Marco Rubio is mad as hell, and he’s not going to take it anymore.
Last night, in a Tweetstorm for the ages, the Florida Senator let loose a torrent of frustrations about what has been the most absurd election cycle in recent memory. And can you blame him?
It’s been a rough year for Rubio. Once thought to be the Republican party’s great hope, instead he spent this election cycle being repeatedly ridiculed for his height, his urge to stay well hydrated, his possibly overactive sweat glands, and more. He not only lost his home state of Florida, but he opted not to run for re-election to the Senate.
With the exception of his Marcorobot meltdown during the New Hampshire debate, the young Senator mostly retained his composure. But with just months left until he’s a private citizen again, Rubio is taking a note straight from the Donald Trump playbook, and telling it like it is on Twitter.
The flint to Rubio’s fire last night seemed to have been a Washington Post article alleging that he is “betwixt and between” on his next move.
Funny to read about unnamed “people close” to me who claim to know my thinking on future plans.They just make it up. https://t.co/jiEYMugVHz
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) May 17, 2016
Unnamed sources “close to” often just people who want to sound like they are in the know. And reporters desperate for content just accept it
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) May 17, 2016
Flashback to another article quoting a “longtime friend” saying I “hate” Senate. Words I have NEVER said to anyone. https://t.co/VZ9J7wznsZ
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) May 17, 2016
Then Rubio really upped the attitude:
Another genius line claims that Im “a bit at sea in terms of his next step politically”. Ummmm Not really. https://t.co/jiEYMugVHz
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) May 17, 2016
I have only said like 10000 times I will be a private citizen in January.
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) May 17, 2016
As for future in politics, well it’s nearly impossible for someone not in office to ever become a successful candidate for President.Right?
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) May 17, 2016
A source “close to Rubio” says he was tired after long day & has decided to sleep for a few hours before tomorrow’s ZIKA debate in Senate.
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) May 17, 2016
Go on Senator, let it out:
A “longtime friend” says Rubio is “betwixt and between when it comes to whether to chest or legs tomorrow at gym.”
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) May 17, 2016
According to source who knows his cousins, wife’s dentist, Rubio could do cardio instead.
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) May 17, 2016
Ok that’s enough for one night. Twitter isn’t something you should just rush back into. You have to slowly increase the dosage…….
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) May 17, 2016
Let’s dispel with this fiction that Marco Rubio doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing—and we kind of love it.
Peter Thiel.VCG/Getty Images
Billionaire investor and Facebook board member Peter Thiel has never shied away from contrarian ideas. He thinks kids should drop out of college to launch a startup. He’s backed efforts to build floating cities in international waters.
But in the liberal bastion that is San Francisco, Thiel’s latest move may be the most daring yet: Thiel is going to be a California delegate for Donald Trump.
On Monday, Trump filed his slate of delegates for California, and right there on the list for Trump’s 12th Congressional District picks is Peter Thiel.
That Thiel would support any Republican candidate is not all that surprising. In 2012, he was a major backer for Ron Paul, and last summer, he donated $2 million to Carly Fiorina’s Super PAC. In the techtopia of Silicon Valley, Thiel is certainly not alone in his libertarian beliefs.
And yet, Trump is a different kind of candidate. He has become a particularly divisive figure among tech elites, particularly for his stance on immigration. In recent years, tech leaders like Mark Zuckerberg have emerged as some of the most outspoken advocates and lobbyists for immigration reform. During Facebook’s recent F8 conference, Zuckerberg alluded to Trump, saying, “I hear fearful voices calling for building walls. Instead of building walls, we can help people build bridges.”
Trump has proposed other policies that would likely shock Silicon Valley’s system, too, like his insistence that Apple start to manufacture its iPhones in the United States. Presumably, that would apply to other tech manufacturers, as well. And that goes without mentioning the many times Trump has said he’s in favor of “closing that internet up” — whatever that means.
Thiel is a Facebook investor, but Zuckerberg likely won’t be the only founder in Thiel’s portfolio whose political leanings differ from his own.
Thiel may also find himself a lonely voice in the investment community. John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins is a well-known Hillary Clinton supporter. So is Laurene Powell Jobs, wife of the late Steve Jobs. And while Marc Andreessen has given to both Republicans and Democrats over the years, the night Trump effectively won the Republican nomination, he tweeted the following Clinton pledge:
#ImWithHer
— Marc Andreessen (@pmarca) May 4, 2016
Then there are Thiel’s PayPal co-founders, Max Levchin and Elon Musk. Levchin has been an outspoken advocate for LGBT rights in recent years, and Musk has already donated to Clinton this cycle.
And yet, while these tech leaders grapple with who to support and whether to do it publicly, there’s a whole other conversation going on about the actual tech platforms Silicon Valley creates. As the rest of the country—particularly young voters—increasingly get their news from the very platforms these leaders run, it’s raising tough questions about just how unbiased these platforms have to be.
Just this week, news reports began swirling about Facebook artificially suppressing conservative news on its trending news tabs. Republican National Committee chairman Reince Preibus quickly seized on that, launching a website that demands Facebook answer for this bias.
Facebook must answer for conservative censorship #MakeThisTrend https://t.co/G1cpg1j5Pa pic.twitter.com/4tUA0FZbDf
— Reince Priebus (@Reince) May 9, 2016
Having one Trump-supporting board member won’t wash this problem away for Facebook, but least where Thiel’s concerned, it’s clear where he stands.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Donald Trump’s plan to kick 11 million undocumented immigrants out of the United States over the course of two years sounds impractical. How impractical?
Well, for starters, it would eviscerate the economy and reduce the country’s GDP by hundreds of billions of dollars. So: pretty impractical!
That’s the conclusion of a report released today by the center-right think tank American Action Forum, which quantified just how much labor and productivity would be lost if Trump’s plans became reality. The group’s conclusions are terrifying—and they’re supposed to be. This week, Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, leaving #NeverTrump moderate GOPers with the unenviable task of convincing their more conservative colleagues that a Trump presidency would be a disaster for their own pro-business agenda.
Relying on data rather than morality, the AAF paints a picture of a dystopian future under President Trump in which deported immigrants would leave a gaping hole in the American economy—a hole that not even the sum total of unemployed lawful US residents would be able to fill.
In 2012, roughly 6.8 million workers in the US were undocumented, according to some estimates. The report breaks that figure down by industry and compares the results to Bureau of Labor Statistics data to arrive at a best guess of how many jobs those industries would have to fill with lawful residents to fill the gap. Even if every single unemployed lawful resident filled the jobs left by undocumented immigrants, the report found, the economy would still lose a net total of 4 million workers. That loss of labor equals a productivity decrease of $381.5 billion. Industries like agriculture and construction would be hit hardest, but even the tech industry would stand to lose nearly $21 billion.
Then there’s the massive amount of money the federal government would have to spend to actually arrest and transport 11.3 million people out of the country in two years. The report estimates the forced deportations would require roughly 85,000 new apprehension workers; about 48,000 more immigration detention personnel; 31,000 new federal immigration attorneys; and about 1,250 more immigration courts. That’s in addition to more than 300,000 new detention beds; about 17,000 chartered flights; and nearly 31,000 bus trips each year.
So yeah, not so much making America great again as making America super-broke. As both Hillary Clinton and the #NeverTrump set begin looking ahead to the general election, the implausibility of all this will, no doubt, emerge as a frequent talking point. And yet, if primary season has taught us anything, it’s that fact-checking and number-crunching hasn’t worked so far to bring Trump down.
Call it Black Tuesday for the world’s bookies. Today, Leicester City, a UK football club given 5000-to-1 odds to win the Premier League, clinched the title. And Donald Trump is going to be the Republican Party’s nominee for president.
At least, the odds are heavily in his favor. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Trump’s last remaining serious rival in the race, suspended his campaign tonight after losing resoundingly to Trump in Indiana’s primary. The state was widely considered Cruz’s last stand, and his campaign poured resources into winning over the state’s conservatives.
But it wasn’t enough.
“From the beginning, I’ve said that I would continue on as long as there was a viable path to victory,” Cruz told supporters. “Tonight I’m sorry to say it appears that path has been foreclosed.”
Cruz was mathematically eliminated from clinching the GOP nomination after Trump steamrolled through five Northeastern primaries late last month. Cruz supporters held out a slim hope that he could still keep Trump from scoring the 1,237 pledged delegates he needs to secure the nomination, leading to a contested convention. Had Cruz stayed in after tonight, he could have tried to pull out an upset in delegate-rich California. But the latest polls had Trump up in the Golden State with more than twice the support of Cruz.
With Cruz out, the GOP establishment—which has not been shy about expressing its loathing for Cruz or Trump—is faced with a choice. The #NeverTrump movement claimed to stand on principle in its opposition to the upstart real estate mogul. But Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus didn’t wait long to try to get a new hashtag trending.
.@realDonaldTrump will be presumptive @GOP nominee, we all need to unite and focus on defeating @HillaryClinton #NeverClinton
— Reince Priebus (@Reince) May 4, 2016
In a campaign season this ugly, bringing the GOP back together will probably take more than a tweet.
Donald Trump’s latest visit to California was met with an hours-long protest in front of the Hyatt Regency hotel in Burlingame, twenty minutes south of San Francisco, the site of the state Republican Convention.
More than a hundred rowdy protesters blocked the entrance to the hotel, where Trump was scheduled to give a speech to conservative activists. They beat on drums, danced, chanted. They wore full-body costumes, including masks or bandannas, and brandished Donald Trump mascots. They waved signs. They wrapped themselves in Mexican flags.
pic.twitter.com/cw4TjzCf47
— Davey Alba (@daveyalba) April 29, 2016
Naturally, the press was there to cover the show too, mingling with protesters in one of the most progressive pockets of the nation. And in 2016, that means not just the full-on local news crews with 3-pound video cameras. Among the livid crowd shouting “No hate in our state!” and “Donald Trump, get out of the bay—immigrant rights are here to stay,” were BuzzFeed reporters, using a phone to broadcast the protest to Facebook Live. They kept it up for nearly two hours, garnering thousands of reactions and hundreds of shares.
The San Francisco protest was quite the scene, but not a new one. Such is the state of the national election today: Old and new media fully coexist and cross boundaries. No cable? No matter. It’s likely your feeds are clogged with all this live content anyway. Even a USA Today reporter used her phone to Periscope—in between taking notes for a newspaper story.
I Snapchatted the topless protestors and those that set fire to a Trump piñata. I tweeted prolifically. For extra info, I obsessively checked social media.
LIVE on #Periscope: Trump protest in San Francisco https://t.co/LFO59vf2n4 — WIRED (@WIRED) April 29, 2016
From the looks of it, that’s what everyone around me was doing, too. When social media informed the crowd Trump had snuck into the hotel through the back, protestors migrated to try to block his exit. (He seemed to evade them, though.) And they stayed hours after his noon speech, continuing to shout their protests.
WATCH: @realDonaldTrump goes to back entrance at CA rally to dodge crowd of protesters. @ShepNewsTeam pic.twitter.com/EK40nzON1L — FoxNewsInsider (@FoxNewsInsider) April 29, 2016
Around half past two, when the police finally told the throng to disperse, they reluctantly did so, but not before one protester, standing on a barricade, yelled triumphantly through a megaphone: “Trump had to come through the back, but we’re leaving in the front.”
Donald Trump doesn’t show sympathy for many people—unless, of course, he’s ending a bitterly critical tweet with an ironic “Sad!” (See, for instance, “Lyin’ Ted and Kasich are mathematically dead and totally desperate. Their donors & special interest groups are not happy with them. Sad!”)
But lately the Republican frontrunner has been expressing what appears to be true compassion for Senator Bernie Sanders. The latest example is a tweet urging Sanders to go rogue and run as an independent:
Bernie Sanders has been treated terribly by the Democrats—both with delegates & otherwise. He should show them, and run as an Independent!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 26, 2016
It’s not the first time Trump has made such comments about Sanders’ relationship to the Democratic Party. Just last week, during his victory speech after sweeping the New York primary, Trump cast Sanders as a victim of the “rigged system” in politics. “By the way, I am no fan of Bernie,” Trump said, “but I’ve seen Bernie win, win, win, and then I watch and they say he has no chance of winning.”
Of course, Trump’s statement ignores the fact that Hillary Clinton has amassed millions more votes than Sanders, despite Sanders’ winning streak in late March and early April.
Trump may seem an unlikely ally for Sanders. After all, they appear to stand at polar opposite ends of the political spectrum. Where Trump plans to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, Sanders supports a path to citizenship. While Trump has claimed the concept of climate change was fabricated by the Chinese, Sanders has called climate change the greatest national security threat of our time.
Despite those differences, however, both candidates embody the populism that has radically altered this election cycle. Everyday Americans, far removed from the political elite, are now driving the national conversation, and their disdain for “the system,” however they define it, has created an unlikely overlap between Trump and Sanders supporters.
Sanders’ campaign manager Jeff Weaver, for his part, sent a fundraising email to supporters today, asserting that the Clinton camp is going out of its way to align Sanders and Trump in the public eye. In the email, Weaver reminds supporters that “there is one candidate in this race Donald Trump said would make a ‘great president,’” referring to a 2008 blog post Trump wrote about Clinton.
While Trump’s empathy may be completely unwanted as far as Sanders is concerned, it’s in Trump’s best interest to continue laying it on thick. As a Clinton nomination grows ever more likely, it seems Trump is angling to absorb at least some of Sanders’ impassioned supporter base in the remaining primaries. And of course, a third-party run by Sanders could peel off votes from Clinton in the general election. Trump may appear to be backing Sanders, but really it’s still ultimately about so much winning.
Hillary Clinton is sending two campaign advisors to Puerto Rico this weekend to investigate the spread of the Zika virus on the island.
The US territory is now one of more than 40 countries and territories where the virus is active, according to the CDC. Clinton’s goal, according to a statement, is to research ways to stop Zika’s spread and to help the Puerto Rican population cope.
“I want to be sure that we are truly doing all we can to fight the Zika virus from spreading,” Clinton said in a statement. “That’s why I’m sending two of my senior advisors to travel to Puerto Rico on a fact-finding mission to learn more about how Zika is impacting the island, and to determine what more we can do to assist Puerto Rico in responding to this health crisis. Zika is an urgent problem and we need to act now.”
Clinton is not the only candidate paying attention to this crisis. Last month, fellow presidential candidate Bernie Sanders joined 22 Democratic senators in calling for Congress to approve $1.9 billion in spending to fight Zika. That request has been less than effective, however, as Congressional Republicans continue to hold up the emergency spending. In the face of their inaction, President Obama was forced to move $600 million in money earmarked for Ebola response toward Zika instead.
Both candidates have also spoken out about Puerto Rico’s ongoing debt crisis and urged Congress to pass a bill that would help relieve that burden by giving Puerto Rico the same Chapter 9 bankruptcy protections that US municipalities already have.
“We’re not talking about a bailout, we’re talking about a fair shot at success,” Clinton said in a statement.
“We cannot allow Puerto Rico’s budget to be balanced on the backs of the most vulnerable people—working families, veterans, the elderly, children and the poor,” Sanders said. “It is not only morally wrong, it is also economically unsustainable.”
The economic problems in Puerto Rico are not completely unrelated to the Zika outbreak there, either, as experts have pointed out that it is lower-income communities that are more at risk for the disease, due to poor sanitation and fewer resources to pay for protective measures such as window screens.
Of course, both candidates have political reasons to pay closer attention to Puerto Rico: the Democratic primary there is June 5. While Clinton is leading in pledged delegates and raw votes, and looks poised to win today’s primary in New York state, Sanders has promised to continue campaigning all the way through to the convention in July, meaning even late races like Puerto Rico—and, in particular, California on June 7—will be contested.
Regardless of whether it’s for political reasons, however, it’s important that both candidates are talking about Zika on the national stage. Already, a majority of US states have had at least one reported case of the virus, which the CDC has confirmed causes birth defects in the brain. Notably, these US cases were not transmitted locally within the US, but were travel-related.
In Puerto Rico, however, the virus is actively being transmitted, and health officials expect that as the summer warms, cities in the southern US where certain mosquito types are present will very likely see outbreaks, as well. Figuring out a way to stop the spread of the virus and deal with outbreaks as they arise will, no doubt, be a crucial task of the next administration.
During a speech this morning at the Vatican, Senator Bernie Sanders advocated for an end to income inequality in America, condemned Wall Street for contributing to that inequality, and called for “a truly moral economy.”
It was, in other words, the same stump speech from a different stump. That is, if you can call the walled palatial grounds of Vatican City a stump.
Sanders was the only presidential candidate invited to a conference at the Vatican today, which was hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. According to The New York Times, Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, the academy’s chancellor, said Sanders was invited because he is “the candidate who cites the pope the most in his campaign.”
The conference marks the 25th anniversary of Pope John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus encyclical, which called for social and economic justice at the end of the Cold War. In that encyclical, the Pope spoke out against the “illicit exploitation, speculation, or the breaking of solidarity among working people” in pursuit of profit. That made the conference fertile ground for Sanders to discuss his core campaign issues, including income inequality and corporate greed.
But while Sanders is often challenged to explain the mechanics of his plans to decrease income inequality in the United States, the speech at the Vatican was a rare chance to lay out a purely moral argument for doing so.
“The issue of wealth and income inequality is the great economic issue of our time, the great political issue of our time, and the great moral issue of our time,” he said. “It is an issue that we must confront in my nation and across the world.”
Though Pope Francis wasn’t in attendance at the conference, Sanders invoked the Pope’s speeches and writings, showcasing the similarities between himself and Pope Francis.
“As Pope Francis has stated: ‘Man is not in charge today, money is in charge, money rules,’” Sanders said. “And the Pope has also stated: ‘We have created new idols. The worship of the golden calf of old has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly humane goal.’”
Over the last few weeks, as he’s campaigned in New York City, Sanders has made much the same argument about companies like Verizon and GE, which he says are putting profits before people by offshoring jobs at the expense of American workers.
Though Sanders is often quick to mention Hillary Clinton’s ties to Wall Street whenever the subject of the financial system comes up, at the Vatican, he curtailed such blatantly political rhetoric. Still, Clinton’s criticisms about what she perceives to be the impracticality of some of Sanders’ proposals were there in the Vatican speech, however subtly.
“I am told time and time again by the rich and powerful, and the mainstream media that represent them, that we should be ‘practical,’ that we should accept the status quo,” Sanders said. “Yet Pope Francis himself is surely the world’s greatest demonstration against such a surrender to despair and cynicism. He has opened the eyes of the world once again to the claims of mercy, justice and the possibilities of a better world.”
You can find Sanders’ full remarks here.
During the 2000 race between Al Gore and George W. Bush, the question of the day was: who would you rather have a beer with? In 2016 primary season, it’s: who would you rather rent your home to on Airbnb?
And the answer, according to a new survey of 2,000 people by Airbnb and Harris Poll is Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Twenty-four percent of respondents would prefer to have Clinton in their home. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders tied for second place with 20 percent of the votes. The least popular choices were Ted Cruz and John Kasich, who each got 8 percent of the vote. Ouch.
According to Chris Lehane, Airbnb’s head of global policy, the home-sharing company conducted this survey because it believes it’s a kind of short-hand for assessing a candidate’s likability.
“That type of response sort of goes to some of those deeper issues about who people want to have in their living rooms in the next four to eight years,” he said on a press call this morning. “The vote for the president is a very personal vote.”
Plus, it’s just a fun thought experiment.
While more people expect Clinton to be a better guest (c’mon, you know she’d leave your place spotless), if the tables were turned and they were looking to be guests in a candidate’s home, more would want to rent out Trump’s digs. On that question, Trump got 30 percent of the vote. And can you blame them? He’s a real-estate mogul known for his lavish dwellings. The guy is worth—well, we don’t know how much exactly, but it’s a lot.
Interestingly enough, liberals were more likely to say Trump would be a better host. But conservatives were more interested in raiding Clinton’s fridge. The one thing both ideologies agreed on, though, was that Clinton would probably have the best food. (Let’s hear it for the long grasp of gender stereotypes!)
The poll asked more serious questions, too, like whether people thought having a candidate in their homes would help candidates better relate to the middle class; 72 percent said it would.
It may sound like a crazy idea, but Lehane says it’s not actually unheard of. When Lehane was Vice President Al Gore’s press secretary, he said, Gore used to travel the country, staying in people’s homes and, sometimes, even accompanying them to work.
“What this poll shows is there would be tremendous value for the voter and for the candidate to spend some time with each other,” Lehane said.
It’s hard to account for the fact that Trump scores so highly in this poll, despite having an unfavorable rating of nearly 65 percent.
It’s just as hard to understand how Clinton, who has a persistent likability problem, ended up on top. All we can say is these results are far from scientific. Plus, there’s the fact that Lehane used to work in the Clinton White House, so take it all with a grain of salt.
Cruz and Kasich’s weak showing, on the other hand, isn’t all that surprising. Their scores roughly mirror their campaigns.
Besides, a bed made out of hundreds of cans of Chunky soup doesn’t sound very comfortable.
1Correction 3:38 PM EST 4/14/16: This story has been updated to reflect that the poll was conducted with 2,000 Americans, not just Airbnb members.
Back in 2011, Bernie Sanders told the Senate that Panama was “a world leader when it comes to allowing large corporations and wealthy Americans to evade US taxes.”
This week, those words are sounding eerily prophetic, and the Sanders campaign, for one, would like to remind you of that fact.
As the world reels from the so-called Panama Papers leak, which exposed the offshore tax havens of world leaders from Russia’s Vladimir Putin to Icelandic Prime Minister Davíð Gunnlaugsson, Sanders is calling attention to his opposition to the 2011 Panama Trade Agreement.
“I was opposed to the Panama Free Trade Agreement from day one,” Sanders said in a statement today. “I wish I had been proven wrong about this, but it has now come to light that the extent of Panama’s tax avoidance scams is even worse than I had feared.”
As president, Sanders says he would terminate the agreement within his first six months in office and “conduct an immediate investigation into US banks, corporations, and wealthy individuals who have been stashing their cash in Panama to avoid taxes.”
So far, news on Americans implicated in the Panama Papers scandal has been scarce, though early reports show that 211 names included in the leak correspond to US addresses. Still, given just how much data was leaked—a whopping 2.6 terabytes—it will likely be a while until the journalists involved in the investigation can sort through it all.
Bad Deals
The Panama Papers scandal fits nicely into the story Sanders has already been telling on trade. In an interview with the New York Daily News‘ editorial board this week, the Vermont senator promised to renegotiate “all of the trade agreements that we have.”
But when pressed for specifics, Sanders repeatedly struggled, prompting the News to press him on answers and even compare him to Donald Trump, who’s fond of saying he’ll get rid of the “bad deals” the US has struck and replace them with good ones.
The Panama scandal gives Sanders a specific trade talking point all wrapped up in a giant, international-headline-grabbing bow. It also gives Sanders a chance to take a shot at his opponent, Hillary Clinton, for opposing the agreement during the 2008 election, then pushing it forward as Secretary of State. At the time, Clinton said the agreement would “create jobs here at home” by making it easier for businesses to sell abroad.
Now, the Sanders campaign is capitalizing on that transition. “When it really mattered she quickly reversed course and helped push the Panama Free Trade Agreement through Congress as Secretary of State,” Sanders writes. “The results have been a disaster.”
This election cycle is chock full of confusion. Why, for instance, were there a bunch of steaks on display during a Donald Trump press conference? How, exactly, did that whole Ted Cruz is the zodiac killer meme get started? Where did Jim Gilmore suddenly come from, and also, where the hell did Jim Gilmore go?
Perhaps the most mind-boggling part of the 2016 election is the possibility of a so-called contested convention in the Republican party, which would prevent Trump from clinching the nomination, even though he has, so far, amassed the most delegates of any candidate. But what is a contested convention and how does it work, you might ask?
The GOP has got you covered. Today, the party launched a new explainer website called Convention Facts in an effort to demystify the arcane process. It includes definitions of everything from what a delegate is and how delegates are chosen to who writes the rules of the convention to how a contested convention works.
Lesson 1: Don’t call it a contested convention. The GOP apparently prefers the term “open convention.” It’s less, well, contentious that way. As the site makes clear, an open convention occurs when no single candidate can secure 1,237 delegate votes by the convention. At that point, the delegates, who were initially bound to the candidate their district supported in the primaries, become unbound and can vote for whoever they want. Whoever gets to 1,237 delegates by the end of the week-long convention wins the nomination.
The website makes it all seem simple enough. And, technically, it is. But the very need for this type of site reflects what a total mess the Republican party has found itself in at a late stage in the nominating process. Typically, the nomination is sewn up well before the convention, making the actual event a prolonged celebration of the party’s newly anointed one. There hasn’t been a contested GOP convention since 1976. This year, all the byzantine rules (which, by the way, are subject to change every four years) might actually matter.
The simplicity of the website also belies all the backroom dealmaking and negotiating that the Cruz and John Kasich campaigns will have to do before the convention if they want to convince unbound Trump delegates to join their teams. For Trump’s campaign, of course, it’s just the opposite.
Still, the site is a handy way to wrap your head around a system that will only get more complicated in the coming months.
Screenshot from the security footage released by the Jupiter Police Department. Trump (lower right-hand corner), Fields (directly behind and to the left of Trump), Lewandowski (facing Fields). Jupiter Police Department
Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, was charged today with misdemeanor battery after allegedly grabbing former Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields following a Trump event in Jupiter, Florida, in early March.1
Since the incident, the Trump campaign and Lewandowski himself have been involved in a he-said-she-said battle with Fields, as well as Washington Post reporter Ben Teriss, who says he witnessed Lewandowski grabbing Fields. But according to the Jupiter Police Department’s arrest report, what clinched the charges against Lewandowski was this surveillance video:
According to the police report, the video “parallels” Fields’ story and clearly shows Lewandowski grabbing “Fields’ left arm with his right hand, causing her to turn and step back.” For the police, it was enough to bring charges against Lewandowski.
But the Internet—at least, the pro-Trump corner of the Internet—isn’t buying it. Of course, for anyone who’s been following Trump’s campaign, that shouldn’t come as a surprise. As we’ve written in the past, when it comes to the Republican frontrunner, no amount of fact-checking or evidence-finding ever seems to convince his followers to get off the Trump train.
Instead, the Internet gives people an outlet to become super sleuths, crafting their own theories and banding together with other believers who will validate those ideas and troll the common enemy. It’s become an all too predictable roadmap for how people respond to controversy online. Often, trying to disprove those ideas with fact—or in this case, video—becomes nothing more than an exercise in futility.
Already, the YouTube comments section on the surveillance video is filling up with comments like “Oh its nothing. Moving on. Trump 2016,” “That’s it?” and “HE DID NOTHING, FREE COREY.”
Meanwhile, on Twitter, Trump supporters are similarly unconvinced.
THE ESTABLISHMENT’S CONSPIRACY TO TAKE DOWN #TRUMP JUST WENT TO THE NEXT LEVEL. THEY’LL DO ANYTHING TO STOP TRUMP!! #CoreyLewandowski
— Mark Dice (@MarkDice) March 29, 2016
@MichelleFields was TOO aggressive and deserved the #SecretSlap, should have backed the ____ off!! @CLewandowski_ was doing his job! #Trump
— JLC (@cyvault) March 29, 2016
Just me or is Michelle Fields physically contacting Mr Trump here or standing so close as to threaten him? pic.twitter.com/wPziIVFRP9
— Bill Mitchell (@mitchellvii) March 29, 2016
The hashtag #IStandWithCorey even started to surface:
This does nothing but prove their desperation!
#IStandWithCorey
— Dirty Harry (@DOW_12000) March 29, 2016
We’re with you, @CLewandowski_ ! #IStandWithCorey #FauxFields https://t.co/lAGnq6LEWS
— Shannon Crane (@TheKrankyGirl) March 29, 2016
The Trump campaign, for its part, has released a statement: “Mr. Lewandowski is absolutely innocent of this charge. He will enter a plea of not guilty and looks forward to his day in court.”
We have little doubt as to who Trump supporters are more likely to believe.
1. Correction: 4:45 PM ET 3/29/2016 An earlier version of this story said Lewandowski was charged with misdemeanor assault. He was charged with misdemeanor battery.
With the exception of Apple and its encryption battle with the FBI, the tech industry has gotten very little airtime this election cycle. As candidates emphasize issues like national security, immigration, and finance reform, it can be tough to suss out where they stand on the issues that impact tech companies, their workers, and ultimately the rest of us.
Which is why Tusk Ventures, a political strategy firm, and Engine, a tech policy organization, developed a report card for the candidates based on their support for several key issues the tech industry cares about: strong encryption, patent reform, STEM education, high-skilled immigration reform, the gig economy, net neutrality, and broadband access.
Unfortunately for techies heading to the polls, nobody received straight A’s. But Hillary Clinton, the candidate with the most VIP support in Silicon Valley, did score the highest. With her B+ average, she just edged out her Democratic rival, Bernie Sanders, who received a B. While both Democratic candidates got A’s for their ambitious plans to expand broadband access in the US, Sanders got a D+ in the immigration reform category, because he’s been critical of H-1B visas for high-skilled workers in the past.
On the Republican side, John Kasich and Marco Rubio tied with a C+ each, despite the fact that Rubio, who has advocated for H-1B visas in the past, received an A for his work on immigration reform. But his opposition to net neutrality and his support for government surveillance brought his grade down substantially.
Ted Cruz’s strict stance on limiting immigration, his votes against patent reform, and his reference to net neutrality as “Obamacare for the Internet” earned him a D.
As for Donald Trump’s grade? We’ll give you one guess. “When he has talked about tech issues,” the report says, “he has done so in the only way he knows how: brashly and inaccurately.”
Check out the complete report card here.
More than 60 tech leaders, including Mark Zuckerberg and Reid Hoffman, have told the US Supreme Court they support President Obama’s recent executive actions on immigration.
The group, which also includes PayPal co-founder Max Levchin and venture capitalist Ron Conway, co-signed a friend-of-the-court brief filed today, roughly a month before the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in United States v. Texas. The case will decide the fate of two so-called “deferred action” programs the President proposed in late November 2014, which would prevent undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children from being deported, as well as adults whose children are lawful residents of the United States.
“Instead of inviting the economic contributions of immigrants, our immigration enforcement policies have often inhibited the productivity of US companies and made it harder for them to compete in the global marketplace,” the brief reads. “America’s immigration enforcement policies should ensure that immigrants’ ingenuity, skills, and entrepreneurial spirit are contributing to the US economy—and deferred action policies are a helpful start.”
The two programs at issue—Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, and Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, or DAPA—have been opposed by several states. Last February, one federal judge in Texas issued a preliminary injunction against the President’s orders. The Supreme Court case is the US Justice Department’s attempt to appeal this injunction and allow the programs proceed.
The Economic Impact
Now, the tech industry, ever-eager to hire overseas talent, is throwing its weight behind immigration legislation. Zuckerberg’s group, FWD.us, is leading this effort, and was the convening power behind the amicus brief. In a statement, FWD.us president Todd Schulte said, “Entrepreneurs and business leaders across the country support the President’s executive actions, because they know that these critical policy changes will boost our economy and create American jobs.”
For the tech industry, being a vocal player in the comprehensive immigration reform movement is critical. While the industry is most interested in expanding the number of H-1B visas for high skilled workers, leaders like Zuckerberg know there is power in numbers, and the numbers exist in the broader immigration movement.
Which is why FWD.us has committed to spend as much as $10 million on immigration reform ad campaigns during the 2016 election cycle, an investment largely driven by the vitriolic language about immigration that has defined this election season. While candidates, Donald Trump in particular, have argued that immigrants, both documented and undocumented, are a drain on the US economy, Zuckerberg and his crew are arguing just the opposite.
“Indeed, the United States has long benefited from the entrepreneurship and innovation of immigrants— including undocumented immigrants,” the brief reads. “By contrast, the continuing threat of removal and other uncertainties facing undocumented individuals weaken our economy.”
Campaigning in the age of social media means that sometimes you’ll be two days away from the South Carolina presidential primary—a race you’re expected to win handily—and suddenly a hashtag will start trending on Twitter that calls into question every inconsistency of your decades-long career in politics.
That was the case for Hillary Clinton Thursday morning when the hashtag #WhichHillary started trending, eliciting more than 88,000 tweets by 1 pm ET. The hashtag, which has been used intermittently on social media to point out times that Clinton has supposedly flip-flopped on issues, gained steam after an altercation between Clinton and Black Lives Matter activist Ashley Williams at a private fundraiser in South Carolina Wednesday.
Williams stood beside Clinton, holding a sign that included the hashtag and a quote: “We have to bring them to heel.” The quote refers to a speech Clinton gave as First Lady in 1994, in which she referred to gang members as “super-predators.”
“I’m not a super-predator, Hillary Clinton,” Williams said, before being escorted out of the event. Video of the moment (posted below) soon went viral, as did the hashtag itself.
Now it’s being used to challenge everything from Clinton’s relationship with Wall Street to her record on gay marriage to her record on mass incarceration. But the hashtag isn’t just being fueled by the Black Lives Matter movement. It’s also getting a boost from Bernie Sanders’ army of Twitter supporters.
The hashtag reflects a new reality for political campaigns. Even if Sanders has vowed not to go negative, his followers online haven’t taken the same oath. Social media gives them the microphone to do it. For Clinton, the timing couldn’t be worse, as both she and Sanders have been working to court black voters in the lead up to the South Carolina primary.
Still, with some polls showing that Clinton is leading Sanders in South Carolina 60 to 32 percent, it’s unlikely even the strongest Twitter army could thwart this win.
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has built a cult following among young libertarians and privacy advocates throughout the 2016 election season, but it wasn’t enough to secure a victory in Iowa—not even close.
Now, after winning just 4.5 percent of the vote in the Iowa Caucus this week, Senator Paul has announced he’s withdrawing from the race in an emotional video released on Twitter expressing thanks to his supporters.
https://t.co/MJwrdFsrDC
— Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) February 3, 2016
Paul’s departure from the race is just the latest sign that the great winnowing we’ve all been waiting for has begun. He’s the third candidate to withdraw from the crowded field of candidates this week alone, following former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on the Republican side and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley on the Democratic side.
Paul is not, however, the next candidate we would have expected to drop out. After being bumped to the undercard debate in mid-January, Paul hosted a Twitter Q&A instead, making him one of the most talked about candidates of the night. That surge in attention landed Paul back on the main debate stage in Iowa last week. And while Paul eked out only a small percentage of votes in Iowa, he still finished head of candidates like Jeb Bush and John Kasich, two candidates who are still being closely watched as we head into the New Hampshire primaries next week, despite also having low polls numbers. A recent CNN/WMUR poll of New Hampshire voters showed support for Kasich at 9 percent and Bush at 6 percent.
Back in 2012, Paul’s father Ron Paul finished second in New Hampshire, garnering nearly 23 percent of the vote. And yet, that CNN/WMUR poll pegged the younger Paul’s chances in New Hampshire at just 3 percent of the vote, which, along with serious funding issues, seems to have inspired his withdrawal.
Paul’s departure from the race also means that Internet privacy advocates have lost their most outspoken advocate in the race. Paul was undoubtedly the most vocal critic of the National Security Agency’s bulk data collection program. At times, he went so far as to praise NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden for exposing the program, even as his fellow candidates called Snowden a traitor.
He was also, we’re not afraid to say, our favorite candidate to follow on Twitter, always good for a snarky aside. Here’s hoping dropping out of the race doesn’t mean dropping out of the social media game.
Donald Trump is boycotting the Fox News Republican debate this Thursday, but according to a new prediction from Bing, it likely won’t hurt his chances in the first upcoming February caucuses and primaries.
According to Bing’s forecast, Trump will be the winner in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, while Hillary Clinton will walk away with victorious from all of the first four races, except for New Hampshire. Bing predicts that race will go to Bernie Sanders.
Bing’s prediction, of course, is similar to what we’re seeing in other polls across the country, but it offers, perhaps, a more complete look at the race, because it synthesizes data from prediction markets, polls, and its own search data to generate a result. It used this model to accurately predict 34 out of 35 Senate races, 419 of 435 House races, and 33 of 36 gubernatorial races back in 2014. Bing Predicts has also correctly predicted the winners of everything from American Idol to last year’s Super Bowl.
These predictions are just one of many ways Microsoft is inserting itself into the political process this year. The company has also launched the so-called Bing Elections Experience, which appears at the top of Bing searches on the election. It shows you how conservative or liberal candidates are compared to each other and to the US population as a whole, allowing you to dig into where candidates stand on certain issues.
Meanwhile, Microsoft has also partnered with both the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee to build an app for the Iowa Caucus. On Caucus night, Iowans around the state can use the app to report the results in their precincts back to the party leaders in Des Moines.
Bing’s predictions are, of course, subject to change as the election season continues, and it’ll be interesting to see whether sitting this debate out will boost or shrink Trump’s lead going forward. For what it’s worth, when Rand Paul protested the last undercard debate, opting for a Twitter Q&A instead, social media interest in the long-shot candidate spiked (not that Trump ever needs help ginning up interest on social media).
For now, according to Bing, the real estate mogul seems to have support to spare. With the exception of Iowa, where he leads Ted Cruz by just 9.3 percent, Trump has at least a 19-percent lead over his fellow candidates in every other state holding a vote this month.
<article class="content link-underline