NDN Blog

Learning from the Sanders/DNC Data Skirmish

Some thoughts on the Sanders/DNC data flare up, an early skirmish in building our 21st century politics:

While what the Sanders campaign did was clearly wrong, the DNC's decision to shut off a candidate's access to party data was an epic, reckless mistake. The DNC must now not only take aggressive steps to ensure a safe, secure data ecosystem, it must establish a clear process for resolution of future data-based disputes/breaches. Their suspension of Sanders's access was not just hasty, it appears to have violated their contractual mechanism for resolving disputes like this, opening up the DNC to legal action and potentially millions of dollars of damages. There simply was no justification for the acts taken by the DNC against the Sanders campaign this week.

In coming days the DNC must do two things to re-establish trust in the data ecosystem the current team at the DNC inherited: 1) spell out a clear policy of how data disputes will be resolved so as to eliminate the specter of arbitrary, punitive actions by future Chairs/staff - what campaign will use the database if they can get tossed off and have their campaign shut down if they piss off the wrong people? 2) conduct the discussed independent security audit now so that the candidates and party committees using the database this cycle have greater assurance that it is working as promised.

The Chair would also be wise work hard to reaffirm the perception of independence of the DNC. Lingering doubts about favoritism and special treatment undermines the integrity of our primary process, and will make party unity in the general more challenging. Free and fair elections are essential to bestowing legitimacy to winners of a vote, which is why America has fought for so hard for open, transparent elections domestically and abroad for generations.

To be clear - the Sanders campaign did bad stuff, and there is a process in place to understand what happened and to take appropriate steps to address. But what the DNC did was an unprecedented and irresponsible intervention in the primary process. They too need to own it and help ensure it never happens again. And I write all this as an enthusiastic support of Hillary Clinton.

This piece was adapted from a series of tweets posted earlier this morning.

Update: In a new piece about the data skirmish, DNC CEO Amy Dacey writes: 

"On Thursday, further NGP VAN analysis revealed that it was very likely that a user had taken data out of the system during the breach. Upon learning that, the DNC had to suspend the Sanders campaign’s access to the voter file to ensure the integrity of the system. This action was not taken to punish the Sanders campaign — it was necessary to ensure that the Sanders campaign took appropriate steps to resolve the issue and wasn’t unfairly using another campaign’s data. This temporary suspension was well within the DNC’s authority. Moreover, the DNC was left with little choice in the matter when the Sanders campaign declined to respond in a timely manner to the requests for assistance with an investigation." (bolding ours).

This is the rub of the matter isn't it? Was the DNC within their right to supsend this campaign - or any campaign or state party - if the suspension doesn't follow the protocol layed out in the contract between Sanders/other campaign and the DNC?  If the authority didn't come from the contract, where did it come from exactly?  The DNC has to help all Democrats better understand this in the days ahead. 

Mondays Musings: Ted and Donald, Millennials in Play? Debates matter

Trump and Cruz rising, Hillary losing a bit of steam? - Lots of new polls out these last few days, all showing the same thing - Trump and Cruz have momentum. 6 weeks now till the Iowa Caucuses and at this point Trump and Cruz seem to be creating a new upper tier in the race, with Rubio perhaps being in the second tier all by himself and everyone else in tiers below. The GOP race, with perhaps five candidates still holding out hope (add Bush and Christie to the top three), enters a very intense period now with three debates in the next six weeks, 2 more in February and of course the first four states voting also in February. The Republicans debate tonight on CNN – be sure to watch! (and you can catch me discussing Trump from O’Reilly’s show last Friday night and this extended clip from Howard Kurtz’s Sunday show on Fox).

On the Democratic side there is some evidence of Hillary coming back down to earth after her strong debate performances, and day long Benghazi testimony. In the NBC/WSJ poll Rubio gains 6 points against her and now bests her in a direct head to head 48/45, and Cruz moves from 41/49 to 45/48. The best Iowa poll now has it Clinton 48/39, a bit too close for comfort for Clinton who has lead in some Iowa polls by 20 or more. Even the new WaPo/ABC poll out this morning has her only beating Trump by 6 points among registered voters, 50/44. Since her Benghazi testimony she has been out of the public eye – we are seeing some evidence now that this could be making a difference. All of this data points to the simple reality that nothing is being handed to Hillary Clinton, and she is going to have to fight hard to win the nomination and the general election next year.

Millennials in play? - I am quoted in a Greg Sargent Washington Post piece yesterday looking at what has to be considered a potentially ominous development for the Democrats – Rubio matching Hillary Clinton with millennial voters (and thus beating her 48/45) in the new NBC/WSJ poll. Greg’s piece is well worth reading in its entirety.

The debates matter - Pew has a new poll out showing just how important the debates have been this year to the public discourse. And from NDN’s point of view, just how risky the DNC’s duck and cover strategy has been.  As a reminder so far this year 73m people have watched the GOP debates, 25m the Democratic ones. 

SNL - Be sure to watch Will Ferrell's return as W Bush in a brand new off the charts awesome SNL skit.

"Monday Musings" is a new column looking at the national political landscape published most Mondays here on the NDN site.  You find previous versions here.

Simon Talks with Matt Lewis, Author of "Too Dumb to Fail"

Last week Simon sat down with conservative author Matt Lewis for a long discussion about the modernization efforts of the center-left over the past generation, and how conservatives may learn from it.  It is well worth a listen.

Matt's new book, "Too Dumb to Fail," has received substantial praise from across the political spectrum.  You can get a copy of your very own here

Mondays Musings: Opportunity and Peril, Cruz Rising

Reminders of the opportunities and perils in the world today - On this anniversary of Pearl Harbor, what stands out about the 2016 race this morning is how much we’ve been reminded of both the opportunities and perils the modern world offers America today. We wake this morning to the good news of the Chavista government in Venezuela having been routed last night. On the heels of a new and more modern government in Argentina, and the beginning of the normalization of ties with Cuba, Latin America is going through an important period of shedding some of its more destructive and anti-modern impulses. This is of course is good news for the United States, as it is likely to make our own neighborhood more peaceful and prosperous in the years ahead.

But we also wake to the news of another far right victory in European elections, this one in France. In the US and Europe, globalization and all that it brings (rapid migration, economic/social dislocation) is fueling a rise in reactionary parties and politicians. There isn’t a great difference between France’s Le Pen and the US’s Trump. The rise in this reactionary sentiment on both sides of the Atlantic is worrisome of course, and terrorist attacks and Syrian refugees are adding fresh grist to this nationalist mill. The weakening of establishment politics here and in Europe has to become a central reason for greater urgency in both eliminating the Islamic State and resolving the various sectarian conflicts in the Middle East, starting with Syria.

We had some other good news last week as it appears that the Saudis and Iranians worked together to fashion a new government in Lebanon. Perhaps the combination of lower oil prices, the barbarity and prowess of ISIL, the instability mass Middle Eastern refugees are bringing to other regions of the world is all creating a moment where sustained Saudi/Iranian cooperation could become possible. Certainly our leaders should be doing everything we can to encourage this path, as it is the only way peace will ever come to the region in the years ahead.

Be sure to also read my take on the panicky, disappointing GOP response to Paris and San Bernardino terror attacks here. All of these developments are a reminder why we need an experienced, forceful leader in the White House in 2017. Ain't going to be an easy time to be US President in the coming years.

2016 Landscape – Only real significant change this past week is growing evidence that Ted Cruz is making a major move in the polls nationally and in the early states. Ben Carson’s collapse has benefitted Cruz, and he has now become the most significant challenger to the front runner Donald Trump. While Rubio has gained a bit of ground in recent weeks, he is still in the second tier. One thing I wonder is whether his first ad in the early states which so firmly identifies him as coming from a striving immigrant family will end up limiting whatever momentum he may have had from his good performances in recent debates. The GOP’s next debate is in eight days, Tuesday, December 15th. And then six more GOP debates come in the first 10 weeks of 2016. Lots of fireworks ahead!

"Monday Musings" is a new column looking at the national political landscape published most Mondays here on the NDN site.  You find previous versions here.

Mondays Musings: Can Republicans Keep Us Safe?

Consider these stats:

1292 – American injured in 379 mass shootings this year (mass shooting = 4 or more people killed/injured)

431 – Americans killed in mass shootings this year

390 – American civilians killed by terrorists from 2002 to 2013

130 – The number who died in the Paris attacks two weeks ago

4 – The number of Americans who died in the 2012 Benghazi attack (none of whom were civilian, 2 were CIA)

0 – the number of mass shooters stopped this year by a civilian with a gun

Given how much time and effort we’ve put into discussing Benghazi, and terrorism of course, can we continue to have those conversations without also creating a spirited, sustained conversation about how we can keep Americans safe from mass shooters – something that has now become a daily occurrence in the US? At current rates, 10 times as many Americans will die this year due to a mass shooter than a terrorist and yet we do nothing, not even the easy things like universal background checks, allowing the background check system access to the terrorism database, limiting the number of bullets in a clip and more reasonable regulation of gun shops themselves. As a parent of three, I am, for the first time in my life, growing truly worried about the safety of my kids. And I am sure I am not alone.

Those on the center-left should not let NRA backed politicians off the hook any longer. We can honor the 2nd Amendment, while keeping our families safe at home. We also should work to make sure the coming and necessary debate about combating the Islamic State includes steps we need to take here at home to protect us from a threat that has killed many more Americans in recent years – mass shooters.

But our disappointment with the right about their unwillingness to do what is necessary to keep us safe should be not limited to their coddling of the gun industry here in the US.  It was on full display in the days after the Paris attacks. As I wrote last week, in the days after Paris rather than finding common ground with the President and his party, the GOP panicked, choosing to deeply politicize the debate over Syrian refugees, something that is a side show to the core issue of how we end the Islamic State and bring better days to the Middle East. The fecklessness that we’ve seen in the GOP Presidential field (and with Speaker Ryan) these last few weeks “After Paris” should be worrisome to all.

Polling/2016 landscape – Nothing really new here. Trump, Cruz and Rubio continue to have the momentum on the GOP side. Not sure the Christie chatter is real. Next GOP debate on CNN on December 15th will be important. Obama’s favs have taken hit a post Paris, but they have been coming back up in recent days. Worth watching. Hillary remains firmly in charge in the Democratic primary, and with improving numbers in the general.

Simon on Howard Kurtz – SImon appeared on Howard Kurtz's Sunday morning show, MediaBuzz.  The first segment discussed Donald Trump and his struggles with telling the truth.  You can watch the segment here.

12/2 Update - As expected, the House GOP blocked a common sense measure that would make it much harder for terrorists to buy guns in the US. 

Report: Shapiro and Hassett on Uncertainty, Title II and Investment

Earlier this summer, NDN was proud to have helped fund and produce a paper by the chair of NDN's Globalization Initiative, Dr. Rob Shapiro, and his frequent collaborator, Dr. Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute. Called, "Regulation and Investment: A Note on Policy Evaluation With an Application to FCC Title II Regulation of the Internet," the paper takes a detailed look at how FCC regulation in telecommunications can affect capital investment in the industry, with particular attention to the Internet and investments in infrastructure,

You can find a full PDF of the paper below. An excerpt:

"In this paper, we discussed the special challenges faced by policy analysts attempting to evaluate the likely impact of regulation on investment. We suggested a systematic approach toward policy evaluation wherein a researcher first relies upon our theoretical taxonomy to sort a particular regulation into the correct box. This allows one to have clarity regarding the likely sign of the effect of the regulation. To investigate the scale, we argue that micro analogies can be informative but should be checked for plausibility against the predictions of the macro literature we cite. Finally, one should classify the type of investment likely to be affected by the policy, and establish both whether the policy would increase that uncertainty, which is harmful, and would introduce a threshold effect, which could have devastatingly negative effects on investment until the threshold issue is resolved.

The final section provided an empirical example of our approach to analyzing the impact of Title II regulation on Internet investment. First, we showed that Title II regulation should be expected to increase costs, and therefore is the type of policy that should be expected to reduce investment. Second, we reviewed field-specific evidence that suggested that the scale of the negative effect could be quite large, from about 5.5 percent to as much as 20.8 percent. Next, we documented that the ratio of investment to the capital stock would be expected to decline to roughly that extent if Title II regulation in the United States would be comparable to the regulatory framework of the OECD continental European countries in the first decade of the 21st century. Next, we cited an analysis by a legal scholar that suggests that this analogy is reasonable. Finally, we found that the negative effects on investment may well be significantly understated by these factors because the new regulation’s threshold effect will maximize the negative effects of uncertainty."

Shapiro Discusses the Paper with Congress - On October 27th, Dr. Shapiro discussed the findings of the paper at a hearing of the Communcations and Technology Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  You can find Dr. Shapiro's testimony and other related materials here.

Mondays Musings: All They Have Is Fear Itself

In a time of challenge, the GOP panics - The one upsmanship for who could be harder on Muslims we saw among Republican President candidates this past week was a powerful reminder that the GOP has long ceased being a “conservative” party and has descended into a far more pernicious “reactionary” period. This is a subject I have discussed at length over the years, including in this long form magazine piece and in this recent piece about how fear will drive the Republicans this election cycle. The fear of modernity that is driving the reactionary right these days is perhaps the most significant force in American politics today, one that is crying out for an equally muscular and modern liberalism to challenge it head on.

Another example of this kneejerky fear of others and foreign threats was the House GOP’s terribly disappointing reaction to the Paris attacks. Of all the things the House GOP could have done last week, the Ryan-led House rushed out a bill – with no hearings and overriding their own internal rules about time needed to consider legislation – making it far tougher for the US to admit Syrian refugees. Regardless of the merits of the bill, the haste in which it was rushed out made it appear to be designed more to undermine and embarrass the President in the middle of an important foreign trip than to develop a more effective, bi-partisan response to the growing threat of the Islamic State. Paul Ryan’s choice was craven, nasty politics in its purest form in a time of challenge, the very opposite of patriotism.

Contrast this not ready for prime time behavior with that of the Democrats: the President continued his important trip to Asia, selling among other things his newly negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement; and Hillary Clinton gave a thoughtful and mature speech about defeating the Islamic State. Senate Democrats also made a valuable contribution to this nascent debate, countering Ryan’s refugee with a proposal to close the NRA supported loophole that allows those on the terror watch list to legally buy guns in the US (something we think has happened several thousand times, and yes this is a real debate).

There can be no doubt that the nation needs to both develop a better response to the Islamic State and have a respectful, public debate about it. Given how the two parties responded last week to Paris, I am proud of how the Democrats have responded, and worried about where the GOP is headed at a time when we need to come together, work with our allies and be smart (see here for my thoughts on the US should move forward now “After Paris.”)

The US remains a welcoming, generous nation - And while I disagree with Ryan’s refugee bill, I also want to challenge the assertions by some that we are an ungenerous nation when it comes to allowing immigrants into the US. Since 1950 the US has allowed close to 50 million immigrants into the US legally. Another 4 million refugees have resettled here, and another 11 million or so have come here without authorization. In the past 65 years, the US has absorbed 65 million new immigrants – an extraordinary number, equal to 1/5th of our total population today. We are currently taking in 1 million new legal immigrants every year in the US; so over the next 100 years at current rates we will take in 100 million more new immigrants. This graph does a good job capturing both the scale of the recent migration into the US, and its diversity. So while we may head into the Thanksgiving break disappointed with the GOP, we should not for a moment buy into the argument that America is anything but a generous and welcoming nation to immigrants from throughout the world.

See the graph below for US immigration trends ("200 Years of Immigration to the U.S.", Natalia Bronshtein).

I remain convinced that the Democrats should make it far more explicit on their strategy for improving the immigration system. I offered this three part plan as a starting point, one that would include reintroducing the House Democrats immigration bill from 2014, fully funding the Vice President’s Central American plan and supporting the aggressive efforts by this Administration – and repeatedly blocked by the GOP – to make the deportation of dangerous criminals the highest priority of our immigration enforcement system.  Pro-reform advocates should stop playing defense now and go out and make it clear how we want to modernize and improve America's terribly broken immigration system. 

Polling/National Landscape – The GOP field saw changes last week: Trump’s lead increased across the nation and in the early primary states; Carson, as we predicted, has begun to fade; Cruz and Rubio are making meaningful gains. If current trends continue the GOP race could soon be a three way among Trump, Rubio and Cruz with a large group in the back of the field hanging on by their fingernails and not much else.

The Democratic side saw Hillary having another good week, appearing Presidential and competent in the days after Paris. Bernie Sanders, however, choose to go ahead and give a major address on “democratic socialism,” an act that seemed to reinforce both the liabilities and limitations of his spirited candidacy. What should be worrisome to the Democrats, however, is the initial hit in the polls Obama took this week. After what was the very best run he had had in almost three years in Gallup, the President lost 5 or so points in the last few days. It is a reminder to Democrats that while there is now great optimism about the revitalized Clinton campaign, the performance of the President over the next year will matter as much to 2016 as what she does. It will be important for the President to return from his foreign trip and take control of the substance and politics of this debate about how to best rid the world of the Islamic State and bring a better day to Syria and the broader Middle East.

"Monday Musings" is a new column looking at the national political landscape published most Mondays here on the NDN site.  You find previous versions here

Monday Musings: Natl landscape leaning Dem, security re-emerges as top 2016 issue

State of the race – Despite having two debates this past week, don’t think the race has changed all that much. Clinton still dominates the Dem side, and the big five – Carson, Trump, Cruz, Rubio and Bush – the GOP. With the next round of debates coming in a month, not sure the race will change all that much till then. But you never know.

Where there has been some movement is in general election polling. In two national polls last week Clinton had advantages of at least 3-4 points over most of her opponents in general election match ups. This is significant as pre-recovery Clinton was even or trailed most GOPers. Additionally, Obama’s job approval rating is now clearly up in the high 40s/low 50s, where the Democrats need it to be next year. In the Gallup daily track he has had his best run since early 2013, and hit 50% this weekend for the first time in almost three years. Given the advantage Democrats have in Party ID and favs/unfavs, the race is settling in where it felt like it should be – with Clinton having a modest but significant 3 to 4 point advantage now.

As we wrote last week, however, the dark cloud on the horizon is the lack of enthusiasm in the Democratic coalition, an issue which has plagued the Democrats in 2 of the last 3 elections. Stan Greenberg warned about this in his most recent poll memo and the inadequate Democratic debate schedule is an extraordinary missed opportunity to engage the Democratic coalition a year out. There are many things the Democrats can do to improve their debate schedule. In this memo, I lay out three things they should do right now to help close the gap with a far superior Republican approach to the debates.

Hats off to John Dickerson – I add my voice to the chorus of praise for John Dickerson. The CBS anchor set a very high bar for the future debates. He was in control, fair, subdued, knowledgeable and tough. Kudos to him and CBS for doing such an excellent job on Saturday.

After Paris – There can be little doubt now that the Paris attacks and the Islamic State's effort to reach beyond its current borders will bring a new dynamic to the 2016 race. I offer up some initial thoughts on what is likely to come next in this new essay. But Democrats should be taking all of this very seriously. The Republicans used this sense of an unsafe world to their advantage in 2014. In national polling the basket of issues around foreign policy and security are President Obama’s greatest liability. As I’ve written before, there is an opening here for the GOP to exploit if they are measured and adroit (not likely). But above all else, Paris means that security issues will be a very important part of the 2016 conversation, and Democrats need to be prepared to engage in what will be complicated, volatile policy and political terrain.

"Monday Musings" is a new column looking at the national political landscape published most Mondays here on the NDN site.  You find previous versions here

As feared and predicted, 2nd Dem debate draws very small audience

As many predicted, the unusual experiment of hosting a Presidential debate on a Saturday night brought the Democrats very few viewers, clocking in at just 8.5 million for the night. This compares with 23m, 23m, 14m and 13m for the first four GOP debates, and 16m for the Democrat's only other debate. An audience tally so far:

The Republicans - The 4 GOP debates so far have reached 73m viewers or 18.25m per debate. If this average holds for the remaining 7 scheduled GOP debates the 11 GOP debates will reach a little more than 200 million viewers.

The Democrats – The 2 Democratic debates so far have reached almost 25 million viewers, or 12.5m per debate. If his averages holds the 6 Dem debates will reach a total of 75 million viewers. With 2 of the 4 remaining debates on weekends, another in Spanish and the other on a non-commercial broadcast network, it is possible that the total will come closer to 60 million than 75 million  The Republicans, of course, have already  reached the 75m mark after just 4 debates with a superior approach.

Two additional observations:

GOP will reach three times as many people - At this rate the Republicans are on track to reach three times as many people through their debates as the Democrats will.  The gap is about 125m-140m, or about the same number of people who will vote in the general election next year.  And keep in mind this gap is magnified by the time people are spending watching these debates (far more than a 30 second spot), and the days of free media generated by the debates themselves. It is hard to put an exact figure on all this but it is safe to say that the DNC has made a choice to give the RNC a free media advantage of hundreds of millions of dollars this primary season, or the equivalent of what a large Super PAC is likely to spend this entire cycle.

Reliance on broadcast to deliver was a mistake - In a Friday Politico story, a DNC official defended its schedule by saying they were going for bigger audiences with the big broadcast networks. While in the abstract going with the big broadcast networks could have produced large audiences, weeknight debates even with low rated cable networks like CNN and Fox Business have produced audiences twice as large as the Democratic debate last night. In the social media and digital age, viewers can find other TV channels if sent there through aggressive marketing. The value of traditional networks for aggregating audience just simply isn't what it used to be (and I say this as an ABC News alum) and their audiences skew old. The Democratic coalition of course is much younger, and not avid TV watchers.  Reaching large number of Democrats would have required an entirely different approach than the one the DNC has pursued this cycle.

As we've been writing for months now, the Republicans have produced a far better debate approach than the Democrats.  It is critical that while there is still time the DNC take steps to close the gap with the GOP.  Failure to do so will make the job of every Democratic candidate that much harder next year. 

Note: this piece has been updated.  Early estimates had the audience last night at 7.2m.  Late this afternoon these estimates were updated to 8.5m.  We updated the analysis above to reflect the more accurate and larger figure.  

After Paris: An Early Take On What Comes Next

On the day after the Paris attacks, some initial thoughts:

Can we develop and execute a comprehensive plan to deal with ISIS? - We are now facing a true test of the civilized world. Can we muster the will over the next decade to end the Syrian conflict, manage the refugee crisis, come to a rough regional peace between Sunni and Shi'a, Arab and Persian, Palestinian and Israeli? Can we saddle up once again for a significant military engagement in MENA, doing what is required to "destroy and degrade" ISIS, knowing full well that we will lose more young Americans and the outcome is not certain? Can we continue to invest in distributed, cleaner energy to ensure the despotic governments of the region have far less capacity to export chaos and oppress their own people? Can we create a global dialogue about the lack of opportunity for tens of millions of young people in MENA, whose repressive, oligarchical societies continue to be relentless breeding grounds for radicalism?

What happens now is as much about us as it is about them.....we know what needs to happen - can we get it done? Do we have the resolve, the vision, the patience and the capacity? Perhaps no more important work in the world today........let's let this debate begin now in earnest.

Rising anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe - There can be little doubt that the attack in Paris will cause the rising anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe to soar. It will make managing the ongoing Syrian refugee crisis far more challenging, and will likely strengthen anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties throughout the continent. This sentiment could also effect other important US priorities like TTIP and the ongoing discussions over data flows and other 21st century tech issues already contentious between the US and EU.

For the US these developments should be as worrisome as any other, and add to the pressure of taking decisive now. The political negotiations in Vienna on Syria's future showed promise today. Let us work hard there now to accelerate the political track too long neglected.

Additionally, my hope is that here at home Paris will make the logic for TPP more compelling, and help us pass this important legislation in the spring. Paris is a powerful reminder of the need for the civilized world to invest in those institutions and arrangements that work to ensure that the international order and modernity prevail over their opponents in the years ahead.  TPP is a critical part of that strategy, and should be sold that way to the American people. 

Huge Thank You to US security services - Given the chaos we are seeing in the world today, it is truly remarkable so little of it has come to the US in recent years.  The entire nation should be grateful for the truly incredible job those protecting us have done to keep us safe in an uncertain age.  

Impact on US immigration debate? - What impact it has on the US immigration debate remains to be seen, but I assume it will strengthen the restrictionists here.

The campaign against ISIS in the region appears to be gaining steam - The campaign against ISIS in the region itself seems to have had some significant victories in the past few days. Is this a turning point? A sign that we now understand the terrain and are becoming more effective at targeting the enemy? Will be interesting to hear from our military leaders with their take in the days to come. 

That France has called the struggle with ISIS a "war" is significant.  Will chapter 5 of the NATO treaty be invoked? Far more effective way to mobilize reluctant populations in the West for what could be a long and diffcult - but necessary - struggle.  Watch the words of our leaders in the days ahead, particularly at the G20 in Turkey.  

This version has some minor corrections from the initial draft. 

Syndicate content