alternet--2020-10-23--How Democrats are fighting to undo a decade's worth of Republican gerrymandering

The presidential and U.S. Senate races have dominated the 2020 election season .
But down the ballot , races for state legislature and governor will determine the political complexion in many purple states for the next decade—much longer than the next president will serve .
The reason these races have such a long-lasting impact is that the winners of state legislative elections this fall will redraw the boundaries for their legislative districts and for U.S. House seats .
A decade ago , the Republican Party , who saw their presidential candidate lose in 2008 by nearly 10 million votes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the goal of redrawing maps affecting 190 U.S. House seats .
The common term for aggressively segregating voters into districts is gerrymandering .
The GOP effort , called RedMap , was unchecked at that time by Democrats , even as it focused on states won by President Obama .
RedMap succeeded and led to GOP supermajorities in state capitols and U.S. House delegations .
These majorities have been behind the most extreme GOP actions of the past decade at the state level and in Congress ; whether resisting or rolling back safety nets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun controls , environmental regulation and labor laws .
In 2016 , longtime political reporter David Daley published a book explaining how Republicans instituted some of the most extreme gerrymanders in American history , where the GOP drew districts to facilitate winning majorities and sought to `` crack or pack '' blue epicenters .
Since the publication of Rat F**ked : The True Story Behind The Secret Plan to Steal America 's Democracy , the Democratic Party has vowed to not repeat this history .
Voting Booth 's Steven Rosenfeld interviewed David Daley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decade 's political complexion in purple states such as Wisconsin , Michigan , Minnesota , Pennsylvania , Arizona , Texas , Kansas , North Carolina , Georgia and Florida .
Key down-ballot contests are as hard-fought as the races at the top of the ticket , Daley said .
Even if President Trump and Senate Republicans are resoundingly defeated , there may still be ferocious post-Election Day challenges and legal fights if mapmaking power is in play .
Steven Rosenfeld : The volume of votes already cast in the 2020 election is remarkable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ October 23 .
Most people are focused on the White House and Congress .
Your focus is state legislative chambers and who will draw or veto the political maps that will last for a decade starting in 2021 .
What impact will record voter turnout have ?
David Daley : I do n't think anybody knows what impact the turnout will have .
I think it 's dangerous to assume partisan enthusiasm one way or another from an early turnout number .
It seems that both sides ' turnout is fairly well matched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aggressively seeking mail-in ballot voting in a lot of states , and they seem to have an edge there .
But as far as early in-person voting goes , I think it 's hard to say .
There 's a lot of ways of looking at it .
In some states there is a sense that some of the really contested statehouse races that are so important for 2021 's redistricting are perhaps trickling up , and that they are perhaps funneling more voters in , and more enthusiasm .
In the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to suggest that people trickled down [ the ballot , first voting for president ] .
There are a lot of states where all these local races have been so important that they could help Democrats up and down the ballot .
SR : Can you give me some examples ?
DD : I think North Carolina .
I think Texas , certainly .
Wisconsin is one of those states where Democrats have been really fired up in [ state ] assembly and senate races simply to try to hold onto Gov .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Democrats have really organized to try to hold onto state legislative power there—to simply have veto power over bad maps that could entrench Republican control for another decade .
SR : When I look at the National Conference of State Legislatures ' chart on the partisan composition of each chamber and who holds the governor 's seat , and look at the targeted states put out by Democrats and Republicans , there are n't that many states in play .
I think the closest ones—with the fewest seats needed to flip a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That 's two or three seats .
Then the number goes up to four or more seats with Florida , Michigan , North Carolina , Pennsylvania .
DD : It 's tricky .
Let me walk you through the way I see it… Arizona is certainly flippable by Democrats this year .
That would have a big impact with regard to policy [ reforms and new laws ] in that state .
But it has an independent redistricting commission .
A flip there is not going to have any change on its [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next decade .
Michigan as well .
It passed an independent redistricting commission in 2018 .
A flip there would be useful in regards to policy .
You already have a Democratic governor in place who could veto the most egregious maps .
But there 's a commission that will be in charge .
North Carolina , the governor does not have veto power there .
So Democrats either take the House or the Senate [ this November ] , or they have no say over the [ redistricting ] process over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been an all-out attempt to win one or both chambers .
I think it 's 50-50 probably that they could get one .
It depends how things break .
It 's a brand-new map in North Carolina , after the state Supreme Court tossed the old ones .
No one has ever run on this map before .
It 's believed to have a slight Republican lean , but much less of a Republican lean than the one that they were running on in previous years .
Florida , on the other hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenges over the course of this decade .
I think Florida is probably a very difficult flip .
I do n't see that one being in the cards .
Georgia is a very difficult flip .
I do n't see that being in the cards .
Texas , Democrats need nine seats [ to flip the House ] .
They are very aggressively going after them .
There are the 18 target districts that went for Beto [ O'Rourke in his U.S. Senate race against Sen. Ted Cruz ] but have a Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ target list in Texas , but still need everything to go right .
But they are closer to a flip than they have been at any point in time .
In other states , Democrats are playing defense .
Like Wisconsin , [ where ] they are trying to uphold the veto by a Democratic governor .
If Republicans are able to gain a supermajority , then they [ the GOP ] could override that veto , and they would have pretty much complete control over mapmaking .
Pennsylvania will not be as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there 's a Democratic governor who can get in the way [ of a Republican-majority legislature ] and make certain that the Democratic interests are considered .
Both of the chambers there are still very tough lifts for Democrats to alter .
Democrats are on the offense in Minnesota , looking for a trifecta [ control of both legislative chambers and the governor 's seat ] .
And Democrats in Kansas are trying to hold onto the governor 's veto because you have a Democratic governor who could conceivably veto the Republican map @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a supermajority there .
SR : This landscape strikes me as not being as one-sided as what you wrote about in your book , which focused on 2010 's races and the Republicans ' extreme gerrymanders that followed in 2011 .
DD : I think you are right .
The political maps from 2011 have proven astonishingly enduring .
These are some of the most effective gerrymanders of all time .
Usually , the gerrymander melts away after two or three election cycles because the politics change , people die , the [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these have lasted for a decade .
But Democrats have very effectively found ways to win seats at the table , where possible .
They have won veto power by winning governorships in Wisconsin , Michigan and Pennsylvania .
They have clawed back in Texas where there are in position with a good year [ outcome in 2020 ] to have a seat at the table .
They [ Democrats ] have pursued litigation , where possible , and they have won fairer maps in Virginia that resulted in a flip in 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ North Carolina , so they 've got a chance at a better map [ for the next decade ] there .
The same with Pennsylvania .
The demographics , meanwhile , have changed in Arizona , putting a chamber perhaps in play there .
I think Democrats have done a pretty good job of thinking strategically about the levers that were available to them in each state and trying to maximize it .
In some states , it 's the governor .
In some states , it 's litigation .
In some states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a chamber .
They have systematically thought it through .
It 's an uphill run , though , because you 're running against those maps , so as you 're doing it , you have a hand tied behind your back .
SR : One of the most striking aspects of your book was how aggressive the Republicans were with running political ads and attacks at the local level—to win these legislative majorities .
Local men and women were viciously smeared .
Are 2020 's targeted races as nasty ?
DD : Oh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the stakes in these races .
You are seeing hundreds of thousands of dollars , millions of dollars in some cases , being funneled into state house and state senate races that once upon a time might have been sleepy .
If you are in a competitive state house or state senate race in one of those key states , it is probably a seven-figure race on both sides because that 's what 's at stake for the next decade .
There 's mapmaking power , and both parties realize it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ North Carolina .
Everybody knows in all of these states it 's only a handful of swing districts .
In some ways , it 's like a presidential campaign .
Everybody knows there 's only a handful of states that matter .
You invest all of your resources aggressively there .
In North Carolina and a lot of states like this , a lot of the down-ballot races are sleepy , and then there are some that are these seven-figure slugfests .
SR : Looking past Election Day , the other big factor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be not just the 2020 winners redrawing district lines , but the census count—the people and voters who will be sliced and diced to create political districts .
What do you think the impact will be of a truncated census count ?
DD : I do n't think anybody knows fully .
We do n't know what the undercount is going to be or where it will be .
There 's a huge impact of federal funding dollars , and which communities get the resources they will need and which communities do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next impact is on reapportionment , the number of U.S. House representatives that each state receives .
There are a lot of questions on whether an undercount will shift political power in some ways .
This power has been moving .
Midwestern and New England states are losing seats .
Southern and southwestern states are gaining seats .
It 's really hard to predict which states will gain or lose members [ of Congress ] based on reapportionment and the census .
That , in turn , affects the Electoral College [ where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delegation size ] .
If there 's an undercount of Latino voters in Texas , could Texas lose seats instead of gaining seats ?
If there 's an undercount in Florida of minority groups , could that offset an undercount in California ?
It 's hard to say until you see exactly where the numbers are .
But then you have the additional question of citizenship data .
The Trump administration has made it really clear that they want the citizenship data to be provided to state legislatures for redistricting purposes .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislatures have followed the national standard of drawing lines based on total population , not the citizen voting age population .
If you begin to see states using citizenship data to redistrict , based on citizen voting age population , you are going to see state legislatures where the political power shifts to older , rural , whiter and more conservative areas .
SR : I always thought that strategy was the last play or the last stand in the Republican Party 's decline—the destiny by demography scenario where , as white America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the last big structural play they have is only counting the citizen voting age population when making political districts versus the total population of an area .
DD : I think that 's right .
SR : So here we are , two weeks out .
And it would be premature to draw any conclusion because these national and state voter turnout figures are too generalized , compared to the local races .
But the stakes are enormous—the partisan complexions of the country 's purple states .
DD : I think what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the line in all of these states .
What you just said is exactly right .
Democrats have had this blind faith in the idea that demography is destiny for some time .
What Republicans have shown is you can govern from the minority quite effectively and quite reliably through gerrymandering , and rule rigging , and voter suppression .
[ South Carolina Sen. ] Lindsey Graham once said they were n't making old white men fast enough for the Republican Party to not have to evolve at some point .
Yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they 've managed to avoid evolving .
And indeed , if they have evolved , it 's been further toward the right and further toward that base by drawing themselves districts and entrenching their power in places that look less and less like the rest of the country .
It seems like it ca n't be a long-term strategy , but it sure keeps lasting , and [ it ] sure looks difficult to find a way to defeat it .
But if that defeat is to come , down-ballot races in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role .
SR : We 're only talking about 10 or 12 states that might be in play .
DD : That 's all we talk about in a presidential election too .
There are very few states that do n't have both houses of its state legislature in the hands of the same party—as far as houses and senates .
Nebraska is an oddball in that [ it has one chamber ] , but every place else is all blue or all red , except for Minnesota .
So that eliminates the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 2010 , when the Republicans were looking to run RedMap , very few seats separated Democrats from Republicans in [ state legislatures in ] all of these states .
That 's why they were able to do it .
Democrats held Pennsylvania , but their lead in the Pennsylvania statehouse was 102 to 101 .
It was super-close in Michigan .
Democrats had Ohio .
They had North Carolina , and Republicans took them all in 2010 's election .
And then redistricted them in such a way that Democrats have n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these states .
Wisconsin is not a state that the Democrats are trying to flip ; they are just trying to hold onto veto power with these maps a decade later .
In contrast , in Texas and Arizona , a demographic change has come around and put those states in play .
Litigation in other states has put [ those ] states in play .
And then polarization elsewhere has ensured that other states will not be in play .
SR : Do you think there will be post-Election Day litigation over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even if the results of the presidential election are not in dispute ?
DD : It depends on how close they are… Both sides know the stakes .
If control of Texas 's statehouse is tied or within one seat… There will be close races .
Remember Virginia back in 2017 , when the last race [ deciding the House majority ] was tied ?
They pulled a piece of paper out of a film canister or something to settle it .
[ Republicans won . ]
Crazy things happen… Steven Rosenfeld @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Voting Booth , a project of the Independent Media Institute .
He has reported for National Public Radio , Marketplace , and Christian Science Monitor Radio , as well as a wide range of progressive publications including Salon , AlterNet , the American Prospect , and many others .
This article was produced by Voting Booth , a project of the Independent Media Institute .

The presidential and U.S. Senate races have dominated the 2020 election season. But down the ballot, races for state legislature and governor will determine the political complexion in many purple states for the next decade—much longer than the next president will serve.
The reason these races have such a long-lasting impact is that the winners of state legislative elections this fall will redraw the boundaries for their legislative districts and for U.S. House seats. A decade ago, the Republican Party, who saw their presidential candidate lose in 2008 by nearly 10 million votes, targeted 107 races in 16 states with the goal of redrawing maps affecting 190 U.S. House seats. The common term for aggressively segregating voters into districts is gerrymandering.
The GOP effort, called RedMap, was unchecked at that time by Democrats, even as it focused on states won by President Obama. RedMap succeeded and led to GOP supermajorities in state capitols and U.S. House delegations. These majorities have been behind the most extreme GOP actions of the past decade at the state level and in Congress; whether resisting or rolling back safety nets, civil rights, reproductive choice, gun controls, environmental regulation and labor laws.
In 2016, longtime political reporter David Daley published a book explaining how Republicans instituted some of the most extreme gerrymanders in American history, where the GOP drew districts to facilitate winning majorities and sought to "crack or pack" blue epicenters. Since the publication of Rat F**ked: The True Story Behind The Secret Plan to Steal America's Democracy, the Democratic Party has vowed to not repeat this history.
Voting Booth's Steven Rosenfeld interviewed David Daley about the races that will determine this decade's political complexion in purple states such as Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Texas, Kansas, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida.
Key down-ballot contests are as hard-fought as the races at the top of the ticket, Daley said. Even if President Trump and Senate Republicans are resoundingly defeated, there may still be ferocious post-Election Day challenges and legal fights if mapmaking power is in play.
Steven Rosenfeld: The volume of votes already cast in the 2020 election is remarkable. More than 52 million as of October 23. Most people are focused on the White House and Congress. Your focus is state legislative chambers and who will draw or veto the political maps that will last for a decade starting in 2021. What impact will record voter turnout have?
David Daley: I don't think anybody knows what impact the turnout will have. I think it's dangerous to assume partisan enthusiasm one way or another from an early turnout number. It seems that both sides' turnout is fairly well matched at this point. Democrats have been aggressively seeking mail-in ballot voting in a lot of states, and they seem to have an edge there. But as far as early in-person voting goes, I think it's hard to say.
There's a lot of ways of looking at it. In some states there is a sense that some of the really contested statehouse races that are so important for 2021's redistricting are perhaps trickling up, and that they are perhaps funneling more voters in, and more enthusiasm. In the past, the old political science model used to suggest that people trickled down [the ballot, first voting for president]. There are a lot of states where all these local races have been so important that they could help Democrats up and down the ballot.
SR: Can you give me some examples?
DD: I think North Carolina. I think Texas, certainly. Wisconsin is one of those states where Democrats have been really fired up in [state] assembly and senate races simply to try to hold onto Gov. [Tony] Evers' veto power. Democrats have really organized to try to hold onto state legislative power there—to simply have veto power over bad maps that could entrench Republican control for another decade.
SR: When I look at the National Conference of State Legislatures' chart on the partisan composition of each chamber and who holds the governor's seat, and look at the targeted states put out by Democrats and Republicans, there aren't that many states in play. I think the closest ones—with the fewest seats needed to flip a chamber—would be Arizona and New Hampshire. That's two or three seats. Then the number goes up to four or more seats with Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania.
DD: It's tricky. Let me walk you through the way I see it…
Arizona is certainly flippable by Democrats this year. That would have a big impact with regard to policy [reforms and new laws] in that state. But it has an independent redistricting commission. A flip there is not going to have any change on its [political] maps over the course of the next decade.
Michigan as well. It passed an independent redistricting commission in 2018. A flip there would be useful in regards to policy. You already have a Democratic governor in place who could veto the most egregious maps. But there's a commission that will be in charge.
North Carolina, the governor does not have veto power there. So Democrats either take the House or the Senate [this November], or they have no say over the [redistricting] process over the next decade. And there has been an all-out attempt to win one or both chambers. I think it's 50-50 probably that they could get one. It depends how things break. It's a brand-new map in North Carolina, after the state Supreme Court tossed the old ones. No one has ever run on this map before. It's believed to have a slight Republican lean, but much less of a Republican lean than the one that they were running on in previous years.
Florida, on the other hand. That map has withstood all legal challenges over the course of this decade. I think Florida is probably a very difficult flip. I don't see that one being in the cards.
Georgia is a very difficult flip. I don't see that being in the cards.
Texas, Democrats need nine seats [to flip the House]. They are very aggressively going after them. There are the 18 target districts that went for Beto [O'Rourke in his U.S. Senate race against Sen. Ted Cruz] but have a Republican statehouse member. Democrats have a robust target list in Texas, but still need everything to go right. But they are closer to a flip than they have been at any point in time.
In other states, Democrats are playing defense. Like Wisconsin, [where] they are trying to uphold the veto by a Democratic governor. If Republicans are able to gain a supermajority, then they [the GOP] could override that veto, and they would have pretty much complete control over mapmaking.
Pennsylvania will not be as bad as it was in 2021 because there's a Democratic governor who can get in the way [of a Republican-majority legislature] and make certain that the Democratic interests are considered. Both of the chambers there are still very tough lifts for Democrats to alter.
Democrats are on the offense in Minnesota, looking for a trifecta [control of both legislative chambers and the governor's seat].
And Democrats in Kansas are trying to hold onto the governor's veto because you have a Democratic governor who could conceivably veto the Republican map as long as Republicans don't win a supermajority there.
SR: This landscape strikes me as not being as one-sided as what you wrote about in your book, which focused on 2010's races and the Republicans' extreme gerrymanders that followed in 2011.
DD: I think you are right. The political maps from 2011 have proven astonishingly enduring. These are some of the most effective gerrymanders of all time. Usually, the gerrymander melts away after two or three election cycles because the politics change, people die, the [state's] demographics evolve, but these have lasted for a decade. But Democrats have very effectively found ways to win seats at the table, where possible. They have won veto power by winning governorships in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. They have clawed back in Texas where there are in position with a good year [outcome in 2020] to have a seat at the table.
They [Democrats] have pursued litigation, where possible, and they have won fairer maps in Virginia that resulted in a flip in 2019. They got a fairer map in North Carolina, so they've got a chance at a better map [for the next decade] there. The same with Pennsylvania. The demographics, meanwhile, have changed in Arizona, putting a chamber perhaps in play there. I think Democrats have done a pretty good job of thinking strategically about the levers that were available to them in each state and trying to maximize it. In some states, it's the governor. In some states, it's litigation. In some states, it's trying to win back a chamber. They have systematically thought it through. It's an uphill run, though, because you're running against those maps, so as you're doing it, you have a hand tied behind your back.
SR: One of the most striking aspects of your book was how aggressive the Republicans were with running political ads and attacks at the local level—to win these legislative majorities. Local men and women were viciously smeared. Are 2020's targeted races as nasty?
DD: Oh yeah. Both sides are fully aware of the stakes in these races. You are seeing hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions of dollars in some cases, being funneled into state house and state senate races that once upon a time might have been sleepy. If you are in a competitive state house or state senate race in one of those key states, it is probably a seven-figure race on both sides because that's what's at stake for the next decade. There's mapmaking power, and both parties realize it. It will be deeply hard-fought.
Take North Carolina. Everybody knows in all of these states it's only a handful of swing districts. In some ways, it's like a presidential campaign. Everybody knows there's only a handful of states that matter. You invest all of your resources aggressively there. In North Carolina and a lot of states like this, a lot of the down-ballot races are sleepy, and then there are some that are these seven-figure slugfests.
SR: Looking past Election Day, the other big factor on this decade's forthcoming political maps will be not just the 2020 winners redrawing district lines, but the census count—the people and voters who will be sliced and diced to create political districts. What do you think the impact will be of a truncated census count?
DD: I don't think anybody knows fully. We don't know what the undercount is going to be or where it will be. There's a huge impact of federal funding dollars, and which communities get the resources they will need and which communities don't [get resources]. The next impact is on reapportionment, the number of U.S. House representatives that each state receives. There are a lot of questions on whether an undercount will shift political power in some ways. This power has been moving. Midwestern and New England states are losing seats. Southern and southwestern states are gaining seats. It's really hard to predict which states will gain or lose members [of Congress] based on reapportionment and the census. That, in turn, affects the Electoral College [where votes are allocated based on the congressional delegation size].
If there's an undercount of Latino voters in Texas, could Texas lose seats instead of gaining seats? If there's an undercount in Florida of minority groups, could that offset an undercount in California? It's hard to say until you see exactly where the numbers are. But then you have the additional question of citizenship data. The Trump administration has made it really clear that they want the citizenship data to be provided to state legislatures for redistricting purposes. There's been a longtime standard that state legislatures have followed the national standard of drawing lines based on total population, not the citizen voting age population. If you begin to see states using citizenship data to redistrict, based on citizen voting age population, you are going to see state legislatures where the political power shifts to older, rural, whiter and more conservative areas.
SR: I always thought that strategy was the last play or the last stand in the Republican Party's decline—the destiny by demography scenario where, as white America shrinks and non-white America's population grows, the last big structural play they have is only counting the citizen voting age population when making political districts versus the total population of an area.
DD: I think that's right.
SR: So here we are, two weeks out. And it would be premature to draw any conclusion because these national and state voter turnout figures are too generalized, compared to the local races. But the stakes are enormous—the partisan complexions of the country's purple states.
DD: I think what's clear is the next decade is on the line in all of these states. What you just said is exactly right. Democrats have had this blind faith in the idea that demography is destiny for some time. What Republicans have shown is you can govern from the minority quite effectively and quite reliably through gerrymandering, and rule rigging, and voter suppression.
[South Carolina Sen.] Lindsey Graham once said they weren't making old white men fast enough for the Republican Party to not have to evolve at some point. Yet, through all of these other techniques, they've managed to avoid evolving. And indeed, if they have evolved, it's been further toward the right and further toward that base by drawing themselves districts and entrenching their power in places that look less and less like the rest of the country. It seems like it can't be a long-term strategy, but it sure keeps lasting, and [it] sure looks difficult to find a way to defeat it.
But if that defeat is to come, down-ballot races in 2020 are going to play an outsized role.
SR: We're only talking about 10 or 12 states that might be in play.
DD: That's all we talk about in a presidential election too. There are very few states that don't have both houses of its state legislature in the hands of the same party—as far as houses and senates. Nebraska is an oddball in that [it has one chamber], but every place else is all blue or all red, except for Minnesota. So that eliminates the number of possible pickups, right?
In 2010, when the Republicans were looking to run RedMap, very few seats separated Democrats from Republicans in [state legislatures in] all of these states. That's why they were able to do it. Democrats held Pennsylvania, but their lead in the Pennsylvania statehouse was 102 to 101. It was super-close in Michigan. Democrats had Ohio. They had North Carolina, and Republicans took them all in 2010's election. And then redistricted them in such a way that Democrats haven't come back all decade in most of these states.
Wisconsin is not a state that the Democrats are trying to flip; they are just trying to hold onto veto power with these maps a decade later. In contrast, in Texas and Arizona, a demographic change has come around and put those states in play. Litigation in other states has put [those] states in play. And then polarization elsewhere has ensured that other states will not be in play.
SR: Do you think there will be post-Election Day litigation over these down-ballot races if they are close, even if the results of the presidential election are not in dispute?
DD: It depends on how close they are… Both sides know the stakes. If control of Texas's statehouse is tied or within one seat… There will be close races. Remember Virginia back in 2017, when the last race [deciding the House majority] was tied? They pulled a piece of paper out of a film canister or something to settle it. [Republicans won.] Crazy things happen…
Steven Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He has reported for National Public Radio, Marketplace, and Christian Science Monitor Radio, as well as a wide range of progressive publications including Salon, AlterNet, the American Prospect, and many others.
This article was produced by Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.


alternet--2020-10-23--Trump just let slip his feelings about having a 'female' president

While attacking Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris of California on Friday , President Donald Trump seemed hung up on the fact that if she were elected vice president , she would have the potential to become the country 's first woman president .
Speaking at a campaign rally in Florida , Trump insisted that this ca n't be allowed to happen , though at first he did n't say why .
But then he moved on to the complaint that Harris is supposedly a socialist — a claim that any actual socialist would tell you is not true .
( He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extra insult . )
`` By the way , Kamala will not be your first female president , '' he said .
`` She will not be your first female president .
That 's not the way it 's suppose do to be .
We 're not going to have a socialist — look , we 're not going be a socialist nation , we 're not going to have a socialist president . ''
Then , cracking a smile and stifling a laugh , he added : `` Especially a female socialist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have it .
We 're not going to put up with it .
It 's not going to happen . ''
Of course , even if you object to socialism , there 's no reason to object to having a female socialist president as compared to a male socialist president .
It should make no difference .
There 's nothing inherently different , or `` especially '' worse , or laughable , about having a female socialist as compared to a male socialist as president .
Unless , that is , you take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intrinsically inferior to men or unsuited for the job of president .
Only then does Trump 's comment make any sense .
Many have argued , of course , that there 's plenty of evidence that Trump is an extreme misogynist .
And he just let slip what he really thinks about the idea of having a woman as president .
Though really , it should be no surprise .

While attacking Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris of California on Friday, President Donald Trump seemed hung up on the fact that if she were elected vice president, she would have the potential to become the country's first woman president.
Speaking at a campaign rally in Florida, Trump insisted that this can't be allowed to happen, though at first he didn't say why. But then he moved on to the complaint that Harris is supposedly a socialist — a claim that any actual socialist would tell you is not true. (He also mispronounced her name, for an extra insult.)
"By the way, Kamala will not be your first female president," he said. "She will not be your first female president. That's not the way it's suppose do to be. We're not going to have a socialist — look, we're not going be a socialist nation, we're not going to have a socialist president."
Then, cracking a smile and stifling a laugh, he added: "Especially a female socialist president. We're not going to have it. We're not going to put up with it. It's not going to happen."
Of course, even if you object to socialism, there's no reason to object to having a female socialist president as compared to a male socialist president. It should make no difference. There's nothing inherently different, or "especially" worse, or laughable, about having a female socialist as compared to a male socialist as president. Unless, that is, you take the misogynistic view that women are somehow intrinsically inferior to men or unsuited for the job of president. Only then does Trump's comment make any sense.
Many have argued, of course, that there's plenty of evidence that Trump is an extreme misogynist. And he just let slip what he really thinks about the idea of having a woman as president. Though really, it should be no surprise.
Watch the clip below:


alternet--2020-10-23--Trump's smile falls from his face as his attempt to get a foreign leader to attack Biden backfires

In a now-infamous phone call , President Donald Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to insert himself into American politics by announcing an investigation of his political rival , former Vice President Joe Biden .
That call and the scheme surrounding it led to Democrats impeach Trump , alleging that he had corruptly leveraged his office and congressionally approved funds to benefit his own political campaign .
Trump appeared to be taking a shot at similar gambit , if on a much smaller and less elaborate scale , on Friday during a televised call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israel to normalize relations with Sudan on speakerphone in front of reporters , Trump tried to goad Netanyahu into attacking Biden .
`` Do you think Sleepy Joe could have made this deal , Bibi ?
Sleepy Joe ? ''
Trump asked , smirking .
`` Do you think he would have made this deal ?
Somehow , I do n't think so . ''
Of course , the ask was n't as duplicitous or egregious as the on Trump made of Zelensky .
It involved no withholding of military aid , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disparage his opponent , not open a criminal investigation of him .
Still , it was wildly inappropriate and corrupt , both from the perspective of domestic and international politics .
And despite the fact that Netanyahu has made no secret for his preference for Republicans and his fondness for Trump in particular , the Israeli prime minister refused to bite on the president 's bait .
He pointedly avoided disparaging Biden .
`` Well , Mr. President , one thing I can tell you is that we appreciate the help for peace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
`` And we appreciate what you 've done enormously . ''
The smile dramatically fell from Trump 's face , and he gave a deflated : `` Yeah . ''
It was clear he was disappointed that Netanyahu did n't join him in attacking Biden , which would have given him a de facto campaign ad with the endorsement of one of his favorite foreign leaders .
Many pointed out , though , that despite Netanyahu 's fondness for Trump , he can read polling data as well as anyone .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden is heavily favored to win in the 2020 election .
Netanyahu is likely to have a more fraught relationship with Biden regardless , but he wisely does n't want to intentionally aggravate the Democrat in the last days of an election .
Netanyahu seemed to try to make up for the disappointment his remarks surely caused by adding : `` This will be registered in the history books .
History registers who did what , I think it does . ''
But the damage was done .

In a now-infamous phone call, President Donald Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to insert himself into American politics by announcing an investigation of his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. That call and the scheme surrounding it led to Democrats impeach Trump, alleging that he had corruptly leveraged his office and congressionally approved funds to benefit his own political campaign.
Trump appeared to be taking a shot at similar gambit, if on a much smaller and less elaborate scale, on Friday during a televised call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
While discussing a new plan for Israel to normalize relations with Sudan on speakerphone in front of reporters, Trump tried to goad Netanyahu into attacking Biden.
"Do you think Sleepy Joe could have made this deal, Bibi? Sleepy Joe?" Trump asked, smirking. "Do you think he would have made this deal? Somehow, I don't think so."
Of course, the ask wasn't as duplicitous or egregious as the on Trump made of Zelensky. It involved no withholding of military aid, and he was simply asking for Netanyahu to disparage his opponent, not open a criminal investigation of him. Still, it was wildly inappropriate and corrupt, both from the perspective of domestic and international politics.
And despite the fact that Netanyahu has made no secret for his preference for Republicans and his fondness for Trump in particular, the Israeli prime minister refused to bite on the president's bait. He pointedly avoided disparaging Biden.
"Well, Mr. President, one thing I can tell you is that we appreciate the help for peace from anyone in America," Netanyahu said. "And we appreciate what you've done enormously."
The smile dramatically fell from Trump's face, and he gave a deflated: "Yeah." It was clear he was disappointed that Netanyahu didn't join him in attacking Biden, which would have given him a de facto campaign ad with the endorsement of one of his favorite foreign leaders.
Many pointed out, though, that despite Netanyahu's fondness for Trump, he can read polling data as well as anyone. And the polling quite clearly indicates that Biden is heavily favored to win in the 2020 election. Netanyahu is likely to have a more fraught relationship with Biden regardless, but he wisely doesn't want to intentionally aggravate the Democrat in the last days of an election.
Netanyahu seemed to try to make up for the disappointment his remarks surely caused by adding: "This will be registered in the history books. History registers who did what, I think it does." But the damage was done.
Watch the clip below:


alternet--2020-10-23--Paul Krugman explains why Ayn Rand's libertarianism is absolutely deadly

During the coronavirus crisis , President Donald Trump and many of his Republican allies have not only downplayed the severity of the pandemic — they have also vehemently opposed social distancing restrictions , mask wearing and other measures meant to slow down the spread of COVID-19 .
Liberal economist Paul Krugman discusses that mindset this week in his New York Times column , slamming it as `` libertarianism gone bad '' and the toxic influence of the late right-wing author Ayn Rand .
`` If you look at what Republican politicians are saying as the pandemic rips through their states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see a lot of science denial .
Gov .
Kristi Noem of South Dakota has gone full Trump — questioning the usefulness of masks and encouraging potential superspreader events… .
But you also see a lot of libertarian rhetoric — a lot of talk about 'freedom ' and 'personal responsibility . '
'' Noting the autumn surge in COVID-19 infections that is occurring across the U.S. , Krugman writes , `` Donald Trump 's disastrous leadership is , of course , an important factor .
But I also blame Ayn Rand — or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a misunderstanding of what freedom is all about . ''
Krugman agrees with libertarians that there are many times when the government needs to butt out and mind its own business .
But when a pandemic poses so great a threat to public health , Krugman argues , it is n't government overreach to encourage social distancing or ask someone to wear a mask in public .
`` Many things should be matters of individual choice , '' Krugman argues .
`` The government has no business dictating your cultural tastes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do with other consenting adults .
But refusing to wear a face covering during a pandemic , or insisting on mingling indoors with large groups , is n't like following the church of your choice .
It 's more like dumping raw sewage into a reservoir that supplies other people 's drinking water . ''
According to Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore , the COVID-19 pandemic has killed more than 1.1 million people worldwide and over 223,600 in the United States — and some health officials fear that the worst is yet to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar to that of the 1918/1919 Spanish flu pandemic , which went from bad to worse during its second wave .
Whatever happens this winter , COVID-19 has already killed a staggering number of people .
And in light of all the misery the novel coronavirus has inflicted , Krugman stresses , it is hardly unreasonable to ask Americans to take precautions .
`` Many prominent figures still do n't seem to understand , or are n't willing to understand , why we should be practicing social distancing , '' Krugman explains .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ourselves — if it were , it would indeed be a personal choice .
Instead , it 's about not endangering others .
Wearing a mask may provide some protection to the wearer , but mostly , it limits the chance that you 'll infect other people… .
Trump may complain that 'all you hear is COVID , COVID , COVID . '
The fact , however , is that the current path of the pandemic is terrifying — and we desperately need leadership from politicians who will take it seriously . ''

During the coronavirus crisis, President Donald Trump and many of his Republican allies have not only downplayed the severity of the pandemic — they have also vehemently opposed social distancing restrictions, mask wearing and other measures meant to slow down the spread of COVID-19. Liberal economist Paul Krugman discusses that mindset this week in his New York Times column, slamming it as "libertarianism gone bad" and the toxic influence of the late right-wing author Ayn Rand.
"If you look at what Republican politicians are saying as the pandemic rips through their states," Krugman explains, "you see a lot of science denial. Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota has gone full Trump — questioning the usefulness of masks and encouraging potential superspreader events…. But you also see a lot of libertarian rhetoric — a lot of talk about 'freedom' and 'personal responsibility.'"
Noting the autumn surge in COVID-19 infections that is occurring across the U.S., Krugman writes, "Donald Trump's disastrous leadership is, of course, an important factor. But I also blame Ayn Rand — or, more generally, libertarianism gone bad, a misunderstanding of what freedom is all about."
Krugman agrees with libertarians that there are many times when the government needs to butt out and mind its own business. But when a pandemic poses so great a threat to public health, Krugman argues, it isn't government overreach to encourage social distancing or ask someone to wear a mask in public.
"Many things should be matters of individual choice," Krugman argues. "The government has no business dictating your cultural tastes, your faith or what you decide to do with other consenting adults. But refusing to wear a face covering during a pandemic, or insisting on mingling indoors with large groups, isn't like following the church of your choice. It's more like dumping raw sewage into a reservoir that supplies other people's drinking water."
According to Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, the COVID-19 pandemic has killed more than 1.1 million people worldwide and over 223,600 in the United States — and some health officials fear that the worst is yet to come if the pandemic follows a path similar to that of the 1918/1919 Spanish flu pandemic, which went from bad to worse during its second wave. Whatever happens this winter, COVID-19 has already killed a staggering number of people. And in light of all the misery the novel coronavirus has inflicted, Krugman stresses, it is hardly unreasonable to ask Americans to take precautions.
"Many prominent figures still don't seem to understand, or aren't willing to understand, why we should be practicing social distancing," Krugman explains. "It's not primarily about protecting ourselves — if it were, it would indeed be a personal choice. Instead, it's about not endangering others. Wearing a mask may provide some protection to the wearer, but mostly, it limits the chance that you'll infect other people…. Trump may complain that 'all you hear is COVID, COVID, COVID.' The fact, however, is that the current path of the pandemic is terrifying — and we desperately need leadership from politicians who will take it seriously."


alternet--2020-10-23--The debate wasn't 'civil' — Trump showed himself to be a cold-blooded psychopath

The word on the media reviews for Thursday night 's second — and blessedly last — debate of the presidential campaign is that it was civil .
`` It was civil , calm , sedate , substantive ( at times ) and , almost , even normal , '' Shane Goldmacher at the New York Times writes .
`` It came down to muting the president , '' Robin Givhan of the Washington Post writes .
`` That 's what it took to stage a reasonably civil debate between President Trump and former vice president Joe Biden . ''
Deirdre @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` a much different — and far more civil — night than the last encounter . ''
I do n't know what debate these analysts were watching .
Because the one I saw was between a normal politician , Joe Biden , and a man whose utter lack of empathy for any other human being is only matched by his baseless self-regard .
The mute button only allowed Trump to speak at greater length , showcasing for all of America to see a textbook illustration of what sociopathy looks like .
Afterwards , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watching , and if so , if he was worried that his star turn in `` American Psycho '' was too understated .
I know we 've all grown numb to Trump 's casual cruelty and his obvious inability to imagine that other people are fully real , but hot damn , it is incumbent on us who carry the dubious title of `` journalist '' not to let that numbness cloud our vision .
There is something deeply wrong with that man .
Anyone who listened — really listened — to him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump 's sociopathic responses to human suffering started straightaway , when moderator Kristen Welker asked about future responses to the coronavirus , which has infected more than 8 million Americans and killed 223,000 as of Friday morning .
Trump talked about the pandemic as if he were cheating at golf or trying to bully some hapless tenant into agreeing that there 's nothing wrong with brown water coming out of the faucet .
`` So as you know , 2.2 million people modeled out , were expected to die , '' Trump started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would think he was talking about the weather .
He went on to claim the U.S. is doing better than most of the world with controlling the pandemic .
All of this is a lie , which is no surprise .
That number of 2.2 fatalities was the absolute worst-case scenario , with no mitigation practices at all .
It 's much lower than that , no thanks to Trump — who proceeded to hype the no-mitigation strategy for the rest of the debate , even scoffing at the idea of plexiglass barriers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the American people stepped up to save ourselves .
Trump then proceeded to downplay the seriousness of the virus , bragging `` I got better very fast '' when he got COVID-19 and claiming that `` 99 % of people recover . ''
In fact , the death rate right now is 2.6 % of diagnosed cases , and an unknown number of those who survive will have long-term health effects .
He then proceeded to whine like a fourth-grader , literally proclaiming , it 's `` not my fault . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have had someone close to them die , or who have themselves survived a near-death experience with COVID-19 .
I 've personally had multiple people in my life become ill with this virus , and was wracked with worry about losing one of them .
Trump 's entire soulless diatribe , especially when he mentioned that his `` young son '' had the disease and `` was fine , '' was profoundly disturbing .
The man has no empathy , not even for his own family .
It went on like that all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suffering , Trump sounded like a callous jerk .
On the subject of family separations and the 545 immigrant children who are still separated from their parents after Trump instituted the policy that ripped thousands of families apart ?
`` They are so well taken care of .
They 're in facilities that were so clean , '' Trump said dismissively , as if forcibly orphaned children should be grateful to be allowed to take a shower .
He also took time to smear people who apply for legal immigration status , saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IQ '' show up to their mandatory court appointments .
In Trump 's world , only idiots and fools obey the law .
In a 2016 debate with Hillary Clinton , he famously made a similar claim , saying that his long history of tax evasion makes him `` smart '' .
This time around , there was more racism , along with the president 's bizarre and fascistic obsession with eugenics .
When Welker asked the candidates to talk about the struggles of Black parents faced with the need to tell their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to their personal safety or their lives , Biden spoke empathetically about the difficulties of raising kids in a racist system .
Trump just whined that he does n't get enough praise for his generosity to Black people .
`` I am the least racist person in this room , '' Trump whined , adding that he `` took care of Black colleges and universities , '' in the same tone he probably uses when listing all the jewelry he 's purchased for wives irate about yet another infidelity .
Biden was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump was turning that sociopathic viciousness towards sneering at the former veep 's well-documented famil struggles .
Much has been said about Biden 's empathy and personal decency , but honestly , any human being without a severe personality disorder would come across as a mensch next to that sneering creep .
It may be that the loud , chaotic and disruptive aspects of Trump 's personality are so annoying that they drown out what is actually most disturbing about the man , which is that he has no human feeling for other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ideology of American conservatism at this point is so cruel and unfeeling that Trump seems like a natural fit with the 21st-century Republican Party .
Possibly it 's because the political culture of mandatory cynicism does n't allow people to admit that they 're weirded out by someone whose empathetic capacity is so busted .
Whatever the reason , it 's remarkable how so many people have grown accustomed to sitting through that man 's cold-blooded rants and callous affect and do n't seem disturbed by it , as long as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the truth is , without the yelling and headache-inducing interruptions , Trump 's ruthless attitude towards any human being besides himself came through with crystalline clarity .
There 's nothing `` civil '' about a man who does n't care about human suffering and death , and is only upset by the fact that he 's not receiving the constant praise and flattery he believes is his due .

The word on the media reviews for Thursday night's second — and blessedly last — debate of the presidential campaign is that it was civil.
"It was civil, calm, sedate, substantive (at times) and, almost, even normal," Shane Goldmacher at the New York Times writes.
"It came down to muting the president," Robin Givhan of the Washington Post writes. "That's what it took to stage a reasonably civil debate between President Trump and former vice president Joe Biden."
Deirdre Walsh at NPR declared the Nashville debate " a much different — and far more civil — night than the last encounter."
I don't know what debate these analysts were watching. Because the one I saw was between a normal politician, Joe Biden, and a man whose utter lack of empathy for any other human being is only matched by his baseless self-regard. The mute button only allowed Trump to speak at greater length, showcasing for all of America to see a textbook illustration of what sociopathy looks like. Afterwards, I wondered if Christian Bale had been watching, and if so, if he was worried that his star turn in "American Psycho" was too understated.
I know we've all grown numb to Trump's casual cruelty and his obvious inability to imagine that other people are fully real, but hot damn, it is incumbent on us who carry the dubious title of "journalist" not to let that numbness cloud our vision. There is something deeply wrong with that man. Anyone who listened — really listened — to him on Thursday night could see it.
Trump's sociopathic responses to human suffering started straightaway, when moderator Kristen Welker asked about future responses to the coronavirus, which has infected more than 8 million Americans and killed 223,000 as of Friday morning. Trump talked about the pandemic as if he were cheating at golf or trying to bully some hapless tenant into agreeing that there's nothing wrong with brown water coming out of the faucet.
"So as you know, 2.2 million people modeled out, were expected to die," Trump started, in a tone so casual one would think he was talking about the weather. He went on to claim the U.S. is doing better than most of the world with controlling the pandemic.
All of this is a lie, which is no surprise. That number of 2.2 fatalities was the absolute worst-case scenario, with no mitigation practices at all. It's much lower than that, no thanks to Trump — who proceeded to hype the no-mitigation strategy for the rest of the debate, even scoffing at the idea of plexiglass barriers — but because state and local officials and the American people stepped up to save ourselves.
Trump then proceeded to downplay the seriousness of the virus, bragging "I got better very fast" when he got COVID-19 and claiming that "99% of people recover." In fact, the death rate right now is 2.6% of diagnosed cases, and an unknown number of those who survive will have long-term health effects. He then proceeded to whine like a fourth-grader, literally proclaiming, it's "not my fault."
Imagine how this felt for people who have had someone close to them die, or who have themselves survived a near-death experience with COVID-19. I've personally had multiple people in my life become ill with this virus, and was wracked with worry about losing one of them. Trump's entire soulless diatribe, especially when he mentioned that his "young son" had the disease and "was fine," was profoundly disturbing. The man has no empathy, not even for his own family.
It went on like that all night. On every issue touching human suffering, Trump sounded like a callous jerk.
On the subject of family separations and the 545 immigrant children who are still separated from their parents after Trump instituted the policy that ripped thousands of families apart?
"They are so well taken care of. They're in facilities that were so clean," Trump said dismissively, as if forcibly orphaned children should be grateful to be allowed to take a shower.
He also took time to smear people who apply for legal immigration status, saying that only "those with the lowest IQ" show up to their mandatory court appointments.
In Trump's world, only idiots and fools obey the law. In a 2016 debate with Hillary Clinton, he famously made a similar claim, saying that his long history of tax evasion makes him "smart". This time around, there was more racism, along with the president's bizarre and fascistic obsession with eugenics.
When Welker asked the candidates to talk about the struggles of Black parents faced with the need to tell their kids that encounters with police can threat to their personal safety or their lives, Biden spoke empathetically about the difficulties of raising kids in a racist system. Trump just whined that he doesn't get enough praise for his generosity to Black people.
"I am the least racist person in this room," Trump whined, adding that he "took care of Black colleges and universities," in the same tone he probably uses when listing all the jewelry he's purchased for wives irate about yet another infidelity.
Biden was a welcome contrast all night, even when Trump was turning that sociopathic viciousness towards sneering at the former veep's well-documented famil struggles. Much has been said about Biden's empathy and personal decency, but honestly, any human being without a severe personality disorder would come across as a mensch next to that sneering creep.
It may be that the loud, chaotic and disruptive aspects of Trump's personality are so annoying that they drown out what is actually most disturbing about the man, which is that he has no human feeling for other people. Or perhaps it's because the ideology of American conservatism at this point is so cruel and unfeeling that Trump seems like a natural fit with the 21st-century Republican Party. Possibly it's because the political culture of mandatory cynicism doesn't allow people to admit that they're weirded out by someone whose empathetic capacity is so busted.
Whatever the reason, it's remarkable how so many people have grown accustomed to sitting through that man's cold-blooded rants and callous affect and don't seem disturbed by it, as long as the volume is kept at a reasonable level.
But the truth is, without the yelling and headache-inducing interruptions, Trump's ruthless attitude towards any human being besides himself came through with crystalline clarity. There's nothing "civil" about a man who doesn't care about human suffering and death, and is only upset by the fact that he's not receiving the constant praise and flattery he believes is his due.


alternet--2020-10-23--Federal prosecutors allege far-right 'Boogaloo' member tried to incite a riot during George Floyd pr

Federal prosecutors allege far-right 'Boogaloo' member tried to incite a riot during George Floyd protests

President Donald Trump and many of his allies in the right-wing media have been claiming that most or all of the political violence that has occurred in the United States following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25 has come from the left — totally overlooking the history of violence associated with the Proud Boys , QAnon and a variety of white nationalist and militia groups .
But federal prosecutors accused a Texas-based member of the far-right Boogaloo Bois on Friday of going to Minneapolis in late May with the intention of taking part in a riot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges for firing a semiautomatic weapon into a Minneapolis police precinct during the protests .
`` Federal agents reviewed a video taken on the night of May 28 that shows an individual , later identified as Hunter , firing 13 rounds from an AK-47 style semiautomatic rifle into the Minneapolis Police Department 's Third Precinct building , '' KARE-TV , the NBC affiliate in Minneapolis , reports .
`` Law enforcement recovered discharged rifle casings from the scene that are consistent with an AK-47-style firearm . ''
According to KARE , `` Investigators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made upon his return to Texas , describing his illegal activities in Minneapolis .
They allege he was communicating with Michael Solomon , a Minneapolis resident and member of the Boogaloo Bois who is federally charged with providing support to a terrorist organization , along with an associate named Benjamin Teeter . ''
The Boogaloo Bois are an extremist far-right movement that call for a second civil war in the United States and favor violent confrontations with law enforcement and politicians .
In Northern California , Boogaloo supporter Steven Carrillo is facing murder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May shooting in Oakland that left a Federal Protective Service officer dead .
And some of the 13 men arrested in connection with a plot to kidnap and possibly murder Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer are believed by law enforcement to be connected to the Boogaloo movement ; others allegedly involved in that plot , according to the FBI , were part of the Wolverine Watchmen , a far-right militia group .

President Donald Trump and many of his allies in the right-wing media have been claiming that most or all of the political violence that has occurred in the United States following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25 has come from the left — totally overlooking the history of violence associated with the Proud Boys, QAnon and a variety of white nationalist and militia groups. But federal prosecutors accused a Texas-based member of the far-right Boogaloo Bois on Friday of going to Minneapolis in late May with the intention of taking part in a riot.
Ivan Harrison Hunter is facing criminal charges for firing a semiautomatic weapon into a Minneapolis police precinct during the protests.
"Federal agents reviewed a video taken on the night of May 28 that shows an individual, later identified as Hunter, firing 13 rounds from an AK-47 style semiautomatic rifle into the Minneapolis Police Department's Third Precinct building," KARE-TV, the NBC affiliate in Minneapolis, reports. "Law enforcement recovered discharged rifle casings from the scene that are consistent with an AK-47-style firearm."
According to KARE, "Investigators say they recovered social media posts Hunter made upon his return to Texas, describing his illegal activities in Minneapolis. They allege he was communicating with Michael Solomon, a Minneapolis resident and member of the Boogaloo Bois who is federally charged with providing support to a terrorist organization, along with an associate named Benjamin Teeter."
The Boogaloo Bois are an extremist far-right movement that call for a second civil war in the United States and favor violent confrontations with law enforcement and politicians. In Northern California, Boogaloo supporter Steven Carrillo is facing murder charges for his role in a late May shooting in Oakland that left a Federal Protective Service officer dead. And some of the 13 men arrested in connection with a plot to kidnap and possibly murder Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer are believed by law enforcement to be connected to the Boogaloo movement; others allegedly involved in that plot, according to the FBI, were part of the Wolverine Watchmen, a far-right militia group.


alternet--2020-10-23--Columnist argues Trump is 'drowning in his own lies'

Many pundits have noted President Donald Trump was calmer during his second debate with former Vice President Joe Biden than he was during their first debate .
Journalist John Heilemann , during a Friday morning appearance on MSNBC 's `` Morning Joe , '' jokingly said that `` Quaalude Trump was better than Crystal Meth Trump '' — although he also slammed Trump 's debate performance as `` phony and shallow '' and short on facts .
Similarly , liberal Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent argues that Trump 's lies hurt his debate performance and are hurting his reelection campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is `` drowning in his own lies . ''
Sargent opens his Friday column by quoting Trump ally and former Breitbart News Chairman Steve Bannon , who once declared that the way to hurt Trump 's critics in the media is to `` flood the zone with shit '' — an approach that , according to Sargent , was very much in evidence during his second debate with Biden .
But Sargent writes , `` A funny thing is happening : if Trump has succeeded in 'flooding the zone with s**t , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at risk of drowning in it . ''
During the debate , Trump continued to downplay the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic — and , Sargent writes , made himself look ridiculous .
`` At the debate , Trump claimed his spectacular leadership prevented 2 million deaths — an absurd manipulation of statistics , '' Sargent argues .
`` Trump 's biggest coronavirus-related claim of the night , that we 're 'rounding the turn , ' is false by any reasonable reading of the numbers . ''
The columnist adds , `` Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the coronavirus for nine months .
Majorities disagree with the overall story he 's telling about it .
They do n't believe the worst is behind us and want more government action to address it , even supporting a national mask mandate .
But more to the point for our purposes here , majorities know Trump is n't telling them the truth about it .
Recent polls show that huge majorities do not trust what Trump says about the coronavirus and that they trust government scientists far more than Trump on it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flood the zone '' strategy is so ripe to backfire .
`` Trump 's continued zone-flooding claims that he has a secret plan to protect people with preexisting conditions , which we again heard at the debate , have become a sick joke , '' Sargent said .
`` Trump also absurdly tried to paint Biden as supporting a socialist takeover of health care , when voters everywhere saw Biden arguing with his progressive primary challengers about this for months .
Surely , all this gaslighting helps explain why Biden is trusted over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majorities . ''
Sargent wraps up his column by stressing while one can not say for certain that Trump wo n't be reelected , his `` flooding the zone '' with nonsense is n't doing his campaign any good .

Many pundits have noted President Donald Trump was calmer during his second debate with former Vice President Joe Biden than he was during their first debate. Journalist John Heilemann, during a Friday morning appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," jokingly said that "Quaalude Trump was better than Crystal Meth Trump" — although he also slammed Trump's debate performance as "phony and shallow" and short on facts.
Similarly, liberal Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent argues that Trump's lies hurt his debate performance and are hurting his reelection campaign in general. Trump, he said, is "drowning in his own lies."
Sargent opens his Friday column by quoting Trump ally and former Breitbart News Chairman Steve Bannon, who once declared that the way to hurt Trump's critics in the media is to "flood the zone with shit" — an approach that, according to Sargent, was very much in evidence during his second debate with Biden. But Sargent writes, "A funny thing is happening: if Trump has succeeded in 'flooding the zone with s**t,' Trump himself is the person most at risk of drowning in it."
During the debate, Trump continued to downplay the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic — and, Sargent writes, made himself look ridiculous.
"At the debate, Trump claimed his spectacular leadership prevented 2 million deaths — an absurd manipulation of statistics," Sargent argues. "Trump's biggest coronavirus-related claim of the night, that we're 'rounding the turn,' is false by any reasonable reading of the numbers."
The columnist adds, "Trump has been lying to the United States about the coronavirus for nine months. Majorities disagree with the overall story he's telling about it. They don't believe the worst is behind us and want more government action to address it, even supporting a national mask mandate. But more to the point for our purposes here, majorities know Trump isn't telling them the truth about it. Recent polls show that huge majorities do not trust what Trump says about the coronavirus and that they trust government scientists far more than Trump on it."
This is why the "flood the zone" strategy is so ripe to backfire.
"Trump's continued zone-flooding claims that he has a secret plan to protect people with preexisting conditions, which we again heard at the debate, have become a sick joke," Sargent said. "Trump also absurdly tried to paint Biden as supporting a socialist takeover of health care, when voters everywhere saw Biden arguing with his progressive primary challengers about this for months. Surely, all this gaslighting helps explain why Biden is trusted over Trump to handle health care by large majorities."
Sargent wraps up his column by stressing while one cannot say for certain that Trump won't be reelected, his "flooding the zone" with nonsense isn't doing his campaign any good.


alternet--2020-10-23--Why 2020 is the year of black holes

Why 2020 is the year of black holes

This article was produced in partnership by Newsclick and Globetrotter .
The Nobel Prize in physics for 2020 has been shared by Roger Penrose , the mathematical physicist , for his work on the theoretical basis of black holes , and astronomers Reinhard Genzel and Andrea Ghez , who led independent teams , for verifying the existence of such a black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy .
Penrose showed that the consequence of Einstein 's general theory of relativity is the formation of black holes , not only in collapsing stars but also in certain dense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capture everything : nothing can come out , not even light .
Genzel and Ghez and their respective teams independently showed by tracking the trajectory of a star that a superheavy object — around 4 million solar masses — exists at the center of the Milky Way galaxy .
Ghez is the fourth woman to win a Nobel Prize in physics , the first one being Marie Curie , who won in 1903 .
The Nobel Prize has assumed a halo that it does not deserve .
Alfred Nobel was paying blood money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ horror of war .
But in sciences , it is still seen as the touchstone of greatness , even as its value is going down in peace and literature , which are seen to be far more guided by politics .
How else do we explain Kissinger 's peace prize in 1973 and Churchill 's literature prize in 1953 ?
There are two Indian connections to black holes .
The first is through physics .
It was Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar , an Indian physicist , who had shown in 1930 that if a star @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mass , it would not stop collapsing .
Chandrasekhar was the nephew of C.V. Raman , who was India 's first Nobel laureate in physics .
Chandrasekhar received the Nobel Prize for physics in 1983 .
He moved to the United States in 1936 and assumed American citizenship in 1953 .
Below the mass now known as the Chandrasekhar limit , the star would become a white dwarf .
If the mass of the star was higher , he did not speculate on what would happen .
We now know that it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then collapse with its atoms squeezed into the nucleus-sized spaces forming a neutron star ; or not stop collapsing at all , thereby creating a black hole .
The second Indian connection , and an unhappy one , is how the term black hole came about .
It is now established that Robert Dicke and John Wheeler , both physics professors from Princeton University , were the first to coin the term black hole for the gravitational collapse of a star creating a singularity .
And Dicke 's family remembers his use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not find something in the house , asking whether it had disappeared into the Black Hole of Calcutta .
Black Hole of Calcutta was , as we know , was a grossly overblown myth about a number of English soldiers and East India Company European employees being shut in a small prison room with two small windows , killing a number of them due to suffocation .
The numbers that were claimed then by the East India Company have been disputed by a number of historians , but provided the justification of wholescale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lands that finally became the British Empire in India .
It overshadowed—in English minds—the innumerable colonial massacres that the British carried out and the devastating famines that accompanied British rule .
Einstein 's general theory of relativity , formulated in 1915 , led Karl Schwarzschild , an astronomer serving in the German Army in World War I , to publish a solution to Einstein 's field equations , which showed that if matter and energy exceeded a certain bound , it would cause space-time to collapse on itself , producing a singularity—or a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel its gravitational effect , but no mass or even light could escape from such a black hole .
Though Einstein 's general theory predicted the possibility of black holes , even Einstein did not really believe that they could exist .
One major objection about the formation of black holes was that it demanded the collapse to be symmetrical , and it was argued that no collapse could be perfectly symmetrical , and therefore the formation of a black hole was a remote possibility .
Penrose showed , using a mathematical topology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transform , that unlike other derivations for black holes , his approach did not require perfect symmetry of the collapsing matter .
Applying the general theory of relativity , Penrose showed that the only requirement was enough density of matter in a given space , and this condition was enough for the formation of a black hole .
Such a theoretical derivation is not enough for physicists ; physics needs experimental evidence to confirm a theory .
Or at least theory alone is not enough for the Nobel Prize and the Swedish Academy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This was the argument against giving Einstein the Nobel Prize , though the reasons ran far deeper .
Einstein had become world-famous for having turned the familiar world of Newtonian physics upside down .
But despite his worldwide fame , he had his enemies both in Germany and in academia because of his opposition to World War I , his radical views including socialism , and the fact that he was Jewish .
The prevailing orthodoxy of physics , including the Nobel Committee , dismissed Einstein for all these reasons and argued that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and lacked experimental proof .
To end this argument , the English astronomer Arthur Eddington in 1919 proposed an experimental verification of the theory of relativity .
If a massive object curves space around itself due to its mass , it should be possible to observe this curvature by measuring starlight passing close to the sun during an eclipse .
Eddington did this during a solar eclipse of 1919 and was able to show that the results closely agreed with the predictions of Einstein 's general theory of relativity .
The Times of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : New Theory of the Universe , '' a New York Times headline wrote , `` Lights All Askew in the Heavens . ''
Einstein became a rock star in physics , a stature unmatched by any scientist .
But even that did not get him the Nobel Prize in 1920 and 1921 .
The science historian Robert Friedman wrote in his book The Politics of Excellence that the Nobel Committee could not stomach a `` political and intellectual radical , who—it was said—did not conduct experiments , crowned as the pinnacle of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to an eminently forgettable discovery of an inert nickel-steel alloy , and in 1921 , the Nobel Prize was not awarded .
By then , denying Einstein was possible for the committee even if it meant not bestowing the prize on anyone at all .
Finally , in 1922 , Einstein was awarded the held-over Nobel of 1921 , not for the theory of relativity for which he was most famous , but rather for the discovery of the photoelectric effect—the discovery that light also behaves as a particle—that Einstein had made in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year that he had published the first of his relativity papers , on the special theory of relativity .
Penrose 's work had laid a firm mathematical basis for black holes and , in the heart of such a hole , a space-time singularity .
Stephen Hawking developed this concept using the general theory of relativity to show that if we project time into the past , we would find that the entire universe started with such a singularity in time , or a Big Bang .
Penrose and Hawking worked together in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been widely hailed for unraveling the origins of the universe .
Although Hawking achieved iconic status , as perhaps the most famous physicist after Einstein , he never received the Nobel Prize .
Penrose 's Nobel Prize for the space-time singularity is perhaps a shamefaced bow to Hawking for the Nobel Prize that he never received .
Theories in physics open up possibilities to understand our universe .
But without experimental verification , there is still a nagging doubt in the minds of the Nobel Committee that some new phenomena could contradict the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ verification is viewed as the supposed gold standard of physics .
And when it comes to astrophysics , it is a daunting task to prove theories with experiments on stars that would have to be observed from light-years away .
This is why Chandrasekhar 's Nobel Prize took more than 50 years , Penrose 's 55 , to be awarded .
And as Nobel Prizes are not given posthumously , physicists like Hawking are never awarded for their remarkable contributions .
An observation that confirms the existence of a superheavy object that does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Penrose 's prediction of a black hole .
This is what Genzel and Ghez achieved , finding that the Milky Way galaxy , like most galaxies , hosts a massive black hole at its center .
Dr. Andrea Ghez is a professor at the University of California , Los Angeles , and Dr. Genzel the director of the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching , Germany .
Ghez 's team used the Keck Observatory in Hawaii , while `` Genzel 's group used telescopes in Chile operated by the European @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Both the teams have been in `` competition '' for some time and have jointly received many honors .
In this case , it was over tracking stars close to the galactic center of the Milky Way .
Both teams tracked the same star , called S02 by Ghez 's team and S2 by Genzel , which had a very short orbiting period around the center of the Milky Way of only about 16 years compared to the sun 's orbit of 200 million years .
Both teams ' results , using different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have shown that they are in close agreement that a superheavy object , with a mass of about 4 million suns , lies at the center of our galaxy .
In the staid language of the Nobel Committee , `` A robust interpretation of these observations is that the compact object at the Galactic center is compatible with being a supermassive black hole . ''
We have come a long way from Einstein 's theory of relativity and Chandrasekhar 's stellar collapse .
Let me end with Chandrasekhar 's Nobel speech , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ literature from India , Rabindranath Tagore : Often quoted , perhaps overused , but nevertheless appropriate for our dark times .
Prabir Purkayastha is the founding editor of Newsclick.in , a digital media platform .
He is an activist for science and the free software movement .

This article was produced in partnership by Newsclick and Globetrotter.
The Nobel Prize in physics for 2020 has been shared by Roger Penrose, the mathematical physicist, for his work on the theoretical basis of black holes, and astronomers Reinhard Genzel and Andrea Ghez, who led independent teams, for verifying the existence of such a black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy.
Penrose showed that the consequence of Einstein's general theory of relativity is the formation of black holes, not only in collapsing stars but also in certain dense regions of space. Such black holes capture everything: nothing can come out, not even light. Genzel and Ghez and their respective teams independently showed by tracking the trajectory of a star that a superheavy object — around 4 million solar masses — exists at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. Ghez is the fourth woman to win a Nobel Prize in physics, the first one being Marie Curie, who won in 1903.
The Nobel Prize has assumed a halo that it does not deserve. Alfred Nobel was paying blood money for creating dynamite, which magnified the horror of war. But in sciences, it is still seen as the touchstone of greatness, even as its value is going down in peace and literature, which are seen to be far more guided by politics. How else do we explain Kissinger's peace prize in 1973 and Churchill's literature prize in 1953?
There are two Indian connections to black holes. The first is through physics. It was Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, an Indian physicist, who had shown in 1930 that if a star was larger than 1.4 times the solar mass, it would not stop collapsing. Chandrasekhar was the nephew of C.V. Raman, who was India's first Nobel laureate in physics. Chandrasekhar received the Nobel Prize for physics in 1983. He moved to the United States in 1936 and assumed American citizenship in 1953. Below the mass now known as the Chandrasekhar limit, the star would become a white dwarf. If the mass of the star was higher, he did not speculate on what would happen.
We now know that it would blow up in a supernova, and then collapse with its atoms squeezed into the nucleus-sized spaces forming a neutron star; or not stop collapsing at all, thereby creating a black hole.
The second Indian connection, and an unhappy one, is how the term black hole came about. It is now established that Robert Dicke and John Wheeler, both physics professors from Princeton University, were the first to coin the term black hole for the gravitational collapse of a star creating a singularity. And Dicke's family remembers his use of the phrase black hole whenever he could not find something in the house, asking whether it had disappeared into the Black Hole of Calcutta. Black Hole of Calcutta was, as we know, was a grossly overblown myth about a number of English soldiers and East India Company European employees being shut in a small prison room with two small windows, killing a number of them due to suffocation. The numbers that were claimed then by the East India Company have been disputed by a number of historians, but provided the justification of wholescale killings, plunder and the seizure of lands that finally became the British Empire in India. It overshadowed—in English minds—the innumerable colonialmassacres that the British carried out and the devastating famines that accompanied British rule.
Einstein's general theory of relativity, formulated in 1915, led Karl Schwarzschild, an astronomer serving in the German Army in World War I, to publish a solution to Einstein's field equations, which showed that if matter and energy exceeded a certain bound, it would cause space-time to collapse on itself, producing a singularity—or a black hole. The external world would feel its gravitational effect, but no mass or even light could escape from such a black hole.
Though Einstein's general theory predicted the possibility of black holes, even Einstein did not really believe that they could exist. One major objection about the formation of black holes was that it demanded the collapse to be symmetrical, and it was argued that no collapse could be perfectly symmetrical, and therefore the formation of a black hole was a remote possibility. Penrose showed, using a mathematical topology that he developed known as the Penrose transform, that unlike other derivations for black holes, his approach did not require perfect symmetry of the collapsing matter. Applying the general theory of relativity, Penrose showed that the only requirement was enough density of matter in a given space, and this condition was enough for the formation of a black hole.
Such a theoretical derivation is not enough for physicists; physics needs experimental evidence to confirm a theory. Or at least theory alone is not enough for the Nobel Prize and the Swedish Academy that privilege experimental physics over theory. This was the argument against giving Einstein the Nobel Prize, though the reasons ran far deeper.
Einstein had become world-famous for having turned the familiar world of Newtonian physics upside down. But despite his worldwide fame, he had his enemies both in Germany and in academia because of his opposition to World War I, his radical views including socialism, and the fact that he was Jewish. The prevailing orthodoxy of physics, including the Nobel Committee, dismissed Einstein for all these reasons and argued that Einstein's theories were only theories, and lacked experimental proof.
To end this argument, the English astronomer Arthur Eddington in 1919 proposed an experimental verification of the theory of relativity. If a massive object curves space around itself due to its mass, it should be possible to observe this curvature by measuring starlight passing close to the sun during an eclipse. Eddington did this during a solar eclipse of 1919 and was able to show that the results closely agreed with the predictions of Einstein's general theory of relativity. The Times of London declared, "Revolution in Science: New Theory of the Universe," a New York Times headline wrote, "Lights All Askew in the Heavens." Einstein became a rock star in physics, a stature unmatched by any scientist.
But even that did not get him the Nobel Prize in 1920 and 1921. The science historian Robert Friedman wrote in his book The Politics of Excellence that the Nobel Committee could not stomach a "political and intellectual radical, who—it was said—did not conduct experiments, crowned as the pinnacle of physics." The 1920 prize went to an eminently forgettable discovery of an inert nickel-steel alloy, and in 1921, the Nobel Prize was not awarded. By then, denying Einstein was possible for the committee even if it meant not bestowing the prize on anyone at all. Finally, in 1922, Einstein was awarded the held-over Nobel of 1921, not for the theory of relativity for which he was most famous, but rather for the discovery of the photoelectric effect—the discovery that light also behaves as a particle—that Einstein had made in 1905. It was also the same year that he had published the first of his relativity papers, on the special theory of relativity.
Penrose's work had laid a firm mathematical basis for black holes and, in the heart of such a hole, a space-time singularity. Stephen Hawking developed this concept using the general theory of relativity to show that if we project time into the past, we would find that the entire universe started with such a singularity in time, or a Big Bang. Penrose and Hawking worked together in the 1960s, and their work has been widely hailed for unraveling the origins of the universe. Although Hawking achieved iconic status, as perhaps the most famous physicist after Einstein, he never received the Nobel Prize. Penrose's Nobel Prize for the space-time singularity is perhaps a shamefaced bow to Hawking for the Nobel Prize that he never received.
Theories in physics open up possibilities to understand our universe. But without experimental verification, there is still a nagging doubt in the minds of the Nobel Committee that some new phenomena could contradict the theory. So the search for experimental verification is viewed as the supposed gold standard of physics. And when it comes to astrophysics, it is a daunting task to prove theories with experiments on stars that would have to be observed from light-years away. This is why Chandrasekhar's Nobel Prize took more than 50 years, Penrose's 55, to be awarded. And as Nobel Prizes are not given posthumously, physicists like Hawking are never awarded for their remarkable contributions.
An observation that confirms the existence of a superheavy object that does not emit any energy would provide verification of Penrose's prediction of a black hole. This is what Genzel and Ghez achieved, finding that the Milky Way galaxy, like most galaxies, hosts a massive black hole at its center. Dr. Andrea Ghez is a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Dr. Genzel the director of the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany. Ghez's team used the Keck Observatory in Hawaii, while "Genzel's group used telescopes in Chile operated by the European Southern Observatory (ESO)." Both the teams have been in "competition" for some time and have jointly received many honors. In this case, it was over tracking stars close to the galactic center of the Milky Way. Both teams tracked the same star, called S02 by Ghez's team and S2 by Genzel, which had a very short orbiting period around the center of the Milky Way of only about 16 years compared to the sun's orbit of 200 million years. Both teams' results, using different telescopes and data sets over decades, have shown that they are in close agreement that a superheavy object, with a mass of about 4 million suns, lies at the center of our galaxy. In the staid language of the Nobel Committee, "A robust interpretation of these observations is that the compact object at the Galactic center is compatible with being a supermassive black hole."
We have come a long way from Einstein's theory of relativity and Chandrasekhar's stellar collapse. Let me end with Chandrasekhar's Nobel speech, where he quoted the only Nobel laureate in literature from India, Rabindranath Tagore:
"Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
Into that heaven of freedom, let me awake."
Often quoted, perhaps overused, but nevertheless appropriate for our dark times.
Prabir Purkayastha is the founding editor of Newsclick.in, a digital media platform. He is an activist for science and the free software movement.