vox--2020-02-14--Facebook canceled a 5,000-person conference in San Francisco because of coronavirus

Facebook is canceling an annual marketing conference it was planning to host in San Francisco next month over concerns about the new coronavirus — now officially known as Covid-19 .
“ Out of an abundance of caution , we canceled our Global Marketing Summit due to evolving public health risks related to coronavirus , ” Facebook spokesman Anthony Harrison said in a statement to Recode .
The social media giant confirmed that it has scratched its plan to hold the event for 5,000 international attendees at the Moscone Center on March 9-12 , as first reported by the San Francisco @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sign of how the outbreak , which has taken the lives of nearly 1,400 people as of Friday , is impacting business in the tech industry .
Earlier this week , the world ’ s biggest phone show , Mobile World Conference , canceled its event in Barcelona after major tech companies like Amazon pulled out of the event .
But the Facebook marketing summit is the first publicly reported example of an event in the San Francisco Bay Area being canceled due to the virus .
While there are four cases of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health officials say that the handful of cases are contained to those who either recently traveled to Hubei , where the virus started , or had close contact with family members who did .
That hasn ’ t stopped Silicon Valley from worrying — particularly because of the high level of travel between the area and China .
And as Recode reported earlier this week , some in Silicon Valley feel a mounting fear over the possibility of the coronavirus spreading in Silicon Valley .
Facebook ’ s call to cancel its conference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example of how coronavirus fears are impacting day-to-day business in the tech industry .
Some tech companies and professionals in the Bay Area are instituting no-handshake policies in business meetings , wearing masks on public transportation , and asking people to work from home .
Recode has also learned that Google recently put up signs in at least two Bay Area offices outside bathrooms reminding people to wash their hands and cover their mouths , with a link to an internal site about the coronavirus at the bottom .
The intranet site has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ host events to make sure there is sufficient hand sanitizer and “ appropriate hand-washing facilities , ” according to a source who works at the company .
While public health officials are encouraging people to take some precautions like washing their hands frequently and minimizing contact with anyone with cold symptoms ( as they would normally do anyway during flu season ) , they say that there ’ s currently a very low risk to public health in the Bay Area .
“ The chances are astonishingly low that you would come into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work or in a public setting in Silicon Valley , Dr. Stanley Deresinski , an infectious disease physician at Stanford Health Care , told Recode last week .
He acknowledged , though , that there ’ s “ always a risk.
” But that risk could go up ( it ’ s hard to say by how much ) at a public event where there may be people attending who have recently traveled to impacted regions , Deresinski said .
Facebook ’ s now-canceled conference would have brought attendees from around the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , direct flights between the San Francisco Bay Area and China have been halted until March .
But that doesn ’ t stop people who may have traveled to those areas in the past few weeks from attending , or may have traveled to the US via other routes , like flying into Los Angeles — which as of Friday , passengers can still do ( passengers coming into many major US airports are still being screened for Covid-19 symptoms by US Customs and Border Patrol ) .
Still , as Recode previously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies halting work travel broadly between East Asia and the US to be overly draconian .
They say that the annual flu is likely a greater threat , given that some 10,000 people in the US have died from the flu this season alone , according to the CDC .
But Covid-19 is more deadly than the flu if you catch it .
Two percent of people who caught coronavirus have died from it , scientists estimate , as opposed to 0.1 percent of people who catch the flu .
And how the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It also continues to spread in China , a country that tech companies have close business connections with .
Because of all this , we ’ re seeing tech companies take strong precautions , no matter the cost , to guard against the outbreak .
Facebook canceling this event is just another confirmation of that .

Facebook is canceling an annual marketing conference it was planning to host in San Francisco next month over concerns about the new coronavirus — now officially known as Covid-19.
“Out of an abundance of caution, we canceled our Global Marketing Summit due to evolving public health risks related to coronavirus,” Facebook spokesman Anthony Harrison said in a statement to Recode.
The social media giant confirmed that it has scratched its plan to hold the event for 5,000 international attendees at the Moscone Center on March 9-12, as first reported by the San Francisco Chronicle. It’s the latest sign of how the outbreak, which has taken the lives of nearly 1,400 people as of Friday, is impacting business in the tech industry. Earlier this week, the world’s biggest phone show, Mobile World Conference, canceled its event in Barcelona after major tech companies like Amazon pulled out of the event.
But the Facebook marketing summit is the first publicly reported example of an event in the San Francisco Bay Area being canceled due to the virus. While there are four cases of novel coronavirus in Silicon Valley, public health officials say that the handful of cases are contained to those who either recently traveled to Hubei, where the virus started, or had close contact with family members who did.
That hasn’t stopped Silicon Valley from worrying — particularly because of the high level of travel between the area and China.
And as Recode reported earlier this week, some in Silicon Valley feel a mounting fear over the possibility of the coronavirus spreading in Silicon Valley. Facebook’s call to cancel its conference because of the virus is an amplified example of how coronavirus fears are impacting day-to-day business in the tech industry. Some tech companies and professionals in the Bay Area are instituting no-handshake policies in business meetings, wearing masks on public transportation, and asking people to work from home.
Recode has also learned that Google recently put up signs in at least two Bay Area offices outside bathrooms reminding people to wash their hands and cover their mouths, with a link to an internal site about the coronavirus at the bottom. The intranet site has infection prevention tips like asking employees who host events to make sure there is sufficient hand sanitizer and “appropriate hand-washing facilities,” according to a source who works at the company.
While public health officials are encouraging people to take some precautions like washing their hands frequently and minimizing contact with anyone with cold symptoms (as they would normally do anyway during flu season), they say that there’s currently a very low risk to public health in the Bay Area.
“The chances are astonishingly low that you would come into contact with a coronavirus infection” at work or in a public setting in Silicon Valley, Dr. Stanley Deresinski, an infectious disease physician at Stanford Health Care, told Recode last week. He acknowledged, though, that there’s “always a risk.”
But that risk could go up (it’s hard to say by how much) at a public event where there may be people attending who have recently traveled to impacted regions, Deresinski said. Facebook’s now-canceled conference would have brought attendees from around the world whose travel history was unknown. Currently, direct flights between the San Francisco Bay Area and China have been halted until March. But that doesn’t stop people who may have traveled to those areas in the past few weeks from attending, or may have traveled to the US via other routes, like flying into Los Angeles — which as of Friday, passengers can still do (passengers coming into many major US airports are still being screened for Covid-19 symptoms by US Customs and Border Patrol).
Still, as Recode previously reported, some tech employees find tech companies halting work travel broadly between East Asia and the US to be overly draconian. They say that the annual flu is likely a greater threat, given that some 10,000 people in the US have died from the flu this season alone, according to the CDC.
But Covid-19 is more deadly than the flu if you catch it. Two percent of people who caught coronavirus have died from it, scientists estimate, as opposed to 0.1 percent of people who catch the flu. And how the coronavirus is transmitted is far less understood. It also continues to spread in China, a country that tech companies have close business connections with. Because of all this, we’re seeing tech companies take strong precautions, no matter the cost, to guard against the outbreak. Facebook canceling this event is just another confirmation of that.


vox--2020-02-14--This animation shows what would happen if leap years didn’t exist

For the first time in four years , February has 29 days .
That ’ s right folks , it ’ s a leap year , and it ’ s an exciting time .
Leap years always coincide with the summer Olympic Games and the US presidential election .
There ’ s so much going on this year , we could really use the extra day .
The simple ( and only ) explanation for why we have leap days is that it takes 365.2422 days for our planet to complete one revolution around the sun .
That means each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s worth short of the complete orbit .
The following animation from planetary scientist James O ’ Donoghue visualizes the discrepancy perfectly .
We can ’ t add quarter days to each year ( you try telling the Earth to spin faster for just one day a year ) .
So a leap day is added every four .
Humans have been accounting for this discrepancy for a while now — as far back as the ancient Egyptians .
The current leap day tradition can be traced back to Pope Gregory in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set by Julius Caesar ) .
We add leap days to the calendar every four years .
But there are a few exceptions when we skip the leap year .
You might have noticed that a full orbit around the sun takes 365.2422 days , and not a neat 365.25 days .
So if we were to have leap years every four years , then the calendar would still get out of whack over long periods of time .
But we don ’ t because Pope Gregory devised some clever , rare , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As National Geographic explains : Which means the next skipped leap year will be in 2100 .
Remarkably , this system set up in the 1500s still works .
We need it , because without it , the calendar would start to get out of sync with the seasons .
If we started ignoring leap years today , by the year 2100 , O ’ Donoghue explains in the following animation , we ’ d be around 20 days out of sync with the seasons .
New Years wouldn ’ t occur in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ autumn instead .
And by 2400 , the autumn equinox would occur on New Year ’ s Eve .
Madness !
There ’ s no way getting around having to add days to the calendar .
The length of day on Earth and the time it takes to orbit the sun simply neatly aligned .
But that doesn ’ t mean the current calendar is optimal .
Recently , two professors at Johns Hopkins University ( an economist and a physicist ) suggested we switch over to a calendar that doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ever changes ( meaning February 2 will always be a Tuesday , no matter what ) .
To make this work , the professors add a whole leap week every fifth or sixth year .
It ’ s effectively creating a new weeklong month that pops up only once a decade .
Is this better ?
I don ’ t know .
Depends if HR lets us have off for the leap week .
Another idea to permanently fix the calendar was championed by Kodak founder George Eastman .
It was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ International Fixed Calendar , ” each month is 28 days long , and there are 13 of them ( the extra month being inserted between July and August and named “ Sol ” . )
There ’ s also a “ leftover day ” added to the end of each year ( meant to be a holiday ) .
This calendar also requires a leap day every four years .
Is this better ?
It makes it so every month is exactly four weeks .
It also makes it so that every 2nd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every 3rd is a Wednesday , and so on .
Eastman , at least , was sold .
His company used it until 1989 .
There are merits to our chaotic calendar .
Over time , you get to have a birthday on every day of the week .
In the calendars above , if you ’ re born on a Tuesday , your birthday will always be on a Tuesday .
Similarly , isn ’ t there a joy in learning that Christmas is going to fall on a Monday and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a three-day weekend ?
Our calendar gets a lot of things right .
One of which is the leap year .
You have an extra day this year !
Make the most of it .

For the first time in four years, February has 29 days. That’s right folks, it’s a leap year, and it’s an exciting time.
Leap years always coincide with the summer Olympic Games and the US presidential election. There’s so much going on this year, we could really use the extra day.
The simple (and only) explanation for why we have leap days is that it takes 365.2422 days for our planet to complete one revolution around the sun. That means each 365-day year ends a quarter day’s worth short of the complete orbit.
The following animation from planetary scientist James O’Donoghue visualizes the discrepancy perfectly. We can’t add quarter days to each year (you try telling the Earth to spin faster for just one day a year). So a leap day is added every four.
This is why we have Leap Years pic.twitter.com/bCX31kymMW — Dr James O'Donoghue (@physicsJ) February 6, 2020
Humans have been accounting for this discrepancy for a while now — as far back as the ancient Egyptians. The current leap day tradition can be traced back to Pope Gregory in the 1500s (who corrected an early calendar set by Julius Caesar).
We add leap days to the calendar every four years. But there are a few exceptions when we skip the leap year. You might have noticed that a full orbit around the sun takes 365.2422 days, and not a neat 365.25 days. So if we were to have leap years every four years, then the calendar would still get out of whack over long periods of time. But we don’t because Pope Gregory devised some clever, rare, exceptions to the leap year rules. As National Geographic explains:
Leap years divisible by 100, like the year 1900, are skipped unless they’re also divisible by 400, like the year 2000, in which case they’re observed. Nobody alive remembers the last lost leap day, but dropping those three leap days every 400 years keeps the calendar on time.
Which means the next skipped leap year will be in 2100.
Remarkably, this system set up in the 1500s still works. We need it, because without it, the calendar would start to get out of sync with the seasons. If we started ignoring leap years today, by the year 2100, O’Donoghue explains in the following animation, we’d be around 20 days out of sync with the seasons. New Years wouldn’t occur in the beginning of winter, but late autumn instead. And by 2400, the autumn equinox would occur on New Year’s Eve. Madness!
If we ignored adding Leap Days for the next 1,500 years starting with 29th Feb 2020: this how our calendar would drift through the seasons — pic.twitter.com/wXnE1tgVTh — Dr James O'Donoghue (@physicsJ) February 13, 2020
There’s no way getting around having to add days to the calendar. The length of day on Earth and the time it takes to orbit the sun simply neatly aligned. But that doesn’t mean the current calendar is optimal.
Recently, two professors at Johns Hopkins University (an economist and a physicist) suggested we switch over to a calendar that doesn’t include a leap year, and never, ever changes (meaning February 2 will always be a Tuesday, no matter what). To make this work, the professors add a whole leap week every fifth or sixth year. It’s effectively creating a new weeklong month that pops up only once a decade.
Is this better? I don’t know. Depends if HR lets us have off for the leap week.
Another idea to permanently fix the calendar was championed by Kodak founder George Eastman. It was a bit more radical. In this “International Fixed Calendar,” each month is 28 days long, and there are 13 of them (the extra month being inserted between July and August and named “Sol”.) There’s also a “leftover day” added to the end of each year (meant to be a holiday). This calendar also requires a leap day every four years. Is this better? It makes it so every month is exactly four weeks. It also makes it so that every 2nd of every month is a Tuesday, every 3rd is a Wednesday, and so on. Eastman, at least, was sold. His company used it until 1989.
There are merits to our chaotic calendar. Over time, you get to have a birthday on every day of the week. In the calendars above, if you’re born on a Tuesday, your birthday will always be on a Tuesday. Similarly, isn’t there a joy in learning that Christmas is going to fall on a Monday and that means the holiday has been turned into a three-day weekend?
Our calendar gets a lot of things right. One of which is the leap year. You have an extra day this year! Make the most of it.


vox--2020-02-14--Why prediction markets are bad at predicting who’ll be president

If you look at predictions from British gambling site Betfair , the Democratic primary has a new frontrunner : Mike Bloomberg .
His odds of winning the Democratic nomination shot up suddenly in the middle of this week , and this morning he passed Bernie Sanders — who has won the popular vote in the two states that have voted so far and is leading in national polls — as the candidate likeliest to win the nomination and likeliest ( behind Trump ) to be our next president .
As of right now , bettors on Betfair give Bloomberg a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
FiveThirtyEight ’ s sophisticated election model , on the other hand , rates Bloomberg ’ s odds at 1/12 ( plus some chance he ’ s chosen at a brokered convention ) , behind Biden as well as Sanders .
Most experts aren ’ t rating him much higher than that .
The general consensus is that he does have a shot , but he ’ s far from the easy frontrunner .
Do the prediction markets know something experts don ’ t ?
But anyone who has been watching the prediction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an alternative hypothesis : They ’ re just not very good .
Before Iowa , Betfair and competitor PredictIt gave Pete Buttigieg only an 8 percent chance of winning the most state delegate equivalents ( which he did , pending a recanvass ) .
For much of last fall , PredictIt rated Andrew Yang and Hillary Clinton as tied for third in the nomination race ( neither stood a chance , and Clinton wasn ’ t even running ) .
In 2016 , Betfair ’ s final assessments as voting day arrived were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of noise — and a lot of nonsense — along the way .
The thing is , prediction markets were supposed to be smarter than the pundits .
They were supposed to harness the wisdom of crowds and use financial incentives to be as accurate at predicting global events as the stock market is at predicting earnings for public companies .
If they work at that , we ’ ll have a powerful new tool for making policy .
If we had an effective prediction market , we could use it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revenue effects of tax changes , the mortality effects of new health care policies , or the best response to an emerging threat like coronavirus .
Stock markets are really good at quickly aggregating information , with prices rapidly reflecting new information and lots of highly paid people spending much of their time studying companies in order to take bets on which are overpriced and underpriced .
If prediction markets were similarly effective , we ’ d have a reliable source of information about lots of things .
And if you thought it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against it — moving the price and making money if you were right .
So it ’ s frustrating that the presidential prediction markets — the most visible , most-traded efforts at making prediction markets happen on a large scale — don ’ t seem so great at their jobs .
What went wrong ?
Existing prediction markets are too small in scale , hard to interact with , and hard to make money from , which renders them inaccurate and vulnerable to manipulation .
If we want to figure out whether the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try it with prediction markets that are more like the stock market .
Until we do , prediction markets are potentially another channel for misinformation .
Are presidential prediction markets bad at their jobs ?
The presidential prediction market has been a little zany all primary season .
Most notably , it consistently overrated Andrew Yang , who had lots of tech-savvy , online followers who were exactly the sort of people to use prediction markets .
That ’ s likely why the markets consistently rated him as having about a 10 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while polls and experts called it correctly : Yang was never going to win a delegate .
One market , PredictIt , also spent much of last fall inexplicably rating Hillary Clinton a plausible nominee with 11 percent odds of winning the nomination .
The markets also consistently underrated Pete Buttigieg , giving him only an 8 percent chance of winning the most state delegate equivalents in Iowa .
And now they ’ ve become obsessed with Bloomberg over the space of a few days , with his odds on Betfair rocketing from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent on February 14 despite not much new information coming out that should have improved his prospects .
This is , frankly , a weird prediction .
Failing to compete in the early states has never worked for a candidate before .
Bloomberg has risen in the national polls , but he ’ s still behind Sanders ; aggregates of recent national polling found Sanders at 23 percent and Bloomberg at 15 percent , putting him not only behind Sanders but also behind Joe Biden .
Contrast the Betfair odds model with this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who ’ ve had an unusually strong track record over the last several election cycles : This model makes it perfectly clear : Bloomberg has a chance .
His chances have risen recently as his spending blitz drove a rise in the national polls .
But he is much less likely to win than Sanders , as you might expect given that Sanders is leading in national polls , leading in state polls , and has won the popular vote in the states that have voted so far .
It remains to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course .
But the available evidence is more in line with the FiveThirtyEight model — where Bloomberg is a possibility but not the clear frontrunner — than the model the betting markets seem to prefer , where Bloomberg is the likeliest Democratic nominee , with his odds improving seemingly every minute I hit “ refresh.
” It is hard to say for sure what is driving Bloomberg ’ s rise .
One possibility — and to be clear , there ’ s no evidence for this — is that someone with a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prediction markets are driven by supply and demand .
If there ’ s an endless supply of people — or one very rich person — willing to bet on Bloomberg , that will drive up the price for Bloomberg bets .
That , in turn , will cause the market to report excellent odds he ’ ll win the election .
The hope is usually that the good predictions will increase good publicity and eventually be a self-fulfilling prophecy — that all of us will see that Bloomberg is the frontrunner according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That something like that could happen isn ’ t just speculation — in 2012 , it actually happened .
At the time , the leading presidential prediction market was a site called Intrade , and it consistently overrated Mitt Romney , who lost in a landslide .
Researchers looking into the prediction markets found evidence of one bettor who spent $ 4 million to $ 7 million artificially boosting Romney ’ s chances .
He was so determined that he ended up being 1/3 of all Intrade trading on Romney — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high right up through the election .
“ It is worth knowing that a highly visible market that drove many a media narrative could be manipulated at a cost less than that of a primetime television commercial , ” the study ’ s authors , David Rothschild of Microsoft Research in New York and Rajiv Sethi of Barnard College at Columbia University , wrote at the time .
People try to do this on the stock market , too .
But they mostly fail because stock markets are big and heavily traded .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ much more than $ 7 million — to meaningfully manipulate the price of a stock , and the manipulation often doesn ’ t last very long .
By comparison , prediction markets are small and not very lucrative .
High fees make it a waste of time to bet on some contracts , especially ones for unlikely outcomes .
Your money is sometimes tied up in the market until the contract is resolved , which can take years .
Betfair is closed to Americans due to US gambling laws , and PredictIt ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thus has an exemption from normal gambling law ) is closed to non-Americans , and PredictIt sharply limits how much you can bet .
As a result , they ’ re dominated by hobbyists — which needn ’ t be a problem as election betting is a fairly boring unobjectionable hobby .
Usually , the hobbyists are enough — prediction markets actually do pretty well !
But since the markets are small , it doesn ’ t take all that much money or a very sophisticated operation to manipulate them .
The fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself a big deal .
But the combination of unprofitable and manipulable means they can become a tool for disinformation — and that ’ s bad .
The fix : Prediction markets should be a little more like stock markets There are a lot of reasons I ’ d have a harder time manipulating the price of Google stock than manipulating the price of “ Buttigieg 2020 nominee ” contracts on Betfair .
Let ’ s go through them in turn .
First , so much money moves through the stock market that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sell stocks as a full-time job .
If I try to dump some money into changing Google ’ s stock price , some of those people will notice and try to figure out what ’ s up .
Some of them have access to billions of dollars themselves , so I will have a very hard time throwing enough money in to swamp them all .
Second , there are low fees associated with trading stocks .
I can buy and sell lots of Google stock with only some minor fees ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ size of the trade ) associated with doing so .
Fees on prediction markets , on the other hand , often make up a significant share of the profits you ’ d get from trading on them .
This makes repeatedly trading less worthwhile .
Third , most stock trading is public , so if I bought billions of dollars of Google stock , people could notice that I had personally bought billions of dollars of Google stock .
Right now , it ’ s hard to figure out who , if anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg bets .
Finally , some forms of market manipulation in the stock market are heavily regulated .
Try to trigger a flash crash or release a misleading press release so that you can take advantage of price movements , and you ’ re pretty likely to be investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission .
While no regulatory environment is perfect , some amount of oversight can make the markets function better by making the people you ’ re trading with more confident that they aren ’ t being duped .
Right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prediction markets is that they ’ re illegal gambling .
A move in this direction would require Congress or regulators to loosen up the rules — but they could still regulate the markets , just with an eye toward preventing scams rather than preventing all betting .
A step in any of these directions would make the prediction markets harder to manipulate as well as a better use of time and energy .
They would probably also be more accurate .
This is a goal worth pursuing .
Correctly done prediction markets can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be an avenue for misinformation .
We ought to think about how to get it right .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we ’ ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world ’ s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good .
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions , grants , and sponsorships .
Learn more here .

If you look at predictions from British gambling site Betfair, the Democratic primary has a new top-tier candidate: Mike Bloomberg. His odds of winning the Democratic nomination shot up suddenly in the middle of this week, and on February 14 he briefly passed Bernie Sanders — who has won the popular vote in the two states that have voted so far and is leading in national polls — as the candidate likeliest to win the nomination and likeliest (behind Trump) to be our next president. At the peak on Valentine’s Day, bettors on Betfair gave Bloomberg a 34.5 percent chance of winning the nomination.
FiveThirtyEight’s sophisticated election model, on the other hand, rates Bloomberg’s odds of getting a plurality of delegates at 15 percent (plus some chance he’s chosen at a brokered convention), behind Biden as well as Sanders. Most experts aren’t rating him much higher than that. The consensus is that he does have a shot, but he’s far from the easy frontrunner.
Do the prediction markets know something experts don’t?
Maybe.
But anyone who has been watching the prediction markets for the last year might have an alternative hypothesis: They’re just not very good. Before Iowa, Betfair, and competitor PredictIt gave Pete Buttigieg only an 8 percent chance of winning the most state delegate equivalents (which he did, pending a recanvass). For much of last fall, PredictIt rated Andrew Yang and Hillary Clinton as tied for third in the nomination race (neither stood a chance, and Clinton wasn’t even running). In 2016, Betfair’s final assessments of candidates in elections that year were overall very good. But there can be a lot of noise — and a lot of nonsense — along the way.
The thing is, prediction markets were supposed to be smarter than the pundits. They were supposed to harness the wisdom of crowds and use financial incentives to be as accurate at predicting global events as the stock market is at predicting earnings for public companies.
If they work at that, we’ll have a powerful new tool for making policy. If we had an effective prediction market, we could use it to aggregate wisdom on questions like the revenue effects of tax changes, the mortality effects of new health care policies, or the best response to an emerging threat like coronavirus.
Stock markets are really good at quickly aggregating information, with prices rapidly reflecting new information and lots of highly paid people spending much of their time studying companies in order to take bets on which are overpriced and underpriced. If prediction markets were similarly effective, we’d have a reliable source of information about lots of things. And if you thought it was wrong, you could just bet against it — moving the price and making money if you were right.
So it’s frustrating that the presidential prediction markets — the most visible, most-traded efforts at making prediction markets happen on a large scale — don’t seem so great at their jobs. What went wrong?
Existing prediction markets are too small in scale, hard to interact with, and hard to make money from, which renders them inaccurate and vulnerable to manipulation. If we want to figure out whether the prediction market concept works, we should try it with prediction markets that are more like the stock market. Until we do, prediction markets are potentially another channel for misinformation.
Are presidential prediction markets bad at their jobs?
The presidential prediction market has been a little zany all primary season. Most notably, it consistently overrated Andrew Yang, who had lots of tech-savvy, online followers who were exactly the sort of people to use prediction markets. That’s likely why the markets consistently rated him as having about a 10 percent chance of winning the nomination, even while polls and experts called it correctly: Yang was never going to win a delegate.
One market, PredictIt, also spent much of last fall inexplicably rating Hillary Clinton a plausible nominee with 11 percent odds of winning the nomination. The markets also consistently underrated Pete Buttigieg, giving him only an 8 percent chance of winning the most state delegate equivalents in Iowa.
And now they’ve become obsessed with Bloomberg over the space of a few days, with his odds on Betfair rocketing from 11 percent on February 6 to 34 percent on February 14 and then down somewhat, despite not much new information coming out that should have improved his prospects.
This is, frankly, a weird prediction. Failing to compete in the early states has never worked for a candidate before. Bloomberg has risen in the national polls, but he’s still behind Sanders; aggregates of recent national polling found Sanders at 23 percent and Bloomberg at 15 percent, putting him not only behind Sanders but also behind Joe Biden.
Contrast the Betfair odds model with the model from FiveThirtyEight, the data-driven pundits who’ve had an unusually strong track record over the past several election cycles.
The model makes it perfectly clear that Bloomberg has a real shot. His chances have risen recently as his spending blitz drove a rise in the national polls. But he is much less likely to win than Sanders, as you might expect given that Sanders is leading in national polls, leading in state polls, and has won the popular vote in the states that have voted so far.
(Do note that this is based on a FiveThirtyEight model estimating who will get a plurality of pledged delegates. Bloomberg could fail to have a plurality but win a brokered convention, making his overall odds higher than the 15 percent given here. But factoring this in certainly wouldn’t make him the frontrunner; experts think it’s unlikely the DNC will ignore the plurality choice at a brokered convention, and FiveThirtyEight gives Sanders a 36 percent chance of having an outright majority by the convention.)
It remains to be seen who will be right, of course. But the available evidence is more in line with the FiveThirtyEight model — where Bloomberg is a possibility but not the frontrunner — than the model the betting markets seem to prefer, where Bloomberg is much more likely to be the Democratic nominee.
Prediction markets are manipulable
It is hard to say for sure what is driving Bloomberg’s rise. One possibility — and to be clear, there’s no evidence for this — is that someone with a lot of money is betting on him.
Prediction markets are driven by supply and demand. If there’s an endless supply of people — or one very rich person — willing to bet on Bloomberg, that will drive up the price for Bloomberg bets. That, in turn, will cause the market to report excellent odds he’ll win the election. The hope is usually that the good predictions will increase good publicity and eventually be a self-fulfilling prophecy — that all of us will see that Bloomberg is the frontrunner according to Betfair and start treating him as one.
That something like that could happen isn’t just speculation — in 2012, it actually happened. At the time, the leading presidential prediction market was a site called Intrade, and it consistently overrated Mitt Romney, who lost in a landslide. Researchers looking into the prediction markets found evidence of one bettor who spent $4 million to $7 million artificially boosting Romney’s chances. He was so determined that he ended up being one-third of all Intrade trading on Romney — and he kept Romney’s prediction-market odds high right up through the election.
“It is worth knowing that a highly visible market that drove many a media narrative could be manipulated at a cost less than that of a primetime television commercial,” the study’s authors, David Rothschild of Microsoft Research in New York and Rajiv Sethi of Barnard College at Columbia University, wrote at the time.
People try to do this on the stock market, too. But they mostly fail because stock markets are big and heavily traded. It takes a ton of money — much more than $7 million — to meaningfully manipulate the price of a stock, and the manipulation often doesn’t last very long.
By comparison, prediction markets are small and not very lucrative. High fees make it a waste of time to bet on some contracts, especially ones for unlikely outcomes. Your money is sometimes tied up in the market until the contract is resolved, which can take years. Betfair is closed to Americans due to US gambling laws, and PredictIt (which is a university research project and thus has an exemption from normal gambling law) is closed to non-Americans, and PredictIt sharply limits how much you can bet.
As a result, they’re dominated by hobbyists — which needn’t be a problem as election betting is a fairly boring unobjectionable hobby. Usually, the hobbyists are enough — prediction markets actually do pretty well! But since the markets are small, it doesn’t take all that much money or a very sophisticated operation to manipulate them.
The fact prediction markets are unprofitable isn’t itself a big deal. But the combination of unprofitable and manipulable means they can become a tool for disinformation — and that’s bad.
The fix: Prediction markets should be a little more like stock markets
There are a lot of reasons I’d have a harder time manipulating the price of Google stock than manipulating the price of “Buttigieg 2020 nominee” contracts on Betfair. Let’s go through them in turn.
First, so much money moves through the stock market that lots of people are paid to buy and sell stocks as a full-time job. If I try to dump some money into changing Google’s stock price, some of those people will notice and try to figure out what’s up. Some of them have access to billions of dollars themselves, so I will have a very hard time throwing enough money in to swamp them all.
Second, there are low fees associated with trading stocks. I can buy and sell lots of Google stock with only some minor fees (at least as a share of the size of the trade) associated with doing so. Fees on prediction markets, on the other hand, often make up a significant share of the profits you’d get from trading on them. This makes repeatedly trading less worthwhile.
Third, most stock trading is public, so if I bought billions of dollars of Google stock, people could notice that I had personally bought billions of dollars of Google stock. Right now, it’s hard to figure out who, if anyone, is driving the dramatic increase in Bloomberg bets.
Finally, some forms of market manipulation in the stock market are heavily regulated. Try to trigger a flash crash or release a misleading press release so that you can take advantage of price movements, and you’re pretty likely to be investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. While no regulatory environment is perfect, some amount of oversight can make the markets function better by making the people you’re trading with more confident that they aren’t being duped.
Right now, the regulatory stance on election prediction markets is that they’re illegal gambling. A move in this direction would require Congress or regulators to loosen up the rules — but they could still regulate the markets, just with an eye toward preventing scams rather than preventing all betting.
A step in any of these directions would make the prediction markets harder to manipulate as well as a better use of time and energy. They would probably also be more accurate. This is a goal worth pursuing. Correctly done prediction markets can improve policymaking, and bad ones can be an avenue for misinformation. We ought to think about how to get it right.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we’ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world’s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good.
vox-mark Sign up for the newsletter Future Perfect Each week, we explore unique solutions to some of the world's biggest problems. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email (required) Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . You can opt out at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page Subscribe
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions, grants, and sponsorships. Learn more here.


vox--2020-02-14--Andrew McCabe, Michael Flynn, and the latest Justice Department drama, explained

For anyone concerned that President Donald Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr are politicizing the criminal justice system , Friday afternoon has been a real roller coaster .
First , news broke that Justice Department prosecutors had closed one politically controversial case , a lengthy criminal investigation into former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe , without bringing any charges .
McCabe had been under scrutiny for potentially lying to internal investigators about his role in leaks concerning an FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation — though many wondered whether the investigation was truly about pursuing someone President Trump had deemed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an hour later , the New York Times reported that Barr had appointed an outside prosecutor to review the criminal case against Michael Flynn .
Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian ambassador back in 2017 but has not yet been sentenced and recently sought to withdraw his guilty plea .
Together , this is certainly an interesting pair of headlines coming the week after Barr both intervened to help water down a sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone and urged President Trump to stop tweeting about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McCabe news would seem a setback to Trump ’ s efforts to weaponize the Justice Department against his enemies .
But the Flynn news is another addition to the now-lengthy list of instances where DOJ leaders have intervened in procedurally unusual ways to help out Trump ’ s friends .
The president will surely be very happy about the second piece of news — and not the first .
The Justice Department seemed prepared to indict McCabe .
Then something happened .
To understand the Trump-McCabe saga , you have to understand that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for reasons having little to do with what McCabe was under investigation for .
Indeed , since as far back as October 2016 when he was a presidential candidate , Trump has been baselessly arguing that McCabe corruptly used his FBI position to help Hillary Clinton .
( Trump ’ s gripe was that McCabe ’ s wife Jill had run for state Senate in Virginia in 2015 , and that Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe had helped her fundraise . )
Trump ’ s distrust of McCabe intensified after he became president and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia investigation was heating up , and Trump insisted McCabe was a Comey ally who was out to get him .
Separately from all that , McCabe became ensnared in a leak investigation .
The Justice Department had sought to find the source behind an October 2016 Wall Street Journal story about internal deliberations over an investigation into the Clinton Foundation .
McCabe had in fact authorized these leaks ( in an apparent attempt to defend his reputation ) , and the Justice Department ’ s inspector general , Michael Horowitz , concluded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by investigators .
( It should be noted that this disclosure was not an attempt to hurt Trump ’ s campaign — if anything , it hurt Clinton ’ s . )
McCabe was then hastily fired in March 2018 — hours before he became fully eligible for his pension , to Trump ’ s glee .
The Justice Department said McCabe was being ousted due to the inspector general ’ s findings , but he has argued ( including in a lawsuit ) that this was political payback .
Since then , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump in the media .
Meanwhile , Horowitz had made a criminal referral of his conduct , and the US Attorney ’ s Office for the District of Columbia started looking into whether to charge him for lying to investigators about the leak .
Yet critics argued that the case against McCabe appeared weak and looked a whole lot like political retribution — especially because President Trump continued to regularly berate McCabe in tweets and public comments , even after his firing .
It raised questions about whether the Justice Department was being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enemies for political reasons .
Last September , reports claimed that the Justice Department was preparing to go ahead and charge McCabe anyway .
Yet no indictment materialized .
Rumors flew that a grand jury may have rejected prosecutors ’ effort ( which would have been quite a rare occurrence ) , but this has never been confirmed .
McCabe has been in limbo since then .
But this Friday , his defense attorneys , Michael Bromwich and David Schertler , announced in a statement that prosecutors had told them they had closed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , justice has been done in this matter , ” they wrote .
So this is at least somewhat encouraging news for those who feared that Trump and Barr have been pushing the Justice Department toward politicized prosecutions — if something like that was going on here , it ended up failing in the end .
Michael Flynn has argued he got a raw deal .
Barr has appointed prosecutors to look into it .
Yet the other news is that Barr ’ s Justice Department is reviewing a case brought against one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Security Adviser Michael Flynn .
In December 2017 , Flynn struck a plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s team — pleading guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian ambassador , and agreeing to cooperate .
Everything seemed to be going according to plan with this , and prosecutors recommended Flynn get no prison time as his sentencing approached in December 2018 .
Surprisingly , though , at that hearing , the judge in Flynn ’ s case , Emmet Sullivan , raked Flynn over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disgust ” and “ disdain ” for what Flynn did and strongly suggesting he might give Flynn some prison time .
However , Sullivan offered Flynn the opportunity to delay his sentencing to get credit for further cooperation with the government , and Flynn jumped at the chance .
Yet instead of cooperating further , Flynn decided to dump his lawyers and hire a conservative firebrand , Sidney Powell .
He also did not agree to give prosecutors the testimony they wanted in a case against one of his business associates , Bijan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defiant , seeming to reject Flynn ’ s previous acceptance of responsibility for his false statements and imply that Flynn had been set up by the government .
Finally , Powell filed a motion to have Flynn ’ s guilty plea withdrawn .
Now comes the news , via the Times ’ s Charlie Savage , Adam Goldman , and Matt Apuzzo , that Barr has appointed “ an outside prosecutor to scrutinize the criminal case ” against Flynn .
That prosecutor is Jeff Jensen , who works in the office of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The review is highly unusual and could trigger more accusations of political interference by top Justice Department officials into the work of career prosecutors , ” the Times reporters write .
It ’ s unclear what Jensen will find — his review could be fair , or it could be political hackwork .
But even before knowing that , this seems to be just the latest example among many that friends of the president get special treatment departing from ordinary procedures in Barr ’ s Justice Department .
Already , in January , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change a new sentencing recommendation from Flynn ’ s prosecutors .
This came weeks before a similar drama played out involving the sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone .
Barr also recently installed a close ally in the US Attorney ’ s office for the District of Columbia , which is handling both cases .
So while Barr may be urging Trump to stop tweeting about Justice Department criminal cases , the attorney general appears to be happily continuing his activity behind the scenes on cases of importance to the president .

For anyone concerned that President Donald Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr are politicizing the criminal justice system, Friday afternoon has been a real roller coaster.
First, news broke that Justice Department prosecutors had closed one politically controversial case, a lengthy criminal investigation into former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, without bringing any charges. McCabe had been under scrutiny for potentially lying to internal investigators about his role in leaks concerning an FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation — though many wondered whether the investigation was truly about pursuing someone President Trump had deemed an enemy.
Then, just around an hour later, the New York Times reported that Barr had appointed an outside prosecutor to review the criminal case against Michael Flynn. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian ambassador back in 2017 but has not yet been sentenced and recently sought to withdraw his guilty plea.
Together, this is certainly an interesting pair of headlines coming the week after Barr both intervened to help water down a sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone and urged President Trump to stop tweeting about pending Justice Department criminal cases.
The McCabe news would seem a setback to Trump’s efforts to weaponize the Justice Department against his enemies. But the Flynn news is another addition to the now-lengthy list of instances where DOJ leaders have intervened in procedurally unusual ways to help out Trump’s friends.
The president will surely be very happy about the second piece of news — and not the first.
The Justice Department seemed prepared to indict McCabe. Then something happened.
To understand the Trump-McCabe saga, you have to understand that Trump has long despised and criticized McCabe for reasons having little to do with what McCabe was under investigation for.
Indeed, since as far back as October 2016 when he was a presidential candidate, Trump has been baselessly arguing that McCabe corruptly used his FBI position to help Hillary Clinton. (Trump’s gripe was that McCabe’s wife Jill had run for state Senate in Virginia in 2015, and that Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe had helped her fundraise.) Trump’s distrust of McCabe intensified after he became president and fired FBI Director James Comey. The Russia investigation was heating up, and Trump insisted McCabe was a Comey ally who was out to get him.
Separately from all that, McCabe became ensnared in a leak investigation. The Justice Department had sought to find the source behind an October 2016 Wall Street Journal story about internal deliberations over an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. McCabe had in fact authorized these leaks (in an apparent attempt to defend his reputation), and the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, concluded he lacked candor when asked about them by investigators. (It should be noted that this disclosure was not an attempt to hurt Trump’s campaign — if anything, it hurt Clinton’s.)
McCabe was then hastily fired in March 2018 — hours before he became fully eligible for his pension, to Trump’s glee. The Justice Department said McCabe was being ousted due to the inspector general’s findings, but he has argued (including in a lawsuit) that this was political payback.
Since then, McCabe has become a vocal critic of Trump in the media. Meanwhile, Horowitz had made a criminal referral of his conduct, and the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia started looking into whether to charge him for lying to investigators about the leak.
Yet critics argued that the case against McCabe appeared weak and looked a whole lot like political retribution — especially because President Trump continued to regularly berate McCabe in tweets and public comments, even after his firing. It raised questions about whether the Justice Department was being pressured to go after Trump’s enemies for political reasons.
Last September, reports claimed that the Justice Department was preparing to go ahead and charge McCabe anyway. Yet no indictment materialized. Rumors flew that a grand jury may have rejected prosecutors’ effort (which would have been quite a rare occurrence), but this has never been confirmed.
McCabe has been in limbo since then. But this Friday, his defense attorneys, Michael Bromwich and David Schertler, announced in a statement that prosecutors had told them they had closed the case. “At long last, justice has been done in this matter,” they wrote.
So this is at least somewhat encouraging news for those who feared that Trump and Barr have been pushing the Justice Department toward politicized prosecutions — if something like that was going on here, it ended up failing in the end.
Michael Flynn has argued he got a raw deal. Barr has appointed prosecutors to look into it.
Yet the other news is that Barr’s Justice Department is reviewing a case brought against one of Trump’s allies: former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
In December 2017, Flynn struck a plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller’s team — pleading guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian ambassador, and agreeing to cooperate. Everything seemed to be going according to plan with this, and prosecutors recommended Flynn get no prison time as his sentencing approached in December 2018.
Surprisingly, though, at that hearing, the judge in Flynn’s case, Emmet Sullivan, raked Flynn over the coals, saying he felt “disgust” and “disdain” for what Flynn did and strongly suggesting he might give Flynn some prison time. However, Sullivan offered Flynn the opportunity to delay his sentencing to get credit for further cooperation with the government, and Flynn jumped at the chance.
Yet instead of cooperating further, Flynn decided to dump his lawyers and hire a conservative firebrand, Sidney Powell. He also did not agree to give prosecutors the testimony they wanted in a case against one of his business associates, Bijan Rafiekian. Filings from Powell grew increasingly defiant, seeming to reject Flynn’s previous acceptance of responsibility for his false statements and imply that Flynn had been set up by the government. Finally, Powell filed a motion to have Flynn’s guilty plea withdrawn.
Now comes the news, via the Times’s Charlie Savage, Adam Goldman, and Matt Apuzzo, that Barr has appointed “an outside prosecutor to scrutinize the criminal case” against Flynn. That prosecutor is Jeff Jensen, who works in the office of the US Attorney in St. Louis.
“The review is highly unusual and could trigger more accusations of political interference by top Justice Department officials into the work of career prosecutors,” the Times reporters write.
It’s unclear what Jensen will find — his review could be fair, or it could be political hackwork. But even before knowing that, this seems to be just the latest example among many that friends of the president get special treatment departing from ordinary procedures in Barr’s Justice Department.
Already, in January, senior Justice Department officials had intervened to change a new sentencing recommendation from Flynn’s prosecutors. This came weeks before a similar drama played out involving the sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone. Barr also recently installed a close ally in the US Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia, which is handling both cases.
So while Barr may be urging Trump to stop tweeting about Justice Department criminal cases, the attorney general appears to be happily continuing his activity behind the scenes on cases of importance to the president.


vox--2020-02-14--What we know (and don’t know) about the Nevada caucus “tool”

Here we go again !
Fresh off the unmitigated 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 ill-fated caucus app , the Nevada State Democratic Party appears to have come up with a last-minute replacement — just in time for early voting to begin on February 15 .
The party has yet to make an official announcement , but , on Thursday , it sent a memo to presidential campaigns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ form of party-distributed iPads equipped with “ caucus calculators ” accessed through a simple Google form .
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 and so should have the chance to be an influential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
This year is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ 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 Thursday , 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and how many delegates to award the ones who did .
Chairs will then be able to report their results to the party through the tool/web form .
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 through a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of using either the iPad tool or a paper worksheet for the required second source , which gives chairs the option not to use digital devices at all .
The party did not respond to multiple requests for comment about the tool .
So far , all details about the Nevada State Democratic Party ’ s last-minute replacement have come from leaked volunteer training sessions and memos .
The party seemingly has little interest in telling the rest of the world how it is preparing for next week ’ s caucus beyond assurances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was similarly tight-lipped before its caucus , and the results weren ’ t great .
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 14 , 2020 , 3:03 pm Eastern : 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @

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.


vox--2020-02-14--“This is a president declaring himself above the law”: A former ethics chief on Trump’s dangerous ne

“This is a president declaring himself above the law”: A former ethics chief on Trump’s dangerous new era

On Thursday — just eight days after his impeachment acquittal — President Donald Trump made a spectacle out of the very type of conduct that got him impeached in the first place .
Trump implicitly linked the possible end of punitive travel restrictions the federal government took against citizens of New York with the state ’ s Gov .
Andrew Cuomo ( D ) doing favors for him , including ending investigations of his finances .
In short , he attempted an extortionate quid pro quo , right out in public .
“ I ’ m seeing Governor Cuomo today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand that National Security far exceeds politics .
New York must stop all of its unnecessary lawsuits & harrassment [ sic ] , start cleaning itself up , and lowering taxes , ” Trump tweeted , before closing with a gratuitous shot at Cuomo ’ s brother , CNN host Chris Cuomo .
“ Build relationships , but don ’ t bring Fredo !
” For some , this may have just seemed like one among many regrettable tweets the president posts during the course of any given week .
But for Walter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government Ethics ( OGE ) before quitting in July 2017 over objections to Trump ’ s failure to divest from his businesses and other concerns , that particular tweet and the public ’ s relatively muted reaction to it marked a dangerous marker along the road to authoritarianism .
So Shaub , who now serves as a senior adviser for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ( CREW ) , an independent good government watchdog group , decided to use his large Twitter platform to not only sound the alarm about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in public , but also to keep reminding people that this sort of thing should not become normal .
“ It is Ukraine all over again .
Only now it is one of these United States being extorted , ” Shaub wrote on Thursday afternoon .
“ Holy cow , people .
It ’ s happening in plain sight this time .
Have we reached the point where a quid pro quo doesn ’ t even make a ripple ?
Is that the degree of submission to corruption ?
Wake up !
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people that Trump “ attempted quid pro quo extortion on Twitter , ” and urging them to “ Pay attention.
” On Friday , Vox connected with Shaub to get his insight into why Trump ’ s public quid pro quo demand is especially alarming , and about what he thinks it says about where the Trump presidency is headed .
A transcript of our conversation , lightly edited for clarity and brevity , follows .
Obviously Trump posts a lot of objectionable tweets and says a lot of objectionable things .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you about the one he posted yesterday linking these actions he ’ s taken punishing New York to essentially the state doing political favors for him .
It ’ s important to remember the context in which all of this is unfolding .
This week , we ’ ve learned that the extent to which the president has politicized the Department of Justice may be a lot worse than any of us feared .
And then on the heels of that discovery he tweets out this extortionate demand that New York drop its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ link to this outrageous Global Entry decision that the government made with regard to New York .
He was careful not to say the exact phrase , ‘ as a quid pro quo , give me this relief from your lawsuits and I will give you relief from my administration ’ s Global Entry decision , ’ but this is the issue we confronted during the impeachment hearing .
The criminals never say , ‘ This is a quid pro quo.
’ They link things and then try to steer your behavior with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ withhold something in exchange for it .
It ’ s important to remember that the president is exempt from a lot of criminal conflict of interest statutes , but he ’ s not exempt from 18 U.S. Code §201 — linking an official action to a thing of value given by another party .
So telling them to drop lawsuits against him personally is a thing of value , and making a decision on the Global Entry would be an official act .
I ’ m not accusing him necessarily of committing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ type of behavior that was implicated in the impeachment hearing where he tried to strongarm Ukraine into taking an action against one of his political rivals , and he took an official action of withholding hundreds of millions of dollars of needed aid from a country that has been invaded by Russia .
One of the things that ’ s so alarming about what he ’ s done is it ’ s so closely related to what he did with Ukraine , and so open , that one of the dangers is he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world : ‘ I not only can but will do the very thing that I was impeached for because the Senate has blessed my use of governmental authority for my personal gain.
’ It doesn ’ t matter whether it succeeds .
It matters what message it sends and what it tells us about what he ’ s going to do next .
And I wasn ’ t nearly as alarmed before the media and the public failed to react to it .
And frankly , the relative silence in response to this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Ukraine conduct , is the most terrifying thing that ’ s happened in the three-plus years that he ’ s been in power .
What do you think Trump putting this quid pro quo with New York state out there publicly says about what he ’ s trying to do to the federal government in the runup to the election this November — and possibly beyond that if he wins another term ?
There was a really instructive interview that [ MSNBC host ] Nicole Wallace did with Robert Costa of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to her that [ Trump ’ s ] closest advisers are telling people like Costa that Trump now feels the rule of law is done , and he can do whatever he wants because the Senate will back him .
I think what this shows is two things .
One , there is no limit on what he ’ ll do if he ’ s allowed to get away with it .
And two , doing things like this in the open , in plain sight , is a way of testing whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even worse coercive or corrupt acts .
And so the danger these things have is they can become just a joke if the public reacts strongly , or they can become an ambiguous tweet that was misinterpreted if the public responds strongly .
But if the public doesn ’ t respond , then the behavior escalates because these testings of the boundaries will continue until he hits a boundary that he can ’ t cross .
And then he ’ ll test elsewhere — just like a hacker testing a computer system ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of entry .
This guy has made clear he ’ s no longer content to be president .
How far he takes it is up to the Senate and the American people , but we ’ re in a new danger zone .
And I think there ’ s a widespread understanding that he ’ s been unleashed by impeachment .
But what is not well understood is how quickly he ’ s going to escalate .
I think people are a couple steps behind him .
That fear is especially confirmed for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when he does things like this .
I think , even though we get tired of saying it and doing this exercise , it ’ s worth stepping back and thinking , “ What would have happened if Obama had issued that same tweet while Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate ?
” The tweet Trump posted about New York and the lawsuits against him would certainly have gotten President Obama impeached and removed from office .
But now we ’ re in a zone where the president can commit acts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ led to removal from office in the past in plain sight , and people shrug it off and cast a side-eye at the person who ’ s sounding the alarm .
We have to stay grounded in the place where this country was before this authoritarian took over or we will lose perspective on what is dangerous and what is inappropriate .
And so we have to view this through the lens of President Obama doing this with a Republican Congress or President Bush doing it with a Democratic Congress .
If we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get tired of doing it and we get frustrated because we can ’ t make it happen , we begin to understand how unbelievably dangerous [ Trump ’ s ] comment is .
This is the situation I found myself in in 2017 when I was still leading the Office of Government Ethics .
I told the staff , “ We are going to treat them exactly the same as we treated both the Bush and Obama administration .
We are gon na hold them to the same standards .
Which means we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on them than we were on Obama and Bush , but we ’ re not gon na be easier on them either .
We have to stay grounded as though we are still in 2006 or 2016.
” It ’ s not the people doing that who have changed , it ’ s the world that has changed , because Trump has shifted the ground and everybody is way down the road with Trump .
Some of us have to stay back where America was when there was a rule of law and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is the thing that would ’ ve ended a presidency.
” And I guarantee that tweet this week would ’ ve ended a past presidency because it was different than other obnoxious tweets that he ’ s done in that it connected an official action to a demand for a thing of value .
That ’ s different in nature than his silly stupid tweets about name-calling , but you see endless coverage of him calling one candidate short and making fun of another candidate ’ s name .
People are getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you left government in the summer of 2017 , did you foresee the first term of Trump ’ s presidency going down this road that we ’ re on now ?
Has it in some ways been worse than you expected ?
I gave a speech at the Brookings Institution on January 11 , 2017 .
It was something I never thought I would do and never thought I would have to do , condemning the plan he had announced that day for divesting .
And I tried to warn America that if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divesting , everything is fair game for him to do in service of his personal interest .
That is the consistent theme .
He ’ s not all over the place .
Every single action he has taken has advanced his personal interest , starting with the monetizing of the presidency and the ignoring of conflicts of interest — perhaps even relishing conflicts of interest .
Then the attempted coercion of Ukraine was again his personal interest in retaining power , and in this case his personal interest in getting rid of lawsuits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say , I feel like I knew he was certainly going to try these things , and I tried to warn the world about it .
But what I didn ’ t expect is how badly the system would fail to stop him .
At the time , I had real faith in some Republican senators , like Chuck Grassley and others , who had been champions of whistleblowers and congressional witnesses and the norms that hold government together .
I didn ’ t agree with all their policies or everything they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ principled individuals who would uphold the rule of law .
And just this week [ we have ] Chuck Grassley abandoning a lifetime of defending whistleblowers and congressional witnesses to say that it was fine for President Trump to retaliate against Alexander Vindman .
I absolutely predicted this is where he would try to go .
What I didn ’ t predict is how badly the system would fail because of his coopting of partisans in the Senate .
You posted another tweet this morning linking the tweet about New York that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this morning basically asserting a right to order the Justice Department around .
Can you flesh out the connection between those two tweets ?
They are in a straight line pointing from democracy to authoritarianism .
This is a president declaring himself above the law , without regard for laws like the anti-bribery statute in one case , or the traditions of the country in a non-politicized justice system .
I see them as exactly the same , because it is now a full-court press to push the boundaries in all directions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not that he ’ s focused on one issue and pushing it in one direction .
It ’ s like a balloon expanding .
And so the outer edges of the expanding balloon are going to touch on different issues , but they are consistent in being part of the expanding of executive power beyond the bounds of anything democracy can tolerate .
The news moves fast .
To stay updated , follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter , and read more of Vox ’ s policy and politics coverage .

On Thursday — just eight days after his impeachment acquittal — President Donald Trump made a spectacle out of the very type of conduct that got him impeached in the first place.
Trump implicitly linked the possible end of punitive travel restrictions the federal government took against citizens of New York with the state’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) doing favors for him, including ending investigations of his finances. In short, he attempted an extortionate quid pro quo, right out in public.
“I’m seeing Governor Cuomo today at The White House. He must understand that National Security far exceeds politics. New York must stop all of its unnecessary lawsuits & harrassment [sic], start cleaning itself up, and lowering taxes,” Trump tweeted, before closing with a gratuitous shot at Cuomo’s brother, CNN host Chris Cuomo. “Build relationships, but don’t bring Fredo!”
I’m seeing Governor Cuomo today at The White House. He must understand that National Security far exceeds politics. New York must stop all of its unnecessary lawsuits & harrassment, start cleaning itself up, and lowering taxes. Build relationships, but don’t bring Fredo! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 13, 2020
For some, this may have just seemed like one among many regrettable tweets the president posts during the course of any given week. But for Walter Shaub, who headed the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) before quitting in July 2017 over objections to Trump’s failure to divest from his businesses and other concerns, that particular tweet and the public’s relatively muted reaction to it marked a dangerous marker along the road to authoritarianism.
So Shaub, who now serves as a senior adviser for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), an independent good government watchdog group, decided to use his large Twitter platform to not only sound the alarm about the president feeling emboldened to make extortionate demands in public, but also to keep reminding people that this sort of thing should not become normal.
“It is Ukraine all over again. Only now it is one of these United States being extorted,” Shaub wrote on Thursday afternoon. “Holy cow, people. It’s happening in plain sight this time. Have we reached the point where a quid pro quo doesn’t even make a ripple? Is that the degree of submission to corruption? Wake up!”
It is Ukraine all over again. Only now it is one of these United States being extorted. Holy cow, people. It's happening in plain sight this time. Have we reached the point where a quid pro quo doesn't even make a ripple? Is that the degree of submission to corruption? Wake up! — Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) February 13, 2020
Shaub has since posted regular tweets reminding people that Trump “attempted quid pro quo extortion on Twitter,” and urging them to “Pay attention.”
It's 8:30 a.m. The President attempted quid pro quo extortion on Twitter. Pay attention. https://t.co/N9FbcHtS0R — Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) February 14, 2020
On Friday, Vox connected with Shaub to get his insight into why Trump’s public quid pro quo demand is especially alarming, and about what he thinks it says about where the Trump presidency is headed.
A transcript of our conversation, lightly edited for clarity and brevity, follows.
Aaron Rupar
Obviously Trump posts a lot of objectionable tweets and says a lot of objectionable things. So I’m wondering what specifically alarmed you about the one he posted yesterday linking these actions he’s taken punishing New York to essentially the state doing political favors for him.
Walter Shaub
It’s important to remember the context in which all of this is unfolding. This week, we’ve learned that the extent to which the president has politicized the Department of Justice may be a lot worse than any of us feared. And then on the heels of that discovery he tweets out this extortionate demand that New York drop its lawsuits against him.
He made the link to this outrageous Global Entry decision that the government made with regard to New York. He was careful not to say the exact phrase, ‘as a quid pro quo, give me this relief from your lawsuits and I will give you relief from my administration’s Global Entry decision,’ but this is the issue we confronted during the impeachment hearing. The criminals never say, ‘This is a quid pro quo.’ They link things and then try to steer your behavior with the linkage, and either give or withhold something in exchange for it.
It’s important to remember that the president is exempt from a lot of criminal conflict of interest statutes, but he’s not exempt from 18 U.S. Code §201 — linking an official action to a thing of value given by another party. So telling them to drop lawsuits against him personally is a thing of value, and making a decision on the Global Entry would be an official act.
I’m not accusing him necessarily of committing a crime, but this is the exact type of behavior that was implicated in the impeachment hearing where he tried to strongarm Ukraine into taking an action against one of his political rivals, and he took an official action of withholding hundreds of millions of dollars of needed aid from a country that has been invaded by Russia.
One of the things that’s so alarming about what he’s done is it’s so closely related to what he did with Ukraine, and so open, that one of the dangers is he’s sending a message to the world: ‘I not only can but will do the very thing that I was impeached for because the Senate has blessed my use of governmental authority for my personal gain.’
It doesn’t matter whether it succeeds. It matters what message it sends and what it tells us about what he’s going to do next. And I wasn’t nearly as alarmed before the media and the public failed to react to it. And frankly, the relative silence in response to this conduct, which is on par with the Ukraine conduct, is the most terrifying thing that’s happened in the three-plus years that he’s been in power.
Aaron Rupar
What do you think Trump putting this quid pro quo with New York state out there publicly says about what he’s trying to do to the federal government in the runup to the election this November — and possibly beyond that if he wins another term?
Walter Shaub
There was a really instructive interview that [MSNBC host] Nicole Wallace did with Robert Costa of the Washington Post yesterday in which he explained to her that [Trump’s] closest advisers are telling people like Costa that Trump now feels the rule of law is done, and he can do whatever he wants because the Senate will back him.
"Steve Bannon in an interview... said the president now feels unbound. The impeachment process is over, he is fully supported by his party as he makes these moves regarding the Department of Justice..." - @costareports w/ @NicolleDWallace pic.twitter.com/n234GA42M7 — Deadline White House (@DeadlineWH) February 13, 2020
I think what this shows is two things. One, there is no limit on what he’ll do if he’s allowed to get away with it. And two, doing things like this in the open, in plain sight, is a way of testing whether the public has been properly primed for even worse coercive or corrupt acts. And so the danger these things have is they can become just a joke if the public reacts strongly, or they can become an ambiguous tweet that was misinterpreted if the public responds strongly. But if the public doesn’t respond, then the behavior escalates because these testings of the boundaries will continue until he hits a boundary that he can’t cross. And then he’ll test elsewhere — just like a hacker testing a computer system’s safety mechanisms to find a port of entry.
This guy has made clear he’s no longer content to be president. How far he takes it is up to the Senate and the American people, but we’re in a new danger zone. And I think there’s a widespread understanding that he’s been unleashed by impeachment. But what is not well understood is how quickly he’s going to escalate. I think people are a couple steps behind him. That fear is especially confirmed for me when people don’t react when he does things like this.
I think, even though we get tired of saying it and doing this exercise, it’s worth stepping back and thinking, “What would have happened if Obama had issued that same tweet while Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate?” The tweet Trump posted about New York and the lawsuits against him would certainly have gotten President Obama impeached and removed from office. But now we’re in a zone where the president can commit acts that would’ve been impeachable and led to removal from office in the past in plain sight, and people shrug it off and cast a side-eye at the person who’s sounding the alarm.
We have to stay grounded in the place where this country was before this authoritarian took over or we will lose perspective on what is dangerous and what is inappropriate. And so we have to view this through the lens of President Obama doing this with a Republican Congress or President Bush doing it with a Democratic Congress. If we do that exercise, even though we get tired of doing it and we get frustrated because we can’t make it happen, we begin to understand how unbelievably dangerous [Trump’s] comment is.
This is the situation I found myself in in 2017 when I was still leading the Office of Government Ethics. I told the staff, “We are going to treat them exactly the same as we treated both the Bush and Obama administration. We are gonna hold them to the same standards. Which means we’re not gonna be harder on them than we were on Obama and Bush, but we’re not gonna be easier on them either. We have to stay grounded as though we are still in 2006 or 2016.”
It’s not the people doing that who have changed, it’s the world that has changed, because Trump has shifted the ground and everybody is way down the road with Trump. Some of us have to stay back where America was when there was a rule of law and say, “Wait a minute, this is the thing that would’ve ended a presidency.”
And I guarantee that tweet this week would’ve ended a past presidency because it was different than other obnoxious tweets that he’s done in that it connected an official action to a demand for a thing of value. That’s different in nature than his silly stupid tweets about name-calling, but you see endless coverage of him calling one candidate short and making fun of another candidate’s name. People are getting distracted by this silly noise.
Aaron Rupar
When you left government in the summer of 2017, did you foresee the first term of Trump’s presidency going down this road that we’re on now? Has it in some ways been worse than you expected?
Walter Shaub
I gave a speech at the Brookings Institution on January 11, 2017. It was something I never thought I would do and never thought I would have to do, condemning the plan he had announced that day for divesting. And I tried to warn America that if a president can get away with not divesting, everything is fair game for him to do in service of his personal interest.
That is the consistent theme. He’s not all over the place. Every single action he has taken has advanced his personal interest, starting with the monetizing of the presidency and the ignoring of conflicts of interest — perhaps even relishing conflicts of interest. Then the attempted coercion of Ukraine was again his personal interest in retaining power, and in this case his personal interest in getting rid of lawsuits from a state.
So I have to say, I feel like I knew he was certainly going to try these things, and I tried to warn the world about it. But what I didn’t expect is how badly the system would fail to stop him. At the time, I had real faith in some Republican senators, like Chuck Grassley and others, who had been champions of whistleblowers and congressional witnesses and the norms that hold government together. I didn’t agree with all their policies or everything they did, but I thought these were principled individuals who would uphold the rule of law. And just this week [we have] Chuck Grassley abandoning a lifetime of defending whistleblowers and congressional witnesses to say that it was fine for President Trump to retaliate against Alexander Vindman.
I absolutely predicted this is where he would try to go. What I didn’t predict is how badly the system would fail because of his coopting of partisans in the Senate.
Aaron Rupar
You posted another tweet this morning linking the tweet about New York that Trump posted yesterday with the one he posted this morning basically asserting a right to order the Justice Department around.
It's 9:30 a.m. Yesterday, the fascist attempted quid pro quo extortion on Twitter. This morning, he declared that he has the absolute power to target anyone—political rivals, their families, dissidents, you—with the criminal investigative apparatus of the state. Pay attention. pic.twitter.com/gTyZSJ3u2Q — Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) February 14, 2020
Can you flesh out the connection between those two tweets?
Walter Shaub
They are in a straight line pointing from democracy to authoritarianism. This is a president declaring himself above the law, without regard for laws like the anti-bribery statute in one case, or the traditions of the country in a non-politicized justice system. I see them as exactly the same, because it is now a full-court press to push the boundaries in all directions.
If you envision it, it’s not that he’s focused on one issue and pushing it in one direction. It’s like a balloon expanding. And so the outer edges of the expanding balloon are going to touch on different issues, but they are consistent in being part of the expanding of executive power beyond the bounds of anything democracy can tolerate.
The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.