vox--2020-08-20--Why it’s unlikely we’ll have a Covid-19 vaccine before Election Day

President Donald Trump has made it abundantly clear that he thinks a Covid-19 vaccine would improve his electoral prospects , saying that a vaccine could be ready as soon as November 3 — Election Day .
The Food and Drug Administration approving a vaccine by then would certainly be a monumental October surprise , one that could help speed the pandemic ’ s end and may give Trump a much-needed boost .
But as fast as vaccine development is proceeding , such a deadline is likely out of the question , according to researchers .
Large-scale clinical trials for vaccines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will likely take months before they yield any useful information .
And although there ’ s currently no evidence that the White House is meddling in vaccine research , some scientists still worry that the president ’ s public pronouncements about a vaccine — especially ones so nakedly tied to his political prospects — could undermine the fragile public confidence needed to deploy it successfully .
If there is a perception that a Covid-19 vaccine was rushed , it could make people hesitant to get vaccinated .
“ [ Trump has ] created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may not be deep trust in a vaccine , even if it ’ s a good product , ” said Nicole Lurie , who led emergency preparedness at the Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS ) under President Barack Obama .
“ There is incredible public skepticism of the FDA because of what ’ s happened with prior emergency use authorizations , and because the president appears to continue to try to mess with the system.
” In March , after the president repeatedly promoted the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an emergency use authorization for the medicine , despite scant evidence of its effectiveness .
In June , the FDA revoked this authorization .
However , according to researchers , it ’ s unlikely the FDA would do something similar for a vaccine , given the vastly higher stakes .
Even getting to the point of considering emergency use for a vaccine would require vastly more information than we have now , and gathering that data requires several critical and time-consuming steps .
A Covid-19 vaccine may yet be ready in record time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the November election are miniscule .
Why getting a vaccine approved by November is nearly impossible Prior to the coronavirus , the fastest a vaccine had ever been developed was four years ( for the mumps ) .
Most vaccines have taken a decade or longer .
But with the global Covid-19 pandemic , scientists and governments have poured an unprecedented amount of money and know-how into the vaccine effort .
That ’ s led to rapid progress .
It took researchers just over two months between the time the virus ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I human vaccine trials began .
There are now 10 vaccine candidates in Phase III clinical trials , the final step before a vaccine gets the green light for widespread use .
That ’ s why some scientists are optimistic that a vaccine could gain approval by the end of the year or early 2021 .
But Phase III trials are slow and tedious .
There ’ s little that can be done to speed them up , and they ’ ve only just begun .
Although the Russian government recently said it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , other researchers have warned that the vaccine , known as Sputnik V , didn ’ t go through this critical step and was tested in only 76 people .
And even if it is a viable vaccine , it would still need to gain FDA approval before it could be used in the US , which demands more data .
Jonathan Zenilman , a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine who has overseen clinical trials for vaccines , explained that Covid-19 Phase III trials are large , aiming to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Moderna , a company developing an mRNA Covid-19 vaccine , is one of the teams that ’ s furthest along .
It was the first in the US to start enrolling participants for its Phase III trial , across 89 sites .
Phase III requires recruiting participants from more diverse backgrounds compared with those in earlier testing stages in order to better represent the population at large , including people with some preexisting health conditions .
( Participants are screened to ensure that they don ’ t have conditions like immune system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine . )
These participants also have to consent to being tracked by scientists for the duration of the trial , which is typically two years .
They ’ re then randomly split into groups that receive either the actual vaccine or a placebo .
In a double-blind trial , neither the recipients nor the people administering the vaccine know at the outset who received the actual vaccine .
That ensures participants won ’ t change their behavior in a way that could interfere with the trial ( a person who knows they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking more risks , for example ) .
Finding tens of thousands of people who meet all of these requirements for a Phase III trial is tedious .
Simply enrolling enough people is a process that can take months .
Although some Covid-19 vaccine Phase III trials began in July , none have completed the enrollment process .
Moderna said it expects to finish enrolling participants in September .
After getting consent from volunteers and enrolling them in the trial , you have to give them the vaccine .
Many Covid-19 vaccine candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks apart , so just getting someone the full vaccine dose can take around a month .
For most of the vaccine candidates in Phase III trials , that would take them well into , if not past , October .
“ Then you have to wait for people to get Covid , and you can ’ t do anything with the data until you have a certain number of Covid cases , ” Zenilman said .
To get a statistically meaningful result , researchers typically wait until they see around 150 infections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they can “ break the blind ” and see who got the vaccine and who got the placebo — and compare the numbers to see whether it ’ s working .
Right now , many places in the US are still maintaining pandemic control measures such as social distancing and mask-wearing .
Such tactics help control the spread of the virus , but for a vaccine trial , they also limit how quickly research teams can get the data necessary to draw conclusions of whether the vaccine is working .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their vaccines in rising Covid-19 hot spots .
Of course , there is no guarantee that any vaccine will clear clinical trials .
And the first vaccine to gain approval would not be available for widespread use right away .
Health officials have to contend with the logistics of manufacturing , distributing , and administering the millions of doses needed to control the Covid-19 pandemic , which could take years .
It ’ s also likely that no single vaccine will be suited for everyone .
Several vaccines will be needed to protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those with weaker immune systems , or those with certain preexisting health conditions .
So even after the first Covid-19 vaccine gets approved , some people will still have to wait for other clinical trials to conclude .
Officials say they will not budge on vaccine safety and efficacy rules FDA regulators are adamant that a vaccine will not be approved until it is demonstrated to be safe and effective .
According to FDA guidelines , a vaccine needs to provide protection against the coronavirus for at least 50 percent of the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are higher for vaccines than for other drugs because vaccines are given to vastly more people , which magnifies infrequent problems .
And since vaccines are given to healthy people rather than those who are already sick , there is a lower tolerance for side effects .
But at the same time , the HHS launched the $ 10 billion Operation Warp Speed in June with the explicit aim of delivering 300 million doses of a Covid-19 vaccine by January 2021 .
In an August 7 editorial in JAMA , FDA Commissioner Stephen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for speed and the need to hew closely to established rules .
Hahn and his coauthors — Anand Shah and Peter Marks — wrote that “ the emphasis on speed has provoked public anxiety about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines developed on expedited timelines .
Among the concerns are that the regulatory standards for approval will be lowered under political pressure for a vaccine.
” However , Hahn and his coauthors also wrote that “ there is a line separating the government ’ s efforts to focus resources and funding to scale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ processes.
” In other words , the FDA says it will not compromise its standards for approving a vaccine , despite pressure for faster results .
But what about the emergency use authorization ( EUA ) process ?
Could the FDA create a limited exception for a vaccine like it did with hydroxychloroquine ?
Marks , the director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA ( the body that governs vaccine approval ) , said the agency could do that , in theory .
But as with the agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is stricter for a vaccine than for a drug , and regulators would still need to see data demonstrating that a vaccine meets the minimum benchmark of preventing infection in 50 percent of people who have been vaccinated .
“ I think as we think about EUA here , the calculus for a vaccine is going to be different than the calculus for therapeutic , ” Marks told reporters at the National Press Foundation on August 12 .
“ I think we ... optimally would like to see the data that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its efficacy endpoint.
” That would come near the end of a Phase III trial , which , again , is unlikely to yield results for months .
So there may not be enough evidence to warrant vaccine approval before the November election , even on an emergency basis .
And if there were political meddling to push out a vaccine before it ’ s ready , in spite of all these constraints , there would be strong opposition among the career scientists at the FDA .
“ I think you would see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zenilman said .
Trust is critical for deploying a Covid-19 vaccine .
But it ’ s fragile .
A vaccine can ’ t end the Covid-19 pandemic on its own .
It has to be given to enough people to achieve herd immunity , at which point a large enough percentage of a population is protected against the virus so that it can ’ t easily spread .
Even in the most ideal scenario with a highly effective vaccine , getting to herd immunity would require immunizing millions of people .
And already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying they wouldn ’ t get vaccinated .
A Gallup poll conducted July 20 to August 7 found that one-third of Americans said they would not get an approved Covid-19 vaccine if it were ready immediately .
A CNN poll conducted August 12-15 found that 56 percent of Americans said they would get a vaccine , a decline from 66 percent in May .
Whether due to general hesitancy around vaccines or swirling conspiracy theories , public health researchers are concerned that if enough people don ’ t elect to get immunized , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s why even the appearance that political considerations influenced vaccine approval could be dangerous .
“ The perception of political pressure and the perception of things being hurried really risks trust , ” said Jesse Goodman , a former chief scientist at the FDA who ’ s now a professor of medicine at Georgetown University .
“ It ’ s not just trust in this Covid vaccine , but trust in the whole public health response to Covid and trust in vaccines in general.
” Restoring that trust will take time .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and results of clinical trials , as well as how decisions are made in federal agencies .
It will also demand clear and coherent messaging .
But even that might not be enough .
“ Personally , I think it will take a new president and new leadership at the top of the FDA before we ’ re going to be at a point where the public can start to have more trust , ” said Lurie .
Which means that even with the urgency of thousands of people dying , taking the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critical — from the vaccine itself to how it ’ s tested , documented , communicated , and administered .
Rushing will likely only cost us more time .
Will you become our 20,000th supporter ?
When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions , we weren ’ t sure how it would go .
Today , we ’ re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in .
The reason is both lovely and surprising : Readers told us that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they value that other people can access it , too .
We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy .
That ’ s never been more important than today , during a public health crisis , racial justice protests , a recession , and a presidential election .
But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive , and advertising alone won ’ t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Food and Drug Administration officials on a key committee said Thursday they were not planning to make a decision about granting emergency approval for a Covid-19 vaccine just yet. This all but ends the chances of a vaccine getting the green light in the US before the November 3 presidential election, and likely over the next month.
The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was convened to go over the early results of Covid-19 vaccine clinical trials, the benchmarks to approve a vaccine candidate, and how to maintain safety throughout the process. However, no decisions are on the agenda.
“Of note, the committee is not asked today to vote on any issues discussed,” said Marion Gruber, director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at the FDA during the meeting.
President Trump has made it clear that a Covid-19 vaccine would improve his electoral prospects, and he has been leaning on regulators like the FDA to approve a vaccine on this timeline. That’s raised concerns that the agency would yield to political pressure and grant approval to a vaccine before it’s ready.
Trump also put out a video earlier this month saying that a vaccine would be cleared for use soon after the election. “We’re going to have a great vaccine very, very shortly,” Trump said. “I think we should have it before the election, but frankly the politics gets involved and that’s okay, they want to play their games, it’s going to be right after the election.”
But while vaccine development is proceeding in record time, researchers and other experts have said many times such a deadline is unlikely. Even the Trump administration’s own health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have already said November is nearly impossible.
There are now 11 vaccines in phase 3 trials, including candidates from companies like Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. However, some of these companies have only just completed enrollment in large-scale clinical trials, at which point they will have to administer the vaccine and observe infection patterns, which could take months.
And although there’s currently no evidence that the White House is directly meddling in vaccine research, some scientists worry that the president’s public pronouncements about a vaccine — especially ones so nakedly tied to his political prospects — are a form of interference that could undermine the fragile public confidence needed to deploy it successfully.
Trump has “created enough perception of political interference that there may not be deep trust in a vaccine, even if it’s a good product,” said Nicole Lurie, who led emergency preparedness at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under President Barack Obama. “There is incredible public skepticism of the [FDA] because of what’s happened with prior emergency use authorizations, and because the president appears to continue to try to mess with the system.”
However, according to researchers, it’s unlikely the FDA would compromise a vaccine, given the vastly higher stakes for public health. Even getting to the point of considering emergency use for a vaccine would require much more information than it has now, and gathering that data requires several critical and time-consuming steps.
Why getting a vaccine approved by November is nearly impossible
Prior to the coronavirus, the fastest a vaccine had ever been developed was four years (for mumps). Most vaccines have taken a decade or longer.
But with the Covid-19 pandemic, scientists and governments have poured a staggering amount of money and know-how into the vaccine effort. That’s led to rapid progress.
It took researchers just over two months between the time the virus’s genome was sequenced and when phase 1 human vaccine trials began. There are now 11 vaccine candidates in phase 3 clinical trials, the final step before a vaccine gets the green light for widespread use.
That’s why some scientists are optimistic that a vaccine could gain approval by the end of the year or early 2021.
But phase 3 trials are slow and tedious. There’s little that can be done to speed them up, and they’ve only just begun. Although the Russian government recently said it has a Covid-19 vaccine ready to go, other researchers have warned that the vaccine, known as Sputnik V, didn’t go through this critical step and was tested in only 76 people. And even if it is a viable vaccine, it would still need to gain FDA approval before it could be used in the US, which demands more data.
Jonathan Zenilman, a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine who has overseen clinical trials for vaccines, explained that Covid-19 phase 3 trials are large, aiming to enroll 30,000 participants each. For example, Moderna, a company developing an mRNA Covid-19 vaccine, is one of the teams that’s furthest along. It was the first in the US to start enrolling participants across 89 sites for its phase 3 trial.
Phase 3 requires recruiting participants from more diverse backgrounds compared with those in earlier testing stages in order to better represent the population at large, including people with some preexisting health conditions. (Participants are screened to ensure they don’t have conditions like immune system disorders that could cause complications with a vaccine.)
These participants also have to consent to being tracked by scientists for the duration of the trial, which is typically two years. They’re randomly split into groups that receive either the vaccine or a placebo. In a double-blind trial, neither the recipients nor the people administering the vaccine know at the outset who received the vaccine. That ensures participants won’t change their behavior in a way that could interfere with the trial (a person who knows they have a Covid-19 vaccine could end up taking more risks, for example).
Finding tens of thousands of people who meet all these requirements for a phase 3 trial is tedious. Simply enrolling enough people is a process that can take months.
Although some Covid-19 vaccine phase 3 trials began in July, few have completed the enrollment process. Moderna said it is close to wrapping up enrollment.
After getting consent from volunteers and enrolling them in the trial, you have to give them the vaccine. Many Covid-19 vaccine candidates require two doses spaced up to four weeks apart, so just getting someone the full vaccine dose can take around a month. For most of the vaccine candidates in phase 3 trials, that would take them well into, if not past, October.
“Then you have to wait for people to get Covid, and you can’t do anything with the data until you have a certain number of Covid cases,” Zenilman said. To get a statistically meaningful result, researchers typically wait until they see around 150 infections in their group. At that point, they can “break the blind” and see who got the vaccine and who got the placebo — and compare the numbers to see whether it’s working.
Right now, many places in the US are still maintaining pandemic control measures such as social distancing and mask-wearing. Such tactics help control the spread of the virus, but for a vaccine trial, they also limit how quickly research teams can get the data necessary to draw conclusions about whether the vaccine is working. That’s why researchers are aiming to test their vaccines in rising Covid-19 hot spots.
There is also no guarantee that any vaccine will clear clinical trials. And the first vaccine to gain approval would not be available for widespread use right away. Health officials have to contend with the logistics of manufacturing, distributing, and administering the millions of doses needed to control the Covid-19 pandemic, which could take years.
Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said on September 30 that his company’s vaccine, which is one of the candidates furthest ahead in clinical trials, would not be ready for widespread distribution until next spring. He told the Financial Times that the company wouldn’t even consider applying for an emergency use authorization until November 25.
It’s also likely that no single vaccine will be suited to everyone. Several vaccines will be needed to protect different demographics, including older people, those with weaker immune systems, or those with certain preexisting health conditions. So even after the first Covid-19 vaccine gets approved, some people will still have to wait for other clinical trials to conclude.
Officials say they will not budge on vaccine safety and efficacy rules
FDA regulators are adamant that a vaccine will not be approved until it is demonstrated to be safe and effective. According to FDA guidelines, a vaccine needs to provide protection against the coronavirus for at least 50 percent of the people who get it. The safety benchmarks are higher for vaccines than for other drugs because vaccines are given to vastly more people, which magnifies infrequent problems. And since vaccines are given to healthy people rather than those who are already sick, there is a lower tolerance for side effects.
But at the same time, HHS launched the $10 billion Operation Warp Speed in June with the explicit aim of delivering 300 million doses of a Covid-19 vaccine by January 2021.
In an August 7 editorial in JAMA, FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn acknowledged the tension between the need for speed and the need to hew closely to established rules.
Hahn and his co-authors, Anand Shah and Peter Marks, wrote that “the emphasis on speed has provoked public anxiety about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines developed on expedited timelines. Among the concerns are that the regulatory standards for approval will be lowered under political pressure for a vaccine.”
However, Hahn and his co-authors also wrote that “there is a line separating the government’s efforts to focus resources and funding to scale vaccine development from FDA’s review processes.” In other words, the FDA says it will not compromise its standards for approving a vaccine, despite pressure for faster results.
But what about the emergency use authorization (EUA) process? Could the FDA create a limited exception for a vaccine like it did with hydroxychloroquine?
Marks, the director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA (the body that governs vaccine approval), said the agency could do that, in theory. But as with the agency’s standard process, the rubric is stricter for a vaccine than for a drug, and regulators would still need to see data demonstrating that a vaccine meets the minimum benchmark of preventing infection in 50 percent of people who have been vaccinated.
“I think as we think about EUA here, the calculus for a vaccine is going to be different than the calculus for therapeutic,” Marks told reporters at the National Press Foundation on August 12. “I think we ... optimally would like to see the data that’s from a trial that’s reached its efficacy endpoint.”
That would come near the end of a phase 3 trial, which, again, is unlikely to yield results for months. So there may not be enough evidence to warrant vaccine approval before the November election, even on an emergency basis.
And if there were political meddling to push out a vaccine before it’s ready, in spite of all these constraints, there would be strong opposition among the career scientists at the FDA. “I think you would see a revolt at the agency,” Zenilman said.
Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in a recent interview with Today, Explained host Sean Rameswaram that he is also confident the process will be transparent.
“The FDA has pledged publicly multiple times that they will not approve a vaccine unless they’ve established that nonpolitical scientists agree that it’s safe and effective ... And if it turns out somebody tries to force it out, I tell you, I will be one of the first ones that will object to that,” Fauci said.
Trust is critical for deploying a Covid-19 vaccine. But trust is fragile.
A vaccine can’t end the Covid-19 pandemic on its own. It has to be given to enough people to achieve herd immunity, at which point a large enough percentage of a population is protected against the virus so that it can’t easily spread.
Even in the most ideal scenario with a highly effective vaccine, getting to herd immunity would require immunizing millions of people. And already, many in the United States are saying they wouldn’t get vaccinated. A Gallup poll conducted July 20 to August 7 found that one-third of Americans said they would not get an approved Covid-19 vaccine if it were ready immediately. A CNN poll conducted August 12-15 found that 56 percent of Americans said they would get a vaccine, a decline from 66 percent in May.
Whether due to general hesitancy around vaccines or swirling conspiracy theories, public health researchers are concerned that if enough people don’t elect to get immunized, the Covid-19 pandemic will persist.
That’s why even the appearance that political considerations influenced vaccine approval could be dangerous.
Vaccine makers have pushed back against the pressure to speed up development even further as well because if the public perceives a vaccine was rushed, it could make people hesitant to use their product.
“The perception of political pressure and the perception of things being hurried really risks trust,” said Jesse Goodman, a former chief scientist at the FDA who’s now a professor of medicine at Georgetown University. “It’s not just trust in this Covid vaccine, but trust in the whole public health response to Covid and trust in vaccines in general.”
In March, after the president repeatedly promoted the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for Covid-19, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization for the medicine, despite scant evidence of its effectiveness. In June, the FDA revoked this authorization.
Restoring that trust will take time. It will require transparency about the progress and results of clinical trials, as well as how decisions are made in federal agencies. It will also demand clear and coherent messaging.
But even that might not be enough.
“Personally, I think it will take a new president and new leadership at the top of the FDA before we’re going to be at a point where the public can start to have more trust,” said Lurie.
Which means that even with the urgency of thousands of people dying, taking the time to get a vaccine right is critical — from the vaccine itself to how it’s tested, documented, communicated, and administered. Rushing will likely only cost us more time.


vox--2020-08-20--The tragedy of Hillary Clinton

The tragedy of Hillary Clinton

In another world — a world where the presidential candidate who wins the most votes wins the White House — Hillary Clinton is preparing once again to accept the Democratic Party ’ s nomination for president Thursday night .
Historical counterfactuals are always dangerous , but I feel confident in this one : In that world , America had competent presidential leadership for the course of the coronavirus outbreak , its own Angela Merkel .
Clinton has her faults , but her strengths would have been on display here : a deep understanding of the federal government , a belief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job to solve national problems , an unparalleled enthusiasm for convening experts and synthesizing their knowledge into policy , an unusual enthusiasm for the details of interagency collaboration , a relentless focus on operational details .
President Clinton would be able to tell you where every vaccine in development stood , how fast tests were coming back in all 384 metropolitan areas , what PPE stocks looked like in every midsize city in the country .
We would not be free of the coronavirus , but unlike under this administration , we would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running it , and we would ’ ve had it in place for months and months by now .
But that is not the world we live in .
In this world , the unqualified reality TV star who won 3 million fewer votes captured the White House and botched the pandemic .
And Clinton , wearing suffragist white , was relegated to a few scant minutes on the penultimate hour of the penultimate night of the convention .
In America , nothing washes sins clean like success , and nothing ensures ignominy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost , and so her strengths have been forgotten , her weaknesses magnified .
And yet her presence gave Wednesday ’ s convention a tragic air .
The programming celebrated female leadership , with videos honoring past trailblazers , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi following Clinton , and Sen. Elizabeth Warren making the policy case for the Democratic ticket .
As Kamala Harris accepted the vice presidential nomination , she honored the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment , which granted women the right to vote .
“ These women inspired us to pick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Harris said .
But all those women joined together in service of the common goal of electing the 46th straight man to the presidency , after the country elected a buffoon over a hypercompetent woman in 2016 — a loss that convinced many Democrats that a white man would be the strongest candidate in 2020 .
And Joe Biden , for all his virtues , highlights the specific tragedy of Hillary Clinton in a way few other politicians could .
Like Clinton , Biden is a veteran politician , with a long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gaffes .
Clinton was often criticized for offering too many policies and too little boldness or thematic vision .
Biden is also running on a laundry list of policies , but he ’ s far more detached from the substance of his agenda , and tends to speak in gauzy generalities .
Clinton was criticized as too cautious a figure , too much a creature of the establishment , to win in a country that prefers inspiring outsiders .
But Biden has been in politics longer , and tacked more carefully toward the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the course of his career .
Moreover , Biden lacks some of Clinton ’ s virtues : her policy sharpness , her attention to detail , her polymathic hunger for information , her obvious delight in the details of governance .
The difference between them was on display in April when she endorsed him .
There ’ s nothing wrong with Biden ’ s performance , but Clinton is by far the more knowledgeable and precise in her discussion of Covid-19 .
In that way , Biden neutralizes some of the more high-minded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she didn ’ t is fuzzier : a reputation for likability , for relatability .
Clinton was beloved by her staff , by those who met her or worked with her , but the person they described was rarely the person the public saw .
Biden ’ s warmth shines through on the trail .
There ’ s no “ you ’ re likable enough ” burns in his background .
Indeed , the whole convention is a paean to Biden ’ s likability , to the ease with which he connects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look past gaffes and bad votes to Biden ’ s fundamental decency .
Republicans attested to his likability .
Democrats related stories of how he cared about them , and cares about you .
Jacquelyn Brittany , a 31-year-old security guard for the New York Times who met Biden a year ago and then nominated him on Tuesday night , explained her support to the Washington Post : “ I just like Joe .
I ’ ve always liked him.
” Clinton never managed that easy rapport with the public .
She was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the double bind.
” As linguist Deborah Tannen wrote , “ the requirements of a good leader and a good woman are mutually exclusive .
A good leader must be tough , but a good woman must not be .
A good woman must be self-deprecating , but a good leader must not be.
” Reams of research reflect the difficulty women have stepping into leadership positions historically reserved for men , and Clinton faced those contradictions for decades on decades .
When she chose her words carefully , it was considered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she was dismissed as cold ; when she tried to show her passion , she was told to stop shouting .
As Clinton used to tell her staff : “ Nothing draws fire like a woman moving forward.
” And sure enough , as Warren ’ s campaign caught fire in 2020 , the critiques of her took on an eerie echo of the attacks levied at Clinton .
Biden is , of course , running in a different moment than Clinton .
The fears about Trump came true .
He ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mourn the deaths and collect the unemployment checks to prove it .
If Clinton had sat out 2016 and run in 2020 , perhaps she ’ d be trouncing Trump as we speak .
But Trump ’ s flaws were always clear .
In her speech tonight , Clinton couldn ’ t hide her frustration that her warnings went unheeded .
“ For four years , people have said to me , ‘ I didn ’ t realize how dangerous he was , ’ ‘ I wish I could go back and do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have voted.
’ This can ’ t be another woulda-coulda-shoulda election.
” More Americans voted for Clinton than voted for Trump , but it wasn ’ t enough .
And as Biden ’ s rise — and historic lead — suggests , what held others back wasn ’ t just a dislike of veteran politicians , or a desire for a democratic socialist , or a yearning for an outsider .
Clinton is not perfect , but neither was the man she lost to in 2016 , nor the man she made the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taught to see her flaws , but not her strengths .
That ’ s not been a problem for the men she ’ s run against .
“ I think there ’ s a lot of sexism in the way they went after Hillary , ” Biden said in January .
“ I think it was unfair .
An awful lot of it .
Well , that ’ s not gon na happen with me.
” He was right .
Will you become our 20,000th supporter ?
When the economy took a downturn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ readers for financial contributions , we weren ’ t sure how it would go .
Today , we ’ re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in .
The reason is both lovely and surprising : Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it , too .
We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy .
That ’ s never been more important than today , during a public health crisis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a presidential election .
But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive , and advertising alone won ’ t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will help keep Vox free for all .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

In another world — a world where the presidential candidate who wins the most votes wins the White House — Hillary Clinton is preparing once again to accept the Democratic Party’s nomination for president Thursday night. Historical counterfactuals are always dangerous, but I feel confident in this one: In that world, America had competent presidential leadership for the course of the coronavirus outbreak, its own Angela Merkel.
Clinton has her faults, but her strengths would have been on display here: a deep understanding of the federal government, a belief that it is the president’s job to solve national problems, an unparalleled enthusiasm for convening experts and synthesizing their knowledge into policy, an unusual enthusiasm for the details of interagency collaboration, a relentless focus on operational details.
President Clinton would be able to tell you where every vaccine in development stood, how fast tests were coming back in all 384 metropolitan areas, what PPE stocks looked like in every midsize city in the country. We would not be free of the coronavirus, but unlike under this administration, we would have a plan, and competent people running it, and we would’ve had it in place for months and months by now.
But that is not the world we live in. In this world, the unqualified reality TV star who won 3 million fewer votes captured the White House and botched the pandemic. And Clinton, wearing suffragist white, was relegated to a few scant minutes on the penultimate hour of the penultimate night of the convention.
In America, nothing washes sins clean like success, and nothing ensures ignominy like failure. In 2016, Clinton lost, and so her strengths have been forgotten, her weaknesses magnified. And yet her presence gave Wednesday’s convention a tragic air. The programming celebrated female leadership, with videos honoring past trailblazers, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi following Clinton, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren making the policy case for the Democratic ticket. As Kamala Harris accepted the vice presidential nomination, she honored the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote. “These women inspired us to pick up the torch and fight on,” Harris said.
But all those women joined together in service of the common goal of electing the 46th straight man to the presidency, after the country elected a buffoon over a hypercompetent woman in 2016 — a loss that convinced many Democrats that a white man would be the strongest candidate in 2020. And Joe Biden, for all his virtues, highlights the specific tragedy of Hillary Clinton in a way few other politicians could.
Like Clinton, Biden is a veteran politician, with a long record dotted with bad votes and taped gaffes. Clinton was often criticized for offering too many policies and too little boldness or thematic vision. Biden is also running on a laundry list of policies, but he’s far more detached from the substance of his agenda, and tends to speak in gauzy generalities. Clinton was criticized as too cautious a figure, too much a creature of the establishment, to win in a country that prefers inspiring outsiders. But Biden has been in politics longer, and tacked more carefully toward the Democratic Party’s shifting center over the course of his career.
Moreover, Biden lacks some of Clinton’s virtues: her policy sharpness, her attention to detail, her polymathic hunger for information, her obvious delight in the details of governance. The difference between them was on display in April when she endorsed him. There’s nothing wrong with Biden’s performance, but Clinton is by far the more knowledgeable and precise in her discussion of Covid-19.
In that way, Biden neutralizes some of the more high-minded critiques of Clinton. What he has that she didn’t is fuzzier: a reputation for likability, for relatability. Clinton was beloved by her staff, by those who met her or worked with her, but the person they described was rarely the person the public saw. Biden’s warmth shines through on the trail. There’s no “you’re likable enough” burns in his background.
Indeed, the whole convention is a paean to Biden’s likability, to the ease with which he connects, to the willingness people have to look past gaffes and bad votes to Biden’s fundamental decency. Republicans attested to his likability. Democrats related stories of how he cared about them, and cares about you. Jacquelyn Brittany, a 31-year-old security guard for the New York Times who met Biden a year ago and then nominated him on Tuesday night, explained her support to the Washington Post: “I just like Joe. I’ve always liked him.”
Clinton never managed that easy rapport with the public. She was endlessly caught in what feminist scholars call “the double bind.” As linguist Deborah Tannen wrote, “the requirements of a good leader and a good woman are mutually exclusive. A good leader must be tough, but a good woman must not be. A good woman must be self-deprecating, but a good leader must not be.” Reams of research reflect the difficulty women have stepping into leadership positions historically reserved for men, and Clinton faced those contradictions for decades on decades. When she chose her words carefully, it was considered calculating; when she emphasized her competence, she was dismissed as cold; when she tried to show her passion, she was told to stop shouting.
As Clinton used to tell her staff: “Nothing draws fire like a woman moving forward.” And sure enough, as Warren’s campaign caught fire in 2020, the critiques of her took on an eerie echo of the attacks levied at Clinton.
Biden is, of course, running in a different moment than Clinton. The fears about Trump came true. He’s been a disaster, and Americans mourn the deaths and collect the unemployment checks to prove it. If Clinton had sat out 2016 and run in 2020, perhaps she’d be trouncing Trump as we speak.
But Trump’s flaws were always clear. In her speech tonight, Clinton couldn’t hide her frustration that her warnings went unheeded. “For four years, people have said to me, ‘I didn’t realize how dangerous he was,’ ‘I wish I could go back and do it over,’ ‘I should have voted.’ This can’t be another woulda-coulda-shoulda election.”
More Americans voted for Clinton than voted for Trump, but it wasn’t enough. And as Biden’s rise — and historic lead — suggests, what held others back wasn’t just a dislike of veteran politicians, or a desire for a democratic socialist, or a yearning for an outsider. Clinton is not perfect, but neither was the man she lost to in 2016, nor the man she made the case for Wednesday night. America was taught to see her flaws, but not her strengths. That’s not been a problem for the men she’s run against.
“I think there’s a lot of sexism in the way they went after Hillary,” Biden said in January. “I think it was unfair. An awful lot of it. Well, that’s not gonna happen with me.”
He was right.
Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we weren’t sure how it would go. Today, we’re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it, too. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy. That’s never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, racial justice protests, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone won’t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Contribute today from as little as $3.


A Biden Presidency

If Democratic nominee Joe Biden wins the presidency in November , what will he do with it ?
If he wins , Biden will take office amid a collision of American crises .
The Covid-19 pandemic has killed more than 150,000 Americans and brought economic devastation in its wake .
Massive nationwide protests after the police killing of George Floyd have amplified calls for racial justice .
Biden in response is calling for transformational change : massive new programs for clean energy and caregiving , a vastly expanded public option for health care , a multifront attack on the racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the 2020 primary , but in the general election , his advisers are positioning him as an FDR-like figure who could seize the crisis to transform parts of the American economy and American life .
Much of the change Biden is promising will require Congress , not just the president , to act .
Whether he can fulfill these promises depends in part on Democrats ’ ability to concurrently win back the Senate .
Biden points to his career as evidence that he can get Republicans on board with his ideas .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ parts of his agenda could ultimately depend on whether Senate Democrats are willing to change the rules to get things done — a path that ’ s an uneasy fit for a candidate with decades of experience in the body .
Become a Vox contributor to invest in work like this .
You ’ ll be joining a community of people who believe explanatory journalism has value for our society — 20,000 strong and growing .

If Democratic nominee Joe Biden wins the presidency in November, what will he do with it?
If he wins, Biden will take office amid a collision of American crises. The Covid-19 pandemic has killed more than 150,000 Americans and brought economic devastation in its wake. Massive nationwide protests after the police killing of George Floyd have amplified calls for racial justice.
Biden in response is calling for transformational change: massive new programs for clean energy and caregiving, a vastly expanded public option for health care, a multifront attack on the racial wealth gap. He was the moderate in the 2020 primary, but in the general election, his advisers are positioning him as an FDR-like figure who could seize the crisis to transform parts of the American economy and American life.
Much of the change Biden is promising will require Congress, not just the president, to act. Whether he can fulfill these promises depends in part on Democrats’ ability to concurrently win back the Senate. Biden points to his career as evidence that he can get Republicans on board with his ideas. But the fate of the most ambitious parts of his agenda could ultimately depend on whether Senate Democrats are willing to change the rules to get things done — a path that’s an uneasy fit for a candidate with decades of experience in the body.
Become a Vox contributor to invest in work like this. You’ll be joining a community of people who believe explanatory journalism has value for our society — 20,000 strong and growing.


vox--2020-08-20--The Democratic platform calls for a bold remaking of the federal judiciary. It’s not nearly enough.

No president in recent memory has done as much to reshape the judiciary as Donald Trump , thanks in no small part to the Republican Party ’ s unprecedented efforts to prevent President Obama from confirming judicial nominees during his presidency .
And , on many key economic issues , Trump ’ s appointees are the most conservative batch of judges appointed to the federal bench since the Herbert Hoover administration .
Democrats , however , appear to be awakening to this threat to their ability to govern .
In contrast to prior versions of its party platform , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party ’ s 2020 party platform states that the party “ will commit to creating new federal district and circuit judgeships.
” That means that , if Democrats follow through on this proposal under a President Biden , the influence of President Trump ’ s unusually conservative crop of judicial appointees will be diluted by Biden appointees named to fill newly created seats on the federal bench .
The proposal triggered predictable outrage from conservative activists .
Both Carrie Severino , a conservative operative focused on the courts , and Randy Barnett , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judicial attacks on Obamacare , likened the platform ’ s proposal to add more judges to “ court packing ” — a practice where judges are added to a court in order to gain partisan control over that court .
The reality is more nuanced .
Though the party platform does call for additional judgeships , it calls for these new seats to be created consistent with “ recommendations from the Judicial Conference.
” The US Judicial Conference is made up of veteran federal judges , and it routinely recommends that Congress create @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handle increasing caseloads .
As the Democratic platform notes : Currently , federal law provides for 860 permanent federal judgeships and 10 temporary ones ( “ temporary ” typically means that the seat will not be refilled after its current occupant retires ) .
The Judicial Conference recommends adding 70 new permanent seats , and converting eight temporary seats into permanent ones .
Sixty-five of these new judges , moreover , would sit on federal district courts — the lowest level of federal judge who enjoys lifetime appointment .
Overall , the Judicial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ size of the federal bench by about eight percent — hardly a transformative change to the federal judiciary , and one that ’ s likely to have significantly less impact than the GOP ’ s efforts to hold seats open during the Obama presidency .
And yet , Congress has routinely ignored the Judicial Conference ’ s recommendations .
The Democratic platform notes that the size of the federal bench has not significantly increased since 1990 , when the total number of judges increased from 757 to 842 .
If enacted , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposal would be the boldest successful plan to increase the size of the judiciary in a generation — bold enough to anger Republicans , and to potentially invite retaliation from those Republicans if the GOP regains control of the elected branches .
But it is still inadequate to counter the Republican Party ’ s work to reshape the judiciary over the last half-decade .
In February 2016 , Justice Antonin Scalia died , briefly stripping the Republican Party of a majority on the Supreme Court .
In the wake of Scalia ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seat open for more than a year until Donald Trump could fill it .
Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland was only the most high-profile victim of a near-total blockade Republicans erected in front of President Obama ’ s appellate court nominees .
In the final two years of the Obama presidency — the two where Republicans controlled the Senate and thus had an absolute power to block judicial confirmations — Obama successfully appointed only two federal appellate judges .
And one of those judges , Kara Farnandez Stoll , was confirmed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with patent law .
By contrast , President George W. Bush appointed 10 appeals court judges in the final two years of his presidency , despite the fact that Democrats controlled the Senate during this period .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made confirming Trump judges a top priority .
Indeed , it ’ s often been the only priority in a Senate that largely ignored legislation passed by a Democratically controlled House .
In Obama ’ s entire first term in office , the Senate confirmed just 30 judges to federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contrast , has appointed 53 individuals to these powerful judgeships — many of them to seats that Republicans held open while Obama was still president .
And Trump ’ s first term isn ’ t even over yet .
Trump , in other words , is confirming federal appellate judges at nearly twice the rate of Obama .
Moreover , powerful voices within the conservative coalition have called on Republicans to be even more aggressive in reshaping the federal bench .
One of the Federalist Society ’ s top leaders wanted Republicans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s first year in office , Steven Calabresi , a law professor and co-chair of the conservative Federalist Society ’ s board of directors , released a memo to Congress proposing a massive court-packing scheme .
“ The optimal number of active ” federal appellate judges , Calabresi wrote along with coauthor Shams Hirji , “ is at least double the current number of 167 authorized judgeships ( excluding the Federal Circuit ) , and more likely between 2.5x and 3x the current number.
” At a bare minimum , the memo proposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ active appellate judges by more than a third , while simultaneously adding 200 new district court judgeships .
Why was such a colossal expansion of the federal appellate bench justified ?
Calabresi did not hide his motivations .
One of his primary goals , according to the memo to Congress , was “ undoing the judicial legacy of President Barack Obama.
” Calabresi ’ s proposal was widely excoriated , even by other prominent members of the Federalist Society .
As Ilya Somin , a libertarian law professor , wrote for the conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court-packing is a menace to the role of judicial review as a check on the power of political majorities.
” It undermines the legitimacy of the judiciary and invites retaliation if the other party regains control of the elected branches of government .
Calabresi and Hirji eventually bowed to the many critics of their proposal , removing the memo from SSRN , a website that scholars often use to circulate their work .
One of the oddest aspects of the Calabresi memo is that it would have undermined the courts ’ legitimacy at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their grip on the judiciary .
Democrats , by contrast , are in a very different position today than conservatives like Calabresi were in when Calabresi released his ill-fated memo .
If Biden is elected president , Republican judges are likely to spend his entire presidency sabotaging his policies — and that ’ s assuming that Biden can get elected .
The Supreme Court ’ s Republican majority is often actively hostile to voting rights , and it frequently sides with the GOP in election-related disputes .
It ’ s understandable , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diluting the GOP tilt of the judiciary as a less bad alternative to allowing Republicans to retain their grip on the courts .
And yet , compared to Calabresi and Hirji ’ s audacious proposal , the Democratic Party platform ’ s judicial proposal is timid .
And , as Severino and Barnett ’ s reaction to that proposal suggests , Republicans are likely to attack any Democratic proposal to increase the size of the federal judiciary as if it were akin to Calabresi-style court-packing .
Once Republicans have convinced themselves that Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are likely to find something like Calabresi ’ s proposal much more palatable in the future .
Democrats , in other words , appear to have stumbled into a dangerous middle ground , at least as far as the proposal in the platform goes .
They ’ ve proposed a policy that is simultaneously bold enough that it is likely to trigger Republican retaliation , but milquetoast enough that it will do little to counter the GOP ’ s grip on the federal bench .
If Democrats are ready to risk Republican retaliation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bolder ideas .
Will you become our 20,000th supporter ?
When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions , we weren ’ t sure how it would go .
Today , we ’ re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in .
The reason is both lovely and surprising : Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it , too .
We have always believed that explanatory journalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s never been more important than today , during a public health crisis , racial justice protests , a recession , and a presidential election .
But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive , and advertising alone won ’ t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will help keep Vox free for all .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

No president in recent memory has done as much to reshape the judiciary as Donald Trump, thanks in no small part to the Republican Party’s unprecedented efforts to prevent President Obama from confirming judicial nominees during his presidency. And, on many key economic issues, Trump’s appointees are the most conservative batch of judges appointed to the federal bench since the Herbert Hoover administration.
Democrats, however, appear to be awakening to this threat to their ability to govern. In contrast to prior versions of its party platform, which barely mentioned the courts, the Democratic Party’s 2020 party platform states that the party “will commit to creating new federal district and circuit judgeships.”
That means that, if Democrats follow through on this proposal under a President Biden, the influence of President Trump’s unusually conservative crop of judicial appointees will be diluted by Biden appointees named to fill newly created seats on the federal bench.
The proposal triggered predictable outrage from conservative activists. Both Carrie Severino, a conservative operative focused on the courts, and Randy Barnett, a law professor and leading cheerleader for judicial attacks on Obamacare, likened the platform’s proposal to add more judges to “court packing” — a practice where judges are added to a court in order to gain partisan control over that court.
The reality is more nuanced. Though the party platform does call for additional judgeships, it calls for these new seats to be created consistent with “recommendations from the Judicial Conference.” The US Judicial Conference is made up of veteran federal judges, and it routinely recommends that Congress create new judgeships to allow the judiciary to handle increasing caseloads. As the Democratic platform notes:
Since 1990, the United States has grown by one-third, the number of cases in federal district courts has increased by 38 percent, federal circuit court filings have risen by 40 percent, and federal cases involving a felony defendant are up 60 percent, but we have not expanded the federal judiciary to reflect this reality in nearly 30 years.
Currently, federal law provides for 860 permanent federal judgeships and 10 temporary ones (“temporary” typically means that the seat will not be refilled after its current occupant retires). The Judicial Conference recommends adding 70 new permanent seats, and converting eight temporary seats into permanent ones. Sixty-five of these new judges, moreover, would sit on federal district courts — the lowest level of federal judge who enjoys lifetime appointment.
Overall, the Judicial Conference’s recommendation would increase the size of the federal bench by about eight percent — hardly a transformative change to the federal judiciary, and one that’s likely to have significantly less impact than the GOP’s efforts to hold seats open during the Obama presidency.
And yet, Congress has routinely ignored the Judicial Conference’s recommendations. The Democratic platform notes that the size of the federal bench has not significantly increased since 1990, when the total number of judges increased from 757 to 842.
If enacted, in other words, the platform’s proposal would be the boldest successful plan to increase the size of the judiciary in a generation — bold enough to anger Republicans, and to potentially invite retaliation from those Republicans if the GOP regains control of the elected branches. But it is still inadequate to counter the Republican Party’s work to reshape the judiciary over the last half-decade.
Republicans transformed the federal judiciary under Trump
In February 2016, Justice Antonin Scalia died, briefly stripping the Republican Party of a majority on the Supreme Court. In the wake of Scalia’s death, Senate Republicans held the vacant seat open for more than a year until Donald Trump could fill it.
Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland was only the most high-profile victim of a near-total blockade Republicans erected in front of President Obama’s appellate court nominees.
In the final two years of the Obama presidency — the two where Republicans controlled the Senate and thus had an absolute power to block judicial confirmations — Obama successfully appointed only two federal appellate judges. And one of those judges, Kara Farnandez Stoll, was confirmed to a highly specialized court that primarily deals with patent law.
By contrast, President George W. Bush appointed 10 appeals court judges in the final two years of his presidency, despite the fact that Democrats controlled the Senate during this period.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made confirming Trump judges a top priority. Indeed, it’s often been the only priority in a Senate that largely ignored legislation passed by a Democratically controlled House.
In Obama’s entire first term in office, the Senate confirmed just 30 judges to federal courts of appeal. Trump, by contrast, has appointed 53 individuals to these powerful judgeships — many of them to seats that Republicans held open while Obama was still president. And Trump’s first term isn’t even over yet.
Trump, in other words, is confirming federal appellate judges at nearly twice the rate of Obama.
Moreover, powerful voices within the conservative coalition have called on Republicans to be even more aggressive in reshaping the federal bench.
One of the Federalist Society’s top leaders wanted Republicans to engage in outright court-packing
In Trump’s first year in office, Steven Calabresi, a law professor and co-chair of the conservative Federalist Society’s board of directors, released a memo to Congress proposing a massive court-packing scheme. “The optimal number of active” federal appellate judges, Calabresi wrote along with coauthor Shams Hirji, “is at least double the current number of 167 authorized judgeships (excluding the Federal Circuit), and more likely between 2.5x and 3x the current number.”
At a bare minimum, the memo proposed that Congress should increase the number of active appellate judges by more than a third, while simultaneously adding 200 new district court judgeships.
Why was such a colossal expansion of the federal appellate bench justified? Calabresi did not hide his motivations. One of his primary goals, according to the memo to Congress, was “undoing the judicial legacy of President Barack Obama.”
Calabresi’s proposal was widely excoriated, even by other prominent members of the Federalist Society. As Ilya Somin, a libertarian law professor, wrote for the conservative legal blog the Volokh Conspiracy, “court-packing is a menace to the role of judicial review as a check on the power of political majorities.” It undermines the legitimacy of the judiciary and invites retaliation if the other party regains control of the elected branches of government.
Calabresi and Hirji eventually bowed to the many critics of their proposal, removing the memo from SSRN, a website that scholars often use to circulate their work.
One of the oddest aspects of the Calabresi memo is that it would have undermined the courts’ legitimacy at the very moment when Republicans had cemented their grip on the judiciary. Democrats, by contrast, are in a very different position today than conservatives like Calabresi were in when Calabresi released his ill-fated memo. If Biden is elected president, Republican judges are likely to spend his entire presidency sabotaging his policies — and that’s assuming that Biden can get elected. The Supreme Court’s Republican majority is often actively hostile to voting rights, and it frequently sides with the GOP in election-related disputes.
It’s understandable, in other words, why Democrats might view diluting the GOP tilt of the judiciary as a less bad alternative to allowing Republicans to retain their grip on the courts.
And yet, compared to Calabresi and Hirji’s audacious proposal, the Democratic Party platform’s judicial proposal is timid. And, as Severino and Barnett’s reaction to that proposal suggests, Republicans are likely to attack any Democratic proposal to increase the size of the federal judiciary as if it were akin to Calabresi-style court-packing.
Once Republicans have convinced themselves that Democrats broke the seal on court-packing, they are likely to find something like Calabresi’s proposal much more palatable in the future.
Democrats, in other words, appear to have stumbled into a dangerous middle ground, at least as far as the proposal in the platform goes. They’ve proposed a policy that is simultaneously bold enough that it is likely to trigger Republican retaliation, but milquetoast enough that it will do little to counter the GOP’s grip on the federal bench.
If Democrats are ready to risk Republican retaliation, they’re going to need bolder ideas.
Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we weren’t sure how it would go. Today, we’re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it, too. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy. That’s never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, racial justice protests, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone won’t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Contribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-08-20--The DNC is a reminder that America is a big, diverse country, racked by disaster

At the 2016 Democratic National Convention , the Democratic Party sold itself as the real party of family values and patriotism .
It was an argument Democrats had been building toward throughout the Obama era , a muscular defense of the idea that the Democratic big tent reflected a core truth of America that the Republican party had abandoned .
The country is only as strong as it is diverse , and it is only as good as it is willing to build systems that will embrace and care for absolutely everybody equitably , goes this argument .
And , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Party can practice that form of patriotism .
I would argue that the Democratic Party doesn ’ t go nearly far enough to realize those ideals .
But it ’ s hard to contend that the party doesn ’ t do a better job of realizing them than the Republican Party .
And regardless , in 2016 , the argument was particularly potent because it was aimed directly at Donald Trump , a man who can be called many things but maybe not “ an exemplar of family values.
” The Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a stark contrast between the selfish core of Trump ’ s appeal and the more community-minded approach of Hillary Clinton .
I thought that was notable at the time , when I wrote : This appeal didn ’ t work .
Hillary Clinton lost the Electoral College , narrowly , and Donald Trump became president .
So it was reasonable to expect the Democratic Party to abandon the “ We ’ re the real patriots !
” argument at its 2020 convention in favor of something that hedged the party ’ s bets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 convention is doubling down on this strategy .
The potency of the argument is enhanced by the aesthetics of the convention itself .
I do not need to tell you that the 2020 Democratic National Convention looks like no other political convention in history .
The use of video chat software to capture images of people in their homes — applauding Joe Biden as he accepted the nomination or joining together to sing the national anthem or offering a keynote address delivered by more than a dozen people in tiny bits and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the world , of the services my church has been streaming since Covid-19 forced it to shut its doors .
( Here ’ s one where I , myself , am one of the readers .
My church ’ s virtual services are not quite as elaborate as the DNC , but you can see where the comparison makes sense . )
Some of that aesthetic overlap is inevitable ; there are only so many ways you can assemble a program out of video snippets others have submitted from their homes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ The DNC has clearly been planned and put together by skillful editors and producers who have kept the pace brisk and completely rethought how a convention might work in this particular environment .
( I am not kidding when I say it might be my favorite political convention ever , and I am a “ Joe Biden , I guess ” voter . )
Having Kerry Washington or another celebrity pop up every so often to introduce the next segment or speaker is a huge improvement over people who don ’ t necessarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the hokey , homespun quality of segments like the 57-state and territory nominating procedure ( a highlight of the convention so far ) can ’ t really be crafted .
It relies , almost entirely , on the idea that seeing normal people at this point in time , when we are meant to be avoiding normal people we don ’ t already live with , will carry with it an intrinsic power .
And , honestly , it does .
I teared up seeing Kellen Returns From Scout announce the delegate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dakota , a place I ’ m not sure when I ’ ll see again .
I loved seeing Rep. Barbara Lee and LA County Supervisor Hilda Solis announce the delegate count from my new home state of California as they stood on a beach in San Pedro , just down the freeway from where I sit right now .
I was just as baffled by Rhode Island Rep. Joseph McNamara shouting out calamari as everybody else .
The segment worked because it was quirky and real and inherently American in a way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explores in mockumentaries like Waiting for Guffman and Best in Show , without ever quite crossing over into that territory .
But it also worked because it was a reminder of just how big America is and how many different people live here and how radically our life experiences differ .
It even featured an unintentional reminder of our ongoing military presence in territories that receive no federal representation when two uniformed personnel turned up in the background of American Samoa ’ s announcement .
Tuesday night ’ s roll call captured America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way conventions rarely allow for , and it captured those contradictions in a way that made them feel intrinsic to the American project , mostly for good and sometimes for ill .
But what truly made the roll call segment so powerful — and what has boosted the entire convention — is the necessity of its existence and a sense of having to make slightly sweeter lemons out of the sourest lemons you can imagine .
Every single shot , every single frame of this convention is a reminder that the world has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has run rampant in the United States when the rest of the world has gotten it under control , thanks to an administration that doesn ’ t seem to care about a death count that climbs alarmingly quickly toward 200,000 .
We can talk about the individual aesthetic choices of the 2020 DNC ’ s filmmaking because it is the rare live event where those aesthetics have had to be carefully considered and thought out .
But everything about them is overwhelmed by the reason they have to exist .
To watch this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ television , everything that has changed and to long for a world that existed just six months ago .
My best friend lives in Denver .
I live in Los Angeles .
Flying between the two cities is cheap and easy , given how many planes make that short trip every day , and driving is a manageable trip , too , albeit a more laborious one .
I don ’ t know when I ’ ll see her again because I don ’ t know when I ’ ll feel safe leaving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even beyond a simple trip like that , I don ’ t know when I ’ ll travel again .
I love to travel , and I ’ ve always meant to visit the eight states I ’ ve never visited , clustered in New England and the Deep South ( and , okay , Alaska , which will be tricky ) .
My imagination of what the United States even is has largely shrunk to the confines of my apartment and neighborhood , with occasional trips to the store , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a break in the monotony .
I haven ’ t left Los Angeles County since early February .
The Democratic Party ’ s choice to stand its ground with the argument that it best represents America ’ s ideals , its patriotism , and its values might seem self-defeating .
After all , it ’ s an argument that seems to have not worked particularly well in 2016 .
But the choice to double down has an unlikely ally in the aesthetics of the virtual convention itself , a convention carried to you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contained almost entirely in living rooms .
Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats don ’ t even have to make the argument that it doesn ’ t have to be this way or that it didn ’ t used to be this way because just seeing him awkwardly pretend to be surprised to receive the nomination in a Delaware library is a reminder that something , somewhere is broken .
And , look , I am uniquely susceptible to an argument that the real America is one that makes room for everybody and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the least power instead of giving all the agency and authority to those who already have the most .
I ’ m a trans woman , living in a big , diverse city .
If ever there were a message tailor-made to appeal to me , it ’ s this one .
I have immense doubts about the Democratic Party ’ s ability to deliver on that argument , but on paper , I love it .
There are plenty of people who disagree — both on the idea that America is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it and on the fact that I exist .
The logical extension of the DNC ’ s argument is that we should also make room for the people who would rather I not be a part of the American experiment because , in theory , the tent should be big enough to encompass everyone , the disadvantaged and the powerful .
These inherent contradictions have a tendency to shatter coalitions , and that tension has been evident at the convention , where the party ’ s increasing leftward movement has mostly been minimized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hope of appealing to moderates and right-leaning voters who maybe just can ’ t stomach Trump anymore .
( The party ’ s platform itself is the most progressive of my lifetime , particularly when it comes to LGBTQ+ issues . )
But these are practical concerns — important and difficult but maybe not what we should be arguing over at a moment when setting lofty ideals is more appropriate .
I want to have those arguments , in person with my best friend , whose politics differ in hundreds of tiny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I want to leave my apartment .
I want to get in my car .
I want to drive through Nevada and Utah into the growing twilight .
I want to stay at some shitbag hotel .
I want to pull into Denver as a late summer rain starts to spatter my windshield .
I want to give her a hug that never ends .
I want more than what I ’ ve been given , and the Democratic Party is betting you do too .
Will you become our 20,000th supporter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions , we weren ’ t sure how it would go .
Today , we ’ re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in .
The reason is both lovely and surprising : Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it , too .
We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy .
That ’ s never been more important than today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racial justice protests , a recession , and a presidential election .
But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive , and advertising alone won ’ t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will help keep Vox free for all .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

At the 2016 Democratic National Convention, the Democratic Party sold itself as the real party of family values and patriotism.
It was an argument Democrats had been building toward throughout the Obama era, a muscular defense of the idea that the Democratic big tent reflected a core truth of America that the Republican party had abandoned. The country is only as strong as it is diverse, and it is only as good as it is willing to build systems that will embrace and care for absolutely everybody equitably, goes this argument. And, implicitly, it suggests that only the Democratic Party can practice that form of patriotism.
I would argue that the Democratic Party doesn’t go nearly far enough to realize those ideals. But it’s hard to contend that the party doesn’t do a better job of realizing them than the Republican Party. And regardless, in 2016, the argument was particularly potent because it was aimed directly at Donald Trump, a man who can be called many things but maybe not “an exemplar of family values.” The Democrats’ 2016 narrative was designed to draw a stark contrast between the selfish core of Trump’s appeal and the more community-minded approach of Hillary Clinton.
I thought that was notable at the time, when I wrote:
The argument Democrats are making isn’t that they’ve co-opted Republican space on so-called family values, but that the country’s definition of family values has largely shifted to meet progressives where they already are. In a country where the majority of people support marriage equality, for instance, it’s ludicrous to suggest that adhering to ”true” family values means reversing the Supreme Court decisions making same-sex marriage legal in the United States. Even Donald Trump’s nomination acceptance speech left room for applause lines for LGBTQ citizens (though the party’s platform left no such room for LGBTQ rights). But this idea was laced throughout the rest of the evening as well. Both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders talked about making sure working-class people could make enough money to feed their families. A long succession of families who benefited from the DREAM Act talked about how it allowed them to stay together. And so on.
This appeal didn’t work. Hillary Clinton lost the Electoral College, narrowly, and Donald Trump became president. So it was reasonable to expect the Democratic Party to abandon the “We’re the real patriots!” argument at its 2020 convention in favor of something that hedged the party’s bets a little more. Instead, the 2020 convention is doubling down on this strategy. The potency of the argument is enhanced by the aesthetics of the convention itself.
I do not need to tell you that the 2020 Democratic National Convention looks like no other political convention in history. The use of video chat software to capture images of people in their homes — applauding Joe Biden as he accepted the nomination or joining together to sing the national anthem or offering a keynote address delivered by more than a dozen people in tiny bits and pieces — has reminded me, for all the world, of the services my church has been streaming since Covid-19 forced it to shut its doors. (Here’s one where I, myself, am one of the readers. My church’s virtual services are not quite as elaborate as the DNC, but you can see where the comparison makes sense.)
Some of that aesthetic overlap is inevitable; there are only so many ways you can assemble a program out of video snippets others have submitted from their homes. The main difference stems from craft. The DNC has clearly been planned and put together by skillful editors and producers who have kept the pace brisk and completely rethought how a convention might work in this particular environment. (I am not kidding when I say it might be my favorite political convention ever, and I am a “Joe Biden, I guess” voter.) Having Kerry Washington or another celebrity pop up every so often to introduce the next segment or speaker is a huge improvement over people who don’t necessarily know how to be on camera.
But the hokey, homespun quality of segments like the 57-state and territory nominating procedure (a highlight of the convention so far) can’t really be crafted. It relies, almost entirely, on the idea that seeing normal people at this point in time, when we are meant to be avoiding normal people we don’t already live with, will carry with it an intrinsic power.
And, honestly, it does. I teared up seeing Kellen Returns From Scout announce the delegate counts from my home state of South Dakota, a place I’m not sure when I’ll see again. I loved seeing Rep. Barbara Lee and LA County Supervisor Hilda Solis announce the delegate count from my new home state of California as they stood on a beach in San Pedro, just down the freeway from where I sit right now. I was just as baffled by Rhode Island Rep. Joseph McNamara shouting out calamari as everybody else.
The segment worked because it was quirky and real and inherently American in a way that skirted the territory that Christopher Guest explores in mockumentaries like Waiting for Guffman and Best in Show, without ever quite crossing over into that territory. But it also worked because it was a reminder of just how big America is and how many different people live here and how radically our life experiences differ. It even featured an unintentional reminder of our ongoing military presence in territories that receive no federal representation when two uniformed personnel turned up in the background of American Samoa’s announcement. Tuesday night’s roll call captured America in all its messy contradictions in a way conventions rarely allow for, and it captured those contradictions in a way that made them feel intrinsic to the American project, mostly for good and sometimes for ill.
But what truly made the roll call segment so powerful — and what has boosted the entire convention — is the necessity of its existence and a sense of having to make slightly sweeter lemons out of the sourest lemons you can imagine. Every single shot, every single frame of this convention is a reminder that the world has been changed utterly by a disease that has run rampant in the United States when the rest of the world has gotten it under control, thanks to an administration that doesn’t seem to care about a death count that climbs alarmingly quickly toward 200,000.
We can talk about the individual aesthetic choices of the 2020 DNC’s filmmaking because it is the rare live event where those aesthetics have had to be carefully considered and thought out. But everything about them is overwhelmed by the reason they have to exist. To watch this convention is to confront, on live television, everything that has changed and to long for a world that existed just six months ago.
My best friend lives in Denver. I live in Los Angeles. Flying between the two cities is cheap and easy, given how many planes make that short trip every day, and driving is a manageable trip, too, albeit a more laborious one. I don’t know when I’ll see her again because I don’t know when I’ll feel safe leaving my house and hitting the road again.
Even beyond a simple trip like that, I don’t know when I’ll travel again. I love to travel, and I’ve always meant to visit the eight states I’ve never visited, clustered in New England and the Deep South (and, okay, Alaska, which will be tricky). My imagination of what the United States even is has largely shrunk to the confines of my apartment and neighborhood, with occasional trips to the store, the park, and the farmers market creating a break in the monotony. I haven’t left Los Angeles County since early February.
The Democratic Party’s choice to stand its ground with the argument that it best represents America’s ideals, its patriotism, and its values might seem self-defeating. After all, it’s an argument that seems to have not worked particularly well in 2016. But the choice to double down has an unlikely ally in the aesthetics of the virtual convention itself, a convention carried to you from a nation of smaller countries, contained almost entirely in living rooms. Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats don’t even have to make the argument that it doesn’t have to be this way or that it didn’t used to be this way because just seeing him awkwardly pretend to be surprised to receive the nomination in a Delaware library is a reminder that something, somewhere is broken.
And, look, I am uniquely susceptible to an argument that the real America is one that makes room for everybody and tries to take care of those who have the least power instead of giving all the agency and authority to those who already have the most. I’m a trans woman, living in a big, diverse city. If ever there were a message tailor-made to appeal to me, it’s this one. I have immense doubts about the Democratic Party’s ability to deliver on that argument, but on paper, I love it.
There are plenty of people who disagree — both on the idea that America is for and should care about everyone in it and on the fact that I exist. The logical extension of the DNC’s argument is that we should also make room for the people who would rather I not be a part of the American experiment because, in theory, the tent should be big enough to encompass everyone, the disadvantaged and the powerful.
These inherent contradictions have a tendency to shatter coalitions, and that tension has been evident at the convention, where the party’s increasing leftward movement has mostly been minimized in favor of boosting Republican speakers in the hope of appealing to moderates and right-leaning voters who maybe just can’t stomach Trump anymore. (The party’s platform itself is the most progressive of my lifetime, particularly when it comes to LGBTQ+ issues.)
But these are practical concerns — important and difficult but maybe not what we should be arguing over at a moment when setting lofty ideals is more appropriate. I want to have those arguments, in person with my best friend, whose politics differ in hundreds of tiny little ways from mine. But first, I want to leave my apartment. I want to get in my car. I want to drive through Nevada and Utah into the growing twilight. I want to stay at some shitbag hotel. I want to pull into Denver as a late summer rain starts to spatter my windshield. I want to give her a hug that never ends. I want more than what I’ve been given, and the Democratic Party is betting you do too.
Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we weren’t sure how it would go. Today, we’re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it, too. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy. That’s never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, racial justice protests, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone won’t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Contribute today from as little as $3.