vox--2020-11-30--Ajit Pai, Trump’s FCC chair who repealed net neutrality, is leaving on January 20

Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) chair Ajit Pai has announced that he will leave the agency on January 20 , when Joe Biden is sworn in as president .
This gives Biden at least one commissioner slot to fill on his first day in office and , should that choice be confirmed , a Democrat majority to fulfill his vision of what the FCC should be and do for the next four years .
Pai ’ s controversial tenure as FCC chair has been marked by business-friendly deregulation that helped media conglomerates get even bigger while doing little for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internet access — which has become an even more essential service during the pandemic .
Pai also awarded billions of dollars in subsidies to broadband companies for providing internet access to remote locations , an investment of public dollars to close the digital divide that red state lawmakers found especially beneficial .
“ It has been the honor of a lifetime to serve at the Federal Communications Commission , including as Chairman of the FCC over the past four years , ” Pai said in a statement .
“ I am grateful to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lead the agency in 2017 , to President Obama for appointing me as a Commissioner in 2012 , and to Senate Majority Leader McConnell and the Senate for twice confirming me .
To be the first Asian-American to chair the FCC has been a particular privilege .
As I often say : only in America.
” “ While we did not always agree on policy matters , I always valued our shared commitment to public service , ” Jessica Rosenworcel , a Democratic FCC commissioner who is likely to become the acting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a statement .
Geoffrey Starks , the other Democrat on the commission , issued a similar if slightly less formal statement : “ Chairman Pai and I may disagree on many policy issues , but we are in full agreement about two things : the outstanding quality of the FCC ’ s staff and the tremendous abilities of Patrick Mahomes.
” Pai , a Republican , joined the FCC after working for Verizon , a fact he used to gleefully troll his Democratic colleagues who were concerned about Pai ’ s ties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d been granted a second five-year term by President Trump in 2017 , Pai could have stayed on as a commissioner until that term expired , but it ’ s customary for chairs to leave the agency when a new administration comes in .
The FCC is considered to be an independent agency with five commissioners ( no more than three of whom can be from one political party ) who are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate .
Under Pai , the FCC set about deregulating the industries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and reversing landmark Obama-era decisions .
The net neutrality repeal is probably the most well-known example of both .
During the Obama years , the FCC reclassified internet service providers ( ISPs ) as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act , giving the agency more authority over them and forcing ISPs to treat all internet traffic the same .
That would mean , for instance , that ISPs couldn ’ t charge more for certain types of traffic or restrict access to certain websites .
Pai was a vocal opponent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama , and repealed it as soon as he possibly could after taking over as chair .
Pai ’ s reasoning was that such regulations would hamper investment and growth in a burgeoning industry ( whether or not the internet can still be considered a burgeoning industry is up for debate ) .
Pai called for a “ light touch framework , ” akin to the Clinton administration ’ s approach from decades earlier ( when the internet truly was a burgeoning industry ) .
This light-touch framework gave the FCC little recourse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left millions of Americans to rely on the internet more than ever , but they had fewer protections from exploitive rate increases or sudden service cuts .
Pai ’ s initiatives to reduce fraud in the agency ’ s universal lifeline service , which subsidizes phone and internet for lower-income people , made it harder for people who actually needed it to qualify for and stay in the program , and his actions reduced the number of companies that could provide it .
The $ 9.25 internet service subsidy also didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s vastly increased data needs .
Pai ’ s solutions to these problems included asking broadband companies not to cut off subscribers who couldn ’ t pay their bills during the first few months of the pandemic , and to pause lifeline service de-enrollment temporarily .
However , Pai refused to extend the E-Rate program , which gives educational institutions heavily discounted internet and telecommunications services , to the private homes that became classrooms when the pandemic shut schools and libraries down .
One of Pai ’ s last acts for the agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Title II to assert the FCC ’ s authority over internet service providers , platforms , and sites by “ clarifying ” Section 230 , which gives those services immunity from liability for user content while still allowing internet companies to moderate that content as they see fit .
For example : If someone posts something defamatory about you on Facebook , you can sue that user but you can ’ t sue Facebook .
Ironically , this is the opposite of a light-touch framework , the legal justification for which rests on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ services that Pai decidedly didn ’ t want and worked hard to remove .
But Section 230 was a pet cause of President Trump , especially as social media platforms increasingly cracked down on accounts that spread misinformation .
Trump was enraged , for instance , when his election-related tweets and Facebook posts were labeled with fact-checks .
Conservatives have increasingly asserted that tech companies are biased against certain political viewpoints , although studies have shown that social media actually amplifies and spreads conservative content far more than liberal content .
Trump issued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FCC to dictate what content platforms could moderate and how , in order to keep their Section 230 protections .
In October , Pai issued a statement saying the FCC would do as Trump asked .
With Biden ’ s election , it ’ s exceedingly unlikely this will happen .
Pai ’ s business-friendly FCC also tried to “ strengthen local voices ” and modernize media ownership rules by increasing how many television and radio stations one company may own and allowing them to own different media outlets in the same market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down in court .
Meanwhile , a proposed merger between conservative local television provider Sinclair Broadcast Group and Tribune Media Company , which would have put Sinclair stations in roughly 70 percent of American homes , fell apart when Sinclair lied about its plans to sell off stations in order to comply with FCC ownership regulations .
Pai was an initial proponent of the Sinclair takeover — to the extent that he was investigated for showing preferential treatment to the company ( he was cleared ) — but would ultimately defy Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ended up with a record $ 48 million fine from the FCC .
Tribune ’ s stations were sold to a different company , Nexstar , which then became the largest television station owner in the country .
Pai ’ s FCC also approved the Sprint/T-Mobile merger , which decreased the number of major American wireless carriers from four to three .
Pai said the deal would speed up the rollout of 5G .
He also took a hands-off approach to the Time Warner/AT & T merger , saying the FCC didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it didn ’ t involve the transfer of airwave licenses , effectively clearing the way for the massive media conglomerate despite the Department of Justice ’ s antitrust concerns .
While Pai ’ s FCC may not have done much for urban and lower-income Americans , it did provide billions in funding for access to broadband in rural and tribal communities and — despite delays and interagency fights — eventually begin to expand 5G service across the country .
With Pai ’ s departure and Republican commissioner Michael O ’ Rielly ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the year , Biden will either begin his presidency with a 2-1 Democrat majority FCC or an FCC split along party lines .
That depends on if Trump ’ s nominee to replace O ’ Rielly , Nathan Simington , is confirmed .
Simington is seen as a major proponent of Trump ’ s Section 230 executive order and didn ’ t seem to be popular among Senate Democrats in his November confirmation hearing .
Some Republicans have committed to voting for him , but a date for the vote has not yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t much time left .
Should Simington not be confirmed , Trump appointee Brendan Carr would be left as the sole Republican commissioner on a three-person panel .
Carr ’ s statement about Pai ’ s departure was significantly longer and more detailed than the other commissioners ’ , saying that Pai “ cares deeply about the digital divide , ” thanking him for his “ courageous and principled service to the country , ” and saying he would “ leave behind an [ unparalleled ] record of accomplishments — one that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mug.
” Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chair Ajit Pai has announced that he will leave the agency on January 20, when Joe Biden is sworn in as president. This gives Biden at least one commissioner slot to fill on his first day in office and, should that choice be confirmed, a Democrat majority to fulfill his vision of what the FCC should be and do for the next four years.
Pai’s controversial tenure as FCC chair has been marked by business-friendly deregulation that helped media conglomerates get even bigger while doing little for lower-income people who couldn’t afford internet access — which has become an even more essential service during the pandemic. Pai also awarded billions of dollars in subsidies to broadband companies for providing internet access to remote locations, an investment of public dollars to close the digital divide that red state lawmakers found especially beneficial.
“It has been the honor of a lifetime to serve at the Federal Communications Commission, including as Chairman of the FCC over the past four years,” Pai said in a statement. “I am grateful to President Trump for giving me the opportunity to lead the agency in 2017, to President Obama for appointing me as a Commissioner in 2012, and to Senate Majority Leader McConnell and the Senate for twice confirming me. To be the first Asian-American to chair the FCC has been a particular privilege. As I often say: only in America.”
“While we did not always agree on policy matters, I always valued our shared commitment to public service,” Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democratic FCC commissioner who is likely to become the acting chair when Biden takes office, said in a statement.
Geoffrey Starks, the other Democrat on the commission, issued a similar if slightly less formal statement: “Chairman Pai and I may disagree on many policy issues, but we are in full agreement about two things: the outstanding quality of the FCC’s staff and the tremendous abilities of Patrick Mahomes.”
Pai, a Republican, joined the FCC after working for Verizon, a fact he used to gleefully troll his Democratic colleagues who were concerned about Pai’s ties to the company. And since he’d been granted a second five-year term by President Trump in 2017, Pai could have stayed on as a commissioner until that term expired, but it’s customary for chairs to leave the agency when a new administration comes in. The FCC is considered to be an independent agency with five commissioners (no more than three of whom can be from one political party) who are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Under Pai, the FCC set about deregulating the industries under its purview as much as possible and reversing landmark Obama-era decisions. The net neutrality repeal is probably the most well-known example of both.
During the Obama years, the FCC reclassified internet service providers (ISPs) as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act, giving the agency more authority over them and forcing ISPs to treat all internet traffic the same. That would mean, for instance, that ISPs couldn’t charge more for certain types of traffic or restrict access to certain websites. Pai was a vocal opponent of this policy as a commissioner under Obama, and repealed it as soon as he possibly could after taking over as chair.
Pai’s reasoning was that such regulations would hamper investment and growth in a burgeoning industry (whether or not the internet can still be considered a burgeoning industry is up for debate). Pai called for a “light touch framework,” akin to the Clinton administration’s approach from decades earlier (when the internet truly was a burgeoning industry).
This light-touch framework gave the FCC little recourse when the pandemic hit. The crisis left millions of Americans to rely on the internet more than ever, but they had fewer protections from exploitive rate increases or sudden service cuts. Pai’s initiatives to reduce fraud in the agency’s universal lifeline service, which subsidizes phone and internet for lower-income people, made it harder for people who actually needed it to qualify for and stay in the program, and his actions reduced the number of companies that could provide it. The $9.25 internet service subsidy also didn’t cover the cost of most people’s vastly increased data needs.
Pai’s solutions to these problems included asking broadband companies not to cut off subscribers who couldn’t pay their bills during the first few months of the pandemic, and to pause lifeline service de-enrollment temporarily. However, Pai refused to extend the E-Rate program, which gives educational institutions heavily discounted internet and telecommunications services, to the private homes that became classrooms when the pandemic shut schools and libraries down.
One of Pai’s last acts for the agency will likely be his attempt to use Title II to assert the FCC’s authority over internet service providers, platforms, and sites by “clarifying” Section 230, which gives those services immunity from liability for user content while still allowing internet companies to moderate that content as they see fit. For example: If someone posts something defamatory about you on Facebook, you can sue that user but you can’t sue Facebook. Ironically, this is the opposite of a light-touch framework, the legal justification for which rests on having a Title II authority over internet services that Pai decidedly didn’t want and worked hard to remove.
But Section 230 was a pet cause of President Trump, especially as social media platforms increasingly cracked down on accounts that spread misinformation. Trump was enraged, for instance, when his election-related tweets and Facebook posts were labeled with fact-checks. Conservatives have increasingly asserted that tech companies are biased against certain political viewpoints, although studies have shown that social media actually amplifies and spreads conservative content far more than liberal content. Trump issued an executive order in May asking the FCC to dictate what content platforms could moderate and how, in order to keep their Section 230 protections. In October, Pai issued a statement saying the FCC would do as Trump asked. With Biden’s election, it’s exceedingly unlikely this will happen.
Pai’s business-friendly FCC also tried to “strengthen local voices” and modernize media ownership rules by increasing how many television and radio stations one company may own and allowing them to own different media outlets in the same market. Some of these rules were struck down in court.
Meanwhile, a proposed merger between conservative local television provider Sinclair Broadcast Group and Tribune Media Company, which would have put Sinclair stations in roughly 70 percent of American homes, fell apart when Sinclair lied about its plans to sell off stations in order to comply with FCC ownership regulations. Pai was an initial proponent of the Sinclair takeover — to the extent that he was investigated for showing preferential treatment to the company (he was cleared) — but would ultimately defy Trump and vote to block the merger. Sinclair ended up with a record $48 million fine from the FCC. Tribune’s stations were sold to a different company, Nexstar, which then became the largest television station owner in the country.
Pai’s FCC also approved the Sprint/T-Mobile merger, which decreased the number of major American wireless carriers from four to three. Pai said the deal would speed up the rollout of 5G. He also took a hands-off approach to the Time Warner/AT&T merger, saying the FCC didn’t need to review or approve it because it didn’t involve the transfer of airwave licenses, effectively clearing the way for the massive media conglomerate despite the Department of Justice’s antitrust concerns.
While Pai’s FCC may not have done much for urban and lower-income Americans, it did provide billions in funding for access to broadband in rural and tribal communities and — despite delays and interagency fights — eventually begin to expand 5G service across the country.
With Pai’s departure and Republican commissioner Michael O’Rielly’s term expiring at the end of the year, Biden will either begin his presidency with a 2-1 Democrat majority FCC or an FCC split along party lines. That depends on if Trump’s nominee to replace O’Rielly, Nathan Simington, is confirmed. Simington is seen as a major proponent of Trump’s Section 230 executive order and didn’t seem to be popular among Senate Democrats in his November confirmation hearing. Some Republicans have committed to voting for him, but a date for the vote has not yet been scheduled, and there isn’t much time left.
Should Simington not be confirmed, Trump appointee Brendan Carr would be left as the sole Republican commissioner on a three-person panel. Carr’s statement about Pai’s departure was significantly longer and more detailed than the other commissioners’, saying that Pai “cares deeply about the digital divide,” thanking him for his “courageous and principled service to the country,” and saying he would “leave behind an [unparalleled] record of accomplishments — one that would not even fit in his oversized coffee mug.”
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-11-30--Don’t wait: The case for giving sooner rather than later

December 1 is Giving Tuesday , the day for donations and a national conversation about how to give back and do good .
Especially in a turbulent year when many of us want to give back , but also want to be cautious with our budgets , here ’ s one important question : If you want to donate to charity , should you go out and pick an organization today ?
Or should you wait , save your money , and leave it to charity in your will ( or at least donate it down the road ) ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these approaches .
To some extent , the answer depends on what you think the highest priorities for donation are — and whether you think you ’ ll be a more informed donor later in your life .
On the whole , though , close observers of the nonprofit world tend to think that donating your money now is likely to achieve more good in the world than saving it up to donate after you die .
That ’ s because donations now can , in some senses , make the donor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history suggests that many of the best giving opportunities out there aren ’ t going to be around in 10 years — let alone in 50 .
It might be best to give when there ’ s “ low-hanging fruit ” There ’ s some reason to think that your money will go further if you give it now than if you give it later .
The case here is a little complicated .
In a field like global health , we know about lots of interventions that are valuable .
As more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it will probably spread widely — especially wherever the conditions are ripe for it .
For example , an innovation that improves traffic safety will probably first spread in the rich countries that can afford it , so that after a few years , the places lacking it will be ones where it ’ s complicated to deploy .
A new surgery that prevents a health problem will probably first be offered in places with good medical care , to patients whose conditions don ’ t have added complications .
Once those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remaining cases will be more expensive .
That means that money given now will go further than money given later , once we ’ ve already solved the problems that can be solved cheaply .
So for any given organization — whether it ’ s treating fistulas from childbirth or deworming kids — we might expect donations to be most needed fairly early on , when there are a lot of problems that can be solved easily , and to go further than they will later , when most of the problems that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solve .
Donors will have found the “ low-hanging fruit ” in a cause .
How seriously to take this argument depends on which cause you think is the most promising .
In 2018 , I asked Julia Wise , president of Giving What We Can at the Centre for Effective Altruism , for advice .
“ If you want to work on global health and development , ” Wise told me , “ the best opportunities are now.
” There are already lots of organizations providing health services , and the problems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improving , so money now will probably go further than it will in five years .
“ For causes that we know less about , where our understanding is more in its beginnings , ” Wise thinks there ’ s a case for waiting .
In a few years , we might discover a new giving opportunity that ’ s better than any of the existing ones .
On the other hand , “ in these areas where the evidence is thin , the right thing to do is fund research .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else to fund things so we could find out what works , then we could be waiting for a long time.
” Giving now can allow charities to develop better programs — creating better options sooner Giving What We Can encourages people to give every year — though some participants give to a donor-advised fund , an account that you control and from which you can choose a charity to give to later .
Wise and her husband donate 50 percent of their income to charities , and they ’ ve chosen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that one of the most important effects your donation has is encouraging a charity that is running programs you believe in , helping them expand those programs and invest more energy there .
If you ’ re strategic about donating to charities that are running trials of promising new programs and learning through their research how to best get results , then your donations can actually change which giving opportunities are available in the future .
“ We ’ ve been really encouraged to see evidence-based charity growing as people are supporting it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We see that as improving the charitable landscape and making it so charities have an incentive to continue conducting and participating in research about their work , so everyone can know the best places to donate.
” This incentive effect works much better with living , active , engaged donors .
Charities will respond to donations this year by thinking about what work they need to do to still be a good target for donations next year .
“ If we delay , ” Wise said , “ we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowledge.
” Giving now might help you commit to a generous life “ My husband and I have decided to donate now rather than waiting until later , ” Wise told me .
“ Part of that is thinking that works best with our motivation .
It makes it a steady part of our life rather than part of the indefinite future.
” Telling yourself you ’ ll donate someday in the distant future isn ’ t the same as donating every day .
People who ’ ve taken Giving What We Can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ motivation .
“ Giving now cultivates your own virtue , and ensures that you ’ ll continue to live up to your own ideals , ” Haseeb Qureshi wrote in an essay about this question .
“ You are not a perfect creature .
Even if you intend to do something hard now … you always have to factor in the possibility that you ’ ll change your mind or regress.
” The best way to be someone who will want to give away money in your will , then , is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ habits were important , so much so that she recommended people donate a little bit of money even if they ’ re early in life and building their limited savings .
“ It can be good to donate on a regular basis so you ’ re still making decisions about where to give and keeping it a part of your life , ” she told me .
Giving later might help you be a more informed donor But there are good reasons to consider delaying your donation .
Some charities are vastly more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charities are so flooded with money that they don ’ t use additional donations to expand their programs — meaning that your money won ’ t achieve much .
That variance in effectiveness is a reason why you might want to give later instead of giving today .
If you don ’ t know much about the opportunities out there , it ’ s not a good idea to pick a charity haphazardly without a clear understanding of what it will do with your money and why it ’ s competent to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charity can save a life .
It should be treated as seriously as any other decision that could save a life .
If you want to commit to giving now , but you don ’ t feel equipped yet to make an informed choice about where to give , one option is a donor-advised fund .
You make the donation now ( and take the tax deduction now ) but can choose any qualified charity to donate the money to later .
Donor-advised funds are one way to set aside the money for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learn .
But this is probably a reason to wait five years , not 40 .
You ’ d have to do a lot of ongoing research to keep your will up to date with the giving opportunity you ’ ve found the most promising — and once you ’ re doing all of that work and have identified the best giving opportunity out there , it ’ s probably worth just giving to it .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter .
Twice a week , you ’ ll get a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our biggest challenges : improving public health , decreasing human and animal suffering , easing catastrophic risks , and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good .

December 1 is Giving Tuesday, the day for donations and a national conversation about how to give back and do good. Especially in a turbulent year when many of us want to give back, but also want to be cautious with our budgets, here’s one important question: If you want to donate to charity, should you go out and pick an organization today? Or should you wait, save your money, and leave it to charity in your will (or at least donate it down the road)?
There’s a case for either of these approaches. To some extent, the answer depends on what you think the highest priorities for donation are — and whether you think you’ll be a more informed donor later in your life.
On the whole, though, close observers of the nonprofit world tend to think that donating your money now is likely to achieve more good in the world than saving it up to donate after you die. That’s because donations now can, in some senses, make the donor better at doing good, and because history suggests that many of the best giving opportunities out there aren’t going to be around in 10 years — let alone in 50.
It might be best to give when there’s “low-hanging fruit”
There’s some reason to think that your money will go further if you give it now than if you give it later.
The case here is a little complicated. In a field like global health, we know about lots of interventions that are valuable. As more money pours into supporting an important intervention, it will probably spread widely — especially wherever the conditions are ripe for it.
For example, an innovation that improves traffic safety will probably first spread in the rich countries that can afford it, so that after a few years, the places lacking it will be ones where it’s complicated to deploy. A new surgery that prevents a health problem will probably first be offered in places with good medical care, to patients whose conditions don’t have added complications. Once those patients have been treated, handling the remaining cases will be more expensive. That means that money given now will go further than money given later, once we’ve already solved the problems that can be solved cheaply.
So for any given organization — whether it’s treating fistulas from childbirth or deworming kids — we might expect donations to be most needed fairly early on, when there are a lot of problems that can be solved easily, and to go further than they will later, when most of the problems that remain are ones that are harder to solve. Donors will have found the “low-hanging fruit” in a cause.
How seriously to take this argument depends on which cause you think is the most promising. In 2018, I asked Julia Wise, president of Giving What We Can at the Centre for Effective Altruism, for advice. “If you want to work on global health and development,” Wise told me, “the best opportunities are now.” There are already lots of organizations providing health services, and the problems they’re working on are mostly improving, so money now will probably go further than it will in five years.
“For causes that we know less about, where our understanding is more in its beginnings,” Wise thinks there’s a case for waiting. In a few years, we might discover a new giving opportunity that’s better than any of the existing ones. On the other hand, “in these areas where the evidence is thin, the right thing to do is fund research. If we’re all waiting for somebody else to fund things so we could find out what works, then we could be waiting for a long time.”
Giving now can allow charities to develop better programs — creating better options sooner
Giving What We Can encourages people to give every year — though some participants give to a donor-advised fund, an account that you control and from which you can choose a charity to give to later. Wise and her husband donate 50 percent of their income to charities, and they’ve chosen to donate every year.
Wise pointed out that one of the most important effects your donation has is encouraging a charity that is running programs you believe in, helping them expand those programs and invest more energy there. If you’re strategic about donating to charities that are running trials of promising new programs and learning through their research how to best get results, then your donations can actually change which giving opportunities are available in the future.
“We’ve been really encouraged to see evidence-based charity growing as people are supporting it with their donations,” Wise said. “We see that as improving the charitable landscape and making it so charities have an incentive to continue conducting and participating in research about their work, so everyone can know the best places to donate.”
This incentive effect works much better with living, active, engaged donors. Charities will respond to donations this year by thinking about what work they need to do to still be a good target for donations next year. “If we delay,” Wise said, “we’re not participating in improving the state of knowledge.”
Giving now might help you commit to a generous life
“My husband and I have decided to donate now rather than waiting until later,” Wise told me. “Part of that is thinking that works best with our motivation. It makes it a steady part of our life rather than part of the indefinite future.” Telling yourself you’ll donate someday in the distant future isn’t the same as donating every day.
People who’ve taken Giving What We Can’s pledge often describe the same motivation. “Giving now cultivates your own virtue, and ensures that you’ll continue to live up to your own ideals,” Haseeb Qureshi wrote in an essay about this question. “You are not a perfect creature. Even if you intend to do something hard now … you always have to factor in the possibility that you’ll change your mind or regress.” The best way to be someone who will want to give away money in your will, then, is to give money now.
Wise also thought habits were important, so much so that she recommended people donate a little bit of money even if they’re early in life and building their limited savings. “It can be good to donate on a regular basis so you’re still making decisions about where to give and keeping it a part of your life,” she told me.
Giving later might help you be a more informed donor
But there are good reasons to consider delaying your donation. Some charities are vastly more effective than others. Some highly effective charities are so flooded with money that they don’t use additional donations to expand their programs — meaning that your money won’t achieve much.
That variance in effectiveness is a reason why you might want to give later instead of giving today. If you don’t know much about the opportunities out there, it’s not a good idea to pick a charity haphazardly without a clear understanding of what it will do with your money and why it’s competent to do it. A few thousand dollars to charity can save a life. It should be treated as seriously as any other decision that could save a life.
If you want to commit to giving now, but you don’t feel equipped yet to make an informed choice about where to give, one option is a donor-advised fund. You make the donation now (and take the tax deduction now) but can choose any qualified charity to donate the money to later. Donor-advised funds are one way to set aside the money for charity while giving yourself more time to learn.
But this is probably a reason to wait five years, not 40. You’d have to do a lot of ongoing research to keep your will up to date with the giving opportunity you’ve found the most promising — and once you’re doing all of that work and have identified the best giving opportunity out there, it’s probably worth just giving to it.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good.


vox--2020-11-30--Joe Biden announces Janet Yellen as Treasury secretary pick

In 2014 , Janet Yellen became the first woman to be named chair of the Federal Reserve .
Six years later , she is poised to become the first woman Treasury secretary of the United States .
On Monday , President-elect Joe Biden announced that he intends to nominate Yellen , 74 , to head the Treasury Department ; he also announced his picks for a number of other key members of his economic team .
The Yellen choice was widely reported last week .
Biden ’ s pick is not necessarily a surprising one .
In the days leading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his nominee would be someone who “ will be accepted by all elements of the Democratic Party … progressive to the moderate coalitions , ” leading to broad speculation that it would be Yellen , who most Democrats are expected to support and who many Republicans could have a hard time opposing .
In a tweet on Monday — her first — Yellen said the country faces “ great challenges ” at the moment .
“ To recover , we must restore the American dream — a society where each person can rise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for their children , ” she wrote .
“ As Treasury Secretary , I will work every day towards rebuilding that dream for all.
” Yellen , who is originally from Brooklyn , New York , served as chair of the Federal Reserve from 2014 to 2018 before President Donald Trump decided to replace her with current Chair Jerome Powell .
She previously served as president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco , chaired the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Bill Clinton , and was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Berkeley .
“ Yellen is eminently qualified , she oversaw a sprawling bureaucracy at the Fed .
It would be incredibly difficult for various factions [ Republicans , moderate Democrats , and progressive Democrats ] to find issue with her tenure , ” said Isaac Boltansky , director of policy research at Compass Point Research and Trading .
“ I don ’ t think she would make any side happy , per se , but she certainly wouldn ’ t make either side unhappy , and that might be as good as we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yellen oversaw the continued recovery from the Great Recession and left behind a solid legacy .
Unemployment declined steadily , the stock market climbed , and inflation stayed low under her tenure .
Part of the strong economy Trump inherited can be traced back to Yellen .
That ’ s not to say Yellen ’ s time at the Fed was perfect .
As Sam Bell outlined in Politico in 2018 , some people say that she was “ too sanguine ” about the potential for using regulations to stave off the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easy on Wells Fargo in the wake of its fake accounts scandal , or that she didn ’ t do enough to help smaller banks .
“ And yet on the critical issue at hand in her 2014 nomination — could we bring more unemployed workers back into the labor force without blowing things up for everyone ?
— she has been unquestionably vindicated , ” Bell wrote .
Some people have also questioned the Fed ’ s decision to modestly raise interest rates under Yellen ’ s tenure , arguing that doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full potential and getting more people into the workforce .
Of course , hindsight is 20/20 .
And at the Treasury Department , Yellen won ’ t have anything to do with interest rate decisions .
“ Just as she shied away from fiscal policy when she ran monetary policy , I think she ’ d shy away from monetary policy as Treasury secretary , ” Boltansky said .
Progressives have also raised questions about her previous comments regarding the deficit , which she described as unsustainable .
Biden also revealed a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Monday , including Center for American Progress president and CEO Neera Tanden for director of the Office of Management and Budget , labor economist and Princeton School of Public and International Affairs dean Cecilia Rouse for chair of the Council of Economic Advisers , and Obama Foundation president Wally Adeyemo for deputy Treasury secretary .
Biden said he will appoint his longtime adviser Jared Bernstein and Heather Boushey , president and CEO of the Washington Center for Equitable Growth , to serve on the Council of Economic Advisers .
Other contenders on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former Deputy Treasury Secretary Sarah Bloom Raskin ; current Fed governor Lael Brainard ; and Roger Ferguson , the CEO of the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America ( TIAA ) , a financial services company , among others .
Biden will set the economic agenda , and the virus is at the top of his list Heading the Treasury Department is an important job — the department oversees the IRS ; the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency , which charters , regulates , and supervises national banks ; and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and the secretary plays a key role in advising the president on economic issues .
Leading up to Biden ’ s announcement , there was quite a bit of back-and-forth among more moderate and progressive Democrats regarding who the Treasury pick should be .
Progressives championed figures such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) and Raskin , and pushed Biden to eschew anyone with perceived industry or Wall Street ties .
Moderates , on the other hand , hoped for a figure viewed as less divisive than Warren , more along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But it is important to remember that the person chosen to run the Treasury Department reflects the Biden administration ’ s priorities , not the other way around , and will likely be in lockstep with the White House ’ s positioning on key issues .
“ The Treasury secretary and Biden will , at least publicly , be on the same page and deliver the same message , ” wrote Ian Katz , director at Capital Alpha Partners , in a recent note to investors .
“ You will not see Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other countries that the Treasury Department is working on.
” At least initially , that will mean the new secretary will work with Biden on his top priority : addressing the Covid-19 crisis .
“ They ’ re not going to be able to remake Treasury in their own image , Treasury will still be forced to triage , as every agency will , in fighting the virus , ” Boltansky said .
“ Whoever ’ s in that role , they ’ re going to be a virus-fighter first and a treasury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the secretary trying to negotiate a new stimulus package with Congress , as current Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has done , to little success , under Trump .
It could also mean an effort to refocus the department on renewing CARES Act programs , like restarting Paycheck Protection Program ( PPP ) loans for small businesses .
Mnuchin recently decided to end lending programs put in place through the CARES Act , and asked the Fed to return funds earmarked for those programs .
Biden ’ s team has been critical of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the Biden administration — something that will become tougher if the funds are returned before Inauguration Day — the new secretary could oversee those as well .
Biden has also emphasized the importance of reasserting America ’ s presence on the international stage , and Treasury has a role to play there .
One can expect more attention to the international arena from a Biden Treasury Department than from Trump ’ s , and an effort to reaffirm international relationships .
It ’ s possible , too , that the Treasury secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) could wind up playing multiple roles through the Vacancies Act , should Biden struggle to get his choices through the Senate confirmation process .
Trump employed this strategy often , like when then-White House budget director Mick Mulvaney was acting head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau .
If confirmed , Yellen will find herself in one of the most powerful governmental positions within the American economy yet again , though in a different role .
And she is expected to be particularly influential in the role .
“ Though all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Treasury pick ] would have Biden ’ s ear , we think Yellen ’ s voice would carry the most weight with the president and his advisers , ” Katz wrote .
“ Not many people in the White House would want to debate economics with Yellen .
”

In 2014, Janet Yellen became the first woman to be named chair of the Federal Reserve. Six years later, she is poised to become the first woman treasury secretary of the United States.
On Monday, President-elect Joe Biden announced that he intends to nominate Yellen, 74, to head the Treasury Department; he also announced his picks for a number of other key members of his economic team. The Yellen choice was widely reported last week.
Biden’s pick is not necessarily a surprising one. In the days leading up to the decision, Biden said his nominee would be someone who “will be accepted by all elements of the Democratic Party … progressive to the moderate coalitions,” leading to broad speculation that it would be Yellen, who most Democrats are expected to support and who many Republicans could have a hard time opposing.
In a tweet on Monday — her first — Yellen said the country faces “great challenges” at the moment. “To recover, we must restore the American dream — a society where each person can rise to their potential and dream even bigger for their children,” she wrote. “As Treasury Secretary, I will work every day towards rebuilding that dream for all.”
Yellen, who is originally from Brooklyn, New York, served as chair of the Federal Reserve from 2014 to 2018 before President Donald Trump decided to replace her with current Chair Jerome Powell. She previously served as president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, chaired the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Bill Clinton, and was a longtime professor at the University of California Berkeley.
“Yellen is eminently qualified, she oversaw a sprawling bureaucracy at the Fed. It would be incredibly difficult for various factions [Republicans, moderate Democrats, and progressive Democrats] to find issue with her tenure,” said Isaac Boltansky, director of policy research at Compass Point Research and Trading. “I don’t think she would make any side happy, per se, but she certainly wouldn’t make either side unhappy, and that might be as good as we can get.”
As Fed chair, Yellen oversaw the continued recovery from the Great Recession and left behind a solid legacy. Unemployment declined steadily, the stock market climbed, and inflation stayed low under her tenure. Part of the strong economy Trump inherited can be traced back to Yellen.
That’s not to say Yellen’s time at the Fed was perfect. As Sam Bell outlined in Politico in 2018, some people say that she was “too sanguine” about the potential for using regulations to stave off the next financial crisis, that she went too easy on Wells Fargo in the wake of its fake accounts scandal, or that she didn’t do enough to help smaller banks. “And yet on the critical issue at hand in her 2014 nomination — could we bring more unemployed workers back into the labor force without blowing things up for everyone? — she has been unquestionably vindicated,” Bell wrote.
Some people have also questioned the Fed’s decision to modestly raise interest rates under Yellen’s tenure, arguing that doing so prevented the economy from reaching its full potential and getting more people into the workforce. Of course, hindsight is 20/20. And at the Treasury Department, Yellen won’t have anything to do with interest rate decisions.
“Just as she shied away from fiscal policy when she ran monetary policy, I think she’d shy away from monetary policy as treasury secretary,” Boltansky said.
Progressives have also raised questions about her previous comments regarding the deficit, which she described as unsustainable.
Biden also revealed a number of other nominees for his economic team on Monday, including Center for American Progress president and CEO Neera Tanden for director of the Office of Management and Budget, labor economist and Princeton School of Public and International Affairs dean Cecilia Rouse for chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, and Obama Foundation president Wally Adeyemo for deputy Treasury secretary. Biden said he will appoint his longtime adviser Jared Bernstein and Heather Boushey, president and CEO of the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, to serve on the Council of Economic Advisers.
Other contenders on the shortlist for the treasury spot included former Deputy Treasury Secretary Sarah Bloom Raskin; current Fed governor Lael Brainard; and Roger Ferguson, the CEO of the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America (TIAA), a financial services company, among others.
Biden will set the economic agenda, and the virus is at the top of his list
Heading the Treasury Department is an important job — the department oversees the IRS; the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which charters, regulates, and supervises national banks; and the US Mint, among other bureaus — and the secretary plays a key role in advising the president on economic issues.
Leading up to Biden’s announcement, there was quite a bit of back-and-forth among more moderate and progressive Democrats regarding who the treasury pick should be. Progressives championed figures such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Raskin, and pushed Biden to eschew anyone with perceived industry or Wall Street ties. Moderates, on the other hand, hoped for a figure viewed as less divisive than Warren, more along the lines of Ferguson or Brainard.
But it is important to remember that the person chosen to run the Treasury Department reflects the Biden administration’s priorities, not the other way around, and will likely be in lockstep with the White House’s positioning on key issues.
“The Treasury secretary and Biden will, at least publicly, be on the same page and deliver the same message,” wrote Ian Katz, director at Capital Alpha Partners, in a recent note to investors. “You will not see Biden, for example, criticizing sanctions against other countries that the Treasury Department is working on.”
At least initially, that will mean the new secretary will work with Biden on his top priority: addressing the Covid-19 crisis.
“They’re not going to be able to remake Treasury in their own image, Treasury will still be forced to triage, as every agency will, in fighting the virus,” Boltansky said. “Whoever’s in that role, they’re going to be a virus-fighter first and a treasury secretary second.”
This could translate to the secretary trying to negotiate a new stimulus package with Congress, as current Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has done, to little success, under Trump. It could also mean an effort to refocus the department on renewing CARES Act programs, like restarting Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans for small businesses.
Mnuchin recently decided to end lending programs put in place through the CARES Act, and asked the Fed to return funds earmarked for those programs. Biden’s team has been critical of the move. If those programs are restarted under the Biden administration — something that will become tougher if the funds are returned before Inauguration Day — the new secretary could oversee those as well.
Biden has also emphasized the importance of reasserting America’s presence on the international stage, and Treasury has a role to play there. One can expect more attention to the international arena from a Biden Treasury Department than from Trump’s, and an effort to reaffirm international relationships.
It’s possible, too, that the treasury secretary (or other members of the administration) could wind up playing multiple roles through the Vacancies Act, should Biden struggle to get his choices through the Senate confirmation process. Trump employed this strategy often, like when then-White House budget director Mick Mulvaney was acting head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
If confirmed, Yellen will find herself in one of the most powerful governmental positions within the American economy yet again, though in a different role. And she is expected to be particularly influential in the role.
“Though all of the contenders [for Biden’s Treasury pick] would have Biden’s ear, we think Yellen’s voice would carry the most weight with the president and his advisers,” Katz wrote. “Not many people in the White House would want to debate economics with Yellen.”


vox--2020-11-30--What happened to Democrats in North Carolina: “It was a total effort that failed down ballot”

North Carolina Democrats and progressive organizers this year had hoped for a repeat of the 2008 election , when Democrats won in the state up and down the ballot .
Instead , they saw several victories for Republicans .
“ We didn ’ t win the presidency , ” said Robert Dawkins , the political director of Action NC , an advocacy group focused on anti-poverty initiatives and voter outreach .
“ We didn ’ t gain any progressive seats in the House , state Senate ; most of the black candidates that ran for judges didn ’ t win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failed down ballot.
” Ahead of Election Day , polls projected positive results for Democrats in North Carolina — on November 3 , President-elect Joe Biden led President Donald Trump in FiveThirtyEight ’ s state polling average by 1.8 percentage points , Democratic US Senate candidate Cal Cunningham led incumbent Sen. Thom Tillis by anywhere from 2 to 6 percentage points , and incumbent Democratic Gov .
Roy Cooper was regularly recorded as having double-digit support .
Of the three , only Cooper won , and by 4.52 percentage points .
Biden lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1.74 percentage points , and Republicans maintained control of the state legislature .
The losses for Democrats weren ’ t due to low turnout ; in fact , turnout was up , with 75 percent of eligible voters — 5.54 million people — casting ballots .
According to the North Carolina state board of elections , Democrats expanded their voter base by nearly 500,000 compared to 2016 , while Republicans gained about 400,000 more voters .
And a Carolina Population Center analysis found about 1.8 million new voters ( Democratic , Republican , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There was expanded access to polling sites , with early voting locations being added in cities and efforts to facilitate transportation for those lacking it on Election Day .
A number of activists told me there were fewer instances of outright voter suppression than had been feared , and that wait times to cast ballots generally weren ’ t long .
None of that was enough , however .
Many I spoke to in the state said they believe the results showed the problem was not about enthusiasm or turnout , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of past elections , and , most importantly , timing .
Three things Democrats could have done better in North Carolina Unlike North Carolina , Biden was able to win in Georgia , defeating Trump by 0.25 percentage points .
According to activists and organizers in North Carolina , the difference between the two states was at least partly self-inflicted .
Take Democrats ’ outreach strategy in each state : Dawkins said Georgia deftly implemented a policy-centric approach that could have been employed more effectively in North Carolina .
“ In Georgia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in January , everything , every campaign , if they were talking about why a neighborhood needs a speed bump , it was , ‘ It ’ s not going to change until you register to vote .
And here ’ s a card , register to vote , ’ ” Dawkins said .
“ It was surgical.
” A similar strategy led to Democrats ’ last big win in North Carolina in 2008 , according to Dawkins .
That year , the Democratic Party won the presidency , a US Senate race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and maintained control of the state ’ s General Assembly .
Dawkins said that year , “ I don ’ t care if we ’ re talking about a pothole , or I don ’ t care if we ’ re talking about the light rail here , or whatever it was , got tied to , ‘ And we need to vote to get this man in office.
’ ” That year , Barack Obama was on the ballot , and this method of winning votes was made easier by the enthusiasm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , voters weren ’ t quite as animated by their choices .
Ahead of the election , Kevin Jones , the first vice chair of the Nash County Democratic Party , told me he was concerned about the level of enthusiasm for the Democrats on the ballot , particularly Biden .
“ It ’ s bad , ” Jones said .
“ If Donald Trump needs 15 electoral votes to win the presidency and it comes down to one vote in North Carolina , it won ’ t be my vote that gets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know , I don ’ t feel too good about it.
” But there remains a sense that a different strategy could have overcome that gap .
Obama wasn ’ t on the ballot in Georgia this year either , and the state nevertheless flipped blue for the first time in nearly 30 years .
Bennett Carpenter , the lead organizer for the progressive political group Durham for All , said his organization worked to highlight how Democratic policies would help voters — and saw success with it .
“ People are so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the issues facing our communities , they ’ re loud and obvious , ” Carpenter said .
Acknowledging that many in their community are frustrated with a lack of progress on those issues , Carpenter added that Durham for All saw success in “ sharing messaging around , ‘ We can make change happen , we can work together ’ ... it ’ s a bridge to bring people over kind of the arc from disillusionment to hope and possibility.
” But Dawkins believes it should have been executed more broadly .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Advance Carolina , a progressive advocacy group focused on empowering Black communities , said he saw the problem as coming from the top .
He believes that the national Democratic Party ’ s “ offering of the Trump-or-else ticket , without really providing a deep response to some of these longstanding issues , hurt the efforts of turnout in North Carolina.
” And Todd Zimmer , co-director of the rural progressive advocacy group Down Home North Carolina , noted that Democrats ’ single statewide success , the reelection of Gov .
Roy Cooper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the effectiveness of a policy-centric approach .
“ Cooper has shown that he will fight for Medicaid expansion , that he ’ ll stand up , even if he can ’ t win that fight with a divided General Assembly , ” Zimmer said .
“ I think he was rewarded by North Carolina voters because he ’ s seen as someone who understands how important that issue is ... [ and ] his response also surely helped .
Because North Carolinians approve of his handling of the coronavirus and oppose the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A number of organizers also said Democrats hurt themselves .
Organizers in many swing states have complained post-election that the Democratic Party relied too heavily on consultants and operatives from outside their states — and I heard similar lamentations about the national party ’ s strategy in North Carolina .
Bass argued party leaders miscalculated in hoping the top of the ticket would buoy down-ballot candidates .
And while national leaders were generally given credit for investing in the state , North Carolina organizers said that money was often not used wisely and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the year , with too little understanding of the communities they ’ d been embedded in to do much good .
The issue , they said , and as Florida state Sen. Annette Taddeo told Politico , is that “ you can ’ t just show up a month before the election and expect people to be excited to vote for you.
” Perhaps the most important issue was one of time , according to many organizers .
They said flipping North Carolina can and will happen , once they ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so .
Durham for All was limited in part by being a relatively new organization , Carpenter said — it was founded only four years ago .
Down Home North Carolina is about three years old .
And many of the progressive organizations they partner with are around the same age or newer .
“ In the places where we ’ re really building that infrastructure , I think we ’ re seeing real gains , ” Carpenter said .
“ A lesson to me is that that infrastructure takes time and resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hope is that in four years , with continued work and engagement , the results of North Carolina ’ s elections will be radically different .
And in Georgia , organizers told me that time — coupled with consistent work — was the secret to their success .
Deborah Scott , the executive director of Georgia Stand-Up told Vox ’ s Anna North that turning Georgia blue was a 15-year effort .
As Lewanna Heard-Tucker , chair of Georgia ’ s Fulton County Democrats , told me , “ At the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a long time coming for Georgia .
It didn ’ t just happen overnight.
” Democrats were also hurt by some things beyond their control While there are certainly opportunities Democrats and organizers can continue to pursue , their efforts were also complicated by factors outside of their control .
Chief among these was the coronavirus pandemic , which forced organizers and party officials to scrap their plans for registration and motivation and to hastily come up with new strategies .
“ Right when we started [ outreach efforts ] Covid hit , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our plans , particularly because our initial plan had been really focused on door-knocking as the way that you can really meet people where they ’ re at and build relationships , ” Carpenter said .
“ And so right from jump , we had to really switch to primarily phone-banking and text-banking and from in-person events to virtual.
” For Durham for All , those efforts were more effective than they might have hoped .
And Bass noted that while the pandemic made organizing difficult , it allowed Advance Carolina to engage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been able to .
“ Taking us out of physical spaces , ” said Bass , “ helped build a broader base , in some cases , where groups that typically would just be meeting in private spaces now are online.
” But for other organizations , the transition was more difficult .
Zimmer said Down Home North Carolina moved to a “ relational turnout model ” where about 800 leaders were given access to an app to help support them in outreach to friends , family , and others they had personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an outreach strategy based around conversations on race and class it had planned to use in person to the phones .
“ I think that was to our disadvantage , frankly , ” Zimmer said .
“ I think that those tactics are powerful and strong , but that doors is a really important part of our electoral process .
And so I wish we could have a do-over and could be on doors.
” And Dawkins noted that many other organizations struggled as they “ drastically moved off of a tried-and-true and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and switched over to more mobile mobilization work , which I don ’ t think paid off.
” Much of that mobile mobilization work consisted of “ what we call souls to the polls , ” Dawkins said — meaning organizations worked with pastors and other community leaders to put together marches to polling places .
“ That drastically hurt , ” Dawkins told me , “ because what you found was the people that were showing up and taking part in these marches to the polls and souls to the polls were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Because of pandemic- and funding-related challenges , Action NC was ultimately not able to match its normal level of voter engagement .
“ Normally we shoot to register between 15,000 and 20,000 people a year .
This year , we reregistered 6,500 .
So that was a big hit , ” Dawkins said .
Still , statewide , registration was up , buoyed in part by the state ’ s nearly 400,000 new residents since 2016 .
Turnout increased dramatically as well .
In the rural communities Down Home North Carolina serves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of cases [ there was ] an over 100 percent increase versus ’ 16.
” Overall , Carpenter said , “ We brought 100,000 more folks into the races than the right wing did , which meant that when it comes to statewide races , we were able to really narrow the gap — but still not close it.
” Closing that gap was complicated in part by the past .
While Democrats won resoundingly in 2008 , they lost badly in 2010 , when Republicans took control of the North Carolina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oversaw redistricting after the 2010 census , redrawing maps to benefit the GOP — first along racial lines and then along partisan lines after their initial effort was invalidated by the US Supreme Court for diluting the voting power of Black North Carolinians .
In 2012 , a Republican governor won , giving the GOP complete control of the state .
New voting constraints , including a voter ID law , followed in 2013 .
These were struck down in 2016 by the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals for targeting “ African @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modified version of the voter ID law was then instated via ballot measure in 2018 .
It ’ s currently being fought in court — and as a result , was not in effect for the 2020 election .
Nevertheless , this reality made it feel as though Democrats and organizers for progressive causes were playing against a stacked deck , their voting power diluted and many citizens unsure of whether they had the documents needed to vote .
Carpenter said it “ for sure ” hurt Democrats in the most recent election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a decade of tough fights Many organizers , like Carpenter , see the 2020 election as the catalyst for greater change in the state and the start of years of organizing work and court battles in order to make North Carolina more competitive for Democrats .
Legal challenges to the state ’ s voter ID law are set to continue in state and federal court — and advocates hope to lobby for greater access to voter registration .
For example , online voter registration was made available this cycle for North Carolinians with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change Carpenter called “ an improvement that still didn ’ t fully address the structural barriers that prevent particularly people of color , poor working-class people , and young people from registering and voting.
” Expanding that access would make registering new voters easier ahead of the 2022 races .
Carpenter also spoke of working to expand Democrats ’ voter base .
Biden was clearly able to grow his base of support in historically Democratic counties but struggled more to flip back Obama-voting counties Trump won in 2016 .
In many of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ totals ; for example , in Robeson County , which Trump swung by 21 percentage points in 2016 , he beat Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton by 4 percentage points .
In 2020 , he defeated Biden there by 18.6 percentage points .
“ If I have a takeaway from this election , it ’ s that we need to continue to do work to persuade people who might be voting for Trump that actually , our politics offers them a better path towards a more hopeful and prosperous and happier future , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we need to have the audacity to believe that our vision can be more powerful and more compelling than the siren call of white supremacy.
” Perhaps the most immediately pressing issue for organizers and Democrats will be the fact that the GOP will retain control of the General Assembly .
When the new districts are drawn following the release of the 2020 census results , Republican lawmakers are likely to attempt to neutralize Democratic power in places where Biden significantly increased his vote share over Clinton , like Wake County , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ residents have on elections .
Dawkins said he and other activists expect to “ go back to court and fight over that.
” That means in the short term , organizers and local Democratic officials need to play where they can win , Carpenter said , adding that the key question is , “ How can we actually be mobilizing for real change in the places where we do have decisive governing power as we ’ re continuing to build that grassroots infrastructure at the local level ?
” And in the long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a lot of conversations happening in some of the spaces I ’ m in right now about 10-year strategies because there ’ s a sense that North Carolina will change but that we have to organize and build strategically in order to get there.
” For many I spoke to , that strategic building will involve outreach , education , pooling resources with like-minded organizations , and the careful recruitment of candidates that reflect the communities they are running in and that have a nuanced grasp of policy .
The ultimate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be in a position “ four years from now , eight years from now , where we ’ re continuing to grow the movement , grow the leaders , grow the infrastructure that can not just win one election , but actually continue to win real change for North Carolina .
”

North Carolina Democrats and progressive organizers this year had hoped for a repeat of the 2008 election, when Democrats won in the state up and down the ballot. Instead, they saw several victories for Republicans.
“We didn’t win the presidency,” said Robert Dawkins, the political director of Action NC, an advocacy group focused on anti-poverty initiatives and voter outreach. “We didn’t gain any progressive seats in the House, state Senate; most of the black candidates that ran for judges didn’t win. It was a total effort that failed down ballot.”
Ahead of Election Day, polls projected positive results for Democrats in North Carolina — on November 3, President-elect Joe Biden led President Donald Trump in FiveThirtyEight’s state polling average by 1.8 percentage points, Democratic US Senate candidate Cal Cunningham led incumbent Sen. Thom Tillis by anywhere from 2 to 6 percentage points, and incumbent Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper was regularly recorded as having double-digit support.
Of the three, only Cooper won, and by 4.52 percentage points. Biden lost by 1.34 percentage points, Cunningham by 1.74 percentage points, and Republicans maintained control of the state legislature.
The losses for Democrats weren’t due to low turnout; in fact, turnout was up, with 75 percent of eligible voters — 5.54 million people — casting ballots. According to the North Carolina state board of elections, Democrats expanded their voter base by nearly 500,000 compared to 2016, while Republicans gained about 400,000 more voters. And a Carolina Population Center analysis found about 1.8 million new voters (Democratic, Republican, and unaffiliated) registered compared to 2016.
There was expanded access to polling sites, with early voting locations being added in cities and efforts to facilitate transportation for those lacking it on Election Day. A number of activists told me there were fewer instances of outright voter suppression than had been feared, and that wait times to cast ballots generally weren’t long.
None of that was enough, however. Many I spoke to in the state said they believe the results showed the problem was not about enthusiasm or turnout, but about strategy, difficulty overcoming the consequences of past elections, and, most importantly, timing.
Three things Democrats could have done better in North Carolina
Unlike North Carolina, Biden was able to win in Georgia, defeating Trump by 0.25 percentage points. According to activists and organizers in North Carolina, the difference between the two states was at least partly self-inflicted.
Take Democrats’ outreach strategy in each state: Dawkins said Georgia deftly implemented a policy-centric approach that could have been employed more effectively in North Carolina.
“In Georgia, from the start of the new year in January, everything, every campaign, if they were talking about why a neighborhood needs a speed bump, it was, ‘It’s not going to change until you register to vote. And here’s a card, register to vote,’” Dawkins said. “It was surgical.”
A similar strategy led to Democrats’ last big win in North Carolina in 2008, according to Dawkins. That year, the Democratic Party won the presidency, a US Senate race, the governor’s chair, and maintained control of the state’s General Assembly.
Dawkins said that year, “I don’t care if we’re talking about a pothole, or I don’t care if we’re talking about the light rail here, or whatever it was, got tied to, ‘And we need to vote to get this man in office.’”
That year, Barack Obama was on the ballot, and this method of winning votes was made easier by the enthusiasm created by his candidacy. This time, voters weren’t quite as animated by their choices.
Ahead of the election, Kevin Jones, the first vice chair of the Nash County Democratic Party, told me he was concerned about the level of enthusiasm for the Democrats on the ballot, particularly Biden.
“It’s bad,” Jones said. “If Donald Trump needs 15 electoral votes to win the presidency and it comes down to one vote in North Carolina, it won’t be my vote that gets him in there. But, you know, I don’t feel too good about it.”
But there remains a sense that a different strategy could have overcome that gap. Obama wasn’t on the ballot in Georgia this year either, and the state nevertheless flipped blue for the first time in nearly 30 years. Bennett Carpenter, the lead organizer for the progressive political group Durham for All, said his organization worked to highlight how Democratic policies would help voters — and saw success with it.
“People are so clear, especially in this moment, on the issues facing our communities, they’re loud and obvious,” Carpenter said. Acknowledging that many in their community are frustrated with a lack of progress on those issues, Carpenter added that Durham for All saw success in “sharing messaging around, ‘We can make change happen, we can work together’ ... it’s a bridge to bring people over kind of the arc from disillusionment to hope and possibility.”
But Dawkins believes it should have been executed more broadly. Marcus Bass, the executive director of Advance Carolina, a progressive advocacy group focused on empowering Black communities, said he saw the problem as coming from the top. He believes that the national Democratic Party’s “offering of the Trump-or-else ticket, without really providing a deep response to some of these longstanding issues, hurt the efforts of turnout in North Carolina.”
And Todd Zimmer, co-director of the rural progressive advocacy group Down Home North Carolina, noted that Democrats’ single statewide success, the reelection of Gov. Roy Cooper, can be seen as a testament to the effectiveness of a policy-centric approach.
“Cooper has shown that he will fight for Medicaid expansion, that he’ll stand up, even if he can’t win that fight with a divided General Assembly,” Zimmer said. “I think he was rewarded by North Carolina voters because he’s seen as someone who understands how important that issue is ... [and] his response also surely helped. Because North Carolinians approve of his handling of the coronavirus and oppose the reopen movement, by and large.”
A number of organizers also said Democrats hurt themselves. Organizers in many swing states have complained post-election that the Democratic Party relied too heavily on consultants and operatives from outside their states — and I heard similar lamentations about the national party’s strategy in North Carolina.
Bass argued party leaders miscalculated in hoping the top of the ticket would buoy down-ballot candidates. And while national leaders were generally given credit for investing in the state, North Carolina organizers said that money was often not used wisely and that staff and consultants arrived too late in the year, with too little understanding of the communities they’d been embedded in to do much good.
The issue, they said, and as Florida state Sen. Annette Taddeo told Politico, is that “you can’t just show up a month before the election and expect people to be excited to vote for you.”
Perhaps the most important issue was one of time, according to many organizers. They said flipping North Carolina can and will happen, once they’ve had a few more years to do so. Durham for All was limited in part by being a relatively new organization, Carpenter said — it was founded only four years ago. Down Home North Carolina is about three years old. And many of the progressive organizations they partner with are around the same age or newer.
“In the places where we’re really building that infrastructure, I think we’re seeing real gains,” Carpenter said. “A lesson to me is that that infrastructure takes time and resources and permanent year-round work.”
Carpenter said the hope is that in four years, with continued work and engagement, the results of North Carolina’s elections will be radically different. And in Georgia, organizers told me that time — coupled with consistent work — was the secret to their success. Deborah Scott, the executive director of Georgia Stand-Up told Vox’s Anna North that turning Georgia blue was a 15-year effort.
As Lewanna Heard-Tucker, chair of Georgia’s Fulton County Democrats, told me, “At the end of the day, this has been a long time coming for Georgia. It didn’t just happen overnight.”
Democrats were also hurt by some things beyond their control
While there are certainly opportunities Democrats and organizers can continue to pursue, their efforts were also complicated by factors outside of their control.
Chief among these was the coronavirus pandemic, which forced organizers and party officials to scrap their plans for registration and motivation and to hastily come up with new strategies.
“Right when we started [outreach efforts] Covid hit, which threw a wrench in some of our plans, particularly because our initial plan had been really focused on door-knocking as the way that you can really meet people where they’re at and build relationships,” Carpenter said. “And so right from jump, we had to really switch to primarily phone-banking and text-banking and from in-person events to virtual.”
For Durham for All, those efforts were more effective than they might have hoped. And Bass noted that while the pandemic made organizing difficult, it allowed Advance Carolina to engage in ways it might not otherwise have been able to. “Taking us out of physical spaces,” said Bass, “helped build a broader base, in some cases, where groups that typically would just be meeting in private spaces now are online.”
But for other organizations, the transition was more difficult. Zimmer said Down Home North Carolina moved to a “relational turnout model” where about 800 leaders were given access to an app to help support them in outreach to friends, family, and others they had personal relationships with. The organization also moved an outreach strategy based around conversations on race and class it had planned to use in person to the phones.
“I think that was to our disadvantage, frankly,” Zimmer said. “I think that those tactics are powerful and strong, but that doors is a really important part of our electoral process. And so I wish we could have a do-over and could be on doors.”
And Dawkins noted that many other organizations struggled as they “drastically moved off of a tried-and-true and proven method of door contact and phone-banking and switched over to more mobile mobilization work, which I don’t think paid off.”
Much of that mobile mobilization work consisted of “what we call souls to the polls,” Dawkins said — meaning organizations worked with pastors and other community leaders to put together marches to polling places. “That drastically hurt,” Dawkins told me, “because what you found was the people that were showing up and taking part in these marches to the polls and souls to the polls were people that were already gonna vote.”
Because of pandemic- and funding-related challenges, Action NC was ultimately not able to match its normal level of voter engagement. “Normally we shoot to register between 15,000 and 20,000 people a year. This year, we reregistered 6,500. So that was a big hit,” Dawkins said.
Still, statewide, registration was up, buoyed in part by the state’s nearly 400,000 new residents since 2016. Turnout increased dramatically as well. In the rural communities Down Home North Carolina serves, Zimmer said, “in a lot of cases [there was] an over 100 percent increase versus ’16.” Overall, Carpenter said, “We brought 100,000 more folks into the races than the right wing did, which meant that when it comes to statewide races, we were able to really narrow the gap — but still not close it.”
Closing that gap was complicated in part by the past. While Democrats won resoundingly in 2008, they lost badly in 2010, when Republicans took control of the North Carolina’s General Assembly. These lawmakers oversaw redistricting after the 2010 census, redrawing maps to benefit the GOP — first along racial lines and then along partisan lines after their initial effort was invalidated by the US Supreme Court for diluting the voting power of Black North Carolinians.
In 2012, a Republican governor won, giving the GOP complete control of the state. New voting constraints, including a voter ID law, followed in 2013. These were struck down in 2016 by the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals for targeting “African Americans with almost surgical precision.” A modified version of the voter ID law was then instated via ballot measure in 2018. It’s currently being fought in court — and as a result, was not in effect for the 2020 election.
Nevertheless, this reality made it feel as though Democrats and organizers for progressive causes were playing against a stacked deck, their voting power diluted and many citizens unsure of whether they had the documents needed to vote. Carpenter said it “for sure” hurt Democrats in the most recent election.
North Carolina activists are in for a decade of tough fights
Many organizers, like Carpenter, see the 2020 election as the catalyst for greater change in the state and the start of years of organizing work and court battles in order to make North Carolina more competitive for Democrats.
Legal challenges to the state’s voter ID law are set to continue in state and federal court — and advocates hope to lobby for greater access to voter registration. For example, online voter registration was made available this cycle for North Carolinians with driver’s licenses, a policy change Carpenter called “an improvement that still didn’t fully address the structural barriers that prevent particularly people of color, poor working-class people, and young people from registering and voting.” Expanding that access would make registering new voters easier ahead of the 2022 races.
Carpenter also spoke of working to expand Democrats’ voter base. Biden was clearly able to grow his base of support in historically Democratic counties but struggled more to flip back Obama-voting counties Trump won in 2016. In many of those, Trump built upon his 2016 vote totals; for example, in Robeson County, which Trump swung by 21 percentage points in 2016, he beat Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton by 4 percentage points. In 2020, he defeated Biden there by 18.6 percentage points.
“If I have a takeaway from this election, it’s that we need to continue to do work to persuade people who might be voting for Trump that actually, our politics offers them a better path towards a more hopeful and prosperous and happier future,” Carpenter said. “I think we need to have the audacity to believe that our vision can be more powerful and more compelling than the siren call of white supremacy.”
Perhaps the most immediately pressing issue for organizers and Democrats will be the fact that the GOP will retain control of the General Assembly.
When the new districts are drawn following the release of the 2020 census results, Republican lawmakers are likely to attempt to neutralize Democratic power in places where Biden significantly increased his vote share over Clinton, like Wake County, and to minimize the role new Democratic state residents have on elections. Dawkins said he and other activists expect to “go back to court and fight over that.”
That means in the short term, organizers and local Democratic officials need to play where they can win, Carpenter said, adding that the key question is, “How can we actually be mobilizing for real change in the places where we do have decisive governing power as we’re continuing to build that grassroots infrastructure at the local level?”
And in the long term, Zimmer said, “There’s a lot of conversations happening in some of the spaces I’m in right now about 10-year strategies because there’s a sense that North Carolina will change but that we have to organize and build strategically in order to get there.”
For many I spoke to, that strategic building will involve outreach, education, pooling resources with like-minded organizations, and the careful recruitment of candidates that reflect the communities they are running in and that have a nuanced grasp of policy.
The ultimate goal, Carpenter said, is to be in a position “four years from now, eight years from now, where we’re continuing to grow the movement, grow the leaders, grow the infrastructure that can not just win one election, but actually continue to win real change for North Carolina.”