web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- )"

Tulsi Gabbard’s White Pantsuit Isn’t Winning

Westlake Legal Group 21tulsi-sub2-facebookJumbo Tulsi Gabbard’s White Pantsuit Isn’t Winning your-feed-fashion Women and Girls United States Politics and Government Uniforms Suits (Apparel) Presidential Election of 2020 Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Democratic Party Debates (Political) Atlanta (Ga)

What has happened to the white pantsuit? Watching the Democratic debate held in Atlanta on Wednesday night, it was one of the questions that stuck with me. It’s not as important as Medicare for All, obviously, or economic disparity. But given the role white pantsuits have played in the national conversation for the last three years, it’s not immaterial. (No pun intended.)

It was only a mere presidential election cycle ago, after all, that the white suit was thrust into the limelight as a symbol of so much: women’s advancement and opportunity, and the possibility of change. That it became not an item of clothing but a placeholder in a continuum that began with the suffragists, continued through Geraldine Ferraro, and resonated today. That it sparked mountains of text and tweets and entire Facebook groups dedicated to celebrating its meaning and urging adoption — and then designating it the outfit of the opposition.

That Hillary Clinton made it a cause celebre, #WearWhiteToVote made it a hashtag, Melania Trump made it a pointed subject of speculation, and the women of the 116th Congress made it a gauntlet.

Now Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, underdog presidential candidate, has, by all indications, made it her uniform. And yet no one really seems to care.

Wednesday evening marked the third time Ms. Gabbard appeared in a white pantsuit during a debate.

Though she wore a red jacket for her initial appearance, back in June, by late July she had changed to head-to-toe white (not ivory, not cream), a look she repeated in October — she didn’t make the September debate, to her very vocal chagrin — and again this week. She is also pictured in white, looking soulfully into the future, on the home page of her official campaign website. When she filed her official declaration of candidacy in New Hampshire, she was wearing a white jacket and shirt.

That kind of repetition, especially during events geared toward the public eye, does not happen by accident. There’s a reason she is opting for the imagery; a calculation behind the choice.

She should, by all counts, be seen as the standard-bearer of the tradition, so recently embraced by so many women. Yet reaction has been muted at best; more along the lines of “Hey, she looks really good in white,” than “our champion!”

Do we so quickly forget? Or is something else going on?

It’s not Ms. Gabbard’s relatively small slice of support in a large field; both Andrew Yang and Tom Steyer, with similar polling numbers, have managed to parlay visual symbols (math buttons and tartan ties, respectively) into an easy form of engagement and associative shorthand.

Part of the muted reaction probably has to do with the fact that Ms. Gabbard has engaged in a pretty public battle with Mrs. Clinton, calling her “queen of the warmongers” after Mrs. Clinton suggested Ms. Gabbard was the favorite Democratic candidate of the Russians.

It may also have to do with the fact that instead of a single female candidate on the stage, there are still four (plus Marianne Williamson), making the imagery of a woman standing in white less loaded with portent.

But it most probably also has to do with the fact that Ms. Gabbard herself doesn’t seem particularly interested in connecting with the suffragists, but rather is using her white suits to tap into another tradition, latent in the public memory: the mythical white knight, riding in to save us all from yet another “regime change war.”

Her white suits are not the white suits of Ms. Clinton, nor even the white of Ms. Williamson, whose early appearances in the shade often seemed tied to her wellness gospel and ideas of renewal and rebirth. Rather, they are the white of avenging angels and flaming swords, of somewhat combative righteousness (also cult leaders). And that kind of association, though it can be weirdly compelling, is also not really community building. It sets someone apart, rather than joining others together. It has connotations of the fringe, rather than the center.

And it is a reminder that clothes, especially when it comes to the optics of politics during an era of the ubiquitous screenshot, are only as meaningful as the content that fills them.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Tonight’s Democratic Debate: When It Is and What to Watch For

  • The debate is 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Eastern time. It is being held in Atlanta and co-hosted by MSNBC and The Washington Post.

  • There will be no opening statements. Candidates will have 75 seconds to answer questions from the moderators: Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell and Kristen Welker of NBC and Ashley Parker of The Washington Post. Each candidate will have 45 seconds for rebuttals or follow-ups, as well as a 75-second closing statement.

  • The New York Times will have extensive debate coverage, including a live analysis throughout the event.

Nov. 20 Lineup

Westlake Legal Group booker Tonight’s Democratic Debate: When It Is and What to Watch For Yang, Andrew (1975- ) Warren, Elizabeth Steyer, Thomas F Sanders, Bernard Presidential Election of 2020 MSNBC Maddow, Rachel Klobuchar, Amy Harris, Kamala D Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Debates (Political) Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr

Cory Booker

Westlake Legal Group gabbard Tonight’s Democratic Debate: When It Is and What to Watch For Yang, Andrew (1975- ) Warren, Elizabeth Steyer, Thomas F Sanders, Bernard Presidential Election of 2020 MSNBC Maddow, Rachel Klobuchar, Amy Harris, Kamala D Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Debates (Political) Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr

Tulsi Gabbard

Westlake Legal Group klobucha Tonight’s Democratic Debate: When It Is and What to Watch For Yang, Andrew (1975- ) Warren, Elizabeth Steyer, Thomas F Sanders, Bernard Presidential Election of 2020 MSNBC Maddow, Rachel Klobuchar, Amy Harris, Kamala D Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Debates (Political) Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr

Amy Klobuchar

Westlake Legal Group buttigieg Tonight’s Democratic Debate: When It Is and What to Watch For Yang, Andrew (1975- ) Warren, Elizabeth Steyer, Thomas F Sanders, Bernard Presidential Election of 2020 MSNBC Maddow, Rachel Klobuchar, Amy Harris, Kamala D Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Debates (Political) Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr

Pete Buttigieg

Westlake Legal Group warren Tonight’s Democratic Debate: When It Is and What to Watch For Yang, Andrew (1975- ) Warren, Elizabeth Steyer, Thomas F Sanders, Bernard Presidential Election of 2020 MSNBC Maddow, Rachel Klobuchar, Amy Harris, Kamala D Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Debates (Political) Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr

Elizabeth Warren

Westlake Legal Group biden Tonight’s Democratic Debate: When It Is and What to Watch For Yang, Andrew (1975- ) Warren, Elizabeth Steyer, Thomas F Sanders, Bernard Presidential Election of 2020 MSNBC Maddow, Rachel Klobuchar, Amy Harris, Kamala D Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Debates (Political) Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr

Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Westlake Legal Group sanders Tonight’s Democratic Debate: When It Is and What to Watch For Yang, Andrew (1975- ) Warren, Elizabeth Steyer, Thomas F Sanders, Bernard Presidential Election of 2020 MSNBC Maddow, Rachel Klobuchar, Amy Harris, Kamala D Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Debates (Political) Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr

Bernie Sanders

Westlake Legal Group harris Tonight’s Democratic Debate: When It Is and What to Watch For Yang, Andrew (1975- ) Warren, Elizabeth Steyer, Thomas F Sanders, Bernard Presidential Election of 2020 MSNBC Maddow, Rachel Klobuchar, Amy Harris, Kamala D Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Debates (Political) Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr

Kamala Harris

Westlake Legal Group yang Tonight’s Democratic Debate: When It Is and What to Watch For Yang, Andrew (1975- ) Warren, Elizabeth Steyer, Thomas F Sanders, Bernard Presidential Election of 2020 MSNBC Maddow, Rachel Klobuchar, Amy Harris, Kamala D Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Debates (Political) Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr

Andrew Yang

Westlake Legal Group steyer Tonight’s Democratic Debate: When It Is and What to Watch For Yang, Andrew (1975- ) Warren, Elizabeth Steyer, Thomas F Sanders, Bernard Presidential Election of 2020 MSNBC Maddow, Rachel Klobuchar, Amy Harris, Kamala D Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Debates (Political) Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr

Tom Steyer

Candidates will appear in this order on the stage, from left to right.

Ten Democratic presidential candidates will take the debate stage in Atlanta on Wednesday night, but the spotlight is likely to follow two contenders who have risen to the top of polls over the last several months: Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind.

Here is what to watch for as the candidates debate:

Last month in Ohio, Ms. Warren took incoming fire from four different rivals. Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Mr. Buttigieg led the attack against her health care proposals, Senator Kamala Harris of California made a disjointed plea for Ms. Warren to sign onto her call for Twitter to ban President Trump and Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii demanded to know how Ms. Warren was qualified to serve as commander-in-chief.

Since then, Ms. Warren has seen her polling position diminish as she has sought to explain how she would finance “Medicare for all” beyond the “I’m with Bernie” line that she offered earlier in the campaign. But the attacks against her haven’t stopped. She remains a useful foil for Mr. Biden and Mr. Buttigieg — along with Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota — as they jostle to be the standard-bearer for the party’s moderate wing.

Ms. Warren has shown no indication she’s willing to give ground. During a speech to Iowa Democrats this month she used the word “fight” 21 times in 12 minutes. Her argument that the party will lose to Mr. Trump if it nominates a candidate who fears her bold proposals has become central to her campaign stump speech.

Expect both dynamics to be on full display in Atlanta, though this time Ms. Warren will be prepared to defend Medicare for all in a more detailed fashion than she has demonstrated to date.

At the same time, the volume of opposition research being pitched by rival campaigns about Mr. Buttigieg has increased, focusing on 9-year-old friendly remarks about the Tea Party and his stewardship of the municipal government in South Bend.

In previous debates, Mr. Buttigieg has easily parried attacks from his rivals — that task will become tougher as scrutiny on him increases.

Join us for live analysis on debate night. Subscribe to “On Politics,” and we’ll send you a link.

While Ms. Warren laid out a plan last week to pass a full Medicare for all system by her third year in the White House, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont said he’d get it done right away.

“I will engage that struggle on day one of my administration,” Mr. Sanders said Friday in California. “Not put it off for several years.”

Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren, long ideological partners, have mostly avoided direct conflict on the campaign trail. But the Medicare for all issue affords each of them an opportunity to create political distance. Mr. Sanders can once again brand himself as the purest advocate for his political revolution. Ms. Warren, meanwhile, will have to navigate between appealing to the party’s most progressive voters and not frightening away moderate Democrats by tying herself too closely to Mr. Sanders.

The Democratic differences on how to fix America’s health care system have consumed much of the airtime in debate after debate, and the coming clash in Atlanta is expected to be more of the same.

In the last debate, Ms. Warren was hammered for lacking her own Medicare for all plan. She has since rolled out a comprehensive package that more moderate Democrats, like Mr. Biden and Mr. Buttigieg, have said is unrealistic and unworkable. Mr. Biden has used health care to raise other questions about Ms. Warren, calling her an elitist with a “my way or the highway” approach to governance.

Mr. Buttigieg has been advertising in Iowa to promote his “Medicare for all who want it” approach, which Ms. Warren has said will not fundamentally fix the system. The recent Des Moines Register/CNN poll showed how divided the party is on the topic, with 36 percent favoring a Medicare for all plan that eliminates private insurance, 34 percent wanting a “public option” and 20 percent saying they preferred restoring provisions in the Affordable Care Act.

Midway through the second week of impeachment gobbling the entire Washington news cycle, the presidential candidates would still rather talk about almost anything else.

Yet it seems implausible — if not impossible — for Wednesday night’s debate moderators to avoid asking the White House hopefuls about the House inquiry unfolding daily on live television.

But what can the candidates say at this point? They’re all for impeaching Mr. Trump. But while they know that wanting the president removed from office is the cost of entry for the Democratic primary, voters would much rather see a discussion about the sort of issues that are central to their daily lives: health care, climate change and the economy.

Even Tom Steyer, the California billionaire who spent years on a campaign calling for Mr. Trump’s impeachment, is talking about other issues on the trail.

So expect to see the moderators quiz the candidates about the latest developments from Washington, as they then pivot to something else.

Things are not going well for the California senator. Since the last debate, she has shuttered her New Hampshire offices. She has laid off staff and shifted resources from her Baltimore headquarters to Iowa. And she has continued a slide in the polls, which now show her closer to the bottom tier than to the top.

The challenge is that Ms. Harris has already delivered one of the most memorable debate moments of the primary — her takedown of Mr. Biden on busing — but the bump she received quickly faded.

She has since turned her focus on Mr. Trump in one debate, and challenged Ms. Warren to call for kicking the president off Twitter in another. She does not have a signature policy focus — she has called to cut middle-class taxes as a top priority — that seems ripe to pop. It is not clear what tack she will take on Wednesday evening (she could be among the many ready to pile onto Mr. Buttigieg), but the pressure to perform is strong.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Presidential Power Must Be Curbed After Trump, 2020 Candidates Say

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential candidates broadly agree that President Trump has shaken the presidency loose from its constitutional limits and say that the White House needs major new legal curbs, foreshadowing a potential era of reform akin to the post-Watergate period if any of them wins next year’s election.

In responses to a New York Times survey about executive power, the Democrats — along with two Republicans mounting primary challenges to Mr. Trump — envisioned a rebuke of his term by enshrining into law previous norms of presidential self-restraint.

Many called for new laws that would require presidents to disclose their tax returns and to divest from significant assets; bar them from appointing close relatives to White House positions; and constrain their abilities to award security clearances and to fire special prosecutors investigating their administration, among other potential reforms.

The survey is the first and most detailed collection of the candidates’ views on a set of issues that they are rarely asked about, yet often prove crucial to the outcome of political fights: the scope and limits of a president’s power to act unilaterally or even in defiance of statutes.

Westlake Legal Group 00-execpower-promo-articleLarge Presidential Power Must Be Curbed After Trump, 2020 Candidates Say Yang, Andrew (1975- ) Williamson, Marianne Weld, William F Warren, Elizabeth War and Emergency Powers (US) United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Sanders, Bernard Ryan, Timothy J (1973- ) Russian Interference in 2016 US Elections and Ties to Trump Associates Republican Party Prisoners of War Presidents and Presidency (US) Presidential Election of 2020 Obama, Barack O'Rourke, Beto Law and Legislation Klobuchar, Amy Harris, Kamala D Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Democratic Party Delaney, John (1963- ) de Blasio, Bill Constitution (US) Castro, Julian Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Bullock, Steve Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

Executive Power Survey

The Times sent a survey to the presidential candidates about their understanding of the scope and limits of the presidential authority they would wield if elected.

The survey — which elicited answers from 15 Democrats, including all in the top polling tier and eight of the 10 in Thursday’s debate — also focused on recurring constitutional disputes that have arisen under recent presidents of both parties on matters including secrecy and war.

“The American people should fully know how candidates will use the power of the presidency,” Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote, echoing other candidates who agreed that voters should know their views before deciding whom to entrust with the power of the White House.

Presidents have “a responsibility to make sure excess power is not used to start endless wars, attack the privacy of Americans, or undermine the democratic values of our country,” she added.

But though the candidates “seem committed to reforming the presidency,” they might have second thoughts from the vantage point of the Oval Office, said Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor and former senior Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration who reviewed their responses.

“The next Democratic president will happily accept new rules on tax releases, but will have a harder time accepting constraints on security clearances and emergency or war powers,” he said. “Institutional prerogative often defeats prior reformist pledges.”

Indeed, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. expressed a more expansive view of presidential war powers after eight years in the Obama White House than he did in 2007 during an earlier run for president.



The 2020 candidates agreed on some issues, including that Mr. Bush was wrong to claim after the Sept. 11 attacks that he could override surveillance and anti-torture laws because he was the commander in chief.

But they diverged about others, like whether President Barack Obama’s invocation of the same power was legitimate. Mr. Obama used similar reasoning to disregard a requirement that he give Congress 30 days’ notice before transferring Guantánamo Bay detainees as part of the 2014 Bowe Bergdahl prisoner swap.

Senator Kamala Harris, for example, wrote that while a president can lawfully override or bypass statutes that are clearly unconstitutional, she thought the detainee transfer law — along with the surveillance and anti-torture laws — was a constitutional limit that presidents must obey.

“The executive branch is not above the law,” she wrote, adding, “As president, I would respect these laws.”

By contrast, Mr. Biden defended the decision by Mr. Obama — then his boss — to immediately carry out the exchange after the deal was struck instead of waiting 30 days. Obama administration officials argued that a delay would have endangered the captive soldier’s life.

“The transfer of detainees from Guantánamo was an exchange of prisoners in a conflict, and therefore a valid exercise of the commander-in-chief power,” Mr. Biden wrote.

He participated in an earlier iteration of the survey as a senator seeking the 2008 presidential nomination, and his new answers reflected the understanding of executive authority that he gained from watching close up as Mr. Obama wielded it.

In late 2007, for example, Mr. Biden offered a restrictive view of when presidents may unilaterally direct the military to attack other countries, writing: “The Constitution is clear: Except in response to an attack or the imminent threat of attack, only Congress may authorize war and the use of force.”

But in the new survey, Mr. Biden called it “well established” that presidents may launch limited strikes “without prior congressional approval when those operations serve important U.S. interests.”

That legal rationale for ordering limited attacks without congressional approval echoed the Obama administration’s stance during the NATO intervention in Libya in 2011. But the bombing campaign violated a limit on executive war-making powers that both Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden had said they would respect in the 2007 candidate survey.

Importantly, however, Mr. Biden said both then and now that any bombing of Iranian nuclear sites — a prospect in which the scope of unilateral presidential war-making authority has repeatedly come up — would require prior authorization from Congress because it would carry too much risk of escalation into a major war.

Still, several of Mr. Biden’s rivals took a more constrained view, suggesting that a rationale of serving American “interests” is not enough to justify even limited strikes without Congress.

“In situations where the use of force is necessary, absent an imminent threat to our national security, I will take that case to Congress and the American people to seek authorization,” former Representative Beto O’Rourke wrote.

Most candidates left the door open to using presidential signing statements, when approving bills, to claim a right to bypass provisions they see as unconstitutionally infringing on executive powers. But the answers submitted by the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders — which were written in third person — pledged he would never use them.

“Signing statements circumvent the will of Congress and have no constitutional or legal legitimacy,” the response said. “As president, Bernie would not issue signing statements.”

The survey revealed broader disagreements about the wisdom of several other potential reforms raised by Mr. Trump’s record. Significant numbers of candidates stood on both sides of ideas like curtailing future presidents’ latitude to invoke emergency powers and to choose acting agency heads when temporarily filling vacancies.

But the candidates were largely united in rejecting the view of Mr. Trump’s legal team, including Attorney General William P. Barr, that obstruction of justice laws do not apply to presidents who abuse their official powers to interfere with investigations for corrupt reasons.

Many also expressed skepticism of the Justice Department’s view that sitting presidents are immune from indictment, which bound the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, as he weighed Mr. Trump’s attempts to obstruct the Russia investigation. Most said they would sign a law pausing the statute of limitations for offenses by presidents, ensuring that they can still be prosecuted after leaving office.

But they split over what else to do about it. Several said they would direct the department’s Office of Legal Counsel to rescind its opinion, while others sidestepped that question. Mayor Pete Buttigieg argued that it would interfere with Justice Department independence for a president to simply direct the office, commonly called O.L.C., to change its legal interpretation.

“Because the integrity of the Justice Department is critical to the rule of law, I do not think it would be appropriate for any president to dictate the legal conclusions that O.L.C. may issue or retract,” Mr. Buttigieg wrote.

After The Times began the survey, Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group of former officials seeking to prevent a decline “into a more authoritarian form of government,” lobbied the candidates to participate. Justin Florence, a former Obama White House lawyer and the group’s co-founder, praised those who answered the questions.

“With democracy in retreat and autocratic politics on the rise here and around the world, this survey provides critical insights into how each candidate understands the limits on the immense powers they’re seeking,” Mr. Florence said.

Several prominent Democratic candidates have not answered the questions. They include Mayor Bill de Blasio; Julian Castro, the former Housing and Urban Development secretary; former Representative John Delaney; and the businessmen Tom Steyer and Andrew Yang.

Opinion | Charlie Savage
Presidential Candidates, Silent on Presidential Power

Jan. 22, 2016

Westlake Legal Group 24savage-videoLarge Presidential Power Must Be Curbed After Trump, 2020 Candidates Say Yang, Andrew (1975- ) Williamson, Marianne Weld, William F Warren, Elizabeth War and Emergency Powers (US) United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Sanders, Bernard Ryan, Timothy J (1973- ) Russian Interference in 2016 US Elections and Ties to Trump Associates Republican Party Prisoners of War Presidents and Presidency (US) Presidential Election of 2020 Obama, Barack O'Rourke, Beto Law and Legislation Klobuchar, Amy Harris, Kamala D Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Democratic Party Delaney, John (1963- ) de Blasio, Bill Constitution (US) Castro, Julian Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Bullock, Steve Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand
In G.O.P. Field, Broad View of Presidential Power Prevails

Dec. 29, 2011

Westlake Legal Group executive-power-survey-2020 Presidential Power Must Be Curbed After Trump, 2020 Candidates Say Yang, Andrew (1975- ) Williamson, Marianne Weld, William F Warren, Elizabeth War and Emergency Powers (US) United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Sanders, Bernard Ryan, Timothy J (1973- ) Russian Interference in 2016 US Elections and Ties to Trump Associates Republican Party Prisoners of War Presidents and Presidency (US) Presidential Election of 2020 Obama, Barack O'Rourke, Beto Law and Legislation Klobuchar, Amy Harris, Kamala D Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Democratic Party Delaney, John (1963- ) de Blasio, Bill Constitution (US) Castro, Julian Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Bullock, Steve Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand
The Candidates on Executive Power

Dec. 29, 2011

Westlake Legal Group executive-power-survey-2020 Presidential Power Must Be Curbed After Trump, 2020 Candidates Say Yang, Andrew (1975- ) Williamson, Marianne Weld, William F Warren, Elizabeth War and Emergency Powers (US) United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Sanders, Bernard Ryan, Timothy J (1973- ) Russian Interference in 2016 US Elections and Ties to Trump Associates Republican Party Prisoners of War Presidents and Presidency (US) Presidential Election of 2020 Obama, Barack O'Rourke, Beto Law and Legislation Klobuchar, Amy Harris, Kamala D Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Democratic Party Delaney, John (1963- ) de Blasio, Bill Constitution (US) Castro, Julian Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Bullock, Steve Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

These Four Candidates Are Scrambling to Make the Cut for the Next Democratic Debate

With the deadline to qualify for the next Democratic presidential debates looming just two weeks away, candidates on the bubble are mounting some of their final offensives, urgently seeking supporters who can help them make the cut.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York has poured more than $1 million into advertising in Iowa and New Hampshire. Julián Castro, the former housing secretary, bought a local ad in Bedminster, N.J., where President Trump is vacationing this week. And Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii has urged her supporters to try to improve their chances of being selected for online polls.

They and other lower-tier candidates are desperately searching for voters who can propel them to 2 percent support in qualifying polls, one of the Democratic National Committee’s requirements for the next set of debates, scheduled for Sept. 12 and 13 in Houston. The threshold for the June and July debates was merely 1 percent.

[Andrew Yang became the ninth Democrat to qualify for the September debates.]

Meanwhile, Tom Steyer, the former hedge fund investor turned impeachment activist, has spent millions of dollars flooding the internet with ads that have helped him catch up to his rivals after entering the race in July. On Tuesday his campaign announced that he had crossed the other threshold for qualification by collecting donations from more than 130,000 people.

The collective scramble to earn a spot on the stage next month underscores the importance the campaigns are placing on the next debates. Those who secure a lectern will have another opportunity to speak to a national audience, but those who miss out will face louder calls to withdraw as Democrats grow anxious for the field to narrow.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_158710440_5651bd92-2c86-446f-a0a8-b5f4c96391d7-articleLarge These Four Candidates Are Scrambling to Make the Cut for the Next Democratic Debate Steyer, Thomas F Presidential Election of 2020 Political Advertising Online Advertising Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Debates (Political) Castro, Julian

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand began an advertising campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire over the weekend.CreditMaddie McGarvey for The New York Times

“This is the brave new world of D.N.C. debate qualification standards,” said Jim Hobart, a partner at Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican polling firm. “Democratic presidential candidates are clearly going to do whatever they can to qualify for these debates, whether that’s spending millions of dollars on television ads or encouraging donors to sign up for these online polls.”

A New York Times analysis of polling and donation data shows that nine of the 24 Democratic candidates have already qualified for the next debates by collecting donations from at least 130,000 people and reaching 2 percent support in four qualifying polls. The deadline to meet those standards is Aug. 28.

Mr. Castro, Ms. Gabbard, Ms. Gillibrand and Mr. Steyer are all within striking distance. Mr. Castro and Mr. Steyer need only one more qualifying poll; Ms. Gabbard needs three more; and Ms. Gillibrand needs about 30,000 more donors as well as three more qualifying polls.

None of the other candidates except former Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado have hit 2 percent in any qualifying polls, and Mr. Hickenlooper had only about 14,000 individual donors as of June 30. The Times reported this week that he was considering dropping out of the race.

[These three cities are key for 2020 Democrats. They’re not in Iowa or New Hampshire.]

The campaigns are not necessarily seeing a return on their investment as they hunt for new donors; many are asking for $1 contributions. But the size of the donations does not matter for debate qualification, only the number of individual contributors. That has skewed campaigns’ strategies and encouraged them to create advertising they hope will go viral.

Mr. Castro’s new advertisement is set to appear Wednesday on Fox News in Bedminster, where Mr. Trump is staying at his golf course. In the ad, Mr. Castro speaks directly to the president, ticking off Mr. Trump’s words and actions that he says “stoked the fire of racists” and inspired the mass shooting that killed 22 people in El Paso this month.

“Innocent people were shot down because they look different from you. Because they look like me. They look like my family,” Mr. Castro says in the ad. “Words have consequences.”

Mr. Castro’s campaign said it spent $2,775 to run the ad a few times on Wednesday. His team said the ad was meant to send a message to Mr. Trump, who watches Fox News regularly, but campaign officials also expected it would resonate with voters.

Ms. Gillibrand’s new 30-second ad, titled “Imagine,” paints her as “a leader driven by compassion, brave enough to take on the impossible, who looks beyond herself to do what’s best for us.” Her campaign said the ad spending was intended in part to “bolster the campaign’s efforts to qualify for the fall debates.”

Ms. Gillibrand’s campaign had more than $8 million on hand at the end of June, and her aides have said that the 24 hours after the July debate were her strongest of the campaign in terms of bringing in new online donors and contributions.

She has spent heavily since then. Over the past month, her campaign spent $1 million on Facebook ads, according to data from the company, second only to Mr. Steyer’s campaign during that period.

Representative Tulsi Gabbard has been urging her supporters to take part in polls that could help her meet the qualification threshold. CreditMaddie McGarvey for The New York Times

Mr. Steyer’s team has said he plans to spend at least $100 million on the race. His campaign has already spent about $3 million advertising on Facebook and $820,000 on Google, according to data from those companies.

In the seven-day period ending on Sunday, he spent $1.1 million on Facebook, roughly five times as much as the second highest-spending Democratic candidate in that period, Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind. On Sunday alone, Mr. Steyer spent about $140,000 on Facebook — more than what many candidates, including Senator Kamala Harris of California and former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas, spent on the platform in the past month.

Mr. Steyer has also spent about $6.5 million on television advertising since he hit the trail, according to Medium Buying, a Republican media buying agency.

A spokesman for Mr. Steyer’s campaign declined to comment on its spending and the amount of money it had raised in contributions. But other campaigns took note that Mr. Steyer had reached the donor threshold so quickly.

“The D.N.C. donor requirement may have been added with the right intentions, but there’s no doubt that it’s created a situation in which billionaires can buy their way onto the debate stage,” Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana said in a statement on Tuesday. “We’re kidding ourselves if we’re calling a $10 million purchase of 130,000 donors a demonstration of grass-roots support.”

Tom Steyer, the former hedge fund investor, has spent millions of dollars flooding the internet with ads.CreditErin Schaff/The New York Times

Ms. Gabbard — who left the campaign trail this week to report for a two-week training exercise with the National Guard — is in need of better polling results. In an effort to improve those prospects, her team sent an email to supporters this month imploring them to “take the time to answer if you receive a call from a pollster or are presented with an online poll.”

The email also listed “ways you can increase your chances of being selected for a debate-qualifying poll.” It encouraged supporters to fill out surveys from the online polling firms Survey Monkey and YouGov in an effort to be selected for their presidential primary polls.

Doug Rivers, YouGov’s chief scientist, said in an email that he and his team were aware of messages like the one sent by the Gabbard campaign. But he said the company’s systems made it extremely unlikely that a newly registered respondent would be surveyed in a qualifying poll. Even then, he said, there would be too few new panelists to skew the results.

A spokeswoman for Survey Monkey said it randomly selects its respondents and prevents those selected from responding multiple times.

Thomas Kaplan contributed reporting.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

As Debate Deadline Nears, Democratic Candidates Scramble to Make the Cut

With the deadline to qualify for the next Democratic presidential debates looming just two weeks away, candidates on the bubble are mounting some of their final offensives, urgently seeking supporters who can help them make the cut.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York has poured more than $1 million into advertising in Iowa and New Hampshire. Julián Castro, the former housing secretary, bought a local ad in Bedminster, N.J., where President Trump is vacationing this week. And Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii has urged her supporters to try to improve their chances of being selected for online polls.

They and other lower-tier candidates are desperately searching for voters who can propel them to 2 percent support in qualifying polls, one of the Democratic National Committee’s requirements for the next set of debates, scheduled for Sept. 12 and 13 in Houston. The threshold for the June and July debates was merely 1 percent.

[Andrew Yang became the ninth Democrat to qualify for the September debates.]

Meanwhile, Tom Steyer, the former hedge fund investor turned impeachment activist, has spent millions of dollars flooding the internet with ads that have helped him catch up to his rivals after entering the race in July. On Tuesday his campaign announced that he had crossed the other threshold for qualification by collecting donations from more than 130,000 people.

The collective scramble to earn a spot on the stage next month underscores the importance the campaigns are placing on the next debates. Those who secure a lectern will have another opportunity to speak to a national audience, but those who miss out will face louder calls to withdraw as Democrats grow anxious for the field to narrow.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_158710440_5651bd92-2c86-446f-a0a8-b5f4c96391d7-articleLarge As Debate Deadline Nears, Democratic Candidates Scramble to Make the Cut Steyer, Thomas F Presidential Election of 2020 Political Advertising Online Advertising Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Debates (Political) Castro, Julian

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand began an advertising campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire over the weekend.CreditMaddie McGarvey for The New York Times

“This is the brave new world of D.N.C. debate qualification standards,” said Jim Hobart, a partner at Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican polling firm. “Democratic presidential candidates are clearly going to do whatever they can to qualify for these debates, whether that’s spending millions of dollars on television ads or encouraging donors to sign up for these online polls.”

A New York Times analysis of polling and donation data shows that nine of the 24 Democratic candidates have already qualified for the next debates by collecting donations from at least 130,000 people and reaching 2 percent support in four qualifying polls. The deadline to meet those standards is Aug. 28.

Mr. Castro, Ms. Gabbard, Ms. Gillibrand and Mr. Steyer are all within striking distance. Mr. Castro and Mr. Steyer need only one more qualifying poll; Ms. Gabbard needs three more; and Ms. Gillibrand needs about 30,000 more donors as well as three more qualifying polls.

None of the other candidates except former Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado have hit 2 percent in any qualifying polls, and Mr. Hickenlooper had only about 14,000 individual donors as of June 30. The Times reported this week that he was considering dropping out of the race.

[Who’s in? Who’s out? Keep up with the 2020 field with our candidate tracker.]

The campaigns are not necessarily seeing a return on their investment as they hunt for new donors; many are asking for $1 contributions. But the size of the donations does not matter for debate qualification, only the number of individual contributors. That has skewed campaigns’ strategies and encouraged them to create advertising they hope will go viral.

Mr. Castro’s new advertisement is set to appear Wednesday on Fox News in Bedminster, where Mr. Trump is staying at his golf course. In the ad, Mr. Castro speaks directly to the president, ticking off Mr. Trump’s words and actions that he says “stoked the fire of racists” and inspired the mass shooting that killed 22 people in El Paso this month.

“Innocent people were shot down because they look different from you. Because they look like me. They look like my family,” Mr. Castro says in the ad. “Words have consequences.”

Mr. Castro’s campaign said it spent $2,775 to run the ad a few times on Wednesday. His team said the ad was meant to send a message to Mr. Trump, who watches Fox News regularly, but campaign officials also expected it would resonate with voters.

Ms. Gillibrand’s new 30-second ad, titled “Imagine,” paints her as “a leader driven by compassion, brave enough to take on the impossible, who looks beyond herself to do what’s best for us.” Her campaign said the ad spending was intended in part to “bolster the campaign’s efforts to qualify for the fall debates.”

Ms. Gillibrand’s campaign had more than $8 million on hand at the end of June, and her aides have said that the 24 hours after the July debate were her strongest of the campaign in terms of bringing in new online donors and contributions.

She has spent heavily since then. Over the past month, her campaign spent $1 million on Facebook ads, according to data from the company, second only to Mr. Steyer’s campaign during that period.

Representative Tulsi Gabbard has been urging her supporters to take part in polls that could help her meet the qualification threshold. CreditMaddie McGarvey for The New York Times

Mr. Steyer’s team has said he plans to spend at least $100 million on the race. His campaign has already spent about $3 million advertising on Facebook and $820,000 on Google, according to data from those companies.

In the seven-day period ending on Sunday, he spent $1.1 million on Facebook, roughly five times as much as the second highest-spending Democratic candidate in that period, Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind. On Sunday alone, Mr. Steyer spent about $140,000 on Facebook — more than what many candidates, including Senator Kamala Harris of California and former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas, spent on the platform in the past month.

Mr. Steyer has also spent about $6.5 million on television advertising since he hit the trail, according to Medium Buying, a Republican media buying agency.

A spokesman for Mr. Steyer’s campaign declined to comment on its spending and the amount of money it had raised in contributions. But other campaigns took note that Mr. Steyer had reached the donor threshold so quickly.

“The D.N.C. donor requirement may have been added with the right intentions, but there’s no doubt that it’s created a situation in which billionaires can buy their way onto the debate stage,” Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana said in a statement on Tuesday. “We’re kidding ourselves if we’re calling a $10 million purchase of 130,000 donors a demonstration of grass-roots support.”

Tom Steyer, the former hedge fund investor, has spent millions of dollars flooding the internet with ads.CreditErin Schaff/The New York Times

Ms. Gabbard — who left the campaign trail this week to report for a two-week training exercise with the National Guard — is in need of better polling results. In an effort to improve those prospects, her team sent an email to supporters this month imploring them to “take the time to answer if you receive a call from a pollster or are presented with an online poll.”

The email also listed “ways you can increase your chances of being selected for a debate-qualifying poll.” It encouraged supporters to fill out surveys from the online polling firms Survey Monkey and YouGov in an effort to be selected for their presidential primary polls.

Doug Rivers, YouGov’s chief scientist, said in an email that he and his team were aware of messages like the one sent by the Gabbard campaign. But he said the company’s systems made it extremely unlikely that a newly registered respondent would be surveyed in a qualifying poll. Even then, he said, there would be too few new panelists to skew the results.

A spokeswoman for Survey Monkey said it randomly selects its respondents and prevents those selected from responding multiple times.

Thomas Kaplan contributed reporting.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

18 Candidates. 72 Hours. A Hectic Weekend at the Iowa State Fair.

Westlake Legal Group booker_fair-videoSixteenByNine1050-v2 18 Candidates. 72 Hours. A Hectic Weekend at the Iowa State Fair. Yang, Andrew (1975- ) Williamson, Marianne Warren, Elizabeth Steyer, Tom State and County Fairs Sestak, Joseph Sanders, Bernard Ryan, Timothy J (1973- ) Primaries and Caucuses Klobuchar, Amy Iowa Inslee, Jay Hickenlooper, John W Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Delaney, John R de Blasio, Bill Castro, Julian Booker, Cory A Bennet, Michael Farrand

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Democrats’ 2020 Problem: How to Be Tougher on Trade Than Trump

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s escalating economic war with China highlights a challenge for Democrats hoping to unseat him in 2020: They’ll have a hard time being tougher on trade than he is.

For years, Democrats in Congress have been warning that China is an economic aggressor bent on undermining American industry. They have denounced the North American Free Trade Agreement for outsourcing jobs and criticized China for manipulating its currency to make Chinese products cheaper. They have vowed to use federal procurement, tariffs and other tools to help American workers.

Mr. Trump has stolen that playbook and gone further. On Monday, his administration formally designated China a currency manipulator, a step some Democrats have demanded for years. Last week, the president moved forward with plans to tax nearly every toy, laptop and sneaker that China sends to the United States. Mr. Trump has also renegotiated NAFTA, imposed tariffs on foreign metals and strengthened “buy American” rules so that federal projects use more materials from the United States.

So far, many of these efforts have not produced the kind of change Mr. Trump promised. His revised NAFTA, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, is languishing in Congress, and his sweeping tariffs have prompted China and Europe to retaliate against American products, particularly farm goods. The president’s trade war with China has begun driving up costs for consumers and businesses.

But Mr. Trump’s trade assault has put Democrats in an awkward spot. They are trying to figure out how to differentiate themselves from Mr. Trump — without ceding their position as the party that will do the most to defend workers against the downsides of globalization.

So far, they are divided between two very different approaches. On one side are Democratic lawmakers and presidential candidates who hew more closely to Mr. Trump’s isolationist approach, arguing that trade pacts have sold out workers in favor of corporations. On the other are those advocating the type of engagement undertaken by previous Democratic administrations, including those of Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, to try to gain more influence over other countries through negotiation and trade.

The party is split along familiar lines, with progressives like Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont calling for a more radical transformation of trade policy, and moderates like former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. espousing a more traditional approach.

That division is exposing a vulnerability for a party that has historically embraced a tougher stance on free trade than Republicans but has seen that position erode with the ascension of moderate Democrats like Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama.

Progressives who had railed against trade pacts for years felt shunted aside in the Clinton administration, as pro-trade Democrats brought China into the World Trade Organization and finished NAFTA, a trade deal begun by President George Bush. They felt similarly ignored by the Obama administration, which pushed ahead with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multicountry trade pact, despite complaints that the deal was a boon to drug companies, would allow foreign automakers to flood the American market and overlooked labor violations in countries like Vietnam and Malaysia.

Then came Mr. Trump, whose assaults on China and the North American Free Trade Agreement during the 2016 campaign mimicked what many Democrats had been saying. His promises to put “America first” won over some of the union rank and file, if not their leaders.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_158821320_57de6d9f-8ae5-4d28-91e2-f08f7e353acb-articleLarge Democrats’ 2020 Problem: How to Be Tougher on Trade Than Trump Warren, Elizabeth United States Politics and Government Sanders, Bernard Ryan, Timothy J (1973- ) Presidential Election of 2020 Politics and Government Pelosi, Nancy International Trade and World Market Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) de Blasio, Bill Brown, Sherrod Biden, Joseph R Jr

The Democrats are split between more moderate voices, like former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, who wants to embrace free trade, and more isolationist candidates who say trade deals hurt American workers and benefit corporations.CreditBridget Bennett for The New York Times

“At one time, the Democrats were much more aggressive on trade than the Republicans,” said Daniel DiMicco, President Trump’s trade adviser during the 2016 campaign, who leads the Coalition for a Prosperous America, a trade group. “They’ve been missing for decades on this, just as many of the Republicans had.”

For now, many of the Democratic candidates are characterizing Mr. Trump’s trade policy as haphazard and inept. But some have also praised him for pursuing policies they have backed for years.

“I think President Trump was onto something when he talked about China,” Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio said last month in the second Democratic debate in Detroit. “China has been abusing the economic system for a long time. They steal intellectual property. They subsidize goods coming into this country. They’ve displaced steel workers, autoworkers, across the board, eroded our manufacturing.”

“So I think we need some targeted response against China,” Mr. Ryan added. “But you know how you beat China? You outcompete them.”

Mr. Ryan and other candidates spent much of the recent debate denouncing Mr. Trump’s trade war as a conflict without winners. But they offered few concrete ideas for how to better position the United States against China’s growing economic ambitions. And while the candidates were united in saying Mr. Trump’s tariffs were not the solution, only Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii would commit to rolling them back once in office.

Instead, Democrats proposed working with allies to try to restrain China, or investing in job training programs to improve America’s competitiveness as a manufacturing base. And they clashed over whether their approach should result in more trade agreements, like Mr. Biden suggests, or fewer, like Ms. Warren.

The stakes are particularly high for Mr. Biden, who has a record of supporting free-trade deals like NAFTA, which he voted for while in Congress, and the TPP, which was ushered in while he was vice president. Although Mr. Biden portrays himself as the candidate most in touch with — and able to win — blue-collar and union workers, that electorate has become increasingly disillusioned with free trade and its ability to deliver promised gains.

Mr. Biden has called for rejoining the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was aimed, in part, at pressuring China to overhaul its economy and strengthening the United States’ ability to compete against it in Asia. That deal proved deeply unpopular as the 2016 election approached — including with the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton — and Mr. Trump pulled the United States out of it in his first week in office.

Mr. Biden tried to head off criticism in the most recent debate, saying that he “would not rejoin the TPP as it was initially put forward” but would “insist that we renegotiate.”

“Either China is going to write the rules of the road for the 21st century on trade, or we are,” Mr. Biden said. “We have to join with the 40 percent of the world that we had with us.”

Others, like Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders, continue to criticize trade pacts like the TPP as drafted by and for multinational corporations.

Progressive Democratic candidates including Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren argue that free trade agreements have hurt American workers. Ms. Warren wants the United States to do deals only with countries that adhere to strict environmental and labor standards.CreditErin Schaff/The New York Times

Trade deals “have become a way for giant multinationals to change the regulatory environment so they can suck more profits out for themselves and to leave the American people behind,” Ms. Warren said in the debate.

In Ms. Warren’s view, the United States should act as an agent of global change by only entering into trade deals with countries that have strong labor, environmental and other protections.

The standards in her trade agenda, released in July, are so high that they would prohibit the United States from entering new trade agreements with countries including South Korea, Germany, Japan, Singapore, Mexico — and, currently, the United States itself.

“Unlike the insiders, I don’t think ‘free trade’ deals that benefit big multinational corporations and international capital at the expense of American workers are good simply because they open up markets,” Ms. Warren said.

Mr. Sanders’s trade proposals, though less detailed, include ending federal contracts for companies that send jobs overseas, scrapping Mr. Trump’s rewrite of NAFTA, and labeling China a currency manipulator. The plan focuses on fulfilling Mr. Trump’s promise of renegotiating existing trade deals to stop the outsourcing of American jobs, rather than writing new agreements.

Some candidates also see Mr. Trump’s rewrite of NAFTA as an opportunity to revive voter anger toward a trade deal that many within the party blame for decimating American manufacturing, particularly the auto industry.

“President Trump is trying to sell NAFTA 2.0,” Bill de Blasio, the mayor of New York, said in the debate as he tried to attack Mr. Biden, who voted in favor of the original deal while in Congress. “It’s just as dangerous as the old NAFTA. It’s going to take away American jobs like the old NAFTA, like it did to Michigan. And we cannot have Democrats be party to a new NAFTA.”

Mr. Trump’s renegotiated NAFTA is largely an update of the 25-year-old pact, and it adds some provisions that Democrats have long favored, like higher requirements for using American materials to make cars and the rollback of a special system of arbitration for corporations.

But Democrats say its provisions on labor rights and the environment are too weak. And they have particularly criticized a provision that would lock in intellectual property protections for pharmaceutical makers, seeing this as an issue where they can drive a wedge between the president and his populist base.

“Anyone who thinks that these trade deals are mostly about tariffs just doesn’t understand what’s going on,” Ms. Warren said in the debate. “Look at the new NAFTA 2.0. What’s the central feature? It’s to help pharmaceutical companies get longer periods of exclusivity so they can charge Canadians, Americans and Mexicans more money and make more profits.”

Some Democrats argue that Mr. Trump’s trade policy will not be difficult to counter, now that the pain of the trade war is being felt.

“Because he opposed NAFTA and trade agreements like I did, I think a lot of voters found that attractive, because these trade agreements have sold out American workers,” said Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who is not running for president. “But I think people’s patience is running thin, because his trade policy has really brought us nothing except a more difficult situation for a lot of people.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Tulsi Gabbard Thinks We’re Doomed

STANDING ROCK, N.D. — Tulsi Gabbard is running for president of a country that she believes has wrought horror on the world, and she wants its citizens to remember that.

She is from Hawaii, and she spends each morning surfing. But that is not what she talks about in this unlikely campaign. She talks about the horror.

She lists the countries: Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq. Failure after failure, she says. To drive the point home, she wants to meet on a Sioux tribe reservation in North Dakota, where, she explains, the United States government committed its original atrocity.

“These Indigenous people have been disrespected, mistreated with broken promises and desecrated lands,” Ms. Gabbard says.

Ms. Gabbard, 38, was a soldier in Iraq and currently serves as a major in the Hawaii Army National Guard, which she cites to temper her message: Get out of foreign wars. Leave other countries alone. Not everyone wants democracy.

The method she has chosen to get this message to a wide audience, however, is through democracy — campaigning for president as a Democrat.

A Democratic member of Congress from Hawaii who was first elected in 2012, Ms. Gabbard is a singular figure in the 2020 race. She doesn’t fit neatly into any one established ideology or school of thought.

She has a relatively bare-bones political operation and a history of outlier positions, from her foreign policy stances to suing Google for free-speech impingement. Some of her own advisers do not think she will win. She may not make it to the September debate. Candidates need 2 percent support in four polls to qualify, and she has crossed that threshold in only one, though on Thursday her campaign announced it had reached the necessary 130,000 individual donors.

But her run, and the unusual cross-section of voters she appeals to — Howard Zinn fans, anti-drug-war libertarians, Russia-gate skeptics, and conservatives suspicious of Big Tech — signifies just how much both parties have shifted, not just on foreign policy. It could end up being a sign that President Trump’s isolationism is not the aberration many believed, but rather a harbinger of a growing national sentiment that America should stand alone.

On the far left, her supporters appreciate how she talks about respecting Native cultures. On the right, as liberal democracies see authoritarian strongmen rise, Ms. Gabbard’s allies like that she would not meddle with dictators. Both feel exhausted by the “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The threat from Russia is severely exaggerated, Ms. Gabbard says. Do not beat the drums of war with Iran. Make nice with North Korea.

She flew to Syria in 2017 and had what seemed to be a friendly meeting with Bashar al-Assad, shocking her colleagues in Congress, and voted against a House resolution condemning the dictator’s war crimes. More recently, she said Mr. Assad was “not the enemy of the United States.”

Critics have called her actions un-American. After Ms. Gabbard tore into presidential candidate Kamala Harris for her prosecutorial record during the second Democratic debates on Wednesday, the California senator on CNN called Ms. Gabbard an “apologist for an individual, Assad, who has murdered the people of his country like cockroaches.”

But to Ms. Gabbard, it is the United States that has been the cruel and destabilizing force.

“We should be coming to other leaders in other countries with respect, building a relationship based on cooperation rather than with, you know, a police baton,” she says.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_158698374_e8e443f3-3969-4b7b-8370-db3ed0cc980a-articleLarge Tulsi Gabbard Thinks We’re Doomed United States Politics and Government Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 North Dakota Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Democratic Party

Tulsi Gabbard and her younger sister, Vrindavan, speaking with Don Two Bears during a visit to his home last month on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in Canon Ball, N.D.CreditTamir Kalifa for The New York Times

A few days before the Democratic debates, Ms. Gabbard is spending a brisk July morning in the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.

She is with her husband, Abraham Williams, a 30-year-old cinematographer, and her sister, Vrindavan Gabbard, a former U.S. Marshal who is now volunteering for the campaign, lives with Ms. Gabbard in Washington, and got in some trouble after complaining about NBC’s Democratic debate moderators from Ms. Gabbard’s Twitter account.

Ms. Gabbard is also accompanied by her campaign adviser Solomon Moore, a former foreign correspondent for The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times, who says that the reasons he likes Ms. Gabbard and how he started working for her are off the record.

“Aloha,” Ms. Gabbard says. She is standing on the crest of a hill, her long, thick dark hair accented with a shock of white gray that she sweeps back. She is wearing a bright red silk shirt and capri pants, and she is mic-ed up. Her husband is almost always filming.

The agenda of her visit here is to ride horses out to see a new solar farm. Ms. Gabbard commiserates with the Sioux guides over their desire for more independence.

“It’s, like, how dare you do something for yourself — so much for self-determination,” she says to them. “You know that bringing that understanding of what sovereignty means is my mission.”

The horses are milling around as the crew saddles up, and Mr. Williams has his viewfinder trained on Ms. Gabbard. The conversation turns to how they met.

“We — ” Mr. Williams begins, but Ms. Gabbard cuts in.

“We got to know each other when he volunteered for my congressional campaign,” Ms. Gabbard says.

(They had met years before as part of the tight-knit community around the controversial socially conservative guru Chris Butler.)

Everyone mounts the horses, and the animals start ambling forward.

It is a sunny day, and Ms. Gabbard is a confident rider. Her stirrups are too long, but she says nothing about it. The ride picks up pace. The ground is rough, cluttered with rodent holes. The horses themselves are a little squirrelly, some more broken than others.

Her sister Vrindavan’s foot slips out of a stirrup, and she is thrown from her horse behind us. Mr. Moore stays behind with her.

“I was always the cautious conservative one, she was always ‘throw caution to the wind,’” Ms. Gabbard says. “But as she would say, she comes from good stock. She’s never broken a bone. And she’s broken a windshield with her skull.”

At one point Ms. Gabbard sees a bird and pauses — for a second she thought it was a drone.

She drops military language into conversation.

“Phase one: Mission complete,” Ms. Gabbard says as the ride ends.

Tulsi Gabbard riding horses with members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in North Dakota last month.CreditTamir Kalifa for The New York Times

Her voice is deep, and she keeps it even, almost emotionless. She holds strong eye contact.

The Democratic Party and the progressive movement have always had their share of peaceniks. But even those who opposed military intervention still argued for the promotion of human rights abroad. Ms. Gabbard is different. Does she think America should spread democracy?

“It doesn’t matter what I — slash, what our country — thinks or believes,” Ms. Gabbard says. “This is a decision and a choice and a process that people in other countries have to make for themselves.”

Ms. Gabbard’s coalition is a motley crew.

“Tulsi Gabbard by far is the very, very best,” former Republican congressman Ron Paul said in an interview with Russia Today.

Go Tulsi!” the right-wing commentator Ann Coulter said on Twitter.

“Tulsi Gabbard’s my girl, I’m voting for her I decided, I like her,” the popular podcaster Joe Rogan said on his show.

Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s chief executive, donated the maximum he could to her.

Her campaign sent a list of people who might want to speak in support of her candidacy, and it included the Fox News host Tucker Carlson, the civil rights activist Jesse Jackson, the former Republican congressman Trey Gowdy, and a former chair of the Democratic National Committee, Donna Brazile.

She also has attracted the attention of some figures in the alt-right, in part because they imagine that a reordering of America’s role abroad also means pulling away from its longstanding alliance with Israel. David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader, has tweeted approvingly of her.

Asked about this unsavory support, Ms. Gabbard, exasperated, says she disavows it, as she has several times before.

After both debates, she was the most searched for candidate on Google, according to the company’s analytics. And the hashtag #KamalaHarrisDestroyed was trending.

As this fan base has risen around her, some who track Russian disinformation campaigns say they see troll activity pushing for Ms. Gabbard as well.

“Tracking metrics of Russian state propaganda on Twitter, she was by far the most favored candidate,” said Clinton Watts, a former F.B.I. agent and senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. “She’s the Kremlin’s preferred Democrat. She is such a useful agent of influence for them. Whether she knows it’s happening or not, they love what she’s saying.”

The appeal, Mr. Watts explained, is clear: “She’s a U.S. military officer and a Democrat who says the U.S. should withdraw from the world.”

To the Democratic strategist Joe Trippi, who has consulted for several of the candidates, including Ms. Gabbard, her foreign policy is not surprising for a veteran. “It’s not an unusual trait to see in someone who served in those wars, Iraq or Afghanistan. They all have deep qualms about the way we’ve made decisions to go to war. Her line is just a lot further out there.”

He said if she does not break through in the Democratic contest, it is unlikely a third-party run would get much support. And he added that the unusual right-wing fan base is actually good.

“Many of the lower-rated candidates, Yang, Williamson and Gabbard among them, may be drawing previously uninterested voters to pay attention to the Democratic Party primaries,” Mr. Trippi said. “That’s a good thing.”

Ms. Gabbard criticized Senator Kamala Harris during the second debate for her record as a former prosecutor. CreditBrittainy Newman/The New York Times

At the official debate watch party on Wednesday in San Francisco, where several of her campaign staffers are based, the dozen or so attendees cheered when Ms. Gabbard strode onstage in all white. They booed when the word Russia came up, even though it had not been directed at Ms. Gabbard. A laptop had a BERNIE sticker covered over with a TULSI 2020 sticker.

“I just want people to know: We’re not Russian bots,” said Anthony Rutherford, who heads the San Francisco volunteer group and works as a line cook at a local vegetarian restaurant, Greens. “We’re real people and we want to spread that aloha spirit.”

Stephen Kinzer, a fellow at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University, is not deluding himself about her chances.

“A lot of us in Tulsi world, we don’t have the fantasy that she’s going to pull ahead, but she serves a great purpose in this campaign because she is saying things that no one else is saying,” he said.

What is she saying that no other politician will? Mr. Kinzer put it like this: “We think we discovered the perfect form of government, and we want to give it to others, we want them to govern themselves like we do, but other countries have other traditions and other cultures and other histories.”

On Wednesday night, as criticism of Ms. Gabbard’s stance on Syria raged, Mr. Kinzer said on Twitter in defense of her that the White Helmets group of volunteer rescue workers in Syria is “an arm of the terror movement” there. “They are heroes to #ISIS but not to any humanitarian,” he wrote.

Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University, thinks worries over Russia’s danger to the United States are overblown.

“Her critics wanted to argue that she was somehow Putin’s candidate, which is utter nonsense,” he said. “He doesn’t have a horse in this race.”

Ms. Gabbard is the candidate who understands that America’s singular leadership is over, he said.

While she is the embodiment of this anti-interventionist message onstage, there is a much larger movement brewing. There is big money in peace. Two billionaire philanthropists from opposite ends of the political spectrum — George Soros and Charles Koch — came together this summer to fund the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a think tank to argue against American intervention abroad.

Many of Ms. Gabbard’s advisers and allies celebrate this new peace movement, but go quiet when asked about specifics, like Ms. Gabbard’s trip to Syria.

“No comment,” said an otherwise loquacious Eli Clifton, the co-founder of the Quincy Institute.

Ms. Gabbard prepared to give an interview to Fox News after the Democratic presidential debate on Wednesday.CreditMaddie McGarvey for The New York Times

Ms. Gabbard comes across as shy or maybe tense. She is not the jovial politician cracking jokes with her staff or buttering people up.

Doom is her main talking point. The only personal topics she talks about easily are veganism and fitness. She says she is a big fan of mixed martial arts and drops in on classes while on the trail. As a child, she could not afford taekwondo classes, so she started doing capoeira, which was taught in the park for free, she said.

Her husband is more chatty. At a snack break, Mr. Williams grabs a Capri Sun and sticks the straw in the opposite way, which he says is better.

“When we were first dating, one of my best friends said, ‘Dude, you’re gonna be in the White House one day,’ and I was just like, ‘Yeahhh.’”

Ms. Gabbard will not say what podcasts she listens to, but she does say she just finished Oliver Stone’s television series “The Untold History of the United States.”

“Check it out,” she suggests. “It fills in the spaces that aren’t told in the history books.”

Mr. Stone has had his own controversy around coziness with Russia: In June he called Vladimir V. Putin’s anti-gay laws “sensible” and asked Mr. Putin to be his child’s godfather, in a transcript on the Kremlin’s website and as reported by Buzzfeed News. Ms. Gabbard has in the past made anti-gay statements, and worked for an anti-gay campaign run by her father, a Hawaii state lawmaker, for which she has since apologized.

In a race with a lot of history-making candidates, Ms. Gabbard lays claim to many potential firsts — she would be the first female president, the first American Samoan, the first from Hawaii, the first surfer, the first vegan.

She would also be the first Hindu. She was raised in part on the teachings of Mr. Butler, who founded The Science of Identity Foundation, and whose work she said still guides her.

“Muslims have imams, Christians have pastors, Hindus have gurus, so he’s essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor,” Ms. Gabbard said. “And he’s shared some really beautiful meditation practices with me that have provided me with strength and shelter and peace.”

Before discussion can continue about Mr. Butler’s role, her communications manager interjects.

“How much do you think Jeremiah Wright affected Obama’s presidency?” Mr. Moore asks.

Ms. Gabbard says the interest in Mr. Butler and her faith has been fueled by a Hindu-phobic bigotry.

Ms. Gabbard spoke at the opening of a solar farm on the Standing Rock Reservation in Canon Ball, N.D., last month.CreditTamir Kalifa for The New York Times

That night, Ms. Gabbard attends a dinner party in a field to celebrate the installation of the solar panels, an event that features a large cohort from Los Angeles, including the actresses Frances Fisher and Shailene Woodley.

Her sister is there, and seems to have recovered from the fall, though she says she is suffering from memory loss.

Ms. Gabbard gets onstage to give a speech. She talks for about four minutes, barely mentioning her policies or even the campaign itself. Later, she and Mr. Williams are excited: The next morning they are going for a sunrise ride.

Ms. Gabbard says she is driven by the feeling that death could come at any moment, which she realized at age 10 but which became more intense in Iraq.

“My first deployment was at the height of the war in 2005. We were 40 miles north of Baghdad. And there was a huge sign by one of the main gates that just read: ‘Is today the day?’” she says. “It was such a stark reminder that my time could come at any moment. That any day could be my last.”

She is not sure who put the sign up or why. But it was this message of potentially imminent doom that she wanted to leave the audience with at the second Democratic debate.

“As we stand here tonight,” she told the crowd. “There are thousands of nuclear missiles pointing right at us, and if we were to get an attack, we would have 30 minutes, 30 minutes, before we were hit.”

Ms. Gabbard continued.

“There is no shelter. This is the warmonger’s hoax. There is no shelter. It’s all a lie.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

What to Watch For in Democratic Debate Night 2

  • You can watch it on CNN, CNN en Español and CNN International. It will also be available on streaming services. The debate is taking place in Detroit.

  • Who won last night’s debate? Want just the highlights?

  • The 10 Democratic candidates will have 60-second opening statements followed by 60 seconds to answer questions from the CNN moderators, Dana Bash, Don Lemon and Jake Tapper. Each candidate will also have a 60-second closing statement.

  • The New York Times will have extensive coverage, including a live analysis throughout the debate by Maggie Haberman, Astead W. Herndon, Lisa Lerer, Sydney Ember and Reid J. Epstein.

Join us for live analysis on debate night. Subscribe to “On Politics,” and we’ll send you a link.

Night 2: July 31

Westlake Legal Group bennet What to Watch For in Democratic Debate Night 2 Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

Michael Bennet

Westlake Legal Group gillibrand What to Watch For in Democratic Debate Night 2 Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

Kirsten Gillibrand

Westlake Legal Group castro What to Watch For in Democratic Debate Night 2 Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

Julián Castro

Westlake Legal Group booker What to Watch For in Democratic Debate Night 2 Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

Cory Booker

Westlake Legal Group biden What to Watch For in Democratic Debate Night 2 Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Westlake Legal Group harris What to Watch For in Democratic Debate Night 2 Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

Kamala Harris

Westlake Legal Group yang What to Watch For in Democratic Debate Night 2 Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

Andrew Yang

Westlake Legal Group gabbard What to Watch For in Democratic Debate Night 2 Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

Tulsi Gabbard

Westlake Legal Group inslee What to Watch For in Democratic Debate Night 2 Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

Jay Inslee

Westlake Legal Group deblasio What to Watch For in Democratic Debate Night 2 Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

Bill de Blasio

Candidates will appear in this order on the stage, from left to right.

The most dramatic moment of the first pair of presidential debates came as Senator Kamala Harris of California criticized Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s record on race and busing, leaving the former vice president and early front-runner struggling to respond forcefully.

Since then, however, Mr. Biden has been much more willing to aggressively defend his record and to draw contrasts with his opponents. He has clashed directly with Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey on the issue of policing, and with Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont on the subject of health care.

Mr. Biden supports creating a so-called public option and building on the Affordable Care Act, while Mr. Sanders and others including Ms. Harris want a more sweeping proposal that would provide Medicare for all Americans, though in a new plan unveiled this week Ms. Harris indicated that she still sees a role for private insurers, in contrast to Mr. Sanders. Mr. Biden’s campaign was quick with criticism of her plan, and the former vice president has made some oblique swipes at Ms. Harris’s health care position as well. Will he sharpen that argument?

Mr. Biden’s allies say he was personally hurt by the ferocity of Ms. Harris’s criticism in their last debate, given her relationship as California attorney general with Mr. Biden’s late son, Beau Biden, then the attorney general of Delaware. Some of his allies say privately that the moment was a wake-up call for him and expect him to be much more assertive on Wednesday.

“I’m not going to be as polite this time,” he said last week at a fund-raiser.

Their dynamic will be among the most closely-watched of the second debate.

[The candidates on Tuesday night sparred over which health care plan was best for Americans.]

The grim reality for half the contenders onstage is that this debate is less about positioning themselves for the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary, and more about boosting their current standing in order to continue their campaigns at all.

Five candidates on Wednesday — Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington and Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York — face the acute risk of missing the party’s polling and donor thresholds to qualify for the September debate. And falling off the debate stage is widely viewed as a potential death knell to a candidacy.

So those on the wings of the stage need to break out, and quickly. That could lead to more rhetorical combat. Mr. de Blasio, the mayor of New York City, was an aggressor with former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas in June but stepped on his own momentum by using a famous Che Guevara quote while still in South Florida. He later apologized.

Still, Mr. de Blasio showed in the last debate that he can be energetic and fluent onstage. Can he translate those skills into a moment that catapults him out of the bottom tier of candidates?

[Bernie Sanders ‘wrote the damn bill.’ Everyone else is just fighting about it.]

Mr. Booker has an extensive campaign organization in the early-voting primary states and has been a known quantity to Democratic activists for years.

But so far, he has struggled to stand out in a crowded field, and his early campaign themes of love and unity have appeared to fall flat with a Democratic base that is often outraged in the Trump era. He has hovered between 1 percent and 3 percent in recent polls.

More recently, Mr. Booker has sounded more combative notes, appearing particularly eager to draw contrasts with Mr. Biden. The two men sparred last week over the issue of criminal justice, with Mr. Booker calling Mr. Biden an “architect of mass incarceration,” and Mr. Biden ripping into the record of the Newark Police Department when Mr. Booker was mayor.

Mr. Booker has gone after Mr. Biden before, only to pull back soon after. If Mr. Booker moves to attack his rivals on Wednesday, when he will be onstage with Mr. Biden, can he follow through forcefully?

And even if he lands a blow — something Ms. Harris did successfully in the first debate, which boosted her campaign — will that be enough to meaningfully stand out?

[Read more about how Mr. Biden, Ms. Harris and Mr. Booker will try to appeal to black voters.]

Video

Westlake Legal Group GettyImages-1155155958-videoSixteenByNine3000 What to Watch For in Democratic Debate Night 2 Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

During his decades in public office, Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. developed a unique set of phrases, dubbed “Bidenisms” by his close observers. Here’s what to watch for in tonight’s debate.

Last week, Ms. Gillibrand said that at least one of her Democratic rivals did not support women working outside the home. It was the most aggressive rhetoric yet from a candidate who has tried to position herself as the candidate for women in 2020, after Democratic women scored some of the biggest victories of the 2018 midterms.

But though Ms. Gillibrand didn’t say who exactly she was talking about, a story published the next morning in HuffPost gave a possible hint of her intention. It outlined Mr. Biden’s 1981 opposition to expanding a child tax credit, the kind of policy position she might use to justify such a broadside. Then on Sunday, Axios reported that an online account possibly linked to Ms. Gillibrand was found to be researching related Biden articles from that period.

Ms. Gillibrand still has not said whom she was referring to in her public comments but it is reasonable to expect she’ll at least get — if not relish — the opportunity to reveal who her target was on Wednesday, even if the surprise element is gone.

More on the Democratic debate
Who Won Night 1 of the Democratic Debate? Experts Weigh In

Jul 31, 2019

Westlake Legal Group merlin_158670240_7c7d3298-9e57-4363-82f2-e72e79b574c1-threeByTwoSmallAt2X What to Watch For in Democratic Debate Night 2 Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand
Moderates Faltered at Tuesday’s Debate. Will Joe Biden Do Better Tonight?

Jul 31, 2019

Westlake Legal Group 31debate-moderates-02-threeByTwoSmallAt2X What to Watch For in Democratic Debate Night 2 Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand
Black Voters Will Be the Focus of Tonight’s Democratic Debate. Here’s a Primer.

Jul 31, 2019

Westlake Legal Group merlin_158394606_082c07e9-435d-459c-bfbd-b0838bf7c38d-threeByTwoSmallAt2X What to Watch For in Democratic Debate Night 2 Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

What to Watch For in Tonight’s Democratic Debate

  • You can watch it on CNN, CNN en Español and CNN International. It will also be available on streaming services. The debate is taking place in Detroit.

  • Who won last night’s debate? Want just the highlights?

  • The 10 Democratic candidates will have 60-second opening statements followed by 60 seconds to answer questions from the CNN moderators, Dana Bash, Don Lemon and Jake Tapper. Each candidate will also have a 60-second closing statement.

  • The New York Times will have extensive coverage, including a live analysis throughout the debate by Maggie Haberman, Astead W. Herndon, Lisa Lerer, Sydney Ember and Reid J. Epstein.

Join us for live analysis on debate night. Subscribe to “On Politics,” and we’ll send you a link.

Night 2: July 31

Westlake Legal Group bennet What to Watch For in Tonight’s Democratic Debate Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

Michael Bennet

Westlake Legal Group gillibrand What to Watch For in Tonight’s Democratic Debate Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

Kirsten Gillibrand

Westlake Legal Group castro What to Watch For in Tonight’s Democratic Debate Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

Julián Castro

Westlake Legal Group booker What to Watch For in Tonight’s Democratic Debate Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

Cory Booker

Westlake Legal Group biden What to Watch For in Tonight’s Democratic Debate Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Westlake Legal Group harris What to Watch For in Tonight’s Democratic Debate Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

Kamala Harris

Westlake Legal Group yang What to Watch For in Tonight’s Democratic Debate Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

Andrew Yang

Westlake Legal Group gabbard What to Watch For in Tonight’s Democratic Debate Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

Tulsi Gabbard

Westlake Legal Group inslee What to Watch For in Tonight’s Democratic Debate Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

Jay Inslee

Westlake Legal Group deblasio What to Watch For in Tonight’s Democratic Debate Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

Bill de Blasio

Candidates will appear in this order on the stage, from left to right.

The most dramatic moment of the first pair of presidential debates came as Senator Kamala Harris of California criticized Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s record on race and busing, leaving the former vice president and early front-runner struggling to respond forcefully.

Since then, however, Mr. Biden has been much more willing to aggressively defend his record and to draw contrasts with his opponents. He has clashed directly with Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey on the issue of policing, and with Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont on the subject of health care.

Mr. Biden supports creating a so-called public option and building on the Affordable Care Act, while Mr. Sanders and others including Ms. Harris want a more sweeping proposal that would provide Medicare for all Americans, though in a new plan unveiled this week Ms. Harris indicated that she still sees a role for private insurers, in contrast to Mr. Sanders. Mr. Biden’s campaign was quick with criticism of her plan, and the former vice president has made some oblique swipes at Ms. Harris’s health care position as well. Will he sharpen that argument?

Mr. Biden’s allies say he was personally hurt by the ferocity of Ms. Harris’s criticism in their last debate, given her relationship as California attorney general with Mr. Biden’s late son, Beau Biden, then the attorney general of Delaware. Some of his allies say privately that the moment was a wake-up call for him and expect him to be much more assertive on Wednesday.

“I’m not going to be as polite this time,” he said last week at a fund-raiser.

Their dynamic will be among the most closely-watched of the second debate.

[The candidates on Tuesday night sparred angrily over which health care plan was best for Americans.]

The grim reality for half the contenders onstage is that this debate is less about positioning themselves for the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary, and more about boosting their current standing in order to continue their campaigns at all.

Five candidates on Wednesday — Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington and Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York — face the acute risk of missing the party’s polling and donor thresholds to qualify for the September debate. And falling off the debate stage is widely viewed as a potential death knell to a candidacy.

So those on the wings of the stage need to break out, and quickly. That could lead to more rhetorical combat. Mr. de Blasio, the mayor of New York City, was an aggressor with former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas in June but stepped on his own momentum by using a famous Che Guevara quote while still in South Florida. He later apologized.

Still, Mr. de Blasio showed in the last debate that he can be energetic and fluent onstage. Can he translate those skills into a moment that catapults him out of the bottom tier of candidates?

[Bernie Sanders ‘wrote the damn bill.’ Everyone else is just fighting about it.]

Mr. Booker has an extensive campaign organization in the early-voting primary states and has been a known quantity to Democratic activists for years.

But so far, he has struggled to stand out in a crowded field, and his early campaign themes of love and unity have appeared to fall flat with a Democratic base that is often outraged in the Trump era. He has hovered between 1 percent and 3 percent in recent polls.

More recently, Mr. Booker has sounded more combative notes, appearing particularly eager to draw contrasts with Mr. Biden. The two men sparred last week over the issue of criminal justice, with Mr. Booker calling Mr. Biden an “architect of mass incarceration,” and Mr. Biden ripping into the record of the Newark Police Department when Mr. Booker was mayor.

Mr. Booker has gone after Mr. Biden before, only to pull back soon after. If Mr. Booker moves to attack his rivals on Wednesday, when he will be onstage with Mr. Biden, can he follow through forcefully?

And even if he lands a blow — something Ms. Harris did successfully in the first debate, which boosted her campaign — will that be enough to meaningfully stand out?

Video

Westlake Legal Group GettyImages-1155155958-videoSixteenByNine3000 What to Watch For in Tonight’s Democratic Debate Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

During his decades in public office, Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. developed a unique set of phrases, dubbed “Bidenisms” by his close observers. Here’s what to watch for in tonight’s debate.

Last week, Ms. Gillibrand said that at least one of her Democratic rivals did not support women working outside the home. It was the most aggressive rhetoric yet from a candidate who has tried to position herself as the candidate for women in 2020, after Democratic women scored some of the biggest victories of the 2018 midterms.

But though Ms. Gillibrand didn’t say who exactly she was talking about, a story published the next morning in HuffPost gave a possible hint of her intention. It outlined Mr. Biden’s 1981 opposition to expanding a child tax credit, the kind of policy position she might use to justify such a broadside. Then on Sunday, Axios reported that an online account possibly linked to Ms. Gillibrand was found to be researching related Biden articles from that period.

Ms. Gillibrand still has not said whom she was referring to in her public comments but it is reasonable to expect she’ll at least get — if not relish — the opportunity to reveal who her target was on Wednesday, even if the surprise element is gone.

More on the Democratic debate
Who Won Night 1 of the Democratic Debate? Experts Weigh In

Jul 31, 2019

Westlake Legal Group merlin_158670240_7c7d3298-9e57-4363-82f2-e72e79b574c1-threeByTwoSmallAt2X What to Watch For in Tonight’s Democratic Debate Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand
Moderates Faltered at Tuesday’s Debate. Will Joe Biden Do Better Tonight?

Jul 31, 2019

Westlake Legal Group 31debate-moderates-02-threeByTwoSmallAt2X What to Watch For in Tonight’s Democratic Debate Inslee, Jay Harris, Kamala D Gillibrand, Kirsten E Gabbard, Tulsi (1981- ) Detroit (Mich) Democratic Party Debates (Political) de Blasio, Bill CNN Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr Bennet, Michael Farrand

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com