thebulwark--2020-09-25--How the Fear of Authoritarianism Is Breaking American Politics

One source of the great confusion in modern American politics is our ideological disorientation .
What do the two parties stand for ?
The Democratic party owns the moniker “ liberal , ” a word synonymous with freedom , but the party is regularly accused of being authoritarian .
And the Republican party owns the moniker “ conservative , ” a word that means resistant to change , but in the Trump era , the party has aggressively attacked the traditional norms that govern American politics and government .
Part of the problem here is that these two words , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have become associated with party platforms , rather than philosophical outlooks .
In common political discourse , “ liberal ” means the programs that are pursued by the Democratic party ” and “ conservative ” means “ the programs that are pursued by the Republican party.
” But this hides some important lessons about the two political parties and their association with the “ liberal ” and “ conservative ” political traditions , and why our political polarization so dangerous for American democracy .
So as to avoid confusion , I ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement in the United States as “ the Left , ” while using “ liberal ” for the political philosophical tradition ; likewise , “ the Right ” and “ conservative.
” The Left and liberal are not the same thing , and neither are the Right and conservative .
In fact , liberal and conservative , as political philosophical traditions , are not even properly opposed to one another : The liberal tradition teaches that as equals , people ought to be able to make their own choices—think : John Stuart Mill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thomas Hobbes .
Conservatism is the belief that change should be slow , as enunciated by Edmund Burke , as contrasted with radicalism of various kinds .
It is perfectly possible—and in many ways attractive—to be a conservative liberal .
Democrats and Republicans have for most of the last century both been liberals .
In fact , there ’ s an argument to be made that the Democratic and Republican parties were , for the most part , both conservative liberal .
At the extremes of both parties are movements opposed to their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ far left ” and the “ center left ” inside the Democratic party are essentially fights between the radical and conservative Democrats .
There ’ s general agreement that there needs to be change , but disagreement about the extent of change that is needed and how quickly it should occur .
Taking both in the best possible light , the radical Democrats argue that justice delayed is justice denied , while the conservative Democrats focus on the pragmatic questions of policy and how to accomplish lasting change .
Similar debates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with conservative Republicans increasingly getting tagged with the RINO label .
Authoritarianism is usually linked to government overreach ; we think of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party ’ s unitary control over everything as the quintessential example , or of the Chinese Communist Party .
But authoritarianism can be interpreted more broadly , expanding the concept to include non-governmental actors ( sometimes dubbed “ elites ” ) , who can also restrict individual autonomy .
The traditional difference between the Left and the Right is not about their liberalism .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority .
They disagree not that people ought to generally be able to make their own choices , but about which authorities ought to have sway over society , and why .
Few people believe that there ought to be no authority .
Outside of anarchists , virtually everyone falls somewhere on the axis between liberal and authoritarian .
People ought to be able to make their own choices , up to a point ( traditionally , up to the point where your choices harm others ) .
The difference between the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of authoritarianism they fear .
Many on the Right talk about their fear of the authoritarianism of cancel culture/political correctness , and of socialism .
Those on the Left of their fear of the authoritarianism of intolerance , and of inequality .
The Right perceives cancel culture and political correctness as social tyranny .
John Stuart Mill defined this as the “ tyranny of prevailing opinion and feeling , ” which is felt and enforced through social pressure .
The Right and the Left both fear this kind of authoritarianism , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it more acutely because of social and demographic change .
The transformations of the last century are an imposition , not by the government as much as by the changing society itself .
( This is in part why so much vitriol is reserved for Hollywood and the media , which are perceived as both representative of , and drivers of , this social change . )
Ultimately , those on the Right resent being punished ( socially or legally ) for not accepting all the elements of that changing society .
Socialism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ socialism ” is used to mean a variety of things .
Typically speaking , when those on the Right talk about a fear of socialism , it has to do with fear of economic regulation and economic redistribution ( usually away from them and to others , particularly others perceived as undeserving ) , all culminating with a general reduction of prosperity ( both for themselves and generally for the country ) .
The danger those on the Right see is the potential for an overbearing government that dictates all aspects of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has multiple meanings .
Take its most notorious sub-genre , racism .
When those on the Right talk about their fear of racism , they usually mean something like “ deliberate malice towards people not of my race.
” But when those on the Left talk about racism , they also include things like “ systemic racism ” and “ implicit bias.
” Systemic racism ( e.g .
housing discrimination ) and implicit biases ( e.g .
stereotyping ) are not necessarily deliberate ; they can occur even if there is no single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Many debates between the Left and the Right about whether the United States is “ racist ” never go anywhere for this reason ; those on the Right tend to define racism as requiring deliberate malice , while those on the Left do not .
It ’ s impossible to have a useful debate on the topic without a shared definition . )
No matter which definition we use , the fear on the Left is that people will not be able to live their lives the way they want to live them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in ways either overt or insidious .
Inequality essentially boils down to the power of the rich to use their wealth to control society .
This occurs partially through the ability to influence government ( hence the influence of wealth over electoral outcomes is seen as a major issue by many on the Left ) .
It culminates with the ability of the wealthy to exclude others from seeing the benefits of a growing economy , deriving those benefits instead solely for themselves .
The ultimate fear is of a small , rich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , poor class , forcing the poor to accept depredations just to acquire the necessities of life .
Whether or not any of these fears is well-founded , what matters for the state of American politics is that people do have these fears , deeply and sincerely .
Both sides perceive themselves to be on the side of liberalism ( with exceptions ) , resisting the authoritarian impulses of their political rivals .
Increasingly , the authoritarian impulses of the rival are all any partisan sees .
These impulses are accentuated by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one another .
For those on the Left , fighting racism , sexism , and homophobia often involves tools that those on the Right perceive to be social tyranny .
For the Left , fighting inequality often involves tools that the Right calls socialist .
And the opposite is true : for the Right , fighting socialism often looks to the Left like the imposition of greater inequality .
What the Right considers opposition to “ political correctness ” often looks to the Left like resistance to the elimination of racism and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counterintuitive : For both sides , fighting authoritarianism largely requires control of the federal government .
Generally speaking people think government is the primary source of authoritarianism .
But from the perspective of the American Right , there isn ’ t really any way to fight social tyranny , or to fight socialism , without control of at least one branch of the government .
And from the perspective of the American Left , there isn ’ t really any way to fight racism or inequality without the same .
Yes , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without governmental control , but if the other side has control , there ’ s not a lot that can be done to prevent them from imposing their feared agenda .
This political situation—where Left and Right are driven by their perceived defense of liberalism against the authoritarian impulses of their political rivals—is extraordinarily dangerous .
This is because , as Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt masterfully argue in their book How Democracies Die , if losing an election means a political rival will impose authoritarianism , then you become willing to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loss—up to and including antidemocratic measures .
When that happens , democracy is in trouble .
The antidemocratic impulse is clearer in the Republican party right now .
Fear of the Left ’ s control of the government , including the courts , drives Republicans to engage in gerrymandering , voter suppression , and the McConnell-era blocking of Democratic judicial appointments .
These have all been supported by many on the Right , who perceive them as necessary to resist Left-inflected authoritarianism .
But the antidemocratic impulse is not unique to Republicans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Right perceive as resistance to Left-authoritarianism are increasingly antidemocratic , it creates a new set of incentives for those on the Left to retaliate in kind .
Stuart Stevens has said : “ For this democracy thing to work , someone has to be willing to lose.
” But this isn ’ t quite right .
For democracy to work , both sides have to be willing to lose .
As long as each side perceives the other as authoritarian , people on both sides will believe that losing is a catastrophe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Unfortunately , as long as fear is the defining emotion of politics in the “ home of the brave , ” American democracy will be unavoidably precarious .

One source of the great confusion in modern American politics is our ideological disorientation. What do the two parties stand for? The Democratic party owns the moniker “liberal,” a word synonymous with freedom, but the party is regularly accused of being authoritarian. And the Republican party owns the moniker “conservative,” a word that means resistant to change, but in the Trump era, the party has aggressively attacked the traditional norms that govern American politics and government.
Part of the problem here is that these two words, “liberal” and “conservative” have become associated with party platforms, rather than philosophical outlooks. In common political discourse, “liberal” means the programs that are pursued by the Democratic party” and “conservative” means “the programs that are pursued by the Republican party.” But this hides some important lessons about the two political parties and their association with the “liberal” and “conservative” political traditions, and why our political polarization so dangerous for American democracy.
So as to avoid confusion, I’ll refer to the “liberal” political movement in the United States as “the Left,” while using “liberal” for the political philosophical tradition; likewise, “the Right” and “conservative.” The Left and liberal are not the same thing, and neither are the Right and conservative. In fact, liberal and conservative, as political philosophical traditions, are not even properly opposed to one another: The liberal tradition teaches that as equals, people ought to be able to make their own choices—think: John Stuart Mill. Its antithesis is authoritarianism à la Thomas Hobbes. Conservatism is the belief that change should be slow, as enunciated by Edmund Burke, as contrasted with radicalism of various kinds.
It is perfectly possible—and in many ways attractive—to be a conservative liberal. Democrats and Republicans have for most of the last century both been liberals. In fact, there’s an argument to be made that the Democratic and Republican parties were, for the most part, both conservative liberal.
At the extremes of both parties are movements opposed to their respective conservative elements. The debates between the “far left” and the “center left” inside the Democratic party are essentially fights between the radical and conservative Democrats. There’s general agreement that there needs to be change, but disagreement about the extent of change that is needed and how quickly it should occur. Taking both in the best possible light, the radical Democrats argue that justice delayed is justice denied, while the conservative Democrats focus on the pragmatic questions of policy and how to accomplish lasting change. Similar debates have occurred within the Republican party, with conservative Republicans increasingly getting tagged with the RINO label.
Authoritarianism is usually linked to government overreach; we think of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party’s unitary control over everything as the quintessential example, or of the Chinese Communist Party. But authoritarianism can be interpreted more broadly, expanding the concept to include non-governmental actors (sometimes dubbed “elites”), who can also restrict individual autonomy.
The traditional difference between the Left and the Right is not about their liberalism. Instead, it is about their opinions about authority. They disagree not that people ought to generally be able to make their own choices, but about which authorities ought to have sway over society, and why.
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…
Few people believe that there ought to be no authority. Outside of anarchists, virtually everyone falls somewhere on the axis between liberal and authoritarian. People ought to be able to make their own choices, up to a point (traditionally, up to the point where your choices harm others).
The difference between the American Left and Right is all about what kind of authoritarianism they fear. Many on the Right talk about their fear of the authoritarianism of cancel culture/political correctness, and of socialism. Those on the Left of their fear of the authoritarianism of intolerance, and of inequality.
The Right perceives cancel culture and political correctness as social tyranny. John Stuart Mill defined this as the “tyranny of prevailing opinion and feeling,” which is felt and enforced through social pressure. The Right and the Left both fear this kind of authoritarianism, but in recent years the Right has felt it more acutely because of social and demographic change. The transformations of the last century are an imposition, not by the government as much as by the changing society itself. (This is in part why so much vitriol is reserved for Hollywood and the media, which are perceived as both representative of, and drivers of, this social change.) Ultimately, those on the Right resent being punished (socially or legally) for not accepting all the elements of that changing society.
Socialism is harder to unravel because the word “socialism” is used to mean a variety of things. Typically speaking, when those on the Right talk about a fear of socialism, it has to do with fear of economic regulation and economic redistribution (usually away from them and to others, particularly others perceived as undeserving), all culminating with a general reduction of prosperity (both for themselves and generally for the country). The danger those on the Right see is the potential for an overbearing government that dictates all aspects of economic life.
Like socialism, intolerance has multiple meanings. Take its most notorious sub-genre, racism. When those on the Right talk about their fear of racism, they usually mean something like “deliberate malice towards people not of my race.” But when those on the Left talk about racism, they also include things like “systemic racism” and “implicit bias.” Systemic racism (e.g. housing discrimination) and implicit biases (e.g. stereotyping) are not necessarily deliberate; they can occur even if there is no single person who has deliberate malice. (Many debates between the Left and the Right about whether the United States is “racist” never go anywhere for this reason; those on the Right tend to define racism as requiring deliberate malice, while those on the Left do not. It’s impossible to have a useful debate on the topic without a shared definition.) No matter which definition we use, the fear on the Left is that people will not be able to live their lives the way they want to live them, and their choices will be restricted in ways either overt or insidious.
Inequality essentially boils down to the power of the rich to use their wealth to control society. This occurs partially through the ability to influence government (hence the influence of wealth over electoral outcomes is seen as a major issue by many on the Left). It culminates with the ability of the wealthy to exclude others from seeing the benefits of a growing economy, deriving those benefits instead solely for themselves. The ultimate fear is of a small, rich class which can dictate to a large, poor class, forcing the poor to accept depredations just to acquire the necessities of life.
Whether or not any of these fears is well-founded, what matters for the state of American politics is that people do have these fears, deeply and sincerely. Both sides perceive themselves to be on the side of liberalism (with exceptions), resisting the authoritarian impulses of their political rivals. Increasingly, the authoritarian impulses of the rival are all any partisan sees.
These impulses are accentuated by the fact that their fears are inverses of one another. For those on the Left, fighting racism, sexism, and homophobia often involves tools that those on the Right perceive to be social tyranny. For the Left, fighting inequality often involves tools that the Right calls socialist. And the opposite is true: for the Right, fighting socialism often looks to the Left like the imposition of greater inequality. What the Right considers opposition to “political correctness” often looks to the Left like resistance to the elimination of racism and other forms of intolerance.
This may seem counterintuitive: For both sides, fighting authoritarianism largely requires control of the federal government.
Generally speaking people think government is the primary source of authoritarianism. But from the perspective of the American Right, there isn’t really any way to fight social tyranny, or to fight socialism, without control of at least one branch of the government. And from the perspective of the American Left, there isn’t really any way to fight racism or inequality without the same. Yes, there are things that each side can do without governmental control, but if the other side has control, there’s not a lot that can be done to prevent them from imposing their feared agenda.
This political situation—where Left and Right are driven by their perceived defense of liberalism against the authoritarian impulses of their political rivals—is extraordinarily dangerous. This is because, as Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt masterfully argue in their book How Democracies Die, if losing an election means a political rival will impose authoritarianism, then you become willing to take any means necessary to prevent an electoral loss—up to and including antidemocratic measures. When that happens, democracy is in trouble.
The antidemocratic impulse is clearer in the Republican party right now. Fear of the Left’s control of the government, including the courts, drives Republicans to engage in gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the McConnell-era blocking of Democratic judicial appointments. These have all been supported by many on the Right, who perceive them as necessary to resist Left-inflected authoritarianism. But the antidemocratic impulse is not unique to Republicans, and because actions that those on the Right perceive as resistance to Left-authoritarianism are increasingly antidemocratic, it creates a new set of incentives for those on the Left to retaliate in kind.
Stuart Stevens has said: “For this democracy thing to work, someone has to be willing to lose.” But this isn’t quite right. For democracy to work, both sides have to be willing to lose. As long as each side perceives the other as authoritarian, people on both sides will believe that losing is a catastrophe that must be averted by any means necessary. Unfortunately, as long as fear is the defining emotion of politics in the “home of the brave,” American democracy will be unavoidably precarious.


thebulwark--2020-09-25--Trump’s Russophilia Has Become Intelligence Policy

Multiple reports suggest U.S. officials risk the wrath of President Trump whenever they discuss misbehavior by Russian President Vladimir Putin , including ongoing interference in the U.S. presidential election .
The most recent example comes from FBI Director Christopher Wray ’ s testimony before the House Homeland Security Committee .
Wray was categorical about ongoing Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election .
“ We certainly have seen very active—very active—efforts by the Russians to influence our election in 2020 , ” Mr. Wray said , specifically “ to both sow divisiveness and discord , and I think the intelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primarily to denigrate Vice President Biden in what the Russians see as a kind of an anti-Russian establishment.
” Within hours of Wray ’ s sworn testimony , President Trump expressed his disapproval .
“ But Chris , you don ’ t see any activity from China , even though it is a FAR greater threat than Russia , Russia , Russia , ” Trump tweeted .
Trump continued to express his disapproval the next day noting , “ We ’ re looking at a lot of different things and I did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m not sure he liked them either .
I ’ m sure he probably would agree with me .
And if you look at it , who is the real problem ?
The big problem is China .
And we can have others also and I ’ m not excluding anybody .
But the big problem is China , and why he doesn ’ t want to say that , that certainly bothers me.
” Despite Trump ’ s unwillingness to point the finger at Putin , the intelligence community finds the evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report disclosed by the Washington Post ’ s Josh Rogin , the CIA concludes that “ President Vladimir Putin and the senior most Russian officials are aware of and probably directing Russia ’ s influence operations aimed at denigrating the former U.S. Vice President , supporting the U.S. president and fueling public discord ahead of the U.S. election in November.
” At the same time , CIA Director Gina Haspel reportedly has reduced the flow of Russia-related intelligence for review by the president , who famously does not react well to such information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked during an interview on CNN earlier this month , said China was the bigger threat , more than Russia .
Robert O ’ Brien , Trump ’ s national security adviser , in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal , listed China ahead of Russia in discussing threats to the U.S. election .
Nobody disputes that China is interfering in the election ; the difference is that Russian efforts are far more developed and persistent and seek to stir the pot and sow divisiveness , as FBI Director rightly said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States .
Brian Murphy , a senior official at the Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) , filed a whistleblower complaint alleging that top officials in his Department ordered him to water down references to Russia in the analytical products produced by his office , under orders from O ’ Brien .
Miles Taylor , former chief-of-staff at DHS , levelled similar allegations .
Last year , Dan Coats , then the director of national intelligence , was fired for refusing to downplay Russia in intelligence reports produced by his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s interim replacement , was removed after one of his analysts briefed Congress that Russia interference reflected a preference for Trump over Biden .
Trump ’ s defense of Putin is long standing .
When asked about the murders of Russian journalists in 2017 , for example , the president replied , “ There are a lot of killers .
You think our country ’ s so innocent ?
” This was one of many occasions when Trump has declined to criticize Putin , insisting instead on the worst kind of moral equivalence—put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States , no less .
Trump famously took Putin ’ s word over that of his intelligence community during the two leaders ’ joint press conference in Helsinki in July 2018 , saying he believed Putin when the Russian leader denied interfering in the 2016 U.S. election .
And he recently refused to comment at all on the poisoning of Russian activist Alexei Navalny with the same chemical nerve agent used by the GRU in the assassination attempt on former Russian spy Sergei Skripal in the UK in 2018 .
Trump likes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Russia than any previous administration .
There is an element of truth to that .
Unlike President Obama , the Trump administration has provided Ukraine with lethal military assistance to contest Putin ’ s invasion of the country ’ s eastern provinces .
The U.S. has sought to break Russia ’ s energy hold on its near neighbors , including by opposing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that would circumvent Ukraine and reduce its income from transit fees .
U.S. military spending has increased , though Trump can hardly claim sole credit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military presence in Poland has increased , Trump ’ s plan to withdraw 12,000 American soldiers from Germany has created unease about the US commitment to NATO .
Although Trump never criticizes Putin , he habitually attacks America ’ s allies , especially Germany ’ s Chancellor Angela Merkel and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau .
He raised doubts in 2018 when he was asked whether the U.S. would defend Montenegro , a new NATO member .
And in a second Trump term , former administration officials have openly speculated that he might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which would fulfill a long-time Russian objective .
Worse than simply defending Putin from criticism , as noted in a “ Statement by Former Republican National Security Officials for Biden ” ( which we both signed ) , has been Trump ’ s explicit request in 2016 for Russia to meddle in that election by finding and releasing Hillary Clinton ’ s missing emails .
He has spoken to Putin numerous times this year with virtually no readouts of the calls from the White House .
He has said , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian forces offered bounties on American soldiers to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan .
In typical fashion , he dismissed those reports as a hoax and fake news .
Why Trump seeks to suppress and downplay gross Russian misbehavior is a mystery .
Some , including the journalist Tim Weiner , entertain the possibility that Putin has some leverage over Trump , and even wonder whether Trump is a Russian agent .
Bob Woodward ’ s new book , Rage , suggests Coats held “ deep suspicions ” that Putin “ had something ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Woodward , could see “ no other explanation ” for the president ’ s behavior toward the Russian president .
The recent bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report documents scores of hitherto unreported contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians during 2015-16 .
Both of us have been involved in other Republican presidential campaigns in 2012 and 2016 and can attest that this level of contact is unprecedented .
What those contacts represent remains unclear .
What is clear , however , is that Trump ’ s obsequiousness toward Putin has done real harm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims that it would be great if he and Putin got along .
The big question is : great for whom ?

Multiple reports suggest U.S. officials risk the wrath of President Trump whenever they discuss misbehavior by Russian President Vladimir Putin, including ongoing interference in the U.S. presidential election. The most recent example comes from FBI Director Christopher Wray’s testimony before the House Homeland Security Committee.
Wray was categorical about ongoing Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election. “We certainly have seen very active—very active—efforts by the Russians to influence our election in 2020,” Mr. Wray said, specifically “to both sow divisiveness and discord, and I think the intelligence community has assessed this publicly, to primarily to denigrate Vice President Biden in what the Russians see as a kind of an anti-Russian establishment.”
Within hours of Wray’s sworn testimony, President Trump expressed his disapproval. “But Chris, you don’t see any activity from China, even though it is a FAR greater threat than Russia, Russia, Russia,” Trump tweeted.
Trump continued to express his disapproval the next day noting, “We’re looking at a lot of different things and I did not like his answers yesterday and I’m not sure he liked them either. I’m sure he probably would agree with me. And if you look at it, who is the real problem? The big problem is China. And we can have others also and I’m not excluding anybody. But the big problem is China, and why he doesn’t want to say that, that certainly bothers me.”
Despite Trump’s unwillingness to point the finger at Putin, the intelligence community finds the evidence overwhelming. According to a classified CIA report disclosed by the Washington Post’s Josh Rogin, the CIA concludes that “President Vladimir Putin and the senior most Russian officials are aware of and probably directing Russia’s influence operations aimed at denigrating the former U.S. Vice President, supporting the U.S. president and fueling public discord ahead of the U.S. election in November.”
At the same time, CIA Director Gina Haspel reportedly has reduced the flow of Russia-related intelligence for review by the president, who famously does not react well to such information. Attorney General William Barr, when asked during an interview on CNN earlier this month, said China was the bigger threat, more than Russia. Robert O’Brien, Trump’s national security adviser, in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, listed China ahead of Russia in discussing threats to the U.S. election. Nobody disputes that China is interfering in the election; the difference is that Russian efforts are far more developed and persistent and seek to stir the pot and sow divisiveness, as FBI Director rightly said, on sensitive social and racial issues in the United States.
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…
Brian Murphy, a senior official at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), filed a whistleblower complaint alleging that top officials in his Department ordered him to water down references to Russia in the analytical products produced by his office, under orders from O’Brien. Miles Taylor, former chief-of-staff at DHS, levelled similar allegations.
Last year, Dan Coats, then the director of national intelligence, was fired for refusing to downplay Russia in intelligence reports produced by his office. Joseph McGuire, Coat’s interim replacement, was removed after one of his analysts briefed Congress that Russia interference reflected a preference for Trump over Biden.
Trump’s defense of Putin is long standing. When asked about the murders of Russian journalists in 2017, for example, the president replied, “There are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?” This was one of many occasions when Trump has declined to criticize Putin, insisting instead on the worst kind of moral equivalence—put forward by the president of the United States, no less.
Trump famously took Putin’s word over that of his intelligence community during the two leaders’ joint press conference in Helsinki in July 2018, saying he believed Putin when the Russian leader denied interfering in the 2016 U.S. election. And he recently refused to comment at all on the poisoning of Russian activist Alexei Navalny with the same chemical nerve agent used by the GRU in the assassination attempt on former Russian spy Sergei Skripal in the UK in 2018.
Trump likes to claim that his administration has been tougher on Russia than any previous administration. There is an element of truth to that. Unlike President Obama, the Trump administration has provided Ukraine with lethal military assistance to contest Putin’s invasion of the country’s eastern provinces. The U.S. has sought to break Russia’s energy hold on its near neighbors, including by opposing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that would circumvent Ukraine and reduce its income from transit fees. U.S. military spending has increased, though Trump can hardly claim sole credit for that. And while the U.S. military presence in Poland has increased, Trump’s plan to withdraw 12,000 American soldiers from Germany has created unease about the US commitment to NATO.
Although Trump never criticizes Putin, he habitually attacks America’s allies, especially Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. He raised doubts in 2018 when he was asked whether the U.S. would defend Montenegro, a new NATO member. And in a second Trump term, former administration officials have openly speculated that he might well decide to withdraw from the alliance, which would fulfill a long-time Russian objective.
Worse than simply defending Putin from criticism, as noted in a “Statement by Former Republican National Security Officials for Biden” (which we both signed), has been Trump’s explicit request in 2016 for Russia to meddle in that election by finding and releasing Hillary Clinton’s missing emails. He has spoken to Putin numerous times this year with virtually no readouts of the calls from the White House. He has said, however, that he has not raised reports that Russian forces offered bounties on American soldiers to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. In typical fashion, he dismissed those reports as a hoax and fake news.
Why Trump seeks to suppress and downplay gross Russian misbehavior is a mystery. Some, including the journalist Tim Weiner, entertain the possibility that Putin has some leverage over Trump, and even wonder whether Trump is a Russian agent. Bob Woodward’s new book, Rage, suggests Coats held “deep suspicions” that Putin “had something” on Trump. Coats, according to Woodward, could see “no other explanation” for the president’s behavior toward the Russian president.
The recent bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report documents scores of hitherto unreported contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians during 2015-16. Both of us have been involved in other Republican presidential campaigns in 2012 and 2016 and can attest that this level of contact is unprecedented. What those contacts represent remains unclear.
What is clear, however, is that Trump’s obsequiousness toward Putin has done real harm to American national interests. Trump repeatedly claims that it would be great if he and Putin got along. The big question is: great for whom?


thebulwark--2020-09-25--The Question I Asked Trump That Blew Up the Week

It was not supposed to be a difficult question .
In fact , it shouldn ’ t have to be a question at all .
The transitions between presidential terms—from one re-elected president ’ s first term to his second , from one president to a successor of the same party , and from one president to a successor of a different party—have been peaceful and orderly since the Founding , as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell noted in a tweet on Thursday : Barton Gellman ’ s recent story in the Atlantic , published online on Wednesday , brought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bubbled through the press corps for months : What would President Donald Trump do if he lost the November election ?
Would he concede in a gentlemanly fashion ?
Would he scream rant and rave ?
Would he slink away in the middle of the night ?
With all of the speculation , the question deserved to be asked directly to the man .
There have been enough things said behind his back and endless guessing and gaming , but I was unaware of anyone giving Trump the chance to speak on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday during a press conference in the Brady Briefing Room , President Trump called on me and I asked him if he would endorse a peaceful transfer of power “ win , lose , or draw.
” He wouldn ’ t give an unqualified yes to that question .
He also said if you eliminate the ballots ( I suppose meaning mail-in ballots ) there would be no transition .
The following day on the South Lawn he doubled down with reporters , telling them what he told me : “ We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press secretary , had assured the press in a briefing that occurred about an hour before Trump ’ s departure that the president would “ accept the results of a free and fair election.
” But Trump has already said the election , which hasn ’ t occurred yet , is a fraud .
And it doesn ’ t matter what the press secretary said anyway , because Trump himself contradicted her shortly thereafter—once again proving that the truth is fluid in Trumpworld and any press briefing by McEnany is pointless .
Sadly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in American politics in 2020 .
It would never occur to me to ask this question of Ronald Reagan , George H.W .
Bush , Bill Clinton , Barack Obama , or any other president I ’ ve covered .
It has always been taken for granted that one of the greatest things about our country , one of the things that has separated us from the banana republics , Communist nations , dictatorships , and fascist states is that we hold our heads up high , no matter what , and soldier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from one administration to the next .
We have often even monitored other countries—and in some cases enforced our will on them—to maintain stable governments and assure the peaceful transition of power .
Do we now need monitors in our own country to ensure the same ?
Trump is again , as he has for four years , sowing the seeds of divisiveness—and there is plenty of speculation as to why .
He has been accused of a variety of nefarious activities that could lead to criminal charges once he is out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Russian President Vladimir Putin and has been quoted musing and scheming about a possible third term in office because he believes he deserves a do-over for reasons that escape most people with a brain stem .
The world is now aware of what we are up against in the United States as the countdown to the November election continues .
Trump will not go gentle into that good night .
And even if he ’ s forcefully removed or does slink away shaking his fist and cursing his fate , it isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be concerned about .
Trump has triggered his faithful .
Those zealots who truly believe Trump is the second coming , the light-bringer , the man who can solve all problems , are ready to take up arms against their fellow human beings to defend a man who bragged about grabbing women by their genitalia and recommended we ingest a disinfectant to cure a viral infection .
These people are convinced that if Trump loses it means the fix is in and Joe Biden will personally knock down their doors to confiscate their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ sleepy ” and won ’ t leave his basement .
When I asked Donald Trump if he would accept a peaceful transfer of power , I was surprised that he called on me in the press briefing , and called on me first—but I was especially surprised at his answer .
I should not have been .
This close to the election , I thought , Trump , one of the most effective campaigners and the least effective president I ’ ve ever known , would be trying to avoid self-inflicted wounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But Trump is full of surprises and lives up to his proclamation that he is the “ most transparent president in history ” every day he ’ s in office .
Make no mistake .
Sitting 20 feet away from Donald Trump and watching him tell us he would not guarantee one of the basic tenets of our democracy , it was clear to me it was no mistake .
It was no joke .
Trump is serious , ignorant , and arrogantly telling us what we should already know : It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress , the Supreme Court , and couple of large guys with no chins to pry him out of the White House .
He doesn ’ t care the cost .
He ’ s scared to death that his next domicile , should he leave the White House , will be a smaller enclosed dwelling shared with lots of guys dressed in orange , some gray steel bars , and a lumpy cot for a bed .
That ’ s one scene Trump won ’ t want to make .

It was not supposed to be a difficult question.
In fact, it shouldn’t have to be a question at all.
The transitions between presidential terms—from one re-elected president’s first term to his second, from one president to a successor of the same party, and from one president to a successor of a different party—have been peaceful and orderly since the Founding, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell noted in a tweet on Thursday:
The winner of the November 3rd election will be inaugurated on January 20th. There will be an orderly transition just as there has been every four years since 1792. — Leader McConnell (@senatemajldr) September 24, 2020
Barton Gellman’s recent story in the Atlantic, published online on Wednesday, brought renewed attention to a concern that has bubbled through the press corps for months: What would President Donald Trump do if he lost the November election? Would he concede in a gentlemanly fashion? Would he scream rant and rave? Would he slink away in the middle of the night?
With all of the speculation, the question deserved to be asked directly to the man. There have been enough things said behind his back and endless guessing and gaming, but I was unaware of anyone giving Trump the chance to speak on the issue himself—so why not ask him?
Wednesday during a press conference in the Brady Briefing Room, President Trump called on me and I asked him if he would endorse a peaceful transfer of power “win, lose, or draw.” He wouldn’t give an unqualified yes to that question. He also said if you eliminate the ballots (I suppose meaning mail-in ballots) there would be no transition.
The following day on the South Lawn he doubled down with reporters, telling them what he told me: “We’ll see.”
Kayleigh McEnany, the press secretary, had assured the press in a briefing that occurred about an hour before Trump’s departure that the president would “accept the results of a free and fair election.” But Trump has already said the election, which hasn’t occurred yet, is a fraud. And it doesn’t matter what the press secretary said anyway, because Trump himself contradicted her shortly thereafter—once again proving that the truth is fluid in Trumpworld and any press briefing by McEnany is pointless.
Sadly that’s the state of affairs in American politics in 2020. It would never occur to me to ask this question of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or any other president I’ve covered. It has always been taken for granted that one of the greatest things about our country, one of the things that has separated us from the banana republics, Communist nations, dictatorships, and fascist states is that we hold our heads up high, no matter what, and soldier on peacefully with a transition of power from one administration to the next.
We have often even monitored other countries—and in some cases enforced our will on them—to maintain stable governments and assure the peaceful transition of power. Do we now need monitors in our own country to ensure the same?
Trump is again, as he has for four years, sowing the seeds of divisiveness—and there is plenty of speculation as to why.
He has been accused of a variety of nefarious activities that could lead to criminal charges once he is out of office.
He has a boy-band crush on Russian President Vladimir Putin and has been quoted musing and scheming about a possible third term in office because he believes he deserves a do-over for reasons that escape most people with a brain stem.
The world is now aware of what we are up against in the United States as the countdown to the November election continues.
Trump will not go gentle into that good night. And even if he’s forcefully removed or does slink away shaking his fist and cursing his fate, it isn’t Trump we ultimately need to be concerned about.
Trump has triggered his faithful. Those zealots who truly believe Trump is the second coming, the light-bringer, the man who can solve all problems, are ready to take up arms against their fellow human beings to defend a man who bragged about grabbing women by their genitalia and recommended we ingest a disinfectant to cure a viral infection.
These people are convinced that if Trump loses it means the fix is in and Joe Biden will personally knock down their doors to confiscate their guns—though they also firmly believe Biden is “sleepy” and won’t leave his basement.
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…
When I asked Donald Trump if he would accept a peaceful transfer of power, I was surprised that he called on me in the press briefing, and called on me first—but I was especially surprised at his answer. I should not have been.
This close to the election, I thought, Trump, one of the most effective campaigners and the least effective president I’ve ever known, would be trying to avoid self-inflicted wounds, or the odd unforced error. But Trump is full of surprises and lives up to his proclamation that he is the “most transparent president in history” every day he’s in office.
Make no mistake. Sitting 20 feet away from Donald Trump and watching him tell us he would not guarantee one of the basic tenets of our democracy, it was clear to me it was no mistake. It was no joke. Trump is serious, ignorant, and arrogantly telling us what we should already know: It’s going to take a crowbar, Congress, the Supreme Court, and couple of large guys with no chins to pry him out of the White House.
He doesn’t care the cost. He’s scared to death that his next domicile, should he leave the White House, will be a smaller enclosed dwelling shared with lots of guys dressed in orange, some gray steel bars, and a lumpy cot for a bed.
That’s one scene Trump won’t want to make.


thebulwark--2020-09-25--Scenes from a Supreme Court Focus Group

Scenes from a Supreme Court Focus Group

How will the coming Supreme Court vote impact the presidential race ?
On Thursday , I convened a focus group of 2016 Trump voters—all college-educated women in swing states—to ask them what they thought .
What I heard was bad news for Republicans .
Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell seem to hope that nominating a conservative woman to the Court will pull suburban women back into their camp .
The group I spoke with indicated the opposite .
Some quick background on this group : It was nine women and I had spoken to them once before ( last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this group because it had an unusually high proportion of undecided voters ( Yes , they exist ! )
.
Of the nine , one was definitely voting for Biden , one was leaning toward Trump , and seven were very much undecided .
But all intended to vote in the upcoming election .
When I logged onto the Zoom call I began the discussion with an open-ended question : “ How has your thinking about the presidential race changed—or has it—since we last spoke ?
” Their answers surprised me .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instead many of the women volunteered that they were leaning much more toward Joe Biden because of Donald Trump ’ s recent refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power .
As one woman said : I was caught a bit off guard , because after doing a year ’ s worth of focus groups , one of the things I ’ ve learned is that the crazy things Trump says that cause an uproar on Twitter and in Washington often don ’ t break through to regular voters .
And it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first time Trump has made outrageous norm-busting comments about the integrity of the election .
In the last few months he ’ s suggested postponing the election , encouraged voter fraud by telling people to vote twice , and said he ’ s entitled to a third term .
Why was the transfer-of-power comment different ?
I believe the answer is simple : The election is 40 days away and voters are paying closer attention .
When I specifically began to probe the group ’ s feelings about the Supreme Court , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been that a Supreme Court fight was likely to help Trump slightly , because ( 1 ) it sends voters back to their ideological corners and ( 2 ) shifts the macro-political environment from a referendum on Trump ’ s handling of the coronavirus to a fight about process and ideology which has the potential to energize Republicans .
And yet the group didn ’ t reflect that perspective at all .
The women generally felt that it was unfair and hypocritical for Republicans to move forward with a Supreme Court nomination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Barack Obama ’ s nominee .
As one woman said to much nodding from the group : Additionally , they felt that a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be considered more carefully and not rushed through the process .
From one undecided voter : Another surprise to me : A majority of the group said that they prioritized “ balance ” on the court over it being lopsided—even if it was lopsided in a direction they liked .
( As an aside , many of the women expressed deep admiration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ badass.
” ) The main change in the political environment that several of the women noted was that with a Supreme Court seat in the offing , their Trump-supporting friends and family were really turning up the social pressure to convince they needed to support Trump .
As one of the more socially conservative women in the group noted : And then , another surprise : The few women in the group who were interested in having a more conservative justice on the Court viewed picking up this seat as a reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ve got the Supreme Court now I really don ’ t have to vote for him , ” said one woman .
“ That reason is off the table.
” Others in the group expressed some concern about the nominee being too conservative .
In the group , five of the women considered themselves pro-life , four considered themselves pro-choice .
( Remember : All of these women voted for Trump in 2016 . )
This is a reminder that Trump ’ s 2016 coalition consisted of a significant number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderate than the whole of the GOP—which was a selling point to them .
While all of this may sound like good news for Joe Biden , he still has work to do to lock in these women ’ s support .
I closed out the session by asking , “ If the election were held tomorrow who would you vote for ?
” This time four women said Biden .
One said Trump .
The rest remain undecided .
Many of the women expressed concern—as they had when I spoke to them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it.
” But they were open to voting for him .
Especially , they said , if he seemed strong in the debates and sounded like someone who would reach out to Republican and conservative voters like them .
For everything Biden has done to push back against the excesses in his own party , these voters still aren ’ t sure whether or not he wants to defund the police or pack the Supreme Court .
His message of unity and being president to all Americans still hasn ’ t broken through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the good news for Biden is : He ’ ll get the chance to make the case to them directly next Tuesday .
All nine of these women said they will definitely be watching .

How will the coming Supreme Court vote impact the presidential race?
On Thursday, I convened a focus group of 2016 Trump voters—all college-educated women in swing states—to ask them what they thought. What I heard was bad news for Republicans.
Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell seem to hope that nominating a conservative woman to the Court will pull suburban women back into their camp. The group I spoke with indicated the opposite.
Some quick background on this group: It was nine women and I had spoken to them once before (last week on September 16). I reconvened this group because it had an unusually high proportion of undecided voters (Yes, they exist!). Of the nine, one was definitely voting for Biden, one was leaning toward Trump, and seven were very much undecided. But all intended to vote in the upcoming election.
When I logged onto the Zoom call I began the discussion with an open-ended question: “How has your thinking about the presidential race changed—or has it—since we last spoke?”
Their answers surprised me. No one even mentioned the Supreme Court. Instead many of the women volunteered that they were leaning much more toward Joe Biden because of Donald Trump’s recent refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.
Their disgust was palpable.
As one woman said:
I’ve been hearing a lot, especially, about not making it a peaceful transition and it’s just making that bitter taste in my mouth grow a little bit more profound with each passing day. And it gets very frustrating just at the lack of professionalism…But I would say it’s probably pushing me further towards Biden but also pushing me more into looking into the Independent party.
I was caught a bit off guard, because after doing a year’s worth of focus groups, one of the things I’ve learned is that the crazy things Trump says that cause an uproar on Twitter and in Washington often don’t break through to regular voters.
And it’s not anywhere close to the first time Trump has made outrageous norm-busting comments about the integrity of the election. In the last few months he’s suggested postponing the election, encouraged voter fraud by telling people to vote twice, and said he’s entitled to a third term. Why was the transfer-of-power comment different?
I believe the answer is simple: The election is 40 days away and voters are paying closer attention.
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…
When I specifically began to probe the group’s feelings about the Supreme Court, I was again surprised.
My working theory had been that a Supreme Court fight was likely to help Trump slightly, because (1) it sends voters back to their ideological corners and (2) shifts the macro-political environment from a referendum on Trump’s handling of the coronavirus to a fight about process and ideology which has the potential to energize Republicans.
And yet the group didn’t reflect that perspective at all.
The women generally felt that it was unfair and hypocritical for Republicans to move forward with a Supreme Court nomination when they had refused to do so for Barack Obama’s nominee.
As one woman said to much nodding from the group:
Something super similar happened at end of the last presidential term, and there was a big stink made that we don’t do that during an election cycle. So I kinda want to stick to my guns and say we should be consistent. I’m a little bit turned off by all of the Republicans, like, push to make it happen. Because it’s exactly opposite of what they said should happen last time. So it’s actually made me a little bit, like, pushed away from the Republicans a little more.
Another said:
I think it’s energizing people who were already going to vote for him. But for people like me it’s kind of making me want to go even further [away from Trump] because of the hypocrisy. Because I don’t think that it’s right that we should let him do the Supreme Court justice.
Additionally, they felt that a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be considered more carefully and not rushed through the process. From one undecided voter:
With the Supreme justice, I’m nervous they’re just going to try to slam someone into that position and rush through it. When someone’s appointed for life I feel like there should be some type of process, some thinking, maybe a little bit of a longer application to work through it before just saying “Oh, hey, we’ve got a seat open; let’s throw a body in it.”
Another surprise to me: A majority of the group said that they prioritized “balance” on the court over it being lopsided—even if it was lopsided in a direction they liked. (As an aside, many of the women expressed deep admiration for RBG. One called her a “badass.”)
The main change in the political environment that several of the women noted was that with a Supreme Court seat in the offing, their Trump-supporting friends and family were really turning up the social pressure to convince they needed to support Trump.
As one of the more socially conservative women in the group noted:
I will say as someone who has very conservative family members, the pressure is on to say that I am supporting and voting for Trump. Especially and particularly since the Supreme Court seat has opened up.
And then, another surprise: The few women in the group who were interested in having a more conservative justice on the Court viewed picking up this seat as a reason not to vote for Trump: “I’ve got the Supreme Court now I really don’t have to vote for him,” said one woman. “That reason is off the table.”
Others in the group expressed some concern about the nominee being too conservative. In the group, five of the women considered themselves pro-life, four considered themselves pro-choice. (Remember: All of these women voted for Trump in 2016.) This is a reminder that Trump’s 2016 coalition consisted of a significant number of secular Republicans who viewed him as more moderate than the whole of the GOP—which was a selling point to them.
While all of this may sound like good news for Joe Biden, he still has work to do to lock in these women’s support.
I closed out the session by asking, “If the election were held tomorrow who would you vote for?” This time four women said Biden. One said Trump. The rest remain undecided.
Many of the women expressed concern—as they had when I spoke to them last week—about Biden “being up to it.” But they were open to voting for him. Especially, they said, if he seemed strong in the debates and sounded like someone who would reach out to Republican and conservative voters like them.
For everything Biden has done to push back against the excesses in his own party, these voters still aren’t sure whether or not he wants to defund the police or pack the Supreme Court. His message of unity and being president to all Americans still hasn’t broken through to these gettable Republican voters.
But the good news for Biden is: He’ll get the chance to make the case to them directly next Tuesday.
All nine of these women said they will definitely be watching.


thebulwark--2020-09-26--Spoilers No More: The Decline and Decline of Third-Party Candidates

After the 2016 presidential race , some post-election analysis showed the third-party candidates – Libertarian Gary Johnson and the Green Party Jill Stein — cut into Hillary Clinton ’ s base and helped Donald Trump win .
Most of the analysis was based on the national popular vote–Johnson and Stein ( and independent candidate Evan McMullin ) garnered a total of about 6.7 million votes nationally .
That may seem like a lot .
But as it always works out in the American electoral college voting system , it ’ s not how many votes , but where they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to what effect a third-party vote will likely have in 2020 – likely much smaller and important in just a few swing states — it seems that will favor Biden .
Won ’ t be big , but could be influential .
That decrease in the third-party votes will likely be nationwide , but it is certain some states won ’ t be as affected as battleground states .
The 2020 results from Ohio , Texas , Georgia and Iowa will not see much change because Trump ’ s victory in those states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were too small a factor in 2016 to make much of a difference four years later .
On the opposite side , a state like New Mexico , which had more than 10 % of its electorate vote for Johnson and Stein , will likely be affected because Biden is far ahead of Trump in the polls .
On the surface , this is not all that complicated .
Look at Florida .
Johnson and Stein had a combined vote total of 270,026 in Florida , and Trump beat Clinton by about 119,770 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usually smaller in the number surveyed and mostly national , an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released in late August has 47 % of those who voted for Johnson or Stein switching to Biden , 20 % to Trump , and 33 % would back another candidate or were undecided .
If you play those numbers out in Florida , it would mean that Biden would take 127,000 of the 2016 third-party voters , Trump getting 54,000 , and 89,000 being undecided on them or staying with the Libertarians or Green Party .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this will be a deciding factor in the election in a state like Florida .
But it will be some sort of factor .
The latest polls have Biden ahead in Florida by 2-3 % and a swing of 73,000 votes in a state won by Trump by 119,770 in 2016 can be big .
Especially when the polling and decision-making is taking place in the last eight weeks of a campaign .
There is something else at play here , however , that is different from the historic context of third-parties in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections since 1900 , the most influential third-party candidates came from their own personal popularity based on the hot issues of the times .
Think of Socialist Eugene V. Debs and former President Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 , Alabama ’ s George Wallace in 1968 , and Dallas businessman Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 .
All of those candidates received more than 10 % of the popular vote on their own , while Johnson and Stein only got only 4.3 % combined in 2016 .
What the likely difference was is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their votes mostly because of their own popularity and far less due to a dislike of the opposition candidates .
In 2016 , a good percentage of the third-party votes came about because of dislike of both Trump and Clinton .
The dislike was so prevalent that independent voters were choosing to support candidates for president who they knew couldn ’ t win .
This time it is different .
“ It ’ s a clear referendum election .
Either you want to return Donald Trump to office , or you don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute , in a recent interview .
“ In 2016 , there was so much uncertainty about both candidates , so much disagreement about whether one was any worse than the other , that a lot of people threw up their hands.
” There was little personal popularity for Johnson or Stein in 2016 .
But this time around , the candidates are even less known .
Green Party candidate Howard Hawkins , a retired Teamster union worker , has been with the organization since its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for various offices 26 times without ever winning .
Libertarian Party candidate Jo Jorgensen is a psychology professor who has little experience in running for office .
On the other hand , the candidates in 2016 , were former New Mexico Governor Johnson and Stein , a physician specializing in internal medicine who ran for president for the Green Party in 2012 .
That ’ s one reason the numbers will be less this time around .
There are a number of other factors at play , but all indicate there will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2016 .
The death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will likely push most voters into voting for either Biden or Trump , rather than voting for the Libertarian or Green Party candidate to make an ephemeral statement .
The bigger reason , perhaps , is that the like or dislike is definitely centered more on Trump and less on Biden .
There seems to be little appetite for middle-ground undecided voters seeking out a third-party candidate as a protest vote .
There is also far less serious organizing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both the Libertarian and Green Party in this environment .
The Green Party is not on the ballot this time around in some important states .
In the last week or so , courts in both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin knocked the Green Party off the ballot .
Nor are they on the ballot in the influential swing states of Nevada and Arizona either .
The voting numbers show that Biden will have an advantage with the decline in third-party voting likely in some swing states .
It looks like Florida and Arizona could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Blue Wall ” states of Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin , could see some positives for Biden based on the result projections , but are more volatile .
North Carolina is a “ maybe.
” Pennsylvania had close to 200,000 third-party votes in 2016 , and Trump won by about 44,000 .
In Michigan it was 223,000 third-party votes and Trump winning by 11,000 .
In Wisconsin it is 137,000 and 23,000 .
The recently released Great Lakes Poll– a survey of voters in Pennsylvania , Ohio , Michigan , and Wisconsin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting for Libertarian or Green Party candidates in November .
Those who said they would go third-party were much smaller compared to 2016 .
Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson took between 2.5 % and 3.5 % in the 2016 election in those states , while current Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen was listed as their voting preference by less than 2 % in all four states .
What that means in that many crucial Midwest swing states voters who went third-party in 2016 will be “ free agents ” this time around .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wisconsin – which Trump won by only about 77,000 combined votes in 2016 — roughly 425,000 voted Libertarian four years ago .
The Great Lakes Poll results indicate that only about 191,000 will vote for that party in November .
That means around 234,000 voters in those three states will likely be going with Trump or Biden this time around , about three times the number that Trump won by .
“ I would say absolutely that the third-party voters from 2016 could have an effect , ” Robert Alexander , professor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Bulwark .
“ A number of polls in 2016 found that 13-15 % were going into the last days of the election undecided or considering a third party .
You just don ’ t see that this time around.
” It may be even more of a factor in Arizona .
About 7 % of the votes in that state ( 191,000 out of 2.6 million ) voted for “ others ” ( third-party and write-ins ) .
In Maricopa County , home to the city of Phoenix , it was even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million votes going “ others ” in 2106 ) .
That ’ s about 10 % of the votes at a play in a key county in a key state where Trump is losing to Biden by about 5 % in the polls .
Trump won Arizona by about 91,000 votes over Clinton in 2016 , a win by about 3.5 % .
Given this history of third-party candidate impact , and with the numbers as close and uncertain as they are , one might have expected the wild card entry of musician/entrepreneur @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difference .
His candidacy , however , will have no importance on the outcome of the election in spite of his name recognition and the chaotic news cycles he briefly commanded .
There has been speculation that Trump pushed West to run , with the goal of siphoning off African-American voters in swing states like Michigan and Pennsylvania .
West has acknowledged a meeting with Jared Kushner in August , Trump ’ s son-in-law and White House adviser .
The involvement of numerous GOP-associated attorneys to help him get on the ballot in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plotting and planning only went so far though as Mr. West faced the even greater challenge of a psychiatric condition .
What is important for those who thought Kanye West might have some meaningful voter number tweaking in November , will not happen because they didn ’ t get on the ballot in many states , and the ones he is on are mostly irrelevant .
West will only make it on the ballot in 12 states : Idaho , Minnesota , Tennessee , Iowa , Arkansas , Colorado , Oklahoma , Vermont @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kentucky .
Of those states , nine of them voted for Trump in 2016 by large margins .
The only state really in play on this Kanye West ballot list is Iowa , where Trump is up in the polls by about 2 points right now .
Mr. West and his foray into national politics join the long line of ill-fated third-party candidacies with little to show for their efforts .
As the country heads to the polls and mails in ballots over the coming weeks , America will see whether or not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make more than a marginal difference .

After the 2016 presidential race, some post-election analysis showed the third-party candidates – Libertarian Gary Johnson and the Green Party Jill Stein — cut into Hillary Clinton’s base and helped Donald Trump win. Most of the analysis was based on the national popular vote–Johnson and Stein (and independent candidate Evan McMullin) garnered a total of about 6.7 million votes nationally.
That may seem like a lot. But as it always works out in the American electoral college voting system, it’s not how many votes, but where they are cast, in which states. As to what effect a third-party vote will likely have in 2020 – likely much smaller and important in just a few swing states — it seems that will favor Biden. Won’t be big, but could be influential.
That decrease in the third-party votes will likely be nationwide, but it is certain some states won’t be as affected as battleground states. The 2020 results from Ohio, Texas, Georgia and Iowa will not see much change because Trump’s victory in those states was too large and the third-party votes were too small a factor in 2016 to make much of a difference four years later. On the opposite side, a state like New Mexico, which had more than 10% of its electorate vote for Johnson and Stein, will likely be affected because Biden is far ahead of Trump in the polls.
On the surface, this is not all that complicated. Look at Florida. Johnson and Stein had a combined vote total of 270,026 in Florida, and Trump beat Clinton by about 119,770. Though third-party voting behaviors polls are usually smaller in the number surveyed and mostly national, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released in late August has 47% of those who voted for Johnson or Stein switching to Biden, 20% to Trump, and 33 % would back another candidate or were undecided.
If you play those numbers out in Florida, it would mean that Biden would take 127,000 of the 2016 third-party voters, Trump getting 54,000, and 89,000 being undecided on them or staying with the Libertarians or Green Party.
It’s impossible to know if this will be a deciding factor in the election in a state like Florida. But it will be some sort of factor. The latest polls have Biden ahead in Florida by 2-3% and a swing of 73,000 votes in a state won by Trump by 119,770 in 2016 can be big. Especially when the polling and decision-making is taking place in the last eight weeks of a campaign.
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…
There is something else at play here, however, that is different from the historic context of third-parties in presidential elections. For most of the elections since 1900, the most influential third-party candidates came from their own personal popularity based on the hot issues of the times. Think of Socialist Eugene V. Debs and former President Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, Alabama’s George Wallace in 1968, and Dallas businessman Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996. All of those candidates received more than 10% of the popular vote on their own, while Johnson and Stein only got only 4.3% combined in 2016.
What the likely difference was is that Roosevelt and Wallace and Perot got most of their votes mostly because of their own popularity and far less due to a dislike of the opposition candidates. In 2016, a good percentage of the third-party votes came about because of dislike of both Trump and Clinton. The dislike was so prevalent that independent voters were choosing to support candidates for president who they knew couldn’t win.
This time it is different. “It’s a clear referendum election. Either you want to return Donald Trump to office, or you don’t,” said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, in a recent interview. “In 2016, there was so much uncertainty about both candidates, so much disagreement about whether one was any worse than the other, that a lot of people threw up their hands.”
There was little personal popularity for Johnson or Stein in 2016. But this time around, the candidates are even less known. Green Party candidate Howard Hawkins, a retired Teamster union worker, has been with the organization since its founding in the early 1980s, running for various offices 26 times without ever winning. Libertarian Party candidate Jo Jorgensen is a psychology professor who has little experience in running for office.
On the other hand, the candidates in 2016, were former New Mexico Governor Johnson and Stein, a physician specializing in internal medicine who ran for president for the Green Party in 2012. That’s one reason the numbers will be less this time around.
There are a number of other factors at play, but all indicate there will be less third party voters in 2020 than in 2016. The death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will likely push most voters into voting for either Biden or Trump, rather than voting for the Libertarian or Green Party candidate to make an ephemeral statement.
The bigger reason, perhaps, is that the like or dislike is definitely centered more on Trump and less on Biden. There seems to be little appetite for middle-ground undecided voters seeking out a third-party candidate as a protest vote. There is also far less serious organizing, and far less money being spent by both the Libertarian and Green Party in this environment. The Green Party is not on the ballot this time around in some important states. In the last week or so, courts in both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin knocked the Green Party off the ballot. Nor are they on the ballot in the influential swing states of Nevada and Arizona either.
The voting numbers show that Biden will have an advantage with the decline in third-party voting likely in some swing states. It looks like Florida and Arizona could see a larger Biden advantage. The “Blue Wall” states of Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin, could see some positives for Biden based on the result projections, but are more volatile. North Carolina is a “maybe.” Pennsylvania had close to 200,000 third-party votes in 2016, and Trump won by about 44,000. In Michigan it was 223,000 third-party votes and Trump winning by 11,000. In Wisconsin it is 137,000 and 23,000.
The recently released Great Lakes Poll– a survey of voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin – asked the voters if they were voting for Libertarian or Green Party candidates in November. Those who said they would go third-party were much smaller compared to 2016. Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson took between 2.5% and 3.5% in the 2016 election in those states, while current Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen was listed as their voting preference by less than 2% in all four states.
What that means in that many crucial Midwest swing states voters who went third-party in 2016 will be “free agents” this time around. In the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – which Trump won by only about 77,000 combined votes in 2016 — roughly 425,000 voted Libertarian four years ago. The Great Lakes Poll results indicate that only about 191,000 will vote for that party in November. That means around 234,000 voters in those three states will likely be going with Trump or Biden this time around, about three times the number that Trump won by.
“I would say absolutely that the third-party voters from 2016 could have an effect,” Robert Alexander, professor of political science at Ohio Northern University told The Bulwark. “A number of polls in 2016 found that 13-15% were going into the last days of the election undecided or considering a third party. You just don’t see that this time around.”
It may be even more of a factor in Arizona. About 7% of the votes in that state (191,000 out of 2.6 million) voted for “others” (third-party and write-ins). In Maricopa County, home to the city of Phoenix, it was even higher (about 159,000 out of 1.6 million votes going “others” in 2106). That’s about 10% of the votes at a play in a key county in a key state where Trump is losing to Biden by about 5% in the polls.
Trump won Arizona by about 91,000 votes over Clinton in 2016, a win by about 3.5%.
Given this history of third-party candidate impact, and with the numbers as close and uncertain as they are, one might have expected the wild card entry of musician/entrepreneur Kanye West to make more of a difference. His candidacy, however, will have no importance on the outcome of the election in spite of his name recognition and the chaotic news cycles he briefly commanded.
There has been speculation that Trump pushed West to run, with the goal of siphoning off African-American voters in swing states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. West has acknowledged a meeting with Jared Kushner in August, Trump’s son-in-law and White House adviser. The involvement of numerous GOP-associated attorneys to help him get on the ballot in some states is not debatable.
This plotting and planning only went so far though as Mr. West faced the even greater challenge of a psychiatric condition.
What is important for those who thought Kanye West might have some meaningful voter number tweaking in November, will not happen because they didn’t get on the ballot in many states, and the ones he is on are mostly irrelevant.
West will only make it on the ballot in 12 states: Idaho, Minnesota, Tennessee, Iowa, Arkansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Vermont, Mississippi, Louisiana, Utah, Kentucky. Of those states, nine of them voted for Trump in 2016 by large margins. The only state really in play on this Kanye West ballot list is Iowa, where Trump is up in the polls by about 2 points right now.
Mr. West and his foray into national politics join the long line of ill-fated third-party candidacies with little to show for their efforts. As the country heads to the polls and mails in ballots over the coming weeks, America will see whether or not the candidates challenging the two-party rule can make more than a marginal difference.


thebulwark--2020-09-26--Meet the African-American Voters Joe Biden Desperately Needs

It ’ s widely assumed Joe Biden appeals to African-American voters in part because he was Barack Obama ’ s vice president .
But what if a key group of African-American voters in a major swing state don ’ t associate Biden with Obama ?
Or even recall that Biden was Obama ’ s veep ?
Or , if they do recall , think it doesn ’ t matter ?
Those unexpected reactions provided moments of stark clarity during a pair of focus groups I moderated via Zoom on September 22 .
Over a total of three hours I heard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who were one-time Obama voters , but who had either sat out 2016 , or voted for someone other than Trump or Clinton .
For 18 straight months I ’ ve been conducting focus groups with “ Obama-Trump ” voters across the upper Midwest and Florida , with the majority of respondents being caucasian .
This week I turned my sights to this other important category of persuadable voters .
These African-Americans matter a lot because in the city of Philadelphia alone , Hillary Clinton got 4,781 fewer votes in 2016 than Barack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published shortly after the 2016 election indicated lower voter participation numbers were concentrated in predominantly African-American neighborhoods in the city .
If Biden is going to flip Pennsylvania , a state Trump won by just over 44,000 votes , he needs to engage these voters more effectively than Clinton did .
In my group , six of these voters didn ’ t vote in 2016 , two voted for Jill Stein , and one wrote in Bernie Sanders .
• Casting a vote in 2016 wouldn ’ t have improved the quality of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• They believed that after eight years of Obama , there was no way a Democrat would get elected , so why bother voting .
• They argued neither Trump nor Clinton could be trusted .
• Misogyny also played a role : One man said he disliked Trump , but could not vote for a woman ; another man who similarly disliked Trump complained that Clinton sounded “ angry.
” So what are the voting plans of these nine voters for November ?
Five said they ’ re definitely voting for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likelier to vote than not , said they will also vote for Biden .
And the final two are completely torn , and may not vote this year .
The ones who are likely to vote said things such as : • “ It ’ s definitely for Biden .
And I can ’ t , you know , [ vote for Trump ] .
I have a mom , I have a grandma…messing with healthcare , the way [ Trump ] has….
” • Also : “ I ’ m voting for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter suggested he might be susceptible to peer pressure from friends to vote .
Another said if she votes , it will be because of Sen. Harris—but for now she remains non-committal .
The remaining two respondents seemed unlikely to vote , though one was leaning slightly towards Trump due to antipathy towards Biden and Harris rooted in criminal justice issues .
The other , who wrote-in Bernie Sanders in 2016 , relies heavily on her family ’ s opinion , and she suggested her whole family may not vote .
She said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported she has not heard from Biden on the issues that matter to her , such as student loan debt and healthcare .
Biden struggles with this woman for the same reason he struggles with so many of the upper Midwest “ Obama-Trump ” voters I ’ ve interviewed : They don ’ t seem to know where he stands on issues .
And some in the Philadelphia group didn ’ t know much about Sen. Harris .
Others , though , knew all about her , and called the Sen. Harris selection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they added that they saw right through it .
They wanted to know , beyond which people Biden would choose for his administration , what he would do for them .
As one respondent put it bluntly : “ If I ’ m going to give you my vote , I want something in return.
” One thing they are clearly not getting from Biden is inspiration .
When I asked each person what emotion he or she feels when seeing Biden on TV or their device , responses included : “ disappointment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scared , ” “ irritated , ” “ hatred , ” and “ oh my God.
” With one possible exception , everyone in this group remains out of reach for President Trump .
Respondents called him a racist throughout the sessions .
Yet the challenges for Biden remain significant , as it ’ s clear any candidate who is not part of their community has his work cut out for him .
It is rooted in the issue of trust .
One respondent observed , “ We have a hard time trusting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard time trusting people that don ’ t look like us.
” This man offered some pointed advice to Joe Biden : “ Don ’ t just say , ‘ You should vote for me because I like black people .
I went to the black barbecue .
I got this black woman running with me , and you don ’ t like Donald Trump , so why wouldn ’ t you vote for me ?
’ ”

It’s widely assumed Joe Biden appeals to African-American voters in part because he was Barack Obama’s vice president.
But what if a key group of African-American voters in a major swing state don’t associate Biden with Obama? Or even recall that Biden was Obama’s veep? Or, if they do recall, think it doesn’t matter?
Those unexpected reactions provided moments of stark clarity during a pair of focus groups I moderated via Zoom on September 22. Over a total of three hours I heard from a group of African-Americans in Philadelphia who were one-time Obama voters, but who had either sat out 2016, or voted for someone other than Trump or Clinton.
For 18 straight months I’ve been conducting focus groups with “Obama-Trump” voters across the upper Midwest and Florida, with the majority of respondents being caucasian. This week I turned my sights to this other important category of persuadable voters.
These African-Americans matter a lot because in the city of Philadelphia alone, Hillary Clinton got 4,781 fewer votes in 2016 than Barack Obama did in 2012. One analysis published shortly after the 2016 election indicated lower voter participation numbers were concentrated in predominantly African-American neighborhoods in the city.
If Biden is going to flip Pennsylvania, a state Trump won by just over 44,000 votes, he needs to engage these voters more effectively than Clinton did.
In my group, six of these voters didn’t vote in 2016, two voted for Jill Stein, and one wrote in Bernie Sanders.
Several themes emerged.
Casting a vote in 2016 wouldn’t have improved the quality of life in their community, they said.
They believed that after eight years of Obama, there was no way a Democrat would get elected, so why bother voting.
They argued neither Trump nor Clinton could be trusted.
Misogyny also played a role: One man said he disliked Trump, but could not vote for a woman; another man who similarly disliked Trump complained that Clinton sounded “angry.”
So what are the voting plans of these nine voters for November? Five said they’re definitely voting for Biden. Two more, who are likelier to vote than not, said they will also vote for Biden. And the final two are completely torn, and may not vote this year.
The ones who are likely to vote said things such as:
“It’s definitely for Biden. And I can’t, you know, [vote for Trump]. I have a mom, I have a grandma…messing with healthcare, the way [Trump] has….”
Also: “I’m voting for Biden because of Kamala.”
One somewhat-likely voter suggested he might be susceptible to peer pressure from friends to vote. Another said if she votes, it will be because of Sen. Harris—but for now she remains non-committal.
The remaining two respondents seemed unlikely to vote, though one was leaning slightly towards Trump due to antipathy towards Biden and Harris rooted in criminal justice issues. The other, who wrote-in Bernie Sanders in 2016, relies heavily on her family’s opinion, and she suggested her whole family may not vote. She said she would never choose Trump, but reported she has not heard from Biden on the issues that matter to her, such as student loan debt and healthcare.
Biden struggles with this woman for the same reason he struggles with so many of the upper Midwest “Obama-Trump” voters I’ve interviewed: They don’t seem to know where he stands on issues.
And some in the Philadelphia group didn’t know much about Sen. Harris. Others, though, knew all about her, and called the Sen. Harris selection a shrewd political move. But immediately they added that they saw right through it. They wanted to know, beyond which people Biden would choose for his administration, what he would do for them. As one respondent put it bluntly: “If I’m going to give you my vote, I want something in return.”
One thing they are clearly not getting from Biden is inspiration. When I asked each person what emotion he or she feels when seeing Biden on TV or their device, responses included: “disappointment,” “neutral,” “scared,” “irritated,” “hatred,” and “oh my God.”
With one possible exception, everyone in this group remains out of reach for President Trump. Respondents called him a racist throughout the sessions. Yet the challenges for Biden remain significant, as it’s clear any candidate who is not part of their community has his work cut out for him.
It is rooted in the issue of trust. One respondent observed, “We have a hard time trusting people, and we definitely have a hard time trusting people that don’t look like us.”
This man offered some pointed advice to Joe Biden: “Don’t just say, ‘You should vote for me because I like black people. I went to the black barbecue. I got this black woman running with me, and you don’t like Donald Trump, so why wouldn’t you vote for me?’”