vox--2020-10-28--The misunderstood Rust Belt worker vote, and its importance in 2020, explained

This is the second of a series of stories looking at the voters who could be the most decisive in the 2020 election .
You can read Ella Nilsen ’ s story on suburban women here .
Robert Noftz is a voter Donald Trump should have been able to win in the 2020 election : He ’ s an anti-abortion Christian who works at a major appliance factory in northwestern Ohio .
But Noftz , a lifelong Republican , is voting for Joe Biden instead .
In 2016 , he really didn ’ t want Hillary Clinton to be president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Trump — so he wrote in Marco Rubio .
But he was still optimistic when Trump won .
“ I was kind of hopeful , now that he ’ s won , and he ’ s through being rude , I thought he might be a competent leader , ” Noftz told me .
“ And I ’ ve been really disappointed about that .
I don ’ t think he ’ s done that at all.
” Last year , Noftz actually thought he might vote for Trump in 2020 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ had pursued .
The economy looked healthy .
“ Then the Covid thing hit , ” Noftz said , “ and I saw the way he behaved.
” He was aghast that Trump said he knew more than the medical experts .
His worst fears were confirmed .
The Trump administration did deliver on some issues he cares about , but Noftz believes there are bigger principles at stake .
“ As a Christian , I also care about other things : justice , people who are poor , people who are sick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The world ’ s not kind to everybody .
I ’ ve got it pretty comfortable .
A lot of people in the world are really suffering.
” So now Noftz wears his Biden 2020 hat to work ; he ’ s got a sign in his car window .
And he ’ s noticed something these past few weeks in his hometown of Clyde , Ohio , population 6,213 : Some people , working guys like him , seem happy to see his swag supporting the Democrat .
That wouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Manufacturing workers from the industrial Midwest are remembered as the critical voting bloc in 2016 .
Those people , many of whom had voted for Barack Obama , swung for Trump .
Some of them just didn ’ t like Hillary Clinton .
But they also saw Trump as a businessman who could restore America ’ s luster .
These voters are crucial in the Rust Belt states of Ohio , Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin .
But rather than cementing his relationship with these voters , which would have helped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be seeing the opposite happen .
Trump is further behind in the polls in Pennsylvania , Michigan , and Wisconsin in 2020 than he was in 2016 .
And after winning Ohio by 8 points against Clinton , he ’ s effectively tied with Biden in the polls now .
Many voter trends , particularly the defection of suburban women to Democrats , explain Trump ’ s apparent weakness .
But in the Midwest , his failure to build on this base — mostly white voters who are culturally conservative , many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in smaller communities — could be fatal .
Even if Trump wins them in the aggregate , Biden is overperforming Clinton with these voters , and it ’ s a big reason why he ’ s the favorite heading into Election Day .
“ The big difference is now you ’ ve got a record to run on .
The Donald Trump record has not been a good record for working people , ” Tim Burga , president of the Ohio AFL-CIO , says .
“ Union members are going to look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broken his promise.
” Why the worker vote is so important in Ohio and the Midwest The Rust Belt worker vote — the white working-class vote , the union vote , whatever you want to call it ; even academics don ’ t always agree , and it ’ s a hard group to define — was pivotal to Trump ’ s big 2016 win .
In Ohio , Obama had won union households by 23 points against Mitt Romney in 2012 ; Trump took them by 13 points against Clinton .
Pennsylvania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of these voters , and Trump ’ s big margins with them helped propel him to a narrow sweep of the Midwest and an Electoral College victory .
But 2020 looks a lot different , starting in the suburbs .
Trump is losing a lot of the more educated voters in the Upper Midwest .
He won white voters with a college degree in Ohio by 24 points in 2016 ; a new Fox News poll showed Trump and Biden effectively tied for those voters and tied overall in the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To make up for those losses , Trump needs to expand his margins with other white voters .
But he doesn ’ t appear to have done that .
He earned 63 percent of white voters without a college degree in 2016 ; the recent Fox News poll from Ohio found him below 60 percent .
A Baldwin Wallace University poll put Trump at 52 percent with those voters in the state , while he barely holds on to a 2-point lead over Biden with all voters statewide .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one given Trump ’ s other weaknesses .
He can not afford to lose any ground with the people who supported him last time .
As Kyle Kondik covered for Sabato ’ s Crystal Ball , a Biden win in Ohio would be powered in part by the Democrat making up ground in the white working-class regions where Clinton struggled : the Ohio Ninth District , covering the area between Toledo and Cleveland , where Clinton did 15 points worse than Obama ; and the Ohio 13th around Akron and Youngstown , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the 2018 midterms , Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown rebounded in the industrial areas around Toledo , where Clinton had struggled , on his way to reelection .
Trump ’ s support has eroded with these voters even more in Wisconsin .
Trump won white non-college voters by nearly 30 points ; a new Fox poll putting Biden ahead statewide found Trump up by only 5 points with those voters .
( Baldwin Wallace found the same trend in the state , with Biden up 2 . )
The same seems true in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shrunk by roughly half , according to another Fox survey .
( And Baldwin Wallace has Trump ’ s lead down to 5 . )
It ’ s a shift that industrial union leaders say they ’ ve felt in the workplace .
“ In the facility , things have changed , ” Tony Totty , president of the United Auto Workers local in Toledo , told me .
“ You don ’ t get the Trump supporters talking him up as much anymore.
” There seems to be a drift away from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tension in 2016 around the General Motors transmission plant where his members work .
The union ’ s leadership may have endorsed Clinton , but the rank-and-file were much more pro-Trump .
Totty would hand out campaign literature at the factory gates and sense the disdain .
Some of the workers hadn ’ t liked Obama either , but this was worse .
“ We ’ re really at a point where we just don ’ t talk politics because it ’ s so toxic , ” he said .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2020 , things seem more muted .
The Trump supporters are less vocal .
Totty is expecting more of his peers to quietly vote for Biden this time , or they might stay home .
Noftz told me he was “ surprised ” by how many people at his work are voting for Biden .
These trends could build upon themselves , creating the environment for an important shift toward Biden with union voters .
Laura Bucci , a St. Joseph ’ s University political scientist who has studied the politics of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are more politically engaged .
The mood around their workplaces could inform how people vote and whether they decide to vote at all .
“ Turnout is an enthusiasm game , ” she said .
“ How much did your friends push you to go vote ?
” For some of these workers in Ohio , they have directly suffered the consequences of Trump ’ s failure to deliver on his campaign promises .
More than one union leader mentioned to me a line from a speech Trump gave in 2017 , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Lordstown , Ohio , not to sell their houses .
He said manufacturing was coming back .
In the spring of 2019 , the company announced it would be closing the Lordstown plant .
More than 1,400 workers either lost their jobs or had to be transferred .
About 200 of them moved to Toledo , where Totty works .
“ Those people got displaced , They had to sell their homes , ” he said .
“ Some of them were Trump supporters .
They don ’ t support him anymore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lied to.
” Manufacturing job growth in Ohio has been stagnant under Trump .
The president ’ s much-hyped Foxconn project in Wisconsin , which he once promised would create 13,000 jobs , had employed fewer than 300 people by the end of 2019 ; the building that was supposed to be a new factory is now , according to a recent Verge report , “ an empty shell.
” The trade deficit is up .
He ’ s appointed Supreme Court justices who have ruled against organized labor rights .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got a record to run on .
The Donald Trump record has not been a good record for working people.
” Trump ’ s record on health care and Covid-19 could hurt him with these voters too .
Union members are sensitive to the same pocketbook issues as everybody else .
Those workers generally secure their health insurance through collective bargaining , but they tend to be more progressive on the issue , even if they identify as Republican , according to a survey analysis by Miami University ’ s Kevin Reuning and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are certainly aware of rising health care costs .
Totty said his union went on strike last year because the company wanted to raise their premiums to cover higher prices .
They will likely be arguing over health care again in a few years when their current contract is up , he said , unless costs are restrained .
Trump initially supported Obamacare repeal plans that would have left millions more Americans uninsured .
Now he ’ s supporting a Supreme Court lawsuit to overturn the law without publicly releasing his own plans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Polls show that white voters and voters without a college degree trust Biden more than Trump on how to best protect people with preexisting conditions .
They also trust the Democratic candidate more on the coronavirus response , the issue that is understandably a top priority for most voters .
“ I think we should have been listening to the medical experts , ” Noftz said .
The politics of union members has always been complicated It ’ s hard to talk about the “ union vote ” or the “ working-class ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , gender , and racial lines .
The demographics of unions have been changing .
With the erosion of industrial trade unions , union membership has become more concentrated among police , government workers , and teachers .
Reuning and Lewis , in their survey , found that 31 percent of union members identify as strong Republicans and 29 percent identify as strong Democrats .
The rest are somewhere in between .
But even white Republicans have some unorthodox political views when they are part of a union : They are more likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive view of socialism and Medicare-for-all , for one .
( They also have a rosier view of capitalism . )
“ They identify as conservative , but then when you ask them about a specific issue , they tend to be more liberal , ” Reuning told me .
“ They ’ re still gon na vote for Republicans because of other issues .
They ’ re more culturally conservative .
People are complicated.
” In fact , there is evidence that the decrease in union membership could be contributing to white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who studies political science at Florida State University , published a paper this summer on the interaction between those two trends .
“ White union members are more likely to identify as Democrats than their non union-affiliated counterparts in ... the industrial Midwest , a former bastion of organized labor , ” he wrote .
He found that union membership led to people of all genders and all levels of education to be more Democratic than they otherwise would be .
So as union membership falls among certain groups , they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those trends .
The factory where he works is not a union shop .
He ’ s been a registered Republican since the 1990s .
But he is also , in 2020 , a reminder of the nuances of the Rust Belt worker vote so often idealized but also misunderstood in political punditry .
When Trump was acting more like a normal Republican , Noftz was warming up to him .
But then the president clashed with scientists during a public health emergency .
He insulted people .
He didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting for Trump , as he had considered doing , Noftz made a video testimonial for Republican Voters Against Trump .
For many of these workers living through economic stagnation and now a global health crisis , the president hasn ’ t lived up to his promise .
And without them , Donald Trump will struggle to win reelection .
“ The mishandling of the pandemic has made matters worse , ” Tim Burga at the Ohio AFL-CIO told me .
“ There ’ s no question that there ’ s been union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

This is the second in a series of stories looking at the people who could cast the most decisive votes in the 2020 election. You can read Ella Nilsen’s story on suburban women here and Li Zhou’s story on Arizona youth here.
Robert Noftz is a voter Donald Trump should have been able to win in the 2020 election: He’s an anti-abortion Christian who works at a major appliance factory in northwestern Ohio.
But Noftz, a lifelong Republican, is voting for Joe Biden instead.
In 2016, he really didn’t want Hillary Clinton to be president — and he wasn’t sure about Trump — so he wrote in Marco Rubio. But he was still optimistic when Trump won. “I was kind of hopeful, now that he’s won, and he’s through being rude, I thought he might be a competent leader,” Noftz told me. “And I’ve been really disappointed about that. I don’t think he’s done that at all.”
Last year, Noftz actually thought he might vote for Trump in 2020. He liked the anti-abortion policies the president had pursued. The economy looked healthy.
“Then the Covid thing hit,” Noftz said, “and I saw the way he behaved.”
He was aghast that Trump said he knew more than the medical experts. His worst fears were confirmed. The Trump administration did deliver on some issues he cares about, but Noftz believes there are bigger principles at stake.
“As a Christian, I also care about other things: justice, people who are poor, people who are sick,” he told me. “The world’s not kind to everybody. I’ve got it pretty comfortable. A lot of people in the world are really suffering.”
So now Noftz wears his Biden 2020 hat to work; he’s got a sign in his car window. And he’s noticed something these past few weeks in his hometown of Clyde, Ohio, population 6,213: Some people, working guys like him, seem happy to see his swag supporting the Democrat. That wouldn’t have been the reaction four years ago.
Manufacturing workers from the industrial Midwest are remembered as the critical voting bloc in 2016. Those people, many of whom had voted for Barack Obama, swung for Trump. Some of them just didn’t like Hillary Clinton. But they also saw Trump as a businessman who could restore America’s luster. These voters are crucial in the Rust Belt states of Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
But rather than cementing his relationship with these voters, which would have helped his reelection bid, Trump seems to be seeing the opposite happen. Trump is further behind in the polls in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin in 2020 than he was in 2016. And after winning Ohio by 8 points against Clinton, he’s effectively tied with Biden in the polls now.
Many voter trends, particularly the defection of suburban women to Democrats, explain Trump’s apparent weakness. But in the Midwest, his failure to build on this base — mostly white voters who are culturally conservative, many of them without a college degree, living in smaller communities — could be fatal. Even if Trump wins them in the aggregate, Biden is overperforming Clinton with these voters, and it’s a big reason why he’s the favorite heading into Election Day.
“The big difference is now you’ve got a record to run on. The Donald Trump record has not been a good record for working people,” Tim Burga, president of the Ohio AFL-CIO, says. “Union members are going to look at the record and realize Donald Trump has broken his promise.”
Why the worker vote is so important in Ohio and the Midwest
The Rust Belt worker vote — the white working-class vote, the union vote, whatever you want to call it; even academics don’t always agree, and it’s a hard group to define — was pivotal to Trump’s big 2016 win. In Ohio, Obama had won union households by 23 points against Mitt Romney in 2012; Trump took them by 13 points against Clinton. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan also have a lot of these voters, and Trump’s big margins with them helped propel him to a narrow sweep of the Midwest and an Electoral College victory.
But 2020 looks a lot different, starting in the suburbs. Trump is losing a lot of the more educated voters in the Upper Midwest. He won white voters with a college degree in Ohio by 24 points in 2016; a new Fox News poll showed Trump and Biden effectively tied for those voters and tied overall in the state, a dramatic swing toward the Democrats.
To make up for those losses, Trump needs to expand his margins with other white voters. But he doesn’t appear to have done that. He earned 63 percent of white voters without a college degree in 2016; the recent Fox News poll from Ohio found him below 60 percent. A Baldwin Wallace University poll put Trump at 52 percent with those voters in the state, while he barely holds on to a 2-point lead over Biden with all voters statewide.
It’s a small shift, but a meaningful one given Trump’s other weaknesses. He cannot afford to lose any ground with the people who supported him last time.
As Kyle Kondik covered for Sabato’s Crystal Ball, a Biden win in Ohio would be powered in part by the Democrat making up ground in the white working-class regions where Clinton struggled: the Ohio Ninth District, covering the area between Toledo and Cleveland, where Clinton did 15 points worse than Obama; and the Ohio 13th around Akron and Youngstown, where she was 21 points behind Obama. In the 2018 midterms, Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown rebounded in the industrial areas around Toledo, where Clinton had struggled, on his way to reelection.
Trump’s support has eroded with these voters even more in Wisconsin. Trump won white non-college voters by nearly 30 points; a new Fox poll putting Biden ahead statewide found Trump up by only 5 points with those voters. (Baldwin Wallace found the same trend in the state, with Biden up 2.) The same seems true in Pennsylvania, where his 32-point lead has shrunk by roughly half, according to another Fox survey. (And Baldwin Wallace has Trump’s lead down to 5.)
It’s a shift that industrial union leaders say they’ve felt in the workplace.
“In the facility, things have changed,” Tony Totty, president of the United Auto Workers local in Toledo, told me. “You don’t get the Trump supporters talking him up as much anymore.”
There seems to be a drift away from Trump among Rust Belt workers
Totty remembers the tension in 2016 around the General Motors transmission plant where his members work. The union’s leadership may have endorsed Clinton, but the rank-and-file were much more pro-Trump. Totty would hand out campaign literature at the factory gates and sense the disdain. Some of the workers hadn’t liked Obama either, but this was worse.
“We’re really at a point where we just don’t talk politics because it’s so toxic,” he said. “We really went after each other.”
But in 2020, things seem more muted. The Trump supporters are less vocal. Totty is expecting more of his peers to quietly vote for Biden this time, or they might stay home. Noftz told me he was “surprised” by how many people at his work are voting for Biden.
These trends could build upon themselves, creating the environment for an important shift toward Biden with union voters. Laura Bucci, a St. Joseph’s University political scientist who has studied the politics of labor unions, says people in unions are more politically engaged. The mood around their workplaces could inform how people vote and whether they decide to vote at all.
“Turnout is an enthusiasm game,” she said. “How much did your friends push you to go vote?”
For some of these workers in Ohio, they have directly suffered the consequences of Trump’s failure to deliver on his campaign promises. More than one union leader mentioned to me a line from a speech Trump gave in 2017, when he told workers at the GM plant in Lordstown, Ohio, not to sell their houses. He said manufacturing was coming back.
In the spring of 2019, the company announced it would be closing the Lordstown plant. More than 1,400 workers either lost their jobs or had to be transferred. About 200 of them moved to Toledo, where Totty works.
“Those people got displaced, They had to sell their homes,” he said. “Some of them were Trump supporters. They don’t support him anymore. They felt betrayed. They felt lied to.”
Manufacturing job growth in Ohio has been stagnant under Trump. The president’s much-hyped Foxconn project in Wisconsin, which he once promised would create 13,000 jobs, had employed fewer than 300 people by the end of 2019; the building that was supposed to be a new factory is now, according to a recent Verge report, “an empty shell.”
The trade deficit is up. He’s appointed Supreme Court justices who have ruled against organized labor rights.
“The big difference is now you’ve got a record to run on. The Donald Trump record has not been a good record for working people.”
Trump’s record on health care and Covid-19 could hurt him with these voters too. Union members are sensitive to the same pocketbook issues as everybody else. Those workers generally secure their health insurance through collective bargaining, but they tend to be more progressive on the issue, even if they identify as Republican, according to a survey analysis by Miami University’s Kevin Reuning and union activist C.M. Lewis.
Workers are certainly aware of rising health care costs. Totty said his union went on strike last year because the company wanted to raise their premiums to cover higher prices. They will likely be arguing over health care again in a few years when their current contract is up, he said, unless costs are restrained.
Trump initially supported Obamacare repeal plans that would have left millions more Americans uninsured. Now he’s supporting a Supreme Court lawsuit to overturn the law without publicly releasing his own plans to cover people if that happens. Polls show that white voters and voters without a college degree trust Biden more than Trump on how to best protect people with preexisting conditions.
They also trust the Democratic candidate more on the coronavirus response, the issue that is understandably a top priority for most voters.
“I think we should have been listening to the medical experts,” Noftz said.
The politics of union members has always been complicated
It’s hard to talk about the “union vote” or the “working-class” vote. There is polarization along educational, gender, and racial lines. The demographics of unions have been changing. With the erosion of industrial trade unions, union membership has become more concentrated among police, government workers, and teachers.
Reuning and Lewis, in their survey, found that 31 percent of union members identify as strong Republicans and 29 percent identify as strong Democrats. The rest are somewhere in between. But even white Republicans have some unorthodox political views when they are part of a union: They are more likely than non-union white Republicans to have a positive view of socialism and Medicare-for-all, for one. (They also have a rosier view of capitalism.)
“They identify as conservative, but then when you ask them about a specific issue, they tend to be more liberal,” Reuning told me. “They’re still gonna vote for Republicans because of other issues. They’re more culturally conservative. People are complicated.”
In fact, there is evidence that the decrease in union membership could be contributing to white Americans becoming more Republican. David Macdonald, who studies political science at Florida State University, published a paper this summer on the interaction between those two trends.
“White union members are more likely to identify as Democrats than their non union-affiliated counterparts in ... the industrial Midwest, a former bastion of organized labor,” he wrote.
He found that union membership led to people of all genders and all levels of education to be more Democratic than they otherwise would be. So as union membership falls among certain groups, they are becoming more Republican.
Noftz is emblematic of those trends. The factory where he works is not a union shop. He’s been a registered Republican since the 1990s.
But he is also, in 2020, a reminder of the nuances of the Rust Belt worker vote so often idealized but also misunderstood in political punditry. When Trump was acting more like a normal Republican, Noftz was warming up to him.
But then the president clashed with scientists during a public health emergency. He insulted people. He didn’t rise to the occasion. Instead of voting for Trump, as he had considered doing, Noftz made a video testimonial for Republican Voters Against Trump.
For many of these workers living through economic stagnation and now a global health crisis, the president hasn’t lived up to his promise. And without them, Donald Trump will struggle to win reelection.
“The mishandling of the pandemic has made matters worse,” Tim Burga at the Ohio AFL-CIO told me. “There’s no question that there’s been union members moving away from Trump.”


vox--2020-10-28--5 fact-checks from the Senate’s hearing on social media

Six days ahead of a historic presidential election whose outcome is expected to shape the future of US democracy and as Congress delays passing a new economic stimulus deal to aid millions of unemployed Americans affected by the ongoing pandemic , the Senate spent more than three hours talking about something else : how social media companies handle controversial speech on the internet .
Wednesday ’ s hearing was supposed to focus on nuanced reforms to a landmark internet law — Section 230 — which shields tech companies from being sued for content users post on their platforms .
Both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years to reform this law , arguing that it is outdated considering how large and powerful these tech giants have become .
That ’ s why the Senate Committee on Commerce , Science , and Transportation subpoenaed Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg , Google CEO Sundar Pichai , and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to face questioning .
But instead of talking about reforming the actual law , most Republican Senators — with notable exceptions such as Sen. Shelley Moore Capito ( R-WV ) and Sen. Deb Fischer ( R-NE ) — used their time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderation decisions that have been controversial with Republicans .
Namely , Twitter blocking an unverified story in the New York Post making damning accusations about Hunter Biden earlier this month , or why the company fact-checks Trump more often than Iran ’ s or the Chinese Communist Party ’ s leaders .
Some Democrats at the hearing — and many outside observers — have written off the hearing as political theater orchestrated by conservatives days ahead of the election to intimidate these companies so they avoid fact-checking Trump or conservative disinformation campaigns .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are critical and valid , and that they need to be swiftly addressed .
Many Senators used assumptions and cherry-picked evidence to try to prove their points .
And in response , the tech CEOs effectively skirted more serious discussions about their actual shortcomings in content moderation .
Here are the fact-checks on the five most head-scratching claims senators — and tech CEOs — made at the hearing .
1 ) Though Republicans say social media companies are broadly censoring conservative speech , the evidence doesn ’ t support the claim .
Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , have long alleged that tech companies are censoring Republicans on social media .
And today ’ s hearing was no exception .
Citing social media companies ’ handling of the Hunter Biden New York Post story , as well as Google ’ s threats to ban conservative news website the Federalist over allegedly racist content , Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Sen. Roger Wicker ( R-MS ) said in his opening remarks : “ These recent incidents are only the latest in a long trail of censorship and suppression of conservative voices on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true that Twitter and Facebook have made some controversial and at times questionable decisions to limit false or unverified speech by conservative politicians and news outlets ( Twitter reversed its stance on blocking the Hunter Biden story , Facebook did not ) , these are individual examples .
On the whole , data shows that conservative content thrives on social media .
Conservative pundits like Dan Bongino and Ben Shapiro consistently rank among the most shared news sources on Facebook based on the company ’ s data aggregation tool , CrowdTangle .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s alleged censoring of Trump , the president still uses the platform every day to reach tens of millions more followers than Joe Biden does .
In fact , Trump himself has repeatedly stated that , without social media , he wouldn ’ t be able to “ get the word out ” to the people .
Republican senators asked why tech companies haven ’ t fact-checked high-profile Democratic leaders like Biden as much as they have Trump , but they ignored the very obvious answer : that Trump , unlike Biden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statements on social media .
If Biden were to attack mail-in voting or the basic science behind Covid-19 , as Trump has , he would likely face the same kind of moderation .
To Republicans ’ credit , an underlying tension here is that many people who work at tech companies lean liberal ( more on that later ) .
And , back in 2016 , Gizmodo reported that those political beliefs sometimes trickled into low-level employee content moderation decisions via the disastrous “ Facebook Trending ” section .
But a lot has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook has done away with that its trending section entirely ) .
If anything , the evidence now seems to suggest that Facebook has adjusted in the other direction to please Republicans and fend off claims of anti-conservative bias .
According to recent reporting from BuzzFeed News , NBC News , and the Wall Street Journal , the company has at times overridden its fact-checking system and tweaked its algorithms to favor conservative publications over liberal ones like Mother Jones .
2 ) Ted Cruz claimed social media companies are the biggest threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s not at all clear .
Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-TX ) came in hot to the hearing , announcing his intent to grill Dorsey in a wrestling-match style flyer he ( ironically ) tweeted out the night before the session , all in the name of defending free speech on the internet .
“ The three witnesses we have before the committee today collectively pose the single biggest threat to free speech in America and the greatest threat we have to free and fair elections , ” Cruz said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pichai .
Cruz is entitled to his opinion , of course , but it ’ s not at all objectively clear that the biggest threat to free speech or election integrity in this country is when Facebook , Twitter , or Google fact-check politicians like Trump .
In fact , if you asked this same question of leading free speech advocates and human rights organizations , many would say a bigger concern is Trump ’ s sustained and increasingly vitriolic attacks on the free press since his first day in office .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to free speech , they say , it has less to do with how they handle conservative voices and more do with the extremist hate speech that spreads on their platforms , and which has a chilling effect on women , minorities , and other marginalized groups by shutting them out of online public discourse .
It ’ s true that social media companies now rival governments in the scope of their power and influence , and free speech defenders of all political persuasions demand that these companies provide more transparency and accountability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t allow .
But for Cruz and some of his Republican colleagues to support free speech only when it suits their political needs ( in an extreme example of this , Sen. Marsha Blackburn ( R-TN ) denounced Google for allegedly censoring Republicans while simultaneously calling for the company to fire a rank-and-file employee who publicly criticized her ) is a hypocritical one at best .
3 ) Dorsey told Cruz that Twitter doesn ’ t impact elections .
It does .
Despite Cruz ’ s largely theatrical political showboating , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dorsey that highlighted an issue originating with the tech platforms themselves : their refusal to acknowledge that they are more than just neutral platforms .
At one point , Cruz asked Dorsey whether Twitter has influence over the elections , and Dorsey said no .
Cruz retorted , “ If you do not believe you have the power to influence elections , why do you block anything ?
” Dorsey ’ s response was that Twitter blocks content to reduce harassment and make everyone feel included on its platform .
Facebook and Google @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be neutral platforms for people to communicate , with exceptions to protect their users from harm .
But that ’ s just part of the picture .
The reality is that Twitter , Facebook , Google , and every other social media platform make decisions every day about what kind of political speech is and isn ’ t allowed on their platforms .
Moreover , the algorithms underpinning these platforms dictate which topics go viral and reach the masses instantly , and which ones get seen by a much smaller number of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ main way tens of millions of Americans primarily consume their daily news , what is and isn ’ t allowed on them can of course impact how someone votes in an election .
The fact that Dorsey — as well as Zuckerberg and Pichai — wouldn ’ t admit this basic fact was telling of tech CEOs ’ lack of candor about the political power they ’ ve amassed through their companies .
4 ) Senators suggested tech companies ’ liberal employee majorities are a problem .
But that ’ s neither illegal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police .
First of all , let ’ s be clear that most tech employees at Google , Twitter , and Facebook lean liberal .
That ’ s reflective of the demographics where these companies are based and the skills they hire for : largely college-educated workers in major urban areas like San Francisco , New York , and Seattle .
In Wednesday ’ s hearing , several Republican Senators questioned tech CEOs about the political makeup of their workforce as if there was something shameful about this .
The insinuation is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they as a default are stifling conservative speech .
But as we mentioned earlier , there isn ’ t any real proof of that systematic suppression .
And even if there were , the solution wouldn ’ t necessarily be to mandate that everyone who works for Facebook or Twitter pass some kind of political litmus test .
Congress has a dark history of blacklisting citizens from gainful employment due to their political beliefs .
While it ’ s fair to question the unparalleled political power of tech companies and try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dangerous for lawmakers to misleadingly frame the issues at hand as being connected to employees ’ personal politics .
Senators across the aisle repeatedly butchered the name of Google CEO Sundar Pichai .
The soft-spoken Pichai , who was born and raised in India and worked his way up at the search giant from a product manager to its chief executive , refrained from correcting his questioners .
The fact that members of Congress were mispronouncing the name of one of the most important business leaders in the US was an embarrassing slip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Especially as it was Pichai ’ s third time being questioned in front of Congress .
And while getting Pichai ’ s name right is a less important point in the scope of the broader issues at stake around social media , it ’ s not insignificant , either .
In recent months , Trump and some Republican lawmakers have repeatedly mocked Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris over the pronunciation of her name .
It seems more likely that in this case , senators were botching Pichai ’ s name out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BuzzFeed News pointed out , Congress hasn ’ t had any trouble pronouncing other hard-to-pronounce names in the past .
In the year 2020 , there ’ s really no excuse for elected officials not to at least try and correctly pronounce the name of a global tech titan .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Six days ahead of a historic presidential election whose outcome is expected to shape the future of US democracy and as Congress delays passing a new economic stimulus deal to aid millions of unemployed Americans affected by the ongoing pandemic, the Senate spent more than three hours talking about something else: how social media companies handle controversial speech on the internet.
Wednesday’s hearing was supposed to focus on nuanced reforms to a landmark internet law — Section 230 — which shields tech companies from being sued for content users post on their platforms. Both Democrats and Republicans have been calling for years to reform this law, arguing that it is outdated considering how large and powerful these tech giants have become. That’s why the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation subpoenaed Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to face questioning.
But instead of talking about reforming the actual law, most Republican Senators — with notable exceptions such as Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) — used their time to press the CEOs about specific content moderation decisions that have been controversial with Republicans. Namely, Twitter blocking an unverified story in the New York Post making damning accusations about Hunter Biden earlier this month, or why the company fact-checks Trump more often than Iran’s or the Chinese Communist Party’s leaders.
Some Democrats at the hearing — and many outside observers — have written off the hearing as political theater orchestrated by conservatives days ahead of the election to intimidate these companies so they avoid fact-checking Trump or conservative disinformation campaigns.
But Republicans argued that allegations of bias are critical and valid, and that they need to be swiftly addressed.
Many Senators used assumptions and cherry-picked evidence to try to prove their points. And in response, the tech CEOs effectively skirted more serious discussions about their actual shortcomings in content moderation.
Here are the fact-checks on the five most head-scratching claims senators — and tech CEOs — made at the hearing.
1) Though Republicans say social media companies are broadly censoring conservative speech, the evidence doesn’t support the claim.
Many conservative lawmakers, encouraged by President Trump, have long alleged that tech companies are censoring Republicans on social media. And today’s hearing was no exception.
Citing social media companies’ handling of the Hunter Biden New York Post story, as well as Google’s threats to ban conservative news website the Federalist over allegedly racist content, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) said in his opening remarks: “These recent incidents are only the latest in a long trail of censorship and suppression of conservative voices on the internet.”
While it’s true that Twitter and Facebook have made some controversial and at times questionable decisions to limit false or unverified speech by conservative politicians and news outlets (Twitter reversed its stance on blocking the Hunter Biden story, Facebook did not), these are individual examples.
On the whole, data shows that conservative content thrives on social media. Conservative pundits like Dan Bongino and Ben Shapiro consistently rank among the most shared news sources on Facebook based on the company’s data aggregation tool, CrowdTangle. And despite all the hoopla about Twitter’s alleged censoring of Trump, the president still uses the platform every day to reach tens of millions more followers than Joe Biden does.
In fact, Trump himself has repeatedly stated that, without social media, he wouldn’t be able to “get the word out” to the people.
Republican senators asked why tech companies haven’t fact-checked high-profile Democratic leaders like Biden as much as they have Trump, but they ignored the very obvious answer: that Trump, unlike Biden, has more frequently promoted false and misleading statements on social media. If Biden were to attack mail-in voting or the basic science behind Covid-19, as Trump has, he would likely face the same kind of moderation.
To Republicans’ credit, an underlying tension here is that many people who work at tech companies lean liberal (more on that later). And, back in 2016, Gizmodo reported that those political beliefs sometimes trickled into low-level employee content moderation decisions via the disastrous “Facebook Trending” section. But a lot has changed since then (for one, Facebook has done away with that its trending section entirely). If anything, the evidence now seems to suggest that Facebook has adjusted in the other direction to please Republicans and fend off claims of anti-conservative bias. According to recent reporting from BuzzFeed News, NBC News, and the Wall Street Journal, the company has at times overridden its fact-checking system and tweaked its algorithms to favor conservative publications over liberal ones like Mother Jones.
2) Ted Cruz claimed social media companies are the biggest threat to free speech in the US. That’s not at all clear.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) came in hot to the hearing, announcing his intent to grill Dorsey in a wrestling-match style flyer he (ironically) tweeted out the night before the session, all in the name of defending free speech on the internet.
TOMORROW
10am ET / 9am CT
Livestream will be available here --> https://t.co/Gl9mQQkvd8#StopTheCensorship pic.twitter.com/1Pu9OYFV5v — Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) October 27, 2020
“The three witnesses we have before the committee today collectively pose the single biggest threat to free speech in America and the greatest threat we have to free and fair elections,” Cruz said, speaking about Dorsey, Zuckerberg, and Pichai.
Cruz is entitled to his opinion, of course, but it’s not at all objectively clear that the biggest threat to free speech or election integrity in this country is when Facebook, Twitter, or Google fact-check politicians like Trump.
In fact, if you asked this same question of leading free speech advocates and human rights organizations, many would say a bigger concern is Trump’s sustained and increasingly vitriolic attacks on the free press since his first day in office. If social media companies do pose a threat to free speech, they say, it has less to do with how they handle conservative voices and more do with the extremist hate speech that spreads on their platforms, and which has a chilling effect on women, minorities, and other marginalized groups by shutting them out of online public discourse.
It’s true that social media companies now rival governments in the scope of their power and influence, and free speech defenders of all political persuasions demand that these companies provide more transparency and accountability about what content they do and don’t allow.
But for Cruz and some of his Republican colleagues to support free speech only when it suits their political needs (in an extreme example of this, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) denounced Google for allegedly censoring Republicans while simultaneously calling for the company to fire a rank-and-file employee who publicly criticized her) is a hypocritical one at best.
3) Dorsey told Cruz that Twitter doesn’t impact elections. It does.
Despite Cruz’s largely theatrical political showboating, he did get into one important exchange with Dorsey that highlighted an issue originating with the tech platforms themselves: their refusal to acknowledge that they are more than just neutral platforms.
At one point, Cruz asked Dorsey whether Twitter has influence over the elections, and Dorsey said no.
Cruz retorted, “If you do not believe you have the power to influence elections, why do you block anything?”
Dorsey’s response was that Twitter blocks content to reduce harassment and make everyone feel included on its platform. Facebook and Google have similarly asserted that they aim to be neutral platforms for people to communicate, with exceptions to protect their users from harm. But that’s just part of the picture.
The reality is that Twitter, Facebook, Google, and every other social media platform make decisions every day about what kind of political speech is and isn’t allowed on their platforms. Moreover, the algorithms underpinning these platforms dictate which topics go viral and reach the masses instantly, and which ones get seen by a much smaller number of people. And because these sites are the main way tens of millions of Americans primarily consume their daily news, what is and isn’t allowed on them can of course impact how someone votes in an election.
The fact that Dorsey — as well as Zuckerberg and Pichai — wouldn’t admit this basic fact was telling of tech CEOs’ lack of candor about the political power they’ve amassed through their companies.
4) Senators suggested tech companies’ liberal employee majorities are a problem. But that’s neither illegal nor the government’s job to police.
First of all, let’s be clear that most tech employees at Google, Twitter, and Facebook lean liberal. That’s reflective of the demographics where these companies are based and the skills they hire for: largely college-educated workers in major urban areas like San Francisco, New York, and Seattle.
In Wednesday’s hearing, several Republican Senators questioned tech CEOs about the political makeup of their workforce as if there was something shameful about this.
The insinuation is that because these companies have a liberal-leaning workforce that they as a default are stifling conservative speech.
But as we mentioned earlier, there isn’t any real proof of that systematic suppression. And even if there were, the solution wouldn’t necessarily be to mandate that everyone who works for Facebook or Twitter pass some kind of political litmus test.
Congress has a dark history of blacklisting citizens from gainful employment due to their political beliefs. While it’s fair to question the unparalleled political power of tech companies and try to regulate that problem, it’s dangerous for lawmakers to misleadingly frame the issues at hand as being connected to employees’ personal politics.
5) Senators kept pronouncing Google CEO Sundar Pichai’s name incorrectly. It’s pronounced “Pitch-eye.”
Senators across the aisle repeatedly butchered the name of Google CEO Sundar Pichai. The soft-spoken Pichai, who was born and raised in India and worked his way up at the search giant from a product manager to its chief executive, refrained from correcting his questioners.
The fact that members of Congress were mispronouncing the name of one of the most important business leaders in the US was an embarrassing slip many observers immediately noted on Twitter. Especially as it was Pichai’s third time being questioned in front of Congress.
And while getting Pichai’s name right is a less important point in the scope of the broader issues at stake around social media, it’s not insignificant, either. In recent months, Trump and some Republican lawmakers have repeatedly mocked Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris over the pronunciation of her name. It seems more likely that in this case, senators were botching Pichai’s name out of ignorance rather than malice. But as BuzzFeed News pointed out, Congress hasn’t had any trouble pronouncing other hard-to-pronounce names in the past. In the year 2020, there’s really no excuse for elected officials not to at least try and correctly pronounce the name of a global tech titan.


vox--2020-10-28--The Supreme Court’s latest decision looks like a win for voting rights. It’s really a threat.

The Supreme Court handed down an odd order Wednesday that appears , at least at first glance , to be a victory for voting rights .
The Court ruled that it will not decide — yet — whether to reverse a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision ensuring that many ballots mailed before Election Day but arriving after the election will be counted .
Dig down just a little bit , however , and the order isn ’ t the win for voting rights that it seems to be .
An opinion by Justice Samuel Alito , joined by two other justices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an unknown number of ballots tossed out after next week ’ s election is over .
In other words , the Court may have just rejected the Pennsylvania GOP ’ s latest attempt to throw out mail-in ballots that arrive up to three days after Election Day — but Alito ’ s opinion reserves the right to revisit the case after the votes are counted and the election is close .
What this means for Pennsylvania voters : Do not vote by mail if you still haven ’ t voted .
Vote in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to an elections office or a polling station .
Let ’ s back up a bit and explain how we got here .
In mid-September , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court handed down a decision allowing many ballots that arrive up to three days after Election Day to be counted .
The Pennsylvania Republican Party asked the US Supreme Court to reverse the state Supreme Court ’ s ruling — a highly unusual request because state supreme courts are supposed to have the final word on how to interpret a state ’ s law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar denies this relief to the GOP , but only for the time being .
Though the Court did not explain its order , Alito wrote a brief opinion for himself and Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch , warning that the Republican Party ’ s request to toss those ballots remains live — and that the Supreme Court might still grant the request once the election is over .
“ I reluctantly conclude that there is simply not enough time at this late date to decide the question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his opinion .
Nevertheless , he added that the case “ remains before us ” and could be decided “ under a shortened schedule ” after the election takes place .
The upshot of Alito ’ s opinion : Pennsylvania will conduct its election .
Ballots that arrive before Election Day will most likely be counted .
But ballots that arrive during the three-day window that follows may still be tossed out .
The state Supreme Court decision holding that these ballots will be counted remains in effect , for now .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that decision , requiring those ballots to be tossed out after the election has already happened .
For the time being , the state plans to segregate ballots that arrive during the three-day window so that it knows which ballots to toss out if the Court orders it to do so .
As a practical matter , that means the state Supreme Court ’ s decision is likely to be the final word in this case if the election is not close .
But if the race for Pennsylvania ’ s presidential electors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is close enough that the result could change if the late-arriving ballots are tossed out , the US Supreme Court could very well void those ballots .
Shortly after the Court handed down its order in Republican Party , the Court also handed down a decision in Moore v. Circosta , which denied a similar effort by Republican officials to prevent late-arriving ballots from being counted in North Carolina .
But Moore , like Republican Party , could potentially be revisited after the election .
So it ’ s possible that ballots cast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the election has already happened .
One other thing is worth noting .
Wednesday ’ s order is the second time Republican Party has come before the Court .
Just last week , before Justice Amy Coney Barrett ’ s confirmation to the Supreme Court , Thomas , Alito , Gorsuch , and Justice Brett Kavanaugh all voted to toss out these contested ballots .
Because the Court was deadlocked at 4-4 , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling stood .
The GOP asked the justices to look at the case a second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believed Barrett would give them the fifth vote it needed to prevail .
But Barrett did not participate in the case the second time around , either .
According to a statement from the Court ’ s Public Information Office , “ Justice Barrett did not participate in the consideration of this motion because of the need for a prompt resolution of it and because she has not had time to fully review the parties ’ filings.
” But Barrett does not appear to have recused herself from the case entirely , meaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case comes before the justices again .
The third time could very well be the charm for the GOP .
If the Court considers this case for a third time after the election , Barrett will most likely have enough time to review the filings and decide how she wants to vote — perhaps giving Alito , Gorsuch , Thomas , and Kavanaugh the fifth vote needed to strike down the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ’ s ruling .
That said , one potentially confounding factor is Justice Kavanaugh .
Though Kavanaugh voted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first time Republican Party was before the Court , he did not join Alito ’ s opinion .
So it is possible that Kavanaugh would not order the ballots tossed out after the election has already happened .
Nevertheless , the fact remains that ballots that arrive up to three days after the election could still be tossed out .
Pennsylvania voters who haven ’ t already voted shouldn ’ t feel comfortable mailing their ballot at this late date .
So let me end with a warning for Pennsylvania voters , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure that their ballot is counted : If you have not already cast your ballot , do not send it by mail .
Either go to an in-person polling place and cast your vote there , or fill out your absentee ballot and physically deliver it to a drop box , elections office , or polling station .
( You can check the mail-in ballot rules for your state here . )
The upshot of Wednesday ’ s order in Republican Party is that voters who mail their ballots this close to Election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Supreme Court .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The Supreme Court handed down an odd order Wednesday that appears, at least at first glance, to be a victory for voting rights. The Court ruled that it will not decide — yet — whether to reverse a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision ensuring that many ballots mailed before Election Day but arriving after the election will be counted.
Dig down just a little bit, however, and the order isn’t the win for voting rights that it seems to be. An opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, joined by two other justices, suggests the Court may still order an unknown number of ballots tossed out after next week’s election is over. In other words, the Court may have just rejected the Pennsylvania GOP’s latest attempt to throw out mail-in ballots that arrive up to three days after Election Day — but Alito’s opinion reserves the right to revisit the case after the votes are counted and the election is close.
What this means for Pennsylvania voters: Do not vote by mail if you still haven’t voted. Vote in person, or physically take your ballot to an elections office or a polling station.
Let’s back up a bit and explain how we got here. In mid-September, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court handed down a decision allowing many ballots that arrive up to three days after Election Day to be counted. The Pennsylvania Republican Party asked the US Supreme Court to reverse the state Supreme Court’s ruling — a highly unusual request because state supreme courts are supposed to have the final word on how to interpret a state’s law.
Wednesday’s order in Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar denies this relief to the GOP, but only for the time being. Though the Court did not explain its order, Alito wrote a brief opinion for himself and Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, warning that the Republican Party’s request to toss those ballots remains live — and that the Supreme Court might still grant the request once the election is over.
“I reluctantly conclude that there is simply not enough time at this late date to decide the question before the election,” Alito wrote in his opinion. Nevertheless, he added that the case “remains before us” and could be decided “under a shortened schedule” after the election takes place.
The upshot of Alito’s opinion: Pennsylvania will conduct its election. Ballots that arrive before Election Day will most likely be counted. But ballots that arrive during the three-day window that follows may still be tossed out.
The state Supreme Court decision holding that these ballots will be counted remains in effect, for now. But the US Supreme Court could reverse that decision, requiring those ballots to be tossed out after the election has already happened. For the time being, the state plans to segregate ballots that arrive during the three-day window so that it knows which ballots to toss out if the Court orders it to do so.
As a practical matter, that means the state Supreme Court’s decision is likely to be the final word in this case if the election is not close. But if the race for Pennsylvania’s presidential electors — or perhaps a congressional election — is close enough that the result could change if the late-arriving ballots are tossed out, the US Supreme Court could very well void those ballots.
Shortly after the Court handed down its order in Republican Party, the Court also handed down a decision in Moore v. Circosta, which denied a similar effort by Republican officials to prevent late-arriving ballots from being counted in North Carolina. But Moore, like Republican Party, could potentially be revisited after the election. So it’s possible that ballots cast in North Carolina could also be invalidated after the election takes place.
One other thing is worth noting. Wednesday’s order is the second time Republican Party has come before the Court. Just last week, before Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh all voted to toss out these contested ballots. Because the Court was deadlocked at 4-4, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling stood.
The GOP asked the justices to look at the case a second time, probably because the Republican Party believed Barrett would give them the fifth vote it needed to prevail.
But Barrett did not participate in the case the second time around, either. According to a statement from the Court’s Public Information Office, “Justice Barrett did not participate in the consideration of this motion because of the need for a prompt resolution of it and because she has not had time to fully review the parties’ filings.” But Barrett does not appear to have recused herself from the case entirely, meaning she could still weigh in if the case comes before the justices again.
The third time could very well be the charm for the GOP. If the Court considers this case for a third time after the election, Barrett will most likely have enough time to review the filings and decide how she wants to vote — perhaps giving Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Kavanaugh the fifth vote needed to strike down the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling.
That said, one potentially confounding factor is Justice Kavanaugh. Though Kavanaugh voted to grant the GOP’s request the first time Republican Party was before the Court, he did not join Alito’s opinion. So it is possible that Kavanaugh would not order the ballots tossed out after the election has already happened.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that ballots that arrive up to three days after the election could still be tossed out. Pennsylvania voters who haven’t already voted shouldn’t feel comfortable mailing their ballot at this late date.
So let me end with a warning for Pennsylvania voters, and for voters anywhere who want to be sure that their ballot is counted: If you have not already cast your ballot, do not send it by mail. Either go to an in-person polling place and cast your vote there, or fill out your absentee ballot and physically deliver it to a drop box, elections office, or polling station. (You can check the mail-in ballot rules for your state here.)
The upshot of Wednesday’s order in Republican Party is that voters who mail their ballots this close to Election Day risk having those ballots tossed out by the Supreme Court.
ntribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-10-28--The unmasking of Anonymous, explained

The unmasking of Anonymous, explained

It ’ s October surprise season — but so far , 2020 ’ s surprises have paled in significance to those that roiled the 2016 presidential contest .
And the latest underwhelming reveal is Wednesday ’ s unmasking of “ Anonymous , ” the former Trump administration official who wrote a widely read 2018 New York Times op-ed titled “ I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration , ” as well as a subsequent book .
Contra the expectations of some that the Times provided anonymity to a Cabinet secretary or top White House aide , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a former official at the Department of Homeland Security , who was a high-level aide to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen .
Taylor , who left the administration in 2019 to take a job at Google , had already come forward to condemn Trump publicly .
This August , he starred in a video for the group Republican Voters Against Trump , and began doing media interviews ( while on leave from his Google job ) .
But he only fessed up to being Anonymous this Wednesday , after previously denying it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the revelation that the much-heralded Anonymous was so little-known , suggesting the New York Times overhyped the whole thing .
Now some Trump critics are praising Taylor for coming forward .
Some liberals , meanwhile , are outraged for a different reason : Taylor played a role in the Trump administration ’ s family separation policy , and they see the whole “ Anonymous ” project as a blatantly self-serving attempt to rehabilitate his reputation .
Overall , though , this late revelation is unlikely to do much to affect the election — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What was the “ Anonymous ” op-ed in the New York Times ?
Two years have passed , so it may be hard to remember what a frenzy ensued in September 2018 when the New York Times published the op-ed we now know to be by Taylor .
( According to the New York Times , the op-ed was the most-read story on its site that —year — it trailed only the House and Senate election results pages in traffic , and neither of those is really a “ story.
” ) The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of anonymous sources have been saying since this administration began — that officials often find Trump ’ s management style frustrating , sometimes view his instructions as bizarre , and try to slow-walk them or avoid carrying them out .
However , the argument was framed in a particularly inflammatory way .
The headline declared that the author was “ part of the resistance inside the Trump Administration.
” And Anonymous wrote that he was “ working diligently from within to frustrate parts of [ Trump ’ s ] agenda and his worst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acting “ in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.
” This set off all sorts of conspiracy theorizing on the right about internal saboteurs .
Trump himself tweeted the single word “ TREASON ?
” before questioning whether the Times made the whole thing up .
It also triggered a widespread guessing game , both inside the administration and externally , about who the author might be .
The only identification provided by the Times was that he or she was “ a senior official in the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clues ( one very wrong theory was that since the op-ed used the word “ lodestar , ” and Mike Pence had previously used that word , Pence might be the author ) .
Sleuths in the Trump administration , meanwhile , fingered the wrong culprit , incorrectly blaming former Deputy National Security Adviser Victoria Coates .
But Anonymous — who followed up the op-ed with a book the following year , titled A Warning — remained anonymous until this week , when Miles Taylor stepped forward to admit it was him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ up-and-coming Republican striver ; he scored a series of scholarships and government posts in the decade before he entered the Trump administration .
In 2007 , Taylor took time off from college to work in then-Vice President Dick Cheney ’ s office .
The following year , “ at age 20 , he accepted a position with the Department of Homeland Security , becoming the youngest presidential appointee in the Bush administration , ” according to a release by Indiana University .
Taylor was later named a 2012 Marshall Scholar , and earned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University .
After that , he landed a job as an adviser to the House Homeland Security Committee , then chaired by Rep. Mike McCaul ( R-TX ) .
His future in Republican policymaking appeared bright .
Then Donald Trump won the 2016 election .
So , like many other ambitious young Republicans , Taylor joined the new administration in 2017 — heading back to the Department of Homeland Security , where he started off working for John Kelly as a counselor .
He stayed on at the department through the tenure of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration ’ s policy to separate migrant parents from their children at the US-Mexico border .
Taylor published the now-famed op-ed in the fall of 2018 , and stayed for some of the following year , when he rose to be Nielsen ’ s chief of staff .
Later in 2019 , Taylor then stepped down , took a job at Google , and anonymously published A Warning .
This August , he went on leave from his Google job and stepped into the spotlight to publicly criticize Trump .
He landed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now — two months after denying on CNN that he was Anonymous — he has finally admitted he is Anonymous .
One controversy is over whether Taylor was senior enough to be a “ senior administration official ” Since Taylor came forward , some prominent journalists have questioned the New York Times ’ s decision to grant him anonymity , heavily promote his op-ed , and brand him as a senior administration official .
“ Senior administration official ” is an infamously vague reporting term .
Back in 2005 , Slate ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no hard and fast rules ” among journalists on who counts as senior .
Generally , he said , reporters told him they tried to limit the term to the 20 or so White House aides with the “ assistant to the president ” designation , as well as the top few people in each Cabinet department or agency .
Jim Dao , then the New York Times op-ed editor , wrote in 2018 that “ the term we chose , senior administration official , is used in Washington by both journalists and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upper echelon of an administration , such as the one held by this writer.
” ( Dao was reassigned to the newsroom earlier than this year when his boss , James Bennet , resigned after publishing a controversial op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton . )
I wrote in 2018 that I doubted the Times would identity someone “ totally obscure , ” like a “ deputy assistant secretary in a backwater Cabinet agency ” in this way .
And Taylor isn ’ t that .
He was a top-level policy adviser and operationally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highest-profile Cabinet departments .
But does that make him senior enough to be called a “ senior administration official ” ?
The reality is that the vast majority of such senior officials we see quoted in news stories will go on remaining anonymous — so it ’ s hard to know if Taylor ’ s identification is highly unusual , or whether it ’ s par for the course .
Others are criticizing Taylor for his involvement in family separation policy When the Anonymous op-ed was first published , I argued that two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the text .
First , Anonymous clearly wanted to rehabilitate the reputations of certain Trump administration officials , whom he deemed “ unsung heroes ” working behind the scenes to rein in Trump .
He stressed that some Trump aides “ have been cast as villains by the media , ” despite privately going “ to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained.
” ( Translation : We ’ re not all bad ! )
Second , Anonymous wanted to lay down a marker that he was part of an internal resistance to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the official expects his or her identity to become public at some point , and thinks that one day his or her social or professional interests will be served by being unmasked as the author of the now-famous op-ed .
That is , the person is getting positioned for a post-Trump world , ” I wrote .
Now we have the added information that Taylor was deeply involved in family separation , one of the most toxic Trump administration policies — a policy that first drew national condemnation just months before his op-ed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see why Taylor may have wanted to start work on rehabilitating his reputation .
Here , for instance , is what NBC reporter Jacob Soboroff ( who closely covered family separation ) tweeted Wednesday : In August , Taylor told NBC that he “ should have done more ” to stop family separation at the time .
“ Looking back , I wish I had laid my body on the train tracks and said , ‘ we can not implement this no matter what you guys tell us about resources , ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls suggesting Trump is likely to lose , many critics of his administration are not so eager to welcome former top members of that administration — be they “ senior ” officials or not — back into respectability .

It’s October surprise season — but so far, 2020’s surprises have paled in significance to those that roiled the 2016 presidential contest.
And the latest underwhelming reveal is Wednesday’s unmasking of “Anonymous,” the former Trump administration official who wrote a widely read 2018 New York Times op-ed titled “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration,” as well as a subsequent book.
Contra the expectations of some that the Times provided anonymity to a Cabinet secretary or top White House aide, it turns out Anonymous is Miles Taylor, a former official at the Department of Homeland Security, who was a high-level aide to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.
Taylor, who left the administration in 2019 to take a job at Google, had already come forward to condemn Trump publicly. This August, he starred in a video for the group Republican Voters Against Trump, and began doing media interviews (while on leave from his Google job). But he only fessed up to being Anonymous this Wednesday, after previously denying it.
People from across the political spectrum mocked the revelation that the much-heralded Anonymous was so little-known, suggesting the New York Times overhyped the whole thing. Now some Trump critics are praising Taylor for coming forward. Some liberals, meanwhile, are outraged for a different reason: Taylor played a role in the Trump administration’s family separation policy, and they see the whole “Anonymous” project as a blatantly self-serving attempt to rehabilitate his reputation.
Overall, though, this late revelation is unlikely to do much to affect the election — except for making the president angry.
....associated with this FRAUD on the American people! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 28, 2020
What was the “Anonymous” op-ed in the New York Times?
Two years have passed, so it may be hard to remember what a frenzy ensued in September 2018 when the New York Times published the op-ed we now know to be by Taylor. (According to the New York Times, the op-ed was the most-read story on its site that —year — it trailed only the House and Senate election results pages in traffic, and neither of those is really a “story.”)
The op-ed itself merely confirmed what a plethora of anonymous sources have been saying since this administration began — that officials often find Trump’s management style frustrating, sometimes view his instructions as bizarre, and try to slow-walk them or avoid carrying them out.
However, the argument was framed in a particularly inflammatory way. The headline declared that the author was “part of the resistance inside the Trump Administration.” And Anonymous wrote that he was “working diligently from within to frustrate parts of [Trump’s] agenda and his worst inclinations” — and condemned Trump as acting “in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.”
This set off all sorts of conspiracy theorizing on the right about internal saboteurs. Trump himself tweeted the single word “TREASON?” before questioning whether the Times made the whole thing up.
It also triggered a widespread guessing game, both inside the administration and externally, about who the author might be. The only identification provided by the Times was that he or she was “a senior official in the Trump administration.” Some tried to pinpoint linguistic clues (one very wrong theory was that since the op-ed used the word “lodestar,” and Mike Pence had previously used that word, Pence might be the author). Sleuths in the Trump administration, meanwhile, fingered the wrong culprit, incorrectly blaming former Deputy National Security Adviser Victoria Coates.
But Anonymous — who followed up the op-ed with a book the following year, titled A Warning — remained anonymous until this week, when Miles Taylor stepped forward to admit it was him.
Who is Miles Taylor?
Taylor has the résumé of a respectable up-and-coming Republican striver; he scored a series of scholarships and government posts in the decade before he entered the Trump administration.
In 2007, Taylor took time off from college to work in then-Vice President Dick Cheney’s office. The following year, “at age 20, he accepted a position with the Department of Homeland Security, becoming the youngest presidential appointee in the Bush administration,” according to a release by Indiana University.
Taylor was later named a 2012 Marshall Scholar, and earned a master’s degree at Oxford University. After that, he landed a job as an adviser to the House Homeland Security Committee, then chaired by Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX). His future in Republican policymaking appeared bright.
Then Donald Trump won the 2016 election. So, like many other ambitious young Republicans, Taylor joined the new administration in 2017 — heading back to the Department of Homeland Security, where he started off working for John Kelly as a counselor.
He stayed on at the department through the tenure of Kirstjen Nielsen and the controversies over the administration’s policy to separate migrant parents from their children at the US-Mexico border. Taylor published the now-famed op-ed in the fall of 2018, and stayed for some of the following year, when he rose to be Nielsen’s chief of staff.
Later in 2019, Taylor then stepped down, took a job at Google, and anonymously published A Warning. This August, he went on leave from his Google job and stepped into the spotlight to publicly criticize Trump.
NEW: Testimonial ad from Trump's Former DHS Chief of Staff @MilesTaylorUSA, declaring his support for Joe Biden and describing Trump's presidency as "terrifying" and "actively doing damage to our security."
WATCH & go to https://t.co/Nz2NiSCquN for more. pic.twitter.com/iChqOdIIew — Republican Voters Against Trump (@RVAT2020) August 17, 2020
He landed a gig as a CNN contributor, and now — two months after denying on CNN that he was Anonymous — he has finally admitted he is Anonymous.
“I wear a mask for two things, Anderson: Halloween and pandemics. So, no,” says @MilesTaylorUSA, when asked by @AndersonCooper if he is the author of the op-ed book written by someone called Anonymous. pic.twitter.com/sPjs4OoAnp — CNN Newsroom (@CNNnewsroom) August 21, 2020
Donald Trump is a man without character. It’s why I wrote “A Warning”...and it’s why me & my colleagues have spoken out against him (in our own names) for months. It’s time for everyone to step out of the shadows. My statement: https://t.co/yuhTgZ4bkq — Miles Taylor (@MilesTaylorUSA) October 28, 2020
One controversy is over whether Taylor was senior enough to be a “senior administration official”
Since Taylor came forward, some prominent journalists have questioned the New York Times’s decision to grant him anonymity, heavily promote his op-ed, and brand him as a senior administration official.
I also didn’t realize the definition of “senior administration official” could be *this* expansive. Wasn’t even an agency chief of staff at the time the op-ed ran. — Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) October 28, 2020
The revelation of the identity of “Anonymous” calls into question whether the NYT had ample grounds to allow him to write without identifying him. I figured it had to be someone at cabinet level, at least. — Karen Tumulty (@ktumulty) October 28, 2020
“Senior administration official” is an infamously vague reporting term. Back in 2005, Slate’s Daniel Engber wrote that “there are no hard and fast rules” among journalists on who counts as senior. Generally, he said, reporters told him they tried to limit the term to the 20 or so White House aides with the “assistant to the president” designation, as well as the top few people in each Cabinet department or agency.
Jim Dao, then the New York Times op-ed editor, wrote in 2018 that “the term we chose, senior administration official, is used in Washington by both journalists and government officials to describe positions in the upper echelon of an administration, such as the one held by this writer.” (Dao was reassigned to the newsroom earlier than this year when his boss, James Bennet, resigned after publishing a controversial op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton.)
I wrote in 2018 that I doubted the Times would identity someone “totally obscure,” like a “deputy assistant secretary in a backwater Cabinet agency” in this way. And Taylor isn’t that. He was a top-level policy adviser and operationally important to one of Trump’s highest-profile Cabinet departments.
But does that make him senior enough to be called a “senior administration official”? The reality is that the vast majority of such senior officials we see quoted in news stories will go on remaining anonymous — so it’s hard to know if Taylor’s identification is highly unusual, or whether it’s par for the course.
Others are criticizing Taylor for his involvement in family separation policy
When the Anonymous op-ed was first published, I argued that two motivations for the author shined through in the text.
First, Anonymous clearly wanted to rehabilitate the reputations of certain Trump administration officials, whom he deemed “unsung heroes” working behind the scenes to rein in Trump. He stressed that some Trump aides “have been cast as villains by the media,” despite privately going “to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained.” (Translation: We’re not all bad!)
Second, Anonymous wanted to lay down a marker that he was part of an internal resistance to Trump. “I’d guess the official expects his or her identity to become public at some point, and thinks that one day his or her social or professional interests will be served by being unmasked as the author of the now-famous op-ed. That is, the person is getting positioned for a post-Trump world,” I wrote.
Now we have the added information that Taylor was deeply involved in family separation, one of the most toxic Trump administration policies — a policy that first drew national condemnation just months before his op-ed published. So it’s easy to see why Taylor may have wanted to start work on rehabilitating his reputation. Here, for instance, is what NBC reporter Jacob Soboroff (who closely covered family separation) tweeted Wednesday:
This is the way Miles Taylor talked about family separation LAST WEEK ("It's horrible. But...") when news broke parents of 545 separated kids still cannot be located. He later deleted the tweet. pic.twitter.com/2QW0TpsNVv — Jacob Soboroff (@jacobsoboroff) October 28, 2020
In August, Taylor told NBC that he “should have done more” to stop family separation at the time. “Looking back, I wish I had laid my body on the train tracks and said, ‘we cannot implement this no matter what you guys tell us about resources,’” he said.
But with the polls suggesting Trump is likely to lose, many critics of his administration are not so eager to welcome former top members of that administration — be they “senior” officials or not — back into respectability.