vox--2020-09-26--Trump says he won’t commit to leaving office if he loses the election because of a “ballot scam”

President Donald Trump ’ s reelection campaign is looking less like a run for office and more like an operation to justify disputing the election result in the event Trump loses in November .
At a rally in Newport News , Virginia , on Friday night , Trump again refused to say whether he would peacefully transition out of the White House if he loses the presidential election this November , suggesting he would only do so if he was convinced Democrats and their presidential nominee , Joe Biden , did not cheat .
“ We ’ ve got ta @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re scamming us .
And then they say , ‘ He doesn ’ t want to turn over [ power ] .
’ Of course I do .
But it ’ s got ta be a fair election , ” Trump told the rally crowd .
This scam — which does not exist — became apparent , Trump told his audience , “ when they ’ re losing ballots all over the place , when they ’ re losing ballots that just happen to be Trump ballots.
” This was an apparent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which nine mail-in ballots were found discarded in the trash in Luzerne County , Pennsylvania , at least seven of which were cast for the president .
While the Justice Department and FBI have opened investigations into the incident , there ’ s no initial evidence of malfeasance , either locally or nationally .
This has created the appearance of a politically motivated investigation , as Vox ’ s Andrew Prokop explained : If there are reports of issues with ballots , the Justice Department should naturally investigate .
But the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bolster President Trump ’ s baseless claims that mail voting is deeply flawed — when [ US attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania David ] Freed ’ s actual findings have so far revealed no such thing .
The first public indications that something was up came when Trump himself told a Fox host in a radio interview that “ Trump ballots ” in “ a trash can ” were found in “ a certain state , ” and when White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany mentioned at a press briefing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found in Pennsylvania.
” Then Freed released his first statement on the matter .
The brief , vague statement said he could confirm that “ a small number of military ballots ” — nine — were “ discarded.
” It didn ’ t explain how or why , or whether there was intentional malfeasance .
But the statement made sure to point out that “ all nine ballots were cast for presidential candidate Donald Trump.
” ( This statement turned out to be wrong .
Freed corrected it to say that seven of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other two were resealed and their candidate preference is unknown . )
Local county election officials have blamed the discarded ballots on a seasonal temporary contractor who was dismissed over the incident .
Nevertheless , Trump tried to use the incident to bolster his claim that the election is rigged against him , potentially setting the stage for a legal dispute over the eventual result .
“ We ’ re not going to lose this , except if they cheat .
That ’ s the way I look at it , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t let them cheat because our country at stake .
These people will destroy our country [ and ] we can ’ t let this happen .
...
The Democrats know better than all of us what ’ s going to happen.
” Trump has intensified existing concerns he won ’ t leave office if he loses in November The president ’ s remarks Friday took comments he made on a transition of power at a Thursday press conference a step further .
“ Win , lose , or draw in this election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a peaceful transferral of power after the election ?
” Trump was asked during a press conference by Brian Karem , the White House reporter for Playboy .
“ We ’ re gon na have to see what happens , ” Trump said in response .
“ We want to get rid of the ballots , and we ’ ll have a very peaceful — there won ’ t be a transfer , frankly .
There ’ ll be a continuation.
” Friday , the president made clear what he will be waiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do want a very friendly transition .
But we don ’ t want to be cheated , and be stupid , and say , ‘ Oh , let ’ s transiti — ’ Well , we ’ ll go and we ’ ll do a transition , and we know that there were thousands and thousands of ballots that made the difference through cheating .
We ’ re not going to stand for it.
” For some time , the president has been unwilling to commit to leaving office as presidents have for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cooperate with the democratic process have long been a pattern of his presidency .
In July , the president also refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power in a Fox News interview with Chris Wallace .
On Twitter , and in speeches , the president has highlighted memes about running for office every four years for the next several decades .
He has also said he deserves extra time in office beyond the constitutionally allowed eight years due to the investigations he faced .
The president has written such statements off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take on a more serious tenor when taken alongside his remarks on transferring power , seeming more like a genuine threat to American democracy .
Trump ’ s antics were followed Saturday by his nomination of federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court , to fill the seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
Barrett is his third Supreme Court nomination in three years , and he has suggested he believes the new justice will ensure the court issues rulings favorable to him should it take up any election-related @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given national polls have consistently showed him to be running behind Biden .
If the president is to lose the election — particularly if the loss is by a narrow margin — it appears he may be willing to grasp at any straw to justify calling the loss into question .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 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 understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign is looking less like a run for office and more like an operation to justify disputing the election result in the event Trump loses in November.
At a rally in Newport News, Virginia, on Friday night, Trump again refused to say whether he would peacefully transition out of the White House if he loses the presidential election this November, suggesting he would only do so if he was convinced Democrats and their presidential nominee, Joe Biden, did not cheat.
“We’ve gotta watch this ballot scam, because they’re scamming us. And then they say, ‘He doesn’t want to turn over [power].’ Of course I do. But it’s gotta be a fair election,” Trump told the rally crowd.
"We've gotta watch this ballot scam, because they're scamming us. And then they say, 'he doesn't want to turn over [power].' Of course I do. But it's gotta be a fair election." -- Trump pic.twitter.com/4DCQEKKszc — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 26, 2020
This scam — which does not exist — became apparent, Trump told his audience, “when they’re losing ballots all over the place, when they’re losing ballots that just happen to be Trump ballots.”
This was an apparent reference to an incident earlier this week in which nine mail-in ballots were found discarded in the trash in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, at least seven of which were cast for the president. While the Justice Department and FBI have opened investigations into the incident, there’s no initial evidence of malfeasance, either locally or nationally. This has created the appearance of a politically motivated investigation, as Vox’s Andrew Prokop explained:
If there are reports of issues with ballots, the Justice Department should naturally investigate. But the way this information was dribbled out seemed designed to bolster President Trump’s baseless claims that mail voting is deeply flawed — when [US attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania David] Freed’s actual findings have so far revealed no such thing. The first public indications that something was up came when Trump himself told a Fox host in a radio interview that “Trump ballots” in “a trash can” were found in “a certain state,” and when White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany mentioned at a press briefing that “ballots for the president were found in Pennsylvania.” Then Freed released his first statement on the matter. The brief, vague statement said he could confirm that “a small number of military ballots” — nine — were “discarded.” It didn’t explain how or why, or whether there was intentional malfeasance. But the statement made sure to point out that “all nine ballots were cast for presidential candidate Donald Trump.” (This statement turned out to be wrong. Freed corrected it to say that seven of the nine were cast for Trump, the other two were resealed and their candidate preference is unknown.)
Local county election officials have blamed the discarded ballots on a seasonal temporary contractor who was dismissed over the incident.
Nevertheless, Trump tried to use the incident to bolster his claim that the election is rigged against him, potentially setting the stage for a legal dispute over the eventual result.
“We’re not going to lose this, except if they cheat. That’s the way I look at it,” Trump said. “We can’t let them cheat because our country at stake. These people will destroy our country [and] we can’t let this happen. ... The Democrats know better than all of us what’s going to happen.”
Trump has intensified existing concerns he won’t leave office if he loses in November
The president’s remarks Friday took comments he made on a transition of power at a Thursday press conference a step further. “Win, lose, or draw in this election, will you commit here today for a peaceful transferral of power after the election?” Trump was asked during a press conference by Brian Karem, the White House reporter for Playboy.
“We’re gonna have to see what happens,” Trump said in response. “We want to get rid of the ballots, and we’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There’ll be a continuation.”
Q: Will you commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election?
TRUMP: "We're gonna have to see what happens." pic.twitter.com/Dzj7Q9ZJqv — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 23, 2020
Friday, the president made clear what he will be waiting to see, saying, “We do want a very friendly transition. But we don’t want to be cheated, and be stupid, and say, ‘Oh, let’s transiti —’ Well, we’ll go and we’ll do a transition, and we know that there were thousands and thousands of ballots that made the difference through cheating. We’re not going to stand for it.”
For some time, the president has been unwilling to commit to leaving office as presidents have for centuries. And his authoritarian refusals to cooperate with the democratic process have long been a pattern of his presidency.
In July, the president also refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power in a Fox News interview with Chris Wallace.
TRUMP: "I think mail-in voting is going to rig the election."
WALLACE: "Are you suggesting that you might not accept the results?"
TRUMP: "I have to see."
WALLACE: "Can you give a direct answer that you will accept the election?
TRUMP: "I have to see." pic.twitter.com/mPDPLY9vsr — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 19, 2020
On Twitter, and in speeches, the president has highlighted memes about running for office every four years for the next several decades. He has also said he deserves extra time in office beyond the constitutionally allowed eight years due to the investigations he faced. The president has written such statements off as “jokes,” but they take on a more serious tenor when taken alongside his remarks on transferring power, seeming more like a genuine threat to American democracy.
Trump’s antics were followed Saturday by his nomination of federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, to fill the seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Barrett is his third Supreme Court nomination in three years, and he has suggested he believes the new justice will ensure the court issues rulings favorable to him should it take up any election-related lawsuits.
"We need 9 justices. You need that. With the unsolicited millions of ballots that they're sending ... you're gonna need 9 justices." -- Trump suggests he's counting on SCOTUS to have his back when he makes claims of election fraud following November's election pic.twitter.com/Ju8ShMe8MN — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 22, 2020
All this becomes more concerning given national polls have consistently showed him to be running behind Biden. If the president is to lose the election — particularly if the loss is by a narrow margin — it appears he may be willing to grasp at any straw to justify calling the loss into question.


vox--2020-09-26--Amy Coney Barrett has a years-long record of ruling against immigrants

Judge Amy Coney Barrett , President Donald Trump ’ s nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court , has at times proved an obstacle to the advancement of immigrant rights during her three years on the Seventh Circuit .
As an appellate court judge , Barrett helped to advance one of Trump ’ s key immigration policies .
She sided with his administration in a case over Trump ’ s policy imposing a wealth test on the millions of immigrants who seek to come to the US annually .
In her whopping 40-page dissent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why the US has the right to block people who it deems likely to become dependent on public assistance in the future — even if they have never used public assistance in the past .
She has also repeatedly refused to review cases brought by immigrants applying for humanitarian protections and other immigration benefits who claimed they had been wrongfully denied .
Some of those decisions may have negative repercussions for future such applicants ; given that they set a precedent to be followed by judges in lower courts , these refusals could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an adverse decision from a consular officer on their visa application or obtain deportation relief from an immigration judge .
But her rulings haven ’ t always led to adverse outcomes for immigrants .
In one case , she actually prevented the Trump administration from ending a policy that allows immigration judges to indefinitely close deportation cases in which the immigrant doesn ’ t appear to be a priority for enforcement , giving them a chance to live in the US without fear of deportation .
With Barrett ’ s mixed record — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal bench — it ’ s difficult to predict how she would rule on immigration cases before the Supreme Court if she is confirmed , as expected .
The Supreme Court has upheld some of Trump ’ s signature immigration policies , including his travel ban policy .
But it has also thwarted him at key moments : It has temporarily prevented him from ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program , which has allowed more than 700,000 young unauthorized immigrants to live and work in the US , and blocked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2020 census , which experts said would depress response rates in immigrant communities .
In those rulings against Trump , Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court ’ s liberals and cast deciding votes .
It ’ s not clear whether Barrett would play a similar role — or if she would tip the scales in favor of conservatives on high-profile immigration cases going forward .
One such case challenging Trump ’ s policy to exclude unauthorized immigrants from census population counts that will be used to redraw congressional districts in 2021 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end of the year .
Here are some of the key immigration decisions Barrett has issued so far : She sided with Trump on one of his key immigration policies : the public charge rule .
Perhaps Barrett ’ s most pivotal immigration ruling was her dissent in the case Cook County v. Wolf , in which the Seventh Circuit temporarily prevented the Trump administration from implementing its so-called “ public charge ” rule that created barriers to low-income immigrants seeking to enter the US .
Published last year by the Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a test to determine whether an immigrant applying to enter the US , extend their visa , or convert their temporary immigration status into a green card is likely to end up relying on public benefits in the future .
The rule has given immigration officials more leeway to turn away those who are “ likely to be a public charge ” based on an evaluation of 20 factors , ranging from the use of certain public benefits programs — including food stamps , Section 8 housing vouchers , and Medicaid — to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump ’ s biggest blows to legal immigration so far .
In June , a majority of the Seventh Circuit voted to strike down the rule , arguing that it “ set [ s ] a trap for the unwary by penalizing people for accepting benefits Congress made available to them.
” In her 40-page dissent , Barrett said she would have upheld the rule , arguing that those challenging it had set forth an exceedingly narrow definition of what it means to be a “ public charge ” that isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also argued that the court should adopt the administration ’ s definition of “ public charge ” under the doctrine of Chevron deference , which mandates that judges defer to government agencies ’ interpretation of federal law .
“ Congress ’ s willingness to authorize funds to help immigrants who encounter unexpected trouble is perfectly consistent with its reluctance to admit immigrants whose need for help is predictable upon arrival , ” she wrote in her dissent .
The rule went into effect again earlier this month following another federal court ruling .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ cards nationwide and at consulates abroad , as well as those applying for temporary visas overseas such as tourists , business travelers , students , and skilled workers .
The administration hasn ’ t released detailed data on how many people have been affected by the rule .
But Julia Gelatt , a senior policy analyst at the nonpartisan think tank Migration Policy Institute , told Vox that 69 percent of the roughly 5.5 million people who were granted green cards over the past five years would have had at least one negative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could have used as justification to reject their applications for immigration benefits .
She thwarted Trump ’ s attempt to end a key tool to grant relief to immigrants facing deportation Former US Attorney Jeff Sessions had tried to revoke a little-known , but key tool that allows immigration judges to make determinations about which immigrants should be prioritized for deportation .
That tool , known as “ administrative closure , ” allows judges to put deportation proceedings on hold indefinitely for people who already applied for immigration benefits with another government agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a noncitizen who overstayed their visa but is married to a US citizen who applied for a green card with US Citizenship Immigration Services on their behalf .
Sessions had tried to severely limit the circumstances under which immigration judges can administratively close a case , which had the effect of preventing people in deportation proceedings from getting the immigration benefits to which they were entitled .
But in June , Barrett argued in the Seventh Circuit ’ s opinion in the case Meza Morales v. Barr that Sessions ’ decision to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immigration judges to “ take any action ... that is appropriate and necessary ” to complete their cases .
“ [ A ] n immigration judge might sometimes conclude , in exercising the discretion granted by [ federal regulation ] , that it is appropriate and necessary to dispose of a case through administrative closure , ” she wrote .
“ Moreover , cases must be disposed of fairly , and granting a noncitizen the opportunity to pursue relief to which she is entitled may be appropriate and necessary for a fair disposition.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to review a Salvadoran citizen ’ s petition for humanitarian protection in the US , which had been dismissed by immigration judges who didn ’ t find him to be a credible witness .
Gerson Alvarenga-Flores had testified that he fled El Salvador after witnessing his friend ’ s murder at the hands of criminal gang members , who consequently threatened him .
After he was apprehended at the border and detained , he claimed that he feared returning to his home country and applied for several forms of humanitarian protection , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Torture .
The immigration judge in his case found inconsistencies in Alvarenga ’ s testimony describing two separate incidents : He claimed that he had been attacked by gang members while in a taxi and , on another occasion , said he was approached by them on a bus .
Alvarenga explained that he gave the testimony in English , even though he does not speak English , which could have led to the confusion .
But the judge nevertheless concluded that his account of being targeted by gangs wasn ’ t credible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have deserved humanitarian protection .
Writing an opinion on behalf of a panel of Seventh Circuit judges , Barrett deferred to the immigration judge , agreeing that Alvarenga was unable to provide an adequate explanation for the discrepancies in his account .
“ These two encounters with gang members were crucial to Alvarenga ’ s claim that gang members were likely to torture him if he returned to El Salvador , yet he could not keep the facts straight with respect to either one , ” she wrote .
She ruled against a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visa denial In January 2019 , Barrett refused to reconsider a case brought by a naturalized US citizen , Moshin Yafai , whose wife , Zahoor Ahmed , a citizen of Yemen , was twice denied a green card .
The consular officer had denied Ahmed ’ s green card on the grounds that she allegedly tried to smuggle her two children across the border , even though Ahmed and her husband had provided documentation to the embassy that their children had died in a drowning accident .
Writing the Seventh Circuit ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the consular officer nevertheless did not appear to act in bad faith and even asked for more information , “ suggest [ ing ] a desire to get it right.
” That meant her court couldn ’ t review the consular officer ’ s decision , she said .
The ruling could make it harder for visa applicants to challenge arbitrary denials down the line .
Generally , courts can ’ t review the decisions of consular officers , who interview applicants for immigration benefits and decide whether or not to approve their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a narrow exception in the law that allows a US citizen to challenge a consular officer ’ s decision if it infringes on one of their constitutional rights .
But it ’ s not clear whether one of those constitutional rights is to live with one ’ s spouse in the US , as Yafai had argued , she said .
“ The status of this right is uncertain , ” she wrote in the opinion .
“ Even if the denial of Ahmed ’ s visa application implicated a constitutional right of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the consular officer ’ s decision was facially legitimate and bona fide.
” She voted to deport a man who maintained lawful permanent residency for 30 years In June 2019 , Barrett cast the deciding vote in a Seventh Circuit case resulting in the immediate deportation of a Mexican immigrant who had been a lawful permanent resident of the US for three decades and first arrived in the US at age 10 .
He had been convicted for drug crimes resulting in a more than 10-year prison sentence , but because his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believed he had a right to remain in the US .
The immigrant , Ruben Lopez Ramos , was not given the chance to argue that his deportation violated his rights under the Constitution ’ s equal protection clause .
A short , one-paragraph order sealed his fate , claiming that his argument was “ irrational ” and had “ little chance of succeeding.
” One of Barrett ’ s colleagues , dissenting , argued that Ramos should have been given his day in court , noting that , due to a now-repealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizenship from his mother had she lived in the US prior to his birth and he could not have been deported .
Ramos argued that he was subjected to differential treatment under that law in violation of his equal protection rights .
“ He might be right , ” US Circuit Judge David Hamilton wrote .
Ultimately , however , due to Barrett ’ s vote , the Seventh Circuit never considered the issue .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, has at times proved an obstacle to the advancement of immigrant rights during her three years on the Seventh Circuit.
As an appellate court judge, Barrett helped to advance one of Trump’s key immigration policies. She sided with his administration in a case over Trump’s policy imposing a wealth test on the millions of immigrants who seek to come to the US annually. In her whopping 40-page dissent in that case, she laid out why the US has the right to block people who it deems likely to become dependent on public assistance in the future — even if they have never used public assistance in the past.
She has also repeatedly refused to review cases brought by immigrants applying for humanitarian protections and other immigration benefits who claimed they had been wrongfully denied. Some of those decisions may have negative repercussions for future such applicants; given that they set a precedent to be followed by judges in lower courts, these refusals could make it harder for immigrants to challenge an adverse decision from a consular officer on their visa application or obtain deportation relief from an immigration judge.
But her rulings haven’t always led to adverse outcomes for immigrants. In one case, she actually prevented the Trump administration from ending a policy that allows immigration judges to indefinitely close deportation cases in which the immigrant doesn’t appear to be a priority for enforcement, giving them a chance to live in the US without fear of deportation.
With Barrett’s mixed record — and only three years of experience on the federal bench — it’s difficult to predict how she would rule on immigration cases before the Supreme Court if she is confirmed, as expected.
The Supreme Court has upheld some of Trump’s signature immigration policies, including his travel ban policy. But it has also thwarted him at key moments: It has temporarily prevented him from ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which has allowed more than 700,000 young unauthorized immigrants to live and work in the US, and blocked him from putting a citizenship question on the 2020 census, which experts said would depress response rates in immigrant communities.
In those rulings against Trump, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s liberals and cast deciding votes. It’s not clear whether Barrett would play a similar role — or if she would tip the scales in favor of conservatives on high-profile immigration cases going forward. One such case challenging Trump’s policy to exclude unauthorized immigrants from census population counts that will be used to redraw congressional districts in 2021 will likely come before the justices by the end of the year.
Here are some of the key immigration decisions Barrett has issued so far:
She sided with Trump on one of his key immigration policies: the public charge rule.
Perhaps Barrett’s most pivotal immigration ruling was her dissent in the case Cook County v. Wolf, in which the Seventh Circuit temporarily prevented the Trump administration from implementing its so-called “public charge” rule that created barriers to low-income immigrants seeking to enter the US.
Published last year by the Department of Homeland Security, the rule established a test to determine whether an immigrant applying to enter the US, extend their visa, or convert their temporary immigration status into a green card is likely to end up relying on public benefits in the future.
The rule has given immigration officials more leeway to turn away those who are “likely to be a public charge” based on an evaluation of 20 factors, ranging from the use of certain public benefits programs — including food stamps, Section 8 housing vouchers, and Medicaid — to English-language proficiency. It represents one of President Trump’s biggest blows to legal immigration so far.
In June, a majority of the Seventh Circuit voted to strike down the rule, arguing that it “set[s] a trap for the unwary by penalizing people for accepting benefits Congress made available to them.”
In her 40-page dissent, Barrett said she would have upheld the rule, arguing that those challenging it had set forth an exceedingly narrow definition of what it means to be a “public charge” that isn’t consistent with federal law. She also argued that the court should adopt the administration’s definition of “public charge” under the doctrine of Chevron deference, which mandates that judges defer to government agencies’ interpretation of federal law.
“Congress’s willingness to authorize funds to help immigrants who encounter unexpected trouble is perfectly consistent with its reluctance to admit immigrants whose need for help is predictable upon arrival,” she wrote in her dissent.
The rule went into effect again earlier this month following another federal court ruling. It has affected immigrants applying for green cards nationwide and at consulates abroad, as well as those applying for temporary visas overseas such as tourists, business travelers, students, and skilled workers.
The administration hasn’t released detailed data on how many people have been affected by the rule. But Julia Gelatt, a senior policy analyst at the nonpartisan think tank Migration Policy Institute, told Vox that 69 percent of the roughly 5.5 million people who were granted green cards over the past five years would have had at least one negative factor under the rule — which officials could have used as justification to reject their applications for immigration benefits.
She thwarted Trump’s attempt to end a key tool to grant relief to immigrants facing deportation
Former US Attorney Jeff Sessions had tried to revoke a little-known, but key tool that allows immigration judges to make determinations about which immigrants should be prioritized for deportation.
That tool, known as “administrative closure,” allows judges to put deportation proceedings on hold indefinitely for people who already applied for immigration benefits with another government agency. For example, it might apply to a noncitizen who overstayed their visa but is married to a US citizen who applied for a green card with US Citizenship Immigration Services on their behalf.
Sessions had tried to severely limit the circumstances under which immigration judges can administratively close a case, which had the effect of preventing people in deportation proceedings from getting the immigration benefits to which they were entitled.
But in June, Barrett argued in the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in the case Meza Morales v. Barr that Sessions’ decision to do so violated federal regulations that allow immigration judges to “take any action... that is appropriate and necessary” to complete their cases.
“[A]n immigration judge might sometimes conclude, in exercising the discretion granted by [federal regulation], that it is appropriate and necessary to dispose of a case through administrative closure,” she wrote. “Moreover, cases must be disposed of fairly, and granting a noncitizen the opportunity to pursue relief to which she is entitled may be appropriate and necessary for a fair disposition.”
She dismissed a man’s claim for humanitarian protections
In August 2018, Barrett refused to review a Salvadoran citizen’s petition for humanitarian protection in the US, which had been dismissed by immigration judges who didn’t find him to be a credible witness.
Gerson Alvarenga-Flores had testified that he fled El Salvador after witnessing his friend’s murder at the hands of criminal gang members, who consequently threatened him. After he was apprehended at the border and detained, he claimed that he feared returning to his home country and applied for several forms of humanitarian protection, including asylum and protections under the Convention Against Torture.
The immigration judge in his case found inconsistencies in Alvarenga’s testimony describing two separate incidents: He claimed that he had been attacked by gang members while in a taxi and, on another occasion, said he was approached by them on a bus. Alvarenga explained that he gave the testimony in English, even though he does not speak English, which could have led to the confusion.
But the judge nevertheless concluded that his account of being targeted by gangs wasn’t credible, without even considering whether he would have deserved humanitarian protection.
Writing an opinion on behalf of a panel of Seventh Circuit judges, Barrett deferred to the immigration judge, agreeing that Alvarenga was unable to provide an adequate explanation for the discrepancies in his account.
“These two encounters with gang members were crucial to Alvarenga’s claim that gang members were likely to torture him if he returned to El Salvador, yet he could not keep the facts straight with respect to either one,” she wrote.
She ruled against a US citizen challenging his wife’s visa denial
In January 2019, Barrett refused to reconsider a case brought by a naturalized US citizen, Moshin Yafai, whose wife, Zahoor Ahmed, a citizen of Yemen, was twice denied a green card. The consular officer had denied Ahmed’s green card on the grounds that she allegedly tried to smuggle her two children across the border, even though Ahmed and her husband had provided documentation to the embassy that their children had died in a drowning accident.
Writing the Seventh Circuit’s majority opinion, Barrett found that the consular officer nevertheless did not appear to act in bad faith and even asked for more information, “suggest[ing] a desire to get it right.” That meant her court couldn’t review the consular officer’s decision, she said.
The ruling could make it harder for visa applicants to challenge arbitrary denials down the line.
Generally, courts can’t review the decisions of consular officers, who interview applicants for immigration benefits and decide whether or not to approve their visas or green cards. There is a narrow exception in the law that allows a US citizen to challenge a consular officer’s decision if it infringes on one of their constitutional rights. But it’s not clear whether one of those constitutional rights is to live with one’s spouse in the US, as Yafai had argued, she said.
“The status of this right is uncertain,” she wrote in the opinion. “Even if the denial of Ahmed’s visa application implicated a constitutional right of Yafai’s, his claim fails because the consular officer’s decision was facially legitimate and bona fide.”
She voted to deport a man who maintained lawful permanent residency for 30 years
In June 2019, Barrett cast the deciding vote in a Seventh Circuit case resulting in the immediate deportation of a Mexican immigrant who had been a lawful permanent resident of the US for three decades and first arrived in the US at age 10. He had been convicted for drug crimes resulting in a more than 10-year prison sentence, but because his mother was a US citizen, he believed he had a right to remain in the US.
The immigrant, Ruben Lopez Ramos, was not given the chance to argue that his deportation violated his rights under the Constitution’s equal protection clause. A short, one-paragraph order sealed his fate, claiming that his argument was “irrational” and had “little chance of succeeding.”
One of Barrett’s colleagues, dissenting, argued that Ramos should have been given his day in court, noting that, due to a now-repealed law, he would have derived US citizenship from his mother had she lived in the US prior to his birth and he could not have been deported. Ramos argued that he was subjected to differential treatment under that law in violation of his equal protection rights.
“He might be right,” US Circuit Judge David Hamilton wrote. Ultimately, however, due to Barrett’s vote, the Seventh Circuit never considered the issue.


vox--2020-09-27--We now know what Trump was trying to hide by holding back his tax returns

One of the biggest secrets in American politics — what ’ s in the tax returns that President Donald Trump has refused to release for so long — has at last been revealed , by the New York Times .
Times journalists Russ Buettner , Susanne Craig , and Mike McIntire obtained “ tax-return data extending over more than two decades ” related to the president , and have revealed their findings in a bombshell new report .
( They are not posting the documents themselves , to avoid jeopardizing their sources . )
For years , the political world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to hide by holding back his returns , and by falsely claiming that he can ’ t release them until the IRS finishes an extended audit .
Was it that he paid no income taxes at all in some years ?
Was it that he was far less successful of a businessman than he let on ?
Was he claiming legally dubious deductions ?
The answer , it turns out , is all of the above .
The Times story makes clear the supposedly wealthy president often paid no income taxes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of money , and he himself was on the hook for increasing sums in loans .
All that is politically damaging enough to Trump ’ s image , and likely a sufficient reason to work hard to keep the tax returns secret .
But there ’ s likely another reason behind Trump ’ s reticence — because reporters would scour his returns for legally dubious claims , and put the pieces together as to how he was trying to snooker the IRS .
That ’ s just what ended up happening here .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Craig , and McIntire sussed out that mysterious write-offs for consulting fees on certain Trump projects matched the amounts of payments to Trump ’ s daughter Ivanka Trump .
And there ’ s far more in the Times ’ excellent piece .
One major theme of the Times piece is that the IRS audit of Trump is extremely serious , and that he could end up owing the US government more than $ 100 million .
So reporters ’ scrutiny of his tax returns might not just be politically problematic for Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legally problematic .
The tax returns reveal that Trump paid little taxes , that his businesses lose lots of money , and that he ’ s deeply in debt — none of which looks good politically Back when Trump first ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 , he came under an enormous amount of criticism from his rivals for not releasing his tax returns , as past presidential nominees have .
Initially , he had promised that he would release them .
But he kept making excuses , his main one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet release the returns because he is under audit .
So Trump ’ s tax returns became the white whale of his critics , with everyone from reporters to House Democrats to New York state prosecutors trying to get ahold of them .
After more than four years , Buettner , Craig , and McIntire of the Times got the goods .
Their story reveals the following : Trump did indeed pay zero in income taxes from 2011-2014 , and the paltry amount of $ 750 in 2016 and 2017 .
He pulled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost massive amounts of money .
He has $ 421 million in debt coming due in the next few years , and he could owe $ 100 million more to the US government if he loses his audit battle with the IRS .
There are ample political reasons in here for Trump to have been so reluctant to release these tax returns .
For one , there ’ s the fact that he paid so little income taxes , which will look bad from the perspective of many Americans who paid much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might wonder why Trump would care about this given his long-standing ability to wriggle free of political scandals — but that ability wasn ’ t so clear in 2016 , when he first started holding back the returns .
Additionally , Trump ’ s first campaign came just a few years after Mitt Romney was dogged by then-Sen. Harry Reid ’ s false allegation that Romney had paid no taxes for ten years .
The political conventional wisdom was that a wealthy candidate having paid little to nothing in taxes would be punished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid no taxes is embarrassing — it ’ s because his businesses lost tons of money .
( At least , that ’ s what he claims — keep in mind that the tax return information is his representation of his businesses to the IRS . )
To be clear , some parts of Trump ’ s business really do make money — for instance , The Apprentice sent cash pouring in , and Trump Tower is profitable .
But he avoids paying taxes on these profits because he ’ s claimed such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business empire .
Trump may also have held back the returns to avoid legal and financial jeopardy The other big reason Trump was probably reluctant to release the returns is that there ’ s clearly some legally questionable stuff in there .
For instance , the records obtained by Buettner , Craig , and McIntire show that Trump wrote off $ 26 million in supposed consulting fees as a business expense between 2011 and 2018 .
But the reporters took the added step of uncovering where some of that money was going — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those write-offs matched payments to Trump ’ s daughter Ivanka , as revealed on her own financial disclosure forms .
Now , Ivanka was an executive vice president of the Trump Organization — not some outside consultant .
And sources told the Times that there were no outside consultants involved in certain of the projects for which Trump ’ s businesses wrote-off consulting fees .
The Times story also mentions other questionable practices — Trump dubbed a Westchester , New York mansion an “ investment property ” so he could write-off property taxes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it “ our compound.
” The Trump Organization also wrote off Donald Trump Jr. ’ s legal fees for the lawyer who represented Don Jr. in the Russia investigation .
This is probably just scratching the surface — the Times reporters say they have more stories coming .
But the larger point is that Trump has a history of questionable tax practices , is facing an audit where he has a lot on the line , and appears to be in a financial situation in which having reporters closely scrutinize his tax returns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

One of the biggest secrets in American politics — what’s in the tax returns that President Donald Trump has refused to release for so long — has at last been revealed, by the New York Times.
Times journalists Russ Buettner, Susanne Craig, and Mike McIntire obtained “tax-return data extending over more than two decades” related to the president, and have revealed their findings in a bombshell new report. (They are not posting the documents themselves, to avoid jeopardizing their sources.)
For years, the political world has speculated on what Trump was trying to hide by holding back his returns, and by falsely claiming that he can’t release them until the IRS finishes an extended audit. Was it that he paid no income taxes at all in some years? Was it that he was far less successful a businessman than he let on? Was he claiming legally dubious deductions?
The answer, it turns out, is all of the above.
The Times story makes clear the supposedly wealthy president often paid no income taxes while his businesses regularly lost vast sums of money, and he himself was on the hook for increasing sums in loans. All of that is politically damaging enough to Trump’s image, and likely a sufficient reason to work hard to keep the tax returns secret.
But there’s likely another reason behind Trump’s reticence — because reporters would scour his returns for legally dubious claims, and put the pieces together to how he was trying to snooker the IRS.
That’s just what ended up happening here. For example, Buettner, Craig, and McIntire sussed out that mysterious write-offs for consulting fees on certain Trump projects matched the amounts of payments to Trump’s daughter Ivanka. And there’s far more in the Times’s excellent piece.
One major theme of the Times piece is that the IRS audit of Trump is extremely serious, and that he could end up owing the US government more than $100 million. So reporters’ scrutiny of his tax returns might not just be politically problematic for Trump — they could also be financially and legally problematic.
The tax returns reveal that Trump paid little taxes, that his businesses lost lots of money, and that he’s deeply in debt — none of which looks good politically
When Trump first ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, he came under an enormous amount of criticism from his rivals for not releasing his tax returns, as past presidential nominees have. Initially, he promised that he would release them. But he kept making excuses, his main one being the false claim he could not yet release the returns because he is under audit.
So Trump’s tax returns became the white whale of his critics, with everyone from reporters to House Democrats to New York state prosecutors trying to get ahold of them.
After more than four years, Buettner, Craig, and McIntire of the Times got the goods.
Their story reveals the following: Trump did indeed pay zero in income taxes from 2011 to 2014, and a paltry $750 in 2016 and 2017. He pulled this off by claiming that his businesses lost massive amounts of money. He has $421 million in debt due in the next few years, and he could owe $100 million more to the US government if he loses his audit battle with the IRS.
There are ample political reasons here for Trump to have been so reluctant to release the returns.
For one, there’s the fact that he paid so little income tax, which will look bad from the perspective of many Americans who paid much more in taxes than he has. You might wonder why Trump would care about this given his long-standing ability to wriggle free of political scandals — but that ability wasn’t so clear in 2016, when he first started holding back the returns. Additionally, Trump’s first campaign came just a few years after Sen. Mitt Romney was dogged by then-Sen. Harry Reid’s false allegation that Romney paid no taxes for 10 years. The political conventional wisdom was that a wealthy candidate having paid little to nothing in taxes would be punished electorally.
But the specific reason Trump paid no taxes is embarrassing — because his businesses lost tons of money. (At least, that’s what he claims; keep in mind that the tax return information is his representation of his businesses to the IRS.)
To be clear, some parts of Trump’s business really do make money — for instance, The Apprentice sent cash pouring in, and Trump Tower is profitable. But Trump avoids paying taxes on these profits because he’s claimed such massive losses from other parts of his business empire.
Trump may also have held back the returns to avoid legal and financial jeopardy
The other probable reason Trump was reluctant to release the returns is that there’s clearly some legally questionable stuff in there.
For instance, the records obtained by Buettner, Craig, and McIntire show that Trump wrote off $26 million in supposed consulting fees as a business expense between 2011 and 2018. But the reporters took the added step of uncovering where some of that money was going — and they figured out that some of those write-offs matched payments to Trump’s daughter Ivanka, as revealed on her own financial disclosure forms.
Ivanka was an executive vice president of the Trump Organization, not some outside consultant. And sources told the Times that there were no outside consultants involved in certain projects for which Trump’s businesses wrote off consulting fees.
The Times story also mentions other questionable practices — Trump dubbed a Westchester, New York, mansion an “investment property” so he could write off property taxes on it, but his son Eric Trump called it “our compound.” The Trump Organization also wrote off Donald Trump Jr.’s legal fees for the lawyer who represented him in the Russia investigation.
This is probably just scratching the surface; the Times reporters say they have more stories coming. But the larger point is that Trump has a history of questionable tax practices, is facing an audit where he has a lot on the line, and having reporters closely scrutinize his tax returns is only a problem for him.


vox--2020-09-27--Sen. Lindsey Graham lays out a swift schedule for confirming Trump’s Supreme Court nominee

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham laid out a swift timeline on Sunday for confirming President Donald Trump ’ s Supreme Court nominee , Judge Amy Coney Barrett , telling Fox News his committee will approve Barrett by October 22 .
That could tee up her nomination for a full Senate vote before the end of the month .
Graham ’ s schedule is putting the Senate on track for what could be one of the fastest Supreme Court justice confirmations in modern American history , and there ’ s not much that Democrats can do about it .
Graham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the confirmation process would begin October 12 .
A day of introduction would be followed by two days of questioning , and a review of the committee ’ s recommendation would begin October 15 , he said .
“ We ’ ll report her nomination out of the committee on October 22 , ” Graham said .
“ Then it will be up to [ Senate Majority Leader Mitch ] McConnell as to what to do with the nomination.
” If Graham is able to stay on that schedule , McConnell will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s confirmation vote before Election Day — or during the lame-duck session after the elections .
As Vox ’ s Andrew Prokop has explained , this would be an expedited process , but it would be fully within the rules : In recent decades , the Supreme Court confirmation process — from nomination to the final vote — has lasted two to three months .
Typically , this time is taken up by vetting of the nominee ’ s history , writings , and career , and then hearings in the Senate Judiciary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , before Senate leaders attempt to line up sufficient support for a floor vote .
But there ’ s no reason other than decorum that all this has to take so much time .
If Republican senators are unconcerned about the appearances of an unseemly rush to a vote , they can certainly hold a quicker vote should they so desire .
The speed of the process Graham outlined has rankled Democrats and defenders of deliberative propriety in the Senate because it implies the outcome of the committee process is preordained — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett will not be vetted properly in the rush to confirm her .
The proximity of the vote to Election Day is also unusual .
No Supreme Court nominee has been confirmed after July during a presidential election year before .
Democratic lawmakers have criticized McConnell for choosing to hold a confirmation so close to an election , particularly after he blocked former President Barack Obama ’ s Supreme Court nominee in March 2016 , arguing that a president should not nominate a new justice within several hundred days of a presidential election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disposal for stopping the confirmation process Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin ( D-IL ) said Sunday on ABC ’ s This Week that Democrats have some procedural weapons with which they can slow down the process , but that their arsenal isn ’ t powerful enough to derail the nomination process altogether .
“ We can slow it down perhaps a matter of hours , maybe days at the most , but we can ’ t stop the outcome , ” the senator said .
Durbin added he did not see the procedural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aide in the New York Times as strong enough to significantly postpone the nomination date .
One of the ideas presented in the op-ed is that Democrats could boycott hearings .
But as Prokop has pointed out , “ Democrats have tried similar tactics with Graham ’ s committee in the past , and he has simply ignored the rules when they are inconvenient.
” It ’ s unclear whether McConnell will pursue a full confirmation vote before Election Day , or after it , during the lame-duck session .
Some pundits have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Day could energize Democratic voters .
Graham noted during his Fox interview that Ginsburg ’ s death has resulted in a fundraising bonanza for Democrats — including his rival in South Carolina , Jaime Harrison .
The windfall has been so great that Graham even twice asked viewers to donate money to his reelection campaign .
“ Their base is going nuts , they ’ ve raised $ 300 million , ActBlue has , since the passing of Justice Ginsburg , ” he said .
“ I ’ m being outraised two to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate is being hit hard with all of this money.
” The fear for Republicans is that an enraged Democratic base could deliver key races — including South Carolina ’ s Senate race — for Democrats come Election Day .
But there are downsides to waiting until after Election Day as well .
If Democrats win back control of the Senate , then Republicans confirming a Supreme Court nominee during a lame-duck session would be perceived as flagrantly dismissing of the will of the electorate .
That could increase the likelihood of aggressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ form of moves like abolishing the filibuster or expanding the Supreme Court .
( Of course , a Democratic-controlled Senate could pursue those policies regardless of whether McConnell moves before or after Election Day . )
Ultimately for the GOP , the upshot of Graham ’ s schedule — and top Democrats ’ signals that they don ’ t think they can stop the confirmation — is that the Republicans have many options as they contemplate how to best complete a move that could reshape the Supreme Court for a generation .
Will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
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 support will be a critical part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham laid out a swift timeline on Sunday for confirming President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, telling Fox News his committee will approve Barrett by October 22. That could tee up her nomination for a full Senate vote before the end of the month.
Graham’s schedule is putting the Senate on track for what could be one of the fastest Supreme Court justice confirmations in modern American history, and there’s not much that Democrats can do about it.
Graham told Sunday Morning Futures host Maria Bartiromo that the confirmation process would begin October 12. A day of introduction would be followed by two days of questioning, and a review of the committee’s recommendation would begin October 15, he said.
“We’ll report her nomination out of the committee on October 22,” Graham said. “Then it will be up to [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell as to what to do with the nomination.”
If Graham is able to stay on that schedule, McConnell will have the option to hold Barrett’s confirmation vote before Election Day — or during the lame-duck session after the elections.
As Vox’s Andrew Prokop has explained, this would be an expedited process, but it would be fully within the rules:
In recent decades, the Supreme Court confirmation process — from nomination to the final vote — has lasted two to three months. Typically, this time is taken up by vetting of the nominee’s history, writings, and career, and then hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee (which can last several days), before Senate leaders attempt to line up sufficient support for a floor vote. But there’s no reason other than decorum that all this has to take so much time. If Republican senators are unconcerned about the appearances of an unseemly rush to a vote, they can certainly hold a quicker vote should they so desire.
The speed of the process Graham outlined has rankled Democrats and defenders of deliberative propriety in the Senate because it implies the outcome of the committee process is preordained — and has led to Democratic concern that Barrett will not be vetted properly in the rush to confirm her.
The proximity of the vote to Election Day is also unusual. No Supreme Court nominee has been confirmed after July during a presidential election year before. Democratic lawmakers have criticized McConnell for choosing to hold a confirmation so close to an election, particularly after he blocked former President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee in March 2016, arguing that a president should not nominate a new justice within several hundred days of a presidential election.
Democrats have limited tools at their disposal for stopping the confirmation process
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) said Sunday on ABC’s This Week that Democrats have some procedural weapons with which they can slow down the process, but that their arsenal isn’t powerful enough to derail the nomination process altogether.
“We can slow it down perhaps a matter of hours, maybe days at the most, but we can’t stop the outcome,” the senator said.
Durbin added he did not see the procedural protest ideas presented by a former Senate aide in the New York Times as strong enough to significantly postpone the nomination date.
One of the ideas presented in the op-ed is that Democrats could boycott hearings. But as Prokop has pointed out, “Democrats have tried similar tactics with Graham’s committee in the past, and he has simply ignored the rules when they are inconvenient.”
It’s unclear whether McConnell will pursue a full confirmation vote before Election Day, or after it, during the lame-duck session.
Some pundits have argued that holding the vote before Election Day could energize Democratic voters. Graham noted during his Fox interview that Ginsburg’s death has resulted in a fundraising bonanza for Democrats — including his rival in South Carolina, Jaime Harrison. The windfall has been so great that Graham even twice asked viewers to donate money to his reelection campaign.
“Their base is going nuts, they’ve raised $300 million, ActBlue has, since the passing of Justice Ginsburg,” he said. “I’m being outraised two to one. Every Republican running in the Senate is being hit hard with all of this money.”
The fear for Republicans is that an enraged Democratic base could deliver key races — including South Carolina’s Senate race — for Democrats come Election Day.
But there are downsides to waiting until after Election Day as well. If Democrats win back control of the Senate, then Republicans confirming a Supreme Court nominee during a lame-duck session would be perceived as flagrantly dismissing of the will of the electorate. That could increase the likelihood of aggressive reprisals by Democratic lawmakers, in the form of moves like abolishing the filibuster or expanding the Supreme Court. (Of course, a Democratic-controlled Senate could pursue those policies regardless of whether McConnell moves before or after Election Day.)
Ultimately for the GOP, the upshot of Graham’s schedule — and top Democrats’ signals that they don’t think they can stop the confirmation — is that the Republicans have many options as they contemplate how to best complete a move that could reshape the Supreme Court for a generation.


vox--2020-09-27--Joe Biden maintains a steady lead over Donald Trump in national polling

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden ’ s lead over President Donald Trump in national polling now stands at a 10 percentage point margin in new polling of registered voters conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News .
That lead was reflected in additional polls reported over the weekend — in an Emerson College/NewsNation poll of likely voters , Biden led Trump by 4 percentage points , a slight jump from an August Emerson poll that showed Trump behind by just 2 percentage points .
Biden ’ s lead over Trump has been remarkably consistent — he held a lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic nomination process back in 2019 , and the consistency of his polling margins over Trump was being discussed in historic terms in May of this year .
Even in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic — and resulting shutdown measures on the local and state level , unrest sparked by police misconduct , wildfires and hurricanes , the Democratic and Republican national conventions , and the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg ( and the announcement of her likely replacement , Judge Amy Coney Barrett ) — Biden has stayed ahead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( and in a big way ) It ’ s important to remember that polls aren ’ t predictions .
Rather , polls are snapshots in time , indicating what a group of Americans — whether registered voters , likely voters , or simply adults — are thinking at a particular point during a race .
But it ’ s also worth noting that Biden ’ s current lead comes from a number of critical voting constituencies , including older Americans and white college graduates .
For example , according to the Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden by a 47 percentage point margin in comparison to Hillary Clinton ’ s 12 percentage point margin in exit polls back in 2016 .
Independent-voting women favor Biden by a 57 point margin , compared to Clinton ’ s 4 points four years ago .
White women — a group that Trump won by 9 points back in 2016 — now favor Biden by a 15 point margin .
All of these groups are key to victory — senior citizens are among America ’ s most reliable voting cohorts , as are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , white women .
In 2016 , 67 percent of white women said they voted , compared to 64 percent of white men , 50 percent of Hispanic women , and 64 percent of Black women .
A shift among any of these groups — particularly in swing states with large populations of older voters , like Florida and Texas — could help shape the results of the 2020 election .
But Trump has held onto the majority of his 2016 supporters — 91 percent of likely 2020 voters who voted for him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again .
And importantly , Trump now has support from 87 percent of voters who consider themselves to be conservative , more than the 82 percent of conservative voters who supported Mitt Romney back in 2012 ( or Reagan in 1984 ) and the 84 percent of conservative voters who supported George W. Bush in 2004 .
To put these polling results into historical context , I wanted to take a look at past September polls during election years , particularly during presidential races taking place between an incumbent president and a challenger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Septembers of 1984 , 1992 , 1996 , 2004 , and 2012 , and found that September polling has been a crucial indicator for incumbents , win or lose .
In September of 1984 , then-President Ronald Reagan held a strong lead over Democratic nominee Walter Mondale , leading in Gallup polling conducted that month by a near-20 percentage point margin .
A New York Times/CBS News poll from September 19 , 1984 , found Reagan and his vice president , George H.W .
Bush , led Mondale and Rep. Geraldine Ferraro 54 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go on to win a landslide victory , carrying 49 of the 50 states that November .
But in 1992 , it was the Democratic challenger , then-Gov .
Bill Clinton , who led the incumbent , then-President George H.W .
Bush , in September , with a 49 to 37 percent lead in the New York Times/CBS Poll from September 16 , 1992 .
And in September 1996 , Clinton held a 53 to 36 percent advantage with likely voters against Republican nominee Bob Dole .
In 2004 , polling seemed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in September of that year showing then-President George W. Bush with a 13-point lead over Democratic nominee John Kerry , but others showing a more even contest ( Bush would go on to win 31 states and 50 percent of the popular vote . )
And 2012 was a remarkably close contest in September , with then-President Barack Obama leading Republican nominee Mitt Romney by just 2 percentage points in a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted from September 26-29 .
I reached out to Steve Kornacki , a political correspondent for NBC News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in “ measurably worse political shape ” than any incumbent who won reelection since 1980 , a list that would include Presidents Reagan , Clinton , George W. Bush , and Obama .
But , Kornacki added , “ his position isn ’ t as weak as the two who lost .
Bush ’ 92 and Carter ’ 80 both had approval ratings in the 30s at this point , while Trump is in the mid-40s .
( Carter was able to defy gravity for much of the ’ 80 race because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away late , possibly because of that late October debate . )
” Altogether , the national polls may not be as dire for the president as they appear , Kornacki said : “ I ’ d say Trump ’ s behind , but only needs a few points of movement to have a real shot .
Of course , with public opinion so entrenched , even a few points of positive movement may be asking too much for him.
” Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s lead over President Donald Trump in national polling now stands at a 10 percentage point margin in new polling of registered voters conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News.
That lead was reflected in additional polls reported over the weekend — in an Emerson College/NewsNation poll of likely voters, Biden led Trump by 4 percentage points, a slight jump from an August Emerson poll that showed Trump behind by just 2 percentage points.
Biden’s lead over Trump has been remarkably consistent — he held a lead in head-to-head polling over Trump during the Democratic nomination process back in 2019, and the consistency of his polling margins over Trump was being discussed in historic terms in May of this year.
Even in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic — and resulting shutdown measures on the local and state level, unrest sparked by police misconduct, wildfires and hurricanes, the Democratic and Republican national conventions, and the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg (and the announcement of her likely replacement, Judge Amy Coney Barrett) — Biden has stayed ahead of Trump.
Biden leads with critical constituencies (and in a big way)
It’s important to remember that polls aren’t predictions. Rather, polls are snapshots in time, indicating what a group of Americans — whether registered voters, likely voters, or simply adults — are thinking at a particular point during a race.
But it’s also worth noting that Biden’s current lead comes from a number of critical voting constituencies, including older Americans and white college graduates.
For example, according to the Washington Post/ABC News poll, political moderates favor Biden by a 47 percentage point margin in comparison to Hillary Clinton’s 12 percentage point margin in exit polls back in 2016. Independent-voting women favor Biden by a 57 point margin, compared to Clinton’s 4 points four years ago. White women — a group that Trump won by 9 points back in 2016 — now favor Biden by a 15 point margin.
All of these groups are key to victory — senior citizens are among America’s most reliable voting cohorts, as are, according to exit polling from 2016, white women. In 2016, 67 percent of white women said they voted, compared to 64 percent of white men, 50 percent of Hispanic women, and 64 percent of Black women. A shift among any of these groups — particularly in swing states with large populations of older voters, like Florida and Texas — could help shape the results of the 2020 election.
But Trump has held onto the majority of his 2016 supporters — 91 percent of likely 2020 voters who voted for him four years ago plan to do so again. And importantly, Trump now has support from 87 percent of voters who consider themselves to be conservative, more than the 82 percent of conservative voters who supported Mitt Romney back in 2012 (or Reagan in 1984) and the 84 percent of conservative voters who supported George W. Bush in 2004.
Putting the polls into context
To put these polling results into historical context, I wanted to take a look at past September polls during election years, particularly during presidential races taking place between an incumbent president and a challenger. So I went back to the Septembers of 1984, 1992, 1996, 2004, and 2012, and found that September polling has been a crucial indicator for incumbents, win or lose.
In September of 1984, then-President Ronald Reagan held a strong lead over Democratic nominee Walter Mondale, leading in Gallup polling conducted that month by a near-20 percentage point margin. A New York Times/CBS News poll from September 19, 1984, found Reagan and his vice president, George H.W. Bush, led Mondale and Rep. Geraldine Ferraro 54 percent to 33 percent. Reagan would go on to win a landslide victory, carrying 49 of the 50 states that November.
But in 1992, it was the Democratic challenger, then-Gov. Bill Clinton, who led the incumbent, then-President George H.W. Bush, in September, with a 49 to 37 percent lead in the New York Times/CBS Poll from September 16, 1992. And in September 1996, Clinton held a 53 to 36 percent advantage with likely voters against Republican nominee Bob Dole.
In 2004, polling seemed to vary widely, with some polls taken in September of that year showing then-President George W. Bush with a 13-point lead over Democratic nominee John Kerry, but others showing a more even contest (Bush would go on to win 31 states and 50 percent of the popular vote.) And 2012 was a remarkably close contest in September, with then-President Barack Obama leading Republican nominee Mitt Romney by just 2 percentage points in a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted from September 26-29.
I reached out to Steve Kornacki, a political correspondent for NBC News, who told me that Trump is in “measurably worse political shape” than any incumbent who won reelection since 1980, a list that would include Presidents Reagan, Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama.
But, Kornacki added, “his position isn’t as weak as the two who lost. Bush ’92 and Carter ’80 both had approval ratings in the 30s at this point, while Trump is in the mid-40s. (Carter was able to defy gravity for much of the ’80 race because of doubts about Reagan, but those melted away late, possibly because of that late October debate.)”
Altogether, the national polls may not be as dire for the president as they appear, Kornacki said: “I’d say Trump’s behind, but only needs a few points of movement to have a real shot. Of course, with public opinion so entrenched, even a few points of positive movement may be asking too much for him.”


vox--2020-09-27--Another top Democrat signals openness to abolishing the filibuster

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin ( D-IL ) indicated on Sunday that Democrats are engaged in serious discussions about abolishing the filibuster , should their party regain control of the Senate in November .
Speaking on ABC ’ s This Week , Durbin was noncommittal about where the Democratic Party ’ s discussions may lead , but said talks about changing the Senate ’ s rules are now necessary because he believes Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has caused the “ destruction ” of the US Senate .
This Week host George Stephanopoulos specifically asked whether Durbin backed a proposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Democrats expand the Supreme Court and scrap the filibuster , a rule that effectively creates a 60-vote threshold for passing major legislation when the party is next in control of the Senate .
“ The conversation about the future of the Senate rules is on the table , and I ’ m part of it , ” Durbin replied .
“ The reason is this : we have seen under Mitch McConnell the destruction and the denigration of the United States Senate.
” Durbin did not comment on the question of expanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggest that Democratic leadership is warming to the idea of the sweeping rules change , which would allow legislation to be passed through a simple majority vote .
Durbin suggested that a simpler process would allow the Senate to pass more legislation .
“ Last year in the Senate , 2019 , we had 22 amendments voted on in the entire year , ” he said .
“ Mitch McConnell has taken the Senate and turned it into something that is not even close to a deliberative and legislative body — we need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in the future that we get down to business.
” Jettisoning the filibuster is an idea that ’ s gained a great deal of attention in liberal circles in recent years , with figures like Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) endorsing the idea .
Following McConnell ’ s choice to violate the precedent he set in 2016 on considering Supreme Court justices for nomination , a greater number of Democrats , including more moderate lawmakers , have advocated for radical changes to the Senate .
“ Let me be clear : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forward with [ nominating a Supreme Court judge ] , then nothing is off the table for next year , ” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said during a call with the Democratic caucus last weekend .
“ Nothing is off the table.
” Not all Democrats share Schumer ’ s aggressiveness so far , however .
On CNN ’ s State of the Union , Sen. Joe Manchin ( D-WV ) , one of the party ’ s most moderate senators , said he wouldn ’ t support expanding the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The whole premise of this Senate and this democracy experiment of ours is certain decency and social order that basically has been expected from us and especially from the Senate from the beginning of our government , ” he said .
Abolishing the filibuster is becoming a bigger and bigger target for Democrats The battle between Democrats and Republicans over filling the vacancy left by the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg right before a presidential election has sparked a broader discussion of norms in government .
And whether the filibuster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has become an important part of that discussion .
The use of the filibuster to block legislation unless it can surmount a 60-vote threshold has increased since the 1970s — and it skyrocketed during the Obama administration ; political scientists say Republicans have spearheaded its increased use .
Since it ’ s extremely rare and difficult for a party to control 60 seats in the Senate , the 60-vote threshold has the effect of dramatically dampening a majority party ’ s capacity to pass bills .
Ending the filibuster would allow legislation to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of more than 50 votes .
Prominent Democrats have warmed to the idea in the past year .
Sen. Chris Coons ( D-DE ) was once a passionate defender of the rule — but earlier this summer he expressed openness to getting rid of it .
At the funeral of civil rights icon and US Rep. John Lewis in July , former President Barack Obama offered his strongest criticism of the filibuster to date , arguing it was a persistent obstacle to civil rights legislation .
“ If all this takes eliminating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to secure the God-given rights of every American , then that ’ s what we should do , ” Obama said .
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden , who spent more than 35 years as a senator and has historically supported the filibuster , said in July that he ’ s open to Democrats scrapping the rule .
He framed it as something Democrats would consider if Republicans refused to cooperate with them even after losing the Senate .
“ It ’ s going to depend on how obstreperous they become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with reporters .
“ But I think you ’ re going to just have to take a look at it.
” Biden has since tempered those remarks , but Durbin ’ s statement Sunday suggests that among those who are still in the Senate , there is a serious willingness to , at the very least , consider changing the rule .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never 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 @ @ @ @ @

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) indicated on Sunday that Democrats are engaged in serious discussions about abolishing the filibuster, should their party regain control of the Senate in November.
Speaking on ABC’s This Week, Durbin was noncommittal about where the Democratic Party’s discussions may lead, but said talks about changing the Senate’s rules are now necessary because he believes Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has caused the “destruction” of the US Senate.
This Week host George Stephanopoulos specifically asked whether Durbin backed a proposal from Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) that Democrats expand the Supreme Court and scrap the filibuster, a rule that effectively creates a 60-vote threshold for passing major legislation when the party is next in control of the Senate.
“The conversation about the future of the Senate rules is on the table, and I’m part of it,” Durbin replied. “The reason is this: we have seen under Mitch McConnell the destruction and the denigration of the United States Senate.”
NEW: “A conversation about the future of the Senate rules is on the table … we have seen under Mitch McConnell the destruction and denigration of the (Senate),” Sen. Dick Durbin says on calls from some Democrats to end filibuster and expand Supreme Court. https://t.co/xyScz0SW2y pic.twitter.com/TllFTXbSPX — This Week (@ThisWeekABC) September 27, 2020
Durbin did not comment on the question of expanding the Supreme Court, but he did suggest that Democratic leadership is warming to the idea of the sweeping rules change, which would allow legislation to be passed through a simple majority vote. Durbin suggested that a simpler process would allow the Senate to pass more legislation.
“Last year in the Senate, 2019, we had 22 amendments voted on in the entire year,” he said. “Mitch McConnell has taken the Senate and turned it into something that is not even close to a deliberative and legislative body — we need to make sure that whatever the procedure is in the future that we get down to business.”
Jettisoning the filibuster is an idea that’s gained a great deal of attention in liberal circles in recent years, with figures like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) endorsing the idea. Following McConnell’s choice to violate the precedent he set in 2016 on considering Supreme Court justices for nomination, a greater number of Democrats, including more moderate lawmakers, have advocated for radical changes to the Senate.
“Let me be clear: If Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans move forward with [nominating a Supreme Court judge], then nothing is off the table for next year,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said during a call with the Democratic caucus last weekend. “Nothing is off the table.”
Not all Democrats share Schumer’s aggressiveness so far, however. On CNN’s State of the Union, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), one of the party’s most moderate senators, said he wouldn’t support expanding the Supreme Court or getting rid of the filibuster.
“The whole premise of this Senate and this democracy experiment of ours is certain decency and social order that basically has been expected from us and especially from the Senate from the beginning of our government,” he said.
Abolishing the filibuster is becoming a bigger and bigger target for Democrats
The battle between Democrats and Republicans over filling the vacancy left by the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg right before a presidential election has sparked a broader discussion of norms in government. And whether the filibuster ought to be part of those norms has become an important part of that discussion.
The use of the filibuster to block legislation unless it can surmount a 60-vote threshold has increased since the 1970s — and it skyrocketed during the Obama administration; political scientists say Republicans have spearheaded its increased use.
Since it’s extremely rare and difficult for a party to control 60 seats in the Senate, the 60-vote threshold has the effect of dramatically dampening a majority party’s capacity to pass bills. Ending the filibuster would allow legislation to pass the Senate with a simple majority of more than 50 votes.
Prominent Democrats have warmed to the idea in the past year. Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) was once a passionate defender of the rule — but earlier this summer he expressed openness to getting rid of it.
At the funeral of civil rights icon and US Rep. John Lewis in July, former President Barack Obama offered his strongest criticism of the filibuster to date, arguing it was a persistent obstacle to civil rights legislation.
“If all this takes eliminating the filibuster, another Jim Crow relic, in order to secure the God-given rights of every American, then that’s what we should do,” Obama said.
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, who spent more than 35 years as a senator and has historically supported the filibuster, said in July that he’s open to Democrats scrapping the rule. He framed it as something Democrats would consider if Republicans refused to cooperate with them even after losing the Senate.
“It’s going to depend on how obstreperous they become,” Biden said on a call with reporters. “But I think you’re going to just have to take a look at it.”
Biden has since tempered those remarks, but Durbin’s statement Sunday suggests that among those who are still in the Senate, there is a serious willingness to, at the very least, consider changing the rule.


vox--2020-09-27--Poll: Half of Americans who lost their job during the pandemic still don’t have one

Roughly six months after the coronavirus began to wreak havoc on the US economy , about half of those who lost their job say they are still without one .
That ’ s one of the most notable findings of a new Pew Research Center survey , which paints a picture of a nation still reeling economically even as it recovers from the labor market free fall earlier this year that intensified as Covid-19 cases increased , and state lockdowns froze businesses across the country .
The study , which surveyed 13,200 US adults in the first two weeks of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respect to employment : Of all those who said they had lost a job , a third have returned to their old job , and 15 percent say they have a new job .
But that limited recovery has not been one shared equally by workers at different income levels .
According to Pew , while 58 percent of upper- and middle-income adults who lost a job due to the coronavirus have returned to their old job or gotten a new one , only 43 percent of lower-income adults have been able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s findings also include a number of other indicators of ongoing economic hardship .
“ One-in-four adults have had trouble paying their bills since the coronavirus outbreak started , a third have dipped into savings or retirement accounts to make ends meet , and about one-in-six have borrowed money from friends or family or gotten food from a food bank , ” the report reads .
Pew ’ s findings track roughly with government data and other economic analyses of the labor market .
Less than half of the 22 million jobs lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been recovered , according to the New York Times .
The Labor Department said earlier in September that the economy added 1.4 million jobs in August , bringing the overall unemployment rate down to 8.4 percent .
As Vox ’ s Aaron Ross Coleman has noted , that unemployment rate doesn ’ t reflect the exceptionally high rates faced by workers of color — for example , while the August unemployment rate for white Americans was 7.3 percent , the rate for Black Americans was 13 percent .
Asian and Latinx Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent .
As with Pew ’ s results on regained jobs , the findings were a reminder the economy is not improving at the same rate for everyone .
And overall , the department ’ s findings suggested reason for concern .
The jobs report signaled a slowdown from earlier in the summer : the economy added 4.8 million jobs in June , and 1.7 million in July .
With job growth slowing down and economic assistance from Congress stalled , economists and forecasters have cast doubt on the prospects of a rapid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I continue to view the glass as half-empty .
We ’ re still a long ways from where we were pre-Covid , ” Gregory Daco , chief US economist at Oxford Economics , told MarketWatch recently .
It ’ s unclear when a coronavirus relief bill will have any chance of passing Pew ’ s findings — as well as the Labor Department ’ s report — show Americans are in great need of aid .
However , attempts to unveil a new federal economic stimulus package have repeatedly failed , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — like an extra $ 600 per week in federal funds for the unemployed — have ended .
On Thursday , however , Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have agreed to restart negotiations over another coronavirus relief bill after talks collapsed in August .
The two parties have struggled to find a compromise on the size and scope of relief legislation , with Republicans preferring to offer a far smaller amount of aid than Democrats .
The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed the $ 3 trillion HEROES @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for months to answer it with legislation of their own .
In September , Senate Republicans announced their plan , a much narrower relief package that would provide $ 650 billion in new funding .
Democrats argued the bill did not provide enough aid , and the legislation failed to pass the Senate .
How much aid is necessary has been a sticking point for negotiations between the parties , with Democrats standing firm on the need for trillions of dollars in stimulus .
However , Pelosi has now reportedly directed Democratic committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more modest coronavirus relief package to bring to the next set of negotiations with the White House .
Moderate Democrats who face tough reelection odds have reportedly been applying pressure to Pelosi to put out a new bill they can vote on before the House ’ s next recess , currently set to begin on October 5 .
Outside of Congress , the timeline is even more urgent .
With September ending , rent and other bills are coming due .
But millions of Americans who could benefit from more robust unemployment aid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and aid for their businesses , continue to wait for help .
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 our lifetimes .
Our mission has never 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Roughly six months after the coronavirus began to wreak havoc on the US economy, about half of those who lost their job say they are still without one.
That’s one of the most notable findings of a new Pew Research Center survey, which paints a picture of a nation still reeling economically even as it recovers from the labor market free fall earlier this year that intensified as Covid-19 cases increased, and state lockdowns froze businesses across the country.
The study, which surveyed 13,200 US adults in the first two weeks of August, found some limited recovery with respect to employment: Of all those who said they had lost a job, a third have returned to their old job, and 15 percent say they have a new job.
But that limited recovery has not been one shared equally by workers at different income levels. According to Pew, while 58 percent of upper- and middle-income adults who lost a job due to the coronavirus have returned to their old job or gotten a new one, only 43 percent of lower-income adults have been able to do the same.
The study’s findings also include a number of other indicators of ongoing economic hardship.
“One-in-four adults have had trouble paying their bills since the coronavirus outbreak started, a third have dipped into savings or retirement accounts to make ends meet, and about one-in-six have borrowed money from friends or family or gotten food from a food bank,” the report reads.
Pew’s findings track roughly with government data and other economic analyses of the labor market. Less than half of the 22 million jobs lost during the early stages of the pandemic have been recovered, according to the New York Times.
The Labor Department said earlier in September that the economy added 1.4 million jobs in August, bringing the overall unemployment rate down to 8.4 percent. As Vox’s Aaron Ross Coleman has noted, that unemployment rate doesn’t reflect the exceptionally high rates faced by workers of color — for example, while the August unemployment rate for white Americans was 7.3 percent, the rate for Black Americans was 13 percent. Asian and Latinx Americans also saw unemployment rates higher than 10 percent. As with Pew’s results on regained jobs, the findings were a reminder the economy is not improving at the same rate for everyone.
And overall, the department’s findings suggested reason for concern. The jobs report signaled a slowdown from earlier in the summer: the economy added 4.8 million jobs in June, and 1.7 million in July.
With job growth slowing down and economic assistance from Congress stalled, economists and forecasters have cast doubt on the prospects of a rapid, or V-shaped, economic recovery.
“I continue to view the glass as half-empty. We’re still a long ways from where we were pre-Covid,” Gregory Daco, chief US economist at Oxford Economics, told MarketWatch recently.
It’s unclear when a coronavirus relief bill will have any chance of passing
Pew’s findings — as well as the Labor Department’s report — show Americans are in great need of aid. However, attempts to unveil a new federal economic stimulus package have repeatedly failed, even as programs created earlier in the year — like an extra $600 per week in federal funds for the unemployed — have ended.
On Thursday, however, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have agreed to restart negotiations over another coronavirus relief bill after talks collapsed in August.
The two parties have struggled to find a compromise on the size and scope of relief legislation, with Republicans preferring to offer a far smaller amount of aid than Democrats.
The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed the $3 trillion HEROES Act in May, but Republicans struggled for months to answer it with legislation of their own. In September, Senate Republicans announced their plan, a much narrower relief package that would provide $650 billion in new funding. Democrats argued the bill did not provide enough aid, and the legislation failed to pass the Senate.
How much aid is necessary has been a sticking point for negotiations between the parties, with Democrats standing firm on the need for trillions of dollars in stimulus. However, Pelosi has now reportedly directed Democratic committee chairs in the House to design a more modest coronavirus relief package to bring to the next set of negotiations with the White House.
Moderate Democrats who face tough reelection odds have reportedly been applying pressure to Pelosi to put out a new bill they can vote on before the House’s next recess, currently set to begin on October 5.
Outside of Congress, the timeline is even more urgent. With September ending, rent and other bills are coming due. But millions of Americans who could benefit from more robust unemployment aid, stimulus checks, more state-run services, and aid for their businesses, continue to wait for help.


vox--2020-09-28--The first 2020 presidential debate

The first 2020 presidential debate

President Trump and Vice President Biden will share the debate stage for the first time in Ohio .
The Covid-19 pandemic has made this an election season unlike any other , but one constant will be the debates .
President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden will face off onstage for the first time on September 29 in Cleveland , Ohio .
Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace will moderate the debate , which will run from 9 to 10:30 pm ET .
He has selected six topics for the debate : Trump ’ s and Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ongoing pandemic , the economy , race and violence in cities , and the integrity of the election .
The fifth topic , “ Race and Violence in our Cities , ” drew some objection — it appears to focus more on urban unrest than the struggle for racial justice .
Bend the Arc , a liberal Jewish group , said the language “ reinforces anti-Black fear mongering.
” Trump has repeatedly raised questions about the last topic : the election ’ s integrity .
On Wednesday , he refused to commit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he loses , something no previous president has refused to do .
This will be the first of three debates between Biden and Trump .
The two will meet again in Miami on October 15 and in Nashville on October 22 .
The vice presidential nominees , Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris , will debate in Salt Lake City on October 7 .
Follow along below for Vox ’ s debate coverage , including how to watch , breaking news updates , analysis , and more .

President Trump and Vice President Biden will share the debate stage for the first time in Ohio.
The Covid-19 pandemic has made this an election season unlike any other, but one constant will be the debates. President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden will face off onstage for the first time on September 29 in Cleveland, Ohio.
Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace will moderate the debate, which will run from 9 to 10:30 pm ET. He has selected six topics for the debate: Trump’s and Biden’s records, the Supreme Court, the ongoing pandemic, the economy, race and violence in cities, and the integrity of the election.
The fifth topic, “Race and Violence in our Cities,” drew some objection — it appears to focus more on urban unrest than the struggle for racial justice. Bend the Arc, a liberal Jewish group, said the language “reinforces anti-Black fear mongering.”
Trump has repeatedly raised questions about the last topic: the election’s integrity. On Wednesday, he refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses, something no previous president has refused to do.
This will be the first of three debates between Biden and Trump. The two will meet again in Miami on October 15 and in Nashville on October 22. The vice presidential nominees, Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris, will debate in Salt Lake City on October 7.
Follow along below for Vox’s debate coverage, including how to watch, breaking news updates, analysis, and more.