theguardian--2020-10-30--US election 2020: Trump and Biden both head to crucial swing states Minnesota and Wisconsin - live

President Trump has called off plans to appear at the Trump International Hotel on election night and is likely to be at the White House instead , according to a person familiar with the plans .
Advisers had said privately that Mr. Trump was going to appear at his namesake hotel in Washington for an election night party for which his campaign had sent out multiple fund-raising solicitations to his supporters .
“ November 3rd will go down in history as the night we won FOUR MORE YEARS .
It will be absolutely EPIC , and the only thing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there , ” read one solicitation from the president that included an image of Trump and the first lady , Melania Trump , under the words “ Join us on election night.
” It was unclear why the plans had changed .
But the prospect of the president appearing on the night of the election at the hotel was certain to reinforce concerns about Mr. Trump mingling the office with his business .
It would also reinforce questions about whether the hotel would be in violation of Washington coronavirus restrictions limiting gatherings to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to be paid for by the campaign , which is facing a cash crunch in the final weeks of the race .

Joan E Greve (now), Martin Belam and Tom McCarthy (earlier)

31 Oct 2020 04.39 GMT Summary Thanks for following Joanna Walters, Joan E Greve, Martin Belam, Tom McCarthy and I throughout the day. Here’s what’s happened today: The US surpassed 9 million cases of coronavirus. According to Johns Hopkins University, 9,043,957 Americans have been diagnosed with coronavirus since the start of the pandemic. The country hit the grim milestone one day after setting a new single-day record in new cases, amid surges in dozens of states.
According to Johns Hopkins University, 9,043,957 Americans have been diagnosed with coronavirus since the start of the pandemic. The country hit the grim milestone one day after setting a new single-day record in new cases, amid surges in dozens of states. Trump falsely claimed doctors are diagnosing more cases of coronavirus to bolster their paychecks. “Our doctors get more money if someone dies from Covid. You know that, right? I mean, our doctors are very smart people,” Trump said at his rally in Michigan. In reality, health experts say the US death toll likely undercounts how many Americans have died of coronavirus.
“Our doctors get more money if someone dies from Covid. You know that, right? I mean, our doctors are very smart people,” Trump said at his rally in Michigan. In reality, health experts say the US death toll likely undercounts how many Americans have died of coronavirus. Joe Biden and Donald Trump both campaigned in the Midwest, with just four days to go until election day. Trump stopped in Michigan and Biden in Iowa, and they held starkly different in Wisconsin and Minnesota.
with just four days to go until election day. Trump stopped in Michigan and Biden in Iowa, and they held starkly different in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Texas surpassed its total 2016 vote count with early voting. As of today, Texans have already returned a record 9,042,066 ballots, according to the US Elections Project. Kamala Harris campaigned in the state today, ending with a rally in Houston.
As of today, Texans have already returned a record 9,042,066 ballots, according to the US Elections Project. campaigned in the state today, ending with a rally in Houston. Trump criticized the supreme court for upholding an absentee ballot extension in North Carolina. The president said it was “crazy” that the justices ruled to allow North Carolina election officials to count ballots as long as they are postmarked by election day. US election roundup: Trump and Biden swing through battleground states Read more
31 Oct 2020 04.13 GMT Emily Holden Donald Trump’s environment agency “actually seems to have a war on the environment”, has been “utterly untenable”, and has brought about “deeply, deeply troubling times”, according to three administrators appointed under past presidents. Reflecting on Trump’s dozens of attacks on core environmental protections, a fourth put it another way: “[I’m] really god damned pissed off – and that’s being kind.” The former environment administrators, two Republicans and two Democrats, shared their frustrations on a Joe Biden campaign call and in a separate conversation with reporters within the last several weeks. They are: Bill Reilly, from the George HW Bush administration; Christine Todd Whitman, from the George W Bush administration; Carol Browner, from the Bill Clinton administration, and Gina McCarthy, from the Barack Obama administration. They have more than enough evidence to cite – Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reversed rules meant to clean up the air, defend waterways from industrial pollution and fight climate change. Trump has brought the agency to an all-time low, his critics argue. According to a report from the Environmental Protection Network of more than 500 former agency officials, the rollbacks have had “serious and measurable consequences, especially for already overburdened low-income communities and communities of color”. The impacts will include “more respiratory illness and heart disease” that shortens lives; “decreased water quality” for drinking water, fisheries and recreation; “reduced Superfund cleanups,”; and “devastating consequences” from unchecked climate change, the group said. Read more: Trump's environment agency seems to be at war with the environment, say ex-officials Read more
31 Oct 2020 03.51 GMT In Houston, Kamala Harris was joined by rapper Common as well as Tina Knowles, a designer and Beyoncé’s mother. Democratic vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris speaks to supporters at the University of Houston. Photograph: Mark Mulligan/AP She spoke about the coronavirus pandemic and its economic fallout – and addressed the Black Lives Matter movement. The Democratic vice-presidential candidate had met with and invited to the rally three relatives of George Floyd – whose killing at the hands of police launched a wave of protests across the country. “Joe Biden says we have got to reform policing,” she said – making a case for her running mate as president. “Joe has the courage to speak the truth about this.” Harris and Biden have complicated career histories when it comes to policing. As a prosecutor, Harris supported increased criminalization of sex work and resisted action in key police abuse cases. Biden sponsored the 1994 Crime Bill, which accelerated racially-biased incarceration. Now, the Democrats have committed to reform, and Biden’s $20bn criminal justice plan seeks to cut down incarceration rates and increase government oversight of police. Harris contrasted their approach with that of Donald Trump, who has taken a tough-on-crime stance and maligned protestors against police brutality.
31 Oct 2020 03.15 GMT The same Russian hackers that were accused of meddling in the 2016 US elections targeted Democratic officials this year, Reuters reports: The group of Russian hackers accused of meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election earlier this year targeted the email accounts of Democratic state parties in California and Indiana, and influential think tanks in Washington and New York, according to people with knowledge of the matter. The attempted intrusions, many of which were internally flagged by Microsoft Corp over the summer, were carried out by a group often nicknamed “Fancy Bear.” The hackers’ activity provides insight into how Russian intelligence is targeting the United States in the run-up to the Nov. 3 election. The targets identified by Reuters, which include the Center for American Progress, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said they had not seen any evidence of successful hacking attempts. Fancy Bear is controlled by Russia’s military intelligence agency and was responsible for hacking the email accounts of Hillary Clinton’s staff in the run-up to the 2016 election, according to a Department of Justice indictment filed in 2018. News of the Russian hacking activity follows last month’s announcement by Microsoft that Fancy Bear had attempted to hack more than 200 organizations, many of which the software company said were tied to the 2020 election. Read more here.
31 Oct 2020 02.53 GMT Trump and the rise of white supremacist extremism In May 2017, Demetria Hester was on her way home from work on a train in Portland, Oregon when Jeremy Christian, an avowed white supremacist, boarded and began shouting racist abuse. She says she told him to shut up. When they had got off the train, he threw a bottle that struck her in the face. The next day he killed two men and grievously injured a third. On the Guardian’s Today in Focus podcast, Demetria describes to Anushka Asthana how she felt the police responded to the incident that night and how she watched her attacker walk away without being questioned.
Earlier this year, a court in Portland found Jeremy Christian guilty of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of first-degree attempted murder and sentenced to life without parole. But as the Guardian’s Lois Beckett tells Anushka, this is the extreme end of an ideology that has permeated all parts of US society, and that President Trump has repeatedly refused to condenm. As Americans go to the polls next week they must assess the record of a president who has professed to be the “least racist person”. His own Department of Homeland Security describes white supremacists as posing the most persistent and lethal terror threat in the country. US election 2020: Donald Trump and the rise of white supremacist extremism – podcast Read more
31 Oct 2020 02.29 GMT Will Arizona's suburbs abandon the party of Trump? Lauren Gambino The president won narrowly in Maricopa county, Arizona in 2016. Polls show his support is draining – and fellow Republicans are at risk. A sign reads “truth over lies. Biden for president” in Scottsdale, Arizona. Photograph: Caitlin O’Hara/The Guardian Over the last four years, Republicans have watched their support collapse in suburbs across the country, as the president’s divisive rhetoric and incendiary behavior alienates women, college graduates and independent voters. But as Trump continues to downplay the seriousness of the coronavirus pandemic, even after more than 225,000 deaths nationwide and as cases continue to climb, his conduct is imperiling not only his own re-election campaign, but his entire party.
Read more in the latest installment of the special Guardian series, Phoenix Rising: 'Voters are fed up': will Arizona's suburbs abandon the party of Trump? Read more
31 Oct 2020 01.50 GMT Unions discussing general strike if Trump refuses to accept Biden victory Steven Greenhouse reports: US unions have begun discussing the idea of a general strike if Donald Trump refuses to accept an election result showing a Joe Biden victory. Such a move would be unprecedented in the modern era. There has not been a general strike in the United States since 1946 – and that was restricted to Oakland, California. The local labor federation in Rochester, New York, was the first union group to officially support the idea. Union federations in Seattle and in western Massachusetts have followed suit, approving resolutions saying a general strike should be considered if Trump seeks to subvert the election outcome. Dan Maloney, president of the Rochester-Genesee Valley Area Labor Federation, said his 100,000-member group adopted the resolution to get people discussing the idea – from local unions to the AFL-CIO, the nation’s main labor federation which represents more than 12.5 million people. On 8 October, the Rochester federation voted to support preparing for and holding “a general strike of all working people, if necessary, to ensure a constitutionally mandated peaceful transition of power as a result of the 2020 presidential elections”. The union leaders voted to stand “firmly in opposition to any effort to subvert, distort, misrepresent or disregard the final outcome” of the election. The Rochester move spurred discussion and debate of a possible general strike in union after union, even though some labor leaders see it as a drastic, hard-to-pull-off action. “The idea has gotten a lot more legs than I ever thought it would,” Maloney told the Guardian. “Our democracy is in jeopardy of a wannabe dictator. It’s time to be counted and do whatever it takes to remove him from office if he attempts to retain power against the will of the American people.” Maloney said that in a 22 October call with labor leaders, Richard Trumka, the AFL-CIO’s president, stressed that until 3 November, unions should overwhelmingly focus on maximizing voter turnout for Biden. After that, Trumka said, unions can focus on what to do if Trump resists a peaceful transition. The AFL-CIO’s executive council, approved a resolution on 19 October saying: “Democracies are not, in the last analysis, protected by judges or lawyers, reporters or publishers. The survival of democracy depends on the determination of working people to defend it. And America’s labor movement is indeed determined to defend our democratic republic.” Read more: Unions discussing general strike if Trump refuses to accept Biden victory Read more
Updated at 02.29 GMT
31 Oct 2020 01.24 GMT Guam goes to the polls but votes won’t matter. Guam residents are among the 4 million Americans living in US territories who can’t vote for president. Photograph: Mar-Vic Cagurangan/The Guardian Mar-Vic Cagurangan reports: Politics is a favourite sport on the streets of Hagatna, where voters are preparing for the US elections. Billboards adorn every street corner and conversations are dominated by candidates and their policies. But when Guamanians go to the polls on 3 November and mark down their preference for president, their “votes” won’t count. Despite being American citizens, an anomaly in US law means the residents of the island, which lies in the Pacific Ocean 8,000 miles from Washington, have no say as to who runs their country. They vote for a local legislature, a governor, and a delegate to the US House of Representatives – a delegate who cannot vote – but their choice for president, marked on the same ballot, carries no weight. Guam’s is a straw poll: a non-binding four-yearly exercise that serves merely as an early barometer for how the rest of the nation will vote. Guam residents are among the 4 million disenfranchised Americans living in US territories who can’t vote for president. And being left out of the election stings. “I am deeply unhappy that as a US citizen formerly residing on the mainland, I have to give up my voting rights for president simply by moving to another part of the US,” James Hofman, a corporate lawyer who moved to Guam from California in 2006, told the Guardian. Read more: The US election that doesn't count: Guam goes to the polls but votes won't matter Read more
Updated at 01.45 GMT
31 Oct 2020 01.04 GMT Kamala Harris, meanwhile, is in Texas. Speaking briefly with reporters in Houston, Harris responded to a question about why Biden wasn’t campaigning in the state. “We’re putting a lot of resources into Texas,” she said, according to the press poll report. “We understand that first of all the people of Texas - Texas has so much at stake in this election and they deserve to be heard, they deserve to be engaged by us because we intend to earn every vote.” No Democrat has carried Texas since 1978, but the solidly red state may have caught a purple tinge this year. Still, neither Trump nor Biden have plans to campaign in the state ahead of election day – with the Biden campaign instead dispatching Harris and her husband Doug Emhoff, as well as Biden’s wife Jill Biden, and several surrogates and allies. Texas’ early votes so far have exceeded the tolal 8.9m votes cast in 2016 – in part because Democratic activists fought to extend early voting by a week.
Updated at 01.54 GMT
31 Oct 2020 00.41 GMT In Wisconsin, Joe Biden – speaking while wearing a mask – kept focused on the coronavirus pandemic. “We’re going to bring the Republicans and Democrats together” to pass an economic relief bill, he told supporters. “I’m not going to shut down the economy, I’m going to shut down the virus.” It’s a line Biden also tweeted out earlier today, responding to Trump’s attack lines. Joe Biden speaks at a hangar campaign event at Milwaukee Mitchell International Airport. Photograph: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images
Updated at 01.00 GMT
31 Oct 2020 00.32 GMT Donald Trump was uncharacteristically brief – speaking for just over 20 minutes in Rochester, Minnesota. He complained several times that local authorities only allowed 250 people to attend. New record for @realDonaldTrump. 21 minutes, 49 seconds in Rochester, MN. That's officially the shortest in-person campaign rally of his presidency.
Next closest: 37 min, 55 sec in Nashville on March 15, 2017.
Transcript coming faster than normal. https://t.co/4Zy7NReBM2 — Factba.se (@FactbaseFeed) October 30, 2020
31 Oct 2020 00.08 GMT In the New York Times, Ron Suskind interviewed current and former Trump administration officials and aides who worried about what the president would do to keep his grip on power. They “are worried that the president could use the power of the government – the one they all serve or served within – to keep himself in office or to create favorable terms for negotiating his exit”, Suskin writes. They are worried that the president could use the power of the government – the one they all serve or served within – to keep himself in office or to create favorable terms for negotiating his exit from the White House. Like many other experts inside and outside the government, they are also concerned about foreign adversaries using the internet to sow chaos, exacerbate divisions and undermine our democratic process.
... Many of the officials I spoke to came back to one idea: You don’t know Donald Trump like we do. Even though they can’t predict exactly what will happen, their concerns range from the president welcoming, then leveraging, foreign interference in the election, to encouraging havoc that grows into conflagrations that would merit his calling upon US forces. Because he is now surrounded by loyalists, they say, there is no one to try to tell an impulsive man what he should or shouldn’t do. “That guy you saw in the debate,” a second former senior intelligence official told me, after the first debate, when the president offered one of the most astonishing performances of any leader in modern American history – bullying, ridiculing, manic, boasting, fabricating, relentlessly interrupting and talking over his opponent. “That’s really him. Not the myth that’s been created. That’s Trump.” Read more here. Indeed, political strategists, academics journalists are all anxiously awaiting election day, and wondering whether a president who has sown disinformation about voting, and whose political party is working to suppress Americans access to voting will step down easily, if polls and predictions that find his opponent leading come to fruition. Read more opinion and analysis from the Guardian’s Arwa Mahdawi: What is at stake for Donald Trump? It’s certainly not just the election | Arwa Mahdawi Read more
Updated at 00.28 GMT
30 Oct 2020 23.34 GMT Twitter updated its policies around hacked materials, the company announced Friday, lifting restrictions that were placed on the account of the New York Post after it published a controversial story a few weeks ago. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testified remotely during a Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee hearing with big tech companies on 28 October. Photograph: Getty Images The Guardian’s Kari Paul reports: It is the latest move in an ongoing saga that called into question the moderation policies of social media platforms. Both Twitter and Facebook took measures to limit the spread of an article published by the New York Post on 14 October, which was reported based on documents gleaned from an abandoned computer formerly belonging to Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden. “Our policies are living documents,” the company shared in a tweet on Friday. “We’re willing to update and adjust them when we encounter new scenarios or receive important feedback from the public. One such example is the recent change to our Hacked Materials Policy and its impact on accounts like the New York Post.” Twitter’s ban on the story marked the first time the company has directly limited the spread of information from a news site, as it works to address misinformation ahead of the 2020 elections. The blocking of the New York Post story was seen by some Republicans as censorship of conservative speech or a move favoring Biden over his opponent Donald Trump. Twitter’s reversal may have been a response to the Senate hearing on Wednesday, in which CEO Jack Dorsey was excoriated by Republican lawmakers. “Who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear?” Cruz asked Dorsey, asserting that Twitter was functioning as “a Democratic super PAC.” The New York Post, whose Twitter account remained silent following the limits placed on it on 14 October, resumed Tweeting on Friday evening. It said it has gained nearly 190,000 followers in the few weeks since it was blocked.
Updated at 00.01 GMT
30 Oct 2020 23.23 GMT Hi there, it’s Maanvi – blogging from the West Coast. Drew Ferguson, a representative of Georgia and the House Republican Chief Deputy Whip has tested positive for Covid-19. He said he took a diagnostic test after experiencing symptoms and is self-quarantining. He and Georgia governor Brian Kemp – who said he has been exposed to the virus – were both at a rally in Manchester on Tuesday, speaking with a largely maskless crowd. Georgia Public Broadcasting captured a photo of the two men shaking hands. pic.twitter.com/jQAJSh3g6j — Drew Ferguson (@RepDrewFerguson) October 30, 2020
Updated at 23.28 GMT
30 Oct 2020 23.08 GMT The campaign trail race continues. I’m handing over to my colleague in California now, Maanvi Singh, who will take you through developments over the next few hours, so stay tuned. Donald Trump is just beginning to speak in Rochester, Minnesota, after complaining mightily on the way in about crowd restrictions because of coronavirus. Joe Biden will be speaking in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, shortly, as the two candidates wrap up a busy Friday in the heartland.
30 Oct 2020 22.49 GMT The National Guard Bureau has established a new unit made up mostly of military policemen that could be dispatched to help quell unrest in coming days, after a turbulent summer in which National Guard members were deployed to several cities, the Washington Post reports. National Guard patrols In Philadelphia this week after police killing of Walter Wallace Jr sparks protests. Photograph: Mark Makela/Getty Images The unit, which also could be used to respond to natural disasters and other missions, was formed in September and initially described as a rapid-reaction force. But as one of the most divisive elections in American history closes in, National Guard officials have softened how they characterize the service members, instead referring to them as “regional response units.”
A National Guard official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said the new name more accurately details their mission. But the shift away from language used in war also hints at the complicated situation the National Guard could face, as President Trump signals that he might not accept the results of the election if he loses. National Guard members, who are organized within each state and territory and typically commanded by their governor, could be called upon to perform crowd control, safeguard landmarks or enforce curfews, based on roles they already have had this year. Some of them also could be deployed to the nation’s capital, if Trump decides to repeat his plan from June and amass a military force in Washington that teams with federal and local law enforcement. The new response unit, with a total of about 600 members split between Alabama and Arizona, is not large enough to provide a response like the one Washington saw in June. First reported on by the Associated Press this month, it could provide an initial wave of extra support in states where there is unrest or be used in the nation’s capital, where the Trump administration has broader control because of the city’s status as a federal jurisdiction. As we reported earlier today, what military brass are really hoping for is a decisive result. Why the US military would welcome a decisive 2020 election win Read more
Updated at 22.53 GMT
30 Oct 2020 22.38 GMT Political change is afoot in Arizona. Well worth a read this weekend, #ICYMI, is the Guardian’s special Phoenix Rising series this week. My colleagues Lauren Gambino and Maanvi Singh zeroed in on some topical voting trends in the Grand Canyon state to find out whether it will become the graveyard of Trumpism. Here’s Lauren a little earlier, on the late Arizona Republican Senator John McCain’s widow, who recently endorsed Joe Biden, and one of the pieces in the series: Cindy McCain is in so many ways an example of the trends reshaping Arizona politics. https://t.co/7xSALzJbIG https://t.co/PKAV2mZRzM — Lauren Gambino (@laurenegambino) October 30, 2020


theguardian--2020-10-30--Why the US military would welcome a decisive 2020 election win

Federal laws and longstanding custom generally leave the US military out of the election process .
But Donald Trump ’ s unsubstantiated warnings about widespread voting irregularities and exhortations to his supporters to become an “ army for Trump ” as uncertified poll watchers have raised questions about a possible military role next week .
If any element of the military were to get involved , it would probably be the national guard under state control .
These citizen soldiers could help state or local law enforcement with any major election-related violence , especially in the event of a contested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more likely roles will be less visible – filling in as poll workers , out of uniform , and providing cybersecurity expertise in monitoring potential intrusions into election systems .
Unlike regular active-duty military , the national guard answers to its state ’ s governor , not the president .
Under limited circumstances , Trump could federalize them , but in that case , they would generally be barred from doing law enforcement .
A contested vote could stir the kind of wild speculation that forced America ’ s top general to assure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in settling any election dispute between Donald Trump and Joe Biden .
A decisive result could allay such concerns by lowering the risk of a prolonged political crisis and the protests it could generate , say current and former officials as well as experts .
“ The best thing for us [ the military ] would be a landslide one way or another , ” a US defense official , speaking on condition of anonymity , told Reuters , voicing a sentiment shared by multiple officials .
A week before the election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump nationally by 10 percentage points , but the numbers are tighter in battleground states that will decide the election and gave Trump his surprise 2016 win .
The coronavirus pandemic has added an element of uncertainty this year , changing how and when Americans vote .
The president , who boasts about his broad support within military ranks , has declined to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he believes that results coming in on election day next Tuesday or , more likely with postal ballots still being counted , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fraudulent .
He has even proposed mobilizing federal troops under the 200-year-old Insurrection Act to put down unrest , and his tendency to be provocative on Twitter adds an extra element of tension , which caused discomfort among some military top brass .
“ Look , it ’ s called insurrection .
We just send them in and we do it very easy , ” Trump told Fox News in September .
For his part , Biden has suggested the military would ensure a peaceful transfer of power if Trump loses and refuses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US army general Mark Milley , selected last year by Trump as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff , has been adamant about the military staying out of the way if there is a contested ballot .
“ If there is , it ’ ll be handled appropriately by the courts and by the US Congress , ” he told National Public Radio this month .
“ There ’ s no role for the US military in determining the outcome of a US election .
Zero .
There is no role there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a national security expert at Duke University , cautioned that America ’ s willingness to look to the military when there is a crisis could create a public expectation , however misguided , that it could also help resolve an electoral crisis .
“ If things go poorly and it ’ s November 30 and we still have no idea who the president is … that ’ s when the pressure on the military will grow , ” Fever said , imagining a scenario where street protests escalate as faith in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a retired Navy admiral who has endorsed Biden , said the danger that Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act “ undoubtedly concerns those who are in uniform and in the Pentagon ” .

Federal laws and longstanding custom generally leave the US military out of the election process.
But Donald Trump’s unsubstantiated warnings about widespread voting irregularities and exhortations to his supporters to become an “army for Trump” as uncertified poll watchers have raised questions about a possible military role next week.
If any element of the military were to get involved, it would probably be the national guard under state control.
These citizen soldiers could help state or local law enforcement with any major election-related violence, especially in the event of a contested result.
But the guard’s more likely roles will be less visible – filling in as poll workers, out of uniform, and providing cybersecurity expertise in monitoring potential intrusions into election systems.
Unlike regular active-duty military, the national guard answers to its state’s governor, not the president.
Under limited circumstances, Trump could federalize them, but in that case, they would generally be barred from doing law enforcement.
A contested vote could stir the kind of wild speculation that forced America’s top general to assure lawmakers the military would have no role in settling any election dispute between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
A decisive result could allay such concerns by lowering the risk of a prolonged political crisis and the protests it could generate, say current and former officials as well as experts.
“The best thing for us [the military] would be a landslide one way or another,” a US defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters, voicing a sentiment shared by multiple officials.
A week before the election, a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll showed Biden leading Trump nationally by 10 percentage points, but the numbers are tighter in battleground states that will decide the election and gave Trump his surprise 2016 win.
The coronavirus pandemic has added an element of uncertainty this year, changing how and when Americans vote.
The best thing for us [the military] would be a landslide one way or another US defense official
The president, who boasts about his broad support within military ranks, has declined to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he believes that results coming in on election day next Tuesday or, more likely with postal ballots still being counted, a day or days thereafter, are fraudulent.
He has even proposed mobilizing federal troops under the 200-year-old Insurrection Act to put down unrest, and his tendency to be provocative on Twitter adds an extra element of tension, which caused discomfort among some military top brass.
“Look, it’s called insurrection. We just send them in and we do it very easy,” Trump told Fox News in September.
For his part, Biden has suggested the military would ensure a peaceful transfer of power if Trump loses and refuses to leave office after the election.
US army general Mark Milley, selected last year by Trump as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, has been adamant about the military staying out of the way if there is a contested ballot.
“If there is, it’ll be handled appropriately by the courts and by the US Congress,” he told National Public Radio this month.
“There’s no role for the US military in determining the outcome of a US election. Zero. There is no role there,” he added.
Peter Fever, a national security expert at Duke University, cautioned that America’s willingness to look to the military when there is a crisis could create a public expectation, however misguided, that it could also help resolve an electoral crisis.
“If things go poorly and it’s November 30 and we still have no idea who the president is … that’s when the pressure on the military will grow,” Fever said, imagining a scenario where street protests escalate as faith in the democratic process erodes.
Steve Abbot, a retired navy admiral who has endorsed Biden, said the danger that Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act “undoubtedly concerns those who are in uniform and in the Pentagon”.


theguardian--2020-10-30--US Senate elections: the key races that will determine power in Washington

While the world ’ s attention is on Donald Trump ’ s attempt to win re-election as president over challenger Joe Biden , the battle for the US Senate that will culminate on 3 November is equally dramatic .
Even if Biden defeats Trump , he will be unable to pass legislation on key issues such as healthcare , immigration and climate change unless the Democrats simultaneously seize the Senate , where the Republicans now have a 47-53 majority .
The Democrats could pull it off .
Democratic challengers in two states , Arizona and Colorado , appear to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while only one Democratic incumbent , in Alabama , looks especially vulnerable , according to the latest forecast from the Cook Political Report .
The number of additional seats the Democrats need to win for a voting majority depends on who wins the White House , since any Senate tie of 50-50 is broken by the sitting vice-president .
If Trump wins re-election , the Democrats probably need three states , in addition to Arizona and Colorado , for the majority ; if Biden wins , the Democrats probably need only two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is enough time for races not mentioned here to shift and change the calculus .
Where will those seats come from ?
There are seven races currently judged as tossups by the Cook Political Report ’ s Senate forecasts .
The Democrats ’ top targets are Maine , North Carolina and Iowa .
In all three races , incumbent Republicans appear to be weighed down by the unpopularity of Trump , while their Democratic opponents could benefit from high turnout among voters who wish to see Trump defeated .
Broad demographic trends are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with fewer women saying they will support Trump in 2020 , suburban voters likewise abandoning him , according to the polls , and support for Trump falling off even among whites without a college degree .
In Maine , the longtime Republican incumbent Susan Collins appears at last to have fallen out with the electorate , a majority of whom say they disapprove of Collins ’ vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh , Trump ’ s second pick to join the supreme court .
In North Carolina , the Republican incumbent , Thom Tillis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the coronavirus crisis , while a majority of voters say they supported the state ’ s Democratic governor in his clash with Trump over public health rules for hosting the Republican national convention .
While the Republican Joni Ernst had looked difficult to beat earlier this election cycle , she also appears to have suffered from defending Trump ’ s pandemic policies , and challenger Theresa Greenfield has shown unexpected strength .
With the campaign in its final week , there is still a chance that these and other races will change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Republicans to turn the tide .

Ashley Kirk, Tom McCarthy and Helena Robertson

While the world’s attention is on Donald Trump’s attempt to win re-election as president over challenger Joe Biden, the battle for the US Senate that culminates on 3 November is equally dramatic.
Even if Biden defeats Trump, he will be unable to pass legislation on key issues such as healthcare, immigration and climate change unless the Democrats simultaneously seize the Senate, where the Republicans now have a 47-53 majority.
The Democrats could pull it off. Democratic challengers in two states, Arizona and Colorado, appear to have a good chance in defeating Republican incumbents, while only one Democratic incumbent, in Alabama, looks especially vulnerable, according to the latest forecast from the Cook Political Report.
The number of additional seats the Democrats need to win for a voting majority depends on who wins the White House, since any Senate tie of 50-50 is broken by the sitting vice-president. If Trump wins re-election, the Democrats probably need three states, in addition to Arizona and Colorado, for the majority; if Biden wins, the Democrats probably need only two more.
“Probably” because there is enough time for races not mentioned here to shift and change the calculus.
Where will those seats come from? There are seven races currently judged as tossups by the Cook Political Report’s Senate forecasts.
Top Democratic targets: the seven tossups
The Democrats’ top targets are Maine, North Carolina and Iowa.
In all three races, incumbent Republicans appear to be weighed down by the unpopularity of Trump, while their Democratic opponents could benefit from high turnout among voters who wish to see Trump defeated.
Broad demographic trends are also making trouble for Republicans nationally, with fewer women saying they will support Trump in 2020, suburban voters likewise abandoning him, according to the polls, and support for Trump falling off even among whites without a college degree.
In Maine, the longtime Republican incumbent Susan Collins appears at last to have fallen out with the electorate, a majority of whom say they disapprove of Collins’ vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s second pick to join the supreme court.
In North Carolina, the Republican incumbent, Thom Tillis, has defended Trump’s handling of the coronavirus crisis, while a majority of voters say they supported the state’s Democratic governor in his clash with Trump over public health rules for hosting the Republican national convention.
While the Republican Joni Ernst had looked difficult to beat earlier this election cycle, she also appears to have suffered from defending Trump’s pandemic policies, and challenger Theresa Greenfield has shown unexpected strength.
With the campaign in its final week, there is still a chance that these and other races will change course – although time is running out for the Republicans to turn the tide.


theguardian--2020-10-30--Build your own US election result: plot a win for Biden or Trump

The electoral map has shifted in 2020 , amid new challenges from misinformation to mail-in ballots .
Previously reliable states on both sides are now looking more competitive .
In the interactive graphic below , you decide which way these closer states will vote , and try to pave Joe Biden or Donald Trump ’ s path to victory .
Some states remain very likely to go to Biden or Trump because they were won by large margins in 2016 , or they have voted the same way in several recent elections .
Such states – ranked either a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for either party , according to the Cook Political Report – have already been coloured in for Biden and Trump in the graphic below .
A majority of 270 electoral votes out of a total of 538 is needed to win , and the remaining states are up to you .
Can you take Biden to victory ?
Or will Trump stay in the White House ?
States already placed in the Biden and Trump camp are those classified as “ solid ” or “ likely ” to go to each candidate according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 9 September 2020 .
The remaining states have been divided into groups using their voting history and expectations in 2020 , to help you decide which way they might go .
Voting history and 2016 margins have been retrieved from the Federal Election Commission .
2020 polling indicates a 14-day rolling average of statewide polls calculated by the Guardian , correct as of the timestamp above .
On any day , we collate any polls published in the last 14 days and take a mean average of their results .
If any company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 14 days , we average out their polling results in order to give them just one entry .
After this standardization process , we then take a mean average of these daily entries in order to present the polling average .

Helena Robertson, Ashley Kirk and Frank Hulley-Jones

The electoral map has shifted in 2020, amid new challenges from misinformation to mail-in ballots. Previously reliable states on both sides are now looking more competitive.
In the interactive graphic below, you decide which way these closer states will vote, and try to pave Joe Biden or Donald Trump’s path to victory.
Some states remain very likely to go to Biden or Trump because they were won by large margins in 2016, or they have voted the same way in several recent elections. Such states – ranked either a “solid” or “likely” win for either party, according to the Cook Political Report – have already been coloured in for Biden and Trump in the graphic below.
A majority of 270 electoral votes out of a total of 538 is needed to win, and the remaining states are up to you. Can you take Biden to victory? Or will Trump stay in the White House?
Choose which way the key swing states will vote and trace Biden or Trump's potential path to victory. electoral college votes electoral college votes Under your scenario, would win the election! Under your scenario, Nobody would win the election. It's a tie! Under a 269-269 tie, the Constitution states that the House of Representatives decides the President. Each state's delegation casts a single vote with a majority of 26 out of 50 needed to win. This is likely to favour the Republicans, in which case Trump would end up staying in the White House.
Methodology
States already placed in the Biden and Trump camp are those classified as “solid” or “likely” to go to each candidate according to the Cook Political Report as of 9 September 2020. The remaining states have been divided into groups using their voting history and expectations in 2020, to help you decide which way they might go.
Voting history and 2016 margins have been retrieved from the Federal Election Commission.
2020 polling indicates a 14-day rolling average of statewide polls calculated by the Guardian, correct as of the timestamp above. On any day, we collate any polls published in the last 14 days and take a mean average of their results. If any company has conducted multiple polls in the last 14 days, we average out their polling results in order to give them just one entry. After this standardization process, we then take a mean average of these daily entries in order to present the polling average.


theguardian--2020-10-30--Electoral college explained: how Biden faces an uphill battle in the US election

Who elects the US president ?
When Americans cast their ballots for the US president , they are actually voting for a representative of that candidate ’ s party known as an elector .
There are 538 electors who then vote for the president on behalf of the people in their state .
Each state is assigned a certain number of these electoral votes , based on the number of congressional districts they have , plus two additional votes representing the state ’ s Senate seats .
Washington DC is also assigned three electoral votes , despite having no voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 270 of these votes is needed to win the presidency .
The process of nominating electors varies by state and by party , but is generally done one of two ways .
Ahead of the election , political parties either choose electors at their national conventions , or they are voted for by the party ’ s central committee .
The electoral college nearly always operates with a winner-takes-all system , in which the candidate with the highest number of votes in a state claims all of that state ’ s electoral votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump beat Clinton in Florida by a margin of just 2.2 % , but that meant he claimed all 29 of Florida ’ s crucial electoral votes .
Such small margins in a handful of key swing states meant that , regardless of Clinton ’ s national vote lead , Trump was able to clinch victory in several swing states and therefore win more electoral college votes .
Biden could face the same hurdle in November , meaning he will need to focus his attention on a handful of battleground states to win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electoral votes a state is assigned somewhat reflects its population , the minimum of three votes per state means that the relative value of electoral votes varies across America .
The least populous states like North and South Dakota and the smaller states of New England are overrepresented because of the required minimum of three electoral votes .
Meanwhile , the states with the most people – California , Texas and Florida – are underrepresented in the electoral college .
Wyoming has one electoral college vote for every 193,000 people , compared with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote per 718,000 people .
This means that each electoral vote in California represents over three times as many people as one in Wyoming .
These disparities are repeated across the country .
Who does it favour ?
Experts have warned that , after returning two presidents that got fewer votes than their opponents since 2000 , the electoral college is flawed .
In 2000 , Al Gore won over half a million more votes than Bush , yet Bush became president after winning Florida by just 537 votes .
In all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost the overall popular vote but won the election .
Professor George Edwards III , at Texas A & M University , said : “ The electoral college violates the core tenet of democracy , that all votes count equally and allows the candidate finishing second to win the election .
Why hold an election if we do not care who received the most votes ?
“ At the moment , the electoral college favours Republicans because of the way Republican votes are distributed across the country .
They are more likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the parties.
” Under the winner-takes-all system , the margin of victory in a state becomes irrelevant .
In 2016 , Clinton ’ s substantial margins in states such as California and New York failed to earn her enough electoral votes , while close races in the battleground states of Pennsylvania and Michigan took Trump over the 270 majority .
As candidates easily win the electoral votes of their solid states , the election plays out in a handful of key battlegrounds .
In 2016 , Trump won six such states - @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – adding 99 electoral votes to his total .
The demographics of these states differ from the national average .
They are older , have more white voters without college degrees , and often have smaller non-white populations .
These characteristics generally favour Republicans , and made up the base of Trump ’ s votes in 2016 .
For example , 67 % of non-college-educated white people voted for Trump in 2016 .
In all six swing states , this demographic is overrepresented by at least six percentage points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alternative systems for electing the president have been proposed and grown in favour , as many seek to change or abolish the electoral college .
Two states – Maine and Nebraska – already use a different method of assigning their electoral college votes .
The two “ Senate ” votes go to the state-wide popular vote winner , but the remaining district votes are awarded to the winner of that district .
However , implementing this congressional district method across the country could result in greater bias than the current system .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , and the distribution of voters would still strongly favour Republicans .
The National Popular Vote Compact ( NPVC ) is another option , in which each state would award all of its electoral college votes in line with the national popular vote .
If enough states signed up to this agreement to reach the 270 majority , the candidate who gained the most votes nationwide would always win the presidency .
However , the NPVC has more practical issues .
Professor Norman Williams , from Willamette University , questioned how a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NPVC , and said that partisanship highlighted its major flaws .
Only Democratic states are currently signed up , but support could simply switch in the future if a Republican candidate faces winning the popular vote but not the presidency .
The NPVC is a solution that would elect the president with the most votes without the difficulty of abolishing the electoral college that is enshrined in the constitution .
The current system is also vulnerable to distorted outcomes through actions such as gerrymandering .
This practice involves precisely redrawing the borders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a party .
The result being abnormally shaped districts that disenfranchise certain groups of voters .
Today , an amendment that would replace the college with a direct national popular vote is seen by many as the fairest electoral system .
According to Professor Edwards III , “ There is only one appropriate way to elect the president : add up all the votes and declare the candidate receiving the most votes the winner .
”

Who elects the US president?
When Americans cast their ballots for the US president, they are actually voting for a representative of that candidate’s party known as an elector. There are 538 electors who then vote for the president on behalf of the people in their state.
Each state is assigned a certain number of these electoral votes, based on the number of congressional districts they have, plus two additional votes representing the state’s Senate seats. Washington DC is also assigned three electoral votes, despite having no voting representation in Congress. A majority of 270 of these votes is needed to win the presidency.
The process of nominating electors varies by state and by party, but is generally done one of two ways. Ahead of the election, political parties either choose electors at their national conventions, or they are voted for by the party’s central committee.
The electoral college nearly always operates with a winner-takes-all system, in which the candidate with the highest number of votes in a state claims all of that state’s electoral votes. For example, in 2016, Trump beat Clinton in Florida by a margin of just 2.2%, but that meant he claimed all 29 of Florida’s crucial electoral votes.
Such small margins in a handful of key swing states meant that, regardless of Clinton’s national vote lead, Trump was able to clinch victory in several swing states and therefore win more electoral college votes.
Biden could face the same hurdle in November, meaning he will need to focus his attention on a handful of battleground states to win the presidency.
The unequal distribution of electoral votes
While the number of electoral votes a state is assigned somewhat reflects its population, the minimum of three votes per state means that the relative value of electoral votes varies across America.
The least populous states like North and South Dakota and the smaller states of New England are overrepresented because of the required minimum of three electoral votes. Meanwhile, the states with the most people – California, Texas and Florida – are underrepresented in the electoral college.
Wyoming has one electoral college vote for every 193,000 people, compared with California’s rate of one electoral vote per 718,000 people. This means that each electoral vote in California represents over three times as many people as one in Wyoming. These disparities are repeated across the country.
Who does it favour?
Experts have warned that, after returning two presidents that got fewer votes than their opponents since 2000, the electoral college is flawed.
In 2000, Al Gore won over half a million more votes than Bush, yet Bush became president after winning Florida by just 537 votes. In all, the US has had five presidents who lost the overall popular vote but won the election.
Professor George Edwards III, at Texas A&M University, said: “The electoral college violates the core tenet of democracy, that all votes count equally and allows the candidate finishing second to win the election. Why hold an election if we do not care who received the most votes?
“At the moment, the electoral college favours Republicans because of the way Republican votes are distributed across the country. They are more likely to occur in states that are closely divided between the parties.”
Under the winner-takes-all system, the margin of victory in a state becomes irrelevant. In 2016, Clinton’s substantial margins in states such as California and New York failed to earn her enough electoral votes, while close races in the battleground states of Pennsylvania and Michigan took Trump over the 270 majority.
As candidates easily win the electoral votes of their solid states, the election plays out in a handful of key battlegrounds. In 2016, Trump won six such states - Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – adding 99 electoral votes to his total.
The demographics of these states differ from the national average. They are older, have more white voters without college degrees, and often have smaller non-white populations. These characteristics generally favour Republicans, and made up the base of Trump’s votes in 2016.
For example, 67% of non-college-educated white people voted for Trump in 2016. In all six swing states, this demographic is overrepresented by at least six percentage points more than the national average.
Trump's core demographics are over-represented in swing states The key battlegrounds where Trump was elected in 2016 have a higher percentage of white population than the average US state. Out of these, white non-college-educated are more over-represented than college-educated voters. Lower than average non-white populations favour Republicans. Most of Florida’s Cuban-American community also voted Trump in 2016. These states have larger elderly populations. Older voters have reliably voted Republican in recent elections. Guardian graphic. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 American community survey five-year estimates
The alternatives
Several alternative systems for electing the president have been proposed and grown in favour, as many seek to change or abolish the electoral college.
Two states – Maine and Nebraska – already use a different method of assigning their electoral college votes. The two “Senate” votes go to the state-wide popular vote winner, but the remaining district votes are awarded to the winner of that district. However, implementing this congressional district method across the country could result in greater bias than the current system. The popular vote winner could still lose the election, and the distribution of voters would still strongly favour Republicans.
The National Popular Vote Compact (NPVC) is another option, in which each state would award all of its electoral college votes in line with the national popular vote. If enough states signed up to this agreement to reach the 270 majority, the candidate who gained the most votes nationwide would always win the presidency.
However, the NPVC has more practical issues. Professor Norman Williams, from Willamette University, questioned how a nationwide recount would be carried out under the NPVC, and said that partisanship highlighted its major flaws. Only Democratic states are currently signed up, but support could simply switch in the future if a Republican candidate faces winning the popular vote but not the presidency.
The NPVC is a solution that would elect the president with the most votes without the difficulty of abolishing the electoral college that is enshrined in the constitution.
The current system is also vulnerable to distorted outcomes through actions such as gerrymandering. This practice involves precisely redrawing the borders of districts to concentrate support in favour of a party. The result being abnormally shaped districts that disenfranchise certain groups of voters.
Today, an amendment that would replace the college with a direct national popular vote is seen by many as the fairest electoral system.
According to Professor Edwards III, “There is only one appropriate way to elect the president: add up all the votes and declare the candidate receiving the most votes the winner.”


theguardian--2020-10-30--Archive, 30 October 1984: Ronald Reagan poised to win US election

Mr Mondale said yesterday that he would rather “ lose a campaign about decency than win one about self-interest ” in comments which contrasted sharply which the message which President Reagan was seeking to put across while on the stump in Pennsylvania .
At a rally at Millersville University , in Pennsylvania , the president urged voters not to allow the Democrats “ to pick the American wallet again.
” He said that Mr Mondale would return the US to the days of “ torpor , timidity and taxes.
” In an interview with Newsweek magazine , Mr Mondale put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which have made him a favourite among the leader writers of several of America ’ s big east coast newspapers , including the Washington Post and the Philadelphia Inquirer , which endorsed his candidacy yesterday .
Mr Mondale said that his campaign was “ betting that the American people are more compassionate and caring than he ( Reagan ) thinks.
” With the Reagan-Bush ticket widening its lead in several new opinion polls released yesterday , Mr Mondale questioned whether President Reagan was as popular as the polls show .
“ When I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the enthusiasm and the anger… the Reagan crowd is getting pretty cocky .
They ’ d better watch out .
The public is not going to be taken for granted.
” The latest national opinion surveys continue to favour President Reagan .
Newsweek ’ s poll showed the president ahead by 17 points : a USA Today poll showed Mr Reagan ’ s lead at 23 points ( down from 25 points a week earlier ) , and US News and World Report said that its state-by-state survey shows Mr Reagan ahead in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president “ on his way to a smashing victory on November 6.
” With his bases in the south and west apparently secured , President Reagan campaigned yesterday in the traditional Democratic strongholds of Pennsylvania and West Virginia .
He holds only a narrow lead in Pennsylvania , but is well ahead in the traditionally Democratic state of West Virginia where he was seeking to help the Republican Senate candidate , Mr John Raese , fighting an uphill campaign against the sitting governor , Mr Jay Rockerfeller , who is spending more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fortunes in his battle for a Senate seat .
Despite the enormous popularity of President Reagan ’ s rehearsed image , these are not qualities which have much appeal to the leader writers on the generally left-of-centre east coast newspapers .
The Washington Post said yesterday that it was supporting Mr Mondale ’ s election “ enthusiastically and without apology ” in contrast of its lukewarm endorsement of Mr Carter in 1980 .
“ We think Mr Mondale – who has been maddeningly misread and mistreated by the political trendmakers this year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indulged and overpraised – is unambiguously the better candidate , ” the leading article maintained .
It argued that Mr Reagan ’ s government “ has been grossly indifferent to the requirements of racial equality and the needs of the poor .
”

Mr Mondale said yesterday that he would rather “lose a campaign about decency than win one about self-interest” in comments which contrasted sharply which the message which President Reagan was seeking to put across while on the stump in Pennsylvania.
At a rally at Millersville University, in Pennsylvania, the president urged voters not to allow the Democrats “to pick the American wallet again.” He said that Mr Mondale would return the US to the days of “torpor, timidity and taxes.”
In an interview with Newsweek magazine, Mr Mondale put on display the kind of caring qualities which have made him a favourite among the leader writers of several of America’s big east coast newspapers, including the Washington Post and the Philadelphia Inquirer, which endorsed his candidacy yesterday. Mr Mondale said that his campaign was “betting that the American people are more compassionate and caring than he (Reagan) thinks.”
With the Reagan-Bush ticket widening its lead in several new opinion polls released yesterday, Mr Mondale questioned whether President Reagan was as popular as the polls show. “When I see the energy in these crowds, the enthusiasm and the anger… the Reagan crowd is getting pretty cocky. They’d better watch out. The public is not going to be taken for granted.”
The latest national opinion surveys continue to favour President Reagan. Newsweek’s poll showed the president ahead by 17 points: a USA Today poll showed Mr Reagan’s lead at 23 points (down from 25 points a week earlier), and US News and World Report said that its state-by-state survey shows Mr Reagan ahead in 45 out of the 50 states and the president “on his way to a smashing victory on November 6.”
With his bases in the south and west apparently secured, President Reagan campaigned yesterday in the traditional Democratic strongholds of Pennsylvania and West Virginia. He holds only a narrow lead in Pennsylvania, but is well ahead in the traditionally Democratic state of West Virginia where he was seeking to help the Republican Senate candidate, Mr John Raese, fighting an uphill campaign against the sitting governor, Mr Jay Rockerfeller, who is spending more than $10 million of the family fortunes in his battle for a Senate seat.
Despite the enormous popularity of President Reagan’s rehearsed image, these are not qualities which have much appeal to the leader writers on the generally left-of-centre east coast newspapers. The Washington Post said yesterday that it was supporting Mr Mondale’s election “enthusiastically and without apology” in contrast of its lukewarm endorsement of Mr Carter in 1980.
“We think Mr Mondale – who has been maddeningly misread and mistreated by the political trendmakers this year, just as Mr Reagan has been maddeningly indulged and overpraised – is unambiguously the better candidate,” the leading article maintained. It argued that Mr Reagan’s government “has been grossly indifferent to the requirements of racial equality and the needs of the poor.”


theguardian--2020-10-30--We who can vote have a powerful responsibility to those who can't | Laila Lalami

“ Terrible voting weather , ” a character remarks at the beginning of José Saramago ’ s Seeing .
In this powerful novel , torrential rains blanket the streets of an unnamed capital and no one turns up to vote until late in the afternoon .
When the ballots are counted , however , poll workers discover that more than 70 % are blank .
The few valid ballots aren ’ t enough to give complete legitimacy to the winning party , which is the party on the right .
( The other parties – the party on the left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earn humiliatingly small percentages of the vote . )
After a period of confusion , the government organizes a new plebiscite , in the hope that citizens will exercise their civic duty and cast proper ballots .
But the number of blank ballots this time is 83 % , thrusting the capital into bureaucratic disarray , media excitement , and government conspiracy .
I read Seeing years ago , during a time in which I devoured Saramago ’ s books one after the next , barely pausing to catch my breath .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the current moment .
The novel renders an extreme version of the situation we have in the United States , where turnout in the last presidential election was little more than half of all eligible voters .
In effect , more Americans sat out the election than voted for the current president .
“ I don ’ t feel bad , ” one non-voter from Wisconsin told the New York Times in November 2016 .
“ They never do anything for us anyway.
” I recognize this feeling , because I grew up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , too , from people in your life who speak of elections with indifference or even distrust .
After all , elected leaders change , but images of police brutality , border violence and drone bombing continue to flicker on our screens , year in and year out .
It ’ s hard for conditional citizens – people whose rights are often curtailed because of accidents of birth , like race , gender or class – to trust in a system that historically has not served our interests .
To add insult to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during electoral campaigns , then ignored the rest of the time .
But the disproportionate focus on presidential politics in our media obscures the fact that elections are about local choices as well .
We choose sheriffs , district attorneys , state and local judges , and school board members , which is to say the people who will make decisions that directly affect how criminal justice is handled in our communities , how schools are run in our districts , or what textbooks are chosen for our children .
Not voting means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in policy decisions that affect us every day .
The government isn ’ t just in the White House ; it ’ s here in our streets , and the ballot is the only means we have to evaluate the public servants whose salaries we all pay , whether we choose to vote or not .
Then there are state propositions on the ballot .
In California , where I live , voters can decide by simple referendum whether people who have served their felony convictions should regain voting rights , whether rent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and whether cash bail should be replaced by risk assessment for suspects in pretrial detention .
In other words , we have in our hands the power to expand the franchise , protect people from eviction at a time of enormous financial strain , or reduce the number of people in pretrial detention .
In each case , the lives of tens of thousands of people – our families , our friends , our neighbors – will be affected by the outcome , whatever it may be .
Of course , nonvoters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turnout in US elections remains relatively low compared to other democracies .
There are millions of would-be voters who face obstacles of all kinds , resulting in disenfranchisement .
In some states , particularly in the south , many polling stations have been closed , which means lines of as long as 12 hours to cast a ballot .
Hourly-wage and other non-exempt workers must forfeit a day ’ s pay in order to take part in the electoral process , at a time when the pandemic has already caused financial stress for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules that complicate the voting process unnecessarily .
Some states have plenty of collection boxes for mail-in ballots , for example , while others limit them to one a county .
Then there are logistical hurdles .
Once I was text-banking with voters in Georgia to remind them to vote when I heard from an elderly lady who said she lived in a rural area and didn ’ t have a ride to the polls .
Each year , voters like her are prevented from participating in the democratic process because voting is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs to be .
To me , the most important reason for voting has to do with our past and our future .
In the earliest days of the republic , the franchise was a privilege accorded only to propertied white men .
They could be governed by consent , but everyone else was to be governed by force .
It took decades of struggle , some of it violent and bloody , for voting rights to be extended to people of other races and genders .
Until the Civil Rights Act , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken for granted : Black people were enfranchised , disenfranchised , and re-enfranchised depending on the state and the political moment .
Given this history , voting is a moral obligation , a way to honor the sacrifices of the people who came before us .
It is also a way to honor those who will come after us .
In the last few weeks , California has been consumed by the largest wildfires in the state ’ s history , which have severely damaged our air quality and threatened the health of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US , there have been massive tornadoes in Iowa , record-shattering heatwaves in Florida and hurricanes in Texas .
Casting a vote with the future in mind is a way to take responsibility for the kind of natural environment we will leave for our children .
Earlier this month , I spent time researching the candidates and initiatives on the ballot , then filled it out and mailed it .
Afterward , I took a walk through our neighborhood , where signs advocated for different candidates for school board , city council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , fed up with the abundant advertising all along our tree-lined street , recently put up a sign that read “ Giant Meteor 2020 ” .
I let out a dry laugh .
Our state is struggling with wildfires , a housing crisis , food insecurity and the effects of the coronavirus pandemic – a meteor can ’ t be much worse .
Yet the sign also signaled despair , which is a gift to apathy .
Apathy isn ’ t going to resolve the crisis we face .
Since March , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency and an economic downturn that have been called “ unprecedented ” .
No one can say with certainty how much time it will take to develop a vaccine against Covid-19 , how long schools and businesses will remain closed , and whether workers will recover from the loss of jobs and wages .
Despair won ’ t fix this mess ; only action will .
What is certain is that the struggle is collective and our success will depend on solidarity .
Active solidarity takes many forms .
We can join local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ food banks , volunteer in schools , or donate time , money or effort to various grassroots organizations .
We can strike , protest or engage in acts of civil disobedience .
Voting is another expression of solidarity , especially when our electoral choices are based not just on self-interest , but on collective well-being .
Those of us who have the right to vote have a huge responsibility toward those who don ’ t , including children and young adults , documented or undocumented immigrants , incarcerated or formerly incarcerated people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ballot for various reasons .
Voting is our duty in the social contract , a way to steer the republic in a direction that accurately reflects the will of all its citizens .
In Seeing , the blank ballots create a dilemma for the government and the media because they deprive the former of legitimacy and the latter of a conventional story .
But the fallout is swift .
The minister of defense imposes a state of emergency , which is breathlessly but unquestioningly covered by journalists .
The people seem unmoved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their daily business .
“ Since the citizens of this country were not in the healthy habit of demanding proper enforcement of the rights bestowed on them by the constitution , ” Saramago writes , “ it was only logical , even natural , that they failed even to notice that those rights had been suspended.
” These words serve as a warning , which we should heed , now more than ever .
• None Laila Lalami is the author of The Other Americans and , most recently , Conditional Citizens : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essay is part of Pen America ’ s We Will Emerge project , a collection of essays speaking directly to voters around the country in advance of the US election .
This project is made possible with the support of Pop Culture Collaborative ’ s Becoming America .
You can read the full version of this essay here

“Terrible voting weather,” a character remarks at the beginning of José Saramago’s Seeing. In this powerful novel, torrential rains blanket the streets of an unnamed capital and no one turns up to vote until late in the afternoon. When the ballots are counted, however, poll workers discover that more than 70% are blank. The few valid ballots aren’t enough to give complete legitimacy to the winning party, which is the party on the right. (The other parties – the party on the left and the party in the middle – earn humiliatingly small percentages of the vote.) After a period of confusion, the government organizes a new plebiscite, in the hope that citizens will exercise their civic duty and cast proper ballots. But the number of blank ballots this time is 83%, thrusting the capital into bureaucratic disarray, media excitement and government conspiracy.
I read Seeing years ago, during a time in which I devoured Saramago’s books one after the next, barely pausing to catch my breath. I was reminded of it recently because of the current moment. The novel renders an extreme version of the situation we have in the United States, where turnout in the last presidential election was little more than half of all eligible voters. In effect, more Americans sat out the election than voted for the current president. “I don’t feel bad,” one non-voter from Wisconsin told the New York Times in November 2016. “They never do anything for us anyway.”
I recognize this feeling, because I grew up hearing it. Perhaps you heard it, too, from people in your life who speak of elections with indifference or even distrust. After all, elected leaders change, but images of police brutality, border violence and drone bombing continue to flicker on our screens, year in and year out. It’s hard for conditional citizens – people whose rights are often curtailed because of accidents of birth, like race, gender or class – to trust in a system that historically has not served our interests. To add insult to injury, conditional citizens may be courted during electoral campaigns, then ignored the rest of the time.
But the disproportionate focus on presidential politics in our media obscures the fact that elections are about local choices as well. We choose sheriffs, district attorneys, state and local judges, and school board members, which is to say the people who will make decisions that directly affect how criminal justice is handled in our communities, how schools are run in our districts, or what textbooks are chosen for our children. Not voting means forfeiting the right to have a voice in policy decisions that affect us every day. The government isn’t just in the White House; it’s here in our streets, and the ballot is the only means we have to evaluate the public servants whose salaries we all pay, whether we choose to vote or not.
Then there are state propositions on the ballot. In California, where I live, voters can decide by simple referendum whether people who have served their felony convictions should regain voting rights, whether rent control should be expanded by local governments, and whether cash bail should be replaced by risk assessment for suspects in pre-trial detention. In other words, we have in our hands the power to expand the franchise, protect people from eviction at a time of enormous financial strain, or reduce the number of people in pretrial detention. In each case, the lives of tens of thousands of people – our families, our friends, our neighbors – will be affected by the outcome, whatever it may be.
Apathy isn’t going to resolve the crisis we face
Of course, non-voters aren’t the only reason why turnout in US elections remains relatively low compared to other democracies. There are millions of would-be voters who face obstacles of all kinds, resulting in disenfranchisement. In some states, particularly in the south, many polling stations have been closed, which means lines of as long as 12 hours to cast a ballot. Hourly-wage and other non-exempt workers must forfeit a day’s pay in order to take part in the electoral process, at a time when the pandemic has already caused financial stress for so many people.
There are also rules that complicate the voting process unnecessarily. Some states have plenty of collection boxes for mail-in ballots, for example, while others limit them to one a county. Then there are logistical hurdles. Once I was text-banking with voters in Georgia to remind them to vote when I heard from an elderly lady who said she lived in a rural area and didn’t have a ride to the polls. Each year, voters like her are prevented from participating in the democratic process because voting is more onerous and more convoluted than it needs to be.
To me, the most important reason for voting has to do with our past and our future. In the earliest days of the republic, the franchise was a privilege accorded only to propertied white men. They could be governed by consent, but everyone else was to be governed by force. It took decades of struggle, some of it violent and bloody, for voting rights to be extended to people of other races and genders. Until the Civil Rights Act, the right to vote could not be taken for granted: Black people were enfranchised, disenfranchised and re-enfranchised depending on the state and the political moment. Given this history, voting is a moral obligation, a way to honor the sacrifices of the people who came before us.
It is also a way to honor those who will come after us. In the last few weeks, California has been consumed by the largest wildfires in the state’s history, which have severely damaged our air quality and threatened the health of our most vulnerable residents. Elsewhere in the US, there have been massive tornadoes in Iowa, record-shattering heatwaves in Florida and hurricanes in Texas. Casting a vote with the future in mind is a way to take responsibility for the kind of natural environment we will leave for our children.
Sign up for the Guardian’s Fight to Vote newsletter
Earlier this month, I spent time researching the candidates and initiatives on the ballot, then filled it out and mailed it. Afterward, I took a walk through our neighborhood, where signs advocated for different candidates for school board, city council or president. One of my neighbors, fed up with the abundant advertising all along our tree-lined street, recently put up a sign that read “Giant Meteor 2020”. I let out a dry laugh. Our state is struggling with wildfires, a housing crisis, food insecurity and the effects of the coronavirus pandemic – a meteor can’t be much worse.
Yet the sign also signaled despair, which is a gift to apathy. Apathy isn’t going to resolve the crisis we face. Since March, the United States has endured a public health emergency and an economic downturn that have been called “unprecedented”. No one can say with certainty how much time it will take to develop a vaccine against Covid-19, how long schools and businesses will remain closed, and whether workers will recover from the loss of jobs and wages. Despair won’t fix this mess; only action will. What is certain is that the struggle is collective and our success will depend on solidarity.
Active solidarity takes many forms. We can join local mutual-aid organizations, make monthly contributions to food banks, volunteer in schools, or donate time, money or effort to various grassroots organizations. We can strike, protest or engage in acts of civil disobedience. Voting is another expression of solidarity, especially when our electoral choices are based not just on self-interest, but on collective wellbeing.
Those of us who have the right to vote have a huge responsibility toward those who don’t, including children and young adults, documented or undocumented immigrants, incarcerated or formerly incarcerated people, and citizens who can’t access the ballot for various reasons. Voting is our duty in the social contract, a way to steer the republic in a direction that accurately reflects the will of all its citizens.
In Seeing, the blank ballots create a dilemma for the government and the media because they deprive the former of legitimacy and the latter of a conventional story. But the fallout is swift. The minister of defense imposes a state of emergency, which is breathlessly but unquestioningly covered by journalists. The people seem unmoved, however. They go on about their daily business. “Since the citizens of this country were not in the healthy habit of demanding proper enforcement of the rights bestowed on them by the constitution,” Saramago writes, “it was only logical, even natural, that they failed even to notice that those rights had been suspended.” These words serve as a warning, which we should heed, now more than ever.


theguardian--2020-10-30--Despair or denial – are these the only options in the run-up to election night? | Emma Brockes

Four days out from the US election , and everyone is feeling tired and emotional .
It is hard to focus , easy to agonise , and soothing – if the volume of pain on social media is anything to go by – to share with the group one ’ s inability to function .
This is not limited to people living in the US , but – as with the recent death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and ascent of Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court – is felt by plenty of observers abroad as acute and very personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own admission , weeping , paralyzed , grief-stricken , terrified , frozen , nauseous and bingeing .
You can ’ t turn it off .
There is no escape .
At least this is the impression one gets after spending too long online .
How we live psychologically in relation to the news is something we are assumed not to have much control over .
You can be an ostrich and happy or that guy trapped in a feedback loop of conspiracy theories on Facebook – but nobody wants to be him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on which count not feeling completely dismantled at the moment is a dereliction of civic duty .
Who runs the US affects the rest of the world , and it is not outlandish for Brits – or , say , affluent New Yorkers , insulated from the worst effects of a Trump re-election – to be emotionally disturbed ahead of the election .
What remains curious is whether the sheer levels of reported distress are to any degree optional , or entirely related to the trauma at hand .
If I put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , within about three mental leaps , get from Trump ’ s re-election to the ship sailing on climate breakdown , to the end of human civilisation , taking my descendants with it .
The same goes for the domino run of panic around Coney Barrett ’ s confirmation on the supreme court , bringing with it the threat of reversals on abortion and marriage equality .
These planes , always idling at the end of the runway , require a small amount of energy to get airborne , however , and with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media ; narrowing my range of vision to the next 45 minutes – I can usually stop the thing taking off .
The question is whether I should want to .
Distress as a form of empathy is imagined to be a precursor to action , the necessary spur to political activity .
Denial , meanwhile , is imagined only ever to foster apathy .
I ’ m sure this is true in lots of contexts , and yet when we are powerless to do anything , as we are at this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feels like a proxy for Doing Something , and a useless one at that .
Fretting on Twitter might offer solace , but it risks exacerbating the very thing it seeks to remedy .
And it ’ s an unreliable measure of anything much beyond one ’ s own temperature .
The two sharpest responses I ’ ve had to an election were in 1997 , when Tony Blair became prime minister , ending a Tory run that had lasted all but three years of my life , coinciding with the elation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and seven years later , when George W Bush won a second term by defeating John Kerry .
I was in Britain in 2004 : the US election had nothing to do with me – or rather , it was less my concern than it would be in 2016 , when Donald Trump became president of the country I lived in .
But while Trump ’ s election was a terrible shock , I felt the disappointment of the Bush re-election more keenly .
I was less politically jaded then , more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ OK , and still recovering from the death of my mother .
As in 97 , my response to the election was more life than politics .
There are broader injuries that perhaps can ’ t be dodged .
For Americans , Trump has delivered a psychological blow in the form of besmirching the very idea of their country , an injury overarching all others .
And while , for reasons of self-preservation , it might make sense to skirt Twitter for a few days , you can ’ t entirely avoid these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or sleep-bolt .
It ’ s been 10 years since I last did it .
But one night this week , I woke up at 2.30am in my living room , eyes on the clock , heart racing , trying to figure out how I got there and why .

Four days out from the US election, and everyone is feeling tired and emotional. It is hard to focus, easy to agonise, and soothing – if the volume of pain on social media is anything to go by – to share with the group one’s inability to function. This is not limited to people living in the US, but – as with the recent death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and ascent of Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court – is felt by plenty of observers abroad as acute and very personal pain. People are, by their own admission, weeping, paralyzed, grief-stricken, terrified, frozen, nauseous and bingeing. You can’t turn it off. There is no escape.
At least this is the impression one gets after spending too long online. How we live psychologically in relation to the news is something we are assumed not to have much control over. You can be an ostrich and happy or that guy trapped in a feedback loop of conspiracy theories on Facebook – but nobody wants to be him. Or you can be informed and miserable, on which count not feeling completely dismantled at the moment is a dereliction of civic duty. Who runs the US affects the rest of the world, and it is not outlandish for Brits – or, say, affluent New Yorkers, insulated from the worst effects of a Trump re-election – to be emotionally disturbed ahead of the election. What remains curious is whether the sheer levels of reported distress are to any degree optional, or entirely related to the trauma at hand.
If I put down my immediate worries, I can, within about three mental leaps, get from Trump’s re-election to the ship sailing on climate breakdown, to the end of human civilisation, taking my descendants with it. The same goes for the domino run of panic around Coney Barrett’s confirmation on the supreme court, bringing with it the threat of reversals on abortion and marriage equality. These planes, always idling at the end of the runway, require a small amount of energy to get airborne, however, and with a bit of effort – staying off social media; narrowing my range of vision to the next 45 minutes – I can usually stop the thing taking off.
The question is whether I should want to. Distress as a form of empathy is imagined to be a precursor to action, the necessary spur to political activity. Denial, meanwhile, is imagined only ever to foster apathy. I’m sure this is true in lots of contexts, and yet when we are powerless to do anything, as we are at this stage of the election, anxiety itself feels like a proxy for Doing Something, and a useless one at that. Fretting on Twitter might offer solace, but it risks exacerbating the very thing it seeks to remedy.
And it’s an unreliable measure of anything much beyond one’s own temperature. The two sharpest responses I’ve had to an election were in 1997, when Tony Blair became prime minister, ending a Tory run that had lasted all but three years of my life, coinciding with the elation of graduating and the dawn of adult life, and seven years later, when George W Bush won a second term by defeating John Kerry. I was in Britain in 2004: the US election had nothing to do with me – or rather, it was less my concern than it would be in 2016, when Donald Trump became president of the country I lived in. But while Trump’s election was a terrible shock, I felt the disappointment of the Bush re-election more keenly. I was less politically jaded then, more inclined to believe things would turn out OK, and still recovering from the death of my mother. As in 97, my response to the election was more life than politics.
There are broader injuries that perhaps can’t be dodged. For Americans, Trump has delivered a psychological blow in the form of besmirching the very idea of their country, an injury overarching all others. And while, for reasons of self-preservation, it might make sense to skirt Twitter for a few days, you can’t entirely avoid these things. I used to sleepwalk – or sleep-bolt. It’s been 10 years since I last did it. But one night this week, I woke up at 2.30am in my living room, eyes on the clock, heart racing, trying to figure out how I got there and why.