vox--2020-02-07--Who wants a teddy bear for Valentine’s Day?

I was initially brought to the topic of Valentine ’ s Day teddy bears from a place of cynicism .
As a mean and elderly witch , I could not imagine how an adult in a romantic relationship would find themselves in want of a stuffed animal , one that communicates , “ I have touched — and would like to continue touching — genitals with you.
” As Valentine ’ s Day approached , and at no one ’ s provocation , I stood up in the office and did a tight five about how offensive I found this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way that these were actually a desirable gift , how they were nothing more than last-minute drugstore purchases for the terminally thoughtless to give to the long-suffering .
Then I assigned myself this story about how everyone hates them and they ’ re bad .
Not for the first time , it turns out I ’ m an asshole .
I learned that I was an asshole from the best place to do so : the internet , specifically the subreddits r/AmItheAsshole ( boom ) and r/relationships , and their companion guide , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stones of human feeling assuming I would find people slagging love-themed bears , wondering if they were too mean about their lousy gifts , and warning off partners or prospective partners from the very idea .
But it turns out that many , many people do want to be given teddy bears as a token of affection .
These gifts are accessible , intentional , and comforting .
Search “ teddy bear gift ” on advice-focused subreddits , and you ’ ll find the common refrain : “ all I wanted was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it seems , is an absence of gifting in relationships .
Stuffed animals could very well be the solution .
“ I ’ ve told him that I don ’ t care about what he gets me , ” wrote one 17-year-old r/relationships poster last year , distressed by her boyfriend ’ s ungenerous nature .
“ It could be something simple like a teddy bear.
” Elsewhere on the subreddit , a 23-year-old woman detailed her campaign to receive an oversized buddy from her significant other : “ I tell him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he ’ s sure he doesn ’ t want anything .
He reassures me and says he will buy one for me .
Well Valentine ’ s day comes and ... no teddy .
Um .
Ok ?
” It ’ s not like he ’ s unable to afford it , she explains : “ The bears we saw at Walmart were like $ 15 and I know he has money because he spent some on weed.
” There were narratives that sort of fit my preconceived notions — a 19-year-old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s stuffed animal “ obviously [ from ] the clearance rack , ” the young woman who wanted to know if she was an asshole for failing to be grateful for her boyfriend ’ s gift when “ he knows I don ’ t care for teddy bears and would ’ ve rather have any other stuffed animal ” — but not the sort of strident anti-bear rhetoric I was expecting .
For a certain vocal sector of people , stuffed animals are desirable and even romantic .
Those people , if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and stated genders above , appear to be young women in the formative stages of late-teenagerdom and early adulthood .
In early January , @ chae2xx politely tweeted , “ i want a giant teddy bear this valentine ’ s day .
or a giraffe .
pls and thank u.
” Via DM , the 20-year-old Alabama State student , who asked to be referred to by her Twitter handle , told me she wants a stuffed animal for “ comfort , ” something to sleep with when her significant other is away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopes he ’ ll spray it with his cologne .
According to psychologists , comfort objects — similar to the way @ chae2xx describes her bear — are a common coping mechanism for children , something they cling to as they begin to move around the world in more meaningful ways .
Dr. Donald Winnicott coined the phrase “ transitional objects ” to refer to the blankets and “ loveys ” that children attach themselves to and derive solace from .
This need doesn ’ t end when kids leave the house , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Michigan psychology professor Christopher Peterson wrote about conducting an informal study in his own classroom , finding that , “ About 80 % of the females had brought a stuffed animal to college , whereas fewer than 10 % of the males had done so — or at last admitted to it.
” Peterson supposes that , “ Maybe carrying around a stuffed animal is not a sign of immaturity but something else related to contentment and comfort.
” Having something to hold and cuddle — particularly in the absence of sharing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as many younger couples do not yet live together — is incredibly soothing .
Of course , there ’ s a difference between the blanket that was in your crib from birth and a pink bear purchased from CVS ( or even a high-end one from , say , Gund ) .
These objects may be comforting , but they ’ re also clear : They ’ re an explicit symbol that someone loves you , or at least really likes you .
One Twitter user posted side-by-side images of herself holding a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what appears to be a pharmacy , writing , “ Only someone who really thinks your [ sic ] special would buy you a giant pink teddy bear for valentines lol ( heart growing three sizes emoji ) .
” Via DM , @ mangobbyy , who like teddy bear lover @ chae2xx asked to be referred to by her handle , confirms that this obvious sign of love is part of the appeal .
The 19-year-old from Delaware , who tweeted in January 2020 , “ i want a big teddy bear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up my house , ” says that when she sees posts from friends about their love-themed bears , she thinks “ about how much they are appreciated by the person who gifted them.
” The common refrain is that millennials and Gen Z prefer experiences over gifts , but there ’ s a serious appeal to having stuff you can keep .
Candy is only temporary and jewelry might be out of reach , so for young people looking to show off their love — on their bookshelf or on the ’ gram @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that someone cares about them .
Price is likely also a factor — as the Walmart bear-wanter reminds us , the bear she asked for was only $ 15 .
At my local CVS , a large white bear holding a heart full of roses ( “ Roses 4U Bear ” ) goes for $ 19.99 ; likely still less than the 23-year-old woman ’ s boyfriend spent on weed .
( CVS declined to comment for this story . )
There are expensive bears on the market — GiantTeddy.com , for instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ red bear in formalwear named Randy Shags for $ 269.99 — but the people I talked to weren ’ t interested in an expensive gift from a high-end source .
As @ chae2xx says , “ It ’ s just a bear.
” Sign up for The Goods ’ newsletter .
Twice a week , we ’ ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy , why we buy it , and why it matters .

I was initially brought to the topic of Valentine’s Day teddy bears from a place of cynicism.
As a mean and elderly witch, I could not imagine how an adult in a romantic relationship would find themselves in want of a stuffed animal, one that communicates, “I have touched — and would like to continue touching — genitals with you.” As Valentine’s Day approached, and at no one’s provocation, I stood up in the office and did a tight five about how offensive I found this very premise, how there was no way that these were actually a desirable gift, how they were nothing more than last-minute drugstore purchases for the terminally thoughtless to give to the long-suffering. Then I assigned myself this story about how everyone hates them and they’re bad.
Not for the first time, it turns out I’m an asshole.
I learned that I was an asshole from the best place to do so: the internet, specifically the subreddits r/AmItheAsshole (boom) and r/relationships, and their companion guide, Twitter. I turned to these Rosetta Stones of human feeling assuming I would find people slagging love-themed bears, wondering if they were too mean about their lousy gifts, and warning off partners or prospective partners from the very idea. But it turns out that many, many people do want to be given teddy bears as a token of affection. These gifts are accessible, intentional, and comforting.
Search “teddy bear gift” on advice-focused subreddits and you’ll find the common refrain: “All I wanted was a teddy bear.” The more common problem, it seems, is an absence of gifting in relationships. Stuffed animals could very well be the solution.
“I’ve told him that I don’t care about what he gets me,” wrote one 17-year-old r/relationships poster last year, distressed by her boyfriend’s ungenerous nature. “It could be something simple like a teddy bear.” Elsewhere on the subreddit, a 23-year-old woman detailed her campaign to receive an oversize buddy from her significant other: “I tell him I want a giant bear and ask if he’s sure he doesn’t want anything. He reassures me and says he will buy one for me. Well Valentine’s day comes and... no teddy. Um. Ok?” It’s not like he’s unable to afford it, she explains: “The bears we saw at Walmart were like $15 and I know he has money because he spent some on weed.”
There were narratives that sort of fit my preconceived notions — a 19-year-old whose boyfriend gave her a post-Valentine’s stuffed animal “obviously [from] the clearance rack,” the young woman who wanted to know if she was an asshole for failing to be grateful for her boyfriend’s gift when “he knows I don’t care for teddy bears and would’ve rather have any other stuffed animal” — but not the sort of strident anti-bear rhetoric I was expecting. For a certain vocal sector of people, stuffed animals are desirable and even romantic. Those people, if you’re keeping track of the ages and stated genders above, appear to be young women in the formative stages of late-teenagerdom and early adulthood.
In early January, @chae2xx politely tweeted, “i want a giant teddy bear this valentine’s day. or a giraffe. pls and thank u.” Via DM, the 20-year-old Alabama State student, who asked to be referred to by her Twitter handle, told me she wants a stuffed animal for “comfort,” something to sleep with when her significant other is away. As an added touch, she hopes he’ll spray it with his cologne.
According to psychologists, comfort objects — similar to the way @chae2xx describes her bear — are a common coping mechanism for children, something they cling to as they begin to move around the world in more meaningful ways. Dr. Donald Winnicott coined the phrase “transitional objects” to refer to the blankets and “loveys” that children attach themselves to and derive solace from.
This need doesn’t end when kids leave the house, however. For Psychology Today, University of Michigan psychology professor Christopher Peterson wrote about conducting an informal study in his own classroom, finding that, “About 80% of the females had brought a stuffed animal to college, whereas fewer than 10% of the males had done so — or at last admitted to it.” Peterson supposes that, “Maybe carrying around a stuffed animal is not a sign of immaturity but something else related to contentment and comfort.” Having something to hold and cuddle — particularly in the absence of sharing a bed with your partner nightly, as many younger couples do not yet live together — is incredibly soothing.
Of course, there’s a difference between the blanket that was in your crib from birth and a pink bear purchased from CVS (or even a high-end one from, say, Gund). These objects may be comforting, but they’re also clear: They’re an explicit symbol that someone loves you, or at least really likes you. One Twitter user posted side-by-side images of herself holding a large bear and said bear alone in what appears to be a pharmacy, writing, “Only someone who really thinks your [sic] special would buy you a giant pink teddy bear for valentines lol (heart growing three sizes emoji).”
Only someone who really thinks your special would buy you a giant pink teddy bear for valentines lol pic.twitter.com/Mn2zsPjue5 — Monique (@MoniqueZamoraa) January 9, 2020
Via DM, @mangobbyy, who like teddy bear lover @chae2xx asked to be referred to by her handle, confirms that this obvious sign of love is part of the appeal. The 19-year-old from Delaware, who tweeted in January 2020, “i want a big teddy bear for valentines i want it to fill up my house,” says that when she sees posts from friends about their love-themed bears, she thinks “about how much they are appreciated by the person who gifted them.”
The common refrain is that millennials and Gen Z prefer experiences over gifts, but there’s a serious appeal to having stuff you can keep. Candy is only temporary and jewelry might be out of reach, so for young people looking to show off their love — on their bookshelf or on the ’gram — stuffed animals are visible physical evidence that someone cares about them.
Price is likely also a factor — as the Walmart bear-wanter reminds us, the bear she asked for was only $15. At my local CVS, a large white bear holding a heart full of roses (“Roses 4U Bear”) goes for $19.99; likely still less than the 23-year-old woman’s boyfriend spent on weed. (CVS declined to comment for this story.)
There are expensive bears on the market — GiantTeddy.com, for instance, sells an “enormous” 52-inch red bear in formalwear named Randy Shags for $269.99 — but the people I talked to weren’t interested in an expensive gift from a high-end source. As @chae2xx says, “It’s just a bear.”
Sign up for The Goods’ newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.


vox--2020-02-07--What the economy tell us about Trump’s reelection odds

For Democrats , there should be one big fear heading into the 2020 election : A booming economy could save Donald Trump .
The adage “ it ’ s the economy , stupid ” has condensed the conventional wisdom to four words : Voters ( rightly or wrongly ) hold the president accountable for America ’ s financial health , and their perceptions of how they and the country are doing economically will be the most important factor when they vote .
Politico was already reporting last year , using economy-based predictors , that Trump actually seemed “ on track @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relatively strong economic data is a boon for his political fortunes .
“ You have no choice but to vote for me , ” he told a New Hampshire crowd a few months ago , citing the health of the stock market .
But the link between the economy and presidential approval has become “ increasingly untethered , ” as several political scientists writing at Political Behavior put it last March .
The break began during Bill Clinton ’ s administration and weakened considerably under George W. Bush .
After Barack Obama took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : CNN ’ s Harry Enten captured it this way : “ Turns out for incumbent presidents , overall approval ratings are far more telling of fates.
” John Sides , the political scientist who with Lynn Vavreck wrote the seminal book The Gamble about the 2012 presidential election , told me last year , “ This could complicate an election forecast.
” In other words , does the economy really tell us anything at all about whether Trump will be reelected in 2020 ?
Who knows !
We ’ re in uncharted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remembering that factors beyond which Democrat prevails in the primary will be in play during the 2020 campaign against Trump .
We should start here , as Vavreck emphasized to me : Trump is the incumbent , and incumbency is a proven advantage in presidential elections .
Its degree and its reasons are the source of debate , but a table via David Mayhew ’ s research published in Political Science Quarterly in 2008 makes this obvious ( and was only bolstered by Barack Obama ’ s win in 2012 ) : So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the 2020 campaign .
Let ’ s consider then what we can learn — and what we can ’ t — from some of these other indicators about what might happen in 2020 .
I ’ ve elected to focus on four of them : Trump ’ s approval rating , consumer confidence , the US gross domestic product , and the unemployment rate .
Head-to-head polling between Trump and any prospective Democratic nominee seems nearly useless at this point .
Many Americans haven ’ t yet formed their opinions on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomination , and , regardless , a two-way general election tends to sharpen opinions in a way that a 12-person primary can ’ t .
But presidential approval ratings have always been strongly linked to voting behavior , and everybody knows Trump .
Here is the RealClearPolitics average of the president ’ s approval rating , from the start of his presidency to now : The FiveThirtyEight polling average is a little more negative : 43.5 percent approval and 52.1 percent disapproval as of early February .
Its chart follows mostly the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been consistently unpopular throughout his first two years .
At his absolute best , so far , he was 6 points more unpopular than popular .
The recent uptick will have to sustain itself before we start assuming he is suddenly a more popular president .
And as Vox ’ s Ezra Klein wrote in 2018 , Trump ’ s poor favorability has been in defiance of a relatively solid economy : Trump ’ s approval rating is the metric to watch as we endure all the twists and turns that might precede @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
No major legislation is expected to be passed in Congress .
But last month ’ s sudden assassination of an Iranian general is a reminder that Trump can shake up the news cycle all on his own .
And then you have a billion or so other things that he can ’ t control but will be held accountable for responding to , like natural disasters .
A lot can happen is all I ’ m saying .
Trump ’ s approval rating should capture any fluctuations in how the public feels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Consumer sentiment looks okay for Trump right now Before we dive into the economic data , a word of warning from Sides : The debate in political science circles is whether voters care about how the economy did in the year preceding an election or if they look back over the previous two years .
Either way , when thinking about November 2020 , we are either only halfway through the economic period voters will be using to evaluate the state of the country and Trump ’ s presidency or we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what ’ s happened so far will matter by the time people head to the polls .
“ Changes in economic indicators matter more closer to the election , ” Sides told me .
“ So the consequential economic trends , if there are any , probably haven ’ t happened yet.
” And things can still change : Bloomberg currently projects the chances of a recession in the next 12 months at 26 percent .
That ’ s far from a guarantee but it ’ s still a decent chance .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic conditions before the election , it hasn ’ t happened yet .
But we will press on , starting with consumer sentiment , a useful way to understand how the American people are feeling about the economy .
The University of Michigan provides a snapshot every month , drawing from a survey that asks US consumers if they feel better or worse off than they did a year ago , whether they expect to be better or worse off in a year , whether they expect good or bad times for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year and longer , and whether they think it ’ s a good or bad time to make major household purchases .
Here is how UM ’ s consumer sentiment index has shifted during Trump ’ s presidency : This is a noisy metric , as you can see .
But taking the long view , American consumers are feeling either about the same as when Trump came into office or maybe a little bit better .
That is a notable improvement on how the citizenry felt for the bulk of the Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wake of the Great Recession .
But it ’ s not quite the American renaissance Trump likes to pretend he is overseeing .
GDP growth rates show a little better news for Trump With our final two variables , GDP growth and the unemployment rate , Sides offered one more critical piece of context : The important thing is not the absolute number , but the trend that we ’ ve seen since the president took office .
As Sides noted , Ronald Reagan ’ s reelection at 7 percent unemployment might seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was at 10 percent when he took office .
With that in mind , I decided to look at the last two years of the Obama administration and the first two years of the Trump administration .
Here ’ s the trendline of the GDP growth rate over that time : In general , GDP has been growing a little faster under Trump than it was at the end of Obama ’ s presidency .
Leaving alone whether the president deserves any credit for that improvement , it would bode well for his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question is whether it will .
Experts consulted by the Federal Reserve expect the annual growth rate to dip below 2 percent in 2020 ( it grew at a 2.5 percent pace in 2018 , the last year with actual data ) .
It ’ s not a guarantee , but those projections are a warning sign for the president .
The unemployment rate is still going down under Trump Unemployment under Trump has largely maintained the trend we saw under Obama — by which I mean it ’ s kept going down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a steady downward slope for the past decade , actually .
But a continuation of that trend is still a good indicator for Trump .
So two more specific economic indicators look pretty good for Trump .
But consumer sentiment is mixed , and the president ’ s approval rating is — and always has been — pretty bad .
It ’ s worth noting a couple of other caveats .
One , these macro-trends obviously do not account for the Electoral College or the way presidential campaigns are conducted and won in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are faring and feeling has an outsize impact .
Second , the economic models cited by Politico include other indicators ( gas prices , inflation , etc . )
that we have not covered .
Regardless , the messy picture here is probably an appropriate one .
Trump is unpopular and consumer confidence is middling , but the underlying economic data is quite sound .
The president is probably looking at better odds of reelection than his poor approval ratings or the unending stream of bad headlines would suggest .
But he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should , considering the state of the economy and his incumbency advantages .
Let us end by remembering — and I can not emphasize this enough — we are just entering the period that will likely prove decisive in how American voters evaluate Trump at the end of his term .
The 2020 election is just getting started .

For Democrats, there should be one big fear heading into the 2020 election: A booming economy could save Donald Trump.
The adage “it’s the economy, stupid” has condensed the conventional wisdom to four words: Voters (rightly or wrongly) hold the president accountable for America’s financial health, and their perceptions of how they and the country are doing economically will be the most important factor when they vote. Politico was already reporting last year, using economy-based predictors, that Trump actually seemed “on track for a landslide.”
Trump knows the relatively strong economic data is a boon for his political fortunes.
“You have no choice but to vote for me,” he told a New Hampshire crowd a few months ago, citing the health of the stock market.
But the link between the economy and presidential approval has become “increasingly untethered,” as several political scientists writing at Political Behavior put it last March. The break began during Bill Clinton’s administration and weakened considerably under George W. Bush. After Barack Obama took office, the two became completely severed:
Under Obama’s tenure, neither in- nor out-partisans responded to the economy; the two groups had made up their mind and the economy had not statistical impact on presidential approval for Democrats or Republicans. Preliminary signs indicate that the same is true of the Trump presidency.
CNN’s Harry Enten captured it this way: “Turns out for incumbent presidents, overall approval ratings are far more telling of fates.”
John Sides, the political scientist who with Lynn Vavreck wrote the seminal book The Gamble about the 2012 presidential election, told me last year, “This could complicate an election forecast.”
In other words, does the economy really tell us anything at all about whether Trump will be reelected in 2020? Who knows! We’re in uncharted territory. Nevertheless, it is worth remembering that factors beyond which Democrat prevails in the primary will be in play during the 2020 campaign against Trump.
We should start here, as Vavreck emphasized to me: Trump is the incumbent, and incumbency is a proven advantage in presidential elections. Its degree and its reasons are the source of debate, but a table via David Mayhew’s research published in Political Science Quarterly in 2008 makes this obvious (and was only bolstered by Barack Obama’s win in 2012):
So Trump starts with one obvious edge heading into the 2020 campaign. Let’s consider then what we can learn — and what we can’t — from some of these other indicators about what might happen in 2020.
I’ve elected to focus on four of them: Trump’s approval rating, consumer confidence, the US gross domestic product, and the unemployment rate.
Trump’s presidential approval rating has been stubbornly low
Head-to-head polling between Trump and any prospective Democratic nominee seems nearly useless at this point. Many Americans haven’t yet formed their opinions on the various Democrats seeking their party’s nomination, and, regardless, a two-way general election tends to sharpen opinions in a way that a 12-person primary can’t.
But presidential approval ratings have always been strongly linked to voting behavior, and everybody knows Trump. Here is the RealClearPolitics average of the president’s approval rating, from the start of his presidency to now:
The FiveThirtyEight polling average is a little more negative: 43.5 percent approval and 52.1 percent disapproval as of early February. Its chart follows mostly the same pattern.
Either way, Trump has been consistently unpopular throughout his first two years. At his absolute best, so far, he was 6 points more unpopular than popular. The recent uptick will have to sustain itself before we start assuming he is suddenly a more popular president.
And as Vox’s Ezra Klein wrote in 2018, Trump’s poor favorability has been in defiance of a relatively solid economy:
“Trump’s poll numbers are probably 20 points below where a president would typically be with consumer sentiment as high as it is now,” says John Sides, a political scientist at George Washington University who has done work benchmarking presidential approval to economic indicators. So here, then, is what we can say: Judged on the economy, which is the traditional driver of presidential approval, Donald Trump’s poll numbers should be much, much higher than they are now. Far from finding a winning strategy, he seems to have found a losing one despite holding a winning hand.
Trump’s approval rating is the metric to watch as we endure all the twists and turns that might precede the 2020 election. Impeachment is over. No major legislation is expected to be passed in Congress. But last month’s sudden assassination of an Iranian general is a reminder that Trump can shake up the news cycle all on his own. And then you have a billion or so other things that he can’t control but will be held accountable for responding to, like natural disasters.
A lot can happen is all I’m saying. Trump’s approval rating should capture any fluctuations in how the public feels about the man in the White House.
Consumer sentiment looks okay for Trump right now
Before we dive into the economic data, a word of warning from Sides: The debate in political science circles is whether voters care about how the economy did in the year preceding an election or if they look back over the previous two years.
Either way, when thinking about November 2020, we are either only halfway through the economic period voters will be using to evaluate the state of the country and Trump’s presidency or we’ve barely begun it and none of what’s happened so far will matter by the time people head to the polls.
“Changes in economic indicators matter more closer to the election,” Sides told me. “So the consequential economic trends, if there are any, probably haven’t happened yet.”
And things can still change: Bloomberg currently projects the chances of a recession in the next 12 months at 26 percent. That’s far from a guarantee but it’s still a decent chance. So if there is a big drop in economic conditions before the election, it hasn’t happened yet.
But we will press on, starting with consumer sentiment, a useful way to understand how the American people are feeling about the economy.
The University of Michigan provides a snapshot every month, drawing from a survey that asks US consumers if they feel better or worse off than they did a year ago, whether they expect to be better or worse off in a year, whether they expect good or bad times for the country as a whole in the next year and longer, and whether they think it’s a good or bad time to make major household purchases.
Here is how UM’s consumer sentiment index has shifted during Trump’s presidency:
This is a noisy metric, as you can see. But taking the long view, American consumers are feeling either about the same as when Trump came into office or maybe a little bit better.
That is a notable improvement on how the citizenry felt for the bulk of the Obama presidency, as pessimism persisted in the wake of the Great Recession. But it’s not quite the American renaissance Trump likes to pretend he is overseeing.
GDP growth rates show a little better news for Trump
With our final two variables, GDP growth and the unemployment rate, Sides offered one more critical piece of context: The important thing is not the absolute number, but the trend that we’ve seen since the president took office. As Sides noted, Ronald Reagan’s reelection at 7 percent unemployment might seem surprising until you recall the unemployment rate was at 10 percent when he took office.
With that in mind, I decided to look at the last two years of the Obama administration and the first two years of the Trump administration. Here’s the trendline of the GDP growth rate over that time:
In general, GDP has been growing a little faster under Trump than it was at the end of Obama’s presidency. Leaving alone whether the president deserves any credit for that improvement, it would bode well for his reelection chances if it continues.
The question is whether it will. Experts consulted by the Federal Reserve expect the annual growth rate to dip below 2 percent in 2020 (it grew at a 2.5 percent pace in 2018, the last year with actual data). It’s not a guarantee, but those projections are a warning sign for the president.
The unemployment rate is still going down under Trump
Unemployment under Trump has largely maintained the trend we saw under Obama — by which I mean it’s kept going down. The jobless rate, at 3.6 percent in January, has been on a steady downward slope for the past decade, actually. But a continuation of that trend is still a good indicator for Trump.
So two more specific economic indicators look pretty good for Trump. But consumer sentiment is mixed, and the president’s approval rating is — and always has been — pretty bad.
It’s worth noting a couple of other caveats. One, these macro-trends obviously do not account for the Electoral College or the way presidential campaigns are conducted and won in the United States. How specific states are faring and feeling has an outsize impact. Second, the economic models cited by Politico include other indicators (gas prices, inflation, etc.) that we have not covered.
Regardless, the messy picture here is probably an appropriate one. Trump is unpopular and consumer confidence is middling, but the underlying economic data is quite sound.
The president is probably looking at better odds of reelection than his poor approval ratings or the unending stream of bad headlines would suggest. But he’s got weaker odds than he probably should, considering the state of the economy and his incumbency advantages.
Let us end by remembering — and I cannot emphasize this enough — we are just entering the period that will likely prove decisive in how American voters evaluate Trump at the end of his term. The 2020 election is just getting started.


vox--2020-02-07--New Hampshire Democratic debate: February 7, 2020

Six candidates will take the stage in New Hampshire after a week of uncertainty in the Iowa caucuses .
With four days to go until the New Hampshire primary and no clear victor in the Iowa caucuses , the eighth Democratic primary debate of the 2020 presidential election will take place at Saint Anselm College in Manchester , New Hampshire , this Friday , February 7 .
Eleven candidates are still vying for the nomination , but only seven will be on stage when the debate begins at 8 pm Eastern .
The debate will be moderated by ABC ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Linsey Davis , as well as Adam Sexton and Monica Hernandez of WMUR-TV .
Alongside ABC and WMUR-TV , Apple News is also co-hosting the debate , which will be broadcast by ABC and streamed live on the ABC website , YouTube channel , and app .
Former Vice President Joe Biden ; Sens .
Elizabeth Warren , Bernie Sanders , and Amy Klobuchar ; former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg ; billionaire Tom Steyer ; and entrepreneur Andrew Yang all qualified for the debate .
Every candidate except @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last month ; Yang missed the January debate but qualified for New Hampshire on the strength of his poll numbers in New Hampshire and nationally .
The Democratic National Committee offered candidates two pathways to qualify for the debate .
The first option was to meet a delegate threshold : Any candidate to earn at least one pledged delegate to the Democratic National Convention from the Iowa caucuses automatically qualified for the New Hampshire debate .
The second pathway was identical to the January debate qualifying standard : Candidates could qualify by achieving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least 5 percent support in four qualifying national or early-state polls , or 7 percent in two qualifying early-state polls .
Follow along below for Vox ’ s debate coverage , including how to watch , breaking news updates , analysis , and more .

Seven candidates will take the stage in New Hampshire after a week of uncertainty in the Iowa caucuses.
With four days to go until the New Hampshire primary and no clear victor in the Iowa caucuses, the eighth Democratic primary debate of the 2020 presidential election will take place at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, this Friday, February 7. Eleven candidates are still vying for the nomination, but only seven will be on stage when the debate begins at 8 pm Eastern.
The debate will be moderated by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, David Muir, and Linsey Davis, as well as Adam Sexton and Monica Hernandez of WMUR-TV. Alongside ABC and WMUR-TV, Apple News is also co-hosting the debate, which will be broadcast by ABC and streamed live on the ABC website, YouTube channel, and app.
Former Vice President Joe Biden; Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Amy Klobuchar; former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg; billionaire Tom Steyer; and entrepreneur Andrew Yang all qualified for the debate. Every candidate except Yang was also onstage in Des Moines last month; Yang missed the January debate but qualified for New Hampshire on the strength of his poll numbers in New Hampshire and nationally.
The Democratic National Committee offered candidates two pathways to qualify for the debate. The first option was to meet a delegate threshold: Any candidate to earn at least one pledged delegate to the Democratic National Convention from the Iowa caucuses automatically qualified for the New Hampshire debate.
The second pathway was identical to the January debate qualifying standard: Candidates could qualify by achieving 225,000 unique donors and earning either at least 5 percent support in four qualifying national or early-state polls, or 7 percent in two qualifying early-state polls.
Follow along below for Vox’s debate coverage, including how to watch, breaking news updates, analysis, and more.


vox--2020-02-06--6 top 2020 Democrats vow to reverse Trump’s new landmine policy

Last week , President Donald Trump loosened restrictions on the use of landmines by the US military in conflict areas , reversing an Obama-era policy .
Top 2020 Democratic presidential candidates , though , are vowing to reverse the reversal .
In four statements to Vox and a tweet , former Vice President Joe Biden , Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) , Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) , billionaire Tom Steyer , , Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) , and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg all say they will scrap Trump ’ s policy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which prohibited the procurement of landmines and their use outside of the Korean Peninsula .
Obama ’ s team chose to continue their deployment in the Koreas to thwart a potential invasion from Pyongyang .
The first statement came from Warren , who on Saturday responded to my story on Twitter announcing her position on the landmine issue .
Two days later , Sanders ’ s campaign sent me a statement on his landmine stance .
“ Trump ’ s landmine policy reversal is barbaric , weakens America ’ s moral leadership , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the military industrial complex , ” the statement reads .
It continues : Roughly four hours later , Biden weighed in as well .
“ The Trump administration ’ s reversal of years of considered decisions by Democratic and Republican presidents to curtail the use of landmines is another reckless act by a president ill-suited to serve as commander-in-chief , ” he said in an email from his campaign .
“ It will put more civilians at risk of being injured by unexploded mines , and is unnecessary from a military perspective .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ back this deeply misguided decision.
” On Tuesday afternoon , Steyer ’ s senior press secretary Benjamin Gerdes sent me a statement .
“ Trump ’ s cruel and reckless decision to reverse the landmine policy is further proof that he ’ s unfit to serve as commander-in-chief , ” Gerdes said .
“ Every day , someone around the world loses a limb or a life by stepping on one of over 100 million landmines .
As president , Tom will immediately reinstate the Obama administration ’ s policy of banning landmine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Korean Peninsula.
” Then on Wednesday , Klobuchar ’ s campaign clarified her stance .
“ Senator Klobuchar believes anti-personnel landmines pose an unnecessary danger to civilians and do not advance US strategic interests , ” a campaign spokesperson said .
“ As president , she will immediately reinstate the Obama administration ’ s policy on the use of landmines and continue to support humanitarian efforts around the world to clear landmines and help those who have been injured by them.
” And on Thursday night , Bloomberg ’ s campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we would reverse back to Obama-era policy.
” Former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg and entrepreneur Andrew Yang haven ’ t yet responded to my requests for comment .
But it seems pretty clear that if a Democrat defeats Trump in November , his landmine policy is as good as dead .
Without needing Congress , the next president can go back to the Obama administration ’ s stance on the issue .
There ’ s still a question , though , whether a Democratic administration would go further than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of landmines entirely .
The US hasn ’ t signed on to a landmark mine treaty yet .
Will a Democrat sign on ?
Landmines are a particularly gruesome weapon .
If a person triggers a landmine by stepping on it and survives , the severe injuries typically require the amputation of limbs or multiple operations .
The International Committee of the Red Cross reports that “ war surgeons consider them among the worst injuries they have to treat.
” The Landmine Monitor , a watchdog group , says that there have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between 1999 and 2018 , the majority of which have been civilians .
That ’ s partly why more than 160 countries have signed on to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty , which prohibits the use , stockpiling , production , and transfer of anti-personnel landmines .
The US , however , has never signed it .
So far , no Democrat has committed to trying to get the US to accede to the treaty .
That may have to do with the need to get Congress to ratify it , which would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Washington .
“ I don ’ t think that anyone is under any illusions that Democrats could get 67 votes in today ’ s Senate , ” Rob Berschinski , who worked in the human rights office of Obama ’ s National Security Council , told me .
However , “ the president could always declare that US government policy is to comply with Ottawa , even without ratification , ” he continued , using the informal name for the treaty based on where it was signed .
In other words , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US follow the treaty ’ s directions completely with a flick of the pen .
But that hasn ’ t stopped advocates , like Human Rights Watch ’ s Mary Wareham , from requesting the US still accede to the treaty .
“ Future US leaders should reverse this retrograde US policy on landmines and take steps to ensure that the United States finally accedes to the Mine Ban Treaty , ” she told me .
“ Demands for the US to ban landmines will never go away until it actually does so.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that no Democratic candidate wants to commit to an almost certain legislative failure in a future administration ( though they don ’ t seem to mind when promising the moon on health care ) .
But failing to commit to accede to the treaty still sends a signal that the US may never promise to stop using landmines in war .

Last week, President Donald Trump loosened restrictions on the use of landmines by the US military in conflict areas, reversing an Obama-era policy. Top 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, though, are vowing to reverse the reversal.
In four statements to Vox and a tweet, former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), billionaire Tom Steyer, ,Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg all say they will scrap Trump’s policy and revert to the Obama administration one, which prohibited the procurement of landmines and their use outside of the Korean Peninsula. Obama’s team chose to continue their deployment in the Koreas to thwart a potential invasion from Pyongyang.
The first statement came from Warren, who on Saturday responded to my story on Twitter announcing her position on the landmine issue.
Innocent civilians are the main casualties of landmines. This is an abhorrent decision that won’t make America any safer, and could cause untold damage. As president, I will reverse this decision and work with our allies to eliminate landmines. https://t.co/eeGtthsNfE — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) February 1, 2020
Two days later, Sanders’s campaign sent me a statement on his landmine stance.
“Trump’s landmine policy reversal is barbaric, weakens America’s moral leadership, and is quite simply a giveaway to the military industrial complex,” the statement reads. It continues:
Our own armed forces believe these weapons are useless on the modern battlefield, and know that the main victims of landmines are innocent civilians. A Sanders administration will reinstate the ban on their production and use outside of the Korean peninsula, and also work to achieve a North-South Korean peace agreement that would ultimately result in their being withdrawn from the Korean peninsula as well.
Roughly four hours later, Biden weighed in as well. “The Trump administration’s reversal of years of considered decisions by Democratic and Republican presidents to curtail the use of landmines is another reckless act by a president ill-suited to serve as commander-in-chief,” he said in an email from his campaign. “It will put more civilians at risk of being injured by unexploded mines, and is unnecessary from a military perspective. As president, I will promptly roll back this deeply misguided decision.”
On Tuesday afternoon, Steyer’s senior press secretary Benjamin Gerdes sent me a statement.
“Trump’s cruel and reckless decision to reverse the landmine policy is further proof that he’s unfit to serve as commander-in-chief,” Gerdes said. “Every day, someone around the world loses a limb or a life by stepping on one of over 100 million landmines. As president, Tom will immediately reinstate the Obama administration’s policy of banning landmine production and will work toward lasting peace in the Korean Peninsula.”
Then on Wednesday, Klobuchar’s campaign clarified her stance. “Senator Klobuchar believes anti-personnel landmines pose an unnecessary danger to civilians and do not advance US strategic interests,” a campaign spokesperson said. “As president, she will immediately reinstate the Obama administration’s policy on the use of landmines and continue to support humanitarian efforts around the world to clear landmines and help those who have been injured by them.”
And on Thursday night, Bloomberg’s campaign gave me a simple response: “we would reverse back to Obama-era policy.”
Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and entrepreneur Andrew Yang haven’t yet responded to my requests for comment.
But it seems pretty clear that if a Democrat defeats Trump in November, his landmine policy is as good as dead. Without needing Congress, the next president can go back to the Obama administration’s stance on the issue.
There’s still a question, though, whether a Democratic administration would go further than any president before and actually ban the use of landmines entirely.
The US hasn’t signed on to a landmark mine treaty yet. Will a Democrat sign on?
Landmines are a particularly gruesome weapon. If a person triggers a landmine by stepping on it and survives, the severe injuries typically require the amputation of limbs or multiple operations. The International Committee of the Red Cross reports that “war surgeons consider them among the worst injuries they have to treat.”
The Landmine Monitor, a watchdog group, says that there have been roughly 130,000 casualties due to landmines between 1999 and 2018, the majority of which have been civilians.
That’s partly why more than 160 countries have signed on to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, which prohibits the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel landmines. The US, however, has never signed it.
So far, no Democrat has committed to trying to get the US to accede to the treaty. That may have to do with the need to get Congress to ratify it, which would be a tough order in today’s Washington.
“I don’t think that anyone is under any illusions that Democrats could get 67 votes in today’s Senate,” Rob Berschinski, who worked in the human rights office of Obama’s National Security Council, told me. However, “the president could always declare that US government policy is to comply with Ottawa, even without ratification,” he continued, using the informal name for the treaty based on where it was signed.
In other words, the next president could basically have the US follow the treaty’s directions completely with a flick of the pen. But that hasn’t stopped advocates, like Human Rights Watch’s Mary Wareham, from requesting the US still accede to the treaty.
“Future US leaders should reverse this retrograde US policy on landmines and take steps to ensure that the United States finally accedes to the Mine Ban Treaty,” she told me. “Demands for the US to ban landmines will never go away until it actually does so.”
It’s possible, though, that no Democratic candidate wants to commit to an almost certain legislative failure in a future administration (though they don’t seem to mind when promising the moon on health care). But failing to commit to accede to the treaty still sends a signal that the US may never promise to stop using landmines in war.


vox--2020-02-06--Meet the woman who made Netflix get rid of its most annoying feature

Lovers of high-quality feature films and The Witcher rejoiced on Thursday afternoon when Netflix made a huge , unexpected announcement .
Finally , viewers can turn off that annoying feature that autoplayed previews when you scrolled through the video streaming platform ’ s content .
Netflix will also let you turn off the autoplay feature that starts the next episode of a show after you finish the one you ’ re watching .
This happened after a woman from Muncie , Indiana , complained about the feature on Twitter and offered to give away her “ entire kingdom ” to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have complained about this feature , but her tweet seems to have gotten the company ’ s attention .
Sarah Hollowell is a young adult fantasy writer who now owes Netflix her kingdom .
After she tweeted for a way to turn off the autoplay feature , Netflix responded a week later on Twitter by linking to a new help page that offers a way to stop both the preview autoplay and the next-episode autoplay .
The latter is what you probably blame for your last seven-hour binge , since that next episode @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off the couch .
Recode recently spoke to Hollowell , who explained the backstory to the tweet that rocked the Netflix universe .
Hollowell explained that she ’ s been a Netflix customer since before the company offered streaming videos and simply sent DVDs through the mail .
More recently , the self-described “ expert binge-watcher ” says she couldn ’ t browse without being inundated by autoplay previews .
Her tweet that Netflix seems to have noticed happened after a particularly frustrating session .
“ I was clicking through all the categories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distracted by knowing that I had to move fast to avoid the autoplay that I could barely register the titles , ” Hollowell told Recode .
“ I ended up muting the TV , and it was the kind of mild annoyance that ’ s perfect for whining about on Twitter.
” A week after her volley of tweets , Netflix retweeted Hollowell and announced the updated settings .
This is a big deal , if you follow Netflix Twitter much .
People reviled these autoplay previews so much that there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including one widely circulated smirk from Knives Out director Rian Johnson .
Outrage like this has spilled over to seemingly every corner of the internet .
If you click through any of those links , you ’ ll also realize that people have been yelling at Netflix about this for years .
It ’ s unclear why Netflix finally decided to listen to its customers .
Back in 2018 , Netflix ’ s vice president of product innovation told BuzzFeed News that one of the reasons the platform autoplayed preview clips was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more efficient way to communicate these things per unit of time than reading text.
” But still , the previews don ’ t count as views on the platform , so it ’ s not like Netflix was using the feature to juice its numbers .
Recode reached out to Netflix with these questions and will update this post if we hear back .
In the meantime , Hollowell would be happy for folks to think that it was her tweet that did it .
“ Don ’ t get me wrong , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they want to hand it over to me , ” she told Recode .
“ I will happily be seen as the savior of the people.
” She went on to point out that she ’ s since tweeted at Hulu about its user design , which she thinks is confusing .
Hollowell would also like Amazon Prime Video to know that browsing by genre is a horrible experience on the platform : “ Why do they make you answer their riddles three just to find where they ’ re keeping the horror @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say .
If you ’ ve made it this far and still haven ’ t turned off the autoplay features in Netflix , we ’ ll make it easy for you .
Just sign in to Netflix and click the “ manage profile ” button .
( If you ’ re already logged in , you can find this option under the dropdown menu with your profile picture . )
From there , you should see two new entries .
To stop the awful autoplay action , just uncheck the box and @ @ @ @

Lovers of high-quality feature films and The Witcher rejoiced on Thursday afternoon when Netflix made a huge, unexpected announcement.
Finally, viewers can turn off that annoying feature that autoplayed previews when you scrolled through the video streaming platform’s content. Netflix will also let you turn off the autoplay feature that starts the next episode of a show after you finish the one you’re watching. This happened after a woman from Muncie, Indiana, complained about the feature on Twitter and offered to give away her “entire kingdom” to make it stop. Other Netflix watchers have complained about this feature, but her tweet seems to have gotten the company’s attention.
Some people find this feature helpful. Others not so much.
We’ve heard the feedback loud and clear — members can now control whether or not they see autoplay previews on Netflix. Here's how: https://t.co/6V2TjEW6HD https://t.co/zbz4E8fVab — Netflix US (@netflix) February 6, 2020
Sarah Hollowell is a young adult fantasy writer who now owes Netflix her kingdom. After she tweeted for a way to turn off the autoplay feature, Netflix responded a week later on Twitter by linking to a new help page that offers a way to stop both the preview autoplay and the next-episode autoplay. The latter is what you probably blame for your last seven-hour binge, since that next episode comes on before you can peel yourself off the couch.
Recode recently spoke to Hollowell, who explained the backstory to the tweet that rocked the Netflix universe. Hollowell explained that she’s been a Netflix customer since before the company offered streaming videos and simply sent DVDs through the mail. More recently, the self-described “expert binge-watcher” says she couldn’t browse without being inundated by autoplay previews. Her tweet that Netflix seems to have noticed happened after a particularly frustrating session.
“I was clicking through all the categories on the homepage and I was so distracted by knowing that I had to move fast to avoid the autoplay that I could barely register the titles,” Hollowell told Recode. “I ended up muting the TV, and it was the kind of mild annoyance that’s perfect for whining about on Twitter.”
A week after her volley of tweets, Netflix retweeted Hollowell and announced the updated settings. This is a big deal, if you follow Netflix Twitter much. People reviled these autoplay previews so much that there’s a dedicated Twitter account collecting the complaints, including one widely circulated smirk from Knives Out director Rian Johnson. Outrage like this has spilled over to seemingly every corner of the internet. If you click through any of those links, you’ll also realize that people have been yelling at Netflix about this for years. There’s even a Change.org petition started by a Melissa Bryant, a passionate Netflix user from Maine, that racked up nearly 125,000 signatures in the past two months.
It’s unclear why Netflix finally decided to listen to its customers. Back in 2018, Netflix’s vice president of product innovation told BuzzFeed News that one of the reasons the platform autoplayed preview clips was because “video is just a much more efficient way to communicate these things per unit of time than reading text.” But still, the previews don’t count as views on the platform, so it’s not like Netflix was using the feature to juice its numbers. Recode reached out to Netflix with these questions and will update this post if we hear back.
In the meantime, Hollowell would be happy for folks to think that it was her tweet that did it.
“Don’t get me wrong, I will absolutely take the credit if they want to hand it over to me,” she told Recode. “I will happily be seen as the savior of the people.”
She went on to point out that she’s since tweeted at Hulu about its user design, which she thinks is confusing. Hollowell would also like Amazon Prime Video to know that browsing by genre is a horrible experience on the platform: “Why do they make you answer their riddles three just to find where they’re keeping the horror movies?” It’s hard to say.
If you’ve made it this far and still haven’t turned off the autoplay features in Netflix, we’ll make it easy for you. Just sign in to Netflix and click the “manage profile” button. (If you’re already logged in, you can find this option under the dropdown menu with your profile picture.) From there, you should see two new entries.
To stop the awful autoplay action, just uncheck the box and enjoy the show.


vox--2020-02-07--How to watch Friday’s Democratic debate in New Hampshire

After the chaotic Iowa caucuses , the Democratic candidates are heading to New Hampshire and stepping onstage Friday night for their next presidential primary debate .
The leading contenders for the Democratic Party ’ s 2020 presidential nomination will take the stage at Saint Anselm College in Manchester , New Hampshire , on Friday , February 7 .
The debate will start at 8 pm Eastern and is expected to last about three hours .
ABC News , WMUR , and Apple News are hosting the debate , which will be moderated by ABC chief anchor George Stephanopoulos ; World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Muir ; ABC News correspondent Linsey Davis ; and WMUR-TV political director Adam Sexton .
You can watch on ABC , and the network will also livestream the debate .
Seven candidates made the cut in both the Democratic National Committee ’ s polling and donation qualifications and will appear at Tuesday ’ s event : Biden and Buttigieg are vying for moderate and older voters ; Sanders and Warren have been the leading candidates on the left and they got into quite a dust-up over “ electability ” at the last debate.. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they seek to set themselves apart in the muddled top of the field .
A few others failed to meet the criteria : The DNC has increased the debate qualifications throughout the campaign season .
For this debate , candidates had to get at least 5 percent support in four DNC-approved national polls or 7 percent support in two early primary voting state polls , and they must have at least 225,000 individual donors .
After Friday , there will be at least two more debates this month : the next in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; and another in Charleston , South Carolina , on Tuesday , February 25 .
Early here in the election calendar , the Democratic Party is holding its debates just days ahead of the caucuses and primaries in the next state on the schedule .
The race is in flux after the caucus chaos in Iowa The Iowa caucuses this week were a mess .
As the New York Times reported , the results in Iowa appeared to be “ riddled with inconsistencies and other flaws.
” It doesn ’ t sound good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the effects did not appear to be biased to benefit any candidate , making it more likely they were unintentional mistakes .
The overall effect on the results therefore might have been small .
It nevertheless was a very messy end to a process that always seemed likely to yield messy results .
Iowa released its results based on “ state delegate equivalents ” — that is , after the initial vote on caucus night and then a second vote limited to only candidates who got 15 percent of the first vote , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go to each candidate .
Those county-level delegates are then translated into “ state delegate equivalents ” — how many delegates each candidate will have at the Iowa state convention later that year .
By that admittedly rather convoluted metric , at last count , Buttigieg was narrowly edging out Sanders at the caucuses .
Sanders did , however , earn the most votes at the caucuses across the state , in both the first and second round .
His campaign is leaning on that win in the “ popular vote ” to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where Sanders has been consistently leading in the polls .
After Iowa ’ s caucuses proved so anticlimactic , the primary in New Hampshire — and the debate that proceeds it — could have more importance than usual in setting a new narrative for the campaign .
Sanders and Buttigieg are sitting at the top of the field for now .
Sanders is leading the New Hampshire polling averages and won there in 2016 .
Buttigieg has built a solid organization in New Hampshire ; University of New Hampshire political expert Dante Scola @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iowa , he could use that as a springboard into the Granite State .
Buttigieg has checked off that first box .
Biden , on the other hand , could use a strong performance in New Hampshire after a weak one in Iowa , though the fourth state on the schedule , South Carolina , is the first must-win state for him .
Elizabeth Warren did well enough in Iowa , a reasonably strong third .
But New Hampshire will be pivotal for her campaign .
If she can ’ t do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home state of Massachusetts , she may be in trouble .
Klobuchar ’ s campaign probably isn ’ t going to last much longer , barring a surprise .
Steyer barely registered in Iowa , and neither did Yang ; they can keep spending their own money to stay in the race if they want to .
Bloomberg won ’ t be on the debate stage , but he has been rising up the national polls and some big state polls , like in Texas .
The candidates have started sharpening their attacks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registering and the field so muddled , the campaigns are starting to sharpen their attacks against each other .
Those differences are sure to surface on the debate stage Friday night .
Biden , who acknowledged taking a gut punch in Iowa , got more aggressive in New Hampshire in the following days .
He directed his attacks most at Buttigieg , with whom he ’ s been competing for older voters .
But he also took aim at Sanders , warning the senator ’ s democratic socialism will be anathema to down-ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to undermine Biden ’ s claims to the Obama administration ’ s accomplishments , which has always been a key part of the former vice president ’ s message in trying to unite the party and especially appeal to the black voters who are a core part of his base .
Sanders and Biden , as the leading two candidates nationally , have already been at each other for a few weeks now ; the former ’ s camp has been hitting the latter for endorsing Social Security cuts over the years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Sanders , arguing that he could hurt Democrats ’ chances if Americans get spooked by socialism .
( President Trump notably took time out of his State of the Union speech to slam socialism . )
Warren has been playing nice with Sanders after the January debate back-and-forth , but she also needs to parlay a third-place finish in Iowa into a strong showing in New Hampshire ; the debate is her best chance to do something in front of a national television audience to build on that momentum .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few weeks for the Democratic primary .
The debate is the next stop in the race .

After the chaotic Iowa caucuses, the Democratic candidates are heading to New Hampshire and stepping onstage Friday night for their next presidential primary debate.
The leading contenders for the Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential nomination will take the stage at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, on Friday, February 7. The debate will start at 8 pm Eastern and is expected to last about three hours.
ABC News, WMUR, and Apple News are hosting the debate, which will be moderated by ABC chief anchor George Stephanopoulos; World News Tonight anchor and managing editor David Muir; ABC News correspondent Linsey Davis; and WMUR-TV political director Adam Sexton. You can watch on ABC, and the network will also livestream the debate.
Seven candidates made the cut in both the Democratic National Committee’s polling and donation qualifications and will appear at Tuesday’s event:
Former Vice President Joe Biden
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Billionaire activist Tom Steyer
Entrepreneur Andrew Yang
Biden and Buttigieg are vying for moderate and older voters; Sanders and Warren have been the leading candidates on the left and they got into quite a dust-up over “electability” at the last debate. Expect plenty of scrapping among the frontrunners as they seek to set themselves apart in the muddled top of the field.
A few others failed to meet the criteria:
Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet
Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard
Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick
The DNC has increased the debate qualifications throughout the campaign season. For this debate, candidates had to get at least 5 percent support in four DNC-approved national polls or 7 percent support in two early primary voting state polls, and they must have at least 225,000 individual donors.
After Friday, there will be at least two more debates this month: the next in Las Vegas on Wednesday, February 19; and another in Charleston, South Carolina, on Tuesday, February 25. Early here in the election calendar, the Democratic Party is holding its debates just days ahead of the caucuses and primaries in the next state on the schedule.
The race is in flux after the caucus chaos in Iowa
The Iowa caucuses this week were a mess. As the New York Times reported, the results in Iowa appeared to be “riddled with inconsistencies and other flaws.” It doesn’t sound good:
According to a New York Times analysis, more than 100 precincts reported results that were internally inconsistent, that were missing data or that were not possible under the complex rules of the Iowa caucuses.
The Times did point out that the effects did not appear to be biased to benefit any candidate, making it more likely they were unintentional mistakes. The overall effect on the results might have been small.
It nevertheless was a very messy end to a process that always seemed likely to yield messy results.
Iowa released its results based on “state delegate equivalents” — that is, after the initial vote on caucus night and then a second vote limited to only candidates who got 15 percent of the first vote, each precinct tallied how many delegates would go to each candidate. Those county-level delegates are then translated into “state delegate equivalents” — how many delegates each candidate will have at the Iowa state convention later that year.
By that admittedly rather convoluted metric, at last count, Buttigieg was narrowly edging out Sanders at the caucuses.
Sanders did, however, earn the most votes at the caucuses across the state, in both the first and second round. His campaign is leaning on that win in the “popular vote” to build momentum heading into New Hampshire, where Sanders has been consistently leading in the polls.
After Iowa’s caucuses proved so anticlimactic, the primary in New Hampshire — and the debate that proceeds it — could have more importance than usual in setting a new narrative for the campaign.
Sanders and Buttigieg are sitting at the top of the field for now. Sanders is leading the New Hampshire polling averages and won there in 2016. Buttigieg has built a solid organization in New Hampshire; University of New Hampshire political expert Dante Scola thought if Buttigieg could beat out Biden in Iowa, he could use that as a springboard into the Granite State. Buttigieg has checked off that first box.
Biden, on the other hand, could use a strong performance in New Hampshire after a weak one in Iowa, though the fourth state on the schedule, South Carolina, is the first must-win state for him.
Elizabeth Warren did well enough in Iowa, a reasonably strong third. But New Hampshire will be pivotal for her campaign. If she can’t do well there, next door to her home state of Massachusetts, she may be in trouble.
Klobuchar’s campaign probably isn’t going to last much longer, barring a surprise. Steyer barely registered in Iowa, and neither did Yang; they can keep spending their own money to stay in the race if they want to. Bloomberg won’t be on the debate stage, but he has been rising up the national polls and some big state polls, like in Texas.
The candidates have started sharpening their attacks on each other
With delegate counts finally registering and the field so muddled, the campaigns are starting to sharpen their attacks against each other. Those differences are sure to surface on the debate stage Friday night.
Biden, who acknowledged taking a gut punch in Iowa, got more aggressive in New Hampshire in the following days. He directed his attacks most at Buttigieg, with whom he’s been competing for older voters. But he also took aim at Sanders, warning the senator’s democratic socialism will be anathema to down-ballot Democrats.
Mayor Pete likes to call me part of the old failed Washington. Was it a failure when I helped pass Obamacare, the Paris Agreement, the Violence Against Women Act, or the assault weapons ban?
I have a stronger record of passing big, progressive legislation than anyone running. — Joe Biden (Text Join to 30330) (@JoeBiden) February 5, 2020
Biden on @PeteButtigieg: "I do believe it's a risk to be straight up with it, for this party to nominate someone who've never held an office higher than mayor of a town of 100,000 people in Indiana." — Johnny Verhovek (@JTHVerhovek) February 5, 2020
And Buttigieg is now trying to undermine Biden’s claims to the Obama administration’s accomplishments, which has always been a key part of the former vice president’s message in trying to unite the party and especially appeal to the black voters who are a core part of his base.
WATCH: As tensions rise in the 2020 race, @SRuhle sat down w/ @PeteButtigieg who says "the bulk of credit for the achievements of the Obama administration belong with President Obama" in an interview that airs tomorrow at 9am ET on MSNBC. pic.twitter.com/N5OyLHYblz — MSNBC Public Relations (@MSNBCPR) February 6, 2020
Sanders and Biden, as the leading two candidates nationally, have already been at each other for a few weeks now; the former’s camp has been hitting the latter for endorsing Social Security cuts over the years. Biden has been playing the electability card against Sanders, arguing that he could hurt Democrats’ chances if Americans get spooked by socialism. (President Trump notably took time out of his State of the Union speech to slam socialism.)
Warren has been playing nice with Sanders after the January debate back-and-forth, but she also needs to parlay a third-place finish in Iowa into a strong showing in New Hampshire; the debate is her best chance to do something in front of a national television audience to build on that momentum.
It’s a dogged sprint over the next few weeks for the Democratic primary. The debate is the next stop in the race.


vox--2020-02-07--The Democratic establishment is doing a really bad job of stopping Bernie Sanders

On December 11 , 1999 , about eight weeks before the New Hampshire primary , then-President Bill Clinton endorsed Vice President Al Gore as his preferred successor .
At the time , Gore was running for the nomination against Sen. Bill Bradley , the former New York Knick turned senator from New Jersey .
Clinton didn ’ t bash Bradley .
But he also made a clear choice .
After all , he had selected Gore for a role that presupposes he could be president in the middle of a giant national crisis .
The move probably wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the personal relationship between the two was somewhat strained at the time because Gore had distanced himself from Clinton in the wake of his impeachment — but Clinton was effusive in his praise of Gore , calling him “ the most effective and influential vice president who has ever served.
” Bradley wasn ’ t a profound ideological challenge to the party establishment as Sanders is today , but nonetheless , there was a distinct closing of the ranks around Gore .
By the time Clinton endorsed him , the Democratic leaders in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backed him .
Major donors marshaled their resources behind him .
Nothing like it is happening in the 2020 cycle .
Instead , mainstream Democrats openly wring their hands about the prospect of a Bernie Sanders nomination .
Though Sanders supporters are borderline paranoid about anti-Sanders sentiment , there ’ s virtually no actual anti-Sanders organizing .
Meanwhile , the rival campaigns still number in the double digits .
Several of them have many passionate followers , and one of them might beat Sanders .
But their sheer multiplicity — and key leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a sign that anti-Sanders zeal , though real , is also quite limited .
Definitively stopping Sanders would require a clear choice , yet party leaders have clearly decided they can ’ t be bothered .
To see how Biden is faring compared with Gore , just look at his list of endorsements .
He is , of course , the unquestioned endorsement leader if you follow the FiveThirtyEight endorsement tracker .
They include Cindy Axne , the first-year House member from Iowa ; Leroy Garcia , the president of the Colorado @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; Connecticut Gov .
Ned Lamont ; and Alabama Sen. Doug Jones .
My colleague Laura McGann points out he ’ s the favorite choice of frontline House Democrats who need to win in tough races .
But Biden ’ s endorsers are mostly people nobody ’ s heard of .
We live in a nationalized media environment where politically engaged citizens have emotional and intellectual relationships with nationally known political figures .
Gore had figures like that behind his campaign — Clinton , Tom Daschle , Dick Gephardt — but today , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Hillary Clinton , or Nancy Pelosi .
Obama hasn ’ t endorsed his own VP pick , even though “ Obama likes me ” is central to Biden ’ s pitch .
Clinton , who clearly has a problem with Sanders , hasn ’ t endorsed his biggest rival either , even though she could help shore up support with college-educated women currently backing Elizabeth Warren .
Chuck Schumer and Pelosi haven ’ t endorsed .
Nor has former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or Gore himself .
John Kerry is backing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his own run , undermining the Biden effort .
Solid backing for Biden from high-profile Democrats wouldn ’ t make Sanders ’ s factional support dry up .
But it would deliver a clear and unambiguous signal to Democrats to rally behind Biden instead of fracturing across three or four candidates .
And , of course , it would help with money .
Sanders has created a fundraising juggernaut grounded in a huge national base of small donors .
But as great as small donors are , rich large donors have a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensure a solid cash advantage .
Instead of helping the former vice president match Sanders in fundraising , though , Democrats ’ traditional bundlers and large donors have largely rallied to the banner of the former mayor of the fourth-largest city in Indiana — making Pete Buttigieg the No .
2 fundraiser in the race .
Buttigieg seems like a nice guy , a smart guy , and a good politician who I think would do a fine job as president .
But as a coordination point for a party elite that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop a socialist insurgent , he ’ s a frankly bizarre choice , starting with his thin résumé and his issue gaining support from black voters .
It ’ s much easier to imagine Biden , whom many black voters like , beating Sanders in a head-to-head matchup than it is to imagine Buttigieg doing so .
And if Buttigieg ’ s money had gone to Biden , Biden could use that money to help beat Sanders .
But instead , donor money is going to help Buttigieg poach white moderate votes from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could let Sanders win purely by consolidating progressives .
To make matters worse , Democrats have two separate ego-fueled billionaire vanity campaigns in the field .
Because Mike Bloomberg is ridiculously rich , he keeps putting ads on TV in random places .
They ’ re good ads , well-targeted at the views of Democrats who think that Donald Trump is extremely bad .
Bloomberg ’ s actual record both in business and in politics — from sexual harassment to stop-and-frisk to endorsing George W. Bush — is complicated , and there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the ads are good .
They ’ d also be great ads for Joe Biden if Bloomberg wanted to generously finance a pro-Biden Super PAC .
Right now in the polling averages , Sanders is just below 25 percent while Biden is just below 30 percent .
To beat him handily , all Biden needs to do is consolidate the bulk of the non-Bernie vote .
Bloomberg ’ s ads and money could be very helpful in doing that .
But instead , Bloomberg is spending the money on himself , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — not nearly enough to win but enough to cut Biden ’ s lead over Sanders .
Then , absurdly , Tom Steyer , who is both less rich than Bloomberg and much less qualified for the presidency , is also dumping tens of millions of dollars on a pointless quest to further divide the field .
Many Sanders fans I know seem to experience this cavalcade of wild ideas — Maybe we ’ ll promote an underqualified mayor !
Maybe we ’ ll run two billionaires simultaneously !
— as a sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to defeat Sanders .
But in its practical impact , it ’ s precisely the opposite .
The financial fragmentation that ’ s left Biden outspent by both Sanders and three moderate rivals is overcomplicating any effort to stop the red tide .
If Biden ’ s not up for it , someone should have said so One possible interpretation of all this is that top Democrats have profound doubts about Biden that they didn ’ t have about Al Gore .
If that ’ s the issue , then the failure to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public in a clear way is an even bigger bungle .
Most Americans like to think of themselves as independent-minded people , which is one reason endorsements often don ’ t seem to matter that much .
But if Obama had said that he thought Biden was too old and Democrats should go in another direction — or if he ’ d said that Buttigieg is too young and inexperienced — then rank-and-file Democrats surely would have listened .
Instead , party leaders allowed the well-known and well-liked Biden to get left out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of money to be spent on fragmenting the anti-Sanders vote .
What ’ s more , all efforts to take down Sanders are counterproductive .
Clinton , for starters , can ’ t seem to restrain herself from venting bitterly about Sanders .
And Obama ’ s heavy-handed intervention into the Democratic National Committee chair race several years ago , similarly , did an enormous amount to poison the well .
But while these kinds of moves do annoy Sanders ’ s biggest boosters , they don ’ t actually hurt Sanders ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s campaign would be elite coordination toward a single candidate .
That hasn ’ t happened .

On December 11, 1999, about eight weeks before the New Hampshire primary, then-President Bill Clinton endorsed Vice President Al Gore as his preferred successor.
At the time, Gore was running for the nomination against Sen. Bill Bradley, the former New York Knick turned senator from New Jersey.
Clinton didn’t bash Bradley. But he also made a clear choice. After all, he had selected Gore for a role that presupposes he could be president in the middle of a giant national crisis. The move probably wasn’t as obvious as it seems now — the personal relationship between the two was somewhat strained at the time because Gore had distanced himself from Clinton in the wake of his impeachment — but Clinton was effusive in his praise of Gore, calling him “the most effective and influential vice president who has ever served.”
Bradley wasn’t a profound ideological challenge to the party establishment as Sanders is today, but nonetheless, there was a distinct closing of the ranks around Gore. By the time Clinton endorsed him, the Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate had already backed him. Major donors marshaled their resources behind him.
Nothing like it is happening in the 2020 cycle. Instead, mainstream Democrats openly wring their hands about the prospect of a Bernie Sanders nomination. Though Sanders supporters are borderline paranoid about anti-Sanders sentiment, there’s virtually no actual anti-Sanders organizing.
Meanwhile, the rival campaigns still number in the double digits. Several of them have many passionate followers, and one of them might beat Sanders. But their sheer multiplicity — and key leaders’ refusal to decide among them — is a sign that anti-Sanders zeal, though real, is also quite limited.
Definitively stopping Sanders would require a clear choice, yet party leaders have clearly decided they can’t be bothered.
Joe Biden’s endorsement roster is weak
To see how Biden is faring compared with Gore, just look at his list of endorsements.
He is, of course, the unquestioned endorsement leader if you follow the FiveThirtyEight endorsement tracker. They include Cindy Axne, the first-year House member from Iowa; Leroy Garcia, the president of the Colorado state Senate; Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan; Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont; and Alabama Sen. Doug Jones. My colleague Laura McGann points out he’s the favorite choice of frontline House Democrats who need to win in tough races. But Biden’s endorsers are mostly people nobody’s heard of.
We live in a nationalized media environment where politically engaged citizens have emotional and intellectual relationships with nationally known political figures. Gore had figures like that behind his campaign — Clinton, Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt — but today, Biden doesn’t have Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Nancy Pelosi.
Obama hasn’t endorsed his own VP pick, even though “Obama likes me” is central to Biden’s pitch. Clinton, who clearly has a problem with Sanders, hasn’t endorsed his biggest rival either, even though she could help shore up support with college-educated women currently backing Elizabeth Warren. Chuck Schumer and Pelosi haven’t endorsed. Nor has former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or Gore himself. John Kerry is backing Biden but then was overheard seemingly musing his own run, undermining the Biden effort.
Solid backing for Biden from high-profile Democrats wouldn’t make Sanders’s factional support dry up. But it would deliver a clear and unambiguous signal to Democrats to rally behind Biden instead of fracturing across three or four candidates.
And, of course, it would help with money.
The “donor class” is desperately fragmented
Sanders has created a fundraising juggernaut grounded in a huge national base of small donors.
But as great as small donors are, rich large donors have a lot more money and should be able to ensure a solid cash advantage. Instead of helping the former vice president match Sanders in fundraising, though, Democrats’ traditional bundlers and large donors have largely rallied to the banner of the former mayor of the fourth-largest city in Indiana — making Pete Buttigieg the No. 2 fundraiser in the race.
Buttigieg seems like a nice guy, a smart guy, and a good politician who I think would do a fine job as president. But as a coordination point for a party elite that’s supposedly trying to close ranks and stop a socialist insurgent, he’s a frankly bizarre choice, starting with his thin résumé and his issue gaining support from black voters.
It’s much easier to imagine Biden, whom many black voters like, beating Sanders in a head-to-head matchup than it is to imagine Buttigieg doing so. And if Buttigieg’s money had gone to Biden, Biden could use that money to help beat Sanders. But instead, donor money is going to help Buttigieg poach white moderate votes from Biden, creating a fragmented field that could let Sanders win purely by consolidating progressives.
To make matters worse, Democrats have two separate ego-fueled billionaire vanity campaigns in the field.
Plutocrats are objectively helping Sanders win
Because Mike Bloomberg is ridiculously rich, he keeps putting ads on TV in random places.
They’re good ads, well-targeted at the views of Democrats who think that Donald Trump is extremely bad. Bloomberg’s actual record both in business and in politics — from sexual harassment to stop-and-frisk to endorsing George W. Bush — is complicated, and there’s plenty for normie Democrats to dislike. But the ads are good. They’d also be great ads for Joe Biden if Bloomberg wanted to generously finance a pro-Biden Super PAC.
Right now in the polling averages, Sanders is just below 25 percent while Biden is just below 30 percent. To beat him handily, all Biden needs to do is consolidate the bulk of the non-Bernie vote. Bloomberg’s ads and money could be very helpful in doing that. But instead, Bloomberg is spending the money on himself, rising to 8.3 percent in the polls — not nearly enough to win but enough to cut Biden’s lead over Sanders.
Then, absurdly, Tom Steyer, who is both less rich than Bloomberg and much less qualified for the presidency, is also dumping tens of millions of dollars on a pointless quest to further divide the field.
Many Sanders fans I know seem to experience this cavalcade of wild ideas — Maybe we’ll promote an underqualified mayor! Maybe we’ll run two billionaires simultaneously! — as a sign of how desperate the donor class is to defeat Sanders. But in its practical impact, it’s precisely the opposite. The financial fragmentation that’s left Biden outspent by both Sanders and three moderate rivals is overcomplicating any effort to stop the red tide.
If Biden’s not up for it, someone should have said so
One possible interpretation of all this is that top Democrats have profound doubts about Biden that they didn’t have about Al Gore.
If that’s the issue, then the failure to coordinate and convey that opinion to the public in a clear way is an even bigger bungle. Most Americans like to think of themselves as independent-minded people, which is one reason endorsements often don’t seem to matter that much. But if Obama had said that he thought Biden was too old and Democrats should go in another direction — or if he’d said that Buttigieg is too young and inexperienced — then rank-and-file Democrats surely would have listened.
Instead, party leaders allowed the well-known and well-liked Biden to get left out in the cold and for enormous sums of money to be spent on fragmenting the anti-Sanders vote.
What’s more, all efforts to take down Sanders are counterproductive. Clinton, for starters, can’t seem to restrain herself from venting bitterly about Sanders. And Obama’s heavy-handed intervention into the Democratic National Committee chair race several years ago, similarly, did an enormous amount to poison the well. But while these kinds of moves do annoy Sanders’s biggest boosters, they don’t actually hurt Sanders’s campaign.
What would hurt Sanders’s campaign would be elite coordination toward a single candidate. That hasn’t happened.


vox--2020-02-07--Alexander Vindman, a key impeachment witness, is dismissed from the White House

“ Do not worry .
I will be fine for telling the truth , ” Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified in November , during the House ’ s impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump ’ s pressure campaign against Ukraine .
But now that the Senate has delivered the president “ total acquittal ” on two articles of impeachment , a triumphant Trump is apparently seeking vengeance .
And Vindman appears to be his first target .
Vindman , a top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council , listened in on Trump ’ s July 25 call with Ukrainian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he found the call inappropriate and that he saw it as “ improper for the president of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent.
” Now Vindman has been removed from his post in the White House as of this Friday , according to his lawyer .
His twin brother , a lawyer for the National Security Council , was also fired .
“ The most powerful man in the world—buoyed by the silent , the pliable , and the complicit—has decided to exact revenge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a statement , according to Bloomberg News ’ s Jennifer Jacobs .
Vindman will reportedly be detailed to the Defense Department .
His NSC posting was expected to end this summer , though he reportedly told senior council officials that he would end his tenure in the White House earlier than expected .
Even so , the move is symbolic of a president who has made it clear — including in his statement turned political diatribe on Thursday — that he is not in a forgiving mood .
“ It was evil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dirty cops , it was leakers and liars , and this should never , ever happen to another president , ever , ” Trump said Thursday of the impeachment inquiry , in his hour-plus speech .
Bloomberg reports that the White House is framing this not as payback against Vindman but as a broader shrinking of the NSC staff .
But given the timing after Trump ’ s acquittal , the move certainly looks like an attempt to close ranks and root out those who might be perceived as being insufficiently loyal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no more leakers .
Vindman ’ s testimony in the House ’ s impeachment inquiry was some of the most damning against the president .
Though Vindman did not interact with Trump directly , he attended a meeting on July 10 between Ukrainian and White House officials , where he said European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland brought up investigations into Joe Biden ’ s son Hunter and the 2016 election , in exchange for a meeting between Trump and Zelensky .
Vindman also listened in on the July 25 call when Trump asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though ” and look into the Bidens and mentioned a conspiracy theory that Ukraine , not Russia , interfered in the 2016 election .
Vindman ’ s testimony was also seen as something that could get bipartisan attention , given his exemplary public service .
He is an immigrant who fled the former Soviet Union as a child , and he served in the US military , where he earned a Purple Heart after being injured by a roadside bomb in Iraq .
Vindman ’ s twin brother also worked for the NSC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacked his credibility , implying that Vindman , who speaks fluent Ukrainian and Russian , was somehow displaying “ dual loyalties.
” Trump defenders also impugned his service on the NSC , suggesting his superiors were dissatisfied with his work .
And while many career public servants , diplomats , and other White House officials eventually testified against the president , Trump seemed to reserve a particular ire for Vindman — and by extension , his brother .
“ Then they said , well , maybe the transcription is not correct .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we had some people that were really amazing , but we did everything .
I said , what was wrong with it ?
They said , ‘ They didn ’ t add this word.
’ I said , ‘ Add it , ” Trump said on Thursday , calling out an impeachment witness by name .
And as the Washington Post reported , Trump may not stop at Vindman and could oust other officials who testified against him .
The danger here , of course , is that officials will be even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the president if he acts inappropriately again .
And if the White House succeeds in uprooting officials it sees as disloyal to Trump , there will be even fewer checks on an emboldened president .

“Do not worry. I will be fine for telling the truth,” Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified in November, during the House’s impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump’s pressure campaign against Ukraine.
But now that the Senate has delivered the president “total acquittal” on two articles of impeachment, a triumphant Trump is apparently seeking vengeance. And Vindman appears to be his first target.
Vindman, a top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, listened in on Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. He testified that he found the call inappropriate and that he saw it as “improper for the president of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent.”
Now Vindman has been removed from his post in the White House as of this Friday, according to his lawyer. His twin brother, a lawyer for the National Security Council, was also reassigned.
“The most powerful man in the world—buoyed by the silent, the pliable, and the complicit—has decided to exact revenge,” Vindman’s lawyer said in a statement, according to Bloomberg News’s Jennifer Jacobs.
Vindman will be detailed to the Defense Department. His NSC posting was expected to end this summer, though he reportedly told senior council officials that he would end his tenure in the White House earlier than expected.
Even so, the move is symbolic of a president who has made it clear — including in his statement turned political diatribe on Thursday — that he is not in a forgiving mood.
“It was evil, it was corrupt, it was dirty cops, it was leakers and liars, and this should never, ever happen to another president, ever,” Trump said Thursday of the impeachment inquiry, in his hour-plus speech.
Bloomberg reports that the White House is framing this not as payback against Vindman but as a broader shrinking of the NSC staff. But given the timing after Trump’s acquittal, the move certainly looks like an attempt to close ranks and root out those who might be perceived as being insufficiently loyal to the president. In other words, no more leakers.
Vindman’s testimony in the House’s impeachment inquiry was some of the most damning against the president.
Though Vindman did not interact with Trump directly, he attended a meeting on July 10 between Ukrainian and White House officials, where he said European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland brought up investigations into Joe Biden’s son Hunter and the 2016 election, in exchange for a meeting between Trump and Zelensky.
Vindman also listened in on the July 25 call when Trump asked Zelensky to “do us a favor though” and look into the Bidens and mentioned a conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 election.
Vindman’s testimony was also seen as something that could get bipartisan attention, given his exemplary public service. He is an immigrant who fled the former Soviet Union as a child, and he served in the US military, where he earned a Purple Heart after being injured by a roadside bomb in Iraq. Vindman’s twin brother also worked for the NSC, as a lawyer.
But Republicans attacked his credibility, implying that Vindman, who speaks fluent Ukrainian and Russian, was somehow displaying “dual loyalties.” Trump defenders also impugned his service on the NSC, suggesting his superiors were dissatisfied with his work.
And while many career public servants, diplomats, and other White House officials eventually testified against the president, Trump seemed to reserve a particular ire for Vindman — and by extension, his brother.
“Then they said, well, maybe the transcription is not correct. But Lt. Col. Vindman and his twin brother, we had some people that were really amazing, but we did everything. I said, what was wrong with it? They said, ‘They didn’t add this word.’ I said, ‘Add it,” Trump said on Thursday, calling out an impeachment witness by name.
(Trump also had plenty to say about the Democrats who prosecuted the impeachment case against him.)
And as the Washington Post reported, Trump may not stop at Vindman and could oust other officials who testified against him.
The danger here, of course, is that officials will be even more fearful to speak out or testify against the president if he acts inappropriately again.
And if the White House succeeds in uprooting officials it sees as disloyal to Trump, there will be even fewer checks on an emboldened president.