truthout--2020-12-30--Women Ran for Office, Won and Donated in Record Numbers in 2020

Women broke barriers in the 2020 elections , both at the ballot box and as political donors .
Unprecedented numbers of women ran for office and won their races .
Come January , Congress and many state legislatures will become more representative of the nation as a whole , with women holding more seats than ever before .
And in both state and federal races , women raised more money than in any prior cycle .
That ’ s according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics and the National Institute on Money in Politics .
Political participation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as donors , has risen in the wake of the 2016 election .
That trend notably spiked during the 2018 midterms and continued into the all-time most expensive 2020 election .
It was a historic year for many demographic groups of women , according to the Center for American Women and Politics , with newly elected Black women , Indigenous women , Latina women and Asian American and Pacific Islander women breaking records in the U.S. House .
Cori Bush is the first Black woman Missouri elected to Congress .
Former Tacoma , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Michelle Steel are the first Korean American women elected to the House .
While Democratic women won big in the 2018 midterms , Republican women made record gains in 2020 .
Building off of last month ’ s joint report on state and federal fundraising , this new analysis tracks the political participation of women candidates and donors in the 2012 , 2016 and 2020 election cycles .
Here are some key findings : • Between 2016 and 2020 , the percentage of women candidates in gubernatorial and state legislative races @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 32 percent .
• At least 142 women will hold seats in the next Congress , an all-time high .
• In 2020 races for the U.S. House and Senate , women candidates outraised men on average , while also nearly closing the gap in state-level contests .
• In 2020 races , women accounted for 33 percent of donations to congressional candidates and 31 percent of donations to state-level candidates , both records .
Most States See Steady Increases in Women Candidates While the prominence of women in high profile congressional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cycles , state-level contests across the country have also seen a significant uptick in women candidates .
With each presidential election cycle since 2012 , women made up a larger and larger share of gubernatorial and state legislative candidates .
Between 2016 and 2020 , the percentage of women candidates saw its largest jump , from 25 percent to 32 percent .
That ’ s a continuation of the trend from the 2018 midterms , when record numbers of women ran for office .
Nearly every state saw a higher percentage of women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 23 states , the proportion of women candidates increased by at least 10 percent since 2012 .
Two states — Nevada ( 49 percent ) and New Mexico ( 44 percent ) — came close to reaching gender parity among candidates .
The two states with the lowest proportion of women candidates in 2020 were South Carolina ( 23 percent ) and West Virginia ( 18 percent ) .
Most of the gains made by women at the state level were made by Democrats .
Women made up 44 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 33 percent in 2016 .
While men made up 60 percent of Democratic challengers in 2016 contests , women outnumbered men as Democratic challengers for the first time in 2020 .
Those figures come on the heels of efforts from liberal groups such as EMILY ’ s List and donor circles such as the Electing Women Alliance to recruit and support women to run for office at all levels of government .
Republican women also made gains in state races , though they were less pronounced .
Women made up nearly 23 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 18 percent in 2016 .
The biggest jump came from non-incumbent Republicans .
In 2016 , nearly 19 percent of Republican challengers were women .
That figure jumped to 27 percent in this year ’ s elections .
Women candidates generally won at the same rate at which they ran at the state level .
In 2020 , 32 percent of all candidates for state legislative and gubernatorial seats were women , and 32 percent of the general election winners were women .
In the 2016 and 2012 election cycles , women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election winners .
Gender parity at the state level is still a ways off despite modest gains .
Nevada remains the only state in the nation with a majority-female legislature .
The vast majority of leadership positions in state legislatures are held by men .
Just seven women serve as speakers of state houses , and nine women currently serve as governors .
It is well documented that the demographic makeup of political leaders is not representative of the U.S. population .
The majority of Congress is made up of white and male @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are also largely white and male .
Inroads were made this cycle to usher in candidates from a plethora of identity groups that have rarely held seats in Congress .
Congress made slight gains toward gender parity this cycle , due to the successes of both Republican and Democratic women in the House .
In 2020 general election races , women made up 28 percent of House candidates and 25 percent of Senate candidates , both historic highs .
That ’ s a shift from the 2016 election cycle , when 17 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of women running as Democrats has accelerated since the 2016 election , up from 28 percent to 46 percent of all Democratic House candidates in the general election .
In response to the Democratic political gains in 2018 ’ s “ Year of the Woman ” election , Republican women ran , fundraised and won at historic rates for the party .
The proportion of Republican women running for the House doubled to 22 percent during the past four years .
Roughly 27 percent of women won their congressional races in 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in , 118 women will hold seats in the House and at least 24 women will serve in the Senate , depending on the results of Georgia ’ s runoffs .
Both are historic numbers .
Only 83 women were elected to the House in 2016 and the 2018 midterms elected 102 women .
Republican women made notable gains in Congress in the 2020 elections , nearly doubling the number of women in the House and Senate .
The numbers are especially dramatic in the House , with the number of women rising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as Winning for Women and Rep. Elise Stefanik ’ s E-PAC ramped up their recruiting efforts after the 2018 midterms saw the number of Republican women in the House drop to its lowest in decades .
The results were fruitful .
Republican women such as Nancy Mace of South Carolina , Michelle Fischbach of Minnesota and Stephanie Bice of Oklahoma prevailed in some of the most expensive House races in the nation .
Democratic incumbents suffered high-profile losses , but the number of Democratic women in next year ’ s House will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the current Congress .
Women make up 40 percent of Democratic House members , and 14 percent of Republicans , both all-time highs .
Women Outraised Men in Congressional Races , Closed the Gap in State Contests Campaign cash , often the life and breath of campaigns , has historically been a barrier to entry for many demographic groups , but there is evidence from this cycle that in many cases women could and did raise sums comparable to men .
In 2020 congressional races , women raised more than men on average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in state-level contests .
Among U.S. House candidates running in the 2020 cycle , women raised nearly $ 1.2 million on average , while men raised roughly $ 819,000 .
Democratic women raised $ 1.4 million on average , much higher than the $ 861,000 for Democratic men .
Republican women in contrast raised only $ 816,000 on average , less than the $ 876,000 for men .
In U.S. Senate contests , women raised $ 6.2 million on average compared to $ 5.8 million for men .
Democratic men outraised Democratic women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million .
Republican women outraised Republican men by $ 9.7 million vs $ 5.2 million .
Additional identity factors complicate this , as well as the relatively small number of women candidates to study compared to men .
Black women , Latina women , Indigenous women , and Asian and Pacific Islander women face unique difficulties raising money compared to their white and male counterparts , according to previous research .
This is notably apparent when looking at large donations , especially for Black women .
In 2018 , OpenSecrets found that Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race and gender categories .
Moreover , research points to a reliance on small donations for women candidates .
In other words , women have to raise higher numbers of small donations to reach aggregate totals comparable to men , who often have an advantage in large donations .
Raising the most campaign cash didn ’ t always translate to success .
This cycle brought in historically expensive losses for women Democrats .
Unsuccessful U.S. Senate candidates such as Kentucky ’ s Amy McGrath and Maine ’ s Sara Gideon raised record-breaking funds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The women were not alone in their historically expensive Senate losses : South Carolina candidate Jaime Harrison and North Carolina candidate Cal Cunningham also lost big .
It ’ s important to keep in mind that even when the amount of money candidates are able to raise and spend is equal between candidates , previous research has shown it takes even more money for women , especially women of color , to win elections .
In other words , women running for office are often required to raise more money than their male @ @ @ @ @ @ @ success .
Those gains in congressional campaign donations also translated to state-level candidates , though men generally still raised more than women .
On average , male state candidates raised 29 percent more than women candidates in the 2012 election and 14 percent more in the 2016 contest .
In 2020 state races , men raised an average 6 percent more than women .
In 2012 , women made up 22 percent of the gubernatorial and state House candidates and took in 19 percent of the contributions .
By 2020 , women made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ house candidates and took in 33 percent of the total campaign cash .
Women donors have steadily increased their political donations since the 2016 election .
The share of contributions greater than $ 200 from women rose from 28 percent in 2016 to 29 percent in 2018 to 33 percent in 2020 .
The gains were driven by the increased number of Democratic women running for office and by a large increase in support coming from women to the campaigns of Democratic men .
Democrats have benefited most from the surge in donations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in $ 338 million to Republicans ’ $ 167 million in the 2020 cycle .
Some of the top fundraisers of the 2020 cycle , including Reps. Katie Porter ( D-Calif. ) and Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) received more than half of their campaign cash from women .
And President-elect Joe Biden raised far more money from women than President Donald Trump .
When looking at these numbers it ’ s important to keep in mind who donates in the first place .
Large political donors make up a very small percentage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has shown that the higher the contribution threshold , the higher the percentage of campaign cash comes from men .
Women made up 45 percent of donors in the 2020 cycle , but contributed less than 36 percent of the money in total .
Both of those figures are historic highs .
On the state level , women donors have increased both the overall money they ’ ve contributed to candidates as well as their share of contributions in each election cycle .
Women accounted for nearly 31 percent of 2020 donations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 and 2012 contests .
Women and men donors have also increased their share of contributions going to women candidates since 2012 , with women donors giving a much larger proportion of their contributions .
Women are giving more amid the increase in women candidates .
By 2020 , women donors gave nearly half ( 46 percent ) of their contributions to women candidates while men donors gave 24 percent ( compared to 13 percent in 2012 ) .

Women broke barriers in the 2020 elections, both at the ballot box and as political donors. Unprecedented numbers of women ran for office and won their races. Come January, Congress and many state legislatures will become more representative of the nation as a whole, with women holding more seats than ever before. And in both state and federal races, women raised more money than in any prior cycle.
That’s according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics and the National Institute on Money in Politics. Political participation from women, both as candidates and as donors, has risen in the wake of the 2016 election. That trend notably spiked during the 2018 midterms and continued into the all-time most expensive 2020 election.
It was a historic year for many demographic groups of women, according to the Center for American Women and Politics, with newly elected Black women, Indigenous women, Latina women and Asian American and Pacific Islander women breaking records in the U.S. House. Cori Bush is the first Black woman Missouri elected to Congress. Former Tacoma, Wash., Mayor Marilyn Strickland and California’s Michelle Steel are the first Korean American women elected to the House. While Democratic women won big in the 2018 midterms, Republican women made record gains in 2020.
Building off of last month’s joint report on state and federal fundraising, this new analysis tracks the political participation of women candidates and donors in the 2012, 2016 and 2020 election cycles. Here are some key findings:
Between 2016 and 2020, the percentage of women candidates in gubernatorial and state legislative races saw a jump, from 25 percent to 32 percent.
At least 142 women will hold seats in the next Congress, an all-time high.
In 2020 races for the U.S. House and Senate, women candidates outraised men on average, while also nearly closing the gap in state-level contests.
In 2020 races, women accounted for 33 percent of donations to congressional candidates and 31 percent of donations to state-level candidates, both records.
Most States See Steady Increases in Women Candidates
While the prominence of women in high profile congressional races has risen over the past few cycles, state-level contests across the country have also seen a significant uptick in women candidates. With each presidential election cycle since 2012, women made up a larger and larger share of gubernatorial and state legislative candidates. Between 2016 and 2020, the percentage of women candidates saw its largest jump, from 25 percent to 32 percent. That’s a continuation of the trend from the 2018 midterms, when record numbers of women ran for office.
Nearly every state saw a higher percentage of women candidates in 2020 than four years earlier. In 23 states, the proportion of women candidates increased by at least 10 percent since 2012. Two states — Nevada (49 percent) and New Mexico (44 percent) — came close to reaching gender parity among candidates. The two states with the lowest proportion of women candidates in 2020 were South Carolina (23 percent) and West Virginia (18 percent).
Most of the gains made by women at the state level were made by Democrats. Women made up 44 percent of all Democratic candidates in 2020, up from 33 percent in 2016. While men made up 60 percent of Democratic challengers in 2016 contests, women outnumbered men as Democratic challengers for the first time in 2020. Those figures come on the heels of efforts from liberal groups such as EMILY’s List and donor circles such as the Electing Women Alliance to recruit and support women to run for office at all levels of government.
Republican women also made gains in state races, though they were less pronounced. Women made up nearly 23 percent of 2020 Republican candidates, up from 18 percent in 2016. The biggest jump came from non-incumbent Republicans. In 2016, nearly 19 percent of Republican challengers were women. That figure jumped to 27 percent in this year’s elections.
Women candidates generally won at the same rate at which they ran at the state level. In 2020, 32 percent of all candidates for state legislative and gubernatorial seats were women, and 32 percent of the general election winners were women. In the 2016 and 2012 election cycles, women only accounted for 26 percent of general election winners.
Gender parity at the state level is still a ways off despite modest gains. Nevada remains the only state in the nation with a majority-female legislature. The vast majority of leadership positions in state legislatures are held by men. Just seven women serve as speakers of state houses, and nine women currently serve as governors.
Congress Continues Its Climb Towards Gender Parity
It is well documented that the demographic makeup of political leaders is not representative of the U.S. population. The majority of Congress is made up of white and male leaders, and the majority of candidates are also largely white and male. Inroads were made this cycle to usher in candidates from a plethora of identity groups that have rarely held seats in Congress.
Congress made slight gains toward gender parity this cycle, due to the successes of both Republican and Democratic women in the House. In 2020 general election races, women made up 28 percent of House candidates and 25 percent of Senate candidates, both historic highs. That’s a shift from the 2016 election cycle, when 17 percent of congressional candidates were women.
The number of women running as Democrats has accelerated since the 2016 election, up from 28 percent to 46 percent of all Democratic House candidates in the general election. In response to the Democratic political gains in 2018’s “Year of the Woman” election, Republican women ran, fundraised and won at historic rates for the party. The proportion of Republican women running for the House doubled to 22 percent during the past four years.
Roughly 27 percent of women won their congressional races in 2020. When the next Congress is sworn in, 118 women will hold seats in the House and at least 24 women will serve in the Senate, depending on the results of Georgia’s runoffs. Both are historic numbers. Only 83 women were elected to the House in 2016 and the 2018 midterms elected 102 women.
Republican women made notable gains in Congress in the 2020 elections, nearly doubling the number of women in the House and Senate. The numbers are especially dramatic in the House, with the number of women rising from 13 to 29.
GOP groups such as Winning for Women and Rep. Elise Stefanik’s E-PAC ramped up their recruiting efforts after the 2018 midterms saw the number of Republican women in the House drop to its lowest in decades. The results were fruitful. Republican women such as Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Michelle Fischbach of Minnesota and Stephanie Bice of Oklahoma prevailed in some of the most expensive House races in the nation.
Democratic incumbents suffered high-profile losses, but the number of Democratic women in next year’s House will remain at 89, the same as the current Congress. Women make up 40 percent of Democratic House members, and 14 percent of Republicans, both all-time highs.
Women Outraised Men in Congressional Races, Closed the Gap in State Contests
Campaign cash, often the life and breath of campaigns, has historically been a barrier to entry for many demographic groups, but there is evidence from this cycle that in many cases women could and did raise sums comparable to men. In 2020 congressional races, women raised more than men on average, and nearly matched fundraising by men in state-level contests.
Among U.S. House candidates running in the 2020 cycle, women raised nearly $1.2 million on average, while men raised roughly $819,000. Democratic women raised $1.4 million on average, much higher than the $861,000 for Democratic men. Republican women in contrast raised only $816,000 on average, less than the $876,000 for men.
In U.S. Senate contests, women raised $6.2 million on average compared to $5.8 million for men. Democratic men outraised Democratic women by $8 million vs $6.2 million. Republican women outraised Republican men by $9.7 million vs $5.2 million.
Additional identity factors complicate this, as well as the relatively small number of women candidates to study compared to men. Black women, Latina women, Indigenous women, and Asian and Pacific Islander women face unique difficulties raising money compared to their white and male counterparts, according to previous research. This is notably apparent when looking at large donations, especially for Black women. In 2018, OpenSecrets found that Black women raised the least amount across all race and gender categories.
Moreover, research points to a reliance on small donations for women candidates. In other words, women have to raise higher numbers of small donations to reach aggregate totals comparable to men, who often have an advantage in large donations.
Raising the most campaign cash didn’t always translate to success. This cycle brought in historically expensive losses for women Democrats. Unsuccessful U.S. Senate candidates such as Kentucky’s Amy McGrath and Maine’s Sara Gideon raised record-breaking funds that did not translate to wins. The women were not alone in their historically expensive Senate losses: South Carolina candidate Jaime Harrison and North Carolina candidate Cal Cunningham also lost big.
It’s important to keep in mind that even when the amount of money candidates are able to raise and spend is equal between candidates, previous research has shown it takes even more money for women, especially women of color, to win elections. In other words, women running for office are often required to raise more money than their male counterparts to achieve the same levels of success.
Those gains in congressional campaign donations also translated to state-level candidates, though men generally still raised more than women. On average, male state candidates raised 29 percent more than women candidates in the 2012 election and 14 percent more in the 2016 contest. In 2020 state races, men raised an average 6 percent more than women.
In 2012, women made up 22 percent of the gubernatorial and state House candidates and took in 19 percent of the contributions. By 2020, women made up 32 percent of gubernatorial and state house candidates and took in 33 percent of the total campaign cash.
Women Gave Record Sums to Federal and State Candidates
Women donors have steadily increased their political donations since the 2016 election. The share of contributions greater than $200 from women rose from 28 percent in 2016 to 29 percent in 2018 to 33 percent in 2020. The gains were driven by the increased number of Democratic women running for office and by a large increase in support coming from women to the campaigns of Democratic men.
Democrats have benefited most from the surge in donations from women. Democratic congressional candidates brought in $338 million to Republicans’ $167 million in the 2020 cycle. Some of the top fundraisers of the 2020 cycle, including Reps. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) received more than half of their campaign cash from women. And President-elect Joe Biden raised far more money from women than President Donald Trump.
When looking at these numbers it’s important to keep in mind who donates in the first place. Large political donors make up a very small percentage of the U.S. population, and research has shown that the higher the contribution threshold, the higher the percentage of campaign cash comes from men. Women made up 45 percent of donors in the 2020 cycle, but contributed less than 36 percent of the money in total. Both of those figures are historic highs.
On the state level, women donors have increased both the overall money they’ve contributed to candidates as well as their share of contributions in each election cycle. Women accounted for nearly 31 percent of 2020 donations, up from roughly 24 percent in the 2016 and 2012 contests.
Women and men donors have also increased their share of contributions going to women candidates since 2012, with women donors giving a much larger proportion of their contributions. Women are giving more amid the increase in women candidates. By 2020, women donors gave nearly half (46 percent) of their contributions to women candidates while men donors gave 24 percent (compared to 13 percent in 2012).
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-12-30--McConnell Is Pushing Poison Pill Legislation to Tank $2,000 Checks

Shortly after blocking efforts by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Senate Democrats to force a vote on a House-passed bill that would provide $ 2,000 direct payments to most Americans , Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell late Tuesday introduced new legislation tying the checks to Trump-backed provisions to repeal legal protections for internet companies and establish a commission to study virtually non-existent voter fraud .
Senate Democrats immediately rejected the Kentucky Republican ’ s bill as a non-starter and warned the measure is an obvious effort to ensure that the $ 2,000 direct payments don ’ t clear the Senate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 2,000 survival checks reality and he knows how to kill them , ” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) said in a statement .
“ If Sen. McConnell tries loading up the bipartisan House-passed CASH Act with unrelated , partisan provisions that will do absolutely nothing to help struggling families across the country , it will not pass the House and can not become law.
” “ Any move like this by Sen. McConnell would be a blatant attempt to deprive Americans of a $ 2,000 survival check , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go along with Sen. McConnell ’ s cynical gambit or will they push him to give a vote on the standalone House-passed CASH Act ?
” Rep. Don Beyer ( D-Va. ) echoed Schumer , tweeting that “ people are furious with Mitch McConnell for blocking a vote on the bill we passed to send Americans $ 2,000 checks , so now he ’ s planning to try to kill it by adding poison pills that have nothing to do with Covid relief.
” An essential problem with McConnell ’ s legislation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out on Twitter , is that it “ violates the constitutional requirement that revenue bills initiate in the House.
” “ This means it can ’ t pass the Congress even if it accidentally passes the Senate , ” Bovard explained .
“ The Senate knows it violates the origination clause .
The Senate deals with this issue all of the time .
But why bother fixing a bill that is supposed to fail ?
” Sen. John Cornyn ( R-Texas ) — a top McConnell ally and an opponent of the stand-alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the GOP should push legislation attaching the checks to liability protections for corporations that expose workers and customers to the coronavirus , a proposal Democrats viewed as further confirmation that Republicans are dead-set on killing the $ 2,000 payments .
Cornyn , who voted for Trump ’ s tax cuts for the wealthy in 2017 , also expressed concerns about the deficit impact of sending people larger direct payments .
“ This is all funny money , borrowed money at this point , and that ’ s another consideration , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate Republican leaders to prevent so much as an up-or-down vote on the CASH Act came after new polling showed that the proposed $ 2,000 payments are overwhelmingly popular among U.S. voters , including Republicans .
Some Senate Republicans , including Sens .
David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler of Georgia , have voiced support for the $ 2,000 payments — though they have not backed Sanders ’ effort to secure a clean vote on the House-passed measure .
In a tweet late Tuesday , Trump reiterated his call for $ 2,000 payments — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the relief measure he signed into law on Sunday — while also demanding that lawmakers repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and prevent Democrats from “ steal [ ing ] the presidential election , ” which Trump lost decisively despite his false claims to the contrary .
“ Unless Republicans have a death wish , and it is also the right thing to do , they must approve the $ 2000 payments ASAP , ” the president tweeted .
“ $ 600 IS NOT ENOUGH !
Also , get rid of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Big Tech steal our country , and don ’ t let the Democrats steal the presidential election .
Get tough !
” Led by Sanders , members of the Senate Democratic caucus are expected to continue pushing for a clean vote on the House bill , which passed the lower chamber Monday with the support of 44 Republicans .
On Tuesday , the Vermont senator stood in the way of McConnell ’ s attempt to schedule a Wednesday vote to override Trump ’ s veto of the National Defense Authorization Act , legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military spending for fiscal year 2021 .
“ The House passed , to their credit , a simple , straightforward bill , ” Sanders told reporters on Tuesday .
“ Let ’ s not muddy the waters : Are you for $ 2,000 or are you not ?
” In an interview with CNN ’ s Jim Acosta Tuesday evening , Sanders mocked the notion that amid a deadly pandemic and massive economic crisis , the U.S. public is pining for the repeal of Section 230 .
“ Do you think , Jim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying , my god , we have to repeal Section 230… my god , that is a major national priority ?
” Sanders said .
“ Right now the issue on everybody ’ s mind is how do I survive , how do I feed my kids , how do I not get evicted ?
So what we have got to do is just demand that McConnell bring forth a clean House bill.
” “ I can ’ t guarantee that it ’ s gon na win in the Senate , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 60 votes .
I think we got a damn good shot to win it .
Bring it to the floor for a vote , Mitch .
”

The effort comes after blocking a vote on a House-passed bill that would provide $2,000 direct payments.
Shortly after blocking efforts by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Senate Democrats to force a vote on a House-passed bill that would provide $2,000 direct payments to most Americans, Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell late Tuesday introduced new legislation tying the checks to Trump-backed provisions to repeal legal protections for internet companies and establish a commission to study virtually non-existent voter fraud.
Senate Democrats immediately rejected the Kentucky Republican’s bill as a non-starter and warned the measure is an obvious effort to ensure that the $2,000 direct payments don’t clear the Senate.
“Senator McConnell knows how to make $2,000 survival checks reality and he knows how to kill them,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. “If Sen. McConnell tries loading up the bipartisan House-passed CASH Act with unrelated, partisan provisions that will do absolutely nothing to help struggling families across the country, it will not pass the House and cannot become law.”
“Any move like this by Sen. McConnell would be a blatant attempt to deprive Americans of a $2,000 survival check,” Schumer continued. “Will Senate Republicans go along with Sen. McConnell’s cynical gambit or will they push him to give a vote on the standalone House-passed CASH Act?”
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) echoed Schumer, tweeting that “people are furious with Mitch McConnell for blocking a vote on the bill we passed to send Americans $2,000 checks, so now he’s planning to try to kill it by adding poison pills that have nothing to do with Covid relief.”
“Don’t be fooled,” said Beyer.
An essential problem with McConnell’s legislation, as conservative policy analyst Rachel Bovard pointed out on Twitter, is that it “violates the constitutional requirement that revenue bills initiate in the House.”
“This means it can’t pass the Congress even if it accidentally passes the Senate,” Bovard explained. “The Senate knows it violates the origination clause. The Senate deals with this issue all of the time. But why bother fixing a bill that is supposed to fail?”
Short version is that McConnell created a bill that by law cannot pass. Because he doesn't want anything to pass.
I doubt it even gets a vote. https://t.co/fblO4fdbSX — David Dayen (@ddayen) December 30, 2020
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) — a top McConnell ally and an opponent of the stand-alone $2,000 payments bill — suggested Tuesday that the GOP should push legislation attaching the checks to liability protections for corporations that expose workers and customers to the coronavirus, a proposal Democrats viewed as further confirmation that Republicans are dead-set on killing the $2,000 payments.
Cornyn, who voted for Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy in 2017, also expressed concerns about the deficit impact of sending people larger direct payments.
“This is all funny money, borrowed money at this point, and that’s another consideration,” said the Texas Republican.
Senate Republicans are going to try every conceivable way to try to kill the $2000 checks. https://t.co/4ZXgQpaGKJ — Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) December 30, 2020
The efforts by Senate Republican leaders to prevent so much as an up-or-down vote on the CASH Act came after new polling showed that the proposed $2,000 payments are overwhelmingly popular among U.S. voters, including Republicans.
Some Senate Republicans, including Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler of Georgia, have voiced support for the $2,000 payments — though they have not backed Sanders’ effort to secure a clean vote on the House-passed measure.
In a tweet late Tuesday, Trump reiterated his call for $2,000 payments — up from the $600 checks in the relief measure he signed into law on Sunday — while also demanding that lawmakers repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and prevent Democrats from “steal[ing] the presidential election,” which Trump lost decisively despite his false claims to the contrary.
“Unless Republicans have a death wish, and it is also the right thing to do, they must approve the $2000 payments ASAP,” the president tweeted. “$600 IS NOT ENOUGH! Also, get rid of Section 230 — don’t let Big Tech steal our country, and don’t let the Democrats steal the presidential election. Get tough!”
Led by Sanders, members of the Senate Democratic caucus are expected to continue pushing for a clean vote on the House bill, which passed the lower chamber Monday with the support of 44 Republicans. On Tuesday, the Vermont senator stood in the way of McConnell’s attempt to schedule a Wednesday vote to override Trump’s veto of the National Defense Authorization Act, legislation that would greenlight $740 billion in military spending for fiscal year 2021.
“The House passed, to their credit, a simple, straightforward bill,” Sanders told reporters on Tuesday. “Let’s not muddy the waters: Are you for $2,000 or are you not?”
In an interview with CNN’s Jim Acosta Tuesday evening, Sanders mocked the notion that amid a deadly pandemic and massive economic crisis, the U.S. public is pining for the repeal of Section 230.
“Do you think, Jim, that all over America people are saying, my god, we have to repeal Section 230… my god, that is a major national priority?” Sanders said. “Right now the issue on everybody’s mind is how do I survive, how do I feed my kids, how do I not get evicted? So what we have got to do is just demand that McConnell bring forth a clean House bill.”
“I can’t guarantee that it’s gonna win in the Senate,” the Vermont senator continued. “We need 60 votes. I think we got a damn good shot to win it. Bring it to the floor for a vote, Mitch.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-12-30--The New Strain of COVID May Have Already Coursed Through the US

The first confirmed case of a new and more transmissible strain of COVID-19 has appeared in the United States .
While experts believe it is no more deadly than the prevalent strain , and expect that the vaccines will still be effective against it , this new strain could be up to 70 percent more contagious .
There are additional reports of the possible existence of a second case of the new strain — named B.1.1.7 — in the same Colorado county as the first .
“ Both the confirmed case and the suspected instance involve men who had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living facility in Simla , about 45 miles northeast of Colorado Springs , ” says CNN .
The facility is home to 25 residents , and suffered a COVID outbreak less than three weeks ago that claimed the lives of two of those residents .
Some 40 percent of all COVID deaths in the U.S. have taken place in such facilities nationwide .
The fact that the first man did not travel before becoming infected is an indicator to scientific investigators that B.1.1.7 is already spreading within that Colorado community , and given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widespread after the Thanksgiving and Christmas travel seasons .
The lack of any meaningful national testing system or contact tracing platform makes determining this enormously difficult .
Yet COVID remains COVID , even with a new nickname , and COVID is like water : It finds the cracks and the seams and the pinholes , and it pours straight through .
By all reports , the new and more contagious strain of COVID is even more adept at this .
Strain .
An apt word for the moment .
COVID has exploded across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3,000 deaths per day .
In California , where the crisis is now out of control , hospital gift shops are being turned into triage and ICU wards , and ambulances are being turned away .
The medical community , already burdened beyond all human expectation , has nothing to look forward to but more of the same .
“ At Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center , ” reports The Los Angeles Times , “ the breaking point came Sunday night .
There was not one available bed for at least 30 patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care , and the hospital had to shut its doors to all ambulance traffic for 12 hours .
Some patients , including the very sick who required intensive oxygen , experienced wait times as long as 18 hours to get into the intensive care unit.
” As all of this is unfolding , the president of the United States has once again asked the Supreme Court to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Wisconsin ( I think Trump has lost that state at least five times by now ) , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ January 6 Electoral College certification on Capitol Hill into a circus sideshow .
Meanwhile , the nation burns on a bed of COVID coals as B.1.1.7 threatens to add fuel to the fire .
No words from Trump on the pandemic , no action whatsoever , and his much-ballyhooed vaccine disbursement program has all but ground to a halt .
It is so bad that President-elect Joe Biden was compelled to castigate the administration for its ongoing folly .
“ Here , right here , is what happens when a pandemic is allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Christmas Day .
“ Will the new vaccines work on these new strains ?
Yes , but to a now-uncertain degree , and with an enormous caveat : The more this virus is allowed to wildfire its way through the populace , the more likely it is to mutate , and one of those mutations may wind up being resistant to the vaccine.
” This is an exhausted nation , with three weeks left to go before this reckless and utterly disinterested administration is scooped up by the garbage collectors .
Three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold , if it hasn ’ t already .
One infectious disease specialist , Dr. Peter Hotez , recently told the Houston station KHOU that the variant “ may already be here and it may be a significant reason why we ’ ve seen so much transmission as of late , ” adding that the U.S. has not been looking for new strains as much as it should .
Three weeks before anyone in the federal government will do anything about it besides plot , sneer and send out resumes .
At least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal leadership continues , we are largely on our own , and the best way for us to deal with this new variant is to muscle up on all of the things we have been doing ( or should have been doing ) all along : wearing masks , staying home when possible , washing hands , using hand sanitizer , and self-quarantining when sick or after a potential exposure to the virus .
Stay home on New Year ’ s Eve if you can ; next year will be a new year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not yet finished with us .

Dr. Peter Hotez said spread of the variant “may be a significant reason why we’ve seen so much transmission as of late.”
The first confirmed case of a new and more transmissible strain of COVID-19 has appeared in the United States. While experts believe it is no more deadly than the prevalent strain, and expect that the vaccines will still be effective against it, this new strain could be up to 70 percent more contagious.
There are additional reports of the possible existence of a second case of the new strain — named B.1.1.7 — in the same Colorado county as the first.
“Both the confirmed case and the suspected instance involve men who had been working at the Good Samaritan Society assisted living facility in Simla, about 45 miles northeast of Colorado Springs,” says CNN. The facility is home to 25 residents, and suffered a COVID outbreak less than three weeks ago that claimed the lives of two of those residents. Some 40 percent of all COVID deaths in the U.S. have taken place in such facilities nationwide.
The fact that the first man did not travel before becoming infected is an indicator to scientific investigators that B.1.1.7 is already spreading within that Colorado community, and given its increased communicability, could already be widespread after the Thanksgiving and Christmas travel seasons. The lack of any meaningful national testing system or contact tracing platform makes determining this enormously difficult.
Yet COVID remains COVID, even with a new nickname, and COVID is like water: It finds the cracks and the seams and the pinholes, and it pours straight through. By all reports, the new and more contagious strain of COVID is even more adept at this.
Strain. An apt word for the moment. COVID has exploded across the nation, tallying an average of 3,000 deaths per day. In California, where the crisis is now out of control, hospital gift shops are being turned into triage and ICU wards, and ambulances are being turned away. The medical community, already burdened beyond all human expectation, has nothing to look forward to but more of the same.
As all of this is unfolding, the president of the United States has once again asked the Supreme Court to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Wisconsin.
“At Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center,” reports The Los Angeles Times, “the breaking point came Sunday night. There was not one available bed for at least 30 patients who needed intensive or intermediate levels of care, and the hospital had to shut its doors to all ambulance traffic for 12 hours. Some patients, including the very sick who required intensive oxygen, experienced wait times as long as 18 hours to get into the intensive care unit.”
As all of this is unfolding, the president of the United States has once again asked the Supreme Court to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Wisconsin (I think Trump has lost that state at least five times by now), and is plotting with allies to turn the January 6 Electoral College certification on Capitol Hill into a circus sideshow.
Meanwhile, the nation burns on a bed of COVID coals as B.1.1.7 threatens to add fuel to the fire. No words from Trump on the pandemic, no action whatsoever, and his much-ballyhooed vaccine disbursement program has all but ground to a halt. It is so bad that President-elect Joe Biden was compelled to castigate the administration for its ongoing folly.
“Here, right here, is what happens when a pandemic is allowed to run wild,” I wrote on Christmas Day. “Will the new vaccines work on these new strains? Yes, but to a now-uncertain degree, and with an enormous caveat: The more this virus is allowed to wildfire its way through the populace, the more likely it is to mutate, and one of those mutations may wind up being resistant to the vaccine.”
Strain.
This is an exhausted nation, with three weeks left to go before this reckless and utterly disinterested administration is scooped up by the garbage collectors. Three weeks for this new strain to take hold, if it hasn’t already.
One infectious disease specialist, Dr. Peter Hotez, recently told the Houston station KHOU that the variant “may already be here and it may be a significant reason why we’ve seen so much transmission as of late,” adding that the U.S. has not been looking for new strains as much as it should.
Three weeks before anyone in the federal government will do anything about it besides plot, sneer and send out resumes.
At least for now, as the void of federal leadership continues, we are largely on our own, and the best way for us to deal with this new variant is to muscle up on all of the things we have been doing (or should have been doing) all along: wearing masks, staying home when possible, washing hands, using hand sanitizer, and self-quarantining when sick or after a potential exposure to the virus. Stay home on New Year’s Eve if you can; next year will be a new year, too.
It seems 2020 is not yet finished with us.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-12-30--Argentina Passes Bill to Legalize Abortion

Thousands of women gathered in Buenos Aires erupted with joy early Wednesday after Argentina ’ s Senate voted to approve legislation that would legalize abortion , the culmination of a years-long grassroots fight for reproductive rights in the Latin American nation .
The bill permitting elective abortions up to the 14th week of a pregnancy passed by a vote of 38 to 29 , and President Alberto Fernández has vowed to sign the measure into law — a move that would make Argentina the largest Latin American country to scrap its strict anti-choice laws .
News of the vote was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rallied in Argentina ’ s capital city in support of the legalization bill .
As The Guardian reported , “ Women screamed with delight , sweeping their friends into tight hugs and jumping in ecstasy .
Many wept tears of joy .
Victory music kicked in and green smoke filled the air .
A triumphant message flashed up on a big screen above the joyful crowd : ‘ We did it !
’ it said .
‘ ES LEY !
’ ( IT ’ S LAW ! )
.
” “ I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonstrator told The Guardian .
“ There are no words to describe what your body feels after fighting for something for so long .
I cried a lot , which I wasn ’ t expecting.
” Mariela Belski , executive director of Amnesty International Argentina , said in a statement that Wednesday ’ s vote is a landmark “ victory for the women ’ s movement in Argentina , which has been fighting for its rights for decades.
” “ Now , people who decide to terminate their pregnancy will have a safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Today we have grown as a society .
Amnesty International is going to work to ensure that the state guarantees compliance with legal abortion throughout the country.
” Amnesty summarized the key elements of the newly passed bill : • Abortion is freely available until the 14th week of pregnancy ; • After that time , abortion is legal in case of danger to the life or health of the pregnant woman or in cases of rape ; • Terminations can be accessed through either the public or private health system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a request ; • People aged 16 or over have full capacity to give their own consent ; girls aged 13 to 16 are presumed to have sufficient ability and maturity to decide on the practice and give due consent unless a procedure involving serious risk to their health or life is to be used ( as set out in Article 26 of the National Civil and Commercial Code ) ; • Healthcare workers must provide dignified treatment , guarantee the privacy and confidentiality of information , and respect autonomy of will ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worker who delays , obstructs or refuses to perform an abortion in legally authorized cases may be criminally sanctioned and disqualified from practice .
Erika Guevara-Rosas , Americas director at Amnesty International , said Argentine lawmakers ’ passage of the legalization bill sends “ a strong message of hope to our entire continent that we can change course against the criminalization of abortion and against clandestine abortions , which pose serious risks to the health and lives of millions of people.
” According to the latest data from Argentina ’ s Health Ministry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 for complications related to unsafe clandestine abortions .
Human Rights Watch noted in an August report that “ in 2018 , Argentina ’ s National Health Ministry reported 35 deaths resulting from abortion , including ectopic pregnancies , miscarriages , medical abortion , and failed attempt of abortion , representing more than 13 percent of all maternal deaths that year.
” The New York Times reported early Wednesday that “ the effects of the legalization vote are likely to ripple across Latin America , galvanizing reproductive-rights advocates elsewhere in the region and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nations could follow suit.
” “ Uruguay , Cuba , and Guyana are the only other countries in Latin America to allow abortion on request , ” the Times noted .
“ Argentina , like a number of other countries in the region , had previously permitted abortion in cases of rape or if the pregnancy posed a risk to a woman ’ s health ; other Latin American countries have stricter limits or total prohibitions.
” In a tweet following the vote , Fernández — who campaigned for the presidency on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ today , we are a better society that expands rights to women and guarantees public health .
”

The passage of the bill is the culmination of a years-long grassroots fight for reproductive rights in Argentina.
Thousands of women gathered in Buenos Aires erupted with joy early Wednesday after Argentina’s Senate voted to approve legislation that would legalize abortion, the culmination of a years-long grassroots fight for reproductive rights in the Latin American nation.
The bill permitting elective abortions up to the 14th week of a pregnancy passed by a vote of 38 to 29, and President Alberto Fernández has vowed to sign the measure into law — a move that would make Argentina the largest Latin American country to scrap its strict anti-choice laws.
News of the vote was met with jubilant celebration among those who rallied in Argentina’s capital city in support of the legalization bill. As The Guardian reported, “Women screamed with delight, sweeping their friends into tight hugs and jumping in ecstasy. Many wept tears of joy. Victory music kicked in and green smoke filled the air. A triumphant message flashed up on a big screen above the joyful crowd: ‘We did it!’ it said. ‘ES LEY!’ (IT’S LAW!).”
“I’m very emotional,” a 25-year-old demonstrator told The Guardian. “There are no words to describe what your body feels after fighting for something for so long. I cried a lot, which I wasn’t expecting.”
Mariela Belski, executive director of Amnesty International Argentina, said in a statement that Wednesday’s vote is a landmark “victory for the women’s movement in Argentina, which has been fighting for its rights for decades.”
“Now, people who decide to terminate their pregnancy will have a safe, high-quality service,” said Belski. “Today we have grown as a society. Amnesty International is going to work to ensure that the state guarantees compliance with legal abortion throughout the country.”
Amnesty summarized the key elements of the newly passed bill:
Abortion is freely available until the 14th week of pregnancy;
After that time, abortion is legal in case of danger to the life or health of the pregnant woman or in cases of rape;
Terminations can be accessed through either the public or private health system, no more than 10 days after a request;
People aged 16 or over have full capacity to give their own consent; girls aged 13 to 16 are presumed to have sufficient ability and maturity to decide on the practice and give due consent unless a procedure involving serious risk to their health or life is to be used (as set out in Article 26 of the National Civil and Commercial Code);
Healthcare workers must provide dignified treatment, guarantee the privacy and confidentiality of information, and respect autonomy of will; and
Any public official or health worker who delays, obstructs or refuses to perform an abortion in legally authorized cases may be criminally sanctioned and disqualified from practice.
Erika Guevara-Rosas, Americas director at Amnesty International, said Argentine lawmakers’ passage of the legalization bill sends “a strong message of hope to our entire continent that we can change course against the criminalization of abortion and against clandestine abortions, which pose serious risks to the health and lives of millions of people.”
According to the latest data from Argentina’s Health Ministry, around 40,000 women were hospitalized in 2016 for complications related to unsafe clandestine abortions. Human Rights Watch noted in an August report that “in 2018, Argentina’s National Health Ministry reported 35 deaths resulting from abortion, including ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, medical abortion, and failed attempt of abortion, representing more than 13 percent of all maternal deaths that year.”
BREAKING: Argentina became the first major country in Latin America to legalize abortion when the Senate voted by 38 in favor to 29 against with one abstention to approve a bill allowing the procedure through the 14th week of pregnancy. pic.twitter.com/ZJWsHSF1Vi — DW News (@dwnews) December 30, 2020
The New York Times reported early Wednesday that “the effects of the legalization vote are likely to ripple across Latin America, galvanizing reproductive-rights advocates elsewhere in the region and leaving them hopeful that other socially conservative nations could follow suit.”
“Uruguay, Cuba, and Guyana are the only other countries in Latin America to allow abortion on request,” the Times noted. “Argentina, like a number of other countries in the region, had previously permitted abortion in cases of rape or if the pregnancy posed a risk to a woman’s health; other Latin American countries have stricter limits or total prohibitions.”
In a tweet following the vote, Fernández — who campaigned for the presidency on a platform that included reproductive rights — wrote that “today, we are a better society that expands rights to women and guarantees public health.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-12-30--Audit of Absentee Ballots in Georgia Debunks Trump’s Errant Claims of Fraud

Election investigators in Georgia , auditing signatures from a sample of absentee ballots , have determined that there is no demonstrable evidence of fraud , contradicting errant claims pushed by President Donald Trump ever since he lost the presidential election last month .
More than 15,000 absentee ballots and the envelopes that had held them , randomly chosen from 30 election boxes in Cobb County , Georgia , were part of the audit to see whether signatures matched up or not .
The number of ballots checked represents around 10 percent of the total cast via absentee voting , providing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to produce a 99 percent confidence level in their findings .
None of the ballots audited showed that there was fraud of any kind related to invalid signatures .
Ten ballots ( representing less than 0.067 percent of those audited ) did have mismatched signatures , but investigators determined , through contacting the voters directly , that the ballots were indeed legitimate .
Cobb County was among the handful of heavily populated counties in the state that helped propel President-elect Joe Biden to winning Georgia in last month ’ s election .
Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Atlanta , with more than 56 percent of the vote , while Trump garnered 42 percent .
While not a complete audit of the entire state , the findings from the investigation provide more evidence against Trump ’ s claims of fraud , state leaders said .
Indeed , while the president continues to maintain , wrongly , that fraud influenced the election ’ s outcome , two recounts in the state so far — plus two signature comparisons that take place automatically whenever any voter requests an absentee ballot — have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The state has certified its election results , confirming that Biden won by a 11,779-vote margin over Trump , winning Georgia ’ s 16 Electoral College votes in the process .
“ The secretary of state ’ s office has always been focused on calling balls and strikes in elections , and in this case , three strikes against the voter claims and they ’ re out , ” Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger , a Republican , said following the audit ’ s conclusion .
Trump , for his own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the findings from Cobb County .
Without acknowledging the results of that audit , the president tweeted complaints about a separate county , suggesting that an audit there would prove his unfounded claims true .
“ When are we going to be allowed to do signature verification in Fulton County , Georgia ?
The process is going VERY slowly , ” Trump tweeted on Tuesday evening .
In a set of other tweets , Trump continued to suggest that there was a conspiracy against him winning the state , going so far as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China and therefore could not be trusted to verify the state ’ s election results .
“ Now it turns out that Brad R ’ s brother works for China , and they definitely don ’ t want ‘ Trump ’ .
So disgusting !
” Trump tweeted .
Raffensperger , in fact , doesn ’ t even have a brother , and it appears Trump is connecting a different person with the same last name , unrelated in any way , to Georgia ’ s secretary of state .

Election investigators in Georgia, auditing signatures from a sample of absentee ballots, have determined that there is no demonstrable evidence of fraud, contradicting errant claims pushed by President Donald Trump ever since he lost the presidential election last month.
More than 15,000 absentee ballots and the envelopes that had held them, randomly chosen from 30 election boxes in Cobb County, Georgia, were part of the audit to see whether signatures matched up or not. The number of ballots checked represents around 10 percent of the total cast via absentee voting, providing investigators with a sample size large enough to produce a 99 percent confidence level in their findings.
None of the ballots audited showed that there was fraud of any kind related to invalid signatures. Ten ballots (representing less than 0.067 percent of those audited) did have mismatched signatures, but investigators determined, through contacting the voters directly, that the ballots were indeed legitimate.
Cobb County was among the handful of heavily populated counties in the state that helped propel President-elect Joe Biden to winning Georgia in last month’s election. Biden won the county, which is northwest of Atlanta, with more than 56 percent of the vote, while Trump garnered 42 percent.
While not a complete audit of the entire state, the findings from the investigation provide more evidence against Trump’s claims of fraud, state leaders said. Indeed, while the president continues to maintain, wrongly, that fraud influenced the election’s outcome, two recounts in the state so far — plus two signature comparisons that take place automatically whenever any voter requests an absentee ballot — have confirmed Biden as the winner in Georgia.
The state has certified its election results, confirming that Biden won by a 11,779-vote margin over Trump, winning Georgia’s 16 Electoral College votes in the process.
“The secretary of state’s office has always been focused on calling balls and strikes in elections, and in this case, three strikes against the voter claims and they’re out,” Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, said following the audit’s conclusion.
Trump, for his own part, appeared to be dismissive of the findings from Cobb County. Without acknowledging the results of that audit, the president tweeted complaints about a separate county, suggesting that an audit there would prove his unfounded claims true.
“When are we going to be allowed to do signature verification in Fulton County, Georgia? The process is going VERY slowly,” Trump tweeted on Tuesday evening.
In a set of other tweets, Trump continued to suggest that there was a conspiracy against him winning the state, going so far as to claim that Raffensperger had connections to China and therefore could not be trusted to verify the state’s election results.
“Now it turns out that Brad R’s brother works for China, and they definitely don’t want ‘Trump’. So disgusting!” Trump tweeted.
Raffensperger, in fact, doesn’t even have a brother, and it appears Trump is connecting a different person with the same last name, unrelated in any way, to Georgia’s secretary of state.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-12-30--Britain Prepares for Increased Isolation in Wake of Brexit Deal

The grim realities of the Brexit deal announced on Christmas Eve are beginning to sink in as British voters face the impending implementation of an arrangement that leaves Britain poorer and more isolated — both economically and culturally — than it would have been had voters in 2016 opted to stay in the European Union ( EU ) .
Provided that both the U.K. and the European Parliaments ratify the deal as expected , the new arrangement will take effect in the new year .
The new U.K.-EU relationship has been a long time in the making .
In 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters opted to take the U.K. out of the EU , Brexiteers promised a fast , clean severance of ties with the EU .
However , those promises turned out to be a stunning example of wishful thinking .
The Brexit vote unleashed nearly half a decade of political acrimony and increasingly bitter dealings with France , Germany and the other EU powerhouses .
Now , however , four and a half years later , Brexit is finally a done deal .
It wasn ’ t fast , and , in the final @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clean .
Boris Johnson rose to power amid the wreckage of Brexit , biding his time as Prime Minister David Cameron was destroyed by the referendum result ; and then , over three years , as Cameron ’ s successor , Theresa May , repeatedly failed to navigate parliamentary revolts against her various Brexit proposals .
Johnson was elected Conservative Party leader in July 2019 , gambled that he could win a national election a few months later on a promise to finally deliver Brexit , and ended up comprehensively demolishing his Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost as large as that upon which Margaret Thatcher ’ s leadership rested in the mid-1980s .
That election essentially ended the 40 months of rearguard actions that anti-Brexit organizations and politicians had engaged in since 2016 , and made Britain ’ s exit from the EU inevitable .
The year since then has — the pandemic notwithstanding — seen a series of increasingly frenetic negotiations between the U.K. and the EU as to the terms of the divorce .
Throughout much of the autumn , it looked as if the two sides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any sort of deal , and that the U.K. would end up not only outside of the EU , but also outside of its preferential trading systems , and having to fall back on World Trade Organization rules to govern trade between the Europe and Britain .
The negotiations were rancorous , and , in recent weeks , increasingly pusillanimous .
Johnson ’ s government , attempting to project strength in the face of pretty overwhelming weakness , even floated the idea of unleashing British gunboats on fishing vessels from the continent that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 , 2021 .
Of course , much of the acrimony on both sides was more a spectacle designed for public consumption than a real negotiating stance .
Behind the scenes , the European Commission and the British government were working overtime to ensure there wasn ’ t a complete car crash of a Brexit come the new year .
After all , braggadocio aside , Johnson ’ s government knew that the country ’ s business elites wouldn ’ t tolerate a no-deal Brexit , and both sides knew that the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ massive shock to the European trading and financial systems would likely be too much to bear .
On Christmas Eve , barely a week before Britain officially exits the EU , the two sides announced they had finalized a deal .
Running thousands of pages in length , the agreement covers a huge range of issues — from fishing rights to tariffs , to how produce will cross the Southern Irish/Northern Irish border , to which passport lines travelers will have to wait in at ports of entry .
The headline from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tariffs on goods traded between the U.K. and its erstwhile EU partners .
That ’ s a huge relief for U.K. industry , and for businesses that sell European imports in Britain .
But , to get there , the U.K. had to agree that its producers would adhere to EU standards , meaning that by and large , European labor , workplace safety and environmental rules will still apply within U.K. industry .
That ’ s good news for labor rights activists , since , historically , the U.K. has embraced an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the more worker-friendly mores of the EU .
Conversely , it ’ s bad news for those Brexiteers who believed they could undercut the EU by luring companies with the promise of fewer worker protections .
The deal goes far beyond workplace laws and trade regulations , however , and it ’ s in the broader details that U.K. citizens will find their daily interactions with Europe and with Europeans most upended .
It will , over the coming years , affect most every area of life in the U.K. For those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respective countries , there will be strict time limits on how long Brits can reside in EU countries in any calendar year , and how long citizens of EU countries can live in the U.K .
There will be no continued U.K. participation in Erasmus , the continent-wide education-exchange program under which students can study in any European country ’ s universities .
Hundreds of thousands of students each year take up these opportunities ; now , these doors are being slammed shut .
Perhaps most jarringly , there will be no automatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the continent , and for EU residents to work in the U.K .
However , if a professional qualification is mutually recognized on both sides of the divide , there is still the possibility for employers to hire a Brit on the continent and vice versa .
But to stay on the continent beyond 90 days in any 180-day period , a British citizen will now need to apply for a long-term visa and residency rights .
A vast range of professional jobs — from doctors to architects to vets — that used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer have automatic recognition .
If a British doctor wants to work on the continent , he or she will have to petition the country they want to work in to recognize their qualifications .
There will be a replacement scheme put in place for the European-wide health care access that British travelers currently enjoy , meaning that U.K. citizens who travel to Europe post-Brexit should still have access to health care if they fall ill while overseas .
That ’ s a small blessing .
But the details of that scheme are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , come January 1 , even setting aside the pandemic travel restrictions , Brits don ’ t have a guaranteed health care system in place for their continental travels .
Britain will still remain in a number of important scientific collaborative ventures with the EU , but that cooperation sunsets after seven years , and what comes after is still to be determined .
U.K. banks will be limited in what services they can offer customers on the continent , a serious hit for one of Britain ’ s biggest and most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal — again and again , what used to be automatic and simple is now complex and bureaucratic ; but it will almost certainly be passed by Parliament when members of Parliament debate its terms early in the new year for the simple reason that it is still far better than crashing out of Europe with no deal at all .
Brits have , as a culmination of a nearly five-year fit of national orneriness , finally traded away the right to live and work and study in 27 other countries in exchange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reclaiming sovereignty ” and “ controlling our destiny ” and protecting from greedy continental fishermen a fishing catch that makes up a smaller percentage of the national economy than does the single department store of Harrods .
Brexit didn ’ t make sense in 2016 .
It was , however , peddled and re-peddled in the years since as opening up the prospect of a series of glittering go-it-alone trade deals with countries and economic blocs around the world .
Brexiteers argued that a weakened EU would be forced , somehow , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of the shape of any deal .
They also took heart from the Trump administration ’ s enthusiastic embrace of Brexit and the promise of a comprehensive free-trade deal quickly negotiated and implemented with the United States .
Now , however , the shabbiness of the Brexit promise is clear .
True , there probably will be a trade deal with the U.S. at some point — but the incoming Biden team is hardly champing at the bit to negotiate a deal that rewards Johnson for delivering a separation from the EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back in 2016 , and that Biden himself remains deeply suspicious of .
True , there is now a deal with the EU , but that deal is a far cry from the resurrection of British grandeur , trading dominance and unfettered independence promised by Brexit proponents back in 2016 .
The no-win nature of the situation that Britain finds itself in was well summed up by Michael Heseltine , a grandee of the Conservative Party who has spent the past five years fighting against Brexit .
“ The deal is , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ a terrible one.
” But rather than voting against it in the House of Lords when it comes up for debate , he will , he declared sadly , abstain , since even a lousy deal is , at the end of the day , better than no deal at all .

The grim realities of the Brexit deal announced on Christmas Eve are beginning to sink in as British voters face the impending implementation of an arrangement that leaves Britain poorer and more isolated — both economically and culturally — than it would have been had voters in 2016 opted to stay in the European Union (EU). Provided that both the U.K. and the European Parliaments ratify the deal as expected, the new arrangement will take effect in the new year.
The new U.K.-EU relationship has been a long time in the making.
In 2016, when a small majority of British voters opted to take the U.K. out of the EU, Brexiteers promised a fast, clean severance of ties with the EU. However, those promises turned out to be a stunning example of wishful thinking. The Brexit vote unleashed nearly half a decade of political acrimony and increasingly bitter dealings with France, Germany and the other EU powerhouses. Now, however, four and a half years later, Brexit is finally a done deal. It wasn’t fast, and, in the final negotiations, nor was it really very clean.
Boris Johnson rose to power amid the wreckage of Brexit, biding his time as Prime Minister David Cameron was destroyed by the referendum result; and then, over three years, as Cameron’s successor, Theresa May, repeatedly failed to navigate parliamentary revolts against her various Brexit proposals.
Johnson was elected Conservative Party leader in July 2019, gambled that he could win a national election a few months later on a promise to finally deliver Brexit, and ended up comprehensively demolishing his Labour Party opponents — winning a parliamentary majority almost as large as that upon which Margaret Thatcher’s leadership rested in the mid-1980s.
That election essentially ended the 40 months of rearguard actions that anti-Brexit organizations and politicians had engaged in since 2016, and made Britain’s exit from the EU inevitable. The year since then has — the pandemic notwithstanding — seen a series of increasingly frenetic negotiations between the U.K. and the EU as to the terms of the divorce.
Throughout much of the autumn, it looked as if the two sides wouldn’t be able to seal any sort of deal, and that the U.K. would end up not only outside of the EU, but also outside of its preferential trading systems, and having to fall back on World Trade Organization rules to govern trade between the Europe and Britain. The negotiations were rancorous, and, in recent weeks, increasingly pusillanimous. Johnson’s government, attempting to project strength in the face of pretty overwhelming weakness, even floated the idea of unleashing British gunboats on fishing vessels from the continent that veered into sovereign U.K. waters after January 1, 2021.
Of course, much of the acrimony on both sides was more a spectacle designed for public consumption than a real negotiating stance. Behind the scenes, the European Commission and the British government were working overtime to ensure there wasn’t a complete car crash of a Brexit come the new year. After all, braggadocio aside, Johnson’s government knew that the country’s business elites wouldn’t tolerate a no-deal Brexit, and both sides knew that the pandemic had so weakened their economies that another massive shock to the European trading and financial systems would likely be too much to bear.
On Christmas Eve, barely a week before Britain officially exits the EU, the two sides announced they had finalized a deal. Running thousands of pages in length, the agreement covers a huge range of issues — from fishing rights to tariffs, to how produce will cross the Southern Irish/Northern Irish border, to which passport lines travelers will have to wait in at ports of entry.
The headline from the deal is that there will be no tariffs on goods traded between the U.K. and its erstwhile EU partners. That’s a huge relief for U.K. industry, and for businesses that sell European imports in Britain. But, to get there, the U.K. had to agree that its producers would adhere to EU standards, meaning that by and large, European labor, workplace safety and environmental rules will still apply within U.K. industry. That’s good news for labor rights activists, since, historically, the U.K. has embraced an American-style low-wage, low-labor-rights model rather than the more worker-friendly mores of the EU. Conversely, it’s bad news for those Brexiteers who believed they could undercut the EU by luring companies with the promise of fewer worker protections.
The deal goes far beyond workplace laws and trade regulations, however, and it’s in the broader details that U.K. citizens will find their daily interactions with Europe and with Europeans most upended. It will, over the coming years, affect most every area of life in the U.K. For those who aren’t already residents of the respective countries, there will be strict time limits on how long Brits can reside in EU countries in any calendar year, and how long citizens of EU countries can live in the U.K.
There will be no continued U.K. participation in Erasmus, the continent-wide education-exchange program under which students can study in any European country’s universities. Hundreds of thousands of students each year take up these opportunities; now, these doors are being slammed shut.
Perhaps most jarringly, there will be no automatic right for British citizens to work on the continent, and for EU residents to work in the U.K. However, if a professional qualification is mutually recognized on both sides of the divide, there is still the possibility for employers to hire a Brit on the continent and vice versa. But to stay on the continent beyond 90 days in any 180-day period, a British citizen will now need to apply for a long-term visa and residency rights.
A vast range of professional jobs — from doctors to architects to vets — that used to have EU-wide credentialing will now no longer have automatic recognition. If a British doctor wants to work on the continent, he or she will have to petition the country they want to work in to recognize their qualifications.
There will be a replacement scheme put in place for the European-wide health care access that British travelers currently enjoy, meaning that U.K. citizens who travel to Europe post-Brexit should still have access to health care if they fall ill while overseas. That’s a small blessing. But the details of that scheme are still to be worked out, meaning that, come January 1, even setting aside the pandemic travel restrictions, Brits don’t have a guaranteed health care system in place for their continental travels.
Britain will still remain in a number of important scientific collaborative ventures with the EU, but that cooperation sunsets after seven years, and what comes after is still to be determined.
U.K. banks will be limited in what services they can offer customers on the continent, a serious hit for one of Britain’s biggest and most important industries.
It is a bad deal — again and again, what used to be automatic and simple is now complex and bureaucratic; but it will almost certainly be passed by Parliament when members of Parliament debate its terms early in the new year for the simple reason that it is still far better than crashing out of Europe with no deal at all.
Brits have, as a culmination of a nearly five-year fit of national orneriness, finally traded away the right to live and work and study in 27 other countries in exchange for a series of platitudes about “reclaiming sovereignty” and “controlling our destiny” and protecting from greedy continental fishermen a fishing catch that makes up a smaller percentage of the national economy than does the single department store of Harrods.
Brexit didn’t make sense in 2016. It was, however, peddled and re-peddled in the years since as opening up the prospect of a series of glittering go-it-alone trade deals with countries and economic blocs around the world. Brexiteers argued that a weakened EU would be forced, somehow, to bow to Britain’s will in terms of the shape of any deal. They also took heart from the Trump administration’s enthusiastic embrace of Brexit and the promise of a comprehensive free-trade deal quickly negotiated and implemented with the United States.
Now, however, the shabbiness of the Brexit promise is clear. True, there probably will be a trade deal with the U.S. at some point — but the incoming Biden team is hardly champing at the bit to negotiate a deal that rewards Johnson for delivering a separation from the EU that Obama’s administration argued against back in 2016, and that Biden himself remains deeply suspicious of. True, there is now a deal with the EU, but that deal is a far cry from the resurrection of British grandeur, trading dominance and unfettered independence promised by Brexit proponents back in 2016.
The no-win nature of the situation that Britain finds itself in was well summed up by Michael Heseltine, a grandee of the Conservative Party who has spent the past five years fighting against Brexit. “The deal is,” Heseltine told his colleagues earlier this week, “a terrible one.” But rather than voting against it in the House of Lords when it comes up for debate, he will, he declared sadly, abstain, since even a lousy deal is, at the end of the day, better than no deal at all.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.