thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--Quick fix for multiemployer pensions unlikely on Capitol Hill

Congress is unlikely to fix the country 's formidable multiemployer pension crisis before the 2020 elections , even though many of the plans face insolvency in the not-too-distant future .
`` This crisis is severe and gets worse every day , '' Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley said upon introducing a plan to address the shortfall .
The Iowa Republican added that `` we need to act quickly . ''
Rachel Greszler , a researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation , said the urgency to act on saving these pensions is growing because more of them are nearing insolvency .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to do something because there are plenty of … plans out there that are approaching insolvency , '' Greszler said .
The term `` insolvency '' does not mean that the plans will be broke with no financial resources .
It refers to pensions not having a sufficient amount of resources to distribute benefits that were promised to retirees , which can mean benefit cuts to those recipients .
Since 2015 , more than 20 multiemployer pensions have requested the Treasury Department cut benefits because of insolvency , according to the Pension @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United Furniture Workers Pension , which is facing insolvency in 2021 .
The Treasury Department approved its benefit cuts to its more than 9,000 retirees .
The Central States Pension Fund is also on the list .
It has more than 400,000 participants , who are either retired or currently working , and was denied its request for benefit cuts because the reductions would not be enough to make it solvent over the long term .
The fund is projected to become insolvent in 2025 .
In total , as many as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ participants are underfunded by $ 56.5 billion and have informed regulators and participants that they could fail within the next 20 years .
The plans do n't have enough money to pay the full promised benefits , according to Cheiron Inc. , a pension actuarial firm .
`` If Congress does n't act soon , many more plans will fail , and participants will lose their pensions , '' said Joshua Davis , a principal consulting actuary at Cheiron , who analyzed the filings .
Last December , Congress approved , and President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1.4 trillion spending bill that also rescued the 1974 United Mine Workers of America Pension Plan from insolvency .
Nearly 100,000 retired coal miners depend on the fund to make ends meet , and its enactment marks the first time in more than a generation that taxpayers bailed out a pension plan , according to the New York Times .
In its effort to save more plans from insolvency , the Democrat-controlled House in July passed legislation allowing the Treasury Department to provide loans to underfunded , multiemployer pensions .
The loans would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be paid back over 30 years .
But it is not clear if the pensions receiving these loans will be financially able to pay them back .
Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas , the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee , recently drew attention to this possibility during a committee markup of the bill .
`` Forcing hand-picked plans to accept crushing balloon payment loans they can never hope to repay , while putting off necessary reforms to make them solvent , hurts workers , businesses , and innocent taxpayers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plans , '' he said in prepared remarks , adding that `` to think the government can fully guarantee pension promises based on a 7 or 8 % annual return — that 's the same fantasy that got us into this mess . ''
A loan from the federal government that is not repaid is considered a bailout by some on Capitol Hill .
The House-approved bill is not expected to pass the Senate , according to Michael Zona , communications director for Grassley 's committee .
`` For any legislation to pass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the problem instead of simply bailing out a failed system that will end up needing another bailout down the road , '' he said via email .
Grassley teamed up last November with Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee on a proposal to fix multiemployer plans that do not include a bailout .
It , in part , allows the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation , the organization tasked with saving underfunded pensions , to increase premiums paid by multiemployer plans .
The senators are receiving comments on their plan before they formally introduce it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the multiemployer pension problem is ongoing between the House and Senate .
Grassley and House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal , a Massachusetts Democrat , are engaged in the discussion .
But Neal is pushing the House-passed bill that the Senate has shown little interest in pursuing .
`` Chairman Neal has spoken with Sen. Grassley about his bipartisan multiemployer pensions legislation and is continuing to urge swift Senate passage , '' a committee spokesperson said .
Until lawmakers get on the same page in terms of moving legislation that can pass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little chance for fixing multiemployer pensions any time soon .

Congress is unlikely to fix the country's formidable multiemployer pension crisis before the 2020 elections, even though many of the plans face insolvency in the not-too-distant future.
"This crisis is severe and gets worse every day," Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley said upon introducing a plan to address the shortfall. The Iowa Republican added that "we need to act quickly."
Rachel Greszler, a researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the urgency to act on saving these pensions is growing because more of them are nearing insolvency.
"I hear more reports about the need to do something because there are plenty of … plans out there that are approaching insolvency," Greszler said.
The term "insolvency" does not mean that the plans will be broke with no financial resources. It refers to pensions not having a sufficient amount of resources to distribute benefits that were promised to retirees, which can mean benefit cuts to those recipients.
Since 2015, more than 20 multiemployer pensions have requested the Treasury Department cut benefits because of insolvency, according to the Pension Rights Center. On that list is the United Furniture Workers Pension, which is facing insolvency in 2021. The Treasury Department approved its benefit cuts to its more than 9,000 retirees. The Central States Pension Fund is also on the list. It has more than 400,000 participants, who are either retired or currently working, and was denied its request for benefit cuts because the reductions would not be enough to make it solvent over the long term. The fund is projected to become insolvent in 2025.
In total, as many as 117 multiemployer pension plans covering 1.4 million participants are underfunded by $56.5 billion and have informed regulators and participants that they could fail within the next 20 years. The plans don't have enough money to pay the full promised benefits, according to Cheiron Inc., a pension actuarial firm.
"If Congress doesn't act soon, many more plans will fail, and participants will lose their pensions," said Joshua Davis, a principal consulting actuary at Cheiron, who analyzed the filings.
Last December, Congress approved, and President Trump signed into law, a $1.4 trillion spending bill that also rescued the 1974 United Mine Workers of America Pension Plan from insolvency. Nearly 100,000 retired coal miners depend on the fund to make ends meet, and its enactment marks the first time in more than a generation that taxpayers bailed out a pension plan, according to the New York Times.
In its effort to save more plans from insolvency, the Democrat-controlled House in July passed legislation allowing the Treasury Department to provide loans to underfunded, multiemployer pensions. The loans would stop benefit cuts to retirees and would be paid back over 30 years. But it is not clear if the pensions receiving these loans will be financially able to pay them back.
Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, recently drew attention to this possibility during a committee markup of the bill.
"Forcing hand-picked plans to accept crushing balloon payment loans they can never hope to repay, while putting off necessary reforms to make them solvent, hurts workers, businesses, and innocent taxpayers who did nothing to create these failed plans," he said in prepared remarks, adding that "to think the government can fully guarantee pension promises based on a 7 or 8% annual return — that's the same fantasy that got us into this mess."
A loan from the federal government that is not repaid is considered a bailout by some on Capitol Hill. The House-approved bill is not expected to pass the Senate, according to Michael Zona, communications director for Grassley's committee.
"For any legislation to pass, it must address the root of the problem instead of simply bailing out a failed system that will end up needing another bailout down the road," he said via email.
Grassley teamed up last November with Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee on a proposal to fix multiemployer plans that do not include a bailout. It, in part, allows the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the organization tasked with saving underfunded pensions, to increase premiums paid by multiemployer plans. The senators are receiving comments on their plan before they formally introduce it.
The discussion on how to fix the multiemployer pension problem is ongoing between the House and Senate. Grassley and House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal, a Massachusetts Democrat, are engaged in the discussion. But Neal is pushing the House-passed bill that the Senate has shown little interest in pursuing.
"Chairman Neal has spoken with Sen. Grassley about his bipartisan multiemployer pensions legislation and is continuing to urge swift Senate passage," a committee spokesperson said.
Until lawmakers get on the same page in terms of moving legislation that can pass both chambers of Congress, there is little chance for fixing multiemployer pensions any time soon.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--Republicans fear they must raise extra $1B to face Bloomberg

Republican financiers are reassessing their 2020 fundraising goals , concerned unprecedented personal spending by Michael Bloomberg will erase President Trump 's money edge and turn out voters who swamp GOP candidates down the ticket .
Initial presumptions in Republican circles were that the Trump campaign would need $ 1 billion and his designated outside group , America First committees , about $ 300 million to position the president for reelection .
But , after Bloomberg dropped nearly $ 500 million in 10 weeks on his presidential campaign and vowed to spend unlimited cash against Trump regardless of who wins the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are conferring privately about upping the budget for the campaign , and America First , by approximately $ 1 billion .
“ It ’ s time for Republican bundlers to break the glass and pull out all the stops , ” said Dan Eberhart , a wealthy energy executive who raises money for GOP candidates and has been involved in the discussions .
Trump is off to a fast start .
In January , the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee raised a combined $ 60.5 million in January , bringing its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to $ 525.5 million , with $ 200.4 million in cash on hand .
Meanwhile , the America First committees , a super PAC and issue advocacy group , boasted a $ 106 million war chest , including money raised through the end of January and donor pledges .
The combined figures ostensibly provided Trump with a critical edge over his eventual Democratic challenger .
The Democratic contenders are still mired in a contentious primary campaign , and the Democratic National Committee is underfunded and stretched thin .
Enter Bloomberg .
The 78-year-old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with television ads in English and Spanish while assembling a vast campaign with field and data programs so robust that they amount to a shadow political party .
Republicans are unimpressed with Bloomberg the candidate , especially after his performance in Wednesday ’ s Democratic debate , but some party strategists concede admiration for the former New York City mayor ’ s campaign , saying his strategy is sound and his resources are being deployed smartly .
That ’ s why , with Bloomberg vowing to keep a zombie operation running even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s big-money backers are talking about upping their investment in 2020 .
“ Bloomberg ’ s money is motivating donors to give more , ” a well-connected Republican operative said .
“ People are stepping up.
” Worries about Bloomberg ’ s wallet extend to Republicans focused on congressional contests .
The Democrat was one of the single biggest donors to the liberal cause in the 2018 elections , putting the GOP at an insurmountable disadvantage in several House and Senate races .
Republicans worry the same could happen again this November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or via a rising tide fueled by a Bloomberg organization that is active in districts and states that Democrats usually bypass .
`` It 's hard to win elections getting dramatically outspent , '' a Republican insider said .
`` Absolutely , Bloomberg 's money is a factor . ''
Some senior Republican operatives are less concerned about Bloomberg , although they are being vigilant .
Bloomberg might have forced Republican groups to raise more money sooner than originally planned .
But , with Republicans already expecting Democrats and the constellation of Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pace as they did in the midterm elections , Bloomberg ’ s impact is something they were at least somewhat prepared for .
These Republicans also have confidence in Trump to counter Bloomberg ’ s money .
The president is capable of raising the money he needs to win reelection , they said , and his ability to dominate a campaign is unparalleled — and practically priceless .
“ We aren ’ t freaking out , ” a Trumpworld insider said .
“ As I say to anyone who asks me how Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negative media/attacks : ‘ He is the storm .
They have to deal with him .
’ ”

Republican financiers are reassessing their 2020 fundraising goals, concerned unprecedented personal spending by Michael Bloomberg will erase President Trump's money edge and turn out voters who swamp GOP candidates down the ticket.
Initial presumptions in Republican circles were that the Trump campaign would need $1 billion and its designated outside group, America First committees, about $300 million to position the president for reelection. But, after Bloomberg dropped nearly $500 million in 10 weeks on his presidential campaign and vowed to spend unlimited cash against Trump regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, Republican fundraisers and bundlers are conferring privately about upping the budget for the campaign, and America First, by approximately $1 billion.
“It’s time for Republican bundlers to break the glass and pull out all the stops,” said Dan Eberhart, a wealthy energy executive who raises money for GOP candidates and has been involved in the discussions.
Trump is off to a fast start. In January, the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee raised a combined $60.5 million in January, bringing its total haul for the 2020 election cycle to $525.5 million, with $200.4 million in cash on hand. Meanwhile, the America First committees, a super PAC and issue advocacy group, boasted a $106 million war chest, including money raised through the end of January and donor pledges.
The combined figures ostensibly provided Trump with a critical edge over his eventual Democratic challenger. The Democratic contenders are still mired in a contentious primary campaign, and the Democratic National Committee is underfunded and stretched thin. Enter Bloomberg. The 78-year-old billionaire media mogul is blanketing the country with television ads in English and Spanish while assembling a vast campaign with field and data programs so robust that they amount to a shadow political party.
[Also read: How Bloomberg is spinning his rocky debate performance]
Republicans are unimpressed with Bloomberg the candidate, especially after his performance in Wednesday’s Democratic debate, but some party strategists concede admiration for the former New York City mayor’s campaign, saying his strategy is sound and his resources are being deployed smartly. That’s why, with Bloomberg vowing to keep a zombie operation running even if his presidential bid falters, the GOP’s big-money backers are talking about upping their investment in 2020.
“Bloomberg’s money is motivating donors to give more,” a well-connected Republican operative said. “People are stepping up.”
Worries about Bloomberg’s wallet extend to Republicans focused on congressional contests. The Democrat was one of the single biggest donors to the liberal cause in the 2018 elections, putting the GOP at an insurmountable disadvantage in several House and Senate races. Republicans worry the same could happen again this November, either through direct investments by Bloomberg or via a rising tide fueled by a Bloomberg organization that is active in districts and states that Democrats usually bypass.
"It's hard to win elections getting dramatically outspent," a Republican insider said. "Absolutely, Bloomberg's money is a factor."
Some senior Republican operatives are less concerned about Bloomberg, although they are being vigilant. Bloomberg might have forced Republican groups to raise more money sooner than originally planned. But, with Republicans already expecting Democrats and the constellation of Democratic groups to accumulate cash at a record pace as they did in the midterm elections, Bloomberg’s impact is something they were at least somewhat prepared for.
These Republicans also have confidence in Trump to counter Bloomberg’s money. The president is capable of raising the money he needs to win reelection, they said, and his ability to dominate a campaign is unparalleled — and practically priceless.
“We aren’t freaking out,” a Trumpworld insider said. “As I say to anyone who asks me how Trump deals with the storm of spending and negative media/attacks: ‘He is the storm. They have to deal with him.’”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--Barstool Sports founder: 'Village idiot' Bloomberg was 'executed' at debate

Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy criticized former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg 's first Democratic debate performance , saying the billionaire was `` absolutely savaged '' by his rivals who punched at him `` like a pinata . ''
Portnoy said he was watching college basketball and turned on the ninth Democratic debate `` right when Bloomberg was getting crucified . ''
`` I really did n't have any opinion about Bloomberg , '' Portnoy told Fox News host Tucker Carlson .
`` The only thing I knew about him was when he tried to get rid of big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all I knew about him , but this was like watching Game of Thrones — somebody get absolutely executed right in front of your eyes . ''
Sen. Elizabeth Warren sparred with Bloomberg over nondisclosure agreements the mayor signed with several women who reportedly accused him of sexual harassment .
Bloomberg responded that he only had a `` few '' NDAs `` because some women didn ’ t like some jokes I told.
” '' Once he hesitated and once he panicked and once he was going down the rabbit hole , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just walked offstage .
I would 've said , 'You know , to hell with it .
I 've got billions of dollars .
I do n't need this in my life , ' '' Portnoy said .
`` Somebody like me , who was pretty neutral on him , now thinks he 's the village idiot . ''
Bloomberg has risen sharply in national and state polling throughout February after spending more than $ 400 million to inundate TV and radio airwaves with advertisements .

Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy criticized former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's first Democratic debate performance, saying the billionaire was "absolutely savaged" by his rivals who punched at him "like a pinata."
Portnoy said he was watching college basketball and turned on the ninth Democratic debate "right when Bloomberg was getting crucified."
"I really didn't have any opinion about Bloomberg," Portnoy told Fox News host Tucker Carlson. "The only thing I knew about him was when he tried to get rid of big drinks, big Cokes. That's all I knew about him, but this was like watching Game of Thrones — somebody get absolutely executed right in front of your eyes."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren sparred with Bloomberg over nondisclosure agreements the mayor signed with several women who reportedly accused him of sexual harassment. Bloomberg responded that he only had a "few" NDAs "because some women didn’t like some jokes I told.”
"Once he hesitated and once he panicked and once he was going down the rabbit hole, if I were him, I would've just walked offstage. I would've said, 'You know, to hell with it. I've got billions of dollars. I don't need this in my life,'" Portnoy said. "Somebody like me, who was pretty neutral on him, now thinks he's the village idiot."
Bloomberg has risen sharply in national and state polling throughout February after spending more than $400 million to inundate TV and radio airwaves with advertisements.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--FTC looks into relationship between political campaigns and online influencers

The role of `` influencers '' has taken center stage in the latest debate over how campaigns may advertise online , particularly on social media .
It has also raised the question again of whether tech companies have a responsibility to vet those ads .
In February , the presidential campaign for former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg bought sponsored content to be shared on popular Instagram accounts .
The sudden appearance of `` meme '' advertising , as some termed it , resulted in a now-familiar flurry of concerns about the process .
As a result , Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a policy announcement shortly after a spate of news on the subject , it said , `` We 're allowing US-based political candidates to work with creators to run this content , provided the political candidates are authorized , and the creators disclose any paid partnerships through our branded content tools . ''
The crux is the issue of disclosure — that a person who sees the content can plainly understand that it is paid content and not organic .
But Instagram posts , memes , or other posted content negotiated with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treated exactly the same way as standard political advertising .
It wo n't , for example , be listed in the ad library as a campaign ad .
Standard political ads are cataloged and kept on record for seven years .
The Federal Trade Commission , for its part , voted to approve of the agency 's endorsement guidelines .
FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra issued a statement on the rationale behind that review .
Among other points , he highlighted the idea that `` advertisers and social media platforms are seeking big returns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid advertising to seem more authentic . ''
The FTC added , `` When companies launder advertising by paying an influencer to pretend that their endorsement or review is untainted by a financial relationship , this is illegal payola . ''
A big target of the FTC 's aim is `` fake '' online reviews , or reviews of products or services which were solicited through incentives .
But the applicability to the Bloomberg case , and Chopra 's explicit focus on `` Facebook 's Instagram and Google 's YouTube '' as `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make the political aspect loom much more significantly .
The FTC is n't the only government agency interested in paid influencers .
The Food and Drug Administration also announced in recent weeks a study of how paid influencers affect public perception .
Its focus is on campaigns relating to prescription drugs .
Paying for endorsements is not new , but the status of `` influencers '' in public perception and law is murky .
The government seems unsure about it , and for now , giants such as Facebook/Instagram , Google/YouTube , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the question according to their internal guidelines .
An opinion piece from Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg was published in various outlets just days after the swarm of policy statements and political positioning .
In it , Zuckerberg renewed his call for greater regulation of his industry and website .
Zuckerberg addressed political advertising in particular , saying he believes `` advertising is more transparent on Facebook than television , print or other online services . ''
`` We publish details about political and issue ads — including who paid for them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how many people were reached — in our ads library , '' he said .
That ads library , however , is precisely where paid influencer content wo n't go .
A Facebook spokesperson acknowledged to the Washington Examiner that `` branded content is different from advertising '' but pointed out that `` in either case , we believe it 's important people know when they 're seeing paid content on our platforms , '' again clarifying that the key is for creators and campaigns to disclose the relationship .
Facebook requires any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disclose when it pays for that content .
And the company does not earn from the transaction between a campaign and an influencer .
If Facebook content is `` boosted , '' the term for paying to have content reach more users , the material becomes subject to the rules that cover advertising .
Facebook is asking the creators related explicitly to the Bloomberg push to use the branded content tag retroactively .
Bloomberg 's efforts have become the first test case in a policy the company is still working out and which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States .
What Bloomberg keyed on was something President Trump 's campaign and White House have known about all along when it comes to the internet : Use it the way the users use it .
That 's why Trump 's controversial Twitter account , which prompts complaints even from Attorney General William Barr , continues to have such a tremendous impact on his supporters and the entire news cycle .
It may turn out that buying and paying for pseudoviral content , as opposed to creating it organically , could be less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The FTC study aims at finding out if influencers actually have any influence — deciding if something exists before working out how to regulate it .
Caleb Howe is an editor at Mediaite , covering politics , policy , and the press , and a former web developer based in Charlotte , North Carolina .

The role of "influencers" has taken center stage in the latest debate over how campaigns may advertise online, particularly on social media. It has also raised the question again of whether tech companies have a responsibility to vet those ads.
In February, the presidential campaign for former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg bought sponsored content to be shared on popular Instagram accounts.
The sudden appearance of "meme" advertising, as some termed it, resulted in a now-familiar flurry of concerns about the process.
As a result, Facebook changed how it treats such ads. In a policy announcement shortly after a spate of news on the subject, it said, "We're allowing US-based political candidates to work with creators to run this content, provided the political candidates are authorized, and the creators disclose any paid partnerships through our branded content tools."
The crux is the issue of disclosure — that a person who sees the content can plainly understand that it is paid content and not organic.
But Instagram posts, memes, or other posted content negotiated with influencers in this way won't be treated exactly the same way as standard political advertising. It won't, for example, be listed in the ad library as a campaign ad. Standard political ads are cataloged and kept on record for seven years.
The Federal Trade Commission, for its part, voted to approve of the agency's endorsement guidelines. FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra issued a statement on the rationale behind that review.
Among other points, he highlighted the idea that "advertisers and social media platforms are seeking big returns from influencer marketing, which can allow paid advertising to seem more authentic." The FTC added, "When companies launder advertising by paying an influencer to pretend that their endorsement or review is untainted by a financial relationship, this is illegal payola."
A big target of the FTC's aim is "fake" online reviews, or reviews of products or services which were solicited through incentives. But the applicability to the Bloomberg case, and Chopra's explicit focus on "Facebook's Instagram and Google's YouTube" as "major vehicles for influencer marketing campaigns" make the political aspect loom much more significantly.
The FTC isn't the only government agency interested in paid influencers. The Food and Drug Administration also announced in recent weeks a study of how paid influencers affect public perception. Its focus is on campaigns relating to prescription drugs.
Paying for endorsements is not new, but the status of "influencers" in public perception and law is murky. The government seems unsure about it, and for now, giants such as Facebook/Instagram, Google/YouTube, and even China's TikTok are primarily handling the question according to their internal guidelines.
An opinion piece from Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg was published in various outlets just days after the swarm of policy statements and political positioning. In it, Zuckerberg renewed his call for greater regulation of his industry and website.
Zuckerberg addressed political advertising in particular, saying he believes "advertising is more transparent on Facebook than television, print or other online services."
"We publish details about political and issue ads — including who paid for them, how much was spent, and how many people were reached — in our ads library," he said. That ads library, however, is precisely where paid influencer content won't go.
A Facebook spokesperson acknowledged to the Washington Examiner that "branded content is different from advertising" but pointed out that "in either case, we believe it's important people know when they're seeing paid content on our platforms," again clarifying that the key is for creators and campaigns to disclose the relationship.
Facebook requires any advertiser that uses branded content tools to disclose when it pays for that content. And the company does not earn from the transaction between a campaign and an influencer. If Facebook content is "boosted," the term for paying to have content reach more users, the material becomes subject to the rules that cover advertising.
Facebook is asking the creators related explicitly to the Bloomberg push to use the branded content tag retroactively. Bloomberg's efforts have become the first test case in a policy the company is still working out and which for now applies only in the United States.
What Bloomberg keyed on was something President Trump's campaign and White House have known about all along when it comes to the internet: Use it the way the users use it. That's why Trump's controversial Twitter account, which prompts complaints even from Attorney General William Barr, continues to have such a tremendous impact on his supporters and the entire news cycle.
It may turn out that buying and paying for pseudoviral content, as opposed to creating it organically, could be less effective than the concerns it provokes.
The FTC study aims at finding out if influencers actually have any influence — deciding if something exists before working out how to regulate it.
Caleb Howe is an editor at Mediaite, covering politics, policy, and the press, and a former web developer based in Charlotte, North Carolina.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--'No one has weaponized it before ever like this': Biden predicts pardon for Roger Stone

`` What 's that message about ?
'Do n't worry .
Do anything illegal for me , and you 're OK .
I will pardon you , ' '' the former vice president said Thursday during a CNN town hall .
`` No one has weaponized it before ever like this .
The [ DOJ ] is not the president 's private lawyer .
It 's the people 's lawyer . ''
Earlier in the day , the longtime confidant to Trump was sentenced to 40 months in prison for lying to the House Intelligence Committee during its investigation into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He was also found guilty on one count that he `` corruptly influenced , obstructed , and impeded '' the congressional investigation , as well as on another count for attempting to persuade the testimony of a witness corruptly .
Stone also received a $ 20,000 fine and 24 months of supervised release following his prison sentence .
“ The defendant lied about a matter of great national and international importance … and he lied to Congress , '' Judge Amy Berman Jackson said .
`` There was nothing unfair , phony , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecution.
” Trump has so far not committed to pardoning Stone , though he has sent tweets suggesting one may soon be coming .
Stone has `` a very good chance of exoneration , '' Trump said Thursday .
`` I 'm following this very closely , and I want to see it play out to its fullest because Roger has a very good chance of exoneration , in my opinion , '' Trump said .
Earlier in the week , Trump commuted the prison sentence of former Illinois Gov .
Rod Blagojevich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after being convicted on corruption charges .
The president also granted a pardon to former NFL owner Edward DeBartolo Jr. , former NYPD police commissioner Bernard Kerik , `` junk bond king '' Michael Milken , as well as several other lesser-known figures .
Several Democratic presidential candidates have expressed outrage over the move , including independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders , who said it was evidence of a `` broken and racist '' criminal justice system .
“ Today , Trump granted clemency to tax cheats , Wall Street crooks , billionaires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders tweeted .
“ Meanwhile thousands of poor and working-class kids sit in jail for nonviolent drug convictions . ''

LAS VEGAS, Nevada — Joe Biden offered a "guarantee" that President Trump will pardon Roger Stone.
"What's that message about? 'Don't worry. Do anything illegal for me, and you're OK. I will pardon you,'" the former vice president said Thursday during a CNN town hall. "No one has weaponized it before ever like this. The [DOJ] is not the president's private lawyer. It's the people's lawyer."
Earlier in the day, the longtime confidant to Trump was sentenced to 40 months in prison for lying to the House Intelligence Committee during its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. He was also found guilty on one count that he "corruptly influenced, obstructed, and impeded" the congressional investigation, as well as on another count for attempting to persuade the testimony of a witness corruptly.
Stone also received a $20,000 fine and 24 months of supervised release following his prison sentence.
“The defendant lied about a matter of great national and international importance … and he lied to Congress," Judge Amy Berman Jackson said. "There was nothing unfair, phony, or disgraceful about the investigation or the prosecution.”
Trump has so far not committed to pardoning Stone, though he has sent tweets suggesting one may soon be coming.
Stone has "a very good chance of exoneration," Trump said Thursday.
"I'm following this very closely, and I want to see it play out to its fullest because Roger has a very good chance of exoneration, in my opinion," Trump said.
Earlier in the week, Trump commuted the prison sentence of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was serving a 14-year sentence after being convicted on corruption charges. The president also granted a pardon to former NFL owner Edward DeBartolo Jr., former NYPD police commissioner Bernard Kerik, "junk bond king" Michael Milken, as well as several other lesser-known figures.
Several Democratic presidential candidates have expressed outrage over the move, including independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who said it was evidence of a "broken and racist" criminal justice system.
“Today, Trump granted clemency to tax cheats, Wall Street crooks, billionaires, and corrupt government officials,” Sanders tweeted. “Meanwhile thousands of poor and working-class kids sit in jail for nonviolent drug convictions."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--'I'll text it': Warren draws up contract for Bloomberg to release women from nondisclosure agreement

'I'll text it': Warren draws up contract for Bloomberg to release women from nondisclosure agreements

Elizabeth Warren drafted a contract for Michael Bloomberg to sign that would release women who accused him of sexual harassment and workplace gender discrimination from nondisclosure agreements .
`` I used to teach contract law , and I thought I would make this easy , '' the Massachusetts senator said at the start of a CNN town hall on Thursday in Las Vegas .
During Wednesday 's Democratic presidential debate , Warren brought up alleged sexist comments by the former New York City mayor and pressured him to release former employees and any others from nondisclosure agreements made following allegations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's debate response that maybe some of the women were offended by `` jokes '' he made `` just does n't cut it , '' Warren said .
`` All that Mayor Bloomberg has to do is download it — I 'll text it — sign it , and then the women or men will be free to speak and tell their own stories , '' Warren said .
She read her agreement draft : `` Bloomberg and the company release any and all obligations contained in any agreement , including but not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ severance , or nondisclosure agreement between Bloomberg and/or the company and any other person to the extent those obligations preclude the other person from disclosing information relating to sexual harassment , discrimination , or other misconduct at the company or by Bloomberg himself . ''
`` If he 's not willing to remove those gags and let those women and maybe those men talk , then he is disqualified from being president of the United States , '' Warren said .
The exact number is unknown , but it 's been reported that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as after he allegedly told a pregnant employee to `` kill it . ''
Other alleged sexist Bloomberg comments include calling members of the royal family a `` horse-faced lesbian '' and a `` fat broad . ''

Elizabeth Warren drafted a contract for Michael Bloomberg to sign that would release women who accused him of sexual harassment and workplace gender discrimination from nondisclosure agreements.
"I used to teach contract law, and I thought I would make this easy," the Massachusetts senator said at the start of a CNN town hall on Thursday in Las Vegas.
During Wednesday's Democratic presidential debate, Warren brought up alleged sexist comments by the former New York City mayor and pressured him to release former employees and any others from nondisclosure agreements made following allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct.
Bloomberg's debate response that maybe some of the women were offended by "jokes" he made "just doesn't cut it," Warren said.
"All that Mayor Bloomberg has to do is download it — I'll text it — sign it, and then the women or men will be free to speak and tell their own stories," Warren said.
She read her agreement draft: "Bloomberg and the company release any and all obligations contained in any agreement, including but not limited to any employment, settlement, severance, or nondisclosure agreement between Bloomberg and/or the company and any other person to the extent those obligations preclude the other person from disclosing information relating to sexual harassment, discrimination, or other misconduct at the company or by Bloomberg himself."
"If he's not willing to remove those gags and let those women and maybe those men talk, then he is disqualified from being president of the United States," Warren said.
The exact number is unknown, but it's been reported that several women accepted settlements from Bloomberg, such as after he allegedly told a pregnant employee to "kill it." Other alleged sexist Bloomberg comments include calling members of the royal family a "horse-faced lesbian" and a "fat broad."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--Biden promises one-term presidency if his 'energy and mental acuity' decline

Joe Biden said that he would not seek a second term as president if his health deteriorates while in office .
A voter at a CNN town hall in Las Vegas , Nevada , on Thursday night asked the former vice president , 77 , if he would commit to serving only one term .
`` No , I would n't do that , but , I tell you what , you 're going to be able to make a judgment , '' Biden said .
`` And , by the way , the two youngest people on the stage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he joked , referring to 38-year-old former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , the youngest candidate in the race .
Biden said , however , that he would not seek a second term if his health declined .
`` I 'm in pretty good health , but , look , I guarantee you this : If anything changed in my health , making it incapable for me to fully exert all the energy and mental acuity that was needed to be done , then I give you my word : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden said .
If elected , Biden would be the oldest president in history .
President Ronald Reagan , the current record-holder , was 77 when he left office .
Biden explained that part of his reasoning for not committing to one term was because it would make it harder to accomplish policy goals .
`` Look , anybody who starts off saying , ' I 'm only going to serve one term , ' is already behind the eight ball because then you 're a one-term president , and no one worries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen after that , '' Biden said .
He added that it is `` totally legitimate '' to consider candidates ' ages and health , noting that several candidates are over 70 years old and that his young age was questioned when he ran for Senate in 1972 , when he was 29 .
Biden primary competitors Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg are both 78 , and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is 70 .
`` That 's why I give all my medical records .
OK. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ released medical records that revealed he has a heart condition and high cholesterol but makes no mention of mental agility .

Joe Biden said that he would not seek a second term as president if his health deteriorates while in office.
A voter at a CNN town hall in Las Vegas, Nevada, on Thursday night asked the former vice president, 77, if he would commit to serving only one term.
"No, I wouldn't do that, but, I tell you what, you're going to be able to make a judgment," Biden said. "And, by the way, the two youngest people on the stage now are me and Buttigieg," he joked, referring to 38-year-old former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, the youngest candidate in the race.
Biden said, however, that he would not seek a second term if his health declined.
"I'm in pretty good health, but, look, I guarantee you this: If anything changed in my health, making it incapable for me to fully exert all the energy and mental acuity that was needed to be done, then I give you my word: I would not run again," Biden said.
If elected, Biden would be the oldest president in history. President Ronald Reagan, the current record-holder, was 77 when he left office.
Biden explained that part of his reasoning for not committing to one term was because it would make it harder to accomplish policy goals.
"Look, anybody who starts off saying, 'I'm only going to serve one term,' is already behind the eight ball because then you're a one-term president, and no one worries about what the hell's going to happen after that," Biden said.
He added that it is "totally legitimate" to consider candidates' ages and health, noting that several candidates are over 70 years old and that his young age was questioned when he ran for Senate in 1972, when he was 29.
Biden primary competitors Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg are both 78, and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is 70.
"That's why I give all my medical records. OK. Everything," Biden said.
Biden released medical records that revealed he has a heart condition and high cholesterol but makes no mention of mental agility.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--'The truth still matters': Obama-appointed Roger Stone judge defends Russia investigations

The judge who handed down Roger Stone ’ s sentence and presided over numerous other spinoff cases from special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation delivered an impassioned speech on Thursday condemning the GOP operative ’ s actions .
“ The defendant lied about a matter of great national and international importance .
… He lied to Congress .
… And there was nothing unfair , phony , or disgraceful about the investigation or the prosecution , ” D.C. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson said .
Stone , 67 , a self-described “ dirty trickster ” and longtime confidant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in November on one count of obstruction , one count of witness intimidation , and five separate counts of lying to and concealing records from the House Intelligence Committee in 2017 during its investigation into Russian interference about his alleged outreach to WikiLeaks .
Jackson referenced last year ’ s closing arguments in which Stone defense lawyer Bruce Rogow claimed that “ so much of this case deals with that question : So what ?
” Michael Marando , one of the Department of Justice prosecutors who left the case last week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The truth still exists .
The truth still matters , '' Jackson said Thursday .
`` Roger Stone 's insistence that it does n't , his belligerence , his pride in his own lies , are a threat to our most fundamental institutions , to the very foundation of our democracy.
” Jackson added that Congress , the DOJ , the D.C. U.S. Attorney ’ s Office , the jurors , and the public cared — `` and I care . ''
The judge pointed to Mueller ’ s investigation and bipartisan inquiries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ all have concluded , '' in tandem with the U.S. Intelligence Community , that Russian interference in 2016 `` is beyond debate.
” Jackson said the House was fully justified in investigating Russian efforts and any connection to WikiLeaks .
Mueller concluded that Russia interfered in 2016 but did n't establish any collusion between the Kremlin and any U.S. citizens .
Prior to becoming a judge , Jackson spent a decade in private practice at Trout Cacheris & Solomon , a high-powered D.C. law firm , where she notably was on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former Louisiana congressman .
Jefferson , nicknamed `` Dollar Bill , '' was found by the FBI with $ 90,000 stashed in his freezer and found guilty of leveraging his public office to solicit hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in West Africa .
On the bench , Jackson sentenced former Democratic Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. to 30 months in prison in 2013 for misusing $ 750,000 in campaign funds .
In 2017 , she dismissed a lawsuit brought against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by the parents of two men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Over the past couple years , Jackson presided over spinoff cases against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort , former Obama White House counsel Greg Craig , and former Trump campaign deputy-turned-government witness Rick Gates .
When sentencing Gates in December , Jackson argued , “ There was ample basis for this Justice Department of this administration to authorize and pursue ” its Trump-Russia investigations .
Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham are scrutinizing the origins of that inquiry .
“ Any suggestion that the prosecution in this case did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is incorrect , ” the judge of Stone ’ s case said , adding , “ He was not prosecuted , as some have complained , for standing up for the president .
He was prosecuted for covering up for the president.
” “ That ’ s totally untrue .
Nobody connected to the president has ever been charged with a crime related to spying for Russia or colluding with Russia , much less convicted of one .
Stone wasn ’ t prosecuted for covering up anything , ” Carlson said .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ear , added that “ if there ’ s anyone in Washington who deserves to be impeached , it ’ s Amy Berman Jackson ” and called her “ a Democratic activist wearing robes.
” During her speech , Jackson said , “ The notion that this case rises and falls with whether Russia interference has been proven … is also false.
” The judge noted Stone “ was not even charged with lying about Russian collusion or who was behind the hack.
” Instead , she said the case was about Stone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House and his witness intimidation .
Jackson said Stone ’ s claim about not having records of communications about WikiLeaks “ was a flat-out lie.
” And she added that Stone was asked to provide answers “ not to some secret anti-Trump cabal , but to who ?
Congress.
” She pointed out that the GOP controlled the House at the time .
The DOJ ’ s D.C. office told the court last week it recommended Stone receive up to nine years behind bars , but Trump tweeted that he “ can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The DOJ reversed itself , and the four line prosecutors on the case withdrew as the department walked back the “ unduly high ” sentence recommendation .
“ The original sentencing memorandum from the original trial team was done in good faith , ” Assistant U.S. Attorney John Crabb said Thursday , adding , “ The prosecution was , and is , righteous.
” Trump tweeted last week that the Stone case “ was totally out of control.
” He also criticized Jackson , tweeting , “ Is this the Judge that put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that not even mobster Al Capone had to endure ?
How did she treat Crooked Hillary Clinton ?
Just asking !
” The judge addressed this on Thursday .
“ The dismay and the disgust with any attempts to interfere with the efforts of prosecutors and members of the judiciary to fulfill their duty should transcend party , ” Jackson said .

The judge who handed down Roger Stone’s sentence and presided over numerous other spinoff cases from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation delivered an impassioned speech on Thursday condemning the GOP operative’s actions.
“The defendant lied about a matter of great national and international importance. … He lied to Congress. … And there was nothing unfair, phony, or disgraceful about the investigation or the prosecution,” D.C. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson said.
Jackson, 65, a Harvard Law School graduate and 2011 Obama appointee, handed down a 40-month sentence.
Stone, 67, a self-described “dirty trickster” and longtime confidant to President Trump, was found guilty in November on one count of obstruction, one count of witness intimidation, and five separate counts of lying to and concealing records from the House Intelligence Committee in 2017 during its investigation into Russian interference about his alleged outreach to WikiLeaks.
Jackson referenced last year’s closing arguments in which Stone defense lawyer Bruce Rogow claimed that “so much of this case deals with that question: So what?” Michael Marando, one of the Department of Justice prosecutors who left the case last week, responded that “truth matters.”
“The truth still exists. The truth still matters," Jackson said Thursday. "Roger Stone's insistence that it doesn't, his belligerence, his pride in his own lies, are a threat to our most fundamental institutions, to the very foundation of our democracy.”
Jackson added that Congress, the DOJ, the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office, the jurors, and the public cared — "and I care."
The judge pointed to Mueller’s investigation and bipartisan inquiries by the House and Senate, which “all have concluded," in tandem with the U.S. Intelligence Community, that Russian interference in 2016 "is beyond debate.” Jackson said the House was fully justified in investigating Russian efforts and any connection to WikiLeaks.
Mueller concluded that Russia interfered in 2016 but didn't establish any collusion between the Kremlin and any U.S. citizens.
Prior to becoming a judge, Jackson spent a decade in private practice at Trout Cacheris & Solomon, a high-powered D.C. law firm, where she notably was on the defense team for William Jefferson, the former Louisiana congressman. Jefferson, nicknamed "Dollar Bill," was found by the FBI with $90,000 stashed in his freezer and found guilty of leveraging his public office to solicit hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in West Africa.
On the bench, Jackson sentenced former Democratic Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. to 30 months in prison in 2013 for misusing $750,000 in campaign funds. In 2017, she dismissed a lawsuit brought against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by the parents of two men killed in the Benghazi terrorist attacks.
Over the past couple years, Jackson presided over spinoff cases against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, former Obama White House counsel Greg Craig, and former Trump campaign deputy-turned-government witness Rick Gates.
When sentencing Gates in December, Jackson argued, “There was ample basis for this Justice Department of this administration to authorize and pursue” its Trump-Russia investigations. Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham are scrutinizing the origins of that inquiry.
“Any suggestion that the prosecution in this case did anything untoward, unethical, or improper is incorrect,” the judge of Stone’s case said, adding, “He was not prosecuted, as some have complained, for standing up for the president. He was prosecuted for covering up for the president.”
Fox News host Tucker Carlson pushed back against Jackson’s speech Thursday night.
“That’s totally untrue. Nobody connected to the president has ever been charged with a crime related to spying for Russia or colluding with Russia, much less convicted of one. Stone wasn’t prosecuted for covering up anything,” Carlson said. The host, who has Trump’s ear, added that “if there’s anyone in Washington who deserves to be impeached, it’s Amy Berman Jackson” and called her “a Democratic activist wearing robes.”
During her speech, Jackson said, “The notion that this case rises and falls with whether Russia interference has been proven … is also false.” The judge noted Stone “was not even charged with lying about Russian collusion or who was behind the hack.”
Instead, she said the case was about Stone’s deception and obstruction of the House and his witness intimidation. Jackson said Stone’s claim about not having records of communications about WikiLeaks “was a flat-out lie.” And she added that Stone was asked to provide answers “not to some secret anti-Trump cabal, but to who? Congress.” She pointed out that the GOP controlled the House at the time.
The DOJ’s D.C. office told the court last week it recommended Stone receive up to nine years behind bars, but Trump tweeted that he “cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!” The DOJ reversed itself, and the four line prosecutors on the case withdrew as the department walked back the “unduly high” sentence recommendation.
“The original sentencing memorandum from the original trial team was done in good faith,” Assistant U.S. Attorney John Crabb said Thursday, adding, “The prosecution was, and is, righteous.”
Trump tweeted last week that the Stone case “was totally out of control.” He also criticized Jackson, tweeting, “Is this the Judge that put Paul Manafort in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, something that not even mobster Al Capone had to endure? How did she treat Crooked Hillary Clinton? Just asking!”
The judge addressed this on Thursday.
“The dismay and the disgust with any attempts to interfere with the efforts of prosecutors and members of the judiciary to fulfill their duty should transcend party,” Jackson said.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--US officials say Russia trying to help Bernie Sanders in 2020 race

Sen. Bernie Sanders was told by U.S. officials that the Russian government is trying to assist his presidential campaign , according to a new report .
The interference effort , aimed at disrupting the Democratic presidential primaries , has been relayed to President Trump and lawmakers on Capitol Hill , unnamed sources told the Washington Post .
The article noted that it is not clear what form the `` Russian assistance '' has taken .
Sanders , an independent senator from Vermont , released a statement through his campaign minutes after it was published .
“ Unlike Donald Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good friend .
He is an autocratic thug who is attempting to destroy democracy and crush dissent in Russia .
Let ’ s be clear , the Russians want to undermine American democracy by dividing us up and , unlike the current president , I stand firmly against their efforts , and any other foreign power that wants to interfere in our election , ” Sanders said .
“ I do n't care , frankly , who Putin wants to be president .
My message to Putin is clear : stay out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will make sure that you do.
” The news comes one day after disputed reports that U.S. officials believe Russia is also attempting to help Trump win reelection in 2020 .
Russia was blamed for an interference effort that rattled the 2016 presidential campaign .
A U.S. Intelligence Community assessment released in January 2017 concluded that “ Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election ” with goals “ to undermine public faith in the US democratic process , denigrate Secretary [ Hillary ] Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidency.
” The report said the Russians eventually developed a “ clear preference ” for Trump .
Special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s two-year investigation concluded that “ the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.
” Mueller 's report , released last year , described how Russian military intelligence hacked the Democratic National Committee and provided thousands of stolen emails to WikiLeaks for dissemination , but did not establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians .
Aside from the cyber intrusions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report described how Russian actors carried out another form of election interference through disinformation campaigns on social media .
This was done through the Internet Research Agency , a St. Petersburg-based Russian company that “ conducted social media operations targeted at large U.S. audiences with the goal of sowing discord in the U.S. political system.
” Mueller indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies last year in connection with these disinformation operations .
The charges stated the “ operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton , to denigrate other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rubio , and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump.
” Mueller ’ s heavily redacted report cited internal documents from the Internet Research Agency which said : “ Main idea : Use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest ( except Sanders and Trump - we support them ) .
” FBI Director Christopher Wray testified earlier this month that Russian disinformation efforts continue heading into the 2020 elections .
“ It never stopped , ” Wray told the House Judiciary Committee .
“ It happened in 2016 , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then .
It may have an uptick during an election cycle , but it ’ s a 24/7 , 365 days a year threat ... We assess that the Russians continue to engage in malign foreign influence efforts . ''
The FBI director declined to confirm or deny whether the Russians were backing any particular candidate , but said “ the efforts to sow discord on both sides of an issue and to generate controversy and to generate distrust in our democratic institutions on our election process , that is very much ongoing.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 , Russia used internet propaganda to sow division in our country , and my understanding is that they are doing it again in 2020 . ''
He also suggested that `` some of the ugly stuff on the internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters.
” Fiona Hill , the National Security Council ’ s former Russia expert and a Ukraine impeachment witness , testified last year that the Russians sought to hurt both Trump and Clinton in 2016 .
`` The goal of the Russians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president ... under a cloud , '' she said .
“ They seed misinformation .
They seed doubt .
They have everybody questioning the legitimacy of a presidential candidate , be it President Trump or potentially President [ Hillary ] Clinton , that they would pit one side of our electorate against the other , that they would pit one party against the other , ” Hill said .
Late Thursday night , reports from numerous outlets recounted a briefing by officials from the Office of the Director of National intelligence given to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with leaked claims that the briefers told lawmakers Russia wanted to interfere on Trump 's behalf in 2020 .
Other anonymous sources pushed back on the story .
`` Another misinformation campaign is being launched by Democrats in Congress saying that Russia prefers me to any of the Do Nothing Democrat candidates , ” Trump tweeted .

Sen. Bernie Sanders was told by U.S. officials that the Russian government is trying to assist his presidential campaign, according to a new report.
The interference effort, aimed at disrupting the Democratic presidential primaries, has been relayed to President Trump and lawmakers on Capitol Hill, unnamed sources told the Washington Post. The article noted that it is not clear what form the "Russian assistance" has taken.
Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, released a statement through his campaign minutes after it was published.
“Unlike Donald Trump, I do not consider Vladimir Putin a good friend. He is an autocratic thug who is attempting to destroy democracy and crush dissent in Russia. Let’s be clear, the Russians want to undermine American democracy by dividing us up and, unlike the current president, I stand firmly against their efforts, and any other foreign power that wants to interfere in our election,” Sanders said. “I don't care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president. My message to Putin is clear: stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do.”
The news comes one day after disputed reports that U.S. officials believe Russia is also attempting to help Trump win reelection in 2020.
Russia was blamed for an interference effort that rattled the 2016 presidential campaign.
A U.S. Intelligence Community assessment released in January 2017 concluded that “Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election” with goals “to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary [Hillary] Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.” The report said the Russians eventually developed a “clear preference” for Trump.
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s two-year investigation concluded that “the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.” Mueller's report, released last year, described how Russian military intelligence hacked the Democratic National Committee and provided thousands of stolen emails to WikiLeaks for dissemination, but did not establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
Aside from the cyber intrusions and stolen email dissemination, Mueller’s report described how Russian actors carried out another form of election interference through disinformation campaigns on social media.
This was done through the Internet Research Agency, a St. Petersburg-based Russian company that “conducted social media operations targeted at large U.S. audiences with the goal of sowing discord in the U.S. political system.”
Mueller indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies last year in connection with these disinformation operations. The charges stated the “operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump.”
Mueller’s heavily redacted report cited internal documents from the Internet Research Agency which said: “Main idea: Use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump - we support them).”
FBI Director Christopher Wray testified earlier this month that Russian disinformation efforts continue heading into the 2020 elections.
“It never stopped,” Wray told the House Judiciary Committee. “It happened in 2016, and it’s been continuing ever since then. It may have an uptick during an election cycle, but it’s a 24/7, 365 days a year threat... We assess that the Russians continue to engage in malign foreign influence efforts."
The FBI director declined to confirm or deny whether the Russians were backing any particular candidate, but said “the efforts to sow discord on both sides of an issue and to generate controversy and to generate distrust in our democratic institutions on our election process, that is very much ongoing.”
Sanders said Thursday that "in 2016, Russia used internet propaganda to sow division in our country, and my understanding is that they are doing it again in 2020." He also suggested that "some of the ugly stuff on the internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters.”
Fiona Hill, the National Security Council’s former Russia expert and a Ukraine impeachment witness, testified last year that the Russians sought to hurt both Trump and Clinton in 2016. "The goal of the Russians was really to put whoever became the president ... under a cloud," she said.
“They seed misinformation. They seed doubt. They have everybody questioning the legitimacy of a presidential candidate, be it President Trump or potentially President [Hillary] Clinton, that they would pit one side of our electorate against the other, that they would pit one party against the other,” Hill said.
Late Thursday night, reports from numerous outlets recounted a briefing by officials from the Office of the Director of National intelligence given to the House Intelligence Committee last week, with leaked claims that the briefers told lawmakers Russia wanted to interfere on Trump's behalf in 2020. Other anonymous sources pushed back on the story.
"Another misinformation campaign is being launched by Democrats in Congress saying that Russia prefers me to any of the Do Nothing Democrat candidates,” Trump tweeted.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--'Never Sanders' needs to step up its game

With Super Tuesday right around the corner , improbable as it might have seemed even a year ago , socialist Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders is running strong in the Democratic primary .
After solid showings in both Iowa and New Hampshire , there ’ s a significant risk that he could ultimately triumph , either outright or at a contested convention at which he holds a plurality of delegates .
As FiveThirtyEight ’ s Nate Silver wrote last week , the model used by the data and polling analysis site is now “ quite bullish on Sanders.
” While it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that no candidate wins a majority of delegates before the convention , the model also indicates that Sanders is ultimately the “ most likely Democrat to win a majority of pledged delegates.
” A few factors have come into play here .
About 40 % of pledged delegates come from Super Tuesday states and those preceding them , where Sanders has ( so far ) done a pretty good job of running up his numbers .
Sanders tends to clear 15 % in each state vote , the minimum percent to be eligible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always bank at least a delegate here or there .
And Sanders is not , in fact , as disliked as one might suspect .
He currently holds roughly a 5-point advantage in a head-to-head matchup against President Trump , according to the RealClearPolitics average .
But a big factor weighing in Sanders ’ s favor is that a glut of centrists remains in the contest , fighting it out among themselves .
Technically , Mayor Pete Buttigieg has the outright lead , based on pure delegate math .
But others in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason to continue .
In addition to the Indianan there ’ s former Vice President Joe Biden , whose campaign rests on the assumption that his delegate count should improve sharply after South Carolina .
There ’ s Sen. Amy Klobuchar , who is gaining traction and in New Hampshire proved appealing to late-deciding voters .
And , of course , there ’ s the elephant — or rather former elephant — in the room , Mayor Michael Bloomberg .
As we saw with the Republican field in 2016 , there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates could split the non-Bernie vote and thereby , ironically , lock down a Bernie win .
In New Hampshire , Silver notes , “ 50 percent of voters said Sanders ’ s positions were too liberal .
Meanwhile , the combined vote shares for Buttigeig ( sic ) , Klobuchar and Biden ( 52.6 percent ) considerably exceeded that for Sanders and [ Sen. Elizabeth ] Warren ( 34.9 percent ) .
” In autumn 2015 , I was getting laughed out of the room by fellow Republicans for arguing that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And we all know how that turned out .
Bernie-skeptical Democrats who wish to avoid a 2016 redux on their side of the aisle should take note of the road they are going down .
In several vital areas , they ’ re repeating the same mistakes of the Never Trump coalition .
The first and most obvious thing on everyone ’ s lips this week , but especially Bloomberg ’ s , is “ consolidate.
” Many are starting to wake up to the notion that Sanders has a clear and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recognizing that fact and acting on it , whether by campaigns coordinating attacks on Sanders or centrist Democratic candidates actually dropping out to make way for a single contender , are different things entirely .
It also doesn ’ t help when Bloomberg , the guy who has most adamantly made the consolidation argument , is not crushing it in the polls and turned in a fairly disastrous debate performance last Wednesday .
The truth is , a big part of how Trump became the GOP nominee was that anti-Trump forces refused to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so he just kept on moving up .
Some did try to prevent it .
Notably , figures in the camp of Sen. Ted Cruz have told at least a few political writers around Washington , D.C. , that at a crucial stage in the 2016 fight , they had arranged a meeting at which the Cruz campaign intended to try to cut a deal with Sen. Marco Rubio to shut Trump down , likely involving a Cruz-Rubio or a Rubio-Cruz ticket .
Allegedly , Rubio and/or his emissaries failed to show .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ unchanged .
Gov .
John Kasich , who never had a real shot anyway , certainly stayed in the race for a ridiculously long period .
This likely prevented Cruz from amassing delegates that could have been used to block Trump .
A key focus for the anti-Trump super-PAC I ran in 2016 was limiting Kasich ’ s delegate accruals in Arizona and Utah to ensure a stronger delegate count for Cruz , something we did successfully in those two states .
But what if anti-Trump forces in the GOP had done what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What if Cruz and Rubio had joined a ticket on terms that would make them virtual co-presidents ?
This is something that Buttigieg , Biden , and Bloomberg should all be thinking hard about right now , and they should be looking squarely at Amy Klobuchar , either as their potential boss or as their potential partner in such an arrangement .
Unlike two of the moderate men , Klobuchar has Senate experience and knowhow that will be vital for getting an agenda through Congress .
Unlike all of them , she is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advantage in electoral politics ( just look at Trump ) .
Also unlike them , she is a woman who has won statewide in the Midwest .
Given the electoral map and the Democrats ’ zealous focus on identity politics , these are both positives .
Of course , to take this big but very straightforward step toward shutting down Sanders , Democratic centrists must be able to be realistic about their own chances .
They have to ask themselves if they ’ re content with gambling their party , and maybe even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prove that , yes , people really do like them enough .
Particularly when the math does not look obviously workable .
Can they change that math ?
It ’ s possible .
Yet to do so would require making other changes that the collective anti-Trump Republicans mostly failed to do in 2016 , and which anti-Sanders Democrats should have begun last summer .
A major problem that afflicted the other 2016 GOP candidates was Trump ’ s extensive recognizability with potential voters .
Anyone who had walked through a supermarket checkout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the name Trump .
Anyone who watched primetime NBC shows also knew the name Trump .
They knew what he looked like , that he was wealthy , that he was a “ boss.
” According to one statistic we heard while running our 2016 effort , Trump entered the 2016 primary with 99.2 % name ID .
Only Jeb Bush came close to that number , and the last name “ Bush ” was not a strong selling point after his brother ’ s White House tenure .
This continued even as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earnest .
Emblematic was Spencer Guinard , then 18 years old , who attended a Charleston , South Carolina , Trump rally covered by Yahoo News ’ Jon Ward .
As Ward reported , “ Guinard , originally from Boise , Idaho , had never heard of most of the Republican presidential candidates .
When I mentioned Marco Rubio , the Florida senator , Guinard told me he ’ d ‘ never heard that name.
’ ” But like everyone else , he ’ d heard of Trump .
This is a problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But it ’ s also ( probably ) a problem for Biden .
For instance , Axios ’ Mike Allen reported last April that five out of a group of 12 Ohio swing voters who were shown pictures of 2020 presidential candidates “ had no idea ” who Biden was .
This is after eight years of having served as vice president , previously having run for president twice , and having been an active figure in national politics since the 1970s .
Probably some of those five voters now recognize Biden .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters , not diehard Democrats .
Nonetheless , recognizability is key , especially in states with open or semi-open primaries and caucuses , or states where voters can change their registration late .
Say what you will about Bloomberg ’ s advertising strategy — and there are lots of reasons to be skeptical one can “ buy ” a nomination , with most of the money dumped into TV ads that many viewers tune out — but it ’ s unlikely that by Super Tuesday , on March 3 , anyone in America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Biden , by contrast , still probably lacks Trump-level recognition .
How do you change this ?
Stunts .
Street theater .
Getting attention .
Basically , what Trump did , though you don ’ t have to be as offensive about it ( protip : it ’ s probably not advisable to impersonate disabled people on a rally stage , for instance ) .
A lot of Rubio backers were unhappy when he launched the “ tiny hands ” attack on Trump and thought it “ unbecoming , ” but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to spend money , and fast .
It put him on the radar of people who weren ’ t paying attention .
For those GOP voters who were shopping for someone who didn ’ t look like a wuss , it helped beef up Rubio a bit .
Put another way , it ’ s time not just for the moderates to think about consolidating , but also to pick a fight with Sanders .
Last week , we saw a Democratic debate in which the centrists did this a bit — but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As with the anti-Trump contingent in 2016 , presumably they ’ re all afraid that if they attack Sanders too hard , his supporters will never back them in a general ( of course , as we saw in 2016 , a decent number of Sanders voters won ’ t back the eventual Democratic nominee anyway ) .
Given how Sanders ’ s ire appeared to rise , coupled with his health problems , it ’ s possible some of them also didn ’ t want to get too heated with him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s notable that Klobuchar jabbed at Sanders ’ s health a few times ) .
Bloomberg is doing this most , and most effectively , but even after hitting Sanders on socialism in the debate , it still is not enough .
Politics is nasty .
Where are the people crashing Sanders rallies with Soviet flags and blaring the Soviet national anthem over their phones ?
Or putting on Marx , Lenin , and Stalin masks ?
Or in Florida , showing up dressed up as Fidel Castro and Che Guevara waving Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Bernie Sanders travel guides ” detailing his favorite places to hang out in Moscow , Managua , Havana , and Caracas ?
Given that Sanders first won office by aligning with the National Rifle Association , which Democratic voters seem to loathe , it ’ s frankly embarrassing that Biden , in particular , hasn ’ t made this into a line of major attack .
Biden could easily start hammering Bernie hard on this in town halls , at ice cream socials , and other voter meet-and-greets and simultaneously deploy some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carrying phony Kalashnikovs and talking about Sanders ’ s real record .
It would work better than his throwaway line at the end of last week ’ s debate hitting Sanders on the subject .
And while Bloomberg hit Sanders for his wealth and his swank millionaire properties , with a little help from Mayor Pete , this is also readily available ammunition , just lying around for the taking .
It would be best deployed by the Indianan , who appears to be the only non-millionaire in the race .
And the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also ( usually ) the most articulate candidate running and has an extremely able press team who could shove out the message of the socialist multimillionaire with three houses acting like an aggrieved factory worker making minimum wage .
Stuff such as this is petty and , in some cases , stupid .
But it draws attention to an opponent ’ s liabilities and gets the campaign pushing it on TV , thus boosting name recognition while having to spend hardly a dime .
And often , it provokes a response in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by baiting them into losing their cool .
Of course , to do it , you have to have treated the target seriously enough to do your opposition research in the first place , to know their liabilities and be willing to exploit them .
That ’ s something else that anti-Sanders candidates don ’ t seem to be doing , just as rival campaigns to Trump ’ s didn ’ t much bother with it in 2015 and early 2016 .
Like the crotchety old socialist , Trump was treated as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he did .
Sanders has had a long and colorful public life .
Obviously , it ’ s been colorful in ways that Trump ’ s is not , and vice versa .
But just as Trump proved to be an opposition research treasure trove once someone — not the GOP candidates so much as the media , super-PACs , and anti-Trump groups such as mine — dove in , so will Sanders .
It ’ s just not clear anyone has done this .
And if they have , they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong reporters .
Many people who cover Sanders are fans of his who won ’ t write a bad word about him ; many others are simply pure horserace people .
Only a few have an investigative journalist ’ s bone in their bodies ( it ’ s those last few that you want to get the dirt in front of ) .
Ultimately , the moderates ’ campaigns should be looking for nuggets that underline Sanders ’ s elitism , hypocrisy on wages , benefits , climate , sexism , etc.
, @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is out of touch with the common voter .
One of the deadliest moments for Sanders ’ s campaign was probably when he was busted for not paying staff in line with his own $ 15 minimum wage plan and was proving less than enthusiastic about their union organizing efforts .
Things such as that can kill .
But so too can the palling-around-with-communists business .
There are still a lot of older Democratic voters who hated the Soviet Union , hated the Sandinistas , and generally hate socialism and communism .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the “ socialist ” moniker themselves just because they like the New Deal and their Medicare and Social Security .
Plus , unlike Sanders ’ s younger followers , who may or may not turn out to vote , these people always vote .
They also have time on their hands to volunteer , and in many cases they have more disposable income than would a recent college graduate making $ 40,000 a year and carrying $ 100,000 worth of student debt .
Trump knows this .
It ’ s why when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hannity recently , he replied “ communist ” when Hannity said Sanders ’ s name .
It wasn ’ t nice .
It was nasty .
But Sanders isn ’ t a member of the GOP , and he ’ s actually not a member of the Democratic Party , either , even if he caucuses with them .
Trying to win an election isn ’ t like playing touch football .
This is the NFL , and if centrists want to stop Sanders ( which , incidentally , probably gives them a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they need to start getting rough and executing , fast .
God knows , when it ’ s general election time , Trump will do all of these things , so either go big or go home .
That ’ s how it works .
And if you don ’ t believe me , just ask Cruz , Rubio , Kasich , or anyone else who was left in Trump ’ s dust while saying “ this guy is a joke ” or “ I don ’ t want to cut a deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago .
Liz Mair is the founder , owner and president of Mair Strategies LLC , and a former adviser to Wisconsin Gov .
Scott Walker , Sen. Rand Paul , Gov .
Rick Perry , and Carly Fiorina .
In 2008 , she served as the Republican National Committee ’ s first and only online communications director , and a spokeswoman .

With Super Tuesday right around the corner, improbable as it might have seemed even a year ago, socialist Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders is running strong in the Democratic primary. After solid showings in both Iowa and New Hampshire, there’s a significant risk that he could ultimately triumph, either outright or at a contested convention at which he holds a plurality of delegates.
As FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver wrote last week, the model used by the data and polling analysis site is now “quite bullish on Sanders.” While it still shows as the most likely outcome that no candidate wins a majority of delegates before the convention, the model also indicates that Sanders is ultimately the “most likely Democrat to win a majority of pledged delegates.” A few factors have come into play here. About 40% of pledged delegates come from Super Tuesday states and those preceding them, where Sanders has (so far) done a pretty good job of running up his numbers. Sanders tends to clear 15% in each state vote, the minimum percent to be eligible to win delegates, so he can always bank at least a delegate here or there. And Sanders is not, in fact, as disliked as one might suspect. He currently holds roughly a 5-point advantage in a head-to-head matchup against President Trump, according to the RealClearPolitics average.
But a big factor weighing in Sanders’s favor is that a glut of centrists remains in the contest, fighting it out among themselves. Technically, Mayor Pete Buttigieg has the outright lead, based on pure delegate math. But others in the “moderate” lane see plenty of reason to continue. In addition to the Indianan there’s former Vice President Joe Biden, whose campaign rests on the assumption that his delegate count should improve sharply after South Carolina. There’s Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who is gaining traction and in New Hampshire proved appealing to late-deciding voters. And, of course, there’s the elephant — or rather former elephant — in the room, Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
As we saw with the Republican field in 2016, there’s a risk that these “moderate” candidates could split the non-Bernie vote and thereby, ironically, lock down a Bernie win. In New Hampshire, Silver notes, “50 percent of voters said Sanders’s positions were too liberal. Meanwhile, the combined vote shares for Buttigeig (sic), Klobuchar and Biden (52.6 percent) considerably exceeded that for Sanders and [Sen. Elizabeth] Warren (34.9 percent).”
In autumn 2015, I was getting laughed out of the room by fellow Republicans for arguing that Trump could wind up as president fairly easily. And we all know how that turned out. Bernie-skeptical Democrats who wish to avoid a 2016 redux on their side of the aisle should take note of the road they are going down. In several vital areas, they’re repeating the same mistakes of the Never Trump coalition.
The first and most obvious thing on everyone’s lips this week, but especially Bloomberg’s, is “consolidate.” Many are starting to wake up to the notion that Sanders has a clear and viable path to the nomination. But recognizing that fact and acting on it, whether by campaigns coordinating attacks on Sanders or centrist Democratic candidates actually dropping out to make way for a single contender, are different things entirely. It also doesn’t help when Bloomberg, the guy who has most adamantly made the consolidation argument, is not crushing it in the polls and turned in a fairly disastrous debate performance last Wednesday.
The truth is, a big part of how Trump became the GOP nominee was that anti-Trump forces refused to consolidate to block him out, and so he just kept on moving up. Some did try to prevent it. Notably, figures in the camp of Sen. Ted Cruz have told at least a few political writers around Washington, D.C., that at a crucial stage in the 2016 fight, they had arranged a meeting at which the Cruz campaign intended to try to cut a deal with Sen. Marco Rubio to shut Trump down, likely involving a Cruz-Rubio or a Rubio-Cruz ticket. Allegedly, Rubio and/or his emissaries failed to show. So the dynamics of the race continued unchanged.
Gov. John Kasich, who never had a real shot anyway, certainly stayed in the race for a ridiculously long period. This likely prevented Cruz from amassing delegates that could have been used to block Trump. A key focus for the anti-Trump super-PAC I ran in 2016 was limiting Kasich’s delegate accruals in Arizona and Utah to ensure a stronger delegate count for Cruz, something we did successfully in those two states.
But what if anti-Trump forces in the GOP had done what Democrats could do now and consolidated? What if Cruz and Rubio had joined a ticket on terms that would make them virtual co-presidents? This is something that Buttigieg, Biden, and Bloomberg should all be thinking hard about right now, and they should be looking squarely at Amy Klobuchar, either as their potential boss or as their potential partner in such an arrangement. Unlike two of the moderate men, Klobuchar has Senate experience and knowhow that will be vital for getting an agenda through Congress. Unlike all of them, she is actually funny, which is a huge advantage in electoral politics (just look at Trump). Also unlike them, she is a woman who has won statewide in the Midwest. Given the electoral map and the Democrats’ zealous focus on identity politics, these are both positives.
Of course, to take this big but very straightforward step toward shutting down Sanders, Democratic centrists must be able to be realistic about their own chances. They have to ask themselves if they’re content with gambling their party, and maybe even the country, on an egotistical desire to prove that, yes, people really do like them enough. Particularly when the math does not look obviously workable.
Can they change that math? It’s possible. Yet to do so would require making other changes that the collective anti-Trump Republicans mostly failed to do in 2016, and which anti-Sanders Democrats should have begun last summer.
A major problem that afflicted the other 2016 GOP candidates was Trump’s extensive recognizability with potential voters. Anyone who had walked through a supermarket checkout in the prior 30 years already knew the name Trump. Anyone who watched primetime NBC shows also knew the name Trump. They knew what he looked like, that he was wealthy, that he was a “boss.” According to one statistic we heard while running our 2016 effort, Trump entered the 2016 primary with 99.2% name ID. Only Jeb Bush came close to that number, and the last name “Bush” was not a strong selling point after his brother’s White House tenure.
This continued even as the Republican contest was kicking off in earnest. Emblematic was Spencer Guinard, then 18 years old, who attended a Charleston, South Carolina, Trump rally covered by Yahoo News’ Jon Ward. As Ward reported, “Guinard, originally from Boise, Idaho, had never heard of most of the Republican presidential candidates. When I mentioned Marco Rubio, the Florida senator, Guinard told me he’d ‘never heard that name.’” But like everyone else, he’d heard of Trump.
This is a problem for Klobuchar and Buttigieg, especially. But it’s also (probably) a problem for Biden. For instance, Axios’ Mike Allen reported last April that five out of a group of 12 Ohio swing voters who were shown pictures of 2020 presidential candidates “had no idea” who Biden was. This is after eight years of having served as vice president, previously having run for president twice, and having been an active figure in national politics since the 1970s.
Probably some of those five voters now recognize Biden. And yes, they’re swing voters, not diehard Democrats. Nonetheless, recognizability is key, especially in states with open or semi-open primaries and caucuses, or states where voters can change their registration late. Say what you will about Bloomberg’s advertising strategy — and there are lots of reasons to be skeptical one can “buy” a nomination, with most of the money dumped into TV ads that many viewers tune out — but it’s unlikely that by Super Tuesday, on March 3, anyone in America won’t know who Bloomberg is. Biden, by contrast, still probably lacks Trump-level recognition.
How do you change this? Stunts. Street theater. Getting attention. Basically, what Trump did, though you don’t have to be as offensive about it (protip: it’s probably not advisable to impersonate disabled people on a rally stage, for instance).
A lot of Rubio backers were unhappy when he launched the “tiny hands” attack on Trump and thought it “unbecoming,” but it got him on cable news without having to spend money, and fast. It put him on the radar of people who weren’t paying attention. For those GOP voters who were shopping for someone who didn’t look like a wuss, it helped beef up Rubio a bit.
Put another way, it’s time not just for the moderates to think about consolidating, but also to pick a fight with Sanders. Last week, we saw a Democratic debate in which the centrists did this a bit — but barely more than they attacked each other. As with the anti-Trump contingent in 2016, presumably they’re all afraid that if they attack Sanders too hard, his supporters will never back them in a general (of course, as we saw in 2016, a decent number of Sanders voters won’t back the eventual Democratic nominee anyway). Given how Sanders’s ire appeared to rise, coupled with his health problems, it’s possible some of them also didn’t want to get too heated with him on the debate stage (it’s notable that Klobuchar jabbed at Sanders’s health a few times).
Bloomberg is doing this most, and most effectively, but even after hitting Sanders on socialism in the debate, it still is not enough. Politics is nasty. Where are the people crashing Sanders rallies with Soviet flags and blaring the Soviet national anthem over their phones? Or putting on Marx, Lenin, and Stalin masks? Or in Florida, showing up dressed up as Fidel Castro and Che Guevara waving Bernie Sanders signs? Where are the fake “Bernie Sanders travel guides” detailing his favorite places to hang out in Moscow, Managua, Havana, and Caracas?
Given that Sanders first won office by aligning with the National Rifle Association, which Democratic voters seem to loathe, it’s frankly embarrassing that Biden, in particular, hasn’t made this into a line of major attack. Biden could easily start hammering Bernie hard on this in town halls, at ice cream socials, and other voter meet-and-greets and simultaneously deploy some fake "NRA members for Bernie" carrying phony Kalashnikovs and talking about Sanders’s real record. It would work better than his throwaway line at the end of last week’s debate hitting Sanders on the subject.
And while Bloomberg hit Sanders for his wealth and his swank millionaire properties, with a little help from Mayor Pete, this is also readily available ammunition, just lying around for the taking. It would be best deployed by the Indianan, who appears to be the only non-millionaire in the race. And the good news is, he’s also (usually) the most articulate candidate running and has an extremely able press team who could shove out the message of the socialist multimillionaire with three houses acting like an aggrieved factory worker making minimum wage.
Stuff such as this is petty and, in some cases, stupid. But it draws attention to an opponent’s liabilities and gets the campaign pushing it on TV, thus boosting name recognition while having to spend hardly a dime. And often, it provokes a response in the targeted candidate that sours voters on them by baiting them into losing their cool.
Of course, to do it, you have to have treated the target seriously enough to do your opposition research in the first place, to know their liabilities and be willing to exploit them. That’s something else that anti-Sanders candidates don’t seem to be doing, just as rival campaigns to Trump’s didn’t much bother with it in 2015 and early 2016. Like the crotchety old socialist, Trump was treated as a joke who could never win. Until he did.
Sanders has had a long and colorful public life. Obviously, it’s been colorful in ways that Trump’s is not, and vice versa. But just as Trump proved to be an opposition research treasure trove once someone — not the GOP candidates so much as the media, super-PACs, and anti-Trump groups such as mine — dove in, so will Sanders. It’s just not clear anyone has done this. And if they have, they’re talking about the wrong information to the wrong reporters. Many people who cover Sanders are fans of his who won’t write a bad word about him; many others are simply pure horserace people. Only a few have an investigative journalist’s bone in their bodies (it’s those last few that you want to get the dirt in front of).
Ultimately, the moderates’ campaigns should be looking for nuggets that underline Sanders’s elitism, hypocrisy on wages, benefits, climate, sexism, etc., and generally the extent to which he is out of touch with the common voter. One of the deadliest moments for Sanders’s campaign was probably when he was busted for not paying staff in line with his own $15 minimum wage plan and was proving less than enthusiastic about their union organizing efforts. Things such as that can kill.
But so too can the palling-around-with-communists business. There are still a lot of older Democratic voters who hated the Soviet Union, hated the Sandinistas, and generally hate socialism and communism. Even more, those who hate being tagged with the “socialist” moniker themselves just because they like the New Deal and their Medicare and Social Security. Plus, unlike Sanders’s younger followers, who may or may not turn out to vote, these people always vote. They also have time on their hands to volunteer, and in many cases they have more disposable income than would a recent college graduate making $40,000 a year and carrying $100,000 worth of student debt.
Trump knows this. It’s why when he played word association games with Sean Hannity recently, he replied “communist” when Hannity said Sanders’s name. It wasn’t nice. It was nasty. But Sanders isn’t a member of the GOP, and he’s actually not a member of the Democratic Party, either, even if he caucuses with them. Trying to win an election isn’t like playing touch football. This is the NFL, and if centrists want to stop Sanders (which, incidentally, probably gives them a better shot at stopping Trump), they need to start getting rough and executing, fast.
God knows, when it’s general election time, Trump will do all of these things, so either go big or go home. That’s how it works. And if you don’t believe me, just ask Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, or anyone else who was left in Trump’s dust while saying “this guy is a joke” or “I don’t want to cut a deal with X” a mere four years ago.
Liz Mair is the founder, owner and president of Mair Strategies LLC, and a former adviser to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Sen. Rand Paul, Gov. Rick Perry, and Carly Fiorina. In 2008, she served as the Republican National Committee’s first and only online communications director, and a spokeswoman.