vox--2020-06-24--Why Senate Democrats just tanked the Republican police reform bill

Senate Democrats have officially rejected Republicans ’ police reform bill , tanking the legislation , which needed 60 votes to advance , in a 55-45 vote on Wednesday .
In a letter earlier this week , Democrats noted that the bill — which does little to ensure legal accountability in cases of police misconduct — fell far short of the policies they ’ re interested in implementing .
“ This bill is not salvageable and we need bipartisan talks to get to a constructive starting point , ” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sens .
Kamala Harris and Cory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now , the two parties have yet to make inroads on a compromise : The House is set to pass Democrats ’ police reform bill on Thursday , but Republicans in the Senate have already dismissed it .
Both congressional Democrats and Republicans recently introduced police reforms as hundreds of thousands of protesters across the country continue to condemn police brutality toward Black Americans , though they ’ ve differed noticeably in scope .
While Democrats ’ wide-ranging bill , the Justice in Policing Act , addresses a national use of force standard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently have , Republicans ’ Justice Act focuses more on data collection and training protocols .
Both would incentivize state and local police departments to ban chokeholds , though Democrats ’ legislation includes a federal ban as well .
Neither bill fully addresses protesters ’ demands .
Democrats , thus far , have shied away from backing efforts to “ defund the police , ” which focus on shifting funds from law enforcement toward other social services like education and food aid that could address the root causes of inequities .
Republicans would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 53-member majority for their legislation , led by Sen. Tim Scott ( R-SC ) , to advance .
Ultimately , however , they were only able to pick up support from three members of the caucus : Sens .
Joe Manchin ( D-WV ) , Doug Jones ( D-AL ) , and Angus King ( I-ME ) crossed party lines to vote in favor of it .
Lawmakers in the upper chamber will likely have to find a compromise that could attain more bipartisan support before attempting another vote .
McConnell has made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t necessarily the last action that could be taken on this bill .
Democrats are interested in more expansive reforms Democrats sunk Republicans ’ bill mainly because they didn ’ t think its reforms were expansive enough .
Chief among the problems they cited is the lack of legal accountability demanded of police in the Republican bill .
“ In a moment calling for police accountability , the JUSTICE Act , your proposed answer to this crisis , does not contain any mechanisms to hold law enforcement officers accountable in court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Booker , and Schumer wrote in their Tuesday letter .
Democrats ’ legislation would limit “ qualified immunity , ” a legal doctrine that makes it difficult to sue police for misconduct : To even go to trial with an allegation of police misconduct , an individual needs to show not only that the alleged misconduct was a violation of their civil rights , but also that there ’ s precedent for that same action being considered unlawful in prior cases .
Republicans ’ bill , meanwhile , does not restrict qualified immunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ poison pill ” and noted that including it would prevent Republicans from supporting the bill .
Additionally , Democrats ’ bill would further empower prosecutors to scrutinize police for misconduct and grant the Justice Department subpoena power in “ pattern or practice ” investigations examining whether police departments have engaged in racial discrimination , two areas the Republican version fails to address .
Beyond its focus on legal accountability , Democrats ’ bill would also impose federal bans on chokeholds and the use of “ no knock ” warrants in drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only use funding to incentivize state and local police departments to ban chokeholds and study data on the use of no-knock warrants .
The bills do overlap , including in ramping up the use of police body cameras and a measure that would make lynching a federal crime .
Senate Democrats ’ decision to block the bill now shifts the focus on to Republicans , who face pressure to consider more concessions .
Democrats , at this point , are eager to include their input before the bill comes to the floor for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the JUSTICE Act in committee , Senate Republicans immediately brought it to the floor .
Meanwhile , the House is on a parallel track : After the Judiciary Committee approved Democrats ’ police reform bill along party lines last week , the entire chamber is poised to vote on its legislation this Thursday , and it will likely pass .
At that point , the Senate is able to either take up the House bill or commit to developing a compromise bill that can receive the 60 votes needed to advance in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deemed Democrats ’ legislation as a nonstarter , it ’ s likely lawmakers will need to put together another offering entirely .
“ It is within our grasp , ” said Harris in a floor speech on Tuesday .
“ People from every state , all 50 states , every walk of life , are demanding we take the problem of police brutality seriously .
We have this opportunity , and we should see it as such.
” The impasse over provisions including “ qualified immunity , ” could wind up being a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ qualified immunity line is not one we ’ re going to cross , ” Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-UT ) has previously told Politico .
Moving forward , lawmakers will have to determine whether or not they can resolve these differences — or if the passage of these reforms will wind up stalling amid such disagreements .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Senate Democrats have officially rejected Republicans’ police reform bill, tanking the legislation, which needed 60 votes to advance, in a 55-45 vote on Wednesday. In a letter earlier this week, Democrats noted that the bill — which does little to ensure legal accountability in cases of police misconduct — fell far short of the policies they’re interested in implementing.
“This bill is not salvageable and we need bipartisan talks to get to a constructive starting point,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sens. Kamala Harris and Cory Booker said in the letter. For now, the two parties have yet to make inroads on a compromise: The House is set to pass Democrats’ police reform bill on Thursday, but Republicans in the Senate have already dismissed it.
Both congressional Democrats and Republicans recently introduced police reforms as hundreds of thousands of protesters across the country continue to condemn police brutality toward Black Americans, though they’ve differed noticeably in scope. While Democrats’ wide-ranging bill, the Justice in Policing Act, addresses a national use of force standard and a raft of legal protections police currently have, Republicans’ Justice Act focuses more on data collection and training protocols. Both would incentivize state and local police departments to ban chokeholds, though Democrats’ legislation includes a federal ban as well.
Neither bill fully addresses protesters’ demands. Democrats, thus far, have shied away from backing efforts to “defund the police,” which focus on shifting funds from law enforcement toward other social services like education and food aid that could address the root causes of inequities.
Republicans would have needed seven Democrats to join their 53-member majority for their legislation, led by Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), to advance. Ultimately, however, they were only able to pick up support from three members of the caucus: Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Doug Jones (D-AL), and Angus King (I-ME) crossed party lines to vote in favor of it.
Lawmakers in the upper chamber will likely have to find a compromise that could attain more bipartisan support before attempting another vote. McConnell has made clear that this week’s vote isn’t necessarily the last action that could be taken on this bill.
Democrats are interested in more expansive reforms
Democrats sunk Republicans’ bill mainly because they didn’t think its reforms were expansive enough.
Chief among the problems they cited is the lack of legal accountability demanded of police in the Republican bill. “In a moment calling for police accountability, the JUSTICE Act, your proposed answer to this crisis, does not contain any mechanisms to hold law enforcement officers accountable in court for their misconduct,” Harris, Booker, and Schumer wrote in their Tuesday letter.
Democrats’ legislation would limit “qualified immunity,” a legal doctrine that makes it difficult to sue police for misconduct: To even go to trial with an allegation of police misconduct, an individual needs to show not only that the alleged misconduct was a violation of their civil rights, but also that there’s precedent for that same action being considered unlawful in prior cases. Republicans’ bill, meanwhile, does not restrict qualified immunity. Scott has previously dubbed the provision a “poison pill” and noted that including it would prevent Republicans from supporting the bill.
Additionally, Democrats’ bill would further empower prosecutors to scrutinize police for misconduct and grant the Justice Department subpoena power in “pattern or practice” investigations examining whether police departments have engaged in racial discrimination, two areas the Republican version fails to address.
Beyond its focus on legal accountability, Democrats’ bill would also impose federal bans on chokeholds and the use of “no knock” warrants in drug cases, while the Republican legislation would only use funding to incentivize state and local police departments to ban chokeholds and study data on the use of no-knock warrants.
The bills do overlap, including in ramping up the use of police body cameras and a measure that would make lynching a federal crime.
Democrats’ move puts pressure on Republicans
Senate Democrats’ decision to block the bill now shifts the focus on to Republicans, who face pressure to consider more concessions.
Democrats, at this point, are eager to include their input before the bill comes to the floor for another vote. Rather than mark up the JUSTICE Act in committee, Senate Republicans immediately brought it to the floor.
Meanwhile, the House is on a parallel track: After the Judiciary Committee approved Democrats’ police reform bill along party lines last week, the entire chamber is poised to vote on its legislation this Thursday, and it will likely pass.
At that point, the Senate is able to either take up the House bill or commit to developing a compromise bill that can receive the 60 votes needed to advance in the upper chamber. Since Republicans have already deemed Democrats’ legislation as a nonstarter, it’s likely lawmakers will need to put together another offering entirely.
“It is within our grasp,” said Harris in a floor speech on Tuesday. “People from every state, all 50 states, every walk of life, are demanding we take the problem of police brutality seriously. We have this opportunity, and we should see it as such.”
The impasse over provisions including “qualified immunity,” could wind up being a sticking point, however. “The qualified immunity line is not one we’re going to cross,” Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) has previously told Politico.
Moving forward, lawmakers will have to determine whether or not they can resolve these differences — or if the passage of these reforms will wind up stalling amid such disagreements.


vox--2020-06-24--Trump’s reelection polling is looking really bad

Election Day is still months away , but the current polling is painting a very bleak picture of President Donald Trump ’ s odds of reelection .
On Wednesday morning , the New York Times released its latest national poll conducted in connection with Sienna College and it showed presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden with a massive 50-36 lead over Trump .
As Nate Cohn , the Times ’ s polling guru , noted in discussion of the poll on Twitter , that lead is so large it ’ s essentially invulnerable to assumptions about the demographic composition of turnout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an extremely narrow 1-point lead with white voters , wins the 50-64 age bracket by 1 point , and is actually losing those over 64 by 2 points .
With numbers like that , basically any level of youth and nonwhite turnout where Biden enjoys huge advantages would be good enough to put him over the top .
The Times poll is particularly bleak for Trump , and even more worrisome for him , its underlying methodology , which involves “ weighting ” the sample to party registration and not just demographic factors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And while some of Trump ’ s other polls are better , none of them are exactly good .
But that doesn ’ t mean the election is over .
If this past spring has taught us anything , it ’ s that things can change fast .
Trump is way down in national averages There are different ways you can average polls together , and at the moment , they give similar answers .
• The RealClearPolitics average says Biden is up by 10.1 percentage points .
• The FiveThirtyEight polling average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• The Economist popular vote model says Biden is up by “ only ” 8.4 points .
Of course , the real election is decided in the Electoral College , but with numbers like these , the Electoral College can ’ t save you .
FiveThirtyEight has the most detailed state-by-state breakdowns , and they show Biden comfortably ahead in Arizona , Wisconsin , Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Florida , augmented by narrow leads in North Carolina , Georgia , and Ohio , and all tied up in Iowa .
Which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scale of Biden ’ s lead suggests a conversation about how many Senate seats Democrats can pick up in the context of a blowout rather than the specifics of the Electoral College .
But it ’ s important to note that this doesn ’ t mean Trump ’ s Electoral College advantage has gone away .
And even though 10 points is a huge lead , the race is in some ways closer than it looks .
It wouldn ’ t take much to put the outcome in doubt Those who recall the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about poll-based predictions of big Trump defeats .
So to understand what ’ s similar today and what ’ s different , it ’ s helpful to remember exactly what went wrong in 2016 .
Polls overestimated Clinton ’ s national lead in the popular vote but only by a modest amount .
The real error made by many forecasters ( though , notably , not by FiveThirtyEight ) was to model the odds of state-level polling errors as totally independent from one another .
Consider current polling that says Biden is narrowly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Ohio while tied in Iowa .
If you treat these as four independent contests , it starts to look extremely unlikely that Trump could sweep all four states .
If you toss a fair coin four times , it will only come up tails 6.25 percent of the time .
And since Trump ’ s odds in three of those four states are worse than a coin flip , that translates into even worse odds for Trump .
But another way of thinking about it is that if polls are generally overestimating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is probably being overestimated everywhere .
So the real question is , “ Just how likely is it that Biden is being slightly overestimated ?
” Modest polling errors are common , so it would only be moderately surprising to see it happen .
Any time a baseball at-bat ends in a hit , it ’ s a moderately unlikely outcome but not exactly an earth-shattering surprise .
The bad news for Trump is that winning North Carolina , Georgia , Ohio , and Iowa wouldn ’ t be nearly good enough for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Arizona , and Pennsylvania to carry the day .
And right now , Biden ’ s leads in those states are big enough that it would take a very large and genuinely rare scale of polling error for that to happen .
The good news for Trump is that his Electoral College edge remains large .
In the FiveThirtyEight average , he ’ s losing nationally by 9.9 , but he ’ s only losing Pennsylvania by 5.8 percentage points .
That means that if Trump could cut his national polling deficit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be easily enough achieved by reminding right-of-center voters who are currently undecided that they have fundamental disagreements with Biden on policy — he ’ d be within “ normal polling error ” range in the pivotal state .
Even then , he ’ d be favored to lose , and it ’ s certainly possible that Trump ’ s numbers will get worse in the future rather than better ( especially if the economy worsens when emergency measures expire in August ) , but the point is just that his large deficit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Dukakis was up by 17 points in mid-July 1988 .
Correction : An earlier version of this story misstated Biden ’ s lead over Trump in the recent New York Times/Siena College poll .
It is 50 to 36 .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Election Day is still months away, but the current polling is painting a very bleak picture of President Donald Trump’s odds of reelection.
On Wednesday morning, the New York Times released its latest national poll conducted in connection with Sienna College and it showed presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden with a massive 50-36 lead over Trump. As Nate Cohn, the Times’s polling guru, noted in discussion of the poll on Twitter, that lead is so large it’s essentially invulnerable to assumptions about the demographic composition of turnout. Trump in the Times poll has an extremely narrow 1-point lead with white voters, wins the 50-64 age bracket by 1 point, and is actually losing those over 64 by 2 points. With numbers like that, basically any level of youth and nonwhite turnout where Biden enjoys huge advantages would be good enough to put him over the top.
The Times poll is particularly bleak for Trump, and even more worrisome for him, its underlying methodology, which involves “weighting” the sample to party registration and not just demographic factors, is a relatively Trump-friendly approach. And while some of Trump’s other polls are better, none of them are exactly good.
But that doesn’t mean the election is over. If this past spring has taught us anything, it’s that things can change fast.
Trump is way down in national averages
There are different ways you can average polls together, and at the moment, they give similar answers.
Of course, the real election is decided in the Electoral College, but with numbers like these, the Electoral College can’t save you. FiveThirtyEight has the most detailed state-by-state breakdowns, and they show Biden comfortably ahead in Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida, augmented by narrow leads in North Carolina, Georgia, and Ohio, and all tied up in Iowa.
Which is just to say that the sheer scale of Biden’s lead suggests a conversation about how many Senate seats Democrats can pick up in the context of a blowout rather than the specifics of the Electoral College.
But it’s important to note that this doesn’t mean Trump’s Electoral College advantage has gone away. And even though 10 points is a huge lead, the race is in some ways closer than it looks.
It wouldn’t take much to put the outcome in doubt
Those who recall the 2016 election have naturally developed some doubts about poll-based predictions of big Trump defeats. So to understand what’s similar today and what’s different, it’s helpful to remember exactly what went wrong in 2016.
Polls overestimated Clinton’s national lead in the popular vote but only by a modest amount. The real error made by many forecasters (though, notably, not by FiveThirtyEight) was to model the odds of state-level polling errors as totally independent from one another.
Consider current polling that says Biden is narrowly favored in North Carolina, Georgia, and Ohio while tied in Iowa. If you treat these as four independent contests, it starts to look extremely unlikely that Trump could sweep all four states. If you toss a fair coin four times, it will only come up tails 6.25 percent of the time. And since Trump’s odds in three of those four states are worse than a coin flip, that translates into even worse odds for Trump. But another way of thinking about it is that if polls are generally overestimating Biden by a bit, then he is probably being overestimated everywhere. So the real question is, “Just how likely is it that Biden is being slightly overestimated?”
Modest polling errors are common, so it would only be moderately surprising to see it happen. Any time a baseball at-bat ends in a hit, it’s a moderately unlikely outcome but not exactly an earth-shattering surprise.
The bad news for Trump is that winning North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, and Iowa wouldn’t be nearly good enough for him. He needs to win Florida, Arizona, and Pennsylvania to carry the day. And right now, Biden’s leads in those states are big enough that it would take a very large and genuinely rare scale of polling error for that to happen.
The good news for Trump is that his Electoral College edge remains large. In the FiveThirtyEight average, he’s losing nationally by 9.9, but he’s only losing Pennsylvania by 5.8 percentage points. That means that if Trump could cut his national polling deficit down to 5 or so — which could be easily enough achieved by reminding right-of-center voters who are currently undecided that they have fundamental disagreements with Biden on policy — he’d be within “normal polling error” range in the pivotal state.
Even then, he’d be favored to lose, and it’s certainly possible that Trump’s numbers will get worse in the future rather than better (especially if the economy worsens when emergency measures expire in August), but the point is just that his large deficit is hardly insurmountable.
After all, Michael Dukakis was up by 17 points in mid-July 1988.
Correction: An earlier version of this story misstated Biden’s lead over Trump in the recent New York Times/Siena College poll. It is 50 to 36.


vox--2020-06-24--Middle school principal Jamaal Bowman unseats Eliot Engel in New York

Middle school principal Jamaal Bowman is very likely headed to Capitol Hill after unseating New York ’ s longest-serving Congress member , Rep. Eliot Engel , in the state ’ s June primary elections .
Bowman , 44 , mounted an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-like campaign to unseat Engel , 73 , in New York ’ s 16th Congressional District .
Recruited by Justice Democrats to run in 2019 , he consolidated progressive support at the national and local levels , picking up endorsements from figures such as Sens .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and New York City Public Advocate Jumaane @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Engel , who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee , to try to help save his seat but was ultimately unsuccessful .
“ Eliot Engel — and I ’ ll say his name once — used to say he was a thorn in the side of Donald Trump , ” Bowman said in a speech on the night of the election .
“ You know what Donald Trump is more afraid of than anything else ?
A Black man with power .
That is what Donald Trump is afraid of.
” He later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get to Congress and cause problems.
” Engel , who has served in Congress since 1989 , is also a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and is pretty hawkish on foreign policy .
He ’ s been successful over the years in bringing money and resources into his district .
But he was unable to overcome the perception that he had become disconnected from his district , which contains parts of the Bronx and Westchester County .
The area is a diverse one — less than half of its residents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and one-quarter are Hispanic .
And during the coronavirus crisis and then the protests in the wake of George Floyd ’ s killing , the narrative that the Congress member was not attentive enough to his district — one he denied — took even stronger hold .
New Rochelle , which is in the 16th district , was an early hot spot for Covid-19 , and Engel was criticized for not going home during the crisis , which most members of Congress did .
Edward-Isaac Dovere at the Atlantic went to Engel ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him where he ’ d been .
Engel ’ s response was confusing : “ I ’ m in both places.
” But his big gaffe took place in June at Bronx press conference about civil unrest .
In an attempt to get speaking time at the event , he was caught on a hot mic twice saying , “ If I didn ’ t have a primary , I wouldn ’ t care.
” Engel later explained that he was trying to emphasize that he thought it was “ important for people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the context of running for reelection .
But the damage was done .
Given how Democratic-leaning the district is — Hillary Clinton won there overwhelmingly in 2016 — it is highly likely Bowman will be headed to Washington , DC , come the next Congress .
Bowman , who lives in Yonkers with his wife and three children , is the founding principal at Cornerstone Academy for Social Action Middle School in the Bronx .
He has spent most of his career in education and has been heavily involved in education activism in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Green New Deal , and the policy areas he ’ s focused on include education , housing , and racial and economic inequality .
“ It will be our job to hold Donald Trump accountable and to hold every elected official accountable that continues to be beholden to corporate interests , that continues to be beholden to the wealthy , that is not fighting for the poor and is not fighting for the working class in our country , ” Bowman said in his election night speech .
When he spoke with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ urgency ” he feels is lacking from elected leaders — urgency he ’ s now responsible for bringing himself .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Middle school principal Jamaal Bowman is very likely headed to Capitol Hill after unseating New York’s longest-serving Congress member, Rep. Eliot Engel, in the state’s June primary elections.
Bowman, 44, mounted an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-like campaign to unseat Engel, 73, in New York’s 16th Congressional District. Recruited by Justice Democrats to run in 2019, he consolidated progressive support at the national and local levels, picking up endorsements from figures such as Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams. The Democratic establishment rallied behind Engel, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, to try to help save his seat but was ultimately unsuccessful.
“Eliot Engel — and I’ll say his name once — used to say he was a thorn in the side of Donald Trump,” Bowman said in a speech on the night of the election. “You know what Donald Trump is more afraid of than anything else? A Black man with power. That is what Donald Trump is afraid of.”
He later added that he “cannot wait to get to Congress and cause problems.”
Engel, who has served in Congress since 1989, is also a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and is pretty hawkish on foreign policy. He’s been successful over the years in bringing money and resources into his district. But he was unable to overcome the perception that he had become disconnected from his district, which contains parts of the Bronx and Westchester County. The area is a diverse one — less than half of its residents are white, one-third are Black, and one-quarter are Hispanic. And during the coronavirus crisis and then the protests in the wake of George Floyd’s killing, the narrative that the Congress member was not attentive enough to his district — one he denied — took even stronger hold.
New Rochelle, which is in the 16th district, was an early hot spot for Covid-19, and Engel was criticized for not going home during the crisis, which most members of Congress did. Edward-Isaac Dovere at the Atlantic went to Engel’s Maryland home in mid-May and asked him where he’d been. Engel’s response was confusing: “I’m in both places.”
But his big gaffe took place in June at Bronx press conference about civil unrest. In an attempt to get speaking time at the event, he was caught on a hot mic twice saying, “If I didn’t have a primary, I wouldn’t care.”
Engel later explained that he was trying to emphasize that he thought it was “important for people to know where I stand” in the context of running for reelection. But the damage was done.
Given how Democratic-leaning the district is — Hillary Clinton won there overwhelmingly in 2016 — it is highly likely Bowman will be headed to Washington, DC, come the next Congress.
Bowman, who lives in Yonkers with his wife and three children, is the founding principal at Cornerstone Academy for Social Action Middle School in the Bronx. He has spent most of his career in education and has been heavily involved in education activism in the city. He supports Medicare-for-all and the Green New Deal, and the policy areas he’s focused on include education, housing, and racial and economic inequality.
“It will be our job to hold Donald Trump accountable and to hold every elected official accountable that continues to be beholden to corporate interests, that continues to be beholden to the wealthy, that is not fighting for the poor and is not fighting for the working class in our country,” Bowman said in his election night speech.
When he spoke with Vox in 2019, he spoke about the “urgency” he feels is lacking from elected leaders — urgency he’s now responsible for bringing himself.


vox--2020-06-24--Donald Trump’s long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2020

If you ask President Donald Trump , he isn ’ t racist .
To the contrary , he ’ s repeatedly said that he ’ s “ the least racist person that you ’ ve ever encountered.
” Trump ’ s actual record , however , tells a very different story .
On the campaign trail , Trump repeatedly made explicitly racist and otherwise bigoted remarks , from calling Mexican immigrants criminals and rapists to proposing a ban on all Muslims entering the US to suggesting a judge should recuse himself from a case solely because of the judge ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued into his presidency .
From stereotyping a Black reporter to pandering to white supremacists after they held a violent rally in Charlottesville , Virginia , to cracking a joke about the Trail of Tears , Trump hasn ’ t stopped with the racist acts after his 2016 election .
Most recently , Trump has called the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus the “ Chinese virus ” and “ kung flu ” — racist terms that tap into the kind of xenophobia that he latched onto during his 2016 presidential campaign .
Trump ’ s own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ kung flu ” a “ highly offensive ” term .
This is nothing new for Trump .
In fact , the very first time Trump appeared in the pages of the New York Times , back in the 1970s , was when the US Department of Justice sued him for racial discrimination .
Since then , he has repeatedly appeared in newspaper pages across the world as he inspired more similar controversies .
This long history is important .
It would be one thing if Trump misspoke one or two times .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ actions and comments together , a clear pattern emerges — one that suggests that bigotry is not just political opportunism on Trump ’ s part but a real element of his personality , character , and career .
Here ’ s a breakdown of Trump ’ s history , taken largely from Dara Lind ’ s list for Vox and an op-ed by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times : • 1973 : The US Department of Justice — under the Nixon administration , out of all administrations — sued the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act .
Federal officials found evidence that Trump had refused to rent to Black tenants and lied to Black applicants about whether apartments were available , among other accusations .
Trump said the federal government was trying to get him to rent to welfare recipients .
In the aftermath , he signed an agreement in 1975 agreeing not to discriminate to renters of color without admitting to discriminating before .
• 1980s : Kip Brown , a former employee at Trump ’ s Castle , accused another one of Trump ’ s businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ivana came to the casino , the bosses would order all the black people off the floor , ” Brown said .
“ It was the eighties , I was a teenager , but I remember it : They put us all in the back.
” • 1988 : In a commencement speech at Lehigh University , Trump spent much of his speech accusing countries like Japan of “ stripping the United States of economic dignity.
” This matches much of his current rhetoric on China .
• 1989 : In a controversial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a modern-day lynching , four Black teenagers and one Latino teenager — the “ Central Park Five ” — were accused of attacking and raping a jogger in New York City .
Trump immediately took charge in the case , running an ad in local papers demanding , “ BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY .
BRING BACK OUR POLICE !
” The teens ’ convictions were later vacated after they spent seven to 13 years in prison , and the city paid $ 41 million in a settlement to the teens .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believes they ’ re guilty , despite the DNA evidence to the contrary .
• 1991 : A book by John O ’ Donnell , former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City , quoted Trump ’ s criticism of a Black accountant : “ Black guys counting my money !
I hate it .
The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day .
… I think that the guy is lazy .
And it ’ s probably not his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in blacks .
It really is , I believe that .
It ’ s not anything they can control.
” Trump later said in a 1997 Playboy interview that “ the stuff O ’ Donnell wrote about me is probably true.
” • 1992 : The Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino had to pay a $ 200,000 fine because it transferred Black and women dealers off tables to accommodate a big-time gambler ’ s prejudices .
• 1993 : In congressional testimony , Trump said that some Native American reservations operating casinos shouldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t look like Indians to me.
” • 2000 : In opposition to a casino proposed by the St. Regis Mohawk tribe , which he saw as a financial threat to his casinos in Atlantic City , Trump secretly ran a series of ads suggesting the tribe had a “ record of criminal activity [ that ] is well documented.
” • 2004 : In season two of The Apprentice , Trump fired Kevin Allen , a Black contestant , for being overeducated .
“ You ’ re an unbelievably talented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you haven ’ t done anything , ” Trump said on the show .
“ At some point you have to say , ‘ That ’ s enough.
’ ” • 2005 : Trump publicly pitched what was essentially The Apprentice : White People vs. Black People .
He said he “ wasn ’ t particularly happy ” with the most recent season of his show , so he was considering “ an idea that is fairly controversial — creating a team of successful African Americans versus a team of successful whites .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is somewhat reflective of our very vicious world.
” • 2010 : In 2010 , there was a huge national controversy over the “ Ground Zero Mosque ” — a proposal to build a Muslim community center in Lower Manhattan , near the site of the 9/11 attacks .
Trump opposed the project , calling it “ insensitive , ” and offered to buy out one of the investors in the project .
On The Late Show With David Letterman , Trump argued , referring to Muslims , “ Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Somebody ’ s blowing up buildings , and somebody ’ s doing lots of bad stuff.
” • 2011 : Trump played a big role in pushing false rumors that Obama — the country ’ s first Black president — was not born in the US .
He even sent investigators to Hawaii to look into Obama ’ s birth certificate .
Obama later released his birth certificate , calling Trump a ” carnival barker.
” ( The research has found a strong correlation between “ birtherism , ” as this conspiracy theory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has reportedly continued pushing this conspiracy theory in private .
• 2011 : While Trump suggested that Obama wasn ’ t born in the US , he also argued that maybe Obama wasn ’ t a good enough student to have gotten into Columbia or Harvard Law School , and demanded Obama release his university transcripts .
Trump claimed , “ I heard he was a terrible student .
Terrible .
How does a bad student go to Columbia and then to Harvard ?
” For many people , none of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : One of these alone might suggest that Trump is simply a bad speaker and perhaps racially insensitive ( “ politically incorrect , ” as he would put it ) , but not overtly racist .
But when you put all these events together , a clear pattern emerges .
At the very least , Trump has a history of playing into people ’ s racism to bolster himself — and that likely says something about him , too .
And , of course , there ’ s everything that ’ s happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As a candidate and president , Trump has made many more racist comments On top of all that history , Trump has repeatedly made racist — often explicitly so — remarks on the campaign trail and as president : • Trump launched his campaign in 2015 by calling Mexican immigrants “ rapists ” who are “ bringing crime ” and “ bringing drugs ” to the US .
His campaign was largely built on building a wall to keep these immigrants out of the US .
• As a candidate in 2015 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Muslims coming into the US .
His administration eventually implemented a significantly watered-down version of the policy .
• When asked at a 2016 Republican debate whether all 1.6 billion Muslims hate the US , Trump said , “ I mean a lot of them .
I mean a lot of them.
” • He argued in 2016 that Judge Gonzalo Curiel — who was overseeing the Trump University lawsuit — should recuse himself from the case because of his Mexican heritage and membership in a Latino lawyers association .
House Speaker Paul @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called such comments “ the textbook definition of a racist comment.
” • Trump has been repeatedly slow to condemn white supremacists who endorse him , and he regularly retweeted messages from white supremacists and neo-Nazis during his presidential campaign .
• He tweeted and later deleted an image that showed Hillary Clinton in front of a pile of money and by a Jewish Star of David that said , “ Most Corrupt Candidate Ever !
” The tweet had some very obvious anti-Semitic imagery , but Trump insisted that the star was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said his campaign shouldn ’ t have deleted it .
• Trump has repeatedly referred to Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) as “ Pocahontas , ” using her controversial — and later walked-back — claims to Native American heritage as a punchline .
• At the 2016 Republican convention , Trump officially seized the mantle of the “ law and order ” candidate — an obvious dog whistle playing to white fears of Black crime , even though crime in the US is historically low .
His speeches , comments , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued this line of messaging .
• In a pitch to Black voters in 2016 , Trump said , “ You ’ re living in poverty , your schools are no good , you have no jobs , 58 percent of your youth is unemployed .
What the hell do you have to lose ?
” • Trump stereotyped a Black reporter at a press conference in February 2017 .
When April Ryan asked him if he plans to meet and work with the Congressional Black Caucus , he repeatedly asked her to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she insisted that she ’ s “ just a reporter.
” • In the week after white supremacist protests in Charlottesville , Virginia , in August 2017 , Trump repeatedly said that “ many sides ” and “ both sides ” were to blame for the violence and chaos that ensued — suggesting that the white supremacist protesters were morally equivalent to counterprotesters who stood against racism .
He also said that there were “ some very fine people ” among the white supremacists .
All of this seemed like a dog whistle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them took it as one , with white nationalist Richard Spencer praising Trump for “ defending the truth.
” • Throughout 2017 , Trump repeatedly attacked NFL players who , by kneeling or otherwise silently protesting during the national anthem , demonstrated against systemic racism in America .
• Trump reportedly said in 2017 that people who came to the US from Haiti “ all have AIDS , ” and he lamented that people who came to the US from Nigeria would never “ go back to their huts ” once they saw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ever made these comments .
• Speaking about immigration in a bipartisan meeting in January 2018 , Trump reportedly asked , in reference to Haiti and African countries , “ Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here ?
” He then reportedly suggested that the US should take more people from countries like Norway .
The implication : Immigrants from predominantly white countries are good , while immigrants from predominantly Black countries are bad .
• Trump denied making the “ shithole ” comments , although some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened .
The White House , meanwhile , suggested that the comments , like Trump ’ s remarks about the NFL protests , will play well to his base .
The only connection between Trump ’ s remarks about the NFL protests and his “ shithole ” comments is race .
• Trump mocked Elizabeth Warren ’ s presidential campaign , again calling her “ Pocahontas ” in a tweet before adding , “ See you on the campaign TRAIL , Liz !
” The capitalized “ TRAIL ” is seemingly a reference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ horrific act of ethnic cleansing in the 19th century in which Native Americans were forcibly relocated , causing thousands of deaths .
• Trump tweeted that several Black and brown members of Congress — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-NY ) , Ayanna Pressley ( D-MA ) , Ilhan Omar ( D-MN ) , and Rashida Tlaib ( D-MI ) — are “ from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe ” and that they should “ go back ” to those countries .
It ’ s a common racist trope to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly immigrants , should go back to their countries of origin .
Three of the four members of Congress whom Trump targeted were born in the US .
• Trump has called the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus the “ Chinese virus ” and “ kung flu.
” The World Health Organization advises against linking a virus to any particular region , since it can lead to stigma .
Trump ’ s adviser , Kellyanne Conway , previously described the term “ kung flu ” as “ highly offensive.
” Meanwhile , Asian Americans have reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread of the coronavirus .
This list is not comprehensive , instead relying on some of the major examples since Trump announced his candidacy .
But once again , there ’ s a pattern of racism and bigotry here that suggests Trump isn ’ t just misspeaking ; it is who he is .
Are Trump ’ s actions and comments “ racist ” ?
Or are they “ bigoted ” ?
One of the common defenses for Trump is that he ’ s not necessarily racist , because the Muslim and Mexican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually comprise a race .
Disgraced journalist Mark Halperin , for example , said as much when Trump argued Judge Curiel should recuse himself from the Trump University case because of his Mexican heritage , making the astute observation that “ Mexico isn ’ t a race.
” Kristof made a similar point in the New York Times : “ My view is that ‘ racist ’ can be a loaded word , a conversation stopper more than a clarifier , and that we should be careful not to use it simply as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Latinos can be of any race , so some of those statements technically reflect not so much racism as bigotry .
It ’ s also true that with any single statement , it is possible that Trump misspoke or was misconstrued.
” This critique misses the point on two levels .
For one , the argument is tremendously semantic .
It ’ s essentially probing the question : Is Trump racist or is he bigoted ?
But who cares ?
Neither is a trait that anyone should want in a president — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Another issue is that race is socially malleable .
Over the years , Americans considered Germans , Greeks , Irish , Italians , and Spaniards as nonwhite people of different races .
That ’ s changed .
Similarly , some Americans today consider Latinos and , to a lesser degree , some people with Muslim and Jewish backgrounds as part of a nonwhite race too .
( As a Latin man , I certainly consider myself to be of a different race , and the treatment I ’ ve received in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) So under current definitions , comments against these groups are , indeed , racist .
This is all possible because , as Jenée Desmond-Harris explained for Vox , race is entirely a social construct with no biological basis .
This doesn ’ t mean race and people ’ s views of race don ’ t have real effects on many people — of course they do — but it means that people ’ s definitions of race can change over time .
But really , whatever you want to call it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the past .
That much should be clear in the long lists above .
Trump ’ s bigotry was a key part of his campaign Regardless of how one labels it , Trump ’ s racism or bigotry was a big part of his campaign — by giving a candidate to the many white Americans who harbor racial resentment .
One paper , published in January 2017 by political scientists Brian Schaffner , Matthew MacWilliams , and Tatishe Nteta , found that voters ’ measures of sexism and racism correlated much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dissatisfaction after controlling for factors like partisanship and political ideology .
Another study , conducted by researchers Brenda Major , Alison Blodorn , and Gregory Major Blascovich shortly before the 2016 election , found that if people who strongly identified as white were told that nonwhite groups will outnumber white people in 2042 , they became more likely to support Trump .
And a study , published in November 2017 by researchers Matthew Luttig , Christopher Federico , and Howard Lavine , found that Trump supporters were much more likely to change their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In this study , respondents were randomly assigned “ a subtle image of either a black or a white man.
” Then they were asked about views on housing policy .
The researchers found that Trump supporters were much more likely to be impacted by the image of a Black man .
After the exposure , they were not only less supportive of housing assistance programs , but they also expressed higher levels of anger that some people receive government assistance , and they were more likely to say that individuals who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation .
In contrast , favorability toward Hillary Clinton did not significantly change respondents ’ views on any of these issues when primed with racial cues .
“ These findings indicate that responses to the racial cue varied as a function of feelings about Donald Trump — but not feelings about Hillary Clinton — during the 2016 presidential election , ” the researchers concluded .
There is also a lot of other research showing that people ’ s racial attitudes can change their views on politics and policy , as Dylan Matthews and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explained for Vox .
Simply put , racial attitudes were a big driver of Trump ’ s election — just as they long have been for general beliefs about politics and policy .
( Much more on all the research in Vox ’ s explainer . )
Meanwhile , white supremacist groups have openly embraced Trump .
As Sarah Posner and David Neiwert reported at Mother Jones , what the media largely treated as gaffes — Trump retweeting white nationalists , Trump describing Mexican immigrants as “ rapists ” and criminals — were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their racist causes .
One white supremacist wrote , “ Our Glorious Leader and ULTIMATE SAVIOR has gone full-wink-wink-wink to his most aggressive supporters.
” Some of them even argued that Trump has softened the greater public to their racist messaging .
“ The success of the Trump campaign just proves that our views resonate with millions , ” said Rachel Pendergraft , a national organizer for the Knights Party , which succeeded David Duke ’ s Knights of the Ku Klux Klan .
“ They may not be ready for the Ku @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hatred escalates , they will.
” And at the 2017 white supremacist protest in Charlottesville , David Duke , the former KKK grand wizard , said that the rally was meant “ to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump.
” So while Trump may deny his racism and bigotry , at some level his supporters seem to get it .
As much as his history of racism shows that he ’ s racist , perhaps who supported him and why is just as revealing — and it doesn ’ t paint a favorable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

If you ask President Donald Trump, he isn’t racist. To the contrary, he’s repeatedly said that he’s “the least racist person that you’ve ever encountered.”
Trump’s actual record, however, tells a very different story.
On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly made explicitly racist and otherwise bigoted remarks, from calling Mexican immigrants criminals and rapists, to proposing a ban on all Muslims entering the US, to suggesting a judge should recuse himself from a case solely because of the judge’s Mexican heritage.
The trend has continued into his presidency. From stereotyping a Black reporter to pandering to white supremacists after they held a violent rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, to making a joke about the Trail of Tears, Trump hasn’t stopped with racist acts after his 2016 election.
Most recently, Trump has called the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus the “Chinese virus” and “kung flu” — racist terms that tap into the kind of xenophobia that he latched onto during his 2016 presidential campaign; Trump’s own adviser, Kellyanne Conway, previously called “kung flu” a “highly offensive” term. And Trump insinuated that Sen. Kamala Harris, who’s Black, “doesn’t meet the requirements” to run for vice president — a repeat of the birther conspiracy theory that he perpetuated about former President Barack Obama.
This is nothing new for Trump. In fact, the very first time Trump appeared in the pages of the New York Times, back in the 1970s, was when the US Department of Justice sued him for racial discrimination. Since then, he has repeatedly appeared in newspaper pages across the world as he inspired more similar controversies.
This long history is important. It would be one thing if Trump misspoke one or two times. But when you take all of his actions and comments together, a clear pattern emerges — one that suggests that bigotry is not just political opportunism on Trump’s part but a real element of his personality, character, and career.
Trump has a long history of racist controversies
Here’s a breakdown of Trump’s history, taken largely from Dara Lind’s list for Vox and an op-ed by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times:
For many people, none of these incidents, individually, may be damning: One of these alone might suggest that Trump is simply a bad speaker and perhaps racially insensitive (“politically incorrect,” as he would put it), but not overtly racist.
But when you put all these events together, a clear pattern emerges. At the very least, Trump has a history of playing into people’s racism to bolster himself — and that likely says something about him, too.
And, of course, there’s everything that’s happened through and since his presidential campaign.
As a candidate and president, Trump has made many more racist comments
On top of all that history, Trump has repeatedly made racist — often explicitly so — remarks on the campaign trail and as president:
This list is not comprehensive, instead relying on some of the major examples since Trump announced his candidacy. But once again, there’s a pattern of racism and bigotry here that suggests Trump isn’t just misspeaking; it is who he is.
Are Trump’s actions and comments “racist”? Or are they “bigoted”?
One of the common defenses for Trump is that he’s not necessarily racist, because the Muslim and Mexican people he often targets don’t actually comprise a race.
Disgraced journalist Mark Halperin, for example, said as much when Trump argued Judge Curiel should recuse himself from the Trump University case because of his Mexican heritage, making the astute observation that “Mexico isn’t a race.”
Kristof made a similar point in the New York Times: “My view is that ‘racist’ can be a loaded word, a conversation stopper more than a clarifier, and that we should be careful not to use it simply as an epithet. Moreover, Muslims and Latinos can be of any race, so some of those statements technically reflect not so much racism as bigotry. It’s also true that with any single statement, it is possible that Trump misspoke or was misconstrued.”
This critique misses the point on two levels.
For one, the argument is tremendously semantic. It’s essentially probing the question: Is Trump racist or is he bigoted? But who cares? Neither is a trait that anyone should want in a president — and either label essentially communicates the same criticism.
Another issue is that race is socially malleable. Over the years, Americans considered Germans, Greeks, Irish, Italians, and Spaniards as nonwhite people of different races. That’s changed. Similarly, some Americans today consider Latinos and, to a lesser degree, some people with Muslim and Jewish backgrounds as part of a nonwhite race too. (As a Latin man, I certainly consider myself to be of a different race, and the treatment I’ve received in the course of my life validates that.) So under current definitions, comments against these groups are, indeed, racist.
This is all possible because, as Jenée Desmond-Harris explained for Vox, race is entirely a social construct with no biological basis. This doesn’t mean race and people’s views of race don’t have real effects on many people — of course they do — but it means that people’s definitions of race can change over time.
But really, whatever you want to call it, Trump has made racist and bigoted comments in the past. That much should be clear in the long lists above.
Trump’s bigotry was a key part of his campaign
Regardless of how one labels it, Trump’s racism or bigotry was a big part of his campaign — by giving a candidate to the many white Americans who harbor racial resentment.
One paper, published in January 2017 by political scientists Brian Schaffner, Matthew MacWilliams, and Tatishe Nteta, found that voters’ measures of sexism and racism correlated much more closely with support for Trump than economic dissatisfaction, after controlling for factors like partisanship and political ideology.
Another study, conducted by researchers Brenda Major, Alison Blodorn, and Gregory Major Blascovich shortly before the 2016 election, found that if people who strongly identified as white were told that nonwhite groups will outnumber white people in 2042, they became more likely to support Trump.
And a study, published in November 2017 by researchers Matthew Luttig, Christopher Federico, and Howard Lavine, found that Trump supporters were much more likely to change their views on housing policy based on race. In this study, respondents were randomly assigned “a subtle image of either a black or a white man.” Then they were asked about views on housing policy.
The researchers found that Trump supporters were much more likely to be impacted by the image of a Black man. After the exposure, they were not only less supportive of housing assistance programs, but they also expressed higher levels of anger that some people receive government assistance, and they were more likely to say that individuals who receive assistance are to blame for their situation.
In contrast, favorability toward Hillary Clinton did not significantly change respondents’ views on any of these issues when primed with racial cues.
“These findings indicate that responses to the racial cue varied as a function of feelings about Donald Trump — but not feelings about Hillary Clinton — during the 2016 presidential election,” the researchers concluded.
There is also a lot of other research showing that people’s racial attitudes can change their views on politics and policy, as Dylan Matthews and researchers Sean McElwee and Jason McDaniel previously explained for Vox.
Simply put, racial attitudes were a big driver of Trump’s election — just as they long have been for general beliefs about politics and policy. (Much more on all the research in Vox’s explainer.)
Meanwhile, white supremacist groups have openly embraced Trump. As Sarah Posner and David Neiwert reported at Mother Jones, what the media largely treated as gaffes — Trump retweeting white nationalists, Trump describing Mexican immigrants as “rapists” and criminals — were to white supremacists real signals approving of their racist causes. One white supremacist wrote, “Our Glorious Leader and ULTIMATE SAVIOR has gone full-wink-wink-wink to his most aggressive supporters.”
Some of them even argued that Trump has softened the greater public to their racist messaging. “The success of the Trump campaign just proves that our views resonate with millions,” said Rachel Pendergraft, a national organizer for the Knights Party, which succeeded David Duke’s Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. “They may not be ready for the Ku Klux Klan yet, but as anti-white hatred escalates, they will.”
And at the 2017 white supremacist protest in Charlottesville, David Duke, the former KKK grand wizard, said that the rally was meant “to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump.”
So while Trump may deny his racism and bigotry, at some level his supporters seem to get it. As much as his history of racism shows that he’s racist, perhaps who supported him and why is just as revealing — and it doesn’t paint a favorable picture for Trump.


vox--2020-06-25--The Supreme Court could soon allow Trump’s expansion of deportations to go unchecked

One of the few remaining cases at the Supreme Court this term could have sweeping , immediate implications for the immigration enforcement system , potentially allowing the Trump administration to deport tens of thousands of immigrants living in the US with little oversight .
The case , Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam , concerns immigration officials ’ authority to quickly deport migrants who don ’ t express fear of returning to their home countries , which would make them eligible for asylum .
The process , first enacted in 1996 and known as “ expedited removal , ” takes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it can take to resolve a full deportation case , and does not involve a hearing before an immigration judge or offer immigrants the right to a lawyer .
The justices will soon decide whether immigrants have the right to challenge their expedited removal in federal court , which advocates claim is a necessary check on immigration officials to ensure that migrants with credible asylum claims aren ’ t erroneously turned away and have access to a full and fair hearing .
Until recently , only a small number of immigrants who had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subjected to expedited removal .
But President Donald Trump has sought to vastly expand US Immigration and Customs Enforcement ’ s power to use expedited removal as a means of deporting any immigrant who has lived in the US for up to two years , potentially affecting an estimated 20,000 people .
The stakes of the case at the Supreme Court , therefore , are higher than ever .
But if the justices rule in the government ’ s favor , Trump will be able to massively scale up his immigration enforcement apparatus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has made it very clear that ICE has the authority to use this process throughout the entire country , ” Kari Hong , a professor at Boston College Law School , said .
“ They could start stopping anyone at anytime on any suspicion that they have committed an immigration violation and deport them .
I don ’ t think it ’ s unreasonable [ to predict ] that ICE agents will target dark-skinned individuals.
” Full deportation proceedings are lengthy by design : Immigrants have a right to seek protection in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunity to do so .
Under expedited removal , however , that process is condensed to a matter of weeks , which most immigration attorneys say is not conducive to building a legal case in their favor .
If a migrant arrives in the US without authorization and expresses fear of persecution in their home country , a US Customs and Border Protection agent will first determine whether to refer them to an asylum officer in US Citizenship and Immigration Services for a screening known as a “ credible fear ” interview .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ can fight their deportation in immigration court , where they will typically have a short , initial hearing before a judge and a government attorney to learn about their rights and how their case will proceed .
They are usually given time to retain a lawyer and prepare their case , which includes gathering documents attesting to experiences that might make them eligible for relief from deportation or protections under the asylum system or international torture agreements .
They then have to wait for another hearing in which they actually argue why they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US before an immigration judge makes a decision in their case .
Immigrants with currently pending cases have been waiting almost two years on average for that second hearing , according to the most recently available data .
These exhaustive proceedings in immigration court , however , are only accessible to migrants if a CBP agent initially refers them to an asylum officer — otherwise , they might face expedited removal , in which they can be deported without ever setting foot in a courtroom or seeing a lawyer .
And historically , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refer every migrant who claims fear of persecution in their home country to asylum officers , allowing people with potentially valid asylum claims to fall through the cracks , Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia , a professor at Pennsylvania State Law , said .
How the case could impact Trump ’ s efforts to expand deportations Though enacted in 1996 , expedited removal was used sparingly until the Obama administration .
President Donald Trump has sought to expand it even further .
Since 2004 , the US has only been able subject a small proportion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , individuals who are arrested within 100 miles of a land border within two weeks of their arrival .
But the Trump administration published a rule last year that also includes immigrants found anywhere in the US if they arrived within the last two years , a substantially larger group .
A federal appeals court in Washington , DC , upheld the rule earlier this week , finding that Congress had offered the Department of Homeland Security “ sole and unreviewable discretion ” over whether to expand the scope of expedited removal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Enforcement a green light to sweep communities across the country for unauthorized immigrants and deport them quickly .
“ ICE is already in the streets , in churches , at hurricane checkpoints , on Greyhound buses — they are out in front , ” Hong said .
“ Some communities in our country could see an even higher presence.
” If the administration prevails in the Thuraissigiam case at the Supreme Court , as well , it ’ s liberal use of expedited removal could go unchallenged — even when the government uses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ valid asylum claims .
A Clinton-era immigration law known as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ( IIRIRA ) bars immigrants from challenging their deportation under the expedited removal process .
But Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam — an asylum seeker from Sri Lanka who claims that the government wrongfully subjected him to expedited removal — has argued in his case at the Supreme Court that the law is unconstitutional and that courts should have the power to review immigration officials ’ decision to place him in expedited removal .
Thuraissigiam is a Tamil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subject to human rights violations in Sri Lanka .
Government officials had abducted him , beat him , tortured him with simulated drowning and threatened to kill him , and on that basis , his asylum claim would seem to pass muster .
He therefore wants a federal court to review his expedited removal .
But the Trump administration has countered that he has no right to challenge the process under the Constitution or federal law and that to allow migrants to do so would overwhelm the government ’ s resources .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unusual — few migrants have the legal knowledge or resources to file an action in federal court challenging their deportation .
But if the government faces no possible repercussions for wrongfully subjecting migrants with legitimate asylum claims to expedited removal , it will have no incentive to prevent mistakes from happening .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The Supreme Court just issued a ruling with sweeping, immediate implications for the immigration enforcement system, potentially allowing the Trump administration to move forward in deporting tens of thousands of immigrants living in the US with little oversight.
The case, Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, concerns immigration officials’ authority to quickly deport migrants who don’t express fear of returning to their home countries, which would make them eligible for asylum. The process, first enacted in 1996 and known as “expedited removal,” takes weeks, rather than the typical years it can take to resolve a full deportation case, and does not involve a hearing before an immigration judge or offer immigrants the right to a lawyer.
In a 7-2 decision, the justices found Thursday that newly arrived immigrants don’t have the right to challenge their expedited removal in federal court, which advocates claim is a necessary check on immigration officials to ensure that migrants with credible asylum claims aren’t erroneously turned away and have access to a full and fair hearing.
Until recently, only a small number of immigrants who had recently arrived in the US could be subjected to expedited removal. But President Donald Trump has sought to vastly expand US Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s power to use expedited removal as a means of deporting any immigrant who has lived in the US for up to two years, potentially affecting an estimated 20,000 people.
Thursday’s decision therefore allows Trump to significantly scale up his immigration enforcement apparatus while going largely unchecked.
“Trump has made it very clear that ICE has the authority to use this process throughout the entire country,” Kari Hong, a professor at Boston College Law School, said. “They could start stopping anyone at anytime on any suspicion that they have committed an immigration violation and deport them. I don’t think it’s unreasonable [to predict] that ICE agents will target dark-skinned individuals.”
How expedited removal works
Full deportation proceedings are lengthy by design: Immigrants have a right to seek protection in the US and should be afforded a full opportunity to do so. Under expedited removal, however, that process is condensed to a matter of weeks, which most immigration attorneys say is not conducive to building a legal case in their favor.
If a migrant arrives in the US without authorization and expresses fear of persecution in their home country, a US Customs and Border Protection agent will first determine whether to refer them to an asylum officer in US Citizenship and Immigration Services for a screening known as a “credible fear” interview.
Asylum officers undergo extensive training to administer these interviews in a non-adversarial way and to interact with people who have faced trauma, including rape, domestic abuse, torture, and death threats. But under Trump, CBP officials have also started administering these interviews, which advocates say they are ill-equipped to do. While they have to undergo some additional training to administer these interviews, CBP agents are typically armed and have sought in many documented cases to intimidate and use excessive force against asylum seekers.
The Trump administration has also proposed changes to the credible fear interview process that would make it much more difficult for asylum seekers to pass the credible fear screening.
But if they do pass, they will have the opportunity to fight their deportation in immigration court, where they will typically have a short, initial hearing before a judge and a government attorney to learn about their rights and how their case will proceed. They are usually given time to retain a lawyer and prepare their case, which includes gathering documents attesting to experiences that might make them eligible for relief from deportation or protections under the asylum system or international torture agreements.
They then have to wait for another hearing in which they actually argue why they should be permitted to remain in the US before an immigration judge makes a decision in their case. Immigrants with currently pending cases have been waiting almost two years on average for that second hearing, according to the most recently available data.
These exhaustive proceedings in immigration court, however, are only accessible to migrants if a CBP agent initially refers them to an asylum officer and they pass a credible fear screening. Asylum seekers can challenge a credible fear determination before the asylum officer’s supervisor and then an immigration judge, but after that, they have no recourse — they may face expedited removal.
What’s more, CBP agents have historically failed to identify and refer every migrant who claims fear of persecution in their home country to asylum officers, allowing people with potentially valid asylum claims to fall through the cracks, Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, a professor at Pennsylvania State Law, said.
How the case could impact Trump’s efforts to expand deportations
Though enacted in 1996, expedited removal was used sparingly until the Obama administration. President Donald Trump has sought to expand it even further.
Since 2004, the US has only been able to subject a small proportion of migrants to expedited removal: namely, individuals who are arrested within 100 miles of a land border within two weeks of their arrival. But the Trump administration published a rule last year that also includes immigrants found anywhere in the US if they arrived within the last two years, a substantially larger group.
A federal appeals court in Washington, DC, upheld the rule earlier this week, finding that Congress had offered the Department of Homeland Security “sole and unreviewable discretion” over whether to expand the scope of expedited removal. The ruling gives US Immigration and Customs Enforcement a green light to sweep communities across the country for unauthorized immigrants and deport them quickly.
“ICE is already in the streets, in churches, at hurricane checkpoints, on Greyhound buses — they are out in front,” Hong said. “Some communities in our country could see an even higher presence.”
Thursday’s ruling in the Thuraissigiam case at the Supreme Court could allow Trump to use expedited removal liberally while going unchallenged — even when the government uses the process to wrongfully deport someone with valid asylum claims.
A controversial, Clinton-era immigration law known as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) bars immigrants from challenging their deportation under the expedited removal process. But Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam — an asylum seeker from Sri Lanka who claims that the government wrongfully subjected him to expedited removal — has argued in his case at the Supreme Court that the law is unconstitutional and that courts should have the power to review immigration officials’ decision to place him in expedited removal.
Thuraissigiam is a Tamil, an ethnic minority that has been subject to human rights violations in Sri Lanka. Government officials had abducted him, beat him, tortured him with simulated drowning and threatened to kill him. He was apprehended 25 yards after crossing the US southern border without authorization. An asylum officer, their supervisor, and an immigration judge all found that he didn’t pass the credible fear screening and he was subjected to expedited removal.
But Thuraissigiam maintained that he had a valid asylum claim and sought review of his expedited removal, applying in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus — a constitutional remedy usually available to people seeking their release from detention, but that he argued could be invoked to seek additional review of his asylum claim. He also argued that, because he had crossed the border into the US, he had additional due process rights on US soil allowing him to challenge his expedited removal.
Most of the justices disagreed Thursday, saying that the constitutional right to habeas corpus relief doesn’t apply to immigrants seeking relief from deportation and that, because he had just arrived in the US, he didn’t have any additional due process rights.
“Habeas has traditionally been a means to secure release from unlawful detention, but respondent invokes the writ to achieve an entirely different end, namely, to obtain additional administrative review of his asylum claim and ultimately to obtain authorization to stay in this country,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the opinion.
The implications for asylum seekers caught in the middle of Trump’s efforts to expand expedited removal are clear: Because the government faces no possible repercussions for wrongfully subjecting migrants with legitimate asylum claims to expedited removal, it will have no incentive to prevent mistakes from happening.
“The decision deprives [asylum seekers] of any means to ensure the integrity of an expedited removal order, an order which, the Court has just held, is not subject to any meaningful judicial oversight as to its substance,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.


vox--2020-06-25--Coronavirus is changing bars as we know them

Like one of those fairytales designed to teach children not to talk to strangers or to look beyond superficial things like looks and riches in a potential mate , comes a story from Florida : A 40-year-old woman and 15 of her friends have tested positive for coronavirus after a night at an Irish pub in Jacksonville Beach .
The components of this story feel fantastical .
15 friends ?
How did she wrangle them all on the same schedule and get them to a bar ?
What does going to a bar with 15 friends even feel like ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bars are potential coronavirus hot zones .
Bars are the antithesis of social distancing .
Bars ’ entire existence hinges upon humans being smashed in uncomfortably close together and talking loud , drinking heavily — a mask-free activity — and losing their inhibitions and good sense .
Americans have been told to avoid all of these things , specifically , because the virus thrives in these conditions .
And as with the Jacksonville 16 and perhaps across the country , we ’ re already seeing the consequences .
Still , establishments across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While New York City began its phase 2 ( which allows outdoor drinking and dining ) reopening on June 22 .
Jacksonville , clearly , has had a head start , with much of Florida allowing patrons back into its bars earlier this month .
But with few states slowing down their reopening plans , there will be a time when bars — at least the ones that make it through the economic downturn — open back up .
Those bars won ’ t necessarily ever be the same as they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be coronavirus hot zones Going to a great bar beats drinking at home .
Maybe the drinks are good .
Maybe the space is great .
Maybe it ’ s a place our friends are or where we want to meet strangers .
For whatever reason , a great bar is a place where we want to be .
“ Bars are especially difficult for many reasons , including all the expected ones : for many bars , crowding is part of the appeal , often with little ventilation , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ S. Morse , a professor of epidemiology at Columbia University ’ s Mailman School of Public Health told me .
“ People usually want to talk or meet other people in bars , which makes social distancing impossible and mask-wearing impractical .
And , of course , you ’ re not wearing a mask when drinking , and many people don ’ t want to gulp their drink down so they can put their mask back on .
Who would ?
Alcohol also may make people less aware of precautions or of mistakes.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is part of the appeal , often with little ventilation , which is great for virus transmission ” Mistakes like touching your face or not washing your hands or putting on your mask amplify your risk of contracting the virus .
As Morse mentions , in a bar it ’ s also not just your individual mistakes that could affect you , but also the mistakes of the other patrons around you .
Even if you ’ re being extra careful , you ’ re essentially in a room full of other people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The other thing to keep in mind is that patrons aren ’ t the only people in a bar .
Bartenders , barbacks , security , and other staffers ’ jobs put them at risk too .
They usually have more interactions — handing drinks out , exchanging money , cleaning up tables , walking around the establishment — with other people and groups of people than patrons do .
That mobility increases their risk of infection and also increases their risk of spreading the virus , should they encounter someone with it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can come back to haunt servers and customers alike .
Because bars are such a high-risk setting but also essential for socializing , some countries have developed innovative ways to compromise .
South Korea , which has been heralded for its handling of the outbreak , has created a system wherein patrons scan a specific code that includes their personal data , like phone number and address , before entering a bar or other high-risk locales .
This allows the government to contact trace people in the event of an outbreak .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they also chip away at any semblance of privacy .
Some people might want to keep their nightlife private .
For example , if I was in a country that isn ’ t particularly gay-friendly , I wouldn ’ t really want the government there to know which gay bars or nightclubs I was at .
In the US , an extensive tracking measure like South Korea ’ s seems like an impossibility .
Setting aside privacy concerns ( not an easy sell in the US ) , it may be too late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases , states have already begun reopening .
It feels as though implementing such as system at this point , without shutting down places a second time , would be playing a game of catch-up .
So what can American patrons , owners , and bartenders do to curb the risk at hand ?
How we can be safe in a bar again Chris Barnes knows it ’ ll never be the same as it was .
Barnes is the co-owner of Flaming Saddles , a popular gay , Western-themed bar with locations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Kitchen and LA ’ s West Hollywood .
In the before times , Flaming Saddles featured bartenders who would periodically dance on top of the bar to the delight of the crowd ( not unlike Coyote Ugly ) .
Dancing isn ’ t even on Barnes ’ s mind right now , though .
“ If my landlord said I ’ m giving you the next year free , I still wouldn ’ t open tomorrow , ” Barnes told me , explaining that he ’ s worried about the safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his 60 employees across two cities .
“ I ’ d love to make money , but if I ’ m opening and get my kids sick , I ’ m a fucking asshole.
” The rising cases across the country and in California , specifically , make him anxious .
Barnes said that both of his outposts have been shut down for almost four months now , even though bars in Los Angeles County are allowed to open under health guidelines .
Being closed is hurting the business financially , but following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social distance in bars will also likely hurt revenue .
But while their financial needs and negotiations with landlords on both coasts can be a frustrating and daunting experience , Flaming Saddles ’ owners want to take their time and make sure their bars are safe enough for patrons and staff to come back to .
That includes ordering hand sanitizer stations and educating their staffers on virus spread , but also equipping everyone , clientele included , with new equipment .
“ We ’ ve bought boxes of 100 percent cotton bandanas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them with ear loops that are long , so you can put the drink under your [ mask ] and never have to take it off , ” he said .
“ We ’ re making our own custom-made , Flaming Saddle-logo face mask .
We ’ re getting baseball caps with the shields for our bartender so they have the face mask and the face shield .
I just had delivery of hand sanitizer stands that we ’ ll put all over the bar.
” Flaming Saddles , when it reopens with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like a Western saloon than it ever did .
And these are the kind of steps bars will need to take to ensure their patrons and staff are safe .
Near Portland , Oregon , in Clackamas County , Dustin Hannifan has been back to work .
Re-opening schedules and requirements vary from state to state .
In Oregon , counties have been on a faster , looser track than New York City .
Hannifan busses at a diner-bar Elmers , which has been open for the past couple of weeks .
Clackamas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which included the opening of bars and restaurants as long as 6 feet of distance are maintained between tables and employees wear masks .
“ I really try to make sure the sanitizer is changed regularly , menus are wiped with bleach , tables are scrubbed well and to wash my hands often , ” he said , explaining that he doesn ’ t feel safe at this job because customers haven ’ t been required to wear masks .
Over the last month , Oregon health officials have raised alarm about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7 daily new cases never hit above 100 , and in the two weeks since June 7 daily cases have been around or above 100 .
“ [ Wednesday , June 24 ] , the county is requiring patrons to wear masks , but being in a predominantly ‘ conservative ’ county , who knows if customers will adhere to that rule ?
” But Hannifan can ’ t afford to worry .
“ I ’ m pretty broke and facing eviction , so I kinda have to keep my head down and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ furlough job they took sanitation much more seriously.
” Morse , the Columbia epidemiologist explains , the general rules of thumb to minimize risk — good ventilation , frequent hand-washing and sanitizing , no touching , and always put on a mask in a restroom : Taking all this into account , the idea of being in a bar again is really about re-imagining how we think about bars at a fundamental level .
Not every bar is going to require you to don a bandana and look like an outlaw like you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are going to be different .
They ’ re going to be a little less crowded , may require you to learn how to drink with a mask on , and will possibly be cleaner than they ’ ve ever been .
( I for one , wouldn ’ t mind a little more Orville Peck in our lives ) .
And for perhaps the first time , we ’ re also going to have to ask ourselves uncomfortable questions about the health risk we ’ re putting ourselves in just by going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked question is , ‘ Are you concerned about your your staff and your customers getting sick ?
’ ” Barnes said .
“ That should be the first question .
It should be the first thing when we ’ re deciding whether we ’ re opening or not .
And you know , it ’ s more of a moral question than a business question.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to @ @ @

Like one of those fairytales designed to teach children not to talk to strangers or to look beyond superficial things like looks and riches in a potential mate, comes a story from Florida: A 40-year-old woman and 15 of her friends have tested positive for coronavirus after a night at an Irish pub in Jacksonville Beach.
The components of this story feel fantastical. 15 friends? How did she wrangle them all on the same schedule and get them to a bar? What does going to a bar with 15 friends even feel like?
But the moral is crystal clear: Bars are potential coronavirus hot zones.
Bars are the antithesis of social distancing. Bars’ entire existence hinges upon humans being smashed in uncomfortably close together and talking loud, drinking heavily — a mask-free activity — and losing their inhibitions and good sense. Americans have been told to avoid all of these things, specifically, because the virus thrives in these conditions. And as with the Jacksonville 16 and perhaps across the country, we’re already seeing the consequences.
Still, establishments across the country are slowly beginning to come back. While New York City began its phase 2 (which allows outdoor drinking and dining) reopening on June 22. Jacksonville, clearly, has had a head start, with much of Florida allowing patrons back into its bars earlier this month. But with few states slowing down their reopening plans, there will be a time when bars — at least the ones that make it through the economic downturn — open back up. Those bars won’t necessarily ever be the same as they were in the before times.
Why bars can be coronavirus hot zones
Going to a great bar beats drinking at home. Maybe the drinks are good. Maybe the space is great. Maybe it’s a place our friends are or where we want to meet strangers. For whatever reason, a great bar is a place where we want to be.
“Bars are especially difficult for many reasons, including all the expected ones: for many bars, crowding is part of the appeal, often with little ventilation, which is great for virus transmission,” Stephen S. Morse, a professor of epidemiology at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health told me. “People usually want to talk or meet other people in bars, which makes social distancing impossible and mask-wearing impractical. And, of course, you’re not wearing a mask when drinking, and many people don’t want to gulp their drink down so they can put their mask back on. Who would? Alcohol also may make people less aware of precautions or of mistakes.”
“For many bars, crowding is part of the appeal, often with little ventilation, which is great for virus transmission”
Mistakes like touching your face or not washing your hands or putting on your mask amplify your risk of contracting the virus. As Morse mentions, in a bar it’s also not just your individual mistakes that could affect you, but also the mistakes of the other patrons around you. Even if you’re being extra careful, you’re essentially in a room full of other people whose adherence to safety completely varies.
The other thing to keep in mind is that patrons aren’t the only people in a bar.
Bartenders, barbacks, security, and other staffers’ jobs put them at risk too. They usually have more interactions — handing drinks out, exchanging money, cleaning up tables, walking around the establishment — with other people and groups of people than patrons do. That mobility increases their risk of infection and also increases their risk of spreading the virus, should they encounter someone with it. A careless patron from days before can come back to haunt servers and customers alike.
Because bars are such a high-risk setting but also essential for socializing, some countries have developed innovative ways to compromise. South Korea, which has been heralded for its handling of the outbreak, has created a system wherein patrons scan a specific code that includes their personal data, like phone number and address, before entering a bar or other high-risk locales. This allows the government to contact trace people in the event of an outbreak.
But while these codes help ensure safety, they also chip away at any semblance of privacy. Some people might want to keep their nightlife private. For example, if I was in a country that isn’t particularly gay-friendly, I wouldn’t really want the government there to know which gay bars or nightclubs I was at.
In the US, an extensive tracking measure like South Korea’s seems like an impossibility. Setting aside privacy concerns (not an easy sell in the US), it may be too late. Even in the face of rising cases, states have already begun reopening.
It feels as though implementing such as system at this point, without shutting down places a second time, would be playing a game of catch-up. So what can American patrons, owners, and bartenders do to curb the risk at hand?
How we can be safe in a bar again
Chris Barnes knows it’ll never be the same as it was. Barnes is the co-owner of Flaming Saddles, a popular gay, Western-themed bar with locations in New York City’s Hell’s Kitchen and LA’s West Hollywood. In the before times, Flaming Saddles featured bartenders who would periodically dance on top of the bar to the delight of the crowd (not unlike Coyote Ugly). Dancing isn’t even on Barnes’s mind right now, though.
“If my landlord said I’m giving you the next year free, I still wouldn’t open tomorrow,” Barnes told me, explaining that he’s worried about the safety of patrons and, more urgently, his 60 employees across two cities. “I’d love to make money, but if I’m opening and get my kids sick, I’m a fucking asshole.” The rising cases across the country and in California, specifically, make him anxious.
Barnes said that both of his outposts have been shut down for almost four months now, even though bars in Los Angeles County are allowed to open under health guidelines. Being closed is hurting the business financially, but following reopening guidelines like cutting capacity and maintaining social distance in bars will also likely hurt revenue.
But while their financial needs and negotiations with landlords on both coasts can be a frustrating and daunting experience, Flaming Saddles’ owners want to take their time and make sure their bars are safe enough for patrons and staff to come back to.
That includes ordering hand sanitizer stations and educating their staffers on virus spread, but also equipping everyone, clientele included, with new equipment.
“We’ve bought boxes of 100 percent cotton bandanas, and we’re custom making them with ear loops that are long, so you can put the drink under your [mask] and never have to take it off,” he said. “We’re making our own custom-made, Flaming Saddle-logo face mask. We’re getting baseball caps with the shields for our bartender so they have the face mask and the face shield. I just had delivery of hand sanitizer stands that we’ll put all over the bar.”
Flaming Saddles, when it reopens with its bandana-clad patrons, may look more like a Western saloon than it ever did. And these are the kind of steps bars will need to take to ensure their patrons and staff are safe.
Near Portland, Oregon, in Clackamas County, Dustin Hannifan has been back to work. Re-opening schedules and requirements vary from state to state. In Oregon, counties have been on a faster, looser track than New York City.
Hannifan busses at a diner-bar Elmers, which has been open for the past couple of weeks. Clackamas instituted its reopening phase on May 23, which included the opening of bars and restaurants as long as 6 feet of distance are maintained between tables and employees wear masks.
“I really try to make sure the sanitizer is changed regularly, menus are wiped with bleach, tables are scrubbed well and to wash my hands often,” he said, explaining that he doesn’t feel safe at this job because customers haven’t been required to wear masks. Over the last month, Oregon health officials have raised alarm about the increase in cases — before June 7 daily new cases never hit above 100, and in the two weeks since June 7 daily cases have been around or above 100 .
“[Wednesday, June 24], the county is requiring patrons to wear masks, but being in a predominantly ‘conservative’ county, who knows if customers will adhere to that rule?”
But Hannifan can’t afford to worry. “I’m pretty broke and facing eviction, so I kinda have to keep my head down and make money unfortunately. At my pre-corona furlough job they took sanitation much more seriously.”
Morse, the Columbia epidemiologist explains, the general rules of thumb to minimize risk — good ventilation, frequent hand-washing and sanitizing, no touching, and always put on a mask in a restroom :
If it’s indoors (outdoors is better but may not have the same atmosphere), good ventilation, with as much air movement as possible (open windows, fans, or good A/C). Bartenders can protect their patrons and themselves by wearing masks, keeping some distance (if not six feet then an arm’s length), keeping their hands clean, and putting the drink on the bar for the patron to pick up (which many bartenders do anyway). They can certainly use disinfectant or sanitizer to wipe down the bar itself and similar surfaces fairly often, which patrons may expect anyway, and make sure glasses and utensils go through the dishwasher and aren’t reused before then. Restrooms are another issue — a good place to wear a mask, and observe all the hygienic precautions.
Taking all this into account, the idea of being in a bar again is really about re-imagining how we think about bars at a fundamental level.
Not every bar is going to require you to don a bandana and look like an outlaw like you might at Flaming Saddles, but they are going to be different. They’re going to be a little less crowded, may require you to learn how to drink with a mask on, and will possibly be cleaner than they’ve ever been. (I for one, wouldn’t mind a little more Orville Peck in our lives). And for perhaps the first time, we’re also going to have to ask ourselves uncomfortable questions about the health risk we’re putting ourselves in just by going to a bar.
“The least asked question is, ‘Are you concerned about your your staff and your customers getting sick?’” Barnes said. “That should be the first question. It should be the first thing when we’re deciding whether we’re opening or not. And you know, it’s more of a moral question than a business question.”