draw in even the most resistant .
He seemed , as he proclaims on the opening track of his latest mixtape , invincible .
Until he wasn ’ t .
In the early-morning hours of Wednesday , he was gunned down in Los Angeles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Although we ’ ve found ourselves in this place too much lately—trying to make sense of a life ended barely into its twenties—this moment still arrives like a gut punch .
Hip-hop ’ s youngest fans are learning what it means to lose the artists whom they love , far too early—how their idols are just flesh and bone , colliding with the best and worst of luck .
Pop had an entire city rooting for him .
His bass-baritone voice , somewhere between a growl and snarl , was a showstopper that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; his songs became the soundtrack of New York ’ s streets and parks .
He wasn ’ t a product of label dollars and marketing but a homegrown hero whose legend travelled the old-school way : word of mouth .
Perhaps you caught it , too , blaring from somebody ’ s car windows , pouring through portable speakers on the train , or from a sidewalk conversation , as the answer to questions , “ What are you listening to ?
” and “ Have you heard .
.
.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truly organic fandom , at a time when one can never be too sure .
Brooklyn drill , a style of the Chicago-born subgenre drill , took the dark nihilism of the original and the grimy production of London ’ s iteration and put a decidedly New York , rotten-apple spin on it , helping to rejuvenate hip-hop in the city .
Pop , though not the sound ’ s originator , was its most visible proponent .
His earliest releases—the brooding “ MPR ” and the even more ominous “ Flexin ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rappers ) —endeared him to local listeners , who could hear themselves in his malignant pleasures .
But the undeniable hit “ Welcome to the Party ” made him a phenom .
As the song grew in popularity , Brooklyn drill established itself as a sound that the area could rally behind , and Pop as a rapper it could champion .
This week , about a year after uploading those first songs , Pop landed his first Top Ten on the Billboard 200 , with his second mixtape , “ Meet the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an artist settling into his element , more polished but still raw .
This past Sunday , Pop was scheduled to headline a show at Brooklyn ’ s Kings Theatre that would have shined a spotlight on this prodigious new chapter of the borough ’ s storied hip-hop history , but he was , once again , prohibited by the N.Y.P.D .
from taking his victory lap , a decision that feels supremely unjust today .
Despite the small miracle of his ascent , now cemented forever in the charts , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential that ’ s gone , the début album that was still to come , the upcoming sold-out shows and festival appearances—dates that once held the possibilities of his magic .
It ’ s hard to shake the feeling that there was still so much more that Pop was going to do .
We knew what he had overcome to get here , but what could he have done now that he ’ d arrived ?
Hip-hop may be global , but regionalism is what gives it soul—the intangible minutiae in a rapper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or demeanor that are recognizable only to those who have been where he ’ s been , felt what he ’ s felt , survived where he survived .
He was Canarsie through and through , a quality that he proudly let seep into his music , and in doing so won respect in a place where it isn ’ t easily given .
As the genre and its community grieve yet another tragic and untimely loss , it burns especially in his home town , which was so much a part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ music captivating .
If you were here for the summer of Pop Smoke , consider yourself fortunate .
With his death , hip-hop loses not only one of its most promising stars but also one of its most incredible voices , equal parts majesty and menace—an instrument that he so beautifully used to bring a Brooklyn story to the world .

There was nothing about Pop Smoke that suggested fragility. The rapper, from Brooklyn’s Canarsie neighborhood, was at once larger than life—luxury cars, high fashion, glitzy jewelry—and too cool for any of it. His music was all bravado and swagger, topped off by a preternatural charm that could draw in even the most resistant. He seemed, as he proclaims on the opening track of his latest mixtape, invincible. Until he wasn’t. In the early-morning hours of Wednesday, he was gunned down in Los Angeles, at the age of twenty.
Although we’ve found ourselves in this place too much lately—trying to make sense of a life ended barely into its twenties—this moment still arrives like a gut punch. Hip-hop’s youngest fans are learning what it means to lose the artists whom they love, far too early—how their idols are just flesh and bone, colliding with the best and worst of luck. Pop had an entire city rooting for him. His bass-baritone voice, somewhere between a growl and snarl, was a showstopper that could make shit talk sound like seduction; his songs became the soundtrack of New York’s streets and parks. He wasn’t a product of label dollars and marketing but a homegrown hero whose legend travelled the old-school way: word of mouth. Perhaps you caught it, too, blaring from somebody’s car windows, pouring through portable speakers on the train, or from a sidewalk conversation, as the answer to questions, “What are you listening to?” and “Have you heard . . . ” Pop was proof of the power of truly organic fandom, at a time when one can never be too sure.
Brooklyn drill, a style of the Chicago-born subgenre drill, took the dark nihilism of the original and the grimy production of London’s iteration and put a decidedly New York, rotten-apple spin on it, helping to rejuvenate hip-hop in the city. Pop, though not the sound’s originator, was its most visible proponent. His earliest releases—the brooding “MPR” and the even more ominous “Flexin’ ” (both responses to other drill rappers)—endeared him to local listeners, who could hear themselves in his malignant pleasures. But the undeniable hit “Welcome to the Party” made him a phenom. As the song grew in popularity, Brooklyn drill established itself as a sound that the area could rally behind, and Pop as a rapper it could champion.
This week, about a year after uploading those first songs, Pop landed his first Top Ten on the Billboard 200, with his second mixtape, “Meet the Woo 2.” The sophomore collection reflected an artist settling into his element, more polished but still raw. This past Sunday, Pop was scheduled to headline a show at Brooklyn’s Kings Theatre that would have shined a spotlight on this prodigious new chapter of the borough’s storied hip-hop history, but he was, once again, prohibited by the N.Y.P.D. from taking his victory lap, a decision that feels supremely unjust today. Despite the small miracle of his ascent, now cemented forever in the charts, it’s hard to not think of the potential that’s gone, the début album that was still to come, the upcoming sold-out shows and festival appearances—dates that once held the possibilities of his magic. It’s hard to shake the feeling that there was still so much more that Pop was going to do. We knew what he had overcome to get here, but what could he have done now that he’d arrived?
Hip-hop may be global, but regionalism is what gives it soul—the intangible minutiae in a rapper’s choice of words, flow, or demeanor that are recognizable only to those who have been where he’s been, felt what he’s felt, survived where he survived. He was Canarsie through and through, a quality that he proudly let seep into his music, and in doing so won respect in a place where it isn’t easily given. As the genre and its community grieve yet another tragic and untimely loss, it burns especially in his home town, which was so much a part of his story and what made his music captivating. If you were here for the summer of Pop Smoke, consider yourself fortunate. With his death, hip-hop loses not only one of its most promising stars but also one of its most incredible voices, equal parts majesty and menace—an instrument that he so beautifully used to bring a Brooklyn story to the world.


newyorker--2020-02-20--Does It Really Matter Who the Democratic Nominee Is?

Rachel Bitecofer , a political scientist at the Niskanen Center , in Washington , D.C. , thinks that most pollsters @ @ @ @ @ ideas about how candidates succeed .
She argues that the outcome has far less to @ @ @ @ @ ideology than we think it does .
Her perspective has been controversial , but in @ @ @ @ @ before the midterm elections , her model predicted the Democratic victory in the House with @ @ @ @ @ forecasters .
And it suggests that Democrats should stop worrying about losing , and focus @ @ @ @ @ .

Photograph by Ethan Miller / Getty
Rachel Bitecofer, a political scientist at the Niskanen Center, in Washington, D.C., thinks that most pollsters and forecasters rely on outdated ideas about how candidates succeed. She argues that the outcome has far less to do with the candidates’ ideology than we think it does. Her perspective has been controversial, but in July, 2018, months before the midterm elections, her model predicted the Democratic victory in the House with an accuracy unmatched by conventional forecasters. And it suggests that Democrats should stop worrying about losing, and focus on firing up their voters.