motherjones--2020-01-29--A Likability Expert Explains Why If You Want to be Liked, You Need to Have These 8 Traits

Consider a public figure , maybe a celebrity , or a politician , or a musician you really adore .
Once you ’ ve pictured this person , try and identify what it is about them you find so appealing .
Maybe they make you feel hopeful .
Or they have a thrilling authenticity about them that seems so rare to find nowadays .
Do they communicate the fact that they are reliable , solid , someone you can trust ?
Basically , do you like them for a reason ?
Whoever this person is , according to Steven Goldstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can explain what that reason is .
Goldstein , a former producer for Oprah Winfrey and a former lawyer for the House Judiciary Committee , has spent most of his adult life trying to figure out what makes people likable .
( He also led the LGBTQ organization Garden State Equality when New Jersey legalized same sex marriage . )
From booking likable guests for successful Oprah segments , to finding persuasive—read , likable—witnesses for Congress , he was a connoisseur of likability long before Barak Obama famously put down Hillary Clinton by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has shaped his insights about the anatomy of human likability into a new book , The Turn On : How the Powerful Make Us Like Them-from Washington to Wall Street to Hollywood .
The book is a cumulation of Goldstein ’ s 20-plus-years of research , notes , and observations distilled into eight traits he ’ s identified as comprising the keys to different kinds of likability .
Likability , he argues , can be distilled down to four pairs of these traits : Captivation and hope , authenticity and relatability , protectiveness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perceptiveness .
Over the course of the 269 pages , Goldstein dissects their strengths and their weaknesses , and how they intersect with some of the biggest names in politics and pop culture .
“ Likability in public life is something that can be created , ” he says .
“ With a huge caveat : Likability , or the presentation of likability , is always rooted in the truth.
” The ways that likability intersects with constructs of gender , sexuality , race , and politics is not lost on Goldstein , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( In 2008 and 2016 he was a delegate for Hillary Clinton at the conventions . )
In one of the book ’ s later chapters , entitled “ Anne Hathaway , Hillary Clinton , and the Double Standards for Women ” , Goldstein lays out the ways in which society loves to see women who achieve great heights , and maybe loves watching them fall even more .
“ Look no further than Hillary Clinton , ” he writes .
“ The most analyzed woman in American history.
” As the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ women can ’ t be elected ” has once again reared its ugly head as a favorite talking point among political pundits .
It also may be Trump ’ s best con yet—as our colleague , Pema Levy , brilliantly describes in her Web Cover Story this week .
In the increasingly unlikely case that either Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren or Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar become the Democratic nominee , the country has to prepare for incessant attacks on their electability , couched in concerns about their gender and likability .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a chat , break down what likability actually means , and dive into the double standards of likability in the context of this insanity we call an election .
Walk us through these traits of likability .
How we fall in like with a public figure follows the process by which we fall in love with a romantic partner .
The first two traits which work together are captivation and hope .
Captivation is very simple : Is this person interesting enough or is the person boring me to death ?
When you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing you notice is the way a person looks .
That ’ s part of captivation .
Does the person do it in a hopeful , positive way ?
Because , captivation could be negative .
It could be a negative star of a reality show , like Omarosa .
Captivation without hope and positivity is a train wreck .
Then you talk about authenticity , but why is that paired with relatability ?
Authenticity , which is the most complicated trait , and relatability .
The second date ’ s really the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that what you saw was real .
What I liked in the first date , was that for real , was it authentic ?
And then , do I relate to this person ?
Alright , we ’ re starting to “ date ” this person .
What ’ s next ?
You ’ re thinking about a relationship with the person or with the public figure .
Then comes the traits of protectiveness and reliability .
We enter relationships hoping the other person will be there for us always and , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in public life , who protects us ?
Well , politicians sometimes protect us .
Will you always be there for me ?
That ’ s what we ask a date or a public figure .
So what ’ s next ?
Are we getting married to this fictional person ?
Finally , we have what I call the conscience traits .
The fourth stage : Is this person compassionate and perceptive ?
Is the person compassionate toward people not like them—somebody who might be disadvantaged .
And is the person perceptive to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s how you fall in love in real life .
And that ’ s how a celebrity , whether a whether an entertainer or CEO or politician , makes you fall in like with them .
They ’ re just people with human characteristics that are more magnified than others ?
Not all of them are so human !
But , you know , you mention a really good point , because here ’ s a premise of my book : Likability is a construct .
Likability in public life is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I saying you can create an image ?
Yes !
With a huge caveat .
Likability is always rooted in the truth .
You can ’ t take a totally unlikable person and make them likable , and you can ’ t assign traits to someone in public life that he or she doesn ’ t already have .
OK , how would you define likability ?
Likability is the combination of personality traits that engages another person into an emotional relationship with you .
You say niceness and likability aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nice and unlikable and vice versa .
How are these different ?
People who have [ nice ] applied to them are generally milquetoast .
Nice people might have 80 , 90 or 100 percent support , everybody likes them , but nobody would go to bat and die for them .
Likability does involve—this might sound counterintuitive—some degree of polarization .
Having a strong enough personality where some people are going to be instantly attracted to it , and others not .
Why should we care if we ’ re likable ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ than likable ?
Likability is leverage .
It ’ s a tool to achieving a better world .
It matters for a president to get their agenda passed through Congress , through one-on-one meetings with members of Congress .
Now , we can argue , ‘ oh , you wish likability were not so important.
’ But it is !
It ’ s a democratizing thing .
We all have a subjective ability to assess whether somebody likable .
We all might have different answers , but the most educated people and everyday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likable .
So likability is how you get shit done ?
You also talk about something else in your book : faux authenticity .
It ’ s mentioned when describing our Commander-in-Chief .
Walk us through what you mean by faux authenticity and why that ’ s particular to Trump ?
[ Trump ] was likable enough to enough voters .
His base found him authentically representing their concerns .
He was an angry white man .
How they relate to him , whether he ’ s a millionaire or a failed billionaire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t know , but he was able to pull it off .
So in 2016 , particularly in the Republican primary , Donald Trump gave enough voters the appearance of authenticity .
His devices , like coming up with names , offensive names , like “ Pocahontas , ” or “ Shifty Schiff ” —that ’ s not authentic in that he just thought of it—it ’ s all planned .
But he gives the appearance that it ’ s unplanned .
Donald Trump in 2016 was able to exploit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in viewing a woman ’ s likability .
The first challenge women face in likability is the fact that we ’ re always talking about their likability .
We don ’ t hear whether men are likable .
Hillary Clinton , her whole career : Is she likable enough ?
There are plenty of unlikable men who seem to get a pass .
She didn ’ t .
Hillary Clinton ’ s problem was that she was too authentic .
She refused to put on a performance .
And that doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a show .
America had a choice between a woman who refused to put on a show and a man who gave you tickets to a free circus .
And they chose the circus .
Let ’ s talk primary season .
Who ’ s catching your eye right now in terms of the traits that you ’ ve described ?
Who ’ s catching your eye in this race as someone who you see utilizing these traits effectively ?
It looked like Elizabeth Warren had the nomination wrapped up .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do with her likability improvement .
Elizabeth Warren wants to come across as someone who likes politics .
I speak in the book of this concept called “ Joy of Performance.
” People out there like people who like their jobs .
Elizabeth Warren is coming across as a wonk .
The “ I ’ ve got a plan ” thing .
She is who she is : a professor and a wonk .
I actually thought she had it wrapped up .
But she ’ s not great on defense .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ her position on Medicare for All .
There ’ s Bernie Sanders , he ’ s for Medicare for All .
He calls himself a socialist .
But they ’ re attacking her .
It ’ s not that people in America don ’ t trust women to do as good , or better , a job than men .
They just don ’ t want women out in front taking the credit .
Women face what men don ’ t face .
Why do you think that is ?
I think society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in dealing with sexism .
As a member of the LGBTQ community , I am astounded at the levels of sexism I see .
And I take racism seriously , homophobia and transphobia seriously .
Sexism , to me , has made the least strides in being eradicated .
And I think it ’ s because so much is at stake .
It ’ s 50 percent of the population .
And to give women equality , maybe , maybe men , the other 50 percent , would feel like something was being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you see right now in the current political scene as being someone who is sort of the gold standard of using these traits that you talk about as a way to get their agenda across ?
Stacey Abrams is the woman who should be governor of Georgia .
She is one of the most likable talents I ’ ve ever seen .
After the governorship was stolen from her , [ she ] gave the response to Trump ’ s State of the Union , and she was so compelling .
She genuinely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up and down the list and they ’ re remaining intact because she didn ’ t run this year .
And I would go so far as to tell you that I think she ’ s got a 50/50 shot at the vice presidential nomination , because she is so likable .
I ’ m curious to ask about Nancy Pelosi , because she is the most powerful woman in politics .
She ’ s a great example of likability not being seen by everybody as nice .
I find her very nice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but that ’ s not what we ’ re talking about here .
Listen , Nancy Pelosi produces polarizing reactions .
I ’ ve vacationed around the country , including in the south and the west , and seen Republican candidates run commercials against Nancy Pelosi when she really has nothing to do with the race .
So she ’ s polarizing .
And she will go down in history as one of the greats .
Yeah , she seems to subvert a lot of the gender traps that some of these traits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pelosi is interesting .
I ’ ve heard people call her the B Word .
There ’ s this meme on social media meme about her where she emerges from the White House , in her flowing red coat and sunglasses .
She seems to say , OK , you could think I ’ m a B.
It ’ s working .
I ’ m in control here .
This interview has been edited for length and clarity .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Consider a public figure, maybe a celebrity, or a politician, or a musician you really adore. Once you’ve pictured this person, try and identify what it is about them you find so appealing. Maybe they make you feel hopeful. Or they have a thrilling authenticity about them that seems so rare to find nowadays. Do they communicate the fact that they are reliable, solid, someone you can trust? Basically, do you like them for a reason?
Whoever this person is, according to Steven Goldstein the answer is yes, and he can explain what that reason is. Goldstein, a former producer for Oprah Winfrey and a former lawyer for the House Judiciary Committee, has spent most of his adult life trying to figure out what makes people likable. (He also led the LGBTQ organization Garden State Equality when New Jersey legalized same sex marriage.) From booking likable guests for successful Oprah segments, to finding persuasive—read, likable—witnesses for Congress, he was a connoisseur of likability long before Barak Obama famously put down Hillary Clinton by calling her “likable enough.”
Goldstein has shaped his insights about the anatomy of human likability into a new book, The Turn On: How the Powerful Make Us Like Them-from Washington to Wall Street to Hollywood. The book is a cumulation of Goldstein’s 20-plus-years of research, notes, and observations distilled into eight traits he’s identified as comprising the keys to different kinds of likability. Likability, he argues, can be distilled down to four pairs of these traits: Captivation and hope, authenticity and relatability, protectiveness and reliability, and, compassion and perceptiveness. Over the course of the 269 pages, Goldstein dissects their strengths and their weaknesses, and how they intersect with some of the biggest names in politics and pop culture.
“Likability in public life is something that can be created,” he says. “With a huge caveat: Likability, or the presentation of likability, is always rooted in the truth.”
“Likability in public life is something that can be created. With a huge caveat: Likability, or the presentation of likability, is always rooted in the truth.”
The ways that likability intersects with constructs of gender, sexuality, race, and politics is not lost on Goldstein, who is a lifelong establishment Democrat. (In 2008 and 2016 he was a delegate for Hillary Clinton at the conventions.) In one of the book’s later chapters, entitled “Anne Hathaway, Hillary Clinton, and the Double Standards for Women”, Goldstein lays out the ways in which society loves to see women who achieve great heights, and maybe loves watching them fall even more. “Look no further than Hillary Clinton,” he writes. “The most analyzed woman in American history.”
As the election only heats up, the misogynistic trope that “women can’t be elected” has once again reared its ugly head as a favorite talking point among political pundits. It also may be Trump’s best con yet—as our colleague, Pema Levy, brilliantly describes in her Web Cover Story this week. In the increasingly unlikely case that either Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren or Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar become the Democratic nominee, the country has to prepare for incessant attacks on their electability, couched in concerns about their gender and likability. So Mother Jones invited Goldstein to have a chat, break down what likability actually means, and dive into the double standards of likability in the context of this insanity we call an election.
Walk us through these traits of likability.
How we fall in like with a public figure follows the process by which we fall in love with a romantic partner. The first two traits which work together are captivation and hope. Captivation is very simple: Is this person interesting enough or is the person boring me to death? When you go on a date, the first thing you notice is the way a person looks. That’s part of captivation. Does the person do it in a hopeful, positive way? Because, captivation could be negative. It could be a negative star of a reality show, like Omarosa. Captivation without hope and positivity is a train wreck.
Then you talk about authenticity, but why is that paired with relatability?
Authenticity, which is the most complicated trait, and relatability. The second date’s really the key one, because you want confirmation that what you saw was real. What I liked in the first date, was that for real, was it authentic? And then, do I relate to this person?
Alright, we’re starting to “date” this person. What’s next?
You’re thinking about a relationship with the person or with the public figure. Then comes the traits of protectiveness and reliability. We enter relationships hoping the other person will be there for us always and, in a sense, protect us. And in public life, who protects us? Well, politicians sometimes protect us. Will you always be there for me? That’s what we ask a date or a public figure.
So what’s next? Are we getting married to this fictional person?
Finally, we have what I call the conscience traits. The fourth stage: Is this person compassionate and perceptive? Is the person compassionate toward people not like them—somebody who might be disadvantaged. And is the person perceptive to my needs? It turns out, that’s how you fall in love in real life. And that’s how a celebrity, whether a whether an entertainer or CEO or politician, makes you fall in like with them.
They’re just people with human characteristics that are more magnified than others?
Not all of them are so human! But, you know, you mention a really good point, because here’s a premise of my book: Likability is a construct. Likability in public life is something that can be created. Am I saying you can create an image? Yes! With a huge caveat. Likability is always rooted in the truth. You can’t take a totally unlikable person and make them likable, and you can’t assign traits to someone in public life that he or she doesn’t already have.
“Likability is a construct. Likability in public life is something that can be created.”
OK, how would you define likability?
Likability is the combination of personality traits that engages another person into an emotional relationship with you.
You say niceness and likability aren’t the same things, someone can be nice and unlikable and vice versa. How are these different?
People who have [nice] applied to them are generally milquetoast. Nice people might have 80, 90 or 100 percent support, everybody likes them, but nobody would go to bat and die for them. Likability does involve—this might sound counterintuitive—some degree of polarization. Having a strong enough personality where some people are going to be instantly attracted to it, and others not.
Why should we care if we’re likable? Wouldn’t you rather be nice than likable?
Likability is leverage. It’s a tool to achieving a better world. It matters for a president to get their agenda passed through Congress, through one-on-one meetings with members of Congress. Now, we can argue, ‘oh, you wish likability were not so important.’ But it is! It’s a democratizing thing. We all have a subjective ability to assess whether somebody likable. We all might have different answers, but the most educated people and everyday Americans have opinions on who’s likable.
So likability is how you get shit done?
Yep! And, sometimes unlikability.
You also talk about something else in your book: faux authenticity. It’s mentioned when describing our Commander-in-Chief. Walk us through what you mean by faux authenticity and why that’s particular to Trump?
[Trump] was likable enough to enough voters. His base found him authentically representing their concerns. He was an angry white man. How they relate to him, whether he’s a millionaire or a failed billionaire or gazillionaire, or failed gazillionaire, I don’t know, but he was able to pull it off. So in 2016, particularly in the Republican primary, Donald Trump gave enough voters the appearance of authenticity. His devices, like coming up with names, offensive names, like “Pocahontas,” or “Shifty Schiff”—that’s not authentic in that he just thought of it—it’s all planned. But he gives the appearance that it’s unplanned. Donald Trump in 2016 was able to exploit the sexist biases that the public has in viewing a woman’s likability.
“The first challenge women face in likability is the fact that we’re always talking about their likability.”
Let’s talk about a woman’s “likability.”
The first challenge women face in likability is the fact that we’re always talking about their likability. We don’t hear whether men are likable. Hillary Clinton, her whole career: Is she likable enough? There are plenty of unlikable men who seem to get a pass. She didn’t. Hillary Clinton’s problem was that she was too authentic. She refused to put on a performance. And that doesn’t work in America. Donald Trump put on a show. America had a choice between a woman who refused to put on a show and a man who gave you tickets to a free circus. And they chose the circus.
Let’s talk primary season. Who’s catching your eye right now in terms of the traits that you’ve described? Who’s catching your eye in this race as someone who you see utilizing these traits effectively?
It looked like Elizabeth Warren had the nomination wrapped up. The reason that she was polling higher had to do with her likability improvement. Elizabeth Warren wants to come across as someone who likes politics. I speak in the book of this concept called “Joy of Performance.” People out there like people who like their jobs. Elizabeth Warren is coming across as a wonk. The “I’ve got a plan” thing. She is who she is: a professor and a wonk.
I actually thought she had it wrapped up. But she’s not great on defense. You notice how she had to explain her position on Medicare for All. There’s Bernie Sanders, he’s for Medicare for All. He calls himself a socialist. But they’re attacking her. It’s not that people in America don’t trust women to do as good, or better, a job than men. They just don’t want women out in front taking the credit. Women face what men don’t face.
Why do you think that is?
I think society has a very long way to go in dealing with sexism. As a member of the LGBTQ community, I am astounded at the levels of sexism I see. And I take racism seriously, homophobia and transphobia seriously. Sexism, to me, has made the least strides in being eradicated. And I think it’s because so much is at stake. It’s 50 percent of the population. And to give women equality, maybe, maybe men, the other 50 percent, would feel like something was being taken away from them.
Who do you see right now in the current political scene as being someone who is sort of the gold standard of using these traits that you talk about as a way to get their agenda across?
Stacey Abrams.
Really? Explain.
Stacey Abrams is the woman who should be governor of Georgia. She is one of the most likable talents I’ve ever seen. After the governorship was stolen from her, [she] gave the response to Trump’s State of the Union, and she was so compelling. She genuinely has every quality. I could go up and down the list and they’re remaining intact because she didn’t run this year. And I would go so far as to tell you that I think she’s got a 50/50 shot at the vice presidential nomination, because she is so likable.
I’m curious to ask about Nancy Pelosi, because she is the most powerful woman in politics.
She’s a great example of likability not being seen by everybody as nice. I find her very nice, I’ve met her, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. Listen, Nancy Pelosi produces polarizing reactions. I’ve vacationed around the country, including in the south and the west, and seen Republican candidates run commercials against Nancy Pelosi when she really has nothing to do with the race. So she’s polarizing. And she will go down in history as one of the greats.
Yeah, she seems to subvert a lot of the gender traps that some of these traits fall into.
You know, Nancy Pelosi is interesting. I’ve heard people call her the B Word. There’s this meme on social media meme about her where she emerges from the White House, in her flowing red coat and sunglasses. She seems to say, OK, you could think I’m a B. It’s working. I’m in control here.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.


motherjones--2020-01-29--Pete Buttigieg Is Really Leaning Into the Obama Thing

Before Pete Buttigieg launched into his remarks in Osceola , Iowa , on Tuesday , he wanted to let the crowd of a hundred of so at the county fairgrounds event center know that he ’ d been there before .
Well , not there at the event center , specifically—though he also wanted them to know that his husband , Chasten , standing in the back of the room , was a trophy-winning 4-H participant—but the small town itself , in rural Clarke County , about halfway between Des Moines and the Missouri state line .
“ I spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Osceola , and we were volunteering , knocking on doors , a couple of us , for a young man with a funny name , ” he said .
“ We were here when Iowa got the world ’ s attention when Barack Obama won here and started on the pathway to win the nomination.
” Hmm—maybe you ’ ve heard of him ?
At this point , voters already knew the story .
A few minutes earlier , they ’ d heard it from the chair of the county party , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Maybe they ’ d also read his recent interview about it in the Washington Post .
( Come for the rare photo of Buttigieg wearing something other than a white dress shirt and blue tie ; stay for the anecdote about his car going into a ditch . )
Or maybe they ’ d heard him tell it at the state Democratic Party ’ s Liberty and Justice Coalition Dinner in November .
In the run-up to the caucus , Buttigieg is going all in on the Obama comparison , asking voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaning of “ hope , ” and floating the chance to “ make history one more time.
” Obama has hovered over the 2020 field like a thick fog , a nebulous presence that candidates ( or their supporters ) can lay claim to but never quite wield as their own .
Kamala Harris was the “ female Obama ” and Cory Booker “ Obama 2.0 , ” though in retrospect , no they were not .
Joe Biden , of course , was literally next in the line of succession to Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to his work with “ Barack ” so often it ’ s almost a gulp word in his remarks .
But Obama has not endorsed Biden , and Biden , for his part , has said he does not want Obama to endorse him , and in any event , Biden spent the run-up to the history-making 2008 caucuses knocking on doors for Joe Biden .
At the same time , the primary has forced an extended conversation about the 44th president ’ s legacy .
During an early debate , for instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s and Sanders ’ Medicare for All proposals as an attack on the previous administration .
“ The senator says she ’ s for Bernie , ” Biden said of Warren .
“ Well , I ’ m for Barack.
” Biden has relished the role of defender of Obama ’ s policies , at one point telling a debate moderator that a comparison between Obama ’ s deportation regime and Trump ’ s was “ close to immoral.
” The policies are only a part of it .
One thing Buttigieg is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of supporters : A nationwide poll Tuesday found him with zero-percent backing among African American voters , and while his message of generational change is quite popular among white senior citizens , it ’ s had considerably less traction among people of his actual generation .
But Obama 2008 was also about a feeling—and that feeling , more than anything , is what Buttigieg is trying hard to remind voters of in the closing week .
As he wrapped up his remarks in Osceola ( and again , a few hours later , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if not by name , to the campaign he had opened with , only this time , the skinny young man with a funny name was him : I ’ d like to close by pointing out the role of hope at a time like this .
And I know hope is an odd word to use given that it fell out of fashion in our politics , because of how weak and divided our climate is in Washington , but I also think it takes a bit of hope to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think there ’ s a reason why , on the news , they took the word “ hopeful , ” turned it into a noun , and used it as another word for “ candidate.
” …So I ’ m urging you to bottle up whatever hope compelled you into this room and made you think it was worth spending part of your Tuesday to be here right now .
And if everybody does that , everybody we ’ re talking to…this coming Monday we are gon na make history one more time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of changing expectations—that did it that night a few days after I was experiencing Osceola New Year ’ s for the first time , and changed what America thought a nominee could be .
It ’ s not exactly subtle .
But hey , it ’ s worked before .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Before Pete Buttigieg launched into his remarks in Osceola, Iowa, on Tuesday, he wanted to let the crowd of a hundred or so at the county fairgrounds event center know that he’d been there before. Well, not there at the event center, specifically—though he also wanted them to know that his husband, Chasten, standing in the back of the room, was a trophy-winning 4-H participant—but the small town itself, in rural Clarke County, about halfway between Des Moines and the Missouri state line.
“I spent New Years in 2008 right here in Osceola, and we were volunteering, knocking on doors, a couple of us, for a young man with a funny name,” he said. “We were here when Iowa got the world’s attention when Barack Obama won here and started on the pathway to win the nomination.”
Hmm—maybe you’ve heard of him? At this point, voters already knew the story. A few minutes earlier, they’d heard it from the chair of the county party, who introduced the former mayor of South Bend. Maybe they’d also read his recent interview about it in the Washington Post. (Come for the rare photo of Buttigieg wearing something other than a white dress shirt and blue tie; stay for the anecdote about his car going into a ditch.) Or maybe they’d heard him tell it at the state Democratic Party’s Liberty and Justice Coalition Dinner in November. In the run-up to the caucus, Buttigieg is going all in on the Obama comparison, asking voters to remember 2008, ruminating about the meaning of “hope,” and floating the chance to “make history one more time.”
Obama has hovered over the 2020 field like a thick fog, a nebulous presence that candidates (or their supporters) can lay claim to but never quite wield as their own. Kamala Harris was the “female Obama” and Cory Booker “Obama 2.0,” though in retrospect, no they were not. Joe Biden, of course, was literally next in the line of succession to Obama at one point, and refers back to his work with “Barack” so often it’s almost a gulp word in his remarks. But Obama has not endorsed Biden, and Biden, for his part, has said he does not want Obama to endorse him, and in any event, Biden spent the run-up to the history-making 2008 caucuses knocking on doors for Joe Biden.
At the same time, the primary has forced an extended conversation about the 44th president’s legacy. During an early debate, for instance, Biden framed arguments for Warren’s and Sanders’ Medicare for All proposals as an attack on the previous administration. “The senator says she’s for Bernie,” Biden said of Warren. “Well, I’m for Barack.” Biden has relished the role of defender of Obama’s policies, at one point telling a debate moderator that a comparison between Obama’s deportation regime and Trump’s was “close to immoral.”
The policies are only a part of it. One thing Buttigieg is currently lacking is Obama’s coalition of supporters: A nationwide poll Tuesday found him with zero-percent backing among African American voters, and while his message of generational change is quite popular among white senior citizens, it’s had considerably less traction among people of his actual generation. But Obama 2008 was also about a feeling—and that feeling, more than anything, is what Buttigieg is trying hard to remind voters of in the closing week. As he wrapped up his remarks in Osceola (and again, a few hours later, in Indianola), Buttigieg returned rhetorically, if not by name, to the campaign he had opened with, only this time, the skinny young man with a funny name was him:
I’d like to close by pointing out the role of hope at a time like this. And I know hope is an odd word to use given that it fell out of fashion in our politics, because of how weak and divided our climate is in Washington, but I also think it takes a bit of hope to get involved at all. And I also think there’s a reason why, on the news, they took the word “hopeful,” turned it into a noun, and used it as another word for “candidate.” …So I’m urging you to bottle up whatever hope compelled you into this room and made you think it was worth spending part of your Tuesday to be here right now. And if everybody does that, everybody we’re talking to…this coming Monday we are gonna make history one more time in a state that has a history of changing expectations—that did it that night a few days after I was experiencing Osceola New Year’s for the first time, and changed what America thought a nominee could be.
It’s not exactly subtle. But hey, it’s worked before.


motherjones--2020-01-29--The Mother Jones Podcast: Trump Is Going to Get off Scot-Free—or Is He?

There ’ s still more milk to spill on the Senate floor .
President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment defense has rested after less than 24 hours of astonishing misrepresentations of the the facts , and vitriolic broadsides against the process and the Democrats .
So now it ’ s time to tally the votes : Can Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s majority hold to prevent new witnesses from being called ?
He seems worried , telling a private meeting of his lawmakers on Tuesday night he didn ’ t yet have the numbers to stop it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
“ Of course , the big question is : Will there be witnesses ?
” David Corn tells the Mother Jones Podcast .
In these final days and hours of the Trump impeachment saga , bombshells keep exploding .
A leak this week of former National Security Adviser John Bolton ’ s book manuscript heightened pressure on the handful of Republican senators able to green-light new evidence , or allow the trial to come to a speedy conclusion .
“ Here we have John Bolton , who is apparently prepared to testify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to the book he will say , ‘ Hey !
He told me !
I ’ m your first-hand witness .
I heard this directly from the president .
Quid pro quo , pressuring , muscling , extortion , whatever you want to call it .
I heard it ! '
” Listen to Washington DC Bureau Chief David Corn discuss John Bolton , breakaway Republican senators , and the final days of the Trump impeachment saga , on this week ’ s episode of the Mother Jones Podcast : And then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you ’ ll hear Mother Jones ’ DC bureau chief David Corn attempt to answer the burning questions at the center of this week ’ s drama : What does John Bolton know ?
Will any Republican Senators defect from the party line ?
And even , if all this happens , will it matter ?
“ I don ’ t know how many Americans really need to put themselves through the act of watching Kenneth Starr go on and on in his shower of hypocrisy , ” says Corn .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you have John Bolton up there or bring back Gordon Sondland—you know , the stars of the House impeachment inquiry—people would certainly tune in to watch that.
” The Trump presidency has been marked by scandal , corruption , and dirty deals .
These next few days will determine if the most serious Constitutional action possible to remove a president from office will become just another Trump scandal he emerges from relatively unscathed , or if this will be a real moment of reckoning .
“ I think this whole process has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , ” says Corn .
“ Unless you ’ re part of the Trump cult , the fact pattern established by the hearings is pretty clear .
It made the Republicans turn themselves into pretzels to try to defend this .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
There’s still more milk to spill on the Senate floor. President Donald Trump’s impeachment defense has rested after less than 24 hours of astonishing misrepresentations of the the facts, and vitriolic broadsides against the process and the Democrats. So now it’s time to tally the votes: Can Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s majority hold to prevent new witnesses from being called? He seems worried, telling a private meeting of his lawmakers on Tuesday night he didn’t yet have the numbers to stop it. So, where does that leave us?
“Of course, the big question is: Will there be witnesses?” David Corn tells the Mother Jones Podcast.
In these final days and hours of the Trump impeachment saga, bombshells keep exploding. A leak this week of former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s book manuscript heightened pressure on the handful of Republican senators able to green-light new evidence, or allow the trial to come to a speedy conclusion. “Here we have John Bolton, who is apparently prepared to testify,” says Corn. “And according to the book he will say, ‘Hey! He told me! I’m your first-hand witness. I heard this directly from the president. Quid pro quo, pressuring, muscling, extortion, whatever you want to call it. I heard it!'”
Listen to Washington DC Bureau Chief David Corn discuss John Bolton, breakaway Republican senators, and the final days of the Trump impeachment saga, on this week’s episode of the Mother Jones Podcast:
Listen to the latest episode of the Mother Jones Podcast: Subscribe using Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.
And then what? On today’s show, you’ll hear Mother Jones’ DC bureau chief David Corn attempt to answer the burning questions at the center of this week’s drama: What does John Bolton know? Will any Republican Senators defect from the party line? And even, if all this happens, will it matter?
“I don’t know how many Americans really need to put themselves through the act of watching Kenneth Starr go on and on in his shower of hypocrisy,” says Corn. “If you were to call witnesses, if you have John Bolton up there or bring back Gordon Sondland—you know, the stars of the House impeachment inquiry—people would certainly tune in to watch that.”
The Trump presidency has been marked by scandal, corruption, and dirty deals. These next few days will determine if the most serious Constitutional action possible to remove a president from office will become just another Trump scandal he emerges from relatively unscathed, or if this will be a real moment of reckoning.
“I think this whole process has been bad for Trump and bad for them,” says Corn. “Unless you’re part of the Trump cult, the fact pattern established by the hearings is pretty clear. It made the Republicans turn themselves into pretzels to try to defend this.”


motherjones--2020-01-30--Is Bernie Sanders the Next George McGovern—or the Next Donald Trump?

BerniePanic has set in .
As the Iowa caucuses approach , Democratic establishmentarians and we- got ta -beat Trump pundits have begun to fret about the Sanders surge .
They fear the prospect of the Vermont ( small-d ) democratic socialist triumphing in the Hawkeye State , winning in New Hampshire , and then becoming an unstoppable force in the remaining primaries .
On MSNBC ’ s Morning Joe , Steven Rattner—the financier/commentator and Mike Bloomberg money-man who channels the hopes and worries of the Democratic corporate crowd—has been proclaiming that Sanders ’ wide-ranging agenda scares the hell out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be too much for most voters in November .
Thus , he argues , the Democrats are doomed to lose to Donald Trump , should they anoint Sanders as their nominee .
Commentators Jonathan Chait ( of the center-left ) and David Frum ( of the center-right ) have each weighed in with articles that somberly point out Sanders ’ vulnerabilities in a general election race against Trump .
Chait contends Sanders would be “ an extremely , perhaps uniquely , risky nominee .
His vulnerabilities are enormous and untested .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Barry Goldwater in 1964 , has put forth a presidential nominee with the level of downside risk exposure as a Sanders-led ticket would bring .
To nominate Sanders would be insane.
” Frum calls Sanders a “ fragile candidate.
” And he notes , “ He has never fought a race in which he had to face serious personal scrutiny .
None of his Democratic rivals is subjecting him to such scrutiny in 2020…The Trump campaign will not steer clear .
It will hit him with everything it ’ s got.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , correct to be concerned .
While it ’ s a foolhardy exercise to state unequivocally you know what will play or not play with the electorate these days , their points—which might enrage Sanders supporters—are not without foundation .
Sanders is pushing progressive programs that often poll well and that are mainstays of other Western democracies , but the overall price tag and the sweeping nature of his proposals could well alienate voters who aren ’ t in it for a revolution .
( But , as his camp argues , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , voters . )
It is without question that Sanders has never been hit with the kind of massive , negative assault that awaits .
If he is the Democrats ’ flag-bearer , he will be pounded by at least $ 500 million in attack ads blasting him for being a tax-and-spend commie who wants to destroy the free-enterprise system that ’ s been the bedrock of American society for generations .
Certainly , Sanders can retort , Everyone knows I ’ m a democratic socialist .
So what ’ s the big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the dirtiest political crusade of all time .
( Remember , the slurs won ’ t have to be true and accurate ) .
A blistering assault will greet whoever the Democrats pick .
But political observers are right to point out that Sanders has not been tested in this fashion during his long career , and no major party nominee has ever had to defend himself as a self-proclaimed socialist and revolutionary .
How will Sanders fare when this fusillade comes ?
It is a legitimate concern .
No one can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electability may be the most unknowable thing in politics .
Yet one way to look at Sanders ’ chances—and whether Democrats who desire , above all else , a de-Trumpification of the White House ought to fear his nomination—is to ask this question : Is Sanders George McGovern , or is he Donald Trump ?
Each man was an affront to the establishment of his party .
One was trounced ; one sidestepped his way into the White House .
In 1972 , McGovern , the Democratic senator from South Dakota , ran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a prairie populist , a war hero , and quite a decent man .
Four years earlier , the party had torn itself apart in a bitter race .
After President Lyndon Johnson , beleaguered by the opposition to the Vietnam War , was almost beaten by anti-war candidate Sen. Eugene McCarthy in the New Hampshire primary , Sen. Robert Kennedy , a war skeptic , jumped into the race .
Soon Johnson dropped his reelection bid , and Vice President Hubert Humphrey—who had stuck with Johnson on the war—entered the contest .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the main foe to Humphrey , was assassinated the night he won the California primary .
Humphrey , the Democratic establishment ’ s man , went on to bag the nomination at a bloody and contentious convention in Chicago .
With his party battered , Humphrey lost narrowly to Richard Nixon .
The next time around , McGovern , with his unapologetic liberal platform , rallied the anti-establishment energy and resentment within his party .
He cruised past the Democratic poohbahs ’ favorites : Sen. Edmund Muskie of Maine and Sen. Scoop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it another shot and faltered . )
McGovern was perhaps helped by the Nixon dirty tricksters who targeted Muskie and the other Dems .
A failed assassination attempt on Alabama Gov .
George Wallace ended his racist and populist campaign and sidelined this threat to the party .
McGovern , the liberal crusader , ended up with the party ’ s nod .
Nixon and his team were delighted .
( Remember the scene in All the President ’ s Men , when Deep Throat tells Bob Woodward , “ They wanted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re running against.
” ) They pilloried McGovern .
He was championing big ideas , including a guaranteed minimum income for poor Americans and amnesty for those young Americans who had dodged the draft to escape service in Vietnam .
As the New Yorker noted , the sleazy , whatever-it-takes Nixon gang was “ successful in tarring McGovern as a wild-eyed , untrustworthy maniac committed to ‘ amnesty , abortion , and acid . '
” It worked .
An earnest patriot who had gallantly flown combat missions in World War II @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McGovern , the insurgent candidate who had vanquished the establishment ’ s preferred choices , led his party to a historic defeat , carrying only one state ( Massachusetts ) and the District of Columbia .
In the decades since then , no lefty insurgent has beaten a more establishment-friendly contender in a Democratic presidential contest .
( Barack Obama did vanquish Hillary Clinton in 2008 , but he did not truly run as an outsider .
He was the keynote speaker at the party ’ s 2004 convention , after all .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democratic Party , don ’ t pull a McGovern ?
The Republicans had their own poli-sci experiment in 2016 .
Trump ran as a bomb-thrower who wanted to blow apart his party—and just about everything else .
The establishment favorites , former Gov .
Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio , didn ’ t stand a chance .
And Trump fended off a threat from Sen. Ted Cruz , who was running as a quasi-outsider : a pure conservative ideologue fed up with the supposed compromises of his own party .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ran through the Republican base , which seemed to be pissed off at everything : Washington , the GOP , corporations , Obama , Hollywood , the media , immigrants , and the poor .
He was an extremist—a bully , a bigot , a belligerent liar , and scoundrel .
He had come to prominence politically as the number-one advocate of the racist birther conspiracy theory .
His ideology was an incoherent mixture , mostly concocted of conservative brew and Fox News misinformation .
But ideology was not his brand .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it that , was not a reflection of , say , National Review policy articles ; it was a collection of hot buttons .
And the Wall , the Wall , the Wall .
He can ’ t win .
That ’ s what his dozen-plus foes in the Republican primary said .
It ’ s what the GOP establishment and its media allies said .
But his extremism—in style and insult , if not in ideology—galvanized Republican voters who were fed up with the party ’ s same-old/same-old .
They wanted big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They didn ’ t care about the old rules and the conventional niceties .
And Trump vowed to do the smashing .
He also made vague promises about bringing about economic miracles , the way an experienced pitchman ( or con man ) sells his wares .
All that jazzed up GOP voters—who had become radicalized via the tea party movement and the conservative media .
Appealing to the red-meat cravings of Republican voters , Trump smacked down a GOP field that Republicans had boasted was one of the best and most-talented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successfully mounted a hostile take-over of the GOP and snagged the nomination , Trump stuck with his schtick : He would rattle and remake the established order and , by sheer force of his oversized will , spark an economic renaissance and Make America Great Again .
The lines of attack to use against Trump were obvious and many .
Republicans had tremendous reason to clutch their pearls .
Trump was roundly and accurately assailed for his ignorance , inexperience , bluster , misogyny , bigotry , and cheating ways .
But…so what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what was already known—and that did not stop him .
His act was not a crowd-pleaser for most Americans .
But his anger , his phony populism , and his reality-TV brand of celebrity insurgency won him tens of millions of votes .
This included Americans who bought his big , flim-flammy promises and who yearned to see the profound changes he claimed he could bring about .
Drain the swamp !
Build infrastructure !
The best and most beautiful health care ( as long as it wasn ’ t Obamacare ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the popular vote .
But ( with Kremlin assistance ) he attracted enough voters with his radical campaign to thread a needle in the Electoral College .
The guy who many predicted would drive the GOP off a cliff managed to do what John McCain and Mitt Romney could not : He won .
The most wild outsider in modern American politics—the most unelectable candidate—had seized control of a major political party and bullied his way into the White House .
What ’ s the lesson there ?
Unelectable—that was said of both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this was right .
In the other , not so .
Is the question of ideology the main difference between these two cases ?
McGovern was a warm and intelligent man .
He was deemed a long-shot because of his ideas .
Trump is a sociopath .
He was deemed unelectable because of his checkered past and fundamental flaws as a human being .
McGovern was demonized by the GOP attack machine for his policies .
Trump could not be demonized by the Democrats because he was already known as a demon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Sanders : McGovern or Trump ?
If he becomes the Democrat Party ’ s nominee , will he be successfully vilified , through a half-billion-dollar vicious ad campaign , as a left-wing extremist outside of mainstream Americanism ?
Or will his run as a populist maverick inspire voters who are outraged by both Trump and politics as usual , and who crave wide-ranging changes in American society ?
Sanders , of course , has none of Trump ’ s racism or scam artistry , but could he harness the anger of disaffected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Both scenarios are possible .
Should the first transpire—Sanders is crushed by an unrelenting campaign of defamations and smears—it would be far less startling than the second .
After all , no socialist champ has ever won the presidency .
And if that second course comes to pass—Sanders seizes the imaginations of tens of millions of voters , and his call for a political revolution wins the day—it would seem astonishing .
Just as Trump ’ s win was astounding .
So the Sanders question , boiled down , is a contest between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lands might depend on whether or not you believe in surprises .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
BerniePanic has set in. As the Iowa caucuses approach, Democratic establishmentarians and we-gotta-beat Trump pundits have begun to fret about the Sanders surge. They fear the prospect of the Vermont (small-d) democratic socialist triumphing in the Hawkeye State, winning in New Hampshire, and then becoming an unstoppable force in the remaining primaries.
Is Sanders George McGovern, or is he Donald Trump?
On MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Steven Rattner—the financier-commentator and Mike Bloomberg moneyman who channels the hopes and worries of the Democratic corporate crowd—has been proclaiming that Sanders’ wide-ranging agenda scares the hell out of his Wall Street pals and warns it will be too much for most voters in November. Thus, he argues, the Democrats are doomed to lose to Donald Trump, should they anoint Sanders as their nominee. Commentators Jonathan Chait (of the center-left) and David Frum (of the center-right) have each weighed in with articles that somberly point out Sanders’ vulnerabilities in a general election race against Trump. Chait contends Sanders would be “an extremely, perhaps uniquely, risky nominee. His vulnerabilities are enormous and untested. No party nomination, with the possible exception of Barry Goldwater in 1964, has put forth a presidential nominee with the level of downside risk exposure as a Sanders-led ticket would bring. To nominate Sanders would be insane.” Frum calls Sanders a “fragile candidate.” And he notes, “He has never fought a race in which he had to face serious personal scrutiny. None of his Democratic rivals is subjecting him to such scrutiny in 2020…The Trump campaign will not steer clear. It will hit him with everything it’s got.”
They’re all correct. That is, correct to be concerned. While it’s a foolhardy exercise to state unequivocally you know what will play or not play with the electorate these days, their points—which might enrage Sanders supporters—are not without foundation. Sanders is pushing progressive programs that often poll well and that are mainstays of other Western democracies, but the overall price tag and the sweeping nature of his proposals could well alienate voters who aren’t in it for a revolution. (But, as his camp argues, this could attract other, perhaps new, voters.)
It is without question that Sanders has never been hit with the kind of massive, negative assault that awaits. If he is the Democrats’ flag-bearer, he will be pounded by at least $500 million in attack ads blasting him for being a tax-and-spend commie who wants to destroy the free-enterprise system that’s been the bedrock of American society for generations. Certainly, Sanders can retort, Everyone knows I’m a democratic socialist. So what’s the big deal? But this blitzkrieg could well be the dirtiest political crusade of all time. (Remember, the slurs won’t have to be true and accurate.) A blistering assault will greet whoever the Democrats pick. But political observers are right to point out that Sanders has not been tested in this fashion during his long career, and no major party nominee has ever had to defend himself as a self-proclaimed socialist and revolutionary. How will Sanders fare when this fusillade comes? It is a legitimate concern.
No one can pretend to know the unknowable, and electability may be the most unknowable thing in politics. Yet one way to look at Sanders’ chances—and whether Democrats who desire, above all else, a de-Trumpification of the White House ought to fear his nomination—is to ask this question: Is Sanders George McGovern, or is he Donald Trump? Each was an affront to the establishment of his party. One was trounced; one sidestepped his way into the White House.
In 1972, McGovern, the Democratic senator from South Dakota, ran as an outright liberal. He was a prairie populist, a war hero, and quite a decent man. Four years earlier, the party had torn itself apart in a bitter race. After President Lyndon Johnson, beleaguered by the opposition to the Vietnam War, was almost beaten by anti-war candidate Sen. Eugene McCarthy in the New Hampshire primary, Sen. Robert Kennedy, a war skeptic, jumped into the race. Soon Johnson dropped his reelection bid, and Vice President Hubert Humphrey—who had stuck with Johnson on the war—entered the contest. Kennedy, who came to overshadow McCarthy as the main foe to Humphrey, was assassinated the night he won the California primary. Humphrey, the Democratic establishment’s man, went on to bag the nomination at a bloody and contentious convention in Chicago. With his party battered, Humphrey lost narrowly to Richard Nixon.
The next time around, McGovern, with his unapologetic liberal platform, rallied the anti-establishment energy and resentment within his party. He cruised past the Democratic poohbahs’ favorites: Sen. Edmund Muskie of Maine and Sen. Scoop Jackson of Washington. (Humphrey gave it another shot and faltered.) McGovern was perhaps helped by the Nixon dirty tricksters who targeted Muskie and the other Dems. A failed assassination attempt on Alabama Gov. George Wallace ended his racist and populist campaign and sidelined this threat to the party. McGovern, the liberal crusader, ended up with the party’s nod.
Nixon and his team were delighted. (Remember the scene in All the President’s Men, when Deep Throat tells Bob Woodward, “They wanted to run against McGovern. Look who they’re running against.”) They pilloried McGovern. He was championing big ideas, including a guaranteed minimum income for poor Americans and amnesty for those young Americans who had dodged the draft to escape service in Vietnam. As the New Yorker noted, the sleazy, whatever-it-takes Nixon gang was “successful in tarring McGovern as a wild-eyed, untrustworthy maniac committed to ‘amnesty, abortion, and acid.'” It worked. An earnest patriot who had gallantly flown combat missions in World War II was turned into an un-American freak.
McGovern, the insurgent candidate who had vanquished the establishment’s preferred choices, led his party to a historic defeat, carrying only one state (Massachusetts) and the District of Columbia. In the decades since then, no lefty insurgent has beaten a more establishment-friendly contender in a Democratic presidential contest. (Barack Obama did vanquish Hillary Clinton in 2008, but he did not truly run as an outsider. He was the keynote speaker at the party’s 2004 convention, after all.) Was the lesson of 1972 for the Democratic Party, don’t pull a McGovern?
The Republicans had their own poli-sci experiment in 2016. Trump ran as a bomb-thrower who wanted to blow apart his party—and just about everything else. The establishment favorites, former Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio, didn’t stand a chance. And Trump fended off a threat from Sen. Ted Cruz, who was running as a quasi-outsider: a pure conservative ideologue fed up with the supposed compromises of his own party. Trump captured the energy of the widespread resentment that ran through the Republican base, which seemed to be pissed off at everything: Washington, the GOP, corporations, Obama, Hollywood, the media, immigrants, and the poor. He was an extremist—a bully, a bigot, a belligerent liar, and scoundrel. He had come to prominence politically as the number-one advocate of the racist birther conspiracy theory. His ideology was an incoherent mixture, mostly concocted of conservative brew and Fox News misinformation. But ideology was not his brand. His platform, if you could call it that, was not a reflection of, say, National Review policy articles; it was a collection of hot buttons. And the Wall, the Wall, the Wall.
He can’t win. That’s what his dozen-plus foes in the Republican primary said. It’s what the GOP establishment and its media allies said. But his extremism—in style and insult, if not in ideology—galvanized Republican voters who were fed up with the party’s same-old/same-old. They wanted big changes, meaning they wanted things smashed. They didn’t care about the old rules and the conventional niceties. And Trump vowed to do the smashing. He also made vague promises about bringing about economic miracles, the way an experienced pitchman (or con man) sells his wares. All that jazzed up GOP voters—who had become radicalized via the tea party movement and the conservative media. Appealing to the red-meat cravings of Republican voters, Trump smacked down a GOP field that Republicans had boasted was one of the best and most-talented crops of potential POTUSes ever.
Having successfully mounted a hostile take-over of the GOP and snagged the nomination, Trump stuck with his schtick: He would rattle and remake the established order and, by sheer force of his oversized will, spark an economic renaissance and Make America Great Again. The lines of attack to use against Trump were obvious and many. Republicans had tremendous reason to clutch their pearls. Trump was roundly and accurately assailed for his ignorance, inexperience, bluster, misogyny, bigotry, and cheating ways. But…so what? The grab-’em-by-the-pussy tape confirmed what was already known—and that did not stop him. His act was not a crowd-pleaser for most Americans. But his anger, his phony populism, and his reality-TV brand of celebrity insurgency won him tens of millions of votes. This included Americans who bought his big, flim-flammy promises and who yearned to see the profound changes he claimed he could bring about. Drain the swamp! Build infrastructure! The best and most beautiful health care (as long as it wasn’t Obamacare). Winning and more winning.
Trump lost the popular vote. But (with Kremlin assistance) he attracted enough voters with his radical campaign to thread a needle in the Electoral College. The guy who many predicted would drive the GOP off a cliff managed to do what John McCain and Mitt Romney could not: He won. The most wild outsider in modern American politics—the most unelectable candidate—had seized control of a major political party and bullied his way into the White House. What’s the lesson there?
Unelectable—that was said of both Trump and McGovern. In one instance, this was right. In the other, not so. Is the question of ideology the main difference between these two cases? McGovern was a warm and intelligent man. He was deemed a long-shot because of his ideas. Trump is a sociopath. He was deemed unelectable because of his checkered past and fundamental flaws as a human being. McGovern was demonized by the GOP attack machine for his policies. Trump could not be demonized by the Democrats because he was already known as a demon.
So what’s the model for Sanders: McGovern or Trump? If he becomes the Democrat Party’s nominee, will he be successfully vilified, through a half-billion-dollar vicious ad campaign, as a left-wing extremist outside of mainstream Americanism? Or will his run as a populist maverick inspire voters who are outraged by both Trump and politics as usual, and who crave wide-ranging changes in American society? Sanders, of course, has none of Trump’s racism or scam artistry, but could he harness the anger of disaffected voters in a more positive manner?
Both scenarios are possible. Should the first transpire—Sanders is crushed by an unrelenting campaign of defamations and smears—it would be far less startling than the second. After all, no socialist champ has ever won the presidency. And if that second course comes to pass—Sanders seizes the imaginations of tens of millions of voters, and his call for a political revolution wins the day—it would seem astonishing. Just as Trump’s win was astounding. So the Sanders question, boiled down, is a contest between conventionalism and imagination. And where one lands might depend on whether or not you believe in surprises.


motherjones--2020-01-30--Pam Bondi’s Concerns About Corruption in Ukraine Are Very Hypocritical

Pam Bondi , a former Florida attorney general and lobbyist who is part of President Trump ’ s impeachment defense team , on Thursday repeatedly used the word “ corrupt ” to describe Hunter Biden ’ s work in Ukraine and to justify Trump ’ s pressure campaign on the country .
Bondi is an incredibly bad messenger for this argument .
In the summer of 2013 , while running for reelection as attorney general , Bondi ’ s campaign solicited a donation from Trump .
The Donald J. Trump Foundation then gave $ 25,000 to Bondi .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was considering joining a multi-state lawsuit accusing Trump of fraud over Trump University ’ s marketing of its seminars on real estate and management .
A month later , Bondi announced that Florida would not join the suit .
A Florida state prosecutor later said there was no evidence that the donation was an illegal effort to influence Bondi ’ s action on the case .
But the case has dogged her , in part thanks to Trump : As a presidential candidate , he bragged that his big campaign donations made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ] want them to do.
” Bondi also appears to be linked to Lev Parnas , an associate of Trump ’ s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and a key figure in the Ukraine scandal .
In an April 2018 meeting with Trump , which Parnas and Fruman reportedly secured by pledging to contribute $ 1 million to a super PAC backing Trump , Parnas , a Florida resident , mentioned to the president that he had recently had lunch with Bondi , then still serving as Florida ’ s top law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the meeting was about .
Several pictures , some released by Parnas ’ lawyer , show Parnas and Bondi together .
Bondi has dismissed these images , saying Parnas “ liked to take pictures with a lot of people ” and “ showed up at events pretty much everywhere where Republicans were.
” This overlooks the fact that Parnas , who was indicted by federal prosecutors in New York in October for for campaign finance violations that include using foreign funds to try to influence US lawmakers , gained access to senior Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After leaving office in 2019 , Bondi joined Ballard Partners , a lobbying firm that touts its ties to Trump .
Brian Ballard , the firm ’ s founder and a former lobbyist for Trump in Florida , launched the firm in 2017 , capitalizing on Trump ’ s election .
Starting last January , Bondi helped Ballard lobby the White House for clients including the Qatari government .
She also lobbied for KGL Investment Co. , a Kuwaiti company whose CEO Marsha Lazareva , a Russian citizen , was arrested by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Lazareva ’ s representatives include Victoria Toensing , a right-wing pundit involved in Giuliani and Parnas ’ machinations in Ukraine .
To recap , Bondi traded her elected job , where she was accused of soliciting a campaign donations from Trump shortly before deciding against taking legal action against him , for a Washington gig lobbying the Trump administration for clients including an allegedly corrupt foreign executive .
Now , with another turn of the revolving door , she is working for the White House , defending Trump against charges he pressured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign .
That all may be legal , but it makes it little much for her to decry corruption elsewhere .

Pam Bondi, a former Florida attorney general and lobbyist who is part of President Trump’s impeachment defense team, on Thursday repeatedly used the word “corrupt” to describe Hunter Biden’s work in Ukraine and to justify Trump’s pressure campaign on the country. Bondi is an incredibly bad messenger for this argument.
In the summer of 2013, while running for reelection as attorney general, Bondi’s campaign solicited a donation from Trump. The Donald J. Trump Foundation then gave $25,000 to Bondi. At the time, Bondi’s office said it was considering joining a multi-state lawsuit accusing Trump of fraud over Trump University’s marketing of its seminars on real estate and management. A month later, Bondi announced that Florida would not join the suit. A Florida state prosecutor later said there was no evidence that the donation was an illegal effort to influence Bondi’s action on the case. But the case has dogged her, in part thanks to Trump: As a presidential candidate, he bragged that his big campaign donations made lawmakers “do whatever the hell [I] want them to do.”
Bondi also appears to be linked to Lev Parnas, an associate of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and a key figure in the Ukraine scandal. In an April 2018 meeting with Trump, which Parnas and Fruman reportedly secured by pledging to contribute $1 million to a super PAC backing Trump, Parnas, a Florida resident, mentioned to the president that he had recently had lunch with Bondi, then still serving as Florida’s top law enforcement officer. He did not say what the meeting was about. Several pictures, some released by Parnas’ lawyer, show Parnas and Bondi together.
Bondi has dismissed these images, saying Parnas “liked to take pictures with a lot of people” and “showed up at events pretty much everywhere where Republicans were.” This overlooks the fact that Parnas, who was indicted by federal prosecutors in New York in October for campaign finance violations that include using foreign funds to try to influence US lawmakers, gained access to senior Republican lawmakers by lavishing them with campaign donations.
After leaving office in 2019, Bondi joined Ballard Partners, a lobbying firm that touts its ties to Trump. Brian Ballard, the firm’s founder and a former lobbyist for Trump in Florida, launched the firm in 2017, capitalizing on Trump’s election. Starting last January, Bondi helped Ballard lobby the White House for clients including the Qatari government. She also lobbied for KGL Investment Co., a Kuwaiti company whose CEO Marsha Lazareva, a Russian citizen, was arrested by Kuwaiti officials for allegedly embezzling public funds. Lazareva’s representatives include Victoria Toensing, a right-wing pundit involved in Giuliani and Parnas’ machinations in Ukraine.
To recap, Bondi traded her elected job, where she was accused of soliciting a campaign donations from Trump shortly before deciding against taking legal action against him, for a Washington gig lobbying the Trump administration for clients including an allegedly corrupt foreign executive. Now, with another turn of the revolving door, she is working for the White House, defending Trump against charges he pressured a foreign leader to help his 2020 campaign. That all may be legal, but it makes it little much for her to decry corruption elsewhere.


motherjones--2020-01-30--Trump Gets Sued by Six States Over Restrictive Abortion Policy

The attorneys general of California , Maryland , Vermont , Maine , Oregon , New York , and Washington , DC , sued the Trump administration Thursday over a policy that would make it harder for insurers to offer coverage for abortion .
If the policy were to go forward , it could put abortion access—or even health insurance—at risk for the roughly 3 million Americans who are insured through the Affordable Care Act marketplace .
“ Every day , the Trump Administration and anti-choice activists look for new ways to undermine Roe v. Wade and impose burdensome restrictions on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said New York Attorney General Letitia James in a statement .
“ This new rule is just another attempt to control women ’ s bodies and make it harder for those struggling financially to exert their constitutional right to an abortion.
” As Mother Jones reported when the policy was announced in December , it could decimate access to affordable abortions : It requires insurance providers on the Affordable Care Act marketplace to give two separate bills to consumers whose plans cover abortions : one for their regular premium and one for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is expected to affect millions of Americans currently receive coverage under the Affordable Care Act exchange and whose plans cover abortions .
“ The primary goal of this new rule is very clear , ” says Megan Donovan of the Guttmacher Institute , a research organization focused on reproductive health care , “ and that is to make it as difficult as possible for insurers to offer abortion coverage and for consumers to get it.
” Although insurance providers are still allowed to provide abortion coverage under this new rule , experts worry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will dissuade many providers from covering abortion at all .
Insurers will now have to account for the extra printing , mailing , and staffing costs of complying with the rule , in addition to updating their accounting systems .
The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that roughly 3.1 million individuals may now be required to pay separate bills .
Meaning millions could be at risk of losing abortion coverage .
Some consumers , who may not even be aware that their plan includes abortion coverage , could also be at risk of losing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cover abortion will be required to pay two separate bills .
If a person fails to pay the second bill for abortion coverage , insurers have discretion to cancel their plans , for failing to pay a bill that may amount to just a dollar .
Read the full story about the policy here .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The attorneys general of California, Maryland, Vermont, Maine, Oregon, New York, and Washington, DC, sued the Trump administration Thursday over a policy that would make it harder for insurers to offer coverage for abortion. If the policy were to go forward, it could put abortion access—or even health insurance—at risk for the roughly 3 million Americans who are insured through the Affordable Care Act marketplace.
“Every day, the Trump Administration and anti-choice activists look for new ways to undermine Roe v. Wade and impose burdensome restrictions on women’s reproductive freedoms,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James in a statement. “This new rule is just another attempt to control women’s bodies and make it harder for those struggling financially to exert their constitutional right to an abortion.”
As Mother Jones reported when the policy was announced in December, it could decimate access to affordable abortions:
It requires insurance providers on the Affordable Care Act marketplace to give two separate bills to consumers whose plans cover abortions: one for their regular premium and one for a special abortion coverage premium. The change is expected to affect millions of Americans currently receive coverage under the Affordable Care Act exchange and whose plans cover abortions. “The primary goal of this new rule is very clear,” says Megan Donovan of the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization focused on reproductive health care, “and that is to make it as difficult as possible for insurers to offer abortion coverage and for consumers to get it.” Although insurance providers are still allowed to provide abortion coverage under this new rule, experts worry that the extra financial and administrative burden will dissuade many providers from covering abortion at all. Insurers will now have to account for the extra printing, mailing, and staffing costs of complying with the rule, in addition to updating their accounting systems. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that roughly 3.1 million individuals may now be required to pay separate bills. Meaning millions could be at risk of losing abortion coverage. Some consumers, who may not even be aware that their plan includes abortion coverage, could also be at risk of losing their insurance entirely. Policyholders whose plans cover abortion will be required to pay two separate bills. If a person fails to pay the second bill for abortion coverage, insurers have discretion to cancel their plans, for failing to pay a bill that may amount to just a dollar.
Read the full story about the policy here.


motherjones--2020-01-30--The Cheering Crowds in Trump’s Big Super Bowl Ad Were Forced to Be There

Ahead of Super Bowl LIV , with an anticipated 100 million viewers , President Donald Trump debuted his new TV ad on Thursday that features footage from a speech at a Pennsylvania petrochemical plant where workers were forced to attend—or risk not getting paid .
The 30-second ad , which is one of two that are set to air during the Super Bowl on Sunday , proclaims that Trump has made the country “ stronger , safer , and more prosperous than ever before , ” while clips of the president at various campaign rallies and speeches are spliced together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in , however , the ad features footage from what appears to be a rally in a big warehouse .
Trump is shown speaking at a podium against the backdrop of dozens of people standing on risers behind him wearing bright yellow safety vests , with a massive American flag draped behind them .
That footage appears to come from a speech that took place on August 13 at a petrochemical plant operated by Royal Dutch Shell in Beaver County , Pennsylvania , where workers were told that if they did not show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette .
From different footage of that speech , here ’ s a screenshot from a wider angle from what is featured in the Super Bowl ad : Based on the sea of workers in yellow safety vests , the placement of the massive American flag , and the warehouse setting , it is clear that the setting is the same , an unusual choice to serve as an example of Trump support .
Here ’ s the backstory .
In the days before the speech , thousands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given an option about showing up for work that day .
From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette : The choice for thousands of union workers at Royal Dutch Shell ’ s petrochemical plant in Beaver County was clear Tuesday : Either stand in a giant hall waiting for President Donald Trump to speak or take the day off with no pay .
“ Your attendance is not mandatory , ” said the rules that one contractor relayed to employees , summarizing points from a memo that Shell sent to union leaders a day ahead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ construction site .
But only those who showed up at 7 a.m. , scanned their ID cards , and prepared to stand for hours — through lunch but without lunch — would be paid .
“ NO SCAN , NO PAY , ” a supervisor for that contractor wrote .
A spokesperson for the union representing most of the workers , Steamfitters local 449 , said that they were consulted about the speech and the attendance policy and “ went along with it.
” Not all union leaders said they were consulted about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette anonymously that missing out on “ one day of work might amount to about $ 700 in pay , benefits and a per diem payment that out-of-town workers receive.
” During the speech , Trump praised the extraction of natural gas in Appalachia , criticized the media , bashed Democratic presidential challengers , and threatened union leadership , saying that if they didn ’ t support him , Shell workers should “ vote them the hell out of office.
” The TV ad released on Thursday is one of two ads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million on .
Also appearing that night will be a 60 second ad that Mike Bloomberg ’ s campaign has planned .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Ahead of Super Bowl LIV, with an anticipated 100 million viewers, President Donald Trump debuted his new TV ad on Thursday that features footage from a speech at a Pennsylvania petrochemical plant where workers were forced to attend—or risk not getting paid.
The 30-second ad, which is one of two that are set to air during the Super Bowl on Sunday, proclaims that Trump has made the country “stronger, safer, and more prosperous than ever before,” while clips of the president at various campaign rallies and speeches are spliced together like a highlight reel. Fifteen seconds in, however, the ad features footage from what appears to be a rally in a big warehouse. Trump is shown speaking at a podium against the backdrop of dozens of people standing on risers behind him wearing bright yellow safety vests, with a massive American flag draped behind them.
That footage appears to come from a speech that took place on August 13 at a petrochemical plant operated by Royal Dutch Shell in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, where workers were told that if they did not show up, they would not get paid, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
From different footage of that speech, here’s a screenshot from a wider angle from what is featured in the Super Bowl ad:
Based on the sea of workers in yellow safety vests, the placement of the massive American flag, and the warehouse setting, it is clear that the setting is the same, an unusual choice to serve as an example of Trump support.
Here’s the backstory. In the days before the speech, thousands of union workers at the plant were given an option about showing up for work that day. From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
The choice for thousands of union workers at Royal Dutch Shell’s petrochemical plant in Beaver County was clear Tuesday: Either stand in a giant hall waiting for President Donald Trump to speak or take the day off with no pay. “Your attendance is not mandatory,” said the rules that one contractor relayed to employees, summarizing points from a memo that Shell sent to union leaders a day ahead of the visit to the $6 billion construction site. But only those who showed up at 7 a.m., scanned their ID cards, and prepared to stand for hours — through lunch but without lunch — would be paid. “NO SCAN, NO PAY,” a supervisor for that contractor wrote.
A spokesperson for the union representing most of the workers, Steamfitters local 449, said that they were consulted about the speech and the attendance policy and “went along with it.” Not all union leaders said they were consulted about it, though. One told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette anonymously that missing out on “one day of work might amount to about $700 in pay, benefits and a per diem payment that out-of-town workers receive.”
During the speech, Trump praised the extraction of natural gas in Appalachia, criticized the media, bashed Democratic presidential challengers, and threatened union leadership, saying that if they didn’t support him, Shell workers should “vote them the hell out of office.”
The TV ad released on Thursday is one of two ads the Trump campaign reportedly spent $11 million on. Also appearing that night will be a 60 second ad that Mike Bloomberg’s campaign has planned.


motherjones--2020-01-30--Overdose Rates Fell in 2018—but Still Remain Unfathomably High

Overdose rates fell in 2018 for the first time in 28 years , according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
But the death toll still remains unfathomably high : In 2018 , some 67,000 Americans died of overdoses , compared to 70,000 the year before .
That makes 2018 the second-deadliest year for drug overdoses in US history , claiming more lives than gun violence or car crashes .
Overdose rates in 2018 decreased significantly in 14 states , including some that have historically been the worst hit by the opioid crisis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pennsylvania .
Life expectancy , which had declined for the past three years in part due to soaring overdose rates , increased slightly in 2018 , to an average of 78.7 years .
But drug deaths involving synthetic opioids like fentanyl continued to rise in 2018 , as did those involving cocaine and psychostimulants like methamphetamine .
The Trump administration was quick to claim credit for the good news : “ This has not happened through coincidence—it ’ s happened through causation , ” said White House advisor Kellyanne Conway in a press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy , used the occasion to promote the wall at the Southern border , which “ is one of the many tools that we are using to counter drug traffickers , ” he said .
Yet experts point to different factors , including the decline in opioid prescription rates since 2012 .
Though Trump promised to “ spend the money ” necessary to address the opioid crisis , the administration ’ s efforts have largely fallen short .
Trump ’ s ongoing attempts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatment coverage for millions of Americans .
On the same day that Conway touted Trump ’ s overdose prevention efforts , the White House rolled out plans to to significantly cut Medicaid funding , which provides insurance coverage for one in five low-income Americans .
“ This improvement came about in spite of the Trump Administration , ” said Stanford drug policy expert Keith Humphreys , noting that Congress has “ successfully resisted many of the cuts to Medicaid and to health exchanges that Trump has tried to implement , which would have @ @ @ @ @

Overdose rates fell in 2018 for the first time in 28 years, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But the death toll still remains unfathomably high: In 2018, some 67,000 Americans died of overdoses, compared to 70,000 the year before. That makes 2018 the second-deadliest year for drug overdoses in US history, claiming more lives than gun violence or car crashes.
Overdose rates in 2018 decreased significantly in 14 states, including some that have historically been the worst hit by the opioid crisis, like West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Life expectancy, which had declined for the past three years in part due to soaring overdose rates, increased slightly in 2018, to an average of 78.7 years. But drug deaths involving synthetic opioids like fentanyl continued to rise in 2018, as did those involving cocaine and psychostimulants like methamphetamine.
The Trump administration was quick to claim credit for the good news: “This has not happened through coincidence—it’s happened through causation,” said White House advisor Kellyanne Conway in a press briefing on Thursday. James Carroll, the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, used the occasion to promote the wall at the Southern border, which “is one of the many tools that we are using to counter drug traffickers,” he said.
Yet experts point to different factors, including the decline in opioid prescription rates since 2012. Though Trump promised to “spend the money” necessary to address the opioid crisis, the administration’s efforts have largely fallen short. Trump’s ongoing attempts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act threaten addiction treatment coverage for millions of Americans. On the same day that Conway touted Trump’s overdose prevention efforts, the White House rolled out plans to to significantly cut Medicaid funding, which provides insurance coverage for one in five low-income Americans.
“This improvement came about in spite of the Trump Administration,” said Stanford drug policy expert Keith Humphreys, noting that Congress has “successfully resisted many of the cuts to Medicaid and to health exchanges that Trump has tried to implement, which would have worsened the epidemic.”


motherjones--2020-01-30--Tom Steyer Takes Credit for Impeachment

Tom Steyer Takes Credit for Impeachment

With less than a week to go before the Iowa caucuses , four Democratic presidential contenders are stuck in the Senate chamber in Washington , DC , for Donald Trump ’ s trial .
But there ’ s one candidate who ’ s free to traverse the Hawkeye State and brag about his role in impeachment .
At a pair of events in southern Iowa Wednesday , Tom Steyer—the billionaire activist-turned-candidate—boasted that Need to Impeach , the group he founded shortly after Trump was elected , had helped spark the events now taking place in the Senate .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington , DC , into doing the right thing and holding the most corrupt president in American history [ to ] account , ” he said at a coffee shop in Ottumwa , referencing the number of people who signed his petition to impeach Trump .
The Senate ’ s impeachment trial has caused headaches for Sens .
Bernie Sanders , Elizabeth Warren , Amy Klobuchar , and Michael Bennet , requiring them to sit at their Senate desks six day a week , often late into the night—Wednesday ’ s session went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve been forced , instead , to flood Iowa with surrogates .
Warren , for example , hosted a “ tele-town hall ” for Iowans Tuesday night and has been sending her dog to take her place at campaign events .
Steyer doesn ’ t face those same restrictions , and his campaign events are geared far more toward directly opposing Trump than those of the other Democrats , who have often been more focused on selling their own plans .
His campaign plasters bright yellow “ Beat Trump ” yard signs behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and a pair of anti-Trump buttons—one reads “ Impeached , ” the other “ Trump is a fraud & a failure ” —looked just as popular at the front door as the “ Tom2020 ” buttons .
Steyer , who—unlike in his wooden debate performances—is surprisingly engaging and lively at town halls , appears to take particular glee when he compares his own business record to the president ’ s .
“ I want to be on stage with Mr. Trump , because he ’ s a fake , ” he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a reality TV show , he ’ s not actually a businessman .
Sort of like Thurston Howell the Third.
” Steyer has been a prominent funder of liberal causes over the past decade , launching NextGen Climate in 2013 and bankrolling activists across the country who are working to elect candidates who have promised to combat global warming .
But he didn ’ t become a public figure for a general audience until 2017 , when he launched Need to Impeach .
Long before anyone had heard of the Ukraine scandal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s removal from office .
He ran pro-impeachment commercials in which he directly addressed the camera—those videos now live online on the same YouTube account as his official presidential campaign .
Now , he ’ s claiming credit , or at least partial credit , for the fact the Democrats in the US House voted to impeach Trump .
“ Over two years ago , I thought , ‘ There ’ s something terribly wrong at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
’ And I started a petition drive ; over eight-and-a-half million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guy has to leave office , ” Steyer told a few dozen people at an Italian restaurant in Knoxville .
“ And they didn ’ t just sign a petition .
They called their congresspeople .
They wrote their congresspeople .
They emailed their congresspeople .
And I believe that ’ s why , in fact , Mr. Trump was impeached .
I think those eight-and-a-half million dragged Congress into looking at his behavior as right and wrong.
” Steyer may indeed have played a role in helping channel liberal angst following the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widespread sentiment that Trump was unfit to stay in office .
But as Vox ’ s Emily Stewart reported in November , by the time Congress actually took an interest in pursuing impeachment last fall , Need to Impeach had mostly withered away , with staff diverted to Steyer ’ s presidential aspirations—though the group did spend money on TV ads in December and , earlier this week , sent “ Trump Cover-Up Participation Award ” trophies to Senate Republicans .
Since he made his presidential campaign official last July , Steyer has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than $ 47 million to blanket the airwaves with TV and radio ads in early primary states .
He also took advantage of the email list he ’ d built up with Need to Impeach , as my colleague Russ Choma reported .
The first thing I saw when I pulled my rental car out of the Des Moines airport Tuesday night was a digital billboard with a Steyer ad .
Those expenditures have paid some dividends .
Steyer spent Wednesday boasting about a Morning Consult poll that showed him at 17 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary and caucus states , behind only Biden and Sanders .
That poll is likely an outlier—he ’ s averaging just 3.2 percent in Iowa , though he ’ s doing better in South Carolina , where he averages 8.3 percent .
Still , he ’ s outlasted a string of big-name Dems , such as Cory Booker and Julián Castro .
So even if Steyer ’ s money couldn ’ t quite buy an impeachment , it has certainly helped him maintain a spot on the debate stage .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
With less than a week to go before the Iowa caucuses, four Democratic presidential contenders are stuck in the Senate chamber in Washington, DC, for Donald Trump’s trial. But there’s one candidate who’s free to traverse the Hawkeye State and brag about his role in impeachment.
“Those eight-and-a-half million people pulled Washington, DC, into doing the right thing.”
At a pair of events in southern Iowa Wednesday, Tom Steyer—the billionaire activist-turned-candidate—boasted that Need to Impeach, the group he founded shortly after Trump was elected, had helped spark the events now taking place in the Senate. “I truly believe those eight-and-a-half million people pulled Washington, DC, into doing the right thing and holding the most corrupt president in American history [to] account,” he said at a coffee shop in Ottumwa, referencing the number of people who signed his petition to impeach Trump.
The Senate’s impeachment trial has caused headaches for Sens. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Michael Bennet, requiring them to sit at their Senate desks six day a week, often late into the night—Wednesday’s session went past 11 pm ET. They’ve been forced, instead, to flood Iowa with surrogates. Warren, for example, hosted a “tele-town hall” for Iowans Tuesday night and has been sending her dog to take her place at campaign events.
Steyer doesn’t face those same restrictions, and his campaign events are geared far more toward directly opposing Trump than those of the other Democrats, who have often been more focused on selling their own plans. His campaign plasters bright yellow “Beat Trump” yard signs behind the spot where he speaks at events, and a pair of anti-Trump buttons—one reads “Impeached,” the other “Trump is a fraud & a failure”—looked just as popular at the front door as the “Tom2020” buttons.
Steyer, who—unlike in his wooden debate performances—is surprisingly engaging and lively at town halls, appears to take particular glee when he compares his own business record to the president’s. “I want to be on stage with Mr. Trump, because he’s a fake,” he said. “He played a businessman on a reality TV show, he’s not actually a businessman. Sort of like Thurston Howell the Third.”
Steyer has been a prominent funder of liberal causes over the past decade, launching NextGen Climate in 2013 and bankrolling activists across the country who are working to elect candidates who have promised to combat global warming. But he didn’t become a public figure for a general audience until 2017, when he launched Need to Impeach. Long before anyone had heard of the Ukraine scandal, he toured the country, advocating for the president’s removal from office. He ran pro-impeachment commercials in which he directly addressed the camera—those videos now live online on the same YouTube account as his official presidential campaign.
Now, he’s claiming credit, or at least partial credit, for the fact the Democrats in the US House voted to impeach Trump. “Over two years ago, I thought, ‘There’s something terribly wrong at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.’ And I started a petition drive; over eight-and-a-half million Americans signed that petition to say this guy has to leave office,” Steyer told a few dozen people at an Italian restaurant in Knoxville. “And they didn’t just sign a petition. They called their congresspeople. They wrote their congresspeople. They emailed their congresspeople. And I believe that’s why, in fact, Mr. Trump was impeached. I think those eight-and-a-half million dragged Congress into looking at his behavior as right and wrong.”
Steyer may indeed have played a role in helping channel liberal angst following the 2016 election—he put real money behind the widespread sentiment that Trump was unfit to stay in office. But as Vox’s Emily Stewart reported in November, by the time Congress actually took an interest in pursuing impeachment last fall, Need to Impeach had mostly withered away, with staff diverted to Steyer’s presidential aspirations—though the group did spend money on TV ads in December and, earlier this week, sent “Trump Cover-Up Participation Award” trophies to Senate Republicans.
Since he made his presidential campaign official last July, Steyer has tapped into his fortune, spending more than $47 million to blanket the airwaves with TV and radio ads in early primary states. He also took advantage of the email list he’d built up with Need to Impeach, as my colleague Russ Choma reported. The first thing I saw when I pulled my rental car out of the Des Moines airport Tuesday night was a digital billboard with a Steyer ad.
Those expenditures have paid some dividends. Steyer spent Wednesday boasting about a Morning Consult poll that showed him at 17 percent among Democratic voters in the first four primary and caucus states, behind only Biden and Sanders. That poll is likely an outlier—he’s averaging just 3.2 percent in Iowa, though he’s doing better in South Carolina, where he averages 8.3 percent. Still, he’s outlasted a string of big-name Dems, such as Cory Booker and Julián Castro. So even if Steyer’s money couldn’t quite buy an impeachment, it has certainly helped him maintain a spot on the debate stage.


motherjones--2020-01-30--Wilbur Ross: Coronavirus Could Bring Back Jobs to the US

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross on Thursday said that he believes the coronavirus is likely to “ accelerate ” the return of jobs to the United States and Mexico , as companies assess what he described as the potential “ risk factor ” for doing business in China .
“ I don ’ t want to talk about a victory lap over a very unfortunate , very malignant disease , but the fact is it does give businesses yet another thing to consider when they go through their review of their supply chain , ” Ross said during an appearance on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the other things , you have SARS , you have the African swine virus there , now you have this .
It ’ s another risk factor that people need to take into account.
” He added : “ So , I think it will help accelerate the return of jobs to North America—some to the US , probably some to Mexico as well.
” The remarks , which prompted immediate shock and outrage on social media , came as China announced that the death toll from the virus has risen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporting that every province and region in the country has been affected .
The deadly outbreak has sparked a wave of misinformation online , as well as a renewal of racist stereotypes of Chinese people and food .
Meanwhile , the Trump administration appears woefully underprepared to tackle the virus .

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross on Thursday said that he believes the coronavirus is likely to “accelerate” the return of jobs to the United States and Mexico, as companies assess what he described as the potential “risk factor” for doing business in China.
“I don’t want to talk about a victory lap over a very unfortunate, very malignant disease, but the fact is it does give businesses yet another thing to consider when they go through their review of their supply chain,” Ross said during an appearance on Fox Business. “On top of all the other things, you have SARS, you have the African swine virus there, now you have this. It’s another risk factor that people need to take into account.”
He added: “So, I think it will help accelerate the return of jobs to North America—some to the US, probably some to Mexico as well.”
The remarks, which prompted immediate shock and outrage on social media, came as China announced that the death toll from the virus has risen to 170, with the New York Times reporting that every province and region in the country has been affected. The deadly outbreak has sparked a wave of misinformation online, as well as a renewal of racist stereotypes of Chinese people and food.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration appears woefully underprepared to tackle the virus.