washingtonmonthly--2020-03-16--How to Save Elections From a Pandemic

How to Save Elections From a Pandemic

South of Salt Lake City , Utah , there ’ s an idyllic hilltop neighborhood called Suncrest .
A master-planned community , hundreds of modern single-family houses stretch out across nearly 4,000 acres of canyons , trails , and Gambel oak trees .
If you look in one direction , you see the adjacent mountains that include the ski resorts Alta , Solitude , and Brighton .
In the other , you can see the wide expanse of the city .
That ’ s part of Suncrest ’ s appeal : It ’ s only 15 miles from the largest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feels like a quiet mountain town .
It also happens to be the place that best illustrates the solution to America ’ s historically low voter turnout .
The U.S. already has some of the lowest participation rates in the developed world .
The new coronavirus threatens to make that problem even worse by turning the act of voting itself into a potential health risk .
While Suncrest feels like one community—it has one Mormon church and one restaurant—it ’ s divided into two counties : Salt Lake and Utah .
In fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the middle of it .
Both sides are similar in population size ; each is 90 percent white .
In the 2016 election , however , they had dramatically different voter turnout rates .
Suncrest ’ s Salt Lake County residents showed up to vote at a rate nearly 18 percentage points higher than their Utah County counterparts , with about 81 percent of Salt Lake ’ s registered voters casting ballots compared to Utah ’ s 63 percent .
What made the difference ?
The two counties used different voting systems .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ model of people lining up at polling places to cast ballots , Salt Lake County switched to conducting its election entirely by mail .
Under that system , otherwise known as “ vote at home , ” voters receive their ballots in the mail weeks before Election Day and can either mail them back or drop them off at a secure site .
In other words , Suncrest , a demographically homogenous community , offered something no other part of the country has : a natural experiment to compare traditional voting to voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reform is deemed successful if it increases voter participation a few percentage points .
The jump in Salt Lake County ’ s turnout was on a whole other level .
And the disparity wasn ’ t limited to Suncrest .
In that same election , 21 of Utah ’ s 29 counties had switched to vote at home .
Those counties had an average turnout rate of nearly 9 percentage points higher than those that voted the old-fashioned way—and 5 percent higher than was predicted by a generally accurate turnout forecast , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was commissioned by the Washington Monthly .
The success of those counties led six of the remaining eight holdouts to try vote at home in the 2018 midterm election , including Utah County .
Sure enough , Suncrest ’ s Utah side turned out 8 percentage points higher than it did two years earlier .
Such an increase was especially unusual , given that midterms generally see lower turnout compared to presidential election years .
Now , in 2020 , Utah will run its first statewide election entirely by mail .
That has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For the past few presidential elections , national turnout has hovered around 55 percent of eligible voters ; for the past few midterm elections , it has fluctuated from the mid-30s to the 50s .
Before counties started mailing out ballots , Utah ’ s voter participation hadn ’ t been much better .
But it addressed the issue , taking a cue from other states that were experimenting with vote at home to boost turnout .
In the process , Utah has not only shown how to get more people to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to overcome the political resistance that electoral reforms inevitably run into : by allowing county election officials to opt in when they ’ re ready .
Election administrators quickly found the system much cheaper and easier to run .
Voters fell in love with the ease of mailing in their ballots .
Other states have also seen success with this opt-in approach .
Colorado first tried vote at home for primaries and local races , before using it in all elections .
Washington transitioned to vote at home on a county-by-county basis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are in the midst of the same process .
In California ’ s March 2020 primary election , Orange County used vote at home ; 47 percent of its registered voters cast ballots .
Los Angeles County didn ’ t ; its turnout rate was far lower , at 29 percent .
Part of the difference was that Los Angeles County was using new equipment that performed poorly and residents had to wait hours in line at the polls—issues that don ’ t arise when you vote at home .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called on Los Angeles County to conduct its November election by mail .
If getting more people to vote isn ’ t enough , the outbreak of the novel coronavirus has made vote at home more essential than ever .
The threat of the community-spread infection , which thus far has no vaccination or cure , could be more pronounced at polling places , where thousands of voters will stand close together in lines and put their hands on doorknobs , pens , and touch screens .
Vote at home accomplishes two things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat of the virus spreading at polling places , and it mitigates the possibility that voters will not show up to vote out of fear of getting infected .
For those who want to prevent a public health crisis from crippling a presidential election , the solution is already out there .
It just also happens to have even broader lessons beyond how to vote during a pandemic .
That ’ s why Utah is so important : It shows the most politically palatable route to reform .
Think of it like a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ customers a taste of a good product .
Then , if all goes according to plan , they want more of it .
In essence , Utah did precisely that by having its counties experiment with vote at home .
They got voters hooked , simply by letting them try it out .
For much of the 20th century , Utah ’ s voter turnout had been a point of pride , regularly exceeding the national average .
Then , in the 1980s and ’ 90s , its participation rate started to drop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for instance , it had a turnout rate of just over 65 percent .
By 2000 , when George Bush narrowly beat Al Gore , it had dropped to just below 55 percent .
But then two things happened that would ultimately set the stage for Utah to switch to voting at home .
First , Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002 , after Florida ’ s infamous hanging-chad fiasco .
The new law allocated funding for states and municipalities to upgrade their voting equipment and buy paperless , electronic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , would turn out to be costly , difficult to maintain , and plagued with security concerns .
Second , Utah passed legislation allowing anyone to receive an absentee ballot in the mail .
Lawmakers were already concerned about Utah ’ s declining voting rate ; they had been getting complaints from constituents that it was hard to leave work and go wait in line at the polls .
Truck drivers might be out of state .
Nurses couldn ’ t leave their patients .
Even a state employee who helped run the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find the time to vote ; she was busy fielding calls and coordinating logistics on Election Day .
Meanwhile , the Republican Party suspected that this was keeping many of their voters from turning out .
So , in 2004 , Utah changed the law .
Before , people who wanted an absentee ballot had to prove they would be out of state .
Only a narrow set of circumstances were deemed valid .
But from now on , anyone could sign up to get their ballot mailed to them in advance—no excuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how consequential this decision would prove to be .
While more voters started switching to absentee ballots , turnout in Utah overall remained low .
By 2009 , then-Governor Jon Huntsman convened a commission to generate ideas to increase voter participation .
The biggest reform to emerge was permitting online and same-day voter registration , said Rebecca Chavez-Houck , a former Utah state representative who was on the commission .
Although that certainly made it easier to register , it didn ’ t succeed in getting many more people to actually vote .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ eligible Utah voters cast ballots , giving the state one of the lowest rates in the nation .
On top of that , the electronic voting machines , which had only been in use for eight years , were nearing obsolescence .
The cost to buy new machines was exorbitant , and officials realized they would have to buy even more of them to reduce lines at polling places .
Plus , reports at the time revealed that digital ballots are susceptible to hacking .
But one official had a solution .
Rozan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lake County , the largest county in the state , noted that since Utah had expanded absentee voting , one-third of her county ’ s voters were already signed up to receive their ballots in the mail—meaning a huge portion weren ’ t even using the machines that were so expensive to maintain .
So , Mitchell argued , instead of spending millions of dollars to keep on doing things the same way—and getting the same lackluster results—the counties should conduct their elections entirely by mail .
Oregon , she argued , had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And indeed , as Mitchell noted , Utah was already using that system for a huge share of its voters .
“ It was like running two different elections , ” Mitchell said .
“ You were running the vote by mail and processing those ballots , but you still had to facilitate polling places and [ make ] sure that you had all those fully functional .
It really was truly administering two elections at the same time.
” As the idea percolated , county officials started nudging legislators to give them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lucky for them , they were pushing on an open door .
State Representative Steve Eliason had been thinking along the same lines .
A constituent had brought him election data from Oregon , piquing Eliason ’ s interest .
The lawmaker then toured an Oregon county ’ s election offices and came home impressed with the success of the program .
In 2012 , he introduced a bill to give Utah counties the option to run all-mail elections .
To his surprise , he faced little resistance from either party .
Generally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to election policy is hard fought , and it ’ s typically difficult to convince incumbent politicians to alter a system that has benefited them .
In this case , however , both parties thought they had something to gain .
As a result of the 2010 census , there was a new congressional district that included liberal enclaves of Salt Lake City as well as nearby rural areas .
According to party operatives on both sides , the state Republican Party thought that vote at home would boost turnout among older voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , thereby helping the GOP candidate , Mia Love .
The Democrats believed it might boost turnout among younger voters in and around Salt Lake City , helping Love ’ s challenger .
“ They both saw the value in it , ” Eliason , a Republican , told me .
“ I can only assume they both thought it would give them some sort of strategic advantage.
” In March 2012 , the Utah General Assembly passed the bill and the governor signed it into law .
But most county clerks felt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the November elections to switch to an all-mail system .
In the end , none of the counties in the new district embraced vote at home in that election , and Love lost .
Only one county opted in : Duchesne , a small and rural county in northeast Utah .
The results there , however , caused the rest of the state to take notice : Duchesne ’ s turnout among active registered voters was 6 percentage points higher than the average for all Utah counties that election .
Soon , other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more they did , the more they discovered just how much people preferred to vote from the comfort of their homes .
When Weber County , a small county in the northern part of the state , tried vote at home for a special library bond election in 2013 , its turnout of active , registered voters nearly doubled compared to its 2011 municipal election .
In fact , the turnout was even higher than it had been in the presidential election one year earlier .
Nevertheless , the Weber county clerk , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home made less sense for a national election .
So , for the 2014 midterms , the county went back to the traditional system .
“ A few weeks before Election Day , our phone lines were inundated with people saying their ballots hadn ’ t come in the mail , ” Hatch said .
“ When we told them we weren ’ t doing vote by mail this year , they got angry.
” Only 38 percent of eligible voters cast ballots .
Hatch got the message .
From then on , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the larger counties , however , there was more reluctance .
Election officials were hesitant to force tens of thousands of voters into a new system .
So Mitchell , the Salt Lake County elections director at the time , embraced the “ try before you buy ” logic , creating vote-at-home pilot programs for cities within the county .
In 2013 , two cities tried it .
In 2015 , nine did .
At the same time , more jurisdictions throughout the state were voting by mail—and getting results .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home in their 2015 municipal elections increased their voter turnout average by 39 percent .
After the success of those elections , Salt Lake County—the largest in Utah—made the decision to go all in , setting the stage for the Suncrest experiment .
As vote at home spread across the state , some people voiced concerns : How would they know their ballot had been received and counted ?
Would the system guard against fraud ?
What if someone tried to steal ballots ?
Rozan Mitchell left her job in Salt Lake County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County in February 2019 .
While there have been no substantial instances of voter fraud or ballot theft in Utah—or in any other state , for that matter , that has converted to all-mail voting—Mitchell did say there has been one small trend of misbehavior unique to Utah : parents filling out their children ’ s ballots while they are away on their Mormon missions .
“ A lot of the time , we ’ ll get the ballot back and we ’ ll look at the affidavit , ” she said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I go , ‘ Huh , that doesn ’ t look like the way a Seth Johnson would sign his name.
’ Oh , look at that , Seth Johnson is 19 years old .
Let ’ s go look and see how his mother living in the same household signs her name .
Oh , she has the same handwriting as this Seth Johnson signature.
” One of her favorite things to do , Mitchell said , is to call up the parents .
Voting for someone else is illegal , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know I can send him a ballot ?
” she ’ ll ask .
“ Did you know I can even email it to them ?
” Their reactions are priceless .
“ It ’ s kind of funny because here we have all these missionary moms and dads committing voter fraud for their child who ’ s out serving for their church , ” Mitchell told me .
“ I love to freak the parents out.
” But the calls serve a purpose other than Mitchell ’ s amusement : While scary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that their mailed-in ballots were not only being counted , but being confirmed as their own , either through signature-scanning technology or manual observation after an irregularity had been detected .
“ The more this system is used , ” Mitchell said , “ the more people ’ s fears start to dissipate.
” If you ask people who live in Suncrest , they ’ ll tell you they appreciate the new system .
“ I liked being able to just mail it in , ” Julie Humphrey , a 61-year-old retiree , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look up the candidates and figure out what they stood for , because some of the local things , you don ’ t know what their platform is—you didn ’ t even know that they were running , honestly.
” Cory Jaynes , a 40-year-old project manager , agreed .
“ It was great , ” he said .
“ [ I ] didn ’ t have to go to the polling place .
Sometimes you go in there and you want to be able to research the ballot initiatives or the candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to look them up .
When you ’ re in a voting booth , you don ’ t really have too much of an opportunity to do that.
” In 2020 , Utah will become just the fourth state in the nation to run a statewide all-mail election—after Oregon , Washington , and Colorado , all of which have seen higher turnout and savings to the taxpayers .
Pew Charitable Trusts found that , since 2014 , Colorado has saved $ 6 per voter .
( Actually , Utah will tie for fourth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its first statewide vote-at-home election in November . )
Faced with the spread of COVID-19 , it would make sense for other states to follow .
For many , it ’ s too late to mandate vote at home statewide before November ; many counties don ’ t have the specialized equipment or the trained workforce necessary to count and review vast numbers of mailed-in ballots , and won ’ t be able to build that capacity in the next eight months .
By letting localities assess their own resources and opt in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states can reduce the use of polling places and allow more citizens to vote by mail without creating unintended breakdowns in the electoral system .
At the state level , there are other steps that can be taken .
Nearly half of all states already allow voters to request an absentee ballot regardless of circumstance .
Governors and other state officials can help get out the word , encouraging people to request their ballot in the mail—or , better still , start proactively mailing absentee applications to every registered voter , as Ohio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ step in by providing funding to pay for postage and other costs .
Oregon Senator Ron Wyden recently introduced a bill that would require every state to allow all voters to receive absentee ballots if 25 percent of states declared an emergency related to the coronavirus .
It would also dedicate $ 500 million to helping state election officials meet the requirement .
Allowing everyone to request absentee ballots , regardless of circumstance , is precisely how Utah got on the path to universal vote at home .
“ It ’ s voter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CEO of the National Vote at Home Institute , an organization dedicated to expanding vote at home .
“ You give these options to voters and then they take advantage of it and then more and more people start using vote by mail and everyone starts to wonder , ‘ Why should we keep rolling out these polling places out all over ?
’ ” This strategy of allowing voters and counties to opt in has proved more effective than mandating vote at home statewide in one fell swoop .
Montana , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initiative to enact vote at home , but activists couldn ’ t garner enough signatures .
Legislators in Alaska introduced a bill that would have mandated vote at home statewide , but it didn ’ t pass .
( Since then , Anchorage conducted its first election by mail and saw the highest turnout in the city ’ s history . )
Colorado ’ s 2012 ballot initiative likewise failed to pass .
Advocates then switched to an incremental approach , and Colorado began experimenting with vote at home for primary and special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turnout and saving money , the legislature successfully mandated that the practice be expanded statewide in 2014 .
Historically , neither party has been willing to champion vote at home .
Republicans have traditionally been resistant to reforms that make voting easier , and Democrats haven ’ t been convinced that vote at home gives them an edge in turnout .
But COVID-19 has changed the stakes , and some states are moving quickly to allow more voters to cast their ballots from home .
Alabama ’ s secretary of state , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receive absentee ballots .
New York ’ s Erie County will allow all voters to use absentee ballots for its presidential primary in April while the New York state legislature is considering a similar bill .
And Connecticut ’ s secretary of state , Denise Merrill , asked the governor to issue an executive order loosening requirements on absentee voting .
There are a handful of other states taking similar actions , and likely more to come , but it ’ s not clear how long the nonpartisan tenor of the push for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why , if the aim is to expand vote at home without creating a backlash , the opt-in model is most effective.
“ You can ’ t go from zero to 60 in a single election cycle , ” said Phil Keisling , who implemented vote at home in Oregon as secretary of state in the late 1990s .
“ Every time a state has gone to a full vote-at-home system , it ’ s done so only after a number of elections in which the majority of ballots are cast this way.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which had the fifth-highest turnout in the nation in both the 2016 and 2018 elections .
Of course , the most important determinant of election policy should always be what ’ s best for the voters themselves .
And , as Utah shows , people clearly prefer voting from home—or , at least , they discover they prefer it once they ’ re given the chance to try it .
“ I didn ’ t realize how important that was to some people , that they could take that ballot they got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the kitchen table , and really study out the issues , ” Rozan Mitchell said .
“ I feel like vote-by-mail voters are much more informed than the average voter who would just show up on Election Day.
” In the U.S. , the two greatest tragedies of the coronavirus outbreak are that the federal government waited too long to act and that a vaccine against the disease is likely a year or more away .
Fortunately , neither is the case when it comes to elections .
A proven solution is at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to roll out vote at home before the November elections—if we do so carefully , as Utah did .

South of Salt Lake City, Utah, there’s an idyllic hilltop neighborhood called Suncrest. A master-planned community, hundreds of modern single-family houses stretch out across nearly 4,000 acres of canyons, trails, and Gambel oak trees. If you look in one direction, you see the adjacent mountains that include the ski resorts Alta, Solitude, and Brighton. In the other, you can see the wide expanse of the city. That’s part of Suncrest’s appeal: It’s only 15 miles from the largest city in the state, but it feels like a quiet mountain town.
It also happens to be the place that best illustrates the solution to America’s historically low voter turnout. The U.S. already has some of the lowest participation rates in the developed world. The new coronavirus threatens to make that problem even worse by turning the act of voting itself into a potential health risk.
While Suncrest feels like one community—it has one Mormon church and one restaurant—it’s divided into two counties: Salt Lake and Utah. In fact, the county line runs right down the middle of it. Both sides are similar in population size; each is 90 percent white. In the 2016 election, however, they had dramatically different voter turnout rates. Suncrest’s Salt Lake County residents showed up to vote at a rate nearly 18 percentage points higher than their Utah County counterparts, with about 81 percent of Salt Lake’s registered voters casting ballots compared to Utah’s 63 percent.
What made the difference? The two counties used different voting systems. Whereas Utah County stuck with the traditional model of people lining up at polling places to cast ballots, Salt Lake County switched to conducting its election entirely by mail. Under that system, otherwise known as “vote at home,” voters receive their ballots in the mail weeks before Election Day and can either mail them back or drop them off at a secure site. In other words, Suncrest, a demographically homogenous community, offered something no other part of the country has: a natural experiment to compare traditional voting to voting at home.
Usually, an electoral reform is deemed successful if it increases voter participation a few percentage points. The jump in Salt Lake County’s turnout was on a whole other level. And the disparity wasn’t limited to Suncrest. In that same election, 21 of Utah’s 29 counties had switched to vote at home. Those counties had an average turnout rate of nearly 9 percentage points higher than those that voted the old-fashioned way—and 5 percent higher than was predicted by a generally accurate turnout forecast, according to a study by Pantheon Analytics that was commissioned by the Washington Monthly.
Usually, an electoral reform is deemed successful if it increases voter participation by a few percentage points. In its first vote-at-home election, turnout in Salt Lake County surged by 18 percentage points.
The success of those counties led six of the remaining eight holdouts to try vote at home in the 2018 midterm election, including Utah County. Sure enough, Suncrest’s Utah side turned out 8 percentage points higher than it did two years earlier. Such an increase was especially unusual, given that midterms generally see lower turnout compared to presidential election years. Now, in 2020, Utah will run its first statewide election entirely by mail.
That has lessons for the rest of the country. For the past few presidential elections, national turnout has hovered around 55 percent of eligible voters; for the past few midterm elections, it has fluctuated from the mid-30s to the 50s. Before counties started mailing out ballots, Utah’s voter participation hadn’t been much better. But it addressed the issue, taking a cue from other states that were experimenting with vote at home to boost turnout.
In the process, Utah has not only shown how to get more people to vote. It has also demonstrated how to overcome the political resistance that electoral reforms inevitably run into: by allowing county election officials to opt in when they’re ready. Election administrators quickly found the system much cheaper and easier to run. Voters fell in love with the ease of mailing in their ballots.
Other states have also seen success with this opt-in approach. Colorado first tried vote at home for primaries and local races, before using it in all elections. Washington transitioned to vote at home on a county-by-county basis, and Arizona, California, and Montana are in the midst of the same process.
In California’s March 2020 primary election, Orange County used vote at home; 47 percent of its registered voters cast ballots. Los Angeles County didn’t; its turnout rate was far lower, at 29 percent. Part of the difference was that Los Angeles County was using new equipment that performed poorly and residents had to wait hours in line at the polls—issues that don’t arise when you vote at home. That’s why California’s secretary of state called on Los Angeles County to conduct its November election by mail.
If getting more people to vote isn’t enough, the outbreak of the novel coronavirus has made vote at home more essential than ever. The threat of the community-spread infection, which thus far has no vaccination or cure, could be more pronounced at polling places, where thousands of voters will stand close together in lines and put their hands on doorknobs, pens, and touch screens. Vote at home accomplishes two things at once: It takes away the threat of the virus spreading at polling places, and it mitigates the possibility that voters will not show up to vote out of fear of getting infected. For those who want to prevent a public health crisis from crippling a presidential election, the solution is already out there. It just also happens to have even broader lessons beyond how to vote during a pandemic.
That’s why Utah is so important: It shows the most politically palatable route to reform. Think of it like a business strategy. You start by giving customers a taste of a good product. Then, if all goes according to plan, they want more of it. In essence, Utah did precisely that by having its counties experiment with vote at home. They got voters hooked, simply by letting them try it out.
For much of the 20th century, Utah’s voter turnout had been a point of pride, regularly exceeding the national average. Then, in the 1980s and ’90s, its participation rate started to drop precipitously. In the 1980 election, for instance, it had a turnout rate of just over 65 percent. By 2000, when George Bush narrowly beat Al Gore, it had dropped to just below 55 percent.
But then two things happened that would ultimately set the stage for Utah to switch to voting at home. First, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002, after Florida’s infamous hanging-chad fiasco. The new law allocated funding for states and municipalities to upgrade their voting equipment and buy paperless, electronic voting machines. Those machines, however, would turn out to be costly, difficult to maintain, and plagued with security concerns.
Second, Utah passed legislation allowing anyone to receive an absentee ballot in the mail. Lawmakers were already concerned about Utah’s declining voting rate; they had been getting complaints from constituents that it was hard to leave work and go wait in line at the polls. Truck drivers might be out of state. Nurses couldn’t leave their patients. Even a state employee who helped run the elections reported that she couldn’t find the time to vote; she was busy fielding calls and coordinating logistics on Election Day. Meanwhile, the Republican Party suspected that this was keeping many of their voters from turning out.
So, in 2004, Utah changed the law. Before, people who wanted an absentee ballot had to prove they would be out of state. Only a narrow set of circumstances were deemed valid. But from now on, anyone could sign up to get their ballot mailed to them in advance—no excuse needed. Legislators may not have realized how consequential this decision would prove to be.
While more voters started switching to absentee ballots, turnout in Utah overall remained low. By 2009, then-Governor Jon Huntsman convened a commission to generate ideas to increase voter participation. The biggest reform to emerge was permitting online and same-day voter registration, said Rebecca Chavez-Houck, a former Utah state representative who was on the commission. Although that certainly made it easier to register, it didn’t succeed in getting many more people to actually vote. In 2012, only 57 percent of eligible Utah voters cast ballots, giving the state one of the lowest rates in the nation.
On top of that, the electronic voting machines, which had only been in use for eight years, were nearing obsolescence. The cost to buy new machines was exorbitant, and officials realized they would have to buy even more of them to reduce lines at polling places. Plus, reports at the time revealed that digital ballots are susceptible to hacking.
But one official had a solution. Rozan Mitchell, then election director of Salt Lake County, the largest county in the state, noted that since Utah had expanded absentee voting, one-third of her county’s voters were already signed up to receive their ballots in the mail—meaning a huge portion weren’t even using the machines that were so expensive to maintain. So, Mitchell argued, instead of spending millions of dollars to keep on doing things the same way—and getting the same lackluster results—the counties should conduct their elections entirely by mail.
In the face of the novel coronavirus, vote at home accomplishes two things at once: It removes the threat of the virus spreading at polling places, and it mitigates the possibility that people will not show up to vote out of fear of getting infected.
Oregon, she argued, had been doing it successfully for years. And indeed, as Mitchell noted, Utah was already using that system for a huge share of its voters. “It was like running two different elections,” Mitchell said. “You were running the vote by mail and processing those ballots, but you still had to facilitate polling places and [make] sure that you had all those fully functional. It really was truly administering two elections at the same time.”
As the idea percolated, county officials started nudging legislators to give them more freedom to try vote-at-home elections. Lucky for them, they were pushing on an open door.
State Representative Steve Eliason had been thinking along the same lines. A constituent had brought him election data from Oregon, piquing Eliason’s interest. The lawmaker then toured an Oregon county’s election offices and came home impressed with the success of the program. In 2012, he introduced a bill to give Utah counties the option to run all-mail elections. To his surprise, he faced little resistance from either party. Generally, Eliason said, any major change to election policy is hard fought, and it’s typically difficult to convince incumbent politicians to alter a system that has benefited them. In this case, however, both parties thought they had something to gain.
As a result of the 2010 census, there was a new congressional district that included liberal enclaves of Salt Lake City as well as nearby rural areas. According to party operatives on both sides, the state Republican Party thought that vote at home would boost turnout among older voters in the rural parts of the district, thereby helping the GOP candidate, Mia Love. The Democrats believed it might boost turnout among younger voters in and around Salt Lake City, helping Love’s challenger. “They both saw the value in it,” Eliason, a Republican, told me. “I can only assume they both thought it would give them some sort of strategic advantage.”
In March 2012, the Utah General Assembly passed the bill and the governor signed it into law.
But most county clerks felt there wasn’t enough time before the November elections to switch to an all-mail system. In the end, none of the counties in the new district embraced vote at home in that election, and Love lost.
Only one county opted in: Duchesne, a small and rural county in northeast Utah. The results there, however, caused the rest of the state to take notice: Duchesne’s turnout among active registered voters was 6 percentage points higher than the average for all Utah counties that election.
Generally, any major change to election policy is hard fought, and it’s typically difficult to convince incumbent politicians to alter a system that has benefited them. In Utah’s case, however, both parties thought they had something to gain.
Soon, other counties picked up the idea. The more they did, the more they discovered just how much people preferred to vote from the comfort of their homes. When Weber County, a small county in the northern part of the state, tried vote at home for a special library bond election in 2013, its turnout of active, registered voters nearly doubled compared to its 2011 municipal election. In fact, the turnout was even higher than it had been in the presidential election one year earlier. Nevertheless, the Weber county clerk, Rick Hatch, believed that vote at home made less sense for a national election. So, for the 2014 midterms, the county went back to the traditional system. “A few weeks before Election Day, our phone lines were inundated with people saying their ballots hadn’t come in the mail,” Hatch said. “When we told them we weren’t doing vote by mail this year, they got angry.” Only 38 percent of eligible voters cast ballots. Hatch got the message. From then on, Weber ran their elections by mail.
In the larger counties, however, there was more reluctance. Election officials were hesitant to force tens of thousands of voters into a new system. So Mitchell, the Salt Lake County elections director at the time, embraced the “try before you buy” logic, creating vote-at-home pilot programs for cities within the county. In 2013, two cities tried it. In 2015, nine did. At the same time, more jurisdictions throughout the state were voting by mail—and getting results. The cities and counties that used vote at home in their 2015 municipal elections increased their voter turnout average by 39 percent. After the success of those elections, Salt Lake County—the largest in Utah—made the decision to go all in, setting the stage for the Suncrest experiment.
As vote at home spread across the state, some people voiced concerns: How would they know their ballot had been received and counted? Would the system guard against fraud? What if someone tried to steal ballots?
Rozan Mitchell left her job in Salt Lake County and took the same position in Utah County in February 2019. While there have been no substantial instances of voter fraud or ballot theft in Utah—or in any other state, for that matter, that has converted to all-mail voting—Mitchell did say there has been one small trend of misbehavior unique to Utah: parents filling out their children’s ballots while they are away on their Mormon missions.
“A lot of the time, we’ll get the ballot back and we’ll look at the affidavit,” she said. “I look at it, and I go, ‘Huh, that doesn’t look like the way a Seth Johnson would sign his name.’ Oh, look at that, Seth Johnson is 19 years old. Let’s go look and see how his mother living in the same household signs her name. Oh, she has the same handwriting as this Seth Johnson signature.”
One of her favorite things to do, Mitchell said, is to call up the parents. Voting for someone else is illegal, she’ll say. “Did you know I can send him a ballot?” she’ll ask. “Did you know I can even email it to them?” Their reactions are priceless. “It’s kind of funny because here we have all these missionary moms and dads committing voter fraud for their child who’s out serving for their church,” Mitchell told me. “I love to freak the parents out.”
But the calls serve a purpose other than Mitchell’s amusement: While scary for parents, they made voters realize that their mailed-in ballots were not only being counted, but being confirmed as their own, either through signature-scanning technology or manual observation after an irregularity had been detected. “The more this system is used,” Mitchell said, “the more people’s fears start to dissipate.”
If you ask people who live in Suncrest, they’ll tell you they appreciate the new system. “I liked being able to just mail it in,” Julie Humphrey, a 61-year-old retiree, said. “I was able to look up the candidates and figure out what they stood for, because some of the local things, you don’t know what their platform is—you didn’t even know that they were running, honestly.”
Cory Jaynes, a 40-year-old project manager, agreed. “It was great,” he said. “[I] didn’t have to go to the polling place. Sometimes you go in there and you want to be able to research the ballot initiatives or the candidates. It was nice to be able to look them up. When you’re in a voting booth, you don’t really have too much of an opportunity to do that.”
In 2020, Utah will become just the fourth state in the nation to run a statewide all-mail election—after Oregon, Washington, and Colorado, all of which have seen higher turnout and savings to the taxpayers. Pew Charitable Trusts found that, since 2014, Colorado has saved $6 per voter. (Actually, Utah will tie for fourth with Hawaii, which will also run its first statewide vote-at-home election in November.)
Faced with the spread of COVID-19, it would make sense for other states to follow. For many, it’s too late to mandate vote at home statewide before November; many counties don’t have the specialized equipment or the trained workforce necessary to count and review vast numbers of mailed-in ballots, and won’t be able to build that capacity in the next eight months. By letting localities assess their own resources and opt in if they’re able to, states can reduce the use of polling places and allow more citizens to vote by mail without creating unintended breakdowns in the electoral system.
At the state level, there are other steps that can be taken. Beyond the five states that have transitioned completely to vote at home, twenty-nine states and D.C. already allow voters to request an absentee ballot regardless of circumstance. Governors and other state officials can help get out the word, encouraging people to request their ballot in the mail—or, better still, start proactively mailing absentee applications to every registered voter, as Ohio plans to do. And Congress can step in by providing funding to pay for postage and other costs. Oregon Senator Ron Wyden recently introduced a bill that would require every state to allow all voters to receive absentee ballots if 25 percent of states declared an emergency related to the coronavirus. It would also dedicate $500 million to helping state election officials meet the requirement.
Almost half of states already allow anyone to request an absentee ballot regardless of circumstance. Governors and other state officials can encourage people to request their ballot—or, better still, proactively mail absentee applications to all voters.
Allowing everyone to request absentee ballots, regardless of circumstance, is precisely how Utah got on the path to universal vote at home. “It’s voter driven,” said Amber McReynolds, CEO of the National Vote at Home Institute, an organization dedicated to expanding vote at home. “You give these options to voters and then they take advantage of it and then more and more people start using vote by mail and everyone starts to wonder, ‘Why should we keep rolling out these polling places all over?’”
This strategy of allowing voters and counties to opt in has proved more effective than mandating vote at home statewide in one fell swoop. Montana, for instance, tried to pass a ballot initiative to enact vote at home, but activists couldn’t garner enough signatures. Legislators in Alaska introduced a bill that would have mandated vote at home statewide, but it didn’t pass. (Since then, Anchorage conducted its first election by mail and saw the highest turnout in the city’s history.) Colorado’s 2002 ballot initiative likewise failed to pass. Advocates then switched to an incremental approach, and Colorado began experimenting with vote at home for primary and special elections. After seeing higher levels of turnout and saving money, the legislature successfully mandated that the practice be expanded statewide in 2014.
Historically, neither party has been willing to champion vote at home. Republicans have traditionally been resistant to reforms that make voting easier, and Democrats haven’t been convinced that vote at home gives them an edge in turnout. But COVID-19 has changed the stakes, and some states are moving quickly to allow more voters to cast their ballots from home. Alabama’s secretary of state, for instance, announced that self-quarantined voters can receive absentee ballots. New York’s Erie County will allow all voters to use absentee ballots for its presidential primary in April while the New York state legislature is considering a similar bill. And Connecticut’s secretary of state, Denise Merrill, asked the governor to issue an executive order loosening requirements on absentee voting. There are a handful of other states taking similar actions, and likely more to come, but it’s not clear how long the nonpartisan tenor of the push for reform will last.
That’s why, if the aim is to expand vote at home without creating a backlash, the opt-in model is most effective. “You can’t go from zero to 60 in a single election cycle,” said Phil Keisling, who implemented vote at home in Oregon as secretary of state in the late 1990s. “Every time a state has gone to a full vote-at-home system, it’s done so only after a number of elections in which the majority of ballots are cast this way.” The system has worked for Oregon, which had the fifth-highest turnout in the nation in both the 2016 and 2018 elections.
Of course, the most important determinant of election policy should always be what’s best for the voters themselves. And, as Utah shows, people clearly prefer voting from home—or, at least, they discover they prefer it once they’re given the chance to try it.
“I didn’t realize how important that was to some people, that they could take that ballot they got in the mail, sit down at the kitchen table, and really study out the issues,” Rozan Mitchell said. “I feel like vote-by-mail voters are much more informed than the average voter who would just show up on Election Day.”
In the U.S., the two greatest tragedies of the coronavirus outbreak are that the federal government waited too long to act and that a vaccine against the disease is likely a year or more away. Fortunately, neither is the case when it comes to elections. A proven solution is at hand. There is still plenty of time to roll out vote at home before the November elections—if we do so carefully, as Utah did.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-16--Conservatives’ Relaxed Attitude About the Pandemic Will Not Last

In recent years , I ’ ve seen a decent amount of research that suggests that conservatives are more attuned to danger than liberals .
We don ’ t have to put this in negative terms by calling them scaredy-cats or cowards .
If there were not some utility to being wired this way , it wouldn ’ t be a common psychological trait .
Any group of humans can benefit from folks who don ’ t take threats lightly even if this sometimes results in needless alarmism .
Here ’ s an example of what I ’ m talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American : According to the experts who study political leanings , liberals and conservatives do not just see things differently .
They are different—in their personalities and even their unconscious reactions to the world around them .
For example , in a study published in January , a team led by psychologist Michael Dodd and political scientist John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln found that when viewing a collage of photographs , conservatives ’ eyes unconsciously lingered 15 percent longer on repellent images , such as car wrecks and excrement—suggesting that conservatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential threats .
A 2008 study published in Science said much the same thing : …conservatives have a stronger physiological response to startling noises and graphic images .
This adds to a growing body of research that indicates a hypersensitivity to threat—a hallmark of anxiety .
But why exactly would those who scare more easily tend to support conservative views ?
One social psychologist from the University of Central Arkansas , Paul Nail , has a pretty interesting answer : “ Conservatism , apparently , helps to protect people against some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is we don ’ t live in a completely safe world .
Things can and do go wrong .
But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview , I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.
” This could explain the two parties ’ different stances on gun control .
It makes sense that those who startle more easily are also the ones that believe they need to own a gun .
Based on this , we should expect conservatives to have a stronger reaction to the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds the opposite is true .
The results , which were gathered prior to President Trump declaring a national emergency , show that 79 percent of Democrats think the worst is yet to come with this pandemic , but only 40 percent of Republicans feel that way .
Sixty-one percent of Democrats support closing down large gatherings , while only 30 percent of Republicans agree .
Only 23 percent of Republicans are willing to cancel or reschedule travel plans , and only 12 percent plan to stop eating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats are 47 and 36 percent .
The explanation isn ’ t hard to find .
Republicans believed President Trump when he said this wasn ’ t a serious crisis and that it was being hyped by the “ fake ” media and his political enemies to make him look bad and hurt his chances of being reelected .
However , the president isn ’ t saying this anymore .
It ’ s true that he ’ s still complaining about the news coverage , but he now recognizes that he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Perhaps he will be partially successful in keeping the anxiety level low with conservatives by issuing more happy-talk about how the stock market is happy and his response is great and this pandemic will quickly pass , but those statements will be severely tested by reality in the coming months .
Eventually , it ’ s likely that conservatives will revert to their normal pattern of being the most panicked portion of the population .
This will happen at rapid speed if Trump blazes the path in an effort to deflect blame @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a process he may find necessary to prevent a loss of credibility with his base .
If they start to freak out and stop responding to his reassurances , he can keep his hold on them by leading them on to greater heights of hysteria .
So , keep your eye out for this flip of the switch .
Conservatives may seem blasé now , but it ’ s unlikely to last .
Before long , they ’ ll be the ones suffering from the most anxiety and Trump will stoke their fear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort to keep his job .

In recent years, I’ve seen a decent amount of research that suggests that conservatives are more attuned to danger than liberals. We don’t have to put this in negative terms by calling them scaredy-cats or cowards. If there were not some utility to being wired this way, it wouldn’t be a common psychological trait. Any group of humans can benefit from folks who don’t take threats lightly even if this sometimes results in needless alarmism. Here’s an example of what I’m talking about from a 2012 article in Scientific American:
According to the experts who study political leanings, liberals and conservatives do not just see things differently. They are different—in their personalities and even their unconscious reactions to the world around them. For example, in a study published in January, a team led by psychologist Michael Dodd and political scientist John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln found that when viewing a collage of photographs, conservatives’ eyes unconsciously lingered 15 percent longer on repellent images, such as car wrecks and excrement—suggesting that conservatives are more attuned than liberals to assessing potential threats.
A 2008 study published in Science said much the same thing:
…conservatives have a stronger physiological response to startling noises and graphic images. This adds to a growing body of research that indicates a hypersensitivity to threat—a hallmark of . But why exactly would those who scare more easily tend to support conservative views? One social psychologist from the University of Central Arkansas, Paul Nail, has a pretty interesting answer: “Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living. The fact is we don’t live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.” This could explain the two parties’ different stances on gun control. It makes sense that those who startle more easily are also the ones that believe they need to own a gun.
Based on this, we should expect conservatives to have a stronger reaction to the coronavirus threat than liberals, but a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds the opposite is true. The results, which were gathered prior to President Trump declaring a national emergency, show that 79 percent of Democrats think the worst is yet to come with this pandemic, but only 40 percent of Republicans feel that way. Sixty-one percent of Democrats support closing down large gatherings, while only 30 percent of Republicans agree. Only 23 percent of Republicans are willing to cancel or reschedule travel plans, and only 12 percent plan to stop eating out at restaurants. The numbers for Democrats are 47 and 36 percent.
The explanation isn’t hard to find. Republicans believed President Trump when he said this wasn’t a serious crisis and that it was being hyped by the “fake” media and his political enemies to make him look bad and hurt his chances of being reelected.
However, the president isn’t saying this anymore. It’s true that he’s still complaining about the news coverage, but he now recognizes that he’s got a major problem on his hands. Perhaps he will be partially successful in keeping the anxiety level low with conservatives by issuing more happy-talk about how the stock market is happy and his response is great and this pandemic will quickly pass, but those statements will be severely tested by reality in the coming months. Eventually, it’s likely that conservatives will revert to their normal pattern of being the most panicked portion of the population.
This will happen at rapid speed if Trump blazes the path in an effort to deflect blame by finding scapegoats. It’s a process he may find necessary to prevent a loss of credibility with his base. If they start to freak out and stop responding to his reassurances, he can keep his hold on them by leading them on to greater heights of hysteria.
So, keep your eye out for this flip of the switch. Conservatives may seem blasé now, but it’s unlikely to last. Before long, they’ll be the ones suffering from the most anxiety and Trump will stoke their fear as much as he can in an effort to keep his job.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-16--Republican America is Not Prepared for the Coronavirus Crisis

It would have been unthinkable in a previous era , a belief-defying oddity out of a dystopian novel : the public response to a global health crisis epidemic has become partisanized .
The liberal half of the country is taking it more seriously ; the conservative half is not .
And the likely consequence is that thousands of people will die needlessly for purely political reasons , led astray by the pied pipers of conservative infotainment and cynical politicians more interested in managing the business cycle than saving lives .
A majority of registered voters , 53 % , say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they or someone in their family might catch the coronavirus , but that is sharply divided by party .
About seven in 10 Democrats are that worried ( 68 % ) compared with 40 % among Republicans .
Six in 10 overall ( 60 % ) say the worst is yet to come from the coronavirus outbreak .
And just 6 % think the worst is behind us .
Most say their daily lives have changed at least somewhat as a result of the virus ( 71 % total : 45 % in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a major way ) , while about eight in 10 see changes in the future .
Forty-one percent see at least major changes in their day-to-day lives in the future and another 39 % say there will be at least small changes in the future .
Democrats are also more likely to say they think there are future major changes coming to their day-to-day lives because of the virus , 56 % say so vs. 26 % among Republicans .
Sixty two percent of Republicans think the news about coronavirus is greatly exaggerated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s likely not remotely alarmist enough because news agencies are trying not to start a panic .
It ’ s hard to blame them , contextually .
Donald Trump is telling his true believers that America has the pandemic under control and spends most of his time obsessed with calming the stock market and rattling off the names of CEOs .
GOP celebrity congressman Devin Nunes is telling people to go out to restaurants and bars .
Sheriff Clarke—once strongly considered for a cabinet appointment by the president—is speculating that COVID-19 is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand that the government reopen all the schools .
The dark irony of this , of course , is that American conservatives are , statistically speaking , the most at-risk population in America .
Even if they lacked any moral compass beyond their own political survival , one might imagine that Republican politicians and conservative media figures would want to tell their voters and audiences the truth just to make sure they survive to vote in November and buy into reverse mortgage scams advertised on Fox News .
But the Pavlovian urge to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the libs and defend the economic interests of corporate America and Trump ’ s re-election are combining with the predilection for conspiracy-minded thinking on the right .
Conservatives have also bought into the notion that America really is the greatest country on earth , that nothing bad will ever happen to them , and that other countries are only suffering now because of their inferior morals , work ethic and lack of divine protection .
They can not help but deride a proactive to the coronavirus , and insist on their libertarian God-given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Robin whenever they want .
This is going to get a lot of people killed .
Just as climate change will destroy your way of life whether you believe in it or not , coronavirus will infect you and quite possibly kill you whether you believe it ’ s a Soros plot to hurt Cracker Barrel ’ s bottom line or not .
We ’ re at the point in the exponential curve of this virus where a large number of untested people are very likely carrying and shedding the virus all over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very soon .
America will likely go from putting travel bans on countries like Italy to becoming a national Wuhan-level petri dish without enough hospital beds in the space of less than a week .
When it does , Republican America is going to face a reckoning as reality clashes with doctrine .
Unfortunately , the history of cults and cult thinking does not suggest that they will see the light anytime soon .
The Fox News mindset is best understood less in terms of partisanship than cult , and history suggests that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when faced with harsh cognitive dissonance .
Not only is this situation going to get a lot worse before it gets better in purely human terms of life and death , it ’ s going to get a lot worse in political and partisan terms , too .

It would have been unthinkable in a previous era, a belief-defying oddity out of a dystopian novel: the public response to a global health crisis epidemic has become partisanized. The liberal half of the country is taking it more seriously; the conservative half is not. And the likely consequence is that thousands of people will die needlessly for purely political reasons, led astray by the pied pipers of conservative infotainment and cynical politicians more interested in managing the business cycle than saving lives.
The numbers are staggering:
A majority of registered voters, 53%, say they are very or somewhat worried that they or someone in their family might catch the coronavirus, but that is sharply divided by party. About seven in 10 Democrats are that worried (68%) compared with 40% among Republicans. Six in 10 overall (60%) say the worst is yet to come from the coronavirus outbreak. And just 6% think the worst is behind us. Most say their daily lives have changed at least somewhat as a result of the virus (71% total: 45% in a small way, 26% in a major way), while about eight in 10 see changes in the future. Forty-one percent see at least major changes in their day-to-day lives in the future and another 39% say there will be at least small changes in the future. Democrats are also more likely to say they think there are future major changes coming to their day-to-day lives because of the virus, 56% say so vs. 26% among Republicans.
Sixty two percent of Republicans think the news about coronavirus is greatly exaggerated, when the reality is that it’s likely not remotely alarmist enough because news agencies are trying not to start a panic.
It’s hard to blame them, contextually. Donald Trump is telling his true believers that America has the pandemic under control and spends most of his time obsessed with calming the stock market and rattling off the names of CEOs. GOP celebrity congressman Devin Nunes is telling people to go out to restaurants and bars. Sheriff Clarke—once strongly considered for a cabinet appointment by the president—is speculating that COVID-19 is a Soros plot and telling people to demand that the government reopen all the schools.
The dark irony of this, of course, is that American conservatives are, statistically speaking, the most at-risk population in America. Even if they lacked any moral compass beyond their own political survival, one might imagine that Republican politicians and conservative media figures would want to tell their voters and audiences the truth just to make sure they survive to vote in November and buy into reverse mortgage scams advertised on Fox News. But the Pavlovian urge to win the short-term news cycle, own the libs and defend the economic interests of corporate America and Trump’s re-election are combining with the predilection for conspiracy-minded thinking on the right. Conservatives have also bought into the notion that America really is the greatest country on earth, that nothing bad will ever happen to them, and that other countries are only suffering now because of their inferior morals, work ethic and lack of divine protection. They cannot help but deride a proactive response to the coronavirus, and insist on their libertarian God-given right to eat at a crowded Red Robin whenever they want.
This is going to get a lot of people killed. Just as climate change will destroy your way of life whether you believe in it or not, coronavirus will infect you and quite possibly kill you whether you believe it’s a Soros plot to hurt Cracker Barrel’s bottom line or not.
We’re at the point in the exponential curve of this virus where a large number of untested people are very likely carrying and shedding the virus all over the country asymptomatically. That will change very soon. America will likely go from putting travel bans on countries like Italy to becoming a national Wuhan-level petri dish without enough hospital beds in the space of less than a week.
When it does, Republican America is going to face a reckoning as reality clashes with doctrine. Unfortunately, the history of cults and cult thinking does not suggest that they will see the light anytime soon. The Fox News mindset is best understood less in terms of partisanship than cult, and history suggests that cult members double down on their beliefs when faced with harsh cognitive dissonance.
Not only is this situation going to get a lot worse before it gets better in purely human terms. It’s going to get a lot worse in political and partisan terms, too.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-17--The Nativist Response to COVID-19

The Nativist Response to COVID-19

Donald Trump ’ s first response to coronavirus was denial , which is why he initially downplayed the threat and said it would soon pass .
But as the exponential growth pattern of a pandemic begins to unfold , denial is no longer an option .
When the fear begins to take hold among his base of supporters , he ’ ll have to switch gears , something that both he and his enablers are laying the groundwork to do .
During his oval office address last week , the president referred to COVID-19 as a “ foreign virus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nationality .
By Monday evening , he was tweeting about the “ Chinese virus.
” There is a concerted effort on the right to call it the “ Wuhan virus ” in order to label the country of China as the originator .
That is why we hear this kind of thing from the founder of the Federalist .
I ’ ve already noted that Senator Tom Cotton is blaming China for the virus , while promising revenge .
That is how he hopes to make a play for being the Republican presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three days ago , Jerry Falwell , Jr.—an infamous court evangelical—said that people are overreacting , but then he switched gears and threw out a truly bizarre conspiracy theory .
With zero evidence , Falwell suggested that the North Koreans had teamed up with the Chinese to send out the coronavirus as their “ Christmas present to America.
” That is how far this lunacy has traveled .
Jonathan Chait noticed this trend and struggled to understand it .
I pay close attention to conservative thought , and try to understand the ideological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Explaining the China obsession in philosophical terms , though , seems to give its adherents too much credit .
It ’ s as if they are unable to grasp the concept of a positive-sum global problem , and lacking the proper capacity to analyze this category of problem , are using the parts of their brains that process external threats .
Their lizard brains have transformed a crisis in which every country has a joint interest in mitigation into an act of war demanding retaliation .
The reason conservatives are turning this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s what ideologues do .
They are unable to grasp the reality of interdependence and , instead , focus on identifying a villain .
That provides them with someone to blame and a call for retaliation .
Finding a villain to blame also feeds into Trump ’ s isolationist tendencies .
We ’ ve already seen how his moves to pull back from the systems Obama put in place for early detection and prevention of pandemics was incredibly short-sighted .
Instead , he thinks that a virus can be shut down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wall .
Victor Davis Hanson recently made the case for isolationism as the appropriate response .
What Trump and his enablers need in order to gin up that kind of isolationism in response to coronavirus is a villain to blame , mixed with heavy doses of nativism and xenophobia .
That is the pot that is being stirred right now and will likely explode as the number of cases grows in the United States .
People who have already become tribal in their fear of a changing world will be easy prey .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we face from anti-globalist populism .
It is a blending of nationalism and xenophobia that , in the past , has led to world wars .
That is why I decided to pin this to the top of my Twitter account a couple of weeks ago .
The antidote to what is surely coming over the next few weeks is to remind everyone that diseases have no nationality and don ’ t discriminate .
No matter how scared we are , “ any world order that elevates one nation or group of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it or not , we have a responsibility to one another as human beings , meaning that “ our problems must be dealt with through partnership.
” We will only conquer challenges like the coronavirus by expanding our moral imagination , which is what it means to share this world in the 21st century .

Donald Trump’s first response to coronavirus was denial, which is why he initially downplayed the threat and said it would soon pass. But as the exponential growth pattern of a pandemic begins to unfold, denial is no longer an option. When the fear begins to take hold among his base of supporters, he’ll have to switch gears, something that both he and his enablers are laying the groundwork to do.
During his oval office address last week, the president referred to COVID-19 as a “foreign virus,” suggesting that diseases actually have a nationality. By Monday evening, he was tweeting about the “Chinese virus.” There is a concerted effort on the right to call it the “Wuhan virus” in order to label the country of China as the originator. That is why we hear this kind of thing from the founder of the Federalist.
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1238146776206643202
I’ve already noted that Senator Tom Cotton is blaming China for the virus, while promising revenge. That is how he hopes to make a play for being the Republican presidential nominee in 2024.
As recently as three days ago, Jerry Falwell, Jr.—an infamous court evangelical—said that people are overreacting, but then he switched gears and threw out a truly bizarre conspiracy theory.
With zero evidence, Falwell suggested that the North Koreans had teamed up with the Chinese to send out the coronavirus as their “Christmas present to America.” That is how far this lunacy has traveled.
Jonathan Chait noticed this trend and struggled to understand it.
I pay close attention to conservative thought, and try to understand the ideological roots of various strands of right-wing argument. Explaining the China obsession in philosophical terms, though, seems to give its adherents too much credit. It’s as if they are unable to grasp the concept of a positive-sum global problem, and lacking the proper capacity to analyze this category of problem, are using the parts of their brains that process external threats. Their lizard brains have transformed a crisis in which every country has a joint interest in mitigation into an act of war demanding retaliation.
The reason conservatives are turning this pandemic into an external threat is because that’s what ideologues do. They are unable to grasp the reality of interdependence and, instead, focus on identifying a villain. That provides them with someone to blame and a call for retaliation.
Finding a villain to blame also feeds into Trump’s isolationist tendencies. We’ve already seen how his moves to pull back from the systems Obama put in place for early detection and prevention of pandemics was incredibly short-sighted. Instead, he thinks that a virus can be shut down by closing our borders and building a wall.
Victor Davis Hanson recently made the case for isolationism as the appropriate response.
COVID-19 itself has raised fundamental questions about the merits of globalization in general, and in particular the wisdom of any sovereign nation outsourcing key industries like high-tech, pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, and food processing to an autocratic, non-transparent—and dangerous—nation like China.
What Trump and his enablers need in order to gin up that kind of isolationism in response to coronavirus is a villain to blame, mixed with heavy doses of nativism and xenophobia. That is the pot that is being stirred right now and will likely explode as the number of cases grows in the United States. People who have already become tribal in their fear of a changing world will be easy prey.
This is the heart of the challenge we face from anti-globalist populism. It is a blending of nationalism and xenophobia that, in the past, has led to world wars. That is why I decided to pin this to the top of my Twitter account a couple of weeks ago.
The antidote to what is surely coming over the next few weeks is to remind everyone that diseases have no nationality and don’t discriminate. No matter how scared we are, “any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail.” Like it or not, we have a responsibility to one another as human beings, meaning that “our problems must be dealt with through partnership.” We will only conquer challenges like the coronavirus by expanding our moral imagination, which is what it means to share this world in the 21st century.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-17--You Can’t Take the Politics Out of This Pandemic

I think Greg Sargent does a good job of characterizing what we ’ ve witnessed from President Trump and his media sycophants so far with respect to the coronavirus outbreak : The Post reports that Trump propagandists like Sean Hannity have stampeded in herd-like fashion from initially attacking the media for supposedly hyping coronavirus to claiming its dire nature actually displays Trump ’ s heroism .
Such attacks on the media have been central to the broader project of protecting Trump ’ s reelection chances at all costs .
First Trump and his propagandists accused the media of exaggerating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ downplay it himself , all to avoid rattling the markets , to buoy his reelection hopes .
Then , when it became obvious the crisis was very serious indeed , Trump attacked the media to discredit its aggressive reporting on his failure to respond to it competently and with urgency .
And now , Trump ’ s propagandists are supplanting that reporting with their own narrative — one in which the very same crisis they previously downplayed now showcases Trump ’ s decisive and “ bold ” leadership .
We ’ re facing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a presidential election year .
We shouldn ’ t expect the Republicans and Democrats to put politics completely aside .
This is only a problem if it begins to affect public heath .
That ’ s been the case from the beginning with the White House , and that ’ s why their allies need to go into overdrive now to compensate for Trump ’ s catastrophic errors in judgment .
Maybe they ’ ll convince some people that Trump deserves a 10 out of 10 grade , as he claimed in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that people won ’ t listen and follow instructions when they ’ re provided solid and necessary advice .
Trump destroyed his own credibility , but he and his allies have also done great and mostly unwarranted damage to the credibility of scientific experts and credible media outlets .
At this point , a new NPR , PBS News Hour , and Marist poll shows that 47 percent of the public doesn ’ t trust what they hear about the viral outbreak from the media .
That ’ s still considerably better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in what Trump says , but it ’ s not good enough to assure wide cooperation with authorities .
Part of the problem is that many conservatives tune out when they hear criticism of the president .
They think the media has it out for him and they ’ re using this crisis to damage his reelection prospects .
Some of this would happen with any president in any presidential election year , but it ’ s magnified in this case because Trump has been deflecting legitimate criticism by talking about a biased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the entirety of his term in office .
Likewise , the administration ’ s efforts to protect the fossil fuel industry have led them to discount scientific opinion , and that carries over now to conservatives who have been primed to doubt expert advice .
The crash in the stock market is hard to ignore , however , and soon hospitals will fill to overflowing and unemployment will rise .
These events will challenge any effort to cast Trump as some hero who had handled this crisis in a competent fashion .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which these points are conceded on the right .
They have too much at stake in the presidential election to join the critics of Trump prior to him leaving office .
At the same time , the Democrats will never give Trump a pass in the interest of national unity in a time of crisis .
They , too , have too much at stake .
As a result , we ’ re stuck with a situation where critically important information has trouble getting through because it is being filtered through a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what has already occurred are distorted though efforts to defend or even celebrate Trump ’ s performance .
In some cases , the criticism will even go too far because there ’ s an advantage to the left in being uncharitable .
The truth is that we need a new president , and unfortunately , we also need the president we have to do a better job while we ’ re in the process of replacing him .
This is not ideal , and it creates an additional challenge for responsible leaders who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good information to people and have it be heeded by folks who just don ’ t trust anyone to give them advice that isn ’ t tinged with a political motive .

I think Greg Sargent does a good job of characterizing what we’ve witnessed from President Trump and his media sycophants so far with respect to the coronavirus outbreak:
The Post reports that Trump propagandists like Sean Hannity have stampeded in herd-like fashion from initially attacking the media for supposedly hyping coronavirus to claiming its dire nature actually displays Trump’s heroism. Such attacks on the media have been central to the broader project of protecting Trump’s reelection chances at all costs. First Trump and his propagandists accused the media of exaggerating the threat to protect his initial instinct to downplay it himself, all to avoid rattling the markets, to buoy his reelection hopes. Then, when it became obvious the crisis was very serious indeed, Trump attacked the media to discredit its aggressive reporting on his failure to respond to it competently and with urgency. And now, Trump’s propagandists are supplanting that reporting with their own narrative — one in which the very same crisis they previously downplayed now showcases Trump’s decisive and “bold” leadership.
We’re facing a pandemic but it’s still a presidential election year. We shouldn’t expect the Republicans and Democrats to put politics completely aside. This is only a problem if it begins to affect public heath. That’s been the case from the beginning with the White House, and that’s why their allies need to go into overdrive now to compensate for Trump’s catastrophic errors in judgment. Maybe they’ll convince some people that Trump deserves a 10 out of 10 grade, as he claimed in a recent press conference.
The bigger concern is that people won’t listen and follow instructions when they’re provided solid and necessary advice. Trump destroyed his own credibility, but he and his allies have also done great and mostly unwarranted damage to the credibility of scientific experts and credible media outlets. At this point, a new NPR, PBS News Hour, and Marist poll shows that 47 percent of the public doesn’t trust what they hear about the viral outbreak from the media. That’s still considerably better than the 37 percent who express confidence in what Trump says, but it’s not good enough to assure wide cooperation with authorities.
Part of the problem is that many conservatives tune out when they hear criticism of the president. They think the media has it out for him and they’re using this crisis to damage his reelection prospects. Some of this would happen with any president in any presidential election year, but it’s magnified in this case because Trump has been deflecting legitimate criticism by talking about a biased media and “Fake News” for the entirety of his term in office. Likewise, the administration’s efforts to protect the fossil fuel industry have led them to discount scientific opinion, and that carries over now to conservatives who have been primed to doubt expert advice.
The crash in the stock market is hard to ignore, however, and soon hospitals will fill to overflowing and unemployment will rise. These events will challenge any effort to cast Trump as some hero who had handled this crisis in a competent fashion.
There will never come a point in 2020 in which these points are conceded on the right. They have too much at stake in the presidential election to join the critics of Trump prior to him leaving office. At the same time, the Democrats will never give Trump a pass in the interest of national unity in a time of crisis. They, too, have too much at stake.
As a result, we’re stuck with a situation where critically important information has trouble getting through because it is being filtered through a political lens. Even basic facts about what has already occurred are distorted though efforts to defend or even celebrate Trump’s performance. In some cases, the criticism will even go too far because there’s an advantage to the left in being uncharitable.
The truth is that we need a new president, and unfortunately, we also need the president we have to do a better job while we’re in the process of replacing him. This is not ideal, and it creates an additional challenge for responsible leaders who need to find a way to get good information to people and have it be heeded by folks who just don’t trust anyone to give them advice that isn’t tinged with a political motive.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-17--Mitch McConnell Is Running Scared

Mitch McConnell Is Running Scared

For a couple of years now , Mitch McConnell has been acting like a majority leader who knows that his Republican Party is in decline .
Other than passing tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy and large corporations , he hasn ’ t been interested in doing anything except confirming Trump ’ s judicial nominees .
As I noted previously , that is because he is aware that his party will soon be out of power , but the extremist judges he ’ s confirming will be able to “ legislate from the bench.
” Lately , McConnell has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibly his own position—might be in jeopardy this year .
The first signal has to do with his ongoing attempts to stack the courts with extremist judges .
Not content to have confirmed two Supreme Court justices and 191 other federal judges , McConnell has been trying to force additional openings .
Running out of federal court vacancies to fill , Senate Republicans have been quietly making overtures to sitting Republican-nominated judges who are eligible to retire to urge them to step aside so they can be replaced while the party still holds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senator Mitch McConnell , Republican of Kentucky , who has used his position as majority leader to build a judicial confirmation juggernaut for President Trump over the past three years , has been personally reaching out to judges to sound them out on their plans and assure them that they would have a worthy successor if they gave up their seats soon , according to multiple people with knowledge of his actions… Republicans are reminding the judges that it could be another eight years — 2029 — before they could leave under a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ typically despicable move by the senate majority leader , it indicates that he knows that he ’ s running out of time .
But McConnell has also demonstrated that he fears the prospect of facing an opponent like Amy McGrath in his bid for re-election .
Instead of having the Senate vote on the package passed by the House to support American families during the coronavirus crisis , McConnell went home to Kentucky for a long weekend .
Perhaps he got an idea of what ’ s up with his constituency because this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Herald-Leader on Monday .
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s campaign called on a potential Democratic opponent — former Marine Corps pilot Amy McGrath — to stop running political advertisements during the COVID-19 pandemic .
“ Amy McGrath ’ s decision to blanket the airwaves with deceitful ads during the coronavirus outbreak is tasteless and shameful , ” said McConnell campaign manager Kevin Golden .
“ As Kentuckians adjust their daily lives and schedules to help stem the outbreak , the last thing they need to see on TV is negative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop airing all of their advertisements.
” In case you ’ re wondering what kind of “ deceitful ” ads McGrath is running , here is one of her latest .
What McConnell really wants is to stop McGrath from telling the truth , as she ’ s doing lately on Twitter .
The Senate majority leader doesn ’ t want McGrath to point out how he ’ s failed the people of Kentucky while playing power games that undermine our democracy .
Polling for a potential race between McConnell and McGrath has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first win a primary that has been postponed to June 23rd .
But the few that have been conducted so far show a tight race .
Here is what might have McConnell worried .
A record number of Kentucky residents are registered to vote as of Jan. 31 , Secretary of State Michael Adams ( R ) announced on Tuesday .
More than 3.4 million Kentuckians are now registered , marking a new high for the state… According to the Kentucky Secretary of State ’ s Office , 48 % of Kentucky voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are Republicans , and 9 % are “ listed under other affiliations.
” The Senate majority leader certainly isn ’ t about to go down without a fight , and he has a reputation for being willing to go deep into the gutter to take down an opponent .
But at this point , we ’ re seeing some signs that he ’ s running scared .

For a couple of years now, Mitch McConnell has been acting like a majority leader who knows that his Republican Party is in decline. Other than passing tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy and large corporations, he hasn’t been interested in doing anything except confirming Trump’s judicial nominees. As I noted previously, that is because he is aware that his party will soon be out of power, but the extremist judges he’s confirming will be able to “legislate from the bench.”
Lately, McConnell has sent some signals that the Republican Party—and possibly his own position—might be in jeopardy this year. The first signal has to do with his ongoing attempts to stack the courts with extremist judges. Not content to have confirmed two Supreme Court justices and 191 other federal judges, McConnell has been trying to force additional openings.
Running out of federal court vacancies to fill, Senate Republicans have been quietly making overtures to sitting Republican-nominated judges who are eligible to retire to urge them to step aside so they can be replaced while the party still holds the Senate and the White House. Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, who has used his position as majority leader to build a judicial confirmation juggernaut for President Trump over the past three years, has been personally reaching out to judges to sound them out on their plans and assure them that they would have a worthy successor if they gave up their seats soon, according to multiple people with knowledge of his actions… Republicans are reminding the judges that it could be another eight years — 2029 — before they could leave under a Republican president.
While that is a typically despicable move by the senate majority leader, it indicates that he knows that he’s running out of time.
But McConnell has also demonstrated that he fears the prospect of facing an opponent like Amy McGrath in his bid for re-election. Instead of having the Senate vote on the package passed by the House to support American families during the coronavirus crisis, McConnell went home to Kentucky for a long weekend. Perhaps he got an idea of what’s up with his constituency because this is what was reported by the Lexington Herald-Leader on Monday.
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s campaign called on a potential Democratic opponent — former Marine Corps pilot Amy McGrath — to stop running political advertisements during the COVID-19 pandemic. “Amy McGrath’s decision to blanket the airwaves with deceitful ads during the coronavirus outbreak is tasteless and shameful,” said McConnell campaign manager Kevin Golden. “As Kentuckians adjust their daily lives and schedules to help stem the outbreak, the last thing they need to see on TV is negative political advertising. The McGrath campaign must stop airing all of their advertisements.”
In case you’re wondering what kind of “deceitful” ads McGrath is running, here is one of her latest.
What McConnell really wants is to stop McGrath from telling the truth, as she’s doing lately on Twitter.
The Senate majority leader doesn’t want McGrath to point out how he’s failed the people of Kentucky while playing power games that undermine our democracy.
Polling for a potential race between McConnell and McGrath has been sparse because she will have to first win a primary that has been postponed to June 23rd. But the few that have been conducted so far show a tight race. Here is what might have McConnell worried.
A record number of Kentucky residents are registered to vote as of Jan. 31, Secretary of State Michael Adams (R) announced on Tuesday. More than 3.4 million Kentuckians are now registered, marking a new high for the state… According to the Kentucky Secretary of State’s Office, 48% of Kentucky voters are registered as Democrats, 43% are Republicans, and 9% are “listed under other affiliations.”
The Senate majority leader certainly isn’t about to go down without a fight, and he has a reputation for being willing to go deep into the gutter to take down an opponent. But at this point, we’re seeing some signs that he’s running scared.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-18--The Coronavirus Is Conspiracy Theory Gold For QAnon

By now , most of us have heard about QAnon , the group of conspiracy theorists that formed soon after Donald Trump was elected .
For a refresher course , here ’ s how they were described by Travis View , the host of the QAnon Anonymous podcast , who has written about the group extensively for the Washington Post .
“ QAnon is based upon the idea that there is a worldwide cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles who rule the world , essentially , and they control everything , ” View told Salon .
“ They control politicians , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hollywood , and they cover up their existence , essentially .
And they would have continued ruling the world , were it not for the election of President Donald Trump.
” “ Now , Donald Trump in this conspiracy theory knows all about this evil cabal ’ s wrongdoing .
But one of the reasons that Donald Trump was elected was to put an end to them , basically .
And now we would be ignorant of this behind-the-scenes battle of Donald Trump and the U.S. military — that everyone backs him and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for ‘ Q.
’ And what ‘ Q ’ is — is basically a poster on 4chan , who later moved to 8chan , who reveals details about this secret behind-the-scenes battle , and also secrets about what the cabal is doing and also the mass sort of upcoming arrest events through these posts.
” “ Q ” doesn ’ t directly tell his followers what ’ s going on .
Instead , he provides hints around which they develop their conspiracy theories .
But when it comes to coronavirus , “ Q @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has left his followers scrambling .
As a result , several theories about the virus have emerged .
Because these folks have believed in a cabal that controls everything for so long , it is inevitable that they would spread things like this—even though it directly contradicts all of their other conspiracy theories .
Of course , QAnoners buy into the whole idea that coronavirus is a hoax .
After all the left ’ s hoaxes failed , they have launched the most epic Trojan horse fake news HOAX in the history of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than war of the worlds .
These crazy people are running around like chickens with their heads cut off screaming that the sky is falling and bringing the economy to its knees over nothing but a flu !
A FLU !
And Americans have actually fallen for it !
!
We should not be scared by the left .
We should not be scared by all of the left ’ s hoaxes .
We should be ON GUARD and watching our backs at all time because the vast majority of Americans are lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tells them !
Even after every single fraudulent hoax has been exposed as a LIE !
!
I hope you ’ re not one of the lost lemmings who have been brainwashed and bamboozled by the left .
If you are , turn back and reject their lies .
Turn to the book of Truth and don ’ t take your eyes off of it.￼ Ever .
Here ’ s a meme that captures a couple of their themes .
There is one theory , however , that is rising to the top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order to understand this one , it is important to know that for months now , they have been predicting that “ the storm ” is coming .
According to the QAnon crowd , “ social distancing ” is just a cover for the coming storm .
This means mass arrests and we know this is going to happen worldwide , so they needed a cover to restrict travel and get people prepared to have an interruption in supplies while a financial reset and the arrests occur .
President Trump is trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guise of a pandemic .
The stock market needs to adjust down in order to do a complete reset and move us to a gold backed currency and get rid of the Fed .
The stock market has been falsely inflated for awhile .
The CV is the perfect “ crisis ” to make a lot of it work .
Travel will likely shut down for a brief period and maybe all schools and universities will be shut down so kids are home safe with their parents when the arrests occur .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Law to suppress opportunities for looting and riots… Having the CV crisis allows POTUS to shut down our borders so Homeland Security and our military can focus on keeping peace .
Also , POTUS said everything with the CV will be over in April .
He said it because he knows it is fake and they plan to take action in March and by April , the American public will be informed of what has occurred and why .
When Tom Hanks announced that he had contracted the virus , it was proof @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underway .
The story simply gets more bizarre from there .
The fact that folks like this are among Trump ’ s most avid followers tells you all you need to know about the man who currently occupies the White House .
It will be a great day when he leaves the premises and we can go back to either ignoring or laughing at these idiots .

By now, most of us have heard about QAnon, the group of conspiracy theorists that formed soon after Donald Trump was elected. For a refresher course, here’s how they were described by Travis View, the host of the QAnon Anonymous podcast, who has written about the group extensively for the Washington Post.
“QAnon is based upon the idea that there is a worldwide cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles who rule the world, essentially, and they control everything,” View told Salon. “They control politicians, and they control the media. They control Hollywood, and they cover up their existence, essentially. And they would have continued ruling the world, were it not for the election of President Donald Trump.” “Now, Donald Trump in this conspiracy theory knows all about this evil cabal’s wrongdoing. But one of the reasons that Donald Trump was elected was to put an end to them, basically. And now we would be ignorant of this behind-the-scenes battle of Donald Trump and the U.S. military — that everyone backs him and the evil cabal — were it not for ‘Q.’ And what ‘Q’ is — is basically a poster on 4chan, who later moved to 8chan, who reveals details about this secret behind-the-scenes battle, and also secrets about what the cabal is doing and also the mass sort of upcoming arrest events through these posts.”
“Q” doesn’t directly tell his followers what’s going on. Instead, he provides hints around which they develop their conspiracy theories. But when it comes to coronavirus, “Q” has apparently been silent, which has left his followers scrambling. As a result, several theories about the virus have emerged.
Because these folks have believed in a cabal that controls everything for so long, it is inevitable that they would spread things like this—even though it directly contradicts all of their other conspiracy theories.
Of course, QAnoners buy into the whole idea that coronavirus is a hoax.
After all the left’s hoaxes failed, they have launched the most epic Trojan horse fake news HOAX in the history of America. It’s even worse than war of the worlds. These crazy people are running around like chickens with their heads cut off screaming that the sky is falling and bringing the economy to its knees over nothing but a flu! A FLU! And Americans have actually fallen for it!! We should not be scared by the left. We should not be scared by all of the left’s hoaxes. We should be ON GUARD and watching our backs at all time because the vast majority of Americans are lost sheep lemmings who believe everything the media tells them! Even after every single fraudulent hoax has been exposed as a LIE!! I hope you’re not one of the lost lemmings who have been brainwashed and bamboozled by the left. If you are, turn back and reject their lies. Turn to the book of Truth and don’t take your eyes off of it.￼ Ever.
Here’s a meme that captures a couple of their themes.
There is one theory, however, that is rising to the top of this heap of nonsense. In order to understand this one, it is important to know that for months now, they have been predicting that “the storm” is coming.
“‘The Storm’ is basically when tens of thousands of people, including Hillary Clinton and James Comey, and [John] Brennan, and maybe even Hollywood celebrities, and other high-level politicians and journalists even, are going to be arrested, and rounded up and possibly even sent to Guantanamo Bay…Or be subjected to basically military tribunals, where they will be tried for their heinous crimes.”
According to the QAnon crowd, “social distancing” is just a cover for the coming storm.
This means mass arrests and we know this is going to happen worldwide, so they needed a cover to restrict travel and get people prepared to have an interruption in supplies while a financial reset and the arrests occur. President Trump is trying to tell Americans to be prepared under the guise of a pandemic. The stock market needs to adjust down in order to do a complete reset and move us to a gold backed currency and get rid of the Fed. The stock market has been falsely inflated for awhile. The CV is the perfect “crisis” to make a lot of it work. Travel will likely shut down for a brief period and maybe all schools and universities will be shut down so kids are home safe with their parents when the arrests occur. We could even have a period of Marital Law to suppress opportunities for looting and riots… Having the CV crisis allows POTUS to shut down our borders so Homeland Security and our military can focus on keeping peace. Also, POTUS said everything with the CV will be over in April. He said it because he knows it is fake and they plan to take action in March and by April, the American public will be informed of what has occurred and why.
When Tom Hanks announced that he had contracted the virus, it was proof to the QAnoners that the storm was underway. The story simply gets more bizarre from there.
The fact that folks like this are among Trump’s most avid followers tells you all you need to know about the man who currently occupies the White House. It will be a great day when he leaves the premises and we can go back to either ignoring or laughing at these idiots.