Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said in November that a woman who was mayor of a city as small as South Bend would not have been taken seriously enough to make the debate stage. A Black Lives Matter group in South Bend has called a news conference for Saturday to highlight what it calls Mr. Buttigieg’s “tolerance for racism by police,” intending to keep alive an issue that has apparently dampened Mr. Buttigieg’s appeal to black voters nationally.Mr. Buttigieg’s last official act was to attend the swearing-in of his successor, James Mueller, at the Century Center convention hall on the Saint Joseph River downtown. The former mayor entered with his husband, Chasten Buttigieg, and his mother, Jennifer Anne Montgomery, a former professor at the University of Notre Dame.Mr. Mueller, a childhood friend who returned home from Washington to work as Mr. Buttigieg’s chief of staff, was his handpicked successor. Little known before he ran, he bested a Democratic primary field featuring nine candidates, then cruised into office in November. As the new mayor was introduced, Mr. Buttigieg’s husband placed a hand on the former mayor’s shoulder, who shot Mr. Mueller a broad smile.“When I was growing up, success was synonymous with getting out,” Mr. Mueller said. “On behalf of our city, I thank my predecessor, Mayor Pete, for leading us through our comeback decade.” Mr. Buttigieg did not speak formally. He planned to return to campaigning on Thursday with seven stops in New Hampshire through the week. In the exit interview he said his house on the river in South Bend was not for sale.

Earlier this year, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office unsealed an indictment after a federal court in Washington, D.C., charged Manafort with 16 counts including residential mortgage fraud and other state crimes.New York State Supreme Court Judge Maxwell Wiley sided with Manafort, saying the state charges violate New York's double jeopardy law."As far as the court can determine, New York courts have not yet been required to answer the question of whether this exception can apply to the two sets of federal and state fraud statutes charged in the successive prosecutions here," the judge wrote in the ruling. "Despite the reasoned arguments advanced by the people, the court concludes that, given the rather unique set of facts pertaining to the defendant’s previous prosecution in federal court, and given New York’s law on this subject, defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment as barred by state double jeopardy law must be granted."The District Attorney's Office said it will appeal Wednesday's decision, adding that the office "will continue working to ensure that Mr. Manafort is held accountable for the criminal conduct against the people of New York that is alleged in the indictment."Manafort's attorney Todd Blanche said in statement that the defense has maintained from the very beginning that the case violated the double jeopardy law."We thank Judge Wiley for his careful consideration of our motion and his thoughtful opinion dismissing the charges against Mr. Manafort," Blanche said. "This indictment should never have been brought, and today’s decision is a stark reminder that the law and justice should always prevail over politically motivated actions."Manafort did not appear in court on Wednesday after his hospitalization for a cardiac condition.According to the indictment, Manafort allegedly schemed to obtain more than $20 million in loans by submitting false and fraudulent documents to a series of banks from December 2015 through January 2017.The Manhattan District Attorney's investigation began in March 2017 but was shelved in deference to special counsel Robert Mueller, who was pursing similar federal charges against Manafort, according to a source familiar with the matter.Manafort pleaded guilty to federal charges brought by Mueller's team in Washington, D.C., and the Eastern District of Virginia. The DA’s office revived the state case in March 2019 after Manafort was sentenced in the federal cases.The New York case has been viewed by some as a way to ensure the convicted former Trump adviser would face prison if the president pardons him. Last year, President Trump told the New York Post that a pardon for Manafort has not been discussed but he "wouldn't take it off the table." Even if Trump pardons Manafort, he still faces a criminal case on the new state charges.Manafort was sentenced to 90 months in prison as a result of his federal cases and is slated to be released from prison by Christmas Day 2024.

closeVideoTracking Pete Buttigieg's rise from relatively unknown Midwestern mayor to Democratic presidential contenderButtigieg's campaign emphasizes his time as a naval intelligence officer in Afghanistan and his experience as a decision maker in the mayor's office; Mike Tobin reports from South Bend, Indiana.An organization that describes itself as the largest progressive group of veterans in the nation is backing South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.VoteVets.org announced on Wednesday its endorsement of Buttigieg, who took a leave of absence in 2014 to be deployed to Afghanistan, where he served as an intelligence officer from the U.S. Naval Reserve.BUTTIGIEG CAMP HITS BACK AFTER BIDEN ACCUSES BUTTIGIEG 'STOLE' HIS HEALTH CARE PLANEmphasizing that beating President Trump in the 2020 election is “the number one priority,” Iraq War veteran and VoteVets chairman Jon Soltz said, “We need a candidate who will win. Bar none, Pete gives us the best shot at doing just that. It is time to rally around him, and stop the walking, talking national security threat that is Donald Trump.”Soltz highlighted that “Pete is also someone who has the experience, as a war veteran, to be an exemplary Commander in Chief, because he understands and has experienced the unique global security challenges we face right now, and the has the personal understanding of our veterans’ needs.”The 13-year-old group – which claims to represent roughly 700,000 veterans – has long backed veterans in congressional races, but this is their first endorsement in a presidential primary.VoteVets announced it would be immediately contributing to Buttigieg’s campaign and would use its social media networks and email list to support his White House bid."I'm honored to have this endorsement from my fellow veterans as we seek to take on our nation's most urgent challenges and pick up the pieces and put the country back together after Trump," said the 37-year-old candidate."In uniform, I learned that when Americans from different backgrounds are brought together for a common purpose, we form the strongest fighting force in the world," he added.Once the longest of long shots for the nomination, Buttigieg soared to top-tier status as he's surged in the early voting state polls and hauled in tons of campaign cash.Buttigieg is one of two veterans in the large field of Democratic White House contenders. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, an officer in the Hawaii National Guard, served a tour of duty in Iraq.

President Donald Trump’s recasting of United States immigration policy isn’t just about letting fewer newcomers into the country. It’s also about redefining who is worthy to enter.His administration’s stated criterion: those who are self-sufficient.To the president’s supporters, it’s common sense. Favoring the skilled can boost the U.S. economy. And favoring the industrious will reduce a rising taxpayer tab for federal safety-net programs. Nations like Australia and Canada have already gone down this path toward a merit-based system for immigrant visas, they say.“The president has made no secret of the fact that he believes the American immigration system, first and foremost, is set up to work for America. That means economically and for the people [already] here,” Ken Cuccinelli, the acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, told reporters Wednesday at a Monitor Breakfast.It’s an objective that resonates with voters like Tammy Waddell, who has a horse farm about an hour’s drive north of the nation’s capital and who calls the nation’s current immigration situation “out of control.” Trump administration seeks to tie Biden’s hands. Will it work?But this ideal of self-sufficiency might not be so simple to put into practice. For one thing, it’s not easy to draw bright lines between “desirable” and “undesirable” immigrants.Mr. Trump’s policies are reducing the number of available workers in an already tight job market. Across America, many help-wanted ads are for low-skilled jobs, not for the college graduates favored by the president. A rule finalized recently by Mr. Cuccinelli could sharply limit the pool of immigrants available for low-wage work. It seeks to block green cards to people deemed likely to enroll in federal welfare programs. Matt Orlando/The Christian Science Monitor Ken Cuccinelli, acting head of the agency that oversees legal immigration, has announced rules that would winnow out many green-card applicants based on their likelihood of drawing on federal support. Here he speaks at a breakfast hosted by The Christian Science Monitor in Washington on Oct. 16, 2019. “It’s a very misleading definition of self-sufficiency,” says Elizabeth Lower-Basch, an expert on income and benefits at the Center for Law and Social Policy in Washington. “The vast majority of working-age adults who receive Medicaid [or food assistance] are in fact working.”The new restrictions, based on whether someone is likely to become a “public charge,” build on federal laws and guidelines going back as far as 1882. The Trump administration has created a more detailed and restrictive rule tied to U.S. law. Last week, judges in several federal courts blocked it from going into effect. Critics say the rule would amount to revising the land-of-opportunity ideal embodied at the base of the Statue of Liberty, where the famous words of poet Emma Lazarus say: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”Backers of the policy, including Mr. Cuccinelli, defend a heightened focus on the “economic value” of immigrants. And he notes that the new criteria are aimed at family or employment immigrants, not those who seek access to the U.S. on a humanitarian basis as refugees or asylees.“We continue to provide … the most long-term permanent relief in the world. So our position as the No. 1 most generous country in the world is not at any risk,” he asserted at the Monitor Breakfast. Still, Mr. Cuccinelli also discussed Trump administration plans to roll back the volume of entrants in those humanitarian categories.Some economic-policy experts argue that curtailing the number of immigrants – and screening them in ways that narrow ethnic and socioeconomic diversity – could backfire economically. The current demand is for low-skill workers and the outsize contributions that immigrants make to the formation of new businesses.“We have an economy that is full of jobs that fill vital needs but are not paying very well and often do not provide health insurance,” says Ms. Lower-Basch. “And so people get these supports from the government to supplement their work. Whereas ‘public charge’ was really written about people who ... were going to entirely rely on the government and not support themselves at all.”Recent Trump actions seek to screen out applicants who can’t show they’ll be able to buy health insurance – putting up a major obstacle for many would-be immigrants. Jonathan Ernst/Reuters Immigrant-rights organizations, including CASA and the Service Employees International Union, rally at the Capitol in Washington Sept. 9, 2019, calling on Congress to create a path to permanent status for Temporary Protected Status holders and Deferred Action for Child Arrivals recipients. That could be a problem for the economy, say some employers, who complain of a shortage of workers in general or who say not all skilled immigrants come with money and college degrees in hand. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports programs to attract both high- and low-skill immigrants. In a recent blog post it cited an “ominous” decline in the number of people coming from overseas to study at U.S. universities – often a path toward employment. “Concerns about our nation’s immigration system” were viewed by many as a key reason. Many economists say immigrants pay taxes that outweigh the public benefits they receive, contribute to innovation in ways that can be stunted by policies that restrict their diversity, and don’t erode opportunities for native-born residents.Still, public opinion remains sharply divided, at a time when immigrants account for nearly 14% of the U.S. population, not far from prior-century peaks seen around 1910.In rural Frederick County, in Maryland, the county sheriff is seeking to collaborate with federal officials against unauthorized immigrants. Residents have formed opposing camps over whether the need is to combat racism and xenophobia or to uphold the rule of law.To Ms. Wadell, the principle of self-sufficiency goes hand-in-hand with limiting immigration to those who apply and are accepted through legal channels.“Be legal and work, and I don’t have a problem,” she says, as she and her husband fill their truck with gas before heading home to care for their horses. In her view, many immigrants rely on welfare programs at the expense of taxpayers.”In the city of Frederick, not far from the Pennsylvania border, some see it differently.“It’s a huge myth that immigrants are coming here to get public assistance,” says Michael Haverty, who works at a music and arts shop. “It’s also a big myth that … you stay on public assistance forever.” For him, a reference point is his own family heritage. “My ancestors came here in the 1840s from Ireland in our darkest chapter,” Mr. Haverty says. They worked their way from poverty into mainstream U.S. life, he says, as immigrants have been doing ever since. A few storefronts down, Jorge Ovando is adjusting an umbrella and cleaning a table outside a Peruvian restaurant. He is on a visa from Peru, aiming to earn money for a business degree and to polish his English language skills.Mr. Ovando notes that his own job was created by a fellow Peruvian who started at a bottom-level restaurant job and worked his way up to a supervisory job and then opening this small cafe.But some experts say there’s good logic behind the Trump administration’s heightened focus on self-sufficiency.“In welfare policy in general, one of the touchstones of the Trump administration has been to expect more individuals to work or participate in constructive activities,” says Matt Weidinger, a poverty expert at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. The Trump administration’s attempted shift toward a more merit-based system “is not a question of who is intrinsically a better human being,” says Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for less immigration. “We want immigrants that we expect to be able to thrive – and in a modern post-industrial knowledge-based economy, that means having a certain level of education and arriving with a certain knowledge of English.”The Trump administration’s goal is not only to enforce the new criteria. It also wants to emphasize employment more (and family ties less) in selecting legal immigrants.But one question is whether that overlooks the value of interdependence. In the current economy, many people contribute as workers even while receiving some public support.For example, the public charge rule, if it passes muster in court, would mean that “legal immigrants with disabilities will be unable to apply for and receive needed services to find and maintain employment,” Stacy Cervenka of the American Foundation for the Blind wrote recently. She calls that “entirely contradictory to DHS’s professed intention to ensure that immigrants are self-sufficient.”As divisive as the issues are, many on both sides of the political spectrum say America’s immigration challenges ultimately will require bipartisan legislative answers. Mr. Cuccinelli said “there’s only so much we’re going to do by regulation and rule without Congress’s participation.”Mark Greenberg, an expert at the Migration Policy Institute, takes the point a step further. “There’s a strong argument,” he says in an email, “that if there’s going to be a major shift in policy about who gets admitted to the country, that decision ought to be made by Congress – not by giving immigration officials broad discretion to implement a complex test without safeguards to prevent arbitrariness.” Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. Staff writer Sarah Matusek contributed to this report from Boston.Editor's note: One sentence has been updated to remove a reference to the coming vacancy in the role of acting secretary of Homeland Security.

After the election, the Supreme Court will hear three major cases about immigration policies that seek to keep immigrants arriving on the southern border out and erode the political influence of unauthorized immigrants living in the US. If President Donald Trump loses the election next month, Joe Biden as president is likely to at least attempt to reverse the policies in question, making the cases moot. But if Trump wins, the cases would be decided next year, potentially enabling his attempts to further his restrictionist immigration agenda in a second term. The justices previously agreed to hear a case about Trump’s attempt to exclude unauthorized immigrants from 2020 census population counts that will be used to draw congressional districts. States with large populations of unauthorized immigrants — California and Texas among them — could lose seats in Congress as a result. The justices announced Monday that they would hear two new cases as well, one of which concerns Trump’s attempt to divert billions in Pentagon funds for the construction of a wall on the southern border — a rallying cry among his base in 2016. The other is a challenge to his Migration Protection Protocols (MPP), also known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, under which thousands of asylum seekers have been forced to wait in Mexico, often for months on end, for a chance to obtain protection in the US. Biden has vowed to end the Remain in Mexico policy and revoke Trump’s census memorandum, if that’s possible. He has also criticized the border wall as a colossal waste of taxpayer money since most contraband is smuggled through ports of entry and the vast majority of unauthorized immigrants living in the US arrived legally but overstayed their visas. And even if Trump prevails, it’s not clear that the Supreme Court would rule in his favor, even with the president’s nominee Amy Coney Barrett on the bench. The Supreme Court has upheld some of Trump’s signature immigration policies, including his travel ban policy. But it has also thwarted him at key moments: It has temporarily prevented him from ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which has allowed more than 700,000 young unauthorized immigrants to live and work in the US, and blocked him from putting a citizenship question on the 2020 census, which experts said would depress response rates in immigrant communities.In those rulings against Trump, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s liberals and cast deciding votes. It’s not clear whether Barrett would play a similar role or if she would tip the scales in favor of conservatives on these high-profile immigration cases.On the campaign trail in 2016, Trump made building the border wall a centerpiece of his platform. He pledged that Mexico would pay for it, but that never came to pass; instead, the administration transferred $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds in order to construct it after Congress refused to fully fund the project. California, New Mexico, and environmental groups including the Sierra Club challenged the administration’s use of those funds, claiming that it did not have the authority to make the transfer. Lower courts have agreed, but the Supreme Court could overturn those rulings, announcing on Monday that it would hear the case. The Secretary of Defense is permitted by law to transfer military funds appropriated by Congress if higher funding priorities arise due to “unforeseen military requirements” and, critically, if Congress has not objected. But as the environmental groups have argued, the border wall was one of Trump’s longtime political goals — not a response to an unanticipated military threat — and one that Congress rejected in the 2019 budget it passed after Trump had made the funding request. The administration has argued, on the other hand, that the border wall is a legitimate response to the national emergency concerning unauthorized immigration and drug smuggling across the southern border, which Trump declared in February 2019. Though that emergency declaration remains in effect, migration appears to have drastically dropped over the last year. The US apprehended 400,651 people at the southern border over fiscal year 2020, which ended on September 30 — less than half the number apprehended in 2019. The justices have already hinted at how they might rule: They intervened at an earlier stage of the lawsuit, permitting construction of the border wall to continue while the case made its way through the lower courts. That has given Trump license to speed up construction ahead of the election, often cutting through national forests and wildlife preserves to do so. The Supreme Court will also weigh in on Trump’s Remain in Mexico program, one of Trump’s core policies on the southern border, which went into effect in January 2019. Since then, more than 60,000 asylum seekers have been sent back to Mexico, where they’re under threat from drug cartels and kidnappers and are dependent on volunteers for basic supplies.The American Civil Liberties Union, among others, has challenged the policy on the basis that it has resulted in asylum seekers being sent back to their persecutors. But the Trump administration has credited the program as one of its key tools in reducing the number of migrants coming across the southern border. Without explaining their reasoning, the justices previously allowed the program to remain in effect while the appeals process played out. Before MPP, migrants who waited in line at the border, as well as those who were apprehended between ports of entry, would have been held at a US Customs and Border Protection processing facility until a border agent determined whether they should be released, transferred to immigration detention, or deported. But under MPP, they were mostly turned away at the border and allowed to enter the US only to attend their immigration court hearings.Since the pandemic hit, however, the administration has turned to other methods of keeping them out. US Customs and Border Protection invoked public health authorities to turn away asylum seekers who might be carrying the coronavirus. Some of them are still waiting in Mexican border towns, where they have limited access to legal counsel and reside in tent encampments. Last week, the justices announced that they would review a case over Trump’s memorandum excluding unauthorized immigrants living in the US from census population counts for the purposes of redrawing congressional districts in 2021 — a transparent attack on their political power that was struck down by lower courts. The justices will hear arguments in the case on November 30, ahead of a December 31 federal deadline for sending the population counts to Congress.Most states currently draw congressional districts, determining the areas that each elected official represents based on total population, including unauthorized immigrants. Current maps are due to be redrawn across the country in 2021 after the results of the 2020 census come in, and the stakes are high: Each redistricting has a lasting influence on who is likely to win elections, which communities will be represented in Congress, and, ultimately, what laws will be passed.Trump’s attempt to exclude unauthorized immigrants would reduce the counts in areas where foreign-born populations have traditionally settled — primarily Democrat-run cities — and therefore undermine their political power relative to more rural, Republican-run areas. But it could also impact red states with large immigrant populations, including Texas.The administration has argued that, by law, the president has the final say over who must be counted in the census.In a written statement issued after he signed the memorandum in July, Trump said that allowing unauthorized immigrants to be counted would undermine American representative democracy and create “perverse incentives” for those seeking to come to the US.“There used to be a time when you could proudly declare, ‘I am a citizen of the United States,’” Trump said in the statement. “But now, the radical left is trying to erase the existence of this concept and conceal the number of illegal aliens in our country. This is all part of a broader left-wing effort to erode the rights of Americans citizens, and I will not stand for it.”But on September 10, a panel of three federal judges found that Trump’s memorandum skirted the federal government’s constitutional obligation to count every person, no matter their immigration status, in the census every 10 years. Will you help keep Vox free for all? There is tremendous power in understanding. Vox answers your most important questions and gives you clear information to help make sense of an increasingly chaotic world. A financial contribution to Vox will help us continue providing free explanatory journalism to the millions who are relying on us. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today, from as little as $3.

closeVideoButtigieg receives frontrunner treatment at 5th Democratic debatePolitical analyst Ron Meyer and liberal analyst Cathy Areu react to the fifth Democratic debate.Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg on Monday rolled out a plan to “promote dignity and security in retirement” through additional regular payments to older Americans, along with imposing a payroll tax on the wealthiest Americans to “protect Social Security forever.”The South Bend, Ind., mayor said his father had been admitted to a hospital last winter for an undisclosed illness, and died this past January. He said a social worker told him the best option for long-term care would be to deplete their assets in order to qualify for Medicaid.The Democrat said he asked himself, “Is that how this works in America?”On Monday, his campaign announced plans to establish Long-Term Care America, a program providing people 65 and older with a benefit of $90 per day. “Over 11 million will receive benefits from the program throughout their lifetime,” according to the proposal.Buttigieg, a self-described progressive who has resisted calls from the far left to embrace “Medicare-for-all,” also vowed to preserve Medicare Advantage – a private health care plan – for those favoring it.“There’s no dignity in retirement without being able to choose the health care plan that’s right for you,” Buttigieg said.The candidate said he would “revitalize the private long-term care insurance market” by bolstering support for caregivers — which would involve raising the minimum wage to a $15 an hour, expanding training programs, ensuring the possibility for career advancement and allowing home-care workers to unionize.Many Americans have acted as at-home caregivers for their loved ones at their own expense. Buttigieg aimed to reduce that burden by providing “12 weeks of paid family leave, providing credit toward Social Security for family and other unpaid caregivers, and improving support by funding and training long-term care navigators and creating community-based service hubs,” according to the plan. Under the proposal, Buttigieg will require the Social Security administration to recognize at-home, unpaid caregiving as work, thus providing a credit toward benefits.In addition, Buttigieg aimed to secure the solvency of Social Security by imposing a payroll tax on individuals earning above $250,000 a year. He also vowed to “protect Social Security forever” by working with Congress to periodically increase taxes on the nation’s top earners, adding that benefits would increase over time to ensure seniors don’t fall beneath the poverty line.Buttigieg also called for a public-option 401 (k) “with low fees and smart investment options so that all workers have the opportunity to supplement their Social Security benefits if they choose with employer contributions,” adding that it will “expand retirement savings among the 62 million workers locked out of tax-preferred retirement savings, and enable the typical worker to retire with over $500,000.”VideoButtigieg said he’s “determined to usher in a new era for older Americans that upholds the unshakable promise that every American should be able to maintain a decent standard of living when they retire.”Older adults are projected to outnumber children for the first time in United States history by 2035, according to a 2018 report by the U.S. Census Bureau. In addition, the nonpartisan, nonprofit Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has predicted Social Security will become insolvent by 2035.Buttigieg’s plan mirrored legislation put forth by other Democrats vying for the presidential nomination.Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., introduced the Social Security Expansion Act in February with support from Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Cory Booker, D-N.J.Their proposal, however, aimed higher, pledging to extend the solvency of Social Security through 2071 by also lifting the earnings cap, subjecting those raking in over $250,000 a year to the Social Security payroll tax.A chief economist at Moody’s Analytics reviewed Buttigieg’s proposal. Dr. Mark Zandi said the plan would secure the solvency of Social Security through 2051, adding that it will reduce the federal deficit by $1.2 trillion over 10 years.“The reforms you have proposed will put the Social Security system on sounder financial ground, extending its solvency by more than 30 years into the middle of this century,” Zandi wrote to the presidential candidate. “More reforms will eventually be needed, but your reforms address the system’s financial problem, which will be a relief to a financially precious low and middle-income Americans.”VideoPresident Trump has not issued a plan to specifically address the impending insolvent system but said during the 2016 campaign that a thriving economy will secure Social Security by boosting the money paid into it.“The key to preserving Social Security and other programs that benefit AARP members is to have an economy that is robust and growing,” Trump said in a statement to the AARP in June 2016. “For too long Americans have had a great deal of uncertainty in their lives, and the reforms I will bring to D.C. will remove that uncertainty and will restore confidence in the American economy.”Trump has fulfilled his promise of providing a tax cut, signing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, which Democrats have criticized for benefiting corporations and the richest Americans at the expense of the rest of the country.

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Pete Buttigieg’s campaign says he raised more than $24.7 million in the last three months and now has a campaign staff of 500 people nationwide, a show of financial and organizational strength heading into the presidential primaries.In a memo from campaign manager Mike Schmuhl, Buttigieg’s campaign said Wednesday it had received more than 2 million contributions from over 733,000 people and had raised $76 million since he launched his bid for president. It’s a notable feat for the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana — Buttigieg gave up the position Wednesday when his successor was sworn in.ADVERTISEMENTButtigieg has come under fire for holding big-dollar fundraisers with wealthy donors that, until recently, he kept private. But in the fundraising announcement, Buttigieg’s campaign touted that its average contribution was about $38. And the big-dollar fundraisers have paid off — Buttigieg’s 2019 fourth-quarter haul is far beyond the $19.2 million he raised during the third quarter of the year.Schmuhl also touted the fact that the campaign has opened 65 field offices across the four early primary states, including 35 in Iowa, the first state where Democrats make their primary preference known, next month. Buttigieg has been polling among the top three candidates in Iowa, though he still polls in the middle of the pack nationwide and faces lingering questions about his ability to broaden his support beyond white voters.___Catch up on the 2020 election campaign with AP experts on our weekly politics podcast, “Ground Game.”

Enlarge this image The protests in Hong Kong began in response to a proposed extradition law. Demonstrations have expanded to include other demands. Vincent Thian/AP hide caption toggle caption Vincent Thian/AP The protests in Hong Kong began in response to a proposed extradition law. Demonstrations have expanded to include other demands. Vincent Thian/AP Protests continued in Hong Kong for a 10th straight weekend on Saturday as demonstrators organized across the city, blocking multiple roads and a key tunnel under Victoria Harbor. The protests checkered much of Hong Kong. At the airport, demonstrators dressed in black filled the arrivals hall with a massive sit-in, cheering in Cantonese, "Go, Hong Kong people!" and calling for the resignation of Hong Kong's chief executive, Carrie Lam. It was the second day of what protesters said would be a three-day occupation at the airport. Protesters also demonstrated outside China's military garrison in Hong Kong and marched through the city's Central District, parts of the Kowloon Peninsula and a neighborhood in the New Territories, where police officers in riot gear cleared the demonstration with tear gas. In Hong Kong's Tsim Sha Tsui district, protesters set fires outside a police station, prompting the police to release a statement that the fires posed "a serious threat" to public safety. The protests were originally sparked by a bill that would have allowed China to extradite people from Hong Kong. That bill has since been shelved, but not formally withdrawn, by Hong Kong's government. Demonstrators are demanding that the bill be permanently withdrawn. They are also calling for the direct election of the city's leaders, seats on the Hong Kong legislature and an investigation into police conduct during the demonstrations. China has recently indicated it will not allow the protests to go on indefinitely and has called demonstrators "violent radicals" who are under foreign influence. When Britain returned Hong Kong to China 22 years ago, China employed a "one country, two systems" principle, allowing Hong Kong to retain its own legal system, currency and civil service. Since then, fears have grown that Beijing is attempting to subvert that autonomy and erode democratic freedoms and the rule of law in the city.NPR's Anthony Kuhn reports that some visitors to Hong Kong from China's mainland do not support the demonstrations. Lei Yong, a visitor to Hong Kong from China's central Henan province, was yelling at the protesters, reports Kuhn. Lei said of the extradition bill: "This bill must be implemented. How can you not punish the bad guys?" "It just shows this huge disparity, this gap, in the thinking and the culture of people in mainland China and Hong Kong," Kuhn reports. In an interview last month, leading pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong told NPR, "We are not afraid of the Communist regime.""Now is the summer of discontent, and as a Hong Konger, I am born, I live, and I love my hometown," Wong told NPR. "We should determine our own destiny instead of the Hong Kong people's future being dominated by Beijing."

Huawei has failed to adequately tackle security flaws in equipment used in the UK's telecoms networks despite previous complaints, an official report says. From a report: It also flagged that a vulnerability "of national significance" had occurred in 2019 but been fixed before it could be exploited. The assessment was given by an oversight board, chaired by a member of the cyber-spy agency GCHQ. It could influence other nations weighing up use of Huawei's kit. The report said that GCHQ's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) had seen no evidence that Huawei had made a significant shift in its approach to the matter. And it added that while some improvements had been made, it had no confidence they were sustainable. As a result, it concluded, the board could only provide "limited assurance that all risks to UK national security" could be mitigated in the long-term. In July, the government announced that due to US sanctions Huawei would eventually be excluded from the new 5G telecoms network by 2027, but the Chinese company can continue to play a role in older mobile phone networks and fixed broadband. The US has argued that using Huawei's equipment creates a risk of the Chinese state carrying out espionage or sabotage, something the company has always denied. Despite the criticisms, British security officials say they can manage the current risks posed by using Huawei's existing kit, and they do not believe the defects they have found are a result of Chinese state interference. Huawei has responded saying the report highlights its commitment to openness and transparency.

The Takeaway: Still, all the denial of science was based on the idea that the report wasn't factual—even though it was—so we can assume the counterargument is based on facts, right?Welcome Back to the Spotlight, Paul Manafort!What Happened: In the first of this week’s unexpected returns of old faces, former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort stepped up to claim the No Really, You Did What?! Award for poor legal decisions.What Really Happened: It turned out to be a surprisingly busy week for Paul Manafort, former campaign chair for Donald Trump’s 2016 election bid. You may remember him from being found guilty on eight counts of financial fraud and his subsequent plea deal with Special Counsel Robert Mueller earlier this year. Well, last week, he was back in the news for a number of different reasons, and none of them good.Breaching a plea deal with authorities because you’re still breaking laws? That doesn’t sound good.That sounds even worse, not least of which because it translates to “the special counsel doesn’t have to live up to its side of the agreement now, but Manafort can’t pretend he didn’t plead guilty to his crimes.” That kind of thing proves to be important when it comes to sentencing, after all.Many people believed the lies Manafort is accused of telling were the result of an ongoing relationship with the president—a suspicion that proved to be correct, as was revealed later in the week.Once this was out in the open, talk of whether or not Manafort was angling for a presidential pardon became much louder ... again, with good reason.Whether or not a pardon is the final aim, Manafort’s decision to break the plea deal was revealed to be especially short-sighted on Friday, when a hearing to schedule his sentencing quickly turned to matters that might have surprised him (even if no one else would have been especially shocked).Yeah, that’s going to hurt. Is this enough Manafort for you? We hope not, because there was even more Mananews, thanks to The Guardian.The story was an explosive one, apparently connecting the dots between the Trump campaign and the hacking of DNC servers during the 2016 election campaigns.Unsurprisingly, both parties denied it even happened.But this is worth remembering:The Takeaway: Just how bad can this end up getting? Actually, quite bad if those in positions of authority want to take it as far as they can.... Oh, and Michael Cohen Too!What Happened: Meanwhile, as Paul Manafort was revealing that his flip was more of a flip flop, another member of the Trump crew was about to unveil his next move.

A few minutes ago, I posted about a report from the Daily Beast that one of tonight’s RNC speakers, the mother of a young man killed in a drunk driving accident that involved an undocumented immigrant, had shared a thread of infamous antisemitic conspiracy theories with her Twitter followers earlier today. (The thread, from a QAnon conspiracy theorist, includes references to the Rothschilds and to the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, perhaps the most infamous antisemitic hoax text.) Now, CNN is reporting that Mary Ann Mendoza will not be speaking tonight as a result, and that she has apologized. Meanwhile, a CBS News journalist is reporting that a different RNC speaker tonight “tweeted earlier this year that one of her most controversial takes is she supports bringing back household voting, in which each household gets one vote, not allowing women their own individual vote”.Anti-abortion activist Abby Johnson, who is slated to speak tonight, also said in a video posted in June that it would be “smart” for a police officer to racially profile her adopted son, who is biracial, because “statistically, my brown son is more likely to commit a violent offense over my white sons”, Vice News reported earlier today. Johnson added that she would be upset if a police officer treated her brown son “more violently” than her white sons. “Now if [the officer] acts in an unjust manner toward my brown son than my white son, that makes me angry. But statistically if he’s on more high alert, I’m not angry about that,” she said, according to Vice News.

They're calling it "Just walk out" and while they won't spill the beans on just how it works, they say it uses "computer vision, deep learning algorithms and sensor fusion, much like you'd find in a self-driving car".

Ng responded to Blizzard's decision in a Twitch livestream Saturday morning. "I'm grateful to Blizzard for reconsidering my ban," he said. "I think half a year [ban] is still pretty long. It's still quite a loss to me, as an esports player." He said that although he knew airing political views on a broadcast was against the rules, he did so anyway because he wanted to shine a light on the Hong Kong protests. The money is "not important," he said on Twitch. "If I really cared about money, I wouldn't have said anything on the stream during my interview."Businesses have become ensnared in Hong Kong's pro-democracy, anti-government protests, which are now in their fourth month. Beijing has taken a hard line on some global companies and brands. Itscrubbed television show South Parkfrom the Chinese internet after an episode criticized censorship, andpulled NBA preseasongames off the air after Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey tweeted in support of Hong Kong. Apple took down an app used used by Hong Kong protesters this week, saying it was being used to target police."Activision Blizzard's statement is totally inadequate given the circumstances," said Rod Breslau, an esports and gaming consultant, "It took over five days for Activision Blizzard to finally give a response, much more than it took the NBA or Apple, and it can be argued they took the worst possible stance of the three."Gamers haveaccused Blizzard of appeasingChina's communist-led government. In response to the disqualification, some fans called for boycotts. Others drewfan art or made memesof a Chinese character within the Blizzard-owned video game "Overwatch," recasting her as a Hong Kong protester in a bid to get that game banned in China. On Tuesday, a small group of employees walked out of its Irvine, California, headquarters in protest.Blizzard stated Friday that "our relationships in China had no influence on our decision" and that if a player had shouted a pro-Beijing slogan, they would also be dealt with the same way. Other American video game companies with Chinese business ties have spoken out this week on how they would treat political views on broadcasts. The CEO of Fortnite maker Epic Games, Tim Sweeney,tweeted this weekthat despite Chinese tech giant Tencent's roughly 40% stake in the company, he was still the controlling shareholder and would allow players to express political views.Riot Games, a video game company owned by Chinese tech giant Tencent, said Friday that it won't allow any political statements on its broadcasts. Political and religious "topics are often incredibly nuanced, require deep understanding and a willingness to listen, and cannot be fairly represented in the forum our broadcast provides," John Needham, global head of Riot's "League of Legends" esports, tweeted Friday. "Therefore, we have reminded our casters and pro players to refrain from discussing any of these topics on air." Riot spokesman Joe Hixson clarified to CNN Business that meant "political statements of any kind — Trump, Brexit, Hong Kong, etc. — won't be aired.""Activision, Riot, the guys who are there are playing by the Chinese rules," said Michael Pachter, an analyst at private financial services firm Wedbush, "The guys who aren't there either won't play by the Chinese rules or the Chinese don't want them there because they don't trust them."

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano put some distance between himself and many of his Fox colleagues when it comes to President Donald Trump seeking assistance from a foreign leader in the upcoming election, describing it as an “act of corruption” that is the “most serious charge” yet against the president.Appearing Monday on the Fox Business Network, Napolitano—who warned in June that Trump was “prepared to commit a felony to get re-elected—was asked by host David Asman about the ongoing controversy surrounding a whistleblower’s complaint surrounding Trump’s communications with Ukraine.“Who is in more trouble here,” Asman declared. “The president who had this phone call with the Ukrainian leader or Joe Biden who actually did have a quid pro quo with regard to Ukraine when he was vice president?” (The Ukrainian prosecutor general said in May that there is no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden or his son Hunter.)“I think this is the most serious charge against the president, far more serious than what Bob Mueller dug or dragged up against him,” Napolitano noted. “If there was a quid pro quo—it does appear as though a quarter of a billion dollars in defensive weaponry was held back for a period of time while these eight conversations were going on between the president.”Asman, meanwhile, pointed to a Wall Street Journal report noting that the July call between Trump and the Ukrainian president didn’t reveal a specific quid pro quo.“So if you are the President of the United States and you are making a conversation that you know your intelligence community is listening to,” the judge replied. “Of course you’re not going to articulate a quid pro quo. You’ll just make the quid pro quo happen.”Trump, for his part, essentially admitted to threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine on the call if they didn’t investigate “corruption,” apparently referencing Biden and his son, telling reporters on Monday that “if you don’t talk about corruption, why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?”Asman pivoted to Biden, claiming the former vice president voiced a “direct quid pro quo” when he threatened to withhold a billion-dollar loan guarantee—at the behest of several Western countries—if Ukraine didn’t dismiss its then-prosecutor general Viktor Shokin for corruption. The Fox Business host parroted Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani’s accusations that Shokin was actively investigating Hunter Biden’s company at the time of his dismissal, an assertion that has long been debunked.Napolitano agreed that while “this is probably the end of Joe Biden’s presidency” hopes, it “doesn’t diminish one iota what the current president is doing.”“If it is true, we haven’t seen the whistle-blower complaint and under the law it has to be revealed, if this is true this is an act of corruption,” the Fox analyst exclaimed.Hours later, during an appearance on Fox News’ Your World with Neil Cavuto, Napolitano reiterated his belief that Trump’s alleged actions were “far more serious” than anything detailed in the Mueller Report before offering up a correction regarding Biden’s campaign."Last time I was sitting here, Dave Asman was filling in for Neil [Cavuto], and I said this might jeopardize Vice President Biden's campaign, it might even be the end of it,” he told guest host Charles Payne. “I believe I was wrong.”“I have since learned that most of Europe wanted this prosecutor to go, that he was an agent of corruption,” Napolitano added. “He was not rooting out corruption. And unfortunately, when he did go, not all the corruption in the Ukraine left."After Payne said “people are concerned” about whether or not there was “influence peddling” going on with the Bidens, Napolitano pointed out that multiple Ukrainian prosecutors over the years have said there was “no case” against the Biden family and “no there there.”

The social media giant has "a responsibility to pull false advertising and ... to intervene when there is advertising that would contribute to voter suppression," Butttigieg told reporters after hosting an economic policy event in New Hampshire.Zuckerberg has defended Facebook's refusal to take down content it considers newsworthy "even if it goes against our standards," in an effort to steer clear of criticism that Facebook was infringing on First Amendment rights to free speech. In response to a question last week on fact-checking during his appearance at Georgetown University, Zuckerberg said, "We think people should be able to see for themselves."Warren also has called for breaking up Zuckerberg's conglomerate, which includes Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.Buttigieg, at 37, is the first candidate of the Facebook generation, and was an early adopter of the social media platform. But he said Thursday that federal regulators, with the power to protect consumers and address "anti-competitive practices," should consider remedies that include a breakup."Yes, I believe that breakup of big companies is a remedy that should be on the table," he said. "Now, I don't think that that should be declared in advance by a politician."Warren told reporters in Iowa on Monday that Facebook and its affiliates "already have way too much influence in Washington."

SEE NEW POSTSPriscilla Thompson and Vaughn HillyardButtigieg seeks contrast with Biden and Sanders ahead of Iowa caucusesDECORAH, Iowa — With four days until the Iowa Caucus and closing arguments setting in, former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg is directly contrasting himself with other top Democratic contenders. He went after Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., by name Thursday arguing that it’s time for both men to make way for a new approach to governing, presenting himself as a clear alternative to potential caucus goers in the room.Biden has suggested in the past that now is not the time for voters to take a risk on someone new. And Buttigieg took aim at those remarks. “The biggest risk we could take with a very important election coming up is to look to the same Washington playbook and recycle the same arguments and expect that to work against a president like Donald Trump who is new in kind,” he said calling on the crowd to help him “turn the page.” Former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg speaks at a campaign event in Buena Vista University in Iowa on Jan. 25, 2020.John Locher / APThe candidate hit Sanders for his, “go all the way here and nothing else counts” approach to politics as ineffective for getting things done and cautioned against focusing on disputes of the past without an eye toward the future.“This is no time to get caught up in reliving arguments from before,” he said. “The less 2020 resembles 2016 in our party, the better.”In recent weeks, Sanders and Biden have sparred over Iraq war votes and Social Security. Buttigieg characterized the arguments between the two veteran lawmakers as backwards facing relics of the past.“This is 2020 and we've got, not only to learn the lessons of the war in Iraq, but to make sure we don't get sucked into a war with Iran,” he said.Buttigieg himself has previously criticized Biden’s “judgment” because of the former Vice President’s vote in favor of the Iraq war. He said that the conversation taking place around the issue now is different.“My point is that we can't get bogged down or caught in those arguments without a view toward the future,” the former mayor explained. “The next president’s going to face questions and challenges that are different in kind from what ... has been litigated and argued about in the 1990s.”On disagreements over Social Security, he noted that "Donald Trump is threatening Social Security, and announcing cuts to Medicaid today."Buttigieg said he felt the need to call his competitors out because he sought to guarantee a “clear understanding of the different paths that we offer" ahead of the last days before the caucus.“This is a moment in particular where I think the stakes of the election are coming into focus and the differences in how each of us believe we can win and govern are also coming into focus,” he said.As for alienating voters by going after fellow contenders days before the caucus, Buttigieg isn’t worried. “We’re competing,” he said expressing his desire to “make sure that that choice is as clear as possible, going into these final days.”Monica AlbaTrump campaign previews Super Bowl adsDES MOINES, Iowa — President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign previewed the first of two Super Bowl ads on Thursday, making the argument that the country is “stronger, safer and more prosperous” under the current administration.“America demanded change and change is what we got,” the spot opens, with a dramatic narrator and images of the president campaigning nationwide. The commercial touts wage growth, low unemployment and promises that “the best is yet to come.”The ad, "Stronger, Safer, More Prosperous," doesn’t mention other candidates in the race and features news clips on the strong economy. The other 30-second ad won’t be seen until it actually airs during the highly-viewed game on Sunday.“Just as the Super Bowl crowns the greatest football team, nothing says ‘winning’ like President Donald Trump and his stellar record of accomplishment for all Americans,” said Trump 2020 campaign manager Brad Parscale.Trump will be in Iowa for his own re-election rally Thursday night ahead of a significant push from his campaign which will include surrogates on the ground in the Hawkeye State through next week's caucuses.Earlier in the day, former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s campaign released a 60-second spot focused on gun control that, like the president's ad, will hit the airwaves during the Super Bowl. The dueling advertisements will mark the first time presidential campaigns have bought airtime during a Super Bowl, though the Trump campaign is quick to point out that they were first to reach out to the broadcaster, FOX, last fall and reserved the slot in December. Weeks after that, the Bloomberg team followed suit.Mark Murray Iowa ad spending ticks up in the last week before caucusesDES MOINES, Iowa — Ad spending in Iowa is ramping up just five days out from the caucuses. Democratic Majority for Israel, a group that campaigns against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, is spending $681,000 against Sanders in Iowa in the final week of the race (Jan. 28 to Feb. 3), according to data from Advertising Analytics. The ad the group is airing in heavy rotation — it was on air twice within 15 minutes on local TV in Iowa — features a woman speaking to the camera saying, "I do have some concerns about Bernie Sanders’ health considering he just had a heart attack." After recovering from his heart attack, Sanders released a letter from his doctors declaring him "in good health" and "more than fit" enough to be president. Just a few days out from the Iowa caucuses, here is all of the ad spending in the final week of the race: Here is (Jan. 28 to Feb. 3):From Jan. 28 to Feb. 3 Steyer: $1.4 millionSanders: $1.2 millionUnite the Country (pro-Biden Super PAC): $992,000Warren: $947,000Buttigieg: $854,000Klobuchar: $767,000Democratic Majority for Israel: $681,000Yang: $613,000Biden: $530,000Bloomberg: $51,000Club for Growth: $34,000Florida Sen. Rick Scott: $19,000Delaney: $19,000SOURCE: Advertising AnalyticsBen KamisarBloomberg unveils Super Bowl ad on gun violenceDES MOINES, Iowa — Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's multimillion-dollar Super Bowl ad touts his record on preventing gun violence, evoking the story of a mother whose son was shot and killed at just 20 years old. The ad, set to air during Sunday's Super Bowl, cost $11 million to run, according to data from the ad-tracking firm Advertising Analytics. President Trump's campaign is also slated to run a Super Bowl ad as well. In Bloomberg's ad, Calandrian Simpson Kemp tells the emotional story of the 2013 death of her son, George Kemp Jr. She then praises Bloomberg for his role in starting Moms Demand Action, a grassroots gun violence prevention group under Bloomberg's umbrella organization Everytown for Gun Safety. "I heard Mike Bloomberg speak, he's been in this fight for so long," Simpson Kemp says in the ad. "When I heard Mike was stepping into the ring, I thought, 'Now we have a dog in the fight.'"Bloomberg's work on gun violence is one of his main selling points to a Democratic primary electorate, and it's something that the campaign says it will focus on in the coming days. Along with the release of the ad, the Bloomberg campaign says it's going to keep highlighting the stories of gun violence survivors and will launch a multistate bus tour ahead of February's National Gun Violence Survivors Week. “I chose to devote the entire 60-second ad to gun safety because it matters to communities across the country and it will be a top priority for me as president,” Bloomberg said in a statement. “Calandrian’s story is a powerful reminder of the urgency of this issue and the failure of Washington to address it."The eye-popping cost of the ad emphasizes how Bloomberg's significant personal wealth is a game changer for his presidential bid — he's already spent hundreds of millions more on ads than his Democratic presidential rivals. Bloomberg has also leveraged his relationships with mayors throughout the country during his presidential bid — his campaign announced an endorsement Thursday from Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser, who mentioned Bloomberg's record on gun violence prevention in announcing her endorsement in a statement provided to The Washington Post. —Liz Brown-Kaiser contributed. Marianna Sotomayor and Mike MemoliBiden to pre-empt Trump rally with speech and ad on ‘character’DES MOINES, Iowa — Former Vice President Joe Biden is set to take on President Donald Trump ahead of the president's rally in Iowa Thursday, pointing out key differences between their leadership styles as he attempts to look ahead to a possible general election match-up.During a morning speech in Waukee, Biden is expected to expand on remarks he has already debuted in his final trip through Iowa ahead of the caucuses, stressing to Iowans the urgent need to caucus for a candidate capable of defeating Trump because the country’s “character is on the ballot.”Biden will repeat how he “doesn’t believe” America is the “dark, angry nation” Trump has made it seem with decisions like family separation, building walls or “embraces White supremacist and hate groups.”Former Vice President Joe Biden speaks at the Brown & Black Forum at the Iowa Events Center on Jan. 20, 2020, in Des Moines.Andrew Harnik / APIn a week where impeachment is dominating headlines, the speech is an effort by Biden to rise above the developments in Washington including efforts by Republicans to ensure him in ongoing proceedings. The campaign is signaling that his remarks will be “inspirational and hopeful” in hopes to showing Democrats a broader and more comprehensive critique of Trump.“Trump desperately wants to impact the outcome of the Democratic primary, dropping into Iowa a few days before the caucus to spread a message of division, discord, and hate,” the Biden campaign said in a statement previewing Thursday’s speech. “Trump has been trying to prevent Biden from getting the nomination since the moment the VP got into the race, getting himself impeached by the House and tried in the Senate in the process.” Thus far the Biden campaign and the candidate have largely stayed away from responding directly to minute-by-minute developments in the Senate impeachment trial in an attempt to avoid tit-for-tat spats. But in his closing argument, just four days before the start of the primary voting season, the campaign is signaling they are ready to make this about Biden versus Trump. In conjunction with his Waukee speech, the Biden campaign will amplify its message about restoring America’s character in a one minute TV ad that will air across all five top media markets throughout the day. The ad stresses how precious a decision it is to choose the right president because the White House and the Oval Office is where a leader’s “character is revealed.”“But it’s in life where your character is formed,” the narrator says as it flashes pictures of Biden’s hometown, his family and events that have shaped his life. Amanda Golden and Julia JesterSurrogates cover New Hampshire while candidates are elsewhereMANCHESTER, N.H. — The Senate impeachment trial and looming Iowa caucuses might be dominating the political discussion right now but New Hampshire voters will cast the first 2020 primary ballots in less than two weeks. The balancing act for the campaigns has resulted in a surge of campaign surrogates in the Granite State to make the case for their candidates. Aside from former South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg, no other top-tier candidates have held more than five public events in the state since the start of 2020. How much time the candidates on the debate stage have spent in New Hampshire in January:Biden - 2 days, 3 eventsButtigieg - 6 days, 10 eventsKlobuchar - 1 day, 1 eventSanders - 2 days, 5 eventsSteyer - 2 days, 4 eventsWarren - 2 days, 4 eventsYang - 7 days, 22 events— Amanda Golden (@amandawgolden) January 29, 2020 Biden surrogates: Former Secretary of State John Kerry and former New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch have been heavy hitters for former Vice President Joe Biden as he makes his final case across Iowa. Kerry fielded questions about Biden's name being mentioned during the impeachment trial while holding a meet and greet in Biden's Manchester, N.H. field office. “The reason they're trying to use this Ukraine thing is purely to do a Benghazi, to do an email kind of thing,” Kerry said. “Just hammer and hammer and hammer and throw the mud, and you wait and see what happens tomorrow on the floor of the Senate with their defense.”Lynch emphasized the importance of candidates and their supporters showing up and connecting with voters in New Hampshire. “Voters expect the candidates to come up and look them in the eye, answer the tough questions, meet them in the living rooms,” Lynch told NBC News . “It doesn't happen in big states that's one of the big advantages of New Hampshire and why we've been so important for the whole nominating process.”Warren surrogates: Actress and activist Ashley Judd, as well as Massachusetts Rep. Joe Kennedy III have come in for Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Actress and activist Ashley Judd campaigns for Elizabeth Warren in Lebanon, N.H. on Jan. 24, 2020.Preston Ehrler / Echoes Wire / Barcroft Media via Getty ImagesJudd connected with the neighboring senator’s humble Midwest roots and stressed that those parts of Warren are essential. “We are going to tell them about her past, we are going to tell them about her family,” she told a small group of students at Dartmouth College. “We are going to tell them about her record in the Senate. You know, she can't do that right now because she's sitting there trying to impeach this crook.”She continued, "“But we can be her legs, we can be her feet and we can be her surrogates in convincing folks who are still undecided as to why she should be our nominee for our party.”Kennedy told NBC News that he’s been taking the time to share anecdotes about his former law professor.“I think the stakes are pretty high for surrogates because they’re high for our country, regardless,” he said of representing Warren. “This election is going to probably be the most consequential one of my lifetime.”& for 2020 Democratic candidates not on the debate stage, here's their total time spent in #FITN New Hampshire for the month of January:Gabbard - 25 days, 28 eventsBennet - 11 days, 22 eventsPatrick - 10 days, 20 eventsDelaney - 3 days, 5 eventsBloomberg - 0 days, 0 events https://t.co/ybf7uefXL9— Julia Jester (@JulesJester) January 29, 2020 Surrogates for Sanders: New Hampshire served as Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' first win in 2016, and ice cream duo Ben & Jerry have been in New Hampshire to keep making the case that Sanders is voters' best bet. Ben Cohen, of Ben & Jerry’s, had an interesting suggestion for students at New England College who might have “better things to do” on Feb. 11.“Take your date to the polls. Take your date to the polls and do it in the booth. Do it in the booth for Bernie! Do it in the booth for Bernie! Do it in the booth for Bernie! Have a good time,” he said after scooping ice cream. His counterpart, Jerry Greenfield, told NBC News he hopes to “get folks out to vote who don’t always vote.”“Not me, us,” he said. “And in particular with him being in Washington it's an opportunity for all of Bernie supporters to be out doing more for him.”Surrogates for Buttigieg: Newly-announced campaign co-chair for the Buttigieg campaign, N.H. Rep. Annie Kuster has been looking to excite undecideds to come out for Buttigieg in two weeks. Kuster said she’s been involved in presidential campaigns in NH since she was 16 years old, and this is the highest level of undecided voters she has ever seen.“We’ve never had anything like this. Usually, we’re in the home stretch, 16 days to go we know exactly who our voters are," Kuster said. "This is very different, you’re still in persuasion mode and then trying to make sure our voters get to the polls.”Surrogates for Klobuchar: A slew of state elected officials have been holding "office hours" on behalf of the Minnesota senator as she splits time between the impeachment trial and campaigning in Iowa. Melissa HolzbergDoug Collins enters Georgia Senate race, setting off Republican battleWASHINGTON — Georgia Rep. Doug Collins on Tuesday announced his bid to challenge Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler in November, a move that drew immediate condemnation from the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the party-run organization dedicated to maintaining the Senate majority.Loeffler was appointed by GOP Gov. Brian Kemp in December to fill the remaining term of Johnny Isakson, who had resigned because of health reasons. At the time of the appointment, Collins had drawn support from allies of President Donald Trump to be Kemp's choice.Collins became a major defender of the president during the House impeachment hearings and said in announcing his Senate bid on Fox News that he still had "a lot of work left to do to help this president finish this impeachment out." Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, arrives for President Donald Trump's impeachment trial on Jan. 29, 2020.J. Scott Applewhite / APThe NRSC's executive director, Kevin McLaughlin, said that he and the organization will fully support Loeffler's re-election effort. “The shortsightedness in this decision is stunning. Doug Collins’ selfishness will hurt David Perdue, Kelly Loeffler and President Trump. Not to mention the people of Georgia who stand to bear the burden of it for years to come," McLaughlin said in a statement (Perdue, also a Republican, is Georgia's other senator). "All he has done is put two Senate seats, multiple House seats and Georgia’s 16 electoral votes in play."In a tweet on Wednesday, Collins called McLaughlin's statement "fake news" from "the head of a Washington-based group whose bylaws require him to support all incumbents, even unelected ones." But it wasn't only national Republican groups that argued against Collins' choice. The Senate Leadership Fund, aligned with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called the move "selfish." "It’s so selfish of Doug Collins to be promoting himself when President Trump needs a unified team and Senator Loeffler is such a warrior for the president," fund president Steven Law said. "As we've said before, Senator Loeffler is an outsider like Trump, not just another D.C. politician. We’ll have her back if she needs us."Since joining the Senate, Loeffler has defended the president during the impeachment hearings and attacked those she felt were not. On Monday, Loeffler called out Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, on Twitter after he re-established his openness to hearing from witnesses in the impeachment trial. After 2 weeks, it’s clear that Democrats have no case for impeachment. Sadly, my colleague @SenatorRomney wants to appease the left by calling witnesses who will slander the @realDonaldTrump during their 15 minutes of fame. The circus is over. It’s time to move on! #gapol— Senator Kelly Loeffler (@SenatorLoeffler) January 27, 2020 Three Democrats have announced that they are running to fill the last two years of Isakson's term: Tamara Johnson-Shealey, Matt Lieberman and Richard Dien Winfield. The primary is May 19, and potential candidates have until March 6 to file. The winner on Nov. 3 will have to run for re-election in 2022.Maura BarrettKlobuchar might not be viable at many Iowa caucus sites. Where will her supporters go?URBANDALE, Iowa — Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., is depending on success in the Iowa caucus next week.Her Democratic presidential campaign has seen a surge in the state in recent weeks (her campaign calls it “Klomentum”), with even some polls showing her at or near double-digit support in Iowa. In the latest Monmouth University poll in the Hawkeye State, released on Wednesday, Klobuchar registered at 10 percent support.While that shows a growth in her support, it could still mean that she may not hit the crucial 15 percent viability threshold in many caucuses, and possibly statewide. Whether or not she can surpass that mark will be crucial both to her success and to the fortunes of other candidates. The Iowa caucus doles out its delegates proportionally both by congressional district and based on the statewide results. In order to be considered "viable" at a precinct and win delegates, a candidate must reach 15 percent support at each individual precinct caucus site (there are 1,679 total in Iowa this cycle).If a candidate doesn’t reach viability after the caucusgoers make their initial picks (in what's called first alignment), supporters have the option to move to one of the viable groups (that's called realignment).So if Klobuchar fails to hit viability in a number of precinct caucuses, her supporters' second choices could be instrumental in another candidate’s success.The only thing is, her supporters aren’t necessarily rallying around the same second choice.Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. visits with attendees at a campaign event in Des Moines, Iowa, on Jan. 19, 2020.Patrick Semansky / AP fileNBC News spoke with various Klobuchar supporters across Iowa in recent days to get an idea of where her support might shift if she does fall short of viability on caucus night. Nancy Davis of Urbandale, a registered Republican until a couple of weeks ago who plans to caucus for Klobuchar, doesn't have a clear second choice. “That’s my problem. I like Elizabeth Warren but I think she’s a little harsh. She’s got these edges to her. But when you have Biden and Bernie, they’re too old. I like Pete but I don’t know that he could sustain a national campaign either. If I’m going to do a second choice, I’m gonna have to really sit and think about it," she said. Sue Amosson of West Des Moines is leaning towards Klobuchar, but Elizabeth Warren is her back-up. “I do know strong women sometimes are not liked. White men are always regarded as more intelligent, I think that if a woman if strong and goes after what she believes in, she’s not liked. It’s crazy," Amosson said. Bill and Mary Turner of Muscatine are planning to caucus for Klobuchar but their back-up is Tom Steyer. “We love Klobuchar’s Midwest sensibility. In my mind, both Klobuchar and Steyer are non-traditional politicians," Bill Turner said."Amy knows how to work across the aisle and if there’s undecided voters who don’t want an insider then Tom’s the guy. But Amy knows how to get things done."Neither of them have a plan if neither candidate is viable.Cherie Post Dargan of Waterloo told NBC that Klobuchar is a good choice because having a woman in the White House would ensure progress on “education, pragmatic childcare, education, job training, how we turn this country around rebuilding infrastructure.”On her second choice: “I am not opposed to Elizabeth Warren. I really admire Pete Buttigieg. And I really hope whoever is the candidate that they think long and hard about who their running mate will be; I really liked Kamala Harris. This field was an embarrassment of riches.”Dargan caucused for Joe Biden in 2008.Andrew Turner in Des Moines is a former Booker supporter who’s now committed to caucus for Klobuchar, citing her ability to win in conservative districts. His second choice: Biden. Why? “Because he’s not a small-town mayor from a town of maybe 20,000 people.”Melissa HolzbergNew Iowa poll shows Biden in the lead, but half of voters open to changing their mindsWASHINGTON — With only five days to go until the Iowa caucuses, a new Monmouth University poll shows a tight caucus race among five candidates with former Vice President Joe Biden slightly ahead. The poll, released Wednesday, shows Biden leading among likely Democratic caucus-goers with 23 percent support. But Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg's support falls within in the margin of error with 21 and 16 percent respectively. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, with 15 percent support, and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, at 10 percent, round out the top five. Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden speaks during a campaign event at the North Iowa Events Center on Jan. 22, 2020, in Mason City, Iowa.John Locher / APHowever, only 47 percent of voters said they were "firmly" decided on their candidate while 53 percent of likely caucus-goers saying they are at least somewhat open to changing their allegiance on Feb. 3. And that could benefit Warren, who was the top second choice candidate, with 19 percent of voters saying they'd pick her after their first choice.While second choices may not mean much in primary states, in a caucus state like Iowa that could help Warren if any of those supporters' first choices don't meet the viability requirements on the first alignment of a caucus. For Biden, this poll shows some more strength than other recent Iowa polls. A New York Times/Siena College poll last week showed him in third place in Iowa — behind Sanders and Buttigieg. And the last Des Moines Register/CNN poll in the state, from earlier this month, showed him in fourth place with Sanders leading the pack and followed by Warren and Buttigieg. This poll also documents Klobuchar's climbing strength in the state. While she has just 10 percent in this poll, her jump to double-digit support could matter on caucus night where most viability requirements to make it pass the first round are 15 percent. If Klobuchar makes the viability threshold in early rounds, that could hurt other moderate candidates like Biden who may have hoped to pick up Klobuchar supporters in later rounds. The Iowa caucuses take place on Monday, Feb. 3. Alex Seitz-WaldNew Iowa ad questions Bernie Sanders' electability, references his heart attackDES MOINES, Iowa — A Democratic pro-Israel group will start running a television ad here Wednesday hitting Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders that references his heart attack and argues the Vermont independent senator is unelectable against President Donald Trump. The almost $700,000 advertising campaign, from the PAC associated with the group Democratic Majority for Israel, comes as Sanders has surged in Iowa days before Monday's first-in-the-nation caucuses. Sanders' strong standing in the polls has concerned some more moderate Democrats.The ad features testimonials from Iowans saying they’re worried about Sanders’ ability to beat Trump, including one woman who references his heart attack.“I like Bernie, I think he has great ideas, but Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa — they’re just not going to vote for a socialist,” says one man in the ad. "I just don't think Bernie can beat Trump."“I do have some concerns about Bernie Sanders’ health, considering he did have a heart attack,” says a woman.Democratic Majority for Israel’s president and CEO, longtime Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, told NBC News that the group is concerned both with Sanders’ ability to beat Trump and his views on Israel. Mellman is a longtime Democratic Party pollster who has worked for a variety of lawmakers, including former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “We looked at the data and saw that he did have a possibility of getting the nomination and we thought that would be a big mistake,” Mellman said of Sanders. “It’s vitally important to defeat Donald Trump and we think Bernie Sanders is not equipped to do that.” Mellman said the group had been working on the ad for a “couple of weeks” and insisted it’s not part of any new coordinated effort to stop Sanders.“We have not spoken with, coordinated, discussed this with anybody,” he said. “There may be some effort out there, but I don’t know anything about it if there is.” The ad is one of the first direct negative TV spots of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, which has been marked by unusual hesitancy among Democrats to go after each other. Sanders addressed the "political establishment" that is "running attack ads against us in Iowa" in a new video posted to Twitter Tuesday night. It's no secret that we're taking on the political establishment and the big money interests, who are now running attack ads against us in Iowa. But we have the people, and our grassroots movement will prevail. pic.twitter.com/77Zxpvn8RB— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) January 29, 2020 "The big money interests can run all the negative ads they want, but it's not going to work,” Sanders said in the direct-to-camera message. “Our opponents, they have endless amounts of money. But we have the people and our grassroots movement will prevail.”—Gary Grumbach contributed.Ben KamisarCandidates have already begun spending on TV in Super Tuesday statesWASHINGTON — The early-state sprint is less than a week away, but while candidates have to survive (or thrive in) Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, those states dole out just a handful of delegates candidates need to secure the Democratic presidential nomination. Those four states combined dole out under 4 percent of the race's total pledged delegates, while just one week later, 34 percent of the race's pledged delegates are at stake in contests across 14 states (plus American Samoa and Democrats Abroad).Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is unsurprisingly already blanketing those states with television ads — he's spent more than $88 million so far on TV and radio ads in those Super Tuesday states, according to data from Advertising Analytics as of the morning of Jan. 28. Michael Bloomberg speaks at the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Winter Meeting in Washington on Jan. 22, 2020.Patrick Semansky / APA handful of other Democratic candidates have already spent significant dollars on TV and radio ads in those states as well. Fellow billionaire and philanthropist Tom Steyer has spent $9.3 million in ads in California and $35,000 in Maine. Businessman Andrew Yang has spent $82,000 in Maine and $142,000 in Vermont. Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has spent $73,000 in California, $42,000 in Maine and $46,000 in Texas. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has spent $5,000 in Maine. Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders has spent $389,000 in Vermont. And former South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg spent $112,000 in Vermont. A lot can change during the early-state shuffle, where historically candidacies are made or broken. And candidates have plenty of time to iron out their Super Tuesday media strategies (especially when they're currently putting a premium on success in the early states). But so far, Bloomberg has another $3.2 million booked in Super Tuesday states and Steyer has another $2 million booked in California, while Gabbard, Warren, Sanders and Yang each have a small chunk of advertising dollars booked in Super Tuesday states. Load More Posts

I said to him, “You don’t have to. You know I appreciate it, but you don’t have to show up.” And he said, “No. I’m going to be there on the first day, and if there comes a point that I can testify on your behalf in terms of your character, I’m more than willing to do that.” And I said, “Are you sure?” And he goes, “Yeah.” And I said, “Well I really appreciate that.” But I don’t think that’s the nature of it. When you’re calculating about potentially running for any office and certainly national office, every little wrinkle that you can avoid is great. But, as I’ve said to so many people who don’t know Cory, it’s a measure of the man that in times of danger and uncertainty, he actually stood on principle that he believed that I was innocent and wanted to let people know what he thought about me. And so in a time in which people act as weather vanes, and we want people who have courage, that was one example of that type of principled position.You are the highest ranking Hispanic elected official in the Senate. Has Senator Booker reached out to you about being a surrogate or coming out on the campaign trail?We talked about a series of things that he wants me to do. I've said yes to everything. And I certainly intend to help him in the broader Hispanic community in creating relationships. I've already set him up with some people that are real significant influences in their respective states to meet. And I will continue to do that.You've been around New Jersey politics a long time. Seeing 50 Democrats agree on anything is a rare thing. Here’s one of the things about Cory that I think will differentiate himself from the rest of the field. Cory, not only in word, but in deed, actually brings people together in common cause. And as he’s been traveling the country, I’ve been following some of his speeches. At a time of national division, he’s actually talking about bringing the nation together in common cause in terms of unity and that we can reach out for the best nature in each and every one of us. That’s exemplified in New Jersey at a time that, within the Democratic Party, there are different centers of power, different interests, some splits, he can bridge all of that and actually bring people together.

HONG KONG — As weeks of protests have transformed Hong Kong into a battleground between demonstrators and the police, few families have felt the polarizing effects more than that of a young woman named Sunny.Sunny, 26, is a protester who takes to the streets to denounce what she regards as the oppressive policies of the central government in Beijing. Her husband is a low-ranking police officer, working 12-hour nightly shifts to confront the demonstrations his wife supports.Since June, they have coexisted like this: standing on opposing sides of the barricades by night, and then parenting their two daughters together the next day.They have witnessed the deepening rift on the streets that has come to define the struggle for Hong Kong’s soul. That fight is now driving a wedge into their home and the homes of families like theirs, and even into the ranks of the police force itself.“In the beginning, it didn’t seem any different from any other protests that we have always had over the years,” Sunny said in an interview. “But now, we can’t even talk about any normal daily life. No one has the patience for it.”As Hong Kong’s government has stepped up the pressure and arrests, increasingly violent clashes between protesters and the police have made the streets more tense. The divide between the two sides has grown.Secretary for Security John Lee has defended the actions taken by the police, saying that the force remains the most professional in Asia. “Despite the dangers and difficulties they are faced with, they still discharge their statutory duties with courage,” he said.ImageSunny in Hong Kong on Friday. Each day her husband, a police officer, returns home, they talk through the tensions he absorbs at the protests. “The conversations are not always peaceful,” she said.Credit...Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesIn public statements, officials have accused protesters of harassing officers, and sometimes their family members, online or in person. The treatment by protesters has angered many officers, who now face regular criticism on streets where just a few months ago they were widely respected.Sunny and her husband have known each other since they were children, and married five years ago. She asked that her full name not be published out of fear of retribution by the government or other officers.She remembers how her husband cried with pride the day he graduated from the police academy.“Back then, he thought it was a noble profession,” Sunny said. “But it turned out to be below expectations. In just a few months, he realized that the hierarchy was too severe.”Each day her husband returns home, Sunny tries to talk him down from the tension he absorbs on the front lines.“The conversations are not always peaceful,” she said.“I keep telling him, ‘It’s normal to feel angry,’” she added. “‘But, no matter how furious you are, the law will punish them. It is not your job to punish. You don’t have to use any excessive force because you are not a torturer. You are a police officer.’”Sunny’s husband declined to speak in person or give his name, but emphasized the gulf between the government’s demands and the protesters’ grievances.“It puts so much pressure on me and my family,” he said by text message, adding that the police “have no choice” but to arrest those who break the law.ImagePolice officers and protesters in Hong Kong’s Central district in July. The rift between the two groups has only deepened as the protests continued.Credit...Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesBut he acknowledged that the authorities could improve their handling of the protests, and said that his wife reminds him of that.“She keeps me in line,” he said. “She is always urging me to consider how police officers can regain the trust of the citizens.”Through their negotiations, Sunny has come to understand how, on the street, the police have become a stand-in for a government that is increasingly loathed by the public. “It feels like we have a common enemy,” she said.In July, she decided to organize a Facebook group, “Police Relatives Connection.” Its mission is to restore the public’s trust in the police.“We are not part of the police force, but we are the closest to them, and they may be more willing to hear our voice,” she said. “If the wives step up, the citizens will support them.”Most members of the Facebook group are just like her: They have a close relative in the police force but still support the protesters.One member, Phillis, a 42-year-old social worker for primary school students, has been married to a police officer, her first love, for 21 years.ImageCathy Yau, a former police officer, in Hong Kong on Wednesday. She resigned in July and decided to take the risk of publicly criticizing the police.Credit...Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesAs she became more involved with the movement, she realized the man she had built a home with had become a stranger.“We do not share the same views,” she said, speaking about her husband at a recent meeting of the Facebook group. “I have told him that once our kids are grown up, I am going to think about divorce.”To avoid confrontation at home, she no longer watches television and saves political discussions with her daughters for outside the house, away from her husband, she said.Of the officers who feel conflicted in their posts, few dare speak out while the force is under so much pressure and public scrutiny.Cathy Yau, 36, had been in the Hong Kong police force for 11 years before resigning in July and deciding to step forward and take the risk of publicly criticizing the police.Earlier in the summer, she was posted outside the Hong Kong Central Library, monitoring the demonstrators who were assembling across the street in Victoria Park. She recalls one particular march, on June 16, when protesters chanted “dirty cop” at her as they passed by. She identified with their anger, and at that moment she began to feel she might be on the wrong side of a conflict.“As a trained police officer I knew what they were doing was not completely lawful,” Ms. Yau said in an interview. “But I also appreciated how they understood that if worse came to worst, they were willing to sacrifice themselves — their future prospects or even their lives.”ImageRiot police officers facing off with protesters in the Tsim Sha Tsui district last month.Credit...Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesAs tensions escalated through June, and officers began using force against protesters, Ms. Yau grew increasingly frustrated, she said.“It got to the point where I couldn’t walk down the block to give a parking ticket without wearing full gear, and I finally thought, ‘What is the point to wearing this uniform?’”She expressed a view that she said is becoming more common in the police force.“I felt like the government was hiding behind the police force,” she said. “Many police officers are normal Hong Kong citizens when we take off our uniform after work. We are all H.K. citizens, but the government didn’t seem care that there is blood on the street.”On July 10, she decided she had seen enough. She slipped her resignation letter under her boss’s door.Ten days after she resigned, Ms. Yau watched a live-feed of a group of thugs in white shirts beating protesters in the Yuen Long train station as police officers — her former colleagues — failed to stop the violence.“That was the first emergency call I ever made in my life,” she recalled. “The scene was horrifying, and hugely disappointing.”Standing in her tiny apartment, Ms. Yau unfurled the certificate she received when she took her oath as an officer in 2008. Holding that piece of paper feels bittersweet, she said, after what she has seen this summer.“It does upset me,” she said, referring to officers’ use of force against protesters. “Perhaps it’s difficult for them not to follow orders; but they can choose to act differently.”After Ms. Yau went public with her story, several officers reached out to her, asking for advice on how they could follow in her footsteps, she said. One told her he was worried for his daughter’s safety and well-being. Another told her that he had fallen under suspicion from his bosses and had been asked to disclose his political stance.Ms. Yau says she now wants to run for City Council in November.“I decided I needed a new platform to do what I wanted to do,” she said. “It all comes down to whether there is a government that serves its people diligently and loves its people. People are that simple. They don’t want to go out and protest.”

Pete Buttigieg is no longer the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, but his presidential campaign is going from strength to strength in terms of raising cash.The 37-year-old raised $24.7m in the fourth quarter, his campaign announced on Wednesday, up on the $19.1m he collected in the previous fundraising period.Buttigieg has come under fire over his successful fundraising efforts. On the debate stage in December the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren attacked the mayor regarding fundraisers including a now infamous occasion in a Napa Valley wine cave.Buttigieg’s time as mayor of a small city in northern Indiana ended on New Years’ Day, leaving him free to concentrate on a Democratic primary in which he has surged from unknown to top-tier contender.He leads polling averages in Iowa, the first state to vote, and is second in New Hampshire, the next target in the race for the nomination to face Donald Trump in November.However, the realclearpolitics.com national polling average for the Democratic field, which is still an unwieldy 15 candidates strong, puts Buttigieg 20 points behind the frontrunner, former vice-president Joe Biden.The Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, second nationally, 10 points adrift of Biden, had the largest fundraising haul in the third quarter, raising $25.2m.Warren – third nationally, seven points up on Buttigieg – has both said she will not hold any fundraisers and accused the mayor of being influenced by big donors.“When a candidate brags about how beholden he feels to a group of wealthy investors,” she said in a December speech, “our democracy is in serious trouble”.Sanders has also attacked. Last month, the senator told the Guardian that the support Buttigieg was receiving from billionaires was “exactly the problem with American politics”.Buttigieg has opened fundraisers to the press and disclosed the identities of top donors. But he has also insisted Democrats need to fundraise from anyone, so they can remain competitive against Trump, who has amassed a formidable war chest.On Tuesday, Buttigieg closed out 2019 with a series of appeals for donations. On Twitter, he said: “We’ve taken our message about the purpose of the presidency and the possibilities for our politics from obscurity to the top tier of our country’s political process.“We have a lot of work ahead of us. But unlike a year ago, we’ll do it with strong, national grassroots support.”

Alexa and Cortana are learning to work together, announced Tom Taylor, Amazon’s SVP of Alexa, and Megan Saunders, Microsoft’s GM of Cortana today, appearing onstage together here in Seattle at the Microsoft Build conference. The two gave some quick demonstrations of how the two digital assistants have begun to learn to cooperate on tasks both in the work and home environments. — Microsoft (@Microsoft) May 7, 2018The idea is for people to use Alexa for more personal stuff, and Cortana for work-related stuff. So a user, while at work, might say “Cortana, open Alexa” to do something like turn on the porch light at home or buy something online. At home the user might say “Alexa, open Cortana” to check on a work meeting or to call up the name of a co-worker.At the end of the demo Taylor Alexa what she thinks about Cortana. Alexa said “I like Cortana. We both have experience with light rings, although hers is more of a halo.”“Although both firms are in the early phase of this partnership, the move is a necessary one as the number of digital assistants explodes over the next few years,” said Nicholas McQuire, VP of enterprise research at CCS Insight. “[Cortana] will need to continue work more closely with competitors and others if it is to become a de facto player in the future.”