vox--2020-08-08--Tulsi Gabbard’s seat is up for grabs in Hawaii’s congressional primary

The time has come to find out who ’ s likely to replace Tulsi Gabbard in representing Hawaii in Congress .
On Saturday , August 8 , Hawaii will hold primaries for both of its congressional seats .
The First Congressional District , currently represented by Democrat Ed Case , is uncontested in the Democratic primary and likely a safe seat come November , as Hawaii is a reliably blue state .
But the race to take over Gabbard ’ s seat in Hawaii ’ s Second Congressional District is a bit more interesting , with four candidates in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear frontrunner .
Gabbard , 39 , has served the Second District since 2013 .
She ran for president in the 2020 Democratic primary and announced in October 2019 that she wouldn ’ t seek reelection to Congress , saying she was “ fully committed to my offer to serve ” in the White House .
That didn ’ t work out — she failed to gain traction and suspended her bid in March — but she still won ’ t be on the ballot .
Even before Gabbard said she wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precarious .
Hawaii state Sen. Kai Kahele announced plans to run for her seat in January 2019 , well before Gabbard said she was leaving Congress , and the challenge was clearly formidable .
From that January to October 2019 , Kahele gained a notable fundraising advantage over Gabbard and was beating her in the polls , John Miles Coleman , associate editor of Sabato ’ s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics , said in an email to Vox .
“ With the incumbent out of the picture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frontrunner , ” Coleman wrote .
As the Hawaii Tribune Herald noted , Kahele ’ s lead appears to be so solid that he ’ s spent the last several months on active duty as a lieutenant colonel in the Hawaii Air National Guard , helping with the response to the Covid-19 pandemic .
Kahele , 46 , is a combat veteran who served deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan .
He ’ s also a father of three who was appointed to the Hawaii State Senate by Democratic Gov .
David Ige in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , late state Sen. Gil Kahele .
He won that year ’ s regular election , as well as 2018 ’ s .
Currently , he ’ s the majority floor leader of the legislative body .
Kahele has picked up multiple high-profile endorsements , including those of US Sen. Brian Schatz , the First District ’ s Case , and former Govs .
Neil Abercrombie and Ben Cayetano .
Those endorsements , Coleman noted , come from different factions of Hawaii ’ s Democratic Party : “ Abercrombie is more representative of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while Cayetano is from the old Asian guard , ” he said .
Noelle Famera , an entrepreneur who ’ s new to politics , is also running in the Second District .
She ’ s a proponent of universal basic income and has picked up some local endorsements .
Two other candidates , Brenda Lee and Brian Evans , round out the full Democratic primary slate .
There are multiple candidates running in the Republican primary to take Gabbard ’ s seat , but their chances are slim come November — a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Second District .
Hawaii ’ s First District has had the rare Republican winner in the past , but the district is considered reliably blue , even if there are five candidates running in Saturday ’ s GOP primary .
Case ’ s 2018 primary race was pretty close — it was the first time he was elected to the seat , and he won a plurality of the vote , not a majority .
He ’ s seen as a moderate , and had a progressive challenged him , the primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened to Reps. Eliot Engel , Dan Lipinski , and William Lacy Clay , all of whom lost to progressive primary challengers this election cycle .
Hawaii takes its first pass at all-mail voting Although the electoral outcome of Saturday ’ s primaries in Hawaii might be rather predictable , there ’ s another reason to pay attention to them : It ’ s the first time the state ’ s vote-by-mail system will be put to the test after Ige signed it into law in 2019 .
All voters received their ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaning by July 21 ) , and ballots have to be received by 7 pm on Election Day by either mail or drop-off boxes .
The move is meant to help boost turnout — with or without the pandemic — and will serve as a dry run for November .
“ It ’ s hard for us to guess how this election will turn out , ” Kauai County clerk Jade Fountain-Tanigawa told the Honolulu Civil Beat a couple of weeks ago .
“ If the primary is excessively busy , we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be covering the results live , with our partners at Decision Desk HQ .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The time has come to find out who’s likely to replace Tulsi Gabbard in representing Hawaii in Congress.
On Saturday, August 8, Hawaii will hold primaries for both of its congressional seats. The First Congressional District, currently represented by Democrat Ed Case, is uncontested in the Democratic primary and likely a safe seat come November, as Hawaii is a reliably blue state. But the race to take over Gabbard’s seat in Hawaii’s Second Congressional District is a bit more interesting, with four candidates in the mix — though there’s a clear frontrunner.
Gabbard, 39, has served the Second District since 2013. She ran for president in the 2020 Democratic primary and announced in October 2019 that she wouldn’t seek reelection to Congress, saying she was “fully committed to my offer to serve” in the White House. That didn’t work out — she failed to gain traction and suspended her bid in March — but she still won’t be on the ballot.
Even before Gabbard said she wouldn’t seek reelection, her situation looked precarious. Hawaii state Sen. Kai Kahele announced plans to run for her seat in January 2019, well before Gabbard said she was leaving Congress, and the challenge was clearly formidable.
From that January to October 2019, Kahele gained a notable fundraising advantage over Gabbard and getting traction in the polls, John Miles Coleman, associate editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said in an email to Vox. “With the incumbent out of the picture, he’s now the clear frontrunner,” Coleman wrote.
As the Hawaii Tribune Herald noted, Kahele’s lead appears to be so solid that he’s spent the last several months on active duty as a lieutenant colonel in the Hawaii Air National Guard, helping with the response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Kahele, 46, is a combat veteran who served deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s also a father of three who was appointed to the Hawaii State Senate by Democratic Gov. David Ige in 2016 after the death of his father, late state Sen. Gil Kahele. He won that year’s regular election, as well as 2018’s. Currently, he’s the majority floor leader of the legislative body.
Kahele has picked up multiple high-profile endorsements, including those of US Sen. Brian Schatz, the First District’s Case, and former Govs. Neil Abercrombie and Ben Cayetano. Those endorsements, Coleman noted, come from different factions of Hawaii’s Democratic Party: “Abercrombie is more representative of the ascendant, white liberal bloc, while Cayetano is from the old Asian guard,” he said.
Noelle Famera, an entrepreneur who’s new to politics, is also running in the Second District. She’s a proponent of universal basic income and has picked up some local endorsements. Two other candidates, Brenda Lee and Brian Evans, round out the full Democratic primary slate.
There are multiple candidates running in the Republican primary to take Gabbard’s seat, but their chances are slim come November — a Republican has never been elected to represent the Second District.
Hawaii’s First District has had the rare Republican winner in the past, but the district is considered reliably blue, even if there are five candidates running in Saturday’s GOP primary. Case’s 2018 primary race was pretty close — it was the first time he was elected to the seat, and he won a plurality of the vote, not a majority. He’s seen as a moderate, and had a progressive challenged him, the primary could have been interesting. Consider what happened to Reps. Eliot Engel, Dan Lipinski, and William Lacy Clay, all of whom lost to progressive primary challengers this election cycle.
Hawaii takes its first pass at all-mail voting
Although the electoral outcome of Saturday’s primaries in Hawaii might be rather predictable, there’s another reason to pay attention to them: It’s the first time the state’s vote-by-mail system will be put to the test after Ige signed it into law in 2019.
All voters received their ballots 18 days ahead of the election (meaning by July 21), and ballots have to be received by 7 pm on Election Day by either mail or drop-off boxes. The move is meant to help boost turnout — with or without the pandemic — and will serve as a dry run for November.
“It’s hard for us to guess how this election will turn out,” Kauai County clerk Jade Fountain-Tanigawa told the Honolulu Civil Beat a couple of weeks ago. “If the primary is excessively busy, we’re prepared to make changes.”
Vox will be covering the results live, with our partners at Decision Desk HQ.
Correction: A previous version of this story mischaracterized Kahele’s position in the polls compared to Gabbard before she announced she wouldn’t seek reelection.


vox--2020-08-08--Bill Gates is spending $150 million to try to make a coronavirus vaccine as cheap as $3

A lot of people are paying attention to every utterance from Bill Gates , America ’ s billionaire-cum-conscience in the coronavirus era , about the United States ’ s response to the pandemic .
But much less attention is paid to what Gates is actually pouring his fortune into : steeling the rest of the world for the coronavirus vaccine they will need next year .
Gates on Friday said that he and his foundation would spend $ 150 million to distribute vaccines , if they are found , to some of the world ’ s poorest people .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commitments for coronavirus response to date from Gates , the world ’ s second-richest person .
The Gates Foundation is handing the money to the Serum Institute , the largest manufacturer of vaccines globally by volume , to produce 100 million doses that would cost at most just $ 3 each .
Gates has been among the foremost leaders on vaccine production over the last two decades , spending $ 4 billion on the global vaccine development effort known as Gavi .
And for months , the billionaire has expressed profound worries that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surviving the coronavirus , that the pandemic will devastate poor countries that can ’ t afford to administer the treatment , whenever it arrives .
“ We ’ re trying to make sure we can end it not just in the rich countries , ” Gates said in an interview with Bloomberg this week , stressing that he is focusing on the vaccines in development that would be affordable in the developing world , such as those being pursued by the pharmaceutical companies AstraZeneca and Novavax .
“ Those are the ones most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essentially doing is deploying his bank account to set a “ ceiling price ” for the vaccines being developed by those two companies .
Serum is preparing to manufacture those vaccines for India , where Serum is based , and up to 91 other poor or middle-income countries .
The Gates Foundation has now pledged about $ 500 million in total to respond to the pandemic , though the $ 150 million announced on Friday is technically an interest-free forgivable loan .
Most of that $ 500 million is focused on this nuts-and-bolts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the foundation ’ s plan to inoculate the world does depend on which vaccine ends up proving to be the most successful at protecting us from the disease .
Twenty-eight different possible vaccines have progressed to human trials , each of which has different manufacturing costs and requires different materials and precision .
Some of the leading vaccine candidates , such as the ones being pursued by Moderna and Pfizer , are likely to be more expensive to produce because they are RNA vaccines that are fundamentally costlier .
“ Because of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficulty of scaling up , they are more likely — if they are helpful — to help in the rich countries .
They won ’ t be the low-cost , scalable solution for the world at large , ” Gates said in an interview with WIRED .
Then there is the profit margin .
The vaccine industry has pledged to keep its own profits from Covid-19 vaccines low , although not necessarily to sell the doses at cost .
So Gates ’ s impact depends on what happens in the research labs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ones being manufactured by Serum — are the ones that prove strongest , then it will be easier and cheaper to protect people in poor countries .
Gates is already working with other vaccine researchers — like Johnson & Johnson , which is also pursuing a low-cost vaccine — to secure doses for the developing world .
Working in Gates ’ s favor is that his foundation has a lot of experience in distributing cheap vaccines around the globe .
Gates has put more than $ 4 billion over the last two decades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Gates Foundation to have immunized 750 million children and saved 13 million lives .
Prior to Friday ’ s announcement , Gates had committed $ 100 million to Gavi specifically to buy and deliver a Covid-19 vaccine .
In June , Gates had promised to send $ 1.6 billion to Gavi over the next five years for its broader vaccine work .
So while Gates can ’ t control how much the vaccine costs , he does bring enormous credibility and a track record of putting his billions to work to distribute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tested supply chain .
The other thing that Gates can control is his voice .
And while he has been a heavy presence on the interview circuit since the very beginning of the pandemic in the US in March , he has renewed his efforts over the last few days , popping up seemingly everywhere .
His message ?
The American government needs to not just think about Americans .
So Gates is pressuring lawmakers in the upcoming relief bill to commit more money to Gavi and not succumb to “ vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Pence , I ’ ve talked to Mnuchin , Pompeo — particularly on the issue of , ‘ Is the US showing up in terms of providing money to procure the vaccine for the developing countries ?
’ ” he told Wired .
“ There have been lots of meetings , but we haven ’ t been able to get the US to show up.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to @ @ @

A lot of people are paying attention to every utterance from Bill Gates, America’s billionaire-cum-conscience in the coronavirus era, about the United States’s response to the pandemic. But much less attention is paid to what Gates is actually pouring his fortune into: steeling the rest of the world for the coronavirus vaccine they will need next year.
Gates on Friday said he and his foundation would spend $150 million to distribute vaccines, if they are found, to some of the world’s poorest people. It’s one of the largest financial commitments for coronavirus response to date from Gates, the world’s second-richest person. The Gates Foundation is handing the money to the Serum Institute, the largest manufacturer of vaccines globally by volume, to produce 100 million doses that would cost at most just $3 each.
Gates has been among the foremost leaders on vaccine production over the last two decades, spending $4 billion on the global vaccine development effort known as Gavi. And for months, the billionaire has expressed profound worries that while rich countries may fare okay at surviving the coronavirus, the pandemic will devastate poor countries that can’t afford to administer the treatment, whenever it arrives.
“We’re trying to make sure we can end it not just in the rich countries,” Gates said in an interview with Bloomberg this week, stressing that he is focusing on the vaccines in development that would be affordable in the developing world, such as those being pursued by the pharmaceutical companies AstraZeneca and Novavax. “Those are the ones most scalable and low-cost.”
What Gates is essentially doing is deploying his bank account to set a “ceiling price” for the vaccines being developed by those two companies. Serum is preparing to manufacture those vaccines for India, where Serum is based, and up to 91 other poor or middle-income countries.
The Gates Foundation has now pledged about $500 million in total to respond to the pandemic, though the $150 million announced on Friday is technically an interest-free forgivable loan. Most of that $500 million is focused on this nuts-and-bolts work of vaccine expansion.
Part of the foundation’s plan to inoculate the world does depend on which vaccine ends up proving to be the most successful at protecting us from the disease. Twenty-eight different possible vaccines have progressed to human trials, each of which has different manufacturing costs and requires different materials and precision. Some of the leading vaccine candidates, such as the ones being pursued by Moderna and Pfizer, are likely to be more expensive to produce because they are RNA vaccines that are fundamentally costlier.
“Because of the way you manufacture them, and the difficulty of scaling up, they are more likely — if they are helpful — to help in the rich countries. They won’t be the low-cost, scalable solution for the world at large,” Gates said in an interview with WIRED.
Then there is the profit margin. The vaccine industry has pledged to keep its own profits from Covid-19 vaccines low, although not necessarily to sell the doses at cost.
So Gates’s impact depends on what happens in the research labs. If the cheaper vaccines — like the ones being manufactured by Serum — are the ones that prove strongest, then it will be easier and cheaper to protect people in poor countries. Gates is already working with other vaccine researchers — like Johnson & Johnson, which is also pursuing a low-cost vaccine — to secure doses for the developing world.
Working in Gates’s favor is that his foundation has a lot of experience in distributing cheap vaccines around the globe. Gates has put more than $4 billion over the last two decades into Gavi, which is estimated by the Gates Foundation to have immunized 750 million children and saved 13 million lives.
Prior to Friday’s announcement, Gates had committed $100 million to Gavi specifically to buy and deliver a Covid-19 vaccine. In June, Gates had promised to send $1.6 billion to Gavi over the next five years for its broader vaccine work.
So while Gates can’t control how much the vaccine costs, he does bring enormous credibility and a track record of putting his billions to work to distribute it as cheaply as possible, and via a tested supply chain.
The other thing that Gates can control is his voice. And while he has been a heavy presence on the interview circuit since the very beginning of the pandemic in the US in March, he has renewed his efforts over the last few days, popping up seemingly everywhere.
His message? The American government needs to not just think about Americans. So Gates is pressuring lawmakers in the upcoming relief bill to commit more money to Gavi and not succumb to “vaccine nationalism.”
“I’ve talked to Pence, I’ve talked to Mnuchin, Pompeo — particularly on the issue of, ‘Is the US showing up in terms of providing money to procure the vaccine for the developing countries?’” he told Wired. “There have been lots of meetings, but we haven’t been able to get the US to show up.”


vox--2020-08-08--Cori Bush’s victory signals the return of the protester-politician

Cori Bush ’ s stunning primary upset over Rep. William Lacy Clay Jr. in Missouri ’ s First District underscored a generational split that has cracked through American electoral politics .
Over the last six years , the tension between the younger Black Lives Matter generation and the historic civil rights guard has been well documented as iconoclasts like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson clashed with younger activists over everything from movement objectives and speaking time to paying for protest permits and port-a-potties .
Bush , a 44-year-old single mother , nurse , and leader in the 2014 Ferguson uprising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the St. Louis-area district .
The bout was a rematch of the 2018 race , which Clay won by a 20-point margin .
Both candidates are Black .
However , Bush ’ s candidacy this time spoke to the moment , with her connections to a movement sweeping the nation following the killing of George Floyd and the sustained protests since the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson , a city in the district .
It ’ s tempting to paint Bush ’ s victory as solely about the candidates ’ differing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ferguson activists describe Clay as absent from the local protests in recent years , and Clay has eschewed activists ’ calls to “ defund the police.
” Beyond policing , however , Bush also represented an anti-corporate insurgency that has been brewing in the Democratic Party more broadly .
“ In any primary challenge , you have to tell voters why the incumbent is out of touch , ” said Waleed Shahid of Justice Democrats , a national PAC that supported Bush and aims to challenge incumbent Democrats from the left in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numerous vulnerabilities , which included that he opposed President Obama ’ s efforts on reining in predatory lending — Clay was taking money from the predatory lenders.
” Clay is in some ways firmly in the progressive camp , supporting Medicare-for-all and a Green New Deal .
But like many other Democrats and Congressional Black Caucus members , he has extensive connections to a cadre of corporate funders .
Clay opposed the Obama administration ’ s efforts to fight the payday lending industry , and his fundraising traces deep connections to big banks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lobbyists like the American Financial Services Association .
Similarly , news accounts have linked the Congressional Black Caucus ’ s fundraising to companies including BP , General Motors , Philip Morris , and Coca-Cola .
Ahead of the election , Bush and her allies dug in on Clay ’ s corporate connections with an anti-monopoly group running ads billing Clay as part of the problem of corporate money “ Corrupting American Democracy.
” Shahid said this was part of the core message that helped put Bush over the top .
Bush is part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely headed to Congress Bush ’ s victory is of massive import due to her unabashed progressive politics ( the Democratic Socialists of America celebrated her victory ) and deep roots in racial justice activism .
She joins candidates like Mondaire Jones and Jamaal Bowman as Black progressives who have toppled or replaced more establishment Democrats this year .
The Congressional Black Caucus includes some of the most liberal members of Congress , but some may not support certain progressive priorities , such as taking on corporate interests .
Bush ’ s win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other Black members who have held onto safe seats in deep blue Democratic districts for decades .
Clay has had a tenuous relationship with the demands of younger Black Lives Matter activists .
As the Washington Post noted in 2014 , he was among the Democrats who voted not to demilitarize the police .
The 2014 amendment to a Department of Defense appropriations bill would have stopped the military from dispensing armored vehicles and heavy weapons like grenade launchers , silencers , and toxicological agents to local police forces .
The bill failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months before the Ferguson protests , when police tanks would roll through the city streets .
It ’ s a sharp contrast with the work of Bush , a front-liner in Ferguson ’ s fight to gain justice for Michael Brown .
Rodney Brown , a community organizer with United Congregations of Metro-East , who also got his start after the Michael Brown killing , says that Bush is a fixture in local activism and that her victory is a watershed moment for the progressive causes they ’ ve been fighting for .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ outgrowth of the last six years of activism and organizing over St. Louis campaigns for new prosecutors , bail relief , and jail closures .
“ At this moment , we finally have the world ’ s attention , and we ’ re saying like , we ’ re here , Cori is in the house , and they ’ re going to have to listen .
Cori had a lot of supporters , a lot of people who love her , and who are going to protect her .
Cori has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim the dream that we ’ ve all been speaking about.
” Bush has pledged to meld her movement protest politics into her work as a legislative representative .
“ Almost six years ago to this day , Mike Brown was murdered , ” Bush said in her election night speech .
“ Murdered by the police in the streets of Ferguson , Missouri .
I was maced and beaten by those same police officers in those same streets .
Six months from now , as the first Black congresswoman in the entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ll be holding every single one of them accountable.
” “ We ’ ve been called radicals , terrorists , ” she continued .
“ We ’ ve been dismissed as an impossible fringe movement — that ’ s what they called us .
But now we are a multiracial , multiethnic , multigenerational , multi-faith mass movement , united in demanding change , in demanding accountability , in demanding that our police , our government , our country , recognize that Black lives matter.
” This movement-based mission , seeking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is aligned with a long struggle for Black freedom .
Just last week at John Lewis ’ s funeral , former President Barack Obama lionized Lewis ’ s ability to straddle both worlds and urged more Americans to do the same .
“ Like John , we don ’ t have to choose between protest and politics , ” Obama said .
“ It is not an either-or situation ; it is a both-and situation .
We have to engage in protests where that is effective , but we also have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws and institutional practices.
” Obama also underscored the need to fight political apathy and vote .
“ We have got to be honest with ourselves that too many of us choose not to exercise the franchise , ” he said .
“ Too many of our citizens believe their vote won ’ t make a difference , or they buy into the cynicism that , by the way , is the central strategy of voter suppression , to make you discouraged , to stop believing in your own power.
” In many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Martin Luther King Jr. , who favored using direct action in combination with traditional legislative activism .
In Why We Can ’ t Wait , King argued that “ bringing about passage of a new and broad law by a city council , state legislature or congress , or pleading cases before the courts of the land does not eliminate the necessity for bringing about the mass dramatization of injustice in front of city hall .
Indeed , direct action and legal action complement one another ; when skillfully employed , each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a balanced political strategy tempered by traditional legal action and direct action seeks to utilize the benefits of both forms of participation .
However , from the end of the civil rights movement until the Ferguson protests , direct action tactics fell out of vogue in Black politics as strategies shifted to voting and lobbying .
City University of New York ’ s Frances Fox Piven describes this process by which Black advocacy organizations discontinued the use of nonviolent direct action and “ were absorbed into the electoral and bureaucratic politics and became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from protest to politics.
’ ” Likewise , the Harvard-trained lawyer and civil rights activist Theodore Cross also charted the shift in The Black Power Imperative , explaining that “ voting , of course , had brought to blacks a brand-new form of power .
Now that they had access to the ballot , many black people believed that traditional pressure and direct strategies were no longer needed or necessary.
” After decades of political participation premised upon voting , though , many long-standing racial inequalities still remain .
Citing this political stagnation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a paradigm shift toward a public that is more premised on activism , making the case for candidates like Bush .
“ After 40 years of this electoral strategy , Black elected officials ’ inability to alter the poverty , unemployment , and housing and food insecurity their Black constituents face casts significant doubt on the existing electoral system as a viable vehicle for Black liberation , ” Princeton ’ s Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor wrote in the book From # BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation .
“ Not only did the Ferguson rebellion expose the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it also exposed Black elected officials ’ inability to intervene effectively on behalf of poor and working-class African Americans.
” As just one member in the House of Representatives , Bush may not suddenly enact big change on these issues , but half a decade after the killing of Michael Brown and amid a new push of racial justice protest , Cori Bush ’ s political vision signals a real shift .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ today .

Cori Bush’s stunning primary upset over Rep. William Lacy Clay Jr. in Missouri’s First District underscored a generational split that has cracked through American electoral politics.
Over the last six years, the tension between the younger Black Lives Matter generation and the historic civil rights guard has been well documented as iconoclasts like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson clashed with younger activists over everything from movement objectives and speaking time to paying for protest permits and port-a-potties.
Bush, a 44-year-old single mother, nurse, and leader in the 2014 Ferguson uprising, ousted 64-year-old, 10-term incumbent Clay in the St. Louis-area district. The bout was a rematch of the 2018 race, which Clay won by a 20-point margin. Both candidates are Black. However, Bush’s candidacy this time spoke to the moment, with her connections to a movement sweeping the nation following the killing of George Floyd and the sustained protests since the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, a city in the district.
It’s tempting to paint Bush’s victory as solely about the candidates’ differing engagement with the Black Lives Matters movement. Ferguson activists describe Clay as absent from the local protests in recent years, and Clay has eschewed activists’ calls to “defund the police.” Beyond policing, however, Bush also represented an anti-corporate insurgency that has been brewing in the Democratic Party more broadly.
“In any primary challenge, you have to tell voters why the incumbent is out of touch,” said Waleed Shahid of Justice Democrats, a national PAC that supported Bush and aims to challenge incumbent Democrats from the left in primaries. “Cori hit him on numerous vulnerabilities, which included that he opposed President Obama’s efforts on reining in predatory lending — Clay was taking money from the predatory lenders.”
Clay is in some ways firmly in the progressive camp, supporting Medicare-for-all and a Green New Deal. But like many other Democrats and Congressional Black Caucus members, he has extensive connections to a cadre of corporate funders. Clay opposed the Obama administration’s efforts to fight the payday lending industry, and his fundraising traces deep connections to big banks like JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and lobbyists like the American Financial Services Association. Similarly, news accounts have linked the Congressional Black Caucus’s fundraising to companies including BP, General Motors, Philip Morris, and Coca-Cola.
Ahead of the election, Bush and her allies dug in on Clay’s corporate connections with an anti-monopoly group running ads billing Clay as part of the problem of corporate money “Corrupting American Democracy.” Shahid said this was part of the core message that helped put Bush over the top.
Bush is part of a growing number of Black progressives likely headed to Congress
Bush’s victory is of massive import due to her unabashed progressive politics (the Democratic Socialists of America celebrated her victory) and deep roots in racial justice activism. She joins candidates like Mondaire Jones and Jamaal Bowman as Black progressives who have toppled or replaced more establishment Democrats this year.
The Congressional Black Caucus includes some of the most liberal members of Congress, but some may not support certain progressive priorities, such as taking on corporate interests. Bush’s win over Clay may foreshadow potential challenges for other Black members who have held onto safe seats in deep blue Democratic districts for decades.
Clay has had a tenuous relationship with the demands of younger Black Lives Matter activists. As the Washington Post noted in 2014, he was among the Democrats who voted not to demilitarize the police. The 2014 amendment to a Department of Defense appropriations bill would have stopped the military from dispensing armored vehicles and heavy weapons like grenade launchers, silencers, and toxicological agents to local police forces. The bill failed by a wide margin, just two months before the Ferguson protests, when police tanks would roll through the city streets.
It’s a sharp contrast with the work of Bush, a front-liner in Ferguson’s fight to gain justice for Michael Brown. Rodney Brown, a community organizer with United Congregations of Metro-East, who also got his start after the Michael Brown killing, says that Bush is a fixture in local activism and that her victory is a watershed moment for the progressive causes they’ve been fighting for. Brown describes this election as a natural outgrowth of the last six years of activism and organizing over St. Louis campaigns for new prosecutors, bail relief, and jail closures.
“At this moment, we finally have the world’s attention, and we’re saying like, we’re here, Cori is in the house, and they’re going to have to listen. Cori had a lot of supporters, a lot of people who love her, and who are going to protect her. Cori has a lot of people who are ready to claim the dream that we’ve all been speaking about.”
Bush blends protest and politics in a historical sweet spot
Bush has pledged to meld her movement protest politics into her work as a legislative representative.
“Almost six years ago to this day, Mike Brown was murdered,” Bush said in her election night speech. “Murdered by the police in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri. I was maced and beaten by those same police officers in those same streets. Six months from now, as the first Black congresswoman in the entire history of the state of Missouri. I’ll be holding every single one of them accountable.”
“We’ve been called radicals, terrorists,” she continued. “We’ve been dismissed as an impossible fringe movement — that’s what they called us. But now we are a multiracial, multiethnic, multigenerational, multi-faith mass movement, united in demanding change, in demanding accountability, in demanding that our police, our government, our country, recognize that Black lives matter.”
This movement-based mission, seeking the ideal combination of protest and politics, is aligned with a long struggle for Black freedom. Just last week at John Lewis’s funeral, former President Barack Obama lionized Lewis’s ability to straddle both worlds and urged more Americans to do the same.
“Like John, we don’t have to choose between protest and politics,” Obama said. “It is not an either-or situation; it is a both-and situation. We have to engage in protests where that is effective, but we also have to translate our passion and our causes into laws and institutional practices.”
Obama also underscored the need to fight political apathy and vote. “We have got to be honest with ourselves that too many of us choose not to exercise the franchise,” he said. “Too many of our citizens believe their vote won’t make a difference, or they buy into the cynicism that, by the way, is the central strategy of voter suppression, to make you discouraged, to stop believing in your own power.”
In many ways, Obama was echoing arguments made by Martin Luther King Jr., who favored using direct action in combination with traditional legislative activism. In Why We Can’t Wait, King argued that “bringing about passage of a new and broad law by a city council, state legislature or congress, or pleading cases before the courts of the land does not eliminate the necessity for bringing about the mass dramatization of injustice in front of city hall. Indeed, direct action and legal action complement one another; when skillfully employed, each becomes more effective.”
This idea of a balanced political strategy tempered by traditional legal action and direct action seeks to utilize the benefits of both forms of participation. However, from the end of the civil rights movement until the Ferguson protests, direct action tactics fell out of vogue in Black politics as strategies shifted to voting and lobbying.
City University of New York’s Frances Fox Piven describes this process by which Black advocacy organizations discontinued the use of nonviolent direct action and “were absorbed into the electoral and bureaucratic politics and became the ideological proponents of the shift ‘from protest to politics.’” Likewise, the Harvard-trained lawyer and civil rights activist Theodore Cross also charted the shift in The Black Power Imperative, explaining that “voting, of course, had brought to blacks a brand-new form of power. Now that they had access to the ballot, many black people believed that traditional pressure and direct strategies were no longer needed or necessary.”
After decades of political participation premised upon voting, though, many long-standing racial inequalities still remain. Citing this political stagnation, Black leftist critics have argued for a paradigm shift toward a public that is more premised on activism, making the case for candidates like Bush.
“After 40 years of this electoral strategy, Black elected officials’ inability to alter the poverty, unemployment, and housing and food insecurity their Black constituents face casts significant doubt on the existing electoral system as a viable vehicle for Black liberation,” Princeton’s Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor wrote in the book From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation. “Not only did the Ferguson rebellion expose the racism and brutality of American policing, but it also exposed Black elected officials’ inability to intervene effectively on behalf of poor and working-class African Americans.”
As just one member in the House of Representatives, Bush may not suddenly enact big change on these issues, but half a decade after the killing of Michael Brown and amid a new push of racial justice protest, Cori Bush’s political vision signals a real shift.


vox--2020-08-09--Trump just signed 4 executive orders providing coronavirus relief. It’s not clear if they’re all leg

Trump just signed 4 executive orders providing coronavirus relief. It’s not clear if they’re all legal.

President Donald Trump signed four executive orders meant to provide coronavirus relief on Saturday , including a measure to extend federal enhanced unemployment benefits and a moratorium on housing evictions .
Trump ’ s use of executive authority comes after Senate Republicans and House Democrats failed to settle on the contents of the US ’ s next coronavirus relief package in more than two weeks of contentious negotiations .
In those negotiations , Democrats hoped to extend the $ 600 federal unemployment insurance benefit created by the CARES Act , to broaden the scope of eligibility for stimulus checks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and cities .
Republicans were divided in their goals , with Trump pushing for a payroll tax cut many in his party weren ’ t in favor of ; some Senate Republicans advocating for a reduced employment benefit and limited aid to cities and states ; and other Republicans demanding that the federal government not go into further debt with relief packages .
Saturday , Trump cast lawmakers ’ inability to reach a deal as Democrats ’ fault , and in a press conference at his private golf club in Bedminster , New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his political rivals and the press , announced the four executive orders .
It remains unclear whether Trump has the legal authority to unilaterally fulfill all of the specific pledges he made during his announcement , however .
The first order addresses the unemployment insurance issue .
As Vox ’ s Li Zhou and Ella Nilsen have reported , about 32 million Americans depended on the federal program to boost state unemployment payments to levels that made paying their bills possible .
That program expired on July 31 , leaving August ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s order would give unemployed people an expanded benefit of $ 400 per week , but exactly when they can expect to receive these benefits is unclear — as are the overall specifics .
Trump said that $ 300 of the expanded benefit will be paid by the federal government , and $ 100 of it would be provided by states .
But due to the pandemic-induced recession and inadequate federal aid , many states are bleeding money and being forced to cut back on vital social services ; some political observers say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some states would be able to foot the bill for their quarter of the extra unemployment insurance .
It ’ s also unclear where exactly the federal funds would come from .
Another issue with the order is its questionable legality , some experts note .
“ I seriously have been running through all I know about [ unemployment insurance ] and can not figure out a single legal way to increase it through [ executive order ] , ” tweeted Michele Evermore , a senior policy analyst at the National Employment Law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a key White House priority in the bipartisan stimulus negotiations ; Democrats and some Republicans were against it .
But Trump announced he would institute a tax holiday for Americans earning less than $ 100,000 per year .
The holiday would retroactively be in force starting August 1 , and last through December .
Trump added he would seek to make the payroll tax holiday a permanent cut if reelected president , meaning those who benefited from it would then not have to pay back taxes .
The third action addresses the federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July , leaving an estimated 12 million renters in danger of losing their homes .
The housing order instructs the secretaries of Housing and Urban Development , Health and Human Services , and the Treasury to study and find money to limit both evictions and foreclosures .
The protection will last through the end of the year , as does the benefit extended by the fourth order : keeping student loan interest at 0 percent , and freezing loan payments .
Trump framed his signing of the executive actions as an attempt to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for ending Democratic stonewalling in negotiations .
“ [ House Speaker ] Nancy Pelosi and [ Senate Minority Leader ] Chuck Schumer have chosen to hold this vital assistance hostage , ” Trump said during his announcement on Saturday .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell immediately backed Trump ’ s move , and took a swipe at Democrats .
“ I am glad that President Trump is proving that while Democrats use laid-off workers as political pawns , Republicans will actually look out for them , ” he said in a statement on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the executive orders , Trump dismissed concerns about lawsuits over the legality of the move , and did so again Saturday , predicting that any legal challenge “ will go very rapidly through the courts.
” An analysis by Reuters ’ Patricia Zengerle written in advance of Trump ’ s executive actions took a different view , noting , “ The Constitution puts control of federal spending in the hands of Congress , not the president , so Trump does not have the legal authority to issue executive orders determining how money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said executive orders would prompt a court fight , but legal action could take months.
” Trump suggested Saturday that lawsuits will not materialize , saying , “ If we get sued , it ’ s somebody that doesn ’ t want people to get money , okay , and that ’ s not going to be a very popular thing ” — seeming to suggest that if Democrats issue legal challenges to the executive orders , Republicans will argue Democrats are depriving the public of something badly needed .
But there may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the orders .
Democrats have a political interest in maintaining leverage through the legislative process : If a court rules relief has to come through Congress , then Democrats can get more of what they actually want into the final relief law , including things like robust aid to states and cities , funding for the November election , and potentially more money for enhanced unemployment insurance .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a @ @ @ @ @

President Donald Trump signed four executive orders meant to provide coronavirus relief on Saturday, including a measure to extend federal enhanced unemployment benefits and potential limitations on housing evictions.
Trump’s use of executive authority comes after Senate Republicans and House Democrats failed to settle on the contents of the US’s next coronavirus relief package in more than two weeks of contentious negotiations. In those negotiations, Democrats hoped to extend the $600 federal unemployment insurance benefit created by the CARES Act, to broaden the scope of eligibility for stimulus checks, and to expand federal aid to states and cities.
Republicans were divided in their goals, with Trump pushing for a payroll tax cut many in his party weren’t in favor of; some Senate Republicans advocating for a reduced employment benefit and limited aid to cities and states; and other Republicans demanding that the federal government not go into further debt with relief packages.
Saturday, Trump cast lawmakers’ inability to reach a deal as Democrats’ fault, and in a press conference at his private golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, that featured wide-ranging attacks on his political rivals and the press, announced the four executive orders. It remains unclear whether Trump has the legal authority to unilaterally fulfill all of the specific pledges he made during his announcement, however.
The first order addresses the unemployment insurance issue. As Vox’s Li Zhou and Ella Nilsen have reported, about 32 million Americans depended on the federal program to boost state unemployment payments to levels that made paying their bills possible. That program expired on July 31, leaving August’s bill payments in doubt.
Trump’s order would give unemployed people an expanded benefit of $400 per week, but exactly when they can expect to receive these benefits is unclear — as are the overall specifics. Trump said that $300 of the expanded benefit will be paid by the federal government, and $100 of it would be provided by states. But due to the pandemic-induced recession and inadequate federal aid, many states are bleeding money and being forced to cut back on vital social services; some political observers say it’s hard to envision how some states would be able to foot the bill for their quarter of the extra unemployment insurance. It’s also unclear where exactly the federal funds would come from.
Another issue with the order is its questionable legality, some experts note. “I seriously have been running through all I know about [unemployment insurance] and cannot figure out a single legal way to increase it through [executive order],” tweeted Michele Evermore, a senior policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project.
A payroll tax cut, the second executive order, was a key White House priority in the bipartisan stimulus negotiations; Democrats and some Republicans were against it. But Trump announced he would institute a tax holiday for Americans earning less than $100,000 per year. The holiday would retroactively be in force starting August 1, and last through December. Trump added he would seek to make the payroll tax holiday a permanent cut if reelected president, meaning those who benefited from it would then not have to pay back taxes.
The third action addresses the federal moratorium on housing evictions that expired in July, leaving an estimated 12 million renters in danger of losing their homes. The housing order instructs the secretaries of Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury to consider limiting both evictions and foreclosures. Any protections would last through the end of the year, as would the benefit extended by the fourth order: keeping student loan interest at zero percent, and freezing loan payments.
Trump framed his signing of the executive actions as an attempt to break gridlock, and a necessary maneuver for ending Democratic stonewalling in negotiations.
“[House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi and [Senate Minority Leader] Chuck Schumer have chosen to hold this vital assistance hostage,” Trump said during his announcement on Saturday.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell immediately backed Trump’s move, and took a swipe at Democrats. “I am glad that President Trump is proving that while Democrats use laid-off workers as political pawns, Republicans will actually look out for them,” he said in a statement on Saturday.
When first floating the idea of the executive orders, Trump dismissed concerns about lawsuits over the legality of the move, and did so again Saturday, predicting that any legal challenge “will go very rapidly through the courts.”
An analysis by Reuters’ Patricia Zengerle written in advance of Trump’s executive actions took a different view, noting, “The Constitution puts control of federal spending in the hands of Congress, not the president, so Trump does not have the legal authority to issue executive orders determining how money should be spent on coronavirus. Democrats said executive orders would prompt a court fight, but legal action could take months.”
Trump suggested Saturday that lawsuits will not materialize, saying, “If we get sued, it’s somebody that doesn’t want people to get money, okay, and that’s not going to be a very popular thing” — seeming to suggest that if Democrats issue legal challenges to the executive orders, Republicans will argue Democrats are depriving the public of something badly needed.
But there may be an advantage to interrogating the legality of the orders. Democrats have a political interest in maintaining leverage through the legislative process: If a court rules relief has to come through Congress, then Democrats can get more of what they actually want into the final relief law, including things like robust aid to states and cities, funding for the November election, and potentially more money for enhanced unemployment insurance.
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--2020-08-09--Polls: Biden leads Trump in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin

New CBS polls show presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden 6 percentage points ahead of President Donald Trump among likely voters in both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania , crucial battleground states which Hillary Clinton lost by less than 1 point in the 2016 election .
There ’ s still plenty of time for things to change until the election , and battleground state polling should be taken with a grain of salt , but the results suggest Biden may have an advantage in the Rust Belt states that helped Trump secure his victory in 2016 — and that Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ playing a significant role in Biden ’ s ratings .
While the polls , which were conducted by YouGov on behalf of CBS between August 4 and 7 , show Biden in the lead , it is important to note the former vice president ’ s lead is within both polls ’ margin of error , meaning Trump could actually be polling a little better than Biden .
In Pennsylvania , pollsters found Biden ahead of Trump with 49 percent support to the president ’ s 43 percent .
That poll has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaning Trump could have up to 46.7 percent support and Biden as little as 45.3 percent .
The Wisconsin poll — which had a margin of error of 3.8 percentage points — found Biden leading Trump 48 percent to 42 percent .
In both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania , independent voters were found to favor Biden .
Clinton lost this group in both states to Trump ; and Biden is also outperforming Clinton ’ s vote share among white voters with and without college degrees .
It should be noted , however , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ directly comparable — while polling data in this case comes from likely voters who may or may not actually go to the polls , 2016 voting data comes from voters who did , in fact , turn out .
Pollsters found views on the coronavirus pandemic as having a strong relationship to candidate preference — in fact , in its analysis of the survey data , CBS found that views on the pandemic are more strongly associated with voting than views on the economy .
“ Those who say Wisconsin ’ s outbreak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in even larger numbers than those who say the economy is very bad .
The small group who think the outbreak is not much of a problem back Mr. Trump in larger numbers than voters who say the state ’ s economy is good , ” the analysis says .
Public perception of the president ’ s pandemic response is highly polarizing — and polls in recent months have shown that the public finds it to be the most important issue facing the nation .
CNN ’ s polling expert Harry Enten has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , since historical polling data suggests that “ whoever is most trusted most on the non-economic issue is likely to win the election.
” State polling should be taken with a grain of salt Polling in battleground states is important — particularly given the US ’ s presidential elections are determined by the electoral college , not a popular vote .
But state polling also has significant limitations , and Biden ’ s consistent lead in them ( including other states like Michigan , Florida , and North Carolina ) should not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victory in those states and the overall election .
Consider that a Marquette Law School poll in Wisconsin in late October 2016 had Clinton up by 6 percentage points — the same advantage Biden has in CBS ’ s Pennsylvania and Wisconsin polls — but Trump ultimately won the state by 0.7 points .
As Vox ’ s Li Zhou has explained , there are many reasons that a number of state polls were off the mark in 2016 compared to the final election results .
Some of those have been corrected for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in the run-up to 2016 , some polls overrepresented Clinton voters because they failed to weight for education , and that ’ s no longer the case .
( The CBS poll is weighted for education . )
But there are still plenty of obstacles .
Polling is always a snapshot of a specific time , and ultimately can ’ t give definitive insight into the likelihood that someone sharing their preference with a pollster will actually show up at the voting booth on Election Day , nor can it necessarily predict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on their candidate in the final days before election ( something that played a crucial role in Trump ’ s victory ) .
Adding to the uncertainty is that the pandemic makes predictions based on polling especially difficult , as Zhou explains : Bottom line : the polling is promising for Biden , but polls are not to be confused with perfect predictions of outcome .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox @ @

New CBS polls show presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden 6 percentage points ahead of President Donald Trump among likely voters in both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, crucial battleground states which Hillary Clinton lost by less than 1 point in the 2016 election.
There’s still plenty of time for things to change until the election, and battleground state polling should be taken with a grain of salt, but the results suggest Biden may have an advantage in the Rust Belt states that helped Trump secure his victory in 2016 — and that Trump’s botched response to the coronavirus crisis is playing a significant role in Biden’s ratings.
While the polls, which were conducted by YouGov on behalf of CBS between August 4 and 7, show Biden in the lead, it is important to note the former vice president’s lead is within both polls’ margin of error, meaning Trump could actually be polling a little better than Biden. In Pennsylvania, pollsters found Biden ahead of Trump with 49 percent support to the president’s 43 percent. That poll has a 3.7 percentage point margin of error, meaning Trump could have up to 46.7 percent support and Biden as little as 45.3 percent.
The Wisconsin poll — which had a margin of error of 3.8 percentage points — found Biden leading Trump 48 percent to 42 percent.
In both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, independent voters were found to favor Biden. Clinton lost this group in both states to Trump; and Biden is also outperforming Clinton’s vote share among white voters with and without college degrees. It should be noted, however, that the two data points aren’t directly comparable — while polling data in this case comes from likely voters who may or may not actually go to the polls, 2016 voting data comes from voters who did, in fact, turn out.
Pollsters found views on the coronavirus pandemic as having a strong relationship to candidate preference — in fact, in its analysis of the survey data, CBS found that views on the pandemic are more strongly associated with voting than views on the economy.
“Those who say Wisconsin’s outbreak is a crisis are voting for Biden in even larger numbers than those who say the economy is very bad. The small group who think the outbreak is not much of a problem back Mr. Trump in larger numbers than voters who say the state’s economy is good,” the analysis says.
Public perception of the president’s pandemic response is highly polarizing — and polls in recent months have shown that the public finds it to be the most important issue facing the nation. CNN’s polling expert Harry Enten has argued this is bad news for Trump, since historical polling data suggests that “whoever is most trusted most on the non-economic issue is likely to win the election.”
State polling should be taken with a grain of salt
Polling in battleground states is important — particularly given the US’s presidential elections are determined by the electoral college, not a popular vote. But state polling also has significant limitations, and Biden’s consistent lead in them (including other states like Michigan, Florida, and North Carolina) should not be seen as a surefire sign of his victory in those states and the overall election.
Consider that a Marquette Law School poll in Wisconsin in late October 2016 had Clinton up by 6 percentage points — the same advantage Biden has in CBS’s Pennsylvania and Wisconsin polls — but Trump ultimately won the state by 0.7 points.
As Vox’s Li Zhou has explained, there are many reasons that a number of state polls were off the mark in 2016 compared to the final election results. Some of those have been corrected for during this election cycle — for instance, in the run-up to 2016, some polls overrepresented Clinton voters because they failed to weight for education, and that’s no longer the case. (The CBS poll is weighted for education.)
But there are still plenty of obstacles. Polling is always a snapshot of a specific time, and ultimately can’t give definitive insight into the likelihood that someone sharing their preference with a pollster will actually show up at the voting booth on Election Day, nor can it necessarily predict the patterns of late-breaking voters who decide on their candidate in the final days before election (something that played a crucial role in Trump’s victory).
Adding to the uncertainty is that the pandemic makes predictions based on polling especially difficult, as Zhou explains:
Specifically, the use of vote-by-mail due to the coronavirus pandemic makes predicting the composition of the electorate that much harder. It’s unclear how closely turnout will match up with prior years because of public health concerns about physical polling places and questions around the number of people who’ll use mail-in ballots instead. “It’s difficult to do a turnout model because you’re not sure who’s going to turn out. That’s going to be even harder in an election that has extensive vote-by-mail,” says University of New Mexico political science professor Lonna Atkeson.
Bottom line: the polling is promising for Biden, but polls are not to be confused with perfect predictions of outcome.
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--2020-08-09--Protesters across Thailand call for new elections following the arrest of pro-democracy activists

Pro-democracy activists participated in a new round of protests across Thailand this weekend , demanding both new elections and constitutional reforms while defying a coronavirus ban on gatherings .
The protests , partially fueled by the arrest of two activist leaders on Friday , reflect the persistent energy of an ongoing movement that sees the ruling government , which came to power following a 2014 military coup , as illegitimate .
On Saturday , more than 1,000 demonstrators rallied in the capital of Bangkok , one day after human rights lawyer Anon Nampa and student activist Panupong Jadnok were arrested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to Reuters .
Police charged Nampa and Jadnok with sedition and violating a coronavirus emergency decree for their participation in past protests .
According to Reuters , Nampa called for reforms to the country ’ s monarchy in an unusually blunt set of remarks last week — but while criticism of the king is forbidden under Thai law , the lawyer did not face charges for that statement .
Both activists were released on bail Saturday , but their detainment energized demonstrators at the Saturday rally , during which protesters chanted slogans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens , ” “ Police get out , ” and “ Dictatorship shall fall.
” On Sunday , hundreds of demonstrators took to the streets throughout the country , calling for pro-democracy reforms .
Students are reportedly planning more protests for Monday .
The weekend ’ s protests are the latest manifestation of public discontent with the Thai government — dissatisfaction that intensified in the wake of the 2019 election , which saw coup leader Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha maintain power .
Opposition parties disputed the results of that election , and activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months to criticize the government .
In July , some 2,500 protesters gathered near Bangkok ’ s Democracy Monument and listed their grievances .
“ Organizers issued three demands : the dissolution of parliament , an end to harassment of government critics , and amendments to the military-written constitution that critics say virtually guaranteed victory for Prayuth ’ s party in elections last year , ” Reuters reported at the time .
Thai protesters are finding creative ways to push back against repression While the political establishment , the constitution written by military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monarchy have been questioned by protesters in the past , a new and persistent wave of demonstrations began in February after a political opposition party was forced to dissolve .
A court ruled that the pro-democracy Future Forward Party had received an illicit donation from its leader , and was disbanded .
That party was not small — it had the third-largest share of seats in parliament — and was popular with young voters , a number of whom have been active in recent protests .
Concerns about the authoritarian tendencies of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-democracy activist disappeared in June .
The activist was reportedly kidnapped in broad daylight in Cambodia , where he ’ s lived in exile since 2014 , prompting accusations of a government-orchestrated abduction .
“ The students feel like what the government has done is not really democratic .
They want a fair government , ” Punchada Sirivunnabood , a professor of politics at Mahidol University , told BBC News .
Protesters have used creative methods drawn from the world of popular fiction to veil their criticism of the government and mitigate charges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For example , some protesters have dressed up as characters from Harry Potter in order to advance their arguments against the government and monarchy .
Other pro-democracy protesters display three-finger salutes inspired by the Hunger Games series .
On top of political concerns , extreme economic inequality and pessimism about social mobility are helping fuel unrest as well .
“ More than fifty percent of the wealth is held by the top one percent , ” Matt Wheeler , a senior analyst for the International Crisis Group , told Al Jazeera .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when they look to the future for their opportunities , don ’ t see any opportunities — and so are more willing to take risks right now to see some political change.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Pro-democracy activists participated in a new round of protests across Thailand this weekend, demanding both new elections and constitutional reforms while defying a coronavirus ban on gatherings.
The protests, partially fueled by the arrest of two activist leaders on Friday, reflect the persistent energy of an ongoing movement that sees the ruling government, which came to power following a 2014 military coup, as illegitimate.
On Saturday, more than 1,000 demonstrators rallied in the capital of Bangkok, one day after human rights lawyer Anon Nampa and student activist Panupong Jadnok were arrested by the police and held overnight, according to Reuters.
Police charged Nampa and Jadnok with sedition and violating a coronavirus emergency decree for their participation in past protests. According to Reuters, Nampa called for reforms to the country’s monarchy in an unusually blunt set of remarks last week — but while criticism of the king is forbidden under Thai law, the lawyer did not face charges for that statement.
Both activists were released on bail Saturday, but their detainment energized demonstrators at the Saturday rally, during which protesters chanted slogans like, “Do not harass the citizens,” “Police get out,” and “Dictatorship shall fall.”
On Sunday, hundreds of demonstrators took to the streets throughout the country, calling for pro-democracy reforms. Students are reportedly planning more protests for Monday.
The weekend’s protests are the latest manifestation of public discontent with the Thai government — dissatisfaction that intensified in the wake of the 2019 election, which saw coup leader Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha maintain power. Opposition parties disputed the results of that election, and activists have rallied in the thousands in recent months to criticize the government.
In July, some 2,500 protesters gathered near Bangkok’s Democracy Monument and listed their grievances. “Organizers issued three demands: the dissolution of parliament, an end to harassment of government critics, and amendments to the military-written constitution that critics say virtually guaranteed victory for Prayuth’s party in elections last year,” Reuters reported at the time.
Thai protesters are finding creative ways to push back against repression
While the political establishment, the constitution written by military leaders in 2017, and even the monarchy have been questioned by protesters in the past, a new and persistent wave of demonstrations began in February after a political opposition party was forced to dissolve. A court ruled that the pro-democracy Future Forward Party had received an illicit donation from its leader, and was disbanded.
That party was not small — it had the third-largest share of seats in parliament — and was popular with young voters, a number of whom have been active in recent protests.
Concerns about the authoritarian tendencies of the ruling party grew further when a well-known pro-democracy activist disappeared in June. The activist was reportedly kidnapped in broad daylight in Cambodia, where he’s lived in exile since 2014, prompting accusations of a government-orchestrated abduction.
“The students feel like what the government has done is not really democratic. They want a fair government,” Punchada Sirivunnabood, a professor of politics at Mahidol University, told BBC News.
Protesters have used creative methods drawn from the world of popular fiction to veil their criticism of the government and mitigate charges for violating restrictions on political speech. For example, some protesters have dressed up as characters from Harry Potter in order to advance their arguments against the government and monarchy. Other pro-democracy protesters display three-finger salutes inspired by the Hunger Games series.
On top of political concerns, extreme economic inequality and pessimism about social mobility are helping fuel unrest as well.
“More than fifty percent of the wealth is held by the top one percent,” Matt Wheeler, a senior analyst for the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera. “I think a lot of young people, when they look to the future for their opportunities, don’t see any opportunities — and so are more willing to take risks right now to see some political change.”
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--2020-08-09--Democrats call Trump’s coronavirus relief orders “paltry” and “absurdly unconstitutional”

Democratic leaders argued on Sunday that President Donald Trump ’ s new executive orders circumventing deadlocked congressional negotiations on coronavirus relief are far from adequate to meet the scope of the crises facing the United States .
“ The president ’ s executive orders described in one word could be : ‘ Paltry.
’ In three words : ‘ Unworkable , weak and far-too-narrow , ’ ” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on ABC ’ s This Week on Sunday .
“ As the American people look at these executive orders , they 'll see they don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two ways : One , what they propose , second , what ’ s left out.
” Trump signed four executive orders at his private golf club in Bedminster , New Jersey , on Saturday , claiming that House Democrats have been holding federal assistance “ hostage , ” and that the GOP has “ had it ” after more than two weeks of contentious negotiations over the next coronavirus relief package .
As the benefits created by past relief packages — including a federal unemployment insurance benefit and eviction protections — expired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a consensus about what further aid should look like .
Democrats hoped to extend the $ 600 weekly federal unemployment insurance benefit created by the CARES Act , to broaden the scope of eligibility for stimulus checks , and to expand federal aid to states and cities .
Republicans have been divided in their goals , with Trump pushing for a payroll tax cut many in his party weren ’ t in favor of ; some Senate Republicans advocating for a reduced employment benefit and limited aid to cities and states ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government not go into further debt with relief packages .
Saturday , Trump ’ s orders created $ 400 in weekly enhanced unemployment assistance ; student debt repayment relief ; a payroll tax holiday ; and an exploration of protections from housing evictions .
But Democrats have fiercely objected to the substance of Trump ’ s executive actions , characterizing them as clumsily designed and unacceptably narrow in focus .
And both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have questioned their legality .
Sunday , Schumer said Trump ’ s proposal for unemployment — which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unemployed Americans with an extra $ 300 per week above normal state unemployment benefits , and for states to add $ 100 to the federally funded benefit — is impractical for states with budget shortfalls due to the pandemic and that it is too large of a cut from the earlier rate of $ 600 .
“ This is an unworkable plan .
Most states will take months to implement it because it ’ s brand new , it ’ s sort of put together with spit and paste , ” Schumer said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to chip in $ 100 and they don ’ t have money , won ’ t do it.
” “ If he just would have renewed the $ 600 as we do in the HEROES bill [ which House Democrats passed in May ] through January , things would flow smoothly , ” Schumer added later .
Michele Evermore , an unemployment policy expert at the National Employment Law Project , agreed with Schumer ’ s assessment on the timeline for implementing this new policy .
Evermore told the Washington Post it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s program because it requires building new systems from scratch rather than funneling money through existing unemployment programs .
Schumer also criticized Trump ’ s payroll tax holiday as both economically ineffective in the short-term and perilous for the American social safety net in the long-term .
“ It ’ s a deferral , and so it accumulates until January when it expires .
Employers are just going to continue to withhold the money — I ’ ve talked to some — because they don ’ t want their employees to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ December , so it ’ s not going to pump money into the economy , ” Schumer said .
He also warned that it “ depletes money out of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds , ” a complaint the White House brushed off Sunday .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Trump ’ s executive order on housing eviction protections , which he appeared to imply was an extension of a federal moratorium that expired in July , is in fact nothing of the kind .
“ The president didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did a study or a look at a moratorium , so again , something ’ s wrong , ” she said on CNN ’ s State of the Union on Sunday .
It is true that Trump ’ s executive order on housing protections does not explicitly prohibit evictions with decisive language .
As CNN ’ s Dana Bash has pointed out , the order instead uses language like “ consider , identify , promote and review.
” For example , the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider ” whether to halt evictions in order to prevent the spread of Covid-19 .
Top Democrats are also arguing that Trump ’ s orders are just as objectionable for what they don ’ t do .
The relief package passed in the House in May includes trillions of dollars worth of assistance that goes far beyond Trump ’ s four orders , and covers everything from pressing humanitarian needs to making sure the election process is funded adequately to deal with new needs presented by the pandemic .
Congress , with its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has greater latitude than the executive branch in setting policy demanding the sort of massive spending coronavirus relief has required so far — and is therefore able to offer more sweeping solutions .
White House officials seemed to acknowledge this fact Sunday , with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin telling Fox News Sunday that he ’ s “ willing to listen ” to further Democratic proposals .
And Democrats suggested they would like to negotiate further to reach some sort of legislative solution .
“ These announcements do nothing to increase testing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put food on the table for hungry families , nothing to prevent heroes being laid off across state and local government , nothing to protect the Postal Service or the integrity of our elections , nothing on many critical needs of the American people , ” Pelosi and Schumer said in a joint statement issued Saturday night .
Trump ’ s executive orders might not be legal .
But it ’ s unclear what Dems will do about that .
Democrats — and some Republicans — have also questioned or rejected the legality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority to enact policies typically handled by Congress .
When asked if she would sue to block the executive orders by CNN ’ s Bash , Pelosi said the Democrats were still looking into the legal questions .
“ Well , the fact is , is that whether they ’ re legal or not takes time to figure out .
I associate my remarks with what the [ Republican ] Senator [ Ben ] Sasse , who says , they ’ re ‘ unconstitutional slop.
’ Right now we want to address the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pelosi said .
“ As my constitutional advisers tell me , they ’ re absurdly unconstitutional.
” Schumer also declined to clarify whether Democrats would be pursuing legal challenges .
When asked if the unemployment assistance executive order was legal on ABC , he said , “ I ’ ll leave that up to the attorneys.
” Pelosi and Schumer ’ s noncommittal language seems to be a shift in position after Democrats previously said they would file legal challenges if Trump circumvented Congress .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and many other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — have endorsed Trump ’ s executive actions , but , as Pelosi noted , there isn ’ t complete consensus in the Republican caucus on the wisdom of the president ’ s move .
“ The pen-and-phone theory of executive lawmaking is unconstitutional slop , ” Sasse said in a statement issued by email .
“ President Obama did not have the power to unilaterally rewrite immigration law with DACA , and President Trump does not have the power to unilaterally rewrite the payroll tax law.
” Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Senate , tweeted , “ I appreciate the President taking this decisive action but would much prefer a congressional agreement.
” While the legal status of Trump ’ s executive orders remains uncertain , Democrats are unwavering in their position that the orders do not constitute a replacement of a bill they ’ ve been pursuing for months .
Both sides seem willing to consider further negotiations , with Pelosi and Schumer saying in their Saturday joint statement , “ Democrats repeat our call to Republicans to return to the table @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deliver immediate relief to the American people.
” Sunday , however , Pelosi warned Democrats remain unwilling to bend on certain parts of their proposal , saying on State of the Union , “ Of course there ’ s room for compromise , but you have to see the entire package.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Democratic leaders argued on Sunday that President Donald Trump’s new executive orders circumventing deadlocked congressional negotiations on coronavirus relief are far from adequate to meet the scope of the crisis facing the United States.
“The president’s executive orders described in one word could be ‘paltry.’ In three words: ‘unworkable, weak, and far too narrow,’” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on ABC’s This Week on Sunday. “As the American people look at these executive orders, they'll see they don’t come close to doing the job in two ways: one, what they propose, second, what’s left out.”
Trump signed four executive orders at his private golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, on Saturday, claiming that House Democrats have been holding federal assistance “hostage,” and that the GOP has “had it” after more than two weeks of contentious negotiations over the next coronavirus relief package.
As the benefits created by past relief packages — including a federal unemployment insurance benefit and eviction protections — expired, Democrats and Republicans struggled to come to a consensus about what further aid should look like.
Democrats hoped to extend the $600 weekly federal unemployment insurance benefit created by the CARES Act, to broaden the scope of eligibility for stimulus checks, and to expand federal aid to states and cities.
Republicans have been divided in their goals, with Trump pushing for a payroll tax cut many in his party weren’t in favor of; some Senate Republicans advocating for a reduced employment benefit and limited aid to cities and states; and other Republicans demanding that the federal government not go into further debt with relief packages.
Saturday, Trump’s orders created $400 in weekly enhanced unemployment assistance, student debt repayment relief, a payroll tax holiday, and an exploration of protections from housing evictions.
But Democrats have fiercely objected to the substance of Trump’s executive actions, characterizing them as clumsily designed and unacceptably narrow in focus. And both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have questioned their legality.
Sunday, Schumer said Trump’s proposal for unemployment — which calls for the federal government to provide unemployed Americans with an extra $300 per week above normal state unemployment benefits, and for states to add $100 to the federally funded benefit — is impractical for states with budget shortfalls due to the pandemic and that it is too large a cut from the earlier rate of $600.
“This is an unworkable plan. Most states will take months to implement it because it’s brand new, it’s sort of put together with spit and paste,” Schumer said. “Many states, because they have to chip in $100 and they don’t have money, won’t do it.”
“If he just would have renewed the $600 as we do in the HEROES bill [which House Democrats passed in May] through January, things would flow smoothly,” Schumer added later.
Michele Evermore, an unemployment policy expert at the National Employment Law Project, agreed with Schumer’s assessment on the timeline for implementing this new policy. Evermore told the Washington Post it could take states months to set up Trump’s program because it requires building new systems from scratch rather than funneling money through existing unemployment programs.
Schumer also criticized Trump’s payroll tax holiday as both economically ineffective in the short term and perilous for the American social safety net in the long term.
“It’s a deferral, and so it accumulates until January when it expires. Employers are just going to continue to withhold the money — I’ve talked to some — because they don’t want their employees to be stuck with a huge bill in December, so it’s not going to pump money into the economy,” Schumer said.
He also warned that it “depletes money out of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds,” a complaint the White House brushed off Sunday.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Trump’s executive order on housing eviction protections, which he appeared to imply was an extension of a federal moratorium that expired in July, is in fact nothing of the kind.
“The president didn’t even do a moratorium, he just did a study or a look at a moratorium, so again, something’s wrong,” she said on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday.
It is true that Trump’s executive order on housing protections does not explicitly prohibit evictions with decisive language. As CNN’s Dana Bash has pointed out, the order instead uses language like “consider, identify, promote and review.” For example, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are told to “consider” whether to halt evictions in order to prevent the spread of Covid-19.
Top Democrats are also arguing that Trump’s orders are just as objectionable for what they don’t do. The relief package passed in the House in May includes trillions of dollars’ worth of assistance that goes far beyond Trump’s four orders, and covers everything from pressing humanitarian needs to making sure the election process is funded adequately to deal with new needs presented by the pandemic.
Congress, with its control of the US’s coffers, has greater latitude than the executive branch in setting policy demanding the sort of massive spending coronavirus relief has required so far — and is therefore able to offer more sweeping solutions. White House officials seemed to acknowledge this fact Sunday, with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin telling Fox News Sunday that he’s “willing to listen” to further Democratic proposals. And Democrats suggested they would like to negotiate further to reach some sort of legislative solution.
“These announcements do nothing to increase testing, nothing to reopen schools, nothing to put food on the table for hungry families, nothing to prevent heroes being laid off across state and local government, nothing to protect the Postal Service or the integrity of our elections, nothing on many critical needs of the American people,” Pelosi and Schumer said in a joint statement issued Saturday night.
Trump’s executive orders might not be legal. But it’s unclear what Dems will do about that.
Democrats — and some Republicans — have also questioned or rejected the legality of Trump’s use of executive authority to enact policies typically handled by Congress.
When asked if she would sue to block the executive orders by CNN’s Bash, Pelosi said Democrats were still looking into the legal questions.
“Well, the fact is, is that whether they’re legal or not takes time to figure out. I associate my remarks with what the [Republican] Senator [Ben] Sasse, who says they’re ‘unconstitutional slop.’ Right now we want to address the needs of the American people,” Pelosi said. “As my constitutional advisers tell me, they’re absurdly unconstitutional.”
Schumer also declined to clarify whether Democrats would be pursuing legal challenges. When asked on ABC if the unemployment assistance executive order was legal, he said, “I’ll leave that up to the attorneys.”
Pelosi and Schumer’s noncommittal language seems to be a shift in position after Democrats previously said they would file legal challenges if Trump circumvented Congress.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and many other Republican leaders — like Sen. Chuck Grassley — have endorsed Trump’s executive actions, but, as Pelosi noted, there isn’t complete consensus in the Republican caucus on the wisdom of the president’s move.
“The pen-and-phone theory of executive lawmaking is unconstitutional slop,” Sasse said in a statement issued by email. “President Obama did not have the power to unilaterally rewrite immigration law with DACA, and President Trump does not have the power to unilaterally rewrite the payroll tax law.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a major ally of Trump in the Senate, tweeted, “I appreciate the President taking this decisive action but would much prefer a congressional agreement.”
While the legal status of Trump’s executive orders remains uncertain, Democrats are unwavering in their position that the orders do not constitute a replacement of a bill they’ve been pursuing for months.
Both sides seem willing to consider further negotiations, with Pelosi and Schumer saying in their Saturday joint statement, “Democrats repeat our call to Republicans to return to the table, meet us halfway and work together to deliver immediate relief to the American people.”
Sunday, however, Pelosi warned Democrats remain unwilling to bend on certain parts of their proposal, saying on State of the Union, “Of course there’s room for compromise, but you have to see the entire package.”
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.