theatlantic--2020-02-19--What a Sanders Win in Nevada Would Really Mean

The structural changes begin with reforms to party rules over the years that have required states to divide their available delegates among all the candidates who reach a 15 percent voting threshold .
Those reforms have eliminated any systems that once provided bonus delegates , and in the process have made it harder for front-runners to pull away from the field .
Two other structural components are encouraging more candidates to stay in the race longer , thus dispersing delegates across more contenders .
Traditionally , candidates who struggle in the early states are driven from the race by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the advance of online fundraising , as well as the proliferation of campaign coverage across a wide array of media platforms , mean that both are now much more available even for candidates who perform poorly .
Additionally , the campaigns of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and ( to a lesser extent ) the investor Tom Steyer are demonstrating how wealthy candidates who spend huge sums of their own money , especially on TV advertising , can buy a beachhead in the race that further splits the vote .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this campaign , particularly the constraints all the candidates have so far displayed : None of them delivered performances in Iowa and New Hampshire powerful enough to trigger much winnowing .
And none has so far demonstrated an appeal broad enough to span the party ’ s differences .
The caucus on Saturday seems likely to confirm Sanders ’ s status as the field ’ s most formidable contender without answering whether he can expand much beyond his base or elevating one of the other candidates as his principal rival .
On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cloud than clarify the picture .
Caucuses , which are much more difficult to participate in than primaries , play to Sanders ’ s greatest strength : his ability to inspire a depth of passionate support that far exceeds that of any of his opponents .
That intensity was evident at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas campus yesterday afternoon , when Sanders finished his rally by leading a procession of chanting supporters to a nearby student-union building where they could vote early .
Amare Amable , a casino worker who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not even seriously consider any of the other contenders before deciding to back Sanders for a second time .
“ No chance , ” he said .
“ Bernie ’ s money comes from us and everybody else ’ s money is coming from rich people.
” But as in Iowa and New Hampshire , Sanders still faces significant doubts among supporters of the other candidates .
While polls show that most Democrats admire Sanders and praise his policy goals , I ’ ve rarely met anyone at an event for one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elizabeth Warren—who believes that he can win in November or feels comfortable ideologically with his agenda .
“ For me , he ’ s way too far left , ” Russ Faulkner , a realtor from Summerlin , Nevada , told me as he waited in line for a Pete Buttigieg event in North Las Vegas yesterday .
Angie Clark , a retired financial executive at the same event , was equally dismissive : “ I don ’ t think he ’ s a Democrat , No .
1 .
He ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nominee , she said , “ I think Trump will be our next president .
”

LAS VEGAS—Democrats everywhere may start asking the same volatile question after Nevada holds its presidential caucus on Saturday: Can the party deny Bernie Sanders the nomination if he arrives at the Democratic National Convention this summer with a plurality, but not a majority, of the delegates?
That question is becoming more urgent because Nevada, where the candidates will meet tonight for their ninth debate, looks poised to nudge that once-fanciful scenario closer to reality.
Each of the presidential camps believes that Sanders, who placed a close second here in 2016, is positioned to win, a victory that would solidify his standing as the clear leader of the party’s liberal wing and the race’s overall front-runner. But the results are unlikely to eliminate doubts that he can expand his support much beyond the one-fourth to one-third of the party that constitutes his hard-core base. Simultaneously, the Nevada outcome could intensify the muddle in the middle that has prevented any centrist candidate from emerging as the principal alternative to Sanders.
The result: While the past four contested Democratic primaries effectively became a one-on-one contest after the early states, the party this year faces the prospect that as many as six candidates might win at least some delegates on Super Tuesday. That splintered outcome could leave Sanders in a strong position to accumulate the most pledged delegates, but also facing a difficult climb to reach the 1,991 required for a first-ballot nomination victory at the July convention.
“I know a lot of people are saying it’s more likely than not that we will figure this out before the convention,” says Amanda Renteria, the national political director for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. “But I am at more than 50–50 that we end up with a … brokered convention, or at least we go into the convention with someone who did not get the 1,991 delegates.”
Adds Tad Devine, a longtime Democratic operative who served as a senior strategist for Sanders in 2016: “There’s never been anything like this in modern Democratic Party history.”
Read: Bernie Sanders’s biggest test yet with Latino voters
A contested convention—which could involve dealmaking among several candidates, back-room negotiations among party leaders, and a bottomless well of media speculation—would be contentious under any circumstances. But Sanders at the center of that maelstrom would make it even more incendiary, given how many of his supporters are predisposed to assume that party leaders are plotting against him.
Already, Sanders and his top aides are unambiguously arguing that the party must nominate whoever arrives in Milwaukee with the most delegates, whether they have amassed a majority or not. “If you go in there with a strong plurality, that person should be the nominee,” Jeff Weaver, a Sanders senior adviser, says flatly. Privately, some Sanders advisers argue that if he finishes the primaries with the most delegates, nominating another candidate would not only doom the Democrats against President Donald Trump in November, but also fracture the party for years.
The race, many Democrats believe, is still most likely to unfold in a manner that avoids a contested convention. Sanders or anyone else could establish a strong-enough position by mid-March to dominate the race’s final stages and accumulate enough delegates to secure the nomination on the first ballot. Even in 1988 and 1992—the past two races that began with a similarly splintered result—a late break toward Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton, respectively, allowed each to amass the necessary delegates for a first-ballot majority. And because delegates are not legally bound to vote for their candidate—even on a first ballot—a contender who does not win a majority during the primaries could still cobble together sufficient support for a first-ballot victory by attracting delegates from competitors who drop out of the race along the way.
Still, the circumstances this year are genuinely unique: Long-in-the-making changes to the primary’s structure are intersecting with the near-term limitations displayed by each of this year’s contenders. That’s creating the greatest chance in decades that no one concludes the primaries with enough delegates to lock down the nomination on the first ballot. Not since 1952 have Democrats faced a “brokered” convention that required a second ballot.
The structural changes begin with reforms to party rules over the years that have required states to divide their available delegates among all the candidates who reach a 15 percent voting threshold. Those reforms have eliminated any systems that once provided bonus delegates, and in the process have made it harder for front-runners to pull away from the field.
Two other structural components are encouraging more candidates to stay in the race longer, thus dispersing delegates across more contenders. Traditionally, candidates who struggle in the early states are driven from the race by a shortage of money and media attention. But the advance of online fundraising, as well as the proliferation of campaign coverage across a wide array of media platforms, mean that both are now much more available even for candidates who perform poorly. Additionally, the campaigns of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and (to a lesser extent) the investor Tom Steyer are demonstrating how wealthy candidates who spend huge sums of their own money, especially on TV advertising, can buy a beachhead in the race that further splits the vote.
Then there are the factors specific to this campaign, particularly the constraints all the candidates have so far displayed: None of them delivered performances in Iowa and New Hampshire powerful enough to trigger much winnowing. And none has so far demonstrated an appeal broad enough to span the party’s differences.
The caucus on Saturday seems likely to confirm Sanders’s status as the field’s most formidable contender without answering whether he can expand much beyond his base or elevating one of the other candidates as his principal rival. On the latter front, it seems more likely to cloud than clarify the picture.
Caucuses, which are much more difficult to participate in than primaries, play to Sanders’s greatest strength: his ability to inspire a depth of passionate support that far exceeds that of any of his opponents. That intensity was evident at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas campus yesterday afternoon, when Sanders finished his rally by leading a procession of chanting supporters to a nearby student-union building where they could vote early. Amare Amable, a casino worker who attended the rally, said he did not even seriously consider any of the other contenders before deciding to back Sanders for a second time. “No chance,” he said. “Bernie’s money comes from us and everybody else’s money is coming from rich people.”
But as in Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders still faces significant doubts among supporters of the other candidates. While polls show that most Democrats admire Sanders and praise his policy goals, I’ve rarely met anyone at an event for one of his rivals—apart from some at events for Elizabeth Warren—who believes that he can win in November or feels comfortable ideologically with his agenda. “For me, he’s way too far left,” Russ Faulkner, a realtor from Summerlin, Nevada, told me as he waited in line for a Pete Buttigieg event in North Las Vegas yesterday. Angie Clark, a retired financial executive at the same event, was equally dismissive: “I don’t think he’s a Democrat, No. 1. He’s an independent socialist.” If Sanders is the nominee, she said, “I think Trump will be our next president.”
In Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders captured only about a quarter of the vote, and he pushed just past 30 percent in national polls released this week, as well as a Public Policy Institute of California survey in the nation’s largest state. In almost all of these polls, Sanders shows a powerful but limited appeal: He leads big among liberals and young people, and holds more modest advantages among Latinos and white voters without a college degree. But he continues to post much weaker results among moderates and older voters, and he receives only tepid support from college-educated white voters.
Read: The 2020 Democrats all have the same problem
Yet to the frustration of party moderates dubious of Sanders, no one candidate is consolidating the constituencies most skeptical of the Vermont senator, which still represent a majority of the party. If anything, Nevada may exacerbate that anxiety. Iowa and New Hampshire raised the prospect that Buttigieg or Amy Klobuchar could emerge as a relatively new favorite for the party’s moderate wing. But the Nevada results could expose weaknesses for both of them—particularly their limited appeal to Latinos and African Americans—and instead provide a step toward recovery for Joe Biden. That could leave moderates even more divided heading into South Carolina and the huge rush of primaries that follow in March. And on Super Tuesday, Bloomberg will enter the field as yet another option for voters uneasy about Sanders.
The inability of the center to coalesce around a single alternative raises the odds that Sanders can win more of the upcoming states even if he doesn’t expand his vote beyond the 25 to 33 percent he’s now attracting. But if Sanders doesn’t increase his delegate haul beyond that level, his moderate rivals could still arrive at the convention with more combined delegates than he does, and perhaps an overall majority among them. That could allow Sanders’s opponents to try to reach a deal that anoints someone else as the nominee, even leaving aside the potential effect the 771 “superdelegates” will have when they can begin voting on a second ballot. “He’s still got to get to the threshold in total delegates to receive the nomination,” said a senior official on another campaign, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal strategy. “If you’ve got, combined, more delegates than Sanders does, you can always get to the second [ballot] at the convention and consolidate, just like in a caucus.”
The Democratic primary’s dynamics are reminiscent of those during the Republican primary in 2016: a candidate with a strong ideological base marching forward because no single candidate can consolidate the majority of the party initially skeptical of him. The difference is that the Democratic rules make it more difficult for such a candidate to amass a delegate majority.
Democratic voters could still provide a more decisive signal of their intentions than they have so far: Devine notes that stand-alone primaries in Georgia, in late March, and Wisconsin, in early April, could become decisive showdowns if the race finally reduces to two candidates after the rush of states that vote through mid-March. But there are no guarantees that the party interest groups or rank-and-file voters most dubious of Sanders will coalesce enough to create such a clear choice. That could leave Democrats facing excruciating decisions at the convention that could determine whether Donald Trump wins four more years.


theatlantic--2020-02-19--The Hidden History of Sanders’s Plot to Primary Obama

Sanders didn ’ t end up running against Obama .
But their relationship didn ’ t improve in the years that followed .
In another incident , in 2013 , Sanders laid into Obama in a private meeting he held with Democratic senators , saying that the president was selling out to Republicans over Social Security benefits .
( More on that incident , which has also not been previously reported , below . )
Now Obama , the beloved former leader of the Democratic Party , and Sanders , the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination , are facing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their relationship .
To Obama , Sanders is a lot of what ’ s wrong with Democrats : unrelenting , unrealistic , so deep in his own fight that he doesn ’ t see how many people disagree with him or that he ’ s turning off people who should be his allies .
To Sanders , it ’ s Obama who represents a lot of what ’ s wrong with Democrats : overly compromising , and so obsessed with what isn ’ t possible that he ’ s lost all sense of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in private conversations that he doesn ’ t like the idea of Sanders as the nominee ( and has been only slightly more subtle in public comments ) , but he ’ s pushed back on some who have urged him to get involved , anxious that any move he makes could destroy the hope of him using his unique position to unite the party and defeat Trump during the general election .
In a party this divided , Obama- and Sanders-style Democrats finding a connection may be the only way to win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make it work—if he has to .
“ Obama has several friends and former colleagues in the race but believes that in order for the Democratic Party to be successful , voters will have to pick their candidate , ” a person close to Obama told me .
“ Obama will campaign his heart out for whoever the nominee is , and that includes Senator Sanders.
” Obama and Sanders ’ s political relationshIP dates back to 2006 , when Sanders showed up in Obama ’ s Senate office asking for a favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to campaign for him ?
Obama had barely been in Washington a year , hadn ’ t started running for president , and he was already being called a disappointment by some liberal Democrats .
But he was a superstar , already the most in-demand Democrat in the country , and he was an important stamp of approval for a democratic socialist aiming to be the de facto Democratic nominee in his state ’ s Senate race .
Obama agreed , and arrived on an unseasonably warm day in March 2006 for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vermont , before a crowd of cheering students .
Sanders called Obama a great leader of the Senate .
Obama called Sanders a force against cynicism and said the state should send him and soon-to-be-elected Representative Peter Welch to Washington to “ keep on stirring up some trouble.
” Sanders didn ’ t endorse or campaign for Obama in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary , though Obama went on to beat Hillary Clinton in Vermont with 59 percent of the vote .

When Bernie Sanders mounted his initial Senate run in 2006, then-Senator Barack Obama came to Vermont to campaign for him.
Updated at 4:11 p.m. ET on February 19, 2020.
Bernie Sanders got so close to running a primary challenge to President Barack Obama that Senator Harry Reid had to intervene to stop him.
It took Reid two conversations over the summer of 2011 to get Sanders to scrap the idea, according to multiple people who remember the incident, which has not been previously reported.
That summer, Sanders privately discussed a potential primary challenge to Obama with several people, including Patrick Leahy, his fellow Vermont senator. Leahy, alarmed, warned Jim Messina, Obama’s presidential reelection-campaign manager. Obama’s campaign team was “absolutely panicked” by Leahy’s report, Messina told me, since “every president who has gotten a real primary has lost a general [election].”
David Plouffe, another Obama strategist, confirmed Messina’s account, as did another person familiar with what happened. (A spokesman for Leahy did not comment when asked several times about his role in the incident.)
Messina called Reid, then the Senate majority leader, who had built a strong relationship with Sanders but was also fiercely defensive of Obama. What could you be thinking? Reid asked Sanders, according to multiple people who remember the conversations. You need to stop.
Sanders didn’t end up running against Obama. But their relationship didn’t improve in the years that followed. In another incident, in 2013, Sanders laid into Obama in a private meeting he held with Democratic senators, saying that the president was selling out to Republicans over Social Security benefits. (More on that incident, which has also not been previously reported, below.)
Now Obama, the beloved former leader of the Democratic Party, and Sanders, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, are facing a new and especially fraught period in their relationship. To Obama, Sanders is a lot of what’s wrong with Democrats: unrelenting, unrealistic, so deep in his own fight that he doesn’t see how many people disagree with him or that he’s turning off people who should be his allies. To Sanders, it’s Obama who represents a lot of what’s wrong with Democrats: overly compromising, and so obsessed with what isn’t possible that he’s lost all sense of what is.
Obama has made clear in private conversations that he doesn’t like the idea of Sanders as the nominee (and has been only slightly more subtle in public comments), but he’s pushed back on some who have urged him to get involved, anxious that any move he makes could destroy the hope of him using his unique position to unite the party and defeat Trump during the general election. In a party this divided, Obama- and Sanders-style Democrats finding a connection may be the only way to win in November.
Obama is determined to make it work—if he has to.
“Obama has several friends and former colleagues in the race but believes that in order for the Democratic Party to be successful, voters will have to pick their candidate,” a person close to Obama told me. “Obama will campaign his heart out for whoever the nominee is, and that includes Senator Sanders.”
Obama and Sanders’s political relationshIP dates back to 2006, when Sanders showed up in Obama’s Senate office asking for a favor: Would Obama come up to Vermont to campaign for him? Obama had barely been in Washington a year, hadn’t started running for president, and he was already being called a disappointment by some liberal Democrats. But he was a superstar, already the most in-demand Democrat in the country, and he was an important stamp of approval for a democratic socialist aiming to be the de facto Democratic nominee in his state’s Senate race.
Obama agreed, and arrived on an unseasonably warm day in March 2006 for a fundraiser and rally at the University of Vermont, before a crowd of cheering students. Sanders called Obama a great leader of the Senate. Obama called Sanders a force against cynicism and said the state should send him and soon-to-be-elected Representative Peter Welch to Washington to “keep on stirring up some trouble.”
Sanders didn’t endorse or campaign for Obama in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, though Obama went on to beat Hillary Clinton in Vermont with 59 percent of the vote.
Sanders aides have long dismissed the idea that the senator was serious about a primary challenge to Obama in his re-election—“he was asked a question on a progressive radio show” is how Jeff Weaver, his closest aide, argued to me last week. Weaver was referring to an interview Sanders gave on Thom Hartman’s radio show in July 2011, when the senator said, “There are millions of Americans who are deeply disappointed in the president—who believe that, with regard to Social Security and a number of other issues, he said one thing as a candidate and is doing something very much else as a president; who cannot believe how weak he has been, for whatever reason, in negotiating with Republicans; and there’s deep disappointment.” He continued: “It would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition.”
Read: Bernie Sanders tries to reclaim the insurgency
That was not the only time Sanders raised the idea publicly. Appearing on C-SPAN a few weeks later, he expanded on the point: “They want the president to stand up for the middle class, for the working class of this country, and they want him to take on big-money interests in a way that he has not done up to this point.” He’d been talking up a primary challenge since at least that spring, when he said in a radio interview with WNYC that he was already being asked whether he’d run against Obama, and although he insisted that he wasn’t going to, “in a democracy, it’s not a bad idea to have different voices out there.”
Criticism of Obama from the left, while not representative of the opinions of most Democrats, was not unusual at the time. Left-leaning activists pushed the president on issues such as foreclosure relief, judicial nominations, and drone strikes. In August 2011, just as Reid was being called in to to help stop Sanders’s primary plans, David Sirota—a former Sanders press secretary who remained plugged in to the senator’s thinking during the Obama years and would join Sanders’s 2020 campaign as a senior adviser and speechwriter—wrote that Obama was “eloquent, dissembling, conniving, intelligent and, above all, calm,” and was using those traits in service of being “a Bizarro FDR” with a “hideous and destructive” record.
Weaver did not respond to multiple requests to comment on Reid’s 2011 conversations with Sanders. After this story was published, Ari Rabin-Havt, Sanders’s deputy campaign manager, emailed with an additional statement: "It never crossed his mind to challenge Obama,” Rabin-Havt said. “Bernie was running for re-election in 2012 and that’s what he was focused on.”
Reid declined to speak about the episode on the record. Asked specifically about the Sanders campaign's insistence that the 2011 conversations never happened, a Reid spokesperson did not deny that the former majority leader talked Sanders down. Reid “won’t get into private conversations,” the spokesperson said. “Bottom line: there was never a serious or established primary challenge to Obama from anyone.” (Afterward, the spokesperson sent along an additional comment from Reid himself: “Bernie was running for reelection in 2012. He would’ve been a fool to run against Obama and Bernie’s no fool," he said.)
On the rare occasions Obama White House staff thought about Sanders, it was because he was needling or annoying them, several former Obama aides recalled. Before Sanders started running for president, he had never been to see Obama in the Oval Office. And even though most of them didn’t know how far Sanders’s primary plans had gone, Obama aides took notice of his public comments. Today, the bitterness lingers.
“It’s not to say they had a bad relationship when Obama got to the White House,” one person who worked for Obama in the West Wing told me. “It’s just that they didn’t have a relationship.”
Obama and his circle tend to see Sanders’s You’re with us or you’re wrong approach as unworkable and the criticism of his own record as president overrepresented on Twitter (Obama’s approval rating among Democrats is consistently in the 90s).
The low point between the two men was a 2013 meeting with other Democratic senators. Obama had just put a chained Consumer Price Index in his budget, a proposal that would cut Social Security benefits by tying them to the rate of inflation. Many Senate Democrats were angry about it. But when they arrived for the meeting, it was Sanders who bubbled up, ripping into Obama for giving in to Republicans and not understanding the impact of the cuts.
“I don’t need a lecture,” Obama told him, according to several senators who attended the meeting.
Sanders proceeded to give him one anyway. A number of the senators there were struck by what they told me seemed like a lack of respect.
“Obama fairly forcefully pushed back and said, ‘That’s just not right—that’s not a vision that’s enactable or possible,’” one senator in the room recalled, asking for anonymity to discuss the private meeting. “‘You’re acting like I’m the enemy.’ Obama was trying to say, ‘I hear you that you want this revolution, but explain to me, how’s this going to happen? Look at the current makeup of the Senate and the House. How am I supposed to lead?’” Obama said, in this senator’s memory. The conversation quickly got testy. “It seemed the match of someone who prided himself on his cool intellect and removed analysis versus someone who was convinced with absolute ferocity with the rightness of his worldview and is not given to accepting anything from those who don’t agree with it.”
Read: The kingmaker
“I just remember thinking, Whoa, Bernie’s got game,” a second senator who was in the room told me. “I also remember thinking, There’s no love lost between them.”
In the end, most of the caucus took the position that Sanders voiced, opposing the chained Consumer Price Index, and Obama relented and dropped the idea. That was Sanders and Obama’s last substantive discussion before Sanders started winning support in his 2016 presidential run. Alumni of the Obama West Wing whom I spoke with had trouble remembering any time when they were in touch with Sanders or his staff for anything significant, even around the 2014 passage of a bipartisan veterans’-health bill, which is generally regarded as the most significant legislation Sanders got through Congress.
Obama and Sanders have worked to improve their relationship since Obama left office, starting with a one-on-one meeting in 2018, when they discussed their ideas about what Democrats should be working on, what counted as practical, and what counted as idealistic.
Their views did not line up, people familiar with the conversation told me afterward. But the men share a respect for the political movement the other has built.
“Bernie has an admiration for how Obama ran his 2008 campaign and the way he built a strong grassroots movement behind him. He has an admiration and true and deep respect for the president,” Rabin-Havt told me.
In public, Obama has distanced himself from Sanders, warning in November that there’s a difference between “left-leaning Twitter feeds” and persuadable voters, and that “this is still a country that is less revolutionary than it is interested in improvement.” But in private, he’s expressed similar admiration for Sanders’s movement, in 2016 and now.
“They may have their differences, but one thing Obama admires about Sanders is his ability to galvanize his supporters, both online and offline. President Obama has been impressed by that,” the person close to Obama told me.
Sanders’s team is also trying to downplay past disagreements. “Barack Obama gets hit a little too hard,” Jeff Weaver told me. “Anybody who came into office facing the potential of a worldwide economic meltdown—it’s a very, very difficult situation to be in. And, you know, he helped avoid that. Bernie Sanders was not overly critical. They would have approached things a little bit differently, that’s all.”
I pressed Weaver, pointing out that some people who support Sanders and have worked on his campaign have a negative view of Obama, and feel that Obama gave in to Republicans and moderates too much. “That’s certainly not my view, and I don’t believe it’s Bernie Sanders’s view,” he said.
A few days later, I reached out again, first by phone and then by text. Initially, Weaver responded. But when I told him I’d found out about Reid’s intervention to stop Sanders from mounting a primary challenge in 2011, he stopped responding.


theatlantic--2020-02-19--The Atlantic Politics Daily: That Time Sanders Nearly Primaried Obama

It ’ s Wednesday , February 19 .
Debate night , Vegas , 9 p.m .
ET .
See you there .
In today ’ s newsletter : The behind-the-scenes story of the time Bernie Sanders almost mounted a primary challenge against Barack Obama .
Plus : Adam Serwer on the first days of the Trump regime .
When Bernie Sanders mounted his Senate run in 2006 , then-Senator Barack Obama came to Vermont to campaign for him .
( TOBY TALBOT / AP ) Barack Obama isn ’ t on the ballot , but he ’ s still a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contenders .
Obama is more popular among Democrats than Jesus ( yes , really ) , and every candidate—Bernie Sanders included—has advertised their ties to the former president .
But Bernie and Barack don ’ t exactly have the warmest of relationships .
Though 44 and front-runner-for-46 have both built large political movements within the Democratic Party , Sanders ’ s democratic socialism is a whole lot different than Obama ’ s establishment incrementalism .
But what exactly is the source of the bitterness between the two ?
My colleague Edward-Isaac Dovere has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time that Sanders nearly mounted a primary challenge to Obama in 2011 , to when the two really butted heads a few years later : The low point between the two men was a 2013 meeting with other Democratic senators .
Obama had just put a chained Consumer Price Index in his budget , a proposal that would cut Social Security benefits by tying them to the rate of inflation .
Many Senate Democrats were angry about it .
But when they arrived for the meeting , it was Sanders who bubbled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in to Republicans and not understanding the impact of the cuts .
“ I don ’ t need a lecture , ” Obama told him , according to several senators who attended the meeting .
Here ’ s Isaac ’ s full piece on the Bernie vs. Barack feud .

Barack Obama isn’t on the ballot, but he’s still a looming presence over the crop of 2020 contenders. Plus: Is America in the first days of the Trump regime?
It’s Wednesday, February 19. Debate night, Vegas, 9 p.m. ET. See you there.
In today’s newsletter: The behind-the-scenes story of the time Bernie Sanders almost mounted a primary challenge against Barack Obama. Plus: Adam Serwer on the first days of the Trump regime.
*
« TODAY IN POLITICS »
When Bernie Sanders mounted his Senate run in 2006, then-Senator Barack Obama came to Vermont to campaign for him. (TOBY TALBOT / AP)
That Time Bernie Sanders Almost Primaried Barack Obama
Barack Obama isn’t on the ballot, but he’s still a looming presence over the crop of 2020 contenders. Obama is more popular among Democrats than Jesus (yes, really), and every candidate—Bernie Sanders included—has advertised their ties to the former president.
But Bernie and Barack don’t exactly have the warmest of relationships. Though 44 and front-runner-for-46 have both built large political movements within the Democratic Party, Sanders’s democratic socialism is a whole lot different than Obama’s establishment incrementalism.
But what exactly is the source of the bitterness between the two? My colleague Edward-Isaac Dovere has never-before-reported details on the animosity between them—from the time that Sanders nearly mounted a primary challenge to Obama in 2011, to when the two really butted heads a few years later:
The low point between the two men was a 2013 meeting with other Democratic senators. Obama had just put a chained Consumer Price Index in his budget, a proposal that would cut Social Security benefits by tying them to the rate of inflation. Many Senate Democrats were angry about it. But when they arrived for the meeting, it was Sanders who bubbled up, ripping into Obama for giving in to Republicans and not understanding the impact of the cuts. “I don’t need a lecture,” Obama told him, according to several senators who attended the meeting.
Here’s Isaac’s full piece on the Bernie vs. Barack feud.
Obama himself isn’t expected to chime in until the convention this summer. That calculated silence is especially tough for one particular candidate … Obama’s own vice president. Joe Biden’s candidacy is largely predicated on his closeness to Obama, but in 2016, when Biden had pondered running for president, Obama had talked him out of it. What one Obama adviser told the then-veep:
“Do you really want it to end in a hotel room in Des Moines, coming in third to Bernie Sanders?”
—Saahil Desai
*
« DEBATE REFRESHER »
(PATRICK SEMANSKY / AP)
Six candidates take the stage tonight for the ninth (yes, ninth) Democratic primary debate. Here’s where we left them:
‣ Mike Bloomberg: He’s the Democratic debate stage’s newest face, but progressives can’t wait to rain on his parade.
‣ Joe Biden: After two disappointing primary performances for the VP, was the Ukraine scandal more damaging for him than for Trump?
‣ Pete Buttigieg: It was everybody vs. Pete on the last debate stage. Another round in Vegas?
‣ Amy Klobuchar: After a New Hampshire surge, will the so-called “Klomentum” continue tonight?
‣ Bernie Sanders: Nevada will be his biggest test among Latino voters.
‣ Elizabeth Warren: New Hampshire might’ve been her last stand. Maybe?
*
« EVENING READ »
(DOUG MILLS / THE NEW YORK TIMES / REDUX)
The First Days of the Trump Regime
The signs that President Trump feels emboldened after his GOP-led acquittal in the Senate earlier this month. He’s retaliated against impeachment weaknesses, pressured his attorney general on Twitter, and claimed an “absolute right” to determine who the Justice Department prosecutes.
Those are the first steps toward an authoritarian government takeover, Adam Serwer writes:
These recent events are not the only evidence that the United States has entered a process of authoritarianization. Aside from Trump’s claim, effectively uncontested by Senate Republicans, that he can unilaterally direct the Justice Department to prosecute anyone he wants, Trump has asserted blanket authority to block congressional oversight. His office has claimed that he can blithely ignore congressional appropriations as he sees fit. The Republican-controlled Senate has ratified Trump’s authority to interfere in American elections, while helping install judges who understand that their paramount obligation is to shield Trump from accountability.
Read the full essay.
*


theatlantic--2020-02-20--The Russian Trolls’ Next Favorite Candidate

Luckily for the Russians , then , the two current front-runners for the presidency , Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders , are both polarizing figures—and they ’ re both candidates Russian trolls sought to promote in 2016 , as Special Counsel Robert Mueller found .
This time , the Democratic field is crowded and squabbling , but it includes no hawkish , long-established Hillary Clinton to tear down .
If the election does end up being a Trump-Sanders face-off , one of the Kremlin ’ s favored candidates from 2016 is guaranteed a win .
They are far apart ideologically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s interests , both in being divisive at home and in encouraging U.S. restraint abroad .
Both Sanders and Trump profess to want to refocus the U.S. inward—a message that clearly appeals to many Americans .
But that doesn ’ t mean that the Russian propaganda machine is slowing down ; it ’ s just aimed at a new target .
Darren Linvill , a Clemson University professor who has studied Russian information operations , told me , “ Systems like this do n't tend to stop simply because their reason for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new reasons for being.
” In this case , building on their 2016 successes and worsening divisions in the United States .
Linvill offered me a list of reasons why the Kremlin still wants to interfere in U.S. politics , despite the fact that we ’ re already doing such a great job of dividing ourselves .
Russia ’ s goals include depressing voter turnout and making it more difficult for the eventual winner to govern by sowing doubts about the electoral process .
The Kremlin might also still have a preference for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now know what to expect from him , said Alina Polyakova , the president and CEO of the Center for European Policy Analysis .
The New York Times reported after we spoke that intelligence officials told lawmakers , in a briefing last week , that Russia is indeed interfering to help Trump again .
The report did not specify exactly how .
Sanders , for his part , has declared Russian interference “ unacceptable ” and expressed support for sanctions on the country , but he has also voted against a bill that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too .
No matter what , Polyakova said , “ a U.S. that ’ s mired in its own domestic problems and not engaged in the world benefits Moscow.
” That ’ s where the videos come in .
Americans are now the chief suppliers of the material that suspected Russia-linked accounts use to stoke anger ahead of U.S. elections , leaving Russia free to focus on pushing it as far as possible .
Linvill has seen Russian trolls shift tactics to become “ curators more than creators , ” with the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Russians love those videos , ” he said , “ because they function to make us more disgusted with one another.
” He and a colleague have traced viral tweets about the Dallas incident to Russia-linked accounts that Twitter has since suspended .

Updated at 6:06 p.m. ET on Friday, February 21.
“Please move.” The white woman doesn’t raise her voice; she’s got her shirt on inside out and she’s aiming a cellphone at the taco-truck vendors parked on her street. She wants them gone, and they’re telling her to go back inside. “Okay, baby girl,” she says. “Vamonos. I’ll call ICE.” “Stupida bitcha,” comes a reply.
A video of the confrontation, filmed outside a house in Dallas last spring, soon went viral, with the title “racist woman talking about shes gonna call ICE ON US FOR SELLING FOOD IN DALLAS WHEN WE HAVE PERMIT.” Within weeks, it had more than 170,000 views.
This is the new face of Russian propaganda. In 2016, the Kremlin invested heavily in creating memes and Facebook ads designed to stoke Americans’ distrust of the electoral system and one another. Now, after nearly four years under a president whose divisive rhetoric and policies have inflamed voter anger on issues such as race, inequality, and his own conduct, the Russian government is still interfering, but it doesn’t need to do much creative work anymore. The taco-truck video wasn’t fabricated in some St. Petersburg workshop. It was a real video of a real incident, made in America—and all Russia had to do was help it spread with its Twitter trolls.
Luckily for the Russians, then, the two current front-runners for the presidency, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, are both polarizing figures—and they’re both candidates Russian trolls sought to promote in 2016, as Special Counsel Robert Mueller found. This time, the Democratic field is crowded and squabbling, but it includes no hawkish, long-established Hillary Clinton to tear down. If the election does end up being a Trump-Sanders face-off, one of the Kremlin’s favored candidates from 2016 is guaranteed a win. They are far apart ideologically but nearly equally suited to the Kremlin’s interests, both in being divisive at home and in encouraging U.S. restraint abroad. Both Sanders and Trump profess to want to refocus the U.S. inward—a message that clearly appeals to many Americans. But that doesn’t mean the Russian propaganda machine is slowing down; it’s just aimed at a new target.
Read: The Sanders doctrine
Darren Linvill, a Clemson University professor who has studied Russian information operations, told me, “Systems like this don’t tend to stop simply because their reason for being no longer exists. They find new reasons for being.” In this case, building on their 2016 successes and worsening divisions in the United States.
Linvill offered me a list of reasons the Kremlin still wants to interfere in U.S. politics, despite the fact that we’re already doing such a great job of dividing ourselves. Russia’s goals include depressing voter turnout and making it more difficult for the eventual winner to govern by sowing doubts about the electoral process.
The Kremlin might also still have a preference for Trump, if only because Russian leaders now know what to expect from him, Alina Polyakova, the president and CEO of the Center for European Policy Analysis, told me. The New York Times reported after we spoke that intelligence officials told lawmakers, in a briefing last week, that Russia is indeed interfering to help Trump again. The report did not specify exactly how. Then came reports that U.S. officials had briefed Sanders that Russia was interfering on behalf of his campaign—Sanders said that Putin should “stay out of American elections,” in keeping with his position since 2016.
No matter what, Polyakova said, “a U.S. that’s mired in its own domestic problems and not engaged in the world benefits Moscow.” That’s where the videos come in.
Americans are now the chief suppliers of the material that suspected Russia-linked accounts use to stoke anger ahead of U.S. elections, leaving Russia free to focus on pushing it as far as possible. Linvill has seen Russian trolls shift tactics to become “curators more than creators,” with the same goal of driving Americans apart. “The Russians love those videos,” he said, “because they function to make us more disgusted with one another.” He and a colleague have traced viral tweets about the Dallas incident to Russia-linked accounts that Twitter has since suspended.
Read: The billion-dollar disinformation campaign to reelect the president
America’s largely self-inflicted political condition has provided a stunning return on investment for the Russian government, which began orchestrating—as far back as 2014—what Mueller later called a conspiracy of “fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes,” including the 2016 presidential election. Mueller laid bare the extent of the conspiracy led by a St. Petersburg–based organization called the Internet Research Agency. The IRA was the nerve center of the interference operation; it had hundreds of employees and a budget of millions of dollars dedicated to what it internally referred to as “information warfare” against America, with Facebook ads, fake Twitter personas, and even efforts to organize real-world protests.
Meanwhile, the irony is that the specter of Russian interference itself has become a tool to discredit political enemies online. “The biggest effect that I think foreign disinformation has had on our conversations is the perception that if someone disagrees with you, they’re a Russian troll,” Linvill said. “When, in fact, they probably just are somebody that disagrees with you.” Twitter, for instance, at one point suspended an account supportive of the Black Lives Matter movement as a suspected Russian troll. Wired later identified the user: an American living in Florida.
The IRA was already setting up fake social-media accounts and sending operatives to the United States two years before the 2016 election. It operated English-language Twitter accounts that circulated made-up news stories—about a salmonella outbreak in New York, for instance, and a chemical explosion in Louisiana, neither of which had happened, Linvill said. These days, Russian internet operatives barely deal in outright fabricated news stories, he said, and those early efforts failed because they were easily debunked. When the campaign started, the IRA wasn’t focused on supporting any particular candidate so much as targeting Clinton. This meant boosting not only Trump (by establishing Facebook accounts such as “Clinton FRAUDation” and “Trumpsters United”) but also, incongruously, Sanders. (A BuzzFeed investigation found one Russian Tumblr account, 4mysquad, that posed as a black activist and celebrated Sanders as “not some old White man who just decided that #BlackLivesMatter yesterday. He’s BEEN fighting.”) Mueller later found that the clear preference for Trump developed over time.
Read: The Russian conspiracy that won’t die
Mueller’s investigation led to indictments of some IRA operatives—which meant little, since they were in Russia, beyond the reach of American law, and turning their attention to the 2018 midterm elections. The organization was still creating memes, and it got an even bigger budget, according to Graham Brookie, the director of the Digital Forensic Research Lab at the Atlantic Council think tank. But it also began using more of what Americans themselves were putting on the internet, seizing on divisive debates about immigration, gun control, and police shootings of unarmed black men, using real news stories to highlight genuine anger and dysfunction in American politics.
Now, in 2020, the president and his political rivals have spent years locked in battle over things such as the Mueller investigation, impeachment, and America’s very institutions and role in the world. Russian trolls can largely just watch Americans fight among themselves, and use fictitious Twitter personas to offer vigorous encouragement, as they did with the taco-truck video. They will keep prodding the same bruises in American society, or encouraging cries of electoral fraud if there’s a contested Democratic primary or a tight general election.
The U.S. doesn’t need Russians to erode faith in its elections—one buggy app at the Iowa caucus did that just fine, prompting the president’s campaign manager to wonder on Twitter whether the caucus had been “rigged.” Trump is both a cause and an effect of existing American lack of faith in institutions, which he encourages with frequent reference to the “deep state.” And Sanders gets authentic support for his criticism of political and economic elites, which the Russia-linked accounts also promote.
Even as the U.S. by virtue of its political divisions has made Russia’s job easier in some ways, it has made Russian operations more difficult in others. The Mueller investigation and congressional scrutiny have made people more aware of Russia’s activities since 2016, Brookie said. Social-media companies such as Twitter and Facebook have grown more active at suspending suspicious accounts—even to the point of accidentally suspending real people spreading polarizing messages.
Still, although Brookie didn’t want to understate the threat of Russian interference, he maintained that American domestic disinformation is worse than anything the IRA could do. Of the Russians at this point, he said: “They could spike the football and say, ‘Mission accomplished.’”


theatlantic--2020-02-20--Democrats Went After the Wrong Guy

Democrats Went After the Wrong Guy

Compared with earlier debates , Sanders did face more questions about his agenda and record from both his rivals and the moderators .
Between them , they introduced arguments against Sanders ’ s candidacy that may resonate more loudly down the road , in particular when they questioned whether his calls for a “ political revolution ” can build a winning coalition against President Donald Trump .
Former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg made that case most persistently , saying at one point that Democrats risk defeat if they offer voters “ a socialist who thinks that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Even Warren , who has been remarkably reluctant to draw contrasts with Sanders even as he has eclipsed her as the favorite of the party ’ s most liberal voters , asserted that Democrats “ are worried about gambling on a revolution that won ’ t bring along a majority of this country.
” But compared with the hazing Bloomberg received , Sanders escaped with many fewer bruises and bumps .
He was confident and unyielding , if sometimes hectoring , in defending his agenda and ideology , and the focus never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the night ’ s most telling moments came when the moderators asked Biden if Americans would elect a candidate who identifies as a socialist , as Sanders does , and the former vice president somehow managed to answer the question without ever mentioning ( much less challenging ) his opponent .
“ The other five tore each other apart while Bernie skated , ” one Democratic pollster , who is not affiliated with any campaign , texted me after the debate .
Bloomberg ’ s exchanges with Sanders—with Bloomberg insisting that Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over his ownership of three houses , and Sanders , in turn , denouncing Bloomberg as the embodiment of corruption in the political system—seemed to pulse with the most mutual hostility .
But all the candidates pummeled the billionaire , over everything from his treatment of women to his record as mayor and from his prior history of supporting Republicans to his delay in releasing his income-tax returns .
At points , Bloomberg was effective in touting his policy plans ( especially on climate ) , but he buckled in defending his record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Warren was Bloomberg ’ s most potent and relentless interrogator .
In a lengthy back-and-forth about the nondisclosure agreements signed by women who worked for him , Warren delivered so many blows so fast that a boxing referee might have stopped the fight .
He was , at one point , left to sputter in defense that he signed the agreements “ probably because some women didn ’ t like some jokes I told.
” It ’ s a safe bet that Warren and his other opponents won ’ t let him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s unsteady performance reverses the gains he ’ s generated with his spending onslaught—as of Friday , he ’ d spent $ 100 million on TV ads in California , Texas , and Florida alone—the turnabout could help any of the other candidates regain ground in the race .
But it still leaves them the challenge of slowing Sanders , who has been buoyed by a wave of positive polls since his narrow victory last week in New Hampshire .

LAS VEGAS—Faced with signs that Bernie Sanders is consolidating his position as the clear front-runner in the Democratic race, the presidential candidates last night chose to focus most of their fire instead at the new guy onstage: Michael Bloomberg.
The withering criticism, especially that from Elizabeth Warren, left Bloomberg visibly staggered at times and reflected an undeniable imperative for his opponents’ campaigns: His unprecedented TV-advertising blitz across the states voting in March threatens to catapult him past all of them as the principal alternative to the Vermont senator, who has taken a solid lead in the latest national polls. But the consistent focus on Bloomberg, especially during the debate’s highly contentious first hour, meant that Sanders was let relatively off the hook.
Indeed, it’s difficult to imagine anything that unfolded on the debate stage will impede Sanders’s march toward an expected victory in Saturday’s caucus here—where Bloomberg won’t even be on the ballot. Appearing on MSNBC after the debate, Joe Biden declared that “Bernie’s going to get vetted in a way he never has been before.” That moment may be coming, but it certainly didn’t arrive last night.
Compared with earlier debates, Sanders did face more questions about his agenda and record from both his rivals and the moderators. Between them, they introduced arguments against Sanders’s candidacy that may resonate more loudly down the road, in particular when they questioned whether his calls for a “political revolution” can build a winning coalition against President Donald Trump.
Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg made that case most persistently, saying at one point that Democrats risk defeat if they offer voters “a socialist who thinks that capitalism is the root of all evil.” Even Warren, who has been remarkably reluctant to draw contrasts with Sanders even as he has eclipsed her as the favorite of the party’s most liberal voters, asserted that Democrats “are worried about gambling on a revolution that won’t bring along a majority of this country.”
But compared with the hazing Bloomberg received, Sanders escaped with many fewer bruises and bumps. He was confident and unyielding, if sometimes hectoring, in defending his agenda and ideology, and the focus never stayed on him for long. One of the night’s most telling moments came when the moderators asked Biden if Americans would elect a candidate who identifies as a socialist, as Sanders does, and the former vice president somehow managed to answer the question without ever mentioning (much less challenging) his opponent. “The other five tore each other apart while Bernie skated,” one Democratic pollster, who is not affiliated with any campaign, texted me after the debate.
Read: Bloomberg’s beating
Bloomberg’s exchanges with Sanders—with Bloomberg insisting that Sanders can’t win and needling him over his ownership of three houses, and Sanders, in turn, denouncing Bloomberg as the embodiment of corruption in the political system—seemed to pulse with the most mutual hostility. But all the candidates pummeled the billionaire, over everything from his treatment of women to his record as mayor and from his prior history of supporting Republicans to his delay in releasing his income-tax returns. At points, Bloomberg was effective in touting his policy plans (especially on climate), but he buckled in defending his record.
As my colleague Russell Berman described, Warren was Bloomberg’s most potent and relentless interrogator. In a lengthy back-and-forth about the nondisclosure agreements signed by women who worked for him, Warren delivered so many blows so fast that a boxing referee might have stopped the fight. He was, at one point, left to sputter in defense that he signed the agreements “probably because some women didn’t like some jokes I told.” It’s a safe bet that Warren and his other opponents won’t let him forget those words.
If Bloomberg’s unsteady performance reverses the gains he’s generated with his spending onslaught—as of Friday, he’d spent $100 million on TV ads in California, Texas, and Florida alone—the turnabout could help any of the other candidates regain ground in the race. But it still leaves them the challenge of slowing Sanders, who has been buoyed by a wave of positive polls since his narrow victory last week in New Hampshire.
Sanders has established himself as the front-runner by posting significant leads among young people and the most liberal voters, a more modest advantage among white voters without a college degree, and a potentially expanding lead with Latinos. (In several polls, Sanders has also reduced, or even eliminated, Biden’s lead with African Americans.) These increases translate to support from, at most, a little more than 30 percent of the Democratic Party so far.
Meanwhile, the constituencies more resistant to Sanders—particularly moderates, older voters, and college-educated white voters—have splintered among the remaining candidates. In a national NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll this week, for example, Sanders attracted a higher share of progressives than any other candidate won among moderates; his share among non-college-educated white voters exceeded anyone else’s share of white voters with degrees; and he attracted far more younger people (under age 45) than anyone else drew among older voters. As last night suggested, Sanders’s competitors still seem to be focused more on emerging as the alternative to him than on challenging him directly.
That pressure encouraged a kind of all-against-all quality in the debate. Anyone trying to map the direction of attacks among the candidates would have quickly produced something like a spiral graph. At one point, Warren delivered a rapid-fire denunciation of the health-care plans from Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, and Sanders. Later, in a tour de force of cutting concision, she encapsulated her differences with Sanders (too revolutionary), Biden and Klobuchar (too clubby with Senate Republicans), and Buttigieg (too cozy with billionaires) in just three sentences.
Buttigieg and Klobuchar, meanwhile, lacerated each other in bitterly personal terms. (“I wish everyone was as perfect as you, Pete,” she insisted at one point.) There’s an electoral logic to the two targeting each other: In the New Hampshire exit poll, Klobuchar finished first and Buttigieg a close second among both college-educated and older voters. But their animosity seems to extend to a personal distaste that transcends any political logic.
It took the moderators to remind the candidates of the big picture as Sanders establishes some separation from the field. Chuck Todd asked a question that I believe will become a frequent topic of conversation among Democrats in the weeks ahead: Do you believe the party should nominate the candidate who arrives at the July convention with the most delegates, even if no one has the 1,991 delegates required for a first-ballot victory? All the contenders effectively said no, except for Sanders—who insisted that “the will of the people should prevail.”
With those answers, the candidates chasing Sanders pointedly left themselves room to resist his nomination at the convention if he arrives with a plurality, but not a majority, of the delegates. But by and large, they did surprisingly little to reduce the odds that Sanders will, in fact, arrive in Milwaukee with more delegates than anyone else.


theatlantic--2020-02-20--<em>The Atlantic </em>Politics Daily: The United States of Jeff Bezos

I tried to wrap my head around it—by looking at some of my favorite things in the world : sweeping policy plans citing similarly huge numbers .
1 .
The Green New Deal , a Bernie Sanders-backed climate plan that ’ s en vogue on the left , would endeavor to decarbonize the U.S. economy—and would dedicate trillions toward climate investment .
2 .
Elizabeth Warren ’ s wealth tax—a 2 percent tax on multi-millionaires—has become such a rallying cry for her candidacy that “ two cents !
” is a popular chant at her campaign rallies .
If enacted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a whole lot more redistributive , as my colleague Annie Lowrey writes , raising about $ 200 billion per year .
3 .
If I had to choose one phrase that encapsulates the fissures within the 2020 Democratic primary , it ’ s probably this : Medicare for All .
Support for single-payer health care has become something of a litmus test for the party ’ s left flank .
Are Warren and Sanders , the plan ’ s biggest cheerleaders , being realistic about its cost ?
To borrow from my colleague @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate ?
?
1 .
“ Sanders escaped with many fewer bruises and bumps.
” With former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg on the debate stage last night , most of his primary rivals seemed to have forgotten who the front-runner is ; Bernie Sanders essentially skated through unscathed .
Ron Brownstein runs through the next scenarios .
2 .
“ Willful , preventable ugliness is always a problem to one degree or another.
” A new draft executive order , informally known as “ Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of government resources ; bad use of government resources ?
Andrew Ferguson debates .
3 .
“ Dignity binds together progressives and moderates opposed to Trump .
It can also bring together constituencies who now find themselves opposed to each other.
” The denial of dignity—respect , honor , and self-worth—is the unifying theme among Americans in the Trump era , the writer E.J .
Dionne argues : To drive out Trumpism , Democrats need to build a movement on the dignity of the American worker .
Russia is reportedly interfering again , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the foreign government meddling doesn ’ t need to do much to get its other wish : dividing the U.S .
The Special Counsel investigation uncovered Russia ’ s work to boost Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump during the 2016 election .
This time , there ’ s no Hillary Clinton .
The .
Democratic field is squabbling .
Both Sanders and Trump profess interest in focusing the U.S. inward .
But that doesn ’ t mean Russians have less of a reason to interfere this year , Kathy Gilsinan reports .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the two current front-runners for the presidency , Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders , are both polarizing figures , ” she writes .
So what are Russia ’ s motives this time around ?
Today ’ s newsletter was written by Saahil Desai , an editor on the Politics desk , and Christian Paz , a Politics fellow .
It was edited by Shan Wang , who oversees newsletters .
You can reply directly to this newsletter with questions or comments , or send a note to politicsdaily @ theatlantic.com .
Your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here .

We’re talking about another billionaire. Plus: Russian trolls have a next favorite candidate.
It’s Thursday, February 20. In today’s newsletter: We’re talking about another billionaire (but not this one or that one). Plus: Russian trolls have a next favorite candidate.
*
« TODAY IN POLITICS »
(CLODAGH KILCOYNE / REUTERS )
The United States of Jeff Bezos
One uber-rich white billionaire may have been thoroughly filleted on the Democratic debate stage last night, but another, one not mounting a presidential run, may be the one whose actions send a larger message about the condition of American democracy.
This week, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos announced that he would drop $10 billion on a fund to combat climate change—immediately making the world’s richest man also the world’s biggest climate-change philanthropist. (How will he spend the money? TBD.)
But Franklin Foer writes, Bezos’s gift may not exactly be a good thing for the country, or for the world:
In a healthy democracy, the world’s richest man wouldn’t be able to painlessly make a $10 billion donation. His fortune would be mitigated by the tax collector; antitrust laws would constrain the growth of his business. Instead of relying on a tycoon to bankroll the national response to an existential crisis, there would be a national response.
By just about any definition, $10 billion is a lotttt of money coming from one person.
I tried to wrap my head around it—by looking at some of my favorite things in the world: sweeping policy plans citing similarly huge numbers.
1. The Green New Deal, a Bernie Sanders-backed climate plan that’s en vogue on the left, would endeavor to decarbonize the U.S. economy—and would dedicate trillions toward climate investment.
2. Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax—a 2 percent tax on multi-millionaires—has become such a rallying cry for her candidacy that “two cents!” is a popular chant at her campaign rallies. If enacted, it would make the tax code a whole lot more redistributive, as my colleague Annie Lowrey writes, raising about $200 billion per year.
3. If I had to choose one phrase that encapsulates the fissures within the 2020 Democratic primary, it’s probably this: Medicare for All. Support for single-payer health care has become something of a litmus test for the party’s left flank. Are Warren and Sanders, the plan’s biggest cheerleaders, being realistic about its cost?
To borrow from my colleague Robinson Meyer: Billions? In this climate??
—Saahil Desai
*
« IDEAS AND ARGUMENTS »
(TODD HEISLER / THE NEW YORK TIMES)
1. “Sanders escaped with many fewer bruises and bumps.”
With former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg on the debate stage last night, most of his primary rivals seemed to have forgotten who the front-runner is; Bernie Sanders essentially skated through unscathed. Ron Brownstein runs through the next scenarios.
2. “Willful, preventable ugliness is always a problem to one degree or another.”
A new draft executive order, informally known as “Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again,” is making the rounds. Good use of government resources; bad use of government resources? Andrew Ferguson debates.
3. “Dignity binds together progressives and moderates opposed to Trump. It can also bring together constituencies who now find themselves opposed to each other.”
The denial of dignity—respect, honor, and self-worth—is the unifying theme among Americans in the Trump era, the writer E.J. Dionne argues: To drive out Trumpism, Democrats need to build a movement on the dignity of the American worker.
*
« EVENING READ »
(MIKHAIL SVETLOV / JOE RAEDLE / DREW ANGERER / KATIE MARTIN / THE ATLANTIC )
Russian trolls have a next favorite candidate
Russia is reportedly interfering again, backing President Trump’s re-election. But the foreign government meddling doesn’t need to do much to get its other wish: dividing the U.S.
The Special Counsel investigation uncovered Russia’s work to boost Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump during the 2016 election. This time, there’s no Hillary Clinton. The . Democratic field is squabbling. Both Sanders and Trump profess interest in focusing the U.S. inward.
But that doesn’t mean Russians have less of a reason to interfere this year, Kathy Gilsinan reports. “Luckily for the Russians, then, the two current front-runners for the presidency, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, are both polarizing figures,” she writes.
So what are Russia’s motives this time around?
*


theatlantic--2020-02-21--<em>The Ticket: </em>The Unlearned Lessons of 2016, With Katy Tur

As Democrats slugged it out in Las Vegas this week , the president undermined the Justice Department in Washington .
News anchor Katy Tur—and everyone else covering politics—has had to constantly switch gears between two stories : a crowded primary of challengers working to overtake one another , and a post-impeachment White House emboldened to break yet more democratic norms .
But when the general election arrives , and the two stories merge , will the fourth estate be up to the task ?
“ I don ’ t think we in the news media have figured out how to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Isaac Dovere on the latest episode of The Ticket : Politics From The Atlantic .
Listen to the full episode here : Subscribe to The Ticket : Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher ( How to Listen ) Tur covered the Trump campaign in 2016 .
She also grew up in a family that changed television news ( or rather , “ broke ” it , as she describes ) .
Now an anchor on MSNBC , she sat down with Dovere to discuss 2020 coverage .
They taped on NBC ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ network hosted this week ’ s Democratic debate ahead of the Nevada caucuses .
• How the adrenaline of reality TV changed news coverage—from Tur ’ s parents capturing the infamous white-Bronco chase in their helicopter , to cable news broadcasting live Trump rallies in 2016 ; • why Tur hasn ’ t been able to turn on her personal phone in four years ; • and why she thinks we should take reporting out of Twitter .

“I don’t think we in the news media have figured out how to cover Donald Trump.”
As Democrats slugged it out in Las Vegas this week, the president undermined the Justice Department in Washington.
News anchor Katy Tur—and everyone else covering politics—has had to constantly switch gears between two stories: a crowded primary of challengers working to overtake one another, and a post-impeachment White House emboldened to break yet more democratic norms. But when the general election arrives, and the two stories merge, will the fourth estate be up to the task?
“I don’t think we in the news media have figured out how to cover Donald Trump,” Tur told Isaac Dovere on the latest episode of The Ticket: Politics From The Atlantic. Listen to the full episode here:
Subscribe to The Ticket: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher (How to Listen)
Tur covered the Trump campaign in 2016. She also grew up in a family that changed television news (or rather, “broke” it, as she describes).
Now an anchor on MSNBC, she sat down with Dovere to discuss 2020 coverage. They taped on NBC’s set in Las Vegas, where the network hosted this week’s Democratic debate ahead of the Nevada caucuses.
Listen for:
How the adrenaline of reality TV changed news coverage—from Tur’s parents capturing the infamous white-Bronco chase in their helicopter, to cable news broadcasting live Trump rallies in 2016;
why Tur hasn’t been able to turn on her personal phone in four years;
and why she thinks we should take reporting out of Twitter.
Voices:


theatlantic--2020-02-21--The Atlantic Politics Daily: Elizabeth Warren’s Last, Last Stand

January 2020 : When Warren came back to New York for a campaign rally , some of her die-hard fans were getting anxious about her standing in the race .
February 2020 : Warren ’ s lackluster showing in New Hampshire only compounded her supporters ’ anxiety .
My colleague Adam Harris was with Warren backers in New Hampshire .
Warren ’ s in dangerous territory , though her lacerating takedown of Michael Bloomberg in Wednesday ’ s debate may have thrown her a lifeline ( and raised her a lot of much-needed cash ) .
A punchy performance is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nevada , it may be too little , too late .
1 .
“ When commentators tell you that Bernie Sanders is another George McGovern , the correct response is : You ’ re not wrong.
” The parallels between Sanders and the failed 1972 Democratic nominee George McGovern are plentiful : They ’ re both anti-establishment , grassroots-friendly , and working-class warriors , but the America of 2020 is nowhere near what the America of 1972 was .
Derek Thompson takes a closer look at the parallels .
2 .
“ Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reward celebrities and please his supporters.
” The president announced a slate of controversial pardons this week , including the commutation of a federal sentence for former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich .
America ’ s founders hoped for the presidential pardon to serve as an act of grace , not as such a naked reward for loyalty , one political scientist argues .
3 .
“ Climate change now sits alongside only four other mainstays … in its ability to command the electorate ’ s attention.
” Climate is second only to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats in the upcoming primary states care about , and is a top-five concern among all voters according to a new poll provided exclusively to The Atlantic .
But the issue is becoming more polarized than abortion , Robinson Meyer reports .
They ’ ve come up with another generation label .
Much has been written about how Millennials are killing every industry and how Gen-Z is obsessed with the video-sharing social media platform TikTok .
But marketers , researchers , and cultural commentators who created these labels have now moved on to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” This is all a pointless task , Joe Pinsker writes , since the divisions used to define these generations are largely arbitrary .
For instance , the youngest Millennials , born in 1996 , might have more in common with the oldest Gen Zers , born in 1997 , than the oldest Millennials , born in 1981 ; to name just one difference , many children of the late ‘ 90s grew up with the internet , while the 1981 babies spent most of their childhoods without it .
( This sort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labels for those born on the outer edge of their cohort , such as “ Xennials.
” ) Even the Baby Boomer label—which is grounded in a measurable fertility trend—doesn ’ t entirely make sense , Settersten pointed out , as some of the oldest Boomers are the parents of some of the youngest ones .
Today ’ s newsletter was written by Saahil Desai , an editor on the Politics desk , 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 .

Her latest debate performance may have made for compelling television, but at least in Nevada, it may be too little, too late. Plus: Is Bernie Sanders another George McGovern?
It’s Friday, February 21. In today’s newsletter: Is Elizabeth Warren’s latest debate performance too little, too late, at least in Nevada? Plus: Comparing Bernie Sanders and ... George McGovern.
*
« TODAY IN POLITICS »
(REUTERS )
This is the story of the rise and fall (and, fill-in-the-blank here) of Elizabeth Warren.
Elizabeth Warren probably didn’t expected to be heading into the Nevada caucus tomorrow in her position. In a field split between heavyweights and minnows, her time on the campaign trail has been something of a roller-coaster ride:
Late 2018: Warren entered the race months before any of the other candidates now polling ahead of her. As my colleague Edward-Isaac Dovere wrote then, her opponents snickered at the timing, but it may have been an early stroke of genius.
September 2019: Warren’s steady stream of detailed policy plans helped propel her into the 2020 top tier. In the fall, a crop of Bernie Sanders supporters flocked to her—and some 20,000 raucous rally-goers turned out for her in a New York City campaign stop. Sensing the momentum behind her, rivals declared war on Warren at October’s Democratic debate.
November 2019: As Medicare for All came under growing scrutiny, Warren’s steadfast support of the health-care overhaul may have cost her support from moderates.
January 2020: When Warren came back to New York for a campaign rally, some of her die-hard fans were getting anxious about her standing in the race.
February 2020: Warren’s lackluster showing in New Hampshire only compounded her supporters’ anxiety. My colleague Adam Harris was with Warren backers in New Hampshire.
Warren’s in dangerous territory, though her lacerating takedown of Michael Bloomberg in Wednesday’s debate may have thrown her a lifeline (and raised her a lot of much-needed cash).
A punchy performance is compelling television, but at least in Nevada, it may be too little, too late.
—Saahil Desai
*
« IDEAS AND ARGUMENTS »
(MICHAEL OCHS ARCHIVES / GETTY)
1. “When commentators tell you that Bernie Sanders is another George McGovern, the correct response is: You’re not wrong.”
The parallels between Sanders and the failed 1972 Democratic nominee George McGovern are plentiful: They’re both anti-establishment, grassroots-friendly, and working-class warriors, but the America of 2020 is nowhere near what the America of 1972 was. Derek Thompson takes a closer look at the parallels.
2. “Trump seems to view clemency as a way to reward celebrities and please his supporters.”
The president announced a slate of controversial pardons this week, including the commutation of a federal sentence for former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.
America’s founders hoped for the presidential pardon to serve as an act of grace, not as such a naked reward for loyalty, one political scientist argues.
3. “Climate change now sits alongside only four other mainstays … in its ability to command the electorate’s attention.”
Climate is second only to health care in the issues that most Democrats in the upcoming primary states care about, and is a top-five concern among all voters according to a new poll provided exclusively to The Atlantic. But the issue is becoming more polarized than abortion, Robinson Meyer reports.
*
« WEEKEND READ »
(SPENCER WEINER / GETTY)
They’ve come up with another generation label.
Much has been written about how Millennials are killing every industry and how Gen-Z is obsessed with the video-sharing social media platform TikTok. But marketers, researchers, and cultural commentators who created these labels have now moved on to the generation that comes after “Z.”
This is all a pointless task, Joe Pinsker writes, since the divisions used to define these generations are largely arbitrary.
For instance, the youngest Millennials, born in 1996, might have more in common with the oldest Gen Zers, born in 1997, than the oldest Millennials, born in 1981; to name just one difference, many children of the late ‘90s grew up with the internet, while the 1981 babies spent most of their childhoods without it. (This sort of tension has birthed some niche generational labels for those born on the outer edge of their cohort, such as “Xennials.”) Even the Baby Boomer label—which is grounded in a measurable fertility trend—doesn’t entirely make sense, Settersten pointed out, as some of the oldest Boomers are the parents of some of the youngest ones.
Tag yourself.
*


theatlantic--2020-02-22--What Democrats Aren’t Admitting About Trump’s Record

Of course , just because some of these doomsday scenarios haven ’ t yet materialized doesn ’ t mean that they won ’ t eventually .
A number of Trump ’ s actions have already inflicted serious damage and could have corrosive consequences that will only become evident over time .
In some cases , Trump seems to have simply been lucky .
A number of warnings , moreover , have proved right .
Nevertheless , as American foreign policy comes under greater scrutiny as part of this year ’ s presidential campaign , the Democratic candidates risk losing credibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they don ’ t reckon with the moments when they said the sky was falling and it wasn ’ t .
Why should a voter be convinced that returning to aspects of the pre-Trump status quo is necessarily a good thing when the people advocating for that inaccurately diagnosed the results of Trump ’ s defiance of convention ?
The episodes in which critics ’ predictions were n't borne out offer valuable lessons for Trump ’ s challengers , even if they still vigorously disagree with the moves the president has made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head of Duke University ’ s Center on Law , Ethics , and National Security , wrote for Just Security early in the Trump administration , Americans “ need balance in our national security and foreign policy discussions before we don sackcloth and ashes and hoist our ‘ The End is Near ’ signs .
True , we are in an era of change , which is what happens in democracies when a candidate runs on a platform of change and wins , and change can be disquieting to those who prefer the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the status quo ?
” The War With Iran That Wasn ’ t In the wee hours of January 2 , shortly after news broke that Trump had killed the Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike , Twitter pulsed with anxiety about # WWIII .
Enter the Democratic candidates : Bernie Sanders warned that Trump had just placed the United States “ on the path to another ” endless war , one that could again “ cost countless lives and trillions more dollars.
” Joe Biden declared that Trump had “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tinderbox , ” potentially bringing America to “ the brink of a major conflict across the Middle East.
” The U.S. was perched precariously on that brink , Elizabeth Warren argued , “ because a reckless president , his allies , and his administration have spent years pushing us here.
” The calamitous war they envisioned , however , has not come to pass .
They were right , though , that there would be devastating consequences .
Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a U.S. base in Iraq , leaving at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injuries .
The Iranians mistakenly downed a civilian airliner , killing its 176 passengers , and hostilities between Iran and the U.S. remain dangerously high .
Tehran has cast off restrictions under the 2015 deal brokered by the Obama administration to constrain Iran ’ s nuclear program , though it hasn ’ t yet raced to build a bomb , as many of Trump ’ s critics predicted would happen when the president withdrew from the agreement in 2018 .
Had Trump stuck with the accord in the first place , Iran and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the precipice of war over Soleimani ’ s demise .

The episodes in which critics’ predictions weren’t borne out offer valuable lessons for Trump’s challengers, even if they still vigorously disagree with the moves the president has made.
It’s 2020, and America is embroiled in not one but two catastrophic wars: one with Iran that has sucked in the entire Middle East, and another halfway across the world in North Korea sparked by Kim Jong Un test-firing nuclear-capable missiles that could hit the United States. It’s all the worse since the U.S. is waging both wars without allies, all of which have abandoned Donald Trump because of his incessant bullying.
Fortunately, this isn’t where we find ourselves today, but it’s what the president’s critics have been warning could occur if he carries on with policies that have shattered decades of conventional U.S. policy making. It’s not as if their concerns have no factual basis. The Trump administration really did come to the brink of war with Iran and North Korea. In neither case are the underlying tensions that got them there anywhere near resolved. America’s alliances are indeed in flux. But the fact that this is not our reality in 2020 is just as instructive as the fact that it could have been.
This pattern has recurred on several occasions during the Trump era: The president’s detractors foretell doom caused by one of his decisions, only to be proved wrong, and then nobody acknowledges that they got it wrong or admits that Trump’s policies have had some advantages.
Of course, just because some of these doomsday scenarios haven’t yet materialized doesn’t mean that they won’t eventually. A number of Trump’s actions have already inflicted serious damage and could have corrosive consequences that will only become evident over time. In some cases, Trump seems to have simply been lucky. A number of warnings, moreover, have proved right.
Nevertheless, as American foreign policy comes under greater scrutiny as part of this year’s presidential campaign, the Democratic candidates risk losing credibility with voters and undermining their policy prescriptions if they don’t reckon with the moments when they said the sky was falling and it wasn’t. Why should a voter be convinced that returning to aspects of the pre-Trump status quo is necessarily a good thing when the people advocating for that inaccurately diagnosed the results of Trump’s defiance of convention? The episodes in which critics’ predictions weren't borne out offer valuable lessons for Trump’s challengers, even if they still vigorously disagree with the moves the president has made.
Read: The Sanders doctrine
As Charles Dunlap Jr., the head of Duke University’s Center on Law, Ethics, and National Security, wrote for Just Security early in the Trump administration, Americans “need balance in our national security and foreign policy discussions before we don sackcloth and ashes and hoist our ‘The End is Near’ signs. True, we are in an era of change, which is what happens in democracies when a candidate runs on a platform of change and wins, and change can be disquieting to those who prefer the status quo. But how good was the status quo?”
Consider three emblematic episodes:
The War With Iran That Wasn’t
In the wee hours of January 2, shortly after news broke that Trump had killed the Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike, Twitter pulsed with anxiety about #WWIII.
Enter the Democratic candidates: Bernie Sanders warned that Trump had just placed the United States “on the path to another” endless war, one that could again “cost countless lives and trillions more dollars.” Joe Biden declared that Trump had “just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox,” potentially bringing America to “the brink of a major conflict across the Middle East.” The U.S. was perched precariously on that brink, Elizabeth Warren argued, “because a reckless president, his allies, and his administration have spent years pushing us here.”
Read: Qassem Soleimani haunted the Arab world
The calamitous war they envisioned, however, has not come to pass. They were right, though, that there would be devastating consequences. Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a U.S. base in Iraq, leaving at least 109 American troops with traumatic brain injuries. The Iranians mistakenly downed a civilian airliner, killing its 176 passengers, and hostilities between Iran and the U.S. remain dangerously high. Tehran has cast off restrictions under the 2015 deal brokered by the Obama administration to constrain Iran’s nuclear program, though it hasn’t yet raced to build a bomb, as many of Trump’s critics predicted would happen when the president withdrew from the agreement in 2018. Had Trump stuck with the accord in the first place, Iran and the U.S. might never have found themselves on the precipice of war over Soleimani’s demise.
Nevertheless, Iran’s missile barrage was a relatively restrained response when measured against the blow of losing its most powerful military leader and the predictions made by Sanders, Biden, and Warren. Iranian officials thought “that after a series of escalatory [Iranian] military operations—the tanker attacks, the shooting down of an American drone, the Saudi oil strikes, rocket attacks on bases in Iraq by Iranian-backed militias—Mr. Trump would refrain from responding consequentially,” only to be shocked by Trump taking out Soleimani, The New York Times reported last week in a postmortem of the crisis. Trump’s decision, the paper noted, “might ultimately deter future Iranian aggression.” A former British diplomat similarly told my London colleague Tom McTague that the Soleimani strike opened up “the space for de-escalation” by scrambling the Iranian government’s “understanding of how the Americans might react in [the] future.”
Setting aside the vital question of whether Trump’s killing of Soleimani was legally justified or strategically wise (for candidates such as Sanders and Warren, the answer is unequivocally no), it’s worthwhile to investigate why Iran didn’t react the way so many assumed it would and what insights that yields for how the United States deals with adversaries. Trump, “accidentally or otherwise, has identified real problems, including Iran’s ability to act with relative impunity,” McTague concluded. The Soleimani incident also suggests that viewing every U.S. military action in the Middle East through the trauma of the Iraq War can distort our understanding of those events.
The War With North Korea That Wasn’t
Trump’s critics argued that war would break out as a result of the president’s assorted threats (unleashing “fire and fury,” totally destroying “Rocket Man”) to attack North Korea during his first year in office. After Trump engaged in a nuclear-button measuring contest with North Korea’s leader on Twitter, Biden argued that the United States was closer to a nuclear war with North Korea than it had ever been. Sanders and Warren helped introduce legislation to restrain Trump from going to war with North Korea. These critiques weren’t confined to the left. Republican Senator Bob Corker cautioned that Trump doesn’t realize that “we could be heading towards World War III with the kinds of comments that he’s making.”
North Korean officials probably didn’t interpret Trump’s remarks as a signal that war was imminent. But the bellicosity of the president and his advisers put the U.S. military on high alert, alarmed America’s ally South Korea, and increased the risk that the parties could stumble into conflict, just as the president’s critics had warned.
That bellicosity, though, was also productive in ways that Trump’s detractors rarely acknowledge. Nikki Haley, Trump’s former ambassador to the United Nations, told me that she leveraged her boss’s rhetoric and volatility to persuade China and Russia to support UN Security Council sanctions against North Korea, which helped pressure Kim into (thus far mostly fruitless) nuclear negotiations with the United States. Vincent Brooks, who commanded U.S. forces in South Korea from 2016 to 2018, told me that the president’s unpredictability, paired with new military maneuvers on the Korean peninsula, helped Brooks reestablish deterrence against North Korean provocations and create space for diplomacy. "Trying to bait a dictator who has nuclear weapons is not a way to advance diplomacy," Warren argued in 2017. According to two former Trump administration officials who were at the forefront of its North Korea policy during this period, however, it was one way to do so.
William J. Burns: How small European allies see Trump
The lesson here isn’t exactly that future American presidents should bait nuclear-armed dictators, but rather that, in certain situations, unconventional behavior can unlock opportunities to achieve breakthroughs with enemies. Thae Yong Ho, one of the highest-ranking officials ever to defect from North Korea, told me that he thought Trump’s sharp break with the “very gentle” posture of past American presidents helped dissuade North Korea from escalating the nuclear crisis with the United States in late 2017.
The Very Anxious Allies That Remain Allies
Trump’s critics have likewise divined doom each time the president has raised questions about his commitment to defending U.S. allies and demanded huge hikes in their financial contributions to collective security. Biden, for example, has warned that if Trump is reelected, “NATO will fall apart.” Similar predictions have been made as Trump pushes for new arrangements in which Japan and South Korea would cover most of the costs of stationing U.S. troops in each country.
These alliances are indeed being tested more than they have been in decades, and all these partners are now engaged in more contingency planning for a world in which they can no longer depend on U.S. protection. But the fact that the alliances haven’t yet shattered—and by some measures, certain alliances have actually grown stronger during the Trump era—reveals two realities of America’s network of alliances that the next commander in chief will confront.
First, Trump’s tenure has underscored that the United States never really figured out its role in the world and national-security interests once the Cold War ended and its clout began to decline relative to that of rising powers. That debate is now under way in earnest, and U.S. allies are gradually grasping this and processing what it means for them.
Second, for all the upheaval of the Trump years, these partners have come to recognize that they ultimately don’t have attractive alternatives—teaming up with authoritarian powers such as China and Russia? Staking their security on a weak European Union?—to their alliance with the United States. Some allied leaders may not be especially enthused about collaborating with the U.S. these days, and their publics may be with them, but their national interests still dictate that they do. That means there’s more room to tackle sensitive issues such as burden-sharing and more resilience in the relationships than previous American presidents suspected. Kersti Kaljulaid, the president of Estonia, a NATO member bordering Russia and thus on the front line of fears about America’s wavering fidelity to the bloc, told me and my colleague Yara Bayoumy that it took Trump’s crass transactionalism (rather than Barack Obama and his predecessors asking “nicely”) to impress upon NATO members that they had to get serious about ramping up their own defense spending.
As Robert Blackwill of the Council on Foreign Relations noted in a 2019 assessment of Trump’s foreign policy—in which he memorably likened the president’s policies to “a large bowl of spaghetti bolognese dumped and spread on a white canvas”—many criticisms of the president’s conduct in the world are related to the manner in which he makes, announces, and explains decisions and to the policy incoherence within his administration. Rarely, however, is it acknowledged that “the president has disrupted a whole series of conventions in the international system, some of them undoubtedly needed.”
“Not a single U.S. politician,” Blackwill observed, “has a coherent and convincing set of policies to cope with this eroding world order, but Trump receives nearly all the slings and arrows.”