[y66]

From Andrew Ross Sorkin, Michael J. de la Merced and Jason Karaian at NYT:

Quote

This is getting serious

A boycott of advertisers on social media is gaining momentum, and Facebook is the primary target. Marketers are expressing unease with how it handles misinformation and hate speech, including its permissive approach to problematic posts by President Trump.

Who’s doing what? The boycotts have followed a call by the advocacy group Stop Hate for Profit, which is keeping a running list of participating companies. Over the weekend, Starbucks and Diageo said they would pause advertising on all social media platforms. They’re among the biggest spenders on Facebook ads: Starbucks spent $95 million and Diageo $23 spent million on the platform last year. Other companies have boycotted Facebook specifically, including Honda America, Levi Strauss and Patagonia.

Who’s next? Procter & Gamble, the world’s largest advertiser, said it wouldn’t rule out a pause on Facebook ads. (Its big rival, Unilever, is stopping ads on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter through the end of the year.) Big ad agencies generally take their orders from clients, but they also have leeway to steer spending to certain platforms over others.

Claiming censorship by major social media platforms, many right-leaning pundits, lawmakers and others have decamped to the upstart network Parler. That may cost Facebook some high-profile users — and an outsized source of engagement on its platform.

Can Facebook turn it around? Its stock price tumbled last week, as ever-bigger advertisers joined the boycott. (It’s poised to fall at the open today.) On Friday, it rolled out new measures to flag problematic political posts and expand its policies around hate speech.

It’s worth remembering that Facebook collected more than $17 billion in advertising revenue in the first quarter alone: Losing big brand ads is painful, but the bulk of the company’s sales come from millions of smaller businesses that rely heavily on the platform.

The spotlight is now on Mark Zuckerberg, who holds all the power at Facebook. His complicated relationship with Mr. Trump is at the center of the controversy, and how it plays out will determine how damaging the boycott will be for his company. Here’s what Andrew has to say about how it could play out:

Mr. Zuckerberg is often criticized for policies that are viewed by his detractors as unprincipled and craven, driven by business interests more than any moral code. But the truth, based on my years of reporting on him, is that his policies have always been driven less by profits and more by an overarching view of what he thinks is right. (Even when he is arguably wrong).

If he were always trying to placate advertisers, the boycott wouldn’t have happened. Of course, you could argue that his recent reversal on misinformation is proof of malleable principles. (By extension, his prior permissiveness could be seen as placating the Trump administration in hopes of keeping regulators at bay.) But I think it is fair to say that anyone who knows Mr. Zuckerberg knows that he believes in his positions — until he is forced to abandon them.

[y66]

Swing voters are extremely real by Matt Yglesias at Vox.

Quote

There aren’t that many of them, but they matter a lot.

[awm]

y66, on 2020-June-29, 08:29, said:

Swing voters are extremely real by Matt Yglesias at Vox.

This is a pretty old article (about two years). One thing that doesn’t get much discussion in the article (but appears on the charts) is that the number of voters who voted in 2016 but did not (or wouldn’t admit to) in 2012 was roughly twice the number of “swing voters.” And 2016 was not a particularly high turnout presidential election! This suggests that the most important slice of voters might be “occasional voters” and not truly swing voters. It’s also important to keep in mind that both “swing voters” and “occasional voters” are often voting their day-to-day economic reality or voting on personalities. They are not necessarily “turned off” by candidates with a bold vision nor excited to vote for centrists with a history of compromising.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2020-June-29, 08:29, said:

Swing voters are extremely real by Matt Yglesias at Vox.

This article brings up many issues.

I was a Stevenson supporter in 1952 and voter for H. Clinton in 2016 so maybe I am a rock solid Democrat? Maybe not. But forget me for the moment. In 1964 Johnson clobbered Goldwater, in 64 Nixon beat Humphrey handily, in 72 Nixon, with Watergate already an issue, annihilated McGovern. Events matter, programs matter, and who the candidate is matters. A lot happened between 64 and 72, and of course some voters in 64 dies off by 72, and some 72 voters came of voting age during those 8 years, but surely some people who voted D in 64 voted R in 68 and more so in 72. But I think it's important to note that Goldwater and Nixon, the R candidates in 64 and 72, were very different people, as were Johnson and and McGovern.

Short version: People vote for the candidate they think best, not for the party they think best. I am pretty sure my father usually voted D, I am also pretty sure he voted for Eisenhower in 52.

Isn't it obvious? Most people do not sign a loyalty oath to a party. Even more obvious: Most people (I include myself) are not experts in matters of policy. That doesn't mean that they don't think at all, or that they don't listen, or that they don't discuss matters with friends. And then sometimes vote D, sometimes vote R. I voted for Larry Hogan for governor (he is R).

I also want to look at that survey. I generally hate surveys.

One of the issues people were asked to agree or disagree with: Government should help families pay for child care and college.
Is there anyone anywhere who thinks the answer is a straight yes or no? Extreme Libertarians maybe, but most people would want to hear the details. I went to a public elementary school and a public elementary school. Then I went to the University of Minnesota, where the tuition was about $220 a year. Ok, that was 1956, a dollar was different then, but surely the faculty, the administration, the land, the buildings, were not all taken care of by the 220 that I and others paid. Do the people who answered "Disagree" think that all parents should have to send their kids to a private elementary school, paying tuition? I doubt it. Do the people who answered "Agree" think that all student loans should be forgiven and that the government should pay full tuition and boarding for any student who gets into, say, Stanford? I doubt it.

I very much appreciate the opportunities this country has provided for me and it is important to me that we provide opportunities for others. That doesn't mean a blank check.

Summary: It actually matters who the candidate is, what s/he says that s/he will do, whether I believe s/he can and will do it. If that makes me a swing voter than let's all swing.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2020-June-30, 05:29, said:

Short version: People vote for the candidate they think best, not for the party they think best. I am pretty sure my father usually voted D, I am also pretty sure he voted for Eisenhower in 52.

That is a very Ken way of looking at the world. Let me share another though. I grew up in the deepest blue (Conservative) part of England. It was a common thing to hear, sometimes even to the face of the local MP from his own party, that the Conservatives could put up a chimpanzee and it would get elected. My mother was a good example of the local electorate. Completely working class, she was obviously being made poorer by the policies of the Tories. At some point as I got old enough to interest myself slightly in politics, probably middle school age, I asked her why she voted for a party that worked against her. She answered simply that she had voted Conservative all her life and would always do so. Whether the candidate was the best option was completely irrelevant.

Away from real politics, my school held an election for who would get the title of Head Boy in the style of a political contest. For some reason, this year was particularly hard fought with the Conservative candidate being a very intelligent young man who treated the election with the utmost respect, campaigning in a traditional manner. The Labour party candidate was a laid-back, highly likeable guy who gave the impression of the whole election being a joke. Obviously the Labour party candidate won.

The point here is that party affiliation runs deep and to overcome it you need voters to feel like they know the candidate on some personal level. The last election was something fairly special in that almost everyone felt they knew the two candidates on some level but both had approval ratings well below 50%. In the end, Hillary lost because more Dems and Inds felt they knew her well enough to dislike her than Reps and Inds towards Trump. Yes, Comey had a big part to do with that but the main thing is that she was in the public eye long enough for people to feel they knew her and she was never able to win people over in that time that she is particularly likeable.

And this leads into the next point - why do politicians in democracies have a shelf life? My view is that it is precisely this - the longer you are in the public view the more they think they know you and, thus, the more likely it is that elements of your party will decide that an alternative is better for them.

So how does this tie back to the current election? Well in my view Covid-19 is a complete godsend for Biden. Not only is there the obvious mismanagement from the WH but it allows him to remain relatively out of the spotlight for a while. Because to win this election JB does not really need to make himself well-known and likeable to Republicans so much as to avoid making himself well-known to Dems and Inds in a way that makes him even more disliked than DT. The rest will take care of itself. So to my mind his campaign is doing just the right things right now - making sure that the media parries attempts by conservatives to hurt his character while poking at Trump's worst aspects without forcing his face on to TV screens too much. He should ride this strategy for as long as he can while saving up cash for the inevitable dirty campaign that will happen closer to the election date. I know this goes against all of your high beliefs in politics Ken but this is the real world and people just do not operate the way you would like them to in their voting patterns.

[Winstonm]

The AP blows a hole in Trump's "Nobody told me!" claim about Russian bounties on U.S. troops:

Quote

Top officials in the White House were aware in early 2019 of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban for the deaths of Americans, a full year earlier than has been previously reported, according to U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the intelligence.

The assessment was included in at least one of President Donald Trump's written daily intelligence briefings at the time, according to the officials. Then-national security adviser John Bolton also told colleagues he briefed Trump on the intelligence assessment in March 2019.

my emphasis

[shyams]

Winstonm, on 2020-June-30, 08:16, said:

The AP blows a hole in Trump's "Nobody told me!" claim about Russian bounties on U.S. troops:

From the outset, the assertion that nobody told him was irrelevant; he obviously knew. Most Americans would need no proof for them to disbelieve the assertion, and the Americans who believe Trump unconditionally are not likely to believe the additional piece of evidence.

[kenberg]

Zelandakh, on 2020-June-30, 08:14, said:

That is a very Ken way of looking at the world. Let me share another though. I grew up in the deepest blue (Conservative) part of England. It was a common thing to hear, sometimes even to the face of the local MP from his own party, that the Conservatives could put up a chimpanzee and it would get elected. My mother was a good example of the local electorate. Completely working class, she was obviously being made poorer by the policies of the Tories. At some point as I got old enough to interest myself slightly in politics, probably middle school age, I asked her why she voted for a party that worked against her. She answered simply that she had voted Conservative all her life and would always do so. Whether the candidate was the best option was completely irrelevant.

Away from real politics, my school held an election for who would get the title of Head Boy in the style of a political contest. For some reason, this year was particularly hard fought with the Conservative candidate being a very intelligent young man who treated the election with the utmost respect, campaigning in a traditional manner. The Labour party candidate was a laid-back, highly likeable guy who gave the impression of the whole election being a joke. Obviously the Labour party candidate won.

The point here is that party affiliation runs deep and to overcome it you need voters to feel like they know the candidate on some personal level. The last election was something fairly special in that almost everyone felt they knew the two candidates on some level but both had approval ratings well below 50%. In the end, Hillary lost because more Dems and Inds felt they knew her well enough to dislike her than Reps and Inds towards Trump. Yes, Comey had a big part to do with that but the main thing is that she was in the public eye long enough for people to feel they knew her and she was never able to win people over in that time that she is particularly likeable.

And this leads into the next point - why do politicians in democracies have a shelf life? My view is that it is precisely this - the longer you are in the public view the more they think they know you and, thus, the more likely it is that elements of your party will decide that an alternative is better for them.

So how does this tie back to the current election? Well in my view Covid-19 is a complete godsend for Biden. Not only is there the obvious mismanagement from the WH but it allows him to remain relatively out of the spotlight for a while. Because to win this election JB does not really need to make himself well-known and likeable to Republicans so much as to avoid making himself well-known to Dems and Inds in a way that makes him even more disliked than DT. The rest will take care of itself. So to my mind his campaign is doing just the right things right now - making sure that the media parries attempts by conservatives to hurt his character while poking at Trump's worst aspects without forcing his face on to TV screens too much. He should ride this strategy for as long as he can while saving up cash for the inevitable dirty campaign that will happen closer to the election date. I know this goes against all of your high beliefs in politics Ken but this is the real world and people just do not operate the way you would like them to in their voting patterns.

The question must be asked: What if the chimpanzee had shot someone in Trafalgar Square? I am not familiar enough with London to know if Trafalgar can be seen as analogous to 5th Avenue but I'll go with it.

There are many things that disturb me. While it is true that I would vote for a chimp in preference to Trump, I hate to see a campaign based on this assumption. Trump is a fool, and he is taking every opportunity to show that he is a fool. And while people might vote for a person who likes to brag about grabbing women by their whatever, they are usually not inclined to vote for someone who is clearly a fool. Still, I dislike this campaign approach, staying under wraps while the opponent self-destructs, on general principles and I am at least skeptical that it will succeed.

Some of what you describe in your background might be the difference between England and the U.S. . Head Boy? We don't do that. Or at least we didn't and I hope we don't. And I would guess the parliamentary system increases a voter's inclination to go with a party instead of an individual.

And we could trade "mother stories", also very working class. A favorite, which probably I have told before, goes back to when I was 11. The Korean War had just started in June, I was in 7th grade in the fall, and the teacher was explaining about the Red Menace. I mentioned this at home, my mother got very upset, we had a big argument. I was not really buying into all of the Red Menace stuff but I did follow the war on a daily basis and I was, for example, thrilled when I woke to read about the Inchon landing. I later did a term paper on MacArthur. My mother explained that all wars were about oil. I claimed that there was no oil in Korea that I knew of. She had the prefect answer: "They are fighting there, so there is oil there." QED Still, she voted, and in her case I think she voted for the person, not the party. However high minded it is or isn't, this approach reflects how I grew up and how I still think.

Anyway, I really hope Biden is not assuming that Trump will do all the work for him in convincing voters to go for Joe.

[PassedOut]

The Most Intense Heartfelt Description Of Racism I Ever Filmed

[y66]

Matt Yglesias said:

Biden is not a great orator, but if you set people’s expectations at “he’s gone senile” then he’s just going to vault over that bar and blow people away.

Which he did in his speech today: https://nyti.ms/3eO6g97.

Merkle is not a great orator either. It's part of her charm.

[cherdano]

Jonathan Chait trolling kenberg: What If I Told You Joe Biden Is Actually Running a Great Campaign?

[johnu]

Funniest (and most appalling) thing I heard today

Kayleigh McEnany says Trump is ‘most informed person on planet Earth’ about threats to US

Quote

During Tuesday's press briefing, McEnany was asked why the president doesn’t read his President’s Daily Brief (PDB), after reports Russia was paying Taliban militants to kill U.S. soldiers was included in one of them. Trump has insisted he had no prior knowledge of the matter.

The PDB is a document produced each day for the president containing the government’s latest secrets regarding national security.

“The president does read,” McEnany shot back. “The president is the most informed person on planet Earth when it comes to the threats that we face."

Fortunately I wasn't eating or drinking at my computer because I would have started laughing and spit anything in my mouth onto my keyboard and monitor.

[johnu]

And more from the category WTF is the Manchurian President doing:

The Flag-Hugger-In-Chief Flies A Nonstandard, Cheaper One At Mar-a-Lago

Quote

The president who literally hugs and kisses the U.S. flag to show his patriotism appears to fly a nonstandard version, particularly on windy days, at his Florida resort, perhaps to save money.

Quote

Under that directive, signed by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1959, who before winning the White House commanded the Allied forces in Europe that defeated Nazi Germany, executive branch offices are to use the official flag that is precisely 1.9 times as long as it is tall, with the blue “union” in the corner stretching 40% across the length.

But the flag flown at Mar-a-Lago by Trump, who avoided military service during the Vietnam War by claiming bone spurs in his heels, has no more than a 1.67 to 1 ratio of “fly” to “hoist,” and on some days appears to have one as low as 1.4 to 1. Also on some days, the blue union appears to stretch to the halfway point across the length of the flag or even beyond ― possibly because the flag has had its fraying end cut off and has been rehemmed.

And on the last day of Trump’s early March trip to what he calls his new legal residence in Palm Beach ― his last visit there ― the end of the flag was visibly torn, in violation of the code found in federal statutes stating that banners in disrepair “be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.”

It's a good thing the Manchurian President claims to love the US flag because one can only imagine how poorly he would respect the flag if he didn't love it.

[kenberg]

cherdano, on 2020-June-30, 16:09, said:

Jonathan Chait trolling kenberg: What If I Told You Joe Biden Is Actually Running a Great Campaign?

Being argumentative, , I will quote a paragraph and translate it:

Quote

Biden is running on a progressive platform — more progressive than most people think, and almost certainly more progressive than even a fully Democratic Congress would pass into law. But his choice to avoid unpopular issues (Medicare for All, the Green New Deal) — which the left assailed not only on substantive terms but as a bad choice that would deflate his voters — is looking shrewder than ever.

"Biden is running on a progressive platform — more progressive than most people think" --> Biden has not been able to state his views so that people have a good grasp of what he intends.


"more progressive than even a fully Democratic Congress would pass into law" --> Biden's plans aren't practical.


"But his choice to avoid unpopular issues..." --> Biden ducks any issue that might require courage to address. Favoring racial reconciliation? Yes, there are some who oppose that but still, it's hardly a bold idea.


My concern is that over time, people will come to the translated interpretation. People do not always interpret things as hoped.


We are at a very weird time. Biden is our best shot at survival, so Go with Joe. But "Hey he's Great"? Well, we can try that. Times are weird. We need something. We are desperate.

[Zelandakh]

cherdano, on 2020-June-30, 16:09, said:

Jonathan Chait trolling kenberg: What If I Told You Joe Biden Is Actually Running a Great Campaign?

Oh my, now you made me look like a plagiarist Arend. All I can say is that I honestly did not see this article before my post and that I am glad that at least one other person sees it as I do.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2020-July-01, 05:40, said:

"Biden is running on a progressive platform — more progressive than most people think" --> Biden has not been able to state his views so that people have a good grasp of what he intends.

Which is precisely what a good candidate does! In most Western democracies the opposition party tries to avoid making any policies at all until as late in the election cycle as they can get away with. When they do create a manifesto, it will try to avoid anything that is controversial and unpopular in comparison with the incumbent party's policies. Because of the unique American election system, this option was not available to JB. Instead, the way to success for a Democratic challenger is to go as far left as you need to in order to win the primaries and then to tack back to the centre as much as you can and hide the more radical policies wherever possible. Voters are usually more likely to be turned off by a specific radical policy than to switch allegiance to the candidate proposing them. So if JB is more radical than the general public thinks, it means his PR team are doing a good job and DT's team need to be picking out the most radical parts and trying to amplify them into a fear campaign.

kenberg, on 2020-July-01, 05:40, said:

"more progressive than even a fully Democratic Congress would pass into law" --> Biden's plans aren't practical.

Name a candidate who ever was! Politicians always promise more than they can deliver, whether that be universal healthcare or the greatest economy in the history of the world.

kenberg, on 2020-July-01, 05:40, said:

"But his choice to avoid unpopular issues..." --> Biden ducks any issue that might require courage to address. Favoring racial reconciliation? Yes, there are some who oppose that but still, it's hardly a bold idea.

See my first point. Standard election practice is that the challenger should avoid unpopular policies during an election and that the incumbent should try to draw statements (and even better, policy proposals) from the challenger on those topics. This is just the basic playbook for politics and (as far as I can tell) Biden is very much a "by-the-book" kind of guy. In sporting terms, JB is the NFL coach that designs every play to go precisely 4-5 yards; or the MLB manager that spends the budget on pitching and aims to score a walk+bunt+fly RBI each innings. Whereas DT might go for the big play on a reverse, flea-flicker or fake punt, or pack the line-up with sluggers and skimp on the pitching staff.

kenberg, on 2020-July-01, 05:40, said:

My concern is that over time, people will come to the translated interpretation. People do not always interpret things as hoped.

If it were not for Covid then you would be right here. This is why the outbreak is working for him. It is allowing him to play this line for much longer than he would be able to otherwise. At some point though attention will swing back to the election and to him personally. He has to be ready for that and to be able to switch gears. This is why his campaign needs to be saving cash up now while they can. By American standards the 2020 campaign is going to be short. That combined with DT being behind means it is also going to be brutal. During that time JB needs to show 4 things: that he is decisive; that he can be trusted to put America first; that he can rebuild the economy back after the damage inflicted by the pandemic; and that he cannot be bullied. Trust me, he will get plenty of opportunity to show he is the right man for the job during before the election.

Now look at the points above and flip it round to the other side. Now think about the covid response. From where I sit, the response seems slow, dithering and ineffective, showing a complete lack of care towards the American people. Now consider if he had instead shut the economy down quickly. He could so easily then go out to the people and say something like:"Look I hated to do it - I'm a businessman and I want to see every American company doing well - but I had to put the lives and welfare of the American people first. Every American life is important to me." Then you announce a policy that every American who has had citizenship for >X years and loses their job during the shutdown will get a payout of Y% of their salary (to a certain limit) for 9-12 months, just enough to take them past the election. And best of all, you can re-open the economy 2-3 months before the election, enough time for the economic data to start rising sharply, and then frame the election not as a referendum on your first 4 years but rather on which candidate can be trusted most to restore the economy. He could have made himself look decisive and compassionate, while at the same time coercing a split Congress into giving a huge cash sweetener immediately before an election that will have his strongest area as its number one issue. So just be glad that DT does not have the professional people around him that JB appears to have. With the right campaign team this election could potentially already be over given the massive advantage that incumbency provides. I doubt DT will get as good a chance as this in the remaining time before polling day.

[y66]

From David Leonhardt at NYT:

Quote

Voters didn’t have to wait in long lines. Turnout was high. And results were available shortly after the polls closed.

Sounds almost too good to be true, doesn’t it?

It’s not. It is a description of yesterday’s primaries in Colorado.

The state avoided the miserable lines that voters in Georgia and Wisconsin recently endured — lines that are a waste of time and, even worse, a health risk during a pandemic.

And unlike in Kentucky and New York, Colorado didn’t take a week or more to count its ballots. It began counting before Election Day. After polls closed, at 7 p.m., people quickly knew that John Hickenlooper had won the Democratic nomination in a closely watched Senate race.

Colorado accomplished all of this thanks to a universal system of voting by mail, which began in 2014. The state sends a ballot to every registered voter weeks before Election Day. Voters can return the ballot by mail, so long as it arrives by Election Day, or can drop it off at any one of dozens of voting centers.

People can also vote in person, but fewer than 6 percent of voters do so in a typical election, said Amber McReynolds, the former head of elections in Denver, who now runs Vote at Home, an advocacy group. The atmosphere at Denver polling places yesterday, she told me, was “calm as can be.”

Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Washington also created universal vote-by-mail systems before the pandemic struck. In all these states, turnout has increased, with no net benefit for either party. Many other states are trying to expand mail voting this year, although often without universal mailing of ballots or as many drop-off locations as Colorado has.

It's 2020 and only 5 states are doing this?

[Winstonm]

Quote

If it were not for Covid then you would be right here. This is why the outbreak is working for him.

This is also my greatest fear. The ones who will be most willing to stand in lines and vote in crowded rooms will be Trump supporters who think Covid-19 is a hoax or not anything worse than the flu. That leaves mail-in vote as the most likely source of votes for Biden. With that, there is also kinds of potential for malfeasance. Trump could well claim victory from the early polling results and defy claim any further counting of mail-in ballots impossible due to some made-up claim about foreign interference, being joined in that flasehood by the Bill Barr, the Attorney General.

Hopefully, Trump hates the job of president so much he will be relieved he lost and leave quietly. But I doubt that scenario.


PS: But small turnout at polling places would put a crimp on any plans by Russia to alter voting results if they have that ability.

[y66]

From Meet the Supporters Trump Has Lost by Claire Cain Miller, Kevin Quealy and Nate Cohn at the NYT/Upshot:

Quote

For some, the disenchantment started almost as soon as Donald J. Trump took office. For others, his handling of the coronavirus and social unrest turned them away. For all of them, it’s highly unlikely they will vote for him again.

These voters, who backed Mr. Trump in 2016 but say there’s “not really any chance” they will this year, represent just 2 percent of registered voters in the six states most likely to decide the presidency, according to New York Times/Siena College polls. But they help explain why the president faces a significant deficit nationwide and in the battleground states.

“I think if he weren’t such an appalling human being, he would make a great president, because I think what this country needs is somebody who isn’t a politician,” said Judith Goines, 53, a finance executive at a home building company in Fayetteville, N.C. “But obviously with the coronavirus and the social unrest we’re dealing with, that’s where you need a politician, somebody with a little bit more couth.”

“I’m ashamed to say that I’ve voted for him,” said Ms. Goines, who described herself as a staunch Republican.

Whom 2016 Trump Voters in Battleground States Say They’ll Support in 2020

• 86% Supporting Trump again in 2020
  
• 6% Don’t support Trump but say there’s “some chance” of voting for him again
  
• 6% “Not really any chance” of supporting Trump
  
• 2% Don’t support Trump, don’t know if they can vote for him again

These 2016 Trump voters might not all be considered part of the president’s base — many were not enthusiastic about him four years ago. As 6 percent of battleground-state Trump voters, they are just a sliver of the overall electorate. Also, 2 percent of battleground-state voters who supported Hillary Clinton in 2016 say they will vote for Mr. Trump.

But Trump defectors play an outsize role in the president’s challenge. He won by a narrow margin in 2016, and he has made limited efforts to broaden his appeal. Even a modest erosion in his support imperils his re-election chances. Another 6 percent of Trump voters in these states say they no longer support Mr. Trump, while allowing “some chance” that they’ll vote for him again.

A majority of the defectors disapprove of his performance on every major issue, except the economy, according to the Times/Siena polls. Somewhat surprisingly, they are demographically similar to the voters who continue to support him. They are only marginally likelier to be women or white college graduates.

In interviews, many said they initially backed Mr. Trump because he was a businessman, not a politician. In particular, he was not Mrs. Clinton. But they have soured on his handling of the presidency. Several mentioned his divisive style and his firing of officials who disagreed with him, and especially his response to the coronavirus and to the unrest in the aftermath of the death of George Floyd in police custody.

Not all of them are ready to back Joe Biden, but they no longer entertain the possibility of backing the president.

BBO reporter: Are you voting for Trump

Judith Goines: No man.

BBO: Why not? 

Goines:  Trump is a pig.  Pig's are filthy animals. I don't vote for swine.

BBO: How about Biden.     

Goines: Biden is not a pig.

BBO: Yeah, but do you think he's too progressive?

Goines:  Maybe.  Progressives are more like dogs than pigs.  They're definitely dirty.  But, a dog's got personality. Personality goes a long way.

BBO: Ah, so by that rationale, if a pig had a better personality, he would cease to be filthy animal.  Is that true?

Goines:  Well, we'd have to be talkin' about one charmin' motherf***in' pig. I mean he'd have to be ten times more charmin' than that Arnold on Green Acres, you know what I'm sayin'?

[y66]

Susan Rice, former national security adviser said:

Since at least February, and possibly as early as March 2019, the United States has had compelling intelligence that a committed adversary, Russia, paid bounties to Taliban-linked fighters to kill American troops in Afghanistan. American service members were reportedly killed as a result.

To this day, the president of the United States has done nothing about it.

Instead, President Trump dismissed the intelligence as not “credible” and “possibly another fabricated Russia hoax, maybe by the Fake News” that is “wanting to make Republicans look bad!!!”

Mr. Trump also claimed that neither he nor Vice President Mike Pence was ever told about this critical intelligence before it was first reported in The New York Times. Setting aside for a moment the credulity of that claim, whenever the president learned of this deeply troubling intelligence, why did he not publicly condemn any Russian efforts to kill American soldiers and explore options for a swift and significant U.S. response?

None of this adds up.

As a former national security adviser, I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that no one told Mr. Trump about this intelligence.

It was reportedly contained in the president’s daily briefing, which is provided to all top-level national security officials. Even if Mr. Trump does not bother regularly to read the daily briefing, we must assume others do. If the president’s senior advisers — Robert O’Brien, the national security adviser; Richard Grenell, who stepped down in May as acting director of national intelligence; and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, among others — thought it was unnecessary to inform the commander in chief of this life-or- death matter, then they are not worthy of service.

White House officials claim that it would be improper to inform the president of such information until it is fully verified and options for the U.S. response had been prepared. Yet, the administration reportedly informed the British government, and the National Security Council convened an interagency meeting in March to discuss the intelligence and its implications.

Here’s what should have happened. Had I, as national security adviser, received even “raw” reporting that Russia was paying to kill U.S. service members, I would have walked straight into the Oval Office to brief the president.

Contrary to the spin-masters in the White House today, I would not have waited until we had absolute certainty. I would have said, “Mr. President, I want to make sure you are aware that we have troubling reporting that Russia is paying the Taliban to kill our forces in Afghanistan. I will work with the intelligence community to ensure the information is solid. In the meantime, I will convene the national security team to get you some options for how to respond to this apparent major escalation in Russia’s hostile actions.”

If later the president decided, as Mr. Trump did, that he wanted to talk with President Vladimir Putin of Russia at least six times over the next several weeks and invite him to join the Group of 7 summit over the objections of our allies, I would have thrown a red flag: “Mr. President, I want to remind you that we believe the Russians are killing American soldiers. This is not the time to hand Putin an olive branch. It’s the time to punish him.”

This is what would have happened in any prior administration of either political party.

That it apparently did not is deeply troubling and raises myriad questions. If Mr. Trump was told about Russian actions, why did he not respond? If he was not told, why not? Are his top advisers utterly incompetent? Are they too scared to deliver bad news to Mr. Trump, particularly about Russia? Is Mr. Trump running a rogue foreign policy utterly divorced from U.S. national interests? If so, why?

A perilous pattern persists that underscores Mr. Trump’s strange propensity to serve Russian interests above America’s. Recall that, during his 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump publicly urged Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails and praised WikiLeaks for publishing stolen documents.

He denied and dismissed Russian interference in the 2016 election, then took Mr. Putin at his word at a Helsinki meeting while undercutting the U.S. intelligence community, and obstructed the Mueller investigation and distorted its findings. Mr. Trump recklessly removed U.S. troops from northern Syria and allowed Russian forces to take over American bases.

Next, Mr. Trump unilaterally invited Mr. Putin to attend the Group of 7 meeting, a move that apparently upended the organization’s annual summit. Subsequently, without any consultation, Mr. Trump announced his decision to remove nearly a third of U.S. troops from Germany — a sudden and inexplicable withdrawal that weakens the U.S.-German relationship and harms NATO, while benefiting Russia.

Most recently, we have learned that even Russian efforts to slaughter American troops in cold blood do not faze this president. Mr. Trump brushes off the information, evades responsibility and fails to take action — not even lodging a diplomatic protest. Now Mr. Putin knows he can kill Americans with impunity.

What must we conclude from all this? At best, our commander in chief is utterly derelict in his duties, presiding over a dangerously dysfunctional national security process that is putting our country and those who wear its uniform at great risk. At worst, the White House is being run by liars and wimps catering to a tyrannical president who is actively advancing our arch adversary’s nefarious interests.