alternet--2020-10-29--The scary truth is many Senate Democrats share Amy Coney Barrett's corporate agenda

This story was produce by The Reader .
On March 16 , 2016 , President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland for the U.S. Supreme Court to succeed Antonin Scalia , who had died one month earlier .
But Senate Republicans blocked his nomination on the grounds that it was too close to the presidential election , which was then seven months away .
Four and a half years later , President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to succeed the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court .
Although Barrett 's nomination was made just over one month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears to be losing ) , she was confirmed .
The Democrats claimed to be united in their opposition to Barrett 's confirmation .
Yet their resistance to having a justice rammed through at the 11th hour of a lame duck presidency feels like the resistance that the Washington Generals used to show against the Harlem Globetrotters .
That is , pure theater in which the outcome is never in doubt .
What this tells us is that the corporate donors who control the Democratic Party are happy with a Justice Barrett .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she has ruled consistently in favor of corporations .
Just weeks before her nomination to the high court , Judge Barrett delivered a key ruling blocking many gig workers from suing in court when tech companies cheat them out of overtime pay .
This and other business-friendly rulings are why corporations have given millions to groups such as the Judicial Crisis Network and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to campaign for Barrett 's appointment to the court .
Barrett also belongs to the business-backed Federalist Society and will join five other Federalists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between Democrats and Republicans on issues like abortion and gay rights are important to be sure .
But the areas of agreement between the two parties—both parties favor the interests of corporations over their workers and the environment—are also important .
And these issues do n't get discussed because there is no disagreement .
It is just accepted by both parties that a lawyer must be business-friendly to qualify for a federal judgeship .
In a true representative democracy , a lawyer should not have to demonstrate her fealty to corporate power to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of corporate America are closely aligned with only a small fraction of Americans : the investor class .
Most of our interests are more closely aligned with those of workers and consumers .
There are scores of talented lawyers who go to top law schools but do not go to work at corporate firms .
Many of these lawyers devote their careers to representing ordinary people , often taking on the most powerful interests in industry and in government .
These pro-people lawyers should also have a place on the federal courts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ who distinguished himself representing victims of racial injustice before being nominated by President John F. Kennedy for a federal judgeship , and later to the Supreme Court .
Marshall would never get on the court today .
Without a track record of pro-corporate advocacy , the donors would reject him .
Some lawyers distinguish themselves by taking on powerful corporations that harm ordinary people through negligence or deliberate malfeasance , such as the lawyers who took on a power company 's illegal dumping of toxic waste portrayed in the movie Erin Brockovich .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ resourcefulness , and integrity in fighting powerful and ruthless corporations .
Probably the most successful lawyer ever in taking on the criminal acts of massive corporations is Steven Donziger .
Donziger graduated from Harvard Law School , worked as a public defender in Washington , D.C. , and in 1993 agreed to represent a group of 30,000 Indigenous people and villagers in Ecuador who had been deliberately poisoned by Chevron , one of the world 's largest corporations with over $ 260 billion in assets .
Beginning in 1964 , Chevron ( then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To save about $ 3 per barrel of oil produced , the company decided to ignore waste regulations and dump some 16 billion gallons of toxic wastewater into rivers and pits , polluting groundwater and farmland , and destroying a large section of the Ecuadorian Amazon in what came to be called the `` Amazon Chernobyl '' by locals and experts .
Local drinking water became noxious , and citizens became ill .
This has all been confirmed by courts in Ecuador after an eight-year trial , the submission of 105 technical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnesses .
`` I did not set out to be an environmental lawyer , '' Donziger recently told Greenpeace .
`` I simply agreed to seek a remedy for 30,000 victims for the destruction of their lands and water ; to seek care for the health impacts including birth defects , leukemia , and other cancers ; and to help them restore their Amazon ecosystem and basic dignity . ''
Donziger made more than 250 trips to Ecuador over the next two decades as he led the legal fight against Chevron .
Then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secured a $ 9.5 billion judgment on behalf of the victims .
The trial court decision was affirmed on the merits or for enforcement by multiple appellate courts in Ecuador and Canada , including the supreme courts of both countries .
Chevron refused to pay .
During the trial , it threatened the affected communities with a `` lifetime of litigation . ''
Afterwards , Chevron engaged a team of 2,000 corporate lawyers from at least 60 firms to retaliate against Donziger and the lead plaintiffs in the case , filing a barrage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Participation ) and RICO ( Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ) suits , legal tools used—and abused—by large companies to punish people who take them to court .
Chevron 's vile and cynical legal strategy—designed to avoid paying compensation to the Indigenous people whose lives it deliberately destroyed to earn an extra $ 5 billion over 20 years—could not succeed without a federal judiciary populated by corporate-friendly judges willing to bend the law to protect corporate profits .
Chevron 's RICO suit against Donziger was filed in the Southern District of New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case was presided over by U.S. district Judge Lewis Kaplan who , before being appointed to the bench by former President Bill Clinton , a Democrat , spent decades as a corporate lawyer representing tobacco companies and banks .
The record of the RICO case shows that Chevron paid a disgraced former Ecuadoran judge named Alberto Guerra about $ 2 million to testify that the verdict in Ecuador was the product of a bribe .
Chevron 's cash payments to Guerra should have disqualified him as a witness .
Moreover , Guerra admitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international proceeding .
Nevertheless , after denying Donziger his right to a jury trial , Judge Kaplan found that Guerra 's story was credible .
Judge Kaplan later charged Donziger with criminal contempt , but the New York prosecutor 's office refused to take the case .
In a rare legal move , Kaplan then appointed a private corporate law firm ( that also represents Chevron ) to prosecute Donziger .
Kaplan personally assigned Judge Loretta Preska , a member of the corporatist Federalist Society , to hear the case .
Preska placed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passport .
I reached Donziger by phone at his apartment in Manhattan , where he lives with his wife and teenage son .
He says that his contempt trial before Judge Preska is scheduled for November 4 , the day after the election .
He is again being denied a jury trial .
Some 29 Nobel laureates , including nine Peace Prize winners , have signed a letter declaring that Chevron 's legal assault on Donziger is `` one of the most egregious cases of judicial harassment and defamation '' ever seen .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyers and bar associations who wrote an open letter outlining his wrongful detention and mistreatment by U.S. judicial authorities .
Donziger 's story is also a story about the sad condition of the U.S. court system which , like the other two branches of our government , primarily serves the interests of the wealthy .
On this topic , I strongly recommend a new book by Ronald Goldfarb called The Price of Justice .
Although the Democrats will do nothing to stop Barrett 's nomination to the Supreme Court , their leader , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected , he would establish a bipartisan commission to study whether to expand the courts to achieve greater balance .
We recall from history class that President Franklin D. Roosevelt also threatened , in 1937 , to add enough liberal justices to the court to protect his programs from the `` obstructionist '' conservatives .
The key difference then was that FDR had an agenda of bold programs to pull the country out of the Great Depression , such as putting Americans to work building post offices , bridges , schools , highways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labor unions ; and ending alcohol prohibition .
The Democrats of today , however , are offering nothing but a promise to wear a face mask and to not send mean tweets at 3 a.m. , while Joe Biden assured his wealthy donors at a New York fundraiser that `` nothing would fundamentally change '' if he is elected president .
Even a Supreme Court packed with Republicans is likely to go along with that agenda .
Click here for the defense fund established on Donziger 's behalf .
Leonard C. Goodman is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the newly independent Reader .

This story was produce by The Reader.
On March 16, 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland for the U.S. Supreme Court to succeed Antonin Scalia, who had died one month earlier. But Senate Republicans blocked his nomination on the grounds that it was too close to the presidential election, which was then seven months away. Four and a half years later, President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to succeed the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. Although Barrett's nomination was made just over one month from the presidential election (which Trump appears to be losing), she was confirmed.
The Democrats claimed to be united in their opposition to Barrett's confirmation. Yet their resistance to having a justice rammed through at the 11th hour of a lame duck presidency feels like the resistance that the Washington Generals used to show against the Harlem Globetrotters. That is, pure theater in which the outcome is never in doubt.
What this tells us is that the corporate donors who control the Democratic Party are happy with a Justice Barrett. In her short time on the bench, she has ruled consistently in favor of corporations. Just weeks before her nomination to the high court, Judge Barrett delivered a key ruling blocking many gig workers from suing in court when tech companies cheat them out of overtime pay. This and other business-friendly rulings are why corporations have given millions to groups such as the Judicial Crisis Network and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to campaign for Barrett's appointment to the court. Barrett also belongs to the business-backed Federalist Society and will join five other Federalists on the Supreme Court.
The differences between Democrats and Republicans on issues like abortion and gay rights are important to be sure. But the areas of agreement between the two parties—both parties favor the interests of corporations over their workers and the environment—are also important. And these issues don't get discussed because there is no disagreement. It is just accepted by both parties that a lawyer must be business-friendly to qualify for a federal judgeship.
In a true representative democracy, a lawyer should not have to demonstrate her fealty to corporate power to become a federal judge. The interests of corporate America are closely aligned with only a small fraction of Americans: the investor class. Most of our interests are more closely aligned with those of workers and consumers. There are scores of talented lawyers who go to top law schools but do not go to work at corporate firms. Many of these lawyers devote their careers to representing ordinary people, often taking on the most powerful interests in industry and in government. These pro-people lawyers should also have a place on the federal courts.
Thurgood Marshall was a civil rights activist who distinguished himself representing victims of racial injustice before being nominated by President John F. Kennedy for a federal judgeship, and later to the Supreme Court. Marshall would never get on the court today. Without a track record of pro-corporate advocacy, the donors would reject him.
Some lawyers distinguish themselves by taking on powerful corporations that harm ordinary people through negligence or deliberate malfeasance, such as the lawyers who took on a power company's illegal dumping of toxic waste portrayed in the movie Erin Brockovich. These lawyers often exhibit great skill, resourcefulness, and integrity in fighting powerful and ruthless corporations.
Probably the most successful lawyer ever in taking on the criminal acts of massive corporations is Steven Donziger. Donziger graduated from Harvard Law School, worked as a public defender in Washington, D.C., and in 1993 agreed to represent a group of 30,000 Indigenous people and villagers in Ecuador who had been deliberately poisoned by Chevron, one of the world's largest corporations with over $260 billion in assets.
Beginning in 1964, Chevron (then Texaco) began extracting oil in Ecuador. To save about $3 per barrel of oil produced, the company decided to ignore waste regulations and dump some 16 billion gallons of toxic wastewater into rivers and pits, polluting groundwater and farmland, and destroying a large section of the Ecuadorian Amazon in what came to be called the "Amazon Chernobyl" by locals and experts. Local drinking water became noxious, and citizens became ill. This has all been confirmed by courts in Ecuador after an eight-year trial, the submission of 105 technical evidentiary reports, and testimony from numerous witnesses.
"I did not set out to be an environmental lawyer," Donziger recently told Greenpeace. "I simply agreed to seek a remedy for 30,000 victims for the destruction of their lands and water; to seek care for the health impacts including birth defects, leukemia, and other cancers; and to help them restore their Amazon ecosystem and basic dignity."
Donziger made more than 250 trips to Ecuador over the next two decades as he led the legal fight against Chevron. Then in 2011, Donziger and his team secured a $9.5 billion judgment on behalf of the victims. The trial court decision was affirmed on the merits or for enforcement by multiple appellate courts in Ecuador and Canada, including the supreme courts of both countries.
Chevron refused to pay. During the trial, it threatened the affected communities with a "lifetime of litigation." Afterwards, Chevron engaged a team of 2,000 corporate lawyers from at least 60 firms to retaliate against Donziger and the lead plaintiffs in the case, filing a barrage of SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) and RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) suits, legal tools used—and abused—by large companies to punish people who take them to court.
Chevron's vile and cynical legal strategy—designed to avoid paying compensation to the Indigenous people whose lives it deliberately destroyed to earn an extra $5 billion over 20 years—could not succeed without a federal judiciary populated by corporate-friendly judges willing to bend the law to protect corporate profits.
Chevron's RICO suit against Donziger was filed in the Southern District of New York, a Wall Street-friendly court. The case was presided over by U.S. district Judge Lewis Kaplan who, before being appointed to the bench by former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, spent decades as a corporate lawyer representing tobacco companies and banks. The record of the RICO case shows that Chevron paid a disgraced former Ecuadoran judge named Alberto Guerra about $2 million to testify that the verdict in Ecuador was the product of a bribe. Chevron's cash payments to Guerra should have disqualified him as a witness. Moreover, Guerra admitted to lying about the bribe in another international proceeding. Nevertheless, after denying Donziger his right to a jury trial, Judge Kaplan found that Guerra's story was credible.
Judge Kaplan later charged Donziger with criminal contempt, but the New York prosecutor's office refused to take the case. In a rare legal move, Kaplan then appointed a private corporate law firm (that also represents Chevron) to prosecute Donziger. Kaplan personally assigned Judge Loretta Preska, a member of the corporatist Federalist Society, to hear the case. Preska placed Donziger under house arrest and confiscated his passport.
I reached Donziger by phone at his apartment in Manhattan, where he lives with his wife and teenage son. He says that his contempt trial before Judge Preska is scheduled for November 4, the day after the election. He is again being denied a jury trial.
Some 29 Nobel laureates, including nine Peace Prize winners, have signed a letter declaring that Chevron's legal assault on Donziger is "one of the most egregious cases of judicial harassment and defamation" ever seen. He has also been backed by 475 lawyers and bar associations who wrote an open letter outlining his wrongful detention and mistreatment by U.S. judicial authorities.
Donziger's story is also a story about the sad condition of the U.S. court system which, like the other two branches of our government, primarily serves the interests of the wealthy. On this topic, I strongly recommend a new book by Ronald Goldfarb called The Price of Justice.
Although the Democrats will do nothing to stop Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court, their leader, Joe Biden, has pledged that if elected, he would establish a bipartisan commission to study whether to expand the courts to achieve greater balance.
We recall from history class that President Franklin D. Roosevelt also threatened, in 1937, to add enough liberal justices to the court to protect his programs from the "obstructionist" conservatives. The key difference then was that FDR had an agenda of bold programs to pull the country out of the Great Depression, such as putting Americans to work building post offices, bridges, schools, highways, and parks; supporting farmers and labor unions; and ending alcohol prohibition.
The Democrats of today, however, are offering nothing but a promise to wear a face mask and to not send mean tweets at 3 a.m., while Joe Biden assured his wealthy donors at a New York fundraiser that "nothing would fundamentally change" if he is elected president. Even a Supreme Court packed with Republicans is likely to go along with that agenda.
Click here for the defense fund established on Donziger's behalf.
Leonard C. Goodman is a Chicago criminal defense attorney and co-owner of the newly independent Reader.


alternet--2020-10-29--Trump is closing out the campaign by showing complete contempt for his own supporters

Sen. Martha McSally , an Arizona Republican , has paid her bootlicking dues .
She 's repeatedly gone out of her way to show obeisance to Donald Trump , most famously in January when she yelled `` liberal hack '' repeatedly at a CNN reporter who asked her if the Senate should consider evidence before rushing to acquit Trump during his impeachment trial .
But despite years of bowing and scraping and , of course , voting to acquit Trump despite his obvious guilt , McSally has earned no loyalty in return from her orange master .
She 's in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kelly , a Democrat , and has consistently trailed in the polls .
At a recent Arizona rally , Trump did n't bother to hide his disdain for McSally 's standard political desire to address her own potential voters .
`` Martha , just come up fast .
Fast .
Fast .
Come on .
Quick , '' Trump barked at her .
`` You got one minute !
One minute , Martha !
They do n't want to hear this , Martha .
Come on .
Let 's go .
Quick , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Let 's go . ''
It was clear that , as always , Trump resents every moment when the spotlight 's not on him , even in the context of helping a sycophant .
That moment went viral , since cringeworthy is the emotional fuel of the internet .
It also illustrated of one of the most frustrating aspects of Trumpism : Trump treats his own supporters as a pack of morons , but they do n't seem to mind and keep on adoring him anyway .
This was most profoundly demonstrated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Erie , Pennsylvania , last week , when Trump complained to the crowd about the indignity of even having to visit their city .
`` Martha , just come up fast .
Fast .
Fast .
Come on .
Quick , '' Trump barked at her .
`` You got one minute !
One minute , Martha !
They do n't want to hear this , Martha .
Come on .
Let 's go .
Quick , quick , quick .
Come on .
Let 's go . ''
It was clear that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment when the spotlight 's not on him , even in the context of helping a sycophant .
That moment went viral , since cringeworthy is the emotional fuel of the internet .
It also illustrated of one of the most frustrating aspects of Trumpism : Trump treats his own supporters as a pack of morons , but they do n't seem to mind and keep on adoring him anyway .
This was most profoundly demonstrated by a bizarre video from a rally in Erie , Pennsylvania , last week , when Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of even having to visit their city .
It 's such a weird reaction that CNN host Don Lemon aired a supercut of Trump complaining at various rallies that he did n't even want to be there .
`` I may never have to come back here again if I do n't get Iowa , '' Trump told a crowd in Des Moines .
This bit , which he repeats ad nauseam , is Trump 's apparent closing argument : Since he lowered himself to speak directly to the hoi polloi , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him .
In order for the joke to work , you have to accept Trump 's premise that his supporters are scum and he taints himself by having to speak to them .
Despite Trump 's insistence that he hates holding his rallies , of course , the truth is that he 's hopelessly addicted to them and their main purpose to feed his ego .
They probably are n't helping his campaign .
As Susan Milligan at U.S. News and World report pointed out this week , polling suggests that `` voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump 's largely maskless , packed rallies . ''
Trump sees his own supporters as dupes .
He revels in their adoration , but ca n't even pretend to return the feeling .
Being a sociopathic bully , he revels in rubbing their noses in the fact that he sees them as idiots .
A recent incident in Omaha , Nebraska , became an almost too-perfect symbol of this relationship between Trump and his supporters .
Buses that were supposed to come pick up supporters after a rally failed to materialize , leaving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elderly — stranded in the cold .
They had to walk long distances back to their cars , and multiple people were taken to the hospital after exposure to the freezing temperatures .
That Trump loathes his own fans is n't a great mystery .
As The Atlantic dutifully reported in two articles in September , Trump routinely makes fun of Christian conservatives behind their backs and called fallen soldiers `` suckers '' and `` losers . ''
All we need is a story about him making fun of dumb cops and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the constituent groups that are the most faithfully Republican .
The irony of this is that the right-wing media has stoked their audience 's hatred for liberal voters , Democratic politicians and mainstream journalists for decades by claiming that such people are a `` liberal elite '' who look down their noses at `` ordinary Americans , '' especially conservatives .
Night after night , Fox News solemnly declares that its audience is victimized endlessly by this supposed snobbery , even though there 's usually little or no evidence to make the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative victimization permeated Republican talking points during the Amy Coney Barrett hearing , with one GOP politician after another feigning outrage at the imaginary attacks on Barrett for being a devout Catholic and having a big family , without producing a shred of evidence that any such attacks had ever happened .
While the evidence of liberal contempt for conservatives is thin on the ground , the evidence of Trump 's contempt for his own supporters is delivered to us via firehose .
He insults his voters right to their faces .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He cares so little for his most fervent supporters that he repeatedly imperils their health with his rallies , not to mention the Barrett nomination party at the White House that led to more than two dozen Republicans getting sick with COVID-19 .
Trump gets away with this because Republicans have treating their own people like a bunch of suckers for years , which is why right wing media is awash in conspiracy theories and snake-oil salesmen .
They get away with it because their marks always assume , like good marks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the con , and that somebody else is the sucker .
So when Trump insults his own voters right to their faces , telling them they live in some Podunk burg he hoped he 'd never have to visit again , many in the crowd are thinking , `` He 's not talking about me , but these other yahoos . ''
In truth , those folks are the biggest suckers of all , imagining that they 're the exception to Trump universal contempt .
He really does see his supporters as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it and voting for him anyway , they 're only confirming his worst assumptions .

Sen. Martha McSally, an Arizona Republican, has paid her bootlicking dues. She's repeatedly gone out of her way to show obeisance to Donald Trump, most famously in January when she yelled "liberal hack" repeatedly at a CNN reporter who asked her if the Senate should consider evidence before rushing to acquit Trump during his impeachment trial.
But despite years of bowing and scraping and, of course, voting to acquit Trump despite his obvious guilt, McSally has earned no loyalty in return from her orange master. She's in a tough race against former astronaut Mark Kelly, a Democrat, and has consistently trailed in the polls. At a recent Arizona rally, Trump didn't bother to hide his disdain for McSally's standard political desire to address her own potential voters.
"Martha, just come up fast. Fast. Fast. Come on. Quick," Trump barked at her. "You got one minute! One minute, Martha! They don't want to hear this, Martha. Come on. Let's go. Quick, quick, quick. Come on. Let's go." It was clear that, as always, Trump resents every moment when the spotlight's not on him, even in the context of helping a sycophant.
That moment went viral, since cringeworthy is the emotional fuel of the internet. It also illustrated of one of the most frustrating aspects of Trumpism: Trump treats his own supporters as a pack of morons, but they don't seem to mind and keep on adoring him anyway.
This was most profoundly demonstrated by a bizarre video from a rally in Erie, Pennsylvania, last week, when Trump complained to the crowd about the indignity of even having to visit their city.
"Martha, just come up fast. Fast. Fast. Come on. Quick," Trump barked at her. "You got one minute! One minute, Martha! They don't want to hear this, Martha. Come on. Let's go. Quick, quick, quick. Come on. Let's go." It was clear that, as always, Trump resents every moment when the spotlight's not on him, even in the context of helping a sycophant.
That moment went viral, since cringeworthy is the emotional fuel of the internet. It also illustrated of one of the most frustrating aspects of Trumpism: Trump treats his own supporters as a pack of morons, but they don't seem to mind and keep on adoring him anyway.
This was most profoundly demonstrated by a bizarre video from a rally in Erie, Pennsylvania, last week, when Trump complained to the crowd about the indignity of even having to visit their city.
It's such a weird reaction that CNN host Don Lemon aired a supercut of Trump complaining at various rallies that he didn't even want to be there.
"I may never have to come back here again if I don't get Iowa," Trump told a crowd in Des Moines.
This bit, which he repeats ad nauseam, is Trump's apparent closing argument: Since he lowered himself to speak directly to the hoi polloi, the least they can do is vote for him. In order for the joke to work, you have to accept Trump's premise that his supporters are scum and he taints himself by having to speak to them.
Despite Trump's insistence that he hates holding his rallies, of course, the truth is that he's hopelessly addicted to them and their main purpose to feed his ego. They probably aren't helping his campaign.
As Susan Milligan at U.S. News and World report pointed out this week, polling suggests that "voters in battleground states do not approve of Trump's largely maskless, packed rallies."
Trump sees his own supporters as dupes. He revels in their adoration, but can't even pretend to return the feeling. Being a sociopathic bully, he revels in rubbing their noses in the fact that he sees them as idiots.
A recent incident in Omaha, Nebraska, became an almost too-perfect symbol of this relationship between Trump and his supporters. Buses that were supposed to come pick up supporters after a rally failed to materialize, leaving hundreds of people — many of them elderly — stranded in the cold. They had to walk long distances back to their cars, and multiple people were taken to the hospital after exposure to the freezing temperatures.
That Trump loathes his own fans isn't a great mystery. As The Atlantic dutifully reported in two articles in September, Trump routinely makes fun of Christian conservatives behind their backs and called fallen soldiers "suckers" and "losers." All we need is a story about him making fun of dumb cops and we've hit the trifecta of Trump mocking the constituent groups that are the most faithfully Republican.
The irony of this is that the right-wing media has stoked their audience's hatred for liberal voters, Democratic politicians and mainstream journalists for decades by claiming that such people are a "liberal elite" who look down their noses at "ordinary Americans," especially conservatives. Night after night, Fox News solemnly declares that its audience is victimized endlessly by this supposed snobbery, even though there's usually little or no evidence to make the case. This narrative of liberal contempt and conservative victimization permeated Republican talking points during the Amy Coney Barrett hearing, with one GOP politician after another feigning outrage at the imaginary attacks on Barrett for being a devout Catholic and having a big family, without producing a shred of evidence that any such attacks had ever happened.
While the evidence of liberal contempt for conservatives is thin on the ground, the evidence of Trump's contempt for his own supporters is delivered to us via firehose. He insults his voters right to their faces. He sneers at Republican politicians who support him. He cares so little for his most fervent supporters that he repeatedly imperils their health with his rallies, not to mention the Barrett nomination party at the White House that led to more than two dozen Republicans getting sick with COVID-19.
Trump gets away with this because Republicans have treating their own people like a bunch of suckers for years, which is why right wing media is awash in conspiracy theories and snake-oil salesmen. They get away with it because their marks always assume, like good marks should, that they're in on the con, and that somebody else is the sucker. So when Trump insults his own voters right to their faces, telling them they live in some Podunk burg he hoped he'd never have to visit again, many in the crowd are thinking, "He's not talking about me, but these other yahoos."
In truth, those folks are the biggest suckers of all, imagining that they're the exception to Trump universal contempt. He really does see his supporters as a herd of gullible idiots. By swallowing it and voting for him anyway, they're only confirming his worst assumptions.


alternet--2020-10-29--A misconception about coronavirus immunity completely changes the rules of the pandemic

The popular conception of a `` vaccine '' is that it is an inoculation that makes you immune to a pathogen — if not for life , at least for a very long time .
On that principal , much of the world 's hope for a return to a pre-pandemic normalcy has rested on a vaccine for the novel coronavirus , the cause of COVID-19 .
Yet that common conception of how vaccines work , it turns out , is n't entirely accurate .
The reason relates to two concepts — `` transient immunity '' and `` durable immunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to understanding how the pandemic will finally end .
Currently , we do n't know for certain which category the novel coronavirus falls into — although mounting evidence suggests that immunity against it wo n't last .
Indeed , there are multiple cases of patients who have contracted the virus multiple times within a few months .
While they could be outliers with poor immune systems , the more cases of re-infection that emerge suggest not .
But there 's one more catch : Vaccines can actually confer different types of immunity than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposed to short-term .
From a global public health standpoint , you can see how returning to any sense of normalcy depends on our understanding of coronavirus immunity .
In other words , does coronavirus immunity last a lifetime , a year , or as short as a few months ?
Do those who have been infected already need a vaccine , or are they already immune ?
It does n't help that the science is constantly shifting on this , and month-to-month , scientific studies have slightly different conclusions .
As Salon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research currently suggests that immunity is n't lifelong like the measles .
However , it 's hard to know how long immunity lasts because it 's such a new virus , but here is everything that scientists currently know .
There are myriad ways the human body can fight off a viral infection .
Dr. Charles Chiu , a professor of infectious diseases at the University of California–San Francisco , pointed Salon to three specific ones : passive immunity , neutralizing antibody immunity , and active immunity .
`` The idea is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infection from the novel SARS-CoV-2 , is that patients who have intact or healthy immune systems will mount an immune response , '' Dr. Charles Chiu , a professor of infectious diseases at the University of California–San Francisco , told Salon .
This , he said , is known as `` passive immunity . ''
`` That 's really antibody-centered , '' Chiu said .
`` The idea is that the B cells , which are white blood cells in your blood , will react to the virus , and will produce antibodies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , can be used one of two different ways .
One way is that the antibodies will be `` neutralizing '' and bind to the virus .
Hence , the name , these antibodies will `` neutralize , '' or inactivate , the coronavirus .
This is called `` neutralizing antibody immunity . ''
`` The idea is that if you 're immune , if there 's a next time and you are reinfected , then those antibodies are already circulating and present in your blood and they will neutralize the virus immediately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you will , you 'll be less likely or you will not be reinfected . ''
However , not all antibodies are neutralizing .
Chiu pointed to HIV ( human immunodeficiency virus ) as an example of a virus that creates antibodies that are n't neutralizing .
`` You will make antibodies in response to a viral infection , but you may not necessarily make neutralizing antibodies that will prevent you from getting reinfected , '' Chiu noted .
Then , there 's `` active immunity , '' which is another type of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ type of white blood cells , T cells .
`` T cells will actively react to [ the virus ] , they 're memory T cells that sort of remember when you 've been infected before , '' Chiu said .
`` If you get exposed again , those T cells will then kick in and help to prevent you from getting reinfected . ''
Immunologists are trying to figure out whether novel coronavirus infection confers durable immunity or transient immunity .
These terms refer to the strength and period of the type @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the antibodies made due to a viral infection are durable , that means immunity is long-lasting .
If they 're transient , that means they only last a short while .
As mentioned above , mounting evidence suggests that immunity to the novel coronavirus is transient .
But just how transient ?
We do n't know , but there is more evidence every week .
In September , researchers published a study in the scientific journal Nature Medicine suggesting that people who contract the novel coronavirus and then become immune may stay that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on studying four different seasonal coronaviruses .
However , as Chiu noted there are a couple of differences between the novel coronavirus ( SARS-CoV-2 ) and the seasonal ones .
One is that they 've been around longer , meaning they 're more diverse because they 've had more time to mutate .
`` It has n't had the time to mutate widely and to become very divergent , '' Chiu said .
`` And what that means is that it 's possible that vaccines that are directed specifically against SARS-CoV-2 are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 're more likely to last longer and be effective longer , perhaps because there 's less divergence within this particular strain versus the other seasonal coronaviruses . ''
What does this mean for COVID-19 ?
There have been several studies on antibodies and SARS-CoV-2 .
In one study , researchers tracked COVID-19 patients over time and found that the amount of their antibodies peaked following the onset of symptoms and then began to decline .
For some study participants , the antibodies were almost all undetectable within three months .
A more recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar trend .
But as Nature explained in an article , it could just take minute numbers of antibodies to prevent a reinfection and fight off the coronavirus again .
Most importantly , however , vaccines can confer different types of immunity than actually contracting the virus .
Indeed , immunologists note that a vaccine could have durable immunity even if the natural response is transient .
`` The vaccine does n't have to mimic or mirror the natural infection , '' Shane Crotty , a virologist at the La Jolla Institute for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Immunologists have been pointing to the human papillomavirus ( HPV ) as an example of a virus that has a poor immune response and weak antibodies , but a durable vaccine immune response that lasts for at least a decade .
Considering that the coronavirus likely has transient immunity , this would make it harder for countries and cities to achieve herd immunity through letting the virus spread .
`` It really depends on how transient it is , and how rapidly we can really ramp up to be able to vaccinate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ develop herd immunity , '' Chiu said , adding that vaccine hesitancy is another barrier if the coronavirus vaccine requires multiple doses to be effective .
`` We already have issues right now with adherence to the flu vaccine , and there 's no reason to think that it 's going to be different . ''
That means that humanity 's best bet for achieving durable immunity is still through a vaccine .
Relying on a strategy of waiting for herd immunity to be achieved is `` flawed , '' according to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in The Lancet .
`` There is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection , and the endemic transmission that would be the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future , '' the researchers wrote .
`` Such a strategy would not end the COVID-19 pandemic but result in recurrent epidemics , as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination . ''
In other words , political leaders who have pinned hopes of defeating the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fail , but will needlessly kill their citizens in the process .
President Donald Trump as well as UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson have both touted a strategy of achieving herd immunity through deliberate public health inaction in order to let the virus run its course through citizens .

The popular conception of a "vaccine" is that it is an inoculation that makes you immune to a pathogen — if not for life, at least for a very long time. On that principal, much of the world's hope for a return to a pre-pandemic normalcy has rested on a vaccine for the novel coronavirus, the cause of COVID-19.
Yet that common conception of how vaccines work, it turns out, isn't entirely accurate. The reason relates to two concepts — "transient immunity" and "durable immunity." Understanding these are the key to understanding how the pandemic will finally end.
Currently, we don't know for certain which category the novel coronavirus falls into — although mounting evidence suggests that immunity against it won't last. Indeed, there are multiple cases of patients who have contracted the virus multiple times within a few months. While they could be outliers with poor immune systems, the more cases of re-infection that emerge suggest not.
But there's one more catch: Vaccines can actually confer different types of immunity than infections can — say, long-term as opposed to short-term.
From a global public health standpoint, you can see how returning to any sense of normalcy depends on our understanding of coronavirus immunity. In other words, does coronavirus immunity last a lifetime, a year, or as short as a few months? Do those who have been infected already need a vaccine, or are they already immune?
It doesn't help that the science is constantly shifting on this, and month-to-month, scientific studies have slightly different conclusions. As Salon has previously reported, the data and research currently suggests that immunity isn't lifelong like the measles. However, it's hard to know how long immunity lasts because it's such a new virus, but here is everything that scientists currently know.
First, let's talk about immunity
There are myriad ways the human body can fight off a viral infection. Dr. Charles Chiu, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of California–San Francisco, pointed Salon to three specific ones: passive immunity, neutralizing antibody immunity, and active immunity.
"The idea is that with any viral infection, including an infection from the novel SARS-CoV-2, is that patients who have intact or healthy immune systems will mount an immune response," Dr. Charles Chiu, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of California–San Francisco, told Salon. This, he said, is known as "passive immunity."
"That's really antibody-centered," Chiu said. "The idea is that the B cells, which are white blood cells in your blood, will react to the virus, and will produce antibodies."
These antibodies, Chiu said, can be used one of two different ways. One way is that the antibodies will be "neutralizing" and bind to the virus. Hence, the name, these antibodies will "neutralize," or inactivate, the coronavirus. This is called "neutralizing antibody immunity."
"The idea is that if you're immune, if there's a next time and you are reinfected, then those antibodies are already circulating and present in your blood and they will neutralize the virus immediately," Chiu explained. "So you will, you'll be less likely or you will not be reinfected."
However, not all antibodies are neutralizing. Chiu pointed to HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) as an example of a virus that creates antibodies that aren't neutralizing.
"You will make antibodies in response to a viral infection, but you may not necessarily make neutralizing antibodies that will prevent you from getting reinfected," Chiu noted.
Then, there's "active immunity," which is another type of immune response that's mediated by another type of white blood cells, T cells.
"T cells will actively react to [the virus], they're memory T cells that sort of remember when you've been infected before," Chiu said. "If you get exposed again, those T cells will then kick in and help to prevent you from getting reinfected."
Understanding "durable" and "transient" immunity
Immunologists are trying to figure out whether novel coronavirus infection confers durable immunity or transient immunity. These terms refer to the strength and period of the type of immunity. For example, if the antibodies made due to a viral infection are durable, that means immunity is long-lasting. If they're transient, that means they only last a short while.
As mentioned above, mounting evidence suggests that immunity to the novel coronavirus is transient. But just how transient? We don't know, but there is more evidence every week. In September, researchers published a study in the scientific journal Nature Medicine suggesting that people who contract the novel coronavirus and then become immune may stay that way for up to twelve months, based on studying four different seasonal coronaviruses.
However, as Chiu noted there are a couple of differences between the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and the seasonal ones. One is that they've been around longer, meaning they're more diverse because they've had more time to mutate.
"It hasn't had the time to mutate widely and to become very divergent," Chiu said. "And what that means is that it's possible that vaccines that are directed specifically against SARS-CoV-2 are more likely to be durable; they're more likely to last longer and be effective longer, perhaps because there's less divergence within this particular strain versus the other seasonal coronaviruses."
What does this mean for COVID-19?
There have been several studies on antibodies and SARS-CoV-2. In one study, researchers tracked COVID-19 patients over time and found that the amount of their antibodies peaked following the onset of symptoms and then began to decline. For some study participants, the antibodies were almost all undetectable within three months. A more recent study of patients in Britain showed a similar trend. But as Nature explained in an article, it could just take minute numbers of antibodies to prevent a reinfection and fight off the coronavirus again.
Most importantly, however, vaccines can confer different types of immunity than actually contracting the virus. Indeed, immunologists note that a vaccine could have durable immunity even if the natural response is transient.
"The vaccine doesn't have to mimic or mirror the natural infection," Shane Crotty, a virologist at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, told the New York Times.
Immunologists have been pointing to the human papillomavirus (HPV) as an example of a virus that has a poor immune response and weak antibodies, but a durable vaccine immune response that lasts for at least a decade.
Considering that the coronavirus likely has transient immunity, this would make it harder for countries and cities to achieve herd immunity through letting the virus spread.
"It really depends on how transient it is, and how rapidly we can really ramp up to be able to vaccinate a sufficient proportion of the population to develop herd immunity," Chiu said, adding that vaccine hesitancy is another barrier if the coronavirus vaccine requires multiple doses to be effective. "We already have issues right now with adherence to the flu vaccine, and there's no reason to think that it's going to be different."
That means that humanity's best bet for achieving durable immunity is still through a vaccine. Relying on a strategy of waiting for herd immunity to be achieved is "flawed," according to a paper by a group of researchers published in The Lancet.
"There is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection, and the endemic transmission that would be the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future," the researchers wrote. "Such a strategy would not end the COVID-19 pandemic but result in recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination."
In other words, political leaders who have pinned hopes of defeating the virus on achieving herd immunity will not only fail, but will needlessly kill their citizens in the process. President Donald Trump as well as UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson have both touted a strategy of achieving herd immunity through deliberate public health inaction in order to let the virus run its course through citizens.


alternet--2020-10-29--Why we're obsessed with election polls

Why we're obsessed with election polls

The Republican pollster Frank Luntz warned on Twitter and elsewhere the other day that if preelection polls in this year 's presidential race are embarrassingly wrong again , “ then the polling industry is done . ''
It was quite the forecast .
While it is possible the polls will misfire , it 's exceedingly unlikely that such failure would cause the opinion research industry to implode or wither away .
One reason is that election polls represent a sliver of a well-established , multibillion-dollar industry that conducts innumerable surveys on policy issues , consumer product preferences and other nonelection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vulnerable to election polling failure , the field likely would have disintegrated long ago , after the successive embarrassments of 1948 and 1952 .
In 1948 , pollsters confidently – but wrongly – predicted Thomas E. Dewey would easily unseat President Harry Truman .
In 1952 , pollsters turned cautious and anticipated a close race between Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson .
Eisenhower won in a landslide that no pollster foresaw .
“ Predictive failure , '' I note in my latest book , “ Lost in a Gallup : Polling Failure in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has not killed off election polling . ''
So what , then , accounts for its tenacity and resilience ?
Why are election polls still with us , despite periodic flubs , fiascoes and miscalls ?
Why , indeed , are many Americans so intrigued by election polling , especially during presidential campaigns ?
The reasons are several , and not surprisingly tied to deep currents in American life .
They embrace – but go well beyond – a simplistic explanation that people want to know what 's going to happen .
Patrick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jimmy Carter , spoke to that tendency years ago , saying , “ Everyone follows polls because everything in American life is geared to the question of who 's going to win – whether it 's sports or politics or whatever .
There 's a natural curiosity . ''
More substantively , election polling projects the sense , or illusion , of precision , which holds considerable appeal in troubled times .
A hunger for certainty runs deep , especially in journalism , where reporters frequently encounter ambiguity and evasion .
Since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The New York Times and CBS News have conducted or commissioned their own election polls .
And reports of crude preelection polls have been found in American newspapers published as long ago as 1824 .
These days , polls guide , drive and help fix news media narratives about presidential elections .
They are critical to shaping conventional wisdom about the competitiveness of those races .
But polls have an uneven record in modern presidential elections – which , paradoxically , has contributed to their resilience .
Americans are mostly oblivious to that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the “ Dewey defeats Truman '' debacle of 1948 .
And they may recall that election polls in 2016 veered off target in key Midwestern states , disrupting expectations that Hillary Clinton would win the presidency .
But other cases , such as the unforeseen landslide of 1952 or the close election that was n't in 1980 , are not often recalled .
So polling is at least somewhat shielded from reproach by unfamiliarity with its uneven performance record over time .
Of course , election polls are not always in error @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is another value in American life .
You want polls ?
RealClearPolitics has polls .
Analogies from the sporting world further help to explain polling 's tenacity .
Election polling , and its emphasis on who 's ahead and who 's sinking , long has been likened to a horse race – a metaphor not always agreeable to pollsters .
Archibald Crossley , a pioneer of modern opinion research , revealed as much before the debacle of 1948 , in a letter to his friend and rival pollster , George Gallup .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Crossley wrote , “ that polls are still thought of as horse-race predictions , and it seems to me that we might be able to do something jointly to prevent such a reputation . ''
Crossley 's “ distinct impression '' endures .
Polls , and the coverage of polls , still invite comparisons to the horse race .
A better analogy , perhaps , is that polling resembles a high-wire act .
A presidential election plays out over many months , typically to growing attention and building anticipation .
Whether pollsters will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inevitably becomes a bit of mild election drama itself .
When forecasts go awry , as they did in 2016 , astonishment inevitably follows .
For example , Nate Silver , the data journalist who founded the FiveThirtyEight.com polling-analysis and predictions site , said Donald Trump 's victory was , broadly speaking , “ the most shocking political development of my lifetime . ''
In 1940 , Gallup crowed about the accuracy of its polling in an ad in the newspaper industry publication Editor & Publisher .
Many pollsters insist that election polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they do n't much mind crowing when their final surveys come close to estimating the outcome .
An example of pollster braggadocio came a month after the 2016 presidential election , when Rasmussen Reports declared that it had said all along “ it was a much closer race than most other pollsters predicted .
We were n't surprised Election Night … look who came in second out of 11 top pollsters who surveyed the four-way race . ''
George Gallup did much the same in the early years of modern survey research , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ & Publisher trade journal to tout polling successes in presidential races in 1940 and 1944 .
“ The Gallup Poll Sets a New Record for Election Accuracy ! ''
one of those ads proclaimed .
[ Get our most insightful politics and election stories .
Sign up for The Conversation 's Politics Weekly . ]
The proliferation of surveys over the years – Nate Silver 's site provides ratings of dozens of pollsters – also allows a sort of team-sport approach to election polls : Savvy consumers can identify and follow preferred pollsters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this is necessarily advisable , but it is an option allowed by the abundance of polls , many of which can be routinely tracked in the runup to elections at RealClearPolitics.com .
So , for example , supporters of Donald Trump may take heart from Rasmussen surveys , which have been far more favorable to the president during the 2020 campaign than , say , polls conducted for CNN .
Polling , fundamentally , is an imperfect attempt at providing insight and explanation .
The desire for insight and explanation is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls endure despite their flaws and failures .
They surely will remain features of American life , no matter how next week 's election turns out .
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

by W. Joseph Campbell, American University School of Communication
The Republican pollster Frank Luntz warned on Twitter and elsewhere the other day that if preelection polls in this year's presidential race are embarrassingly wrong again, “then the polling industry is done."
It was quite the forecast.
While it is possible the polls will misfire, it's exceedingly unlikely that such failure would cause the opinion research industry to implode or wither away. One reason is that election polls represent a sliver of a well-established, multibillion-dollar industry that conducts innumerable surveys on policy issues, consumer product preferences and other nonelection topics.
If opinion research were so vulnerable to election polling failure, the field likely would have disintegrated long ago, after the successive embarrassments of 1948 and 1952. In 1948, pollsters confidently – but wrongly – predicted Thomas E. Dewey would easily unseat President Harry Truman. In 1952, pollsters turned cautious and anticipated a close race between Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson. Eisenhower won in a landslide that no pollster foresaw.
“Predictive failure," I note in my latest book, “Lost in a Gallup: Polling Failure in U.S. Presidential Elections," clearly “has not killed off election polling."
So what, then, accounts for its tenacity and resilience? Why are election polls still with us, despite periodic flubs, fiascoes and miscalls? Why, indeed, are many Americans so intrigued by election polling, especially during presidential campaigns?
Illusion of precision
The reasons are several, and not surprisingly tied to deep currents in American life. They embrace – but go well beyond – a simplistic explanation that people want to know what's going to happen.
Patrick Caddell, the private pollster for President Jimmy Carter, spoke to that tendency years ago, saying, “Everyone follows polls because everything in American life is geared to the question of who's going to win – whether it's sports or politics or whatever. There's a natural curiosity."
More substantively, election polling projects the sense, or illusion, of precision, which holds considerable appeal in troubled times.
A hunger for certainty runs deep, especially in journalism, where reporters frequently encounter ambiguity and evasion. Since the mid-1970s, large news organizations such as The New York Times and CBS News have conducted or commissioned their own election polls. And reports of crude preelection polls have been found in American newspapers published as long ago as 1824.
These days, polls guide, drive and help fix news media narratives about presidential elections. They are critical to shaping conventional wisdom about the competitiveness of those races.
Public ignorant of polling flubs
But polls have an uneven record in modern presidential elections – which, paradoxically, has contributed to their resilience.
Americans are mostly oblivious to that record. They may be vaguely familiar with the “Dewey defeats Truman" debacle of 1948. And they may recall that election polls in 2016 veered off target in key Midwestern states, disrupting expectations that Hillary Clinton would win the presidency.
But other cases, such as the unforeseen landslide of 1952 or the close election that wasn't in 1980, are not often recalled. So polling is at least somewhat shielded from reproach by unfamiliarity with its uneven performance record over time.
Of course, election polls are not always in error. They can redeem themselves, which is another value in American life.
You want polls? RealClearPolitics has polls.
RealClearPolitics.com
Horse races to high wires
Analogies from the sporting world further help to explain polling's tenacity.
Election polling, and its emphasis on who's ahead and who's sinking, long has been likened to a horse race – a metaphor not always agreeable to pollsters. Archibald Crossley, a pioneer of modern opinion research, revealed as much before the debacle of 1948, in a letter to his friend and rival pollster, George Gallup.
“I have a distinct impression," Crossley wrote, “that polls are still thought of as horse-race predictions, and it seems to me that we might be able to do something jointly to prevent such a reputation."
Crossley's “distinct impression" endures. Polls, and the coverage of polls, still invite comparisons to the horse race.
A better analogy, perhaps, is that polling resembles a high-wire act. A presidential election plays out over many months, typically to growing attention and building anticipation. Whether pollsters will slip up and fail in their estimates inevitably becomes a bit of mild election drama itself.
When forecasts go awry, as they did in 2016, astonishment inevitably follows. For example, Nate Silver, the data journalist who founded the FiveThirtyEight.com polling-analysis and predictions site, said Donald Trump's victory was, broadly speaking, “the most shocking political development of my lifetime."
In 1940, Gallup crowed about the accuracy of its polling in an ad in the newspaper industry publication Editor & Publisher.
Screenshot, Editor & Publisher, 11/9/1940
Many pollsters insist that election polls are snapshots, not prophesies. But they don't much mind crowing when their final surveys come close to estimating the outcome.
An example of pollster braggadocio came a month after the 2016 presidential election, when Rasmussen Reports declared that it had said all along “it was a much closer race than most other pollsters predicted. We weren't surprised Election Night … look who came in second out of 11 top pollsters who surveyed the four-way race."
George Gallup did much the same in the early years of modern survey research, taking out self-congratultory advertisements in the Editor & Publisher trade journal to tout polling successes in presidential races in 1940 and 1944. “The Gallup Poll Sets a New Record for Election Accuracy!" one of those ads proclaimed.
[Get our most insightful politics and election stories.Sign up for The Conversation's Politics Weekly.]
Which polls to follow?
The proliferation of surveys over the years – Nate Silver's site provides ratings of dozens of pollsters – also allows a sort of team-sport approach to election polls: Savvy consumers can identify and follow preferred pollsters and mostly ignore the rest. Not that this is necessarily advisable, but it is an option allowed by the abundance of polls, many of which can be routinely tracked in the runup to elections at RealClearPolitics.com.
So, for example, supporters of Donald Trump may take heart from Rasmussen surveys, which have been far more favorable to the president during the 2020 campaign than, say, polls conducted for CNN.
Polling, fundamentally, is an imperfect attempt at providing insight and explanation. The desire for insight and explanation is, of course, never ending, so polls endure despite their flaws and failures. They surely will remain features of American life, no matter how next week's election turns out.
W. Joseph Campbell, Professor of Communication Studies, American University School of Communication
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


alternet--2020-10-29--Here's the truth about the recent latest cyberattacks targeting the U.S. election

Two weeks before Election Day , cybersecurity threats and related disinformation originating overseas and targeting the 2020 election briefly were front-page news .
Threatening emails to voters supporting Democrats were purportedly sent by the Proud Boys , a pro-Trump white nationalist group .
State voter registration databases in Alaska and Florida were purportedly breached , and videos containing non-public voter information were posted online .
As federal agencies blamed Iran and Russia , an anxious electorate faced more worries .
`` Sad but true , bad actors continue their attempts to undermine confidence in the election , now w/ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency ( CISA ) director , in one `` Rumor Control '' post on October 21 .
`` Stay calm and vote on . ''
The incidents—which were described , deconstructed , and debunked in non-technical terms in a Stanford Internet Observatory report issued two days later—came in the same week that the U.S. passed the 50 million mark for ballots already cast .
The attacks may have been headline news , but they did not dent record turnout .
Their false claims were swiftly outed and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Of course when it comes to spreading false information , the Russians have plenty of help from the President and his media allies , '' wrote longtime journalist Nina Burleigh on Deep State blog , which monitors the world 's intelligence agencies , launching its series on foreign interference in the 2020 election .
Nonetheless , top federal officials who are allies of the president said the alleged Proud Boy emails and purloined voter registration data were concrete evidence of Russian and Iranian attempts to influence the 2020 election in its final weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with murky accusations , the Stanford researchers—who include some of Silicon Valley 's foremost cybersecurity experts—concluded that no election data or computer systems had been breached .
Instead , the propagandists—and the researchers found no trace of Iranian involvement—fabricated content to fuel the impression that the 2020 nationwide election can not be trusted .
`` This series of events represents an active measures campaign intended to create the perception of a massive vulnerability in the U.S. election system that does not exist , and possibly to drive tension in the United States through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' the report 's summation began .
`` Every conclusion that the creators of these emails and video wanted Americans to leave with are false : • These intimidating emails were not sent by the Proud Boys • Voting continues to be private , safe and secure , and there is no mechanism by which an outside actor can determine the vote of an individual and later threaten them • The video does not portray a SQL injection attack against the Alaskan or Floridian voter registration systems • There is no widespread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FWAB [ overseas and military absentee ballot ] system • Such a conspiracy could not succeed '' Another part of the analysis said , `` We can not provide independent attribution to the Islamic Republic of Iran , '' which contradicted claims made by federal agencies .
The emergence of foreign-based threats that triggered high-profile news coverage but apparently had little impact on election infrastructure did not escape notice .
`` [ I ] s this all they 've got ? ''
wrote ElectionLawBlog founder Rick Hasen .
`` Why are n't the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2020 elections to benefit Trump ? ''
`` The people behind this campaign were effective , however , in drawing attention to themselves and to their capability to create disinformation , '' Stanford 's report said .
`` The rapid reaction of government and civil society to these incidents has blunted the capability of these actors to spread their false claims .
Our hope is , now that the video and emails have been thoroughly debunked , that media coverage of this disinformation is measured and that future attempts to imply hacking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unearned amplification or credence . ''
What was notable about the Stanford Internet Observatory report was that its tone was neither alarmist nor dismissive .
It was a sober assessment that threats , foreign and domestic , to disrupt the legitimacy of the 2020 election do exist .
But , thus far , the foreign-based threats have not overwhelmed the system .
The voter data in the alleged attacks—such as partial Social Security numbers of Alaska voters—might not have come from hacking into a state voter database , as an online video claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come from stolen credit bureau data marketed on the dark web , the Stanford analysts said .
What was of more concern , however , was that someone took the time to fashion that data into a falsified claim that voting infrastructure was easily breached .
`` Releasing voter information and claiming it was hacked , as the newly-released video does , is not a new tactic , '' the analysts said .
`` Early last month , for example , claims spread by Russian media outlet Kommersant reported that Michigan 's voter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forum .
EIP [ Election Integrity Partnership ] researchers verified that the data available for download matched Michigan 's public records , and state officials confirmed that the voter data is publicly available to anyone through a Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA ) request .
Similar claims circulated recently with voter data from Florida being posted on a Russian hacking forum .
Again , EIP verified that the data schema matched what is made public by the state . ''
These efforts to create and spread false claims about voting and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of media and partisan propaganda , which was not the same sphere as where elections are conducted .
The world of running elections resembles an assembly line , where voters and ballots are methodically processed .
Since 2016 , state and county election officials have taken many steps to monitor cyber attacks in real time and to harden their data and related computer systems , starting with voter registration files , said a former top state election official who spoke on background .
In addition to using sensors to detect intrusions and quickly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ access to voter data was limited , he said , even if some of that data was publicly available .
Voter data was also backed up daily , he said , just as software was regularly updated with security patches .
Voter data was separated from vote-counting systems , he said .
What was of more concern to him than claiming to meddle with registration data was the prospect of foreign agents infiltrating the private vendors who work for counties and states to `` host and post '' their election night results .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a threat .
Many election officials recall how the Democratic Party 's 2020 Iowa Caucus results were delayed for a day due to an app and system failure , creating much consternation including the mainstream media 's inability to explain the delay and urge the public to wait .
The New York Times recently noted that county election offices could be targets of ransomware , where systems are frozen until bounties were paid .
That prospect was raised in an October 26 briefing by ex-Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Microsoft had just obtained a court order to disable a ransomware network , Chertoff said .
There are other potential worries .
In many primary states debuting new voting systems before the pandemic struck in March , electronic poll books—which help voters check in at precincts—kept losing their online link to state voter databases .
The spotty connectivity affected numerous California counties .
Election officials in Georgia and South Carolina reported similar issues during October 's early voting .
Should that issue recur or a ransomware threat emerge on November 3 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of voter rolls to precincts , experts have said .
Another point of vulnerability is the cellular modems that connect precinct ballot scanners to a central tabulator to report the election night 's vote totals .
Ion Sancho , the former supervisor of elections ( SOE ) in Leon County , Florida , recently wrote a letter noting this concern to Florida 's SOEs and urging them to make other plans .
`` [ T ] he ideal solution is to remove your central tabulator from the internet completely and to not use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying there were other ways to report precinct results .
He suggested taking photos of the cash register-like poll tape produced at the close of voting and sending that image in via text or by email , or hand-delivering the vote-counting machinery 's computer memory card .
Any national election involving 10,000 jurisdictions , hundreds of thousands of poll workers and tens of thousands of pieces of machinery will have problems .
Whether those problems accelerate to affect multitudes of voters or alter the vote counts is another matter—and at the heart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legitimacy .
What happens inside the election infrastructure is one thing , while what is said about those procedures in the media or in political propaganda is another .
`` We are now in the final stretch of the election , and tens of millions of voters have already cast their votes free from foreign interference , '' CISA 's Krebs said in a `` Rumor Control '' video .
`` We remain confident that no foreign cyber actor can change your vote .
And we still believe that it would be incredibly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an election at the national level . ''
`` But that does n't mean various actors wo n't try to introduce chaos in our elections and make sensational claims that overstate their capabilities , '' he continued .
`` In fact , the days and weeks just before and after Election Day are the perfect time for our adversaries to launch efforts intended to undermine your confidence in the integrity of the electoral process . ''
`` The divisions within American society , and many others , are now so deeply ingrained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence in order to amplify and inflame , '' noted Claire Wardle , a misinformation expert , on the national security blog Lawfare .
`` From the cellphone-captured footage of Americans screaming in supermarkets about masks , to family members having to disown loved ones because of outlandish beliefs , to a neutered Centers for Disease Control and Prevention whose downfall was fueled by and consequently fueled misinformation , to university lecturers terrified of being filmed by students looking for evidence of liberal bias , to a weakened news media falling almost on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the evidence of our divided society is all around us . ''
In other words , voters should expect competing and even false claims about the voting experience and the election results on November 3 and in the days after .
While some of those claims will be amplified by foreign adversaries , most will originate domestically , where voters will have to wait for results , assess the evidence of accurate vote counts and live with the political consequences .
Steven Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute .
He has reported for National Public Radio , Marketplace , and Christian Science Monitor Radio , as well as a wide range of progressive publications including Salon , AlterNet , the American Prospect , and many others .
This article was produced by Voting Booth , a project of the Independent Media Institute .

Two weeks before Election Day, cybersecurity threats and related disinformation originating overseas and targeting the 2020 election briefly were front-page news.
Threatening emails to voters supporting Democrats were purportedly sent by the Proud Boys, a pro-Trump white nationalist group. State voter registration databases in Alaska and Florida were purportedly breached, and videos containing non-public voter information were posted online. As federal agencies blamed Iran and Russia, an anxious electorate faced more worries.
"Sad but true, bad actors continue their attempts to undermine confidence in the election, now w/ a misleading video," tweeted Chris Krebs, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) director, in one "Rumor Control" post on October 21. "Stay calm and vote on."
The incidents—which were described, deconstructed, and debunked in non-technical terms in a Stanford Internet Observatory report issued two days later—came in the same week that the U.S. passed the 50 million mark for ballots already cast. The attacks may have been headline news, but they did not dent record turnout. Their false claims were swiftly outed and then drowned out by domestic noisemakers.
"Of course when it comes to spreading false information, the Russians have plenty of help from the President and his media allies," wrote longtime journalist Nina Burleigh on Deep State blog, which monitors the world's intelligence agencies, launching its series on foreign interference in the 2020 election.
Nonetheless, top federal officials who are allies of the president said the alleged Proud Boy emails and purloined voter registration data were concrete evidence of Russian and Iranian attempts to influence the 2020 election in its final weeks. But as news reports were filled with murky accusations, the Stanford researchers—who include some of Silicon Valley's foremost cybersecurity experts—concluded that no election data or computer systems had been breached. Instead, the propagandists—and the researchers found no trace of Iranian involvement—fabricated content to fuel the impression that the 2020 nationwide election cannot be trusted.
"This series of events represents an active measures campaign intended to create the perception of a massive vulnerability in the U.S. election system that does not exist, and possibly to drive tension in the United States through the invocation of a well-known hate group," the report's summation began. "Every conclusion that the creators of these emails and video wanted Americans to leave with are false:
These intimidating emails were not sent by the Proud Boys
Voting continues to be private, safe and secure, and there is no mechanism by which an outside actor can determine the vote of an individual and later threaten them
The video does not portray a SQL injection attack against the Alaskan or Floridian voter registration systems
There is no widespread conspiracy to change election outcomes via the FWAB [overseas and military absentee ballot] system
Such a conspiracy could not succeed"
Another part of the analysis said, "We cannot provide independent attribution to the Islamic Republic of Iran," which contradicted claims made by federal agencies.
Election Vulnerabilities
The emergence of foreign-based threats that triggered high-profile news coverage but apparently had little impact on election infrastructure did not escape notice.
"[I]s this all they've got?" wrote ElectionLawBlog founder Rick Hasen. "Why aren't the Russians doing a better job interfering in the 2020 elections to benefit Trump?"
"The people behind this campaign were effective, however, in drawing attention to themselves and to their capability to create disinformation," Stanford's report said. "The rapid reaction of government and civil society to these incidents has blunted the capability of these actors to spread their false claims. Our hope is, now that the video and emails have been thoroughly debunked, that media coverage of this disinformation is measured and that future attempts to imply hacking of the voting system are not given unearned amplification or credence."
What was notable about the Stanford Internet Observatory report was that its tone was neither alarmist nor dismissive. It was a sober assessment that threats, foreign and domestic, to disrupt the legitimacy of the 2020 election do exist. But, thus far, the foreign-based threats have not overwhelmed the system.
What Was Faked?
The voter data in the alleged attacks—such as partial Social Security numbers of Alaska voters—might not have come from hacking into a state voter database, as an online video claimed, for example. It could have come from stolen credit bureau data marketed on the dark web, the Stanford analysts said. What was of more concern, however, was that someone took the time to fashion that data into a falsified claim that voting infrastructure was easily breached.
"Releasing voter information and claiming it was hacked, as the newly-released video does, is not a new tactic," the analysts said. "Early last month, for example, claims spread by Russian media outlet Kommersant reported that Michigan's voter data was posted on a Russian hacking forum. EIP [Election Integrity Partnership] researchers verified that the data available for download matched Michigan's public records, and state officials confirmed that the voter data is publicly available to anyone through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Similar claims circulated recently with voter data from Florida being posted on a Russian hacking forum. Again, EIP verified that the data schema matched what is made public by the state."
(EIP refers to the Election Integrity Partnership, a mix of academic, public and private sector institutions seeking to "detect and mitigate the impact of attempts to prevent or deter people from voting or to delegitimize election results." The Stanford Internet Observatory is part of this consortium.)
Election Administration Worries
These efforts to create and spread false claims about voting and the underlying election system are in the sphere of media and partisan propaganda, which was not the same sphere as where elections are conducted. The world of running elections resembles an assembly line, where voters and ballots are methodically processed.
Since 2016, state and county election officials have taken many steps to monitor cyber attacks in real time and to harden their data and related computer systems, starting with voter registration files, said a former top state election official who spoke on background. In addition to using sensors to detect intrusions and quickly sharing activity reports with all states, access to voter data was limited, he said, even if some of that data was publicly available. Voter data was also backed up daily, he said, just as software was regularly updated with security patches.
Voter data was separated from vote-counting systems, he said. What was of more concern to him than claiming to meddle with registration data was the prospect of foreign agents infiltrating the private vendors who work for counties and states to "host and post" their election night results.
Disrupting the election night reporting is seen as a threat. Many election officials recall how the Democratic Party's 2020 Iowa Caucus results were delayed for a day due to an app and system failure, creating much consternation including the mainstream media's inability to explain the delay and urge the public to wait.
The New York Times recently noted that county election offices could be targets of ransomware, where systems are frozen until bounties were paid. That prospect was raised in an October 26 briefing by ex-Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff for the bipartisan National Task Force on Election Crises. Microsoft had just obtained a court order to disable a ransomware network, Chertoff said.
There are other potential worries. In many primary states debuting new voting systems before the pandemic struck in March, electronic poll books—which help voters check in at precincts—kept losing their online link to state voter databases. The spotty connectivity affected numerous California counties. Election officials in Georgia and South Carolina reported similar issues during October's early voting. Should that issue recur or a ransomware threat emerge on November 3, the remedy would be distributing paper copies of voter rolls to precincts, experts have said.
Another point of vulnerability is the cellular modems that connect precinct ballot scanners to a central tabulator to report the election night's vote totals. Ion Sancho, the former supervisor of elections (SOE) in Leon County, Florida, recently wrote a letter noting this concern to Florida's SOEs and urging them to make other plans.
"[T]he ideal solution is to remove your central tabulator from the internet completely and to not use your wireless modems," he said, saying there were other ways to report precinct results. He suggested taking photos of the cash register-like poll tape produced at the close of voting and sending that image in via text or by email, or hand-delivering the vote-counting machinery's computer memory card.
Any national election involving 10,000 jurisdictions, hundreds of thousands of poll workers and tens of thousands of pieces of machinery will have problems. Whether those problems accelerate to affect multitudes of voters or alter the vote counts is another matter—and at the heart of assessing threats to the election's legitimacy.
What happens inside the election infrastructure is one thing, while what is said about those procedures in the media or in political propaganda is another.
"We are now in the final stretch of the election, and tens of millions of voters have already cast their votes free from foreign interference," CISA's Krebs said in a "Rumor Control" video. "We remain confident that no foreign cyber actor can change your vote. And we still believe that it would be incredibly difficult for them to change the outcome of an election at the national level."
"But that doesn't mean various actors won't try to introduce chaos in our elections and make sensational claims that overstate their capabilities," he continued. "In fact, the days and weeks just before and after Election Day are the perfect time for our adversaries to launch efforts intended to undermine your confidence in the integrity of the electoral process."
"The divisions within American society, and many others, are now so deeply ingrained that there's no need for foreign influence in order to amplify and inflame," noted Claire Wardle, a misinformation expert, on the national security blog Lawfare. "From the cellphone-captured footage of Americans screaming in supermarkets about masks, to family members having to disown loved ones because of outlandish beliefs, to a neutered Centers for Disease Control and Prevention whose downfall was fueled by and consequently fueled misinformation, touniversity lecturers terrified of being filmed by students looking for evidence of liberal bias, to a weakened news media falling almost on a daily basis in the trust ratings, the evidence of our divided society is all around us."
In other words, voters should expect competing and even false claims about the voting experience and the election results on November 3 and in the days after. While some of those claims will be amplified by foreign adversaries, most will originate domestically, where voters will have to wait for results, assess the evidence of accurate vote counts and live with the political consequences.
Steven Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He has reported for National Public Radio, Marketplace, and Christian Science Monitor Radio, as well as a wide range of progressive publications including Salon, AlterNet, the American Prospect, and many others.
This article was produced by Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.