alternet--2020-10-25--How conservative groups will advance their agendas before a Supreme Court with Amy Coney Barrett

Amy Coney Barrett 's nomination to the Supreme Court has highlighted the ways interest groups use the legal system to pursue their goals .
Barrett is closely tied to the conservative Federalist Society , whose members have played a major role in President Donald Trump 's judicial appointments .
Organizations who support and oppose her confirmation are intensely lobbying senators and the public .
Like other justices , if confirmed , Barrett will continually face pressure campaigns from groups trying to shape the direction of American law .
I have extensively studied how special interests use the court as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book , “ Friends of the Supreme Court : Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making . ''
Here 's what to expect from interest groups before a Supreme Court with a Justice Barrett .
The main way special interests participate in the courts is by filing amicus curiae ( “ friend of the court '' ) briefs in cases that intersect with their interests .
In these legal documents , groups take positions to persuade the justices to endorse their economic , political and social interests .
Although amicus briefs are filed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States , they are especially prevalent in the U.S. Supreme Court .
Almost every case before the court has at least one amicus brief , and there is an average of about 12 briefs per case .
High-profile disputes , such as those involving abortion , affirmative action , health care and same-sex marriage , have neared or topped 100 amicus briefs .
Amicus briefs are not cheap – they can cost up to US $ 100,000 because of the fees related to attorneys ' time and expenses to research and prepare them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be manipulated to obscure who pays for these briefs .
This has led to allegations that groups are purposely hiding the wealthy donors who fund these briefs to further the donors ' political agendas in the court .
For example , the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation , a charity that promotes conservative causes , funded many of the interest groups who filed amicus briefs in Janus v. AFSCME .
This 2018 decision weakened the power of labor unions by severely limiting their ability to collect fees from nonunion members used for collective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are more likely to decide to review cases accompanied by amicus briefs .
Justices tend to decide in favor of the litigant with the most amicus briefs on its side when deciding cases .
In their opinions , justices frequently cite and borrow language from amicus briefs .
Importantly , some organizations who file amicus briefs are more privileged than others .
The justices are deferential to high-profile , elite interest groups , such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Chamber of Commerce , particularly if those groups share their ideological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in favor of the positions advocated by these organizations and adopt their legal arguments more often than lesser-known groups .
If confirmed , the addition of Amy Coney Barrett will give conservative justices a 6-3 majority on the court .
Although both liberal and conservative groups file amicus briefs in roughly equal numbers , this will motivate conservative interest groups to push their agendas before a sympathetic court .
Liberal groups will be left trying to defend their past victories .
What does this conservative agenda look like ?
First up will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Voting Rights Act , which are already on the court 's docket .
More long-term goals will include restricting access to abortion , limiting the rights of the criminally accused , halting the expansion of LGBTQ+ rights , increasing the power of business and expanding the scope of the Second Amendment , which protects an individual 's right to bear arms .
High-profile groups leading this conservative charge will include Americans for Effective Law Enforcement , the Cato Institute , the Chamber of Commerce , the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation and the Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daily .
Sign up for The Conversation 's newsletter . ]
What are the tactics ?
The first step toward achieving these goals will be to influence the Supreme Court 's agenda .
Each year , the court receives petitions to review about 8,000 cases , but hears fewer than 80 cases .
To shape the docket , interest and advocacy groups will orchestrate test cases by carefully selecting individuals to challenge policies they oppose .
Once those cases are appealed to the Supreme Court , some groups file amicus briefs at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a case .
Then these groups typically file a second brief at the decision-making stage .
At this point , other organizations also file amicus briefs to lobby the justices to support the conservative outcome in the case , often working with the attorneys representing the conservative litigant .
This provides the attorneys with the opportunity to coordinate their legal arguments to appeal to the conservative justices on the court .
For example , in District of Columbia v. Heller , which established the individual right to keep and bear arms in 2008 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest groups on the content of their amicus briefs .
These briefs contained arguments from historical , legal , linguistic and statistical perspectives , among others .
Liberals follow this playbook , too .
One example : Before she was on the court , Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed an amicus brief on behalf of the liberal American Civil Liberties Union in Craig v. Boren and advised Craig 's attorneys .
This led to the landmark 1976 precedent that established how the court evaluates claims of gender discrimination .
In their briefs , conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as textualism and originalism .
These closely linked approaches hold that the best way to interpret the Constitution is according to how it was understood at the time of its ratification .
For example , a judge might ask herself : How would the informed public in 1791 understand what “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion '' means ?
With a majority of justices on the court sympathetic to these theories of constitutional interpretation , textualist and originalist amicus briefs are likely to be particularly effective .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the years and in many different cases .
This is necessary for interest groups because it takes a long time to achieve legal change , since the justices are generally reluctant to overturn their previous decisions .
Instead , the justices tend to chip away at them over time .
For example , the American Civil Liberties Union was successful convincing the court to apply the exclusionary rule to the states in Mapp v. Ohio in 1961 .
This rule holds that evidence police gather illegally is inadmissible in a trial .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ followed conservative groups ' arguments by carving out numerous exceptions to the exclusionary rule .
Although Mapp is still the law of the land , it is a shell of its former self .
With a 6-3 majority of conservative justices on the court – five of whom are 70 years old or younger – this strategy can be expected to continue for decades to come .
This will give conservative groups and the justices who agree with them plenty of time to mold American law in their image .
Paul M. Collins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Political Science , University of Massachusetts Amherst This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

Paul M. Collins, Jr., University of Massachusetts Amherst
Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court has highlighted the ways interest groups use the legal system to pursue their goals. Barrett is closelytied to the conservative Federalist Society, whose members have played a major role in President Donald Trump's judicial appointments. Organizations who support and oppose her confirmation are intensely lobbying senators and the public.
Like other justices, if confirmed, Barrett will continually face pressure campaigns from groups trying to shape the direction of American law.
I have extensively studied how special interests use the court as a public policy battleground, including in my book, “Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making." Here's what to expect from interest groups before a Supreme Court with a Justice Barrett.
Friends of the court
The main way special interests participate in the courts is by filing amicus curiae (“friend of the court") briefs in cases that intersect with their interests. In these legal documents, groups take positions to persuade the justices to endorse their economic, political and social interests.
Although amicus briefs are filed in almost all appellate courts in the United States, they are especially prevalent in the U.S. Supreme Court. Almost every case before the court has at least one amicus brief, and there is an average of about 12 briefs per case. High-profile disputes, such as those involving abortion, affirmative action, health care and same-sex marriage, have neared or topped 100 amicus briefs.
Amicus briefs are not cheap – they can cost up to US$100,000 because of the fees related to attorneys' time and expenses to research and prepare them. And the court's rules can be manipulated to obscure who pays for these briefs. This has led to allegations that groups are purposely hiding the wealthy donors who fund these briefs to further the donors' political agendas in the court.
For example, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, a charity that promotes conservative causes, funded many of the interest groups who filed amicus briefs in Janus v. AFSCME. This 2018 decision weakened the power of labor unions by severely limiting their ability to collect fees from nonunion members used for collective bargaining.
Amicus briefs work. Justices are morelikely to decide to review cases accompanied by amicus briefs. Justices tend to decide in favor of the litigant with the most amicus briefs on its side when deciding cases. In their opinions, justices frequently cite and borrow language from amicus briefs.
Importantly, some organizations who file amicus briefs are more privileged than others. The justices are deferential to high-profile, elite interest groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Chamber of Commerce, particularly if those groups share their ideological preferences. The justices tend to vote in favor of the positions advocated by these organizations and adopt their legal arguments more often than lesser-known groups.
The conservative wishlist
If confirmed, the addition of Amy Coney Barrett will give conservative justices a 6-3 majority on the court. Although both liberal and conservative groups file amicus briefs in roughly equal numbers, this will motivate conservative interest groups to push their agendas before a sympathetic court. Liberal groups will be left trying to defend their past victories.
What does this conservative agenda look like? First up will be dismantling the Affordable Care Act and the Voting Rights Act, which are already on the court's docket.
More long-term goals will include restricting access to abortion, limiting the rights of the criminally accused, halting the expansion of LGBTQ+ rights, increasing the power of business and expanding the scope of the Second Amendment, which protects an individual's right to bear arms.
High-profile groups leading this conservative charge will include Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, the Cato Institute, the Chamber of Commerce, the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation and the Washington Legal Foundation.
[Deep knowledge, daily.Sign up for The Conversation's newsletter.]
What are the tactics?
The first step toward achieving these goals will be to influence the Supreme Court's agenda.
Each year, the court receives petitions to review about 8,000 cases, but hears fewer than 80 cases. To shape the docket, interest and advocacy groups will orchestrate test cases by carefully selecting individuals to challenge policies they oppose. Once those cases are appealed to the Supreme Court, some groups file amicus briefs at the agenda-setting stage urging the justices to review a case.
Then these groups typically file a second brief at the decision-making stage. At this point, other organizations also file amicus briefs to lobby the justices to support the conservative outcome in the case, often working with the attorneys representing the conservative litigant. This provides the attorneys with the opportunity to coordinate their legal arguments to appeal to the conservative justices on the court.
For example, in District of Columbia v. Heller, which established the individual right to keep and bear arms in 2008, Heller's lawyers coordinated with conservative interest groups on the content of their amicus briefs. These briefs contained arguments from historical, legal, linguistic and statistical perspectives, among others.
Liberals follow this playbook, too. One example: Before she was on the court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed an amicus brief on behalf of the liberal American Civil Liberties Union in Craig v. Boren and advised Craig's attorneys. This led to the landmark 1976 precedent that established how the court evaluates claims of gender discrimination.
In their briefs, conservative groups will advance theories of judging known as textualism and originalism. These closely linked approaches hold that the best way to interpret the Constitution is according to how it was understood at the time of its ratification.
For example, a judge might ask herself: How would the informed public in 1791 understand what “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means? With a majority of justices on the court sympathetic to these theories of constitutional interpretation, textualist and originalist amicus briefs are likely to be particularly effective.
If successful, this process will repeat itself over the years and in many different cases. This is necessary for interest groups because it takes a long time to achieve legal change, since the justices are generally reluctant to overturn their previous decisions. Instead, the justices tend to chip away at them over time.
For example, the American Civil Liberties Union was successful convincing the court to apply the exclusionary rule to the states in Mapp v. Ohio in 1961. This rule holds that evidence police gather illegally is inadmissible in a trial. Subsequently, conservative Supreme Court justices have followed conservative groups' arguments by carving out numerous exceptions to the exclusionary rule. Although Mapp is still the law of the land, it is a shell of its former self.
With a 6-3 majority of conservative justices on the court – five of whom are 70 years old or younger – this strategy can be expected to continue for decades to come. This will give conservative groups and the justices who agree with them plenty of time to mold American law in their image.
Paul M. Collins, Jr., Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science, University of Massachusetts Amherst
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


alternet--2020-10-25--Here are 5 scenarios that show how the campaign’s endgame might be disrupted: historian analysis

The storyline of the presidential campaign seems to be solidifying , as polls show Joe Biden maintaining a sizable lead over President Donald J. Trump .
But the lead may not be insurmountable , and the election is not over .
The history of polling in modern elections suggests that the endgame could yet be altered by a number of disruptive scenarios .
None of the following narrative-altering scenarios can be considered a certainty .
But only one is rather far-fetched .
All are informed by the content of my latest book , “ Lost in a Gallup : Polling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here are descriptions of five prospective scenarios , in order of possibility .
In a bow to even-handedness , a reality check is appended to each of them .
Jarring , out-of-the-blue developments have happened often enough in presidential election campaigns as to be almost expected .
Remember James Comey 's announcement 11 days before the 2016 election that the FBI had reopened its investigation into Hillary Clinton 's emails ?
It may have shifted enough votes in battleground states to elect Trump .
To alter the trajectory in 2020 , the October @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a very public meltdown by Joe Biden – a “ lying , dog-faced pony soldier '' moment on steroids – that would clearly signal he 's not up to the job .
While Biden 's gaffes , exaggerations and garbled comments have been on frequent display during the 2020 campaign , they have n't been concentrated or dramatic enough to puncture his advantage in preelection polls .
Why it wo n't happen : Presidential elections may be growing immune to late October surprises , given the popularity of early voting and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such , millions of Americans will have cast ballots for president well before Election Day – tempering the impact of any late October surprise .
2 .
Significant polling errors occur in key states , enough for Trump to win an electoral vote majority In states such as Wisconsin and Michigan , which were crucial to the outcome in 2016 , preelection polls pointed to a clear lead for Hillary Clinton – an advantage that evaporated when votes were counted .
Clinton 's polling advantage in Wisconsin , for example , was 6.5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump carried the state by less than a point .
Such errors are not entirely out of the question in 2020 .
Why it wo n't happen : This scenario essentially is a 2016 replay .
If the history of election polling tells us anything , it is not to expect elections , or polling failures , to replicate themselves .
Not only that , but considerably more scrutiny is being devoted to polling in battleground states in 2020 than four years ago .
Such attention may render this scenario unlikely .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton 's 1996 reelection , when he defeated Republican Bob Dole by 8.5 percentage points – a comfortable margin but not the blowout many polls and pollsters had anticipated .
At the end of October 1996 , veteran California pollster Mervin Field declared Clinton was “ heading for as big a win '' as Ronald Reagan 's 18-point landslide in 1984 , when he carried 49 states .
The polls in 1996 did n't miss on the winner , but some were well off the final margin .
For example , the end-of-campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at 18 points , nearly a 10-point miss .
Why it wo n't happen : Polling failure in presidential elections is rarely duplicated .
A rerun of the 1996 scenario depends on Biden holding a double-digit polling lead in the campaign 's final stages – a time when presidential races tend to tighten .
Biden 's aggregate lead in national polls , as compiled by the RealClearPolitics website , stood at 8.6 percentage points two weeks before Election Day .
This theory maintains that because they want to avoid disapproval , some Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others .
They are reluctant to acknowledge support for such a divisive character .
Because they are guarded about their intentions , these undercover supporters skew polling data because they supposedly are so hard to find , or fail to answer candidly when they are interviewed .
By turning out in great numbers , the theory goes , “ Shy Trump '' voters could tip the electoral vote to the president .
Why it wo n't happen : Such voters probably do not exist in numbers large enough to alter a national election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have suggested as much .
Besides , Trump 's outdoor rallies indicate that his supporters are n't exactly reserved about expressing political preferences .
5 .
An epic polling collapse , akin to that of 1948 , takes place The famous “ Dewey defeats Truman '' election signaled a stunning and never-since-duplicated breakdown of national election polling .
George Gallup and other pollsters confidently predicted President Harry Truman 's loss to Republican Thomas E. Dewey – and their polling set expectations for the country 's press and pundits .
Truman won by 4.5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in U.S. presidential history .
Why it wo n't happen : Polling since 1948 has become more sophisticated in techniques and more numerous in practitioners .
It is almost inconceivable that contemporary election pollsters will be profoundly and uniformly wrong in 2020 .
While 1948 does offer an intriguing prospective precedent , this is a most improbable scenario .
[ Get our most insightful politics and election stories .
Sign up for The Conversation 's Politics Weekly . ]
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read @ @ @ @

W. Joseph Campbell, American University School of Communication
The storyline of the presidential campaign seems to be solidifying, as polls show Joe Biden maintaining a sizable lead over President Donald J. Trump.
But the lead may not be insurmountable, and the election is not over.
The history of polling in modern elections suggests that the endgame could yet be altered by a number of disruptive scenarios.
None of the following narrative-altering scenarios can be considered a certainty. But only one is rather far-fetched. All are informed by the content of my latest book, “Lost in a Gallup: Polling Failure in U.S. Presidential Elections."
Here are descriptions of five prospective scenarios, in order of possibility. In a bow to even-handedness, a reality check is appended to each of them.
1. A powerful late October surprise disrupts the campaign trajectory
Jarring, out-of-the-blue developments have happened often enough in presidential election campaigns as to be almost expected. Remember James Comey's announcement 11 days before the 2016 election that the FBI had reopened its investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails? It may have shifted enough votes in battleground states to elect Trump.
To alter the trajectory in 2020, the October surprise probably would have to be akin to a very public meltdown by Joe Biden – a “lying, dog-faced pony soldier" moment on steroids – that would clearly signal he's not up to the job. While Biden's gaffes, exaggerations and garbled comments have been on frequent display during the 2020 campaign, they haven't been concentrated or dramatic enough to puncture his advantage in preelection polls.
Why it won't happen: Presidential elections may be growing immune to late October surprises, given the popularity of early voting and the advent of extensive mail-in balloting. As such, millions of Americans will have cast ballots for president well before Election Day – tempering the impact of any late October surprise.
2. Significant polling errors occur in key states, enough for Trump to win an electoral vote majority
In states such as Wisconsin and Michigan, which were crucial to the outcome in 2016, preelection polls pointed to a clear lead for Hillary Clinton – an advantage that evaporated when votes were counted. Clinton's polling advantage in Wisconsin, for example, was 6.5 percentage points at campaign's end; Trump carried the state by less than a point. Such errors are not entirely out of the question in 2020.
Why it won't happen: This scenario essentially is a 2016 replay. If the history of election polling tells us anything, it is not to expect elections, or polling failures, to replicate themselves. Not only that, but considerably more scrutiny is being devoted to polling in battleground states in 2020 than four years ago. Such attention may render this scenario unlikely.
3. The 1996 scenario materializes
This is a nuanced scenario that recalls Bill Clinton's 1996 reelection, when he defeated Republican Bob Dole by 8.5 percentage points – a comfortable margin but not the blowout many polls and pollsters had anticipated. At the end of October 1996, veteran California pollster Mervin Field declared Clinton was “heading for as big a win" as Ronald Reagan's 18-point landslide in 1984, when he carried 49 states.
The polls in 1996 didn't miss on the winner, but some were well off the final margin. For example, the end-of-campaign CBS News survey estimated Clinton's lead at 18 points, nearly a 10-point miss.
Why it won't happen: Polling failure in presidential elections is rarely duplicated. A rerun of the 1996 scenario depends on Biden holding a double-digit polling lead in the campaign's final stages – a time when presidential races tend to tighten. Biden's aggregate lead in national polls, as compiled by the RealClearPolitics website, stood at 8.6 percentage points two weeks before Election Day.
4. 'Shy Trump' voters emerge en masse, decisively so in battleground states
This theory maintains that because they want to avoid disapproval, some Trump supporters conceal their preferences from pollsters and others. They are reluctant to acknowledge support for such a divisive character.
Because they are guarded about their intentions, these undercover supporters skew polling data because they supposedly are so hard to find, or fail to answer candidly when they are interviewed. By turning out in great numbers, the theory goes, “Shy Trump" voters could tip the electoral vote to the president.
Why it won't happen: Such voters probably do not exist in numbers large enough to alter a national election. Assessments by pollsters and polling organizations have suggested as much. Besides, Trump's outdoor rallies indicate that his supporters aren't exactly reserved about expressing political preferences.
5. An epic polling collapse, akin to that of 1948, takes place
The famous “Dewey defeats Truman" election signaled a stunning and never-since-duplicated breakdown of national election polling. George Gallup and other pollsters confidently predicted President Harry Truman's loss to Republican Thomas E. Dewey – and their polling set expectations for the country's press and pundits. Truman won by 4.5 percentage points in the greatest polling embarrassment in U.S. presidential history.
Why it won't happen: Polling since 1948 has become more sophisticated in techniques and more numerous in practitioners. It is almost inconceivable that contemporary election pollsters will be profoundly and uniformly wrong in 2020. While 1948 does offer an intriguing prospective precedent, this is a most improbable scenario.
[Get our most insightful politics and election stories.Sign up for The Conversation's Politics Weekly.]
W. Joseph Campbell, Professor of Communication Studies, American University School of Communication
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


alternet--2020-10-25--'Dark moment for the Senate': Republicans block consideration of COVID relief — and rushes ahead wit

'Dark moment for the Senate': Republicans block consideration of COVID relief — and rushes ahead with Barrett confirmation

Republicans on Saturday blocked Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer 's attempt during a rare weekend session to force consideration of a $ 2.2 trillion coronavirus relief bill as the GOP rushed ahead with its effort to confirm right-wing judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court just before the November election .
After a speech decrying the Barrett confirmation process as `` a very dark moment for the Senate , '' Schumer requested unanimous consent for the chamber to take up a revised version of the HEROES Act that the Democrat-controlled House passed earlier this month .
Senate Majority Leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to allow a Senate vote on the bill despite growing suffering across the nation and warnings that failure to approve additional spending could cause lasting damage to the economy .
Senate Majority Whip John Thune ( R-S.D . )
objected to Schumer 's request for unanimous consent , dismissing the effort to force debate on the revised HEROES Act as a political ploy .
If passed , the legislation would restore the $ 600-per-week federal unemployment boost Republicans allowed to expire in July , send another round of $ 1,200 stimulus checks to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to state and local governments .
`` It 's an outrage that Senate Republicans are ramming through a radical Supreme Court nominee who will strip healthcare from 23 million Americans during a pandemic while doing nothing to provide economic relief to millions of working-class Americans who desperately need our help , '' Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) said Saturday .
Watch the Senate session , which came 48 hours before the chamber is expected to hold a final vote on Barrett 's confirmation : After Republicans blocked the HEROES Act , Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a slew of additional bills that McConnell has `` consigned to his legislative trashcan , '' including measures that would expand voting rights and reform law enforcement .
Republicans denied each request .
`` Two hundred twenty thousand Americans have died from Covid , but the Senate GOP only seems to care about forcing Trump 's nominee through an illegitimate process , '' Schumer tweeted Saturday .
Vanita Gupta , president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights , applauded Democrats ' efforts , writing that the public `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he jams through an anti-civil rights SCOTUS justice . ''
`` Remember : McConnell has the Senate in session right now to rush through Barrett 's nomination , '' Gupta tweeted .
`` Not to pass real Covid relief , or police reform , or voting rights bills .
He is n't working for the people .
He is working to stack the courts and entrench power .
That 's it . ''

Republicans on Saturday blocked Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's attempt during a rare weekend session to force consideration of a $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief bill as the GOP rushed ahead with its effort to confirm right-wing judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court just before the November election.
After a speech decrying the Barrett confirmation process as "a very dark moment for the Senate," Schumer requested unanimous consent for the chamber to take up a revised version of the HEROES Act that the Democrat-controlled House passed earlier this month. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has refused to allow a Senate vote on the bill despite growing suffering across the nation and warnings that failure to approve additional spending could cause lasting damage to the economy.
Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) objected to Schumer's request for unanimous consent, dismissing the effort to force debate on the revised HEROES Act as a political ploy.
If passed, the legislation would restore the $600-per-week federal unemployment boost Republicans allowed to expire in July, send another round of $1,200 stimulus checks to most Americans, and provide much-needed aid to state and local governments.
"It's an outrage that Senate Republicans are ramming through a radical Supreme Court nominee who will strip healthcare from 23 million Americans during a pandemic while doing nothing to provide economic relief to millions of working-class Americans who desperately need our help," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Saturday.
Watch the Senate session, which came 48 hours before the chamber is expected to hold a final vote on Barrett's confirmation:
WATCH LIVE: Senate continues debate on Amy Coney Barrett nomination for Supreme Court youtu.be
After Republicans blocked the HEROES Act, Senate Democrats requested unanimous consent for consideration of a slew of additional bills that McConnell has "consigned to his legislative trashcan," including measures that would expand voting rights and reform law enforcement. Republicans denied each request.
"Two hundred twenty thousand Americans have died from Covid, but the Senate GOP only seems to care about forcing Trump's nominee through an illegitimate process," Schumer tweeted Saturday.
Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, applauded Democrats' efforts, writing that the public "should remember what McConnell is ignoring as he jams through an anti-civil rights SCOTUS justice."
"Remember: McConnell has the Senate in session right now to rush through Barrett's nomination," Gupta tweeted. "Not to pass real Covid relief, or police reform, or voting rights bills. He isn't working for the people. He is working to stack the courts and entrench power. That's it."


alternet--2020-10-25--The art of 'court packing': Trump has appointed almost one-fourth of all active federal judges in th

The art of 'court packing': Trump has appointed almost one-fourth of all active federal judges in the US

Federal courts are a lot like suitcases as events over the last 5 years have shown .
There are many different ways to pack them .
This would be of no particular interest except for the cries of alarm being sounded by the packers in chief .
They keep demanding that presidential candidate , Joe Biden , disclose whether , if elected president , he would use the only method of packing the United States Supreme Court that Senate Republicans , led by Mitch McConnell , have not needed to employ—expanding the number of Justices who sit on the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posed not because Republicans object in principle to the idea of increasing the size of the United States Supreme Court in order to create a majority aligned with their views , but because of the success they have enjoyed packing the entire federal court system without resorting to such an obvious tactic .
There is strength in numbers and that has enabled Mitch and his cohorts to effectively pack the United States Supreme Court , and many Federal Courts of Appeal and Federal District Courts with conservative judges .
Their success ensures that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comport with the politics of the packers far into the future .
The first method of packing that was demonstrated by the Republicans took place in 2016 after Justice Antonin Scalia 's death .
Following years of precedent , when Scalia 's death created a vacancy on the Court , President Obama did what all presidents before him had done on such occasions .
He sent to the Senate the name of a replacement .
Mitch did what had never before been done by a Majority Leader of the Senate-he refused to meet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the president or to hold hearings or permit a vote on the nomination .
Even though the 2016 election was 10 months away , Mitch said that a successor should not be selected until after the election and the people had spoken .
The vacancy remained until after the 2016 election when the vacancy was given to the trump to fill , a much-valued gift that was the first example of Mitch and his colleagues packing the Supreme Court without expanding its size .
If the Scalia vacancy had been a suitcase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traveler would have discovered the suitcase was well stocked with the traveler 's needs .
The next example of packing the suitcase and the Supreme Court occurred 3 ½ years later when Supreme Court Justice , Ruth Bader Ginsberg , died less than 2 months before the 2020 election .
With her death , the opportunity to select her successor was presented to Mitch and his cronies .
Notwithstanding their earlier concern that any seat of a Supreme Court Justice who died in the same year as an election should remain vacant until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concluded that his reasoning , following the death of Justice Scalia was wrong .
The vacancy was immediately filled by Mitch and his gang thus once again demonstrating what had become their tried and true method of packing the Supreme Court .
Of course lower courts , like suitcases , can also be packed and Mitch and his followers did that throughout the last two years of the Obama administration and the 3 1/2 trump years .
During the last two years of the Obama administration , Mitch effectively blocked the appointment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Appeals .
In contrast , during the administrations of Presidents Reagan , Clinton , and Bush , the latest nomination to a Court of Appeals made by them and confirmed during the end of their respective tenures was submitted in the same year as the presidential election and they were confirmed that same year .
Of the seven Obama nominees submitted by him in 2015 and 2016 , none was confirmed , and their seats were vacancies that Mitch and the trump were able to fill after the trump became president .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court applies equally to the Federal District Courts .
There were 42 unconfirmed Obama nominees to the Federal District Courts when the trump became president .
Nineteen of them had been nominated in 2015 and 23 of them had been nominated in early 2016 .
Those were vacancies that , before packing , would have been filled by the Senate before the election in 2016 .
Instead , and to the Trump 's and Mitch 's great delight , they were all filled after the trump 's election by nominees submitted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controlled by Mitch and his colleagues .
According to one study , the trump has appointed almost a quarter of all active federal judges in the United States , That 's a record of which Mitch can be proud .
Demanding to know whether the Democrats might try to pack the U.S. Supreme Court by adding Justices to the Court , the only means of packing the Republicans did not need to invoke in order to change the political make-up of the Federal Judiciary for many years to come , seems disingenuous .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

"[T]he Senate is much given to admiring in its members a superiority less obvious or quite invisible to outsiders. . . ."
— Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams (1907)
Federal courts are a lot like suitcases as events over the last 5 years have shown. There are many different ways to pack them. This would be of no particular interest except for the cries of alarm being sounded by the packers in chief. They keep demanding that presidential candidate, Joe Biden, disclose whether, if elected president, he would use the only method of packing the United States Supreme Court that Senate Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, have not needed to employ—expanding the number of Justices who sit on the United States Supreme Court.
The question is posed not because Republicans object in principle to the idea of increasing the size of the United States Supreme Court in order to create a majority aligned with their views, but because of the success they have enjoyed packing the entire federal court system without resorting to such an obvious tactic. There is strength in numbers and that has enabled Mitch and his cohorts to effectively pack the United States Supreme Court, and many Federal Courts of Appeal and Federal District Courts with conservative judges. Their success ensures that the political alignment of those courts will comport with the politics of the packers far into the future.
The first method of packing that was demonstrated by the Republicans took place in 2016 after Justice Antonin Scalia's death. Following years of precedent, when Scalia's death created a vacancy on the Court, President Obama did what all presidents before him had done on such occasions. He sent to the Senate the name of a replacement. Mitch did what had never before been done by a Majority Leader of the Senate-he refused to meet with the person who had been nominated by the president or to hold hearings or permit a vote on the nomination. Even though the 2016 election was 10 months away, Mitch said that a successor should not be selected until after the election and the people had spoken. The vacancy remained until after the 2016 election when the vacancy was given to the trump to fill, a much-valued gift that was the first example of Mitch and his colleagues packing the Supreme Court without expanding its size. If the Scalia vacancy had been a suitcase, upon arrival at its destination the traveler would have discovered the suitcase was well stocked with the traveler's needs.
The next example of packing the suitcase and the Supreme Court occurred 3 ½ years later when Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, died less than 2 months before the 2020 election. With her death, the opportunity to select her successor was presented to Mitch and his cronies. Notwithstanding their earlier concern that any seat of a Supreme Court Justice who died in the same year as an election should remain vacant until the election had been held, Mitch concluded that his reasoning, following the death of Justice Scalia was wrong. The vacancy was immediately filled by Mitch and his gang thus once again demonstrating what had become their tried and true method of packing the Supreme Court.
Of course lower courts, like suitcases, can also be packed and Mitch and his followers did that throughout the last two years of the Obama administration and the 3 1/2 trump years. During the last two years of the Obama administration, Mitch effectively blocked the appointment of new Judges to the United States Courts of Appeals. In contrast, during the administrations of Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and Bush, the latest nomination to a Court of Appeals made by them and confirmed during the end of their respective tenures was submitted in the same year as the presidential election and they were confirmed that same year. Of the seven Obama nominees submitted by him in 2015 and 2016, none was confirmed, and their seats were vacancies that Mitch and the trump were able to fill after the trump became president.
Of course the Mitch method of packing the court applies equally to the Federal District Courts. There were 42 unconfirmed Obama nominees to the Federal District Courts when the trump became president. Nineteen of them had been nominated in 2015 and 23 of them had been nominated in early 2016. Those were vacancies that, before packing, would have been filled by the Senate before the election in 2016. Instead, and to the Trump's and Mitch's great delight, they were all filled after the trump's election by nominees submitted by the trump and confirmed by a Senate controlled by Mitch and his colleagues.
According to one study, the trump has appointed almost a quarter of all active federal judges in the United States, That's a record of which Mitch can be proud. Demanding to know whether the Democrats might try to pack the U.S. Supreme Court by adding Justices to the Court, the only means of packing the Republicans did not need to invoke in order to change the political make-up of the Federal Judiciary for many years to come, seems disingenuous. There's a reason. It is.


alternet--2020-10-25--Court smacks down Trump attempt to intimidate Pennsylvania voters

At a Friday night rally , Republican President Donald Trump talked about his attempts to have `` poll watchers '' in the swing state of Pennsylvania , an attempt that a local court recently ruled as illegal .
`` I think we 're leading everywhere , '' Trump said at the rally .
`` We think in Pennsylvania doing great .
We got to be very careful Philadelphia .
They play games in Philadelphia , and they wo n't let us watch the count in Philadelphia… So we 're watching Philadelphia . ''
Trump then told his White House Chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watch Philadelphia … because I do n't like what I 'm hearing about Philadelphia… .
I do n't like what I see going on in terms of what 's gone on over the past , and probably what 's going on .
Think of it .
They fought like hell that we ca n't watch them .
Count the vote , what 's wrong with watching ?
why ca n't we have poll watchers ?
And so we 're in court right now poll watches in Philadelphia .
But we 're doing great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
First off , the so-called poll watchers are needless seeing as there 's zero evidence of voter fraud at polling places , so Trump 's `` watchers '' are little more than intimidators meant to make Democratic voters nervous .
Second off , it 's not Meadows ' job to handle poll monitoring , election monitors or lawsuits .
The White House Chief of staff serves as a `` liaison among members of the President 's cabinet and the White House [ and is ] is responsible for directing , managing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operations , and staff activities for the President . ''
Third off , on Friday , local Judge Gary Glazer ruled that the Trump campaign 's attempt to have poll-watchers at the state polls is n't allowed under state law .
The Trump campaign had sent unauthorized poll watchers into satellite poll offices where local election officials register voters and help people fill out their mail-in ballots , but the officials kicked the watchers out .
Trump said his watcher should be allowed to monitor such offices , but a bipartisan Philadelphia City @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't qualify as official polling stations and therefore do n't qualify as a place allowed by state law to have poll watchers .
Judge Glazer agreed .
On September 27 , Politico wrote that Trump had hired dozens of lawyers from three major law firms and recruited thousands of volunteer attorneys to contest election results in 17 key states considered vital to his re-election .
In response , Biden campaign spokesperson Michael Gwin told the publication , `` The Biden campaign has assembled the biggest voter protection program in history to ensure the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempt by Donald Trump to create fear and confusion with our voting system , or interfere in the democratic process . ''

At a Friday night rally, Republican President Donald Trump talked about his attempts to have "poll watchers" in the swing state of Pennsylvania, an attempt that a local court recently ruled as illegal.
"I think we're leading everywhere," Trump said at the rally. "We think in Pennsylvania doing great. We got to be very careful Philadelphia. They play games in Philadelphia, and they won't let us watch the count in Philadelphia… So we're watching Philadelphia."
Trump then told his White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to "please watch Philadelphia … because I don't like what I'm hearing about Philadelphia…. I don't like what I see going on in terms of what's gone on over the past, and probably what's going on. Think of it. They fought like hell that we can't watch them. Count the vote, what's wrong with watching? why can't we have poll watchers? And so we're in court right now poll watches in Philadelphia. But we're doing great in Pennsylvania, gotta watch Philadelphia."
First off, the so-called poll watchers are needless seeing as there's zero evidence of voter fraud at polling places, so Trump's "watchers" are little more than intimidators meant to make Democratic voters nervous.
Second off, it's not Meadows' job to handle poll monitoring, election monitors or lawsuits. The White House Chief of staff serves as a "liaison among members of the President's cabinet and the White House [and is] is responsible for directing, managing and overseeing all policy development, daily operations, and staff activities for the President."
Third off, on Friday, local Judge Gary Glazer ruled that the Trump campaign's attempt to have poll-watchers at the state polls isn't allowed under state law. The Trump campaign had sent unauthorized poll watchers into satellite poll offices where local election officials register voters and help people fill out their mail-in ballots, but the officials kicked the watchers out.
Trump said his watcher should be allowed to monitor such offices, but a bipartisan Philadelphia City Commission said that the satellite locations don't qualify as official polling stations and therefore don't qualify as a place allowed by state law to have poll watchers. Judge Glazer agreed.
On September 27, Politico wrote that Trump had hired dozens of lawyers from three major law firms and recruited thousands of volunteer attorneys to contest election results in 17 key states considered vital to his re-election.
In response, Biden campaign spokesperson Michael Gwin told the publication, "The Biden campaign has assembled the biggest voter protection program in history to ensure the election runs smoothly and to combat any attempt by Donald Trump to create fear and confusion with our voting system, or interfere in the democratic process."


alternet--2020-10-25--Veterans Affairs secretary headlines GOP fundraiser as COVID cases surge

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom .
Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox .
Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert Wilkie headlined a fundraiser for the North Carolina Republican Party last week , taking time away from his job leading the government 's second-largest agency at a moment when COVID-19 cases are surging in VA hospitals .
Though legal , campaigning by cabinet secretaries is a departure from historical norms .
Nevertheless , it 's become standard practice in the administration of President Donald Trump .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and several other cabinet members recently visited Iowa .
Seema Verma , the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services , is also campaigning in North Carolina .
Trump himself has routinely blurred politics with official functions , most prominently by hosting the Republican convention on the White House lawn , and he 's brushed off more than a dozen staff violations of the federal Hatch Act , which limits political activity by government employees .
Wilkie , in particular , was already under fire for frequent trips that appear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter last week , the top Democrats on the House and Senate veterans committees accused Wilkie of using taxpayer-funded travel to boost Trump and other Republican candidates .
“ Leaders at VA have historically risen above partisan politics , '' Senate veterans committee ranking member Jon Tester of Montana and House committee chairman Mark Takano of California said in their letter to Wilkie .
“ Furthermore , efforts to engage in overtly political activity may have come at the expense of legitimate functions of the department 's mission . ''
The letter highlighted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carolina , Maine and Montana for appearances with GOP senators in tough reelection races .
The partisan tilt of the Montana trip was especially pronounced because it included no events with Tester despite his key post on the Senate panel that oversees the VA. Wilkie 's latest visit to North Carolina , his home state , was not part of an official trip , according to the VA 's response to a Freedom of Information Act request .
That indicates his fundraiser appearance was n't paid for by taxpayers .
Wilkie 's spokeswoman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for his travel or why he was in North Carolina on a weekday instead of at his job .
“ He attended this event as a private citizen , '' spokeswoman Christina Noel said .
The party 's financial disclosures , which might show donations and expenditures connected to the event , are not yet available for that time period .
The North Carolina GOP 's finance director , Amanda Parrish , did n't respond to messages seeking comment .
The event took steps to comply with the Hatch Act .
The invitation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's official titles , referring to him as “ honorable '' ( a general signifier for people who have been Senate confirmed ) .
The invitation also said “ his participation is not a solicitation for funds , '' but it listed suggested donations ranging from $ 250 to $ 2,500 .
The email accompanying the fundraiser invitation said the organizers wanted “ this event jam-packed ( within CDC guidelines ) . ''
But a photo posted on Facebook by the state party chairman showed people indoors less than 6 feet apart and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comment on what public health measures Wilkie observed to participate in the event .
Other political figures who attended , including state Rep. Holly Grange and Trump campaign organizer Matt Dula , did n't respond to requests for comment .
From North Carolina , Wilkie traveled to Arizona , Utah and Colorado for what appeared to be official functions , according to posts on his Twitter account .
A former aide to North Carolina 's endangered incumbent senator , Thom Tillis , and former Sen. Jesse Helms , Wilkie is widely viewed as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
North Carolina 's other senator , Richard Burr , is not seeking reelection in 2022 .
Noel did n't respond to a question about Wilkie 's political ambitions .
Wilkie has faced criticism for appearing disengaged from the VA 's critical programs .
He 's also under investigation by the department 's inspector general for allegations , which Wilkie has denied , that he attempted to collect dirt on a congressional staffer who said she was sexually assaulted in a VA hospital .
The results of the probe are expected soon .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4,500 active cases of COVID-19 ( including veterans and employees ) , a 70 % increase from a month ago .
More than 3,700 VA patients have died of the virus .
Veterans are a key constituency for Trump , a favorite topic in his tweets and at rallies .
The VA is accommodating more political events this year by relaxing a long-standing policy that discourages site visits by political candidates close to an election .
Noel did n't respond to a question about the change .

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert Wilkie headlined a fundraiser for the North Carolina Republican Party last week, taking time away from his job leading the government's second-largest agency at a moment when COVID-19 cases are surging in VA hospitals.
Though legal, campaigning by cabinet secretaries is a departure from historical norms. Nevertheless, it's become standard practice in the administration of President Donald Trump. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has hit the campaign trail for Trump, and several other cabinet members recently visited Iowa. Seema Verma, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, is also campaigning in North Carolina. Trump himself has routinely blurred politics with official functions, most prominently by hosting the Republican convention on the White House lawn, and he's brushed off more than a dozen staff violations of the federal Hatch Act, which limits political activity by government employees.
Wilkie, in particular, was already under fire for frequent trips that appear to have partisan agendas. In a letter last week, the top Democrats on the House and Senate veterans committees accused Wilkie of using taxpayer-funded travel to boost Trump and other Republican candidates.
“Leaders at VA have historically risen above partisan politics," Senate veterans committee ranking member Jon Tester of Montana and House committee chairman Mark Takano of California said in their letter to Wilkie. “Furthermore, efforts to engage in overtly political activity may have come at the expense of legitimate functions of the department's mission."
The letter highlighted Wilkie's previous official trips to North Carolina, Maine and Montana for appearances with GOP senators in tough reelection races. The partisan tilt of the Montana trip was especially pronounced because it included no events with Tester despite his key post on the Senate panel that oversees the VA.
Wilkie's latest visit to North Carolina, his home state, was not part of an official trip, according to the VA's response to a Freedom of Information Act request. That indicates his fundraiser appearance wasn't paid for by taxpayers. Wilkie's spokeswoman declined to say who footed the bill for his travel or why he was in North Carolina on a weekday instead of at his job.
“He attended this event as a private citizen," spokeswoman Christina Noel said.
The party's financial disclosures, which might show donations and expenditures connected to the event, are not yet available for that time period. The North Carolina GOP's finance director, Amanda Parrish, didn't respond to messages seeking comment.
The event took steps to comply with the Hatch Act. The invitation, obtained by ProPublica, omitted Wilkie's official titles, referring to him as “honorable" (a general signifier for people who have been Senate confirmed). The invitation also said “his participation is not a solicitation for funds," but it listed suggested donations ranging from $250 to $2,500.
The email accompanying the fundraiser invitation said the organizers wanted “this event jam-packed (within CDC guidelines)." But a photo posted on Facebook by the state party chairman showed people indoors less than 6 feet apart and not wearing masks.
Noel declined to comment on what public health measures Wilkie observed to participate in the event.
Other political figures who attended, including state Rep. Holly Grange and Trump campaign organizer Matt Dula, didn't respond to requests for comment.
From North Carolina, Wilkie traveled to Arizona, Utah and Colorado for what appeared to be official functions, according to posts on his Twitter account.
A former aide to North Carolina's endangered incumbent senator, Thom Tillis, and former Sen. Jesse Helms, Wilkie is widely viewed as aspiring to elected office in the state. North Carolina's other senator, Richard Burr, is not seeking reelection in 2022. Noel didn't respond to a question about Wilkie's political ambitions.
Wilkie has faced criticism for appearing disengaged from the VA's critical programs. He's also under investigation by the department's inspector general for allegations, which Wilkie has denied, that he attempted to collect dirt on a congressional staffer who said she was sexually assaulted in a VA hospital. The results of the probe are expected soon.
The VA hospital system currently has almost 4,500 active cases of COVID-19 (including veterans and employees), a 70% increase from a month ago. More than 3,700 VA patients have died of the virus.
Veterans are a key constituency for Trump, a favorite topic in his tweets and at rallies. The VA is accommodating more political events this year by relaxing a long-standing policy that discourages site visits by political candidates close to an election. Noel didn't respond to a question about the change.


alternet--2020-10-25--Why 1,000,000 new voters in Georgia are a really big deal: analysis

Georgia was close in 2016 , with Donald Trump beating Hillary Clinton just 50-45 , despite zero attention or focus on the state .
It was a major signal to the political world that Georgia had arrived on the battleground stage .
And while it took a while for the political punditry and observers to give Georgia the top billing it deserves ( Daily Kos was relatively lonely at the start of the cycle , calling the state a battleground ) , there is no doubt in anyone 's mind that Georgia is perhaps the most closely divided state in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standpoint , Democrat Joe Biden will win the presidency long before Georgia 's 16 electoral votes are added to someone 's tally .
But Georgia is critically important for several reasons : • Georgia is the fourth largest ( by population ) red state in the country .
Interestingly , every single one of them is competitive : Texas ( 38 ) , Florida ( 29 ) , Ohio ( 18 ) , Georgia ( 16 ) , and North Carolina ( 15 ) .
It is difficult for Republicans to win the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a solid base to depend on , the way Democrats have California ( 55 ) , New York ( 29 ) , and Illinois ( 20 ) to anchor their map .
• The Senate is easily biased toward white rural Republican states .
Any state that can be pulled from the `` safe Republican '' column to `` competitive '' status helps go a little way toward alleviating the rank inequities of that chamber .
And it 's incredibly fortuitous that Georgia has two Senate seats in play this year .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plain and simple .
So a competitive Georgia is n't exactly the biggest surprise of the cycle , but going from minus-5 to tied did n't happen by accident .
Driving that transformation : there are now 7.6 million registered voters in the state , a staggering 1 million more than in 2016—a nearly 14 % increase .
Remember—Clinton lost by 5 % .
That was a a 211,141 difference .
In 2018 , Democrat Stacey Abrams lost the governor 's race by a little less than 55,000 votes .
And here we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later since 2016 , with the polls neck and neck .
And the numbers on those registered voters are simply brutal .
• The number of voters under the age of 35 years old is up 22 % —making up half of the new voters .
According to a late-September Georgia poll by Civiqs , Biden is winning 18-34-year-old voters by a 53-40 margin .
Of course , these are the lowest performing voters , but more on that in a bit .
• Of that million new voters , 200,000 were registered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That 's … .
staggeringly mind-blowing !
• Of those who gave their race , 53 % of new voters are white , 30 % are Black , and 4 % are Latino .
According to exit polls , 60 % of Georgia voters were white in 2016 .
The state 's electorate is getting browner , which is terrible news for the GOP .
According to the latest up-to-date numbers from the U.S .
Elections Project , 2,258,750 Georgians have already voted since early voting began on October 10 , or 32 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting will continue until Friday , October 30 , so we still have another eight days .
Not only does this bank Democratic votes ahead of time , lessening the load on the Democratic GOTV machine , but it will also guarantee shorter lines on Election Day proper .
The state expects more than 5 million to vote , dramatically higher than 2016 's 4.1 million .
This one will be close , no doubt about it .
The presidential and both Senate races ( and several competitive House races down ballot ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia 's demographic trends are moving decisively in our direction .
Georgia may very well follow the most recent example of Colorado—once a conservative stronghold , then a battleground , and now a solid , safe blue state .
But first things first , 2020 .
GOTV and leave nothing on the road .

Georgia was close in 2016, with Donald Trump beating Hillary Clinton just 50-45, despite zero attention or focus on the state. It was a major signal to the political world that Georgia had arrived on the battleground stage. And while it took a while for the political punditry and observers to give Georgia the top billing it deserves (Daily Kos was relatively lonely at the start of the cycle, calling the state a battleground), there is no doubt in anyone's mind that Georgia is perhaps the most closely divided state in the country.
From an Electoral College standpoint, Democrat Joe Biden will win the presidency long before Georgia's 16 electoral votes are added to someone's tally. But Georgia is critically important for several reasons:
Georgia is the fourth largest (by population) red state in the country. Interestingly, every single one of them is competitive: Texas (38), Florida (29), Ohio (18), Georgia (16), and North Carolina (15). It is difficult for Republicans to win the White House if they don't have a solid base to depend on, the way Democrats have California (55), New York (29), and Illinois (20) to anchor their map.
The Senate is easily biased toward white rural Republican states. Any state that can be pulled from the "safe Republican" column to "competitive" status helps go a little way toward alleviating the rank inequities of that chamber. And it's incredibly fortuitous that Georgia has two Senate seats in play this year.
The people of Georgia deserve better, plain and simple.
So a competitive Georgia isn't exactly the biggest surprise of the cycle, but going from minus-5 to tied didn't happen by accident. Driving that transformation: there are now 7.6 million registered voters in the state, a staggering 1 million more than in 2016—a nearly 14% increase. Remember—Clinton lost by 5%. That was a a 211,141 difference.
In 2018, Democrat Stacey Abrams lost the governor's race by a little less than 55,000 votes. And here we are, 1 million newly registered voters later since 2016, with the polls neck and neck. And the numbers on those registered voters are simply brutal.
The number of voters under the age of 35 years old is up 22%—making up half of the new voters. According to a late-September Georgia poll by Civiqs, Biden is winning 18-34-year-old voters by a 53-40 margin. Of course, these are the lowest performing voters, but more on that in a bit.
Of that million new voters, 200,000 were registered in the last three months alone. That's …. staggeringly mind-blowing!
Of those who gave their race, 53% of new voters are white, 30% are Black, and 4% are Latino. According to exit polls, 60% of Georgia voters were white in 2016. The state's electorate is getting browner, which is terrible news for the GOP.
According to the latest up-to-date numbers from the U.S. Elections Project, 2,258,750 Georgians have already voted since early voting began on October 10, or 32% of the 2016 total. Early voting will continue until Friday, October 30, so we still have another eight days. Not only does this bank Democratic votes ahead of time, lessening the load on the Democratic GOTV machine, but it will also guarantee shorter lines on Election Day proper. The state expects more than 5 million to vote, dramatically higher than 2016's 4.1 million.
This one will be close, no doubt about it. The presidential and both Senate races (and several competitive House races down ballot) will all be real dogfights. But Georgia's demographic trends are moving decisively in our direction. Georgia may very well follow the most recent example of Colorado—once a conservative stronghold, then a battleground, and now a solid, safe blue state.
But first things first, 2020. GOTV andleave nothing on the road.


alternet--2020-10-25--Is it time to freak out? Here's what the polls say this week about the state of the presidential rac

Is it time to freak out? Here's what the polls say this week about the state of the presidential race

Welcome to my weekly roundup of state presidential polls , a feature of whose future is coming to an end at seemingly terrifyingly speed .
Remember back when people would answer every poll with `` it 's way too early to look at polls ! ''
Then there was that primary thing were everyone argued for a long time .
And now ?
Here we are .
At election 's eve .
Finally able to deliver a message to Donald Trump the only way he 'll ( maybe ) listen : with a vote .
We always start with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using The Economist 's polling aggregate .
Biden 's current 54.3 % -45.7 % lead , or +8.6 points , is actually up a smidgeon from last week 's 54.2 % to 45.8 % , or 8.4 points .
Really , it 's all float .
The reality , and you can see it in the chart above , is that the race has n't fundamentally budged in a while , not since September , really .
It feels like we 're on the precipice of something amazing .
It 's no accident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers have swung nearly nine points toward the Democrats .
How much did Trump win Texas by in 2016 ?
Nine points .
This stuff is n't rocket science .
We 're already headed toward a real good night .
But if we could shift those numbers 1-2 more points ?
That good night could become epic .
Those 1-2 points could be the difference between a 50-50 Senate , and a 55-45 Democratic majority with victories in states like Alaska , Kansas , South Carolina , and Texas .
We are so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But also so close to seeing the pendulum swing back toward the GOP by 1-2 points , and taking those tough red-state Senate seats off the map .
That 's why I do n't understand the `` act like we 're 20 points down ! ''
crowd .
If that 's what motivates you , go to Idaho , where Joe Biden is likely down by that amount , and see how motivating that actually is .
You 'll discover what every sports fan knows : it 's more motivating to be in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's the thing : Biden 's 9-point national lead is the reason that Texas is competitive .
It 's the reason Alaska is competitive .
It 's the reason so many traditionally red states and districts are competitive .
It 's the reason we might pick up state legislatures in places like ( again ) Texas , as well as heavy Republican gerrymanders in places like Arizona and Michigan .
The fact that Biden is running so strong nationally means that we have a wealth of newly competitive races open up down ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ please do n't resort to loser `` 20 points down '' bullshit .
My suspicion is that people think they need to say that to motivate other people , and it 's counterproductive .
Freaking Ohio and Iowa , which Trump won by around 10 points in 2016 , are competitive .
Winning has its advantages .
And winning bigger has even more advantages—the majorities we need for critical systemic change .
Okay , let me step off my soapbox , and let 's look at the state polls .
As usual , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I still think Alaska is a battleground , and if it turns Blue on November 3 , you 'll remember that I 've harped on it all cycle .
The polling aggregate says it 's a 6.6-point Trump lead , so it remains firmly red on this map .
But , Alaska is the toughest state to poll , so do n't be surprised if it flips , that 's all I 'm saying .
Wow , pretty much nothing changed , and that 's great news for us since , you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still has a five-point-lead-or-larger for all the states he needs to get to 270 electoral votes , and ultimate victory .
He also leads in enough states that will finish their counting on election night ( Florida and North Carolina ) , to avoid having Trump and the GOP sow chaos with an avalanche of lawsuits .
And Biden is within 2 points of blowing past 400 electoral votes , which would deliver pretty much the most humiliating defeat possible to Trump .
And really , we want him humiliated .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ground game is worth around 3 points ( another reason why `` fight like we 're 20 down '' is so stupid ) .
So every one of those states above is gettable , especially if the Trump GOTV operation—which has put all of its marbles on Election Day turnout—fizzles .
And does anyone trust the Trump Republican Party to do anything right ?
Of course , no one is counting on former campaign manager Brad Parscale to have pilfered all of the money .
We know he ran off with tens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of it was spent on building a GOTV machine .
Which is why we have to work as hard as we have already been working .
We truly are on the cusp of something transformative .
Leave nothing on the road .

Welcome to my weekly roundup of state presidential polls, a feature of whose future is coming to an end at seemingly terrifyingly speed. Remember back when people would answer every poll with "it's way too early to look at polls!" Then there was that primary thing were everyone argued for a long time. And now? Here we are. At election's eve. Finally able to deliver a message to Donald Trump the only way he'll (maybe) listen: with a vote.
We always start with a look at the national poll trends, using The Economist's polling aggregate.
(The Economist)
Biden's current 54.3%-45.7% lead, or +8.6 points, is actually up a smidgeon from last week's 54.2% to 45.8%, or 8.4 points. Really, it's all float. The reality, and you can see it in the chart above, is that the race hasn't fundamentally budged in a while, not since September, really.
It feels like we're on the precipice of something amazing. It's no accident that Texas is competitive. The national numbers have swung nearly nine points toward the Democrats. How much did Trump win Texas by in 2016? Nine points. This stuff isn't rocket science.
We're already headed toward a real good night. But if we could shift those numbers 1-2 more points? That good night could become epic. Those 1-2 points could be the difference between a 50-50 Senate, and a 55-45 Democratic majority with victories in states like Alaska, Kansas, South Carolina, and Texas. We are so close to blowing this wide open. But also so close to seeing the pendulum swing back toward the GOP by 1-2 points, and taking those tough red-state Senate seats off the map.
That's why I don't understand the "act like we're 20 points down!" crowd. If that's what motivates you, go to Idaho, where Joe Biden is likely down by that amount, and see how motivating that actually is. You'll discover what every sports fan knows: it's more motivating to be in the lead than losing.
And here's the thing: Biden's 9-point national lead is the reason that Texas is competitive. It's the reason Alaska is competitive. It's the reason so many traditionally red states and districts are competitive. It's the reason we might pick up state legislatures in places like (again) Texas, as well as heavy Republican gerrymanders in places like Arizona and Michigan.
The fact that Biden is running so strong nationally means that we have a wealth of newly competitive races open up down ballot. Isn't that motivating? So please don't resort to loser "20 points down" bullshit. My suspicion is that people think they need to say that to motivate other people, and it's counterproductive. Freaking Ohio and Iowa, which Trump won by around 10 points in 2016, are competitive. Winning has its advantages. And winning bigger has even more advantages—the majorities we need for critical systemic change.
Okay, let me step off my soapbox, and let's look at the state polls. As usual, we start with our baseline map.
I still think Alaska is a battleground, and if it turns Blue on November 3, you'll remember that I've harped on it all cycle. The polling aggregate says it's a 6.6-point Trump lead, so it remains firmly red on this map. But, Alaska is the toughest state to poll, so don't be surprised if it flips, that's all I'm saying.
STATE ELECTORAL
VOTES ECONOMIST
POLL AGGREGATE WEEKLY
CHANGE TOTAL BASELINE - - 232-125 MICHIGAN 16 Biden +7.0 - 248-125 WISCONSIN 10 Biden +6.6 -0.4 258-125 NEBRASKA-01 1 Biden +6.5 - 259-125 PENNSYLVANIA 20 Biden +5.8 -0.4 279-125 FLORIDA 29 Biden +3.4 -0.2 308-125 ARIZONA 11 Biden +3.2 +0.4 319-125 NORTH CAROLINA 15 Biden +2.4 +0.4 334-125 MAINE-02 1 Biden +2.0 - 335-125 GEORGIA 16 Biden +0.0 +0.2 351-125 IOWA 6 Trump +1.8 -1.0 351-131 OHIO 18 Trump +1.6 -0.8 351-149 TEXAS 38 Trump +2 - 351-187
Wow, pretty much nothing changed, and that's great news for us since, you know, time is running out. Biden still has a five-point-lead-or-larger for all the states he needs to get to 270 electoral votes, and ultimate victory. He also leads in enough states that will finish their counting on election night (Florida and North Carolina), to avoid having Trump and the GOP sow chaos with an avalanche of lawsuits.
And Biden is within 2 points of blowing past 400 electoral votes, which would deliver pretty much the most humiliating defeat possible to Trump. And really, we want him humiliated.
According to conventional political wisdom, a good GOTV ground game is worth around 3 points (another reason why "fight like we're 20 down" is so stupid). So every one of those states above is gettable, especially if the Trump GOTV operation—which has put all of its marbles on Election Day turnout—fizzles. And does anyone trust the Trump Republican Party to do anything right?
Of course, no one is counting on former campaign manager Brad Parscale to have pilfered all of the money. We know he ran off with tens of millions of Trump campaign cash. Maybe some of it was spent on building a GOTV machine. Which is why we have to work as hard as we have already been working.
We truly are on the cusp of something transformative. Leave nothing on the road.


alternet--2020-10-25--'Grossly negligent': Critics pile on Pence decision to keep campaigning despite COVID exposure

Despite being considered a close contact with a top aide who tested positive for Covid-19 and began quarantining on Saturday , Vice President Mike Pence is still planning to maintain his travel and campaign schedule with the November election just over a week away—a decision medical experts denounced as potentially dangerous for Pence , those accompanying him , and the public .
The White House announced Saturday that Pence Chief of Staff Marc Short and at least three additional members of the vice president 's staff have tested positive for Covid-19 , another outbreak within the Trump administration that comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his top aides , and his press secretary contracted the virus .
Two unnamed officials briefed on the matter told the New York Times that White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows attempted to keep news of the latest outbreak from going public .
Pence spokesperson Devin O'Malley said that both the vice president and his wife tested negative for Covid-19 on Saturday and `` remain in good health . ''
`` I also find it really harmful and disrespectful to the people going to the rally .
He needs to be staying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not essential . ''
—Saskia Popescu , George Mason University Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) guidelines recommend that those who come into close contact with someone infected by the coronavirus `` should stay home for 14 days ... even if you test negative for Covid-19 or feel healthy . ''
To justify keeping up the vice president 's travel plans—which are set to take him to North Carolina and Minnesota on Sunday following two stops in Florida on Saturday—Pence 's communications team pointed to the CDC 's guidelines for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may be permitted to continue work following potential exposure to Covid-19 , '' the guidelines state , `` provided they remain asymptomatic and additional precautions are implemented to protect them and the community . ''
But public health experts rejected the notion that Pence 's campaigning amounts to essential activity .
Saskia Popescu , an infectious disease expert at George Mason University , called Pence 's decision to maintain his aggressive travel schedule `` grossly negligent . ''
`` It 's just an insult to everybody who has been working in public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told the Associated Press .
`` I also find it really harmful and disrespectful to the people going to the rally ...
He needs to be staying home 14 days .
Campaign events are not essential . ''
Epidemiologist Eric Feigl-Ding , a senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists , also voiced alarm at Pence 's decision to keep campaigning despite close exposure to a virus that has killed nearly 225,000 people in the U.S. and continues to spread nationwide .
`` Pence tested negative but that does n't immediately mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Both [ Stephen ] Miller and [ Kayleigh ] McEnany tested negative for 4-5 consecutive days before testing Covid-19 positive on the final day .
Early infection [ is ] not always detectable , but it 's still maybe infectious . ''

Despite being considered a close contact with a top aide who tested positive for Covid-19 and began quarantining on Saturday, Vice President Mike Pence is still planning to maintain his travel and campaign schedule with the November election just over a week away—a decision medical experts denounced as potentially dangerous for Pence, those accompanying him, and the public.
The White House announced Saturday that Pence Chief of Staff Marc Short and at least three additional members of the vice president's staff have tested positive for Covid-19, another outbreak within the Trump administration that comes weeks after the president, one of his top aides, and his press secretary contracted the virus. Two unnamed officials briefed on the matter told the New York Times that White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows attempted to keep news of the latest outbreak from going public.
Pence spokesperson Devin O'Malley said that both the vice president and his wife tested negative for Covid-19 on Saturday and "remain in good health."
"I also find it really harmful and disrespectful to the people going to the rally. He needs to be staying home 14 days. Campaign events are not essential."
—Saskia Popescu, George Mason University
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines recommend that those who come into close contact with someone infected by the coronavirus "should stay home for 14 days... even if you test negative for Covid-19 or feel healthy."
To justify keeping up the vice president's travel plans—which are set to take him to North Carolina and Minnesota on Sunday following two stops in Florida on Saturday—Pence's communications team pointed to the CDC's guidelines for essential personnel.
"Critical infrastructure workers may be permitted to continue work following potential exposure to Covid-19," the guidelines state, "provided they remain asymptomatic and additional precautions are implemented to protect them and the community."
But public health experts rejected the notion that Pence's campaigning amounts to essential activity. Saskia Popescu, an infectious disease expert at George Mason University, called Pence's decision to maintain his aggressive travel schedule "grossly negligent."
"It's just an insult to everybody who has been working in public health and public health response," Popescu told the Associated Press. "I also find it really harmful and disrespectful to the people going to the rally... He needs to be staying home 14 days. Campaign events are not essential."
Epidemiologist Eric Feigl-Ding, a senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists, also voiced alarm at Pence's decision to keep campaigning despite close exposure to a virus that has killed nearly 225,000 people in the U.S. and continues to spread nationwide.
"Pence tested negative but that doesn't immediately mean anything," Feigl-Ding noted. "Both [Stephen] Miller and [Kayleigh] McEnany tested negative for 4-5 consecutive days before testing Covid-19 positive on the final day. Early infection [is] not always detectable, but it's still maybe infectious."


alternet--2020-10-25--ER doctor blasts White House for declaring COVID-exposed Pence an ‘essential worker’ so he can campa

ER doctor blasts White House for declaring COVID-exposed Pence an ‘essential worker’ so he can campaign

Appearing on CNN early Sunday morning , an emergency room doctor from Michigan expressed disgust with the White House for labeling Vice President Mike Pence as an `` essential worker '' so he can continue to campaign for Donald Trump despite the vice president 's office being rocked by a COVID-19 outbreak .
Following news the Pence Chief of Staff Marc Short and senior adviser Marty Obst among others in the Vice President 's office have tested positive for novel coronavirus , the White House announced that the vice president would maintain his hectic schedule in the waning days before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pence 's appearances which could help spread the virus , the White House designated Donald Trump 's running mate as an `` essential worker , '' which drew the ire of Dr .
Rob Davidson who called it an `` absolute farce . ''
Asked if Pence should remain on the road , Davidson replied , `` He should not .
According to CDC guidelines .
he should be in quarantine for 14 days and the claim that he 's an essential worker is an absolute farce . ''
`` I 'm an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grocery store is an essential worker '' explained the emergency room doctor .
`` The vice president in his capacity as vice president is indeed an essential worker and he can still carry out his duties in quarantine .
He 's going around the country trying to convince the American people he should be re-elected and in that work , he 's not an essential worker and is putting people at risk . ''

Appearing on CNN early Sunday morning, an emergency room doctor from Michigan expressed disgust with the White House for labeling Vice President Mike Pence as an "essential worker" so he can continue to campaign for Donald Trump despite the vice president's office being rocked by a COVID-19 outbreak.
Following news the Pence Chief of Staff Marc Short and senior adviser Marty Obst among others in the Vice President's office have tested positive for novel coronavirus, the White House announced that the vice president would maintain his hectic schedule in the waning days before the election.
In order to excuse Pence's appearances which could help spread the virus, the White House designated Donald Trump's running mate as an "essential worker," which drew the ire of Dr. Rob Davidson who called it an "absolute farce."
Asked if Pence should remain on the road, Davidson replied, "He should not. According to CDC guidelines. he should be in quarantine for 14 days and the claim that he's an essential worker is an absolute farce."
"I'm an essential worker and the person at my grocery store is an essential worker" explained the emergency room doctor. "The vice president in his capacity as vice president is indeed an essential worker and he can still carry out his duties in quarantine. He's going around the country trying to convince the American people he should be re-elected and in that work, he's not an essential worker and is putting people at risk."
Watch below: