Establishment Democrats Do Nothing; They Are Passive-- But Other Forces Are Standing Up To Trump For Real

Tweeter by Nancy Ohanian

"Trump," wrote Tony Romm and Allyson Chiu at the Washington Post yesterday, "took to Twitter early Friday to condemn Minneapolis demonstrators as 'THUGS,' threaten military intervention and suggest it could lead to 'shooting,' prompting the social-media company to take the unprecedented step of limiting the public’s ability to view his tweet. The label appended-- which Twitter also appended later to a tweet from the White House-- marks the second time in a week the tech giant has taken action in response to Trump’s controversial remarks. Trump and his allies again decried the move as censorship, promising to regulate the company a day after he signed an executive order that could open the door for the U.S. government to punish social-media sites for their handling of political speech online.

Critics immediately condemned Trump’s tweet, asserting that he was promoting violent retaliation against protesters, and Twitter took swift action. “This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence,” read a gray box that now hides Trump’s tweet from public view unless a user clicks to see it. In doing so, Twitter also prevented other users from liking the president’s tweet or sharing it without appending comment.

“We’ve taken action in the interest of preventing others from being inspired to commit violent acts, but have kept the tweet on Twitter because it is important that the public still be able to see the Tweet given its relevance to ongoing matters of public importance,” said Trenton Kennedy, a spokesman for the company.

...In an act of defiance, the White House hours later reposted a quotation of the president’s controversial comment about shootings on its account. That, too, received a label from Twitter indicating it broke company rules around glorifying violence.

...The dispute immediately exacerbated tensions between the Silicon Valley company and Trump, who tweeted later Friday morning that he had been unfairly targeted. For years, the president has maintained Twitter and other tech companies exhibit bias against conservatives, systematically limiting their posts and quietly banning right-leaning users-- a charge for which Trump has provided little evidence, and one that the industry strongly denies.

But their dispute took on greater significance on Tuesday, after Twitter bowed to years of public pressure and sought to fact check one of the presidents remarks for the first time. The company appended a link to news articles to two of Trump’s tweets about alleged election fraud, sparking fierce blowback that later led Trump to sign an executive order targeting Section 230, a portion of federal law that shields Twitter and other tech firms from most liability for the content they allow or take down. Critics say the order threatens free expression on the web, running afoul of the Constitution.

“Twitter is doing nothing about all of the lies & propaganda being put out by China or the Radical Left Democrat Party,” Trump said in a later tweet. “They have targeted Republicans, Conservatives & the President of the United States. Section 230 should be revoked by Congress. Until then, it will be regulated!"

Trump often brags his regime has thrown out more regulations than any presidential administration in history. That he has found an industry that he wants to regulate wouldn't surprise anyone who understands the way his mind works. One person who does, is Bob Lefsetz, who publishes a crucial music industry newsletter-- a must-read for everyone in the music biz. So what's Trump got to do with the music business? Nothing... but there is that free speech thing he abhors for everyone but himself. Yesterday, Lefsetz wrote that "Jack Dorsey is standing up for all of us. In other words, Trump fucked with the wrong asshole."

What was the Facebook motto? “Move fast and break things.”? The history of the internet is the techies do what they want and legacy entities challenge said change and in the middle of the argument, they lose all standing.

Happened in the music business. The record companies shut down Napster and lost half their revenue. You see the labels thought it was all about stealing, whereas it was about their flawed business model. Fans didn’t want to pay fifteen bucks for a CD with one good track. They wanted live cuts and rarities, a whole smorgasbord of music. So, Napster was shut down and KaZaA and lockers replaced it and the labels kept fighting the past, and losing all the while. Too much credit is given to the iTunes Store, that was a stopgap measure, it just allowed non-techies to pay for tracks, whereas the enlightened continued to file trade. It wasn’t until Spotify that pirates gave up (10% will never pay, Michael Eisner said that, and he was right) and revenues did a U-turn and started to climb.

You see you’ve got to give the people what they want.

So, the techies have all the power. Look at Google and Amazon, between them they own search, even Microsoft could not make inroads with Bing!

And conversation takes place and news is gathered on Twitter and Facebook and…the oldsters would prefer people consume at the trough of legacy media, i.e. print (and its apps) and TV. But youngsters have no need for physical, it’s old news, and they’re cutting the cord, they don’t even get Fox and MSNBC, never mind ABC or CBS, and if they do they don’t pay attention to them.

So, many say Trump got elected because of attention, and that to defeat him this has to be addressed. But Trump is good for legacy media businesses. Cable ratings have gone up, as have subscriptions to the New York Times. They’re not gonna crack down. They too are part of the elite and they cannot change their model. As a matter of fact, The Times bends over backwards to criticize Democrats, fearful of criticism from the right. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal op-ed pages are all right wing all the time and Fox believes there’s only one true view, fact-based or not.

So Jack Dorsey takes a stand when no one else with any power is willing to. And he’s not backing down, he’s leaning in, adding notices to more tweets, not afraid of the president.

I mean why should you be afraid of the president, he’s a paper tiger built on hype, there’s no there there.

But Pelosi and the news outlets just play the game as usual, say their hands are tied, that there’s nothing they can do.

But Jack Dorsey had enough.

Now few had a problem when Alex Jones was shut out of social media. Sure, some continued to defend his inane theories, but sympathy with the Newtown parents and…it was hard to look the other way.

But now that Twitter wants to shut down Trump…actually, not even shut him down, just establish a counterbalance…the attackers are crying foul.

This is like a cheater bitching that they’re no longer able to cheat. Even worse, they want the rules changed so they can continue to cheat.

Democrats are passive. They believe their hearts are in the right place so they don’t have to be educated on all the issues and they don’t have to play hard. But when someone challenges the whole game… That is what this is about folks. Even Trump said it himself! The fear is if everybody gets to vote, there’s no way in hell he, or any Republican, will get elected.

Meanwhile, the Democrats do nothing. They win the battle of votes, but lose the Electoral College. Meanwhile, Trump says he won the popular vote…and he’s got the biggest megaphone of them all, so his words have influence.

Zuckerberg wants out. He’s preparing for a future decades down the road. Without Instagram and WhatsApp he’d be up shit’s creek. He got caught in the crossfire hurricane of D.C. and the duplicitous little fuck is playing all nice with the establishment so he can continue to rape and pillage and hide under the pretense that he’s doing good. Come on, he’s got some secret algorithm that establishes what you can see on his site. And he charges people to be seen. And this is Mr. Neutrality who refuses to draw a line in the sand? He’s drawing lines all the time, just not in public.

Google is in a search war with Amazon, and Europe is always knocking on its door charging monopoly, its days of “Do no evil” are not only long behind it, it’s afraid of doing anything that gains more attention, for fear of being Microsofted. As for Microsoft… The browser wars were no match for the cloud storage wars. Microsoft pivoted and profited. As did the Republicans. The Democrats, they’re living in the past, telling everybody they’re enlightened as they get richer and richer and that you’ve got to support them when they’ve got no plan for rectifying the inequities pushed upon the public.

The DNC’s position is it’s a game of insiders. Only old people vote, so let’s concentrate on them and forget those who don’t cast a ballot. But the problem with this is eventually everybody gets old, and the younger generation and minorities have been screwed in a way they’ll never get over. So, when you don’t fight the big bad corporations that underpay them for gig work, when you don’t provide them health care, it’s gonna catch up with you eventually.

In politics they never throw the long ball.

In tech, if you’re not, you’re history.

So we can parse it however we want. We can add up the offenses on both sides. We can analyze the law. But not only is that irrelevant, that’s not how they do it in tech. In tech…they do what’s in their gut.

But tech is a game of musical chairs, and they’ve run out of extra seats. These are relatively mature companies without challengers. They’re their own establishment, albeit with different precepts.

So, Jack Dorsey decides to do what is right.

It’s just that simple folks. Forget the analysis. He had enough. His platform was being used to spread lies and to change our country and he decided to put his finger in the dike, he decided to take a stand when everybody else was afraid to. Furthermore, what he thinks and does matters, and the truth is in today’s world almost nobody’s opinion and action matters. You’ve got the right to say it, that does not mean anybody is listening.

So Jack Dorsey was mad as hell and wasn’t gonna take it anymore.

Trump bungled the Covid-19 response, and all the media and elected officials did was bitch, when they weren’t saying they had to be nice to Trump to get benefits. This is like an abused wife. You take it and take it and take it and…take it some more?

I don’t expect a revolution. Because people love their flat screens and smartphones too much.

Then again, the Supreme Court and the right wing said we live in a post-racial society where no voting protections are necessary and then innocent African-Americans are killed willy-nilly. Take that Tucker Carlson!

So, Fox can go off the rails because of the end of the fairness doctrine.

But now, in some bizarre twist, Trump wants reintroduction of a facsimile by fiat. Saying the left is inherently biased so he should be able to say whatever he wants whenever he wants.

Tell me where in the world this works.

And Dorsey has all the power, we’ve learned this over the past two decades, that government never understands tech and its wheels grind so slowly that by time D.C. acts, the cheese has been moved.

Sure, we can debate whether the changes Trump wants will hold up to legal scrutiny, but meanwhile, probably at least through the election, Jack Dorsey is in control of his platform, he can do what he wants, there’s nothing Donald Trump can do about it.

How does it feel to have the shoe on the other foot?

America is the story of the power of the individual. One person can move mountains, one person can make change. They’re always acting on the right side, everybody knows the truth, even Trump, but almost everybody is afraid to stand up for it. But then you’ve got Martin Luther King. And you’ve got the techies.

You hate ’em. Because they changed your life.

The media hates Dorsey and Twitter because on the platform everybody gets a voice. And you don’t need the imprimatur of the New York media business to gain a following.

Meanwhile, as per usual, the masses are clueless. They believe Twitter is a cesspool filled with bots where irrelevant people go to argue.

That’s what they want you to believe. But if it was true, why would Trump be so pissed?

And you can’t teach most oldsters to do new tricks. As in Twitter is just too complicated for them. They finally figured out Facebook, even though everybody on the other side of the hourglass has abandoned the platform.

So, for four years we heard about bad actors interfering with the 2016 election. They even made TV shows about it, the woman from Cambridge Analytica came clean. But…after all that info, there can be no change, it must be business as usual. Huh? Jack Dorsey stands up to disinformation and now Trump calls foul? Especially after disinformation helped him get elected to begin with?

Jack Dorsey is a billionaire. But he’s acting like a kid in high school, who has been picked on too often. You remember high school, where you’re all in it together. No one’s in it together anymore in America. There are the rich and powerful and the poor and weak. And there’s the smoke screen saying if you’re poor it’s your fault, there’s a job for everybody and you’re just too lazy to do it.

But that job doesn’t pay the bills and…

Who is standing up for you and me?

Certainly not Joe Biden. He’s lacking in fundraising and internet traction, he can tweet but it’s like a tree falling in the forest, no one hears it. Which is why he needs to pick the right VP. Did you see Rachel Bitecofer’s piece on this:

Why a Biden Victory Hinges on Picking the Right Running Mate.

Bitecofer called 2018 right, but she’s not part of the establishment, she hasn’t paid her dues, so the DNC ignores her.

That whole “meritocracy,” that whole business construct has been blown apart by tech.

The Republicans decided to throw over all their values and line up behind Trump, who appealed to the rich and the left out, you can’t let the Dems gain any yardage.

And the Democrats keep crying foul as the game is played, furthermore, it’s one in which there are no umpires or referees.

And then Jack Dorsey comes along and says he owns the game and this is the way it’s gonna be. Dorsey is playing Trump’s game and Trump doesn’t like it.

But I do. Because for once someone with money and power is doing what’s right as opposed to what’s expedient.

We need more of this. It’s the only way out of this mess.

The New World-- Triage, Censorship, Iziki, Social Distancing... Conservative Self Extinction

The other day, I cooked up an old side dish I used to make when I was a chef in Amsterdam in the 1970s-- carrots, daikon and iziki. Except I had no iziki in the house and used nori as a substitute. It was delicious but it wasn't the same. So the next day, I suited up with the Base Camp N-99 mask I bought for hiking in the Himalayas a couple of years ago, along with the wrap-around shades Al Jourgenson gave me, and headed out for Erewhon, the health food supermarket, across town. Observations from my excursion: construction sites are still all open and functioning, many not-even-close-to-essential shops on Melrose were still open, like furniture stores, and most depressing, the people waiting on the long line in front of Erewhon was about one tenth masked. I didn't see a single masked employee inside the store either. And the shelves were largely bare of anything worthwhile and there wasn't only no iziki, there wasn't even any nori. Plenty of fresh fruits and veggies though. I have a feeling that a significant number of people don't know how to prepare anything that isn't in a can or box.

Writing for the Wall Street Journal this weekend, Holman Jenkins had some downright dire predictions about the efficacy of social distancing and the coming great shut down. That route, he wrote "is likely no cure at all. We might hold off an expected surge in coronavirus cases for two or three weeks with the kind of extraordinarily destructive economic lockdowns seen in California, New York and elsewhere. But unless warmer weather is coming to our rescue, [a crazy idea since COVID-19 has done just fine in Thailand's 90 degree weather] Americans probably won’t accept the social devastation that would be inflicted by a five-month or 18-month campaign of virus suppression of the sort promoted, variously, by the U.K.’s Imperial College London, Germany’s Robert Koch Institute and other public-health think tanks. Mandatory social distancing might well break down. (Look for speakeasies to re-emerge in New York and other shut-in cities.) The government might well face a choice of coercion or seeing its authority collapse. I’m not being alarmist. This is a lesson the World Health Organization’s Bruce Aylward brought back from Wuhan. People with flu-like symptoms had to be isolated in dormitories, hospitals and stadiums. Asking them to self-isolate voluntarily didn’t work."

Yet on Friday, a new Gallup poll seems to have indicated a rosier picture: Americans Rapidly Answering The Call To Isolate, Prepare. Linda Saad's toplines:

• After limited early adoption, majorities now avoiding routine interactions-- good, most people will live through this
• About half have stocked up on food, medical and household supplies-- again, good; an indication most people will survive
• Republicans still lag in social distancing-- best yet, the herd thinning will result in less disgusting, worthless, stupid conservatives

Saad wrote that "In the span of a week, Americans have gone from tepid adoption of social distancing to majorities engaging in nearly every major practice advocated by government and health officials as ways to contain community spread of the novel coronavirus. But there is a long way to go to approach full compliance. Gallup polling conducted March 13-15 and March 16-19 shows the biggest increases in social distancing occurring with those avoiding public places like grocery stores and restaurants (+24 percentage points to 54% doing this) and avoiding small social gatherings (+23 points to 46%). Majorities last weekend were already avoiding traveling by airplane or mass transit and avoiding events with large crowds out of concern for coronavirus. But with 20-point jumps in these behaviors this week, more than 70% of Americans are now on board with them... The trend shows Americans are moving less quickly to stockpile essential supplies, something that could be important in the event a household is quarantined due to illness, or if groceries and other supplies were to become scarce in the coming weeks and months. Just over half of Americans, 52%, say they have stocked up on food, medical or cleaning supplies as a safeguard from coronavirus disruption, up 13 points since the first polling period... [A]bout one in five are not considering stocking up on supplies."

The first response of one of my friends was to run out and buy a shotgun. I read that gun shops have long lines.

In the earlier survey 41% of respondents "described themselves as very likely to comply if public health officials recommend everyone stay home for a month should there be a serious outbreak of coronavirus in their community" and that rose to 51% in just a week-- even before Californians, New Yorkers and Illinoisans were ordered to shelter in place. Among the rebels: 14% said they were "somewhat unlikely" to comply in the first survey and 16% said they were "very unlikely" to comply. That changed in the second survey when 11% said "somewhat unlikely" and 12% said "very unlikely."

Saad interprets that to mean that "The country is approaching universal adherence to avoidance of large crowds and travel, with more than seven in 10 adults of all age groups, all political parties and regions saying they are already eschewing these activities. More variation is seen at the level of smaller interactions, including staying away from stores and restaurants and foregoing visits with friends and family. While more Americans across the societal spectrum are taking both precautions, women, residents of the Northeast, those living in high population density areas, and Democrats are more likely to be doing so than residents living in other regions, particularly the South and Midwest, in low-density areas, and Republicans."

From survey one to survey two these were the partisan changes among the percentage of Americans reporting they are avoiding public places such as stores and restaurants (before restaurants were shut down in several states, counties and cities):

• Democrats went from 41% complying to 65% complying, an increase of 24 points
• Independents went from 27% complying to 54% complying, an increase of 27 points
• Republicans went from 21% complying to 43% complying, an increase of 22 points

And where are people least likely to comply? The South, of course. Just 48%. If I were a mathematician I would try to figure out how long it would take for Southern Republicans to make themselves extinct.

Triage is coming to American hospitals. Doctors should probably take this demographic information when they are forced to decide who lives and who... doesn't get treatment. After all, older Republican men in the South seem determined to make themselves and this around them sick. Why should hospitals forced to chose who to use scare sources on waste it on them? Women, Democrats and Independents, younger people, non-Southerners are the people who are willing to accept societal restrictions to save themselves and those around them (and the country and species). Shouldn't they be saved first? Wouldn't the world be better off with fewer old, male, selfish Republican Southerners? Hard to admit... but you know it's true. Karen Weise and Mike Baker, reporting for the NY Times:

Medical leaders in Washington State, which has the highest number of coronavirus deaths in the country, have quietly begun preparing a bleak triage strategy to determine which patients may have to be denied complete medical care in the event that the health system becomes overwhelmed by the coronavirus in the coming weeks.

Fearing a critical shortage of supplies, including the ventilators needed to help the most seriously ill patients breathe, state officials and hospital leaders held a conference call on Wednesday night to discuss the plans, according to several people involved in the talks. The triage document, still under consideration, will assess factors such as age, health and likelihood of survival in determining who will get access to full care and who will merely be provided comfort care, with the expectation that they will die.

The effort is statewide so individual doctors and hospitals will not be left to make such decisions, said Cassie Sauer, chief executive of the Washington State Hospital Association, one of the groups convening the call.

“It’s protecting the clinicians so you don’t have one person who’s kind of playing God,” she said, adding, “It is chilling, and it should not happen in America.”

Ms. Sauer stressed that several things, including more hospital beds and equipment, could reduce the need to make such decisions. “This country has resources,” she said.

The state has been urgently seeking ventilators for patients and protective masks for health care workers, including from the Strategic National Stockpile, a repository of critical medical supplies for public health emergencies. Officials have also been looking to have the U.S. Navy hospital ship Mercy, which has 80 intensive care beds, dock near Seattle to handle seriously ill patients other than those who have contracted Covid-19, the disease caused by the virus.

In the meantime, officials in King County have begun building a field hospital on a soccer field north of Seattle. One large hospital system based in the area has started making masks and face shields by hand. Hospitals have already postponed elective surgeries to preserve resources.

Dr. Chris Spitters, the interim health officer for the Snohomish Health District, where the nation’s first coronavirus case was diagnosed, was part of the group that discussed the rationing proposals this week. He said that while the crisis strategies were not something anyone wants to anticipate, it would be worse not to be ready in the event they were needed.

I saw my oncologist last week. She was distressed when she told me the hospital had been approached-- she didn't say by who-- about beginning to think about cutting off care in "the future" to elderly cancer patients. Hopefully it won't be so then can provide care to male Southern Republicans drunk on Corona beer and mumbling about the pandemic being a hoax.

A corollary: a friend of mine living in China predicted this morning that there is likely to be "domestic deployments of troops that will probably be focused on protecting hospitals and vital supplies from rogue citizens." He also called my attention to the early stages of censorship starting up-- innocently-- right now. The intensified censorship of Internet 'misinformation' (let's all keep in mind the "infallibility" of official sources) could become more permanent, with relatively small pullbacks after the pandemic burns out, because such censorship is a relatively cheap and an efficient way to perform what the National Security State sees as a core function of Internet gatekeepers."

Twitter is among the major internet companies that have stepped up to play an active role in countering “misinformation” about the risks of and response to the coronavirus, although critics fear the measures it has announced could do more harm than good.

This week, the social media platform announced that it’s taking a “wide range of actions on potentially abusive and manipulative content” related to the subject, and to that end it is broadening his definition of “harmful” content.

Content that may be removed includes “denial of global or local health authority recommendations” (such as discouraging people from engaging in “social distancing”); descriptions of “ineffective” treatment or prevention methods, “even if made in jest”; “denial of established scientific facts” from “global and local health authorities”; urging people to go out to local businesses in defiance of government mandates; statements such as “ignore news about COVID-19, it’s just an attempt to destroy capitalism by crashing the stock market”; “unverified” claims that could “incite people to action and cause widespread panic”; impersonation of official government bodies, including parody accounts; and more.

While some of these rules are fairly straightforward, the language about humorous content can be seen as overreach, particularly if it affects obvious satire or jokes that, while potentially in poor taste, are obviously not meant to be taken as real information.

Twitter’s language also could potentially cross the line from halting the spread of misinformation into stifling legitimate debate about the wisdom of government’s response as well as the true threat of the virus, a relatively new and evolving situation on which the experts themselves are not of one mind.

Per “social distancing” recommendations, Twitter is taking on this task with reduced manpower, meaning it will be increasing its reliance on “machine learning and automation” to monitor and remove objectionable content. The company acknowledges that artificial systems “can sometimes lack the context that our teams bring, and this may result in us making mistakes,” so it will not be suspending any of the accounts whose content is removed by these systems.

Twitter is part of a joint effort by tech giants including Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Microsoft, and Reddit to fight “fraud and misinformation about the virus” while “elevating authoritative content on our platforms, and sharing critical updates in coordination with government healthcare agencies around the world.”

Google’s own efforts in that regard have already produced some hiccups, such as inadvertently blocking legitimate news apps and even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control from appearing in certain searches on the Google Play store.

Bloomberg-Trump-- Same-Same

Trump and Bloomberg had a dysfunctional relationship that goes back decades-- friends, rivals, allies, enemies. The used to play golf together, although Bloomberg is still whining that Trump always cheated, something Mini-Mike has in common with everyone else who ever played golf with Trump. Bloomberg wound up with 20 or 30 times more money than Trump, so he won. He became mayor of the city they both lived in. He won. Then Trump became president and Bloomberg flipped out. He has been driven insane by his incompetent, laughable, moron-competitor beating him. So he decided to run himself. This has nothing to do with our country or our people, other than the potential to ruin everything that is America as we know it.

The two are mirror images of each other-- although Trump seems crazier... at least so far.

Tactically, they are too similar for comfort. Yesterday, I tweeted that since Trump's understanding of government doesn't go further than Louis XIV's most famous quote, "L'etat c'est moi," he has decreed that John Bolton's embarrassing new book will not be published before the election... since it could harm national security ("national security" meaning his reelection bid). Trump will stop at nothing to win since he identifies and conflates national interest with self-interest. Bloomberg is that same kind of character. What billionaire isn't? (Note: Bernie is right; there should be no billionaires.)


Yesterday, Shaun Hussain and Jeff Bercovici, writing for the L.A. Times reported that Twitter is suspending 70 pro-Bloomberg accounts, citing "platform manipulation". It's another example of two things:

1- Bloomberg's unawareness that the rules apply to him
2- Bloomberg trying to deceive voters into thinking he has grassroots support through social media manipulation

According to Hussain and Bercovici one of Bloomberg's strategies-- "deploying a large number of Twitter accounts to push out identical messages-- has backfired. On Friday, Twitter began suspending 70 accounts posting pro-Bloomberg content in a pattern that violates company rules. 'We have taken enforcement action on a group of accounts for violating our rules against platform manipulation and spam,' a Twitter spokesman said. Some of the suspensions will be permanent, while in other cases account owners will have to verify they have control of their accounts."

As part of a far-reaching social media strategy, the Bloomberg campaign has hired hundreds of temporary employees to pump out campaign messages through Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. These “deputy field organizers” receive $2,500 per month to promote the former New York mayor’s candidacy within their personal social circles, in addition to other, more conventional duties. They receive campaign-approved language that they can opt to post.

In posts reviewed by The Times, organizers often used identical text, images, links and hashtags. Many accounts used were created only in the last two months. Bloomberg officially entered the presidential race on Nov. 24.

After The Times inquired about this pattern, Twitter determined it ran afoul of its “Platform Manipulation and Spam Policy.” Laid out in September 2019 in response to the activities of Russian-sponsored troll networks in the 2016 presidential election, the policy prohibits practices such as artificially boosting engagement on tweets and using deliberately misleading profile information.

By sponsoring hundreds of new accounts that post copy-pasted content, Twitter said the campaign violated its rules against “creating multiple accounts to post duplicative content,” “posting identical or substantially similar Tweets or hashtags from multiple accounts you operate” and “coordinating with or compensating others to engage in artificial engagement or amplification, even if the people involved use only one account.”

The suspensions may sweep up accounts belonging to unpaid Bloomberg supporters or campaign volunteers. While the Bloomberg’s campaign’s practice of paying Twitter users was a factor in the suspensions, a company spokesman said accounts behaving in substantially the same manner will receive the same treatment, regardless of who controls them.

...Facebook’s response to the Bloomberg campaign’s novel social strategy has also been evolving. The social network views the campaign’s activity as falling under its rules for branded content, not the rules against “coordinated inauthentic behavior” devised largely in response to Russian election meddling.

Coincidence? Oh sure

Facebook’s rules for branded content “require disclosure of paid partnerships anytime there has been an exchange of value between a creator or publisher and a business partner.” In 2018, the company began to require more detailed disclosure for political ads to discourage state-sponsored influence operations.

The software tool created for buying political ads on Facebook did not allow for branded content campaigns by influencers. Earlier this month, after the Bloomberg campaign bypassed the tool entirely to mount a large-scale paid influencer campaign, Facebook lifted that ban.

I get between 100 and 200 spam e-mails a day and I've become adept at identifying spam and deleting it unopened. The other day I received an e-mail from the New Republic and opened it. But Bloomberg had paid them for the right to send out his propaganda to their list. Once I opened it, I found this box at the top and at the bottom of the e-mail:

The body of the e-mail purported to be a survey of "top supporters," without identifying what they were top supports of-- until read a little further and realized that Bloomberg hadn't just bought out the New Republic but also a scam-PAC called Stop Republicans, run by Harry Pascal who tries passing his operation off as "progressive." So far this cycle-- before the payoff from Bloomberg-- they had taken in $3,781,486, not a nickel of which has gone to candidates.

The "survey" was just a slick push-poll for Republican oligarch Michael Bloomberg, pretending to be a Democrat in his personal feud with Señor Trumpanzee. I bet Bloomberg could offer Trump a couple of billion dollars to dump Pence and name him his running mate with an agreement that he'd resign after the election. Do you doubt Trump would agree?

Right after the Nevada caucuses, Elizabeth Warren absolutely eviscerated Bloomberg up in Seattle in no uncertain terms. She began talking about a "threat that is coming our way. And it's a big threat-- not a tall one, but a big one." Apparently someone told her that Mini-Mike goes absolutely berserk when anyone comments on his physical stature. But she was just getting started. Watch this classic clip:

The Blue Dogs' Ideas All Suck-- Which Is Why Almost No One Follows Them On Twitter

There are 27 Blue Dogs in the House. Here's the whole list of them, organized by the number of twitter followers each one has:

• Mikie Sherrill (NJ)- 33.2K
• Charlie Crist (FL)- 32.2K
• Mike Thompson (CA)- 28.2K
• Joe Cunningham (SC)- 28.1K
• Jim Cooper (TN)- 24.8K
• Kurt Schrader (OR)- 24.5K
• Henry Cuellar (TX)- 23.5K
• Stephanie Murphy (FL)- 21K
• David Scott (GA)- 20.7K
• Sanford Bishop (GA)- 19.7K
• Brad Schneider (IL)- 19.6K
• Jim Costa (CA)- 19.4K
• Abigail Spanberger (VA)- 18.1K
• Filemon Vela (TX)- 15.6K
• Ben McAdams (UT)- 15.3K
• Dan Lipinski (IL)- 14.3K
• Tom O'Halleran (AZ)- 13.6K
• Anthony Brindisi (NY)- 11.4K
• Xochitl Torres Small (NM)- 10.4K
• Josh Gottheimer (NJ)- 9,376
• Lou Correa (CA)- 7,963
• Kendra Horn (OK)- 7,819
• Vicente Gonzalez (TX)- 4,925
• Ed Case (HI)- 2,228
• Jefferson Van Drew (NJ)- 2,138

Cheri Bustos quit the Blue Dog Coalition when she decided to seek a party leadership position. Now a less radical New Dem, in her heart she's still nothing but a filthy, mangy Blue Dog, the closest thing you can be to a Republican without switching parties.

As you can see, they don't have a large mic when it comes to communication through twitter. The most followers any of them has is New Jersey freshman Mikie Sherrill at 33.2K. All together, the 27 Blue Dogs have 428,049 followers. AOC has 4.65 million followers, Ilhan Omar has 1.12 million, Ted Lieu was 1.05 million, Rashida Tlaib has 562K.

The Blue Dogs' ideas are not popular, which is why so few people follow them on Twitter. In 2010 the Blue Dog Coalition in Congress was all but exterminated. Since then, the DCCC has worked steadily to bring them back, once again putting the House Democrats' majority and branding into very serious jeopardy. So far 7 Blue Dogs are facing serious primaries this cycle-- Dan Lipinski (IL), Tom O'Halleran (AZ), Jim Costa (CA), Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Collin Peterson (MN), Henry Cuellar (TX) and Kurt Schrader (OR). The thermometer on the right makes it easy to contribute to the campaigns of vetted progressives who are taking on Blue Dogs and fellow-travelers this cycle. There will be more as the cycle moves forward but these are the candidates we've gotten to know well enough to vouch for. It's not-- and will never be-- just a matter of getting rid of a putrid Blue Dog. It's always going to have to be about someone replacing them who is worthwhile on his or her own, just like Eva Putzova, Marie Newman, Shaniyat Chowdhury and Michael Owens have proven to be.

Almost Forgot To Tell You Who Won The Debates!

I think it was pretty obvious which candidates made a good impression and which candidates made a bad impression and which candidates made no impression at all. My own gut reaction for night one was that Elizabeth Warren cleaned up. No one came close— especially in the first half of the debate. I thought that Julian Castro made a good impression and so did de Blasio, Booker and Jay Inslee. Beto bombed. Klobuchar, Tulsi and Ryan were stiffs. Delaney was the worst. On night two, Biden bombed— as did Frackenlooper, Gillibrand and Pete. Kamala had the outstanding performance (although I was personally unimpressed) and Bernie, Bennet, Swalwell and Yang did alright. Marianne was a love it or hate it situation more than anyone else. That’s how I saw it. Now, let’s see what the viewers thought.

First a poll from Morning Consult for FiveThirtyEight. They measure each candidate’s favorably and unfavorabilty before and after.

Biden’s favorables (76.5% slipped a tiny bit to 75.6% but his unfavorables took a bit more of a hit— from 16.1% to 19.1%.

There wasn’t much movement in Bernieland but it was all good. His favorables went from 74.3% up to 76.3, so he now surpasses Biden. At the same time, his unfavorables went down a fractionally from 17.6% to 17.5%.

Elizabeth Warren had a great situation: Her favorables went from already high 63.4% to a significantly higher 71.4% and her unfavorables also dropped— from 13.5% to 12.5%.

Kamala also had a great night, with her 56.2% favorables going up to 66.9%, huge move, but in doing so, her unfavorables also rose, from 11.3% to 12.8% (worth the trade-off).

It was also a good night for Cory Booker, who vaulted over Beto and Pete. Cory’s 47.0% favorability is now 56.9%. His unfavorables went up from 13.1 to 15.0%.

McKinsey Pete broke out the full-on consultanese and many people bought it. He went from a 44.7 favorable to a 54.1%. His negatives went up though— from 9.5% to 13.3%.

Beto had slight upward movement and more significant downward movement. His 48.4% pre-debate favorability crept top to 50.8% but the unfavorable 12.5% went to 19.2%.

Julian Castro had the biggest movement of anyone— a pre-debate favorability of just 29.3% went to a more competitive 47.8%. Not everyone liked though; his unfavorability went from 9.3% to 11.7%.

Headlines like this one at CNN.com aren’t helping Biden either: Where's the beef? Biden lacks a compelling vision for America's future. “After weeks of damaging gaffes,” wrote Julian Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton, “Joe Biden delivered a lackluster performance and stumbled during his first debate with the other Democratic candidates. Although one debate does not make or break a campaign, Biden's terrible performance was enough to raise concerns among Democrats about what his campaign is all about and whether he is really the most electable candidate on the bunch. Coming out of the Miami massacre, three big questions loom large about Biden.”

• What does he stand for?
• Is he the “most electable?”
• Is Biden the right Democrat for 2020?

“The Democrat who is most electable will need to define what post-Obama Democratic politics will be about. During the debates, Harris, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Mayor Pete Buttigieg showed that they are thinking about the future of the party, not its past. In Trumpian fashion, Biden seems most centered on praising himself. He has considerable work ahead if he wants to fill out his vision of what Democratic politics will look like in years to come.”

So here’s the list of who Democratic primary voters like most and least— subtracting the negatives from the positives. (The number in parenthesis is the pre-debate number, which allows you to see , for example, that Kamala, Elizabeth Warren and Julian Castro gained a lot of ground, while Status Quo Joe and Beto lost ground).

1- Elizabeth Warren- 58.9% (49.9%)
2- Bernie- 58.8% (56.7%)
3- Biden- 56.5% (60.4%)
4- Kamala- 54.1% (44.9%)
5- Booker- 41.9% (33.9%)
6- Pete- 40.8% (35.2%)
7- Julian Castro- 36.1% (20.0%)
8- Beto- 31.6% (35.9%)
9- Klobuchar- 24.4% (19.9%)
10- Gillibrand- 23.5% (21.0%)
11-Yang- 15.0 (15.2%)
12- Inslee- 12.4% (9.1%)
13 (tie)- Tulsi- 10.6% (5.8%)
              Swalwell- 10.6% (9.8%)
15- Michael Bennet- 9.6% (8.6%)
16- Tim Ryan- 8.7% (7.7%)
17- Frackenlooper- 7.7% (7.5%)
18- Delaney- 6.7% (6.8%)
19- de Blasio- 2.4% (-2.1%)
20- Marianne- -2.3% (4.2%)

There’s another way to look at the results of the debates though— the change in the number of Twitter followers from the day before the debate to the day after the debate. That what this chart shows you. And you’ll notice that using that metric the top half dozen winners were Kamala, Julian, Pete, Yang, Marianne and Elizabeth Warren. The half dozen generating the least new Twitter followers: Delaney Beto, Swalwell, Ryan, Frackenlooper and Bennet.

America's Sweetheart... vs Schumer?

How many Twitter followers does AOC have today. Let me look... oh... 4.37 million. That's a lot. Like let's compare that to the whole Democratic and Republican House leadership teams combined. On Team Red:

• Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader)- 288K
• Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise)- 304K)
• Liz Cheney (@Liz_Cheney)- 93.8K
• Tom Emmer (@RepTomEmmer)- 12.6K
total reach- 698.4K

And Team Blue?

• Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi)- 2.59 million
• Steny Hoyer (@LeaderHoyer)- 116K
• Jim Clyburn (@WhipClyburn)- 68.8K
• Ben Ray Lujan (RepBenRayLujan)- 21.7K
• Hakeem Jeffries (RepJeffries)- 130K
• Cheri Bustos (RepCheri)- 32.3K
total reach- 2,958.8 million

So... the entire House leadership-- both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party has 3,657.2 million. That's a lot of reach, though they have some catching up to do if they ever want to have the reach AOC has. What was that again> Oh, yeah... 4.37 million-- and that's without her posse/back-up support team:

• Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN)- 1.08 million
• Rashida Tlaib (@RashidaTlaib)- 542K
• Ayanna Pressley (@AyannaPressley)- 289K

All those followers... that's a big incentive for the media to cover the 29 year old freshman from the Bronx-- far more than they cover almost any other member of Congress. During a typical week, Fox News and the Republican Party echo chamber mentions her name more than every single Democratic House member-- not counting Speaker Pelosi-- combined. Eliot Engel has represented parts of the Bronx in Congress since 1989-- a year before AOC was born. Currently he's the Chairman of the powerful House Foreign Affairs Committee. Other than political junkies and Likud-sympathizers, how many people have even heard of him? Anther Bronx member of Congress, José Serrano, one of Congress' most far left members and the longest-serving Hispanic-American in the House, has been in office-- first in the Assembly and then, the year AOC was born, in Congress-- since 1983 and how many people outside of political circles have ever heard of him?

This week the media has been abuzz about how AOC "could" run against Chuck Schumer or Kirsten Gillibrand for Senate-- when she's old enough to be a senator.

[T]he possibility of Ocasio-Cortez taking on Schumer or Gillibrand raises the question: How would she fare in a statewide race? The Democratic representative handily defeated Crowley in 2018, which was the most difficult part. The Republican  she faced in the general election, economics professor Anthony Pappas, ran a very flawed campaign-- and she received 78 percent of the vote, while Pappas received only 13 percent.

So far, Ocasio-Cortez has only run for office in her district, where she’s quite popular. The question now is: How would she fare in a statewide race against Schumer or Gillibrand that requires competing not only in Queens and the Bronx, but also, everywhere from Buffalo to Syracuse to Albany? And if she did manage to defeat Schumer or Gillibrand in a Democratic primary, how would she fare against a Republican statewide in the general election?

Most New York voters vote for a "D" or for an "R," regardless of who the candidate is. No one gives a crap about Kirsten Gillibrand-- if they did she wouldn't be polling so horribly in New York-- but "she" still managed to beat generic Republican Chele Farley last year 4,056,931 (67%) to 1,998,220 (33%). Evan a hated, positively loathed Democratic crook like Andrew Cuomo managed to win convincingly against generic Republican Marc Molinaro-- 3,635,340 (59.6%) to 2,207,602 (36.2%).

Schumer is up for reelection in 2022. AOC will be old enough to run. Last time he ran, he didn't have a primary opponent. In the general he faced a random Republican sacrificial lamb and beat him 70.4% to 27.4%, taking 55 of New York's 62 counties. Schumer's job approval among New York voters is just 47% and his disapproval is 34%. 19% of New York voters say they either don't know who he is or have no opinion one way or the other. Compare that with Bernie Sanders, of whom 64% of Vermont voters say they approve (as opposed to just 28% who don't).

I got off on a bit of a tangent there. I wanted to mention how the media covers AOC, even when there's no real news story. Yesterday at sunrise, the L.A. Times ran with a story by Janet Hook, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Dangles 2020 Endorsement: Bernie Sanders Or Elizabeth Warren? It's a silly story but... click bait, that even manages to include something about Warren and Ocasio-Cortez making a passing reference to the finale of Game of Thrones. "Warren fans," wrote Hooks, "wonder whether-- and hope that-- Ocasio-Cortez may eventually endorse the Massachusetts senator in her bid for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. But the freshman House member, a superstar of the progressive movement, has more history with Warren’s leading rival for progressive votes in the 2020 Democratic primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. They too have teamed up on many legislative and political matters. Many Democrats find it hard to imagine Ocasio-Cortez will not eventually back Sanders, as she did in 2016. The fact that a 29-year-old freshman House member is being sought out by two presidential candidates with years of congressional seniority who are more than twice her age speaks volumes about the state of the the Democratic Party and the dynamics of its primary process."

That's news? Does this make it newsier? "I would argue that she is one of the most important endorsements in the Democratic Party right now," said Rebecca Katz, a strategist who used to work for former Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). "She has a huge reach beyond any other member of Congress. She knows how to use her voice." How about this? "One candidate she almost surely will not endorse in the early primaries is Biden. He 'does not particularly animate me,' she said in an interview earlier this spring with the Yahoo News podcast Skullduggery... She called for former Rep. John Delaney of Maryland to end his long-shot presidential bid after he was booed at the California Democratic Party convention for saying Medicare for all was bad politics and policy."

A UK magazine, Stylist covered AOC yesterday in their "People" section with an essay by Hannah-Rose Yee, From Trump Takedowns To Epic Clapbacks: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Best Twitter Moments. Talk about click-bait! Even in Europe! "How do we love thee, AOC," starts Yee. "Let us count the ways." She's "one of the most exciting, inspiring figures in politics today. She’s a fearless warrior for equality, sustainability and progress. She refuses to be boxed in by the institutionalised misogyny of certain circles of American politics. And she continues to use her voice to speak up for those who can’t. She’s also using social media in a way rarely seen before in politics. For a digital native, Twitter and Instagram come easily to AOC, who is as at home delivering a blistering speech on the Congress floor as she is hosting an Instagram live about her skincare routine or a recipe for one-pot noodles."

Here are Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s best Twitter moments:

When she perfectly clapped back to the person who called her the "Donald Trump" of the Democratic Party

When she hit back at men who like to question her intelligence (and savagely burned Trump)

When she perfectly summed up why it’s important to elect a diverse range of politicians

When she kept the receipts of the man who tried to fashion-shame her

When she corrected critics who tried to call her a diversity hire

When she called out Republicans for spending their time fact-checking her instead of engaging in open debate

When she reminded everyone how hard it is to be a person of colour and a woman in politics

When she encapsulated the ridiculousness of people being afraid of her political platform

When she equated trolling to catcalling

When she reminded everyone that anything is possible

When she called out the very system that she is a part of

When she wouldn’t let her critics attack her just because she likes to dance

When she called out people who continue to mispronounce her name

When she summed up why she’s so good at clapbacks