vox--2020-09-29--Trump’s adversarial relationship with presidential debate moderator Chris Wallace, explained

President Donald Trump expects complete loyalty from Fox News .
Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace is the rare personality on the network that refuses to give it to him .
That ’ s the crux of the dynamic underpinning the first presidential debate of the 2020 general election , which will be held on Tuesday night at 9 pm ET at Case Western University and the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland , Ohio , and is set to be moderated by Wallace .
Topics for the debate , which were selected by Wallace and announced by the nonpartisan Commission on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to include Trump ’ s and Biden ’ s records , the Supreme Court , Covid-19 , the economy , “ Race and Violence in Our Cities , ” and election integrity .
Some progressives took umbrage with the fact that climate change was not included .
Wallace also drew criticism for saying during a Fox News appearance on Sunday that he doesn ’ t plan to vigorously fact-check the torrent of false claims likely to be made by Trump .
“ My job is to be as invisible as possible , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to get them to engage , to focus on the key issues , to give people at home a sense of , ‘ Why I want to vote for one versus the other.
’ ” Wallace stands out as one of the few Fox News personalities who isn ’ t reflexively pro-Trump The topic choices and his laissez-faire stance on fact-checking may reflect the fact that while he has more credibility with the center and left than perhaps anyone else who works for Fox , Wallace still works for a network that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that has , in recent years , established itself as something akin to a Trump propaganda organ .
Fox News is America ’ s top-rated cable news network , and the vast majority of its programming is favorable to Trump — sometimes to an absurd degree .
On Monday morning , for instance , the network totally buried a New York Times bombshell story about Trump paying next to nothing in federal taxes over a 15-year period , and instead gave Donald Trump Jr. and White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story as a political hit job ( without presenting any evidence contradicting its conclusions ) .
For Trump , however , even that isn ’ t enough .
He regularly lashes out at Fox News segments that dare to criticize him or that try to hold people in his orbit to account .
He ’ s even gone as far as to repeatedly attack Fox News for not rigging its polls — ones that have consistently shown Joe Biden ahead of him — in his favor .
Wallace , son of legendary newsman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea of a far-left liberal , but his willingness to ask tough questions and push back on Republicans sets him apart from the Sean Hannitys and Brian Kilmeades of the world — and has made him a target of the president ’ s ire .
Perhaps in an effort to manage expectations , Trump went as far as to ludicrously claim Wallace is “ controlled by the radical left ” during an interview last week on Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade ’ s radio show .
“ He ’ ll ask me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfair , I have no doubt about it , ” Trump said .
“ But he ’ ll be controlled by the radical left .
They control him.
” That claim is obviously absurd .
Wallace has been sharply critical of Democrats during the Trump era , including including Biden , whose campaign has apparently refused Wallace ’ s requests for Biden to be interviewed on his Sunday show .
But Trump ’ s comments indicate he ’ s concerned Tuesday ’ s debate could turn out like his most recent tangle with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview with Wallace was a disaster The backdrop for Tuesday ’ s debate is the interview Trump did with Wallace for the July 19 installment of Fox News Sunday — one that ’ s perhaps best remembered for Wallace ’ s pushback when Trump bragged about his performance on a cognitive test he took during his unplanned November 2019 trip to Walter Reed hospital .
“ I took the [ cognitive ] test too , when I heard you passed it .
It ’ s not the hardest test .
It shows a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s that , ’ and it ’ s an elephant , ” Wallace said at one point , leaving Trump stammering .
Wallace made points on more substantial topics as well .
During an exchange about the coronavirus , he grilled Trump about the fact that , at the time , about 1,000 Americans were dying each day from Covid-19 , prompting Trump to say , memorably ( and regrettably for all involved ) , “ It is what it is.
” Those exchanges demonstrated that Wallace isn ’ t afraid of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wallace making room for the president to rant was enough for Trump to get himself in hot water .
At various points during the interview , Trump defended the Confederacy , promised a comprehensive health care plan “ within two weeks ” that still hasn ’ t been produced more than two months later , and went on a bizarre tangent about how he was “ very unfairly treated ” in response to a softball question about how he ’ ll remember his years as president .
The interview was clearly a disaster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put a good face on it anyway , tweeting afterward , “ We may have set a record for doing such an interview in the heat .
It was 100 degrees , making things very interesting !
” It ’ s not like Wallace singled out Trump .
In recent months , he ’ s conducted hard-hitting interviews with Trump campaign officials and administration officials .
He ’ s also offered commentary that ’ s deeply critical of the Trump White House , including during last year ’ s impeachment saga when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whistleblower complaint about Trump ’ s dealings with Ukraine as “ astonishing and I think deeply misleading.
” Perhaps even more unforgivably from Trump ’ s perspective , Wallace has also at times praised Joe Biden .
On Fox News , Wallace praised Biden ’ s Democratic National Convention-closing speech as “ enormously effective , ” adding , “ remember , Donald Trump has been talking for months about Joe Biden as mentally shot ...
I thought that he blew a hole , a big hole in the characterization.
” As he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back days later by describing Wallace at a rally as someone “ who has always wanted to be his father but it never worked out because of a lack of talent.
” The first debate should be good TV , but it might not be much more than that Tuesday will not be Wallace ’ s debut as a presidential debate moderator ; he also handled the third debate between Trump and Hillary Clinton in 2016 .
In a demonstration of how similar today ’ s Trump scandals are to ones that dominated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biggest headline coming out of that event was Trump ’ s refusal to commit to accepting the results of the election if he lost .
“ I will keep you in suspense , ” he said , in comments that presaged his current refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses in November .
But Wallace was also hard on Clinton , at one point grilling her about paid speeches she gave to banking groups .
It ’ s hard to remember now , but Clinton was widely regarded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That wasn ’ t enough , however , to prevent her from being defeated in the Electoral College .
It ’ s similarly unlikely that this year ’ s debates will have a decisive impact on the outcome .
A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll indicated that more than 70 percent of Americans say the debates won ’ t matter much to them , with 44 percent reporting it will not matter at all to their choice of who they vote for — a record high dating back to 2000 .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by candidates .
While Biden has reportedly prepared rigorously with mock debates , Trump has instead participated in more casual sessions with his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and former New Jersey Gov .
Chris Christie .
The president also , according to CBS News , views a recent town hall — one that saw Trump struggling to answer tough questions from a wide variety of citizens — as practice .
“ The president prepares by being president , ” Tim Murtaugh , the Trump campaign ’ s director of communications , told CBS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hostile news media .
That ’ s pretty good practice by any measure.
” But even a good performance by the president is unlikely to alter his standing in the race .
Polling has shown that Biden ’ s national lead over Trump has held remarkably steady since last winter at somewhere between 7 and 10 percentage points , even through the coronavirus pandemic and one Trump scandal after the next .
Nothing that happens at the first debate is likely to change that .
But it should , at least , be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

President Donald Trump expects complete loyalty from Fox News. Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace is the rare personality on the network that refuses to give it to him.
That’s the crux of the dynamic underpinning the first presidential debate of the 2020 general election, which will be held on Tuesday night at 9 pm ET at Case Western University and the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, and is set to be moderated by Wallace.
Topics for the debate, which were selected by Wallace and announced by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates last week, are set to include Trump’s and Biden’s records, the Supreme Court, Covid-19, the economy, “Race and Violence in Our Cities,” and election integrity. Some progressives took umbrage with the fact that climate change was not included.
Wondering how I'm going to explain to my kids in 30 years why climate change wasn't even a topic in the first 2020 debate but "Race and Violence in our cities" was — Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) September 24, 2020
Wallace also drew criticism for saying during a Fox News appearance on Sunday that he doesn’t plan to vigorously fact-check the torrent of false claims likely to be made by Trump.
“My job is to be as invisible as possible,” Wallace said. “I’m trying to get them to engage, to focus on the key issues, to give people at home a sense of, ‘Why I want to vote for one versus the other.’”
Wallace stands out as one of the few Fox News personalities who isn’t reflexively pro-Trump
The topic choices and his laissez-faire stance on fact-checking may reflect the fact that while he has more credibility with the center and left than perhaps anyone else who works for Fox, Wallace still works for a network that has always skewed to the right — and that has, in recent years, established itself as something akin to a Trump propaganda organ.
Fox News is America’s top-rated cable news network, and the vast majority of its programming is favorable to Trump — sometimes to an absurd degree. On Monday morning, for instance, the network totally buried a New York Times bombshell story about Trump paying next to nothing in federal taxes over a 15-year period, and instead gave Donald Trump Jr. and White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany time on Fox & Friends to blast the story as a political hit job (without presenting any evidence contradicting its conclusions).
For Trump, however, even that isn’t enough. He regularly lashes out at Fox News segments that dare to criticize him or that try to hold people in his orbit to account. He’s even gone as far as to repeatedly attack Fox News for not rigging its polls — ones that have consistently shown Joe Biden ahead of him — in his favor.
.@FoxNews should fire their Fake Pollster. Never had a good Fox Poll! https://t.co/joHfkQwd9L — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 22, 2020
Wallace, son of legendary newsman Mike Wallace, is nobody’s idea of a far-left liberal, but his willingness to ask tough questions and push back on Republicans sets him apart from the Sean Hannitys and Brian Kilmeades of the world — and has made him a target of the president’s ire.
Just watched Mike Wallace wannabe, Chris Wallace, on @FoxNews. I am now convinced that he is even worse than Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd of Meet the Press(please!), or the people over at Deface the Nation. What the hell is happening to @FoxNews. It’s a whole new ballgame over there! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 12, 2020
Perhaps in an effort to manage expectations, Trump went as far as to ludicrously claim Wallace is “controlled by the radical left” during an interview last week on Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade’s radio show.
“He’ll ask me tough questions and it’ll be unfair, I have no doubt about it,” Trump said. “But he’ll be controlled by the radical left. They control him.”
That claim is obviously absurd. Wallace has been sharply critical of Democrats during the Trump era, including including Biden, whose campaign has apparently refused Wallace’s requests for Biden to be interviewed on his Sunday show. But Trump’s comments indicate he’s concerned Tuesday’s debate could turn out like his most recent tangle with Wallace.
Trump’s most recent interview with Wallace was a disaster
The backdrop for Tuesday’s debate is the interview Trump did with Wallace for the July 19 installment of Fox News Sunday — one that’s perhaps best remembered for Wallace’s pushback when Trump bragged about his performance on a cognitive test he took during his unplanned November 2019 trip to Walter Reed hospital.
“I took the [cognitive] test too, when I heard you passed it. It’s not the hardest test. It shows a picture and it says, ‘what’s that,’ and it’s an elephant,” Wallace said at one point, leaving Trump stammering.
"I took the [cognitive] test too, when I heard you passed it. It's not the hardest test. It shows a picture and it says, 'what's that,' and it's an elephant." -- Chris Wallace pushes back on Trump hyping the cognitive test he passed at Walter Reed pic.twitter.com/8Df8Ez10Ma — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 19, 2020
Wallace made points on more substantial topics as well. During an exchange about the coronavirus, he grilled Trump about the fact that, at the time, about 1,000 Americans were dying each day from Covid-19, prompting Trump to say, memorably (and regrettably for all involved), “It is what it is.”
Those exchanges demonstrated that Wallace isn’t afraid of Trump. But at other points, Wallace making room for the president to rant was enough for Trump to get himself in hot water. At various points during the interview, Trump defended the Confederacy, promised a comprehensive health care plan “within two weeks” that still hasn’t been produced more than two months later, and went on a bizarre tangent about how he was “very unfairly treated” in response to a softball question about how he’ll remember his years as president.
WALLACE: "How will you regard your years as POTUS?"
TRUMP: "I think I was very unfairly treated."
WALLACE: "But what about the good parts?"
TRUMP: "I have done more than any POTUS in history in the first 3.5 years ... here's the bottom line: I've been very unfairly treated." pic.twitter.com/37kZdJoMOJ — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 19, 2020
The interview was clearly a disaster for Trump, but he tried to put a good face on it anyway, tweeting afterward, “We may have set a record for doing such an interview in the heat. It was 100 degrees, making things very interesting!”
It’s not like Wallace singled out Trump. In recent months, he’s conducted hard-hitting interviews with Trump campaign officials and administration officials. He’s also offered commentary that’s deeply critical of the Trump White House, including during last year’s impeachment saga when he characterized Trumpworld’s spin of a whistleblower complaint about Trump’s dealings with Ukraine as “astonishing and I think deeply misleading.”
Here's Fox News' Chris Wallace saying that "the spinning that's been done by the president's defenders over the last 24 hours since this very damaging whistleblower complaint came out ... [is] not surprising but it is astonishing and I think deeply misleading." pic.twitter.com/rKfQgGMkLF — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 27, 2019
Perhaps even more unforgivably from Trump’s perspective, Wallace has also at times praised Joe Biden. On Fox News, Wallace praised Biden’s Democratic National Convention-closing speech as “enormously effective,” adding, “remember, Donald Trump has been talking for months about Joe Biden as mentally shot ... I thought that he blew a hole, a big hole in the characterization.”
As he’s wont to do, Trump fired back days later by describing Wallace at a rally as someone “who has always wanted to be his father but it never worked out because of a lack of talent.”
The first debate should be good TV, but it might not be much more than that
Tuesday will not be Wallace’s debut as a presidential debate moderator; he also handled the third debate between Trump and Hillary Clinton in 2016.
In a demonstration of how similar today’s Trump scandals are to ones that dominated the last presidential campaign, arguably the biggest headline coming out of that event was Trump’s refusal to commit to accepting the results of the election if he lost.
“I will keep you in suspense,” he said, in comments that presaged his current refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses in November.
Will Donald Trump concede defeat if Hillary Clinton is elected?
"I'll tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense." #DebateNight pic.twitter.com/4qDYeviZby — VICE News (@VICENews) October 20, 2016
But Wallace was also hard on Clinton, at one point grilling her about paid speeches she gave to banking groups.
It’s hard to remember now, but Clinton was widely regarded as besting Trump in all three debates. That wasn’t enough, however, to prevent her from being defeated in the Electoral College.
It’s similarly unlikely that this year’s debates will have a decisive impact on the outcome. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll indicated that more than 70 percent of Americans say the debates won’t matter much to them, with 44 percent reporting it will not matter at all to their choice of who they vote for — a record high dating back to 2000.
Trump has eschewed the debate preparation typically done by candidates. While Biden has reportedly prepared rigorously with mock debates, Trump has instead participated in more casual sessions with his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. The president also, according to CBS News, views a recent town hall — one that saw Trump struggling to answer tough questions from a wide variety of citizens — as practice.
“The president prepares by being president,” Tim Murtaugh, the Trump campaign’s director of communications, told CBS News. “And by regularly facing hostile news media. That’s pretty good practice by any measure.”
But even a good performance by the president is unlikely to alter his standing in the race. Polling has shown that Biden’s national lead over Trump has held remarkably steady since last winter at somewhere between 7 and 10 percentage points, even through the coronavirus pandemic and one Trump scandal after the next. Nothing that happens at the first debate is likely to change that. But it should, at least, be good TV.


vox--2020-09-29--The case for Senate Democrats to boycott Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing, briefly explained

Multiple Senate Democrats are already refusing meetings with President Donald Trump ’ s Supreme Court nominee , and there ’ s now a growing call for them to take another step to question the legitimacy of the process : boycott the confirmation hearing .
“ I think that boycotting the hearing should continue to be on the table , ” Demand Justice chief counsel Chris Kang tells Vox .
“ I think the takeaway is that this is an illegitimate process.
” Demand Justice , a progressive group dedicated to combating Trump ’ s remaking of the federal judiciary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider this option as Republicans try to rush through a confirmation for Judge Amy Coney Barrett in the coming weeks .
As the Washington Post ’ s Seung Min Kim and Paul Kane report , however , it ’ s a move that could also backfire and enable Republicans to simply advance her nomination even more quickly , with little fanfare .
But much like lawmakers ’ decisions not to meet with Barrett , the idea is that such an act would highlight how abnormal the current process is , particularly since a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t deter many Republicans from voting the same way they would have otherwise .
“ If the hearings for Brett Kavanaugh did not change any votes , neither will these hearings , ” writes Adam Jentleson , a former deputy chief of staff to former Sen. Harry Reid , in a New York Times op-ed .
Senate Republicans , after all , are moving ahead with this nomination despite the impending election and claims they made in 2016 about not confirming a judge during an election year .
Demand Justice is dedicated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to consider a wide range of tactics as they navigate the Supreme Court fight in the short term and the long term .
The procedural tactics available to Democrats , admittedly , are “ probably not as robust as people think ” in the near term , Kang said .
In an interview with Vox , Kang laid out what these options include , how Demand Justice is pressing lawmakers before the hearings , and what Democrats should consider ( court-packing ) if they retake the upper chamber and White House .
Read @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and condensed for clarity , below .
Let ’ s start with the short term .
Could you talk about the procedural tools that Senate Democrats have to oppose the Supreme Court nomination right now ?
So I think that the literal procedural tools are still to be determined and probably not as robust as people think .
I do think that there are some things like objections to unanimous consent agreements that will be deployed closer to the time of a floor vote , and not something that necessarily make sense now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largely runs on unanimous consent , if one senator objects to an action that ’ s taking place , they are able to delay it from happening and slow the chamber ’ s productivity . ]
But I think what we ’ re really looking for from Senate Democrats more than specific parliamentary tactics is how are Democrats going to show that this is an illegitimate process , that this is an illegitimate nominee .
And so there are some things that there ’ s no question Democrats can do , like not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boycotting the hearing should continue to be on the table .
What do you see as the takeaway , if Democrats go that route of boycotting the hearing altogether ?
I think the takeaway is that this is an illegitimate process , it ’ s not a legitimate [ nomination ] , and it shouldn ’ t be dignified as such .
I think there are some competing arguments for what Democrats could gain through a committee process or a committee hearing .
But I think a lot of those run through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And so again , I know that boycotting is a high bar to ask and ... candidly , I don ’ t expect that to happen .
But I think that it should continue to be on the table .
I think all options should be on the table for how they ’ re going to think about highlighting this sham process and this illegitimate nominee .
And so I think that has to be something ; they have to show up in some way .
I don ’ t think the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nominee as if it were normal .
So you know , if you ’ re not going to boycott the hearing , fine , but then show up in a different way .
And let ’ s highlight to the American people just what ’ s at stake and how this is different .
What is your response to concerns that Democrats would be missing an opportunity to question Judge Amy Coney Barrett and make their case against her if they boycott the hearing ?
A nomination so close to the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider all options to highlight that .
For example , [ Senate Minority ] Leader [ Chuck ] Schumer is refusing to meet with Barrett .
Others , including Senators Merkley , Hirono , Blumenthal , and Gillibrand are refusing as well , and this is the kind of demonstration we need .
Boycotting the hearing could cut either way , but if Democrats do attend , we ’ ll be looking to them to show that this is not a normal hearing or business as usual .
At this point , do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explicitly commit to court-packing ?
I don ’ t know if Senate Democrats as a caucus need to do that per se .
I will say that they have to start looking ahead .
I mean , right now , our focus is on stopping this nomination , and building the voice and the power to demonstrate to Senate Republicans what is at stake here for them .
But at the end of the day , if we are not successful , I definitely think Democrats need to be thinking about what is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court seats in the span of four years and completely undermine our democracy and the legitimacy of the institution itself .
And so from our perspective , we think that Supreme Court expansion is the only way to restore balance .
And it absolutely should be on the table .
I think that Leader Schumer has done a good job of making clear that all options are on the table .
I think that that will continue to be the posture right now .
But I understand if not every member wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should not be about court expansion — this debate should be about the Republicans pushing through a nominee who ’ s about to strike down the Affordable Care Act .
So I think that just as that is Demand Justice ’ s message in this fight , I understand that that will likely be the Senate Democrats ’ message in this fight .
But I do think that the specter of court expansion has to be something that more and more Democrats will be forced to think about more seriously in the weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little bit more about some of the implications of court-packing ?
We talk about it a lot in terms of how it would change the makeup of the court , but could you walk through some of the other potential benefits ?
I will say the part about the makeup of the court is an important one , because I do think , at its core , we ’ re talking about restoring balance to the court , and I realize balance may be in the eye of the beholder .
But we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court looks like it ’ s an anti-democratic institution .
The Democratic presidential candidates have won the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections , and yet Republican appointees have been the majority on the Supreme Court for more than 50 years now .
But then also ... the caseload for the Supreme Court has gone down dramatically over time , and I do think that it ’ ll be important for the courts to think about , like , why is that ?
What is driving that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court resolve some of these important legal disputes that it currently isn ’ t ?
I do think that adding more justices would be important .
I also think there ’ s nothing magical about nine .
I ’ ve never seen any study , any analysis , any theory about why nine is the right number .
Look at the other appellate courts throughout the country .
And , you know , all of them but one has more than nine members .
I think that there ’ s no reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could bring , I think the other thing I would say is like bringing a diversity of perspectives to the court I think is incredibly important .
Like the number of prosecutors on the Supreme Court , I think , is four .
But I do know that there has not been a Supreme Court justice who ’ s represented criminal defendants since Thurgood Marshall retired .
That is a critically important aspect of the court as you think about this moment in criminal justice reform and police reform , as you think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take up issues like qualified immunity and how it considers other racial justice issues .
Having more balanced professional experience would be important , and then also , obviously , the Supreme Court does not look anything like our country .
And so I think having more seats will also provide an opportunity to bring more racial and gender diversity to the court .
And again , the perspectives of more Americans on the court .
It ’ s a democratic institution and it should reflect the people that it serves .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of undersold problems with President Trump ’ s judicial nominees , that he is undermining the legitimacy of an entire branch of government when his appointees are the least racially diverse in a generation , and still don ’ t come anywhere close to gender parity .
I know you said nine is not necessarily a magical number .
If court-packing were to move forward , what number of justices do you think would be the right number ?
In my opinion , I think 13 is the right number if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essentially stealing another seat from the next Democratic president .
I guess we could wait and see .
I think this whole conversation is predicated , of course , on former Vice President Joe Biden becoming president .
So if that ’ s the case , then this is a seat that by all precedent should be filled by him , and so the idea that Republicans would have stolen two seats in four years I think requires two seats to be added for each of those .
And so that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 13 .
What do you make of the argument that if Democrats move forward with this that , down the line , you ’ re going to see Republicans effectively do the same ?
To that , I would say that Republicans already have done it .
Republicans changed the size of the Supreme Court in 2016 to eight , and then they changed it again to 9 in 2017 , all in an exercise of raw political power .
And so I do think that it ’ s possible that Republicans might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t know that the possible threat shouldn ’ t be enough to stop Democrats from doing what ’ s necessary now .
And it sort of again , I mean , necessary in terms of restoring legitimacy to the Supreme Court .
Especially injecting the raw partisan politics into the Supreme Court right now , I would suspect , makes Chief Justice Roberts very nervous , as somebody who tries to — I don ’ t think he ’ s right in this — but he projects that there are no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And yet here we are , in the midst of the closing weeks of an election season , I mean , votes are actually already being cast , watching Donald Trump and Republicans ram through a nominee to put on his court .
The whole specter of the legitimacy of the court is under a cloud .
And I think that Democrats have to respond , I think that the Democrats , if Republicans are going to cheat or steal , I don ’ t think that Democrats can just let that go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again .
It ’ s happened now twice in four years , and there has to be some response , there has to be something to deter , or else it will keep happening again .
So I think that that argument is somewhat overstated .
I also will say , like , a big , big picture , as you think about what Supreme Court reform could look like , the other thing that we ’ ve talked about is term limits .
And if you had term limits , that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a lot of this , and really having a chance to sort of take away the politicization and sort of the political timing a lot of justices make when it comes to retiring , so that could be a longer-term solution .
Between term limits and adding more justices to the court , do you see one of those as being , just from a legislative perspective , more of a first step and more of an accessible thing for lawmakers to do ?
Well , I think that the one thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the power to change the number of seats on the Supreme Court .
It ’ s done it seven times in history .
And so from that perspective , I think that it ’ s easier .
I think that there are term-limit proposals that can be done in legislation .
But I think there ’ s some people who don ’ t .
I think that that may be a different question that Congress will have to consider as it figures out which proposal to implement and how to proceed with that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m wondering if you think ultimately that Senate Democrats will have the political will to get something done and the numbers to do it , given the fact that some of the potential newcomers might end up taking more moderate stances .
I will say that I think it ’ s far too early to consider the political feasibility of this .
We haven ’ t seen just how badly this could turn out for Republicans going so far against the will and the views of their constituents .
So one , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of the outcome in November .
But two , we ’ re talking about all of this in a hypothetical .
I think that if a nominee actually were rammed through , I think the politics start to change .
If that justice then becomes the deciding vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act , I think the politics change .
I think that we can ’ t project too much based on the sentiment right now , about what ’ s possible .
But I do think this conversation is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different direction .
We have the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee talking about this as the next step , and he ’ s somebody who has the power to set the agenda and legislation .
I think that this political conversation is only beginning .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Multiple Senate Democrats are already refusing meetings with President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, and there’s now a growing call for them to take another step to question the legitimacy of the process: boycotting the confirmation hearing.
“I think that boycotting the hearing should continue to be on the table,” Demand Justice chief counsel Chris Kang tells Vox. “I think the takeaway is that this is an illegitimate process.”
Demand Justice, a progressive group dedicated to combating Trump’s remaking of the federal judiciary, is among those urging Senate Democrats to consider this option as Republicans try to rush through a confirmation for Judge Amy Coney Barrett in the coming weeks. As the Washington Post’s Seung Min Kim and Paul Kane report, however, the move could also backfire and enable Republicans to simply advance her nomination even more quickly, with little fanfare.
But much like lawmakers’ decisions not to meet with Barrett, the idea is that such an act would highlight how abnormal the current process is, particularly since a recent hearing with Justice Brett Kavanaugh didn’t deter many Republicans from voting the same way they would have otherwise.
“If the hearings for Brett Kavanaugh did not change any votes, neither will these hearings,” writes Adam Jentleson, who served as deputy chief of staff to then-Sen. Harry Reid, in a New York Times op-ed.
Senate Republicans, after all, are moving ahead with this nomination despite the impending election and claims they made in 2016 about not confirming a judge during an election year.
Demand Justice is dedicated to opposing Barrett and pushing Senate Democrats to consider a wide range of tactics as they navigate the Supreme Court fight in the short term and the long term.
The procedural tactics available to Democrats, admittedly, are “probably not as robust as people think” in the near term, Kang said.
In an interview with Vox, Kang laid out what these options include, how Demand Justice is pressing lawmakers before the hearings, and what Democrats should consider (court-packing) if they retake the upper chamber and White House. Read the conversation, which has been edited and condensed for clarity, below.
Li Zhou
Let’s start with the short term. Could you talk about the procedural tools that Senate Democrats have to oppose the Supreme Court nomination right now?
Chris Kang
So I think that the literal procedural tools are still to be determined and probably not as robust as people think.
I do think that there are some things like objections to unanimous consent agreements that will be deployed closer to the time of a floor vote, and not something that necessarily make sense now. [Note: Because the Senate largely runs on unanimous consent, if one senator objects to an action that’s taking place, they are able to delay it from happening and slow the chamber’s productivity.]
But I think what we’re really looking for from Senate Democrats more than specific parliamentary tactics is how are Democrats going to show that this is an illegitimate process, that this is an illegitimate nominee. And so there are some things that there’s no question Democrats can do, like not taking courtesy meetings.
I think that boycotting the hearing should continue to be on the table.
Li Zhou
What do you see as the takeaway, if Democrats go that route of boycotting the hearing altogether?
Chris Kang
I think the takeaway is that this is an illegitimate process, it’s not a legitimate [nomination], and it shouldn’t be dignified as such.
I think there are some competing arguments for what Democrats could gain through a committee process or a committee hearing. But I think a lot of those run through the idea that this is business as usual. And so, again, I know that boycotting is a high bar to ask and ... candidly, I don’t expect that to happen. But I think that it should continue to be on the table. I think all options should be on the table for how they’re going to think about highlighting this sham process and this illegitimate nominee.
And so I think that has to be something; they have to show up in some way.
I don’t think the Democrats can just show up and question a nominee as if it were normal. So, you know, if you’re not going to boycott the hearing, fine, but then show up in a different way. And let’s highlight to the American people just what’s at stake and how this is different.
Li Zhou
What is your response to concerns that Democrats would be missing an opportunity to question Judge Amy Coney Barrett and make their case against her if they boycott the hearing?
Chris Kang
A nomination so close to the election is simply illegitimate, and Democrats should consider all options to highlight that.
For example, [Senate Minority] Leader [Chuck] Schumer is refusing to meet with Barrett. Others, including Senators [Jeff] Merkley, [Mazie] Hirono, [Richard] Blumenthal, and [Kirsten] Gillibrand, are refusing as well, and this is the kind of demonstration we need.
Boycotting the hearing could cut either way, but if Democrats do attend, we’ll be looking to them to show that this is not a normal hearing or business as usual.
Li Zhou
At this point, do you think that Senate Democrats should more explicitly commit to court-packing?
Chris Kang
I don’t know if Senate Democrats as a caucus need to do that per se. I will say that they have to start looking ahead.
I mean, right now, our focus is on stopping this nomination, and building the voice and the power to demonstrate to Senate Republicans what is at stake here for them. But at the end of the day, if we are not successful, I definitely think Democrats need to be thinking about what is the logical response when Republicans steal two Supreme Court seats in the span of four years and completely undermine our democracy and the legitimacy of the institution itself.
And so from our perspective, we think that Supreme Court expansion is the only way to restore balance. And it absolutely should be on the table. I think that Leader Schumer has done a good job of making clear that all options are on the table. I think that that will continue to be the posture right now.
But I understand if not every member wants to make this about — this debate should not be about court expansion, this debate should be about the Republicans pushing through a nominee who’s about to strike down the Affordable Care Act. So I think that just as that is Demand Justice’s message in this fight, I understand that that will likely be the Senate Democrats’ message in this fight. But I do think that the specter of court expansion has to be something that more and more Democrats will be forced to think about more seriously in the weeks to come.
Li Zhou
Could you talk a little bit more about some of the implications of court-packing? We talk about it a lot in terms of how it would change the makeup of the Court, but could you walk through some of the other potential benefits?
Chris Kang
I will say the part about the makeup of the Court is an important one, because I do think, at its core, we’re talking about restoring balance to the Court, and I realize balance may be in the eye of the beholder. But we’re at a point now where the Supreme Court looks like it’s an anti-democratic institution. The Democratic presidential candidates have won the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections, and yet Republican appointees have been the majority on the Supreme Court for more than 50 years now.
But then also ... the caseload for the Supreme Court has gone down dramatically over time, and I do think that it’ll be important for the courts to think about, like, why is that? What is driving that? And would having additional justices help the Court resolve some of these important legal disputes that it currently isn’t? I do think that adding more justices would be important.
I also think there’s nothing magical about nine [justices]. I’ve never seen any study, any analysis, any theory about why nine is the right number. Look at the other appellate courts throughout the country. And, you know, all of them but one has more than nine members. I think that there’s no reason not to have more justices who also could bring, I think the other thing I would say is bringing a diversity of perspectives to the Court I think is incredibly important. Like the number of prosecutors on the Supreme Court, I think, is four. But I do know that there has not been a Supreme Court justice who’s represented criminal defendants since Thurgood Marshall retired.
That is a critically important aspect of the Court as you think about this moment in criminal justice reform and police reform, as you think about how the Supreme Court refuses to take up issues like qualified immunity and how it considers other racial justice issues.
Having more balanced professional experience would be important, and then also, obviously, the Supreme Court does not look anything like our country. And so I think having more seats will also provide an opportunity to bring more racial and gender diversity to the Court. And, again, the perspectives of more Americans on the Court.
It’s a democratic institution, and it should reflect the people that it serves. I think that that is one of the sort of undersold problems with President Trump’s judicial nominees, that he is undermining the legitimacy of an entire branch of government when his appointees are the least racially diverse in a generation and still don’t come anywhere close to gender parity.
Li Zhou
I know you said nine is not necessarily a magical number. If court-packing were to move forward, what number of justices do you think would be the right number?
Chris Kang
In my opinion, I think 13 is the right number if they’re going to move forward with essentially stealing another seat from the next Democratic president.
I guess we could wait and see. I think this whole conversation is predicated, of course, on former Vice President Joe Biden becoming president. So if that’s the case, then this is a seat that by all precedent should be filled by him, and so the idea that Republicans would have stolen two seats in four years I think requires two seats to be added for each of those. And so that’s why I think the right answer is 13.
Li Zhou
What do you make of the argument that if Democrats move forward with this that, down the line, you’re going to see Republicans effectively do the same?
Chris Kang
To that, I would say that Republicans already have done it.
Republicans changed the size of the Supreme Court in 2016 to eight, and then they changed it again to nine in 2017, all in an exercise of raw political power. And so I do think it’s possible that Republicans might retaliate in turn. But I also don’t know that the possible threat shouldn’t be enough to stop Democrats from doing what’s necessary now.
And it’s sort of again, I mean, necessary in terms of restoring legitimacy to the Supreme Court. Especially injecting the raw partisan politics into the Supreme Court right now, I would suspect, makes Chief Justice Roberts very nervous, as somebody who tries to — I don’t think he’s right in this — but he projects that there are no Trump judges and no Obama judges. And yet here we are, in the midst of the closing weeks of an election season, I mean, votes are actually already being cast, watching Donald Trump and Republicans ram through a nominee to put on his Court.
The whole specter of the legitimacy of the Court is under a cloud. And I think that Democrats have to respond, I think that the Democrats, if Republicans are going to cheat or steal, I don’t think that Democrats can just let that go and hope it doesn’t happen again.
It’s happened now twice in four years, and there has to be some response, there has to be something to deter, or else it will keep happening again. So I think that argument is somewhat overstated. I also will say, like, a big, big picture, as you think about what Supreme Court reform could look like, the other thing that we’ve talked about is term limits.
And if you had term limits, that would have the potential of lowering the temperature on a lot of this, and really having a chance to sort of take away the politicization and sort of the political timing a lot of justices make when it comes to retiring, so that could be a longer-term solution.
Li Zhou
Between term limits and adding more justices to the Court, do you see one of those as being, just from a legislative perspective, more of a first step and more of an accessible thing for lawmakers to do?
Chris Kang
Well, I think that the one thing that is clear is that Congress has the power to change the number of seats on the Supreme Court. It’s done it seven times in history. And so from that perspective, I think that it’s easier.
I think that there are term-limit proposals that can be done in legislation. But I think there’s some people who don’t. I think that may be a different question that Congress will have to consider as it figures out which proposal to implement and how to proceed with that.
Li Zhou
On either of those, I’m wondering if you think ultimately that Senate Democrats will have the political will to get something done and the numbers to do it, given the fact that some of the potential newcomers might end up taking more moderate stances.
Chris Kang
I will say that I think it’s far too early to consider the political feasibility of this. We haven’t seen just how badly this could turn out for Republicans going so far against the will and the views of their constituents.
So one, this could have a bigger difference in terms of the outcome in November. But two, we’re talking about all of this in a hypothetical. I think that if a nominee actually were rammed through, I think the politics start to change.
If that justice then becomes the deciding vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act, I think the politics change. I think that we can’t project too much based on the sentiment right now, about what’s possible. But I do think this conversation is already sort of taking off in a different direction.
We have the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee talking about this as the next step, and he’s somebody who has the power to set the agenda and legislation. I think that this political conversation is only beginning.


vox--2020-09-29--How Biden — or Trump — could win 270 electoral votes

The question of whether President Donald Trump will be reelected isn ’ t really up to the whole country .
Joe Biden currently has a pretty big lead in national polls .
But due to the magic of the Electoral College system , the margins in a limited number of key states that happen to be politically divided will determine whether it ’ s Trump or Biden who ’ s sworn in on January 20 , 2021 — or whether , if the outcome is much closer , we head toward a national crisis .
If Biden wins big enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll likely be able to beat back any attempt from Trump to question or contest the results .
As conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt once wrote in a different context , “ If it ’ s not close , they can ’ t cheat.
” But if the Electoral College margin is much closer — for instance , able to be swung by one very close state — expect recounts , legal challenges , and a tense situation .
So the Electoral College map and math are very important .
There are 14 states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Biden campaigns need to keep an eye on .
You can think of them in four groups .
The big six swing states : Michigan , Wisconsin , Pennsylvania , Arizona , Florida , and North Carolina are the states that are viewed as most likely to determine the outcome .
The two swing congressional districts : Nebraska ’ s Second District and Maine ’ s Second District , a pair of stray electoral votes that could be crucial in an extremely close contest .
The states Trump is trying to defend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Texas probably won ’ t be the tipping point states , but if they flip to Biden , it likely means he ’ s winning big .
The states Biden is trying to defend : Nevada , New Hampshire , Minnesota , and Maine are all lean Biden states where Trump hopes to make gains .
I ’ ll run through all these groups below , and explain the various paths to victory for both Biden and Trump — and the paths to a much less certain outcome .
The big six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arizona , Florida , and North Carolina These are six key states that have gotten by far the most attention from the campaigns and election analysts .
NPR reported that almost 85 percent of ad spending from presidential campaigns and outside groups has been focused on these states .
These states matter so much because they ’ re all medium to big , and they ’ re pretty evenly divided politically .
Four of them — Michigan , Wisconsin , Pennsylvania , and Florida — were won by Barack Obama in 2012 but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went for Obama in 2008 but for Republicans in the two elections since .
And Arizona has voted for Republicans for decades but has been trending Democratic in recent years .
Eking out a small margin of victory in most of these states can give a candidate a massive Electoral College payoff — as Trump discovered in 2016 , when he won all six ; he won three of those by less than a percentage point .
Recent polling shows some separation among these “ big six ” states .
• Florida ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15 EVs ) are the right-most of this batch , meaning Biden averages about a very narrow 1-point lead .
• Michigan ( 16 EVs ) and Wisconsin ( 10 EVs ) seem to be the left-most , with Biden leading polls there by 5 to 7 .
• Pennsylvania ( 20 EVs ) and Arizona ( 11 EVs ) are in the middle , with Biden leading there by 3 to 5 .
So if the current polls are right on and Biden wins all these states , he ’ ll clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the race tightens or if Trump overperforms polls , small margins in these six states will likely determine the winner .
In this group , there are 101 electoral votes at stake .
And if the winner in every other state is the same as 2016 ( far from a sure thing , but we ’ ll get to that ) , Biden would begin with a slight edge .
Biden ’ s magic number is that he ’ d need 38 of these 101 electoral votes to win the presidency .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ d need 66 of the 101 electoral votes .
To get to his magic number , then , Trump likely has to win Florida and three more of the states in this group — most plausibly North Carolina , Pennsylvania , and Arizona .
Biden , meanwhile , could reach his own magic number by winning Florida plus any one of the remaining five states in this group ( assuming he has no surprising losses elsewhere ) .
In the below example map , he wins Florida plus just Wisconsin ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these states ) : Another path for Biden , which doesn ’ t rely on Florida or North Carolina , would be through winning just Wisconsin , Michigan , and Pennsylvania — flipping back those states Trump so closely won in 2016 : There ’ s also the scary possibility of the Electoral College tie — which would occur if Trump wins Florida , North Carolina , and Pennsylvania , while Biden wins Michigan , Wisconsin , and Arizona , and every other result from 2016 is the same : The two swing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quirk in the Electoral College system is that just two small states — Maine and Nebraska — have made the unusual decision to allot some of their electoral votes to the winners in each congressional district in the state , rather than giving them all to the statewide winner as the other 48 states do .
Practically , one of Maine ’ s two districts is safe for Democrats , and two of Nebraska ’ s three districts are safe for Republicans .
But the remaining district in each state — Maine ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second District — is up for grabs .
With just one electoral vote at stake for each , they ’ ll only actually matter in the closest of races .
But if such a close contest transpires , they ’ ll be absolutely crucial .
For instance , the 269-269 tie map above would flip to Biden if he was able to win Nebraska ’ s Second District .
Maine ’ s Second is rural , and white voters lacking college degrees make up a large share of the electorate .
Its result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same as Maine ’ s statewide result — until 2016 , when Trump won it by the sizable margin of 10 points ( while losing the state by 3 ) .
Recent polls have showed Biden with a narrow lead there this year .
As for Nebraska ’ s Second District , encompassing Omaha , Barack Obama actually won a previous version of it in 2008 .
Nebraska Republicans responded during the next redistricting by moving some Democratic voters out of the district , so Republicans won it in 2012 and 2016 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this time around , as education polarization continues ( both college-educated white voters and minority voters make up significant chunks of the electorate in this urban district ) .
Here ’ s another scenario where these two congressional districts could decide the president — if Biden wins Michigan and Pennsylvania , but Trump wins Florida , North Carolina , Arizona , and Wisconsin , with the two key congressional districts undecided .
If either candidate won them both , he ’ d win ; if they split , it would be a 269-269 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swing states and the two weird congressional districts , each candidate is trying to go on offense in a set of states where they suspect their opponent is favored but hope for an upset .
For Biden , the states he ’ s trying to pluck out of Trump ’ s hands are the traditional swing states of Ohio and Iowa , and the recently Republican-leaning states of Georgia and Texas .
We can think of this group as two pairs of states : two Biden is trying to win back , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats to be contesting .
• Ohio ( 18 EVs ) and Iowa ( 6 EVs ) went for Obama twice , and trended heavily toward Republicans in 2016 ( Trump won them both by over 8 points ) .
Biden hopes to win back , and poll averages suggest he has a decent shot of it — he ’ s currently narrowly leading in Ohio and close to tied in Iowa .
• Texas ( 38 EVs ) and Georgia ( 16 EVs ) haven ’ t voted for Democratic presidential candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of defeat there have recently shrunk ( Trump won Georgia by 5 percentage points and Texas by 9 percentage points ) .
Currently , polling averages show Trump leading these two states by just 1 to 4 points .
It ’ s generally believed that these states are unlikely to be decisive , since if Biden wins one of these states , he ’ s probably won enough states from the big six as well .
But weird things can happen .
Here , for instance , is an ( admittedly very unlikely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Upper Midwest and Rust Belt ( winning Michigan , Wisconsin , and Pennsylvania ) , and wins Florida and North Carolina — but Biden wins the election , because surprisingly high turnout among Mexican American voters delivers him narrow victories in Arizona and Texas .
There are also a few states that Biden can ’ t quite take for granted just yet : most notably Nevada and New Hampshire , but it ’ s probably best to keep an eye on Minnesota and Maine as well .
For New Hampshire ( 4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , polls actually show these two states about as close as Wisconsin and Michigan right now .
But since they ’ re smaller , they ’ re less likely to be decisive in the Electoral College math — except , of course , in a very close outcome .
Clinton won both of these states last time around , but they were close — she won Nevada by 2.4 percentage points , and New Hampshire by 0.4 percentage points .
More comfortingly for Democrats , polls in these states didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Nevada polls underestimated Clinton a bit ) .
Minnesota ( 10 EVs ) and Maine ( 2 EVs for statewide winner ) , meanwhile , do not look all that competitive in recent polling — polling averages show Biden up 8 to 9 points in Minnesota , and 15 points in Maine .
Still , they ’ re worth a mention because Trump did surprisingly well in both states in 2016 2016 ( Clinton won Minnesota by just 1.5 percentage points and Maine by 3 ) , and polls in both states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The question of whether President Donald Trump will be reelected isn’t really up to the whole country.
Joe Biden currently has a pretty big lead in national polls. But due to the magic of the Electoral College system, the margins in a limited number of key states that happen to be politically divided will determine whether it’s Trump or Biden who’s sworn in on January 20, 2021 — or whether, if the outcome is much closer, we head toward a national crisis.
If Biden wins big enough in enough swing states, he’ll likely be able to beat back any attempt from Trump to question or contest the results. As conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt once wrote in a different context, “If it’s not close, they can’t cheat.”
But if the Electoral College margin is much closer — for instance, able to be swung by one very close state — expect recounts, legal challenges, and a tense situation.
So the Electoral College map and math are very important. There are 14 states and two congressional districts that the Trump and Biden campaigns need to keep an eye on. You can think of them in four groups.
The big six swing states: Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina are the states that are viewed as most likely to determine the outcome.
The two swing congressional districts: Nebraska’s Second District and Maine’s Second District, a pair of stray electoral votes that could be crucial in an extremely close contest.
The states Trump is trying to defend: Ohio, Iowa, Georgia, and Texas probably won’t be the tipping point states, but if they flip to Biden, it likely means he’s winning big.
The states Biden is trying to defend: Nevada, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Maine are all lean Biden states where Trump hopes to make gains.
I’ll run through all these groups below, and explain the various paths to victory for both Biden and Trump — and the paths to a much less certain outcome.
The big six: Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina
These are six key states that have gotten by far the most attention from the campaigns and election analysts. NPR reported that almost 85 percent of ad spending from presidential campaigns and outside groups has been focused on these states.
These states matter so much because they’re all medium to big, and they’re pretty evenly divided politically. Four of them — Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida — were won by Barack Obama in 2012 but Donald Trump in 2016. North Carolina went for Obama in 2008 but for Republicans in the two elections since. And Arizona has voted for Republicans for decades but has been trending Democratic in recent years.
Eking out a small margin of victory in most of these states can give a candidate a massive Electoral College payoff — as Trump discovered in 2016, when he won all six; he won three of those by less than a percentage point.
Recent polling shows some separation among these “big six” states.
Florida (29 EVs) and North Carolina (15 EVs) are the right-most of this batch, meaning Biden averages about a very narrow 1 to 3 point lead.
are the right-most of this batch, meaning Biden averages about a very narrow 1 to 3 point lead. Michigan (16 EVs) and Wisconsin (10 EVs) seem to be the left-most, with Biden leading polls there by 5 to 7.
seem to be the left-most, with Biden leading polls there by 5 to 7. Pennsylvania (20 EVs) and Arizona (11 EVs) are in the middle, with Biden leading there by 3 to 6.
So if the current polls are right on and Biden wins all these states, he’ll clearly have won the presidency. But if the race tightens or if Trump overperforms polls, small margins in these six states will likely determine the winner.
In this group, there are 101 electoral votes at stake. And if the winner in every other state is the same as 2016 (far from a sure thing, but we’ll get to that), Biden would begin with a slight edge. Biden’s magic number is that he’d need 38 of these 101 electoral votes to win the presidency. Trump’s bar would be higher — he’d need 66 of the 101 electoral votes.
To get to his magic number, then, Trump likely has to win Florida and three more of the states in this group — most plausibly North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Arizona.
Biden, meanwhile, could reach his own magic number by winning Florida plus any one of the remaining five states in this group (assuming he has no surprising losses elsewhere). In the below example map, he wins Florida plus just Wisconsin (which has the fewest electoral votes of these states):
Another path for Biden, which doesn’t rely on Florida or North Carolina, would be through winning just Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — flipping back those states Trump so closely won in 2016:
There’s also the scary possibility of the Electoral College tie — which would occur if Trump wins Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, while Biden wins Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona, and every other result from 2016 is the same:
The two swing congressional districts: ME-2 and NE-2
Another quirk in the Electoral College system is that just two small states — Maine and Nebraska — have made the unusual decision to allot some of their electoral votes to the winners in each congressional district in the state, rather than giving them all to the statewide winner as the other 48 states do.
Practically, one of Maine’s two districts is safe for Democrats, and two of Nebraska’s three districts are safe for Republicans. But the remaining district in each state — Maine’s Second District and Nebraska’s Second District — is up for grabs.
With just one electoral vote at stake for each, they’ll only actually matter in the closest of races. But if such a close contest transpires, they’ll be absolutely crucial. For instance, the 269-269 tie map above would flip to Biden if he was able to win Nebraska’s Second District.
Maine’s Second is rural, and white voters lacking college degrees make up a large share of the electorate. Its result in presidential years had always been the same as Maine’s statewide result — until 2016, when Trump won it by the sizable margin of 10 points (while losing the state by 3). Recent polls have showed Biden with a narrow lead there this year.
As for Nebraska’s Second District, encompassing Omaha, Barack Obama actually won a previous version of it in 2008. Nebraska Republicans responded during the next redistricting by moving some Democratic voters out of the district, so Republicans won it in 2012 and 2016. But polls show Biden doing well there this time around, as education polarization continues (both college-educated white voters and minority voters make up significant chunks of the electorate in this urban district).
Here’s another scenario where these two congressional districts could decide the president — if Biden wins Michigan and Pennsylvania, but Trump wins Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, and Wisconsin, with the two key congressional districts undecided.
If either candidate won them both, he’d win; if they split, it would be a 269-269 tie.
The states Trump must defend
Beyond the core big six swing states and the two weird congressional districts, each candidate is trying to go on offense in a set of states where they suspect their opponent is favored but hope for an upset.
For Biden, the states he’s trying to pluck out of Trump’s hands are the traditional swing states of Ohio and Iowa, and the recently Republican-leaning states of Georgia and Texas.
We can think of this group as two pairs of states: two Biden is trying to win back, and two that are relatively new territory for Democrats to be contesting.
Ohio (18 EVs) and Iowa (6 EVs) went for Obama twice, and trended heavily toward Republicans in 2016 (Trump won them both by over 8 points). Biden hopes to win back, and poll averages suggest he has a decent shot of it — he’s currently about tied in Ohio and also in in Iowa.
went for Obama twice, and trended heavily toward Republicans in 2016 (Trump won them both by over 8 points). Biden hopes to win back, and poll averages suggest he has a decent shot of it — he’s currently about tied in Ohio and also in in Iowa. Texas (38 EVs) and Georgia (16 EVs) haven’t voted for Democratic presidential candidates in decades — but Democrats’ margins of defeat there have recently shrunk (Trump won Georgia by 5 percentage points and Texas by 9 percentage points). Currently, polling averages show Biden narrowly ahead in Georgia and narrowly trailing in Texas.
It’s generally believed that these states are unlikely to be decisive, since if Biden wins one of these states, he’s probably won enough states from the big six as well.
But weird things can happen. Here, for instance, is an (admittedly very unlikely) map where Trump holds strong in the Upper Midwest and Rust Belt (winning Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania), and wins Florida and North Carolina — but Biden wins the election, because surprisingly high turnout among Mexican American voters delivers him narrow victories in Arizona and Texas.
The states Biden must defend
There are also a few states that Biden can’t quite take for granted just yet: most notably Nevada and Minnesota, but it’s probably best to keep an eye on New Hampshire and Maine as well.
For Nevada (6 EVs) and Minnesota (10 EVs), polls actually show these two states about as close as Wisconsin and Michigan right now. But since Nevada has few electoral votes and Minnesota appears to lean to the left of neighboring Wisconsin, they’re less likely to be decisive in the Electoral College math — except, of course, in a very close outcome.
Clinton won both of these states last time around, but they were close — she won Nevada by 2.4 percentage points, and Minnesota by a mere 1.5 percentage points.
Meanwhile, New Hampshire (4 EVs) and and Maine (2 EVs for statewide winner) do not look all that competitive in recent polling — polls show Biden up by double digits in both states. Still, they’re worth a mention because they were quite close in 2016 (Clinton won New Hampshire by just 0.4 percentage points and Maine by 3).


vox--2020-09-29--How to watch the first presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump

President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden are about to face off in their pivotal first general election debate .
The debate will air Tuesday , September 29 , starting at 9 pm ET and running to 11 pm ET .
Moderated by Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace , the debate will take place at Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Clinic , in Cleveland , Ohio .
The debate will be broadcast on multiple networks , including Fox , ABC , NBC , and CBS , as well as CNN , MSNBC , and CSPAN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and is available to stream on Apple TV , Amazon Fire TV , and Roku .
An audio version of the debate will also be broadcast on National Public Radio .
This will be the first onstage matchup between Biden and Trump in a heated and contentious general election .
Biden ’ s schedule of late has been consumed with debate prep with a team of his closest advisers , according to the New York Times .
Trump , on the other hand , has mostly forgone traditional prep , although he recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former New Jersey Gov .
Chris Christie and adviser Rudy Giuliani to prepare for Tuesday .
Wallace , the debate moderator , will focus on six debate topics : Trump ’ s and Biden ’ s records ; the Supreme Court ; the Covid-19 pandemic ; the economy ; race and violence in US cities ; and the integrity of the November election .
Another likely subject of discussion could be the recent New York Times bombshell investigation detailing years of Trump ’ s tax returns — including the revelation that Trump avoided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the debate will be a marquee moment in the election , it ’ s unclear how many voters ’ minds will actually be changed by it .
A recent Monmouth University poll showed that while 74 percent of registered voters said they planned to watch the debate live , just 3 percent of voters said something they saw was ‘ very likely ’ to change their minds about whom they ’ d vote for .
For months , polls have shown both a stable race — with Biden enjoying a high-single-digit point lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state lead — and high percentages of voters who have already made up their minds .
Neither of the party conventions this summer gave Trump or Biden a sustained polling bump .
At the same time , the debates are starting right as early voting periods in many states begin — which could mean it will help those few undecided voters decide who to vote for before November 3 .
The state of the race , briefly explained Biden is ahead in the polls : Throughout the summer , the polling picture hasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden leads Trump in both national polls and battleground state polls , although the race is narrower in the battleground states that will have a bigger hand in deciding the election .
According to the RealClearPolitics average , Biden has close to a seven-point lead in national polls and a little less than a four-point lead in battleground state polling .
The battleground polls have tightened a bit in recent months , but overall , they show a pretty stable race that hasn ’ t wildly swung one way or the other .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ things , or the polls might continue to be impervious to things like conventions and debates .
The coronavirus and the economy will play an outsized role : Few things have really made a dent on polling , but the coronavirus and its impact on the economy and schools is one of the biggest issues of the year .
Despite Covid-19 cases falling for part of this summer , they appear to be on the rise as we head into fall and winter .
Some of the most concerning spikes are happening in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crucial swing state for the election .
Biden will almost certainly continue to hammer a message at the center of his campaign : Trump ’ s poor federal response to the Covid-19 pandemic is making the US recovery longer and more uncertain .
Trump ’ s once-booming economy used to be the centerpiece of his reelection message , but that ’ s going to be a tougher argument to make with millions out of work and no clear end to the pandemic in sight .
One thing ’ s for certain : With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ table Tuesday night , Biden and Trump will certainly have plenty to spar over .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden are about to face off in their pivotal first general election debate.
The debate will air Tuesday, September 29, from 9 pm ET to 11 pm ET; that’s 8-10 pm CT, 7-9 pm MT; and 6-8 pm PT. Moderated by Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace, the debate will take place at Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Clinic, in Cleveland, Ohio.
The debate will be broadcast on multiple networks, including Fox, ABC, NBC, and CBS, as well as CNN, MSNBC, and CSPAN. It will be livestreamed on YouTube and is available to stream on Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, and Roku. An audio version of the debate will also be broadcast on National Public Radio.
This will be the first onstage matchup between Biden and Trump in a heated and contentious general election.
Biden’s schedule of late has been consumed with debate prep with a team of his closest advisers, according to the New York Times. Trump, on the other hand, has mostly forgone traditional prep, although he recently told reporters he’s working with former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and adviser Rudy Giuliani to prepare for Tuesday.
Wallace, the debate moderator, will focus on six debate topics: Trump’s and Biden’s records; the Supreme Court; the Covid-19 pandemic; the economy; race and violence in US cities; and the integrity of the November election. Another likely subject of discussion could be the recent New York Times bombshell investigation detailing years of Trump’s tax returns — including the revelation that Trump avoided paying taxes for multiple years.
Though the debate will be a marquee moment in the election, it’s unclear how many voters’ minds will actually be changed by it. A recent Monmouth University poll showed that while 74 percent of registered voters said they planned to watch the debate live, just 3 percent of voters said something they saw was ‘very likely’ to change their minds about whom they’d vote for.
For months, polls have shown both a stable race — with Biden enjoying a high-single-digit point lead in national polling and a narrower battleground state lead — and high percentages of voters who have already made up their minds. Neither of the party conventions this summer gave Trump or Biden a sustained polling bump.
At the same time, the debates are starting right as early voting periods in many states begin — which could mean it will help those few undecided voters decide who to vote for before November 3.
The state of the race, briefly explained
Biden is ahead in the polls: Throughout the summer, the polling picture hasn’t changed all that much. Biden leads Trump in both national polls and battleground state polls, although the race is narrower in the battleground states that will have a bigger hand in deciding the election.
According to the RealClearPolitics average, Biden has close to a seven-point lead in national polls and a little less than a four-point lead in battleground state polling. The battleground polls have tightened a bit in recent months, but overall, they show a pretty stable race that hasn’t wildly swung one way or the other. The debate could change the trajectory of things, or the polls might continue to be impervious to things like conventions and debates.
The coronavirus and the economy will play an outsized role: Few things have really made a dent on polling, but the coronavirus and its impact on the economy and schools is one of the biggest issues of the year. Despite Covid-19 cases falling for part of this summer, they appear to be on the rise as we head into fall and winter. Some of the most concerning spikes are happening in Midwestern states like Wisconsin — also a crucial swing state for the election.
Biden will almost certainly continue to hammer a message at the center of his campaign: Trump’s poor federal response to the Covid-19 pandemic is making the US recovery longer and more uncertain. Trump’s once-booming economy used to be the centerpiece of his reelection message, but that’s going to be a tougher argument to make with millions out of work and no clear end to the pandemic in sight.
One thing’s for certain: With the economy and Covid-19 both on the table Tuesday night, Biden and Trump will certainly have plenty to spar over.


vox--2020-09-29--Amazon will now let you pay with your palm in its stores

Amazon accounts for nearly 40 percent of e-commerce sales in the US today , and it takes a cut of even more online shopping by selling payments services and other technologies to external shopping sites .
Now , the online retail giant is making a play to grab a piece of brick-and-mortar shopping , too — and it wants customers to literally lend a hand to do it .
Amazon on Tuesday is unveiling a new biometric technology called Amazon One that allows shoppers to pay at stores by placing their palm over a scanning device when they walk in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The first time they register to use this tech , a customer will scan their palm and insert their payment card at a terminal ; after that , they can simply pay with their hand .
The hand-scanning tech isn ’ t just for Amazon ’ s own stores — the company hopes to sell it to other retailers , including competitors , too .
The technology will be available at the entrance of two of the company ’ s Amazon Go cashierless convenience stores in Seattle , Washington , starting Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest of the chain ’ s 20-plus stores in the future , Amazon Vice President Dilip Kumar told Recode in an interview Monday .
Recode reported in December that Amazon had filed a patent application for such a hand-payment technology .
The technology could also show up in Whole Foods stores , with Amazon hinting in a press release that it will introduce palm payments in the coming months at its other stores beyondtAmazon Go locations .
Kumar wouldn ’ t comment on a potential Whole Foods implementation , though the New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a plan was in the works .
But the Amazon executive did make it clear that the company expects to sell the technology to other retailers , like it began doing earlier this year with its “ Just Walk Out ” technology — the cocktail of cameras , sensors , and computer vision software that powers Amazon Go stores .
Kumar said the Amazon One pitch to other retailers is straightforward : reduce friction for your customers at checkout , thereby shortening lines and increasing how many shoppers are served along the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these two homegrown technologies to other retailers , whether competitor or not , is the real story : Amazon isn ’ t satisfied with e-commerce dominance , and wants to earn a cut of more transactions in the physical retail world , where 80-something percent of commerce still takes place in the US .
So it ’ s building out a futuristic suite of services to court other retailers , while showcasing the technology in its own stores as case studies .
One obvious question is whether retailers , many of which consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another , will want to do business with the tech giant .
Kumar pointed to Amazon Web Services , the company ’ s $ 40 billion division that leases computing power , data storage , and myriad software capabilities to internet companies big and small , as an example of an Amazon offering that attracts competitors .
Amazon will collect data on where Amazon One customers shop when they use the payment option , but it will not know what shoppers purchase or how much they spend inside third-party retail stores .
Either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company has “ no plans to use transaction information from third party locations for Amazon advertising or other purposes , ” and shoppers can sign up for the service without linking it to an Amazon customer account if they choose .
Another question is whether enough people will be willing to hand over scans of their hands to Amazon in order to save a bit of time at checkout .
It ’ s true that a no-touch payment method might be more attractive today , during the Covid-19 pandemic , than even a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often face steep adoption challenges , and that ’ s even when biometrics aren ’ t involved .
Biometric tracking poses a host of privacy concerns , including the potential of targeted hacking or a mass data breach .
Kumar , the Amazon executive , said the more locations where Amazon can introduce the technology , the more valuable customers will find it and be willing to give it a try .
That ’ s why the company plans to pitch other use cases beyond payments .
Kumar also said Amazon is discussing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ palm scans with building IDs to replace office ID cards , or with event tickets for stadiums or arenas — two settings that don ’ t sound especially appealing during a global health crisis , but may be in the future when gathering in a crowd won ’ t pose serious health risks .
The executive added that Amazon chose palm scans over other biometric options for a few reasons .
One , he said , is that it ’ s not easy for a bad actor to identify a person by simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if that material ever leaked .
Another is the uniqueness of each person ’ s hand .
“ Even identical twins have many differences in their palm structure , ” he said .
A spokesperson added that the images are encrypted when scanned , and then “ sent to a highly secure area we custom-built in the cloud for analysis and storage.
” To some , the upside still won ’ t be worth it .
“ How lazy are people that they will hand over their handprints so they don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” my wife asked when I mentioned the new technology to her in an embargoed dinner-table discussion .
But Apple ’ s Touch ID fingerprint-scanning tech and its Face ID face-scanning tech also seemed a little crazy at first — until they weren ’ t .
And if enough customers trust Amazon with the tradeoff , physical retailers will face an interesting dilemma : chase the future by aligning with the most powerful tech company in retail , or stick to the present and hope their customers do n't stray as a result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Amazon accounts for nearly 40 percent of e-commerce sales in the US today, and it takes a cut of even more online shopping by selling payments services and other technologies to external shopping sites. Now, the online retail giant is making a play to grab a piece of brick-and-mortar shopping, too — and it wants customers to literally lend a hand to do it.
Amazon on Wednesday is unveiling a new way to pay at select Whole Foods stores: a biometric technology called Amazon One that allows shoppers to pay by placing their palm over a scanning device when they check out. The new technology is now available at the grocery chain’s Madison Broadway store in Seattle, Washington. Seven more Whole Foods locations in the Seattle area will offer the payment option in the coming months.
The first time they register to use this tech, a customer will scan their palm and insert their payment card at a terminal; after that, they can simply pay with their hand. The hand-scanning tech isn’t just for Amazon’s own stores — the company hopes to sell it to other retailers, including competitors.
Amazon first introduced the technology in September at some of the company’s Amazon Go cashierless convenience stores in Seattle. The company had added the tech to a total of 12 stores in the Seattle area before today’s Whole Foods announcement. Recode first reported in December 2019 that Amazon had filed a patent application for such a hand-payment technology.
In September, Amazon executive Dilip Kumar told Recode that the company expects to sell the technology to other retailers, like it began doing earlier this year with its “Just Walk Out” technology — the cocktail of cameras, sensors, and computer vision software that powers Amazon Go stores. Kumar said the Amazon One pitch to other retailers is straightforward: reduce friction for your customers at checkout, thereby shortening lines and increasing how many shoppers are served along the way. The company said in a blog post on Wednesday that it was in discussions with other retailers, but did not yet have any partnerships to announce.
Amazon’s plan to license these two homegrown technologies to other retailers, whether competitor or not, is the real story: Amazon isn’t satisfied with e-commerce dominance; it wants to earn a cut of more transactions in the physical retail world, where 80-something percent of commerce still takes place in the US. So it’s building out a futuristic suite of services to court other retailers, while showcasing the technology in its own stores as case studies.
One obvious question is whether retailers, many of which consider Amazon a competitor of one sort or another, will want to do business with the tech giant. Kumar pointed to Amazon Web Services, the company’s $40 billion division that leases computing power, data storage, and myriad software capabilities to internet companies big and small, as an example of an Amazon offering that attracts competitors.
Amazon will collect data on where Amazon One customers shop when they use the payment option, but it will not know what shoppers purchase or how much they spend inside third-party retail stores. An Amazon spokesperson said the company has “no plans to use transaction information from third-party locations for Amazon advertising or other purposes,” and shoppers can sign up for the service without linking it to an Amazon customer account if they choose.
Another question is whether enough people will be willing to hand over scans of their hands to Amazon in order to save a bit of time at checkout. It’s true that a no-touch payment method might be more attractive today, during the Covid-19 pandemic, than even a year ago. But new payment methods often face steep adoption challenges, and that’s even when biometrics aren’t involved. Biometric tracking poses a host of privacy concerns, including the potential of targeted hacking or a mass data breach.
Kumar, the Amazon executive, said the more locations where Amazon can introduce the technology, the more valuable customers will find it and be willing to give it a try. That’s why the company plans to pitch other use cases beyond payments. Kumar also said Amazon is discussing with potential partners the idea of linking palm scans with building IDs to replace office ID cards, or with event tickets for stadiums or arenas.
The executive added that Amazon chose palm scans over other biometric options for a few reasons. One, he said, is that it’s not easy for a bad actor to identify a person by simply viewing an image of their hand, if that material ever leaked. Another is the uniqueness of each person’s hand. “Even identical twins have many differences in their palm structure,” he said. A spokesperson added that the images are encrypted when scanned, and then “sent to a highly secure area we custom-built in the cloud for analysis and storage.”
To some, the upside still won’t be worth it. “How lazy are people that they will hand over their handprints so they don’t have to take out their wallet?” my wife asked when I mentioned the new technology to her in an embargoed dinner-table discussion. But Apple’s Touch ID fingerprint-scanning tech and its Face ID face-scanning tech also seemed a little crazy at first — until they weren’t.
And if enough customers trust Amazon with the trade-off, physical retailers will face an interesting dilemma: chase the future by aligning with the most powerful tech company in retail, or stick to the present and hope their customers don't stray as a result.
Update, April 21, 2021: This article has been updated to report that Amazon plans to introduce its pay-by-hand technology in select Whole Foods stores.


vox--2020-09-29--When is the next 2020 debate? The vice presidential debate is on October 7.

President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden have had their first debate matchup ; next , their vice presidential nominees will have the chance .
Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-CA ) will face off in the next 2020 debate on October 7 , with Susan Page , the Washington bureau chief for USA Today , moderating .
The debate will air live on ABC , CBS , CNN , C-SPAN , Fox , NBC , and PBS Utah from 9 to 10:30 pm ET from the University of Utah ’ s Nancy Peery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where there will be a small live audience of students .
( That ’ s 8-9:30 pm CT , 7-8:30 pm MT , and 6-7:30 pm PT . )
Debate organizers have secured the Cleveland Clinic as a health adviser to ensure that the debates can continue safely amid the pandemic .
Vice presidential debates haven ’ t historically attracted much fanfare , drawing much lower viewership than presidential debates .
But Democrats are hoping that Harris — a former San Francisco district attorney who earned a reputation for being a strong debater @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known for her incisive style of questioning witnesses during congressional hearings — will go on the attack .
Her most notable debate performance during the primaries was when she criticized Biden , now her running mate , for opposing mandatory school busing during the 1970s , which she argued created an obstacle to desegregation efforts .
Harris , as the most junior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee , also famously grilled Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings in 2018 regarding his stance on abortion and about whether he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s personal attorney .
In preparation for the upcoming debate , Harris reportedly has been practicing with former presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg , who has been playing the role of Pence in mock debates .
Pence , for his part , has enlisted the help of former Wisconsin Gov .
Scott Walker , a Republican who served at the same time that Pence was governor of Indiana , the Washington Post reported .
Page , the moderator , hasn ’ t announced debate topics yet , but Pence , as the leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , will likely be called on to answer for his role in failing to prevent the deaths of more than 200,000 Americans amid the pandemic .
He recently told the public to “ anticipate that cases will rise in the days ahead , ” predicting another surge .
Pence has faced criticism over his handling of the pandemic even from within his own camp : Olivia Troye , his former top aide on the coronavirus task force , went so far as to endorse Biden publicly , joining the group Republican Voters Against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential debates There will also be two more presidential debates on October 15 and 22 in Miami , Florida , and Nashville , Tennessee , respectively .
C-SPAN editor Steve Scully will moderate the Miami debate , and NBC anchor Kristen Welker has been selected to do so in Tennessee .
With just weeks to go before the November 3 election , Biden remains ahead in the polls , besting Trump nationally by a margin of about 7 points on average , according to FiveThirtyEight .
He also appears to be carrying a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including Michigan , Pennsylvania , Nevada , and Arizona .
At this point , it doesn ’ t seem like those polls will move significantly ahead of Election Day given that the biggest crises facing Americans — a pandemic that shows no sign of slowing down , an economic downturn , and a national reckoning over race — aren ’ t going away anytime soon .
It remains to be seen how much — or little — the Tuesday night debate and the three remaining shift those numbers .
Help keep Vox free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden have had their first debate matchup; next, their vice presidential nominees will have the chance.
Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) will face off in the next 2020 debate on October 7, with Susan Page, the Washington bureau chief for USA Today, moderating.
The debate will air live on ABC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, Fox, NBC, and PBS Utah from 9 to 10:30 pm ET from the University of Utah’s Nancy Peery Marriott Auditorium in Salt Lake City, where there will be a small live audience of students. (That’s 8-9:30 pm CT, 7-8:30 pm MT, and 6-7:30 pm PT.) Debate organizers have secured the Cleveland Clinic as a health adviser to ensure that the debates can continue safely amid the pandemic.
Vice presidential debates haven’t historically attracted much fanfare, drawing much lower viewership than presidential debates. But Democrats are hoping that Harris — a former San Francisco district attorney who earned a reputation for being a strong debater during the Democratic primaries and who is known for her incisive style of questioning witnesses during congressional hearings — will go on the attack.
Her most notable debate performance during the primaries was when she criticized Biden, now her running mate, for opposing mandatory school busing during the 1970s, which she argued created an obstacle to desegregation efforts. Harris, as the most junior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also famously grilled Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings in 2018 regarding his stance on abortion and about whether he had inappropriately discussed the Mueller investigation with Trump’s personal attorney.
In preparation for the upcoming debate, Harris reportedly has been practicing with former presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, who has been playing the role of Pence in mock debates.
Pence, for his part, has enlisted the help of former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican who served at the same time that Pence was governor of Indiana, the Washington Post reported. Page, the moderator, hasn’t announced debate topics yet, but Pence, as the leader of the White House coronavirus task force, will likely be called on to answer for his role in failing to prevent the deaths of more than 200,000 Americans amid the pandemic. He recently told the public to “anticipate that cases will rise in the days ahead,” predicting another surge.
Pence has faced criticism over his handling of the pandemic even from within his own camp: Olivia Troye, his former top aide on the coronavirus task force, went so far as to endorse Biden publicly, joining the group Republican Voters Against Trump.
There are still two more presidential debates
There will also be two more presidential debates on October 15 and 22 in Miami, Florida, and Nashville, Tennessee, respectively. C-SPAN editor Steve Scully will moderate the Miami debate, and NBC anchor Kristen Welker has been selected to do so in Tennessee.
With just weeks to go before the November 3 election, Biden remains ahead in the polls, besting Trump nationally by a margin of about 7 points on average, according to FiveThirtyEight. He also appears to be carrying a narrower lead in critical swing states, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Arizona. At this point, it doesn’t seem like those polls will move significantly ahead of Election Day given that the biggest crises facing Americans — a pandemic that shows no sign of slowing down, an economic downturn, and a national reckoning over race — aren’t going away anytime soon.
It remains to be seen how much — or little — the Tuesday night debate and the three remaining shift those numbers.