theatlantic--2020-01-13--Cory Booker Runs Out of Time

Cory Booker Runs Out of Time

But Senate duties called .
Intelligence briefings on Iran .
Soon , an impeachment trial .
( He sits on the Judiciary Committee , which theoretically will hold hearings before the full Senate acts . )
Every flight back and forth to Washington , D.C. , was another event or two he could have done , another couple hundred people he could have tried to sway .
He could feel the time ticking away .
“ If we get folks to hear my message and feel my spirit , we will win this election , ” he told me .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaigner in Iowa , “ we would have run away with this.
” In the end , he didn ’ t have enough time .
Yesterday , he and his top aides got to where they ’ d been inching toward : There was no way to win .
His crowds were always enthusiastic—but his poll numbers and fundraising never took off .
What little money he had , he was dumping into TV ads that he hoped would lift him high enough in the polls to qualify for the debate , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couldn ’ t count on the online fundraising boosts that other candidates had been getting off the debates .
Earlier in the cycle , he ’ d gotten a bump of attention and money when Kamala Harris quit the race right after Thanksgiving .
He got another , smaller one when Julián Castro dropped out right after New Year ’ s .
Booker and his aides kept holding out hope that moments like these would add up to some kind of magic , even as political observers outside the campaign were asking if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was over .
At the beginning and end of his campaign , events beyond Booker ’ s control made it hard for his campaign to gain traction .
On the day he announced his candidacy , in February , the political news cycle got consumed by the public release of a photo of Virginia Governor Ralph Northam in blackface .
This month , impeachment and Iran made it hard to plan travel to Iowa or schedule fundraisers .
This will be a problem for all the senators still in the race , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move the most , Iran and impeachment were , as he admitted at one of his events , a “ double blow.
” Booker ’ s supporters remained convinced to the end .
Each of the two events Booker held on Thursday—which would turn out to be his final appearances on the trail—drew more than 150 people , who greeted both his introduction and the close of his speech with standing ovations .
Booker attracted more people to the basement of a small-town community center at lunchtime on a weekday than Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away the Friday before .
For that matter , two is more standing ovations than candidates tend to get .
When people see Booker in person , they seem to get won over .
It ’ s a matter of puzzlement to campaign reporters that the enthusiastic response he generates at his appearances didn ’ t translate into better standing in the polls .
“ You can tell this is who he is ; it ’ s not just what he ’ s saying , ” a woman told me after seeing Booker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A student who ’ d come to see Pete Buttigieg speak in Des Moines last night told me that while she likes the former South Bend , Indiana , mayor , she was more impressed by Booker ’ s passion , and that his style fit more with what she ’ s looking for in a president .

MOUNT VERNON, Iowa—Cory Booker had an original Jimmy Carter campaign button in his pocket. A woman at his previous event had handed it to him, and he was holding on to it as a final talisman of hope. It was Thursday, his second day trip to Iowa in three days. His flight out of Eastern Iowa Airport was in an hour. He hadn’t slept in the same bed for more than a night in two weeks. He sat in the front seat of an SUV, rubbing his fingers up and down his nose.
“The question is,” Booker said to me, “will we have the time in Iowa to close?”
He told me that he thought if he could qualify for tomorrow night’s debate in Des Moines, he could win the Iowa caucus. The problem was, he knew by then that qualifying for the debate was highly unlikely—and he learned definitively a few hours later that he wouldn’t qualify. If he could park himself in Iowa for the next three weeks, do 40 or more events in the state before the caucus, on February 3, he thought he could win. He’d been studying the metrics with his aides. He understood where he needed to go. He just didn’t know if he had enough time to get there.
“We could literally be getting hundreds if not thousands more caucus-goers” in the next few weeks, he said, in each of the many “strategically placed towns we could visit.” He could envision moving up in the polls, one place at a time.
But Senate duties called. Intelligence briefings on Iran. Soon, an impeachment trial. (He sits on the Judiciary Committee, which theoretically will hold hearings before the full Senate acts.) Every flight back and forth to Washington, D.C., was another event or two he could have done, another couple hundred people he could have tried to sway. He could feel the time ticking away.
“If we get folks to hear my message and feel my spirit, we will win this election,” he told me. If he’d been a full-time campaigner in Iowa, “we would have run away with this.”
In the end, he didn’t have enough time. Yesterday, he and his top aides got to where they’d been inching toward: There was no way to win. His crowds were always enthusiastic—but his poll numbers and fundraising never took off. What little money he had, he was dumping into TV ads that he hoped would lift him high enough in the polls to qualify for the debate, but that hadn’t worked—and so he couldn’t count on the online fundraising boosts that other candidates had been getting off the debates. Earlier in the cycle, he’d gotten a bump of attention and money when Kamala Harris quit the race right after Thanksgiving. He got another, smaller one when Julián Castro dropped out right after New Year’s. Booker and his aides kept holding out hope that moments like these would add up to some kind of magic, even as political observers outside the campaign were asking if he was the last person to realize it was over.
Read: Why hasn’t Cory Booker’s campaign caught fire?
At the beginning and end of his campaign, events beyond Booker’s control made it hard for his campaign to gain traction. On the day he announced his candidacy, in February, the political news cycle got consumed by the public release of a photo of Virginia Governor Ralph Northam in blackface. This month, impeachment and Iran made it hard to plan travel to Iowa or schedule fundraisers. This will be a problem for all the senators still in the race, but for Booker, who needed to move the most, Iran and impeachment were, as he admitted at one of his events, a “double blow.”
Booker’s supporters remained convinced to the end. Each of the two events Booker held on Thursday—which would turn out to be his final appearances on the trail—drew more than 150 people, who greeted both his introduction and the close of his speech with standing ovations. Booker attracted more people to the basement of a small-town community center at lunchtime on a weekday than Joe Biden had drawn to an event 60 miles away the Friday before. For that matter, two is more standing ovations than candidates tend to get. When people see Booker in person, they seem to get won over. It’s a matter of puzzlement to campaign reporters that the enthusiastic response he generates at his appearances didn’t translate into better standing in the polls. “You can tell this is who he is; it’s not just what he’s saying,” a woman told me after seeing Booker speak in North Liberty on Thursday. A student who’d come to see Pete Buttigieg speak in Des Moines last night told me that while she likes the former South Bend, Indiana, mayor, she was more impressed by Booker’s passion, and that his style fit more with what she’s looking for in a president.
“Somebody here’s thinking, Ohhhh, Cory Booker’s going to talk about looove,” Booker told the crowd in North Liberty. “Is this about who has the best 15-point plan? No. I think I do. But no. This election is about which leaders—plural—can inspire us again to see each other’s hope and promise.” Though this gushy, gauzy stuff might seem to be out of step with the crush-the-opposition partisanship of the moment, the people who were signing cards commiting to caucus for him—”Look at that stack!” he said when he saw the size of the pile—seemed to have eaten it up, saying they were just looking for someone to be kind.
County chairs and local politicians kept coming out for him, even into last week. “He has the strongest message,” Tim Horrigan, a New Hampshire state representative who endorsed Booker on Thursday morning, told me late last week. “He’s totally the antithesis of Trump and also somebody who could heal the damage that Trump has done.” Bryce Smith, the chair of the Dallas County, Texas, Democrats, who endorsed Booker at the end of December, told me that he personally had been won over by how Booker seems to “ooze his love for everyone,” and that he believed a “silent momentum” of elected officials and activists could help Booker win on caucus night.
Booker tried to make the case that his candidacy would bring what Democratic primary voters have been looking for all along: unity. Enthusiasm. Energy. Youthfulness. The high black turnout that might actually be the deciding factor in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
Peter Beinart: Cory Booker blew it
But to Booker’s frustration, a party that likes to see itself as representing America’s multicultural future is being dominated by candidates who are mostly old, white, rich, and male—making it impossible for the candidate best positioned to beat Donald Trump to break through. “Yes, we could lose this election,” Booker told me last week. “We need to elect the right person that can excite record turnouts, really have a wave election. I’m very concerned about it. Yes, I’m absolutely concerned about it.”
What comes next for Booker and his team? Booker built an extensive operation in Iowa. Those organizers are now up for grabs. Meanwhile, Booker himself immediately moves to the top of potential-running-mate lists; he’s possibly the only man who would make the shortlist if one of the male candidates becomes the presidential nominee—and he’d be a natural running mate for either Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar.
Booker’s supporters are also up for grabs. Many I’ve spoken with seem inclined to gravitate toward Warren, though some like Buttigieg as well. In a race that’s heading into the final three weeks in a four-way tie, his supporters could make the difference here in Iowa, and be an important element in determining the nominee.
“Don’t make this Iowa-caucus decision out of fear,” he said at his last events. “Make it out of faith.”


theatlantic--2020-01-14--Democrats Should Be Worried About the Latino Vote

When several candidates broke into Spanish during those back-to-back performances , they quickly faced criticism from some quarters for “ Hispandering.
” ( Others said it was an attempt at displaying cultural competency that they appreciated . )
But perhaps even more concerning for the organizers who spoke with me was how many of the candidates focused exclusively on immigration when speaking about “ Latino issues.
” “ Yes , there are Latino citizens and voters who are more comfortable in Spanish , but people are interested in what kind of a candidate you are and … what are you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Martinez de Castro , the deputy vice president for policy and advocacy at UnidosUS , one of the oldest Latino advocacy groups in the country .
“ I think a lot of times , where Latino voters are concerned , they tend to be either taken for granted and/or attacked .
And so our biggest fear is that we see a continuation of that.
” She and other organizers are concerned that both parties are following an outdated political playbook that casts Latino interests as alien to the concerns of working-class white Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Democrats are determined to win in the general election .
As my colleague Ron Brownstein wrote last week , demographic trends suggest that the Rust Belt states Democrats are trying to wrest from Trump will only lose political influence as Americans move south and west—lending more political power to the states where Latinos already reside .
Read : Democrats ’ future is moving beyond the Rust Belt Jacqueline Martinez Garcel , the head of the California-based Latino Community Foundation , points to the Democratic sweep of longtime Republican strongholds in Southern California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should think of Latino interests beyond immigration as part of their mainstream agendas .
Democrats managed to flip four House seats in Orange County because of a significant increase in Latino participation , driven by candidates who went door to door and collaborated with grassroots activists in their communities , Martinez Garcel said .
Representative Norma Torres of California told me that some candidates seem to overlook how issues such as education , affordable housing , raising the minimum wage , and college affordability dominate the minds of many working-class and young Latinos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the United States from Guatemala as a child , said three candidates had met with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus ’ s political arm , of which she is a member .
In those meetings , the candidates “ regurgitate old policy , ” she said , and “ forget that the majority of Latinos live in communities like mine , which are very , very poor , working-class.
” Still , beyond their concerns about throwaway lines and policy blind spots , the organizers I spoke with said they fear that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact about Latinos in America : They are a tremendously diverse group ideologically and culturally .
And that diversity means there ’ s an opening for Republican overtures .

The first warning sign of the new year came three days into 2020. Speaking at a rally of conservative evangelicals in South Florida, President Donald Trump riffed on the targeted killing of Iran’s Qassem Soleimani before the thousands assembled in the King Jesus International Ministry megachurch, outside of Miami.
That night, the president captured headlines for declaring that “God is on our side” and accusing Democrats of disloyalty for not supporting his air strike. But for Domingo Garcia, the national president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, what the headlines—and Democrats—missed was the significance of the rally’s location: the home of the country’s largest Hispanic evangelical congregation.
“That should be a serious red flag to Democrats,” Garcia told me. Trump’s outreach to conservative Latinos in the South serves as a warning sign for deeper concerns that several Latino leaders and political activists shared with me: that they are dissatisfied with the level of engagement they are seeing from the Democratic primary contenders and are noticing the same kind of poor strategizing by candidates that yielded disappointing turnout among Hispanic voters in 2016.
By all demographic counts, 2020 should be the year Latinos make a decisive mark on national politics: Their support could swing primary races in early-voting and Super Tuesday states, possibly securing the nomination for one of the Democratic contenders, and it could tip the scales in the general election if they turn out to vote in the same record-breaking numbers as they did during 2018’s midterm elections.
But some of the Latino political organizers I spoke with described the primary season so far as a master class in “political malpractice”—as one person phrased it—with candidates struggling to engage Latino voters, address issues beyond immigration reform, and treat Latinos as the influential voting bloc they are. Others reported a lack of candidate interest in working with their organizations, including missed meetings and radio silence on questionnaires. (On top of all that, the only Latino candidate in the race, Julián Castro, dropped out earlier this month, leaving an all-white stage for tonight’s debate.) There’s a real risk that if Democrats don’t sort out these issues soon, they could struggle to attract and mobilize what could be the largest minority voting bloc in 2020.
“It feels like every four years there’s this clutching of the pearls and head-scratching about why the hell Latinos don’t vote,” Marisa Franco, a co-founder of the Latino activist network Mijente, told me. “I don’t think it’s an absence of interest. It’s a hunger for options.”
Read: The next populist revolution will be Latino
The only candidate still in the race to receive virtually universal praise from the organizers was Senator Bernie Sanders. Organizers from California to Texas highlighted the Sanders campaign’s grassroots engagement, something that seems to be reflected in Latinos’ consistently strong support for the senator: In poll after poll, Latinos, especially young Latinos, rank Sanders as their top pick among the primary contenders. Chuck Rocha, a top Sanders adviser, told me that the polls reflect the senator’s priority of expanding the electorate, including young Latinos who have not voted before. Of the record 32 million Latinos eligible to cast a ballot in 2020, 4 million of them turned 18 after the 2016 election, María Teresa Kumar, the CEO of the political-advocacy group Voto Latino, told me.
Rocha and Sanders’s national political director, Analilia Mejia, said the campaign has aired Spanish-language ads for the past eight months and hired more than 150 Latino staffers around the country. In vote-rich California specifically, the campaign opened most of its 14 field offices in heavily Latino communities, including East Los Angeles, Oxnard, San Jose, and the Central Valley region. “On our campaign, we’re very clear about the rising Latino iceberg of voters, how for years to come there will be a need to deeply motivate and mobilize Latino voters,” Mejia said. “When you have people who belong to that community [and] you empower those folks, of course you’re going to do better within that community—if you have folks who know how to navigate it, folks who come from it, folks who respect it.”
Sanders aside, the organizers I spoke with said the first signs of trouble in the 2020 campaign were clear during the two nights of the first Democratic debate, in June.
When several candidates broke into Spanish during those back-to-back performances, they quickly faced criticism from some quarters for “Hispandering.” (Others said it was an attempt at displaying cultural competency that they appreciated.) But perhaps even more concerning for the organizers who spoke with me was how many of the candidates focused exclusively on immigration when speaking about “Latino issues.”
“Yes, there are Latino citizens and voters who are more comfortable in Spanish, but people are interested in what kind of a candidate you are and … what are you planning to do,” said Clarissa Martinez de Castro, the deputy vice president for policy and advocacy at UnidosUS, one of the oldest Latino advocacy groups in the country. “I think a lot of times, where Latino voters are concerned, they tend to be either taken for granted and/or attacked. And so our biggest fear is that we see a continuation of that.”
She and other organizers are concerned that both parties are following an outdated political playbook that casts Latino interests as alien to the concerns of working-class white Americans in the Midwest and Rust Belt states that Democrats are determined to win in the general election. As my colleague Ron Brownstein wrote last week, demographic trends suggest that the Rust Belt states Democrats are trying to wrest from Trump will only lose political influence as Americans move south and west—lending more political power to the states where Latinos already reside.
Read: Democrats’ future is moving beyond the Rust Belt
Jacqueline Martinez Garcel, the head of the California-based Latino Community Foundation, points to the Democratic sweep of longtime Republican strongholds in Southern California during the midterms as evidence that candidates should think of Latino interests beyond immigration as part of their mainstream agendas. Democrats managed to flip four House seats in Orange County because of a significant increase in Latino participation, driven by candidates who went door to door and collaborated with grassroots activists in their communities, Martinez Garcel said.
Representative Norma Torres of California told me that some candidates seem to overlook how issues such as education, affordable housing, raising the minimum wage, and college affordability dominate the minds of many working-class and young Latinos in particular. Torres, who immigrated to the United States from Guatemala as a child, said three candidates had met with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’s political arm, of which she is a member. In those meetings, the candidates “regurgitate old policy,” she said, and “forget that the majority of Latinos live in communities like mine, which are very, very poor, working-class.”
Still, beyond their concerns about throwaway lines and policy blind spots, the organizers I spoke with said they fear that the candidates are struggling to understand a key fact about Latinos in America: They are a tremendously diverse group ideologically and culturally. And that diversity means there’s an opening for Republican overtures.
“Latino conservatives in Florida and in Texas, by the way, are amenable to the Republican message and are willing to forgive Trump’s anti-immigrant, anti-Latino rhetoric to a certain extent,” said Garcia, the League of United Latin American Citizens leader. “That’s a small minority. But, you know, the difference between 20 and 30 percent could mean the difference of winning Texas or Florida or losing them.”
In other words: Republicans don’t need to win all, or even a majority of, the Latino votes to win in competitive states. Trump seems on track to capture 25 to 30 percent of Latino voters in 2020, a steady showing from his 29 percent support in 2016 and the roughly 32 percent of Latinos who voted for Republicans in 2018.
“That’s a concern that never leaves my mind,” says Representative Joaquin Castro of Texas, the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, who argues that his brother’s now-defunct campaign demonstrated how candidates should weave Latinos’ economic and social concerns into broader discussions of criminal-justice reform, affordable housing, and education. (He said Julían Castro plans to increase the presence of Senator Elizabeth Warren, whom they have both endorsed, in Latino communities.)
The common theme in my conversations with political activists was the stress they feel watching this campaign—the stress that too many candidates assume they’re doing enough for Latino voters, and that they’ll be lulled into a false sense of security come the general election. After the primary, the eventual nominee could end up assuming that the Latino vote is theirs for the taking, the thinking goes, since Latinos couldn’t possibly vote to reelect the president or sit out another cycle. But the nominee could be very, very wrong.


theatlantic--2020-01-14--The Iran Plane Crash Is the Big Story

The Iran Plane Crash Is the Big Story

Read : The Soleimani assassination is America ’ s most consequential strike this century The downing of Flight 752 “ shows how even restrained retaliation could quickly turn into inadvertent escalation ” and how actors in international crises are often less capable than their adversaries assume they are , especially when they ’ re in a defensive crouch , Jacquelyn Schneider , a national-security expert at Stanford University ’ s Hoover Institution , wrote on Twitter .
( In this case , the incompetence of the Iranian military has been particularly noteworthy . )
And while Iran and the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their deliberate escalation—Iranian leaders know that they would lose a direct conventional war with the U.S. , and Trump doesn ’ t want to get sucked into another protracted conflict in the Middle East—the biggest risk in ongoing tensions is inadvertent escalation , Schneider argued : “ More mistakes will be made.
” Yes , the parties seem to have looked war in the face and recoiled , but they may simply be channeling their escalation in new directions rather than truly de-escalating .
As the Trump administration heaps economic pressure on Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there , and as Iran ’ s leaders grapple with this serious internal challenge to their rule and act out further by , say , launching cyber attacks , mobilizing proxy forces , or backing out of their commitments under the nuclear deal , the conflict could spin out of control again .
Read : The blueprint Iran could follow after Soleimani ’ s death To confidently conclude that escalation is a manageable force would be reckless .
Imagine , for instance , that those Iranian missiles had killed Americans , something Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with overwhelming force .
Troops at one of the Iraqi bases that came under assault told Reuters that a soldier came “ very close to being blown up inside a shelter behind the blast walls.
” And Lieutenant Colonel Staci Coleman , the U.S. Air Force officer who runs the airfield there , told The Wall Street Journal that she thought the Iranians “ really wanted to target our [ air ] assets and if they so happened to kill Americans in the process , that was okay with them.
” Or imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 752 .
How would the world look today ?
To channel Leon Trotsky , you may not be interested in escalation , but sometimes escalation is interested in you .
It ’ s a fallacy to presume that state actors can completely control a crisis .
After all , who would have predicted that Iranians would be in the streets this week calling for the downfall of the supreme leader as Trump cheers them on ?
“ Most obviously , humility is in order , ” Robert Jervis , an international-relations theorist at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lessons of the U.S. standoff with Iran .
“ My guess is that neither President Donald Trump nor the Iranians know what they will do next ( and what they think they will do may be different from what they will do when the time comes ) .
” Next time—and there will be a next time—the Swiss and their encrypted fax machine may not be sufficient to avert a war no one wants .

The accidental shoot-down of the Ukrainian passenger jet is a glaring example of how the conflict between the U.S. and Iran can spiral out of control even when neither party wants it to.
The downing of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 and the deaths of all 176 people on board—newlyweds flying home from their wedding, graduate students charting ambitious careers, whole families returning from visiting relatives—have come to be portrayed as a tragic asterisk tacked onto the dramatic tale of how Donald Trump and Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei nearly went to war in the early days of 2020.
Over the weekend, for example, The New York Times published a comprehensive and vivid account of the week-long U.S.-Iran showdown. While the article ran more than 6,500 words, it included only one sentence on the plane crash. “In the confusion, a Ukrainian civilian passenger jet was destroyed by an Iranian missile,” the reporters wrote.
Trump, meanwhile, has claimed vindication for his handling of the crisis with Iran, but has barely mentioned the demise of Flight 752, other than to speculate about what caused the aircraft to explode. He has tweeted often (including in Farsi) about the anti-government protests currently roiling Iran without referencing the impetus for them: the Iranian military accidentally shooting down the airplane, whose passengers were mostly Iranian nationals, and the country’s leaders then lying to their own people and the world about it for days.
But the shoot-down isn’t just some side event in the latest chapter of this story. It is the story, just as much as the U.S. and Iranian governments deciding to de-escalate hostilities is. The incident is a glaring example of how the months-long tit for tat between the two countries—which is far from over, even though their confrontation is for the moment less violent—can spiral out of control even when neither side wants it to. And it should serve as a counterweight to any notion that the parties have full command over the struggle they’ve been stepping up ever since the Trump administration withdrew the United States from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018.
Read: Iran’s response to Soleimani’s killing is coming
It’s revealing that the most recent round of hostilities between the countries was bookended by mistakes and misperceptions. The Times reported that the triggering event—a rocket attack by an Iranian-backed militia in late December that killed an American contractor at an Iraqi military base—was intended to exert pressure on the United States but not escalate the conflict, according to U.S. intelligence assessments. “The rockets landed in a place and at a time when American and Iraqi personnel normally were not there and it was only by unlucky chance that [the contractor] was killed,” the paper noted.
Whatever Iran’s intention, the attack did indeed leave an American dead. Which prompted the Trump administration to kill dozens of militia members in retaliatory strikes. Which led to supporters of that militia storming the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Which resulted in Trump ordering the targeted killing of the Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Iraq. Which moved Iran to fire missiles at Iraqi military bases hosting U.S. forces. Which caused the Iranians to brace for blowback from the United States, creating the conditions in which an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps missile operator apparently mistook Flight 752 for an American cruise missile and, with 10 seconds to act and his communication channels malfunctioning, blasted it out of the sky above Tehran.
Iran seemed to carefully calibrate its missile barrage on Iraqi bases—which damaged U.S. military airfields, blast walls, and various facilities but inflicted no casualties—to symbolically avenge Soleimani’s death without dramatically ramping up its fight with the United States. And the Trump administration chose to respond with similar restraint, asserting that the Iranians were “standing down” and that Washington effectively would as well, by limiting its retaliation to additional economic sanctions. The two foes even exchanged de-escalatory messages over encrypted fax via the Swiss embassy in Tehran. But if one needed an illustration of the difference between intentionally escalating hostilities during a crisis and unintentionally doing so, there’s no starker one than the Iranian military (more or less) precisely firing missiles at specific U.S. military targets and then, hours later, accidentally launching a missile that obliterated a plane with Iranian citizens on board.
Read: The Soleimani assassination is America’s most consequential strike this century
The downing of Flight 752 “shows how even restrained retaliation could quickly turn into inadvertent escalation” and how actors in international crises are often less capable than their adversaries assume they are, especially when they’re in a defensive crouch, Jacquelyn Schneider, a national-security expert at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, wrote on Twitter. (In this case, the incompetence of the Iranian military has been particularly noteworthy.) And while Iran and the United States are likely to proceed cautiously with their deliberate escalation—Iranian leaders know that they would lose a direct conventional war with the U.S., and Trump doesn’t want to get sucked into another protracted conflict in the Middle East—the biggest risk in ongoing tensions is inadvertent escalation, Schneider argued: “More mistakes will be made.”
Yes, the parties seem to have looked war in the face and recoiled, but they may simply be channeling their escalation in new directions rather than truly de-escalating. As the Trump administration heaps economic pressure on Iran and shines a spotlight on anti-government demonstrations there, and as Iran’s leaders grapple with this serious internal challenge to their rule and act out further by, say, launching cyber attacks, mobilizing proxy forces, or backing out of their commitments under the nuclear deal, the conflict could spin out of control again.
Read: The blueprint Iran could follow after Soleimani’s death
To confidently conclude that escalation is a manageable force would be reckless. Imagine, for instance, that those Iranian missiles had killed Americans, something Trump has deemed unacceptable and threatened to counter with overwhelming force. Troops at one of the Iraqi bases that came under assault told Reuters that a soldier came “very close to being blown up inside a shelter behind the blast walls.” And Lieutenant Colonel Staci Coleman, the U.S. Air Force officer who runs the airfield there, told The Wall Street Journal that she thought the Iranians “really wanted to target our [air] assets and if they so happened to kill Americans in the process, that was okay with them.” Or imagine if Americans had been on board Flight 752. How would the world look today? To channel Leon Trotsky, you may not be interested in escalation, but sometimes escalation is interested in you. It’s a fallacy to presume that state actors can completely control a crisis. After all, who would have predicted that Iranians would be in the streets this week calling for the downfall of the supreme leader as Trump cheers them on?
“Most obviously, humility is in order,” Robert Jervis, an international-relations theorist at Columbia University, wrote recently, regarding the lessons of the U.S. standoff with Iran. “My guess is that neither President Donald Trump nor the Iranians know what they will do next (and what they think they will do may be different from what they will do when the time comes).” Next time—and there will be a next time—the Swiss and their encrypted fax machine may not be sufficient to avert a war no one wants.


theatlantic--2020-01-14--Warren’s New Electability Argument

Warren’s New Electability Argument

Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence for her argument is the 2018 midterm elections , when women won a record number of seats in Congress , beat out male opponents in key swing states including Florida and Pennsylvania , and earned greater representation in the U.S. Senate and governors ’ mansions across the country .
The Democratic Party ’ s recent successes , she said , are owed to women candidates and women voters .
Warren ’ s answer was met with loud cheers from the debate audience at Drake University .
But her strategy is more significant than any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election to Trump , pundits and political watchers have spent endless hours parsing the role of sexism in that election .
Clinton was widely hated on the right for a number of political and historical reasons , but many of her supporters believed at least part of that hatred stemmed from misogyny and a deeply held belief among American voters than a woman can ’ t be president .
Sanders denies ever telling Warren that a woman could not get elected .
He pointed to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to run for office , and to the fact that he hung back on entering the 2016 Democratic race in hopes that Warren would run .
“ How could anybody in a million years not believe that a woman could become president of the United States ?
” he said during Tuesday ’ s debate .
“ Let me be very clear : If any of the women on this stage—or any of the men on this stage—win the nomination … I will do everything in my power to make sure that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most dangerous president in the history of our country.
” But Warren managed to move the conversation to a new level—past any disagreement with Sanders , past a referendum on what happened to Clinton in 2016 , past a debate over how sexist America really is .
Women candidates and voters will once again be crucial players up and down ballots in 2020 , Warren argued , and they ’ ve proved that they can win against men and Republicans alike .
And besides , she said , this is not the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s identity will prevent them from electoral success .
“ Back in the 1960s , people asked , ‘ Could a Catholic win ?
’ ” she said .
“ Back in 2008 , people asked if an African American could win .
In both times , the Democratic Party stepped up and said yes , got behind their candidate , and we changed America .
That is who we are .
”

Throughout her campaign, Senator Elizabeth Warren has largely sidestepped the question of sexism. It’s a lose-lose situation: Women candidates don’t want to seem whiny, but they also don’t want to look weak if they’re insulted or discriminated against because of their gender.
When CNN reported on Monday that Bernie Sanders told her in 2018 that a woman could not be elected president, Warren seemed trapped. She could call out Sanders for sexism and risk seeming shrill or petty. Or she could let the story pass without making anything of it. On the debate stage in Iowa Tuesday night, Warren chose a third path: She argued that being a woman is not a liability for political candidates. It’s a strength.
To make her case, Warren pointed to hard evidence, invoking the records of her competitors in the Democratic primary race. “Look at the men on this stage,” Warren said. “Collectively, they have lost 10 elections. The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women: Amy [Klobuchar] and me.” And she’s more than prepared to take on President Donald Trump as a woman, she added: “The only person on this stage who has beaten an incumbent Republican anytime in the past 30 years is me.”
Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence for her argument is the 2018 midterm elections, when women won a record number of seats in Congress, beat out male opponents in key swing states including Florida and Pennsylvania, and earned greater representation in the U.S. Senate and governors’ mansions across the country. The Democratic Party’s recent successes, she said, are owed to women candidates and women voters.
Warren’s answer was met with loud cheers from the debate audience at Drake University. But her strategy is more significant than any one applause line.
In the three years since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election to Trump, pundits and political watchers have spent endless hours parsing the role of sexism in that election. Clinton was widely hated on the right for a number of political and historical reasons, but many of her supporters believed at least part of that hatred stemmed from misogyny and a deeply held belief among American voters than a woman can’t be president.
Sanders denies ever telling Warren that a woman could not get elected. He pointed to a decades-old video of him encouraging little girls to run for office, and to the fact that he hung back on entering the 2016 Democratic race in hopes that Warren would run. “How could anybody in a million years not believe that a woman could become president of the United States?” he said during Tuesday’s debate. “Let me be very clear: If any of the women on this stage—or any of the men on this stage—win the nomination … I will do everything in my power to make sure that they are elected in order to defeat the most dangerous president in the history of our country.”
But Warren managed to move the conversation to a new level—past any disagreement with Sanders, past a referendum on what happened to Clinton in 2016, past a debate over how sexist America really is. Women candidates and voters will once again be crucial players up and down ballots in 2020, Warren argued, and they’ve proved that they can win against men and Republicans alike. And besides, she said, this is not the first time people have questioned whether a candidate’s identity will hinder electoral success. “Back in the 1960s, people asked, ‘Could a Catholic win?’” she said. “Back in 2008, people asked if an African American could win. In both times, the Democratic Party stepped up and said yes, got behind their candidate, and we changed America. That is who we are.”


theatlantic--2020-01-14--The Vote That Bernie Sanders Keeps Talking About

Read : Bernie Sanders has something new to talk about That Sanders received such a prime opportunity was thanks in large part to CNN , which devoted the first half hour of tonight ’ s debate to foreign policy and tossed its first question—Why are you best prepared to be commander in chief ?
—to the senator .
But he can also thank Trump , whose decision to authorize a lethal strike against the Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani thrust foreign policy to the center of the Democratic-primary campaign .
Sanders has been competing with Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his longer record in Congress has helped : Warren was not even a public figure when the Iraq War started in 2003 .
The other top-tier Democrat—former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg—served in Afghanistan , but was barely able to legally drink a beer when the U.S. invaded Iraq .
Whether Sanders made the most of his chance tonight is another question .
The other candidates largely held their own during the foreign-policy exchange , and CNN ’ s Wolf Blitzer did force Sanders to acknowledge that as sound as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he voiced regret for his vote in support of the war in Afghanistan , which is now in its 20th year .
That Iraq still endures as a living , polarizing policy debate in 2020 is a reflection of just how long the shadow of 9/11 has loomed over U.S. policy in the Middle East .
But there is little doubt that if the war is a topic of discussion , the advantage goes to the candidate who was against it .
In 2016 , Trump took ( dubious ) credit for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it as a cudgel against both his Republican-primary opponents and Hillary Clinton in the general election .
The U.S. has now elected two presidents in a row who were , or claimed to be , against the war .
Sanders is hoping voters decide to pick a third .

The Democratic debate’s early focus on foreign policy gave the senator from Vermont an opportunity to show off a record that stands alone among his opponents.
In 2008, Barack Obama won the Democratic presidential nomination arguably based on a single policy position that distinguished him from his chief rival: his opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq from its outset. Twelve years later, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont could conceivably capture the party’s nomination because of that same stance on that same war.
At tonight’s Democratic debate, in Iowa, Sanders had his best chance yet to remind progressive primary voters that on the most consequential foreign-policy decision of the 21st century, he stood alone among the six candidates onstage in clearly opposing the Iraq War.
“I not only voted against that war; I helped lead the effort against that war,” the senator from Vermont said in the opening moments of the debate. Sanders proceeded to tout his efforts to restrain President Donald Trump’s ability to lead the U.S. into another Middle East war, this time with Iran, and he seized an opening to contrast his record on Iraq with former Vice President Joe Biden, who in 2002 voted to give President George W. Bush the authorization he needed to start the conflict.
“I did everything I could to prevent that war. Joe saw it differently,” Sanders said.
Read: Bernie Sanders has something new to talk about
That Sanders received such a prime opportunity was thanks in large part to CNN, which devoted the first half hour of tonight’s debate to foreign policy and tossed its first question—Why are you best prepared to be commander in chief?—to the senator. But he can also thank Trump, whose decision to authorize a lethal strike against the Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani thrust foreign policy to the center of the Democratic-primary campaign.
Sanders has been competing with Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts for support among progressives, but here his longer record in Congress has helped: Warren was not even a public figure when the Iraq War started in 2003. The other top-tier Democrat—former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg—served in Afghanistan, but was barely able to legally drink a beer when the U.S. invaded Iraq.
Whether Sanders made the most of his chance tonight is another question.
The other candidates largely held their own during the foreign-policy exchange, and CNN’s Wolf Blitzer did force Sanders to acknowledge that as sound as his judgment may have been on Iraq, he voiced regret for his vote in support of the war in Afghanistan, which is now in its 20th year.
That Iraq still endures as a living, polarizing policy debate in 2020 is a reflection of just how long the shadow of 9/11 has loomed over U.S. policy in the Middle East. But there is little doubt that if the war is a topic of discussion, the advantage goes to the candidate who was against it.
In 2016, Trump took (dubious) credit for having opposed the Iraq War, using it as a cudgel against both his Republican-primary opponents and Hillary Clinton in the general election. The U.S. has now elected two presidents in a row who were, or claimed to be, against the war. Sanders is hoping voters decide to pick a third.


theatlantic--2020-01-14--The Atlantic Politics Daily: Getting Out the (Latino) Vote

It ’ s Tuesday , January 14 .
In today ’ s newsletter : The final Democratic debate before Iowa will be an all-white , six-person affair ( one billionaire included ) .
Plus : Are Democrats overlooking what may be the largest minority voting bloc of 2020 ?
Jose De Jesus Esparza Morales and Ivan Vargas canvass for the Latino activist network Mijente in Georgia during the 2018 midterm elections .
( AUDRA MELTON / THE NEW YORK TIMES / REDUX ) The influence of the Latino vote seems to be hyped up every election cycle—leaving pundits and politicians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the case in 2016 .
The U.S. is home to 4 million young Latinos who became eligible to vote after 2016 .
2020 may see record-breaking turnout among Latino voters , once again making them a key bloc for candidates vying for the Democratic nomination , and also for the eventual nominee ’ s ability to win states such as Florida and Arizona .
Before I began reporting this story , I wondered whether Latinos were checking out of the presidential race because they didn ’ t see themselves represented in mainstream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Latinos are giving the candidates a chance , but most of the candidates don ’ t seem to be biting ( many did call out one candidate in particular for doing better in this arena ) .
Latino organizers I spoke with shared a plethora of examples where Democratic candidates looking to defeat the president were lacking , such as : As you tune in for tonight ’ s debate , watch for how the six white candidates talk about race and minority voters : Will they merely be paying lip service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they offer truly inclusive policy proposals ?

Four million young Latinos became eligible to vote after 2016. Latino organizers have a warning for 2020 candidates. Plus: An idea for surmounting—carefully—the Electoral College.
It’s Tuesday, January 14. In today’s newsletter: The final Democratic debate before Iowa will be an all-white, six-person affair (one billionaire included). Plus: Are Democrats overlooking what may be the largest minority voting bloc of 2020?
*
« TODAY IN POLITICS »
Jose De Jesus Esparza Morales and Ivan Vargas canvass for the Latino activist network Mijente in Georgia during the 2018 midterm elections. (AUDRA MELTON / THE NEW YORK TIMES / REDUX)
The influence of the Latino vote seems to be hyped up every election cycle—leaving pundits and politicians disappointed by the final turnout, as was the case in 2016.
The U.S. is home to 4 million young Latinos who became eligible to vote after 2016. 2020 may see record-breaking turnout among Latino voters, once again making them a key bloc for candidates vying for the Democratic nomination, and also for the eventual nominee’s ability to win states such as Florida and Arizona.
Before I began reporting this story, I wondered whether Latinos were checking out of the presidential race because they didn’t see themselves represented in mainstream Democratic politics.
I had it backwards: Latinos are giving the candidates a chance, but most of the candidates don’t seem to be biting (many did call out one candidate in particular for doing better in this arena). Latino organizers I spoke with shared a plethora of examples where Democratic candidates looking to defeat the president were lacking, such as:
Repeated attempts to schedule candidate meetings with large Latino groups; unanswered policy questionnaires on issues such as education and affordable housing; weak grassroots work to register voters.
As you tune in for tonight’s debate, watch for how the six white candidates talk about race and minority voters: Will they merely be paying lip service to the Latino community, or will they offer truly inclusive policy proposals?
—Christian Paz
*
« DEBATE REFRESHER »
Tonight’s Democratic debate features six candidates. Here’s where we last left them:
‣ Joe Biden: “The kumbaya candidate.”
‣ Pete Buttigieg: The young left is decidedly not a fan.
‣ Amy Klobuchar: “Can she escape the shadow of her nemesis, who has seized her sensible-midwesterner mantle?”
‣ Bernie Sanders: “Iran gives Sanders something new to talk about.”
‣ Tom Steyer: Strolling through Nixon Library with our campaign reporter Edward-Isaac Dovere, Steyer had some opinions on impeachment.
‣ Elizabeth Warren: “The progressive senator doesn’t talk about her Republican past.” Could talking about it help her?
*
« IDEAS AND ARGUMENTS »
(REUTERS)
1.“There is a plan that can get the country closer to having a national popular election for president within the current constitutional framework.”
And it won’t require a constitutional amendment, the law professor Vikram David Amar argues. Twice now in the past two decades, the person who ultimately became president received fewer voters nationwide than his opponent. Here is a careful idea on surmounting the Electoral College.
2. “To channel Leon Trotsky, you may not be interested in escalation, but sometimes escalation is interested in you.”
The story of the downed Ukrainian passenger jet began with confusion, then odd denials, and then admission. It’s a dangerous example of a conflict spiraling out of control, even as both the U.S. and Iran each tried to recoil from war this week. The plane crash itself is the big story, Uri Friedman writes.
*
« EVENING READ »
(GETTY)
Women + Promotion = Divorce?
Derek Thompson looks at a couple of recent studies on gender parity that suggest Western society still has less-than-progressive views of women with careers.
In Sweden, women who were elected mayor or parliamentarian were more likely to get divorced than men who won the same elections. The same was true in the corporate world, where women promoted to chief executive were twice as likely to divorce within five years of their promotion as men. (Several U.S. studies have shown that American women downplay their career ambitions on dates and that marriages where the wife’s earnings exceed her husband’s are more likely to end in divorce.)
“The modern world still isn’t ready for successful women,” he writes.
*


theatlantic--2020-01-15--Did Virginia Just Amend the Constitution?

There is no assigned role for the president in constitutional amendments , nor one , directly , for the Supreme Court .
Instead a relatively little-known federal official , the archivist of the United States , collects the documents from the states , certifies an amendment ’ s ratification , and publishes it in the federal register .
The current archivist is David Ferriero , an appointee of former President Barack Obama who has held the position since 2009 .
The bulk of Ferriero ’ s job is to oversee the National Archives and Records Administration , but he now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rekindled fight over the Constitution as a named defendant in both federal lawsuits .
Attorneys general for the states of Alabama , Louisiana , and South Dakota have asked a judge to prevent Ferriero from certifying the ERA ’ s ratification and to acknowledge that five states rescinded their ratifications and should not be counted among the 38 .
Two pro-ERA advocacy groups , meanwhile , are asking a different federal court to invalidate the 1979 deadline that Congress originally attached to the amendment , ignore the states that have tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to certify the ERA as ratified once Virginia submits its paperwork .
In the past , Ferriero seems to have taken the position that the ERA is a viable amendment , the lapsed congressional deadline notwithstanding .
He accepted the post-deadline ratifications of Illinois and Nevada and included both states on a list of those that had ratified the amendment .
A National Archives and Records Administration spokesperson , Laura Sheehan , told me it was the archivist ’ s “ responsibility to document the actions that have been taken by the states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The [ Office of Legal Counsel ] opinion has separately determined that the recent state approvals can not serve to cause the Equal Rights Amendment to be adopted.
” ( Ferriero was not available for an interview . )
Virginia was poised to become the 38th state to ratify the ERA in November once Democrats ousted Republicans from the majorities in the state House of Delegates and Senate .
Party leaders immediately confirmed that they would make good on a campaign pledge to approve the amendment .
Read : The Equal Rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a crucial decision and having already been sued preemptively by ERA foes , Ferriero asked the Department of Justice for legal guidance .
Not surprisingly , the Trump administration came down on the side of the amendment ’ s opponents : In a 38-page opinion , the Office of Legal Counsel basically declared the ERA dead and said that in order to revive it , supporters would have to start from scratch .
“ Even if one or more state legislatures were to ratify the proposed amendment , it would not become part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could not certify its adoption , ” the opinion states .
“ Congress may not revive a proposed amendment after a deadline for its ratification has expired .
Should Congress wish to propose the amendment anew , it may do so through the same procedures required to propose an amendment in the first instance , consistent with Article V of the Constitution .
”

The Democratic-led legislature voted to become the 38th and final state needed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. But a court battle is already under way.
The commonwealth of Virginia this afternoon voted to amend the U.S. Constitution, becoming the 38th and final state needed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. Virginia’s action could be a momentous day in the nation’s history, heralding far-reaching changes in the law and capping a nearly century-long fight to enshrine women’s equality in the Constitution.
Or it might mean nothing at all.
Whether the Constitution has actually been amended for the 28th time—and for the first time in more than a quarter century—is now officially in question and a matter for the courts to decide. Even before the two Democratic-led chambers of the Virginia legislature voted today, supporters and opponents of the ERA had filed dueling federal lawsuits, launching a legal battle that could wind up in the Supreme Court.
A deadline that Congress originally imposed (and later revised) for ratification of the amendment by the states has long since passed. ERA backers are trying to get the deadline invalidated, while foes want not only to keep the lapsed due date intact but to prevent Congress from retroactively eliminating it.
As a generation of American schoolchildren learned from Schoolhouse Rock, a bill becomes a law when the president signs it (or Congress overrides his veto). But the endpoint for affixing an amendment to the Constitution is a bit murkier. Congress, through a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber, proposes changes, and then three-quarters of the state legislatures must ratify them. But then what happens?
There is no assigned role for the president in constitutional amendments, nor one, directly, for the Supreme Court. Instead a relatively little-known federal official, the archivist of the United States, collects the documents from the states, certifies an amendment’s ratification, and publishes it in the Federal Register.
The current archivist is David Ferriero, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who has held the position since 2009. The bulk of Ferriero’s job is to oversee the National Archives and Records Administration, but he now finds himself caught in the middle of a rekindled fight over the Constitution as a named defendant in both federal lawsuits. Attorneys general for the states of Alabama, Louisiana, and South Dakota have asked a judge to prevent Ferriero from certifying the ERA’s ratification and to acknowledge that five states rescinded their ratifications and should not be counted among the 38. Two pro-ERA advocacy groups, meanwhile, are asking a different federal court to invalidate the 1979 deadline that Congress originally attached to the amendment, ignore the states that have tried to rescind their ratifications, and force Ferriero to certify the ERA as ratified once Virginia submits its paperwork.
In the past, Ferriero seems to have taken the position that the ERA is a viable amendment, the lapsed congressional deadline notwithstanding. He accepted the post-deadline ratifications of Illinois and Nevada and included both states on a list of those that had ratified the amendment. A National Archives and Records Administration spokesperson, Laura Sheehan, told me it was the archivist’s “responsibility to document the actions that have been taken by the states with respect to any proposed constitutional amendment. The [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion has separately determined that the recent state approvals cannot serve to cause the Equal Rights Amendment to be adopted.” (Ferriero was not available for an interview.)
Virginia was poised to become the 38th state to ratify the ERA in November once Democrats ousted Republicans from the majorities in the state House of Delegates and Senate. Party leaders immediately confirmed that they would make good on a campaign pledge to approve the amendment.
Read: The Equal Rights Amendment is an artifact no more
Facing a crucial decision and having already been sued preemptively by ERA foes, Ferriero asked the Department of Justice for legal guidance. Not surprisingly, the Trump administration came down on the side of the amendment’s opponents: In a 38-page opinion, the Office of Legal Counsel basically declared the ERA dead and said that in order to revive it, supporters would have to start from scratch. “Even if one or more state legislatures were to ratify the proposed amendment, it would not become part of the Constitution, and the Archivist could not certify its adoption,” the opinion states. “Congress may not revive a proposed amendment after a deadline for its ratification has expired. Should Congress wish to propose the amendment anew, it may do so through the same procedures required to propose an amendment in the first instance, consistent with Article V of the Constitution.”
In a statement last week, the National Archives and Records Administration said it would abide by the Justice Department’s opinion, “unless instructed otherwise by a final court order.”
Virginia Democrats knew that their votes today might be for naught, but they celebrated anyway. “We’ll see what happens, but from my perspective we have done what we needed to do to become the 38th state needed for ratification,” Delegate Charniele Herring, the majority leader of the Virginia House, told me by phone after the vote.
In addition to the courts, ERA backers are looking to Congress, where House Democrats hope to pass legislation that would remove the deadline for ratification altogether. Still, even action by Congress would provoke a certain legal challenge from ERA opponents who contend that lawmakers should not be able to remove a deadline long after it expired.
For now, however, Virginia Democrats are trying to tune out the obstacles, treating their votes today as a history-making moment. State Senator Jennifer McClellan told me she felt “a combination of joy and relief,” as well as the presence of a century’s worth of women activists “on my shoulders.” As for the possibility that the courts will block the ERA, leaving its adoption no closer than it was decades ago, McClellan sounded a note of optimism instead. “I don’t think that’s going to happen,” she told me. “I still have faith that this is going to happen sooner rather than later.”


theatlantic--2020-01-15--The Atlantic Politics Daily: Actually, Women Win Quite a Lot

The argument has some wings : ‣ Democrats snatched back control of the House of Representatives in 2018 .
Women led that so-called blue wave : A record number of women won big races , setting a record for the number of women lawmakers in Congress .
‣ Suburban white women—historically fairly reliably Republicans—have left the party in droves since 2016 .
The president ’ s own standing with this group seems only to have soured since then : One poll found that after the confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh , Trump ’ s net support among Republican women dropped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman could become influential .
While working-class men are more firmly MAGA-aligned , “ clearly the women are in a different place , ” one pollster told my colleague Ron Brownstein .
Meet some of your impeachment managers : Adam Schiff of California , Val Demings of Florida , and Zoe Lofgren of California .
Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced her seven picks to be House of Representatives managers—they ’ ll serve as the prosecutors arguing the case to remove the president in the Senate trial that begins next week .
Stay tuned .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opportunity , giving Biden a sort of win by default.
” After the debate hall had cleared and the candidates had left the stage , the sense of Joe Biden ’ s inevitably seemed to cling in the air , David Graham argues : He ’ s running as an incumbent , and his opponents are treating him like one .
2 .
“ The candidates agree that Donald Trump has gutted traditional American foreign policy .
Where they diverge is in how to respond to that destruction.
” An exchange between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of troops they would leave in the Middle East is representative of a larger split between the progressives in the race and everyone else , Uri Friedman writes : What is the future role of America in a world it has thrown into chaos ?
3 .
“ Even if so , Americans should remember that whether a president intends to prolong old , stupid wars or to trigger costly new ones is less important than whether his actions have those effects.
” After last week ’ s conflict with Iran , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where they stand on Trump ’ s foreign policy .
While the president says he wants to stop endless wars , his actions speak louder , Conor Friedersdorf argues .
The Space Force is not a joke .
It exists now .
Our space reporter Marina Koren writes : .
Between the holiday season and more pressing military news , the creation of the Space Force did not initially make a big impression .
But the president seems pleased with his newest armed service .
“ Everybody ’ s excited about that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Ohio last week .
The crowd responded with boisterous chants of “ U-S-A.
” Vice President Mike Pence celebrated “ America ’ s heritage as the world ’ s greatest spacefaring nation ” yesterday , as he swore in General Jay Raymond as chief of space operations .
It even enjoyed its inaugural controversy .
Today ’ s newsletter was written by Saahil Desai , an associate editor on our Politics team and Christian Paz , a Politics fellow .
It was edited by Shan Wang , who oversees newsletters .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions or comments , or send a note to politicsdaily @ theatlantic.com .
Your support makes our journalism possible .
Subscribe here .

Which candidates are hurt most by the obsession with “electability?” Elizabeth Warren flips the script on that question. Plus: The Space Force awakens.
It’s Wednesday, January 15. The 2010s were the hottest decade ever recorded in the modern era, and 2019 was the second-hottest year.
Did Virginia just amend the U.S. Constitution with this afternoon’s Equal Rights Amendment vote?
In today’s newsletter: The “are women electable” question bursts to the fore. Plus: The Space Force returns.
*
« TODAY IN POLITICS »
(Robyn Beck / AFP / GETTY )
Some Democrats still shell-shocked by 2016 are turning the political logic of electability on its side: Instead of supporting the candidate they like best, they’re supporting the candidate they think their neighbors would vote for.
Which candidate does this obsession with electability seem to hurt most?
As my colleague Russell Berman writes—citing research—voters are bearish on Elizabeth Warren’s electability not necessarily because of her unabashed liberal politics, but because of her gender.
The “are women electable?” question burst to the fore this week. News reports surfaced about a 2018 private meeting between Warren and Bernie Sanders, during which Sanders said he didn’t feel a woman could win the presidency. When asked about the hubbub at Tuesday’s Democratic debate, Warren sidestepped, and then had a rejoinder: Actually, women are more electable.
The argument has some wings:
‣ Democrats snatched back control of the House of Representatives in 2018. Women led that so-called blue wave: A record number of women won big races, setting a record for the number of women lawmakers in Congress.
‣ Suburban white women—historically fairly reliably Republicans—have left the party in droves since 2016. The president’s own standing with this group seems only to have soured since then: One poll found that after the confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s net support among Republican women dropped by 19 points.
‣ Blue-collar white woman could become influential. While working-class men are more firmly MAGA-aligned, “clearly the women are in a different place,” one pollster told my colleague Ron Brownstein.
—Saahil Desai
*
« SNAPSHOT »
(Joshua Roberts / Reuters)
Meet some of your impeachment managers: Adam Schiff of California, Val Demings of Florida, and Zoe Lofgren of California.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced her seven picks to be House of Representatives managers—they’ll serve as the prosecutors arguing the case to remove the president in the Senate trial that begins next week. Stay tuned.
*
« IDEAS AND ARGUMENTS »
(SHANNON STAPLETON / REUTERS)
1. “No one really seized the opportunity, giving Biden a sort of win by default.”
After the debate hall had cleared and the candidates had left the stage, the sense of Joe Biden’s inevitably seemed to cling in the air, David Graham argues: He’s running as an incumbent, and his opponents are treating him like one.
2. “The candidates agree that Donald Trump has gutted traditional American foreign policy. Where they diverge is in how to respond to that destruction.”
An exchange between Biden and Warren last night over the number of troops they would leave in the Middle East is representative of a larger split between the progressives in the race and everyone else, Uri Friedman writes: What is the future role of America in a world it has thrown into chaos?
3. “Even if so, Americans should remember that whether a president intends to prolong old, stupid wars or to trigger costly new ones is less important than whether his actions have those effects.”
After last week’s conflict with Iran, the political right has had to reevaluate where they stand on Trump’s foreign policy. While the president says he wants to stop endless wars, his actions speak louder, Conor Friedersdorf argues.
*
« EVENING READ »
(AL DRAGO / BLOOMBERG VIA GETTY )
Episode VII: The Space Force Awakens
The Space Force is not a joke. It exists now. Our space reporter Marina Koren writes:.
Between the holiday season and more pressing military news, the creation of the Space Force did not initially make a big impression. But the president seems pleased with his newest armed service. “Everybody’s excited about that,” Trump said at a campaign rally in Ohio last week. The crowd responded with boisterous chants of “U-S-A.” Vice President Mike Pence celebrated “America’s heritage as the world’s greatest spacefaring nation” yesterday, as he swore in General Jay Raymond as chief of space operations.
It even enjoyed its inaugural controversy.
*


theatlantic--2020-01-15--The Big Split Emerging in the Democratic Party

The exchange highlighted a profound split within the Democratic Party as it prepares to nominate a presidential candidate .
All the candidates generally agree that Donald Trump has gutted traditional American foreign policy , undermining the country ’ s principles , alliances , and global leadership .
Where they diverge is in how to respond to that destruction .
One camp aims to painstakingly restore the United States ’ position in the world to what it was before the aberrant Trump era—or as Pete Buttigieg said , “ send Trumpism into the dustbin of history ” —while the other believes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underscores the need to fully renovate America ’ s role in international affairs .
During the debate , Biden spoke for the “ restorationists ” in making it his mission to “ restore America ’ s soul , ” to reestablish America ’ s alliances and “ standing ” in the Middle East following Trump ’ s confrontation with Iran , and to return to familiar U.S. positions such as not meeting unconditionally with adversarial leaders such as North Korea ’ s Kim Jong Un .
Buttigieg came across as a more youthful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideas with proposals such as making any U.S. military deployments authorized by Congress expire after three years to avert endless wars .
Bernie Sanders , who along with Warren represents the “ renovators , ” stressed his anti-war credentials and articulated a vision in which the United States projects power overseas by shifting its investments from the military to the State Department and the United Nations .
Read : Bernie Sanders has something new to talk about Hours before the debate , at a conference organized by the Center for American Progress in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive national-security agenda for the next Democratic president ’ s first 100 days in office , these divisions between restorationists and renovators were already evident .
In opening remarks , the former Obama-administration official Kelly Magsamen sought to bridge the gap .
She noted the daunting “ task to fix all that Trump has broken , ” while also stating that “ today is not really about Trump , and it ’ s not about returning to the status quo ante.
” She urged attendees to develop an “ affirmative agenda ” for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to “ revisit some of our assumptions.
” When Denis McDonough , Susan Rice , and Michèle Flournoy , all top national-security officials under Barack Obama , assembled for the first panel , however , the thrust of the discussion was much more about restoration than renovation .
Rice , who served as Obama ’ s national security adviser , said the next Democratic administration would have to find ways to stage “ a renewal of our vows ” to NATO and provide “ extraordinary reassurance ” to all U.S. allies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s presidency have come to question America ’ s commitment to their security and interests .
( “ You go back to the altar and apologize for your transgressions , ” Rice counseled . )

Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren seemed to be arguing about the finer points of troop levels in the Middle East, but what was really in dispute was a much bigger question: whether the world’s most powerful military actually provides stability abroad and security at home when intervening in international conflicts.
In calling for maintaining a small number of U.S. forces in the Middle East during last night’s Democratic presidential debate in Iowa, Biden insisted that there are some problems for which the military might of the United States and its allies is the only solution. “There’s no way you negotiate … with terrorists,” the former vice president stated, in reference to the battle against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and if America were to “walk away and not have any troops anywhere,” the terrorists would “come to us.”
It’s a case U.S. leaders have long made: We fight our enemies over there so that we don’t have to fight them here. But if Biden’s point seemed routine, Warren’s rebuttal was subtly radical. She implied that even the effort to eradicate Islamic State terrorists was not a job for the American armed forces.
“We should stop asking our military to solve problems that cannot be solved militarily,” she asserted. Practically, that means withdrawing from the Middle East all U.S. combat troops, who Warren said “are not helping create more safety for the United States or the region,” and instead using economic and diplomatic tools together with allies to counter enemies. The senator from Massachusetts then went even further, declaring that the entire U.S. defense industry and defense budget should be overhauled to root out endemic corruption. (Warren offered few specifics on how she would implement either of those policies.)
The exchange highlighted a profound split within the Democratic Party as it prepares to nominate a presidential candidate. All the candidates generally agree that Donald Trump has gutted traditional American foreign policy, undermining the country’s principles, alliances, and global leadership. Where they diverge is in how to respond to that destruction. One camp aims to painstakingly restore the United States’ position in the world to what it was before the aberrant Trump era—or as Pete Buttigieg said, “send Trumpism into the dustbin of history”—while the other believes that the turmoil of the era only underscores the need to fully renovate America’s role in international affairs.
During the debate, Biden spoke for the “restorationists” in making it his mission to “restore America’s soul,” to reestablish America’s alliances and “standing” in the Middle East following Trump’s confrontation with Iran, and to return to familiar U.S. positions such as not meeting unconditionally with adversarial leaders such as North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. Buttigieg came across as a more youthful emissary of restoration, sprucing up old ideas with proposals such as making any U.S. military deployments authorized by Congress expire after three years to avert endless wars.
Bernie Sanders, who along with Warren represents the “renovators,” stressed his anti-war credentials and articulated a vision in which the United States projects power overseas by shifting its investments from the military to the State Department and the United Nations.
Read: Bernie Sanders has something new to talk about
Hours before the debate, at a conference organized by the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C., to design a progressive national-security agenda for the next Democratic president’s first 100 days in office, these divisions between restorationists and renovators were already evident. In opening remarks, the former Obama-administration official Kelly Magsamen sought to bridge the gap. She noted the daunting “task to fix all that Trump has broken,” while also stating that “today is not really about Trump, and it’s not about returning to the status quo ante.” She urged attendees to develop an “affirmative agenda” for America’s role in the world and to “revisit some of our assumptions.”
When Denis McDonough, Susan Rice, and Michèle Flournoy, all top national-security officials under Barack Obama, assembled for the first panel, however, the thrust of the discussion was much more about restoration than renovation. Rice, who served as Obama’s national security adviser, said the next Democratic administration would have to find ways to stage “a renewal of our vows” to NATO and provide “extraordinary reassurance” to all U.S. allies, which over the course of Trump’s presidency have come to question America’s commitment to their security and interests. (“You go back to the altar and apologize for your transgressions,” Rice counseled.)
A key challenge for this camp is that restoring the status quo ante will be far more difficult than simply embarking on a global “we’re back and we’re not Trump” tour. Will countries believe that the United States they used to know is really coming back in the form they used to know it, for example, or that any agreements they enter into with a new president will be honored by future administrations? As Samantha Power, Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, noted at the conference, returning to nuclear negotiations with Iran following Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal will be difficult because the Iranians will say, “Won’t this [agreement], too, be replaced the next time someone who doesn’t like the deal takes office?”
Thomas Wright: The problem at the core of progressive foreign policy
For the renovator camp, acknowledging that Trump accurately diagnosed the need for the U.S. to revamp its role in the world, even if it thinks he got the prescription wrong, is a big challenge. So is describing what exactly a progressive foreign policy will look like if it doesn’t look like the American foreign policy of the past, and how the camp will actually achieve the new objectives it’s setting for U.S. statecraft.
What unites all the Democratic presidential candidates is that, so far, they are defining their vision for how the United States will interact with the rest of the world in a more negative than affirmative sense: Whatever it will be, it won’t be Trumpism.


theatlantic--2020-01-15--The Opportunity That Warren and Sanders Passed Up

Read : The vote that Bernie Sanders keeps talking about Yet the same unwavering conviction that helped Warren and Sanders stand out onstage underscored the gamble each is taking : that purism can prevail in a Democratic primary electorate that is more ideologically diverse than often assumed .
A cumulative CNN analysis of all the exit polls conducted in the 2016 Democratic primary found that only one-fourth of voters in that contest , between Sanders and Hillary Clinton , identified as “ very liberal ” ; just over one-third called themselves “ somewhat liberal ” ; and the remaining two-fifths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative.
” While Sanders broke even with Clinton among the voters who identified as very liberal , she won a 56 percent majority of the somewhat-liberal voters and more than 60 percent of the moderates .
The Iowa caucuses tend to attract an electorate more liberal than Clinton ’ s cohort : In 2016 , according to the media entrance polls conducted at the time , only about one-third of caucus-goers identified as moderate or conservative , while nearly three in 10 identified as very liberal and four in 10 identified as somewhat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tack Warren and Sanders took in their presentations last night .
Yet beyond Iowa , the Democratic primary electorate in many states is much more centrist , especially across the South and Midwest : For instance , in Texas , Michigan , and Ohio , each of which votes in early March , the 2016 exit polls found that only about one-fifth of voters identified as very liberal , while roughly twice as many called themselves moderate or conservative .
Both Warren and Sanders are relying heavily on the party ’ s most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this week ’ s Quinnipiac University national survey , Warren drew 38 percent of Democratic voters who identified as very liberal but only 7 percent of moderates and conservatives ; for Sanders , the numbers were 24 and 14 , respectively .
Biden ’ s support , by contrast , followed the inverse pattern : He won 29 percent of the moderates and conservatives , but only 15 percent of those who identified as very liberal .
At the debate , Warren didn ’ t show much inclination to reach beyond her base—and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his .
From his very first answer , Sanders planted his flag on the left flank of the party ’ s internal ideological debate by responding to a question about his credentials to serve as commander in chief by stressing his opposition to the war in Iraq .
Sanders reiterated his determination to remove all American troops from the Middle East and delivered a sweeping condemnation of military intervention abroad : “ The American people are sick and tired of endless wars that have cost us trillions of dollars , ” he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from all his major rivals by reiterating his opposition to not only the North American Free Trade Agreement approved under President Bill Clinton , but also the updated agreement with Mexico and Canada that the Democratic House recently voted to approve .
Sanders dodged a question about the estimated $ 60 trillion cost of his entire agenda , instead retreating to familiar arguments about why he believes a single-payer system will benefit American families .
He would not even offer an estimate on the cost of single-payer alone , which the center-left Urban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trillion over the next decade , more than the government spends on Medicare , Medicaid , and Social Security combined .

Updated at 10:40 a.m. ET on January 15, 2020.
The two most liberal candidates drove the conversation at last night’s Democratic presidential debate, but in a manner that underscores the challenge each may face in building a coalition across the party’s ideological divides.
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, the two senators jostling for the support of the Democrats’ most progressive voters, both delivered confident, aggressive performances in which they underlined their commitment to an array of liberal causes, from withdrawing all American forces from the Middle East to raising taxes on the rich and opposing most free-trade agreements. The debate made clear that they are both banking on winning the nomination much more by consolidating the party’s most liberal flank than by extending their appeal across all of its ideological and political factions. “This is the moment when we have got to think big and not small,” Sanders insisted in his closing statement, in words that summarized as well the argument from Warren.
None of the more centrist candidates on the slimmed-down debate stage was nearly as vivid. And overall, the debate lacked the intensity that many expected for the final confrontation before the first votes are cast in Iowa, on February 3—especially since recent polls have shown the top four candidates all closely bunched together. The evening’s most anticipated moment largely fizzled, too. Sanders flatly denied that he told Warren, during a private meeting in 2018, that he believed a woman could not win the presidency, as initially reported by CNN. And when asked about Sanders’s denial, Warren chose not to challenge him—detouring instead into a forceful argument for why women can win elections. Without a genuine confrontation between the two, the real fulcrum of the debate was the division between the two of them and former Vice President Joe Biden, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.
Read: The vote that Bernie Sanders keeps talking about
Yet the same unwavering conviction that helped Warren and Sanders stand out onstage underscored the gamble each is taking: that purism can prevail in a Democratic primary electorate that is more ideologically diverse than often assumed.
A cumulative CNN analysis of all the exit polls conducted in the 2016 Democratic primary found that only one-fourth of voters in that contest, between Sanders and Hillary Clinton, identified as “very liberal”; just over one-third called themselves “somewhat liberal”; and the remaining two-fifths identified as “moderate” or “conservative.” While Sanders broke even with Clinton among the voters who identified as very liberal, she won a 56 percent majority of the somewhat-liberal voters and more than 60 percent of the moderates.
The Iowa caucuses tend to attract an electorate more liberal than Clinton’s cohort: In 2016, according to the media entrance polls conducted at the time, only about one-third of caucus-goers identified as moderate or conservative, while nearly three in 10 identified as very liberal and four in 10 identified as somewhat liberal. These results help explain the tack Warren and Sanders took in their presentations last night. Yet beyond Iowa, the Democratic primary electorate in many states is much more centrist, especially across the South and Midwest: For instance, in Texas, Michigan, and Ohio, each of which votes in early March, the 2016 exit polls found that only about one-fifth of voters identified as very liberal, while roughly twice as many called themselves moderate or conservative.
Both Warren and Sanders are relying heavily on the party’s most liberal quarters, polls suggest. In this week’s Quinnipiac University national survey, Warren drew 38 percent of Democratic voters who identified as very liberal but only 7 percent of moderates and conservatives; for Sanders, the numbers were 24 and 14, respectively. Biden’s support, by contrast, followed the inverse pattern: He won 29 percent of the moderates and conservatives, but only 15 percent of those who identified as very liberal.
At the debate, Warren didn’t show much inclination to reach beyond her base—and Sanders showed even less to reach beyond his.
From his very first answer, Sanders planted his flag on the left flank of the party’s internal ideological debate by responding to a question about his credentials to serve as commander in chief by stressing his opposition to the war in Iraq. Sanders reiterated his determination to remove all American troops from the Middle East and delivered a sweeping condemnation of military intervention abroad: “The American people are sick and tired of endless wars that have cost us trillions of dollars,” he said. On trade, Sanders separated himself from all his major rivals by reiterating his opposition to not only the North American Free Trade Agreement approved under President Bill Clinton, but also the updated agreement with Mexico and Canada that the Democratic House recently voted to approve. Sanders dodged a question about the estimated $60 trillion cost of his entire agenda, instead retreating to familiar arguments about why he believes a single-payer system will benefit American families. He would not even offer an estimate on the cost of single-payer alone, which the center-left Urban Institute has projected would be $34 trillion over the next decade, more than the government spends on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security combined.
Warren was only a half-step behind. While she defended the new deal with Mexico and Canada, she expressed general skepticism about free trade, unequivocally urged the removal of American troops from the Middle East, touted a plan for government to manufacture its own pharmaceuticals, and stressed her determination to confront “giant corporations” and the wealthy.
Both Warren and Sanders argued that Democrats can beat Donald Trump only by offering such an unwavering agenda, which they maintain can spur massive turnout. “The only way we beat Trump is by a campaign of energy and excitement, and a campaign that has by far the largest voter turnout in the history of this country,” Sanders declared at one point. As they have before, the more centrist candidates argued that the party needs an agenda that would speak to a broader coalition of voters.
Read: Warren’s new electability argument
But none of them delivered that case with as much conviction and energy as the two leading liberals on the stage. Biden, in particular, vanished for much of the debate; until his closing statement—which featured a strong appeal to reclaim the American character from Trump—it seemed unlikely that viewers would remember much of what he said. (While the Los Angeles debate last month dampened concerns among many Democrats about Biden’s capacity to build a case against Trump in the general election, last night’s performance seems destined to rekindle them.) Klobuchar and Buttigieg were better at making the case against the ideas from the left, particularly single-payer, though neither was as effective as they had been in earlier encounters.
The past four Democratic winners of the Iowa caucuses (Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, Barack Obama in 2008, and Hillary Clinton in 2016) won the nomination, even when New Hampshire favored a different candidate. There’s reason to believe that the state might not be as decisive this time, largely because all the leading candidates there, apart from Biden, are struggling with African American voters, who were crucial to the winning coalitions assembled by the recent Iowa winners. But there’s no question that Iowa is poised to exert a huge sorting impact on the race, framing the top of the field and possibly dooming most of the remaining candidates.
With such stakes on the table, the candidates chose last night—surprisingly—to largely pass on their final opportunity before the vote to try to change voters’ perception with a single dramatic moment. Warren’s identification with the frustration so many women feel about having their qualifications questioned made her the single candidate most likely to receive a late boost from the evening. But mostly, less than three weeks before voting finally begins, all the candidates appeared content to play the cards they’re already holding. For Warren and Sanders, that means trying to win the nomination by rallying a base that is the party’s most vocal faction, but also, historically, far from the largest.


theatlantic--2020-01-16--Joe Biden’s Bipartisan Dream Comes True in Kansas

No state has seen a more rancorous debate over the issue than Kansas , the home base of the Koch empire , where a decade-long battle over taxes and spending has deepened fissures between the conservative and moderate Republicans who control the state legislature .
The moderates rebelled after former Governor Sam Brownback ’ s signature tax cuts—which the onetime presidential hopeful hailed as “ a real live experiment ” in conservative governance—blew a hole in the state budget and failed to bring the economic growth he promised .
The GOP-led legislature reversed a big chunk of the tax cuts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brownback out of Topeka for a mid-level diplomatic assignment at the Vatican .
For years , conservatives thwarted a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans that repeatedly attempted to expand Medicaid .
Then came 2018 , when the debate figured prominently in the gubernatorial election Kelly won by defeating Kris Kobach , Kansas ’ s then–secretary of state .
( Kobach , a conservative Trump ally who backed crackdowns on voter fraud and illegal immigration , is now running for U.S .
Senate . )
Like Biden , Kelly served for years in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ built with Republicans during her time there likely helped her strike the Medicaid deal , April Holman , the executive director of the pro-expansion advocacy group Alliance for a Healthy Kansas , told me .
Public polling favored expansion , and GOP legislators were also under pressure from rural hospitals and other health-care providers that wanted an agreement .
Yet although a coalition of moderate Republicans was in favor of the expansion , Denning was not one of them .
“ He is someone who has traditionally opposed expansion , and we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position , ” Holman said .
“ It gives me hope that compromise is not a lost art , ” she said .
“ They worked together as senators for many years while she was in the Kansas Senate .
So I think by building those relationships over time and a relationship of trust , it can make a huge difference.
” That is Biden ’ s theory of the case as well : He would enter the White House with closer ties to the congressional leadership of both parties than any president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans blocked virtually the entire agenda of President Barack Obama after they won control of the House in 2010 , it was Biden who stepped in to broker a deal with McConnell to raise taxes on the wealthy and stave off hikes for the middle class in the final days of 2012 .
And although most Democratic presidential candidates acknowledge that their grand progressive plans depend on capturing the Senate majority from Republicans , Biden predicted to donors earlier this month that McConnell would become “ mildly cooperative ” if he is elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dream , a Charlie Brown–and-the-football attitude that ignores the ruthlessness of a party that denied Judge Merrick Garland so much as a hearing after Obama nominated him to the Supreme Court in 2016 .

Imagine: A veteran Democrat with a reputation for bipartisan dealmaking defeats a Republican who complains about voter fraud and crusades against illegal immigration. A GOP legislative leader, recognizing the political ground shifting under him, comes reluctantly to the negotiating table. After months of talks, the two strike a compromise on health care that dramatically expands publicly funded insurance coverage.
This is former Vice President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign pitch in a nutshell—that he can tap the relationships he forged over four decades in Washington to draw Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to negotiations that will yield bipartisan breakthroughs on health care and other key issues. His rivals deride it as a naive fantasy, but Biden’s dream just came true in deep-red Kansas, a state that voted for Donald Trump in 2016 by more than 20 points.
Last week, Kansas’s Democratic governor, Laura Kelly, announced that she had reached an agreement with the Republican majority leader of the state Senate, Jim Denning, on a proposal to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act to as many as 150,000 people in the state. If the measure passes, Kansas would become the 37th state to expand Medicaid. A 2012 Supreme Court ruling allowed states to opt out of raising income thresholds for the program, which provides public health coverage for the poor. Most Republican-run states—including Kansas—initially rejected the money, but Democratic victories in governors’ races and in voter-driven ballot initiatives have led states including Louisiana, Maine, Virginia, Utah, and Idaho to expand Medicaid in the past few years.
No state has seen a more rancorous debate over the issue than Kansas, the home base of the Koch empire, where a decade-long battle over taxes and spending has deepened fissures between the conservative and moderate Republicans who control the state legislature. The moderates rebelled after former Governor Sam Brownback’s signature tax cuts—which the onetime presidential hopeful hailed as “a real live experiment” in conservative governance—blew a hole in the state budget and failed to bring the economic growth he promised. The GOP-led legislature reversed a big chunk of the tax cuts, while Trump air-lifted the deeply unpopular Brownback out of Topeka for a mid-level diplomatic assignment at the Vatican.
Read: The death of Kansas’s conservative experiment
For years, conservatives thwarted a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans that repeatedly attempted to expand Medicaid. Then came 2018, when the debate figured prominently in the gubernatorial election Kelly won by defeating Kris Kobach, Kansas’s then–secretary of state. (Kobach, a conservative Trump ally who backed crackdowns on voter fraud and illegal immigration, is now running for U.S. Senate.)
Like Biden, Kelly served for years as a legislator. The relationships she built with Republicans during her time in the Kansas state Senate likely helped her strike the Medicaid deal, April Holman, the executive director of the pro-expansion advocacy group Alliance for a Healthy Kansas, told me. Public polling favored expansion, and GOP legislators were also under pressure from rural hospitals and other health-care providers that wanted an agreement. Yet although a coalition of moderate Republicans was in favor of the expansion, Denning was not one of them. “He is someone who has traditionally opposed expansion, and we’re thrilled that he has changed his position,” Holman said.
“It gives me hope that compromise is not a lost art,” she said. “They worked together as senators for many years while she was in the Kansas Senate. So I think by building those relationships over time and a relationship of trust, it can make a huge difference.”
That is Biden’s theory of the case as well: He would enter the White House with closer ties to the congressional leadership of both parties than any president since George H. W. Bush. When Republicans blocked virtually the entire agenda of President Barack Obama after they won control of the House in 2010, it was Biden who stepped in to broker a deal with McConnell to raise taxes on the wealthy and stave off hikes for the middle class in the final days of 2012. And although most Democratic presidential candidates acknowledge that their grand progressive plans depend on capturing the Senate majority from Republicans, Biden predicted to donors earlier this month that McConnell would become “mildly cooperative” if he is elected. Progressives dismiss this as a pipe dream, a Charlie Brown–and-the-football attitude that ignores the ruthlessness of a party that denied Judge Merrick Garland so much as a hearing after Obama nominated him to the Supreme Court in 2016.
In Kansas, Republicans are even more firmly in power in the state legislature than they are in Washington, holding supermajorities in both chambers. But in practice, the state often functions as if there were three distinct parties: conservative Republicans, moderate Republicans, and Democrats. In Washington, the moderate ranks of the GOP have been thinned out in recent years by Democratic victories in swing states and by primaries that favor conservatives.
Read: The battle for the soul of the Republican Party is still raging in Kansas
Despite their apparent success, the bipartisan negotiations over Medicaid expansion were neither easy nor quick: Kelly took office more than a year ago, and her initial efforts to engage Republicans failed. “Things had gotten really far apart really fast,” state Representative Susan Concannon, a Republican backer of Medicaid expansion, told me. She said that “kind of a perfect storm” pushed the two parties toward a deal. The election of a Democratic governor certainly gave Medicaid expansion crucial momentum, and Republicans like Denning were facing political pressure in their home districts and across the state. “Maybe some people saw the writing on the wall that that’s the direction we would be going,” Concannon told me.
I asked her if the compromise in Kansas gave her any hope that Republicans and Democrats could break the logjam on health care in Washington next year. She chuckled. “That’s a big question,” Concannon replied. “If there would be a Democratic president, especially if the Senate stays a Republican majority, I think that there would be an attempt to work across the aisle.” She paused before adding: “I would hope so.”