washingtonmonthly--2020-10-30--The Republican Party Has Become a Toxic Superfund Site

Never Trumper George Conway has published a wonderfully ironic piece in the Washington Post titled , “ I Believe the President , Now More Than Ever.
” Filled with links to things Trump has actually said and done , it encapsulates the breadth of lies , cruelty , criminality , and incompetence one has to accept in order to continue to support this president .
We ’ ve now lived for four years with the reality that Trump could shoot someone in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue and many of his supporters wouldn ’ t abandon him .
We must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is any argument that would change their minds .
Even more importantly , there is nothing Trump could say or do that would cause them to abandon him .
Early in Trump ’ s presidency , Adam Gopnik wrote of the importance of distinguishing between toxic enemies and honest opponents .
Using his formulation , those who continue to support and enable Trump are “ toxic enemies.
” When it comes to Congressional Republicans , they are the ones Rep. Adam Schiff , the California Democrat , said would be tied to this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and for all of history.
” The Lincoln Project suggested that we should remember their names and never—ever—trust them again .
While Republican officeholders enable this president in order to retain power , the same can not be said of voters who continue to support him .
At best , we must question their judgement and discernment .
As we watch them swallow the lies spread about Joe Biden , it is clear that their mindless loyalty won ’ t go away should the former vice president win .
For them , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way of life .
Not all Republicans have shown themselves to be toxic enemies .
There are those , like Republican Voters Against Trump , who have spoken out against the lies , cruelty , criminality , and incompetence .
For many of them , it was the toxicity of this president and his supporters that finally opened their eyes to the dangerous path the Republican Party had taken .
They are the ones Gopnik was talking about when he referred to “ honest opponents.
” While it is useless to attempt to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is possible to have a conversation with an honest opponent .
Common ground might not abound , but at least there is the possibility of respectful discourse based in reality .
That is the group Joe Biden was talking about in an ad that sums up his closing argument .
The spot ends with narrator Sam Elliot saying , “ Joe Biden doesn ’ t need everyone in this country to always agree , just to agree that we all love this country…and go from there.
” This delineation is helpful to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a personal level , it is important to distinguish toxic enemies from honest opponents among friends , family , and coworkers .
The only ones worth engaging in a political discussion are the latter .
There aren ’ t any honest opponents among Congressional Republicans .
Eight years of total obstruction followed by an unwillingness to hold the most corrupt president in this country ’ s history accountable has made that clear .
The GOP has revealed itself to be toxic .
Former President Barack Obama discussed this toxicity during an appearance on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that it has made governing impossible .
How should Democrats respond ?
Dealing with those obstacles to governing is now particularly urgent .
To continue with the status quo is to invite further contamination .
It ’ s time to clean things up , perhaps with the support of some honest opponents .
Of course , there will be those in the media who , through their lens of bothsiderism , suggest that any structural changes proposed by Democrats—such as ending the filibuster or court reforms—are simply a partisan power grab .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ or unwillingness ) to grasp the realities of our current political climate .
As Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein wrote eight years ago , “ a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality .
”

Never Trumper George Conway has published a wonderfully ironic piece in the Washington Post titled, “I Believe the President, Now More Than Ever.” Filled with links to things Trump has actually said and done, it encapsulates the breadth of lies, cruelty, criminality, and incompetence one has to accept in order to continue to support this president.
We’ve now lived for four years with the reality that Trump could shoot someone in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue and many of his supporters wouldn’t abandon him. We must rid ourselves of the idea that there is any argument that would change their minds. Even more importantly, there is nothing Trump could say or do that would cause them to abandon him.
Early in Trump’s presidency, Adam Gopnik wrote of the importance of distinguishing between toxic enemies and honest opponents. Using his formulation, those who continue to support and enable Trump are “toxic enemies.” When it comes to Congressional Republicans, they are the ones Rep. Adam Schiff, the California Democrat, said would be tied to this president “with a cord of steel and for all of history.” The Lincoln Project suggested that we should remember their names and never—ever—trust them again.
While Republican officeholders enable this president in order to retain power, the same cannot be said of voters who continue to support him. At best, we must question their judgement and discernment. As we watch them swallow the lies spread about Joe Biden, it is clear that their mindless loyalty won’t go away should the former vice president win. For them, he is a corrupt politician who threatens their way of life.
Not all Republicans have shown themselves to be toxic enemies. There are those, like Republican Voters Against Trump, who have spoken out against the lies, cruelty, criminality, and incompetence. For many of them, it was the toxicity of this president and his supporters that finally opened their eyes to the dangerous path the Republican Party had taken.
They are the ones Gopnik was talking about when he referred to “honest opponents.” While it is useless to attempt to reason with a toxic enemy, it is possible to have a conversation with an honest opponent. Common ground might not abound, but at least there is the possibility of respectful discourse based in reality. That is the group Joe Biden was talking about in an ad that sums up his closing argument.
The spot ends with narrator Sam Elliot saying, “Joe Biden doesn’t need everyone in this country to always agree, just to agree that we all love this country…and go from there.”
This delineation is helpful to keep in mind for several reasons. On a personal level, it is important to distinguish toxic enemies from honest opponents among friends, family, and coworkers. The only ones worth engaging in a political discussion are the latter.
There aren’t any honest opponents among Congressional Republicans. Eight years of total obstruction followed by an unwillingness to hold the most corrupt president in this country’s history accountable has made that clear. The GOP has revealed itself to be toxic.
Former President Barack Obama discussed this toxicity during an appearance on “Pod Save America” and the fact that it has made governing impossible. How should Democrats respond?
What I have concluded, is that the answer is to change some of these structural impediments to just getting stuff done…I think that if you continue to see the kind of systematic rejection of even reasonable compromise there, there comes a point at which you just have to change how the system works. The filibuster would be one.
Dealing with those obstacles to governing is now particularly urgent. To continue with the status quo is to invite further contamination. It’s time to clean things up, perhaps with the support of some honest opponents.
Of course, there will be those in the media who, through their lens of bothsiderism, suggest that any structural changes proposed by Democrats—such as ending the filibuster or court reforms—are simply a partisan power grab. But that will demonstrate their inability (or unwillingness) to grasp the realities of our current political climate. As Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein wrote eight years ago, “a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-30--How to Make an Old Politician a TikTok Sensation

Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey began his Senate re-election campaign last year as a relatively unassuming legislator overshadowed by his counterpart Elizabeth Warren .
By September 1 , the Democrat had become a progressive champion , social media breakout star , and had defeated a primary challenger with the most famous last name in Massachusetts .
The 74-year-old Markey who has served in Congress for 46 years began his campaign trailing the challenger , then 39-year-old congressman Joseph Kennedy III , by double digits in the polls .
Markey won by nearly 11 points thanks to a digital strategy that rebranded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ causes .
When a photo of Markey wearing retro Air Jordan shoes went viral in April , the campaign seized on the opportunity to build a digital following .
Campaign staffers interacted and collaborated with dozens of meme accounts that sprung up in support of Markey ; coordinated hundreds of Gen Z-ers in a Slack channel to host phone banks and events ; and built a virtual community of organizers .
Markey ’ s campaign was a master class in the marriage of style and substance .
Led by digital communications and creative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Markey campaign and its young surrogates successfully used Twitter and TikTok to highlight Markey ’ s progressive bona fides as an original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal and defender of net neutrality , with videos of Markey discussing policy over lo-fi beats .
I spoke with Bologna on October 15 about the reverberations of Markey ’ s digital strategy for other campaigns , for building a new class of progressive organizers , and for building an authentic political brand online .
This conversation has been edited and shortened for clarity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being super collaborative with young people .
Where do you see the digital relationship between political campaigns and volunteers going in the future ?
PB : For the foreseeable future , traditional campaigning is not necessarily safe .
And so I think creating these welcoming , fluid , and fun online spaces—it could be a Slack channel , or it could be a DM [ Direct Message ] group , or it could be a group on a messaging app—can serve the same function .
And these digital spaces can maybe do a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ online ( than can traditional organizing ) .
Young people are the ones who just dominate any kind of digital medium because they ’ re all digital natives .
And that empowers young people to use those spaces effectively and to use those tools better than Boomers do , because they ’ re more comfortable .
GB : A lot of young people engaged with the Markey campaign .
As these young people begin their careers , do you see them disrupting political consulting and digital strategy ?
PB : I really believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think we succeeded in it in our campaign — was to help create the next generation of progressive activists .
Immediately after our primary ended , our operation shifted to supporting down-ballot races and supporting Biden and Harris , because we have this incredible opportunity and energy to do that effectively .
We saw a lot of our supporters , volunteers , fellows , and staff refocus their energy that way .
And we saw a lot of people just jump ship and go to the next fight .
Is it a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve definitely learned things in an extreme , unique circumstance : a quarantined political campaign where everything is primarily digital .
If you didn ’ t go through that , it would be very difficult to compete with it .
They ’ re uniquely qualified in ways that traditional campaigns or campaigns that didn ’ t adapt as well will not be .
GB : What are the conversations that you hear among your peers in the political digital communications space about the success of the Markey campaign in the primary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take from it ?
PB : A number of people are actively trying to adapt some of the things that we were successful in doing .
It ’ s a model that involves looking at and fighting really hard for young people ’ s issues , like climate change .
If you create that space for them , then young people will rally for you .
They will fight for you .
And they will show up in the new world of politics , which is online , in ways that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t as present in that space .
Enthusiasm for these issues is not something you can fake .
You have to earn it .
Young people are highly skeptical .
But if you really are sticking your neck out for climate , they will observe that and believe it .
You ’ ll start to get all kinds of weird Twitter accounts supporting you , yet those weird Twitter accounts actually do reflect a number of people who are going to make calls or invite more people to join your campaign .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve seen in some of the races that have been going on since September 1 .
GB : Progressivism is in this weird state because there ’ s so much energy among the left , and particularly the young left , but right now it ’ s all about getting Joe Biden elected .
Do you think this political digital strategy can be effective at getting more moderate Democrats to embrace progressive ideas ?
PB : What I ’ ve heard from a lot of the Zoomers [ Gen Z members ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work with is that you don ’ t necessarily have to have been a 40-year strong lefty to have their support .
You can have made mistakes .
You can have not always been with them .
But if today , you are coming around to the issues that matter most to the future of the world , and you ’ re doing it in a way that ’ s authentic , young people will rally .
GB : What ’ s the biggest misconception you see among political consultants and strategists about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PB : There is a general idea that they don ’ t vote or that they don ’ t care .
But go on TikTok .
Ed Markey has a TikTok , and it has hundreds of thousands of views on videos about climate change and about his time as a teenager , and it ’ s like “ Okay , I think they do care—cause they ’ re freaking out in the comments.
” GB : A lot of politicians struggle on Twitter or on social media .
They often come off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They get ratioed a lot .
[ Ratioed is when a tweet receives more replies than it does likes ] Quote tweets mocking the original tweet will go more viral than the actual tweet .
How do you thread the needle , in terms of digital strategy , between what ’ s cringe and what ’ s cool ?
PB : For us , it was about embracing Ed Markey for who he is .
And Ed is a 74-year-old United States senator who introduced the Green New Deal two years ago with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s a pretty good place to start .
But you have to retain your voice and not be afraid of your voice .
So we never tried to be something that we weren ’ t .
We ’ re going to stick to Ed ’ s voice .
We ’ re going to talk to him about our digital strategy so that he ’ s part of it .
That allowed us to not slip into cringe .
Plus , we had limits .
There were a lot of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sneakers .
But the sneakers are cool because he wears them .
We ’ re not going to lean too hard into something just cause it gets people to scream , because eventually it looks really forced .
We ’ re going to be who Ed Markey is .

Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey began his Senate re-election campaign last year as a relatively unassuming legislator overshadowed by his counterpart Elizabeth Warren. By September 1, the Democrat had become a progressive champion, social media breakout star, and had defeated a primary challenger with the most famous last name in Massachusetts.
What a difference a year makes.
The 74-year-old Markey who has served in Congress for 46 years began his campaign trailing the challenger, then 39-year-old congressman Joseph Kennedy III, by double digits in the polls. Markey won by nearly 11 points thanks to a digital strategy that rebranded him as a hip trailblazer for progressive causes. When a photo of Markey wearing retro Air Jordan shoes went viral in April, the campaign seized on the opportunity to build a digital following. Campaign staffers interacted and collaborated with dozens of meme accounts that sprung up in support of Markey; coordinated hundreds of Gen Z-ers in a Slack channel to host phone banks and events; and built a virtual community of organizers.
Markey’s campaign was a master class in the marriage of style and substance. Led by digital communications and creative director (and millennial) Paul Bologna, the Markey campaign and its young surrogates successfully used Twitter and TikTok to highlight Markey’s progressive bona fides as an original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal and defender of net neutrality, with videos of Markey discussing policy over lo-fi beats. I spoke with Bologna on October 15 about the reverberations of Markey’s digital strategy for other campaigns, for building a new class of progressive organizers, and for building an authentic political brand online.
This conversation has been edited and shortened for clarity.
GB: Your digital strategy involved being super collaborative with young people. Where do you see the digital relationship between political campaigns and volunteers going in the future?
PB: For the foreseeable future, traditional campaigning is not necessarily safe. And so I think creating these welcoming, fluid, and fun online spaces—it could be a Slack channel, or it could be a DM [Direct Message] group, or it could be a group on a messaging app—can serve the same function. And these digital spaces can maybe do a better job of getting a message out online (than can traditional organizing). Young people are the ones who just dominate any kind of digital medium because they’re all digital natives. And that empowers young people to use those spaces effectively and to use those tools better than Boomers do, because they’re more comfortable.
GB: A lot of young people engaged with the Markey campaign. As these young people begin their careers, do you see them disrupting political consulting and digital strategy?
PB: I really believe that one of the intentions — and I think we succeeded in it in our campaign — was to help create the next generation of progressive activists. Immediately after our primary ended, our operation shifted to supporting down-ballot races and supporting Biden and Harris, because we have this incredible opportunity and energy to do that effectively. We saw a lot of our supporters, volunteers, fellows, and staff refocus their energy that way. And we saw a lot of people just jump ship and go to the next fight.
Is it a new class of disruptive strategists? They’ve definitely learned things in an extreme, unique circumstance: a quarantined political campaign where everything is primarily digital. If you didn’t go through that, it would be very difficult to compete with it. They’re uniquely qualified in ways that traditional campaigns or campaigns that didn’t adapt as well will not be.
GB: What are the conversations that you hear among your peers in the political digital communications space about the success of the Markey campaign in the primary, and what lessons they’re going to take from it?
PB: A number of people are actively trying to adapt some of the things that we were successful in doing. It’s a model that involves looking at and fighting really hard for young people’s issues, like climate change. If you create that space for them, then young people will rally for you. They will fight for you. And they will show up in the new world of politics, which is online, in ways that will totally eclipse an older generation that isn’t as present in that space.
Enthusiasm for these issues is not something you can fake. You have to earn it. Young people are highly skeptical. But if you really are sticking your neck out for climate, they will observe that and believe it. You’ll start to get all kinds of weird Twitter accounts supporting you, yet those weird Twitter accounts actually do reflect a number of people who are going to make calls or invite more people to join your campaign. That’s kind of what I’ve seen in some of the races that have been going on since September 1.
GB: Progressivism is in this weird state because there’s so much energy among the left, and particularly the young left, but right now it’s all about getting Joe Biden elected. Do you think this political digital strategy can be effective at getting more moderate Democrats to embrace progressive ideas?
PB: What I’ve heard from a lot of the Zoomers [Gen Z members] who I’ve been lucky to work with is that you don’t necessarily have to have been a 40-year strong lefty to have their support. You can have made mistakes. You can have not always been with them. But if today, you are coming around to the issues that matter most to the future of the world, and you’re doing it in a way that’s authentic, young people will rally.
GB: What’s the biggest misconception you see among political consultants and strategists about Gen Z voters and young voters?
PB: There is a general idea that they don’t vote or that they don’t care. But go on TikTok. Ed Markey has a TikTok, and it has hundreds of thousands of views on videos about climate change and about his time as a teenager, and it’s like “Okay, I think they do care—cause they’re freaking out in the comments.”
GB: A lot of politicians struggle on Twitter or on social media. They often come off as cheesy or out of touch. They get ratioed a lot. [Ratioed is when a tweet receives more replies than it does likes] Quote tweets mocking the original tweet will go more viral than the actual tweet. How do you thread the needle, in terms of digital strategy, between what’s cringe and what’s cool?
PB: For us, it was about embracing Ed Markey for who he is. And Ed is a 74-year-old United States senator who introduced the Green New Deal two years ago with the youngest woman ever elected to Congress. That’s a pretty good place to start. But you have to retain your voice and not be afraid of your voice. So we never tried to be something that we weren’t. We’re going to stick to Ed’s voice. We’re going to talk to him about our digital strategy so that he’s part of it. That allowed us to not slip into cringe.
Plus, we had limits. There were a lot of people suggesting we do a montage of the sneakers. But the sneakers are cool because he wears them. We’re not going to lean too hard into something just cause it gets people to scream, because eventually it looks really forced. We’re going to be who Ed Markey is.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-30--Marco Rubio’s Time Machine and Why It’s Wrong for America

In October 1973 , five oil-producing countries imposed an embargo on oil exports to the United States , causing gas prices to soar .
Scarce supplies led to long lines at filling stations .
The economy slid into recession .
On November 7 , President Nixon proposed emergency measures that included year-round daylight-saving time , which the Interior Dept .
estimated would conserve the equivalent of 95,000 barrels of oil per day .
Congress quickly approved the time change .
America moved clocks ahead one hour on January 6 , 1974 , with a plan to keep them there for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , public opinion had soured on winter Daylight Saving Time .
( It ’ s “ saving ” although it ’ s often pronounced “ savings.
” ) It was judged a failure and abandoned .
This debacle , mostly forgotten today , is of more than historical interest now , as the nation ends daylight saving time and returns to standard time on Sunday , November 1 .
Now , the idea of observing DST year-round—permanently , this time—is gaining ground across the nation , even though history and recent scientific discoveries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DST completely and sticking to standard time .
Nevertheless , 13 states from Florida to Washington have enacted legislation since 2018 to put themselves on permanent DST .
At least 26 more states were considering the move this year .
None has been able to put it into effect , however , because it ’ s not an option under the Uniform Time Act , which established national DST in 1966 .
Until then , states and even cities decided what the time would be within their jurisdictions , resulting in all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly for railroads , which pushed for uniformity .
The 1966 law imposed order by allowing states to stay on standard time , like Hawaii and most of Arizona do , but requiring states that opt for daylight saving to observe it on the same schedule , which Congress has gradually lengthened to eight months , March to November .
To the rescue has come Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida .
His Sunshine Protection Act would put an end to changing clocks twice a year anywhere in the U.S .
The bill also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one hour .
Presto !
The equivalent of daylight time becomes the new national standard , year-round .
Rubio ’ s bill has attracted bipartisan support in Congress .
Joe Biden has not staked out a public position , but President Trump tweeted his endorsement , for what that ’ s worth .
And although Rubio ’ s bill has languished in a Senate Commerce subcommittee without a hearing , the well-hydrated senator is undaunted .
In September , he introduced a bill to extend DST temporarily until November 2021 as a COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked a lot of the American people over the past seven months , ” he tweeted , “ and keeping the nation on Daylight Saving Time is just one small step we can take to help ease the burden.
” Rubio ’ s persistence may pay off in the long run .
As more state legislatures register a preference for year-round DST , pressure may build on Congress to act .
But the arguments commonly made for permanent DST rest on dubious assumptions , cherry-picking of evidence , and outright distortion .
Supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re recruiting for a cult .
They promise longer days , less energy use , improved moods , diminished crime .
A brief on Rubio ’ s Senate website , for example , claims delaying sunset with DST “ reduces car crashes and car accidents involving pedestrians , ” ignoring studies that found the opposite .
A 2017 review of two dozen studies concluded that the accumulated research “ should not be used to support or refute the assertion that shifts in time-zones can have a road safety benefit.
” Similarly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy ” by boosting consumer spending .
As evidence , he cites a JP Morgan Chase study that actually concludes the data “ does not support consumer spending claims of DST advocates.
” As we ’ ll see , advocates also ignore recent scientific discoveries in neurobiology and epidemiology—findings that have led many scientists to conclude DST is bad for our health and would be even more so if observed year-round .
Also conveniently overlooked are the lessons from past experience with year-round DST .
Moving clocks forward in 1974 was intended to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regard were paltry .
Subsequent research has confirmed that the energy saved during DST is minimal .
Ineffectiveness , however , was not the biggest problem with DST in the winter of ’ 74 .
The biggest problem was immediately apparent because almost nothing else was visible .
“ Daylight Saving Puts Most in Dark as Week Opens , ” read the headline on the New York Times story about the first weekday of daylight time , or rather no-daylight-in-the-morning time : Commuter trains from New Jersey were delayed , many school children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ walked to subways and buses with trepidation , and many people felt strange yesterday as the day began an hour earlier for most in eerie darkness .
Sunrise was delayed everywhere , but the change must have been especially jarring in northern latitudes , where winter days are shorter , and on the west side of time zones , where daybreak is later .
January sunrise did not arrive until about 9 a.m. , daylight time , across much of the Upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest .
Two days into DST , The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ students arriving for school in darkness .
The caption : “ It Seems Like Night School.
” Even in the South , winter DST soon was blamed for almost every pedestrian traffic accident in the a.m. A Florida TV commentator dubbed it “ daylight disaster time ” after eight children in the state , far more than in the same period a year earlier , were struck and killed in roadway accidents as they walked to school in the winter gloom .
Across the country , morning mishaps sparked public anxiety and prompted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , upsetting parents ’ schedules .
Few saw much compensating benefit in the afternoon , as the winter sun still set before 6 p.m. in most places .
By early February , many governors were calling for the repeal of year-round DST .
Congress relented .
The U.S. returned to standard time in autumn and resumed switching to and from daylight time seasonally .
This turnabout should not have been too surprising in light of the nation ’ s one previous experience with year-round DST .
Americans put up with it during World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help defeat the Axis powers .
But there was no support for continuing War Time , as it was called , in peacetime .
Congress repealed it a few weeks after V-J Day .
Outside the U.S. also , year-round DST has been tried and abandoned .
Britain experimented with it in the late 1960s , but Parliament voted 366 to 81 to return to seasonal DST after complaints from groups that spend early mornings outdoors—such as farmers , builders , and postal workers—and from Scotland , where sunrise came latest .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ similarly prompted Russia to renounce year-round DST after three years .
Which raises the question : Why , despite its history of failure , is permanent DST suddenly a U.S. trend ?
The idea has a superficial appeal .
The annual onset of DST heralds the approach of longer days and better weather .
Why not enjoy more of it all year ?
Advancing clocks by one hour does not protect sunshine , of course .
Daylight saving doesn ’ t even save daylight but delays it .
( Although as a brand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something . )
Extending the time change to winter will not make the season less cold and dark .
The most compelling argument for year-round DST—and the primary impetus for legislation , other than annoyance over the chore of changing clocks—has to do with health problems associated with the spring onset of DST .
A shocking array of problems—such as sleep deprivation , heart attacks , stroke , inflammatory bowel diseases , and even suicide—all apparently increase after clocks spring forward , but not after they fall back in autumn .
These vernal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ switch , ” say proponents of year-round DST .
They blame the springtime clock change , which deprives us of an hour ’ s sleep .
Yet , while some of these problems dissipate a few days after the time change , others linger at elevated rates long past March , which suggests that our bodies never fully adjust to DST .
Based on a growing body of research in neurobiology and epidemiology , a scientific consensus has emerged that time switching , although irksome , is less problematic than DST itself .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ twice a year .
It ’ s a misalignment of our biologic clocks for eight months of the year , ” says Beth Ann Malow , professor of neurology and pediatrics at Vanderbilt University .
In the 1970s , scientists knew little about circadian rhythms .
Seasonal affective disorder , for example , was not identified in the scientific literature until 1984 .
Now , we know it can arise from reduced exposure to morning light in winter .
Exposure helps wake us up by suppressing the hormone melatonin , which makes us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which keys us up to meet the day ’ s challenges .
Because delayed sunrise can prolong elevated melatonin levels , scientists worry permanent DST would spread and intensify sleepiness , winter blahs , and seasonal depression .
High cortisol levels , postponed by delayed sunrise and prolonged by later sunset , could at least partially explain why the start of DST in the spring brings a rise in reports of disturbed sleep .
“ We have an epidemic of sleep deprivation , and daylight saving time makes it worse , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the University of Washington .
Other problems also may be linked to circadian disruption caused by DST .
Biologic clocks regulate our physiology and influence our behavior in innumerable ways .
Among the most important : body clocks control immune response and DNA repair , both crucial to getting and staying well .
Recent research has shown that these processes can be impaired by things like jetlag and what physiologists call social jetlag , such as working the night shift , sleeping in late on weekends—and DST .
Its abolition is now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ societies .
The American Academy of Sleep Medicine published a position statement on the subject in October .
“ Permanent , year-round standard time is the best choice to most closely match our circadian sleep-wake cycle , ” said lead author M. Adeel Rishi , a specialist at the Mayo Clinic .
The scientific case against DST also is detailed in a position paper adopted in June 2019 by the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms , an international organization of scientists and clinicians .
Even deeper dives , drawing the same conclusions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journal Frontiers of Physiology and by an international panel of nine scientists in the European Journal of Internal Medicine .
The fundamental idea is that we tend to do well when our body clock and social clock—the official time in our time zone—are in synch .
That is , when noon on the social clock coincides with solar noon , the moment when the Sun reaches its highest point in the sky where we are .
If the two clocks diverge , trouble ensues .
Additional , startling evidence for this has come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from mapping health outcomes within time zones .
Time is on My Side Time zone borders are drawn inconsistently , often according to political boundaries and patterns of commerce .
But U.S. zones are each roughly 15 longitudinal degrees wide , so that the Sun , as it appears to travel from east to west at a rate of one degree every four minutes , passes over one zone per hour and reaches its highest point above the middle of a zone around noon , standard time , in that zone .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s eastern edge , solar noon will tend to arrive a little before noon , standard time .
Toward the western edge , the opposite ; solar noon—and body clocks , therefore—will lag a little .
But by and large , U.S. zones are configured to keep body clocks and the social clock in close harmony .
On standard time , that is .
On DST , not so much .
DST shifts the social clock forward an hour for most of the year , leaving solar noon lagging behind , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For example , in Detroit , on the western edge of the Eastern time zone , solar noon lags even on standard time , but DST widens the gap .
If DST were year-round , Detroit would never see solar noon before 1:15 p.m. and some days not until 1:46 p.m.
Here ’ s why this matters : Scientists say lagging body clocks , left behind by DST , are why people living on the west side of U.S. time zones , like Detroiters , tend to be less healthy , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( Of course , Detroiters and Michiganders have contended with everything from lead in the water ( Flint ) to homicides ( Detroit ) to deindustrialization ( pretty much statewide ) .
Still , health status gets progressively worse , no matter what city , the farther west it is within a zone .
Many studies have confirmed this finding nationwide .
“ Risk increased from east to west within a time zone for total and for many specific cancers , ” concluded scientists at the National Cancer Institute in 2017 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said a team of Harvard public-health researchers in 2018 .
One way such circadian disruption may make people sick is through sleep deprivation , a known killer .
The Sun sets last on the west side of time zones .
Later sunsets may prompt people , via hormonal and social cues , to stay up later .
And they may then sleep less overall , as work and school have set start times in the morning .
Indeed , economists who analyzed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics , which collects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , found those living on the west side of time zones get an average of roughly 115 hours less sleep per year .
Bear in mind that if delayed sunsets do trigger a cascade of ill effects , then west-siders are the most affected , but not the only ones .
Pushing off sunset for everyone , wherever we live , is the whole point of DST .
Which is bad news especially for night owls—what physiologists call late chronotypes , whose body clocks lag more than most and lag even more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why night owls are less healthy than morning larks/early chronotypes .
Teenagers , too , may be especially vulnerable .
Research has found they tend to be night owls because their melatonin kicks in later in the evening .
To counter chronic sleep deprivation in students , many schools have delayed their morning start times—in effect , moving the school clock back .
But DST negates this move for five months of the school year .
Year-round DST would negate it all year .
The scientific case against DST has emerged mostly in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considering the issue seem to be blithely unaware of it .
Hearings tend to be cursory , maybe because year-round DST usually has no fiscal impact and because it is moot unless and until Congress acts .
Debate tends to be lighthearted , even flippant .
The Salt Lake Tribune reported on preliminary approval of a permanent DST bill in the Utah Senate : Monday ’ s 28-1 vote followed a brief and semi-serious debate , in which senators questioned whether setting a consistent time year-round would affect the growth of flowers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warned against the health dangers of traveling between time zones , and asked whether passing the bill would end what has become a perennial debate on Capitol Hill .
“ If we pass this , can you guarantee us it will stop coming back every session ?
” said Sen. Todd Weiler , R-Woods Cross .
As the U.S. moves toward advancing clocks permanently , the biomedical evidence has Europe headed in the opposite direction .
In 2019 , the European Union voted to scrap summer DST after three scientific societies jointly urged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scientific opinion may carry less weight in the U.S .
But if permanent DST goes into effect , the smart bet is that it will prove temporary .
As in 1974 , its popular appeal will not survive winter .
And once the unpleasant reality of it hits again , Americans may decide to pay more attention to our body clocks than to politicians ’ fads .

In October 1973, five oil-producing countries imposed an embargo on oil exports to the United States, causing gas prices to soar. Scarce supplies led to long lines at filling stations. The economy slid into recession.
On November 7, President Nixon proposed emergency measures that included year-round daylight-saving time, which the Interior Dept. estimated would conserve the equivalent of 95,000 barrels of oil per day. Congress quickly approved the time change. America moved clocks ahead one hour on January 6, 1974, with a plan to keep them there for two years.
Within weeks, however, public opinion had soured on winter Daylight Saving Time. (It’s “saving” although it’s often pronounced “savings.”) It was judged a failure and abandoned. This debacle, mostly forgotten today, is of more than historical interest now, as the nation ends daylight saving time and returns to standard time on Sunday, November 1.
Now, the idea of observing DST year-round—permanently, this time—is gaining ground across the nation, even though history and recent scientific discoveries suggest we would be better off ditching DST completely and sticking to standard time. Nevertheless, 13 states from Florida to Washington have enacted legislation since 2018 to put themselves on permanent DST. At least 26 more states were considering the move this year.
None has been able to put it into effect, however, because it’s not an option under the Uniform Time Act, which established national DST in 1966. Until then, states and even cities decided what the time would be within their jurisdictions, resulting in all the inconsistency and confusion you would expect, particularly for railroads, which pushed for uniformity. The 1966 law imposed order by allowing states to stay on standard time, like Hawaii and most of Arizona do, but requiring states that opt for daylight saving to observe it on the same schedule, which Congress has gradually lengthened to eight months, March to November.
To the rescue has come Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. His Sunshine Protection Act would put an end to changing clocks twice a year anywhere in the U.S. The bill also would advance each U.S. time zone by one hour. Presto! The equivalent of daylight time becomes the new national standard, year-round.
Rubio’s bill has attracted bipartisan support in Congress. Joe Biden has not staked out a public position, but President Trump tweeted his endorsement, for what that’s worth. And although Rubio’s bill has languished in a Senate Commerce subcommittee without a hearing, the well-hydrated senator is undaunted. In September, he introduced a bill to extend DST temporarily until November 2021 as a COVID-19 relief measure. “Our government has asked a lot of the American people over the past seven months,” he tweeted, “and keeping the nation on Daylight Saving Time is just one small step we can take to help ease the burden.”
Rubio’s persistence may pay off in the long run. As more state legislatures register a preference for year-round DST, pressure may build on Congress to act. But the arguments commonly made for permanent DST rest on dubious assumptions, cherry-picking of evidence, and outright distortion. Supporters of permanent DST can sound like they’re recruiting for a cult. They promise longer days, less energy use, improved moods, diminished crime.
A brief on Rubio’s Senate website, for example, claims delaying sunset with DST “reduces car crashes and car accidents involving pedestrians,” ignoring studies that found the opposite. A 2017 review of two dozen studies concluded that the accumulated research “should not be used to support or refute the assertion that shifts in time-zones can have a road safety benefit.” Similarly, Rubio says year-round DST “benefits the economy” by boosting consumer spending. As evidence, he cites a JP Morgan Chase study that actually concludes the data “does not support consumer spending claims of DST advocates.”
As we’ll see, advocates also ignore recent scientific discoveries in neurobiology and epidemiology—findings that have led many scientists to conclude DST is bad for our health and would be even more so if observed year-round. Also conveniently overlooked are the lessons from past experience with year-round DST.
Seasons in the Sun
Moving clocks forward in 1974 was intended to conserve energy, but results in this regard were paltry. Subsequent research has confirmed that the energy saved during DST is minimal.
Ineffectiveness, however, was not the biggest problem with DST in the winter of ’74. The biggest problem was immediately apparent because almost nothing else was visible. “Daylight Saving Puts Most in Dark as Week Opens,” read the headline on the New York Times story about the first weekday of daylight time, or rather no-daylight-in-the-morning time:
Commuter trains from New Jersey were delayed, many school children missed their free breakfasts, some workers walked to subways and buses with trepidation, and many people felt strange yesterday as the day began an hour earlier for most in eerie darkness.
Sunrise was delayed everywhere, but the change must have been especially jarring in northern latitudes, where winter days are shorter, and on the west side of time zones, where daybreak is later. January sunrise did not arrive until about 9 a.m., daylight time, across much of the Upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest. Two days into DST, The Seattle Times ran a front-page photo of students arriving for school in darkness. The caption: “It Seems Like Night School.”
Even in the South, winter DST soon was blamed for almost every pedestrian traffic accident in the a.m. A Florida TV commentator dubbed it “daylight disaster time” after eight children in the state, far more than in the same period a year earlier, were struck and killed in roadway accidents as they walked to school in the winter gloom. Across the country, morning mishaps sparked public anxiety and prompted many schools to delay their start times, upsetting parents’ schedules.
Few saw much compensating benefit in the afternoon, as the winter sun still set before 6 p.m. in most places. By early February, many governors were calling for the repeal of year-round DST. Congress relented. The U.S. returned to standard time in autumn and resumed switching to and from daylight time seasonally.
This turnabout should not have been too surprising in light of the nation’s one previous experience with year-round DST. Americans put up with it during World War II as one more sacrifice needed to help defeat the Axis powers. But there was no support for continuing War Time, as it was called, in peacetime. Congress repealed it a few weeks after V-J Day.
Outside the U.S. also, year-round DST has been tried and abandoned. Britain experimented with it in the late 1960s, but Parliament voted 366 to 81 to return to seasonal DST after complaints from groups that spend early mornings outdoors—such as farmers, builders, and postal workers—and from Scotland, where sunrise came latest. In 2014, opposition from northern regions similarly prompted Russia to renounce year-round DST after three years.
Which raises the question: Why, despite its history of failure, is permanent DST suddenly a U.S. trend?
Walking on Sunshine
The idea has a superficial appeal. The annual onset of DST heralds the approach of longer days and better weather. Why not enjoy more of it all year?
Advancing clocks by one hour does not protect sunshine, of course. Daylight saving doesn’t even save daylight but delays it. (Although as a brand, “daylight delaying time” lacks something.) Extending the time change to winter will not make the season less cold and dark.
The most compelling argument for year-round DST—and the primary impetus for legislation, other than annoyance over the chore of changing clocks—has to do with health problems associated with the spring onset of DST. A shocking array of problems—such as sleep deprivation, heart attacks, stroke, inflammatory bowel diseases, and even suicide—all apparently increase after clocks spring forward, but not after they fall back in autumn. These vernal problems are reasons to “ditch the switch,” say proponents of year-round DST. They blame the springtime clock change, which deprives us of an hour’s sleep.
Yet, while some of these problems dissipate a few days after the time change, others linger at elevated rates long past March, which suggests that our bodies never fully adjust to DST. Based on a growing body of research in neurobiology and epidemiology, a scientific consensus has emerged that time switching, although irksome, is less problematic than DST itself. “It’s not one hour twice a year. It’s a misalignment of our biologic clocks for eight months of the year,” says Beth Ann Malow, professor of neurology and pediatrics at Vanderbilt University.
Time Out of Time
In the 1970s, scientists knew little about circadian rhythms. Seasonal affective disorder, for example, was not identified in the scientific literature until 1984. Now, we know it can arise from reduced exposure to morning light in winter. Exposure helps wake us up by suppressing the hormone melatonin, which makes us sleepy, and elevating the hormone cortisol, which keys us up to meet the day’s challenges.
Because delayed sunrise can prolong elevated melatonin levels, scientists worry permanent DST would spread and intensify sleepiness, winter blahs, and seasonal depression. High cortisol levels, postponed by delayed sunrise and prolonged by later sunset, could at least partially explain why the start of DST in the spring brings a rise in reports of disturbed sleep. “We have an epidemic of sleep deprivation, and daylight saving time makes it worse,” says Nathaniel Watson, professor of neurology at the University of Washington.
Other problems also may be linked to circadian disruption caused by DST. Biologic clocks regulate our physiology and influence our behavior in innumerable ways. Among the most important: body clocks control immune response and DNA repair, both crucial to getting and staying well. Recent research has shown that these processes can be impaired by things like jetlag and what physiologists call social jetlag, such as working the night shift, sleeping in late on weekends—and DST.
Its abolition is now recommended by a growing chorus of scientific societies. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine published a position statement on the subject in October. “Permanent, year-round standard time is the best choice to most closely match our circadian sleep-wake cycle,” said lead author M. Adeel Rishi, a specialist at the Mayo Clinic.
The scientific case against DST also is detailed in a position paper adopted in June 2019 by the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms, an international organization of scientists and clinicians. Even deeper dives, drawing the same conclusions, were published in 2019 in the journal Frontiers of Physiology and by an international panel of nine scientists in the European Journal of Internal Medicine.
The fundamental idea is that we tend to do well when our body clock and social clock—the official time in our time zone—are in synch. That is, when noon on the social clock coincides with solar noon, the moment when the Sun reaches its highest point in the sky where we are. If the two clocks diverge, trouble ensues. Additional, startling evidence for this has come from recent findings in geographical epidemiology—specifically, from mapping health outcomes within time zones.
Time is on My Side
Time zone borders are drawn inconsistently, often according to political boundaries and patterns of commerce. But U.S. zones are each roughly 15 longitudinal degrees wide, so that the Sun, as it appears to travel from east to west at a rate of one degree every four minutes, passes over one zone per hour and reaches its highest point above the middle of a zone around noon, standard time, in that zone.
The synchronization is imperfect. Toward a zone’s eastern edge, solar noon will tend to arrive a little before noon, standard time. Toward the western edge, the opposite; solar noon—and body clocks, therefore—will lag a little. But by and large, U.S. zones are configured to keep body clocks and the social clock in close harmony.
On standard time, that is. On DST, not so much.
DST shifts the social clock forward an hour for most of the year, leaving solar noon lagging behind, especially on the west side of time zones. For example, in Detroit, on the western edge of the Eastern time zone, solar noon lags even on standard time, but DST widens the gap. If DST were year-round, Detroit would never see solar noon before 1:15 p.m. and some days not until 1:46 p.m.
Here’s why this matters: Scientists say lagging body clocks, left behind by DST, are why people living on the west side of U.S. time zones, like Detroiters, tend to be less healthy, have higher cancer rates, and die sooner. (Of course, Detroiters and Michiganders have contended with everything from lead in the water (Flint) to homicides (Detroit) to deindustrialization (pretty much statewide). Still, health status gets progressively worse, no matter what city, the farther west it is within a zone.
Many studies have confirmed this finding nationwide. “Risk increased from east to west within a time zone for total and for many specific cancers,” concluded scientists at the National Cancer Institute in 2017. The reason is “circadian misalignment,” said a team of Harvard public-health researchers in 2018.
One way such circadian disruption may make people sick is through sleep deprivation, a known killer. The Sun sets last on the west side of time zones. Later sunsets may prompt people, via hormonal and social cues, to stay up later. And they may then sleep less overall, as work and school have set start times in the morning. Indeed, economists who analyzed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which collects detailed diaries of how Americans spend their time, found those living on the west side of time zones get an average of roughly 115 hours less sleep per year.
Bear in mind that if delayed sunsets do trigger a cascade of ill effects, then west-siders are the most affected, but not the only ones. Pushing off sunset for everyone, wherever we live, is the whole point of DST.
Which is bad news especially for night owls—what physiologists call late chronotypes, whose body clocks lag more than most and lag even more during DST. Researchers suspect this is why night owls are less healthy than morning larks/early chronotypes.
Teenagers, too, may be especially vulnerable. Research has found they tend to be night owls because their melatonin kicks in later in the evening. To counter chronic sleep deprivation in students, many schools have delayed their morning start times—in effect, moving the school clock back. But DST negates this move for five months of the school year. Year-round DST would negate it all year.
Time After Time
The scientific case against DST has emerged mostly in the past few years, and lawmakers considering the issue seem to be blithely unaware of it. Hearings tend to be cursory, maybe because year-round DST usually has no fiscal impact and because it is moot unless and until Congress acts. Debate tends to be lighthearted, even flippant. The Salt Lake Tribune reported on preliminary approval of a permanent DST bill in the Utah Senate:
Monday’s 28-1 vote followed a brief and semi-serious debate, in which senators questioned whether setting a consistent time year-round would affect the growth of flowers, dedicated their votes to individual constituents, warned against the health dangers of traveling between time zones, and asked whether passing the bill would end what has become a perennial debate on Capitol Hill.
“If we pass this, can you guarantee us it will stop coming back every session?” said Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross.
As the U.S. moves toward advancing clocks permanently, the biomedical evidence has Europe headed in the opposite direction. In 2019, the European Union voted to scrap summer DST after three scientific societies jointly urged the adoption of year-round standard time.
Scientific opinion may carry less weight in the U.S. But if permanent DST goes into effect, the smart bet is that it will prove temporary. As in 1974, its popular appeal will not survive winter. And once the unpleasant reality of it hits again, Americans may decide to pay more attention to our body clocks than to politicians’ fads.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-28--Whaddya Know? Being Old Wound Up Being a Plus for Joe Biden

If Joe Biden wins ( and I still think there ’ s a real chance he won ’ t ) , one of the most surprising reasons , in my humble opinion , will be his age .
Pundits assume that Biden ’ s age has been a neutral to negative factor to his success .
I remember even moderate Democrats wishing there were someone with his same policy views but less cognitive decline .
But it ’ s turning out that Biden ’ s geezerhood has helped in a variety of ways .
HE TALKS BETTER .
Yes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you look at earlier Biden campaigns , he was both more fluid AND more verbose .
Sleepy Joe is actually much more effective than Yappy Joe .
That could just be a more disciplined campaign , but maybe he ’ s just too tired to talk more .
In all seriousness , Biden has slowed down but just to a normal and not a pathetic level ( usually ) .
He ’ s more concise and more repetitive — in an effective way .
HE IGNORED TWITTER .
During the primaries , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kamala Harris ) misread just how far to the left the party had moved , for instance , assuming that single-payer and legalized border crossings were the center of gravity .
Biden didn ’ t .
That ’ s helping him tremendously now .
Perhaps Biden ’ s advisors were especially conscious that the Twitter Left wasn ’ t the actual world .
But I bet it didn ’ t hurt that the candidate wasn ’ t perpetually barking out reactions to Tweets he ’ d just seen .
( Does Biden know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has consistently had a better sense of what the political sweet spot was — for instance , during the primaries , it was Black Church Ladies in South Carolina more than it was Baristas in Brooklyn .
He fastened to a few big truths — that this is a fight for ‘ soul of America ’ and ‘ don ’ t forget the middle class.
’ At the time , he seemed like a pol from yesteryear mouthing platitudes .
Now it looks like brilliant message discipline .
HE ’ S SUFFERED MORE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s suffering — and his graceful response — has made him more appealing .
This is often how aging works .
We might imagine that older folks have more wisdom because they ’ ve had more time to read Thich Nhat Hanh or Augustine .
But people often gain wisdom — or grace — because they ’ ve suffered more .
People see that in Biden .
NON-SENILE SENIORS SYMPATHIZE .
If Biden wins , it will be in part because he did better among seniors than Hillary did .
Now being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll win over older voters .
It doesn ’ t work that way .
But something special happened this year .
Trump made Biden ’ s cognitive decline a key issue in the campaign , implying that he ’ s senile .
Here ’ s the reality that neither side has been willing to say : yes , of course , Biden has declined cognitively .
He ’ s seventy-frickin ’ -seven !
But that ’ s not the same as being senile .
Biden has shown that as we age , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than made up for by the improvement of other traits — patience , wisdom , forgiveness , steadfastness .
Biden is a poster child for old men .
Of course , the bigger reason Biden is winning over seniors probably is COVID , but I do wonder whether there are elderly voters out there who resent Trump ’ s conflation of being old with being useless .
LOVE OF BIPARTISANSHIP .
One of the main lessons Biden seems to have taken from his decades in politics is the love of bipartisanship .
Almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hate this about Biden .
Progressive thought this made him a dupe or neoliberal neocolonialist .
Trump activists don ’ t want to be bipartisan with Dems anyway .
It seemed to be an entirely foolish , out of date message .
And yet I suspect that this helped Biden quite a bit — both in permitting the Never Trumpers to fully join the campaign and in evoking an image of a less mean , less contentious future .
Obviously , if he wins , there will be many other factors that contributed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sadly possibly being one of them ) .
And , to be sure , being old would not have worked the same way with other candidates .
Seventy-one-year old Elizabeth Warren , for instance , would always have been perceived as too woke rather than insufficiently awake .
And if Biden loses , we ’ ll find plenty of age-related reasons .
But for now , it seems that Biden has aged well .
And — to use a phrase that was once seemed terrifying and now seems adorable – that ’ s @ @ @

If Joe Biden wins (and I still think there’s a real chance he won’t), one of the most surprising reasons, in my humble opinion, will be his age. Pundits assume that Biden’s age has been a neutral to negative factor to his success. I remember even moderate Democrats wishing there were someone with his same policy views but less cognitive decline. But it’s turning out that Biden’s geezerhood has helped in a variety of ways.
HE TALKS BETTER. Yes, Biden has lost a step, but if you look at earlier Biden campaigns, he was both more fluid AND more verbose. Sleepy Joe is actually much more effective than Yappy Joe. That could just be a more disciplined campaign, but maybe he’s just too tired to talk more. In all seriousness, Biden has slowed down but just to a normal and not a pathetic level (usually). He’s more concise and more repetitive — in an effective way.
HE IGNORED TWITTER. During the primaries, the younger, hipper candidates (like Kamala Harris) misread just how far to the left the party had moved, for instance, assuming that single-payer and legalized border crossings were the center of gravity. Biden didn’t. That’s helping him tremendously now. Perhaps Biden’s advisors were especially conscious that the Twitter Left wasn’t the actual world. But I bet it didn’t hurt that the candidate wasn’t perpetually barking out reactions to Tweets he’d just seen. (Does Biden know how to use Twitter?) He has consistently had a better sense of what the political sweet spot was — for instance, during the primaries, it was Black Church Ladies in South Carolina more than it was Baristas in Brooklyn. He fastened to a few big truths — that this is a fight for ‘soul of America’ and ‘don’t forget the middle class.’ At the time, he seemed like a pol from yesteryear mouthing platitudes. Now it looks like brilliant message discipline.
HE’S SUFFERED MORE. Not to be morbid but Biden’s suffering — and his graceful response — has made him more appealing. This is often how aging works. We might imagine that older folks have more wisdom because they’ve had more time to read Thich Nhat Hanh or Augustine. But people often gain wisdom — or grace — because they’ve suffered more. People see that in Biden.
NON-SENILE SENIORS SYMPATHIZE. If Biden wins, it will be in part because he did better among seniors than Hillary did. Now being old doesn’t mean you’ll win over older voters. It doesn’t work that way. But something special happened this year. Trump made Biden’s cognitive decline a key issue in the campaign, implying that he’s senile. Here’s the reality that neither side has been willing to say: yes, of course, Biden has declined cognitively. He’s seventy-frickin’-seven! But that’s not the same as being senile. Biden has shown that as we age, what we will lose cognitively may be more than made up for by the improvement of other traits — patience, wisdom, forgiveness, steadfastness. Biden is a poster child for old men. Of course, the bigger reason Biden is winning over seniors probably is COVID, but I do wonder whether there are elderly voters out there who resent Trump’s conflation of being old with being useless.
LOVE OF BIPARTISANSHIP. One of the main lessons Biden seems to have taken from his decades in politics is the love of bipartisanship. Almost everyone in the political class seemed to hate this about Biden. Progressive thought this made him a dupe or neoliberal neocolonialist. Trump activists don’t want to be bipartisan with Dems anyway. It seemed to be an entirely foolish, out of date message. And yet I suspect that this helped Biden quite a bit — both in permitting the Never Trumpers to fully join the campaign and in evoking an image of a less mean, less contentious future.
Obviously, if he wins, there will be many other factors that contributed (being white and being a male sadly possibly being one of them). And, to be sure, being old would not have worked the same way with other candidates. Seventy-one-year old Elizabeth Warren, for instance, would always have been perceived as too woke rather than insufficiently awake. And if Biden loses, we’ll find plenty of age-related reasons. But for now, it seems that Biden has aged well. And — to use a phrase that was once seemed terrifying and now seems adorable – that’s no malarkey.


The Great Escape

Losing an election can be tough .
President Trump has publicly mused that being defeated could be so devastating it could cause him to leave the country .
Anyone who was conscious in 2016 , however , will know that election predictions and polling numbers are not the same as Electoral College outcomes .
Anything can happen .
In short , Trump will not be calling a travel agent anytime soon .
If , however , Joe Biden does become the 46th president of the United States and Trump starts seriously thinking about self-imposed exile , where might he go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desirable destinations are few and far between .
As he looks at the map and tries to find a place to land , he might want to see where other fallen leaders have trod .
Some of his contemporary foreign colleagues struggle to hold onto power , many have planned an emergency exit strategy and keep an eye on the door — just in case they suddenly need to skedaddle .
Unpopular leaders are sometimes forced to leave at a moment ’ s notice , like Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych ’ s door @ @ @ @ @ @ @ palace , with only enough time to spirit out a few bags of gold bars onto a waiting chopper flying him to safety in nearby Russia , where he still lives .
But not all ex-leaders are pushed and rushed out the door .
Some are slowly coaxed to leave .
The White House continues to look for ways to pressure Venezuela ’ s ostensible President Nicolás Maduro to depart , but Washington gets foiled every time .
Unfortunately , Trump talked big but delivered nada when it came to ousting Maduro .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Venezuelan oil exports and sanctioning ships .
It recognized opposition leader President Juan Guaidó .
Nothing worked .
Then a failed coup fiasco gave Maduro a huge propaganda win .
Maduro got to perp walk American mercenaries who had attempted an ill-advised overthrow worthy of the Keystone Kops .
Part of the White House ’ s failed attempt at regime change in Caracas included discussions for an orderly and safe exile abroad for Maduro .
Washington pushed a deal for him to flee and live the rest of his post-bus driving days on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Cuba ’ s Varadero Beach was made to sound super dreamy , but Maduro already has power , wealth and the loyalty of his armed forces .
Leaving all that behind has not looked like a particularly good deal .
Unfortunately for Maduro , when it does start to sound more compelling , he may be out of more than just a job .
Ask Saddam Hussein .
Maduro , however , is in no hurry to forsake his nation — or his oil revenues .
In fact , he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disturbingly , his main opposition just got out of Dodge .
Leopoldo López took off after years of hunger strikes , harassment , beatings and imprisonment .
While Maduro remains in Miraflores Palace , López is now far , far away in Spain .
Leaders in trouble or out of favor have long sought an easy escape route , avoiding persecution and jail .
Sometimes they use their time abroad to regroup and plan to recoup their influence and power .
That ’ s what Ayatollah Khomeini did in Paris before riding a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s also what corrupted Iraqi politician Ahmed Chalabi did after years of living in London .
He successfully lied to and coaxed America to attack Iraq in the hopes of wrangling a prime minister position supported by a U.S. military occupation .
Both Khomeini and Chalabi returned from exile to strengthen Iran ’ s aggressively dangerous role in the region .
Not all leaders take a self-imposed hiatus abroad in order to plan a strategically timed return like Bolivia ’ s ex-President Evo Morales .
He is currently biding his time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control of the levers of national power .
Morales plans to return to La Paz by Nov. 9 .
Some former leaders decide to call it quits entirely , leave their country and spare themselves the indignity of popular derision and , possibly , prosecution .
Former King Juan Carlos I of Spain made that choice , abdicating the throne for his son , Felipe VI , to rule .
A hero of post-Franco Spain , Juan Carlos got a little sloppy in his personal and financial affairs and left Spain for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explained his exile as the best way to save the monarchy , allowing his son to distance himself from the crown ’ s scandals .
Trump may feel the personal desire to take a little time off from any political fallout should he lose and loudly continue to contest the 2020 election .
If so , he may go to a Trump property in a foreign country where he actually pays taxes .
Trump should know , however , that American ex-presidents are safe at home when their tenure is up .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or even Washington , DC .
In places with less democracy , a perverted rule of law and a potentially angry mob at the presidential gates , ex-leaders ’ options come down to fight or flight .

Losing an election can be tough. President Trump has publicly mused that being defeated could be so devastating it could cause him to leave the country.
Anyone who was conscious in 2016, however, will know that election predictions and polling numbers are not the same as Electoral College outcomes. Anything can happen. In short, Trump will not be calling a travel agent anytime soon.
If, however, Joe Biden does become the 46th president of the United States and Trump starts seriously thinking about self-imposed exile, where might he go?
The possibilities are endless. But desirable destinations are few and far between. As he looks at the map and tries to find a place to land, he might want to see where other fallen leaders have trod.
Some of his contemporary foreign colleagues struggle to hold onto power, many have planned an emergency exit strategy and keep an eye on the door — just in case they suddenly need to skedaddle.
Unpopular leaders are sometimes forced to leave at a moment’s notice, like Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s door dash in 2014. He fled his palace, with only enough time to spirit out a few bags of gold bars onto a waiting chopper flying him to safety in nearby Russia, where he still lives. But not all ex-leaders are pushed and rushed out the door. Some are slowly coaxed to leave.
The White House continues to look for ways to pressure Venezuela’s ostensible President Nicolás Maduro to depart, but Washington gets foiled every time. Unfortunately, Trump talked big but delivered nada when it came to ousting Maduro.
The United States added pressure by slowing Venezuelan oil exports and sanctioning ships. It recognized opposition leader President Juan Guaidó. Nothing worked. Then a failed coup fiasco gave Maduro a huge propaganda win. Maduro got to perp walk American mercenaries who had attempted an ill-advised overthrow worthy of the Keystone Kops.
Part of the White House’s failed attempt at regime change in Caracas included discussions for an orderly and safe exile abroad for Maduro. Washington pushed a deal for him to flee and live the rest of his post-bus driving days on a warm beach with a cold beer.
Cuba’s Varadero Beach was made to sound super dreamy, but Maduro already has power, wealth and the loyalty of his armed forces. Leaving all that behind has not looked like a particularly good deal. Unfortunately for Maduro, when it does start to sound more compelling, he may be out of more than just a job. Ask Saddam Hussein.
Maduro, however, is in no hurry to forsake his nation — or his oil revenues. In fact, he’s fat and happy at home while, disturbingly, his main opposition just got out of Dodge. Leopoldo López took off after years of hunger strikes, harassment, beatings and imprisonment. While Maduro remains in Miraflores Palace, López is now far, far away in Spain.
Leaders in trouble or out of favor have long sought an easy escape route, avoiding persecution and jail. Sometimes they use their time abroad to regroup and plan to recoup their influence and power. That’s what Ayatollah Khomeini did in Paris before riding a revolutionary wave to return to Tehran.
That’s also what corrupted Iraqi politician Ahmed Chalabi did after years of living in London. He successfully lied to and coaxed America to attack Iraq in the hopes of wrangling a prime minister position supported by a U.S. military occupation. Both Khomeini and Chalabi returned from exile to strengthen Iran’s aggressively dangerous role in the region.
Not all leaders take a self-imposed hiatus abroad in order to plan a strategically timed return like Bolivia’s ex-President Evo Morales. He is currently biding his time in Argentina as his allies slowly regain control of the levers of national power. Morales plans to return to La Paz by Nov. 9.
Some former leaders decide to call it quits entirely, leave their country and spare themselves the indignity of popular derision and, possibly, prosecution. Former King Juan Carlos I of Spain made that choice, abdicating the throne for his son, Felipe VI, to rule. A hero of post-Franco Spain, Juan Carlos got a little sloppy in his personal and financial affairs and left Spain for the United Arab Emirates in August. He explained his exile as the best way to save the monarchy, allowing his son to distance himself from the crown’s scandals.
Trump may feel the personal desire to take a little time off from any political fallout should he lose and loudly continue to contest the 2020 election. If so, he may go to a Trump property in a foreign country where he actually pays taxes.
Trump should know, however, that American ex-presidents are safe at home when their tenure is up. He can stick around Florida, New York, or even Washington, DC. In places with less democracy, a perverted rule of law and a potentially angry mob at the presidential gates, ex-leaders’ options come down to fight or flight.


washingtonmonthly--2020-11-01--How to Do Fieldwork in a Pandemic

How to Do Fieldwork in a Pandemic

In high school , Anatole Jenkins wanted to be an architect .
In a sense , he now is .
In 2012 , Jenkins found himself in Las Vegas doing regional organizing for Barack Obama ’ s reelection campaign .
He traded in building blueprints for voter registration datasets and a construction team for an army of volunteers .
He ’ s stayed in the field since .
Today , instead of physical structures , he gets to build a human coalition from the ground-up as National Director of States Organizing for Joe Biden ’ s presidential campaign .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and voters not only to help defeat Donald Trump but to build a diverse coalition for the Democratic Party going forward .
Jenkins was one of eight people to receive the 2020 Rising Star award from Campaign and Elections magazine .
Prior to his role with the Biden campaign , he was the national organizing director for Organizing Together 2020 , a group that brought in staffers from every Democratic primary campaign to build infrastructure for the eventual nominee .
Before that , he served as the national organizing director for Kamala Harris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a lot of work for someone who is just 29 , and it ’ s been complicated by COVID-19 .
Organizing entails energizing and expanding the base of a candidate , something traditionally done by having volunteers knock on doors and make calls , as well as getting voters to attend rallies—activities that make people realize they are part of something bigger than themselves .
Those synergistic qualities are hard to translate over Zoom .
As a result , organizers have had to shift their methods .
On October 20 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and what it ’ s like organizing during the pandemic .
The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity .
ZH : First off , I ’ m curious to know how you got interested in politics ?
AJ : I got interested in politics because of President Obama .
I saw a Black man who won the Democratic nomination , who was a former community organizer , running a campaign focused on organizing .
My journey was through representation , not just from a racial standpoint but from the standpoint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one which I had never seen .
ZH : Just so I ’ m clear on your timeline , you were an intern for the 2008 campaign , went back to school , and then started professionally organizing for the 2012 Obama reelection campaign .
Is that correct ?
AJ : I was a volunteer on the 2008 campaign , then I started interning for President Obama ’ s political organization after that , and then I started organizing in 2011 for the reelection campaign .
ZH : What about the reelection campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of organizing ?
AJ : It starts with when I was interning for Obama ’ s political team around the 2010 midterms .
I was working for the person who ended up being the deputy national political director for Obama ’ s reelection campaign .
When the campaign was about to begin , he said , “ You can come to headquarters in Chicago and be my assistant , but you already know how to do that .
What you can do is you can go to Nevada and become an organizer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was the best piece of advice that I have ever been given .
I learned more about myself being an organizer than I could have ever expected .
I went back to Nevada in 2014 to be field director for the Nevada State Democratic Party , and many of my 2012 volunteers had become leaders in their community , running for elected office and positions in the state democratic party .
I saw the seeds you can plant in organizing .
ZH : It ’ s clear from what you ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Obama .
Do you have any other organizing role models or heroes ?
AJ : Senator Harris is definitely an organizing role model .
This is a woman who , during her first campaign for public office [ San Francisco district attorney ] , didn ’ t have a table and so brought an ironing board to hand out pamphlets outside of grocery stores and the metro .
When I was her national organizing director in 2019 , I had my first meeting with her and was talking about how we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win her race .
She looked at me and said , “ All that ’ s fine , but how are we planting seeds ?
” She sees the long-term impact of organizing , and that makes her an organizing role model .
No matter what , with organizing , you have an impact .
ZH : To put her question back to you , what seeds do you feel like you ’ re currently planting ?
AJ : We have put an intentional focus on bringing more people of color , LGBTQ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into positions of leadership in democratic politics .
Those are the types of seeds that I ’ m excited that we ’ ve planted—new folks who will be the future of the party .
ZH : You talked already about bringing new people into the political process—folks from different backgrounds , different races , ethnicities , and sexual orientations .
What lessons have you learned that you think could help the Democratic Party build a broad coalition in the future ?
AJ : We have to do a lot more listening .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead us to where victory is .
In past cycles , we ’ ve often said we want to go into these communities , and we want these folks to become a part of our campaign .
In reality , we need our campaign to become a part of these communities .
If we are listening to the folks locally , then our politics will look the way that it should .
ZH : I want to ask a quick question relating to your time with Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizing in Minnesota and now being with Biden ’ s campaign , what do you see as the differences between the two ?
AJ : Barring some of the obvious like COVID , we are taking no voter for granted .
My mantra is you meet people where they are , and COVID has forced us to do a lot more digging to find out where people are .
We have put a huge amount of focus on making sure that we are talking to persuadable voters from start to finish .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we are invested in .
We ’ ve put a huge focus on making sure that we are educating [ voters ] in all of the ways that they can vote .
We also are asking a different question .
This time around , we ’ re asking them to take a look at the guy that ’ s currently in there and then look at the alternative , which is hope for the soul of our nation .
ZH : What difference does the pandemic make ?
What are some methods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been doing ?
AJ : It ’ s a matter of recreating the same community experience that a volunteer normally would have because it ’ s the experience that brings volunteers back .
People will come to the campaign for Joe Biden , but they will come back because of the relationships they ’ ve made .
We ’ ve also provided our teams on the ground with a whole arsenal of tools so they can talk to voters , whether that is via text message or the phone , or online and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different things like online rallies to try and bring new folks in the door .
ZH : It sounds like you have a wide range of activities .
But do you worry that at the end of the day , thanks to the pandemic , you ’ re not covering all the bases ?
AJ : I don ’ t .
The most important thing is having meaningful conversations .
And it turns out that you can actually talk to voters without being in person .
I think we are spending a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are , and some of that happens to be online .
At the same time , we have been doing in-person work where safe , and it makes sense .
For example , we ’ ve opened up voter activation centers in battleground states , which are places where folks can get yard signs and campaign material .
We have our volunteers knocking on doors , dropping off literature , and then calling voters right after that to let them know we left them a piece of literature .
I ’ ll tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up and think about all the stones that we didn ’ t turn and how we can turn them .
ZH : But at the same time there was , for a long time , hesitance to do anything in person from the Biden campaign .
Why the shift now ?
AJ : The safety and health of our staff and volunteers has always been our # 1 priority .
We are doing some in-person activities because we have folks in communities who want to knock on doors where it ’ s safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are providing them with the resources they need while advising them on the health protocols .
ZH : According to a recent Atlantic article , Republicans are recruiting upwards of 50,000 volunteers in battleground states as poll watchers to help “ secure ” elections against voter fraud , a well-documented myth and tactic of voter suppression .
What are some organizing efforts from your campaign to ensure that voters feel safe at the polls ?
AJ : We are building a voter protection operation made of lawyers and folks who want to aid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , some of the in-person work we are doing includes helping with line management at polling locations .
We want to have folks out there who can answer questions as folks are waiting in line and make sure that they stay in line .
ZH : Earlier , you talked about the importance of educating voters .
I read what ’ s known within the campaign as the “ Malarkey Factory , ” the campaign ’ s strategy to target and remove disinformation about Biden online .
How do you view your role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
AJ : In organizing , we ’ ve been working to combat disinformation through personal networks .
We have the Vote Joe app , which is an app that helps individuals talk to the folks they personally know who we ’ re targeting and what messages they need to receive .
People struggle to find a trusted news source , but they still trust their brother , their sister , or their friend .
There is no one who is a better validator or surrogate for Kamala Harris and Joe Biden than @ @ @ @ @ @ @

In high school, Anatole Jenkins wanted to be an architect. In a sense, he now is. In 2012, Jenkins found himself in Las Vegas doing regional organizing for Barack Obama’s reelection campaign. He traded in building blueprints for voter registration datasets and a construction team for an army of volunteers. He’s stayed in the field since. Today, instead of physical structures, he gets to build a human coalition from the ground-up as National Director of States Organizing for Joe Biden’s presidential campaign. In his role, he recruits both volunteers and voters not only to help defeat Donald Trump but to build a diverse coalition for the Democratic Party going forward.
Jenkins was one of eight people to receive the 2020 Rising Star award from Campaign and Elections magazine. Prior to his role with the Biden campaign, he was the national organizing director for Organizing Together 2020, a group that brought in staffers from every Democratic primary campaign to build infrastructure for the eventual nominee. Before that, he served as the national organizing director for Kamala Harris during her bid for president.
It’s a lot of work for someone who is just 29, and it’s been complicated by COVID-19. Organizing entails energizing and expanding the base of a candidate, something traditionally done by having volunteers knock on doors and make calls, as well as getting voters to attend rallies—activities that make people realize they are part of something bigger than themselves. Those synergistic qualities are hard to translate over Zoom. As a result, organizers have had to shift their methods.
On October 20, I spoke with Jenkins about his career and what it’s like organizing during the pandemic.
The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
ZH: First off, I’m curious to know how you got interested in politics?
AJ: I got interested in politics because of President Obama. I saw a Black man who won the Democratic nomination, who was a former community organizer, running a campaign focused on organizing. My journey was through representation, not just from a racial standpoint but from the standpoint of a different way to campaign, one which I had never seen.
ZH: Just so I’m clear on your timeline, you were an intern for the 2008 campaign, went back to school, and then started professionally organizing for the 2012 Obama reelection campaign. Is that correct?
AJ: I was a volunteer on the 2008 campaign, then I started interning for President Obama’s political organization after that, and then I started organizing in 2011 for the reelection campaign.
ZH: What about the reelection campaign made you decide to make a career out of organizing?
AJ: It starts with when I was interning for Obama’s political team around the 2010 midterms. I was working for the person who ended up being the deputy national political director for Obama’s reelection campaign. When the campaign was about to begin, he said, “You can come to headquarters in Chicago and be my assistant, but you already know how to do that. What you can do is you can go to Nevada and become an organizer and learn how to empower people.” It was the best piece of advice that I have ever been given. I learned more about myself being an organizer than I could have ever expected. I went back to Nevada in 2014 to be field director for the Nevada State Democratic Party, and many of my 2012 volunteers had become leaders in their community, running for elected office and positions in the state democratic party. I saw the seeds you can plant in organizing.
ZH: It’s clear from what you’ve said that you have a role model in Obama. Do you have any other organizing role models or heroes?
AJ: Senator Harris is definitely an organizing role model. This is a woman who, during her first campaign for public office [San Francisco district attorney], didn’t have a table and so brought an ironing board to hand out pamphlets outside of grocery stores and the metro. When I was her national organizing director in 2019, I had my first meeting with her and was talking about how we’re going to organize so she could win her race. She looked at me and said, “All that’s fine, but how are we planting seeds?” She sees the long-term impact of organizing, and that makes her an organizing role model. No matter what, with organizing, you have an impact.
ZH: To put her question back to you, what seeds do you feel like you’re currently planting?
AJ: We have put an intentional focus on bringing more people of color, LGBTQ folks, young folks, and women into positions of leadership in democratic politics. Those are the types of seeds that I’m excited that we’ve planted—new folks who will be the future of the party.
ZH: You talked already about bringing new people into the political process—folks from different backgrounds, different races, ethnicities, and sexual orientations. What lessons have you learned that you think could help the Democratic Party build a broad coalition in the future?
AJ: We have to do a lot more listening. We have to let people on the ground lead us to where victory is. In past cycles, we’ve often said we want to go into these communities, and we want these folks to become a part of our campaign. In reality, we need our campaign to become a part of these communities. If we are listening to the folks locally, then our politics will look the way that it should.
ZH: I want to ask a quick question relating to your time with Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016. Having spent time on that campaign organizing in Minnesota and now being with Biden’s campaign, what do you see as the differences between the two?
AJ: Barring some of the obvious like COVID, we are taking no voter for granted. My mantra is you meet people where they are, and COVID has forced us to do a lot more digging to find out where people are. We have put a huge amount of focus on making sure that we are talking to persuadable voters from start to finish. We have a wide map of battleground states that we are invested in. We’ve put a huge focus on making sure that we are educating [voters] in all of the ways that they can vote. We also are asking a different question. This time around, we’re asking them to take a look at the guy that’s currently in there and then look at the alternative, which is hope for the soul of our nation.
ZH: What difference does the pandemic make? What are some methods of virtual outreach that you all have been doing?
AJ: It’s a matter of recreating the same community experience that a volunteer normally would have because it’s the experience that brings volunteers back. People will come to the campaign for Joe Biden, but they will come back because of the relationships they’ve made. We’ve also provided our teams on the ground with a whole arsenal of tools so they can talk to voters, whether that is via text message or the phone, or online and on Facebook. We have tested out different things like online rallies to try and bring new folks in the door.
ZH: It sounds like you have a wide range of activities. But do you worry that at the end of the day, thanks to the pandemic, you’re not covering all the bases?
AJ: I don’t. The most important thing is having meaningful conversations. And it turns out that you can actually talk to voters without being in person. I think we are spending a lot of time naturally meeting people where they are, and some of that happens to be online.
At the same time, we have been doing in-person work where safe, and it makes sense. For example, we’ve opened up voter activation centers in battleground states, which are places where folks can get yard signs and campaign material. We have our volunteers knocking on doors, dropping off literature, and then calling voters right after that to let them know we left them a piece of literature. I’ll tell you that every single morning we wake up and think about all the stones that we didn’t turn and how we can turn them.
ZH: But at the same time there was, for a long time, hesitance to do anything in person from the Biden campaign. Why the shift now?
AJ: The safety and health of our staff and volunteers has always been our #1 priority. We are doing some in-person activities because we have folks in communities who want to knock on doors where it’s safe to do so, and so we are providing them with the resources they need while advising them on the health protocols.
ZH: According to a recent Atlantic article, Republicans are recruiting upwards of 50,000 volunteers in battleground states as poll watchers to help “secure” elections against voter fraud, a well-documented myth and tactic of voter suppression. What are some organizing efforts from your campaign to ensure that voters feel safe at the polls?
AJ: We are building a voter protection operation made of lawyers and folks who want to aid in keeping the vote safe. Also, some of the in-person work we are doing includes helping with line management at polling locations. We want to have folks out there who can answer questions as folks are waiting in line and make sure that they stay in line.
ZH: Earlier, you talked about the importance of educating voters. I read what’s known within the campaign as the “Malarkey Factory,” the campaign’s strategy to target and remove disinformation about Biden online. How do you view your role as an organizer in fighting against disinformation?
AJ: In organizing, we’ve been working to combat disinformation through personal networks. We have the Vote Joe app, which is an app that helps individuals talk to the folks they personally know who we’re targeting and what messages they need to receive. People struggle to find a trusted news source, but they still trust their brother, their sister, or their friend. There is no one who is a better validator or surrogate for Kamala Harris and Joe Biden than the people already in their lives.