thebulwark--2020-11-02--What to Watch for on Election Night—and Beyond

It would be so much simpler in so many ways if we chose our presidents by popular vote .
There would be no elections decided by 500 bitterly contested votes in Florida after a Republican majority on the U.S. Supreme Court truncated the count .
There would be none determined by a handful of demographically unrepresentative states which , all too often , reflect a bewildering mix of idiosyncratic election laws , parochial issues , and race-based voter suppression .
We wouldn ’ t worry about a squeaker decided by which party controls more congressional delegations .
We wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be resolved by a Supreme Court so recently graced by a Republican justice rushed through the Republican Senate , and already tilted by the GOP ’ s stonewalling of a qualified Democratic nominee in 2016 .
We wouldn ’ t fret over “ faithless electors.
” Nor do these vagaries reflect some higher principle designed for a country of 330 million diverse souls stretched across a vast continent and 50 states .
Rather , they reflect a haphazard compromise cobbled together 233 years ago , to satisfy the less than 4 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along what is now America ’ s East Coast—including those determined to preserve the fruits of human slavery .
Hence this essay—my effort to guide readers through our arcane electoral map on an election night further complicated by the fallout from a very modern and deadly pandemic .
The basic math of the Electoral College is easy .
There are 538 electoral votes ; to win the presidency a candidate must garner a bare majority—270 .
What can become difficult is charting the various combinations among a half-dozen or so closely contested states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dubious assistance of state legislatures , Congress , or the courts .
The best analytic baseline is to start with the candidate favored in the polls , Joe Biden , and the number of electoral votes won by his unsuccessful Democratic predecessor in 2016 , Hillary Clinton : 232 electoral votes—38 short .
The Cook Political Report rates 14 states representing 188 electoral votes as “ solid Democrat ” ; and another three with 24 electoral votes—Colorado , Maine and Virginia—as “ likely Democrat.
” Among those denominated “ lean Democrat ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Nevada , New Hampshire—where Biden holds solid leads in the polls .
Unsurprisingly , these states reprise the 232 electoral votes Clinton won in 2016 .
In a year when Biden is running stronger , and Donald Trump has historically low approval ratings , it seems reasonable to use this as the Democrat ’ s electoral foundation .
Conversely—and despite some promising polls—in this age of hyperpolarization and GOP voter suppression it seems imprudent to assume that Biden can take traditionally red Georgia and Texas , or red-trending Iowa and Ohio .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of these “ stretch states ” —most plausibly Georgia—he can start humming “ Hail to the Chief ” and you can stop holding your breath .
In the meanwhile , however , one should focus on the universally acknowledged battleground states : Arizona , Florida , Michigan , North Carolina , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin—and , in a pinch , two electoral votes in states which award them by congressional district : Maine and Nebraska .
To aid our analysis , let ’ s divide these jurisdictions into three categories : Throughout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leads in Michigan and Wisconsin , and smaller but generally consistent margins in Pennsylvania .
These are the states where , in 2016 , non-college-educated whites gave Trump razor ’ s edge victories that carried the Electoral College .
Should Biden win all three , he will have 278 electoral votes—and the presidency .
The likelihood that Biden will carry Michigan and Wisconsin—where rates of COVID-19 are spiking—makes it imperative for Trump to capture Pennsylvania .
In 2016 , Trump won all three .
In 2020 , Biden has held narrow but persistent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has been trending blue .
But Biden ’ s margins in Florida and North Carolina have been vanishingly slight .
In any calculus , Trump must claim Florida—should Biden win there , he needs but one more battleground state .
Biden can hope to carry Arizona , his clearest shot in the Sun Belt , as a hedge against losing Florida and Pennsylvania .
Bottom line : In all probability , Trump must sweep the Sun Belt—and add Pennsylvania .
While Trump won these congressional districts in 2016 , current polls show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Nebraska 2nd .
Either could become the last vote which gives the winner 270 .
Their character is very different : Maine 2nd is blue-collar and rural ; Nebraska 2nd more upscale and suburban , reflecting a demographic which is abandoning Trump .
For Trump to lose either would signal larger problems .
To enumerate them illustrates why Biden is favored to garner the presumptive 38 electoral votes he needs to add to the blue total from 2016 : • Winning Florida and any other state : the smallest , Wisconsin , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michigan , Arizona , and Wisconsin yields 37 ; adding either congressional district gives Biden 38 .
• Carrying Arizona , North Carolina , and Michigan would get Biden to 42—even without the two largest prizes , Florida and Pennsylvania .
• One can go on like this in descending order of likelihood .
For example , North Carolina Arizona , Wisconsin , and the two congressional districts also total 38 .
You get the point .
Because Biden should net Michigan and Wisconsin and their 26 votes , he needs only 12 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enormous surprises in the Rust Belt Trump needs to keep Florida if he is to reach 270 .
An assortment of early vote demographics and late-breaking polls suggest that Trump has reason to hope that Florida will go his way , albeit narrowly .
But winning Florida is just the beginning .
For example , if , in addition to Florida , Trump wins Pennsylvania and North Carolina but loses Wisconsin and Michigan , he would still have to win another state—presumably Arizona—to reach 270 .
It ’ s like a kid ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one , and the edifice tumbles .
One keeps returning to Trump ’ s seeming sine qua non : the three Sun Belt states , plus Pennsylvania .
Otherwise—absent flipping a Clinton state , like Minnesota—he ’ s toast .
Note that it ’ s theoretically possible for the Electoral College to yield a 269-269 tie , which throws the election into the House of Representatives—and another archaic maze .
For example , if the only states to change from the 2016 map were Arizona , Michigan , and Wisconsin—if just those three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other change—the result would be a tie .
Fortunately , that scenario , and several of the combinations that would yield a tie , would likely require a further improbability : Trump again winning both congressional districts .
For those resolved to ponder the worst , I recommend Elaine Kamarck ’ s enlightening article for Brookings .
The evening of election day 2020 is unlikely to yield a clear winner .
Slim margins , recounts , and court challenges are often the norm in battleground states .
And because of the pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delay a final count while generating numerous legal controversies .
Nonetheless , those first hours should offer clues to the ultimate outcome .
Nate Silver currently projects a turnout of 17 million votes more than in 2016—in general , the higher the turnout , the better for Democrats .
But here lurks a complication unique to 2020 .
The large volume of mail-in ballots is expected to favor Democratic voters , concerned about the pandemic , while Republicans are expected to dominate in-person voting on election day .
In Pennsylvania , for example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may augur a good day for Trump—especially because the GOP holds an appreciable edge in registering first-time voters .
But Pennsylvania also exemplifies why early returns may prove especially deceptive in 2020—it counts more in-person ballots first .
Among other battleground states practices vary as to whether the early returns reflect the quick tabulation of in-person ballots or the processing of mail-in ballots received before election day .
Finally , some states count mail-in ballots postmarked on election day but received thereafter ; others do not .
That may prove critical .
All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expect final returns from particular states .
It helps to know the practices in each , and when their election officials expect a completed count .
Those states which have a reasonably final count on November 3 , or within hours thereafter , may preview the ultimate winner .
Here ’ s what to anticipate from the six battleground states : Arizona .
The state begins counting mail-in ballots prior to election day .
Election officials expect a reasonably final count on Tuesday evening .
Florida .
Florida begins processing mail-in ballots early—and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Despite its tangled history , we can anticipate a fairly complete—though perhaps inconclusive—count within hours after the polls close .
As in Arizona , early returns may be skewed toward mail-in ballots .
Michigan .
Although a new law enacted last month allows some Michigan jurisdictions to begin processing ballots on the eve of the election ( today ) , no ballots are actually counted prior to election day , and officials don ’ t predict complete results until November 6 .
North Carolina .
The state processes mail-in ballots early , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received by November 12 .
The early returns will favor mail-in ballots ; the later in-person ballots .
But officials estimate that roughly 98 percent of ballots will be reported on election night .
Pennsylvania .
This year ’ s primary was a mess—it took six days to count mail-in ballots—and the general election should be even worse .
Because Pennsylvania processes no ballots early , official hopes that “ the overwhelming majority ” will be counted by November 6 may prove aspirational .
Amid a nationwide delay in delivering mail-in ballots to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Philadelphia—auguring late-arrived ballots .
That most mail-in ballots will be tallied last will generate further controversy .
Wisconsin .
Tabulation starts when the polls close .
However , officials expect the count to be substantially complete by November 3 or 4 .
As for the two congressional districts , results should come quickly .
Neither Maine nor Nebraska count ballots received after election day ; in both states , early processing of ballots is already underway .
If reality conforms to expectations , on the evening of November 3 we should have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three Sun Belt states .
Should the winner in those jurisdictions be clear , we can reach some tentative conclusions .
As noted , even if Trump sweeps the Sun Belt , he still must take Pennsylvania—assuming that , as expected , Biden ultimately carries Wisconsin and Michigan .
Watch Arizona closely—among the states reporting early , it could become the key .
Should Biden win only Arizona and one congressional district , he ’ s our presumptive president—again , pending victories in Wisconsin and Michigan .
In that scenario , Pennsylvania becomes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sun Belt , he must sweep the Rust Belt .
Wisconsin is likely to report first—shedding light on demographically similar Michigan .
Should the election turn on Michigan or Pennsylvania—or both—we will likely have to wait until November 6 , at the earliest , for results we can believe in .
And Pennsylvania may remain unresolved .
At that point the real problem is Trump .
Americans are accustomed to believing that our presidential elections , with rare exceptions , are settled on election day .
But that perception rests on projections and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suppose that the returns in battleground states as of November 3 , however incomplete , show Trump with a tentative lead in the Electoral College .
Beyond doubt he will declare victory—and assert that any further counting , particularly of mail-in ballots , reflects massive voter fraud .
The foundation for this charge—Trump ’ s mendacious assertion that voting by mail during a pandemic licenses Democrats to hijack the election—has caused a partisan split in how Americans vote .
With many more Democrats than Republicans casting mail-in ballots , vote counts may seesaw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tabulated first .
If later counts reflect a “ blue wave ” of mail-in ballots for Biden , Trump will likely use this to buttress his claims of fraud .
In any state where the results hang in the balance , he will attempt to stop the tabulation of such ballots—including those received after election day .
Given Trump ’ s stated resolve to recruit Republican officials , legislators , and judges—including the U.S. Supreme Court—to skew the election , America faces the prospect of naked chicanery amidst toxic uncertainty .
The inevitable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social , political , and constitutional fabric .
I won ’ t reprise the disparate disasters others have written about so copiously—such as Republican state legislatures picking a second slate of electors to compete with those representing the apparent winner : Joe Biden .
But recent Supreme Court orders suggest that a conservative majority of justices could intervene to give Trump a second term he lost at the ballot box .
Take last Monday ’ s ruling barring Wisconsin from counting timely mail-in ballots received after election day .
Particularly troubling was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election-day cutoffs were designed “ to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election.
” That precisely mirrors Trump ’ s bogus rationale—including the groundless insinuation of “ impropriety.
” ( To his presumptive embarrassment , Justice Kavanaugh subsequently had to issue a correction to part of his ruling . )
Since then Amy Coney Barrett has become the Court ’ s ninth justice .
Quite explicitly , Trump ramrodded her confirmation so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election , and he continues to forecast that the Court will help him win the election .
This possibility has impelled Democrats to request that she recuse herself from such cases .
If she does not , Barrett could prove decisive in litigation over mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania .
Given a postal service overwhelmed by the volume of mail-in ballots occasioned by the pandemic , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that ballots received by November 6 could be counted if postmarked on election day .
That decision barely survived a Republican challenge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Supreme Court .
Unsurprisingly , the GOP asked the Court to intervene yet again .
Last Wednesday it declined to do so .
But the Court ’ s shadow still looms over Pennsylvania .
In ruling , Justices Thomas , Gorsuch , and Alito expressed interest in revisiting the question after November 3 , based on a startling repudiation of federalism : that the Court can overrule state court interpretations of state law .
Accordingly , state election officials decreed that ballots arriving after 8 p.m. on November 3 must be segregated—enabling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subsequent decision .
Critically , Justice Barrett did not participate because she joined the Court too late , but did not recuse herself .
Thus she could become the crucial fifth vote Republicans need to void late-received ballots—potentially deciding the election .
As elections expert Rick Hasen told Thomas B. Edsall : “ If it turns out to be really close and it comes down to Pennsylvania , God help the United States of America .
.
.
.
It will be trench warfare over ballots and a president seeking to cast major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even without evidence of major problems .
It would be much worse than Bush v. Gore because of Trump ’ s rhetoric , because we are more polarized and many see this election in existential terms , and because internal and external forces can use social media to spread disinformation and fan the flames of hate.
” That may define the stakes on election day—and beyond .
If there is an honest count in battleground states untainted by partisan subversion , Joe Biden will likely become our 46th president .
If not , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just the presidency , but how strong—or even real—American democracy truly is .

It would be so much simpler in so many ways if we chose our presidents by popular vote. There would be no elections decided by 500 bitterly contested votes in Florida after a Republican majority on the U.S. Supreme Court truncated the count. There would be none determined by a handful of demographically unrepresentative states which, all too often, reflect a bewildering mix of idiosyncratic election laws, parochial issues, and race-based voter suppression.
We wouldn’t worry about a squeaker decided by which party controls more congressional delegations. We wouldn’t wonder if the election of 2020 will be resolved by a Supreme Court so recently graced by a Republican justice rushed through the Republican Senate, and already tilted by the GOP’s stonewalling of a qualified Democratic nominee in 2016. We wouldn’t fret over “faithless electors.”
Nor do these vagaries reflect some higher principle designed for a country of 330 million diverse souls stretched across a vast continent and 50 states. Rather, they reflect a haphazard compromise cobbled together 233 years ago, to satisfy the less than 4 million white citizens of 13 prickly states strung along what is now America’s East Coast—including those determined to preserve the fruits of human slavery.
Hence this essay—my effort to guide readers through our arcane electoral map on an election night further complicated by the fallout from a very modern and deadly pandemic.
1. Reading the Electoral Map
The basic math of the Electoral College is easy. There are 538 electoral votes; to win the presidency a candidate must garner a bare majority—270. What can become difficult is charting the various combinations among a half-dozen or so closely contested states which could yield the next president—hopefully without the dubious assistance of state legislatures, Congress, or the courts.
The best analytic baseline is to start with the candidate favored in the polls, Joe Biden, and the number of electoral votes won by his unsuccessful Democratic predecessor in 2016, Hillary Clinton: 232 electoral votes—38 short.
Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com
The Cook Political Report rates 14 states representing 188 electoral votes as “solid Democrat”; and another three with 24 electoral votes—Colorado, Maine and Virginia—as “likely Democrat.” Among those denominated “lean Democrat” are three more containing 20 electoral votes—Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire—where Biden holds solid leads in the polls.
Unsurprisingly, these states reprise the 232 electoral votes Clinton won in 2016. In a year when Biden is running stronger, and Donald Trump has historically low approval ratings, it seems reasonable to use this as the Democrat’s electoral foundation.
Conversely—and despite some promising polls—in this age of hyperpolarization and GOP voter suppression it seems imprudent to assume that Biden can take traditionally red Georgia and Texas, or red-trending Iowa and Ohio. That said, if Biden wins any one of these “stretch states”—most plausibly Georgia—he can start humming “Hail to the Chief” and you can stop holding your breath.
In the meanwhile, however, one should focus on the universally acknowledged battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—and, in a pinch, two electoral votes in states which award them by congressional district: Maine and Nebraska.
To aid our analysis, let’s divide these jurisdictions into three categories:
The Rust Belt: Michigan (16), Pennsylvania (20), and Wisconsin (10).
Throughout the fall, Biden has held solid leads in Michigan and Wisconsin, and smaller but generally consistent margins in Pennsylvania. These are the states where, in 2016, non-college-educated whites gave Trump razor’s edge victories that carried the Electoral College.
Should Biden win all three, he will have 278 electoral votes—and the presidency. The likelihood that Biden will carry Michigan and Wisconsin—where rates of COVID-19 are spiking—makes it imperative for Trump to capture Pennsylvania.
The Sun Belt: Arizona (11), Florida (29), and North Carolina (15).
In 2016, Trump won all three. In 2020, Biden has held narrow but persistent polling leads in Arizona—which, since 2016, has been trending blue. But Biden’s margins in Florida and North Carolina have been vanishingly slight.
In any calculus, Trump must claim Florida—should Biden win there, he needs but one more battleground state. Biden can hope to carry Arizona, his clearest shot in the Sun Belt, as a hedge against losing Florida and Pennsylvania.
Bottom line: In all probability, Trump must sweep the Sun Belt—and add Pennsylvania.
The Puzzle Pieces: Maine 2nd (1) and Nebraska 2nd (1).
While Trump won these congressional districts in 2016, current polls show him trailing in both—and by significant margins in Nebraska 2nd. Either could become the last vote which gives the winner 270.
Their character is very different: Maine 2nd is blue-collar and rural; Nebraska 2nd more upscale and suburban, reflecting a demographic which is abandoning Trump. For Trump to lose either would signal larger problems.
Biden’s Paths to Victory
To enumerate them illustrates why Biden is favored to garner the presumptive 38 electoral votes he needs to add to the blue total from 2016:
Winning Florida and any other state: the smallest, Wisconsin, would give him 39.
Sweeping the Rust Belt—Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—would secure 46.
Taking Michigan, Arizona, and Wisconsin yields 37; adding either congressional district gives Biden 38.
Carrying Arizona, North Carolina, and Michigan would get Biden to 42—even without the two largest prizes, Florida and Pennsylvania.
One can go on like this in descending order of likelihood. For example, North Carolina Arizona, Wisconsin, and the two congressional districts also total 38.
You get the point. Because Biden should net Michigan and Wisconsin and their 26 votes, he needs only 12 more.
Trump’s Paths to Victory
As noted above, absent enormous surprises in the Rust Belt Trump needs to keep Florida if he is to reach 270. An assortment of early vote demographics and late-breaking polls suggest that Trump has reason to hope that Florida will go his way, albeit narrowly.
But winning Florida is just the beginning.
For example, if, in addition to Florida, Trump wins Pennsylvania and North Carolina but loses Wisconsin and Michigan, he would still have to win another state—presumably Arizona—to reach 270. It’s like a kid’s tower constructed from blocks: remove one, and the edifice tumbles.
One keeps returning to Trump’s seeming sine qua non: the three Sun Belt states, plus Pennsylvania. Otherwise—absent flipping a Clinton state, like Minnesota—he’s toast.
Note that it’s theoretically possible for the Electoral College to yield a 269-269 tie, which throws the election into the House of Representatives—and another archaic maze. For example, if the only states to change from the 2016 map were Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin—if just those three states flipped to Biden, with no other change—the result would be a tie.
Fortunately, that scenario, and several of the combinations that would yield a tie, would likely require a further improbability: Trump again winning both congressional districts. For those resolved to ponder the worst, I recommend Elaine Kamarck’s enlightening article for Brookings.
2. Reading the Initial Returns
The evening of election day 2020 is unlikely to yield a clear winner. Slim margins, recounts, and court challenges are often the norm in battleground states. And because of the pandemic, an unprecedented volume of mail-in ballots may delay a final count while generating numerous legal controversies.
Nonetheless, those first hours should offer clues to the ultimate outcome. Nate Silver currently projects a turnout of 17 million votes more than in 2016—in general, the higher the turnout, the better for Democrats.
But here lurks a complication unique to 2020. The large volume of mail-in ballots is expected to favor Democratic voters, concerned about the pandemic, while Republicans are expected to dominate in-person voting on election day. In Pennsylvania, for example, a larger-than-expected turnout on November 3 may augur a good day for Trump—especially because the GOP holds an appreciable edge in registering first-time voters.
But Pennsylvania also exemplifies why early returns may prove especially deceptive in 2020—it counts more in-person ballots first. Among other battleground states practices vary as to whether the early returns reflect the quick tabulation of in-person ballots or the processing of mail-in ballots received before election day.
Finally, some states count mail-in ballots postmarked on election day but received thereafter; others do not. That may prove critical.
All this also bears on how swiftly to expect final returns from particular states. It helps to know the practices in each, and when their election officials expect a completed count. Those states which have a reasonably final count on November 3, or within hours thereafter, may preview the ultimate winner.
Here’s what to anticipate from the six battleground states:
Arizona. The state begins counting mail-in ballots prior to election day. Election officials expect a reasonably final count on Tuesday evening.
Florida. Florida begins processing mail-in ballots early—and disqualifies those received after election day. Despite its tangled history, we can anticipate a fairly complete—though perhaps inconclusive—count within hours after the polls close. As in Arizona, early returns may be skewed toward mail-in ballots.
Michigan. Although a new law enacted last month allows some Michigan jurisdictions to begin processing ballots on the eve of the election (today), no ballots are actually counted prior to election day, and officials don’t predict complete results until November 6.
North Carolina. The state processes mail-in ballots early, and counts ballots postmarked by election day and received by November 12. The early returns will favor mail-in ballots; the later in-person ballots. But officials estimate that roughly 98 percent of ballots will be reported on election night.
Pennsylvania. This year’s primary was a mess—it took six days to count mail-in ballots—and the general election should be even worse. Because Pennsylvania processes no ballots early, official hopes that “the overwhelming majority” will be counted by November 6 may prove aspirational. Amid a nationwide delay in delivering mail-in ballots to voters, the problem seems particularly acute in Philadelphia—auguring late-arrived ballots. That most mail-in ballots will be tallied last will generate further controversy.
Wisconsin. Tabulation starts when the polls close. However, officials expect the count to be substantially complete by November 3 or 4.
As for the two congressional districts, results should come quickly. Neither Maine nor Nebraska count ballots received after election day; in both states, early processing of ballots is already underway.
If reality conforms to expectations, on the evening of November 3 we should have near-complete counts from these districts and the three Sun Belt states. Should the winner in those jurisdictions be clear, we can reach some tentative conclusions.
As noted, even if Trump sweeps the Sun Belt, he still must take Pennsylvania—assuming that, as expected, Biden ultimately carries Wisconsin and Michigan.
Watch Arizona closely—among the states reporting early, it could become the key. Should Biden win only Arizona and one congressional district, he’s our presumptive president—again, pending victories in Wisconsin and Michigan. In that scenario, Pennsylvania becomes superfluous.
But if Biden loses the Sun Belt, he must sweep the Rust Belt. Wisconsin is likely to report first—shedding light on demographically similar Michigan. Should the election turn on Michigan or Pennsylvania—or both—we will likely have to wait until November 6, at the earliest, for results we can believe in. And Pennsylvania may remain unresolved.
At that point the real problem is Trump.
3. The Nightmare Scenario: Post-Election-Day Chaos
Americans are accustomed to believing that our presidential elections, with rare exceptions, are settled on election day. But that perception rests on projections and unofficial results—not final tabulations.
Nonetheless, suppose that the returns in battleground states as of November 3, however incomplete, show Trump with a tentative lead in the Electoral College. Beyond doubt he will declare victory—and assert that any further counting, particularly of mail-in ballots, reflects massive voter fraud.
The foundation for this charge—Trump’s mendacious assertion that voting by mail during a pandemic licenses Democrats to hijack the election—has caused a partisan split in how Americans vote. With many more Democrats than Republicans casting mail-in ballots, vote counts may seesaw depending on which type of ballots are tabulated first.
If later counts reflect a “blue wave” of mail-in ballots for Biden, Trump will likely use this to buttress his claims of fraud. In any state where the results hang in the balance, he will attempt to stop the tabulation of such ballots—including those received after election day.
Given Trump’s stated resolve to recruit Republican officials, legislators, and judges—including the U.S. Supreme Court—to skew the election, America faces the prospect of naked chicanery amidst toxic uncertainty. The inevitable consequence would be grave damage to our social, political, and constitutional fabric.
I won’t reprise the disparate disasters others have written about so copiously—such as Republican state legislatures picking a second slate of electors to compete with those representing the apparent winner: Joe Biden. But recent Supreme Court orders suggest that a conservative majority of justices could intervene to give Trump a second term he lost at the ballot box.
Take last Monday’s ruling barring Wisconsin from counting timely mail-in ballots received after election day. Particularly troubling was the reasoning proffered by Justice Kavanaugh: that election-day cutoffs were designed “to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election.” That precisely mirrors Trump’s bogus rationale—including the groundless insinuation of “impropriety.” (To his presumptive embarrassment, Justice Kavanaugh subsequently had to issue a correction to part of his ruling.)
Since then Amy Coney Barrett has become the Court’s ninth justice. Quite explicitly, Trump ramrodded her confirmation so that she could rule on litigation concerning the election, and he continues to forecast that the Court will help him win the election. This possibility has impelled Democrats to request that she recuse herself from such cases. If she does not, Barrett could prove decisive in litigation over mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania.
Given a postal service overwhelmed by the volume of mail-in ballots occasioned by the pandemic, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that ballots received by November 6 could be counted if postmarked on election day. That decision barely survived a Republican challenge which spawned a 4-4 deadlock in the U.S. Supreme Court. Unsurprisingly, the GOP asked the Court to intervene yet again. Last Wednesday it declined to do so.
But the Court’s shadow still looms over Pennsylvania. In ruling, Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito expressed interest in revisiting the question after November 3, based on a startling repudiation of federalism: that the Court can overrule state court interpretations of state law. Accordingly, state election officials decreed that ballots arriving after 8 p.m. on November 3 must be segregated—enabling the Court to disallow them in a subsequent decision.
Critically, Justice Barrett did not participate because she joined the Court too late, but did not recuse herself. Thus she could become the crucial fifth vote Republicans need to void late-received ballots—potentially deciding the election.
As elections expert Rick Hasen told Thomas B. Edsall: “If it turns out to be really close and it comes down to Pennsylvania, God help the United States of America. . . . It will be trench warfare over ballots and a president seeking to cast major doubt over the legitimacy of the election even without evidence of major problems. It would be much worse than Bush v. Gore because of Trump’s rhetoric, because we are more polarized and many see this election in existential terms, and because internal and external forces can use social media to spread disinformation and fan the flames of hate.”
That may define the stakes on election day—and beyond. If there is an honest count in battleground states untainted by partisan subversion, Joe Biden will likely become our 46th president. If not, the election of 2020 may determine not just the presidency, but how strong—or even real—American democracy truly is.


thebulwark--2020-11-02--November Surprise: Trump to Fire Fauci After Election

At the end of a one-day , five-stop coronavirus superspreader tour extending from the Canadian border to the Gulf of Mexico , the president of the United States made an announcement that in any sane world would consume the final 48 hours of his re-election campaign : He plans to fire Anthony Fauci soon after election day .
This in some ways should not come as a surprise but that doesn ’ t make the fact that he would say it out loud any less of a bombshell .
The very existence of this unconscionably reckless campaign swing is all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump no longer listens to his erstwhile pandemic adviser .
Trump long ago sidelined Dr. Fauci and replaced him with Dr. Quack Atlas , a non-epidemiologist who essentially tells Trump to do whatever he wants .
In an interview with the Washington Post published online on Saturday night , Fauci had praised the campaign of Trump ’ s challenger for “ taking [ COVID ] seriously from a public health perspective.
” So it wasn ’ t all sunshine and roses in the coronavirus task force .
But prior to Sunday night , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even if he didn ’ t actually give a rat ’ s ass about the quarter million people who have died on his watch , politically speaking it was best to at least pretend like he was engaging the popular advisers who .
.
.
ya know .
.
.
have some experience in contagious virus management .
In comments to staff that leaked a few weeks ago , Trump seemed to indicate that the PR risk of firing Fauci was the only reason that he was keeping the doctor on in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extremely susceptible to peer pressure , so once he heard the cult—er , crowd—in Opa-locka , Florida start jeering the good doctor , he couldn ’ t help but end the charade .
Fauci would be fired a little bit after the election .
In case you thought this might have just been a flight of fancy on stage , according to one reporter I spoke to recently , Steve Bannon has been saying that Fauci is likely to be fired should Trump win re-election .
Trump also recently signed an executive order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fire career civil servants like Fauci .
So there ’ s no reason to take the president ’ s remarks as one of those oh-so-famous jokes he likes to pretend he told anytime he makes admissions against interest .
Instead the press must dedicate the remainder of the campaign to getting a clear answer from the president on the most important issue facing voters bar none : pandemic management .
Does he in fact plan to fire Dr. Fauci ?
And if so , does that mean he will pursue a strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rejected , or will there be some other as-yet-unproduced plan ?
These crucial questions should dominate the next few days—in addition , of course , to continuing to hold the president and his campaign to account for their undemocratic and un-American attempts to undermine the vote count .
These dual self-inflicted controversies put the president politically in exactly the position he didn ’ t want to be in during the campaign ’ s final week—at the center of swirling controversies of his own making .
In 2016 , he famously surged in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton scandals , after the Comey letter and false FBI leak to Fox News about an impending indictment in the investigation of the Clinton Foundation .
This year , the president ’ s campaign attempted the same playbook—subbing Hunter Biden ’ s “ laptop from hell ” for Hillary ’ s emails .
This “ Bobulinski Gambit ” was already crashing and burning before the president forced himself back into the spotlight by saying he believed the vote count would be stopped on election night and announcing that America ’ s most trusted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As a result , when the seniors who are abandoning Trump and late-deciding voters head to the polls on Tuesday , they will be left with the final image of a negligent president pledging to remove the last adult from the room , while a surge in the virus is overloading hospitals , crippling communities , and killing a thousand more Americans each day .

At the end of a one-day, five-stop coronavirus superspreader tour extending from the Canadian border to the Gulf of Mexico, the president of the United States made an announcement that in any sane world would consume the final 48 hours of his re-election campaign: He plans to fire Anthony Fauci soon after election day.
Watch for yourself:
A “Fire Fauci” chant just erupted at Trump’s rally in Florida "Don't tell anybody, but let me wait until a little bit after the election,” Trump said in response. pic.twitter.com/oN8X7x1bJc — philip lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) November 2, 2020
This in some ways should not come as a surprise but that doesn’t make the fact that he would say it out loud any less of a bombshell. The very existence of this unconscionably reckless campaign swing is all the evidence we need to demonstrate that Trump no longer listens to his erstwhile pandemic adviser. Trump long ago sidelined Dr. Fauci and replaced him with Dr. Quack Atlas, a non-epidemiologist who essentially tells Trump to do whatever he wants. In an interview with the Washington Post published online on Saturday night, Fauci had praised the campaign of Trump’s challenger for “taking [COVID] seriously from a public health perspective.”
So it wasn’t all sunshine and roses in the coronavirus task force.
But prior to Sunday night, the president had seemed to understand that even if he didn’t actually give a rat’s ass about the quarter million people who have died on his watch, politically speaking it was best to at least pretend like he was engaging the popular advisers who . . . ya know . . . have some experience in contagious virus management. In comments to staff that leaked a few weeks ago, Trump seemed to indicate that the PR risk of firing Fauci was the only reason that he was keeping the doctor on in the first place.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
But our man-child-in-chief is extremely susceptible to peer pressure, so once he heard the cult—er, crowd—in Opa-locka, Florida start jeering the good doctor, he couldn’t help but end the charade. Fauci would be fired a little bit after the election.
In case you thought this might have just been a flight of fancy on stage, according to one reporter I spoke to recently, Steve Bannon has been saying that Fauci is likely to be fired should Trump win re-election. Trump also recently signed an executive order that would make it easier for him to fire career civil servants like Fauci.
So there’s no reason to take the president’s remarks as one of those oh-so-famous jokes he likes to pretend he told anytime he makes admissions against interest.
Instead the press must dedicate the remainder of the campaign to getting a clear answer from the president on the most important issue facing voters bar none: pandemic management. Does he in fact plan to fire Dr. Fauci? And if so, does that mean he will pursue a strategy of herd immunity, which Fauci has rejected, or will there be some other as-yet-unproduced plan? These crucial questions should dominate the next few days—in addition, of course, to continuing to hold the president and his campaign to account for their undemocratic and un-American attempts to undermine the vote count.
These dual self-inflicted controversies put the president politically in exactly the position he didn’t want to be in during the campaign’s final week—at the center of swirling controversies of his own making. In 2016, he famously surged in the final weeks as the microscope turned to Clinton scandals, after the Comey letter and false FBI leak to Fox News about an impending indictment in the investigation of the Clinton Foundation.
This year, the president’s campaign attempted the same playbook—subbing Hunter Biden’s “laptop from hell” for Hillary’s emails. This “Bobulinski Gambit” was already crashing and burning before the president forced himself back into the spotlight by saying he believed the vote count would be stopped on election night and announcing that America’s most trusted voice on the pandemic would be dismissed.
As a result, when the seniors who are abandoning Trump and late-deciding voters head to the polls on Tuesday, they will be left with the final image of a negligent president pledging to remove the last adult from the room, while a surge in the virus is overloading hospitals, crippling communities, and killing a thousand more Americans each day.


thebulwark--2020-11-03--Back to Basics: Make Cocktails Normal Again

Members of Bulwark+ can spend Election Night with the Bulwark team .
All your favorite Bulwarkers will be there : Charlie Sykes , JVL , Mona Charen , Amanda Carpenter , and Sarah Longwell will be holding court throughout the night .
( Tim Miller too , I guess . )
And if you ’ re anything like us , you ’ ll need a drink or three to get you through the evening—it ’ s going to be a long one .
So I ’ ve put together a little cocktail menu that you can make at home without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get access to this evening ’ s livestream , and you may even get to see me make one or two of these drinks live on Zoom .
Look , bartenders love making crazy drinks for you to dry .
God willing , one day we ’ ll all be able to head back to the speakeasies and you can drink thyme-infused lillet blanc poured over strawberry ice cubes or whatever , and that ’ ll be grand .
But I ’ m seeking a return to normalcy .
A chill way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up : the Old Fashioned .
The Old Fashioned is the greatest cocktail in the world and 84.5 percent of the restaurants you order it in will fuck it up .
They ’ ll put a whole slice of orange and a maraschino cherry in there and pour sugar in and smash it up with a pestle before—and this is the crime , the thing bartenders should be sent to literal prison for—splashing club soda on top of it and pouring in two ounces of 80-proof bourbon and loading the thing up with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sugary , slop .
Here ’ s what you need to make a proper old fashioned : It starts , as all great things do , with a bottle of bourbon .
Find whichever bottle in your collection is emptiest , and pour it into a glass .
Next , get a sauce pan .
Add one cup of sugar and one cup of water .
Bring to a boil and let it churn for five minutes .
Remove from heat .
Once it cools , pour the mixture into the now-empty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : You ’ ve made simple syrup !
It ’ ll keep for a couple of months .
Now , what you ’ re going to want to do is find a high-proof , cheap bourbon : I like Old Grand-Dad 114 , which ’ ll generally run you between $ 20 and $ 25 , and comes with a kick .
Fill your two-ounce jigger with the Old Grand-Dad and pour it into a glass .
Next , add a teaspoon of your simple syrup and Angostura bitters to taste .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so I give it four or five shakes ; most will prefer two dashes . )
Now here ’ s the tricky part : Slice off a bit of orange peel and a bit of lemon peel , avoiding as much of the white pith beneath as possible .
( You should maybe do this part before you start drinking ; I shan ’ t be held responsible for self-inflicted knife wounds . )
Once you have your pithless peel , twist it to release the essential oils into your mixture , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Add either a couple small pieces of ice or , if you have the mold , one Death Star Ice Sphere .
Because most bartenders will screw up your Old Fashioned , I took to ordering Manhattans at bars .
And then I took to making them at home .
What a delightful , easy drink .
I ’ m a little pickier with my ingredients for this one , but I assure you if you use exactly what I lay out here you ’ ll be happy with your drink .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ blow this one , folks .
Just get a cocktail shaker and load it up with ice .
Then add two ounces of High West Double Rye and one ounce of Dolin Sweet Vermouth .
Add bitters to taste , and then , if you have a jar of maraschino cherries , add just a drop or two of the juice .
If you want to get blitzed , you can double the rye and vermouth , but I do not recommend drinking more than one if you choose to go that path @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the morning .
The Double Rye and the Dolin ’ s are keys here .
The Dolin ’ s a little more expensive than your standard-issue Martini & Rossi sweet vermouth , but very much worth it , I think .
And the Double Rye , weirdly , varies in cost—when I lived in D.C. it would sometimes near $ 50 ; here in Texas , I get it for between $ 30 and $ 35 per bottle—but it ’ s a perfect Manhattan rye .
Shake , let sit for a moment—this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefit of making it much colder ; as Kingsley Amis noted in his must-own book on the subject , Everyday Drinking , “ It is more important that a cold drink should be as cold as possible than that it should be as concentrated as possible ” —and pour into a chilled cocktail glass that you conscientiously placed in a freezer five minutes before this whole process started .
If we ’ re getting back to basics , we must have a martini .
That ’ s a rule .
And look , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you want to make a vodka martini , that ’ s fine by me .
I ’ m not going to sit here and sneer that you ’ ve made a gimlet .
Go with God .
Vodka ’ s better than the pine tree solution that is gin , for the most part .
( Gin is by far the worst of the major liquors .
Bourbon , then scotch , then whiskey [ non-Irish ] , then Irish whiskey , then vodka , then rum , then tequila , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s the ranking . )
That said , there is one thing that the classic gin martini offers that the vodka martini can not .
Or , at least should not .
I ’ m not going to pretend to be able to make these ; find a deli or something that can hook you up .
But they ’ re really the only reason to drink a martini .
Well , that and the intoxication .
The intoxication is another good reason to drink a martini .
And if this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that means we ’ re getting later on , and election results are starting to come in .
.
.
you might just need a good , stiff , intoxicating drink .
Anyway , if you insist on drinking a martini , I ’ ll again reach for my Amis and suggest the following : The olives are my addition ; I ’ ve never been a fan of cocktail onions .
Ech .
Anyway : For a single serving , you ’ re basically looking at two ounces of gin and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taste .
Throw it all in a shaker , shake , and pour .
Toss in a couple of blue-cheese-stuffed olives , et voila .
There ’ s some argument over stirring vs. shaking ; the stirrers will tell you that shaking is savagery , that it dilutes the drink and makes it cloudy .
I prefer to shake , however .
A good vigorous back and forth .
More masculine , that .
And I ’ m all about the masculinity .
Speaking of Amis , let ’ s make a Lucky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really more of a spring/summer drink than an early-November drink , but it ’ s also delicious and this is my cocktail menu , so you ’ re just going to have to do as I say and make this delicious drink , now aren ’ t you ?
The trick here is making the cucumber juice .
A bit of a hassle .
If you have a lemon squeezer , that can be made to work : just cut the cucumber into chunks and squeeze the cucumber .
One cucumber will make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these drinks .
Squeeze the cucumber , strain out the pulp , and save the juice that remains .
The drink is so called because it was the preferred beverage of the titular character in Amis ’ s novel Lucky Jim .
Highly recommended if you need a reminder that things could always be worse after the election .
And now we move to the absinthe portion of the evening .
Things are getting weird .
You weren ’ t expecting that result in Georgia , were you ?
Florida ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Iowa .
Hoo boy .
That was a strange one , eh ?
We haven ’ t even gotten to Waukesha yet .
Let ’ s see what the green fairy has to say about all this .
Of course , no one drinks absinthe straight .
It ’ s gross .
But it does serve as a key component of one of our greatest cocktails : the Sazerac .
As a bonus , we ’ re back to rye .
Here ’ s what you ’ ll need : 2 oz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ll explain ) Angostura bitters Peychaud ’ s bitters Lemon peel Sugar/water ( simple syrup will do since you already made it ) This is one of those cocktails that is almost always better in a bar .
If you ’ re in a decent one , the bartender will even engage in some pyrotechnics .
And fire improves every dining/drinking experience .
Anyway , you ’ re not at a bar , you ’ re at home .
Because everything has collapsed in the face of COVID .
So we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can .
Get yourself two Old Fashioned glasses .
Ideally , you ’ d put a sugar cube in the first glass and a few drops of water to dissolve it .
But you might not have a sugar cube , because this isn ’ t 1927 .
So just splash a teaspoon of that simple syrup in there , along with your rye ( I ’ m using Whistlepig 6 Year for this one ) , the Angostura bitters , and the Peychaud ’ s bitters .
Add a few pieces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the second Old Fashioned glass , place a splash of absinthe and roll it around until the glass is coated .
Strain the mixed cocktail into the absinthe-coated glass .
Then take that lemon peel , twist , and garnish .
If you want to get fancy , you could get a lighter and torch the lemon peel when you twist it , which will set off a delightful little flame .
Perfect whether you ’ re in a burn-it-all-down mood or want a little sparkle to celebrate .

Members of Bulwark+ can spend election night with the Bulwark team. All your favorite Bulwarkers will be there: Charlie Sykes, JVL, Mona Charen, Amanda Carpenter, and Sarah Longwell will be holding court throughout the night. (Tim Miller, too, I guess.) And if you’re anything like us, you’ll need a drink or three to get you through the evening—it’s going to be a long one. So I’ve put together a little cocktail menu that you can make at home without too much effort. Sign up now to get access to this evening’s livestream, and you may even get to see me make one or two of these drinks live on Zoom.
Look, bartenders love making crazy drinks for you to try. God willing, one day we’ll all be able to head back to the speakeasies and you can drink thyme-infused lillet blanc poured over strawberry ice cubes or whatever, and that’ll be grand. But I’m seeking a return to normalcy. A chill way to enjoy some chilled beverages.
Let’s get back to basics, people.
First up: the Old Fashioned. The Old Fashioned is the greatest cocktail in the world and 84.5 percent of the restaurants you order it in will fuck it up. They’ll put a whole slice of orange and a maraschino cherry in there and pour sugar in and smash it up with a pestle before—and this is the crime, the thing bartenders should be sent to literal prison for—splashing club soda on top of it and pouring in two ounces of 80-proof bourbon and loading the thing up with ice. The result is a watery, sugary, slop.
Here’s what you need to make a proper old fashioned:
2 oz. high-proof bourbon
1 tsp. simple syrup
Angostura bitters
Lemon peel
Orange peel
It starts, as all great things do, with a bottle of bourbon. Find whichever bottle in your collection is emptiest, and pour it into a glass.
Start drinking.
Next, get a sauce pan. Add one cup of sugar and one cup of water. Bring to a boil and let it churn for five minutes. Remove from heat. Once it cools, pour the mixture into the now-empty bourbon bottle via a funnel.
Congrats: You’ve made simple syrup! It’ll keep for a couple of months.
Now, what you’re going to want to do is find a high-proof, cheap bourbon: I like Old Grand-Dad 114, which’ll generally run you between $20 and $25, and comes with a kick. Fill your two-ounce jigger with the Old Grand-Dad and pour it into a glass. Next, add a teaspoon of your simple syrup and Angostura bitters to taste. (I like my cocktail a bit spicier, so I give it four or five shakes; most will prefer two dashes.)
Now here’s the tricky part: Slice off a bit of orange peel and a bit of lemon peel, avoiding as much of the white pith beneath as possible. (You should maybe do this part before you start drinking; I shan’t be held responsible for self-inflicted knife wounds.) Once you have your pithless peel, twist it to release the essential oils into your mixture, then drop the peel in. Stir. Add either a couple small pieces of ice or, if you have the mold, one Death Star Ice Sphere.
Enjoy!
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Because most bartenders will screw up your Old Fashioned, I took to ordering Manhattans at bars. And then I took to making them at home. What a delightful, easy drink. I’m a little pickier with my ingredients for this one, but I assure you if you use exactly what I lay out here you’ll be happy with your drink.
2 oz. High West Double Rye
1 oz. Dolin Sweet Vermouth
3-5 dashes Angostura bitters
A couple drops of maraschino cherry juice
1 maraschino cherry
Really easy, you can’t blow this one, folks. Just get a cocktail shaker and load it up with ice. Then add two ounces of High West Double Rye and one ounce of Dolin Sweet Vermouth. Add bitters to taste, and then, if you have a jar of maraschino cherries, add just a drop or two of the juice. If you want to get blitzed, you can double the rye and vermouth, but I do not recommend drinking more than one if you choose to go that path. You’ll regret it in the morning.
The Double Rye and the Dolin’s are keys here. The Dolin’s a little more expensive than your standard-issue Martini & Rossi sweet vermouth, but very much worth it, I think. And the Double Rye, weirdly, varies in cost—when I lived in D.C. it would sometimes near $50; here in Texas, I get it for between $30 and $35 per bottle—but it’s a perfect Manhattan rye.
Shake, let sit for a moment—this will dilute the drink slightly to the benefit of making it much colder; as Kingsley Amis noted in his must-own book on the subject, Everyday Drinking, “It is more important that a cold drink should be as cold as possible than that it should be as concentrated as possible”—and pour into a chilled cocktail glass that you conscientiously placed in a freezer five minutes before this whole process started.
Martinis.
If we’re getting back to basics, we must have a martini. That’s a rule. And look, I’m not a purist. If you want to make a vodka martini, that’s fine by me. I’m not going to sit here and sneer that you’ve made a gimlet. Go with God. Vodka’s better than the pine tree solution that is gin, for the most part. (Gin is by far the worst of the major liquors. Bourbon, then scotch, then whiskey [non-Irish], then Irish whiskey, then vodka, then rum, then tequila, then gin. That’s it, that’s the ranking.)
That said, there is one thing that the classic gin martini offers that the vodka martini cannot. Or, at least should not.
Blue-cheese-stuffed olives.
I’m not going to pretend to be able to make these; find a deli or something that can hook you up. But they’re really the only reason to drink a martini. Well, that and the intoxication. The intoxication is another good reason to drink a martini. And if this is the third drink in the evening, that means we’re getting later on, and election results are starting to come in . . . you might just need a good, stiff, intoxicating drink.
Anyway, if you insist on drinking a martini, I’ll again reach for my Amis and suggest the following:
12-15 parts gin
1 part dry vermouth
Blue-cheese-stuffed olives
The olives are my addition; I’ve never been a fan of cocktail onions. Ech. Anyway: For a single serving, you’re basically looking at two ounces of gin and half-a-teaspoon of dry vermouth. Just a taste. Throw it all in a shaker, shake, and pour. Toss in a couple of blue-cheese-stuffed olives, et voila.
There’s some argument over stirring vs. shaking; the stirrers will tell you that shaking is savagery, that it dilutes the drink and makes it cloudy. I prefer to shake, however. A good vigorous back and forth. More masculine, that. And I’m all about the masculinity.
Speaking of Amis, let’s make a Lucky Jim, shall we?
2 oz. Absolut Vodka
Half-teaspoon Dolin’s Dry Vermouth
Half-teaspoon cucumber juice
Slice of cucumber
This is really more of a spring/summer drink than an early-November drink, but it’s also delicious and this is my cocktail menu, so you’re just going to have to do as I say and make this delicious drink, now aren’t you?
The trick here is making the cucumber juice. A bit of a hassle. If you have a lemon squeezer, that can be made to work: just cut the cucumber into chunks and squeeze the cucumber. One cucumber will make more than enough juice for several of these drinks. Squeeze the cucumber, strain out the pulp, and save the juice that remains.
The drink is so called because it was the preferred beverage of the titular character in Amis’s novel Lucky Jim. Highly recommended if you need a reminder that things could always be worse after the election.
And now we move to the absinthe portion of the evening.
Things are getting weird. You weren’t expecting that result in Georgia, were you? Florida’s not resolving itself anytime soon. And man, Iowa. Hoo boy. That was a strange one, eh?
We haven’t even gotten to Waukesha yet.
Let’s see what the green fairy has to say about all this.
Of course, no one drinks absinthe straight. It’s gross. But it does serve as a key component of one of our greatest cocktails: the Sazerac. As a bonus, we’re back to rye. Here’s what you’ll need:
2 oz. rye
A bit of absinthe (I’ll explain)
Angostura bitters
Peychaud’s bitters
Lemon peel
Sugar/water (simple syrup will do since you already made it)
This is one of those cocktails that is almost always better in a bar. If you’re in a decent one, the bartender will even engage in some pyrotechnics. And fire improves every dining/drinking experience.
Anyway, you’re not at a bar, you’re at home. Because everything has collapsed in the face of COVID. So we’re going to do the best we can.
Get yourself two Old Fashioned glasses. Ideally, you’d put a sugar cube in the first glass and a few drops of water to dissolve it. But you might not have a sugar cube, because this isn’t 1927. So just splash a teaspoon of that simple syrup in there, along with your rye (I’m using Whistlepig 6 Year for this one), the Angostura bitters, and the Peychaud’s bitters. Add a few pieces of ice and let it sit.
In the second Old Fashioned glass, place a splash of absinthe and roll it around until the glass is coated. Strain the mixed cocktail into the absinthe-coated glass. Then take that lemon peel, twist, and garnish. If you want to get fancy, you could get a lighter and torch the lemon peel when you twist it, which will set off a delightful little flame.
Perfect whether you’re in a burn-it-all-down mood or want a little sparkle to celebrate.


Hope Dies Last

My best friend and I have an ongoing disagreement about the nature of people .
It ’ s too reductive to say that I think people are generally good and he thinks they are generally bad .
But it ’ s fair to say that I spend a lot of time trying to convince him that Trump voters should not collectively be strapped to a Falcon Heavy rocket and launched into the sun .
Having spent the last three years talking to hundreds of 2016 Trump voters—primarily women—during focus group sessions , I believe there is far less cause for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the simple truth is this : There really are a lot of people who want the Trump , the full Trump , and nothing but the Trump .
But these people who attend MAGA rallies , wear the red hats , and treat mask-wearing as an infringement of their most fundamental rights , simply are not enough to form a winning political coalition .
Trump ’ s 2016 coalition was incredibly tenuous .
He brought together just enough white working-class voters with an axe to grind against the establishment , the media , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who—as they regularly tell me—hated Hillary Clinton so much that they took a flyer on the loathsome reality TV star .
Many of these traditional Republicans assumed Trump would lose and hoped that , if he didn ’ t , he might , as a businessman , do some good things for the economy .
Yet even this relatively big tent lost the popular vote by 3 million while lucking into a 77,000 vote Electoral College victory .
And since then , Trump has lost a number of these people .
The first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there with the president , botched pandemic response be damned .
But the second group is more of a mixed bag .
Yes , most of the traditional Republican voters who held their noses and voted for Trump in 2016 will do so again this time .
They like their judges and their tax cuts and their reduced regulations and find the Never Trump types extremely tiresome with all their dire talk about norms , values , and institutions .
They ’ ll say that those people have Trump Derangement Syndrome .
Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be Democrats already !
But here ’ s the thing : That ’ s what a lot of now-former Republicans have done .
Politics is about addition , not subtraction .
That ’ s always been true , but it ’ s especially true when you start out with a coalition that ’ s 3 million votes in the hole .
Trump has never expanded beyond his base and many of those voters who rolled the dice on him in 2016 aren ’ t coming back for more .
In fact , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ participants since April .
Of the 76 women who voted for Trump in 2016 , only 36 are voting for President Trump again ; 28 are voting for Joe Biden ; 8 are going for Libertarian Jo Jorgensen ; and 2 aren ’ t voting / are writing someone in .
( Side note : 30 of these respondents were from Pennsylvania .
Only 14 from that group were voting for Trump again . )
Now the participants in my focus groups were all people who voted for the president , but rated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job.
” So I ’ m polling from the most disenchanted slice of Trump voters .
But the fact is , with more than 60 percent of registered voters saying the country is on the wrong track , there are a lot of disenchanted Trump voters out there .
And Trump doesn ’ t have to lose half of them in order to get roasted .
If he were to lose even 2 percent of his 2016 base , then he has no path to victory .
Which brings me to my election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I believe Donald Trump is going to lose this election .
I believe he is going to lose badly .
I believe he is going to take the Republican Senate majority down with him .
I believe it will be a defeat of historic proportions that flips a couple formerly taken-for-granted red states .
And I believe all this less because of the polls , and more because I have faith that American voters—currently turning out at unprecedented levels—know that we are better than this .
I have faith that my fellow citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last four years and saying “ Enough.
” I am romantic about politics and optimistic about people .
That means that I ’ ve been wrong a lot over the past four years .
But I ’ ve also talked to enough voters to know that hope is not lost , people are mostly good ( regardless of who they vote for ) , and that America is going to be okay .

My best friend and I have an ongoing disagreement about the nature of people. It’s too reductive to say that I think people are generally good and he thinks they are generally bad. But it’s fair to say that I spend a lot of time trying to convince him that Trump voters should not collectively be strapped to a Falcon Heavy rocket and launched into the sun.
Having spent the last three years talking to hundreds of 2016 Trump voters—primarily women—during focus group sessions, I believe there is far less cause for despair about the human condition.
Because the simple truth is this: There really are a lot of people who want the Trump, the full Trump, and nothing but the Trump. But these people who attend MAGA rallies, wear the red hats, and treat mask-wearing as an infringement of their most fundamental rights, simply are not enough to form a winning political coalition.
Trump’s 2016 coalition was incredibly tenuous. He brought together just enough white working-class voters with an axe to grind against the establishment, the media, and the libs and traditional GOP voters who—as they regularly tell me—hated Hillary Clinton so much that they took a flyer on the loathsome reality TV star. Many of these traditional Republicans assumed Trump would lose and hoped that, if he didn’t, he might, as a businessman, do some good things for the economy.
Yet even this relatively big tent lost the popular vote by 3 million while lucking into a 77,000 vote Electoral College victory.
And since then, Trump has lost a number of these people.
The first group—the white working-class men—has largely hung in there with the president, botched pandemic response be damned. But the second group is more of a mixed bag.
Yes, most of the traditional Republican voters who held their noses and voted for Trump in 2016 will do so again this time. They like their judges and their tax cuts and their reduced regulations and find the Never Trump types extremely tiresome with all their dire talk about norms, values, and institutions. They’ll say that those people have Trump Derangement Syndrome. Why don’t you all just go be Democrats already!
But here’s the thing: That’s what a lot of now-former Republicans have done.
Politics is about addition, not subtraction. That’s always been true, but it’s especially true when you start out with a coalition that’s 3 million votes in the hole. Trump has never expanded beyond his base and many of those voters who rolled the dice on him in 2016 aren’t coming back for more.
In fact, I went back and surveyed our focus group participants since April. Of the 76 women who voted for Trump in 2016, only 36 are voting for President Trump again; 28 are voting for Joe Biden; 8 are going for Libertarian Jo Jorgensen; and 2 aren’t voting / are writing someone in. (Side note: 30 of these respondents were from Pennsylvania. Only 14 from that group were voting for Trump again.)
Now the participants in my focus groups were all people who voted for the president, but rated him as doing a “very bad job.” So I’m polling from the most disenchanted slice of Trump voters. But the fact is, with more than 60 percent of registered voters saying the country is on the wrong track, there are a lot of disenchanted Trump voters out there. And Trump doesn’t have to lose half of them in order to get roasted. If he were to lose even 2 percent of his 2016 base, then he has no path to victory.
Which brings me to my election prediction—and my general cause for optimism.
I believe Donald Trump is going to lose this election. I believe he is going to lose badly. I believe he is going to take the Republican Senate majority down with him. I believe it will be a defeat of historic proportions that flips a couple formerly taken-for-granted red states.
And I believe all this less because of the polls, and more because I have faith that American voters—currently turning out at unprecedented levels—know that we are better than this. I have faith that my fellow citizens are looking at the wreckage of the last four years and saying “Enough.”
I am romantic about politics and optimistic about people.
That means that I’ve been wrong a lot over the past four years. But I’ve also talked to enough voters to know that hope is not lost, people are mostly good (regardless of who they vote for), and that America is going to be okay.


thebulwark--2020-11-03--To My Fellow George W. Bush Supporters

To My Fellow George W. Bush Supporters

Really ?
Are you serious ?
That ’ s the reaction I have whenever a Bush 2000 supporter pledges allegiance to Trump .
Because it is impossible to have believed in the values espoused by George W. Bush in 2000 and then to vote for Donald J. Trump in 2020 .
It just doesn ’ t make sense .
So either these people were deceiving themselves when they supported Bush or are deceiving themselves now .
In his acceptance speech at the 2000 Republican National Convention , Bush said , “ I will not attack a part of this country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it.
” Donald Trump openly sees himself as president of only the states went for him in 2016 .
In the same speech , Bush declared , “ We must give our children a spirit of moral courage because their character is our destiny.
” Trump asked his oldest son to write a hush money check to the porn star he had sex with ten days after his youngest son was born .
Bush said of the Founding Fathers , “ Their highest hope , as Robert Frost described it , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And that , 13 generations later , is still our goal , to occupy the land with character.
” Who was right ?
The Founding Fathers , Robert Frost , and George W. Bush ?
Or the guy who denied he raped a woman by explaining “ She wasn ’ t my type.
” How does this work ?
How could someone explain to their grandchildren that they passionately believed George Bush when he pledged “ to restore honor and dignity to the White House ” and also that they supported the man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ genitals ?
Did these people believe it was a mistake for George W. Bush to give a speech at the Islamic Center in Washington , D.C. after September 11 ?
Did they disagree with him when he told America : Were Bush supporters secretly ashamed when he said , Were they secretly longing for a president who instead would call for “ a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States ” ?
A person can not agree with both statements .
So which one makes you feel ashamed ?
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helped elect George W. Bush .
In April of 1999 , I moved to Austin to help a man I believed to be a good and decent man campaign to be president .
We stood together in the cold rain on that strange election night of 2000 , waiting for our new president to give a speech .
And we took that long walk back to headquarters when it became clear no winner would be declared .
Have my friends from Bush 2000 forgotten what it was we were fighting for ?
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man , but we did work for man who could honestly say , “ I believe in tolerance , not in spite of my faith , but because of it .
I believe in a God who calls us not to judge our neighbors but to love them .
I believe in grace because I ’ ve seen it , and peace because I ’ ve felt it , and forgiveness because I ’ ve needed it.
” How can anyone who was moved by that now support a man who calls himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked God for forgiveness because he never had the need .
To those who supported George W. Bush with me and now support Donald Trump , I say : This is your choice .
It ’ s not about who Donald Trump is , but about who you are .
Does pledging your allegiance and support for this man actually make you feel better about yourself and the country ?
I don ’ t believe it .
I refuse to believe that each of you are that shallow , that each of you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life that you can feel good about this choice .
Your support of Trump doesn ’ t make me angry .
It makes me sad .
Because it means you have bargained with yourself and decided that your values weren ’ t worth defending .
Donald Trump is going to lose .
Republicans are going to lose the Senate .
But defeat in politics is transitory .
Shame is forever .
I ’ m sorry .
It didn ’ t have to be this way .

Really? Are you serious?
That’s the reaction I have whenever a Bush 2000 supporter pledges allegiance to Trump. Because it is impossible to have believed in the values espoused by George W. Bush in 2000 and then to vote for Donald J. Trump in 2020. It just doesn’t make sense.
So either these people were deceiving themselves when they supported Bush or are deceiving themselves now.
In his acceptance speech at the 2000 Republican National Convention, Bush said, “I will not attack a part of this country because I want to lead the whole of it.” Donald Trump openly sees himself as president of only the states went for him in 2016.
In the same speech, Bush declared, “We must give our children a spirit of moral courage because their character is our destiny.” Trump asked his oldest son to write a hush money check to the porn star he had sex with ten days after his youngest son was born.
Bush said of the Founding Fathers, “Their highest hope, as Robert Frost described it, was to occupy the land with character? And that, 13 generations later, is still our goal, to occupy the land with character.” Who was right? The Founding Fathers, Robert Frost, and George W. Bush? Or the guy who denied he raped a woman by explaining “She wasn’t my type.”
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
How does this work? How could someone explain to their grandchildren that they passionately believed George Bush when he pledged “to restore honor and dignity to the White House” and also that they supported the man who bragged about grabbing women by their genitals?
Did these people believe it was a mistake for George W. Bush to give a speech at the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C. after September 11? Did they disagree with him when he told America:
These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it’s important for my fellow Americans to understand that.
Were Bush supporters secretly ashamed when he said,
America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.
Were they secretly longing for a president who instead would call for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”?
A person cannot agree with both statements. So which one makes you feel ashamed?
I worked alongside many of the people who helped elect George W. Bush. In April of 1999, I moved to Austin to help a man I believed to be a good and decent man campaign to be president. We stood together in the cold rain on that strange election night of 2000, waiting for our new president to give a speech. And we took that long walk back to headquarters when it became clear no winner would be declared.
Have my friends from Bush 2000 forgotten what it was we were fighting for? We didn’t work for a perfect man, but we did work for man who could honestly say, “I believe in tolerance, not in spite of my faith, but because of it. I believe in a God who calls us not to judge our neighbors but to love them. I believe in grace because I’ve seen it, and peace because I’ve felt it, and forgiveness because I’ve needed it.”
How can anyone who was moved by that now support a man who calls himself a Christian, but says he never asked God for forgiveness because he never had the need.
Really?
To those who supported George W. Bush with me and now support Donald Trump, I say: This is your choice. It’s not about who Donald Trump is, but about who you are. Does pledging your allegiance and support for this man actually make you feel better about yourself and the country? I don’t believe it. I refuse to believe that each of you are that shallow, that each of you have such a nihilistic view of public life that you can feel good about this choice.
Your support of Trump doesn’t make me angry. It makes me sad. Because it means you have bargained with yourself and decided that your values weren’t worth defending.
Donald Trump is going to lose. Republicans are going to lose the Senate. But defeat in politics is transitory. Shame is forever. I’m sorry. It didn’t have to be this way.


thebulwark--2020-11-04--All of Trump’s Anti-Democratic Attacks Have Failed—So Far

So , there ’ s some good news from yesterday : American democracy is still alive .
It may be hobbled and gasping for breath , but it ’ s still alive .
While most Americans slept and millions of legitimate ballots awaited counting , President Trump made the predictable , feverish announcement that he won the election .
This cynical attempt to thwart democracy will fail—just like the litany of others .
That ’ s the amazing part .
Think about it .
For weeks , Trump and his attorney general , Bill Barr , savaged mail-in balloting as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and those ballots will likely decide the election .
Trump ’ s heads-up that he would be attacking the constitutional voting rights of citizens who used that option to exercise the franchise during an epic pandemic only inadvertently served to educate the voting populace .
After 550,000 mail-in ballots were tossed during the primaries , people learned to check the paperwork impeccably .
Even now , some will fall through the cracks , but the process stood .
Then Trump took a swipe at the U.S .
Postal Service , with his donor-loyalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concocted a transparent plan to outmaneuver voting by mail in a pandemic , cutting back worker hours and removing sorting machines—all under the pretense that it was business as usual .
The U.S. Congress held hearings , there was public outrage , and DeJoy reverted to the shadows .
When a federal judge learned that 300,000 pieces of mail had not been accounted for , he ordered the USPS to find them .
Under the strain of election day , the USPS declined to comply , prompting the judge to direct government lawyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him in court today .
Next came a stream of lawsuits across the country in which the Trump campaign and the Republican party invoked the judicial system in a bald effort to making voting harder during a pandemic—challenging drive-through voting sites , ballot drop-off boxes , easing of notarization and signature requirements , limits on who can be poll watchers , the counting of timely postmarked ballots received after November 3 , and on and on .
The wrinkle with this maneuver is that , even under the voter-unfriendly legal doctrines concocted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter access laws , courts tend to require evidence .
And there just wasn ’ t evidence to be found .
Election fraud is rare .
Without empirical evidence—remember when Trump claimed Wisconsin ballots were “ being dumped in rivers ” ?
—many of those lawsuits failed to stop the election .
Let ’ s not forget , too , the HEROES Act , which was passed by the House in May and went without action in the Senate ever since—another casualty of Mitch McConnell ’ s control of the Senate .
Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bail out the U.S .
Postal Service , but it would have funded the states ’ efforts to hold an election during a pandemic .
Yesterday they managed to pull it off anyway .
This is nothing short of amazing—thousands of regular folks worked tirelessly on the front lines of democracy , political bullets whizzing past their heads .
For the most part , the feared problems of long lines , machinery breakdowns , last-minute closings of polling sites , and inadequate volunteer staff didn ’ t materialize .
So too , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fervent supporters didn ’ t produce violence at the polls .
It didn ’ t keep people from voting .
With the exception of the miles-long “ Trump Train ” caravans trolling Americas streets , the whole charade of bringing out his supporters to strong-arm his way into four more years proved to be just that : a charade .
Which brings us to the U.S. Supreme Court and the fire-drill appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to fill the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s seat .
Trump has repeatedly promised that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the 2000 race between Al Gore and George W. Bush , where a 5-4 conservative majority halted a recount in Florida under Florida law by Florida officials , handing the presidency to Bush by 537 votes .
Again last night , during his unwarranted declaration of victory , Trump said “ we ’ ll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court.
” But for that to happen , many stars must align for him .
For starters , there must be an actual dispute under state or federal law regarding the counting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decide the election .
Which means that the vote tally needs to be slim in a potentially decisive state like North Carolina , Michigan , Wisconsin , or Pennsylvania .
That lawsuit must be brought by a plaintiff with “ standing ” —someone who can show that the allegedly unlawful practice actually caused tangible harm that justifies the courts ’ involvement .
This has been a tough hurdle for the Trump campaign to overcome in some of the pre-election litigation .
Next , of course , assuming that the dispute can be expedited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ December 8—the statutory deadline for state legislatures to meet and enact an alternative law for casting electoral votes if the tally is tied up—the Trump camp must convince five justices to swing the election his way .
In the meantime , Justice Barrett will be under pressure—rightfully—to recuse herself .
But even a conservative-leaning court would be hard-pressed to disturb a state ’ s prerogative to decide its own election .
Textualists on the court have already emphasized that the Constitution lodges the power to decide elections in the state legislatures , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after election day so long as they are postmarked on or before .
In Bush v. Gore , the majority focused in part on the perceived unfairness of only recounting some ballots and not others—it hardly laid out the precedent which Trump seems to see in it , that courts decide elections .
To the contrary , Justice Scalia took pains to state in the majority opinion that it was a ticket for that train only : “ our consideration is limited to the present circumstances.
” Trump showed his hand early—that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not against any particular candidate—and so far that gambit has failed .

So, there’s some good news from yesterday: American democracy is still alive. It may be hobbled and gasping for breath, but it’s still alive.
While most Americans slept and millions of legitimate ballots awaited counting, President Trump made the predictable, feverish announcement that he won the election. This cynical attempt to thwart democracy will fail—just like the litany of others. That’s the amazing part.
Think about it.
For weeks, Trump and his attorney general, Bill Barr, savaged mail-in balloting as fraudulent. People still voted by mail and those ballots will likely decide the election. Trump’s heads-up that he would be attacking the constitutional voting rights of citizens who used that option to exercise the franchise during an epic pandemic only inadvertently served to educate the voting populace. After 550,000 mail-in ballots were tossed during the primaries, people learned to check the paperwork impeccably. Even now, some will fall through the cracks, but the process stood.
Then Trump took a swipe at the U.S. Postal Service, with his donor-loyalist Louis DeJoy at the helm. DeJoy concocted a transparent plan to outmaneuver voting by mail in a pandemic, cutting back worker hours and removing sorting machines—all under the pretense that it was business as usual. The U.S. Congress held hearings, there was public outrage, and DeJoy reverted to the shadows. When a federal judge learned that 300,000 pieces of mail had not been accounted for, he ordered the USPS to find them. Under the strain of election day, the USPS declined to comply, prompting the judge to direct government lawyers to be ready to explain themselves to him in court today.
Next came a stream of lawsuits across the country in which the Trump campaign and the Republican party invoked the judicial system in a bald effort to making voting harder during a pandemic—challenging drive-through voting sites, ballot drop-off boxes, easing of notarization and signature requirements, limits on who can be poll watchers, the counting of timely postmarked ballots received after November 3, and on and on.
The wrinkle with this maneuver is that, even under the voter-unfriendly legal doctrines concocted by the Supreme Court to govern challenges to voter access laws, courts tend to require evidence. And there just wasn’t evidence to be found. Election fraud is rare. Without empirical evidence—remember when Trump claimed Wisconsin ballots were “being dumped in rivers”?—many of those lawsuits failed to stop the election.
Let’s not forget, too, the HEROES Act, which was passed by the House in May and went without action in the Senate ever since—another casualty of Mitch McConnell’s control of the Senate. Not only did that legislation have money to bail out the U.S. Postal Service, but it would have funded the states’ efforts to hold an election during a pandemic. Yesterday they managed to pull it off anyway. This is nothing short of amazing—thousands of regular folks worked tirelessly on the front lines of democracy, political bullets whizzing past their heads. For the most part, the feared problems of long lines, machinery breakdowns, last-minute closings of polling sites, and inadequate volunteer staff didn’t materialize.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
So too, Trump’s violence-stoking rhetoric to his most fervent supporters didn’t produce violence at the polls. It didn’t keep people from voting. With the exception of the miles-long “Trump Train” caravans trolling America’s streets, the whole charade of bringing out his supporters to strong-arm his way into four more years proved to be just that: a charade.
Which brings us to the U.S. Supreme Court and the fire-drill appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to fill the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat. Trump has repeatedly promised that the election would be decided by the court—much like the 2000 race between Al Gore and George W. Bush, where a 5-4 conservative majority halted a recount in Florida under Florida law by Florida officials, handing the presidency to Bush by 537 votes. Again last night, during his unwarranted declaration of victory, Trump said “we’ll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court.” But for that to happen, many stars must align for him.
For starters, there must be an actual dispute under state or federal law regarding the counting of ballots in a state that could decide the election. Which means that the vote tally needs to be slim in a potentially decisive state like North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, or Pennsylvania. That lawsuit must be brought by a plaintiff with “standing”—someone who can show that the allegedly unlawful practice actually caused tangible harm that justifies the courts’ involvement. This has been a tough hurdle for the Trump campaign to overcome in some of the pre-election litigation.
Next, of course, assuming that the dispute can be expedited up the litigation chain for resolution before December 8—the statutory deadline for state legislatures to meet and enact an alternative law for casting electoral votes if the tally is tied up—the Trump camp must convince five justices to swing the election his way. In the meantime, Justice Barrett will be under pressure—rightfully—to recuse herself. But even a conservative-leaning court would be hard-pressed to disturb a state’s prerogative to decide its own election. Textualists on the court have already emphasized that the Constitution lodges the power to decide elections in the state legislatures, and many states allow ballots to be counted after election day so long as they are postmarked on or before. In Bush v. Gore, the majority focused in part on the perceived unfairness of only recounting some ballots and not others—it hardly laid out the precedent which Trump seems to see in it, that courts decide elections. To the contrary, Justice Scalia took pains to state in the majority opinion that it was a ticket for that train only: “our consideration is limited to the present circumstances.”
Trump showed his hand early—that he was running against the electoral process itself, not against any particular candidate—and so far that gambit has failed.


thebulwark--2020-11-04--The Problem of the Male Voter

The Problem of the Male Voter

As I write , the outcome of the 2020 presidential race remains in doubt , though it seems very likely that Joe Biden will squeeze out a victory .
This is a stunning departure from the resounding repudiation of Trump that we had been hoping for .
Here are a few groggy , morning-after reflections .
1 ) There is something wrong with polling in this country .
The errors of 2016 , underweighting white , non-college-educated whites in the likely voter category , were fixed by 2018—or so we thought .
And yet , here we are .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seats for Democrats in the House .
A loss of about five seats instead .
No flip of Senate control .
And no lope to victory for Joe Biden .
A scratch and claw fight for the last few swing states instead .
Seeing these results throws past polling into doubt as well .
How many times have we consulted surveys and noted that Trump has never cracked a 50 percent approval rating ?
Perhaps that was wrong , too .
How about polling showing the popularity of the Affordable Care Act or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
There are lots of theories—people don ’ t answer their phones , people distrust callers even when they do answer , people don ’ t tell pollsters their true views .
Whatever is happening , we need to figure out a system for gauging public opinion that is more accurate because you can ’ t rely on gut feelings or lawn signs .
2 ) Trump voters are not unaware of who he is .
Throughout these soul-crushing four years , it was possible to believe that most Trump supporters weren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeing .
They were getting a steady diet of agitprop from Rush Limbaugh , Fox News , social media , and the rest of Conservatism Inc. Their propaganda diet presented a successful president .
Brash ?
Sure , but isn ’ t that refreshing after the blow-dried phonies ?
Impolitic ?
All the better .
Not a politician .
He tells it like it is .
He took on China , boosted the economy , and kept out criminal aliens swamping our borders .
But when the crisis came , everyone , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unvarnished and unedited .
They watched those daily coronavirus press conferences and saw him both claim total power and disclaim all responsibility .
They watched him accuse doctors and nurses of stealing equipment he was generous enough to provide , while insulting governors who were pleading for help .
And they saw him boast of his amazing medical aptitude and then ask , straight-faced , whether injecting disinfectant and inserting ultraviolet light into body cavities might be effective against the virus .
The debates were another opportunity for voters to see Trump in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first debate make a mockery of the word debate , using his mouth not to express ideas but as a machine gun to prevent ideas from raising their heads above the parapet .
They knew that he refused to take a COVID test ( as had been prearranged ) and that he was himself , in fact , infected with the virus whose virulence he has so consistently downplayed .
Americans knew that contrary to the most elemental rules of decent behavior , he purposely put others , including his opponent who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at risk of a deadly pathogen .
There was a dip in the polls after the first debate ( if we can believe the polls ! )
, but the sticky loyalty of Trump fans bounced back .
So even with the most generous interpretations about how people are getting their information , we must grapple with the fact that about 70 million Americans know that Trump is a malignant fool and wanted to give him four more years .
3 ) There is a problem with masculinity in this country .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and speaking as someone who , until Trump , was more politically in line with men than women , this difference is becoming one of the defining facts of political affiliation .
This is a big subject , one I ’ ve begun exploring in a recent book about feminism , but we need to think more deeply about how we ’ re raising boys .
America leads the world in unstable families , with significant numbers of children growing up without the steady presence of two parents .
And there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are more damaging to boys than girls .
Boys are coming of age without good male role models to teach them that masculinity means being strong , not whiny , leading by example , being responsible for others , truthful , loyal to spouses and children , protective of the weak and vulnerable , reliable , and competitive in an honorable way .
One instance of Donald Trump receiving tens of millions of votes could have been considered a quirk—and attributed to his TV stardom , Hillary Clinton ’ s unpopularity , Jim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two elections that give such a person scores of millions of votes suggest a deeper disorder .

As I write, the outcome of the 2020 presidential race remains in doubt, though it seems very likely that Joe Biden will squeeze out a victory. This is a stunning departure from the resounding repudiation of Trump that we had been hoping for. Here are a few groggy, morning-after reflections.
1) There is something wrong with polling in this country. The errors of 2016, underweighting white, non-college-educated whites in the likely voter category, were fixed by 2018—or so we thought. And yet, here we are. No blue wave. No gain of 10 seats for Democrats in the House. A loss of about five seats instead. No flip of Senate control. And no lope to victory for Joe Biden. A scratch and claw fight for the last few swing states instead.
Seeing these results throws past polling into doubt as well. How many times have we consulted surveys and noted that Trump has never cracked a 50 percent approval rating? Perhaps that was wrong, too. How about polling showing the popularity of the Affordable Care Act or the Trump tax cuts? Who knows?
There are lots of theories—people don’t answer their phones, people distrust callers even when they do answer, people don’t tell pollsters their true views. Whatever is happening, we need to figure out a system for gauging public opinion that is more accurate because you can’t rely on gut feelings or lawn signs.
2) Trump voters are not unaware of who he is. Throughout these soul-crushing four years, it was possible to believe that most Trump supporters weren’t seeing the same president we were seeing. They were getting a steady diet of agitprop from Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, social media, and the rest of Conservatism Inc. Their propaganda diet presented a successful president. Brash? Sure, but isn’t that refreshing after the blow-dried phonies? Impolitic? All the better. Not a politician. He tells it like it is. He took on China, boosted the economy, and kept out criminal aliens swamping our borders.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
But when the crisis came, everyone, no matter how cocooned, saw the president unvarnished and unedited. They watched those daily coronavirus press conferences and saw him both claim total power and disclaim all responsibility. They watched him accuse doctors and nurses of stealing equipment he was generous enough to provide, while insulting governors who were pleading for help. And they saw him boast of his amazing medical aptitude and then ask, straight-faced, whether injecting disinfectant and inserting ultraviolet light into body cavities might be effective against the virus.
The debates were another opportunity for voters to see Trump in the raw. They watched him in the first debate make a mockery of the word debate, using his mouth not to express ideas but as a machine gun to prevent ideas from raising their heads above the parapet. They knew that he refused to take a COVID test (as had been prearranged) and that he was himself, in fact, infected with the virus whose virulence he has so consistently downplayed. Americans knew that contrary to the most elemental rules of decent behavior, he purposely put others, including his opponent who is a few years older than he, at risk of a deadly pathogen.
There was a dip in the polls after the first debate (if we can believe the polls!), but the sticky loyalty of Trump fans bounced back. So even with the most generous interpretations about how people are getting their information, we must grapple with the fact that about 70 million Americans know that Trump is a malignant fool and wanted to give him four more years.
3) There is a problem with masculinity in this country. The gender gap is now a chasm, and speaking as someone who, until Trump, was more politically in line with men than women, this difference is becoming one of the defining facts of political affiliation. This is a big subject, one I’ve begun exploring in a recent book about feminism, but we need to think more deeply about how we’re raising boys. America leads the world in unstable families, with significant numbers of children growing up without the steady presence of two parents. And there is lots of research suggesting that fractured families are more damaging to boys than girls. Boys are coming of age without good male role models to teach them that masculinity means being strong, not whiny, leading by example, being responsible for others, truthful, loyal to spouses and children, protective of the weak and vulnerable, reliable, and competitive in an honorable way.
One instance of Donald Trump receiving tens of millions of votes could have been considered a quirk—and attributed to his TV stardom, Hillary Clinton’s unpopularity, Jim Comey’s misplaced interference. But two elections that give such a person scores of millions of votes suggest a deeper disorder.