Happy birthday, Malia Obama, 22 years old today.
Saturday, July 04, 2020
“These are the best ads on television. They’re absolutely devastating,” said former presidential candidate and Vermont governor Howard Dean, who complimented the group’s founders on the “controlled rage” that fuels their spots.
...the Lincoln Project is willing to go places that Democratic groups haven’t.
“I am thrilled by the Lincoln Project’s impact, their substance and also their messaging, which is so compelling,” said Robert Zimmerman, a Democratic National Committee member and fund-raiser, who said he’s heard other Democrats say they’re donating to the group. “Quite frankly, Democrats, activists, and patriots should be grateful for their involvement and there shouldn’t be any competition.”
...
More recently, the group has bought ads that stalk Trump as he travels around the country. One that aired in Tulsa before his June rally compared Trump’s rhetoric to the segregationist George Wallace, splicing Trump’s image with that of Wallace and tiki torch-toting white supremacist protesters. Another airing in South Dakota, where Trump visited on Friday, features the somber words of the nation’s presidents who are carved into Mount Rushmore.
...
The group’s founders have their share of critics: Republican operatives who see them as traitors, the president who has ranted about them, and Democrats who question whether their trolling of Trump and thus-far limited budget will really influence voters in the handful of swing states that decide elections.
...
...the Lincoln Project’s relatively modest output so far, including some ads that seemed solely aimed at an audience of one, is racking up millions of views on social media, their reach amplified by the subsequent response from the president and related news coverage.
...
There’s also an aspect of psychological warfare at play, as the strategists hope the more the president engages with their ads, the less he has time to focus on a reelection message. Wilson has a running gag on Twitter that he and Conway are living “rent free” in Trump’s head.
“It throws him off the message that he should have been on … and it also shows how nuts he is,” Conway said on the podcast.
The Lincoln Project also constantly needles Trump’s campaign manager Brad Parscale, in what appears to be an attempt to destabilize his campaign operation. “Your campaign manager told you 1 million people” were going to show up to the rally in Tulsa, one ad mocks. “Is @bradparscale ok?” the Lincoln Project’s Twitter account asked after the rally, which drew only some 6,000 and left most of the arena empty. Another ad alleged Parscale got rich off of Trump’s 2016 campaign, showing images of fancy cars and a yacht filled with bikini-clad women.
The Trump campaign recently spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in the solidly Democratic Washington, D.C., market to advertise, which some see as a response to the president’s anger at the Lincoln Project ads.
Sam Nunberg, a former top aide to Trump, said the GOP campaign’s recent $400,000 ad buy in D.C. was a “waste of money.”
...
...The Lincoln Project recently released a pro-Biden ad that will be airing in Midwestern swing states. It portrayed Biden speaking inspirationally along with clips of other presidents comforting the nation at times of crisis, juxtaposed with Trump’s comments showing a lack of empathy for people protesting racism and police brutality. Barack Obama’s former campaign manager David Plouffe called the ad “stirring.” Future spots will focus on persuading Republicans to abandon Trump, the strategists say.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/07/04/nation/theyre-absolutely-devastating-anti-trump-ads-by-republican-lincoln-project-catch-democrats-attention/
...the Lincoln Project is willing to go places that Democratic groups haven’t.
“I am thrilled by the Lincoln Project’s impact, their substance and also their messaging, which is so compelling,” said Robert Zimmerman, a Democratic National Committee member and fund-raiser, who said he’s heard other Democrats say they’re donating to the group. “Quite frankly, Democrats, activists, and patriots should be grateful for their involvement and there shouldn’t be any competition.”
...
More recently, the group has bought ads that stalk Trump as he travels around the country. One that aired in Tulsa before his June rally compared Trump’s rhetoric to the segregationist George Wallace, splicing Trump’s image with that of Wallace and tiki torch-toting white supremacist protesters. Another airing in South Dakota, where Trump visited on Friday, features the somber words of the nation’s presidents who are carved into Mount Rushmore.
...
The group’s founders have their share of critics: Republican operatives who see them as traitors, the president who has ranted about them, and Democrats who question whether their trolling of Trump and thus-far limited budget will really influence voters in the handful of swing states that decide elections.
...
...the Lincoln Project’s relatively modest output so far, including some ads that seemed solely aimed at an audience of one, is racking up millions of views on social media, their reach amplified by the subsequent response from the president and related news coverage.
...
There’s also an aspect of psychological warfare at play, as the strategists hope the more the president engages with their ads, the less he has time to focus on a reelection message. Wilson has a running gag on Twitter that he and Conway are living “rent free” in Trump’s head.
“It throws him off the message that he should have been on … and it also shows how nuts he is,” Conway said on the podcast.
The Lincoln Project also constantly needles Trump’s campaign manager Brad Parscale, in what appears to be an attempt to destabilize his campaign operation. “Your campaign manager told you 1 million people” were going to show up to the rally in Tulsa, one ad mocks. “Is @bradparscale ok?” the Lincoln Project’s Twitter account asked after the rally, which drew only some 6,000 and left most of the arena empty. Another ad alleged Parscale got rich off of Trump’s 2016 campaign, showing images of fancy cars and a yacht filled with bikini-clad women.
The Trump campaign recently spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in the solidly Democratic Washington, D.C., market to advertise, which some see as a response to the president’s anger at the Lincoln Project ads.
Sam Nunberg, a former top aide to Trump, said the GOP campaign’s recent $400,000 ad buy in D.C. was a “waste of money.”
...
...The Lincoln Project recently released a pro-Biden ad that will be airing in Midwestern swing states. It portrayed Biden speaking inspirationally along with clips of other presidents comforting the nation at times of crisis, juxtaposed with Trump’s comments showing a lack of empathy for people protesting racism and police brutality. Barack Obama’s former campaign manager David Plouffe called the ad “stirring.” Future spots will focus on persuading Republicans to abandon Trump, the strategists say.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/07/04/nation/theyre-absolutely-devastating-anti-trump-ads-by-republican-lincoln-project-catch-democrats-attention/
I don't think the national media outlets are reporting on Trump's prepared public speeches as much as they used to. Do you? I have bitched about the amplifier effect before and it seems to me they are finally getting wise. Even Trump complained that his speech at West Point wasn't covered. Now, that was on...Oh! And then there was his speech at Cape Canaveral. That was the one he complained about being ignored, not the one at West Point. I assumed his 4th of July Klan rally at Mount Rushmore was, like, on the 4th of July. It was last night. The New York Times had a brief mention of it today. Part of the reason for this, if it really is happening, is that, Friday night? Dude, that is like the worst time slot there is. The Cape Canaveral speech was on a Saturday afternoon as I recall. Okay, Saturday afternoon is worse than Friday night. Tulsa was a Saturday night. On all of these though the coverage I remember reading about, the excerpts that were tweeted or clipped in the newspapers, were all him making an ass of himself. Who remembers anything about what he said in Tulsa other than "Kung Flu" and "I told them, 'Slow down the testing.'"? By far the most viewed and replayed part of the Tulsa disaster was the Walk of Shame lolol. If this is true: Good. Media coverage made Trump in 2016. It was the air he breathed. The media, especially CNN, were his useful fools.
The Great Trump Death, July 4, 12:13 am.
At 12:13 a.m. July 4th, Johns Hopkins reports that there have been
129,432 Americans Killed by Donald Trump. That number dead is just shy of that number living in Santa Clara, California.
129,432 Americans Killed by Donald Trump. That number dead is just shy of that number living in Santa Clara, California.
Friday, July 03, 2020
This has become my favorite graphic of the Trump Epidemic:
I remember when I first posted it the two 14-day change percentages were almost identically reversed, 32% and 31% as I recall. Reading the numbers is also the reverse of reading your blood pressure numbers. Here the bottom number is most important. And of course you want both numbers going down. If the top number in your blood pressure was 90% higher than it was two weeks ago, dude, you’d be in a coffin. Here you want that bottom number dropping, which it is! and has been forever but more, MORE, and since yesterday it has dropped LESS. The 14-day percentage was -28% yesterday.
The Lincoln Project: "Mississippi Made the Right Choice."
They have made me burn with anger. They have made me laugh. They have inspired me. They have filled me with pride. They have moved me to tears of love and thanksgiving. They make you FEEL. They make such EMOTIONALLY powerful ads. This one, such a loving emotion. The music! It is perfect! How do they DO this? I have experienced such emotion with great art, great literature; I have never experienced it watching a...goddamned commercial! Revelation. That is what the Lincoln Project is.
That vantablack screen has become one of the artist’s signatures.
Thursday, July 02, 2020
The Trump Epidemic
From NYT
Both the Times and the Washington Post report that over 50,000 additional people became infected with the Trump Virus today, July 2, the first time that we have hit (and surpassed) that mark. The trendlines continue in completely opposite directions and by an ever-increasing margin. Deaths are obviously most important and they continue their trending decline. However, there is a serious consequence to the out-of-fucking-control increase in cases—hospitals in other parts of the country are reaching near their bed capacity and MAY become as overwhelmed as New York City’s hospitals were in the beginning of the epidemic. Houston for example has more hospital beds than anywhere else in the country and they are about filled up.
The up-to-the-minute total Deaths number from Johns Hopkins:
128,742 Killed by Trump.
The undersigned has had the opportunity to review the transcripts of some Democratic focus group interviews and strategy sessions both from before the coronavirus pandemic hit the United States and then after. I quote from those representative of many.
Democratic Strategists' Conference Call, December 19, 2019:
Democratic Strategist 1 (hereinafter D-1): I think character still matters.
Democratic Strategist 2 (D-2): Oh, I do too!
D-1: I think we should attack Trump's character!
D-2: Oh, I do too! But not too hard.
D-1: No! Of course not. We're Democrats! We can't call him a traitor or something lol.
D-2: Oh my God, no! Soo unseemly. I don't think we should even mention impeachment.
D-1: No! Of course not. Third rail stuff, that!
D-2: I think we should stick to "It's the Economy Stupid" and point out that under President Biden it could be doing so much better.
D-1: Yes! Well, but leave out the "Stupid" is my thought.
D-2: Oh my God, of course! We should never call him stupid! But so, character, how do we tie the economy into character?
D-1: Maybe we should just stick to I.T.E.S. without the S?
D-2: We just got a HUGE amount of money to test some ideas on focus groups. Why don't you go up to Finance, tell them you need a focus group and try some things out on them.
D-1: Great! I will. Thanks for the brainstorming.
Focus Group Interview, January 5, 2020:
D-1. Hello Focus Group, can I call you Focus, ha-ha-ha?
Focus Group (FG): (no response)
D-1: Okay, is character in a president important to you guys...and gals, women?
FG: Yes (unison).
D-1: If you had your druthers would you rather have a president who was experienced at the highest levels of government and intelligent and who relied on facts and experts or would you prefer one who made decisions based on INSTINCT?
FG: Facts (unison).
D-1: Now, did you *know* that Donald Trump had never held elective office before 2016?
FG: Yes. (unison)
D-1: Did any of you vote for Mr., now President, Trump in 2016?
FG: No (by 48.2% of FG); Yes (by 46.1%)
D-1: Okay now the Yes's, those of you who voted for Mr. Trump in 2016, what *if* I told you that Mr., now President, Trump was more experienced now than in 2016, would that make you more or less likely to vote for him in 2020?
46.1% FG ("46.1%): More (unison).
D-1: So character matters, in other words! Now what if I told you that his likely opponent, Joe Biden, was even more experienced than President Trump is even NOW! Would that make you more likely, since character obviously matters to you, to vote for Mr. Biden over President Trump?
46.1%: No.
D-1: But...
One of 46.1% ("A"): It's the economy stupid.
D-1: Excuse me, I need to change my underwear...
D-1: Okay, sorry for that F's and G's, now ma'am, the one who said "It's the economy s-----", could you inform that statement for me?
A: You want me to tell you what I meant?
D-1: Yes, ma'am.
A: The economy is darned good! Unemployment is lower than ever, the stock market is up, it's not *just* character, it's RESULTS!
D-1: But is it really good, like really-really? Is it good for everybody? You know, there's another side to the Shining City on a Hill, one that you Mr. President never see...
A: Unemployment is 3%! That's close enough to "really-really" good for 97%! Close enough for me!
D-1: What
If
I
Told
You
that under a President Biden it'd be even BETTER!
A: I wouldn't switch horses in the middle of the stream when things are going so well with the economy, nah-ah.
B: Me neither!
D-1: okayfine (pause). I know!, what if the economy TANKED in 2020?
A: Well, I don't know how it's going to do that but yes, of course, if the economy all of a sudden collapsed, if the stock market crashed again, if unemployment rose a lot, then of course. That's what I have been saying. It's results! Not just promises, RESULTS! So if the economy really collapsed and we had people out of their jobs, of COURSE, I would consider switching my vote!
D-1: ...So...character only matters when it's tied to results, is that what you're saying?
B: Look, we voted for Trump when he had no experience. We voted for him because we cared about him. And because he was a billionaire and had never been fucked...
D-1: ...SIR! We do not use that language in the Democratic Party!
B: ...Screwed over, is that better? Trump had been a success in everything he done, he never been screwed by anyone, I voted for him least because I didn't think he would let folks like me get screwed over neither.
46.1%: Yeah! (unison).
A: We knew about all of the things he did, we listened to the Access Hollywood tape, We didn't care!
B: So for me, even if the economy went into the toilet, unless "Grabbin' 'em by the pussy"...
D-1: SIR! There are women of the female persuasion in this room with one of those bodily organs you just crudely referred to...
B: Well, dadgumit, that's what the man said. Those ain't my words, those is his, TRUMP's! So unless you could prove that one of that CAUSED a depression, him snatching they's snatches wouldn't make no neverminds to me.
Democratic Strategists' Conference Call January 10, 2020
D-1: Guys, gals, Democratic peoplez, I have a theory.
Conference Call Attendees (CC): What? (unison)...
D-1: My focus group was sooo innteresting. I tried out my theory that the economy really matters to voters. And...
CC: YES! (unison)...
D-1: And that we can tie it in to one of Trump's character traits--that Trump doesn't read much-- and that he could never explain Keynesian economics understandably to voters and that Joe can! And therefore Joe would create an even stronger American economy!
CC: THAT'S IT! THAT'S IT! (unison)
D-2: Great job, Geoffrey. That's our strategy. Draw up a simple twelve-page position paper for Joe--Bullet points! Don't forget the hooks!--and we'll mail it to every voter in the country!
CC: BIDEN-KEYNES! BIDEN KEYNES! BIDEN KEYNES! (in unison).
-30-
Democratic Strategists' Conference Call, December 19, 2019:
Democratic Strategist 1 (hereinafter D-1): I think character still matters.
Democratic Strategist 2 (D-2): Oh, I do too!
D-1: I think we should attack Trump's character!
D-2: Oh, I do too! But not too hard.
D-1: No! Of course not. We're Democrats! We can't call him a traitor or something lol.
D-2: Oh my God, no! Soo unseemly. I don't think we should even mention impeachment.
D-1: No! Of course not. Third rail stuff, that!
D-2: I think we should stick to "It's the Economy Stupid" and point out that under President Biden it could be doing so much better.
D-1: Yes! Well, but leave out the "Stupid" is my thought.
D-2: Oh my God, of course! We should never call him stupid! But so, character, how do we tie the economy into character?
D-1: Maybe we should just stick to I.T.E.S. without the S?
D-2: We just got a HUGE amount of money to test some ideas on focus groups. Why don't you go up to Finance, tell them you need a focus group and try some things out on them.
D-1: Great! I will. Thanks for the brainstorming.
Focus Group Interview, January 5, 2020:
D-1. Hello Focus Group, can I call you Focus, ha-ha-ha?
Focus Group (FG): (no response)
D-1: Okay, is character in a president important to you guys...and gals, women?
FG: Yes (unison).
D-1: If you had your druthers would you rather have a president who was experienced at the highest levels of government and intelligent and who relied on facts and experts or would you prefer one who made decisions based on INSTINCT?
FG: Facts (unison).
D-1: Now, did you *know* that Donald Trump had never held elective office before 2016?
FG: Yes. (unison)
D-1: Did any of you vote for Mr., now President, Trump in 2016?
FG: No (by 48.2% of FG); Yes (by 46.1%)
D-1: Okay now the Yes's, those of you who voted for Mr. Trump in 2016, what *if* I told you that Mr., now President, Trump was more experienced now than in 2016, would that make you more or less likely to vote for him in 2020?
46.1% FG ("46.1%): More (unison).
D-1: So character matters, in other words! Now what if I told you that his likely opponent, Joe Biden, was even more experienced than President Trump is even NOW! Would that make you more likely, since character obviously matters to you, to vote for Mr. Biden over President Trump?
46.1%: No.
D-1: But...
One of 46.1% ("A"): It's the economy stupid.
D-1: Excuse me, I need to change my underwear...
D-1: Okay, sorry for that F's and G's, now ma'am, the one who said "It's the economy s-----", could you inform that statement for me?
A: You want me to tell you what I meant?
D-1: Yes, ma'am.
A: The economy is darned good! Unemployment is lower than ever, the stock market is up, it's not *just* character, it's RESULTS!
D-1: But is it really good, like really-really? Is it good for everybody? You know, there's another side to the Shining City on a Hill, one that you Mr. President never see...
A: Unemployment is 3%! That's close enough to "really-really" good for 97%! Close enough for me!
D-1: What
If
I
Told
You
that under a President Biden it'd be even BETTER!
A: I wouldn't switch horses in the middle of the stream when things are going so well with the economy, nah-ah.
B: Me neither!
D-1: okayfine (pause). I know!, what if the economy TANKED in 2020?
A: Well, I don't know how it's going to do that but yes, of course, if the economy all of a sudden collapsed, if the stock market crashed again, if unemployment rose a lot, then of course. That's what I have been saying. It's results! Not just promises, RESULTS! So if the economy really collapsed and we had people out of their jobs, of COURSE, I would consider switching my vote!
D-1: ...So...character only matters when it's tied to results, is that what you're saying?
B: Look, we voted for Trump when he had no experience. We voted for him because we cared about him. And because he was a billionaire and had never been fucked...
D-1: ...SIR! We do not use that language in the Democratic Party!
B: ...Screwed over, is that better? Trump had been a success in everything he done, he never been screwed by anyone, I voted for him least because I didn't think he would let folks like me get screwed over neither.
46.1%: Yeah! (unison).
A: We knew about all of the things he did, we listened to the Access Hollywood tape, We didn't care!
B: So for me, even if the economy went into the toilet, unless "Grabbin' 'em by the pussy"...
D-1: SIR! There are women of the female persuasion in this room with one of those bodily organs you just crudely referred to...
B: Well, dadgumit, that's what the man said. Those ain't my words, those is his, TRUMP's! So unless you could prove that one of that CAUSED a depression, him snatching they's snatches wouldn't make no neverminds to me.
Democratic Strategists' Conference Call January 10, 2020
D-1: Guys, gals, Democratic peoplez, I have a theory.
Conference Call Attendees (CC): What? (unison)...
D-1: My focus group was sooo innteresting. I tried out my theory that the economy really matters to voters. And...
CC: YES! (unison)...
D-1: And that we can tie it in to one of Trump's character traits--that Trump doesn't read much-- and that he could never explain Keynesian economics understandably to voters and that Joe can! And therefore Joe would create an even stronger American economy!
CC: THAT'S IT! THAT'S IT! (unison)
D-2: Great job, Geoffrey. That's our strategy. Draw up a simple twelve-page position paper for Joe--Bullet points! Don't forget the hooks!--and we'll mail it to every voter in the country!
CC: BIDEN-KEYNES! BIDEN KEYNES! BIDEN KEYNES! (in unison).
-30-
Biden Campaign Strategy
Until recently, it wasn’t entirely clear what, if anything, worked against Trump. From the moment he announced his presidential campaign five years ago, not even the most incendiary material seemed to cause significant damage. Not calling Mexican immigrants “rapists,” not “blood coming out of her wherever,” not “grab them by the p---y” — all of which were featured by Democrats in character-based ads attacking Trump.
By Election Day, most voters didn’t find Trump honest or trustworthy, according to exit polls. But they voted for him anyway. And throughout much of his first term, including his impeachment, Democrats struggled to find an anti-Trump message that gained traction.
In their preparations for 2020, outside Democratic groups spent more than a year surveying voters in swing states by phone and online. They convened in-person focus groups and enlisted voters in swing states to keep diaries of their media consumption.
Multiple outside groups said they began to test their ads more rigorously than in 2016, using online panels to determine how likely an ad was to either change a viewer’s impression of Trump or to change how he or she planned to vote.
...
“One thing we saw in polling a lot before the coronavirus outbreak is that people didn’t think he was a strong leader or a good leader, they complained about his Twitter,” said Nick Ahamed, analytics director at Priorities USA. “But they had a hard time connecting those character flaws they saw in him with their day-to-day experience.”
Trump’s response to the coronavirus pandemic and recent protests, he said, “really made concrete for people the ways in which his leadership has direct consequences on them and their loved ones … It’s easier to make ads that talk about his leadership than before the outbreak.”
...
...the ad makers’ overarching takeaway from their research was this: While Trump may not be vulnerable on issues of character alone, as he demonstrated in 2016, he is vulnerable when character is tied to his policy record on the economy and health care.
...
Trump complained on Twitter that “the Democrats are doing totally false advertising.” But after the Democratic National Committee posted its first TV ads since 2016 — one asserting that Trump had “brought America down with him” and the other a more focused critique of his handling of China and trade — even the president acknowledged the effectiveness of the assault.
“On the campaign they’ll say such horrible things about me. It’s a very unfair business,” he said on Fox News. “But the ad [Democrats] did this morning, it’s a great ad for them.”
...
“I think Democrats have had a theory...for a while, but it really hasn’t been until the last few months when it started finally getting traction,” said Mark Putnam, the famed Democratic ad maker...“And with just the way he’s handled one crisis after another in really the worst possible way, it’s finally sinking in.”
...
[Pause. Let's think about this for a moment. Trump's character didn't matter in 2016, Trump's character didn't matter in the 2020 election cycle until the Trump Epidemic hit. Since, Trump's character has mattered when "tied to his policy." Okay Democrats, so your epiphany is that the Trump Epidemic matters? Trump's character, if NOT tied to policy, would still not have mattered. You did just say that. How much money did you spend on those hocus pocus focus groups?]
...
Yet voters still know less about Biden than Trump, according to internal polling from both parties, and there is an undercurrent of tension within the Democratic Party about how much effort to spend attacking Trump versus building Biden up.
In a study based on data from tens thousands of survey participants — and cited frequently by Democrats — researchers at the University of California, Berkeley and Yale University found earlier this month that messages about the lesser-known candidate, Biden, were more effective at persuading voters than messages about Trump.
[And that is one of the problems attributed to Hillary Clinton in 2016!]
Echoing the study’s findings, David Doak, a retired longtime Democratic strategist and ad maker, said that while “the race is being decided right now by the negativity towards Trump … what I would do if I were the Biden [campaign] is to try and fill in that favorability, to strengthen what he’s getting there and move his favorability rating up.”
Jimmy Siegel, an ad maker who worked on Clinton’s 2008 campaign and for Michael Bloomberg this cycle, said, “You need more positive Biden stuff” — what another strategist called “more Biden cowbell.”
[Throughout this article Democratic strategists with some smugness disparage the Clinton campaign's approach and say they have done much more intense focus group analysis than Clinton did. And they simply blow off the Lincoln Project's nuclear option as ineffectual and in fact counter-productive: LP in fact is driving more voters, angered by the scorched earth of LP'ads--into Trump's column, Dems say. I disagree, but I can be persuaded, although I am not yet NEAR there yet. Take them at their word, although I think their headquarters are where their hindquarters are. They say they are doing much more work on focus groups and survey research to identify the persuadable Indies and some GOP voters that Clinton did not do as well with. But they are demonstrably not following the anti-Clinton strategy. Almost every ad the Biden campaign has released is a criticism, an "attack" ad on Trump. It is political campaigning 101 that you first define your own candidate, to prevent caricature and Biden's favorability rating is, imo, lower than it should be. So, if the Biden campaign has broken with tht Clinton '16 campaign strategy then they should be following the sage advice at Berkeley and Yale, of David Doak and Jimmy Siegel, and ringing Joe's "cowbells." They have almost exclusively not done that and instead have launched C+ to B graded ads "attacking," comparing and contrasting more accurately, Trump. It seems to me imperative that they end this naval contemplation conference call and start flooding the air with gauzy pro-Biden ads only for a time.]
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/02/democrats-ads-trump-341903
By Election Day, most voters didn’t find Trump honest or trustworthy, according to exit polls. But they voted for him anyway. And throughout much of his first term, including his impeachment, Democrats struggled to find an anti-Trump message that gained traction.
In their preparations for 2020, outside Democratic groups spent more than a year surveying voters in swing states by phone and online. They convened in-person focus groups and enlisted voters in swing states to keep diaries of their media consumption.
Multiple outside groups said they began to test their ads more rigorously than in 2016, using online panels to determine how likely an ad was to either change a viewer’s impression of Trump or to change how he or she planned to vote.
...
“One thing we saw in polling a lot before the coronavirus outbreak is that people didn’t think he was a strong leader or a good leader, they complained about his Twitter,” said Nick Ahamed, analytics director at Priorities USA. “But they had a hard time connecting those character flaws they saw in him with their day-to-day experience.”
Trump’s response to the coronavirus pandemic and recent protests, he said, “really made concrete for people the ways in which his leadership has direct consequences on them and their loved ones … It’s easier to make ads that talk about his leadership than before the outbreak.”
...
...the ad makers’ overarching takeaway from their research was this: While Trump may not be vulnerable on issues of character alone, as he demonstrated in 2016, he is vulnerable when character is tied to his policy record on the economy and health care.
...
Trump complained on Twitter that “the Democrats are doing totally false advertising.” But after the Democratic National Committee posted its first TV ads since 2016 — one asserting that Trump had “brought America down with him” and the other a more focused critique of his handling of China and trade — even the president acknowledged the effectiveness of the assault.
“On the campaign they’ll say such horrible things about me. It’s a very unfair business,” he said on Fox News. “But the ad [Democrats] did this morning, it’s a great ad for them.”
...
“I think Democrats have had a theory...for a while, but it really hasn’t been until the last few months when it started finally getting traction,” said Mark Putnam, the famed Democratic ad maker...“And with just the way he’s handled one crisis after another in really the worst possible way, it’s finally sinking in.”
...
[Pause. Let's think about this for a moment. Trump's character didn't matter in 2016, Trump's character didn't matter in the 2020 election cycle until the Trump Epidemic hit. Since, Trump's character has mattered when "tied to his policy." Okay Democrats, so your epiphany is that the Trump Epidemic matters? Trump's character, if NOT tied to policy, would still not have mattered. You did just say that. How much money did you spend on those hocus pocus focus groups?]
...
Yet voters still know less about Biden than Trump, according to internal polling from both parties, and there is an undercurrent of tension within the Democratic Party about how much effort to spend attacking Trump versus building Biden up.
In a study based on data from tens thousands of survey participants — and cited frequently by Democrats — researchers at the University of California, Berkeley and Yale University found earlier this month that messages about the lesser-known candidate, Biden, were more effective at persuading voters than messages about Trump.
[And that is one of the problems attributed to Hillary Clinton in 2016!]
Echoing the study’s findings, David Doak, a retired longtime Democratic strategist and ad maker, said that while “the race is being decided right now by the negativity towards Trump … what I would do if I were the Biden [campaign] is to try and fill in that favorability, to strengthen what he’s getting there and move his favorability rating up.”
Jimmy Siegel, an ad maker who worked on Clinton’s 2008 campaign and for Michael Bloomberg this cycle, said, “You need more positive Biden stuff” — what another strategist called “more Biden cowbell.”
[Throughout this article Democratic strategists with some smugness disparage the Clinton campaign's approach and say they have done much more intense focus group analysis than Clinton did. And they simply blow off the Lincoln Project's nuclear option as ineffectual and in fact counter-productive: LP in fact is driving more voters, angered by the scorched earth of LP'ads--into Trump's column, Dems say. I disagree, but I can be persuaded, although I am not yet NEAR there yet. Take them at their word, although I think their headquarters are where their hindquarters are. They say they are doing much more work on focus groups and survey research to identify the persuadable Indies and some GOP voters that Clinton did not do as well with. But they are demonstrably not following the anti-Clinton strategy. Almost every ad the Biden campaign has released is a criticism, an "attack" ad on Trump. It is political campaigning 101 that you first define your own candidate, to prevent caricature and Biden's favorability rating is, imo, lower than it should be. So, if the Biden campaign has broken with tht Clinton '16 campaign strategy then they should be following the sage advice at Berkeley and Yale, of David Doak and Jimmy Siegel, and ringing Joe's "cowbells." They have almost exclusively not done that and instead have launched C+ to B graded ads "attacking," comparing and contrasting more accurately, Trump. It seems to me imperative that they end this naval contemplation conference call and start flooding the air with gauzy pro-Biden ads only for a time.]
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/02/democrats-ads-trump-341903
Dancing in the Graveyard
Trump has 'gone awol' as president amid coronavirus pandemic, says ex-CIA director
Leon Panetta becomes latest prominent public figure to accuse Trump of effectively surrendering to the virus and abandoning Americans to their fate
(The Guardian)
It is soo true. He feels it only as a horror to himself. It is such a personal failure, such a blight on him that he cannot deal with it, cannot even think about it. Repeated yesterday to Red Fox "It's going to disappear." I bet his aides cannot even tell him about the Trump Virus anymore. He stopped talking to Dr. Fauci! He doesn't want to hear it. He's done with Trump Virus. He held a press conference today! On the marvelous jobs report. Which was so marvelous because his early inaction on Trump Virus, which has led (so far) to the deaths of 128,439, and the sickening of over 2.7M people and killed 128,439--that is what led to the economy being shut down and tens of millions of people being without jobs and to the marvelous jobs report today that the unemployment rate is "only" 11%, "only" 8% higher than it was before he let the Trump Virus become the Trump Epidemic He's done with Trump Virus--so marvelous that he opened the country too soon and the number of new cases of Trump Virus has skyrocketed and thousands more have died, so marvelous that he will let cases go to the moon and deaths go to as high as they need to go, as long as the "recovery" is good. That is the way the dots are connected, but he takes "no responsibility;" he has the psychopath's mindset--they were excess people anyway.
Wednesday, July 01, 2020
The Great Trump Death: 128,000, Johns Hopkins
And that is a greater number dead than live in Thousand Oaks, California.
The Great Trump Death, CDC June 30 Complete
We can try this.
About the Data
This page is updated daily based on data confirmed at 4:00pm ET the day before.
Reported by Jurisdiction’s Health Department
Data on this page are reported voluntarily to CDC by each jurisdiction’s health department. CDC encourages all jurisdictions to report the most complete and accurate information that best represents the current status of the pandemic in their jurisdiction.
Number of Jurisdictions
There are currently 56 U.S.-affiliated jurisdictions reporting cases of COVID-19. This includes 50 states, District of Columbia, Guam, New York City, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S Virgin Islands. New York State’s case and death counts do not include New York City’s counts as they are separate jurisdictions.
Confirmed & Probable Counts
As of April 14, 2020, CDC case counts and death counts include both confirmed and probable cases and deaths. This change was made to reflect an interim COVID-19 position statement issued by the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists on April 5, 2020. The position statement included a case definition and made COVID-19 a nationally notifiable disease. Nationally notifiable disease cases are voluntarily reported to CDC by jurisdictions.
A confirmed case or death is defined by meeting confirmatory laboratory evidence for COVID-19.
A probable case or death is defined by one of the following:
Meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19
Meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence
Meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID19
Not all jurisdictions report confirmed and probable cases and deaths to CDC. When not available to CDC, it is noted as N/A.
Accuracy of Data
CDC does not know the exact number of COVID-19 illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths for a variety of reasons. COVID-19 can cause mild illness, symptoms might not appear immediately, there are delays in reporting and testing, not everyone who is infected gets tested or seeks medical care, and there may be differences in how jurisdictions confirm numbers.
[So...I have a question: Since "CDC does not know the exact number", why does CDC report as prominently as CDC can, that there were, as of June 30 at 4 pm exactly 2,624,873 cumulative total cases and exactly 127,299--not 127,300, not 127,298, not "over 127,000," but exactly 127,299 Deaths. Fair question? No? I'm being an asshole? Alright then.]
Changes & Fluctuations in Data
Health departments may update case data over time when they receive more complete and accurate information.
The number of new cases reported each day fluctuates. There is generally less reporting on the weekends and holidays.
[And there's no way you guys can "get" it, huh? Since it's all voluntary. Since people are less likely to volunteer on weekends and holidays because they'll be out partying. I see.]
Differences between CDC and Jurisdiction Data
If the number of cases or deaths reported by CDC is different from the number reported by jurisdiction health departments, data reported by jurisdictions should be considered the most up to date. The differences may be due to the timing of the reporting and website updates.
[Or not! Maybe we don't want to try CDC. I'm okay, you're an asshole. Thank you for your voluntary service to our country's health.]
About the Data
This page is updated daily based on data confirmed at 4:00pm ET the day before.
Reported by Jurisdiction’s Health Department
Data on this page are reported voluntarily to CDC by each jurisdiction’s health department. CDC encourages all jurisdictions to report the most complete and accurate information that best represents the current status of the pandemic in their jurisdiction.
Number of Jurisdictions
There are currently 56 U.S.-affiliated jurisdictions reporting cases of COVID-19. This includes 50 states, District of Columbia, Guam, New York City, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S Virgin Islands. New York State’s case and death counts do not include New York City’s counts as they are separate jurisdictions.
Confirmed & Probable Counts
As of April 14, 2020, CDC case counts and death counts include both confirmed and probable cases and deaths. This change was made to reflect an interim COVID-19 position statement issued by the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists on April 5, 2020. The position statement included a case definition and made COVID-19 a nationally notifiable disease. Nationally notifiable disease cases are voluntarily reported to CDC by jurisdictions.
A confirmed case or death is defined by meeting confirmatory laboratory evidence for COVID-19.
A probable case or death is defined by one of the following:
Meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19
Meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence
Meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID19
Not all jurisdictions report confirmed and probable cases and deaths to CDC. When not available to CDC, it is noted as N/A.
Accuracy of Data
CDC does not know the exact number of COVID-19 illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths for a variety of reasons. COVID-19 can cause mild illness, symptoms might not appear immediately, there are delays in reporting and testing, not everyone who is infected gets tested or seeks medical care, and there may be differences in how jurisdictions confirm numbers.
[So...I have a question: Since "CDC does not know the exact number", why does CDC report as prominently as CDC can, that there were, as of June 30 at 4 pm exactly 2,624,873 cumulative total cases and exactly 127,299--not 127,300, not 127,298, not "over 127,000," but exactly 127,299 Deaths. Fair question? No? I'm being an asshole? Alright then.]
Changes & Fluctuations in Data
Health departments may update case data over time when they receive more complete and accurate information.
The number of new cases reported each day fluctuates. There is generally less reporting on the weekends and holidays.
[And there's no way you guys can "get" it, huh? Since it's all voluntary. Since people are less likely to volunteer on weekends and holidays because they'll be out partying. I see.]
Differences between CDC and Jurisdiction Data
If the number of cases or deaths reported by CDC is different from the number reported by jurisdiction health departments, data reported by jurisdictions should be considered the most up to date. The differences may be due to the timing of the reporting and website updates.
[Or not! Maybe we don't want to try CDC. I'm okay, you're an asshole. Thank you for your voluntary service to our country's health.]
Tuesday, June 30, 2020
motherfucking cocksucking sonofa fucking bitch What the fuck is going on here?!
This morning, almost exactly 12 hrs ago, I screenshotted Hopkins' cumulative total Cases and Deaths.
This is the screenshot now:
In 12 hours the total cumulative cases of Trump Virus DECLINED by 53,628! Total Deaths declined by 2,223! Were the Resurrectionists at work in the last 12 hours?! NO explanation from Hopkins. Just as there had been no explanation for hours from WaPo on the unfathomable spike in Deaths on June 25.
When you are the source that everyone checks for these raw stats, and Johns Hopkins is the go-to site, it is completely irresponsible to post inaccurate numbers, doubling devastating to trust when impossibly the Cases and Deaths you post go DOWN, and significantly; and triply irresponsible, inexplicable, that you would not provide an explanation for the impossible. America doesn't work anymore; we can't even count, and the sources I have used, starting with Johns Hopkins and going to the New York Times and the Washington Post, are the most trusted sources for facts on anything in the entire country. And you still don't get an answer. What do you do, give up? I don't know. I don't fucking know.
This morning, almost exactly 12 hrs ago, I screenshotted Hopkins' cumulative total Cases and Deaths.
When you are the source that everyone checks for these raw stats, and Johns Hopkins is the go-to site, it is completely irresponsible to post inaccurate numbers, doubling devastating to trust when impossibly the Cases and Deaths you post go DOWN, and significantly; and triply irresponsible, inexplicable, that you would not provide an explanation for the impossible. America doesn't work anymore; we can't even count, and the sources I have used, starting with Johns Hopkins and going to the New York Times and the Washington Post, are the most trusted sources for facts on anything in the entire country. And you still don't get an answer. What do you do, give up? I don't know. I don't fucking know.
Oh! This is BRILLIANT (and the right thing to do)
Coronavirus: Joe Biden will not hold campaign rallies
(BBC)
"I'm going to follow the doc's orders - not just for me but for the country - and that means that I am not going to be holding rallies."
This is a Democratic-style political ad, this one just as effective imo as LP’s anal gangbangs: It provides subtle but crystal clear contrast with the irresponsible opponent, is empathetic, sensible, “presidential”/statesmanlike—it ticks every box on a wish list for president. As political strategy the Biden campaign is completely outclassing the Trump campaign here. They're playing some stupid video game,"Death Star," while the Biden campaign is making shrewd, smart decisions in the real world. This is a boomerang strategy. Trump's campaign has been trying to lure Biden out of the corner to fight in the middle of the ring. The Biden campaign is playing rope-a-dope with them. They will not rise to the bait. Instead, this decision throws their strategy right back at them doubly hard. It will INFURIATE Trump, who will rise to the boomeranged bait as he must, deepening the contrast in temperament between the two men, creating another shit puddle for unhinged Trump to step in. It is devastatingly effective campaign strategy on Dr Disco Donald.
YOU’RE BUGGERED! The Televised Gang Rape of Donald Trump’s Asshole: A Series
We’re only one month in. Four to go! Like the accepting sub he is, the bully-coward, the manque strongman draft dodger, the dilettante, the pastel principled cuckold Trump makes the best of his public humiliation, goes along the inevitable for he incapable of fight and all paths of flight are closed to him.
Never have I read a novel with such detail given to scene or character that I think and underline and dog-ear, sure that they are clues to plot development only to find them cul de sacs, as Kristin Labransdatter:
-Lavrans drunkenness--cul de sac.
-The church fire, come on! In her sin, while she is pregnant, the church, on a hill, struck and set aflame by lightning, Lavrans and Erlend heroically and dangerously struggling to save the church, Lavrans making the sign of the cross with his arms to hold up a wall; both injured, seemingly seriously at first, ultimately minorly, the church burned to the ground--cul de sac. (?) I'll be a sonofabitch.
-Lavrans and Erlend riding together alone back to Husaby from Lavrans' home after Erlend has delivered the news that Kristin has given birth--I am thinking confrontation, murder: cul de sac.
I am sure that I read inadvertently early on, in review or in Wikipedia, that Kristin ends up alone with her child; I don't know what happens to Erlend and the marriage but though seeing many signs of that coming, they have so far been all cul de sacs. I am more than one-third through the book and where I have left off Erlend is making like husband-of-the-year, hanging with good people, mending the estate, and Lavrans has departed for home with much love and good cheer. Through 357 pages of edging the effect on this reader is to make him hesitant to turn the page, fearful that the demon will at last jump out. That's very well done by Sigrid Undset.
Praised by the Nobel committee for its "realism" (now that's unusual.), maybe that is it. Kristin Labransdatter is true to life. In this novel, if not in some others, life is not made to fit plot. There are seldom true course-altering events in life. We all do good, we all do bad, we fuck up, we make up, "man is the sum of the things he has done and the choices he made in his life." Almost always we just get on with our lives after each high after every low. Life goes on.
I love this book, it is unusual in every way I can think from what I am used to reading, Dickens foremost.
-Lavrans drunkenness--cul de sac.
-The church fire, come on! In her sin, while she is pregnant, the church, on a hill, struck and set aflame by lightning, Lavrans and Erlend heroically and dangerously struggling to save the church, Lavrans making the sign of the cross with his arms to hold up a wall; both injured, seemingly seriously at first, ultimately minorly, the church burned to the ground--cul de sac. (?) I'll be a sonofabitch.
-Lavrans and Erlend riding together alone back to Husaby from Lavrans' home after Erlend has delivered the news that Kristin has given birth--I am thinking confrontation, murder: cul de sac.
I am sure that I read inadvertently early on, in review or in Wikipedia, that Kristin ends up alone with her child; I don't know what happens to Erlend and the marriage but though seeing many signs of that coming, they have so far been all cul de sacs. I am more than one-third through the book and where I have left off Erlend is making like husband-of-the-year, hanging with good people, mending the estate, and Lavrans has departed for home with much love and good cheer. Through 357 pages of edging the effect on this reader is to make him hesitant to turn the page, fearful that the demon will at last jump out. That's very well done by Sigrid Undset.
Praised by the Nobel committee for its "realism" (now that's unusual.), maybe that is it. Kristin Labransdatter is true to life. In this novel, if not in some others, life is not made to fit plot. There are seldom true course-altering events in life. We all do good, we all do bad, we fuck up, we make up, "man is the sum of the things he has done and the choices he made in his life." Almost always we just get on with our lives after each high after every low. Life goes on.
I love this book, it is unusual in every way I can think from what I am used to reading, Dickens foremost.
The Great Trump Death--129,545
Johns Hopkins has apparently verified the June 25 New Jersey dump of ~1,800 historical Deaths. Yesterday, June 29, the Johnnies had Trump Killing 126,000. At 11:10 this morning:
That is the more than the population of Santa Clara, California.
Monday, June 29, 2020
Trump Knew of Russian Bounties in Early 2019
Top officials in the White House were aware in early 2019 of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban for the deaths of Americans, a full year earlier than has been previously reported, according to U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the intelligence.
The assessment was included in at least one of President Donald Trump’s written daily intelligence briefings at the time, according to the officials. Then-national security adviser John Bolton also told colleagues he briefed Trump on the intelligence assessment in March 2019.
...
The AP reported Sunday that concerns about Russian bounties were also included in a second written presidential daily briefing earlier this year and that current national security adviser Robert O’Brien had discussed the matter with Trump. O’Brien denies he did so.
...
The administration’s earlier awareness of the Russian efforts raises additional questions about why Trump did not take any punitive action against Moscow for efforts that put the lives of Americans servicemembers at risk.
...
... the classified assessment of Russian bounties was the sole purpose of the meeting.
...
The National Security Council and the undersecretary of defense for intelligence did hold meetings regarding the intelligence.
...
Concerns about Russian bounties flared anew this year after members of the elite Naval Special Warfare Development Group, known to the public as SEAL Team Six, raided a Taliban outpost and recovered roughly $500,000 in U.S. currency. The funds bolstered the suspicions of the American intelligence community that the Russians had offered money to Taliban militants and other linked associations.
The White House contends the president was unaware of this development as well.
The officials told the AP that career government officials developed potential options for the White House to respond to the Russian aggression in Afghanistan, which was first reported by The New York Times. However, the Trump administration has yet to authorize any action.
The intelligence in 2019 and 2020 surrounding Russian bounties was derived
in part from debriefings of captured Taliban militants. Officials with knowledge of the matter told the AP that Taliban operatives from opposite ends of the country and from separate tribes offered similar accounts.
...
The U.S. is investigating whether any Americans died as a result of the Russian bounties. Officials are focused in particular on an April 2019 attack on an American convoy. Three U.S. Marines were killed after a car rigged with explosives detonated near their armored vehicles as they returned to Bagram Airfield, the largest U.S. military installation in Afghanistan.
...
The Defense Department identified Marine Staff Sgt. Christopher Slutman, 43, of Newark, Delaware; Sgt. Benjamin Hines, 31, of York, Pennsylvania; and Cpl. Robert Hendriks, 25, of Locust Valley, New York, as the Marines killed in April 2019...
The assessment was included in at least one of President Donald Trump’s written daily intelligence briefings at the time, according to the officials. Then-national security adviser John Bolton also told colleagues he briefed Trump on the intelligence assessment in March 2019.
...
The AP reported Sunday that concerns about Russian bounties were also included in a second written presidential daily briefing earlier this year and that current national security adviser Robert O’Brien had discussed the matter with Trump. O’Brien denies he did so.
...
The administration’s earlier awareness of the Russian efforts raises additional questions about why Trump did not take any punitive action against Moscow for efforts that put the lives of Americans servicemembers at risk.
...
... the classified assessment of Russian bounties was the sole purpose of the meeting.
...
The National Security Council and the undersecretary of defense for intelligence did hold meetings regarding the intelligence.
...
Concerns about Russian bounties flared anew this year after members of the elite Naval Special Warfare Development Group, known to the public as SEAL Team Six, raided a Taliban outpost and recovered roughly $500,000 in U.S. currency. The funds bolstered the suspicions of the American intelligence community that the Russians had offered money to Taliban militants and other linked associations.
The White House contends the president was unaware of this development as well.
The officials told the AP that career government officials developed potential options for the White House to respond to the Russian aggression in Afghanistan, which was first reported by The New York Times. However, the Trump administration has yet to authorize any action.
The intelligence in 2019 and 2020 surrounding Russian bounties was derived
in part from debriefings of captured Taliban militants. Officials with knowledge of the matter told the AP that Taliban operatives from opposite ends of the country and from separate tribes offered similar accounts.
...
The U.S. is investigating whether any Americans died as a result of the Russian bounties. Officials are focused in particular on an April 2019 attack on an American convoy. Three U.S. Marines were killed after a car rigged with explosives detonated near their armored vehicles as they returned to Bagram Airfield, the largest U.S. military installation in Afghanistan.
...
The Defense Department identified Marine Staff Sgt. Christopher Slutman, 43, of Newark, Delaware; Sgt. Benjamin Hines, 31, of York, Pennsylvania; and Cpl. Robert Hendriks, 25, of Locust Valley, New York, as the Marines killed in April 2019...
"It was like the United States had disappeared"
In hundreds of highly classified phone calls with foreign heads of state, President Donald Trump was so consistently unprepared for discussion of serious issues, so often outplayed in his conversations with powerful leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Erdogan, and so abusive to leaders of America's principal allies, that the calls helped convince some senior US officials -- including his former secretaries of state and defense, two national security advisers and his longest-serving chief of staff -- that the President himself posed a danger to the national security of the United States, according to White House and intelligence officials intimately familiar with the contents of the conversations.
The calls caused former top Trump deputies -- including national security advisers H.R. McMaster and John Bolton, Defense Secretary James Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and White House chief of staff John Kelly, as well as intelligence officials -- to conclude that the President was often "delusional," as two sources put it, in his dealings with foreign leaders...he continued to believe that he could either charm, jawbone or bully almost any foreign leader into capitulating to his will, and often pursued goals more attuned to his own agenda than what many of his senior advisers considered the national interest.
...
...the President regularly bullied and demeaned the leaders of America's principal allies, especially two women: telling Prime Minister Theresa May of the United Kingdom she was weak and lacked courage; and telling German Chancellor Angela Merkel that she was "stupid."
Trump incessantly boasted to his fellow heads of state, including Saudi Arabia's autocratic royal heir Mohammed bin Salman and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, about his own wealth, genius, "great" accomplishments as President, and the "idiocy" of his Oval Office predecessors, according to the sources.
In his conversations with both Putin and Erdogan, Trump took special delight in trashing former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama and suggested that dealing directly with him -- Trump -- would be far more fruitful than during previous administrations. "They didn't know BS," he said of Bush and Obama -- one of several derisive tropes the sources said he favored when discussing his predecessors with the Turkish and Russian leaders.
...
Like Bolton, CNN's sources said that the President seemed to continually conflate his own personal interests -- especially for purposes of re-election and revenge against perceived critics and political enemies -- with the national interest.
To protect the anonymity of those describing the calls for this report, CNN will not reveal their job titles nor quote them at length directly. More than a dozen officials either listened to the President's phone calls in real time or were provided detailed summaries and rough-text recording printouts of the calls soon after their completion, CNN's sources said. The sources were interviewed by CNN repeatedly over a four-month period extending into June.
...
One person familiar with almost all the conversations with the leaders of Russia, Turkey, Canada, Australia and western Europe described the calls cumulatively as 'abominations' so grievous to US national security interests that if members of Congress heard from witnesses to the actual conversations or read the texts and contemporaneous notes, even many senior Republican members would no longer be able to retain confidence in the President.
...
Two sources compared many of the President's conversations with foreign leaders to Trump's recent press "briefings" on the coronavirus pandemic: free form, fact-deficient stream-of-consciousness ramblings, full of fantasy and off-the-wall pronouncements based on his intuitions, guesswork, the opinions of Fox News TV hosts and social media misinformation.
In addition to Merkel and May, the sources said, Trump regularly bullied and disparaged other leaders of the western alliance during his phone conversations -- including French President Emmanuel Macron, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison -- in the same hostile and aggressive way he discussed the coronavirus with some of America's governors.
...
...his most vicious attacks, said the sources, were aimed at women heads of state. In conversations with both May and Merkel, the President demeaned and denigrated them in diatribes described as "near-sadistic" by one of the sources and confirmed by others. "Some of the things he said to Angela Merkel are just unbelievable: he called her 'stupid,' and accused her of being in the pocket of the Russians ...
The calls "are so unusual," confirmed a German official, that special measures were taken in Berlin to ensure that their contents remained secret. The official described Trump's behavior with Merkel in the calls as "very aggressive" and said that the circle of German officials involved in monitoring Merkel's calls with Trump has shrunk: "It's just a small circle of people who are involved and the reason, the main reason, is that they are indeed problematic."
Trump's conversations with May, the UK Prime Minister from 2016 to 2019, were described as "humiliating and bullying," with Trump attacking her as "a fool"...
"He'd get agitated about something with Theresa May, then he'd get nasty with her on the phone call..."
...The German official quoted above said that during Merkel's visit to the White House two years ago, Trump displayed "very questionable behavior" that "was quite aggressive ... [T]he Chancellor indeed stayed calm, and that's what she does on the phone."
Prime Minister May, in contrast, became "flustered and nervous" in her conversations with the President. "He clearly intimidated her and meant to," said one of CNN's sources.
...
The calls with Putin and Erdogan were particularly egregious in terms of Trump almost never being prepared substantively and thus leaving him susceptible to being taken advantage of in various ways...
n his phone exchanges with Putin, the sources reported, the President talked mostly about himself, frequently in over-the-top, self-aggrandizing terms: touting his "unprecedented" success in building the US economy; asserting in derisive language how much smarter and "stronger" he is than "the imbeciles" and "weaklings" who came before him in the presidency (especially Obama); reveling in his experience running the Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow, and obsequiously courting Putin's admiration and approval. Putin "just outplays" him, said a high-level administration official -- comparing the Russian leader to a chess grandmaster and Trump to an occasional player of checkers.
While Putin "destabilizes the West," said this source, the President of the United States "sits there and thinks he can build himself up enough as a businessman and tough guy that Putin will respect him." (At times, the Putin-Trump conversations sounded like "two guys in a steam bath," a source added.)
While Putin "destabilizes the West," said this source, the President of the United States "sits there and thinks he can build himself up enough as a businessman and tough guy that Putin will respect him." (At times, the Putin-Trump conversations sounded like "two guys in a steam bath," a source added.)
In numerous calls with Putin that were described to CNN, Trump left top national security aides and his chiefs of staff flabbergasted, less because of specific concessions he made than because of his manner -- inordinately solicitous of Putin's admiration and seemingly seeking his approval -- while usually ignoring substantive policy expertise and important matters on the standing bilateral agenda, including human rights; and an arms control agreement, which never got dealt with in a way that advanced shared Russian and American goals that both Putin and Trump professed to favor, CNN's sources said.
...
"He [Trump] gives away the advantage that was hard won in the Cold War," said one of the officials -- in part by "giving Putin and Russia a legitimacy they never had," the official said. "He's given Russia a lifeline --...
[This is key. Trump feels acutely the sting of illegitimacy himself. He knows if it wasn't for Putin he would never have been president. He is giving to Putin and Russia "a legitimacy they never had" and Putin is giving to Trump a legitimacy he never had.]
CNN's sources...characterized Trump's calls with heads of state in the aggregate as evidence of Trump's general "unfitness" for the presidency on grounds of temperament and incompetence...
...
...almost all of Trump's telephone conversations with Putin, Erdogan and leaders of the western alliance were supplemented and documented by extensive contemporaneous note-taking (and, often, summaries) prepared by Fiona Hill, deputy assistant to the President and senior NSC director for Europe and Russia until her resignation last year. Hill listened to most of the President's calls with Putin, Erdogan and the European leaders, according to her closed-door testimony before the House Intelligence Committee last November.
Elements of that testimony by Hill, if re-examined by Congressional investigators, might provide a detailed road-map of the President's extensively-documented conversations, the sources said. White House and intelligence officials...agreed that their contents could be devastating to the President's standing with members of the Congress of both parties -- and the public -- if revealed in great detail...
Hill — author of a definitive biography of Putin -- started to explain some of the nuances she perceived from the [first] call, according to CNN's sources — offering insight into Putin's psychology, his typical "smooth-talking" and linear approach and what the Russian leader was trying to achieve in the call. Hill was cut off by Trump, and the President continued discussing the call with Jared and Ivanka, making clear he wanted to hear the congratulatory evaluation of his daughter and her husband...
...
...Trump, standing next to the Russian President at their meeting in Helsinki, Finland, in June 2018, and [said] he "didn't see any reason why" Russia would have interfered in the 2016 presidential election..."President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today," Trump said.
[It's legitimation. That is the key.]
The source cited a conspicuously demonstrable instance in which Trump resisted asking Angela Merkel (at the UK's urging) to publicly hold Russia accountable for the so-called 'Salisbury' radioactive poisonings of a former Russian spy and his daughter, in which Putin had denied any Russian involvement despite voluminous evidence to the contrary. "It took a lot of effort" to get Trump to bring up the subject, said one source. Instead of addressing Russia's responsibility for the poisonings and holding it to international account, Trump made the focus of the call -- in personally demeaning terms -- Germany's and Merkel's supposedly deadbeat approach to allied burden-sharing. Eventually, said the sources, as urged by his NSC staff, Trump at last addressed the matter of the poisonings, almost grudgingly.
[Of course!]
"With almost every problem, all it takes [in his phone calls] is someone asking him to do something as President on behalf of the United States and he doesn't see it that way...
"...It was like the United States had disappeared. It was always 'Just me'."
[And it did. The United States of America disappeared on November 8, 2016.]
My God, Noodles, that is the best reporting you have ever done. EVER. Just tremendous job. Thank you.*9:04 p.m. ET.
*9:25 pm: After finishing I went immediately to my email and sent the link to X-2 along with this post which I styled an "executive summary" for her. After I sent it I checked my inbox and had an email from her linking to Raw Story, which I don't know what Raw Story is. I didn't realize until I clicked on Raw Story that the writer of the article was Carl Bernstein, which I do know who Carl Bernstein is. Which explains why this was the best reporting I had ever seen out of Noodles. EVER.
*9:25 pm: After finishing I went immediately to my email and sent the link to X-2 along with this post which I styled an "executive summary" for her. After I sent it I checked my inbox and had an email from her linking to Raw Story, which I don't know what Raw Story is. I didn't realize until I clicked on Raw Story that the writer of the article was Carl Bernstein, which I do know who Carl Bernstein is. Which explains why this was the best reporting I had ever seen out of Noodles. EVER.
Putin-Trump 2020
Spies and Commandos
Warned Months Ago of
Russian Bounties on U.S.
Troops
...It is believed that at least one U.S. troop death was the result of the bounties.
WASHINGTON — United States intelligence officers and Special Operations forces in Afghanistan alerted their superiors as early as January to a suspected Russian plot to pay bounties to the Taliban to kill American troops in Afghanistan, according to officials briefed on the matter. They believed at least one U.S. troop death was the result of the bounties, two of the officials said.
...
The details added to the picture of the classified intelligence assessment, which The New York Times reported Friday has been under discussion inside the Trump administration since at least March...
...
...one American official had told The Times that the report was briefed to the highest levels of the White House. Another said it was included in the President’s Daily Brief, a compendium of foreign policy and national security intelligence compiled for Mr. Trump to read.
[Kayleigh ]McEnany did not challenge The Times’s reporting on the existence of the intelligence assessment, a National Security Council interagency meeting about it in late March and the White House’s inaction...
The officials briefed on the matter said that the assessment had been treated as a closely held secret but that the administration expanded briefings about it over the last week — including sharing information about it with the British government, whose forces were among those said to have been targeted.
...
Two officials said the information about the bounty hunting was “well known” among the intelligence community in Afghanistan, including the C.I.A.’s chief of station and other top officials there, like the military commandos hunting the Taliban. The information was distributed in intelligence reports and highlighted in some of them.
The assessment was compiled and sent up the chain of command to senior military and intelligence officials, eventually landing at the highest levels of the White House. The Security Council meeting [came] in March...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/28/us/politics/russian-bounties-warnings-trump.html
The Trump Epidemic
These 7-day graphs are from the New York Times and are complete through June 28. The first one is Cases in the U.S. The second, as labeled, Deaths.
Those LP sharks have got connections. As if they need any.
https://www.mediaite.com/online/exclusive-band-of-brothers-writer-makes-anti-trump-ad-as-tribute-to-greatest-generations-sacrifices/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
https://www.mediaite.com/online/exclusive-band-of-brothers-writer-makes-anti-trump-ad-as-tribute-to-greatest-generations-sacrifices/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
