motherjones--2020-12-11--A Pro-Trump Voting “Expert” Was Questioned About His Data. It Did Not Go Well for Him.

Matt Braynard , a onetime Trump campaign operative , has produced analyses of the 2020 vote in swing states that claim massive amounts of illegal votes were cast .
He has testified alongside Rudy Giuliani , as the the personal lawyer for Donald Trump crusades to overturn the election .
Braynard ’ s work has been cited in a number of GOP lawsuits seeking to nullify the election in key states .
He has raised nearly $ 700,000 for his so-called “ Voter Integrity Project , ” and he has been paid handsomely to serve as an expert witness on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases .
But on Thursday morning , he and his research were eviscerated by a Georgia state representative during an “ elections investigative hearing ” mounted by Republicans in the state House of Representatives .
Trump and his comrades have insisted that the 2020 tally , in which Trump decisively lost the presidency , was fraudulent , but he and his minions have not provided any credible evidence of fraud or cheating .
Perhaps the closest thing to evidence they have to offer is the data analysis that Braynard has compiled .
Braynard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s 2016 campaign ( until he was fired in some sort of personnel dispute ) , and he remains a huge Trump fan .
( A proud conservative nationalist , Braynard once created a literary magazine named after an ultra-nationalist teenager in Japan who in 1960 brutally assassinated a socialist politician . )
After the 2020 election , Braynard began collecting and studying voting data—examining various databases and conducting phone surveys—and he has since argued that the results were tarnished by a large influx of illegal votes .
He was been collaborating with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ More Society that has ties to Trump ’ s legal team .
This work has brought in a flood of dollars .
Braynard says that the money donated to his project will only be used to cover its costs ; he won ’ t take a cut .
But he has been enlisted as an expert witness in at least three cases challenging the election results in which he has been paid a fee .
According to court records , he earned $ 40,000 in a Georgia case , $ 40,000 in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Wisconsin case .
( It is unclear whether any of these fees overlap . )
In the Wisconsin matter , he declared , “ It is my opinion that due to the lax controls on absentee voting in the November 3 , 2020 election that the current unofficial results of that election include tens of thousands of individuals who were not eligible to vote or failed to record ballots from individuals that were .
As a result , it is my opinion that the unofficial results should not be certified.
” He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two cases .
Braynard ’ s work has been challenged in court .
In a filing in a Georgia case—which was eventually dismissed—Democratic lawyers contended that Braynard “ does not have the appropriate qualifications to opine on these topics , he does not follow standard methodology in the relevant scientific field , and the survey underlying several of his opinions is fatally flawed.
” They cited a report by Stephen Ansolabehere , a Harvard professor and well-known expert in voting and statistics , which slammed Braynard ’ s findings .
Ansolabehere maintained there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Braynard ’ s claims and said that Braynard presented “ no standard errors or confidence intervals , which are necessary to gauge how informative estimates are.
” He insisted that Braynard was making inaccurate extrapolations of limited data and that the phone surveys Braynard used had “ design flaws.
” Other statisticians have harshly criticized Braynard ’ s methods .
On Tuesday , Braynard sent a letter to the governor , attorney general , and secretary of state of Georgia , claiming he had uncovered 21,000 illegal ballots in the Peach State .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ described as “ evidence.
” But two days later , when he testified at a Zoom hearing held by Republican Georgia state legislators—right before Giuliani would testify to the group—his conclusions and work were seriously undermined .
He was even made to look foolish .
Braynard told the legislators that 1,043 early and absentee ballots cast in Georgia in the 2020 election came from people who had registered using a postal box “ disguised as a residential address ” —which is against the rules .
He also stated that by checking a national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he had determined that 20,312 voters were people who had moved out of Georgia or who had registered to vote in another state .
And he added that at least 395 votes had been cast by people who had voted in Georgia and another state .
He asserted that “ the number of ballots that are strongly indicated as illegally cast [ in Georgia ] surpass the margin of victory in the presidential election.
” ( Of course , there was no telling who these supposedly illegal votes were cast for . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ scholarly articles written by Ansolabehere , the Harvard professor who had condemned Braynard ’ s work .
He also noted that he had turned over his information to the FBI .
At first , the hearing went smoothly for Braynard , who has the professional presentation of a data specialist .
But then came state Rep. Bee Nguyen , a Democrat from Atlanta .
It turns out she had been doing her own research .
Citing an exhibit filed by Braynard that listed people who had voted but who supposedly had registered in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out that several names were duplicated on the list .
Then she said that she had looked up the first 10 names on the list and had found eight of these people listed in Georgia property records as residents .
She reached one of them on the phone , she said , and he confirmed that he lived and voted only in Georgia .
Nguyen said she verified this person ’ s voting record .
Taking another name from this list—a woman allegedly registered in Georgia and Arizona—she confirmed this person ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and she found another voter with the exact same name listed in the Arizona voter rolls , born in the same year but with a different birth date .
She also identified another person on the list in a similar situation : same name , different birth dates .
In rapid-fire fashion , Nguyen continued on .
She turned to the Braynard list of voters who he said had registered with postal boxes “ disguised ” as residences .
She recognized one of the addresses as being around the corner from her home—a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first floor .
( Some apartment buildings use a postal box-like system for their addresses . )
A friend in the building sent her a list of residents of the complex .
They were all on Braynard ’ s list , she said .
And the same was true , she had discovered , for another condo complex with a FedEx center .
On her own , she said , she had discovered that 128 names on this list—more than 10 percent of Braynard ’ s total number—were errors .
And Nguyen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the names on the list of people who had allegedly voted in two states—a crime—belonged to a neighbor of another state representative , Teri Anulewicz , a Cobb County Democrat .
This person had supposedly voted in Georgia and Maryland .
Anulewicz contacted her neighbor , and , according to Nguyen , he told Anulewicz that he had never voted in Maryland but has a father with the exact same name .
Nguyen looked at another name on this particular list—a person who had allegedly voted in Georgia and Virginia—and she found two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but with different birth dates .
And one of her own constituents , she said , appeared on this list .
Nguyen drove to her house , she recounted , and the woman told her that she and her husband had lived in Georgia their entire lives and had never been to the other state .
Nguyen concluded this dissection of Braynard with a serious charge : “ Many of the names listed on your exhibit are erroneous .
You have alleged that these voters have committed a felony.
” She criticized Braynard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of them and verify the information .
And referring to one couple she spoke to , Nguyen added , “ They have no idea they are being accused of committing a crime in a public filing.
” Braynard did not have a lot to say about the problematic examples Nguyen had cited when she was done .
“ Thank you for helping to raise issues to help better validate the data , ” he remarked .
And he told Nguyen that he would “ be more than happy ” to “ get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moved on to an appearance by Giuliani , who insisted there was no question that the election in Georgia had been rigged against Trump .
( He claimed there were a thousand people “ on tape admitting fraud ” and accused the state ’ s Republican governor and Republican secretary of state of perpetuating a “ cover-up.
” ) A week earlier , in a Wisconsin case that was partly based on Braynard ’ s research , the state supreme court had shot down that challenge to the election , with one conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ almost entirely on the unsworn expert report of a former campaign employee that offers statistical estimates based on call center samples and social media research.
” That is , his work didn ’ t fly legally .
And when cross-examined by Nguyen , who had engaged in her own basic fact-checking , Braynard ’ s research and his standing as an expert appeared to crumble .
After the hearing , I contacted Braynard to get his take on what had happened .
He didn ’ t respond .

Matt Braynard, a onetime Trump campaign operative, has produced analyses of the 2020 vote in swing states that claim massive amounts of illegal votes were cast. He has testified alongside Rudy Giuliani, as the personal lawyer for Donald Trump crusades to overturn the election. Braynard’s work has been cited in a number of GOP lawsuits seeking to nullify the election in key states. He has raised nearly $700,000 for his so-called “Voter Integrity Project,” and he has been paid handsomely to serve as an expert witness on voting data in several of the court cases. But on Thursday morning, he and his research were eviscerated by a Georgia state representative during an “elections investigative hearing” mounted by Republicans in the state House of Representatives.
Trump and his comrades have insisted that the 2020 tally, in which Trump decisively lost the presidency, was fraudulent, but he and his minions have not provided any credible evidence of fraud or cheating. Perhaps the closest thing to evidence they have to offer is the data analysis that Braynard has compiled. Braynard led the data operation for Trump’s 2016 campaign (until he was fired in some sort of personnel dispute), and he remains a huge Trump fan. (A proud conservative nationalist, Braynard once created a literary magazine named after an ultra-nationalist teenager in Japan who in 1960 brutally assassinated a socialist politician.) After the 2020 election, Braynard began collecting and studying voting data—examining various databases and conducting phone surveys—and he has since argued that the results were tarnished by a large influx of illegal votes. He has been collaborating with a conservative legal organization called the Thomas More Society that has ties to Trump’s legal team.
This work has brought in a flood of dollars. Braynard says that the money donated to his project will only be used to cover its costs; he won’t take a cut. But he has been enlisted as an expert witness in at least three cases challenging the election results in which he has been paid a fee. According to court records, he earned $40,000 in a Georgia case, $40,000 in an Arizona case, and $150,000 in a Wisconsin case. (It is unclear whether any of these fees overlap.) In the Wisconsin matter, he declared, “It is my opinion that due to the lax controls on absentee voting in the November 3, 2020 election that the current unofficial results of that election include tens of thousands of individuals who were not eligible to vote or failed to record ballots from individuals that were. As a result, it is my opinion that the unofficial results should not be certified.” He essentially said the same in the other two cases.
Braynard’s work has been challenged in court. In a filing in a Georgia case—which was eventually dismissed—Democratic lawyers contended that Braynard “does not have the appropriate qualifications to opine on these topics, he does not follow standard methodology in the relevant scientific field, and the survey underlying several of his opinions is fatally flawed.” They cited a report by Stephen Ansolabehere, a Harvard professor and well-known expert in voting and statistics, which slammed Braynard’s findings. Ansolabehere maintained there was “no scientific basis” for Braynard’s claims and said that Braynard presented “no standard errors or confidence intervals, which are necessary to gauge how informative estimates are.” He insisted that Braynard was making inaccurate extrapolations of limited data and that the phone surveys Braynard used had “design flaws.” Other statisticians have harshly criticized Braynard’s methods.
On Tuesday, Braynard sent a letter to the governor, attorney general, and secretary of state of Georgia, claiming he had uncovered 21,000 illegal ballots in the Peach State. He included a USB with what he described as “evidence.” But two days later, when he testified at a Zoom hearing held by Republican Georgia state legislators—right before Giuliani would testify to the group—his conclusions and work were seriously undermined. He was even made to look foolish.
Braynard told the legislators that 1,043 early and absentee ballots cast in Georgia in the 2020 election came from people who had registered using a postal box “disguised as a residential address”—which is against the rules. He also stated that by checking a national registry of address changes and other databases he had determined that 20,312 voters were people who had moved out of Georgia or who had registered to vote in another state. And he added that at least 395 votes had been cast by people who had voted in Georgia and another state. He asserted that “the number of ballots that are strongly indicated as illegally cast [in Georgia] surpass the margin of victory in the presidential election.” (Of course, there was no telling who these supposedly illegal votes were cast for.) In defending his methodology, he cited scholarly articles written by Ansolabehere, the Harvard professor who had condemned Braynard’s work. He also noted that he had turned over his information to the FBI.
At first, the hearing went smoothly for Braynard, who has the professional presentation of a data specialist. But then came state Rep. Bee Nguyen, a Democrat from Atlanta. It turns out she had been doing her own research. Citing an exhibit filed by Braynard that listed people who had voted but who supposedly had registered in Georgia and another state, she pointed out that several names were duplicated on the list. Then she said that she had looked up the first 10 names on the list and had found eight of these people listed in Georgia property records as residents. She reached one of them on the phone, she said, and he confirmed that he lived and voted only in Georgia. Nguyen said she verified this person’s voting record.
Taking another name from this list—a woman allegedly registered in Georgia and Arizona—she confirmed this person’s residence and voting record in Georgia, and she found another voter with the exact same name listed in the Arizona voter rolls, born in the same year but with a different birth date. She also identified another person on the list in a similar situation: same name, different birth dates.
In rapid-fire fashion, Nguyen continued on. She turned to the Braynard list of voters who he said had registered with postal boxes “disguised” as residences. She recognized one of the addresses as being around the corner from her home—a condo complex with a FedEx center on the first floor. (Some apartment buildings use a postal box-like system for their addresses.) A friend in the building sent her a list of residents of the complex. They were all on Braynard’s list, she said. And the same was true, she had discovered, for another condo complex with a FedEx center. On her own, she said, she had discovered that 128 names on this list—more than 10 percent of Braynard’s total number—were errors.
And Nguyen wasn’t done. One of the names on the list of people who had allegedly voted in two states—a crime—belonged to a neighbor of another state representative, Teri Anulewicz, a Cobb County Democrat. This person had supposedly voted in Georgia and Maryland. Anulewicz contacted her neighbor, and, according to Nguyen, he told Anulewicz that he had never voted in Maryland but has a father with the exact same name. Nguyen looked at another name on this particular list—a person who had allegedly voted in Georgia and Virginia—and she found two people in those states with that name but with different birth dates. And one of her own constituents, she said, appeared on this list. Nguyen drove to her house, she recounted, and the woman told her that she and her husband had lived in Georgia their entire lives and had never been to the other state.
Nguyen concluded this dissection of Braynard with a serious charge: “Many of the names listed on your exhibit are erroneous. You have alleged that these voters have committed a felony.” She criticized Braynard for having made no effort to contact some of them and verify the information. And referring to one couple she spoke to, Nguyen added, “They have no idea they are being accused of committing a crime in a public filing.”
Braynard did not have a lot to say about the problematic examples Nguyen had cited when she was done. “Thank you for helping to raise issues to help better validate the data,” he remarked. And he told Nguyen that he would “be more than happy” to “get back to you.” Then the hearing moved on to an appearance by Giuliani, who insisted there was no question that the election in Georgia had been rigged against Trump. (He claimed there were a thousand people “on tape admitting fraud” and accused the state’s Republican governor and Republican secretary of state of perpetuating a “cover-up.”)
A week earlier, in a Wisconsin case that was partly based on Braynard’s research, the state supreme court had shot down that challenge to the election, with one conservative justice writing that the petitioners had relied “almost entirely on the unsworn expert report of a former campaign employee that offers statistical estimates based on call center samples and social media research.” That is, his work didn’t fly legally. And when cross-examined by Nguyen, who had engaged in her own basic fact-checking, Braynard’s research and his standing as an expert appeared to crumble.
After the hearing, I contacted Braynard to get his take on what had happened. He didn’t respond.


motherjones--2020-12-11--Californians Love to Brag About Their Wokeness. So Why Do They Keep Rejecting Progressive Ballot Mea

Californians Love to Brag About Their Wokeness. So Why Do They Keep Rejecting Progressive Ballot Measures?

Daniel Ho-Sang learned the hard way not to put much faith into California ’ s ballot measures .
Back in the 90s , when Ho-Sang was working as an activist focused on police accountability and environmental justice , a wave of conservatism found its way into statewide ballot initiatives .
Ho-Sang watched in horror as 59 percent of voters approved a Republican-driven ballot measure that barred undocumented immigrants from government health care services and public education , and again when an initiative banning affirmative action in colleges , universities , and public agencies was approved .
“ The narrative that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters were tricked by outside interests and that the measures contradicted what the larger populace wanted , ” Ho-Sang says .
Indeed , Prop 187 , the anti-immigrant initiative , put on the ballot during a recession and propped up by then-Republican Gov .
Pete Wilson , galvanized Latino voters and helped turn California into the solidly blue state it is today .
But since Prop 187 , Californians have rejected one progressive initiative after another , meanwhile approving conservative measures that seemingly contradict the states liberal bona fides .
This year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gig workers as independent contractors and , amid a statewide housing affordability crisis , rejected a measure that would have allowed cities and counties to expand renter protections .
Ho-Sang , now an associate professor of Ethnicity , Race & Migration and American Studies at Yale University , no longer sees the moment two decades ago as singular .
In his 2010 book Racial Propositions : Ballot Initiatives and the Making of Postwar California , Ho-Sang concludes that California ’ s reputation as a bastion of liberalism is a shield that allows voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ’ s profound inequities .
“ What ’ s remarkable in the last four years is that , on the one hand , California ’ s been a bulwark against Trumpism , ” Ho-Sang says .
But the same voters who went for Biden by nearly two-thirds in November failed to pass Prop 16 , a measure repealing the ban on affirmative action passed in the 90s .
Voters also rejected a tax hike on commercial properties that would have generated billions in revenue and enshrined independent contractor status for gig workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this fall was the restoration of voting rights for formerly incarcerated people on parole .
“ The current commitment to liberal values alone is not going to be the basis to ” enact laws that advance equity .
I spoke to the Yale professor about the disconnect between what Californians say they believe in and how those values are put into practice , and what organizers can learn from this moment .
Why did California voters reject this effort to repeal the ban on affirmative action last month ?
There are parts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bigger picture , and then when we zero in a little closer , perhaps less surprising .
In the 1990s , the theory was always that the largely white electorate was key to the passage of these measures .
When the demographics and composition of that electorate changed , so too would California politics .
Part of that story has been borne out if you look at the domination of Democrats across all levels of statewide government .
But if you had told any of us in the mid-90s that , 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electorate , and a public discourse more aware of discrimination and structural racism , would be voting to undo the ban on affirmative action , we would have predicted that a measure like this would pass in a landslide .
That ’ s the surprising part .
There ’ s a way in which this didn ’ t follow the pretty deeply held set of assumptions about the relationship between the electorate and their preferences .
If we zoom in a little closer , we can see a number of things .
Certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , lots of other well-funded , high profile measures on the ballot , I don ’ t think helped .
There ’ s also a way that affirmative action itself , which used to be closely identified with achieving racial equity and the fight against discrimination , has also faded from public consciousness and salience .
The very belief that universities can credibly ensure equal opportunity for all Californians is itself no longer a widely embraced proposition .
In the mid-90s , you could assume that a prospective voter would hear the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil rights and anti-discrimination work .
I just don ’ t think that it is as tightly bound today .
People don ’ t think of affirmative action as much and they don ’ t necessarily think of it in that way .
The very notion that universities and the government can ensure fairness has also started to wither .
It makes me think about the way people opposed to Prop 16 framed the issue .
They said , essentially : if you allow affirmative action , you ’ re making discrimination legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opposition for this colorblindness in an unequal American society .
The interesting thing is , I think that was absolutely also the framing of the 90s version .
It was called the civil rights initiative .
Remember , this was an initiative that was almost dead in the water a year before it came on the ballot .
But that colorblind language is what resonated .
So I think all those dynamics operated really powerfully in the 90s .
In the polling before Election Day , the chief opposition to repealing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white voters and a small but vocal minority of Asian American voters , but also Latino voters .
What do you think explains that ?
My guess is that now , the electorate actually is much more savvy about the persistence of discrimination .
With the college admission scandal and the incredible difficulty of paying for college , nobody believes anymore that these institutions are neutral .
Everyone across the political spectrum feels like the institutions are balanced against them .
But the notion that affirmative action is a remedy to that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are so many flaws in these processes that this measure might have done a little to address them .
So my guess is this just seemed like another finger on the scale—this just didn ’ t seem like a way to address it .
In the end , people might have felt like , well , someone ’ s got to lose out , and what if it ’ s me ?
In other words , I think many of those voters would generally agree with the statement that “ discrimination continues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from equal , ” but they just don ’ t associate affirmative action as a solution to it .
What explains this disconnect between how Californians vote for propositions and how they vote in big presidential races ?
This is an unbroken pattern in post-World War II California politics .
Just as one example , in 1964 , California in a landslide goes for Lyndon Johnson over Barry Goldwater .
All polls suggest voters are deeply supportive of civil rights , but they vote by a two to one margin to make racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There ’ s just a long history of that .
It ’ s like this disconnect where California voters can communicate broadly their support for certain values and principles , but they have a more difficult time applying it to making concrete changes in their own backyard .
For me , the rent control measure really stands out .
Part of the argument I make in the book is that : If you ’ re trying to understand how it is that this progressive state is also the first state to ban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban bilingual education , one of the first states to overturn housing and school desegregation efforts , it ’ s because the voters think of themselves as liberal , and therefore , when they ’ re taking those actions , they ’ re not malicious .
They ’ re innocent , in some ways .
That ’ s arguably why the fight against affirmative action takes root in California versus say , Alabama , where it actually would be tinged because of that state ’ s history with a certain kind of animus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approved the affirmative action ban in 1996 and voted against its repeal this year in no way imagine themselves as acting with animus or discrimination .
That ’ s the central paradox of California politics .
What does that tell us about how progressive California is ?
It ’ s framed as this progressive bastion , but then you look behind the curtain and it ’ s a bit more complicated than that .
It ’ s far more complicated .
It tells us about the limits of simply declaring the electorate progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be used to preserve deeply unequal structures .
Look at income inequality .
The housing crisis , the profound gaps in wealth—those all coexist side by side with a very progressive electorate .
Those contradictions are nothing new .
Many skeptics say there ’ s no way California voters are going to make housing discrimination constitutionally protected .
California voters in the 1960s were very supportive of civil rights , on the one hand , and on the other hand , believed that homeowners had the right to decide who they wanted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meant that many thousands of Californians would be shut out of decent housing .
Or in the 70s to believe that school desegregation diversity was a good thing but the district had no business using busing or even very minor measures to integrate local schools .
What these measures show is that voters can accommodate these contradictions .
They can imagine themselves to be open-minded and forward-thinking , and because of that , they find justifications to preserve these deep forms of inequality .
Here ’ s another way to put it : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tolerance , but those are not enough to guide voters in opposing measures that clearly reinforce inequality .
It ’ s not that they ’ re duplicitous .
It ’ s that those principles and commitments are inadequate .
It shows that if California is going to really address some of these profound crises in education and housing in particular , it ’ s going to require a deeper sense of public solidarity .
That ’ s what ’ s in much shorter supply : some sense that Californians need to step up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a very difficult thing to garner in a massive state .
I ’ m just thinking about the affirmative action initiative .
When you look at the breakdown of who overwhelmingly supported it , it was the Bay Area and Los Angeles , and the rest of the state just opposed it .
How do you build that deeper sense of solidarity around these issues ?
It ’ s much more likely to be built regionally within municipalities , where there ’ s just a little more sense of interdependence—we ’ ll rise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Los Angeles or parts of the Bay Area , and you can ’ t imagine someone else is coming for your status or stature .
It ’ s a huge order .
What we call liberal politics isn ’ t enough to presume those kinds of solidarities .
The restoration of voting rights is one example .
That ’ s the effect , it seems to me , of a decade or more of both grassroots work , people from across the political spectrum acknowledging that the prison buildup was a failure , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ roots , and that it wasn ’ t working .
I don ’ t think the same conversations around , let ’ s say , higher education or taxes or housing have taken place .
What lessons can organizers around these initiatives learn from ?
For the organizers , there ’ s long been a lesson that it ’ s hard to move the needle of public opinion and consciousness during elections .
It ’ s not surprising that it proved so difficult to do any kind of meaningful voter education this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ from the 90s ] was , when I was there , many of the community organizing groups and labor groups had no experience organizing around ballot measures , or even doing much electoral organizing at all .
People did not use voter lists , they didn ’ t think about how you integrate with electoral work .
That ’ s changed profoundly .
Some of the most sophisticated organizing is coming out of California .
People are really competent at that .
It was a recognition among some very astute organizers in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in shaping the future of the state , people had to have more capacities around electoral politics .
It was difficult to do that around Prop 16 because of the pandemic and other competing things .
But that ’ s not something to be underestimated—the kind of coalition of labor and community organizations and donors are formidable .
It actually speaks to the notion that it ’ s not fully demographics that determine elections .
It ’ s also the formations they ’ re in , the groups they ’ re connected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That this election doesn ’ t change anything about .
This conversation has been lightly edited for clarity .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Daniel Ho-Sang learned the hard way not to put much faith into California’s ballot measures. Back in the 90s, when Ho-Sang was working as an activist focused on police accountability and environmental justice, a wave of conservatism found its way into statewide ballot initiatives. Ho-Sang watched in horror as 59 percent of voters approved a Republican-driven ballot measure that barred undocumented immigrants from government health care services and public education, and again when an initiative banning affirmative action in colleges, universities, and public agencies was approved.
“The narrative that many of us believed was that California voters were tricked by outside interests and that the measures contradicted what the larger populace wanted,” Ho-Sang says. Indeed, Prop 187, the anti-immigrant initiative, put on the ballot during a recession and propped up by then-Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, galvanized Latino voters and helped turn California into the solidly blue state it is today.
But since Prop 187, Californians have rejected one progressive initiative after another, meanwhile approving conservative measures that seemingly contradict the states liberal bona fides. This year, voters passed a tech company-backed measure classifying gig workers as independent contractors and, amid a statewide housing affordability crisis, rejected a measure that would have allowed cities and counties to expand renter protections. Ho-Sang, now an associate professor of Ethnicity, Race & Migration and American Studies at Yale University, no longer sees the moment two decades ago as singular. In his 2010 book Racial Propositions: Ballot Initiatives and the Making of Postwar California,Ho-Sang concludes that California’s reputation as a bastion of liberalism is a shield that allows voters to support ballot initiatives that deepen the state’s profound inequities.
“What’s remarkable in the last four years is that, on the one hand, California’s been a bulwark against Trumpism,” Ho-Sang says. But the same voters who went for Biden by nearly two-thirds in November failed to pass Prop 16, a measure repealing the ban on affirmative action passed in the 90s. Voters also rejected a tax hike on commercial properties that would have generated billions in revenue and enshrined independent contractor status for gig workers. The only progressive win on initiatives this fall was the restoration of voting rights for formerly incarcerated people on parole. “The current commitment to liberal values alone is not going to be the basis to” enact laws that advance equity.
I spoke to the Yale professor about the disconnect between what Californians say they believe in and how those values are put into practice, and what organizers can learn from this moment.
Why did California voters reject this effort to repeal the ban on affirmative action last month?
There are parts of the story that are deeply surprising in the bigger picture, and then when we zero in a little closer, perhaps less surprising. In the 1990s, the theory was always that the largely white electorate was key to the passage of these measures. When the demographics and composition of that electorate changed, so too would California politics. Part of that story has been borne out if you look at the domination of Democrats across all levels of statewide government.
But if you had told any of us in the mid-90s that, 25 years later, a much more diverse electorate, and a public discourse more aware of discrimination and structural racism, would be voting to undo the ban on affirmative action, we would have predicted that a measure like this would pass in a landslide. That’s the surprising part. There’s a way in which this didn’t follow the pretty deeply held set of assumptions about the relationship between the electorate and their preferences.
If we zoom in a little closer, we can see a number of things. Certainly, competing with COVID, a presidential election, lots of other well-funded, high profile measures on the ballot, I don’t think helped. There’s also a way that affirmative action itself, which used to be closely identified with achieving racial equity and the fight against discrimination, has also faded from public consciousness and salience. The very belief that universities can credibly ensure equal opportunity for all Californians is itself no longer a widely embraced proposition. In the mid-90s, you could assume that a prospective voter would hear the term affirmative action and associate it with civil rights and anti-discrimination work. I just don’t think that it is as tightly bound today. People don’t think of affirmative action as much and they don’t necessarily think of it in that way. The very notion that universities and the government can ensure fairness has also started to wither.
It makes me think about the way people opposed to Prop 16 framed the issue. They said, essentially: if you allow affirmative action, you’re making discrimination legal. It’s a push from the opposition for this colorblindness in an unequal American society.
The interesting thing is, I think that was absolutely also the framing of the 90s version. It was called the civil rights initiative. Remember, this was an initiative that was almost dead in the water a year before it came on the ballot. But that colorblind language is what resonated. So I think all those dynamics operated really powerfully in the 90s.
In the polling before Election Day, the chief opposition to repealing the affirmative action ban came not just from white voters and a small but vocal minority of Asian American voters, but also Latino voters. What do you think explains that?
My guess is that now, the electorate actually is much more savvy about the persistence of discrimination. With the college admission scandal and the incredible difficulty of paying for college, nobody believes anymore that these institutions are neutral. Everyone across the political spectrum feels like the institutions are balanced against them. But the notion that affirmative action is a remedy to that, it seems almost naïve. Structurally, there are so many flaws in these processes that this measure might have done a little to address them.
So my guess is this just seemed like another finger on the scale—this just didn’t seem like a way to address it. In the end, people might have felt like, well, someone’s got to lose out, and what if it’s me? In other words, I think many of those voters would generally agree with the statement that “discrimination continues to be pervasive and opportunity is far from equal,” but they just don’t associate affirmative action as a solution to it.
What explains this disconnect between how Californians vote for propositions and how they vote in big presidential races?
This is an unbroken pattern in post-World War II California politics. Just as one example, in 1964, California in a landslide goes for Lyndon Johnson over Barry Goldwater. All polls suggest voters are deeply supportive of civil rights, but they vote by a two to one margin to make racial discrimination in housing a constitutionally protected practice. There’s just a long history of that.
It’s like this disconnect where California voters can communicate broadly their support for certain values and principles, but they have a more difficult time applying it to making concrete changes in their own backyard. For me, the rent control measure really stands out. Part of the argument I make in the book is that: If you’re trying to understand how it is that this progressive state is also the first state to ban affirmative action, the first state to ban bilingual education, one of the first states to overturn housing and school desegregation efforts, it’s because the voters think of themselves as liberal, and therefore, when they’re taking those actions, they’re not malicious. They’re innocent, in some ways. That’s arguably why the fight against affirmative action takes root in California versus say, Alabama, where it actually would be tinged because of that state’s history with a certain kind of animus. Most of the voters that both approved the affirmative action ban in 1996 and voted against its repeal this year in no way imagine themselves as acting with animus or discrimination. That’s the central paradox of California politics.
What does that tell us about how progressive California is? It’s framed as this progressive bastion, but then you look behind the curtain and it’s a bit more complicated than that.
It’s far more complicated. It tells us about the limits of simply declaring the electorate progressive. Liberal and progressive values can also be used to preserve deeply unequal structures. Look at income inequality. The housing crisis, the profound gaps in wealth—those all coexist side by side with a very progressive electorate. Those contradictions are nothing new.
Many skeptics say there’s no way California voters are going to make housing discrimination constitutionally protected. California voters in the 1960s were very supportive of civil rights, on the one hand, and on the other hand, believed that homeowners had the right to decide who they wanted to rent to, even if that belief meant that many thousands of Californians would be shut out of decent housing. Or in the 70s to believe that school desegregation diversity was a good thing but the district had no business using busing or even very minor measures to integrate local schools. What these measures show is that voters can accommodate these contradictions. They can imagine themselves to be open-minded and forward-thinking, and because of that, they find justifications to preserve these deep forms of inequality.
Here’s another way to put it: People profess liberalism and progressive values and tolerance, but those are not enough to guide voters in opposing measures that clearly reinforce inequality. It’s not that they’re duplicitous. It’s that those principles and commitments are inadequate.
It shows that if California is going to really address some of these profound crises in education and housing in particular, it’s going to require a deeper sense of public solidarity. That’s what’s in much shorter supply: some sense that Californians need to step up for one another.
That seems like a very difficult thing to garner in a massive state. I’m just thinking about the affirmative action initiative. When you look at the breakdown of who overwhelmingly supported it, it was the Bay Area and Los Angeles, and the rest of the state just opposed it. How do you build that deeper sense of solidarity around these issues?
It’s much more likely to be built regionally within municipalities, where there’s just a little more sense of interdependence—we’ll rise and fall together. You drive through Los Angeles or parts of the Bay Area, and you can’t imagine someone else is coming for your status or stature.
It’s a huge order. What we call liberal politics isn’t enough to presume those kinds of solidarities.
The restoration of voting rights is one example. That’s the effect, it seems to me, of a decade or more of both grassroots work, people from across the political spectrum acknowledging that the prison buildup was a failure, that crises and addiction have taken deeper roots, and that it wasn’t working. I don’t think the same conversations around, let’s say, higher education or taxes or housing have taken place.
What lessons can organizers around these initiatives learn from?
For the organizers, there’s long been a lesson that it’s hard to move the needle of public opinion and consciousness during elections. It’s not surprising that it proved so difficult to do any kind of meaningful voter education this year.
One of the most important legacies [from the 90s] was, when I was there, many of the community organizing groups and labor groups had no experience organizing around ballot measures, or even doing much electoral organizing at all. People did not use voter lists, they didn’t think about how you integrate with electoral work. That’s changed profoundly. Some of the most sophisticated organizing is coming out of California. People are really competent at that. It was a recognition among some very astute organizers in the 90s that to play a role in shaping the future of the state, people had to have more capacities around electoral politics. It was difficult to do that around Prop 16 because of the pandemic and other competing things. But that’s not something to be underestimated—the kind of coalition of labor and community organizations and donors are formidable. It actually speaks to the notion that it’s not fully demographics that determine elections. It’s also the formations they’re in, the groups they’re connected to, their own experiences with politics. That this election doesn’t change anything about.
This conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.


motherjones--2020-12-11--Judge Affirms Biden’s Victory in Wisconsin

A Wisconsin state judge on Friday ruled against the Trump campaign ’ s last-ditch effort to throw out 221,000 votes in heavily Democratic Milwaukee and Dane counties and affirmed the certification of President-elect Joe Biden ’ s 20,000-vote victory in the state .
“ The court should do everything to ensure that the will of the voters prevails , ” said retired Judge Stephen Simanek , who was appointed to hear the case by the conservative chief justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court .
It was the latest in a long string of legal defeats for Trump and his allies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases seeking to overturn Biden ’ s victory in key states—including at least four in Wisconsin .
Last week , the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to take up Trump ’ s efforts to invalidate Biden ’ s victory in the state .
“ Once the door is opened to judicial invalidation of presidential election results , it will be awfully hard to close that door again , ” wrote conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn , who joined with the three liberal justices on the court to reject Trump ’ s lawsuits .
“ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked to tread.
” The Trump campaign has filed a separate hearing in federal court , but Trump-appointed Judge Brett Ludwig sounded very skeptical of its chances of success during a hearing on Thursday .
Overturning Wisconsin ’ s election results would be “ probably the most remarkable ruling in the history of this court or the federal judiciary , ” Ludwig said .
Trump ’ s legal defeat in Wisconsin comes as the Supreme Court is considering an unprecedented lawsuit from the president , 18 GOP attorneys general , and 106 House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wisconsin , Georgia , Michigan , and Pennsylvania .
As in Wisconsin , Trump ’ s bid is widely expected to fail .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
A Wisconsin state judge on Friday ruled against the Trump campaign’s last-ditch effort to throw out 221,000 votes in heavily Democratic Milwaukee and Dane counties and affirmed the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s 20,000-vote victory in the state.
“The court should do everything to ensure that the will of the voters prevails,” said retired Judge Stephen Simanek, who was appointed to hear the case by the conservative chief justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
It was the latest in a long string of legal defeats for Trump and his allies, who have now lost 56 post-election cases seeking to overturn Biden’s victory in key states—including at least four in Wisconsin.
Last week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to take up Trump’s efforts to invalidate Biden’s victory in the state. “Once the door is opened to judicial invalidation of presidential election results, it will be awfully hard to close that door again,” wrote conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn, who joined with the three liberal justices on the court to reject Trump’s lawsuits. “This is a dangerous path we are being asked to tread.”
The Trump campaign has filed a separate hearing in federal court, but Trump-appointed Judge Brett Ludwig sounded very skeptical of its chances of success during a hearing on Thursday. Overturning Wisconsin’s election results would be “probably the most remarkable ruling in the history of this court or the federal judiciary,” Ludwig said.
Trump’s legal defeat in Wisconsin comes as the Supreme Court is considering an unprecedented lawsuit from the president, 18 GOP attorneys general, and 106 House Republicans to nullify the election results in Wisconsin, Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. As in Wisconsin, Trump’s bid is widely expected to fail.


motherjones--2020-12-11--Conservatives Love Law Enforcement Until They’re the Ones Being Policed

Last weekend , Danny Presti , who owns Mac ’ s Public House in Staten Island , New York , hit a police officer with his car while evading arrest for having flagrantly violated coronavirus restrictions—specifically the one about serving unmasked customers indoors .
A police statement said that they attempted to arrest Presti after observing people inside the bar , but the bar owner got behind the wheel , ran his car into a New York City sheriff ’ s deputy , and drove 100 yards with that deputy perched on the car like some life-sized hood ornament .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ become a right-wing hero after publicly defying New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo order that bars and restaurants in areas with a high concentration of infections cease serving customers indoors .
Instead he declared his bar an “ autonomous zone ” and encouraged people to come drink and eat at the establishment .
As Media Matters for America reported , Presti ’ s opposition to science and to social distancing guidelines ( especially those handed down by a Democrat ) earned him several days of glowing praise from Sean Hannity , who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wars that keep white conservatives enraged and engaged .
A key part of the Hannity ’ s reliable playbook is defending the police from what he and other conservatives consider threats both to their lives and to their crucial authority in maintaining the social order .
But that changed with this most recent incident of , well , harming a police officer .
All of a sudden , Fox News and Hannity doubled down on their support for Presti .
As Presti sat looking concerned , Hannity explained that his guest was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that Presti was simply unaware that the people who were approaching him were cops trying to arrest him .
He was similarly oblivious to the fact that the person who jumped on the hood of his car was a law enforcement official .
( He could not explain why he continued to drive with someone on the hood of the car . )
Hannity also said Presti was getting killed ( presumably financially ) by restrictions .
Now it was time to talk to his guest .
“ Do people even understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soul is involved in this , sir ?
” he asked .
Presti replied that the reason he “ started all this ” was to bring attention to the fact that small businesses need assistance .
Hannity even compared the bar owner to Eric Garner , a 44-year-old Black man who was killed by a white New York police officer who put him in a chokehold while trying to arrest him for selling loose , untaxed cigarettes .
“ It reminds me of…you know what was wrong with the Eric Garner case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they arresting a guy over a loosey cigarette to begin with ?
” ( No need to elaborate on what Hannity said about the Eric Garner case when it was unfolding .
For that , take a look at Media Matters . )
This might be just business as usual during the polarized and troubling last weeks of the Trump administration , but the Staten Island bar attack , subsequent arrest of Presti , and Hannity ’ s framing of the two can be seen as a microcosm of the extreme right ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government in American lives .
Basically , it appears that for them , the most legitimate role of government in the public sphere is to maintain existing and inequitable racial and social hierarchies .
When it suits their purposes , conservatives heap praise on government officials like the police , in their work to keep that racial order intact .
But once anything falls outside of that realm—enforcing public health restrictions during a pandemic , for instance—their cries of tyrannical government overreach soon follow .
As this year ’ s racial justice movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative commentariat had to do some contortions to keep their messaging straight : Anyone defying public health orders is a patriot and anyone questioning the conduct of law enforcement officials is a traitor .
Make sense ?
The brazen hypocrisy of asserting that police violence is justified because law enforcement is indisputably right , but government orders to wear a mask or restrict indoor crowds is a grave blow to our freedoms is obvious .
Let ’ s look back at when the Black Lives Matter protests really took off this summer after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police officer in Minneapolis , Minnesota .
At that same time many governors and mayors were also trying to get their constituents to wear masks , avoid crowds , and socially distance .
Faced with these two competing narratives , conservatives could barely contain themselves .
There was so much going on !
First liberals—with the help of Antifa , of course—were waging a war on cops .
Then , they were trying to curtail our God-given right to congregate at your nearest restaurant and spread disease to beleaguered service workers .
Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a superspreader event , the hypocrites !
“ Now that rioters and looters are gathering in large numbers , the media no longer cares about social distancing , because the media sympathizes with them , ” William Jacobson , a Cornell University law professor and right-wing pundit told Fox News in June .
( Just to be clear , the demonstrations were not superspreader events , especially compared to , say , a Rose Garden ceremony . )
The racial justice demonstrations and the mask wearing debates and Danny Presti all reveal that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all their high mindedness and passionate conviction , don ’ t actually believe in anything .
They are the ultimate cynics .
All of the indignation from conservative TV hosts , wily elected officials , and even your obnoxious relative who posts crudely designed political memes on Facebook , often turn out to be just empty rhetoric masquerading as principle .
At rallies to support the president ’ s attempt to overturn his election loss , Trump supporters flew Christopher Gadsden ’ s Don ’ t Tread On Me flag , but you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blue Line flag in a show of support for law enforcement .
They ’ re demanding freedom from government intrusion except when that intrusion happens to be law enforcement bearing down on protesters , in which case it ’ s fine .
It ’ s not fine , however , when law enforcement tells them to follow the law , like wearing a mask .
The end result is an incoherent mix of the- government-better-not-try-to-tell-me-what-to-do , but they-better-tell-those- marginalized-people-what-to-do .
Don ’ t tread on me , tread on those other people instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasoning is not new to the Trump era .
Policing and punishing the poor , while fattening the pockets of the wealthy and well-connected is one of the enduring legacies of the presidency of Ronald Reagan .
His family , impoverished by the Great Depression , benefited from Franklin D. Roosevelt ’ s New Deal program , but as president , Reagan slashed the social safety net , filled up military and law enforcement coffers , and lavished tax breaks on the wealthy .
He openly scoffed at the notion that government should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrifying words in the English language are : I ’ m from the government , and I ’ m here to help , ” he memorably said during a 1986 speech .
( Democratic President Bill Clinton followed suit and was also cautious about the role of government during his years in the White House . )
Today one would be hard pressed to find any conservative who thinks government should be involved in the lives of citizens by actively providing generous support to those in need .
So , today , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ providing meaningful coronavirus relief , with millions unemployed , up to 40 million facing eviction at the end of the year , and 54 million people going hungry , bar owners like Danny Presti don ’ t see our national crisis as the result of an incompetent and racist government , but rather as direct assault on all their cherished so-called freedoms .
He ’ s all about the Reagan myth of pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps , a myth we ’ ve been conditioned to accept in lieu of public services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative cohort , who have spent a good part of this hellacious year appointing themselves as backers of law enforcement , responding to chants of Black Lives Matter with “ blue lives matter , ” flying Thin Blue line flags , and castigating protesters as the real enemy , would have reacted to what Presti did with outrage , framing it as an attack on the protectors of public safety .
But clearly they didn ’ t .
And in not doing so , they are communicating something fundamental about their priorities : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s convenient for their narrative .
How is Presti , who tried to evade arrest and hit a police officer with his car , a victim of police brutality ?
It all makes sense once you consider that conservatives don ’ t support the police as much as they support the unspoken contract that policing is for other people , especially people of color .
And one need only imagine what would have happened had Presti been a Black man doing exactly the same thing .
Once cops violate that unspoken contract , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no right to tread on their liberty .
“ I have nothing but the utmost respect for the NYPD and law enforcement , ” Presti said at a news conference after being released without bail .
“ I think when the investigation is complete you ’ re going to find out that I did nothing wrong .
”

Last weekend, Danny Presti, who owns Mac’s Public House in Staten Island, New York, hit a police officer with his car while evading arrest for having flagrantly violated coronavirus restrictions—specifically the one about serving unmasked customers indoors. A police statement said that they attempted to arrest Presti after observing people inside the bar, but the bar owner got behind the wheel, ran his car into a New York City sheriff’s deputy, and drove 100 yards with that deputy perched on the car like some life-sized hood ornament. Before this encounter, Presti already had become a right-wing hero after publicly defying New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo order that bars and restaurants in areas with a high concentration of infections cease serving customers indoors. Instead he declared his bar an “autonomous zone” and encouraged people to come drink and eat at the establishment.
As Media Matters for America reported, Presti’s opposition to science and to social distancing guidelines (especially those handed down by a Democrat) earned him several days of glowing praise from Sean Hannity, who has made an impressive living by fueling culture wars that keep white conservatives enraged and engaged. A key part of the Hannity’s reliable playbook is defending the police from what he and other conservatives consider threats both to their lives and to their crucial authority in maintaining the social order.
But that changed with this most recent incident of, well, harming a police officer. All of a sudden, Fox News and Hannity doubled down on their support for Presti. As Presti sat looking concerned, Hannity explained that his guest was the real victim in all this. Hannity said that Presti was simply unaware that the people who were approaching him were cops trying to arrest him. He was similarly oblivious to the fact that the person who jumped on the hood of his car was a law enforcement official. (He could not explain why he continued to drive with someone on the hood of the car.) Hannity also said Presti was getting killed (presumably financially) by restrictions.
Now it was time to talk to his guest. “Do people even understand that your heart, life, and soul is involved in this, sir?” he asked. Presti replied that the reason he “started all this” was to bring attention to the fact that small businesses need assistance. Hannity even compared the bar owner to Eric Garner, a 44-year-old Black man who was killed by a white New York police officer who put him in a chokehold while trying to arrest him for selling loose, untaxed cigarettes. “It reminds me of…you know what was wrong with the Eric Garner case,” Hannity said. “Why are they arresting a guy over a loosey cigarette to begin with?” (No need to elaborate on what Hannity said about the Eric Garner case when it was unfolding. For that, take a look at Media Matters.)
The Staten Island bar attack, subsequent arrest of Presti, and Hannity’s framing of the two can be seen as a microcosm of the extreme right’s muddled sense of the role of government in American lives.
This might be just business as usual during the polarized and troubling last weeks of the Trump administration, but the Staten Island bar attack, subsequent arrest of Presti, and Hannity’s framing of the two can be seen as a microcosm of the extreme right’s muddled sense of the role of government in American lives. Basically, it appears that for them, the most legitimate role of government in the public sphere is to maintain existing and inequitable racial and social hierarchies. When it suits their purposes, conservatives heap praise on government officials like the police, in their work to keep that racial order intact. But once anything falls outside of that realm—enforcing public health restrictions during a pandemic, for instance—their cries of tyrannical government overreach soon follow. As this year’s racial justice movement and public health crisis collided, the conservative commentariat had to do some contortions to keep their messaging straight: Anyone defying public health orders is a patriot and anyone questioning the conduct of law enforcement officials is a traitor. Make sense?
The brazen hypocrisy of asserting that police violence is justified because law enforcement is indisputably right, but government orders to wear a mask or restrict indoor crowds is a grave blow to our freedoms is obvious. Let’s look back at when the Black Lives Matter protests really took off this summer after George Floyd was killed by a white police officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota. At that same time many governors and mayors were also trying to get their constituents to wear masks, avoid crowds, and socially distance. Faced with these two competing narratives, conservatives could barely contain themselves. There was so much going on! First liberals—with the help of Antifa, of course—were waging a war on cops. Then, they were trying to curtail our God-given right to congregate at your nearest restaurant and spread disease to beleaguered service workers.
Meanwhile, how dare they demonstrate and create a superspreader event, the hypocrites! “Now that rioters and looters are gathering in large numbers, the media no longer cares about social distancing, because the media sympathizes with them,” William Jacobson, a Cornell University law professor and right-wing pundit told Fox News in June. (Just to be clear, the demonstrations were not superspreader events, especially compared to, say, a Rose Garden ceremony.)
The racial justice demonstrations and the mask wearing debates and Danny Presti all reveal that the Hannitys of the world, for all their high mindedness and passionate conviction, don’t actually believe in anything. They are the ultimate cynics. All of the indignation from conservative TV hosts, wily elected officials, and even your obnoxious relative who posts crudely designed political memes on Facebook, often turn out to be just empty rhetoric masquerading as principle. At rallies to support the president’s attempt to overturn his election loss, Trump supporters flew Christopher Gadsden’s Don’t Tread On Me flag, but you can also find them waving the Thin Blue Line flag in a show of support for law enforcement. They’re demanding freedom from government intrusion except when that intrusion happens to be law enforcement bearing down on protesters, in which case it’s fine. It’s not fine, however, when law enforcement tells them to follow the law, like wearing a mask. The end result is an incoherent mix of the- government-better-not-try-to-tell-me-what-to-do, but they-better-tell-those- marginalized-people-what-to-do. Don’t tread on me, tread on those other people instead.
In fact, this line of reasoning is not new to the Trump era. Policing and punishing the poor, while fattening the pockets of the wealthy and well-connected is one of the enduring legacies of the presidency of Ronald Reagan. His family, impoverished by the Great Depression, benefited from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal program, but as president, Reagan slashed the social safety net, filled up military and law enforcement coffers, and lavished tax breaks on the wealthy. He openly scoffed at the notion that government should help people. “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help,” he memorably said during a 1986 speech. (Democratic President Bill Clinton followed suit and was also cautious about the role of government during his years in the White House.)
Today one would be hard pressed to find any conservative who thinks government should be involved in the lives of citizens by actively providing generous support to those in need. So, today, as Congress is stalled in the process of providing meaningful coronavirus relief, with millions unemployed, up to 40 million facing eviction at the end of the year, and 54 million people going hungry, bar owners like Danny Presti don’t see our national crisis as the result of an incompetent and racist government, but rather as direct assault on all their cherished so-called freedoms. He’s all about the Reagan myth of pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps, a myth we’ve been conditioned to accept in lieu of public services.
In a just world, the conservative cohort, who have spent a good part of this hellacious year appointing themselves as backers of law enforcement, responding to chants of Black Lives Matter with “blue lives matter,” flying Thin Blue line flags, and castigating protesters as the real enemy, would have reacted to what Presti did with outrage, framing it as an attack on the protectors of public safety. But clearly they didn’t. And in not doing so, they are communicating something fundamental about their priorities: police lives only matter when it’s convenient for their narrative.
How is Presti, who tried to evade arrest and hit a police officer with his car, a victim of police brutality? It all makes sense once you consider that conservatives don’t support the police as much as they support the unspoken contract that policing is for other people, especially people of color. And one need only imagine what would have happened had Presti been a Black man doing exactly the same thing. Once cops violate that unspoken contract, they become mere government officials who have no right to tread on their liberty. “I have nothing but the utmost respect for the NYPD and law enforcement,” Presti said at a news conference after being released without bail. “I think when the investigation is complete you’re going to find out that I did nothing wrong.”


motherjones--2020-12-12--Donald Trump Just Lost Another One of His Election Challenges in Federal Court

The election has been over for more than a month , but Donald Trump still can ’ t stop losing election challenges in court .
On Saturday , yet another judge rejected his campaign ’ s effort to subvert the will of the people and overturn the president ’ s election loss .
In Wisconsin , US District Judge Brett Ludwig , a Trump appointee , called the case “ extraordinary ” and offered a blistering ruling .
“ This court allowed the plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits , ” Judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brief , plaintiff ‘ asks that the Rule of Law be followed.
’ It has been.
” As the Trump team ’ s lawsuit was failing in federal court , the Wisconsin Supreme Court was hearing oral arguments in another of his lawsuits that seeks to toss out the 221,000 votes in Milwaukee and Dane counties , two heavily-Democratic areas that Trump lost .
The president ’ s prospects in that suit are already looking grim .
“ This lawsuit , Mr. Troupis , smacks of racism , ” Justice Jill Karofsky said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I do not know how you can come before this court and possibly ask for a remedy that is unheard of in US history .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The election has been over for more than a month, but Donald Trump still can’t stop losing election challenges in court. On Saturday, yet another judge rejected his campaign’s effort to subvert the will of the people and overturn the president’s election loss.
In Wisconsin, US District Judge Brett Ludwig, a Trump appointee, called the case “extraordinary” and offered a blistering ruling. “This court allowed the plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits,” Judge Ludwig said. “In his reply brief, plaintiff ‘asks that the Rule of Law be followed.’ It has been.”
🚨🚨BREAKING: Wisconsin Federal Court DISMISSES Trump lawsuit WITH PREJUDICE. "This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits." Trump and his allies are now 1-58 in post-election litigation.https://t.co/LfKb2PUIkq — Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) December 12, 2020
As the Trump team’s lawsuit was failing in federal court, the Wisconsin Supreme Court was hearing oral arguments in another of his lawsuits that seeks to toss out the 221,000 votes in Milwaukee and Dane counties, two heavily-Democratic areas that Trump lost. The president’s prospects in that suit are already looking grim. “This lawsuit, Mr. Troupis, smacks of racism,” Justice Jill Karofsky said to Trump’s lawyer Jim Troupis. “I do not know how you can come before this court and possibly ask for a remedy that is unheard of in US history.”


motherjones--2020-12-12--Newly Pardoned Michael Flynn Was a Crowd Favorite Among the Extremists at Trump’s Latest Rally

Fresh off his presidential pardon , former national security adviser Michael Flynn joined the March for Trump rally Saturday afternoon in downtown Washington , DC .
During a speech in front of an assortment of QAnon followers , Proud Boys , and other far-right extreme groups , Flynn told the crowd that he still fully believes Donald Trump will serve a second term ( he won ’ t ) —thanks to the power of prayer .
Despite the Supreme Court ’ s rejection of Texas ’ lawsuit that tried to throw out all of the votes from four states that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s spectacle attracted hundreds of people who falsely believe the election was rigged against the president .
The Trump campaign has had its complaints rejected by courts across the country , but that apparently has not stopped the president ’ s supporters from boldly claiming that the fight to subvert the will of 81 million voters is still not over .
Unfortunately , Flynn wasn ’ t the only high-profile Trump ally to make remarks that appear to be completely detached from reality .
Katrina Pierson , a senior adviser for the campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden is going to fake his way into the White House , then you have not been paying attention.
” The founder of the Stop the Steal movement , Ali Alexander , threatened to vote out any Republicans who didn ’ t try to block certification of Biden ’ s win in the House on January 6 , saying , “ Stop the steal is never going to stop.
” Though the speakers seemed to be taking themselves very seriously , the rally was chock-full of conspiracy theorists who believe John F. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the crowd and that the election was stolen by an evil supercomputer .
But the credibility of the movement took perhaps its biggest hit when the leader of the Proud Boys , Enrique Tarrio , posted on Parler that he received a last-minute invite to the White House , as if he was going to a high-level , top-secret meeting with the president .
But , as it turns out , he was just going on a public Christmas tour .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Fresh off his presidential pardon, former national security adviser Michael Flynn joined the March for Trump rally Saturday afternoon in downtown Washington, DC. During a speech in front of an assortment of QAnon followers, Proud Boys, and other far-right extreme groups, Flynn told the crowd that he still fully believes Donald Trump will serve a second term (he won’t)—thanks to the power of prayer.
Despite the Supreme Court’s rejection of Texas’ lawsuit that tried to throw out all of the votes from four states that voted for Joe Biden, Saturday’s spectacle attracted hundreds of people who falsely believe the election was rigged against the president. The Trump campaign has had its complaints rejected by courts across the country, but that apparently has not stopped the president’s supporters from boldly claiming that the fight to subvert the will of 81 million voters is still not over.
On a scale of 1 to 10, Flynn says his confidence that Trump will still be president next year is a 10. Nothing can overcome the power of prayer, he says. — Right Wing Watch (@RightWingWatch) December 12, 2020
Unfortunately, Flynn wasn’t the only high-profile Trump ally to make remarks that appear to be completely detached from reality. Katrina Pierson, a senior adviser for the campaign, said if you think “sleepy Joe Biden is going to fake his way into the White House, then you have not been paying attention.”
"We will utilize that system to the very end. And if that does not work — we will take our country back … if you think, for one second, that sleepy Joe Biden is going to fake his way into the White House, then you have not been paying attention!" — Katrina Pierson pic.twitter.com/0GVnpXPtiM — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 12, 2020
The founder of the Stop the Steal movement, Ali Alexander, threatened to vote out any Republicans who didn’t try to block certification of Biden’s win in the House on January 6, saying, “Stop the steal is never going to stop.”
Alexander says Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks will object to House certification on January 6 and warns other Republicans to join him "or we will throw them out of office." pic.twitter.com/IRpv3yRK2H — Right Wing Watch (@RightWingWatch) December 12, 2020
Though the speakers seemed to be taking themselves very seriously, the rally was chock-full of conspiracy theorists who believe John F. Kennedy Jr. is still alive and was in the crowd and that the election was stolen by an evil supercomputer. But the credibility of the movement took perhaps its biggest hit when the leader of the Proud Boys, Enrique Tarrio, posted on Parler that he received a last-minute invite to the White House, as if he was going to a high-level, top-secret meeting with the president.
Here’s a Parler post from Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio pic.twitter.com/1yaRcnwSog — Chris Megerian (@ChrisMegerian) December 12, 2020
But, as it turns out, he was just going on a public Christmas tour.


motherjones--2020-12-12--Twitter Tried to Stop Trump’s Latest Election Lies From Spreading. And Then It Gave Up—Again.

It ’ s the weekend , which means President Donald Trump spent a couple of hours this morning tweeting lies about his election loss .
In recent months , Twitter has attempted to stop the flow of misinformation coming from the president ’ s account by flagging such tweets as “ disputed.
” On Saturday , Twitter took it a step further by severely restricting the ways users could engage with three of Trump ’ s tweets that had been labeled lies .
When users tried to like or retweet the messages , they were instead alerted : “ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that otherwise breaks the Twitter rules from reaching more people , so we ’ ve disable most of the ways to engage with it.
” Retweeting with a comment attached was still enabled .
The move is part of an effort to stem the tidal wave of lies that can spread quickly on Twitter .
Earlier this year , Twitter began flagging Trump tweets that violated its policy about disseminating disinformation about the election , as my colleague Ali Breland reported , in September : Users trying to view the tweet on Saturday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter explaining that the election misinformation tweet is against Twitter ’ s civic and election integrity rules : We placed a public interest notice on this Tweet for violating our Civic Integrity Policy , specifically for encouraging people to potentially vote twice .
https : //t.co/yy674OE26n This is only the latest instance of Twitter trying to curb misinformation spread by the President .
Twitter put the same warning on a Trump tweet last month in which he said drop boxes for mail-in votes could lead to election fraud .
Facebook also said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carolina to vote twice would be taken down because the company found them to be in violation of its policies against voter fraud .
Members of the Trump administration and other high-profile supporters were also hit with flags in the run-up to the election and in the aftermath .
But because Trump tweets so much disinformation , as time went on the labels almost seemed meaningless .
While election fraud tweets were marked as disputed , misinformation about other topics—like President-elect Joe Biden or the coronavirus—are still free to spread to every corner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t know how to deal with the president , who seems hellbent on using his bully pulpit solely for spreading dangerous lies .
The social media giant quickly reversed course on Saturday .
Users are now free to retweet and like the president ’ s bogus lies once again .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
It’s the weekend, which means President Donald Trump spent a couple of hours this morning tweeting lies about his election loss. In recent months, Twitter has attempted to stop the flow of misinformation coming from the president’s account by flagging such tweets as “disputed.” On Saturday, Twitter took it a step further by severely restricting the ways users could engage with three of Trump’s tweets that had been labeled lies.
When users tried to like or retweet the messages, they were instead alerted: “We try to prevent a Tweet like this that otherwise breaks the Twitter rules from reaching more people, so we’ve disable most of the ways to engage with it.” Retweeting with a comment attached was still enabled.
never seen Twitter do this before. Much stricter engagement with 3 Trump tweets this morning pic.twitter.com/TddOPuk3um — David Mack (@davidmackau) December 12, 2020
The move is part of an effort to stem the tidal wave of lies that can spread quickly on Twitter. Earlier this year, Twitter began flagging Trump tweets that violated its policy about disseminating disinformation about the election, as my colleague Ali Breland reported, in September:
Users trying to view the tweet on Saturday were first met with a warning from Twitter explaining that the election misinformation tweet is against Twitter’s civic and election integrity rules: We placed a public interest notice on this Tweet for violating our Civic Integrity Policy, specifically for encouraging people to potentially vote twice. https://t.co/yy674OE26n — Twitter Safety (@TwitterSafety) September 12, 2020 This is only the latest instance of Twitter trying to curb misinformation spread by the President. Twitter put the same warning on a Trump tweet last month in which he said drop boxes for mail-in votes could lead to election fraud. Facebook also said that videos of Trump encouraging people in North Carolina to vote twice would be taken down because the company found them to be in violation of its policies against voter fraud.
Members of the Trump administration and other high-profile supporters were also hit with flags in the run-up to the election and in the aftermath. But because Trump tweets so much disinformation, as time went on the labels almost seemed meaningless. While election fraud tweets were marked as disputed, misinformation about other topics—like President-elect Joe Biden or the coronavirus—are still free to spread to every corner of Twitter.
But apparently Twitter still doesn’t know how to deal with the president, who seems hellbent on using his bully pulpit solely for spreading dangerous lies. The social media giant quickly reversed course on Saturday.
lol they backed down and changed it to this pic.twitter.com/fOdjA9BjhU — David Mack (@davidmackau) December 12, 2020
Users are now free to retweet and like the president’s bogus lies once again.