Read More

The post Lincoln Project announces coalition of Republican women against Trump | TheHill appeared first on Virus Reports.

The founders of the Lincoln Project, a headline-grabbing anti-Trump political action committee formed by GOP operatives who describe the president as a “crook” and “huckster,” have their own checkered dealings with Russia and the tax man, documents obtained by The Post reveal.

Since its inception last November — announced with a blistering New York Times op-ed — the brainchild of George Conway, Steve Schmidt, Rick Wilson and John Weaver has raked in more than $19.4 million, according to FEC filings, and has needled President Trump repeatedly with provocative TV ads.

But the group — which the National Review on Monday dubbed “The Grifter Project” and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, last week dismissed as a “cabal of political consultants all in it for the money” — don’t exactly practice what they preach.

Co-founder Weaver, a political consultant known for his work on John McCain’s and John Kasich’s presidential campaigns, registered as a Russian foreign agent for uranium conglomerate TENEX in a six-figure deal last year, filings with the Department of Justice show.

TENEX’s parent company is Rosatom, a Russian state-owned corporation that also owns Uranium One — the company that paid Bill Clinton $500,000 in speaking fees and millions to the Clinton Foundation after then-President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed off on the controversial merger in 2010.

Weaver backed out of the lobbying gig in May 2019 and called it “a mistake” in a tweet in which he denied having taken any money from TENEX.

Still, that hasn’t stopped him from ironically railing against Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani and his “rogue ties to Putin backed thugs in Ukraine & elsewhere.”

According to IRS filings exclusively obtained by The Post, the Republican operative — who has also repeatedly called Trump a “tax fraud” and a “tax crook” on Twitter — also has an outstanding $313,655 federal tax lien against his Austin, Texas, home.

This March, an Austin shopping mall also filed a lawsuit against the children’s clothing store that Weaver and his wife own, according to court documents obtained by The Post, just months after Weaver mocked the president’s own string of failed businesses.

Weaver’s fellow Lincoln Project founder Wilson also has an interesting financial past. According to IRS documents, the GOP strategist has an outstanding $389,420 federal tax lien against his Tallahassee, Florida, home, and his bank moved to foreclose on the property in 2016.

NEVER TRUMPERS CROSS LINE WITH PARTY OPERATIVES BY TARGETING GOP SENATORS

Wilson, a best-selling author with 1 million Twitter followers, has never disclosed the money woes publicly, allowing him to sneer online about Trump’s decision never to release his own taxes — at one point calling him “Brokeahontas,” despite the fact that American Express had taken Wilson to court for his own unpaid $25,729 credit card bill the year before, documents show.

“It’s very clear that this isn’t about Trump and Republicans,” one GOP source told The Post. “It’s about making money to help pay off their massive personal debts.”

Voter records on the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s website also show veteran Republican strategist Schmidt, another Lincoln Project boss, hasn’t recently voted himself — with his home state listing him as an “inactive voter.”

An inactive voter is someone who has not voted in two general elections and has failed to respond to letters from the county clerk, according to Utah’s voter registration website.

Schmidt, a communications strategist who has worked with George W. Bush, McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger, disputed this account, telling The Post he voted by mail in 2016 and 2018 and registered as an Independent in 2018.

The devastating National Review piece dismissed the outfit as “little more than the most brazen election-season grift in recent memory” and a “ragtag band of three otherwise unemployed strategists plus one lawyer.”

The group has also drawn the ire of Republican lawmakers such as Cornyn after it began spending money targeting vulnerable GOP members, including Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado, who faces a tough re-election bid.

A spokesman for the Lincoln Project declined to comment. Conway, Wilson and Weaver did not immediately return calls for comment.

The Lincoln Project, named after Abraham Lincoln, has made a huge splash in the short time it has been in existence — a lot of that due to the fact that one of its creators, anti-Trump Republican George Conway, is married to White House adviser Kellyanne Conway.

Trump went off on the group in May, after it ran an attack ad faulting his handling of the coronavirus pandemic, referring to its members as “loser types.”

“Lincoln Project is a disgrace to Honest Abe,” Trump tweeted.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“I don’t know what Kellyanne did to her deranged loser of a husband, Moonface, but it must have been really bad,” the president continued.

“They’re all LOSERS, but Abe Lincoln, Republican, is all smiles!”

This story first appeared in the New York Post.

Read More

The post Lincoln Project founders have ties to Russia, tax troubles, docs reveal appeared first on Virus Reports.

©2020 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. All market data delayed 20 minutes. New Privacy Policy – New Terms of Use (What’s New) – FAQ

Read More

The post Project HOOD CEO on spike in US crime appeared first on Virus Reports.

One tweet describes President Trump’s campaign as a “criminal enterprise.” An ad — with the hashtag #TrumpIsNotWell — shows the president struggling to walk down a ramp, and another mocks the size of the crowd at Trump’s rally in Tulsa, saying, “You’ve probably heard this before, but it was smaller than we expected.”

They’re all from a political action group called the Lincoln Project, and according to co-founder Reed Galen, they’re meant for one specific audience: Trump himself.

“We have what we call ‘an audience of one’ strategy, which is clearly aimed at the president,” Galen told me.

The Lincoln Project is made up of former Republicans who are avowed “NeverTrump” conservatives. The group brought in $16.8 million between April and June of this year, much of which came from small donors giving $200 or less. But most of the ads are digital, never reaching television screens.

And a lot of that money has been spent on ads like this one, posted to Twitter following the president’s decision to commute the sentence of former campaign associate Roger Stone.

The “#TrumpIsNotWell” ad appears to have so incensed the president that he spent several minutes of his June 20 rally speech in Tulsa, Oklahoma, discussing his ability to drink water and walk down a ramp.

The Lincoln Project’s primary purpose is, as the founders wrote in a December 2019 New York Times op-ed announcing the project, “defeating President Trump and Trumpism at the ballot box and to elect those patriots who will hold the line.” As former Republicans, the members of the Lincoln Project believe their ads can destabilize the president and appeal to Trump-skeptical conservatives, giving them room to vote against Trump and for Joe Biden.

In a text, Lincoln Project communications director Keith Edwards told me that the project had no plans beyond defeating Trump. “We are focused [on] making sure Trump is a one-term president and ensuring Biden takes the oath of office in January. We’re not thinking of anything beyond that.”

But some observers have argued that the campaign operatives responsible for the Lincoln Project are, through their deep ties to the pre-Trump GOP, indirectly responsible for his rise. Lincoln Project board members helped George H.W. Bush win office in 1988 and George W. Bush win reelection in 2004, as well as down-ballot races where their ads often featured the same kind of fear-mongering they now appear to abhor.

In short, many of those behind the project worked on Republican presidential campaigns and, before Trump, often sounded very much like Trump.

So do the operators who helped create the current iteration of the Republican Party hold the keys to stopping it?

Defeating Trump, Republican-style

The Lincoln Project was founded by eight former Republican operatives, most prominent among them George Conway (married to White House counselor Kellyanne Conway), former Republican political strategist Rick Wilson, former New Hampshire GOP chairperson Jennifer Horn, and Steve Schmidt, best known for his work on the late Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign (where he helped select Sarah Palin as McCain’s vice president).

As former Republican political strategists, the backers of the Lincoln Project believe they have a unique understanding of how Trump, and ideally Republicans more broadly, think. Their television ad buys have largely been centered on Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Washington, DC, making it clear that their goal is to get many of their ads before Trump himself.

Galen told me that if they were Democrats, their ads might be more easily dismissed by Trump and the GOP more broadly. “I think it’s the idea that the apostates are taking on the head of the GOP church [that] is the unique thing that [Trump] probably can’t understand and certainly his people don’t know how to react to.”

The ads themselves are often dark and strident, in some ways mirroring Republican attack ads the strategists behind the Lincoln Project may have once used against Democrats. In Galen’s terms, the ads “[speak] to Republican voters with Republican language and Republican iconography.”

For example, in 2002, Lincoln Project founder Rick Wilson worked on the Senate campaign for Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss and helped produce an ad against then-Sen. Max Cleland that implied Cleland opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and thus was leaving America vulnerable to terror.

In a 2015 interview with the HuffPost, Wilson said of the ad, “[It] was built ugly. The ad was built to look like it was primitive and quick and knocked off instantaneously. It is an ugly ad. … We knew back then that saying the words ‘against the president’s vital homeland security efforts’ [would work]” against Cleland.

In Politico, Joanna Weiss argued in favor of the Lincoln Project’s ethos:

The secret of fearmongering is a willingness to go there, and that’s where the Republicans of the Lincoln Project might have an advantage over Trump’s left-leaning opponents. The group’s founders aren’t calibrating their ads around a Democratic base that mistrusts the military, delves into nuance or shies away from causing offense. That leaves ample room for dog-whistle symbols that range from clichés to horror-movie tropes: One ad accuses Trump of being played by China and ends with the image of the White House, the entire screen tinted red.

And at least one ad appears to have resulted in a major shake-up at the Trump campaign. According to the Wall Street Journal, campaign manager Brad Parscale was replaced in part because of this ad, which implied Parscale was using Trump to get rich.

The Lincoln Project’s purpose: Irritate Trump?

The criticisms of the Lincoln Project are numerous. Some have pointed to the group’s finances, noting that while the group has raised millions of dollars (particularly after Trump attacked the Lincoln Project on Twitter), much of that money has gone to what seem like extremely high ad production costs and to firms run by members of the Lincoln Project’s board. As detailed by Open Secrets:

The Lincoln Project reported spending nearly $1.4 million through March. Almost all of that money went to the group’s board members and firms run by them. The super PAC spent nearly $1 million with Summit Strategic Communications, a firm run by Lincoln Project treasurer Reed Galen. Another $215,000 went to Tusk Digital, a company run by Lincoln Project adviser Ron Steslow. Both companies received little business from other federal committees since Trump’s inauguration.

That seven-figure spending, noted earlier by campaign finance expert Rob Pyers on Twitter, comes as the group spends relatively little on direct political activity. The super PAC shelled out $364,000 to Galen and Steslow’s companies to run independent expenditures opposing Trump and his Republican allies in Congress. But just 52 percent of that money went to buying and placing ads, with the rest spent on producing the ads themselves.

The notion that the Lincoln Project is a scam PAC created purely to enrich its board found credence with Trump allies, including Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel, who described the group as such in a scathing Daily Caller op-ed in April.

As the Daily Beast’s Lachlan Markay detailed, that isn’t exactly true. Instead, the Lincoln Project uses a complex subcontractor arrangement to move money to external companies hired to work on ads, since political groups don’t have to disclose their subcontractors. It’s a strategy also used by the Trump campaign, and it means that the financial dealings alone aren’t enough to show that the group isn’t actually doing something.

But what, exactly, is that something?

If the point of the Lincoln Project is in part to draw the ire of the president and his allies, then mission accomplished. Attacks on the Lincoln Project (and on NeverTrump Republicans more broadly) have mounted from a host of right-leaning outlets, many of which deem them “insignificant” while devoting significant space to denouncing their efforts.

The right-leaning group Club for Growth even made an attack ad aimed at the Lincoln Project, calling it “bad for America”:

Then there’s the president himself, who tweeted a denunciation of their efforts in early May (which, of course, only drew more attention to them).

But irritating the president, a notoriously thin-skinned person, isn’t much of an achievement. And as the HuffPost’s Kevin Robillard argued, making ads that get a lot of attention on Twitter might be a good way of making an audience already predisposed to dislike Trump share them, but it’s less likely to get the attention of voters, the vast majority of whom are not on Twitter.

“Good political ad makers & managers are operatives who put aside what personally appeals to them or the Twitterverse & go with the message that moves voters,” Anne Caprara, a Democratic operative who now serves as the chief of staff to Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, wrote on Twitter on Thursday night. “But while YOU may think that fancy new anti-Trump ad is so hard hitting & cathartic (‘OMG THIS AD!’) – the voter you need to persuade might find it offensive or off putting or just dumb.”

(Robillard also noted that the group had spent just $2.4 million on television advertising as of early July, much of that spending coming on ads broadcast on Fox News in Washington, DC, aimed at the network’s most famous viewer: Donald Trump.)

Galen and others supportive of the Lincoln Project have argued that it is giving Republicans, as one Democratic strategist told Robillard, “a safe space for Republicans to express their concerns about the president.”

However, the Lincoln Project has recently sworn to go after not just Trump but Republican members of Congress who are supportive of the president, including Sens. Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell. In an ad posted online last week, it argues that viewers can “never, ever” trust those members again.

In doing so, the Lincoln Project may gain support from Democrats but lose credence with anti-Trump conservatives who have not disavowed the party or its policy priorities writ large, conservative writer Henry Olsen argued in the Washington Post (in a piece titled “Never Trumpers are Democrats in Republican clothing”):

The year’s Senate races offer a fresh indication of their real motives. The project’s newest television ad names 15 Republican senators whom voters should oppose, including 13 up for reelection. Their sin? Backing Trump on matters such as impeachment. The fact that nearly all Republican voters both approve of Trump’s job performance and opposed impeachment doesn’t seem to matter to those who claim to represent true Republican values.

“Frankly, all they do is make me angry”

Liberals who oppose the Lincoln Project object to its core conceit: Trump, and Trumpism, are a cancer on the Republican Party, and by removing him and his ideas, things can perhaps go back to normal. In the conservative group’s mindset, Republican presidential candidates like John McCain and presidents like George W. Bush exemplified the best of American conservatism, while Trump is an aberration: a former reality show host with divorces, affairs, and affronts to “traditional morality” aplenty.

But as historian Eric Foner argued in 2016, Trump can be seen as “the logical conclusion of a lot of things the Republican Party has been doing” for decades, with predecessors like Richard Nixon’s “law and order” presidential campaign, rife with racist implications, and populist appeal as a businessman railing against Washington corruption. To many liberals, Trump isn’t an aberration; he’s the culmination of a decades-long political project.

The Lincoln Project and its GOP exiles, writer Eoin Higgins argued on July 12 in the newsletter Welcome to Hell World, are an example of a “memory hole” in action: Everything that happened before Trump (like the Iraq War or the existence of the Bush administration or the murder of Trayvon Martin) has been forgotten by liberals allying with the group and sharing their ads in service of getting Trump out of office.

The fact is that the coalition is made up of people who until very recently were happily ensconced in the GOP—meaning that it’s not the policies pursued and beliefs espoused by Trump that are the issue. It’s just his delivery. This is not an abstract issue. The president is part and parcel of the entire Republican project and its logical conclusion after five decades of cultivating an increasingly enraged white base filled with economic and cultural grievances for which the GOP has blamed on the uneven but inexorable march to greater equality in American society.

Higgins also detailed examples of Lincoln Project members using offensive and bigoted language on Twitter — for example, founder Rick Wilson repeatedly calling people “retards,” attacking Muslims, and mocking news coverage of Trayvon Martin’s killing in 2012.

This week, Ben Howe, a video editor who worked with the Lincoln Project, was pushed out after the news outlet the 19th emailed the Lincoln Project evidence of tweets in which Howe had called people “vaginas” and “twats.” He also had defended in graphic language the 2014 police shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown, saying he would have shot Brown as well. Alex Griswold, formerly a writer at the Washington Free Beacon, argued that Howe had used no less incendiary language on Twitter than Wilson had.

Higgins told me that the Lincoln Project’s ads were an appeal to liberals who believe that conservatives are their ideological opponents but not their enemies. “The commercials are part of a general effort by LP to present Trump as an aberration, a mistake, something out of the right-wing mainstream,” he said, “rather than the logical endpoint of the GOP and the direct ideological heir of the movement that began in earnest with Ronald Reagan.”

When I asked him about the ads themselves, he said, “Frankly all they do is make me angry by pretending there’s any major difference between Reagan [or] George W. Bush and Trump other than style.” He added, “I’m clearly not the target audience.”

He compared efforts to create alliances between liberals and the Lincoln Project to those who suggest alliances between the left and alt-right figures. “I find it unacceptable for mainstream liberals to ally with this group of bigots. Doing so is dangerous as it both drives the Democratic Party even further to the right and mainstreams the abhorrent views of the group’s leaders to an audience of presumably more left-leaning folks.”

The Lincoln Project did not respond to a request for comment on members’ past offensive remarks, as of this writing.

The Lincoln Project has a distinct focus: Beat Trump. As Galen told me, “You can’t beat the guy with high-mindedness. You can’t beat the guy with platitudes. You can’t beat the guy with calling him names.” He added later during our conversation, “it is our job to prosecute the case against Donald Trump. We will do things that will, in our mind, boost Joe Biden’s prospects and image with … Republican and independent voters.”

But the Lincoln Project appears to hope defeating Trump and securing the White House for Joe Biden would restore some semblance of order. Trump is the problem, not the Republican Party, not movement conservatism, not the conservative organizations and super PACs to which many of those who stand behind the Lincoln Project once belonged.

Galen told me that, over the next few weeks, the Lincoln Project will be rolling out ads aimed at “soft Republicans who maybe were never comfortable with Trump but weren’t going to vote for Hillary Clinton, and conservative-leaning independents, who, again, maybe never really liked the guy.” To get an idea of how these ads might prove effective with those audiences, I spoke to Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist and professor of ethical leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business, and Christopher Federico, a researcher on political psychology.

After viewing some of the Lincoln Project’s ads, Haidt said they were powerful because they focus on moral characteristics that tend to be held by conservatives, like group loyalty, respect for authority and tradition, and a sense of sanctity or purity. He told me that the ads make the “intuitively compelling conservative case” that “Trump has violated conservative morality, over and over again.”

He added, “The fact that the message comes from people who identify as Republicans is extremely important, it makes the message much more sincere. It is conservatives expressing conservative values, rather than liberals in some ad agency trying to simply push conservative buttons.”

Federico agreed, telling me, “A major factor in partisan politics is what we call ‘partisan motivated reasoning’ — a tendency to interpret the world, new information, and persuasive messages in ways that support one’s prior identity. If it is clear to a person that a message is coming from the out-party (i.e., to a Republican that a persuasive message is coming from Democrats or liberals), a ‘perceptual screen’ will go up and the information or message will be disregarded or heavily counter-argued.”

In his view, the backers of the Lincoln Project being former Republicans helped to turn off the “perceptual screen”: “In other words, it sends a signal from folks with ties to the Republican or conservative in-group that it does not make you a bad Republican or a bad conservative to oppose Trump.”

But I wondered if the perception of these ads by some observers — praiseworthy and effective efforts to take down a bad president — was also a product of a certain psychology. As the Atlantic’s Andrew Ferguson put it, “like a Trump rally, the ads work exclusively on the predispositions of the faithful.” In other words, are people who oppose Trump praising these ads as uniquely effective or, in Weiss’s words, as proof that “Republicans are better at this than Democrats,” an example of motivated reasoning on behalf of people who, again, hate Trump?

Haidt told me, “In general, people say they like mavericks — people who show independence and think for themselves — but mostly or only when the maverick comes from the other side. We’re not so fond of people on our own side who depart from the team’s position.”

But by going after conservative members of Congress, the Lincoln Project may lose Trump-skeptical Republicans. By its very nature, the group has already lost the support of Trump’s most vociferous critics on the left; it appeals most to moderates who hate Trump and are active on Twitter. In some ways, the Lincoln Project is aimed at itself.

Support Vox’s explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Vox’s work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

Read More

The post The Lincoln Project, explained appeared first on Virus Reports.

Seeking to defend President Donald Trump from questions over whether he actually reads his daily intelligence briefing, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters last week “the president does read” and “is the most informed person on planet Earth when it comes to the threats we face.”

Within an hour, the Lincoln Project, a super PAC run by a host of so-called never-Trump Republicans, tweeted a six-second edited video of the moment out to its more than 1 million followers in its latest attempt to troll the president.

“This is CNN breaking news,” the video begins, playing a quick cut from the network, followed by McEnany saying, “The president does read.”

The anti-Trump group has become ubiquitous on social media in recent weeks as the president is bogged down by the COVID-19 pandemic and social unrest. Its members include George Conway, husband of top White House official Kellyanne Conway, and prominent Republican operatives like John Weaver, Reed Galen, Steve Schmidt, Rick Wilson and Stuart Stevens, who have worked on the George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney and John Kasich presidential campaigns.

Founded in December, the group’s stated mission is to “defeat Trump and Trumpism” in 2020.

Weaver said the Lincoln Project seeks to provoke a Trump response with its ads and social media ventures while targeting white voters who may traditionally vote Republican but are uneasy about the president.

He said the group tries “to do it in such a way, as Republicans, that they’re used to seeing when we would go after Democrats with the same type of language and symbolism.”

During the Lincoln Project’s first few months, nothing much took off. But then came the coronavirus outbreak, and the group released a pandemic-themed ad titled “Mourning in America,” playing on President Ronald Reagan’s famous 1984 re-election ad.

“Under the leadership of Donald Trump, our county is weaker and sicker and poorer,” the ad states. “And now, Americans are asking, ‘If we have another four years like this, will there even be an America?'”

The group spent a few thousand dollars to place the ad on Fox News in the Washington, D.C., media market in early May hoping Trump would take the bait.

He did.

In a four-part tweetstorm sent just before 1 a.m. ET on May 5, Trump said the “group of RINO Republicans who failed badly 12 years ago, then again 8 years ago, and then got BADLY beaten by me, a political first timer, 4 years ago” are “doing everything possible to get even for all of their many failures.” “RINO” is shorthand for “Republican in name only.”

The president then called out members of the group individually, adding, “They’re all LOSERS, but Abe Lincoln, Republican, is all smiles!”

It was the never-Trumpers, however, who were all smiles after Trump’s lengthy attack, particularly as fundraising increased. Weaver said that ad alone got more than 30 million views, adding that in June the group had more than 110 million video views on its ads.

“By attacking us, he’s become our biggest financial bundler,” Weaver said. “If we were an administration, we’d probably make him ambassador to Slovenia or something, because he’s raising so much money for us.”

Through the end of March, the group raised had about $2.6 million and spent a little less than $1.4 million. It had spent about $223,000 against Trump as of early May. The number had increased to more than $2 million as of late June.

The group has particularly targeted Washington, D.C., and swing states like Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. It has also spent hundreds of thousands against Republican Senate candidates in states like Arizona, Iowa and Montana.

June was its biggest month by far for expenditures in the 2020 cycle, with the group spending more than $1.46 million. Its largest donors through March included he hedge funder Andrew Redleaf, Walton family heir Christy Walton and venture capitalist Ron Conway.

“Trump is his own worst political enemy at times,” Weaver said. “And there’s no doubt that he hasn’t given us rocket fuel by engaging with us. I mean, it’s hard to claim we’re irrelevant if they’re constantly attacking us.”

While the group isn’t one of the better-funded PACs, it has been able to take advantage of the members’ large combined social media followings and prevalence on cable news.

Galen said the Lincoln Project sees itself as “a pirate ship” that, because it isn’t aligned with any party, is able “to be extremely nimble” and is not subject to “a lot of hemming and hawing” over decision-making.

Recent ads mocked Trump for his smaller-than-promised crowd at his rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma; ridiculed him over the latest controversy over Russian bounty intelligence; and lampooned his handling of the coronavirus response.

The group also cut a spot hitting Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale over lavish spending, which included purchasing a Ferrari.

Since Trump put a bull’s-eye on the Lincoln Project, Republicans and GOP-aligned groups have taken aim.

The conservative super PAC Club for Growth Action recently released an ad exclusively on Fox News in Washington, D.C., ripping the Lincoln Project and accusing its members of hating Trump supporters and pocketing contributions.

Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh said in a statement that Trump “has the support of a record number of Republicans and leads a united party.” He continued, “Every shred of evidence proves that Republicans enthusiastically support President Trump, so any efforts by disgruntled former Republicans are doomed to fail.”

Republican strategist Matt Mackowiak, president of the Potomac Strategy Group, called the Lincoln Project a “Democrat-funded group that is doing the bidding of the left by trying to flip the Senate.”

“Their ‘strategy’ of trying to make Trump see their ads is absurd and strategically useless,” he said, adding, “But I’m sure the operatives are getting paid.”

The Trump campaign has called the Lincoln Project a “scam PAC,” accusing members of “lining” their pockets. In response, Lincoln Project spokesman Keith Edwards said, “No one here is buying a Ferrari.”

A recent New York Times/Siena College poll found that Trump enjoys 91 percent approval among Republicans, although his numbers are slipping with some key voting groups as former Vice President Joe Biden opens up a lead nationally.

Democrats have welcomed the group’s efforts, although whether it would have influence on a potential Biden administration is an open question.

Rebecca Katz, a progressive strategist, said the Lincoln Project was “not really my cup of tea, but to the extent that they can focus on Trump voters and let the Biden campaign focus on motivating the Democratic voters who stayed home in 2016, then I’m all for it.”

Jesse Ferguson, a top staffer on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, said the Lincoln Project is “telling a powerful story about the soul of this nation — not about a political party, but about the character of the country versus the character of Trump.”

“Defeating Palpatine even required getting Darth Vader to switch sides,” he said, referring to the “Star Wars” franchise.

Lincoln Project members say they don’t feel as if their mission will wrap should Biden pull off a November victory.

“From the moment that we launched back in mid-December, we said that job one is to defeat Donald Trump,” Galen said.

“But from our position,” he continued, “the job is not done until Joe Biden takes the oath of office on January 20th. And even after Joe Biden is elected and sworn in, there’s a whole bunch of Trumpism left in the system.”

Read More

The post How Lincoln Project anti-Trump Republicans got into his head. Spoiler: It was easy. appeared first on Virus Reports.

More widespread wearing of face masks could prevent tens of thousands of deaths by COVID-19, epidemiologists and mathematicians project.

A model from the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation shows that near-universal wearing of cloth or homemade masks could prevent between 17,742 and 28,030 deaths across the US before Oct. 1.

The group, which advises the White House as well as state and local governments, is submitting the model for peer review, says Theo Vos, Professor of Health Metrics Sciences at IHME.

Loading…

Another projection developed by researchers at Arizona State University in April showed that 24–65% of projected deaths could be prevented in Washington state in April and May if 80% of people wore cloth or homemade masks in public.

These projections shed light on the promises face masks might hold as COVID-19 cases surge in some states and more local authorities mandate the wearing of face masks.

Texas is now mandating face masks in public in most of the state; Jacksonville Fl, host city of the Republican National Convention in August, mandated wearing face masks in public and indoor locations where people cannot otherwise social distance on June 29.

Republican leaders including Vice President Mike Pence, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Tim Scott of South Carolina, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Marco Rubio of Florida, have joined public health officials urging the public to wear facemasks. Dr. Anthony Fauci and members of Congress appealed to the public to wear face masks in a congressional hearing Tuesday. And President Trump, in a change of tone, told Fox Business on Wednesday he’s ‘all for masks.’

But public health professionals lament that trust in face masks is hampered by the government’s earlier recommendation against them.

Fauci told TheStreet mid-June that he did not recommend face masks at the beginning of the outbreak to conserve supplies for healthcare workers. On Thursday Fauci told NPR that the administration’s initial ambivalence towards face masks was ‘detrimental in getting the message across.’

The World Health Organization gave NPR the same reasoning for not recommending masks to the general public in April. The organization has since updated its guidelines.

Benjamin Cowling, Professor and head of the Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics in the School of Public Health at the University of Hong Kong, has studied effects of face masks for ten years and co-wrote a commentary in The Lancet advocating more face mask usage in March. He says while he understands the authorities’ desire to preserve supplies for medical workers, the messaging made the public distrust masks.

“Few months ago, medical experts were saying that they don’t work and you don’t need them. And now suddenly, without any change in the evidence base, they’re suddenly saying that they do work and you should wear them.” Cowling says, ‘I think that that’s unhelpful.

Mask adoption in the US has been uneven. A survey from the data collection firm Premise shows that the percentage of people who ‘always wear a mask when going out’ ranges from 15% in Tennessee to 62% in Massachusetts as of June 19.

For both ASU and IHME’s models, the proportion of deaths face masks could prevent differs from location to location and during different stages of the pandemic because transmission rates in the community at the time of projection affect outcomes.

In ASU’s model, widespread community transmission would call for more effective face masks – for example, the surgical masks used in hospitals – to significantly reduce the number of projected deaths. But in places where transmission is not as widespread, most people wearing simple cloth masks would be able to prevent a significant portion of deaths.

In IHME’s model, the more people each infected individual can spread the virus to, the more deaths masking can prevent. It also projects that the virus would follow seasonal patterns and pick up again in the fall. Vos says this means places that have relatively safe levels of the spread now could see more pressure to contain the virus later.

“The use of masks…in those places is going to become a lot more marked and beneficial.” Vos says.

Regardless of community transmission rates, both models show that the more universal face masks are worn, the more deaths can be prevented.

It’s difficult to know whether the projections are correct because it’s difficult to know how the public is actually wearing masks. But considering that research on face masks show that they can tamp down transmission, modellers agree that they should help save lives when worn by a large portion of the population.

“Clearly, clearly the data shows that every model and study that we have seen, every public health policy in the world has said exactly the same thing,” says Abba Gumel, who led the ASU project, ‘We have to wear a face mask.’

Andrea Hsu and Courtney Dorning produced and edited the audio version of this story.

Read More

The post Models Project Face Masks Can Reduce Significant Amount Of Coronavirus Deaths appeared first on Virus Reports.

Read More

The post Project CommUNITY: COVID-19 highlights generations of racial health inequities appeared first on Virus Reports.

Read More

The post New Lincoln Project ad slams Trump over deaths of ‘Greatest Generation’ members from COVID-19 | TheHill appeared first on Virus Reports.

Read More

The post Project Veritas Facebook sting: Moderators brag about deleting pro-Trump posts appeared first on Virus Reports.

Read More

The post Project 21, black conservatives group, joins police reform push of liberals appeared first on Virus Reports.