alternet--2020-10-26--Here's the case for impeaching Clarence Thomas — the most corrupt Supreme Court Justice

With the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett , the radical right has completed its long and painstaking project to seize control of the Supreme Court , and to reshape constitutional law for generations to come .
Barrett 's elevation will give conservatives a 6-3 majority on the court and usher in a crisis of legitimacy for the third branch of government not seen since the 1930s .
The right 's triumph has prompted anger and soul-searching among Democrats and progressives , sparking calls to expand the number of Supreme Court justices , echoing Franklin D. Roosevelt 's unsuccessful effort to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the midst of the Great Depression .
Enlarging the Supreme Court is entirely within the power of Congress , as the number of justices is not set by the Constitution .
The court 's composition has , in fact , varied over time , ranging from six justices when the Constitution was ratified to 10 in 1863 .
The panel was reduced to nine by an act of Congress in 1867 and has remained there since then by statute .
While Democrats should definitely demand court expansion if they retake the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House , there is at least one additional step they should take to address the court 's legitimacy crisis—the impeachment of its most corrupt member—Clarence Thomas .
Thomas should be impeached on charges of perjury for allegedly lying in his annual financial disclosure statements for over a decade and , more fundamentally , for lying in his 1991 confirmation hearing about his disgusting history of sexual harassment .
Although federal judges are appointed for life , their terms are subject to `` good behavior . ''
Like all civil officers of the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under Article II , Section 4 of the Constitution , `` on Impeachment for , and Conviction of , Treason , Bribery , or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors . ''
The impeachment process , as we were reminded by the experience of President Trump , consists of two basic steps : First , members of the House of Representatives impeach an official by adopting , on a simple majority vote , one or more articles of impeachment , which read very much like a criminal complaint or a grand jury indictment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate , which has the power to convict on a two-thirds ballot .
Ouster from office follows conviction automatically , and can not be appealed .
Only three presidents—Andrew Johnson , Bill Clinton , and Trump—have been impeached in our history , and all were exonerated in their Senate trials .
A fourth , Richard Nixon , resigned in the face of near-certain impeachment and removal for his role in the Watergate scandal .
The impeachment of federal judges , by contrast , has been far more common .
To date , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and eight have been convicted by the Senate .
Indeed , the only Senate impeachment trials resulting in convictions have involved judges .
Since 1988 , three federal judges have been impeached and removed on charges involving perjury .
The last judge to be impeached was G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of the Eastern District of Louisiana , a Clinton appointee who was convicted by the Senate and ejected from office in December 2010 for accepting bribes and , among other derelictions , signing false financial declarations under penalty of perjury .
Thomas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second Supreme Court Justice to be impeached .
In 1804 , the House charged Associate Justice Samuel Chase with eight articles of impeachment for engaging in arbitrary and oppressive conduct and expressing political bias while serving as a trial judge in certain Sedition Act cases during an era when Supreme Court justices also conducted trials .
An outspoken Federalist and supporter of John Adams , Chase incurred the ire of Thomas Jefferson and his Republican allies .
Chase was acquitted the following year in a Senate trial presided over by Vice President Aaron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court presides only in presidential impeachment trials . )
As the Senate 's website instructs , Chase 's exoneration has since been construed to insulate the `` judiciary from… congressional attacks based on disapproval of judges ' opinions . ''
Guided by the Chase example , an impeachment proceeding against Thomas could not be initiated because of policy differences Democrats may have with him , even though Thomas has demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the constitutional rights of minorities , women and criminal defendants during his tenure on the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is vulnerable to perjury allegations .
Under the 1978 Ethics in Government Act , all high-ranking federal officials are required to file yearly financial disclosure statements for themselves and their spouses to safeguard against conflicts of interest .
But for 13 years , Thomas failed to report his wife Virginia 's earnings on the mandatory annual financial disclosure forms that he signed under penalty of perjury , indicating that his spouse had no non-investment income when in fact she was steadily employed in high-level jobs as a policy analyst and an outspoken conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginia—who is also a lawyer and a one-time aide to former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey—received more than $ 686,000 between 2003 and 2007 , working for the Heritage Foundation .
In 2011 , claiming incredulously that he had misunderstood his reporting responsibilities , Thomas amended his financial disclosures , which can now be examined on the OpenSecrets.org website .
As University of Colorado law professor Paul Campos pointed out in a 2011 Daily Beast article , `` The relevant question on the disclosure form is n't complicated : Even if Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should n't have needed to hire one to explain to him that the box marked NONE next to the phrase 'Spouse 's Non-Investment Income ' should only be checked if his spouse had no non-investment income . ''
In Campos ' view , Thomas ' omissions were `` criminal . ''
Thomas ' alleged perjury in his testimony before Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991 was of a far greater magnitude , centering on his denial under oath that he harassed Anita Hill and other female colleagues while he served as the chair of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W .
Bush .
The clash between Hill and Thomas was televised and made for riveting viewing , even more so than the rancorous battle over the 2018 confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh .
Thomas was treated with kid gloves by the all-male members of the Judiciary Committee , who sat largely in silence as he denied ever engaging in inappropriate behavior and claimed that he was being `` subjected to a 'high-tech lynching . '
'' Hill , who is now a professor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was treated with scorn and contempt by the Judiciary Committee .
Some members called her `` delusional , '' suggested she was mentally `` unstable '' and was a `` scorned woman '' out for revenge against Thomas for rebuffing her romantic advances .
In addition to assassinating Hill 's character , the committee , under the chairmanship of Joe Biden , then the senior Democratic senator from Delaware , declined to call three other female Thomas accusers to testify at the hearing .
One of those accusers , writer Angela Wright @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and has publicly called for his impeachment .
Anita Hill , too , has never wavered , insisting she told the truth .
Unlike criminal trials , impeachment proceedings are not governed by statutes of limitations .
In any event , it is never too late to do justice and provide Hill and Thomas ' other accusers with the fair hearing they never received .
Even assuming Thomas would avoid conviction in the Senate , his impeachment trial would be nothing like the farce of Trump 's proceeding .
With Democrats holding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harris presiding as vice president , documents would be subpoenaed and witnesses , including Thomas , would be called to testify .
The impeachment of Thomas would also offer Biden a full and final opportunity to make amends for the past .
Above all , combined with a move to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court , impeaching Thomas would restore the legitimacy of the judiciary as a bulwark of constitutional rights , and send a message that the nation has had enough of Republican efforts to return the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Deal and the civil rights movement .
Before any of that happens , of course , Donald Trump and his GOP enablers must be defeated at the polls .
Bill Blum is a retired judge and a lawyer in Los Angeles .
He is a lecturer at the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication .
He writes regularly on law and politics and is the author of three widely acclaimed legal thrillers : Prejudicial Error , The Last Appeal , and The Face of Justice .
This article was produced by @ @ @ @ @

With the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, the radical right has completed its long and painstaking project to seize control of the Supreme Court, and to reshape constitutional law for generations to come. Barrett's elevation will give conservatives a 6-3 majority on the court and usher in a crisis of legitimacy for the third branch of government not seen since the 1930s.
The right's triumph has prompted anger and soul-searching among Democrats and progressives, sparking calls to expand the number of Supreme Court justices, echoing Franklin D. Roosevelt's unsuccessful effort to add additional seats to the high tribunal in the midst of the Great Depression.
Enlarging the Supreme Court is entirely within the power of Congress, as the number of justices is not set by the Constitution. The court's composition has, in fact, varied over time, ranging from six justices when the Constitution was ratified to 10 in 1863. The panel was reduced to nine by an act of Congress in 1867 and has remained there since then by statute.
While Democrats should definitely demand court expansion if they retake the White House and the Senate and hold the House, there is at least one additional step they should take to address the court's legitimacy crisis—the impeachment of its most corrupt member—Clarence Thomas.
Thomas should be impeached on charges of perjury for allegedly lying in his annual financial disclosure statements for over a decade and, more fundamentally, for lying in his 1991 confirmation hearing about his disgusting history of sexual harassment.
Although federal judges are appointed for life, their terms are subject to "good behavior." Like all civil officers of the United States, they can be removed, under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, "on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
The impeachment process, as we were reminded by the experience of President Trump, consists of two basic steps: First, members of the House of Representatives impeach an official by adopting, on a simple majority vote, one or more articles of impeachment, which read very much like a criminal complaint or a grand jury indictment. Step two proceeds with a trial in the Senate, which has the power to convict on a two-thirds ballot. Ouster from office follows conviction automatically, and cannot be appealed.
Only three presidents—Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Trump—have been impeached in our history, and all were exonerated in their Senate trials. A fourth, Richard Nixon, resigned in the face of near-certain impeachment and removal for his role in the Watergate scandal.
The impeachment of federal judges, by contrast, has been far more common. To date, 15 federal judges have been impeached, and eight have been convicted by the Senate. Indeed, the only Senate impeachment trials resulting in convictions have involved judges.
Since 1988, three federal judges have been impeached and removed on charges involving perjury. The last judge to be impeached was G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of the Eastern District of Louisiana, a Clinton appointee who was convicted by the Senate and ejected from office in December 2010 for accepting bribes and, among other derelictions, signing false financial declarations under penalty of perjury.
Thomas, if targeted, would become just the second Supreme Court Justice to be impeached. In 1804, the House charged Associate Justice Samuel Chase with eight articles of impeachment for engaging in arbitrary and oppressive conduct and expressing political bias while serving as a trial judge in certain Sedition Act cases during an era when Supreme Court justices also conducted trials. An outspoken Federalist and supporter of John Adams, Chase incurred the ire of Thomas Jefferson and his Republican allies. Chase was acquitted the following year in a Senate trial presided over by Vice President Aaron Burr. (The chief justice of the Supreme Court presides only in presidential impeachment trials.)
As the Senate's website instructs, Chase's exoneration has since been construed to insulate the "judiciary from… congressional attacks based on disapproval of judges' opinions." Guided by the Chase example, an impeachment proceeding against Thomas could not be initiated because of policy differences Democrats may have with him, even though Thomas has demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the constitutional rights of minorities, women and criminal defendants during his tenure on the Supreme Court.
Like Porteous, however, Thomas is vulnerable to perjury allegations.
Under the 1978 Ethics in Government Act, all high-ranking federal officials are required to file yearly financial disclosure statements for themselves and their spouses to safeguard against conflicts of interest. But for 13 years, Thomas failed to report his wife Virginia's earnings on the mandatory annual financial disclosure forms that he signed under penalty of perjury, indicating that his spouse had no non-investment income when in fact she was steadily employed in high-level jobs as a policy analyst and an outspoken conservative activist.
According to Common Cause, Virginia—who is also a lawyer and a one-time aide to former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey—received more than $686,000 between 2003 and 2007, working for the Heritage Foundation. In 2011, claiming incredulously that he had misunderstood his reporting responsibilities, Thomas amended his financial disclosures, which can now be examined on the OpenSecrets.org website.
As University of Colorado law professor Paul Campos pointed out in a 2011 Daily Beast article, "The relevant question on the disclosure form isn't complicated: Even if Justice Thomas wasn't a lawyer, he shouldn't have needed to hire one to explain to him that the box marked NONE next to the phrase 'Spouse's Non-Investment Income' should only be checked if his spouse had no non-investment income." In Campos' view, Thomas' omissions were "criminal."
Thomas' alleged perjury in his testimony before Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991 was of a far greater magnitude, centering on his denial under oath that he harassed Anita Hill and other female colleagues while he served as the chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
The clash between Hill and Thomas was televised and made for riveting viewing, even more so than the rancorous battle over the 2018 confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh. Thomas was treated with kid gloves by the all-male members of the Judiciary Committee, who sat largely in silence as he denied ever engaging in inappropriate behavior and claimed that he was being "subjected to a 'high-tech lynching.'"
Hill, who is now a professor of social policy and law at Brandeis University, was treated with scorn and contempt by the Judiciary Committee. Some members called her "delusional," suggested she was mentally "unstable" and was a "scorned woman" out for revenge against Thomas for rebuffing her romantic advances.
In addition to assassinating Hill's character, the committee, under the chairmanship of Joe Biden, then the senior Democratic senator from Delaware, declined to call three other female Thomas accusers to testify at the hearing. One of those accusers, writer Angela Wright, remains an outspoken critic of Thomas, and has publicly called for his impeachment. Anita Hill, too, has never wavered, insisting she told the truth.
Unlike criminal trials, impeachment proceedings are not governed by statutes of limitations. In any event, it is never too late to do justice and provide Hill and Thomas' other accusers with the fair hearing they never received.
Even assuming Thomas would avoid conviction in the Senate, his impeachment trial would be nothing like the farce of Trump's proceeding. With Democrats holding a majority in the Senate and Kamala Harris presiding as vice president, documents would be subpoenaed and witnesses, including Thomas, would be called to testify.
The impeachment of Thomas would also offer Biden a full and final opportunity to make amends for the past. Above all, combined with a move to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court, impeaching Thomas would restore the legitimacy of the judiciary as a bulwark of constitutional rights, and send a message that the nation has had enough of Republican efforts to return the country to the dark days before the New Deal and the civil rights movement.
Before any of that happens, of course, Donald Trump and his GOP enablers must be defeated at the polls.
Bill Blum is a retired judge and a lawyer in Los Angeles. He is a lecturer at the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication. He writes regularly on law and politics and is the author of three widely acclaimed legal thrillers: Prejudicial Error, The Last Appeal, and The Face of Justice.
This article was produced by the Independent Media Institute.


alternet--2020-10-26--CNN unearths recording of Kayleigh McEnany saying Trump would have 'a problem' running against Biden

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany is a loyal mouthpiece for President Donald Trump , both in presidential policy and against his political opponents in the election campaign .
She has echoed Trump 's attacks on Joe Biden , calling him a `` radical socialist '' and using monikers like `` Sleepy . ''
But on Monday , CNN unearthed audio of McEnany from 2015 during an interview on New York AM970 , in which she offered a very different view .
`` I think the Republicans run into a problem if it is Joe Biden and if it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' said McEnany .
`` Because Joe Biden , one of the things he is remarkable at is really kind of being a man of the people and resonating with middle class voters .
Feeling like — coming off as human .
His gaffes — as much as we make fun of them — to a certain extent they make him look human .
So not , since he 's likable . ''
She added that she believed Trump would probably have an easier time against Biden than Hillary Clinton , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but she added that if Biden were to run against Trump , `` I think the juxtaposition of kind of the man of the people and kind of this tycoon , is a problem . ''

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany is a loyal mouthpiece for President Donald Trump, both in presidential policy and against his political opponents in the election campaign. She has echoed Trump's attacks on Joe Biden, calling him a "radical socialist" and using monikers like "Sleepy."
But on Monday, CNN unearthed audio of McEnany from 2015 during an interview on New York AM970, in which she offered a very different view.
"I think the Republicans run into a problem if it is Joe Biden and if it is maybe a Trump on the other side," said McEnany. "Because Joe Biden, one of the things he is remarkable at is really kind of being a man of the people and resonating with middle class voters. Feeling like — coming off as human. His gaffes — as much as we make fun of them — to a certain extent they make him look human. So not, since he's likable."
She added that she believed Trump would probably have an easier time against Biden than Hillary Clinton, who ended up being his opponent that year, but she added that if Biden were to run against Trump, "I think the juxtaposition of kind of the man of the people and kind of this tycoon, is a problem."


alternet--2020-10-26--Why tribal leaders say it’s ‘long past time’ for the Interior Department to have a Native American s

Why tribal leaders say it’s ‘long past time’ for the Interior Department to have a Native American secretary

The U.S. Department of the Interior has never had a Native American director .
But in an op-ed for the Thomson Reuters Foundation , two Native American leaders argue that it 's high time for a Native American to lead that department of the federal government .
The op-ed was written by Shannon Holsey , president of the Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe , and Leonard Forsman , chairman of the Suquamish Tribe .
And in the piece , they lay out some reasons why a Native American should be chosen as Interior Department secretary .
`` The United States plays an enormous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and environmental policies that impact the entire planet , '' Holsey and Forsman explain .
`` Perhaps no federal agency has a greater share of that role than the Department of the Interior .
The Department of the Interior manages nearly one-fifth of the land in the United States , regulates oil and gas extraction across the country and off our coasts , manages the delivery of water for farmers and ranchers across the country , and is the home of the U.S. Geological Survey — which gathers and analyzes data related to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go on to point out that the Department of the Interior manages national parks and monuments as well as wildlife refuges — all of which are of great importance to Native Americans .
`` The Department performs functions in every aspect of tribal affairs except health care — from education to law enforcement , social services , economic development and natural resources , '' they note .
`` Yet , the Department of the Interior has never been led by a Native American , and it is long past time for that to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the challenges Native Americans face .
`` From melting permafrost in Alaska and rising sea levels in coastal tribal communities in Maine and the Pacific Northwest , to droughts and deadly wildfires across the West , Indian tribes have been the first Americans to feel the effects of climate change , '' the tribal leaders observe .
`` We have been living with the consequences of federal climate and environmental policy for decades .
Yet , we have rarely been represented at the table when federal officials have decided our fate @ @

The U.S. Department of the Interior has never had a Native American director. But in an op-ed for the Thomson Reuters Foundation, two Native American leaders argue that it's high time for a Native American to lead that department of the federal government.
The op-ed was written by Shannon Holsey, president of the Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe, and Leonard Forsman, chairman of the Suquamish Tribe. And in the piece, they lay out some reasons why a Native American should be chosen as Interior Department secretary.
"The United States plays an enormous role in setting climate, natural resource and environmental policies that impact the entire planet," Holsey and Forsman explain. "Perhaps no federal agency has a greater share of that role than the Department of the Interior. The Department of the Interior manages nearly one-fifth of the land in the United States, regulates oil and gas extraction across the country and off our coasts, manages the delivery of water for farmers and ranchers across the country, and is the home of the U.S. Geological Survey — which gathers and analyzes data related to climate change."
Holsey and Forsman go on to point out that the Department of the Interior manages national parks and monuments as well as wildlife refuges — all of which are of great importance to Native Americans.
"The Department performs functions in every aspect of tribal affairs except health care — from education to law enforcement, social services, economic development and natural resources," they note. "Yet, the Department of the Interior has never been led by a Native American, and it is long past time for that to change."
Holsey and Forsman describe some of the challenges Native Americans face.
"From melting permafrost in Alaska and rising sea levels in coastal tribal communities in Maine and the Pacific Northwest, to droughts and deadly wildfires across the West, Indian tribes have been the first Americans to feel the effects of climate change," the tribal leaders observe. "We have been living with the consequences of federal climate and environmental policy for decades. Yet, we have rarely been represented at the table when federal officials have decided our fate."


alternet--2020-10-26--A Fox host throws Lindsey Graham under the bus as he struggles to keep his Senate seat

Fox Business host and indefatigable Trump ally Lou Dobbs ripped into Sen. Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , over the weekend , telling his overwhelmingly conservative audience in the final countdown to Election Day that he did not know `` why anyone '' would vote for a candidate who had `` betrayed the American people . ''
`` Just to be clear I do n't know why anyone in the great state of South Carolina would ever vote for Lindsey Graham , '' Dobbs said on his Friday broadcast .
`` It 's just outrageous .
This is the guy who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He said he was going to get to the bottom of Obamagate with the Judiciary Committee , which has been a year and a half , actually longer , of absolute inert — inert — response to these pressing issues of our day . ''
`` Obamagate '' is a reference to a widely discredited conspiracy theory alleging that former President Barack Obama ordered his administration to spy on then-candidate Donald Trump 's 2016 campaign .
Dobbs then invoked President Trump 's own words in a stinging series of critiques of the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trailing Democratic rival Jaime Harrison , a fundraising powerhouse , for the first time .
`` I believe that the president 's words about the senator then apply today , '' Dobbs said , reading Trump 's remarks from a Feb. 17 , 2016 , campaign event in Graham 's home state of South Carolina : At the time , Trump was responding to Graham 's prediction that the Republican Party would get `` slaughtered '' if Trump won the nomination .
Casting Graham as a turncoat on the Trump administration , Dobbs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` Graham has betrayed President Trump at almost every turn .
He has betrayed the American people and his oath of office , '' Dobbs concluded .
`` He 's done absolutely nothing to investigate Obamagate , except to tell everyone stay tuned time and time again : 'Stay tuned . '
Senator Graham needs to be tuned out in South Carolina . ''
Graham has found his campaign foundering in recent weeks under the pressure of Harrison 's war chest and strong debate showing .
A Morning Consult poll released Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ - 45 % , with 12 campaign days remaining .
`` Lindsey Graham is scared right now , and he should be , '' campaign spokesperson Guy King told Salon in a statement .
`` As Lindsey scurries off to Washington to play another round of political games , our grassroots movement is catapulting forward .
South Carolina is ready for a leader who will stand up and fight for them — something Lindsey Graham fails to do . ''
Harrison has sought to cast Graham as out of touch and divorce him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , and that strategy appears to have yielded results .
Graham 's slipping poll numbers coincide with his return to Washington to chair the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett .
Quinnipiac polls have shown the two neck-and-neck for months , and the pollster recently acknowledged that Graham was in `` the fight of his political life . ''
Election analysts at Cook Political Report recently shifted the race in the typical GOP stronghold to `` toss-up . ''
`` It 's a jump ball at this point , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told Cook .
`` Jaime is peaking at exactly the right time , and he 's got a deluge of money .
[ Harrison ] is blocking every pass there is from Republicans . ''
After one hearing last week , Graham , who has begged for cash in several recent Fox News appearances , was accused of illegally soliciting campaign donations in the halls of the Senate building .
`` I think people in South Carolina are excited about Judge Barrett , '' Graham said .
`` I do n't know how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you want to help me close the gap .
.
.
Lindsey Graham dot com — a little bit goes a long way . ''
After congratulating Harrison on a record-setting $ 58 million raised last quarter , he added : `` I never felt better about my campaign than I do right now . ''

Fox Business host and indefatigable Trump ally Lou Dobbs ripped into Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., over the weekend, telling his overwhelmingly conservative audience in the final countdown to Election Day that he did not know "why anyone" would vote for a candidate who had "betrayed the American people."
"Just to be clear I don't know why anyone in the great state of South Carolina would ever vote for Lindsey Graham," Dobbs said on his Friday broadcast. "It's just outrageous. This is the guy who keeps saying, 'Stay tuned.' He said he was going to get to the bottom of Obamagate with the Judiciary Committee, which has been a year and a half, actually longer, of absolute inert — inert — response to these pressing issues of our day."
"Obamagate" is a reference to a widely discredited conspiracy theory alleging that former President Barack Obama ordered his administration to spy on then-candidate Donald Trump's 2016 campaign.
Dobbs then invoked President Trump's own words in a stinging series of critiques of the Republican senator, who a recent poll found trailing Democratic rival Jaime Harrison, a fundraising powerhouse, for the first time.
"I believe that the president's words about the senator then apply today," Dobbs said, reading Trump's remarks from a Feb. 17, 2016, campaign event in Graham's home state of South Carolina:
I think Lindsey Graham is a disgrace, and I think you have one of the worst representatives of any representative in the United States. I don't think he could run for dogcatcher in the state and win again. I really don't. Other than that, I think he's wonderful. He's one of the dumbest human beings I've ever seen. That guy is a nut job.
At the time, Trump was responding to Graham's prediction that the Republican Party would get "slaughtered" if Trump won the nomination.
Casting Graham as a turncoat on the Trump administration, Dobbs again invoked Obamagate as his sole example.
"Graham has betrayed President Trump at almost every turn. He has betrayed the American people and his oath of office," Dobbs concluded. "He's done absolutely nothing to investigate Obamagate, except to tell everyone stay tuned time and time again: 'Stay tuned.' Senator Graham needs to be tuned out in South Carolina."
Graham has found his campaign foundering in recent weeks under the pressure of Harrison's war chest and strong debate showing. A Morning Consult poll released Thursday showed Harrison ahead of Graham 47% - 45%, with 12 campaign days remaining.
"Lindsey Graham is scared right now, and he should be," campaign spokesperson Guy King told Salon in a statement. "As Lindsey scurries off to Washington to play another round of political games, our grassroots movement is catapulting forward. South Carolina is ready for a leader who will stand up and fight for them — something Lindsey Graham fails to do."
Harrison has sought to cast Graham as out of touch and divorce him from the interests of voters in the state, and that strategy appears to have yielded results. Graham's slipping poll numbers coincide with his return to Washington to chair the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.
Quinnipiac polls have shown the two neck-and-neck for months, and the pollster recently acknowledged that Graham was in "the fight of his political life." Election analysts at Cook Political Report recently shifted the race in the typical GOP stronghold to "toss-up."
"It's a jump ball at this point," a Republican strategist in the state told Cook. "Jaime is peaking at exactly the right time, and he's got a deluge of money. [Harrison] is blocking every pass there is from Republicans."
After one hearing last week, Graham, who has begged for cash in several recent Fox News appearances, was accused of illegally soliciting campaign donations in the halls of the Senate building.
"I think people in South Carolina are excited about Judge Barrett," Graham said. "I don't know how much it affected fundraising today, but if you want to help me close the gap . . . Lindsey Graham dot com — a little bit goes a long way."
After congratulating Harrison on a record-setting $58 million raised last quarter, he added: "I never felt better about my campaign than I do right now."


alternet--2020-10-26--The Trump administration is illegally hiding an FBI report on white supremacist terror

For decades , much of the right-wing media has emphasized the threat posed by violent Islamist extremists while downplaying the terrorist potential of far-right white supremacist and white nationalist groups .
But that does n't make the latter any less dangerous .
And one Democratic congressman who is sounding the alarm is Mississippi 's Rep. Bennie Thompson , who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee and wants to know why an FBI report on white supremacists is four months late .
In an article published this week , journalist Spencer Ackerman — who specializes in national security matters for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` has failed to produce a legally required report detailing the scope of white supremacist and other domestic terrorism , despite mounting concerns that the upcoming election could spark far-right violence . ''
That report was supposed to be released in June , and according to Ackerman , Thompson is demanding answers .
`` I would hate to think that they are reacting to President Trump 's machinations about his dislike for senior leadership in the FBI , '' Thompson told the Daily Beast .
`` This report probably would not be viewed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think , precipitates the report not being released by November 3 . ''
Thompson told the Beast that the American public `` needs to know who the real , documented terrorists in this country , based on the FBI 's intelligence , really are… .
I think ( FBI Director Christopher Wray ) understands that if he wades too far in the water around this subject , he might drown — or get fired , to be honest . ''
Trump has had a lot to say about antifa in recent months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supremacist and white nationalist groups .
Conservative Elizabeth Neumann , a former U.S. Department of Homeland Security official under Trump who has been active in the group Republican Voters Against Trump and has endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden for president , had been sharply critical of his treatment of the issue .
Neumann has stressed that Trump has spent way too much time talking about Antifa while downplaying the terrorist threat that white power groups pose .
And like Thompson , she would like to see an in-depth FBI report on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` I have no doubt the FBI is on top of any number of cases of this .
I have confidence that the FBI is likely to thwart a lot of these attempts . ''
Neumann and Miles Taylor — another conservative ex-DHS official who has been active in RVAT and is supporting Biden — both believe that white supremacist terrorism is n't a high priority for the Trump White House .
Taylor told the Beast , `` The bottom line from the White House was they did n't want us to talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that if we talked about right-wing extremism , we would alienate many of the president 's supporters . ''
According to Thomson , the Trump White House is putting the public at risk by downplaying the dangers of white supremacist and white nationalist terrorists .
The congressman told the Beast , `` The White House , members of Congress , other outside groups , are saying , 'These radical Muslim groups , these radical left-wing groups — we got ta do something about them . '
Well , it was clear that when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't the most dangerous , nor from a numerical standpoint — the statistics were going in the opposite direction .
We 're still having these incidents occur , but the ideology and the individuals perpetrating them lean more toward the right-wing philosophy .
And I think , when that hit , it kind of took the fire out of the domestic-terrorist conversation . ''

For decades, much of the right-wing media has emphasized the threat posed by violent Islamist extremists while downplaying the terrorist potential of far-right white supremacist and white nationalist groups. But that doesn't make the latter any less dangerous. And one Democratic congressman who is sounding the alarm is Mississippi's Rep. Bennie Thompson, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee and wants to know why an FBI report on white supremacists is four months late.
In an article published this week, journalist Spencer Ackerman — who specializes in national security matters for the Daily Beast — notes that the FBI "has failed to produce a legally required report detailing the scope of white supremacist and other domestic terrorism, despite mounting concerns that the upcoming election could spark far-right violence." That report was supposed to be released in June, and according to Ackerman, Thompson is demanding answers.
"I would hate to think that they are reacting to President Trump's machinations about his dislike for senior leadership in the FBI," Thompson told the Daily Beast. "This report probably would not be viewed favorably by this administration. That, I think, precipitates the report not being released by November 3."
Thompson told the Beast that the American public "needs to know who the real, documented terrorists in this country, based on the FBI's intelligence, really are…. I think (FBI Director Christopher Wray) understands that if he wades too far in the water around this subject, he might drown — or get fired, to be honest."
Trump has had a lot to say about antifa in recent months but precious little to say about white supremacist and white nationalist groups. Conservative Elizabeth Neumann, a former U.S. Department of Homeland Security official under Trump who has been active in the group Republican Voters Against Trump and has endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden for president, had been sharply critical of his treatment of the issue. Neumann has stressed that Trump has spent way too much time talking about Antifa while downplaying the terrorist threat that white power groups pose. And like Thompson, she would like to see an in-depth FBI report on the threat.
Neumann told the Beast, "I have no doubt the FBI is on top of any number of cases of this. I have confidence that the FBI is likely to thwart a lot of these attempts."
Neumann and Miles Taylor — another conservative ex-DHS official who has been active in RVAT and is supporting Biden — both believe that white supremacist terrorism isn't a high priority for the Trump White House. Taylor told the Beast, "The bottom line from the White House was they didn't want us to talk us about domestic terrorism because they worried that if we talked about right-wing extremism, we would alienate many of the president's supporters."
According to Thomson, the Trump White House is putting the public at risk by downplaying the dangers of white supremacist and white nationalist terrorists.
The congressman told the Beast, "The White House, members of Congress, other outside groups, are saying, 'These radical Muslim groups, these radical left-wing groups — we gotta do something about them.' Well, it was clear that when you talk to professionals, these weren't the most dangerous, nor from a numerical standpoint — the statistics were going in the opposite direction. We're still having these incidents occur, but the ideology and the individuals perpetrating them lean more toward the right-wing philosophy. And I think, when that hit, it kind of took the fire out of the domestic-terrorist conversation."


alternet--2020-10-26--The GOP under Trump now resembles authoritarian parties in Hungary and Turkey: study

Liberal democracies are n't necessarily replaced with authoritarian rule because of an armed coup d'état .
In some cases , critics of President Donald Trump have been warning , authoritarians will gradually undermine a country 's system of checks and balances — which is what those critics have accused Trump of trying to do .
And according to a new Swedish study , the Republican Party now resembles authoritarian parties in Turkey and Hungary .
The study was conducted by the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden , which compared political parties in a long list of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republican Party 's rhetoric now resembles authoritarian parties like AKP in Turkey and Fidesz in Hungary .
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán — both of whom Trump has praised — are two disturbing examples of authoritarians who were voted into office and have been attacking the checks and balances and democratic norms in their countries .
Journalist Julian Borger , discussing the study in The Guardian , notes that that V-Dem uses an `` illiberalism index '' that `` gauges the extent of commitment to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election '' — and Borger points out that the GOP has `` followed a similar trajectory to Fidesz , which under Viktor Orbán , has evolved from a liberal youth movement into an authoritarian party that has made Hungary the first non-democracy in the European Union . ''
According to Anna Lührmann , deputy director for V-Dem , the change in the GOP under Trump has been `` certainly the most dramatic shift in an established democracy '' — while the Democratic Party has changed little in its support of democratic norms .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an `` illiberal left '' and an `` illiberal right . ''
One of the worst offenders of the `` illiberal left , '' according to V-Dem , is Venezuela — while Hungary and Turkey are among the worst offenders on the `` illiberal right . ''
Meanwhile , conservative parties in Germany and Spain are listed as examples of the `` democratic right , '' while the Labour Party of the U.K. is cited as an example of the `` democratic left . ''
Borger notes that according to V-Dem , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pluralism , but it has gone a long way towards abandoning other democratic norms , becoming much more prone to disrespecting opponents and encouraging violence . ''
Borger quotes Lührmann as saying of the GOP , `` We 've seen similar shifts in parties in other countries where the quality of democracy has declined in recent years , where democracy has been eroding .
It fits very well into the pattern of parties that erode democracy once they 're in power…..
The demonization of opponents — that 's clearly a factor that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Republican Party , as well as the encouragement of political violence . ''
According to the V-Dem study , `` The data shows that the Republican Party , in 2018 , was far more illiberal than almost all other governing parties in democracies .
Only very few governing parties in democracies in this millennium , 15 % , were considered more illiberal than the Republican Party in the U.S. '' The bad news reported by V-Dem is n't limited to Turkey , Hungary and the U.S. by any means .
Borger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the majority — holding power in 92 countries , home to 54 % of the global population .
According to V-Dem 's benchmark , almost 35 % of the world 's population , 2.6 billion people , live in nations that are becoming more autocratic . ''

Liberal democracies aren't necessarily replaced with authoritarian rule because of an armed coup d'état. In some cases, critics of President Donald Trump have been warning, authoritarians will gradually undermine a country's system of checks and balances — which is what those critics have accused Trump of trying to do. And according to a new Swedish study, the Republican Party now resembles authoritarian parties in Turkey and Hungary.
The study was conducted by the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, which compared political parties in a long list of countries and found that under Trump, the Republican Party's rhetoric now resembles authoritarian parties like AKP in Turkey and Fidesz in Hungary. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán — both of whom Trump has praised — are two disturbing examples of authoritarians who were voted into office and have been attacking the checks and balances and democratic norms in their countries.
Journalist Julian Borger, discussing the study in The Guardian, notes that that V-Dem uses an "illiberalism index" that "gauges the extent of commitment to democratic norms a party exhibits before an election" — and Borger points out that the GOP has "followed a similar trajectory to Fidesz, which under Viktor Orbán, has evolved from a liberal youth movement into an authoritarian party that has made Hungary the first non-democracy in the European Union."
According to Anna Lührmann, deputy director for V-Dem, the change in the GOP under Trump has been "certainly the most dramatic shift in an established democracy" — while the Democratic Party has changed little in its support of democratic norms.
V-Dem's "illiberalism index" has an "illiberal left" and an "illiberal right." One of the worst offenders of the "illiberal left," according to V-Dem, is Venezuela — while Hungary and Turkey are among the worst offenders on the "illiberal right." Meanwhile, conservative parties in Germany and Spain are listed as examples of the "democratic right," while the Labour Party of the U.K. is cited as an example of the "democratic left."
Borger notes that according to V-Dem, the Republican Party "has remained relatively committed to pluralism, but it has gone a long way towards abandoning other democratic norms, becoming much more prone to disrespecting opponents and encouraging violence."
Borger quotes Lührmann as saying of the GOP, "We've seen similar shifts in parties in other countries where the quality of democracy has declined in recent years, where democracy has been eroding. It fits very well into the pattern of parties that erode democracy once they're in power….. The demonization of opponents — that's clearly a factor that has shifted a lot when it comes to the Republican Party, as well as the encouragement of political violence."
According to the V-Dem study, "The data shows that the Republican Party, in 2018, was far more illiberal than almost all other governing parties in democracies. Only very few governing parties in democracies in this millennium, 15%, were considered more illiberal than the Republican Party in the U.S."
The bad news reported by V-Dem isn't limited to Turkey, Hungary and the U.S. by any means. Borger points out that "autocracies are in the majority — holding power in 92 countries, home to 54% of the global population. According to V-Dem's benchmark, almost 35% of the world's population, 2.6 billion people, live in nations that are becoming more autocratic."


alternet--2020-10-26--Why the Republican Party wants to destroy labor unions

We are enmeshed in several `` existential crises '' that Trump and the Republicans have exacerbated – climate change ; threat of nuclear war ; US democracy ; and the Covid-19 pandemic .
However , there is at least one other `` existential crisis '' that is most often overlooked – the very existence of unions as an effective representative of working-class interests is at risk .
Trump and the Republicans have launched a broad offensive involving all three branches of government to undermine the legal and civil foundation of organized labor : the right to be represented by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , benefits , and working conditions .
Four more years of Trump could result in the utter demise of the labor movement and the immiseration of a large portion of workers while furthering the concentration of income , wealth and power among a corporate and billionaire elite .
This is not to say that Biden and the Democratic Party are the second coming of FDR and the New Deal .
However , Biden and the Democrats are not out to destroy unions and , at the very least , will blunt the corporate/Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Biden and the Democrats will enact pro-worker legislation to the degree that unions and progressive groups are mobilized and activated .
While the Democrats represent the possibility of pro-worker legislation especially if pushed by mass mobilization , Trump and the Republicans are out to destroy unions no matter what we do .
In a series of three articles , I will examine the anti-worker offensive launched by the Republican Party and President Trump as well as the alternative offered by the Democratic Party and Biden .
This first article will analyze the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a war against unions .
The second article will examine the two-pronged offensive launched by President Trump and the Republican Party against unions ; namely , stacking the deck by appointing proven anti-union ideologues to key positions and rigging the rules by enacting anti-union/pro-corporate policies .
The final article will describe Biden 's stated policy positions in relation to labor and propose a number of recommendations for union supporters to mobilize not only to defeat the anti-union Trump led Republican Party but also to ensure that a Biden administration follows through on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the attack on workers ' rights and the promotion of corporate power , they are in no way meant to take away from the importance of the other crises and issues we face – the struggle for workers ' rights is inextricably linked to the struggle for civil , human and economic rights ; a clean and healthy environment ; an equitable distribution of income , wealth and power ; and the creation of an effective and functioning democracy .
The GOP Wants to Destroy Unions The Republican Party has historically been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Since the New Deal , Republicans have consistently supported efforts to weaken unions by eliminating or eroding statutory protections for the right to organize and collectively bargain for better wages , benefits and working conditions .
Most famously , Republicans initiated and overwhelmingly supported the Taft Hartley Act which weakened unions by prohibiting many of the tactics that made unions formidable during the 1930s and 1940s .
President Reagan launched another attack against unions when he broke the air traffic controllers union ( PATCO ) during his first term and legitimized the use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ striking union workers .
As will be examined in the next article , President Trump and the current Republican Party have taken this anti-union crusade to new heights .
Big Business funds – and therefore controls - the Republican party .
According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics , big business invested $ 20.1 billion in federal campaign contributions from 1990 through the first half of 2020 .
Republicans received 57 % while Democrats received 43 % .
Business trade associations including the powerful US Chamber of Commerce gave 84 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just 16 % to Democrats .
A 2019 report examining the donations of the CEOs of the top 1,500 publicly traded companies from 2000-2017 found a strong bias in favor of Republicans : 57.7 % donated to Republicans , 18.6 % to Democrats , with the rest leaning toward neither party .
Even though big business does give billions of dollars to Democrats and thus has a lot of power within the Democratic Party , big business gives many billions more dollars to the Republican Party which it dominates .
Meanwhile , unions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign contributions from 1990 to 2020 – 91 % of which went to Democrats .
Big Business Wants to Destroy Unions – therefore , the Republican Party Acts to Destroy Unions .
Big business does not overwhelmingly fund the Republican party for altruistic reasons – there is a quid pro quo .
And part of the deal is that the Republican party must follow the lead of big business in opposing unions • Unions form the largest civil institution that serves the interests of working people .
According to the Bureau of Labor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or 11.6 % of the employed workforce in 2019 .
While this percentage is far lower than 1983 when unions represented 23.3 % of the workforce , it is still a very large block of voting age Americans with shared interests and organizational connections .
Union households represent an even larger share of the national electorate : according to CNN exit polls , union households represented 18 % of the national electorate in 2016 – and much larger shares of voters in key swing states such as 28 % of Michigan voters in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Big Business and oppose policies advocated by Big Business .
Unions have initiated and/or provided critical support – while Big Business and Republicans generally opposed - the eight-hour day , the five-day workweek , overtime , minimum wages , Social Security , Medicare , Medicaid , Obamacare , occupational safety and health regulations , paid family leave , the expansion of governmental programs aiding lower income workers and much more .
Unions also have strongly opposed many of the policies advocated by big business including tax cuts that disproportionately favor corporations and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worker , environmental and consumer protections ; the elimination of limits on the amount of legal campaign contributions by corporations and wealthy individuals ; the privatization of crucial government services and agencies such as social security , the post office , public education ; and much more • Unions force corporations to share some of their gains and power with workers .
Union-represented workers on average have higher wages and better benefits than non-union workers .
According to the BLS , among full-time wage and salary workers , union members had median weekly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while those who were not represented by unions had median weekly earnings of $ 892 .
Thus , union workers make almost $ 10,600 more a year than non-union workers .
Moreover , according to another BLS report , union represented workers have substantially greater access to health , pension , paid time off , and other benefits .
Corporations do not appreciate the higher wages and benefits obtained by union represented workers because they cut into profits , even though union workers are more productive than non-union workers .
But corporations really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ management power over the workplace .
For example , union represented workers obtain the contractual obligation of due process and just cause for discipline and firing .
Union workers have representation throughout a contractual process to determine whether an employer has just cause for discipline or firing .
Non-represented workers are `` at will '' and do not have such protections : they can be fired for basically any reason except those few instances protected by law such as race , gender , disability and religion • Unions reduce income inequality .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found that unions reduced income inequality in the United States , not just for union members but for the entire distribution of workers and wages .
An earlier study by sociologists Bruce Western and Jake Rosenfeld had a similar finding , that `` unions not only equalize union members ' wages , they also equalize the nonunion wage distribution by threatening union organization and buttressing norms for fair pay .
We found strong evidence that unionization rates in detailed industries for geographic regions are positively associated with wage equality among nonunion workers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to weaken the Democratic Party .
Obviously , the Republican Party competes with the Democrats for votes and thus positions of political power .
Consequently , Republicans will do all they can to weaken the Democrats which makes unions a prime target • Unions are a core constituency of the Democratic Party .
As previously mentioned , unions directed 91 % of their campaign contributions to Democrats from 1990 through the first half of 2020 .
In presidential elections , 60-66 % of union households have historically supported Democratic presidential candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % voted for Clinton while 42 % voted for Trump ( as compared to non-union households which voted 46 % for Clinton and 48 % for Trump ) .
Unions also supply thousands of volunteers to canvass neighborhoods and get out the vote .
These on-the-ground efforts are probably more important than labor 's direct cash contributions • Unions are a more powerful force for progressive policies than the Democratic Party .
A Nation article details research that shows the critical impact of unions on policy and the Democratic Party .
• Political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the strength of unions in particular states is a more powerful determinant of liberal policy than the power of the Democratic Party in those states .
• Political scientists Thomas Volscho and Nathan Kelly found that unions exert a more powerful influence on the share of income going to the 1 percent than does the share of Congress that is controlled by Democrats • Other research also suggests that unions increase voter turnout , and that this effect is strongest for workers of color .
More recent work on the impact of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy liberalism was muted in states with more powerful unions • By weakening unions through `` Right to Work '' laws , the Republican Party weakens the Democratic Party .
The Republican Party has championed Right to Work laws as a means to weaken labor unions .
Unions are required by law to collectively bargain for and represent all workers in their bargaining units whether they are members or not .
However , right to work laws prohibit unions from collecting payments from all these workers to help pay for the cost of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words , workers represented by unions can refuse to help pay for the costs the union incurs to represent them .
Union supporters call such workers `` free riders . ''
The clear intent of such laws is to reduce union revenue , the number of members and , thus , to weaken unions .
And that is exactly what happened .
For example , from 2012 ( the year before Right to Work was adopted in Michigan ) to 2019 , the 14 major public and private sector unions lost 130,000 members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and $ 20 million in revenue .
Wisconsin adopted a bill that significantly curtailed the collective bargaining rights of public sector workers in 2011 and adopted a right to work law in 2015 .
The combined impact of these laws has been significant : from 2010 to 2019 , Wisconsin union membership declined by 137,000 or 39 % .
But the impact was not just felt by unions .
A major study examined the impact of Right to Work laws not only on unions but also on the Democratic party : • There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US House , and Gubernatorial races , as well as on state legislative control • Turnout of union members is 2 to 3 percentage points lower in right-to-work counties after those laws pass • The share of blue-collar workers reporting a get-out-the-vote contact declines by 11 percent following the passage of right-to-work laws • Total campaign contributions from all unions falls by 2.5 to 3 points The 3.5 % reduction of union presidential votes probably cost Hillary Clinton the presidency : she lost Michigan by just 10,704 votes , a margin of just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 22,748 votes or a margin of just 0.7 % .
Republican party voters are primarily located in states with an anti-union history .
The strength of the Republican party is centered in states that have adopted anti-union policies such as the `` right to work '' laws described above .
It is no surprise that the Republican Party launched , and corporate donors funded a major effort to extend right to work laws to `` fair share '' states .
Since 2010 , six additional states controlled by Republicans passed Right to Work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ altogether .
These 27 states accounted for 83 % of the current crop of Republican senators ; 82 % of Trump 's total 2016 electoral college votes ; and almost 70 % of the total number of Republican representatives .
The Democratic Party Is Much Better on Labor Issues Than the Republican Party The Democratic Party is not a labor party .
Unions form an important constituency of the Democratic Party in terms of funding , voting and providing the volunteers needed for canvassing , phone banking and getting out the vote .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ importance of unions to the Democratic Party more than the Democratic Party .
And , Big Business provides billions of dollars in support to corporate Democrats – a significant source of Democratic funding though much less than the contributions to Republicans .
The importance of corporate money and influence has pushed many Democrats toward policies that aid corporations and hurt workers .
Two examples illustrate the power of corporations in the Democratic Party .
First , Presidents Carter , Clinton and Obama failed to prioritize labor law reforms that would have assisted unions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have strengthened the Democratic Party .
These bills failed because they were not prioritized by the Presidents and the Senate filibuster rule that gave outsized importance to Senators from anti-union , especially southern states .
Second , President Clinton pushed through NAFTA and the China trade deals that led to the combined loss of 4 million jobs – many of which were good union jobs .
Clinton was able to push these policies through Congress with the support of most Republicans and despite the opposition of most Democrats .
President Obama attempted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on steroids .
However , he was thwarted by opposition from labor , environmental , consumer , civil rights and religious groups – and most Democratic members of Congress .
However , despite all of that , a higher percentage of congressional Democrats are now more pro-union than ever .
This is the result of the extinction of anti-union/pro-segregation Southern Democrats who have now become Republicans and the expansion of voting rights to Black and Latinx citizens who are more pro-union .
Conversely , Democrats strengthened their hold in pro-union states as pro-union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for labor law reform has steadily increased among Congressional Democrats over time .
For example , Obama – despite the issues noted above – appointed very pro-union individuals to the NLRB who issued many pro-union rules .
Not one congressional Democrat supported the Republican led drive to roll back many of the new NLRB rules in 2015 when the Republicans controlled both the House and Senate .
This pro-union solidarity among Democrats prevented a Republican override of Obama 's veto of the legislation .
And when Republicans did roll back a number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both houses of Congress , not one Democrat supported the effort .
This entire trajectory was described in an interesting article by Nathan Newman who concluded , `` There is [ Democratic ] unity in defense of labor interests in the modern Democratic Party that was nowhere to be seen during the New Deal era . ''
Democrats , despite Republican opposition , were responsible for passage of civil rights , age discrimination , disability rights , pregnancy discrimination , occupational safety and health , and the Family and Medical Leave acts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ more labor-friendly than those in Republican controlled states .
The point here is not that the Democratic Party is a labor party – it is not .
And it is clear that our entire political system is dominated by corporate money .
However , it is also clear that Democrats are much more pro-worker than the Republican Party .
Indeed , as the next article will show – the Republican Party has launched an offensive to debilitate unions – an offensive led by President Trump , Republican majorities in the Senate and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states .
The Republican Party sees unions and their supporters as enemies to be politically and economically destroyed .
The Democratic Party will not destroy unions and actually provides the possibility to assist unions in representing the interests of working people .
Note to union supporters : act and vote accordingly .
Kenneth R. Peres retired as chief economist of the Communications Workers of America .
Formerly , he served as economist for the Northern Cheyenne Tribe , the Montana House Select Committee on Economic Development , and the Montana Alliance for Progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the University of Montana , St. John 's University , Chief Dull Knife College , and the City University of New York .
He obtained a PhD in economics from the New School in New York City .

We are enmeshed in several "existential crises" that Trump and the Republicans have exacerbated – climate change; threat of nuclear war; US democracy; and the Covid-19 pandemic. However, there is at least one other "existential crisis" that is most often overlooked – the very existence of unions as an effective representative of working-class interests is at risk. Trump and the Republicans have launched a broad offensive involving all three branches of government to undermine the legal and civil foundation of organized labor: the right to be represented by a union and to collectively bargain for wages, benefits, and working conditions.
Four more years of Trump could result in the utter demise of the labor movement and the immiseration of a large portion of workers while furthering the concentration of income, wealth and power among a corporate and billionaire elite. This is not to say that Biden and the Democratic Party are the second coming of FDR and the New Deal. However, Biden and the Democrats are not out to destroy unions and, at the very least, will blunt the corporate/Republican anti-union crusade. And, at best, Biden and the Democrats will enact pro-worker legislation to the degree that unions and progressive groups are mobilized and activated. While the Democrats represent the possibility of pro-worker legislation especially if pushed by mass mobilization, Trump and the Republicans are out to destroy unions no matter what we do.
In a series of three articles, I will examine the anti-worker offensive launched by the Republican Party and President Trump as well as the alternative offered by the Democratic Party and Biden. This first article will analyze the reasons why the Republican party has declared a war against unions. The second article will examine the two-pronged offensive launched by President Trump and the Republican Party against unions; namely, stacking the deck by appointing proven anti-union ideologues to key positions and rigging the rules by enacting anti-union/pro-corporate policies. The final article will describe Biden's stated policy positions in relation to labor and propose a number of recommendations for union supporters to mobilize not only to defeat the anti-union Trump led Republican Party but also to ensure that a Biden administration follows through on his pro-worker promises.
While these articles focus on the attack on workers' rights and the promotion of corporate power, they are in no way meant to take away from the importance of the other crises and issues we face – the struggle for workers' rights is inextricably linked to the struggle for civil, human and economic rights; a clean and healthy environment; an equitable distribution of income, wealth and power; and the creation of an effective and functioning democracy.
The GOP Wants to Destroy Unions
The Republican Party has historically been a bitter opponent of labor unions. Since the New Deal, Republicans have consistently supported efforts to weaken unions by eliminating or eroding statutory protections for the right to organize and collectively bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions. Most famously, Republicans initiated and overwhelmingly supported the Taft Hartley Act which weakened unions by prohibiting many of the tactics that made unions formidable during the 1930s and 1940s. President Reagan launched another attack against unions when he broke the air traffic controllers union (PATCO) during his first term and legitimized the use of non-union "permanent replacements" for striking union workers. As will be examined in the next article, President Trump and the current Republican Party have taken this anti-union crusade to new heights.
Big Business funds – and therefore controls - the Republican party. According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, big business invested $20.1 billion in federal campaign contributions from 1990 through the first half of 2020. Republicans received 57% while Democrats received 43%. Business trade associations including the powerful US Chamber of Commerce gave 84% of their campaign contributions to Republicans and just 16% to Democrats. A 2019 report examining the donations of the CEOs of the top 1,500 publicly traded companies from 2000-2017 found a strong bias in favor of Republicans: 57.7% donated to Republicans, 18.6% to Democrats, with the rest leaning toward neither party. Even though big business does give billions of dollars to Democrats and thus has a lot of power within the Democratic Party, big business gives many billions more dollars to the Republican Party which it dominates. Meanwhile, unions invested just $1.6 billion in total campaign contributions from 1990 to 2020 – 91% of which went to Democrats.
Big Business Wants to Destroy Unions – therefore, the Republican Party Acts to Destroy Unions. Big business does not overwhelmingly fund the Republican party for altruistic reasons – there is a quid pro quo. And part of the deal is that the Republican party must follow the lead of big business in opposing unions
Unions form the largest civil institution that serves the interests of working people. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unions represented 16.4 million workers or 11.6% of the employed workforce in 2019. While this percentage is far lower than 1983 when unions represented 23.3% of the workforce, it is still a very large block of voting age Americans with shared interests and organizational connections. Union households represent an even larger share of the national electorate: according to CNN exit polls, union households represented 18% of the national electorate in 2016 – and much larger shares of voters in key swing states such as 28% of Michigan voters in 2016
Unions advocate policies opposed by Big Business and oppose policies advocated by Big Business. Unions have initiated and/or provided critical support – while Big Business and Republicans generally opposed - the eight-hour day, the five-day workweek, overtime, minimum wages, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, occupational safety and health regulations, paid family leave, the expansion of governmental programs aiding lower income workers and much more. Unions also have strongly opposed many of the policies advocated by big business including tax cuts that disproportionately favor corporations and the wealthy; the elimination or erosion of worker, environmental and consumer protections; the elimination of limits on the amount of legal campaign contributions by corporations and wealthy individuals; the privatization of crucial government services and agencies such as social security, the post office, public education; and much more
Unions force corporations to share some of their gains and power with workers. Union-represented workers on average have higher wages and better benefits than non-union workers. According to the BLS, among full-time wage and salary workers, union members had median weekly earnings of $1,095 in 2019, while those who were not represented by unions had median weekly earnings of $892. Thus, union workers make almost $10,600 more a year than non-union workers. Moreover, according to another BLS report, union represented workers have substantially greater access to health, pension, paid time off, and other benefits. Corporations do not appreciate the higher wages and benefits obtained by union represented workers because they cut into profits, even though union workers are more productive than non-union workers. But corporations really do not like unions because they reduce management power over the workplace. For example, union represented workers obtain the contractual obligation of due process and just cause for discipline and firing. Union workers have representation throughout a contractual process to determine whether an employer has just cause for discipline or firing. Non-represented workers are "at will" and do not have such protections: they can be fired for basically any reason except those few instances protected by law such as race, gender, disability and religion
Unions reduce income inequality. A recent study by three Princeton University economists found that unions reduced income inequality in the United States, not just for union members but for the entire distribution of workers and wages. An earlier study by sociologists Bruce Western and Jake Rosenfeld had a similar finding, that "unions not only equalize union members' wages, they also equalize the nonunion wage distribution by threatening union organization and buttressing norms for fair pay. We found strong evidence that unionization rates in detailed industries for geographic regions are positively associated with wage equality among nonunion workers."
The Republican Party also opposes unions in order to weaken the Democratic Party. Obviously, the Republican Party competes with the Democrats for votes and thus positions of political power. Consequently, Republicans will do all they can to weaken the Democrats which makes unions a prime target
Unions are a core constituency of the Democratic Party. As previously mentioned, unions directed 91% of their campaign contributions to Democrats from 1990 through the first half of 2020. In presidential elections, 60-66% of union households have historically supported Democratic presidential candidates – except for 2016 when just 53% voted for Clinton while 42% voted for Trump (as compared to non-union households which voted 46% for Clinton and 48% for Trump). Unions also supply thousands of volunteers to canvass neighborhoods and get out the vote. These on-the-ground efforts are probably more important than labor's direct cash contributions
Unions are a more powerful force for progressive policies than the Democratic Party. A Nation article details research that shows the critical impact of unions on policy and the Democratic Party. • Political scientists Benjamin Radcliff and Martin Saiz found that the strength of unions in particular states is a more powerful determinant of liberal policy than the power of the Democratic Party in those states.
• Political scientists Thomas Volscho and Nathan Kelly found that unions exert a more powerful influence on the share of income going to the 1 percent than does the share of Congress that is controlled by Democrats
• Other research also suggests that unions increase voter turnout, and that this effect is strongest for workers of color. More recent work on the impact of Citizens United finds that its effect on policy liberalism was muted in states with more powerful unions
By weakening unions through "Right to Work" laws, the Republican Party weakens the Democratic Party. The Republican Party has championed Right to Work laws as a means to weaken labor unions. Unions are required by law to collectively bargain for and represent all workers in their bargaining units whether they are members or not. However, right to work laws prohibit unions from collecting payments from all these workers to help pay for the cost of bargaining and contract administration. In other words, workers represented by unions can refuse to help pay for the costs the union incurs to represent them. Union supporters call such workers "free riders." The clear intent of such laws is to reduce union revenue, the number of members and, thus, to weaken unions. And that is exactly what happened. For example, from 2012 (the year before Right to Work was adopted in Michigan) to 2019, the 14 major public and private sector unions lost 130,000 members (16% of their membership) and $20 million in revenue. Wisconsin adopted a bill that significantly curtailed the collective bargaining rights of public sector workers in 2011 and adopted a right to work law in 2015. The combined impact of these laws has been significant: from 2010 to 2019, Wisconsin union membership declined by 137,000 or 39%.
But the impact was not just felt by unions. A major study examined the impact of Right to Work laws not only on unions but also on the Democratic party:
Right-to-work laws reduce Democratic presidential vote shares by 3.5 percentage points.
There are similar effects in US Senate, US House, and Gubernatorial races, as well as on state legislative control
Turnout of union members is 2 to 3 percentage points lower in right-to-work counties after those laws pass
The share of blue-collar workers reporting a get-out-the-vote contact declines by 11 percent following the passage of right-to-work laws
Total campaign contributions from all unions falls by 2.5 to 3 points
The 3.5% reduction of union presidential votes probably cost Hillary Clinton the presidency: she lost Michigan by just 10,704 votes, a margin of just 0.23% and lost Wisconsin by just 22,748 votes or a margin of just 0.7%.
Republican party voters are primarily located in states with an anti-union history. The strength of the Republican party is centered in states that have adopted anti-union policies such as the "right to work" laws described above. It is no surprise that the Republican Party launched, and corporate donors funded a major effort to extend right to work laws to "fair share" states. Since 2010, six additional states controlled by Republicans passed Right to Work laws for a total of 27 states altogether. These 27 states accounted for 83% of the current crop of Republican senators; 82% of Trump's total 2016 electoral college votes; and almost 70% of the total number of Republican representatives.
The Democratic Party Is Much Better on Labor Issues Than the Republican Party
The Democratic Party is not a labor party. Unions form an important constituency of the Democratic Party in terms of funding, voting and providing the volunteers needed for canvassing, phone banking and getting out the vote. Ironically, the Republican Party recognizes the importance of unions to the Democratic Party more than the Democratic Party. And, Big Business provides billions of dollars in support to corporate Democrats – a significant source of Democratic funding though much less than the contributions to Republicans. The importance of corporate money and influence has pushed many Democrats toward policies that aid corporations and hurt workers. Two examples illustrate the power of corporations in the Democratic Party. First, Presidents Carter, Clinton and Obama failed to prioritize labor law reforms that would have assisted unions in their fight with corporations and would have strengthened the Democratic Party. These bills failed because they were not prioritized by the Presidents and the Senate filibuster rule that gave outsized importance to Senators from anti-union, especially southern states. Second, President Clinton pushed through NAFTA and the China trade deals that led to the combined loss of 4 million jobs – many of which were good union jobs. Clinton was able to push these policies through Congress with the support of most Republicans and despite the opposition of most Democrats. President Obama attempted to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership, called NAFTA on steroids. However, he was thwarted by opposition from labor, environmental, consumer, civil rights and religious groups – and most Democratic members of Congress.
However, despite all of that, a higher percentage of congressional Democrats are now more pro-union than ever. This is the result of the extinction of anti-union/pro-segregation Southern Democrats who have now become Republicans and the expansion of voting rights to Black and Latinx citizens who are more pro-union. Conversely, Democrats strengthened their hold in pro-union states as pro-union Republicans disappeared. Consequently, Democratic support for labor law reform has steadily increased among Congressional Democrats over time. For example, Obama – despite the issues noted above – appointed very pro-union individuals to the NLRB who issued many pro-union rules. Not one congressional Democrat supported the Republican led drive to roll back many of the new NLRB rules in 2015 when the Republicans controlled both the House and Senate. This pro-union solidarity among Democrats prevented a Republican override of Obama's veto of the legislation. And when Republicans did roll back a number of Obama era pro-labor rules when they controlled both houses of Congress, not one Democrat supported the effort. This entire trajectory was described in an interesting article by Nathan Newman who concluded, "There is [Democratic] unity in defense of labor interests in the modern Democratic Party that was nowhere to be seen during the New Deal era."
Democrats, despite Republican opposition, were responsible for passage of civil rights, age discrimination, disability rights, pregnancy discrimination, occupational safety and health, and the Family and Medical Leave acts. State laws in Democratic states are much more labor-friendly than those in Republican controlled states.
The point here is not that the Democratic Party is a labor party – it is not. And it is clear that our entire political system is dominated by corporate money. However, it is also clear that Democrats are much more pro-worker than the Republican Party. Indeed, as the next article will show – the Republican Party has launched an offensive to debilitate unions – an offensive led by President Trump, Republican majorities in the Senate and the federal judiciary and officials in Republican controlled states.
The Bottom Line
The Republican Party sees unions and their supporters as enemies to be politically and economically destroyed. The Democratic Party will not destroy unions and actually provides the possibility to assist unions in representing the interests of working people. Note to union supporters: act and vote accordingly.
Kenneth R. Peres retired as chief economist of the Communications Workers of America. Formerly, he served as economist for the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, the Montana House Select Committee on Economic Development, and the Montana Alliance for Progressive Policy. Ken has held teaching positions at the University of Montana, St. John's University, Chief Dull Knife College, and the City University of New York. He obtained a PhD in economics from the New School in New York City.


alternet--2020-10-26--Trump supporters really think he can't lose — and could turn dangerous if he does

One of the more interesting ( and somewhat confounding ) polling results in this election cycle has been the belief among members of both parties that Donald Trump will win re-election , regardless of who they 're actually planning to vote for .
His approval rating has been stuck in the low 40s throughout his term , which is unprecedented , and he 's been behind in the polls from the beginning of the campaign .
Yet most Americans still remain convinced that he is going to win .
This is from Gallup in early October : How can this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all depends on what the definition of `` win '' is .
The explanation for the Democrats and many Independents is obvious .
With all of Trump 's talk about mail-in voter fraud and lawsuits and promises of intimidation at the polls , they believe it 's possible that he will pull out all the stops to create or fake a victory regardless of the legitimate electoral outcome .
With his statements to the press that he wants the ninth Supreme Court seat filled in order to ensure a victory , it 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it could happen .
Meanwhile , the Republicans are living in an alternate universe in which Trump holds a massive lead in all the polls and is heading for a landslide .
They believe this because he tells them that every day .
It 's unlikely we will have full results on election night next week , since some states wo n't even begin counting mail-in votes until that day , while others allow ballots to arrive some time after Election Day .
There 's certainly the possibility of lawsuits if contests are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know the winner within a few days — Trump 's scenario that it could take `` months '' is hot air — and it 's worth pondering how the two sides will react .
According to this Reuters-Ipsos poll , more than four in 10 voters on either side will not accept the results of the election .
It does n't go into details , except to say that 22 % of Biden supporters and 16 % of Trump supporters say they would engage in street protests or violence if the other side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reasons that might happen .
Obviously , if Trump prevails there will be an uproar among Democrats despite the fact that a large number of them believe he 's going to win anyway .
But in the unlikely event that he wins outright without any legal shenanigans , partisan court victories , discarding of valid votes or intimidation at the polls , I suspect they will be even more shell-shocked than in 2016 , but will accept the outcome with depressed equanimity .
If they take to the streets under that circumstance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protest against pollsters for their overwhelming incompetence .
Joe Biden has had a steady and substantial lead in all the polls for months now .
On the other hand , if despite a clear defeat at the ballot box , Trump nonetheless finds a way to `` win '' through lawsuits decided by right-wing judges who throw out legal votes or takeovers by GOP state legislatures , there will be a massive outcry .
People understand that Republicans might try this , but that does n't mean they 'll stand for it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ face the worst constitutional crisis since the Civil War .
God help us if that comes to pass .
But what about Republicans ?
They 're already living in a miasma of disinformation , conspiracy theories and lies .
Alex Wagner of Showtime 's `` The Circus '' interviewed a bunch of fanatical Trump-supporting militia members and reported that for whatever reason they believe Trump will win in a landslide : Reporting from Trump rallies on cable news inevitably shows the same attitude even among the more mainstream voters .
Trump 's supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legitimately lose .
And why should they ?
Their Dear Leader — the only source of information they trust — has said so explicitly , over and over again .
In fact , that claim has already been institutionalized : Every single day , Trump is out on the campaign trail threatening to defy the election results .
His newest rationale ( one of many ) is that `` they spied on his campaign '' and he did n't get a `` friendly transition '' in 2016 , so he sees no reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : What this adds up to is this : if the polls are right and Biden wins the election by a healthy margin , Trump voters almost certainly wo n't accept the results .
Put yourself in their shoes and it is n't that hard .
Four years ago , a lot of Hillary Clinton voters felt as if they 'd had the wind knocked out of them by that shocking and unexpected result .
That 's what these Trump voters are going to feel , except that the dissonance will be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Trump landslide , and have been told by him that the only way he can possibly lose is through fraud on a massive scale .
The difference between then and now , of course , is that Clinton and Barack Obama and every Democratic official immediately accepted the results and their supporters largely agreed voters that Trump had won , at least under the antediluvian constitutional machinery of the Electoral College .
There is every reason to think that Trump will do quite the opposite , and I 'm afraid there 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upon Republican officials to step up and do the right thing .
And there 's that undeniable pall that hangs over the whole process , with the possibility that well-armed Trump supporters who have been told they simply can not lose the election will try to take matters into their own hands .
After all , some militia-style goons have already plotted to kidnap and `` try '' Democratic officials for `` treason . ''
We ca n't predict how far they 'll be willing to go if their world is turned upside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shortly after the election in 2016 , I wrote a column about the `` sore winner '' syndrome , in which angry Trump supporters were assaulting Democrats and screaming at them on the streets , even though their guy had won the election .
This reflects a longstanding attitude among this political faction in which it 's never enough to win by normal means — they ca n't be happy about until they force their rivals to admit they were wrong and offer an unconditional surrender .
Imagine what these people might do @ @ @ @

One of the more interesting (and somewhat confounding) polling results in this election cycle has been the belief among members of both parties that Donald Trump will win re-election, regardless of who they're actually planning to vote for. His approval rating has been stuck in the low 40s throughout his term, which is unprecedented, and he's been behind in the polls from the beginning of the campaign. Yet most Americans still remain convinced that he is going to win. This is from Gallup in early October:
Regardless of whom they personally support, 56% of Americans expect Trump to prevail over Biden in the November election, while 40% think Biden will win. Republicans are more likely to believe Trump will win (90%) than Democrats are to think Biden will (73%). Fifty-six percent of independents predict that Trump will win.
How can this be? Well, of course it all depends on what the definition of "win" is.
The explanation for the Democrats and many Independents is obvious. With all of Trump's talk about mail-in voter fraud and lawsuits and promises of intimidation at the polls, they believe it's possible that he will pull out all the stops to create or fake a victory regardless of the legitimate electoral outcome. With his statements to the press that he wants the ninth Supreme Court seat filled in order to ensure a victory, it's not being all that paranoid to assume it could happen.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are living in an alternate universe in which Trump holds a massive lead in all the polls and is heading for a landslide. They believe this because he tells them that every day.
It's unlikely we will have full results on election night next week, since some states won't even begin counting mail-in votes until that day, while others allow ballots to arrive some time after Election Day. There's certainly the possibility of lawsuits if contests are close. Nonetheless, we will probably know the winner within a few days — Trump's scenario that it could take "months" is hot air — and it's worth pondering how the two sides will react.
According to this Reuters-Ipsos poll, more than four in 10 voters on either side will not accept the results of the election. It doesn't go into details, except to say that 22% of Biden supporters and 16% of Trump supporters say they would engage in street protests or violence if the other side prevailed. But let's look at the reasons that might happen.
Obviously, if Trump prevails there will be an uproar among Democrats despite the fact that a large number of them believe he's going to win anyway. But in the unlikely event that he wins outright without any legal shenanigans, partisan court victories, discarding of valid votes or intimidation at the polls, I suspect they will be even more shell-shocked than in 2016, but will accept the outcome with depressed equanimity. If they take to the streets under that circumstance, it might be to stage a protest against pollsters for their overwhelming incompetence. Joe Biden has had a steady and substantial lead in all the polls for months now.
On the other hand, if despite a clear defeat at the ballot box, Trump nonetheless finds a way to "win" through lawsuits decided by right-wing judges who throw out legal votes or takeovers by GOP state legislatures, there will be a massive outcry. People understand that Republicans might try this, but that doesn't mean they'll stand for it. In that scenario, our nation would face the worst constitutional crisis since the Civil War. God help us if that comes to pass.
But what about Republicans? They're already living in a miasma of disinformation, conspiracy theories and lies. Alex Wagner of Showtime's "The Circus" interviewed a bunch of fanatical Trump-supporting militia members and reported that for whatever reason they believe Trump will win in a landslide:
Reporting from Trump rallies on cable news inevitably shows the same attitude even among the more mainstream voters. Trump's supporters simply do not believe that he can legitimately lose. And why should they? Their Dear Leader — the only source of information they trust — has said so explicitly, over and over again. In fact, that claim has already been institutionalized:
Multiple social media analyses, including one conducted by a group of nonprofit researchers on behalf of NBC News, have detailed how a collection of the president's relatives and members of his inner circle, along with far-right media manipulators and an online army of disciples, has created or spread false or misleading content that supports his "rigged" narrative, while his campaign is urging supporters to join an "army" and "defend their vote."
Every single day, Trump is out on the campaign trail threatening to defy the election results. His newest rationale (one of many) is that "they spied on his campaign" and he didn't get a "friendly transition" in 2016, so he sees no reason to give the Democrats one in 2020:
What this adds up to is this: if the polls are right and Biden wins the election by a healthy margin, Trump voters almost certainly won't accept the results. Put yourself in their shoes and it isn't that hard. Four years ago, a lot of Hillary Clinton voters felt as if they'd had the wind knocked out of them by that shocking and unexpected result. That's what these Trump voters are going to feel, except that the dissonance will be a thousand times worse. They are expecting a Trump landslide, and have been told by him that the only way he can possibly lose is through fraud on a massive scale.
The difference between then and now, of course, is that Clinton and Barack Obama and every Democratic official immediately accepted the results and their supporters largely agreed voters that Trump had won, at least under the antediluvian constitutional machinery of the Electoral College. There is every reason to think that Trump will do quite the opposite, and I'm afraid there's no reason to believe we can depend upon Republican officials to step up and do the right thing.
And there's that undeniable pall that hangs over the whole process, with the possibility that well-armed Trump supporters who have been told they simply cannot lose the election will try to take matters into their own hands. After all, some militia-style goons have already plotted to kidnap and "try" Democratic officials for "treason." We can't predict how far they'll be willing to go if their world is turned upside down by an unexpected electoral defeat.
Shortly after the election in 2016, I wrote a column about the "sore winner" syndrome, in which angry Trump supporters were assaulting Democrats and screaming at them on the streets, even though their guy had won the election. This reflects a longstanding attitude among this political faction in which it's never enough to win by normal means — they can't be happy about until they force their rivals to admit they were wrong and offer an unconditional surrender.
Imagine what these people might do when they lose.