vox--2020-03-03--Voters say LA’s fancy new voting machines aren’t working

New voting machines making their debut on Super Tuesday in Los Angeles County are already raising concerns about unreliable technology .
While the system is meant to modernize voting and make democracy more accessible , some voters are complaining about technical glitches and usability .
That ’ s not great news , since LA represents a massive election district in the state with the most delegates up for grabs in the Democratic primary .
Today , the Los Angeles Times reported that election officials were having issues with their systems linking up with California ’ s voter database , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t tracking who had already voted or incorporating new registration information .
This is a big problem , since California passed a law last year that allows for voter registration on election day in an effort to enfranchise more voters .
Meanwhile , many voters have complained on Twitter that their voting machines weren ’ t working , with some reaching out to election officials on the platform for help .
There were also complaints that the machines were not taking voters ’ paper ballots , which need to be inserted back into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the e-poll books weren ’ t working .
Jennifer Cohn , an attorney and election integrity advocate , aggregated at least 60 social media or news reports related to the new voting system .
They ’ re all bad .
The reported failures are especially discouraging because they represent a $ 280 million effort to modernize LA ’ s elections .
The new voting machines are part of LA ’ s Voting Solutions for All People ( VSAP ) and come equipped with touchscreens and futuristic-looking yellow-and-black stands .
The system even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead of time on other devices and then send that information to the voting machines through a QR code .
Importantly , all votes are meant to be backed up with a paper record , which is designed to be a fail-safe should something go technically awry with the system .
VSAP is publicly owned and designed to use open source technology , making the program the first of its kind in the nation .
The machines themselves arrive with another new change in LA : Instead of local polling stations , people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ county , thanks to a centralized voter database .
Some voting machines are even being moved around the Los Angeles area , which should make it easier for less-mobile populations to vote .
It ’ s all supposed to be high tech , but the system has been showing some low-tech flaws since it debuted earlier this year .
In late February , during California ’ s early voting period , CBS reported that some of the new voting machines were going unused because of issues with equipment , and that about 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t open on time because of issues with the tech .
At that time , the system had already raised security and usability concerns .
Even Rep. Ted Lieu , a Democrat whose district covers parts of West LA , complained on Twitter that users wouldn ’ t see all candidates available for each race without clicking a “ more ” button , which could inadvertently lead some voters to believe that their first-choice candidate isn ’ t an available option , especially in a crowded race .
Days earlier , Lieu and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying that the “ current situation is not acceptable and inadequate measures have been taken to remedy this serious flaw.
” That same issue had also motivated Beverly Hills to sue LA County in January in an effort to get a handful of changes made to the new voting machines .
Recode reached out to Smartmatic , the company that helped design the system , which declined to comment , as well as to the Los Angeles County Registrar , which did not respond by the time of publication .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are , but they fit into a worrisome trend in which new US voting tech comes with technical flaws or is just plain difficult to use .
Already , the caucuses in Nevada and Iowa have raised concerns about whether our tech is being properly tested before elections .
And these issues come amid broader concerns about the integrity of US elections infrastructure and worries of foreign interference .
Of course , we may not be prepared for every possible way Russia might try to hack our elections , but basic technical usability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re now seeing in LA ’ s voting machines — probably aren ’ t helping our cause .
Open Sourced is made possible by the Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .

New voting machines made their debut on Super Tuesday in Los Angeles County, raising concerns about unreliable technology. While the system is meant to modernize voting and make democracy more accessible, some voters complained about technical glitches and usability. That’s not great news since LA represents a massive election district in the state that had the most delegates up for grabs in the Democratic primary.
On Tuesday, the Los Angeles Times reported election officials were having issues with their systems linking up with California’s voter database, which meant that the registration system wasn’t tracking who had already voted or incorporating new registration information. This is a big problem, since California passed a law last year that allows for voter registration on Election Day in an effort to enfranchise more voters.
Meanwhile, many voters complained on Twitter that their voting machines weren’t working, with some reaching out to election officials on the platform for help. There were also complaints that the machines were not taking voters’ paper ballots, which need to be inserted back into the machine. Several people also said that the e-poll books weren’t working.
Dale Robinson, a Los Angeles voter, confirmed to Recode in an email that one voting machine was “down completely” and the other was working “very slowly” at the first voting center he visited in Highland Park. A volunteer recommended he vote at a nearby location, which he did. Similarly, voter Michael Connor told Recode that when he inserted his printed ballot into the machine’s scanner at the voting center he visited in Reseda, it displayed a loading, swirling icon for five minutes. A technician ultimately helped him insert the ballot into another machine.
And Nicole Smith, another Los Angeles voter, said that when she visited a voting center in Eagle Rock, several of the machines were marked with “out of order” signs.
Jennifer Cohn, an attorney and election integrity advocate, aggregated at least 100 social media or news reports related to the new voting system. They’re all bad.
Hey @LACountyRRCC, the vote center at @UCLA has only 9 machines working out of 39. Lines are almost 2 hours long for students who need to go to class. Please resolve this ASAP to ensure all students are able to vote. @CASOSvote #Californiaprimary2020 @UPTECWA — Rafael Návar (@Rafael_Navar) March 3, 2020
The reported failures are especially discouraging because they represent a $280 million effort to modernize LA’s elections. The new voting machines are part of LA’s Voting Solutions for All People (VSAP) and come equipped with touchscreens and futuristic-looking yellow-and-black stands. The system even allows voters to fill out their ballots ahead of time on other devices and then send that information to the voting machines through a QR code. Importantly, all votes are meant to be backed up with a paper record, which is designed to be a fail-safe should something go technically awry with the system.
VSAP is publicly owned and was designed to use open-source technology, making the program the first of its kind in the nation. The machines themselves arrive with another new change in LA: Instead of local polling stations, people can now vote from anywhere in the county, thanks to a centralized voter database. Some voting machines are even being moved around the Los Angeles area, which should make it easier for less-mobile populations to vote.
It’s all supposed to be high tech, but the system has been showing some low-tech flaws since it debuted earlier this year. In late February, during California’s early voting period, CBS reported that some of the new voting machines were going unused because of issues with equipment, and that about 30 out of 229 total locations didn’t open on time because of issues with the tech.
Related Join the Open Sourced Reporting Network
At that time, the system had already raised security and usability concerns. Even Rep. Ted Lieu, a Democrat whose district covers parts of West LA, complained on Twitter that users wouldn’t see all candidates available for each race without clicking a “more” button, which could inadvertently lead some voters to believe their first-choice candidate isn’t an available option, especially in a crowded race.
Days earlier, Lieu and two other California representatives released a statement, saying that the “current situation is not acceptable and inadequate measures have been taken to remedy this serious flaw.” That same issue had also motivated Beverly Hills to sue LA County in January in an effort to get a handful of changes made to the new voting machines.
“It was not intuitive. The screens with ‘more’ buttons [were] annoying and the ‘more’ button would partially cover the candidate who was listed lowest on the page,” Robinson told Recode. While the machines didn’t cause the havoc that the Iowa caucus app did, Robinson said he was disappointed with the system, given how much Los Angeles spent.
Recode reached out to Smartmatic, the company that helped design the system, which declined to comment, as well as to the Los Angeles County Registrar, which did not respond by the time of publication.
It’s not clear how widespread these problems are, but they fit into a worrisome trend in which new US voting tech comes with technical flaws or is just plain difficult to use. Already, the caucuses in Nevada and Iowa have raised concerns about whether our tech is being properly tested before elections. And these issues come amid broader concerns about the integrity of US elections infrastructure and worries of foreign interference.
Of course, we may not be prepared for every possible way Russia might try to hack our elections, but basic technical usability flaws — like the ones we’re now seeing in LA’s voting machines — probably aren’t helping our cause.
Update, March 4, 2020/11:15 am: This post has been updated with accounts, collected through our Open Sourced network, of issues voters encountered while trying to vote in Los Angeles.
Open Sourced is made possible by the Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.
Help Open Sourced’s reporting


vox--2020-03-03--Super Tuesday is Bernie Sanders’s latest test with black voters

Bernie Sanders is performing well among black voters in national polls .
In a national Reuters/Ipsos poll survey last week , for example , he beat Biden by 3 points among African American voters .
But in South Carolina on Saturday , Sanders did only slightly better with black voters there than he did in 2016 , when he lost to Hillary Clinton in a landslide .
Four years ago , Sanders came away with just 14 percent support from black voters .
And according to an early Washington Post exit poll , he got 17 percent this time around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In a primary where the ability to capture a diverse electorate is crucial to securing the nomination , the question of how well Sanders is doing with black voters could be the difference between winning and losing .
Sanders has been making the case on the campaign trail that his coalition has grown broader than ever — but many critics are wondering if that is really true , especially since the field is so crowded this time around .
“ The scrutiny is unfounded .
Sen. Sanders is polling the highest among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters , said former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner , a co-chair for Sanders ’ s campaign .
“ You win some and you lose some .
South Carolina was worth it — we tried , and we tried really hard.
” It ’ s important not to overinterpret Saturday ’ s election .
Sanders won with black voters under 30 , and the results in South Carolina — though they ’ ve been a bellwether in the past — only capture the viewpoints of voters in one state .
“ The South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Sen. Sanders ’ s optics , but black voters aren ’ t a monolith , ” says Aimee Allison , founder of She the People .
“ Super Tuesday is the real test — we have enormous , diverse states like California and Texas as well as states with multiracial electorates like North Carolina , Virginia , and Alabama.
” The primaries on Super Tuesday will likely offer a bit more information : The outcomes in several states could tell us a lot more about how Sanders is resonating with black voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after 2016 After his overwhelming victory in Nevada in mid-February , Sanders said he “ brought together a multigenerational , multiracial coalition ” and that “ it ’ s going to sweep this country.
” He won over a majority of Latino voters in Nevada in 2016 — and he was able to repeat that performance once again , picking up roughly the same proportion of backing in the state , despite the larger field .
The 2020 entrance polls also show Sanders receiving 25 percent of black voters ’ support to Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a slight uptick from 2016 when he received 22 percent to Clinton ’ s 76 percent .
South Carolina , meanwhile , presented the latest test of Sanders ’ s efforts to continue to diversify his coalition .
According to a New York Times report , the Sanders campaign called out his weakness with black voters after he suffered a bruising defeat in South Carolina last cycle .
“ The margin by which we lost the African-American vote has got to be — at the very least — cut in half or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” staffers wrote in a memo , per the Times .
The results in the state this year show some improvement amid a fractured field .
These gains are likely the result of increased familiarity with Sanders , as well as the expanded outreach his campaign has committed to in the state .
He ’ s also continued to face some of the same headwinds he did last cycle given the state ’ s older and more pragmatic electorate .
Among young black voters , Sanders continues to do well : In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the backing of black voters under 30 , according to an NBC analysis of 25 states ’ exit polls .
In South Carolina this year , he similarly beat Biden with this age group , winning 38 percent voter support while the former vice president won 36 percent .
According to a national Washington Post-Ipsos poll this past January , 42 percent of black voters ages 18 to 34 favored Sanders , compared to 30 percent who favored Biden .
Sanders ’ s approach to South Carolina was markedly different this cycle .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 40 events in South Carolina with the candidate , a key change from 2016 when political observers say he treated the state as an afterthought .
Additionally , the campaign has more than doubled its staff in state compared to the last cycle : 83 percent of staffers are people of color and 90 percent are from the state , according to Sanders ’ s South Carolina communications director Michael Wukela .
Sanders ’ s endorsements from state officials have grown , too .
He received more than 35 endorsements from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when he received fewer than 10 .
“ He continues to be competitive with younger African Americans who resonate with the call for a political revolution ; their pragmatic parents will be a challenge for him , ” says Steve Phillips , the founder of Democracy in Color and host of the organization ’ s podcast .
Growing this coalition has been a major campaign priority for Sanders .
In 2020 , there have been noticeable shifts in how Sanders has spoken about his policies , including a pointed attempt to frame them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s still received criticism for how he ’ s discussed race at times , he has also more frequently — and emphatically — highlighted the impact of discriminatory policies including cash bail and redlining .
“ I think he got strong and very clear feedback from black voters in general , and from his black supporters in general — for not naming them in his policies , ” Howard University political science professor Keneshia Grant told Vox .
Despite these changes , however , the limited gains Sanders saw in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t grow a ton in South Carolina .
“ He has been running for president for four years and he still has not been able to penetrate , ” says South Carolina strategist Clay Middleton , a former adviser for both Cory Booker ’ s and Hillary Clinton ’ s campaigns .
We ’ ll know more when the dust settles after Super Tuesday As more states vote , Sanders ’ s ability to build a more diverse base will become clearer .
It ’ s possible he does better in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carolina .
His strong national polls among black voters , including recent surveys when he surpassed Biden , hint at this outcome .
The Intercept offered a rundown of these surveys over the weekend : But we won ’ t know for sure how these polls translate to actual results until more states finish voting .
As the primary continues , we ’ ll get a better sense of whether Sanders ’ s strong polling with black voters is ultimately reflected in the final results .
“ We have every confidence that our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Super Tuesday , ” Turner told Vox .
“ We ’ re going to win in California ; we ’ ve got a good chance to win in Texas ; we ’ ve got a good chance to win North Carolina .
”

Bernie Sanders is performing well among black voters in national polls. In a national Reuters/Ipsos poll survey last week, for example, he beat Biden by 3 points among African American voters.
But in South Carolina on Saturday, Sanders did only slightly better with black voters there than he did in 2016, when he lost to Hillary Clinton in a landslide. Four years ago, Sanders came away with just 14 percent support from black voters. And according to an early Washington Post exit poll, he got 17 percent this time around, to Biden’s 61 percent.
In a primary where the ability to capture a diverse electorate is crucial to securing the nomination, the question of how well Sanders is doing with black voters could be the difference between winning and losing. Sanders has been making the case on the campaign trail that his coalition has grown broader than ever — but many critics are wondering if that is really true, especially since the field is so crowded this time around.
“The scrutiny is unfounded. Sen. Sanders is polling the highest among all the candidates nationally” among black voters, said former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner, a co-chair for Sanders’s campaign. “You win some and you lose some. South Carolina was worth it — we tried, and we tried really hard.”
Related 4 winners and 3 losers in the South Carolina Democratic primary
It’s important not to overinterpret Saturday’s election. Sanders won with black voters under 30, and the results in South Carolina — though they’ve been a bellwether in the past — only capture the viewpoints of voters in one state.
“The South Carolina results certainly weren’t great for Sen. Sanders’s optics, but black voters aren’t a monolith,” says Aimee Allison, founder of She the People. “Super Tuesday is the real test — we have enormous, diverse states like California and Texas as well as states with multiracial electorates like North Carolina, Virginia, and Alabama.”
The primaries on Super Tuesday will likely offer a bit more information: The outcomes in several states could tell us a lot more about how Sanders is resonating with black voters.
Sanders sought to expand his coalition after 2016
After his overwhelming victory in Nevada in mid-February, Sanders said he “brought together a multigenerational, multiracial coalition” and that “it’s going to sweep this country.”
He won over a majority of Latino voters in Nevada in 2016 — and he was able to repeat that performance once again, picking up roughly the same proportion of backing in the state, despite the larger field. The 2020 entrance polls also show Sanders receiving 25 percent of black voters’ support to Biden’s 36 percent in the state, a slight uptick from 2016 when he received 22 percent to Clinton’s 76 percent. South Carolina, meanwhile, presented the latest test of Sanders’s efforts to continue to diversify his coalition.
According to a New York Times report, the Sanders campaign called out his weakness with black voters after he suffered a bruising defeat in South Carolina last cycle. “The margin by which we lost the African-American vote has got to be — at the very least — cut in half or there simply is no path to victory,” staffers wrote in a memo, per the Times.
The results in the state this year show some improvement amid a fractured field. These gains are likely the result of increased familiarity with Sanders, as well as the expanded outreach his campaign has committed to in the state. He’s also continued to face some of the same headwinds he did last cycle given the state’s older and more pragmatic electorate.
Among young black voters, Sanders continues to do well: In 2016, he won 52 percent of the backing of black voters under 30, according to an NBC analysis of 25 states’ exit polls. In South Carolina this year, he similarly beat Biden with this age group, winning 38 percent voter support while the former vice president won 36 percent. According to a national Washington Post-Ipsos poll this past January, 42 percent of black voters ages 18 to 34 favored Sanders, compared to 30 percent who favored Biden.
Sanders’s approach to South Carolina was markedly different this cycle.
In 2020, the Sanders campaign held more than 40 events in South Carolina with the candidate, a key change from 2016 when political observers say he treated the state as an afterthought. Additionally, the campaign has more than doubled its staff in state compared to the last cycle: 83 percent of staffers are people of color and 90 percent are from the state, according to Sanders’s South Carolina communications director Michael Wukela. Sanders’s endorsements from state officials have grown, too. He received more than 35 endorsements from state officials, compared to 2016, when he received fewer than 10.
“He continues to be competitive with younger African Americans who resonate with the call for a political revolution; their pragmatic parents will be a challenge for him,” says Steve Phillips, the founder of Democracy in Color and host of the organization’s podcast.
Growing this coalition has been a major campaign priority for Sanders. In 2020, there have been noticeable shifts in how Sanders has spoken about his policies, including a pointed attempt to frame them in a more intersectional way. While he’s still received criticism for how he’s discussed race at times, he has also more frequently — and emphatically — highlighted the impact of discriminatory policies including cash bail and redlining.
“I think he got strong and very clear feedback from black voters in general, and from his black supporters in general — for not naming them in his policies,” Howard University political science professor Keneshia Grant told Vox.
Despite these changes, however, the limited gains Sanders saw in the state highlight the concern that his base didn’t grow a ton in South Carolina.
“He has been running for president for four years and he still has not been able to penetrate,” says South Carolina strategist Clay Middleton, a former adviser for both Cory Booker’s and Hillary Clinton’s campaigns.
We’ll know more when the dust settles after Super Tuesday
As more states vote, Sanders’s ability to build a more diverse base will become clearer.
It’s possible he does better in other places than he did in South Carolina. His strong national polls among black voters, including recent surveys when he surpassed Biden, hint at this outcome. The Intercept offered a rundown of these surveys over the weekend:
But we won’t know for sure how these polls translate to actual results until more states finish voting. As the primary continues, we’ll get a better sense of whether Sanders’s strong polling with black voters is ultimately reflected in the final results.
“We have every confidence that our campaign is going to do very well in the Super Tuesday,” Turner told Vox. “We’re going to win in California; we’ve got a good chance to win in Texas; we’ve got a good chance to win North Carolina.”


vox--2020-03-03--Coronavirus in the US: Tracking cases and deaths

Since December 31 , when China first reported cases of the novel coronavirus disease to the World Health Organization , it has spread to dozens of countries around the world , including the United States .
Now , there are more than 92,000 confirmed cases of Covid-19 worldwide , with major outbreaks in mainland China , South Korea , Iran , and Italy .
Covid-19 initially arrived in the US in two ways .
First , infected people returned to the US from China , where the virus originated and where the vast majority of cases have been reported .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone who had been to China or to another country with Covid-19 .
Since February 28 , new cases of Covid-19 have been reported in the US with no link to travel , which means the disease has been spreading inside the country .
In February , there was little testing done by the US , and many of the original test kits the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) sent out could not be validated by testing labs .
Another problem was that the testing was focused only on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On February 28 , the CDC said the problem with the kits was fixed , and it was sending kits to labs around the country along with new , expanded testing criteria .
All state and local public health labs , as well as qualified private labs , are expected to be able to test by the end of this week , USA Today reports .
Health experts say this means the number of cases will rise in the coming weeks .
It doesn ’ t mean the virus is spreading any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ member at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center , said on Twitter that case numbers are rising because there is “ likely a backlog of cases to be detected ” : When including those repatriated from the Diamond Princess cruise ship , there are more than 100 cases that have been reported across the United States .
We ’ ll update this post as more cases are reported and more information becomes available .
Reported cases , reported deaths , and recovered cases [ as of March 3 , 4:27 pm ] : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johns Hopkins and the CDC .
The numbers reported may vary depending on the source and are updated frequently .
These numbers don ’ t include the 45 repatriated cases from the Diamond Princess cruise ship .

Editor’s note: This article is not currently being updated. You can find updates on US case counts, deaths, and testing with our new tracker and the latest case counts on this Johns Hopkins tracker. Or follow Vox’s coverage of the coronavirus outbreak here.
Since December 31, when China first reported cases of the novel coronavirus disease to the World Health Organization, it has spread to dozens of countries around the world, including the United States. As of March 18, there are more than 205,000 confirmed cases of Covid-19 worldwide, with major outbreaks in mainland China, Italy, Spain, Iran, and South Korea.
Including those repatriated from the Diamond Princess cruise ship, more than 6,500 cases have been reported across the United States.
Covid-19 initially arrived in the US in two ways. First, infected people returned to the US from China, where the virus originated and where the vast majority of cases have been reported. Second, people came into contact with someone who had been to China or to another country with Covid-19. Since February 28, new cases of Covid-19 have been reported in the US with no link to travel, which means the disease has been spreading inside the country.
In February, there was little testing done by the US, and many of the original test kits the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sent out could not be validated by testing labs. Another problem was that the testing was focused only on people who’d been to China.
On February 28, the CDC said the problem with the kits was fixed, and it was sending kits to labs around the country along with new, expanded testing criteria. Testing has still been slow to roll out, however.
Health experts say this means the number of cases will rise in the coming weeks. That doesn’t mean the virus is spreading any faster.
Trevor Bradford, an associate member at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, tweeted that case numbers are rising because there is “likely a backlog of cases to be detected”:
Because of the lack of national testing that had been going on, there is likely a backlog of cases to be detected. As this backlog gets cleared, case counts are going to rise quickly. But please remember that reported cases aren’t newly acquired infections. 3/4 — Trevor Bedford (@trvrb) March 2, 2020
We’ll update this post as more cases are reported and more information becomes available.
Reported cases, reported deaths, and recovered cases (as of March 18, 11:38 am Eastern):
California:
6519 cases
cases 13 deaths
6 out of 6519 recovered
New York:
1717 cases
cases 16 deaths
Washington state:
1041 cases
55 deaths
1 out of 1041 recovered
New Jersey:
267 cases
3 deaths
Massachusetts:
218 cases
1 out of 218 recovered
Florida:
217 cases
cases 7 deaths
Louisiana
196 cases
4 deaths
Colorado
185 cases
cases 2 deaths
Illinois:
161 cases
1 death
2 out of 161 recovered
Georgia:
147 cases
1 death
Texas:
132 cases
2 deaths
Pennsylvania:
115 cases
Wisconsin:
90 cases
1 out of 90 recovered
Tennessee
78 cases
Connecticut:
68 cases
Oregon:
68 cases
2 deaths
Ohio
67 cases
Virginia
67 cases
2 deaths
Michigan
66 cases
North Carolina
66 cases
Maryland:
60 cases
Minnesota
60 cases
Nevada
56 cases
1 death
Utah
51 cases
South Carolina:
47 cases
1 death
Alabama
39 cases
Maine
32 cases
District of Columbia
31 cases
Indiana
30 cases
2 deaths
Iowa
29 cases
Kentucky
27 cases
1 death
New Hampshire:
26 cases
Nebraska
24 cases
New Mexico
23 cases
Rhode Island:
23 cases
Arkansas
22 case
Mississippi
22 cases
Arizona:
21 cases
1 out of 21 recovered
Oklahoma
19 cases
Kansas
18 cases
1 death
Vermont
17 cases
Delaware
16 case
Missouri
16 cases
Wyoming
15 cases
Hawaii
14 cases
South Dakota
11 cases
1 death
Montana
10 cases
Idaho
9 cases
North Dakota
5 cases
West Virginia
1 case
This data is based on reports from Johns Hopkins and the CDC. The numbers reported may vary depending on the source.
These numbers don’t include the 46 repatriated cases from the Diamond Princess cruise ship.


vox--2020-03-03--Facebook’s top news stories are like a window into an alternate dimension

There are a lot of consequential and important things going on .
Not only is today Super Tuesday , but Americans are on edge about the spread of the novel coronavirus that could reach pandemic proportions .
But if you consume your news on Facebook , the biggest news of the day has to do with Hillary Clinton ’ s emails .
Yes , really .
According to data compiled by CrowdTangle , the most total interactions on Facebook came on a Fox News article about a federal judge granting a request from a right-wing group named Judicial Watch to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about her use of a private email server when she was secretary of state .
In fact , as this is written early Tuesday afternoon , stories from right-wing sources about Clinton ’ s emails represent three of the top 10 and five of the 20 top-performing news stories on Facebook over the past 24 hours .
The No .
4 story of the day is one about Clinton ’ s emails from Breitbart , and the eighth-ranked story is one on the same topic from Dan Bongino ’ s website .
Coverage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ben Shapiro also appear in the top 20 .
What you won ’ t find in Facebook ’ s top 20 news stories , however , is Super Tuesday coverage , anything published by a left-of-center outlet , or anything that ’ s critical of President Donald Trump or his administration .
Here ’ s a look at the full top 20 Facebook stories : Facebook has been reluctant to crack down on right-wing media What explains the predominance of right-wing outlets on Facebook ?
According to Judd Legum , who reports extensively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , part of the answer has to do with the sort of content that ’ s optimized for Facebook .
“ Facebook is optimized for Trump supporters , ” Legum wrote in a direct message .
“ It rewards engagement , which mostly reflects an emotional reaction to things .
Support for Trump is largely emotional , not factual .
So pro-Trump content does very very well.
” Chicanery could also be playing a role .
Legum has detailed how Ben Shapiro ’ s Daily Wire spreads its content around Facebook with help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large Facebook pages that purport to be independent but exclusively promote content from The Daily Wire in a coordinated fashion.
” That sort of “ inauthentic coordinated behavior ” seemingly violates Facebook rules , but the Daily Wire gets away with it anyway .
Parker Molloy , editor at large for Media Matters , argued that Facebook “ is essentially afraid of conservatives , ” and noted that the group of third-party sites that fact-check news posts for the network includes right-wing ones like the Daily Caller and Breitbart .
“ Facebook gives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agenda , ” Molloy told Vox .
The irony is that even as the right wing dominates the news marketplaces on Facebook , Republicans like Donald Trump Jr. , House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy , and Sen. Josh Hawley continue to push baseless conspiracy theories about Republicans being victimized by left-wing bias among the social media and tech behemoths .
During last week ’ s Conservative Political Action Conference ( CPAC ) , for instance , Trump Jr. , McCarthy , and Hawley hosted an event in which the president ’ s son @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook , of being biased against Republicans because he searched his handle and couldn ’ t quickly find his account — a development he attributed to Instagram execs trying to silence him .
Despite what Don Jr. would have you believe , conservatives ’ voices are the loudest on Facebook .
According to an investigation put together last year by David Uberti for Vice : The news moves fast .
To stay updated , follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter , and read more of Vox ’ s policy and politics coverage .

There are a lot of consequential and important things going on. Not only is today Super Tuesday, but Americans are on edge about the spread of the novel coronavirus that could reach pandemic proportions.
But if you consume your news on Facebook, the biggest news of the day has to do with Hillary Clinton’s emails. Yes, really.
According to data compiled by CrowdTangle, the most total interactions on Facebook came on a Fox News article about a federal judge granting a request from a right-wing group named Judicial Watch to make Clinton sit for a sworn deposition about her use of a private email server when she was secretary of state.
In fact, as this is written early Tuesday afternoon, stories from right-wing sources about Clinton’s emails represent three of the top 10 and five of the 20 top-performing news stories on Facebook over the past 24 hours. The No. 4 story of the day is one about Clinton’s emails from Breitbart, and the eighth-ranked story is one on the same topic from Dan Bongino’s website. Coverage of her emails from National Review and Ben Shapiro also appear in the top 20.
What you won’t find in Facebook’s top 20 news stories, however, is Super Tuesday coverage, anything published by a left-of-center outlet, or anything that’s critical of President Donald Trump or his administration.
Here’s a look at the full top 20 Facebook stories:
1 — Fox News story about Clinton’s emails 2 — CNN story about Australian wildfires 3 — CNN story about coronavirus 4 — Breitbart story about Clinton’s emails 5 — Daily Mail story about new Krispy Kreme doughnut 6 — Fox News story about Monday’s stock market rebound 7 — Ben Shapiro story on Monday’s stock market rebound 8 — Dan Bongino story on Clinton’s emails 9 — Fox News story comparing Bernie Sanders with Hugo Chávez 10 — CNN story on Apple iPhone settlement 11 — Fox News story about Chris Matthews’s retirement 12 — Robert Reich’s post on CNN story about John Lewis’s surprise appearance in Selma 13 — National Review story about Clinton’s emails 14 — BBC News story on Putin trying to ban same-sex marriage in Russia 15 — Bernie Sanders post with link to polling places info 16 — NBC News story story about UPS worker planning mass shooting 17 — TMZ story about Kobe Bryant’s death 18 — Ben Shapiro story on Clinton’s emails 19 — Dan Bongino story about Devin Nunes wanting to subpoena law enforcement and intelligence community officials 20 — NBC story about coronavirus
Facebook has been reluctant to crack down on right-wing media
What explains the predominance of right-wing outlets on Facebook? According to Judd Legum, who reports extensively on Facebook in his Popular Information newsletter, part of the answer has to do with the sort of content that’s optimized for Facebook.
“Facebook is optimized for Trump supporters,” Legum wrote in a direct message. “It rewards engagement, which mostly reflects an emotional reaction to things. Support for Trump is largely emotional, not factual. So pro-Trump content does very very well.”
Chicanery could also be playing a role. Legum has detailed how Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire spreads its content around Facebook with help from “a clandestine network of 14 large Facebook pages that purport to be independent but exclusively promote content from The Daily Wire in a coordinated fashion.” That sort of “inauthentic coordinated behavior” seemingly violates Facebook rules, but the Daily Wire gets away with it anyway.
Parker Molloy, editor at large for Media Matters, argued that Facebook “is essentially afraid of conservatives,” and noted that the group of third-party sites that fact-check news posts for the network includes right-wing ones like the Daily Caller and Breitbart.
“Facebook gives them free rein to set the online agenda,” Molloy told Vox.
The irony is that even as the right wing dominates the news marketplaces on Facebook, Republicans like Donald Trump Jr., House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and Sen. Josh Hawley continue to push baseless conspiracy theories about Republicans being victimized by left-wing bias among the social media and tech behemoths.
During last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), for instance, Trump Jr., McCarthy, and Hawley hosted an event in which the president’s son accused Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, of being biased against Republicans because he searched his handle and couldn’t quickly find his account — a development he attributed to Instagram execs trying to silence him.
Nobody in the world cares more about Instagram's UX than Donald Trump Jr pic.twitter.com/gAaCSfv8Xr — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 28, 2020
Despite what Don Jr. would have you believe, conservatives’ voices are the loudest on Facebook. According to an investigation put together last year by David Uberti for Vice:
Fox News’ main Facebook page, with 17 million followers, has racked up 80 percent more reactions, comments, and shares than CNN, which has 31 million followers. The Fox page’s engagement rate — the average number of engagements per post per follower — was higher than any major news organization over the same period, and some five times that of The New York Times.
The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.


vox--2020-03-03--Why Elizabeth Warren is staying in the race

Sen. Elizabeth Warren seems like she ’ s going to persist her way to the convention — and that could have some important implications for how the 2020 Democratic primary plays out .
Moderates appear to be rallying around former Vice President Joe Biden .
Sen. Amy Klobuchar and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg dropped out and endorsed him in an attempt to consolidate the anti-Sen. Bernie Sanders coalition .
That ’ s potentially a problem for the left .
“ Moderates consolidating their support around Biden and progressives remaining still a little bit more divided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideal situation , ” said Julian NoiseCat , vice president of policy and strategy at the progressive think tank Data for Progress .
Pressure is mounting on Warren to drop out as well , but so far , she seems determined to stick with it .
Warren ’ s campaign rolled out a lengthy memo over the weekend about her plans to continue throughout the spring and summer .
What Warren deciding to stay in the race means isn ’ t as clear-cut as you might think — voters aren ’ t super-ideological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of her supporters ’ second choice , nor are all the Buttigieg and Klobuchar backers going to go to Biden .
“ Possibly the biggest beneficiary of Pete and Amy suspending their campaigns is Elizabeth Warren , ” said Adam Green , co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee , which backs Warren .
“ She , in general , was people ’ s first or second choice , but she was also particularly Amy and Pete [ voters ’ ] second choice.
” Warren spent the closing weeks of the campaign casting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring together the progressive and moderate wings of the party .
She ’ s finally getting the race she wanted , and she ’ s not stopping now .
At least not yet .
What Warren is doing Warren ’ s strategy appears to hinge on a brokered Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee this summer .
“ As the dust settles after March 3 , the reality of this race will be clear : No candidate will likely have a path to the majority of delegates needed to win an outright claim to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manager Roger Lau wrote in a recent memo .
“ In the road to the nomination , the Wisconsin primary is halftime , and the convention in Milwaukee is the final play.
” Warren being one of the last candidates left standing is exactly the scenario her campaign envisioned .
The fact that it happened the day before Super Tuesday could be even better .
As she ’ s now the top woman candidate in the race , pollsters are waiting to see if more women voters back Warren .
“ She has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where she consolidates and gets women across the country to support her , ” said Suffolk University pollster David Paleologos .
Warren ’ s ability to do well on Super Tuesday hinges on doing well in delegate-rich states like California , Colorado , and Virginia .
She doesn ’ t even necessarily have to win — she just has to clear the 15 percent threshold and get a significant enough amount of delegates to deny either Sanders or Biden the nomination outright .
Warren ’ s campaign did not respond to a request @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We believe that Super Tuesday will greatly winnow this field and it will become clear that only a few candidates will have a viable path to the Democratic nomination — and Elizabeth Warren will be one of them , ” Lau said in his memo .
A symbol of this strategy plays out in her home state of Massachusetts , which votes Tuesday and has a not-insignificant 91 delegates .
A Saturday Suffolk University/The Boston Globe/WBZ-TV poll found Warren in a statistical tie with Sanders , and an earlier WBUR poll found Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessary caveat with these polls is that Klobuchar and Buttigieg have since dropped out , which could change the numbers significantly ) .
If she can essentially split the delegates in Massachusetts with Sanders , plus pick up some in Colorado , California , and Washington state , that makes Warren a player in a brokered convention scenario .
These are all states with large numbers of college-educated white voters , which is a key demographic for her .
Though she has potential to do well with women , one of Warren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ races in Massachusetts is winning over men .
While she has high favorability ratings among women , it ’ s much lower among men — especially independent men in her home state .
Warren has underperformed with independent men in her past 2012 and 2018 Senate races , and the demographic is continuing to be problematic for her .
“ Warren would win the Massachusetts primary [ on Tuesday ] if only women were voting , ” Paleologos said .
“ She was tied for fourth place in her home state among men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demographics in Massachusetts that are strong and uncontested.
” That could also spell trouble for her strategy in other states as well , especially running against Sanders and Biden .
Some progressives are heavily hinting Warren should drop out Still , Warren and Sanders are close enough ideologically that many think Warren staying in helps Biden .
She does this in two ways , said Dave Wasserman , editor of the Cook Political Report .
“ First , more of Warren ’ s support would go to Sanders than Biden .
Second , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in California and other states , it limits Sanders ’ s delegate haul in places where he ’ d otherwise romp , ” he said .
That is causing some hand-wringing from some prominent progressives who endorsed Sanders .
Without mentioning Warren ’ s name , Evan Weber , the political director of the youth climate group the Sunrise Movement , tweeted , “ Corporate Democrats are consolidating , what ’ s our strategy ?
” “ The Warren campaign has clearly invested a lot into Super Tuesday ... so I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her to drop out before Super Tuesday , and I don ’ t think she will , ” Weber told Vox in an interview .
“ But at the same time , it is clear the establishment of the Democratic Party is increasingly getting scared about the chances of a progressive nomination — in particular a Sanders nomination — and seem to be consolidating their support around either Joe Biden or Michael Bloomberg.
” While Weber and others aren ’ t yet openly calling for Warren to drop out , progressive activists want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their attacks on Biden and Bloomberg , not each other .
“ Sen .
Warren has been an ally of the progressive movement throughout her entire career , ” said Alexandra Rojas , executive director of Justice Democrats , in a statement to Vox .
“ But I hope she stops attacking Sen. Sanders and publicly commits to give her delegates to him if he has more votes to ensure a progressive wins the nomination .
I ’ d say the same to Bernie.
” After referring to each other as “ friends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Warren and Sanders had a very public rift in January after Warren confirmed a report that Sanders told her in a 2018 meeting he believed a woman couldn ’ t win in 2020 .
Progressive groups that have endorsed both Warren and Sanders have been trying to keep tensions down and channels of communication open .
But at least one progressive leader openly wondered whether Warren would endorse Sanders if she dropped out .
“ I think there would be concern if she didn ’ t continue that there might not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Larry Cohen , board chairman for Sanders-affiliated group Our Revolution .
“ The nature of these campaigns turns it into the campaign as an end .
...
It ’ s not an end , it facilitates change in the country.
” Some establishment types who are worried about whether Sanders is “ electable ” might prefer a race without Warren in it , too .
If they think Biden is the best one to take on democratic socialist from Vermont and figure that at least some of her support will go to him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ muddling the race , either .
“ The mainstream is convinced that a Sanders nomination tanks the presidency and their potential to pick up the Senate , ” said Rachel Bitecofer , a political scientist at the Niskanen Center .
“ I would guess that they are putting a lot of pressure on her , too.
” Many Warren supporters would go to Sanders , but not all of them .
According to Morning Consult , Sanders is the second choice for 40 percent of Warren backers , but Biden and Buttigieg would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Klobuchar 12 percent .
With Buttigieg and Klobuchar out of the race , Biden could very well be their next choice .
Green says Warren remaining in the race is actually staving off the potential flow of some of her supporters to Biden .
“ If she were out , some of her supporters would flow to Biden , so Bernie people are shooting themselves in the foot on multiple fronts by urging Warren to get out , ” Green said .
“ They should want her to [ be ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so they don ’ t flow to Biden.
” Warren is objectively the most competent candidate in the 2020 race .
She has a unique and impressive résumé , is a talented campaigner , and her pages upon pages of plans have set much of the direction of the primary .
And at least for a while , voters were taking notice in 2019 when she began to rise in the polls .
If she drops out of the 2020 contest , there will certainly be a lot of questions about what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get sustainable traction among voters .
And , inevitably , the role of misogyny and how it plays into what people think is “ electable ” is a factor as well .
“ Elizabeth Warren has obviously stood for many of the right causes and gotten a lot of amazing things done throughout her career .
It ’ s also fair to say that some of the attacks on her from both moderates and the left were quite unfair , ” NoiseCat said .
“ It ’ s also , at the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t get a shot.
” Just from an aesthetic perspective , it will seem like Biden is surging , whatever the actual votes are .
Sanders could use an endorsement to give his campaign a bit of a boost , at least narrative-wise , and Warren could do that .
Of course , Warren ’ s job is to focus on herself , not to save Sanders or Biden .
Becoming the sensible third option is the race she wanted to run .
The question now is if voters don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does she stay in ?
Though her base was never as big as Sanders ’ s , she articulated a clear vision , and many of her followers genuinely believe in it .
“ There could be significant underlying feeling among people who are pretty engaged in politics , particularly young leftists , that she played a role in undermining Bernie ’ s path to the nomination , ” NoiseCat said .
“ And I think that would be really unfortunate.
” Correction : An earlier version of this story included Washington as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on March 10 .

Sen. Elizabeth Warren wants to persist her way to the convention — and even though Super Tuesday did not go as she had hoped, how long she stays in could have some important implications for how the 2020 Democratic primary plays out.
Moderates appear to be rallying around former Vice President Joe Biden. Sen. Amy Klobuchar and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg dropped out and endorsed him in an attempt to consolidate the anti-Sen. Bernie Sanders coalition. That’s potentially a problem for the left.
“Moderates consolidating their support around Biden and progressives remaining still a little bit more divided between Warren and Sanders is not an ideal situation,” said Julian NoiseCat, vice president of policy and strategy at the progressive think tank Data for Progress.
Pressure is mounting on Warren to drop out as well, but so far, she seems determined to stick with it, though it’s unclear how her performance on Super Tuesday, including a third-place finish in her home state of Massachusetts, may change her calculation. Warren’s campaign rolled out a lengthy memo over the weekend about her plans to continue throughout the spring and summer.
What Warren deciding to stay in the race means isn’t as clear-cut as you might think — voters aren’t super-ideological, and Sanders isn’t all of her supporters’ second choice, nor are all the Buttigieg and Klobuchar backers going to go to Biden.
“Possibly the biggest beneficiary of Pete and Amy suspending their campaigns is Elizabeth Warren,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which backs Warren. “She, in general, was people’s first or second choice, but she was also particularly Amy and Pete [voters’] second choice.”
Warren spent the closing weeks of the campaign casting herself as the unity candidate that can bring together the progressive and moderate wings of the party.
She’s finally getting the race she wanted, and she’s not stopping now. At least not yet.
What Warren is doing
Warren’s strategy appears to hinge on a brokered Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee this summer.
“As the dust settles after March 3, the reality of this race will be clear: No candidate will likely have a path to the majority of delegates needed to win an outright claim to the Democratic nomination,” her campaign manager Roger Lau wrote in a recent memo. “In the road to the nomination, the Wisconsin primary is halftime, and the convention in Milwaukee is the final play.”
Warren being one of the last candidates left standing is exactly the scenario her campaign envisioned. The fact that it happened the day before Super Tuesday could be even better. As she’s now the top woman candidate in the race, pollsters are waiting to see if more women voters back Warren.
“She has the ability to potentially find a path where she consolidates and gets women across the country to support her,” said Suffolk University pollster David Paleologos.
Warren’s ability to do well on Super Tuesday hinged on good performances in delegate-rich states like California, Colorado, and Virginia, which at least at this point appears not to have happened. She still doesn’t even necessarily have to win — she just has to clear the 15 percent threshold in California and get a significant enough number of delegates to deny either Sanders or Biden the nomination outright.
Warren’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
“We believe that Super Tuesday will greatly winnow this field and it will become clear that only a few candidates will have a viable path to the Democratic nomination — and Elizabeth Warren will be one of them,” Lau said in his memo.
A symbol of this strategy played out in her home state of Massachusetts, which voted Tuesday and has a not-insignificant 91 delegates. A Saturday Suffolk University/The Boston Globe/WBZ-TV poll found Warren in a statistical tie with Sanders, and an earlier WBUR poll found Sanders 8 points ahead of Warren (a necessary caveat with these polls is that Klobuchar and Buttigieg have since dropped out, which could change the numbers significantly). But on Tuesday, Biden won the state with Sanders in second, meaning Warren was in third.
Warren will still get some delegates in Massachusetts, plus she may pick up some in Colorado, Minnesota, and California, and that makes her a player in a brokered convention scenario. These are states with large numbers of college-educated white voters, which is a key demographic for her.
Though she has potential to do well with women, one of Warren’s consistent problems in her past Senate races in Massachusetts is winning over male voters. While she has high favorability ratings among women, it’s much lower among men — especially independent men in her home state. Warren underperformed with independent men in her 2012 and 2018 Senate races, and the demographic is continuing to be problematic for her.
“Warren would win the Massachusetts primary [on Tuesday] if only women were voting,” Paleologos said ahead of the primary. “She was tied for fourth place in her home state among men. The problem is Sanders really has demographics in Massachusetts that are strong and uncontested.”
That could also spell trouble for her strategy in other states as well, especially running against Sanders and Biden.
Some progressives are heavily hinting that Warren should drop out
Still, Warren and Sanders are close enough ideologically that many think Warren staying in helps Biden. She does this in two ways, said Dave Wasserman, editor of the Cook Political Report. “First, more of Warren’s support would go to Sanders than Biden. Second, if she hits the 15 percent threshold in California and other states, it limits Sanders’s delegate haul in places where he’d otherwise romp,” he said.
That is causing some hand-wringing from some prominent progressives who endorsed Sanders. Without mentioning Warren’s name, Evan Weber, the political director of the youth climate group the Sunrise Movement, tweeted, “Corporate Democrats are consolidating, what’s our strategy?”
I’m worried about what Klobuchar endorsing Biden means for the progressive movement and our chances to win governing power.
Corporate Democrats are consolidating, what’s our strategy? — Evan Weber (@evanlweber) March 2, 2020
“The Warren campaign has clearly invested a lot into Super Tuesday ... so I don’t think it would make sense for her to drop out before Super Tuesday, and I don’t think she will,” Weber told Vox in an interview. “But at the same time, it is clear the establishment of the Democratic Party is increasingly getting scared about the chances of a progressive nomination — in particular a Sanders nomination — and seem to be consolidating their support around either Joe Biden or Michael Bloomberg.”
While Weber and others aren’t yet openly calling for Warren to drop out, progressive activists want to make sure Warren and Sanders sharpen their attacks on Biden and Bloomberg, not each other.
“Sen. Warren has been an ally of the progressive movement throughout her entire career,” said Alexandra Rojas, executive director of Justice Democrats, in a statement to Vox. “But I hope she stops attacking Sen. Sanders and publicly commits to give her delegates to him if he has more votes to ensure a progressive wins the nomination. I’d say the same to Bernie.”
After referring to each other as “friends” for much of the 2020 primary, Warren and Sanders had a very public rift in January after Warren confirmed a report that Sanders told her in a 2018 meeting he believed a woman couldn’t win in 2020, which Sanders denied. Progressive groups that have endorsed both Warren and Sanders have been trying to keep tensions down and channels of communication open. But at least one progressive leader openly wondered whether Warren would endorse Sanders if she dropped out.
“I think there would be concern if she didn’t continue that there might not be an endorsement at all,” said Larry Cohen, board chairman for Sanders-affiliated group Our Revolution. “The nature of these campaigns turns it into the campaign as an end. ... It’s not an end, it facilitates change in the country.”
Some establishment types who are worried about whether Sanders is “electable” might prefer a race without Warren in it, too. If they think Biden is the best one to take on democratic socialist from Vermont and figure that at least some of her support will go to him, they don’t want her muddling the race, either. “The mainstream is convinced that a Sanders nomination tanks the presidency and their potential to pick up the Senate,” said Rachel Bitecofer, a political scientist at the Niskanen Center. “I would guess that they are putting a lot of pressure on her, too.”
Many Warren supporters would go to Sanders, but not all of them. According to Morning Consult, Sanders is the second choice for 40 percent of Warren backers, but Biden and Buttigieg would pick up 16 percent of her supporters, and Klobuchar 12 percent. With Buttigieg and Klobuchar out of the race, Biden could very well be their next choice.
Green says Warren remaining in the race is actually staving off the potential flow of some of her supporters to Biden.
“If she were out, some of her supporters would flow to Biden, so Bernie people are shooting themselves in the foot on multiple fronts by urging Warren to get out,” Green said. “They should want her to [be] a magnet for Amy and Pete supporters, so they don’t flow to Biden.”
Did Warren get a fair shake?
Warren is the most competent candidate in the 2020 race. She has a unique and impressive résumé, is a talented campaigner, and her pages upon pages of plans have set much of the direction of the primary. And at least for a while, voters were taking notice in 2019 when she began to rise in the polls.
If she drops out of the 2020 contest, there will certainly be a lot of questions about what happened and why she was unable to get sustainable traction among voters. And, inevitably, the role of misogyny and how it plays into what people think is “electable” is a factor as well.
“Elizabeth Warren has obviously stood for many of the right causes and gotten a lot of amazing things done throughout her career. It’s also fair to say that some of the attacks on her from both moderates and the left were quite unfair,” NoiseCat said. “It’s also, at the same time, hard to say that she didn’t get a shot.”
From an aesthetic perspective, it seems in many ways like Biden is surging, whatever the actual votes are. Sanders could use an endorsement to give his campaign a bit of a boost, at least narrative-wise, and Warren could do that.
Of course, Warren’s job is to focus on herself, not to save Sanders or Biden. Becoming the sensible third option is the race she wanted to run. The question now is if voters don’t move to her, how long does she stay in? Though her base was never as big as Sanders’s, she articulated a clear vision, and many of her followers genuinely believe in it.
“There could be significant underlying feeling among people who are pretty engaged in politics, particularly young leftists, that she played a role in undermining Bernie’s path to the nomination,” NoiseCat said. “And I think that would be really unfortunate.”
Correction: An earlier version of this story included Washington as a Super Tuesday state. It votes on March 10.
Listen to Today, Explained
Vox’s Andrew Prokop runs through Super Tuesday results, before Vox’s Laura McGann explains Vice President Biden’s “Joementum.”
Subscribe to Today, Explained wherever you get your podcasts, including: Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify and Stitcher.


vox--2020-03-03--Pete Buttigieg’s candidacy meant a lot to LGBTQ Christians like me

“ The time has come for more of a religious left to emerge in our country that lets people know they are not alone when they look at faith , ” former 2020 candidate Pete Buttigieg said nearly a year ago .
Buttigieg dropped out of the Democratic presidential race on Sunday , but he will go down in history for more than being the first openly gay man to mount a major presidential campaign .
Another lasting impact he will have on American politics : his vocal embrace of his faith .
This aspect of his campaign moved me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was also an incredibly important moment of representation for people who are both religious and part of the LGBTQ community .
LGBTQ people of faith are often erased from our public discourse that portrays LGBTQ rights as mutually exclusive from religious belief .
Buttigieg campaigning with his husband Chasten by his side , and quoting the Bible at every turn , busted that narrative wide open .
Buttigieg spoke about his faith in personal and political terms .
The former South Bend mayor found his faith as a student on a Rhodes scholarship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returning to Indiana , he became a member of the Cathedral of St. James , part of the Episcopal Church .
He and Chasten were married there , a step Buttigieg said moved him “ closer to God.
” The denomination had evolved on same-sex marriage and even elected an openly gay bishop , the Right Rev .
Gene Robinson .
“ The natural weapon against a gay man is religion , ” Robinson told CNN .
“ By appropriating religion and being an authentically Christian person , [ Buttigieg ] has robbed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him.
” The political dimension of Buttigieg ’ s faith and sexuality featured prominently on the campaign trail .
In response to a debate question about his outreach to black Americans — a topic of consistent and deserved criticism he faced during his campaign — he responded by talking about his faith and sexuality leading him to care about all forms of oppression .
“ I care about this because my faith teaches me that salvation has to do with how I make myself useful to those who have been excluded , marginalized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society , ” Buttigieg said at the November debate .
“ Wearing this wedding ring in a way that couldn ’ t have happened two elections ago lets me know just how deep my obligation is to help those whose rights are on the line every day , even if they are nothing like me in their experience.
” He was also outspoken about those who weaponize religion as cover for their anti-LGBTQ policies .
“ That ’ s the thing that I wish the Mike Pences of the world would understand , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s anti-LGBTQ record .
“ That if you have a problem with who I am , your problem is not with me .
Your quarrel , sir , is with my creator.
” He also criticized Pence for his response to an HIV outbreak in Indiana , saying at a CNN town hall that Pence ’ s resistance to act “ was completely ideological.
” But the criticism around faith and politics wasn ’ t just directed at Republicans .
It was also aimed at progressives ’ reluctance to talk about religion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfortunate [ the Democratic Party ] has lost touch with a religious tradition that I think can help explain and relate our values , ” he told the Washington Post .
“ At least in my interpretation , it helps to root [ in religion ] a lot of what it is we do believe in , when it comes to protecting the sick and the stranger and the poor , as well as skepticism of the wealthy and the powerful and the established.
” Buttigieg isn ’ t alone in helping progressives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the public square .
Cory Booker and Julián Castro spoke about faith frequently during their bids for the Democratic nomination .
And just last week , New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez delivered a stirring defense of LGBTQ rights as consistent with her Catholic faith during a US House Oversight Committee hearing .
Like Ocasio-Cortez and most Democrats , most religious Americans support LGBTQ rights .
According to the Public Religion Research Institute ( PRRI ) , majorities of all religious groups in the United States — from Protestants to Muslims — are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people from discrimination in jobs , housing , and public accommodations .
The nonprofit research group also found that “ majorities of every major religious group report becoming more supportive of transgender rights over the last five years.
” Support for LGBTQ rights from all people of faith is important , but religious LGBTQ people claiming our space in public helps undermine the false notion that our faith and sexual orientation or gender identity are in conflict .
Representation matters .
“ We send a message to every kid out there wondering if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are somehow destined to be less than , ” Buttigieg said in his speech suspending his campaign .
“ To see that someone who once felt that exact same way can become a leading American presidential candidate with his husband by his side.
” In the end , Buttigieg ’ s candidacy showed there is strong interest in revitalizing the religious left in America .
He outperformed expectations , and his overt religious appeals attracted attention to his campaign .
While the religious right has monopolized the public ’ s understanding of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religious voter ” by investing in political and media organizations such as the Christian Broadcasting Network and Values Voter Summit , its efforts dwarf what exists on the religious left in size , funding , media attention , and political embrace — and all the opportunities that could bring for LGBTQ acceptance .
Buttigieg ’ s future in politics will face tests of his support with people of color ; he also faced criticism from within the LGBTQ community during his presidential run .
But political prospects aside , he can also make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can serve as an unofficial faith ambassador to help counter the right ’ s distorted use of religion to harm LGBTQ people — including in many areas of life such as housing , employment , and health care .
Then there is the personal impact the former candidate has had : Buttigieg ’ s campaign made me feel less alone in a culture that tells us LGBTQ people and people of faith are competing groups with no overlapping membership .
He inspired me to speak up more about how my Christian faith leads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope other LGBTQ people of faith will be inspired to claim our space in the media and politics .
We exist .
We ’ re not alone .
We can even run for president .
Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons is a fellow with the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress and the author of the forthcoming book Just Faith : Reclaiming Progressive Christianity .

“The time has come for more of a religious left to emerge in our country that lets people know they are not alone when they look at faith,” former 2020 candidate Pete Buttigieg said nearly a year ago.
Buttigieg dropped out of the Democratic presidential race on Sunday, but he will go down in history for more than being the first openly gay man to mount a major presidential campaign. Another lasting impact he will have on American politics: his vocal embrace of his faith. This aspect of his campaign moved me as a gay progressive Christian. It was also an incredibly important moment of representation for people who are both religious and part of the LGBTQ community.
LGBTQ people of faith are often erased from our public discourse that portrays LGBTQ rights as mutually exclusive from religious belief. Buttigieg campaigning with his husband Chasten by his side, and quoting the Bible at every turn, busted that narrative wide open. Buttigieg spoke about his faith in personal and political terms.
The former South Bend mayor found his faith as a student on a Rhodes scholarship in Oxford, England, and upon returning to Indiana, he became a member of the Cathedral of St. James, part of the Episcopal Church. He and Chasten were married there, a step Buttigieg said moved him “closer to God.” The denomination had evolved on same-sex marriage and even elected an openly gay bishop, the Right Rev. Gene Robinson. “The natural weapon against a gay man is religion,” Robinson told CNN. “By appropriating religion and being an authentically Christian person, [Buttigieg] has robbed the opposition of using that weapon against him.”
The political dimension of Buttigieg’s faith and sexuality featured prominently on the campaign trail. In response to a debate question about his outreach to black Americans — a topic of consistent and deserved criticism he faced during his campaign — he responded by talking about his faith and sexuality leading him to care about all forms of oppression.
“I care about this because my faith teaches me that salvation has to do with how I make myself useful to those who have been excluded, marginalized, and cast aside and oppressed in society,” Buttigieg said at the November debate. “Wearing this wedding ring in a way that couldn’t have happened two elections ago lets me know just how deep my obligation is to help those whose rights are on the line every day, even if they are nothing like me in their experience.”
He was also outspoken about those who weaponize religion as cover for their anti-LGBTQ policies. “That’s the thing that I wish the Mike Pences of the world would understand,” Buttigieg said about the vice president’s anti-LGBTQ record. “That if you have a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me. Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.” He also criticized Pence for his response to an HIV outbreak in Indiana, saying at a CNN town hall that Pence’s resistance to act “was completely ideological.”
But the criticism around faith and politics wasn’t just directed at Republicans. It was also aimed at progressives’ reluctance to talk about religion. “I think it’s unfortunate [the Democratic Party] has lost touch with a religious tradition that I think can help explain and relate our values,” he told the Washington Post. “At least in my interpretation, it helps to root [in religion] a lot of what it is we do believe in, when it comes to protecting the sick and the stranger and the poor, as well as skepticism of the wealthy and the powerful and the established.”
Buttigieg isn’t alone in helping progressives carve out a positive role for religion in the public square. Cory Booker and Julián Castro spoke about faith frequently during their bids for the Democratic nomination. And just last week, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez delivered a stirring defense of LGBTQ rights as consistent with her Catholic faith during a US House Oversight Committee hearing.
Like Ocasio-Cortez and most Democrats, most religious Americans support LGBTQ rights. According to the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), majorities of all religious groups in the United States — from Protestants to Muslims — are in favor of laws that protect LGBTQ people from discrimination in jobs, housing, and public accommodations. The nonprofit research group also found that “majorities of every major religious group report becoming more supportive of transgender rights over the last five years.”
Support for LGBTQ rights from all people of faith is important, but religious LGBTQ people claiming our space in public helps undermine the false notion that our faith and sexual orientation or gender identity are in conflict. Representation matters. “We send a message to every kid out there wondering if whatever marks them out as different means they are somehow destined to be less than,” Buttigieg said in his speech suspending his campaign. “To see that someone who once felt that exact same way can become a leading American presidential candidate with his husband by his side.”
In the end, Buttigieg’s candidacy showed there is strong interest in revitalizing the religious left in America. He outperformed expectations, and his overt religious appeals attracted attention to his campaign. While the religious right has monopolized the public’s understanding of what it means to be a “religious voter” by investing in political and media organizations such as the Christian Broadcasting Network and Values Voter Summit, its efforts dwarf what exists on the religious left in size, funding, media attention, and political embrace — and all the opportunities that could bring for LGBTQ acceptance.
Buttigieg’s future in politics will face tests of his support with people of color; he also faced criticism from within the LGBTQ community during his presidential run. But political prospects aside, he can also make a difference through faith-based advocacy. He can serve as an unofficial faith ambassador to help counter the right’s distorted use of religion to harm LGBTQ people — including in many areas of life such as housing, employment, and health care.
Then there is the personal impact the former candidate has had: Buttigieg’s campaign made me feel less alone in a culture that tells us LGBTQ people and people of faith are competing groups with no overlapping membership. He inspired me to speak up more about how my Christian faith leads me in a progressive direction. I hope other LGBTQ people of faith will be inspired to claim our space in the media and politics.
We exist. We’re not alone. We can even run for president.
Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons is a fellow with the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress and the author of the forthcoming book Just Faith: Reclaiming Progressive Christianity.


vox--2020-03-03--Chris Matthews’s misogyny shaped political journalism for a generation

Since Chris Matthews announced his retirement from MSNBC Monday night , his friends and colleagues are praising the now-former Hardball host as a lion of the field of political journalism , as if he were leaving the network for a reason other than on-air sexism .
“ Chris Matthews is a giant .
He ’ s a legend ; it ’ s been an honor for me to work with him , ” MSNBC journalist Steve Kornacki said on air after Matthews announced he was stepping down .
Other guests and colleagues joined in their support of Matthews , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , George W. Bush ’ s communications director and now MSNBC anchor Nicolle Wallace , and MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell .
But this was no ordinary retirement .
CNN media writer Brian Stelter confirms that Matthews preempted being fired by departing voluntarily .
The proximate cause was a string of recent controversies , including making an on-air comparison between Sen. Bernie Sanders ( who is Jewish ) and the Nazi advance on Europe , getting into an embarrassing back-and-forth with Sen. Elizabeth Warren over Mike Bloomberg ’ s history of sexist comments , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a piece in GQ by journalist Laura Bassett , who described how he made creepy , suggestive comments to her in the MSNBC green room — an experience many women on Twitter said they shared .
All these instances are part of a pattern with Matthews , particularly those related to gender .
For years , he ’ s used his daily televised platform to undermine women — sizing up his female guests ’ looks and belittling politicians like Hillary Clinton , whom he ’ s called “ witchy , ” “ anti-male @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the years .
Matthews is not accused of criminal behavior like other men in his field who ’ ve been called to task in the Me Too era .
But he shares a set of sexist attitudes that have profoundly shaped political journalism and attitudes that are just beginning to be confronted .
Matthews ’ s supporters are right that he was a giant in political journalism .
They are right that he left a mark on how we understand politics .
But his departure isn ’ t a loss .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should and should not cover politics and power .
Matthews has made misogynistic remarks on TV for many years The hallmark of Matthews ’ s on-air behavior over the years was to diminish the credibility of a female guest by commenting on her looks .
During his sign-off Monday night , Matthews offered this apology : Matthews ’ s poor treatment of his female guests is well-known : Media Matters has tracked his conduct for years .
One particularly egregious example comes from 2007 .
Amid a turbulent moment for the economy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Burnett of CNBC .
Instead of treating her as a serious guest , he toyed with her and demeaned her : “ Could you get a little closer to the camera ?
” Matthews said to Burnett .
“ My — what is it ?
” Burnett asked , seeming to think something was wrong with the equipment .
Matthews then said : “ Come on in closer .
No , come in — come in further — come in closer .
Really close.
” As Burnett adjusted , he said : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anyway , thanks , Erin , it ’ s great to — look at that look .
You ’ re great.
” In the video Burnett looks a bit annoyed , but she mostly smiles through the ordeal .
She ’ s a professional and there to advance her career , not to make an enemy out of Matthews .
But by allowing these types of scenarios to play out again and again , MSNBC was telling TV viewers that this behavior was okay .
There are many , many examples of similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documented him commenting on the looks of many women in public life .
During a post-debate night panel during the 2008 primary , for example , Matthews responded to MSNBC host Joe Scarborough ’ s point about Clinton ’ s Iraq War vote problem among the Democratic base by changing the subject .
“ The cosmetics tonight are very important , ” Matthews said .
“ First of all , her pearls , Grace Kelly .
Dynamite .
The pearls were great !
” In the next breath , he moved on to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about [ Barack ] Obama , his wife looked perfect !
Perfect for the occasion .
Perfect-looking wife .
She had the pearls as well .
Another Grace Kelly , well turned out , very dignified , not dignified , attractive , classy.
” He uses the same language with conservative women .
Here ’ s how he spoke to Laura Ingraham , according to Media Matters : Repeating these stereotypes over and over contributed to a culture in political journalism that devalues women , that puts their looks before their smarts or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TV just makes it worse — presenting an image to viewers that goes completely unchecked .
Matthews also disparaged female candidates and officeholders .
On the night Nancy Pelosi led Democrats to a historic victory in the House in 2006 , he pointed out that she would have to go head-to-head with George W. Bush on all kinds of policies .
“ How does she do it without screaming ?
How does she do it without becoming grating ?
” he wondered .
He once pinched her cheek after an interview .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying , “ she was giving a campaign barnburner speech , which is harder to give for a woman ; it can grate on some men when they listen to it — fingernails on a blackboard , perhaps.
” Before an interview during the 2016 Democratic primary , footage posted by The Cut captures Matthews making a joke about drugging her with a “ Bill Cosby pill , ” shocking his staff : Clinton ’ s loss in 2016 was so narrow that it ’ s difficult to point to any single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But it ’ s nonetheless true that Clinton had to deal with media figures who were eager to embrace old , sexist tropes that signal to their audiences what leadership doesn ’ t look like .
In the Me Too era , women have called out serial harassers Leon Wieseltier , the influential culture editor of the New Republic ; and Mark Halperin , the former head of ABC Politics and co-author of the best-selling Game Change series .
Halperin pioneered a style of politics-as-sports journalism embraced by Matthews and other cable news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking down on politics from the stands , objectively assessing the plays of the game .
But we are starting to see the reality of this “ objectivity.
” Halperin dismissed sexual assault allegations against Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign .
Matthews got into a fight last week with Warren over whether to believe a well-supported claim by a former Bloomberg employee that he told her to end her pregnancy .
Matthews became indignant with Warren , essentially calling the accuser a liar : “ Do you believe that the former mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pregnant employee ?
” Matthews said to Warren .
“ You believe he ’ s that kind of person who did that ?
You believe he ’ s lying ?
You ’ re confident of your accusation ?
” Warren is confident of her accusation .
And unlike for so many years when women felt they couldn ’ t confront Matthews , Warren did .
Then something else happened — journalist Laura Bassett said “ me too , ” publishing a scathing account of Matthews ’ s green room behavior .
Then Bassett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more “ me too ” accounts of Matthews ’ s conduct .
The dynamic that forced Burnett and others to smile through Matthews ’ s indignities shifted under his feet this week — a change for the better for political journalism and for our culture as a whole .
Perhaps Matthews ’ s friends who are lauding him as a great American journalist should look to the women who stood up for truth as the real heroes of this story .

Since Chris Matthews announced his retirement from MSNBC Monday night, his friends and colleagues are praising the now-former Hardball host as a lion of the field of political journalism, as if he were leaving the network for a reason other than on-air sexism.
“Chris Matthews is a giant. He’s a legend; it’s been an honor for me to work with him,” MSNBC journalist Steve Kornacki said on air after Matthews announced he was stepping down.
Morning Joe host Mika Brzezinski agreed:
Thank you @SteveKornacki for saying everything I was thinking ..
I am so sad about @HardballChris — Mika Brzezinski (@morningmika) March 3, 2020
Other guests and colleagues joined in their support of Matthews, including former Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile, George W. Bush’s communications director and now MSNBC anchor Nicolle Wallace, and MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell.
But this was no ordinary retirement. CNN media writer Brian Stelter confirms that Matthews preempted being fired by departing voluntarily. The proximate cause was a string of recent controversies, including making an on-air comparison between Sen. Bernie Sanders (who is Jewish) and the Nazi advance on Europe, getting into an embarrassing back-and-forth with Sen. Elizabeth Warren over Mike Bloomberg’s history of sexist comments, and then finding himself the subject of a piece in GQ by journalist Laura Bassett, who described how he made creepy, suggestive comments to her in the MSNBC green room — an experience many women on Twitter said they shared.
All these instances are part of a pattern with Matthews, particularly those related to gender. For years, he’s used his daily televised platform to undermine women — sizing up his female guests’ looks and belittling politicians like Hillary Clinton, whom he’s called “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “uppity” over the years.
Matthews is not accused of criminal behavior like other men in his field who’ve been called to task in the Me Too era. But he shares a set of sexist attitudes that have profoundly shaped political journalism and attitudes that are just beginning to be confronted.
Matthews’s supporters are right that he was a giant in political journalism. They are right that he left a mark on how we understand politics. But his departure isn’t a loss. It’s an opportunity to rethink how we should and should not cover politics and power.
Matthews has made misogynistic remarks on TV for many years
The hallmark of Matthews’s on-air behavior over the years was to diminish the credibility of a female guest by commenting on her looks. During his sign-off Monday night, Matthews offered this apology:
Compliments on a woman’s appearance that some men, including me, might have once incorrectly thought were okay were never okay. Not then and certainly not today, and for making such comments in the past, I’m sorry.
Matthews’s poor treatment of his female guests is well-known: Media Matters has tracked his conduct for years.
One particularly egregious example comes from 2007. Amid a turbulent moment for the economy, Matthews had on respected financial journalist Erin Burnett of CNBC. Instead of treating her as a serious guest, he toyed with her and demeaned her:
“Could you get a little closer to the camera?” Matthews said to Burnett. “My — what is it?” Burnett asked, seeming to think something was wrong with the equipment. Matthews then said: “Come on in closer. No, come in — come in further — come in closer. Really close.” As Burnett adjusted, he said: “Just kidding! You look great! Anyway, thanks, Erin, it’s great to — look at that look. You’re great.”
He concluded “you’re a knockout.”
In the video Burnett looks a bit annoyed, but she mostly smiles through the ordeal. She’s a professional and there to advance her career, not to make an enemy out of Matthews. But by allowing these types of scenarios to play out again and again, MSNBC was telling TV viewers that this behavior was okay.
There are many, many examples of similar behavior by Matthews. Media Matters has documented him commenting on the looks of many women in public life.
During a post-debate night panel during the 2008 primary, for example, Matthews responded to MSNBC host Joe Scarborough’s point about Clinton’s Iraq War vote problem among the Democratic base by changing the subject.
“The cosmetics tonight are very important,” Matthews said. “First of all, her pearls, Grace Kelly. Dynamite. The pearls were great!”
In the next breath, he moved on to Michelle Obama:
“Whatever you say about [Barack] Obama, his wife looked perfect! Perfect for the occasion. Perfect-looking wife. She had the pearls as well. Another Grace Kelly, well turned out, very dignified, not dignified, attractive, classy.”
He uses the same language with conservative women. Here’s how he spoke to Laura Ingraham, according to Media Matters:
On the September 12, 2007, edition of Hardball, Matthews began an interview with right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham by stating: “You are — I’m not allowed to say this, but I’ll say it — you’re beautiful and you’re smart. And you’ve got a huge radio audience.” When the interview ended, Matthews asked: “Can I sing your praises?” adding, “I get in trouble for this, but you’re great looking, obviously. You’re one of the gods’ gifts to men in this country. But also, you are a hell of a writer.”
Repeating these stereotypes over and over contributed to a culture in political journalism that devalues women, that puts their looks before their smarts or intellectual contributions. And doing it on TV just makes it worse — presenting an image to viewers that goes completely unchecked.
Matthews routinely smeared Hillary Clinton
Matthews also disparaged female candidates and officeholders. On the night Nancy Pelosi led Democrats to a historic victory in the House in 2006, he pointed out that she would have to go head-to-head with George W. Bush on all kinds of policies. “How does she do it without screaming? How does she do it without becoming grating?” he wondered.
Hillary Clinton was a continual target.
He once pinched her cheek after an interview.
In 2006, Matthews attempted to compliment Clinton, saying, “she was giving a campaign barnburner speech, which is harder to give for a woman; it can grate on some men when they listen to it — fingernails on a blackboard, perhaps.”
Before an interview during the 2016 Democratic primary, footage posted by The Cut captures Matthews making a joke about drugging her with a “Bill Cosby pill,” shocking his staff:
Network footage obtained by the Cut shows Matthews, during the interview setup, making a couple of “jokes” about Clinton. He asks, “Can I have some of the queen’s waters? Precious waters?” And then, as he waits for the water, he adds, “Where’s that Bill Cosby pill I brought with me?” Matthews then laughs, delighted with the line, for an extended moment, as the staffers around him react with disbelief, clearly uncomfortable
Clinton’s loss in 2016 was so narrow that it’s difficult to point to any single issue as the reason she lost. But it’s nonetheless true that Clinton had to deal with media figures who were eager to embrace old, sexist tropes that signal to their audiences what leadership doesn’t look like.
In the Me Too era, women have called out serial harassers Leon Wieseltier, the influential culture editor of the New Republic; and Mark Halperin, the former head of ABC Politics and co-author of the best-selling Game Change series. Halperin pioneered a style of politics-as-sports journalism embraced by Matthews and other cable news hosts. These men claimed they were looking down on politics from the stands, objectively assessing the plays of the game.
But we are starting to see the reality of this “objectivity.” Halperin dismissed sexual assault allegations against Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign. Matthews got into a fight last week with Warren over whether to believe a well-supported claim by a former Bloomberg employee that he told her to end her pregnancy. Matthews became indignant with Warren, essentially calling the accuser a liar:
“Do you believe that the former mayor of New York said that to a pregnant employee?” Matthews said to Warren. “You believe he’s that kind of person who did that? You believe he’s lying? You’re confident of your accusation?”
Warren is confident of her accusation. And unlike for so many years when women felt they couldn’t confront Matthews, Warren did. Then something else happened — journalist Laura Bassett said “me too,” publishing a scathing account of Matthews’s green room behavior. Then Bassett’s Twitter replies lit up with more “me too” accounts of Matthews’s conduct.
The dynamic that forced Burnett and others to smile through Matthews’s indignities shifted under his feet this week — a change for the better for political journalism and for our culture as a whole. Perhaps Matthews’s friends who are lauding him as a great American journalist should look to the women who stood up for truth as the real heroes of this story.