Saints coach Sean Payton has long liked receiver Dez Bryant. When Bryant was cut by the Cowboys, the two stayed in touch. Not only does Payton admire Bryant’s skill, but Bryant also brings to mind one of Payton’s favorite players.
“He reminds me of Shockey,” Payton told B/R.
That’s Jeremy Shockey, the former Saints tight end, who, like Bryant, was as talented as he was fiery.
Now, with the addition of Bryant, the Saints can boast of having, quite possibly, one of the most talented offenses the sport has seen in the past five to 10 years.
They have a Hall of Famer at quarterback in Drew Brees. Running back Alvin Kamara is the second-best running back in football to Todd Gurley. Kamara’s backfield partner, Mark Ingram, rushed for 1,043 yards in 2016 and 1,124 yards last season. (On any other team, Ingram would be a star.) Mike Thomas is a top-five wide receiver. Tre’Quan Smith is a promising rookie pass-catcher. And then they sprinkle in tight ends Benjamin Watson and Josh Hill and versatile weapon Taysom Hill.
To that group the Saints have added Bryant, who from 2012 to 2014 posted three consecutive seasons with at least 1,200 yards receiving.
Many franchises would thank the football gods in the matrix to have just Brees. Or just Kamara. Tom Brady would give up his lifestyle guru to have Thomas.
The Saints aren’t a Dream Team; they’re just dreamy. But, like any group of stars, the key question surrounding them is whether all of this talent can be managed. Could all of these egos collide in the locker room? Could a volatile personality like Bryant disrupt a team that is 7-1 and a favorite to reach the Super Bowl?
To Sean Payton, Dez Bryant reminds him of the fiery demeanor and physical style of play Jeremy Shockey once brought to the Saints.Bill Feig/Associated Press
Many times throughout NFL history, these types of all-star teams have failed miserably. The 2011 Eagles added defensive back Nnamdi Asomugha, defensive end Jason Babin, running back Ronnie Brown, cornerback Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, defensive tackle Cullen Jenkins, tight end Donald Lee, guard Evan Mathis, wide receiver Steve Smith and quarterback Vince Young.
That roster, as B/R’s Dan Pompei pointed out, featured 10 players who had made 25 Pro Bowl appearances. Oddsmakers viewed the Eagles as a good Super Bowl bet.
They finished 8-8.
What they didn’t have is Payton.
If there is anyone in the sport not named Bill Belichick who can mesh all of these blazing personalities into a symphony of elegance, it is the man who has coached the Saints to 184 wins over 12 seasons.
Arguably the best play-caller in the game, Payton has been getting personalities to mesh for years, and it’s the least discussed part of his skill set. The only coach who is better at it is Belichick, who operates a virtual conveyor belt of players and personalities in and out of Foxborough.
“I think this locker room is one of the best locker rooms I’ve ever been a part of as far as the type of character and type of leadership. … We’ve been able to build a culture that we have is because of the type of guys we bring in here.
“Listen, there’s all kinds of different personalities … Everybody when it’s time to work, it’s time to work; when it’s time to have fun, it’s time to have fun. I think everyone complements one another. I think we all want to win, so at the end of the day, if we can bring somebody in here who can help us win, then that’s great.”
Payton and Drew Brees have tried to establish a locker room in New Orleans that allows for players to be themselves as long as they work together on game days.Wesley Hitt/Getty Images
Bryant should work out well in the Saints locker room because Payton and Brees have set a tone in which he can be successful, establishing a culture that allows for different personalities so long as they are all on the same page each weekend.
Payton likely will utilize Bryant the way he did Marques Colston, who played for the Saints from 2006 to 2015. Colston would line up in the slot and not outrun defensive backs, but outmuscle them. And with someone as accurate as Brees to throw him the ball, Colston became a difficult cover, tallying at least 1,000 yards receiving in six of his first seven NFL seasons.
If you’re a defensive coordinator, Bryant wouldn’t rank high on the list of threats to account for against New Orleans, and that should draw a lot of single coverage from third- and fourth-level defensive backs. Bryant will eat those coverages for breakfast.
That promises to make for a lot of spoiled meals each week for any team that lines up against the Saints.
Mike Freeman covers the NFL for Bleacher Report. Follow him on Twitter: @mikefreemanNFL.
India is participating in a Russia-sponsored peace conference with Taliban in a significant reassessment of its position on talks with the armed group that has waged an armed rebellion since 2001.
New Delhi has sent former Indian envoys to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Amar Sinha and TCA Raghavan respectively to attend the conference at the “non-official level”.
“India supports all efforts at peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan that will preserve unity and plurality, and bring security, stability and prosperity to the country,” India’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said.
“India’s consistent policy has been that such efforts should be Afghan-led, Afghan-owned, and Afghan-controlled and with participation of the Government of Afghanistan,” he said.
Moscow said it had invited representatives from the United States as well as Iran, China, Pakistan and five former Soviet republics in Central Asia.
A five-member Taliban delegation led by Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanakzai, head of the Taliban’s political council in Qatar, also attended the talks in Moscow.
The US has said it will send a representative from its embassy in Moscow to attend Friday’s talks.
India’s participation is a stark departure from its earlier position as it has never engaged in formal talks with the Taliban group.
Foreign policy analyst, Manoj Joshi from the Observer Research Foundation, said the talks in Moscow come at a time when the Taliban have steadily fortified their control in the Afghan countryside.
“Essentially, India has bowed to the inevitable since the US, Russia, China and even the Afghan government have all indicated one way or the other that they are ready to talk with the Taliban,” Joshi told Al Jazeera.
“New Delhi is confident that the host Russians would not do anything which would be against India’s interests. Also, in participating in these talks, India takes the view that since the Afghan government, through the High Peace Council, is present, there should be no problem,” he added.
Pakistan FM: “War is no option. The only solution is dialogue.” | Talk to Al Jazeera
The High Peace Council is a government body responsible for reconciliation efforts with the Taliban.
“Element of seriousness”
The Russian diplomatic efforts come weeks after newly appointed US special envoy for peace in Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, held talks with Taliban in Qatar.
He will visit Afghanistan, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar from November 8 to 20 in an effort to end 17-year-old war in Afghanistan.
“There has been a shift in US policy – earlier, even though the previous administration spoke about a negotiated settlement, there was no concrete direction,” Zahid Hussain, an Islamabad-based security analyst, told Al Jazeera.
“For the first time now, the US is talking directly to the Taliban, which is also acceptable to the Taliban, as this was their demand from the outset. There has been some movement.
“There is an element of seriousness from all sides.”
Reconciliation efforts
Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has previously proposed talks with the Taliban, saying they could be recognised as a political party if they accepted a ceasefire and recognised the country’s constitution.
The Taliban, who have been fighting the US-led forces since they were ousted from power in 2001, have generally refused to negotiate with the Afghan government.
“Although the Afghan government is preparing to negotiate, many people are now blaming the government particularly President Ghani,” said Hekmatullah Azamy, acting head of Centre for Conflict and Peace Studies in Kabul.
“They argue that successful peace talks mean a new interim administration which will be unacceptable to President Ghani,” Azamy told Al Jazeera.
In the meeting on Friday, members of the High Peace Council (HPC) said they are ready for talks with Taliban without any preconditions.
“The future of Taliban is a matter of serious concern for the group – both at the leadership level as well as for its rank and file,” Azamy said.
“Taliban often questions whether they are ready to become a 100 percent political group and whether they can survive mainstream politics.
“Moreover, would the rank and file follow the leaders or will they join groups like Daesh (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant group).”
Taliban officials have set withdrawal of all foreign forces, the release of prisoners and the lifting of a ban on travel as a preconditions for any peace talks.
India had earlier refused to support a 2007 initiative of former Afghan President Hamid Karzai to engage the “good Taliban” in the peace process.
“Some make a distinction between ‘good Taliban’ and ‘bad Taliban’ – I don’t, because I’ve seen the Taliban, they have only one cult – the cult of violence,” then Foreign Minister of India Pranab Mukherjee had said.
The Taliban group has inflicted heavy toll on Afghan security forces in renewed attacks in recent weeks.
At least 20 Afghan army soldiers were killed at a border outpost in western Afghanistan on Tuesday.
More than 17 years after US-led forces invaded the country and removed the Taliban, the war is intensifying. In recent months, violence has continued with mounting casualties on both sides.
There have been several attempts in recent years to broker a settlement between the Western-backed government in Kabul and the Taliban without much success.
“India’s representatives are attending the talks in Moscow as part of efforts to bring peace and stability to the region. It’s not switching tack but evolving assessment of ground realities,” said a ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lawmaker in New Delhi on condition of anonymity.
“All efforts towards making peace, whether the US-led talks or Russia-led talks, will help. We will be there to observe,” he added.
According to Azamy from Kabul India is one of the important stakeholders enjoying friendly ties wih Kabul. He says it is vital for New Delhi to be a part of peace talks, especially with the Taliban involved.
“Without India’s involvement, the outcome of peace talks could upset them or make them feel insecure. They want to be engaged and aware of the developments,” he said.
India has forged a close partnership with Kabul since the fall of Taliban. It has engaged in infrastructure and welfare projects in the war-torn country worth millions of dollars earning goodwill from Afghans.
It has also provided training to Afghan military personnel as well as donating military hardware as part of its policy to deepen military ties.
“By attending the Taliban talks, India can get a voice in the outcome of the peace process, where it has none at present. It will try to coordinate with the Afghan government which it supports strongly,” analyst Joshi told Al Jazeera.
“Simultaneously, the process enables it to build ties with the Taliban, even if somewhat late in the day. India cannot ignore the fact that ground realities ensure that the Taliban will be in the Afghan governing structure in some form or the other.”
With additional reporting by Asad Hashim from Islamabad, Pakistan
If Planet Earth II and Blue Planet II left you with an unquenchable David Attenborough-based thirst, we have some splendid news for you: There’s a whole lot more Attenborough on the way.
Not only do we have his upcoming BBC doc Dynasties to look forward to, but now we also have an announcement from Netflix: the legendary British presenter will be hosting an eight-part natural history series, Our Planet, which is coming to the streaming service in Spring 2019.
Here’s the very slick-looking, animal-packed teaser:
The series has been four years in the making, with a 600-strong crew filming in 50 different countries, according to a press release sent to Mashable. It will focus on showing “the planet’s most precious species and fragile habitats”.
“Our Planet will take viewers on a spectacular journey of discovery showcasing the beauty and fragility of our natural world,” said Attenborough at a recent event in London.
“Today we have become the greatest threat to the health of our home but there’s still time for us to address the challenges we’ve created, if we act now. We need the world to pay attention. Our Planet brings together some of the world’s best filmmakers and conservationists and I’m delighted to help bring this important story to millions of people worldwide.”
Our Planet comes to Netflix globally on 5th Apr., 2019.
In this year’s battle for control of the U.S. House of Representatives, two dueling generals were Charlie Kelly and Corry Bliss. This is an era of weakened parties, and much of the financial and strategic air-cover for candidates across the country was provided by the biggest outside organizations: Kelly’s House Majority PAC, allied with Democrats, and Bliss’ Congressional Leadership Fund, allied with Republicans.
Both super PACs are allowed to bring in unlimited sums of campaign cash—and they did. The Congressional Leadership Fund raised and spent roughly $160 million for the election, while House Majority PAC and its partner organization, Patriot Majority, raised and spent roughly $113 million. As the executive directors of their respective organizations, Bliss and Kelly were engaged in a high-stakes political chess match, moving millions of dollars around the map supporting—and attacking—candidates in the country’s tightest races.
Story Continued Below
The House GOP was destined to play defense in 2018: A first-term president’s party loses an average of 32 seats in the midterm election, and Donald Trump’s polarizing tenure sparked a groundswell of energy and money in the Democratic base. “The last time we did this, the first midterm of an incumbent president in 2010, we picked up 63 seats,” Bliss said. “So history said this was going to be a tough environment. Throw in 40-plus retirements—and throw in the green wave with $100 million from Michael Bloomberg on top—and you’re going to create a very tough map and a very tough environment.”
For Democrats, some of the obvious targets represented upscale, traditionally Republican suburbs where Trump has proved toxic. But they were also able to stretch the GOP’s resources by competing in certain rural districts where the president is popular. Kelly called this a “parallel track strategy,” and it rested on a fundamental advantage: Many Republican incumbents—due to gerrymandering, demographic changes or both—had no experience running a tough race. “Totally caught flat-footed, not prepared to run a modern campaign,” Kelly said.
Less than 24 hours after the polls closed, I sat down separately with Kelly and Bliss for a special post-election edition of POLITICO’s “Off Message” podcast. What follows is a conversation—spliced from those interviews—about how the House was won, what the results tell us about the country’s political, cultural and geographic divisions and where Congress goes from here.
(Note: The interviews are condensed for brevity. District numbers and party affiliations are added for clarity.)
***
ALBERTA: I want to talk about the biggest surprises of the election cycle. Charlie, what was the most pleasant surprise for you? A race that you weren’t necessarily expecting to win, but when it came on the board for Democrats, you were thrilled.
KELLY: Upstate New York I was watching very, very closely. Super encouraged by [Democrat] Anthony Brindisi in New York-22. That’s one of the places where we invested starting in April on our paid media efforts and over the course of the summer, ran a digital program there. And then obviously, in the fall, right around Labor Day and on, we were on TV almost throughout.
ALBERTA: And that’s a district where Trump has been pretty popular.
KELLY: Yeah, he is. In the data that we saw, he was probably a plus-10 or -12 job performance. The generic ballot was not in our favor there. I think people, if they were to say, “Well, the generic is in your favor everywhere,” it was not in Upstate New York, certainly in Central New York. He overperformed and I think the contrast that we outlined early on to help disqualify [Republican incumbent Claudia] Tenney was really, really important. Health care-oriented, increase in premiums, the age tax, the fact that the tax plan increased the debt and to pay for it, cutting Medicare and Social Security. Powerful arguments, things that we’ve seen nationally. But those were focused there.
ALBERTA: Corry, before we lay too much blame on the president, you did have some districts where Donald Trump is pretty popular. And I’m thinking specifically up in the Hudson Valley with Tenney and John Faso [Republican, N.Y.-19], two incumbents who, despite Trump’s standing in their districts, could not get across the finish line.
BLISS: In this environment, if you get outraised 3-to-1, 4-to-1, if you wait until the last four months to try really hard, you are asking for trouble. In those two districts, President Trump is plus-10, plus-15; they were only close because of President Trump. Candidates and campaigns matter.
ALBERTA: A lot.
BLISS: A lot. And the tougher the year, the more it matters. One person who I think ran a perfect campaign and lost by a nose is Carlos Curbelo [Fla.-26] I think Curbelo ran a great race, worked hard, raised money, was in tune with the district, and he lost by a little bit over a point in a district that Hillary Clinton [won] by 16. But it wasn’t enough, and that’s very disappointing because I think he deserved to win.
KELLY: Curbelo was a surprise. We saw the trend line upwards towards the end. But winning two seats out of Miami-Dade County, I think, is extraordinary.
BLISS: On the other side, if we’re being honest, there were a couple members of Congress who didn’t raise enough money, who didn’t start early enough, who I guess didn’t work hard enough. You know, Steve Russell [Republican, Okla.-05] raised about a million dollars for the cycle. You know, Dan Donovan [Republican, N.Y.-11] raised almost no money after the primary. And those were races—in the world of the green wave where Michael Bloomberg puts $2 million into Oklahoma at the end, where Dan Donovan’s opponent outspent him about 10-to-1 on TV, if you’re not prepared, if you don’t start early, if you don’t raise money in the off year, if you don’t put our campaign together in the off-year, in this environment you can get caught at the wire.
If we’re being honest, there were a couple members of Congress who … didn’t work hard enough.”
KELLY: The true surprises were South Carolina-01 and Oklahoma-05. But here’s what I’ll say about those two: Heading into Election Day, South Carolina-01, we actually had survey data that had us down a couple. One of our partner groups, 314 Action was big in that race, and they’ve done a lot of sort of paid-media work. We saw that two-thirds of the African-American voters were undecided at that point. We felt if they broke the way we expected them to break that we could actually potentially pick up that race and that’s one where the strategy is lie in wait and see what happens.
ALBERTA: Don’t draw too much attention to it.
KELLY: Exactly, And then Oklahoma-05, the Bloomberg folks were on the case there. They sort of said, “Look, we’ll take a flyer here and see what the reality is.” And obviously, it played out.
ALBERTA: Charlie, what about the unpleasant surprises? Give me a couple of races you were really feeling optimistic about, and they just didn’t quite get across the finish line.
KELLY: Kansas-02. I think Paul Davis is an exceptional public servant. I think he’s in it for the right reasons. He’s a terrific guy. I thought that he would sneak that one out. I expected Paul Davis to come to Congress, so that’s a tough one. Minnesota-01 with Dan Feehan. I’m from Minnesota. I thought that we would potentially hold that Walz seat. I think some of the doom and gloom stuff at the end of the cycle that the Republicans sort of relied on kind of snuck up and caught Feehan. There’s still potential there, there’s a recount. But at this point, that one looks tough.
ALBERTA: Corry, what were the pleasant surprises for you? What was the race that in your heart of hearts you were counting out for Republicans, that they wound up winning?
BLISS: I’m really surprised and I’m really happy that we won [Republican] Brian Fitzpatrick’s race in Pennsylvania-01. That was a tough district; that’s a Hillary Clinton district. He ran against a self-funder. He was outspent by almost $4 million. He ran a great campaign focused on local issues from the water well to the opioid epidemic. And we were proud to help him. We were proud to play a big role in the two seats we picked up in Minnesota. Pete Stauber [Republican, Minn.-08], we knocked on almost 500,000 doors there, and we were the biggest spender in that race. Jim Hagedorn [Republican, Minn.-01] we spent significant resources on his race. Mimi Walters [Republican, Calif.-45] ran a great campaign, won a very tough race in a tough district. She was outspent by almost $3 million. Young Kim [Republican, Calif.-39] was one of our biggest expenditures in Orange County. I think she will be a future superstar of the party, the first Korean-American woman ever elected to Congress.
If you get to create this image of a nonpartisan, bipartisan mom or dad with three cute little kids and you’re just going to save the world—and, oh, P.S. before you decided to come save the world, you spent a couple of years in the Middle East blowing up terrorists—you’re going to win.
ALBERTA: There were a lot of great Democratic recruits that benefited from Republican incumbents being asleep at the switch. In the two Texas races, the 32nd District and the 7th District, where these Republican incumbents, John Culberson in the Houston area and Pete Sessions in the Dallas area, these guys had not faced a tough election in long time—if ever.
KELLY: In Texas-32, Colin Allred ran a spectacular campaign.
ALBERTA: You told me you thought he might be the best recruit of the entire cycle.
KELLY: Oh, there’s no question. He’s been successful. Everything he touches is gold—from his career as a professional football player, his work as an attorney. Again, he has a record of success in the community. He won a very contested primary, and then he ran a very tough runoff so he was sort of battle-hardened for the general election. Sessions didn’t take it seriously. These districts, too, in both Texas-32 and Texas-7, they’ve changed so much under the incumbents’ feet. It’s much more diverse in both of them. Beto O’Rourke helped, and the surge around his campaign was big and that obviously, pushed us over, probably.
BLISS: And the Democrats deserve credit. They did a great job with hard-dollar, small-dollar fundraising that helped their candidates get on TV early, start earlier than ever before. There were a number of these races that if we didn’t win August, it wouldn’t matter who was going to win October because the Democrats had record amounts of money and they did a good job recruiting good stories and good candidates. In this environment, if you get to create this image of a nonpartisan, bipartisan mom or dad with three cute little kids and you’re just going to save the world—and, oh, P.S., before you decided to come save the world, you spent a couple of years in the Middle East blowing up terrorists—you’re going to win. It doesn’t matter where you’re running or who you’re running against.
ALBERTA: Someone who fits that profile is Elissa Slotkin [Democrat, Mich.-08), a former CIA analyst who upset Republican incumbent Mike Bishop. Charlie, talk about the quality of the Democratic recruits—not just in the abstract, but as a fit for their districts. In the Midwest and in Trump-friendly parts of the country, these candidates went out of their way throughout the campaign to triangulate against what could be perceived as a Democratic Party nationally that might be moving too far left. And they were very intentional in these campaigns to present themselves not as partisan firebrands but as pragmatic, thoughtful individuals. How difficult is it, in an environment like this, for candidates to thread that needle?
KELLY: I think that that was the message from the top. I mean, these are common sense leaders in their communities who want to get things done. And I think whether it’s in Michigan, Elissa Slotkin or Haley Stevens [Democrat, Mich.-11]. Whether you’re talking about Upstate New York, across the Midwest, even out to California. These folks have had success in their professional fields and a diverse array of professional fields. And heading to Congress, what they want to do is they want to pursue an agenda that works to lift up the middle class. That’s the unifier. That’s when we’ve had the most success as the Democratic Party.
ALBERTA: Let’s talk about the suburbs. Across the map last night, from Detroit to Chicago to Philly to New York to Washington to Houston to Oklahoma City to Los Angeles, you’ve got Republicans hemorrhaging support in the suburbs. Corry, where do you see that trend taking the party and what adjustments need to be made in order to prevent long-term damage?
BLISS: Almost every race is winnable. There are very few races that are not winnable, and I think candidates and campaigns really, really matter. Look at a couple of the winners from last night. Mimi Walters ran a tremendous campaign focused on what she has accomplished for her constituents from legislation to get rid of sex trafficking, to going home every weekend and selling tax reform. And that’s a very tough district, a very affluent, educated district. Brian Fitzpatrick in Bucks County, Pa., a district that Hillary Clinton won. He did a great job, focused on local issues, put a diverse coalition together, and he won by a comfortable margin. So candidates and campaigns matter. In some races there’s other factors that play in, sometimes the top of the ticket. The top of the ticket in Illinois certainly didn’t help Peter Roskam [Republican, Ill.-06]. It certainly didn’t help Randy Hultgren [Republican, Ill.-14].
Yes, we struggled in districts that Hillary Clinton won, but if we have good candidates who run strong campaigns, we have every opportunity to win almost all those seats back in two years.
ALBERTA: As we’re seeing many of these affluent, white-collar, college-educated suburbanites moving towards the Democratic Party, it’s happening the other way around with blue collar, middle class and working-class voters moving toward the Republican Party. Republicans are concerned about losing those suburbs, Charlie, but what level of concern should Democrats have about these exurban and rural areas that were once your party’s stronghold?
KELLY: Early on in this cycle, I always believed that we had an opportunity in these noncollege or sort of working-class districts. A lot of them have Democratic DNA. It’s one of the reasons we’ve done two cycles working with the steelworkers and others in legally permissible ways. They started, I think through US Works, a long-term research program years ago to better understand sort of some of the challenges facing Democrats broadly in some of these noncollege districts, more rural and exurban districts. We’ve clearly had challenges for cultural and economic reasons over the last couple of cycles. But when you make an economic case to these voters, the kitchen-table stuff, you can have success. Iowa-01, which went for Trump in 2016, we had success with [Democrat] Abby Finkenauer, her labor background, she did a terrific job. [Democrat] Cindy Axne in Iowa-3, which is southwestern Iowa from Des Moines to Omaha, we won that district as well. There were a number of places we were competitive last night that Trump did well in 2016. I think we’ll continue to be competitive. We just need to make the economic case. I will double down on these districts because I believe for us to have a national party, a party of success, we need to be competitive everywhere and make the economic appeal. Because again, when we’re at our best, we’re making that appeal.
ALBERTA: And part of the success for Democrats in those areas was not going after Trump.
KELLY: The Trump stuff is baked in. We know that. Our research suggests it. The chaos, the noise in Washington—people are used to it for whatever reason. But beyond that, it’s, “What are you doing for me?” That’s what folks are saying in these communities. The Democratic candidates spoke to that. And a lot of the noise from the Republican side, a lot of the doom and gloom stuff, I think fell flat. They pursued a scattershot message strategy. They said they’re going to run on taxes; they didn’t. They moved on in [Pennsylvania Democrat] Conor Lamb’s race quickly to immigration and then they moved on to him being weak on crime, etc. It didn’t work. It played out in other races as well. They had a “kill them in the cradle” strategy at the beginning of August that largely fell flat. For a couple of races that may have had marginal success, but those were sort of self-inflicted wounds that the Democrats had.
ALBERTA: Kentucky-06, for example.
KELLY: Yeah. And maybe Ohio-01, the mistakes made.
ALBERTA: Republicans would say they played a role in taking down those Democratic candidates, using their self-inflicted wounds against them.
BLISS: Kentucky-06 was the first race we went on TV in July. After the primary our first survey had [Democrat] Amy McGrath’s image at 53-14 and she was leading by 13 points on the ballot. One of the reasons why we had to go on TV in July was she raised $8.5 million dollars. One of the reasons why CLF had to go on TV in the first week of August in Cincinnati for [Republican] Steve Chabot [Ohio-01], he was running against a first-time opponent. We had that race tied. His opponent basically had unlimited money and was going to be on TV any day. That there was a number of these races that I think CLF played a big role in winning.
KELLY: But against Jared Golden [Democrat, Maine-02], they put him in tattoos. It didn’t work. [NOTE: The Maine-02 race is in a recount.] They attempted the same thing in New York-19. It completely fell flat, really sort of a silly argument made against [Democrat Anthony] Delgado. They attempted it in Kansas-03 against [Democrat] Sharice Davids. It fell flat. She had a lead throughout. Time and time again, their sort of strategy—again, all over the place, throw anything against the wall—but none of it really worked.
ALBERTA: One thing that did work, early on, was tying Democrats to Nancy Pelosi. We saw that in the Georgia-06 special election, Corry, where Republicans spent $18 million to hold that seat in the Atlanta suburbs, a district Trump had carried by 23 points, because of the symbolic value. And you told me afterwards, “We won the battle, but we may have lost the war.”
BLISS: That special election seems like it was 20 years ago.
ALBERTA: Yes, it does.
BLISS: We learned a couple lessons in Georgia-06. No. 1, it was astronomical how much [Democrat] Jon Ossoff raised. I mean, Jon Ossoff basically was just a kid who lived in his parents’ basement who raised $30 million on the internet. One of the moments I’ll always remember is the first report came out, and I believe he had raised $8.5 million, and I looked on Twitter and said, “This has to be a typo. Jon Ossoff sitting in his underwear in his parents’ basement raised $8.5 million in a month?” But that taught us the green wave is coming. We won, but we did such a good job attacking, defining and beating Jon Ossoff, maybe we did too good of a job. Because it was all about tying him to Pelosi—San Francisco money, San Francisco liberal values. It basically provided a road map to a lot of candidates: Study Jon Ossoff and do the opposite. Conor Lamb, who is a much better candidate than Jon Ossoff, you could tell that he had studied Jon Ossoff very closely and decided just to do the opposite. So we won the battle, it may have hurt us in the war. It’s nobody’s fault. At the time, we had to win that race.
KELLY: Our counterpart wasted a ton of money on what I call “away games” for us in special elections. Tens of millions of dollars. We come into the last nine weeks, and they expect, “Well, we’ve had an advantage throughout, we’re going to have one throughout.” Not at all. And I think that was really, really important.
BLISS: My job is to do the best that I can do with what I can control, and that is raise as much money as possible. Thanks to Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy, CLF was able to raise and spend $160 million, which was a big deal because of one of the tactical challenges we faced with the green wave. I think there’s a case to be made that if it wasn’t for CLF raising $160 million, being able to compete in 52 races, helping spread Democrat money across the country, that we could have lost upwards of 50 seats last night.
KELLY: On the Democratic independent-expenditure front, we raised and spent record amounts here at House Majority PAC. We had 400,000 unique contributions, $113 million approximately between us and our C4 partner, Patriot Majority. But the partnership and leveraging the sort of resources and the strategic way among the IE progressive partners—Independence USA, folks in the environmental community, labor, Emily’s List—was exceptional. Over $200 million this cycle. And I think we really surprised the other side.
We laid in wait until Labor Day. You sort of picture … Braveheart:“Hold, hold, and then boom.”
ALBERTA: They’re not used to being outspent.
KELLY: They’re not used to being outspent. And we laid in wait until Labor Day. You sort of picture that, what is it in Braveheart:“Hold, hold, and then boom.” Come Labor Day, the last nine weeks, we let them have it. We outspent the other side in 90 percent of the districts, the competitive districts for the last nine weeks.
BLISS: If there’s one thing I really wish we could have done, I wish we could have figured out a way to have convinced Michael Bloomberg to give us the $100 million and not the Democrats, and that would have really helped win a whole bunch of seats. You know, in almost every race we were outspent—in 45 out of 52 races CLF participated in—we were outspent by an average of almost $2 million.
ALBERTA: And Charlie, as you watched the National Republican Congressional Committee dump $5 million into Republican Barbara Comstock’s race in Virginia-11—even as it was clear that she was not going to be able to win reelection—what are you thinking to yourself?
KELLY: Silliness. What a waste of money. We saw [Democrat Jennifer] Wexton up 16 points in July. We polled there every week to make sure because we ended up canceling our television time, and we saw that she was consistently down double digits. They just kept spending money. It was a giant waste of money. They did it, actually, in a couple of places, and I have no idea why. Colorado-06 is another place.
ALBERTA: I want to close by discussing where the Democratic Party goes from here. There are some parallels between 2010 and 2018, with the incumbent president’s party facing a backlash from the grassroots of the other party. The one thing I reflect on is how, in 2010, many of those Republican challengers were framing themselves as independent-minded, and saying they wanted to push back on the Republican establishment, and saying they didn’t trust either party. But then a lot of them, once they came to Congress, turned into fierce partisans. Charlie, how concerned should Democrats be that once these folks come to D.C. and find themselves in this environment—with a Trump-driven news cycle, everything up to Level 10 every single day—that they will get sucked into that vortex and not stay true to the independent brands that were so effective for them during the campaigns?
KELLY: I think these people had real records of success before running for Congress. I said before, this is the most credentialed group of recruits in a generation. These are problem-solvers inherently. These are common-sense leaders. These are independent-minded folks. They’re going to do I think the right work for those sorts of districts and the work that they feel is of importance to the constituents that they represent.
BLISS: Basically, in every tough race in America, the Democrat campaigned against Pelosi and really against the Democratic Party. I think there’s going to be a lot of new members of Congress who won yesterday, and in a year their constituents will be very surprised and very disappointed to learn they’re actually Democrats. Because a lot of the candidates ran as kind of nonpartisan, bipartisan parents who were just going to come here and save the world, and they didn’t know who Nancy Pelosi was and they’ve never met her, and they certainly wouldn’t vote for her. And I think a lot of their constituents are going to be very disappointed to see what they do when they get here.
ALBERTA: All eyes will be on the new Democratic majority in the coming weeks as they elect their leaders. You had several dozen Democratic candidates across the country saying that they would not support Nancy Pelosi for speaker, and obviously, this is where the going gets tough What do you expect to happen, Charlie? Do you think Nancy Pelosi will be the speaker?
KELLY: Yes, I do. Nancy Pelosi was a terrific speaker. She’s going to be a terrific speaker again, and she has done extraordinary work for the American public. There’s no question about that.
ALBERTA: But will there be a backlash for candidates? How do they get away with voting for her?
KELLY: At the end of the day, look, I know that Nancy Pelosi did a great job as speaker. She’ll do a great job going forward. She’s committed to the—focused on lifting up the middle class, individuals across this country providing economic opportunity, education, infrastructure investments and doing it the right way.
BLISS: Nancy Pelosi is the most unpopular, polarizing politician in American politics, period, end of discussion.
BLISS: I think every Republican hopes she never retires. And it’s clear that Democrats learned very, very little as she is about to become speaker again. And I think we’re all excited to have her be speaker again and remind the American people what that means. That means raising your taxes, weak on the border, San Francisco liberal values. And we’ll see all these candidates who won—saying they don’t know who she is, or they’ve never met her, would never take a picture with her, certainly not take any money from her—we’ll see who they vote for. I predict a lot of them will follow her every step of the way, and that’ll be a big problem for them in two years. That’ll be one of the reasons we take back the House in two years.
We’ve given you a hefty handful of gift guides for specific people this year, but gifting to one single individual isn’t always the case — that’s where couples gifts come in.
So, when is it acceptable to give a joint gift? Here are a few predicaments you might find yourself in:
But of course, there’s also the best case scenario: They’re both your best friends and you’d love to find your favorite pair a gift that they can both use together, forever.
Instead of gifting some atrocious teapot set that looks like it’s straight off your grandma’s wedding registry from 1940, we’re suggesting modern stuff that can improve their lives on a daily basis: Amazon Fire TV devices, double-duty kitchen appliances, personalized drinking items, and more. These are items to slow down mornings where they barely get to see each other, to spice up date night, to make keeping track of kids easier, or just to celebrate finding each other.
It may seem like just another tech gadget to you, but to them, it’s the helping hand their relationship deserves. Here’s what to get for the Jim and Pam in your life:
Russia is hosting peace talks in Moscow to end the war in Afghanistan, drawing delegates from West-backed Kabul government and a group representing the Taliban as well as representatives from a dozen nations, including the US.
Opening Friday’s meeting, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that the participation of both Afghan leaders and the Taliban was an “important contribution” aimed at creating “favourable conditions for the start of direct talks”.
“I am counting on you holding a serious and constructive conversation that will justify the hopes of the Afghan people,” he said before the talks continued behind closed doors.
Russia hopes “through joint efforts to open a new page in the history of Afghanistan,” the Russian foreign minister said.
He emphasised the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group in Afghanistan, saying that it has relied on foreign sponsors in a bid to “turn Afghanistan into a springboard for its expansion in Central Asia”.
The Moscow meeting was initially scheduled to take place in September but was postponed after Kabul insisted that the process should be Afghan-led.
Pakistan, which has long been accused of providing support to the Afghan Taliban, would “definitely” attend, foreign ministry spokesman Muhammad Faisal told AFP news agency.
India is also sending its representative at a “non-official level”, reassessing its policy on talks with the Taliban group.
The conference marks Moscow’s attempt to get the Afghan authorities and the Taliban together at a table. The US Embassy in Moscow has sent a diplomat to observe the discussions.
Russia’s first attempt to hold the conference in September fell through after the Afghan authorities refused to attend.
This time, the Afghan government hasn’t sent its envoys, but members of the government-appointed Peace Council are attending the event.
Taliban officials and Peace Council members have met at past forums elsewhere, and while no formal talks were ever held they have had some face-to face discussions.
Push for peace
The talks come weeks after newly appointed US special envoy for peace in Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, held talks with the Taliban group in Qatar. He will visit Afghanistan, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar from November 8 to 20 to push for peace negotiations with the Taliban.
Khalilzad’s meeting with Taliban, which was ousted from power by US-led forces in 2001, is part of efforts to find a way to end the 17-year-long war in Afghanistan.
“On his last trip to the region in October, Special Representative Khalilzad called on the Afghan Government and the Taliban to organise authoritative negotiating teams, and has been encouraged to see that both parties are taking steps in that direction,” the State Department said in a statement.
“The United States remains committed to a political settlement that results in an end to the war and to the terrorist threat posed to the United States and the world.”
A US watchdog agency said last week that the Afghan government was losing control of districts to the Taliban while casualties among security forces had reached record levels.
The government had control or influence over 65 percent of the population but only 55.5 percent of Afghanistan‘s 407 districts, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction said in a report.
The latest phase of Afghanistan’s decades-old war began in 2001, when the US-led troops overthrew the Taliban government in the wake of the September 11 attacks on the United States.
At least half a million people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan have been killed due to the so-called “war on terror” launched by the United States in the wake of September 11, 2001 attack, according to a study published on Thursday.
The report by the Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs put the death toll between 480,000 and 507,000.
But the paper acknowledged that the numbers of people killed is an “undercount” due to limitations in reporting and “great uncertainty in any count of killing in war”.
“We may never know the total direct death toll in these wars,” wrote Nera Crawford, the author of the paper titled “Human Cost of the Post-9/11 Wars: Lethality and the Need for Transparency”.
“For example, tens of thousands of civilians may have died in retaking Mosul and other cities from ISIS [also known as ISIL] but their bodies have likely not been recovered.”
The report states that between 182,272 and 204,575 civilians have been killed in Iraq, 38,480 in Afghanistan, and 23,372 in Pakistan.
‘War remains intense’
Nearly 7,000 US troops were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in the same time period.
The death toll includes civilians, armed fighters, local police and security forces, and US and allied troops.
People who were indirectly killed as a result of war, such as through disease or bad infrastructure, were not included in the report.
In a statement, Brown University said the new toll “is a more than 110,000 increase over the last count, issued just two years ago in August 2016”.
“Though the war on terror is often overlooked by the American public, press and lawmakers, the increased body count signals that, far from diminishing, this war remains intense.”
As an example, the US war in Afghanistan, which has been the country’s longest military invasion for 17 years, has lessened in intensity in recent years, but the number of civilians in 2018 has been one of the highest death tolls in the war.
“We just got whupped, man,” he said, per Marcel Louis-Jacques of the Charlotte Observer. “It happens.”
That was certainly the case, and the loss ended Carolina’s three-game winning streak and dropped it to 6-3. Newton struggled with Pittsburgh’s constant pressure and finished 23-of-29 passing for 193 yards, two touchdowns and one interception while being sacked five times.
His interception was particularly poor and gave the Steelers the lead when he threw the ball away in the middle of the field to avoid a safety. Vince Williams was waiting for it and returned it for a touchdown.
The loss certainly wasn’t all on Newton, as the offensive line struggled to protect him throughout the game, and the defense was nowhere to be found as Ben Roethlisberger went 22-of-25 passing for 328 yards, five touchdowns and zero interceptions.
Fortunately for the Panthers, they are still in the middle of the playoff race and have the opportunity to make up some ground on the 7-1 New Orleans Saints in the NFC South before their head-to-head clashes in two of the final three weeks.
One person was confirmed dead after multiple stabbing incident during rush hour in the Australian city of Melbourne, police said on Friday, as the city was placed on lockdown.
Victoria Police said the unnamed attacker is in “critical condition” at the hospital following the incident, which left one of the victims dead.
Police said officers “initially responded to a report of a car on fire” in the city centre at around 4:20pm local time, as people began to leave work for the weekend.
“A man was arrested at the scene and has been taken to hospital under police guard in a critical condition,” the statement said.
Bourke Street: A man has reportedly been shot by police after setting his car on fire this afternoon. Melbourne’s CBD is currently in lock down between Elizabeth Street and Russell Street and police are urging people to avoid the area. Latest on 7 News at 6.00pm #7Newspic.twitter.com/kRP18q56UH
A police spokesman later said that authorities are not looking for any other offender, adding that the investigation is at the “very early stage”, and that there is “no known link to terrorism” so far.
Local media showed video footage of a man in a dark tunic slashing and stabbing wildly at two police officers as the vehicle burned, before being shot with a weapon.
Paramedics said they assessed three people at the scene, one with a neck injury: “They are in a suspected critical condition.”
“A second person has been taken to hospital with a head injury. Condition not yet known. A third person has also been taken to hospital.”
Police warned people to avoid the area, but said they “are not looking for anyone further at this early stage.”
“The exact circumstances are yet to be determined at this stage. The area has been cordoned off,” police said.
![Map of Somalia and the capital Mogadishu [Al Jazeera]](https://i0.wp.com/www.aljazeera.com/mritems/imagecache/mbdxxlarge/mritems/Images/2016/10/1/0070b199f66d4c6ab4b6f8de59836cfe_18.jpg "Somalia: Two explosions, gunfire heard in Mogadishu")
/https%3A%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fcard%2Fimage%2F880352%2F9ed2c639-79f3-40d3-947c-58927627d02a.jpg)
Daily Trends Hunter 