Journalist/developer. Interactive editor @frontlinepbs. Builder of @HomicideWatch. Sinophile for fun. Past: @WBUR, @NPR, @NewsHour.
1634 stories
·
43 followers

Is Coffee Good for You?

1 Share

With coffea’s estimated 124 species, most of flavors remain untapped; and perhaps will be forever, with an estimated 60 percent under threat of extinction, largely from climate change, disease, pests and deforestation. What fills our mugs at cafes, the office, and on road trips are from two species: arabica and canephora, known as robusta. Arabica fills specialty cafes, and costs more than robusta, which fuels instant coffees and some espressos.

For all of the pomp swirling around arabica, the fact remains it is an extremely homogeneous little seed. Almost all of the world’s arabica coffee progeny traces itself back a few plants from Ethiopia, coffee’s birthplace, or Yemen.


Doctors don’t know. One 2015 study found that those adding sugar, cream or milk had the same associated benefit as those who preferred it black. But the coffee industry has exploded since the ’90s when the older adults in the study filled out their dietary history. “It was only about a tablespoon of cream or milk, and a teaspoon of sugar,” said the study’s lead author, Dr. Loftfield, with the National Cancer Institute. “This is very different, potentially, than some of these coffee beverages you see on the market today.”

Sweet coffee and tea are the fourth largest source of sugar in the diets of adults, according to the October survey from the U.S.D.A. That includes dessert-like beverages, like Dunkin’ Donuts’ 860-calorie creamy frozen coconut caramel coffee drink, with 17 grams of saturated fat, and 129 grams of total sugars. Experts say some of these drinks bear little relation to the 2-calorie cup of black coffee of the past, worrying health officials.

“When you talk about a drink that has that load of unhealthy fats and that much sugar, can’t possibly be a healthy beverage on balance,” Dr. Jim Krieger, a clinical professor of medicine and health services at the University of Washington. “That amount of sugar alone is astronomical compared to the current recommendations of U.S. Dietary Guidelines of 50 grams of sugar a day.”

Read the whole story
chrisamico
10 days ago
reply
Boston, MA
Share this story
Delete

The future of local newspapers just got bleaker. Here’s why we can’t let them die.

3 Shares
With McClatchy filing for bankruptcy, the business is gasping for air. But, against the odds, local newsrooms keep doing vital work.
Read the whole story
acdha
12 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
chrisamico
13 days ago
reply
Boston, MA
Share this story
Delete

Star Wars Saga Showed Us Leia Succeeded Where Luke Failed

io9
1 Share

The Skywalker bloodline is perhaps defined by a series of failures. Anakin’s attempts to protect Padmé brought about the rise of the Empire. Luke’s pressure to live up to this prophecy of the chosen one brought about the undoing of his fledgling Jedi Order and his own nephew—who himself saw a moment of weakness and ran away into the dark. But while failure is indeed a great teacher, not all Skywalkers carved a path that way.

The moment Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker flashes back to Luke and Leia training as young Jedi on Ajan Kloss is perhaps a perfect summation of everything great and frustrating about the movie. With the tragic loss of Carrie Fisher in 2016 permeating throughout the movie, on one hand it’s a gut-punch of nostalgia to see her again as she was in Return of the Jedi, wielding the fabled weapon of a Jedi Knight. The moment is made all the more bittersweet with the behind-the-scenes factoid that in the moment, Leia is in fact played by Fisher’s daughter, Billie Lourd, her performance layered under the computer-generated visage of her mother.

On the other hand, it’s an example of J.J. Abrams’ deeply cynical desire to provide answers to questions raised by reactions to The Last Jedi—questions that didn’t need answering but could be done so in the name of fan service, an attempt to appeal to those dismayed by Rise’s immediate predecessor. How could Leia use the Force to save herself in The Last Jedi? No, we couldn’t just assume it was because she’s literally the daughter of the chosen one, one of the most potent Force users in living memory, and in a moment of crisis, reacted in a way that was as natural to her as it would have been to her brother. It must because she secretly trained as a Jedi all along! Look, she’s got her own lightsaber and everything! Please, be happy, we chose not to leave something to obvious interpretation and answered it for the fans.

And yet, it’s also a moment that is in lockstep with some of The Last Jedi’s most fundamental messaging about Star Wars. Beneath the ephemera of clashing lightsabers and nostalgic youth, the flashback sees Luke impart an important revelation to Rey about Leia’s training: Leia had sensed the fall of her son in the Force, and came to the conclusion that it was not her destiny to follow in the footsteps of Jedi before her as Luke and her father had. Instead, she left her weapon to the generation of Force users that would continue on that legacy beyond her, and carved her own path—one that would in turn carry on the work of her adoptive father, Bail Organa, and inspire even more generations to carry on that same work.

Although The Rise of Skywalker is not particularly concerned with it—it is, for better or worse, more wrapped up in the nostalgia of the moment—Leia’s reaction to this glimpse of darkness in her own child is incredibly telling, contrasted to Luke’s own brush with dire portents in The Last Jedi. In the moment she sees this vision, she realizes this is a future she alone cannot stop, stepping away from the Jedi path with faith that her brother, the Jedi he trains, and the people beyond her may one day turn her son from this darkness. When Luke sees that same portent, he internalizes it deeply, a failure not of the Jedi Order he spent his adult life chasing, but a failure of his own doing—a failure he alone could absolve, leading to the tragic moment he ignited his lightsaber above his nephew’s bed, a tragic and profound low that pushed Ben Solo away seemingly for good (he got better, of course, because it wouldn’t be Star Wars without a little redemption).

If anything, it’s a commentary on how the Skywalker siblings both interpret the selflessness that defines them. Leia’s selflessness is predicated entirely in the strength she draws from those around her, the way she supports those connections as a leader of first the Rebel Alliance and then the Resistance—organizational embodiments of her highest ideals, but ones that she has the faith in to continue even without her, inspired by her legacy but not so beholden to it that they would fall apart without her direct presence. Luke, meanwhile so ardently places his faith in those around him—as Palpatine needles him in Return of the Jedi, that faith is his greatest “weakness” above all else—that for much of Star Wars, and especially coming into The Last Jedi, his self-doubt in spite of everything he achieves is so strong that any perceived failure, systemic or otherwise, becomes a burden that he alone can attempt to fix. That is, if said burden doesn’t haunt him to the point of paralyzed indecision.

It’s in that selflessness that Leia leaves her ultimate gift, eventually passed on to the next generation in the form of Rey: her lightsaber. It’s a symbolic choice, not just of Leia to forge her own path away from the Skywalkers’ Force-bound heritage and in her own career as a Senator of the New Republic, and eventual General of the Resistance, but of her express belief in the work of the people that will come after her. The saber is left to Luke with that explicit message, one he forgets until Yoda’s Force ghost reminds him of it in his deepest throes of angst on Ahch-To: pass on what it represents, the teachings it holds, to a generation that will grow beyond their own, for the good work will need to continue far beyond Luke and Leia’s lives.

Leia perhaps understood the cyclical nature of Star Wars’ larger conflict more than any of its other protagonists—even Luke and Rey, embedded in the teachings of the Jedi and their eons-spanning ebb-and-flow conflict with the Sith. She had seen through her adoptive father’s eyes the rise and fall of one Republic. She had witnessed the rise and fall of another herself. But unlike Luke, who, chained by the prophecy of Anakin’s legacy as the chosen one, withdrew into despair when he alone could not break that cycle, she crucially realized that it was never meant for her, or her brother, or any one person to break it.

It’s why we see her push Poe to become the leader he needs to be throughout The Last Jedi and The Rise of Skywalker, knowing he would have to take her place one day. It’s why she leaves that lightsaber behind, in the hopes that someone else, whether it’s her son or otherwise, will one day wield it and the lessons it represents. It’s why, when she eventually does pass into the Force after reaching out to her son one last time, she does so in peace, knowing that the network of people she leaves behind will support him, and will support each other, in the fights to come.

For a series so utterly entrenched in fate and prophecy, of chosen ones, what makes Leia so special is her refutation that change on a galactic scale is beholden to the destiny of a single prophecized individual. Leia always believed that change would only come about by people from all walks of life coming together with a singular purpose: hope, for a better future for the people that would come in the wake of those fighting for that hope.


For more, make sure you’re following us on our Instagram @io9dotcom.

Read the whole story
chrisamico
15 days ago
reply
Boston, MA
Share this story
Delete

These Fake Local News Sites Have Confused People For Years. We Found Out Who Created Them.

1 Share

Jay Pinho and his wife, Victoria, rely on Google Alerts to track the public appearances of US Supreme Court justices on their website, SCOTUS Map. But late last year, the results began to worry them.

“A crop of news [website] domains were popping up that I'd never heard of before, and they were often publishing directly plagiarized pieces from real outlets,” he told BuzzFeed News.

In addition to being plagiarized, the content flooding his Google Alert results was often at least a year old. Adding to the confusion, it was published on websites that at first glance seemed like legitimate local news sites, with names like the Livingston Ledger, Denton Daily, and Hoback Herald. They also noticed another set of financial news sites doing the same thing, with names like Stock Daily Dish and Daily Stock Dish.

“Sometimes their links would represent a large portion of the Google Alerts for news on a given Supreme Court justice for several days in a row, and then they would suddenly disappear from the alert emails,” he said.

The Pinhos didn’t fall for the trap, but other people did — many of whom should have known better.

Stories from these sites have found their way into the tweets of the executive director of Human Rights Watch, the Natural Resources Defense Council, voter rights organizations, gun control advocates, and scientists. One tweet from a political activist that linked to a plagiarized story received more than 13,000 retweets and likes.

People who caught the sites plagiarizing began speculating about the motivations of whoever was running them. One person noticed that their Google Alerts for Julian Assange were flooded with results from the sites, leading them to warn that “cyber marketing tools are being used in the propaganda war against #WikiLeaks.” One researcher labeled the network of sites “a malicious information operation masquerading as a news aggregator.”

Neither was the case. In fact, the plagiarized sites are part of an operation run by a North Carolina man with a background in the financial information industry. And the motivation is simple: money.

A BuzzFeed News investigation has identified a network of roughly 100 sites dating back to at least 2015 that have been plagiarizing stories from major news organizations, masquerading as local news and financial outlets, and manipulating Google News and search results to earn money through ads, through financial email subscriptions, or by referring people to dubious investments.

Domain registration records and other information, including confirmation from a business partner, show that the network is run by Matt McGorty. His brother Tim, who also worked in the financial information industry, is linked to the network via domain registrations, but his role is unclear. The McGortys did not respond to multiple interview requests and a detailed set of questions.

These sites show how easy it's been to bypass the procedures Google uses to keep low-quality sites out of Google News. In November, Tara Calishain, an author and professional researcher who runs researchbuzz.me, warned that ”junk news” sites had infiltrated Google News. They were so prevalent in results that she had to reconsider her assumption that sources included in Google News “have been vetted to a certain extent.”

The McGorty sites are also the latest example of how online local news has become polluted by ad fraudsters, political hucksters and operatives, and Russian trolls. These impostors trade on the trustworthiness of local journalism by adopting names that evoke small-town newspapers. Some even adopt the names of now-shuttered outlets that once served communities. They bank on the fact that the average person — and the people in charge of reviewing sites for Google News — will assume the Denton Daily or Jamestown Journal is a real news outlet. And they profit from it.

After conducting an internal investigation, Google terminated two AdSense advertising accounts that belonged to the McGortys. A company spokesperson added that in December, the company made changes to Google News to help keep these kinds of sites out of the service.

Public outrage about the sites spiked in May when Miami Herald immigration reporter Monique O. Madan tweeted about <a href="http://driscollregister.com" rel="nofollow">driscollregister.com</a>, which was stealing work from her paper.

“People whom I have spoken to in the past, that I've interviewed, were sharing my story — but from another website, and it was [my text] in full and the byline was not my byline,” Madan told BuzzFeed News.

She said the Herald found dozens of examples of ripped-off stories on different sites but was unable to identify the culprits.

BuzzFeed News was able to identify sites in the network and the McGortys by connecting domain registration records, advertising and analytics IDs, the IP address of servers, social accounts and sharing patterns, and content on the websites. Pinho, the cofounder of SCOTUS Map, conducted his own investigation and also attributed the sites to the McGortys.

Their strategy appears to be to seed the sites with plagiarized content to make them appear real. This helps them get accepted into Google News. Once accepted, the sites reprint press releases or content provided by a partner, with an aim at attracting traffic via Google News, Google Alerts, social shares, and search engine optimization. The sites monetized this traffic with ads placed via the Google AdSense network, and referral fees for helping drive sign-ups for a financial information newsletter.

Many of the domain registration records for the sites used the email account <a href="mailto:retirementplannins@gmail.com">retirementplannins@gmail.com</a>. In some cases, that account was accompanied by the name Chris Smith and an address in Destin, Florida. That email address was used to register <a href="http://berkshirehousecleaners.com">berkshirehousecleaners.com</a>, the website of a business run by Matt McGorty’s wife. A 2016 Boston Globe article mentioned the business, focusing on how she and Matt spent part of the year living in Destin.

Tim McGorty is linked to the operation via the <a href="mailto:magaoti@gmail.com">magaoti@gmail.com</a> email address, which appeared in the domain registration records for dozens of the sites. Tim operates a Facebook profile named Ma Gao Ti that is almost exclusively friends with members of the McGorty family.

Both brothers, who live in North Carolina, began working for NASDAQ in 2013 after being employed by Thomson Reuters, according to their LinkedIn profiles. In 2016, the Boston Globe reported that Matt “works for NASDAQ, updating financial websites.” A NASDAQ spokesperson told BuzzFeed News that the brothers worked for a subsidiary that is now an independent company called Interdo. The company, which was previously called West, offers a suite of digital media products and services, including website and content development. Interdo declined to comment on whether Matt McGorty is a current employee. Tim currently runs a web design and video business.

The earliest McGorty site identified by BuzzFeed News was <a href="http://oraclebeacon.com" rel="nofollow">oraclebeacon.com</a>, active in 2015, according to the Wayback Machine.

The websites often falsely presented themselves as genuine news outlets, divided into two categories: local and financial news.

For instance, the about page of <a href="http://richlandstandard.com" rel="nofollow">richlandstandard.com</a> described itself as “an independent family-owned media company located in Bedford, Texas.” Another site in the network, <a href="http://riverdalestandard.com" rel="nofollow">riverdalestandard.com</a>, previously described itself as “an independent financial media company located in Buckner, Kentucky.” That domain now claims to belong to a new owner using an even-more misleading description. It’s about page now features text plagiarized from CNN Digital: “Staffed 24 hours, seven days a week by a dedicated team in River Dale Standard bureaus around the world, River Dale Standard platforms deliver news from almost 4,000 journalists in every corner of the globe.”

The McGorty sites with financial domain names also misrepresented their ownership. Several sites claimed their owner was a man named Scott Gentry, who does not appear to exist. Others listed fake names for editors, and at least five had the same about text that identified them as an “independently owned upstart financial web and crypto currency portal.”

Madan, the Miami Herald reporter, said that once accepted into Google News, the sites could have altered the content of her stories to mislead people or spread false information to a large audience.

“Thankfully, it was just copy-and-pasted [content], but it could easily be distorted and warped into whatever it is that that individual wants to convey to the world,” she said.

The McGorty sites heavily promote an email newsletter offered by MarketBeat, a South Dakota–based financial information site that Entrepreneur magazine named one of the “best entrepreneurial companies in America,” and Inc. magazine ranked as one of the fastest-growing private companies in the US. It calls itself the “go-to resource for individual investors and institutional investors alike.”

MarketBeat pays partners a fee for each email subscriber they generate, according to the company’s owner, Matthew Paulson. He said Matt McGorty is his contact for the network of sites identified by BuzzFeed News.

Paulson said he had no editorial control over the McGorty sites and that he was “concerned” about the plagiarism after being shown examples.

But MarketBeat also operates its own network of more than 60 imposter local sites and financial news outlets that have a similar naming structure to the McGorty sites, such as Cody Courier and Jamestown Journal. MarketBeat’s website claims the sites “garner more than 5 million pageviews each month.”

Prior to this week, the sites did not disclose their connection to MarketBeat. In some cases, they misled readers about their ownership and frequently used pseudonyms for writers.

After being contacted by BuzzFeed News, Paulson added a disclaimer to his sites to note they were run by his company.

“We see them as general news websites that help promote our company's newsletter and generate online advertising revenue through search engine optimization and social media marketing,” he said.

Paulson said some of his freelance writers used pseudonyms “due to other work and career responsibilities they may have.” BuzzFeed News identified at least one case in which a MarketBeat site plagiarized an article from the Washington Post. Paulson removed it on Monday, saying “we really do try to make sure that only original content appears on our websites.”

Paulson said he was considering shutting down his affiliate program. “Frankly, it’s becoming more trouble than it’s worth and this current situation isn’t helping matters much,” he said.

Paulson also emphasized the difference between his network of sites and those run by Matt McGorty: “I do hope you note that there is a marked difference in quality of content, design, and transparency between our websites and websites that belong to other individuals that you may mention in your article.”


Regardless of what Paulson may do, the McGortys have already done damage. Pinho said the experience of piecing the network caused him to question whether Google was properly moderating what it inputted into Google News.

“It's pretty crazy to have to wade through months- or years-old pieces plagiarized from other news sources in an email service provided by a company whose mission is ostensibly to organize the world's information,” he said.

His encounter with the McGorty sites also makes him concerned for the future of journalism.

“It's pretty depressing that in addition to all the other well-documented financial problems that newsgathering and reporting faces, there's this added problem of grifters stealing content and monetizing it for themselves,” he said. “It all feels pretty dystopian.”

Read the whole story
chrisamico
22 days ago
reply
Boston, MA
Share this story
Delete

Iowa Might Have Screwed Up The Whole Nomination Process

1 Share

In trying to build a forecast model of the Democratic primaries, we literally had to think about the entire process from start (Iowa) to finish (the Virgin Islands on June 6). Actually, we had to do more than that. Since the nomination process is sequential — states vote one at a time rather than all at once — we had to determine, empirically, how much the results of one state can affect the rest.

The answer in the case of Iowa is that it matters a lot. Despite its demographic non-representativeness, and the quirks of the caucuses process, the amount of media coverage the state gets makes it far more valuable a prize than you’d assume from the fact that it only accounts for 41 of the Democrats’ 3,979 pledged delegates.

More specifically, we estimate — based on testing how much the results in various states have historically changed the candidates’ position in national polls — that Iowa was the second most-important date on the calendar this year, trailing only Super Tuesday. It was worth the equivalent of almost 800 delegates, about 20 times its actual number.

Which states will produce the biggest bounces?

Expected bounce magnitude according to FiveThirtyEight’s primary model

Relative bounce magnitude
Date States Based on delegates Early state bonus Combined
Feb. 3 Iowa +3 +20 +23
Feb. 11 New Hampshire +2 +10 +12
Feb. 22 Nevada +3 +5 +8
Feb. 29 South Carolina +3 +5 +8
Mar. 3 Colorado, Alabama, Utah, Oklahoma, Vermont, Texas, Tennessee, Maine, Virginia, North Carolina, California, American Samoa, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Arkansas +30 +30
Mar. 10 Mississippi, Michigan, North Dakota, Washington, Missouri, Idaho, Democrats Abroad +12 +12
Mar. 14 Northern Marianas +1 +1
Mar. 17 Ohio, Arizona, Florida, Illinois +16 +16
Mar. 24 Georgia +5 +5
Mar. 29 Puerto Rico +3 +3
Apr. 4 Alaska, Hawaii, Wyoming, Louisiana +5 +5
Apr. 7 Wisconsin +4 +4
Apr. 28 Rhode Island, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut, Pennsylvania +18 +18
May 2 Guam, Kansas +3 +3
May 5 Indiana +4 +4
May 12 Nebraska, West Virginia +3 +3
May 19 Kentucky, Oregon +5 +5
June 2 New Mexico, New Jersey, South Dakota, Montana, District of Columbia +8 +8
June 6 Virgin Islands +1 +1

Everything was a little weird in Iowa this year, however. And there were already some signs that the Iowa bounce — which essentially results from all the favorable media coverage that winning candidates get — might be smaller than normal. Iowa was bracketed by an extremely busy news calendar: President Trump’s impeachment trial both before and after the caucuses, the Super Bowl on Sunday, the State of the Union address on Tuesday. There was not the usual climactic uptick in media coverage around Iowa. From initial indications — to the extent any information at all is reliable at this point — Democratic turnout there wound up being fairly low.

But we weren’t prepared for what actually happened, which is that — as I’m writing this at 3:15 a.m. on Tuesday — the Iowa Democratic Party literally hasn’t released any results from its caucuses. I’m not going to predict what those numbers will eventually be, although early indications are that Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg and perhaps Elizabeth Warren had good results. The point is that the lead story around the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses is now — and will forever be — the colossal shitshow around the failure to release results in a timely fashion.

Maybe there will eventually be a decent-sized Iowa bounce despite all of this. But there’s a good chance that the candidates who did well in Iowa get screwed, and the candidates who did poorly there get a mulligan. To repeat: There’s very little importance in a mathematical sense to who wins 41 delegates. Iowa is all about the media narrative it produces and all about momentum, and that momentum, whoever wins, is likely to have been blunted.

Who might this help? Let’s pretend for a moment we don’t have any hints about how the results might have turned out. In fact, let’s pretend that Iowa didn’t happen at all. I reran our forecast model as though the Iowa caucuses were canceled.1 Here’s how that changed each candidate’s chances of getting a delegate majority:

How Iowa’s presence affected Democrats’ odds

Chances of winning a majority of pledged delegates per FiveThirtyEight forecast model on Feb. 3 (pre-Iowa), compared with a version of the model that skips the Iowa caucuses

Candidate As of our final PRE-IOWA SIMULATIONS ON Monday night In A HYPOTHETICAL SIMULATION WHERE Iowa didn’t exist
Biden 43% 50%
Sanders 31 24
Warren 5 5
Buttigieg 4 <1
Other <1 <1
No one 17 20

The presence of Iowa was helpful to Bernie Sanders, whose chances of winning a national delegate majority would have been 24 percent without Iowa — as compared to the 31 percent chance that he had with Iowa, as of Monday afternoon. Iowa was hurtful to Joe Biden, however, whose chances of a delegate majority would have been 50 percent without it, rather than 43 percent with it.

And Iowa was extremely helpful to Buttigieg, whose chances of winning the delegate majority were fairly low even with Iowa — keep in mind that he had slipped to third in polls of Iowa and fifth in national polls — but would have been virtually nonexistent (less than 1 percent) without it.

By giving the winning candidates a boost, the presence of Iowa also reduced the chance of an unstructured race and a potential brokered convention. The chance of there being no delegate majority was 17 percent without Iowa, but would have been 20 percent with it.

Granted, none of those changes — say, 24 percent versus 31 percent — are necessarily that large. But that’s partly because, as of Monday afternoon, four or five candidates appeared to have a shot at winning Iowa. For the candidate who actually won Iowa, it would have been a much bigger deal. We estimate that Sanders’s chances of a majority would have shot up to from 31 percent to 58 percent with an Iowa win, Warren’s from 5 percent to 32 percent, and Buttigieg’s from 4 percent to 22 percent.

And in some ways that still discounts Iowa’s impact, because several of the campaigns — for better or worse — built their entire strategy around the state. Would Buttigieg have been a major player in the race without Iowa? Considering his lack of support among black voters, probably not. Would candidates such as Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Julian Castro have dropped out so soon? That’s a harder call, since Harris, Booker and Castro weren’t polling particularly well anywhere. But the Democratic field might have remained a little more diverse.

So we’ve arrived at a point of some ambivalence. On the one hand, candidates such as Buttigieg, who seemingly did well there, are liable to be injured by the muddled storylines in Iowa following the results-reporting disaster on Monday night. On the other hand, it’s not clear why Iowa was afforded so much importance in the first place, and Buttigieg possibly owed his entire presence in the campaign to this quirk in the nomination process. Nonetheless, these were the rules of the game, as every candidate understood them. So if Iowa turns out not to matter very much because of the results-reporting snafu, they have every right to be upset.

To be even more blunt: The Iowa Democratic Party’s colossal screw-up in reporting results will potentially have direct effects on the outcome of the nomination process. The failure to report results will almost certainly help Biden, assuming that indications that he performed poorly in Iowa are correct, as they won’t get nearly as much media coverage. And they’ll hurt whichever candidate wins the state — most likely Sanders or Buttigieg. (Although if Sanders winds up finishing in second place or lower, he also might not mind a reduction in the importance of Iowa, especially with one of his best states, New Hampshire, coming up next.)

Furthermore, Iowa is typically a state that winnows the field. But with every candidate either having performed well there, potentially having an excuse for a disappointing finish there, or somewhere in between, it might not do that. Delaying the winnowing process would tangibly increase the chance of a contested convention.

It’s not a good situation for the Democratic Party. And it’s already too late for the damage to be entirely undone, even if Iowa eventually gets its act together.

CORRECTION (Feb. 4, 2020, 8:47 a.m.): An earlier version of this article inaccurately said that Democrats have 3,990 pledged delegates this primary cycle. They have 3,979. Therefore, if Iowa’s delegates were discounted, the remaining total would be 3,938, not 3,949.

Read the whole story
chrisamico
24 days ago
reply
Boston, MA
Share this story
Delete

Best Directors Who Were Non-white Men

1 Share

From 1928, the year of the first Academy Awards, to 2019, there have been 455 nominations for Best Director. Of those, 18 of them went to non-white men. Read More

Read the whole story
chrisamico
44 days ago
reply
Boston, MA
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories