npr--2020-06-17--2020 Electoral Map Ratings: Biden Has An Edge Over Trump, With 5 Months To Go

2020 Electoral Map Ratings : Biden Has An Edge Over Trump , With 5 Months To Go President Trump is in a political hole and has a lot of ground to make up over the next five months if he hopes to win another term , an NPR analysis of the Electoral College map finds .
Given his handling of the coronavirus and protests over racism and police brutality in the first six months of this year , Trump has slipped in many of the key swing states he won in 2016 , such as Michigan , which now appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden .
The percentage of people disapproving of the job Trump is doing is at near-record highs for his presidency , and the intensity of the opposition is higher than for any past president .
Our analysis puts states in one of these categories : • Likely Republican or Likely Democratic : States that appear firmly behind one candidate and are not expected to be heavily contested .
• Lean Republican or Lean Democratic : States that appear to favor one candidate but remain competitive .
• Toss up : The most competitive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good chance to win .
To win the presidency , a candidate needs 270 electoral votes , a majority of the 538 electoral votes available across the 50 states and Washington , D.C .
Most states are not very competitive .
Their demographics and partisan voting histories make them likely to go to the same party they 've broken for in recent elections , such as heavily Democratic California and heavily Republican Oklahoma .
In this presidential election , our analysis finds just 16 states are competitive , in addition to two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by individual congressional districts — that they either only lean toward one candidate or are pure toss ups .
Just eight states and one of the congressional districts are considered pure toss ups .
Viewed another way : About 45 % of the U.S. population lives in the lean and toss up states that will determine the presidential election , and less than a quarter of Americans live in the most competitive toss up states .
Biden starts with a 238 to 186 advantage over Trump , when including states that lean in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 're likely to win .
But Biden is no shoo-in .
The analysis finds he 's still 32 electoral votes short of the 270 he would need , and the Democrat needs to peel off key states Trump won in 2016 to get over the line .
Before we get to the specifics of the current ratings and scenarios for how the election could go , let 's explain how we made the assessment .
We base our analysis on three important baseline factors : • Our reporting : what our team observes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as in conversations with campaigns , strategists and activists on both sides ; • History and demography : past voting patterns in each state as well as demographic patterns and trends ; • Polling : Sure , some will say , `` ... but the polls were wrong in 2016 ! ''
It 's true that some state polls got it wrong , which is why they are not the only factor ; we take that data with a heavy grain of salt .
It 's also important to remember — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They are snapshots of where things stand now , and a lot of things can happen between now and Election Day .
Here , we 're referencing the averages tracked by RealClearPolitics .
We 'll update our analysis and electoral vote ratings regularly in the months and weeks leading up to Nov. 3 .
There are eight states that are toss ups , plus one electoral vote in Maine , for 114 electoral votes — Florida ( 29 EVs ) , Pennsylvania ( 20 ) , Ohio ( 18 ) , North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 11 ) , Wisconsin ( 10 ) , Nevada ( 6 ) , New Hampshire ( 4 ) and one electoral vote in Maine 's 2nd Congressional District .
It 's notable that Biden is in the lead in all of these places , by less than 5 points in recent polls , except North Carolina , where Trump has a slight polling advantage .
( There 's no recent data for Maine . )
Put another way : Trump needs to win 73 % of the toss ups to win reelection .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the board in these states in 2016 , winning 91 % of their electoral votes and losing two of these states , Nevada and New Hampshire .
Why are these states toss ups ?
Florida : This has been perennially one of the closest states in presidential elections .
Trump won it by just 1.2 percentage points .
In the 2018 Democratic wave year , Republicans won the governorship and the U.S. Senate race .
In 11 polls in Florida since the beginning of the year , Biden led in eight , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The president has n't led in one since March .
Plus , he has seen a softening with support from older voters in national polls .
Pennsylvania : Trump won it by 0.7 percentage points , or about 44,000 votes .
Registered Democratic voters outnumber Republicans in the state by about 814,000 , but that advantage is down from November of 2016 when it was 916,000 .
Biden has had a narrow polling advantage in the state : Out of eight polls this year , he 's led in six and was tied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but a goody back on the battleground map .
This very well may move into the Lean Trump category before all is said and done , given its demographic shift to be older and whiter over the years .
Trump won Ohio by 8 points in 2016 , but in the past year , Biden has led in four of five polls , including a two point lead in a Fox News poll released earlier this month .
The bottom line is that this is a state Trump should win , so if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's bad news for the president elsewhere .
North Carolina : This is another state where the scales should at least tip toward Trump given its history of voting Republican in every presidential election since 1980 , except 2008 .
But the demographic shift in the highly educated Research Triangle , in particular , has brought in a diverse group of new voters , shifting the electorate to the left .
Trump , though , won the state by almost 4 points , and about 120,000 more voters supported Democrat Roy Cooper for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential nominee Hillary Clinton , who lost by about 170,000 votes to Trump .
Biden may need to win over the voters who went for Cooper and more to have a chance against Trump in North Carolina .
Arizona : Arizona might be the most fascinating toss up .
Trump won it by about 3.5 percentage points in 2016 , closer than many thought it would be , since the state had not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1996 .
Ever since 2016 , Democrats have done well here .
Kyrsten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Senate — and first Democrat in 30 years — with her 2018 victory .
Democrats could see an up-ballot effect in 2020 with a strong candidate in astronaut Mark Kelly on the ballot for the Senate , holding significant leads in polls far beyond Biden 's showing .
Getting out the Latino vote is key here — a demographic group that makes up 32 % of the state , but were only 15 % of voters in 2016 .
Organizing in Arizona is n't as hard as other states , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counties — Maricopa ( including Phoenix ) and Pima ( including Tucson ) .
Wisconsin : Part of the old `` Blue Wall '' that came crumbling down on Democrats in 2016 , Wisconsin is a state that Trump won by fewer than 23,000 votes after Barack Obama won it twice .
But Trump 's approval rating is 11 points under water in the state now and has n't risen above 44 % in more than three years .
Biden has led in nine of 11 polls in Wisconsin since the beginning of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and was tied once .
But Wisconsin polling was notoriously wrong in 2016 .
Trump did n't lead in a single poll there in 2016 and Clinton was up an average of 6 points before losing .
Nevada : Clinton won Nevada by just 2 points , which starts it in the toss-up category .
But it may slightly lean toward Biden , because Democrats have proved they can organize well in the state , and Nevadans are used to voting for Democrats up and down the ballot .
Every statewide elected official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a Democrat ; both U.S. senators are , as are three of the state 's four members of Congress ; and Democrats control the state legislature .
Biden maintains a poll lead larger than Clinton held , and active Democratic voters outnumber Republicans in the state by more than 83,000 .
That is slightly narrower than January 2017 , however , and Republicans hope that 's a positive trend in their direction .
New Hampshire : This was the closest state by raw votes in the 2016 election — only about 2,700 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hampshire is another state that , at this point , might be a slight lean toward Biden .
The entire state 's congressional delegation is Democratic , though it has a Republican governor .
Biden leads in the polls by an average of almost 5 points .
Maine 's 2nd District : Trump won the one electoral vote in the mostly rural , white 2nd Congressional District of Maine by 10 percentage points .
But in 2018 , Democrat Jared Golden won this House seat by a point , and Obama won here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden for 53 electoral votes , including Colorado , Michigan , Minnesota , New Mexico and Virginia .
Three states — Texas , Georgia and Iowa , plus one electoral vote in the Omaha area of Nebraska — lean toward Trump , for 61 electoral votes .
Of the states leaning toward Biden , Clinton won all of them except Michigan .
Trump won Michigan by just over 10,000 votes , or 0.2 percentage points .
Since that victory , Democrat Gretchen Whitmer won the governorship , and Trump 's approval rating in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His net approval rating in the state has declined by 18 points since he was inaugurated .
Minnesota was also surprisingly close in 2016 , voting for Clinton by less than 2 percentage points .
The Trump campaign , which has few expansion options , is targeting it , but Biden has led there .
Now , one wonders how George Floyd 's killing at the hands of Minneapolis police will affect the vote there , especially given that majorities of Americans say Trump has made tensions worse since Floyd 's death .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ states that Democrats see as targets because of demographic changes .
They may not be ripe for this election , but Trump will have to spend resources in both places .
After all , Trump only won Georgia by five points and Texas by nine points , which was less than the margin in Iowa , a state Barack Obama won twice .
Speaking of Iowa , Trump 's trade war seems to have put Iowa back on the map .
His approval rating is upside down there , too — 46 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ February , down a net of 14 points since he was inaugurated .
Trump got about 801,000 votes in Iowa in 2016 .
But Obama won 21,000 more than that in 2012 , so the votes are potentially there for a Democrat .
Still , Trump winning here by 10 points gives him a lot of cushion .
6 Scenarios For How The 2020 Election Might Go We should start where 2016 left off .
Trump 's path begins with a 36-electoral vote cushion to start with , after winning 306 electoral votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a few states .
He could lose Wisconsin and Michigan , for example , and still win .
He could lose Pennsylvania and Michigan and still win .
He could lose Florida and still win as long as he holds everything else .
The `` faithless '' electors : Trump technically wound up winning 304-227 over Hillary Clinton , not 306-232 as indicated by the results on election night , because there were seven `` faithless electors '' who defied how their states voted .
Interestingly , just two ( in Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states Clinton won voted for someone else , including four in Washington state and one in Hawaii .
Before the 2016 election , there had n't been more than one faithless elector in any election dating back to 1948 .
Take all the states that Trump won , plus states that are within 5 points in polls and give them to Trump , and you get Trump to a ceiling of 348 electoral votes to 190 for Biden .
That includes giving him the Rust Belt , Sun Belt , Florida , New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Colorado and Nevada .
Biden 's ceiling is higher than Trump 's .
With the president 's approval rating down in lots of states he won in 2016 , it 's possible that the election is n't close in the end .
Biden 's blowout scenario gets him 374 electoral votes to Trump 's 164 .
That would be higher than Obama 's 365 electoral votes in 2008 .
To get to this outcome , take all the states that Clinton won , plus those that were either within 5 points in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and give them to Biden .
That includes the old Rust Belt `` Blue Wall '' of Wisconsin , Michigan and Pennsylvania , as well as Iowa and Ohio , which Obama won twice and where Trump 's approval rating is under water , and the Sun Belt states of North Carolina , Georgia , Florida and Arizona , where Biden is either leading or within a few points of Trump in recent polling .
One of the most logical paths for Biden based on past presidential elections is rebuilding the so-called `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a history of voting Democratic but went for Trump in 2016 , tipping the balance .
Trump won Wisconsin , Michigan and Pennsylvania by fewer than 78,000 votes , collectively .
If Biden were to win all three back , he would win the election , 278 to 260 .
Polls have been showing Ohio and possibly Iowa back in play for Democrats .
If Biden wins in those Midwestern states , though , it would likely be a sizable victory given their recent right-leaning voting patterns .
By the way , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the `` Blue Wall '' scenario .
Wisconsin is the most conservative politically of those three key states that Trump won in 2016 .
It 's conceivable that Biden wins Pennsylvania and Michigan , while Trump wins Wisconsin .
If that were to happen , Trump would eke out the narrowest of reelection victories , 270-268 .
That is unless Biden wins that one electoral vote in Maine that went to Trump last time , and then it 's 269-269 .
( What happens if there actually is a tie ?
Read on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in traditionally Republican states , like Arizona , North Carolina , Georgia and Texas .
Texas is likely another election cycle or two off from really being competitive at the presidential level , but it will very likely cost the Trump campaign some money to lock it down in this one .
Consider that Trump won Texas by less than Iowa in 2016 ( and Obama won Iowa twice ) .
Here are a couple of reasons why the Sun Belt states are important to Trump holding or key to Biden winning .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ away Wisconsin from Biden .
Trump would win 270-268 .
But Biden could trade Wisconsin 's 10 electoral votes for Arizona 's 11 and win 279-259 .
What 's more , underscoring the importance of North Carolina and Georgia , if Biden were to win Arizona , plus North Carolina or Georgia , he could lose Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still win .
Georgia is a farther shot for Democrats , but North Carolina is a very real possibility .
Scenario 5 says nothing about that crucial Sun Belt state of Florida .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and a Biden win there opens up lots of paths for him to win .
Trump could lose Florida and still win .
But that 's only if he holds onto everything he won in 2016 , including Michigan ( which is currently leaning toward Biden ) , Pennsylvania , Arizona , North Carolina , Iowa , Ohio , Georgia , and the rest .
In other words , a Biden win in Florida makes Trump 's path exceedingly narrow .
If Biden wins Florida , he would need to win just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like , say , Michigan , to cross 270 .
With a Florida-plus-Michigan map for Biden ( see below ) , Biden could still lose Pennsylvania , Arizona , North Carolina , etc.
, and win .
Even Florida plus Wisconsin or Arizona , which have fewer electoral votes than Michigan , gets Biden over the 270 electoral vote threshold .

2020 Electoral Map Ratings: Biden Has An Edge Over Trump With 5 Months To Go
Loading...
President Trump is in a political hole and has a lot of ground to make up over the next five months if he hopes to win another term, an NPR analysis of the Electoral College map finds.
Given his handling of the coronavirus and protests over racism and police brutality in the first six months of this year, Trump has slipped in many of the key swing states he won in 2016, such as Michigan, which now appears to lean toward former Vice President Joe Biden. The percentage of people disapproving of the job Trump is doing is at near-record highs for his presidency, and the intensity of the opposition is higher than for any past president.
Our analysis, including six scenarios for how the election could go, puts states in one of these categories:
Likely Republican or likely Democratic: states that appear firmly behind one candidate and are not expected to be heavily contested.
states that appear firmly behind one candidate and are not expected to be heavily contested. Lean Republican or lean Democratic : states that appear to favor one candidate but remain competitive.
states that appear to favor one candidate but remain competitive. Toss-up: the most competitive states that either Trump or Biden has a good chance to win.
(Read more about our methodology here.)
To win the presidency, a candidate needs 270 electoral votes, a majority of the 538 electoral votes available across the 50 states and Washington, D.C. Most states are not very competitive. Their demographics and partisan voting histories make them likely to go to the same party they've broken for in recent elections, such as heavily Democratic California and heavily Republican Oklahoma.
In this presidential election, our analysis finds just 16 states are competitive, in addition to two electoral votes in states that award some by individual congressional districts — that they either only lean toward one candidate or are pure toss-ups. Just eight states and one of the congressional districts are considered pure toss-ups.
Viewed another way: About 45% of the U.S. population lives in the lean and toss-up states that will determine the presidential election, and less than a quarter of Americans live in the most competitive toss-up states.
Biden starts with a 238 to 186 advantage over Trump, when including states that lean in either candidate's direction or that they're likely to win. But Biden is no shoo-in. The analysis finds he's still 32 electoral votes short of the 270 he would need, and the Democrat needs to peel off key states Trump won in 2016 to get over the line.
Methodology
Before we get to the specifics of the current ratings and scenarios for how the election could go, let's explain how we made the assessment. We base our analysis on three important baseline factors:
Our reporting: what our team observes on the ground in key states, as well as in conversations with campaigns, strategists and activists on both sides. History and demography: past voting patterns in each state as well as demographic patterns and trends. Polling: Sure, some will say, "... but the polls were wrong in 2016!" It's true that some state polls got it wrong, which is why they are not the only factor; we take that data with a heavy grain of salt. It's also important to remember — polls aren't meant to be predictive. They are snapshots of where things stand now, and a lot of things can happen between now and Election Day. Here, we're referencing the averages tracked by RealClearPolitics.
We'll update our analysis and electoral vote ratings regularly in the months and weeks leading up to Nov. 3.
Inside the ratings
Enlarge this image toggle caption AP AP
The toss-ups
There are eight states that are toss-ups, plus one electoral vote in Maine, for 114 electoral votes — Florida (29 electoral votes), Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18), North Carolina (15), Arizona (11), Wisconsin (10), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4) and one electoral vote in Maine's 2nd Congressional District.
(Maine and Nebraska apportion their electoral votes by the winner of each congressional district and statewide vote rather than awarding all of their electoral votes to the overall winner like the other 48 states and Washington, D.C.)
It's notable that Biden is in the lead in all of these places, by less than 5 points in recent polls, except North Carolina, where Trump has a slight polling advantage. (There's no recent data for Maine.)
Put another way, Trump needs to win 73% of the toss-ups to win reelection. That's not impossible. Trump ran the board in these states in 2016, winning 91% of their electoral votes and losing two of these states, Nevada and New Hampshire.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Chandan Khanna/AFP via Getty Images Chandan Khanna/AFP via Getty Images
Why are these states toss-ups?
Florida: This has been perennially one of the closest states in presidential elections. Trump won it by just 1.2 percentage points in 2016. In the 2018 Democratic wave year, Republicans won the governorship and the U.S. Senate race. In 11 polls in Florida since the beginning of the year, Biden led in eight, and Biden and Trump tied in two. The president hasn't led in one since March. Plus, he has seen a softening with support from older voters in national polls.
Pennsylvania: Trump won it by 0.7 percentage points, or about 44,000 votes. Registered Democratic voters outnumber Republicans in the state by about 814,000, but that advantage is down from November of 2016 when it was 916,000. Biden has had a narrow polling advantage in the state: Out of eight polls this year, he has led in six and was tied in one.
Ohio: An oldie but a goody back on the battleground map. This very well may move into the "lean Trump" category before all is said and done, given its demographic shift to be older and whiter over the years. Trump won Ohio by 8 points in 2016, but in the past year, Biden has led in four of five polls, including a 2-point lead in a Fox News poll released earlier this month. The bottom line is that this is a state Trump should win, so if this trend continues, frankly, it's bad news for the president elsewhere.
North Carolina: This is another state where the scales should at least tip toward Trump given its history of voting Republican in every presidential election since 1980, except 2008. But the demographic shift in the highly educated Research Triangle, in particular, has brought in a diverse group of new voters, shifting the electorate to the left. Trump, though, won the state by almost 4 points, and about 120,000 more voters supported Democrat Roy Cooper for governor in 2016 than voted for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who lost by about 170,000 votes to Trump. Biden may need to win over the voters who went for Cooper and more to have a chance against Trump in North Carolina.
Arizona: Arizona might be the most fascinating toss-up. Trump won it by about 3.5 percentage points in 2016, closer than many thought it would be, since the state had not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1996. Ever since 2016, Democrats have done well here. Kyrsten Sinema became Arizona's first woman elected to the Senate — and first Democrat in 30 years — with her 2018 victory. Democrats could see an up-ballot effect in 2020 with a strong candidate in astronaut Mark Kelly on the ballot for the Senate, holding significant leads in polls far beyond Biden's showing. Getting out the Latino vote is key here — a demographic group that makes up 32% of the state, but were only 15% of voters in 2016. Organizing in Arizona isn't as hard as other states, because three-quarters of the vote comes from two counties — Maricopa (including Phoenix) and Pima (including Tucson).
Wisconsin: Part of the old "Blue Wall" that came crumbling down on Democrats in 2016, Wisconsin is a state that Trump won by fewer than 23,000 votes after Barack Obama won it twice. But Trump's approval rating is 11 points underwater in the state now and hasn't risen above 44% in more than three years. Biden has led in nine of 11 polls in Wisconsin since the beginning of the year, trailed in just one and was tied once. But Wisconsin polling was notoriously wrong in 2016. Trump didn't lead in a single poll there in 2016 and Clinton was up an average of 6 points before losing.
Nevada: Clinton won Nevada by just 2 points, which starts it in the toss-up category. But it may slightly lean toward Biden, because Democrats have proved they can organize well in the state, and Nevadans are used to voting for Democrats up and down the ballot. Every statewide elected official, except the secretary of state, is a Democrat; both U.S. senators are, as are three of the state's four members of Congress; and Democrats control the state legislature. Biden maintains a poll lead larger than Clinton held, and active Democratic voters outnumber Republicans in the state by more than 83,000. That is slightly narrower than January 2017, however, and Republicans hope that's a positive trend in their direction.
New Hampshire: This was the closest state by raw votes in the 2016 election — only about 2,700 votes separated Clinton and Trump. New Hampshire is another state that, at this point, might be a slight lean toward Biden. The entire state's congressional delegation is Democratic, though it has a Republican governor. Biden leads in the polls by an average of almost 5 points.
Maine's 2nd District: Trump won the one electoral vote in the mostly rural, white 2nd Congressional District of Maine by 10 percentage points. But in 2018, Democrat Jared Golden won this House seat by a point, and Obama won here twice.
The "lean" states
Five states currently lean toward Biden for 53 electoral votes, including Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico and Virginia. Three states — Texas, Georgia and Iowa, plus one electoral vote in the Omaha area of Nebraska — lean toward Trump, for 61 electoral votes.
Of the states leaning toward Biden, Clinton won all of them except Michigan. Trump won Michigan by just over 10,000 votes, or 0.2 percentage points. Since that victory, Democrat Gretchen Whitmer won the governorship, and Trump's approval rating in the state has been upside down. His net approval rating in the state has declined by 18 points since he was inaugurated.
Minnesota was also surprisingly close in 2016, voting for Clinton by less than 2 percentage points. The Trump campaign, which has few expansion options, is targeting it, but Biden has led there. Now, one wonders how George Floyd's killing at the hands of Minneapolis police will affect the vote there, especially given that majorities of Americans say Trump has made tensions worse since Floyd's death.
Texas and Georgia are two historically red states that Democrats see as targets because of demographic changes. They may not be ripe for this election, but Trump will have to spend resources in both places. After all, Trump won Georgia by only 5 points and Texas by 9 points, which was less than the margin in Iowa, a state Obama won twice.
Speaking of Iowa, Trump's trade war seems to have put Iowa back on the map. His approval rating is upside down there, too — 46% approve, 51% disapprove as of February, down a net of 14 points since he was inaugurated. Trump got about 801,000 votes in Iowa in 2016. But Obama won 21,000 more than that in 2012, so the votes are potentially there for a Democrat. Still, Trump winning here by 10 points gives him a lot of cushion.
6 Scenarios For How The 2020 Election Might Go
1. Hold the 2016 line
Loading...
We should start where 2016 left off. Trump's path begins with a 36-electoral vote cushion to start with, after winning 306 electoral votes four years ago, giving him flexibility in a few states. He could lose Wisconsin and Michigan, for example, and still win. He could lose Pennsylvania and Michigan and still win. He could lose Florida and still win as long as he holds everything else.
The "faithless" electors: Trump technically wound up winning 304-227 over Hillary Clinton, not 306-232 as indicated by the results on election night, because there were seven "faithless electors" who defied how their states voted. Interestingly, just two (in Texas) went against Trump; five from states Clinton won voted for someone else, including four in Washington state and one in Hawaii. Before the 2016 election, there hadn't been more than one faithless elector in any election dating back to 1948.
2. Trump expands and blows out
Take all the states that Trump won, plus states that are within 5 points in polls and give them to Trump, and you get Trump to a ceiling of 348 electoral votes to 190 for Biden. That includes giving him the Rust Belt, Sun Belt, Florida, New Hampshire, and the western states of Colorado and Nevada.
3. Biden blowout
Biden's ceiling is higher than Trump's. With the president's approval rating down in lots of states he won in 2016, it's possible that the election isn't close in the end. Biden's blowout scenario gets him 374 electoral votes to Trump's 164. That would be higher than Obama's 365 electoral votes in 2008.
To get to this outcome, take all the states that Clinton won, plus those that were either within 5 points in 2016 or are within 5 points now, and give them to Biden. That includes the old Rust Belt "Blue Wall" of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, as well as Iowa and Ohio, which Obama won twice and where Trump's approval rating is under water, and the Sun Belt states of North Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Arizona, where Biden is either leading or within a few points of Trump in recent polling.
4. Rebuild the "Blue Wall"
Loading...
One of the most logical paths for Biden based on past presidential elections is rebuilding the so-called "Blue Wall" of upper Midwest states with a history of voting Democratic but went for Trump in 2016, tipping the balance.
Trump won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania by fewer than 78,000 votes, collectively. If Biden were to win all three back, he would win the election, 278 to 260.
Polls have been showing Ohio and possibly Iowa back in play for Democrats. If Biden wins in those Midwestern states, though, it would likely be a sizable victory given their recent right-leaning voting patterns.
A tie?
By the way, there is a realistic tie out of the "Blue Wall" scenario. Wisconsin is the most conservative politically of those three key states that Trump won in 2016. It's conceivable that Biden wins Pennsylvania and Michigan, while Trump wins Wisconsin.
If that were to happen, Trump would eke out the narrowest of reelection victories, 270-268. That is unless Biden wins that one electoral vote in Maine that went to Trump last time, and then it's 269-269. (What happens if there actually is a tie? Read on.)
5. Chasing the Sun Belt
Loading...
Democrats are threatening the GOP in traditionally Republican states, like Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia and Texas. Texas is likely another election cycle or two off from really being competitive at the presidential level, but it will very likely cost the Trump campaign some money to lock it down in this one. Consider that Trump won Texas by less than Iowa in 2016 (and Obama won Iowa twice).
Here are a couple of reasons why the Sun Belt states are important to Trump holding or key to Biden winning. Take our last scenario, but take away Wisconsin from Biden. Trump would win 270-268. But Biden could trade Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes for Arizona's 11 and win 279-259.
What's more, underscoring the importance of North Carolina and Georgia, if Biden were to win Arizona, plus North Carolina or Georgia, he could lose Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still win. Georgia is a farther shot for Democrats, but North Carolina is a very real possibility.
6. Florida plus one
Scenario 5 says nothing about that crucial Sun Belt state of Florida. Florida is key for Trump's reelection, and a Biden win there opens up lots of paths for him to win.
Trump could lose Florida and still win. But that's only if he holds onto everything he won in 2016, including Michigan (which is currently leaning toward Biden), Pennsylvania, Arizona, North Carolina, Iowa, Ohio, Georgia and the rest.
In other words, a Biden win in Florida makes Trump's path exceedingly narrow. If Biden wins Florida, he would need to win just one other state Trump won in 2016 — like, say, Michigan — to cross 270.
With a Florida-plus-Michigan map for Biden (see below), Biden could still lose Pennsylvania, Arizona, North Carolina, etc., and win. Even Florida plus Wisconsin or Arizona, which have fewer electoral votes than Michigan, gets Biden over the 270 electoral vote threshold.


npr--2020-06-17--The Rich Have Stopped Spending And That's Tanked The Economy

The Rich Have Stopped Spending And That 's Tanked The Economy The wealthiest American households are keeping a tight grip on their purse strings even as their lower income counterparts are spending a lot more freely when they emerge from weeks of lockdown .
That decline in spending by the wealthy could limit the whole country 's economic recovery .
Researchers based at Harvard have been tracking spending patterns using credit card data .
They found that people at the bottom of the income ladder are now spending nearly as much as they did before the coronavirus pandemic .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you see that spending by lower-income households went up a lot , '' said Nathan Hendren , a Harvard economist and co-founder of the Opportunity Insights research team .
However , the wealthy are not matching them .
`` For higher-income individuals , that spending is still way far off from where it was prior to COVID and it has not recovered as much , '' Hendren said .
That 's potentially crippling because consumer spending is a huge driver of economic activity .
In fact , so much of the country 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ income bracket , that the lack of spending by 25 % of the wealthiest Americans made up fully two-thirds of the total decline in spending since January .
The wealthy are n't holding back because they do n't have the money .
By and large , they have lost fewer jobs and are n't the ones who are worried about making rent .
They have a lot of discretionary income and before the pandemic , were spending a significant chunk of that going to nice restaurants , the theater , or traveling and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precisely the things that have been off limits since the coronavirus hit .
That makes this very different from an ordinary recession , when spending on higher touch services does n't dry up so quickly .
And those experiences are usually a lot more expensive than food and other essential items , which the rich and poor alike have continued to spend on , but also make up a smaller portion of upper income household budgets .
Hendren and his colleagues found that businesses that deliver in-person services in wealthy neighborhoods have seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struggling to recover , while a retail store or take-out restaurant in a poorer neighborhood might have seen some decline but they 're starting to come back now .
Retail sales bounced back in May after a steep drop in March and April , when the pandemic took hold in the U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell pointed to the spending numbers as evidence that federal efforts to prop up the economy are working .
But Powell , who was speaking before the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday , also cautioned that businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not recover any time soon .
It spells trouble for the people who work in those nice restaurants or other service-oriented businesses .
Hendren 's team found big job losses specifically among workers , many of whom do n't make a lot of money , but who worked in high-income neighborhoods .
Many of those jobs may not be coming back any time soon .
And because it 's not a lack of money that 's keeping the rich from spending , the usual tools the government might use to fight a recession @ @ @ @ @ @ @ From the perspective of people who are not living paycheck-to-paycheck , the main concern here is really fighting the virus , '' Hendren said .
`` Unless we remove the threat of getting sick or getting your family members sick , it 's hard to imagine that that spending will recover to the pre-COVID levels . ''
Since a vaccine or effective therapy for the virus could be a year or more away , both Powell and Hendren suggested people who 've lost jobs in those businesses may need additional help from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be an awful lot of unemployed people for some time , '' Powell cautioned .

The Rich Have Stopped Spending And That Has Tanked The Economy
Enlarge this image toggle caption Ben Margot/AP Ben Margot/AP
The wealthiest American households are keeping a tight grip on their purse strings even as their lower-income counterparts are spending a lot more freely when they emerge from weeks of lockdown. That decline in spending by the wealthy could limit the whole country's economic recovery.
Researchers based at Harvard have been tracking spending patterns using credit card data. They found that people at the bottom of the income ladder are now spending nearly as much as they did before the coronavirus pandemic.
"When the stimulus checks went out, you see that spending by lower-income households went up a lot," said Nathan Hendren, a Harvard economist and co-founder of the Opportunity Insights research team.
However, the wealthy are not matching them. "For higher-income individuals, that spending is still way far off from where it was prior to COVID and it has not recovered as much," Hendren said.
That's potentially crippling because consumer spending is a huge driver of economic activity. In fact, so much of the country's economy depends on shopping by the top income bracket that the wealthiest 25% of Americans account for fully two-thirds of the total decline in spending since January.
The wealthy aren't holding back because they don't have the money. By and large, they have lost fewer jobs and aren't the ones who are worried about making rent.
They have a lot of discretionary income and before the pandemic were spending a significant chunk of that going to nice restaurants, the theater, or traveling and staying in nice hotels. Those are precisely the things that have been off-limits since the coronavirus hit.
That makes this very different from an ordinary recession, when spending on higher-touch services doesn't dry up so quickly. And those experiences are usually a lot more expensive than food and other essential items, which the rich and poor alike have continued to spend on, but also make up a smaller portion of upper-income household budgets.
Hendren and his colleagues found that businesses that deliver in-person services in wealthy neighborhoods have seen the biggest drop in sales and are struggling to recover, while a retail store or takeout restaurant in a poorer neighborhood might have seen some decline but is starting to come back now.
Retail sales bounced back in May after a steep drop in March and April, when the pandemic took hold in the United States. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell pointed to the spending numbers as evidence that federal efforts to prop up the economy are working.
But Powell, who was speaking before the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday, also cautioned that businesses that rely on delivering personal services may not recover anytime soon.
It spells trouble for the people who work in those nice restaurants or other service-oriented businesses. Hendren's team found big job losses specifically among workers, many of whom don't make a lot of money but who worked in high-income neighborhoods.
Many of those jobs may not be coming back anytime soon. And because it's not a lack of money that's keeping the rich from spending, the usual tools the government might use to fight a recession are not terribly helpful here.
"From the perspective of people who are not living paycheck to paycheck, the main concern here is really fighting the virus," Hendren said. "Unless we remove the threat of getting sick or getting your family members sick, it's hard to imagine that that spending will recover to the pre-COVID levels."
Since a vaccine or effective therapy for the virus could be a year or more away, both Powell and Hendren suggested that people who have lost jobs in those businesses may need additional help from the government.
"There are going to be an awful lot of unemployed people for some time," Powell cautioned.


npr--2020-06-17--When Political Partisanship And The Military Collide

When Political Partisanship And The Military Collide Last year , Australian Defense Minister Christopher Pyne , flanked by his senior officers , was answering questions from reporters .
Then he was asked a question that centered on politics .
As Pyne began to answer , one of those officers , Gen. Angus Campbell , Australia 's chief of defense , strolled over and tapped him on the shoulder .
Pyne seemed almost startled .
`` My apologies , '' Campbell said .
`` I might ask that the military officers step aside when you 're answering these questions . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The incident was a dramatic lesson in civil military relations .
The military is supposed to be nonpartisan , selflessly serving a nation and not seen as linked to any political party .
`` General Campbell could serve as a very positive role model for our general and flag rank officers , '' says David Segal , an emeritus professor at the University of Maryland College Park and a military sociologist .
Retired Army Col. Peter Mansoor , once a top aide to Gen. David Petraeus and now a professor of military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has met Campbell before and was impressed by his action that day .
`` But taking an action like this always comes with some risk , '' Mansoor says , `` and flag officers need to have the courage to risk being relieved when they cross their civilian superiors . ''
Peter Feaver , a Duke University professor who specializes in civil military relations , says Campbell `` did it exactly right , even with panache .
This was a wonderful object lesson on respectful social distancing . ''
Such social distancing — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June when Joint Chiefs chairman , Gen. Mark Milley , walked with President Trump as he hoisted a bible in front of St. John 's Church in Lafayette Square , which had just been aggressively cleared of protestors .
Retired Marine general and defense secretary James Mattis called it a `` a bizarre photo-op for the elected commander-in-chief , with the military leadership standing alongside . ''
Former Joint Chiefs chairman , Adm. Mike Mullen , weighed in too .
`` I am deeply worried , '' he wrote , `` that as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our military will be co-opted for political purposes . ''
With criticism rising on social media , and calls for him to resign , Milley apologized in a taped address to the National Defense University graduates , the future admirals and generals .
`` As many of you saw the result of the photograph of me at Lafayette Square last week , that sparked a national debate about the role of the military in civil society , '' Milley told the graduates .
`` I should not have been there .
My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics .
As a commissioned uniformed officer , it was a mistake that I 've learned from , and I sincerely hope we all can learn from it . ''
`` I thought his apology was pretty well done , '' says Feaver , the Duke University professor , `` delivered in exactly the correct available venue : a teaching moment for other military professionals . ''
Milley 's apology also raises questions for all military professionals in the age of Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the traditional separation of military and politics that can slide into outright partisanship — with the president referring to `` my generals '' or suggesting that soldiers at one base supported him .
`` [ Trump 's ] definitely bending the norms , '' says Nancy Sherman , a Georgetown University professor who teaches military ethics .
`` There 's enormous frustration at how you dodge the bullets .
They 're really struggling with how to distance themselves with objections to policy as opposed to objections to a person . ''
So what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Walk off like Gen. Angus Campbell ?
Apologize later like Gen. Mark Milley ?
Or just anticipate when an officer should n't be standing behind the president at an event ?
Sherman says at some point `` you might have to resign , '' although most officers dismiss such a drastic move , saying you deal with matters quietly and behind the scene .
`` You need to understand what you are walking into before it happens , '' one retired senior officer tells NPR .
Some retired officials are quoted anonymously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weigh-in on such a sensitive issue with their former colleagues .
`` It is their place of duty to be there but you do not condone any political misbehavior , '' the retired officer continues .
That may be easier said than done , says Tammy Schultz , who teaches at the U.S. Marine Corps War College .
`` You have identified what I would call a Catch-22 , '' she says .
If a military officer walks away , and makes a scene , `` some would argue that this is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have a civilian military problem , '' she says .
`` If he or she does not do anything and stays , others will argue that due to the politicization , we have a civilian military problem . ''
Schultz says she plans on using the incident as a class simulation – but changing all the names .
One retired senior officer tells NPR that uniformed military leaders , in particular the Joint Chiefs , `` ca n't solve the problem you describe .
Nor should they try to `` rein in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inconsistent and potentially harmful to civil-military relations . ''
That should be left up to the Pentagon 's civilian leadership .
`` The Secretary of Defense can and should , '' said the officer .
`` He sits at the intersection of the military and politics . ''
And Congress also has a role , and `` in my experience they have a deep interest in the relationship between the military and society . ''
But the officer says , `` they do n't always exercise that interest consistently . ''
For Mansoor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump may continue to try to use the military as a prop , especially with a tough reelection fight looming .
`` The time may come between now and the November election when senior military leaders will need to visibly excuse themselves from accompanying the president on reelection photo-ops and speeches , '' Mansoor says .
`` Given Trump 's emphasis on personal loyalty , we 'll see what happens if they do . ''

When Political Partisanship And The Military Collide
Enlarge this image toggle caption Patrick Semansky/AP Patrick Semansky/AP
Last year, Australian Defense Minister Christopher Pyne, flanked by his senior officers, was answering questions from reporters. Then he was asked a question that centered on politics.
As Pyne began to answer, one of those officers, Gen. Angus Campbell, Australia's chief of defense, strolled over and tapped him on the shoulder. Pyne seemed almost startled.
"My apologies," Campbell said. "I might ask that the military officers step aside when you're answering these questions."
With that the assembled officers walked off.
Michael Smith YouTube
The incident was a dramatic lesson in civil military relations. The military is supposed to be nonpartisan, selflessly serving a nation and not seen as linked to any political party.
"General Campbell could serve as a very positive role model for our general and flag rank officers," says David Segal, an emeritus professor at the University of Maryland College Park and a military sociologist.
Retired Army Col. Peter Mansoor, once a top aide to Gen. David Petraeus and now a professor of military history at The Ohio State University, has met Campbell before and was impressed by his action that day.
"But taking an action like this always comes with some risk," Mansoor says, "and flag officers need to have the courage to risk being relieved when they cross their civilian superiors."
Peter Feaver, a Duke University professor who specializes in civil military relations, says Campbell "did it exactly right, even with panache. This was a wonderful object lesson on respectful social distancing."
Such social distancing — politically — was not evident in early June when Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Mark Milley, walked with President Trump to Lafayette Square, which had just been aggressively cleared of protesters.
The general turned away to talk with troops as the president went on to St. John's Church for a photo op.
Retired Marine general and defense secretary James Mattis later called it a "a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with the military leadership standing alongside."
Former Joint Chiefs chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, weighed in too.
"I am deeply worried," he wrote, "that as they execute their orders, the members of our military will be co-opted for political purposes."
With criticism rising on social media, and calls for him to resign, Milley apologized in a taped address to the National Defense University graduates, the future admirals and generals.
"As many of you saw the result of the photograph of me at Lafayette Square last week, that sparked a national debate about the role of the military in civil society," Milley told the graduates. "I should not have been there. My presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics. As a commissioned uniformed officer, it was a mistake that I've learned from, and I sincerely hope we all can learn from it."
YouTube
"I thought his apology was pretty well done," says Feaver, the Duke University professor, "delivered in exactly the correct available venue: a teaching moment for other military professionals."
Milley's apology also raises questions for all military professionals in the age of Trump, who at times fails to adhere to the traditional separation of military and politics that can slide into outright partisanship — with the president referring to "my generals" or suggesting that soldiers at one base supported him.
"[Trump's] definitely bending the norms," says Nancy Sherman, a Georgetown University professor who teaches military ethics. "There's enormous frustration at how you dodge the bullets. They're really struggling with how to distance themselves with objections to policy as opposed to objections to a person."
So what's a senior military officer to do? Walk off like Gen. Angus Campbell? Apologize later like Gen. Mark Milley? Or just anticipate when an officer shouldn't be standing behind the president at an event?
Enlarge this image toggle caption Emrah Gurel/AP Emrah Gurel/AP
Sherman says at some point "you might have to resign," although most officers dismiss such a drastic move, saying you deal with matters quietly and behind the scene.
"You need to understand what you are walking into before it happens," one retired senior officer tells NPR. Some retired officials are quoted anonymously because they didn't want to publicly weigh-in on such a sensitive issue with their former colleagues.
"It is their place of duty to be there but you do not condone any political misbehavior," the retired officer continues.
That may be easier said than done, says Tammy Schultz, who teaches at the U.S. Marine Corps War College.
"You have identified what I would call a Catch-22," she says.
If a military officer walks away, and makes a scene, "some would argue that this is the military not following constitutional orders and that we have a civilian military problem," she says. "If he or she does not do anything and stays, others will argue that due to the politicization, we have a civilian military problem."
Schultz says she plans on using the incident as a class simulation – but changing all the names.
One retired senior officer tells NPR that uniformed military leaders, in particular the Joint Chiefs, "can't solve the problem you describe. Nor should they try to "rein in" the president if he exhibits behaviors inconsistent and potentially harmful to civil-military relations."
That should be left up to the Pentagon's civilian leadership.
"The Secretary of Defense can and should," said the officer. "He sits at the intersection of the military and politics."
And Congress also has a role, and "in my experience they have a deep interest in the relationship between the military and society."
But the officer says, "they don't always exercise that interest consistently."
For Mansoor, the retired Army officer and professor, Trump may continue to try to use the military as a prop, especially with a tough reelection fight looming.
"The time may come between now and the November election when senior military leaders will need to visibly excuse themselves from accompanying the president on reelection photo-ops and speeches," Mansoor says. "Given Trump's emphasis on personal loyalty, we'll see what happens if they do."


npr--2020-06-17--Brazil Reports Big Surge In Coronavirus Infections

Brazil on Tuesday reported a national record of nearly 35,000 new coronavirus cases in a 24-hour period , even as the government has insisted that the outbreak is under control .
The health ministry added 34,918 new cases , but Brazilian media , in collaboration with state health departments , said the figure was probably undercounted by a few thousand .
The ministry also announced 1,282 additional COVID-19 deaths , bringing the total to more than 45,000 since the pandemic began .
In the number of confirmed cases and deaths attributed to the disease , Brazil now ranks second only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Braga Netto , a top Brazilian government official dealing with the response to the outbreak , said Tuesday : `` There is a crisis , we sympathize with bereaved families , but it is managed . ''
Netto 's statement is in line with President Jair Bolsonaro 's consistent efforts to downplay the danger posed by the disease .
The right-wing Bolsonaro , who has called the new coronavirus `` a little flu '' and campaigned against shutdowns , has been widely accused of endangering the public .
He has said that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the risk to public health .
In April , Bolsonaro fired then-Health Minister Luiz Henrique Mandetta over the official 's support of broad isolation measures recommended by the World Health Organization and international medical experts .
Most of the infections in Brazil have been concentrated in the heavily populated states of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro and in the northeast .
Despite the uptick in cases , Brazil 's towns and cities , urged on by Bolsonaro , have been gradually re-opening for business .

Brazil Reports Big Surge In Coronavirus Infections
Enlarge this image toggle caption Fotoarena/Sipa USA via AP Fotoarena/Sipa USA via AP
Brazil on Tuesday reported a national record of nearly 35,000 new coronavirus cases in a 24-hour period, even as the government has insisted that the outbreak is under control.
The health ministry added 34,918 new cases, but Brazilian media, in collaboration with state health departments, said the figure was probably undercounted by a few thousand. The ministry also announced 1,282 additional COVID-19 deaths, bringing the total to more than 45,000 since the pandemic began.
In the number of confirmed cases and deaths attributed to the disease, Brazil now ranks second only to the U.S.
Meanwhile, Walter Braga Netto, a top Brazilian government official dealing with the response to the outbreak, said Tuesday: "There is a crisis, we sympathize with bereaved families, but it is managed."
Netto's statement is in line with President Jair Bolsonaro's consistent efforts to downplay the danger posed by the disease. The right-wing Bolsonaro, who has called the new coronavirus "a little flu" and campaigned against shutdowns, has been widely accused of endangering the public.
He has said that the economic costs of remaining in lockdown outweigh the risk to public health.
In April, Bolsonaro fired then-Health Minister Luiz Henrique Mandetta over the official's support of broad isolation measures recommended by the World Health Organization and international medical experts.
Most of the infections in Brazil have been concentrated in the heavily populated states of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro and in the northeast.
Despite the uptick in cases, Brazil's towns and cities, urged on by Bolsonaro, have been gradually re-opening for business.
NPR's Philip Reeves contributed to this report.


npr--2020-06-16--PG&E Pleads Guilty On 2018 California Camp Fire: 'Our Equipment Started That Fire'

PG & E Pleads Guilty On 2018 California Camp Fire : 'Our Equipment Started That Fire' Pacific Gas & Electric pleaded guilty on Tuesday to 84 separate counts of involuntary manslaughter and one felony count of unlawfully starting a fire in a case stemming from a horrific 2018 blaze that destroyed much of the town of Paradise in Northern California .
PG & E CEO and President Bill Johnson entered the guilty pleas in Butte County Superior Court one at a time as he watched photographs of each of the victims flash on a screen .
With hands clasped , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Deems called out the names of the dead .
Each time , Johnson responded in an even voice , saying , `` Guilty your honor . ''
The call and response lasted more than 28 minutes .
`` Our equipment started that fire , '' Johnson admitted , after waiving the company 's right to appeal the case .
A scathing grand jury report released Tuesday found that the San Francisco-based utility company repeatedly ignored warnings about its aging power lines and faulty maintenance , and failed to follow state regulations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for life and property , according to court documents .
A year-long investigation spearheaded by Butte County District Attorney Michael Ramsey determined that outdated power lines sparked the November 2018 fire , known as the Camp Fire .
In all it killed 85 people and destroyed nearly 19,000 buildings .
`` I 've heard the pain and anguish of many of the victims as I 've visited Paradise .
As they 've described the loss they 've continued to endure and the wounds that can never really heal , '' Johnson read from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me can ever reduce the magnitude of that devastation or do anything to repair the damage .
But I sincerely hope that the actions we 're taking today will help bring some measure of peace . ''
Included in those measures are a fine of $ 3.5 million — the maximum amount prosecutors could get under the law — and a $ 25.5 billion settlement that will compensate victims , their families , and Butte County agencies , according to Johnson .
`` This is the first time that PG & E , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charged with homicide as result of a reckless fire , '' Ramsey noted in a press conference following the hearing .
He added he was not satisfied with the small sum of the fine for a company as large as PG & E .
`` We treat corporations as persons but we do n't send corporations to jail , ' Ramsey remarked .
The best the state could do , he said , is to fine the company as a person .
`` There 's an obvious disconnect there , '' he added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to seek $ 10,000 per death .
PG & E 's bankruptcy plan is tied to settlements connected to the Camp Fire as well as a spate of `` others that torched wide swaths of Northern California and killed dozens of others in 2017 , '' the AP reported .
A federal judge is expected to issue a final decision on PG & E 's plan by June 30 .
Johnson 's statement included an apology for all of the company 's shortcomings in recent years .
`` I apologize personally for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson , who intends to step down as CEO , said .
`` We ca n't replace all that the fire destroyed but we do hope by pleading guilty , by accepting accountability , by compensating the victims , and supporting rebuilding and making significant lasting changes to the way operate , we can honor those who are lost and help this community move forward . ''

PG&E Pleads Guilty On 2018 California Camp Fire: 'Our Equipment Started That Fire'
Enlarge this image toggle caption Noah Berger/AP Noah Berger/AP
Pacific Gas & Electric pleaded guilty on Tuesday to 84 separate counts of involuntary manslaughter and one felony count of unlawfully starting a fire in a case stemming from a horrific 2018 blaze that destroyed much of the town of Paradise in Northern California.
PG&E CEO and President Bill Johnson entered the guilty pleas in Butte County Superior Court one at a time as he watched photographs of each of the victims flash on a screen.
With hands clasped, Johnson rocked back and forth while Judge Michael Deems called out the names of the dead. Each time, Johnson responded in an even voice, saying, "Guilty your honor."
The call and response lasted more than 28 minutes.
"Our equipment started that fire," Johnson admitted, after waiving the company's right to appeal the case.
A scathing grand jury report released Tuesday found that the San Francisco-based utility company repeatedly ignored warnings about its aging power lines and faulty maintenance, and failed to follow state regulations. It showed "a callous disregard" for life and property, according to court documents.
A year-long investigation spearheaded by Butte County District Attorney Michael Ramsey determined that outdated power lines sparked the November 2018 fire, known as the Camp Fire. In all it killed 85 people and destroyed nearly 19,000 buildings.
"I've heard the pain and anguish of many of the victims as I've visited Paradise. As they've described the loss they've continued to endure and the wounds that can never really heal," Johnson read from a statement.
"No words from me can ever reduce the magnitude of that devastation or do anything to repair the damage. But I sincerely hope that the actions we're taking today will help bring some measure of peace."
Included in those measures are a fine of $3.5 million — the maximum amount prosecutors could get under the law — and a $25.5 billion settlement that will compensate victims, their families, and Butte County agencies, according to Johnson.
"This is the first time that PG&E, or any major utility, has been charged with homicide as result of a reckless fire," Ramsey noted in a press conference following the hearing.
He added he was not satisfied with the small sum of the fine for a company as large as PG&E.
"We treat corporations as persons but we don't send corporations to jail,' Ramsey remarked. The best the state could do, he said, is to fine the company as a person.
"There's an obvious disconnect there," he added, explaining the state was only allowed to seek $10,000 per death.
PG&E's bankruptcy plan is tied to settlements connected to the Camp Fire as well as a spate of "others that torched wide swaths of Northern California and killed dozens of others in 2017," the AP reported.
A federal judge is expected to issue a final decision on PG&E's plan by June 30.
Johnson's statement included an apology for all of the company's shortcomings in recent years.
"I apologize personally for the pain that was caused here," Johnson, who intends to step down as CEO, said.
"We can't replace all that the fire destroyed but we do hope by pleading guilty, by accepting accountability, by compensating the victims, and supporting rebuilding and making significant lasting changes to the way operate, we can honor those who are lost and help this community move forward."


npr--2020-06-16--Justice Department Seeks To Block Publication Of John Bolton's White House Memoir

Seven days before the scheduled June 23 release of a tell-all account of John Bolton 's tenure as President Trump 's national security adviser , the Justice Department late Tuesday mounted a last-ditch effort to block its publication .
A 27-page civil lawsuit filed by the Justice Department against Bolton with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleges that publication of his 592-page book , The Room Where It Happened , would be a violation of nondisclosure agreements he signed and compromise national security .
`` [ The National Security Council ] has determined that the manuscript @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to several paragraphs in length—that contain classified national security information , '' the filing states .
`` In fact , the NSC has determined that information in the manuscript is classified at the Confidential , Secret , and Top Secret levels . ''
`` Accordingly , '' it continues , `` the publication and release of The Room Where it Happened would cause irreparable harm , because the disclosure of instances of classified information in the manuscript reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage , or exceptionally grave damage , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
The lawsuit argues that Bolton , who lasted 16 months as Trump 's third national security adviser before being fired in September 2019 , had signed a document three days after leaving his White House post acknowledging `` that he continued to be 'prohibited from disclosing any classified or confidential information , ' and that he 'may not use or disclose nonpublic information'—defined as 'information gained by reason of [ his ] federal employment ' and that 'has not been made available to the general public . '
`` Bolton is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of breach of contract and fiduciary duty — for allegedly violating pre-publication review requirements , for violating his duty not to disseminate classified information , and for unjust enrichment from what the Justice Department says is a book deal `` allegedly worth about $ 2 million . ''
The court is asked to order Bolton to request that the book 's publisher , Simon & Schuster , further delay a publication date that originally was to have been in April so that the NSC can complete its pre-publication review .
No time frame @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be finished .
According to a director with Bolton 's Foundation for American Security and Freedom super PAC , the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations on Tuesday evening had no comment to make about the lawsuit .
In an email , his attorney , Charles Cooper , said , `` We are reviewing the Government 's complaint , and will respond in due course . ''
It appears , though , that Bolton 's book has already been printed and is being distributed .
`` In the months leading up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It Happened , Bolton worked in cooperation with the National Security Council to incorporate changes to the text that addressed NSC concerns , '' Simon & Schuster said in a June 10 press release .
`` The final , published version of this book reflects those changes , and Simon & Schuster is fully supportive of Ambassador Bolton 's First Amendment right to tell the story of his time in the Trump White House . ''
A description by the publisher of what the mustachioed , hard-driving former top aide to Trump has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with Attorney General Bill Barr at his side , said on Tuesday of Bolton `` maybe he 's not telling the truth .
He 's been known not to tell the truth a lot . ''
In that pre-publication blurb , Simon & Schuster quotes a damning indictment of Trump directly from Bolton 's book .
`` ' I am hard-pressed to identify any significant Trump decision during my tenure that was n't driven by reelection calculations , ' he writes , '' according to the publisher .
`` In fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , `` he argues that the House committed impeachment malpractice by keeping their prosecution focused narrowly on Ukraine when Trump 's Ukraine-like transgressions existed across the full range of his foreign policy—and Bolton documents exactly what those were , and attempts by him and others in the Administration to raise alarms about them . ''
The book , the imprint adds , `` shows a President addicted to chaos , who embraced our enemies and spurned our friends , and was deeply suspicious of his own government . ''
Bolton 's book sales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ block them fail , could handsomely benefit from the considerable publicity generated by his spat with Trump .
Should that happen , the lawsuit contends , the earnings would not go to Bolton .
It claims that under the nondisclosure agreements he signed , Bolton agreed to `` assign to the United States Government all rights , title , and interest , and all royalties , remunerations and emoluments that have resulted or will result or may result from any disclosure , publication or revelation not consistent with the terms '' of those @ @

Justice Department Seeks To Block Publication Of John Bolton's White House Memoir
Enlarge this image toggle caption Mark Humphrey/AP Mark Humphrey/AP
Seven days before the scheduled June 23 release of a tell-all account of John Bolton's tenure as President Trump's national security adviser, the Justice Department late Tuesday mounted a last-ditch effort to block its publication.
A 27-page civil lawsuit filed by the Justice Department against Bolton with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleges that publication of his 592-page book, The Room Where It Happened, would be a violation of nondisclosure agreements he signed and compromise national security.
"[The National Security Council] has determined that the manuscript in its present form contains certain passages — some up to several paragraphs in length — that contain classified national security information," the filing states. "In fact, the NSC has determined that information in the manuscript is classified at the Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret levels."
"Accordingly," it continues, "the publication and release of The Room Where it Happened would cause irreparable harm, because the disclosure of instances of classified information in the manuscript reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage, or exceptionally grave damage, to the national security of the United States."
The lawsuit argues that Bolton, who lasted 16 months as Trump's third national security adviser before being fired in September 2019, had signed a document three days after leaving his White House post acknowledging "that he continued to be 'prohibited from disclosing any classified or confidential information,' and that he 'may not use or disclose nonpublic information' — defined as 'information gained by reason of [his] federal employment' and that 'has not been made available to the general public.' "
Bolton is accused in the lawsuit with three counts of breach of contract and fiduciary duty — for allegedly violating prepublication review requirements, for violating his duty not to disseminate classified information, and for unjust enrichment from what the Justice Department says is a book deal "allegedly worth about $2 million."
The court is asked to order Bolton to request that the book's publisher, Simon & Schuster, further delay a publication date that originally was to have been in April so that the NSC can complete its prepublication review. No time frame is given for how soon that review might be finished.
According to a director with Bolton's Foundation for American Security and Freedom super PAC, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations on Tuesday evening had no comment to make about the lawsuit.
In an email, his attorney, Charles Cooper, said, "We are reviewing the Government's complaint, and will respond in due course."
A statement sent to NPR Monday night by the book's publisher slammed the Trump administration's civil complaint against its author.
"The lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice to block John Bolton from publishing his book, THE ROOM WHERE IT HAPPENED, is nothing more than the latest in a long running series of efforts by the Administration to quash publication of a book it deems unflattering to the President," wrote Adam Rothberg, a Simon & Schuster spokesman. "Ambassador Bolton has worked in full cooperation with the NSC in its pre-publication review to address its concerns and Simon & Schuster fully supports his First Amendment right to tell the story of his time in the White House to the American public."
It appears, though, that Bolton's book has already been printed and is being distributed.
"In the months leading up to the publication of The Room Where It Happened, Bolton worked in cooperation with the National Security Council to incorporate changes to the text that addressed NSC concerns," Simon & Schuster said in a June 10 press release. "The final, published version of this book reflects those changes, and Simon & Schuster is fully supportive of Ambassador Bolton's First Amendment right to tell the story of his time in the Trump White House."
A description by the publisher of what the mustachioed, hard-driving former top aide to Trump has written leaves little doubt why the president, with Attorney General Bill Barr at his side, said on Tuesday of Bolton "maybe he's not telling the truth. He's been known not to tell the truth a lot."
In that prepublication blurb, Simon & Schuster quotes a damning indictment of Trump directly from Bolton's book.
"'I am hard-pressed to identify any significant Trump decision during my tenure that wasn't driven by reelection calculations,' he writes," according to the publisher.
"In fact," Simon & Schuster says of Bolton, "he argues that the House committed impeachment malpractice by keeping their prosecution focused narrowly on Ukraine when Trump's Ukraine-like transgressions existed across the full range of his foreign policy — and Bolton documents exactly what those were, and attempts by him and others in the Administration to raise alarms about them."
The book, the imprint adds, "shows a President addicted to chaos, who embraced our enemies and spurned our friends, and was deeply suspicious of his own government."
Bolton's book sales, should the eleventh-hour effort to block them fail, could handsomely benefit from the considerable publicity generated by his spat with Trump.
Should that happen, the lawsuit contends, the earnings would not go to Bolton.
It claims that under the nondisclosure agreements he signed, Bolton agreed to "assign to the United States Government all rights, title, and interest, and all royalties, remunerations and emoluments that have resulted or will result or may result from any disclosure, publication or revelation not consistent with the terms" of those agreements.


npr--2020-06-16--Texas Governor Says 'No Reason Today To Be Alarmed' As Coronavirus Cases Set Record

Texas Governor Says 'No Reason Today To Be Alarmed ' As Coronavirus Cases Set Record Texas Gov .
Greg Abbott announced on Tuesday the state 's highest-ever number of new COVID-19 cases : 2,622 .
He also reported a second record high : 2,518 people hospitalized with the virus in Texas , up from 2,326 a day earlier .
Despite the concerning uptick in people sick with the virus , Abbott said that the reason for his news conference was to let Texans know about the `` abundant '' hospital capacity for treating people with COVID-19 .
He and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state 's hospital bed availability .
Disclosing the new record high number of hospitalizations related to COVID-19 , Abbott emphasized that figure is `` really a very small percentage of all the beds that are available . ''
Texas has so far been spared the high case numbers in other populous states .
While it 's the second-largest state by population , Texas currently ranks sixth in terms of cumulative case numbers .
Before releasing the number of new cases , Abbott delved into what he said accounted for the previous daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2,504 new cases .
The governor said that spike could be largely attributed to 520 positive tests of inmates in Texas prisons being reported at once as well as a data error in a rural county .
He said there are also reasons for why Tuesday 's new case count was so high : tests results coming from an assisted living facility near Plano , a county south of Austin where positive cases seemed to be reported in batches , and 104 cases in one East Texas county that appear to be primarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he also pointed to uncareful behavior as a possible driver in some of the new cases .
Abbott said there were a number of counties where a majority of those who tested positive for the coronavirus were under the age of 30 , which he attributed to people going to `` bar-type '' settings or Memorial Day celebrations and not taking health precautions .
Abbott said that measures such as wearing masks , hand sanitizing and social distancing are what make it possible to reopen the state 's economy .
Dr. John Hellerstedt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State Health Services , struck the same note .
`` The message is we are seeing some increase in the number of COVID patients in the state .
We expected this , '' he said .
`` But we are seeing it occurring at a manageable level .
I really want to stress that the continued success is up to the people of the state of Texas . ''
Despite Abbott 's emphasis on the importance of masks , he has barred Texas cities from implementing any rules that would require face coverings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April 27 that says while individuals are encouraged to wear face masks , `` no jurisdiction can impose a civil or criminal penalty for failure to wear a face covering . ''
On Tuesday , the mayors of nine Texas cities — including Houston , Dallas , San Antonio , Austin , Fort Worth and El Paso — sent a letter to the governor asking for the authority to set the rules and regulations on the use of face coverings .
`` A one-size-fits-all approach is not the best option .
We should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about health policy .
And if mayors are given the opportunity to require face coverings , we believe our cities will be ready to help reduce the spread of this disease , '' they wrote .
`` If you do not have plans to mandate face coverings statewide , we ask that you restore the ability for local authorities to enforce the wearing of face coverings in public venues where physical distancing can not be practiced . ''
Abbott said Tuesday that judges and local officials have other tools available for enforcement such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't follow state protocols .
Austin Mayor Steve Adler extended a stay-at-home warning on Monday amid the news of rising cases – but that warning could only be advice to residents and not an order due to the state 's preemption .
`` People are confused , '' Adler told NPR 's Steve Inskeep on Tuesday .
`` They just do n't know at this point if it 's really important to wear face coverings or not , because I think they 're feeling like they 're getting mixed messaging — not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So we 're just not getting the vigilance that we need on these efforts . ''
In Austin , Adler said , you 'll see most everyone wearing a mask in grocery stores but not in restaurants or music clubs : `` When we started opening up the economy and when the governor took away from cities the ability to make it mandatory , more and more people stopped wearing them . ''
Adler said he agreed with Abbott that face coverings are key to reopening parts of the economy , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` I know it 's inconvenient .
I know it 's hot .
I know it 's a nuisance , '' Adler said .
`` And it 's hard to do , and people do n't like it .
But at the same time , our community has to decide just how much we value the lives of folks in our community that are over 65 and older .
We have to decide how much we value the lives of the communities of color that are suffering disproportionately because of this virus .
@

Texas Governor Says 'No Reason Today To Be Alarmed' As Coronavirus Cases Set Record
Enlarge this image toggle caption Eric Gay/AP Eric Gay/AP
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced on Tuesday the state's highest-ever number of new COVID-19 cases: 2,622.
He also reported a second record high: 2,518 people hospitalized with the virus in Texas, up from 2,326 a day earlier.
Despite the concerning uptick in people sick with the virus, Abbott said that the reason for his news conference was to let Texans know about the "abundant" hospital capacity for treating people with COVID-19. He and other officials spent much of the briefing touting the state's hospital bed availability.
Disclosing the new record high number of hospitalizations related to COVID-19, Abbott emphasized that figure is "really a very small percentage of all the beds that are available."
Texas has so far been spared the high case numbers in other populous states. While it's the second-largest state by population, Texas currently ranks sixth in terms of cumulative case numbers.
Before releasing the number of new cases, Abbott delved into what he said accounted for the previous daily high on June 10, which had 2,504 new cases. The governor said that spike could be largely attributed to 520 positive tests of inmates in Texas prisons being reported at once as well as a data error in a rural county.
He said there are also reasons for why Tuesday's new case count was so high: tests results coming from an assisted living facility near Plano; a county south of Austin where positive cases seemed to be reported in batches; and 104 cases in one East Texas county that appear to be primarily from tests at a prison.
But he also pointed to uncareful behavior as a possible driver in some of the new cases. Abbott said there were a number of counties where a majority of those who tested positive for the coronavirus were under the age of 30, which he attributed to people going to "bar-type" settings or Memorial Day celebrations and not taking health precautions.
Abbott said that measures such as wearing masks, hand sanitizing and social distancing are what make it possible to reopen the state's economy.
Dr. John Hellerstedt, commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services, struck the same note.
"The message is we are seeing some increase in the number of COVID patients in the state. We expected this," he said. "But we are seeing it occurring at a manageable level. I really want to stress that the continued success is up to the people of the state of Texas."
Despite Abbott's emphasis on the importance of masks, he has barred Texas cities from implementing any rules that would require face coverings.
Abbott signed an executive order on April 27 that says while individuals are encouraged to wear face masks, "no jurisdiction can impose a civil or criminal penalty for failure to wear a face covering."
On Tuesday, the mayors of nine Texas cities — including Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, Fort Worth and El Paso — sent a letter to the governor asking for the authority to set the rules and regulations on the use of face coverings.
"A one-size-fits-all approach is not the best option. We should trust local officials to make informed choices about health policy. And if mayors are given the opportunity to require face coverings, we believe our cities will be ready to help reduce the spread of this disease," they wrote. "If you do not have plans to mandate face coverings statewide, we ask that you restore the ability for local authorities to enforce the wearing of face coverings in public venues where physical distancing cannot be practiced."
Abbott said Tuesday that judges and local officials have other tools available for enforcement such as issuing fines for gatherings that don't follow state protocols.
Austin Mayor Steve Adler extended a stay-at-home warning on Monday amid the news of rising cases – but that warning could only be advice to residents and not an order due to the state's preemption.
"People are confused," Adler told NPR's Steve Inskeep on Tuesday. "They just don't know at this point if it's really important to wear face coverings or not, because I think they're feeling like they're getting mixed messaging — not only from state leadership but from national leadership. So we're just not getting the vigilance that we need on these efforts."
Health Surges In COVID-19 Cases Cause Friction Between Local Leaders, Governors Surges In COVID-19 Cases Cause Friction Between Local Leaders, Governors Listen · 3:48 3:48
In Austin, Adler said, you'll see most everyone wearing a mask in grocery stores but not in restaurants or music clubs: "When we started opening up the economy and when the governor took away from cities the ability to make it mandatory, more and more people stopped wearing them."
Adler said he agreed with Abbott that face coverings are key to reopening parts of the economy, even if they're unpleasant for wearers.
"I know it's inconvenient. I know it's hot. I know it's a nuisance," Adler said. "And it's hard to do, and people don't like it. But at the same time, our community has to decide just how much we value the lives of folks in our community that are over 65 and older. We have to decide how much we value the lives of the communities of color that are suffering disproportionately because of this virus."


npr--2020-06-17--Tim Scott Says Dick Durbin's 'Token' Comment 'Hurts My Soul'

Sen. Tim Scott , R-S.C. , gave an emotional speech on the Senate floor Wednesday , commemorating the five-year anniversary of the shooting at Emanuel AME Church in his home state and lambasting a Democratic colleague for referring to his police reform bill as `` token '' legislation .
Senate Republicans , led by Scott , unveiled the Justice Act Wednesday morning , which would make lynching a federal hate crime , incentivize police departments to ban chokeholds , increase disclosure requirements regarding the use of force and include emergency grant programs for body cameras .
Scott , the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ referring to a comment made by Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin , D-Ill. , who called the Republican-backed proposal a `` token , half-hearted approach . ''
`` To call this a token process hurts my soul for my country , for our people , '' Scott said .
`` To think that the concept of anti-lynching as a part of this legislation to be considered a token piece of legislation because perhaps I 'm African American , I 'm the only one on this side of the aisle , I do n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can tell you that this day , to have those comments again hurts the soul , '' Scott said .
Scott has pushed back against this type of language before but said this comment particularly stung because of the significance of the day - five years after a white supremacist murdered nine worshipers at a historic church in Charleston .
Scott said he believes although there 's good intention on both sides of the aisle , some of his colleagues are playing politics instead of committing to a productive conversation on police reform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversation about tearing this country apart , making it a binary choice between law enforcement and communities of color instead of working for the American people , bringing the reforms to the table so that we have a chance to balance this nation and direct her towards due north , '' Scott said .
Emily Hampsten , Durbin 's communications director , said Durbin has since apologized to Scott .
`` The minute Sen. Durbin heard that he had offended Sen. Scott , he sought him out on the floor and apologized , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Durbin took issue with in his floor speech was not Sen. Scott 's bill , but that the Senate Majority Leader would short circuit this critical debate and fail to make the changes needed to prevent the killing of Black Americans by police officers . ''
Durbin also called Scott a friend during his floor speech Wednesday morning , saying , `` When he was chosen on the Republican side to lead the effort to come up with some way of bringing justice to policing , I thought that 's a good choice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's floor speech followed another tense exchange on Capitol Hill that ended up in a shouting match between Rep. Cedric Richmond , D-La.
, and Rep. Matt Gaetz , R-Fla. During a House Judiciary Committee hearing on police reform , Richmond remarked on his frustration over Republican colleagues introducing additional amendments , including measures on Antifa .
`` As a black male ... who was a victim of excessive force , who has a black son , who has worries that you all do n't — and to my colleagues , especially the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tangent and a distraction to what we are talking about , you all are white males .
You 've never lived in my shoes and you do not know what it is like to be an African-American male , '' Richmond said .
`` I wanted to be crystal clear , and I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it is unconscious bias that I 'm hearing , because at worst it 's conscious bias , '' Richmond said .
Gaetz then interrupted and asked if Richmond was suggesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ therefore ca n't understand his concerns of white supremacy and police brutality .
`` Matt , Matt , stop .
I 'm not about to get sidetracked about the color of our children , '' Richmond said .
`` I already know that there are people on the other side who have black grandchildren .
It is not about the color of your kids .
It is about black males , black people in the streets that are getting killed and if one of them happens to be your kid , I 'm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly , I 'm more concerned about him than you are .
So let 's be clear about that . ''
Gaetz then began yelling , saying , `` Who the hell do you think you are ? ''
Richmond concluded by responding to criticism that Democrats drafted their bill without consultation from Republicans .
`` You all were in charge for a while .
We 've been in charge for a while .
I have been singing the same song since 1991 , '' he said .
`` We saw what was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a watered-down bill . ''
Richmond says the issues at hand represent a critical emergency for the country and `` it 's time to vote it up or down . ''

Tim Scott Says Dick Durbin's 'Token' Comment 'Hurts My Soul'
Enlarge this image toggle caption Andrew Harnik/AP Andrew Harnik/AP
Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., gave an emotional speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, commemorating the five-year anniversary of the shooting at Emanuel AME Church in his home state and lambasting a Democratic colleague for referring to his police reform bill as "token" legislation.
Senate Republicans, led by Scott, unveiled the Justice Act Wednesday morning, which would make lynching a federal hate crime, incentivize police departments to ban chokeholds, increase disclosure requirements regarding the use of force and include emergency grant programs for body cameras.
Scott, the Senate's only black GOP member, was referring to a comment made by Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who called the Republican-backed proposal a "token, half-hearted approach."
"To call this a token process hurts my soul for my country, for our people," Scott said.
"To think that the concept of anti-lynching as a part of this legislation to be considered a token piece of legislation because perhaps I'm African American, I'm the only one on this side of the aisle, I don't know what he meant, but I can tell you that this day, to have those comments again hurts the soul," Scott said.
Scott has pushed back against this type of language before but said this comment particularly stung because of the significance of the day - five years after a white supremacist murdered nine worshipers at a historic church in Charleston.
Scott said he believes although there's good intention on both sides of the aisle, some of his colleagues are playing politics instead of committing to a productive conversation on police reform.
"We would rather have a conversation about tearing this country apart, making it a binary choice between law enforcement and communities of color instead of working for the American people, bringing the reforms to the table so that we have a chance to balance this nation and direct her towards due north," Scott said.
Emily Hampsten, Durbin's communications director, said Durbin has since apologized to Scott.
"The minute Sen. Durbin heard that he had offended Sen. Scott, he sought him out on the floor and apologized," she said. "What Sen. Durbin took issue with in his floor speech was not Sen. Scott's bill, but that the Senate Majority Leader would short circuit this critical debate and fail to make the changes needed to prevent the killing of Black Americans by police officers."
Durbin also called Scott a friend during his floor speech Wednesday morning, saying, "When he was chosen on the Republican side to lead the effort to come up with some way of bringing justice to policing, I thought that's a good choice and I still do."
Scott's floor speech followed another tense exchange on Capitol Hill that ended up in a shouting match between Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., and Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla.
During a House Judiciary Committee hearing on police reform, Richmond remarked on his frustration over Republican colleagues introducing additional amendments, including measures on Antifa.
"As a black male...who was a victim of excessive force, who has a black son, who has worries that you all don't — and to my colleagues, especially the ones that keep introducing amendments that are a tangent and a distraction to what we are talking about, you all are white males. You've never lived in my shoes and you do not know what it is like to be an African-American male," Richmond said.
"I wanted to be crystal clear, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it is unconscious bias that I'm hearing, because at worst it's conscious bias," Richmond said.
Gaetz then interrupted and asked if Richmond was suggesting that no Republicans have non-white children and therefore can't understand his concerns of white supremacy and police brutality.
"Matt, Matt, stop. I'm not about to get sidetracked about the color of our children," Richmond said. "I already know that there are people on the other side who have black grandchildren. It is not about the color of your kids. It is about black males, black people in the streets that are getting killed and if one of them happens to be your kid, I'm concerned about him, too. And clearly, I'm more concerned about him than you are. So let's be clear about that."
Gaetz then began yelling, saying, "Who the hell do you think you are?"
Richmond concluded by responding to criticism that Democrats drafted their bill without consultation from Republicans.
"You all were in charge for a while. We've been in charge for a while. I have been singing the same song since 1991," he said. "We saw what was just presented in the Senate. It was a watered-down bill."
Richmond says the issues at hand represent a critical emergency for the country and "it's time to vote it up or down."


npr--2020-06-17--Oakland Mayor Launches Hate Crime Investigation Into Nooses Found At Park

Nooses found at a public park in Oakland , Calif. , will be removed and investigated as hate crimes , @ @ @ @ @ .
The news follows the hanging deaths of two black men that were originally ruled @ @ @ @ @ Victorville .
The FBI and the California Department of Justice have launched investigations into the @ @ @ @ @ found on trees around Lake Merritt were removed and will be investigated as hate crimes @ @ @ @ @ a statement , `` Symbols of racial violence have no place in Oakland and will @ @ @ @ @ Oakland city council member Nikki Fortunato Bas said the nooses were an `` anti-black threat @ @ @ @ @ The hate crimes probe comes after weeks of protests in Oakland and around the world @ @ @ @ @ disproportionate loss of black life .

Oakland Mayor Launches Hate Crime Investigation Into Nooses Found At Park
Enlarge this image toggle caption Jeff Chiu/AP Jeff Chiu/AP
Nooses found at a public park in Oakland, Calif., will be removed and investigated as hate crimes, according to Mayor Libby Schaaf.
The news follows the hanging deaths of two black men that were originally ruled suicides, in Palmdale and Victorville. The FBI and the California Department of Justice have launched investigations into the deaths.
"Several nooses found on trees around Lake Merritt were removed and will be investigated as hate crimes," Schaaf said in a statement, "Symbols of racial violence have no place in Oakland and will not be tolerated."
Oakland city council member Nikki Fortunato Bas said the nooses were an "anti-black threat of racist violence."
The hate crimes probe comes after weeks of protests in Oakland and around the world over police violence and the disproportionate loss of black life.