vox--2020-11-05--Democrats fail to make gains in state legislative races in advance of 2021 redistricting

Ten years ago , Republicans routed Democrats in state legislative races across the country — gaining control of more seats than they had since 1928 and earning control of 54 of the 99 state legislative chambers , their highest total in 58 years , according to the National Conference of State Legislatures ( NCSL ) .
State house races are extremely important every cycle — they can decide to expand Medicaid , pass restrictions on abortion , enact criminal justice reform , or any array of policy decisions .
But every 10 years , their importance is magnified after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the process of redistricting legislative and congressional boundaries ( which can decide partisan control of state legislatures and the US Congress for the next decade ) .
This year , banking on a blue wave , Democrats staked out an ambitious map aiming to spend $ 50 million to win legislative majorities in GOP-held chambers and gain control of key chambers in advance of next year ’ s redistricting fights .
The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee ( DLCC ) targeted both chambers in Arizona , North Carolina , Pennsylvania , and Kansas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Houses and the Minnesota Senate .
In the end , Democrats raised $ 88 million to Republicans ’ $ 60 million — but they don ’ t have much to show for it .
Votes in Arizona are still being counted , but if those chambers remain in GOP hands , Democrats will have failed to flip a single state chamber .
In fact , the only chambers that will have changed hands are the New Hampshire House and Senate , which flipped to Republican control .
This is a surprising defeat for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overwhelmingly reelected Democrats to the US Congress and voted for former Vice President Joe Biden by a wide margin .
According to the NCSL , this means that out of 98 chambers ( not counting Nebraska ’ s unicameral and facially nonpartisan body ) , “ 59 are held by Republicans , 37 by Democrats.
” And when it comes to unified control — meaning one party controls both the legislature and the governorship — Republicans have the edge holding 23 states to Democrats ’ 15 .
Democrats likely weren ’ t the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In its October overview , Cook Political Report wrote : “ ominously for Republicans , the GOP holds 14 of the 19 vulnerable chambers on our list .
This suggests that the Democrats are well-positioned to net up to a half-dozen new chambers this fall , and more if it ’ s a genuine blue wave.
” Cook pointed to Biden ’ s “ strong ” running in key states , expecting this to “ boost down-ballot candidates.
” Austin Chambers , president of the Republican State Leadership Committee ( RSLC ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press call Wednesday : “ We beat the hell out of them , and they have nothing to show for it.
” Democrats blamed 2010 ’ s heavy losses and the resulting redistricting by Republicans for this year ’ s defeats : “ The reality is that Democrats are still paying for the mistakes that we made in 2010 , ” DLCC national press secretary Christina Polizzi told Vox .
“ It ’ s disappointing , but not surprising.
” Redistricting is the process of redrawing legislative and congressional geographical boundaries .
Every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state has to redraw its electoral boundaries with the updated demographic information .
According to the NCSL , “ when legislatures redraw maps , the majority party controls the process ” — both parties do their best to gain political advantage , but it ’ s much harder for the minority party to do so .
If Democratic losses this year are due to 2010 ’ s redistricting at the hands of the GOP , it ’ s hard to see their path forward as Republicans are yet again set to spearhead the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believes their losses are due to the map being “ rigged ” and point to gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts as proof .
This year ’ s most surprising state legislature election outcome in New Hampshire could be a result of that .
As results were being finalized yesterday , New Hampshire Public Radio reporter Josh Rogers pointed out that the legislative maps were “ drawn by Republicans a decade ago and are by design intended to favor Republicans.
” Rogers highlighted polling by University of New Hampshire political scientist Andy Smith , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to break even with Republicans in legislative races , they need to start with more than 50 percent of the popular vote.
” These issues aren ’ t unique to New Hampshire .
A 2018 report by the Citizens Research Council of Michigan found that “ Michigan ’ s maps are beyond the threshold for what is considered gerrymandering.
” And as for Wisconsin and Pennsylvania , Ari Berman wrote for the Washington Post on similar trends : Political geographers from Stanford and Carnegie Mellon found , for instance , that there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousand chance ” that the map passed by Wisconsin Republicans , which gave them 60 percent of the seats in the State Assembly , was based on where Democrats lived .
“ The partisan asymmetry in the existing map , ” they wrote , “ .
.
.
was carefully and deliberately created , not a result of the natural clustering of voters in Wisconsin.
” The same was true in Pennsylvania , where University of Michigan political scientist Jowei Chen discovered “ a small geographic advantage for the Republicans , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extreme 13-5 Republican advantage ” in the state ’ s congressional delegation .
Indeed , Pennsylvania Republicans went to almost comic lengths to contort political boundaries for partisan advantage , drawing one district , nicknamed “ Goofy Kicking Donald Duck , ” that spanned five counties and 26 municipalities , and at one of its narrowest points ran through the parking lot of a seafood restaurant in the town of King of Prussia .
Beyond gerrymandering , laws restricting voting , some of which are written to specifically target low-income voters and people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislatures in the wake of the 2010 Republican victories .
An egregious example of this is in North Carolina , where , as NPR reports , the Republican-controlled legislature passed a strict voter ID law that also “ cut back dramatically on the number of early voting days , eliminated same-day registration and declared that votes cast in the wrong precinct , even if the result of poll worker error , could not be counted.
” Federal judges went on to throw out the law , writing that it “ target [ ed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If Democrats are right and their losses down-ballot this year are due to redistricting and laws designed to suppress turnout of traditionally left-leaning demographics , it ’ s hard to see how they will fare better in the decade ahead .
As NCSL policy specialist Ben Williams told Vox : “ The landscape is not the same as 2010 , but it is fair to say that the fact that Republicans were able to hold their ground in competitive legislative chambers across the country ... means that they will have the majority , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the coming cycle .
”

Ten years ago, Republicans routed Democrats in state legislative races across the country — gaining control of more seats than they had since 1928 and earning control of 54 of the 99 state legislative chambers, their highest total in 58 years, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).
State House races are extremely important every cycle — they can decide to expand Medicaid, pass restrictions on abortion, enact criminal justice reform, or any array of policy decisions. But every 10 years, their importance is magnified after the census is taken and they are tasked with the process of redistricting legislative and congressional boundaries (which can decide partisan control of state legislatures and the US Congress for the next decade).
This year, banking on a blue wave, Democrats staked out an ambitious map aiming to spend $50 million to win legislative majorities in GOP-held chambers and gain control of key chambers in advance of next year’s redistricting fights. The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) targeted both chambers in Arizona, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Kansas as well as the Iowa and Michigan Houses and the Minnesota Senate.
In the end, the DLCC and two other national Democratic fundraising organizations raised $88 million to Republicans’ $60 million — but they don’t have much to show for it.
Votes in Arizona are still being counted, but if those chambers remain in GOP hands, Democrats will have failed to flip a single state chamber. In fact, the only chambers that will have changed hands are the New Hampshire House and Senate, which flipped to Republican control. This is a surprising defeat for Democrats — particularly as New Hampshire voters overwhelmingly reelected Democrats to the US Congress and voted for former Vice President Joe Biden by a wide margin.
According to the NCSL, this means that out of 98 chambers (not counting Nebraska’s unicameral and facially nonpartisan body), “59 are held by Republicans, 37 by Democrats.” And when it comes to unified control — meaning one party controls both the legislature and the governorship — Republicans have the edge holding 23 states to Democrats’ 15.
Democrats likely weren’t the only ones surprised by this outcome. In its October overview, Cook Political Report wrote: “ominously for Republicans, the GOP holds 14 of the 19 vulnerable chambers on our list. This suggests that the Democrats are well-positioned to net up to a half-dozen new chambers this fall, and more if it’s a genuine blue wave.” Cook pointed to Biden’s “strong” running in key states, expecting this to “boost down-ballot candidates.”
But that didn’t happen.
Austin Chambers, president of the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC), told the Wall Street Journal on a press call Wednesday: “We beat the hell out of them, and they have nothing to show for it.”
Democrats blamed 2010’s heavy losses and the resulting redistricting by Republicans for this year’s defeats: “The reality is that Democrats are still paying for the mistakes that we made in 2010,” DLCC national press secretary Christina Polizzi told Vox. “It’s disappointing, but not surprising.”
The upcoming redistricting fights remain in Republican control
Redistricting is the process of redrawing legislative and congressional geographical boundaries. Every decade, following the census, each state has to redraw its electoral boundaries with the updated demographic information. According to the NCSL, “when legislatures redraw maps, the majority party controls the process” — both parties do their best to gain political advantage, but it’s much harder for the minority party to do so.
If Democratic losses this year are due to 2010’s redistricting at the hands of the GOP, it’s hard to see their path forward as Republicans are yet again set to spearhead the redistricting process next year. The DLCC believes their losses are due to the map being “rigged” and point to gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts as proof.
This year’s most surprising state legislature election outcome in New Hampshire could be a result of that. As results were being finalized yesterday, New Hampshire Public Radio reporter Josh Rogers pointed out that the legislative maps were “drawn by Republicans a decade ago and are by design intended to favor Republicans.” Rogers highlighted polling by University of New Hampshire political scientist Andy Smith, who has found that for “Democrats to break even with Republicans in legislative races, they need to start with more than 50 percent of the popular vote.”
These issues aren’t unique to New Hampshire.
A 2018 report by the Citizens Research Council of Michigan found that “Michigan’s maps are beyond the threshold for what is considered gerrymandering.” And as for Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Ari Berman wrote for the Washington Post on similar trends:
Political geographers from Stanford and Carnegie Mellon found, for instance, that there was “less than a one in one thousand chance” that the map passed by Wisconsin Republicans, which gave them 60 percent of the seats in the State Assembly, was based on where Democrats lived. “The partisan asymmetry in the existing map,” they wrote, “. . . was carefully and deliberately created, not a result of the natural clustering of voters in Wisconsin.” The same was true in Pennsylvania, where University of Michigan political scientist Jowei Chen discovered “a small geographic advantage for the Republicans, but it does not come close to explaining the extreme 13-5 Republican advantage” in the state’s congressional delegation. Indeed, Pennsylvania Republicans went to almost comic lengths to contort political boundaries for partisan advantage, drawing one district, nicknamed “Goofy Kicking Donald Duck,” that spanned five counties and 26 municipalities, and at one of its narrowest points ran through the parking lot of a seafood restaurant in the town of King of Prussia.
Beyond gerrymandering, laws restricting voting, some of which are written to specifically target low-income voters and people of color, have been passed by legislatures in the wake of the 2010 Republican victories.
An egregious example of this is in North Carolina, where, as NPR reports, the Republican-controlled legislature passed a strict voter ID law that also “cut back dramatically on the number of early voting days, eliminated same-day registration and declared that votes cast in the wrong precinct, even if the result of poll worker error, could not be counted.” Federal judges went on to throw out the law, writing that it “target[ed] African-Americans with almost surgical precision.”
If Democrats are right and their losses down-ballot this year are due to redistricting and laws designed to suppress turnout of traditionally left-leaning demographics, it’s hard to see how they will fare better in the decade ahead.
As NCSL policy specialist Ben Williams told Vox: “The landscape is not the same as 2010, but it is fair to say that the fact that Republicans were able to hold their ground in competitive legislative chambers across the country ... means that they will have the majority, say, when it comes to redistricting in the coming cycle.”
Update, November 13: This piece has been updated to clarify which Democratic organizations raised $88 million for this election cycle.


vox--2020-11-05--Why the Supreme Court is unlikely to steal the election for Donald Trump

Share All sharing options for : Why the Supreme Court is unlikely to steal the election for Donald Trump President Trump gave a brief , alarming speech in the White House Press Room Thursday evening , where he claimed — without any evidence — that the election is being “ stolen ” from him .
He also suggested that he may have an ace in the hole .
“ We think there ’ s going to be a lot of litigation because we have so much evidence , so much proof , and it ’ s going to end up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ land , ” Trump said .
It ’ s not the first time Trump has suggested that the Supreme Court , which currently has a 6-3 Republican majority , will throw the election to him .
Shortly after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death opened up a vacancy on the Court , Trump said he thought the election “ will end up in the Supreme Court , and I think it ’ s very important that we have nine Justices.
” There now are nine justices , because Trump appointed Justice Amy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20 years later , the memory of Bush v. Gore ( 2000 ) , a Supreme Court decision that effectively handed the 2000 election to George W. Bush , is still raw .
Bush relied on the kinds of arguments that the five conservatives in the majority ordinarily viewed with skepticism .
It was widely viewed at the time , and is widely viewed now , as a political decision and not an exercise in legal reasoning .
But even though Bush looms over every American election , it is still very unlikely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election for Donald Trump .
There are crucial factual differences between the current election and the facts underlying Bush .
And while Trump ’ s legal team is filing plenty of lawsuits , they don ’ t appear to have come up with anything that could change the result of this ( still undecided ) presidential election .
There is still time .
And there is still a Republican majority on the Supreme Court .
No one should rest assured that in the event Trump loses , he couldn ’ t find some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is evicted from the White House .
But it is still very unlikely that the Court would steal this election for him .
Trump ’ s lawyers are mostly filing small-potatoes lawsuits that seem unlikely to accomplish much The Trump campaign has filed a wave of lawsuits seeking to make marginal changes to the procedures governing ballot counting .
But nearly all of these suits involve such minor disputes that it ’ s unclear what Trump stands to gain even if he prevails in court .
A Pennsylvania lawsuit , for example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign ’ s poll watchers to stand closer to election workers who were sorting and counting ballots .
A Georgia lawsuit turned on a Trump poll watcher ’ s claim that he left a room where ballots were being sorted , and when he came back , a stack of ballots was no longer where it was when he left .
A Michigan lawsuit sought the right to watch video of “ the ballot boxes into which [ certain ] ballots are placed.
” No one should rest assured that in the event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find some way to cling to power until he is evicted from the White House Perhaps there ’ s a grand legal strategy here .
But the election is unlikely to turn on whether Trump ’ s poll watchers can stand in a particular location .
Or whether they can watch a particular video .
There is one lawsuit that could potentially be important .
In mid-September , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that ballots that are mailed before Election Day , but that arrive up to three days after Election Day , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar , the GOP asked the US Supreme Court to reverse the state supreme court ’ s decision , which would mean that these late-arriving ballots must be tossed out .
If the presidential election hinges on Pennsylvania and if the outcome of Pennsylvania ’ s presidential race turns on whether those late-arriving ballots are counted , then Republican Party could potentially throw the election to Trump .
But that outcome seems very unlikely .
Democratic nominee Joe Biden is currently favored to win Arizona ( although his lead there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He ’ s also on the cusp of pulling ahead in Georgia , with enough ballots from Democratic areas of the state remaining uncounted that Biden is probably also favored to win Georgia .
If these three states go Biden ’ s way , it won ’ t matter what Pennsylvania does .
Meanwhile , there are numerous signs that Biden is likely to win Pennsylvania — potentially by a comfortable margin — with or without the late-arriving ballots .
And if that ’ s the case , a victory for the GOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough to flip that state to Trump .
This election is very unlike the one that gave us Bush v. Gore It ’ s also important to bear in mind that the 2000 election between Bush and former Vice President Al Gore was quite unlike the current one .
That election was exceedingly close .
With all other states counted , the winner of the race hinged on who won Florida , and the initial tallies in Florida showed Bush up by just 1,784 votes .
This year , by contrast , Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states that he will receive 306 electoral votes .
If that ’ s the case , there is no one contested state that could be flipped to hand the election to Trump .
Indeed , even if Trump won Pennsylvania and Georgia , the two biggest prizes that could plausibly swing in Trump ’ s direction , Biden would still win 270 electoral votes and the presidency if he holds on in Arizona and Nevada .
Maybe the Supreme Court is willing to sign on to a legal argument that gives Trump one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Perhaps they could even steal two states for Trump .
But three ?
And it ’ s important to remember that Bush was ahead in Florida when his case reached the Supreme Court .
That meant the justices didn ’ t have to take any affirmative action that would have tossed out Gore ’ s already-counted votes or handed additional votes to Bush .
Bush would prevail if he merely maintained the status quo .
Again , we can never rule out the possibility that the Supreme Court could do something outlandish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And the Supreme Court is much more conservative now than it was in 2000 .
But warning that the Supreme Court might do something awful is kinda my thing .
I wrote a book called Injustices : The Supreme Court ’ s History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted .
When I say that I ’ m not worried that the Supreme Court is going to do one particular bad thing , I feel I have credibility .
And while I could be wrong , I do not believe that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump .

Share All sharing options for: Why the Supreme Court is unlikely to steal the election for Donald Trump
President Trump gave a brief, alarming speech in the White House Press Room Thursday evening, where he claimed — without any evidence — that the election is being “stolen” from him. He also suggested that he may have an ace in the hole.
“We think there’s going to be a lot of litigation because we have so much evidence, so much proof, and it’s going to end up perhaps at the highest court in the land,” Trump said.
It’s not the first time Trump has suggested that the Supreme Court, which currently has a 6-3 Republican majority, will throw the election to him. Shortly after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death opened up a vacancy on the Court, Trump said he thought the election “will end up in the Supreme Court, and I think it’s very important that we have nine Justices.” There now are nine justices, because Trump appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ginsburg.
Even 20 years later, the memory of Bush v. Gore (2000), a Supreme Court decision that effectively handed the 2000 election to George W. Bush, is still raw. Bush relied on the kinds of arguments that the five conservatives in the majority ordinarily viewed with skepticism. It was widely viewed at the time, and is widely viewed now, as a political decision and not an exercise in legal reasoning.
But even though Bush looms over every American election, it is still very unlikely that the Supreme Court would steal this election for Donald Trump. There are crucial factual differences between the current election and the facts underlying Bush. And while Trump’s legal team is filing plenty of lawsuits, they don’t appear to have come up with anything that could change the result of this presidential election.
There is still time. And there is still a Republican majority on the Supreme Court. No one should rest assured that in the event Trump loses, he couldn’t find some way to cling to power until he is evicted from the White House.
But it is still very unlikely that the Court would steal this election for him.
Trump’s lawyers are mostly filing small-potatoes lawsuits that seem unlikely to accomplish much
The Trump campaign has filed a wave of lawsuits seeking to make marginal changes to the procedures governing ballot counting. But nearly all of these suits involve such minor disputes that it’s unclear what Trump stands to gain even if he prevails in court.
A Pennsylvania lawsuit, for example, sought a court order allowing the Trump campaign’s poll watchers to stand closer to election workers who were sorting and counting ballots. A Georgia lawsuit turned on a Trump poll watcher’s claim that he left a room where ballots were being sorted, and when he came back, a stack of ballots was no longer where it was when he left. A Michigan lawsuit sought the right to watch video of “the ballot boxes into which [certain] ballots are placed.”
No one should rest assured that in the event Trump loses, he couldn’t find some way to cling to power until he is evicted from the White House
Perhaps there’s a grand legal strategy here. But the election is unlikely to turn on whether Trump’s poll watchers can stand in a particular location. Or whether they can watch a particular video.
There is one lawsuit that could potentially be important. In mid-September, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that ballots that are mailed before Election Day, but that arrive up to three days after Election Day, should be counted. In Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, the GOP asked the US Supreme Court to reverse the state supreme court’s decision, which would mean that these late-arriving ballots must be tossed out.
If the presidential election hinges on Pennsylvania and if the outcome of Pennsylvania’s presidential race turns on whether those late-arriving ballots are counted, then the Republican Party could potentially throw the election to Trump.
But that outcome seems very unlikely. Democratic nominee Joe Biden is currently favored to win Arizona (although his lead there is small) and Nevada. He has also pulled ahead in Georgia, with enough ballots from Democratic areas of the state remaining uncounted that Biden is probably also favored to win Georgia. If these three states go Biden’s way, it won’t matter what Pennsylvania does.
This election is very unlike the one that gave us Bush v. Gore
It’s also important to bear in mind that the 2000 election between Bush and former Vice President Al Gore was quite unlike the current one. That election was exceedingly close. With all other states counted, the winner of the race hinged on who won Florida, and the initial tallies in Florida showed Bush up by just 1,784 votes.
This year, by contrast, Biden could be on track to win enough states that he will receive 306 electoral votes. If that’s the case, there is no one contested state that could be flipped to hand the election to Trump. Indeed, even if Trump won Pennsylvania and Georgia, the two biggest prizes that could plausibly swing in Trump’s direction, Biden would still win 270 electoral votes and the presidency if he holds on in Arizona and Nevada.
Maybe the Supreme Court is willing to sign on to a legal argument that gives Trump one state that Biden rightfully should have won. Perhaps they could even steal two states for Trump. But three?
And it’s important to remember that Bush was ahead in Florida when his case reached the Supreme Court. That meant the justices didn’t have to take any affirmative action that would have tossed out Gore’s already-counted votes or handed additional votes to Bush. Bush would prevail if he merely maintained the status quo.
Again, we can never rule out the possibility that the Supreme Court could do something outlandish. Bush v. Gore did happen. And the Supreme Court is much more conservative now than it was in 2000.
But warning that the Supreme Court might do something awful is kinda my thing. I wrote a book called Injustices: The Supreme Court’s History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted. When I say that I’m not worried that the Supreme Court is going to do one particular bad thing, I feel I have credibility. And while I could be wrong, I do not believe that the Supreme Court would steal the election for Donald Trump.


vox--2020-11-05--Anderson Cooper described Trump as “an obese turtle on his back flailing in the hot sun”

Anderson Cooper has gone on a journey over the past five years , from a conventional mainstream television news journalist to a man who looked into the camera Thursday night and described Donald Trump ’ s update on the state of the vote count like this : “ That is the president of the United States .
That is the most powerful person in the world , and we see him like an obese turtle on his back flailing in the hot sun.
” Though markedly colorful for a mainstream journalist , Cooper ’ s assessment isn ’ t inaccurate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House was ludicrous .
It was filled with more lies about the vote-counting process than are worth counting .
But to Cooper ’ s point , Trump looked inept .
Make no mistake , Trump was trying to sow doubt about the process to hang on to power , whether or not he wins the votes .
But his heart wasn ’ t in it .
Trump ’ s been more animated about off-hour Fox News segments .
Cooper , 53 , isn ’ t an activist journalist .
He ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and celebrities like Joaquin Phoenix .
He started his career answering phones at ABC .
He went abroad and earned his reputation as a serious reporter covering war and violence in Somalia , Rwanda , and Bosnia .
He co-anchored World News Tonight and later his own CNN news show , Anderson Cooper 360 .
He ’ s also a contributor to 60 Minutes .
TV journalists have reported Thursday that Trump has been down and angry .
Trump ’ s path to victory has been narrowing in the past 24 hours .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday , which were counted first .
As mail-in ballots are counted and tabulated , Joe Biden has been eating into Trump ’ s leads in swing states .
The president ’ s legal team is filing desperate ( and most likely doomed ) legal challenges to try to stop the count in some places and recount them in others .
The walls are closing in , so Trump is lashing out .
Not so long ago , Cooper would have been considered fringe ( and probably then gotten fired ) for describing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But 2020 is not normal .
The president is on his back , and he ’ s flailing .

Anderson Cooper has gone on a journey over the past five years, from a conventional mainstream television news journalist to a man who looked into the camera Thursday night and described Donald Trump’s update on the state of the vote count like this: “That is the president of the United States. That is the most powerful person in the world, and we see him like an obese turtle on his back flailing in the hot sun.”
WATCH: CNN' Anderson Cooper: "That is the President of the United States. That is the most powerful person in the world and we see him like an obese turtle on his back flailing in the hot sun..." pic.twitter.com/pZBOhyKlzC — Breaking911 (@Breaking911) November 6, 2020
Though markedly colorful for a mainstream journalist, Cooper’s assessment isn’t inaccurate. Trump’s 15-minute statement from the White House was ludicrous. It was filled with more lies about the vote-counting process than are worth counting.
But to Cooper’s point, Trump looked inept. Make no mistake, Trump was trying to sow doubt about the process to hang on to power, whether or not he wins the votes. But his heart wasn’t in it. Trump’s been more animated about off-hour Fox News segments.
Cooper, 53, isn’t an activist journalist. He’s done heartbreaking interviews with ordinary people and celebrities like Joaquin Phoenix. He started his career answering phones at ABC. He went abroad and earned his reputation as a serious reporter covering war and violence in Somalia, Rwanda, and Bosnia. He co-anchored World News Tonight and later his own CNN news show, Anderson Cooper 360. He’s also a contributor to 60 Minutes.
TV journalists have reported Thursday that Trump has been down and angry. Trump’s path to victory has been narrowing in the past 24 hours. His voters overwhelmingly cast their ballots on Tuesday, which were counted first. As mail-in ballots are counted and tabulated, Joe Biden has been eating into Trump’s leads in swing states. The president’s legal team is filing desperate (and most likely doomed) legal challenges to try to stop the count in some places and recount them in others. The walls are closing in, so Trump is lashing out.
Not so long ago, Cooper would have been considered fringe (and probably then gotten fired) for describing a sitting president as he did tonight. But 2020 is not normal. The president is on his back, and he’s flailing.


vox--2020-11-05--Trump’s desperate White House rant was everything people feared about his presidency in a nutshell

If anyone was hoping that President Donald Trump would gracefully acknowledge the increasingly likely chance that he will lose the presidency to Joe Biden , the dishonest press event he held Thursday evening at the White House indicated he still has little respect for democracy .
With Biden now in striking distance of the 270 electoral votes he needs to become president-elect — as this is written , he is narrowly trailing Trump in 20-electoral vote Pennsylvania , with a large number of votes in heavily Democratic areas still to be counted — the president stood behind the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was the victim of election fraud .
Trump began with a whopper , saying , “ If you count the legal votes , I easily win .
If you count the illegal votes , they can try to steal the election from us.
” In fact , even the Trump campaign has failed to provide evidence that fraud played any role in Trump seemingly coming up short in key states like Arizona and Nevada .
Trump then tried another argument , claiming that the media conspired to interfere in the election against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” by inflating Biden ’ s popularity in an attempt to demoralize Trump supporters .
He contradicted himself by framing efforts to count all the votes in places like Michigan and Wisconsin as part of a plot to steal the election from him , while in the next breath insisting that all the votes in Arizona must be counted so he can continue closing the gap in a state that Fox News has already called for Biden ( though Vox ’ s partner Decision Desk has not yet ) .
Trump wrapped things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to save him — “ it ’ s going to end up , perhaps , at the highest court of the land ” — then essentially tried to call dibs on certain states before walking out of the room without taking questions , seemingly oblivious to the reality that it doesn ’ t work like that .
The takeaway from Thursday ’ s event was basically the same as the widely panned one Trump held early Wednesday morning , when the election results were still in more doubt — the president thinks only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counted and is hoping a Supreme Court that he ’ s reshaped with three conservative justices will save him .
The problem , however , is that Trump hasn ’ t yet come up with a convincing argument that anything amiss happened during the election .
His campaign has already filed a number of lawsuits challenging the vote-counting process in states like Georgia and Michigan , but as my colleague Ian Millhiser explained , “ At least some seem to rest on dubious or incomplete allegations .
And it ’ s not clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his campaign prevails.
” So unless institutions like the Supreme Court prove to be corrupted beyond repair , it ’ s highly unlikely that any legal challenge the Trump campaign would mount would change anything .
And as more votes are tallied , it appears Biden has a good chance of sweeping Nevada , Pennsylvania , and possibly even Georgia .
That means that when all the votes are counted ( and likely recounted in Georgia ) , he could have a very comfortable margin in the Electoral College .
But beyond the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s allegations , the fact that the president of the United States is using his platform to undermine American elections is a spectacle without precedent .
It ’ s why international observers are starting to talk about the US in a manner we ’ re used to hearing with regard to failed states in other continents .
The contrast between Trump ’ s speech and one Biden gave earlier Thursday was jarring .
Instead of trying to delegitimize the process in states he lost , Biden urged people to have patience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long history of stable transitions of power .
The Biden campaign responded to Trump ’ s Thursday press event by calling his remarks “ desperate , baseless , and a sure sign he ’ s losing.
” Even Fox News ’ s Martha MacCallum noted that the allegations Trump made lacked evidence to back them up .

If anyone was hoping that President Donald Trump would gracefully acknowledge the increasingly likely chance that he will lose the presidency to Joe Biden, the dishonest press event he held Thursday evening at the White House indicated he still has little respect for democracy.
With Biden now in striking distance of the 270 electoral votes he needs to become president-elect — as this is written, he is narrowly trailing Trump in 20-electoral vote Pennsylvania, with a large number of votes in heavily Democratic areas still to be counted — the president stood behind the White House podium and tossed out baseless accusations that he was the victim of election fraud.
Trump began with a whopper, saying, “If you count the legal votes, I easily win. If you count the illegal votes, they can try to steal the election from us.” In fact, even the Trump campaign has failed to provide evidence that fraud played any role in Trump seemingly coming up short in key states like Arizona and Nevada.
Trump then tried another argument, claiming that the media conspired to interfere in the election against him, “getting it knowingly wrong” by inflating Biden’s popularity in an attempt to demoralize Trump supporters. He contradicted himself by framing efforts to count all the votes in places like Michigan and Wisconsin as part of a plot to steal the election from him, while in the next breath insisting that all the votes in Arizona must be counted so he can continue closing the gap in a state that Fox News has already called for Biden (though Vox’s partner Decision Desk has not yet).
Insane -- after arguing that Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were rigged against him because all the votes were counted, Trump calls for all the votes to be counted in Arizona. He's blatantly trying to have it both ways. pic.twitter.com/UoAvMCqvOW — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 5, 2020
Trump wrapped things up by calling for the Supreme Court to save him — “it’s going to end up, perhaps, at the highest court of the land” — then essentially tried to call dibs on certain states before walking out of the room without taking questions, seemingly oblivious to the reality that it doesn’t work like that.
"As you know, I've claimed certain states," Trump says, as though calling dibs means he's won. He then walks off without taking any questions. pic.twitter.com/q0V2bIhipY — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 6, 2020
The takeaway from Thursday’s event was basically the same as the widely panned one Trump held early Wednesday morning, when the election results were still in more doubt — the president thinks only the votes cast for him should be counted and is hoping a Supreme Court that he’s reshaped with three conservative justices will save him.
The problem, however, is that Trump hasn’t yet come up with a convincing argument that anything amiss happened during the election. His campaign has already filed a number of lawsuits challenging the vote-counting process in states like Georgia and Michigan, but as my colleague Ian Millhiser explained, “At least some seem to rest on dubious or incomplete allegations. And it’s not clear what legal benefits Trump would gain if his campaign prevails.”
So unless institutions like the Supreme Court prove to be corrupted beyond repair, it’s highly unlikely that any legal challenge the Trump campaign would mount would change anything. And as more votes are tallied, it appears Biden has a good chance of sweeping Nevada, Pennsylvania, and possibly even Georgia. That means that when all the votes are counted (and likely recounted in Georgia), he could have a very comfortable margin in the Electoral College.
But beyond the specifics (or lack thereof) behind Trump’s allegations, the fact that the president of the United States is using his platform to undermine American elections is a spectacle without precedent. It’s why international observers are starting to talk about the US in a manner we’re used to hearing with regard to failed states in other continents.
Findings by international observers:
“Baseless allegations of systematic deficiencies, notably by the incumbent president ... harm public trust in democratic institutions.”
"Making sure that every vote is counted is a fundamental obligation for all branches of government." — Brett McGurk (@brett_mcgurk) November 5, 2020
The contrast between Trump’s speech and one Biden gave earlier Thursday was jarring. Instead of trying to delegitimize the process in states he lost, Biden urged people to have patience and alluded to the US’s long history of stable transitions of power.
Biden: "Democracy is sometimes messy. It sometimes requires a little patience as well, but that patience has been rewarded now for more than 240 years with a system of governance that has been the envy of the world. We continue to feel very good about where things stand." pic.twitter.com/gTgN1UKEel — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 5, 2020
The Biden campaign responded to Trump’s Thursday press event by calling his remarks “desperate, baseless, and a sure sign he’s losing.” Even Fox News’s Martha MacCallum noted that the allegations Trump made lacked evidence to back them up.


vox--2020-11-05--Trump and Biden are within less than 1 percentage point in Georgia. Vox has live results.

Trump and Biden are within less than 1 percentage point in Georgia .
Vox has live results .
Share All sharing options for : Trump and Biden are within less than 1 percentage point in Georgia .
Vox has live results .
The results of the presidential race in Georgia are extremely close — with more returns coming in on Thursday .
As of 7 pm ET on Thursday , President Donald Trump has a lead of 0.07 percentage point lead in the state , and is up by about 3,600 votes .
He won the state by about 5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fast , we more appreciate accuracy , ” Gabriel Sterling , the state ’ s voting system implementation manager , said in a Thursday morning press conference .
“ I ’ m prayerful that we can get to a resolution by end of day today.
” Nearly 99 percent of the expected vote has been tallied in the state , per Vox ’ s election partner Decision Desk .
In addition , the Georgia Senate race between Republican Sen. David Perdue and Democrat Jon Ossoff will go to a January runoff , Decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the remaining Georgia ballots are from populous Fulton County , which includes Atlanta ; that could bode well for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden given his strength there so far .
Trump , meanwhile , has performed well in other parts of the state including Cherokee , Forsyth , and Hall counties .
Another reason to believe the uncounted ballots might bear some good news for Biden : A majority of them are mail-in votes ; ahead of Election Day , data showed Democrats were more likely than Republicans to use this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other states , saw record-breaking early voting numbers this year , with about 3.9 million people casting their ballots early .
Final results in Georgia could come as soon as Thursday , though Sterling signaled they could also take more time given how tight the presidential race is .
Whoever wins the state will pick up 16 critical electoral votes .
Vox also has results pages for the presidential race and other key swing states : Michigan , Pennsylvania , Wisconsin , Nevada .
You can follow our Senate live results here and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here ’ s how Vox ( and other media outlets ) will be making calls .

Trump and Biden are within less than 1 percentage point in Georgia. Vox has live results.
Share All sharing options for: Trump and Biden are within less than 1 percentage point in Georgia. Vox has live results.
Update: Vox’s partners at Decision Desk have called the presidential race for former Vice President Joe Biden, but Georgia is still too close to call.
The results of the presidential race in Georgia are extremely close — with more returns still coming in on Friday.
As of 11:30 am ET on Friday, President-elect Joe Biden has a 0.03 percentage point lead in the state, and is up by about 1,600 votes. Because the margins are so tight, the state will conduct a recount, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced Friday. “Right now, Georgia remains too close to call,” he said. “There will be a recount.”
The state still had 4,169 ballots to finish tallying, as of Friday morning, per Georgia voting system implementation manager Gabriel Sterling. Nearly 99 percent of the expected vote is in thus far, according to Vox’s election partner Decision Desk.
The Georgia Senate race between Republican Sen. David Perdue and Democrat Jon Ossoff has also been close — and will go to a January runoff, Decision Desk projected on Thursday night.
Many of the remaining Georgia ballots are from Gwinnett County, which could add to Biden’s lead given his strength there so far. President Trump, meanwhile, has performed well in other parts of the state including Cherokee, Forsyth, and Hall counties.
Another reason to believe the uncounted ballots might lean toward Biden: A majority of them are mail-in votes; ahead of Election Day, data showed Democrats were more likely than Republicans to use this voting method.
Georgia, like many other states, saw record-breaking early voting numbers this year, with about 3.9 million people casting their ballots early. Whoever wins the state will pick up 16 electoral votes.
Vox is carrying live results, powered by Decision Desk:
Vox also has results pages for the presidential race and other key swing states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada.
You can follow our Senate live results here and House live results here.
Finally, here’s how Vox (and other media outlets) will be making calls.


vox--2020-11-05--Claire McCaskill’s MSNBC comments revive a tired argument over the Democratic Party’s future

So Claire McCaskill , a former senator from Missouri , said some bullshit on MSNBC last night .
I probably shouldn ’ t start this article that way .
I should probably start with something like : “ In the wake of a better-than-expected election performance by Republicans and President Donald Trump , Democrats are wondering just what path to take to ensure better performance for their candidates in the future , even as former Vice President Joe Biden looks likely to win the presidency .
Republicans ’ built-in advantage in the Electoral College continues to be a massive headache @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now won the popular vote in seven of the past eight elections ) .
But a schism the party perpetually faces in the eyes of pundits who informally advise the party is whether it needs to refocus on so-called pocketbook issues over social issues like LGBTQ rights and abortion rights.
” Then I should say something like , “ On MSNBC Wednesday night , after anchor Brian Williams asked former Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill what her party could do to appeal more to blue-collar voters , she offered an answer that played exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Around cultural issues , the Republican Party , I think , very adroitly adopted cultural issues as part of their main theme .
Whether you ’ re talking guns or issues surrounding the right to abortion in this country or things like gay marriage and the right for transsexuals and other people who we as a party have tried to look after and make sure that they ’ re treated fairly .
As we circle those issues , we ’ ve left some voters behind , and Republicans dove in with a vengeance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve seen this shift .
You see it in the South .
I see it in the rural areas of my state .
So we ’ ve got ta get back to the meat-and-potatoes issues .
We ’ ve got ta get back to the issues where we are taking care of their families , and we ’ ve got ta stop acting like we ’ re smarter than everybody else .
Because we ’ re not .
Then I should embed the video clip , which I would do anyway , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mentioned in my actual lead paragraphs , this framing of the choice the Democratic Party faces as being between economic issues and social issues is some bullshit , and it keeps coming up .
( See here and here and here and here and here .
And that ’ s just for LGBTQ issues .
You could find even more if you went looking for similar articles on , say , abortion rights . )
Here I should note that McCaskill apologized on Twitter this morning , particularly for using the term “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by “ trans people ” or “ transgender people ” in statements that seek to turn us into a monolith for one reason or another .
Briefly : Transsexual is an outdated term that is still used by some trans people to describe themselves on an individual basis but that should be replaced with “ trans people ” in almost all instances when referring to us as a group .
And regardless , it should be used with great care by a cisgender person , unless it ’ s referring to a specific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the term .
McCaskill ’ s use of the term , apology notwithstanding , suggests to me she ’ s very detached from this conversation .
What ’ s more , the ways Democratic pundits and candidates too often stumble over trans nomenclature plays into a larger fear many in the trans community have that the Democratic Party wouldn ’ t hesitate to cut us out of its policies if it meant passing , say , the Employment Nondiscrimination Act , because that literally happened .
Even Kamala Harris , the current vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it comes to trans issues .
From her apology , it seems clear McCaskill genuinely believes the Democratic Party can make room for trans people and rural voters , and that her larger point was that the Democratic Party should combat Republican demagoguery on social issues by pointing to its economic positions .
That she seemed to play into a framing that harms trans people was likely an accident .
She was on cable TV .
It was late .
She just glossed over her larger points .
But the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answering Williams ’ s question underlines how ubiquitous that framing has been for the party throughout the 21st century .
( Remember Howard Dean getting in trouble for saying he wanted to be the candidate of “ guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks ” in 2003 ? )
And even though the party increasingly seems to include LGBTQ rights as a fairly mainstream part of its platform , pundits continue to advise reconsidering this in the hopes of reaching some mythical blue-collar voter who could be persuaded to vote Democratic by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the party just sacrificed the “ right ” social issues .
But as the National Women ’ s Law Center ’ s Gillian Branstetter points out , the only people who ’ ve clearly lost elections for being particularly interested in trans people are Republicans : Any framing that presents choices on social issues as either-or is a false choice , I think .
So-called bathroom bills — which seek to ban trans people from using bathrooms congruent with their genders — were largely a Republican Party invention to attempt to paint Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in bathrooms .
( Yes , we use bathrooms . )
Yet bathroom bills haven ’ t been particularly popular , and indeed , North Carolina ’ s bill ended up backfiring massively for the state .
That framing also creates a false conclusion that there are , say , no working-class people who are trans or who require an abortion .
I don ’ t even need to link to data to prove to you that there are working-class trans people and working-class people who have had abortions , because those statements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So who , exactly , is supposed to be appeased by the idea of , say , the Democratic Party performatively tossing trans people out of the coalition ?
And how will doing that not suggest that Democrats will cave on a whole bunch of other social issues in the name of chasing some mythical white guy in a pickup truck who would vote for Democrats if they just stopped reminding him LGBTQ people exist ?
Considering the rates at which Republicans backed Donald Trump in this election , I ’ m not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been the “ big tent ” party for decades now , and the problem with having a big tent is that you have a whole bunch of people underneath it who often have different ideas they hold as particularly important .
But that ’ s also what makes the Democratic Party so big that it has , again , won the popular vote in seven of the past eight elections .
When the party boasts increased energy on its leftward flank , particularly from younger voters , who tend to be more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very silly to revisit the “ Well , if you just did this and this and this , it would appease this extremely narrow slice of voters in Pennsylvania.
” But why is that the assumption so many pundits ( especially those associated with the Democratic establishment ) leap to , instead of the assumption that pushing people out of the big tent would make the tent smaller ?
So anyway , Claire McCaskill , probably accidentally , said some bullshit that played into a very old schism the Democratic Party itself seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the argument over “ pocketbook issues ” versus “ social issues ” doesn ’ t consume Democratic punditry or even the Democratic Party itself , particularly if — as seems increasingly likely — Joe Biden were to win the election .

So Claire McCaskill, a former senator from Missouri, said some bullshit on MSNBC last night.
I probably shouldn’t start this article that way. I should probably start with something like: “In the wake of a better-than-expected election performance by Republicans and President Donald Trump, Democrats are wondering just what path to take to ensure better performance for their candidates in the future, even as former Vice President Joe Biden looks likely to win the presidency. Republicans’ built-in advantage in the Electoral College continues to be a massive headache for the Democratic Party (which has now won the popular vote in seven of the past eight elections). But a schism the party perpetually faces in the eyes of pundits who informally advise the party is whether it needs to refocus on so-called pocketbook issues over social issues like LGBTQ rights and abortion rights.”
Then I should say something like, “On MSNBC Wednesday night, after anchor Brian Williams asked former Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill what her party could do to appeal more to blue-collar voters, she offered an answer that played exactly into this line of punditry”:
Around cultural issues, the Republican Party, I think, very adroitly adopted cultural issues as part of their main theme. Whether you’re talking guns or issues surrounding the right to abortion in this country or things like gay marriage and the right for transsexuals and other people who we as a party have tried to look after and make sure that they’re treated fairly. As we circle those issues, we’ve left some voters behind, and Republicans dove in with a vengeance and grabbed those voters. You’ve seen this shift. You see it in the South. I see it in the rural areas of my state. So we’ve gotta get back to the meat-and-potatoes issues. We’ve gotta get back to the issues where we are taking care of their families, and we’ve gotta stop acting like we’re smarter than everybody else. Because we’re not.
Then I should embed the video clip, which I would do anyway, so here it is:
Claire McCaskill: "Whether you are talking guns or...abortion...or gay marriage and rights for 'transexuals' and other people who we as a party 'look after' and make sure they are treated fairly. As we circled the issues we left voters behind and Republicans dove in." pic.twitter.com/bMh9JALAxg — Waleed Shahid (@_waleedshahid) November 5, 2020
But, as mentioned in my actual lead paragraphs, this framing of the choice the Democratic Party faces as being between economic issues and social issues is some bullshit, and it keeps coming up. (See here and here and here and here and here. And that’s just for LGBTQ issues. You could find even more if you went looking for similar articles on, say, abortion rights.)
Here I should note that McCaskill apologized on Twitter this morning, particularly for using the term “transsexuals,” which should be replaced by “trans people” or “transgender people” in statements that seek to turn us into a monolith for one reason or another.
I’m so sorry I used hurtful term last night.I was tired,but never a good excuse.People have misinterpreted what I was trying to say.Our party should never leave behind our fight 4 equality for trans people or anyone else who has been marginalized by hate. My record reflects that. — Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) November 5, 2020
Briefly: Transsexual is an outdated term that is still used by some trans people to describe themselves on an individual basis but that should be replaced with “trans people” in almost all instances when referring to us as a group. And regardless, it should be used with great care by a cisgender person, unless it’s referring to a specific person who you know prefers to use the term. McCaskill’s use of the term, apology notwithstanding, suggests to me she’s very detached from this conversation.
What’s more, the ways Democratic pundits and candidates too often stumble over trans nomenclature plays into a larger fear many in the trans community have that the Democratic Party wouldn’t hesitate to cut us out of its policies if it meant passing, say, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, because that literally happened. Even Kamala Harris, the current vice presidential nominee, has a problematic past when it comes to trans issues.
From her apology, it seems clear McCaskill genuinely believes the Democratic Party can make room for trans people and rural voters, and that her larger point was that the Democratic Party should combat Republican demagoguery on social issues by pointing to its economic positions. That she seemed to play into a framing that harms trans people was likely an accident. She was on cable TV. It was late. She just glossed over her larger points.
But the fact that she jumped to this particular framing in answering Williams’s question underlines how ubiquitous that framing has been for the party throughout the 21st century. (Remember Howard Dean getting in trouble for saying he wanted to be the candidate of “guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks” in 2003?) And even though the party increasingly seems to include LGBTQ rights as a fairly mainstream part of its platform, pundits continue to advise reconsidering this in the hopes of reaching some mythical blue-collar voter who could be persuaded to vote Democratic by the party’s economic policies if the party just sacrificed the “right” social issues.
But as the National Women’s Law Center’s Gillian Branstetter points out, the only people who’ve clearly lost elections for being particularly interested in trans people are Republicans:
It's a beautiful day to remember the only people who have lost an election because they talked too much about transgender people have been Republicans--Pat McCrory in 2016 and Matt Bevin in 2019. https://t.co/d2mBYdKeJs — Gillian Branstetter (@GBBranstetter) November 5, 2020
Any framing that presents choices on social issues as either-or is a false choice, I think. So-called bathroom bills — which seek to ban trans people from using bathrooms congruent with their genders — were largely a Republican Party invention to attempt to paint Democrats as being “for” trans people in bathrooms. (Yes, we use bathrooms.) Yet bathroom bills haven’t been particularly popular, and indeed, North Carolina’s bill ended up backfiring massively for the state.
That framing also creates a false conclusion that there are, say, no working-class people who are trans or who require an abortion. I don’t even need to link to data to prove to you that there are working-class trans people and working-class people who have had abortions, because those statements are obviously true on their face.
So who, exactly, is supposed to be appeased by the idea of, say, the Democratic Party performatively tossing trans people out of the coalition? And how will doing that not suggest that Democrats will cave on a whole bunch of other social issues in the name of chasing some mythical white guy in a pickup truck who would vote for Democrats if they just stopped reminding him LGBTQ people exist? Considering the rates at which Republicans backed Donald Trump in this election, I’m not holding my breath.
The Democratic Party has been the “big tent” party for decades now, and the problem with having a big tent is that you have a whole bunch of people underneath it who often have different ideas they hold as particularly important. But that’s also what makes the Democratic Party so big that it has, again, won the popular vote in seven of the past eight elections.
When the party boasts increased energy on its leftward flank, particularly from younger voters, who tend to be more supportive of LGBTQ rights, it feels very silly to revisit the “Well, if you just did this and this and this, it would appease this extremely narrow slice of voters in Pennsylvania.” But why is that the assumption so many pundits (especially those associated with the Democratic establishment) leap to, instead of the assumption that pushing people out of the big tent would make the tent smaller?
So anyway, Claire McCaskill, probably accidentally, said some bullshit that played into a very old schism the Democratic Party itself seems to have moved past. I hope the argument over “pocketbook issues” versus “social issues” doesn’t consume Democratic punditry or even the Democratic Party itself, particularly if — as seems increasingly likely — Joe Biden were to win the election.


vox--2020-11-05--TV absolutely has to get rid of “election night”

“ What are we doing ?
” Stephen Colbert kept asking his producer as his 2020 election special on Showtime wound its way toward a chaotic conclusion .
In 2016 , the late-night host ’ s live election special had felt a little like a wake for America as Colbert attempted to cope in real time with a country that had voted by a slim majority to elect Donald Trump as its commander in chief .
It was surprisingly electrifying television .
His 2020 special — which aired while America waited for votes to be counted , with no immediate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electrifying .
Colbert was already filming in the midst of a pandemic , a performer who ’ s at his best when he has other people to play off of interacting only with a handful of people in the studio ( most notably his wife , sitting off to his side ) and then a variety of guests beamed in via videoconferencing software .
Though he ’ s gotten very good at doing his show without a live audience laughing for every joke , the rhythms of an episode of late-night TV produced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always feel a little awkward .
But a newly revealed and even bigger challenge is that the era of live late-night election specials has largely been confined to the Obama and Trump administrations .
The results of both Obama elections were known or almost certain by the time those specials launched in the 11 pm hour on the East Coast , and the 2016 election was clearly tilting toward Trump ( if not over yet ) by the time Colbert ’ s special aired .
In 2020 , the fact that results were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of America had been conditioned to expect — didn ’ t really matter .
The show had to go on because that ’ s what shows like this do .
TV abhors a vacuum , but the 2020 election , especially , occurred in a vacuum .
Even once all of the votes are counted , the urge to fill hours and hours of airtime on election night and beyond will linger with viewers who thought they needed information and instead got a steady dose of anxiety .
This week ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only served to underscore that election TV — both in late-night and on cable news — has long been broken .
Maybe it should go away forever .
Cable news just isn ’ t equipped for an election whose results aren ’ t immediately clear For weeks now , Americans have known one thing about the 2020 election : We probably wouldn ’ t know official results for days or even weeks after Election Day because holding an election in a pandemic means lots of votes arriving via mail , and some states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls had closed .
But even if that simple likelihood hadn ’ t been discussed over and over and over again by politicians and pundits ( here ’ s Bernie Sanders talking about it ) , a quick glance at recent history could have guided our expectations regarding when we ’ d find out who won .
Of the five presidential elections of the 21st century before the 2020 election , only two — 2008 and 2012 — were called before midnight on the East Coast , and the 2000 election dragged on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent history — which is to say , the 2018 midterms — took weeks to fully understand , particularly when it came to the extent of Democratic gains in the House .
It ’ s true that many elections of the TV era — roughly 1952 on — were called well before midnight on the East Coast .
But those elections took place in a less polarized time , where landslide wins were much more common .
In the 21st century , the ossification of Democrats ’ and Republicans ’ respective bases has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same , with minor variations , in election after election after election .
And yet to watch TV coverage on election night — not to mention social media reactions to said TV coverage — was to watch a full-blown meltdown over the fact that nobody really knew anything yet , something that continued to play out across Wednesday and Thursday as all involved waited for official vote counts .
In the case of Democrats , much of that meltdown was driven by Trump ’ s stronger-than-expected performance in Florida , a mirror @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seemed to have foundered on the shores of the Sunshine State before the overall picture ended up far rosier for the party .
As of Thursday afternoon , an official winner still hasn ’ t been declared ( though it seems likely that Joe Biden has won the presidency ) , and 24-hour cable news is still focused solely on the dribs and drabs of information seeping in from the handful of outstanding battleground states as the vote count crawls forward in Pennsylvania and Georgia , in Arizona and Nevada .
Every once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ burst of information about the latest Covid-19 numbers will break through , but otherwise , it ’ s all election all the time .
( The Covid-19 numbers have been bad !
I don ’ t know if you ’ ve heard ! )
The election results have largely been in the same holding pattern since midday on Wednesday when Michigan and Wisconsin were called for Biden , making his path to victory easier to see .
So the cable news just keeps repeating the same information , even as MSNBC ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does the network ’ s vote breakdowns on a giant map ) looks as though he ’ s slept for maybe a half-hour since Tuesday .
A frequent narrative told about American presidential elections is that each successive one is “ the most important of our lifetimes.
” I think there ’ s truth to that during this period when Democrats and Republicans have such divergent visions of what America might look like .
But the fashion in which cable news treats each presidential election like it is the only piece of news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uniquely terrible recipe that undervalues actual useful information and overvalues anything that might produce anxiety and/or dopamine hits .
As such , cable news faces the same dilemma that Stephen Colbert did on Tuesday night : It simply doesn ’ t know what to do with an election that occurs over several days , not several hours .
You never know when the development that changes everything might arrive , so keep watching !
Tuning in feels like clinging to a constantly unraveling rope , building and building and building tension without ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is finally declared , we ’ ll all be wiped out .
The “ just keep talking until we know something ” approach underserves viewers and creates endless amounts of anxiety One of the biggest flaws of 24/7 cable news coverage in this moment is that it largely obscures the actual story of the election .
And all week long , it has poked at what basically everybody knew would be the story going in .
Counting the votes would take a while .
We wouldn ’ t have results for a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , more , more led to a long election night and then , after the election , long days of single tea leaves being extrapolated into an entire plant without much thought given to how that approach might sway public opinion or how it might fail viewers .
For instance : Several networks — CNN in particular — used a light shade of pink to indicate states where Trump was leading but that hadn ’ t yet been called , and a light shade of blue to indicate states where Biden was leading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called .
And Trump was leading in , say , Michigan and Wisconsin on Tuesday night , and held that lead until the states ’ largest urban centers were counted on Wednesday morning .
For as long as it lasted , the pink hue of those states created unwarranted anxiety in Democratic viewers and unwarranted optimism in Republican viewers .
This is not a new complaint about cable news .
On the whole , cable news is empty and sensationalistic , and it provides little information that is actually necessary except in situations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rapid clip .
( The terrorist attacks of September 11 are the most obvious example . )
But ongoing coverage of the 2020 election has highlighted just how little information there was to share in the immediate aftermath of the polls closing , and it has heightened the ultimate uselessness of increasingly vague talking heads waiting for something like real data .
The way the American media covers elections seems so deeply entrenched as to be unchangeable , but 2020 shows just how badly we need to rethink how television reports on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on how an election can be covered ( which ban coverage while polls are open ) might be a good starting point for finding workable reforms .
There has to be a better way .
By 2024 , let ’ s hope we ’ ve found one .

“What are we doing?” Stephen Colbert kept asking his producer as his 2020 election special on Showtime wound its way toward a chaotic conclusion.
In 2016, the late-night host’s live election special had felt a little like a wake for America as Colbert attempted to cope in real time with a country that had voted by a slim majority to elect Donald Trump as its commander in chief. It was surprisingly electrifying television. His 2020 special — which aired while America waited for votes to be counted, with no immediate end in sight — was much less electrifying.
Colbert was already filming in the midst of a pandemic, a performer who’s at his best when he has other people to play off of interacting only with a handful of people in the studio (most notably his wife, sitting off to his side) and then a variety of guests beamed in via videoconferencing software. Though he’s gotten very good at doing his show without a live audience laughing for every joke, the rhythms of an episode of late-night TV produced with Covid-19 safety protocols in place will always feel a little awkward.
But a newly revealed and even bigger challenge is that the era of live late-night election specials has largely been confined to the Obama and Trump administrations. The results of both Obama elections were known or almost certain by the time those specials launched in the 11 pm hour on the East Coast, and the 2016 election was clearly tilting toward Trump (if not over yet) by the time Colbert’s special aired. In 2020, the fact that results were going to be delayed — something that all of America had been conditioned to expect — didn’t really matter. The show had to go on because that’s what shows like this do.
TV abhors a vacuum, but the 2020 election, especially, occurred in a vacuum. Even once all of the votes are counted, the urge to fill hours and hours of airtime on election night and beyond will linger with viewers who thought they needed information and instead got a steady dose of anxiety.
This week’s nonstop coverage of the vote count has only served to underscore that election TV — both in late-night and on cable news — has long been broken. Maybe it should go away forever.
Cable news just isn’t equipped for an election whose results aren’t immediately clear
For weeks now, Americans have known one thing about the 2020 election: We probably wouldn’t know official results for days or even weeks after Election Day because holding an election in a pandemic means lots of votes arriving via mail, and some states wouldn’t count mail-in ballots until polls had closed.
But even if that simple likelihood hadn’t been discussed over and over and over again by politicians and pundits (here’s Bernie Sanders talking about it), a quick glance at recent history could have guided our expectations regarding when we’d find out who won. Of the five presidential elections of the 21st century before the 2020 election, only two — 2008 and 2012 — were called before midnight on the East Coast, and the 2000 election dragged on for over a month.
Even extremely recent history — which is to say, the 2018 midterms — took weeks to fully understand, particularly when it came to the extent of Democratic gains in the House.
It’s true that many elections of the TV era — roughly 1952 on — were called well before midnight on the East Coast. But those elections took place in a less polarized time, where landslide wins were much more common. In the 21st century, the ossification of Democrats’ and Republicans’ respective bases has led to electoral maps that largely look the same, with minor variations, in election after election after election.
And yet to watch TV coverage on election night — not to mention social media reactions to said TV coverage — was to watch a full-blown meltdown over the fact that nobody really knew anything yet, something that continued to play out across Wednesday and Thursday as all involved waited for official vote counts. In the case of Democrats, much of that meltdown was driven by Trump’s stronger-than-expected performance in Florida, a mirror of 2018 when Democrats’ early hopes seemed to have foundered on the shores of the Sunshine State before the overall picture ended up far rosier for the party.
Easy to say now, but imagine if MI and WI got called first, and then FL later.
Would completely change the way everyone reacted to the news, and the way many are still reacting at this moment. — Jonathan Tamari (@JonathanTamari) November 4, 2020
As of Thursday afternoon, an official winner still hasn’t been declared (though it seems likely that Joe Biden has won the presidency), and 24-hour cable news is still focused solely on the dribs and drabs of information seeping in from the handful of outstanding battleground states as the vote count crawls forward in Pennsylvania and Georgia, in Arizona and Nevada. Every once in a great while, a quick burst of information about the latest Covid-19 numbers will break through, but otherwise, it’s all election all the time. (The Covid-19 numbers have been bad! I don’t know if you’ve heard!)
The election results have largely been in the same holding pattern since midday on Wednesday when Michigan and Wisconsin were called for Biden, making his path to victory easier to see. So the cable news just keeps repeating the same information, even as MSNBC’s poor Steve Kornacki (the guy who does the network’s vote breakdowns on a giant map) looks as though he’s slept for maybe a half-hour since Tuesday.
A frequent narrative told about American presidential elections is that each successive one is “the most important of our lifetimes.” I think there’s truth to that during this period when Democrats and Republicans have such divergent visions of what America might look like. But the fashion in which cable news treats each presidential election like it is the only piece of news in a given year has created a uniquely terrible recipe that undervalues actual useful information and overvalues anything that might produce anxiety and/or dopamine hits.
As such, cable news faces the same dilemma that Stephen Colbert did on Tuesday night: It simply doesn’t know what to do with an election that occurs over several days, not several hours. You never know when the development that changes everything might arrive, so keep watching! Tuning in feels like clinging to a constantly unraveling rope, building and building and building tension without ever breaking. By the time a winner is finally declared, we’ll all be wiped out.
The “just keep talking until we know something” approach underserves viewers and creates endless amounts of anxiety
One of the biggest flaws of 24/7 cable news coverage in this moment is that it largely obscures the actual story of the election. And all week long, it has poked at what basically everybody knew would be the story going in. Counting the votes would take a while. We wouldn’t have results for a few days. But the demand for more, more, more led to a long election night and then, after the election, long days of single tea leaves being extrapolated into an entire plant without much thought given to how that approach might sway public opinion or how it might fail viewers.
For instance: Several networks — CNN in particular — used a light shade of pink to indicate states where Trump was leading but that hadn’t yet been called, and a light shade of blue to indicate states where Biden was leading but that hadn’t yet been called. And Trump was leading in, say, Michigan and Wisconsin on Tuesday night, and held that lead until the states’ largest urban centers were counted on Wednesday morning. For as long as it lasted, the pink hue of those states created unwarranted anxiety in Democratic viewers and unwarranted optimism in Republican viewers.
This is not a new complaint about cable news. On the whole, cable news is empty and sensationalistic, and it provides little information that is actually necessary except in situations where a story is truly unfolding at a rapid clip. (The terrorist attacks of September 11 are the most obvious example.)
But ongoing coverage of the 2020 election has highlighted just how little information there was to share in the immediate aftermath of the polls closing, and it has heightened the ultimate uselessness of increasingly vague talking heads waiting for something like real data.
The way the American media covers elections seems so deeply entrenched as to be unchangeable, but 2020 shows just how badly we need to rethink how television reports on them. The UK’s laws on how an election can be covered (which ban coverage while polls are open) might be a good starting point for finding workable reforms. There has to be a better way. By 2024, let’s hope we’ve found one.