provision  ÄĢą                                                                                every day every day of the week as if we don't have a council in this city of russaka i'm tired of having to remind people who aren't supposed to know the job that they're supposed to be performing the people of russaka the people in our markets in our bus stations our pedestrians our drivers they're also sick and tired of seeing and collected garbage so if we can't manage garbage in the city we're not going to allow garbage to be confined into a particular part of the city where we ask who live there can see it even themselves the directors must also share the town play must also share in the garbage which is in our streets so this is a present for them today i've just brought 50 kg of garbage for them as a reminder but if they do not act within 24 hours i'm giving them an alternative if they do not act within 24 hours to collect garbage everywhere in russaka not just in kamuara to clean up all the all the the villages if they do not contaminate the contracts of all performance contractors and franchise contractors who are supposed to be cleaning up the city if they do not do that tomorrow i'm going to come with a track road i'm going to come with a track road of garbage and i'm going to dump it right here where everybody who comes to russaka civic center can see that garbage so that they can be reminded that the people who are in our offices are being inefficient they are not doing their job this is not a failure of the u p n g government this is not the failure of cancerous this is a failure of russaka city council management and if russaka city kind of management can't do the simple tasks of keeping the city clean what more other issues which are prevailing in our communities so this is their present i'm not going to take it back with me i've left it here i want the town clerk and all the directors to come and collect it where they're going to dump it is their own issue so for today i'm done with collecting trash and delivering it at the city council tomorrow if they do not act i'm going to come with a track road i'm going to come with a track road


Hi. Good afternoon. It's nice to be with everyone. I'm Broderick Johnson. I'm a Toesley Foundation policymaker and residence at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. On behalf of Dean Michael Barr and the students and faculty at the Ford School, it's my pleasure to welcome you all to this important policy talks event this afternoon. I should also say that I am a very proud Wolverine, graduated from the law school some decades ago, so it's always a great pleasure to do an event that brings out the best in the University of Michigan. Today we'll be talking about managing presidential campaigns and lessons learned from this 2020 elections season. Then there are lots of lessons that we're learning and that we will continue to learn, but nevertheless, like our panelists and everyone else watching the session today, I've certainly found it hard to sleep over the past several weeks, maybe the past months in fact, but whatever the outcome you prefer at the end of the selection cycle, I suspect we would all agree that this has been the most bizarre presidential transition in our lifetimes thus far, but we'll leave that for another discussion. Before I introduce the panelists, I want to recognize the Towsley Foundation, which generously enables the Ford School to bring individuals with significant policymaking experience to campus each semester. As I said, I'm currently one of those policymakers in residence and so on behalf of myself and the Ford School, I want to thank the Towsley Foundation for their support. So let's go on to get on to today's discussion. Joining me today are two campaign veterans from opposite sides of the political aisle, Katie Packer Beeson and Greg Schultz. Katie is a founding partner at Burning Glass Consulting, which is a first-of-its-kind all-female consulting firm. It does public relations, political consulting, and issue management with an emphasis on messaging to women. She has worked on political campaigns across the country since 1988, and she has managed campaigns at every level from state legislatures and to governor races to the U.S. Senate and to the U.S. presidency. In fact, in 2012, she was deputy campaign manager of Governor Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. Our other panelist is Greg Schultz, who was the general election strategist and senior advisor to the Biden campaign. He served as campaign manager during the 2020 primaries, Democratic primary, in fact. Greg is a veteran of the 2008 and 2012 Obama presidential campaigns in Ohio. Greg also worked as the senior advisor to Vice President Joe Biden and a special assistant to President Biden, President Obama, in the White House during the second term. I've had the pleasure of working with Greg for a number of years, especially in a 2012 campaign. And I know he and I both share a mutual appreciation and gratitude for the fact that we were able to help win the state of Ohio for President Obama in 2012, which was a carryover from the victory in 2008. And Ohio is a difficult state for Democrats to win, so we're both very proud of that. Before we dive into this discussion today, a couple of quick notes about the format. We'll of course have some time at the end of the event today for audience questions. We have, in fact, received some in advance, but you can also submit your questions in the live chat on YouTube or tweet your questions to hashtag policy talks. So with that, welcome, Katie, and welcome, Greg. Let me first ask both of you to respond to this question and putting aside outcomes. What did you find most challenging and difficult about serving in presidential campaigns? Katie, why don't I start with you? Okay. Thanks, Broderick, and thanks to the University of Michigan for having us today. I think for me, the hardest thing about presidential campaigns and, you know, recognizing that this isn't like serving in combat or being a long haul truck driver or some other jobs that are certainly more physically grueling than a presidential campaign. For me, the all-consuming nature of a presidential campaign is mentally a grind. The notion that you literally can't escape from it, even really when you're sleeping, you sometimes dream about it, but you wake up in the morning and even before we had cell phones, you know, you turned on the news and they were talking about a campaign. It was on the radio in your car. It was on the front page of the paper. It was, you know, on a TV in the airport as you're walking through. There literally is no reprieve. And kind of within that is the idea that everybody is an expert on politics.  And in the middle of a presidential campaign, you never, ever tell them. My go-to was that I was a National Geographic photographer. Nobody knows anything about that. And so they don't offer you advice.  They just cross their fingers and hope that they're trained. And in politics, everybody is an expert. So those are the two things that I think are difficult about presidential politics. Excellent, excellent. And you, Greg? Well, no, Katie is right. Those campaign dreams are the worst, because you don't escape it. I will say this is one thing that has gotten increasingly more challenging with the rise of social media. But that is separating noise to what is actually important. I remember during the primary having a conversation with a leading expert on disinformation and misinformation about what you would see on social media. And she said, 98% of what you see online, you don't want to lift up or acknowledge because you are doing their work for them. And then she said, but 2% of it you have to pay attention to. And because it can't, it will become a problem for you. So I said, very P follow up question. I said, okay, well, what's the difference? And she said, that's the hard part. We don't know. And so and I have seen in the primary cycle, I remember something started on a far right wing tweet, and then it was on a right wing website. And then it literally was in conversation on ABC Nightly News that night. And it was it was not I don't remember actually right now what it was in the middle of the heat of the primary. But whether it is, you know, for the Biden campaign, you had the loud part of the party dominating social media.  But I will say like it is hard with social media. It is hard with no longer 24 hour news cycle, you now have 24 one hour news cycles. And it's like, okay, is this going to last two one hour cycles, or isn't going to tomorrow? And that is there's no good answer. But that is increasingly a more stressful part about these campaigns.  Have either of you have had so free for certainly more than a decade and not suggesting that I didn't have the greatest law firm law school experience. But if you or campaign experiences, have either of you had the nightmare though, I used to have this nightmare that Oh, I didn't finish the exam. You have ever had the nightmare of Oh, that state we forgot to have one more event in that state. Do you have those nightmares because you all done campaign so much? You know, I didn't have actually one of my recurring, I guess nightmares during the campaign was I would step into a room and have a test and have no idea what was on the test. And so essentially, you mentioned that test, I literally had that nightmare multiple times in the middle of the campaign. So I don't know if there's any what it actually means, but yes, probably yeah. Katie, you I've had the nightmare that somebody put the wrong speech up on the podium. Oh, Canada walks up to the podium to give this and it's and just starts talking. That's where it's going to work for Joe Biden. He's already got already got his speech ready to go whether it doesn't read the speech on the teleprompter anyways. So hey, Greg, what have you found most rewarding? I mean, again, putting aside the outcome, the most rewarding for me, it's the the now the pandemic has made it much more challenging. So I'll kind of reference this more in the primary when you were physically with people. But you know, Katie, Katie will understand that you will understand Broderick, but a campaign week is like six months in real life. And so you work on these campaigns, whether it's a presidential campaign, which, you know, we started six, almost 600 days ago, or state rep race or whatever it may be, the crucible of a campaign atmosphere is just the the emotions, the intensity, it's the highs and the highs and the lows are the low. And so the community builds in a real way. I've worked on campaigns where you work with someone for four months, and it's like you went to college with them, because you feel like you've had so many life experiences. And so I've always been attracted to campaigns because of the team building part of it, the shared experiences. Now at the end of COVID, you basically had all the stress of the campaign, but none of like the normally being a campaign office hours, and you look like next you at 1am, and there's 10 people there, as tired of stress as you but now you're like on a zoom and it's just not the same. So it's the community building that I have always really taken the most out of a campaign. And the good food in the campaign offices, especially field offices, when you get to headquarters, you know, it's not good anymore. It's no one brings you food, but a field office, you get the best home cooked, you know, brownies and cookies and all the pizza you could eat at the end. Right. Right. And Katie, for you, again, putting aside the end result during the, for example, the Romney campaign, what, what you know, what was the most exhilarating for you? And especially around that campaign, but other campaigns? Well, I married our political director. So I think that just reinforces what Greg said. But for sure, the sense of family, I mean, I, you know, if you are in sort of the cycle of presidential politics, you have these families over the years. You know, I have a family of people I worked with for Bob Dole. I have a family of people I worked with for George Bush, you know, and then, you know, certainly my Romney family, you know, I was, I worked for Mitt on his pack before he ran in 2008.  But without a doubt, the sense of camaraderie and the sense of family. And one thing that I think all of us who were in leadership roles on the Romney campaign would say makes us all feel very proud is that for most of the people that worked on the Romney campaign, it was the best campaign experience they had, which is a lot to say when you actually lose in the end. Usually, you know, people kind of want to forget the losses. But we had a great candidate who made us proud. You know, he and his wife instilled a sense of family on that campaign. And all of the team that was, you know, kind of the smaller team that, you know, slogged through the primaries. And then the larger team in the general really felt a closeness and a sense of family.  Yeah, you get to see people's kids grow up. And then, in many cases, become the campaign aides themselves, right? And yeah, that's it. Yeah, it can be really exhilarating that that sense of family and deep friendships that are lasting. So could you describe for us kind of the difference between, you know, running a primary campaign and a general campaign, just in terms of maybe even the the issues, the challenges, but you know, the differences, Katie, can we start with you about the differences? I mean, there are many, many differences. And in some ways, it's like a different kettle of fish all together.  And then you got to, you know, drink a glass of champagne and then wake up the next morning and start a whole another campaign. Yeah. You know, so there's sort of a marathon sense to it that you are maybe even like an iron man, you know, that you have to compete in a lot of different ways. I mean, a campaign in New Hampshire feels completely different from a campaign in South Carolina, which is a totally different kettle of fish from Nevada or Florida. And so, you know, you really have to become experts at a lot of different campaigns. You know, you have Chuck Grassley, who's been running, you know, for most of our parents' lifetimes in Iowa, and he would be considered an expert on campaigning in Iowa. But I don't think I would consider him a presidential campaign expert. Right. And then, you know, sort of more specifically, you know, there are challenges in that you're fighting within the family in a primary. You know, a lot of the people working on other campaigns are your friends, sometimes your family. And they're people that you know pretty well. And so you're, you know, you're kind of fighting this battle of, you know, do I go with everything that I have? When I know that, you know, I'm going to have to break bread with these people, you know, six miles down the road and pull together to win a general election. And then further complicating that is that the issues are microscopic. You know, you're trying so hard to find daylight between, you know, in our case, a bunch of conservative candidates that used to all believe the same thing prior to the age of Trump. You know, they might have like microscopic differences on military policy or on, you know, family leave. But, you know, generally speaking, they're all really locked up. And you're not, you know, and so that's a complicating factor. So it's a totally different kind of campaign than a general. Yeah. And Greg, we'll go to you on this. You've been, you were in 08, you went through this and then obviously very recently as well. I do want to make note of the fact that like, I'm already so much enjoying this conversation, because this could have been if different panelists had been chosen, particularly Republican panelists, we could have had this kind of Trump versus Biden show, which could have been, I think, certainly less warm and inviting. So I really appreciate that. And I think it's important that that we've been able to shape it this way. So Greg, talk about primary versus general from your experience. Well, Roger, you also invited two midwesterners to be on the panel. So I think that helps as well. I will say one of the pieces is the ability to raise money. You know, in a primary, we could raise $2,800 per individual. In the general election, by the time our joint victory funds were done, we could raise, now this is somewhat of a seem number, but it was like $850,000 per person we could raise. And that was available for Donald Trump and others as well. So just the ability to raise money. So money raising is hard, and you don't have friends in the primary. You just don't. And like for us, we had, I would tell reporters, we were attacked by the far left, the far right, Trump, Russia and 22 Democrats every single day.  We also had a campaign strategy that the country did not want division. They didn't want division in the country. They didn't want division in the party. They just wanted to be brought together. And so that was a very stressful part of the campaign, because we were being attacked, and the strategy and the candidate were not to exasperate that. So the money, no friends or allies, I mean, the day after Super Tuesday, we had, I mean, many big new friends and lots of money. And then the general election, obviously. And then to Katie's point, just the calendar, I do think we've seen the end of the caucus, but a caucus is impossible. It's, it's not democratic. There's a whole bunch of things about a caucus, which is a separate conversation. But to go from a caucus to a primary to a caucus to a to a primary, but within the Democratic Party, in particular, to go to a white rural electorate to a white, very college educated, well off electorate to a black and Latino electorate to a almost all black electorate. And we have this pressure from all these, you know, the constituency of the Democratic Party, we're in a cornfield in Iowa, they're like, Well, why aren't you talking about like this issue? It's like, because no one that's not relevant in Iowa, general election, you can kind of talk about anything you want or everything you want, because it resonates somewhere, you can make it useful. So those are just a few of the many differences. And I think a primary in general, they are, they're night and day in many ways. Oh, yeah. Yeah. So Katie, you can sort of talk to Greg, in a sense, directly on this one. And that has to do as you were watching, right, the Biden campaign, the ebbs and flows, and then finally quite the flow. Were you surprised? Sort of say that, I mean, look, this is this is factually true that it was a real, it was a real struggle at the beginning for the for the campaign. I mean, there were so many different candidates. And and yet, then we got to South Carolina. And as you looked at it, though, what did you think as an outside observer, you know, of how the Democratic campaign for Joe Biden was developing? Well, it, it's, it's complicating, because you would look at somebody like me, who's been doing presidential politics going back to 1988, and think, Oh, well, I know how this stuff works. But I really don't know how it works for the Democrats. It's a very, very different process than it is on the Republican side. You know, the Republican electorate is far less broken up by demographics like gender and race than the Democrat primary electorate is. And so it's a really different kind of campaign for us. And I was actually very hopeful that Joe Biden would be the one to emerge from the primary, because I did not think that it would be in the best interest of our country if the general election came down between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. I didn't think that that would be a healthy, good campaign for the country to watch. And I was nervous about what that could mean. So I was hopeful that it would be Joe Biden. And as I was watching those early primaries develop, I was thinking to myself, you know, isn't it just like the Democrats, you know, snatched feet from the jaws of victory? So, you know, I did, of course, know that Clyburn is somebody who has a lot of influence. And so I was very optimistic when that development occurred. I think it had a similar impact. And I won't I won't speak too much about the specific impact, because like I said, that's not my expertise. Yeah, you know, we did see a momentum shift with President Obama, when the Kennedys, for instance, joined his effort. And it was something that I think transcended just race. But I think Clyburn, what it was such sort of a weather vein, I guess is is a good word for Democrats, you know, beyond just African American Democrats, that it, you know, he's kind of over statesmen. And it meant something to the party that he stepped forward in a way that was unique. And it caused, you know, a lot of the party to kind of coalesce. And there is one thing that I think we've seen in primaries on both sides, it's that that voters like to be with winners. And so if somebody looks like the momentum is starting to shift, there's almost nothing that can be done to stop it. And so I was surprised, because it was starting to feel like it was getting away from Joe Biden, but having done enough, or I should say President elect respectfully, Joe Biden, you know, I've seen enough of these campaigns to see that something like that can, you know, flip a switch and the momentum then becomes too strong for anybody to prevent it. Yeah, Greg, and just to build on that, right? So of course, South Carolina is so important. But did you sort of did, did you all see that perhaps as like, okay, so we, you know, the vice presidents got into sea lakes back now, we've won and then we're going to move on. But then you took off like a rocket ship. Yeah, was that kind of surprising in a sense? So I'll start with a few things. One is, you know, all strategy starts with some assumptions and some data. We made some assumptions that the Democratic Party as a whole is a much more moderate, moderate or middle than it is then then Twitter or some of the other candidates would represent. We felt the country actually didn't want to think about their next president, they wanted they prioritize stability over everything else. Joe Biden was that candidate. We also knew Iowa, and in the frustrating thing for I think a lot of us had been on since day one, we couldn't have been more clear, we're going to compete in Iowa in New Hampshire, but we're going to get through those states, we're going to get to South Carolina. And we told people we're going to get to South Carolina, it's going to be a two person race after Super Tuesday between us and Bernie Sanders. We monitored I remember after every debate, after Iowa, after New Hampshire, I would call our South Carolina State Director, who had an informal group of happened to be, I don't know, a dozen black women 50 or 60 years old. And after every debate, I'm like, okay, where are they? After Iowa, where are they? And every time I'd call our State Director in South Carolina, and he said they're with us. In fact, sometimes they were more with us because they're not going to let Iowa speak for them, or they're not going to let some candidate attack Joe Biden in a primary in a debate and get away with treating Joe Biden like that.  So no one I think is fully appreciated that, you know, the more democratic a district is, the more delegates it has, the more democratic it is, the more likely it's also more diverse. Only Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders were getting any, any sizable portion of the Latino or black vote and Biden overwhelmingly, and it consistently no matter what, that was remaining constant. So for us, it is, get to super get to South Carolina, we're going to in South Carolina, we are then going to win a plurality of Southern Congressional, you know, Super Tuesday is pretty Southern heavy, or disproportionately Southern heavy. And we talked about, I think the Alabama 7th congressional district for two years, we said, and you know what, we got more, we got every delegate there, I think we got eight delegates in that one district, every other district you basically divide and everybody gets one. And so, so for us, it was stay the course, survive the Super Tuesday, I mean, survive the South Carolina, a two person race after Super Tuesday. And that actually all happened. Now again, the highs were higher and the lows were lower. But it was like, just get to the vote of that actually represents the party. And we said it again, we are like, no one should decide this election until the broad diversity of the party has a voice. And we said that well before Iowa and even louder post Iowa.  So it worked out for us. But yeah, I will also say Super Tuesday, you know, so South Carolina is at Saturday, you then have Sunday, Monday, and then Super Tuesday. Oh, yeah, that Monday morning, I would say Monday morning at 6am, we had no endorsements locked. That night, we had in person Beto, Pete, Mayor Pete, and Senator Klobuchar. Wow. Yeah. So that is when so I think we expected a two person race after Super Tuesday between us and Sanders and I would tell people I would go into the donor meetings or political meetings in December, I say, whoever you like, it's going to be Donald Trump, Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders, the only three choices of the next president, whether or not Sanders could beat Trump or whatnot. I just, you know, and then, you know, I think the pace at which the party consolidated, we felt it would after Super Tuesday. We felt once it was a two person race, the further left of the party will consolidate with Sanders, which mostly already had and we would start getting the rest. I don't think any of us fully appreciated the speed at which that would happen. Right. But we didn't have faith that it would. Right. Yeah. Well, it happened because there's no other alternative for the Biden campaign. And we we saw this on the Republican side in the 2016 campaign, where all of these candidates were thinking to themselves, we just have to get it down to me and Donald Trump. And then I'll start taking Trump on. And so if you look back in the fall of 2015, and even, you know, leading into Iowa, not one of our candidates was aggressively going after Trump, because they all believed that their path to victory was the last man standing with Trump. Point about the momentum, the problem is, by the time it got to that point, it was too late. The momentum had pushed. And I believe that if Joe Biden had not won South Carolina, I think he would have been in the same position that Ted Cruz was in in 2016. The momentum. And again, you know, I may be wrong, because I, you know, I don't really know Democratic primary politics, but the momentum would have become too strong, I believe, for Bernie, going past South Carolina, that it would have been very hard for them to come back from that. And, you know, in the 2016 primary on the Republican side, there wasn't really an 800 pound gorilla like Joe Biden, you know, that was comparable to Joe Biden. We had a lot of governors and senators and congressmen. And but we didn't have, you know, a former vice president that was sort of, you know, the big dog, which kind of interesting that Nevada really hasn't gotten the attention it should have, because we really didn't believe Iowa and New Hampshire voters, the electorate of South Carolina, we didn't assume that they were going to listen to white, rural New Hampshire or Iowa. But the fact, if we had not gotten second in Nevada, maybe we would have won South Carolina, but it wouldn't have been convincing. And the Katie's, you know, which Katie rolled out with with standards that they could have come to pass. So the fact that we got second in a caucus, which is just hard, you have to remember caucus goers are further left. They're further left. And Iowa in particular just wants to always pick the next Obama, which is why Mayor Pete did so well there. Yeah, right. Very ideologically pure. Yes, yes, on both sides of the party. Obviously, if you look at who's won Iowa for the Republicans over the years, it's also a, you know, I would say terrifying list, but yes, it's a scary list of ideology on both sides. Let's talk about October surprises. And I'll go back a bit actually to the 2012 campaign, because I can't remember when the first debate was Greg, the debate in Colorado. But let's just say that may have in some sense been our October surprise in that, you know, and Katie, you tell us how you all thought, because, you know, let's just say President, that was not President Obama's strongest debate performance. No question. And he always bounces backs. We saw that that kind of felt like a little bit of an October surprise in a sense, right? How did you all see that? What do you remember about that debate performance and whether it felt like that was, you know, the beginning of a pivotal change in the momentum in the campaign?  We didn't, you know, view Mitt Romney as unequal to the task. We knew that he would go in. He would be over-prepared.  He was just so hard on himself and he over-prepared and was always convinced he wasn't going to have the information he needed at the, you know, the moment he needed it. And every time he was on Dean's List and, you know, excelled, and that's the level of preparation that he always brought to the table.  It was just the job of the boss and hit it out of the ballpark and he'll do it again. Let me talk to you both then more generally about October surprises, right? Because I don't know where that came from, but it's a staple of presidential campaigns now, right? It's all the media certainly talks about it. And but inside of campaigns, Katie, I'll start with you first. You sort of sit and say, what's going to be the October surprise?  But do you find yourself sort of waiting to see what did you find yourself waiting to see what might be that October surprise? Well, you know, I think we we used to view October surprises differently in the age prior to social media because you work about what was the surprise that was going to come after you know, four o'clock on a Friday when it was too late to respond with a television ad because you couldn't be add up on the air any longer. So that was kind of the true October surprise. You know, with George Bush, it was you know, the DUI that came out in the final weekend of the campaign. You know, I think we all remember Donald Trump's October surprise. You know, we didn't worry about any big scandals with Mitt Romney because he was just such a pure guy that we I mean, if anybody had come forward with, you know, a bimbo eruption as Mary Madeline would have put it, everybody would have just been like, yeah, no, not this guy. So we didn't worry about those kind of scandals. Our October surprise really was Hurricane Sandy, which was an act of God completely out of our control. You know, we felt really good about the momentum that we had and then all of a sudden the hurricane hits and you know, Mitt Romney is a fixer. He's not a feeler. So he doesn't do well in settings where you're called on to go and hug people and, you know, show a lot of empathy. I mean, he's the guy that says, OK, what do we got to do to fix it? He's not the guy that's, you know, Bill Clinton feeling your pain. And so, you know, and compounded by the fact that he wasn't president, so he didn't have a natural role. So you had this act of God that was tailor made for a guy like Barack Obama to go and hug on people and and at the same time be able to deliver them substantial policy relief. You know, it sort of left Mitt Romney kind of standing there going, well, what do I do now? And that's a very tough situation for a candidate that's not a sitting office holder. Oh, yeah. Can I just mention one one little story? We'll go to Greg then about a few surprises. So I was with President with President Obama when he was at the then I forgot what the dinner is called in New York. With the A.S. Yes, the Al Smith dinner. And, you know, we were in the receiving line. Both candidates were in the receiving line. Katie, you may have been been in fact, been back there.  And it's sort of his play on, right? This is this is like, you know, this month, this is the this is the like the extent of the alcohol I would drink. This guy is great. This is absolutely great. So great. October surprises. I mean, especially in this campaign, right, you were. So I would say our October surprise was September of 2019, when the Ukraine effort hit, you know, I think Trump. So I would say the October surprise was a year early. And for us, it validated everything we'd been telling everybody. Donald Trump does not want to run to go run against Joe Biden. He's the only person that can win. And for us, it actually validated that our we had had a fundraising, I guess, slump since that first debate from the summer and then end of August, September, when the, you know, the Trump accusation started coming out on us. It again, that's when that's when we saw like everything start to pick up. Yeah. And, you know, with Trump, one of the things that they aren't that he's not that disciplined in some ways he's very predictable, but he just can't he can't help himself like he will tweet something he'll see something he'll tweet on it. And we knew with Joe Biden, you know, there's a couple, I don't say vulnerabilities, but there's a couple areas you can go after him. He has been in Senate for a long time. That's true. He's older. It's true. But so is Trump. But he's, you know, he was born when he was born.  And so the fact that by the time we got to October of 2020, they had already done. I think people are starting to wear on like in the fact that Trump had like Giuliani is one of his main like surrogates on these issues. I just don't think outside of a small part of his base and the people who watch OAN, like that that part always, I think reads it. But in by October of 2020, I honestly think. Now, I think media also learned. They should have learned in 2016 and we were afforded or Trump was not afforded what he was in 2016. I mean, he was able to play the media. The media has never covered Trump wrong.  And that's that's all. So there was not a after Ukraine and the impeachment were like, OK, we know what he's going to do. He's going to try it in different ways. You saw with this laptop, which, you know, Hunter lives on the West Coast, why he would drop up something in a crowded, you know, why it was just it was all laughable. I mean, obviously the far right networks and social media were like running with it. But by that point, middle America that we actually had to communicate with, I think he had already done it. Sure. Sure. Anything. So let's talk about about changes and campaign tactics then for thinking about for future campaigns for both of you. It's been this because of the of course, because of the pandemic, the emphasis on getting voters to mail in ballots and to vote early. Do you think that that could signal because there was great success with it, certainly on the Democratic side in terms of mail in votes and vote and early voting. That these may be sustainable changes in the future. And and Greg, something, for example, and then Katie, to build into, you know, campaign tactics and strategies going forward to maximize that because it gives people greater flexibility, perhaps, to be able to make sure they can cast their votes. I mean, I do think that we're going to be moving in that direction. You know, the the even on the Republican side, the people that are most involved in these campaigns, the local clerks that you talked to and the secretaries of state know that there's very little fraud. That's just the truth. And you see states like, you know, my new home state of Colorado that have been doing mail in voting. Mail in voting with great success without, you know, fraud allegations, you know, that was one of the first states that got called on election night. Corey Gardner lost his seat.  He, you know, just sort of accepted that he had lost the campaign. And I do think it's the wave of the future. The the notion of online or mail in voting, as long as we can continue to protect the integrity of the process. As a campaign professional, my worry about it is that it totally changes the arc of a campaign. You don't really know when election day is because election day is different in every state.  So nothing that happened, you know, after the first week in October could have an impact on my vote. And, you know, who knows if there's information that comes out. Maybe, maybe we shouldn't be at the whim of October surprises. And maybe we should be voting with the information we have in the first week of October. I don't know what the right answer is, but it does change the arc of a campaign. And, you know, I'm all for lots of people voting, but I'm also for a lot of people voting with all the information about both candidates. Right. I think it was a little different this year because I think there weren't a ton of undecided voters. I think people were going in having made up their minds.  I do sort of worry about how the arc of a campaign is affected when you have people voting so early. Yeah, Greg. Yeah. And I certainly we want to celebrate, you know, expanded opportunities for participation in democracy. But as Katie mentioned, it also is going to make campaigns more expensive. What in a normal, well, traditionally you kind of work backwards. So like week one is the week of election. Week two is like two weeks out from election day. And normally your paid media spend ramps up into election day. And now with people voting five weeks ahead of time, you have to basically spend what you would normally spend in week one, a few days for election, five weeks earlier. And so, you know, Katie talks about the arc of just messaging information, but therefore also fundraising and the need to spend more money early, which, again, we want to find ways to expand the electorate. So that's not it. That's just a reality. And I think it's a it's a good thing, but it will change. You know, in particular, and Katie mentioned, a state rep race, people, you know, look it up in the newspaper the day before the election day to find out who actually are candidates. So that will change that a lot. And presidentials will just get, you know, of the current financing system remains just more expensive. Yeah. You know, so we saw two very different campaigns and approaches. And of course, for Trump, it was the big rallies or whatever size of rallies were, but certainly they seem to have driven record numbers for him. Katie, were you surprised by that and how effective that seemed to be? Was there something else that was going on that led to the kind of turnout that he got? You know, with that campaign style? I'm not sure we have enough scientific controls to know if one is connected to the other.  And I would remind them that, you know, in the final weekend of the 2012 campaign, you know, Mitt Romney was pulling rallies of 40, 50, 60,000 people.  And I remember pulling into Bucks County, Pennsylvania on the bus and we just couldn't, I mean, the crowds were, like, down the highway. And Mitt's big brother, Scott, turned to him and said, man, look at this. Who are they here to see? And he was totally serious. He thought we must have some rock band or somebody pulling this kind of crowd. He couldn't believe all these people were there to see his little brother. You know, I think that crowd sizes are a good indicator of the depth of support and sort of the enthusiasm of your base. I'm not sure they're very related to how many voters you end up pulling at the polls. I just think it's a totally different kind of measurement. And certainly, if you had no crowds, that would be a good indicator that, you know, you're not heading into a winning campaign.   So I just don't know that they're related. So, Greg, who came up with the idea of the drive-ins? Oh, our advance. We have an advance team is really good. We've got the guy named Sam Salk has been running it and we've added a bunch of people from other campaigns. And there is amazingly creative. The amount of times I'll watch something on a video and I'll text our advance team. I'm like, who came up with that? And they just, they're super creative. Whether it's getting a bunch of red, white and blue pickup trucks, they are in the age of COVID, they've really thought outside the box. They're, but they're, yeah, it was very fascinating to see. There had to have been times though where you all were like, if we could just get the vice president and Senator Harris out. Well, that's for Biden.   You don't want to get your volunteers sick. I will also say to Katie's point on crowd sizes, look at the primary Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren had huge crowds. You know, I will say one of the best uses of actually getting crowds. I remember how the Obama team, we did it so effectively in 08 and 12 is you get these crowds and then you sign up volunteers. And so while, yes, they're going to vote for you, it's more like, okay, can you get a phone shift or a canvas shift out of the five people that showed up? And if you can do that, that's worth more than just actually the actual crowd size day up. Yeah, definitely. And Greg, you know, I think it was fascinating to me to watch how you all were able to turn something that had become a little, a little bit of a vulnerability for the vice president in terms of how closely he likes to communicate to people, right?  And yeah, as I watch the ads develop, you know, that became you all use that as an asset because I think it expressed empathy. And it's the biggest contrast we have with Donald Trump. Now, there's a ton of policy. But Joe Biden is as human, his humanity, his humanity is what defines Joe Biden and everything. His faith, how he thinks about his family. And I'm not saying, you know, and in some ways I would say maybe artfully, but Donald Trump's inhumanity or some of what people would say his callousness is just the biggest. And so any way we could show the humanity of Joe Biden, he doesn't like talking about his faith. Biden is someone who would live it, but not preach it. Yeah. He tried to lift that up, you know, and Broderick, I know you know that the strength of the Catholic vote in the industrial Midwest in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin. And so that, again, is something we tried to highlight tying in with the empathy piece. Yeah, yeah. Well, it certainly came across. So Katie, you've, let's talk about kind of the future of particularly the efforts that you're involved in. And I'm certain you look at the success of the Republican Party, particularly congressional and maybe at state and legislative levels and getting more women Republicans elected. Can you talk a little bit about your view of that and what it may say about what the party needs to do to continue to build that, but also to make sure that other other populations that have, you know, for certainly to some degree abandoned the Republican Party for a while anyway, can move toward it. Well, just, you know, in the interest of full disclosure, my efforts to recruit women and to promote women were really put on pause when Donald Trump became the nominee of our party in 2016. And I made a personal decision that that was not a party that I could continue to work and promote and build, you know, for a lot of reasons that I was very public about, so I won't go into them all here. But I do think that in terms of the future of the party overall, you know, there are a couple of big steps that have to happen. We have to see, you know, how Donald Trump continues to react to the loss of the presidential election and then to see what he decides to do with regard to the future. I think as long as he's flirting with the idea of running again in 2024, I think it sort of paralyzes the party in this moment, this party that's very beholden to President Trump and to Trump-style politics and campaigning, which is not particularly philosophical. I mean, for the first time, you know, definitely in my lifetime and I don't know in how long the Republican Party opted not to even have a platform this year, which was something that was unthinkable to me, you know, that it could ever occur. And so the party, I do think, is sort of paralyzed in place until, you know, Trump decides, you know, what his plans for the future are, because a lot of people do feel very beholden to him and it sort of locks it in place. If he does decide to, you know, formally concede the election and makes clear he's not going to run again, then, you know, the future of the party is really up in the air. And I do think that there will be a lot of soul-searching and you'll have a battle between, you know, from the Pence wing and to the Nikki Haley wing to, you know, the Cruz wing and, you know, so many candidates that are going to vie for the nomination and potentially be vying against somebody else named Trump, you know, but without the same sort of retail gifts that Donald Trump has. So, you know, I think that there's just a giant question mark over the letters GO right now. Yeah, yeah. Greg, sort of, I guess somewhat similar as you look at, you know, the Democratic Party and as much as being made, certainly by the media, but it's not a media fascination that's bringing us about. There really are some tensions within the Democratic Party that are gonna largely affect, you know, what the new president and vice president administration will be able to succeed at. How do you think that President Biden will address trying to bridge those gaps? Yeah. Well, I think just the temperament of Joe Biden, he is, you know, respected on the Hill. I mean, he's got good relationships with a number of sitting Republican senators and House members because he listens. You can look at it throughout his career and you will find people on the right and the left who have said, I came to Joe Biden with an idea. He helped me implement it. He, I think we will talk a lot about getting things done and actually showing action. You can list not picking at any one Democrat, but there's a few that ran for president that had many of years of service and no bills to their name. So it's one thing to talk and it's another thing to govern and lead. And you're gonna see Biden, he's, you can look at the people he is surrounding himself with. You can look at some of the transition teams. It represents this country as a president should. And I think you're gonna see Biden, he's, I actually love when he says, you know, he ran as a Democratic president and he's gonna govern as an American president. And I think that's what the vast majority of the country wants. It's why he won the primary. It's why he won the general election. And we need to actually like temper down. We need to temper down our politics and we actually have to start getting things done again. And when you look at things like the environment, I mean, Joe Biden is where the scientists are, but is where a lot of the people on the ideological center and center left and left are and a number of things.  And I think that will, that will, the proof will be in the actual accomplishment. You know, Biden, I think it's gonna work hard to get an infrastructure bill passed and that's gonna put a lot of people back to work and it's gonna pay good wages. And so, you know, we'll work to have things to show. Yeah, definitely. Yep. Good. So we're going to some questions from the audience in here.  I'm trying to, I started to read a book for the first time in nine months, two and a half year old son, we went to the Aaron Space Museum on Saturday. Oh, yeah.  They like read and it's, I'm trying to enjoy like that for a little bit. I've been with Biden now for seven years in a number of different roles, not even counting the 08 and 12 campaigns. So I'll stay close whether that is on the inside or if that is something on the parallel outside. I'm trying to give myself just a little bit of distance. You should.   Yeah, to be honest, you know, I've been on a bit of a hiatus from Republican politics. And, you know, right now I'm kind of waiting to see what happens, you know, in these next few months. So that goes then to one of the questions then I think polling. And there's a question everybody, you know, everybody is sort of confronted with sort of what happened to the pollsters and why were they so far off in this and that. And it's really been interesting to Katie, I've said this to a number of people that it seems that, you know, some of the Republican pollsters and you'd see them in whatever that website is that we all tend to look at. But some Republican pollsters were, you know, coming back with predictions and results that a lot of these battleground states were going to be closer than some of the other pollsters were predicting, certainly. What do you think about the future of polling, Katie? I guess, and did you find it more reliable, you know, in past campaigns you've worked for than it seems to be the case now. And I'm gonna talk about internal polling. I'm talking about the polling that, of course, is done in conjunction with the networks and pollsters, you know, that whole industry. Well, I'll say I'm not sorry to see media polling taking a beating. I think that it's been a long time coming. I think media polling is a very uninformed, not particularly artful way of gauging progress in political campaigns. Why is that, do you think? I think they do it cheaply. I think they do the cheapest thing that they can. They don't really, they're not really accountable.  You know, so all these media outlets wanna have a poll because, you know, it's clickbait and they wanna have a headline to report on the evening news, you know, or to run on the ticker on the cable news all day. I think it's junk. I think media polling, generally speaking, is junk. There are a few exceptions to that, but generally it's junk. And I think the campaigns have a much better handle on where the polls are at.   These are the states where it's really super close. Do not let up. And I remember thinking to myself, she knows. She's looking at real data and she knows.  Listen to them. So, you know, I would like to see, you know, media outlets have enough dignity and self-respect to say, this is something we don't do well. So we're not gonna report on it. We're gonna report on actual news. Poll isn't news.  I think it has become something that influences campaigns and that should not be the role of the media. Yeah, that's interesting, Greg. I would think about the, for example, I can't remember whose poll it was, but the poll, like maybe the weekend before. Wisconsin had, someone had Wisconsin on 17. 17, yeah. So what was your reaction inside the campaign to that? Was it all the way off, but it might be a little close? No, we don't know. We always thought it was gonna be close. And I think for us, I think if you looked at our, one of the things we fixed at the start of the primary, in 2016 on the Democratic side, you had pollsters and you had data scientists and they just kind of butted head all the time and it was just no good data. And so we had a very strong working relationship with our data scientists, Becca Siegel, who'd run it since day one and our main pollsters who have been with us since day one. And so we at least weren't getting conflicting data. They did their own things, but they worked together so it was instructive. I think if you go back and look at, if they had to rank out the top 10 states in order of how close they'd be and how important they are, we always understood our priorities and I feel confident that our polling and data scientists always kept us focused on what was the most important priority order. Because at the end of the day, you kind of wanna know like, what's the value of the state and how important is it to put more investment, more time, more resources into it.  I mean, I don't know why anybody does a national poll anymore for any, for the primary doesn't matter and for a general, it doesn't matter. And so just stop doing it, it does nothing, does nothing. And so, the other thing is we've increased the modes of communication. We've overlaid on landlines historically. We've now done, since the primary, we have done, you know, text and online focus groups and we've tried to just not rely on anyone's source of input for a polling output. So those are just kind of some thoughts on that. Yo, thank you.  And then I'd say, oh, great. Oh no, what do I believe in realizing that it's, you know, it's the voters who determine all of this, right? Not the, those who predict the scientists, data scientists make a big deal though, so. Yeah, we knew it was gonna be close and we knew it was ours to lose, but we knew it was gonna be close. And that's how we felt that way for two years. Well, we're at the end of our hour and I really just wanna first say thank you both for a great conversation, a very informative conversation, a very pleasant conversation and, you know, cause we don't have enough pleasant conversations in our body, body politic these days, that's for sure, but I'm optimistic as I'm sure you all are too about the future and I just wanna thank you on behalf again of the Ford School and the Towsley Foundation and Greg, anytime you wanna come to the big house for a game and walk and touch the banner, the go blue banner, I think we could probably arrange that for you, but since you're an Ohio guy, I suspect you don't wanna do that. Broderick and you know, and Broderick just alluded to the fact that I've got two degrees from the Ohio State University, but I have been saying for the first and only time in my life since spot September that I hope Michigan goes blue for Joe Biden. And so you didn't, so thank you for that. Absolutely, and Katie, thank you tremendously as well. It's been great, all the best, safe and happy Thanksgiving and the rest of the year to both of you. And I think that's a wrap, that's a great session. Thank you both. Thank you. I'm gonna see you Katie. Good to see you guys, take care. You too, thanks.


Good evening aspirants. Welcome to the Hindi news analysis by Shankara Ace Academy for the date 3rd June 2020. These are the list of news articles to form for today's analysis. It has been provided along with the page numbers of different editions of Hindi newspaper. The PDF for the handwritten notes and the time stamping for the displayed articles is provided in the description box below and it is also provided in the comment section. Let us move on to the first article discussion for today. The first discussion is based on this editorial article which is about how multilateralism should be in the new Cold War. The syllabus relevant for the analysis of this news article is given here for your reference. See, multilateralism refers to the scenario where a decision in the world is not taken by just one or two countries. We can say that at the United Nations Security Council there exists some kind of multilateralism with just five permanent seats. As we know, this forum cannot represent all the countries that is more than 190 countries in the world. Next, if we take International Monetary Fund and World Bank, most of the manner of operation of these organizations were instituted as per the dictates of United States of America after the Second World War. Meanwhile, more than 120 countries got independence since the 1940s. But these new nations were not consulted in the institution of global frameworks. And after the World War II, two power centers of the world clashed indirectly with each other on the turfs of other countries. And these two power centers are USA and the then Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Both these nations used the turf of other countries to prove their military might. This is what we refer as Cold War. Now, in this juncture, most of the newly independent states neither aligned with USA nor aligned with Russia. They formed a collective called as non-aligned movement. And meanwhile, the Cold War almost came to an end in 1990 to 1991. As we know, it came to an end with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Now, after this, at least till the end of first decade of 21st century, that is from 2001 to 2010, the world experienced unilateralism by USA. However, in the last decade, things are undergoing change with the rise of China, with the annexation of Crimea by Russia, etc. And in the last decade, if you see, non-military conflict can be seen very much between China and USA, where both are countering each other in almost every arena. We can literally sense this in respect of trade and technology. And every other day, we are discussing this aspect. And this is what author calls as the new Cold War, where the fight is mainly to prove their might in the trade and technology. And it is mainly between USA and China now. At this juncture, author states that since the fight is mainly about trade and technology, non-alignment becomes an uncertain option to which India is also a part. India also needs to benefit from trade and technology and we cannot stay aloof anymore. And more importantly, having technological superiority in artificial intelligence, cyber and space technology now determines national security also. So, now time has come for India to step in to steer a new multilateralism in the new Cold War scenario in the 21st century. This is what is called by the author as the Asian century. And the author calls India to craft a global triumvirate. When we say triumvirate, it means a group of three who are holding the power. So, author calls India to craft a global triumvirate. Meaning India should be one of the three powers that decide across political, economic and other issues in the world. And apart from India, the other two powers in the mind of author was USA and China. And both these countries want India to be their partner at some levels. For example, if we keep aside the standoffs between India and China, there is a scenario where China calls India to join to write a new chapter with a shared future for mankind. And on the other hand, if you take USA, it has made India a major defence partner in 2016. And amidst the pandemic, the Wall Street Journal has also argued that India is a natural US ally in the new Cold War. So, the next two-three years offer a good opportunity for India to craft the policy of global triumvirate. This is because of some of the important opportunities. One is that recently India was elected to the chair of executive board of WHO, that is the World Health Assembly. So, author feels that being in such a position, India can set the global response in terms of multilateralism. And this can be done not just in medical issues, but also in issues other than medical arena also. After this, in 2021, India will join the United Nations Security Council as its non-permanent member. And India will also chair the BRICS summit. Then in 2022, India is to host the G20. Additionally, India is visualised as a part of rise of Asia amidst pandemic and also in the post-COVID-19 world. So, if India uses these opportunities wisely with diplomacy, India can set multilateral response to many global issues. So, how this multilateralism has to be? Or what must be the characteristics of the multilateralism in the new Cold War scenario? This has to be like as outlined by the Indian Prime Minister during the online summit of non-aligned movement in May 2020. Our Prime Minister stated that new principles are needed for the international system. So, a new globalisation model has to be set up or practised based on the principles of humanity, fairness and equality. Now, based on these principles, there has to be an inclusive global order. This multilateralism has some tasks to achieve. One is that it should resolve the clash of values that shaped industrial revolution and also the values that is to shape the digital revolution. While industrial revolution benefited the colonialists, the digital revolution should benefit all, particularly the developing countries. Then, after this, this multilateralism steered by India should articulate a benign multilateralism which represents large parts of the world and it should bring different and divergent institutions into its fold. For example, it should bring both bricks and the G7 into its tent. Then, thirdly, it should define the world in terms of peaceful coexistence based on the non-interference in the internal affairs of others. And fourthly, it should bring new principles for trade. For example, it should reject the trade rules of world trade organisation that has created intellectual property monopolies. So, this multilateralism has to declare public health, crop research, renewable energy and batteries even artificial intelligence as global public goods. This is required so that special measures can always be taken for the welfare of mankind all over the world in these areas. And these special measures shall not be curtailed or restricted by intellectual property monopolies. So, by this, what is the benefit for India? India's steering such a multilateralism will be helpful for India and also to developing countries and least developing nations as it will help in bringing reforms in international financial institutions and these reforms will enable more democratic functioning of these institutions. Additionally, it will also play an important role in bringing reforms in the permanent membership of United Nations Security Council so that it will be expanded by including India. So, these are some of the important points with respect to this editorial. From this analysis, you should take note of how the present Cold War is different from the Cold War of 20th century. You should note how the new opportunities India has to set a multilateral response for global issues and you should also take note of what have to be the characteristics of the multilateralism which India has to set in the global arena. So, with this we come to the end of this editorial discussion. The respite practice question will be discussed in the last session. Moving on to the next discussion, this news article mentions that the nomadic Changpa community is cut off from large parts of grazing pastures and this is because of Chinese intrusion along the line of actual control that is LAC. So, in this context, in this analysis, we will see about the Changpa community. First note that according to the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, the newly created Union Territory of Ladakh is predominantly a tribal region in the country and one of the tribal communities in this region is Changpa community and note that they are notified as Scheduled Tribes as per the Constitution Jammu and Kashmir Scheduled Tribes Order of 1989. This order was issued by the President under Article 342 of Indian Constitution and this order is applicable to Union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh as per Section 66 of Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act of 2019. So, remember this fact. Now, this community is important from examination point of view because already in 2014, there was a prelims question on this community and there is also a statement with reference to the inclusion of this community in the list of Scheduled Tribes. Now, the news article reports that Chinese incursion has resulted in a sharp rise in deaths of young Pashmina goats this year. This is witnessed in the Khorzok Chumur Belt of Changtang Plateau in Ladakh. See, this Changtang Plateau is the place in Union territory of Ladakh where Changpa community is found. So, Changpa community mainly live in the Union territory of Ladakh and note that this Changtang Plateau is at a height of almost 5000 meters and it is important because in the altitude of about 13,000 feet or approximately 4000 feet, maximum number of Pashmina goats of Changpa community graze. This grazing area is called as Chusol Demchok Chumur Belt. This belt is special as it contributes around 60% of annual production of finest wool in Ladakh. Additionally, note that Changpa Tribal community live on the mountains according to NCRT. They always move with their goats and sheep from which they get milk, meat, skin for tents and wool for coats and sweaters. And they are also known to have horses and yaks. But still, goats are their main property. From these goats, they get the wool for making the world famous Pashmina wool. And one of the reasons for why the herders graze their goats at higher and colder places is because to have a more and softer hair or fur. See, as you know, to protect the body from extreme cold, a coat of warm hair grows on the goat's body. And this is the reason the herders graze their goats at higher and colder places so that they can get more hair and also a softer hair or fur. From examination point of view, know that these goats are called as Changtangi goat or Pashmina goat also. It is a special breed of goat that is indigenous to the high altitude regions of Ladakh. Few government sources mention that the scientific name of this goat is Capra Hedgis. These goats are raised for the ultra fine Kashmiri wool. And once this wool is woven, it is what is called as Pashmina. So in this scenario, let us see some two-three important facts about Pashmina shawls also. The Pashmina shawl is a very thin yet very warm shawl. See, the wool for Pashmina shawls are collected from the goats that are found on very high altitudes of 5000 meters. So that is why Pashmina goat is chosen. And these goats shed some of their hair in summer. And these goats are reared by Changpa community as we already saw. And the fine hair cannot be woven on machines. Remember this. Therefore, weavers make these shawls by hand. So one Pashmina shawl is made after 250 hours of weaving. So you can see that not only the raw materials quality is important but how this shawl is made is also an important reason why this shawl is very famous. Apart from this, from examination point of view, know that there is a Shatush wool which is made from Tibetan Angelo. And this Tibetan Angelo is also called as Chiru. And there was also a prelims question on this Chiru as well. So from this, you would have got an idea on what should be your focus while you read an article and how to link it to examination point of view. With this, we come to the end of this discussion. The respite practice question will be discussed in the last session. Moving on to the next discussion which is based on this lead editorial. It talks about a new approach to tackle COVID-19 pandemic which can be used until a vaccine or cure is invented and can be used even after that to control the rise of new cases. The syllabus that is relevant to this discussion is given here for your reference. The authors of this editorial have recommended the approach of social vaccine. They have provided this idea based on how it was used to curb the spread of HIV infection. As you know, human immunodeficiency virus, that is HIV, causes the acquired immune deficiency syndrome that is AIDS. And nearly everywhere AIDS has been found and this HIV infection is a fast spreading infection. Recovery rate is near to zero. In the recent times only recovery of one or two persons is reported. There is no vaccine to cure AIDS. So until a cure or a vaccine for HIV is found, the only way to prevent the spread of disease was by changing people's behavior through AIDS education programs. Many national governments are using broadcast, print media, personal contact, counseling methods, etc. to educate people on AIDS. And also to educate on the safer sexual intercourse. Thus the best vaccine to contain the spread of the disease of AIDS until a biomedical vaccine is found is said as the social vaccine. See this term social vaccine is a metaphor for a series of social and behavioral measures that governments can use to raise public consciousness about unhealthy situations. In case of HIV, the social vaccine involves spreading on how to protect oneself, then educating about the 100% use of condom, then also educating some changes in sexual behavior. In fact the social vaccine was so successful in Thailand that the infection rate has come down by 50%. So what is the role of social vaccine in controlling HIV AIDS pandemic? See this AIDS caused by HIV was detected in 1981. The cause of the disease was unknown and the diagnostic tests were not available even till 1985. Also there was no treatment during those times because of the widespread fears of infection and this made many HIV infected people homeless and unemployed and they were also denied access to care. There was stigma, discrimination and violence towards the affected individuals, their families and even health workers were stigmatized. At this point came the social vaccine. It revolved around the concept of acknowledging that everyone was potentially infected including even those who are apparently healthy. And it also acknowledged that the infection occurred predominantly through sexual transmission and by use of intravenous drugs. So based on this under the social vaccine, the core preventive message for HIV involved being faithful to one sexual partner or having safe sex etc. These measures conflicted with prevailing social, cultural, religious, behavioral and even legal norms. Many coercive methods to push the agenda was going to be counterproductive in controlling HIV. However, instead of resorting to coercive methods, the information, education and communication activities targeted the individual's families and health systems for changing the social and behavioral attitudes of the society towards HIV. And this was proven to be successful. These strategies were successfully adopted in India also. When HIV importations and local spread were detected in our country, the Indian experts studied the situation and they devised multi-pronged interventions including social vaccines such as hospital infection control, sentinel surveillance, educational programs and so on. And even laboratory testing was made mandatory for safe blood transfusion. See in this, just know that sentinel surveillance involves testing of people across the community including those who are also apparently well. This is done in order to discover the unseen transmission of the disease also. So with respect to HIV, World Health Organization advised the countries for only syndromic diagnosis of HIV. Meaning, only to identify consistent group of symptoms and signs to confirm whether it is HIV or not. But what India did was India rejected WHO's advice and went for multi-pronged interventions. And this held India to contain the spread of HIV to a greater extent. According to the authors. But if you see in case of COVID-19 infection, India blindly continues WHO's advice. That is, it is simply conducting lot of tests over the people without any interventions. So actually how this social vaccine works. A social vaccine addresses the barriers and facilitators of behavioral change such as the attitudinal change, social change, cultural change or economic change. And it also supplements the information, education and communication that is IEC with targeted social behavior change communication strategies. So by these strategies, population can be empowered to resist unhealthy practices. They can be empowered to increase resilience and also to foster advocacy for change. And when it is applied to the pandemics, the effectiveness of a social vaccine is determined by the extent of dissemination of accurate information and it is also determined by the uptake of accurate information about the personal infection risk and methods to reduce such risk. So in short, we can say that if any pandemic has to be tackled before inventing a biomedical vaccine or a cure, a proper social change or a behavioral change is required. And this change includes empowering ourselves with knowledge about the disease and how it is spread and how much an individual is at risk to be infected by such disease. Because then only the individual can stay safe by using the appropriate safety measures advocated by the government and medical professionals. So in this scenario, authors have given an idea about what is the social vaccine for COVID-19 infection. See, as we know, there is still no biomedical vaccine for COVID-19. So until a cure or vaccine for coronavirus is found, the only way to prevent the spread of disease is by changing people's behavior. That is through a social vaccine only. So according to the author, openly admitting community transmission of HIV was the signal for the public to change behavior and to take precautions against HIV. So the skills and experiences from controlling the HIV AIDS pandemic can be innovatively adapted for current pandemic also. And since for COVID-19 infection, transmission is through social contacts, social distancing is needed. So maintaining physical distancing in social situations and wearing masks or facial coverings in public by 100% of people is key to preventing the infection. And this has to be carried out along with regular disinfection of oneself and also of their surroundings. So as a conclusion, we can say that people are more likely to practice these behaviors if all leaders promote them publicly and consistently. If proper information, support and materials are available and accessible, then social vaccine will also be a success for this pandemic also. Here the role of leaders is important because building trust is key if government-imposed medication strategies are to be embraced by the population. So that is all about this discussion. In this discussion, we saw a new approach to tackle a pandemic, which is the social vaccine. We saw how social vaccine was used to tackle the HIV AIDS pandemic and we finally also saw how social vaccine can be used to tackle COVID-19 pandemic also. With this, we come to the end of this discussion. The displayed practice question will be discussed in the last session. Moving on to the next discussion, which is based on this news article. It talks about three new schemes launched by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. We know that our Prime Minister has given a clarion call for Atma Nirbhar Bharat, that is a self-reliant India. It means India shall become a major country of the world in terms of appropriate technology, capital and extraordinary human resource and thus India contributing significantly to the global economy. So in line with this, in order to make India a robust ecosystem in electronics manufacturing, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has launched three schemes. We will discuss about these three schemes in this discussion. The syllabus that is relevant to this discussion is given here for your reference. So these are the three schemes which has been newly launched. First one is production-linked incentive scheme for large-scale electronics manufacturing. Then the second one is scheme for promotion of manufacturing of electronic components and semiconductors. And the third one is modified electronics manufacturing clusters scheme. Now together the three schemes entail an outlay of about Rs. 50,000 crores. And it is believed that the three schemes will enable large-scale electronics manufacturing, domestic supply chain of components. It will provide state-of-the-art infrastructure and common facilities for large units and also to their supply chain partners. So we can say that this is in line with Make in India and Assemble in India, vision of Government of India. And these schemes are expected to contribute significantly for achieving a Rs. 1 trillion digital economy and it will also contribute in achieving a Rs. 5 trillion GDP by 2025. It is because the schemes are expected to attract substantial investments. They are expected to increase production of mobile phones and their components to around Rs. 10 lakh crores by the year 2025. And they are also expected to generate around 5 lakh direct jobs and 15 lakh indirect jobs. So these are some of the objectives and advantages of these schemes. Now let us discuss these schemes in brief. The first one is the production-linked incentive scheme that is PLI scheme. This scheme gives production-linked incentive to boost domestic manufacturing and to attract large investments in few sectors. The sectors include mobile phone manufacturing and specified electronics components including the assembly testing, marketing and packaging units. This assembly testing, marketing and packaging is together known as ATMP. Now this scheme will extend an incentive of 4 percentage to 6 percentage on incremental sales over a base year. And the base year is chosen as 2019-20. And the incentive is for incremental sales of goods manufactured in India and which are covered under the target segments under this scheme. And this will be given to eligible companies for a period of 5 years subsequent to the base year. For example, according to the notification of the scheme the company is making phones of more than Rs. 15,000 and which will make a cumulative investment of Rs. 1,000 crores over the next 4 years will qualify for an incentive of 6 percentage for the first 2 years. And for the next 2 years the incentive will be 5 percentage and for the 5th year the incentive will be 4 percentage. Now the next scheme is the specs scheme which is the scheme for promotion of manufacturing of electronic components and semiconductors. This scheme aims to strengthen the electronics manufacturing ecosystem in India by promoting domestic manufacturing of electronic components and semiconductors. And this scheme provides financial incentive of 25 percentage on capital expenditure for the identified list of electronic goods. And these goods include electronic components, semiconductor or display fabrication units, then ATMP units, then also specialized sub-assemblies and capital goods for the manufacture of all these goods. Now the next scheme is the EMC 2.0 that is the modified electronics manufacturing clusters scheme. This scheme aims to offset the disabilities faced by the industries for quality infrastructure and to develop a robust electronics manufacturing ecosystem in the country. And this EMC 2.0 shall provide support for creation of world-class infrastructure along with common facilities and amenities. This includes ready-built factory sheds and then plug-and-play facilities for attracting major global electronics manufacturers along with their supply chains. See, when we say plug-and-play facilities, it denotes or relates to the software or devices that are intended to work perfectly when first used or when first connected without reconfiguration or adjustment by the user. So these kinds of facilities attract major global electronics manufacturers. So in this way, this scheme will fortify or strengthen the linkage between domestic and international market as it strengthens supply chain responsiveness, consolidation of suppliers, it enables lower logistics costs, etc. So, so far we discussed about the three schemes introduced by Meti. In addition to this, also know about the important schemes launched earlier by the government to promote electronics manufacturing. And the most important one among this is the National Policy on Electronics of 2019. And we have explained this policy in detail in our target 2020 July month video. You can have a look at it for better understanding. Then another initiative of government is the Modified Special Incentive Package Scheme. It was launched in 2012 to attract investment in electronics manufacturing. Then in 2012, another scheme was notified, which was the electronics manufacturing cluster scheme. Now this scheme has been modified as the EMC 2.0. And finally, we have the Electronics Development Fund. It was set up as a fund of funds. See, the fund of funds is also known as multi-manager investment. It is a pooled investment fund that invests in other types of funds. Now this electronics development fund provides risk capital to companies which are developing new technologies in the area of electronics, nano-electronics and information technology. So that is all about this discussion. In this discussion, we saw about the three new schemes introduced by Meti. And we also saw about some important schemes that were already launched by the government to promote electronics manufacturing. With this, we come to the end of this discussion. In this discussion, we will see new geographical area of concern for India along the line of actual control. We all know that the entire Sino-Indian border is more than 3,400 km long and it extends along the United Territory of Ladakh, then the states of Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh. Now though the line of actual control is the effective boundary between India and China, it is not officially delineated. So both countries have differing perceptions of the border. This results in frequent border transgression and skirmishes that is fights between the forces. At present, there is an ongoing stand-up between India and China along several points in Ladakh and Sikkim. We have been seeing this for many days for now. And every time we have saw the geographical locations of these points from examination point of view. Now today's news is that certain reports say that Chinese army has set up tents in the Debsang Plains. See, India claims that the Debsang Bulge or Plains which is a crucial area along the LAC as a part of unitary of Ladakh. And according to the news article, the light armor vehicles and a large number of tanks have been seen in the Chinese controlled areas near Debsang. And it is also said that Debsang Plain or Bulge is one of the few places in the western sector where light armor vehicles can move. So, any Chinese build-up in this area is a cause of concern for India. And know that Debsang Plains were occupied by China during the Indo-China war in 1962. And then, again in 2013, the People's Liberation Army of China had crossed the LAC and pitched tents on the Indian side of these Plains for some time. So, in this context only, this news article also presents the viewpoint of former National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon. He is of opinion that, like it was used in 2013, both diplomatic pressure and political pressure should be used to resolve the issue. He suggests two pronged strategy. First, India should insist People's Liberation Army to move back from the current stand-off point. And second, India should ensure an end point where the troops should move back to avoid any repeat incursions in the future. So, he suggests that for a successful outcome, India should not only display its strength, but India should also keep the public discourse calm and steady. And as per this news article, as a part of upgrading the defences in Ladakh, India had already started deploying tank regiments in 2014 itself. And this also includes the T-72 tanks in the eastern Ladakh region. So, by this, what we mean is that now the crew is acclimatized or adapted to the harsh environment, and the tanks are equipped to operate in the high-altitude atmosphere if these situations change in the Debsung Plains. So, that is all about this discussion. In today's discussion, we saw about a crucial area along LAC, which is Debsung Plains or Debsung Bulge, which India claims as its territory. And for the past few days, we have been hearing about skirmishers along the LAC in various places. And these places include Galwan River Valley and Pangong-Solek region. And both are in Ladakh. And then another hotspot is Nakula in Sikkim. So, remember these areas from examination point of view. With this, we come to the end of this discussion. That is a quick practice question will be discussed in the last session. Moving on to the next discussion, which is based on this news article, it mentions that China is going to set up a 1,024 megawatt power project named as Kohala Hydro Power Project. And it is going to be set up in Pakistan occupied Kashmir despite India's objection to it. So, for the implementation of this project, an agreement has been finalized for under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. That is CPEC. So, in this context, let us see about this project and also about CPEC. First know that, as we already saw, Kohala Hydro Power Plant is a 1,024 megawatt power project or 1.12 gigawatt power project which is being developed on the Jhelum River in Musapparabad district of Azad Jammu Kashmir which is a part of Pakistan occupied Kashmir. And this project is one of the six hydropower projects which is planned to be built on the Jhelum River in the district of Azad Jammu Kashmir in POK. As you know, Pakistan occupied Kashmir is a disputed territory between India and Pakistan and that is why India has objected to this project. I know that in 2015 itself, a special purpose vehicle called as Kohala Hydro Company was formed to execute this hydropower project. The plant is being developed under CPEC and this project is estimated to require an investment of 2.36 billion dollars. So, this project is one of the biggest investments of private sector in Pakistan. So, in this context, let us know about China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. First know that CPEC is one of the main projects under China's Belt and Road Initiative. As you know, BRI's largest connectivity initiative, spearheaded by China, China intends to revive the ancient Silk Road connecting China with Eurasia and Africa. And it is connected through a vast network of roads as well as other infrastructure projects such as dams, railways, etc. We discussed about the Belt and Road Initiative in detail on our 24th May Hindu News Analysis. You can have a look at it for better understanding. Now, remember that on that day, we saw that India did not join the Belt and Road Initiative of China and CPEC is one of the main reasons for India not joining BRI because as we just saw, CPEC passes through the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Additionally, know that CPEC is a 3,000 km long corridor out of which almost 2,500 km would pass through Pakistan. So, a memorandum of understanding has been signed between Pakistan and China in this regard. So, the CPEC corridor will connect Xinjiang Autonomous Region of China with the Guadar Port, which is located in the southwestern region of Pakistan. And this economic corridor will include developing of highways, railways and pipelines in Pakistan. So, this creates sovereignty concerns for India and that is why India is opposing CPEC, the Hydro Power Project and it is one of the reasons why India did not join BRI also. So, that is all about this discussion. With this, we come to the end of this discussion. That is a quick practice question will be discussed in the last session. Moving on to the next discussion, which is based on this news article. The state of natural rubber sector in this COVID-19 pandemic. As we know, the pandemic has affected various sectors of economy. Likewise, it has severely impacted the operations of automotive sector and related industries also. And we had a detailed discussion about rubber production in India, then important facts and applications of rubber on our 29th May in the news analysis. You can have a look at it for better understanding. On that day, we saw that the natural rubber production in India recorded a growth of 9.4% in 2019-20. And for the first time since 2014-15, the production had crossed 7 lakh tons. And we also saw that natural rubber is the main component in heavy duty tires and it is also used for manufacturing of bicycle tires and tubes. Now, today's news is that due to lockdown, the consumption of natural rubber is falling drastically. It is estimated that the total requirement of natural rubber by domestic tire manufacturers will fall to 9 lakh metric tons this fiscal year. Last year, the requirement was 11.4 lakh metric tons. That means there will be a reduction in demand of more than 20% age for natural rubber in this fiscal. So because of this, experts are saying that there is no need for the country to import rubber to meet the demand. On that day, we also saw that there was a decline of 20% age in imports last fiscal also. So it seems that this trend is going to continue for this fiscal too. And according to this news article, the price and market recovery of India's natural rubber sector will fully depend on how the economy is going to rebound in the next three quarters. If it doesn't rebound, then natural rubber sector will also be drastically affected. And that is why the title mentions that natural rubber sector on a sticky wicket, which means the sector is in difficult circumstances. So that is all the information that you need to know from this news article. Let's move on to the next discussion. Now we have come to the final session for the day, which is the practice questions discussion session. This is a pair based question. On one side, a region is given and on the other side, the countries between which the region is disputed is given. The first pair is Pangong So, it has been paired with India and China. Second pair is Kalapani, it has been paired with India and Nepal. And the third region is Debsung Plains, it has been paired with India and Pakistan. Now you know that Pangong So is a disputed territory between India and China. And Kalapani, which we have seen many times during our analysis is a disputed territory between India and Nepal. And in today's discussion we saw about Debsung Plains and it is not a disputed territory between India and Pakistan, rather between India and China. So the third pair is incorrectly matched. If you look at the question, the question asks for the correctly matched pairs. So the correct question is option B, one and two only. Now this next question is about Belt and Road Initiative. The first statement mentions it is a transcontinental passage that links China with Southeast Asia, South Asia, Central Asia, Russia, Europe and North America. Now you have to be careful while attending this statement, because at the first glance it might seem as a correct statement, but it is an incorrect statement. Because if you see Biare is a transcontinental passage, that is correct. And it links China with many regions. That part is also correct. So but it connects China with Eurasia and Africa. So it does not connect China with North America. So that is why this statement is incorrect. Now the second statement mentions India has recently joined the Belt and Road Initiative. Now see as of now this statement is incorrect because so far India did not join Belt and Road Initiative because of many reasons. And one of the reason is China is an economic corridor as it passes through Pakistan occupied Kashmir. So in future if India joins Biare, then this statement will become a correct statement. And here the question asks for the correct statements and both the statements are incorrect as of now. So the correct answer to this question is option D neither one nor two. Now this next question mentions they live in Changtung region in Union territory of Ladakh. They rear Changtungi or Pashmina goat which is a special breed of goat indigenous to the high altitude regions of Ladakh in Jambu and Kashmir. The goats are raised for ultra fine Kashmiri wool known as Pashmina once woven. The above best describes which of the following tribal communities. So from today's discussion you can easily say that all these things match to one community which is Changpa community. So the correct answer is option C. Now the first option is Riyang community. You know that Riyang is a tribal community from the state of Tripura and it is the only particularly vulnerable tribal group from the state of Tripura. And the second option given is Champins and know that this tribal community is from Andaman and Kuber Islands and they have been listed as a PVTG from Andaman and Kuber Islands. And the last option is Sahariyas. They are also important because they are the only PVTG from Rajasthan. Now let us take the main question displayed during the news article discussion sessions. This question is on GS paper 3. What is social vaccine? How it was used in controlling HIV AIDS pandemic in India? Do you think it will be effective in COVID-19 pandemic scenario? So this is a very direct question. You have to define social vaccine. Then what are the methods used under it for controlling HIV AIDS pandemic? Then you have to give your own viewpoint on whether it will be helpful in this pandemic or not. And remember your answer should be concise because you have to answer this question in 150 words. Now this next main question is based on GS paper 2. Question asks discuss the possibilities for India to steer multilateralism in the new Cold War scenario. At the global level, what are to be achieved in the India led multilateralism? You can take points from the editorial discussion which we discussed on multilateralism to answer this question. And you can also add your own viewpoints. You can answer both the questions and post it in the comments section. We will review it and appropriate suggestions will be provided in 15 working days. With this, we have come to the end of today's Hindi news analysis and question answer discussion sessions. If you like the video, don't forget to like, comment and share and do subscribe to Shankar IAS Academy YouTube channel for more updates related to civil service examination preparation.