Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts

Sunday, 11 October 2020

Trump called Pence a 'loser' before he joined 2016 ticket, new book claims

 Campaign officials struggled to convince president to tap then-Indiana governor, Rick Gates claims

Donald Trump was reluctant to name Mike Pence his running mate in 2016 because he thought the then-governor of Indiana was a “loser” who didn’t stand a chance to be re-elected in his own state, according to a former campaign official.


Former campaign manager Paul Manafort had suggested Mr Pence as the vice presidential candidate on the ticket, but then-candidate Trump “wanted someone in his mind who was a winner,” according to Mr Manafort’s deputy Rick Gates, whose book Wicked Game: An Insider’s Story on How Trump Won, Mueller Failed and America Lost is set to be published this month.




Mr Gates, in an interview with the Yahoo News podcast Skullduggery, said that Mr Trump had initially suggested his daughter Ivanka Trump as his running mate.


“The important assets to him are family, trust and loyalty,” Mr Gates told Yahoo News.


His children become more engaged with the campaign and attended nearly "every meeting” as the campaign progressed, he said.


Other running-mate suggestions came from within the president’s inner circle and familiar GOP figures who aligned with the president.


Mr Trump, who was provided a list of potential candidates, soured at the idea of tapping Governor Pence, as polling data from the 2016 gubernatorial race revealed that the incumbent was down by 10 points.


Then-candidate Trump “didn’t think he had a chance to win the governor’s race,” Mr Gates told Yahoo News, "which is why he used the term ‘loser,' which he has used with many people, as we know.”


Instead he wanted “someone in his mind who was a winner,” he said.


“Why would I want a guy like that to be my VP?” Mr Trump said, according to Mr Gates’ book.


Following White House turbulence after several positive coronavirus diagnoses among Republican officials, including the president and First Lady Melania Trump, Mr Pence – second in line for the presidency if Mr Trump is not able to serve – has emerged from the president’s shadow into highly scrutinised spotlight of his own.


Should the president win re-election, Mr Pence could face the prospect of a White House run by 74-year-old Trump recovering from the disease and its longer-term impacts.


Mr Pence is set to debate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s running mate Kamala Harris on 7 October.

The campaign had struggled to convince Mr Trump to choose the Indiana governor, made more difficult with Mr Pence endorsing Texas Senator Ted Cruz in the Republican primaries.


Mr Gates and Mr Manafort argued that Mr Pence’s candidacy would anchor Mr Trump’s support in the Midwest and avoid the limelight, unlike two other potential running mates under consideration – New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.


Mr Manafort had tried to convince the candidate that his running mate should be “someone different from him, ” Mr Gates said.


“When we told him the role of a vice president and what they’re really supposed to do … we told him the vice president is the pitbull,” said Mr Gates, adding that the VP should serve as a “hatchet candidate” to argue with opponents to insulate the president from criticism.


But Mr Trump “is that individual," Mr Gates said.


According to Mr Gates, Mr Manafort told Mr Trump: "Why would you want someone like you as your VP? You are the hatchet guy."

“It resonated,” Mr Gates said.


Mr Gates also worked under Mr Manafort while he served as a consultant for the Party of Regions in Ukraine. Both men were indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for campaign finance crimes and failure to register as foreign agents during 2016 elections, to which Mr Gates pleaded guilty and served as a cooperating state’s witness in Roger Stone’s trial.


Mr Manafort pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the US and witness tampering as part of a plea deal and was released from prison in May 2020 to serve the remainder of his sentence in home confinement.


(Source: The Independent)

Thursday, 8 October 2020

Trump 'likely shedding virus each time he breathes', says expert

President 'still in the process of clearing his virus’, argues respiratory scientist, as another aide tests positive 

Donald Trump is likely shedding airborne coronavirus particles each time he breathes, an expert in respiratory sciences has said, as the US president continues to recover from his diagnosis last week.


The 74-year-old president, who remained out-of-sight on Tuesday, was discharged having spent as little as three nights at the Walter Reed Medical Centre outside Washington D.C. on Monday.


That followed his coronavirus diagnosis on Thursday night, which his doctors admitted had caused two drops in the president’s oxygen levels over the weekend.


And whilst his physician, Sean Conley, reported that the president had “no symptoms” on Monday, it was still not clear whether Mr Trump was still Covid-19 positive – and therefore potentially spreading his infection to White House staff at present.




Studies carried-out on coronavirus patients have so far shown that they typically continue to shed airborne virus particles for up to 10 days from their first symptoms, according to Dr Julian Tang, honorary associate professor in respiratory sciences at the University of Leicester.


Dr Tang argued that the president was likely still shedding virus particles if he was diagnosed on Friday morning.  

“If he was PCR (polymerase chain reaction) positive on Friday with more symptoms developing on Saturday last week, he is likely still infectious and shedding airborne virus each time he breathes,” said the professor.


The president has been widely criticised for ripping off his mask while appearing on the Truman balcony upon his return to the White House on Monday, a stunt described as being reminiscent of Mussolini. 


“We expect most acute Covid-19 cases to be shedding live virus for up to 10 days post-symptom onset,” he added, pointing to the body’s production of antibodies around 10 to 15 days after initial symptoms," Dr Tang added. 


“So, although he has apparently recovered to some extent from his acute Covid-19 phase, he is still in the process of clearing his virus,” Dr Tang said.


That assessment came as another close aide to the president, Stephen Miller, was diagnosed with the virus on Tuesday night.


As that news broke, CNN’s medical analyst and cardiologist, Dr Jonathan Reiner, suggested that Mr Trump was the White House’s so-called coronavirus “superspreader”.


"I think POTUS was infected with coronavirus for at least a week before he was admitted to the hospital ... I think he's the superspreader,” argued Dr Reiner. “And I think the reason the White House will not have the CDC do a formal check ... is they're concerned patient zero might be POTUS."


CNN reported on Tuesday that the White House is refusing the offer of contact tracing assistance from the Centers for Disease Control, amid speculation surrounding the extent of the administration's attempts to isolate potentially infected individuals.


Mr Trump is expected to continue recovering for at least another week from the White House, with less than four weeks to go until election day.


(Source: The Independent)

Monday, 5 October 2020

Trump tests positive for coronavirus – what we know and don't know

The US president and first lady, Melania Trump, have tested positive for coronavirus and will begin quarantine

What we know

  • Donald Trump and Melania Trump have tested positive for coronavirus. The news came after one of the president’s most senior advisers, Hope Hicks, tested positive late on Wednesday. Trump broke the news of the couple’s infection on Twitter.
  • Trump canceled travel to Florida for a planned campaign event. The severity of Covid-19 cases varies widely and it was not clear whether the president felt ill.
  • The diagnosis left the next steps in the presidential campaign in doubt and led to a scramble for testing on Capitol Hill, where elected officials have been planning confirmation hearings for supreme court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.
  • If Trump becomes too ill to lead the country, the vice-president, Mike Pence, could be placed in charge under a constitutional provision. Pence and his wife tested negative on Friday, a spokesperson announced.
  • The Democratic nominee, Joe Biden, released a statement of support: “Jill and I send our thoughts to President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump for a swift recovery. We will continue to pray for the health and safety of the president and his family.” Biden was reportedly due to take a Covid-19 test shortly.
  • Hicks had flown with the president on Air Force One earlier on Wednesday and accompanied him to the first presidential debate on Tuesday in Cleveland, Ohio.
  • The CDC guidelines for people who have tested positive state that they should inform all close contacts.
  • Pence attended a White House coronavirus taskforce briefing with Trump on Monday. Pence did not attend the presidential debate.
  • Hicks is not the only White House staffer to have contracted the virus. Katie Miller, press secretary to the vice-president, who is married to Trump’s adviser Stephen Miller, has recovered from Covid-19. One of Trump’s personal valets also tested positive for coronavirus, in May.

Donald and Melania Trump at the airport in Cleveland, Ohio, on Tuesday. The president and first lady have both tested positive for Covid-19. Photograph: Carlos BarrĂ­a/Reuters


What we don’t know

  • How long the virus has been circulating in the White House. Close aides to Trump told Bloomberg he seemed ill as early as Wednesday. According to the World Health Organization, it takes five or six days on average from when someone is infected until symptoms show, but it can take 14 days. It appears Hicks began to feel ill on Wednesday.
  • If any of the people Trump came close to in the last week, including Biden at Tuesday’s debate, have become infected. Trump also attended a rally in Minnesota on Wednesday and a fundraiser at his New Jersey golf club on Thursday, the latter after Hicks had begun to show symptoms.


(Source: The Guardian)

Thursday, 1 October 2020

I’ve interviewed Hillary Clinton. Biden is saying everything she wished she could

 When I spoke with Hillary, long after I’d been to her 2016 rallies and followed her on the campaign trail, she made some salient points about what women are allowed to say and do in politics

It’s not a good sign when the best part of a presidential debate is happening off-screen, but given the absolute dumpster fire that was the first showdown between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, it’s also not surprising.


From politicians to pundits, everyone on Twitter had an opinion on the fiery exchange between the pair — which left neither looking particularly electable, never mind presidential.


But one person must have been smiling while watching the clash.


For former presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, Biden was finally getting in the jabs she had so clearly been holding in during her own debates with Trump in 2016.


One can just imagine Secretary Clinton raising a glass of her favorite Chardonnay as Biden told Trump to “shut up, man” — so much so that the writer Jill Filipovic tweeted: “I so feel for Hillary right now because I’m positive she wanted to say that and couldn’t”. Clinton replied: “You have no idea.” It was hands-down the best moment of the night.




Aside from some acerbic comments and well-placed jabs about his experience, Clinton largely shied away from hitting Trump on a personal level during the last election cycle, instead commenting in the October 2016 debate: “I am reminded of what my friend Michelle Obama advised us all. When they go low, you go high.”


Clinton, like all women in politics, didn’t have much choice but to go high. While no one fares well when they attempt to play Trump at his own nickname-giving, insult-driven game, female politicians are routinely painted as emotional, out-of-control, even hysterical if they step into the realm of trading personal blows.


Meanwhile, male politicians can shout, talk over one another, make brash, outlandish comments, and become worked up without anyone suggesting they are hormonal beasts whose decisions are being made by their wombs.


I covered the US election in 2016, reporting from Hillary Clinton rallies — where she was less guarded on home turf. When I interviewed her in 2019 and asked about the future of women in politics, most notably the misogynistic commentary she faced while campaigning, she was pleased there were so many more female candidates in the mix (six initially announced: Kamala Harris — now Biden’s VP pick — as well as Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand, Marianne Williamson and Tulsi Gabbard). But she was under no illusion that women were viewed as equal to men, explaining they were facing the same worn rhetoric she had seen during her own campaign.


And while Clinton was happy to tackle that sexism head-on, calling it out on numerous occasions, it clearly hampered her battle for the White House.


Despite Trump’s own brash and at times bumbling campaign, he was unapologetically himself. Clinton, meanwhile, was under such scrutiny that one got the feeling she was holding it all in — lest any misstep reveal her as a fallible, human woman.


Since her defeat, Clinton’s critique of the president has become far more outspoken than it was during her campaign. Highlights include her trolling Trump with a fake letter from the JFK archives and responding to the president’s infamous coronavirus bleach comments by telling her Twitter followers: “Please do not take medical advice from a man who looked directly at a solar eclipse”.


Biden may have fulfilled Clinton’s ambition in bluntly showing his frustration with Trump’s steamroller approach to the debate, but it won’t have done him any favors at the polls: Trump long ago proved it is poison to play him at his own game.


The former VP’s appeals to “the folks at home” are likely to have made more of an impact on voters than his dismissal of Trump, despite the transparent intentions, while the passion he showed talking about his sons was more powerful than any zinger.


Biden’s team will likely advise him not to snap back at Trump in future debates, but as a one-off it worked, and as a bonus made some good viewing for Clinton. It’s just a shame she didn’t get to say it herself.


(Source: The Independent)

Hillary Clinton agrees she would have liked to tell Trump to shut up in 2016 debate: 'You have no idea'

 Former nominee said people ‘had no idea’ how much she wanted to react to Mr Trump that way.

Hillary Clinton admitted she would have loved to tell Donald Trump to “shut up” in her 2016 debate with the president.


Ms Clinton told a Twitter follower “You have no idea” when it was suggested the former Democratic nominee would have liked to react angrily like Mr Biden had in the first debate.


 “”Will you shut up, man" is the line of the night. I feel so sorry for Hillary right now because I’m positive she wanted to say that and couldn’t,” Tweeted Jill Filipovic.




And Ms Clinton, who ran against and debated Mr Trump for the White House, immediately responded. 


“You have no idea,” she wrote.


Mr Biden lost patience with the president after being repeatedly interrupted by him during the opening 20 minutes of Tuesday night’s debate.


“Would you shut up, man?” the former vice president eventually told Mr Trump.


Moderator Chris Wallace tried to move onto a new topic as Mr Biden told him they had not achieved anything. 

"That was a really productive segment. Keep yappin', man," said Mr Biden.


A fundraising t-shirt with the slogan is already being sold by a Tennessee candidate for a congressional seat.


Ms Clinton and Mr Trump’s first debate of the 2016 campaign set a new record with  84 million viewers. 


It beat out the1980 debate between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, which saw 80.2 million viewers tune in.


(Source: The Independent)

Thursday, 13 August 2020

Why Black progressive women feel torn about Kamala Harris

We know we will have to defend Harris’s personal identity, while maneuvering against her political one

Vice President Joe Biden has announced that Senator Kamala Harris will join his political pursuit of the White House.

Women of color, particularly progressives, might feel torn. Perhaps even closeted excitement. Senator Harris is sharp, strategic, and witty, undoubtedly qualified to be vice president of the United States. She graduated from a historically Black college and belongs to a prestigious Black sorority. A biracial woman with Jamaican and Indian heritage, we have seen her break color barriers and shatter glass ceilings, even though poor, Black women have felt and swept the falling shards. Thousands celebrated her Senate seat win and even more were captivated when she picked apart presidential candidates at debates - especially Biden. Her one-liners were unforgettable. Until we remembered that she honed those argumentative skills in court as a prosecutor, including during fights to uphold wrongful convictions.

Then, there’s the fatigue. Progressives will have to defend the California senator’s personal identity, while maneuvering against her political identity. Political accession and racism go together like stars and stripes. First Lady Michelle Obama was horribly depicted as an ape. President Donald Trump called Congresswoman Maxine Waters a “low IQ individual.” Just weeks ago, a congressman called Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez “disgusting” and a “fucking bitch.” 

‘Senator Harris is sharp, strategic, and witty, undoubtedly qualified to be vice-president of the United States.’ Photograph: Mike Blake/Reuters

Squad members Rep. Ilhan Omar and Rep. Rashida Talib regularly experience xenophobic, Islamophobic, and racist attacks, intensified whenever they offer statements around social justice. Like the rest of these women, Senator Harris deserves safety and protection from harm. Black women, especially her sorors, will likely be her first line of defense.

Yet the defense against racist, sexist attacks must not interfere with the necessary offense required to push the Biden-Harris political ticket, for people who choose to play the electoral politics game. 

When activists criticized President Barack Obama, we were scathingly reminded how hard it was for him to be a Black man in the White House. He had significant executive power and influence to shift resources, call for legislation, and even free people from prison (which his own administration seemingly neglected). We were told to wait. Then, after eight years, we were told that too much was at stake to organize for free college, universal healthcare, the end to police and prison violence, and a clean planet. Nina Simone’s “Mississippi Goddam” calls this “do it slow:”

But that’s just the trouble, ‘Do it slow’

Desegregation, ‘Do it slow’

Mass participation, ‘Do it slow’

Reunification, ‘Do it slow’

Do things gradually, Do it slow’

But bring more tragedy, ‘Do it slow’

Since the song’s release, the time seems to never be right to push politicians towards progress.

No more slow. No more imaginary ancestral, postmortem pleas on who died so that we can vote today. People fought and died for lots of reasons alongside voting, but most importantly, for the right of self-determination, which moderates defend for the right and dismiss for the left. No more.

This generational fatigue, from Nina Simone to Nina Turner, from Fannie Lou Hamer to Cori Bush, compounds with the political fatigue of doing progressive work around a party that undermines progressive values. Vice President Biden and Senator Harris will be determined to prove that their party has not been hijacked by “the radical left,” as Vice President Mike Pence described today. He continued, “So given their promises of higher taxes, open borders, socialized medicine, and abortion on demand, it’s no surprise that he chose Senator Harris.” This inaccurate characterization is an unfortunate tactic that will push the Biden-Harris ticket further to the right. Together, Biden and Harris might still reject universal healthcare during the deadliest pandemic in recent memory - a death every 80 seconds. Together, they will promise expensive “common sense” police reform to a movement against senseless police spending. And together, they will affirm the power of the Black vote, while daring, do you really think you have any other choice?

I am reluctant to say that Biden and Harris can be pushed. My hope of being wrong is greater than my fear of being right. That hope comes from countless activists who organize across the state and local level, who are vigorously defending democracy on their blocks and creating care in their families and communities. That hope comes from studying Fannie Lou Hamer and the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, who, facing impossible odds and considerable violence and no resources, decided to forge an alternative to the political establishment. Hamer asks, “Is this America, the land of the free and home of the brave, where we have to sleep with our telephones off the hooks because our lives be threatened daily, because we want to live as decent human beings, in America?”

If we must support politicians of color seeking office, let’s especially protect the ones in Hamer’s tradition, who risk their lives resisting white supremacy, Republicans, and moderate Democrats. And if we want to truly honor Black women’s labor and fatigue to change this country, the cost will be significantly higher than the price of the ticket to run it.

(Source: The Guardian)

Saturday, 27 June 2020

If he wins a second term, Trump's priorities will drastically change. And that's a big problem for all of us

Until now, the president has been focused on re-election. But that won't be the case if he wins in November — instead, he'll take a hard pivot toward protecting his own personal interests


John Bolton’s motivations were clear. He wanted to cash in with his new book and settle many a score. But what his revelations suggest about Donald Trump’s motivations are even more troubling than his own.


The former White House official wrote his former boss was not driven by any world view or philosophy. He warned that policy is made in what White House and across the Trump administration, as anyone paying close attention could discern, in a haphazard and rather sloppy manner.


Bolton concluded that, as always, the lone philosophy driving the president was Trumpism. Translation: Win at all costs.


“I am hard-pressed to identify any significant Trump decision during my tenure that wasn’t driven by re-election calculations,” Bolton wrote.



Bolton wrote that many of the president’s discussions with other foreign leaders were mostly about his own re-election. To that end, he claims Trump “pleaded” with Chinese president Xi Jinping to help him win re-election in 2020 by purchasing more US farm products.


At a one-on-one meeting during a global summit in Japan in the summer of 2019, Xi expressed his dissatisfaction with some critics of China within the United States. Trump mistakenly assumed Xi was talking about Democratic lawmakers, according to his then-national security adviser.


The thought pattern is vintage Trump. The president thinks about the politics of just about everything first, second and third, meaning how a decision or policy move might impact his own political future.

“Trump immediately assumed Xi meant the Democrats. Trump said approvingly that there was great hostility among the Democrats,” Bolton writes. “He then, stunningly, turned the conversation to the coming US presidential election, alluding to China’s economic capability to affect the ongoing campaigns, pleading with Xi to ensure he’d win.”


What, then, if Trump, as he did facing similar national poll numbers four years ago, defies expectations on Election Day and wins another term?

Republicans, just about every serious political prognosticator is predicting, would fall well short of the votes needed in Congress to change federal law to allow the president to seek a third term.


That would remove re-election from Trump’s mind as he makes all kinds of decisions about policy, foreign and domestic.


We have enough evidence, mostly drawn from the president’s own words and actions, to make educated guesses that his businesses and his post-presidency legal status would become paramount.


He has never really stopped worrying about the former. And he went a long way towards confirming the latter last Friday night.


That’s when Trump approved the firing of a key US attorney believed to be investigating him and some of his associates. His top spokeswoman confirmed the president’s involvement, but only after yet another confusing few days at the White House.


Attorney General William Barr said Saturday that, with Mr Trump’s approval he had fired Geoffrey Berman as the US attorney for Manhattan, a post that saw him oversee the Southern District of New York. The powerful branch of the Justice Department has been investigating a list of things Trump, which has reportedly angered the president.


After a back-and-forth between Barr and Berman that remains murky, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Monday said Berman “decided not to leave” his post in New York and take a desk job in Washington, prompting Barr to seek permission to fire him.


“At that point, that's when the president agreed with the attorney general,” she said. “He was involved in a sign-off capacity.”


It took the presidency two days to come clean about his role in moving out of the way yet another senior Justice Department official who has been examining Trump World. Whether the murkiness and confusion are intentional – designed to obfuscate the reality of a president Democrats and some Republicans say sees himself as above the law – or merely another product of a White House that has never figured out how to get its story straight.


But the president’s willingness to paint himself as innocent in the Berman affair only makes images of a second term focused on protecting his own hide legally more troubling.


“Well, that’s all up to the Attorney General,” Trump said. “Attorney General Barr is working on that. That’s his department, not my department. But we have a very capable attorney general. So that’s really up to him. I’m not involved.”


But the president has told us over and over that he – not the FBI director and not the attorney general – is the country’s “top law enforcement officer.” And current and former Justice Department officials told a House committee this week that Trump is very much involved, pressuring Barr to help his friends and help his political prospects.


Aaron Zelinsky, a former lawyer on Mueller’s team who worked on the DOJ’s criminal case against former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone, told the panel that the president’s longtime adviser and friend received “unprecedentedly favourable treatment because he was ‘afraid of the president.’”


A Justice Department that fears a second-term president motivated by what federal prosecutors might have unearthed about him, his family and close associates? It is not difficult to image Mr Trump, angered by news reports about what the Southern District of New York (SDNY) might have found, firing all the Bermans that come along.


His requests of other world leaders likely would grow more and more bold and self-focused. Whether the Justice Department could resist Mr Trump’s every bout of rage-watching cable news seems unlikely, especially with an AG like Barr at its helm.


“Everything, every last thing Trump does, serves Trump's own interests. Who leads SDNY is no exception,” Walter Shaub, a former White House ethics chief, tweeted amid the chaos on Saturday. “The only unknown is how big a price America will pay as a result.”

Your move, voters.


(Source: Independent)

Saturday, 14 December 2019

How Apple News editors quietly influence UK's election reading

Service has around 11m users a month in UK but faces much less scrutiny that other outlets

On Monday night, millions of iPhones in Britain buzzed with a push notification encouraging their users to watch three video clips that were said to “sum up a difficult start to election week for the Tories”.

Anyone who clicked through would have been offered an “awkward exchange” as the prime minister grabbed an ITV reporter’s phone, Labour activists heckling the health secretary, Matt Hancock, at a hospital in Leeds, and Boris Johnson trying to rebut claims that Priti Patel had made up crime figures.

What many might not have known is why they received the push alert. They may have been surprised to learn that the clips were chosen not by an algorithm but by Apple News’s five-strong team of UK editors.
 Apple News comes pre-installed on iPhones, giving it direct access to millions of readers. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The service has around 11 million users a month in the UK, according to Comscore data, and the number of people receiving its notifications is even larger, offering a level of direct access that even the BBC struggles to compete with.

While newspapers and TV channels have to fight to reach audiences, Apple News comes pre-installed on iPhones. And while traditional news outlets come under enormous scrutiny for their coverage, there has been little scrutiny of how journalists employed directly by Apple can influence which news is seen by around a sixth of the UK population.

Rasmus Nielsen, of the University of Oxford’s Reuters Institute for Journalism, believes the power of the service – and equivalents such as Samsung’s Upday - is under-appreciated. “Our data suggests that more than a quarter of online news users in the UK rely on one or more aggregators for online news, and Apple News and Google News have higher reach among people aged 18-24 than established brands like ITV and Sky or the Sun and the Mirror,” Nielsen said. “Their editorial processes, however, remains opaque, whether reliant on human editors, algorithms, or some combination.”

Journalists who work for Apple News have scrubbed the company’s name from their social media accounts, a move that reduces the risk of them being accused of bias but adds to the lack of transparency around their decisions.

People at British media organisations who deal with Apple News say the editors have a welcome reputation for promoting exclusives and high-quality news featuring original reporting in their “top stories” section. If the Apple News editors like what they see, their backing can deliver enormous numbers of readers – which gives these editors a power akin to an old-school newspaper boss choosing a front-page story.

“You could get a million views in the UK alone if they pick one of your stories,” said one social media manager at a British news site, who suggested outlets were hooked on traffic from the service. Although news websites struggle to make money from Apple News traffic, they are often loth to give up a source of traffic that can refer more readers than Facebook.

Apple News staff will tell British news outlets what type of stories and topics they would like to promote each week, creating the potential that one of the world’s biggest hardware manufacturers is indirectly influencing the editorial output of British news organisations.

Much of this reflects a decision to stick to promoting mainstream outlets as part of Apple’s attempt to ensure a high quality of news stories, as opposed to the chaotic free-for-all news environment of Facebook or Twitter. This can be a boon for traditional news organisations such as the Sun and Daily Telegraph, which are well represented alongside left-of-centre outlets such as the Mirror, HuffPost and the Independent.

(The Guardian is not on Apple News. A spokesperson for Guardian News & Media said the company was in preliminary discussions about returning to the service in the future if it “would help to deliver our strategy to develop new and engaged audiences for Guardian journalism”. No firm decision has been made.)

Apple declined to comment on the record on how Apple News worked but provided a comment from its editor-in-chief, Lauren Kern, setting out its plans for covering the general election.

“Curation has always been a guiding principle of Apple News. We select high-quality articles from trusted sources to help readers get up to speed on the most relevant news and the most important issues of the day,” Kern said.

“In the UK election guide, our team of editors will spotlight well-sourced, well-reported stories to provide Apple News readers with reliable news and information from a wide range of news outlets.”

(Source: The Guardian)

Tuesday, 3 December 2019

No one benefits from a Boris Johnson victory more than Trump and Putin – don’t give them what they want

The public have a choice. But in order to stop this calamity in its tracks, at the very least we must reduce the numbers of Conservative MPs

Next Wednesday, Nato heads of state and government will gather in Watford to mark the 70th anniversary of the organisation. Founded in 1949, this intergovernmental military alliance of 29 European countries and the US has sought to safeguard the freedom and security of its members and has been one of the lynchpins of the liberal international rule-based order.

Alongside our fellow Nato ally, France, Britain is the most capable military power. Our intelligence gathering capacity remains indispensable. Our membership of the Five Eyes intelligence partnership makes us a global leader in the fight against terrorism. And in Nato, Britain holds the position of deputy supreme allied commander Europe.

But Nato must reform and adapt to the changing nature of threats we face. We need to increase Nato’s conventional deterrent and help develop the application of artificial intelligence. Cybersecurity is now a "tier 1" threat and Britain has a key role to play in the integration of internal security and external defence, to meet the new challenges of hybrid warfare. Above all, we must provide credible deterrents that convince others that Nato is committed to Europe’s collective defence.

That is why the Liberal Democrats will ensure the UK upholds our Nato responsibilities, including by spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence. Using the “Remain bonus” and a growing economy, strengthened by staying in the European Union, we will be able to put more money into supporting our armed forces, and enhance the UK’s ability to play our part in Nato to maintain our security.

However, it is alarming that other Nato members’ commitment to the alliance is less than fulsome. President Trump described Nato as “obsolete” during his 2016 presidential campaign. President Macron quite rightly cited Trump’s failure to consult Nato allies, before his abrupt decision to pull forces out of northern Syria, as evidence of the US’s waning commitment to the alliance. This, in turn, paved the way for Turkey – another Nato member – to start an offensive into Syria to create what it called a security zone along its border. No one is more happy to see this state of affairs than Russia’s Vladimir Putin, an active opponent of Nato which suspended contact with his government over the annexation of Crimea in 2014.

Of course, Putin, Trump and Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, not only share a poor regard for Nato, they share a politics: right wing, conservative, nationalist and authoritarian. This is a criticism that equally applies to our prime minister Boris Johnson.

I do not need to repeat the various offensive things Johnson has said about different groups in our society. His capacity to lie – even to our Queen – is there for all to see. He unlawfully sought to shut down our legislature. He refuses to publish a parliamentary intelligence and security committee report into Russian interference into our democracy, in spite of the fact a former Conservative attorney general chairs the committee, a former head of MI5, the former national security advisor and a former head of the civil service, all say it should be published. It is all very Trumpian.


Giving Johnson a majority would be to give blank cheque to this type of politics in the UK – something which should worry us all and be strongly resisted. As Liberal Democrats and patriots, we will defend our liberal, internationalist, progressive values – British values – in the face of this politics of hate and division.

The December European Council summit starts on polling day and the election results will come through while it is still meeting. Whoever wins may well head straight to that summit. And the clock will be ticking down towards the current scheduled date of departure, 31 January 2020. Once you discount the Christmas break, exit day will be due just over a month after polling day.

So the public have a choice. Either Johnson fails to get a majority, and sufficient numbers of MPs are elected to provide for a people’s vote in the spring of 2020. Every Liberal Democrat MP and the full weight of our party will be thrown behind Remain in that scenario.

Or, Johnson is given a majority, allowing him a blank cheque to do exactly as he pleases. He has said he will seek to bring his Withdrawal Agreement Bill back to the Commons before Christmas, leaving little time for further scrutiny of it by a new parliament.

Rishi Sunak, chief secretary to the Treasury, let the cat out of the bag over the weekend when he disclosed that, regardless of whether the withdrawal agreement passes, if re-elected the Tories will continue to plan for no deal.

In order to stop this calamity, and for the numbers to add up to stop Brexit in a new House of Commons, at the very least we must reduce the numbers of Conservative MPs – all of their candidates have signed a pledge in this election to deliver this hardest of hard Brexits.

Over the last two weekends, The Observer newspaper carried out seat polls in a number of constituencies that usually vote Tory. They show the Lib Dems in second place with us poised to beat the Tories, particularly if Remainers vote tactically. This has been reinforced by Sir John Curtice who says the Lib Dems are best placed to beat the Tories in seats across the country.

The polling highlights the crucial role voters have in Tory-Lib Dem marginals in the coming weeks – stopping Brexit and Johnson’s extreme version of it is the prize.

(Source: Independent)

Wednesday, 27 November 2019

Record number of people register to vote on deadline day after huge last-minute spike

A record number of people registered to vote on the final day applications were open, with a huge last-minute spike taking the number of people who registered on Tuesday to 659,666.

The previous record for a single day was ahead of the 2017 general election, when 622,398 registered.

Before the final deadline at midnight on 26 November, there had been well over 3 million applications to register since the general election was called in October.

The figure is around 40 per cent higher than the 2.3 million applications to register in a similar period in the 2017 election, and the Electoral Reform Society said on Tuesday that of the applications made since October, 67 per cent were made by people aged 34 or under – a figure which is generally seen to be beneficial to Labour.

(Source: Independent)

Thursday, 29 August 2019

Trump could win again

He’s unpopular, scandalous, and a bigot, and we may be sliding into a recession. But that might not matter.

here are many reasons President Donald Trump might lose reelection in 2020. He is deeply unpopular. Most Americans abhor his bigotry. His administration has been plagued by all manner of scandals. He has failed to live up to his many grandiloquent promises. The country may be sliding into a recession.

Put all of this together, and it’s easy to imagine Democrats riding a big blue wave to the White House next year. But I fear that it is somewhat more likely that Trump will be able to declare victory on November 3, 2020.

Trump’s approval ratings are the most commonly used metric for how likely he is to win reelection. At first sight, they hold a lot of comfort for the president’s opponents. According to FiveThirtyEight’s tracker, for example, more Americans believe he is doing a poor job as president than believe he is doing a good one: About 54 percent disapprove of his performance. Only 42 percent approve of it.

Not only is Trump very unpopular, but his unpopularity is also unlikely to reverse anytime soon. After all, his approval ratings have continually been underwater since the second month of his presidency, and have fluctuated remarkably little since then.

But Trump’s persistent unpopularity is not nearly as big a bar to reelection as many assume. It’s striking, for example, that Trump’s approval ratings are, at this point, very similar to those of two recent presidents who went on to win reelection by resounding margins. While 42 percent approve of Trump’s job performance, just 43 percent approved of both Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan at the same stage in their first terms.
BRYAN WOOLSTON / REUTERS

What’s more, Trump actually appears to be more popular today than he was on the day he beat Hillary Clinton. We can get a sense of how his standing with the public has evolved since the 2016 campaign by looking at his personal favorability ratings. An average of 41 percent of Americans now say they have a good impression of him, while an average of 55 percent say they have a bad impression, for a negative balance of 14 percent. In the last polls taken before the 2016 election, an average of 38 percent of Americans saw Trump favorably, and an average of 59 percent unfavorably, for a negative balance of 21 percent.

Since an election is a choice rather than a referendum, it is misleading to focus primarily on an incumbent’s approval ratings. In 2016, Trump was elected despite being deeply unpopular for the simple reason that his opponent was also deeply unpopular. For Trump to lose his bid for reelection in 2020, voters don’t just need to dislike him; they need to dislike somebody else less. Is that likely to be the case?

The obvious way to gauge how Trump fares compared with his competitors is to ask Americans whom they intend to vote for in a direct matchup. As of now, such general-election polls show a mixed picture. Joe Biden handily beats Trump. Bernie Sanders also tends to lead Trump, albeit by a considerably smaller margin. But all the other major candidates, including Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Pete Buttigieg, tend to run head-to-head with the president: While they narrowly lead Trump in many polls, they trail him in many others.

As Nate Silver has shown, it would be a serious mistake to assume that head-to-head polls taken at this early stage are a reliable guide to the future. After all, polls taken at the end of the year preceding presidential elections have, on average, been about 11 points off the final tally.

It would also, however, be foolish to disregard head-to-head polls completely. As partisanship has deepened over the past decades, early polls have come to be more accurate. In the five elections since the turn of the millennium, they have been off by an average of 6 percent; in the past two elections, they have been off only by an average of 2 percent. While these polls cannot predict the future, they provide an important check on our intuitions.

What we know so far is perfectly compatible with Democrats winning a resounding victory or Trump securing reelection by a comfortable margin. Right now, public opinion gives, at best, a very small advantage in the national vote to Democrats. Since the electoral college is, as in 2016, more likely to favor Trump than his opponent, that is very cold comfort.

A lot can change—in either direction. But there is one final reason to think the president’s chances of reelection are better than meets the eye.

Trump is a known quantity. After three years in which Democrats have—for good reason—attacked him from every possible angle, it is difficult to imagine that they might suddenly succeed in changing how most Americans feel about him. What new angle of attack is supposed to turn against Trump voters who have so far stuck with him?

By contrast, so far Republicans have not had the need or the occasion to concentrate their attacks on any one of the 16 Democrats running for the party’s nomination. Once they do, they are likely to decrease the popularity of whoever ends up emerging as the victor.

This is especially true if the eventual Democratic nominee has come to national prominence only over the past few years—for instance, Kamala Harris or Pete Buttigieg. But the conservative attack machine might also affect opinions about candidates who have been in the public eye for much longer, such as Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders. Remember, when Clinton stepped down as secretary of state, in February 2013, nearly two-thirds of Americans had a favorable view of her. By the fall of 2016, when she was the Democratic Party’s nominee for the presidency, just over one-third of Americans retained a positive view.

Since 1945, nine presidents have sought a second term in office. Of these, six were reelected. Two of the remaining three, George H. W. Bush and Gerald Ford, had succeeded presidents of their own political party, so they were essentially seeking a third or fourth term in office. The only president to lose a bid for reelection after winning power from the opposite party was Jimmy Carter—and he was facing unusually heavy headwinds due to a combination of an economic crisis at home and national humiliation abroad.

Trump is, of course, an abnormal president. And so it is perfectly possible that he will, in the end, also prove abnormal in a more prosaic way—by losing his bid for reelection.

But what is eminently possible need not be likely.

(Source: The Atlantic)

Monday, 5 August 2019

How ‘the Squad’ learned to handle Trump’s attacks

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) stood atop the edge of a flower bed to address a swelling crowd of union protesters. She was a few seconds into her speech when a worker interrupted her.

“We love the Squad!” the woman yelled.

“We are all the Squad!” Tlaib shouted back. “While he tweets, we will march!”

In the weeks since President Trump’s July 14 tweet telling Tlaib and three minority female colleagues, who are all citizens, to “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,” the lawmakers known as “the Squad” — Tlaib and fellow Democratic Reps. Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) and Ilhan Omar (Minn.) — have experienced a surge of interest and support. Fundraising for their political campaigns has spiked, as have their online followings. The four women have collectively drawn more than 1 million additional Twitter followers.

But the heightened profile has come with complications.

The women are trying to manage the risk of being perceived as more of a pop sensation than serious purveyors of policy, according to aides. And they worry that too much attention might inflame their opponents, said the aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

Amid the Squad mania over the past few weeks, aides said they had rejected pitches for photo shoots from two fashion magazines.
From left: Reps. Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) and Ayanna Pressley (Mass.) are Democrats known as “the Squad.” (J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)

The ultimate goal, the lawmakers say, is to harness Trump’s negative messages about them into something potentially positive — a bigger platform to press their agenda.

“What Trump is doing is trying to play to his base,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “Except the thing is, we’ve got a base, too. That’s not something he’s used to.”

Trump, whose mention of Omar prompted a “send her back” chant from the crowd at a North Carolina rally last month, alluded to them at his Cincinnati rally on Thursday without naming them — saying the “Democrat Party is now being led by four left-wing extremists who reject everything that we hold dear.” Trump has also expanded his attacks to another minority lawmaker — repeatedly tweeting insults in recent days at Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) and the Baltimore district he represents.

The scene at the union rally where Tlaib spoke last month, outside Reagan National Airport, demonstrated the Squad’s emerging power. Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), two of the most prominent liberal Democratic candidates for president, also addressed the crowd — but neither received as raucous of an ovation as the freshman congresswoman from Detroit.

In Tlaib’s speech, she tried to move between the tweets and connected Trump’s behavior to larger themes. Tlaib told the audience that Trump’s “hate agenda” helped distract the country from his tax cuts to the rich while union workers like them struggled to make a living wage.

“It’s not just about hating ethnicity,” she said. “It’s about hating workers.”

“Keep calling him out!” one person responded.

Another shouted a vulgar phrase that Tlaib had used months ago about how to handle the president.

“Thank you for helping to put a smile on my face,” Tlaib said. “It’s not easy . . . dealing with this hate agenda.”

Aides to the four lawmakers privately say they are concerned about the toll of the intensified attention they are receiving. After the women interviewed with Gayle King for “CBS This Morning,” their media teams severely limited access to them. The lawmakers only took interviews as they walked the halls between meetings.

The death threats have become so persistent that Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib and Pressley said they asked not to be informed of them unless the threats seem credible and imminent.

“I’m just, like, over it,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

Since Trump’s attacks, though, staff had to inform her several times of those types of threats. Two Louisiana police officers were fired recently after one wrote and the other liked a Facebook post saying Ocasio-Cortez, a former bartender, “needs a round........and I don’t mean the kind she used to serve.” Last week, images circulated online of a billboard advertising a North Carolina gun store featuring large pictures of the four lawmakers and the words, “The Four Horsemen Are Idiots.”

Ocasio-Cortez said she gave up her television, in part to avoid the incessant coverage of her, and was trying to spend less time on social media.

“It’s funny to me that a joke about female friendship became this thing,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

The “squad” moniker started with Ocasio-Cortez after she posted a photo of the women on Instagram with a caption using the popular Internet phrase.

The newly elected congresswomen all had broken ground — Ocasio-Cortez, at 29, was the youngest woman elected to Congress; Tlaib and Omar were the first female Muslim lawmakers on the Hill; and Pressley is the first black woman to represent a district in Massachusetts.

They are all known as being ardent and outspoken liberals who support ideas that Republicans describe as socialist, including tuition-free college and government-run health care.

Each embody different political styles. For example, Tlaib has made news for her self-described “raw” language while Pressley tends to speak in sweeping, alliterative prose.

They also do not necessarily vote as a bloc. They split on votes for the House spending bill, and Pressley was the only one who supported a House resolution to condemn the global movement for boycotts, divestments and sanctions on Israel.

They have become celebrities on the left, even as they are vilified on the right.

One day late last month, Ocasio-Cortez strode into a congressional building, unaware that she was being followed by three teenagers. As she stood in a hallway, they decided to approach.

“I can’t believe I ran into you!” one said, asking for a selfie.

“It was my goal to meet you,” said another.

A line of admirers soon formed. They were in many cases indicative of the diverse coalition Ocasio-Cortez and her allies represent.

Fifth in line was a middle-aged Republican family. The sixth person was a young white woman who said she regarded Ocasio-Cortez as a hero. A man who said he had been a women’s rights activist for 40 years was the 12th person, and a Hill intern who described herself “as a brown girl from Kentucky” was the 17th.

In all, 23 people had approached Ocasio-Cortez before she could move on. She had been in the building for seven minutes.

The attention can be distracting. So, amid the furor over the attacks by Trump, Ocasio-Cortez took her staff members on a trip to the House archives. They looked at records of debates over the Civil Rights Act to find inspiration. She said she learned that even the committee chairman had to be persuaded to vote in favor of the landmark legislation, and other lawmakers tried to add controversial amendments to the bill to keep it from passing. It reaffirmed to them that political games in Washington had always been present.

“It was this great moment of perspective for us,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

The next day, Pressley was sitting between Tlaib and Ocasio-Cortez at a House Oversight Committee meeting — and the three again experienced another reality of their celebrity status.

High school students visiting the District had heard that three members of the Squad might be at the hearing, so they filled every seat.

Outside, there were at least a hundred more, most of whom were at a summer camp run by the American Civil Liberties Union, texting with other teenagers about taking turns to watch the action.

The heated conversation — over a Democratic resolution to subpoena government emails from the private server of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, Trump’s relatives and advisers — was of little interest to most in the crowd, until Tlaib started to speak. Suddenly, the air was filled with cellphones.

Her questioning was brief and the resolution eventually passed. The meeting was adjourned, and the teenagers rushed to the dais. Some of their hands started trembling at the prospect of shaking a Squad member’s hand. “I think I might cry right now,” one said as Ocasio-Cortez grabbed a camera and three women posed with them for a selfie.

The teenagers followed the women as they walked out of the room and into a hallway.

The waiting television cameras were a reminder of the new platform available to the Squad. And on this day, they had a cause to champion: the importance of paying interns.

“Experience doesn’t pay the bills!” the three women said. The video has been retweeted about 70,000 times.

As Pressley walked to her next meeting, she reflected on her surprising new status.

“I feel humbled by it,” she said. “I’m grateful for the love and for the support. But what I feel most of all is just a sense of responsibility.”

(Source: WP)