theatlantic--2020-02-22--The Democratic Establishment Is Broken

The Democratic Establishment Is Broken

Many experienced Democrats worry not just that the party won ’ t unite and that Sanders will lose to Trump , but that having a democratic socialist at the top of the ticket would squash their hopes of winning new Senate seats , and perhaps even cost them a few existing ones in states like Michigan and Wisconsin .
Some worry that they ’ ll even lose the House majority .
They dread the idea of Trump , already clearly feeling unshackled since his impeachment acquittal , feeling even more empowered by winning reelection .
Sanders and his aides argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who can bring in new voters and win over disaffected Trump supporters .
Sanders is actually the way out of the apocalypse , his supporters say .
And to those fretting that this is 2016 all over again—with an iconoclastic outsider seizing control of a party—they point out that Trump carried lots of contested Senate seats with him and helped his party keep the House .
They add that Democrats who are holding out on Sanders are disconnected from the direction in which younger and nonwhite voters are moving the party .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been embedded in Sanders ’ s campaign from the start : He ’ s the most electable because he ’ ll get all the people who would vote against Trump no matter who the Democratic nominee is .
But he ’ s also the only one who will be able to activate an entirely different faction of voters .
This assumes that all those anti-Trump voters will turn out for him .
But although right now everyone is talking party unity , the Never Sanders whispers can be heard among people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” in any other cycle .
The Sanders campaign is already suspicious of what the party has in store .
Nina Turner , a campaign co-chair , expressed skepticism after all the candidates onstage at Wednesday ’ s debate said they would support whoever the nominee is .
“ Yeah , that 's what they say , ” Turner told me , and went on to repeatedly point out that Sanders campaigned for Clinton after losing to her in the 2016 primary race .
“ Actions speak louder than words , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the nominee , the party will have to support his agenda on health care , economic policy , and more .
“ If Senator Sanders wins the primary , he did get the majority , ” Turner said .
What if he doesn ’ t get a majority ?
I asked her .
She barely paused .
“ If he gets 40 and somebody else gets 15 , he will get the plurality of it .
So we ’ re going to roll.
” That very well may happen , given that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending more time going after one another than Sanders .
Former New York Mayor Bloomberg released a memo on Tuesday calling for everyone else to drop out , then , two days later , former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg put out a memo calling for Bloomberg to drop out .

LAS VEGAS—The phrase Democratic establishment conjures images of something like the Illuminati with the power to determine the outcome of American elections. But so far, the supposedly all-powerful leaders of the party have been about as well organized as The Muppet Show.
Now, with Senator Bernie Sanders’s massive win in Nevada, he’s taken the lead in delegates and may never lose it. Efforts to stop him so far have been ineffective and made the party seem out of touch. This summer, party leaders may be forced to accept the nomination of a man who’s not officially a member of the party, who won’t have won a majority of primary voters, and whose agenda is popular with his progressive base but doesn’t have as much support with Democrats as a whole.
“The Democratic establishment exists, but like the Republican establishment four years ago, it’s a mess, paralyzed by fear and indecision, and it doesn’t know what to do,” says Matt Bennett, a vice president at Third Way, a moderate think tank that proudly considers itself the home of the establishment. He spoke with me about the candidates faced with decisions about dropping out after today. “The fear is that people will move instantly from ‘I’m not ready [to drop out]’ to ‘It’s too late [to win.]’”
“There’s this misconception that somehow there’s this ‘Democratic leadership’ that decides the candidates,” Eleni Kounalakis, California’s lieutenant governor and a former ambassador to Hungary during the Obama administration, as well as a major party donor, told me this afternoon after watching a big caucus site go for Sanders. Kounalakis, who’s a Pete Buttigieg supporter, had just seen another caucus site go for Sanders. “We don’t have a process to stop a candidate. What he’s running into is a ceiling that’s based on public opinion, not about leadership being against him.”
That hasn’t stopped Sanders from using a supposed party effort against him as a main talking point. Yesterday he tweeted: “I’ve got news for the Republican establishment. I’ve got news for the Democratic establishment. They can’t stop us.”
Read: The hidden history of Sanders’s plot to primary Obama
When Sanders started planning for this race two years ago, he told advisers that he believed the 43 percent of the vote he received against Hillary Clinton in 2016 was a starting point, and he would only gain support this time around. He dismissed suggestions that a significant level of his 2016 success had been driven by antipathy toward Clinton.
Emily’s List, the organization devoted to women’s political empowerment, uses two basic criteria for endorsements—being a woman and being pro-abortion-rights. If Senator Amy Klobuchar or Senator Elizabeth Warren were to drop out, Emily’s List would probably endorse the remaining woman almost immediately, the group’s top leaders have been saying privately. But neither is showing any signs of leaving the race, so the group has so far given $250,000 each to the super PACs supporting them. (Neither candidate even had a super PAC until a week ago, and both had spoken out against the very concept, but both have eagerly taken the financial backing they need to stay in the race.)
“Because they’re both running good campaigns, because they both have a credible path, and because they both would be good presidents,” Christina Reynolds, the vice president of communications at Emily’s List, told me, “we got in this week to support them both.”
Yes, only three states—two of them extremely white—have voted, but versions of this conversation are happening among all sorts of Democratic leaders.
So the remaining candidates leave Nevada all believing that they have a legitimate argument for staying in the race. With no one winning enough support to be considered a strong alternative to Sanders, and with expectations of a contested convention setting in, they’re all sticking around and amassing delegates in hopes of getting another shot at the nomination in Milwaukee in July.
Representative Joaquin Castro of Texas, who came to Nevada to campaign for Warren, says he’d be fine with a scenario in which Democrats enter the summer without a nominee. “Remember, the full primary process includes the convention,” he told me.
Many experienced Democrats worry not just that the party won’t unite and that Sanders will lose to Trump, but that having a democratic socialist at the top of the ticket will squash their hopes of winning new Senate seats, and perhaps even cost them a few existing ones in states like Michigan and Wisconsin. Some worry that they’ll even lose the House majority. They dread the idea of Trump, already clearly feeling unshackled since his impeachment acquittal, feeling even more empowered by winning reelection.
Sanders and his aides argue that he’s the only one who can bring in new voters and win over disaffected Trump supporters. Sanders is actually the way out of the apocalypse, his supporters say. And to those fretting that this is 2016 all over again—with an iconoclastic outsider seizing control of a party—they point out that Trump carried lots of contested Senate seats with him and helped his party keep the House. They add that Democrats who are holding out on Sanders are disconnected from the direction in which younger and nonwhite voters are moving the party.
A cynical, but perhaps realistic, argument has been embedded in Sanders’s campaign from the start: He’s the most electable because he’ll get all the people who would vote against Trump no matter who the Democratic nominee is. But he’s also the only one who will be able to activate an entirely different faction of voters. This assumes that all those anti-Trump voters will turn out for him. But although right now everyone is talking party unity, the Never Sanders whispers can be heard among people who would have called themselves “good Democrats” in any other cycle.
The Sanders campaign is already suspicious of what the party has in store. Nina Turner, a campaign co-chair, expressed skepticism after all the candidates onstage at Wednesday’s debate said they would support whoever the nominee is. “Yeah, that's what they say,” Turner told me, and went on to repeatedly point out that Sanders campaigned for Clinton after losing to her in the 2016 primary race. “Actions speak louder than words,” she said.
Turner said that if Sanders is the nominee, the party will have to support his agenda on health care, economic policy, and more. “If Senator Sanders wins the primary, he did get the majority,” Turner said. What if he doesn’t get a majority? I asked her. She barely paused. “If he gets 40 and somebody else gets 15, he will get the plurality of it. So we’re going to roll.”
That very well may happen, given that most of the other candidates are still spending more time going after one another than Sanders. Former New York Mayor Bloomberg released a memo on Tuesday calling for everyone else to drop out, then, two days later, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg put out a memo calling for Bloomberg to drop out.
“Look, I think everybody is going to have to make a decision for themselves about what’s good for the future of the party,” Howard Wolfson, one of Bloomberg’s top advisers, told me. “And I would strongly argue that a divided party in which you have the moderate lane increasingly congested is not good for the future of this party,” he said. Wolfson didn’t mention that it’s Bloomberg who has so far spent half a billion dollars congesting the moderate lane.
Read: Democrats are freaking out about Mike Bloomberg
Tom Steyer, another Democratic presidential candidate and billionaire, told me that Bloomberg’s flop in Wednesday’s debate was proof of how fluid the race is.
“Stuff happens, and stuff's going to continue to happen,” Steyer told me. “Are people in it for themselves? Let me be a little more charitable: The people running think that they’re standing for what’s right. And they’re worried that other people, even if they respect them, don’t agree with them and that therefore it could be bad for the country if they’re not the candidate. Is there a selfishness layered on top of that? Probably.”
That is an accusation other campaigns and Democrats would level against Steyer, who is generally treated as an interloper blowing money that he could be spending helping other Democratic efforts. But Steyer has been doing well enough in the polls that many think he could place in the top three in South Carolina. Then again, many thought he’d do that well in Nevada, where he’s projected to finish fifth. Steyer said he’d gladly back down if he thought someone else could take on Trump on the economy and unify the party like he believes he could. He’s doing well among African American voters, he has funded a more significant Super Tuesday operation than most, and he’s got the standing in the polls to show for it. He refuses to be dismissed as the rich guy who should drop out—not while Bloomberg keeps going.
“I don’t even understand that argument. We’ve got people voting for me,” Steyer told me. “I thought that was what we were supposed to be doing.”
If what Steyer and the other candidates are supposed to be doing is beating Bernie Sanders, well, they’re not doing much of that.


theatlantic--2020-02-22--Bernie Sanders’s Biggest Win Yet

Bernie Sanders’s Biggest Win Yet

Second , while former Vice President Joe Biden , Senator Amy Klobuchar , and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg again split the moderate vote , Sanders has—at least for now—consolidated the left wing of the Democratic Party behind him .
Senator Elizabeth Warren ’ s forceful performance in Wednesday ’ s Las Vegas debate came too late to matter in Nevada , where well over half the caucus electorate—some 75,000 people—had already voted early .
Entrance polls did show Warren doing well ( though still behind Sanders ) among the 15 percent of voters who made their decision in the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another strong showing at next week ’ s debate in South Carolina if she hopes to compete seriously with Sanders there and in many larger states on Super Tuesday .
Biden finished far behind Sanders , clustered with Buttigieg , the billionaire activist Tom Steyer , and Warren .
The former vice president is banking on a victory next Saturday in South Carolina to keep his campaign afloat , but that may depend on how much momentum Sanders carries out of Nevada .
If Sanders slightly underperformed expectations in Iowa and New Hampshire—where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and at worst a tie—Nevada illuminated the durability of his support .
A fight between his campaign and the leadership of the powerful union of culinary workers over Sanders ’ s Medicare for All proposal did little to diminish his standing among laborers .
He fared well among union members in entrance polls , and he won caucus precincts at major Las Vegas casinos dominated by culinary workers .
Nevada is also significant in that it represents the first state where Sanders improved his position from 2016 , when he lost the caucus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenges are yet to come , as Biden tries to regroup in South Carolina , Bloomberg ’ s billions swamp the airwaves , and the party establishment frets about the prospect of a democrat socialist leading its ticket in the fall .
The candidates who largely laid off Sanders in favor of demolishing Bloomberg at last week ’ s debate might now target him instead .
Sanders ’ s critics will point out that collectively , moderate candidates outpoll the Vermont senator and that he remains unlikely to win a majority of pledged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Milwaukee .
That may be true .
But while the question of whether a candidate as far left as Sanders can defeat Donald Trump and win the presidency remains , it is becoming more and more clear which wing of the Democratic Party is prevailing : In the most diverse contest of the year , the most progressive candidate in the field won his biggest victory yet .

Senator Bernie Sanders endured nail-biters in Iowa and New Hampshire. Today, Nevada voters handed him a landslide victory.
Sanders’s dominant victory in the Silver State solidifies his standing as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, giving him and the progressive movement a clear boost as the race heads to more challenging territory in South Carolina and then across the country on March 3—Super Tuesday.
Although Nevada, like the first two Democratic nominating contests, sends relatively few delegates to the party’s national convention this summer, Sanders’s win demonstrated two key things. First, the democratic socialist from Vermont has significantly improved his performance from 2016 among a more diverse primary electorate; just 66 percent of caucus-goers in Nevada were white and more than one-quarter were Latino or black, according to entrance polls. That change could prove crucial as Sanders tries to rack up delegates in huge states like Texas and California on Super Tuesday. Waiting for him in March is former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is hoping that an unprecedented barrage of television ads will drown out his roundly criticized debate debut last week.
Read: Bloomberg’s beating
Second, while former Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Amy Klobuchar, and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg again split the moderate vote, Sanders has—at least for now—consolidated the left wing of the Democratic Party behind him. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s forceful performance in Wednesday’s Las Vegas debate came too late to matter in Nevada, where well over half the caucus electorate—some 75,000 people—had already voted early. Entrance polls did show Warren doing well (though still behind Sanders) among the 15 percent of voters who made their decision in the past few days. She’ll need another strong showing at next week’s debate in South Carolina if she hopes to compete seriously with Sanders there and in many larger states on Super Tuesday.
Biden finished far behind Sanders, clustered with Buttigieg, the billionaire activist Tom Steyer, and Warren. The former vice president is banking on a victory next Saturday in South Carolina to keep his campaign afloat, but that may depend on how much momentum Sanders carries out of Nevada.
If Sanders slightly underperformed expectations in Iowa and New Hampshire—where he still came out with a win and at worst a tie—Nevada illuminated the durability of his support. A fight between his campaign and the leadership of the powerful union of culinary workers over Sanders’s Medicare for All proposal did little to diminish his standing among laborers. He fared well among union members in entrance polls, and he won caucus precincts at major Las Vegas casinos dominated by culinary workers.
Read: Bernie Sanders’s biggest test yet with Latino voters
Nevada is also significant in that it represents the first state where Sanders improved his position from 2016, when he lost the caucus handily to Hillary Clinton. His biggest challenges are yet to come, as Biden tries to regroup in South Carolina, Bloomberg’s billions swamp the airwaves, and the party establishment frets about the prospect of a democrat socialist leading its ticket in the fall. The candidates who largely laid off Sanders in favor of demolishing Bloomberg at last week’s debate might now target him instead. Sanders’s critics will point out that collectively, moderate candidates outpoll the Vermont senator and that he remains unlikely to win a majority of pledged delegates heading into the Democratic convention in Milwaukee.
That may be true. But while the question of whether a candidate as far left as Sanders can defeat Donald Trump and win the presidency remains, it is becoming more and more clear which wing of the Democratic Party is prevailing: In the most diverse contest of the year, the most progressive candidate in the field won his biggest victory yet.


theatlantic--2020-02-24--The Atlantic Politics Daily: ‘Namaste Trump’ Is a Sequel

The Trump-Modi bromance may have something to do with their populist , us-versus-them panache : Trump sought to implement a version of a Muslim ban ; Modi has done basically just that .
Trump blasts the press as “ fake news ” ; Modi ’ s government has cracked down on unfavorable media outlets .
The NASA research mathematician Katherine Johnson ( photographed here at her desk at NASA ’ s Langley Research Center in 1966 ) , died today at 101 .
That her role in the mythos of spaceflight wasn ’ t celebrated until her 90s is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the stories America tells about its accomplishments , ” Marina Koren writes .
Nevada ’ s Democratic Party held its caucus on Saturday .
If you ’ re still catching up on the results , we have the latest : ‣ “ In the most diverse contest of the year , the most progressive candidate in the field won his biggest victory yet , ” Russell Berman writes : Bernie Sanders ’ s victory in Nevada proved his staying power , following the first two primary contests in mostly white states .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ far have been ineffective and made the party seem out of touch , ” Edward-Isaac Dovere writes : As Sanders rises , the Democratic establishment is weaker than it ’ s ever been .
‣ “ The Nevada outcome could intensify the muddle in the middle that has prevented any centrist candidate from emerging as the principal alternative to Sanders.
” Even if Joe Biden notches a win in South Carolina ( he was second to Sanders in Nevada ) , too many moderates remain in the race for any of them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ronald Brownstein writes .
“ That a president would defy the results of an election has long been unthinkable ; it is now , if not an actual possibility , at the very least something Trump ’ s supporters joke about.
” Here ’ s a hypothetical .
Say it ’ s November 2020 and Trump has been defeated , thus bringing an end to his administration on January 20 , 2021 ( or say he ’ s reelected ; his term would still end in January 2025 ) .
Say he then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What then ?
Barbara McQuade , a former U.S. attorney , looks at all the ways such a crisis would play out .
Across Kentucky , floods are devouring rural communities .
The catastrophe is out of sight , out of mind for many people living outside these areas , partly because the national news media are too quick to default to a “ flyover country ” attitude toward noncoastal towns , Silas House writes .
If coal mining isn ’ t devouring the mountain in front of your house , then it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lights on .
If your home isn ’ t being carried away by floodwaters , it ’ s hard to feel the consequences of climate change .
Folks in rural places aren ’ t immune to this disconnect .
They say they care about the land , yet they often elect politicians who value profit over the environment .
Rural voters ’ support of Trump is widespread , even though he has been designated by several environmental groups as the “ worst president in history.
” Today ’ s newsletter was written by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Politics desk , and Christian Paz , a Politics fellow .
It was edited by Shan Wang , who oversees newsletters .
You can reply directly to this newsletter with questions or comments , or send a note to politicsdaily @ theatlantic.com .
Your support makes our journalism possible .
Subscribe here .

The Trump-Modi bromance may have something to do with their populist panache. Plus: what happens if presidents refuse to leave office after their term ends.
It’s Monday, February 24. In the rarest of rare outcomes, a jury convicted Harvey Weinstein today of sexually assaulting two women (but acquitted him on the most serious charge, predatory criminal assault).
In the rest of today’s newsletter: Trump at the Modi-o, part two. Plus: the Nevada caucus aftermath, and what happens if presidents refuse to leave office after their term ends.
*
« TODAY IN POLITICS »
(Francis Mascarenhas / Reuters)
The MAGA show heads to India.
The sight was surreal: President Donald Trump clasping hands with India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, both of them taking in the raucous chants of some 50,000 Indian Americans who came to a Houston football stadium late in September for an event (aptly) named “Howdy Modi!”
Who wouldn’t want to bask in a sequel?
Today, Trump joined Modi for “Namaste Trump,” a MAGA-style rally for the two leaders in the world’s largest cricket stadium, in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Though Trump tied himself into knots trying to pronounce Hindi words—stumbling over chai as well as the name of the city in which the rally was held—he got the crowd he came for. More than 100,000 people filled out the stadium pews; another 100,000 lined the motorcade route.
The Trump-Modi bromance may have something to do with their populist, us-versus-them panache: Trump sought to implement a version of a Muslim ban; Modi has done basically just that. Trump blasts the press as “fake news”; Modi’s government has cracked down on unfavorable media outlets.
As intolerance and division in both societies erode their democracies, I fear that the leaders may reinforce each other’s worst instincts,” William J. Burns, a former deputy secretary of state, writes, worrying about the type of relationship that is developing between both countries.
Read his full essay.
—Saahil Desai
*
« SNAPSHOT »
(NASA / Handout via Reuters)
The NASA research mathematician Katherine Johnson (photographed here at her desk at NASA’s Langley Research Center in 1966), died today at 101. That her role in the mythos of spaceflight wasn’t celebrated until her 90s is a reminder of “who gets left out of the stories America tells about its accomplishments,” Marina Koren writes.
*
« CAUCUS FOCUS »
(Jim Young / Reuters)
Nevada’s Democratic Party held its caucus on Saturday. If you’re still catching up on the results, we have the latest:
‣ “In the most diverse contest of the year, the most progressive candidate in the field won his biggest victory yet,” Russell Berman writes: Bernie Sanders’s victory in Nevada proved his staying power, following the first two primary contests in mostly white states.
‣ “Efforts to stop him so far have been ineffective and made the party seem out of touch,” Edward-Isaac Dovere writes: As Sanders rises, the Democratic establishment is weaker than it’s ever been.
‣ “The Nevada outcome could intensify the muddle in the middle that has prevented any centrist candidate from emerging as the principal alternative to Sanders.” Even if Joe Biden notches a win in South Carolina (he was second to Sanders in Nevada), too many moderates remain in the race for any of them to truly challenge Sanders on Super Tuesday, Ronald Brownstein writes.
+ There’s a key lesson centrists aren’t learning, Ibram X. Kendi argues.
*
« ARGUMENT OF THE DAY »
(THOMAS PEIPERT / AP / SHUTTERSTOCK / THE ATLANTIC)
“That a president would defy the results of an election has long been unthinkable; it is now, if not an actual possibility, at the very least something Trump’s supporters joke about.”
Here’s a hypothetical. Say it’s November 2020 and Trump has been defeated, thus bringing an end to his administration on January 20, 2021 (or say he’s reelected; his term would still end in January 2025). Say he then refuses to leave the White House. What then?
Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney, looks at all the ways such a crisis would play out.
*
« EVENING READ »
(Ben Childers)
Floods and Politics
Across Kentucky, floods are devouring rural communities. The catastrophe is out of sight, out of mind for many people living outside these areas, partly because the national news media are too quick to default to a “flyover country” attitude toward noncoastal towns, Silas House writes.
If coal mining isn’t devouring the mountain in front of your house, then it’s easy to leave all the lights on. If your home isn’t being carried away by floodwaters, it’s hard to feel the consequences of climate change. Folks in rural places aren’t immune to this disconnect. They say they care about the land, yet they often elect politicians who value profit over the environment. Rural voters’ support of Trump is widespread, even though he has been designated by several environmental groups as the “worst president in history.”
Read the rest.
*


theatlantic--2020-02-28--Why Trump Isn’t Trying to Bring Down Bernie Sanders

“ Sanders would be every holiday present rolled into one , ” Sean Spicer , the former White House press secretary and an ex–senior adviser to a pro-Trump super PAC , told me .
“ With Bernie , there ’ s a general agreement that he ’ s a gift.
” Mistreating Sanders and alienating his supporters could cost Trump the election , depending on how the Democratic nomination fight ends .
An analysis from the political scientist Brian Schaffner shows that in 2016 , tens of thousands of Sanders supporters voted for Trump in Wisconsin , Michigan , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from blue to red .
Had these voters aligned with the Democrats instead , Hillary Clinton would have won all three states and , ultimately , the election .
“ To the extent that a Democratic primary becomes close and maybe Sanders doesn ’ t get the nomination , there ’ s a good chance that a reasonable share of his supporters is likely to buy into the thinking that the party had it in for Sanders , ” Schaffner , a Tufts University civics professor , told me .
“ And if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those people might find it easy to sit out a general election or cast a protest vote.
” Sanders could also prove a tougher opponent than Trump reckons : He has grassroots backing , plenty of money , and a version of the same populist message that propelled Trump ’ s 2016 upset victory .
Democratic operatives see a deep cynicism , not solicitude , in Trump ’ s approach .
“ Trump feels that he can attract the support Bernie has—that ’ s all , ” Tad Devine , a top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , told me .
“ I don ’ t think he likes Bernie.
” Every corpuscle of Trumpworld appears dedicated to propping up Sanders .
One obvious tip-off that Trump is trying to promote Sanders ’ s candidacy : He ’ s relatively sparing in his insults .
Master of the raw and indiscriminate putdown , Trump will demean just about anyone : teenage climate activists , Gold Star families , and deceased lawmakers alike .
But when it comes to Sanders—who , let us not forget , has called Trump a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the republic—the president often sounds like a fanboy , if not a Bernie Bro .
Even his nickname for Sanders , “ Crazy Bernie , ” is mild by Trumpian standards .
The counterpuncher isn ’ t counterpunching much at all—not yet , anyway .
“ People like his message .
He ’ s got energy , ” Trump said about Sanders to reporters in the Oval Office earlier this month .
Since the summer , Trump ’ s campaign has spent only about $ 25,000 on Facebook ads that mention Sanders , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to an analysis by Bully Pulpit Interactive , a Democratic communications firm that also examined the Trump campaign ’ s Facebook ads targeting Biden .
( The Trump campaign declined to comment on its advertising strategy . )

Not so long ago, Donald Trump seemed obsessed with just one of the Democrats vying to replace him: Joe Biden. Over the past year, as the former vice president became the front-runner, Trump’s campaign spent about $270,000 on Facebook ads targeting Biden—more than it spent against other top candidates. Then Biden began to collapse and Bernie Sanders started to rise. Trump’s social-media ads demonizing “Sleepy Joe” tailed off. Yet thus far, there’s been no appreciable pickup in anti-Sanders ads. It’s as if Trumpworld might want to go easy on Sanders.
It does. Team Trump views Sanders as the weakest candidate left on the Democratic side, and isn’t eager to do anything to impede his rise, several of the president’s past and present political advisers told me. They seem to see Sanders as a no-lose proposition: The president wins whether the senator from Vermont captures the nomination or not.
Should Sanders prevail, Trump’s strategy will be to spotlight his democratic-socialist identity in an attempt to make voters fear he’ll take away their freedom. (Trump will try to brand any Democratic nominee a socialist—Team Trump just thinks it’ll be easier with the guy whose self-description includes the word.) If Sanders falters, Trump will argue that he was unfairly robbed of a nomination he earned. Trump has long stoked suspicions of an anti-Sanders conspiracy within the Democratic Party, for what seems to be two purposes: leaving Sanders’s following so disillusioned that they stay home on Election Day, or perhaps persuading them to switch sides and vote Republican. Sanders may not need Trump, but for the time being, Trump needs Sanders.
“Sanders would be every holiday present rolled into one,” Sean Spicer, the former White House press secretary and an ex–senior adviser to a pro-Trump super PAC, told me. “With Bernie, there’s a general agreement that he’s a gift.”
Mistreating Sanders and alienating his supporters could cost Trump the election, depending on how the Democratic nomination fight ends. An analysis from the political scientist Brian Schaffner shows that in 2016, tens of thousands of Sanders supporters voted for Trump in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—three battleground states that Trump narrowly flipped from blue to red. Had these voters aligned with the Democrats instead, Hillary Clinton would have won all three states and, ultimately, the election.
“To the extent that a Democratic primary becomes close and maybe Sanders doesn’t get the nomination, there’s a good chance that a reasonable share of his supporters is likely to buy into the thinking that the party had it in for Sanders,” Schaffner, a Tufts University civics professor, told me. “And if that’s the case, some of those people might find it easy to sit out a general election or cast a protest vote.”
Read: What Bernie Sanders’s 2020 rivals learned from Hillary Clinton
Sanders could also prove a tougher opponent than Trump reckons: He has grassroots backing, plenty of money, and a version of the same populist message that propelled Trump’s 2016 upset victory. Democratic operatives see a deep cynicism, not solicitude, in Trump’s approach. “Trump feels that he can attract the support Bernie has—that’s all,” Tad Devine, a top adviser to Sanders’s 2016 campaign, told me. “I don’t think he likes Bernie.”
Every corpuscle of Trumpworld appears dedicated to propping up Sanders. One obvious tip-off that Trump is trying to promote Sanders’s candidacy: He’s relatively sparing in his insults. Master of the raw and indiscriminate putdown, Trump will demean just about anyone: teenage climate activists, Gold Star families, and deceased lawmakers alike. But when it comes to Sanders—who, let us not forget, has called Trump a “pathological liar” and a danger to the republic—the president often sounds like a fanboy, if not a Bernie Bro. Even his nickname for Sanders, “Crazy Bernie,” is mild by Trumpian standards.
The counterpuncher isn’t counterpunching much at all—not yet, anyway. “People like his message. He’s got energy,” Trump said about Sanders to reporters in the Oval Office earlier this month.
Since the summer, Trump’s campaign has spent only about $25,000 on Facebook ads that mention Sanders, often lumping him in with other Democrats, according to an analysis by Bully Pulpit Interactive, a Democratic communications firm that also examined the Trump campaign’s Facebook ads targeting Biden. (The Trump campaign declined to comment on its advertising strategy.)
If anything, Trump and his allies have been amplifying a message that Sanders has been sending for years: that the Democratic establishment wants him to lose.
Random events have been portrayed by Team Trump as part of a plot to doom Sanders’s candidacy. The campaign has referenced the Iowa-caucus debacle, which one official said deprived Sanders of a “victory lap”; Clinton’s fresh criticism of Sanders; and even the decision by The Des Moines Register not to release a poll on the eve of the Iowa caucus.
During the Nevada-caucus race, which ended Saturday, the state Republican Party sent a truck to Sanders’s rallies displaying a message that the system is “rigged” against him.
And in at least one state, Republicans are trying to swing the election to Sanders. Ahead of the South Carolina primary this weekend, some state Republicans have urged party voters to cross over and back Sanders, with the explicit goal of vanquishing Biden, the candidate favored to win. (South Carolina’s open primary system allows registered voters to take part in either party’s contest.) “We will have a clear contrast between capitalism and freedom-loving Americans against Bernie Sanders and his Democratic socialists, so we would welcome that if it turns out that way,” said Stephen Brown, the former chairman of the Greenville County Republican Party.
Trump isn’t sentimental when it comes to blood sports like politics. People are useful to him or they’re not. His advisers told me that he may feel some affinity for Sanders because both face antagonism from party-establishment figures. But the Sanders campaign is under no illusion that the president holds any real affection for him. “We understand that he’s insincere,” Jeff Weaver, a senior adviser to the Sanders campaign, told me. “Trump’s crocodile tears don’t impress us.” During the 2016 race, Trump privately called Sanders a “lunatic,” Sam Nunberg, a former Trump aide, told me. Appearing on Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night talk show that same year, when both Trump and Sanders were vying for their respective party’s nomination, Trump said, “I actually think Bernie would be easier to beat” than Clinton.
Derek Thompson: Bernie Sanders is George McGovern
Polling suggests that he may be right. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey earlier this month showed Sanders beating Trump by four percentage points in a general-election race, a poorer showing than Biden and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. More worrisome for Sanders is how voters tend to look at a candidate espousing socialist ideas. In the same poll, about 67 percent said they would have at least some reservations about a socialist candidate, compared with just 28 percent who said they’d be comfortable with one. “I like the idea of Bernie having to explain democratic socialism versus communism, and explain it in South Florida to people who fled oppression in their countries,” Marty Obst, a senior political adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, told me.
Every presidential candidate wants a sure path to victory. In the 2016 race, Clinton’s campaign believed that the weakest candidate was Trump, seeing him as so flawed, Clinton would not only beat him but pick up a few red states, such as Arizona and Georgia, along the way, in a show of force against Trumpism. She lost both states, along with the ultimate prize.
In Trump’s orbit, some are warning against a similar overconfidence. “I know there are Republicans who want Sanders to be the nominee. That’s living dangerously,” says John McLaughlin, a Trump pollster. “If he wins the 2020 election, that’s a bad loss. It’s more important that we focus on strengthening ourselves.”
As someone whose own campaign prospects were sorely underestimated, Trump should be cautious in dismissing Sanders. Making political predictions in this volatile climate is risky. In time, Trump may not see Sanders as the gift he once relished.


theatlantic--2020-02-27--What Bernie Sanders’s 2020 Rivals Learned From Hillary Clinton

Sanders was more defensive of his record in 2016 , frequently retorting that he was representing the views of a state that had no history of gun restrictions ; he also argued that owners of small gun shops should not have their livelihood destroyed if a weapon they sell ends up being used in a crime .
Sanders isn ’ t quick to back off controversial stances , as his recent praise of certain aspects of Fidel Castro ’ s regime in Cuba demonstrates .
But it ’ s telling that on gun control , he has gone further this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and align himself with the Democratic Party ’ s mainstream opinion .
“ The world has changed , and my views have changed , ” he said at the February debate in New Hampshire .
Gun-control advocates have taken notice .
“ I am happy to see that Bernie Sanders , by his own admission , has evolved on this issue and is in line with where I think the conversation around guns is in this country , ” Igor Volsky , the executive director of the progressive Guns Down America , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director of Giffords ( the gun-control group started by former Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona ) , says that the effectiveness of Clinton ’ s attacks on Sanders ’ s record was demonstrated by his decision to integrate gun-control proposals more centrally into his 2020 campaign .
“ One ’ s judgment from past votes is certainly fair game , and [ immunity for gun manufacturers ] has been a pretty damaging law in this country , ” Ambler says .
“ I don ’ t think his guns record is really an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who is fighting for his political life in South Carolina , has been the most aggressive in going after Sanders for his gun-rights votes .
Twice Tuesday night , he came close to saying that the senator had blood on his hands .
“ I ’ m not saying he ’ s responsible for the nine deaths ... ” Biden began at one point , referring to the 2015 massacre at Charleston ’ s Mother Emanuel church , across the street from where the candidates were debating .
Yet the Democrat best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s vulnerability on guns is Bloomberg , who made the issue his top national priority during his second and third terms as mayor of New York , and as one of the country ’ s biggest-spending political donors in the years since .
Bloomberg has both the money and the imperative to blanket the airwaves with negative ads about Sanders , but so far he has chosen to spend more than half a billion dollars solely on touting his own record and bashing Donald Trump .
Like Clinton ’ s four years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been limited to digital ads and interviews , and with Super Tuesday less than a week away , that won ’ t nearly be enough , strategists said .
“ We ’ re past the time where you can count on a tweet and a meme about Sanders ’ s record on guns as doing enough to slow down his march to the nomination , ” the former Clinton official told me .
“ If you want to stop Bernie Sanders from being the nominee , you need to run a significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s biggest vulnerabilities is his longtime record on the wrong side of gun violence .
”

The senator from Vermont’s record on guns is once again under attack as he hopes to solidify his front-runner status.
It was a rare admission of wrongdoing from Bernie Sanders. “I’ve cast thousands of votes, including bad votes. That was a bad vote,” Sanders said at the Democratic-primary debate in South Carolina Tuesday night, describing his support for legislation that gave legal immunity to gun manufacturers.
The senator from Vermont’s hallmark has been his consistency as an unbending progressive over four decades in elected office. Yet if Sanders has embodied left-wing purity more than any of the other potential Democratic nominees, gun policy is one area where his record has been far from pristine in the eyes of progressives.
For the second straight election, Sanders’s rivals are homing in on his past votes against tighter gun restrictions in a bid to halt his momentum. Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York has jumped on the issue in recent days, releasing a video painting Sanders as a toady of the National Rifle Association and launching a bus tour through California—the biggest Super Tuesday prize—highlighting his record. Former Vice President Joe Biden confronted Sanders on guns at the February 7 debate in New Hampshire and again Tuesday night, prompting the current Democratic front-runner to issue what amounted to a mea culpa.
Both are taking a page from Hillary Clinton, who criticized Sanders on guns throughout their 2016 primary fight—the one issue where she repeatedly attacked him from the left. In debates and interviews, Clinton accused Sanders of siding “with the gun lobby” by opposing early versions of the 1993 Brady bill and later by voting to shield gun manufacturers from liability if the weapons they sold were used in violent crimes. At one point, she suggested that the lax gun laws in Vermont—which Sanders had defended as “a rural state”—were to blame for gun violence in New York, where firearms are often brought in from other states.
“It was effective in 2016,” Corey Ciorciari, a Democratic strategist who served as point person on gun policy for Clinton and who worked for Senator Kamala Harris’s campaign last year, told me. “A big reason it’s effective is because his record on this undercuts his overall message. His message is consistently taking on corporate interests and being a stellar progressive, and that is just not what his history is on guns.”
The debate on gun control has shifted rapidly in the Democratic Party as mass shootings continue to devastate communities across the country. No longer are primary candidates merely calling for tighter background checks and a ban on assault weapons; in 2019, contenders like Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey and Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas were calling for national licensing requirements and gun-buyback programs.
Read: ‘Do something’: 2020 Democrats are stuck after mass shootings
While attacking Sanders’s gun record might seem like an obvious strategy now, it was not in 2016, former Clintons staffers told me. “There were people even within the campaign who were skeptical of going hard on this issue,” Ciorciari said, “because that had always been the Democratic consensus—that it’s an important issue, but not an issue that you raise in presidential politics.”
It was Clinton, Ciorciari recalled, who insisted on raising Sanders’s past votes in the run-up to the Iowa caucus. “To her credit, she said ‘No, I’m doing this,’” he told me. “It really came down to her wanting to do it personally, because she thought it was important.”
The campaign saw the gun issue as potent against Sanders, another former official told me, because it resonated most with three constituencies crucial to Democrats: voters of color, suburban women, and young people. Yet because Clinton never truly feared losing the nomination, she stopped short of maximizing the impact of her attack and didn’t run negative television ads on his gun record. “We raised the gun issue in order to put some chum in the water,” the second former campaign official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to speak candidly. The strategy “was much more about giving something for the elites and the press to talk about than it was about informing actual primary voters.”
Sanders was more defensive of his record in 2016, frequently retorting that he was representing the views of a state that had no history of gun restrictions; he also argued that owners of small gun shops should not have their livelihood destroyed if a weapon they sell ends up being used in a crime. Sanders isn’t quick to back off controversial stances, as his recent praise of certain aspects of Fidel Castro’s regime in Cuba demonstrates. But it’s telling that on gun control, he has gone further this time around to repudiate his past positions and align himself with the Democratic Party’s mainstream opinion. “The world has changed, and my views have changed,” he said at the February debate in New Hampshire.
Gun-control advocates have taken notice. “I am happy to see that Bernie Sanders, by his own admission, has evolved on this issue and is in line with where I think the conversation around guns is in this country,” Igor Volsky, the executive director of the progressive Guns Down America, told me.
Peter Ambler, the executive director of Giffords (the gun-control group started by former Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona), says that the effectiveness of Clinton’s attacks on Sanders’s record was demonstrated by his decision to integrate gun-control proposals more centrally into his 2020 campaign. “One’s judgment from past votes is certainly fair game, and [immunity for gun manufacturers] has been a pretty damaging law in this country,” Ambler says. “I don’t think his guns record is really an area of strength for Bernie.”
Biden, who is fighting for his political life in South Carolina, has been the most aggressive in going after Sanders for his gun-rights votes. Twice Tuesday night, he came close to saying that the senator had blood on his hands. “I’m not saying he’s responsible for the nine deaths ...” Biden began at one point, referring to the 2015 massacre at Charleston’s Mother Emanuel church, across the street from where the candidates were debating.
Yet the Democrat best positioned to take advantage of Sanders’s vulnerability on guns is Bloomberg, who made the issue his top national priority during his second and third terms as mayor of New York, and as one of the country’s biggest-spending political donors in the years since. Bloomberg has both the money and the imperative to blanket the airwaves with negative ads about Sanders, but so far he has chosen to spend more than half a billion dollars solely on touting his own record and bashing Donald Trump.
Like Clinton’s four years ago, Bloomberg’s critique of Sanders has been limited to digital ads and interviews, and with Super Tuesday less than a week away, that won’t nearly be enough, strategists said.
“We’re past the time where you can count on a tweet and a meme about Sanders’s record on guns as doing enough to slow down his march to the nomination,” the former Clinton official told me. “If you want to stop Bernie Sanders from being the nominee, you need to run a significant advertising campaign, and one of Sanders’s biggest vulnerabilities is his longtime record on the wrong side of gun violence.”


theatlantic--2020-02-27--The Atlantic Politics Daily: Bernie’s Big Vulnerability

Gun violence has become personal for many people in a way that it wasn ’ t before—a shift the party can try to capitalize on , my colleague Elaine Godfrey writes .
Guns have “ to be on par with health care and with quality-of-life issues , ” Dan Sena , a Democratic strategist who was the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during last year ’ s midterms , told me in an interview .
And the growing intrusion of mass gun violence into daily life could be what upgrades the issue to a top concern for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capitalize on in the same way they seized on voters ’ worries about the fate of Obamacare and their own creeping health-care costs last year .
The 2020 election , Sena said , “ could be the first time you actually see ” gun violence take center stage as the party ’ s go-to election message .
But can Democrats successfully center any part of the 2020 race around guns ?
1 .
“ Critics may laugh and shake their heads , but the simple fact is that these people see themselves as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attorney General Bill Barr ’ s critics accuse him of bending law enforcement to Trump ’ s political whims , but what if Barr ’ s efforts are working toward depoliticizing the Justice Department ?
That ’ s the argument of this former associate director for regulatory reform at the White House Council on Environmental Quality .
2 .
“ The GOP now exists to further the personal desires and wealth of one man … It is no longer a party of ideas , but a party of idolaters.
” Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symptom of problem America ’ s institutions face , three founders of the anti-Trump activist group called the Lincoln Project argue : “ Defeating him is only the beginning of a national reformation , ” they say .
National Security Adviser Robert O ’ Brien ’ s recent culling of the National Security Council may be cloaked in the language of making a sprawling bureaucracy more efficient .
But really the move functions as a purge of disloyal staffers to Trump , this former Pentagon speechwriter argues .
“ Venezuela is not an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It is a real place , full of real people.
” And the current state of the country represents the eerie endgame of modern politics : Trump is not the only world leader to cite Venezuela for self-serving ends .
Regardless of what actually happens there , Venezuela—especially when it was run by Maduro ’ s predecessor , the late Hugo Chávez—has long been a symbolic cause for the Marxist left as well … Jeremy Corbyn , the far-left leader of the British Labour Party , was photographed with Chávez and has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ inspiration to all of us fighting back against austerity and neoliberal economics.
” Chávez ’ s rhetoric also helped inspire the Spanish Marxist Pablo Iglesias to create Podemos , Spain ’ s far-left party .
Iglesias has long been suspected of taking Venezuelan money , though he denies it .
Even now , the idea of Venezuela inspires defensiveness and anger wherever dedicated Marxists still gather , whether they are Code Pink activists vowing to “ protect ” the Venezuelan embassy in Washington from the Venezuelan opposition or French Marxists who refuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s newsletter was written Saahil Desai , an editor on the Politics desk , and Christian Paz , a politics fellow .
It was edited by Shan Wang , who oversees newsletters .
You can reply directly to this newsletter with questions or comments , or send a note to politicsdaily @ theatlantic.com .
Your support makes our journalism possible .
Subscribe here .

It’s Thursday, February 27. In today’s newsletter: What Bernie Sanders’s 2020 rivals learned from Hillary Clinton. Plus: Venezuela is the eerie endgame of modern politics, Anne Applebaum writes.
*
« TODAY IN POLITICS »
(John Locher / AP)
Bernie’s rivals have found an opening to attack him from the left.
To his detractors, Bernie Sanders can at best sound like a broken record. His core 2020 message is largely consistent with the progressive message he’s been hammering at for decades. But on issues around gun violence, Sanders hasn’t always been stalwartly progressive. He opposed certain gun restrictions in the ‘90s, and though his views have “evolved” (to use the preferred parlance of wishy washy DC politicos), his record on guns may be among his biggest vulnerabilities.
Candidates like Michael Bloomberg eager to go after Bernie on guns are borrowing from Hillary Clinton’s 2016 playbook, my colleague Russell Berman points out:
The campaign saw the gun issue as potent against Sanders, a former official told me, because it resonated most with three constituencies crucial to Democrats: voters of color, suburban women, and young people. Yet because Clinton never truly feared losing the nomination, she stopped short of maximizing the impact of her attack and didn’t run negative television ads on his gun record. “We raised the gun issue in order to put some chum in the water,” the second former campaign official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to speak candidly. The strategy “was much more about giving something for the elites and the press to talk about than it was about informing actual primary voters.”
All the while, gun violence in America has grimly, devastatingly plodded along. Just yesterday, five people were shot and killed at the Molson Coors brewery in Milwaukee. America in 2019 saw more mass shootings than any other year on record. Two of the three deadliest occurred in the span of a single day.
Gun violence has become personal for many people in a way that it wasn’t before—a shift the party can try to capitalize on, my colleague Elaine Godfrey writes.
Guns have “to be on par with health care and with quality-of-life issues,” Dan Sena, a Democratic strategist who was the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during last year’s midterms, told me in an interview. And the growing intrusion of mass gun violence into daily life could be what upgrades the issue to a top concern for voters—a shift that Democrats could try to capitalize on in the same way they seized on voters’ worries about the fate of Obamacare and their own creeping health-care costs last year. The 2020 election, Sena said, “could be the first time you actually see” gun violence take center stage as the party’s go-to election message.
But can Democrats successfully center any part of the 2020 race around guns?
—Saahil Desai
*
« IDEAS AND ARGUMENTS »
(Leah Millis / Reuters)
1. “Critics may laugh and shake their heads, but the simple fact is that these people see themselves as stalwart defenders of the Constitution.”
While Attorney General Bill Barr’s critics accuse him of bending law enforcement to Trump’s political whims, but what if Barr’s efforts are working toward depoliticizing the Justice Department? That’s the argument of this former associate director for regulatory reform at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
2. “The GOP now exists to further the personal desires and wealth of one man … It is no longer a party of ideas, but a party of idolaters.”
Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party is a symptom of problem America’s institutions face, three founders of the anti-Trump activist group called the Lincoln Project argue: “Defeating him is only the beginning of a national reformation,” they say.
3. “The purity test starts at the top.”
National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien’s recent culling of the National Security Council may be cloaked in the language of making a sprawling bureaucracy more efficient. But really the move functions as a purge of disloyal staffers to Trump, this former Pentagon speechwriter argues.
*
« EVENING READ »
(Emin Ozmen / Magnum Photos)
What Happened in Venezuela
“Venezuela is not an idea,” Anne Applebaum writes. “It is a real place, full of real people.” And the current state of the country represents the eerie endgame of modern politics:
Trump is not the only world leader to cite Venezuela for self-serving ends. Regardless of what actually happens there, Venezuela—especially when it was run by Maduro’s predecessor, the late Hugo Chávez—has long been a symbolic cause for the Marxist left as well … Jeremy Corbyn, the far-left leader of the British Labour Party, was photographed with Chávez and has described his regime in Venezuela as an “inspiration to all of us fighting back against austerity and neoliberal economics.” Chávez’s rhetoric also helped inspire the Spanish Marxist Pablo Iglesias to create Podemos, Spain’s far-left party. Iglesias has long been suspected of taking Venezuelan money, though he denies it. Even now, the idea of Venezuela inspires defensiveness and anger wherever dedicated Marxists still gather, whether they are Code Pink activists vowing to “protect” the Venezuelan embassy in Washington from the Venezuelan opposition or French Marxists who refuse to call Maduro a dictator.
Read the rest.
*


theatlantic--2020-02-26--The Democrats’ Dictator Problem

The Democrats’ Dictator Problem

Bloomberg conceded that China had an “ abominable ” human-rights record and no freedom of the press , but then suggested that he isn ’ t particularly concerned about all of that .
“ We should make a fuss [ about these issues ] , which we have been doing , I suppose , ” he said .
Yet Mr. Gorbachev , tear down this wall !
this was not .
Then Bloomberg got to the bottom line : “ We have to deal with China ” to “ solve the climate crisis , ” and “ because our economies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg for allowing his extensive business interests in China , which in the past allegedly resulted in the suppression of Bloomberg News investigations into Chinese government corruption , to cloud his views .
“ We know that Mayor Bloomberg has been doing business with China for a long time , and he is the only one on this stage who has not released his taxes , ” she said .
Bernie Sanders pointed out that the 24 men and one woman who make up the Chinese Communist Party ’ s backroom-dealing , policy-dictating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t exactly constitute the demos in a country of 1.4 billion people .
“ Who the hell is the Politburo responsive to ?
” Sanders asked .
“ Who elects the Politburo ?
You have got a real dictatorship there.
” Sanders , however , had his own run-in with his record on authoritarian governments .
Swatting away criticism over his recent praise of Fidel Castro ’ s efforts to improve literacy rates in Cuba , the Democratic front-runner recognized that Cuba is a “ dictatorship ” and stated that “ authoritarianism of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he argued that this shouldn ’ t preclude people from acknowledging when dictatorships “ do something good.
” The senator , who opposed U.S. efforts to remove leftist Latin American governments and as a mayor in Vermont traveled to Castro ’ s Cuba and Daniel Ortega ’ s Nicaragua to express solidarity with them , has at times muted his critiques of autocrats whom he considers victims of American imperialism .
That ’ s what seemed to be going on during the debate , as he segued from defending his remarks about Castro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allusion to U.S. attempts to oust Castro .
“ Occasionally it might be a good idea to be honest about American foreign policy , and that includes the fact that America has overthrown governments all over the world—in Chile , in Guatemala , in Iran , ” he said .
Yes , Sanders was encouraging Americans to confront this country ’ s very spotty track record on supporting democracy abroad and to discuss the records of other governments with more nuance .
But he was also echoing arguments often made by apologists for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forceful during the debate in denouncing dictatorships .
He called Xi a “ thug ” who has put a million members of the country ’ s Uighur minority in “ concentration camps ” and “ does n't have a democratic ... bone in his body.
” He pushed back against Bloomberg ’ s insinuation that cooperating with China on addressing climate change requires downplaying its human-rights abuses , arguing that China would serve its own interests by combatting climate change , regardless of what U.S. leaders say about how it treats its people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shying away from condemning authoritarianism in Cuba and Nicaragua .

If there’s one narrative that has united the disparate Democratic candidates when it comes to foreign policy, it’s this: In contrast to the current American president, who makes common cause with autocrats, they will champion democratic forces around the world.
But during the party’s debate in South Carolina last night, that narrative fell apart. At a moment when a post-impeachment Donald Trump is acting in more authoritarian ways and celebrating his friendship with foreign leaders who share those tendencies, the Democrats’ attempts at moral clarity got muddled when the conversation turned to the trade-offs inherent in actually conducting American statecraft.
Things started on-message: “We need to know the difference between our friends and between dictators who would do us harm, and we need to be nicer to our friends than to dictators,” Elizabeth Warren declared, in remarks aimed squarely at Trump.
Read: The loudest debate yet
Soon enough, however, this clean dichotomy got messy. Asked about his comment last year that China’s leader, Xi Jinping, is “not a dictator,” Michael Bloomberg signaled that he might be just as amorally transactional a president as his fellow businessman Trump. Bloomberg, who has not embraced the democracy-versus-authoritarian worldview that most of the other Democratic candidates have, offered the bizarre justification that while Xi “has an enormous amount of power,” he serves “at the behest of the Politburo.” That Politburo, in fact, has become an enabler of Xi’s bid to amass more power and engage in more repression than any Chinese leader since Mao Zedong.
Bloomberg conceded that China had an “abominable” human-rights record and no freedom of the press, but then suggested that he isn’t particularly concerned about all of that. “We should make a fuss [about these issues], which we have been doing, I suppose,” he said. Yet Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! this was not. Then Bloomberg got to the bottom line: “We have to deal with China” to “solve the climate crisis,” and “because our economies are inextricably linked.”
Warren swiftly assailed Bloomberg for allowing his extensive business interests in China, which in the past allegedly resulted in the suppression of Bloomberg News investigations into Chinese government corruption, to cloud his views. “We know that Mayor Bloomberg has been doing business with China for a long time, and he is the only one on this stage who has not released his taxes,” she said. Bernie Sanders pointed out that the 24 men and one woman who make up the Chinese Communist Party’s backroom-dealing, policy-dictating Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee don’t exactly constitute the demos in a country of 1.4 billion people. “Who the hell is the Politburo responsive to?” Sanders asked. “Who elects the Politburo? You have got a real dictatorship there.”
Sanders, however, had his own run-in with his record on authoritarian governments. Swatting away criticism over his recent praise of Fidel Castro’s efforts to improve literacy rates in Cuba, the Democratic front-runner recognized that Cuba is a “dictatorship” and stated that “authoritarianism of any stripe is bad.” Still, he argued that this shouldn’t preclude people from acknowledging when dictatorships “do something good.”
The senator, who opposed U.S. efforts to remove leftist Latin American governments and as a mayor in Vermont traveled to Castro’s Cuba and Daniel Ortega’s Nicaragua to express solidarity with them, has at times muted his critiques of autocrats whom he considers victims of American imperialism. That’s what seemed to be going on during the debate, as he segued from defending his remarks about Castro’s literacy programs to an apparent allusion to U.S. attempts to oust Castro. “Occasionally it might be a good idea to be honest about American foreign policy, and that includes the fact that America has overthrown governments all over the world—in Chile, in Guatemala, in Iran,” he said.
Yes, Sanders was encouraging Americans to confront this country’s very spotty track record on supporting democracy abroad and to discuss the records of other governments with more nuance. But he was also echoing arguments often made by apologists for authoritarian regimes.
Read: The Sanders doctrine
Joe Biden was most forceful during the debate in denouncing dictatorships. He called Xi a “thug” who has put a million members of the country’s Uighur minority in “concentration camps” and “doesn't have a democratic ... bone in his body.” He pushed back against Bloomberg’s insinuation that cooperating with China on addressing climate change requires downplaying its human-rights abuses, arguing that China would serve its own interests by combatting climate change, regardless of what U.S. leaders say about how it treats its people. He also called out Sanders for shying away from condemning authoritarianism in Cuba and Nicaragua.
Yet the Biden campaign’s biggest idea so far to counter gathering illiberal forces is to convene a summit of the world’s democracies during his first year as president, a rather modest proposal to solve a mammoth problem. His comments during the debate also contained contradictions. Asked if he would engage in direct nuclear negotiations with North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, the way Trump has, Biden asserted that “you don't negotiate with a dictator, give him legitimacy without any notion whether he is going to do anything at all.” Kim, he declared, is a “thug.”


theatlantic--2020-02-26--The Sixty Trillion Dollar Man

The Sixty Trillion Dollar Man

But Sanders benefited from the chaotic nature of the debate , which prevented his rivals from sustaining any individual line of attack against him for very long .
And when he wasn ’ t on the defensive , he confidently delivered his populist promise to deliver an economy that works better for working families .
Still , the debate ’ s most lasting effect may be the seeds it laid down for a deeper discussion to come about the cumulative cost of Sanders ’ s agenda , an issue that ’ s received remarkably little attention until recently .
Read @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters on Medicare for All Sanders arrived at the debate facing rising criticism over his refusal to explain how much his proposals would cost and what taxes he would raise to pay for them .
On Sunday , on 60 Minutes , he brushed aside questions from Anderson Cooper about the full price tag , insisting , “ Well , I can ’ t—you know , I can ’ t rattle off to you every nickel and every dime.
” During a CNN town hall in Charleston on Monday , Sanders tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Chris Cuomo , a document that he said cataloged all his spending plans , including the taxes—almost entirely on the wealthy and business community—that he ’ s proposing to pay for them .
Yet the document inadvertently may have demonstrated only how difficult it will be for Sanders to produce a politically acceptable plan to fund his spending .
“ You would need even more revenue than he is proposing to fully offset those costs , ” says Jared Bernstein , an economist and senior fellow at the liberal Center on Budget @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Sanders ’ s agenda .
“ It is not realistic to believe you can get all those revenues from the top 1 , 5 , or 10 percent [ of households ] .
You would have to go down further than that .
The rest of it has to come from a broader base of taxpayers or it has to go on the deficit.
” The document Sanders released identifies seven major spending proposals from his campaign : • $ 16.3 trillion for a Green New Deal , to accelerate the transition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2.2 trillion to provide tuition-free public college and university , and to forgive all student debt ; • $ 81 billion to write off all medical debt ; • a proposal to increase Social Security benefits ( which Sanders did not provide a cost estimate for , but which other analysts have put at costing as much as $ 1.4 trillion ) ; and • his Medicare for All plan , whose 10-year cost estimate in new federal spending ranges from just less than $ 31 billion ( from the nonpartisan Committee for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 34 trillion ( from the center-left Urban Institute ) .
Sanders has also embraced other expensive spending plans that he did not list , notably : increased funding for K–12 education , which has been estimated to cost $ 800 billion to $ 1 trillion ; a federally funded paid-medical-and-family-leave program for workers , which the Congressional Budget Office recently scored at about $ 500 billion over a decade ; a $ 1 trillion infrastructure initiative ; and a federal guaranteed-jobs program whose cost estimates vary widely but that could run into the @ @

Bernie Sanders faced more pointed attacks last night over his potential vulnerabilities than he ever has at a debate. But the blustery and disorderly session once again failed to fully explore what could be the Vermont senator’s greatest general-election weakness: the massive size and scope of his spending and tax proposals, which, depending on the estimate, would cost $50 trillion to $60 trillion over the next 10 years. That would roughly double the size of the federal government, an unprecedented increase outside of wartime.
More so than in any previous session, Sanders at times seemed rattled and tentative as his rivals subjected him to a crossfire of criticism—over his record on gun control; my colleague Edward-Isaac Dovere’s report that he seriously considered a primary challenge to Barack Obama in 2012; his praise for aspects of Fidel Castro’s record in Cuba; and his success, or lack thereof, at getting things done in Washington. The evening showed “the first sign of uneasiness” for Sanders on a debate stage in this election cycle, says Lily Adams, the former communications director for Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign. “For the first time, we saw moments where he was not 100 percent sure of what his rebuttal was going to be.”
But Sanders benefited from the chaotic nature of the debate, which prevented his rivals from sustaining any individual line of attack against him for very long. And when he wasn’t on the defensive, he confidently delivered his populist promise to deliver an economy that works better for working families.
Still, the debate’s most lasting effect may be the seeds it laid down for a deeper discussion to come about the cumulative cost of Sanders’s agenda, an issue that’s received remarkably little attention until recently.
Read: The dissonance between Sanders and his supporters on Medicare for All
Sanders arrived at the debate facing rising criticism over his refusal to explain how much his proposals would cost and what taxes he would raise to pay for them. On Sunday, on 60 Minutes, he brushed aside questions from Anderson Cooper about the full price tag, insisting, “Well, I can’t—you know, I can’t rattle off to you every nickel and every dime.” During a CNN town hall in Charleston on Monday, Sanders tried to preempt further questions by handing the moderator, Chris Cuomo, a document that he said cataloged all his spending plans, including the taxes—almost entirely on the wealthy and business community—that he’s proposing to pay for them. Yet the document inadvertently may have demonstrated only how difficult it will be for Sanders to produce a politically acceptable plan to fund his spending.
“You would need even more revenue than he is proposing to fully offset those costs,” says Jared Bernstein, an economist and senior fellow at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities who is generally sympathetic to Sanders’s agenda. “It is not realistic to believe you can get all those revenues from the top 1, 5, or 10 percent [of households]. You would have to go down further than that. The rest of it has to come from a broader base of taxpayers or it has to go on the deficit.”
The document Sanders released identifies seven major spending proposals from his campaign:
$16.3 trillion for a Green New Deal, to accelerate the transition to a carbon-free economy;
$1.5 trillion to provide universal prekindergarten and child care;
$2.2 trillion to provide tuition-free public college and university, and to forgive all student debt;
$2.5 trillion to build affordable housing and reduce homelessness;
$81 billion to write off all medical debt;
a proposal to increase Social Security benefits (which Sanders did not provide a cost estimate for, but which other analysts have put at costing as much as $1.4 trillion); and
his Medicare for All plan, whose 10-year cost estimate in new federal spending ranges from just less than $31 billion (from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget) to $34 trillion (from the center-left Urban Institute).
Sanders has also embraced other expensive spending plans that he did not list, notably: increased funding for K–12 education, which has been estimated to cost $800 billion to $1 trillion; a federally funded paid-medical-and-family-leave program for workers, which the Congressional Budget Office recently scored at about $500 billion over a decade; a $1 trillion infrastructure initiative; and a federal guaranteed-jobs program whose cost estimates vary widely but that could run into the trillions.
These numbers are estimates—subject to inevitable uncertainty and imprecision. But their general direction is clear. I recently calculated that their cumulative price tag would reach about $60 trillion over 10 years. The Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank, put the 10-year cost at about $55 trillion. It assumed a slightly lower cost for Medicare for All and projected that Sanders could fulfill his federal jobs guarantee and infrastructure promises through his Green New Deal and universal-child-care programs, without any additional expenditure.
At either number, the Sanders agenda would roughly double the $52 trillion that the Congressional Budget Office projects the federal government will spend over the next decade on all existing programs, from defense to Social Security. Even at a lower, $50 trillion estimate, the Sanders plan would increase federal spending as a share of the economy by about 20 percentage points, according to calculations that Larry Summers, the former Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton and former chief economist at the World Bank, shared with me earlier this winter. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, the largest 20th-century peacetime spending program, increased federal expenditures as a share of GDP by eight percentage points, according to Summers’s calculations.
Until now, Sanders has responded to questions about his agenda’s cost by focusing only on his vision for Medicare for All, insisting that most Americans would spend less than they do now—even if their taxes are increased—because the plan would eliminate their insurance premiums, co-payments, and deductibles. The document that Sanders handed Cuomo on Monday represents his most complete attempt to explain how he would cover the bill for his entire agenda. But critics quickly noted that it falls well short of the full price tag for his plans—and almost certainly overstates the funds they would generate.
Read: The loudest debate yet
Sanders identified just over $30 trillion in new taxes that he’d raise over the next decade, almost entirely from businesses and the affluent. He identified roughly another $12 trillion in other revenue and savings, including a $1.2 trillion cut in defense spending and $6.4 trillion he said the government would earn under his Green New Deal plan by selling electricity from new renewable-power facilities.
If Sanders’s tax plans were to raise as much money as he claims, they would increase federal taxes as a share of GDP by as much as 11 percentage points. “I think it is fair to say that the tax increase—assuming it is as big as Senator Sanders projects—is about as large as the [13-point] tax increases enacted to finance World War II,” as measured as a share of GDP, says Leonard Burman, a former senior Treasury Department tax official under Clinton and an institute fellow at the Tax Policy Center, which is operated by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. “It is more than five times as large as any tax increase enacted since. And even if it falls short of the campaign’s projections, it would be the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.”
Burman, like other analysts, believes that Sanders is overestimating the revenue that several of his tax proposals would produce. A new analysis from Ben Ritz, the director of the Progressive Policy Institute’s Center for Funding America’s Future, concluded that Sanders’s proposals would generate about $29 trillion in taxes, other revenue, and savings over 10 years, an unprecedented peacetime increase, but nonetheless about $25 trillion or more short of his plan’s total bill. (For comparison, that shortfall is about as much as the Congressional Budget Office projects the federal government will collect from the entire personal-income tax over that period.) Because he’s already exhausted almost every conceivable proposal to raise taxes on the rich, Ritz says, Sanders has only two options to cover the difference: “He’s either going to have to borrow the money or take it from the middle class.” In his stump speech and in debates, Sanders never acknowledges those possibilities.
Bernstein says that judging Sanders’s plan against such precise yardsticks is a mistake. The sheer size of his proposals, which dwarf the spending plans of any modern Democratic presidential nominee, should signal that they are more “aspirational than realistic,” Bernstein says. There is very little chance, he notes, that even if elected, Sanders could implement such a huge increase in government spending. Instead, he says, Sanders is offering a vision of a society where the government plays a much larger role in delivering social services, from education to health care—one that looks more like a Scandinavian country than America at any point in its earlier history.
“That’s just a very different economy than we’ve ever had or contemplated here,” says Bernstein, who served as the chief economist in Joe Biden’s vice-presidential office. “That’s not a value judgment. If we choose to have an economy with far more government in it, that model exists … People like Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are actually very explicit about this. They think the current model is broken and they are espousing a different one.”
To Bernstein, Sanders’s agenda is valuable less as a specific blueprint for governing than as a signpost for the direction he’d try to take American society in the years ahead. But other Democrats are terrified that voters might react less philosophically if presented with such an expansive—and expensive—program this fall.
“I'll tell you exactly what it adds up to,” former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg said last night. “It adds to four more years of Donald Trump, Kevin McCarthy as speaker of the House, and the inability to get the Senate into Democratic hands.”


theatlantic--2020-02-26--Trump’s Intelligence War Is Also an Election Story

With each move by Trump , the U.S. intelligence community has provided a counter-narrative , putting reports , statements , and congressional testimony into the public record that unequivocally lay out Russia ’ s role .
But Trump ’ s appointment of a new acting director of national intelligence , Richard Grenell , an outspoken loyalist who now heads the same office that published the 2017 report on Russian meddling , raises a question : Will Trump finally seek to muzzle his spies as he pushes to control the narrative in his reelection campaign ?
Quinta Jurecic and Benjamin Wittes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet Grenell , the U.S. ambassador to Germany , has not yet had the chance to write his legacy in the job .
But the circumstances surrounding his appointment have intelligence veterans worried that Trump wants a partisan in the job to do his bidding .
It was Trump ’ s ongoing fixation on the Russia narrative , in fact , that got Grenell ’ s predecessor removed .
Trump reportedly became incensed with Joseph Maguire after an intelligence official said , in a classified briefing to Congress , that Russia is again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a preference for Trump .
Joshua Geltzer , who was a senior national-security official in the Obama administration , told me that Grenell ’ s appointment fits with a purge in the executive branch , in which Trump , emboldened by his impeachment acquittal , is determined to install more loyalists .
He noted that the U.S. intelligence community has been saying publicly for three years that Russia ’ s interference efforts are ongoing .
“ So it ’ s nothing new , ” he said .
“ What ’ s new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s at the point where he can strangle the executive branch to keep it from saying things he doesn ’ t like.
” What ’ s especially notable about Maguire ’ s ouster is what reportedly made Trump so upset : the fact that the briefing in question was attended by Adam Schiff , the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee , whom Trump accuses repeatedly of press leaks .
( Schiff has denied this . )
According to The Washington Post , Trump “ believed that the information would be helpful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The same motivation played a role in Trump ’ s dismissal of two key witnesses from the impeachment trial whose testimony about his conduct in withholding aid to Ukraine cut against his narrative : Gordon Sondland , who was U.S. ambassador to the European Union , and Alexander Vindman , a military officer assigned to the White House .
These people not only said things that Trump didn ’ t want to hear .
They said things that Trump didn ’ t want the public to hear .
It ’ s clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Trump ’ s reelection campaign .
The Ukraine scandal centered on his efforts to get its president to announce an investigation into discredited allegations about Joe Biden , then the Democratic front-runner , in hopes of legitimizing the claims about Biden and weakening his candidacy .
As my colleague McKay Coppins has reported , Trump ’ s campaign will rely on a billion-dollar effort to bombard the electorate with not just standard political ads but disinformation .
And removing or at least weakening the intelligence community ’ s resistance by installing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his efforts to rewrite the facts around Russia ’ s meddling .
The DNI is the principal intelligence adviser to the president and serves as the intelligence community ’ s main liaison to the commander in chief .
In addition to his influence over the information the president receives , though , the DNI can also influence what information is shared and collected elsewhere within the government—and , often , what reaches Congress and the public .

“I believe him.”
It was November 2017, after a meeting with Vladimir Putin in Vietnam, and Donald Trump was telling reporters he was convinced by the Russian president’s denials about interfering in the 2016 election. “He said he didn’t meddle,” Trump said. “And I believe, I really believe, that when he tells me that, he means it.”
U.S. intelligence agencies, of course, had concluded the opposite. Shortly before Trump’s inauguration, the office of the country’s top intelligence official published a report saying that not only had Putin ordered an influence campaign aimed at the 2016 election—he did so in part to help Trump win.
From the start of his presidency, Trump has pummeled away at that finding—sending flurries of tweets, sidelining officials who wouldn’t toe his line—in an effort to cloud and undermine it. As Special Counsel Robert Mueller highlighted the magnitude of Russia’s 2016 efforts, Trump stood beside Putin in Helsinki, Finland, in the summer of 2018, and again cast doubt on Moscow’s culpability. He continued to muddy the waters amid warnings about Russian meddling in new elections in 2018 and 2020, questioning Moscow’s involvement and even doubling down on a theory, itself the product of Russian disinformation, that Ukraine interfered in 2016 to help Hillary Clinton.
With each move by Trump, the U.S. intelligence community has provided a counter-narrative, putting reports, statements, and congressional testimony into the public record that unequivocally lay out Russia’s role. But Trump’s appointment of a new acting director of national intelligence, Richard Grenell, an outspoken loyalist who now heads the same office that published the 2017 report on Russian meddling, raises a question: Will Trump finally seek to muzzle his spies as he pushes to control the narrative in his reelection campaign?
Quinta Jurecic and Benjamin Wittes: Trump’s most dangerous destruction yet
Grenell, the U.S. ambassador to Germany, has not yet had the chance to write his legacy in the job. But the circumstances surrounding his appointment have intelligence veterans worried that Trump wants a partisan in the job to do his bidding. It was Trump’s ongoing fixation on the Russia narrative, in fact, that got Grenell’s predecessor removed. Trump reportedly became incensed with Joseph Maguire after an intelligence official said, in a classified briefing to Congress, that Russia is again interfering in the presidential election and again has a preference for Trump.
Joshua Geltzer, who was a senior national-security official in the Obama administration, told me that Grenell’s appointment fits with a purge in the executive branch, in which Trump, emboldened by his impeachment acquittal, is determined to install more loyalists. He noted that the U.S. intelligence community has been saying publicly for three years that Russia’s interference efforts are ongoing. “So it’s nothing new,” he said. “What’s new is, Trump believes that he’s at the point where he can strangle the executive branch to keep it from saying things he doesn’t like.”
What’s especially notable about Maguire’s ouster is what reportedly made Trump so upset: the fact that the briefing in question was attended by Adam Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, whom Trump accuses repeatedly of press leaks. (Schiff has denied this.) According to The Washington Post, Trump “believed that the information would be helpful to Democrats if it were released publicly.” The same motivation played a role in Trump’s dismissal of two key witnesses from the impeachment trial whose testimony about his conduct in withholding aid to Ukraine cut against his narrative: Gordon Sondland, who was U.S. ambassador to the European Union, and Alexander Vindman, a military officer assigned to the White House. These people not only said things that Trump didn’t want to hear. They said things that Trump didn’t want the public to hear.
It’s clear that controlling the narrative will be central to Trump’s reelection campaign. The Ukraine scandal centered on his efforts to get its president to announce an investigation into discredited allegations about Joe Biden, then the Democratic front-runner, in hopes of legitimizing the claims about Biden and weakening his candidacy. As my colleague McKay Coppins has reported, Trump’s campaign will rely on a billion-dollar effort to bombard the electorate with not just standard political ads but disinformation. And removing or at least weakening the intelligence community’s resistance by installing a partisan director would potentially help Trump in his efforts to rewrite the facts around Russia’s meddling. The DNI is the principal intelligence adviser to the president and serves as the intelligence community’s main liaison to the commander in chief. In addition to his influence over the information the president receives, though, the DNI can also influence what information is shared and collected elsewhere within the government—and, often, what reaches Congress and the public.
Read: America’s Trumpiest ambassador
In steps Grenell, who has no intelligence background but has made it clear he will aggressively push Trump’s line. The Wall Street Journal called him “Trump’s favorite ambassador,” reporting that the president is impressed with his combative tone on TV and social media and has called Grenell someone who “gets it.” To be fair, it’s still unclear what kind of DNI Grenell will be or even how long his tenure will last. Under federal guidelines, Grenell can stay in his post only until mid-March, unless Trump nominates a permanent director by then. This would allow his tenure to continue for months as the confirmation process plays out, and as Wired noted, if a “nomination fails or other nominations come and go, Grenell could stay on indefinitely.” Grenell has a history of hawkish views on Russia, though in a 2016 opinion piece for Fox News he minimized Russia’s interference efforts, writing that it has been employing such tactics for decades. One of his first moves as acting DNI was to install Kash Patel, a partisan warrior who played an important role in Republican efforts to push back against the FBI’s Russia probe, as a senior adviser. Patel reportedly has a mandate to “clean house.”
Robert Litt, who served as general counsel to the DNI during the Obama administration, told me that if Trump does find a willing partisan for the director’s job—in Grenell or another candidate—he or she would hold the power to interfere with the intelligence community’s work to combat and monitor Russia’s meddling efforts. “The DNI is responsible for setting priorities for intelligence collection. And if you’re not looking for something, you’re not going to find it,” said Litt, now a lawyer with the firm Morrison and Foerster. “The DNI could deprioritize looking for information and direct intelligence assets away from that.”
Even without such a clear-cut move, he noted, collection and analysis could see a chilling effect. “If people think their careers are going to be at stake if they talk about these things, there’s going to be a natural inclination to shade your findings,” he said. Hypothetically, for instance, “you might say the Russians are looking to interfere in the elections, and you might omit that they’re trying to help the president, even though the evidence says they are.”
The DNI also influences what information reaches Congress and the public. The 2017 report, for example, established a frame of reference on Russia’s 2016 efforts. Intelligence officials’ testimony at hearings, Litt said, “shapes congressional and public understanding of these important issues.” He added: “If nobody’s saying those things, then it’s hard for the narrative to take hold.”
A pliant DNI could also go beyond withholding information to “skewing the story,” Douglas London, a professor at Georgetown who recently retired from a 34-year career in the CIA, told me. “This could be picking facts, suppressing what he doesn’t like and emphasizing what he does like”—and in the process building a narrative that “supports the president’s preferences.”
Read: Revenge of the intelligence nerds
This sort of political warfare is already under way—and it predates Grenell’s tenure. The Trump administration’s willingness to bend intelligence was on full display last month, after the targeted killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. Trump as well as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisted that the killing had been justified because of intelligence showing that Soleimani was planning an imminent attack against Americans, a contention that met with skepticism in Congress; later, it emerged that the White House’s own legal justification for the strike made no mention of such a threat.
And the administration’s politicization of intelligence is already factoring into the 2020 elections. On Saturday, Robert O’Brien, Trump’s national security adviser, cast doubt on the reported intelligence linking Russian interference and Trump in 2020. Speaking on ABC News, he instead sought to redirect the spotlight to the new Democratic front-runner, Bernie Sanders, noting his infamous honeymoon to the Soviet Union in 1988. Trump had also chosen to highlight this at a rally the previous day: “Wouldn’t [Putin] rather have Bernie?”


theatlantic--2020-02-26--The Atlantic Politics Daily: How Much Does a Revolution Cost?

1 .
“ With a loyalist as acting director of national intelligence , the official line on issues like Russian election meddling could bend closer to the president ’ s. ” The president ’ s recent appointment of a replacement acting director of national intelligence , Richard Grenell , who now heads the same office that published the 2017 report on Russian meddling , raises a question , Mike Giglio writes : “ Will Trump finally seek to muzzle his spies as he pushes to control the narrative in his reelection campaign ?
” 2 .
“ The candidates ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversation turned to the trade-offs inherent in actually conducting American statecraft.
” Democrats running to displace the current president in 2020 are eager to emphasize that they , unlike Trump , won ’ t be so cozy with autocrats , and will champion democratic forces around the world .
But during the latest debate in South Carolina , that narrative crumbled , Uri Friedman writes .
3 .
“ One of the many issues at stake in this year ’ s election is the future of the Court ... and the election will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s approach to the poor.
” What ’ s going on with the Supreme Court ?
Its empathy for the poor has gradually been replaced by hostility , the writer Adam Cohen argues , tracing the Court ’ s ruling on cases over the last half century .
4 .
“ Boosting turnout won ’ t necessarily help the most progressive candidate.
” One of Sanders ’ s major selling points—that he ’ s uniquely positioned to improve voter turnout in the disaffected slice of the electorate—isn ’ t as clear a benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientist Yascha Mounk argues .
Nonvoters are far less progressive than is commonly believed .
It seems that a little time across the proverbial pond changes people .
Our London-based writer Tom McTague observes : The idea of America has always been political : the wealth and opportunity as some see it , the injustice and individualism as others prefer .
With Brexit this has only become more pronounced .
The U.S. has been held up by one side of the argument as an opportunity to grasp , and by the other as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To ardent leavers , it offers the hope of free trade without constitutional entanglement ; to many remainers , it means subservience to a greater power , chlorinated chicken , and privatized health care .
Today ’ s newsletter was written by Shan Wang , who oversees newsletters .
You can reply directly to this newsletter with questions or comments , or send a note to politicsdaily @ theatlantic.com .
Your support makes our journalism possible .
Subscribe here .

The rough answer is $60 trillion—the price tag on Bernie Sanders’s agenda. Plus: What nonvoters want (hint: it’s not always the more progressive option).
It’s Wednesday, February 26. In today’s newsletter: A sixty trillion dollar man. Plus: What nonvoters want.
*
« TODAY IN POLITICS »
(Matt Rourke / AP)
He has a (very pricy) plan for that.
Perhaps for the first time on a debate stage, Bernie Sanders showed “the first sign of uneasiness,” and was thrust into “moments where he was not 100 percent sure of what his rebuttal was going to be,” one former presidential-campaign communications director told our analyst Ron Brownstein.
One potential weakness—still left relatively untouched by his challengers—is the cost of his ambitious agenda. The numbers aren’t quite adding up, Ron writes:
Until now, Sanders has responded to questions about his agenda’s cost by focusing only on his vision for Medicare for All, insisting that most Americans would spend less than they do now—even if their taxes are increased—because the plan would eliminate their insurance premiums, co-payments, and deductibles. The document that Sanders handed [CNN moderator Chris] Cuomo on Monday represents his most complete attempt to explain how he would cover the bill for his entire agenda. But critics quickly noted that it falls well short of the full price tag for his plans—and almost certainly overstates the funds they would generate.
The numbers cited are truly eye-popping.
*
« IDEAS AND ARGUMENTS »
(Jonathan Ernst / Reuters)
1. “With a loyalist as acting director of national intelligence, the official line on issues like Russian election meddling could bend closer to the president’s.”
The president’s recent appointment of a replacement acting director of national intelligence, Richard Grenell, who now heads the same office that published the 2017 report on Russian meddling, raises a question, Mike Giglio writes: “Will Trump finally seek to muzzle his spies as he pushes to control the narrative in his reelection campaign?”
2. “The candidates’ attempts at moral clarity got muddled when conversation turned to the trade-offs inherent in actually conducting American statecraft.”
Democrats running to displace the current president in 2020 are eager to emphasize that they, unlike Trump, won’t be so cozy with autocrats, and will champion democratic forces around the world. But during the latest debate in South Carolina, that narrative crumbled, Uri Friedman writes.
3. “One of the many issues at stake in this year’s election is the future of the Court ... and the election will also help to determine the Court’s approach to the poor.”
What’s going on with the Supreme Court? Its empathy for the poor has gradually been replaced by hostility, the writer Adam Cohen argues, tracing the Court’s ruling on cases over the last half century.
4. “Boosting turnout won’t necessarily help the most progressive candidate.”
One of Sanders’s major selling points—that he’s uniquely positioned to improve voter turnout in the disaffected slice of the electorate—isn’t as clear a benefit as it might seem, the political scientist Yascha Mounk argues. Nonvoters are far less progressive than is commonly believed.
*
« EVENING READ »
(BETTMANN / GETTY / KATIE MARTIN / THE ATLANTIC)
Why America Radicalizes Brits
It seems that a little time across the proverbial pond changes people. Our London-based writer Tom McTague observes:
The idea of America has always been political: the wealth and opportunity as some see it, the injustice and individualism as others prefer. With Brexit this has only become more pronounced. The U.S. has been held up by one side of the argument as an opportunity to grasp, and by the other as the danger of what might become. To ardent leavers, it offers the hope of free trade without constitutional entanglement; to many remainers, it means subservience to a greater power, chlorinated chicken, and privatized health care.
Read the rest.
*