Translate

Tupac Amaru Shakur, " I'm Loosing It...We MUST Unite!"

Wednesday, September 2, 2020

Why Joe Kennedy’s Senate campaign flopped


BOSTON — The question seemed to trail him everywhere, from the day Joe Kennedy announced he’d challenge Sen. Ed Markey in the Democratic primary to the final hours of the campaign: Why are you running?

In a year of campaigning across Massachusetts, Kennedy never seemed to come up with a satisfactory answer. In the end, he simply gave up trying.

Instead, in a primary-eve speech in East Boston, the neighborhood where his famous family has its roots and where he launched his Senate bid in 2019, the 39-year-old congressman sought to dismiss the idea that his motivation for running mattered at all.

"I've spent the last weeks and months on the roads across our commonwealth in cities like Lowell, and in Chelsea and in Gloucester. In neighborhoods like East Boston," Kennedy said. "And not one person in those cities, not one, has asked me why I am running for the Senate. The only thing they ask: What can you do to make this better, and when I need you, will you be there?"

He lost every precinct in East Boston Tuesday.

Kennedy’s failure to lay out a rationale for taking on Markey wasn’t the sole cause of his defeat. Rather, it was symptomatic of a campaign that was too confident, for too long — it didn’t think the usual rules applied, or that the 74-year-old Markey had enough fight in him to fend off one of the Democratic Party’s brightest young stars.

"There was a really strong reason for running. I don't think they were ever able to articulate it. That's the problem," said political consultant Doug Rubin, who supported Kennedy. "I've always felt that the best campaigns are the ones with the right candidate at the right moment. I actually thought Joe was the right candidate for this moment, and for whatever reason, they were never able to win that argument and frame the race that way."

The outcome was a far cry from last summer, when the consensus in Massachusetts political circles was that Kennedy would be so formidable that Markey ought to retire to avoid an embarrassing defeat. Polls showed Kennedy with a double-digit lead, and the running joke was that Markey was more likely to be seen at a Starbucks in suburban Washington than a Dunkin' Donuts near his home in Malden.

Kennedy built his campaign on the promise that he would show up in Massachusetts, as opposed to his opponent, who spent too much time in Washington. The scion of the state’s iconic political dynasty would win by assembling a coalition of voters of color who didn’t always vote — similar to how Rep. Ayanna Pressley upset a veteran Massachusetts incumbent two years earlier, former Congressman Michael Capuano.

His candidacy was designed around the idea that a vote for Kennedy was an investment in his seemingly limitless political future, while Markey was already on his way out the door.

What Kennedy didn't envision was the way Markey would reinvent himself as a darling of the progressive left over the course of the year, harnessing the energy of young voters and climate activists.


Sitting on a sizable lead in the polls for much of the race, Kennedy’s campaign was reluctant to go negative on Markey. That gave the low-key incumbent, who lived in the shadow of more prominent Bay State Democrats like Elizabeth Warren and John Kerry, the chance to define himself on his own terms.

His signature look became Nike sneakers and an oversized green jacket straight out of an Urban Outfitters ad campaign. (Markey wore the sneakers with his suit when he declared victory on Tuesday night.)

More important, Markey stepped into the political vacuum created by the departures of Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders from the presidential primary. Progressives were devastated by the collapse of the two campaigns, which came just before the coronavirus pandemic hit Massachusetts, leaving a cohort of newly unemployed presidential campaign staffers and volunteers — and young high school and college activists — stuck at home with time on their hands. They turned their attention to Markey.

"Here is my #1 hot take as a newly-free Warren staffer: THE F------ CO-AUTHOR OF THE GODDAMN GREEN NEW DEAL MIGHT LOSE HIS SEAT IN THE SENATE TO A MODERATE AND YOU’RE ALL JUST SLEEPING ON IT," tweeted Emma Friend, a staffer on Warren's presidential campaign. Markey raised $57,000 off the viral post, and he hired Friend to the campaign a month later. Dozens of Markey fan accounts began to pop up on Twitter.

As young activists churned out pro-Markey memes and videos, he brought them into the fold as digital fellows. It helped that Markey won endorsements from New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, his partner on the Green New Deal, and the Sunrise Movement. The Markey campaign spent almost half a million dollars airing an ad that only featured AOC, and not Markey, in the weeks leading up to the primary.

"Markey and his campaign were very eager to fight that fight with us. We got in early, making it an issues-focused, policy-centered campaign which was mostly centered around Markey's leadership on the Green New Deal and climate crisis," said Evan Weber, co-founder of the Sunrise Movement. "We also did a lot of work to rile up young people and the youths and progressives."

As Markey's popularity grew, so did frustration within the Kennedy campaign.

In Kennedy's eyes, Markey's new image didn't square with his record, which was more in line with Joe Biden than Sanders or Warren. Kennedy often pointed to Markey's support of the 1994 crime bill and the Iraq War on the debate stage, but that didn't matter to Markey's energetic online base.

"The Markey campaign did a masterful job convincing voters Ed is someone he is not," one Democratic strategist with Massachusetts ties said after the primary results were tallied.



Kennedy advisers concede that the campaign should have gone negative earlier and defined the incumbent while his polling numbers were low. But the campaign also blamed the press and the left wing of the party for giving Markey a free pass to reinvent himself.

"This goes to show you that the left doesn't do their homework and they're easily won over by bright shiny objects," said one Kennedy ally.

For a well-liked candidate accustomed to largely flattering coverage since his election to Congress — in 2017, for example, Town and Country magazine ran a feature on the congressman under the headline: "Meet the Next President Kennedy" — the inability to shape coverage came as a surprise.

His campaign warred with the media as the spring and summer went on, perhaps most famously after the Boston Globe opted to endorse Markey.

"If you are one of the Globe's disproportionately white, well-off, well-educated readers, the past few decades have been pretty good for you. The status quo has delivered. Ed Markey has done just fine," Kennedy campaign manager Nick Clemons wrote in a memo to supporters, which roasted one prominent Globe columnist by name. "But if you are one of the hundreds of thousands of normal, working people in this Commonwealth, if you are Black or Brown, if you are an immigrant or a veteran, if you are sick or struggling or suffering — you know that business as usual isn't working."

The campaign at times seemed more interested in litigating what journalists and political observers were saying on Twitter than answering persistent questions about Kennedy's rationale for running.

The campaign was also caught flat-footed by Markey’s late attempts to do the unthinkable: Weaponize Kennedy's last name.

After the homage to his ancestors at his East Boston campaign launch, Kennedy was reluctant to talk about his famous family on the trail.

It wasn't until Markey used the Kennedy name as a political wedge in the final months of the race that the congressman leaned into the legacy. As part of an effort to frame the contest as a choice between a son of the working class and an entitled scion, Markey hammered Kennedy over reports that his father, former Rep. Joe Kennedy II, was prepared to pour money into a super PAC to help his son.

Markey's risky attack proved effective at rallying his progressive base and small-dollar donor operation. Even powerful Massachusetts House Speaker Bob DeLeo was photographed holding up a derisive T-shirt that read "Tell Ya Fatha."

DeLeo privately offered an apology to Kennedy, saying he did not realize what the shirt meant when he posed for the photo, according to five people familiar with the situation.

Kennedy unleashed his family in full in the final weeks. His grandmother Ethel Kennedy cut a video for her grandson and Vicki Kennedy, wife of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, hit the campaign trail. A pro-Kennedy super PAC sent campaign mail that featured a photo of Kennedy beside a photo of his grandfather.

But sources close to the campaign say the congressman's embrace of the family came too late. Kennedy's internal polls showed him losing traction weeks before the election, according to a person familiar with the polling data.

Kennedy had already lost his cash advantage over Markey months earlier after spending $2.4 million in television ads in the spring that failed to move the dial — a critical mistake, according to several allies. In the final months, Kennedy replaced his TV consultant.

"The definition of the Kennedy family changed for the current electorate. That's a hard thing for him to go and identify with," said Drew O'Brien, a former adviser to Kerry and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. "I've known Ed Markey, I've known Joe Kennedy for a long time. That Ed Markey could become the darling of the young Sunrise Movement and the progressive movement, it's pretty astounding. And good for him."

James Arkin contributed to this report.



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/3hTsCIb
via 400 Since 1619

Barr justifies Trump’s suggestion about sending feds to polling places


Attorney General William Barr justified President Donald Trump's suggestion of deploying federal agents to polling places, arguing that the Justice Department has historically sent agents to enforce civil rights.

Speaking with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday, Barr said he hadn't heard any requests from the White House to deploy federal agents to voting sites, but he wouldn't rule out the possibility "if there was a specific investigative danger." He added that federal agents had been sent in the past to "enforce civil rights" and "to make sure that people were not being harassed and there was no suppression of vote against African-Americans" in the past.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 allowed the attorney general to send federal observers to ensure there was no voter suppression and also that eligible Black voters were being registered without hindrance. But those observers have a drastically different mission than the federal law enforcement Trump proposed sending to polling places.

During an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace last month, Trump said he would send "sheriffs, and we're going to have law enforcement, and we're going to have, hopefully, U.S. attorneys, and we're going to have everybody and attorneys general" to weed out voters who had not registered or were out to commit fraud.

Wallace said at the time that having law enforcement at polling sites "is an old tactic that has been used, especially in the South, as a form of voter suppression, especially against minorities." Chad Wolf, the acting head of the Department of Homeland Security, said last month that he did not have the authority to send federal law enforcement to polling stations.

Throughout his extended Wednesday interview with Blitzer, Barr continued to defend himself and the president against suspicions of acting in any way that could wrongfully influence the election.

Blitzer also asked Barr about a much-anticipated report by U.S. attorney John Durham on the origins of the investigations into Trump's 2016 electoral victory. As Friday marks 60 days before Election Day, Blitzer asked Barr if he would abide by a long-standing Justice Department tradition of avoiding acts 60 days before an election that could have a significant impact on the race.

Barr said that he would follow the department's guidance that "people shouldn't do things for political reasons." But he demurred when asked if the department would release any charges related to Durham's investigation.

"Well, the 60 days is not part of the rule," Barr said. "But I said that I don't think anything we're going to do would violate our policy. It would be consistent with our policy."

Barr committed to Congress last June that the results of the investigation would not violate any Justice Department policy on political activity. But when asked at the time if he would vow to not release the report between then and Election Day, Barr responded "no."

The 60-day rule is not an official policy, and then-FBI director James Comey famously disregarded it with his Oct. 28, 2016, letter updating Congress on his investigation into then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's emails. The letter came on the cusp of Election Day, and several observers, including Clinton herself, said the letter played a major role in her defeat.


Blitzer also asked Barr about comments Trump made during a Fox Business interview where the president alleged that former President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden committed "treason" by "spying" on his campaign in the lead-up to the 2016 election. Trump added that Barr could "go down as the greatest attorney general in the history of our country, or he can go down as just an average guy. It depends on what's going to happen."

Trump's comment appeared to be an oblique reference to the Durham investigation, further complicated by the fact that Biden is now Trump's Democratic challenger.

Barr responded that neither Biden nor Obama were under investigation, and he rebuffed the notion Trump was pressuring him into using the Justice Department to attack a political foe.

"I didn't take that as launching a criminal investigation," Barr said. "We're reviewing the Russia-gate thing. And I think he's interested in the result of that."

Blitzer repeatedly asked Barr if he felt the president's remarks were appropriate, specifically claiming a former president and current candidate had committed treason.

Barr replied: "Well, treason is a legal term. I think he's using it colloquially. To commit treason, you actually have to have a state of war with a foreign enemy. But I think he feels they were involved in an injustice. And if he feels that, he can say it."



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/2ELgyKK
via 400 Since 1619

Trump seemingly encourages North Carolina residents to try to vote twice


President Donald Trump encouraged North Carolina residents to attempt to vote both via the mail and in person, seemingly urging them to commit voter fraud as a test of mail-in voting systems in a trip to the state on Wednesday.

“They are going to have to check their vote by going to the poll and voting that way because if it tabulates, then they won’t be able to do that,” he said in an interview with the Wilmington, N.C.-based WECT. “So let them send it in, and let them go vote. And if their system is as good as they say it is, then obviously they won’t be able to vote. If it isn’t tabulated, they will be able to vote. So that’s the way it is, and that’s what they should do.”

Trump was responding to a question from a reporter who noted that as many as 600,000 people could vote absentee in the state, asking if he was confident in the system.

In North Carolina state law, it is a felony for “for any person with intent to commit a fraud to register or vote at more than one precinct or more than one time, or to induce another to do so.” Voting more than once is also illegal under federal law.

Trump has repeatedly denigrated mail-in voting, saying without evidence that it is ripe for widespread fraud. Trump has repeatedly said he supports absentee voting over universal mail-in systems, where ballots are mailed to voters regardless of if they request them or not.

However Trump also said he did not like the fact that 600,000 people in the state could vote absentee, despite the fact that voters in North Carolina have to request an absentee ballot in order to get one.

“I don’t like the idea of these unsolicited votes,” he said in the interview with WECT.

The majority of states will not be mailing unsolicited ballots to voters. Five states do it as a regular course: Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Washington. Four states — California, Nevada, New Jersey and Vermont — along with the District of Columbia, plan on mailing voters ballots in response to the pandemic. Montana has left that decision up to individual counties for November.

The Trump campaign and the RNC have sued nearly every state that has tried to add universal mail-in voting for November due to the pandemic. Republicans in Montana filed suit on Wednesday, looking to block Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock’s directive that allows counties to make that determination.



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/3jGHmua
via 400 Since 1619

Cuomo: Trump would need an army with him if he walked New York City's streets


ALBANY, N.Y. — Brushing off a threat by President Donald Trump to withdraw federal funds from “anarchist” municipalities like New York City, Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York launched his harshest attack yet on his fellow Queens native, saying he is "persona non grata" in the city of his birth.

“He can’t have enough bodyguards to walk through New York City,” Cuomo said on Wednesday night. “Forget bodyguards, he better have an army if he thinks he’s going to walk down the streets in New York. ... He is persona non grata in New York City, and I think he knows that, and he'll never come back to New York, because New Yorkers will never forget how gratuitously mean he has been."

A gubernatorial spokesperson later clarified that Cuomo did not mean that the president would literally need such additional protection, but was simply illustrating how unwelcome he would be in the city.

Late last year Trump switched his official residence from Trump Tower in midtown Manhattan to Florida.

The New York Post reported on Wednesday evening that the president had signed a memo asking federal agencies to explore how they might be able to shift funds away from “cities that allow themselves to deteriorate into lawless zones.” The memo mentioned New York, Seattle, Portland, and Washington, DC.

Cuomo said that he doesn’t “believe anything will come” from that option.

Trump “is not a king,” the governor said in an evening conference call. “He thinks he’s a king but he’s not, he’s a president. And there is a Constitution and there are laws — nothing that he knows anything about — but the federal budget is appropriated by law. … The statutes contain the funding conditions and he can’t override the law. I suspect it’s more of a political statement than anything else.”

Cuomo used the opportunity to not simply make a legal argument against Trump's threat, but to assail him personally.

“Those that know him best like him least. That’s true about New York City, that’s true about his own family,” Cuomo said. “His sister, a former federal judge, is disgraced by him. What does that say about a person?"

Earlier on Wednesday, Trump called on CNN to fire Cuomo’s brother Chris over revelations that he had once been questioned about a sexual harassment accusation. In doing so, the president referred to Chris Cuomo as “Fredo,” a reference to "The Godfather" that the Cuomo family has long characterized as an anti-Italian slur.

The governor suggested that Trump has personal animus toward the city because it overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election and will presumably support Joe Biden.

“From the point of view of New York City, [Trump] has been the worst president,” Cuomo said. “President Ford said drop dead. President Trump has been actively trying to kill New York City ever since he was elected.”

“You want to do something about public safety, try doing your job,” Cuomo said. “One thousand people under your federal leadership are dying currently per day from Covid. You have the worst record on the globe in terms of leadership.”



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/32Qjn53
via 400 Since 1619

Opinion | Democrats Should Curb Their Enthusiasm for Mail-in Voting


There’s a giant scheme afoot to disenfranchise voters in November—it’s called mail-in balloting.

Mail-in voting has, like many things in our politics, taken on the aspect of tribal warfare—if President Donald Trump is vociferously against it, Democrats must be vociferously for it, and vice versa.

Absentee voting isn’t as secure as in-person voting, but there’s no evidence of widespread fraud, as Trump repeatedly alleges, sometimes in ALL CAPS. Nor is there any evidence that, at least prior to this campaign, mail-in voting has favored Democrats, as the president also believes.

Trump shouldn’t be trying to delegitimize the process, a point that journalists have often made, rightly. Yet there hasn’t been enough focus on the other side of equation: Does it make sense for Democrats to be such fervent boosters of a process that may lead to a historic number of votes cast in a presidential election not counting? Stacey Abrams, call your office.

No matter what anyone says or does, there is inevitably going to be more mail-in voting this fall, given fears of the coronavirus. States and localities should prepare as early and as best as they can. But in-person voting is superior. Only about one-hundredth of 1 percent of in-person votes are rejected, whereas rejection rates of 1 percent are common with mail-in votes, and many states exceeded that during their primaries this year.

This should be a five-alarm worry for Democrats. According to polling, almost twice as many Biden supporters as Trump supporters say they’ll vote by mail this year. According to NPR, studies show “that voters of color and young voters are more likely than others to have their ballots not count.” In another universe, if Donald Trump were urging Democrats to stay away from the polls and instead use the method much more likely to get their votes discarded, it’d be attacked as a dastardly voter-suppression scheme.

There are at least three ways that mail-in voting could contribute to a 2020 nightmare. Trump could be winning on election night, and the outcome slowly reverse over time, a dynamic that would undermine confidence in the result even if the president doesn’t scream that he’s been robbed (which he would). Delayed by the volume of mail-in ballots, states could blow past the deadline for finalizing their results, a blow to the legitimacy of the process. And if the margins in battleground states are very close again, rejected mail-in ballots could loom large and lead to protracted, high-stakes court fights that could make Florida 2000 look like a pleasant tiff between friends by comparison.

The primaries have been a mail-in balloting preview. More than a half-million ballots were rejected in the presidential primaries. Ballots are rejected for improper postmarks and signatures, and mail-in voters are also more prone to accidentally vote for more than one candidate or make other elementary errors that are caught and corrected when voting in-person. First-time mail-in voters are most likely to mess it up.

In its primaries, New York state delivered up the perfect storm of ramped-up mail-in voting, inadequate preparation and bureaucratic ineptitude. In the 12th Congressional District, more than half of the votes were absentee. It took weeks to declare a winner and the number of rejected mail ballots was roughly three times Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s 3,700-vote margin of victory over challenger Suraj Patel.

If this had happened in Georgia in a race a Republican narrowly won over a Democrat, it would be it considered a notorious offense against democracy itself.

It’s easy to see how what happened New York easily could preview a close general election. NPR notes that more than 23,000 absentee ballots were rejected in Wisconsin’s primary this year, exceeding Trump’s margin in the state back in 2016. Nearly 40,000 were rejected in Pennsylvania, where Trump won by 44,000 votes in 2016.

In light of all this, it makes sense to try to make available more options for in-person voting. If there are more opportunities for early voting people can go vote with less worry about crowds, and election officials should work to move voting outside and under tents, to the extent possible, and pursue imaginative solutions with civil society. (Old Navy, for instance, has announced they will pay their employees for serving as poll workers as election officials prepare to confront a shortage of such workers due to the pandemic).

States should allow the counting of mail-in ballots prior to Election Day to minimize any swing in the count in the days and weeks after the election. Congress should delay the date that states have to finalize their results, currently December 8. And election officials and the parties should do everything they can to educate voters about how to fill out and mail an absentee ballot—I prefer same-day, in-person voting, but if people are going to vote by mail, they should obviously do so correctly.

What should be intolerable is any attempt to change the rules after the fact, although it’s entirely conceivable that Democrats will feel compelled after November 3 to argue that the mail-in voting that they’ve done so much to promote is desperately flawed and unjust.



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/3jEpUq9
via 400 Since 1619

Black Faith

  • Who are you? - Ever since I saw the first preview of the movie, Overcomer, I wanted to see it. I was ready. Pumped. The release month was etched in my mind. When the time...
    5 years ago

Black Business

Black Fitness

Black Fashion

Black Travel

Black Notes

Interesting Black Links

Pride & Prejudice: Exploring Black LGBTQ+ Histories and Cultures

  In the rich tapestry of history, the threads of Black LGBTQ+ narratives have often been overlooked. This journey into their stories is an ...