alternet--2020-10-27--How activists across the U.S. are using street art to protest Trump

`` Defund the wall—fund our future . ''
This is the message painted in giant yellow letters as a street mural that fills the entire block 's worth of asphalt in front of the federal courthouse in Laredo , Texas .
Laredo is a city of about 260,000 residents that sits along the north bank of the Rio Grande .
The river marks the border between the U.S. and Mexico , and early efforts to move forward on the Trump administration 's proposed border wall project have already begun to negatively impact life for residents of the city , many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live just across the border in Mexico .
Melissa Cigarroa has lived in Laredo since 1993 and is board president of the Rio Grande International Study Center , which seeks to preserve the river 's water and its surrounding environment .
Cigarroa was present at the protest in front of the federal courthouse where the street mural was painted and says she has also been involved with several other local protests against the border wall .
Concerned about the prevalence of misinformation on the border wall situation ( much of which comes from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make sure her community is aware of the facts .
`` It 's just an idea of standing up for what 's right , '' Cigarroa says .
`` The wall is a lie .
It 's based on a lie .
It wo n't solve the problems that they say it will solve .
The whole promotion of it is this gross , capricious promise that was just a [ campaign ] line—and then a bunch of racist people started promoting it .
It 's just so deeply disturbing . ''
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Inspector General released a report detailing the shortcomings of U.S. Customs and Border Protection ( CBP ) in its analysis and acquisition process of the southern border for the `` Wall Acquisition Program . ''
Cigarroa says the wall project threatens the health of the Rio Grande 's ecosystems and greenery—and could significantly worsen flooding that is already an issue in the region .
Removing trees and plant life surrounding the river , as is the proposed plan , also threatens the health of the river 's drinking water , which is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and doing so could lead to increased pollution .
A lawsuit filed by landowners in Zapata County—where Laredo is located—on July 6 claims that the wall project is also racist .
The lawsuit has been filed against President Donald Trump , the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) and the CBP .
Cigarroa , a Laredo landowner in neighboring Webb County , is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit .
The lawsuit 's complaint against the border wall is 51 pages long and alleges that the project is rooted in little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cites the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution , which guarantees the right to due process and equal protection to any person in the United States .
And , it quotes the president 's own comments as evidence against the project 's legality .
The lawsuit 's introduction alleges that the DHS and the CBP under President Trump 's direction `` are engaged in a full-on assault against the people who reside in Zapata County and Webb County , Texas.… The people of Zapata County and Webb County , who are overwhelmingly Mexican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ animus that demonizes immigrants , Mexicans , Mexican Americans , and people who live on the border . ''
The South Texas lawsuit is one among a number of lawsuits that have been filed against the wall , including a lawsuit filed by 19 U.S. states in March , and another filed by the ACLU , Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition asking the Supreme Court to block construction of the border wall .
An appeals court ruled against the continued construction of the wall on October 10 .
Laredo residents have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the beginning , as has the Laredo City Council , which voted in favor of the `` Defund the Wall '' mural on July 27 .
City residents organized by a coalition of anti-border wall groups , including LULAC ( League of United Latin American Citizens ) , painted the enormous street mural across Victoria Street on August 15 .
A newly formed group that is part of the coalition , Veterans United to Stop the Border Wall , did maintenance on the mural on September 12 , derailing a `` Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says was made up mostly of out-of-towners who came to Laredo to drive over the mural ) .
Residents of the city have been organizing against the border wall for months .
The street mural was a way for residents , many of whom have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic , to collaborate while remaining socially distanced .
The Trump administration 's border wall will cost Americans dearly—and those costs reach far beyond the hefty $ 5 billion price tag the project carries .
The beginning stages of the border wall are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cultural damage for U.S. communities .
Laura Parker 's article in National Geographic in 2019 outlined six potential environmental threats of the border wall .
Work crews in the Sonoran Desert in Arizona , for instance , have been destroying protected Saguaro cactus plants that are sacred to the Indigenous cultures of the region .
It is a felony offense to cut down the cacti , which can live for more than 200 years , but the work crews have barreled through protected zones nonetheless .
As the New York Times reported in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ area say the fast-tracked border wall project poses a range of environmental and archaeological threats .
In Laredo , residents are concerned not only over the racist motivations of the wall project but also about the threat the wall poses to the Rio Grande , their only drinking water source , as well as the beloved local wildlife trail systems and parks that run along the river .
Cigarroa says the current plans for the wall project include removing all vegetation surrounding the river for the length of half a football field to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is concerned that the river 's ecosystems—already among the top ten most endangered rivers in the world—will become further polluted if the wall construction is allowed to continue , and since the river is her community 's only drinking water source , that is a serious concern for humans as well as the river 's plant and animal ecosystems .
She also says the community would lose some of its most cherished outdoor spaces .
And on top of that , she says , the wall would damage the local culture .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of things , '' she says .
`` Physically , it destroys the land , and you lose access to that land… Then there 's [ the fact that ] we have this deep connection with Mexico because our heritage is Mexican .
My grandmothers came over through the river and then married Tejanos who had been here since before the United States was the United States .
[ The wall is ] a symbol of racism and hate against our ancestry—and so many Laredo families have a deep connection to Mexico… our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it would be a slap in the face and an insult to all of that . ''
The street mural in Laredo is far from alone when it comes to public art that stands against Trump and his administration 's many degrading actions .
Art has always been a tool of political activists , and the Trump presidency and the COVID-19 pandemic have inspired some particularly memorable works of public art .
In the lead-up to the 2016 election , a mural on the side of a restaurant in Lithuania showing Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Around the same time , a mural painted on the border wall in Tijuana , Mexico , depicting Trump with a ball-gag wedged in his mouth and the words `` !
RAPE TRUMP ! ''
became a tourist attraction .
Who could forget the day in 2016 when numerous naked Trump statues , sculpted by the horror artist Ginger , appeared overnight in Cleveland , Los Angeles , New York , San Francisco and Seattle for the project known as `` The Emperor Has No Balls . ''
Both the Tijuana mural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the anonymous political activism artist collective Indecline .
The group is also responsible for transforming a Trump Tower luxury hotel suite into a prison cell for the president , complete with live rats , in 2018 , as the Russia investigation—which the U.S. Justice Department never fully examined—was ongoing .
Indecline , which began as a group of `` punk kids '' in Southern California looking for an outlet during the Bush administration years , has grown into a national collective of artists whose work makes headlines around the world regularly—especially since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best thing to do , for us , has always been to find a way to therapeutically make the best of these situations through activist art , '' said a founder of Indecline who spoke anonymously with the Independent Media Institute .
The idea behind Indecline , he says , is to use art to shock people into paying attention to the things they care about , but often feel too depressing to look at .
`` This has been around forever… Since the first time some asshole came in and pulled some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ art has been there , '' he says .
`` Activist art or street art has ways of reaching people at an emotional level that more traditional forms of protest ca n't . ''
Indecline 's mission , per se , is to get people into a dialogue around the hard things to look at and invite them to look from new angles .
`` We break so many laws in the quest to create our art , and that in and of itself has always been a touchpoint for us with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` [ We 're asking people to think about ] why they care more about the billboard that we put a sticker on to address school shootings , rather than the school shootings themselves… When people are choosing property over people , for us that [ indicates ] a clear need to readjust , recalibrate your moral compass . ''
The need to break laws in the name of civil disobedience and public awareness is a running theme throughout Indecline 's new 40-minute documentary `` The Art of Protest , '' which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Rolling Stone website .
Elisabeth Garber-Paul , who previewed the film in detail for Rolling Stone , writes : Rather than continuing to focus their efforts primarily in places that already have fairly progressive populations , Indecline is working to bring more art projects to places like the South , where they expect most Americans will not offer them as warm a reception as they 've received in places like New York and the West Coast .
`` We 're trying to think of how we can go to Arkansas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really wakes that community up , '' he says .
The goal , he says , is not just for the sake of shocking people but rather `` to try to engage with the small pockets in that community that wished they had a platform or some resources to make more noise in their community—rather than feeling like they 're going to get shot for wearing a Black Lives Matter T-shirt to Walmart . ''
He says even if Trump loses to Biden in the upcoming election , there will be just as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ art : `` A lot of things that we have to look at in the wake of a Trump presidency were always around beforehand—even though he 's exacerbated them , '' he says .
April M. Short is an editor , journalist and documentary editor and producer .
She is a writing fellow at Local Peace Economy , a project of the Independent Media Institute .
Previously , she served as a managing editor at AlterNet as well as an award-winning senior staff writer for Santa Cruz , California 's weekly newspaper .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ San Francisco Chronicle , In These Times , Salon and many others .
This article was produced by Local Peace Economy , a project of the Independent Media Institute .

"Defund the wall—fund our future." This is the message painted in giant yellow letters as a street mural that fills the entire block's worth of asphalt in front of the federal courthouse in Laredo, Texas.
Laredo is a city of about 260,000 residents that sits along the north bank of the Rio Grande. The river marks the border between the U.S. and Mexico, and early efforts to move forward on the Trump administration's proposed border wall project have already begun to negatively impact life for residents of the city, many of whom have relatives and friends who live just across the border in Mexico.
Melissa Cigarroa has lived in Laredo since 1993 and is board president of the Rio Grande International Study Center, which seeks to preserve the river's water and its surrounding environment. Cigarroa was present at the protest in front of the federal courthouse where the street mural was painted and says she has also been involved with several other local protests against the border wall. Concerned about the prevalence of misinformation on the border wall situation (much of which comes from President Trump), she strives to make sure her community is aware of the facts.
"It's just an idea of standing up for what's right," Cigarroa says. "The wall is a lie. It's based on a lie. It won't solve the problems that they say it will solve. The whole promotion of it is this gross, capricious promise that was just a [campaign] line—and then a bunch of racist people started promoting it. It's just so deeply disturbing."
On July 14, the U.S. Office of Inspector General released a report detailing the shortcomings of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in its analysis and acquisition process of the southern border for the "Wall Acquisition Program."
Cigarroa says the wall project threatens the health of the Rio Grande's ecosystems and greenery—and could significantly worsen flooding that is already an issue in the region. Removing trees and plant life surrounding the river, as is the proposed plan, also threatens the health of the river's drinking water, which is the city's only drinking water source, and doing so could lead to increased pollution.
A lawsuit filed by landowners in Zapata County—where Laredo is located—on July 6 claims that the wall project is also racist. The lawsuit has been filed against President Donald Trump, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the CBP. Cigarroa, a Laredo landowner in neighboring Webb County, is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit's complaint against the border wall is 51 pages long and alleges that the project is rooted in little more than racism and politics. It cites the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to due process and equal protection to any person in the United States. And, it quotes the president's own comments as evidence against the project's legality.
The lawsuit's introduction alleges that the DHS and the CBP under President Trump's direction "are engaged in a full-on assault against the people who reside in Zapata County and Webb County, Texas.… The people of Zapata County and Webb County, who are overwhelmingly Mexican American, are the targets of an animus that demonizes immigrants, Mexicans, Mexican Americans, and people who live on the border."
The South Texas lawsuit is one among a number of lawsuits that have been filed against the wall, including a lawsuit filed by 19 U.S. states in March, and another filed by the ACLU, Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition asking the Supreme Court to block construction of the border wall. An appeals court ruled against the continued construction of the wall on October 10.
Laredo residents have been largely opposed to the wall project from the beginning, as has the Laredo City Council, which voted in favor of the "Defund the Wall" mural on July 27.
City residents organized by a coalition of anti-border wall groups, including LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens), painted the enormous street mural across Victoria Street on August 15. A newly formed group that is part of the coalition, Veterans United to Stop the Border Wall, did maintenance on the mural on September 12, derailing a "Trump Train" car rally (which Cigarroa says was made up mostly of out-of-towners who came to Laredo to drive over the mural). Residents of the city have been organizing against the border wall for months. The street mural was a way for residents, many of whom have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, to collaborate while remaining socially distanced.
The Trump administration's border wall will cost Americans dearly—and those costs reach far beyond the hefty $5 billion price tag the project carries. The beginning stages of the border wall are already proving to cause serious environmental and cultural damage for U.S. communities. Laura Parker's article in National Geographic in 2019 outlined six potential environmental threats of the border wall. Work crews in the Sonoran Desert in Arizona, for instance, have been destroying protected Saguaro cactus plants that are sacred to the Indigenous cultures of the region. It is a felony offense to cut down the cacti, which can live for more than 200 years, but the work crews have barreled through protected zones nonetheless. As the New York Times reported in February, Native American leaders in the area say the fast-tracked border wall project poses a range of environmental and archaeological threats.
In Laredo, residents are concerned not only over the racist motivations of the wall project but also about the threat the wall poses to the Rio Grande, their only drinking water source, as well as the beloved local wildlife trail systems and parks that run along the river.
Cigarroa says the current plans for the wall project include removing all vegetation surrounding the river for the length of half a football field to create a security enforcement zone. She is concerned that the river's ecosystems—already among the top ten most endangered rivers in the world—will become further polluted if the wall construction is allowed to continue, and since the river is her community's only drinking water source, that is a serious concern for humans as well as the river's plant and animal ecosystems. She also says the community would lose some of its most cherished outdoor spaces. And on top of that, she says, the wall would damage the local culture.
"Putting a wall in does a couple of things," she says. "Physically, it destroys the land, and you lose access to that land… Then there's [the fact that] we have this deep connection with Mexico because our heritage is Mexican. My grandmothers came over through the river and then married Tejanos who had been here since before the United States was the United States. [The wall is] a symbol of racism and hate against our ancestry—and so many Laredo families have a deep connection to Mexico… our identity is a bicultural bilingual identity, and it would be a slap in the face and an insult to all of that."
The Outpouring of Anti-Trump Artwork
The street mural in Laredo is far from alone when it comes to public art that stands against Trump and his administration's many degrading actions. Art has always been a tool of political activists, and the Trump presidency and the COVID-19 pandemic have inspired some particularly memorable works of public art.
In the lead-up to the 2016 election, a mural on the side of a restaurant in Lithuania showing Trump kissing Russian President Vladimir Putin went viral. Around the same time, a mural painted on the border wall in Tijuana, Mexico, depicting Trump with a ball-gag wedged in his mouth and the words "!RAPE TRUMP!" became a tourist attraction. Who could forget the day in 2016 when numerous naked Trump statues, sculpted by the horror artist Ginger, appeared overnight in Cleveland, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Seattle for the project known as "The Emperor Has No Balls."
Both the Tijuana mural and the naked Trump sculptures were executed by the anonymous political activism artist collective Indecline. The group is also responsible for transforming a Trump Tower luxury hotel suite into a prison cell for the president, complete with live rats, in 2018, as the Russia investigation—which the U.S. Justice Department never fully examined—was ongoing.
Indecline, which began as a group of "punk kids" in Southern California looking for an outlet during the Bush administration years, has grown into a national collective of artists whose work makes headlines around the world regularly—especially since the Trump statues project.
"The best thing to do, for us, has always been to find a way to therapeutically make the best of these situations through activist art," said a founder of Indecline who spoke anonymously with the Independent Media Institute.
The idea behind Indecline, he says, is to use art to shock people into paying attention to the things they care about, but often feel too depressing to look at.
"This has been around forever… Since the first time some asshole came in and pulled some oppressive move on a community, resistance art has been there," he says. "Activist art or street art has ways of reaching people at an emotional level that more traditional forms of protest can't."
Indecline's mission, per se, is to get people into a dialogue around the hard things to look at and invite them to look from new angles.
"We break so many laws in the quest to create our art, and that in and of itself has always been a touchpoint for us with the general public," he says. "[We're asking people to think about] why they care more about the billboard that we put a sticker on to address school shootings, rather than the school shootings themselves… When people are choosing property over people, for us that [indicates] a clear need to readjust, recalibrate your moral compass."
The need to break laws in the name of civil disobedience and public awareness is a running theme throughout Indecline's new 40-minute documentary "The Art of Protest," which is distributed by Zero Cool films and premiered on the Rolling Stone website. Elisabeth Garber-Paul, who previewed the film in detail for Rolling Stone, writes:
"Indecline teamed up with Saving Banksy director Colin M. Day to turn that footage—as well as footage of their numerous installations since, from prison rooms fabricated in Trump hotels to walking a pack of leashed MAGA supporters—to illustrate the importance of art and satire in the movement for social change."
Rather than continuing to focus their efforts primarily in places that already have fairly progressive populations, Indecline is working to bring more art projects to places like the South, where they expect most Americans will not offer them as warm a reception as they've received in places like New York and the West Coast.
"We're trying to think of how we can go to Arkansas, for example, and do something that really wakes that community up," he says. The goal, he says, is not just for the sake of shocking people but rather "to try to engage with the small pockets in that community that wished they had a platform or some resources to make more noise in their community—rather than feeling like they're going to get shot for wearing a Black Lives Matter T-shirt to Walmart."
He says even if Trump loses to Biden in the upcoming election, there will be just as much need for community activism and public art: "A lot of things that we have to look at in the wake of a Trump presidency were always around beforehand—even though he's exacerbated them," he says.
April M. Short is an editor, journalist and documentary editor and producer. She is a writing fellow at Local Peace Economy, a project of the Independent Media Institute. Previously, she served as a managing editor at AlterNet as well as an award-winning senior staff writer for Santa Cruz, California's weekly newspaper. Her work has been published with the San Francisco Chronicle, In These Times, Salon and many others.
This article was produced by Local Peace Economy, a project of the Independent Media Institute.


alternet--2020-10-27--There's an ominous undercurrent in the Supreme Court's recent election cases

Late Monday , as its newest justice was about to be sworn in , the Supreme Court issued the first of what may be more rulings in coming days that underscore the conservative majority 's marked hostility to voting rights .
Seen narrowly , the court 's conservatives ruled that Wisconsin could not extend a deadline to accept absentee ballots that had been postmarked by Election Day but arrived six days later and banned anyone from being a poll worker who was not a resident of the same county .
( A lower court had granted these measures , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
In concrete terms , the Wisconsin ruling could cut into the lead held by Democratic candidates among absentee voters—as a Supreme Court-extended return deadline in April 's presidential primary allowed 80,000 additional ballots to be counted ( 7 percent of all absentee ballots ) .
The decision also meant that some poll workers will not be able to work as anticipated .
It may be hard to replace these workers , given the state 's resurgent coronavirus outbreak .
`` The Democratic Party of Wisconsin will double down on making sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercise their right to vote in the final eight days of this election , '' Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Ben Wikler said in a statement .
The ruling is expected to be followed by Supreme Court decisions on GOP appeals tp extended ballot return deadlines in North Carolina ( now November 12 ) .
With a new justice , it may reconsider aspects of its recent 4-4- decision in Pennsylvania , where a three-day ballot extension remains in place , but larger issues loom .
It 's an open question whether the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election 's popular vote and appoint its own presidential Electoral College slate .
In other words , hostility to voting rights by the Supreme Court 's expanded conservative bloc could become the quadrennial `` October surprise , '' upending the election , much like former FBI Director James Comey 's announcement in October 2016 that the FBI was reopening an investigation into Hillary Clinton 's government emails roiled the close of that race .
The voting cases before the Court have yielded decisions but not many detailed explanations .
But the Wisconsin ruling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along liberal and conservative lines .
Scholars on law blogs said these views were formulated during deliberations over many voting rights and election procedure cases this fall .
From a legal standpoint , the high court conservatives said that lower federal courts had no justification to assist Wisconsin voters because that responsibility squarely rests with its state legislature .
The fact that the Republican-majority legislatures opted to not act on voters ' behalf in response to COVID was irrelevant , the court 's conservatives concluded .
`` One may disagree with a State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots be received by Election Day .
Indeed , some States require only that absentee ballots be mailed by Election day , '' wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a concurrence .
`` But the States requiring that absentee ballots be received by election day do so for weighty reasons that warrant judicial respect .
Federal courts have no business disregarding those state interests simply because the federal courts believe that later deadlines would be better . ''
Wisconsin 's legislature is not unique among battleground states .
The purple states where legislatures did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in response to COVID-19 were the same states where Republicans have held legislative majorities for the past decade , a consequence of partisan gerrymanders .
These states , where much of 2020 's voting rights suits have unfolded , include Wisconsin , Michigan , Pennsylvania , Ohio , North Carolina , Texas and Florida .
The view of the Court 's liberals , as expressed in a dissent by Justice Elena Kagan , said federal courts had a responsibility to assist voters exercise their rights .
`` The Court 's decision will disenfranchise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ midst of hazardous pandemic conditions , '' she wrote .
`` Because the Court refuses to reinstate the district court 's in-junction [ extending the ballot return deadline ] , Wisconsin will throw out thousands of timely re-quested and timely cast mail ballots .
And today 's decision does not stand alone .
In other recent cases as well , the Court has halted injunctions necessary for people [ in Alabama ] to cast ballots safely . ''
But Kavanaugh said that Wisconsin voters had other options , including Election Day registration and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been urging the public to make plans to vote for months .
Thus , Kavanaugh said that extending a ballot-return deadline that had been suspended by an appeals court was disruptive at the last minute .
Kagan , however , countered that giving voters and local election officials more time helped the process and legitimized the election outcome .
`` Last-minute changes to election processes may baffle and discourage voters ; and when that is likely , a court has strong reason to stay its hand , '' Kagan said .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ danger .
And a court must also take account of other matters—among them , the presence of extraordinary circumstances ( like a pandemic ) , the clarity of a constitutional injury , and the extent of voter disenfranchisement threatened . ''
Stepping back from the particulars of the Wisconsin case , the worrisome undercurrent is that the Supreme Court is elevating the authority of legislatures to set the rules for elections .
That power extends to authority under the federal Constitution to disregard the popular vote and appoint a slate of presidential electors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Barton Gellman recently explored this risk in the Atlantic , citing a law review article I wrote last year , '' wrote Edward B. Foley , a constitutional scholar who leads Ohio State University 's election law program .
`` But where my analysis of the issue was hypothetical , Gellman quotes key GOP figures in Pennsylvania acknowledging on the record that this option is under consideration .
Last week , the Pennsylvania legislature began forming an investigatory committee , seen as the first step toward implementing such action . ''
Whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is heading down a path that will merge with the scenario presented by Foley and affirmed by Gellman is an open question .
But the reasoning behind the court 's Wisconsin ruling appears to be a step in that direction .
This article was produced by Voting Booth , a project of the Independent Media Institute .

Head: Will Supreme Court Election Rulings be 2020's October Surprise?
Late Monday, as its newest justice was about to be sworn in, the Supreme Court issued the first of what may be more rulings in coming days that underscore the conservative majority's marked hostility to voting rights.
Seen narrowly, the court's conservatives ruled that Wisconsin could not extend a deadline to accept absentee ballots that had been postmarked by Election Day but arrived six days later and banned anyone from being a poll worker who was not a resident of the same county. (A lower court had granted these measures, but they were put on hold pending appeals.)
In concrete terms, the Wisconsin ruling could cut into the lead held by Democratic candidates among absentee voters—as a Supreme Court-extended return deadline in April's presidential primary allowed 80,000 additional ballots to be counted (7 percent of all absentee ballots). The decision also meant that some poll workers will not be able to work as anticipated. It may be hard to replace these workers, given the state's resurgent coronavirus outbreak.
"The Democratic Party of Wisconsin will double down on making sure that every Wisconsin voter knows how to exercise their right to vote in the final eight days of this election," Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Ben Wikler said in a statement.
The ruling is expected to be followed by Supreme Court decisions on GOP appeals tp extended ballot return deadlines in North Carolina (now November 12). With a new justice, it may reconsider aspects of its recent 4-4- decision in Pennsylvania, where a three-day ballot extension remains in place, but larger issues loom. It's an open question whether the court could empower state legislatures to ignore the election's popular vote and appoint its own presidential Electoral College slate.
In other words, hostility to voting rights by the Supreme Court's expanded conservative bloc could become the quadrennial "October surprise," upending the election, much like former FBI Director James Comey's announcement in October 2016 that the FBI was reopening an investigation into Hillary Clinton's government emails roiled the close of that race.
The voting cases before the Court have yielded decisions but not many detailed explanations. But the Wisconsin ruling was accompanied by concurring and dissenting opinions—split along liberal and conservative lines. Scholars on law blogs said these views were formulated during deliberations over many voting rights and election procedure cases this fall.
From a legal standpoint, the high court conservatives said that lower federal courts had no justification to assist Wisconsin voters because that responsibility squarely rests with its state legislature. The fact that the Republican-majority legislatures opted to not act on voters' behalf in response to COVID was irrelevant, the court's conservatives concluded.
"One may disagree with a State's policy choice to require that absentee ballots be received by Election Day. Indeed, some States require only that absentee ballots be mailed by Election day," wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a concurrence. "But the States requiring that absentee ballots be received by election day do so for weighty reasons that warrant judicial respect. Federal courts have no business disregarding those state interests simply because the federal courts believe that later deadlines would be better."
Wisconsin's legislature is not unique among battleground states. The purple states where legislatures did not take steps to make voting easier in response to COVID-19 were the same states where Republicans have held legislative majorities for the past decade, a consequence of partisan gerrymanders. These states, where much of 2020's voting rights suits have unfolded, include Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Texas and Florida.
The view of the Court's liberals, as expressed in a dissent by Justice Elena Kagan, said federal courts had a responsibility to assist voters exercise their rights.
"The Court's decision will disenfranchise large numbers of responsible voters in the midst of hazardous pandemic conditions," she wrote. "Because the Court refuses to reinstate the district court's in-junction [extending the ballot return deadline], Wisconsin will throw out thousands of timely re-quested and timely cast mail ballots. And today's decision does not stand alone. In other recent cases as well, the Court has halted injunctions necessary for people [in Alabama] to cast ballots safely."
But Kavanaugh said that Wisconsin voters had other options, including Election Day registration and voting, and that state election officials have been urging the public to make plans to vote for months. Thus, Kavanaugh said that extending a ballot-return deadline that had been suspended by an appeals court was disruptive at the last minute. Kagan, however, countered that giving voters and local election officials more time helped the process and legitimized the election outcome.
"Last-minute changes to election processes may baffle and discourage voters; and when that is likely, a court has strong reason to stay its hand," Kagan said. "But not every such change poses that danger. And a court must also take account of other matters—among them, the presence of extraordinary circumstances (like a pandemic), the clarity of a constitutional injury, and the extent of voter disenfranchisement threatened."
Stepping back from the particulars of the Wisconsin case, the worrisome undercurrent is that the Supreme Court is elevating the authority of legislatures to set the rules for elections. That power extends to authority under the federal Constitution to disregard the popular vote and appoint a slate of presidential electors favoring the legislative majority's party.
"Barton Gellman recently explored this risk in the Atlantic, citing a law review article I wrote last year," wrote Edward B. Foley, a constitutional scholar who leads Ohio State University's election law program. "But where my analysis of the issue was hypothetical, Gellman quotes key GOP figures in Pennsylvania acknowledging on the record that this option is under consideration. Last week, the Pennsylvania legislature began forming an investigatory committee, seen as the first step toward implementing such action."
Whether the Supreme Court's enlarged conservative bloc is heading down a path that will merge with the scenario presented by Foley and affirmed by Gellman is an open question. But the reasoning behind the court's Wisconsin ruling appears to be a step in that direction.
This article was produced by Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.


alternet--2020-10-27--Justice Kavanaugh's 'sloppy' opinion is an embarrassing mess riddled with errors

Late Monday night , the Supreme Court issued a ruling blocking a lower court 's decision to force Wisconsin election officials to extend the deadline for accepting mail-in ballots , as long as they were post-marked by Election Day .
This decision to limit ballot access was unsurprising given the conservative majority on the court , but as I noted , Justice Brett Kavanaugh 's concurring opinion disturbed many readers because of the views it seemed to express about voting and elections .
But there 's a related aspect of Kavanaugh 's opinion that has attracted significant attention in addition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , many commentators noted , extraordinarily sloppy for a Supreme Court ruling .
The opinion was riddled with errors , embarrassingly so , and some of which even relate to the substance of his argument .
To be sure , in light of the pandemic , some state legislatures have exercised their Article I , §4 , authority over elections and have changed their election rules for the November 2020 election .
Of particular relevance here , a few States such as Mississippi no longer require that absentee ballots be received before election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Code Ann .
§23–15–637 ( 2020 ) .
Other States such as Vermont , by contrast , have decided not to make changes to their ordinary election rules , including to the election-day deadline for receipt of absentee ballots .
[ emphasis added ] But as Vermont 's own secretary of state confirmed , the state had changed its election rules this year .
It sent every voter a ballot by the first of October : That does n't really change the substance of Kavanaugh 's ruling , but it does throw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environment and shed light on his lackluster fact-checking .
Another mistake from Kavanaugh , though , really is important to his argument .
He wrote of the reasons that states have for limiting the deadline for absentee ballot returns to Election Day itself : States want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election .
And those States also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible thereafter .
Moreover , particularly in a Presidential election , counting all the votes quickly can help the State promptly resolve any disputes , address any need for recounts , and begin the process of canvassing and certifying the election results in an expeditious manner .
See 3 U. S. C. §5 .
The States are aware of the risks described by Professor Pildes : `` [ L ] ate-arriving ballots open up one of the greatest risks of what might , in our era of hyperpolarized political parties and existential politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the apparent winner the morning after the election ends up losing due to late-arriving ballots , charges of a rigged election could explode . ''
But Kavanaugh 's quote here from Professor Richard Pildes in The University of Chicago Law Review Online is extremely misleading .
Pildes argued in the article cited for the opposite outcome .
He urged that states extend deadlines for receiving ballots past Election Day : States that require absentees to be received by election night or shortly after should move this date back .
Even if this fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in normal elections would be rejected for coming in too late , the same point noted above holds true : a 3 percent rejection rate risks undermining the perceived legitimacy of the election if 70 percent of the vote is cast by absentee ballot .
And this problem would be compounded , of course , if mailing back ballots five days before the election is normally sufficient to get them back in time , but not this year .
The overall burden on the U.S .
Postal Service makes that five-day figure less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if a significant number of votes come in after a receipt deadline that has not been changed and that is much tighter than in other states , ex post litigation challenging that deadline is easy to imagine .
This is exactly what we do not want to face for a risk that can be mitigated in advance .
Now , Pildes ' argument here is n't on exactly the same topic as the question before the court .
But it 's disingenuous for Kavanaugh to present him as if his argument supported the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agree that a long vote count could undermine trust in the election , but he also said that cutting off the deadline by Election Day also `` risks undermining the perceived legitimacy of the election . ''
It was dishonest and alarming for Kavanaugh not to acknowledge that the risks cut both ways , especially since the president that appointed him has been trying to discredit mail-in ballots .
In Wisconsin 's election , the federal court pushed the date back six days .
But that was for a presidential primary .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be much higher .
In choosing an updated receipt deadline that anticipates a dramatic rise in mailed-in ballots , policymakers face a trade-off .
The longer the permitted time , the more ballots will be valid .
But the longer that time , the longer it will take for the final result to be known .
If we thought voters would be patient , that would not pose any risk .
But in our climate of existential politics—with partisans all too prepared to believe or charge that elections are being manipulated , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ onto the fire—the longer after Election Day any significant changes in vote totals take place , the greater the risk that the losing side will cry that the election has been stolen .
Election administrators in different states must weigh in on whether , in their circumstances , a six-day deadline post-election is appropriate , as the federal district court held for Wisconsin .
The National Vote at Home Institute , one of the leading advocacy organizations for absentee and mail-in voting , suggests the deadline should be three business days after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our new circumstances .
But state legislatures and election officials need to start facing this issue soon .
Others picked up on another error in the section of Kavanaugh 's opinion cited above .
He warned about a situation in which `` thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election '' [ emphasis added ] .
But this is completely wrong .
Additional ballots do n't flip the `` results '' of an election because there are no results until all the legitimate votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because he worked on the Republican side in Bush v. Gore , which was an extensive argument about the counting of ballots after Election Day in Florida .
There was no result until the election was certified .
The media , of course , makes projections about what the final vote will be prior to certification , but that 's not the same — as we learned in 2000 when the media incorrectly projected the Florida results .
It 's rhetoric like Kavanaugh 's that truly serves to undermine the legitimacy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deadlines .
Kavanaugh 's argument also incorrectly claimed that the the desire to obtain a quick election result was the Wisconsin legislator 's reason for not extending the mail-in ballot deadline .
But as Talking Points Memo reporter Tierney Sneed pointed out , this is clearly not so .
Otherwise , Wisconsin would have permitted mail-in ballots that were received prior to Election day to be counted ahead of time , making the final count much more efficient .
It has not done so , which likely means the ballot counting will extend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim , it 's more plausible that the Republican-dominated Wisconsin legislature does n't want to receive late mail-in ballots because they think those votes will advantage Democrats .
Election law expert Rick Hasen pointed to another error in Kavanaugh 's opinion in a piece for the Washington Post , pointing to an incorrect citation of precedent : Kavanaugh cited a case that came to the Supreme Court during the disputed 2000 presidential election before Bush v. Gore — Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board — as standing for the proposition that state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power of state courts to expand voting rights under state constitutional provisions that protect the right to vote .
As law professor Justin Levitt pointed out , though , Kavanaugh was wrong : The Supreme Court in the Palm Beach case unanimously raised but did not resolve that question .
Kavanaugh further embraced this theory as advanced again by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore itself , but that was an opinion joined only by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas .
At another point in the opinion , Kavanaugh tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter the deadline that is set , some voters will miss it : But moving a deadline would not prevent ballots from arriving after the newly minted deadline any more than moving first base would mean no more close plays .
And more to the point , the fact that some ballots will be late in any system with deadlines does not make Wisconsin 's widely used deadline facially unconstitutional .
This is true , but Kavanaugh seems to misunderstand the difference between a deadline for sending a ballot and the deadline for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receiving the ballot give more grace to voters for a consideration that is out of their hands : how quickly the postal service can deliver ballots .
That 's how many such deadlines work ; for example , you only need to send your taxes into the government by April 15 — it does n't need to receive them by that date .
Kavanaugh 's failure to notice the difference in this analogy is telling .
It 's notable that , in all the tumult controversy that surrounded Kavanaugh 's confirmation to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that — whatever his personal faults — he was an excellent and upstanding jurist .
This latest opinion gives us reason to question that conclusion .
Hasen , in particular , seemed disturbed by this turn of events .
`` Why was Justice Kavanaugh so sloppy with the facts and law here ( and presumably in the earlier Wisconsin election per curiam ) ? ''
he asked on Twitter .
`` He is usually a careful writer .
It just undermines his points .
A huge , unforced error . ''
The errors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court : There 's little we can do to encourage good behavior among Supreme Court justices .
Short of impeachment or expansion of the court — either of which would be heavy lifts , though they 're possible — there are few ways to limit their power .
That means Kavanaugh can write sloppy and erroneous opinions on the bench with little fear it will cost him .

Late Monday night, the Supreme Court issued a ruling blocking a lower court's decision to force Wisconsin election officials to extend the deadline for accepting mail-in ballots, as long as they were post-marked by Election Day. This decision to limit ballot access was unsurprising given the conservative majority on the court, but as I noted, Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurring opinion disturbed many readers because of the views it seemed to express about voting and elections.
But there's a related aspect of Kavanaugh's opinion that has attracted significant attention in addition to its ideological bent. It was, many commentators noted, extraordinarily sloppy for a Supreme Court ruling. The opinion was riddled with errors, embarrassingly so, and some of which even relate to the substance of his argument.
For instance, Kavanaugh wrote:
To be sure, in light of the pandemic, some state legislatures have exercised their Article I, §4, authority over elections and have changed their election rules for the November 2020 election. Of particular relevance here, a few States such as Mississippi no longer require that absentee ballots be received before election day. See, e.g., Miss. Code Ann. §23–15–637 (2020). Other States such as Vermont, by contrast, have decided not to make changes to their ordinary election rules, including to the election-day deadline for receipt of absentee ballots. [emphasis added]
But as Vermont's own secretary of state confirmed, the state had changed its election rules this year. It sent every voter a ballot by the first of October:
That doesn't really change the substance of Kavanaugh's ruling, but it does throw doubt on his understanding of the current environment and shed light on his lackluster fact-checking.
Another mistake from Kavanaugh, though, really is important to his argument. He wrote of the reasons that states have for limiting the deadline for absentee ballot returns to Election Day itself:
States want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election. And those States also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter. Moreover, particularly in a Presidential election, counting all the votes quickly can help the State promptly resolve any disputes, address any need for recounts, and begin the process of canvassing and certifying the election results in an expeditious manner. See 3 U. S. C. §5. The States are aware of the risks described by Professor Pildes: "[L]ate-arriving ballots open up one of the greatest risks of what might, in our era of hyperpolarized political parties and existential politics, destabilize the election result. If the apparent winner the morning after the election ends up losing due to late-arriving ballots, charges of a rigged election could explode."
But Kavanaugh's quote here from Professor Richard Pildes in The University of Chicago Law Review Online is extremely misleading. Pildes argued in the article cited for the opposite outcome. He urged that states extend deadlines for receiving ballots past Election Day:
States that require absentees to be received by election night or shortly after should move this date back. Even if this fall the same percentage of absentee ballots as in normal elections would be rejected for coming in too late, the same point noted above holds true: a 3 percent rejection rate risks undermining the perceived legitimacy of the election if 70 percent of the vote is cast by absentee ballot. And this problem would be compounded, of course, if mailing back ballots five days before the election is normally sufficient to get them back in time, but not this year. The overall burden on the U.S. Postal Service makes that five-day figure less realistic this time around. Moreover, if a significant number of votes come in after a receipt deadline that has not been changed and that is much tighter than in other states, ex post litigation challenging that deadline is easy to imagine. This is exactly what we do not want to face for a risk that can be mitigated in advance.
Now, Pildes' argument here isn't on exactly the same topic as the question before the court. But it's disingenuous for Kavanaugh to present him as if his argument supported the Supreme Court's decision. Pildes did agree that a long vote count could undermine trust in the election, but he also said that cutting off the deadline by Election Day also "risks undermining the perceived legitimacy of the election." It was dishonest and alarming for Kavanaugh not to acknowledge that the risks cut both ways, especially since the president that appointed him has been trying to discredit mail-in ballots.
Pildes added:
In Wisconsin's election, the federal court pushed the date back six days. But that was for a presidential primary. In the general election, participation rates will be much higher. In choosing an updated receipt deadline that anticipates a dramatic rise in mailed-in ballots, policymakers face a trade-off. The longer the permitted time, the more ballots will be valid. But the longer that time, the longer it will take for the final result to be known. If we thought voters would be patient, that would not pose any risk. But in our climate of existential politics—with partisans all too prepared to believe or charge that elections are being manipulated, and a social-media environment poised to heap fuel onto the fire—the longer after Election Day any significant changes in vote totals take place, the greater the risk that the losing side will cry that the election has been stolen.
Election administrators in different states must weigh in on whether, in their circumstances, a six-day deadline post-election is appropriate, as the federal district court held for Wisconsin. The National Vote at Home Institute, one of the leading advocacy organizations for absentee and mail-in voting, suggests the deadline should be three business days after the election, which seems unduly short under our new circumstances. But state legislatures and election officials need to start facing this issue soon.
Others picked up on another error in the section of Kavanaugh's opinion cited above. He warned about a situation in which "thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election" [emphasis added]. But this is completely wrong. Additional ballots don't flip the "results" of an election because there are no results until all the legitimate votes are counted. Kavanaugh surely knows this, because he worked on the Republican side in Bush v. Gore, which was an extensive argument about the counting of ballots after Election Day in Florida. There was no result until the election was certified. States don't typically "definitively announce the results of the election on election night," either, as Kavanaugh claimed. The media, of course, makes projections about what the final vote will be prior to certification, but that's not the same — as we learned in 2000 when the media incorrectly projected the Florida results. It's rhetoric like Kavanaugh's that truly serves to undermine the legitimacy of this process, rather than extensions of deadlines.
Kavanaugh's argument also incorrectly claimed that the the desire to obtain a quick election result was the Wisconsin legislator's reason for not extending the mail-in ballot deadline. But as Talking Points Memo reporter Tierney Sneed pointed out, this is clearly not so. Otherwise, Wisconsin would have permitted mail-in ballots that were received prior to Election day to be counted ahead of time, making the final count much more efficient. It has not done so, which likely means the ballot counting will extend past Election Night.
Despite Kavanaugh's claim, it's more plausible that the Republican-dominated Wisconsin legislature doesn't want to receive late mail-in ballots because they think those votes will advantage Democrats.
Election law expert Rick Hasen pointed to another error in Kavanaugh's opinion in a piece for the Washington Post, pointing to an incorrect citation of precedent:
Kavanaugh cited a case that came to the Supreme Court during the disputed 2000 presidential election before Bush v. Gore — Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board — as standing for the proposition that state legislatures have this power — negating the power of state courts to expand voting rights under state constitutional provisions that protect the right to vote. As law professor Justin Levitt pointed out, though, Kavanaugh was wrong: The Supreme Court in the Palm Beach case unanimously raised but did not resolve that question. Kavanaugh further embraced this theory as advanced again by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore itself, but that was an opinion joined only by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
At another point in the opinion, Kavanaugh tried a clever argument to suggest that no matter the deadline that is set, some voters will miss it:
But moving a deadline would not prevent ballots from arriving after the newly minted deadline any more than moving first base would mean no more close plays. And more to the point, the fact that some ballots will be late in any system with deadlines does not make Wisconsin's widely used deadline facially unconstitutional.
This is true, but Kavanaugh seems to misunderstand the difference between a deadline for sending a ballot and the deadline for receiving it. Extending the deadline for receiving the ballot give more grace to voters for a consideration that is out of their hands: how quickly the postal service can deliver ballots. That's how many such deadlines work; for example, you only need to send your taxes into the government by April 15 — it doesn't need to receive them by that date. Kavanaugh's failure to notice the difference in this analogy is telling.
It's notable that, in all the tumult controversy that surrounded Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court, many people told us that — whatever his personal faults — he was an excellent and upstanding jurist. This latest opinion gives us reason to question that conclusion.
Hasen, in particular, seemed disturbed by this turn of events.
"Why was Justice Kavanaugh so sloppy with the facts and law here (and presumably in the earlier Wisconsin election per curiam)?" he asked on Twitter. "He is usually a careful writer. It just undermines his points. A huge, unforced error."
The errors and sloppiness reflect another sad fact about the court: There's little we can do to encourage good behavior among Supreme Court justices. Short of impeachment or expansion of the court — either of which would be heavy lifts, though they're possible — there are few ways to limit their power. That means Kavanaugh can write sloppy and erroneous opinions on the bench with little fear it will cost him.


alternet--2020-10-27--Mitch McConnell gets torn to shreds as 'evil' and 'cruel' in local paper column

Even if November 3 brings a major blue wave , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , according to recent polls , is likely to be reelected .
McConnell is seeking a seventh term , but veteran progressive activist Ralph Nader , in an op-ed for the Louisville Courier , argues that the last thing the Kentucky senator deserves is to be reelected .
`` I have studied and interacted with many members of Congress , '' Nader writes .
`` McConnell is the most brazen evil , cruel and powerful legislator in the last 50 years .
His lack of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stunning . ''
McConnell 's record , Nader stresses , has been characterized by a total lack of compassion for those less fortunate than him .
And he has n't grown any more compassionate under Donald Trump 's presidency .
`` McConnell , comfortably embraced by the Congress ' socialized medicine , loses no sleep saying yes to a corporate-profit-glutted , wasteful corporatized health care industry whose denials , co-payments and exemptions are costing thousands of uninsured and insured American lives a year .
He fought but failed to end Obamacare , pleased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dreaded , uninsured hell , '' Nader writes , adding that he has vigorously fought against relief for Americans who are hurting financially because of the COVID-19 pandemic .
According to Nader , `` McConnell 's back-of-the-hand to coal mine workers ' safety , survivors ' pensions and continuing black lung payments , mainly harms Kentucky , but his other aggressions against people in favor of big business affect the entire country .
He bragged at an event in Owensboro that he and he alone decides what issues this Senate votes on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. Senate in 1984 .
This year , his latest Democratic challenger , Amy McGrath , was hoping to unseat him .
But McConnell appears heading for reelection .
`` McConnell has the gall to campaign on 'Kentucky Values , ' '' Nader writes .
`` Voters in Kentucky , with a little homework , or a factual memory of this senatorial oligarch , should n't have difficulty in rejecting those claims .
McConnell has gotten away with ferociously shredding Kentucky values for 36 years .
He smugly expects six more years @ @

Even if November 3 brings a major blue wave, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, according to recent polls, is likely to be reelected. McConnell is seeking a seventh term, but veteran progressive activist Ralph Nader, in an op-ed for the Louisville Courier, argues that the last thing the Kentucky senator deserves is to be reelected.
"I have studied and interacted with many members of Congress," Nader writes. "McConnell is the most brazen evil, cruel and powerful legislator in the last 50 years. His lack of empathy for the vulnerable and disadvantaged is stunning."
McConnell's record, Nader stresses, has been characterized by a total lack of compassion for those less fortunate than him. And he hasn't grown any more compassionate under Donald Trump's presidency.
"McConnell, comfortably embraced by the Congress' socialized medicine, loses no sleep saying yes to a corporate-profit-glutted, wasteful corporatized health care industry whose denials, co-payments and exemptions are costing thousands of uninsured and insured American lives a year. He fought but failed to end Obamacare, pleased to consign another 22 million people to the dreaded, uninsured hell," Nader writes, adding that he has vigorously fought against relief for Americans who are hurting financially because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to Nader, "McConnell's back-of-the-hand to coal mine workers' safety, survivors' pensions and continuing black lung payments, mainly harms Kentucky, but his other aggressions against people in favor of big business affect the entire country. He bragged at an event in Owensboro that he and he alone decides what issues this Senate votes on."
McConnell was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1984. This year, his latest Democratic challenger, Amy McGrath, was hoping to unseat him. But McConnell appears heading for reelection.
"McConnell has the gall to campaign on 'Kentucky Values,'" Nader writes. "Voters in Kentucky, with a little homework, or a factual memory of this senatorial oligarch, shouldn't have difficulty in rejecting those claims. McConnell has gotten away with ferociously shredding Kentucky values for 36 years. He smugly expects six more years."


alternet--2020-10-27--An elections expert explains why a polling error might actually be devastating for Trump

Many supporters of President Donald Trump have argued that his reelection campaign is in much better shape than polls have been indicating , noting that he outperformed expectations when he defeated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016 .
But reporter David Wasserman , in an article published on NBC News ' website this week , examines another possibility — that former Vice President Joe Biden is the one being underrepresented in polls .
`` As Election Day approaches and President Donald Trump continues to trail Joe Biden by high single digits both nationally and in key states , their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or dread that 'the polls could be wrong again , ' '' Wasserman notes .
`` In truth , public opinion polls are imperfect instruments , and there 's always bound to be some degree of error . ''
Pollsters have received a great deal of criticism following Trump 's victory in 2016 .
But truth be told , the polls were n't as misleading as those critics say .
The polls showed Clinton with a national lead ; she won the popular vote .
And some polls , in late October 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Florida were close ; Trump narrowly won those states .
`` It 's important to remember that in 2016 , the final pre-election average showed Hillary Clinton leading Trump 46.8 % to 43.6 % nationally , according to leading polling aggregator RealClearPolitics , '' Wasserman explains .
`` That was n't too far off the mark : she went on to win the popular vote 48.2 % to 46.1 % , not exactly strong evidence that hordes of 'shy Trump voters ' refused to tell pollsters their true intentions . ''
Stressing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Wasserman notes that `` in the Southwest , polls undershot Democrats ' final margin in 17 of 19 cases , including by an average of 1.4 points in 2016 and 4.2 points in 2018 .
The Southeast was a mixed bag .
In Florida , polls underestimated the GOP margin by an average of 2.4 points in 2016 and 3.3 points in 2018 — a polling error similar to that in the Midwest . ''
Bearing these things in mind , Wasserman writes , it is possible that polls are underestimating Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden is the one being underestimated .
`` In the end , the only certainty in the polling world is some degree of error , '' Wasserman emphasizes .
`` There 's no guarantee 2020 's errors will boost Trump again or adhere to the Southwest/Midwest patterns we observed in 2016 and 2018 .
But in light of recent evidence , it would n't be all that surprising if Biden defies polls by winning a higher share of the vote in Arizona than Wisconsin — or breaks through in Texas more than he @ @ @ @ @

Many supporters of President Donald Trump have argued that his reelection campaign is in much better shape than polls have been indicating, noting that he outperformed expectations when he defeated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016. But reporter David Wasserman, in an article published on NBC News' website this week, examines another possibility — that former Vice President Joe Biden is the one being underrepresented in polls.
"As Election Day approaches and President Donald Trump continues to trail Joe Biden by high single digits both nationally and in key states, their respective bases are buzzing with either hope or dread that 'the polls could be wrong again,'" Wasserman notes. "In truth, public opinion polls are imperfect instruments, and there's always bound to be some degree of error."
Pollsters have received a great deal of criticism following Trump's victory in 2016. But truth be told, the polls weren't as misleading as those critics say. The polls showed Clinton with a national lead; she won the popular vote. And some polls, in late October 2016, showed that swing states like Pennsylvania and Florida were close; Trump narrowly won those states.
"It's important to remember that in 2016, the final pre-election average showed Hillary Clinton leading Trump 46.8% to 43.6 % nationally, according to leading polling aggregator RealClearPolitics," Wasserman explains. "That wasn't too far off the mark: she went on to win the popular vote 48.2% to 46.1%, not exactly strong evidence that hordes of 'shy Trump voters' refused to tell pollsters their true intentions."
Stressing that polls have a margin of error, Wasserman notes that "in the Southwest, polls undershot Democrats' final margin in 17 of 19 cases, including by an average of 1.4 points in 2016 and 4.2 points in 2018. The Southeast was a mixed bag. In Florida, polls underestimated the GOP margin by an average of 2.4 points in 2016 and 3.3 points in 2018 — a polling error similar to that in the Midwest."
Bearing these things in mind, Wasserman writes, it is possible that polls are underestimating Trump — but it is also possible that Biden is the one being underestimated.
"In the end, the only certainty in the polling world is some degree of error," Wasserman emphasizes. "There's no guarantee 2020's errors will boost Trump again or adhere to the Southwest/Midwest patterns we observed in 2016 and 2018. But in light of recent evidence, it wouldn't be all that surprising if Biden defies polls by winning a higher share of the vote in Arizona than Wisconsin — or breaks through in Texas more than he does in Ohio."


alternet--2020-10-27--All eyes are focused on Pennslyvania — but does Biden really need it to win?

If former Vice President Joe Biden wins every state that 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton won four years ago and flips Pennsylvania , Michigan and Wisconsin — all of which Trump won four years ago — that would get him over the 270 electoral votes he needs in order to win the election .
But what if Trump wins Pennsylvania a second time ?
Polling expert Nate Silver examines that possibility on his FiveThirtyEight website .
Silver notes that although polls are showing Biden with an advantage in Michigan and Wisconsin , `` The polls have been tighter in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analysis , Silver explains , `` Biden 's current lead is just 5.1 points , and in 2016 , polls were off by 4.4 points in the Keystone State — Trump won it by 0.7 points after trailing in our final polling average by 3.7 points there .
So , with a 2016-style polling error in Pennsylvania , Biden would be cutting it awfully close — perhaps even so close that court rulings on factors like 'naked ballots ' could swing the outcome . ''
Silver poses the question : `` Is Pennsylvania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his answer is , `` No , not quite . ''
`` ( Pennsylvania ) is close to being a must-win for Trump , who has only a 2 % chance of winning the Electoral College if he loses Pennsylvania , '' Silver argues .
`` Biden , however , has a bit more margin for error .
He 'd have a 30 % chance if he lost Pennsylvania , which is n't great but is also higher than , say , Trump 's overall chances on Election Day 2016 . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Silver , he still has some paths to victory , but minus Pennsylvania , the Sun Belt becomes even more important for him .
Sun Belt states in which Biden is competitive include Florida , Arizona and Georgia , among others .
Outside of the Sun Belt , Biden is competitive in Ohio .
But Ohio , Silver notes , is a Rust Belt state that is even closer than Pennsylvania .
Democrats struggle more in Ohio than they do in Pennsylvania .
`` Here 's the thing : yes , Biden and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only about a 5-point lead in Pennsylvania , the most likely tipping point state , '' Silver writes .
`` Five points is more than a normal-sized polling error , but not that much more .
And Biden does have some backup plans .
A regional polling error in the Midwest or the Northeast would n't necessarily doom his chances in states like Arizona , for instance .
It would n't be the blowout that Democrats hope for , but Biden would still retain an edge in the Electoral College even without winning @ @ @ @ @

If former Vice President Joe Biden wins every state that 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton won four years ago and flips Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin — all of which Trump won four years ago — that would get him over the 270 electoral votes he needs in order to win the election. But what if Trump wins Pennsylvania a second time? Polling expert Nate Silver examines that possibility on his FiveThirtyEight website.
Silver notes that although polls are showing Biden with an advantage in Michigan and Wisconsin, "The polls have been tighter in Pennsylvania." Citing FiveThirtyEight's polling analysis, Silver explains, "Biden's current lead is just 5.1 points, and in 2016, polls were off by 4.4 points in the Keystone State — Trump won it by 0.7 points after trailing in our final polling average by 3.7 points there. So, with a 2016-style polling error in Pennsylvania, Biden would be cutting it awfully close — perhaps even so close that court rulings on factors like 'naked ballots' could swing the outcome."
Silver poses the question: "Is Pennsylvania a must-win for Biden?," and his answer is, "No, not quite."
"(Pennsylvania) is close to being a must-win for Trump, who has only a 2% chance of winning the Electoral College if he loses Pennsylvania," Silver argues. "Biden, however, has a bit more margin for error. He'd have a 30% chance if he lost Pennsylvania, which isn't great but is also higher than, say, Trump's overall chances on Election Day 2016."
If Biden loses Pennsylvania, according to Silver, he still has some paths to victory, but minus Pennsylvania, the Sun Belt becomes even more important for him. Sun Belt states in which Biden is competitive include Florida, Arizona and Georgia, among others.
Outside of the Sun Belt, Biden is competitive in Ohio. But Ohio, Silver notes, is a Rust Belt state that is even closer than Pennsylvania. Democrats struggle more in Ohio than they do in Pennsylvania.
"Here's the thing: yes, Biden and Democrats should be nervous that he has only about a 5-point lead in Pennsylvania, the most likely tipping point state," Silver writes. "Five points is more than a normal-sized polling error, but not that much more. And Biden does have some backup plans. A regional polling error in the Midwest or the Northeast wouldn't necessarily doom his chances in states like Arizona, for instance. It wouldn't be the blowout that Democrats hope for, but Biden would still retain an edge in the Electoral College even without winning his birth state."


alternet--2020-10-27--New report reveals Trump taking the U.S. government's money for extravagant purposes

When Donald Trump ran for president in 2016 , he railed against crony capitalism in Washington , D.C. and promised to `` drain the swamp '' if elected .
But a Washington Post article published this week takes a close look at the profits that his businesses have been enjoying at the expense of taxpayers because of his presidency .
The Post notes that when Trump met with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe , they did so at the president 's Mar-a-Lago resort in South Florida — which Trump described as the `` southern White House . ''
`` For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : money , '' the Post reports .
`` At Mar-a-Lago , Trump 's company would get paid to host his summit .
In the next two days , as Trump and Abe talked about trade and North Korea , Trump 's Palm Beach , Fla. , club billed the U.S. government $ 13,700 for guest rooms , $ 16,500 for food and wine and $ 6000 for the roses and other floral arrangements . ''
But according to Post reporters David A. Fahrenthold , Josh Dawsey , Jonathan O'Connell and Anu Narayanswamy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only time Trump properties have profited from government business .
`` Since his first month in office , Trump has used his power to direct millions from U.S. taxpayers — and from his political supporters — into his own businesses , '' the reporters explain .
`` The Washington Post has sought to compile examples of this spending through open records requests and a lawsuit .
In all , he has received at least $ 8.1 million from these two sources since he took office , those documents and publicly available records @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to the Post , has been billing U.S. taxpayers for a wide range of items .
`` Since 2017 , '' the Post reports , `` Trump 's company has charged taxpayers for hotel rooms , ballrooms , cottages , rental houses , golf carts , votive candles , floating candles , candelabras , furniture moving , resort fees , decorative palm trees , strip steak , chocolate cake , breakfast buffets , $ 88 bottles of wine and $ 1000 worth of liquor for White House aides .
And water .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a great deal of attention on social media .
Fahrenthold tweeted the article on Tuesday , noting , `` Previously un-released documents show the government has paid $ 2.5 million to @ realdonaldtrump 's businesses .
Far more than we knew .
Trump Org charged $ 7700 for a dinner , $ 6000 for floral arrangements… .
and $ 3 for POTUS 's own glass of water . ''
And responses have been numerous .
Twitter user Peter Charbonneau , @ pcharbonneau21 , sarcastically posted , `` B-b-b-but he does n't take a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ barefootnonna responded , `` No but he spends many times more of taxpayer dollars on visits to his resorts .
Taxpayers would be much better off if he would take his salary and quit benefiting himself financially at our expense .
Imagine Obama that ! ''
@ Schnufflerowner tweeted , `` $ 3 for a glass of water is a costly way to drain the swamp . ''
And @ 007__NIL responded with more sarcasm , posting , `` To be fair $ 3 for water was n't bad given they had to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Other Twitter users , however , were n't so sarcastic — just angry .
@ BishesBrew wrote , `` Trump has been stealing from the American taxpayers from Day One , just like Trump has also been violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution his entire corrupt presidency . ''
And @ HeatherBendit wrote , `` Thank you , thank you , thank you for publishing this .
I simply can not understand why this is n't one of the Biden Campaign 's non-policy talking points .
Trump 's official portrait should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House Cookie Jar . ''
@ CobraMantis posted , `` I like presidents who do n't funnel taxpayer money directly into their own pockets . ''
And @ simplyadornedal tweeted , `` We the people are getting bankrupted by the Trumps . ''

When Donald Trump ran for president in 2016, he railed against crony capitalism in Washington, D.C. and promised to "drain the swamp" if elected. But a Washington Post article published this week takes a close look at the profits that his businesses have been enjoying at the expense of taxpayers because of his presidency.
The Post notes that when Trump met with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, they did so at the president's Mar-a-Lago resort in South Florida — which Trump described as the "southern White House."
"For Trump, there was another hidden benefit: money," the Post reports. "At Mar-a-Lago, Trump's company would get paid to host his summit. In the next two days, as Trump and Abe talked about trade and North Korea, Trump's Palm Beach, Fla., club billed the U.S. government $13,700 for guest rooms, $16,500 for food and wine and $6000 for the roses and other floral arrangements."
But according to Post reporters David A. Fahrenthold, Josh Dawsey, Jonathan O'Connell and Anu Narayanswamy, that meeting with Abe was hardly the only time Trump properties have profited from government business.
"Since his first month in office, Trump has used his power to direct millions from U.S. taxpayers — and from his political supporters — into his own businesses," the reporters explain. "The Washington Post has sought to compile examples of this spending through open records requests and a lawsuit. In all, he has received at least $8.1 million from these two sources since he took office, those documents and publicly available records show."
The Trump Organization, according to the Post, has been billing U.S. taxpayers for a wide range of items.
"Since 2017," the Post reports, "Trump's company has charged taxpayers for hotel rooms, ballrooms, cottages, rental houses, golf carts, votive candles, floating candles, candelabras, furniture moving, resort fees, decorative palm trees, strip steak, chocolate cake, breakfast buffets, $88 bottles of wine and $1000 worth of liquor for White House aides. And water."
The Post's reporting is receiving a great deal of attention on social media. Fahrenthold tweeted the article on Tuesday, noting, "Previously un-released documents show the government has paid $2.5 million to @realdonaldtrump 's businesses. Far more than we knew. Trump Org charged $7700 for a dinner, $6000 for floral arrangements…. and $3 for POTUS's own glass of water." And responses have been numerous.
Twitter user Peter Charbonneau, @pcharbonneau21, sarcastically posted, "B-b-b-but he doesn't take a salary!" — to which @barefootnonna responded, "No but he spends many times more of taxpayer dollars on visits to his resorts. Taxpayers would be much better off if he would take his salary and quit benefiting himself financially at our expense. Imagine Obama that!"
@Schnufflerowner tweeted, "$3 for a glass of water is a costly way to drain the swamp." And @007__NIL responded with more sarcasm, posting, "To be fair $3 for water wasn't bad given they had to supply it in a sippy cup."
Other Twitter users, however, weren't so sarcastic — just angry.
@BishesBrew wrote, "Trump has been stealing from the American taxpayers from Day One, just like Trump has also been violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution his entire corrupt presidency." And @HeatherBendit wrote, "Thank you, thank you, thank you for publishing this. I simply cannot understand why this isn't one of the Biden Campaign's non-policy talking points. Trump's official portrait should portray him with his hand in the White House Cookie Jar."
@CobraMantis posted, "I like presidents who don't funnel taxpayer money directly into their own pockets." And @simplyadornedal tweeted, "We the people are getting bankrupted by the Trumps."


alternet--2020-10-27--New analysis shows the dangerous cost of Trump's reckless campaign rallies

Half of the 22 campaign rallies held by President Donald Trump between June and September were followed by county-level increases in Covid-19 cases , suggesting that these frequent in-person events attracting thousands of people may be unnecessarily intensifying the spread of coronavirus and `` endangering host communities '' throughout the United States .
That 's according to a new analysis from the Center for American Progress ( CAP ) , based on an examination of county-level data on Covid-19 from the New York Times .
By comparing the number of daily new cases and the seven-day moving average of new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after each rally , researchers were able to discern the extent to which Trump 's rallies `` were associated with heightened cases . ''
While the authors stress that `` multiple factors prevent a definitive , causal connection , '' CAP found `` unambiguous increases '' in county-level cases after rallies in the following cities : CAP also detected a more `` subtle '' increase in the county-level case count trend after Trump 's rallies in Vandalia , Ohio ; Latrobe , Pennslyvania ; and Oshkosh , Wisconsin .
According to the analysis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 incidence—a measure of new cases per capita—prior to the rally were more likely to have a visible increase in cases after the rally , perhaps because any uptick in cases was more likely to stand out against the pre-event level . ''
`` By virtually any standard , Trump 's rallies ignore every public health recommendation to mitigate the spread of Covid-19 , '' said Thomas Waldrop , policy analyst at CAP and co-author of the report , in a statement released Tuesday .
`` They involve thousands of people , packed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks and no attempts at social distancing , '' he added .
Emily Gee , a health economist at CAP and co-author of the analysis , noted that `` eight months into the pandemic , we know the factors that can stop the spread of the coronavirus . ''
`` The president and his team have flouted the rules at every turn , '' Gee said .
`` These rallies offer a boost to the president 's ego but risk leaving behind a trail of sickness and increased strain on local public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced Tuesday morning via Twitter that he has `` three BIG rallies today '' in Michigan , Wisconsin , and Nebraska .
In response , Rep. Mark Pocan ( D-Wisc . )
pointed out that Wisconsin on Monday passed 200,000 Covid-19 cases , with half occurring in `` just the last 36 days . ''
According to CAP 's report , the majority of Trump 's rallies—where attendees typically do not wear masks or spread out— '' have been in violation of local or state restrictions on gatherings to limit the spread of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but a thug , '' The Daily Beast 's Michael Daly on Monday described the president 's insistence on holding dangerous rallies with closely-packed audiences in spite of public health precautions prohibiting large gatherings as a criminal act that flies in the face of Trump 's professed respect for authority and law enforcement .
`` The self-declared law-and-order president , '' Daly wrote , `` proved to be a flat-out gangster by declaring himself willing to place the lives of who knows how many [ people ] in jeopardy . ''
Eric Feigl-Ding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between public health and astrophysics is that rocket scientists do n't have to convince a science denialist for mission success . ''
`` But we epidemiologists have to fight ... denialism '' about the risks of coronavirus exposure and the efficacy of masks in minimizing it , he added .
`` And if we fail , people die . ''
A recent report ( pdf ) by researchers at Columbia University estimated that of the more than 217,000 lives lost to Covid-19 in the U.S. as of October 16 , `` at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 210,000 could have been avoided with earlier policy interventions and more robust federal coordination and leadership . ''
Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) on Monday registered his disgust with Trump 's `` pathetic '' mishandling of the public health disaster relative to other countries : Compared to many other countries , the U.S. pandemic response has been hobbled by a lack of universal healthcare paid sick leave , and additional structural disadvantages .
But , as CAP 's new analysis shows , the country has also been hampered by the Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of public health officials throughout the crisis and has `` fostered a culture that discourages common-sense mask-wearing and social distancing . ''
`` It 's unbelievable , '' said Waldrop , `` that the president has continued to hold these events , which present a risk to public health , despite contracting Covid-19 and being hospitalized himself . ''

Half of the 22 campaign rallies held by President Donald Trump between June and September were followed by county-level increases in Covid-19 cases, suggesting that these frequent in-person events attracting thousands of people may be unnecessarily intensifying the spread of coronavirus and "endangering host communities" throughout the United States.
That's according to a new analysis from the Center for American Progress (CAP), based on an examination of county-level data on Covid-19 from the New York Times.
By comparing the number of daily new cases and the seven-day moving average of new cases during the 21 days before and after each rally, researchers were able to discern the extent to which Trump's rallies "were associated with heightened cases."
While the authors stress that "multiple factors prevent a definitive, causal connection," CAP found "unambiguous increases" in county-level cases after rallies in the following cities:
Mankato, Minnesota
Bemidji, Minnesota
Henderson, Nevada
Londonderry, New Hampshire
Swanton, Ohio
Middletown, Pennsylvania
Old Forge, Pennsylvania; and
Newport News, Virginia
CAP also detected a more "subtle" increase in the county-level case count trend after Trump's rallies in Vandalia, Ohio; Latrobe, Pennslyvania; and Oshkosh, Wisconsin.
According to the analysis, "counties that had a lower Covid-19 incidence—a measure of new cases per capita—prior to the rally were more likely to have a visible increase in cases after the rally, perhaps because any uptick in cases was more likely to stand out against the pre-event level."
"By virtually any standard, Trump's rallies ignore every public health recommendation to mitigate the spread of Covid-19," said Thomas Waldrop, policy analyst at CAP and co-author of the report, in a statement released Tuesday.
"They involve thousands of people, packed closely together, with few people wearing masks and no attempts at social distancing," he added.
Emily Gee, a health economist at CAP and co-author of the analysis, noted that "eight months into the pandemic, we know the factors that can stop the spread of the coronavirus."
"The president and his team have flouted the rules at every turn," Gee said. "These rallies offer a boost to the president's ego but risk leaving behind a trail of sickness and increased strain on local public health departments and medical systems."
Trump announced Tuesday morning via Twitter that he has "three BIG rallies today" in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nebraska. In response, Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.) pointed out that Wisconsin on Monday passed 200,000 Covid-19 cases, with half occurring in "just the last 36 days."
According to CAP's report, the majority of Trump's rallies—where attendees typically do not wear masks or spread out—"have been in violation of local or state restrictions on gatherings to limit the spread of Covid-19."
Calling Trump "nothing but a thug," The Daily Beast's Michael Daly on Monday described the president's insistence on holding dangerous rallies with closely-packed audiences in spite of public health precautions prohibiting large gatherings as a criminal act that flies in the face of Trump's professed respect for authority and law enforcement.
"The self-declared law-and-order president," Daly wrote, "proved to be a flat-out gangster by declaring himself willing to place the lives of who knows how many [people] in jeopardy."
Eric Feigl-Ding recently commented that "the biggest difference between public health and astrophysics is that rocket scientists don't have to convince a science denialist for mission success."
"But we epidemiologists have to fight... denialism" about the risks of coronavirus exposure and the efficacy of masks in minimizing it, he added. "And if we fail, people die."
A recent report (pdf) by researchers at Columbia University estimated that of the more than 217,000 lives lost to Covid-19 in the U.S. as of October 16, "at least 130,000 deaths and perhaps as many as 210,000 could have been avoided with earlier policy interventions and more robust federal coordination and leadership."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Monday registered his disgust with Trump's "pathetic" mishandling of the public health disaster relative to other countries:
Compared to many other countries, the U.S. pandemic response has been hobbled by a lack of universal healthcare paid sick leave , and additional structural disadvantages.
But, as CAP's new analysis shows, the country has also been hampered by the Trump administration, which has consistently eschewed the guidance of public health officials throughout the crisis and has "fostered a culture that discourages common-sense mask-wearing and social distancing."
"It's unbelievable," said Waldrop, "that the president has continued to hold these events, which present a risk to public health, despite contracting Covid-19 and being hospitalized himself."


alternet--2020-10-27--A right-wing powder keg: How conservative media is convincing Trump fans that he's winning bigly

Over the weekend , NPR interviewed some anxious voters .
One , a Trump-supporter , said that his biggest worry was that Trump needed to win in a landslide to keep the left from claiming that the election was stolen .
That Trump would win was n't in doubt .
For those who get their news from the conservative media , there is ample evidence that Trump is cruising to victory .
In a National Review piece pushing back on such reports , Kevin Williamson writes that `` many conservative media figures are predicting .
.
.
a Trump landslide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imaginative reading of the political terrain : Comedian Jimmy Failla of Fox News , for example , called a Trump `` lawnslide '' based on — hold your breath , now — an informal poll of truckers who were giving their estimates of the ratio of Trump yard signs to Joe Biden yard signs . ''
Boat parades , truck caravans , how many people believe their neighbors are supporting Trump and other quicky metrics have all been the basis of arguments that the `` liberal media '' is lying about Trump 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a press call earlier this month , Trump campaign advisor Corey Lewandowski told reporters that based on the campaign 's internal polling , as well as grassroots enthusiasm within Trump 's base , it was quickly becoming `` mathematically impossible for Joe Biden to win this campaign . ''
Pro-Trump media outlets ran with it .
Serious election observers agree that it 's always best to focus on the polling averages rather than individual surveys because the former are n't as noisy or prone to sampling errors .
But throughout October , The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a series of posts painting a picture of Trump surging from behind to take a clear lead in carefully cherry-picked polls conducted by firms that are known for their strong pro-GOP `` house effect , '' or lean .
Most of them are write-ups of the latest Rasmussen polls .
Rasmussen currently has Trump 's approval rating at 51 percent , a very different picture than his 42.5 percent approval rate in FiveThirtyEight 's polling average or the 44 percent in RealClearPolitics ' .
On Monday , when Rasmussen 's tracking poll gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump 's approval at 52 percent , Bedard noted that being over 50 percent is `` a key factor to winning reelection .
Former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama were both at 50 % when they edged out reelection victories . ''
Trump could win this election -- his chances are probably better than the 12 percent likelihood FiveThirtyEight 's forecast model gives him due to issues with mail ballots and potentially adverse rulings by partisan courts -- but it 's hard to overstate how unmoored from reality the view that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really is .
Trump is the first president in the modern polling era whose disapproval rating exceeded his approval rating in his first month in office and he has remained under water in that metric for his entire presidency , usually by around ten points .
The presidential race has been historically stable , with Joe Biden leading Trump nationally by an average of 6 points all of last year , and expanding that lead to around 9 percentage points at present .
Biden 's also been ahead in the top battleground states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The shared goal of the Trump campaign and its sprawling propaganda network in presenting an alternate reality of the race is to keep donors writing checks and the Republican base engaged .
Amid a raging pandemic , it 's not hard to imagine some voters who support a candidate trailing by a large margin deciding they 'll sit this one out , especially if they face long lines at the polls to cast a vote .
But in doing so , they 're creating a powder keg .
The narrative that Trump is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being pushed by the same politicians and media outlets that have spent years advancing a big , consequential lie that voter fraud is widespread in the United States .
Taken together , they are telling millions of perpetually angry Trump supporters that he can only lose as a result of foul play .
This reckless effort to keep their voters engaged is coming at a time when experts are sounding alarms over the potential for violence surrounding this election .
In this case , their habitual dishonesty is incredibly dangerous .

Over the weekend, NPR interviewed some anxious voters. One, a Trump-supporter, said that his biggest worry was that Trump needed to win in a landslide to keep the left from claiming that the election was stolen. That Trump would win wasn't in doubt.
For those who get their news from the conservative media, there is ample evidence that Trump is cruising to victory. In a National Review piece pushing back on such reports, Kevin Williamson writes that "many conservative media figures are predicting . . . a Trump landslide. This wish-casting is based on increasingly imaginative reading of the political terrain: Comedian Jimmy Failla of Fox News, for example, called a Trump "lawnslide" based on — hold your breath, now — an informal poll of truckers who were giving their estimates of the ratio of Trump yard signs to Joe Biden yard signs." Boat parades, truck caravans, how many people believe their neighbors are supporting Trump and other quicky metrics have all been the basis of arguments that the "liberal media" is lying about Trump's bleak position in the race.
On a press call earlier this month, Trump campaign advisor Corey Lewandowski told reporters that based on the campaign's internal polling, as well as grassroots enthusiasm within Trump's base, it was quickly becoming "mathematically impossible for Joe Biden to win this campaign." Pro-Trump media outlets ran with it.
Serious election observers agree that it's always best to focus on the polling averages rather than individual surveys because the former aren't as noisy or prone to sampling errors. But throughout October, The Washington Examiner columnist Paul Bedard has written a series of posts painting a picture of Trump surging from behind to take a clear lead in carefully cherry-picked polls conducted by firms that are known for their strong pro-GOP "house effect," or lean. Most of them are write-ups of the latest Rasmussen polls. Rasmussen currently has Trump's approval rating at 51 percent, a very different picture than his 42.5 percent approval rate in FiveThirtyEight's polling average or the 44 percent in RealClearPolitics'. On Monday, when Rasmussen's tracking poll gave Trump a narrow lead nationally and pegged Trump's approval at 52 percent, Bedard noted that being over 50 percent is "a key factor to winning reelection. Former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama were both at 50% when they edged out reelection victories."
Trump could win this election--his chances are probably better than the 12 percent likelihood FiveThirtyEight's forecast model gives him due to issues with mail ballots and potentially adverse rulings by partisan courts--but it's hard to overstate how unmoored from reality the view that he's presently leading in the race really is. Trump is the first president in the modern polling era whose disapproval rating exceeded his approval rating in his first month in office and he has remained under water in that metric for his entire presidency, usually by around ten points. The presidential race has been historically stable, with Joe Biden leading Trump nationally by an average of 6 points all of last year, and expanding that lead to around 9 percentage points at present. Biden's also been ahead in the top battleground states for every day of the race.
The shared goal of the Trump campaign and its sprawling propaganda network in presenting an alternate reality of the race is to keep donors writing checks and the Republican base engaged. Amid a raging pandemic, it's not hard to imagine some voters who support a candidate trailing by a large margin deciding they'll sit this one out, especially if they face long lines at the polls to cast a vote.
But in doing so, they're creating a powder keg. The narrative that Trump is poised to win a second term is being pushed by the same politicians and media outlets that have spent years advancing a big, consequential lie that voter fraud is widespread in the United States. Taken together, they are telling millions of perpetually angry Trump supporters that he can only lose as a result of foul play.
This reckless effort to keep their voters engaged is coming at a time when experts are sounding alarms over the potential for violence surrounding this election. In this case, their habitual dishonesty is incredibly dangerous.