vox--2020-11-03--Why every state should adopt a mask mandate, in 4 charts

Deborah Birx , the coordinator of the White House coronavirus task force , recently toured North Dakota to meet with officials battling one of the worst Covid-19 outbreaks in the country .
While she commended the state ’ s testing efforts , she was distraught by the noticeable lack of face masks in public spaces .
“ This is the least use of masks that we have seen in retail establishments of any place we have been , ” she said at an October 26 press conference .
As it turns out , North Dakota , which doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mask-wearing rate in the country in October , according to survey data .
It also had 146 coronavirus cases per 100,000 as of November 2 , the highest per capita rate of any state in the county , according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) .
North Dakota is not the only state without a mask policy in the throes of a major outbreak , however : Eight out of the top 10 states that saw the highest new cases per capita in October do not have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows .
( Several of these Great Plains and Midwestern states were spared significant outbreaks of the virus until the fall . )
Over the course of the pandemic , America has been engaged in a massive and uncontrolled mask experiment : Some jurisdictions implemented and enforced mask mandates ; others rejected them as public health guidance became politicized .
President Donald Trump has repeatedly questioned and even scorned the use of masks , and several Republican governors have followed his lead .
Former Vice President Joe Biden , meanwhile , has called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is elected .
But the different state-level approaches mean researchers can now parse the results of a trial they would never have received approval to conduct .
New unpublished research from Kansas and Tennessee suggests that not only do mask mandates prevent Covid-19 spread , they may also blunt the severity of illness and reduce the number of serious cases that require hospitalizations .
Other findings support the argument more and more public health experts are making : that masks remain among our cheapest most effective tools to control the pandemic — if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re not in the ICU , the only tools at our disposal that we know work are the tried and true public health measures , like social distancing , hand-washing , and masks , ” says Vin Gupta , a critical care pulmonologist and affiliate assistant professor for the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington .
“ We ’ re bearing the brunt of those things being implemented poorly.
” “ You ’ re less likely to get Covid-19 if you ’ re wearing a mask , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director of the Institute for Policy and Social Research at the University of Kansas .
And “ even if you do get sick while wearing a mask , you ’ re less likely to get deathly ill. ” Let ’ s walk through some of the latest research on mask mandates and what it means as we head into one of the most perilous seasons in the pandemic so far .
New evidence from Kansas and Tennessee that mask mandates control the spread of Covid-19 One intriguing piece of evidence of the effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the virus comes from Kansas .
In July , Laura Kelly , the Democratic governor of Kansas , issued a mandate requiring everyone in public places to wear a mask where 6 feet of social distancing couldn ’ t be maintained .
It prompted an immediate outcry from conservatives .
Because of a state law passed in June that allowed counties to supersede the governor ’ s emergency powers , 81 counties out of 105 opted out of the mask mandate altogether , and only 21 counties decided to enforce it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ analyzed what happened next .
Ginther , the economist working on this analysis , found that in the counties that enforced mask-wearing , new cases stayed roughly steady .
But in the counties without mandates , even after controlling for how often people left their homes , they doubled .
“ We were stunned by the strength of the effect , ” she says .
The public health officer of Johnson , the state ’ s largest county , was so impressed he asked Ginther to share her work with the Board of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not yet peer-reviewed or even written up into a paper .
She is currently working on publishing the results .
Ginther says it wasn ’ t until 12 weeks after the mandates took effect that the growth in cases began to slow .
But she thinks her results are likely conservative .
“ A 50 percent reduction in cases is likely to be a lower-bound on the true effect of wearing a mask , ” she says .
“ If you had 100 percent compliance , I would expect to see an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made related findings .
A nonprofit group called Prevent Epidemics recently published a report showing that , following mask mandates , coronavirus cases declined in Alabama , Oklahoma , South Carolina , and Texas .
The CDC found that in Arizona , after a mask mandate was put in place , Covid-19 cases dropped 75 percent .
Conversely , cases spiked 151 percent when stay-at-home orders were lifted , demonstrating that behavior has a significant impact on viral transmission .
In addition to slowing down the spread of the virus , new evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also reduce the severity of the virus .
A paper by researchers at Vanderbilt found that at Tennessee hospitals where at least 75 percent of Covid-19 patients came from counties with mask requirements , coronavirus hospitalization rates are the same as they were in July .
In hospitals where fewer than 25 percent of patients come from places with a mask mandate , hospitalizations are 200 percent higher .
What ’ s more , the researchers wrote , hospitals in areas with mask requirements and other mitigation strategies “ are in a much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of community health needs , not just Covid-19 patients.
” Even if they aren ’ t always followed , mask mandates appear to be an effective tool in encouraging behavior change .
The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation ( IHME ) at the University of Washington found in August that mask use increased 8 percentage points after mask mandates , and increased 15 points if those mandates were enforced .
Only around 65 percent of Americans currently regularly wear masks , according to IHME .
But in Singapore , for instance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and they have one of the world ’ s lowest coronavirus death rates .
“ We know that countries that wear masks are doing much better , ” says Ali Mokdad , the chief strategy officer of public health at the University of Washington .
Thirty-two states and Washington , DC , implemented state-wide mask mandates between April and August .
During the same period , an increasing number of Americans began to wear masks regularly , according to a weekly survey started in mid-April by the data intelligence company Premise .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ analyses mentioned above : They simply observe behavior , which means that they can demonstrate associations — like case counts falling after mask mandates are put in place — but not causation .
The gold standard to prove that would be a randomized controlled trial .
But that ’ s a hard study to design in a pandemic because of ethical concerns .
Even without randomized trials , Rebekah Gee , a public health policy expert and secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health , says the body of evidence “ confirms what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on in this pandemic , which is that masks work.
” Masks could save 130,000 lives by February , but more Americans would have to wear them consistently In fact , a study published October 23 in Nature Medicine by IHME ’ s forecasting team modeled current public health interventions — projecting case numbers based on current behavior — and found that universal mask use could save as many as 130,000 lives by the end of February 2021 .
Mokdad says that ’ s why it ’ s essential to have clear , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adds , “ We never debate seatbelts .
Is it okay if only 80 percent of people wear them ?
We say everybody should.
” But while he would prefer that 100 percent of people wear masks , Mokdad says at this point , any incremental increase in mask use “ for me is a celebration.
” Unfortunately , in many parts of the US , mask use is actually decreasing .
In Florida , for example , which grappled with a serious surge in cases this summer , Mokdad says 70 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now , only 65 percent are .
“ Wearing masks has been a response to fear rather than a good , persistent behavior , ” Mokdad says .
Vox analyzed the relationship between the frequency of wearing masks from the Premise survey data and the Covid-19 cases in states from April to October .
As the charts below show , in states with mandates where cases surged in the spring , more people now wear masks .
These states — where more people consistently wear masks — are now less likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even though mask use has risen in many states , the nation as a whole is on a troubling trajectory , with new daily cases , hospitalizations , and deaths all on the rise .
Mokdad says he ’ s very concerned about the holidays .
“ As we go be with our loved ones — our grandparents , our kids — do you want to go sit at a table and risk the people you care about most , or do you want to wear a mask ?
” IHME models predict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mask use from now on , they could reduce the number of future Covid-19 deaths by about 50 percent .
The stakes for getting this right are high — not just for the holidays , but for the rest of the pandemic , however long that might be .
Anthony Fauci , the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , recently echoed Biden ’ s call for a national mask mandate .
“ If you don ’ t want to shut down , at least do the fundamental , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editor-in-chief of JAMA , “ the flagship of which is wearing a mask.
” Rather than thinking about a mask mandate as something that takes away a freedom , as anti-mask protestors have claimed , Leana Wen , a physician and the former Health Commissioner for the City of Baltimore , says , “ Mask wearing allows you to do things.
” If everyone wears a mask , it will keep transmission low , allowing businesses and schools to stay open .
“ If you want a more normal life , we need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to locking ourselves away , ” Ginther says .
“ Masks rise to the top as an approach we can take as a society to have a more open economy but not get everyone sick.
” Lois Parshley is a freelance investigative journalist .
Follow her Covid-19 reporting on Twitter @ loisparshley .

Deborah Birx, the coordinator of the White House coronavirus task force, toured North Dakota this fall, as the state was overwhelmed by one of the worst Covid-19 outbreaks in the country. While she commended the state’s testing efforts, she was distraught by the noticeable lack of face masks in public spaces. “This is the least use of masks that we have seen in retail establishments of any place we have been,” she said at an October 26 press conference.
North Dakota, which at the time didn’t require masks, had the lowest mask-wearing rate in the country in October, according to survey data.
North Dakota is not the only state that lagged in a mask policy in the throes of a major outbreak, however: Eight of the top 10 states that saw the highest new cases per capita in October did not have a widespread mask mandate, as the chart below shows. (Several of these Great Plains and Midwestern states were spared significant outbreaks of the virus until the fall.)
But the dramatic surge of Covid-19 across the country this fall and winter has forced some states to change course. On November 8, Utah implemented a mask mandate, as new daily Covid-19 cases continue to rise in the state and across the country. Several other states have implemented or tightened mandates since then, including Iowa and North Dakota. Thirty-seven states now have mandates, according to the AARP.
And on December 4, the CDC issued a new recommendation that people wear masks indoors at all times, unless they are at home.
Over the course of the pandemic, America has been engaged in a massive and uncontrolled mask experiment: Some jurisdictions implemented and enforced mask mandates; others rejected them as public health guidance became politicized. President Donald Trump has repeatedly questioned and even scorned the use of masks, and several Republican governors have followed his lead. President-elect Joe Biden, meanwhile, has called for a national mask mandate and for Americans to wear masks for the “first 100 days” he is in office, as vaccines roll out.
But the different state-level approaches mean researchers can now parse the results of a trial they never would have received approval to conduct. New research from Kansas and Tennessee suggests that not only do mask mandates prevent Covid-19 spread, they may also blunt the severity of illness and reduce the number of serious cases that require hospitalization. Other findings support the argument more and more public health experts are making: that masks remain among our cheapest most effective tools to control the pandemic — if worn consistently.
“If you’re not in the ICU, the only tools at our disposal that we know work are the tried-and-true public health measures, like social distancing, hand-washing, and masks,” says Vin Gupta, a critical care pulmonologist and affiliate assistant professor for the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. “We’re bearing the brunt of those things being implemented poorly.”
“You’re less likely to get Covid-19 if you’re wearing a mask,” says Donna Ginther, an economist and director of the Institute for Policy and Social Research at the University of Kansas. And “even if you do get sick while wearing a mask, you’re less likely to get deathly ill.”
Let’s walk through some of the latest research on mask mandates and what it means as we head into one of the most perilous seasons in the pandemic so far.
New evidence from Kansas and Tennessee that mask mandates control the spread of Covid-19
One intriguing piece of evidence of the effect of mask mandates on controlling the spread of the virus comes from Kansas. In July, Laura Kelly, the Democratic governor of Kansas, issued a mandate requiring everyone in public places to wear a mask where 6 feet of social distancing couldn’t be maintained. It prompted an immediate outcry from conservatives. Because of a state law passed in June that allowed counties to supersede the governor’s emergency powers, 81 counties out of 105 opted out of the mask mandate altogether, and only 21 counties decided to enforce it.
Two researchers from the University of Kansas analyzed what happened next.
Ginther, the economist working on this analysis, found that in the counties that enforced mask-wearing, new cases stayed roughly steady. But in the counties without mandates, even after controlling for how often people left their homes, they doubled. “We were stunned by the strength of the effect,” she says.
The public health officer of Johnson, the state’s largest county, was so impressed he asked Ginther to share her work with the Board of County Commissioners, even though it’s not yet peer-reviewed or even written up into a paper. She is currently working on publishing the results.
Ginther says it wasn’t until 12 weeks after the mandates took effect that the growth in cases began to slow. But she thinks her results are likely conservative. “A 50 percent reduction in cases is likely to be a lower-bound on the true effect of wearing a mask,” she says. “If you had 100 percent compliance, I would expect to see an even larger effect.”
Other researchers have made related findings. A nonprofit group called Prevent Epidemics recently published a report showing that, following mask mandates, coronavirus cases declined in Alabama, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. The CDC found that in Arizona, after a mask mandate was put in place, Covid-19 cases dropped 75 percent. Conversely, cases spiked 151 percent when stay-at-home orders were lifted, demonstrating that behavior has a significant impact on viral transmission.
In addition to slowing the spread of the virus, new evidence from Tennessee shows that mask mandates could reduce the severity of the virus. A paper by researchers at Vanderbilt found that at Tennessee hospitals where at least 75 percent of Covid-19 patients came from counties with mask requirements, coronavirus hospitalization rates are the same as they were in July. In hospitals where fewer than 25 percent of patients come from places with a mask mandate, hospitalizations are 200 percent higher. What’s more, the researchers wrote, hospitals in areas with mask requirements and other mitigation strategies “are in a much better position to serve the entire spectrum of community health needs, not just Covid-19 patients.”
Mask mandates lead to more people wearing masks
Even if they aren’t always followed, mask mandates appear to be an effective tool in encouraging behavior change. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington found in August that mask use increased 8 percentage points after mask mandates, and increased 15 points if those mandates were enforced.
Only around 65 percent of Americans currently regularly wear masks, according to IHME. But in Singapore, for instance, around 95 percent of people wear masks, and they have one of the world’s lowest coronavirus death rates. “We know that countries that wear masks are doing much better,” says Ali Mokdad, the chief strategy officer of public health at the University of Washington.
Thirty-three states and Washington, DC, implemented statewide mask mandates between April and August. During the same period, an increasing number of Americans began to wear masks regularly, according to a weekly survey started in mid-April by the data intelligence company Premise.
There is one caveat of all the analyses mentioned above: They simply observe behavior, which means that they can demonstrate associations — like case counts falling after mask mandates are put in place — but not causation. The gold standard to prove that would be a randomized controlled trial. But that’s a hard study to design in a pandemic because of ethical concerns.
Even without randomized trials, Rebekah Gee, a public health policy expert and secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health, says the body of evidence “confirms what public health experts have known since early on in this pandemic, which is that masks work.”
Masks could save 130,000 lives by February, but more Americans would have to wear them consistently
In fact, a study published October 23 in Nature Medicine by IHME’s forecasting team modeled current public health interventions — projecting case numbers based on current behavior — and found that universal mask use could save as many as 130,000 lives by the end of February 2021.
Mokdad says that’s why it’s essential to have clear, consistent recommendations to wear masks. He adds, “We never debate seatbelts. Is it okay if only 80 percent of people wear them? We say everybody should.” But while he would prefer that 100 percent of people wear masks, Mokdad says at this point, any incremental increase in mask use “for me is a celebration.”
Unfortunately, in many parts of the US, mask use is actually decreasing. In Florida, for example, which grappled with a serious surge in cases this summer, Mokdad says 70 percent of people were wearing masks in August. Now, only 65 percent are. “Wearing masks has been a response to fear rather than a good, persistent behavior,” Mokdad says.
Vox analyzed the relationship between the frequency of wearing masks from the Premise survey data and the Covid-19 cases in states from April to October. As the charts below show, in states with mandates where cases surged in the spring, more people now wear masks. These states — where more people consistently wear masks — are now less likely to see another huge surge in cases.
Even though mask use has risen in many states, the nation as a whole is on a troubling trajectory, with new daily cases, hospitalizations, and deaths all on the rise. Mokdad says he’s very concerned about the holidays. “As we go be with our loved ones — our grandparents, our kids — do you want to go sit at a table and risk the people you care about most, or do you want to wear a mask?” IHME models predict that if some US states increased their mask use from now on, they could reduce the number of future Covid-19 deaths by about 50 percent.
The stakes for getting this right are high — not just for the holidays, but for the rest of the pandemic, however long that might be.
Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, recently echoed Biden’s call for a national mask mandate. “If you don’t want to shut down, at least do the fundamental, basic things,” Fauci told the editor-in-chief of JAMA, “the flagship of which is wearing a mask.”
Rather than thinking about a mask mandate as something that takes away a freedom, as anti-mask protestors have claimed, Leana Wen, a physician and the former Health Commissioner for the City of Baltimore, says, “Mask-wearing allows you to do things.” If everyone wears a mask, it will keep transmission low, allowing businesses and schools to stay open.
“If you want a more normal life, we need to adjust our behavior, as opposed to locking ourselves away,” Ginther says. “Masks rise to the top as an approach we can take as a society to have a more open economy but not get everyone sick.”
Lois Parshley is a freelance investigative journalist. Follow her Covid-19 reporting on Twitter @loisparshley.
Editor’s note, November 7: Due to a data error, a previous version of the chart of increases in Covid-19 cases in October did not include Hawaii and miscategorized Louisiana as not having a mandate. In fact, Louisiana implemented a mandate in August. The chart has been updated to reflect these changes.


vox--2020-11-03--This week in TikTok: It’s Christmas already

Hello from The Goods ’ twice-weekly newsletter !
On Tuesdays , internet culture reporter Rebecca Jennings uses this space to update you all on what ’ s been going on in the world of TikTok .
Is there something you want to see more of ?
Less of ?
Different of ?
Email rebecca.jennings @ vox.com , and subscribe to The Goods ’ newsletter here .
In case you have not yet looked at a calendar today or , alternatively , have had the date burned in your memory for the past several years , it is Election Day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t already ! )
For the latest updates , see Vox ’ s election coverage .
But on TikTok , the election is already over .
In fact , we ’ ve skipped Thanksgiving and moved straight on to December : Surprise , it ’ s Christmas now !
This week , far from searing commentary from galvanized youths making passionate cases for their presidential candidate of choice , my TikTok feed was full of the familiar sounds of Perry Como ’ s “ It ’ s Beginning to Look a Lot Like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of videos set to this song ) , cookie decorating tutorials , gift ideas for dads , and zero politics whatsoever .
It ’ s fairly obvious what ’ s happening here : People are desperate for anything remotely akin to warm fuzzies , and Christmas imagery — garlands , glittery home decor , and cutesy clothing — brings up feelings of nostalgia and comfort for a lot of people .
No song better encapsulates holiday energy online than Mariah Carey ’ s “ All I Want for Christmas Is You , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countless memes and videos ( a personal favorite : the kid who times the song so that the jingle bells start ringing at exactly midnight on November 1 ) .
Queen of Christmas Carey herself also officially declared it Christmas season when she published a video over the weekend celebrating the transition from Halloween to the holidays .
Though jokes like this have been around for years , the annual internet argument around “ when is it socially acceptable to play Christmas music ” sounds a lot different during a pandemic .
Who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for any of us — fewer people might be traveling or seeing their families and friends ; more people might be spending the holidays alone .
We don ’ t know what the world will look like in two months .
We don ’ t even know what the world will look like tomorrow !
All we can do , ultimately , is reminisce on the ghosts of holidays past , back when things were simpler .
Plus , 2020 has already messed with our sense of time enough .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• Don ’ t worry about the election , people — the TikTok witches are handling it .
• BuzzFeed attempted the “ hot cocoa bombs ” on TikTok .
They seem like a lot of work ?
• This vaporwave influencer is making TikToks stanning nuclear energy .
“ I think if we ’ re having an honest conversation about decarbonizing our economy , saving existing nuclear power plants is the most important thing we can do right now , ” she told Vice .
“ We are in a climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fossil fuels immediately.
” • A Lutheran college in Michigan tried to make merch .
It turned out a lot … sexier than anticipated .
There ’ s this dude on TikTok who is essentially the physical embodiment of the sort of man who refers to women as “ females , ” who makes these silly videos from inside his car .
They ’ re short — like , only five seconds long and full of little platitudes that you might see as Instagram quotes or on Local Twitter , many of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swear they ’ re broke then all of a sudden here comes the UPS/Amazon truck ” ) , but they are absolutely haunting TikTok .
He also has these incredibly piercing hazel eyes that he clearly thinks are very sexy , which will be important later on .
Anyway !
His name ’ s Jordan Scott , and he made a video earlier this month where he claimed “ I ain ’ t never seen two pretty best friends .
1 always ugly , ” and now it ’ s a meme .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ making fun of his face ( it ’ s objectively chiseled and striking but also very unsettling ? )
.
As my friend Kevin pointed out , this is a clear example of someone with interesting eyes having been told their entire lives that they are exceptionally gorgeous and wise and yet are mistaken .
( This should forever be referred to as the Paul Hollywood effect . )
But now the meme has moved past Jordan and his eyes , and people are Rickrolling each other with “ I ain ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” tricking viewers into thinking they ’ re watching an unrelated video only to insert the line at the least expected moment .
In honor of today , here ’ s an extremely convincing one about FiveThirtyEight ’ s election predictions .
Give your brain a break with this very , very , very long Rube Goldberg machine .
And before you go ...

Hello from The Goods’ twice-weekly newsletter! On Tuesdays, internet culture reporter Rebecca Jennings uses this space to update you all on what’s been going on in the world of TikTok. Is there something you want to see more of? Less of? Different of? Email rebecca.jennings@vox.com, and subscribe to The Goods’ newsletter here.
In case you have not yet looked at a calendar today or, alternatively, have had the date burned in your memory for the past several years, it is Election Day. (Go vote if you haven’t already!) For the latest updates, see Vox’s election coverage.
But on TikTok, the election is already over. In fact, we’ve skipped Thanksgiving and moved straight on to December: Surprise, it’s Christmas now! This week, far from searing commentary from galvanized youths making passionate cases for their presidential candidate of choice, my TikTok feed was full of the familiar sounds of Perry Como’s “It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas” (there are literally millions of videos set to this song), cookie decorating tutorials, gift ideas for dads, and zero politics whatsoever.
It’s fairly obvious what’s happening here: People are desperate for anything remotely akin to warm fuzzies, and Christmas imagery — garlands, glittery home decor, and cutesy clothing — brings up feelings of nostalgia and comfort for a lot of people.
No song better encapsulates holiday energy online than Mariah Carey’s “All I Want for Christmas Is You,” which every year is the subject of countless memes and videos (a personal favorite: the kid who times the song so that the jingle bells start ringing at exactly midnight on November 1). Queen of Christmas Carey herself also officially declared it Christmas season when she published a video over the weekend celebrating the transition from Halloween to the holidays.
Though jokes like this have been around for years, the annual internet argument around “when is it socially acceptable to play Christmas music” sounds a lot different during a pandemic. Who knows what the holidays will look like for any of us — fewer people might be traveling or seeing their families and friends; more people might be spending the holidays alone. We don’t know what the world will look like in two months. We don’t even know what the world will look like tomorrow! All we can do, ultimately, is reminisce on the ghosts of holidays past, back when things were simpler.
Plus, 2020 has already messed with our sense of time enough. It’s Christmas if you want it to be.
TikTok in the news
Don’t worry about the election, people — the TikTok witches are handling it.
BuzzFeed attempted the “hot cocoa bombs” on TikTok. They seem like a lot of work?
This vaporwave influencer is making TikToks stanning nuclear energy. “I think if we’re having an honest conversation about decarbonizing our economy, saving existing nuclear power plants is the most important thing we can do right now,” she told Vice. “We are in a climate emergency and have to phase out of fossil fuels immediately.”
A Lutheran college in Michigan tried to make merch. It turned out a lot … sexier than anticipated.
Meme watch
There’s this dude on TikTok who is essentially the physical embodiment of the sort of man who refers to women as “females,” who makes these silly videos from inside his car. They’re short — like, only five seconds long and full of little platitudes that you might see as Instagram quotes or on Local Twitter, many of them rather sexist (e.g. “Women swear they’re broke then all of a sudden here comes the UPS/Amazon truck”), but they are absolutely haunting TikTok. He also has these incredibly piercing hazel eyes that he clearly thinks are very sexy, which will be important later on.
Anyway! His name’s Jordan Scott, and he made a video earlier this month where he claimed “I ain’t never seen two pretty best friends. 1 always ugly,” and now it’s a meme. A lot of the videos are just making fun of his face (it’s objectively chiseled and striking but also very unsettling?). As my friend Kevin pointed out, this is a clear example of someone with interesting eyes having been told their entire lives that they are exceptionally gorgeous and wise and yet are mistaken. (This should forever be referred to as the Paul Hollywood effect.)
But now the meme has moved past Jordan and his eyes, and people are Rickrolling each other with “I ain’t never seen two pretty best friends,” tricking viewers into thinking they’re watching an unrelated video only to insert the line at the least expected moment. In honor of today, here’s an extremely convincing one about FiveThirtyEight’s election predictions.
One Last Thing
Give your brain a break with this very, very, very long Rube Goldberg machine.
And before you go ...


vox--2020-11-03--Democrats’ path to a Senate majority, explained

Even if Democrats pull off a Senate race sweep this fall , they ’ re almost certainly not going to get the 60-vote supermajority they need to pass bills if Republicans decide to block them .
The battle for the Senate majority is extremely close and competitive .
Even though Democrats have undoubtedly expanded the battleground , there are a number of states within the polling margin of error .
Basically , these races are statistically tied , and could swing to either the Republican or Democratic candidate .
Democrats need to win back at least three seats to reclaim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are also defending Sen. Doug Jones in deep-red Alabama , where President Donald Trump has a 28-point net approval rating .
If Jones loses , as he is expected to , that means Democrats need to win four seats and the White House ( where their party ’ s vice president could vote to break ties in the Senate ) , or net five seats without the White House advantage .
Overall , Senate Republicans are defending more turf : 23 seats ( mostly in red states ) , compared to the 12 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Before the coronavirus hit , four states looked highly competitive for Democrats : Colorado , Arizona , Maine , and North Carolina .
Now several more seats are in play for Democrats — including Montana , Iowa , and two seats in Georgia .
Democratic candidates have even put other reach states like South Carolina in play .
Republicans , meanwhile , are going on offense in just two states : Alabama and Michigan .
A bare majority in the Senate is 51 votes — that ’ s the simple majority senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the real magic number is 60 .
That ’ s the supermajority vote that allows the majority party to skirt the Senate filibuster and actually get to vote on a bill .
Eliminating the filibuster is a distinct possibility , for reasons my colleague Ezra Klein has reported .
But to ditch the filibuster , Democrats still need 51 votes .
Let ’ s run through what it would take for them to get there .
Let ’ s start by outlining the map .
According to Cook Political Report ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couple of seats Democrats can probably count on winning , and just one Republicans can probably count in their corner .
The two Republican-held seats Cook rates Lean Democratic , or races Democrats are likely to win , are Colorado and Arizona .
The one Democratic-held seat Cook rates Lean Republican , or races where Republicans are heavily favored , is Alabama .
After that , there are seven Republican-held seats Cook rates as toss-ups , meaning these races are essentially too close to determine who is favored : Of these , Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats have the best shot at flipping are Maine and North Carolina , followed by Iowa and Montana .
These four states tend to be a bit swingier ; Hillary Clinton won Maine in 2016 , and North Carolina is experiencing a lot of demographic change that is making it more Democratic .
Iowa swings from year to year , and Montana — while reliably voting Republican during presidential elections — is more of an independent state than a conservative one , and has a history of sending Democrats to the Senate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ races — two in Georgia and one in South Carolina — are probably the likeliest for Republicans to hang on to , in part because these states are traditionally more conservative .
Still , there has been a lot of hand-wringing lately from GOP operatives about Georgia in particular , as that state has seen record turnout from its early voting period alone .
After the toss-ups , there are three more states Cook rates Lean Republican , and one more state it rates Lean Democratic .
In other words , these are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but are not assured .
The three Republican-held states Cook rates Lean Republican are : And the one Democratic-held state Cook rates Lean Democrat is Michigan .
These 14 races form the real Senate battleground .
But even if Democrats pulled off the enormous feat of keeping both Alabama and Michigan and winning the other 12 seats ( to be clear , this is an unlikely scenario ) , they would still be one vote short of a 60-vote supermajority .
Let ’ s go through some scenarios for what the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The various Senate scenarios , explained with maps The nonpartisan politics website 270 to Win has a handy interactive map that helps us visualize the different ways the Senate election could go .
Here ’ s what the map would look like if the Senate results follow the polls .
In this scenario , Democrats lose Alabama but flip their “ core four ” of Arizona , Colorado , Maine , and North Carolina .
This result gets Senate Democrats the barest of bare majorities : 50 seats .
Republicans would have 49 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their states that are rated toss-ups , and there is no immediate result in the Georgia special election ( this is a likely result , as that special race is widely expected to go to a January runoff ) .
They would need Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden to win the White House in order to have Biden ’ s Vice President Kamala Harris vote to break ties in the Senate ( as vice president , Harris is also Senate president ) .
Things improve marginally if Democrats win about half of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s say Democrats win Colorado , Arizona , Maine , and North Carolina , plus Montana and Iowa .
In this scenario , let ’ s assume Democrats lose Alabama and other toss-up states South Carolina and Georgia .
Again , this is assuming the Georgia special election has no winner called on November 3 .
This would net Democrats 52 seats , and 47 for Republicans .
Here ’ s what the map looks like if Senate Democrats have a very good night and manage to flip not only all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also the races Cook rates as Lean Republican .
This scenario assumes they lose Alabama , and that the Georgia special isn ’ t counted .
This gets them 57 seats , compared to 42 for Republicans .
This is more than a bare majority , but it ’ s still three seats shy of a supermajority .
Let ’ s also entertain the best possible outcome Democrats could hope for : keeping Doug Jones ’ s seat in Alabama and flipping all of the toss-up and Lean Republican states — including eventually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them all the way to 59 votes , but they would only be able to win a supermajority if they also flipped either of the two seats Cook rates Likely Republican , Kentucky and Mississippi .
Finally , let us consider the Democrats ’ nightmare scenario : They lose Alabama and Michigan .
Even if Democrats win their “ core four ” targets of Colorado , Arizona , Maine , and North Carolina but lose those two seats , it won ’ t be enough — they will have lost the Senate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
These scenarios underscore that even though nonpartisan election forecasters like Cook favor Democrats to take back the Senate , they are walking a very tight line to do so because they ’ re starting out with a deficit .
It ’ s also worth reiterating that Democratic wins in the “ core four ” states aren ’ t assured : They ’ re favored in Arizona and Colorado , but the races in Maine and North Carolina are close .
In other words , there ’ s not much room for error @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach the filibuster If they win back the Senate in 2020 , Democrats recognize two things : that getting rid of the filibuster might be their only chance to truly govern in the US Senate , and that it will still be politically treacherous .
Most Democratic senators say they want to try all other options before dramatically changing Senate rules — but they also aren ’ t saying no outright .
“ I will not turn to a reconsideration of our rules until I ’ ve exhausted every alternative , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adding he ’ s already talking to individual Republican senators about where the two parties could find bipartisan compromise .
“ I ’ m not telling you we ’ re going to eliminate the filibuster , ” added Sen. Debbie Stabenow ( D-MI ) .
“ Certainly there ’ s a real hesitancy on that because my colleagues and I want to govern.
” The thinking from many Democrats is that the first two legislative goals will be a good test of how willing the Senate GOP is to reciprocate .
Covid-19 brought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pass a massive $ 2.3 trillion stimulus bill , and passing an infrastructure bill has been a long-held bipartisan goal that turned into somewhat of a running joke during Trump ’ s tenure in office .
Most moderate Democrats want to negotiate in good faith with Republicans first .
And if Republicans lose badly in the election , Democrats think the GOP might have more incentive to come to the bargaining table .
“ There is a breaking point when Americans look at the United States Senate and they see that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into nothing more than a vehicle for obstructing progress rather than making progress , ” said Sen. Tina Smith ( D-MN ) , who echoed she was open to all options — but likewise would not back eliminating the filibuster yet .
Biden has adopted a similar position to these Democrats .
A main theme of Biden ’ s campaign has been returning to the days of bipartisan compromise that existed when he was in the Senate .
But the former vice president has also acknowledged that the future of the filibuster depends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s going to depend on how obstreperous they become , ” he told Vox ’ s Ezra Klein .
If Republicans refuse to cooperate , moderate Democrats could be persuaded to take more dramatic action .
A big stimulus and green jobs bill — and a more modest health care expansion — would be tricky but may be possible under the special legislative rules for budget reconciliation , which requires only a simple majority .
But Democrats will need 60 votes in the Senate to approve most other measures with the filibuster still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Democrats will need 51 votes .
Whether Democrats can obtain this support is still an open question .
At least five of 47 current members , including Sens .
Dianne Feinstein ( CA ) , Jon Tester ( MT ) , and Joe Manchin ( WV ) , have already told the Wall Street Journal they remain wary of filibuster changes .
There ’ s also a broad range of positions on the filibuster among potential new members , with some willing to explicitly support a change in the vote threshold , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Filibuster reform also depends on their 2021 freshman class , and how individual candidates feel about doing away with the filibuster .
Gov .
Steve Bullock in Montana and state House Speaker Sara Gideon in Maine have backed changing the 60-vote filibuster threshold in their Senate campaigns , while Jon Ossoff in Georgia has said he ’ s open to considering the possibility .
Veteran Cal Cunningham in North Carolina has said he ’ s supportive of reforms — including the possible return of the “ talking filibuster.
” Others , including Hickenlooper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , haven ’ t ruled out filibuster changes , but both said they hope to advance bipartisan priorities first .
Mark Kelly in Arizona , Rev .
Raphael Warnock in Georgia , and state Sen. Barbara Bollier in Kansas have said they are reviewing this subject , and former South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Jaime Harrison has said he opposes eliminating the filibuster , for now .
“ Basically every member of the conference is concerned about not letting McConnell paralyze the place , ” Sen. Jeff Merkley ( D-OR ) , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told Vox .
“ There ’ s a whole variety of ways we can tackle this ; it will be a subject of conversation .
So it isn ’ t one proposal .
”

Even if Democrats pull off a Senate race sweep this fall, they’re almost certainly not going to get the 60-vote supermajority they need to pass bills if Republicans decide to block them.
The battle for the Senate majority is extremely close and competitive. Even though Democrats have undoubtedly expanded the battleground, there are a number of states within the polling margin of error. Basically, these races are statistically tied, and could swing to either the Republican or Democratic candidate.
Democrats need to win back at least three seats to reclaim a bare Senate majority, but they are also defending Sen. Doug Jones in deep-red Alabama, where President Donald Trump has a 28-point net approval rating. If Jones loses, as he is expected to, that means Democrats need to win four seats and the White House (where their party’s vice president could vote to break ties in the Senate), or net five seats without the White House advantage.
Overall, Senate Republicans are defending more turf: 23 seats (mostly in red states), compared to the 12 Senate Democrats who are up for reelection. Before the coronavirus hit, four states looked highly competitive for Democrats: Colorado, Arizona, Maine, and North Carolina. Now several more seats are in play for Democrats — including Montana, Iowa, and two seats in Georgia. Democratic candidates have even put other reach states like South Carolina in play. Republicans, meanwhile, are going on offense in just two states: Alabama and Michigan.
Related Live results for the 2020 Senate races
A bare majority in the Senate is 51 votes — that’s the simple majority senators can use to pass a bill. But the real magic number is 60. That’s the supermajority vote that allows the majority party to skirt the Senate filibuster and actually get to vote on a bill.
Eliminating the filibuster is a distinct possibility, for reasons my colleague Ezra Klein has reported. But to ditch the filibuster, Democrats still need 51 votes.
Let’s run through what it would take for them to get there.
The Senate battleground, briefly explained
Let’s start by outlining the map. According to Cook Political Report’s Senate race ratings, there are a couple of seats Democrats can probably count on winning, and just one Republicans can probably count in their corner.
The two Republican-held seats Cook rates Lean Democratic, or races Democrats are likely to win, are Colorado and Arizona.
The one Democratic-held seat Cook rates Lean Republican, or races where Republicans are heavily favored, is Alabama.
After that, there are seven Republican-held seats Cook rates as toss-ups, meaning these races are essentially too close to determine who is favored:
Maine
North Carolina
Iowa
Montana
Georgia
Georgia special election
South Carolina
Of these, Democratic and Republican operatives alike agree the ones Democrats have the best shot at flipping are Maine and North Carolina, followed by Iowa and Montana. These four states tend to be a bit swingier; Hillary Clinton won Maine in 2016, and North Carolina is experiencing a lot of demographic change that is making it more Democratic. Iowa swings from year to year, and Montana — while reliably voting Republican during presidential elections — is more of an independent state than a conservative one, and has a history of sending Democrats to the Senate.
Political experts think the last three Southern races — two in Georgia and one in South Carolina — are probably the likeliest for Republicans to hang on to, in part because these states are traditionally more conservative. Still, there has been a lot of hand-wringing lately from GOP operatives about Georgia in particular, as that state has seen record turnout from its early voting period alone.
After the toss-ups, there are three more states Cook rates Lean Republican, and one more state it rates Lean Democratic. In other words, these are states the parties are favored to keep, but are not assured.
The three Republican-held states Cook rates Lean Republican are:
And the one Democratic-held state Cook rates Lean Democrat is Michigan.
These 14 races form the real Senate battleground. But even if Democrats pulled off the enormous feat of keeping both Alabama and Michigan and winning the other 12 seats (to be clear, this is an unlikely scenario), they would still be one vote short of a 60-vote supermajority.
Let’s go through some scenarios for what the Senate map could look like post-November 3.
The various Senate scenarios, explained with maps
The nonpartisan politics website 270 to Win has a handy interactive map that helps us visualize the different ways the Senate election could go.
Here’s what the map would look like if the Senate results follow the polls. In this scenario, Democrats lose Alabama but flip their “core four” of Arizona, Colorado, Maine, and North Carolina.
This result gets Senate Democrats the barest of bare majorities: 50 seats. Republicans would have 49 seats, assuming they keep most of their states that are rated toss-ups, and there is no immediate result in the Georgia special election (this is a likely result, as that special race is widely expected to go to a January runoff).
Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com
They would need Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden to win the White House in order to have Biden’s Vice President Kamala Harris vote to break ties in the Senate (as vice president, Harris is also Senate president).
Things improve marginally if Democrats win about half of the seats Cook rates as toss-ups. Let’s say Democrats win Colorado, Arizona, Maine, and North Carolina, plus Montana and Iowa. In this scenario, let’s assume Democrats lose Alabama and other toss-up states South Carolina and Georgia. Again, this is assuming the Georgia special election has no winner called on November 3.
This would net Democrats 52 seats, and 47 for Republicans.
Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com
Here’s what the map looks like if Senate Democrats have a very good night and manage to flip not only all of the races Cook rates as toss-ups but also the races Cook rates as Lean Republican. This scenario assumes they lose Alabama, and that the Georgia special isn’t counted.
This gets them 57 seats, compared to 42 for Republicans. This is more than a bare majority, but it’s still three seats shy of a supermajority.
Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com
Let’s also entertain the best possible outcome Democrats could hope for: keeping Doug Jones’s seat in Alabama and flipping all of the toss-up and Lean Republican states — including eventually winning the Georgia special. This gets them all the way to 59 votes, but they would only be able to win a supermajority if they also flipped either of the two seats Cook rates Likely Republican, Kentucky and Mississippi.
Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com
Finally, let us consider the Democrats’ nightmare scenario: They lose Alabama and Michigan. Even if Democrats win their “core four” targets of Colorado, Arizona, Maine, and North Carolina but lose those two seats, it won’t be enough — they will have lost the Senate, with 49 seats to 51 for Republicans.
Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com
These scenarios underscore that even though nonpartisan election forecasters like Cook favor Democrats to take back the Senate, they are walking a very tight line to do so because they’re starting out with a deficit. It’s also worth reiterating that Democratic wins in the “core four” states aren’t assured: They’re favored in Arizona and Colorado, but the races in Maine and North Carolina are close.
In other words, there’s not much room for error from either party.
How Democrats might approach the filibuster
If they win back the Senate in 2020, Democrats recognize two things: that getting rid of the filibuster might be their only chance to truly govern in the US Senate, and that it will still be politically treacherous.
Most Democratic senators say they want to try all other options before dramatically changing Senate rules — but they also aren’t saying no outright.
“I will not turn to a reconsideration of our rules until I’ve exhausted every alternative,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), adding he’s already talking to individual Republican senators about where the two parties could find bipartisan compromise.
“I’m not telling you we’re going to eliminate the filibuster,” added Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). “Certainly there’s a real hesitancy on that because my colleagues and I want to govern.”
The thinking from many Democrats is that the first two legislative goals will be a good test of how willing the Senate GOP is to reciprocate. Covid-19 brought Democrats and Republicans together in March 2020 to pass a massive $2.3 trillion stimulus bill, and passing an infrastructure bill has been a long-held bipartisan goal that turned into somewhat of a running joke during Trump’s tenure in office.
Most moderate Democrats want to negotiate in good faith with Republicans first. And if Republicans lose badly in the election, Democrats think the GOP might have more incentive to come to the bargaining table.
“There is a breaking point when Americans look at the United States Senate and they see that the Senate under Mitch McConnell has been turned into nothing more than a vehicle for obstructing progress rather than making progress,” said Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN), who echoed she was open to all options — but likewise would not back eliminating the filibuster yet.
Biden has adopted a similar position to these Democrats. A main theme of Biden’s campaign has been returning to the days of bipartisan compromise that existed when he was in the Senate. But the former vice president has also acknowledged that the future of the filibuster depends on Republican behavior.
“It’s going to depend on how obstreperous they become,” he told Vox’s Ezra Klein.
If Republicans refuse to cooperate, moderate Democrats could be persuaded to take more dramatic action. A big stimulus and green jobs bill — and a more modest health care expansion — would be tricky but may be possible under the special legislative rules for budget reconciliation, which requires only a simple majority. But Democrats will need 60 votes in the Senate to approve most other measures with the filibuster still in place. And to eliminate it, Democrats will need 51 votes.
Whether Democrats can obtain this support is still an open question. At least five of 47 current members, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein (CA), Jon Tester (MT), and Joe Manchin (WV), have already told the Wall Street Journal they remain wary of filibuster changes. There’s also a broad range of positions on the filibuster among potential new members, with some willing to explicitly support a change in the vote threshold, while others have backed different reforms.
Filibuster reform also depends on their 2021 freshman class, and how individual candidates feel about doing away with the filibuster.
Gov. Steve Bullock in Montana and state House Speaker Sara Gideon in Maine have backed changing the 60-vote filibuster threshold in their Senate campaigns, while Jon Ossoff in Georgia has said he’s open to considering the possibility.
Veteran Cal Cunningham in North Carolina has said he’s supportive of reforms — including the possible return of the “talking filibuster.” Others, including Hickenlooper in Colorado and Theresa Greenfield in Iowa, haven’t ruled out filibuster changes, but both said they hope to advance bipartisan priorities first. Mark Kelly in Arizona, Rev. Raphael Warnock in Georgia, and state Sen. Barbara Bollier in Kansas have said they are reviewing this subject, and former South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Jaime Harrison has said he opposes eliminating the filibuster, for now.
“Basically every member of the conference is concerned about not letting McConnell paralyze the place,” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), the Democrat leading talks about filibuster reform, told Vox. “There’s a whole variety of ways we can tackle this; it will be a subject of conversation. So it isn’t one proposal.”
Follow Vox’s live results for the Senate races here.


vox--2020-11-03--The most important legal question looming over the election

Two significant legal events occurred last week that could determine whether the winner of the 2020 election actually becomes president .
They could also shape American elections for years to come if the Supreme Court ’ s 6-3 Republican majority remains in place .
The first was the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett , which not only gave Republicans a supermajority on the Supreme Court , it also most likely made Justice Brett Kavanaugh the swing vote in election cases .
While Kavanaugh ’ s approach to election law is extremely conservative , he ’ s staked out a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the views of his most conservative colleagues Justices Samuel Alito , Clarence Thomas , and Neil Gorsuch .
The second event is that , last Monday , just minutes before Barrett was confirmed , the Supreme Court handed down a decision that prevents ballots that arrive after Election Day in the state of Wisconsin from being counted .
Kavanaugh joined that decision , and he also wrote a separate concurring opinion that endorsed a radical reading of the Constitution that would upend at least a century of established law .
Briefly , Kavanaugh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts — and his Court in particular — an unprecedented new power to overrule state supreme courts and to potentially rewrite state election law .
Some of the implications of this view are discussed below , but the upshot is it means that Kavanaugh appears ready to change longstanding rules that have governed elections for a very long time .
There is , however , a crucial question that the Supreme Court has yet to resolve .
If the courts change the rules governing an election after voters have already cast their ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with these new rules disenfranchised , even if they followed the rules that were in place when their ballot was cast ?
Three justices , Thomas , Alito , and Gorsuch .
have all claimed that voters who followed the rules that were in place when their ballot was counted can have their ballots tossed out anyway if a court later changes the rules .
But Kavanaugh , at least in his opinions , has not gone that far .
And because she hasn ’ t weighed in on any election cases , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stands on the question .
In other words , it ’ s not at all clear whether a majority of the Supreme Court shares the view that ballots should be tossed if the rules that were in place when they were cast are later changed .
Currently , there are at least four states — Pennsylvania , North Carolina , Minnesota , and Texas — where a court could potentially change longstanding election rules and then order ballots tossed out for failing to comply with these new rules .
All of these states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , feature competitive races for the state ’ s presidential electors .
Thus , if the election is close , the winner could very well be determined by whether or not five justices are willing to disenfranchise voters because those voters failed to see into the future .
There are probably five justices who support a radical change to American constitutional law Under existing law , state election law functions more or less the same way as any other law .
A state legislature enacts election laws the same way it would enact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such law if the state constitution provides for a gubernatorial veto .
If the state allows voters to enact laws through a ballot initiative or referendum , then they can use that process to enact election laws , too .
And state election laws are interpreted by state courts , with the highest court in the state having the final word on how to read those laws .
This general rule — that there ’ s nothing special about state election law — stretches at least as far back as the Court ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1916 ) .
It was most recently reaffirmed in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission ( 2015 ) .
Yet , four members of the Court — Thomas , Alito , Gorsuch , and Kavanaugh — have recently argued that this foundational rule should be abandoned , a decision that , among other things , would give the Supreme Court far more power to overrule state court decisions protecting voting rights .
Meanwhile , while newly confirmed Justice Barrett has not weighed in on this question , her record suggests that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Thomas and Gorsuch .
The Constitution provides that “ the Times , Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives , shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.
” A separate constitutional provision provides that “ each State shall appoint ” members of the Electoral College “ in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.
” The Court ’ s right flank argues that the word “ legislature ” must be read in a hyper-literal way to mean only the state legislature itself may set the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote in a recent opinion , “ the Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges , not state judges , not state governors , not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules.
” This approach , to say the least , is not how the Constitution has been understood in the past .
Previous decisions define the word “ legislature , ” when used in this context , to refer to whatever the valid lawmaking process is within a state .
As the Supreme Court held most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word “ legislature ” should be read “ in accordance with the State ’ s prescriptions for lawmaking , which may include the referendum and the Governor ’ s veto.
” The implications of Gorsuch ’ s approach are breathtaking .
Gorsuch ’ s opinion suggests that state governors may lack the power to veto election laws ( because the governor is not the “ legislature ” ) .
It suggests that states may not be allowed to use independent redistricting commissions to draw legislative maps ( because a commission is not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also suggests that state courts may not have the power to protect the right to vote ( because a court is not a “ legislature ” ) .
In the context of the 2020 election , this approach means that state supreme courts could lose much of their ability to protect voting rights or to enforce their own state constitutions .
But there ’ s a more pressing concern here too : what happens to voters who voted days or weeks ago , before the Supreme Court signaled that it was likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law ?
What happens to voters who relied on state supreme court decisions saying that they could vote in a certain way , unaware that the Supreme Court of the United States might overrule those decisions weeks after the voter cast their ballot ?
Huge numbers of voters could be disenfranchised because the Supreme Court changed the rules after they voted To understand the stakes underlying these two questions , consider Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar .
In mid-September , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that ballots that are mailed before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after Election Day may be counted .
Though some members of the US Supreme Court have criticized the state supreme court ’ s decision , that decision is still in effect today .
That means that , under the rules that are in effect today , a Pennsylvania voter who mails their ballot now will have that ballot counted — so long as the ballot arrives within the three-day window .
But that ’ s not the entire story .
The other part of the story is that , on Wednesday , Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Thomas and Gorsuch , which warned that his Court may revisit Republican Party after the election — and order these ballots tossed out after the election is over .
Alito suggested that only Pennsylvania ’ s Republican legislature , and not the state supreme court , should be allowed to decide which ballots are counted .
There is a similar case seeking to have late-arriving ballots tossed out in North Carolina on the theory that non-legislative state officials lacked the authority to extend the due date for ballots .
A third case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minnesota .
A fourth case seeks to disenfranchise voters who used drive-through polling places in Texas .
All of these cases have one thing in common : They target voters who followed the rules that existed when their ballots were cast but who may run afoul of new rules announced after they voted .
Under any fair system of justice , a voter would not be disenfranchised for following their state ’ s election rules .
One cloud looming over this election is it ’ s not clear that there are five justices @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Two significant legal events occurred last week that could determine whether the winner of the 2020 election actually becomes president. They could also shape American elections for years to come if the Supreme Court’s 6-3 Republican majority remains in place.
The first was the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, which not only gave Republicans a supermajority on the Supreme Court, it also most likely made Justice Brett Kavanaugh the swing vote in election cases. While Kavanaugh’s approach to election law is extremely conservative, he’s staked out a position that is slightly more moderate than the views of his most conservative colleagues, Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch.
The second event is that, last Monday, just minutes before Barrett was confirmed, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that prevents ballots that arrive after Election Day in the state of Wisconsin from being counted. Kavanaugh joined that decision, and he also wrote a separate concurring opinion that endorsed a radical reading of the Constitution that would upend at least a century of established law.
Briefly, Kavanaugh signaled that he wants to give federal courts — and his Court in particular — an unprecedented new power to overrule state supreme courts and to potentially rewrite state election law. Some of the implications of this view are discussed below, but the upshot is that Kavanaugh appears ready to change longstanding rules that have governed elections for a very long time.
There is, however, a crucial question that the Supreme Court has yet to resolve. If the courts change the rules governing an election after voters have already cast their ballots, are voters who did not comply with these new rules disenfranchised, even if they followed the rules that were in place when their ballot was cast?
Three justices, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, have all claimed that voters who followed the rules that were in place when their ballot was counted can have their ballots tossed out anyway if a court later changes the rules.
But Kavanaugh, at least in his opinions, has not gone that far. And because she hasn’t weighed in on any election cases, we don’t know where Barrett stands on the question. In other words, it’s not at all clear whether a majority of the Supreme Court shares the view that ballots should be tossed if the rules that were in place when they were cast are later changed.
Currently, there are at least four states — Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Minnesota, and Texas — where a court could potentially change longstanding election rules and then order ballots tossed out for failing to comply with these new rules. All of these states, especially Pennsylvania and North Carolina, feature competitive races for the state’s presidential electors.
Thus, if the election is close, the winner could very well be determined by whether or not five justices are willing to disenfranchise voters because those voters failed to see into the future.
There are probably five justices who support a radical change to American constitutional law
Under existing law, state election law functions more or less the same way as any other law.
A state legislature enacts election laws the same way it would enact any law. The governor may veto such laws if the state constitution provides for a gubernatorial veto. If the state allows voters to enact laws through a ballot initiative or referendum, then they can use that process to enact election laws, too. And state election laws are interpreted by state courts, with the highest court in the state having the final word on how to read those laws.
This general rule — that there’s nothing special about state election law — stretches at least as far back as the Court’s decision in Davis v. Hildebrant (1916). It was most recently reaffirmed in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015).
Yet, four members of the Court — Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh — have recently argued that this foundational rule should be abandoned, a decision that, among other things, would give the Supreme Court far more power to overrule state court decisions protecting voting rights. Meanwhile, while newly confirmed Justice Barrett has not weighed in on this question, her record suggests that she shares the same broad constitutional philosophy as Thomas and Gorsuch.
The Constitution provides that “the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” A separate constitutional provision provides that “each State shall appoint” members of the Electoral College “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” The Court’s right flank argues that the word “legislature” must be read in a hyper-literal way, to mean that only the state legislature itself may set the rules governing federal elections.
As Gorsuch wrote in a recent opinion, “the Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules.”
This approach, to say the least, is not how the Constitution has been understood in the past. Previous decisions define the word “legislature,” when used in this context, to refer to whatever the valid lawmaking process is within a state. As the Supreme Court held most recently in Arizona State Legislature, the word “legislature” should be read “in accordance with the State’s prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the Governor’s veto.”
The implications of Gorsuch’s approach are breathtaking. Gorsuch’s opinion suggests that state governors may lack the power to veto election laws (because the governor is not the “legislature”). It suggests that states may not be allowed to use independent redistricting commissions to draw legislative maps (because a commission is not the “legislature”). And it also suggests that state courts may not have the power to protect the right to vote (because a court is not a “legislature”).
In the context of the 2020 election, this approach means that state supreme courts could lose much of their ability to protect voting rights or to enforce their own state constitutions. But there’s a more pressing concern here too: what happens to voters who voted days or weeks ago, before the Supreme Court signaled that it was likely to overrule at least a century of established law? What happens to voters who relied on state supreme court decisions saying that they could vote in a certain way, unaware that the Supreme Court of the United States might overrule those decisions weeks after the voter cast their ballot?
Huge numbers of voters could be disenfranchised because the Supreme Court changed the rules after they voted
To understand the stakes underlying these two questions, consider Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar. In mid-September, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that ballots that are mailed before the election but arrive up to three days after Election Day may be counted. Though some members of the US Supreme Court have criticized the state supreme court’s decision, that decision is still in effect today.
That means that, under the rules that are in effect today, a Pennsylvania voter who mails their ballot now will have that ballot counted — so long as the ballot arrives within the three-day window.
But that’s not the entire story. The other part of the story is that, on Wednesday, Justice Alito handed down an opinion, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, which warned that his Court may revisit Republican Party after the election — and order these ballots tossed out after the election is over. Alito suggested that only Pennsylvania’s Republican legislature, and not the state supreme court, should be allowed to decide which ballots are counted.
There is a similar case seeking to have late-arriving ballots tossed out in North Carolina on the theory that non-legislative state officials lacked the authority to extend the due date for ballots. A third case seeks to toss out late-arriving ballots in Minnesota. A fourth case seeks to disenfranchise voters who used drive-through polling places in Texas.
All of these cases have one thing in common: They target voters who followed the rules that existed when their ballots were cast but who may run afoul of new rules announced after they voted.
Under any fair system of justice, a voter would not be disenfranchised for following their state’s election rules. One cloud looming over this election is that it’s not clear that there are five justices who believe in such fundamental fairness.


vox--2020-11-03--Where Biden and Trump stand in the final presidential election polls

With polling of the 2020 race just about concluded , former Vice President Joe Biden is in an interesting position .
Biden ’ s national lead is large , and he has consistently led polls in states that would be sufficient to deliver him 270 electoral votes and therefore the presidency — most notably , the triad of Michigan , Wisconsin , and Pennsylvania .
But Biden ’ s lead in Pennsylvania — 1.2 to 4.7 percentage points , depending on the polling average — is not quite big enough for Democrats to be completely confident in it , particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump won the state and the polls underestimated Trump ’ s performance there by about 4 points .
Biden is also either narrowly ahead or about tied in polls of another set of swing states that he doesn ’ t even need to win : Florida , North Carolina , Arizona , Georgia , Iowa , Ohio , and Texas .
His leads are small ( 1 to 3 points in polling averages ) , and the others are pure toss-ups .
If Trump sweeps these states or comes close to doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hang on to Pennsylvania .
Still , it ’ s hard to point to many bad signs in the final polls for Biden .
He ’ s clearly the favorite , with a 9 in 10 chance of winning , according to FiveThirtyEight .
Indeed , if the polls are underestimating Biden ’ s strength by just 2 points , he ’ d win all the swing states listed above , and finish up with a 400+ electoral vote landslide .
And yet due to the Electoral College , Biden ’ s leads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s path to victory entirely .
To get 270 votes , Trump needs to come out on top in nearly all the toss-up states , and snag Pennsylvania as well .
Trump probably needs to win Pennsylvania to have a shot at victory To get a sense of where the polls are , let ’ s start off with a scenario where Biden and Trump each win everywhere they ’ re up by 4 percentage points or more , according to the FiveThirtyEight polling averages .
In this scenario , Biden would win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , plus Michigan , Wisconsin , and Pennsylvania .
That would be enough for him to win the presidency without needing any of the toss-up states that polling averages show being closer ( depicted in gray on this map ) .
So Trump very much needs to find weak spots in this map .
And , understandably , he ’ s focused on the same weak spots that were in Democrats ’ “ blue wall ” in 2016 — Michigan , Wisconsin , and Pennsylvania .
The final polls showed Hillary Clinton winning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump won them all instead , each by a margin less than 1 percentage point .
However , Biden ’ s poll leads in each state are bigger than Clinton ’ s leads were in 2016 .
In , Michigan and Wisconsin , Biden leads by about 8 percentage points in the FiveThirtyEight averages .
The RealClearPolitics averages show it a bit closer , with Biden ’ s lead at 5 to 6 points in each .
But basically , Trump has to hope for a fairly large polling miss to put him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , is a bit of a different story .
FiveThirtyEight places Biden ’ s lead there at 4.7 percentage points , while it has dropped in the RealClearPolitics average to 1.2 percentage points ( including some less well-known and partisan pollsters ) .
The point is , Pennsylvania appears to be closer than Michigan or Wisconsin .
It ’ s also the biggest of the three states , with 20 electoral votes at stake .
So if something were to go wrong for Joe Biden , it would probably entail a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden wins Pennsylvania , he ’ s likely won the presidency as well .
Trump would also need to win nearly all the toss-up states Let ’ s return to this map , of states where each candidate is leading by 4 points or more in FiveThirtyEight ’ s averages , and focus on another takeaway : Trump is only up to 125 electoral votes in it , less than half the number he needs for victory .
So to get anywhere even close to winning , Trump needs to win the vast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — those where neither candidate is ahead by four points or more .
And the bigger the state is here , the more important it is for Trump ’ s math .
Texas , with 38 electoral votes at stake , is clearly the most important .
But FiveThirtyEight shows Trump ahead by a mere 1.1 percentage points in the traditionally Republican state , and RealClearPolitics shows Trump up by 1.2 .
Trump absolutely can not afford to lose this one .
Florida , with 29 electoral votes , is also essentially a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FiveThirtyEight shows Biden with a 2.5 percentage point lead , while RealClearPolitics shows it closer , with Biden up by .9 points .
• Ohio has 18 electoral votes , and it ’ s quite close ( Trump up by 0.8 per FiveThirtyEight , Trump up by 1.4 per RealClearPolitics ) .
• The same is true for Georgia and its 16 electoral votes ( Biden up by 1.2 per FiveThirtyEight , Trump up by 0.2 per RCP ) .
• And there ’ s also North Carolina with 15 electoral votes ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up by 1 per RCP ) .
• Iowa ’ s 6 electoral votes are only likely to be decisive in a very close contest , but it certainly doesn ’ t help Trump if he loses them , and he ’ s only up by about 1 or 2 points in both averages .
So let ’ s say Trump pulls it out in all these states — Texas , Florida , Ohio , Georgia , North Carolina , and Iowa .
Let ’ s give him Pennsylvania and the lone electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , too .
Then the election comes down to the one state remaining : Arizona and its 11 electoral votes .
Arizona is another traditionally Republican state , but it ’ s been one of the strongest of this group of swing states for Biden ( though it ’ s still quite close ) — Biden leads by 2.6 percentage points there per FiveThirtyEight , and by 0.9 per RealClearPolitics .
So , interestingly , Arizona could be a “ Plan B ” for Biden if he loses Pennsylvania .
Winning it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what he needs to win — though he ’ d have to hold on to Nebraska ’ s second district ( which Trump won last time but where polls show Biden leading this time ) , and to prevent any defections from faithless electors .
( If neither candidate gets to 270 electoral votes , the election will be determined by votes of state delegations in the new House of Representatives in January — and it ’ s unclear which party will control more of those . )
Meanwhile , if Trump flips @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s his victory map : You can see Trump has little room for error .
Of the toss-up states , he can afford to lose Iowa , but if he loses any others , he ’ ll have to make up for those losses by plucking away more states where Biden leads by a lot ( like Wisconsin or Michigan ) .
How different is this from 2016 ’ s final polls ?
This roundup may be giving you a sense of déjà vu — since the polls just before the 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looked to be ahead in enough states that would deliver victory .
There has been much digital ink spilled about how 2020 is not 2016 , and there are indeed many differences .
This time around , Biden is leading by more nationally than Clinton was .
Polls also show Biden leading in more swing states , usually by bigger margins , compared to Clinton .
Biden tends to top 50 percent in more state polls as well , since there are fewer undecided and third-party voters .
Analysts with access to non-public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks good for Biden .
Yet there is one similarity : In the likely tipping point state , Pennsylvania , FiveThirtyEight ’ s average puts Biden ahead by 4.7 percentage points — and it had shown Hillary Clinton ahead by 3.7 percentage points .
( Trump won by 0.7 . )
There is no reason to necessarily expect the mistakes of 2016 to be repeated .
Polling error could also underestimate Biden ’ s strength .
And remember that Pennsylvania alone wouldn ’ t be enough — Trump probably needs to win all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Ohio , and Texas as well .
Overall , though , this is why Biden looks to be in a strong position — but there is still just a hint of doubt about what will transpire .

With polling of the 2020 race just about concluded, former Vice President Joe Biden is in an interesting position.
Biden’s national lead is large, and he has consistently led polls in states that would be sufficient to deliver him 270 electoral votes and therefore the presidency — most notably, the triad of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
But Biden’s lead in Pennsylvania — 1.2 to 4.7 percentage points, depending on the polling average — is not quite big enough for Democrats to be completely confident in it, particularly given what happened in 2016, when Donald Trump won the state and the polls underestimated Trump’s performance there by about 4 points.
Biden is also either narrowly ahead or about tied in polls of another set of swing states that he doesn’t even need to win: Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio, and Texas. His leads are small (1 to 3 points in polling averages), and the others are pure toss-ups. If Trump sweeps these states or comes close to doing so, Biden really does need to hang on to Pennsylvania.
Still, it’s hard to point to many bad signs in the final polls for Biden. He’s clearly the favorite, with a 9 in 10 chance of winning, according to FiveThirtyEight. Indeed, if the polls are underestimating Biden’s strength by just 2 points, he’d win all the swing states listed above, and finish up with a 400+ electoral vote landslide.
And yet due to the Electoral College, Biden’s leads are not enough to dismiss Trump’s path to victory entirely. To get 270 votes, Trump needs to come out on top in nearly all the toss-up states, and snag Pennsylvania as well.
Trump probably needs to win Pennsylvania to have a shot at victory
To get a sense of where the polls are, let’s start off with a scenario where Biden and Trump each win everywhere they’re up by 4 percentage points or more, according to the FiveThirtyEight polling averages.
In this scenario, Biden would win the states Hillary Clinton won in 2016, plus Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. That would be enough for him to win the presidency without needing any of the toss-up states that polling averages show being closer (depicted in gray on this map).
So Trump very much needs to find weak spots in this map. And, understandably, he’s focused on the same weak spots that were in Democrats’ “blue wall” in 2016 — Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
The final polls showed Hillary Clinton winning all three of those states, but Trump won them all instead, each by a margin less than 1 percentage point. However, Biden’s poll leads in each state are bigger than Clinton’s leads were in 2016.
In, Michigan and Wisconsin, Biden leads by about 8 percentage points in the FiveThirtyEight averages. The RealClearPolitics averages show it a bit closer, with Biden’s lead at 5 to 6 points in each. But basically, Trump has to hope for a fairly large polling miss to put him in contention in either state.
Pennsylvania, however, is a bit of a different story. FiveThirtyEight places Biden’s lead there at 4.7 percentage points, while it has dropped in the RealClearPolitics average to 1.2 percentage points (including some less well-known and partisan pollsters). The point is, Pennsylvania appears to be closer than Michigan or Wisconsin. It’s also the biggest of the three states, with 20 electoral votes at stake.
So if something were to go wrong for Joe Biden, it would probably entail a loss in Pennsylvania. Conversely, if Biden wins Pennsylvania, he’s likely won the presidency as well.
Trump would also need to win nearly all the toss-up states
Let’s return to this map, of states where each candidate is leading by 4 points or more in FiveThirtyEight’s averages, and focus on another takeaway: Trump is only up to 125 electoral votes in it, less than half the number he needs for victory.
So to get anywhere even close to winning, Trump needs to win the vast majority of votes in the toss-up states — those where neither candidate is ahead by four points or more. And the bigger the state is here, the more important it is for Trump’s math.
Texas, with 38 electoral votes at stake, is clearly the most important. But FiveThirtyEight shows Trump ahead by a mere 1.1 percentage points in the traditionally Republican state, and RealClearPolitics shows Trump up by 1.2. Trump absolutely cannot afford to lose this one.
Florida, with 29 electoral votes, is also essentially a must-win state for Trump. Here, FiveThirtyEight shows Biden with a 2.5 percentage point lead, while RealClearPolitics shows it closer, with Biden up by .9 points.
But there’s more.
Ohio has 18 electoral votes, and it’s quite close (Trump up by 0.8 per FiveThirtyEight, Trump up by 1.4 per RealClearPolitics).
has 18 electoral votes, and it’s quite close (Trump up by 0.8 per FiveThirtyEight, Trump up by 1.4 per RealClearPolitics). The same is true for Georgia and its 16 electoral votes (Biden up by 1.2 per FiveThirtyEight, Trump up by 0.2 per RCP).
and its 16 electoral votes (Biden up by 1.2 per FiveThirtyEight, Trump up by 0.2 per RCP). And there’s also North Carolina with 15 electoral votes (Biden up 1.8 per FiveThirtyEight, Trump up by 1 per RCP).
with 15 electoral votes (Biden up 1.8 per FiveThirtyEight, Trump up by 1 per RCP). Iowa’s 6 electoral votes are only likely to be decisive in a very close contest, but it certainly doesn’t help Trump if he loses them, and he’s only up by about 1 or 2 points in both averages.
So let’s say Trump pulls it out in all these states — Texas, Florida, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, and Iowa. Let’s give him Pennsylvania and the lone electoral vote in Maine’s second district, too. Then the election comes down to the one state remaining: Arizona and its 11 electoral votes.
Arizona is another traditionally Republican state, but it’s been one of the strongest of this group of swing states for Biden (though it’s still quite close) — Biden leads by 2.6 percentage points there per FiveThirtyEight, and by 0.9 per RealClearPolitics.
So, interestingly, Arizona could be a “Plan B” for Biden if he loses Pennsylvania. Winning it would give Biden 270 electoral votes, exactly what he needs to win — though he’d have to hold on to Nebraska’s second district (which Trump won last time but where polls show Biden leading this time), and to prevent any defections from faithless electors. (If neither candidate gets to 270 electoral votes, the election will be determined by votes of state delegations in the new House of Representatives in January — and it’s unclear which party will control more of those.)
Meanwhile, if Trump flips Arizona in addition to Pennsylvania, here’s his victory map:
You can see Trump has little room for error. Of the toss-up states, he can afford to lose Iowa, but if he loses any others, he’ll have to make up for those losses by plucking away more states where Biden leads by a lot (like Wisconsin or Michigan).
How different is this from 2016’s final polls?
This roundup may be giving you a sense of déjà vu — since the polls just before the 2016 election also found that the Democratic candidate looked to be ahead in enough states that would deliver victory.
There has been much digital ink spilled about how 2020 is not 2016, and there are indeed many differences. This time around, Biden is leading by more nationally than Clinton was. Polls also show Biden leading in more swing states, usually by bigger margins, compared to Clinton. Biden tends to top 50 percent in more state polls as well, since there are fewer undecided and third-party voters. Analysts with access to non-public polling of congressional districts report it generally looks good for Biden.
Yet there is one similarity: In the likely tipping point state, Pennsylvania, FiveThirtyEight’s average puts Biden ahead by 4.7 percentage points — and it had shown Hillary Clinton ahead by 3.7 percentage points. (Trump won by 0.7.)
There is no reason to necessarily expect the mistakes of 2016 to be repeated. Polling error could also underestimate Biden’s strength. And remember that Pennsylvania alone wouldn’t be enough — Trump probably needs to win all of Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, and Texas as well. Overall, though, this is why Biden looks to be in a strong position — but there is still just a hint of doubt about what will transpire.