vox--2020-11-10--Social media is making a bad political situation worse

When Eli Pariser coined the term “ filter bubble ” a decade ago , he narrowly defined it to be a situation in which algorithms skew the variety of information we get online in favor of stuff we like .
At the time , he worried that might lead to political polarization through less exposure to divergent viewpoints .
Ten years later , America is in the aftermath of a hyperpartisan presidential election in which people not only disagree with those on the other side , they actively hate them .
Different parties are operating in what seem like different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or at least completely different reactions to those facts .
Social media seems to be making a bad situation worse .
A divided America was on full display as record rates of voters turned out , in part to vote their own guy in but , perhaps more trenchantly , to keep the other guy out .
Biden won by a close 4.6 million votes ( so far ) in an election with an expected turnout of 159 million voters .
Some of the political lessons we learned recently include that conspiracy theories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread faster than real facts on social media — and that if we don ’ t agree on a shared reality , more mundane things like political compromise will remain out of reach .
Filter bubbles are undeniably part of the problem , but their causes , consequences , and solutions seem less clear than they used to be .
Part of the issue is it ’ s often difficult to understand which comes first : a polarized situation or the social media that aggravates that situation .
Rather , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inputs are also the outputs , ” Pariser told Recode recently , describing how our differences are magnified online .
“ Where I live and who my friends are and what media I consume all shape what I see , which then shapes decisions I make about what media I consume and where to live and who to be friends with.
” And by a number of accounts , those inputs are getting more extreme .
We ’ re living at a heightened time of partisanship — and not in the “ we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way .
And those divides have a way of compounding through social media .
Animosity toward members of opposing parties is very high even though our divisions over policy preferences don ’ t appear to have grown , according to new research published in Science magazine .
The paper brings together a number of different studies on the topic and is written by scholars from six disciplines who found that , these days , we ’ re more likely to hate the opposing side and consider them to be “ different , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The result is a “ political sectarianism ” in which one ’ s party identity seems to come first , before policy , religion , or common ground .
Political identity , in turn , shapes our other views instead of the other way around .
For example , after seeing a clip of Donald Trump espousing a liberal policy , followers exhibited a more liberal attitude , according to the paper , which presumes Democrats would do the same for their political leaders .
The results of this kind of alignment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As the researchers argue , “ holding opposing partisans in contempt on the basis of their identity alone precludes innovative cross-party solutions and mutually beneficial compromises.
” Other researchers believe severe inequality puts America at the brink of political violence .
BuzzFeed recently wrote about a so-called “ political stress indicator , ” created in part by a sociologist who previously led the CIA ’ s State Failure Task Force , that incorporates a variety of statistics , including wage stagnation , national debt , inequality , and distrust of government , among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political instability to be in line with the lead-up to the Civil War .
Then there ’ s distrust — encouraged by the president — of facts and journalism organizations , which are necessary to protect democracy .
A series of Pew Research Center polls shows that Republicans rely on and trust fewer news sites for politics than they used to , with Fox News , Trump ’ s mouthpiece and a fount of disinformation , being one of few sources they regularly read and believe .
However , research by Andy Guess @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affairs at Princeton University , looks at web traffic rather than people ’ s survey responses to reveal that there ’ s considerable and consistent overlap in media consumption between the parties , except among a smaller set of extremists .
This suggests many people might be reading the same sources but coming to totally different conclusions .
Wildly divergent interpretations of the same news is a more difficult problem to fix .
Hyperpartisanship , tense societal factors , and divergent news diets — or at least divergent interpretations of the news — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is likely amplifying our divisions .
We don ’ t know exactly how the social media algorithms work that select what information we see because the technology is a black box controlled by the respective social media company that built it .
What we do know is that Facebook has put less of an emphasis on news and more on engagement , and that posts with strong , emotional language have more engagement .
We also know Facebook has continually promoted Groups since 2016 , which can function as their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
YouTube , whose algorithms like other platforms were designed to make people spend more time on the site , has been shown to radicalize people through inflammatory messaging .
Most recently , it has been awash in election misinformation .
“ There ’ s little doubt in my mind that the way our media ecosystem works is enflaming political sectarianism , ” Eli Finkel , one of the authors of the aforementioned Science paper , told Recode .
“ Social media is not focused on making the world a better place ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so it listens to us and gives us what we want.
” We also know that more people are getting their news from social media .
The share of Americans who often get their news from social media grew 10 percentage points to 28 percent last year , according to Pew .
Those who mainly get their news that way were also less informed about current events and more likely to have been exposed to conspiracy theories .
Funnily enough , despite getting so much news from social media , Americans don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about social media platforms is one of few places Republicans and Democrats agree , ” Katerina Eva Matsa , associate director of journalism research at Pew , told Recode .
A new study from the University of Virginia found increased Facebook usage among conservatives is associated with reading more conservative sites than they normally do .
The effect was less dramatic among liberals .
The study ’ s authors conjectured that the way Facebook works might have something to do with this outcome .
In addition to algorithms favoring engagement , the very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to : You have to “ friend ” others to see their posts , meaning you ’ re less likely to see people outside of your real-life friends and family , who are more likely to have similar lives and viewpoints .
Facebook also tweaked its algorithms after the 2016 election to promote posts from friends and family and show far fewer posts from news outlets , which likely further contributed to filter bubbles and division .
“ These platforms at this point are huge , they ’ re mature , they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ability to figure out ahead of time — and certainly monitor afterwards — what kind of impacts all of their algorithmic tweaks are having on users ’ information consumption , ” study co-author Steven L. Johnson told Recode .
Pariser had originally thought filter bubbles could be deflated by exposure to different viewpoints .
But that doesn ’ t appear to be the case .
Research highlighted in the Wall Street Journal suggests that people on social media do see opposing viewpoints .
But since sites like Facebook are calibrated to highlight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re seeing the most acerbic of opposing views , which can lead people to be even more repelled by them .
The result is even more entrenched viewpoints and more polarization .
What to do about it The answer to all this polarization isn ’ t easy .
It likely involves huge structural changes in our society to deal with inequality , investments in public institutions like schools and libraries , as well as serious , truthful , and mediated discussion between people of opposing viewpoints .
It doesn ’ t require more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its current iteration .
“ It ’ s not just a matter of coming into contact with the other side , ” Pariser told Recode about how his conception of filter bubbles has changed since he first coined the term .
“ It ’ s doing so in a way that leads us to greater understanding.
” And the way opposing views are presented on social media is not leading to greater understanding .
Conversations on Facebook and Twitter , for example , happen through text , not voice , which can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work by Berkeley professor Juliana Schroeder that shows conversations through text fail to garner the empathy evoked through hearing someone ’ s voice , making it an unproductive medium for constructive conversations .
“ It ’ s sort of like the ‘ don ’ t have an argument by text with your partner ’ [ rule ] , but for society , ” Pariser said .
Mediating thoughtful in-person conversations , of course , is expensive , and it has been even harder to do during a pandemic , when being face-to-face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dangerous .
But it ’ s more necessary than ever .
Social media companies are constantly tinkering with how their platforms work , so perhaps that ’ s a way forward .
In the lead-up to the election , Twitter and Facebook were able to limit misinformation spread on their platforms much more effectively than they had before , by more actively taking down or marking misinformation and limiting its spread .
But as New York Times tech columnist Kevin Roose pointed out , these platforms did so by mitigating their own major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a choice if the government steps in and forces them to make changes .
They are under increased scrutiny from the government to quash misinformation and to disclose how the information they see might differ from what others see .
And advertisers , social media ’ s main source of revenue , can also choose to vote with their spending .
However we get there , it ’ s high time we deal with how social media has made a bad political situation worse .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editorially independent and produced by our journalists .

When Eli Pariser coined the term “filter bubble” a decade ago, he narrowly defined it to be a situation in which algorithms skew the variety of information we get online in favor of stuff we like. At the time, he worried that might lead to political polarization through less exposure to divergent viewpoints.
Ten years later, America is in the aftermath of a hyperpartisan presidential election in which people not only disagree with those on the other side, they actively hate them. Different parties are operating in what seem like different realities, with different sets of facts or at least completely different reactions to those facts. Social media seems to be making a bad situation worse.
A divided America was on full display as record rates of voters turned out, in part to vote their own guy in but, perhaps more trenchantly, to keep the other guy out. Biden won by a close 4.6 million votes (so far) in an election with an expected turnout of 159 million voters. Some of the political lessons we learned recently include that conspiracy theories have real currency — fake news can spread faster than real facts on social media — and that if we don’t agree on a shared reality, more mundane things like political compromise will remain out of reach.
Filter bubbles are undeniably part of the problem, but their causes, consequences, and solutions seem less clear than they used to be. Part of the issue is it’s often difficult to understand which comes first: a polarized situation or the social media that aggravates that situation. Rather, it’s become a self-reinforcing system.
“The inputs are also the outputs,” Pariser told Recode recently, describing how our differences are magnified online. “Where I live and who my friends are and what media I consume all shape what I see, which then shapes decisions I make about what media I consume and where to live and who to be friends with.”
And by a number of accounts, those inputs are getting more extreme.
The inputs
We’re living at a heightened time of partisanship — and not in the “we have differences of opinion” kind of way. And those divides have a way of compounding through social media.
Animosity toward members of opposing parties is very high even though our divisions over policy preferences don’t appear to have grown, according to new research published in Science magazine. The paper brings together a number of different studies on the topic and is written by scholars from six disciplines who found that, these days, we’re more likely to hate the opposing side and consider them to be “different,” “dislikable,” and “immoral.” The result is a “political sectarianism” in which one’s party identity seems to come first, before policy, religion, or common ground. Political identity, in turn, shapes our other views instead of the other way around. For example, after seeing a clip of Donald Trump espousing a liberal policy, followers exhibited a more liberal attitude, according to the paper, which presumes Democrats would do the same for their political leaders.
The results of this kind of alignment are disastrous for a functioning democracy. As the researchers argue, “holding opposing partisans in contempt on the basis of their identity alone precludes innovative cross-party solutions and mutually beneficial compromises.”
Other researchers believe severe inequality puts America at the brink of political violence. BuzzFeed recently wrote about a so-called “political stress indicator,” created in part by a sociologist who previously led the CIA’s State Failure Task Force, that incorporates a variety of statistics, including wage stagnation, national debt, inequality, and distrust of government, among others. The indicator currently shows American political instability to be in line with the lead-up to the Civil War.
Then there’s distrust — encouraged by the president — of facts and journalism organizations, which are necessary to protect democracy. A series of Pew Research Center polls shows that Republicans rely on and trust fewer news sites for politics than they used to, with Fox News, Trump’s mouthpiece and a fount of disinformation, being one of few sources they regularly read and believe. However, research by Andy Guess, assistant professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University, looks at web traffic rather than people’s survey responses to reveal that there’s considerable and consistent overlap in media consumption between the parties, except among a smaller set of extremists. This suggests many people might be reading the same sources but coming to totally different conclusions. Wildly divergent interpretations of the same news is a more difficult problem to fix.
The outputs
Hyperpartisanship, tense societal factors, and divergent news diets — or at least divergent interpretations of the news — are then fed back through social media, which is likely amplifying our divisions. We don’t know exactly how the social media algorithms work that select what information we see because the technology is a black box controlled by the respective social media company that built it.
What we do know is that Facebook has put less of an emphasis on news and more on engagement, and that posts with strong, emotional language have more engagement. We also know Facebook has continually promoted Groups since 2016, which can function as their own echo chambers, even without algorithmic help. YouTube, whose algorithms like other platforms were designed to make people spend more time on the site, has been shown to radicalize people through inflammatory messaging. Most recently, it has been awash in election misinformation.
“There’s little doubt in my mind that the way our media ecosystem works is enflaming political sectarianism,” Eli Finkel, one of the authors of the aforementioned Science paper, told Recode. “Social media is not focused on making the world a better place; it’s primarily focused on engagement, so it listens to us and gives us what we want.”
We also know that more people are getting their news from social media. The share of Americans who often get their news from social media grew 10 percentage points to 28 percent last year, according to Pew. Those who mainly get their news that way were also less informed about current events and more likely to have been exposed to conspiracy theories.
Funnily enough, despite getting so much news from social media, Americans don’t trust it.
“Distrust about social media platforms is one of few places Republicans and Democrats agree,” Katerina Eva Matsa, associate director of journalism research at Pew, told Recode.
A new study from the University of Virginia found increased Facebook usage among conservatives is associated with reading more conservative sites than they normally do. The effect was less dramatic among liberals.
The study’s authors conjectured that the way Facebook works might have something to do with this outcome. In addition to algorithms favoring engagement, the very structure of Facebook limits who we talk to: You have to “friend” others to see their posts, meaning you’re less likely to see people outside of your real-life friends and family, who are more likely to have similar lives and viewpoints. Facebook also tweaked its algorithms after the 2016 election to promote posts from friends and family and show far fewer posts from news outlets, which likely further contributed to filter bubbles and division.
“These platforms at this point are huge, they’re mature, they have all sorts of resources, all sorts of ability to figure out ahead of time — and certainly monitor afterwards — what kind of impacts all of their algorithmic tweaks are having on users’ information consumption,” study co-author Steven L. Johnson told Recode.
Pariser had originally thought filter bubbles could be deflated by exposure to different viewpoints. But that doesn’t appear to be the case.
Research highlighted in the Wall Street Journal suggests that people on social media do see opposing viewpoints. But since sites like Facebook are calibrated to highlight posts that elicit reactions, we’re seeing the most acerbic of opposing views, which can lead people to be even more repelled by them. The result is even more entrenched viewpoints and more polarization.
What to do about it
The answer to all this polarization isn’t easy. It likely involves huge structural changes in our society to deal with inequality, investments in public institutions like schools and libraries, as well as serious, truthful, and mediated discussion between people of opposing viewpoints.
It doesn’t require more social media — at least not in its current iteration.
“It’s not just a matter of coming into contact with the other side,” Pariser told Recode about how his conception of filter bubbles has changed since he first coined the term. “It’s doing so in a way that leads us to greater understanding.”
And the way opposing views are presented on social media is not leading to greater understanding. Conversations on Facebook and Twitter, for example, happen through text, not voice, which can be another impediment to understanding. Pariser pointed to work by Berkeley professor Juliana Schroeder that shows conversations through text fail to garner the empathy evoked through hearing someone’s voice, making it an unproductive medium for constructive conversations.
“It’s sort of like the ‘don’t have an argument by text with your partner’ [rule], but for society,” Pariser said.
Mediating thoughtful in-person conversations, of course, is expensive, and it has been even harder to do during a pandemic, when being face-to-face with people outside your household is actually dangerous.
But it’s more necessary than ever.
Social media companies are constantly tinkering with how their platforms work, so perhaps that’s a way forward. In the lead-up to the election, Twitter and Facebook were able to limit misinformation spread on their platforms much more effectively than they had before, by more actively taking down or marking misinformation and limiting its spread. But as New York Times tech columnist Kevin Roose pointed out, these platforms did so by mitigating their own major features.
Social media companies may not have a choice if the government steps in and forces them to make changes. They are under increased scrutiny from the government to quash misinformation and to disclose how the information they see might differ from what others see. And advertisers, social media’s main source of revenue, can also choose to vote with their spending.
However we get there, it’s high time we deal with how social media has made a bad political situation worse.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-11-10--What Joe Biden won — and what he didn’t

What Joe Biden won — and what he didn’t

Former Vice President Joe Biden will be the 46th US president .
He ’ s the first to defeat an incumbent president in 28 years , and he did it in part by unifying the Democratic Party against Donald Trump , bringing members of the party ’ s left wing into his campaign after beating Bernie Sanders in the primary , and crafting an aggressive policy platform .
But Biden ’ s agenda will most likely be met by a Republican-controlled Senate , whose leader , Mitch McConnell , presided over the stonewalling of the previous Democratic president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again .
This despite the fact that many of Biden ’ s policies enjoy the support of most Americans , and McConnell ’ s Senate caucus represents a minority of them .
In other words , Biden ’ s decisive victory margin of several million votes was basically good enough for a stalemate .
In this video , Vox editor-at-large Ezra Klein explains what makes that possible — a Republican Party dedicated to making sure a minority controls the country — and how Joe Biden ’ s first priority should be moving the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Read more about the Biden presidency from Vox : • Dylan Matthews on what President Biden will be up against • Ian Millhiser on who the US Senate actually represents You can find this video and all of Vox ’ s videos on YouTube .
And if you ’ re interested in supporting our video journalism , you can become a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube .

Former Vice President Joe Biden will be the 46th US president. He’s the first to defeat an incumbent president in 28 years, and he did it in part by unifying the Democratic Party against Donald Trump, bringing members of the party’s left wing into his campaign after beating Bernie Sanders in the primary, and crafting an aggressive policy platform.
But Biden’s agenda will most likely be met by a Republican-controlled Senate, whose leader, Mitch McConnell, presided over the stonewalling of the previous Democratic president’s agenda and likely intends to do so again. This despite the fact that many of Biden’s policies enjoy the support of most Americans, and McConnell’s Senate caucus represents a minority of them.
In other words, Biden’s decisive victory margin of several million votes was basically good enough for a stalemate. In this video, Vox editor-at-large Ezra Klein explains what makes that possible — a Republican Party dedicated to making sure a minority controls the country — and how Joe Biden’s first priority should be moving the country from minoritarian rule to democracy.
Read more about the Biden presidency from Vox:
Ezra Klein on how Biden won
Dylan Matthews on what President Biden will be up against
Ian Millhiser on who the US Senate actually represents
You can find this video and all of Vox’s videos on YouTube. And if you’re interested in supporting our video journalism, you can become a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube.


vox--2020-11-11--What happened in Georgia: 6 Black women organizers on a historic election

That ’ s Georgia nonprofit leader Deborah Scott ’ s reaction to this year ’ s election , where massive Democratic turnout looks to have flipped the state to a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time since 1992 .
“ We ’ ve been trying to get here for the last 15 years , ” the executive director of Georgia Stand-Up , a group that works on civic engagement and other issues , told Vox .
“ I ’ m so happy that we ’ re at this moment.
” It ’ s a moment many Democrats are celebrating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state heads for a recount .
And around the country , millions of Americans are paying attention — finally — to organizers in Georgia , many of them Black women , who have spent years trying to get people to the polls .
Many say it ’ s been an uphill battle against restrictions designed to keep Black voters away .
That battle got nationwide attention in 2018 after Democrat Stacey Abrams narrowly lost the gubernatorial election to Republican Brian Kemp , the secretary of state who had presided over purges that eliminated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ’ s voting rolls between 2012 and 2016 .
Abrams went on to found a voting rights group called Fair Fight , whose nonprofit arm sued the state in November 2018 , arguing that its election policies disproportionately impacted — and even disenfranchised — Black and other voters of color in the state , as P.R .
Lockhart reported for Vox at the time .
That suit is still ongoing , and with Fair Fight also working on voter registration and other grassroots activism in Georgia , Abrams has been getting a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But organizers ( including Abrams herself ) say it has been a team effort among larger organizations like Fair Fight and Black Voters Matter and local groups knocking on doors , texting voters , and providing rides to the polls .
“ The biggest factor was the network , ” Amber Bell , program director at the Southwest Georgia Project for Community Education , told Vox .
Vox spoke to six organizers active in the state to learn about the work that led up to this election — and that continues with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tip the Senate to Democrats .
They have lessons for both parties when it comes to the role of grassroots organizing in winning elections , the importance of talking to people in person ( even during a pandemic ) , and the need for politicians to make Black voters a priority — and not just right before the election .
As Scott put it , “ Do not take Black women for granted.
” What they do : Describing itself as a “ think and act tank for working communities , ” Georgia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and other issues as well as voter engagement , mostly in Black and other communities of color .
How they got out the vote : When the pandemic began , Georgia Stand-Up initially moved its voter registration drives online .
But when mutual aid groups began coming together to help people get food and other necessities , the group saw an opportunity : “ If people were already going to leave their house and go to these places , we should be there to make sure they ’ re registered to vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stand-Up started doing registration at food giveaway and Covid-19 testing events , and even hosting some food giveaways of its own .
The protests this summer were an opportunity , too .
When they went out to march for racial justice , members of Stand-Up wore T-shirts with QR codes for voter registration printed on the back .
“ Even as we ’ re marching and protesting , it ’ s like , do you want power ?
This is how you get it , ” Scott said .
Georgia Stand-Up also made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year — and to help people stay in sometimes-long early voting lines .
They dispatched vans to polling places around the state , loaded with everything from food to hand sanitizer to rain ponchos , part of a program started in 2009 called Voter Care .
They even hosted outdoor parties at polling locations with DJs and street performers .
“ We just tried to make the experience of staying in line and working for your democracy a fun process versus a dreaded process , ” Scott said .
For the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be urging people to vote early again ; they can do so in person starting December 14 , while absentee ballots will be mailed starting November 18 .
The group also operated a 70-person phone bank , half calling from home and half working from a socially distanced office , during the general election , and plans to spin it up again for the runoff .
“ Our campaign will be geared toward ‘ the democracy is not there until you finish the job , ’ ” Scott said .
Their lessons for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knew that Georgia could flip , ” Scott said .
What ’ s more , “ this is a tipping point for the rest of the South , ” which is changing swiftly as younger Black people move to the region , she explained .
But when it comes to reaching voters in this rapidly changing state in future elections , parties and campaigns need to trust Black women organizers , Scott said .
“ We tend to be the base of what ’ s happening in the community.
” That includes listening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the role of in-person outreach .
“ Everything can ’ t be online for us because there ’ s a certain level of our population that does not respond there , ” Scott said .
Overall , it ’ s about “ making sure people really listen to the wisdom that we have because we ’ ve lived it.
” What they do : The Working Families Party is a progressive political party , running candidates who support causes like fair wages and criminal justice reform .
How they shaped the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recruits , trains , and endorses candidates not just with a progressive agenda but with a “ people-powered ” approach to governance in mind , Whaley said .
“ When we get people elected , they ’ re people who come from our communities , they ’ re highly accountable , they ’ re grassroots leaders , and we know that the conversation changes from , ‘ Do you deserve $ 15 an hour and a union ?
’ to , ‘ How can we make this happen ?
’ ” Whaley said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began working with many of its candidates back in February .
And it ’ s not just about nationwide or even statewide races .
In Georgia , the party endorsed candidates like Dr. Tarece Johnson , who won a seat on the Gwinnett County School Board , where four out of the five previous members were white .
And while school board races don ’ t usually get national attention , they ’ re crucial for causes like getting police out of schools and ending the criminalization of children of color , Whaley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are intertwined.
” Their lessons for 2021 and beyond : While changing demographics matter , a big part of Democrats ’ success in Georgia this year was about the long-term work of organizers on the ground , Whaley said .
And it ’ s not just about groups like the Working Families Party that work directly on elections .
Activists in the Movement for Black Lives , the Sunrise Movement , the Rising Majority , and smaller mutual aid and other organizations around the state “ aren ’ t captured in this story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably desire to be , but they are definitely informing how we move in electoral politics , ” Whaley said .
For the future , Whaley says parties and candidates need to invest in Black communities over the long term .
Today , candidates often come into these communities to campaign right before an election — “ and then there ’ s nothing , ” Whaley said .
“ It ’ s like radio silence after Election Day.
” Instead , campaigns need to invest the same kind of energy they ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes of white rural voters , Whaley said .
“ You need to be looking at Black voters and people of color and saying , ‘ We need to make sure we excite them — give them something to vote for.
’ ” Overall , Whaley is hopeful for the future but emphasizes the work remaining to be done .
“ We beat fascism , we beat Trumpism , and we ’ re going to get these two Senate seats , ” she said .
But , “ 2020 is just the start.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1998 , the Georgia Coalition for the People ’ s Agenda ( GCPA ) aims to improve governance through civic participation , using voter registration , education campaigns , and more .
How they shaped the election in Georgia : Like other groups in the state , GCPA works on voter registration , and has registered more than 50,000 people to vote over the last few years , Butler said .
But one thing that ’ s unique about GCPA is its weekly Tuesday afternoon meetings , open to the public , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their communities .
This year , many of those meetings took the form of Zoom candidate forums , where Georgians — anywhere from 50 to 100 each week — could ask questions of people running for state and local office .
“ We don ’ t tell people who to vote for or anything like that , but we bring these people before them so that they can make informed decisions , ” Butler said .
The group has also been involved in challenging voter suppression tactics in Georgia , filing suit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registration policy in the state that many said disproportionately impacted voters of color .
Georgia ultimately rolled back the policy , but fighting such efforts takes up a lot of organizers ’ time and energy , Butler said .
“ You take away your resources , whereas I could be doing something else.
” Their lessons for 2021 and beyond : Groups like GCPA help drive turnout in Georgia because they connect elections to people ’ s daily lives .
Voters might see commercials slamming Trump , for example , but they don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fix problems that matter to them .
A winning campaign is “ not about an individual , it ’ s about your everyday life and how that public policy will drive what you do in life , ” Butler said .
And the lesson for everyone from Georgia ’ s showing this year is that “ we have to meet people where they are , ” Butler said .
“ We can ’ t always meet them through the airwaves ; we have to sometimes touch , we have to feel.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interest in the people , ” Butler said .
“ The people is what makes the United States.
” What they do : Black Voters Matter is a nationwide group established in 2016 to build Black political power and the capacity of Black-led organizations .
How they shaped the election in Georgia : The group works with more than 40 grassroots groups in the state , providing funding and coordination for get-out-the-vote efforts .
That includes helping smaller groups purchase voter data files for text- and phone-banking , which can cost thousands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ giving them access to the tools , the technology , and the training , so they can actually build power as they see fit in their communities , ” Brown said .
Their lessons for 2021 and beyond : At Black Voters Matter , “ We have always been saying that the South is not red , the South has been underinvested , ” Brown said .
“ If you actually take the time to invest resources in the South , ” she explained , “ you can get a return.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ gains in Georgia , one key takeaway is the importance of on-the-ground work , not just TV ads , Brown said .
Another : “ Make the campaign about the people , not about you.
” The work of Black Voters Matter isn ’ t about getting people to follow some messianic leader , she said .
Like the GCPA ’ s Butler , she believes it ’ s about “ getting people to believe in their own power.
” What they do : The Southwest Georgia Project for Community Education works @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farmers , and civic engagement in southwest Georgia , a heavily rural part of the state .
How they shaped the election in Georgia : The group always does grassroots organizing and voter canvassing , but this year , with help from larger groups like Fair Fight , Black Voters Matter , and the Working Families Party , they were able to take their activities to a new level , Bell said .
“ If we felt like a voter had been intimidated or that something was going on , we were able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were a network of attorneys , a network of organizers , and a network of supporters that could offer their support.
” Their lessons for 2021 and beyond : All the cooperation paid off , Bell said .
“ When people work together and their end goal is all the same , the results are more effective.
” In particular , groups working in Georgia had learned from previous elections about the barriers that keep marginalized people from voting , whether it ’ s long lines or lack of a ride to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put systems in place to make sure they could vote this election , ” Bell said .
The runoffs in January will be a harder task because turnout typically decreases in runoffs .
But the Southwest Georgia Project and others are already at work getting out the vote in that election , Bell said : “ We never took a break.
” What they do : A statewide coalition , ProGeorgia helps more than 30 grassroots groups around the state — including the GCPA , as well as groups like the Georgia AFL-CIO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work together on voter registration and issue organizing .
How they shaped the election in Georgia : Founded in 2012 , ProGeorgia has helped register more than 100,000 voters — more than 83,000 in 2016 , more than 50,000 in 2018 , and more than 20,000 this year , despite the pandemic , Atkins said .
One of the group ’ s main strategies is helping its grassroots partner organizations embed voter registration into their everyday work — such as English classes or help with citizenship issues — for years .
Making get-out-the-vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more effective because it ’ s not “ transactional , ” Atkins said .
“ It is a natural outgrowth of the conversations and the relationship-building that you ’ re already doing.
” After the pandemic began , ProGeorgia sent its partner organizations what it calls “ civic care packages ” full of masks , cellphones , tablets , and even laptops — everything they needed to continue registering voters online .
“ We don ’ t want anyone to have barriers to voter engagement , ” Atkins said .
Their lessons for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biggest lessons of 2020 is “ you can not expect national entities , DC-based organizations , to do real , authentic work in states , ” Brown said .
That means campaigns need to get comfortable with “ trusting the leadership in states to really know what they need to engage their voters.
” And now that Biden and others are thanking Black women voters for delivering the election for Democrats , they also need to look to Black and other women of color when it ’ s time to make key appointments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And that administration needs to prioritize issues that matter to Black women , from health care to the minimum wage .
“ When Black women thrive , so does the rest of the country , ” Atkins said .
“ This can be looked at as a selfish investment .
”

“Finally!”
That’s Georgia nonprofit leader Deborah Scott’s reaction to this year’s election, where massive Democratic turnout looks to have flipped the state to a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time since 1992.
“We’ve been trying to get here for the last 15 years,” the executive director of Georgia Stand-Up, a group that works on civic engagement and other issues, told Vox. “I’m so happy that we’re at this moment.”
It’s a moment many Democrats are celebrating — and analyzing — even as the state heads for a recount. And around the country, millions of Americans are paying attention — finally — to organizers in Georgia, many of them Black women, who have spent years trying to get people to the polls.
Many say it’s been an uphill battle against restrictions designed to keep Black voters away. That battle got nationwide attention in 2018 after Democrat Stacey Abrams narrowly lost the gubernatorial election to Republican Brian Kemp, the secretary of state who had presided over purges that eliminated more than a million people from the state’s voting rolls between 2012 and 2016.
Abrams went on to found a voting rights group called Fair Fight, whose nonprofit arm sued the state in November 2018, arguing that its election policies disproportionately impacted — and even disenfranchised — Black and other voters of color in the state, as P.R. Lockhart reported for Vox at the time.
That suit is still ongoing, and with Fair Fight also working on voter registration and other grassroots activism in Georgia, Abrams has been getting a lot of credit for the 2020 results. But organizers (including Abrams herself) say it has been a team effort among larger organizations like Fair Fight and Black Voters Matter and local groups knocking on doors, texting voters, and providing rides to the polls. “The biggest factor was the network,” Amber Bell, program director at the Southwest Georgia Project for Community Education, told Vox.
Vox spoke to six organizers active in the state to learn about the work that led up to this election — and that continues with two runoff races in January that could tip the Senate to Democrats. They have lessons for both parties when it comes to the role of grassroots organizing in winning elections, the importance of talking to people in person (even during a pandemic), and the need for politicians to make Black voters a priority — and not just right before the election. As Scott put it, “Do not take Black women for granted.”
Deborah Scott, executive director, Georgia Stand-Up
What they do:
Describing itself as a “think and act tank for working communities,” Georgia Stand-Up works on transit, affordable housing, and other issues as well as voter engagement, mostly in Black and other communities of color.
How they got out the vote:
When the pandemic began, Georgia Stand-Up initially moved its voter registration drives online. But when mutual aid groups began coming together to help people get food and other necessities, the group saw an opportunity: “If people were already going to leave their house and go to these places, we should be there to make sure they’re registered to vote as well,” Scott said. Stand-Up started doing registration at food giveaway and Covid-19 testing events, and even hosting some food giveaways of its own.
The protests this summer were an opportunity, too. When they went out to march for racial justice, members of Stand-Up wore T-shirts with QR codes for voter registration printed on the back. “Even as we’re marching and protesting, it’s like, do you want power? This is how you get it,” Scott said.
Georgia Stand-Up also made a big push to encourage early voting this year — and to help people stay in sometimes-long early voting lines. They dispatched vans to polling places around the state, loaded with everything from food to hand sanitizer to rain ponchos, part of a program started in 2009 called Voter Care. They even hosted outdoor parties at polling locations with DJs and street performers. “We just tried to make the experience of staying in line and working for your democracy a fun process versus a dreaded process,” Scott said.
For the Senate runoff elections in January, Stand-Up will be urging people to vote early again; they can do so in person starting December 14, while absentee ballots will be mailed starting November 18. The group also operated a 70-person phone bank, half calling from home and half working from a socially distanced office, during the general election, and plans to spin it up again for the runoff. “Our campaign will be geared toward ‘the democracy is not there until you finish the job,’” Scott said.
Their lessons for 2021 and beyond:
“We always knew that Georgia could flip,” Scott said. What’s more, “this is a tipping point for the rest of the South,” which is changing swiftly as younger Black people move to the region, she explained.
But when it comes to reaching voters in this rapidly changing state in future elections, parties and campaigns need to trust Black women organizers, Scott said. “We tend to be the base of what’s happening in the community.”
That includes listening to organizers on matters of strategy, like the role of in-person outreach. “Everything can’t be online for us because there’s a certain level of our population that does not respond there,” Scott said. Overall, it’s about “making sure people really listen to the wisdom that we have because we’ve lived it.”
Britney Whaley, senior political strategist, Working Families Party
What they do:
The Working Families Party is a progressive political party, running candidates who support causes like fair wages and criminal justice reform.
How they shaped the election in Georgia:
The Working Families Party recruits, trains, and endorses candidates not just with a progressive agenda but with a “people-powered” approach to governance in mind, Whaley said. “When we get people elected, they’re people who come from our communities, they’re highly accountable, they’re grassroots leaders, and we know that the conversation changes from, ‘Do you deserve $15 an hour and a union?’ to, ‘How can we make this happen?’” Whaley said.
This election cycle, the party began working with many of its candidates back in February. And it’s not just about nationwide or even statewide races. In Georgia, the party endorsed candidates like Dr. Tarece Johnson, who won a seat on the Gwinnett County School Board, where four out of the five previous members were white. And while school board races don’t usually get national attention, they’re crucial for causes like getting police out of schools and ending the criminalization of children of color, Whaley said. “All of these things are intertwined.”
Their lessons for 2021 and beyond:
While changing demographics matter, a big part of Democrats’ success in Georgia this year was about the long-term work of organizers on the ground, Whaley said.
And it’s not just about groups like the Working Families Party that work directly on elections. Activists in the Movement for Black Lives, the Sunrise Movement, the Rising Majority, and smaller mutual aid and other organizations around the state “aren’t captured in this story of electoral politics, nor do they probably desire to be, but they are definitely informing how we move in electoral politics,” Whaley said.
For the future, Whaley says parties and candidates need to invest in Black communities over the long term. Today, candidates often come into these communities to campaign right before an election — “and then there’s nothing,” Whaley said. “It’s like radio silence after Election Day.”
Instead, campaigns need to invest the same kind of energy they’ve spent trying to understand and court the votes of white rural voters, Whaley said. “You need to be looking at Black voters and people of color and saying, ‘We need to make sure we excite them — give them something to vote for.’”
Overall, Whaley is hopeful for the future but emphasizes the work remaining to be done. “We beat fascism, we beat Trumpism, and we’re going to get these two Senate seats,” she said. But, “2020 is just the start.”
Helen Butler, executive director, Georgia Coalition for the People’s Agenda
What they do:
Founded in 1998, the Georgia Coalition for the People’s Agenda (GCPA) aims to improve governance through civic participation, using voter registration, education campaigns, and more.
How they shaped the election in Georgia:
Like other groups in the state, GCPA works on voter registration, and has registered more than 50,000 people to vote over the last few years, Butler said.
But one thing that’s unique about GCPA is its weekly Tuesday afternoon meetings, open to the public, where attendees talk about strategy and important issues in their communities. This year, many of those meetings took the form of Zoom candidate forums, where Georgians — anywhere from 50 to 100 each week — could ask questions of people running for state and local office. “We don’t tell people who to vote for or anything like that, but we bring these people before them so that they can make informed decisions,” Butler said.
The group has also been involved in challenging voter suppression tactics in Georgia, filing suit in 2018 to challenge a restrictive voter registration policy in the state that many said disproportionately impacted voters of color. Georgia ultimately rolled back the policy, but fighting such efforts takes up a lot of organizers’ time and energy, Butler said. “You take away your resources, whereas I could be doing something else.”
Their lessons for 2021 and beyond:
Groups like GCPA help drive turnout in Georgia because they connect elections to people’s daily lives. Voters might see commercials slamming Trump, for example, but they don’t explain how Democrats are going to fix problems that matter to them. A winning campaign is “not about an individual, it’s about your everyday life and how that public policy will drive what you do in life,” Butler said.
And the lesson for everyone from Georgia’s showing this year is that “we have to meet people where they are,” Butler said. “We can’t always meet them through the airwaves; we have to sometimes touch, we have to feel.”
The bottom line: “Just show an interest in the people,” Butler said. “The people is what makes the United States.”
LaTosha Brown, co-founder, Black Voters Matter
What they do:
Black Voters Matter is a nationwide group established in 2016 to build Black political power and the capacity of Black-led organizations.
How they shaped the election in Georgia:
The group works with more than 40 grassroots groups in the state, providing funding and coordination for get-out-the-vote efforts. That includes helping smaller groups purchase voter data files for text- and phone-banking, which can cost thousands of dollars. It’s about “giving them access to the tools, the technology, and the training, so they can actually build power as they see fit in their communities,” Brown said.
Their lessons for 2021 and beyond:
At Black Voters Matter, “We have always been saying that the South is not red, the South has been underinvested,” Brown said. “If you actually take the time to invest resources in the South,” she explained, “you can get a return.”
For campaigns hoping to build on Democrats’ gains in Georgia, one key takeaway is the importance of on-the-ground work, not just TV ads, Brown said. Another: “Make the campaign about the people, not about you.” The work of Black Voters Matter isn’t about getting people to follow some messianic leader, she said. Like the GCPA’s Butler, she believes it’s about “getting people to believe in their own power.”
Amber Bell, program director, Southwest Georgia Project for Community Education
What they do:
The Southwest Georgia Project for Community Education works on food security, issues facing family farmers, and civic engagement in southwest Georgia, a heavily rural part of the state.
How they shaped the election in Georgia:
The group always does grassroots organizing and voter canvassing, but this year, with help from larger groups like Fair Fight, Black Voters Matter, and the Working Families Party, they were able to take their activities to a new level, Bell said. “If we felt like a voter had been intimidated or that something was going on, we were able to pick up the phone and there were a network of attorneys, a network of organizers, and a network of supporters that could offer their support.”
Their lessons for 2021 and beyond:
All the cooperation paid off, Bell said. “When people work together and their end goal is all the same, the results are more effective.”
In particular, groups working in Georgia had learned from previous elections about the barriers that keep marginalized people from voting, whether it’s long lines or lack of a ride to the polls. “We learned lessons and put systems in place to make sure they could vote this election,” Bell said.
The runoffs in January will be a harder task because turnout typically decreases in runoffs. But the Southwest Georgia Project and others are already at work getting out the vote in that election, Bell said: “We never took a break.”
Tamieka Atkins, executive director, ProGeorgia
What they do:
A statewide coalition, ProGeorgia helps more than 30 grassroots groups around the state — including the GCPA, as well as groups like the Georgia AFL-CIO and the Georgia Association of Educators — work together on voter registration and issue organizing.
How they shaped the election in Georgia:
Founded in 2012, ProGeorgia has helped register more than 100,000 voters — more than 83,000 in 2016, more than 50,000 in 2018, and more than 20,000 this year, despite the pandemic, Atkins said. One of the group’s main strategies is helping its grassroots partner organizations embed voter registration into their everyday work — such as English classes or help with citizenship issues — for years. Making get-out-the-vote efforts part of larger community work is more effective because it’s not “transactional,” Atkins said. “It is a natural outgrowth of the conversations and the relationship-building that you’re already doing.”
After the pandemic began, ProGeorgia sent its partner organizations what it calls “civic care packages” full of masks, cellphones, tablets, and even laptops — everything they needed to continue registering voters online. “We don’t want anyone to have barriers to voter engagement,” Atkins said.
Their lessons for 2021 and beyond:
One of the biggest lessons of 2020 is “you cannot expect national entities, DC-based organizations, to do real, authentic work in states,” Brown said. That means campaigns need to get comfortable with “trusting the leadership in states to really know what they need to engage their voters.”
And now that Biden and others are thanking Black women voters for delivering the election for Democrats, they also need to look to Black and other women of color when it’s time to make key appointments in the new administration, Atkins said. And that administration needs to prioritize issues that matter to Black women, from health care to the minimum wage.
“When Black women thrive, so does the rest of the country,” Atkins said. “This can be looked at as a selfish investment.”


vox--2020-11-11--Alaska Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan wins a second term

Sen. Dan Sullivan , a reliable if somewhat low-profile conservative , has won a second term in the US Senate .
Sullivan spent the Trump presidency as a loyal Republican , voting in line with President Trump ’ s position 91.5 percent of the time , according to FiveThirtyEight .
That means Sullivan backed Trump ’ s view more often than high-profile conservatives like Sens .
Chuck Grassley ( IA ) , Marco Rubio ( FL ) , and Tom Cotton ( AR ) .
Polls showed a competitive race between Sullivan and his opponent Al Gross , and this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a microcosm of Alaska ’ s idiosyncratic politics .
Gross was the Democratic Party ’ s nominee , but he identifies as an independent .
He supports many Democratic positions , such as expanding Obamacare and preventing foreign governments from tampering in US elections .
But he also describes himself as a “ very strong proponent of the Second Amendment ” and says that he supports “ tight immigration policy.
” Though Alaska is a conservative state that typically elects Republicans to statewide offices , more moderate politicians sometimes rise to power by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and even the occasional Republican .
The Alaska state House , for example , is controlled by a multiparty coalition that chose state Rep. Bryce Edgmon as speaker .
Edgmon is a former Democrat who declared himself independent as he took over leadership of a coalition that includes Democrats , Republicans , and independents .
Similarly , in 2010 , Republicans nominated Joe Miller , an unusually extreme candidate who claimed the United States should “ transition out of the Social Security arrangement , ” for the United States Senate — snubbing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process .
But Murkowski ran as a write-in candidate and defeated Miller .
Though Murkowski is far to the right of any Democratic senator , she ’ s broken with her party on a few key votes , including a vote to preserve Obamacare in 2017 .
Ultimately , however , Alaska ’ s voters opted for the more conservative option as their senator .
After largely siding with Trump for most of his career in the Senate , Sullivan will get a second term .

Sen. Dan Sullivan, a reliable if somewhat low-profile conservative, has won a second term in the US Senate. Sullivan spent the Trump presidency as a loyal Republican, voting in line with President Trump’s position 91.5 percent of the time, according to FiveThirtyEight.
That means Sullivan backed Trump’s view more often than high-profile conservatives like Sens. Chuck Grassley (IA), Marco Rubio (FL), and Tom Cotton (AR).
Polls showed a competitive race between Sullivan and his opponent Al Gross, and this race was, in many ways, a microcosm of Alaska’s idiosyncratic politics. Gross was the Democratic Party’s nominee, but he identifies as an independent. He supports many Democratic positions, such as expanding Obamacare and preventing foreign governments from tampering in US elections. But he also describes himself as a “very strong proponent of the Second Amendment” and says that he supports “tight immigration policy.”
Though Alaska is a conservative state that typically elects Republicans to statewide offices, more moderate politicians sometimes rise to power by assembling unusual coalitions of Democrats, independents, and even the occasional Republican.
The Alaska state House, for example, is controlled by a multiparty coalition that chose state Rep. Bryce Edgmon as speaker. Edgmon is a former Democrat who declared himself independent as he took over leadership of a coalition that includes Democrats, Republicans, and independents.
Similarly, in 2010, Republicans nominated Joe Miller, an unusually extreme candidate who claimed the United States should “transition out of the Social Security arrangement,” for the United States Senate — snubbing incumbent Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the process. But Murkowski ran as a write-in candidate and defeated Miller.
Though Murkowski is far to the right of any Democratic senator, she’s broken with her party on a few key votes, including a vote to preserve Obamacare in 2017.
Ultimately, however, Alaska’s voters opted for the more conservative option as their senator. After largely siding with Trump for most of his career in the Senate, Sullivan will get a second term.


vox--2020-11-11--Trump’s attempt to overturn the election result is ramping up. Here’s what comes next.

President Trump is refusing to concede the election .
Most Republican senators , including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , won ’ t yet acknowledge that president-elect Joe Biden won .
And Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Tuesday there will be a “ smooth transition to a second Trump administration ” ( though perhaps he was joking ) .
So , you may be wondering ... what ’ s going to happen ?
With GOP politicians ’ rhetoric all over the place , it ’ s useful to focus on concrete matters .
Two things will happen over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ formalities , but in a disputed election will be crucial .
First , states will certify their election results — December 8 is the deadline set by federal law , but most states have set earlier deadlines .
Second , once state results are certified , the Electoral College will cast the votes that will officially choose the next president , on December 14 .
Both of these processes are currently on track to make Biden the next president .
And despite all the sound and fury , nothing happening yet appears likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process .
That could change , however .
The dangerous scenario would be if some combination of Republican state officials , Republican legislators , and Republican-appointed judges attempts to block the certification of results in key states Biden won , or to replace Biden electors with Trump electors — likely citing assertions that the election results were plagued by some type of fraud .
But up to this point , Trump ’ s lawsuits have had little success .
Republican state officials involved in the counts have insisted they ’ ve found no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plans among GOP state legislators to change the outcome .
To assess whether Trump ’ s ploy to overturn the election results is successful , keep an eye on whether any of these change in the coming weeks .
Currently , Biden leads by about 146,000 votes in Michigan , 48,000 votes in Pennsylvania , 36,000 votes in Nevada , 20,000 votes in Wisconsin , 14,000 votes in Georgia , and 12,000 votes in Arizona .
( All of these states , except Georgia and Arizona , have been called for Biden by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For Trump to get 270 electoral votes , he would have to change the outcome in at least three of those states — a very tall order .
Counting is still continuing , but it ’ s nearly done in all of these states .
In some of these states , there could be recounts .
For a much closer election in only one state , it would be possible that a recount could change the outcome .
But recounts typically don ’ t change the initial tally much .
Out of more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the most an initial vote count has changed after the recount was 1,247 votes ( that ’ s the 2000 Florida presidential election ) .
So don ’ t expect recounts to save Trump when he ’ s down by 12,000 or more votes in all these states .
Certifications and electors are the two crucial next steps Once the counting ( and in some cases recounting ) is completed , the next step is for these state officials to officially certify these vote totals — and then , officially appoint the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( the people who make up the Electoral College and cast the votes that choose the next president ) .
Republicans who have been sympathetic toward Trump ’ s refusal to concede , such as McConnell , have pointed to these two processes — certifications and electors — as a deadline of sorts for challenges .
“ At some point here we will find out finally who was certified in each of these states and the Electoral College will determine the winner , ” McConnell said Tuesday .
So for Trump to overturn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have to prevent at least three of the six key swing states — Michigan , Wisconsin , Pennsylvania , Nevada , Arizona , and Georgia — from certifying their results showing Biden winning and/or appointing Biden electors .
State officials appear unlikely to go along If the law and the facts were all that mattered , Trump ’ s prospects for blocking the certification of results or the appointing of electors would be nil .
But one question is whether Trump can harness the power of raw partisan politics to make it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election is fraudulent , and getting various Republican legislators , state officials , or GOP-appointed judges to fall in line .
As far as certifications are concerned , the early signs have not been encouraging for Trump .
The only Republican secretary of state in any of the six key swing states is Brad Raffensperger of Georgia , and he has pushed back against assertions that voter fraud changed the outcome : In Arizona , though Republicans control the state government , Democrat Katie Hobbs , the elected secretary of state , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s elections .
“ We have no irregularities , we have no fraud , ” Hobbs said last week .
Pennsylvania and Nevada have Democratic secretaries of state as well .
In Wisconsin and Michigan , bipartisan boards are in charge of certifications .
All four states have Democratic governors .
None of them are going to go along with Trump ’ s baseless claims that the election was stolen .
Accordingly , the Trump campaign has also been filing a flurry of lawsuits in state and federal court attempting to challenge the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
None have been particularly successful , but it ’ s possible that some will land before conservative judges who will find reasons to side with the Trump campaign .
And of course , the last stop of any federal lawsuit is the Supreme Court .
There are also Republican legislators and GOP-appointed judges Though Democrats control most key state offices in the six key swing states Biden won , there ’ s a catch — Republicans control the state legislatures in five of them ( Michigan , Wisconsin , Pennsylvania , Arizona @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican legislators try and overturn their state ’ s results by appointing Trump ’ s electors , rather than Biden ’ s ?
Wisconsin state Rep. Joe Sanfelippo ( R ) , has already endorsed this idea .
“ You either have to toss this election out and have a whole new election , or we have our delegates to the Electoral College vote for the person they think legitimately should have won , ” he said this week .
Sanfelippo is not just a random back-bencher — he ’ s on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ R ) has told to investigate the election .
( Though Vos himself said Tuesday he doesn ’ t expect the investigation to change the outcome in Wisconsin . )
Meanwhile , Pennsylvania ’ s Republican Senate majority leader , Jake Corman , has long claimed that the state legislature plays no role in selecting electors .
But in recent days he has begun to hedge that statement somewhat , saying this would be the case “ in normal circumstances.
” ( “ Pressure has begun mounting on Corman and other GOP state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the results of the race , ” Politico ’ s Holly Otterbein reported Tuesday . )
Yet in both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin , there is a process codified in state law for choosing electors , and it gives the legislature no part .
( As Corman wrote just last month , “ Pennsylvania law plainly says that the state ’ s electors are chosen only by the popular vote of the commonwealth ’ s voters.
” ) Furthermore , both states have Democratic governors , so the legislatures can ’ t pass a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact .
But there may be one more catch .
Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh recently embraced a legal theory that , in Gorsuch ’ s words , “ state legislatures — not federal judges , not state judges , not state governors , not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules.
” If three other Supreme Court justices agree with this line of thinking , they could potentially grant partisan state legislatures far more leeway to do what they want with elections , without having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , secretaries of states , or elections boards .
And if those partisan state legislatures want to appoint electors who will give Trump a second term — well , maybe the Supreme Court will let them do it .
Watch the certifications , the state legislatures , and the courts To recap : A scenario for Trump overturning the election ’ s outcome is for Republican legislatures in multiple states to go around their governors and defy their state laws by appointing Trump ’ s electors rather than Biden ’ s , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then agree with the legislators .
It ’ s a far-fetched scenario .
Biden appears to have secure leads in too many states for this to work out .
But it ’ s difficult to outright declare it won ’ t happen .
Partisanship can be a powerful thing , and Trump is trying to make “ the election was stolen ” the standard Republican position .
If Republican voters believe him , and demand their representatives take action , then it will become harder for state legislators to explain why they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So to get an idea of what may happen in the coming weeks , watch the state certifications , the state legislators , and the progress of the Trump campaign ’ s various lawsuits .
If the certification process and the elector appointment process remain on track , the rhetoric from Trump ’ s allies will be just that : empty rhetoric .
But if we start to see certifications being delayed by the courts , or state legislators preparing serious efforts to appoint their own electors , then an attempt to steal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking off .

President Trump is refusing to concede the election. Most Republican senators, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, won’t yet acknowledge that president-elect Joe Biden won. And Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Tuesday there will be a “smooth transition to a second Trump administration” (though perhaps he was joking).
So, you may be wondering ... what’s going to happen?
With GOP politicians’ rhetoric all over the place, it’s useful to focus on concrete matters. Two things will happen over the next five weeks that ordinarily would be formalities, but in a disputed election will be crucial.
First, states will certify their election results — December 8 is the target date set in federal law, but most states have set earlier deadlines. Second, once state results are certified, the Electoral College will cast the votes that will officially choose the next president, on December 14.
Both of these processes are currently on track to make Biden the next president. And despite all the sound and fury, nothing happening yet appears likely to get in the way of either process.
That could change, however. The dangerous scenario would be if some combination of Republican state officials, Republican legislators, and Republican-appointed judges attempts to block the certification of results in key states Biden won, or to replace Biden electors with Trump electors — likely citing assertions that the election results were plagued by some type of fraud.
But up to this point, Trump’s lawsuits have had little success. Republican state officials involved in the counts have insisted they’ve found no fraud, and there are no solid plans among GOP state legislators to change the outcome. To assess whether Trump’s ploy to overturn the election results is successful, keep an eye on whether any of these change in the coming weeks.
The state of things
Currently, Biden leads by about 146,000 votes in Michigan, 48,000 votes in Pennsylvania, 36,000 votes in Nevada, 20,000 votes in Wisconsin, 14,000 votes in Georgia, and 12,000 votes in Arizona. (All of these states, except Georgia and Arizona, have been called for Biden by every major election analyst desk.)
For Trump to get 270 electoral votes, he would have to change the outcome in at least three of those states — a very tall order. Counting is still continuing, but it’s nearly done in all of these states.
In some of these states, there could be recounts. For a much closer election in only one state, it would be possible that a recount could change the outcome. But recounts typically don’t change the initial tally much. Out of more than two dozen statewide recounts since 2000, the most an initial vote count has changed after the recount was 1,247 votes (that’s the 2000 Florida presidential election). So don’t expect recounts to save Trump when he’s down by 12,000 or more votes in all these states.
Certifications and electors are the two crucial next steps
Once the counting (and in some cases recounting) is completed, the next step is for these state officials to officially certify these vote totals — and then, officially appoint the winner’s chosen slate of electors (the people who make up the Electoral College and cast the votes that choose the next president).
Republicans who have been sympathetic toward Trump’s refusal to concede, such as McConnell, have pointed to these two processes — certifications and electors — as a deadline of sorts for challenges.
“At some point here we will find out finally who was certified in each of these states and the Electoral College will determine the winner,” McConnell said Tuesday.
So for Trump to overturn the results of the election, he would have to prevent at least three of the six key swing states — Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia — from certifying their results showing Biden winning and/or appointing Biden electors.
State officials appear unlikely to go along
If the law and the facts were all that mattered, Trump’s prospects for blocking the certification of results or the appointing of electors would be nil.
But one question is whether Trump can harness the power of raw partisan politics to make it happen anyway, by asserting that the election is fraudulent, and getting various Republican legislators, state officials, or GOP-appointed judges to fall in line.
As far as certifications are concerned, the early signs have not been encouraging for Trump. One Republican secretary of state in a key swing state is Brad Raffensperger of Georgia, and he has pushed back against assertions that voter fraud changed the outcome:
"Was there illegal voting? I am sure there was. And my office is investigating all of it. Does it rise to the numbers or margin necessary to change the outcome to where President Trump is given Georgia’s electoral votes? That is unlikely," Raffensperger added.
2/3 — Brendan Keefe (@BrendanKeefe) November 9, 2020
In Arizona, though Republicans control the state government, Democrat Katie Hobbs, the elected secretary of state, is in charge of certifying the state’s elections. “We have no irregularities, we have no fraud,” Hobbs said last week. Nevada has a Republican secretary of state, but Biden has a lead of nearly 3 percentage points there, which looks safe.
Pennsylvania has a Democratic secretary of state as well. In Wisconsin and Michigan, bipartisan boards are in charge of certifications. All four states have Democratic governors. None of them are going to go along with Trump’s baseless claims that the election was stolen.
Accordingly, the Trump campaign has also been filing a flurry of lawsuits in state and federal court attempting to challenge the outcomes and delay state certifications of results. None have been particularly successful, but it’s possible that some will land before conservative judges who will find reasons to side with the Trump campaign. And of course, the last stop of any federal lawsuit is the Supreme Court.
There are also Republican legislators and GOP-appointed judges
Though Democrats control most key state offices in the six key swing states Biden won, there’s a catch — Republicans control the state legislatures in five of them (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia). Might these Republican legislators try and overturn their state’s results by appointing Trump’s electors, rather than Biden’s?
Wisconsin state Rep. Joe Sanfelippo (R), has already endorsed this idea. “You either have to toss this election out and have a whole new election, or we have our delegates to the Electoral College vote for the person they think legitimately should have won,” he said this week. Sanfelippo is on the committee that Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) has told to investigate the election. (Though Vos himself said Tuesday he doesn’t expect the investigation to change the outcome in Wisconsin.)
Meanwhile, Pennsylvania’s Republican Senate majority leader, Jake Corman, has long claimed that the state legislature plays no role in selecting electors. But in recent days he has begun to hedge that statement somewhat, saying this would be the case “in normal circumstances.” (“Pressure has begun mounting on Corman and other GOP state leaders to reverse course and somehow overturn the results of the race,” Politico’s Holly Otterbein reported Tuesday.)
Yet in both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, there is a process codified in state law for choosing electors, and it gives the legislature no part. (As Corman wrote just last month, “Pennsylvania law plainly says that the state’s electors are chosen only by the popular vote of the commonwealth’s voters.”) Furthermore, both states have Democratic governors, so the legislatures can’t pass a new law changing these rules after the fact.
But there may be one more catch. Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh recently embraced a legal theory that, in Gorsuch’s words, “state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules.”
If three other Supreme Court justices agree with this line of thinking, they could potentially grant partisan state legislatures far more leeway to do what they want with elections, without having to worry about governor's’ vetoes, secretaries of states, or elections boards. And if those partisan state legislatures want to appoint electors who will give Trump a second term — well, maybe the Supreme Court will let them do it.
Watch the certifications, the state legislatures, and the courts
To recap: A scenario for Trump overturning the election’s outcome is for Republican legislatures in multiple states to go around their governors and defy their state laws by appointing Trump’s electors rather than Biden’s, and for the conservative Supreme Court justices to then agree with the legislators.
It’s a far-fetched scenario. Biden appears to have secure leads in too many states for this to work out.
But it’s difficult to outright declare it won’t happen. Partisanship can be a powerful thing, and Trump is trying to make “the election was stolen” the standard Republican position. If Republican voters believe him, and demand their representatives take action, then it will become harder for state legislators to explain why they’re not doing anything about it.
So to get an idea of what may happen in the coming weeks, watch the state certifications, the state legislators, and the progress of the Trump campaign’s various lawsuits.
If the certification process and the elector appointment process remain on track, the rhetoric from Trump’s allies will be just that: empty rhetoric. But if we start to see certifications being delayed by the courts, or state legislators preparing serious efforts to appoint their own electors, then an attempt to steal the election from Biden could really be taking off.