vox--2020-02-12--What we know (and don’t know) about the Nevada caucus “tool”

Here we go again !
Fresh off the unmitigated ( and still unfolding ) disaster that was the Iowa Democratic caucuses , Nevada will soon kick off caucuses of its own .
After understandably scrapping its plans to use an app made by Shadow Inc. , the company behind Iowa ’ s fated caucus app , the Nevada State Democratic Party is now scrambling to come up with a solution before the early voting period begins on February 15 .
Exactly what that solution might be remains a mystery to the greater public .
Multiple reports say the party is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ iPad “ tool , ” which , the party told volunteers , is not an app — despite its app-like properties .
But the state party has yet to confirm this or much of anything else .
Nevada ’ s secrecy is not a good sign , given how tight-lipped its Iowa predecessors were .
The caucus process differs depending on the state ( and political party ) that does them .
Nevada has been the third in the country to hold its Democratic nominating contest since 2008 .
Then-Sen. Harry Reid argued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of America ’ s population than Iowa ( the first caucus ) and New Hampshire ( the first primary ) did and so should have the chance to be an influential part of the presidential nominating process .
This year , Nevada ’ s Democratic caucus will be held on February 22 , with early voting taking place February 15-18 .
This is the first time the caucus has had early voting , allowing registered Democrats to make their choice in person at any early voting location in their county .
( While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters , Nevada has same-day voting registration . )
On February 22 , caucus-goers will report to their precinct and stand on the side of the room designated for the candidate they prefer .
If a candidate doesn ’ t get a certain threshold of support — typically 15 percent , depending on the number of delegates at stake — they ’ ll be considered non-viable and their supporters will have to “ realign ” to a viable candidate ( or not vote at all ) .
There will also be paper ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are anything like Iowa ’ s , will come in handy .
Once that ’ s all figured out , voters pick delegates to represent their selections at conventions .
In the event of a tie , the delegate will be decided by a drawing of playing cards .
Yes , that ’ s right : In Vegas fashion , whichever group picks the highest card wins the delegate .
If the groups pick the same card , the winner is chosen according to the card ’ s suit ( spades being the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and finally clubs ) .
The candidate who gets the most delegates — not the one who gets the most votes — is considered the winner .
This year is the first to allow for early voting , the hope being that the option will increase participation among potential voters who can ’ t make the February 22 event .
Early voters will submit their top three to five choices on a paper ballot .
If a voter ’ s first choice doesn ’ t meet the threshold , their vote will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their list .
The new rules also limit the number of realignment rounds to one .
Also , precinct chairs will have to submit both the raw vote totals as well as the delegate counts to party headquarters , much like Iowa ’ s precinct chairs did .
That means they ’ ll report three sets of numbers : the first round of votes , the votes after the realignment , and the number of delegates awarded .
In previous contests , precinct chairs simply reported the number of delegates won .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several new steps to the reporting process .
These complications are likely why state party leaders planned to use a new smartphone app to help chairs report all those extra numbers .
While Iowa had used a ( different ) app in 2016 , this year would have been Nevada ’ s first caucus with one .
Nevada paid Shadow at least $ 60,000 to develop the app — and recommended the company to the organizers of the Iowa caucuses .
In the original Nevada plan , the app would send early votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the in-person caucus totals .
The app would then calculate the combined results and report them back to the state party headquarters .
Similar to the Iowa caucus , there would be phone and paper backups in place , according to the Reno Gazette-Journal .
The smartphone app is dead .
Long live the iPad “ tool.
” In the wake of the Iowa caucus , Nevada quickly distanced itself from Shadow , saying it would not be using its apps and was “ currently evaluating the best path forward.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what that path was .
News outlets reported Saturday that the party was demonstrating a “ caucus tool ” to be preloaded onto iPads distributed to precinct chairs .
Preloading the tool sounds like a good idea , considering how many Iowa chairs had difficulty downloading their apps onto their mobile devices , let alone actually running them .
The tool , assuming it works as intended , will give chairs the early voter numbers so they can integrate them into the vote totals .
According to the reports , the party stressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but rather a tool .
The difference between an “ app ” and a “ tool ” remains unclear .
And assuming the reports are true , the iPads that the tool will be installed on will not be able to connect to the internet .
This should make it harder for any would-be hackers to infiltrate the devices and influence the caucus results .
Which , one long week ago , before the caucuses began , was the biggest source of concern about online voting tools .
We don ’ t know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as who developed it and what , if any , cybersecurity tests it ’ s been put through .
Even volunteers complained about how little information they were given by the party thus far .
This might be because the party itself doesn ’ t know what the procedure will be .
According to the New York Times , it ’ s still testing out various “ backup plans.
” The Nevada State Democratic Party told Recode that it has over 3,000 volunteers and 300 site leads who are “ actively receiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide any details beyond this , nor did it address the non-app tool .
Nevada might have learned a few lessons from Iowa regarding which app vendors to trust , but it doesn ’ t appear to have learned that transparency is an essential part of the democratic process .
Update , February 12 , 2020 , 4:25 pm Eastern : This post has been updated to add comment from the Nevada State Democratic Party .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and @ @ @ @ @

Here we go again!
Fresh off the unmitigated disaster that was the Iowa Democratic caucuses, Nevada is kicking off caucuses of its own. After understandably scrapping its plans to use an app made by Shadow Inc., the company behind Iowa’s ill-fated caucus app, the Nevada State Democratic Party came up with a last-minute replacement — just in time for the early voting that began on February 15.
The replacement is a “tool” — reportedly (and, again, understandably) party leaders intentionally stayed away from calling it an “app” — which involves party-distributed iPads equipped with “caucus calculators” accessed through a simple Google form.
How Nevada’s Democratic caucuses work
The caucus process differs depending on the state (and political party) that does them. Nevada has been the third in the country to hold its Democratic nominating contest since 2008. Then-Sen. Harry Reid argued that his state better reflected the diversity of America’s population than Iowa (the first caucus) and New Hampshire (the first primary) did, so should have the chance to be an influential part of the presidential nominating process.
This year, Nevada’s Democratic caucus will be held on February 22, with early voting taking place February 15 to 18. This is the first time the caucus has had early voting, allowing registered Democrats to make their choice in person at any early voting location in their county. (While the caucuses are considered closed to non-affiliated voters, Nevada has same-day voting registration.)
On February 22, caucus-goers will report to their precinct and stand on the side of the room designated for the candidate they prefer. If a candidate doesn’t get a certain threshold of support — typically 15 percent, depending on the number of delegates at stake — they’ll be considered non-viable and their supporters will have to “realign” to a viable candidate (or not vote at all). There will also be paper ballot backups — which, if the caucuses are anything like Iowa’s, will come in handy.
Once that’s all figured out, voters pick delegates to represent their selections at conventions. In the event of a tie, the delegate will be decided by a drawing of playing cards. Yes, that’s right: In Vegas fashion, whichever group picks the highest card wins the delegate. If the groups pick the same card, the winner is chosen according to the card’s suit (spades being the highest, then hearts, diamonds, and finally clubs).
The candidate who gets the most delegates — not the one who gets the most votes — is considered the winner.
What changed in 2020
This year is the first to allow for early voting, the hope being that the option will increase participation among potential voters who can’t make the February 22 event. Early voters will submit their top three to five choices on a paper ballot. If a voter’s first choice doesn’t meet the threshold, their vote will be awarded to the next viable candidate on their list. The new rules also limit the number of realignment rounds to one.
Also, precinct chairs will have to submit both the raw vote totals as well as the delegate counts to party headquarters, much like Iowa’s precinct chairs did. That means they’ll report three sets of numbers: the first round of votes, the votes after the realignment, and the number of delegates awarded. In previous contests, precinct chairs simply reported the number of delegates won. While this increases transparency, it also adds several new steps to the reporting process.
These complications are likely why state party leaders planned to use a new smartphone app to help chairs report all those extra numbers. While Iowa had used a (different) app in 2016, this year would have been Nevada’s first caucus that uses one. Nevada paid Shadow at least $60,000 to develop the app — and recommended the company to the organizers of the Iowa caucuses.
In the original Nevada plan, the app would send early votes to precinct chairs that would be combined with the in-person caucus totals. The app would then calculate the combined results and report them back to the state party headquarters. Similar to the Iowa caucus, there would be phone and paper backups in place, according to the Reno Gazette-Journal.
The smartphone app is dead. Long live the iPad “tool.”
In the wake of the Iowa caucus, Nevada quickly distanced itself from Shadow, saying it would not be using its apps and was “currently evaluating the best path forward.” But it didn’t say much about what that path was. News outlets reported Saturday that the party was demonstrating a “caucus tool” (the party discouraged volunteers from referring to it as an app, presumably due to the term’s new negative connotations) to be preloaded onto iPads distributed to precinct chairs. Preloading the tool sounds like a good idea, considering how many Iowa chairs had difficulty downloading their apps onto their mobile devices, let alone actually running them.
On February 13, a memo from the state party went out to campaigns that shed a little more light on the process: The tool is, in fact, a “caucus calculator” — accessed through a Google form — that would help precinct chairs figure out which candidates met the threshold and how many delegates to award the ones who did. The process sounds very similar to the functions of the app it replaces. The party said it consulted with the Democratic National Committee, the Department of Homeland Security, and Google to ensure security from potential hackers, which was, once upon a time, the primary concern about the caucus apps.
Chairs will have to report their results either through a phone hotline or by taking a photo of their reporting sheets and texting them to the party headquarters.
On February 19 — three days before the caucus is set to begin — the Nevada State Democratic Party released training guides showing precinct chairs how to operate the iPad tool:
Yes, the instructions include steps such as “open iPad case,” but, considering Iowa’s issues with some precinct chairs being entirely unfamiliar with smartphone apps, it’s probably a good idea to not assume any prior knowledge. Nevertheless, those familiar with Google Forms will feel right at home:
Chairs will also be completing a paper “math poster” worksheet that will require them to do the same basic math the iPad tool is supposed to do for them.
The most complicated part of the process — calculating re-aligned early voting results — still remains a bit of a mystery; the guide simply tells chairs to click “next” and the new totals will automatically appear, apparently distributed by the tool behind the scenes:
Once again, it looks like we’ll just have to hope the tool works as required come caucus night.
Update February 22, 2020, 4:40 pm: This post has been updated to add new details about the caucus tool and process.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


Trump’s purge

“ If American democracy were to collapse , ” Cornell political scientist Tom Pepinsky recently wrote , “ you almost certainly wouldn ’ t notice it.
” The past week has been a testament to just how right he was .
While much of the country was preoccupied with the New Hampshire primary Tuesday night , something remarkable happened : Every single prosecutor working on Roger Stone ’ s case resigned in protest .
The apparent reason : Attorney General Bill Barr ’ s intervention in the case on behalf of the president leading the government to file a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seven- to nine-year prison sentence request for Donald Trump ’ s political ally that prosecutors had initially asked for .
The four prosecutors who resigned — Aaron Zelinsky , Jonathan Kravis , Adam Jed , and Michael Marando — are career officials , not political appointees .
They had worked diligently to prove that Stone had made false statements , obstructed justice , and tampered with witnesses in relation to the Russia scandal and Robert Mueller ’ s investigation , and secured a conviction in November .
Now Trump and Barr are trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of presidential interference with the Justice Department is hardly normal ; one former Justice Department official called it a “ break-glass-in-case-of-fire moment.
” Yet President Trump is publicly reveling in this brazen attack on DOJ independence , tweeting “ congratulations to Attorney General Bill Barr ” on Wednesday morning “ for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought.
” This is not an isolated incident , but rather part of a new pattern of politicizing the federal bureaucracy .
Since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , Trump and his staff have been on a personnel replacement tear — firing and threatening officials across the government they see as disloyal with almost no pretext .
The examples that we ’ re currently aware of : • The White House removed Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman , who testified during the House Ukraine scandal hearings , from his post on the National Security Council .
Trump called on the military to begin disciplinary hearings against Vindman and removed his brother from his NSC post .
• Trump personally ordered that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomination to be the Treasury Department ’ s undersecretary for terrorism and financial crime be withdrawn .
In her last posting , Liu had supervised the prosecution of Roger Stone , Michael Flynn , and Paul Manafort .
• A White House staffer told the New York Post that they ’ d be pulling the nomination of Elaine McCusker , a career Defense Department staffer who had challenged the administration ’ s block on aid to Ukraine , to be Pentagon comptroller .
“ This administration needs people who are committed to implementing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on foreign policy , and not trying to thwart it , ” the staffer said .
( McCusker ’ s nomination has yet to be formally withdrawn . )
Independently , any one of these actions would be troubling .
Put together , the pattern is terrifying .
Trump has emerged from the impeachment scandal with a belief in his impunity , and is currently attempting to bend the US government to his will — to punish officials who have allegedly crossed him and to protect his political allies who have broken the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Susan Collins ( R-ME ) claimed after voting to acquit Trump that he had “ learned his lesson.
” It was risible then — and grotesque now .
Trump has emerged from acquittal newly emboldened to pursue his own interests and vendettas , with a Republican Party fully willing to look away .
It ’ s been one week since his acquittal .
Can our democracy withstand what ’ s to come ?
One of the central pillars of democratic government is that the law remain as independent as possible from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What unites Trump ’ s actions of this past week is that they each represent an assault on this general principle .
If the president and his allies are above the law , attempts to punish their crimes undermined at the highest level , then he can engage in whatever lawbreaking he wants with impunity .
If the staff of the government need to be loyal to this leader , or else risk job loss or even ( in Lt. Col. Vindman ’ s case ) threats of prosecution , then the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s crass political interests rather than the good of the people .
This all may sound alarmist .
And it ’ s true that democracy didn ’ t die in the past week .
But this “ everything is fine ” objection misses the point in two ways .
First , Trump ’ s actions create a chilling effect .
Federal prosecutors are now on notice that the attorney general is willing to interfere with their cases if they implicate the president ’ s friends , and thus they will be less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been warned that speaking up against presidential lawbreaking or abuse of power will cost them their jobs .
If Trump suffers no consequences for this behavior — and the Republican-dominated Senate just showed why he almost certainly will not — then this will likely materially affect our ability to stop future Trumpian abuses .
Trump ’ s cronies will feel freer to break the law , and nonpartisan civil servants less likely to blow the whistle when they do .
Second , democratic degradation doesn ’ t tend to happen all at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point , we ’ ve all gotten inured to this kind of authoritarian overreach by the president .
We know who Trump is , we know what he ’ s going to do , and we ’ ve priced it into our understanding of what life in America today is like .
It seems fanciful to imagine huge demonstrations in the streets in the way that , say , the 2017 Muslim ban galvanized thousands of Americans to storm the country ’ s airports shortly after Trump ’ s inauguration .
But this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is outrageous , nothing is — is exactly the mechanism that authoritarian attacks on democracy rely on .
The slowness , the passage of time , dulls the public ’ s outrage .
The authoritarian gets away with another abuse of power .
This is how democracy has been dismantled in countries like Hungary and Venezuela .
“ We would not look to the passage of a law , or necessarily even the outcome of an election , to determine if democracy had collapsed , ” as Pepinsky puts it .
If a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rule of law , Americans would like to think they ’ d be out in the streets to protest against it .
And yet that is exactly what Trump has been doing these past few days — and it feels like a regular week .
It wasn ’ t labeled the week when democracy died because there won ’ t be a week when democracy died .
It just doesn ’ t work that way .
And that should make the stakes of the 2020 election clear : whether we as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rot to spread , or whether we put a stop to it with the democratic means at our disposal .

“If American democracy were to collapse,” Cornell political scientist Tom Pepinsky recently wrote, “you almost certainly wouldn’t notice it.”
The past week has been a testament to just how right he was.
While much of the country was preoccupied with the New Hampshire primary Tuesday night, something remarkable happened: Every single prosecutor working on Roger Stone’s case resigned in protest. The apparent reason: Attorney General Bill Barr’s intervention in the case on behalf of the president leading the government to file a new sentencing recommendation, one that contradicted the seven- to nine-year prison sentence request for Donald Trump’s political ally that prosecutors had initially asked for.
The four prosecutors who resigned — Aaron Zelinsky, Jonathan Kravis, Adam Jed, and Michael Marando — are career officials, not political appointees. They had worked diligently to prove that Stone had made false statements, obstructed justice, and tampered with witnesses in relation to the Russia scandal and Robert Mueller’s investigation, and secured a conviction in November. Now Trump and Barr are trying to get Stone off easy.
This kind of presidential interference with the Justice Department is hardly normal; one former Justice Department official called it a “break-glass-in-case-of-fire moment.” Yet President Trump is publicly reveling in this brazen attack on DOJ independence, tweeting “congratulations to Attorney General Bill Barr” on Wednesday morning “for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought.”
This is not an isolated incident, but rather part of a new pattern of politicizing the federal bureaucracy. Since his acquittal in the impeachment trial last week, Trump and his staff have been on a personnel replacement tear — firing and threatening officials across the government they see as disloyal with almost no pretext. The examples that we’re currently aware of:
The White House removed Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who testified during the House Ukraine scandal hearings, from his post on the National Security Council. Trump called on the military to begin disciplinary hearings against Vindman and removed his brother from his NSC post.
Trump outright fired EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland, another key impeachment witness.
Trump personally ordered that former US Attorney Jessie Liu’s nomination to be the Treasury Department’s undersecretary for terrorism and financial crime be withdrawn. In her last posting, Liu had supervised the prosecution of Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, and Paul Manafort.
A White House staffer told the New York Post that they’d be pulling the nomination of Elaine McCusker, a career Defense Department staffer who had challenged the administration’s block on aid to Ukraine, to be Pentagon comptroller. “This administration needs people who are committed to implementing the president’s agenda, specifically on foreign policy, and not trying to thwart it,” the staffer said. (McCusker’s nomination has yet to be formally withdrawn.)
Independently, any one of these actions would be troubling. Put together, the pattern is terrifying. Trump has emerged from the impeachment scandal with a belief in his impunity, and is currently attempting to bend the US government to his will — to punish officials who have allegedly crossed him and to protect his political allies who have broken the law.
During the impeachment trial, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) claimed after voting to acquit Trump that he had “learned his lesson.” It was risible then — and grotesque now. Trump has emerged from acquittal newly emboldened to pursue his own interests and vendettas, with a Republican Party fully willing to look away.
It’s been one week since his acquittal. Can our democracy withstand what’s to come?
The real illness of American democracy
One of the central pillars of democratic government is that the law remain as independent as possible from the political interests of those in power. What unites Trump’s actions of this past week is that they each represent an assault on this general principle.
If the president and his allies are above the law, attempts to punish their crimes undermined at the highest level, then he can engage in whatever lawbreaking he wants with impunity. If the staff of the government need to be loyal to this leader, or else risk job loss or even (in Lt. Col. Vindman’s case) threats of prosecution, then the state becomes a vehicle for advancing the president’s crass political interests rather than the good of the people.
This all may sound alarmist. And it’s true that democracy didn’t die in the past week. But this “everything is fine” objection misses the point in two ways.
First, Trump’s actions create a chilling effect. Federal prosecutors are now on notice that the attorney general is willing to interfere with their cases if they implicate the president’s friends, and thus they will be less inclined to risk it. Civil servants have been warned that speaking up against presidential lawbreaking or abuse of power will cost them their jobs.
If Trump suffers no consequences for this behavior — and the Republican-dominated Senate just showed why he almost certainly will not — then this will likely materially affect our ability to stop future Trumpian abuses. Trump’s cronies will feel freer to break the law, and nonpartisan civil servants less likely to blow the whistle when they do.
Second, democratic degradation doesn’t tend to happen all at once, these days.
At this point, we’ve all gotten inured to this kind of authoritarian overreach by the president. We know who Trump is, we know what he’s going to do, and we’ve priced it into our understanding of what life in America today is like. It seems fanciful to imagine huge demonstrations in the streets in the way that, say, the 2017 Muslim ban galvanized thousands of Americans to storm the country’s airports shortly after Trump’s inauguration.
But this fatigue — the paradox that when everything is outrageous, nothing is — is exactly the mechanism that authoritarian attacks on democracy rely on. The slowness, the passage of time, dulls the public’s outrage. The authoritarian gets away with another abuse of power. This is how democracy has been dismantled in countries like Hungary and Venezuela.
“We would not look to the passage of a law, or necessarily even the outcome of an election, to determine if democracy had collapsed,” as Pepinsky puts it.
If a rogue president were to lay waste to the rule of law, Americans would like to think they’d be out in the streets to protest against it. And yet that is exactly what Trump has been doing these past few days — and it feels like a regular week. It wasn’t labeled the week when democracy died because there won’t be a week when democracy died. It just doesn’t work that way.
And that should make the stakes of the 2020 election clear: whether we as a nation are going to allow this anti-democratic rot to spread, or whether we put a stop to it with the democratic means at our disposal.


vox--2020-02-12--Elizabeth Warren isn’t done yet

Elizabeth Warren isn’t done yet

There ’ s no way around it : New Hampshire was a tough loss for Sen. Elizabeth Warren .
The state is often referred to as her backyard , and she once notably led the polls there .
Her fourth-place finish on Tuesday wasn ’ t just behind the other top candidates ; it was far behind them .
Plus , the recent loss followed a solid but not stellar finish in Iowa .
That said , it ’ s worth noting that New Hampshire marks just the start of the primary — and far from the end for her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and expansive presence in Nevada , Warren is poised for a decent showing in the state and could well be among a handful of leading candidates in delegate-rich California on Super Tuesday .
Simply put , her campaign still has plenty of potential despite the recent losses .
Warren laid out this dynamic in her New Hampshire remarks on Tuesday night : “ We might be headed for another one of those long primary fights that last for months .
We are two states in , ” she said .
“ We still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our nomination up for grabs.
” Her point alludes to a longstanding quirk of the primary calendar in which Iowa and New Hampshire , two early states , serve to both winnow the field and grant specific candidates more momentum .
The paradigm has endured even though they ’ re deeply unrepresentative of the country ’ s diversity and respectively comprise less than 1 percent of the total national delegate haul .
Although it is true that just one Democratic candidate in recent memory has won the nomination without first winning Iowa or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , the size of the current field — and the disparate strengths that the candidates possess — brings more uncertainty than usual to the race this cycle .
Warren is in a prime position to capitalize on this dynamic , though she has some significant hurdles to overcome .
She ’ s missed out on the initial momentum boost that strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire have provided other top candidates .
And she ’ s seen middling national polling among African American and Latino voters , two groups that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Carolina .
Still , RealClearPolitics ’ state polling averages suggest she could turn in steady results in both places , likely surpassing some of the other frontrunners including former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar — both of whom have polled poorly with voters of color .
Of course , the status of both states ’ elections remain quite fluid : The polling of Nevada , in particular , hasn ’ t been updated since early January .
It is important for Warren to do well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into Super Tuesday , a slew of races in which more than 1,300 delegates will be awarded .
Warren ’ s campaign has long counted on a successful Super Tuesday showing , and thanks to her national profile , infrastructure , and pitch as a “ unity ” candidate , she ’ s in a good position to capture a large number of the day ’ s delegates .
In particular , California — with its hundreds of delegates — presents a huge opportunity for her campaign .
“ Americans in every part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their voices heard , ” Warren emphasized Tuesday .
Warren has not been the strongest candidate with voters of color , a potential stumbling block Unlike former Vice President Joe Biden , who ’ s also experienced serious struggles in both Iowa and New Hampshire , Warren doesn ’ t have quite as obvious a base of support in the upcoming states of Nevada and South Carolina .
And this is certainly an obstacle she continues to face .
In Nevada , RealClearPolitics ’ polling average has her in third at 11.5 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden at 21 percent .
Similarly , in South Carolina , the RCP average has her at 9.5 percent while Sanders is at 17 percent , billionaire activist Tom Steyer is at 18.5 percent , and Biden is at 31 percent .
Nationally , Warren appears to be in a similar position when it comes to support from Latino and African American voters , specifically — Morning Consult ’ s national poll shows Warren coming in after Sanders , Biden , and former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg .
Even so , Nevada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does South Carolina .
While she may be trailing Biden and Sanders , polling has shown her consistently beating Klobuchar and Buttigieg in both states — admittedly , a situation that could change , thanks to the two candidates ’ second- and third-place finishes in New Hampshire .
Solid returns for Warren in the two states would go a long way to restoring her standing as a top-tier candidate .
In Nevada , in particular , Warren has been known for an expansive organizing effort that ’ s established a clear presence and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to the Daily Beast .
It ’ s been touted as one of the earliest operations to establish a presence in a state .
Warren ’ s candidacy has also garnered praise from former Senate majority leader and Nevada kingmaker Harry Reid , who personally asked her to get into the 2020 race in the first place .
( Reid has not officially endorsed anyone , however . )
Her strength with organized labor gives Warren a strong edge alongside Sanders as well .
She ’ s picked up endorsements from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Unite Here .
Warren ’ s Nevada operation is not without its challenges , however .
Last week , six women of color announced they were leaving Warren ’ s Nevada team , saying they felt they were treated as tokens in the organization .
According to a Politico report , the women expressed concerns about the campaign ’ s culture and Warren ’ s less frequent visits to the state compared to other early states .
( A Nevada Independent tracker finds Warren tied with Sanders and Klobuchar for the second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she is dedicated to addressing these concerns .
In South Carolina , she has made inroads , but she ’ s been dinged there for putting in less face time on the ground .
According to a Post and Courier tracker , she ’ s made significantly fewer visits to the state than her competitors , including Sanders .
Her campaign notes that she has more than 40 staffers and 11 offices in the state .
Warren ’ s campaign manager Roger Lau emphasized that both states were major priorities in a memo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After today , the primary race moves to two of the most diverse contests in the country : Nevada and South Carolina .
Through today , our organization is closing in on nearly a million contacts with voters in each state , ” he wrote .
Whether Warren will be able to capitalize on the groundwork she ’ s laid will become clearer in about two weeks , when the caucuses take place .
As Klobuchar ’ s success in New Hampshire demonstrated , a stronger-than-expected performance could keep Warren top of mind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Super Tuesday — a day full of races that could reinvigorate her candidacy .
California — and Super Tuesday — could mean a massive delegate haul On March 3 , the delegate haul on Super Tuesday will be massive — 33 percent of pledged delegates will be on offer — and securing as much of that total as she can will be pivotal for Warren ’ s campaign .
Based on the current polls , Warren is in a strong position to do well in California , if she can keep up her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the losses in Iowa and New Hampshire .
The RCP average has her at 20 percent in the state , while Biden is at 21 percent and Sanders is at 26 percent .
Buttigieg , Bloomberg , and Klobuchar remain a ways behind them as of the end of January .
As is the case with Nevada , however , recent events could well have changed opinions in the state , though those effects are not yet clear due to the lack of new polls .
Given the more than 450 delegates California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a top showing , she ’ ll have secured a strong foundation to continue building on as the primary continues .
The state will distribute delegates proportionally , so any candidate who hits the 15 percent threshold in the state or in individual congressional districts will be viable for national delegates .
Texas is another delegate-rich state where Warren has been polling in the top three .
Overall , her campaign has noted she ’ s set to hit the 15 percent threshold to net delegates in two-thirds of the districts that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This influx of delegates could be enormous — and will be critical .
“ Warren is poised to finish in the top two in over half of Super Tuesday states ( eight of 14 ) , in the top three in all of them , and is on pace to pick up at-large statewide delegates in all but one , ” Lau wrote Tuesday .
It ’ s clear that Warren faces some immediate challenges : For one , she needs to deliver a notable finish in Nevada and ensure that voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday could set her up to be competitive long-term , if she can sustain her support until that point .
As she has noted , the race is only just beginning .

There’s no way around it: New Hampshire was a tough loss for Sen. Elizabeth Warren. The state is often referred to as her backyard, and she once notably led the polls there. Her fourth-place finish on Tuesday wasn’t just behind the other top candidates; it was far behind them. Plus, the recent loss followed a solid but not stellar finish in Iowa.
That said, it’s worth noting that New Hampshire marks just the start of the primary — and far from the end for her campaign. Because of her strong organizing and expansive presence in Nevada, Warren is poised for a decent showing in the state and could well be among a handful of leading candidates in delegate-rich California on Super Tuesday.
Simply put, her campaign still has plenty of potential despite the recent losses.
Warren laid out this dynamic in her New Hampshire remarks on Tuesday night: “We might be headed for another one of those long primary fights that last for months. We are two states in,” she said. “We still have 98 percent of our delegates for our nomination up for grabs.”
Her point alludes to a longstanding quirk of the primary calendar in which Iowa and New Hampshire, two early states, serve to both winnow the field and grant specific candidates more momentum. The paradigm has endured even though they’re deeply unrepresentative of the country’s diversity and respectively comprise less than 1 percent of the total national delegate haul.
Although it is true that just one Democratic candidate in recent memory has won the nomination without first winning Iowa or New Hampshire (Bill Clinton in 1992), the size of the current field — and the disparate strengths that the candidates possess — brings more uncertainty than usual to the race this cycle.
Warren is in a prime position to capitalize on this dynamic, though she has some significant hurdles to overcome. She’s missed out on the initial momentum boost that strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire have provided other top candidates. And she’s seen middling national polling among African American and Latino voters, two groups that are central to strong performances in Nevada and South Carolina.
Still, RealClearPolitics’ state polling averages suggest she could turn in steady results in both places, likely surpassing some of the other frontrunners including former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar — both of whom have polled poorly with voters of color. Of course, the status of both states’ elections remain quite fluid: The polling of Nevada, in particular, hasn’t been updated since early January.
It is important for Warren to do well in these states to project strength going into Super Tuesday, a slew of races in which more than 1,300 delegates will be awarded. Warren’s campaign has long counted on a successful Super Tuesday showing, and thanks to her national profile, infrastructure, and pitch as a “unity” candidate, she’s in a good position to capture a large number of the day’s delegates. In particular, California — with its hundreds of delegates — presents a huge opportunity for her campaign.
“Americans in every part of the country are going to make their voices heard,” Warren emphasized Tuesday.
Warren has not been the strongest candidate with voters of color, a potential stumbling block
Unlike former Vice President Joe Biden, who’s also experienced serious struggles in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Warren doesn’t have quite as obvious a base of support in the upcoming states of Nevada and South Carolina. And this is certainly an obstacle she continues to face.
In Nevada, RealClearPolitics’ polling average has her in third at 11.5 percent, behind Sanders at 17.5 percent and Biden at 21 percent. Similarly, in South Carolina, the RCP average has her at 9.5 percent while Sanders is at 17 percent, billionaire activist Tom Steyer is at 18.5 percent, and Biden is at 31 percent.
Nationally, Warren appears to be in a similar position when it comes to support from Latino and African American voters, specifically — Morning Consult’s national poll shows Warren coming in after Sanders, Biden, and former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg.
Even so, Nevada offers an opening for Warren, as does South Carolina. While she may be trailing Biden and Sanders, polling has shown her consistently beating Klobuchar and Buttigieg in both states — admittedly, a situation that could change, thanks to the two candidates’ second- and third-place finishes in New Hampshire. Solid returns for Warren in the two states would go a long way to restoring her standing as a top-tier candidate.
In Nevada, in particular, Warren has been known for an expansive organizing effort that’s established a clear presence and now includes more than 50 staffers, according to the Daily Beast. It’s been touted as one of the earliest operations to establish a presence in a state.
Warren’s candidacy has also garnered praise from former Senate majority leader and Nevada kingmaker Harry Reid, who personally asked her to get into the 2020 race in the first place. (Reid has not officially endorsed anyone, however.)
Her strength with organized labor gives Warren a strong edge alongside Sanders as well. She’s picked up endorsements from a series of labor unions including an affiliate of Unite Here.
Warren’s Nevada operation is not without its challenges, however. Last week, six women of color announced they were leaving Warren’s Nevada team, saying they felt they were treated as tokens in the organization. According to a Politico report, the women expressed concerns about the campaign’s culture and Warren’s less frequent visits to the state compared to other early states. (A Nevada Independent tracker finds Warren tied with Sanders and Klobuchar for the second most visits.) Warren has said she is dedicated to addressing these concerns.
In South Carolina, she has made inroads, but she’s been dinged there for putting in less face time on the ground. According to a Post and Courier tracker, she’s made significantly fewer visits to the state than her competitors, including Sanders. Her campaign notes that she has more than 40 staffers and 11 offices in the state.
Warren’s campaign manager Roger Lau emphasized that both states were major priorities in a memo outlining primary strategy on Tuesday.
“After today, the primary race moves to two of the most diverse contests in the country: Nevada and South Carolina. Through today, our organization is closing in on nearly a million contacts with voters in each state,” he wrote.
Whether Warren will be able to capitalize on the groundwork she’s laid will become clearer in about two weeks, when the caucuses take place. As Klobuchar’s success in New Hampshire demonstrated, a stronger-than-expected performance could keep Warren top of mind for voters headed to the polls on Super Tuesday — a day full of races that could reinvigorate her candidacy.
California — and Super Tuesday — could mean a massive delegate haul
On March 3, the delegate haul on Super Tuesday will be massive — 33 percent of pledged delegates will be on offer — and securing as much of that total as she can will be pivotal for Warren’s campaign.
Based on the current polls, Warren is in a strong position to do well in California, if she can keep up her campaign’s momentum and rally after the losses in Iowa and New Hampshire. The RCP average has her at 20 percent in the state, while Biden is at 21 percent and Sanders is at 26 percent. Buttigieg, Bloomberg, and Klobuchar remain a ways behind them as of the end of January. As is the case with Nevada, however, recent events could well have changed opinions in the state, though those effects are not yet clear due to the lack of new polls.
Given the more than 450 delegates California has, if Warren can turn in a top showing, she’ll have secured a strong foundation to continue building on as the primary continues. The state will distribute delegates proportionally, so any candidate who hits the 15 percent threshold in the state or in individual congressional districts will be viable for national delegates. Texas is another delegate-rich state where Warren has been polling in the top three.
Overall, her campaign has noted she’s set to hit the 15 percent threshold to net delegates in two-thirds of the districts that will vote across 14 states on Super Tuesday.
This influx of delegates could be enormous — and will be critical. “Warren is poised to finish in the top two in over half of Super Tuesday states (eight of 14), in the top three in all of them, and is on pace to pick up at-large statewide delegates in all but one,” Lau wrote Tuesday.
It’s clear that Warren faces some immediate challenges: For one, she needs to deliver a notable finish in Nevada and ensure that voters stay excited about her campaign. Super Tuesday could set her up to be competitive long-term, if she can sustain her support until that point.
As she has noted, the race is only just beginning.


vox--2020-02-12--DoorDash’s anti-worker tactics have backfired spectacularly

The food delivery company DoorDash made its delivery workers sign away their right to sue if a legal dispute arises between a worker and the company .
Instead , disputes would be resolved by a privatized arbitration system that tends to favor corporate parties .
It ’ s a common tactic , often used by companies seeking to discourage workers from asserting their legal rights at all .
And , if a decision handed down Monday by a federal district judge stands , the tactic backfired spectacularly for DoorDash .
Under Judge William Alsup ’ s order in Abernathy v. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual disputes with various workers who claim that they were misclassified as independent contractors , when they should be treated as employees .
It also must pay a $ 1,900 fee for each of these individual arbitration proceedings .
Though DoorDash might settle the various claims before it is hit with these fees , Alsup ’ s order means that if it doesn ’ t , the delivery company will face a bill of nearly $ 10 million before any of the individual proceedings are even resolved .
Add in the cost of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each proceeding , plus the amount the company will have to pay to the workers in each proceeding that it loses , and DoorDash is likely to wind up paying far more money than it would have if it hadn ’ t tried to strip away many of its workers ’ rights .
Ordinarily , when thousands of workers at the same company all raise very similar legal claims against that same employer , those workers will join together in a class action lawsuit — a process that allows all of the disputes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than in thousands of separate proceedings .
But DoorDash required these delivery workers to sign away their right to bring a class action as well .
That decision also appears to have backfired .
In 1925 , Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act to , in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s words , allow “ merchants with relatively equal bargaining power ” to resolve disputes through private arbitration .
For such merchants , arbitration is often preferred to litigation because it can be quicker , less expensive , and because merchants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ familiar with their industry than a typical judge .
Beginning in the 1980s , however , the Supreme Court started to read the Arbitration Act to allow companies to require ordinary consumers and workers to agree to arbitration as a condition of doing business with that company .
Some of these Supreme Court decisions rested on a defensible reading of the Arbitration Act ’ s text , but many of them distorted that text so severely that it is easy to suspect bad faith .
The Arbitration Act , for example , exempts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commerce.
” Yet , in Circuit City v. Adams ( 2001 ) , the Supreme Court held that most workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce may be forced into arbitration .
Similarly , the Arbitration Act is silent on the subject of class actions , but in AT & T v. Concepcion ( 2011 ) , the Court held that companies can insert a clause into arbitration contracts that ban class actions .
Most recently , in Epic Systems v. Lewis ( 2018 ) , the Supreme Court merged these two prior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a company can order its workers to give up their right to bring a class action and require those workers to arbitrate any future disputes — and immediately fire any worker who does not comply .
For employers , these decisions were largely a windfall .
As the Economic Policy Institute ’ s Ross Eisenbrey explains , workers are less likely to prevail in arbitration than they are in litigation .
And when workers to prevail in arbitration , they typically receive far less money than they would have if their case had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action bans , meanwhile , often allow employers to immunize themselves from liability altogether .
Consider the facts of Concepcion , the 2011 decision allowing companies to add class action bans to forced arbitration contracts .
The plaintiffs in that case were cellphone customers who claimed that they were victims of deceptive advertising , and that they were overcharged by $ 30.22 .
Virtually no one is going to file a lawsuit over a $ 30.22 charge .
The cost of hiring a lawyer , filing a complaint , and litigating ( or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end will vastly exceed the amount of money at issue .
But , if a company cheats millions of customers out of tiny sums of money , the total value of their claim could be tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars .
Class actions allow large groups with similar grievances to join together under a single lawsuit , and they allow that large group to hire excellent legal counsel who will litigate the case in return for a share of the money the group receives if they prevail .
But if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will ever be filed in the first place .
As one federal court of appeals decision explained in a case similar to Concepcion , “ the realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits , but zero individual suits , as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $ 30.
” Class action bans , moreover , give companies tremendous incentive to cheat their workers — so long as they only cheat each worker a little bit at a time .
In the DoorDash case , for example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers at the heart of that case had to pay a $ 300 filing fee before they could bring any claim at all against DoorDash .
That means that DoorDash could theoretically have outright stolen as much as $ 299 from each worker , and it could have done so knowing that none of those workers had a plausible way to recoup that money .
Judge Alsup does not conceal his disdain for companies that use decisions like Concepcion and Epic Systems to strip away the rights of their workers .
“ For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DoorDash opinion , “ the employer-side bar and their employer clients have forced arbitration clauses upon workers , thus taking away their right to go to court , and forced class-action waivers upon them too , thus taking away their ability to join collectively to vindicate common rights.
” What makes this recent case different , is that “ the workers wish to enforce the very provisions forced on them by seeking , even if by the thousands , individual arbitrations.
” When a company imposes a forced arbitration clause and a class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often bets that those workers will slink away quietly if the company breaks the law .
It bets on the fact that “ only a lunatic or a fanatic ” sues over a relatively small amount of money .
But now a handful of plaintiffs ’ law firms are calling these companies ’ bluff by actually seeking to arbitrate thousands of cases at a time .
It ’ s a tactic that ’ s worked before .
After Uber imposed forced arbitration and a class action ban on its drivers , more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims against the company .
Faced with legal costs of at least $ 600 million , Uber cried “ uncle !
” The company announced it settled the “ large majority ” of these claims last May .
Yet , while filing large amounts of arbitration claims may cause some companies to rethink forced arbitration , this tactic also carries considerable risk for plaintiffs ’ lawyers .
Actually arbitrating thousands of cases on behalf of workers with small claims is a terrible way for a lawyer to earn a living .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ payoff at the end is very small .
The plaintiffs ’ lawyers are playing a game of chicken with employers like Uber and DoorDash , and it ’ s not at all clear that this tactic can be expanded into a broader attack on forced arbitration .

The food delivery company DoorDash made its delivery workers sign away their right to sue if a legal dispute arises between a worker and the company. Instead, disputes would be resolved by a privatized arbitration system that tends to favor corporate parties.
It’s a common tactic, often used by companies seeking to discourage workers from asserting their legal rights at all. And, if a decision handed down Monday by a federal district judge stands, the tactic backfired spectacularly for DoorDash.
Under Judge William Alsup’s order in Abernathy v. DoorDash, DoorDash must arbitrate over 5,000 individual disputes with various workers who claim that they were misclassified as independent contractors, when they should be treated as employees. It also must pay a $1,900 fee for each of these individual arbitration proceedings.
Though DoorDash might settle the various claims before it is hit with these fees, Alsup’s order means that if it doesn’t, the delivery company will face a bill of nearly $10 million before any of the individual proceedings are even resolved. Add in the cost of paying for lawyers to represent them in each proceeding, plus the amount the company will have to pay to the workers in each proceeding that it loses, and DoorDash is likely to wind up paying far more money than it would have if it hadn’t tried to strip away many of its workers’ rights.
Ordinarily, when thousands of workers at the same company all raise very similar legal claims against that same employer, those workers will join together in a class action lawsuit — a process that allows all of the disputes to be resolved in a single suit rather than in thousands of separate proceedings. But DoorDash required these delivery workers to sign away their right to bring a class action as well.
That decision also appears to have backfired.
Forced arbitration, explained
In 1925, Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act to, in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s words, allow “merchants with relatively equal bargaining power” to resolve disputes through private arbitration. For such merchants, arbitration is often preferred to litigation because it can be quicker, less expensive, and because merchants can choose an arbitrator who is more familiar with their industry than a typical judge.
Beginning in the 1980s, however, the Supreme Court started to read the Arbitration Act to allow companies to require ordinary consumers and workers to agree to arbitration as a condition of doing business with that company. Some of these Supreme Court decisions rested on a defensible reading of the Arbitration Act’s text, but many of them distorted that text so severely that it is easy to suspect bad faith.
The Arbitration Act, for example, exempts “workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” Yet, in Circuit City v. Adams (2001), the Supreme Court held that most workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce may be forced into arbitration. Similarly, the Arbitration Act is silent on the subject of class actions, but in AT&T v. Concepcion (2011), the Court held that companies can insert a clause into arbitration contracts that ban class actions.
Most recently, in Epic Systems v. Lewis (2018), the Supreme Court merged these two prior holdings. Epic Systems conclusively established that a company can order its workers to give up their right to bring a class action and require those workers to arbitrate any future disputes — and immediately fire any worker who does not comply.
For employers, these decisions were largely a windfall. As the Economic Policy Institute’s Ross Eisenbrey explains, workers are less likely to prevail in arbitration than they are in litigation. And when workers to prevail in arbitration, they typically receive far less money than they would have if their case had been heard by a judge.
Class action bans, meanwhile, often allow employers to immunize themselves from liability altogether.
Consider the facts of Concepcion, the 2011 decision allowing companies to add class action bans to forced arbitration contracts. The plaintiffs in that case were cellphone customers who claimed that they were victims of deceptive advertising, and that they were overcharged by $30.22.
Virtually no one is going to file a lawsuit over a $30.22 charge. The cost of hiring a lawyer, filing a complaint, and litigating (or arbitrating) the case until the bitter end will vastly exceed the amount of money at issue. But, if a company cheats millions of customers out of tiny sums of money, the total value of their claim could be tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars.
Class actions allow large groups with similar grievances to join together under a single lawsuit, and they allow that large group to hire excellent legal counsel who will litigate the case in return for a share of the money the group receives if they prevail.
But if class actions are banned, no lawsuit will ever be filed in the first place.
As one federal court of appeals decision explained in a case similar to Concepcion, “the realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30.”
Class action bans, moreover, give companies tremendous incentive to cheat their workers — so long as they only cheat each worker a little bit at a time. In the DoorDash case, for example, each of the more than 5,000 workers at the heart of that case had to pay a $300 filing fee before they could bring any claim at all against DoorDash. That means that DoorDash could theoretically have outright stolen as much as $299 from each worker, and it could have done so knowing that none of those workers had a plausible way to recoup that money.
How DoorDash’s workers beat a rigged system
Judge Alsup does not conceal his disdain for companies that use decisions like Concepcion and Epic Systems to strip away the rights of their workers. “For decades,” he writes in his DoorDash opinion, “the employer-side bar and their employer clients have forced arbitration clauses upon workers, thus taking away their right to go to court, and forced class-action waivers upon them too, thus taking away their ability to join collectively to vindicate common rights.”
What makes this recent case different, is that “the workers wish to enforce the very provisions forced on them by seeking, even if by the thousands, individual arbitrations.” When a company imposes a forced arbitration clause and a class action ban on its workers, it often bets that those workers will slink away quietly if the company breaks the law. It bets on the fact that “only a lunatic or a fanatic” sues over a relatively small amount of money.
But now a handful of plaintiffs’ law firms are calling these companies’ bluff by actually seeking to arbitrate thousands of cases at a time.
It’s a tactic that’s worked before. After Uber imposed forced arbitration and a class action ban on its drivers, more than 60,000 of those drivers sought to arbitrate claims against the company. Faced with legal costs of at least $600 million, Uber cried “uncle!” The company announced it settled the “large majority” of these claims last May.
Yet, while filing large amounts of arbitration claims may cause some companies to rethink forced arbitration, this tactic also carries considerable risk for plaintiffs’ lawyers. Actually arbitrating thousands of cases on behalf of workers with small claims is a terrible way for a lawyer to earn a living. It’s slow, work-intensive, and the payoff at the end is very small.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers are playing a game of chicken with employers like Uber and DoorDash, and it’s not at all clear that this tactic can be expanded into a broader attack on forced arbitration.


vox--2020-02-12--How a Bible prophecy shapes Trump’s foreign policy

When President Donald Trump authorized the drone strike that killed the powerful Iranian general Qassem Soleimani , he wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ s muscle in the Middle East .
He was also acting on the advice of @ @ @ @ @ evangelical Christians who believe the US and Israel are part of the Bible ’ s @ @ @ @ @ second coming of Jesus .
Once considered a fringe element of the religious right , @ @ @ @ @ an increasingly visible role in Republican politics .
Today , unprecedented access to the Trump @ @ @ @ @ opportunity to reshape the Middle East .
Watch the video above to learn more about @ @ @ @ @ this politically powerful group of American Christians .
You can find this video and all @ @ @ @ @ on YouTube .
And if you ’ re interested in supporting our video journalism , @ @ @ @ @ of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube .

When President Donald Trump authorized the drone strike that killed the powerful Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, he wasn’t just flexing America’s muscle in the Middle East.
He was also acting on the advice of a politically powerful group of evangelical Christians who believe the US and Israel are part of the Bible’s plan to bring about the second coming of Jesus.
Once considered a fringe element of the religious right, evangelical Christian Zionists are playing an increasingly visible role in Republican politics. Today, unprecedented access to the Trump administration has given them an opportunity to reshape the Middle East.
Watch the video above to learn more about how the Bible is influencing this politically powerful group of American Christians.
You can find this video and all of Vox’s videos on YouTube. And if you’re interested in supporting our video journalism, you can become a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube.


vox--2020-02-12--Trump just congratulated Bill Barr for doing something he said was “totally illegal” not long ago

Any questions over the sincerity of President Donald Trump ’ s concerns about what he has characterized as the politicization of the Justice Department during the Obama years were put to rest this week with the response his complaints about the trial of a friend appeared to elicit from DOJ leaders .
As special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation of his campaign gained steam in the summer of 2017 , Trump tried to change the topic to alleged undue political influence on Obama ’ s Justice Department .
“ A.G .
Lynch made law enforcement decisions for political purposes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and protection .
Totally illegal !
” Trump tweeted on June 13 , 2017 , echoing an allegation he made repeatedly during the 2016 campaign about the Clintons allegedly having undue influence on Attorney General Loretta Lynch .
Trump ’ s claim was a misrepresentation .
The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton and her infamous private email server arguably helped cost her the presidency , so the idea that she got “ a free pass ” is false .
But beyond the specifics of the Clinton case , the events of this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had good-faith concerns about the politicization of the DOJ .
In fact , he ’ s an outspoken supporter of it , so long as the people receiving “ a free pass and protection ” are among his associates .
The clearest illustration of this came on Wednesday morning , when Trump commended Attorney General Bill Barr for intervening in the case of Roger Stone , a longtime associate of his who was convicted of obstructing an investigation of the president ’ s campaign ( among other charges ) based on information brought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Congratulations to Attorney General Bill Barr for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought , ” Trump tweeted .
“ Evidence now clearly shows that the Mueller Scam was improperly brought & tainted .
Even Bob Mueller lied to Congress !
” Trump ’ s comment about Barr “ taking charge of a case ” refers to an unusual move the DOJ made on Tuesday to reduce the sentencing recommendation for Stone .
Prosecutors on the case recommended a seven- @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but after Trump went on a Twitter tirade on Tuesday morning over a situation he characterized as “ a horrible and very unfair situation ” and a “ miscarriage of justice , ” the DOJ abruptly reversed course and recommended an unspecified lesser sentence for Stone .
That move prompted the entire prosecution team to step down from the case , and one prosecutor resigned from the DOJ entirely .
The DOJ tried to frame the abrupt about-face as one rooted in good-faith concerns about the severity of Stone ’ s sentencing recommendation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point by posting tweets that made clear his motivations were political .
Then on Tuesday afternoon , Trump told reporters that while he hadn ’ t communicated with Barr or the DOJ about the Stone case , “ I ’ d be able to do it if I wanted .
I have the absolute right to do it.
” But that ’ s beside the point .
Trump made his position clear on Twitter .
Barr ’ s DOJ seemingly got the hint and acted accordingly .
No direct communication was necessary for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do his bidding by protecting one of his confidants — the exact thing he not so long ago criticized Obama ’ s attorney general for doing .
The news moves fast .
To stay updated , follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter , and read more of Vox ’ s policy and politics coverage .

Any questions over the sincerity of President Donald Trump’s concerns about what he has characterized as the politicization of the Justice Department during the Obama years were put to rest this week with the response his complaints about the trial of a friend appeared to elicit from DOJ leaders.
As special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of his campaign gained steam in the summer of 2017, Trump tried to change the topic to alleged undue political influence on Obama’s Justice Department.
“A.G. Lynch made law enforcement decisions for political purposes...gave Hillary Clinton a free pass and protection. Totally illegal!” Trump tweeted on June 13, 2017, echoing an allegation he made repeatedly during the 2016 campaign about the Clintons allegedly having undue influence on Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
A.G. Lynch made law enforcement decisions for political purposes...gave Hillary Clinton a free pass and protection. Totally illegal! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 13, 2017
Trump’s claim was a misrepresentation. The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton and her infamous private email server arguably helped cost her the presidency, so the idea that she got “a free pass” is false.
But beyond the specifics of the Clinton case, the events of this week make it clear that Trump never really had good-faith concerns about the politicization of the DOJ. In fact, he’s an outspoken supporter of it, so long as the people receiving “a free pass and protection” are among his associates.
Related Attorney General William Barr dining at the Trump hotel is a bad look
The clearest illustration of this came on Wednesday morning, when Trump commended Attorney General Bill Barr for intervening in the case of Roger Stone, a longtime associate of his who was convicted of obstructing an investigation of the president’s campaign (among other charges) based on information brought to light by the Mueller investigation.
“Congratulations to Attorney General Bill Barr for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought,” Trump tweeted. “Evidence now clearly shows that the Mueller Scam was improperly brought & tainted. Even Bob Mueller lied to Congress!”
Congratulations to Attorney General Bill Barr for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought. Evidence now clearly shows that the Mueller Scam was improperly brought & tainted. Even Bob Mueller lied to Congress! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 12, 2020
Trump’s comment about Barr “taking charge of a case” refers to an unusual move the DOJ made on Tuesday to reduce the sentencing recommendation for Stone. Prosecutors on the case recommended a seven- to nine-year prison sentence for Stone, but after Trump went on a Twitter tirade on Tuesday morning over a situation he characterized as “a horrible and very unfair situation” and a “miscarriage of justice,” the DOJ abruptly reversed course and recommended an unspecified lesser sentence for Stone.
That move prompted the entire prosecution team to step down from the case, and one prosecutor resigned from the DOJ entirely.
The DOJ tried to frame the abrupt about-face as one rooted in good-faith concerns about the severity of Stone’s sentencing recommendation, but Trump trampled on that talking point by posting tweets that made clear his motivations were political.
Then on Tuesday afternoon, Trump told reporters that while he hadn’t communicated with Barr or the DOJ about the Stone case, “I’d be able to do it if I wanted. I have the absolute right to do it.”
Asked about Roger Stone, Trump says he has an “absolute right” to tell the Justice Department what to do pic.twitter.com/AZRv9Aff7P — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 11, 2020
But that’s beside the point. Trump made his position clear on Twitter. Barr’s DOJ seemingly got the hint and acted accordingly. No direct communication was necessary for the president to get the DOJ to do his bidding by protecting one of his confidants — the exact thing he not so long ago criticized Obama’s attorney general for doing.
The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.


vox--2020-02-12--New conservative climate plans are neither conservative nor climate plans

This piece was first published on February 5 and has been lightly updated .
There is a convenient story about Republicans and climate policy circulating in Washington , DC , right now .
It goes like this : After years of denying climate science and under pressure from young voters , Republicans have finally turned to the task of designing policy to address climate change .
They are developing measures in line with conservative ideals that will focus on markets , shrink the federal government , and avoid picking winners and losers .
With such a policy offering , voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approaches to solving the climate crisis , rather than a choice between a party that wants to address the problem and one that doesn ’ t .
This story is convenient for conservatives because they have exhausted the strategy of lying about climate science and need something new to replace it .
Denial has helped confuse the conversation and delay action in the US for 30 years , but the tide of public opinion is finally turning against it — and so is the opinion of younger Republicans .
“ Climate denial is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 37-year-old Rep. Matt Gaetz ( R-FL ) .
There is still a hard-core denialist faction , led by hapless clown and one-time Trump transition adviser Steve Milloy .
But it has largely been banished , pushed out of the White House , its goofy plan to conduct a science show trial rejected .
The strategy now , in the run-up to the 2020 election , is to appear to be doing something on climate .
The story is also convenient for mainstream political reporters .
Conventional political journalism is built around a both-sides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s role is to convey what one side said and what the other side said , offer quotes from their contrasting experts or spokespeople , and leave it to the audience to decide who is more convincing .
That ’ s the model mainstream journalists applied to climate science for years , quoting people like Milloy as well as actual climate scientists .
But after decades of effort on the part of climate scientists and advocates , journalists have mostly been cured of that habit .
False balance on climate science has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publications .
That leaves “ objective ” reporters in a difficult situation , though — a story without two sides .
For those reporters , word of GOP climate policy comes as a great relief .
They can leave the one-sided science story and return to ground they know and understand : two sides with dueling policies , economists , experts , and think-tank reports .
In other words , he said , she said .
The story is convenient for many denizens of the Beltway .
There ’ s just one problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The one thing it gets right is that Republicans are feeling pressure to change their public stance on climate change .
They are groping about for rhetoric and policies that not only can be plausibly said to address climate change but also don ’ t offend any large bloc of the current conservative coalition , especially the financially supportive and fossil fuel blocs .
But in reality , the overlap between those things is pretty slim .
And whatever you might say about that overlap , it is neither conservative nor serious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate plan that won ’ t upset your donors As Amy Harder reports in Axios , the newly revealed Republican climate push will feature three big ( ? )
things : This is all ... fine .
It will be important to develop and scale up carbon capture technology .
Trees are great ; reforestation is a worthy climate strategy .
( Republicans clearly think trees are a winner : They featured prominently in Trump ’ s State of the Union speech and Rep. Bruce Westerman ( R-AK ) introduced the Trillion Trees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ innovation , Oklahoma Rep. Frank Lucas , the top Republican on the House Science and Technology Committee , recently released a proposal that would double federal funding for basic science .
Senate Republicans have backed a bill that would increase funding for research in energy storage .
That ’ s all good .
Beyond that , though , when Republicans talk about “ clean energy innovation , ” they generally mean funding efforts by fossil fuel companies to clean up after themselves ( specifically carbon capture , use , and storage ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” well , it has nothing to do with climate change .
This is a strange grab bag of policies .
If you try to interpret it as a coherent response to climate change , your brain will explode .
It makes much more sense if viewed as an attempt to simply have something to say when pressed on the vague issue of “ climate and environment.
” It ’ s meant to provide the media and disengaged voters with an “ other side ” on climate policy , without endorsing anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with which the party is aligned .
Notably , the plan includes nothing about solar and wind power , which replace coal and natural gas ; nothing about electric vehicles , which replace gasoline vehicles ; nothing about efficient buildings or heat pumps , which replace natural gas furnaces ; nothing about hydrogen , which can help replace fossil fuels in industrial processes .
What could justify these strange priorities ?
This is the argument Rep. Garret Graves , a Louisiana Republican who is leading GOP climate efforts , uses : “ Fossil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s emissions .
So let ’ s devise strategies that are based on emissions strategies , not based on eliminating fossil fuels.
” This makes no sense if interpreted literally .
The plan Graves was talking about carefully avoids endorsing policies that directly go after emissions , such as a carbon tax or pollution regulations .
It avoids setting any particular targets for emission reductions .
It avoids mention of most of the technologies and policies with the most potential to reduce emissions , like renewable energy and performance standards .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ target emissions in general .
Rather , he is committed to supporting ways for fossil fuel companies , his party ’ s most stalwart donors , to clean up their own emissions .
Climate policy , he ’ s trying to say , need not involve shutting down , replacing , or even particularly inconveniencing fossil fuels .
That is the core GOP climate message , the reason the party is getting off the sidelines and into the game .
It ’ s there to protect fossil fuels from climate policy .
Quit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Republican climate policy Media reports on Republicans ’ ongoing climate shift share a bad habit : They uncritically use the term “ free market ” to characterize GOP policies and ideas ( see this headline , or here , or here ) .
Discussing the policies in a column for the Port Charlotte Sun , former Rep. Carlos Curbelo , an early climate champion in the House , references “ the conservative principles of free markets and limited government.
” I am calling a rhetorical foul .
Nothing Republicans are proposing on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ principles whatsoever .
Free-market thinkers like Milton Friedman advocated for reduced government involvement in markets .
He believed that the distributed decision-making of market actors was almost always superior to the decision-making of any handful of bureaucrats .
Government shouldn ’ t be stepping in to hurt or help any particular business or technology .
That ’ s where the alleged conservative opposition to “ picking winners and losers ” comes from .
Governments should largely remain neutral ; markets are supposed to pick .
Over the years , the terms “ free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” like so many conservative principles , have devolved into little more than rhetorical tics , bits of sloganeering that bear no resemblance to actual conservative governance .
What conservatives seem to have decided is that regulations , restrictions , or limitations — anything that might upset or inconvenience the corporations generating greenhouse gases — are the bad kind of big government and a bad way of picking winners and losers .
Government subsidies , tax credits , and grants — anything that might benefit big corporations — is the good kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ picking winners and losers .
“ Democrats like sticks and we like carrots , ” said Graves .
Washington Examiner reporter Josh Siegel published a story about “ how Republican climate advocates won over the conservatives in their party.
” The article claims they effectively did it by promising not to support either a carbon tax ( what liberals imagine when they think of conservative climate policy ) or any regulations to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases .
The plan would consist entirely of ... carrots , for the industries they favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entirely of government spending on various industries many things ( say , “ reverse-engineered not to offend fossil fuel companies ” ) , but you can ’ t call it economically conservative .
You can ’ t say it limits the government ’ s role in markets .
And you can ’ t say it doesn ’ t pick winners and losers .
It explicitly does .
“ They are messaging bills and all about the next election ” The problem is , while Republicans may have found a strategy that can hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they haven ’ t found one that can meaningfully address climate change .
There are plenty of models that show we will need carbon capture ( both industrial and natural ) to supplement other efforts to reduce emissions .
We probably can ’ t hit our mid-century targets without it .
But there is no model in the world showing emissions falling fast enough with nothing but carbon capture , with fossil fuels continuing their current headlong expansion .
The fossil fuels that remain behind after deep decarbonization , the ones that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , will be a small vestige of the current fossil fuel regime .
That is what every credible model shows .
That is the cold , hard truth at the heart of the climate dilemma : There is no avoiding the imperative to reduce fossil fuel combustion and the social and economic disruptions that come with it .
Current Republican efforts to feign climate policy conspicuously fail to grapple with that truth .
They do not take on fossil fuels ; on the contrary , they are explicitly designed to support and protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side dishes as the main course and leaving out the entree entirely .
It might work to get some both-sides coverage out of the media — that ’ s not very difficult .
But nobody who understands the facts of climate change could possibly view this as a viable plan , or even a good-faith attempt at one .
As for its chances in the larger Republican political milieu ?
As usual , the most blunt and revealing assessment comes from the top .
“ These are [ House Speaker ] Kevin McCarthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration official said .
“ They are messaging bills and all about the next election , and that ’ s great.
” Trump himself , the official added for emphasis , “ is not particularly obsessed about climate change .
”

This piece was first published on February 5 and has been lightly updated.
There is a convenient story about Republicans and climate policy circulating in Washington, DC, right now.
It goes like this: After years of denying climate science and under pressure from young voters, Republicans have finally turned to the task of designing policy to address climate change. They are developing measures in line with conservative ideals that will focus on markets, shrink the federal government, and avoid picking winners and losers. With such a policy offering, voters will have a choice between two different approaches to solving the climate crisis, rather than a choice between a party that wants to address the problem and one that doesn’t.
This story is convenient for conservatives because they have exhausted the strategy of lying about climate science and need something new to replace it. Denial has helped confuse the conversation and delay action in the US for 30 years, but the tide of public opinion is finally turning against it — and so is the opinion of younger Republicans. “Climate denial is a bad political strategy,” says 37-year-old Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL).
There is still a hard-core denialist faction, led by hapless clown and one-time Trump transition adviser Steve Milloy. But it has largely been banished, pushed out of the White House, its goofy plan to conduct a science show trial rejected. The strategy now, in the run-up to the 2020 election, is to appear to be doing something on climate.
The story is also convenient for mainstream political reporters. Conventional political journalism is built around a both-sides model, in which the journalist’s role is to convey what one side said and what the other side said, offer quotes from their contrasting experts or spokespeople, and leave it to the audience to decide who is more convincing.
That’s the model mainstream journalists applied to climate science for years, quoting people like Milloy as well as actual climate scientists. But after decades of effort on the part of climate scientists and advocates, journalists have mostly been cured of that habit. False balance on climate science has been radically reduced, at least in mainstream publications.
That leaves “objective” reporters in a difficult situation, though — a story without two sides. For those reporters, word of GOP climate policy comes as a great relief. They can leave the one-sided science story and return to ground they know and understand: two sides with dueling policies, economists, experts, and think-tank reports. In other words, he said, she said.
The story is convenient for many denizens of the Beltway. There’s just one problem: It’s mostly horse shit.
The one thing it gets right is that Republicans are feeling pressure to change their public stance on climate change. They are groping about for rhetoric and policies that not only can be plausibly said to address climate change but also don’t offend any large bloc of the current conservative coalition, especially the financially supportive and fossil fuel blocs.
But in reality, the overlap between those things is pretty slim. And whatever you might say about that overlap, it is neither conservative nor serious climate policy.
How to construct a climate plan that won’t upset your donors
As Amy Harder reports in Axios, the newly revealed Republican climate push will feature three big (?) things:
capturing carbon dioxide emissions, with a focus on trees clean-energy innovation and funding conservation, with a focus on plastic
This is all ... fine. It will be important to develop and scale up carbon capture technology. Trees are great; reforestation is a worthy climate strategy. (Republicans clearly think trees are a winner: They featured prominently in Trump’s State of the Union speech and Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR) introduced the Trillion Trees Act on Wednesday.)
We have an obligation to conserve our resources for future generations, and I challenge anyone to find a better climate solution than taking care of our forests.
I introduced the Trillion Trees Act today. Now let's get it passed into law this year!https://t.co/iWgehRWE7c — Rep. Bruce Westerman (@RepWesterman) February 12, 2020
As for innovation, Oklahoma Rep. Frank Lucas, the top Republican on the House Science and Technology Committee, recently released a proposal that would double federal funding for basic science. Senate Republicans have backed a bill that would increase funding for research in energy storage. That’s all good.
Beyond that, though, when Republicans talk about “clean energy innovation,” they generally mean funding efforts by fossil fuel companies to clean up after themselves (specifically carbon capture, use, and storage).
Regarding No. 3, “conservation,” well, it has nothing to do with climate change.
Trees are the lungs of the earth—they are the most efficient way on the planet to capture carbon. Republicans join @realdonaldtrump in this effort and are excited to get to work. pic.twitter.com/MF0PjnSrnS — Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) February 5, 2020
This is a strange grab bag of policies. If you try to interpret it as a coherent response to climate change, your brain will explode.
It makes much more sense if viewed as an attempt to simply have something to say when pressed on the vague issue of “climate and environment.” It’s meant to provide the media and disengaged voters with an “other side” on climate policy, without endorsing anything that might upset the fossil fuel companies with which the party is aligned.
Notably, the plan includes nothing about solar and wind power, which replace coal and natural gas; nothing about electric vehicles, which replace gasoline vehicles; nothing about efficient buildings or heat pumps, which replace natural gas furnaces; nothing about hydrogen, which can help replace fossil fuels in industrial processes.
What could justify these strange priorities? This is the argument Rep. Garret Graves, a Louisiana Republican who is leading GOP climate efforts, uses: “Fossil fuels aren’t the enemy. It’s emissions. So let’s devise strategies that are based on emissions strategies, not based on eliminating fossil fuels.”
This makes no sense if interpreted literally. The plan Graves was talking about carefully avoids endorsing policies that directly go after emissions, such as a carbon tax or pollution regulations. It avoids setting any particular targets for emission reductions. It avoids mention of most of the technologies and policies with the most potential to reduce emissions, like renewable energy and performance standards.
What Graves expressed is not determination to target emissions in general. Rather, he is committed to supporting ways for fossil fuel companies, his party’s most stalwart donors, to clean up their own emissions.
Climate policy, he’s trying to say, need not involve shutting down, replacing, or even particularly inconveniencing fossil fuels. That is the core GOP climate message, the reason the party is getting off the sidelines and into the game. It’s there to protect fossil fuels from climate policy.
The US is the top oil and gas producer in the world, but it didn't happen by accident. It happened because Republicans invested in innovation and put American jobs and American energy FIRST. — Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) February 5, 2020
Quit saying “free market” in proximity to Republican climate policy
Media reports on Republicans’ ongoing climate shift share a bad habit: They uncritically use the term “free market” to characterize GOP policies and ideas (see this headline, or here, or here). Discussing the policies in a column for the Port Charlotte Sun, former Rep. Carlos Curbelo, an early climate champion in the House, references “the conservative principles of free markets and limited government.”
I am calling a rhetorical foul. Nothing Republicans are proposing on climate policy bears any resemblance to those principles whatsoever.
Free-market thinkers like Milton Friedman advocated for reduced government involvement in markets. He believed that the distributed decision-making of market actors was almost always superior to the decision-making of any handful of bureaucrats.
Government shouldn’t be stepping in to hurt or help any particular business or technology. That’s where the alleged conservative opposition to “picking winners and losers” comes from. Governments should largely remain neutral; markets are supposed to pick.
Over the years, the terms “free market” and “limited government,” like so many conservative principles, have devolved into little more than rhetorical tics, bits of sloganeering that bear no resemblance to actual conservative governance.
What conservatives seem to have decided is that regulations, restrictions, or limitations — anything that might upset or inconvenience the corporations generating greenhouse gases — are the bad kind of big government and a bad way of picking winners and losers. Government subsidies, tax credits, and grants — anything that might benefit big corporations — is the good kind of big government and a good way of picking winners and losers.
“Democrats like sticks and we like carrots,” said Graves.
Washington Examiner reporter Josh Siegel published a story about “how Republican climate advocates won over the conservatives in their party.” The article claims they effectively did it by promising not to support either a carbon tax (what liberals imagine when they think of conservative climate policy) or any regulations to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases. The plan would consist entirely of ... carrots, for the industries they favor.
You can call a strategy composed entirely of government spending on various industries many things (say, “reverse-engineered not to offend fossil fuel companies”), but you can’t call it economically conservative. You can’t say it limits the government’s role in markets. And you can’t say it doesn’t pick winners and losers. It explicitly does.
"Every year, the world’s five largest publicly owned oil and gas companies spend approximately $200 million on lobbying designed to control, delay or block binding climate-motivated policy." https://t.co/WwJrh6XhhB — JesseJenkins (@JesseJenkins) November 5, 2019
“They are messaging bills and all about the next election”
The problem is, while Republicans may have found a strategy that can hold together at least some of their coalition, they haven’t found one that can meaningfully address climate change.
There are plenty of models that show we will need carbon capture (both industrial and natural) to supplement other efforts to reduce emissions. We probably can’t hit our mid-century targets without it.
But there is no model in the world showing emissions falling fast enough with nothing but carbon capture, with fossil fuels continuing their current headlong expansion.
The fossil fuels that remain behind after deep decarbonization, the ones that still need their emissions captured and buried, will be a small vestige of the current fossil fuel regime. That is what every credible model shows. That is the cold, hard truth at the heart of the climate dilemma: There is no avoiding the imperative to reduce fossil fuel combustion and the social and economic disruptions that come with it.
Current Republican efforts to feign climate policy conspicuously fail to grapple with that truth. They do not take on fossil fuels; on the contrary, they are explicitly designed to support and protect fossil fuels. It amounts to presenting side dishes as the main course and leaving out the entree entirely.
It might work to get some both-sides coverage out of the media — that’s not very difficult. But nobody who understands the facts of climate change could possibly view this as a viable plan, or even a good-faith attempt at one.
As for its chances in the larger Republican political milieu? As usual, the most blunt and revealing assessment comes from the top. “These are [House Speaker] Kevin McCarthy’s bills,” a Trump administration official said. “They are messaging bills and all about the next election, and that’s great.”
Trump himself, the official added for emphasis, “is not particularly obsessed about climate change.”