theguardian--2020-02-07--Pete Buttigieg confident for New Hampshire as still no winner called in Iowa

Pete Buttigieg goes into the crucial weekend before the New Hampshire primary as the unlikely leading threat to his more experienced rivals .
Buttigieg , 38 , and Bernie Sanders , 78 , on Friday morning remained neck-and-neck in the results from the disastrous Iowa caucuses , with still no formal winner declared from the vote on Monday , which turned into a debacle after a new data collection app malfunctioned .
Donald Trump left Washington for an event in North Carolina in ebullient mood after a week on the up .
A day after what he called a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to mark his acquittal in the impeachment trial , he crowed : “ The Democrat party has given up on counting votes in Iowa .
Looks like it all got computer ‘ fried ’ .
” He went on , in a tweet : “ Nobody knows who the real winner is .
Maybe it ’ s Sleepy Joe [ his nickname for rival Joe Biden ] , but it ’ s not looking that way .
They lost millions & millions of dollars , all for NOTHING .
But I WON Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s heels in the latest opinion poll in New Hampshire – a blow to Sanders , because he represents the nextdoor New England state of Vermont , where he has been a leftwing fixture for decades .
Sanders had hoped to be a shoo-in for a strong win in the New Hampshire primary .
The Boston Globe/WBZ-TV/Suffolk University poll showed Sanders just in the lead in New Hampshire at 24 % , with Buttigieg at 23 % .
Then a gap before the third-placed Elizabeth Warren , also a New England politician @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in danger of stalling despite a solid performance in Iowa .
Meanwhile , Biden , the vice-president in Barack Obama ’ s administration , was only at 11 % .
He also came a disappointing fourth in the results as reported so far from the Iowa contest , telling a crowd of voters at a subsequent event in New Hampshire : “ I ’ m not going to sugarcoat it .
We took a gut-punch in Iowa.
” Biden has been noticeably less active than other candidates crisscrossing a snowy New Hampshire in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Dick Harpootlian , a South Carolina state senator , told the Washington Post : “ From a Biden perspective … he ’ s got to have sharper elbows .
History may write that the best thing that ever happened to Joe Biden was getting gut-punched in Iowa.
” The official result from Iowa was still too close to call , and pressure is building on the candidates to make a good showing in New Hampshire .
That didn ’ t stop Buttigieg from declaring victory in Iowa , on Twitter as he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNN event .
“ The first time I was here , few people knew me or how to pronounce my name .
Now we ’ ve won the Iowa caucuses and we ’ re just five days away from the New Hampshire Primary , ” he wrote .
His campaign was hyperactive in Iowa : he has visited the majority of counties that swung from Obama to Trump , taking advantage of the sitting senators who are running – Warren , Amy Klobuchar , Sanders and long-shot Michael Bennet – having to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two weeks for the impeachment trial .
“ We needed a new path forward , a path that welcomed people instead of pushing them away , brought them together instead of driving them apart , because this is our best and maybe our last shot , ” Buttigieg told anxious but optimistic supporters during the limbo after caucusing on Monday in Des Moines , while the results were delayed .
The results come in a contest marred by fresh revelations about technical issues and reporting delays that have led to allegations of inaccuracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Iowa Democratic party is an outrage – that they were that unprepared .
That they put forth such a complicated process , relied on untested technology , ” Sanders said .
Asked by reporters why people should believe his declaration of victory over Buttigieg ’ s , Sanders said : “ Because I got 6,000 more votes.
” However , the “ raw ” popular vote is overridden by the allocation to each candidate of state delegates , which are based on a slightly different measure .
State by state , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight for the White House .
Wading into the growing chaos over Iowa , the Democratic National Committee chair , Tom Perez , called for a “ recanvass ” – essentially a review of the paperwork from each voting site .
At an event at his New Hampshire state campaign headquarters in Manchester on Thursday , Sanders said his campaign was ahead .
“ Our campaign is winning the popular initial vote by some 6,000 popular votes , ” he said .
The deadlocked contest gives Buttigieg and Sanders a burst of momentum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the crowded field .
Buttigieg , a moderate , openly gay military veteran who has been out on the trail with his husband , Chasten ; and Sanders , a longtime socialist and independent senator who has been campaigning with his wife , Jane ; are separated by 40 years in age and conflicting ideology .
The leading candidates were set to duel publicly on stage at a high-stakes TV debate in New Hampshire on Friday night , in which Buttigieg and Sanders were expected to squabble over who has the lead , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to slip out of the limelight and lose momentum .

Daniel Strauss in Manchester, New Hampshire, and Kenya Evelyn in Washington

Pete Buttigieg goes into the crucial weekend before the New Hampshire primary as the unlikely leading threat to his more experienced rivals.
Buttigieg, 38, and Bernie Sanders, 78, on Friday morning remained neck-and-neck in the results from the disastrous Iowa caucuses, with still no formal winner declared from the vote on Monday, which turned into a debacle after a new data collection app malfunctioned.
Donald Trump left Washington for an event in North Carolina in ebullient mood after a week on the up. A day after what he called a “celebration” speech at the White House to mark his acquittal in the impeachment trial, he crowed: “The Democrat party has given up on counting votes in Iowa. Looks like it all got computer ‘fried’.”
He went on, in a tweet: “Nobody knows who the real winner is. Maybe it’s Sleepy Joe [his nickname for rival Joe Biden], but it’s not looking that way. They lost millions & millions of dollars, all for NOTHING. But I WON Iowa big!”
Buttigieg was nipping Sanders’s heels in the latest opinion poll in New Hampshire – a blow to Sanders, because he represents the nextdoor New England state of Vermont, where he has been a leftwing fixture for decades. Sanders had hoped to be a shoo-in for a strong win in the New Hampshire primary.
(FACT) Of the eight candidates in the BOSTON GLOBE and EMERSON polls of New Hampshire from February 6-7, only *two* increased their standing poll-to-poll: Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren—who many would call the top moderate and top progressive option for New Hampshire voters. pic.twitter.com/RAJYHXVdLR — Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) February 7, 2020
The Boston Globe/WBZ-TV/Suffolk University poll showed Sanders just in the lead in New Hampshire at 24%, with Buttigieg at 23%. Then a gap before the third-placed Elizabeth Warren, also a New England politician as the senator for Massachusetts but now in danger of stalling despite a solid performance in Iowa.
Meanwhile, Biden, the vice-president in Barack Obama’s administration, was only at 11%. He also came a disappointing fourth in the results as reported so far from the Iowa contest, telling a crowd of voters at a subsequent event in New Hampshire: “I’m not going to sugarcoat it. We took a gut-punch in Iowa.”
Biden has been noticeably less active than other candidates crisscrossing a snowy New Hampshire in the run-up to the primary on Tuesday.
Dick Harpootlian, a South Carolina state senator, told the Washington Post: “From a Biden perspective … he’s got to have sharper elbows. History may write that the best thing that ever happened to Joe Biden was getting gut-punched in Iowa.”
The official result from Iowa was still too close to call, and pressure is building on the candidates to make a good showing in New Hampshire.
That didn’t stop Buttigieg from declaring victory in Iowa, on Twitter as he prepared to take the stage for a CNN event. “The first time I was here, few people knew me or how to pronounce my name. Now we’ve won the Iowa caucuses and we’re just five days away from the New Hampshire Primary,” he wrote.
His campaign was hyperactive in Iowa: he has visited the majority of counties that swung from Obama to Trump, taking advantage of the sitting senators who are running – Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Sanders and long-shot Michael Bennet – having to be in Washington over much of the last two weeks for the impeachment trial.
Bernie Sanders at St Anselm College, Manchester, on Friday. Sanders leads by a point in the latest poll. Photograph: Justin Lane/EPA
“We needed a new path forward, a path that welcomed people instead of pushing them away, brought them together instead of driving them apart, because this is our best and maybe our last shot,” Buttigieg told anxious but optimistic supporters during the limbo after caucusing on Monday in Des Moines, while the results were delayed.
The results come in a contest marred by fresh revelations about technical issues and reporting delays that have led to allegations of inaccuracy.
Sanders, calling the caucus “a screw-up”, condemned the Iowa Democratic party.
“I think what has happened with the Iowa Democratic party is an outrage – that they were that unprepared. That they put forth such a complicated process, relied on untested technology,” Sanders said.
Asked by reporters why people should believe his declaration of victory over Buttigieg’s, Sanders said: “Because I got 6,000 more votes.”
However, the “raw” popular vote is overridden by the allocation to each candidate of state delegates, which are based on a slightly different measure. State by state, that ultimately determines the party nominee to fight for the White House.
Wading into the growing chaos over Iowa, the Democratic National Committee chair, Tom Perez, called for a “recanvass” – essentially a review of the paperwork from each voting site.
At an event at his New Hampshire state campaign headquarters in Manchester on Thursday, Sanders said his campaign was ahead.
“Our campaign is winning the popular initial vote by some 6,000 popular votes,” he said.
The deadlocked contest gives Buttigieg and Sanders a burst of momentum as they seek to pull away from the crowded field.
Buttigieg, a moderate, openly gay military veteran who has been out on the trail with his husband, Chasten; and Sanders, a longtime socialist and independent senator who has been campaigning with his wife, Jane; are separated by 40 years in age and conflicting ideology.
The leading candidates were set to duel publicly on stage at a high-stakes TV debate in New Hampshire on Friday night, in which Buttigieg and Sanders were expected to squabble over who has the lead, and Warren and Biden were under pressure not to slip out of the limelight and lose momentum.


theguardian--2020-02-07--Mike Bloomberg will pay you $150 to say nice things about him

Money can ’ t buy you friends .
But it can buy you influence – or influencers , to be precise .
In the latest round of “ What will Mike Bloomberg buy next ?
” ( he has already been accused of buying his way into the presidential race ) Bloomberg is offering $ 150 a pop to Instagram influencers willing to shill for his campaign , according to the Daily Beast .
The Bloomberg campaign is using the social marketing agency Tribe to recruit influencers .
A post on Tribe ’ s platform – which matches influencers with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the gig by explaining “ why Mike Bloomberg is the electable candidate who can rise above the fray , work across the aisle so ALL Americans feel heard & respected ” .
The advert specifies influencers should “ be honest , passionate and be yourself !
” Tribe says it aims to collect “ organic ” looking photos and videos that can be shared by Bloomberg ’ s team , but is not asking influencers to share the content themselves .
Tribe specializes in “ drool-worthy , branded content ” and works @ @ @ @ @ @ @ website .
According to the Daily Beast , the advert asks influencers to submit still images or videos using text to explain why the influencer supports “ Mike ” – and describes the billionaire as “ a middle-class kid who worked his way through college ” .
Influencers must be US residents to apply , and are barred from using profanity , nudity or “ overtly negative content ” .
The listing describes Bloomberg as a “ proven supporter of progressive values ” – highlighting his work on gun violence ( Bloomberg founded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which campaigns for greater gun control ) .
It does not mention his “ stop-and-frisk ” policy that disproportionately targeted black and Latino men while Bloomberg was mayor of New York , which he has apologized for since joining the race .
After all , what ’ s Instagram for , if not to filter out the unsavory things in life ?
Bloomberg ’ s team declined to comment on the campaign .
• This article was amended on 7 February 2020 .
A previous version of this article suggested Tribe was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own social media accounts .
It was updated to reflect the fact that Tribe is collecting materials for Bloomberg ’ s campaign to share .
There is also no minimum follower count for the influencers involved .

Money can’t buy you friends. But it can buy you influence – or influencers, to be precise. In the latest round of “What will Mike Bloomberg buy next?” (he has already been accused of buying his way into the presidential race) Bloomberg is offering $150 a pop to Instagram influencers willing to shill for his campaign, according to the Daily Beast.
The Bloomberg campaign is using the social marketing agency Tribe to recruit influencers. A post on Tribe’s platform – which matches influencers with paid opportunities – asks influencers to apply for the gig by explaining “why Mike Bloomberg is the electable candidate who can rise above the fray, work across the aisle so ALL Americans feel heard & respected”. The advert specifies influencers should “be honest, passionate and be yourself!”
Tribe says it aims to collect “organic” looking photos and videos that can be shared by Bloomberg’s team, but is not asking influencers to share the content themselves.
Tribe specializes in “drool-worthy, branded content” and works with 68,862 influencers, according to its website. According to the Daily Beast, the advert asks influencers to submit still images or videos using text to explain why the influencer supports “Mike” – and describes the billionaire as “a middle-class kid who worked his way through college”.
Influencers must be US residents to apply, and are barred from using profanity, nudity or “overtly negative content”.
The listing describes Bloomberg as a “proven supporter of progressive values” – highlighting his work on gun violence (Bloomberg founded and funds the Everytown for Gun Safety, which campaigns for greater gun control). It does not mention his “stop-and-frisk” policy that disproportionately targeted black and Latino men while Bloomberg was mayor of New York, which he has apologized for since joining the race. After all, what’s Instagram for, if not to filter out the unsavory things in life?
Bloomberg’s team declined to comment on the campaign.


theguardian--2020-02-07--From the Iowa caucuses to the Barnes & Noble fiasco, it's clear: tech cannot save us | Julia Carrie

From the Iowa caucuses to the Barnes & Noble fiasco, it's clear: tech cannot save us | Julia Carrie Wong

Every four years , journalists from around the world are drawn to the Iowa caucuses like podcasters to a murder .
The blatantly anti-democratic tradition appeals to certain journalistic biases : the steadfast belief of the political press that rural Americans are more authentically American than the vast majority of Americans who live in cities and suburbs – and the irresistible opportunity to pedantically explain arcane rules .
You can also get something called a “ pie shake ” in Iowa , which is , truly , delicious .
I understand the appeal .
In 2008 , as a graduate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I was so enthusiastic about the caucuses that I stayed in town through winter break during the snowiest Iowa winter on record , rather than risk missing my chance to caucus for Barack Obama .
( This was long before I had even considered journalism as a career . )
The exercise in “ democracy ” that I ended up experiencing was patently absurd .
The Democratic party caucuses drew a record turnout in 2008 , and mine was packed .
Crammed into a campus lecture hall with theater-style seating , none of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that advised sending each candidate ’ s supporters to a different corner of the room applied .
The vast majority of people in the room supported Obama , but figuring out exactly how many people that was eluded the party officials in charge .
They told the volunteers coordinating the Obama group to come up with their count – and do it quickly .
Those volunteers had come prepared ; they had written the numbers one to 500 on slips of construction paper , which they planned to give to each Obama supporter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the total vote count .
It was a perfectly reasonable plan that fell apart the moment someone got impatient and broke the single , numerically-ordered stack , into multiple stacks .
Thus ensued much shouting and recrimination , futile attempts to claw back the cards , and vague threats from the party officials .
By the time we were ready to start the second stage of caucusing – when those who opt for candidates with insufficient support can switch to their second choice – results from around the state were already being reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some people ’ s decisions .
It was a mess .
That ill-fated stack of cards in my caucus was a kind of analog version of the now infamous app that set off the Democratic party ’ s woes in Iowa this week : a perfectly fine idea stymied by poor execution , impatience , and a tendency to seek shortcuts .
Silicon Valley is the current spiritual home of hucksters selling plausible-sounding , technological “ solutions ” to complicated societal problems , so it ’ s not exactly surprising that the company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a group that exemplifies this unhappy intersection .
Acronym , and its affiliated Super Pac , Pacronym , racked up glowing press by selling the idea that Democrats could win back the White House with better digital ads and a propaganda operation designed to appeal to Facebook users .
I ’ m sure that their pitch sounded very convincing .
Advanced technology so often does .
Just this week , America ’ s largest bookseller allowed artificial intelligence to convince it that the heroine of the Secret Garden – the child of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home to be raised by her uncle in an English manor house – could be anything other than white .
We are a country that allowed Theranos to perform blood tests on actual patients without ever proving its product worked ; that has confronted the epidemic of school shootings with invasive digital surveillance of students ’ email accounts .
We have become untenably susceptible to the idea that AI is a substitute for judgment and that technological shortcuts are a viable strategy .
They aren ’ t .
Pulling the US back from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be accomplished with Facebook ads and liberal propaganda masquerading as local news .
It ’ s going to take incredibly hard work from political and community organizers persuading those under the spell of Trump ’ s demagoguery , motivating the unmotivated to vote – and working precinct by precinct to counteract the well-funded systematic efforts to disenfranchise large swaths of the electorate .
There are no shortcuts to reviving American ’ s democracy .
Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you something .
• None ‘ They know us better than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tracked my last two years of reading , by the Guardian ’ s Kari Paul .
• None The billion-dollar disinformation campaign to reelect the president , by the Atlantic ’ s McKay Coppins .
• None On Facebook , anti-vaxxers pushed a mom not to give her son tamiflu .
He later died , by NBC News ’ s Brandy Zadrozny .
• None Silicon Valley ’ s new extreme : the 2.30am tech bus from Salida , by Lauren Hepler .

Every four years, journalists from around the world are drawn to the Iowa caucuses like podcasters to a murder. The blatantly anti-democratic tradition appeals to certain journalistic biases: the steadfast belief of the political press that rural Americans are more authentically American than the vast majority of Americans who live in cities and suburbs – and the irresistible opportunity to pedantically explain arcane rules. You can also get something called a “pie shake” in Iowa, which is, truly, delicious.
I understand the appeal. In 2008, as a graduate student at the University of Iowa, I was so enthusiastic about the caucuses that I stayed in town through winter break during the snowiest Iowa winter on record, rather than risk missing my chance to caucus for Barack Obama. (This was long before I had even considered journalism as a career.) The exercise in “democracy” that I ended up experiencing was patently absurd.
The Democratic party caucuses drew a record turnout in 2008, and mine was packed. Crammed into a campus lecture hall with theater-style seating, none of the “how to caucus” tutorials that advised sending each candidate’s supporters to a different corner of the room applied. The vast majority of people in the room supported Obama, but figuring out exactly how many people that was eluded the party officials in charge. They told the volunteers coordinating the Obama group to come up with their count – and do it quickly. Those volunteers had come prepared; they had written the numbers one to 500 on slips of construction paper, which they planned to give to each Obama supporter. The last card distributed would equal the total vote count.
It was a perfectly reasonable plan that fell apart the moment someone got impatient and broke the single, numerically-ordered stack, into multiple stacks. Thus ensued much shouting and recrimination, futile attempts to claw back the cards, and vague threats from the party officials. By the time we were ready to start the second stage of caucusing – when those who opt for candidates with insufficient support can switch to their second choice – results from around the state were already being reported and discussed in our room, influencing some people’s decisions. It was a mess.
That ill-fated stack of cards in my caucus was a kind of analog version of the now infamous app that set off the Democratic party’s woes in Iowa this week: a perfectly fine idea stymied by poor execution, impatience, and a tendency to seek shortcuts.
Silicon Valley is the current spiritual home of hucksters selling plausible-sounding, technological “solutions” to complicated societal problems, so it’s not exactly surprising that the company that bungled the caucus app is tied to a group that exemplifies this unhappy intersection. Acronym, and its affiliated Super Pac, Pacronym, racked up glowing press by selling the idea that Democrats could win back the White House with better digital ads and a propaganda operation designed to appeal to Facebook users.
I’m sure that their pitch sounded very convincing. Advanced technology so often does. Just this week, America’s largest bookseller allowed artificial intelligence to convince it that the heroine of the Secret Garden – the child of British colonists in India who was sent home to be raised by her uncle in an English manor house – could be anything other than white. We are a country that allowed Theranos to perform blood tests on actual patients without ever proving its product worked; that has confronted the epidemic of school shootings with invasive digital surveillance of students’ email accounts.
We have become untenably susceptible to the idea that AI is a substitute for judgment and that technological shortcuts are a viable strategy. They aren’t. Pulling the US back from the brink of authoritarianism is not going to be accomplished with Facebook ads and liberal propaganda masquerading as local news. It’s going to take incredibly hard work from political and community organizers persuading those under the spell of Trump’s demagoguery, motivating the unmotivated to vote – and working precinct by precinct to counteract the well-funded systematic efforts to disenfranchise large swaths of the electorate.
There are no shortcuts to reviving American’s democracy. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you something.
What I’m reading …


theguardian--2020-02-07--Power is everything – and progressives forget that at their peril | Jonathan Freedland

You take comfort where you can .
Especially at a time like this , when the side of progress is beleaguered , when left or liberal values are taking a hammering on every front , apparently losing every battle , it ’ s natural to cling to whatever blanket of consolation we can find .
When a single week can see Britain leave the European Union and Donald Trump bragging and swaggering in vengeful celebration as he escapes punishment for a high crime he clearly committed , the need for soothing can become intense .
One such solace is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around us , the left is somehow “ winning the argument ” .
That view lives on in corners of the British Labour party .
Witness those diehard followers of the party leader , insisting that Prime Minister Boris Johnson ’ s decision to nationalise Northern Rail or introduce free hospital parking proves that it was Jeremy Corbyn who really won the big contest of December 2019 .
Perhaps those devotees didn ’ t notice the key words in that sentence : “ Prime Minister Boris Johnson ” .
In the US , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to find sunshine in the gloom centres on the observation that politics exists downstream from culture , and that while three of the four institutions of the US government ( the presidency , the Senate and the supreme court ) are in the hands of the right , at least power over the commanding heights of the culture – the media , the Academy , entertainment – lies elsewhere .
On this view , Trump might well retain the White House in November , even if he once again loses the popular vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advantage in the Senate , even as they regularly win far fewer votes for that body too – but liberals will always have Hollywood .
However , these comforts are delusional .
If recent events have reminded us of anything , it ’ s that in politics , power is the whole ballgame .
In the US , Trump is crowing that he has succeeded where his predecessors failed by coming up with a Middle East “ peace plan ” that represents a “ historic breakthrough ” in the conflict between Palestinians and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phrases are doing some very heavy lifting .
It ’ s not a peace plan at all , but rather a rubber stamp of approval for the wishlist of one side of the conflict – namely , the Israelis – or , more accurately , for the most extreme elements of that one side .
Naturally , no Palestinians agreed to this plan , nor was a single Palestinian present at the unveiling .
To greet it as a historic breakthrough was an absurdity that would have made Lewis Carroll blush .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watch a football manager praising his side for winning 10-0 when they were the only team on the field and the opposing goal was open and empty .
If only Obama , Bush Jr , Clinton , Bush Sr , Reagan or Carter had realised that success meant simply giving one side all it wanted , why , they could have negotiated a historic breakthrough decades ago .
Obviously the Trump peace plan will fail if its objective is to bring peace .
But if its true aim is to reframe the conflict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future negotiation away from the two-state solution that has long been the international consensus and towards an arrangement that will allow Israel to annex all the bits of the West Bank it wants , leaving Palestinians with a fragmented , Swiss cheese of a state comprised of disconnected enclaves , then its prospects are much healthier .
Like it or not , Trump ’ s ludicrously ( and dangerously ) unjust plan will be the starting point for any future US administration .
If an incoming US president wants to adopt any halfway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rescind many or most of the concessions to Israel that Trump granted – and that will cost political capital .
Thus has Trump already left a lasting imprint on that corner of the Middle East , inflicting yet more loss on a people , the Palestinians , who have already lost so much .
In Britain , the damage is of a less lethal variety , but still deadly serious .
Johnson ’ s government is stepping up its war on the BBC , seeking to erode public support for the licence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flagship news programmes .
This week it widened its attack to include other news organisations , and indeed the principle of a free and independent press , by attempting to handpick which outlets are and are not allowed to cover it , a move lifted straight from the Bumper Book of Trump .
The effect could be a fundamental reshaping of the British media landscape , altering the way this society learns about itself and , in turn , how its democracy functions .
The point here is that neither Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the BBC were the policies on which those men were elected ; they were not in their party platforms or manifestos .
And yet they illustrate the power of elected office , not simply to implement a stated programme but to make the weather , to set the terms of trade .
Most significant of all , a party in power has the ability to create the conditions that ensure it keeps it .
The anti-BBC project is an example , aimed at weakening a source of accountability that might otherwise make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The looming threat to the UK judiciary is another , as Johnson plots his revenge for last autumn ’ s supreme court ruling , which voided his unlawful suspension of parliament .
Armed with a Commons majority of 80 , the prime minister now has the power to shrink that potential check on his authority .
In the US , control of the presidency and the Senate has allowed Republicans to remake the supreme court in their image , so that it hands down rulings – on party funding , for example – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s understanding the power of power , a truth so obvious that it should barely need stating , that is driving some battle-hardened veterans of past left campaigns to despair .
“ Nothing .
Without power , there is nothing , ” fumed James Carville , who ran the last successful Democratic effort to oust a sitting Republican president when he masterminded Bill Clinton ’ s victory back in 1992 .
He ’ s alarmed that some of his fellow Democrats seem to be downgrading , if not actively disdaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in choosing their nominee .
For him it is the first , most fundamental requirement .
As he put it after this week ’ s Iowa fiasco , the only consideration that matters is a candidate ’ s ability to beat Trump – because “ there ’ s only one moral imperative and that is to beat Donald Trump ” .
Of course , “ electability ” is a hard thing to prove for certain until it ’ s tested ( by which time it ’ s too late ) .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to recognise that winning power is the sine qua non of politics , literally the thing without which there is nothing .
Labour deputy leadership candidate Richard Burgon might worry that party members will panic and “ just reach out for whatever is most conventionally electable ” , rather than opting for the most “ radical ” wishlist of promises , but there is a ready response to that .
Labour ’ s experiment with the not “ conventionally electable ” ended in a conventional crushing two months ago – and there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Its only achievement was to grant the Tories five more years – and the power to reshape the world around them .

You take comfort where you can. Especially at a time like this, when the side of progress is beleaguered, when left or liberal values are taking a hammering on every front, apparently losing every battle, it’s natural to cling to whatever blanket of consolation we can find. When a single week can see Britain leave the European Union and Donald Trump bragging and swaggering in vengeful celebration as he escapes punishment for a high crime he clearly committed, the need for soothing can become intense. One such solace is that, despite the concrete defeats visible all around us, the left is somehow “winning the argument”.
That view lives on in corners of the British Labour party. Witness those diehard followers of the party leader, insisting that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to nationalise Northern Rail or introduce free hospital parking proves that it was Jeremy Corbyn who really won the big contest of December 2019. Perhaps those devotees didn’t notice the key words in that sentence: “Prime Minister Boris Johnson”.
In the US, a more defensible version of this attempt to find sunshine in the gloom centres on the observation that politics exists downstream from culture, and that while three of the four institutions of the US government (the presidency, the Senate and the supreme court) are in the hands of the right, at least power over the commanding heights of the culture – the media, the Academy, entertainment – lies elsewhere. On this view, Trump might well retain the White House in November, even if he once again loses the popular vote; just as Republicans enjoy a structural advantage in the Senate, even as they regularly win far fewer votes for that body too – but liberals will always have Hollywood.
However, these comforts are delusional. If recent events have reminded us of anything, it’s that in politics, power is the whole ballgame.
In the US, Trump is crowing that he has succeeded where his predecessors failed by coming up with a Middle East “peace plan” that represents a “historic breakthrough” in the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. The quote marks around those phrases are doing some very heavy lifting. It’s not a peace plan at all, but rather a rubber stamp of approval for the wishlist of one side of the conflict – namely, the Israelis – or, more accurately, for the most extreme elements of that one side. Naturally, no Palestinians agreed to this plan, nor was a single Palestinian present at the unveiling.
To greet it as a historic breakthrough was an absurdity that would have made Lewis Carroll blush. To watch Trump applaud his achievement was to watch a football manager praising his side for winning 10-0 when they were the only team on the field and the opposing goal was open and empty. If only Obama, Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan or Carter had realised that success meant simply giving one side all it wanted, why, they could have negotiated a historic breakthrough decades ago.
Obviously the Trump peace plan will fail if its objective is to bring peace. But if its true aim is to reframe the conflict, to redefine the parameters of any future negotiation away from the two-state solution that has long been the international consensus and towards an arrangement that will allow Israel to annex all the bits of the West Bank it wants, leaving Palestinians with a fragmented, Swiss cheese of a state comprised of disconnected enclaves, then its prospects are much healthier.
Like it or not, Trump’s ludicrously (and dangerously) unjust plan will be the starting point for any future US administration. If an incoming US president wants to adopt any halfway credible plan, they will first have to rescind many or most of the concessions to Israel that Trump granted – and that will cost political capital. Thus has Trump already left a lasting imprint on that corner of the Middle East, inflicting yet more loss on a people, the Palestinians, who have already lost so much.
In Britain, the damage is of a less lethal variety, but still deadly serious. Johnson’s government is stepping up its war on the BBC, seeking to erode public support for the licence fee that funds it and boycotting its flagship news programmes. This week it widened its attack to include other news organisations, and indeed the principle of a free and independent press, by attempting to handpick which outlets are and are not allowed to cover it, a move lifted straight from the Bumper Book of Trump. The effect could be a fundamental reshaping of the British media landscape, altering the way this society learns about itself and, in turn, how its democracy functions.
The point here is that neither Trump’s anti-peace plan nor Johnson’s assault on the BBC were the policies on which those men were elected; they were not in their party platforms or manifestos. And yet they illustrate the power of elected office, not simply to implement a stated programme but to make the weather, to set the terms of trade. Most significant of all, a party in power has the ability to create the conditions that ensure it keeps it.
The anti-BBC project is an example, aimed at weakening a source of accountability that might otherwise make life harder for this Tory government. The looming threat to the UK judiciary is another, as Johnson plots his revenge for last autumn’s supreme court ruling, which voided his unlawful suspension of parliament. Armed with a Commons majority of 80, the prime minister now has the power to shrink that potential check on his authority. In the US, control of the presidency and the Senate has allowed Republicans to remake the supreme court in their image, so that it hands down rulings – on party funding, for example – that help them and hurt their opponents.
It’s understanding the power of power, a truth so obvious that it should barely need stating, that is driving some battle-hardened veterans of past left campaigns to despair. “Nothing. Without power, there is nothing,” fumed James Carville, who ran the last successful Democratic effort to oust a sitting Republican president when he masterminded Bill Clinton’s victory back in 1992. He’s alarmed that some of his fellow Democrats seem to be downgrading, if not actively disdaining, “electability” as a criterion in choosing their nominee. For him it is the first, most fundamental requirement. As he put it after this week’s Iowa fiasco, the only consideration that matters is a candidate’s ability to beat Trump – because “there’s only one moral imperative and that is to beat Donald Trump”.
Of course, “electability” is a hard thing to prove for certain until it’s tested (by which time it’s too late). But the first step is to accept its importance, to recognise that winning power is the sine qua non of politics, literally the thing without which there is nothing. Labour deputy leadership candidate Richard Burgon might worry that party members will panic and “just reach out for whatever is most conventionally electable”, rather than opting for the most “radical” wishlist of promises, but there is a ready response to that. Labour’s experiment with the not “conventionally electable” ended in a conventional crushing two months ago – and there is nothing socialist or radical about that. Its only achievement was to grant the Tories five more years – and the power to reshape the world around them.


theguardian--2020-02-07--Love the billionaire bucks flooding the 2020 elections? Thank Charles Koch | Lisa Graves

When Michael Bloomberg entered the 2020 race , some declared his $ 60bn fortune an asset for taking on Donald Trump , who once claimed he was going to self-fund his own campaign .
Trump and his party raised a record-shattering nearly half a billion dollars in disclosed donations last year – a number that does not include the hundreds of millions in dark money non-profit groups will spend on social media and TV ads .
How did we end up with such a broken system where billionaires can openly or anonymously spend millions to distort election results in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mega-corporation Koch Industries is running a PR campaign with the tagline “ We made that ” – helped make that , or rather helped break that .
Newly uncovered documents reveal Trump and Bloomberg owe thanks in part to Koch for the power to tap their enormous personal fortunes to run for office .
Koch claimed in 2014 that “ it was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.
” The truth is he got involved in elections and trying to overcome election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Koch funding for the Libertarian party helped subsidize the legal effort that resulted in the infamous Buckley v Valeo decision , which equated spending money with free speech .
Buckley also created a loophole that allowed David Koch to self-fund his campaign for vice-president in 1980 , establishing perhaps one of the most extreme examples of privilege in politics today : most Americans can ’ t afford to max out in campaign contributions , but a couple of billionaire white guys have what amounts to a supreme court-divined right to spend an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Until now , however , few people outside the Koch inner circle knew it was really Charles who was bankrolling that political party and its attacks on federal election laws , before David ’ s failed run .
After Buckley , the FEC gave the Libertarian party an advisory opinion to allow Koch to give the party 25 times the limit Congress had adopted .
Koch then bundled money with his family to become that political party ’ s biggest donor , giving it an amount that seems small now but was big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bigger .
Two years later , he pledged to match at least $ 50,000 raised by the party ( despite the $ 25,000 limit ) .
The year after that , he was one of the largest donors helping to fund lawsuits attacking federal campaign laws .
Buckley litigation also laid the foundation for the discredited Citizens United decision .
Since that ruling in 2010 , American elections have been conducted like the Koch-funded Libertarian wishlist circa 1976 : the uber-rich have virtually no real limits on how much they can spend to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can deploy non-profits to escape donation and disclosure rules applicable to candidates , political parties , and Pacs .
As a result , non-profit groups collectively spent more than all candidates in 28 congressional midterm races , according to the Center for Responsive Politics .
The $ 2.6bn in “ independent expenditures ” in 2018 also exceeded spending by both political parties combined .
And , just days ago , Koch ’ s operatives announced their biggest election effort ever for 2020 .
Koch spending down the ballot will help buoy Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did in the 2016 Senate races .
Koch ’ s use of secret billionaires ’ cash to secure the Senate and states is not new .
To win in 2016 , Koch planned to amass and spend $ 889m – Koch Industries even bought the URL : 889million.com .
The new reality is that billionaire-funded dark money groups , like the ones run by Charles Koch ’ s network with its sophisticated voter databases , can operate like a shadow political party but they are more powerful , unbound by donation limits and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because personnel is policy , this means Koch often gets the policies – and judges – he wants .
Despite Charles ’ s public posture of disdain for the president , Trump policy is largely Koch ’ s .
When Charles Koch decided that Trump represented a “ once-in-a-generation ” chance to change the tax code to slash taxes for the richest few , Koch got it .
The same goes for Koch helping to pack the supreme court , which Charles flagged as another top priority for his network of billionaires .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leo , who sits at the helm of a dark money operation that has spent more than $ 250m to change the makeup of the federal and state courts through the secretive funding of groups like the Judicial Crisis Network .
Leo recently bragged to donors that America is on the precipice of a revolution to roll back nearly a century of legal precedents .
If successful that revolution would mark a return to the robber-baron era of limited democratic control over corporations , which Koch fueled in innumerable ways .
But with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more is at stake than the chains he and Leo want to put on the power of American democracy .
We are in a continuing constitutional crisis , where the big money of a tiny few is swamping the voices of most Americans .
And Charles Koch helped make that .
• None Lisa Graves is the former chief counsel for nominations on the US Senate judiciary committee and is the founder of the new watchdog group True North Research , where she manages the new clearinghouse website about Charles Koch , KochDocs.org

When Michael Bloomberg entered the 2020 race, some declared his $60bn fortune an asset for taking on Donald Trump, who once claimed he was going to self-fund his own campaign.
Trump and his party raised a record-shattering nearly half a billion dollars in disclosed donations last year – a number that does not include the hundreds of millions in dark money non-profit groups will spend on social media and TV ads.
How did we end up with such a broken system where billionaires can openly or anonymously spend millions to distort election results in our representative democracy?
Charles Koch – whose mega-corporation Koch Industries is running a PR campaign with the tagline “We made that” – helped make that, or rather helped break that.
Newly uncovered documents reveal Trump and Bloomberg owe thanks in part to Koch for the power to tap their enormous personal fortunes to run for office.
Koch claimed in 2014 that “it was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.” The truth is he got involved in elections and trying to overcome election laws 45 years ago.
Archives show that Koch funding for the Libertarian party helped subsidize the legal effort that resulted in the infamous Buckley v Valeo decision, which equated spending money with free speech.
Buckley also created a loophole that allowed David Koch to self-fund his campaign for vice-president in 1980, establishing perhaps one of the most extreme examples of privilege in politics today: most Americans can’t afford to max out in campaign contributions, but a couple of billionaire white guys have what amounts to a supreme court-divined right to spend an unlimited amount on their own elections.
The big money of a tiny few is swamping the voices of most Americans
Until now, however, few people outside the Koch inner circle knew it was really Charles who was bankrolling that political party and its attacks on federal election laws, before David’s failed run.
After Buckley, the FEC gave the Libertarian party an advisory opinion to allow Koch to give the party 25 times the limit Congress had adopted. Koch then bundled money with his family to become that political party’s biggest donor, giving it an amount that seems small now but was big then and was the start of something bigger.
Two years later, he pledged to match at least $50,000 raised by the party (despite the $25,000 limit). The year after that, he was one of the largest donors helping to fund lawsuits attacking federal campaign laws.
Buckley litigation also laid the foundation for the discredited Citizens United decision.
Since that ruling in 2010, American elections have been conducted like the Koch-funded Libertarian wishlist circa 1976: the uber-rich have virtually no real limits on how much they can spend to influence the outcome of our elections because they can deploy non-profits to escape donation and disclosure rules applicable to candidates, political parties, and Pacs.
As a result, non-profit groups collectively spent more than all candidates in 28 congressional midterm races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The $2.6bn in “independent expenditures” in 2018 also exceeded spending by both political parties combined.
And, just days ago, Koch’s operatives announced their biggest election effort ever for 2020. Koch spending down the ballot will help buoy Trump, without naming him, as it did in the 2016 Senate races.
Koch’s use of secret billionaires’ cash to secure the Senate and states is not new. To win in 2016, Koch planned to amass and spend $889m – Koch Industries even bought the URL: 889million.com.
The new reality is that billionaire-funded dark money groups, like the ones run by Charles Koch’s network with its sophisticated voter databases, can operate like a shadow political party but they are more powerful, unbound by donation limits and disclosure rules that govern parties.
And because personnel is policy, this means Koch often gets the policies – and judges – he wants. Despite Charles’s public posture of disdain for the president, Trump policy is largely Koch’s. When Charles Koch decided that Trump represented a “once-in-a-generation” chance to change the tax code to slash taxes for the richest few, Koch got it.
The same goes for Koch helping to pack the supreme court, which Charles flagged as another top priority for his network of billionaires.
Koch has touted the help of Leonard Leo, who sits at the helm of a dark money operation that has spent more than $250m to change the makeup of the federal and state courts through the secretive funding of groups like the Judicial Crisis Network. Leo recently bragged to donors that America is on the precipice of a revolution to roll back nearly a century of legal precedents.
If successful that revolution would mark a return to the robber-baron era of limited democratic control over corporations, which Koch fueled in innumerable ways. But with the devastating climate changes under way, more is at stake than the chains he and Leo want to put on the power of American democracy.
We are in a continuing constitutional crisis, where the big money of a tiny few is swamping the voices of most Americans. And Charles Koch helped make that.


theguardian--2020-02-07--Donald Trump's 'incredible' week in three minutes - video report

The president of the United States was greeted by applause for his State of the Union address where he painted @ @ @ @ @ of the future of the US on Tuesday .
The following day , Trump was @ @ @ @ @ Senate with all but one Republican voting in his favour .
On Thursday , Trump @ @ @ @ @ a 'celebration ' .
A Gallup poll has put Trump ’ s approval rating at @ @ @ @ @ level for that survey since 2017 .
And on top of that , the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ a slow and embarrassing start in Iowa after technical difficulties delayed results by almost 24 @ @ @ @ @ : the winners and losers in US politics • ‘ It was all bullshit ’ @ @ @ @ @ , vitriolic speech after acquittal • Trump revels in 'incredible ' week – and more @ @ @ @ @

The president of the United States was greeted by applause for his State of the Union address where he painted a picture of his vision of the future of the US on Tuesday. The following day, Trump was acquitted of impeachment in the Senate with all but one Republican voting in his favour.
On Thursday, Trump held a speech he called a 'celebration'. A Gallup poll has put Trump’s approval rating at 49%, the highest level for that survey since 2017. And on top of that, the Democratic primary race got off to a slow and embarrassing start in Iowa after technical difficulties delayed results by almost 24 hours


theguardian--2020-02-09--Democrats step up attacks against each other as New Hampshire primary looms

Leading Democratic presidential candidates have stepped up attacks against each other ahead of the New Hampshire primary , with Joe Biden saying Bernie Sanders ’ democratic socialism would turn off voters in moderate states in a general election against Donald Trump .
Sanders has maintained his lead over the other 10 candidates going into Tuesday ’ s vote , according to a CNN poll released on Sunday , with former mayor Pete Buttigieg in second , Biden in third and the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren in fourth .
Biden , who has long been seen as a frontrunner in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revive his campaign after suffering what he called a “ gut punch ” result in the Iowa caucuses last week , which saw him come in fourth .
Both Sanders and Buttigieg declared victory in a race that was marred by chaotic results , and ended up too close to call .
On ABC ’ s This Week with George Stephanopoulos , Biden was asked if he thought Democrats can ’ t defeat the president if they have to defend socialism .
“ I think it ’ s going to be incredibly more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say – look , if I don ’ t get the nomination and Bernie gets it , I ’ m going to work like hell for him , ” the former vice-president said of the Vermont senator .
“ But I ’ ll tell you what , it ’ s a bigger uphill climb running as a senator or a congressperson or as a governor on a ticket that calls itself a democratic socialist ticket.
” Trump has already begun waging a negative campaign against the spectre of socialism ahead of November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders , 78 , a self-declared democratic socialist with climate , education and healthcare plans costing trillions of dollars .
Biden also called out Buttigieg during an event on Saturday , saying the 38-year-old former mayor of South Bend , Indiana , a city of 100,000 people , lacked experience .
“ I do not believe we ’ re a party at risk if they nominate me , and I do believe we ’ re a party at risk if we nominate someone who ’ s never held a higher office than mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Manchester .
“ This guy ’ s not a Barack Obama !
” he added , dismissing comparisons with Obama during the presidential campaign in 2008 , when Biden said he also lacked experience .
“ Well , he ’ s right , I ’ m not .
And neither is he .
Neither is any of us running for president , ” Buttigieg told CNN ’ s Jake Tapper on State of the Union on Sunday .
He added : “ This isn ’ t 2008 – it ’ s 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment calling for a different kind of leadership.
” Asked whether “ the Democrats can defeat Donald Trump if they have to defend socialism ” , Buttigieg told Stephanopoulos on ABC that it would be “ harder ” .
“ I think it will be a lot harder .
But the bigger concern that I have is further dividing the country .
You know , when the campaign says that either you ’ re for a revolution or you must be for the status quo -- most of us don ’ t see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Buttigieg said .
“ And the irony is at this moment , we actually have a historic American majority , not just the line around what we ’ re against , we need to get rid of Donald Trump , but what we ’ re for , ” he continued .
“ Let ’ s hold together and not blow up that American majority.
” Appearing on CNN , Sanders was asked about Biden ’ s criticism that the Democratic socialist label would hurt candidates in other races .
Sanders said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and healthcare system for all – had “ overwhelming ” support .
“ Our agenda is the agenda of working-class and middle-class Americans , ” Sanders said .
Sanders also addressed criticism of socialism on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace , including Trump ’ s past allegations that Sanders is a “ communist ” .
“ No 1 , in many respects – in many respects , we are a socialist society today .
We have a huge budget .
It puts money into all areas , ” Sanders responded , saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subsidies and tax breaks for his businesses .
“ The difference between my socialism and Trump ’ s socialism is , I believe the government should help working families , not billionaires , ” he said .
On CBS ’ s Face the Nation , Buttigieg also addressed criticism that he wasn ’ t experienced .
One Biden attack ad , for example , states that Biden “ helped save the auto industry , which revitalized the economy of the midwest and led the passage and implementation of the Recovery Act , saving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg revitalized the sidewalks of downtown South Bend by laying out decorative brick.
” Chris Meagher , Buttigieg ’ s national press secretary , said : “ While Washington politics trivializes what goes on in communities like South Bend , South Bend residents who now have better jobs , rising income and new life in their city don ’ t think their lives are a Washington politician ’ s punchline.
” Elaborating on Sunday , Buttigieg said : “ Maybe my community does look good from – does look small from the perspective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of times , it ’ s the infighting in the Washington establishment … that looks small.
” Stephanopoulos asked Warren why she did not raise her hand when asked whether she was concerned about having a Democratic socialist on the ballot during the televised New Hampshire debate on Friday night .
But the Massachusetts senator declined to be drawn .
“ So , look , I am not – I am a capitalist .
I ’ m a – I believe in markets .
This is what I talk about all @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Leading Democratic presidential candidates have stepped up attacks against each other ahead of the New Hampshire primary, with Joe Biden saying Bernie Sanders’ democratic socialism would turn off voters in moderate states in a general election against Donald Trump.
Sanders has maintained his lead over the other 10 candidates going into Tuesday’s vote, according to a CNN poll released on Sunday, with former mayor Pete Buttigieg in second, Biden in third and the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren in fourth.
Biden, who has long been seen as a frontrunner in the race, is particularly under pressure to revive his campaign after suffering what he called a “gut punch” result in the Iowa caucuses last week, which saw him come in fourth. Both Sanders and Buttigieg declared victory in a race that was marred by chaotic results, and ended up too close to call.
On ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Biden was asked if he thought Democrats can’t defeat the president if they have to defend socialism.
“I think it’s going to be incredibly more difficult. I’m not going to say – look, if I don’t get the nomination and Bernie gets it, I’m going to work like hell for him,” the former vice-president said of the Vermont senator.
“But I’ll tell you what, it’s a bigger uphill climb running as a senator or a congressperson or as a governor on a ticket that calls itself a democratic socialist ticket.”
.@GStephanopoulos: "So you think flat out Democrats can't defeat Trump if they have to defend socialism?"
Joe Biden: "I think it's going to be incredibly more difficult." https://t.co/XNqnj8nMdL pic.twitter.com/I9aXW1tOSm — ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) February 9, 2020
Trump has already begun waging a negative campaign against the spectre of socialism ahead of November’s election, often singling out Sanders, 78, a self-declared democratic socialist with climate, education and healthcare plans costing trillions of dollars.
Biden also called out Buttigieg during an event on Saturday, saying the 38-year-old former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, a city of 100,000 people, lacked experience.
“I do not believe we’re a party at risk if they nominate me, and I do believe we’re a party at risk if we nominate someone who’s never held a higher office than mayor,” Biden said at a rally in Manchester.
Q&A What are the primaries? Show The primaries and caucuses are a series of contests, in all 50 US states plus Washington DC and outlying territories, by which each party selects its presidential nominee. The goal for presidential candidates is to amass a majority of delegates, whose job it is to choose the nominee at the party’s national convention later in the year. In some states, delegates are awarded on a winner-take-all basis; other states split their delegates proportionally among top winners. Was this helpful? Thank you for your feedback.
“This guy’s not a Barack Obama!” he added, dismissing comparisons with Obama during the presidential campaign in 2008, when Biden said he also lacked experience.
“Well, he’s right, I’m not. And neither is he. Neither is any of us running for president,” Buttigieg told CNN’s Jake Tapper on State of the Union on Sunday. He added: “This isn’t 2008 – it’s 2020, and we are in a new moment calling for a different kind of leadership.”
Pete Buttigieg waves to the crowd at the Democratic party’s 61st annual McIntyre-Shaheen 100 Club dinner in Manchester, New Hampshire, on 8 February. Photograph: Scott Olson/Getty Images
Asked whether “the Democrats can defeat Donald Trump if they have to defend socialism”, Buttigieg told Stephanopoulos on ABC that it would be “harder”.
“I think it will be a lot harder. But the bigger concern that I have is further dividing the country. You know, when the campaign says that either you’re for a revolution or you must be for the status quo – most of us don’t see where we fit in that picture,” Buttigieg said.
“And the irony is at this moment, we actually have a historic American majority, not just the line around what we’re against, we need to get rid of Donald Trump, but what we’re for,” he continued. “Let’s hold together and not blow up that American majority.”
Appearing on CNN, Sanders was asked about Biden’s criticism that the democratic socialist label would hurt candidates in other races.
Sanders said that his agenda – a higher minimum wage and healthcare system for all – had “overwhelming” support.
“Our agenda is the agenda of working-class and middle-class Americans,” Sanders said.
Bernie Sanders addresses the crowd at the Democratic party’s 61st annual McIntyre-Shaheen 100 Club dinner in Manchester, New Hampshire, on 8 February. Photograph: Joseph Prezioso/AFP via Getty Images
Sanders also addressed criticism of socialism on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, including Trump’s past allegations that Sanders is a “communist”.
“No 1, in many respects – in many respects, we are a socialist society today. We have a huge budget. It puts money into all areas,” Sanders responded, saying that Trump received hundreds of millions in subsidies and tax breaks for his businesses.
“The difference between my socialism and Trump’s socialism is, I believe the government should help working families, not billionaires,” he said.
Q&A What are the New Hampshire primaries? Show Most states hold primary elections, in which voters go to a polling place, mail in their ballots or otherwise vote remotely for a presidential nominee. These are much simpler than caucuses, which are hours-long meetings with multiple rounds of balloting. The first caucuses took place in Iowa on 3 February. Donald Trump won the Republican contest by a landslide, but the Democratic vote ended in chaos, with Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg both emerging as winners in a contest that was too close to call.
New Hampshire traditionally hosts the first primaries of the election year and has done so since 1920. All eyes will be on the competitive Democratic primary to see which candidate comes out on top. There will also be a Republican primary, though as Trump faces no serious competition, he is expected to win that contest by a huge margin. Was this helpful? Thank you for your feedback.
On CBS’s Face the Nation, Buttigieg also addressed criticism that he wasn’t experienced.
One Biden attack ad, for example, states that Biden “helped save the auto industry, which revitalized the economy of the midwest and led the passage and implementation of the Recovery Act, saving our economy from a depression. Pete Buttigieg revitalized the sidewalks of downtown South Bend by laying out decorative brick.”
Chris Meagher, Buttigieg’s national press secretary, said: “While Washington politics trivializes what goes on in communities like South Bend, South Bend residents who now have better jobs, rising income and new life in their city don’t think their lives are a Washington politician’s punchline.”
Elaborating on Sunday, Buttigieg said: “Maybe my community does look good from – does look small from the perspective of Washington. But to us, a lot of times, it’s the infighting in the Washington establishment … that looks small.”
Q&A Why is New Hampshire important? Show While Iowa traditionally holds the first caucuses in the presidential election, New Hampshire has held the first primary since 1920. The goal for presidential candidates is to win early-voting states and create name recognition and a sense of momentum, as well to pick up their first delegates, who will eventually choose the nominee in summer. Sometimes a clear favorite for the nomination emerges quickly, but the last two major Democratic primary contests, pitting Barack Obama against Hillary Clinton and then Bernie Sanders against Clinton, have lasted from the Iowa caucuses in January through to late spring. Was this helpful? Thank you for your feedback.
Stephanopoulos asked Warren why she did not raise her hand when asked whether she was concerned about having a Democratic socialist on the ballot during the televised New Hampshire debate on Friday night. But the Massachusetts senator declined to be drawn.
“So, look, I am not – I am a capitalist. I’m a – I believe in markets. This is what I talk about all the time,” she said.


theguardian--2020-02-09--Facebook and Twitter reject Pelosi's request to remove edited Trump video

Facebook and Twitter have refused House speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s request to remove a video posted by Donald Trump that was misleadingly edited to show her repeatedly tearing a paper copy of his State of the Union address while he was honoring a Tuskegee Airman and other attendees .
“ The American people know that the President has no qualms about lying to them – but it is a shame to see Twitter and Facebook , sources of news for millions , do the same , ” Drew Hammill , Pelosi ’ s chief of staff , said on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Speaker Pelosi is deliberately designed to mislead and lie to the American people , and every day that these platforms refuse to take it down is another reminder that they care more about their shareholders ’ interests than the public ’ s interests.
” The five-minute video in question , which features the words “ POWERFUL AMERICAN STORIES RIPPED TO SHREDS BY NANCY PELOSI ” at the top , was tweeted by Trump on Thursday .
The video shows Pelosi tearing a paper copy of Trump ’ s controversial address , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump lauding honorees .
In reality , Pelosi ripped Trump ’ s speech after the State of the Union address ended .
Their rejection of Pelosi ’ s request , which has spurred condemnation , comes amid heightened debate over tech titans ’ responsibility to thwart the proliferation of misleading – or outright false – information during the 2020 presidential election .
Congressional Democrats have called on these companies to crack down , but some conservatives contend that such intervention could silence right-leaning perspectives , the New York Times reported .
Twitter recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You may not deceptively share synthetic or manipulated media that are likely to cause harm .
In addition , we may label Tweets containing synthetic and manipulated media to help people understand the media ’ s authenticity and to provide additional context , ” but it does not take effect until 5 March .
Facebook announced in January a new policy barring artificial intelligence-manipulated “ deepfake ” videos , but the rule only applies to misinformation generated by AI , not “ shallow fakes ” – misleading videos created through conventional editing techniques @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , rebuffed Hammill ’ s criticism , replying on Twitter : “ Sorry , are you suggesting the President didn ’ t make those remarks and the Speaker didn ’ t rip the speech ?
” Hammill responded : “ what planet are you living on ?
this is deceptively altered .
take it down , ” while Stone reiterated that the post did not violate Facebook ’ s policy on manipulated video .
Facebook said in an email Sunday that it didn ’ t have a comment but maintained it didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a Twitter spokeswoman , on Saturday pointed to the platform ’ s soon-to-launch policy on labeling dramatically altered media , according to the New York Times .
Twitter did not immediately respond to a request for comment .
Per the New York Times , Tim Murtaugh , a Trump campaign spokesman , said : “ If Nancy Pelosi fears images of her ripping up the speech , perhaps she shouldn ’ t have ripped up the speech.
” The campaign also said this video was obvious parody .

Facebook and Twitter have refused House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s request to remove a video posted by Donald Trump that was misleadingly edited to show her repeatedly tearing a paper copy of his State of the Union address while he was honoring a Tuskegee airman and other attendees.
“The American people know that the President has no qualms about lying to them – but it is a shame to see Twitter and Facebook, sources of news for millions, do the same,” Drew Hammill, Pelosi’s chief of staff, said on Twitter. “The latest fake video of Speaker Pelosi is deliberately designed to mislead and lie to the American people, and every day that these platforms refuse to take it down is another reminder that they care more about their shareholders’ interests than the public’s interests.”
The five-minute video in question, which features the words “POWERFUL AMERICAN STORIES RIPPED TO SHREDS BY NANCY PELOSI” at the top, was tweeted by Trump on Thursday. The video shows Pelosi tearing a paper copy of Trump’s controversial address, but the ripping is interspersed with clips of Trump lauding honorees. In reality, Pelosi ripped Trump’s speech after the State of the Union address ended.
Their rejection of Pelosi’s request, which has spurred condemnation, comes amid heightened debate over tech titans’ responsibility to thwart the proliferation of misleading – or outright false – information during the 2020 presidential election.
Congressional Democrats have called on these companies to crack down, but some conservatives contend that such intervention could silence right-leaning perspectives, the New York Times reported.
Twitter recently announced a new rule stating: “You may not deceptively share synthetic or manipulated media that are likely to cause harm. In addition, we may label Tweets containing synthetic and manipulated media to help people understand the media’s authenticity and to provide additional context,” but it does not take effect until 5 March.
Facebook announced in January a new policy barring artificial intelligence-manipulated “deepfake” videos, but the rule only applies to misinformation generated by AI, not “shallow fakes” – misleading videos created through conventional editing techniques.
Andy Stone, a Facebook spokesman, rebuffed Hammill’s criticism, replying on Twitter: “Sorry, are you suggesting the President didn’t make those remarks and the Speaker didn’t rip the speech?”
Hammill responded: “What planet are you living on? this is deceptively altered. take it down,” while Stone reiterated that the post did not violate Facebook’s policy on manipulated video. Facebook said in an email on Sunday that it did not have a comment but maintained it did not violate its policies.
Lindsay McCallum, a Twitter spokeswoman, on Saturday pointed to the platform’s soon-to-launch policy on labeling dramatically altered media, according to the New York Times. Twitter did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Per the New York Times, Tim Murtaugh, a Trump campaign spokesman, said: “If Nancy Pelosi fears images of her ripping up the speech, perhaps she shouldn’t have ripped up the speech.” The campaign also said this video was obvious parody.


theguardian--2020-02-09--Sinking in the Swamp review: dispatches from the belly of the Trumpian beast

Lachlan Markay and Asawin Suebsaeng deliver gossip as well as the goods from behind the scenes of our national reality show Sinking in the Swamp review : dispatches from the belly of the Trumpian beast Sinking in the Swamp review : dispatches from the belly of the Trumpian beast In July 2018 , the Daily Beast ’ s Lachlan Markay posted a short piece about a mysterious $ 375,000 contribution from “ Global Energy Producers ” to America First Action , a pro-Trump Super Pac .
Eighteen months later , federal agents arrested Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman en route @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one-way tickets .
Republican politicians who took their cash are offloading it as if it were doused with coronavirus and the president has suddenly forgotten the name of their former patron : Rudy Giuliani .
With Beast White House correspondent Asawin Suebsaeng , Markay now delivers a breezy look at Trumpworld and our nation ’ s capital .
Their book is constructed out of fresh reporting , prior columns and gossip , lots of it .
It is filled with tales of greed , envy and near violence , together with schemes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as non-fiction beach reading for our impeachment winter .
Few are spared .
Donald Trump ’ s insecurities and temper , Steve Bannon ’ s foul mouth and Jared Kushner ’ s habit of knowing less than he thinks he does – all are on display .
Sinking in the Swamp contains at least a week ’ s worth of material for The Daily Show .
It chronicles the president ’ s fear of assassination , as he repeatedly asks if the White House windows are bulletproof .
“ You sure ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your favorite president , me !
” belie a man who knows he ’ s despised by nearly half the country .
Item .
In the closing days of the 2016 election , Trump unloaded on David Bossie , the deputy campaign manager , who repeatedly tried to rein in the candidate ’ s tweets .
Although Kellyanne Conway was technically Bossie ’ s superior , it was he who reportedly possessed nuts-and-bolts depth .
Still , according to Markay and Suebsaeng , Trump went from unamused to perturbed , then lost it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ OF HERE !
!
!
GET HIM THE FUCK AWAY FROM ME.
” That Bossie was instrumental in delivering Pennsylvania and Wisconsin mattered little .
He would be banished , relegated to the Citizens United political action committee , penning books praising the president but never to serve in the White House .
Gratitude ?
Not exactly .
Item .
In May 2017 , a day after the president fired the FBI director , James Comey , Bannon screamed at a TV screen tuned to CNN : “ THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DICK !
” Yet for all of Bannon ’ s bluster , he reportedly counseled against firing Comey , terming it the biggest mistake “ maybe in modern political history ” .
Unlike his ex-employer and his son-in-law , Bannon possessed a sense of history and an appreciation for irony .
As for Trump , he was envious and angered by the attention Saturday Night Live lavished on Bannon .
According to the authors , SNL “ helped contribute ” to Trump “ souring ” on his counsellor , providing a catalyst for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Like the deity of the Decalogue , there shall be no other gods before Him for He is a jealous god .
Trump also has difficulty discerning between friend and foe .
Sinking in the Swamp captures him dumping on Fox News ’ Sean Hannity for his “ ultra-sycophantic ” interviewing style , referring to Hannity ’ s questions as “ dumb ” .
But then again , Hannity has been caught saying of the president : “ What the fuck is wrong with him ?
” That was after Trump failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roger Ailes , Hannity ’ s former boss .
The camera doesn ’ t always tell the whole story .
Item .
Jared Kushner ’ s knowledge of Nato isn ’ t the greatest .
Markay and Suebsaeng relay that the president ’ s son-in-law did not “ seem to know what Nato actually did ” .
In the run-up to a Nato trip in May 2017 , Kushner spewed to assembled reporters a “ word salad reminiscent of the president ’ s own rambling when it came to issues and minutiae with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
A dauphin whose father bought his kid into Harvard was apparently ignorant of article 5 , the Nato treaty clause that stipulates an attack on one member is an attack on all .
Hanging with Benjamin Netanyahu and Mohammed bin Salman doesn ’ t make you a foreign policy maven .
On the other hand , if you ’ re married to the president ’ s daughter it need not matter .
As for Kushner ’ s vaunted “ deal of the century ” ?
Its appeal appears limited .
Sinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moments , such as Suebsaeng and Cliff Sims , a Trump White House refugee and tell-all writer , nearly getting into a fist-fight at the bar of Trump ’ s DC hotel .
Sims would be expelled from Eden on the Potomac after allegedly surreptitiously recording a meeting with the president , which he then reportedly replayed to others .
Other vignettes include actor Jon Voight mistaking “ Swin ” for Steve Mnuchin , the treasury secretary , in a phone call .
Voight and Suebsaeng eventually met in person at the religiously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was stunned but polite .
Almost on cue , the book concludes with the closing lines from Goodfellas , the authors saying “ most every bagman and water carrier for this president ends up a Henry Hill ” , the mobster who in Martin Scorsese ’ s movie finds himself in a witness protection program , lamenting his fall from grace .
In the movie , Hill announces : “ We ran everything … Today , everything is different … I get to live the rest of my life like a schnook.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s orbit is Michael Cohen or Roger Stone .
The president stands acquitted by the Senate , his approval at a high-water mark , the Democratic field looking dwarfed and in disarray .
Another book on the mob , the late Jimmy Breslin ’ s The Gang that Couldn ’ t Shoot Straight , would be apt reading .
The debacle of the Iowa caucuses will be relived and replayed through November .
What lies between our never-ending reality show and the sands of Rome ’ s Colosseum ?
Time and technology @ @ @ @

In July 2018, the Daily Beast’s Lachlan Markay posted a short piece about a mysterious $375,000 contribution from “Global Energy Producers” to America First Action, a pro-Trump Super Pac. Eighteen months later, federal agents arrested Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman en route to Dulles airport; they were holding one-way tickets. Republican politicians who took their cash are offloading it as if it were doused with coronavirus and the president has suddenly forgotten the name of their former patron: Rudy Giuliani.
With Beast White House correspondent Asawin Suebsaeng, Markay now delivers a breezy look at Trumpworld and our nation’s capital. Their book is constructed out of fresh reporting, prior columns and gossip, lots of it. It is filled with tales of greed, envy and near violence, together with schemes, outbursts and profanity.
Think of it as non-fiction beach reading for our impeachment winter.
Few are spared. Donald Trump’s insecurities and temper, Steve Bannon’s foul mouth and Jared Kushner’s habit of knowing less than he thinks he does – all are on display. Sinking in the Swamp contains at least a week’s worth of material for The Daily Show.
It chronicles the president’s fear of assassination, as he repeatedly asks if the White House windows are bulletproof. “You sure?” Trump would repeat. Tweets about “your favorite president, me!” belie a man who knows he’s despised by nearly half the country.
Item. In the closing days of the 2016 election, Trump unloaded on David Bossie, the deputy campaign manager, who repeatedly tried to rein in the candidate’s tweets. Although Kellyanne Conway was technically Bossie’s superior, it was he who reportedly possessed nuts-and-bolts depth. Still, according to Markay and Suebsaeng, Trump went from unamused to perturbed, then lost it: “GET HIM THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!!! GET HIM THE FUCK AWAY FROM ME.”
That Bossie was instrumental in delivering Pennsylvania and Wisconsin mattered little. He would be banished, relegated to the Citizens United political action committee, penning books praising the president but never to serve in the White House. Gratitude? Not exactly.
Item. In May 2017, a day after the president fired the FBI director, James Comey, Bannon screamed at a TV screen tuned to CNN: “THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT RUSSIA? THEY CAN SUCK MY MOTHERFUCKING DICK!”
Yet for all of Bannon’s bluster, he reportedly counseled against firing Comey, terming it the biggest mistake “maybe in modern political history”. Unlike his ex-employer and his son-in-law, Bannon possessed a sense of history and an appreciation for irony.
As for Trump, he was envious and angered by the attention Saturday Night Live lavished on Bannon. According to the authors, SNL “helped contribute” to Trump “souring” on his counsellor, providing a catalyst for his early departure from the West Wing. Like the deity of the Decalogue, there shall be no other gods before Him for He is a jealous god.
Trump also has difficulty discerning between friend and foe. Sinking in the Swamp captures him dumping on Fox News’ Sean Hannity for his “ultra-sycophantic” interviewing style, referring to Hannity’s questions as “dumb”.
But then again, Hannity has been caught saying of the president: “What the fuck is wrong with him?” That was after Trump failed to offer condolences to the widow of Roger Ailes, Hannity’s former boss. The camera doesn’t always tell the whole story.
Item. Jared Kushner’s knowledge of Nato isn’t the greatest. Markay and Suebsaeng relay that the president’s son-in-law did not “seem to know what Nato actually did”. In the run-up to a Nato trip in May 2017, Kushner spewed to assembled reporters a “word salad reminiscent of the president’s own rambling when it came to issues and minutiae with which he couldn’t be bothered”.
A dauphin whose father bought his kid into Harvard was apparently ignorant of article 5, the Nato treaty clause that stipulates an attack on one member is an attack on all. Hanging with Benjamin Netanyahu and Mohammed bin Salman doesn’t make you a foreign policy maven. On the other hand, if you’re married to the president’s daughter it need not matter. As for Kushner’s vaunted “deal of the century”? Its appeal appears limited.
Sinking in the Swamp also records some lighter moments, such as Suebsaeng and Cliff Sims, a Trump White House refugee and tell-all writer, nearly getting into a fist-fight at the bar of Trump’s DC hotel. Sims would be expelled from Eden on the Potomac after allegedly surreptitiously recording a meeting with the president, which he then reportedly replayed to others.
Other vignettes include actor Jon Voight mistaking “Swin” for Steve Mnuchin, the treasury secretary, in a phone call. Voight and Suebsaeng eventually met in person at the religiously infused Values Voters Summit. The actor was stunned but polite.
Almost on cue, the book concludes with the closing lines from Goodfellas, the authors saying “most every bagman and water carrier for this president ends up a Henry Hill”, the mobster who in Martin Scorsese’s movie finds himself in a witness protection program, lamenting his fall from grace. In the movie, Hill announces: “We ran everything … Today, everything is different … I get to live the rest of my life like a schnook.”
Or not. Not everyone in Trump’s orbit is Michael Cohen or Roger Stone.
The president stands acquitted by the Senate, his approval at a high-water mark, the Democratic field looking dwarfed and in disarray. Another book on the mob, the late Jimmy Breslin’s The Gang that Couldn’t Shoot Straight, would be apt reading.
The debacle of the Iowa caucuses will be relived and replayed through November. What lies between our never-ending reality show and the sands of Rome’s Colosseum? Time and technology. Little more.


theguardian--2020-02-09--Bloomberg's unusual campaign: $10m ads, self-funding and a Super Tuesday focus

In their stump speeches , advertising , and meet-and-greets , the top 2020 Democratic presidential candidates are eagerly sniping at each other as they criss cross the Granite state in the final days before the critical New Hampshire Democratic primary on Tuesday .
Yet one person is conspicuously absent .
Looming over the race is fellow candidate and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg , a billionaire who has decided to completely forgo New Hampshire and all other early primary states to instead invest heavily in the crucial set of Super Tuesday states that vote on 3 March – an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ spending millions to buy the election , ” Sanders warned this week .
“ How do we feel about living in so-called democracy when a billionaire multiple time over can do that ?
How do we feel when we have candidates in the Democratic party taking money from billionaires ?
” Having spent at least $ 10m on a 60-second advert in the Super Bowl last week , Bloomberg has since capitalised on the chaos from the Iowa caucuses , in which both the self-described Democratic socialist Vermont senator Bernie Sanders and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg declared victories , though the race was officially too close to call .
The former vice-president Joe Biden , who had been seen as the frontrunner among the moderate candidates , trailed in fourth and called the Iowa result a “ gut punch ” .
Bloomberg , who has cast himself as the moderate to beat Trump and banked on Biden falling behind , responded by doubling his advertising spending .
At a press conference about the Iowa results , Sanders said it was “ an absolute outrage ” that Bloomberg would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential debate in Nevada later this month , when he is not even on the ballot there .
“ I guess if you ’ re worth $ 55b you can get the rules changed to debate.
” Besides eschewing the early primary states , Bloomberg has opted to self-fund his campaign and has poured in over $ 188m .
He has also quietly been working to bottleneck funding avenues for other the campaigns of other candidates by urging deep pocketed donors to give to Democratic committees instead .
While other candidates have doggedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Bloomberg has been campaigning in locales that are later on the voting calendar , like Oklahoma , California , Colorado , and Pennsylvania .
Bloomberg has already visited every Super Tuesday state in a two-month period .
“ Since day one , our campaign has been focused on building a nationwide operation that is engaging with voters daily about Mike ’ s record on key issues and why he ’ s the strongest Democrat in the race , ” said Dan Kanninen , Bloomberg ’ s states director .
“ While other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re committed to winning delegates on Super Tuesday and beating Donald Trump in November.
” His campaign has ballooned to 2,100 people , with 1,700 of them in the states and 400 at the campaign ’ s headquarters in New York .
Other campaigns have staffs in the hundreds .
By the end of this week the campaign says it will have opened 125 offices .
Whichever candidate emerges as the presumptive frontrunner after the early primary contests end with the South Carolina primary on 29 February , they will then have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in wait to attack .
Kathy Sullivan , a former New Hampshire Democratic party chairwoman who has endorsed the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren , who placed third in Iowa , said even though Bloomberg isn ’ t campaigning in New Hampshire his presence is still felt .
“ We see the ads here in New Hampshire although he ’ s not on the ballot here , ” Sullivan said .
“ I think he will be a major factor going forward because of just the amount of money he ’ s spending and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those Super Tuesday states.
” And some New Hampshire voters are intrigued .
Bill Mauser , a US Navy veteran who attended an event for Buttigieg this week , called Bloomberg an “ interesting prospect ” .
“ He ’ s a very accomplished self-made man , doesn ’ t have a retail politics approach , ” Mauser said .
“ He certainly has chops but the question is , are his chops good enough to really qualify him to be a leader ?
So how do I feel about him ?
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say.
” For his rivals , the critique of Bloomberg is almost always the same : that he ’ s buying his way into the presidential election .
During Friday night ’ s televised Democratic debate , Warren was asked about the seeming unlimited amount of spending behind the former New York mayor ’ s candidacy .
She said : “ I don ’ t think anyone should be able to buy their way into a nomination or to be president of the United States.
” During an appearance on CNN ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar , another Democratic presidential candidate , likened Bloomberg to Donald Trump .
“ When people look at the White House and see this multimillionaire messing up so many things , ” Klobuchar said , “ I don ’ t think they think , ‘ Oh , we need someone richer.
’ I think you have to earn votes , not buy them.
” But Bloomberg ’ s strategy is causing some Democrats to recalibrate how they think of the primary calendar .
Maura Keefe , a Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the New Hampshire senator Jeanne Shaheen , said Bloomberg ’ s massive spending calls into question just how valuable winning an early primary state is these days .
“ The money piece is what ’ s the monetary value of winning New Hampshire or winning and coming in second , ” Keefe said .
“ What is the value of that free press ?
That attention ?
We ’ re already seeing the value of Buttigieg ’ s surprise in Iowa for him here .
And if somebody surprised in New Hampshire by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ value in that.
” ” But Keefe added that she didn ’ t see Bloomberg as a trending topic among votersyet , just “ a topic of conversation certainly amongst the media and maybe political elites ” .

In their stump speeches, advertising, and meet-and-greets, the top 2020 Democratic presidential candidates are eagerly sniping at each other as they criss cross the Granite state in the final days before the critical New Hampshire Democratic primary on Tuesday.
Yet one person is conspicuously absent. Looming over the race is fellow candidate and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire who has decided to completely forgo New Hampshire and all other early primary states to instead invest heavily in the crucial set of Super Tuesday states that vote on 3 March – an unconventional and risky strategy.
Bloomberg is “spending millions to buy the election,” Sanders warned this week.
“How do we feel about living in so-called democracy when a billionaire multiple time over can do that? How do we feel when we have candidates in the Democratic party taking money from billionaires?”
Having spent at least $10m on a 60-second advert in the Super Bowl last week, Bloomberg has since capitalised on the chaos from the Iowa caucuses, in which both the self-described Democratic socialist Vermont senator Bernie Sanders and the moderate former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg declared victories, though the race was officially too close to call.
The former vice-president Joe Biden, who had been seen as the frontrunner among the moderate candidates, trailed in fourth and called the Iowa result a “gut punch”. Bloomberg, who has cast himself as the moderate to beat Trump and banked on Biden falling behind, responded by doubling his advertising spending.
At a press conference about the Iowa results, Sanders said it was “an absolute outrage” that Bloomberg would also likely qualify for the next televised presidential debate in Nevada later this month, when he is not even on the ballot there. “I guess if you’re worth $55b you can get the rules changed to debate.”
Besides eschewing the early primary states, Bloomberg has opted to self-fund his campaign and has poured in over $188m. He has also quietly been working to bottleneck funding avenues for other the campaigns of other candidates by urging deep pocketed donors to give to Democratic committees instead.
Michael Bloomberg speaks at a campaign event Wednesday in Providence, Rhode Island. Photograph: David Goldman/AP
While other candidates have doggedly toured New Hampshire and early primary states, Bloomberg has been campaigning in locales that are later on the voting calendar, like Oklahoma, California, Colorado, and Pennsylvania. Bloomberg has already visited every Super Tuesday state in a two-month period.
“Since day one, our campaign has been focused on building a nationwide operation that is engaging with voters daily about Mike’s record on key issues and why he’s the strongest Democrat in the race,” said Dan Kanninen, Bloomberg’s states director.
“While other candidates focus on New Hampshire, we’re committed to winning delegates on Super Tuesday and beating Donald Trump in November.”
His campaign has ballooned to 2,100 people, with 1,700 of them in the states and 400 at the campaign’s headquarters in New York. Other campaigns have staffs in the hundreds. By the end of this week the campaign says it will have opened 125 offices.
Whichever candidate emerges as the presumptive frontrunner after the early primary contests end with the South Carolina primary on 29 February, they will then have to face a moneyed Bloomberg effectively lying in wait to attack.
Kathy Sullivan, a former New Hampshire Democratic party chairwoman who has endorsed the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, who placed third in Iowa, said even though Bloomberg isn’t campaigning in New Hampshire his presence is still felt.
“We see the ads here in New Hampshire although he’s not on the ballot here,” Sullivan said. “I think he will be a major factor going forward because of just the amount of money he’s spending and because he’s playing in all those Super Tuesday states.”
And some New Hampshire voters are intrigued. Bill Mauser, a US Navy veteran who attended an event for Buttigieg this week, called Bloomberg an “interesting prospect”.
“He’s a very accomplished self-made man, doesn’t have a retail politics approach,” Mauser said. “He certainly has chops but the question is, are his chops good enough to really qualify him to be a leader? So how do I feel about him? I’m open to what he has to say.”
For his rivals, the critique of Bloomberg is almost always the same: that he’s buying his way into the presidential election.
During Friday night’s televised Democratic debate, Warren was asked about the seeming unlimited amount of spending behind the former New York mayor’s candidacy. She said: “I don’t think anyone should be able to buy their way into a nomination or to be president of the United States.”
During an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union in January, the Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar, another Democratic presidential candidate, likened Bloomberg to Donald Trump.
“When people look at the White House and see this multimillionaire messing up so many things,” Klobuchar said, “I don’t think they think, ‘Oh, we need someone richer.’ I think you have to earn votes, not buy them.”
But Bloomberg’s strategy is causing some Democrats to recalibrate how they think of the primary calendar. Maura Keefe, a Democratic strategist and former chief of staff to the New Hampshire senator Jeanne Shaheen, said Bloomberg’s massive spending calls into question just how valuable winning an early primary state is these days.
“The money piece is what’s the monetary value of winning New Hampshire or winning and coming in second,” Keefe said. “What is the value of that free press? That attention? We’re already seeing the value of Buttigieg’s surprise in Iowa for him here. And if somebody surprised in New Hampshire by beating expectations there’s a monetary value in that.””
But Keefe added that she didn’t see Bloomberg as a trending topic among votersyet, just “a topic of conversation certainly amongst the media and maybe political elites”.