motherjones--2020-11-18--Indigenous Democrats Helped Flip Arizona, No Thanks to Party Leaders

In early March , Jaynie Parrish was living in Washington , DC , managing social media for Emily ’ s List , a pro-choice political action committee , when she learned that COVID-19 was tearing through her homeland , the Navajo Nation .
She “ freaked out ” hearing that the virus had already killed ten people there ; in less than three months , hundreds more would die as the reservation ’ s case rate surpassed that of any US state .
Parrish felt she needed to do something .
So when a Navajo leader invited her to spearhead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her job and moved home to Arizona .
As campaign director for the Northeast Arizona Native Democrats , a coalition of Democratic groups from heavily Native counties , Parrish led a grassroots team in running a ground game like none their region had seen .
Their goal was to unite Navajo , Apache , Hopi , and other Indigenous voters into a bloc that could help turn the state blue for the first time in 24 years .
Native leaders have long argued that Democratic campaigns fail to treat their communities as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scales in state and national elections .
This year , the devastation the pandemic has brought to Arizona ’ s Native communities , thanks largely to the president ’ s negligence , was yet another reason to believe reservation voters might not choose Trump .
COVID-19 “ was in our face day-to-day , ” says Parrish , recalling one teammate showing up to canvass three days after losing a relative to the virus .
Their efforts paid off : Navajo precincts went 60 to 90 percent for president-elect Joe Biden , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Arizonans are Indigenous , and the Navajo alone comprise about 67,000 registered voters—six times the number of votes by which Biden won the state .
Yet these results were no thanks to the Biden campaign ; like the Latinx organizers that pounded the pavement to register and mobilize their own communities , the Navajo and other tribes helped flip Arizona for a party that ’ s largely taken them for granted .
“ It was a constant pull , with us saying , ‘ you need to do this.
’ They didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parrish of her group ’ s efforts to get national campaigns involved .
The Native coalition would ’ ve loved to have “ Biden money , ” or funds from Democratic Senate candidate Mark Kelly ( who also won his race thanks in part to Native voters ) .
But for most of the race , neither campaign chipped in , says Parrish .
“ Everything was on our own .
No one else was going to do it.
” They ended up winning financial support from liberal groups in other states .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ally who chairs the Navajo County Democrats , wrote articles for the Daily Kos about how Indigenous voters could flip Arizona ; that online community raised $ 300,000 , while supporters of Crooked Media and Swing Left San Francisco helped bring the grand total to $ 450,000—most of it raised without Democratic establishment support .
The coalition was thus able to hire an army of local Indigenous organizers , many of whom had coordinated mutual aid on reservations in the pandemic ’ s early days , to reach the Navajo , Hopi , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and others .
As these reservations lifted lockdown orders , organizers and volunteers went door-to-door registering voters at a distance .
They tabled outside of stores and led “ car parades , ” covering the massive expanse of the northeastern desert by driving through neighborhoods with PA systems , reminding voters of deadlines and promoting Democratic candidates .
Democratic Rep. Tom O ’ Halleran , whose constituents include the Navajo , Hopi , and more Indigenous people than any other congressional district in the country , participated in car parades , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Navajo language , which Parrish says helped reach the many older voters who don ’ t speak English .
But besides Dr. Jill Biden visiting Navajo Nation in 2019 and speaking virtually with the reservation ’ s first lady in August , Parrish can ’ t recall any surrogates from Biden ’ s camp coming to the region .
Meanwhile , Navajo , Hopi , and Apache voters struggled to even get Biden-Harris campaign signs .
“ That was an indicator of the campaign ’ s need to invest more , ” says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across other parts of Arizona .
Her team bought materials and invited community members to make their own colorful signs , some in Indigenous languages .
The campaign finally sent signs , along with money for radio ads , in the final weeks of the race .
Even with limited star power and resources , the Northeast Arizona Native Democrats had massive success in the five counties they canvassed , registering over 21,000 new voters and expanding turnout by about 48,000 votes—a 30 percent increase over 2016 .
Precinct data from ABC15 Arizona @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the state also voted solidly blue ; the Tohono O ’ odham Nation , whose lands and sacred sites are being decimated by Trump ’ s border wall , went over 90 percent for Biden .
As High Country News reported , the trend of Native voters coming out for Biden was nationwide .
Biden won by 20,500 votes in Wisconsin , where the 90,000-strong Indigenous population mostly voted Democrat ; two heavily Lakota counties in South Dakota went 77 and 88 percent for Biden ; and in Montana—where Native voters have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three terms—the county encompassing Blackfeet Nation chose Biden by 64 percent , while the three counties surrounding it voted almost exactly opposite .
Indigenous candidates won House seats in New Mexico and Hawaii , joining the four Native reps re-elected in Kansas , New Mexico , and Oklahoma .
Despite the progress , Parrish sees a lot of missed opportunities .
Personal visits could ’ ve turned Arizona more solidly blue , she says .
That kind of strategy paid off for Trump , who won North Carolina after visiting the state 11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; his last-minute rally in Lumberton helped win Robeson County , where 40 percent of the population belongs to the Lumbee Tribe .
Robeson narrowly went for Trump in 2016 after going twice for Obama ; this year it chose Trump by a whopping 18 points .
Having worked in DC and on national campaigns , Parrish thinks the main reason Native voters get overlooked ( even as their numbers swell ) is a lack of non-white representation among decision-makers .
Her coalition is thus looking to get Natives elected to Democratic county @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ There ’ s no reason we can ’ t have a dozen Native people in our legislature like they have in Montana , or Washington , or New Mexico , places where they ’ ve built strong turnout programs , ” she says .
But grassroots leaders can only do so much from the ground up .
Parrish ’ s team hopes that what happened in Arizona will pique the interest of campaigns , and that national Democrats will start asking Native organizers what they need to engage people in the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That starts with soliciting communities ’ input on policies that affect them .
“ We ’ d love for them to catch up with us , especially since we delivered the win , ” says Parrish .
“ But we ’ re gon na keep doing our work and holding their feet to the fire , because we ’ ll still be here regardless .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
In early March, Jaynie Parrish was living in Washington, DC, managing social media for Emily’s List, a pro-choice political action committee, when she learned that COVID-19 was tearing through her homeland, the Navajo Nation. She “freaked out” hearing that the virus had already killed ten people there; in less than three months, hundreds more would die as the reservation’s case rate surpassed that of any US state. Parrish felt she needed to do something. So when a Navajo leader invited her to spearhead an Indigenous voting project, she quit her job and moved home to Arizona.
As campaign director for the Northeast Arizona Native Democrats, a coalition of Democratic groups from heavily Native counties, Parrish led a grassroots team in running a ground game like none their region had seen. Their goal was to unite Navajo, Apache, Hopi, and other Indigenous voters into a bloc that could help turn the state blue for the first time in 24 years. Native leaders have long argued that Democratic campaigns fail to treat their communities as a group with the voting power to tip the scales in state and national elections. This year, the devastation the pandemic has brought to Arizona’s Native communities, thanks largely to the president’s negligence, was yet another reason to believe reservation voters might not choose Trump. COVID-19 “was in our face day-to-day,” says Parrish, recalling one teammate showing up to canvass three days after losing a relative to the virus.
Their efforts paid off: Navajo precincts went 60 to 90 percent for president-elect Joe Biden, and neighboring tribes voted similarly. Six percent of Arizonans are Indigenous, and the Navajo alone comprise about 67,000 registered voters—six times the number of votes by which Biden won the state. Yet these results were no thanks to the Biden campaign; like the Latinx organizers that pounded the pavement to register and mobilize their own communities, the Navajo and other tribes helped flip Arizona for a party that’s largely taken them for granted.
“It was a constant pull, with us saying, ‘you need to do this.’ They didn’t always listen,” says Parrish of her group’s efforts to get national campaigns involved. The Native coalition would’ve loved to have “Biden money,” or funds from Democratic Senate candidate Mark Kelly (who also won his race thanks in part to Native voters). But for most of the race, neither campaign chipped in, says Parrish. “Everything was on our own. No one else was going to do it.”
They ended up winning financial support from liberal groups in other states. Parrish and Eric Kramer, a non-Native ally who chairs the Navajo County Democrats, wrote articles for the Daily Kos about how Indigenous voters could flip Arizona; that online community raised $300,000, while supporters of Crooked Media and Swing Left San Francisco helped bring the grand total to $450,000—most of it raised without Democratic establishment support.
The coalition was thus able to hire an army of local Indigenous organizers, many of whom had coordinated mutual aid on reservations in the pandemic’s early days, to reach the Navajo, Hopi, White Mountain Apache, San Carlos Apache, and others. As these reservations lifted lockdown orders, organizers and volunteers went door-to-door registering voters at a distance. They tabled outside of stores and led “car parades,” covering the massive expanse of the northeastern desert by driving through neighborhoods with PA systems, reminding voters of deadlines and promoting Democratic candidates.
Democratic Rep. Tom O’Halleran, whose constituents include the Navajo, Hopi, and more Indigenous people than any other congressional district in the country, participated in car parades, while Mark Kelly ran radio ads in the Navajo language, which Parrish says helped reach the many older voters who don’t speak English. But besides Dr. Jill Biden visiting Navajo Nation in 2019 and speaking virtually with the reservation’s first lady in August, Parrish can’t recall any surrogates from Biden’s camp coming to the region.
Meanwhile, Navajo, Hopi, and Apache voters struggled to even get Biden-Harris campaign signs. “That was an indicator of the campaign’s need to invest more,” says Parrish, who watched the signs proliferate across other parts of Arizona. Her team bought materials and invited community members to make their own colorful signs, some in Indigenous languages. The campaign finally sent signs, along with money for radio ads, in the final weeks of the race.
Even with limited star power and resources, the Northeast Arizona Native Democrats had massive success in the five counties they canvassed, registering over 21,000 new voters and expanding turnout by about 48,000 votes—a 30 percent increase over 2016. Precinct data from ABC15 Arizona shows that Indigenous communities in other parts of the state also voted solidly blue; the Tohono O’odham Nation, whose lands and sacred sites are being decimated by Trump’s border wall, went over 90 percent for Biden.
With a lot of talk about Native voting in Arizona. I thought I would share 2 maps. The left is a map showcasing all 22 tribes in the state. The right an updated 2020 voting results maps by precinct. This give you an idea of how Indigenous communities voted in the 2020 election. pic.twitter.com/scrWENDVO2 — Shondiin Silversmith⁷ (@DiinSilversmith) November 6, 2020
As High Country News reported, the trend of Native voters coming out for Biden was nationwide. Biden won by 20,500 votes in Wisconsin, where the 90,000-strong Indigenous population mostly voted Democrat; two heavily Lakota counties in South Dakota went 77 and 88 percent for Biden; and in Montana—where Native voters have helped Democratic Senator Jon Tester narrowly win three terms—the county encompassing Blackfeet Nation chose Biden by 64 percent, while the three counties surrounding it voted almost exactly opposite. Indigenous candidates won House seats in New Mexico and Hawaii, joining the four Native reps re-elected in Kansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.
Despite the progress, Parrish sees a lot of missed opportunities. Personal visits could’ve turned Arizona more solidly blue, she says. That kind of strategy paid off for Trump, who won North Carolina after visiting the state 11 times between late July and early November; his last-minute rally in Lumberton helped win Robeson County, where 40 percent of the population belongs to the Lumbee Tribe. Robeson narrowly went for Trump in 2016 after going twice for Obama; this year it chose Trump by a whopping 18 points.
Having worked in DC and on national campaigns, Parrish thinks the main reason Native voters get overlooked (even as their numbers swell) is a lack of non-white representation among decision-makers. Her coalition is thus looking to get Natives elected to Democratic county boards and statewide offices in Arizona. “There’s no reason we can’t have a dozen Native people in our legislature like they have in Montana, or Washington, or New Mexico, places where they’ve built strong turnout programs,” she says.
But grassroots leaders can only do so much from the ground up. Parrish’s team hopes that what happened in Arizona will pique the interest of campaigns, and that national Democrats will start asking Native organizers what they need to engage people in the party year-round, not just during elections. That starts with soliciting communities’ input on policies that affect them. “We’d love for them to catch up with us, especially since we delivered the win,” says Parrish. “But we’re gonna keep doing our work and holding their feet to the fire, because we’ll still be here regardless.”


motherjones--2020-11-18--Here’s How to Restore Trust in the CDC

Here’s How to Restore Trust in the CDC

During the vice presidential debate in early October , Kamala Harris was asked if she ’ d take a government-approved coronavirus vaccine .
If it had the blessing of public health officials , Harris offered to be the first in line .
“ But if Donald Trump tells us we should take it , I ’ m not taking it , ” she said .
In a sentence , Harris had affirmed her faith in the nation ’ s top health officials , then questioned the trustworthiness of the government .
One viewer , Robert Blair , a Brown University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ She might be entirely right to be hesitant , ” he said .
“ But it just shows you how far we ’ ve come.
” Blair had worked as a data collector during the 2014–2015 Ebola outbreak in Liberia , where efforts to fight the disease were dogged by a lack of trust in government .
Widespread conspiracy theories suggested the sickness was a hoax .
Suddenly , it seemed like a primary symptom of Liberia ’ s crisis—distrust—was appearing in the United States ’ own struggle .
Harris was careful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health officials in her answer , but for much of her audience—the American people—they were indistinct .
In September , a Kaiser Family Foundation poll had found that nearly one-third of Americans harbored distrust for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , the agency tasked with advising the public on COVID-19 , having doubled since April .
“ They were dealt a very bad hand by the pandemic , then undermined and sidelined by the administration in terms of messaging , and then sabotaged by the administration ’ s incompetence , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s director from 2009 to 2017 .
And it ’ s not just the CDC .
Trust in the government has been in an ebb and flow of decline for the last half century , and 2020 saw the sense amongst Americans that it usually does what ’ s right drop to 20 percent , according to the Pew Research Center .
Try running a democracy when all of its participants think it ’ s a sham .
If public institutions lose credibility to effectively plot the nation ’ s course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When people lack trust in the information they ’ re getting , they feel like there ’ s stuff being left out and they make up stories to fill in the gaps , ” said Dr. Ross McKinney Jr. , chief scientific officer at the Association of American Medical Colleges .
“ Rumors and disinformation become the currency.
” So how do we revive the public ’ s trust in the CDC ?
For that , it might be helpful to look at other countries whose institutions , facing a loss of public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Liberia is one model .
More than 11,000 people died during the West African Ebola outbreak , but the tragedy brought its own lessons .
One key to Liberia ’ s eventual success had been sitting in plain site : credentials—and who was wearing them .
The country had recently endured a brutal civil war , and whenever a government envoy entered a community , they were viewed with suspicion .
So the government shifted course .
It courted grassroots leaders , asking them to deliver health guidelines rather than public health workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Local leaders were able to lend some legitimacy to the messaging the government was putting out , ” Blair said .
Protocols , like social distancing , were soon being more widely followed where local leaders had been courted by the government ; the disease was defeated not long after .
Similarly , the US could outsource its messaging to trusted figures throughout the ecosystem of American cultural circles .
“ Everybody loves Dolly Parton , ” Blair said .
“ Imagine Dolly Parton came out and made some video of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect themselves…on behalf of the CDC.
” ( On Tuesday , it was announced that she had donated $ 1 million to Vanderbilt University to help develop the Moderna coronavirus vaccine . )
The CDC can also find some rehabilitation strategies from an organization that was not part of a government .
In 2015 , the Karolinska Institute , Sweden ’ s largest medical university whose professors are responsible for selecting the Nobel prizes in physiology or medicine , faced a crisis .
One of its surgeons , an Italian doctor named Paolo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experimental trachea transplants and three of the operations were at KI .
By 2013 , two of the three patients had died .
KI discontinued trachea transplants and canned Macchiarini .
Over the next three years , the institute conducted a series of internal reviews and brought on external investigators who came up with a number of conflicting answers to the question of whether malpractice had happened on Macchiarini ’ s watch .
In the meantime , he was rehired .
In 2016 , KI dismissed Macchiarini—but its handling of the problem had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , public polling found that the perception that KI had a good reputation had dropped by 50 percent .
But the institute took decisive action : Various department heads resigned , the institute revised and published its internal oversight protocols , and was militantly transparent about having made a mistake .
“ My feeling is the only way to handle damage to trust is to take great action and to communicate openly , ” says the communications director , Anna Maria Böök .
“ It ’ s always best to acknowledge your mistakes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be devastating for individuals.
” Subsequently , the same polling company found that since 2018 , public trust in KI is rapidly returning to its pre-scandal levels .
Could any of these approaches help to return trust to the CDC ?
Transparency has long been a hallmark of the agency whose own guidelines emphasize its commitment to “ acknowledge uncertainty ” and adhere to “ honesty and openness.
” “ The fact [ the CDC hasn ’ t ] been allowed to do that is one of the reasons that we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” says Frieden .
And getting on the same page requires unshackling itself from the executive branch and its influence .
In recent months , the agency has been nearly paralyzed as the administration has politicized its messaging while diluting its scientific credibility .
Meanwhile , CDC leadership has been unable to regain control and protect the institution and the scientists who work in it .
In September , a former CDC head , Dr. William H. Foege , sent a letter to current director Dr. Robert Redfield calling on him to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and not the president , whom he referred to as “ a bully.
” “ You could , upfront , acknowledge the tragedy of responding poorly , apologize for what has happened and your role in acquiescing , set a course for how CDC would now lead the country if there was no political interference , ” he wrote .
Two weeks later it became clear Dr. Redfield hadn ’ t heeded his precursor ’ s advice .
He signed a memo on October 6 permitting the vice president to participate in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the White House—a move experts saw as motivated by politics , not safe health practices .
One of the priorities of the Biden administration will be to restore expertise to these government agencies as a way of rebuilding some trust with the American public .
As Friedan notes , “ They need to be able to speak directly to the American public with the subject matter experts there , that ’ s the key.
” The president-elect has signaled that his appointees will be selected on the basis of competence rather political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public health .
In contrast , at a Nevada rally before the election , Trump told his supporters , “ He ’ ll listen to the scientists , ” as if that were a bad thing .
But part of the problem may be structural , no matter who ’ s the president .
A functional government operates from the top down and the bottom up .
A central aspect of Biden ’ s campaign was reassuring the voters that he would restore norms back to government , but where does one begin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to insulate decision-making more , ” says Max Stier , president of Partnership for Public Service , a nonprofit that advocates for effective government management .
“ There are not that many political appointees , but we are going to need to see a really comprehensive effort to rebuild the culture of science and of evidence-based decision making.
” For the CDC , the ability to communicate with the public and coordinate with other government agencies is essential for its mission of protecting public health .
“ If you don ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have people that want to participate in it , ” says Stier .
Between 2017 and 2019 , more than 1,600 scientists left the federal government .
Trump ’ s mishandling of COVID-19 and his use of the CDC as a political rather than a public health tool led to the exodus of badly needed experts .
“ The scientists who are critical to this response : epidemiologists , biostatisticians , virologists .
Those people , they ’ re in high demand , ” Ezekiel Emanuel , a former Obama official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania , said back in March .
“ They ’ re fundamentally scientists committed to getting the truth , not whitewashing whatever they got.
” Stier says government scientists are mission-based and less interested in working for industry .
“ I think that you go back to the value proposition of , ‘ Why the CDC ?
’ ” he says .
“ If you ’ re mission-oriented , there ’ s no bigger stage to operate in than the federal government , there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rebuild your workforce is , ‘ If you care about impacting the American public and you ’ re a doctor in the public health field , there ’ s nothing better.
’ ” The pandemic may have exposed existing weaknesses to the agency that were worsened by the Trump administration .
But , at the same time , Stier notes , “ This is a rare moment when the value of government is obvious , seeing how connected it is to our health and welfare.
” Reaching an uncertain public , acknowledging mistakes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a simple set of tasks , but climbing out of holes is harder than falling into them .
Considering the Trump presidency threw every last government agency into this pit , the CDC isn ’ t alone in navigating its way back to the surface .
And in some ways the path has already been laid out for it .
“ Losing trust is something that ’ s certainly happened , ” Frieden said .
“ With a focus on transparency , that can be regained .
”

During the vice presidential debate in early October, Kamala Harris was asked if she’d take a government-approved coronavirus vaccine. If it had the blessing of public health officials, Harris offered to be the first in line. “But if Donald Trump tells us we should take it, I’m not taking it,” she said. In a sentence, Harris had affirmed her faith in the nation’s top health officials, then questioned the trustworthiness of the government.
One viewer, Robert Blair, a Brown University political science professor, was shocked. “She might be entirely right to be hesitant,” he said. “But it just shows you how far we’ve come.” Blair had worked as a data collector during the 2014–2015 Ebola outbreak in Liberia, where efforts to fight the disease were dogged by a lack of trust in government. Widespread conspiracy theories suggested the sickness was a hoax. Suddenly, it seemed like a primary symptom of Liberia’s crisis—distrust—was appearing in the United States’ own struggle.
Harris was careful to distinguish between the president and public health officials in her answer, but for much of her audience—the American people—they were indistinct. In September, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll had found that nearly one-third of Americans harbored distrust for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the agency tasked with advising the public on COVID-19, having doubled since April. “They were dealt a very bad hand by the pandemic, then undermined and sidelined by the administration in terms of messaging, and then sabotaged by the administration’s incompetence,” said Dr. Tom Frieden, the CDC’s director from 2009 to 2017.
And it’s not just the CDC. Trust in the government has been in an ebb and flow of decline for the last half century, and 2020 saw the sense amongst Americans that it usually does what’s right drop to 20 percent, according to the Pew Research Center. Try running a democracy when all of its participants think it’s a sham.
“When people lack trust in the information they’re getting, they feel like there’s stuff being left out and they make up stories to fill in the gaps.”
If public institutions lose credibility to effectively plot the nation’s course, then chaos becomes the pilot. “When people lack trust in the information they’re getting, they feel like there’s stuff being left out and they make up stories to fill in the gaps,” said Dr. Ross McKinney Jr., chief scientific officer at the Association of American Medical Colleges. “Rumors and disinformation become the currency.”
So how do we revive the public’s trust in the CDC? For that, it might be helpful to look at other countries whose institutions, facing a loss of public confidence, managed to regain it.
Liberia is one model. More than 11,000 people died during the West African Ebola outbreak, but the tragedy brought its own lessons. One key to Liberia’s eventual success had been sitting in plain site: credentials—and who was wearing them. The country had recently endured a brutal civil war, and whenever a government envoy entered a community, they were viewed with suspicion. So the government shifted course. It courted grassroots leaders, asking them to deliver health guidelines rather than public health workers, and deputized them with government badges. “Local leaders were able to lend some legitimacy to the messaging the government was putting out,” Blair said. Protocols, like social distancing, were soon being more widely followed where local leaders had been courted by the government; the disease was defeated not long after.
Similarly, the US could outsource its messaging to trusted figures throughout the ecosystem of American cultural circles. “Everybody loves Dolly Parton,” Blair said. “Imagine Dolly Parton came out and made some video of all the things people could do to protect themselves…on behalf of the CDC.” (On Tuesday, it was announced that she had donated $1 million to Vanderbilt University to help develop the Moderna coronavirus vaccine.)
The CDC can also find some rehabilitation strategies from an organization that was not part of a government. In 2015, the Karolinska Institute, Sweden’s largest medical university whose professors are responsible for selecting the Nobel prizes in physiology or medicine, faced a crisis. One of its surgeons, an Italian doctor named Paolo Macchiarini, had conducted a series of experimental trachea transplants and three of the operations were at KI. By 2013, two of the three patients had died. KI discontinued trachea transplants and canned Macchiarini.
Over the next three years, the institute conducted a series of internal reviews and brought on external investigators who came up with a number of conflicting answers to the question of whether malpractice had happened on Macchiarini’s watch. In the meantime, he was rehired. In 2016, KI dismissed Macchiarini—but its handling of the problem had already caused considerable damage. By 2018, public polling found that the perception that KI had a good reputation had dropped by 50 percent. But the institute took decisive action: Various department heads resigned, the institute revised and published its internal oversight protocols, and was militantly transparent about having made a mistake. “My feeling is the only way to handle damage to trust is to take great action and to communicate openly,” says the communications director, Anna Maria Böök. “It’s always best to acknowledge your mistakes, even if it feels hard and can be devastating for individuals.” Subsequently, the same polling company found that since 2018, public trust in KI is rapidly returning to its pre-scandal levels.
“It’s always best to acknowledge your mistakes, even if it feels hard and can be devastating for individuals.”
Could any of these approaches help to return trust to the CDC? Transparency has long been a hallmark of the agency whose own guidelines emphasize its commitment to “acknowledge uncertainty” and adhere to “honesty and openness.”
“The fact [the CDC hasn’t] been allowed to do that is one of the reasons that we’re not all on the same page,” says Frieden. And getting on the same page requires unshackling itself from the executive branch and its influence. In recent months, the agency has been nearly paralyzed as the administration has politicized its messaging while diluting its scientific credibility. Meanwhile, CDC leadership has been unable to regain control and protect the institution and the scientists who work in it. In September, a former CDC head, Dr. William H. Foege, sent a letter to current director Dr. Robert Redfield calling on him to work on behalf of the American people and not the president, whom he referred to as “a bully.”
“You could, upfront, acknowledge the tragedy of responding poorly, apologize for what has happened and your role in acquiescing, set a course for how CDC would now lead the country if there was no political interference,” he wrote. Two weeks later it became clear Dr. Redfield hadn’t heeded his precursor’s advice. He signed a memo on October 6 permitting the vice president to participate in the debate with Harris after mass COVID-19 exposure in the White House—a move experts saw as motivated by politics, not safe health practices.
One of the priorities of the Biden administration will be to restore expertise to these government agencies as a way of rebuilding some trust with the American public. As Friedan notes, “They need to be able to speak directly to the American public with the subject matter experts there, that’s the key.” The president-elect has signaled that his appointees will be selected on the basis of competence rather political alliances, especially in the field of public health. In contrast, at a Nevada rally before the election, Trump told his supporters, “He’ll listen to the scientists,” as if that were a bad thing.
But part of the problem may be structural, no matter who’s the president. A functional government operates from the top down and the bottom up. A central aspect of Biden’s campaign was reassuring the voters that he would restore norms back to government, but where does one begin? “You might look at ways to insulate decision-making more,” says Max Stier, president of Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit that advocates for effective government management. “There are not that many political appointees, but we are going to need to see a really comprehensive effort to rebuild the culture of science and of evidence-based decision making.”
For the CDC, the ability to communicate with the public and coordinate with other government agencies is essential for its mission of protecting public health. “If you don’t have trust in the government, you won’t have people that want to participate in it,” says Stier. Between 2017 and 2019, more than 1,600 scientists left the federal government. Trump’s mishandling of COVID-19 and his use of the CDC as a political cudgel rather than a public health tool led to the exodus of badly needed experts. “The scientists who are critical to this response: epidemiologists, biostatisticians, virologists. Those people, they’re in high demand,” Ezekiel Emanuel, a former Obama official and chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, said back in March. “They’re fundamentally scientists committed to getting the truth, not whitewashing whatever they got.”
Stier says government scientists are mission-based and less interested in working for industry. “I think that you go back to the value proposition of, ‘Why the CDC?’” he says. “If you’re mission-oriented, there’s no bigger stage to operate in than the federal government, there’s nothing close. The way you rebuild your workforce is, ‘If you care about impacting the American public and you’re a doctor in the public health field, there’s nothing better.’” The pandemic may have exposed existing weaknesses to the agency that were worsened by the Trump administration. But, at the same time, Stier notes, “This is a rare moment when the value of government is obvious, seeing how connected it is to our health and welfare.”
Reaching an uncertain public, acknowledging mistakes, and normalizing autonomy aren’t a simple set of tasks, but climbing out of holes is harder than falling into them. Considering the Trump presidency threw every last government agency into this pit, the CDC isn’t alone in navigating its way back to the surface. And in some ways the path has already been laid out for it. “Losing trust is something that’s certainly happened,” Frieden said. “With a focus on transparency, that can be regained.”


motherjones--2020-11-18--When Will the 2020 Election Finally Be Over? Here Are Key Dates to Watch

“ It ain ’ t over ’ til it ’ s over , ” once quipped Yogi Berra , the ever-quotable baseball icon .
But when the hell will the 2020 election be done ?
In one way , it is finished .
The race was called for Joe Biden .
He won the popular vote by 51 to 47 percent and trounced Donald Trump in the Electoral College 306 to 232 .
Yet Trump and his cult are denying reality and dragging out the process .
As Trump touts one conspiracy theory after another in falsely declaring the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team ( if you can call it that ) now led by the maniacal Rudy Giuliani has been filing bogus lawsuits to challenge the results , and the Trump campaign has been demanding recounts in key states .
The new tallies are unlikely to change anything , and as of now Trump has a 1-and-25 record on the lawsuits .
( That ’ s one minor win and 25 losses . )
But all this is undermining the election and fostering discord and anxiety .
There appears no means for Trump to legitimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is doing whatever he can to delegitimize an election that cast him a loser of historic proportion .
( No American politician has ever had more people vote against him . )
And he and his henchmen are sowing suspicion , as they attempt to forge the baseless and dangerous narrative that Trump ( and his voters ) were robbed .
At the same time , they seem to hope that some against-all-odds play could change the ending of this drawn-out drama .
On Tuesday night , for instance , two Republican officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes in Detroit—disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of Black citizens and prompting concern that their action might threaten the official acceptance of Biden electors in Michigan .
But in the face of popular outrage , the two GOPers backed down .
Steady as it goes .
That episode freaked out many who fear that Trump the Destroyer of Democratic Norms would find some underhanded way to defraud the American political system and retain power .
After all , he has been using his fact-free charges of vote theft to impede the transfer of power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans by slowing a transition focused on thwarting the surging coronavirus pandemic .
So will there come a time—before the inauguration on January 20—when Americans who care about democracy and who yearn for an effective response to the COVID-19 crisis can breath easy ?
With Trump at the helm , the answer is…probably not .
But there are some upcoming dates to anticipate .
Let ’ s look at how an election count generally works .
After an election , a county certifies the vote count it has publicly reported .
Then the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deadlines for all these certifications differ .
But this mostly happens within the four weeks following the election .
Next , on December 8 , states finalize the appointment of the electors of the Electoral College ( according to the certified state vote counts ) .
Six days later , the electors cast their votes .
On December 23 , Vice President Mike Pence receives the electoral votes .
( “ We regret to inform you… ” ) On January 6 , the House and Senate conduct their tally of the electoral votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process .
When the states have certified their votes , the results are truly official .
Let ’ s focus on those dates for the key states .
Georgia certifies on November 20 , Michigan on November 23 , Nevada on November 24 , Arizona on November 30 , and Wisconsin on December 1 .
There is no deadline for Pennsylvania ’ s state certification .
The critical question for worrywarts is when there will be a combination of certifications from these particular states to guarantee Biden has surpassed 270 electoral votes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ That could push back its certification , which was scheduled for Friday .
And Trump ’ s request of a recount in Wisconsin could postpone the Badger State ’ s December 1 certification .
But Georgia state officials on Tuesday said they expected the recount to be done soon , perhaps as early as Wednesday .
And that could allow for a certification on Friday .
Still , Atlanta lawyer Lin Wood , a Trump backer , has filed a lawsuit to prevent Georgia ’ s certification and to throw out all absentee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Nevada , and Arizona are supposed to be certified—though long-shot or unmerited legal actions mounted by Trump and his allies could interfere with those certifications .
Official counts from these three states and Georgia would bring Biden up to 276 electoral votes .
Over the top .
With Pennsylvania and Wisconsin still to come .
It would be time for the fretters to rest easy .
But there could be a sooner decision day .
In Pennsylvania , counties have to send their tallies to the secretary of the commonwealth by November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certify the results subsequently , but there is no deadline .
That affirmation could come immediately .
Say that happened the next day , Biden would possess enough certified electoral votes to win—presuming Georgia and Michigan had met their certification deadlines .
And the American majority could stop anguishing .
Yet here ’ s another wrinkle : the Pennsylvania certification could be delayed , under state law , if 100 voters go to a state court and claim the election was fraudulent .
So with Trump still endeavoring to muck up the process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deadlines will be met .
Given that his spurious lawsuits have generally been tossed out of various courts , these deadlines could be unaffected .
But it could be a week or two—or more—before there will be a clear picture of what certifications are happening when .
Ultimately , states are supposed to finalize their electors by December 8 .
That should or could be the final deadline—when all official certifications are resolved .
Yet it ’ s possible that Trump shenanigans could interfere with this .
Of course , at any point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( with or without grace ) , and cease the disruptions .
That does not seem probable .
Anxiety , thus , could well continue until next month , or beyond .
The damage being wrought by Trump ’ s assault on the election , though , extends beyond the inducement of uncertainty .
Every day that goes by with Trump challenging and defying the results deepens his assault on American democracy and is another day lost in the fight to prevent the pandemic from claiming more American lives .
Trump may never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a moment when the official results are finalized .
Thanks to the crazy-quilt election system and Trump ’ s ongoing tantrum , the nation just doesn ’ t yet know that date .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
“It ain’t over ’til it’s over,” once quipped Yogi Berra, the ever-quotable baseball icon. But when the hell will the 2020 election be done? In one way, it is finished. The race was called for Joe Biden. He won the popular vote by 51 to 47 percent and trounced Donald Trump in the Electoral College 306 to 232. Yet Trump and his cult are denying reality and dragging out the process. As Trump touts one conspiracy theory after another in falsely declaring the election was stolen from him, his legal team (if you can call it that) now led by the maniacal Rudy Giuliani has been filing bogus lawsuits to challenge the results, and the Trump campaign has been demanding recounts in key states. The new tallies are unlikely to change anything, and as of now Trump has a 1-and-25 record on the lawsuits. (That’s one minor win and 25 losses.) But all this is undermining the election and fostering discord and anxiety.
There appears no means for Trump to legitimately overturn the vote counts. Yet he is doing whatever he can to delegitimize an election that cast him a loser of historic proportion. (No American politician has ever had more people vote against him.) And he and his henchmen are sowing suspicion, as they attempt to forge the baseless and dangerous narrative that Trump (and his voters) were robbed. At the same time, they seem to hope that some against-all-odds play could change the ending of this drawn-out drama. On Tuesday night, for instance, two Republican officials in Michigan initially blocked the certification of votes in Detroit—disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of Black citizens and prompting concern that their action might threaten the official acceptance of Biden electors in Michigan. But in the face of popular outrage, the two GOPers backed down. Steady as it goes.
That episode freaked out many who fear that Trump the Destroyer of Democratic Norms would find some underhanded way to defraud the American political system and retain power. After all, he has been using his fact-free charges of vote theft to impede the transfer of power to Biden—a callous act that is endangering Americans by slowing a transition focused on thwarting the surging coronavirus pandemic.
So will there come a time—before the inauguration on January 20—when Americans who care about democracy and who yearn for an effective response to the COVID-19 crisis can breath easy? With Trump at the helm, the answer is…probably not. But there are some upcoming dates to anticipate.
Let’s look at how an election count generally works. After an election, a county certifies the vote count it has publicly reported. Then the state certifies the statewide count. The deadlines for all these certifications differ. But this mostly happens within the four weeks following the election. Next, on December 8, states finalize the appointment of the electors of the Electoral College (according to the certified state vote counts). Six days later, the electors cast their votes. On December 23, Vice President Mike Pence receives the electoral votes. (“We regret to inform you…”) On January 6, the House and Senate conduct their tally of the electoral votes. Finito.
Back to the certification process. When the states have certified their votes, the results are truly official. Let’s focus on those dates for the key states. Georgia certifies on November 20, Michigan on November 23, Nevada on November 24, Arizona on November 30, and Wisconsin on December 1. There is no deadline for Pennsylvania’s state certification.
The critical question for worrywarts is when there will be a combination of certifications from these particular states to guarantee Biden has surpassed 270 electoral votes.
Georgia is proceeding with a recount. That could push back its certification, which was scheduled for Friday. And Trump’s request of a recount in Wisconsin could postpone the Badger State’s December 1 certification. But Georgia state officials on Tuesday said they expected the recount to be done soon, perhaps as early as Wednesday. And that could allow for a certification on Friday. Still, Atlanta lawyer Lin Wood, a Trump backer, has filed a lawsuit to prevent Georgia’s certification and to throw out all absentee ballots.
By November 30, Michigan, Nevada, and Arizona are supposed to be certified—though long-shot or unmerited legal actions mounted by Trump and his allies could interfere with those certifications. Official counts from these three states and Georgia would bring Biden up to 276 electoral votes. Over the top. With Pennsylvania and Wisconsin still to come. It would be time for the fretters to rest easy.
But there could be a sooner decision day. In Pennsylvania, counties have to send their tallies to the secretary of the commonwealth by November 23, and she is supposed to certify the results subsequently, but there is no deadline. That affirmation could come immediately. Say that happened the next day, Biden would possess enough certified electoral votes to win—presuming Georgia and Michigan had met their certification deadlines. And the American majority could stop anguishing. Yet here’s another wrinkle: the Pennsylvania certification could be delayed, under state law, if 100 voters go to a state court and claim the election was fraudulent.
So with Trump still endeavoring to muck up the process, there is no telling which certification deadlines will be met. Given that his spurious lawsuits have generally been tossed out of various courts, these deadlines could be unaffected. But it could be a week or two—or more—before there will be a clear picture of what certifications are happening when.
Ultimately, states are supposed to finalize their electors by December 8. That should or could be the final deadline—when all official certifications are resolved. Yet it’s possible that Trump shenanigans could interfere with this.
Of course, at any point, Trump could acknowledge reality, concede (with or without grace), and cease the disruptions. That does not seem probable. Anxiety, thus, could well continue until next month, or beyond. The damage being wrought by Trump’s assault on the election, though, extends beyond the inducement of uncertainty. Every day that goes by with Trump challenging and defying the results deepens his assault on American democracy and is another day lost in the fight to prevent the pandemic from claiming more American lives. Trump may never concede. But there presumably will come a moment when the official results are finalized. Thanks to the crazy-quilt election system and Trump’s ongoing tantrum, the nation just doesn’t yet know that date.


motherjones--2020-11-18--Trump’s Strategy for Contesting the Election: Throw Out Black People’s Votes

On Tuesday night , when two Republicans on the canvassing board in Wayne County , Michigan , initially refused to certify the election results , GOP board chair Monica Palmer said she would be open to certifying the results in “ communities other than Detroit.
” It was a revealing statement : Palmer raised no concerns about unproven irregularities in other parts of the county but was willing to block hundreds of thousands of votes in a city that is 78 percent Black and voted 94 percent for Joe Biden .
Singling out Detroit reflects a broader legal strategy by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heavily Democratic cities with large concentrations of Black voters , like Detroit , Milwaukee , and Philadelphia .
Though the Trump campaign has produced no evidence of voter fraud , it is clearly signaling through its strategy that such fraud can only be committed in Democratic areas with large numbers of Black voters .
“ Really the themes that we see , that persist , are this : Black people are corrupt , Black people are incompetent , and Black people can ’ t be trusted , ” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ That ’ s the narrative that is continually espoused by the Trump campaign and their allies in these lawsuits.
” In Michigan , the Trump campaign has filed litigation to throw out the results in only Wayne County , which would disenfranchise 750,000 voters and half the state ’ s Black population .
GOP activists tried to disrupt the counting of votes in Detroit after Election Day , and GOP poll watchers said they felt threatened by election officials who wore clothes that said Black Lives Matter .
In Wisconsin , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in only two counties , Milwaukee and Dane ( home to Madison ) , which together comprise nearly three-quarters of the state ’ s Black population .
Both counties voted overwhelmingly for Biden .
In Pennsylvania , the Trump campaign ’ s legal strategy has centered on throwing out votes cast in Philadelphia , which is 44 percent Black and where nearly half of the state ’ s Black voters live .
Trump falsely claimed there was a “ mountain of corruption ” in the election there .
These efforts are not likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost nearly every major post-election case in court and has not prevented votes from being counted anywhere or changed in Trump ’ s favor in any substantive way .
But by spreading baseless charges of fraud in heavily Black areas , Republicans are laying the groundwork to make it harder to vote for these communities in the future—just as voter suppression efforts have targeted Black voters throughout US history .
In 2016 , Trump famously asked Black voters , “ What do you have to lose ?
” In 2020 , the answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
On Tuesday night, when two Republicans on the canvassing board in Wayne County, Michigan, initially refused to certify the election results, GOP board chair Monica Palmer said she would be open to certifying the results in “communities other than Detroit.”
It was a revealing statement: Palmer raised no concerns about unproven irregularities in other parts of the county but was willing to block hundreds of thousands of votes in a city that is 78 percent Black and voted 94 percent for Joe Biden.
Singling out Detroit reflects a broader legal strategy by the Trump campaign to challenge votes in heavily Democratic cities with large concentrations of Black voters, like Detroit, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia. Though the Trump campaign has produced no evidence of voter fraud, it is clearly signaling through its strategy that such fraud can only be committed in Democratic areas with large numbers of Black voters.
“Really the themes that we see, that persist, are this: Black people are corrupt, Black people are incompetent, and Black people can’t be trusted,” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, said last week. “That’s the narrative that is continually espoused by the Trump campaign and their allies in these lawsuits.”
In Michigan, the Trump campaign has filed litigation to throw out the results in only Wayne County, which would disenfranchise 750,000 voters and half the state’s Black population. GOP activists tried to disrupt the counting of votes in Detroit after Election Day, and GOP poll watchers said they felt threatened by election officials who wore clothes that said Black Lives Matter.
In Wisconsin, the Trump campaign has requested a recount in only two counties, Milwaukee and Dane (home to Madison), which together comprise nearly three-quarters of the state’s Black population. Both counties voted overwhelmingly for Biden.
In Pennsylvania, the Trump campaign’s legal strategy has centered on throwing out votes cast in Philadelphia, which is 44 percent Black and where nearly half of the state’s Black voters live. Trump falsely claimed there was a “mountain of corruption” in the election there.
These efforts are not likely to succeed. The Trump campaign has lost nearly every major post-election case in court and has not prevented votes from being counted anywhere or changed in Trump’s favor in any substantive way. But by spreading baseless charges of fraud in heavily Black areas, Republicans are laying the groundwork to make it harder to vote for these communities in the future—just as voter suppression efforts have targeted Black voters throughout US history.
In 2016, Trump famously asked Black voters, “What do you have to lose?” In 2020, the answer is clear: their right to vote.