newyorker--2020-09-04--New Polls Suggest the Presidential Race Is Still Joe Biden’s to Lose

On Thursday , Joe Biden and his wife , Jill , visited Kenosha , Wisconsin , where they met for ninety minutes with the family of Jacob Blake , the Black man shot in the back seven times by a white police officer last month .
Coming just two days after Donald Trump went to Kenosha but failed to meet the Blake family , Biden ’ s trip highlighted how the issues of race , police brutality , protests , and civil unrest have moved to the center of the Presidential campaign , partly because Trump is eagerly demagoguing them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and scare some voters into his corner .
The Financial Times columnist Janan Ganesh argued earlier this week that Trump had succeeded in dragging Biden onto his turf .
“ In the campaign of Republican dreams , ” Ganesh wrote , “ Biden spends the next two months explaining that ‘ defund the police ’ means something subtler , that ‘ no justice , no peace ’ is just a slogan , not a threat , and that neither is Democratic policy.
” There is some truth in this—Biden ’ s strategists would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But Ganesh ’ s analysis also raises the question of whether Trump ’ s inflammatory campaign tactics , however cynical and odious , will be sufficient to alter the underlying dynamics of the election .
A brace of new polls suggest that , at least for now , the race remains pretty stable .
Let ’ s start with the national data .
On Wednesday , four live-caller telephone polls were published—from CNN , Grinnell College/Selzer & Company , Quinnipiac University , and Suffolk University/USA Today —which showed Biden with leads ranging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) to ten points ( Quinnipiac University ) .
A number of new online and online-telephone polls also showed Biden out front .
The margins in these surveys ranged from four points ( Rasmussen/Pulse Opinion Research ) to eleven points ( The Economist/YouGov ) .
As ever , the easiest way to get an overview of all the latest findings is to look at the poll averages , which combine them .
On Thursday evening , the Real Clear Politics poll average showed Biden leading Trump by 7.2 percentage points .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held a month ago , though it ’ s down a bit on the margin of 8.8 points he enjoyed two months ago .
The message from these figures is that the race has tightened a bit since July , when fresh outbreaks of COVID-19 were dominating the news , but not by a great deal .
And the two Conventions don ’ t seem to have had much impact at all .
In a highly polarized society , where most voters have already made up their minds about Trump one way or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ d expect .
Still , the bias in the Electoral College toward Republicans is very real .
Even if Biden wins the popular vote , the election outcome could come down to a handful of swing states , particularly in the Rust Belt .
These states are where the Trump campaign is concentrating its efforts , but the latest polling data emerging from them is mixed for him , at best .
Take Wisconsin , which Trump carried in 2016 by less than twenty-three thousand voters .
If his misleading rhetoric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anarchists were playing well anywhere , you might think it would be in a state where there were fires and looting during the demonstrations that followed the shooting of Blake .
A Fox News poll that was carried out in Wisconsin from Saturday to Tuesday shows Biden leading Trump by eight points .
That ’ s virtually the same margin Fox found in a previous poll , at the end of May .
Another pollster , Morning Consult , has been conducting an online tracking poll of Wisconsin voters since May , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Currently , it has Biden ahead by ten points .
In Pennsylvania , which Trump carried in 2016 by about forty-four thousand votes , two new polls suggest the trend line is going more in his favor .
One of them , from Monmouth University , shows Biden ’ s lead narrowing dramatically : to four points , from thirteen points in July .
The other survey , from Rasmussen—a Republican-leaning pollster—shows the race tightening by three points in the past couple of months .
Balanced against these polls , however , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which has Biden eight points ahead among likely voters .
That ’ s the same margin this pollster found back in February , even before Biden had secured the Democratic nomination .
Moreover , the fact remains that there hasn ’ t been a poll showing Trump ahead in Pennsylvania since May .
And the encouraging poll news for him from the Keystone State was offset by a second Fox News survey , from Arizona , which shows Biden leading by nine percentage points .
The Grand Canyon State hasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1996 .
In recent months , though , Biden has consistently been running ahead of Trump in the Arizona poll averages , although not by as much as the Fox News poll indicates .
On Thursday , R.C.P.
’ s poll average for Arizona showed the Democrat leading by five points .
Taken together , these poll findings suggest Trump is still confronting the same basic challenge that the Republican Party faced in the 2018 midterms , when House Democrats made big gains : a majority of voters don ’ t like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is doing .
According to the FiveThirtyEight poll average , Trump ’ s approval rating is 43.4 per cent , and his disapproval rating is 52.3 per cent .
But the latest polls also point to a couple of more specific issues with the President ’ s inflammatory campaign strategy .
The first is that , despite his scaremongering , the threat he is pointing to doesn ’ t appear to be uppermost in the minds of voters .
CNN ’ s pollsters asked the respondents to its survey how worried they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per cent of people said that they were worried or very worried about the coronavirus ; fifty-eight per cent said that they were worried or very worried about the economy .
Only thirty-seven per cent said that they were worried about crime , and just thirteen per cent said they were very worried about it .
Even if Trump succeeds in changing these numbers , it ’ s not a guarantee that he will benefit much , because most Americans don ’ t see him as a reassuring presence .
When the pollsters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felt about his ability to deal wisely with crime , thirty-seven per cent of respondents said they were confident and fifty-three per cent said they were uneasy .
Quinnipiac University ’ s national poll inquired of potential voters whether having Trump as President made them feel more safe , less safe , or had no impact .
Thirty-five per cent said it made them feel more safe .
Fifty per cent said less safe .
Why , then , is Trump placing so much emphasis on crime and public safety ?
The obvious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got anything else , but the Quinnipiac pollsters provided some insight into Trump ’ s motivation .
When they asked Americans whether having him as President made them feel safe , they found a huge discrepancy between white voters who have four years of college and white voters who don ’ t .
Among the college graduates , almost sixty per cent said Trump made them feel less safe , and just twenty-eight per cent said they felt more safe .
Among non-college graduates , the figures were practically reversed .

On Thursday, Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, visited Kenosha, Wisconsin, where they met for ninety minutes with the family of Jacob Blake, the Black man shot in the back seven times by a white police officer last month. Coming just two days after Donald Trump went to Kenosha but failed to meet the Blake family, Biden’s trip highlighted how the issues of race, police brutality, protests, and civil unrest have moved to the center of the Presidential campaign, partly because Trump is eagerly demagoguing them to divert attention from the coronavirus pandemic and scare some voters into his corner.
The Financial Times columnist Janan Ganesh argued earlier this week that Trump had succeeded in dragging Biden onto his turf. “In the campaign of Republican dreams,” Ganesh wrote, “Biden spends the next two months explaining that ‘defund the police’ means something subtler, that ‘no justice, no peace’ is just a slogan, not a threat, and that neither is Democratic policy.” There is some truth in this—Biden’s strategists would prefer to be focussing on the pandemic. But Ganesh’s analysis also raises the question of whether Trump’s inflammatory campaign tactics, however cynical and odious, will be sufficient to alter the underlying dynamics of the election.
A brace of new polls suggest that, at least for now, the race remains pretty stable. Let’s start with the national data. On Wednesday, four live-caller telephone polls were published—from CNN, Grinnell College/Selzer & Company, Quinnipiac University, and Suffolk University/USA Today —which showed Biden with leads ranging from seven points (Suffolk University/USA Today) to ten points (Quinnipiac University). A number of new online and online-telephone polls also showed Biden out front. The margins in these surveys ranged from four points (Rasmussen/Pulse Opinion Research) to eleven points (The Economist/YouGov).
As ever, the easiest way to get an overview of all the latest findings is to look at the poll averages, which combine them. On Thursday evening, the Real Clear Politics poll average showed Biden leading Trump by 7.2 percentage points. That’s nearly identical to the lead he held a month ago, though it’s down a bit on the margin of 8.8 points he enjoyed two months ago. The message from these figures is that the race has tightened a bit since July, when fresh outbreaks of COVID-19 were dominating the news, but not by a great deal. And the two Conventions don’t seem to have had much impact at all.
In a highly polarized society, where most voters have already made up their minds about Trump one way or the other, that’s what you’d expect. Still, the bias in the Electoral College toward Republicans is very real. Even if Biden wins the popular vote, the election outcome could come down to a handful of swing states, particularly in the Rust Belt. These states are where the Trump campaign is concentrating its efforts, but the latest polling data emerging from them is mixed for him, at best.
Take Wisconsin, which Trump carried in 2016 by less than twenty-three thousand voters. If his misleading rhetoric about Biden going soft on rioters and anarchists were playing well anywhere, you might think it would be in a state where there were fires and looting during the demonstrations that followed the shooting of Blake. A Fox News poll that was carried out in Wisconsin from Saturday to Tuesday shows Biden leading Trump by eight points. That’s virtually the same margin Fox found in a previous poll, at the end of May. Another pollster, Morning Consult, has been conducting an online tracking poll of Wisconsin voters since May, which also shows a pretty stable picture. Currently, it has Biden ahead by ten points.
In Pennsylvania, which Trump carried in 2016 by about forty-four thousand votes, two new polls suggest the trend line is going more in his favor. One of them, from Monmouth University, shows Biden’s lead narrowing dramatically: to four points, from thirteen points in July. The other survey, from Rasmussen—a Republican-leaning pollster—shows the race tightening by three points in the past couple of months. Balanced against these polls, however, is a third one, from Quinnipiac University, which has Biden eight points ahead among likely voters. That’s the same margin this pollster found back in February, even before Biden had secured the Democratic nomination.
Moreover, the fact remains that there hasn’t been a poll showing Trump ahead in Pennsylvania since May. And the encouraging poll news for him from the Keystone State was offset by a second Fox News survey, from Arizona, which shows Biden leading by nine percentage points. The Grand Canyon State hasn’t voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate since 1996. In recent months, though, Biden has consistently been running ahead of Trump in the Arizona poll averages, although not by as much as the Fox News poll indicates. On Thursday, R.C.P.’s poll average for Arizona showed the Democrat leading by five points.
Taken together, these poll findings suggest Trump is still confronting the same basic challenge that the Republican Party faced in the 2018 midterms, when House Democrats made big gains: a majority of voters don’t like the President or approve of the job he is doing. According to the FiveThirtyEight poll average, Trump’s approval rating is 43.4 per cent, and his disapproval rating is 52.3 per cent. But the latest polls also point to a couple of more specific issues with the President’s inflammatory campaign strategy.
The first is that, despite his scaremongering, the threat he is pointing to doesn’t appear to be uppermost in the minds of voters. CNN’s pollsters asked the respondents to its survey how worried they were about a series of issues. Sixty per cent of people said that they were worried or very worried about the coronavirus; fifty-eight per cent said that they were worried or very worried about the economy. Only thirty-seven per cent said that they were worried about crime, and just thirteen per cent said they were very worried about it.
Even if Trump succeeds in changing these numbers, it’s not a guarantee that he will benefit much, because most Americans don’t see him as a reassuring presence. When the pollsters from The Economist/YouGov asked voters how they felt about his ability to deal wisely with crime, thirty-seven per cent of respondents said they were confident and fifty-three per cent said they were uneasy. Quinnipiac University’s national poll inquired of potential voters whether having Trump as President made them feel more safe, less safe, or had no impact. Thirty-five per cent said it made them feel more safe. Fifty per cent said less safe.
Why, then, is Trump placing so much emphasis on crime and public safety? The obvious answer is that he hasn’t got anything else, but the Quinnipiac pollsters provided some insight into Trump’s motivation. When they asked Americans whether having him as President made them feel safe, they found a huge discrepancy between white voters who have four years of college and white voters who don’t. Among the college graduates, almost sixty per cent said Trump made them feel less safe, and just twenty-eight per cent said they felt more safe. Among non-college graduates, the figures were practically reversed.


newyorker--2020-09-03--The 2020 Election, a Race in Which Everything Happens and Nothing Matters

Does anything matter anymore in American politics ?
In the week since Donald Trump ’ s Convention ended with a personality-cult party on the White House lawn , the President has completely refocussed his campaign on threats to law and order from “ Rioters , Anarchists , Agitators , and Looters.
” He has suggested there will be a “ Rigged Election ” ; urged supporters in North Carolina to commit election fraud , by voting twice ; and likened protesters demanding racial justice to “ Domestic Terrorists.
” The President personally ordered a review of federal aid , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anarchist ” Democratic-run cities that have allowed “ themselves to deteriorate into lawless zones.
” And he has baselessly alleged that his Democratic opponent , Joe Biden , is taking some sort of “ enhancement ” drug , and claimed that Biden is the pawn of shadowy “ dark forces.
” On his Twitter feed , Trump repeatedly promoted misinformation about the ongoing coronavirus pandemic while also attacking “ Crazy Nancy Pelosi ” ; the “ highly political ” National Basketball Association ; the governor of Oregon ; the “ wacky Radical Left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; the governor of New York , Andrew Cuomo , and his brother , CNN ’ s Chris Cuomo ; and various other figures in the “ Enemy of the People ” media , including the conservative Internet aggregator Matt Drudge and MSNBC ’ s “ very untalented ” Joy Reid .
Trump ’ s Administration , meanwhile , is withholding briefings on election interference by Russia and other foreign powers from congressional intelligence committees and telling leaders in key battleground states to be prepared for a coronavirus vaccine , which may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election .
And that ’ s just this week .
The rest of the news in Trump ’ s America , two months before Election Day , is equally gutting : twenty or so U.S. states have rising cases of COVID-19 , and , as many schools and universities reopen , the numbers are expected to grow .
On many days , more than a thousand Americans die as a result of the pandemic .
By comparison , in the worst week of the Vietnam War , just more than five hundred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and former C.I.A .
official David Priess noted .
All told , American deaths from COVID-19 are approaching two hundred thousand .
Mass unemployment continues , and many companies are bracing for new , more permanent layoffs .
Food banks are overwhelmed .
Congress , stuck in an impasse between House Democrats and Senate Republicans , has failed to pass a new round of economic relief , and the initial aid package for small businesses and the unemployed has run out .
The national debt has reached its highest level since the Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparently , has any electoral consequence .
In fact , looking at the polls , you would be hard-pressed to discern that anything of consequence is happening at all .
On Wednesday , news organizations and respected universities released a slew of post-Convention opinion surveys , all of which revealed the same thing : nothing new .
The state of the race between Donald Trump and Joe Biden is unchanged—Trump is losing , just as he was a month ago , and a month before that , by somewhere between seven and ten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , the average calculated by FiveThirtyEight had Biden leading the race by 7.3 percentage points , 50.2 per cent to 42.9 per cent .
The average was the same over on RealClearPolitics , which showed Biden with a lead of 7.2 points .
A month earlier , on August 3rd , RealClearPolitics had Biden leading by 7.4 points , which means that—after all was said and done at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions , and in Trump ’ s endless tweets and Fox News interviews , after more than thirty thousand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and millions of children started the new school year stuck at homes—the Presidential race had changed by exactly two-tenths of one percentage point .
By now , this should not surprise anyone .
It ’ s long been apparent how bizarrely consistent and impervious to events Trump ’ s approval ratings are .
Through impeachment and scandal and now pandemic and recession , a more or less straight line of roughly forty per cent of Americans have supported the President , no matter what he does or says and regardless of what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world .
Previous Presidents—all of them—saw their ratings go up and down depending , at least in part , on their performance in office .
Not Trump .
He appears to be living a politician ’ s dream : a Presidency free of consequence and devoid of accountability .
What this means for the nation , for American democracy , is a different issue altogether .
The remarkable constancy of America ’ s division over Trump predates his Presidency , and has nothing whatsoever to do with Joe Biden or the most-important-of-your-lifetime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on August 25 , 2016 , Quinnipiac University released results of a national survey in which Trump trailed his Democratic opponent , Hillary Clinton , by ten points , taking only forty-one per cent to her fifty-one .
This Wednesday , Quinnipiac released its latest survey .
In it , Trump trails Biden by ten points , with forty-two per cent to Biden ’ s fifty-two .
America , in other words , is in almost exactly the same place as it was four years ago—before Helsinki and Robert Mueller , Stormy Daniels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s pardon and Jim Mattis ’ s quitting and the “ perfect ” phone call to Ukraine ; and before Trump took “ no responsibility at all ” for the pandemic that has , at least for now , changed life as we know it in America .
If a botched government response that contributes to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans can ’ t move the polls five points against Trump , can anything ?
But the campaign must go on .
Trump spent the past week betting his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least , that subset of Americans who still might possibly support him in November—can be convinced that “ LAW & ORDER ” in the cities is a more urgent and pressing matter than controlling the pandemic and reviving the economy .
I reviewed eleven ads that the Trump campaign aired on broadcast TV during and after the Convention .
( With the notable exception of Minnesota , these appear to be running mostly in states won by Trump in 2016 , a sign of a campaign playing defense . )
The word @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a single one of them ; in fact , it ’ s as if the pandemic and the economic crisis simply do not exist .
Notably , the phrases and policies most associated with Trump are also missing .
There is no “ America First , ” not even a “ Make America Great Again , Again ” —the awkward new slogan that Vice-President Mike Pence rolled out at the G.O.P .
Convention—just attacks on Biden as a tool of the “ radical left ” and hellish scenes of unrest in America ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Kenosha , Wisconsin , this week to pose for a picture in front of one such tableau of destruction : a pile of rubble outside a block of looted stores , after protests following the police shooting of a young Black man , Jacob Blake .
“ Strong leadership when America needs it most , ” the generic tagline in the new wave of Trump ads says .
This , then , is what the President is betting his campaign ’ s money on .
Polls , so far , do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll , which has Biden up by seven points over all , shows that the issues which Americans care most about right now are the coronavirus , the economy and jobs , and health care .
Crime was cited by just eight per cent of respondents as a top priority .
A majority of both Democrats and Republicans said that it was not increasing in their communities .
A majority unchanged from late July also said that they were sympathetic to the nationwide protests .
About @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changed since before the Republican Convention is Trump ’ s nickname for Biden .
“ Sleepy Joe ” Biden , it seems , is out .
“ Hiden ’ Biden ” is in .
Will it make a difference ?
I ’ m going to go out on a limb and say no , not at all .

Does anything matter anymore in American politics? In the week since Donald Trump’s Convention ended with a personality-cult party on the White House lawn, the President has completely refocussed his campaign on threats to law and order from “Rioters, Anarchists, Agitators, and Looters.” He has suggested there will be a “Rigged Election”; urged supporters in North Carolina to commit election fraud, by voting twice; and likened protesters demanding racial justice to “Domestic Terrorists.” The President personally ordered a review of federal aid, with the goal of withholding funds from “anarchist” Democratic-run cities that have allowed “themselves to deteriorate into lawless zones.” And he has baselessly alleged that his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, is taking some sort of “enhancement” drug, and claimed that Biden is the pawn of shadowy “dark forces.”
On his Twitter feed, Trump repeatedly promoted misinformation about the ongoing coronavirus pandemic while also attacking “Crazy Nancy Pelosi”; the “highly political” National Basketball Association; the governor of Oregon; the “wacky Radical Left Do Nothing Democrat Mayor of Portland”; the governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, and his brother, CNN’s Chris Cuomo; and various other figures in the “Enemy of the People” media, including the conservative Internet aggregator Matt Drudge and MSNBC’s “very untalented” Joy Reid. Trump’s Administration, meanwhile, is withholding briefings on election interference by Russia and other foreign powers from congressional intelligence committees and telling leaders in key battleground states to be prepared for a coronavirus vaccine, which may be approved by the government just days before the election. And that’s just this week.
The rest of the news in Trump’s America, two months before Election Day, is equally gutting: twenty or so U.S. states have rising cases of COVID-19, and, as many schools and universities reopen, the numbers are expected to grow. On many days, more than a thousand Americans die as a result of the pandemic. By comparison, in the worst week of the Vietnam War, just more than five hundred American personnel died, the national-security expert and former C.I.A. official David Priess noted. All told, American deaths from COVID-19 are approaching two hundred thousand. Mass unemployment continues, and many companies are bracing for new, more permanent layoffs. Food banks are overwhelmed. Congress, stuck in an impasse between House Democrats and Senate Republicans, has failed to pass a new round of economic relief, and the initial aid package for small businesses and the unemployed has run out. The national debt as a share of the economy has reached its highest level since the Second World War.
None of this, apparently, has any electoral consequence. In fact, looking at the polls, you would be hard-pressed to discern that anything of consequence is happening at all. On Wednesday, news organizations and respected universities released a slew of post-Convention opinion surveys, all of which revealed the same thing: nothing new. The state of the race between Donald Trump and Joe Biden is unchanged—Trump is losing, just as he was a month ago, and a month before that, by somewhere between seven and ten points. By Thursday afternoon, in fact, the average calculated by FiveThirtyEight had Biden leading the race by 7.3 percentage points, 50.2 per cent to 42.9 per cent. The average was the same over on RealClearPolitics, which showed Biden with a lead of 7.2 points. A month earlier, on August 3rd, RealClearPolitics had Biden leading by 7.4 points, which means that—after all was said and done at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, and in Trump’s endless tweets and Fox News interviews, after more than thirty thousand Americans died in August of the coronavirus, and millions of children started the new school year stuck at home—the Presidential race had changed by exactly two-tenths of one percentage point.
By now, this should not surprise anyone. It’s long been apparent how bizarrely consistent and impervious to events Trump’s approval ratings are. Through impeachment and scandal and now pandemic and recession, a more or less straight line of roughly forty per cent of Americans have supported the President, no matter what he does or says and regardless of what is happening in the country or around the world. Previous Presidents—all of them—saw their ratings go up and down depending, at least in part, on their performance in office. Not Trump. He appears to be living a politician’s dream: a Presidency free of consequence and devoid of accountability. What this means for the nation, for American democracy, is a different issue altogether.
The remarkable constancy of America’s division over Trump predates his Presidency, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Joe Biden or the most-important-of-your-lifetime 2020 election. Four years ago, on August 25, 2016, Quinnipiac University released results of a national survey in which Trump trailed his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, by ten points, taking only forty-one per cent to her fifty-one. This Wednesday, Quinnipiac released its latest survey. In it, Trump trails Biden by ten points, with forty-two per cent to Biden’s fifty-two. America, in other words, is in almost exactly the same place as it was four years ago—before Helsinki and Robert Mueller, Stormy Daniels and the Mooch; before Roger Stone’s pardon and Jim Mattis’s quitting and the “perfect” phone call to Ukraine; and before Trump took “no responsibility at all” for the pandemic that has, at least for now, changed life as we know it in America. If a botched government response that contributes to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans can’t move the polls five points against Trump, can anything?
But the campaign must go on. Trump spent the past week betting his Presidency on a notion that Americans—or, at least, that subset of Americans who still might possibly support him in November—can be convinced that “LAW & ORDER” in the cities is a more urgent and pressing matter than controlling the pandemic and reviving the economy. I reviewed eleven ads that the Trump campaign aired on broadcast TV during and after the Convention. (With the notable exception of Minnesota, these appear to be running mostly in states won by Trump in 2016, a sign of a campaign playing defense.) The word “coronavirus” is never mentioned in a single one of them; in fact, it’s as if the pandemic and the economic crisis simply do not exist. Notably, the phrases and policies most associated with Trump are also missing. There is no “America First,” not even a “Make America Great Again, Again”—the awkward new slogan that Vice-President Mike Pence rolled out at the G.O.P. Convention—just attacks on Biden as a tool of the “radical left” and hellish scenes of unrest in America’s burning cities. Trump even flew to Kenosha, Wisconsin, this week to pose for a picture in front of one such tableau of destruction: a pile of rubble outside a block of looted stores, after protests following the police shooting of a young Black man, Jacob Blake. “Strong leadership when America needs it most,” the generic tagline in the new wave of Trump ads says. This, then, is what the President is betting his campaign’s money on.
Polls, so far, do not confirm that this is a winning hand. In fact, the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll, which has Biden up by seven points over all, shows that the issues which Americans care most about right now are the coronavirus, the economy and jobs, and health care. Crime was cited by just eight per cent of respondents as a top priority. A majority of both Democrats and Republicans said that it was not increasing in their communities. A majority unchanged from late July also said that they were sympathetic to the nationwide protests. About the only thing that seems to have changed since before the Republican Convention is Trump’s nickname for Biden. “Sleepy Joe” Biden, it seems, is out. “Hiden’ Biden” is in. Will it make a difference? I’m going to go out on a limb and say no, not at all.
Biden has also shifted his campaign, in part reacting to nervous Democrats who fear that Trump’s new ignore-the-virus-and-incite-the-violence strategy may be resonating with white suburban swing-state voters who may have otherwise soured on the President—the only demographic group, it seems, that might be left to persuade. After months of eschewing traditional campaign appearances, owing to the pandemic, Biden this week delivered two in-person speeches and a press conference denouncing Trump and seeking to refocus attention on the President’s miserable response to the pandemic. “This is a national emergency,” Biden said. He has talked tough and taken the fight to the President, as nervous supporters—the “bedwetters,” as Democratic campaign operatives call them—have begged his advisers for him to do. He mocked Trump’s attacks—“Do I look like a radical socialist?” Biden asked—and directly rebutted the President’s efforts to link him to violence, looting, and calls to defund the police. In his own visit to Kenosha, on Thursday, Biden met with Blake’s family and then went to a church in the city for a community event, which its moderator said was all about “unity and compassion.” Biden listened, took notes, nodded soberly at the right times, wore a face mask, and spoke soothingly of another America, a better and less racist America, that might still come to pass. “This is not who we are,” he said. The contrast to Trump was pointed, and very much the point of it all.
It’s tempting not to pay attention to any of this, given the stubborn immutability of Americans’ attitudes about the election. But the paradox of our politics right now is that just because the race seems immovable does not mean that nothing can move it. In 2016, Clinton entered into September with essentially the same lead over Trump which Biden has now. But she did not leave the month with that lead intact. By mid-September, the Quinnipiac poll showed her lead cut in half, to just five points. (And, of course, the national surveys did not reveal the true state of Clinton’s weakness in the battleground states that ended up deciding the race’s outcome in the Electoral College.) Biden today is a bad debate, a campaign stumble or two, and an October surprise away from a 2016 repeat. Which is why the small ups and downs of the race may, in fact, matter—the slight shifts that do not register in the national aggregate but mean everything in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania or Florida. But neither is Biden doomed to Clinton’s fate. It may be that we are stuck in an endless loop of replaying the events of 2016 so much that it has become almost impossible to look at the politics of 2020 for what they are: an increasingly uphill battle for an embattled incumbent at a time when the country is mired in crises for which a majority of Americans blame him. Biden may yet stumble, but isn’t it just as likely that the race moves as little in the next two months as it has in the past two? There are no examples in our recent history of an incumbent President down this far in the polls who has still managed to win. If Trump is at the same place on November 3rd that he is today, he would lose in a landslide as unprecedented in modern times as the Presidency that preceded it.
Read More About the 2020 Election


newyorker--2020-09-03--“I’m Thinking of Ending Things,” Reviewed: Charlie Kaufman’s Showy Quest for Sympathy

Charlie Kaufman , in his new film , “ I ’ m Thinking of Ending Things ” ( which opens Friday , on Netflix ) , takes out a cinematic insurance policy against negative reviews by means of a scene in which a character cites an infamous real-life pan of a classic film—Pauline Kael ’ s negative review , in The New Yorker , in 1974 , of John Cassavetes ’ s “ A Woman Under the Influence ” —and another character rebuts the review by pointing out the “ sympathy ” that the movie evokes .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one : though few critics ( certainly not this one ) would liken themselves to Kael , they ’ d nonetheless be tempted to compare Kaufman ’ s film to Cassavetes ’ s .
( Kaufman seems obsessed with film critics these days : his recent novel , “ Antkind , ” which Jon Baskin reviewed for The New Yorker , has one as its protagonist . )
Like “ A Woman Under the Influence , ” “ I ’ m Thinking of Ending Things ” is a story of a couple in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which he wrote and directed , based on a novel by Iain Reid ) is the story of a young woman ( Jessie Buckley ) whose name may be Lucy , Lucia , or Louisa , and who may be a scientist , a poet , an artist , a waitress , or some combination thereof ; she ’ s dubiously in a relationship with Jake ( Jesse Plemons ) , who seems to be a teacher , or , at least , to work in a school .
( There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movie , a slipperiness that is itself a hedge against the movie ’ s being taken to be anything in particular . )
The first line of the film is its title , spoken by the woman , in voice-over .
She goes on to voice , inside her head , her misgivings about the relationship while waiting for Jake to drive up .
On a cold winter day , the couple are taking a road trip to a remote farmhouse where Jake ’ s parents ( Toni Collette and David Thewlis ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them for the first time , but there ’ s added pressure built in , because a blizzard is rising , and she has to get back home that very night because of work obligations ( which vary with her stated job ) .
Jake reassures her : he has chains , as if such a heavy metaphor were needed .
( It brings to mind a quote from the Kael review , in which she takes Cassavetes to task for his film ’ s “ idiot symbolism.
” ) Not far into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : once more , the woman thinks , I ’ m thinking of ending things , and Jake hears her , or thinks he does .
( The movie makes much of the convention of voice-overs being used to express characters ’ thoughts . )
En route , she continues her rueful musings about the relationship , in the interstices of the couple ’ s jibing , high-flown conversation .
Meanwhile , Jake seems to be hearing—and responding to—her thoughts , as when she thinks a slight variant on the line “ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and Jake instantly speaks to her of Wordsworth .
Her cell phone rings ; the caller is someone named Lucy .
He puts on the radio ; they get a song from “ Oklahoma !
” ( This musical , which is planted like Chekhov ’ s gun in the film ’ s first act , goes wildly off in its last one . )
Jake prompts her to recite one of her poems , and she does .
It turns out to be a poem by the real-life poet Eva H. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Perfect Mouth , ” the character later finds on Jake ’ s childhood bookshelf ; she opens it and finds the poem she recited earlier .
In conversations with Jake ’ s parents around the dinner table and in the living room , the woman ’ s identity morphs—at different times , her different jobs are mentioned , along with her different names—and his parents ’ identities shift , too .
His father is hale ; his father is afflicted with dementia ( giving rise to a touching set of expedients—labels with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; his father is younger and dark-haired , older and white-haired , with or without a bandage on his forehead .
His mother is active , debilitated , sardonic and youthful , elderly and moribund .
( The young woman eventually tries to explain the shifts as her sense of seeing the effects of time . )
There ’ s also another character , one who crops up in brief scenes and quick flashes , an elderly and solitary school janitor ( Guy Boyd ) , the very mention of whom seems spoiler-y @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the film .
He heads to work in an isolated rural school and undertakes his janitorial rounds in its long , empty corridors , doing little else .
His relationship to the story eventually becomes clear ( even dominant ) ; while he himself remains obscure , the most salient aspect of his personality and experience is delivered in a near-flash frame shortly before the movie ’ s end .
The couple debate Tolstoy ’ s phrase about happy families being alike ; when the woman declares , to Jake ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ painter , a discussion about abstraction , realism , characters , and landscapes ensues , followed by her discovery that her paintings are really those of the real-life artist Ralph Albert Blakelock , posters of whose work are found in Jake ’ s basement .
She finds a Kael book in Jake ’ s bedroom , too ( plus Wordsworth and other books that get referenced later on ) , and it ’ s her who , in the car ride back , recites at length from Kael ’ s review—as if not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voice .
During the return trip ( with the chains on the tires ) , the couple ’ s discussions take on a tenser tone—and Kaufman makes notable , noticeable use of the sound of the car ’ s windshield wipers , a sidelong reference to a famous line of film criticism , from a 1951 essay by André Bazin and referring to Robert Bresson ’ s 1945 film “ Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne ” : “ The sound of a windshield-wiper against a page of Diderot is all it took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On both ends of the journey , the couple riff together on the infectious and insidious power of media and , in particular , of movies—Jake frets that he watched too many ( filling his brain with “ lies ” ) , fears that people are “ programmed , ” revolts against the hopeful platitudes with which humanity consoles and pacifies itself .
When he cites David Foster Wallace and television , the woman responds by referring to Guy Debord ’ s “ Society of the Spectacle.
” Meanwhile , the return trip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , takes on a thriller-y gravity .
( The film is haunted by the spirit of David Lynch , in nods to striped walls and odd near-twins and odd wounds , yet lacks Lynch ’ s radical—and cosmic—vision and his sense of style . )
The core of the film remains Jake ’ s plea for art , despite its deceptive and manipulative qualities , because of its potentially redemptive power—which can be realized when art is approached with sympathy and attentiveness to characters ’ struggles .
By those measures , the bar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ features characters with needs , wants , goals , desires , and pains , and it doesn ’ t take any great aesthetic imagination or artistic power to tell a humane story or to elicit sympathy .
Yet Kaufman , in quest of sympathy , wants more : his film elaborates both a grand imaginative scheme and a complex element of aesthetic gamesmanship around his apparently straightforward couple in crisis .
If he worries about the manipulative power of art , he not only brings it to the fore but revels in it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ending Things ” strains to evoke both humanistic tenderness and aesthetic wonder .
Kaufman seeks admiration for his warmhearted and gentle humanism and also for his extravagant creativity , even when the latter gets in the way of the former—when his cleverness stands like a child ’ s antics in front of the screen where the movie is playing , defying viewers to pay attention to what ’ s going on behind him while amiably indulging or ignoring his trickery .

Charlie Kaufman, in his new film, “I’m Thinking of Ending Things” (which opens Friday, on Netflix), takes out a cinematic insurance policy against negative reviews by means of a scene in which a character cites an infamous real-life pan of a classic film—Pauline Kael’s negative review, in The New Yorker, in 1974, of John Cassavetes’s “A Woman Under the Influence”—and another character rebuts the review by pointing out the “sympathy” that the movie evokes. It’s a good trick, albeit a dangerous one: though few critics (certainly not this one) would liken themselves to Kael, they’d nonetheless be tempted to compare Kaufman’s film to Cassavetes’s. (Kaufman seems obsessed with film critics these days: his recent novel, “Antkind,” which Jon Baskin reviewed for The New Yorker, has one as its protagonist.)
Like “A Woman Under the Influence,” “I’m Thinking of Ending Things” is a story of a couple in crisis. Kaufman’s film (which he wrote and directed, based on a novel by Iain Reid) is the story of a young woman (Jessie Buckley) whose name may be Lucy, Lucia, or Louisa, and who may be a scientist, a poet, an artist, a waitress, or some combination thereof; she’s dubiously in a relationship with Jake (Jesse Plemons), who seems to be a teacher, or, at least, to work in a school. (There’s an awful lot of seeming in the movie, a slipperiness that is itself a hedge against the movie’s being taken to be anything in particular.) The first line of the film is its title, spoken by the woman, in voice-over. She goes on to voice, inside her head, her misgivings about the relationship while waiting for Jake to drive up. On a cold winter day, the couple are taking a road trip to a remote farmhouse where Jake’s parents (Toni Collette and David Thewlis) live; she’ll be meeting them for the first time, but there’s added pressure built in, because a blizzard is rising, and she has to get back home that very night because of work obligations (which vary with her stated job). Jake reassures her: he has chains, as if such a heavy metaphor were needed. (It brings to mind a quote from the Kael review, in which she takes Cassavetes to task for his film’s “idiot symbolism.”)
Not far into the trip, strange things start happening: once more, the woman thinks, I’m thinking of ending things, and Jake hears her, or thinks he does. (The movie makes much of the convention of voice-overs being used to express characters’ thoughts.) En route, she continues her rueful musings about the relationship, in the interstices of the couple’s jibing, high-flown conversation. Meanwhile, Jake seems to be hearing—and responding to—her thoughts, as when she thinks a slight variant on the line “The Child is father of the Man,” and Jake instantly speaks to her of Wordsworth. Her cell phone rings; the caller is someone named Lucy. He puts on the radio; they get a song from “Oklahoma!” (This musical, which is planted like Chekhov’s gun in the film’s first act, goes wildly off in its last one.) Jake prompts her to recite one of her poems, and she does. It turns out to be a poem by the real-life poet Eva H. D., whose book, “Rotten Perfect Mouth,” the character later finds on Jake’s childhood bookshelf; she opens it and finds the poem she recited earlier.
In conversations with Jake’s parents around the dinner table and in the living room, the woman’s identity morphs—at different times, her different jobs are mentioned, along with her different names—and his parents’ identities shift, too. His father is hale; his father is afflicted with dementia (giving rise to a touching set of expedients—labels with the names of objects affixed to them); his father is younger and dark-haired, older and white-haired, with or without a bandage on his forehead. His mother is active, debilitated, sardonic and youthful, elderly and moribund. (The young woman eventually tries to explain the shifts as her sense of seeing the effects of time.)
There’s also another character, one who crops up in brief scenes and quick flashes, an elderly and solitary school janitor (Guy Boyd), the very mention of whom seems spoiler-y, even though he shows up early in the film. He heads to work in an isolated rural school and undertakes his janitorial rounds in its long, empty corridors, doing little else. His relationship to the story eventually becomes clear (even dominant); while he himself remains obscure, the most salient aspect of his personality and experience is delivered in a near-flash frame shortly before the movie’s end.
The couple debate Tolstoy’s phrase about happy families being alike; when the woman declares, to Jake’s parents, that she’s a painter, a discussion about abstraction, realism, characters, and landscapes ensues, followed by her discovery that her paintings are really those of the real-life artist Ralph Albert Blakelock, posters of whose work are found in Jake’s basement. She finds a Kael book in Jake’s bedroom, too (plus Wordsworth and other books that get referenced later on), and it’s her who, in the car ride back, recites at length from Kael’s review—as if not quoting but speaking extemporaneously in her own voice. During the return trip (with the chains on the tires), the couple’s discussions take on a tenser tone—and Kaufman makes notable, noticeable use of the sound of the car’s windshield wipers, a sidelong reference to a famous line of film criticism, from a 1951 essay by André Bazin and referring to Robert Bresson’s 1945 film “Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne”: “The sound of a windshield-wiper against a page of Diderot is all it took to turn it into Racinian dialogue.”
On both ends of the journey, the couple riff together on the infectious and insidious power of media and, in particular, of movies—Jake frets that he watched too many (filling his brain with “lies”), fears that people are “programmed,” revolts against the hopeful platitudes with which humanity consoles and pacifies itself. When he cites David Foster Wallace and television, the woman responds by referring to Guy Debord’s “Society of the Spectacle.” Meanwhile, the return trip, sparked by a seemingly trivial turn, takes on a thriller-y gravity. (The film is haunted by the spirit of David Lynch, in nods to striped walls and odd near-twins and odd wounds, yet lacks Lynch’s radical—and cosmic—vision and his sense of style.)
The core of the film remains Jake’s plea for art, despite its deceptive and manipulative qualities, because of its potentially redemptive power—which can be realized when art is approached with sympathy and attentiveness to characters’ struggles. By those measures, the bar is low: pretty much every movie features characters with needs, wants, goals, desires, and pains, and it doesn’t take any great aesthetic imagination or artistic power to tell a humane story or to elicit sympathy.
Yet Kaufman, in quest of sympathy, wants more: his film elaborates both a grand imaginative scheme and a complex element of aesthetic gamesmanship around his apparently straightforward couple in crisis. If he worries about the manipulative power of art, he not only brings it to the fore but revels in it. “I’m Thinking of Ending Things” strains to evoke both humanistic tenderness and aesthetic wonder. Kaufman seeks admiration for his warmhearted and gentle humanism and also for his extravagant creativity, even when the latter gets in the way of the former—when his cleverness stands like a child’s antics in front of the screen where the movie is playing, defying viewers to pay attention to what’s going on behind him while amiably indulging or ignoring his trickery.
Amazingly, Kaufman partially succeeds in not detracting attention from the film’s perceptive and principled core. The movie delivers—or, rather, embodies—an idea so good and so strong that it can be delivered in a sentence: a unified theory of jerkishness. “I’m Thinking of Ending Things” is a tragedy of character, of male character, in which a woman’s misgivings are perfect barometers of trouble. A man who’s not Mr. Right is one with whom something is seriously wrong—for all his likely virtues, his attentiveness, his sweetness, his accomplishments, his sentimentality, his intelligence, his family-mindedness, and his self-sacrificing sense of duty, he will nonetheless, at a crucial moment and in a crucial way, fuck up and ruin the woman’s life irreparably.


newyorker--2020-09-03--Can Ron DeSantis Deliver a Victory in Florida to Donald Trump?

Florida , with twenty-nine electoral votes , is one of the most sought-after states in any election .
It went @ @ @ @ @ 2004 , Obama in 2008 and 2012 , and Trump in 2016 .
Dexter Filkins @ @ @ @ @ continuing efforts by the G.O.P .
to suppress the Democratic vote , the pivotal role @ @ @ @ @ the election this fall , and how the aftermath of 2020 could be more chaotic @ @ @ @ @ 2000 .

Download a transcript.|||
Photograph by Patrick Semansky / AP / Shutterstock
Florida, with twenty-nine electoral votes, is one of the most sought-after states in any election. It went for Bush in 2000 and 2004, Obama in 2008 and 2012, and Trump in 2016. Dexter Filkins joins Dorothy Wickenden to discuss continuing efforts by the G.O.P. to suppress the Democratic vote, the pivotal role the state will play in the election this fall, and how the aftermath of 2020 could be more chaotic than the contested election of 2000.


newyorker--2020-09-03--Trump Blasts Supporters Who Plan to Vote for Him Only Once

WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report ) —In a withering critique of his own voters , Donald J. Trump on Thursday @ @ @ @ @ vote for him only once .
Speaking to reporters , Trump called supporters who intend @ @ @ @ @ for him “ disgracefully low-energy , ” claiming that they are “ like Jeb Bush @ @ @ @ @ ” “ I like supporters who have stamina , ” he said .
“ Stamina @ @ @ @ @ me until someone tells you to stop.
” He said that voters should vote for @ @ @ @ @ again in person , and “ maybe even more than that.
” “ Let ’ @ @ @ @ @ person , ” he said .
“ Go away , put a mustache or wig @ @ @ @ @ vote again.
” Asked about the legality of Trump ’ s suggestions , Attorney General @ @ @ @ @ As Attorney General , I try to stay out of things involving laws .
”

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In a withering critique of his own voters, Donald J. Trump on Thursday blasted supporters who plan to vote for him only once.
Speaking to reporters, Trump called supporters who intend to cast only one vote for him “disgracefully low-energy,” claiming that they are “like Jeb Bush and Sleepy Joe put together.”
“I like supporters who have stamina,” he said. “Stamina means you keep voting for me until someone tells you to stop.”
He said that voters should vote for him once by mail, again in person, and “maybe even more than that.”
“Let’s say you vote in person,” he said. “Go away, put a mustache or wig on, and try to vote again.”
Asked about the legality of Trump’s suggestions, Attorney General Bill Barr said, “As Attorney General, I try to stay out of things involving laws.”


newyorker--2020-09-03--Examining Vicky Osterweil’s Case for Looting

This summer ’ s protests against racism and police violence , in response to the killings of George Floyd , Breonna Taylor , and other Black Americans , represented the largest popular movement since the civil-rights era .
They also , in some cases , led to violence , as police fired pepper spray and rubber bullets and forcibly detained protesters , some of whom burned police stations and cars and looted stores , in Minneapolis , Atlanta , and Portland , among other cities .
Liberal politicians and Black Lives Matter activists have condemned the destruction of private property @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause of racial justice .
But last week , a writer and activist named Vicky Osterweil published a book , called “ In Defense of Looting , ” that makes a radical attack on that assumption .
Osterweil , who first wrote an essay of that title during the Ferguson uprising , claims in her book that “ those who participate in rioting and looting tend to be the most politically informed and socially engaged in the neighborhood , ” and that their actions should be understood “ as essential tactics in fighting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provocation , titling one chapter “ All Cops Are Bastards ” and writing that when nonviolence is “ pushed as a philosophical , moral , or religious principle , it gains a nasty , authoritarian edge.
” She denounces local politicians and political groups who might try to limit looting during an uprising , adding , “ This book is spit in their eyes.
” Coming in the midst of violent clashes in Portland and Kenosha , Wisconsin , the book caused alarm among liberals and conservatives .
After NPR published an interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ condemned her defense of looting , and conservatives criticized NPR for giving her a platform .
In response to the interview , the Times columnist Bret Stephens , an anti-Trump conservative , wrote that NPR “ was doing its small part to make sure the president would be re-elected.
” As President Trump claims that “ no one will be safe in Biden ’ s America , ” Stephens asked , “ Does Joe Biden have the nerve to stand up to the extremes in his own party , or does he just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday , in Pittsburgh , Biden seemed to answer the question , saying , “ I ’ m going to be very clear about all of this—rioting is not protesting .
Looting is not protesting .
Setting fires is not protesting .
None of this is protesting .
It ’ s lawlessness , plain and simple .
And those who do it should be prosecuted.
” I spoke by phone with Osterweil last week , several days before the NPR interview was published .
I wanted to understand how she reconciled looting with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if any , she placed on her defense of it .
During our conversation , which has been edited for length and clarity , we discussed whether Americans should be seeking change from within the political system , whether Black business owners should have their property destroyed , and why Osterweil compares small-business owners to slaveholders .
You use the word “ revolution ” a lot in the book .
Is the reader supposed to assume that you think that looting should replace democratic politics , or do you see them going hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a very good time to challenge the concept that we live in an even imperfect democracy .
You have Donald Trump admitting he is trying to shut down the constitutionally mandated Post Office to do voter suppression , and too many people in prisons , and in dozens of states felons can ’ t vote .
It ’ s not a straightforward narrative toward more and more democracy , and Donald Trump lost the election by a few million votes , but the Electoral College , which was designed specifically to continue empowering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still handed it to him .
I don ’ t believe that we will be able to find justice in the voting booth .
We face ecological and social crises right now , like horrible police violence and killing that is unending , and the rise of a far right .
I think a lot of people have spent the last five years really trying to convince the Democratic Party to take this on with Bernie Sanders or even Elizabeth Warren .
And the Democratic Party has , in my opinion , responded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But if Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren had won the Democratic nomination , they would be leading a movement to get themselves voted into office to achieve change that way .
Absolutely , and I was not a supporter of either of them .
Even those paths of reform through the Democratic Party , for example , will not actually be that efficient .
I think that any real social change has come from people moving in the streets , has come from people fighting outside of elections and outside of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a civics class , if people still have those .
So you feel like the Democratic Party was too dismissive of Warren and Sanders , but at the same time you yourself did not support them ?
I think the Democratic Party made an error in that if they had chosen to get behind Warren or Sanders , they could have captured a lot of the energy that we have been seeing in the last three months .
They could have had that energy going into the election instead .
Personally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me , but I ’ m more excited about the move of energy because I think it ’ s where the real change comes from .
You criticize people in the book who look down on looters , and you say that judging looters is “ implying that they don ’ t know what they are doing.
” What do you think people who criticize looters are implying when they criticize them ?
One of the criticisms of looters comes from within the movement , and it ’ s often people who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these things , and they have a reflexive anti-looting position that has to do with the fact that it ’ s a very radical and frightening tactic .
The book is written , in part , to those people , not to critique them but to help them see the ways in which , in fact , it is a powerful tactic that goes back to our whole history of liberation struggles .
But I also do think that there are a lot of people who use disdain of looters as a dog @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump , for example—I keep going back to this guy—had a page about law enforcement where he said , “ We will support families , but we do not support looters.
” So I spend a lot of the intro of the book sort of calling out the racialized history of the word “ looting , ” and the language that has always been used to denigrate racialized people—Black , indigenous , colonized people rising up .
That ’ s undeniable , but you are chiding people for making assumptions about looters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assumption that these people are revolutionaries who are carrying out some political , ideological act ?
How do you know that when you see private property destroyed or taken ?
I don ’ t think those are necessarily revolutionary activists acting with political consciousness .
I think a lot of people think that , in order for something to be political , people have to be yelling a slogan as they do it or something , that there ’ s a standard at which something becomes political that ’ s based in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And I don ’ t subscribe to that belief in political action .
I think that actions have their own effects and logics and that we are in a moment during those riots that is a generalized moment of anti-police action .
People are in the streets .
They ’ re chanting , “ Black lives matter .
”

This summer’s protests against racism and police violence, in response to the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and other Black Americans, represented the largest popular movement since the civil-rights era. They also, in some cases, led to violence, as police fired pepper spray and rubber bullets and forcibly detained protesters, some of whom burned police stations and cars and looted stores, in Minneapolis, Atlanta, and Portland, among other cities. Liberal politicians and Black Lives Matter activists have condemned the destruction of private property, saying that it distracts from the cause of racial justice. But last week, a writer and activist named Vicky Osterweil published a book, called “In Defense of Looting,” that makes a radical attack on that assumption.
Osterweil, who first wrote an essay of that title during the Ferguson uprising, claims in her book that “those who participate in rioting and looting tend to be the most politically informed and socially engaged in the neighborhood,” and that their actions should be understood “as essential tactics in fighting racial capitalism.” She leans heavily on provocation, titling one chapter “All Cops Are Bastards” and writing that when nonviolence is “pushed as a philosophical, moral, or religious principle, it gains a nasty, authoritarian edge.” She denounces local politicians and political groups who might try to limit looting during an uprising, adding, “This book is spit in their eyes.”
Coming in the midst of violent clashes in Portland and Kenosha, Wisconsin, the book caused alarm among liberals and conservatives. After NPR published an interview with Osterweil, politicians from both parties condemned her defense of looting, and conservatives criticized NPR for giving her a platform. In response to the interview, the Times columnist Bret Stephens, an anti-Trump conservative, wrote that NPR “was doing its small part to make sure the president would be re-elected.” As President Trump claims that “no one will be safe in Biden’s America,” Stephens asked, “Does Joe Biden have the nerve to stand up to the extremes in his own party, or does he just mean to appease them?” On Monday, in Pittsburgh, Biden seemed to answer the question, saying, “I’m going to be very clear about all of this—rioting is not protesting. Looting is not protesting. Setting fires is not protesting. None of this is protesting. It’s lawlessness, plain and simple. And those who do it should be prosecuted.”
I spoke by phone with Osterweil last week, several days before the NPR interview was published. I wanted to understand how she reconciled looting with democratic government, and what limits, if any, she placed on her defense of it. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed whether Americans should be seeking change from within the political system, whether Black business owners should have their property destroyed, and why Osterweil compares small-business owners to slaveholders.
You use the word “revolution” a lot in the book. Is the reader supposed to assume that you think that looting should replace democratic politics, or do you see them going hand in hand?
I think now is a very good time to challenge the concept that we live in an even imperfect democracy. You have Donald Trump admitting he is trying to shut down the constitutionally mandated Post Office to do voter suppression, and too many people in prisons, and in dozens of states felons can’t vote. It’s not a straightforward narrative toward more and more democracy, and Donald Trump lost the election by a few million votes, but the Electoral College, which was designed specifically to continue empowering the plantation owners in the South, still handed it to him.
I don’t believe that we will be able to find justice in the voting booth. We face ecological and social crises right now, like horrible police violence and killing that is unending, and the rise of a far right. I think a lot of people have spent the last five years really trying to convince the Democratic Party to take this on with Bernie Sanders or even Elizabeth Warren. And the Democratic Party has, in my opinion, responded with contempt and solidified behind Joe Biden.
But if Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren had won the Democratic nomination, they would be leading a movement to get themselves voted into office to achieve change that way.
Absolutely, and I was not a supporter of either of them. Even those paths of reform through the Democratic Party, for example, will not actually be that efficient. I think that any real social change has come from people moving in the streets, has come from people fighting outside of elections and outside of the parliamentary method that we’re taught in a civics class, if people still have those.
So you feel like the Democratic Party was too dismissive of Warren and Sanders, but at the same time you yourself did not support them?
I think the Democratic Party made an error in that if they had chosen to get behind Warren or Sanders, they could have captured a lot of the energy that we have been seeing in the last three months. They could have had that energy going into the election instead. Personally, that’s not a tragedy to me, but I’m more excited about the move of energy because I think it’s where the real change comes from.
You criticize people in the book who look down on looters, and you say that judging looters is “implying that they don’t know what they are doing.” What do you think people who criticize looters are implying when they criticize them?
One of the criticisms of looters comes from within the movement, and it’s often people who are sympathetic but relatively new to thinking about these things, and they have a reflexive anti-looting position that has to do with the fact that it’s a very radical and frightening tactic. The book is written, in part, to those people, not to critique them but to help them see the ways in which, in fact, it is a powerful tactic that goes back to our whole history of liberation struggles.
But I also do think that there are a lot of people who use disdain of looters as a dog whistle. On his Web site, Donald Trump, for example—I keep going back to this guy—had a page about law enforcement where he said, “We will support families, but we do not support looters.” So I spend a lot of the intro of the book sort of calling out the racialized history of the word “looting,” and the language that has always been used to denigrate racialized people—Black, indigenous, colonized people rising up.
That’s undeniable, but you are chiding people for making assumptions about looters. Aren’t you making an assumption that these people are revolutionaries who are carrying out some political, ideological act? How do you know that when you see private property destroyed or taken?
I don’t think those are necessarily revolutionary activists acting with political consciousness. I think a lot of people think that, in order for something to be political, people have to be yelling a slogan as they do it or something, that there’s a standard at which something becomes political that’s based in the intentions of what the person is doing. And I don’t subscribe to that belief in political action. I think that actions have their own effects and logics and that we are in a moment during those riots that is a generalized moment of anti-police action. People are in the streets. They’re chanting, “Black lives matter.”
That’s definitely why many people are in the streets. But most activist groups say they want no part of looting, and so I’m wondering how we know that the people who are choosing to take property are part of the same political movement. I’m sure some of them are, but how do you make that assumption?


newyorker--2020-09-03--Daily Cartoon: Thursday, September 3rd

Daily Cartoon: Thursday, September 3rd

© 2020 Condé Nast .
All rights reserved .
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement ( @ @ @ @ @ Policy and Cookie Statement ( updated 1/1/20 ) and Your California Privacy Rights .
may @ @ @ @ @ from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with @ @ @ @ @ this site may not be reproduced , distributed , transmitted , cached or otherwise used @ @ @ @ @ written permission of Condé Nast .
Ad Choices

“I abhor his despicable tweets, but I’m not going to abandon my core principles: keeping the base happy and getting reëlected.”


newyorker--2020-09-03--Trump Urged to Take Improv Class to Make His Invented Stories Richer in Detail

WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report ) —Donald Trump should take an improv class to make the stories that he creates out of thin air richer in detail , a leading improv expert advised .
Harland Dorrinson , a founding member of Yes/And TheatreWorks , the legendary improv group in St. Louis , said that a grounding in improv would help Trump craft stories that “ at least sound like they could be true.
” Dorrinson said that he recently watched a scene performed by Trump and Laura Ingraham , of Fox News , that demonstrated just how much the President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improv workshop .
“ Laura Ingraham was giving him great prompts , but he didn ’ t build on them , ” he said .
“ She asked him to describe the thugs on planes , and he had nothing.
” “ He said that they were wearing ‘ dark uniforms , black uniforms with gear and this and that , ’ ” Dorrinson said .
“ Then he said that they came from ‘ a certain city ’ and that he heard all of this from ‘ a person.
’ If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stage , the audience would demand its money back.
” Despite his criticism , Dorrinson believes that Trump “ has what it takes ” to be a solid improv performer .
“ He has a wild imagination and a truly demented stage presence , but he needs to get serious and put in the work , ” he said .

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Donald Trump should take an improv class to make the stories that he creates out of thin air richer in detail, a leading improv expert advised.
Harland Dorrinson, a founding member of Yes/And TheatreWorks, the legendary improv group in St. Louis, said that a grounding in improv would help Trump craft stories that “at least sound like they could be true.”
Dorrinson said that he recently watched a scene performed by Trump and Laura Ingraham, of Fox News, that demonstrated just how much the President could benefit from taking a beginners’ improv workshop.
“Laura Ingraham was giving him great prompts, but he didn’t build on them,” he said. “She asked him to describe the thugs on planes, and he had nothing.”
“He said that they were wearing ‘dark uniforms, black uniforms with gear and this and that,’ ” Dorrinson said. “Then he said that they came from ‘a certain city’ and that he heard all of this from ‘a person.’ If you did an improv that lazy on our stage, the audience would demand its money back.”
Despite his criticism, Dorrinson believes that Trump “has what it takes” to be a solid improv performer.
“He has a wild imagination and a truly demented stage presence, but he needs to get serious and put in the work,” he said.


newyorker--2020-09-03--How Fast Is the Climate Changing?: It’s a New World, Each and Every Day

Subscribers to The Climate Crisis newsletter received this piece in their in-boxes .
Sign up to receive future installments .
The struggle over climate change is necessarily political and economic and noisy—if we ’ re going to get anything done , we ’ ll have to do it in parliaments and stock exchanges , and quickly .
But , every once in a while , it ’ s worth stepping back and reminding ourselves what ’ s actually going on , silently , every hour of every day .
And what ’ s going on is that we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course of a human lifetime .
Hell , in the course of a human adolescence .
The sun , our star , pours out energy , which falls on this planet , where the atmosphere traps some of it .
Because we ’ ve thickened that atmosphere by burning coal and gas and oil—in particular , because we ’ ve increased the amount of carbon dioxide and methane it contains—more of that sun ’ s energy is trapped around the Earth : about three-fourths of a watt of extra energy per square meter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one of those tiny white Christmas-tree lights .
But there are a lot of square meters on our planet—roughly five hundred and ten trillion of them , which is a lot of Christmas-tree lights .
It ’ s the heat equivalent , to switch units rather dramatically , of exploding four Hiroshima-sized bombs each second .
We get a sense of what that feels like when we have a week like the one we just came through .
Hurricane Laura detonated in intensity in a few hours before it made landfall—that escalation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has ever been observed in the Gulf of Mexico , and it ’ s because of the extra heat that ’ s available .
That sudden burst of fury is becoming more likely , the experts explain , precisely because there ’ s more energy stored in the ever-warmer ocean , ready to be converted into howling wind and surging tide .
As the Washington Post reported , some experts say that “ it is almost as if as the maximum ‘ speed limit ’ for storms increases , the storms themselves , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up.
” Sometimes we get comparatively lucky , as we did with Laura—it poured most of its power into the wildlife refuges and the marshes along the Louisiana-Texas border .
Only about three per cent of the planet ’ s land surface , after all , is urbanized , so the odds are with you most of the time .
And physics , of course , is agnostic—a storm goes where it goes .
But physics is also implacable .
It just keeps going , hour after hour , day after day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ season than usual and were the second largest the state has ever recorded .
But they were inevitable in the same way .
“ With temperatures warming , unless there are increases in precipitation or atmospheric moisture to compensate , our fuels are going to get drier , ” the University of Alberta fire scientist Mike Flannigan told E & E News .
Fuels , in this case , means grass , brush , and trees , and they dry out at a predictable pace , which becomes much faster in a heat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( and in August California saw , if verified , the hottest ever reliably recorded on our planet ) and “ grasslands can be bone-dry in seven days.
” Once they ’ re dry , all it takes is a spark .
“ Fuel moisture is critical in that the drier the fuel , the easier it is for the fire to start and spread , and there ’ s more fuel available to burn.
” Floods and fires are obvious and dramatic .
But this extra energy is expressing itself every second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you may not notice it , but eventually an ice shelf collapses or a heavy downpour turns into a monster flood .
It ’ s relentless , and it means that we live in a new world , newer all the time .
For almost all of human history , the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide stuck at about two hundred and seventy-five parts per million , meaning that the planet ’ s energy balance was essentially unchanged .
The physical world worked in predictable ways .
But there ’ s around twenty-five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air now than there was a decade ago : That ’ s more change in ten years than over all the millennia from the invention of agriculture to the start of the Industrial Revolution .
To think about it this way is to understand why this is a bigger predicament than any we ’ ve ever faced .
Our other dramas—wars , revolutions—have played out against the backdrop of an essentially stable planet .
But now that planet has become the main actor in our affairs , and more so every second .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Edward R. Murrow Award , in 2016 , for a series that aired on Reno Public Radio about the environmental and economic effects of a Tesla plant in Nevada—is now the host of the podcast “ Drilled , ” which has been exploring the climate-denial history of the fossil-fuel industry .
Season 5 launches soon , and it will tell the story of Chevron ’ s misadventures in Ecuador , where a series of oil spills in the jungle have led to decades of litigation .
Our conversation has been edited and condensed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a huge , sprawling story—can you explain the saga enough to make clear why it ’ s so interesting ?
The first complaint was filed to Texaco back in 1993 , there have been so many twists and turns and legal proceedings since then , and it ’ s still going on .
[ Chevron bought Texaco in 2001 and therefore assumed responsibility . ]
But it all sort of boils down to accountability ; oil companies dumped wastewater and crude in the Amazon , it contaminated the water and the land , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There ’ s been a lot of legal maneuvering in this case , and Chevron has tried to make it about the lawyers—and about one particular lawyer—but they were found liable for this contamination in 2011 , and since then they have sued the lawyers , blamed the Ecuadorian oil company , sued the Ecuadorian government in international arbitration , and .
.
.
the pollution is still there .
Why does it matter so much ?
First , Chevron ’ s strategy seems engineered to intimidate any activists that might try @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s a very good example of how oil companies have continued colonialism long past the point when countries stopped ( or at least said they would ) .
Related , it ’ s a good example of how the international arbitration system has become a tool that enables multinational companies to circumvent the sovereign constitutions of ( usually developing ) countries .
And , finally , I think it illustrates that these are companies that do not and will not operate in good faith ; the idea that eventually they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and make good decisions about energy transition or emissions is just implausible , and it ’ s probably time to stop expecting them to .
You ’ ve done a lot of work on the public-relations industry and the oil industry—what story are the fossil-fuel companies trying to tell about themselves at this point ?
There are these two levers they pull , depending on what ’ s happening at any given time .
For a long while it was the science-denial lever , but lately they ’ ve gone back to their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of oil as central to the American identity and the American economy .
They ’ re on it , they will solve this problem , and if you ’ re a red-blooded , God-fearing American you are on their side .
They are also cynically co-opting the Black Lives Matter movement to push the message that energy transition will be racist ( yet another good reason for the environmental movement to sort itself out on that front ) .
There ’ s an interesting difference between the American companies and the European companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to feel more required to commit to climate goals , because they ’ re operating in countries that have signed on to the Paris Climate Accord .
But their commitments should be questioned at every turn .
“ Carbon capture and storage ” —taking CO from the exhaust stream of , say , a coal-fired power plant and storing it underground—may get more play from a Biden Administration trying to score climate points but wary of forcing utilities to stop emitting carbon in the first place .
Judith Lewis Mernit , at Capital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is almost certainly a poor idea—and an expensive one at that .

Subscribers to The Climate Crisis newsletter received this piece in their in-boxes. Sign up to receive future installments.
The struggle over climate change is necessarily political and economic and noisy—if we’re going to get anything done, we’ll have to do it in parliaments and stock exchanges, and quickly.
But, every once in a while, it’s worth stepping back and reminding ourselves what’s actually going on, silently, every hour of every day. And what’s going on is that we’re radically remaking our planet, in the course of a human lifetime. Hell, in the course of a human adolescence.
The sun, our star, pours out energy, which falls on this planet, where the atmosphere traps some of it. Because we’ve thickened that atmosphere by burning coal and gas and oil—in particular, because we’ve increased the amount of carbon dioxide and methane it contains—more of that sun’s energy is trapped around the Earth: about three-fourths of a watt of extra energy per square meter, or slightly less than, say, one of those tiny white Christmas-tree lights. But there are a lot of square meters on our planet—roughly five hundred and ten trillion of them, which is a lot of Christmas-tree lights. It’s the heat equivalent, to switch units rather dramatically, of exploding four Hiroshima-sized bombs each second.
We get a sense of what that feels like when we have a week like the one we just came through. Hurricane Laura detonated in intensity in a few hours before it made landfall—that escalation was one of the most rapid that has ever been observed in the Gulf of Mexico, and it’s because of the extra heat that’s available. That sudden burst of fury is becoming more likely, the experts explain, precisely because there’s more energy stored in the ever-warmer ocean, ready to be converted into howling wind and surging tide. As the Washington Post reported, some experts say that “it is almost as if as the maximum ‘speed limit’ for storms increases, the storms themselves, like drivers, are adjusting by speeding up.” Sometimes we get comparatively lucky, as we did with Laura—it poured most of its power into the wildlife refuges and the marshes along the Louisiana-Texas border. Only about three per cent of the planet’s land surface, after all, is urbanized, so the odds are with you most of the time. And physics, of course, is agnostic—a storm goes where it goes.
But physics is also implacable. It just keeps going, hour after hour, day after day. The wildfires in California came earlier this season than usual and were the second largest the state has ever recorded. But they were inevitable in the same way. “With temperatures warming, unless there are increases in precipitation or atmospheric moisture to compensate, our fuels are going to get drier,” the University of Alberta fire scientist Mike Flannigan told E&E News. Fuels, in this case, means grass, brush, and trees, and they dry out at a predictable pace, which becomes much faster in a heat wave. Get the temperature high enough (and in August California saw, if verified, the hottest ever reliably recorded on our planet) and “grasslands can be bone-dry in seven days.” Once they’re dry, all it takes is a spark. “Fuel moisture is critical in that the drier the fuel, the easier it is for the fire to start and spread, and there’s more fuel available to burn.”
Floods and fires are obvious and dramatic. But this extra energy is expressing itself every second of every hour, usually quietly; you may not notice it, but eventually an ice shelf collapses or a heavy downpour turns into a monster flood. It’s relentless, and it means that we live in a new world, newer all the time. For almost all of human history, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide stuck at about two hundred and seventy-five parts per million, meaning that the planet’s energy balance was essentially unchanged. The physical world worked in predictable ways. But there’s around twenty-five parts per million more CO 2 in the air now than there was a decade ago: That’s more change in ten years than over all the millennia from the invention of agriculture to the start of the Industrial Revolution. To think about it this way is to understand why this is a bigger predicament than any we’ve ever faced. Our other dramas—wars, revolutions—have played out against the backdrop of an essentially stable planet. But now that planet has become the main actor in our affairs, and more so every second.
Passing the Mic
The environmental journalist Amy Westervelt—she won an Edward R. Murrow Award, in 2016, for a series that aired on Reno Public Radio about the environmental and economic effects of a Tesla plant in Nevada—is now the host of the podcast “Drilled,” which has been exploring the climate-denial history of the fossil-fuel industry. Season 5 launches soon, and it will tell the story of Chevron’s misadventures in Ecuador, where a series of oil spills in the jungle have led to decades of litigation. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Chevron and Ecuador is a huge, sprawling story—can you explain the saga enough to make clear why it’s so interesting?
The first complaint was filed to Texaco back in 1993, there have been so many twists and turns and legal proceedings since then, and it’s still going on. [Chevron bought Texaco in 2001 and therefore assumed responsibility.] But it all sort of boils down to accountability; oil companies dumped wastewater and crude in the Amazon, it contaminated the water and the land, and it ought to be cleaned up. There’s been a lot of legal maneuvering in this case, and Chevron has tried to make it about the lawyers—and about one particular lawyer—but they were found liable for this contamination in 2011, and since then they have sued the lawyers, blamed the Ecuadorian oil company, sued the Ecuadorian government in international arbitration, and . . . the pollution is still there.
Why does it matter so much?


newyorker--2020-09-03--The Photographer Peeking at Your Phone

The Photographer Peeking at Your Phone

The experience of leafing through “ # nyc ” was atypical for a photography book : my enjoyment in looking , at least at first , was more readerly than visual .
Tonally , the texts in Mermelstein ’ s pictures range widely , from tragic— “ IF I COULD I WOULD DO ANYTHING TO SAVE YOU .
I AM SO SAD AND FEELING HELPLESS ” —to horny— “ I want to fuck my trainer… ” —to comical— “ I had a nice pee in a Starbucks .
I asked the young lady if I could use the restroom if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confused me initially .
‘ 0852 ’ ” —to melodramatic— “ I don ’ t think any of us ever thought the day would ever come for an admission of this kind .
I am in shock.
” All , however , make for gripping plots , or at least the beginning of ones .
As I read along , I became enmeshed in the texts , in the same way that one is when reading a diary without its writer ’ s knowledge—the world outside melting away as , breathless and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a bit more about another ’ s secret history .
“ Voyeuristic isn ’ t the same as harmful , ” Mermelstein told me , when I asked him about the ethics of capturing people ’ s private thoughts without their knowledge or consent .
“ We ’ re all out there in the public domain , so part of everything we do engages with voyeurism .
As a street photographer , I ’ ve been practicing this for a long time , and I trust that what I do isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mermelstein has reworked the great tradition of twentieth-century street photography for our contemporary era .
In “ # nyc , ” he is making a new version of Weegee ’ s “ Naked City ” : people ’ s misdeeds and misfortunes , indulgences and vulnerabilities , are revealed not through their flash-lit bodies and faces but in the documenting of the data that they exchange on their glowing handheld devices .

The experience of leafing through “#nyc” was atypical for a photography book: my enjoyment in looking, at least at first, was more readerly than visual. Tonally, the texts in Mermelstein’s pictures range widely, from tragic—“IF I COULD I WOULD DO ANYTHING TO SAVE YOU. I AM SO SAD AND FEELING HELPLESS”—to horny—“I want to fuck my trainer…”—to comical—“I had a nice pee in a Starbucks. I asked the young lady if I could use the restroom if I purchased a banana. Her answer confused me initially. ‘0852’ ”—to melodramatic—“I don’t think any of us ever thought the day would ever come for an admission of this kind. I am in shock.” All, however, make for gripping plots, or at least the beginning of ones. As I read along, I became enmeshed in the texts, in the same way that one is when reading a diary without its writer’s knowledge—the world outside melting away as, breathless and a little ashamed, one wishes to learn just a bit more about another’s secret history. “Voyeuristic isn’t the same as harmful,” Mermelstein told me, when I asked him about the ethics of capturing people’s private thoughts without their knowledge or consent. “We’re all out there in the public domain, so part of everything we do engages with voyeurism. As a street photographer, I’ve been practicing this for a long time, and I trust that what I do isn’t hurting anyone.” In a way, Mermelstein has reworked the great tradition of twentieth-century street photography for our contemporary era. In “#nyc,” he is making a new version of Weegee’s “Naked City”: people’s misdeeds and misfortunes, indulgences and vulnerabilities, are revealed not through their flash-lit bodies and faces but in the documenting of the data that they exchange on their glowing handheld devices.


newyorker--2020-09-04--The Official Rules of Pandemic Monopoly

The Official Rules of Pandemic Monopoly

The objective of this game was originally just to pick a square and stay put until everything blew over .
But , due to recent shifts in government messaging , the objective is now to move around the board as much as possible and stimulate the economy without losing property or dying .
The game ends when all players have declared bankruptcy OR when the government agrees on an economic bailout .
Note : there is no limit to how long this game can be played .
Each player will be given a starting “ stimulus ” of twelve hundred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re told they will be , anyway .
Some players may not receive this amount , for unspecified reasons , and will instead begin the game horribly in debt to the bank .
The twelve hundred dollars is also not actually enough to buy any of the properties on the board , but it is enough to eat at the Dean & DeLuca Salad Bar square , which you ’ re welcome to stop at every time you pass “ Go.
” Travel is risky in a global pandemic , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to choose from for your player piece !
You can opt to travel by car , train , cannon , shoe , iron , thimble , or top hat .
All things considered , the cannon is probably your safest bet .
There are a number of properties on the board , all of which have different assigned values .
The most expensive and coveted property is , of course , the Boardwalk .
But it ’ s closed right now .
Kentucky Avenue and Indiana Avenue are also expensive , but dicey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the game immediately .
These spaces help move the game along with exciting and unpredictable developments .
Some examples of the cards you might draw while on them include : • None INHERITED WEALTH : You now have unlimited income for the rest of the game .
You don ’ t even need to continue playing , really .
You can just hide out on the “ second home ” square until you get bored .
• None HEAD UPSTATE : Head directly upstate .
Do not pass “ Go.
” Do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You must remain upstate for at least six turns , or until the “ car ” player offers to pick you up and bring you back .
• None MAN COUGHED ON YOU : Lose a turn and approximately three nights of sleep .
• None TEST POSITIVE FOR ANTIBODIES : Move to any space on the board .
• None TEST NEGATIVE FOR ANTIBODIES : Move to any space on the board , but feel worse about it .
• None GET OUT OF IN-PERSON-WEDDING PLAN : Thank god .
• None @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WHO REFUSES TO WEAR A MASK : Lose two turns and whatever you were going to inherit from him .
Most players will end up bankrupt before the game is over .
Some even before the game starts .
If you completely run out of money and property , you have no choice but to move back in with your parents and retire from the game .
This is just a resting space .
Enjoy it .
Stay as long as you like .
It ’ s the only rest you ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .

The objective of this game was originally just to pick a square and stay put until everything blew over. But, due to recent shifts in government messaging, the objective is now to move around the board as much as possible and stimulate the economy without losing property or dying. The game ends when all players have declared bankruptcy OR when the government agrees on an economic bailout. Note: there is no limit to how long this game can be played.
Money
Each player will be given a starting “stimulus” of twelve hundred dollars in paper money. Or they’re told they will be, anyway. Some players may not receive this amount, for unspecified reasons, and will instead begin the game horribly in debt to the bank. The twelve hundred dollars is also not actually enough to buy any of the properties on the board, but it is enough to eat at the Dean & DeLuca Salad Bar square, which you’re welcome to stop at every time you pass “Go.”
Player Pieces
Travel is risky in a global pandemic, which is why you have a range of options to choose from for your player piece! You can opt to travel by car, train, cannon, shoe, iron, thimble, or top hat. All things considered, the cannon is probably your safest bet.
Properties
There are a number of properties on the board, all of which have different assigned values. The most expensive and coveted property is, of course, the Boardwalk. But it’s closed right now. Kentucky Avenue and Indiana Avenue are also expensive, but dicey. Landing on Florida Avenue eliminates you from the game immediately.
“Chance” and the Community Chest
These spaces help move the game along with exciting and unpredictable developments. Some examples of the cards you might draw while on them include:
INHERITED WEALTH: You now have unlimited income for the rest of the game. You don’t even need to continue playing, really. You can just hide out on the “second home” square until you get bored.
HEAD UPSTATE: Head directly upstate. Do not pass “Go.” Do not collect your six-hundred-dollar unemployment check. You must remain upstate for at least six turns, or until the “car” player offers to pick you up and bring you back.
MAN COUGHED ON YOU: Lose a turn and approximately three nights of sleep.
TEST POSITIVE FOR ANTIBODIES: Move to any space on the board.
TEST NEGATIVE FOR ANTIBODIES: Move to any space on the board, but feel worse about it.
GET OUT OF IN-PERSON-WEDDING PLAN: Thank god.
GET INTO A FACEBOOK ARGUMENT WITH UNCLE WHO REFUSES TO WEAR A MASK: Lose two turns and whatever you were going to inherit from him.
Bankruptcy
Most players will end up bankrupt before the game is over. Some even before the game starts. If you completely run out of money and property, you have no choice but to move back in with your parents and retire from the game.
Free Parking
This is just a resting space. Enjoy it. Stay as long as you like. It’s the only rest you’ll be getting for a long, long time.