Hello! As we head into a momentous year in politics, I wanted to take some time to answer questions from Popular Information readers. Feel free to ask me about the 2020 campaign, corporate accountability, investigative journalism, Facebook, or whatever is on your mind. If you don’t have a question but want to share your thoughts with other readers, that’s also cool.
I’m going to dive in and start answering questions at noon. But you can start posting now.
UPDATE (11:58AM): I’m going to start answering the questions momentarily. I’ll answer for an hour and see how many I can get to. Feel free to click the “heart” on the questions you most want answered. If you ran across this thread and aren’t a subscriber to Popular Information, you can sign up here.
UPDATE (1:10PM): Whew. That was a lot of questions. I’m going to duck out now but feel free to continue the conversation. As a reminder, Popular Information is on hiatus next week. I’ll return on Monday, December 30!
I've been impressed by your ability to call out people and organizations for malpractice/hypocrisy, and pleasantly surprised that many of them have changed their ways shortly thereafter.
Our media has largely been a failure at holding those in power accountable. But in a very short time Judd has shown that it is possible. Thank you so much for your efforts so far.
It seems like Republicans are much better (read: more insidious) at working for structural advantages in electoral politics. Such as redistricting, purging voters, making voting harder, etc. Should progressives be focused on win-at-all costs structural changes as well? Are there any groups working on this and receiving funding for it? To me, the last handful of years have proven that unilateral disarmament really doesn't work.
I think Democrats can be more aggressive generally without being unethical. There are certainly a number of groups working on structural issues like voting rights and redistricting. The NDRC (Eric Holder's org) is one: https://democraticredistricting.com/
Unilateral disarmament has only put Democrats in a deeper hole. But I do think there is a way to combat redistricting, purges, etc. without resorting to the same tactics. Stacy Abras is leading the way in Georgia, but it is going to take a great deal of money and organization to drive voter turnout, focus attention on crimes committed by conservative groups, and beat back the Republicans in court.
Would you really want to vote for a 'win-at-all-costs- candidate from either party? That kind of race to the bottom would simply leave you with poor choices all round. Sure, your preferred party might take government, but they'd likely not be the party you chose to follow in the first place.
Judd, I love your articles. It's the future of journalism, IMHO. I don't understand why Democrats and Progressives don't talk more about the economic impact of public investment. I believe the economic benefits of low health care costs and low student debt are way more important than the virtue signaling. There are many other examples such as public investment in scientific research, etc. I hope that the Democratic platform returns to basic principles of public investment and make those cases in a clear and strong way, rather than all the virtue signaling. Do notice trends in this regard?
This came up earlier and I do think there needs to be a better job explaining the economic impact of public investment. Amazon, as I covered in a recent edition, pays no federal income taxes. But Amazon doesn't exist without interstate highways and an air traffic control system, and an educational system that's training workers, and clean water, and all the rest.
I think Eric and Don Jr. especially should be subject to more criticism. They said they would have nothing to do with their father's administration but have emerged as key surrogates even as they continue to run the Trump org. I'm not interested in defending Hunter Biden though.
Even more than that, the Trump base and advisors are actively planning for a dynasty of Trumps - first Ivanka, then Don Jr, etc. They want Ivanka as Pence’s VP replacement if there was one. They’re all in on permanent Trump family rule. It’s not a joke, this is what Trumpism is about.
Judd - amazing work this year! Every time I read your scoops I wonder: how is it possible that the progressives don't pay for 50 or 100 full-time Judd Legums? With Think Progress going under, and the continued asymmetry of massive Republican media shops, and tiny progressive media shops, what do you think is causing this? Why are Republican billionaires more willing to fund media? Why are Democratic consumers not as supportive of efforts like Air America, Current TV and other progressive alternative media that ultimately failed?
I do think wealthy Republicans have a better understanding of the importance of media than wealthy Democrats. But I'm also not interested in being funded by wealthy Democrats because some (but not all) are part of the problem and I want total freedom to call out anyone and everyone. I think the future is creating sustainable economic models to support progressive journalism. I think Popular Information is off to a good start and there are others, like heated.world, that are emerging.
Why do you think the media has avoided covering the truly scandalous and many intersections if Trump with Russians going back to the 80s with the fervor of a non-event like Hillary's emails? Top-down financial pressure? A calculation that long term Trump coverage better than blowing up his spot and ending the cash cow? There is so much "there" there that it seems like journalistic malpractice to largely avoid as they do.
I think there has been quite a bit of coverage of Trump's relationship with Russia but Trump does a good job of creating a shiny new object every day so its hard for anything to get sustained traction. That's why you'll find me in the newsletter focusing on a small number of topics for weeks and months, rather than trying to cover everything.
I appreciate your point about Trump's one skill, media manipulation, but this goes back all the way to the campaign. Trump said daily that he has no ties to Russia. This is an outrageous lie that is easily proved false by reading old copies of the very papers that, at the time of Trump's denials, did little to inform their readership of the falseness of such claims.
Thank you for all your research and information! I am astonished by the things you discover and the effect your publication has on making change in a complex and complicated system. You have a very nice balancing act, too.
Hi Judd, Did you ever get answers from the Trump campaign about the dinner contests? If not, are you going to sue them for not following the rules about disclosing winners? Keep up the great work!
I wanted to share an observation and get your thoughts.
All of Democratic candidates are (in one form or another) proposing various government solutions to the various challenges our country and its citizens face. But it seems to me that none of them are making a case that the government (vs the private sector) is the right entity to address these challenges.
Here's why I think this is a problem - for almost the entirety of my life (I’m in my mid 40s), Reagan's remark that "government is not the solution....government is the problem" has been an unspoken but potent political belief for many, many Americans. When government solutions (particularly progressive ones) are suggested, I’ve observed that many people – even those who would otherwise categorize their beliefs as left-leaning – are immediately skeptical or even pessimistic about such a solution. I can understand (and share) a general skepticism for any solution that lacks detail, but I think the distaste for government intervention goes beyond that. It almost seems an instinctive reaction that’s been fed by four decades of conservative political messaging and the fearful reactions of Democrats trying to prove they aren’t “big government liberals.”
As much as it pains me to say this, Republicans have done a good job at stating their overarching philosophy of the role of government and then framing their policy recommendations within that philosophy. Why do the Democrats have so much trouble articulating a macro view on the role of government?
As mentioned, I’m interested in your thoughts on this.
I agree this is an issue. Democrats largely gave up on this argument. It was Clinton who said: "The era of big government is over." The other factor here is that Republicans like to talk about small government, but they don't really care. While Obama was president, all spending had to be offset. But now that Trump is president, Republicans are largely unconcerned about an exploding deficit.
But I do think there is a strong case to be made for public investment -- both in infrastructure and people -- is essentially both for economic growth and for improving the lives of the 90% of Americans that the growth of the last 40 years have left behind. It's not really a matter of government versus the public sector. It's government providing the foundation for a robust (and fairer) private sector.
Yes! 40 years of R attacks on gov have made people distrust the government. A real shame when we have a gov of the people, by the people, FOR the people. In fact, government is mankind’s response over thousands of years to protect people from powerful external threats - whether foreign enemies, environmental threats or powerful corporate interests.
Next time someone says gov is the problem, ask them who should make decisions - unelected corporat billionaires or people you vote for? If people are angry with politics, push for campaign reform and other electoral reforms
If by “we” you mean the collective citizenry, then it’s true. “We” still vote divisive politicians in because “we” operate in partisan camps. But the point in this thread is how a decades-long R narrative has completely corrupted their camp (and many Dems) perception of what popular gov is for. Why do you ask?
Scrolling through these comments (while ostensibly working, so reading superficially), this jumps out as most pertinent. Regulation and government oversight is absolutely necessary in many sectors (financial, technology, environment, for starters). I spend some time pondering which regulatory initiatives could rein in the various "wolves". And I refuse to accept an argument that government can't do it; if that were true; we would not have had the invasion of wealthy and corporate actors into government over the past few decades. Much of what is being written here is periloously close to the 'horse race' reporting that you recently touched on and that is such a problem in media coverage, but also in the things my friends obsess about.
Yes, more framing and information about the common good is needed to build a different narrative. THANKS for your important work on this topic. More is needed.
You've done an immense job covering topics that the mainstream media have left by the wayside, especially Facebook's corruption of the political process. What unheralded stories do you hope to cover in 2020?
I'm going to stick on Facebook, but I'm also going to be looking very closely at voter suppression efforts and campaign finance violations. I'm also very open to suggestions and tips on stories. I have a secure email, jlegum@protonmail.com, where anyone can contact me.
An interesting tack might be documenting how people are successfully fighting suppression efforts. There's lots of stuff about how bad things are out there, but less on the wins. Pathways to success can provide inspiration for others.
I totally support that plan. Your Facebook work has been brilliant and so important, and voter suppression and campaign finance are undermining democracy. Looking forward to reading your work this year, and hoping it has a huge impact!
I wonder if you have any insight into how the Democratic nominees for President are exploiting Facebook and other social media platforms. Candidates like Pete Buttigieg who has a relationship with Mark Zuckerberg and hired staff based on his recommendations have risen sharply in polling and I guess my post-2016 broken brain wonders if that might be a result of targeted online ad buys in Iowa and New Hampshire. We're in an ecosystem where a sophisticated understanding of FB and IG's algorithm can move advertising into primary positions. Given Zuckerberg's comments about Warren being an existential crisis and really anyone who sees a need for regulation of Silicon Valley, I'm concerned FB will start picking our candidates for us. Can you share any insight?
I don't have any indication that Facebook is actively trying to pick candidates. I do think that, at a broad level, Facebook is optimized to benefit candidates like Trump, who uses almost exclusively emotional appeals, versus candidates like Warren, who talks a lot about policy details.
Buttigieg's Facebook operation is somewhat more sophisticated than most of the other Democratic candidates and that may have something to do with the staff he has brought on.
I’m excited about the Lincoln Project, but as a democrat I’m worried it’ll bite me later. I like environmental regulations and am worried about climate change. Is this just about getting rid of Trump, and once he’s gone will we go right back to shafting workers and the world to make a buck for the rich guys?
I am skeptical of efforts like this. The core question is: Is Trump an aberration or is he a symptom of a much broader problem. I believe he's a symptom. I think efforts like the Lincoln Project are really more geared to restoring the status quo, which I don't think is good enough.
The Lincoln Project are never Trumpers and other conservatives trying to salvage the GOP from the jaws of Trumpism. It's pretty much a fringe movement because if you look at the current GOP, they are strongly in favor of Trump and his policies.
You've rocketed all the way to the number 2 paid product on Substack. What are you doing with Substack or within the progressive community to evangelize and spread best practices on building a paid newsletter following. I was glad to be introduced to HEATED through you as well.
Hi Theo! I'm not doing anything formal but I am trying to help out anyone who gets involved, including the talented authors of heated.world (climate) and powerplays.news (women's sports). And I try to make time to talk to anyone who reaches out to me who is considering it. But, as you are suggesting, there is a bigger opportunity here than most people realize yet.
I seem to be surrounded by people who seem to think the 2020 presidential election is already decided — even without a democratic nominee in place. I just can't be this hopeless already. And I'm afraid that hopelessness leads to inertia. Am I being a cock-eyed optimist or is there any chance of taking back the White House and/or (more importantly) the Senate? I know it's hard to call it this early but any shred of hope is welcome!
It is not hopeless. People like certainty and politics is never certain until all the votes are counted. So in 2016 many people were SURE that Trump would lose. That certainty was wrong. And it's also not certain he will win this time. Trump has a reasonable chance but any of the Democratic candidates will also have a reasonable chance.
So much consideration of political machinations but no mention of the Climate Crisis, why? This thread, like the all the mass media outlets, seems focused on the arrangement of the deck chairs rather than the sinking ship. Please, explain why the impending existential crisis merits so little attention.
I'm not, personally, looking for recommendations for more reading on the subject, but thank you.
The topic needs way more attention. The science is clear and we are running out of time, RAPIDLY.
How do you think more people can be informed, motivated and activated to demand the changes that must be made?
What is lacking is more people to pay more attention and make more noise so that all these powerful people who are preoccupied with political pissing contests will drop their egoic obsession with power and put their money and political muscle to work on solving the real problem.
On an unlivable planet, all other issues are moot.
Judd - Always look forward to your morning story and topic. Sometimes though, the mornings get busy and I cannot read the story until later in the day. Was wondering if you could do a reading via a podcast. Doesn't have to be extensive but could be a way to reach others. I always listen to podcasts while on my way to work. Just a thought. Thanks for great work and looking forward to your column in 2020! Have a great holiday season.
This is something that's come up and would be useful for a lot of people I think. But right now I don't have the time. I want to focus on producing the best content. Popular Information is still largely a one-person operation. As the newsletter grows and I'm hopefully able to get more help, maybe it's something we could add.
I just want to express my gratitude for your work. Your investigative work has thrown some very important light on troubling issues (I'm in particular thinking about Facebook), and your writing about them is always illuminating. Thank you. Have a happy holiday season.
Can the American people file a lawsuit or have the leader of the Senate put in jail for not honoring his pledge to be a impartial juror? Or, as usual, we are screwed by Mitch. And the BIG question, what does tRump have on the republicans that they have forgotten what facts and truth are?
No, the courts have a long history of avoiding getting involved in these kind of internal political questions. That tradition was, of course, broken with Bush v. Gore. But I don't see the possibility of a repeat in this case, especially not this court ruling against McConnell.
I think Republicans fear Trump's political influence. What he has on Republicans is the loyalty of 90% of their political base.
Love the column, as well as the fact that you have turned me on to several other journalists who I now follow!
My questions: 1) Will impeaching the Orange Asscactus (sorry, "President Trump") end up backfiring on Democrats in vulnerable Congressional Districts (or cause others to flip, as Jeff Van Drew just did), or will it negatively affect the Senate races where the Democrats think that they can flip some seats? (Full Disclosure: This is something that REALLY concerns me)
2) Any chance you can do a really deep dig on the NRA and its funding sources? For a lobby group as small in numbers as it is, it seems bizarre (at least to me) that it should hold such a large hold over Congress. I'd love to know where its money REALLY comes from (my bet is on the gun manufacturers and from overseas, such as Russia and China).
Thank you again, and I hope that you have a wonderful holiday!
1. I don't think there is any evidence that it will backfire broadly. Impeachment was relatively popular, as these things go. It might complicate things for some Democratic House candidates. But it will also complicate things for some Republican Senate candidates.
2. NRA is tricky but Senator Wyden has done some great work. If I see an angle in, I'll be all over it.
That would be very much appreciated because the way you dig in and your writing style would be *very* effective in getting a lot of people, including the donees, to pay attention. And not just blow it off.
I need everyone's help spreading the word about the newsletter. We have a healthy number of subscribers but the more subscribers, the more Popular Information can accomplish. I also love a good tip!
Hi Judd! Congrats on all the stories you've broken and reported this year. I'm curious about your creative process for turning an idea or tip into a published post? Do you work best at night or in the morning? Any cool rituals or routines that work for you? Thanks in advance and here's to a powerful 2020!
I am definitely not a morning person. I work best in the afternoon and evening. For me it's about verification and flushing out the story. Finding people to talk to me, corroborating evidence, and relevant context. I'm mostly doing in the afternoon and night and then sending it out to everyone early in the morning.
I don't have many productivity hacks but for me exercise is very important. It helps me think more clearly and creatively. So I make time for that.
Why didnt the House use the subpoena power to summon Mulvaney et. al. to testify? The house was the only place we could sway public opinion. I just dont understand why this wasn't fought as hard as possible given the gravity of the situation.
There have been some lawsuits over other subpeonas but I think Mulvaney was a timing issue. It takes a long time for these things to wind their way through the courts and, after the Ukraine story broke, Democrats wanted to complete the process fairly quickly.
What more can you tell us about the Facebook ads that Trump ran promising “Dinner With Trump?” Is there any legal action being taken to make the campaign or Facebook aaccountable?
So far we know for sure that one of the contests was a fraud and there is no evidence that 15 of the others occurred. I'm continuing to work on the story. I don't think anyone has taken legal action.
Zero to 100, what percent chance do you think the US has of having an election result we can trust, and what’s the percentage chance of Trump attempting to overturn/invalidate it should he lose?
I think we should be vigilant, but I don't think there is evidence of problems with the voting systems on a level that could swing an election. I think the chance of Trump rejecting the result of an election he loses is high. He rejected the result in 2016 (said he really won the popular vote).
There isn't evidence because they are refusing to look. There's a big story here, beginning with the failure of VR Systems poll books in Durham, NC in 2016. People went home because they couldn't vote. The "investigation" was a sham. Years later, when the data on the machines had been overwritten, they looked and found nothing.
I can only see a future where every political move is burn-it-down, dirty tricks, forever. We impeached their guy, they'll go for any of ours from now on. All appointments sat on forever - except when it's our turn, then cram them all through. Complete disregard for law and process. Is there any way back? I feel utterly without hope.
I think there is a way back. Politics changes very quickly. After Obama was elected, people were talking about a permanent Democratic majority. That wasn't true. But it's also not true that the current situation has to be permanent.
Appreciate your work, Judd. I'm an author with 125 K FB followers. Several weeks ago, I wrote my last FB post (for the time being), letting readers know that I would no longer use the platform due to (popular) information about Zuckerberg's unprincipled stand on political ads they know to be misleading or false. I'm wondering whether my gesture can make any positive difference, or whether I'd be better off continuing use of the FB platform in positive ways. Thanks again for your contributions.
Hey Dan. Great question. I have my "I'm outta here" post ready for escaping Facebook. Again, for moral reasons and MZ's disdain for policing the posts. I'll look at substack.
What do you think of Pete Buttigieg’s chances for winning in Iowa & New Hampshire? The media seems enchanted with him. He started out progressive, & has now shifted toward the center, saying he is being practical. I wonder if he has strong progressive convictions, or is going whichever way the wind blows. What are your thoughts?
He's leading in some polls, so I would say he has a reasonable shot. But a lot can happen in 6 weeks. He appears to be trying to occupy a more moderate lane for people disenchanted with Biden and it's working somewhat. The whole field is further to the left as compared to say, 2008. But I do think Buttigieg has made a strategic move to the right to gain traction.
Is it possible to shame the national media? I believe a good deal of our divisiveness is a result of our failure to hold those in power accountable. Elections are one way to do that, but they have not been as effective as they need to be. The media is another vehicle for holding the powerful accountable. But they have failed miserably. And some of our other avenues for holding the powerful accountable, like elections, have failed because of the media's failure. Judd has shown through his work with Facebook that a corporation tied to a single, identifiable person can be influenced. But what about faceless media corporations? I like the content analysis studies that document how many minutes the national nightly news devotes to substantial issues versus, say, the royal family or the weather. Can we use data like that to challenge the priorities of the media? The current administration apparently can't be shamed. Can the media for their failings?
I think the media does respond to "shaming" and criticism. But this is why Trump talks so much about the media. He wants to get in their heads. He wants them to second-guess their decisions and worry about appearing biased. He also wants to create a system where his critics reflexively defend the media. I try to avoid that trap and criticize others in the media when I feel its warranted.
For the longest time, you were pushing for impeachment. I don't disagree with that, but I was very concerned that it would not result in any substantive results due to the Rs not giving any indication of impartiality. It seemed like a very short-sighted move considering the somewhat likely result of it emboldening Trump with his base. We now seem to be at that stage and I am so frustrated with this stalemate. Do you still think it was worth the effort? Obviously, there is more to take place on this subject, but considering what has occurred to this point, seems like an effort that may hurt Democrats instead of helping our country
For me its more about the principle of upholding the rule of law. I don't see any signs that it's broadly hurting Democrats. At the worst, polls about impeachment are even. I suspect in won't have a huge impact on 2020 one way or another. But I think sometimes its better to do the right thing than to try to play fortune teller.
'I suspect it won't have a huge impact on 2020...'
I suspect you're absolutely right and, given the seriousness of the charges and the evidence presented to this point, I think that's the saddest indictment on the state of politics in the US (and much of the Western world) at the moment.
Across the world, we've chosen our camps and dug in for a vicious fight where the other side are venal, stupid or plain bad (whether they be racists, misogynists, homophobes or whatever). I can't see this changing unless something historically earth-shaking happens. Otherwise, it's going to be a long road back to some ind of civil political environment where good men like John McCain could run again Obama while still defending his opponent as another good man with whom he disagreed on important things.
Let’s not mislead ourselves about John McCain. Yes, he stood up to followers about Obama. But he also selected and allowed Palin and others to do quite dirty work for him. He then shifted far right for the rest of his life (excepting on vote on healthcare). Let’s aim higher
I agree. The constitution has to be acted upon to be alive. In a better(?) world, Trump would be convicted. But in a worse world, Dems would lack the will to impeach. Warren's right though: Trump is using this to whatever advantage he can, which at least includes fundraising.
It was well worth it. I wanted my representatives to stand up for principle and not be held back in a constant quandary trying to hedge the political impact. Somebody needed to stand up, and Democrats had to do it.
Absolutely right! I need a post truth world, it doesn’t help to turn a blind eye to corruption and abuse of power. Anyone who is afraid of “emboldening Trump supporters” has not been paying attention the past 4 years (or more). R’s would find some divisive rallying cry regardless. Better D’s choose the topic and the high ground
I think there is a chance. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is probably the way it would get done, and they are about 3/4 of the way there.
I know it sounds incredibly cynical, but I am convinced that Trump, et al, have control over the Republican party partly through the imposition of fear tactics, but more so due to having "dirt" on key members. Who, if anyone, might have a stake in uncovering what dirt Trump has on key members? It would seem to me there could be a pattern of investigation into the interaction patterns between Trump and them. Are Presidential call logs available through FOIA? Are Presidential meeting schedules still not being shared?
In the interests of accuracy, could you fix the reference to Tina Smith in this article - https://popular.info/p/the-racists-and-the-antiracists? You show her as: Tina Smith (D-MI). I'm sure both Michigan and Minnesota will thank you!
What do you think are the most important down-ballot races in 2020? We're focused on presidential picks, for good reason, but that's not where most of the policy that affects day-to-day living happens.
State legislative races are really important and people can make a big impact. If there is a candidate for the state legislature that you are into, getting involved in a local campaign can have a huge impact.
Some really great Dem candidates are unable to get qualifying poll numbers. My question is, "who are they polling?". I've never been polled and I am a lifelong, regular voter.
It's not that unusual. Even high quality polls are just reaching hundreds of people and there are millions of voters. My problem is the emphasis on polling numbers this far out from an election. I think candidates like Booker and Castro should be on the stage.
I don't think there are any Republicans who are particularly likely to convict at this point, although that could change. I think the set of facts against the president right now is absolutely devastating. So I don't think what's missing is incriminating information against Trump. I think it's political courage by Republican Senators.
I have a question about pardoning as it is stated the pardon powers of the President are based on Article Two of the United States Constitution (Section 2, Clause 1), which provides:
The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment.
Does he get to pardon? Or not be pardoned?
I have received and read different answers and I’m confused.
Hi Judd. I wanted to make a comment about a couple of issues that add tremendously to the income inequality. One is stock buybacks by corporations. They have been doing this for a long time with the result of making earnings look better because of less shares outstanding. Or better known as financial engineering. The trump tax cuts took the buybacks to a new extreme level. Combine that with ridiculously low interest rates forever. There was a Democratic amendment brought up when they were working on the trump tax cut to force companies to reinvest their cash windfall into their companies and or to raise wages. Of course this was voted down by the GOP. The only people who benefit from the buybacks are shareholders. I don’t fault the companies because they are beholden to shareholders. So the only way to fix this is to limit the financial engineering. Endless low interest rates (which trump loves) are hurting savers, especially seniors who need income from savings to live on. So many people are forced to take on more risk than is appropriate for them to get the income they need. Then if markets go south they are hurt that much more. Also the low interest rates doesn’t bleed into the interest on most of consumer debt. Credit cards still charging 20% interest on balances. So again doesn’t help the average person.Helps companies to borrow super cheap money and use that cheap borrowed money to buy back more stock, instead of R&D and new equipment and expansion which would help workers and the communities they reside in. The uncertainty from the trade issues all over the word due to trump policies just puts the destructive scenario on steroids. Taxing companies more fairly is important but the artificially low interest rates and all the financial engineering causes way more problems over time. I heard Cory Booker talk about the stock buyback issue once on a podcast. Other than that, it’s not mentioned anywhere other than fintwitter and financial media. It’s complicated but the results are clear to everyone. Would love to see more attentive to this massive legal scam. Thank you for the work you do. Best, Melinda @jeanienyc on Twitter
Great points. Ban stock buybacks. Bring back usury laws. Ban anonymous shell companies. Tax churches and charities, but let them claim back taxes on charitable expenses. The world would be a lot more fair!
Do you know of anyone who has tracked down a monetary reason for Brexit? In other words I've been wondering who is making money off of Brexit and whether they were some of the forces behind it.
Hedge fund managers, in particular. The EU has a lot of data privacy and financial transparency regulations that are ...inconvenient. A non-EU Britain will be the world’s biggest tax haven for dirty money oligarchs from every country. There’s also Russian backing to help weaken the EU
Should Democrats continue the impeachment inquiry open in the House in order to investigate Trump's taxes, emoluments (let's find a different word) and the rest of the rampant corruption?
Will you and other journalists as well informed as you convey to the people that purity tests of Democratic candidates do not need to reach 100% ? And that no matter who the nominee is the most important thing is to vote.
I agree with that. Also no one agree with what "pure" is. But I also think in a primary it's fine to support your candidate and make arguments for and against others.
Hi Judd, I have been wondering, if DJT ends up going to prison some day, as a former President will he be entitled to Secret service protection, funded by the taxpayers?
Hi, Judd. How long do you think Nancy Pelosi can hold off on sending Impeachment Articles to Senate. And do you think she can win PR war if she held them indefinitely as long as McConnell refuses to call witnesses and/or request documents?
What are your thoughts about anyone else getting in the race, Eric Holder for example? I will vote for the dem who wins the primary, but no one excites me the way Obama did.
In the future, what are the chances that a viable third political party will develop from this current chaos?
What are the chances that if a democrat wins the WH and the democrats control the senate that they will add two seats to the Supreme Court to balance out what McConnell has done.
I think the first is unlikely in the current structure, where Republicans and Democrats have huge structural advantages, but you never know.
I think the second possibility is unlikely but becomes more likely if there is a vacancy in this last year that Republicans fill, having blocked Garland.
A propos this: What do you think about ranked-choice voting as a way to encourage third party candidates? We have to find a way to break the stagnation of the two party system.
I've been impressed by your ability to call out people and organizations for malpractice/hypocrisy, and pleasantly surprised that many of them have changed their ways shortly thereafter.
Keep it up!
Cheers!
Our media has largely been a failure at holding those in power accountable. But in a very short time Judd has shown that it is possible. Thank you so much for your efforts so far.
Thank you Jon. I do think facts still matter and thanks to all the readers who make this work possible.
It seems like Republicans are much better (read: more insidious) at working for structural advantages in electoral politics. Such as redistricting, purging voters, making voting harder, etc. Should progressives be focused on win-at-all costs structural changes as well? Are there any groups working on this and receiving funding for it? To me, the last handful of years have proven that unilateral disarmament really doesn't work.
I think Democrats can be more aggressive generally without being unethical. There are certainly a number of groups working on structural issues like voting rights and redistricting. The NDRC (Eric Holder's org) is one: https://democraticredistricting.com/
Agreed. Dems tend to be less aggressive for some reason. Our skins do need to get much thicker; our noses harder.
Unilateral disarmament has only put Democrats in a deeper hole. But I do think there is a way to combat redistricting, purges, etc. without resorting to the same tactics. Stacy Abras is leading the way in Georgia, but it is going to take a great deal of money and organization to drive voter turnout, focus attention on crimes committed by conservative groups, and beat back the Republicans in court.
Would you really want to vote for a 'win-at-all-costs- candidate from either party? That kind of race to the bottom would simply leave you with poor choices all round. Sure, your preferred party might take government, but they'd likely not be the party you chose to follow in the first place.
Judd, I love your articles. It's the future of journalism, IMHO. I don't understand why Democrats and Progressives don't talk more about the economic impact of public investment. I believe the economic benefits of low health care costs and low student debt are way more important than the virtue signaling. There are many other examples such as public investment in scientific research, etc. I hope that the Democratic platform returns to basic principles of public investment and make those cases in a clear and strong way, rather than all the virtue signaling. Do notice trends in this regard?
This came up earlier and I do think there needs to be a better job explaining the economic impact of public investment. Amazon, as I covered in a recent edition, pays no federal income taxes. But Amazon doesn't exist without interstate highways and an air traffic control system, and an educational system that's training workers, and clean water, and all the rest.
Remember when Pres Obama said pretty much the same thing and got completely raked over the Republican hot coals pit of outrage?
re media, why are they giving Trump children a pass (for profiting from their parents), but not Hunter Biden?
I think Eric and Don Jr. especially should be subject to more criticism. They said they would have nothing to do with their father's administration but have emerged as key surrogates even as they continue to run the Trump org. I'm not interested in defending Hunter Biden though.
Even more than that, the Trump base and advisors are actively planning for a dynasty of Trumps - first Ivanka, then Don Jr, etc. They want Ivanka as Pence’s VP replacement if there was one. They’re all in on permanent Trump family rule. It’s not a joke, this is what Trumpism is about.
But also Ivanka .... she is still profiting greatly. Although she maintains a low profile, she and her husband are reaping millions from nepotism.
Judd - amazing work this year! Every time I read your scoops I wonder: how is it possible that the progressives don't pay for 50 or 100 full-time Judd Legums? With Think Progress going under, and the continued asymmetry of massive Republican media shops, and tiny progressive media shops, what do you think is causing this? Why are Republican billionaires more willing to fund media? Why are Democratic consumers not as supportive of efforts like Air America, Current TV and other progressive alternative media that ultimately failed?
I do think wealthy Republicans have a better understanding of the importance of media than wealthy Democrats. But I'm also not interested in being funded by wealthy Democrats because some (but not all) are part of the problem and I want total freedom to call out anyone and everyone. I think the future is creating sustainable economic models to support progressive journalism. I think Popular Information is off to a good start and there are others, like heated.world, that are emerging.
That's good to hear; I'd hate to see you end up like Bloomberg.
Why do you think the media has avoided covering the truly scandalous and many intersections if Trump with Russians going back to the 80s with the fervor of a non-event like Hillary's emails? Top-down financial pressure? A calculation that long term Trump coverage better than blowing up his spot and ending the cash cow? There is so much "there" there that it seems like journalistic malpractice to largely avoid as they do.
I think there has been quite a bit of coverage of Trump's relationship with Russia but Trump does a good job of creating a shiny new object every day so its hard for anything to get sustained traction. That's why you'll find me in the newsletter focusing on a small number of topics for weeks and months, rather than trying to cover everything.
I appreciate your point about Trump's one skill, media manipulation, but this goes back all the way to the campaign. Trump said daily that he has no ties to Russia. This is an outrageous lie that is easily proved false by reading old copies of the very papers that, at the time of Trump's denials, did little to inform their readership of the falseness of such claims.
Yes yes yes. Or can you look into the writings of the guy it shot up the base and was shot to death?
There's so many that do not know a why Russia and Saudi Arabia and North Korea and trkey are our enemies. And what a true Ally is.
I know that I've Ivanka has trademarks on voting machines that were going to use nobody is covering that either.
Like why didn't they do more articles of impeachment on any of this?
Thank you for all your research and information! I am astonished by the things you discover and the effect your publication has on making change in a complex and complicated system. You have a very nice balancing act, too.
lots of great comments...here's mine: thank you!!!
Hi Judd, Did you ever get answers from the Trump campaign about the dinner contests? If not, are you going to sue them for not following the rules about disclosing winners? Keep up the great work!
I haven't but I'm continuing to pursue it and have some ideas.
Hi Judd,
I wanted to share an observation and get your thoughts.
All of Democratic candidates are (in one form or another) proposing various government solutions to the various challenges our country and its citizens face. But it seems to me that none of them are making a case that the government (vs the private sector) is the right entity to address these challenges.
Here's why I think this is a problem - for almost the entirety of my life (I’m in my mid 40s), Reagan's remark that "government is not the solution....government is the problem" has been an unspoken but potent political belief for many, many Americans. When government solutions (particularly progressive ones) are suggested, I’ve observed that many people – even those who would otherwise categorize their beliefs as left-leaning – are immediately skeptical or even pessimistic about such a solution. I can understand (and share) a general skepticism for any solution that lacks detail, but I think the distaste for government intervention goes beyond that. It almost seems an instinctive reaction that’s been fed by four decades of conservative political messaging and the fearful reactions of Democrats trying to prove they aren’t “big government liberals.”
As much as it pains me to say this, Republicans have done a good job at stating their overarching philosophy of the role of government and then framing their policy recommendations within that philosophy. Why do the Democrats have so much trouble articulating a macro view on the role of government?
As mentioned, I’m interested in your thoughts on this.
Thanks - TCL
I agree this is an issue. Democrats largely gave up on this argument. It was Clinton who said: "The era of big government is over." The other factor here is that Republicans like to talk about small government, but they don't really care. While Obama was president, all spending had to be offset. But now that Trump is president, Republicans are largely unconcerned about an exploding deficit.
But I do think there is a strong case to be made for public investment -- both in infrastructure and people -- is essentially both for economic growth and for improving the lives of the 90% of Americans that the growth of the last 40 years have left behind. It's not really a matter of government versus the public sector. It's government providing the foundation for a robust (and fairer) private sector.
Yes! 40 years of R attacks on gov have made people distrust the government. A real shame when we have a gov of the people, by the people, FOR the people. In fact, government is mankind’s response over thousands of years to protect people from powerful external threats - whether foreign enemies, environmental threats or powerful corporate interests.
Next time someone says gov is the problem, ask them who should make decisions - unelected corporat billionaires or people you vote for? If people are angry with politics, push for campaign reform and other electoral reforms
We are the politics we’re seeing. True or no?
If by “we” you mean the collective citizenry, then it’s true. “We” still vote divisive politicians in because “we” operate in partisan camps. But the point in this thread is how a decades-long R narrative has completely corrupted their camp (and many Dems) perception of what popular gov is for. Why do you ask?
Scrolling through these comments (while ostensibly working, so reading superficially), this jumps out as most pertinent. Regulation and government oversight is absolutely necessary in many sectors (financial, technology, environment, for starters). I spend some time pondering which regulatory initiatives could rein in the various "wolves". And I refuse to accept an argument that government can't do it; if that were true; we would not have had the invasion of wealthy and corporate actors into government over the past few decades. Much of what is being written here is periloously close to the 'horse race' reporting that you recently touched on and that is such a problem in media coverage, but also in the things my friends obsess about.
Yes, more framing and information about the common good is needed to build a different narrative. THANKS for your important work on this topic. More is needed.
👊👊👊👆
Love this thread. I have learned a lot from your newsletter Judd. And I'm learning a lot right now, too! Thanks to all
You've done an immense job covering topics that the mainstream media have left by the wayside, especially Facebook's corruption of the political process. What unheralded stories do you hope to cover in 2020?
I'm going to stick on Facebook, but I'm also going to be looking very closely at voter suppression efforts and campaign finance violations. I'm also very open to suggestions and tips on stories. I have a secure email, jlegum@protonmail.com, where anyone can contact me.
An interesting tack might be documenting how people are successfully fighting suppression efforts. There's lots of stuff about how bad things are out there, but less on the wins. Pathways to success can provide inspiration for others.
I’d like to see a collaboration with @jennycohn1. She does tireless work to expose the vulnerabilities in our electronic voting systems.
Seconded.
Thirded??
So ordered!
Ditto!
I totally support that plan. Your Facebook work has been brilliant and so important, and voter suppression and campaign finance are undermining democracy. Looking forward to reading your work this year, and hoping it has a huge impact!
I wonder if you have any insight into how the Democratic nominees for President are exploiting Facebook and other social media platforms. Candidates like Pete Buttigieg who has a relationship with Mark Zuckerberg and hired staff based on his recommendations have risen sharply in polling and I guess my post-2016 broken brain wonders if that might be a result of targeted online ad buys in Iowa and New Hampshire. We're in an ecosystem where a sophisticated understanding of FB and IG's algorithm can move advertising into primary positions. Given Zuckerberg's comments about Warren being an existential crisis and really anyone who sees a need for regulation of Silicon Valley, I'm concerned FB will start picking our candidates for us. Can you share any insight?
I don't have any indication that Facebook is actively trying to pick candidates. I do think that, at a broad level, Facebook is optimized to benefit candidates like Trump, who uses almost exclusively emotional appeals, versus candidates like Warren, who talks a lot about policy details.
Buttigieg's Facebook operation is somewhat more sophisticated than most of the other Democratic candidates and that may have something to do with the staff he has brought on.
Do you predict any political fallout from evangelical Christianity Today's editor in chief recent recommendation that Trump be removed? https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html
No, I don't think newspaper endorsements/editorials make much of a difference. If they did, Trump would not be president.
I’m excited about the Lincoln Project, but as a democrat I’m worried it’ll bite me later. I like environmental regulations and am worried about climate change. Is this just about getting rid of Trump, and once he’s gone will we go right back to shafting workers and the world to make a buck for the rich guys?
I am skeptical of efforts like this. The core question is: Is Trump an aberration or is he a symptom of a much broader problem. I believe he's a symptom. I think efforts like the Lincoln Project are really more geared to restoring the status quo, which I don't think is good enough.
Judd, would love to see a piece on this, ie the broader problem. tia! and Happy Holidays!
I don't think they have much chance when states like South Carolina are cancelling their primary elections.
The Lincoln Project are never Trumpers and other conservatives trying to salvage the GOP from the jaws of Trumpism. It's pretty much a fringe movement because if you look at the current GOP, they are strongly in favor of Trump and his policies.
You've rocketed all the way to the number 2 paid product on Substack. What are you doing with Substack or within the progressive community to evangelize and spread best practices on building a paid newsletter following. I was glad to be introduced to HEATED through you as well.
Hi Theo! I'm not doing anything formal but I am trying to help out anyone who gets involved, including the talented authors of heated.world (climate) and powerplays.news (women's sports). And I try to make time to talk to anyone who reaches out to me who is considering it. But, as you are suggesting, there is a bigger opportunity here than most people realize yet.
I seem to be surrounded by people who seem to think the 2020 presidential election is already decided — even without a democratic nominee in place. I just can't be this hopeless already. And I'm afraid that hopelessness leads to inertia. Am I being a cock-eyed optimist or is there any chance of taking back the White House and/or (more importantly) the Senate? I know it's hard to call it this early but any shred of hope is welcome!
It is not hopeless. People like certainty and politics is never certain until all the votes are counted. So in 2016 many people were SURE that Trump would lose. That certainty was wrong. And it's also not certain he will win this time. Trump has a reasonable chance but any of the Democratic candidates will also have a reasonable chance.
So much consideration of political machinations but no mention of the Climate Crisis, why? This thread, like the all the mass media outlets, seems focused on the arrangement of the deck chairs rather than the sinking ship. Please, explain why the impending existential crisis merits so little attention.
I do cover climate and agree it is a crisis. You can one example here: https://popular.info/p/the-eco-conscious-corporations-backing
Popular Information has a broader focus but for daily climate coverage I recommend heated.world
I'm not, personally, looking for recommendations for more reading on the subject, but thank you.
The topic needs way more attention. The science is clear and we are running out of time, RAPIDLY.
How do you think more people can be informed, motivated and activated to demand the changes that must be made?
What is lacking is more people to pay more attention and make more noise so that all these powerful people who are preoccupied with political pissing contests will drop their egoic obsession with power and put their money and political muscle to work on solving the real problem.
On an unlivable planet, all other issues are moot.
Judd - Always look forward to your morning story and topic. Sometimes though, the mornings get busy and I cannot read the story until later in the day. Was wondering if you could do a reading via a podcast. Doesn't have to be extensive but could be a way to reach others. I always listen to podcasts while on my way to work. Just a thought. Thanks for great work and looking forward to your column in 2020! Have a great holiday season.
This is something that's come up and would be useful for a lot of people I think. But right now I don't have the time. I want to focus on producing the best content. Popular Information is still largely a one-person operation. As the newsletter grows and I'm hopefully able to get more help, maybe it's something we could add.
I just want to express my gratitude for your work. Your investigative work has thrown some very important light on troubling issues (I'm in particular thinking about Facebook), and your writing about them is always illuminating. Thank you. Have a happy holiday season.
Can the American people file a lawsuit or have the leader of the Senate put in jail for not honoring his pledge to be a impartial juror? Or, as usual, we are screwed by Mitch. And the BIG question, what does tRump have on the republicans that they have forgotten what facts and truth are?
No, the courts have a long history of avoiding getting involved in these kind of internal political questions. That tradition was, of course, broken with Bush v. Gore. But I don't see the possibility of a repeat in this case, especially not this court ruling against McConnell.
I think Republicans fear Trump's political influence. What he has on Republicans is the loyalty of 90% of their political base.
So now respecting and honoring your sworn pledge to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States are basically useless.
I have that same question 👆
Love the column, as well as the fact that you have turned me on to several other journalists who I now follow!
My questions: 1) Will impeaching the Orange Asscactus (sorry, "President Trump") end up backfiring on Democrats in vulnerable Congressional Districts (or cause others to flip, as Jeff Van Drew just did), or will it negatively affect the Senate races where the Democrats think that they can flip some seats? (Full Disclosure: This is something that REALLY concerns me)
2) Any chance you can do a really deep dig on the NRA and its funding sources? For a lobby group as small in numbers as it is, it seems bizarre (at least to me) that it should hold such a large hold over Congress. I'd love to know where its money REALLY comes from (my bet is on the gun manufacturers and from overseas, such as Russia and China).
Thank you again, and I hope that you have a wonderful holiday!
1. I don't think there is any evidence that it will backfire broadly. Impeachment was relatively popular, as these things go. It might complicate things for some Democratic House candidates. But it will also complicate things for some Republican Senate candidates.
2. NRA is tricky but Senator Wyden has done some great work. If I see an angle in, I'll be all over it.
That would be very much appreciated because the way you dig in and your writing style would be *very* effective in getting a lot of people, including the donees, to pay attention. And not just blow it off.
Other than subscribing is there anything else us average folk can do to help you?
I need everyone's help spreading the word about the newsletter. We have a healthy number of subscribers but the more subscribers, the more Popular Information can accomplish. I also love a good tip!
Hi Judd! Congrats on all the stories you've broken and reported this year. I'm curious about your creative process for turning an idea or tip into a published post? Do you work best at night or in the morning? Any cool rituals or routines that work for you? Thanks in advance and here's to a powerful 2020!
I am definitely not a morning person. I work best in the afternoon and evening. For me it's about verification and flushing out the story. Finding people to talk to me, corroborating evidence, and relevant context. I'm mostly doing in the afternoon and night and then sending it out to everyone early in the morning.
I don't have many productivity hacks but for me exercise is very important. It helps me think more clearly and creatively. So I make time for that.
Why didnt the House use the subpoena power to summon Mulvaney et. al. to testify? The house was the only place we could sway public opinion. I just dont understand why this wasn't fought as hard as possible given the gravity of the situation.
There have been some lawsuits over other subpeonas but I think Mulvaney was a timing issue. It takes a long time for these things to wind their way through the courts and, after the Ukraine story broke, Democrats wanted to complete the process fairly quickly.
What more can you tell us about the Facebook ads that Trump ran promising “Dinner With Trump?” Is there any legal action being taken to make the campaign or Facebook aaccountable?
So far we know for sure that one of the contests was a fraud and there is no evidence that 15 of the others occurred. I'm continuing to work on the story. I don't think anyone has taken legal action.
Zero to 100, what percent chance do you think the US has of having an election result we can trust, and what’s the percentage chance of Trump attempting to overturn/invalidate it should he lose?
I think we should be vigilant, but I don't think there is evidence of problems with the voting systems on a level that could swing an election. I think the chance of Trump rejecting the result of an election he loses is high. He rejected the result in 2016 (said he really won the popular vote).
There isn't evidence because they are refusing to look. There's a big story here, beginning with the failure of VR Systems poll books in Durham, NC in 2016. People went home because they couldn't vote. The "investigation" was a sham. Years later, when the data on the machines had been overwritten, they looked and found nothing.
I do think there may well be fiddling with swing state counts. This is all the more reason to get rid of the Electoral College.
I can only see a future where every political move is burn-it-down, dirty tricks, forever. We impeached their guy, they'll go for any of ours from now on. All appointments sat on forever - except when it's our turn, then cram them all through. Complete disregard for law and process. Is there any way back? I feel utterly without hope.
I think there is a way back. Politics changes very quickly. After Obama was elected, people were talking about a permanent Democratic majority. That wasn't true. But it's also not true that the current situation has to be permanent.
Appreciate your work, Judd. I'm an author with 125 K FB followers. Several weeks ago, I wrote my last FB post (for the time being), letting readers know that I would no longer use the platform due to (popular) information about Zuckerberg's unprincipled stand on political ads they know to be misleading or false. I'm wondering whether my gesture can make any positive difference, or whether I'd be better off continuing use of the FB platform in positive ways. Thanks again for your contributions.
Hey Dan. Great question. I have my "I'm outta here" post ready for escaping Facebook. Again, for moral reasons and MZ's disdain for policing the posts. I'll look at substack.
Dan, we'd love to have you on Substack, just as Judd is on Substack.
Thanks, Hamish. I'll Google Substack, since I don't know what it is.
We're a platform for personal publications, such as newsletters or blogs, and you can charge paid subscriptions if you'd like. Just like Popular Information. Here's a good place to start: https://on.substack.com/p/what-you-get-when-you-start-a-substack
DELETE Facebook (after maybe sharing this with your followers https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7804121/Facebook-says-locate-users-opt-tracking.html)
Why are GOP senators so subservient to Sen. McConnell? He's ruining their brand.
McConnell is less about branding than results. He got them tax cuts and judges. Everything else is details.
What do you think of Pete Buttigieg’s chances for winning in Iowa & New Hampshire? The media seems enchanted with him. He started out progressive, & has now shifted toward the center, saying he is being practical. I wonder if he has strong progressive convictions, or is going whichever way the wind blows. What are your thoughts?
He's leading in some polls, so I would say he has a reasonable shot. But a lot can happen in 6 weeks. He appears to be trying to occupy a more moderate lane for people disenchanted with Biden and it's working somewhat. The whole field is further to the left as compared to say, 2008. But I do think Buttigieg has made a strategic move to the right to gain traction.
Is it possible to shame the national media? I believe a good deal of our divisiveness is a result of our failure to hold those in power accountable. Elections are one way to do that, but they have not been as effective as they need to be. The media is another vehicle for holding the powerful accountable. But they have failed miserably. And some of our other avenues for holding the powerful accountable, like elections, have failed because of the media's failure. Judd has shown through his work with Facebook that a corporation tied to a single, identifiable person can be influenced. But what about faceless media corporations? I like the content analysis studies that document how many minutes the national nightly news devotes to substantial issues versus, say, the royal family or the weather. Can we use data like that to challenge the priorities of the media? The current administration apparently can't be shamed. Can the media for their failings?
I think the media does respond to "shaming" and criticism. But this is why Trump talks so much about the media. He wants to get in their heads. He wants them to second-guess their decisions and worry about appearing biased. He also wants to create a system where his critics reflexively defend the media. I try to avoid that trap and criticize others in the media when I feel its warranted.
For the longest time, you were pushing for impeachment. I don't disagree with that, but I was very concerned that it would not result in any substantive results due to the Rs not giving any indication of impartiality. It seemed like a very short-sighted move considering the somewhat likely result of it emboldening Trump with his base. We now seem to be at that stage and I am so frustrated with this stalemate. Do you still think it was worth the effort? Obviously, there is more to take place on this subject, but considering what has occurred to this point, seems like an effort that may hurt Democrats instead of helping our country
For me its more about the principle of upholding the rule of law. I don't see any signs that it's broadly hurting Democrats. At the worst, polls about impeachment are even. I suspect in won't have a huge impact on 2020 one way or another. But I think sometimes its better to do the right thing than to try to play fortune teller.
'I suspect it won't have a huge impact on 2020...'
I suspect you're absolutely right and, given the seriousness of the charges and the evidence presented to this point, I think that's the saddest indictment on the state of politics in the US (and much of the Western world) at the moment.
Across the world, we've chosen our camps and dug in for a vicious fight where the other side are venal, stupid or plain bad (whether they be racists, misogynists, homophobes or whatever). I can't see this changing unless something historically earth-shaking happens. Otherwise, it's going to be a long road back to some ind of civil political environment where good men like John McCain could run again Obama while still defending his opponent as another good man with whom he disagreed on important things.
Let’s not mislead ourselves about John McCain. Yes, he stood up to followers about Obama. But he also selected and allowed Palin and others to do quite dirty work for him. He then shifted far right for the rest of his life (excepting on vote on healthcare). Let’s aim higher
I agree. The constitution has to be acted upon to be alive. In a better(?) world, Trump would be convicted. But in a worse world, Dems would lack the will to impeach. Warren's right though: Trump is using this to whatever advantage he can, which at least includes fundraising.
Agreed! So glad we didn’t randomly see the Ukrainian President on CNN talking about Hunter Biden.
Agree completely!
It was well worth it. I wanted my representatives to stand up for principle and not be held back in a constant quandary trying to hedge the political impact. Somebody needed to stand up, and Democrats had to do it.
Absolutely right! I need a post truth world, it doesn’t help to turn a blind eye to corruption and abuse of power. Anyone who is afraid of “emboldening Trump supporters” has not been paying attention the past 4 years (or more). R’s would find some divisive rallying cry regardless. Better D’s choose the topic and the high ground
Will mainstream media ever report on how Vladimir Putin’s endgame with Trump is to lift Russian sanctions, and why that is of interest to them both?
I don't think this is in dispute, as least as far as Putin goes. He's pretty open about wanting sanctions lifted.
Do you think the electoral college will ever go away?
I think there is a chance. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is probably the way it would get done, and they are about 3/4 of the way there.
I looked them up and have added them to the orgs which I donate to monthly through ActBlue.
Exactly what I wanted to ask. Looking forward to your answer.
I know it sounds incredibly cynical, but I am convinced that Trump, et al, have control over the Republican party partly through the imposition of fear tactics, but more so due to having "dirt" on key members. Who, if anyone, might have a stake in uncovering what dirt Trump has on key members? It would seem to me there could be a pattern of investigation into the interaction patterns between Trump and them. Are Presidential call logs available through FOIA? Are Presidential meeting schedules still not being shared?
FSB has espionage records, and Trump has access to FBI and CIA records. That's my best guess.
In the interests of accuracy, could you fix the reference to Tina Smith in this article - https://popular.info/p/the-racists-and-the-antiracists? You show her as: Tina Smith (D-MI). I'm sure both Michigan and Minnesota will thank you!
Done!
Wait, is the the Tia Smith who is a Minnesota Senator? (D-MN).
Tina Smith. Sorry for the typo.
I think I misread the original comment.
What do you think are the most important down-ballot races in 2020? We're focused on presidential picks, for good reason, but that's not where most of the policy that affects day-to-day living happens.
State legislative races are really important and people can make a big impact. If there is a candidate for the state legislature that you are into, getting involved in a local campaign can have a huge impact.
Some really great Dem candidates are unable to get qualifying poll numbers. My question is, "who are they polling?". I've never been polled and I am a lifelong, regular voter.
It's not that unusual. Even high quality polls are just reaching hundreds of people and there are millions of voters. My problem is the emphasis on polling numbers this far out from an election. I think candidates like Booker and Castro should be on the stage.
Yes! What can we do?
Would any Republican senators vote to convict given what is known now? What would it take to get enough to vote to convict for removal?
I don't think there are any Republicans who are particularly likely to convict at this point, although that could change. I think the set of facts against the president right now is absolutely devastating. So I don't think what's missing is incriminating information against Trump. I think it's political courage by Republican Senators.
I have a question about pardoning as it is stated the pardon powers of the President are based on Article Two of the United States Constitution (Section 2, Clause 1), which provides:
The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment.
Does he get to pardon? Or not be pardoned?
I have received and read different answers and I’m confused.
Thank You for All You Do!!!!
Hi Judd. I wanted to make a comment about a couple of issues that add tremendously to the income inequality. One is stock buybacks by corporations. They have been doing this for a long time with the result of making earnings look better because of less shares outstanding. Or better known as financial engineering. The trump tax cuts took the buybacks to a new extreme level. Combine that with ridiculously low interest rates forever. There was a Democratic amendment brought up when they were working on the trump tax cut to force companies to reinvest their cash windfall into their companies and or to raise wages. Of course this was voted down by the GOP. The only people who benefit from the buybacks are shareholders. I don’t fault the companies because they are beholden to shareholders. So the only way to fix this is to limit the financial engineering. Endless low interest rates (which trump loves) are hurting savers, especially seniors who need income from savings to live on. So many people are forced to take on more risk than is appropriate for them to get the income they need. Then if markets go south they are hurt that much more. Also the low interest rates doesn’t bleed into the interest on most of consumer debt. Credit cards still charging 20% interest on balances. So again doesn’t help the average person.Helps companies to borrow super cheap money and use that cheap borrowed money to buy back more stock, instead of R&D and new equipment and expansion which would help workers and the communities they reside in. The uncertainty from the trade issues all over the word due to trump policies just puts the destructive scenario on steroids. Taxing companies more fairly is important but the artificially low interest rates and all the financial engineering causes way more problems over time. I heard Cory Booker talk about the stock buyback issue once on a podcast. Other than that, it’s not mentioned anywhere other than fintwitter and financial media. It’s complicated but the results are clear to everyone. Would love to see more attentive to this massive legal scam. Thank you for the work you do. Best, Melinda @jeanienyc on Twitter
Great points. Ban stock buybacks. Bring back usury laws. Ban anonymous shell companies. Tax churches and charities, but let them claim back taxes on charitable expenses. The world would be a lot more fair!
Do you know of anyone who has tracked down a monetary reason for Brexit? In other words I've been wondering who is making money off of Brexit and whether they were some of the forces behind it.
I don't know. Maybe one day I'll start a Popular Information that's focused on the UK!
Hedge fund managers, in particular. The EU has a lot of data privacy and financial transparency regulations that are ...inconvenient. A non-EU Britain will be the world’s biggest tax haven for dirty money oligarchs from every country. There’s also Russian backing to help weaken the EU
Thanks for the insights, Tom.
If you want to learn more about the many, many parallels between Brexit and Trumpism, read Carole Cadwalladr. This TED talk is a great summary. https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare
Should Democrats continue the impeachment inquiry open in the House in order to investigate Trump's taxes, emoluments (let's find a different word) and the rest of the rampant corruption?
I think they should continue investigating. I'm not sure if it's necessary to call it an impeachment investigation or not.
Will you and other journalists as well informed as you convey to the people that purity tests of Democratic candidates do not need to reach 100% ? And that no matter who the nominee is the most important thing is to vote.
I agree with that. Also no one agree with what "pure" is. But I also think in a primary it's fine to support your candidate and make arguments for and against others.
Hi Judd, I have been wondering, if DJT ends up going to prison some day, as a former President will he be entitled to Secret service protection, funded by the taxpayers?
I think he'll be entitled to that the rest of his life, no matter where he ends up.
Hi, Judd. How long do you think Nancy Pelosi can hold off on sending Impeachment Articles to Senate. And do you think she can win PR war if she held them indefinitely as long as McConnell refuses to call witnesses and/or request documents?
Hopefully, she's waiting til after the new year so that the Senators can hear from their constituents before they do something stupid.
What are your thoughts about anyone else getting in the race, Eric Holder for example? I will vote for the dem who wins the primary, but no one excites me the way Obama did.
I think it's too late for anyone else to get in.
In the future, what are the chances that a viable third political party will develop from this current chaos?
What are the chances that if a democrat wins the WH and the democrats control the senate that they will add two seats to the Supreme Court to balance out what McConnell has done.
I think the first is unlikely in the current structure, where Republicans and Democrats have huge structural advantages, but you never know.
I think the second possibility is unlikely but becomes more likely if there is a vacancy in this last year that Republicans fill, having blocked Garland.
A propos this: What do you think about ranked-choice voting as a way to encourage third party candidates? We have to find a way to break the stagnation of the two party system.
I know the Q&A time is over but I’d love to see a response to this as well