Mediaboss Marketing

As the House casts its vote on forwarding the articles of impeachment to the Senate, we should pause to remember a timely lesson about submitting evidence to prove that the Holocaust occurred.

Though difficult to believe, the Holocaust still has its deniers people driven by anti-Semitism or ignorance seeking to plant the seed it was all a myth. It is not dissimilar to what Democrats are doing today with impeachment claims against President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump's newest Russia adviser, Andrew Peek, leaves post: report Hawley expects McConnell's final impeachment resolution to give White House defense ability to motion to dismiss Trump rips New York City sea wall: 'Costly, foolish' and 'environmentally unfriendly idea' MORE.

Concerned at World War IIs end there would be those in future generations questioning the Holocausts validity, the Allies collected as much evidence as possible. But Jewish historians have determined that just as important is to ensure that all evidence displayed about the Holocaust should lack any basis for deniers to challenge its authenticity, so that it cannot undermine that which it seeks to prove. A scrap of inauthentic evidence could be poison for the truth of the Holocausts occurrence.

The Museum of Jewish Heritage in New York opened in May 2019, housing a living Holocaust memorial in an exhibit covering three floors. Curators there soon realized they had just such a poison document on display. Although collected long ago, and despite references to it years earlier by many scholars, it still potentially could provide fodder for Holocaust deniers.

Titled SS Rentabilittsberechnung (meaning profitability calculation), it was somewhat of an obscure document, apparently authored to show a financial justification that slave labor camps were profit centers for the Nazis.

Most visitors to the Museum of Jewish Heritage listen to a 90-minute audio/video program that guides them through various artifacts and documents. But soon after the museums opening, to be safe, curators decided to delete a 13-second segment from the tape referencing the document in question. The sentence removed was: During World War II, the SS calculated that, after costs such as cremation, but not including the value of bones used in fertilizer, the profit made from each prisoner was roughly $745.

The SS Rentabilittsberechnung document provided every tidbit of minutia about various costs associated with running the camps, including feeding and housing individuals, costs of running crematoriums, etc. The data were so detailed, even the average number of calories prisoners consumed was factored into calculations to determine the anticipated average lifespan of laborers (nine months).

Against these costs appeared the average income each prisoner generated, either as a Nazi slave laborer or when rented out to German companies. Included, too, as an asset was the gold extracted from the teeth of deceased laborers, the value of their bones used in fertilizers, value of personal belongings, etc.

The SS Rentabilittsberechnung reduced to paper the frightening reality of the evil that man can render unto his fellow man. Although numerous historians, writers and rabbis long had referenced this document, research showed its origin could not be determined. Citation cross-references only cited each other, without linking the document to an original source. Every citation, it turned out, was a secondary source.

This very telling document could be real, but curators had to consider that their inability to prove its authenticity also raised the possibility it was not. Knowing Holocaust deniers would seize upon even a minor historical inaccuracy as ammunition to discredit the Jewish genocide, curators opted not to display the document.

This cautionary tale is one that promoters of Trumps impeachment totally ignore. The SS Rentabilittsberechnung document could be a museum curators evidentiary dream to support what happened in Nazi Germany, but why risk arming deniers with a way to undermine the Holocausts reality?

Similarly, it became clear early on in the House impeachment inquiry that Democrats would take an entirely different approach to authenticity concerning evidence with regard to Trumps July phone call with the Ukrainian president. His accusers had no firsthand evidence that Trump committed an impeachable offense; instead, they chose to rely on unvetted hearsay evidence sometimes as much as three times removed. One Democrat went so far as to outrageously suggest, Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct.

Democrats have demonstrated no concern about unsubstantiated evidence, giving impeachment deniers valid arguments. This strongly suggests House Democrats never were really interested in the truth, but only in marketing unsupportable claims that the president committed impeachable offenses.

The SS Rentabilittsberechnung document stands as a warning that relying on hearsay evidence opens the door to undermining the truth. The museum curators chose not to run this risk; the impeachment promoters wont be as careful.

Interestingly, the Democrats anti-Trump efforts date to the Steele dossier, opposition research from the 2016 campaign that was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham Clinton Democrats plot new approach to win over rural voters The Memo: Sanders-Warren battle could reshape Democratic primary Rosenstein says he authorized release of Strzok-Page texts MORE a dossier we now know was based almost entirely on hearsay. This document shows us how far down a road paved with untruths hearsay can take us.

There are many lessons about the Holocaust and its aftermath that teach us about the evils of mankind and the need to preserve truth for future generations. Pro-impeachment members of Congress should pay attention to the latter.

James G. Zumwalt is a retired Marine lieutenant colonel who served in the Vietnam War, the U.S. invasion of Panama and the first Gulf War. He heads a security consulting firm named after his father, Adm. Zumwalt & Consultants, Inc.

Excerpt from:
A Holocaust lesson lost on the Democrats impeaching Trump | TheHill - The Hill

Sen. Tammy DuckworthLadda (Tammy) Tammy DuckworthDemocrats request briefing on intel behind Trump's embassy threat claim Duckworth slams Collins's comments: 'I left parts of my body in Iraq fighting terrorists' The biggest political upsets of the decade MORE (D-Ill.), the top Democrat on the Senate Transportation Committee and the first disabled woman elected to Congress, called for a meeting with the CEO of Amtrak amid reports the railroad service charged a group of disabled passengers $25,000 for an in-state trip from Chicago to Bloomington, Ill.

It is outrageous that Amtrak asked a group of passengers with disabilities to pay $25,000 to ride from the City of Chicago to Bloomington, Illinois. It is also disappointing that Amtrak leadership appears to have failed to offer a public apology for its initial mistake, Duckworth, who lost both legs serving in the U.S. Army in Iraq, said in a statement.

The Americans with Disabilities Act has been the law of the land for 30 years. Yet in 2020, Amtrak believes it would be an unreasonable burden to remove architectural barriers that would enable a group with five wheelchair users to travel together, she added.

The Chicago-Bloomington route is priced at $16 one way, but two wheelchair users in question were told they would be charged $25,000, with an Amtrak agent telling a group booking transportation on behalf of the advocacy group Access Living that the cost was necessary to offset the cost of taking out extra seats.

"We will contact Access Living and suggest costs could be avoided by using the two separate trains on this route, with each train separated by about three hours and having three spaces for wheelchairs without any reconfiguration. We will also confirm the pricing for a railcar reconfiguration given to this important and valued customer, Amtrak said in a statement, according to NPR.

In a statement to The Hill, an Amtrak spokesperson said "We apologize for any inconvenience we caused our customers. Amtrak is complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act and is committed to meeting the needs of all of our customers. We will work with this group of passengers on an alternative plan to facilitate their upcoming trip.

See the article here:
Democratic senator asks for meeting with Amtrak head over alleged disability discrimination | TheHill - The Hill

Its not that James Padot hugely admires Donald Trump or his values.

After all, Padot spent more than four decades as a pipe fitter, a skilled trade that provided a good living but relied on the power of his labour union for work and to ensure he was decently paid.

He worked on grand projects around the midwest including construction of the nuclear power plant in his hometown of Monroe, Michigan. So Padot is a fan of organised labour and feels a pull to vote Democrat.

But after twice supporting Barack Obama in presidential elections, he cast his ballot for Trump in 2016. Nearly four years later, he has yet to be presented with a reason not to do so again.

Id like to vote Democratic. But I watched the people they have and some of what theyre talking about and some of its just crazy, he said.

So, as things stand, Padot will once more vote for Trump in a county that saw one of the largest swings in the country from the first African American president to a divisive leader denounced by his opponents as racist, corrupt and unfit for office.

Obama twice took Monroe county, just south of Detroit. But in 2016 Trump trounced Hillary Clinton there, winning by more than 16,000 votes. Those votes alone delivered Michigan to Trump by the narrowest margin of victory just 10,704 votes in the history of presidential elections. The state, in turn, was an important part of the electoral college puzzle that put him in the White House.

Trumps slim victory makes Michigan an important target for the Democrats this year along with other states that flipped to the Republican four years ago. This week, and at various stages in the run up to the 2020 presidential election, the Guardian is returning to three counties in Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa that swung from Obama to Trump to ask which way they will go in November.

Opinion polls suggest that any of the leading Democratic candidates would beat Trump in Michigan although, 10 months before the election, they provide inspiration more than expectation to many Democrats fearful that the wrong candidate too centrist or too liberal could let Trump back in.

While Trump commands the unwavering loyalty of a hardcore of voters, his victory was secured by people like Padot whose support is much softer. But, so far at least, many of them are still willing to back the president even though they have plenty of doubts. Trump has the lowest approval ratings at this stage of the campaign of any incumbent running for re-election since the 1970s.

Like so many other swing voters, Padot voted for Trump to shake up the system. As things stand, he thinks the president will win again in Monroe county and nationally.

Everybody knew hes a huckster but they were so mad at the status quo, he said. Hell win again because the economy seems to be doing good.They might say there are these other things but once the curtain closes and they have to vote, then its the economy. I just think thats the way it is.

In places, the definition of the economy doing well is not an indication of prosperity but, rather, a lack of unemployment. Monroe county has jobs but the steady well-paid work relied on by thousands of people for decades disappeared with factory closures. In 2008, the local Ford car plant shut, taking with it 3,200 jobs just as the recession hit. The knock-on effect of lost wages was felt by local stores and other businesses in downtown Monroe city, the county capital, dotted with ghost shops. A largely abandoned shopping mall sits on the edge of town.

Monroe Democrats, still reeling from Trumps victory, are split on how to respond. Bill LaVoy, who held the local seat in the state legislature until he was swept out by the 2016 political whirlwind, backs the former vice-president Joe Biden as a safe candidate who can appeal to Democrats who defected to Trump.

On the other hand, a younger generation thinks the leadership is running scared when it focuses on trying to win back voters like Padot instead of offering a more radical alternative.

They lost to Trump and theyre just so scared its going to happen again, said Christopher Slat, a 31-year-old Democratic campaign activist. They think the only way they can do it is by trying to appeal to those Trump voters on Trumps terms. If the Democrats dont have a compelling policy answer to address peoples actual problems, then theyre just going to keep being resentful and keep voting for the most spiteful rightwing people.

Slat, who recently declared a run for the state legislature seat lost by LaVoy, backs Bernie Sanders because he said the senator has policies the party can sell to mobilise new voters.

Im not overly concerned with winning Trump voters back as much as I am activating people who dont always vote or activating the new populations of young people who are coming into the electorate, he said.

Slat sees young first-time voters as having been dragged into becoming more politically engaged by issues such as the climate crisis and school shootings.

Trump is more unpopular among young people than any other age group with polls showing that through most of his presidency twice as many 18- to 29-year-olds disapprove of his leadership as approve.

In important swing states such as Michigan and Wisconsin, where Trump won with such slim margins, young first-time voters could decide the outcome in November and the Democrats are working hard to mobilise them in major cities. But a big question remains over how many will actually turn out to vote.

Still, Slat is not writing off swing voters. He thinks some can be won back by focusing on what drove them to vote for Trump in the first place, and tying their disillusionment with the system to corporate corruption of politics. He said healthcare is a path into that because the high cost of insurance and treatment can be linked the medical industrys influence in blocking reforms that might reduce profits.

You tie it to the anti-corporate message because everybody understands the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics, especially people who vote for Trump. They understand that the system is corrupt and rigged, said Slat.

Padot is among those Trump voters who would like to see reform of the health system but he doesnt have any more confidence in the Democrats than the Republicans to do it.

Whats really stupid is that there are countries all around the world that have healthcare for everybody. One of those has to be the best. So just copy that. How hard is that? But no, this is America. Weve gotta reinvent the wheel and its not gonna work, he said.

But then Padot is not impressed by any of the Democratic candidates.

I dont think any of them are like Obama. That guy, he came out of nowhere. The guy could talk. Hes very charismatic. I dont see that on any of these people, he said. Joe Biden, I think his time has gone. Bernie [Sanders] seems sharp but hes too socialist him and Warren. Their ideas wont play well in Michigan or Nebraska or Iowa.

Opinion polls show all the main Democratic contenders beating Trump in Michigan and Wisconsin but losing to him in Iowa. .

Across the city, at the Oaks of Righteousness Christian Ministries homeless shelter in one of the poorest districts of Monroe, Rob Burgess is equally disparaging not only about the Democratic candidates but all politicians. The former soldier who went on to work for a cable company before deciding to reorder his life by working at a homeless shelter, doesnt vote because he doesnt trust any politicians and doesnt think it will make much difference to Monroe who is president.

I never voted. Never had any confidence in our political system, he said. I dont want to say I would never vote but I still dont believe in our political system.

His own take on Trump is mixed. He viewed the presidents 2016 election campaign with scepticism, thinking it was all an act to get attention for his next best thing. But then he got elected.

Burgess sees Trump as his own man, which he likes, and said the president has followed through on some of the promises he made. But he repeats the oft-heard criticisms about Trump on Twitter, although he excuses those tweets widely denounced as racist saying they are the result of the presidents social ignorance.

There are limits for Burgess. He regarded Trumps threat to attack Iranian cultural sites as wrong because it is against the Geneva Conventions. Still, he has little time for the Democrats who he accuses of putting all their efforts into trying to unseat Trump.

Meanwhile, he doesnt see any of them helping Monroe forge a new path to prosperity.

I think lifes getting tougher in this community because theres no good jobs that will pay for people to get above the poverty level. There are some jobs, but theyre minimal. We used to have a Ford factory here. It closed. My father worked there. Lots and lots of peoples fathers, he said. Theres not a lot of anywhere else to find jobs besides outside the county. Down to Toledo. Up towards Detroit. But inside Monroe county, there isnt really any place where I could say unskilled labor where you can just go and work and make a decent living.

Things are tough here. I do personally believe that a lot of people voted to not vote for the establishment, that theyre tired of it. Those that favoured Trump still favour him and those that didnt still dont. Based on that, I would say he will get re-elected again.

Burgess thinks people put too much hope in politicians. He says that working at the homeless shelter, and volunteering to provide free meals for low-income families, has more impact than any change of government.

Is there anything a president can do?

Send money. I hate to say it but short of that I am not one that believes that our government can fix any of our social problems, he said.

See more here:
'I'd like to vote Democratic': the swing voters who want a reason not to back Trump again - The Guardian

Welcome to Opinions commentary for the Jan. 14 Democratic presidential candidate debate in Des Moines. In this special feature, Times Opinion writers rank the candidates on a scale of 1 to 10: 1 means the candidate probably didnt belong on the stage and should probably drop out; 10 means its on, President Trump. Heres what our columnists and contributors thought about the debate.

Read what our columnists and contributors thought of the December debate.

Elizabeth Warren

Jorge Castaeda (7.5/10) A substantive candidate, even if her position on the trade agreement between the United States and Mexico is not very credible. On Iran and troops abroad she was categorical and honest.

Gail Collins (8/10) It does sound as if she really has a plan for everything, and no one could really take that on. Shes the one the debaters need to focus on the next time around.

Ross Douthat (6/10) The moderators basically took her side in the he said/she said with Sanders and she got to deliver what was no doubt a prepared speech. So a good-enough night, but hard to see a momentum swing for her.

Maureen Dowd (4/10) Her slide continues. Sanders has gotten back the progressive high ground on health care and soaking the rich, even after the Warren forces tried to submarine him this week. She didnt want to push it too hard and that let him off the hook.

Michelle Goldberg (9/10) One of her best debates. She had the most memorable line of the night: The only people on this stage who have won every single election they have been in are the women.

Nicole Hemmer (9/10) Barbara Lee was the clear winner of the debate, repeatedly cheered for her lone vote against authorizing the use of force after 9/11. But Warren was a close second, turning a challenging conflict with Sanders into a forceful case for her candidacy.

Robert Leonard (9/10) Best line of the night on whether a woman can win the presidency the women in the debate were undefeated.

Liz Mair (5/10) Shes lucky no one pressed her on whether Sanders said what her campaign is alleging if she said he had, Im not sure many people would have believed her.

Daniel McCarthy (6/10) Shes especially cogent on trade when defending the new NAFTA against Sanders. Made the case she can threaten Trumps Rust Belt support.

Melanye Price (9/10) She gave an amazing answer to the question about electability and it was her best moment of the entire debate.

Mimi Swartz (7/10) She maneuvered the gender issues handily, kept her cool and didnt take the bait to go to war on Sanders. But we know her brothers were in the military and that shes determined to fight corruption. She needs to refresh her talking points.

Hctor Tobar (8/10) I saw flashes of the conviction that briefly propelled her to the top of the Democratic field. Of the progressive candidates left standing, shes the most credible and presidential.

Pete Wehner (6/10) What she said on policy during the debate wont matter much. Her refusal to shake Sanderss hand after the debate will. My bet is this now intensely personal confrontation shes essentially accusing Sanders of being sexist, hes essentially accusing her of being a liar wont help Warren or Sanders.

Will Wilkinson (8/10) She needed a strong night and delivered. She made a fiery, galvanizing case on womens electability that made Sanders seem less than honest. Shes a fighter and still very much in the hunt.

Bernie Sanders

Jorge Castaeda (8.5/10) His best performance yet: authentic, eloquent and on-message. But will Americans elect a socialist?

Gail Collins (7/10) He isnt the most appealing, but he did have a whole lot of the most rousing moments.

Ross Douthat (6/10) Himself, himself, himself: The most consistent candidate from debate to debate was consistent once again. The Biden-Bernie debates after Super Tuesday will be deliciously grumpy.

Maureen Dowd (8/10) Waving his arms with the flair of a maestro, Sanders dominated the stage, didnt give any ground on his give-away programs and stared down Warren over her claim that he had told her that a woman couldnt win. He said he totally believes a woman could win. He obviously doesnt want one to win this year.

Michelle Goldberg (8/10) Bernie is more or less always the same, which is one thing his fans love about him.

Nicole Hemmer (7/10) He is debate-stage comfort food: You always know exactly what youre going to get.

Robert Leonard (7/10) Bernie is Bernie. But if Elizabeth Warren looked over the top of her glasses at me like she did at him, Id confess. He had different math teachers than I did he needs to show his work on Medicare for All.

Liz Mair (5/10) Let me keep telling you how Im totally not sexist and make you think Im totally sexist.

Daniel McCarthy (7/10) I dont share his faith in multilateralism, but hes the alternative to the foreign-policy status quo and clearest contrast to the G.O.P. all around.

Melanye Price (9/10) He looked like the nominee. His supporters should be ecstatic.

Mimi Swartz (8/10) The Cassandra of the campaign, but circumstances are conspiring to make him look ever more rational.

Hctor Tobar (7/10) He was cornered on health care. What will happen when the G.O.P. cannons are aimed at his campaign?

Pete Wehner (5/10) He was Bernie: curmudgeonly, loud, deeply ideological, a rock star to his base but unattractive to pretty much everyone else. The exchange with Warren that was leaked by her campaign wasnt one he was going to win, and he didnt.

Will Wilkinson (7/10) He burnished his anti-war cred and deftly defused Warrens a woman cant get elected allegation. Despite some shakiness in his hair-splitting opposition to NAFTA 2.0, which is good for Iowa, hes heading toward the caucus with his mojo intact.

Amy Klobuchar

Jorge Castaeda (6.5/10) She was substantive on health care. Yet even by a politicians standard, she talks too much about herself.

Gail Collins (6/10) Since her strong points have been so much about her performance in the debates, this wasnt a help or at least not a step up. Still waiting for the moment where she goes beyond likeability and really rouses the audience.

Ross Douthat (7/10) She forgot the governor of Kansas name, and she sometimes gets lost in Senate procedure, but another solid, personable performance that probably isnt going to be quite enough to lap Buttigieg in Iowa.

Maureen Dowd (6/10) She mined her ore-mining Midwestern roots and whacked Sanders and Warren for their pipe-dream math, their grand ideological sketches that will never see the light of day. But no breakthrough moment to get better traction in Iowa.

Michelle Goldberg (7/10) She was sharp, empathetic and charming. If I were looking for a pragmatic moderate, she might have won me over.

Nicole Hemmer (7/10) She should be the moderates choice, but she sounds senatorial, not presidential shes good on the ins and outs of legislation but often fails to tell a bigger story.

Robert Leonard (9/10) The women won the night. Klobuchar was pragmatic and tough but if you are going to name-drop the Kansas governor, you should remember her name.

Liz Mair (4/10) A weak debate. She often stumbled and sounded uncomfortable. She must be all in on Nevada with all the casino and gambling references.

Daniel McCarthy (4/10) She was the second-tier, standard-issue politician this time and came off as a foreign-policy lightweight.

Melanye Price (6/10) Someone should tell her the center is disappearing and the party has moved to the left.

Mimi Swartz (8/10) Once again, the queen of competence. Good idea to limit the one-liners. Biden-Klobuchar?

Hctor Tobar (8/10) The new centrist hope. Her reasonableness, competency and empathy could carry her to an upset in Iowa, and maybe in New Hampshire, too.

Pete Wehner (8/10) She needed an outstanding debate, and she got it. Shes authentic, informed and persuasive, is able to criticize other candidates without being nasty and (in an increasingly radical Democratic Party) she comes across as fairly moderate.

Will Wilkinson (6/10) She dominated the contest to name-check Iowa municipalities and built on her impressive electability bona fides. Yet every note she hit, like this entire debate, felt like a rerun.

Joe Biden

Jorge Castaeda (7.5/10) Uninspiring but solid on Iraq, Iran and womens issues. This may well be all he has to do to win the nomination.

Gail Collins (5/10) He didnt screw up! But I cant really celebrate the fact that he seemed functional but flat. Fair to mention the many things he did in previous administrations, but you still need a new thought to grab onto.

Ross Douthat (5/10) A very Biden performance he rambled, evaded and courted disaster in multiple answers but somehow always stumbled through. Nobody really attacked him; nothing happened to hurt his lead.

Maureen Dowd (5/10) Bidin his time til South Carolina; as he reminded his competitors, hes strongest among African-American voters. No gaffes but no heat, even though he had more breathing room because the candidates who used to attack him are gone.

Michelle Goldberg (6/10) He seemed sleepy and tripped over his words, at least until his riff on the economy. But none of his fellow candidates hurt him.

Nicole Hemmer (6/10) Biden debated like a candidate whose biggest goal was not to say anything dumb. (He gets an extra point for succeeding).

Robert Leonard (8/10) At times presidential, others a scold, and occasionally forgetful, he nailed it on paying farmers to sequester carbon to help fight global warming and stabilize a crumbling rural economy.

Liz Mair (8/10) Not a great debate, but at least he made people laugh once when the debate otherwise made people cry and tear their hair out.

Daniel McCarthy (5/10) Stumbles havent hurt him before hes almost Trump-like in his resilience. Hes not getting sharper, though.

Melanye Price (7/10) He has done a lot, but not enough to avoid a dumpster fire of political division and bigotry.

Mimi Swartz (7.5/10) He flogged his record during the Obama administration like crazy and held his own for 120 minutes, which was all he had to do.

Hctor Tobar (5/10) Ugh. Hes a shadow of the man who we knew just four or eight years ago. At the most pointed moments of the debate, he seemed to disappear.

Pete Wehner (6/10) He wasnt dominant or terribly impressive, but he didnt make any damaging errors. No one went after him. He used Trumps attacks against him to his advantage.

Will Wilkinson (7/10) Biden hasnt won a single debate, but it clearly doesnt matter. Hes ahead in the race and he capped off the night with energetic authority. The nomination is still his to lose.

Pete Buttigieg

Jorge Castaeda (7/10) Hes strong on education and articulate, but he comes across as scripted at times. He acknowledged that the trade agreement with Mexico and Canada was not perfect, though it seems he half-heartedly supports it.

Gail Collins (7/10) He had some of the best arguments, but worried that he still sounded like a really, really smart high school debater. He knows how to do those As a war veteran ... moments, which would be terrific in a debate with Trump.

Ross Douthat (4/10) Every answer was equally smooth, and at this point thats the problem.

Maureen Dowd (4/10) He continued to emphasize his veteran cred and how he would take down Cadet Bone Spurs. But he still seems canned and comes across as the star of the high school debate team. Hes straining to come up with the Vision Thing.

Michelle Goldberg (6/10) He was, as usual, poised and agile, but in a night with no fireworks, none of his answers stood out.

Nicole Hemmer (6/10) Last debate, everyone attacked him. This debate, they mostly ignored him and his overly rehearsed answers felt less relevant to the actual debate raging around him.

Robert Leonard (8/10) While Biden and Sanders bickered over old wars, Mayor Pete looked to future wars climate, cybersecurity and election security. He was the only one to mention the Poor Peoples March that took place at the debate site.

Liz Mair (7/10) Mayor Pete was one of two people who managed to not mangle the English language. Thank goodness.

Daniel McCarthy (5/10) Hes right that millionaires and billionaires kids shouldnt get free college from taxpayers. So why not means-test all entitlements?

Melanye Price (6/10) He will have to work to get some energy back. But no matter how he performs, pundits will say he was excellent.

Mimi Swartz (6/10) Hes starting to sound over-rehearsed. Nice try answering the question about his lack of black support, but the numbers speak louder.

Hctor Tobar (6/10) Hes the most polished and telegenic guy up there, but his ideas dont inspire me.

Pete Wehner (7/10) Strong but not outstanding. He told some humanizing stories, hes future-oriented and hes the only Democrat who isnt afraid to talk about his faith.

Will Wilkinson (6/10) Mayor Pete felt too much on auto-pilot to extract himself from the depths of the wine cave and reverse his slumping Iowa numbers.

Tom Steyer

Jorge Castaeda (6/10) Decisive on issues like impeaching Trump and climate change. He was unable to break through on other issues.

Gail Collins (2/10) We have a better billionaire.

Ross Douthat (5/10) His best night dont roll your eyes.

Maureen Dowd (3/10) Steyer pressed his case that he is the one to take on corporate America, given that he has already wrung a billion dollars out of the economy. But if we have to listen to a rich guy, lets hear what Mike Bloomberg has to say.

Michelle Goldberg (7/10) He was fine, but why is he there?

Nicole Hemmer (3/10) The guy pointed to his globe-trotting as evidence that hes qualified to be commander in chief. Yes, hes got good answers on climate, but cmon.

Robert Leonard (5/10) Getting stronger, but Cory Booker and Andrew Yang should have been on this debate stage.

Liz Mair (6/10) He also managed to not engage in rampant word salad yet still came off as someone just running a massive vanity exercise.

Daniel McCarthy (2/10) If nothing else, this minor-league candidate shows Democrats that money does have a role in facilitating discussion of big issues.

Melanye Price (5/10) He is paying a ton of money to become the head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mimi Swartz (7/10) Hes growing into his candidacy, but I dont see him breaking out of the pack to become the nominee. Secretary of climate?

Hctor Tobar (4/10) Its shameful that a man can buy his way into the semi-finals of the Democratic primary. Hes a marketing phenomenon, and not a political one.

Pete Wehner (2/10) He spoke less than any candidate and he still spoke too much. For future debates can we trade Steyer for Andrew Yang?

Will Wilkinson (7/10) He delivered a clear, impassioned case for a progressive agenda, especially on climate change. His billions undercut the credibility of his left message, but they bolster his claim to be able to rattle Trump.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

About the authors

Gail Collins, Ross Douthat, Maureen Dowd and Michelle Goldberg are Times columnists. (Ms. Goldberg's husband is consulting for Ms. Warrens campaign.)

Jorge Castaeda (@JorgeGCastaneda), Mexicos foreign minister from 2000 to 2003, is a professor at New York University and the author of Utopia Unarmed: The Latin American Left After the Cold War and a contributing opinion writer.

Nicole Hemmer (@pastpunditry) is an associate research scholar at Columbia University and the author of Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics.

Robert Leonard (@RobertLeonard), the news director for the Iowa radio stations KNIA and KRLS, is the author of Deep Midwest: Midwestern Explorations.

Daniel McCarthy (@ToryAnarchist) is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Quarterly.

Visit link:
Opinion | Winners and Losers of the Democratic Debate - The New York Times

Sanders and Warren, campaigning on promises to enact some form of Medicare for All, free public college, and a wealth tax, have delighted the leftmost segment of the Democratic base. Warren, with her steady stream of ambitious policy plans, has drawn consistently massive crowds that happily chant wonky slogans. Sanders raised $34.5 million in the last three months of 2019far more money than any other presidential candidate. And more than 26,000 people attended Sanderss October rally with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, making it the largest event held by any Democratic presidential candidate this cycle.

Bidens rallies are consistently much less well attended. And although crowd size is not necessarily predictive of electoral success, it could indicate whether a candidate has a sizable pool of enthusiastic volunteers to draw from in the general election. A Biden nomination would trigger a huge deflation in enthusiasm, and a shrinking of that volunteer pool, progressives argue. If a candidate that gets selected doesnt have the type of energy and excitement from the troopsthe people who give small dollars, the people who phone bank, who show up to ralliesit will be harder said Rashad Robinson, the president of the racial-justice organization Color of Change.

Read: The kumbaya candidate

For many Democrats, that warning triggers an unpleasant flashback to 2016. Sanders, after losing the primary, was late to endorse Hillary Clinton. At least 20 percent of the people who voted for Sanders in the primary did not vote for Clinton in the general election against Trump, according to one study. But every progressive organizer and leader I talked with for this story told me a variation of the same thing: Theyre not concerned that Americans will choose Trump over Biden. Theyre worried that, absent a Democratic candidate who excites them, many Americans might not vote at all.

Democrats have two theories of how to win the 2020 presidential election: persuasion versus turnout. Advocates of the former, generally moderates, believe that Clinton lost to Trump mostly because she failed to convince enough moderate voters in swing states. But progressives say that an emphasis on turning nonvoters into voters is more important for a Democratic victory in November. They blame Clintons loss on failing to inspire and mobilize Americans: An estimated 4.4 million people who voted for Barack Obama did not vote in 2016.

This kind of mobilization strategy relies heavily on local canvassing, and some of the activists involved with grassroots progressive groups told me that they have serious concerns about being able to mobilize volunteers for Biden. Jackie Dempsey, a 53-year-old member of the Forest Hills, Pennsylvania, chapter of Indivisible, a progressive group, intends to campaign for Biden just as vigorously as she would for any other nominee. But when Dempsey asked other members of the group what theyd do if Biden was the Democratic nominee, she received a range of responses: Some people said, Ill vote for him but I wont work for him, Dempsey told me. Some people said, Ill work around him. [Others said,] Ill make sure Democrats are registered, but I wont even vote for him.

View original post here:
Progressives Warn of a Great Deflation - The Atlantic