Jimmy Carter Calls Donald Trump an “Illegitimate” President Who Only Won Because of Russia
“I think a full investigation would show that Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016.”
INAE OH
Former President Jimmy Carter questioned the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s presidency on Friday, saying a full investigation of the 2016 election would likely prove that Trump only won because of Russia’s assistance.
“There’s no doubt that the Russians did interfere in the election and I think the interference, although not yet quantified, if fully investigated would show that Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016,” Carter said during a panel discussion hosted by the Carter Center. “He lost the election and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf.”
When asked if he believed that Trump was, therefore, an illegitimate president, Carter responded: “Based on what I just said, which I can’t retract.” The extraordinary comments marked some of the harshest language a former US president has ever directed at a sitting president. They came just hours after Trump, who is in Japan for the G20 summit, appeared to once again belittle the threat of foreign interference in US elections.
In this latest instance, filmed on the sidelines of the summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin sat beside Trump.
Carter on Friday also condemned the Trump administration’s actions toward migrants apprehended at the border: “Everyday we send a disgraceful signal around the world, that this is what the present United States government stands for, and that is torture and kidnapping of little children.”
"Former President Jimmy Carter: If fully investigated, it would show that Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election and he was put in office because the Russians interfered ...on his behalf."
June 28, 2019
Wasn't good....
Joe Biden throws own campaign into turmoil after Harris attacks his record on race
Analysis by Stephen Collinson
Joe Biden stumbled into a potential campaign-defining moment Thursday that pitched his effort to win the Democratic nomination onto suddenly shaky ground.
Reeling from an attack by a much younger rival, Kamala Harris, the 76-year-old delivered an unfortunate soundbite at the Democratic debate that threatens to symbolize his biggest political liability.
"My time is up," he said, meaning to cut short one of his own answers but instead drawing attention to a question that haunts his campaign: Has his generation's time come and gone?
Harris' assault was breathtaking, appeared planned ahead of time and exposed a willingness to attack she had not previously shown in a campaign that started strong but has slumbered ever since.
The immediate impressions left after a debate are often not how things appear a few days later. So it may be that Biden's bad night does not end up being as damaging as it first appeared.
It's even possible that some voters might have been offended at the audacity of the attack by Harris on a man who has been a devoted servant of the Democratic Party for decades.
And Biden -- who served as vice president to the nation's first black President, Barack Obama -- enjoys strong support among African American voters, a crucial Democratic constituency.
But it was easily the most compelling and memorable moment of the young 2020 campaign so far and leaves the ex-vice president confronting deeply uncomfortable questions about his hopes.
Biden, on the ropes as he's rarely been in half a century of public life, snapped his head towards Harris in disbelief as she said, "Vice President Biden, I do not believe you are a racist..."
The California senator was seizing on a recent comment by Biden in which he highlighted his work with segregationist senators in the 1970s to show he could work with people he disagreed with.
Beloved by many Democrats after a lifetime overcoming personal tragedies, Biden appeared shocked and deeply hurt to be faulted on civil rights, an issue on which he's fought for decades.
His struggle to respond effectively to Harris - and his decision to invoke a states' rights argument with all its troubling racial connotations, only compounded the damage.
Biden has been trying to dispel the impression that he's been left behind by a young and diverse party that's changed under him.
As the frontrunner he was always going to be the biggest target -- and he took fire from other rivals, including Rep. Eric Swalwell of California.
Not all of his performance was as bad as his exchange with Harris. But debates are won and lost in the breakout moments that can come to define a candidacy.
New questions on Biden's hopes
Biden ended the night besieged by questions over whether he is sufficiently nimble and energetic to triumph in the grueling struggle to win the Democratic nomination.
His wobbly performance will also renew doubts about his claim that he's the strongest campaigner to take on Trump in November 2020.
The President, who has a merciless nose for political weakness, may have spotted Biden's vulnerability earlier than anyone.
He's spent recent weeks slamming Biden as "Sleepy" and making dark remarks about the mental state of a rival his aides say concerns Trump over his appeal in rust-belt states.
There's little doubt that Biden has the experience required of a President, and as a former vice president, he knows exactly the burdens that come with the Oval Office entail.
But inevitably, there will now be more questions among Democrats about the wisdom of nominating someone who would be the oldest President ever elected.
"I think age is a very legitimate issue," said David Axelrod, who saw the toll the office of the President can exact when he was a senior adviser to the Obama administration.
"This is the hardest job on the planet. And (it is) sensible to ask the question whether people who are nearing 80 years old when they enter office are prepared for it."
"That's why tests like this debate are important," Axelrod, now a CNN political commentator said.
Biden can look to history for comeback hints
While it was a bad night for Biden, it may not be terminal for his hopes of fulfilling his lifetime dream to be President.
He's not the first veteran politician to take a hammering in a debate. And he may be simply out of practice. He's not faced comparable stakes since his 2012 debate showdown with GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan -- which he won handily.
In his previous presidential campaign in 2008, Biden was outsider throwing bombs at the frontrunners. Now the roles are reversed. And he clearly wasn't ready for the intensity of the fight.
In many ways, Biden performed like his old boss, Obama, who was roughed up by Mitt Romney, as presidents often are in their first reelection debate. His performance also recalled President Ronald Reagan, who appeared old and out of touch in his first debate against Democrat Walter Mondale in the 1984 election.
Each of those Presidents licked their wounds and bounced back, and won reelection. Biden now faces a similar assignment to get his campaign back on track in the next debate, to be hosted by CNN at the end of next month.
He will need to substantially raise his game. He was a shadow of the witty, vibrant politician who fired off zingers in his debates under intense scrutiny earlier in the 21st century.
To the victor, go the spoils
Harris's strong performance in Miami immediately established her as a potential rising star of the 2020 campaign. She joins Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren who was praised for her performance in the first of the debate double headers on Wednesday.
Early debates are often not decisive in selecting a party nominee and questions remains about Harris' staying power.
In a CNN town hall earlier in the campaign, for instance, she stumbled on health care, and has adopted confusing positions on Medicare for All -- perhaps the central issue in the Democratic race.
On Friday morning, she was left explaining her health care plan yet again after being one of only two candidates to raise their hand when they were asked "Who here would abolish their private health insurance in favorite of a government-run plan?" Harris said she believed the question was about whether she, personally, would give up her private plan in favor of Medicare and that she does not favor abolishing private insurance.
She will now face all the scrutiny that comes with a rising campaign.
But it was the political instincts she showed in turning to Biden and challenging his past positions on race that will mean this debate may be remembered for years to come.
She rebuked Biden for his recent comments about segregationist senators and said she had been personally hurt by his position on integrating schools in the 1970s.
"There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools and she was bussed to school every day," Harris said.
"And that little girl was me."
Biden hits back with prosecutor jab
Biden, monetarily stunned, protested, rightly that he had a strong record on civil rights - and said local authorities, not Washington, where he was serving as a senator, took decisions that affected Harris.
As she tried to cross-examine him, Biden threw a jab of his own saying, "I was a public defender. I didn't become a prosecutor," in a reference to Harris's former job sending people to jail.
"I've also argued very strongly that we, in fact, deal with the notion of denying people access to the ballot box," Biden added.
"I agree that everybody once they -- anyway, my time is up. I'm sorry," Biden said, trailing off.
Harris was not the only candidate to try to grab a headline by attacking Biden and emphasizing the generational gap.
Swalwell said in a CNN interview earlier Thursday that Biden's ideas were "staler than Donald Trump's."
And on the debate stage, he added, "I was 6 years old when a presidential candidate came to the California Democratic convention and said it's time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans. That candidate was then-Sen. Joe Biden."
"He was right when he said that 32 years ago. He is still right today."
Biden didn't seem too put off by his 38-year-old colleague's impudence, replying "I'm holding onto that torch. I want to make that clear," he said.
Analysis by Stephen Collinson
Joe Biden stumbled into a potential campaign-defining moment Thursday that pitched his effort to win the Democratic nomination onto suddenly shaky ground.
Reeling from an attack by a much younger rival, Kamala Harris, the 76-year-old delivered an unfortunate soundbite at the Democratic debate that threatens to symbolize his biggest political liability.
"My time is up," he said, meaning to cut short one of his own answers but instead drawing attention to a question that haunts his campaign: Has his generation's time come and gone?
Harris' assault was breathtaking, appeared planned ahead of time and exposed a willingness to attack she had not previously shown in a campaign that started strong but has slumbered ever since.
The immediate impressions left after a debate are often not how things appear a few days later. So it may be that Biden's bad night does not end up being as damaging as it first appeared.
It's even possible that some voters might have been offended at the audacity of the attack by Harris on a man who has been a devoted servant of the Democratic Party for decades.
And Biden -- who served as vice president to the nation's first black President, Barack Obama -- enjoys strong support among African American voters, a crucial Democratic constituency.
But it was easily the most compelling and memorable moment of the young 2020 campaign so far and leaves the ex-vice president confronting deeply uncomfortable questions about his hopes.
Biden, on the ropes as he's rarely been in half a century of public life, snapped his head towards Harris in disbelief as she said, "Vice President Biden, I do not believe you are a racist..."
The California senator was seizing on a recent comment by Biden in which he highlighted his work with segregationist senators in the 1970s to show he could work with people he disagreed with.
Beloved by many Democrats after a lifetime overcoming personal tragedies, Biden appeared shocked and deeply hurt to be faulted on civil rights, an issue on which he's fought for decades.
His struggle to respond effectively to Harris - and his decision to invoke a states' rights argument with all its troubling racial connotations, only compounded the damage.
Biden has been trying to dispel the impression that he's been left behind by a young and diverse party that's changed under him.
As the frontrunner he was always going to be the biggest target -- and he took fire from other rivals, including Rep. Eric Swalwell of California.
Not all of his performance was as bad as his exchange with Harris. But debates are won and lost in the breakout moments that can come to define a candidacy.
New questions on Biden's hopes
Biden ended the night besieged by questions over whether he is sufficiently nimble and energetic to triumph in the grueling struggle to win the Democratic nomination.
His wobbly performance will also renew doubts about his claim that he's the strongest campaigner to take on Trump in November 2020.
The President, who has a merciless nose for political weakness, may have spotted Biden's vulnerability earlier than anyone.
He's spent recent weeks slamming Biden as "Sleepy" and making dark remarks about the mental state of a rival his aides say concerns Trump over his appeal in rust-belt states.
There's little doubt that Biden has the experience required of a President, and as a former vice president, he knows exactly the burdens that come with the Oval Office entail.
But inevitably, there will now be more questions among Democrats about the wisdom of nominating someone who would be the oldest President ever elected.
"I think age is a very legitimate issue," said David Axelrod, who saw the toll the office of the President can exact when he was a senior adviser to the Obama administration.
"This is the hardest job on the planet. And (it is) sensible to ask the question whether people who are nearing 80 years old when they enter office are prepared for it."
"That's why tests like this debate are important," Axelrod, now a CNN political commentator said.
Biden can look to history for comeback hints
While it was a bad night for Biden, it may not be terminal for his hopes of fulfilling his lifetime dream to be President.
He's not the first veteran politician to take a hammering in a debate. And he may be simply out of practice. He's not faced comparable stakes since his 2012 debate showdown with GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan -- which he won handily.
In his previous presidential campaign in 2008, Biden was outsider throwing bombs at the frontrunners. Now the roles are reversed. And he clearly wasn't ready for the intensity of the fight.
In many ways, Biden performed like his old boss, Obama, who was roughed up by Mitt Romney, as presidents often are in their first reelection debate. His performance also recalled President Ronald Reagan, who appeared old and out of touch in his first debate against Democrat Walter Mondale in the 1984 election.
Each of those Presidents licked their wounds and bounced back, and won reelection. Biden now faces a similar assignment to get his campaign back on track in the next debate, to be hosted by CNN at the end of next month.
He will need to substantially raise his game. He was a shadow of the witty, vibrant politician who fired off zingers in his debates under intense scrutiny earlier in the 21st century.
To the victor, go the spoils
Harris's strong performance in Miami immediately established her as a potential rising star of the 2020 campaign. She joins Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren who was praised for her performance in the first of the debate double headers on Wednesday.
Early debates are often not decisive in selecting a party nominee and questions remains about Harris' staying power.
In a CNN town hall earlier in the campaign, for instance, she stumbled on health care, and has adopted confusing positions on Medicare for All -- perhaps the central issue in the Democratic race.
On Friday morning, she was left explaining her health care plan yet again after being one of only two candidates to raise their hand when they were asked "Who here would abolish their private health insurance in favorite of a government-run plan?" Harris said she believed the question was about whether she, personally, would give up her private plan in favor of Medicare and that she does not favor abolishing private insurance.
She will now face all the scrutiny that comes with a rising campaign.
But it was the political instincts she showed in turning to Biden and challenging his past positions on race that will mean this debate may be remembered for years to come.
She rebuked Biden for his recent comments about segregationist senators and said she had been personally hurt by his position on integrating schools in the 1970s.
"There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools and she was bussed to school every day," Harris said.
"And that little girl was me."
Biden hits back with prosecutor jab
Biden, monetarily stunned, protested, rightly that he had a strong record on civil rights - and said local authorities, not Washington, where he was serving as a senator, took decisions that affected Harris.
As she tried to cross-examine him, Biden threw a jab of his own saying, "I was a public defender. I didn't become a prosecutor," in a reference to Harris's former job sending people to jail.
"I've also argued very strongly that we, in fact, deal with the notion of denying people access to the ballot box," Biden added.
"I agree that everybody once they -- anyway, my time is up. I'm sorry," Biden said, trailing off.
Harris was not the only candidate to try to grab a headline by attacking Biden and emphasizing the generational gap.
Swalwell said in a CNN interview earlier Thursday that Biden's ideas were "staler than Donald Trump's."
And on the debate stage, he added, "I was 6 years old when a presidential candidate came to the California Democratic convention and said it's time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans. That candidate was then-Sen. Joe Biden."
"He was right when he said that 32 years ago. He is still right today."
Biden didn't seem too put off by his 38-year-old colleague's impudence, replying "I'm holding onto that torch. I want to make that clear," he said.
Locking him up isn't enough.. Boiling in oil isn't enough...
Trump gives Putin light-hearted warning: 'Don't meddle in the election'
By Kevin Liptak
President Donald Trump issued a breezy warning to his Russian counterpart Friday against meddling in US elections, laughing and smiling as he told his counterpart not to interfere.
"Don't meddle in the election, please," Trump said, smirking and wagging his finger at Putin. He only raised the matter after being questioned by reporters whether he would issue a warning.
"Yes, of course I will," Trump said before making his joking aside.
It was an off-hand moment that came at the start of the men's first meeting since the conclusion of Robert Mueller's investigation.
Trump said he enjoyed a "very, very good relationship" with Putin, and said "many positive things are going to come out of the relationship."
"We have many things to discuss, including trade and some disarmament, some little protectionism, in a very positive way," Trump said.
When he made his playful admonishment against election interference, Putin sat beside him laughing. Trump's aides, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, also smiled.
It was hardly the serious confrontation that many of Trump's critics -- and even some officials in the US government -- have been hoping he'd make ahead of the 2020 contest, which could be vulnerable again to foreign meddling efforts.
Instead, it appeared to be Trump's way of injecting levity into what remains a deeply fractured Washington-Moscow relationship.
In the seven months since Trump last encountered his Russian counterpart, the Russians detained a former Marine on espionage charges and were accused by Mueller in his report of waging a "sweeping and systematic" influence campaign during the 2016 election.
That's a distant cry from the warmed-up relations with Russia that Trump entered office vowing to pursue. When he sat down with Putin on the sidelines of the G20 summit here on Friday, ties between the two countries were near the lowest ebb since the Cold War.
In Trump's view, that's the fault of Democrats and overzealous investigators intent on finding links between his campaign and Russian officials. As he greeted Putin for the first time since Mueller concluded his investigation and released a final report, there was little to indicate his view of Moscow's influence efforts has changed or that his prickliness on the topic had waned.
"I'll have a very good conversation with him," Trump told reporters at the White House as he was departing for Japan.
But he declined to detail what he might say regarding election meddling, or whether he would raise it at all.
It was a defensive prebuttal to inevitable criticism and skepticism about Trump's meeting with Putin -- an outcome that appeared even more likely following Trump's casual warning on election meddling.
After every meeting and phone call, Trump's critics have accused him of fealty to Putin. In part, their suspicions are rooted in the veiled nature of those sessions, which have sometimes occurred without aides or even American interpreters present.
It's also based on Trump's general unwillingness to criticize Putin, despite his efforts that butt against American interests from the Middle East to Ukraine to election security. As Trump was traveling to the G20 summit, he lobbed criticism at Japan, India and Germany over trade and defense matters -- but not toward Russia.
Trump met the leaders of those three countries earlier Friday: Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and German Chancellor Angela Merkel (who on Thursday was seen shaking in public for the second time in less than two weeks, raising concern over her well-being).
In those sessions, Trump cast an optimistic view on trade, saying countries were desperate for access to US markets.
"We're the hottest country in the world right now, the United States, and everyone wants a part of it," he said before meeting Modi, whom he criticized on the way to the G20 for applying retaliatory tariffs on the United States.
In a sign of his close study of Trump, Abe provided the US President (known as a visual learner) with a map depicting new Japanese investments in the US with the header: "Japan has FIVE Additional Investments in JUST ONE MONTH."
Unlike many of his foreign peers, Putin hasn't engaged in that type of effort to woo Trump, though such attempts haven't appeared necessary.
"Whenever President Trump and President Putin meet there is a very strong domestic backlash after that meeting. But, in part, it's because there's a total lack of transparency about the topics of discussion and what the agenda is," said Heather Conley, the Europe program director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "But the President does not take that policy approach and, I think, continues to create the domestic backlash."
In an interview ahead of the meeting, Putin signaled a bullish view toward achieving his long-term goal of challenging western alliances. The "liberal idea" has "outlived its purpose," he said in an interview with the Financial Times.
Asked about a backlash against the so-called establishment taking place across the world, Putin said "the obvious problem is the gap between the interest of the elites and the overwhelming majority of the people".
"Some elements of the liberal idea, such as multiculturalism, are no longer tenable," Putin said.
US officials told reporters last week the session Friday had no "formal agenda," though listed Iran, Ukraine and the Middle East as likely points of discussion. The Kremlin has been similarly vague about an agenda.
Neither side is casting the meeting as a formal summit like the one the two leaders convened last summer in Helsinki. After that meeting, Trump appeared to take Putin's word that Russia didn't work to sway the result of the 2016 election.
The two men were due to meet again at last year's G20 summit in Buenos Aires, but that meeting was canceled after Russia seized three Ukrainian ships and detaining three dozen sailors. Trump tweeted at the time that another meeting wouldn't occur until the matter was resolved.
It's not resolved, with the ships still in Russian hands and the sailors held in pre-trial detention. Ukraine has demanded the release of the sailors, which it has deemed prisoners of war.
That did not stop Trump from scheduling the meeting this week, and during his photo-op with Putin, he said he hadn't raised the matter.
"We haven't discussed it," Trump said.
Among the topics he was likeliest to raise is a potential new arms control treaty brokered between the US, Russia and China that would replace agreements he's withdrawn from or let expire.
It's not clear whether he raised the case of Paul Whelan, a discharged US Marine reservist who was arrested in late December and accused by Russian authorities of espionage. He denies being a spy and his family says he was in Russia to attend a wedding.
The week the US Embassy in Moscow sent a note of protest to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs over Whelan's treatment in a Moscow jail.
"We were asked to investigate this situation and ensure the safety and protection of Mr. Whelan," the embassy said in a statement. "The welfare of US citizens abroad is our top priority."
Whelman remains in pre-trial detention.
By Kevin Liptak
President Donald Trump issued a breezy warning to his Russian counterpart Friday against meddling in US elections, laughing and smiling as he told his counterpart not to interfere.
"Don't meddle in the election, please," Trump said, smirking and wagging his finger at Putin. He only raised the matter after being questioned by reporters whether he would issue a warning.
"Yes, of course I will," Trump said before making his joking aside.
It was an off-hand moment that came at the start of the men's first meeting since the conclusion of Robert Mueller's investigation.
Trump said he enjoyed a "very, very good relationship" with Putin, and said "many positive things are going to come out of the relationship."
"We have many things to discuss, including trade and some disarmament, some little protectionism, in a very positive way," Trump said.
When he made his playful admonishment against election interference, Putin sat beside him laughing. Trump's aides, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, also smiled.
It was hardly the serious confrontation that many of Trump's critics -- and even some officials in the US government -- have been hoping he'd make ahead of the 2020 contest, which could be vulnerable again to foreign meddling efforts.
Instead, it appeared to be Trump's way of injecting levity into what remains a deeply fractured Washington-Moscow relationship.
In the seven months since Trump last encountered his Russian counterpart, the Russians detained a former Marine on espionage charges and were accused by Mueller in his report of waging a "sweeping and systematic" influence campaign during the 2016 election.
That's a distant cry from the warmed-up relations with Russia that Trump entered office vowing to pursue. When he sat down with Putin on the sidelines of the G20 summit here on Friday, ties between the two countries were near the lowest ebb since the Cold War.
In Trump's view, that's the fault of Democrats and overzealous investigators intent on finding links between his campaign and Russian officials. As he greeted Putin for the first time since Mueller concluded his investigation and released a final report, there was little to indicate his view of Moscow's influence efforts has changed or that his prickliness on the topic had waned.
"I'll have a very good conversation with him," Trump told reporters at the White House as he was departing for Japan.
But he declined to detail what he might say regarding election meddling, or whether he would raise it at all.
It was a defensive prebuttal to inevitable criticism and skepticism about Trump's meeting with Putin -- an outcome that appeared even more likely following Trump's casual warning on election meddling.
After every meeting and phone call, Trump's critics have accused him of fealty to Putin. In part, their suspicions are rooted in the veiled nature of those sessions, which have sometimes occurred without aides or even American interpreters present.
It's also based on Trump's general unwillingness to criticize Putin, despite his efforts that butt against American interests from the Middle East to Ukraine to election security. As Trump was traveling to the G20 summit, he lobbed criticism at Japan, India and Germany over trade and defense matters -- but not toward Russia.
Trump met the leaders of those three countries earlier Friday: Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and German Chancellor Angela Merkel (who on Thursday was seen shaking in public for the second time in less than two weeks, raising concern over her well-being).
In those sessions, Trump cast an optimistic view on trade, saying countries were desperate for access to US markets.
"We're the hottest country in the world right now, the United States, and everyone wants a part of it," he said before meeting Modi, whom he criticized on the way to the G20 for applying retaliatory tariffs on the United States.
In a sign of his close study of Trump, Abe provided the US President (known as a visual learner) with a map depicting new Japanese investments in the US with the header: "Japan has FIVE Additional Investments in JUST ONE MONTH."
Unlike many of his foreign peers, Putin hasn't engaged in that type of effort to woo Trump, though such attempts haven't appeared necessary.
"Whenever President Trump and President Putin meet there is a very strong domestic backlash after that meeting. But, in part, it's because there's a total lack of transparency about the topics of discussion and what the agenda is," said Heather Conley, the Europe program director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "But the President does not take that policy approach and, I think, continues to create the domestic backlash."
In an interview ahead of the meeting, Putin signaled a bullish view toward achieving his long-term goal of challenging western alliances. The "liberal idea" has "outlived its purpose," he said in an interview with the Financial Times.
Asked about a backlash against the so-called establishment taking place across the world, Putin said "the obvious problem is the gap between the interest of the elites and the overwhelming majority of the people".
"Some elements of the liberal idea, such as multiculturalism, are no longer tenable," Putin said.
US officials told reporters last week the session Friday had no "formal agenda," though listed Iran, Ukraine and the Middle East as likely points of discussion. The Kremlin has been similarly vague about an agenda.
Neither side is casting the meeting as a formal summit like the one the two leaders convened last summer in Helsinki. After that meeting, Trump appeared to take Putin's word that Russia didn't work to sway the result of the 2016 election.
The two men were due to meet again at last year's G20 summit in Buenos Aires, but that meeting was canceled after Russia seized three Ukrainian ships and detaining three dozen sailors. Trump tweeted at the time that another meeting wouldn't occur until the matter was resolved.
It's not resolved, with the ships still in Russian hands and the sailors held in pre-trial detention. Ukraine has demanded the release of the sailors, which it has deemed prisoners of war.
That did not stop Trump from scheduling the meeting this week, and during his photo-op with Putin, he said he hadn't raised the matter.
"We haven't discussed it," Trump said.
Among the topics he was likeliest to raise is a potential new arms control treaty brokered between the US, Russia and China that would replace agreements he's withdrawn from or let expire.
It's not clear whether he raised the case of Paul Whelan, a discharged US Marine reservist who was arrested in late December and accused by Russian authorities of espionage. He denies being a spy and his family says he was in Russia to attend a wedding.
The week the US Embassy in Moscow sent a note of protest to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs over Whelan's treatment in a Moscow jail.
"We were asked to investigate this situation and ensure the safety and protection of Mr. Whelan," the embassy said in a statement. "The welfare of US citizens abroad is our top priority."
Whelman remains in pre-trial detention.
Volcano from space...
Astronauts capture volcano erupting after nearly a century of silence
Matthew Cappucci
Watching a volcano erupt would be cool. But having a front-row seat 254 miles above the volcano? That would be a view.
Astronauts aboard the International Space Station captured the breathtaking scene Saturday showing the vigorous eruption of the Raikoke volcano.
Raikoke is an uninhabited island along the Kuril chain, a necklace of narrow strip islands draped 500 miles from northern Japan to northeast Russia. Formerly owned by Japan, the volcanic island - which occupies an area less than two square miles - is now under the control of Russia, and has been since World War II.
The aerial view offers a perspective seldom seen during major eruptions. Like a thunderstorm, a mushroom cloud blossoms over the volcano, where ash is catapulted into the sky with explosive force. The updraft is so strong in the middle that it "outruns" the plume's periphery, making the edges curl down before becoming entrained in the rising cloud again. During Saturday's eruption, the plume may have rocketed up more than 50,000 feet (10 miles).
It's easy to guess which way the winds were blowing by looking at the photograph. A more diffuse, expansive sheet of ash clouds lingers downwind, transported by strong upper-level winds over the Sea of Okhotsk. Volcanic ash is heavy in silicates, which have a melting temperature close to 2,000 degrees. Many commercial aircraft engines operate at temperatures well over 2,500 degrees - meaning the dust-like particles would melt and stick to vital mechanics in the plane. That can cause them to "choke" an engine, making volcanic ash clouds dangerous for aviation.
Volcanic ash can't be seen on traditional radar or the forward-looking radar in the nose of most jets. That makes forecasting it vitally important. Visibly, ash clouds are easy to spot from far away, so they're simple to avoid during the daytime. But if a plane was to enter an ash cloud at night, it would have one telltale sign: electricity arcing across the windshield.
Volcanic ash clouds are highly electrified. If a plane flew into one, so much charge would build up that discharges of St. Elmo's Fire would leap across the windshield like small lightning bolts.
Raikoke's ash cloud was no exception, with hundreds of lightning bolts leaping from the supercharged ash above. Atmospheric scientists refer to this lightning barrage as a "dirty thunderstorm."
The intensity and frequency of volcanic lightning discharges can offer insight about how robust the eruption was. Lightning activity peaked during four main periods, suggesting Raikoke's eruption was several individual bursts. That's also evident in the shape of the clouds: notice the downwind anvil is already there while a new plume immediately goes over the volcano.
Near the base of the plume, a collar of white, puffy clouds can be seen. That's water vapor - not ash. The enormous amount of gas and other materials released by the volcano probably contained water vapor, with the temperature contrast between the fiery plume and the air around it causing condensation.
What would it be like under this cloud? First, you'd see the amber, sand-colored anvil approaching. There might be an ominous display of mammatus clouds, the iconic pouch-like bags that hang beneath foreboding storms that usually are a sign of turbulence in the atmosphere. The sun would appear a creepy orange color until it disappeared. Lightning would crackle, crawling along the anvil; the gases in the atmosphere would make it a neon-purple color. Bolts would hit the ground as far as 60 miles away.
Closer to the plume, you might get a spattering of small pebbles raining down, possibly with a thin glaze of ice around them, like rocky hailstones. Depending on the temperature of the atmosphere, deadly gas and ash might make it down toward the surface. A number of whirlwinds and waterspouts would likely also be dancing.
Saturday's eruption marks Raikoke's first since 1924. Before that, a "catastrophic" eruption occurred in 1778. In the meantime, there's no telling what Raikoke's next move will be.
Matthew Cappucci
Watching a volcano erupt would be cool. But having a front-row seat 254 miles above the volcano? That would be a view.Astronauts aboard the International Space Station captured the breathtaking scene Saturday showing the vigorous eruption of the Raikoke volcano.
Raikoke is an uninhabited island along the Kuril chain, a necklace of narrow strip islands draped 500 miles from northern Japan to northeast Russia. Formerly owned by Japan, the volcanic island - which occupies an area less than two square miles - is now under the control of Russia, and has been since World War II.
The aerial view offers a perspective seldom seen during major eruptions. Like a thunderstorm, a mushroom cloud blossoms over the volcano, where ash is catapulted into the sky with explosive force. The updraft is so strong in the middle that it "outruns" the plume's periphery, making the edges curl down before becoming entrained in the rising cloud again. During Saturday's eruption, the plume may have rocketed up more than 50,000 feet (10 miles).
It's easy to guess which way the winds were blowing by looking at the photograph. A more diffuse, expansive sheet of ash clouds lingers downwind, transported by strong upper-level winds over the Sea of Okhotsk. Volcanic ash is heavy in silicates, which have a melting temperature close to 2,000 degrees. Many commercial aircraft engines operate at temperatures well over 2,500 degrees - meaning the dust-like particles would melt and stick to vital mechanics in the plane. That can cause them to "choke" an engine, making volcanic ash clouds dangerous for aviation.
Volcanic ash can't be seen on traditional radar or the forward-looking radar in the nose of most jets. That makes forecasting it vitally important. Visibly, ash clouds are easy to spot from far away, so they're simple to avoid during the daytime. But if a plane was to enter an ash cloud at night, it would have one telltale sign: electricity arcing across the windshield.
Volcanic ash clouds are highly electrified. If a plane flew into one, so much charge would build up that discharges of St. Elmo's Fire would leap across the windshield like small lightning bolts.
Raikoke's ash cloud was no exception, with hundreds of lightning bolts leaping from the supercharged ash above. Atmospheric scientists refer to this lightning barrage as a "dirty thunderstorm."
The intensity and frequency of volcanic lightning discharges can offer insight about how robust the eruption was. Lightning activity peaked during four main periods, suggesting Raikoke's eruption was several individual bursts. That's also evident in the shape of the clouds: notice the downwind anvil is already there while a new plume immediately goes over the volcano.
Near the base of the plume, a collar of white, puffy clouds can be seen. That's water vapor - not ash. The enormous amount of gas and other materials released by the volcano probably contained water vapor, with the temperature contrast between the fiery plume and the air around it causing condensation.
What would it be like under this cloud? First, you'd see the amber, sand-colored anvil approaching. There might be an ominous display of mammatus clouds, the iconic pouch-like bags that hang beneath foreboding storms that usually are a sign of turbulence in the atmosphere. The sun would appear a creepy orange color until it disappeared. Lightning would crackle, crawling along the anvil; the gases in the atmosphere would make it a neon-purple color. Bolts would hit the ground as far as 60 miles away.
Closer to the plume, you might get a spattering of small pebbles raining down, possibly with a thin glaze of ice around them, like rocky hailstones. Depending on the temperature of the atmosphere, deadly gas and ash might make it down toward the surface. A number of whirlwinds and waterspouts would likely also be dancing.
Saturday's eruption marks Raikoke's first since 1924. Before that, a "catastrophic" eruption occurred in 1778. In the meantime, there's no telling what Raikoke's next move will be.
Another word for Flamed...
Eric Swalwell roasted for endless 'pass the torch' pleas to Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders
By Eric Ting
Eric Swalwell really wants a torch.
The California congressman repeatedly asked former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders to "pass the torch" to a younger generation of Americans during the second night of the first round of Democratic debates, and a number of Twitter users thought the phrase was overused.
It started early in the evening when Swalwell told an anecdote about a young Biden telling older leaders to "pass the torch."
"I was 6 years old when a presidential candidate came to the California Democratic Convention and said, 'It's time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans,'" Swalwell said. "That candidate was then-Senator Joe Biden. Joe Biden was right when he said it was time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans 32 years ago, he's still right today. If we're going to solve the issues ... pass the torch."
He then repeatedly told Biden to "pass the torch," but Biden responded with, "I'm still holding onto that torch."
Swalwell used the line later on when Sanders was talking about climate change, and many debate watchers had heard enough.
"Eric Swalwell's first mention of 'passing the torch' was nice but it's getting old," one Twitter user wrote.
"If your only message is 'pass the torch' you need not come back for the next debate," said another.
Others compared him to Gretchen Wieners from "Mean Girls," who desperately tried to make the phrase "fetch" catch on, but was unsuccessful.
By Eric Ting
Eric Swalwell really wants a torch.
The California congressman repeatedly asked former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders to "pass the torch" to a younger generation of Americans during the second night of the first round of Democratic debates, and a number of Twitter users thought the phrase was overused.
It started early in the evening when Swalwell told an anecdote about a young Biden telling older leaders to "pass the torch."
"I was 6 years old when a presidential candidate came to the California Democratic Convention and said, 'It's time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans,'" Swalwell said. "That candidate was then-Senator Joe Biden. Joe Biden was right when he said it was time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans 32 years ago, he's still right today. If we're going to solve the issues ... pass the torch."
He then repeatedly told Biden to "pass the torch," but Biden responded with, "I'm still holding onto that torch."
Swalwell used the line later on when Sanders was talking about climate change, and many debate watchers had heard enough.
"Eric Swalwell's first mention of 'passing the torch' was nice but it's getting old," one Twitter user wrote.
"If your only message is 'pass the torch' you need not come back for the next debate," said another.
Others compared him to Gretchen Wieners from "Mean Girls," who desperately tried to make the phrase "fetch" catch on, but was unsuccessful.
NASA's Dragonfly
NASA's Dragonfly Will Fly Around Titan Looking for Origins, Signs of Life
NASA has announced that our next destination in the solar system is the unique, richly organic world Titan. Advancing our search for the building blocks of life, the Dragonfly mission will fly multiple sorties to sample and examine sites around Saturn’s icy moon.
Dragonfly will launch in 2026 and arrive in 2034. The rotorcraft will fly to dozens of promising locations on Titan looking for prebiotic chemical processes common on both Titan and Earth. Dragonfly marks the first time NASA will fly a multi-rotor vehicle for science on another planet; it has eight rotors and flies like a large drone. It will take advantage of Titan’s dense atmosphere – four times denser than Earth’s – to become the first vehicle ever to fly its entire science payload to new places for repeatable and targeted access to surface materials.
Titan is an analog to the very early Earth, and can provide clues to how life may have arisen on our planet. During its 2.7-year baseline mission, Dragonfly will explore diverse environments from organic dunes to the floor of an impact crater where liquid water and complex organic materials key to life once existed together for possibly tens of thousands of years. Its instruments will study how far prebiotic chemistry may have progressed. They also will investigate the moon’s atmospheric and surface properties and its subsurface ocean and liquid reservoirs. Additionally, instruments will search for chemical evidence of past or extant life.
“With the Dragonfly mission, NASA will once again do what no one else can do,” said NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine. “Visiting this mysterious ocean world could revolutionize what we know about life in the universe. This cutting-edge mission would have been unthinkable even just a few years ago, but we’re now ready for Dragonfly’s amazing flight.”
Dragonfly took advantage of 13 years’ worth of Cassini data to choose a calm weather period to land, along with a safe initial landing site and scientifically interesting targets. It will first land at the equatorial “Shangri-La” dune fields, which are terrestrially similar to the linear dunes in Namibia in southern Africa and offer a diverse sampling location. Dragonfly will explore this region in short flights, building up to a series of longer “leapfrog” flights of up to 5 miles (8 kilometers), stopping along the way to take samples from compelling areas with diverse geography. It will finally reach the Selk impact crater, where there is evidence of past liquid water, organics – the complex molecules that contain carbon, combined with hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen – and energy, which together make up the recipe for life. The lander will eventually fly more than 108 miles (175 kilometers) – nearly double the distance traveled to date by all the Mars rovers combined.
“Titan is unlike any other place in the solar system, and Dragonfly is like no other mission,” said Thomas Zurbuchen, NASA’s associate administrator for Science at the agency’s Headquarters in Washington. “It’s remarkable to think of this rotorcraft flying miles and miles across the organic sand dunes of Saturn’s largest moon, exploring the processes that shape this extraordinary environment. Dragonfly will visit a world filled with a wide variety of organic compounds, which are the building blocks of life and could teach us about the origin of life itself.”
Titan has a nitrogen-based atmosphere like Earth. Unlike Earth, Titan has clouds and rain of methane. Other organics are formed in the atmosphere and fall like light snow. The moon’s weather and surface processes have combined complex organics, energy, and water similar to those that may have sparked life on our planet.
Titan is larger than the planet Mercury and is the second largest moon in our solar system. As it orbits Saturn, it is about 886 million miles (1.4 billion kilometers) away from the Sun, about 10 times farther than Earth. Because it is so far from the Sun, its surface temperature is around -290 degrees Fahrenheit (-179 degrees Celsius). Its surface pressure is also 50 percent higher than Earth’s.
Dragonfly was selected as part of the agency’s New Frontiers program, which includes the New Horizons mission to Pluto and the Kuiper Belt, Juno to Jupiter, and OSIRIS-REx to the asteroid Bennu. Dragonfly is led by Principal Investigator Elizabeth Turtle, who is based at Johns Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland. New Frontiers supports missions that have been identified as top solar system exploration priorities by the planetary community. The program is managed by the Planetary Missions Program Office at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, for the agency’s Planetary Science Division in Washington.
“The New Frontiers program has transformed our understanding of the solar system, uncovering the inner structure and composition of Jupiter’s turbulent atmosphere, discovering the icy secrets of Pluto’s landscape, revealing mysterious objects in the Kuiper belt, and exploring a near-Earth asteroid for the building blocks of life,” said Lori Glaze, director of NASA’s Planetary Science Division. “Now we can add Titan to the list of enigmatic worlds NASA will explore.”
 |
| Arts rendering. |
Dragonfly will launch in 2026 and arrive in 2034. The rotorcraft will fly to dozens of promising locations on Titan looking for prebiotic chemical processes common on both Titan and Earth. Dragonfly marks the first time NASA will fly a multi-rotor vehicle for science on another planet; it has eight rotors and flies like a large drone. It will take advantage of Titan’s dense atmosphere – four times denser than Earth’s – to become the first vehicle ever to fly its entire science payload to new places for repeatable and targeted access to surface materials.
Titan is an analog to the very early Earth, and can provide clues to how life may have arisen on our planet. During its 2.7-year baseline mission, Dragonfly will explore diverse environments from organic dunes to the floor of an impact crater where liquid water and complex organic materials key to life once existed together for possibly tens of thousands of years. Its instruments will study how far prebiotic chemistry may have progressed. They also will investigate the moon’s atmospheric and surface properties and its subsurface ocean and liquid reservoirs. Additionally, instruments will search for chemical evidence of past or extant life.
“With the Dragonfly mission, NASA will once again do what no one else can do,” said NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine. “Visiting this mysterious ocean world could revolutionize what we know about life in the universe. This cutting-edge mission would have been unthinkable even just a few years ago, but we’re now ready for Dragonfly’s amazing flight.”
Dragonfly took advantage of 13 years’ worth of Cassini data to choose a calm weather period to land, along with a safe initial landing site and scientifically interesting targets. It will first land at the equatorial “Shangri-La” dune fields, which are terrestrially similar to the linear dunes in Namibia in southern Africa and offer a diverse sampling location. Dragonfly will explore this region in short flights, building up to a series of longer “leapfrog” flights of up to 5 miles (8 kilometers), stopping along the way to take samples from compelling areas with diverse geography. It will finally reach the Selk impact crater, where there is evidence of past liquid water, organics – the complex molecules that contain carbon, combined with hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen – and energy, which together make up the recipe for life. The lander will eventually fly more than 108 miles (175 kilometers) – nearly double the distance traveled to date by all the Mars rovers combined.
“Titan is unlike any other place in the solar system, and Dragonfly is like no other mission,” said Thomas Zurbuchen, NASA’s associate administrator for Science at the agency’s Headquarters in Washington. “It’s remarkable to think of this rotorcraft flying miles and miles across the organic sand dunes of Saturn’s largest moon, exploring the processes that shape this extraordinary environment. Dragonfly will visit a world filled with a wide variety of organic compounds, which are the building blocks of life and could teach us about the origin of life itself.”
Titan has a nitrogen-based atmosphere like Earth. Unlike Earth, Titan has clouds and rain of methane. Other organics are formed in the atmosphere and fall like light snow. The moon’s weather and surface processes have combined complex organics, energy, and water similar to those that may have sparked life on our planet.
Titan is larger than the planet Mercury and is the second largest moon in our solar system. As it orbits Saturn, it is about 886 million miles (1.4 billion kilometers) away from the Sun, about 10 times farther than Earth. Because it is so far from the Sun, its surface temperature is around -290 degrees Fahrenheit (-179 degrees Celsius). Its surface pressure is also 50 percent higher than Earth’s.
Dragonfly was selected as part of the agency’s New Frontiers program, which includes the New Horizons mission to Pluto and the Kuiper Belt, Juno to Jupiter, and OSIRIS-REx to the asteroid Bennu. Dragonfly is led by Principal Investigator Elizabeth Turtle, who is based at Johns Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland. New Frontiers supports missions that have been identified as top solar system exploration priorities by the planetary community. The program is managed by the Planetary Missions Program Office at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, for the agency’s Planetary Science Division in Washington.
“The New Frontiers program has transformed our understanding of the solar system, uncovering the inner structure and composition of Jupiter’s turbulent atmosphere, discovering the icy secrets of Pluto’s landscape, revealing mysterious objects in the Kuiper belt, and exploring a near-Earth asteroid for the building blocks of life,” said Lori Glaze, director of NASA’s Planetary Science Division. “Now we can add Titan to the list of enigmatic worlds NASA will explore.”
Nothing new....
John Roberts Just Called Out the Trump Administration for Lying
Will he have the stomach to do it again?
By RICHARD PRIMUS
What happened in the census case?
That’s the question that Americans—even legal experts—confronted with the puzzling, blockbuster Supreme Court decision on Thursday in Department of Commerce v. New York. The short answer is that the Trump administration’s efforts to include a question about citizenship on the 2020 census are at least temporarily stymied. Whether the administration can ultimately rebound and get the question on the census remains unclear.
But Thursday’s decision also has broader implications for the Supreme Court’s entire relationship to the Trump administration. One of the administration’s distinctive characteristics is its approach to truth and lying. All administrations sometimes hide, shade or slant the truth—and occasionally lie outright. The present administration is different in that it lies regularly, blatantly, heedlessly. In the census case, the Supreme Court, for the first time, called the administration on this behavior—ever so politely and by the slimmest of margins. But still. Now the question is whether it will have the stomach to do so in other cases—or even in this case, if it comes back to the court in the near future.
The political stakes of Department of Commerce v. New York are enormous. Many Latinos fear telling government officials that they or their household members are not citizens, even if they are in the country legally. As a result, experts estimate that asking people on the census whether they and their household members are citizens would cause a significant drop in the number of Latinos who answer the census. That would lead to a significant undercounting of the Latino population. Representation in Congress is allocated on the basis of the census’s population figures, as is much federal spending. So undercounting Latinos would shift political power and government support toward Republicans. (Under the Constitution, representation in Congress is a function of total population, not just citizens.)
The challengers in today’s case, led by the state of New York, argued that the administration wanted to put a citizenship question on the census for that very purpose: to undercount Latinos. And the challengers were right. The administration officials who precipitated the decision to put a citizenship question on the census were working from material developed by Thomas Hofeller, a leading Republican districting operative, whose recently revealed papers overtly discuss including a citizenship question for the purpose of benefiting “Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.”
When challenged in court, of course, the administration didn’t say it wanted to include a citizenship question in order to undercount Latinos. It said it wanted citizenship data to be better able to enforce the Voting Rights Act, on the theory that knowing who is a citizen would help the government know who could vote. For a cornucopia of reasons documented in a 277-page opinion from the District Court for the Southern District of New York, that explanation was not credible. (For example, asking about citizenship on the census would actually produce less reliable information about the citizen population than the government already has through other survey instruments, given that many people would decline to respond to the census if that question were included.) The administration in turn argued that the courts had no business looking so deeply into the reasons for its action: They should simply accept that the reasons it was offering were its real reasons and permit the citizenship question.
One problem with that argument, though, is that the Supreme Court has previously held that where there is a strong indication of bad-faith government action, a court can look deeper. And today, a majority composed of Chief Justice Roberts and the four more liberal justices called shenanigans. Quoting the legendary judge Henry Friendly, for whom Roberts once clerked, the chief justice wrote that the Supreme Court is “not required to exhibit a naivete from which ordinary citizens are free.” In other words, if everyone can see that the administration is lying, the court isn’t required to pretend that it alone is blind.
The census case is an echo of, and a twist on, the Supreme Court’s biggest decision from one year ago: Trump v. Hawaii, which upheld the “travel ban”—the administration’s order banning entry into the United States by nationals of several majority-Muslim countries. In that case, too, the real issue was whether the court would acknowledge knowing what pretty much everyone knew: that the entry ban would never have come into existence if not for President Donald Trump’s well-documented anti-Muslim animus. But a year ago, the court went the other way. Joined that time by the court’s four other conservative justices, Roberts indulged the presumption that the administration acted for appropriate reasons. There are excellent reasons for that presumption, especially in the realm of national security and foreign affairs, where decisions should usually be made by the elected branches rather than the judiciary. But in the entry-ban case, the court essentially treated that presumption as absolute. Even where the president obviously had an unconstitutional motive, as evidenced by his own statements, the court was unwilling to say so.
Why did the chief justice come out the other way this time? There are multiple possible explanations. Maybe it matters that one case was (at least ostensibly) about national security and the other was not. Maybe it matters that in the census case the person whom the chief justice had to call a liar (circumspectly—words like “lie” do not appear in the opinion) was a Cabinet secretary rather than the president himself. Maybe the evidence of deceit was more damning in the census case—though it was pretty clear in the entry-ban case, too. Maybe the lower court’s surpassingly thorough documentation of the problems with the administration’s position made the chief justice think he couldn’t pretend not to know without looking foolish. Whatever the case, this time Roberts refused to play the see-no-evil role.
But it would be a mistake to think that so much divides the two cases. Eight out of nine justices took essentially the same posture both times: Four Democratic appointees refused to pretend that the administration wasn’t lying, and four Republican appointees refused to look behind the administration’s official explanations. In their dissents today, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh excoriated the majority for questioning administration officials’ good faith. What’s more, the administration might still get its way. Rather than declaring the case at an end, the chief justice sent the matter back to the Commerce Department, saying that the administration can still include the citizenship question if it comes forward with a better reason.
Assuming the administration tries to take a second shot—and it probably will—there is virtually zero chance that the reason it produces next time will be authentic. The authentic reason, after all, is that the administration would like the census to undercount Latinos. Instead, the administration is likely to come back with some other made-up reason—something inoffensive, and something that is not so blatant a lie as the last one—in the hopes that the chief will not have it in him to call shenanigans twice. One thinks here of a Scott Adams “Dilbert” cartoon from 20 years ago, in which an employee tells a whopper to his manager in order to cover his bad job performance, and the manager, lacking the will to discipline the employee but insulted at being played for a fool, cries, “I demand a more plausible lie!”
One other intensely practical question looms over this case now: Is there enough time remaining before the Commerce Department must print the census questionnaires for the administration to come up with another rationale and defend it in court? If not, the court’s action today would effectively end the case by running out the clock. The administration asked the Supreme Court to take the case at an unusually early stage, before a circuit court had a chance to review it, on the grounds that the Commerce Department needed a decision no later than June 2019 in order to be ready for 2020. But the president tweeted almost immediately after the decision was released that he is looking into delaying the census if necessary.
If the administration now says that it can put a citizenship question on the census even if permission comes some time later than June 2019, it will falsify the premise on which it got the case to the Supreme Court in the first place—i.e., that only a decision by June would be soon enough. In other words, having lost today because the chief justice couldn’t stomach the lying, the administration in trying to take a second shot would be acknowledging that it lied not just about why it wanted the citizenship question, but also about the timetable on which it needed a decision. That ought to undermine the administration’s credibility with the court even further.
Whether the administration will ultimately pay any price for playing fast and loose in this way is, like so much else, a question of the court’s tolerance for obvious falsehoods on the part of the administration—falsehoods including lying in court. At present, the court’s tolerance for that conduct comes down to the tolerance of one man: the chief justice of the United States.
Will he have the stomach to do it again?
By RICHARD PRIMUS
What happened in the census case?
That’s the question that Americans—even legal experts—confronted with the puzzling, blockbuster Supreme Court decision on Thursday in Department of Commerce v. New York. The short answer is that the Trump administration’s efforts to include a question about citizenship on the 2020 census are at least temporarily stymied. Whether the administration can ultimately rebound and get the question on the census remains unclear.
But Thursday’s decision also has broader implications for the Supreme Court’s entire relationship to the Trump administration. One of the administration’s distinctive characteristics is its approach to truth and lying. All administrations sometimes hide, shade or slant the truth—and occasionally lie outright. The present administration is different in that it lies regularly, blatantly, heedlessly. In the census case, the Supreme Court, for the first time, called the administration on this behavior—ever so politely and by the slimmest of margins. But still. Now the question is whether it will have the stomach to do so in other cases—or even in this case, if it comes back to the court in the near future.
The political stakes of Department of Commerce v. New York are enormous. Many Latinos fear telling government officials that they or their household members are not citizens, even if they are in the country legally. As a result, experts estimate that asking people on the census whether they and their household members are citizens would cause a significant drop in the number of Latinos who answer the census. That would lead to a significant undercounting of the Latino population. Representation in Congress is allocated on the basis of the census’s population figures, as is much federal spending. So undercounting Latinos would shift political power and government support toward Republicans. (Under the Constitution, representation in Congress is a function of total population, not just citizens.)
The challengers in today’s case, led by the state of New York, argued that the administration wanted to put a citizenship question on the census for that very purpose: to undercount Latinos. And the challengers were right. The administration officials who precipitated the decision to put a citizenship question on the census were working from material developed by Thomas Hofeller, a leading Republican districting operative, whose recently revealed papers overtly discuss including a citizenship question for the purpose of benefiting “Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.”
When challenged in court, of course, the administration didn’t say it wanted to include a citizenship question in order to undercount Latinos. It said it wanted citizenship data to be better able to enforce the Voting Rights Act, on the theory that knowing who is a citizen would help the government know who could vote. For a cornucopia of reasons documented in a 277-page opinion from the District Court for the Southern District of New York, that explanation was not credible. (For example, asking about citizenship on the census would actually produce less reliable information about the citizen population than the government already has through other survey instruments, given that many people would decline to respond to the census if that question were included.) The administration in turn argued that the courts had no business looking so deeply into the reasons for its action: They should simply accept that the reasons it was offering were its real reasons and permit the citizenship question.
One problem with that argument, though, is that the Supreme Court has previously held that where there is a strong indication of bad-faith government action, a court can look deeper. And today, a majority composed of Chief Justice Roberts and the four more liberal justices called shenanigans. Quoting the legendary judge Henry Friendly, for whom Roberts once clerked, the chief justice wrote that the Supreme Court is “not required to exhibit a naivete from which ordinary citizens are free.” In other words, if everyone can see that the administration is lying, the court isn’t required to pretend that it alone is blind.
The census case is an echo of, and a twist on, the Supreme Court’s biggest decision from one year ago: Trump v. Hawaii, which upheld the “travel ban”—the administration’s order banning entry into the United States by nationals of several majority-Muslim countries. In that case, too, the real issue was whether the court would acknowledge knowing what pretty much everyone knew: that the entry ban would never have come into existence if not for President Donald Trump’s well-documented anti-Muslim animus. But a year ago, the court went the other way. Joined that time by the court’s four other conservative justices, Roberts indulged the presumption that the administration acted for appropriate reasons. There are excellent reasons for that presumption, especially in the realm of national security and foreign affairs, where decisions should usually be made by the elected branches rather than the judiciary. But in the entry-ban case, the court essentially treated that presumption as absolute. Even where the president obviously had an unconstitutional motive, as evidenced by his own statements, the court was unwilling to say so.
Why did the chief justice come out the other way this time? There are multiple possible explanations. Maybe it matters that one case was (at least ostensibly) about national security and the other was not. Maybe it matters that in the census case the person whom the chief justice had to call a liar (circumspectly—words like “lie” do not appear in the opinion) was a Cabinet secretary rather than the president himself. Maybe the evidence of deceit was more damning in the census case—though it was pretty clear in the entry-ban case, too. Maybe the lower court’s surpassingly thorough documentation of the problems with the administration’s position made the chief justice think he couldn’t pretend not to know without looking foolish. Whatever the case, this time Roberts refused to play the see-no-evil role.
But it would be a mistake to think that so much divides the two cases. Eight out of nine justices took essentially the same posture both times: Four Democratic appointees refused to pretend that the administration wasn’t lying, and four Republican appointees refused to look behind the administration’s official explanations. In their dissents today, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh excoriated the majority for questioning administration officials’ good faith. What’s more, the administration might still get its way. Rather than declaring the case at an end, the chief justice sent the matter back to the Commerce Department, saying that the administration can still include the citizenship question if it comes forward with a better reason.
Assuming the administration tries to take a second shot—and it probably will—there is virtually zero chance that the reason it produces next time will be authentic. The authentic reason, after all, is that the administration would like the census to undercount Latinos. Instead, the administration is likely to come back with some other made-up reason—something inoffensive, and something that is not so blatant a lie as the last one—in the hopes that the chief will not have it in him to call shenanigans twice. One thinks here of a Scott Adams “Dilbert” cartoon from 20 years ago, in which an employee tells a whopper to his manager in order to cover his bad job performance, and the manager, lacking the will to discipline the employee but insulted at being played for a fool, cries, “I demand a more plausible lie!”
One other intensely practical question looms over this case now: Is there enough time remaining before the Commerce Department must print the census questionnaires for the administration to come up with another rationale and defend it in court? If not, the court’s action today would effectively end the case by running out the clock. The administration asked the Supreme Court to take the case at an unusually early stage, before a circuit court had a chance to review it, on the grounds that the Commerce Department needed a decision no later than June 2019 in order to be ready for 2020. But the president tweeted almost immediately after the decision was released that he is looking into delaying the census if necessary.
If the administration now says that it can put a citizenship question on the census even if permission comes some time later than June 2019, it will falsify the premise on which it got the case to the Supreme Court in the first place—i.e., that only a decision by June would be soon enough. In other words, having lost today because the chief justice couldn’t stomach the lying, the administration in trying to take a second shot would be acknowledging that it lied not just about why it wanted the citizenship question, but also about the timetable on which it needed a decision. That ought to undermine the administration’s credibility with the court even further.
Whether the administration will ultimately pay any price for playing fast and loose in this way is, like so much else, a question of the court’s tolerance for obvious falsehoods on the part of the administration—falsehoods including lying in court. At present, the court’s tolerance for that conduct comes down to the tolerance of one man: the chief justice of the United States.
In Osaka....
On display in Osaka: The new international disorder
Japan, hosting G20, tries to preserve global cooperation and fair-play in Trump-led era of revanchist nationalism and protectionism
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
The international order — and the multilateral trading system that underpins it — are hanging by a thread.
As the leaders of the Group of 20 economies gathered for their annual summit on Friday, the main question seemed to be: Who among them is going toWould it be U.S. President Donald Trump, whose wrecking-ball approach to foreign relations has put everyone on edge at every summit he has attended? Or French President Emmanuel Macron, the self-declared disruptor, who threatened to torpedo the summit’s conclusions if the language on climate change doesn't meet his demands?
Would it be Chinese President Xi Jinping, whose hardline approach to trade negotiations, and confidence in his nation's inevitable supremacy, has flummoxed officials in Washington, Brussels and Geneva desperate to get Beijing to make good on promises to play by the economic rules?
Or would it be one of the strongmen — President Vladimir Putin of Russia, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey or King Mohammed Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia? All three seem intent on not letting small complications like fundamental human rights, sovereign borders, or rule of law get in the way of their vision of stability and regime preservation.
The G20 host, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe, did his utmost to present a façade of normalcy and control. Yet, there was a foreboding sense at the summit venue in Osaka — fittingly at the height of monsoon season in Japan — that the meticulously curated orderliness could snap at any moment.
The official opening session had not even taken place on Friday morning when European Council President Donald Tusk issued an emotional plea to his fellow leaders to halt what seems to be an accelerating backslide into nationalist, protectionist, egotistical, unilateralist brinkmanship.
"The global stage cannot become an arena where the stronger will dictate their conditions to the weaker, where egoism will dominate over solidarity, and where nationalistic emotions will dominate over common sense," Tusk said at a news conference. "We should understand that we have a responsibility not only for our own interests, but above all, for peace and a safe, fair world order."
Tusk, who grew up in Communist Poland, participated in the pro-democracy Solidarity movement and later served as Polish prime minister, also lashed out at Putin for declaring liberalism "obsolete" in a pre-G20 interview with the Financial Times.
"I have to say that I strongly disagree," Tusk said. "We are here as Europeans also to firmly and univocally defend and promote liberal democracy. Whoever claims that liberal democracy is obsolete, also claims that freedoms are obsolete, that the rule of law is obsolete and that human rights are obsolete. For us in Europe, these are and will remain essential and vibrant values. What I find really obsolete are: authoritarianism, personality cults, the rule of oligarchs. Even if sometimes they may seem effective."
But the mere fact Tusk felt compelled to make such a statement at such a premiere diplomatic conference suggested that his side, if not losing outright, was seriously on the defensive.
Putin is hardly the only opponent of liberalism crowing of victory. Within the European Council that Tusk leads, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán repeatedly makes such statements, proclaiming himself a champion of illiberalism and of Christian Europe.
Signs of democracy's failings, or at least its severe limitations, seem to be everywhere.
The World Trade Organization's dispute resolution system, which prevents routine disagreements from escalating into tariff wars that disrupt worldwide commerce, will effectively stop functioning at the end of this year unless Trump can be persuaded to allow the reappointment of judges that the U.S. has blocked.
In the United Kingdom politics are largely paralyzed, and the national economy is at grave risk, after a slim majority of voters backed a public referendum to quit the EU — but the government has failed so far to find a Brexit plan that can win a majority in the House of Commons.
In the U.S., differences between Republicans and Democrats increasingly seem less a matter of political disagreement than evidence of visceral societal divisions.
In Continental Europe, a rise of nationalism and populism has cut sharply into the number of pro-EU members of the European Parliament, leaving the bloc at serious risk of a deadlock over how to choose a new European Commission president and fill other top jobs.
Meanwhile, the Iran nuclear deal seems on the edge of collapse. President Bashar al-Assad remains in power in Syria. Russian-sponsored militias continue to occupy eastern Ukraine. Long-simmering conflicts — Israel-Palestine, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Sudan, Yemen — are no closer to resolution.
What a globalized, gobsmacking mess.
Abe, on behalf of Japan, is seeking to use the G20 to push for what he calls the "Osaka Track." That represents an effort to reach international agreements on data governance that he hopes will also help provide the political prodding needed to improve and preserve the WTO.
"The common thread," Japan's ambassador to the EU, Kazuo Kodama, said in a recent speech on the G20 goals, "is our desire to give people greater confidence in their future. Regained confidence in the future is essential not only for sustainable growth but also for public support in multilateralism."
He added, "We very much hope that Osaka will make solid contributions to that end."
At the summit, however, officials privately voiced doubts — particularly on the ability of negotiators to reach an accord on language regarding free trade, and climate change that would be acceptable to all of the leaders in a final communique.
Trump, before and after arriving in Osaka, once again brutally slammed America's traditional allies, accusing EU countries of exploiting their friendship with the U.S. and alleging that Japan would do nothing to help if the U.S. were attacked.
"European nations were set up in order to take advantage of the United States," Trump said in an interview with the Fox Business Network. He said that the U.S. was committed to defend Japan militarily but if the U.S. faced an attack, Japan could just watch it on a "Sony television."
Meanwhile, danger seems to be increasing on a daily basis of new and unpredictable economic and military conflicts. Ahead of the summit, French President Emmanuel Macron chastised Trump for threatening a military strike on Iran, which agreed to end its nuclear weapons program, while the American president is simultaneously developing a warm, personal relationship with the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong Un, who already possesses nuclear weapons and has launched test missiles. "Where is the coherence?" Macron asked.
Even Putin, in his interview with the FT, said he was concerned about a new arms race between Washington and Moscow, and he expressed nostalgia for the good old days of the Cold War — when global conflicts at least seemed to be carried out according to an agreed-upon rulebook.
“The Cold War was a bad thing ," the FT quoted Putin as saying, "but there were at least some rules that all participants in international communication more or less adhered to or tried to follow. Now, it seems that there are no rules at all."
Tusk, at his news conference, noted that Japan — perhaps more than any other country— understood the potentially awful consequences of a world unraveling into chaos and bloodshed.
"Before coming to Osaka, I visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki where I met with survivors of the nuclear bombings," Tusk said. "They understand only too well the value of international cooperation because they know what a global conflict may lead to."
Japan, hosting G20, tries to preserve global cooperation and fair-play in Trump-led era of revanchist nationalism and protectionism
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
The international order — and the multilateral trading system that underpins it — are hanging by a thread.
As the leaders of the Group of 20 economies gathered for their annual summit on Friday, the main question seemed to be: Who among them is going toWould it be U.S. President Donald Trump, whose wrecking-ball approach to foreign relations has put everyone on edge at every summit he has attended? Or French President Emmanuel Macron, the self-declared disruptor, who threatened to torpedo the summit’s conclusions if the language on climate change doesn't meet his demands?
Would it be Chinese President Xi Jinping, whose hardline approach to trade negotiations, and confidence in his nation's inevitable supremacy, has flummoxed officials in Washington, Brussels and Geneva desperate to get Beijing to make good on promises to play by the economic rules?
Or would it be one of the strongmen — President Vladimir Putin of Russia, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey or King Mohammed Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia? All three seem intent on not letting small complications like fundamental human rights, sovereign borders, or rule of law get in the way of their vision of stability and regime preservation.
The G20 host, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe, did his utmost to present a façade of normalcy and control. Yet, there was a foreboding sense at the summit venue in Osaka — fittingly at the height of monsoon season in Japan — that the meticulously curated orderliness could snap at any moment.
The official opening session had not even taken place on Friday morning when European Council President Donald Tusk issued an emotional plea to his fellow leaders to halt what seems to be an accelerating backslide into nationalist, protectionist, egotistical, unilateralist brinkmanship.
"The global stage cannot become an arena where the stronger will dictate their conditions to the weaker, where egoism will dominate over solidarity, and where nationalistic emotions will dominate over common sense," Tusk said at a news conference. "We should understand that we have a responsibility not only for our own interests, but above all, for peace and a safe, fair world order."
Tusk, who grew up in Communist Poland, participated in the pro-democracy Solidarity movement and later served as Polish prime minister, also lashed out at Putin for declaring liberalism "obsolete" in a pre-G20 interview with the Financial Times.
"I have to say that I strongly disagree," Tusk said. "We are here as Europeans also to firmly and univocally defend and promote liberal democracy. Whoever claims that liberal democracy is obsolete, also claims that freedoms are obsolete, that the rule of law is obsolete and that human rights are obsolete. For us in Europe, these are and will remain essential and vibrant values. What I find really obsolete are: authoritarianism, personality cults, the rule of oligarchs. Even if sometimes they may seem effective."
But the mere fact Tusk felt compelled to make such a statement at such a premiere diplomatic conference suggested that his side, if not losing outright, was seriously on the defensive.
Putin is hardly the only opponent of liberalism crowing of victory. Within the European Council that Tusk leads, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán repeatedly makes such statements, proclaiming himself a champion of illiberalism and of Christian Europe.
Signs of democracy's failings, or at least its severe limitations, seem to be everywhere.
The World Trade Organization's dispute resolution system, which prevents routine disagreements from escalating into tariff wars that disrupt worldwide commerce, will effectively stop functioning at the end of this year unless Trump can be persuaded to allow the reappointment of judges that the U.S. has blocked.
In the United Kingdom politics are largely paralyzed, and the national economy is at grave risk, after a slim majority of voters backed a public referendum to quit the EU — but the government has failed so far to find a Brexit plan that can win a majority in the House of Commons.
In the U.S., differences between Republicans and Democrats increasingly seem less a matter of political disagreement than evidence of visceral societal divisions.
In Continental Europe, a rise of nationalism and populism has cut sharply into the number of pro-EU members of the European Parliament, leaving the bloc at serious risk of a deadlock over how to choose a new European Commission president and fill other top jobs.
Meanwhile, the Iran nuclear deal seems on the edge of collapse. President Bashar al-Assad remains in power in Syria. Russian-sponsored militias continue to occupy eastern Ukraine. Long-simmering conflicts — Israel-Palestine, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Sudan, Yemen — are no closer to resolution.
What a globalized, gobsmacking mess.
Abe, on behalf of Japan, is seeking to use the G20 to push for what he calls the "Osaka Track." That represents an effort to reach international agreements on data governance that he hopes will also help provide the political prodding needed to improve and preserve the WTO.
"The common thread," Japan's ambassador to the EU, Kazuo Kodama, said in a recent speech on the G20 goals, "is our desire to give people greater confidence in their future. Regained confidence in the future is essential not only for sustainable growth but also for public support in multilateralism."
He added, "We very much hope that Osaka will make solid contributions to that end."
At the summit, however, officials privately voiced doubts — particularly on the ability of negotiators to reach an accord on language regarding free trade, and climate change that would be acceptable to all of the leaders in a final communique.
Trump, before and after arriving in Osaka, once again brutally slammed America's traditional allies, accusing EU countries of exploiting their friendship with the U.S. and alleging that Japan would do nothing to help if the U.S. were attacked.
"European nations were set up in order to take advantage of the United States," Trump said in an interview with the Fox Business Network. He said that the U.S. was committed to defend Japan militarily but if the U.S. faced an attack, Japan could just watch it on a "Sony television."
Meanwhile, danger seems to be increasing on a daily basis of new and unpredictable economic and military conflicts. Ahead of the summit, French President Emmanuel Macron chastised Trump for threatening a military strike on Iran, which agreed to end its nuclear weapons program, while the American president is simultaneously developing a warm, personal relationship with the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong Un, who already possesses nuclear weapons and has launched test missiles. "Where is the coherence?" Macron asked.
Even Putin, in his interview with the FT, said he was concerned about a new arms race between Washington and Moscow, and he expressed nostalgia for the good old days of the Cold War — when global conflicts at least seemed to be carried out according to an agreed-upon rulebook.
“The Cold War was a bad thing ," the FT quoted Putin as saying, "but there were at least some rules that all participants in international communication more or less adhered to or tried to follow. Now, it seems that there are no rules at all."
Tusk, at his news conference, noted that Japan — perhaps more than any other country— understood the potentially awful consequences of a world unraveling into chaos and bloodshed.
"Before coming to Osaka, I visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki where I met with survivors of the nuclear bombings," Tusk said. "They understand only too well the value of international cooperation because they know what a global conflict may lead to."
Gerrymandering
The nationwide battle over gerrymandering is far from over
Thursday's Supreme Court ruling merely moves the battlefield to the states.
By STEVEN SHEPARD and SCOTT BLAND
The Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday that federal courts have no business deciding how much partisan gerrymandering is too much didn’t end the fight over how politicians draw political lines — it just moved the battlefield.
Democrats and reformers wanted the high court to set standards for when politically motivated map-making goes too far. Instead, justices accelerated the race between the two parties to tilt the system to their advantage by electing as many governors and legislators as possible or, in some states, getting voters to support ballot measures to take the redistricting process out of politicians' hands by 2021.
That’s when states will redraw their maps to conform to the 2020 census — now, without a worry that federal courts will throw them out for being excessively partisan.
But this is hardly the end of the story.
While the justices closed off filing legal challenges to gerrymandering in federal courts, they explicitly said those lawsuits are still fair game in state courts. It was there that Democratic-aligned plaintiffs successfully demolished Pennsylvania’s GOP-drawn congressional map before the 2018 elections.
“We’ll be fighting in the states to ensure that we have a fair redistricting process,” said Eric Holder, the former attorney general, who is now the chair of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. “We will use the state courts where we are no longer able to use the federal courts.”
That means the high court’s ruling not only raises the stakes for legislative elections, it also heightens the importance of securing liberal or conservative majorities on state high courts, whether they are appointed by governors or directly elected by voters. Because the U.S. Supreme Court has a limited role in overseeing how state supreme courts interpret state laws, those state judges could become the final authority determining which maps stand or fall after the next round of nationwide redistricting.
The new importance of state courts will be on full display next month in North Carolina, where Democratic-linked plaintiffs allege GOP state legislators violated state law in drawing the congressional map. While the Supreme Court’s decision Thursday preserved North Carolina's GOP-drawn congressional map, Democrats can now take a similar case to the state Supreme Court. Six of the seven justices on that court ran as Democrats.
“We believe that this is a fruitful avenue,” said Kathay Feng, the national redistricting director at Common Cause, the good-government group that brought the North Carolina litigation to overturn the map.
Republicans expect Democratic groups to pick up the strategy and unleash it across the country after the 2020 census, after their success in Pennsylvania and the attempt in North Carolina.
“It’s clear, and Democrats have already signaled this, that they’re going to be taking these cases to state courts,” said Jason Torchinsky, general counsel for the National Republican Redistricting Trust. “That opens a Pandora’s box at the state level. State judiciaries are going to have to wrestle with the same questions” that the Supreme Court just did, Torchinsky continued — except in dozens of courtrooms around the country with different judges and different provisions of state constitutions at play.
Republicans also plan to fight Democrats outside the courtroom, said Adam Kincaid, NRRT's executive director. "The next phase of redistricting is going to be about [Democratic] groups doubling down on their attempts to flip state courts," Kincaid said, noting that Republican groups had recently boosted a conservative judge to victory in a nationally watched Wisconsin court race.
While the Supreme Court says federal judges can’t police partisan gerrymandering, it doesn’t mean that all gerrymandering is constitutional. Roberts stressed that Thursday’s ruling does not make racial gerrymandering — using race or ethnicity to pack voters into districts — permissible, and federal courts will still police that issue.
But Paul Mitchell, vice president of Political Data Inc., said he worried that — because the federal courts now can’t evaluate partisan gerrymandering claims — legislators who draw gerrymandered maps will cloak race-based mapmaking as actually motivated by party.
“We know partisanship can be used as a proxy for ethnicity, so this could provide the pretext for a type of racial gerrymandering where people say ‘Democrat’ instead of ‘Latino’ or ‘black,’ and ‘Republican’ instead of ‘white.’ And now, ‘OK, you can gerrymander,’” Mitchell said.
Democrats say litigation is only one page in their playbook, however. Already, some states have independent redistricting commissions or other guardrails against extreme partisan gerrymandering — including a number that have adopted them in recent years.
As if to draw a roadmap, Chief Justice John Roberts cited a number of state-level reforms in his majority opinion. He mentioned Florida’s “Fair Districts” amendments to the state constitution, which state courts used to throw out that state’s congressional maps in 2015 after finding GOP lawmakers violated the amendment’s prohibitions against any political consideration in redistricting.
Roberts also cited amendments to state constitutions approved by voters in Colorado and Michigan in the 2018 midterms that created redistricting commissions. Voters in Ohio also approved a proposal earlier in 2018 to give the minority party in the legislature more power in the redistricting process moving forward.
Democrats want to expand the practice. Holder said his organization — which also has the explicit backing of former President Barack Obama — was exploring pushing changes to the redistricting process in Arkansas, New Hampshire and Oklahoma in 2020.
Moves toward independent commissions aren’t just coming from Democrats, however. Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a second-term Republican, ran on redistricting reform and had urged the Supreme Court to strike down his state’s map, a Democratic gerrymander. After the court declined on Thursday, Hogan called the ruling “terribly disappointing” — but pledged to continue the fight for a nonpartisan commission to draw district lines.
“It is, and will continue to be, one of my highest priorities as governor,” Hogan said.
But some of those commissions may also be in peril at the high court. In 2014, justices ruled 5-4 that Arizona’s independent commission, which was approved by voters, did not violate the constitutional provision that state legislatures govern congressional elections. Then-Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the court’s liberal bloc to form the majority in that case, with Roberts writing a blistering dissent.
Kennedy was a moderate on redistricting cases — he suggested that gerrymandering could go too far but never was able to marshal a majority of justices to agree on a single standard. Since his replacement on the court by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, reformers have worried that the precedent set in Arizona could be at risk, with the new conservative majority ruling that only legislatures themselves can redraw congressional lines.
“It is something that gives me some degree of concern,” Holder said Thursday, adding that it would be “appalling” if the court overturned that decision.
Holder expressed some measure of optimism, however, noting that Roberts mentioned some of these voter-approved commissions in his majority opinion as evidence that the states can police themselves.
“It seems like there is an acceptance of the existence of these commissions,” Holder said.
Thursday's Supreme Court ruling merely moves the battlefield to the states.
By STEVEN SHEPARD and SCOTT BLAND
The Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday that federal courts have no business deciding how much partisan gerrymandering is too much didn’t end the fight over how politicians draw political lines — it just moved the battlefield.
Democrats and reformers wanted the high court to set standards for when politically motivated map-making goes too far. Instead, justices accelerated the race between the two parties to tilt the system to their advantage by electing as many governors and legislators as possible or, in some states, getting voters to support ballot measures to take the redistricting process out of politicians' hands by 2021.
That’s when states will redraw their maps to conform to the 2020 census — now, without a worry that federal courts will throw them out for being excessively partisan.
But this is hardly the end of the story.
While the justices closed off filing legal challenges to gerrymandering in federal courts, they explicitly said those lawsuits are still fair game in state courts. It was there that Democratic-aligned plaintiffs successfully demolished Pennsylvania’s GOP-drawn congressional map before the 2018 elections.
“We’ll be fighting in the states to ensure that we have a fair redistricting process,” said Eric Holder, the former attorney general, who is now the chair of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. “We will use the state courts where we are no longer able to use the federal courts.”
That means the high court’s ruling not only raises the stakes for legislative elections, it also heightens the importance of securing liberal or conservative majorities on state high courts, whether they are appointed by governors or directly elected by voters. Because the U.S. Supreme Court has a limited role in overseeing how state supreme courts interpret state laws, those state judges could become the final authority determining which maps stand or fall after the next round of nationwide redistricting.
The new importance of state courts will be on full display next month in North Carolina, where Democratic-linked plaintiffs allege GOP state legislators violated state law in drawing the congressional map. While the Supreme Court’s decision Thursday preserved North Carolina's GOP-drawn congressional map, Democrats can now take a similar case to the state Supreme Court. Six of the seven justices on that court ran as Democrats.
“We believe that this is a fruitful avenue,” said Kathay Feng, the national redistricting director at Common Cause, the good-government group that brought the North Carolina litigation to overturn the map.
Republicans expect Democratic groups to pick up the strategy and unleash it across the country after the 2020 census, after their success in Pennsylvania and the attempt in North Carolina.
“It’s clear, and Democrats have already signaled this, that they’re going to be taking these cases to state courts,” said Jason Torchinsky, general counsel for the National Republican Redistricting Trust. “That opens a Pandora’s box at the state level. State judiciaries are going to have to wrestle with the same questions” that the Supreme Court just did, Torchinsky continued — except in dozens of courtrooms around the country with different judges and different provisions of state constitutions at play.
Republicans also plan to fight Democrats outside the courtroom, said Adam Kincaid, NRRT's executive director. "The next phase of redistricting is going to be about [Democratic] groups doubling down on their attempts to flip state courts," Kincaid said, noting that Republican groups had recently boosted a conservative judge to victory in a nationally watched Wisconsin court race.
While the Supreme Court says federal judges can’t police partisan gerrymandering, it doesn’t mean that all gerrymandering is constitutional. Roberts stressed that Thursday’s ruling does not make racial gerrymandering — using race or ethnicity to pack voters into districts — permissible, and federal courts will still police that issue.
But Paul Mitchell, vice president of Political Data Inc., said he worried that — because the federal courts now can’t evaluate partisan gerrymandering claims — legislators who draw gerrymandered maps will cloak race-based mapmaking as actually motivated by party.
“We know partisanship can be used as a proxy for ethnicity, so this could provide the pretext for a type of racial gerrymandering where people say ‘Democrat’ instead of ‘Latino’ or ‘black,’ and ‘Republican’ instead of ‘white.’ And now, ‘OK, you can gerrymander,’” Mitchell said.
Democrats say litigation is only one page in their playbook, however. Already, some states have independent redistricting commissions or other guardrails against extreme partisan gerrymandering — including a number that have adopted them in recent years.
As if to draw a roadmap, Chief Justice John Roberts cited a number of state-level reforms in his majority opinion. He mentioned Florida’s “Fair Districts” amendments to the state constitution, which state courts used to throw out that state’s congressional maps in 2015 after finding GOP lawmakers violated the amendment’s prohibitions against any political consideration in redistricting.
Roberts also cited amendments to state constitutions approved by voters in Colorado and Michigan in the 2018 midterms that created redistricting commissions. Voters in Ohio also approved a proposal earlier in 2018 to give the minority party in the legislature more power in the redistricting process moving forward.
Democrats want to expand the practice. Holder said his organization — which also has the explicit backing of former President Barack Obama — was exploring pushing changes to the redistricting process in Arkansas, New Hampshire and Oklahoma in 2020.
Moves toward independent commissions aren’t just coming from Democrats, however. Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a second-term Republican, ran on redistricting reform and had urged the Supreme Court to strike down his state’s map, a Democratic gerrymander. After the court declined on Thursday, Hogan called the ruling “terribly disappointing” — but pledged to continue the fight for a nonpartisan commission to draw district lines.
“It is, and will continue to be, one of my highest priorities as governor,” Hogan said.
But some of those commissions may also be in peril at the high court. In 2014, justices ruled 5-4 that Arizona’s independent commission, which was approved by voters, did not violate the constitutional provision that state legislatures govern congressional elections. Then-Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the court’s liberal bloc to form the majority in that case, with Roberts writing a blistering dissent.
Kennedy was a moderate on redistricting cases — he suggested that gerrymandering could go too far but never was able to marshal a majority of justices to agree on a single standard. Since his replacement on the court by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, reformers have worried that the precedent set in Arizona could be at risk, with the new conservative majority ruling that only legislatures themselves can redraw congressional lines.
“It is something that gives me some degree of concern,” Holder said Thursday, adding that it would be “appalling” if the court overturned that decision.
Holder expressed some measure of optimism, however, noting that Roberts mentioned some of these voter-approved commissions in his majority opinion as evidence that the states can police themselves.
“It seems like there is an acceptance of the existence of these commissions,” Holder said.
Conservatives have their panties in a twist....
Conservatives blast Roberts as turncoat
In 5-4 decisions on federal rules and citizenship question, chief justice joins court liberals and frustrates the right.
By JOSH GERSTEIN
Chief Justice John Roberts just keeps on breaking conservatives’ hearts.
On two consecutive days this week, Roberts sided with the court’s liberal wing to deliver 5-4 rulings that deeply disappointed right-leaning lawyers and pundits who had been counting on near-certain victory from a court now stocked with a pair of Trump-appointed justices handpicked by conservative legal activists.
On Thursday, Roberts stunned many court watchers by invalidating a Trump administration decision to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 census.
Adding to the sting is the fact that the chief justice wasn’t just along for the ride on the closely watched ruling: He penned the majority opinion, which essentially accused Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross of lying about his reasons for seeking to add the question on citizenship.
“Altogether, the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the Secretary gave for his decision,” Roberts wrote, backed by the court’s four liberals. He goes on to rip the government’s claims in the case as apparently “contrived” and “a distraction.”
A day earlier, Roberts was the sole GOP appointee to side with the liberal wing in a case many legal conservatives were hoping would deal a major blow to the much-loathed administrative state by overturning decades of precedent allowing federal agencies wide leeway to interpret their own regulations.
Among some conservatives close to Trump, the sense of anger and betrayal was palpable, with some on the right suffering painful flashbacks to Roberts’ 2012 decision to join with the court’s Democratic appointees and uphold Obamacare’s individual mandate even as all of his Republican-appointed colleagues dissented. The anger seemed especially acute with possible abortion-related cases on the horizon for the next term.
“I’m for impeaching the Chief Justice for lying to all of us about his support of the Constitution. He is responsible for Robertscare and now he is angling for vast numbers of illegal residents to help Dems hold Congress. Enough Deception from GOP judges on the Constitution,” American Conservative Union chairman Matt Schlapp tweeted shortly after the Thursday ruling.
“I want to Impeach Roberts and Trump would get another pick. Sounds good to me,”’ Schlapp added. “Chief Justice John Roberts ‘fixed’ Obamacare and now he found an I significant [sic] excuse to allow those here illegally to help Dems keep the house majority. He lied to all of us and under oath in the Senate. It’s perfectly legal to ask citizenship ? on census.”
Former White House aide Sebastian Gorka also weighed in to express his disgust. “Chief Justice Roberts of the #SCOTUS betrays the US Constitution again,” Gorka said on Twitter.
Conservative pundit and former GOP Senate candidate Dan Bongino echoed recurring conservative complaints that Roberts is looking to curry favor on the Washington dinner party circuit.
“John Roberts is terrified of the liberal op-ed columnists. They know they hold him captive. They can easily sway his opinions by issuing their ‘warnings’ to him through their columns,” Bongino wrote. “He’s not a judge anymore, he’s a politician.”
Not all conservatives were up in arms about Roberts’ perceived defection Thursday on the census case.
Former Reagan White House lawyer and radio host Hugh Hewitt noted that on the same day the census case came down, Roberts joined with the court’s conservatives in a 5-4 decision that decisively rejected any role for courts in remedying political gerrymandering. The chief justice also took the pen for the majority in that fight, flatly dismissing the idea of courts resolving such disputes.
Hewitt declared the gerrymandering decision to be far more consequential.
“Conservatives coiled to condemn Chief Justice over citizenship question need to focus on this incredibly important, far reaching and absolutely correct decision,” Hewitt tweeted. “Would anyone preferring that #SCOTUS clearly uphold census question and at same time continue the decades of absurd ambiguity about the clearly-delegated-to-political-bodies re-districting power please raise their hands? I know you’d like both, but if you had to choose either?”
There is a degree of selective outrage at Roberts. Trump’s newest nominee to the court, Justice Neil Gorsuch, sided with liberals in a series of 5-4, late-term decisions this year, but they were less high-profile. As Gorsuch ruled in favor of criminal defendants — including a child pornography convict — in a pair of cases related to sentencing, there was no outcry from the right that Trump’s pick was abandoning his backers.
Still, Roberts’ tendency to side with liberals in some cases embraced by many Republican activists seems to grate on many conservative lawyers, including some who helped lead the fight to confirm him.
“I still haven’t fully psychologically accepted the truth about Roberts,” said Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice in an interview.
“He may in his heart think he’s a conservative, but he’s not going to be what conservatives want and liberals fear. … With each passing year — maybe this doesn’t happen every year, but we’ve seen enough of it, we kind of have to accept he’s roughly another Kennedy,” Levey said, referring to Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Reagan appointee who dismayed conservatives by upholding abortion rights and leading the court to declare a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Levey said the political polarization in the country may be prodding Roberts to go further than he otherwise would in trying to ensure that the court is viewed as moderate and not being buffeted by the political winds. Last November, when President Donald Trump made derisive comments about “Obama judges,” Roberts shot back with a statement declaring “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. ... What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”
“At the end of the day, Roberts wants the court to be well-respected,” Levey said, calling the chief justice “a compromiser and people pleaser.”
“I think the hysteria on the left about an ‘arch conservative’ court is having an effect,” the legal activist said. “At the end of the day, [Roberts] wants the court to be well respected and a highly divided nation is a threat to the legitimacy of the court because with every decision the half the public is convinced the court is acting for political reasons.”
In 5-4 decisions on federal rules and citizenship question, chief justice joins court liberals and frustrates the right.
By JOSH GERSTEIN
Chief Justice John Roberts just keeps on breaking conservatives’ hearts.
On two consecutive days this week, Roberts sided with the court’s liberal wing to deliver 5-4 rulings that deeply disappointed right-leaning lawyers and pundits who had been counting on near-certain victory from a court now stocked with a pair of Trump-appointed justices handpicked by conservative legal activists.
On Thursday, Roberts stunned many court watchers by invalidating a Trump administration decision to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 census.
Adding to the sting is the fact that the chief justice wasn’t just along for the ride on the closely watched ruling: He penned the majority opinion, which essentially accused Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross of lying about his reasons for seeking to add the question on citizenship.
“Altogether, the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the Secretary gave for his decision,” Roberts wrote, backed by the court’s four liberals. He goes on to rip the government’s claims in the case as apparently “contrived” and “a distraction.”
A day earlier, Roberts was the sole GOP appointee to side with the liberal wing in a case many legal conservatives were hoping would deal a major blow to the much-loathed administrative state by overturning decades of precedent allowing federal agencies wide leeway to interpret their own regulations.
Among some conservatives close to Trump, the sense of anger and betrayal was palpable, with some on the right suffering painful flashbacks to Roberts’ 2012 decision to join with the court’s Democratic appointees and uphold Obamacare’s individual mandate even as all of his Republican-appointed colleagues dissented. The anger seemed especially acute with possible abortion-related cases on the horizon for the next term.
“I’m for impeaching the Chief Justice for lying to all of us about his support of the Constitution. He is responsible for Robertscare and now he is angling for vast numbers of illegal residents to help Dems hold Congress. Enough Deception from GOP judges on the Constitution,” American Conservative Union chairman Matt Schlapp tweeted shortly after the Thursday ruling.
“I want to Impeach Roberts and Trump would get another pick. Sounds good to me,”’ Schlapp added. “Chief Justice John Roberts ‘fixed’ Obamacare and now he found an I significant [sic] excuse to allow those here illegally to help Dems keep the house majority. He lied to all of us and under oath in the Senate. It’s perfectly legal to ask citizenship ? on census.”
Former White House aide Sebastian Gorka also weighed in to express his disgust. “Chief Justice Roberts of the #SCOTUS betrays the US Constitution again,” Gorka said on Twitter.
Conservative pundit and former GOP Senate candidate Dan Bongino echoed recurring conservative complaints that Roberts is looking to curry favor on the Washington dinner party circuit.
“John Roberts is terrified of the liberal op-ed columnists. They know they hold him captive. They can easily sway his opinions by issuing their ‘warnings’ to him through their columns,” Bongino wrote. “He’s not a judge anymore, he’s a politician.”
Not all conservatives were up in arms about Roberts’ perceived defection Thursday on the census case.
Former Reagan White House lawyer and radio host Hugh Hewitt noted that on the same day the census case came down, Roberts joined with the court’s conservatives in a 5-4 decision that decisively rejected any role for courts in remedying political gerrymandering. The chief justice also took the pen for the majority in that fight, flatly dismissing the idea of courts resolving such disputes.
Hewitt declared the gerrymandering decision to be far more consequential.
“Conservatives coiled to condemn Chief Justice over citizenship question need to focus on this incredibly important, far reaching and absolutely correct decision,” Hewitt tweeted. “Would anyone preferring that #SCOTUS clearly uphold census question and at same time continue the decades of absurd ambiguity about the clearly-delegated-to-political-bodies re-districting power please raise their hands? I know you’d like both, but if you had to choose either?”
There is a degree of selective outrage at Roberts. Trump’s newest nominee to the court, Justice Neil Gorsuch, sided with liberals in a series of 5-4, late-term decisions this year, but they were less high-profile. As Gorsuch ruled in favor of criminal defendants — including a child pornography convict — in a pair of cases related to sentencing, there was no outcry from the right that Trump’s pick was abandoning his backers.
Still, Roberts’ tendency to side with liberals in some cases embraced by many Republican activists seems to grate on many conservative lawyers, including some who helped lead the fight to confirm him.
“I still haven’t fully psychologically accepted the truth about Roberts,” said Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice in an interview.
“He may in his heart think he’s a conservative, but he’s not going to be what conservatives want and liberals fear. … With each passing year — maybe this doesn’t happen every year, but we’ve seen enough of it, we kind of have to accept he’s roughly another Kennedy,” Levey said, referring to Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Reagan appointee who dismayed conservatives by upholding abortion rights and leading the court to declare a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Levey said the political polarization in the country may be prodding Roberts to go further than he otherwise would in trying to ensure that the court is viewed as moderate and not being buffeted by the political winds. Last November, when President Donald Trump made derisive comments about “Obama judges,” Roberts shot back with a statement declaring “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. ... What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”
“At the end of the day, Roberts wants the court to be well-respected,” Levey said, calling the chief justice “a compromiser and people pleaser.”
“I think the hysteria on the left about an ‘arch conservative’ court is having an effect,” the legal activist said. “At the end of the day, [Roberts] wants the court to be well respected and a highly divided nation is a threat to the legitimacy of the court because with every decision the half the public is convinced the court is acting for political reasons.”
DACA termination
Supreme Court will hear arguments over DACA termination
By TED HESSON
The Supreme Court will hear arguments over the termination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, the court said Friday.
The announcement sets up a legal showdown later this year over President Donald Trump’s decision to remove protections that allow 669,000 Dreamers — who were illegally brought to the U.S. or overstayed a visa as children — to live and work in the United States legally. The high court could assign the case for argument as soon as October.
The news comes as Trump and congressional Democrats continue to feud over his aggressive immigration crackdown and a growing influx of migrant families and children at the Southwest border.
DACA, which was established in 2012 as an executive-branch program by former President Barack Obama, provides deportation relief and work permits to Dreamers brought to the United States as children.
Trump, arguing that DACA would not withstand legal challenges, moved to phase out the initiative in September 2017. But three federal judges blocked the planned termination. Two federal appeals courts have subsequently issued rulings against Trump’s wind-down.
As a result of the lower court rulings, the Trump administration resumed processing renewals for people already enrolled in the program, and it may eventually be required to accept new applications.
Polls consistently show most Americans back a path to legal status for Dreamers, although the support is less robust among Republicans.
The Democrat-controlled House passed a bill earlier this month that would provide conditional legal status to an estimated 2.3 million Dreamers. Once legalized, Dreamers could eventually apply for permanent residence and citizenship if they meet certain criteria.
The bill also provides legal status to more than 400,000 immigrants covered by Temporary Protected Status, a separate humanitarian program for people whose home countries experience a natural disaster or armed conflict.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), however, has said it’s unlikely the Republican-controlled Senate will vote on the legislation, which was crafted by Democrats.
The administration has had a mixed record on high-profile immigration cases before the Supreme Court.
The justices on Thursday dealt Trump an unexpected blow when they ruled that the rationale for a citizenship question on the 2020 census was “contrived“ and sent the case back to lower courts. In that ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s liberal wing.
But the Supreme Court upheld another Trump policy a year ago when it ruled in favor of a revised version of his travel ban. The 5-4 ruling split along ideological lines, with the court’s conservative justices backing the president’s powers to restrict immigration in the interest of national security.
By TED HESSON
The Supreme Court will hear arguments over the termination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, the court said Friday.
The announcement sets up a legal showdown later this year over President Donald Trump’s decision to remove protections that allow 669,000 Dreamers — who were illegally brought to the U.S. or overstayed a visa as children — to live and work in the United States legally. The high court could assign the case for argument as soon as October.
The news comes as Trump and congressional Democrats continue to feud over his aggressive immigration crackdown and a growing influx of migrant families and children at the Southwest border.
DACA, which was established in 2012 as an executive-branch program by former President Barack Obama, provides deportation relief and work permits to Dreamers brought to the United States as children.
Trump, arguing that DACA would not withstand legal challenges, moved to phase out the initiative in September 2017. But three federal judges blocked the planned termination. Two federal appeals courts have subsequently issued rulings against Trump’s wind-down.
As a result of the lower court rulings, the Trump administration resumed processing renewals for people already enrolled in the program, and it may eventually be required to accept new applications.
Polls consistently show most Americans back a path to legal status for Dreamers, although the support is less robust among Republicans.
The Democrat-controlled House passed a bill earlier this month that would provide conditional legal status to an estimated 2.3 million Dreamers. Once legalized, Dreamers could eventually apply for permanent residence and citizenship if they meet certain criteria.
The bill also provides legal status to more than 400,000 immigrants covered by Temporary Protected Status, a separate humanitarian program for people whose home countries experience a natural disaster or armed conflict.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), however, has said it’s unlikely the Republican-controlled Senate will vote on the legislation, which was crafted by Democrats.
The administration has had a mixed record on high-profile immigration cases before the Supreme Court.
The justices on Thursday dealt Trump an unexpected blow when they ruled that the rationale for a citizenship question on the 2020 census was “contrived“ and sent the case back to lower courts. In that ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s liberal wing.
But the Supreme Court upheld another Trump policy a year ago when it ruled in favor of a revised version of his travel ban. The 5-4 ruling split along ideological lines, with the court’s conservative justices backing the president’s powers to restrict immigration in the interest of national security.
Greasing up Orangutan's ass and getting ready to fuck him.. Orangutan likes it.
Putin: Donald Trump is ‘a talented person’
Russian president praises US counterpart and says UK poison case ‘is not worth five kopecks.’
By PAUL DALLISON
U.S. President Donald Trump is "a talented person" who "knows very well what his voters expect from him,” according to Vladimir Putin.
In an interview with the FT, the Russian president referred to Trump as “Donald” several times and said: “Mr. Trump is not a career politician ... I do not accept many of his methods when it comes to addressing problems. But do you know what I think? I think that he is a talented person. He knows very well what his voters expect from him.”
Putin also rejected accusations of Russian interference in the U.S. election, saying: “Russia has been accused, and, strange as it may seem, it is still being accused ... of alleged interference in the U.S. election. What happened in reality? Mr. Trump looked into his opponents’ attitude to him and saw changes in American society, and he took advantage of this.”
In the interview, which was published Thursday evening and took place in the Kremlin's cabinet office, Putin said it was time to move on from the Salisbury poisoning scandal that soured Moscow's relations with the U.K.
“Listen, all this fuss about spies and counterspies, it is not worth serious interstate relations. This spy story, as we say, it is not worth five kopecks,” he said.
Putin will meet with U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan. It will be the first time they have met since London accused two Russian intelligence officers of using a chemical weapon against former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury in March last year.
May's official spokesperson said the meeting “does not represent a normalization of relations.”
However, Putin told the FT: "The list of accusations and allegations against one another could go on and on ... We need to just leave it alone and let security agencies deal with it."
Putin also told the FT that "the liberal idea has become obsolete. It has come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population."
European Council President Donald Tusk responded to the Russian president in a statement before the G20 summit in Osaka.
"Thanks to my jet lag I was able to read the whole interview with President Putin in the Financial Times," Tusk said. "I have to say that I strongly disagree with the main argument that liberalism is obsolete. We are here as Europeans also to firmly and univocally defend and promote liberal democracy."
He continued: "Whoever claims that liberal democracy is obsolete, also claims that freedoms are obsolete, that the rule of law is obsolete and that human rights are obsolete. For us in Europe, these are and will remain essential and vibrant values. What I find really obsolete are: authoritarianism, personality cults, the rule of oligarchs. Even if sometimes they may seem effective."
Russian president praises US counterpart and says UK poison case ‘is not worth five kopecks.’
By PAUL DALLISON
U.S. President Donald Trump is "a talented person" who "knows very well what his voters expect from him,” according to Vladimir Putin.
In an interview with the FT, the Russian president referred to Trump as “Donald” several times and said: “Mr. Trump is not a career politician ... I do not accept many of his methods when it comes to addressing problems. But do you know what I think? I think that he is a talented person. He knows very well what his voters expect from him.”
Putin also rejected accusations of Russian interference in the U.S. election, saying: “Russia has been accused, and, strange as it may seem, it is still being accused ... of alleged interference in the U.S. election. What happened in reality? Mr. Trump looked into his opponents’ attitude to him and saw changes in American society, and he took advantage of this.”
In the interview, which was published Thursday evening and took place in the Kremlin's cabinet office, Putin said it was time to move on from the Salisbury poisoning scandal that soured Moscow's relations with the U.K.
“Listen, all this fuss about spies and counterspies, it is not worth serious interstate relations. This spy story, as we say, it is not worth five kopecks,” he said.
Putin will meet with U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan. It will be the first time they have met since London accused two Russian intelligence officers of using a chemical weapon against former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury in March last year.
May's official spokesperson said the meeting “does not represent a normalization of relations.”
However, Putin told the FT: "The list of accusations and allegations against one another could go on and on ... We need to just leave it alone and let security agencies deal with it."
Putin also told the FT that "the liberal idea has become obsolete. It has come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population."
European Council President Donald Tusk responded to the Russian president in a statement before the G20 summit in Osaka.
"Thanks to my jet lag I was able to read the whole interview with President Putin in the Financial Times," Tusk said. "I have to say that I strongly disagree with the main argument that liberalism is obsolete. We are here as Europeans also to firmly and univocally defend and promote liberal democracy."
He continued: "Whoever claims that liberal democracy is obsolete, also claims that freedoms are obsolete, that the rule of law is obsolete and that human rights are obsolete. For us in Europe, these are and will remain essential and vibrant values. What I find really obsolete are: authoritarianism, personality cults, the rule of oligarchs. Even if sometimes they may seem effective."
Weak!
Trump can't help himself when it comes to Putin
Every time the president has a chance to cast aside doubts about his relationship with the Russian leader, he does the opposite.
By ANITA KUMAR
Since Donald Trump's first day in office, Russia has loomed over his presidency. Yet every time he’s had a chance to cast aside people's doubts, Trump does the opposite.
During a March 2018 phone call, Trump congratulated Putin on his reelection, despite rampant allegations of fraud and even his own aides' all-caps warning: "DO NOT CONGRATULATE." At a gathering of world leaders several months later, Trump reportedly said the contested Crimea region in Ukraine is Russian, despite his own administration's condemnation over Moscow's annexation of the area. And at a summit in Helsinki the following month, Trump appeared to accept Putin's election meddling denials, despite the conclusions of U.S. intelligence agencies that Putin himself orchestrated the interference campaign.
On Friday, Trump added to the list.
At his first meeting with Putin since Robert Mueller's Russia probe concluded, Trump made light of the robust evidence showing Russia engaged in a “sweeping and systematic” campaign to disrupt the election in Trump’s favor.
After he was asked by reporter if he will talk to Putin about election interference — a topic he failed to mention himself, Trump responded: “Yes, of course I will.”
But he didn’t stop there. He turned to Putin, seated next to him, smiling and pointing his finger in the Russian president's direction, and said jokingly, "Don't meddle in the election, president. Don't meddle in the election." Putin, after appearing to hear the translation, laughed while Trump grinned.
The episode at the G-20 conference, an annual gathering of the world’s 20 biggest economies, will do nothing to ease the long-standing perception that Trump is too friendly toward Russia — a relationship that has alarmed Democrats and Republicans alike and led to congressional investigations.
But it could have been expected, according to his current and former advisers. Trump often bristles at being told what to say or do, they say. So when pushed, the president simply mocks what is expected of him, even when it comes to Russia.
And each time he refuses to conform to expected behavior toward Russia, it inevitably causes a firestorm in Washington. But Trump's advisers don’t think the controversies hurt him politically. Instead, they think his strategy of branding all investigations into his relationship with Russia as a “phony witch hunt” orchestrated by Democrats and the media has helped defuse the issue outside the nation’s capital.
It’s unclear whether Trump actually did press Putin on election interference when the two leaders met Friday. A White House readout of the meeting failed to mention the topic, though it did note the two discussed several points of friction, like Iran, Syria and Venezuela. “Both leaders agreed that improved relations between the United States and Russia was in each countries’ mutual interest and the interest of the world,” the White House statement read.
Before he left Washington, Trump declined to tell reporters at the White House what, if anything, he would say to Putin about election interference. “What I say to him is none of your business,” Trump pushed back when questioned about the meeting.
“Whenever President Trump and President Putin meet, there is a very strong domestic backlash after that meeting,” said Heather Conley, who served as a deputy assistant secretary of State during the George W. Bush administration and is now a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. “But, in part, it’s because there’s a total lack of transparency about the topics of discussion and what the agenda is.”
In the past, some of the meetings between the two leaders have occurred without U.S. aides or interpreters presents, alarming critics who worry about what Trump may promise Putin behind closed doors. But Friday’s meeting included members of both countries’ delegations, including Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, the president’s daughter and son-in-law, who both serve as senior advisers.
Before the meeting, a senior administration official described the talk as a “normal event” focused on improving the bilateral relationship. “With regard to the message for Putin, I think the president’s message on election interference is well known and he will be repeating it,” the official said.
But Trump's public comments on the topic have been opaque. Just two weeks ago, Trump said in an interview that he would listen if a foreign source offered him information on a 2020 election opponent, and might not report the overture to the FBI. He later tried to walk the statement back.
Although Trump appears to be reluctant to criticize Putin, his administration has repeatedly hit Russia with sanctions over issues like election interference and criticized Moscow for its aggression in Ukraine.
But Trump's bonhomie toward Putin has continued into the G-20 summit. As he left for the event, Trump blasted host county Japan and India on trade but said nothing about Russia. And when the world leaders posed for a photo at the gathering, Trump walked and chatted with Putin, patting him gently on the back as the two parted ways onstage.
The feelings between the two leaders appears to be mutual. In an interview with the Financial Times this week, Putin described Trump — who he called “Donald” — as "a talented person" who "knows very well what his voters expect from him.”
Trump did cancel a meeting with Putin at the 2018 G-20 summit in Buenos Aires after Russia seized three Ukrainian ships with dozens of sailors, saying a meeting wouldn't occur until the situation was resolved. Russia still has the ships, but Trump scheduled the Friday meeting anyway.
“He has said on a number of occasions that he was prevented from working more closely with Putin in the first two years because of the Russia investigation,” said Thomas Wright, a geopolitics expert with the center-left Brookings Institution. “This is the first meeting with Putin since the Mueller report. And so if his own remarks are anything to go by, we may sort of expect to see him trying to open up a sort of deeper period of cooperation with Putin.”
Every time the president has a chance to cast aside doubts about his relationship with the Russian leader, he does the opposite.
By ANITA KUMAR
Since Donald Trump's first day in office, Russia has loomed over his presidency. Yet every time he’s had a chance to cast aside people's doubts, Trump does the opposite.
During a March 2018 phone call, Trump congratulated Putin on his reelection, despite rampant allegations of fraud and even his own aides' all-caps warning: "DO NOT CONGRATULATE." At a gathering of world leaders several months later, Trump reportedly said the contested Crimea region in Ukraine is Russian, despite his own administration's condemnation over Moscow's annexation of the area. And at a summit in Helsinki the following month, Trump appeared to accept Putin's election meddling denials, despite the conclusions of U.S. intelligence agencies that Putin himself orchestrated the interference campaign.
On Friday, Trump added to the list.
At his first meeting with Putin since Robert Mueller's Russia probe concluded, Trump made light of the robust evidence showing Russia engaged in a “sweeping and systematic” campaign to disrupt the election in Trump’s favor.
After he was asked by reporter if he will talk to Putin about election interference — a topic he failed to mention himself, Trump responded: “Yes, of course I will.”
But he didn’t stop there. He turned to Putin, seated next to him, smiling and pointing his finger in the Russian president's direction, and said jokingly, "Don't meddle in the election, president. Don't meddle in the election." Putin, after appearing to hear the translation, laughed while Trump grinned.
The episode at the G-20 conference, an annual gathering of the world’s 20 biggest economies, will do nothing to ease the long-standing perception that Trump is too friendly toward Russia — a relationship that has alarmed Democrats and Republicans alike and led to congressional investigations.
But it could have been expected, according to his current and former advisers. Trump often bristles at being told what to say or do, they say. So when pushed, the president simply mocks what is expected of him, even when it comes to Russia.
And each time he refuses to conform to expected behavior toward Russia, it inevitably causes a firestorm in Washington. But Trump's advisers don’t think the controversies hurt him politically. Instead, they think his strategy of branding all investigations into his relationship with Russia as a “phony witch hunt” orchestrated by Democrats and the media has helped defuse the issue outside the nation’s capital.
It’s unclear whether Trump actually did press Putin on election interference when the two leaders met Friday. A White House readout of the meeting failed to mention the topic, though it did note the two discussed several points of friction, like Iran, Syria and Venezuela. “Both leaders agreed that improved relations between the United States and Russia was in each countries’ mutual interest and the interest of the world,” the White House statement read.
Before he left Washington, Trump declined to tell reporters at the White House what, if anything, he would say to Putin about election interference. “What I say to him is none of your business,” Trump pushed back when questioned about the meeting.
“Whenever President Trump and President Putin meet, there is a very strong domestic backlash after that meeting,” said Heather Conley, who served as a deputy assistant secretary of State during the George W. Bush administration and is now a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. “But, in part, it’s because there’s a total lack of transparency about the topics of discussion and what the agenda is.”
In the past, some of the meetings between the two leaders have occurred without U.S. aides or interpreters presents, alarming critics who worry about what Trump may promise Putin behind closed doors. But Friday’s meeting included members of both countries’ delegations, including Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, the president’s daughter and son-in-law, who both serve as senior advisers.
Before the meeting, a senior administration official described the talk as a “normal event” focused on improving the bilateral relationship. “With regard to the message for Putin, I think the president’s message on election interference is well known and he will be repeating it,” the official said.
But Trump's public comments on the topic have been opaque. Just two weeks ago, Trump said in an interview that he would listen if a foreign source offered him information on a 2020 election opponent, and might not report the overture to the FBI. He later tried to walk the statement back.
Although Trump appears to be reluctant to criticize Putin, his administration has repeatedly hit Russia with sanctions over issues like election interference and criticized Moscow for its aggression in Ukraine.
But Trump's bonhomie toward Putin has continued into the G-20 summit. As he left for the event, Trump blasted host county Japan and India on trade but said nothing about Russia. And when the world leaders posed for a photo at the gathering, Trump walked and chatted with Putin, patting him gently on the back as the two parted ways onstage.
The feelings between the two leaders appears to be mutual. In an interview with the Financial Times this week, Putin described Trump — who he called “Donald” — as "a talented person" who "knows very well what his voters expect from him.”
Trump did cancel a meeting with Putin at the 2018 G-20 summit in Buenos Aires after Russia seized three Ukrainian ships with dozens of sailors, saying a meeting wouldn't occur until the situation was resolved. Russia still has the ships, but Trump scheduled the Friday meeting anyway.
“He has said on a number of occasions that he was prevented from working more closely with Putin in the first two years because of the Russia investigation,” said Thomas Wright, a geopolitics expert with the center-left Brookings Institution. “This is the first meeting with Putin since the Mueller report. And so if his own remarks are anything to go by, we may sort of expect to see him trying to open up a sort of deeper period of cooperation with Putin.”
Was Eaten Alive
Biden ‘Dated Himself,’ ‘Underperformed’—and ‘Was Eaten Alive’
The four-hour, two-night debate is over. According to our experts, Bernie Sanders was eclipsed, Joe Biden (maybe) survived a pummeling, and Kamala Harris changed the 2020 race.
By POLITICO MAGAZINE
It’s a democratic-socialist party now—but it might be in the hands of some younger stars instead of Bernie Sanders. After two nights and 20 Democrats scrapping on a national stage, that’s the conclusion of our panel of experts, operatives and longtime political observers who sat through all four hours of debating and watched a party reshape itself on live TV.
Who came out ahead? Kamala Harris captured a lot of the attention, not least for her ability to go toe-to-toe with frontrunner Joe Biden on Thursday night. The other big winner was Pete Buttigieg, whose smooth intelligence and moral seriousness stood out, though at age 37 he might not have had quite the commanding presence of Harris. Both of them, in our experts’ views, eclipsed Biden—though the former vice president still grabbed the most screen time, and there’s no telling whether anything we saw this week will move the polls.
Looking at both nights, our panel thought that Elizabeth Warren held her own, and Julián Castro pushed his name up the leaderboard, at least for now. And many observers thought Sanders seemed eclipsed by more diverse and dynamic candidates.
Who else had an electric kickoff, and why? Read on for their insights.
***
It’s Bernie’s party now.
Dan Lavoie is a progressive communications strategist.
The takeaway from the two debates is simple: It is Bernie Sanders’ party. It was Kamala Harris’ star turn. It was Joe Biden’s nightmare. And it’s Elizabeth Warren's nomination to lose.
Sanders’ complete and total conquest of the Democratic Party policy center was astounding to watch. Nearly every viable candidate espoused beliefs in line with or to the left of Bernie 2016. But as much as Sanders’ policies have taken over the political conversation, his middling debate performance—juxtaposed with extremely strong performances by Warren and Harris—leave him on the outside looking in.
And poor, anachronistic Biden. He seemed lost in his responses. He was eaten alive by Harris’ “that little girl was me” line, and he spent a good chunk of his time defending his antagonism to busing. It will be a slow (or fast) glide-path out of first place for him. The contours of the race are becoming clear, and they likely don’t involve Joe Biden.
***
Women—and people of color—ruled.
Amanda Litman is the co-founder and executive director of Run for Something.
After all the hand wringing in 2017 and 2018 about identity politics, I’m so glad to see that the breakout candidates were all women and people of color who brought their lived experience to the stage. Across the two nights, Elizabeth Warren, Julián Castro, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand all invoked nuance, personal stories and their direct connections to the issues that directly affect Americans. And for once, “American” wasn’t synonymous with straight white men. These candidates’ experiences as members of a marginalized community make them better, more well-rounded, more empathetic leaders, and they’re stronger for it. Diversity isn’t a novelty; it’s a necessity. Any pundit who argued that only a white man can take the fight to Donald Trump was full of it.
***
Harris won: ‘Democrats can envision her doing to Trump what she did to Biden.’
Alan Schroeder is a professor in the school of journalism at Northeastern University in Boston. Schroeder is the author of several books, including Presidential Debates: Risky Business on the Campaign Trail.
Two headlines emerged from this opening round: Kamala Harris’ ascent and Joe Biden’s near self-immolation. Biden can be a talented debater—he won both of his general election matches hands down—but a cattle call is precisely the wrong format for showcasing his gifts. Biden allowed Harris to rattle him, and as the debate progressed his mounting desperation reminded me of John McCain’s discomfort in his debates with Barack Obama.
Harris is the clear victor, counting both nights. She combines the intellect and zeal of Elizabeth Warren with the stage presence and storytelling prowess of Cory Booker, to cite Wednesday’s co-winners. Harris manages to be equally relaxed and forceful; even her interruptions were done with finesse. But she won the debate for a singular reason: because Democrats can envision her doing to Donald Trump what she did to Biden.
Harris’ only rival on the stage Thursday was Pete Buttigieg. His physical slightness puts him at a visual disadvantage—imagine Trump stalking Mayor Pete on a debate stage—but Buttigieg is so smart and self-possessed that he invites trust. His eloquent denunciation of Republicans for their religious hypocrisy shows that he can detonate a viral moment with the best of them.
So the scorecard stands as follows: One big winner: Harris. Three runners-up: Warren, Booker and Buttigieg. A surprise upstart: Julián Castro. The mediocrities, not worth listing. And a bunch of losers, starting with Biden and extending to Beto O’Rourke, Kirsten Gillibrand, the Coloradans, Andrew Yang (who’d make a great student council president) and Marianne Williamson, this debate’s Admiral Stockdale. Can’t we just give her a parting gift and applaud her offstage?
***
Mayor Pete is our best bipartisan hope.
Liz Mair is a Republican campaign communications consultant.
The guy who comes out of these two nights—and it is a guy—with the most gut-level appeal, both for Democrats and I suspect a lot of independents and Republicans tuning in too, is Pete Buttigieg. He’s likable, clearly very smart, has a vision, can articulate it, and a lot of people from all different philosophical backgrounds will appreciate that he’s a veteran. It’s a very positive distinguisher in this field.
That said, I think Joe Biden did what he needed to do in this round. Yes, he could have handled the attack by Kamala Harris better, but I suspect he knows that voters aren’t where progressive Twitter is and didn’t want to look like he was punching a girl in order to address a challenge that might not even truly exist. His constant references to positive aspects of his record that showed real leadership, how he led on so much during the Obama-Biden administration especially, and his simple invocation of President Obama will, I think, prove very effective. Plus, he is just hard not to like on some level.
Who comes out of this round a loser? Bernie Sanders, big time. It’s clear at this point that if you want what he is selling, policy-wise, you can get it from Elizabeth Warren without the befuddled, yelling, USSR-honeymooning act. If you like the policy and the yelling, Bill de Blasio is also an alternative. Kirsten Gillibrand also performed badly on Thursday. The constant interruptions, the scripted, pander-y and badly delivered answers, and the retuned, politically charged 1990s Spice Girls “girl power” theme really don’t say “commander in chief.” And it’s not a gender thing, as Harris proved by standing right next to Gillibrand and looking about 30 times as tough, effective, principled and capable, live on camera.
***
Kamala Harris won—and black women did too.
Michelle Bernard is a political analyst, lawyer, author and president and CEO of the Bernard Center for Women, Politics & Public Policy.
Fifty years after the election of Shirley Chisholm as the first African-American woman to serve in Congress and to run for president, Kamala Harris made history on Thursday, clearly winning the Democratic debate. With her win, black women won too—and won in ways that no one could have predicted just 24 hours ago.
From the beginning to the end of the debate, Harris was poised, controlled, passionate and combative enough to make clear that she can go to battle against Trump and win. From the economy to immigration to racial and gender justice to how a Democrat will govern with a Republican-led Senate, Harris owned the stage. So much so, that at times it was easy to forget that Biden or Sanders, the front runners going into the evening, let alone any of the other candidates, were even there.
Early in the debate, Harris took control by bringing order to the stage when the other candidates were speaking over one another like children fighting over candy, saying, “Hey guys, you know what, America does not want to witness a food fight. They want to know how we’re going to put food on the table.” Harris showed no fear in attacking Donald Trump, reiterating that he is the greatest threat to the nation. On gun control, DACA and “releasing children from cages,” she told the country she would not hesitate to use executive action, answering the public’s question as to how a Democrat in the White House will get anything done with a Republican-led Senate.
Moreover, Harris embraced her blackness, describing the neighbor whose children were not allowed to play with her and her sister because they are black. She showed no fear or discomfort in volunteering the differences she had with the Obama-Biden administration on the deportation of undocumented immigrants, and she talked about the leadership she demonstrated when, as attorney general of California, she directed sheriffs to ignore the Obama administration’s policy of deporting the undocumented. She called Biden’s comments about his past working with two segregationist lawmakers “hurtful” and then accused him of opposing busing in order to integrate public schools, stating, “There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day, and that little girl was me.” One couldn’t help but look at Biden and ask, “How could you?”
***
Biden survived.
Jacob Heilbrunn is the editor of the National Interest.
Already Joe Biden is being written off and Kamala Harris touted as the second night’s winner. Don’t believe a word of it. Harris may have tried to put Biden in a Miami vise, but he ultimately eluded her repeated and potent blows. He closed with a strong statement about Trump’s embrace of the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, allowing him to underscore where the real problem rests when it comes to race. For all the talk among his younger rivals of passing the torch, Biden made it clear that he doesn’t want to torch the past. Instead, he effectively pointed to his record of legislative prowess and argued that Barack Obama’s accomplishments, especially on health care, are being sold short.
Harris showed that she has the goods to deliver a knockout blow, and Biden will have to up his game. But in roughing up Biden this early, she may have done him a favor. The nomination remains his to lose. If he doesn’t, it’s Biden-Harris. Otherwise, watch for Harris-Buttigieg. Either way, it’s Donald Trump who has more than ever to worry about. Thursday night’s debate was anything but BORING!
***
‘They all but declared their front-runner a senile racist’
Mary Matalin is a conservative political consultant and was campaign director for President George H.W. Bush in 1992.
I literally thought I had tuned into one of my favorite films, Idiocracy. Almost to a man, the candidates took the downside position on two issues that 80 percent of Americans stand on the other side of: immigration and health care. They championed open borders and free health care for illegal immigrants, while dissing heroic law enforcement (ICE), and they all but declared their front-runner a senile racist.
***
‘Why would I vote for Bernie Sanders in 2020 when Elizabeth Warren exists?’
L. Joy Williams is a political strategist and consultant, the creator and host of the podcast Sunday Civics, and the chair of Higher Heights for America.
Beating Donald Trump is at the top of every Democrat’s list, but voters will want more than a demonstration of strength to defeat the bully when they get in the polling booth. That strength must be coupled with a clear path out of the wilderness for the American people, and only a few of the candidates were able to deliver that.
On the second night’s stage, Kamala Harris was adorned in full armor and ready for battle. She was able to chart a direction on key policy issues and her direct challenge to Joe Biden showed that she is unafraid to go for the biggest guy in the room. Biden himself reminded many that he isn’t particularly great at debating. Add that to his latest dust ups and we will begin to see a few cracks in that front-runner status. Like the first night’s New Yorker Bill de Blasio, Kirsten Gillibrand’s strategy of forcing her way into conversations may or may not pay off in the long run, but it certainly got her noticed. Based on their performances, candidates like Eric Swalwell, Tulsi Gabbard and Michael Bennet might find it difficult to convince donors to help them reach the next debate threshold. And lastly, while they weren’t on the stage together, people must be asking themselves: Why would I vote for Bernie Sanders in 2020 when Elizabeth Warren exists?
***
Harris-Castro 2020!
Charles Ellison is a political strategist and talk-radio host.
If Democratic primary voters had to nominate a ticket tomorrow based off the two straight nights of debates, it would be Harris-Castro. In terms of issues, immigration dominated both nights, but climate change transitioned into climate crisis by night two. If black voters felt left out on the first night, many felt back in the game by the second night.
Kamala Harris and Julián Castro each appeared to tear through any virtual ceilings they hit before these debates, and they leave Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren forgotten for a moment. Castro found openings to show his sharpness, while Harris was much less scripted and raw. On the first night, that proved a fatal blow to Beto O’Rourke; on the second night, it gave Joe Biden a deep bruise that left him wobbling, but the jury is still out on whether that’s it for him. Bernie Sanders was made irrelevant. Pete Buttigieg was composed but still mostly hype.
***
She didn’t win, but Marianne Williamson was the most memorable.
Jennifer Victor is a professor of political science at George Mason University, a co-editor of the Oxford Handbook of Political Networks and a member of the board of directors of the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics.
The caliber of exchange in Thursday’s debate was much higher than in the first night of debates. Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg were the breakout stars of the second debate. They commanded the stage and had memorable moments. Buttigieg had more to gain than Harris, because he is less well known, but Harris demonstrated a greater ability to lead the narrative, particularly in her exchange with Joe Biden over civil rights. Biden has been a front runner, but he underperformed in the crowded field and dated himself in several moments with his language and examples, which might not serve him well in an election year that is expected to see an unprecedented number of young voters. The most memorable moments probably were the left-field comments from Marianne Williamson, who will likely not be in the running much longer.
Marianne Williamson: “My first call is to the Prime Minister of New Zealand”
***
‘Imitation may prove to be a blessing and a curse for Sanders.’
Matt Bruenig is the founder and president of the People's Policy Project, a progressive think tank.
Across the two debates, Bernie Sanders’ style of economic populism emerged as the primary winner. Gone is the moderate economic rhetoric of Clinton that offered small tweaks while avoiding the villainization of the super-rich and big corporations. Nearly every candidate in both debates now talks about the economy as fundamentally rigged by a ruling economic elite when trying to sell themselves and their policy agenda.
However, imitation may prove to be a blessing and a curse for Sanders going forward. It is a blessing because it signals that his long years in the political wilderness have paid off and shifted the Democratic Party to the left. But it may also be a curse for Sanders personally if he cannot distinguish himself in a chorus of copycats and ends up losing votes to people who sound like him but are not sincerely committed to his economic program.
***
Progressives are losing by winning.
Neil Newhouse is a partner and co-founder of Public Opinion Strategies, a national Republican polling company.
Losers:
The candidates who came into this debate in single digits. The moderators seemed determined to keep them there.
Medicare For All. Few Democrats support it despite the fact that the party’s ideological leaders are pushing in that direction.
Progressives/liberals. Both of these debates succeeded in dragging the Democratic Party to the left, making it much easier for the GOP to draw a contrast in the general election.
The debate format. Too many candidates, too little time, too little structure. The interrupters and non-rule-followers get more traction.
Winners:
Open borders between the United States and Mexico.
Illegal immigrants. Decriminalization of illegally crossing the border, and free health care.
Donald Trump. The longer the debates went, the less the candidates focused on President Trump and the more they focused on the differences among themselves.
Senator Mitch McConnell. Most voters had no idea how much power he wielded until the last two nights!
***
The winners spoke to bread and butter—and embraced identity.
Atima Omara is a political strategist and former president of the Young Democrats of America.
Kamala Harris definitively won the second night's debate. The previous night, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and Julián Castro definitively were the standouts. They all stood out substantively, addressing bread and butter issues important to the base of the Democratic Party such as health care, gun violence prevention, climate change and the economy. However, all four also used their backgrounds and experience to uniquely address the issues of race, gender, immigration and LGBTQ+ rights. As a gay married man, Pete Buttigieg directly took on the GOP on its historical stance against gay rights. These issues are especially important now not only because Donald Trump ran and has governed by playing to people's worst instincts on these issues—but also because a new generation of voters has come of age. If they turn out and vote, they’ll outnumber Trump supporters.
***
‘The way is now open for younger, lesser-known figures’
Michael Kazin, a professor of history at Georgetown University and the co-editor of Dissent, is writing a history of the Democratic Party.
Of course, Kamala Harris did best by challenging Joe Biden on his opposition to busing and his praise for racist senators. She was relaxed, pointed and articulate, and left the former vice president floundering in his own defensiveness. But the key function of events in which 20 people compete is to show who has the potential to become an effective nominee for an increasingly progressive party—and who does not.
As a septuagenarian, it gives me no comfort to say that the old fellas belong in the latter category. If Biden couldn’t keep reminding people that he was Barack Obama’s vice president, he would have nothing appealing to say at all. And although I share many of Bernie Sanders’ positions, he increasingly comes across as a humorless shouter who, like Biden, refuses to admit he ever did or said anything he regrets. His 2016 campaign will be remembered for helping to push the party to the egalitarian, social-democratic left. But the result is that most Americans will have a difficult time understanding how his “socialism” differs from the stands taken by Elizabeth Warren, Julián Castro and even Harris—all of whom can deliver without hectoring their audiences.
Neither man will fade away soon. But the way is now open for younger, lesser-known figures who can better galvanize voters against Trump. And Marianne Williamson, Andrew Yang, John Hickenlooper, Eric Swalwell, John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard, Tim Ryan, Beto O’Rourke, Michael Bennet and Jay Inslee should quickly return to their less-spotlighted lives. Some might be fine cabinet secretaries. Hickenlooper and O’Rourke should immediately start running for the U.S. Senate, so a Democratic president won’t have to negotiate with Mitch McConnell to get any good legislation passed.
***
Policy won out over personal attacks.
Alice Stewart is a CNN political commentator and former communications director for Ted Cruz.
Without a doubt, Kamala Harris had a breakaway night by making the case against Donald Trump and taking some shine off Joe Biden, calling into question his record on race. Biden defended his past and focused on the future fight with Trump, while touting his own plan to “restore dignity to the middle class.”
As if dusting off his 2016 playbook, Bernie Sanders carried the far-left flag, touting his policies, like “Medicare for All” and free college tuition. Sanders also vowed to “expose Trump for the fraud he is.” With a Democratic field in support of free college tuition, Pete Buttigieg made the distinction that we should “make it affordable to go to college and to not go to college” by raising the minimum wage.
It’s refreshing to see candidates focus on policy and not personal attacks. Believe it or not, people appreciate that.
***
‘The bloated slate ultimately diminishes the substance of the debate’
Leah Wright Rigueur is an assistant professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and the author of The Loneliness of the Black Republican: Pragmatic Politics and the Pursuit of Power.
The clear winner of the debates was progressivism as a political ideology. It appears that the Democratic Party has abandoned neoliberalism (at least symbolically, for now), which actually makes Bernie Sanders’ lackluster performance on the second night so perplexing. He’s played an instrumental role in helping push the party away from centrism; and yet, while his ideas saturated the stage on both nights of the debate, they did so in a manner untethered from Sanders, who was unusually subdued. Kamala Harris on the other hand completely dominated. In a remarkable moment, she delivered a stunning takedown of Joe Biden by masterfully weaving personal narrative, policy and history into a withering critique of Biden’s anti-busing stance. Even more astonishing—at no point did any of the other candidates challenge Harris, on any issue, despite multiple opportunities to do so.
In the long run, it’s far too early to make any definitive predictions about the presidential race. Some of the party’s strongest presidential contenders (and eventual winners) bombed spectacularly in their early debates. And as we saw in 2016, winning debates doesn’t always translate into winning primaries or elections. Early primary debates are largely political theater with lots of symbolic demonstrations and blustery performances. This Democratic primary would benefit from a dramatic narrowing of the field. The bloated slate ultimately diminishes the substance of the debate. We need to cut through the chaos and the noise and let the winners (Castro, Warren, Harris, Booker) and the survivors (Sanders, Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and de Blasio) duke it out over their vision and agenda for the modern Democratic Party and the nation.
***
‘The biggest loser of the last two nights was Donald Trump’
Jesse Ferguson is a Democratic strategist.
This debate wasn’t the beginning of the end of the Democratic primary, it was only the end of the beginning. Democratic primary voters who don’t follow every tweet have now begun to tune in and learn who the candidates are. The candidates who succeed are the ones who used this national audience to introduce themselves, their values and their rationale to be the antidote to Trump. Outside of paid advertising, debates provide the largest number of eyes any candidate will get. Primary voters just got the catalog of candidates and started dog-earing the pages of the ones they want to learn more about.
The biggest loser of the last two nights was Donald Trump. He’ll be whistling past the graveyard on more than 20 million people who saw competing ideas to repair America. The winners were people who were looking for actual ideas on reducing health care costs, taking on gun violence, fixing the tax system and rebuilding our government. The losers were people who were looking for a contest of insults, taunts and hand-size-measuring. You couldn’t get a starker comparison between the Democratic debates that will pick our next president and the Republican debates that led to Donald Trump.
***
Harris dominated. But will America vote for a woman of color as president?
Sophia A. Nelson is an American author, political strategist, opinion writer and former House Republican Committee counsel.
Kamala Harris owned the debate on night two. And she won the debate on night one, even though she was not on the stage. Harris was confident. Poised. Strong. Presidential. And she looked like the adult in a room full of raucous children yelling at one another. The 800-pound elephant in the room is whether America is ready to elect both its first woman president and its first woman of color president at the same time. I do not know the answer to that question, but make no mistake that is the question.
The big loser was Joe Biden. Harris landed him a blow by raising his history with busing and his perceived alignment with segregationists views—which Biden forcefully denied, but he was on his heels. Overall, both nights being considered, here is how I see it: Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Julián Castro and Cory Booker were the big winners. The big losers were Biden, Bernie Sanders and Beto O’Rourke. And Amy Klobuchar gets an honorable mention for helping and not hurting herself as a potential VP pick. The rest of the field should not be on the stage going forward.
***
Not much changed, but Bernie was a ‘marginal loser.’
Douglas Schoen is a political analyst, campaign consultant and former adviser to President Bill Clinton.
Despite the attention and hype, little has changed in the Democratic primary field after the first debates. As expected, nearly all the candidates on the second night centered their attacks on the former vice president and current frontrunner, Joe Biden, looking to cut into his significant lead. Nevertheless, he held his ground, rolled with the punches, and should maintain his frontrunner position.
It is also important to credit Pete Buttigieg as the second debate’s breakout star. Mayor Pete delivered a series of persuasive arguments and arguably challenged Biden for which candidate has the most compelling policy alternatives to Trump.
While several progressive candidates, including Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand performed well and enjoyed good moments, one Democratic-socialist candidate in particular, Bernie Sanders, was unable to articulate his message on any issue other than health care in a persuasive or cohesive way, making him a marginal loser of this round.
***
Finally, somebody talked about the ‘dignity of work.’
Beth Hansen is a Republican political strategist and the former campaign manager for John Kasich.
The candidates who managed to be memorable on the crowded stage Thursday night were Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg; Wednesday night it was Julián Castro. Elizabeth Warren did the better job defending her front-runner status. Another winner was the “dignity of work” in Thursday’s debate (only Tim Ryan seemed to promote it on Wednesday). That’s the kind rhetoric Democrats will need to win in 2020.
***
Kamala Harris will have a boomlet. How long will it last?
Samuel Wang is a data analyst, co-founder of the Princeton Election Consortium and professor of neuroscience and molecular biology at Princeton University.
At this early stage, in a crowded field it seems inevitable that some candidates will have brief boomlets in polling following the debates. How long does a boomlet last, and how does it end?
We know what a cycle of boom-and-bust looks like from the 2012 and 2016 GOP primaries:
Step 1: Start with obscure candidate X.
Step 2: X says something catchy.
Step 3: The press and pundits go wild! Watch out for meaningless words like “electable.”
Step 4: X inches upward in the polls.
Step 5: The press does more digging, and X gets more attention.
Step 6: Surprise! Something bad happens. A gaffe, a skeleton in the closet emerges, or the candidate just gets boring. Bad coverage follows.
Step 7: X drops in the polls.
Time elapsed: 1-2 months.
As an example of this cycle, think of the 2012 GOP primary: Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann. All rose and fell.
Kamala Harris appears to be at Step 2-3. The next question is: Does she have the abilities and resources to escape the usual cycle of boom and bust?
Perhaps less appreciated, Joe Biden might have just had his Step 6. His bump in the polls started at the end of April, when he announced his candidacy. It’s been almost exactly two months. Is his time up?
***
Joe Biden’s time is up.
Sean McElwee is a writer, data analyst and co-founder of the progressive think tank Data for Progress.
My commentary is a quote from a candidate that inspired me:
“My time is up, I'm sorry.” —Joe Biden
The debates gave Kamala Harris and Julián Castro breakout moments. They showed that the emperor has no clothes. As far as I’m concerned, the field is wide open.
The four-hour, two-night debate is over. According to our experts, Bernie Sanders was eclipsed, Joe Biden (maybe) survived a pummeling, and Kamala Harris changed the 2020 race.
By POLITICO MAGAZINE
It’s a democratic-socialist party now—but it might be in the hands of some younger stars instead of Bernie Sanders. After two nights and 20 Democrats scrapping on a national stage, that’s the conclusion of our panel of experts, operatives and longtime political observers who sat through all four hours of debating and watched a party reshape itself on live TV.
Who came out ahead? Kamala Harris captured a lot of the attention, not least for her ability to go toe-to-toe with frontrunner Joe Biden on Thursday night. The other big winner was Pete Buttigieg, whose smooth intelligence and moral seriousness stood out, though at age 37 he might not have had quite the commanding presence of Harris. Both of them, in our experts’ views, eclipsed Biden—though the former vice president still grabbed the most screen time, and there’s no telling whether anything we saw this week will move the polls.
Looking at both nights, our panel thought that Elizabeth Warren held her own, and Julián Castro pushed his name up the leaderboard, at least for now. And many observers thought Sanders seemed eclipsed by more diverse and dynamic candidates.
Who else had an electric kickoff, and why? Read on for their insights.
***
It’s Bernie’s party now.
Dan Lavoie is a progressive communications strategist.
The takeaway from the two debates is simple: It is Bernie Sanders’ party. It was Kamala Harris’ star turn. It was Joe Biden’s nightmare. And it’s Elizabeth Warren's nomination to lose.
Sanders’ complete and total conquest of the Democratic Party policy center was astounding to watch. Nearly every viable candidate espoused beliefs in line with or to the left of Bernie 2016. But as much as Sanders’ policies have taken over the political conversation, his middling debate performance—juxtaposed with extremely strong performances by Warren and Harris—leave him on the outside looking in.
And poor, anachronistic Biden. He seemed lost in his responses. He was eaten alive by Harris’ “that little girl was me” line, and he spent a good chunk of his time defending his antagonism to busing. It will be a slow (or fast) glide-path out of first place for him. The contours of the race are becoming clear, and they likely don’t involve Joe Biden.
***
Women—and people of color—ruled.
Amanda Litman is the co-founder and executive director of Run for Something.
After all the hand wringing in 2017 and 2018 about identity politics, I’m so glad to see that the breakout candidates were all women and people of color who brought their lived experience to the stage. Across the two nights, Elizabeth Warren, Julián Castro, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand all invoked nuance, personal stories and their direct connections to the issues that directly affect Americans. And for once, “American” wasn’t synonymous with straight white men. These candidates’ experiences as members of a marginalized community make them better, more well-rounded, more empathetic leaders, and they’re stronger for it. Diversity isn’t a novelty; it’s a necessity. Any pundit who argued that only a white man can take the fight to Donald Trump was full of it.
***
Harris won: ‘Democrats can envision her doing to Trump what she did to Biden.’
Alan Schroeder is a professor in the school of journalism at Northeastern University in Boston. Schroeder is the author of several books, including Presidential Debates: Risky Business on the Campaign Trail.
Two headlines emerged from this opening round: Kamala Harris’ ascent and Joe Biden’s near self-immolation. Biden can be a talented debater—he won both of his general election matches hands down—but a cattle call is precisely the wrong format for showcasing his gifts. Biden allowed Harris to rattle him, and as the debate progressed his mounting desperation reminded me of John McCain’s discomfort in his debates with Barack Obama.
Harris is the clear victor, counting both nights. She combines the intellect and zeal of Elizabeth Warren with the stage presence and storytelling prowess of Cory Booker, to cite Wednesday’s co-winners. Harris manages to be equally relaxed and forceful; even her interruptions were done with finesse. But she won the debate for a singular reason: because Democrats can envision her doing to Donald Trump what she did to Biden.
Harris’ only rival on the stage Thursday was Pete Buttigieg. His physical slightness puts him at a visual disadvantage—imagine Trump stalking Mayor Pete on a debate stage—but Buttigieg is so smart and self-possessed that he invites trust. His eloquent denunciation of Republicans for their religious hypocrisy shows that he can detonate a viral moment with the best of them.
So the scorecard stands as follows: One big winner: Harris. Three runners-up: Warren, Booker and Buttigieg. A surprise upstart: Julián Castro. The mediocrities, not worth listing. And a bunch of losers, starting with Biden and extending to Beto O’Rourke, Kirsten Gillibrand, the Coloradans, Andrew Yang (who’d make a great student council president) and Marianne Williamson, this debate’s Admiral Stockdale. Can’t we just give her a parting gift and applaud her offstage?
***
Mayor Pete is our best bipartisan hope.
Liz Mair is a Republican campaign communications consultant.
The guy who comes out of these two nights—and it is a guy—with the most gut-level appeal, both for Democrats and I suspect a lot of independents and Republicans tuning in too, is Pete Buttigieg. He’s likable, clearly very smart, has a vision, can articulate it, and a lot of people from all different philosophical backgrounds will appreciate that he’s a veteran. It’s a very positive distinguisher in this field.
That said, I think Joe Biden did what he needed to do in this round. Yes, he could have handled the attack by Kamala Harris better, but I suspect he knows that voters aren’t where progressive Twitter is and didn’t want to look like he was punching a girl in order to address a challenge that might not even truly exist. His constant references to positive aspects of his record that showed real leadership, how he led on so much during the Obama-Biden administration especially, and his simple invocation of President Obama will, I think, prove very effective. Plus, he is just hard not to like on some level.
Who comes out of this round a loser? Bernie Sanders, big time. It’s clear at this point that if you want what he is selling, policy-wise, you can get it from Elizabeth Warren without the befuddled, yelling, USSR-honeymooning act. If you like the policy and the yelling, Bill de Blasio is also an alternative. Kirsten Gillibrand also performed badly on Thursday. The constant interruptions, the scripted, pander-y and badly delivered answers, and the retuned, politically charged 1990s Spice Girls “girl power” theme really don’t say “commander in chief.” And it’s not a gender thing, as Harris proved by standing right next to Gillibrand and looking about 30 times as tough, effective, principled and capable, live on camera.
***
Kamala Harris won—and black women did too.
Michelle Bernard is a political analyst, lawyer, author and president and CEO of the Bernard Center for Women, Politics & Public Policy.
Fifty years after the election of Shirley Chisholm as the first African-American woman to serve in Congress and to run for president, Kamala Harris made history on Thursday, clearly winning the Democratic debate. With her win, black women won too—and won in ways that no one could have predicted just 24 hours ago.
From the beginning to the end of the debate, Harris was poised, controlled, passionate and combative enough to make clear that she can go to battle against Trump and win. From the economy to immigration to racial and gender justice to how a Democrat will govern with a Republican-led Senate, Harris owned the stage. So much so, that at times it was easy to forget that Biden or Sanders, the front runners going into the evening, let alone any of the other candidates, were even there.
Early in the debate, Harris took control by bringing order to the stage when the other candidates were speaking over one another like children fighting over candy, saying, “Hey guys, you know what, America does not want to witness a food fight. They want to know how we’re going to put food on the table.” Harris showed no fear in attacking Donald Trump, reiterating that he is the greatest threat to the nation. On gun control, DACA and “releasing children from cages,” she told the country she would not hesitate to use executive action, answering the public’s question as to how a Democrat in the White House will get anything done with a Republican-led Senate.
Moreover, Harris embraced her blackness, describing the neighbor whose children were not allowed to play with her and her sister because they are black. She showed no fear or discomfort in volunteering the differences she had with the Obama-Biden administration on the deportation of undocumented immigrants, and she talked about the leadership she demonstrated when, as attorney general of California, she directed sheriffs to ignore the Obama administration’s policy of deporting the undocumented. She called Biden’s comments about his past working with two segregationist lawmakers “hurtful” and then accused him of opposing busing in order to integrate public schools, stating, “There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day, and that little girl was me.” One couldn’t help but look at Biden and ask, “How could you?”
***
Biden survived.
Jacob Heilbrunn is the editor of the National Interest.
Already Joe Biden is being written off and Kamala Harris touted as the second night’s winner. Don’t believe a word of it. Harris may have tried to put Biden in a Miami vise, but he ultimately eluded her repeated and potent blows. He closed with a strong statement about Trump’s embrace of the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, allowing him to underscore where the real problem rests when it comes to race. For all the talk among his younger rivals of passing the torch, Biden made it clear that he doesn’t want to torch the past. Instead, he effectively pointed to his record of legislative prowess and argued that Barack Obama’s accomplishments, especially on health care, are being sold short.
Harris showed that she has the goods to deliver a knockout blow, and Biden will have to up his game. But in roughing up Biden this early, she may have done him a favor. The nomination remains his to lose. If he doesn’t, it’s Biden-Harris. Otherwise, watch for Harris-Buttigieg. Either way, it’s Donald Trump who has more than ever to worry about. Thursday night’s debate was anything but BORING!
***
‘They all but declared their front-runner a senile racist’
Mary Matalin is a conservative political consultant and was campaign director for President George H.W. Bush in 1992.
I literally thought I had tuned into one of my favorite films, Idiocracy. Almost to a man, the candidates took the downside position on two issues that 80 percent of Americans stand on the other side of: immigration and health care. They championed open borders and free health care for illegal immigrants, while dissing heroic law enforcement (ICE), and they all but declared their front-runner a senile racist.
***
‘Why would I vote for Bernie Sanders in 2020 when Elizabeth Warren exists?’
L. Joy Williams is a political strategist and consultant, the creator and host of the podcast Sunday Civics, and the chair of Higher Heights for America.
Beating Donald Trump is at the top of every Democrat’s list, but voters will want more than a demonstration of strength to defeat the bully when they get in the polling booth. That strength must be coupled with a clear path out of the wilderness for the American people, and only a few of the candidates were able to deliver that.
On the second night’s stage, Kamala Harris was adorned in full armor and ready for battle. She was able to chart a direction on key policy issues and her direct challenge to Joe Biden showed that she is unafraid to go for the biggest guy in the room. Biden himself reminded many that he isn’t particularly great at debating. Add that to his latest dust ups and we will begin to see a few cracks in that front-runner status. Like the first night’s New Yorker Bill de Blasio, Kirsten Gillibrand’s strategy of forcing her way into conversations may or may not pay off in the long run, but it certainly got her noticed. Based on their performances, candidates like Eric Swalwell, Tulsi Gabbard and Michael Bennet might find it difficult to convince donors to help them reach the next debate threshold. And lastly, while they weren’t on the stage together, people must be asking themselves: Why would I vote for Bernie Sanders in 2020 when Elizabeth Warren exists?
***
Harris-Castro 2020!
Charles Ellison is a political strategist and talk-radio host.
If Democratic primary voters had to nominate a ticket tomorrow based off the two straight nights of debates, it would be Harris-Castro. In terms of issues, immigration dominated both nights, but climate change transitioned into climate crisis by night two. If black voters felt left out on the first night, many felt back in the game by the second night.
Kamala Harris and Julián Castro each appeared to tear through any virtual ceilings they hit before these debates, and they leave Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren forgotten for a moment. Castro found openings to show his sharpness, while Harris was much less scripted and raw. On the first night, that proved a fatal blow to Beto O’Rourke; on the second night, it gave Joe Biden a deep bruise that left him wobbling, but the jury is still out on whether that’s it for him. Bernie Sanders was made irrelevant. Pete Buttigieg was composed but still mostly hype.
***
She didn’t win, but Marianne Williamson was the most memorable.
Jennifer Victor is a professor of political science at George Mason University, a co-editor of the Oxford Handbook of Political Networks and a member of the board of directors of the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics.
The caliber of exchange in Thursday’s debate was much higher than in the first night of debates. Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg were the breakout stars of the second debate. They commanded the stage and had memorable moments. Buttigieg had more to gain than Harris, because he is less well known, but Harris demonstrated a greater ability to lead the narrative, particularly in her exchange with Joe Biden over civil rights. Biden has been a front runner, but he underperformed in the crowded field and dated himself in several moments with his language and examples, which might not serve him well in an election year that is expected to see an unprecedented number of young voters. The most memorable moments probably were the left-field comments from Marianne Williamson, who will likely not be in the running much longer.
Marianne Williamson: “My first call is to the Prime Minister of New Zealand”
***
‘Imitation may prove to be a blessing and a curse for Sanders.’
Matt Bruenig is the founder and president of the People's Policy Project, a progressive think tank.
Across the two debates, Bernie Sanders’ style of economic populism emerged as the primary winner. Gone is the moderate economic rhetoric of Clinton that offered small tweaks while avoiding the villainization of the super-rich and big corporations. Nearly every candidate in both debates now talks about the economy as fundamentally rigged by a ruling economic elite when trying to sell themselves and their policy agenda.
However, imitation may prove to be a blessing and a curse for Sanders going forward. It is a blessing because it signals that his long years in the political wilderness have paid off and shifted the Democratic Party to the left. But it may also be a curse for Sanders personally if he cannot distinguish himself in a chorus of copycats and ends up losing votes to people who sound like him but are not sincerely committed to his economic program.
***
Progressives are losing by winning.
Neil Newhouse is a partner and co-founder of Public Opinion Strategies, a national Republican polling company.
Losers:
The candidates who came into this debate in single digits. The moderators seemed determined to keep them there.
Medicare For All. Few Democrats support it despite the fact that the party’s ideological leaders are pushing in that direction.
Progressives/liberals. Both of these debates succeeded in dragging the Democratic Party to the left, making it much easier for the GOP to draw a contrast in the general election.
The debate format. Too many candidates, too little time, too little structure. The interrupters and non-rule-followers get more traction.
Winners:
Open borders between the United States and Mexico.
Illegal immigrants. Decriminalization of illegally crossing the border, and free health care.
Donald Trump. The longer the debates went, the less the candidates focused on President Trump and the more they focused on the differences among themselves.
Senator Mitch McConnell. Most voters had no idea how much power he wielded until the last two nights!
***
The winners spoke to bread and butter—and embraced identity.
Atima Omara is a political strategist and former president of the Young Democrats of America.
Kamala Harris definitively won the second night's debate. The previous night, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and Julián Castro definitively were the standouts. They all stood out substantively, addressing bread and butter issues important to the base of the Democratic Party such as health care, gun violence prevention, climate change and the economy. However, all four also used their backgrounds and experience to uniquely address the issues of race, gender, immigration and LGBTQ+ rights. As a gay married man, Pete Buttigieg directly took on the GOP on its historical stance against gay rights. These issues are especially important now not only because Donald Trump ran and has governed by playing to people's worst instincts on these issues—but also because a new generation of voters has come of age. If they turn out and vote, they’ll outnumber Trump supporters.
***
‘The way is now open for younger, lesser-known figures’
Michael Kazin, a professor of history at Georgetown University and the co-editor of Dissent, is writing a history of the Democratic Party.
Of course, Kamala Harris did best by challenging Joe Biden on his opposition to busing and his praise for racist senators. She was relaxed, pointed and articulate, and left the former vice president floundering in his own defensiveness. But the key function of events in which 20 people compete is to show who has the potential to become an effective nominee for an increasingly progressive party—and who does not.
As a septuagenarian, it gives me no comfort to say that the old fellas belong in the latter category. If Biden couldn’t keep reminding people that he was Barack Obama’s vice president, he would have nothing appealing to say at all. And although I share many of Bernie Sanders’ positions, he increasingly comes across as a humorless shouter who, like Biden, refuses to admit he ever did or said anything he regrets. His 2016 campaign will be remembered for helping to push the party to the egalitarian, social-democratic left. But the result is that most Americans will have a difficult time understanding how his “socialism” differs from the stands taken by Elizabeth Warren, Julián Castro and even Harris—all of whom can deliver without hectoring their audiences.
Neither man will fade away soon. But the way is now open for younger, lesser-known figures who can better galvanize voters against Trump. And Marianne Williamson, Andrew Yang, John Hickenlooper, Eric Swalwell, John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard, Tim Ryan, Beto O’Rourke, Michael Bennet and Jay Inslee should quickly return to their less-spotlighted lives. Some might be fine cabinet secretaries. Hickenlooper and O’Rourke should immediately start running for the U.S. Senate, so a Democratic president won’t have to negotiate with Mitch McConnell to get any good legislation passed.
***
Policy won out over personal attacks.
Alice Stewart is a CNN political commentator and former communications director for Ted Cruz.
Without a doubt, Kamala Harris had a breakaway night by making the case against Donald Trump and taking some shine off Joe Biden, calling into question his record on race. Biden defended his past and focused on the future fight with Trump, while touting his own plan to “restore dignity to the middle class.”
As if dusting off his 2016 playbook, Bernie Sanders carried the far-left flag, touting his policies, like “Medicare for All” and free college tuition. Sanders also vowed to “expose Trump for the fraud he is.” With a Democratic field in support of free college tuition, Pete Buttigieg made the distinction that we should “make it affordable to go to college and to not go to college” by raising the minimum wage.
It’s refreshing to see candidates focus on policy and not personal attacks. Believe it or not, people appreciate that.
***
‘The bloated slate ultimately diminishes the substance of the debate’
Leah Wright Rigueur is an assistant professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and the author of The Loneliness of the Black Republican: Pragmatic Politics and the Pursuit of Power.
The clear winner of the debates was progressivism as a political ideology. It appears that the Democratic Party has abandoned neoliberalism (at least symbolically, for now), which actually makes Bernie Sanders’ lackluster performance on the second night so perplexing. He’s played an instrumental role in helping push the party away from centrism; and yet, while his ideas saturated the stage on both nights of the debate, they did so in a manner untethered from Sanders, who was unusually subdued. Kamala Harris on the other hand completely dominated. In a remarkable moment, she delivered a stunning takedown of Joe Biden by masterfully weaving personal narrative, policy and history into a withering critique of Biden’s anti-busing stance. Even more astonishing—at no point did any of the other candidates challenge Harris, on any issue, despite multiple opportunities to do so.
In the long run, it’s far too early to make any definitive predictions about the presidential race. Some of the party’s strongest presidential contenders (and eventual winners) bombed spectacularly in their early debates. And as we saw in 2016, winning debates doesn’t always translate into winning primaries or elections. Early primary debates are largely political theater with lots of symbolic demonstrations and blustery performances. This Democratic primary would benefit from a dramatic narrowing of the field. The bloated slate ultimately diminishes the substance of the debate. We need to cut through the chaos and the noise and let the winners (Castro, Warren, Harris, Booker) and the survivors (Sanders, Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and de Blasio) duke it out over their vision and agenda for the modern Democratic Party and the nation.
***
‘The biggest loser of the last two nights was Donald Trump’
Jesse Ferguson is a Democratic strategist.
This debate wasn’t the beginning of the end of the Democratic primary, it was only the end of the beginning. Democratic primary voters who don’t follow every tweet have now begun to tune in and learn who the candidates are. The candidates who succeed are the ones who used this national audience to introduce themselves, their values and their rationale to be the antidote to Trump. Outside of paid advertising, debates provide the largest number of eyes any candidate will get. Primary voters just got the catalog of candidates and started dog-earing the pages of the ones they want to learn more about.
The biggest loser of the last two nights was Donald Trump. He’ll be whistling past the graveyard on more than 20 million people who saw competing ideas to repair America. The winners were people who were looking for actual ideas on reducing health care costs, taking on gun violence, fixing the tax system and rebuilding our government. The losers were people who were looking for a contest of insults, taunts and hand-size-measuring. You couldn’t get a starker comparison between the Democratic debates that will pick our next president and the Republican debates that led to Donald Trump.
***
Harris dominated. But will America vote for a woman of color as president?
Sophia A. Nelson is an American author, political strategist, opinion writer and former House Republican Committee counsel.
Kamala Harris owned the debate on night two. And she won the debate on night one, even though she was not on the stage. Harris was confident. Poised. Strong. Presidential. And she looked like the adult in a room full of raucous children yelling at one another. The 800-pound elephant in the room is whether America is ready to elect both its first woman president and its first woman of color president at the same time. I do not know the answer to that question, but make no mistake that is the question.
The big loser was Joe Biden. Harris landed him a blow by raising his history with busing and his perceived alignment with segregationists views—which Biden forcefully denied, but he was on his heels. Overall, both nights being considered, here is how I see it: Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Julián Castro and Cory Booker were the big winners. The big losers were Biden, Bernie Sanders and Beto O’Rourke. And Amy Klobuchar gets an honorable mention for helping and not hurting herself as a potential VP pick. The rest of the field should not be on the stage going forward.
***
Not much changed, but Bernie was a ‘marginal loser.’
Douglas Schoen is a political analyst, campaign consultant and former adviser to President Bill Clinton.
Despite the attention and hype, little has changed in the Democratic primary field after the first debates. As expected, nearly all the candidates on the second night centered their attacks on the former vice president and current frontrunner, Joe Biden, looking to cut into his significant lead. Nevertheless, he held his ground, rolled with the punches, and should maintain his frontrunner position.
It is also important to credit Pete Buttigieg as the second debate’s breakout star. Mayor Pete delivered a series of persuasive arguments and arguably challenged Biden for which candidate has the most compelling policy alternatives to Trump.
While several progressive candidates, including Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand performed well and enjoyed good moments, one Democratic-socialist candidate in particular, Bernie Sanders, was unable to articulate his message on any issue other than health care in a persuasive or cohesive way, making him a marginal loser of this round.
***
Finally, somebody talked about the ‘dignity of work.’
Beth Hansen is a Republican political strategist and the former campaign manager for John Kasich.
The candidates who managed to be memorable on the crowded stage Thursday night were Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg; Wednesday night it was Julián Castro. Elizabeth Warren did the better job defending her front-runner status. Another winner was the “dignity of work” in Thursday’s debate (only Tim Ryan seemed to promote it on Wednesday). That’s the kind rhetoric Democrats will need to win in 2020.
***
Kamala Harris will have a boomlet. How long will it last?
Samuel Wang is a data analyst, co-founder of the Princeton Election Consortium and professor of neuroscience and molecular biology at Princeton University.
At this early stage, in a crowded field it seems inevitable that some candidates will have brief boomlets in polling following the debates. How long does a boomlet last, and how does it end?
We know what a cycle of boom-and-bust looks like from the 2012 and 2016 GOP primaries:
Step 1: Start with obscure candidate X.
Step 2: X says something catchy.
Step 3: The press and pundits go wild! Watch out for meaningless words like “electable.”
Step 4: X inches upward in the polls.
Step 5: The press does more digging, and X gets more attention.
Step 6: Surprise! Something bad happens. A gaffe, a skeleton in the closet emerges, or the candidate just gets boring. Bad coverage follows.
Step 7: X drops in the polls.
Time elapsed: 1-2 months.
As an example of this cycle, think of the 2012 GOP primary: Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann. All rose and fell.
Kamala Harris appears to be at Step 2-3. The next question is: Does she have the abilities and resources to escape the usual cycle of boom and bust?
Perhaps less appreciated, Joe Biden might have just had his Step 6. His bump in the polls started at the end of April, when he announced his candidacy. It’s been almost exactly two months. Is his time up?
***
Joe Biden’s time is up.
Sean McElwee is a writer, data analyst and co-founder of the progressive think tank Data for Progress.
My commentary is a quote from a candidate that inspired me:
“My time is up, I'm sorry.” —Joe Biden
The debates gave Kamala Harris and Julián Castro breakout moments. They showed that the emperor has no clothes. As far as I’m concerned, the field is wide open.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)