washingtonmonthly--2020-10-22--Hey, Trump Can Still Win. Really.

Hey, Trump Can Still Win. Really.

If the election were held today , Joe Biden would probably win .
But there are strong signs that the race is much , much closer than you ’ d think from the news coverage .
Donald Trump has a real shot at being reelected .
First , the president is actually more popular now than on the day he was elected .
Yes , that ’ s right .
His personal favorability rating around election day in 2016 was 37.5 % .
Now it is 43.2 % .
There are , in fact , hundreds of thousands of Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grown fonder of Trump .
We all know it ’ s not about the popular vote so let ’ s disregard nationwide polls that have Biden ahead by double digits .
Who cares if he ’ s going to win California by 20 percent or 30 percent ?
There ’ s been much attention paid to the former vice-president running strong in battleground states that Trump won in 2016 .
That ’ s true .
But… Biden is leading in many of those pivotal contests by just a little bit .
As of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clear Politics average , Biden led in these potential red-to-blue flips : Yes , I ’ d rather be Biden than Trump , but Trump doesn ’ t need a shift of 12 points .
The president needs a shift of about 3 points – or a group-think polling error of just a few points .
If that happens , Biden could quite easily lose all of those ( mostly sunbelt ) states mentioned above , just as Hillary did in the last election .
There ’ s reason to believe that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s anti-immigration obsession will propel Biden to victory .
But Trump is polling surprisingly strongly with Hispanics , especially men and the growing number of Hispanic Evangelicals .
If Biden blows it in the sunbelt and Iowa , it will come down once again to the rust belt battlegrounds : Pennsylvania , Wisconsin , and Michigan .
Remember : if Biden loses all of the above-mentioned states that he wants to flip from red to blue ( which is quite possible ) – then he has to sweep the Great Lakes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 of 3 .
Right now ( as of 10/20 ) , those three states are looking pretty good for Biden , especially Michigan and even Wisconsin , which once seemed like it might be the hardest of the three to get back in the blue column where it resided from 1988 to 2012 .
Somewhat , surprisingly , Pennsylvania is still a dogfight for Biden despite nearly 50 years in politics in neighboring Delaware and multiple visits to the Keystone State this year : So , remembering that Biden might need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ main cautionary note is to look at the Real Clear Politics polling averages for those states way back on October 19 , 2016 : As you can see , Joe Biden is doing worse in those state polls than Hillary was .
And she , of course , lost them all .
Granted , some things are different now .
Undecideds break towards the challenger , and that was Trump last time with Hillary as a quasi-incumbent .
Now Trump is the status quo .
And today ’ s polling is less likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question the Real Clear Politics average , saying it gives too much weight to lesser polls .
But even other averages , such as fivethirtyeight , aren ’ t radically different .
On October 20 , they had Biden up 7.3 in Wisconsin .
That ’ s better than RCP but not dramatically so .
But consider this : The one pollster that consistently has Trump doing better than the national average – well enough to win – is The Trafalgar Group .
They are often discounted as being to the right of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Atlanta-based firm also happens to be the only polling firm that accurately predicted Trump ’ s margin in Pennsylvania and Michigan in 2016 .
So why are we so quick to discount the only pollster that got it right last time ?
( Right now , Trafalgar has Trump down 2 % in Pennsylvania but up +1 percent in Michigan , and predicts to the Rich Lowry at National Review that the president will be re-elected ) .
Some of the pollsters who got those state races wrong in 2016 have adjusted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black turnout and so on – but some , apparently , amazingly – have not .
“ Since then , some of the most prolific state polls , including Monmouth University ’ s , have started to weight their samples by educational attainment to make sure they are not falling prey to survey bias based on voters with more degrees being more likely to answer their phones , ” the Washington Post reported .
“ Yet several firms have not , including Marist College , Mason-Dixon , and EPIC-MRA , which conducts Michigan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Then there ’ s the mysterious matter of voter registrations .
Tom Edsall in the New York Times quoted a Democratic consultant about what seems to be a spike in the voter registration of the demographic group toughest on Democrats– non-college aged whites : “ Since last week , the share of white non-college over 30 [ years of age ] registrations in the battleground states has increased by 10 points compared to September 2016 , and the Democratic margin dropped 10 points to just 6 points .
And there are serious signs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who had not cast ballots in previous elections.
” And here ’ s Edsall ’ s summary of the voter registration news : “ David Wasserman , House editor for The Cook Political Report .
wrote on Oct. 1 that voter registration patterns over a longer period in key battleground states show that ‘ Republicans have swamped Democrats in adding new voters to the rolls , a dramatic GOP improvement over 2016.
’ Four of the six states Trump won by fewer than five points in 2016 allow voters to register by party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Pennsylvania .
In recent months , there have been substantially more Republicans added to the rolls than Democrats in each of them except for Arizona .
Florida , since the state ’ s March primary , added 195,652 Republicans and 98,362 Democrats .
Pennsylvania , since June , Republicans plus 135,619 , Democrats up 57,985 .
North Carolina , since March , Republicans up 83,785 to Democrats 38,137 .
In Arizona , the exception , “ Democrats out-registered Republicans 31,139 to 29,667 ” in recent months.
” I ’ d add @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one engages in fraudulent voter suppression , it is the case that more absentee ballots are typically disqualified than in-person voters .
And this year , Democrats are dominating the absentee ballot voting by more than 2:1 in many states .
Sure , I ’ ve read various pieces about why Biden is in a stronger position than Clinton .
There are fewer undecideds than last time .
The third-party candidates are weaker .
The numbers have been remarkably stable .
Trump ’ s running a worse campaign .
Oh , and there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in the high single digits .
That ’ s all true .
And if the polls are accurate or widen , Biden could win in a blowout .
But the Biden edge is much smaller than most of the analysis has suggested .
Yes , I ’ d rather be Biden than Trump as we approach the final days of the campaign .
But Trump ’ s path to victory is , at this moment , only slightly less likely than it was in 2016 around this time .

If the election were held today, Joe Biden would probably win. But there are strong signs that the race is much, much closer than you’d think from the news coverage. Donald Trump has a real shot at being reelected.
First, the president is actually more popular now than on the day he was elected. Yes, that’s right. His personal favorability rating around election day in 2016 was 37.5%. Now, it is 43.2%. There are, in fact, hundreds of thousands of Americans (if not millions) who have grown fonder of Trump.
We all know it’s not about the popular vote so let’s disregard nationwide polls that have Biden ahead by double digits. Who cares if he’s going to win California by 20 percent or 30 percent? There’s been much attention paid to the former vice-president running strong in battleground states that Trump won in 2016. That’s true. But… Biden is leading in many of those pivotal contests by just a little bit. As of October 20, according to the Real Clear Politics average, Biden led in these potential red-to-blue flips:
Georgia — .09 percent
Florida — 1 percent
Arizona — 3.1 percent
Iowa — 1.2 percent
North Carolina — 2 percent
Texas — (-4.4 percent)
Yes, I’d rather be Biden than Trump, but Trump doesn’t need a shift of 12 points. The president needs a shift of about 3 points – or a group-think polling error of just a few points. If that happens, Biden could quite easily lose all of those (mostly sunbelt) states mentioned above, just as Hillary did in the last election. There’s reason to believe that the growing Hispanic population in those states and Trump’s anti-immigration obsession will propel Biden to victory. But Trump is polling surprisingly strongly with Hispanics, especially men and the growing number of Hispanic Evangelicals.
If Biden blows it in the sunbelt and Iowa, it will come down once again to the rust belt battlegrounds: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Remember: if Biden loses all of the above-mentioned states that he wants to flip from red to blue (which is quite possible) – then he has to sweep the Great Lakes battlegrounds. Not 2 of 3. 3 of 3.
Right now (as of 10/20), those three states are looking pretty good for Biden, especially Michigan and even Wisconsin, which once seemed like it might be the hardest of the three to get back in the blue column where it resided from 1988 to 2012. Somewhat surprisingly, Pennsylvania is still a dogfight for Biden despite nearly 50 years in politics in neighboring Delaware and multiple visits to the Keystone State this year:
Pennsylvania — +3.8
Wisconsin — +6.2
Michigan — +6.8
So, remembering that Biden might need to sweep all three of those, my main cautionary note is to look at the Real Clear Politics polling averages for those states way back on October 19, 2016:
Pennsylvania: Clinton +6.2
Wisconsin: Clinton +7
Michigan: Clinton +11.6
As you can see, Joe Biden is doing worse in those state polls than Hillary was. And she, of course, lost them all.
Granted, some things are different now. Undecideds break towards the challenger, and that was Trump last time with Hillary as a quasi-incumbent. Now Trump is the status quo. And today’s polling is less likely to overstate black turnout. Some politicos question the Real Clear Politics average, saying it gives too much weight to lesser polls. But even other averages, such as FiveThirtyEight, aren’t radically different. On October 20, they had Biden up 7.3 points in Wisconsin. That’s better than RCP but not dramatically so.
But consider this: The one pollster that consistently has Trump doing better than the national average—well enough to win—is The Trafalgar Group. They are often discounted as being to the right of the average, which is true. The Atlanta-based firm also happens to be the only polling firm that accurately predicted Trump’s margin in Pennsylvania and Michigan in 2016. So why are we so quick to discount the only pollster that got it right last time? (Right now, Trafalgar has Trump down 2% in Pennsylvania but up +1% in Michigan, and predicts to the Rich Lowry at National Review that the president will be re-elected).
Some of the pollsters who got those state races wrong in 2016 have adjusted their methodology to account for a lower black turnout and so on—but some, apparently, amazingly—have not. “Since then, some of the most prolific state polls, including Monmouth University’s, have started to weight their samples by educational attainment to make sure they are not falling prey to survey bias based on voters with more degrees being more likely to answer their phones,” the Washington Post reported. “Yet several firms have not, including Marist College, Mason-Dixon, and EPIC-MRA, which conducts Michigan polls for the Detroit Free Press.”
Then there’s the mysterious matter of voter registrations. Tom Edsall in the New York Times quoted a Democratic consultant about what seems to be a spike in the voter registration of the demographic group toughest on Democrats– non-college aged whites: “Since last week, the share of white non-college over 30 [years of age] registrations in the battleground states has increased by 10 points compared to September 2016, and the Democratic margin dropped 10 points to just 6 points. And there are serious signs of political engagement by white non-college voters who had not cast ballots in previous elections.”
And here’s Edsall’s summary of the voter registration news:
“David Wasserman, House editor for The Cook Political Report. wrote on Oct. 1 that voter registration patterns over a longer period in key battleground states show that ‘Republicans have swamped Democrats in adding new voters to the rolls, a dramatic GOP improvement over 2016.’ Four of the six states Trump won by fewer than five points in 2016 allow voters to register by party: Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. In recent months, there have been substantially more Republicans added to the rolls than Democrats in each of them except for Arizona. Wasserman’s data: Florida, since the state’s March primary, added 195,652 Republicans and 98,362 Democrats. Pennsylvania, since June, Republicans plus 135,619, Democrats up 57,985. North Carolina, since March, Republicans up 83,785 to Democrats 38,137. In Arizona, the exception, “Democrats out-registered Republicans 31,139 to 29,667” in recent months.”
I’d add one other factor. Even if no one engages in fraudulent voter suppression, it is the case that more absentee ballots are typically disqualified than in-person voters. And this year, Democrats are dominating the absentee ballot voting by more than 2:1 in many states.
Sure, I’ve read various pieces about why Biden is in a stronger position than Clinton. There are fewer undecideds than last time. The third-party candidates are weaker. The numbers have been remarkably stable. Trump’s running a worse campaign. Oh, and there’s a pandemic. And unemployment is in the high single digits. That’s all true. And if the polls are accurate or widen, Biden could win in a blowout.
But the Biden edge is much smaller than most of the analysis has suggested. Yes, I’d rather be Biden than Trump as we approach the final days of the campaign. But Trump’s path to victory is, at this moment, only slightly less likely than it was in 2016 around this time.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-21--The Supreme Court’s Latest and Very Ominous Voting Case

Democrats haven ’ t scored a lot of voting-rights victories in front of the Supreme Court this election cycle .
But they got some good news Monday when the Justices refused to block a Pennsylvania state-court decision allowing ballots mailed by election day to be counted even if they arrive at state offices three days later .
But the victory in Republican Party v. Boockvar was simply a tie .
The lower court ’ s order was “ affirmed by an equally divided court.
” Four Justices—Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch , and Brett Kavanaugh—found merit in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expanded voting .
Pennsylvania Republicans advanced three arguments against the expanded-voting decision .
One is frivolous ; any of the three would open the door to Supreme Court meddling in state election laws during voting and vote-counting .
And the additional piece of bad news is that Amy Coney Barrett is bearing down on the Court like a supertanker at sea—slow , steady and unstoppable .
She is a nominee who seemed unaware that voter intimidation is illegal , or even that it exists .
In front of the Senate Judiciary Committee , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ a hypothetical set of facts.
” Barrett ’ s vote is exactly what Donald Trump and the Republican Party want and expect .
“ I think I ’ m counting on [ the Court ] to look at the ballots , definitely , ” the president said in the September 30 debate—meaning mail-in ballots of the precise kind at issue in the Pennsylvania case .
Trump would prefer that none of them be counted .
Some have called for Barrett to recuse herself from such a case ; I will believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ emergency ” that prompted Pennsylvania Republicans ’ appeal ?
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had ordered that local election officials count mail ballots cast by Election Day and received within three days after the election .
That order applied even if the Postal Service had not ( as it often does not ) marked the prepaid envelope with a “ legible ” dated postmark .
Had Chief Justice John Roberts not sided with the three moderate liberals , the Court would have blocked the Pennsylvania order .
The consequence : A huge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been disfranchised by the happenstance of postal delivery .
The emergency appeal was from an order of a state supreme court , deciding a matter of state law under the state ’ s own constitution .
State supreme court interpretations of state law are supposed to be pretty much off-limits to the U.S. Supreme Court—unless they directly conflict with federal law or the U.S. Constitution .
And the “ conflict ” in this case seems to be manufactured out of vote-fraud hysteria and a relatively novel far-right constitutional theory .
The Republican parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s order is “ an open invitation to voters to cast their ballots after Election Day , thereby injecting chaos ” into “ an orderly and secure schedule of clear , bright-line deadlines.
” Here ’ s a slightly different view , offered by Pennsylvania ’ s Democratic Attorney General : “ [ A ] n unscrupulous voter would have to wait until after Election Day , commit a third-degree felony by lying on the Voter ’ s Declaration [ of the date the vote was being cast ] , and bribe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ envelope.
” Leave aside what could motivate such conduct ; to throw an election , this bit of gymnastics would have to be repeated thousands of times .
Last year , the Republican-controlled legislature in Harrisburg and Democratic Governor Tom Wolf , amended state law to allow any citizen who wished to vote by mail to do so ( “ no-excuse mail-in voting ” ) .
A voter can request a mail-in ballot until a week before election day .
The law changed the deadline when mail ballots must be received .
Previously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day ; now it is 8 p.m. on Election Day itself .
Then came the pandemic of 2020 and the rise of Donald Trump ’ s appointee , Postmaster General Louis DeJoy .
On July 29 , the Postal Service warned Pennsylvania Secretary of State that the woes afflicting Postal Service meant that “ there is a significant risk ” that the USPS would not be able to get ballots to election officials on time , even if the voter had requested and filled it out well before the deadlines .
This warning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which has been ( so far correctly ) expected to spark a massive upsurge in mail voting .
In response to the USPS letter , Pennsylvania Democrats asked state courts to order the Democratic Secretary of State , Kathy Boockvar , to count all ballots received within a week after Election Day .
She agreed that an extension was needed—but asked the state supreme court to order only a three-day one .
It did .
The state supreme court ’ s majority based its ruling on the Pennsylvania Constitution , Article I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free and equal ; and no power , civil or military , shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.
” That provision , first adopted in 1776 , is a literal legacy of the American Revolution .
There ’ s nothing like it in the U.S. Constitution and there is no federal caselaw that applies to it .
As recently as 2018 , the Pennsylvania supreme court stated that cases under this dictum are decided by “ entirely separate jurisprudential considerations ” than federal election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Pennsylvania Republicans made three arguments .
First , they said , federal law specifies the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as election day .
Allowing ballots to arrive late would violate those statutes .
This Republican argument is absurd and would open up a rat ’ s nest .
Remember that voters must cast their ballots on or before election day under the Pennsylvania court ’ s ruling and sign a sworn statement to that effect .
So , is it the late arrival that threatens chaos ?
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other states require a count of ballots mailed by election day but received after it .
Pennsylvania itself counts ballots mailed by active-duty military personnel if received within seven days of election day .
In fact , under the Republican theory , all early ballots and absentee ballots might be a violation of the election-day statutes .
The second Republican argument is that , under the U.S. Constitution , presidential electors are to be selected “ in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.
” That means , they argued , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and state courts can not review its decisions .
This argument is an emerging tenet of hard-right constitutional theory .
In 2015 , the Republican legislature in Arizona challenged a voter-adopted non-partisan redistricting commission , arguing nobody but the partisan legislature can regulate elections .
They lost—but only 5-4 , with Chief Justice Roberts writing the primary dissent .
If anything threatens “ chaos and the potential for gamesmanship , ” it would be the adoption of this rule .
That ’ s because , around the country , many well-established state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases , the secret ballot itself ) come from the text of state constitutions , and thus , by the logic of this new reading , might be open to challenge .
The third argument Republicans made in the Pennsylvania case is that under the so-called “ Purcell rule , ” the state court changed election procedures too close to election day .
But until now , that “ rule ” has been applied only to changes ordered by lower federal courts .
It ’ s quite a step to extend it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produce a flood of new suits .
Any tribunal in which Chief Justice Roberts is a swing vote is already far to the right ; Barrett ’ s seating will likely send the Court over the edge .
The immediate result of her arrival may be a set of decisions that , by a strange , indeed odd or even bizarre coincidence , advantage Donald Trump–or even , Bush v. Gore style , hand him the White House a second time after yet another election he lost .

Democrats haven’t scored a lot of voting-rights victories in front of the Supreme Court this election cycle. But they got some good news Monday when the Justices refused to block a Pennsylvania state-court decision allowing ballots mailed by election day to be counted even if they arrive at state offices three days later.
But the victory in Republican Party v. Boockvar was simply a tie. The lower court’s order was “affirmed by an equally divided court.” Four Justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh—found merit in the Republican Party’s challenge to expanded voting.
Pennsylvania Republicans advanced three arguments against the expanded-voting decision. One is frivolous; any of the three would open the door to Supreme Court meddling in state election laws during voting and vote-counting.
And the additional piece of bad news is that Amy Coney Barrett is bearing down on the Court like a supertanker at sea—slow, steady and unstoppable. She is a nominee who seemed unaware that voter intimidation is illegal, or even that it exists. In front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, she dismissed this persistent American problem as “a hypothetical set of facts.”
Barrett’s vote is exactly what Donald Trump and the Republican Party want and expect. “I think I’m counting on [the Court] to look at the ballots, definitely,” the president said in the September 30 debate—meaning mail-in ballots of the precise kind at issue in the Pennsylvania case. Trump would prefer that none of them be counted. Some have called for Barrett to recuse herself from such a case; I will believe that when I see it.
What is the “emergency” that prompted Pennsylvania Republicans’ appeal? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had ordered that local election officials count mail ballots cast by Election Day and received within three days after the election. That order applied even if the Postal Service had not (as it often does not) marked the prepaid envelope with a “legible” dated postmark. Had Chief Justice John Roberts not sided with the three moderate liberals, the Court would have blocked the Pennsylvania order. The consequence: A huge number of Pennsylvanians—surely in the thousands—would have been disfranchised by the happenstance of postal delivery.
The emergency appeal was from an order of a state supreme court, deciding a matter of state law under the state’s own constitution. State supreme court interpretations of state law are supposed to be pretty much off-limits to the U.S. Supreme Court—unless they directly conflict with federal law or the U.S. Constitution. And the “conflict” in this case seems to be manufactured out of vote-fraud hysteria and a relatively novel far-right constitutional theory.
The Republican parties’ application warned that the state court’s order is “an open invitation to voters to cast their ballots after Election Day, thereby injecting chaos” into “an orderly and secure schedule of clear, bright-line deadlines.”
Here’s a slightly different view, offered by Pennsylvania’s Democratic Attorney General: “[A]n unscrupulous voter would have to wait until after Election Day, commit a third-degree felony by lying on the Voter’s Declaration [of the date the vote was being cast], and bribe a postal worker not to postmark the envelope.” Leave aside what could motivate such conduct; to throw an election, this bit of gymnastics would have to be repeated thousands of times.
Last year, the Republican-controlled legislature in Harrisburg and Democratic Governor Tom Wolf, amended state law to allow any citizen who wished to vote by mail to do so (“no-excuse mail-in voting”). A voter can request a mail-in ballot until a week before election day. The law changed the deadline when mail ballots must be received. Previously it had been the Friday before election day; now it is 8 p.m. on Election Day itself.
Then came the pandemic of 2020 and the rise of Donald Trump’s appointee, Postmaster General Louis DeJoy. On July 29, the Postal Service warned Pennsylvania Secretary of State that the woes afflicting Postal Service meant that “there is a significant risk” that the USPS would not be able to get ballots to election officials on time, even if the voter had requested and filled it out well before the deadlines.
This warning came on top of the COVID pandemic, which has been (so far correctly) expected to spark a massive upsurge in mail voting. In response to the USPS letter, Pennsylvania Democrats asked state courts to order the Democratic Secretary of State, Kathy Boockvar, to count all ballots received within a week after Election Day. She agreed that an extension was needed—but asked the state supreme court to order only a three-day one. It did.
The state supreme court’s majority based its ruling on the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article I § 5: “Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.” That provision, first adopted in 1776, is a literal legacy of the American Revolution. There’s nothing like it in the U.S. Constitution and there is no federal caselaw that applies to it. As recently as 2018, the Pennsylvania supreme court stated that cases under this dictum are decided by “entirely separate jurisprudential considerations” than federal election cases.
Rushing to the Supreme Court, Pennsylvania Republicans made three arguments. First, they said, federal law specifies the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as election day. Allowing ballots to arrive late would violate those statutes.
This Republican argument is absurd and would open up a rat’s nest. Remember that voters must cast their ballots on or before election day under the Pennsylvania court’s ruling and sign a sworn statement to that effect. So, is it the late arrival that threatens chaos? How can that be? At least six other states require a count of ballots mailed by election day but received after it. Pennsylvania itself counts ballots mailed by active-duty military personnel if received within seven days of election day. In fact, under the Republican theory, all early ballots and absentee ballots might be a violation of the election-day statutes.
The second Republican argument is that, under the U.S. Constitution, presidential electors are to be selected “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” That means, they argued, that the legislature can do whatever it wants, and state courts cannot review its decisions.
This argument is an emerging tenet of hard-right constitutional theory. In 2015, the Republican legislature in Arizona challenged a voter-adopted non-partisan redistricting commission, arguing nobody but the partisan legislature can regulate elections. They lost—but only 5-4, with Chief Justice Roberts writing the primary dissent. If anything threatens “chaos and the potential for gamesmanship,” it would be the adoption of this rule. That’s because, around the country, many well-established state election rules (even, in some cases, the secret ballot itself) come from the text of state constitutions, and thus, by the logic of this new reading, might be open to challenge.
The third argument Republicans made in the Pennsylvania case is that under the so-called “Purcell rule,” the state court changed election procedures too close to election day. But until now, that “rule” has been applied only to changes ordered by lower federal courts. It’s quite a step to extend it to state courts as well; that might produce a flood of new suits.
(Since this article originally appeared, the Court apparently, by a vote of 5 to 3, followed the old version of the “Purcell rule.” That only restricts federal courts that try to make federal elections easier because of federal statutes and the federal Constitution. In this new ruling, which was issued after the article was published, the Supreme Court blocked a federal district court decision that interpreted the Americans with Disability Act to allow state clerks in Alabama to offer “curbside voting” to immunocompromised and disabled voters. Can’t have that, can we? And if five Justices think that a meddling district judge made it too easy to vote in Alabama–home of the Edmund Pettus Bridge–imagine what a new, Barrett-enhanced majority has in store for other judges who try to enforce constitutional rights.)
Any tribunal in which Chief Justice Roberts is a swing vote is already far to the right; Barrett’s seating will likely send the Court over the edge. The immediate result of her arrival may be a set of decisions that, by a strange, indeed odd or even bizarre coincidence, advantage Donald Trump–or even, Bush v. Gore style, hand him the White House a second time after yet another election he lost.
This article was updated on October 22 to take account of a new voting rights ruling from the Supreme Court.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-21--The Economy Is Weakest with the Groups Trump Most Needs

As Donald Trump sees it , “ We are leading the World in Economic Recovery.
” Yet , less than two weeks before election day , the economy is weaker than he will ever acknowledge .
The number of employed Americans in September was still 7 percent below the levels in February : Eight months into the pandemic , 10.7 million fewer people have jobs than before COVID-19 .
Those job losses are more than twice as great as those seen eight months into the Great Recession .
And ominously for the president ’ s political fortunes , the recovery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes he most needs to win .
Jobs issues could well imperil Trump ’ s reelection hopes , especially in critical swing states .
To be sure , conditions are better than when employment collapsed in April and May .
But as Federal Reserve Board chair Jerome Powell warned earlier this month , jobs and growth could well stumble without substantial new stimulus and relief , leading to “ a weak recovery ” and “ unnecessary hardship for households and businesses.
” Right now , that ’ s where we ’ re headed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a package months ago , but Senate Republican leaders persist in refusing even to consider it .
The employment numbers are especially bad in many states that Trump won very narrowly in 2016 and are often concentrated in the voter groups that provided his greatest support .
The continuing job losses exceed or nearly equal the 7 percent nationwide drop in five critical swing states .
Compared to February , pre-COVID , the number of people employed in September was down 10.1 percent in Michigan , down 8.4 percent in Pennsylvania , down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent in Wisconsin , and down 6.5 percent in North Carolina .
The topline jobs numbers aren ’ t quite that terrible in some other swing states .
But looking at precisely who has lost jobs across the critical states , the news is bad for Trump even in less-affected places .
Let ’ s start with how these job losses affect Americans based on their education .
Trump ’ s support has always been concentrated among Americans with high school degrees or less .
Employment among those without high school diplomas is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – down since February by 14.2 percent in Florida , 12.5 percent in Pennsylvania , and 9.5 percent in Wisconsin .
The jobs losses among Americans with high school diplomas are even greater .
The number of high school graduates employed in September , as compared to February , is down 15.4 percent in Pennsylvania , down 15.2 percent in Arizona , down 14.5 percent in Michigan , down 8.1 percent in Georgia , and down 7.9 percent in North Carolina .
These staggering job losses help explain why , according to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead over Joe Biden among people with a high school education or less has narrowed from 51 percent to 44 percent in 2016 to 49 percent to 45 percent this month .
In 2016 , Trump also had a seven percentage-point advantage with voters with “ some college ” – the tens of millions of Americans who attended college without earning a bachelor ’ s degree .
The number of people in this group employed in September , as compared to February , has contracted sharply in six of the swing states .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent in North Carolina , down 16.7 percent in Arizona , down 12.5 percent in Florida , down 10.1 percent in Georgia , down 8.6 percent in Ohio , and down 8.4 percent in Pennsylvania .
These staggering job losses help explain why Trump ’ s 49 to 42 percent advantage with these voters in 2016 has become a 48 percent to 46 percent advantage for Joe Biden .
College-educated Americans have suffered the least from the COVID-19 downturn .
Nationwide , the number of college graduates with jobs was 3.8 percent less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two swing states , however , their employment has also fallen sharply – down 10.0 percent in North Carolina , and down 9.2 percent in Michigan .
To be sure , Trump ’ s support from Americans with bachelor ’ s or advanced degrees eroded long before the pandemic .
Even so , Biden today holds a 20 percentage-point advantage among college graduates and a 40 percentage-point advantage with those with postgraduate degrees .
Given Trump ’ s regular efforts as a candidate and as president to use race and ethnicity to enrage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reelection also rest on serious majority support from white voters .
However , job losses by white people in three swing state may well factor into the result .
Employment by white people in September , as compared to February , was down 8.6 percent in Arizona , down 8.4 percent in Michigan , and down 8.0 percent in Florida , all above the 7 percent national average .
Trump carried white voters in 2016 by a 52 to 41 percent margin , or 11 percentage points .
Current job losses among white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with them has narrowed to 51 to 44 percent .
The extraordinary jobs losses across groups that have given Trump his foundational political support almost certainly explain why he has forfeited his longstanding advantage on handling the economy .
With less than two weeks until election day , Biden and Trump are now tied on the issue .
Moreover , the most recent Gallup poll found that 89 percent of Americans see the economy as an extremely or very important issue , even more than the 77 percent who see the government ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important .
Either candidate could still seize the initiative and focus on restoring full employment , especially in the swing states .
Given the enormous job losses under Trump , the advantage clearly rests with Joe Biden .

As Donald Trump sees it, “We are leading the World in Economic Recovery.” Yet, less than two weeks before election day, the economy is weaker than he will ever acknowledge. The number of employed Americans in September was still 7 percent below the levels in February: Eight months into the pandemic, 10.7 million fewer people have jobs than before COVID-19. Those job losses are more than twice as great as those seen eight months into the Great Recession. And ominously for the president’s political fortunes, the recovery has not reached millions of Americans whose votes he most needs to win. Jobs issues could well imperil Trump’s reelection hopes, especially in critical swing states.
To be sure, conditions are better than when employment collapsed in April and May. But as Federal Reserve Board chair Jerome Powell warned earlier this month, jobs and growth could well stumble without substantial new stimulus and relief, leading to “a weak recovery” and “unnecessary hardship for households and businesses.” Right now, that’s where we’re headed. The House of Representatives approved such a package months ago, but Senate Republican leaders persist in refusing even to consider it.
The employment numbers are especially bad in many states that Trump won very narrowly in 2016 and are often concentrated in the voter groups that provided his greatest support. The continuing job losses exceed or nearly equal the 7 percent nationwide drop in five critical swing states. Compared to February, pre-COVID, the number of people employed in September was down 10.1 percent in Michigan, down 8.4 percent in Pennsylvania, down 7.4 percent in Ohio, down 7.2 percent in Wisconsin, and down 6.5 percent in North Carolina.
The topline jobs numbers aren’t quite that terrible in some other swing states. But looking at precisely who has lost jobs across the critical states, the news is bad for Trump even in less-affected places. Let’s start with how these job losses affect Americans based on their education. Trump’s support has always been concentrated among Americans with high school degrees or less. Employment among those without high school diplomas is now seriously depressed in three must-win states – down since February by 14.2 percent in Florida, 12.5 percent in Pennsylvania, and 9.5 percent in Wisconsin.
The jobs losses among Americans with high school diplomas are even greater. The number of high school graduates employed in September, as compared to February, is down 15.4 percent in Pennsylvania, down 15.2 percent in Arizona, down 14.5 percent in Michigan, down 8.1 percent in Georgia, and down 7.9 percent in North Carolina. These staggering job losses help explain why, according to the Pew Research Center, Trump’s lead over Joe Biden among people with a high school education or less has narrowed from 51 percent to 44 percent in 2016 to 49 percent to 45 percent this month.
In 2016, Trump also had a seven percentage-point advantage with voters with “some college” – the tens of millions of Americans who attended college without earning a bachelor’s degree. The number of people in this group employed in September, as compared to February, has contracted sharply in six of the swing states. Their employment is down an astounding 23.0 percent in North Carolina, down 16.7 percent in Arizona, down 12.5 percent in Florida, down 10.1 percent in Georgia, down 8.6 percent in Ohio, and down 8.4 percent in Pennsylvania. These staggering job losses help explain why Trump’s 49 to 42 percent advantage with these voters in 2016 has become a 48 percent to 46 percent advantage for Joe Biden.
College-educated Americans have suffered the least from the COVID-19 downturn. Nationwide, the number of college graduates with jobs was 3.8 percent less in September than in February. In two swing states, however, their employment has also fallen sharply – down 10.0 percent in North Carolina, and down 9.2 percent in Michigan. To be sure, Trump’s support from Americans with bachelor’s or advanced degrees eroded long before the pandemic. Even so, Biden today holds a 20 percentage-point advantage among college graduates and a 40 percentage-point advantage with those with postgraduate degrees.
Given Trump’s regular efforts as a candidate and as president to use race and ethnicity to enrage and divide Americans, his hopes for reelection also rest on serious majority support from white voters. However, job losses by white people in three swing state may well factor into the result. Employment by white people in September, as compared to February, was down 8.6 percent in Arizona, down 8.4 percent in Michigan, and down 8.0 percent in Florida, all above the 7 percent national average. Trump carried white voters in 2016 by a 52 to 41 percent margin, or 11 percentage points. Current job losses among white Americans may help explain why his advantage with them has narrowed to 51 to 44 percent.
The extraordinary jobs losses across groups that have given Trump his foundational political support almost certainly explain why he has forfeited his longstanding advantage on handling the economy. With less than two weeks until election day, Biden and Trump are now tied on the issue. Moreover, the most recent Gallup poll found that 89 percent of Americans see the economy as an extremely or very important issue, even more than the 77 percent who see the government’s response to the pandemic as comparably important. Either candidate could still seize the initiative and focus on restoring full employment, especially in the swing states. Given the enormous job losses under Trump, the advantage clearly rests with Joe Biden.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-21--How Democrats Are ‘Owning the Cons’

How Democrats Are ‘Owning the Cons’

At a Trump campaign rally in Macon , Georgia on Friday , Sen. David Perdue made a joke about mispronouncing the name of the Democratic nominee for vice-president , Sen. Kamala Harris .
That the Georgia Republican can ’ t ( or won ’ t ) accurately pronounce the name of a colleague with whom he has served on the Budget Committee for almost four years reverberated mightily .
It was an obvious racist dog whistle to the MAGA crowd .
But that isn ’ t the end of the story .
A video of Perdue ’ s comments went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MyNameIs , populated primarily by individuals who have been mocked and bullied because of their names .
As a result , Perdue ’ s Democratic opponent in the U.S.Senate race , Jon Ossoff , had raised almost $ 2 million from at least 42,000 donors by Sunday .
At Politico , James Larkin and Elena Schneider explain that , in the midst of a giant wave of Democratic fundraising for 2020 candidates , this is an ongoing phenomenon .
They quote Josh Holmes , a McConnell advisor , who lamented that every news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ default is to give $ 5 every time something angers them.
” Conversely , when Republicans see something that angers them , “ their response is to write something on Facebook.
” We ’ ve seen the Democratic donor base get activated before .
When Majority Leader McConnell promised to rush through a Supreme Court nominee just hours after the announcement of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death , Democrats responded by donating $ 160 million , primarily to Senate candidates .
The surge in donations isn ’ t always sparked by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden announced that Kamala Harris would be his running mate , the former vice president ’ s campaign raised more than $ 10.8 million .
This kind of response from Democrats is made possible because , back in 2004 , a couple of techies named Matt DeBergalis and Ben Rahn created an online fundraising tool called “ ActBlue.
” Their goal in the 2008 election cycle was to raise $ 100 million .
The site has raised $ 1.5 billion in just the last three months .
That is why , during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate raised $ 401 million , while Republican candidates only took in $ 163 million .
One of the most entertaining things to watch on Twitter has been the banter between Senators Brian Schatz ( D-Hawaii ) and Chris Murphy ( D-Conn. ) —both of whom have become masters of social media .
They regularly launch fundraising drives on behalf of a Democratic Senate candidate .
Here ’ s how their latest effort began on Sunday .
They chose MJ Hegar , who is challenging John Cornyn , the incumbent Texas Republican , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long , they were joined in the fundraising push by a cavalcade of Democratic all-stars , including Beto O ’ Rourke , Cory Booker , Julian Castro , Adam Schiff , and Ted Lieu .
Less than 24 hours later , they had raised almost $ 300,000 from 8,600 donors .
Twitter supplied the social media platform , and ActBlue provided the fundraising tool .
That ’ s a far cry from how big-donor fundraising is done behind closed doors with bundlers and costly fundraisers .
Realizing that they were at a disadvantage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2019 called WinRed , but it is not nearly the fundraising machine that is ActBlue .
In the third quarter of 2020 , when ActBlue raised $ 1.5 billion , WinRed topped out at $ 623.5 million .
Former Rep. Carlos Curbelo ( R-Fla. ) , a moderate who lost his seat in 2018 , explained that many of his colleagues have assumed that “ 95 percent of the money you would raise would be from large donors , political action committees.
” As a result , they haven ’ t developed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do small-donor fundraising .
It is also , of course , hard to imagine Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Rick Scott teaming up on Twitter to raise money for their colleague Sen. Dan Sullivan , the Alaska Republican who is struggling to get reelected .
But perhaps the biggest obstacle Republicans face in replicating the Democrats ’ success at small-donor fundraising is that , especially in the era of Donald Trump , their supporters think that winning is all about “ owning the libs.
” Just like their leader , they assume that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the end-goal because it feeds their emotional need for revenge .
That ’ s a loser mentality that goes a long way towards explaining how Democrats are “ owning the cons .
”

At a Trump campaign rally in Macon, Georgia on Friday, Sen. David Perdue made a joke about mispronouncing the name of the Democratic nominee for vice-president, Sen. Kamala Harris. That the Georgia Republican can’t (or won’t) accurately pronounce the name of a colleague with whom he has served on the Budget Committee for almost four years reverberated mightily. It was an obvious racist dog whistle to the MAGA crowd.
But that isn’t the end of the story. A video of Perdue’s comments went viral, sparking the Twitter hashtag #MyNameIs, populated primarily by individuals who have been mocked and bullied because of their names. As a result, Perdue’s Democratic opponent in the U.S.Senate race, Jon Ossoff, had raised almost $2 million from at least 42,000 donors by Sunday.
At Politico, James Larkin and Elena Schneider explain that, in the midst of a giant wave of Democratic fundraising for 2020 candidates, this is an ongoing phenomenon. They quote Josh Holmes, a McConnell advisor, who lamented that every news development activates Democrats, and “their default is to give $5 every time something angers them.” Conversely, when Republicans see something that angers them, “their response is to write something on Facebook.”
We’ve seen the Democratic donor base get activated before. When Majority Leader McConnell promised to rush through a Supreme Court nominee just hours after the announcement of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, Democrats responded by donating $160 million, primarily to Senate candidates.
The surge in donations isn’t always sparked by anger. In the four hours after Biden announced that Kamala Harris would be his running mate, the former vice president’s campaign raised more than $10.8 million.
This kind of response from Democrats is made possible because, back in 2004, a couple of techies named Matt DeBergalis and Ben Rahn created an online fundraising tool called “ActBlue.” Their goal in the 2008 election cycle was to raise $100 million. The site has raised $1.5 billion in just the last three months. That is why, during the third quarter, Democrats running for the Senate raised $401 million, while Republican candidates only took in $163 million.
One of the most entertaining things to watch on Twitter has been the banter between Senators Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)—both of whom have become masters of social media. They regularly launch fundraising drives on behalf of a Democratic Senate candidate. Here’s how their latest effort began on Sunday.
They chose MJ Hegar, who is challenging John Cornyn, the incumbent Texas Republican, for his U.S. Senate seat. Before long, they were joined in the fundraising push by a cavalcade of Democratic all-stars, including Beto O’Rourke, Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Adam Schiff, and Ted Lieu. Less than 24 hours later, they had raised almost $300,000 from 8,600 donors. Twitter supplied the social media platform, and ActBlue provided the fundraising tool. That’s a far cry from how big-donor fundraising is done behind closed doors with bundlers and costly fundraisers.
Realizing that they were at a disadvantage, Republicans developed an online fundraising platform in 2019 called WinRed, but it is not nearly the fundraising machine that is ActBlue. In the third quarter of 2020, when ActBlue raised $1.5 billion, WinRed topped out at $623.5 million. Former Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), a moderate who lost his seat in 2018, explained that many of his colleagues have assumed that “95 percent of the money you would raise would be from large donors, political action committees.” As a result, they haven’t developed the kind of grassroots contacts required to do small-donor fundraising. It is also, of course, hard to imagine Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Rick Scott teaming up on Twitter to raise money for their colleague Sen. Dan Sullivan, the Alaska Republican who is struggling to get reelected.
But perhaps the biggest obstacle Republicans face in replicating the Democrats’ success at small-donor fundraising is that, especially in the era of Donald Trump, their supporters think that winning is all about “owning the libs.” Just like their leader, they assume that a brutal attack on Twitter or Facebook is the end-goal because it feeds their emotional need for revenge. That’s a loser mentality that goes a long way towards explaining how Democrats are “owning the cons.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-22--Why Trump Has a Serious Chance of Winning. Really.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-22--Uncle Sam’s HR Department Needs Help

Uncle Sam’s HR Department Needs Help

Joe Biden promises a return to an honest , competent federal government .
For that to happen , the government must be adequately staffed with experienced civil servants empowered to push forward his policy agenda , should he win .
Without an experienced team , even the best appointees will struggle .
The state of the federal workforce is not good .
Pay freezes , attacks on government unions , and a drumbeat of hostile , often racist messaging about “ lazy ” civil servants have made it hard for the federal government to attract and retain top talent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the civil service , and Republicans have stalled hazard pay to front-line federal employees .
A fetish for privatization drives these attacks .
Overreliance on contractors to administer critical services has been bad for veterans and hurricane survivors , among others .
Contracting has shifted jobs from unionized , merit-based civil service roles to underpaid , temporary workers , who are squeezed so that K Street and Dulles Corridor executives can earn fat profits .
And to cap it off , the federal civil service is heading for a demographic iceberg .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal workforce was eligible to retire by 2022 , including nearly half of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Environmental Protection Agency .
To address these challenges , a Biden administration must kick off major hiring on Day One .
The new president will need to repair relationships between agencies and their career employees , which have frayed under Donald Trump .
Doing this requires reforming an underappreciated , beleaguered agency — the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM ) .
OPM serves as the federal government ’ s HR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , OPM oversees federal hiring and workforce policy .
It creates and maintains the job classifications for the civil service system , sets qualification standards for those positions , and tracks whether employees are happy .
If fixing the government will require quickly hiring talented people , OPM is positioned to do this .
OPM ’ s roots are in the civil service reforms of the 19th century .
Triggered by President James Garfield ’ s assassination at the hands of a disgruntled office seeker , Congress created the Civil Service Commission ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal employees based on merit .
As the federal government transformed into a massive employer with broad regulatory and welfare responsibilities , the CSC ’ s narrow focus on candidate selection became increasingly ill-suited to meet the growing demands of recruiting and maintaining a skilled , diverse workforce .
Congress created the Office of Personnel Management in 1978 to align personnel management more closely to administration policy while still protecting the merit system .
Unfortunately , this new ambitious personnel agency came into existence just as the Reagan era ’ s hostility to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explosion of contract hiring that often proved inefficient , even as K Street and the Dulles Corridor prospered .
Under Obama , OPM took some steps to remedy problems with retention , but severe challenges remained .
The watchdog Government Accountability Office ( GAO ) has flagged the government ’ s human capital management to be a high-risk issue since 2001 .
It has also concluded that the current job classification system creates an outdated network of narrowly defined positions .
In 2018 , the Trump administration used these challenges to try and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several agencies .
The most sensitive portion , handling personnel policy , would be brought into the White House , presumably subjecting civil servants to the same “ standards ” the Presidential Personnel Office uses to “ vet ” appointees .
( The same high bar that led to the selection of Vinnie Viola , Andrew Puzder , Sean Spicer , and others . )
The HR services would have been merged with the General Services Administration , which has broad authority over contracting , but no focus on personnel .
Not surprisingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ combining OPM and GSA would improve personnel outcomes .
Even after a Republican Congress blocked the merger , the Trump administration continues to push it despite its own lawyers ’ advice .
Though the merger is stalled , the mere suggestion , combined with the appointment of hostile leadership like acting director and former Heritage Foundation operative Michael Rigas , has caused damage .
OPM employees report low morale as the threat of a merger hangs over them .
The OPM We Need The Trump administration ’ s power grab shouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numerous challenges predate Trump .
Fixing them will require vision , energy , and commitment from the next administration .
Immediate steps to rebuild OPM would include : When an applicant using the USAJobs portal—the main gateway for federal hiring–sees a position at the State Department with an “ 0905 ” Attorney job code , at a “ GS-13 ” salary , under an “ excepted ” hiring authority , with specific qualifications language , they see OPM ’ s handiwork .
Unfortunately , USAJobs can not be used to recruit , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instead , applicants need to be directed to a specific posting and apply separately for each job .
But with investment and small policy changes , USAJobs could create a superb pool of talent .
Its revamping will make it easier to fill the thousands of vacancies for existing and new roles with promising candidates .
OPM can also grow the talent pool by increasing pay and benefits where possible .
Opportunities include extending health and retirement benefits to federal employees who don ’ t currently receive them .
OPM can also expand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work during the pandemic .
Along with these immediate changes , a Biden administration should propose laws to ensure that federal employees can ’ t be used as pawns in a government shutdown or future budget fights .
That won ’ t be easy , but the proposal would serve as a signal to both current and potential employees of the administration ’ s positive intent toward the civil service .
Streamlining and energizing agency use of existing hiring authorities To hire , a federal agency needs legal permission , known as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the traditional competitive service , Congress and OPM have given federal agencies a bewildering array of other hiring authorities .
Some authorities come with fewer employment protections but often make it faster to find and hire the right person .
In 2016 , GAO identified an astonishing 105 different authorities used to make at least one hire , even though 90 % of hires were made using the 20 most popular ones .
A 2018 OPM follow-up confirmed that many managers don ’ t understand the crazy quilt of authorities available .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nimbler .
OPM can assign desk officers to serve as experts for each agency .
As part of their responsibilities , these desk officers can help find the hiring authorities and develop the job postings that agencies can use to re-staff quickly .
A few new desk officers can go a long way to fixing up hollowed-out agencies .
OPM should also assess the pace of competitive hiring and consider temporarily lifting caps on fast ways to enter federal employment , like entry-level hiring programs .
This move will help bring new talent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To avoid damaging the civil service , policymakers must consult with government unions and make only temporary changes tied to specific hiring needs .
OPM should allow agencies with a critical need or facing a severe shortage of candidates to waive some rules by using the “ direct hire ” process .
Using this authority circumvents protections and preferences , but it isn ’ t inherently an attack on the civil service .
It can be a way to quickly hire applicants into long-term career positions with civil service protections .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that can rebuild the civil service .
To date , this authority is mostly available to hire government-wide for positions in IT and STEM .
It should be temporarily expanded .
The Biden administration should issue an Executive Order declaring critical hiring needs across the workforce .
COVID justifies such a declaration .
The order should require that OPM work with agencies to identify critical offices and career positions that have been particularly neglected .
As it identifies these positions and offices , OPM should assess whether applicants with veterans ’ preferences have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Returning the civil service to its merit-based , competitive hiring roots .
OPM should limit excepted and direct hire authorities–ways for an agency to hire without following the usual rules of the competitive service–.after it has refilled the civil service ranks , create a central way to oversee those authorities , and shift hiring back to the competitive service .
To protect the civil service , the Biden administration should take in contracting and put it under OPM ’ s control .
The real beneficiaries of these contracts aren ’ t taxpayers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support and those they hire .
Empowering OPM can put the brakes on contracting and even reverse some of its mushroom-like growth .
Today , there is no unified oversight of whether a contract is for “ inherently governmental services , ” a type of work that must be performed by civil servants .
Each agency contracting officer makes this decision with little guidance .
The Biden administration should grant oversight authority to the OPM Director , in concert with other interested agency heads .
Such a delegation would build on the Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
OPM should also lead an interagency review of contracts that may violate existing federal guidance .
Despite her attacks on OPM , the office ’ s acting director , Margaret Weichert , did make a good point when she testified that OPM is understaffed .
Fewer than 200 employees support IT systems that buttress a $ 2.4 trillion retirement and benefits balance sheet .
Without meaningful growth , OPM will never be able to fulfill its mission .
The Biden administration should direct OPM to build a plan for scaling itself up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ match this plan , starting with the first omnibus budget bill in February 2021 .
A leader willing and empowered to do the work .
The Biden administration should empower the OPM Director , elevating the role to Cabinet rank and giving it oversight of the entire federal workforce .
Today , there are swaths of federal employees , like the entire Peace Corps , outside OPM ’ s purview .
The Biden administration should consolidate government-wide personnel strategy and oversight under the OPM Director .
This consolidation will help OPM become a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like expanding the Supreme Court , empowering OPM instead will be branded as a Democratic power grab .
But Democrats must resist that characterization and fight this battle on their terms—strengthening our government and getting more , not less , value for taxpayers .
The OPM Director must be willing to champion muscular government in response to cheap criticism .
The office needs a talented administrator who can lead the complex agency into a new era .
Progressives should scrutinize the nominee for the OPM Director in the same way they might the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomination is fast-tracked like top cabinet positions .
With what needs to be done , every second and every hire count .

Joe Biden promises a return to an honest, competent federal government. For that to happen, the government must be adequately staffed with experienced civil servants empowered to push forward his policy agenda, should he win. Without an experienced team, even the best appointees will struggle.
The state of the federal workforce is not good. Pay freezes, attacks on government unions, and a drumbeat of hostile, often racist messaging about “lazy” civil servants have made it hard for the federal government to attract and retain top talent. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated physical risks to the civil service, and Republicans have stalled hazard pay to front-line federal employees.
A fetish for privatization drives these attacks. Overreliance on contractors to administer critical services has been bad for veterans and hurricane survivors, among others. Contracting has shifted jobs from unionized, merit-based civil service roles to underpaid, temporary workers, who are squeezed so that K Street and Dulles Corridor executives can earn fat profits.
And to cap it off, the federal civil service is heading for a demographic iceberg. As of 2017, one-third of the federal workforce was eligible to retire by 2022, including nearly half of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Environmental Protection Agency.
To address these challenges, a Biden administration must kick off major hiring on Day One. The new president will need to repair relationships between agencies and their career employees, which have frayed under Donald Trump. Doing this requires reforming an underappreciated, beleaguered agency — the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
OPM serves as the federal government’s HR department. As part of this responsibility, OPM oversees federal hiring and workforce policy. It creates and maintains the job classifications for the civil service system, sets qualification standards for those positions, and tracks whether employees are happy. If fixing the government will require quickly hiring talented people, OPM is positioned to do this.
A Good Idea Cut Short
OPM’s roots are in the civil service reforms of the 19th century. Triggered by President James Garfield’s assassination at the hands of a disgruntled office seeker, Congress created the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to enshrine the selection of federal employees based on merit.
As the federal government transformed into a massive employer with broad regulatory and welfare responsibilities, the CSC’s narrow focus on candidate selection became increasingly ill-suited to meet the growing demands of recruiting and maintaining a skilled, diverse workforce. Congress created the Office of Personnel Management in 1978 to align personnel management more closely to administration policy while still protecting the merit system.
Unfortunately, this new ambitious personnel agency came into existence just as the Reagan era’s hostility to government flowered. This reversal caused an explosion of contract hiring that often proved inefficient, even as K Street and the Dulles Corridor prospered.
Under Obama, OPM took some steps to remedy problems with retention, but severe challenges remained. The watchdog Government Accountability Office (GAO) has flagged the government’s human capital management to be a high-risk issue since 2001. It has also concluded that the current job classification system creates an outdated network of narrowly defined positions.
The Trump Administration’s Attacks
In 2018, the Trump administration used these challenges to try and eliminate OPM and divide its functions among several agencies. The most sensitive portion, handling personnel policy, would be brought into the White House, presumably subjecting civil servants to the same “standards” the Presidential Personnel Office uses to “vet” appointees. (The same high bar that led to the selection of Vinnie Viola, Andrew Puzder, Sean Spicer, and others.) The HR services would have been merged with the General Services Administration, which has broad authority over contracting, but no focus on personnel. Not surprisingly, the administration provided no evidence that combining OPM and GSA would improve personnel outcomes.
Even after a Republican Congress blocked the merger, the Trump administration continues to push it despite its own lawyers’ advice. Though the merger is stalled, the mere suggestion, combined with the appointment of hostile leadership like acting director and former Heritage Foundation operative Michael Rigas, has caused damage. OPM employees report low morale as the threat of a merger hangs over them.
The OPM We Need
The Trump administration’s power grab shouldn’t obscure that many of OPM’s numerous challenges predate Trump. Fixing them will require vision, energy, and commitment from the next administration. Immediate steps to rebuild OPM would include:
Improve USAJOBS.GOV
When an applicant using the USAJobs portal—the main gateway for federal hiring–sees a position at the State Department with an “0905” Attorney job code, at a “GS-13” salary, under an “excepted” hiring authority, with specific qualifications language, they see OPM’s handiwork.
Unfortunately, USAJobs cannot be used to recruit, to the frustration of managers and applicants. Instead, applicants need to be directed to a specific posting and apply separately for each job. But with investment and small policy changes, USAJobs could create a superb pool of talent. Its revamping will make it easier to fill the thousands of vacancies for existing and new roles with promising candidates.
A Better Compensation System
OPM can also grow the talent pool by increasing pay and benefits where possible. Opportunities include extending health and retirement benefits to federal employees who don’t currently receive them. OPM can also expand COVID hazard pay for those employees required to work during the pandemic.
Along with these immediate changes, a Biden administration should propose laws to ensure that federal employees can’t be used as pawns in a government shutdown or future budget fights. That won’t be easy, but the proposal would serve as a signal to both current and potential employees of the administration’s positive intent toward the civil service.
Streamlining and energizing agency use of existing hiring authorities
To hire, a federal agency needs legal permission, known as a “hiring authority.” Along with the traditional competitive service, Congress and OPM have given federal agencies a bewildering array of other hiring authorities. Some authorities come with fewer employment protections but often make it faster to find and hire the right person.
In 2016, GAO identified an astonishing 105 different authorities used to make at least one hire, even though 90% of hires were made using the 20 most popular ones. A 2018 OPM follow-up confirmed that many managers don’t understand the crazy quilt of authorities available.
A Biden OPM has to help agencies become nimbler. OPM can assign desk officers to serve as experts for each agency. As part of their responsibilities, these desk officers can help find the hiring authorities and develop the job postings that agencies can use to re-staff quickly. A few new desk officers can go a long way to fixing up hollowed-out agencies.
OPM should also assess the pace of competitive hiring and consider temporarily lifting caps on fast ways to enter federal employment, like entry-level hiring programs. This move will help bring new talent if competitive hiring cannot keep up. To avoid damaging the civil service, policymakers must consult with government unions and make only temporary changes tied to specific hiring needs.
Quickly refill the career service ranks.
OPM should allow agencies with a critical need or facing a severe shortage of candidates to waive some rules by using the “direct hire” process. Using this authority circumvents protections and preferences, but it isn’t inherently an attack on the civil service. It can be a way to quickly hire applicants into long-term career positions with civil service protections. If used judiciously, it is a tool that can rebuild the civil service. To date, this authority is mostly available to hire government-wide for positions in IT and STEM. It should be temporarily expanded.
The Biden administration should issue an Executive Order declaring critical hiring needs across the workforce. COVID justifies such a declaration. The order should require that OPM work with agencies to identify critical offices and career positions that have been particularly neglected. As it identifies these positions and offices, OPM should assess whether applicants with veterans’ preferences have been given a fair opportunity to apply.
Returning the civil service to its merit-based, competitive hiring roots.
OPM should limit excepted and direct hire authorities–ways for an agency to hire without following the usual rules of the competitive service–.after it has refilled the civil service ranks, create a central way to oversee those authorities, and shift hiring back to the competitive service.
To protect the civil service, the Biden administration should take in contracting and put it under OPM’s control. The real beneficiaries of these contracts aren’t taxpayers but consulting executives and the politicians they support and those they hire.
Empowering OPM can put the brakes on contracting and even reverse some of its mushroom-like growth. Today, there is no unified oversight of whether a contract is for “inherently governmental services,” a type of work that must be performed by civil servants. Each agency contracting officer makes this decision with little guidance. The Biden administration should grant oversight authority to the OPM Director, in concert with other interested agency heads.
Such a delegation would build on the Obama administrations limit ing roles that may be contracted. OPM should also lead an interagency review of contracts that may violate existing federal guidance.
Growing OPM’s capacity and staffing
Despite her attacks on OPM, the office’s acting director, Margaret Weichert, did make a good point when she testified that OPM is understaffed. Fewer than 200 employees support IT systems that buttress a $2.4 trillion retirement and benefits balance sheet. Without meaningful growth, OPM will never be able to fulfill its mission.
The Biden administration should direct OPM to build a plan for scaling itself up. Presidential appointees should seek increases to match this plan, starting with the first omnibus budget bill in February 2021.
A leader willing and empowered to do the work.
The Biden administration should empower the OPM Director, elevating the role to Cabinet rank and giving it oversight of the entire federal workforce.
Today, there are swaths of federal employees, like the entire Peace Corps, outside OPM’s purview. The Biden administration should consolidate government-wide personnel strategy and oversight under the OPM Director. This consolidation will help OPM become a real resource for hiring government-wide.
A path forward
Just like expanding the Supreme Court, empowering OPM instead will be branded as a Democratic power grab. But Democrats must resist that characterization and fight this battle on their terms—strengthening our government and getting more, not less, value for taxpayers. The OPM Director must be willing to champion muscular government in response to cheap criticism. The office needs a talented administrator who can lead the complex agency into a new era. Progressives should scrutinize the nominee for the OPM Director in the same way they might the EPA Administrator. They should insist this nomination is fast-tracked like top cabinet positions. With what needs to be done, every second and every hire count.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-22--Fox News May Be Heading Towards an Epic Election-Night Showdown

Donald Trump has made it clear that he plans to declare victory on election night .
He ’ ll do it when the returns are primarily based on in-person voting from that day .
The president and his enablers launched a massive disinformation campaign based on the lie that mail-in ballots are fraudulent so that he could create chaos by claiming that they shouldn ’ t be counted .
Democrats have assembled an impressive team to handle the legal challenges that would ensue .
But this will be a public relations battle as well .
That ’ s where the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Will they give credence to Trump ’ s claims of “ victory ?
” David Ignatius , the columnist with The Washington Post , talked to senior political journalists at the major news networks about how they plan to handle election night coverage .
What he heard was encouraging .
Even Bret Baier , who will be co-anchoring election night coverage for Fox News , said that “ If the difference in the number of absentee ballots yet to be counted is too large , you can ’ t make the call.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Baier ’ s network to call the race ?
What happens when the president ’ s sycophants , Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham , back him up ?
They would likely be challenged by the decision desk at Fox News .
Calling themselves “ nerdquarium , ” the data wonks who work there are led by Arnon Mishkin , who holds the key to making the network ’ s call on the presidential race .
Most of us have never heard of Mr. Mishkin .
But you might remember election night 2012 when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision desk that Barack Obama had won Ohio .
With cameras in tow , Megyn Kelly , then a Fox News Channel anchor , walked back to nerdquarium to get their response .
The person she talked to was Mishkin , who stood by his call .
As it turned out , Mishkin was right .
Rove was wrong .
Before joining Fox News in 1998 , Mishkin was a political consultant with Democratic strategist David Garth and aided then Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley ’ s failed 1982 run for governor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ School graduate also runs a management consulting firm advising media companies on digital marketing and strategy .
Mishkin presciently decided in 2017 to pull Fox News out of the exit polling conducted by a consortium of news organizations , which had become seriously flawed .
Instead , he worked with the Associated Press to develop an alternative that involves interviewing 100,000 voters by phone in the final days of the election .
It was field-tested in the 2018 midterms , but next month , it will be used in a presidential election for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many people will have voted early or by mail-in ballot , the results from that huge sample will give the decision desk information about vote totals that wouldn ’ t otherwise have been available .
As Mishkin told Mark Joyella , a senior contributor at Forbes , “ Where we know the mail-in vote differs from the day-of vote , we will be sharing that.
” According to Ben Smith at the New York Times , Mishkin and the polling unit at Fox News run by Dana Blanton operate independently of the news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and former employees , Smith reports that “ many said that while they expect Mr. Mishkin to have to compete with Mr. Hannity and others who will echo Mr. Trump ’ s claims , Fox ’ s bizarre and chaotic internal politics will probably protect him and the decision desk from any actual interference.
“ What all of this portends is the possibility of an epic showdown at Fox News on election night that would make the battle between Rove and Mishkin look like child ’ s play .
The data wonk might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they will need to attack him when he told Smith that he ’ s a registered Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 .
But someone at Fox News would have to use that information as a way to delegitimize their own decision desk .
All I can say about that possibility is , “ pass the popcorn.
” It might be a bit hyperbolic , but a headline at Slate for an article by Ben Mathis-Lilley reads : “ The Fox News Decision Desk Controls the Fate of American Democracy.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of chaos he needs to send the presidential election to the courts or Congress , Trump will , at a minimum , need his propaganda network to declare him the winner on election night .
He ’ ll have to get by Mishkin and nerdquarium to accomplish that .

Donald Trump has made it clear that he plans to declare victory on election night. He’ll do it when the returns are primarily based on in-person voting from that day. The president and his enablers launched a massive disinformation campaign based on the lie that mail-in ballots are fraudulent so that he could create chaos by claiming that they shouldn’t be counted.
Democrats have assembled an impressive team to handle the legal challenges that would ensue. But this will be a public relations battle as well. That’s where the role of the media comes into play. Will they give credence to Trump’s claims of “victory?”
David Ignatius, the columnist with The Washington Post, talked to senior political journalists at the major news networks about how they plan to handle election night coverage. What he heard was encouraging. Even Bret Baier, who will be co-anchoring election night coverage for Fox News, said that “If the difference in the number of absentee ballots yet to be counted is too large, you can’t make the call.”
But what happens when Trump pressures Baier’s network to call the race? What happens when the president’s sycophants, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, back him up? They would likely be challenged by the decision desk at Fox News. Calling themselves “nerdquarium,” the data wonks who work there are led by Arnon Mishkin, who holds the key to making the network’s call on the presidential race.
Most of us have never heard of Mr. Mishkin. But you might remember election night 2012 when Karl Rove challenged the call of the decision desk that Barack Obama had won Ohio. With cameras in tow, Megyn Kelly, then a Fox News Channel anchor, walked back to nerdquarium to get their response. The person she talked to was Mishkin, who stood by his call. As it turned out, Mishkin was right. Rove was wrong.
Before joining Fox News in 1998, Mishkin was a political consultant with Democratic strategist David Garth and aided then Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley’s failed 1982 run for governor of California. The Yale and Harvard Business School graduate also runs a management consulting firm advising media companies on digital marketing and strategy.
Mishkin presciently decided in 2017 to pull Fox News out of the exit polling conducted by a consortium of news organizations, which had become seriously flawed. Instead, he worked with the Associated Press to develop an alternative that involves interviewing 100,000 voters by phone in the final days of the election. It was field-tested in the 2018 midterms, but next month, it will be used in a presidential election for the first time.
Given that so many people will have voted early or by mail-in ballot, the results from that huge sample will give the decision desk information about vote totals that wouldn’t otherwise have been available. As Mishkin told Mark Joyella, a senior contributor at Forbes, “Where we know the mail-in vote differs from the day-of vote, we will be sharing that.”
According to Ben Smith at the New York Times, Mishkin and the polling unit at Fox News run by Dana Blanton operate independently of the news or commentary divisions. Speaking to current and former employees, Smith reports that “many said that while they expect Mr. Mishkin to have to compete with Mr. Hannity and others who will echo Mr. Trump’s claims, Fox’s bizarre and chaotic internal politics will probably protect him and the decision desk from any actual interference.“
What all of this portends is the possibility of an epic showdown at Fox News on election night that would make the battle between Rove and Mishkin look like child’s play. The data wonk might have given the other side the ammunition they will need to attack him when he told Smith that he’s a registered Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. But someone at Fox News would have to use that information as a way to delegitimize their own decision desk. All I can say about that possibility is, “pass the popcorn.”
It might be a bit hyperbolic, but a headline at Slate for an article by Ben Mathis-Lilley reads: “The Fox News Decision Desk Controls the Fate of American Democracy.” The point is that to foment the kind of chaos he needs to send the presidential election to the courts or Congress, Trump will, at a minimum, need his propaganda network to declare him the winner on election night. He’ll have to get by Mishkin and nerdquarium to accomplish that.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-23--Which One Acted Like a President?

Which One Acted Like a President?

This was it : Donald Trump ’ s last chance to act presidential .
For nearly four years , his supporters said he would grow into the presidency and learn to behave in a way that befits the office .
For four years , we have waited .
Time ’ s up .
With the final debate Thursday night , with a little more than a week left until Election Day , Trump blew it .
He didn ’ t blow it the way he did at the first debate a few weeks ago when he set his hair on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Joe Biden and moderator Chris Wallace .
On that front , Trump was on surprisingly good behavior Thursday night .
If conduct alone were the measure , the bar for Trump was low , and he met it .
But there is more to acting presidential than letting your opponent speak .
Not lying , for instance .
Showing compassion .
Demonstrating that you understand the anguish of the people you are supposed to be helping .
Laying out a vision for what you would do should you have the honor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ muster a semblance of empathy for the 545 children his immigration enforcers took from their parents – mothers and fathers it now can not locate .
And he bypassed the opportunity to display sympathy for the 220,000-plus Americans who have died of Covid-19 .
Instead , the president who has spent years attacking foes real and imagined continued his practice of manufacturing accusations .
He tried to tar his opponent with baseless and confusing allegations concerning his family , attacks that are likely to go over well with Trump ’ s Fox News-watching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters he needs to convince .
Once more , Trump boasted that he ’ s the next best thing since Abraham Lincoln for African Americans while failing to acknowledge the toll the pandemic has taken on them or to comprehend their very rational fear of the police .
( He dodged a question about “ the talk ” Black parents routinely give their children . )
As he has been doing during his massive rallies of mostly mask-less fans , the president falsely claimed that the novel coronavirus was “ going away.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its spread .
( Although he once said he took “ full responsibility , ” he quickly pivoted to blaming China . )
Biden , utilizing his debate prep , met the moment by swatting off Trump ’ s accusations as malarky , looking into the camera as he did in the first debate to speak directly to the American people .
This election is not about my family or Trump ’ s family , he repeated .
It ’ s about your family .
He also inserted some zingers .
When Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live with ” the coronavirus , Biden retorted : “ We ’ re learning to die with it.
” Down in national and battleground polls and facing increasing criticism within his party , Trump needed this debate much more than Biden did .
Trump needed to offer a closing argument , to take advantage of his last opportunity to speak to a gargantuan audience , to give skeptics a reason to rethink their skepticism .
He needed to offer something – anything – to voters who have yet to decide whom they will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at all .
He needed to sway a proportion of the voters , particularly women , who voted for him four years ago and are having second thoughts .
He needed to appeal to voters outside his devoted base .
He needed to put Americans at ease , to show them that , in a second Trump term , they would be able to sleep at night .
A high bar .
It is possible , likely even , that Trump ’ s performance moved some viewers .
Voters who were open to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by his rat-a-tat-tat attacks in the first debate might reconsider .
But people looking for substance , honesty , and a show of feeling from the man presiding over a pandemic that has cost lives and livelihoods , for an indication that Trump cared about them , likely were likely unsatisfied .
This was a less combative Trump than the Trump of the first debate , but he was the same Trump , nonetheless .
Biden had a lighter lift Thursday night .
He primarily had to appear competent , and he did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his famed gaffes , by showing his mastery of issues from the environment to foreign policy , the former vice president put the lie to slander from Trump and his minions that he is slowing down or – worse – suffering from dementia .
During one of the many times , he looked into the camera , Biden stated plainly : “ You know who I am .
You know who he is .
You know his character .
You know my character .
You know our reputations for honor and telling the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate , moderator Kristen Welker of NBC asked both candidates how they would use an inaugural address to talk to people who didn ’ t vote for them .
Their answers were telling .
“ We are on the road to success .
But I ’ m cutting taxes , and he wants to raise everybody ’ s taxes , and he wants to put new regulations on everything .
He will kill it , ” Trump said .
“ If he gets in , you will have a depression the likes of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Your 401 ( k ) s will go to hell , and it ’ ll be a very , very sad day for this country.
” Biden , by contrast , reached out to a broad swath of voters .
“ I will say , I ’ m an American president .
I represent all of you , whether you voted for me or against me .
And I ’ m going to make sure that you ’ re represented .
I ’ m going to give you hope.… What is on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country , decency , honor , respect , treating people with dignity , making sure that everyone has an even chance .
And I ’ m going to make sure you get that .
You haven ’ t been getting it the last four years.
” Trump entered the debate needing to change the trajectory of the race .
Although the polls have been unkind to him , they don ’ t tell the entire story .
Only voters can do that .
The question is which version of a president they want @

This was it: Donald Trump’s last chance to act presidential.
For nearly four years, his supporters said he would grow into the presidency and learn to behave in a way that befits the office. For four years, we have waited.
Time’s up. With the final debate Thursday night, with a little more than a week left until Election Day, Trump blew it. He didn’t blow it the way he did at the first debate a few weeks ago when he set his hair on fire by interrupting and bullying former Vice President Joe Biden and moderator Chris Wallace. On that front, Trump was on surprisingly good behavior Thursday night. If conduct alone were the measure, the bar for Trump was low, and he met it.
But there is more to acting presidential than letting your opponent speak. Not lying, for instance. Showing compassion. Demonstrating that you understand the anguish of the people you are supposed to be helping. Laying out a vision for what you would do should you have the honor of being elected.
Trump couldn’t muster a semblance of empathy for the 545 children his immigration enforcers took from their parents – mothers and fathers it now cannot locate. And he bypassed the opportunity to display sympathy for the 220,000-plus Americans who have died of Covid-19.
Instead, the president who has spent years attacking foes real and imagined continued his practice of manufacturing accusations. He tried to tar his opponent with baseless and confusing allegations concerning his family, attacks that are likely to go over well with Trump’s Fox News-watching base but will mean little to the voters he needs to convince. Once more, Trump boasted that he’s the next best thing since Abraham Lincoln for African Americans while failing to acknowledge the toll the pandemic has taken on them or to comprehend their very rational fear of the police. (He dodged a question about “the talk” Black parents routinely give their children.) As he has been doing during his massive rallies of mostly mask-less fans, the president falsely claimed that the novel coronavirus was “going away.” He continued to skirt his role in its spread. (Although he once said he took “full responsibility,” he quickly pivoted to blaming China.)
Biden, utilizing his debate prep, met the moment by swatting off Trump’s accusations as malarkey, looking into the camera as he did in the first debate to speak directly to the American people. This election is not about my family or Trump’s family, he repeated. It’s about your family. He also inserted some zingers. When Trump asserted that Americans were “learning to live with” the coronavirus, Biden retorted: “We’re learning to die with it.”
Down in national and battleground polls and facing increasing criticism within his party, Trump needed this debate much more than Biden did. Trump needed to offer a closing argument, to take advantage of his last opportunity to speak to a gargantuan audience, to give skeptics a reason to rethink their skepticism. He needed to offer something – anything – to voters who have yet to decide whom they will vote for or whether they will vote at all. He needed to sway a proportion of the voters, particularly women, who voted for him four years ago and are having second thoughts. He needed to appeal to voters outside his devoted base.
He needed to put Americans at ease, to show them that, in a second Trump term, they would be able to sleep at night. A high bar.
It is possible, likely even, that Trump’s performance moved some viewers. Voters who were open to giving him another term but turned off by his rat-a-tat-tat attacks in the first debate might reconsider.
But people looking for substance, honesty, and a show of feeling from the man presiding over a pandemic that has cost lives and livelihoods, for an indication that Trump cared about them, likely were likely unsatisfied. This was a less combative Trump than the Trump of the first debate, but he was the same Trump, nonetheless.
Biden had a lighter lift Thursday night. He primarily had to appear competent, and he did.
By keeping his wits and avoiding his famed gaffes, by showing his mastery of issues from the environment to foreign policy, the former vice president put the lie to slander from Trump and his minions that he is slowing down or – worse – suffering from dementia.
During one of the many times, he looked into the camera, Biden stated plainly: “You know who I am. You know who he is. You know his character. You know my character. You know our reputations for honor and telling the truth.”
At the end of the debate, moderator Kristen Welker of NBC asked both candidates how they would use an inaugural address to talk to people who didn’t vote for them. Their answers were telling.
“We are on the road to success. But I’m cutting taxes, and he wants to raise everybody’s taxes, and he wants to put new regulations on everything. He will kill it,” Trump said. “If he gets in, you will have a depression the likes of which you’ve never seen. Your 401(k)s will go to hell, and it’ll be a very, very sad day for this country.”
Biden, by contrast, reached out to a broad swath of voters.
“I will say, I’m an American president. I represent all of you, whether you voted for me or against me. And I’m going to make sure that you’re represented. I’m going to give you hope.… What is on the ballot here is the character of this country, decency, honor, respect, treating people with dignity, making sure that everyone has an even chance. And I’m going to make sure you get that. You haven’t been getting it the last four years.”
Trump entered the debate needing to change the trajectory of the race. Although the polls have been unkind to him, they don’t tell the entire story. Only voters can do that. The question is which version of a president they want.