vox--2020-10-08--How Obamacare became Democrats’ most powerful political weapon

Today , Bill Kristol is a prominent Never Trumper who racks up liberal retweets by the thousands of his scorching attacks on President Donald Trump .
But in 1993 , Kristol , who ’ d served as Vice President Dan Quayle ’ s chief of staff , was an influential Republican operative , running the Project for the Republican Future .
And he was scared .
President Bill Clinton had begun his push for a universal health care system and Kristol worried congressional Republicans didn ’ t see the danger it posed .
In a famous memo , Kristol warned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a ‘ least bad ’ compromise with the Democrats , and thereby gain momentary public credit for helping the president ‘ do something ’ about health care , should also be resisted .
Passage of the Clinton health care plan , in any form , would guarantee and likely make permanent an unprecedented federal intrusion into and disruption of the American economy — and the establishment of the largest federal entitlement program since Social Security.
” Any health care plan , no matter how watered down , would “ revive the reputation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrats , as the generous protector of middle-class interests , ” Kristol continued .
“ And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government.
” Almost three decades later , Kristol looks prescient .
In 2010 , Republicans tried to stop the Affordable Care Act from passing .
In the end , it became law without a single GOP vote .
It was unpopular when it passed , and its Medicaid expansion was weakened by the Supreme Court a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ became the unifying project of the Republican Party .
At Wednesday ’ s debate , Vice President Mike Pence voiced that consensus .
“ Obamacare was a disaster , ” he said .
“ The American people remember it well.
” I think it ’ s Pence whose recollection may need some work .
Over the past decade , Kristol ’ s warning came to pass .
The Affordable Care Act became popular as it began delivering benefits .
A majority of Americans now support it in most polls , and as Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support : A recent Morning Consult poll found 62 percent of Americans support the bill , a 7 percent jump from March .
For purposes of comparison , that ’ s almost 20 points higher than President Trump ’ s approval rating .
When Republicans took over the government in 2017 , their first major initiative was to try to repeal Obamacare .
They failed when Sen. John McCain ( R-AZ ) cast the deciding vote against the repeal plan , which would have left millions uninsured .
And in the years since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unifies Democrats and unnerves Republicans .
In 2018 , the defense of the ACA drove the Democrats ’ midterm messaging and led to Democrats retaking the House .
At the first presidential debate , Joe Biden attacked Amy Coney Barrett , Trump ’ s Supreme Court nominee , on the grounds that she might strike down the law as unconstitutional — a signal that polling is finding the ACA is Democrats ’ strongest argument against a conservative Supreme Court .
In reply to the ACA ’ s growing popularity , Republicans have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump promised he ’ d break with conservative orthodoxy and propose a plan even more expansive than Obamacare .
“ Everybody ’ s got to be covered , ” he said .
“ This is an un-Republican thing for me to say , because a lot of times they say , ‘ No , no , the lower 25 percent that can ’ t afford private.
’ But I am going to take care of everybody.
” Trump never produced that plan and instead has simply kept lying about its existence .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he had a comprehensive replacement , when he has nothing of the sort .
Pence echoed him on Wednesday .
“ President Trump and I have a plan to improve health care and protect preexisting conditions for every American , ” Pence said , lying through his teeth .
In this case , prevarication is the tribute Republicans pay to Obamacare : If the law ’ s aims , inconsistently and insufficiently achieved as they are , weren ’ t popular , the GOP wouldn ’ t have to pretend to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and don ’ t actually support .
As Kristol predicted , Republicans can no longer promise to defend the middle class by restraining government .
Instead , they have to pretend to have a bigger , better plan for government-backed health insurance waiting in the wings .
Americans want the government to guarantee affordable , usable health insurance , and while the programs to achieve it are controversial before their passage — Medicare and Medicaid were hard-fought victories , too — they became unassailably popular afterward , reminding Americans of the value of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Obamacare ’ s weakness isn ’ t that it goes too far , but that it doesn ’ t go far enough — that premiums are too high , networks too sparse , subsidies too low .
Biden has a plan to dramatically expand Obamacare ’ s benefits and add a public insurance option to the program .
His plan doesn ’ t go as far as I ’ d like , but it ’ s still an improvement on the status quo .
And if history is any guide , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll be a political boon to them for decades to come .
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 .

Today, Bill Kristol is a prominent Never Trumper who racks up liberal retweets by the thousands of his scorching attacks on President Donald Trump. But in 1993, Kristol, who’d served as Vice President Dan Quayle’s chief of staff, was an influential Republican operative, running the Project for the Republican Future. And he was scared. President Bill Clinton had begun his push for a universal health care system and Kristol worried congressional Republicans didn’t see the danger it posed.
In a famous memo, Kristol warned that “Any Republican urge to negotiate a ‘least bad’ compromise with the Democrats, and thereby gain momentary public credit for helping the president ‘do something’ about health care, should also be resisted. Passage of the Clinton health care plan, in any form, would guarantee and likely make permanent an unprecedented federal intrusion into and disruption of the American economy — and the establishment of the largest federal entitlement program since Social Security.”
Any health care plan, no matter how watered down, would “revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests,” Kristol continued. “And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government.”
Almost three decades later, Kristol looks prescient.
In 2010, Republicans tried to stop the Affordable Care Act from passing. In the end, it became law without a single GOP vote. It was unpopular when it passed, and its Medicaid expansion was weakened by the Supreme Court a few years later. Repealing the ACA became the unifying project of the Republican Party. At Wednesday’s debate, Vice President Mike Pence voiced that consensus. “Obamacare was a disaster,” he said. “The American people remember it well.”
I think it’s Pence whose recollection may need some work. Over the past decade, Kristol’s warning came to pass. The Affordable Care Act became popular as it began delivering benefits. A majority of Americans now support it in most polls, and as Republican attacks intensify, so too does public support: A recent Morning Consult poll found 62 percent of Americans support the bill, a 7 percent jump from March. For purposes of comparison, that’s almost 20 points higher than President Trump’s approval rating.
When Republicans took over the government in 2017, their first major initiative was to try to repeal Obamacare. They failed when Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) cast the deciding vote against the repeal plan, which would have left millions uninsured. And in the years since, Obamacare has become an issue that unifies Democrats and unnerves Republicans. In 2018, the defense of the ACA drove the Democrats’ midterm messaging and led to Democrats retaking the House. At the first presidential debate, Joe Biden attacked Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, on the grounds that she might strike down the law as unconstitutional — a signal that polling is finding the ACA is Democrats’ strongest argument against a conservative Supreme Court.
In reply to the ACA’s growing popularity, Republicans have been reduced to lying. In 2016, Trump promised he’d break with conservative orthodoxy and propose a plan even more expansive than Obamacare. “Everybody’s got to be covered,” he said. “This is an un-Republican thing for me to say, because a lot of times they say, ‘No, no, the lower 25 percent that can’t afford private.’ But I am going to take care of everybody.”
Trump never produced that plan and instead has simply kept lying about its existence. At the first debate, he said again that he had a comprehensive replacement, when he has nothing of the sort. Pence echoed him on Wednesday. “President Trump and I have a plan to improve health care and protect preexisting conditions for every American,” Pence said, lying through his teeth.
In this case, prevarication is the tribute Republicans pay to Obamacare: If the law’s aims, inconsistently and insufficiently achieved as they are, weren’t popular, the GOP wouldn’t have to pretend to have a replacement they’ve never had and don’t actually support. As Kristol predicted, Republicans can no longer promise to defend the middle class by restraining government. Instead, they have to pretend to have a bigger, better plan for government-backed health insurance waiting in the wings.
Americans want the government to guarantee affordable, usable health insurance, and while the programs to achieve it are controversial before their passage — Medicare and Medicaid were hard-fought victories, too — they became unassailably popular afterward, reminding Americans of the value of government programs and tilting elections toward Democrats. Obamacare’s weakness isn’t that it goes too far, but that it doesn’t go far enough — that premiums are too high, networks too sparse, subsidies too low.
Biden has a plan to dramatically expand Obamacare’s benefits and add a public insurance option to the program. His plan doesn’t go as far as I’d like, but it’s still an improvement on the status quo. And if history is any guide, if Democrats can make it law, it’ll be a political boon to them for decades to come.


vox--2020-10-08--About that fly in the vice presidential debate

There was only one real winner of Wednesday night ’ s vice presidential debate : the fly .
Pundits will talk about the merits of the debate , who had the most speaking time , who helped their presidential candidate the most .
All of it will be eclipsed by a black housefly that temporarily got stuck on Vice President Mike Pence ’ s head .
Pence was in the middle of giving an answer to a question that was probably not the actual question moderator Susan Page asked him , when the fly landed on Pence ’ s closely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uttered the word “ insult.
” And it just stayed there .
Really , really stayed there .
Like , this thing hung on and would not let go .
Pence shook his head to show he was deeply concerned and turned to his opponent , Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris , and then , still showing deep concern , squared himself back to the camera , and still the fly would not budge .
Indeed , every time Pence looked toward the plexiglass Harris was behind because the president and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus , the viewing audience collectively wondered : Would this turn of Pence ’ s head be the thing that finally knocked the fly off ?
Would Pence finally break character to swat at his hair ?
Or would Harris put politics aside for a second to give him a little head shake to be like , Hey , Mike , there ’ s a bug on your head .
But Pence did not seem to notice , and Harris didn ’ t warn him if she did see the fly .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ two minutes — for the fly to finally depart .
It seems not that long , but this is show business , people , and all you need is one golden cameo .
The fly probably made Pence as relatable as he ’ s ever been ( I mean , who hasn ’ t had a weird thing on their face during a Zoom meeting this year ? )
, but right now it ’ s the Biden campaign that ’ s trying to fundraise off of the fly .
Because this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t comment on whether this is an attempt to distract from a solid Pence performance that might , as Vox ’ s Emily Stewart wrote , “ have put some undecided moderates at ease.
” Plus , we expect Trump will tweet about the fly eventually , anyway .
In the end , maybe it ’ s a sad day for our country that the fly won a debate between two people who could both be a heartbeat away from the presidency that would belong to a septuagenarian .
But this is 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed a break from all that doomscrolling .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 .

There was only one real winner of Wednesday night’s vice presidential debate: the fly.
Pundits will talk about the merits of the debate, who had the most speaking time, who helped their presidential candidate the most. All of it will be eclipsed by a black housefly that temporarily got stuck on Vice President Mike Pence’s head.
Pence was in the middle of giving an answer to a question that was probably not the actual question moderator Susan Page asked him, when the fly landed on Pence’s closely cropped white hair, just as he uttered the word “insult.”
And it just stayed there. Really, really stayed there.
WATCH: A fly appears to land on VP Mike Pence's head. #VPDebate pic.twitter.com/pMWBxdlwgm — The Hill (@thehill) October 8, 2020
Like, this thing hung on and would not let go. Pence shook his head to show he was deeply concerned and turned to his opponent, Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris, and then, still showing deep concern, squared himself back to the camera, and still the fly would not budge.
Indeed, every time Pence looked toward the plexiglass Harris was behind because the president and other staff members in the White House have the coronavirus, the viewing audience collectively wondered: Would this turn of Pence’s head be the thing that finally knocked the fly off? Would Pence finally break character to swat at his hair? Or would Harris put politics aside for a second to give him a little head shake to be like, Hey, Mike, there’s a bug on your head.
But Pence did not seem to notice, and Harris didn’t warn him if she did see the fly. And it took a while — approximately two minutes — for the fly to finally depart. It seems not that long, but this is show business, people, and all you need is one golden cameo.
The fly probably made Pence as relatable as he’s ever been (I mean, who hasn’t had a weird thing on their face during a Zoom meeting this year?), but right now it’s the Biden campaign that’s trying to fundraise off of the fly.
Pitch in $5 to help this campaign fly. https://t.co/CqHAId0j8t pic.twitter.com/NbkPl0a8HV — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) October 8, 2020
Because this is a joke post, we won’t comment on whether this is an attempt to distract from a solid Pence performance that might, as Vox’s Emily Stewart wrote, “have put some undecided moderates at ease.” Plus, we expect Trump will tweet about the fly eventually, anyway.
In the end, maybe it’s a sad day for our country that the fly won a debate between two people who could both be a heartbeat away from the presidency that would belong to a septuagenarian. But this is 2020, and honestly, everyone on Twitter needed a break from all that doomscrolling.


vox--2020-10-08--The bizarre abortion order just handed down by the Supreme Court, briefly explained

The Supreme Court handed down an order Thursday night that doesn ’ t so much resolve a significant fight over abortion as delay a resolution — postponing it just long enough to ensure that the justices won ’ t need to weigh in until after the election .
The case , FDA v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists , involves a dispute over whether abortion patients should have an easier time obtaining a pill used as part of a two-drug regimen to terminate a pregnancy .
Mifepristone , the drug at the center of American College , causes pregnancy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to break down and separate from the uterus itself .
About a day or two after taking mifepristone , the patient takes a second drug , misoprostol , which causes uterine contractions and expels the uterus ’ s contents .
The Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) approved the use of mifepristone for this purpose in 2000 .
Yet , while patents often take the drug at home , the FDA requires them to pick the drug up at a hospital , clinic , or medical office — it can not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Under normal circumstances , this is a fairly minor burden on abortion patients ’ ability to obtain an abortion .
During a deadly pandemic , however , this requirement that patients receive mifepristone directly from their health provider is significantly more burdensome for a variety of reasons .
Patients may be reluctant to travel to a clinic and risk infection , and many abortion providers are either closed or are operating at reduced capacity in order to limit the spread of Covid-19 ( or , at least , they were at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handed down ) .
Accordingly , a lower federal court relaxed the FDA ’ s ordinary restrictions on who can dispense mifepristone until 30 days after the end of the public health emergency triggered by the pandemic .
As Justice Samuel Alito points out in a dissenting opinion in American College , this is exactly the sort of case where Chief Justice John Roberts — who typically opposes abortion rights but who also cast a surprising vote to block a Louisiana anti-abortion law last June — would ordinarily be expected to rule in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ request , reinstating the FDA ’ s restrictions on mifepristone in the process .
In cases asking how public health officials should respond to the pandemic , Roberts has consistently emphasized that courts should defer to those officials ’ judgment .
In South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom ( 2020 ) , for example , Roberts broke with his fellow conservatives , allowing a California public health order limiting the number of people who could gather in a place of worship to remain in effect .
“ The precise question of when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lifted during the pandemic is a dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement , ” Roberts wrote in his South Bay opinion .
He added that “ our Constitution principally entrusts ‘ [ t ] he safety and the health of the people ’ to the politically accountable officials of the States ‘ to guard and protect.
’ ” A similar logic could easily be applied to the American College case , and it could be applied to this case without even having to get into the fraught legal and political issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A court ordered health officials at the FDA to change the rules regarding a particular drug , citing the pandemic as justification .
But Roberts typically requires courts to defer to such officials in pandemic-related cases .
And yet , the Court doesn ’ t so much resolve the case as toss away a hot potato until after the election is over .
Citing unspecified concerns that “ a more comprehensive record would aid this Court ’ s review , ” the Supreme Court ’ s American College order effectively punts the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to permit the District Court to promptly consider a motion by the Government to dissolve , modify , or stay the injunction , including on the ground that relevant circumstances have changed.
” The Supreme Court also orders the lower court to “ rule within 40 days of receiving the Government ’ s submission.
” A majority of the Court , in other words , called for the lower court to take a do-over .
And it gave the district court just enough time that , should this case reach the justices again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett will likely be confirmed ) .
Only Justice Clarence Thomas and Alito publicly revealed that they dissented from the Court ’ s order in American College , although it is possible that another justice dissented silently .
There ’ s no way to know with certainty why the Court took this highly unusual action , but there ’ s one cynical interpretation : At least some key members don ’ t want to wade into a giant abortion controversy in the middle of a Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The Supreme Court handed down an order Thursday night that doesn’t so much resolve a significant fight over abortion as delay a resolution — postponing it just long enough to ensure that the justices won’t need to weigh in until after the election.
The case, FDA v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, involves a dispute over whether abortion patients should have an easier time obtaining a pill used as part of a two-drug regimen to terminate a pregnancy. Mifepristone, the drug at the center of American College, causes pregnancy tissue and the lining of the uterus to break down and separate from the uterus itself. About a day or two after taking mifepristone, the patient takes a second drug, misoprostol, which causes uterine contractions and expels the uterus’s contents.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of mifepristone for this purpose in 2000. Yet, while patents often take the drug at home, the FDA requires them to pick the drug up at a hospital, clinic, or medical office — it cannot be dispensed by a retail or mail-order pharmacy.
Under normal circumstances, this is a fairly minor burden on abortion patients’ ability to obtain an abortion. During a deadly pandemic, however, this requirement that patients receive mifepristone directly from their health provider is significantly more burdensome for a variety of reasons. Patients may be reluctant to travel to a clinic and risk infection, and many abortion providers are either closed or are operating at reduced capacity in order to limit the spread of Covid-19 (or, at least, they were at the time when the lower court order was handed down).
Accordingly, a lower federal court relaxed the FDA’s ordinary restrictions on who can dispense mifepristone until 30 days after the end of the public health emergency triggered by the pandemic.
As Justice Samuel Alito points out in a dissenting opinion in American College, this is exactly the sort of case where Chief Justice John Roberts — who typically opposes abortion rights but who also cast a surprising vote to block a Louisiana anti-abortion law last June — would ordinarily be expected to rule in favor of the Trump administration’s request, reinstating the FDA’s restrictions on mifepristone in the process.
In cases asking how public health officials should respond to the pandemic, Roberts has consistently emphasized that courts should defer to those officials’ judgment. In South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (2020), for example, Roberts broke with his fellow conservatives, allowing a California public health order limiting the number of people who could gather in a place of worship to remain in effect.
“The precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities should be lifted during the pandemic is a dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement,” Roberts wrote in his South Bay opinion. He added that “our Constitution principally entrusts ‘[t]he safety and the health of the people’ to the politically accountable officials of the States ‘to guard and protect.’”
A similar logic could easily be applied to the American College case, and it could be applied to this case without even having to get into the fraught legal and political issues surrounding the right to an abortion. A court ordered health officials at the FDA to change the rules regarding a particular drug, citing the pandemic as justification. But Roberts typically requires courts to defer to such officials in pandemic-related cases.
And yet, the Court doesn’t so much resolve the case as toss away a hot potato until after the election is over. Citing unspecified concerns that “a more comprehensive record would aid this Court’s review,” the Supreme Court’s American College order effectively punts the case back down to the lower court “to permit the District Court to promptly consider a motion by the Government to dissolve, modify, or stay the injunction, including on the ground that relevant circumstances have changed.”
The Supreme Court also orders the lower court to “rule within 40 days of receiving the Government’s submission.”
A majority of the Court, in other words, called for the lower court to take a do-over. And it gave the district court just enough time that, should this case reach the justices again, the election will be over (and Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett will likely be confirmed). Only Justice Clarence Thomas and Alito publicly revealed that they dissented from the Court’s order in American College, although it is possible that another justice dissented silently.
There’s no way to know with certainty why the Court took this highly unusual action, but there’s one cynical interpretation: At least some key members don’t want to wade into a giant abortion controversy in the middle of a Supreme Court justice confirmation fight and a presidential election.


vox--2020-10-08--Biden and Trump say they won’t attend the next debate without changes

Following President Donald Trump ’ s recent Covid-19 diagnosis , the next presidential debate might be canceled .
On Thursday , Trump upended recently unveiled plans for a remote debate , saying on Fox Business , “ I ’ m not going to waste my time on a virtual debate.
” And given Trump ’ s refusal , Democratic nominee Joe Biden will also not participate , his campaign announced midday Thursday .
“ Joe Biden will find an appropriate place to take questions from voters directly on October 15th , as he has done on several occasions in recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign manager Kate Bedingfield said in a statement .
“ Given the President ’ s refusal to participate on October 15th , we hope the Debate Commission will move the Biden-Trump Town Hall to October 22nd , so that the President is not able to evade accountability.
” A back-and-forth ensued on Thursday , as the campaigns put forth potential alternate arrangements .
The second presidential debate , set for October 15 , was scheduled to be a virtual one moderated by C-SPAN political editor Steve Scully .
However , much has changed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump and Biden first met onstage on September 29 .
Most importantly , Trump is in partial isolation in the White House after testing positive for Covid-19 on October 2 .
The president has been treated with a number of cutting-edge therapies for the airborne coronavirus , but Biden has said he is hesitant to appear onstage with Trump because he could still be contagious on the day of the debate .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends people who have Covid-19 stay away from others for at least 10 days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notes that patients who — like Trump — were hospitalized and needed oxygen may be wise to self-isolate for at least 20 days .
The debate date would seem to fall after the 10-day window but before the 20-day mark , based on what is publicly known about the onset of the president ’ s symptoms .
On Tuesday , before the debate was made virtual , Biden told reporters he was uncertain about the wisdom of participating in it as planned .
“ I think if he still has Covid , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said after delivering a speech in Gettysburg , Pennsylvania , adding , “ Too many people have been infected .
It ’ s a very serious problem , so I will be guided by the guidelines of the Cleveland Clinic and what the docs say is the right thing to do.
” Until recently , Trump had seemed eager to debate despite still being treated for Covid-19 , tweeting , “ I am looking forward to the debate on the evening of Thursday , October 15th in Miami .
It will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Commission for Presidential Debates announced the second debate would be held virtually , Trump said he no longer wanted to participate , arguing , “ That ’ s not what debating ’ s all about ; you sit behind a computer and do a debate , it ’ s ridiculous .
And then they cut you off whenever they want.
” In a statement released Thursday morning , Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien reiterated Trump ’ s comments , and said that “ President Trump will have posted multiple negative tests prior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no need for this unilateral declaration.
” The White House , however , still has not said when Trump ’ s last negative Covid-19 test was .
Stepien vowed to get his candidate back on the campaign trail in short order .
This promise could be difficult to deliver on , as Trump is still actively being treated for Covid-19 .
“ We ’ ll pass on this sad excuse to bail out Joe Biden and do a rally instead , ” Stepien said .
The ability of the Commission for Presidential Debates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debates safely was called into question during the first event , during which Trump ’ s family declined to wear face masks throughout the proceedings .
Wednesday night , some Pence supporters — including his wife , Karen Pence — failed to follow masking protocol .
And following the first debate , the city of Cleveland reported at least 11 people became infected ; city officials said the cases originated from the pre-debate planning and setup .
Covid-19 testing for Trump and Biden was up to the campaigns before the September 29 debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential debate scheduled after Miami The final presidential debate — on October 22 in Nashville , Tennessee — remains on the Commission for Presidential Debates ’ schedule .
NBC anchor Kristen Welker has been selected to moderate that event ; whether it will also be virtual , and whether it will be held at all , remains to be seen .
With just weeks to go before the November 3 election , Biden ’ s advantage in the polls has only increased since the first debate and Trump ’ s Covid-19 diagnosis .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 7 percentage points last week to 9 percentage points as of Tuesday .
Biden is carrying a somewhat narrower lead in critical swing states , including Michigan , Pennsylvania , Nevada , and Arizona , according to RealClearPolitics averages .
Several polls after the first debate showed that voters did not like Trump ’ s constant interruptions of Biden during the first debate .
Polling also seems to suggest the first debate solidified two worrying trends for the president ; the movement of older voters and suburban women away from Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showed Biden winning older voters by 22 percentage points , and a post-debate poll from NBC and the Wall Street Journal found the Democrat leading the president by 25 percentage points among suburban women .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Following President Donald Trump’s recent Covid-19 diagnosis, the next debate has been canceled by the Commission on Presidential Debates, according to the Wall Street Journal and CNN.
On Thursday, Trump upended recently unveiled plans for a remote debate, saying on Fox Business, “I’m not going to waste my time on a virtual debate.”
A back-and-forth ensued on Thursday and Friday, as the campaigns floated potential alternate arrangements. Both campaigns are planning to hold separate events instead of the debate.
The second presidential debate, initially set for October 15, was to be moderated by C-SPAN political editor Steve Scully. However, much has changed since it was arranged — and since Trump and Biden first met onstage on September 29. Most importantly, Trump is in partial isolation in the White House after testing positive for Covid-19 on October 2. The president has been treated with a number of cutting-edge therapies for the airborne coronavirus, but Biden has said he is hesitant to appear onstage with Trump because he could still be contagious on the day of the debate.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends people who have Covid-19 stay away from others for at least 10 days following the appearance of symptoms, and notes that patients who — like Trump — were hospitalized and needed oxygen may be wise to self-isolate for at least 20 days. The debate date would seem to fall after the 10-day window but before the 20-day mark, based on what is publicly known about the onset of the president’s symptoms.
On Tuesday, before the debate was made virtual, Biden told reporters he was uncertain about the wisdom of participating in it as planned.
“I think if he still has Covid, we shouldn’t have a debate,” he said after delivering a speech in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, adding, “Too many people have been infected. It’s a very serious problem, so I will be guided by the guidelines of the Cleveland Clinic and what the docs say is the right thing to do.”
Until recently, Trump had seemed eager to debate despite still being treated for Covid-19, tweeting, “I am looking forward to the debate on the evening of Thursday, October 15th in Miami. It will be great!”
However, after the Commission on Presidential Debates announced the second debate would be held virtually, Trump said he no longer wanted to participate, arguing, “That’s not what debating’s all about; you sit behind a computer and do a debate, it’s ridiculous. And then they cut you off whenever they want.”
"I'm not going to waste my time on a virtual debate" -- Trump, on with Maria Bartiromo, begins his first post-coronavirus interview by saying he's pulling out of the second debate. (He sounds a little hoarse.) pic.twitter.com/R43JSszfll — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 8, 2020
In a statement released Thursday morning, Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien reiterated Trump’s comments, and said that “President Trump will have posted multiple negative tests prior to the debate, so there is no need for this unilateral declaration.” The White House, however, still has not said when Trump’s last negative Covid-19 test was.
Stepien vowed to get his candidate back on the campaign trail in short order. This promise could be difficult to deliver on, as Trump is still actively being treated for Covid-19.
“We’ll pass on this sad excuse to bail out Joe Biden and do a rally instead,” Stepien said.
And given Trump’s refusal, Democratic nominee Joe Biden will also plan a solo event, his campaign said midday Thursday.
“Joe Biden will find an appropriate place to take questions from voters directly on October 15th, as he has done on several occasions in recent weeks,” Biden’s deputy campaign manager, Kate Bedingfield, said in a statement. “Given the President’s refusal to participate on October 15th, we hope the Debate Commission will move the Biden-Trump Town Hall to October 22nd, so that the President is not able to evade accountability.”
The ability of the Commission on Presidential Debates and the advising Cleveland Clinic to conduct debates safely was called into question during the first event, during which Trump’s family declined to wear face masks throughout the proceedings.
Wednesday night, some Pence supporters — including his wife, Karen Pence — failed to follow masking protocol. And following the first debate, the city of Cleveland reported at least 11 people became infected; city officials said the cases originated from the pre-debate planning and setup.
Covid-19 testing for Trump and Biden was up to the campaigns before the September 29 debate.
Vox is part of Vox Media. Find more coverage of the 2020 election across its other 13 networks: how to vote, in-depth analysis, and how policies will affect you, your state and the country over the next four years and beyond.
There’s still one more presidential debate scheduled
The final presidential debate — on October 22 in Nashville, Tennessee — remains on the Commission on Presidential Debates’ schedule. NBC anchor Kristen Welker has been selected to moderate that event.
With just weeks to go before the November 3 election, Biden’s advantage in the polls has only increased since the first debate and Trump’s Covid-19 diagnosis. His national polling average on FiveThirtyEight rose from a 7 percentage point lead on Trump last week, to a 10 percentage point lead as of Friday, October 9.
Biden is carrying a somewhat narrower lead in critical swing states, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Arizona, according to RealClearPolitics averages. Several polls after the first debate showed that voters did not like Trump’s constant interruptions of Biden during the first debate.
Polling also seems to suggest the first debate solidified two worrying trends for the president; the movement of older voters and suburban women away from Trump and toward Biden. A recent CNN poll showed Biden winning older voters by 22 percentage points, and a post-debate poll from NBC and the Wall Street Journal found the Democrat leading the president by 25 percentage points among suburban women.


vox--2020-10-08--A new Amazon feature should make it easier to get a grocery delivery slot this winter

Millions of Americans relied on Amazon grocery delivery earlier this year as the Covid-19 pandemic hit the US , but many had one big complaint : It was often hard , if not impossible , to find an available delivery time slot in many metro regions .
Some customers were forced to check for availability dozens of times a day , including in the middle of the night , while others resorted to using a computer program to grab a spot in line .
“ One thing that if I could have a magic wand and do over in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feature that I wish we had right off the bat , is if we run out of capacity … we want to give customers an equitable and fair way to reserve a place in line , ” Stephenie Landry , Amazon ’ s vice president of grocery ( which includes Amazon Prime Now and Amazon Fresh ) , said Wednesday during an interview for Recode ’ s Code Commerce @ Home virtual event series .
Landry says Amazon has now come up with a solution if there are large spikes in demand this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a jump in Covid-19 cases , a surge in other illnesses ( like the flu ) , or bad weather .
If there ’ s no delivery availability when a shopper tries to place a grocery order , that customer can now sign up to be notified when a spot opens up .
The new feature , which will appear in areas only where delivery availability is limited , prompts customers trying to place grocery orders from Amazon Fresh or Whole Foods to reserve a virtual place in line when there is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Once a shopper signs up , they are given an estimate for when delivery availability will open up and , when it does , the company notifies them and gives them two hours to place their order .
Amazon is currently employing the new tech feature in parts of the United Kingdom , where recent surges in Covid-19 cases have spurred more customer demand for grocery deliveries .
Amazon also increased delivery capacity by more than 160 percent in the second quarter of this year to help handle the new normal in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ kind of expecting ” it ’ ll need to enable the feature in certain parts of the US in the coming months .
Amazon , as well as other online grocery delivery services from Walmart , Instacart , and Target , ran into numerous hurdles early in the pandemic , when governments in many large metropolitan regions issued stay-at-home orders for nonessential workers , causing demand for grocery delivery services to spike dramatically .
Just about all services faced out-of-stock issues for the most in-demand products , and it was not uncommon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incorrect items as warehouse and delivery workers dealt with an unprecedented array of operational obstacles and potential health risks .
And yet these companies still reported record sales .
Amazon said online grocery sales tripled in the second quarter of 2020 compared to the same three-month period in 2019 .
Walmart , Target , and Instacart also recorded huge sales increases on grocery orders .
A year ago , Amazon added grocery delivery from Amazon Fresh and Whole Foods to its existing suite of perks available to Prime members without increasing the $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ introduced Walmart+ , its own membership program that costs $ 98 a year and offers grocery delivery as its main perk .
For Amazon , though , the surge in demand — for Whole Foods deliveries specifically — has caused frustration for both Whole Foods customers and store employees .
Customers in some stores say they have to compete with Amazon delivery contractors for in-demand items .
“ I like to pick my own produce , but if I have to fight with eight people over a fricking avocado , maybe I should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me , ” one Whole Foods shopper told Bloomberg recently .
When asked about what some customers view as a degraded in-store shopping experience at Whole Foods stores , Landry cited a new Whole Foods delivery-only warehouse in Brooklyn , New York City , as an example of an alternative way the company is trying to fulfill delivery demand .
But she added that the new delivery-warehouse model is too new for Amazon to say whether it will be expanded .
“ It ’ s not necessarily a model that we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s something that we want to learn about , and we want to see what the impact to the business overall is , so it ’ s something that we ’ re looking at closely , ” Landry said .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Millions of Americans relied on Amazon grocery delivery earlier this year as the Covid-19 pandemic hit the US, but many had one big complaint: It was often hard, if not impossible, to find an available delivery time slot in many metro regions.
Some customers were forced to check for availability dozens of times a day, including in the middle of the night, while others resorted to using a computer program to grab a spot in line.
“One thing that if I could have a magic wand and do over in the early part of the pandemic, a feature that I wish we had right off the bat, is if we run out of capacity … we want to give customers an equitable and fair way to reserve a place in line,” Stephenie Landry, Amazon’s vice president of grocery (which includes Amazon Prime Now and Amazon Fresh), said Wednesday during an interview for Recode’s Code Commerce@Home virtual event series.
Landry says Amazon has now come up with a solution if there are large spikes in demand this fall and winter, whether because of a jump in Covid-19 cases, a surge in other illnesses (like the flu), or bad weather. If there’s no delivery availability when a shopper tries to place a grocery order, that customer can now sign up to be notified when a spot opens up. The new feature, which will appear in areas only where delivery availability is limited, prompts customers trying to place grocery orders from Amazon Fresh or Whole Foods to reserve a virtual place in line when there is no immediate availability over the next few days. Once a shopper signs up, they are given an estimate for when delivery availability will open up and, when it does, the company notifies them and gives them two hours to place their order.
Amazon is currently employing the new tech feature in parts of the United Kingdom, where recent surges in Covid-19 cases have spurred more customer demand for grocery deliveries. Amazon also increased delivery capacity by more than 160 percent in the second quarter of this year to help handle the new normal in grocery delivery. Landry said Amazon is “kind of expecting” it’ll need to enable the feature in certain parts of the US in the coming months.
Amazon, as well as other online grocery delivery services from Walmart, Instacart, and Target, ran into numerous hurdles early in the pandemic, when governments in many large metropolitan regions issued stay-at-home orders for nonessential workers, causing demand for grocery delivery services to spike dramatically. Just about all services faced out-of-stock issues for the most in-demand products, and it was not uncommon for orders to arrive with missing or incorrect items as warehouse and delivery workers dealt with an unprecedented array of operational obstacles and potential health risks.
And yet these companies still reported record sales. Amazon said online grocery sales tripled in the second quarter of 2020 compared to the same three-month period in 2019. Walmart, Target, and Instacart also recorded huge sales increases on grocery orders. A year ago, Amazon added grocery delivery from Amazon Fresh and Whole Foods to its existing suite of perks available to Prime members without increasing the $119 annual fee. Walmart last month introduced Walmart+, its own membership program that costs $98 a year and offers grocery delivery as its main perk.
For Amazon, though, the surge in demand — for Whole Foods deliveries specifically — has caused frustration for both Whole Foods customers and store employees. Customers in some stores say they have to compete with Amazon delivery contractors for in-demand items.
“I like to pick my own produce, but if I have to fight with eight people over a fricking avocado, maybe I should be hiring someone to do it for me,” one Whole Foods shopper told Bloomberg recently.
When asked about what some customers view as a degraded in-store shopping experience at Whole Foods stores, Landry cited a new Whole Foods delivery-only warehouse in Brooklyn, New York City, as an example of an alternative way the company is trying to fulfill delivery demand. But she added that the new delivery-warehouse model is too new for Amazon to say whether it will be expanded.
“It’s not necessarily a model that we’re going to replicate everywhere, but it’s something that we want to learn about, and we want to see what the impact to the business overall is, so it’s something that we’re looking at closely,” Landry said.
Watch the full interview with Amazon’s Landry.
ntribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-10-08--Tofurky is suing Louisiana for the right to label its veggie burgers “veggie burgers”

As of October 1 , a new law in Louisiana bans grocery stores from calling veggie burgers “ veggie burgers , ” as well as many similar product labels like “ plant-based sausages ” or “ seitan-based vegan bacon.
” The justification ?
That consumers might get confused about whether veggie burgers are made of beef .
It ’ s the latest of a series of attempts by meat companies to ban their plant-based competitors from grocery store shelves — and many legal experts say it ’ s probably unconstitutional .
Now , Tofurky — a 35-year-old company that makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ roasts — has sued , arguing that the vague , expansive restrictions Louisiana has put in place are an unconstitutional burden on free speech .
This debate has happened before .
Last year , Arkansas tried a nearly identical law , and Tofurky sued .
A judge issued an injunction a few months later , finding that the law violated the free-speech protections of the US Constitution and telling Arkansas it may not enforce the law while the case proceeds through the courts .
Mississippi tried a similar law , too , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when sued .
That didn ’ t stop Louisiana from proceeding with its own , nearly identical law , but it is likely no more constitutional than the Arkansas or Mississippi ones .
Why are we fighting about Tofurky ?
There are no indications that consumers are confused about whether veggie burgers are made out of meat .
But as plant-based products get more popular , these labeling laws are one of the meat industry ’ s favorite tools to fight back — even though courts keep on soundly rejecting them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ plant-based foods industry has seen extraordinary growth .
Products from plant-based meat companies like Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat have become available around the country , and they ’ ve been a hit with customers .
The pandemic has seen the industry boom further , just as conventional meat production has taken a hit from supply-chain disruptions and news of inhumane policies killing workers .
Plant-based meat producers have released improved products that taste even meatier , and have raised eye-popping sums of money .
It used to be the case that plant-based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and vegetarians , but they ’ re increasingly being consumed by meat-eaters — who might prefer plant alternatives for health , animal welfare , or environmental reasons .
“ Plant-based eating trends are really blowing up now , with exponential growth , ” Tofurky CEO Jaime Athos told me when we spoke last year about Tofurky ’ s nearly identical lawsuit in Arkansas .
“ We have this great moment of innovation in our industry where these products are better than ever .
They ’ re more widely available , too .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confused .
The reality is that this is a proactive decision on the parts of consumers — they understand that plant-based products are healthier for them and healthier for the environment.
” That , of course , has made some livestock producers nervous — even though sales of animal-based meat haven ’ t fallen at all .
Animal agriculture industry representatives have called plant-based foods one of the “ major challenges ” the industry faces .
So meat producers are pushing back .
In testimony in the Louisiana state legislature , supporters of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ protect our industries ” in the face of “ a growing trend ” of consumers deciding to purchase different products .
“ We must protect our industry in this state : agriculture .
It ’ s the number one industry in the state of Louisiana , ” the bill ’ s Senate sponsor , Francis Thompson ( D-Delhi ) argued during legislative hearings .
The Louisiana law prohibits companies from “ Utilizing a term that is the same as or deceptively similar to a term that has been used or defined historically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” That is , since the word “ burger ” has historically been used to refer to a product made out of meat , it ’ s illegal to use the word “ burger ” to refer to a product that isn ’ t — like “ veggie burger.
” The same principle rules out labels like “ plant-based deli slices ” or “ plant-based jumbo hot dogs.
” But is that constitutional ?
Would such a law run afoul of the First Amendment ?
Tofurky ’ s lawsuit filed today argues that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Federal laws prohibit labeling food in ways that are deceptive to consumers .
You can ’ t call a product gluten-free if it isn ’ t , or call it “ olive oil ” if it ’ s not made from olives .
When laws have tried to push beyond that , they ’ ve generally met a skeptical audience in the courts .
In a California case , the courts ruled that a claim that terms like “ soy milk ” and “ almond milk ” would confuse consumers was nonsense .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a reasonable consumer might confuse plant-based beverages such as soymilk or almond milk for dairy milk , because of the use of the word ‘ milk , ’ ” the US District Court for the Northern District of California wrote , dismissing the case .
“ The claim stretches the bounds of credulity .
Under Plaintiffs ’ logic , a reasonable consumer might also believe that veggie bacon contains pork , that flourless chocolate cake contains flour , or that e-books are made out of paper.
” A Florida case directly examined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ food labels .
Skim milk is routinely fortified with vitamin A ( which prevents blindness , and which is removed in the skimming process ) .
A law in Florida prohibited producers of milk and milk products from selling their products if the vitamin A was left out , demanding that milk without added vitamin A be called “ imitation skim milk.
” A small Florida milk producer sued , arguing that its product was skim milk and that it should be able to be labeled that way .
The courts sided with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nearly identical law in Arkansas last year was suspended by an injunction .
“ Tofurky is likely to prevail on its arguments that its labeling is neither unlawful nor inherently misleading and that Tofurky ’ s commercial speech warrants First Amendment protection , ” the judge in that case concluded .
The injunction is still in effect , preventing Arkansas from enforcing its law while the court battle is ongoing .
Does it even make sense to say that a creamery or Tofurky manufacturer has a right to free speech ?
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be applied to commercial speech — though the law is a bit complicated .
In the 1940s , the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that there were no First Amendment protections for purely commercial speech .
By the 1970s , the Court had reconsidered that and overturned it in 1976 .
In 1980 , the Court supplied the rules for First Amendment protections on commercial speech that are still applied today .
Those rules are called the “ Central Hudson ” test because they were laid out in Central Hudson Gas and Electric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are the rules : First , commercial speech “ must concern lawful activity and not be misleading.
” Supporters of Louisiana ’ s law might argue that the term “ almond milk ” is misleading , while opponents argue that consumers know perfectly well what almond milk is — that , as Utah Sen. Mike Lee ( R-UT ) put it , “ No one buys almond milk under the false illusion that it came from a cow .
They buy almond milk because it didn ’ t come from a cow.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the name of a veggie burger , or vegan hot dog , or seitan bacon , ” Jessica Almy , an attorney and director of policy at the Good Food Institute , told me when we spoke about a similar Missouri case .
“ The packages clearly disclose that this is plant-based food that has the taste or texture of this familiar food.
” “ There is not one consumer complaint to the AG ’ s office ever filed , ” Amanda Howell , co-counsel on the Louisiana case , told me .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen are doing their best to make sure consumers know that they ’ re plant-based.
” Even if the speech concerns lawful activity and is not misleading , the government can still regulate it .
But it has to meet the following standards : The government must have a “ substantial interest ” at stake , the regulation must “ directly and materially advance the government ’ s substantial interest , ” and “ the regulation must be narrowly tailored.
” There ’ s a strong case that bans on “ veggie burger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t meet this standard .
“ Tofurky Co. ’ s packaging and marketing materials clearly indicate that their products are plant based and accurately convey the products ’ ingredients , ” the ACLU wrote in the Arkansas lawsuit .
“ Consumers are not likely to be confused by the appropriate use of the word ‘ meat ’ or related terms on vegetarian or vegan products .
A consumer who is looking for food that has the flavor , texture , and appearance of bacon but was not derived from a live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bacon ’ more useful than a label that says only ‘ plant-based protein.
’ ” In the Louisiana case , “ the Act does not meet the Central Hudson test , because the government ’ s interest in restricting the speech is not substantial , and the law does not directly advance that interest and is not narrowly tailored to serve that interest , ” the lawsuit filed today argues .
“ The Act further does not meet the requirements of the Central Hudson test , because its stated purpose is protectionist favoritism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s bemusing that these laws keep getting passed , ” Howell told me .
“ It ’ s bemusing that given the win in Arkansas the states don ’ t see these laws as clear losers .
It ’ s a waste of state resources and it ’ s insulting to all consumers .
Passing laws to protect one industry over another is not the job of our government.
” The argument against the Louisiana law is one that has prevailed in court in other cases .
It is exhausting , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet again .
It ’ s past time for meat companies to move past trying to outlaw their competition and toward addressing the problems that are driving consumers toward plant-based meat : environmental concerns , the mistreatment of slaughterhouse workers , animal cruelty , and public health .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter .
Twice a week , you ’ ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges : improving public health , decreasing human and animal suffering , easing catastrophic risks , and — to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing good .
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 and the news advertising market recovers , your support will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

As of October 1, a new law in Louisiana bans grocery stores from calling veggie burgers “veggie burgers,” as well as many similar product labels like “plant-based sausages” or “seitan-based vegan bacon.”
The justification? That consumers might get confused about whether veggie burgers are made of beef. It’s the latest of a series of attempts by meat companies to ban their plant-based competitors from grocery store shelves — and many legal experts say it’s probably unconstitutional.
Now, Tofurky — a 35-year-old company that makes plant-based deli products, sausages, and roasts — has sued, arguing that the vague, expansive restrictions Louisiana has put in place are an unconstitutional burden on free speech.
This debate has happened before. Last year, Arkansas tried a nearly identical law, and Tofurky sued. A judge issued an injunction a few months later, finding that the law violated the free-speech protections of the US Constitution and telling Arkansas it may not enforce the law while the case proceeds through the courts. Mississippi tried a similar law, too, and backed down, promising to revise it, when sued. That didn’t stop Louisiana from proceeding with its own, nearly identical law, but it is likely no more constitutional than the Arkansas or Mississippi ones.
Why are we fighting about Tofurky? There are no indications that consumers are confused about whether veggie burgers are made out of meat. But as plant-based products get more popular, these labeling laws are one of the meat industry’s favorite tools to fight back — even though courts keep on soundly rejecting them.
Plant-based products are getting big. Meat companies feel threatened.
In the last few years, the plant-based foods industry has seen extraordinary growth. Products from plant-based meat companies like Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat have become available around the country, and they’ve been a hit with customers.
The pandemic has seen the industry boom further, just as conventional meat production has taken a hit from supply-chain disruptions and news of inhumane policies killing workers. Plant-based meat producers have released improved products that taste even meatier, and have raised eye-popping sums of money. It used to be the case that plant-based foods were primarily marketed just to vegans and vegetarians, but they’re increasingly being consumed by meat-eaters — who might prefer plant alternatives for health, animal welfare, or environmental reasons.
“Plant-based eating trends are really blowing up now, with exponential growth,” Tofurky CEO Jaime Athos told me when we spoke last year about Tofurky’s nearly identical lawsuit in Arkansas. “We have this great moment of innovation in our industry where these products are better than ever. They’re more widely available, too. And suddenly people are worried consumers might be confused. The reality is that this is a proactive decision on the parts of consumers — they understand that plant-based products are healthier for them and healthier for the environment.”
That, of course, has made some livestock producers nervous — even though sales of animal-based meat haven’t fallen at all. Animal agriculture industry representatives have called plant-based foods one of the “major challenges” the industry faces.
So meat producers are pushing back. In testimony in the Louisiana state legislature, supporters of the bill argued it was necessary to “protect our industries” in the face of “a growing trend” of consumers deciding to purchase different products. “We must protect our industry in this state: agriculture. It’s the number one industry in the state of Louisiana,” the bill’s Senate sponsor, Francis Thompson (D-Delhi) argued during legislative hearings.
(Not all meat companies are fighting the rise of plant-based meats; many have invested in plant-based options themselves.)
The Louisiana law prohibits companies from “Utilizing a term that is the same as or deceptively similar to a term that has been used or defined historically in reference to a specific agricultural product.”
That is, since the word “burger” has historically been used to refer to a product made out of meat, it’s illegal to use the word “burger” to refer to a product that isn’t — like “veggie burger.” The same principle rules out labels like “plant-based deli slices” or “plant-based jumbo hot dogs.”
But is that constitutional? Would such a law run afoul of the First Amendment? Tofurky’s lawsuit filed today argues that it does. The lawsuit argues:
The Act imposes sweeping restrictions on commercial speech. It prohibits companies from sharing truthful and non-misleading information about their products while doing nothing to protect the public from any conceivable harm. By censoring familiar terms (like “veggie sausage”) that any reasonable consumer understands, the Act only creates needless consumer confusion. And it does so with the clear purpose of suppressing free market competition for the benefit of specific state-defined competitors. In so doing, the Act violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Past court decisions broadly support this constitutional argument.
Federal laws prohibit labeling food in ways that are deceptive to consumers. You can’t call a product gluten-free if it isn’t, or call it “olive oil” if it’s not made from olives. When laws have tried to push beyond that, they’ve generally met a skeptical audience in the courts.
In a California case, the courts ruled that a claim that terms like “soy milk” and “almond milk” would confuse consumers was nonsense. “The crux of the claims is that a reasonable consumer might confuse plant-based beverages such as soymilk or almond milk for dairy milk, because of the use of the word ‘milk,’” the US District Court for the Northern District of California wrote, dismissing the case. “The claim stretches the bounds of credulity. Under Plaintiffs’ logic, a reasonable consumer might also believe that veggie bacon contains pork, that flourless chocolate cake contains flour, or that e-books are made out of paper.”
A Florida case directly examined free speech rights as they apply to food labels. Skim milk is routinely fortified with vitamin A (which prevents blindness, and which is removed in the skimming process). A law in Florida prohibited producers of milk and milk products from selling their products if the vitamin A was left out, demanding that milk without added vitamin A be called “imitation skim milk.” A small Florida milk producer sued, arguing that its product was skim milk and that it should be able to be labeled that way. The courts sided with the milk producer.
And finally, a nearly identical law in Arkansas last year was suspended by an injunction. “Tofurky is likely to prevail on its arguments that its labeling is neither unlawful nor inherently misleading and that Tofurky’s commercial speech warrants First Amendment protection,” the judge in that case concluded. The injunction is still in effect, preventing Arkansas from enforcing its law while the court battle is ongoing.
The free speech question
Does it even make sense to say that a creamery or Tofurky manufacturer has a right to free speech? The answer is yes.
The First Amendment can be applied to commercial speech — though the law is a bit complicated. In the 1940s, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that there were no First Amendment protections for purely commercial speech. By the 1970s, the Court had reconsidered that and overturned it in 1976.
In 1980, the Court supplied the rules for First Amendment protections on commercial speech that are still applied today. Those rules are called the “Central Hudson” test because they were laid out in Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission.
Here are the rules: First, commercial speech “must concern lawful activity and not be misleading.” Supporters of Louisiana’s law might argue that the term “almond milk” is misleading, while opponents argue that consumers know perfectly well what almond milk is — that, as Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) put it, “No one buys almond milk under the false illusion that it came from a cow. They buy almond milk because it didn’t come from a cow.”
“There’s nothing misleading about the name of a veggie burger, or vegan hot dog, or seitan bacon,” Jessica Almy, an attorney and director of policy at the Good Food Institute, told me when we spoke about a similar Missouri case. “The packages clearly disclose that this is plant-based food that has the taste or texture of this familiar food.”
“There is not one consumer complaint to the AG’s office ever filed,” Amanda Howell, an attorney for the Animal Legal Defense Fund and co-counsel on the Louisiana case, told me. “All plant-based products I’ve seen are doing their best to make sure consumers know that they’re plant-based.”
Even if the speech concerns lawful activity and is not misleading, the government can still regulate it. But it has to meet the following standards: The government must have a “substantial interest” at stake, the regulation must “directly and materially advance the government’s substantial interest,” and “the regulation must be narrowly tailored.”
There’s a strong case that bans on “veggie burger” and “tofu sausage” labels don’t meet this standard. “Tofurky Co.’s packaging and marketing materials clearly indicate that their products are plant based and accurately convey the products’ ingredients,” the ACLU wrote in the Arkansas lawsuit. “Consumers are not likely to be confused by the appropriate use of the word ‘meat’ or related terms on vegetarian or vegan products. A consumer who is looking for food that has the flavor, texture, and appearance of bacon but was not derived from a live pig would find the label ‘veggie bacon’ more useful than a label that says only ‘plant-based protein.’”
In the Louisiana case, “the Act does not meet the Central Hudson test, because the government’s interest in restricting the speech is not substantial, and the law does not directly advance that interest and is not narrowly tailored to serve that interest,” the lawsuit filed today argues. “The Act further does not meet the requirements of the Central Hudson test, because its stated purpose is protectionist favoritism of specific state industries.”
“It’s bemusing that these laws keep getting passed,” Howell told me. “It’s bemusing that given the win in Arkansas the states don’t see these laws as clear losers. It’s a waste of state resources and it’s insulting to all consumers. Passing laws to protect one industry over another is not the job of our government.”
The argument against the Louisiana law is one that has prevailed in court in other cases. It is exhausting, and somewhat frustrating, to be fighting it yet again. It’s past time for meat companies to move past trying to outlaw their competition and toward addressing the problems that are driving consumers toward plant-based meat: environmental concerns, the mistreatment of slaughterhouse workers, animal cruelty, and public health.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good.


vox--2020-10-08--Sen. Mike Lee’s tweets against “democracy,” explained

It ’ s not often that you see a US senator declare that “ we ’ re not a democracy , ” let alone to paint that as a good thing .
Yet that ’ s exactly what Sen. Mike Lee ( R-UT ) did in a pair of tweets spanning Wednesday night and Thursday morning , arguing that “ democracy isn ’ t the objective ; liberty , peace , and prospefity [ sic ] are.
” “ We want the human condition to flourish .
Rank democracy can thwart that , ” Lee writes .
This may sound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s reason to think it actually is .
But understanding Lee ’ s comments on their own terms requires a little more charity — and subtlety .
On the American right , there is a long tradition of arguing that the United States is a “ republic , not a democracy , ” a distinction its proponents trace back to the founders .
It centers not on whether a nation holds competitive elections but the extent to which it puts constraints on majorities from restricting the rights of minorities .
Democracies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ untrammeled majority rule ; republics put in place rules that prevent legislators from using their power in tyrannical ways ( think the Bill of Rights ) .
Conn Carroll , Lee ’ s spokesperson , framed the tweets in that tradition in a statement , saying that recent Democratic proposals to reform America ’ s political institutions amount to the bad kind of “ democracy ” the founders warned about .
“ At a time when Democrats want to pack the Court , eliminate the Electoral College , and turn the Senate into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Americans are re-reading The Federalist Papers to rediscover why the founders put these specific republican checks on democratic passion into the Constitution , ” he told me in an email .
The problem is that the underlying reading of early American documents is quite wrong .
When the founders inveighed against “ democracy , ” they were warning against something very different — direct democracy rather than the election of representatives — that isn ’ t really on the table in modern America .
The spin offered by Lee and others on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as arguments for curbing democracy in the ordinary sense of the word — the ability of majorities to enact popular policies ( that conservatives disapproved of ) .
Warning against “ the tyranny of the majority ” serves as a justification for minority rule .
It can also serve as justification for something worse .
At a time when President Trump is calling for the prosecution of Barack Obama and Joe Biden , while both he and Vice President Mike Pence refuse to commit to a peaceful transfer of power , this kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harmless dispute over political theory .
It is true that the founders were deeply concerned about tyranny of the majority — the passions of the many leading to a trampling on the rights of the view .
It ’ s also true that they were deeply skeptical about something they called “ democracy.
” “ Democracy never lasts long , ” John Adams wrote in 1814 .
“ It soon wastes , exhausts and murders itself .
There never was a Democracy Yet , that did not commit suicide.
” But when they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t mean the concept as we ordinarily understand it .
As the New York Times ’ s Jamelle Bouie shows in an excellent 2019 column , the founders were actually preoccupied by democracy as practiced in ancient Athens , a society where all adult male citizens voted on policy measures rather than electing representatives to do the voting for them : In short , what we call “ representative democracy ” today — a system of government where people elect leaders to make policy — is what the founders called a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy ” in the Athenian sense does not mean that America is not a democracy in the contemporary sense .
Nowadays , the terms “ democracy ” and “ republic ” generally refer to different kinds of things in comparative political science .
“ Democracy ” contrasts with “ authoritarianism , ” referring to whether the head of government ( who makes policy ) is chosen in free and fair elections .
“ Republic ” contrasts with “ monarchy , ” referring to whether the head of state ( the symbolic leader of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line of succession .
You can have democratic republics like the United States , where the elected president is both head of government and head of state .
You can have democratic monarchies , like the United Kingdom , where the elected prime minister is the head of government while the monarch is head of state .
You can have authoritarian republics , like Russia , and authoritarian monarchies , like Saudi Arabia .
Lee ’ s definition of “ democracy ” is out of step with both the way the founders used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ observers use it today .
It is an idiosyncratic definition found almost exclusively among American conservatives — in a way that reveals some deeper problems in the modern conservative project .
Some of the earliest contrasts between “ democracy ” and “ republic ” in Lee ’ s sense , according to Cornell historian Lawrence Glickman , came from conservative opponents of the New Deal .
At the time , President Roosevelt sold his policies — both domestic and foreign — as a means of defending and enhancing American democracy .
Some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s redistributive agenda as a kind of incipient authoritarianism , used the “ republic versus democracy ” distinction as a counter .
“ There is no surer way to destroy our government than to champion legislation under the guise of democracy , which piece by piece undermines the checks and balances of our republic , ” anti-New Dealer H.W .
Prentis Jr. wrote in 1939 .
The John Birch Society , a radical faction in the postwar conservative movement , helped popularize the “ republic versus democracy ” distinction in the 1950s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hemmer , a historian of the conservative movement at Columbia University , the idea really took off on the right during the conservative fight against civil rights legislation and Supreme Court rulings expanding the franchise .
“ It goes back to the ‘ republic , not a democracy ’ chants from the 1964 [ Republican ] convention , ” she tells me .
“ Conservatives rejected the one-person-one-vote standard of the Warren Court , a set of arguments deeply entangled with their opposition to the Black civil rights movement.
” This is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a seemingly innocuous terminological dispute actually takes on real stakes .
It reveals how modern conservatism has long had a built-in intellectual justification for ruling without popular support .
The Birch-style “ republic , not a democracy ” argument allows Republicans to cast moves to expand democratic opportunities and make government responsive to popular support for particular policies — abolishing the Electoral College and filibuster , per Lee ’ s spokesperson — as examples of the bad kind of “ democracy , ” of giving too much power to the people and thus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minority rule , for Republicans to govern even when majorities of voters reject them , are transmuted into features of our good “ republic.
” Obviously , there are cases in which counter-majoritarian institutions are good and justified — the First Amendment , for example , protects freedom of speech and religion against majorities that can quite easily turn against them .
One of the most difficult questions in political philosophy , endlessly debated in academic journals , is how societies should navigate between the democratic principle that majorities rule and the liberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permissibly violated .
But the tradition Lee is operating out of goes further than that .
It casts doubt on the most basic democratic principle : that the people who win the public ’ s support should rightly govern .
It takes such an extreme position on what should be out of bounds that it can be used to argue that Democrats being able to implement their policy agenda is itself a form of tyranny .
“ As early as the late 1980s/early 1990s , Pat Buchanan is spearheading a sharper suspicion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right , ” Hemmer says .
“ It comes and goes — obviously , the neocons liked the rhetoric of democracy — but it ’ s pretty clear that the GOP has come to embrace minoritarian and anti-democratic politics.
” In the context of the 2020 election , the anti-democratic strain embodied by Lee ’ s rhetoric takes on particularly serious significance .
President Trump has been clear that he believes any Biden win will be fraudulent ; he has refused to commit to accepting the results of the election or even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Republican Party as a whole has largely aided and abetted this approach , most notably by insisting on the fiction of massive voter fraud and enacting policies at the state level that make it harder for Democratic-leaning constituencies to vote .
The idea that majority rule is intrinsically oppressive is necessarily an embrace of anti-democracy : an argument that an enlightened few , meaning Republican supporters , should be able to make decisions for the rest of us .
If the election is close , and Trump makes a serious play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ we ’ re not a democracy ” argument provides a ready-made justification for tactics that amount to a kind of legal coup .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

It’s not often that you see a US senator declare that “we’re not a democracy,” let alone to paint that as a good thing. Yet that’s exactly what Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) did in a pair of tweets spanning Wednesday night and Thursday morning, arguing that “democracy isn’t the objective; liberty, peace, and prospefity [sic] are.”
“We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that,” Lee writes.
This may sound like an endorsement of authoritarianism, and there’s reason to think it actually is. But understanding Lee’s comments on their own terms requires a little more charity — and subtlety.
On the American right, there is a long tradition of arguing that the United States is a “republic, not a democracy,” a distinction its proponents trace back to the founders. It centers not on whether a nation holds competitive elections but the extent to which it puts constraints on majorities from restricting the rights of minorities. Democracies, on this definition, allow for untrammeled majority rule; republics put in place rules that prevent legislators from using their power in tyrannical ways (think the Bill of Rights).
Conn Carroll, Lee’s spokesperson, framed the tweets in that tradition in a statement, saying that recent Democratic proposals to reform America’s political institutions amount to the bad kind of “democracy” the founders warned about.
“At a time when Democrats want to pack the Court, eliminate the Electoral College, and turn the Senate into the House, it is very good that Americans are re-reading The Federalist Papers to rediscover why the founders put these specific republican checks on democratic passion into the Constitution,” he told me in an email.
The problem is that the underlying reading of early American documents is quite wrong. When the founders inveighed against “democracy,” they were warning against something very different — direct democracy rather than the election of representatives — that isn’t really on the table in modern America.
The spin offered by Lee and others on the right, historically speaking, originated as arguments for curbing democracy in the ordinary sense of the word — the ability of majorities to enact popular policies (that conservatives disapproved of). Warning against “the tyranny of the majority” serves as a justification for minority rule.
It can also serve as justification for something worse. At a time when President Trump is calling for the prosecution of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, while both he and Vice President Mike Pence refuse to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, this kind of talk isn’t just a harmless dispute over political theory.
It’s intellectual scaffolding for a constitutional disaster.
The republic versus democracy distinction, briefly explained
It is true that the founders were deeply concerned about tyranny of the majority — the passions of the many leading to a trampling on the rights of the view. It’s also true that they were deeply skeptical about something they called “democracy.”
“Democracy never lasts long,” John Adams wrote in 1814. “It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide.”
But when they talk about “democracy,” they don’t mean the concept as we ordinarily understand it. As the New York Times’s Jamelle Bouie shows in an excellent 2019 column, the founders were actually preoccupied by democracy as practiced in ancient Athens, a society where all adult male citizens voted on policy measures rather than electing representatives to do the voting for them:
When James Madison critiqued “democracy” in Federalist No. 10, he meant the Athenian sort: “a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person.” This he contrasted with a “republic” or “a government in which the scheme of representation takes place.” Likewise, in a 1788 speech to the New York ratification convention, Alexander Hamilton disavowed “the ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated.” They “never possessed one good feature of government,” he said. “Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”
In short, what we call “representative democracy” today — a system of government where people elect leaders to make policy — is what the founders called a “republic.” Their attacks on “democracy” in the Athenian sense does not mean that America is not a democracy in the contemporary sense.
Nowadays, the terms “democracy” and “republic” generally refer to different kinds of things in comparative political science. “Democracy” contrasts with “authoritarianism,” referring to whether the head of government (who makes policy) is chosen in free and fair elections. “Republic” contrasts with “monarchy,” referring to whether the head of state (the symbolic leader of the nation) comes from a hereditary line of succession.
You can have democratic republics like the United States, where the elected president is both head of government and head of state. You can have democratic monarchies, like the United Kingdom, where the elected prime minister is the head of government while the monarch is head of state. You can have authoritarian republics, like Russia, and authoritarian monarchies, like Saudi Arabia.
Lee’s definition of “democracy” is out of step with both the way the founders used the term and the way most political observers use it today. It is an idiosyncratic definition found almost exclusively among American conservatives — in a way that reveals some deeper problems in the modern conservative project.
Why Lee’s anti-“democracy” tweets matter
Some of the earliest contrasts between “democracy” and “republic” in Lee’s sense, according to Cornell historian Lawrence Glickman, came from conservative opponents of the New Deal. At the time, President Roosevelt sold his policies — both domestic and foreign — as a means of defending and enhancing American democracy. Some of his opponents, who saw the president’s redistributive agenda as a kind of incipient authoritarianism, used the “republic versus democracy” distinction as a counter.
“There is no surer way to destroy our government than to champion legislation under the guise of democracy, which piece by piece undermines the checks and balances of our republic,” anti-New Dealer H.W. Prentis Jr. wrote in 1939.
The John Birch Society, a radical faction in the postwar conservative movement, helped popularize the “republic versus democracy” distinction in the 1950s and ’60s. According to Nicole Hemmer, a historian of the conservative movement at Columbia University, the idea really took off on the right during the conservative fight against civil rights legislation and Supreme Court rulings expanding the franchise.
“It goes back to the ‘republic, not a democracy’ chants from the 1964 [Republican] convention,” she tells me. “Conservatives rejected the one-person-one-vote standard of the Warren Court, a set of arguments deeply entangled with their opposition to the Black civil rights movement.”
This is the key move, the moment in which a seemingly innocuous terminological dispute actually takes on real stakes. It reveals how modern conservatism has long had a built-in intellectual justification for ruling without popular support.
The Birch-style “republic, not a democracy” argument allows Republicans to cast moves to expand democratic opportunities and make government responsive to popular support for particular policies — abolishing the Electoral College and filibuster, per Lee’s spokesperson — as examples of the bad kind of “democracy,” of giving too much power to the people and thus enabling oppression. Tools that allow for minority rule, for Republicans to govern even when majorities of voters reject them, are transmuted into features of our good “republic.”
Obviously, there are cases in which counter-majoritarian institutions are good and justified — the First Amendment, for example, protects freedom of speech and religion against majorities that can quite easily turn against them. One of the most difficult questions in political philosophy, endlessly debated in academic journals, is how societies should navigate between the democratic principle that majorities rule and the liberal principle that certain rights may never be permissibly violated.
But the tradition Lee is operating out of goes further than that. It casts doubt on the most basic democratic principle: that the people who win the public’s support should rightly govern. It takes such an extreme position on what should be out of bounds that it can be used to argue that Democrats being able to implement their policy agenda is itself a form of tyranny.
“As early as the late 1980s/early 1990s, Pat Buchanan is spearheading a sharper suspicion of democracy that would become increasingly influential on the right,” Hemmer says. “It comes and goes — obviously, the neocons liked the rhetoric of democracy — but it’s pretty clear that the GOP has come to embrace minoritarian and anti-democratic politics.”
In the context of the 2020 election, the anti-democratic strain embodied by Lee’s rhetoric takes on particularly serious significance.
President Trump has been clear that he believes any Biden win will be fraudulent; he has refused to commit to accepting the results of the election or even agreeing to a peaceful transition of power. The Republican Party as a whole has largely aided and abetted this approach, most notably by insisting on the fiction of massive voter fraud and enacting policies at the state level that make it harder for Democratic-leaning constituencies to vote.
The idea that majority rule is intrinsically oppressive is necessarily an embrace of anti-democracy: an argument that an enlightened few, meaning Republican supporters, should be able to make decisions for the rest of us. If the election is close, and Trump makes a serious play to steal it, Lee’s “we’re not a democracy” argument provides a ready-made justification for tactics that amount to a kind of legal coup.


vox--2020-10-08--How US schools punish Black kids

How US schools punish Black kids

For the 50 million kids who attend public schools in the US , the 2020 election is personal .
That ’ s because whoever wins the presidency also decides how American schools handle things like testing , class size , and discipline .
When it comes to who gets punished — and removed — from the classroom , the US doesn ’ t treat all students equally .
Black students are suspended and expelled far more frequently than their white classmates , often for the same or similar offenses .
As a result , Black kids are missing weeks of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies .
During the Obama administration , the Department of Education started to take this problem seriously .
They investigated schools and districts with significant racial gaps in punishment rates and gave them guidance on how to replace outdated policies with more effective ones .
But Betsy DeVos , President Trump ’ s secretary of education , has abandoned those efforts .
And since the administration hasn ’ t released any new discipline data since the 2015-16 school year , we have no idea how many Black students are currently affected by school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we explain the origins of this crisis and how the 2020 election could change things .
If you want to learn more about racial disparities in school discipline , check out the UCLA Civil Rights Project , which has been studying this crisis for years .
Our colleagues at ProPublica , particularly Annie Waldman , have done extensive investigative work chronicling how the Trump administration has neglected to enforce students ’ civil rights .
The Texas study we mention in the video is publicly available through the Center for State Governments .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ series on the 2020 election .
We aren ’ t covering the horse race ; instead , we want to explain the stakes of the election through the issues that matter the most to you .
To do that , we want to know what you think the US presidential candidates should be talking about .
Tell us here : http : //vox.com/ElectionVideos .
You can find this video and all of Vox ’ s videos on YouTube .
If you ’ re interested in supporting our video journalism , you can become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on YouTube .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

For the 50 million kids who attend public schools in the US, the 2020 election is personal. That’s because whoever wins the presidency also decides how American schools handle things like testing, class size, and discipline.
When it comes to who gets punished — and removed — from the classroom, the US doesn’t treat all students equally. Black students are suspended and expelled far more frequently than their white classmates, often for the same or similar offenses. As a result, Black kids are missing weeks of school each year because of unfair discipline policies.
During the Obama administration, the Department of Education started to take this problem seriously. They investigated schools and districts with significant racial gaps in punishment rates and gave them guidance on how to replace outdated policies with more effective ones. But Betsy DeVos, President Trump’s secretary of education, has abandoned those efforts. And since the administration hasn’t released any new discipline data since the 2015-16 school year, we have no idea how many Black students are currently affected by school punishment policies.
In the video above, we explain the origins of this crisis and how the 2020 election could change things.
If you want to learn more about racial disparities in school discipline, check out the UCLA Civil Rights Project, which has been studying this crisis for years. Our colleagues at ProPublica, particularly Annie Waldman, have done extensive investigative work chronicling how the Trump administration has neglected to enforce students’ civil rights. The Texas study we mention in the video is publicly available through the Center for State Governments.
This video is the fourth in our series on the 2020 election. We aren’t covering the horse race; instead, we want to explain the stakes of the election through the issues that matter the most to you. To do that, we want to know what you think the US presidential candidates should be talking about. Tell us here: http://vox.com/ElectionVideos.
You can find this video and all of Vox’s videos on YouTube. If you’re interested in supporting our video journalism, you can become a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube.