Mediaboss Marketing

President Trump, Vice President Pence and Karen Pence view the SpaceX flight to the International Space Station at Kennedy Space Center, Saturday in Cape Canaveral, Fla. Alex Brandon/AP hide caption

Shortly after NASA astronauts blasted off from U. S. soil for the first time since 2011, President Trump painted a dire picture of what the space agency had looked like when he first came to office.

"There was grass growing through the cracks of your concrete runways not a pretty sight, not a pretty sight at all," he said at NASA's enormous Vehicle Assembly Building at Kennedy Space Center in Florida, where he had come to watch two astronauts launch to orbit in a vehicle owned and operated by SpaceX.

"With this launch, the decades of lost years and little action are officially over," he said. "Past leaders put the United States at the mercy of foreign nations to send our astronauts into orbit not anymore. Today we once again proudly launch American astronauts on American rockets the best in the world from right here on American soil."

Actually, it was two past presidents who put NASA on the path to this SpaceX launch, though it would be hard to know that from listening to the post-launch speeches.

"Today is the culmination of three and a half years of renewed leadership in space," said Vice President Pence, who called the launch "a tribute to the vision and leadership of a president who, from the very first days of this administration, was determined to revive NASA and American leadership in human space exploration."

The groundwork for sending NASA astronauts up on a commercial space vehicle, however, goes back more than a decade. It proceeded steadily under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

"This is a program that demonstrates the success when you have continuity of purpose going from one administration to the next," said NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine in a recent preflight briefing.

In 2006, under President George W. Bush, the space agency started a program to get commercial companies to begin delivering cargo to the international space station.

The idea was to save money for taxpayers by having NASA buy delivery services rather than own and operate its own cargo ships. This would also provide a financial incentive for the private sector to develop new spacecraft that could be used both by NASA and by other paying customers.

The plan worked. In 2012, an unoccupied, robotic SpaceX capsule successfully docked with the International Space Station a first for a commercially owned and operated spaceship.

Having companies take astronauts to the outpost was a natural extension of this cargo program. NASA announced its commercial crew program in 2010, under President Barack Obama.

Companies that received initial funding for developing spaceships that could serve as space taxis included Blue Origin, Boeing, Paragon Space Development Corporation, Sierra Nevada Corporation and United Launch Alliance.

In 2014, NASA selected SpaceX and Boeing to transport its astronauts, awarding them contracts worth $6.8 billion. A year later, the agency named four astronauts who would eventually fly in these spaceships including Robert Behnken and Douglas Hurley, the two crew members assigned to the SpaceX test flight that launched on Saturday.

The shift to commercial crew transportation services in 2010, coming just as the agency's 30-year-old space shuttle program was winding down, marked a real change for NASA. Many were skeptical, especially in Congress. Bridenstine credits former NASA administrator Charles Bolden, who served under President Obama, for his efforts to make it happen.

"Charlie Bolden did just yeoman's work in order to get this program off the ground, to get it going, and here we are all these years later, having this success," said Bridenstine in that preflight briefing.

The space program has historically united people across political divides, he noted, adding that the same will be true for this unprecedented SpaceX launch.

"It's not just going to unite Republicans and Democrats, it's going to unite the world. The whole world is going to be watching this particular launch, and all of our international partners are very interested," said Bridenstine.

He also, however, gave credit to his boss. "President Trump has been a massive space advocate. He promised to launch American astronauts on American rockets. He promised to create a moon program," said Bridenstine. "He's done both of those and he's backed it up with his budget requests, not just with the words."

But when Bridenstine recently tweeted that "Under President Trump's leadership, we are once again launching American astronauts on American rockets from American soil," one astronaut took issue with that statement, pointing out that the commercial crew program had started in 2010, years before Trump took was elected.

"I am thankful for the continued support from you and the Administration, but if there is a President to thank for this milestone, it's @BarackObama," tweeted Garrett Reisman, a former NASA astronaut who spent years working for SpaceX and has served as a consultant for the company.

The Trump administration has told NASA to return humans to the surface of the moon by 2024, the last year of what would be a second Trump administration if the president is reelected. That deadline is seen as an unrealistic long shot by many in the space community.

The moon effort was being spearheaded by Douglas Loverro, the head of human spaceflight at NASA. But last week, he was forced to resign, because of what he said was a mistake he had made earlier this year in effort to fulfill the mission.

Here is the original post:
Democratic And Republican Presidents Supported The NASA-SpaceX Partnership - NPR

Iowa looms as a potential blockbuster on the Senate map a contest Democrats need to put firmly in play as part of their takeover strategy. Its not yet a top-tier race on the level of Arizona or North Carolina, but Democrats say they can win despite Iowa's lurch to the right in recent years, including Ernst's 2014 victory and Donald Trump's decisive win in 2016.

All of this is playing out as in-person campaigning has been all but eliminated, and as candidates are scrambling to execute get-out-the-vote plans in the first major Senate contest happening during the pandemic.

We are in an election cycle like we've never seen before, said Charlie Wishman, the president of the Iowa AFL-CIO, which endorsed Greenfield and is hitting phone banks to encourage members to vote for her by mail. While it looks like Theresa Greenfield is in a really good spot to win this primary, I don't think anybody should take anything for granted whatsoever.

The party has gone all in on Greenfield who failed to make the ballot in 2018, her only previous run for office, because her congressional campaign manager forged signatures without her knowledge.

She entered the race as a virtual unknown, on equal footing with the other Democratic candidates: Nearly three in four Iowans, 73 percent, told a Des Moines Register poll in March they didn't have an opinion of her. But the same poll also showed significant slippage in Ernst's approval rating, a potential sign of vulnerability for a senator once viewed as a solid bet for reelection.

Republicans have taken notice: The National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Senate GOPs official campaign arm, is prepared to strike, launching its first ads the week after the primary. Its part of a planned air barrage with more than $15 million already on the books from GOP outside groups, their second-largest general election investment of any race so far.

Greenfield still needs to survive her first test: the primary. Limited public polling has shown her with an edge, and she has significantly outraised all of her opponents and boasts more on-the-ground support from unions and Iowa Democrats. Her campaign and outside groups supporting her combine for a more than 20-to-1 TV spending advantage over Democrats Michael Franken and self-funder Eddie Mauro, whose most recent ads have been attacks aimed at the frontrunner.

But despite an already overwhelming disparity, more help is on the way. EMILYs List, which backed Greenfield immediately after she entered the race, is going negative against Franken, a former three-star Navy admiral who grew up in Iowa and moved back to run for the office. A super PAC affiliated with the group is set to spend nearly $1 million in ads attacking Frankens recent return to Iowa and labeling the former Navy admiral a Washington, D.C. defense contractor.

Democrats aren't just trying to propel Greenfield to victory in the primary they want her riding a wave of momentum headed into the general election. Mairead Lynn, a spokesperson for EMILYs List, said in a statement Greenfield's opponents were baselessly attacking her, but her supporters remain confident she will defeat Ernst and finally give Iowa voters what they deserve a senator who fights for them."

Greenfields message has been focused on her upbringing on a farm and her first husbands death on the job as an electrician, which occurred when she was a young mother, forcing her to rely on Social Security and union benefits.

She has also leaned on her local political operation, announcing endorsements from nearly three dozen additional Iowa Democrats Friday. Her latest TV ad highlighted backing from unions, members of the states congressional delegation and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), three of the top five finishers in this year's Iowa caucuses.

That's how you win. You build a strong grassroots team right here in Iowa, Greenfield said in a televised primary debate last week, touting her in-state fundraising. I'm proud of that, and I'm going to continue to work hard, because that's what you need to do to win back this seat and defeat Sen. Ernst this fall.

Greenfield's faced some friendly fire: Mauro, a businessman who has lost in previous runs for office, has trained his TV ads against her something most Democrats believe is unlikely to boost his campaign but could damage Greenfield's image. Franken has touted his endorsement by the Des Moines Register, and his campaign pushed back aggressively on the attack from EMILYs List.

Kimberley Boggus, Frankens campaign manager, called the attack "shameful discrimination against those who have served their country" and Franken called for Greenfield to denounce it in a video posted by his campaign.

Its going to become clear to voters in the next few days the outside influence of money in this race," Boggus said in a statement. "Iowans need to decide what they want in Washington, more of the same or what they need? That is someone to take on Mitch McConnell and, at times, Chuck Schumer as well.

All of the Senate Majority PAC advertising has been positive spots highlighting Greenfields biography, aimed at boosting her image. It's the second time this year the group has intervened in a primary. Ahead of the March primary in North Carolina, Senate Majority PAC sent nearly $13 million to two different outside groups to help boost DSCC-backed Cal Cunningham against an insurgent challenger, although some of that spending came after a Republican group meddled in the Democratic race.

Democrats are hoping to get a twofold benefit out of the spending: propel Greenfield in the primary and also increase her name ID among Iowa voters, most of whom dont know her, before Republicans are on the airwaves attacking. The NRSC has reserved $2.6 million on TV starting one week after the primary and running through mid-July to attack the Democratic nominee. Senate Leadership Fund, a GOP super PAC, has more than $12 million booked for the fall.

The more Democrats can do early on to define who our nominee is, the better that will serve them in the fall, said Sam Roecker, who managed Democrat Patty Judges unsuccessful 2016 Senate campaign.

Your guide to the permanent campaign weekday mornings, in your inbox.

Republicans focus has been entirely trained on Greenfield, calling her beholden to Washington interests and hypocritical over her stated opposition corporate PAC donations. State GOP chair Jeff Kaufmann said after the primary debates last week he thought the contrast between Greenfield and Ernst, a first-term senator and military veteran, would be a major edge for Republicans.

"Theresa Greenfield's weaknesses as a candidate have been laid bare by members of her own party, and Chuck Schumer's special interest money can't fix this disaster," said Jesse Hunt, a spokesperson for the NRSC.

The relatively sleepy primary turned divisive last week during three separate debates. Mauro, Franken and Kimberly Graham, another candidate, attacked Greenfield for her fundraising and the outside intervention on her behalf. Greenfield said she doesnt control the outside groups and had nothing to say about the intervention. But she also returned fire, arguing the other candidates hadnt built grassroots support to match hers.

If those people had the DSCC endorsement, they would gladly accept that help and everything that comes with it, too, said Wishman, the AFL-CIO president.

Still, some Democrats beyond the candidates themselves remain irked by the intervention. Most dont fault Greenfield or dismiss her chances in the fall, according to conversations with several Iowa Democrats, but are frustrated the outcome seemed predetermined.

One Iowa Democratic elected official, who is neutral in the race and spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the intraparty matter, said Greenfields biggest differentiator is the resources behind her.

If nothing else, it would have been great to see them compete on an even field, the official said.

View original post here:
The political neophyte Democrats are betting on to capture the Senate - POLITICO

The staggering American death toll from the coronavirus, now approaching 100,000, has touched every part of the country, but the losses have been especially acute along its coasts, in its major cities, across the industrial Midwest, and in New York City.

The devastation, in other words, has been disproportionately felt in blue America, which helps explain why people on opposing sides of a partisan divide that has intensified in the past two decades are thinking about the virus differently. It is not just that Democrats and Republicans disagree on how to reopen businesses, schools and the country as a whole. Beyond perception, beyond ideology, there are starkly different realities for red and blue America right now.

Democrats are far more likely to live in counties where the virus has ravaged the community, while Republicans are more likely to live in counties that have been relatively unscathed by the illness, though they are paying an economic price. Counties won by President Trump in 2016 have reported just 27 percent of the virus infections and 21 percent of the deaths even though 45 percent of Americans live in these communities, a New York Times analysis has found.

The very real difference in death rates has helped fuel deep disagreement over the dangers of the pandemic and how the country should proceed. Right-wing media, which moved swiftly from downplaying the severity of the crisis to calling it a Democratic plot to bring down the president, has exacerbated the rift. And even as the nations top medical experts note the danger of easing restrictions, communities across the country are doing so, creating a patchwork of regulations, often along ideological lines.

Why has the virus slammed some parts of the country so much harder than others? Part of the answer is population density. Nearly a third of Americans live in one of the 100 most densely populated counties in the United States urban communities and adjacent suburbs and it is there the virus has taken its greatest toll, with an infection rate three times as high as the rest of the nation and a death rate four times as high.

In a country deeply segregated along racial, religious and economic lines, density also aligns with political divisions: Urban America tilts heavily blue. In the 2016 presidential election, Mr. Trumps vote share increased as population density fell in almost every state.

But the divide in infections has been exacerbated by the path the virus has taken through the nation, which is not always connected to density. In some parts of red America, cities have been virtually unscathed and the sparsely populated outlying areas have been hardest hit. Researchers have also found links between the viruss effects and age, race and the weather, and have noted that some of the densest cities globally have not been hit as hard.

If seeing is believing, the infection has simply come to some areas of the country on a far different scale than others. As of Friday, Alabama had experienced 11 deaths per 100,000 residents and New Jersey had lost 122 per 100,000. Both states have had a huge spike in unemployment claims.

Texas, solidly Republican territory and the second most populous state in the nation, had one of the countrys hottest economies before the outbreak. The states biggest cities have so far escaped the worst of the damage. More than 200 metro areas in the United States have higher infection rates than both Dallas and Houston, which may explain why Texas residents are particularly frustrated by the shutdown.

The cure is worse than the disease, no doubt, said Mark Henry, a Republican who oversees the Galveston County government in southeast Texas. There are businesses that were shut down that are never going to open again.

Over all, the infection rate is 1.7 times as high in the most urban areas of the country compared with nearby suburbs, and 2.3 times as high in the suburbs as in exurban and rural areas.

Amid the pandemic, there are densely populated red counties near major cities with high infection rates Suffolk County in New York, Jefferson Parish in Louisiana, and Monmouth County in New Jersey, for example.

But those are true outliers.

A recent spate of outbreaks in meat plants, prisons and nursing homes has created hot spots in 245 counties that supported Mr. Trump, double the number at the beginning of the month. Some of those outbreaks are hitting subsets of the population that historically have not voted for Republicans. In Iowa, for example, Latinos make up 6 percent of the population but nearly a third of those infected. The population is 4 percent black, but 12 percent of those infected are black.

Over all, African-Americans and Latinos have had higher infection and death rates from the virus, and are far more likely to identify as Democrats than as Republicans.

Several companies have studied social distancing metrics based on anonymized cellphone location data, including the mobility research firms Unacast and Descartes Labs. While the companies do not break down findings by political party, the underlying data they collect shows less social distancing in counties that supported Mr. Trump than in those that supported Hillary Clinton.

Rural and exurban county residents, who tend to favor Republicans, do have to travel more for essential services and are less likely to have jobs that allow for working from home. Yet even in more densely populated suburban areas, there was less evidence of social distancing in counties that voted for Mr. Trump.

Matthew Gentzkow, a Stanford University economist who is leading a group of researchers tracking partisanship in the virus response, said his team initially thought that a health crisis would minimize differences assuming that people who disagree over taxes or guns would agree about a pandemic. But instead they found that Republicans were more skeptical about the effectiveness of social distancing than Democrats and have been traveling more outside their homes.

We initially saw partisanship and thought maybe by the time we looked at the data it would be gone, Dr. Gentzkow said. But it turns out that no, this is pretty serious and what we see is that the gap got bigger and bigger. These are real belief differences that should have us really concerned.

Public opinion polls do show widespread support for stay-at-home orders, but also indicate that Republicans are less likely to see the virus as a significant threat to their health. Some skepticism around the impact of the pandemic can be traced to a distrust of the government that has grown among conservatives in the last decade, according to Arlie Hochschild, a sociologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of a 2016 book about the American right called Strangers in Their Own Land.

In the absence of trust, you just believe your eyes and the information that you see in your Facebook feed, she said.

The experience of residents in Texas underscores how much direct evidence of the viruss toll has shaped how people view the measures taken to mitigate it.

At the onset of the crisis, Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, tried to appeal to both sides of the political spectrum, allowing local governments to make their own decisions until Texas became one of the last states to issue stay-at-home orders and one of the first to roll them back last month.

In Hardin County in southeast Texas, where the population is about 57,000, there have been just 125 cases and five deaths. Kent Batman, 60, the county Republican chairman, who has spent his life in the region, said he had heard of only two fatalities, both of which he dismissed as anomalies.

To Mr. Batman, like many other Republicans in East Texas, the health crisis has felt far away, like a big city plague. Were not New Orleans, were just not like that, he said.

Interviews with dozens of Republicans in southeast Texas and other parts of the country over the past month found a pervasive its-not-coming-for-my-neighborhood attitude, with many seeing themselves as a world apart from the regions that have been overwhelmed by the virus. They are enthusiastic backers of rolling back restrictions not just as a way to spur the economy, but also based on the belief that individuals should make their own decisions about risk. They dismiss factual reports from the news media as exaggerated and trying to incite panic, because the reports dont align with their own experience.

Toward the end of March, Judy Nichols, 60, began monitoring charts daily to see how many people near her had the virus. She lives in Jefferson County, not far from Beaumont, and serves as the chair of the county Republican Party. After two weeks, she stopped keeping tabs on the numbers as her worry subsided.

Over the past several weeks, Ms. Nichols said, she has felt like the winner of a product lottery. She owns several Papa Johns pizza franchises, and business has increased nearly 80 percent pizza in a time of anxiety seeming to be one thing many people can agree on. But nearly everyone she knows is struggling to pay the bills.

On the other side of the partisan divide in Texas, Lina Hidalgo, a Democrat and the top elected official in Harris County, which includes Houston, put in place stay-at-home orders before the governor did in March. Last week, she extended her stay home, work safe guidelines until June 10.

She is concerned about the economic impact. She just doesnt see a safe alternative. When you have a political system, there are going to be attacks, she said. But lets debate the politics when this is over.

Jim Meadows, a 60-year-old refrigeration parts repairman in Nederland, Texas, who describes himself as an extreme conservative, doesnt think the economic question can be set aside. He is upset by the unemployment and financial devastation, which is clearer to him than what he called this invisible plague.

Through his work he has, however, begun taking orders for plexiglass partitions that many businesses around him want to use. He said he was pandering to the uninformed.

Rashell Collins Bridle, a 42-year-old mother of five who also lives in Nederland and makes her living selling items on eBay, said a minister she knew had died after contracting the virus. Even so, she said she and her friends were more focused on freedom than on health.

I guess other people expect us to set our futures on fire to keep their fear warm, she said. I think thats incredibly selfish if youre that fearful, then just stay home.

For Professor Hochschild, who studies division, sentiments like this in a crisis reinforce what she has seen across the country.

There is an underlying stoicism that was there before the pandemic that is really getting tapped, she said. Theres a notion of snowflake liberals who cant take it, who are too dainty and fragile and not hearty like us.

On the first weekend that Texas lifted the stay-at-home orders, Ms. Bridle took her family to a state park on the Gulf of Mexico. She said American flags were flying from many cars and trucks on the road as if it were the Fourth of July.

She said that if schools open with hefty restrictions on recess or how far desks must be spaced together, she will instead place her daughter in a Christian home school co-op.

And if there is another stay-at-home order this year?

We probably wont stand for that again, she said. I myself wont comply. I will never comply with anything else like this ever.

Read this article:
What the Coronavirus Revealed About Life in Red vs. Blue States - The New York Times

(Reuters) - The head of the Republican National Committee accused North Carolinas Democratic governor on Friday of delaying issuing guidelines for the partys national convention in Charlotte, and warned that organizers are prepared to choose another location soon.

FILE PHOTO: Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at National Harbor in Oxon Hill, Maryland, U.S., February 28, 2019. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo

The comments by RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel on a popular North Carolina radio show came a day after her letter to Governor Roy Cooper setting a June 3 deadline to approve safety and logistical measures - such as how many people can gather together - to prevent the spread of the coronavirus during the August convention.

Coopers office responded by asking the RNC to spell out how many people will attend each night and how they will adhere to social distancing and other protocols, such as mask coverings.

North Carolina will continue working with the RNC to ensure the convention can be held safely, said Coopers spokesperson, Sadie Weiner.

The governors office also pointed to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Preventions guidelines, which suggest postponing large gatherings of more than 250 people.

President Donald Trump has pressured Democratic leaders in the state to let him hold a traditional convention, but state officials are asking the party to submit detailed plans before they make a determination.

Republicans want Cooper to provide ground rules for the convention, setting him up as a potential villain if they choose another location.

Its starting to feel like they are dragging their feet and they dont want to give us their guidelines, McDaniel told former state Governor Pat McCrory on his radio show. We are hoping to make it work but we are not going to wait indefinitely.

Coopers office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

McDaniel suggested the delay is purposeful in an effort to leave the party with no other option. Republicans have agreed to several safety measures, such as health questionnaires and thermal scans for fever, she said.

The party entered a contract two years ago with officials in North Carolina to hold the convention, a huge gathering that would bring thousands of delegates, alternates, journalists and other attendees to the states hotels and restaurants over a four-day period.

Reporting by Jarrett Renshaw; Editing by Bill Berkrot and Tom Brown

Read more:
North Carolina Democrats 'dragging their feet' on convention rules, RNC chief says - Reuters

The 2020 electoral environment currently looks pretty good for Democrats.

As of Sunday evening, Democrats lead Republicans by roughly 8 percentage points in FiveThirtyEights generic ballot tracker, just a point less than their lead on Election Day 2018.

We know that early generic ballot polling has predictive value in both midterm and presidential cycles. These surveys, which ask voters which party they plan to support in the next congressional election, correctly foreshadowed big Democratic gains in the 2018 midterm elections as early as June 2017. They also have trended close to the final national popular vote for president.

But how confident should Democrats be that this lead will hold? We took a look at the movement in generic ballot polling in presidential cycles from 1996 to 2016. In the last six months of a cycle, the polls often shifted by meaningful amounts: There was, on average, a 4-point range between the largest and smallest generic ballot margins.

The average generic-ballot polling margin at different points in the last six months of a presidential election cycle, since 1996

For the average margin at six, four, and two months from Election Day, we included all polls fielded around the relevant time point (180 days out, 120 days out, 60 days out). We also calculated an average for each pollster in a given period so a pollster wasnt overrepresented, then averaged those averages. Figures are rounded.

Source: Polls

Four points may not sound like a lot, but that sort of shift in voter preferences could make or break the election for candidates in the closely fought seats that will determine control of the House. Whats more, there appears to be a tendency for the margin to narrow by Election Day, so Democrats should probably expect their lead to shrink in the coming months. In four of the six cycles we analyzed, the difference between the two parties shrank from 6 months out to 10 days before the election. Only in 2000 and 2012 was there little change in the overall electoral environment.

Of course, theres no guarantee the generic ballot will move much this time around, but its still worth thinking about how a change in the national environment could make the 2020 House race more of a toss-up. Take 2016: Republicans went from trailing by 6 points in the generic ballot four months before the election to trailing by just 1 point in the final 10 days. Notably, they ended up narrowly winning the House popular vote, too 48 percent to 47 percent. This speaks to the consequential shifts generic ballot polls can experience between now and November.

Currently, FiveThirtyEights tracker puts Democrats up by about 8 points. If that were to dwindle to a little less than 4 points by November, that might still be a sufficient lead for Democrats to retain control of the House. But it could also give Republicans a better shot at winning some Democratic-held House seats that dont look especially vulnerable right now. There are some sizable GOP pickup opportunities, as Democrats are defending 30 districts that President Trump carried in 2016 (Republicans just need to win 18 seats to retake the House).

Moreover, because the generic ballot also says something about the overall electoral environment, a narrow Democratic lead could signal that Trump has a better chance of winning reelection. In 2016, Trump lost the national popular vote by 2.1 points to Hillary Clinton, but he won in the Electoral College because he performed better in key swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In fact, Wisconsin was the tipping-point state in 2016 and Trump won it by 0.8 points, meaning that the decisive contest in the Electoral College was about 3 points more Republican than the country as a whole. So if Trump once again has an advantage in the Electoral College, a smaller Democratic lead in the generic ballot could point to a more competitive presidential election.

The generic ballot average has been relatively stable in 2020, but recent history suggests it could still move and make for a competitive battle for control of the House as well as the White House. In other words, Democrats still have reasons to be optimistic about November, but a small swing in the electoral environment could be the difference between Democrats maintaining their House majority and Republicans capturing one.

Read the original:
Democrats Lead The Race For Congress But The National Environment Will Probably Change - FiveThirtyEight