dailykos--2020-04-08--‘I’m from the Government’

‘I’m from the Government’

While Republicans work hard to get elected to offices they decry as useless and impediments to success , I am taking a moment to remember the sarcastic critique of the federal government by former president Ronald Reagan , ” I 'm from the government and I 'm here to help.
” Reagan was almost right , except he left out a keyword ‘ bad ’ Government .
Let me start by saying I am a big supporter of good government .
Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt saved America , if not the world , from rack and ruin .
Democratic President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his good governmental decisions over the Bay of Pigs .
Recently former President Barack Obama pulled America from the jaws of the abyss before it bit down and gobbled up our lives .
Do not be fooled by the lie that all of government is bad as the GOP would have you believe .
I suppose a party that gave us Nixon , Reagan , Bush—Bush and Trump would believe that government is corrupt , senile , ineffectual and full of liars .
Done right , the government is a tool , done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tools .
Obviously , the glaring example of years of the Republican dismantling of government has aggregated in the current President , as evidenced by the retreat and retrenchment of not only the Supreme Court but District Courts .
Having our vaunted intelligence agencies being looked upon with suspicion , egged on by a President who wants to operate in the dark , is a precursor for fascism .
For all the President ’ s talk of rebuilding the military , he has forced the resignation of Generals and the Navy Secretary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Modly who unnecessarily insulted decorated career Navy Capt .
Brett Crozier .
These men were not accused of working with foreign governments , violating campaign laws , or even adultery ; they simply obeyed the demands and allegiance to their oaths of office and command , to the dismay of their commander-in-chief and his cronies .
Modly seduced by the aura of Trump , flew 8,000 miles to deliver a scathing rebuke to Capt .
Crozier because he dared put the life of his men ahead of the political maneuvering of the President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Crozier the Acting Secretary told his crew that he was “ too naive , or too stupid , to be the commanding officer of a ship like this ” said Modly .
Once the audio became public as well as the enraged crew ’ s response , Mr. Trump assumed his deflecting finger-pointing posture .
Modly , I would wager , believed he would be rewarded by the President for his cruelty but was forced out once Mr. Trump threw him under the frigate .
What would make Modly feel the President did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he was replacing a man , Richard Spencer , who stood by the military 's court murder conviction of Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher and was later fired because he resisted a presidential pardon of Gallagher .
Presidential friend and pseudo-adviser and convicted felon Roger Stone is sitting patiently awaiting his predicted pardon .
Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn is seeking to withdraw his guilty plea in anticipation of a pardon .
While former Trump lawyer and enforcer Michael Cohen ’ s refusal to continue to lie leave him no hope of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the enemy , but bad politicians are…

While Republicans work hard to get elected to offices they decry as useless and impediments to success, I am taking a moment to remember the sarcastic critique of the federal government by former president Ronald Reagan,” I'm from the government and I'm here to help.” Reagan was almost right, except he left out a keyword ‘bad’ Government. Let me start by saying I am a big supporter of good government. Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt saved America, if not the world, from rack and ruin. Democratic President John Kennedy averted a world war with his good governmental decisions over the Bay of Pigs. Recently former President Barack Obama pulled America from the jaws of the abyss before it bit down and gobbled up our lives.
Do not be fooled by the lie that all of government is bad as the GOP would have you believe. I suppose a party that gave us Nixon, Reagan, Bush—Bush and Trump would believe that government is corrupt, senile, ineffectual and full of liars. Done right, the government is a tool, done wrong, the government is run by tools. Obviously, the glaring example of years of the Republican dismantling of government has aggregated in the current President, as evidenced by the retreat and retrenchment of not only the Supreme Court but District Courts. Having our vaunted intelligence agencies being looked upon with suspicion, egged on by a President who wants to operate in the dark, is a precursor for fascism.
For all the President’s talk of rebuilding the military, he has forced the resignation of Generals and the Navy Secretary, replacing him with Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly who unnecessarily insulted decorated career Navy Capt. Brett Crozier. These men were not accused of working with foreign governments, violating campaign laws, or even adultery; they simply obeyed the demands and allegiance to their oaths of office and command, to the dismay of their commander-in-chief and his cronies. Modly seduced by the aura of Trump, flew 8,000 miles to deliver a scathing rebuke to Capt. Crozier because he dared put the life of his men ahead of the political maneuvering of the President. After the dismissal of Capt. Crozier the Acting Secretary told his crew that he was “too naive, or too stupid, to be the commanding officer of a ship like this” said Modly.
Once the audio became public as well as the enraged crew’s response, Mr. Trump assumed his deflecting finger-pointing posture. Modly, I would wager, believed he would be rewarded by the President for his cruelty but was forced out once Mr. Trump threw him under the frigate.
What would make Modly feel the President did not have his back; after all, he was replacing a man, Richard Spencer, who stood by the military's court murder conviction of Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher and was later fired because he resisted a presidential pardon of Gallagher. Presidential friend and pseudo-adviser and convicted felon Roger Stone is sitting patiently awaiting his predicted pardon. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn is seeking to withdraw his guilty plea in anticipation of a pardon. While former Trump lawyer and enforcer Michael Cohen’s refusal to continue to lie leave him no hope of a pardon. The government is not the enemy, but bad politicians are…
Vote in 2020 for Change.


dailykos--2020-04-08--Wisconsin Stunner: State and Federal Courts Back GOP Voter Suppression, by Steven Rosenfeld

Right-wing court majorities signal Republicans can make voting more difficult to preserve GOP power—even in a pandemic .
This article was produced by , a project of the Independent Media Institute .
The Republican Party affirmed with startling clarity on Monday that preserving political power was a higher priority than protecting public health or enabling voters to cast ballots that will be counted in the COVID-19 era .
The stage for this stunning partisan display embracing voter suppression was a constitutional crisis that erupted in Wisconsin , a day before scheduled statewide elections on April 7 for its 2020 presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and contests for hundreds of local offices .
The election will continue on April 7 , but the reverberations from Monday rulings by Wisconsin ’ s Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court later in the day in a related lawsuit have set down markers that suggest that securing voting rights in a pandemic is anything but assured—especially if anti-participatory state laws and voting procedures will be upheld by majorities on the highest courts .
Efforts by Democrats to postpone in-person voting and extend voting by mail due to the pandemic were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the .
In separate rulings , both courts sided with the Republican National Committee and Wisconsin Republicans .
“ The Court ’ s order , I fear , will result in massive disenfranchisement , ” Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a signed by the court ’ s three other liberal justices .
“ A voter can not deliver for postmarking a ballot she has not received .
Yet tens of thousands of voters who timely requested ballots are unlikely to receive them by April 7 , the Court ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] .
” While this ideological split may not be new in electoral politics , especially in voting right cases where conservatives seek strict laws limiting participation and liberals seek flexibility to enfranchise voters , it was a “ bad sign ” for the climate heading into elections in the fall , said Rick Hasen , ElectionLawBlog.org founder and a nationally known constitutional scholar .
“ It is a very bad sign for November that the Court could not come together and find some form of compromise here in the midst of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our lifetimes , ” he .
“ Like the Wisconsin Supreme Court , the U.S. Supreme Court divided along partisan and ideological lines.
” The courts ’ rulings capped a day of high drama and a state constitutional crisis .
On Monday afternoon , Wisconsin ’ s Democratic Gov .
Tony Evers an executive order to postpone in-person voting and extend the deadline for absentee ballots to be mailed in , citing the pandemic .
But the state ’ s Republican majority legislature challenged Evers ’ order before the conservative-led Wisconsin Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a telling local officials to keep planning for Tuesday ’ s election , creating great tension and uncertainty as the Democratic governor and Republican legislature headed into court .
By a 4-2 vote later in the day , the Wisconsin Supreme Court Evers ’ executive order , forcing the in-person voting to continue on April 7 and restoring the deadline for absentee ballots to be returned by the same day for them to count .
Meanwhile , hundreds of polling places were not going to open after poll workers withdrew due to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Milwaukee ’ s 180 polls would be opened in that , ElectionLawBlog.org .
“ The April 7 Spring Election and Presidential Preference Primary is occurring as scheduled , ” a headline on the Wisconsin Elections Commission ( WEC ) said after the state Supreme Court ruling .
In addition to in-person voting , the WEC website said that 1,275,254 absentee ballots had been requested by voters and that 724,777 had been returned by April 6 .
Other reports by academics citing WEC data said that local officials to mail out 10,000 ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be returned .
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ’ s decision was not entirely unexpected , because in 2016 outgoing Republican Gov .
Scott Walker and the GOP-led legislature stripped many authorities from the incoming Democratic governor .
Democrats had fought those laws , enacted after the 2016 election in a lame-duck session , but .
“ This is a real constitutional showdown , ” said Kevin Kennedy , the ex-executive director of Wisconsin ’ s Government Accountability Board , which oversaw the elections for decades until Walker and GOP legislators dismantled the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I thought the governor had the power to do something [ like postpone an election in a crisis ] , but in 2016 the Legislature severely restricted the governor ’ s power , ” Kennedy said .
“ He [ Walker ] signed all of these laws that he would never have tolerated as restrictions on his power .
Even the Attorney General can ’ t settle a lawsuit without approval from the legislature.
” However , shortly after the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled on Monday , the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in—responding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republican National Committee and Wisconsin ’ s GOP-led legislature .
( Its Republican majority was created by gerrymandering after the 2010 census . )
The U.S. Supreme Court decision followed a tortuous path that began with lower court orders that sought to help voters but ended with its withdrawing that help .
Earlier on Friday , April 3 , a federal district court with a judge appointed by President Obama extended the Wisconsin election ’ s mail-in balloting deadline by a week and said that absentee voters did not have to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The witness requirement was a pre-existing state law .
That pro-voter ruling was appealed by Republicans to a federal circuit court , which reinstated the witness requirement but kept the week-long extension for absentee ballots to be returned .
The RNC then appealed the extension to the U.S. Supreme Court , arguing that some Wisconsin voters would be voting after Election Day .
The Republicans argued that no special exceptions should be made , even though the pandemic had led local officials to send out six times as many vote-by-mail ballots as in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 500,000 hadn ’ t been returned , to the WEC .
The Supreme Court ’ s conservative bloc agreed with the Republican litigants , issuing a ruling that drew harsh criticism by the court ’ s liberal minority .
“ The Court ’ s [ majority ] suggestion that the current situation is not ‘ substantially different ’ from ‘ an ordinary election ’ boggles the mind , ” Justice Ginsburg ’ s said .
“ Some 150,000 requests for absentee ballots have been processed since Thursday , state records indicate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ election officials , who face a huge backlog in sending ballots.
” “ It is among the most cynical decisions I have read from this Court—devoid of even the pretense of engaging with the reality that this decision will mean one of two things for many WI voters : either they will risk their health & lives to vote , or they will be disenfranchised , ” Sherrilyn Ifill , president and lead counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund .
In the coming days , it will become clear how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absentee ballots rejected because they arrived too late to be returned by April 7 .
But Monday ’ s high court rulings—by a state supreme court and federal Supreme Court—will resonate in other 2020 swing states that are wrestling with expanding absentee balloting in response to the pandemic .
The partisan divide that led to Wisconsin ’ s constitutional crisis , where a Democratic executive branch and a Republican-led legislature could not agree on voting reforms , is not unusual—although the Wisconsin governor ’ s weakened authority is somewhat unique .
The 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ North Carolina all have different parties controlling their executive and legislative branches .
These states are already seeing over expanding absentee voting in response to the pandemic .
Analysts in Wisconsin , including conservatives such as Charlie Sykes , said that no one should doubt that the Wisconsin GOP was putting partisan power before the public interest .
Sykes that Republicans believe they can win a state Supreme Court seat if the April 7 election continued and other voting options were curtailed .
“ In Wisconsin , the GOP would rather endanger people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , so long as it gives them a chance at clinging to a piece of government power , ” he Monday on TheBulwark.com , which Sykes founded and where he is an editor at large .
“ Don ’ t be confused about any [ of ] the motivations here : [ The ] GOP position is about power , not ideology.
” “ While the national media will focus on the presidential primary vote ( polls show Joe Biden with a big lead over Bernie Sanders ) , the real action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Although technically non-partisan , the elections for the high court have become intensely partisan , and conservatives now hold a 5-2 majority on the high court .
“ For several years , Republicans have worried about re-electing conservative incumbent Dan Kelly , who was appointed to his seat by former Governor Scott Walker .
When legislators realized that his election was set for the same day as the presidential primary—which was expected to bring out hordes of Democrat-leaning voters— to a different day to give Kelly a better chance .
“ That idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. , there was widespread anxiety that the Democratic turnout for the active Biden-Bernie race would swamp conservative votes and doom Kelly .
Biden ’ s sweep and [ the ] spread of the pandemic have dramatically changed the shape of the race to the point that Republicans are now convinced that , if they hold the vote on Tuesday , it means they have a shot to re-elect Kelly.
” One case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court that is now deadlocked 3-to-3 and would likely be affected by Kelly ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter rolls , most of them Democrats , historian and author Heather Cox Richardson on April 6 in her “ Letters From an American ” blog .
“ This [ potential purge ] will increase Trump ’ s chances of winning the state in 2020 , and Wisconsin is likely key to a victory in the Electoral College , ” she wrote .
“ This is why I watch the minutia [ e ] of politics so carefully .
It ’ s hard to imagine that the election of a state judge in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states and 330 million people , but it does .
Oh , boy , does it.
” Monday ’ s rulings by the Wisconsin and U.S. Supreme Courts may be the in many courtroom fights as states wrestle with conducting elections in the pandemic .
The U.S. Constitution says that states have almost full authority to run their elections—short of any direct violations of federal constitutional rights or congressional law .
But the two high court rulings show that protecting voting rights amid public emergencies matters less to conservative judges than deferring to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The question here is whether tens of thousands of Wisconsin citizens can vote safely in the midst of a pandemic , ” Ginsburg ’ s said .
“ Under the District Court ’ s order [ on Friday ] , they would be able to do so .
Even if they receive their absentee ballot in the days immediately following election day , they could return it .
With the [ Court ] majority ’ s stay in place , that will not be possible .
Either they [ voters ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endangering their own and others ’ safety .
Or they will lose their right to vote , through no fault of their own.
” “ That is a matter of utmost importance—to the constitutional rights of Wisconsin ’ s citizens , the integrity of the State ’ s election process , and in this most extraordinary time , the health of the Nation , ” she wrote , concluding the dissent .
Perhaps the best that could be said about Monday ’ s high court rulings is that they have exposed the lengths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justices will go in 2020 to preserve Republican power by suppressing voters .
The only remedy is for their opponents to vote in such big volumes that there can be no ambiguity in the outcome , even if that means facing barriers intended to disenfranchise voters and to disqualify ballots from counting .
Steven Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of , a project of the Independent Media Institute .
He has reported for National Public Radio , Marketplace , and Christian Science Monitor Radio , as well as a wide range @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the American Prospect , and many others .

rss@dailykos.com (Independent Media Institute)

Right-wing court majorities signal Republicans can make voting more difficult to preserve GOP power—even in a pandemic.
By Steven Rosenfeld
This article was produced by Voting Booth , a project of the Independent Media Institute.
The Republican Party affirmed with startling clarity on Monday that preserving political power was a higher priority than protecting public health or enabling voters to cast ballots that will be counted in the COVID-19 era.
The stage for this stunning partisan display embracing voter suppression was a constitutional crisis that erupted in Wisconsin, a day before scheduled statewide elections on April 7 for its 2020 presidential primary, a state Supreme Court seat, and contests for hundreds of local offices.
The election will continue on April 7, but the reverberations from Monday rulings by Wisconsin’s Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court later in the day in a related lawsuit have set down markers that suggest that securing voting rights in a pandemic is anything but assured—especially if anti-participatory state laws and voting procedures will be upheld by majorities on the highest courts.
Efforts by Democrats to postpone in-person voting and extend voting by mail due to the pandemic were rejected by conservative majorities on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and on the U.S. Supreme Court . In separate rulings, both courts sided with the Republican National Committee and Wisconsin Republicans.
“The Court’s order, I fear, will result in massive disenfranchisement,” Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a dissent signed by the court’s three other liberal justices. “A voter cannot deliver for postmarking a ballot she has not received. Yet tens of thousands of voters who timely requested ballots are unlikely to receive them by April 7, the Court’s postmark deadline [to return ballots].”
While this ideological split may not be new in electoral politics, especially in voting right cases where conservatives seek strict laws limiting participation and liberals seek flexibility to enfranchise voters, it was a “bad sign” for the climate heading into elections in the fall, said Rick Hasen, ElectionLawBlog.org founder and a nationally known constitutional scholar.
“It is a very bad sign for November that the Court could not come together and find some form of compromise here in the midst of a global pandemic unlike anything we have seen in our lifetimes,” he wrote . “Like the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court divided along partisan and ideological lines.”
The courts’ rulings capped a day of high drama and a state constitutional crisis.
On Monday afternoon, Wisconsin’s Democratic Gov. Tony Evers issued an executive order to postpone in-person voting and extend the deadline for absentee ballots to be mailed in, citing the pandemic. But the state’s Republican majority legislature challenged Evers’ order before the conservative-led Wisconsin Supreme Court. The GOP legislative leadership issued a statement telling local officials to keep planning for Tuesday’s election, creating great tension and uncertainty as the Democratic governor and Republican legislature headed into court.
By a 4-2 vote later in the day, the Wisconsin Supreme Court nullified Evers’ executive order, forcing the in-person voting to continue on April 7 and restoring the deadline for absentee ballots to be returned by the same day for them to count. Meanwhile, hundreds of polling places were not going to open after poll workers withdrew due to the pandemic. For example, only five of Milwaukee’s 180 polls would be opened in that non-white epicenter , ElectionLawBlog.org noted .
“The April 7 Spring Election and Presidential Preference Primary is occurring as scheduled,” a headline on the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) website said after the state Supreme Court ruling.
In addition to in-person voting, the WEC website said that 1,275,254 absentee ballots had been requested by voters and that 724,777 had been returned by April 6. Other reports by academics citing WEC data said that local officials had yet to mail out 10,000 ballots. Meanwhile, half-a-million ballots had yet to be returned.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision was not entirely unexpected, because in 2016 outgoing Republican Gov. Scott Walker and the GOP-led legislature stripped many authorities from the incoming Democratic governor. Democrats had fought those laws, enacted after the 2016 election in a lame-duck session, but lost .
“This is a real constitutional showdown,” said Kevin Kennedy, the ex-executive director of Wisconsin’s Government Accountability Board, which oversaw the elections for decades until Walker and GOP legislators dismantled the board.
“When I was there I thought the governor had the power to do something [like postpone an election in a crisis], but in 2016 the Legislature severely restricted the governor’s power,” Kennedy said. “He [Walker] signed all of these laws that he would never have tolerated as restrictions on his power. Even the Attorney General can’t settle a lawsuit without approval from the legislature.”
However, shortly after the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in—responding to another lawsuit filed late on Friday by the Republican National Committee and Wisconsin’s GOP-led legislature. (Its Republican majority was created by gerrymandering after the 2010 census.)
The U.S. Supreme Court decision followed a tortuous path that began with lower court orders that sought to help voters but ended with its ruling withdrawing that help.
Earlier on Friday, April 3, a federal district court with a judge appointed by President Obama extended the Wisconsin election’s mail-in balloting deadline by a week and said that absentee voters did not have to find a witness to sign their ballots. The witness requirement was a pre-existing state law.
That pro-voter ruling was appealed by Republicans to a federal circuit court, which reinstated the witness requirement but kept the week-long extension for absentee ballots to be returned. The RNC then appealed the extension to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that some Wisconsin voters would be voting after Election Day.
The Republicans argued that no special exceptions should be made, even though the pandemic had led local officials to send out six times as many vote-by-mail ballots as in the 2018 election—and by late Monday more than 500,000 hadn’t been returned, according to the WEC.
The Supreme Court’s conservative bloc agreed with the Republican litigants, issuing a ruling that drew harsh criticism by the court’s liberal minority.
“The Court’s [majority] suggestion that the current situation is not ‘substantially different’ from ‘an ordinary election’ boggles the mind,” Justice Ginsburg’s dissent said. “Some 150,000 requests for absentee ballots have been processed since Thursday, state records indicate. The surge in absentee-ballot requests has overwhelmed election officials, who face a huge backlog in sending ballots.”
“It is among the most cynical decisions I have read from this Court—devoid of even the pretense of engaging with the reality that this decision will mean one of two things for many WI voters: either they will risk their health & lives to vote, or they will be disenfranchised,” tweeted Sherrilyn Ifill, president and lead counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
A Troubling Precedent
In the coming days, it will become clear how many thousands of voters will see their absentee ballots rejected because they arrived too late to be returned by April 7. But Monday’s high court rulings—by a state supreme court and federal Supreme Court—will resonate in other 2020 swing states that are wrestling with expanding absentee balloting in response to the pandemic.
The partisan divide that led to Wisconsin’s constitutional crisis, where a Democratic executive branch and a Republican-led legislature could not agree on voting reforms, is not unusual—although the Wisconsin governor’s weakened authority is somewhat unique. The 2020 swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and North Carolina all have different parties controlling their executive and legislative branches. These states are already seeing clashes over expanding absentee voting in response to the pandemic.
Analysts in Wisconsin, including conservatives such as Charlie Sykes, said that no one should doubt that the Wisconsin GOP was putting partisan power before the public interest. Sykes noted that Republicans believe they can win a state Supreme Court seat if the April 7 election continued and other voting options were curtailed.
“In Wisconsin, the GOP would rather endanger people’s lives and have a clusterfuck election, so long as it gives them a chance at clinging to a piece of government power,” he wrote Monday on TheBulwark.com, which Sykes founded and where he is an editor at large. “Don’t be confused about any [of] the motivations here: [The] GOP position is about power, not ideology.”
Sykes summarized the crisis’ backdrop:
“While the national media will focus on the presidential primary vote (polls show Joe Biden with a big lead over Bernie Sanders), the real action centers on the state Supreme Court. Although technically non-partisan, the elections for the high court have become intensely partisan, and conservatives now hold a 5-2 majority on the high court. “For several years, Republicans have worried about re-electing conservative incumbent Dan Kelly, who was appointed to his seat by former Governor Scott Walker. When legislators realized that his election was set for the same day as the presidential primary—which was expected to bring out hordes of Democrat-leaning voters— they initially considered moving the [Supreme Court] election to a different day to give Kelly a better chance. “That idea fizzled, but until the coronavirus hit the U.S., there was widespread anxiety that the Democratic turnout for the active Biden-Bernie race would swamp conservative votes and doom Kelly. Biden’s sweep and [the] spread of the pandemic have dramatically changed the shape of the race to the point that Republicans are now convinced that, if they hold the vote on Tuesday, it means they have a shot to re-elect Kelly.”
One case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court that is now deadlocked 3-to-3 and would likely be affected by Kelly’s re-election concerns purging 240,000 voters from statewide voter rolls, most of them Democrats, historian and author Heather Cox Richardson noted on April 6 in her “Letters From an American” blog.
“This [potential purge] will increase Trump’s chances of winning the state in 2020, and Wisconsin is likely key to a victory in the Electoral College,” she wrote. “This is why I watch the minutia[e] of politics so carefully. It’s hard to imagine that the election of a state judge in Wisconsin matters to our nation of fifty states and 330 million people, but it does. Oh, boy, does it.”
Wider Repercussions
Monday’s rulings by the Wisconsin and U.S. Supreme Courts may be the opening round in many courtroom fights as states wrestle with conducting elections in the pandemic. The U.S. Constitution says that states have almost full authority to run their elections—short of any direct violations of federal constitutional rights or congressional law. But the two high court rulings show that protecting voting rights amid public emergencies matters less to conservative judges than deferring to prior legislative action and voting rules—however anti-democratic.
“The question here is whether tens of thousands of Wisconsin citizens can vote safely in the midst of a pandemic,” Ginsburg’s dissent said. “Under the District Court’s order [on Friday], they would be able to do so. Even if they receive their absentee ballot in the days immediately following election day, they could return it. With the [Court] majority’s stay in place, that will not be possible. Either they [voters] will have to brave the polls, endangering their own and others’ safety. Or they will lose their right to vote, through no fault of their own.”
“That is a matter of utmost importance—to the constitutional rights of Wisconsin’s citizens, the integrity of the State’s election process, and in this most extraordinary time, the health of the Nation,” she wrote, concluding the dissent.
Perhaps the best that could be said about Monday’s high court rulings is that they have exposed the lengths to which the GOP partisans and right-wing justices will go in 2020 to preserve Republican power by suppressing voters.
The only remedy is for their opponents to vote in such big volumes that there can be no ambiguity in the outcome, even if that means facing barriers intended to disenfranchise voters and to disqualify ballots from counting.


dailykos--2020-04-08--The Coronavirus Means 2020 Elections Could Be Decided by Courts, by Steven Rosenfeld

Court ’ s actions in Wisconsin suggest federal courts are reluctant to reverse decisions by state authorities .
This article was produced by , a project of the Independent Media Institute .
The jaw-dropping conclusion of a federal court hearing on April 1 about Wisconsin ’ s statewide elections on April 7 was no April Fools ’ joke .
U.S. District Judge William Conley said the state ’ s Democratic governor and Republican-led legislature had failed to put their citizenry ’ s health first by not postponing the statewide election in a pandemic .
“ There ’ s a hurricane @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bench , interrupting Douglas M. Poland , a lawyer representing the Wisconsin Alliance for Retired Americans , League of Women Voters of Wisconsin and four citizens who sued the state .
“ You can ’ t even give me a case where a federal judge stopped a state from stupidly holding an election when most of the voters were not going to go to the polls because there ’ s a hurricane coming !
” “ You expect the state of Wisconsin to realize that this is a hurricane and for them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Conley continued .
“ But you don ’ t get to go to a federal judge and say it is contingent on voting rights , so you get to stop a statewide election .
The reason you can ’ t cite me a case is because it ’ s not appropriate .
I ’ m sorry that that ’ s what the situation is .
But this is a public health crisis that the state legislature and the governor have refused to accept as severe enough to stop this statewide election.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal judge slams a state ’ s executive and legislative branches from the bench before issuing a ruling .
But below the pronouncement are equally serious concerns that will resurface in federal and state courts between now and the 2020 general election .
Those concerns are how far can a court go—federal or state—to change the means and rules of voting .
Wisconsin was the only state of 11 slated to hold statewide elections in April that change its plans .
That decision , in part due to Republican legislators wanting to of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sparked three lawsuits .
One sought to postpone the election .
A second sought to ensure that all absentee ballots that were postmarked by April 7 , but arrived in the mail days later , would be counted .
The third sought to suspend a state law requiring all absentee voters to have a witness sign their ballot .
Judge Conley ’ s eruption from the bench concerned Wisconsin political leadership ’ s irresponsibility for not postponing an election in an unforeseen public health crisis , where the first wave of coronavirus cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aftermath—where more than paper absentee ballots have to be authenticated , duplicates removed and counted .
But the other two lawsuits before the court are more relevant for the rest of the 2020 election cycle , as the issues they raise dig into the fine print of policies that state legislatures have adopted and voting procedures that government election bureaucracies subsequently have issued concerning voters and voting by mail .
“ What is emerging is a hodgepodge of rules and procedures that will almost guarantee different levels of voter participation depending upon how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mail , ” said , an election attorney specializing in recounts and an adjunct professor of government at American University .
Wisconsin ’ s next election , which is poised to become 2020 ’ s latest problem-plagued exercise , ironically comes in a state that has a reputation for well-run elections .
It was the only state of three in 2016 to complete a presidential recount .
In 2018 , only of its 3.44 million registered voters cast absentee ballots .
On April 7 , nearly that volume may vote by absentee ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conley concerned state policies and rules : what technicalities must be followed for those absentee ballots to count .
During the April 1 hearing , Judge Conley pointedly asked the attorneys representing national and state Democratic Party organizations , voting rights groups , senior citizens and Wisconsin voters what he could do to fix concrete problems that were emerging now—as opposed to speculation about what would on Election Day .
If problems arose , Conley said he would deal with those issues then .
For example , could he issue an order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such as seniors living alone , to have their ballot count ?
Could he extend the day by which mail-in ballots would still be accepted and be counted , as local officials were still mailing them out and postal delivery was known to be slow ?
This posture—respecting a state legislature ’ s laws and state election bureaucracy ’ s rules—is the heart of federalism and required by the U.S. Constitution , the judge said from the bench , as he rejected arguments to postpone the April 7 election but struggled to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facilitate voting .
Why these frames matter in 2020 is that there is a spectrum of uneven and that currently surround absentee voters , voting by mail and counting those ballots in state after state .
These include : how registered voters are notified about voting by mail—or not ; how voters apply to vote absentee ; ID requirements to get a mail-in ballot ; whether additional affidavits or witnesses are required to submit an absentee ballot ; whether helping someone to fill out and return a ballot is a crime ; whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to return ballots ; what voter signatures on file with the state are used to verify or reject the signatures on ballot envelopes ; the signature verification standards used ; when absentee ballots must be received to count ; how long local boards have to do all the processing ; and more .
Many of these issues are the subject of and possible litigation in state after state , where judges—not legislatures—will decide how 2020 ’ s elections are run during a pandemic .
Why not legislatures ?
Because most 2020 legislative sessions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to the National Conference of State Legislatures .
Meanwhile , what has emerged are responses .
Lawyers for Democratic Party organizations and voting rights groups are seeking the most sweeping changes to boost participation .
Some state election regulators and some governors are taking steps to open up the process , but generally are not going as far as Democrats and voting rights activists would like .
And Republicans—especially in states where they hold legislative majorities , like Wisconsin—have been rejecting those efforts , leaving newly identified barriers in place .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear .
Voting by mail tends to have a higher turnout among middle- and upper-income voters , which favors the GOP .
Lower-income people and students often have less reliable and accessible mailboxes .
Thus Democrats are seeking to expand participation and remove any barriers .
This reality was affirmed by President Trump criticizing the election reforms in the House ’ s latest relief bill on Fox News on March 31 , when he , “ The things they had in there were crazy .
They had levels of voting , that if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d never have a Republican elected in this country again.
” Where this landscape comes full circle in Judge Conley ’ s courtroom is the federal judge is looking for narrow remedies that he can order to cure problems that have presented themselves .
This is the same framework that U.S. District Court Judge Mark Walker used in November 2018 , when Florida was conducting three simultaneous statewide recounts .
Walker to let voters fix problematic signatures on ballot envelopes so their vote would count .
Meanwhile , voting rights lawyers kept presenting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as more than 100 Wisconsin municipalities enough poll workers to open polling places ( a minimum of three are required ) on April 7 .
( Democratic Governor Tony Evers will National Guard members . )
Or reports that 1,100 absentee ballot requests by seniors in Madison could not be processed because the county clerk did not have the voters ’ IDs in their files .
“ This is Republican voter suppression in action , ” Marc Elias , a voting rights lawyer who is the lead attorney on filed by the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ referring to the voter ID issue .
“ This is exactly why we are suing WI [ Wisconsin ] to extend the deadline for counting those ballots , ” he said , in an April 1 , referring to the litigation before Judge Conley .
Judge Conley signaled from the bench that he would not postpone Wisconsin ’ s April 7 statewide election but would issue orders as evidence of concrete problems and remedies were proposed .
On April 2 , he issued an that kept the election but the ballot return deadline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He also suspended the witness requirement , saying that voters could include a note with their returned ballots that they could not get a witness .
Elsewhere in the country , it is possible to see the spectrum of conflicting issues and responses that concern absentee voting , some of which have already sparked lawsuits and some of which are likely to end up in state or federal court .
For example , in the where Elias has sued on behalf of Democrats , two of them—Louisiana and Michigan—have existing laws where first-time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are required to vote in person at a polling place .
On March 27 , Michigan ’ s Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed an “ to provide absentee ballots directly to new registrants ” and told local election officials to pay for the postage on ballot return envelopes .
Her order , however , did not address issues in suits that Elias filed earlier this year , such as seeking for reviewing signatures on absentee ballot envelopes or a 1950s law that criminalizes helping others with absentee ballots .
Louisiana election officials did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absentee voting rules after they postponed their April 4 primary until June 20 .
Among the states targeted by Democratic Party suits are ( in addition to Wisconsin ) where witnesses or notaries must sign absentee ballot envelopes .
Those states are Alabama , Louisiana , Mississippi and North Carolina .
In North Carolina , a political standoff is developing over whether absentee voting should be accompanied by technicalities such as the witness requirement , which could deter voters .
On March 26 , the executive director of the North Carolina State Board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detailed to Democratic Gov .
Roy Cooper and Republican legislative leadership with more than a dozen recommendations to make absentee voting easier—including reducing or eliminating the witness requirement , establishing an online portal to request absentee ballots and the state paying for the return postage .
( The memo did not address a 2019 law criminalizing individuals and organizations from helping voters fill out absentee ballots , which Elias to overturn . )
The North Carolina state board also announced it was expanding for voters to update their registration information .
But Patrick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said that only the state ’ s General Assembly and governor had the authority to change most of the absentee voting rules .
On April 1 , the state ’ s top Republican lawmaker opposed the BOE director ’ s suggestions , , “ Some progressive , liberal Democratic groups would like to roll that back and put us where we were .
I ’ m afraid that ’ s where the election director would take us with her proposals.
” There are similar controversies simmering in Georgia , where Secretary of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is absentee ballot request forms to 6.9 million “ active voters ” for the upcoming May 19 presidential primary .
That move drew praise from the Democratic Party of Georgia , which still added that the state should do more and pay for return postage .
Other advocates Raffensperger because the state ’ s voter rolls also have “ inactive voters , ” which means that not every eligible voter would be notified .
However , Raffensperger ’ s steps went too far for some Georgia Republicans .
David Ralson , Speaker of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interviewer , “ This [ potential precedent ] will be extremely devastating to Republicans and conservatives in Georgia … This will certainly drive up turnout.
” A day later , on April 2 , Raffensperger issued a press release , “ , ” which said , “ the Secretary of State is only sending ballot request forms to active voters in Georgia for the upcoming May election only… The Secretary of State is not implementing statewide mail-in voting.
” These political fights and their details are a harbinger of what is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfolds and government officials react .
Whether absentee voting will be made easier is a political decision that will unfurl state by state .
Very few states are following the example of New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver , a Democrat , who wants “ to conduct an all-mail 2020 Primary Election ” in June , where “ an absentee ballot will be mailed to every eligible major party voter in the state , ” as a March 31 said .
But Toulouse Oliver must first get the permission of New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so .
New Mexico ’ s 2020 legislative session has been .
Thus , it will be up to the judiciary more so than legislators , and possibly more than governors , to referee the means and rules for voting in 2020 in the pandemic .
In a sense , the courtroom fights over voting in 2020 have barely begun .
“ We continue to look at all aspects of state voting laws to ensure every eligible voter has an opportunity to vote and have their vote counted accurately , ” Elias said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ file additional lawsuits in the coming weeks and months to protect the right to vote.
” Steven Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of , a project of the Independent Media Institute .
He has reported for National Public Radio , Marketplace , and Christian Science Monitor Radio , as well as a wide range of progressive publications including Salon , AlterNet , the American Prospect , and many others .

Court’s actions in Wisconsin suggest federal courts are reluctant to reverse decisions by state authorities.
By Steven Rosenfeld
This article was produced by Voting Booth , a project of the Independent Media Institute.
The jaw-dropping conclusion of a federal court hearing on April 1 about Wisconsin’s statewide elections on April 7 was no April Fools’ joke. U.S. District Judge William Conley said the state’s Democratic governor and Republican-led legislature had failed to put their citizenry’s health first by not postponing the statewide election in a pandemic.
“There’s a hurricane coming!” Conley fumed from the bench, interrupting Douglas M. Poland, a lawyer representing the Wisconsin Alliance for Retired Americans, League of Women Voters of Wisconsin and four citizens who sued the state. “You can’t even give me a case where a federal judge stopped a state from stupidly holding an election when most of the voters were not going to go to the polls because there’s a hurricane coming!”
“You expect the state of Wisconsin to realize that this is a hurricane and for them to stop it for public health reasons,” Conley continued. “But you don’t get to go to a federal judge and say it is contingent on voting rights, so you get to stop a statewide election. The reason you can’t cite me a case is because it’s not appropriate. I’m sorry that that’s what the situation is. But this is a public health crisis that the state legislature and the governor have refused to accept as severe enough to stop this statewide election.”
It is not very often that a federal judge slams a state’s executive and legislative branches from the bench before issuing a ruling. But below the headline-grabbing pronouncement are equally serious concerns that will resurface in federal and state courts between now and the 2020 general election. Those concerns are how far can a court go—federal or state—to change the means and rules of voting.
Wisconsin was the only state of 11 slated to hold statewide elections in April that did not change its plans. That decision, in part due to Republican legislators wanting to boost the GOP’s odds of winning a state Supreme Court race, sparked three lawsuits. One sought to postpone the election. A second sought to ensure that all absentee ballots that were postmarked by April 7, but arrived in the mail days later, would be counted. The third sought to suspend a state law requiring all absentee voters to have a witness sign their ballot.
Judge Conley’s eruption from the bench concerned Wisconsin political leadership’s irresponsibility for not postponing an election in an unforeseen public health crisis, where the first wave of coronavirus cases is cresting on Election Day and its aftermath—where more than 1.1 million paper absentee ballots have to be authenticated, duplicates removed and counted.
But the other two lawsuits before the court are more relevant for the rest of the 2020 election cycle, as the issues they raise dig into the fine print of policies that state legislatures have adopted and voting procedures that government election bureaucracies subsequently have issued concerning voters and voting by mail.
“What is emerging is a hodgepodge of rules and procedures that will almost guarantee different levels of voter participation depending upon how easy states make it to vote by mail,” said Chris Sautter , an election attorney specializing in recounts and an adjunct professor of government at American University.
Wisconsin’s next election, which is poised to become 2020’s latest problem-plagued exercise, ironically comes in a state that has a reputation for well-run elections. It was the only state of three in 2016 to complete a presidential recount. In 2018, only 6 percent of its 3.44 million registered voters cast absentee ballots. On April 7, nearly six times that volume may vote by absentee ballot. Two of the lawsuits before Judge Conley concerned state policies and rules: what technicalities must be followed for those absentee ballots to count.
During the April 1 hearing, Judge Conley pointedly asked the attorneys representing national and state Democratic Party organizations, voting rights groups, senior citizens and Wisconsin voters what he could do to fix concrete problems that were emerging now—as opposed to speculation about what would implode on Election Day. If problems arose, Conley said he would deal with those issues then. For example, could he issue an order to people who could not find a witness, such as seniors living alone, to have their ballot count? Could he extend the day by which mail-in ballots would still be accepted and be counted, as local officials were still mailing them out and postal delivery was known to be slow?
This posture—respecting a state legislature’s laws and state election bureaucracy’s rules—is the heart of federalism and required by the U.S. Constitution, the judge said from the bench, as he rejected arguments to postpone the April 7 election but struggled to identify remedies that he could order to facilitate voting.
Why these frames matter in 2020 is that there is a spectrum of uneven laws and rules that currently surround absentee voters, voting by mail and counting those ballots in state after state. These include: how registered voters are notified about voting by mail—or not; how voters apply to vote absentee; ID requirements to get a mail-in ballot; whether additional affidavits or witnesses are required to submit an absentee ballot; whether helping someone to fill out and return a ballot is a crime; whether the state will pay for the postage to return ballots; what voter signatures on file with the state are used to verify or reject the signatures on ballot envelopes; the signature verification standards used; when absentee ballots must be received to count; how long local boards have to do all the processing; and more.
Many of these issues are the subject of pending and possible litigation in state after state, where judges—not legislatures—will decide how 2020’s elections are run during a pandemic. Why not legislatures? Because most 2020 legislative sessions have been suspended, postponed or adjourned due to the pandemic, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Meanwhile, what has emerged are varying and evolving responses. Lawyers for Democratic Party organizations and voting rights groups are seeking the most sweeping changes to boost participation. Some state election regulators and some governors are taking steps to open up the process, but generally are not going as far as Democrats and voting rights activists would like. And Republicans—especially in states where they hold legislative majorities, like Wisconsin—have been rejecting those efforts, leaving newly identified barriers in place.
The politics behind these decisions and actions are clear. Voting by mail tends to have a higher turnout among middle- and upper-income voters, which favors the GOP. Lower-income people and students often have less reliable and accessible mailboxes. Thus Democrats are seeking to expand participation and remove any barriers. This reality was affirmed by President Trump criticizing the election reforms in the House’s latest relief bill on Fox News on March 31, when he said , “The things they had in there were crazy. They had levels of voting, that if you ever agreed to it you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”
Where this landscape comes full circle in Judge Conley’s courtroom is the federal judge is looking for narrow remedies that he can order to cure problems that have presented themselves. This is the same framework that U.S. District Court Judge Mark Walker used in November 2018, when Florida was conducting three simultaneous statewide recounts. Walker ordered the state to let voters fix problematic signatures on ballot envelopes so their vote would count.
Meanwhile, voting rights lawyers kept presenting the latest developments to Conley, such as more than 100 Wisconsin municipalities lacking enough poll workers to open polling places (a minimum of three are required) on April 7. (Democratic Governor Tony Evers will deploy National Guard members.) Or reports that 1,100 absentee ballot requests by seniors in Madison could not be processed because the county clerk did not have the voters’ IDs in their files.
“This is Republican voter suppression in action,” tweeted Marc Elias, a voting rights lawyer who is the lead attorney on two-dozen lawsuits filed by the Democratic Party and allies across the country, referring to the voter ID issue. “This is exactly why we are suing WI [Wisconsin] to extend the deadline for counting those ballots,” he said, in an April 1 tweet , referring to the litigation before Judge Conley.
Outside Wisconsin
Judge Conley signaled from the bench that he would not postpone Wisconsin’s April 7 statewide election but would issue orders as evidence of concrete problems and remedies were proposed. On April 2, he issued an order that kept the election but extended the ballot return deadline from April 7 to April 13. He also suspended the witness requirement, saying that voters could include a note with their returned ballots that they could not get a witness.
Elsewhere in the country, it is possible to see the spectrum of conflicting issues and responses that concern absentee voting, some of which have already sparked lawsuits and some of which are likely to end up in state or federal court.
For example, in the 15 states where Elias has sued on behalf of Democrats, two of them—Louisiana and Michigan—have existing laws where first-time voters cannot use absentee ballots and are required to vote in person at a polling place.
On March 27, Michigan’s Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed an executive order “to provide absentee ballots directly to new registrants” and told local election officials to pay for the postage on ballot return envelopes. Her order, however, did not address issues in suits that Elias filed earlier this year, such as seeking uniform standards for reviewing signatures on absentee ballot envelopes or nullifying a 1950s law that criminalizes helping others with absentee ballots.
Louisiana election officials did not respond when asked about their latest updates in absentee voting rules after they postponed their April 4 primary until June 20.
Among the states targeted by Democratic Party suits are four others (in addition to Wisconsin) where witnesses or notaries must sign absentee ballot envelopes. Those states are Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and North Carolina.
In North Carolina, a political standoff is developing over whether absentee voting should be accompanied by technicalities such as the witness requirement, which could deter voters. On March 26, the executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections (BOE) sent a detailed letter to Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper and Republican legislative leadership with more than a dozen recommendations to make absentee voting easier—including reducing or eliminating the witness requirement, establishing an online portal to request absentee ballots and the state paying for the return postage. (The memo did not address a 2019 law criminalizing individuals and organizations from helping voters fill out absentee ballots, which Elias has sued to overturn.)
The North Carolina state board also announced it was expanding online tools for voters to update their registration information. But Patrick Gannon, the board’s spokesman, said that only the state’s General Assembly and governor had the authority to change most of the absentee voting rules. On April 1, the state’s top Republican lawmaker opposed the BOE director’s suggestions, saying , “Some progressive, liberal Democratic groups would like to roll that back and put us where we were. I’m afraid that’s where the election director would take us with her proposals.”
There are similar controversies simmering in Georgia, where Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, is sending absentee ballot request forms to 6.9 million “active voters” for the upcoming May 19 presidential primary. That move drew praise from the Democratic Party of Georgia, which still added that the state should do more and pay for return postage. Other advocates criticized Raffensperger because the state’s voter rolls also have “inactive voters,” which means that not every eligible voter would be notified.
However, Raffensperger’s steps went too far for some Georgia Republicans. David Ralson, Speaker of the Georgia House, on April 1 told an interviewer, “This [potential precedent] will be extremely devastating to Republicans and conservatives in Georgia … This will certainly drive up turnout.” A day later, on April 2, Raffensperger issued a press release, “ Fighting Fake News in Georgia ,” which said, “the Secretary of State is only sending ballot request forms to active voters in Georgia for the upcoming May election only… The Secretary of State is not implementing statewide mail-in voting.”
These political fights and their details are a harbinger of what is to come later in 2020 as the pandemic unfolds and government officials react. Whether absentee voting will be made easier is a political decision that will unfurl state by state.
Very few states are following the example of New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, a Democrat, who wants “to conduct an all-mail 2020 Primary Election” in June, where “an absentee ballot will be mailed to every eligible major party voter in the state,” as a March 31 release said. But Toulouse Oliver must first get the permission of New Mexico’s Supreme Court to do so. New Mexico’s 2020 legislative session has been suspended .
Thus, it will be up to the judiciary more so than legislators, and possibly more than governors, to referee the means and rules for voting in 2020 in the pandemic. In a sense, the courtroom fights over voting in 2020 have barely begun.
“We continue to look at all aspects of state voting laws to ensure every eligible voter has an opportunity to vote and have their vote counted accurately,” Elias said. “I expect to have to file additional lawsuits in the coming weeks and months to protect the right to vote.”


dailykos--2020-04-07--Donald Trump and the Politics of Coronavirus

There is a little devil inside all of us , a snarling and taunting devil , who injects the most shameful and corrupt ideas into our brains .
We are repelled by the ideas , and we try to suppress them , but they remain , boring themselves into our subconscious .
From there , they affect our rationality , our assumptions , and our interpretation of world around us .
There is a feeling among us Democrats that the Covid-19 crisis will signal the end of Trump .
That deaths will climb into the millions by September , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his failure .
I believe that those projections are too high , and perhaps the nasty devil is partially to blame .
He whispers , `` hey , you want Trump to lose ?
Well then ... . ''
This shameful idea induces an uncomfortable sense of cognitive dissonance .
We hope for few deaths , but we also hope that Trump loses .
We are gentle and humane people , so the dissonance resolves itself toward hoping for the fewest possible deaths , even if it could lead to a Trump victory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there , lingering .
Donald Trump , who operates on the premise that everyone is as evil and cunning as he is , has already anticipated this , claiming that Democrats want more deaths to make him look bad .
Because that is exactly how he would operate if the shoe were on the other foot .
And , unlike us , he is not ashamed of the idea .
He would embrace it .
Recently user cityduck wrote a political ( not medical ) diary on this issue , urging caution for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will finish Trump .
The idea was that Trump is now declaring that we could arrive at `` only '' 240,000 deaths , and if by November , the reported number is lower , then Trump will declare victory , and people will believe him .
This is the ancient tactic of setting low expectations , beating those expectations , and therefore `` winning '' .
The diarist ’ s work was not received favorably , and comments criticized him along the following lines : • Trump is too stupid to develop such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of deaths , and Trump will lose through his failure .
• Even if there are 100,000 deaths , he will still lose due to his ineptitude in managing the crisis .
Of these three scenarios , the first is irrelevant , since it ’ s now clear that he is using that strategy .
The second relies on unscientific models , yielding estimates that no epidemiologist is considering at this point .
The last criticism is valid , the it raises the political question that Cityduck points out .
How will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
If you believe this discussion is too cynical , then let me ask you : Can you honestly say you have not had similar shameful thoughts ?
If you say no , then you are lying , unless you are a saint - in which case you are probably too `` pure '' to be on a political site .
Let 's first cover the criticisms in Cityduck ’ s thesis .
Trump is too stupid to develop such a strategy These comments are so wrong-headed that I do n't know where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but he is clever ( I prefer the Italian word furbo , which means clever and cynical ) .
And he has an army of political advisers around him who are not stupid .
Did n't Trump win in 2016 ?
'Nuff said .
There will be millions of deaths , and Trump will lose through his failure This last person was replying to me , and added this : Epidemiologists are not projecting numbers like this .
Given that this is a `` reality-based community '' , let 's try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wide bracket of 100K to 240K is realistic , and by September the death total will lie somewhere therein .
In Cityduck 's diary , I posted a comment referring to the Italian model , to overestimate the number of deaths in the US ( edited to bring the numbers up to date ) : Let ’ s look at the reports from Italy : As of today , they have roughly 16K dead .
Assume that those numbers double by mid-summer , to 32K dead .
America ’ s population is 5.5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Italian model , and considering the shift in our infection curve , we could have roughly 176K dead by August .
Some will argue Italy has imposed a true lockdown , and we have not , hence the proportion of deaths in the US be higher .
But it is also true that in Italian society , the elderly have much , much , more contact with the younger generations , a fact which partially explains the high rate of infections and deaths over a short period of time .
Moreover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which again helps explain the high death to infected ratio .
I may be totally wrong about this .
But do you really want to neglect this possibility altogether ?
As Cityduck wrote , he Trump will declare victory if the number is lower , and many people will accept that line of reasoning , especially those without deaths in their own families .
Even if there are 100,000 deaths , he will still lose due to his ineptitude in managing the crisis Here we have the point of the diary .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ so it must be reinforced every day .
Here is the best comment from the diary .
My question is , how ?
Joe Biden must walk carefully in this crisis , and not appear to be profiting from it .
Of course he should continue his podcasts , but the only people who watch them are already Biden supporters .
But it would be better to appear daily , with a group of scientists , to toss out concrete proposals that find themselves in the public discourse on the subject .
Ideas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conference , such as `` President Trump , Joe Biden suggests that we do this .
What do you think ? ''
Finally ( and this may be controversial ) , Biden could criticize the 240,000 prediction , saying that it would be a complete failure of our public health system , and that those lives could have been spared under more competent management .
OK , I have run out of time here , and solicit your ideas about this .
Edited 7 April , to correct typos and tone down my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of dead .
Note : The “ devil ” metaphor was borrowed from Dostoyevsky , who pursued this theme in all of his great works .
Dostoyevsky detested liberals ( Stepan Verkhovensky ) and would have detested this site , as he detested similar “ sites ” in his day .
He was more attracted to the protagonists who pursue a devilish idea to its logical extreme ( Ivan Karamazov , Raskolnikov ) , regardless of where it finished .
I have no idea what he would have done with Trump , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump would be well worth reading .

There is a little devil inside all of us, a snarling and taunting devil, who injects the most shameful and corrupt ideas into our brains. We are repelled by the ideas, and we try to suppress them, but they remain, boring themselves into our subconscious. From there, they affect our rationality, our assumptions, and our interpretation of world around us.
There is a feeling among us Democrats that the Covid-19 crisis will signal the end of Trump. That deaths will climb into the millions by September, and Trump will collapse under the weight of his failure.
I believe that those projections are too high, and perhaps the nasty devil is partially to blame. He whispers, "hey, you want Trump to lose? Well then...." This shameful idea induces an uncomfortable sense of cognitive dissonance. We hope for few deaths, but we also hope that Trump loses. We are gentle and humane people, so the dissonance resolves itself toward hoping for the fewest possible deaths, even if it could lead to a Trump victory. But still, the idea remains there, lingering.
Donald Trump, who operates on the premise that everyone is as evil and cunning as he is, has already anticipated this, claiming that Democrats want more deaths to make him look bad. Because that is exactly how he would operate if the shoe were on the other foot. And, unlike us, he is not ashamed of the idea. He would embrace it.
Recently user cityduck wrote a political (not medical) diary on this issue, urging caution for Democrats, who assume that the crisis will finish Trump. The idea was that Trump is now declaring that we could arrive at "only" 240,000 deaths, and if by November, the reported number is lower, then Trump will declare victory, and people will believe him. This is the ancient tactic of setting low expectations, beating those expectations, and therefore "winning".
The diarist’s work was not received favorably, and comments criticized him along the following lines:
Trump is too stupid to develop such a strategy.
There will be millions of deaths, and Trump will lose through his failure.
Even if there are 100,000 deaths, he will still lose due to his ineptitude in managing the crisis.
Of these three scenarios, the first is irrelevant, since it’s now clear that he is using that strategy. The second relies on unscientific models, yielding estimates that no epidemiologist is considering at this point.
The last criticism is valid, the it raises the political question that Cityduck points out. How will people associate those mortality statistics with Trump?
If you believe this discussion is too cynical, then let me ask you: Can you honestly say you have not had similar shameful thoughts? If you say no, then you are lying, unless you are a saint - in which case you are probably too "pure" to be on a political site.
Let's first cover the criticisms in Cityduck’s thesis.
Trump is too stupid to develop such a strategy
Maybe, if he were Nixon, this would be a likely scenario. But we are talking about the stupid idiot-in-chief. And the one thing he has made very clear is that he has no strategy. For anything.
People need to stop acting like Trump's better than he is. He is not an evil Mastermind. He's just evil.
You assume Trump and his administration is competent enough to do such a thing.
Don't be absurd. He had neither the subtlety nor the intelligence to do that.
These comments are so wrong-headed that I don't know where to start. Trump may be stupid, but he is clever (I prefer the Italian word furbo, which means clever and cynical). And he has an army of political advisers around him who are not stupid. Didn't Trump win in 2016? 'Nuff said.
There will be millions of deaths, and Trump will lose through his failure
No, no, no. The 240,000 is intentionally low to make his administration look good.
I think we are looking at 60 to 100 million infected (a lot of that in the south due to their slow response in shutting down) and 1.4 to 2.6 million plus an additional 500k to 750k deaths due to unavailable resources to non-covid19 patients.
Texas and Florida are each likely to hit that 100K-240K threshold independently of each other.
If we have ONLY 10% of the country get this, and ONLY 1% mortality, that still leaves 360K dead people.
Simple extrapolation of the known mortality rate puts the figure much higher than 240,000. Much higher.
The actual numbers, going by the estimated 70% exposure rate would be 230,000,000 people exposed, 115,150,000 infected and about 2,878,750 dead or well over ten times Trump’s highest estimate of dead.
This last person was replying to me, and added this:
That's arithmetic. Sorry but it doesn’t favor your comfort.
Epidemiologists are not projecting numbers like this. Given that this is a "reality-based community", let's try to get real. I think Trump's wide bracket of 100K to 240K is realistic, and by September the death total will lie somewhere therein.
In Cityduck's diary, I posted a comment referring to the Italian model, to overestimate the number of deaths in the US (edited to bring the numbers up to date):
Let’s look at the reports from Italy: As of today, they have roughly 16K dead. Assume that those numbers double by mid-summer, to 32K dead. America’s population is 5.5 times that of Italy, so going by the Italian model, and considering the shift in our infection curve, we could have roughly 176K dead by August. Some will argue Italy has imposed a true lockdown, and we have not, hence the proportion of deaths in the US be higher. But it is also true that in Italian society, the elderly have much, much, more contact with the younger generations, a fact which partially explains the high rate of infections and deaths over a short period of time. Moreover Italy’s population is significantly older, which again helps explain the high death to infected ratio.
….
In October, all Trump needs to do is to put up a chart showing the statistics from Italy, Spain and the US, and claim that he did a better job — and that he came in under the projected 240,000.
I may be totally wrong about this. But do you really want to neglect this possibility altogether? As Cityduck wrote, he Trump will declare victory if the number is lower, and many people will accept that line of reasoning, especially those without deaths in their own families.
Even if there are 100,000 deaths, he will still lose due to his ineptitude in managing the crisis
Here we have the point of the diary. But it will not happen automatically, so it must be reinforced every day. Here is the best comment from the diary.
Regardless of the number of fatalities it must be constantly pounded that far more died than would have had Trump done his job and he must be held accountable.
My question is, how? Joe Biden must walk carefully in this crisis, and not appear to be profiting from it. Of course he should continue his podcasts, but the only people who watch them are already Biden supporters.
But it would be better to appear daily, with a group of scientists, to toss out concrete proposals that find themselves in the public discourse on the subject. Ideas that a reporter could use in press conference, such as "President Trump, Joe Biden suggests that we do this. What do you think?"
Finally (and this may be controversial), Biden could criticize the 240,000 prediction, saying that it would be a complete failure of our public health system, and that those lives could have been spared under more competent management.
OK, I have run out of time here, and solicit your ideas about this.
-----------------—
Edited 7 April, to correct typos and tone down my criticism of those that predict larger numbers of dead.
Note: The “devil” metaphor was borrowed from Dostoyevsky, who pursued this theme in all of his great works. Dostoyevsky detested liberals (Stepan Verkhovensky) and would have detested this site, as he detested similar “sites” in his day. He was more attracted to the protagonists who pursue a devilish idea to its logical extreme (Ivan Karamazov, Raskolnikov), regardless of where it finished. I have no idea what he would have done with Trump, but I am certain that his portrait of Trump would be well worth reading.


dailykos--2020-04-06--HANGING IN THE BALANCE

HANGING IN THE BALANCE

“ It ’ s one thing to defend Trump ’ s lies and insanity when your life does not hang in the balance , quite another to follow him through the Gates of Hell just to irritate smart people .
Last laughs are hard to come by in the cemetery.
” Mr. Crespo , a friend of mine three-thousand miles away , has a native New Yorker ’ s terse and unvarnished way of putting things that we laid back , over-friendly Californians need sometimes , just to picture grim reality when there is no sugar coating to be found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a time .
Coronavirus is here , it is deadly , it besieges everyone , everywhere , and the outcome is unforeseeable .
We can not afford to allow an incompetent , ignorant egomaniac to waste any more of our time and energy feeding his insatiable conceit .
We who see the threat and intend to do something about it , as well as pick up the pieces when it is over ( if we ’ re still around ) and try to restore a free and provident society , must stand tough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality .
Donald Trump , who until recently made light of the coronavirus pandemic , finally changed course as the situation got steadily and obviously worse .
It appears that at least some of the people in the executive branch have gotten Trump ’ s momentary attention , convincing him to co-operate with Congress and actually do something constructive about the crisis .
Good sense seems to be prevailing to some extent , allowing government to participate in promoting the general welfare , or at least lessening the horrible damage we face .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Not only lives , but quality of life for the survivors , are on the line .
No bombs , no walls , can stop the tiny enemy that has invaded America , and the rest of the world as well .
We should pity the Fox News people , who must be tying themselves in knots trying to make the lies Donald Trump tells seem the least bit plausible .
We also must remember that Trump is only a symptom—the logical conclusion of a mindset that has been slowly taking over this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rugged individualism .
The proponents of this religion : Saints Ayn , Milton , and Ronald , along with the priestly class in rightwing politics and media , hold out the prospect of eternal bliss through complete freedom , letting everybody amorally seek whatever they may desire , free of social control .
In reality , society always ends up with a few extremely rugged ( not to mention crafty , manipulative , and lucky ) individuals in total control , leaving all the other individuals with one choice : to serve those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump is the latest high priest of the faith , aspiring to sainthood himself with the benediction “ You ’ re fired.
” Raw private enterprise has a certain appeal to some people , who believe the world truly is a nasty , ugly , mean-tempered place , who believe that they are well-equipped to thrive in such a world ; who believe that the weak need to perish to make the world healthier for those who remain ( themselves ) .
I am glad to live in a country where people can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where we are free to disagree on how to run society .
But we have a new threat here .
We are no longer discussing how many will lose their houses to cover medical expenses , or how many will work until they die , or who gets locked up at the border , and who gets to do the menial jobs those people tried to come here to do .
We are trying to fight an enemy so tiny it can only be seen with an electron microscope , but which has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but potentially huge , number of human beings .
We need to face this threat , despite dishonest politicians ( no matter how high up they ma be ) who use the crisis to implement their own agendas .
The loyal base of Trump ’ s true believers intends to vote .
We need to overwhelm them at the ballot box , which means no matter how distastefully human we might find the opposition party ’ s candidates , we need to vote out those currently in charge .
With no end of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more and more like a long time .
The nominal leader of the Free World changed his mind about the Easter deadline , but he has been ignoring , downplaying , and hiding the grim truth about this illness since it came about .
He has done nothing that the lords of capital would not want him to do .
Cutting funding for emergency procedures and general medical care are inherent in the capitalist instinct .
Capitalists look to free up money that they might grab and keep .
Now we find ourselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religion : a widespread killer is on the loose , and no individualist solution is going to arrest it .
That Trump extended the Easter deadline for returning to work means the people behind him talked to him in no uncertain terms .
Surely the one percenters know that we are in uncharted territory .
They are risking a fundamental principle of capitalism : the owner of the enterprise has the right to employ or not employ whomever he wants , to fire at will , no reason or explanation needed—else free enterprise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depend on this dogmatic conviction to restore their absolute power .
The goal of the plutocrats is to return us to the glory days of the robber barons , days when whomever did not work , for whatever reason , did not eat .
Sensible people take no issue with the principle that everyone in society must work to contribute to the overall prosperity .
But if there is not enough work for all who need work , if doing the work does not pay enough for workers to buy the necessities they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correct the situation .
How many epidemics and pandemics were spread in the old days due to the devout practice of the bosses ’ creed we can never know , but the tycoons had one goal : profits .
By abusing labor they profited .
They have been working tirelessly to bring back those days .
Yet they decided in the current crisis to bend their hard rule , because nobody know where the crisis will take us .
Donald Trump wanted to bet the farm on this gamble , but the actual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him do it .
For the first three years of Trump ’ s reign , the political battle was between people and profits ; and for their own reasons many working people believe profits come first .
But the stakes in the game have risen in recent weeks .
In spring of 2020 the conflict is now between life and death .
A minute , silent killer is on the loose .
Trump and his followers are whistling in the dark about it , but we who know better had better act otherwise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea what the scale of this disaster might be , but they do have the best ideas of anyone , concerning what we need to do .
Internet socializing and homemade masks are not going to eliminate the threat .
We need a nationwide mobilization to get medical treatment and equipment to everyone , and it needs to be on a priority akin to war and on a scale that the world ’ s richest country can handle .
If the Trump loyalists turn out to be right that there was nothing really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency infrastructure and implement sufficient medical treatment nationwide , and it turns out the coronavirus threat was not so serious after all—I will be happy to let them have the last laugh .
Footnote : Bob Crespo writes a blog in which he records the events of each week of Donald Trump ’ s presidency .
If you like my writing you will love Bob ’ s .

“It’s one thing to defend Trump’s lies and insanity when your life does not hang in the balance, quite another to follow him through the Gates of Hell just to irritate smart people. Last laughs are hard to come by in the cemetery.”
Bob Crespo
3/19/2020
Mr. Crespo, a friend of mine three-thousand miles away, has a native New Yorker’s terse and unvarnished way of putting things that we laid back, over-friendly Californians need sometimes, just to picture grim reality when there is no sugar coating to be found. The spring of 2020 is such a time. Coronavirus is here, it is deadly, it besieges everyone, everywhere, and the outcome is unforeseeable. We cannot afford to allow an incompetent, ignorant egomaniac to waste any more of our time and energy feeding his insatiable conceit. We who see the threat and intend to do something about it, as well as pick up the pieces when it is over (if we’re still around) and try to restore a free and provident society, must stand tough in the face of unbelievable resistance to reality.
Donald Trump, who until recently made light of the coronavirus pandemic, finally changed course as the situation got steadily and obviously worse. It appears that at least some of the people in the executive branch have gotten Trump’s momentary attention, convincing him to co-operate with Congress and actually do something constructive about the crisis. Good sense seems to be prevailing to some extent, allowing government to participate in promoting the general welfare, or at least lessening the horrible damage we face. We still have much to do. Not only lives, but quality of life for the survivors, are on the line. No bombs, no walls, can stop the tiny enemy that has invaded America, and the rest of the world as well.
We should pity the Fox News people, who must be tying themselves in knots trying to make the lies Donald Trump tells seem the least bit plausible. We also must remember that Trump is only a symptom—the logical conclusion of a mindset that has been slowly taking over this country: unbridled capitalism, disguised as rugged individualism. The proponents of this religion: Saints Ayn, Milton, and Ronald, along with the priestly class in rightwing politics and media, hold out the prospect of eternal bliss through complete freedom, letting everybody amorally seek whatever they may desire, free of social control. In reality, society always ends up with a few extremely rugged (not to mention crafty, manipulative, and lucky) individuals in total control, leaving all the other individuals with one choice: to serve those on top, or perish. Donald Trump is the latest high priest of the faith, aspiring to sainthood himself with the benediction “You’re fired.”
Raw private enterprise has a certain appeal to some people, who believe the world truly is a nasty, ugly, mean-tempered place, who believe that they are well-equipped to thrive in such a world; who believe that the weak need to perish to make the world healthier for those who remain (themselves). I am glad to live in a country where people can think freely and express their thoughts, where we are free to disagree on how to run society. But we have a new threat here. We are no longer discussing how many will lose their houses to cover medical expenses, or how many will work until they die, or who gets locked up at the border, and who gets to do the menial jobs those people tried to come here to do. We are trying to fight an enemy so tiny it can only be seen with an electron microscope, but which has the potential and kill an unknown, but potentially huge, number of human beings. We need to face this threat, despite dishonest politicians (no matter how high up they ma be) who use the crisis to implement their own agendas. The loyal base of Trump’s true believers intends to vote. We need to overwhelm them at the ballot box, which means no matter how distastefully human we might find the opposition party’s candidates, we need to vote out those currently in charge.
With no end of the crisis in sight, it looks more and more like a long time. The nominal leader of the Free World changed his mind about the Easter deadline, but he has been ignoring, downplaying, and hiding the grim truth about this illness since it came about. He has done nothing that the lords of capital would not want him to do. Cutting funding for emergency procedures and general medical care are inherent in the capitalist instinct. Capitalists look to free up money that they might grab and keep. Now we find ourselves facing the ultimate reward of the capitalistic religion: a widespread killer is on the loose, and no individualist solution is going to arrest it.
That Trump extended the Easter deadline for returning to work means the people behind him talked to him in no uncertain terms. Surely the one percenters know that we are in uncharted territory. They are risking a fundamental principle of capitalism: the owner of the enterprise has the right to employ or not employ whomever he wants, to fire at will, no reason or explanation needed—else free enterprise will die. The lords of capital depend on this dogmatic conviction to restore their absolute power. The goal of the plutocrats is to return us to the glory days of the robber barons, days when whomever did not work, for whatever reason, did not eat. Sensible people take no issue with the principle that everyone in society must work to contribute to the overall prosperity. But if there is not enough work for all who need work, if doing the work does not pay enough for workers to buy the necessities they produce, some of us seek to correct the situation. How many epidemics and pandemics were spread in the old days due to the devout practice of the bosses’ creed we can never know, but the tycoons had one goal: profits. By abusing labor they profited. They have been working tirelessly to bring back those days. Yet they decided in the current crisis to bend their hard rule, because nobody know where the crisis will take us. Donald Trump wanted to bet the farm on this gamble, but the actual rulers behind him were unwilling to let him do it.
For the first three years of Trump’s reign, the political battle was between people and profits; and for their own reasons many working people believe profits come first. But the stakes in the game have risen in recent weeks. In spring of 2020 the conflict is now between life and death. A minute, silent killer is on the loose. Trump and his followers are whistling in the dark about it, but we who know better had better act otherwise. Scientific and medical people have no idea what the scale of this disaster might be, but they do have the best ideas of anyone, concerning what we need to do. Internet socializing and homemade masks are not going to eliminate the threat. We need a nationwide mobilization to get medical treatment and equipment to everyone, and it needs to be on a priority akin to war and on a scale that the world’s richest country can handle. If the Trump loyalists turn out to be right that there was nothing really to worry about—if we rebuild our medical emergency infrastructure and implement sufficient medical treatment nationwide, and it turns out the coronavirus threat was not so serious after all—I will be happy to let them have the last laugh.
Footnote: Bob Crespo writes a blog in which he records the events of each week of Donald Trump’s presidency. If you like my writing you will love Bob’s.