msnbc--2020-11-05--It's not not just the desertion of white men that will keep Trump up at night — it's why

The ballots are still being counted in this year ’ s record voter turnout election , and so far we have an electoral map that looks a lot more like election 2016 than the polls ( or , the “ poles ” if you go by President Donald Trump 's tweets ) projected .
But one thing that does look different in 2020 is a significant narrowing of the gender gap .
While one would assume it ’ s because more white women with college degrees voted for former Vice President Joe Biden , it appears , in fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white men who did not vote for Trump this time around .
While there has been a lot of chatter about white women , infamously labeled “ wine moms , ” deserting Trump , embarking on an apology tour and promising to kick him out of office , that trend doesn ’ t seem to have materialized in the exit polls so far .
Based on the exit poll data we have , which , it must be noted , is preliminary and can be flawed , more white women seemed to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 .
White women , and especially those without college degrees , have shown time and time again that they are one of the most loyal voting blocs for Republicans ( even when they say they find their candidate disgusting and sexist ) .
Again , exit polls can be flawed ; according to data journalist Mona Chalabi , they can be more or less trusted if interpreted with at least a 5 percent margin of error .
But what ’ s surprising here is not white women ’ s unflagging devotion to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparent desertion of him .
One of the most surprising trends in the exit polls was that Trump seems to have gained traction with every single demographic of voters , with the exception of white men .
As NBC News reported , Joe Biden ’ s win in certain states can be attributed to white women with a college degree and voters of color , but “ it was his relative strength among white men without a college degree , though , that helped put him over the top ” in those states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their back on Trump is surprising because he deliberately and shamelessly — and by all appearances , successfully — has painted himself as both their champion and their savior .
I noticed this trend and wrote about it a few weeks before the election after having numerous conversations with recovering white Republican men who were fed up with Trump .
Now we have the exit polls to support it .
White men were Trump ’ s firewall , and that firewall appears to be been usurped .
In other words , white men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and four years later it appears they ’ re a key reason this election is so very close .
According to Jackson Katz , masculinity studies expert , author and creator of the film “ The Man Card : White male identity politics from Nixon to Trump , ” white men peeling away from Trump can be explained by the same phenomenon that led men toward light beer in the 1990s , after beer companies famously used hypermasculine football players in their advertisements .
Seeing tough men drinking light beer on screen gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ product commercially reserved for women .
Katz refers to this behavioral concept as a “ permission structure ” and he says it applies to white men dissenting from Trump because the high-status men who publicly abandoned him gave them license to do it , too .
“ A lot of prominent men , including white men , publicly criticized Trump , whether it ’ s military generals , national security state officials and former Republican operatives ... like the Lincoln Project , ” Katz explained .
“ If you have men who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not support Donald Trump and in fact think that he is a bad leader , it gives cover to men , ” he said .
“ These men gave permission to men to say ‘ you can be a man and be against Trump.
’ ” Trump ’ s ineptitude when it came to controlling the coronavirus may have also driven male voters away .
According to Katz , it was Trump ’ s colossal failure in his duty to protect millions of Americans from the coronavirus that could have been the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use gendered terms , it ’ s the failure to fulfill the fundamental role that a man is supposed to hold in traditional terms , ” he said .
“ In that sense , Donald Trump failed .
...
It didn ’ t line up with his performance of manhood.
” Worse , his erratic approach and the fact that he himself contracted the virus revealed his inability to fulfill his own definitions of being a quote-unquote tough guy .
“ Isn ’ t Covid an enemy ?
” Katz said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Frankly , the alternative form of masculinity that Biden modeled and bestowed upon white men couldn ’ t have been more distinct from the guy who will be remembered for bragging about his penis size and calling women ugly when he ran for president .
Biden “ was the first VP for the first Black president and now the first president with a vice president who is a woman of color , ” Katz explained .
“ He is modeling a kind of white masculinity that is a transitional model .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of color like Donald Trump is , ... Joe Biden is confident enough to welcome it.
” Despite Trump ’ s reactionary backlash to racial justice and women ’ s rights , there ’ s a palpable shift trending toward a more diverse coalition of leadership , with the 2020 election a historical night for black and LGBTQ+ candidates like Ritchie Torres and Mondaire Jones becoming the first openly gay Black men elected to Congress and Black Lives Matter activist Cori Bush becoming Missouri ’ s first black congresswoman .
White men have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be scared of it .
Don ’ t get me wrong ; when I spoke to Republican-voting men , they were generally enthusiastic about voting against Trump , but not necessarily about voting for Biden .
John Chapman , a 36-year-old who interned for the Republican National Committee and spent a summer working for the Bush administration , told me he felt lukewarm about voting for Biden but he couldn ’ t get himself to vote for Trump because he was a `` symptom ” of the toxic masculinity so many have grown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and a lot of other men , casting a vote for Biden isn ’ t about endorsing Biden ’ s brand of masculinity , it ’ s about having the agency to choose their own .
This election pushed Trump 's masculinity into the spotlight .
And if nothing else , it may have made some men rethink what kind of men they really want to be — and the kind of man they want sitting in the Oval Office .
CORRECTION ( Nov. 5 , 2020 , 9:25 p.m .
ET @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article misstated the decade when beer companies launched ad campaigns for lite beer targeted at male consumers .
It was the 1970s , not the 1990s .

The ballots are still being counted in this year’s record voter turnout election, and so far we have an electoral map that looks a lot more like election 2016 than the polls (or, the “poles” if you go by President Donald Trump's tweets) projected.
Dear @realDonaldTrump - you accidentally deleted this tweet about Poles pic.twitter.com/D5rQd5KMXN — Jimmy Kimmel (@jimmykimmel) November 4, 2020
But one thing that does look different in 2020 is a significant narrowing of the gender gap. While one would assume it’s because more white women with college degrees voted for former Vice President Joe Biden, it appears, in fact, to have more to do with the white men who did not vote for Trump this time around.
White men were the reason Donald Trump became president, and four years later it appears they’re a key reason this election is so very close.
While there has been a lot of chatter about white women, infamously labeled “wine moms,” deserting Trump, embarking on an apology tour and promising to kick him out of office, that trend doesn’t seem to have materialized in the exit polls so far. Based on the exit poll data we have, which, it must be noted, is preliminary and can be flawed, more white women seemed to have voted for Trump than they did in 2016. White women, and especially those without college degrees, have shown time and time again that they are one of the most loyal voting blocs for Republicans (even when they say they find their candidate disgusting and sexist).
Again, exit polls can be flawed; according to data journalist Mona Chalabi, they can be more or less trusted if interpreted with at least a 5 percent margin of error.
But what’s surprising here is not white women’s unflagging devotion to Trump, but white men’s apparent desertion of him. One of the most surprising trends in the exit polls was that Trump seems to have gained traction with every single demographic of voters, with the exception of white men.
As NBC News reported, Joe Biden’s win in certain states can be attributed to white women with a college degree and voters of color, but “it was his relative strength among white men without a college degree, though, that helped put him over the top” in those states.
A trend of white men turning their back on Trump is surprising because he deliberately and shamelessly — and by all appearances, successfully — has painted himself as both their champion and their savior. I noticed this trend and wrote about it a few weeks before the election after having numerous conversations with recovering white Republican men who were fed up with Trump.
Now we have the exit polls to support it. White men were Trump’s firewall, and that firewall appears to be been usurped. In other words, white men were the reason Trump became president, and four years later it appears they’re a key reason this election is so very close.
According to Jackson Katz, masculinity studies expert, author and creator of the film “The Man Card: White male identity politics from Nixon to Trump,”white men peeling away from Trump can be explained by the same phenomenon that led men toward light beer in the 1970s, after beer companies famously used hypermasculine football players in their advertisements.
White men peeling away from Trump can be explained by the same phenomenon that led men toward light beer in the 1990s, after beer companies famously used hypermasculine football players in their advertisements.
Seeing tough men drinking light beer on screen gave men permission to associate themselves with a product commercially reserved for women. Katz refers to this behavioral concept as a “permission structure” and he says it applies to white men dissenting from Trump because the high-status men who publicly abandoned him gave them license to do it, too.
“A lot of prominent men, including white men, publicly criticized Trump, whether it’s military generals, national security state officials and former Republican operatives ... like the Lincoln Project,” Katz explained. “If you have men who have traditional masculine credentials that say that they do not support Donald Trump and in fact think that he is a bad leader, it gives cover to men,” he said. “These men gave permission to men to say ‘you can be a man and be against Trump.’”
Trump’s ineptitude when it came to controlling the coronavirus may have also driven male voters away. According to Katz, it was Trump’s colossal failure in his duty to protect millions of Americans from the coronavirus that could have been the mortal blow. “If you want to use gendered terms, it’s the failure to fulfill the fundamental role that a man is supposed to hold in traditional terms,” he said. “In that sense, Donald Trump failed. ... It didn’t line up with his performance of manhood.” Worse, his erratic approach and the fact that he himself contracted the virus revealed his inability to fulfill his own definitions of being a quote-unquote tough guy. “Isn’t Covid an enemy?” Katz said. “His failures were failures to protect.”
Frankly, the alternative form of masculinity that Biden modeled and bestowed upon white men couldn’t have been more distinct from the guy who will be remembered for bragging about his penis size and calling women ugly when he ran for president. Biden “was the first VP for the first Black president and now the first president with a vice president who is a woman of color,” Katz explained. “He is modeling a kind of white masculinity that is a transitional model. Instead of being threatened by women or people of color like Donald Trump is, ... Joe Biden is confident enough to welcome it.”
Despite Trump’s reactionary backlash to racial justice and women’s rights, there’s a palpable shift trending toward a more diverse coalition of leadership, with the 2020 election a historical night for black and LGBTQ+ candidates like Ritchie Torres and Mondaire Jones becoming the first openly gay Black men elected to Congress and Black Lives Matter activist Cori Bush becoming Missouri’s first black congresswoman. White men have a choice: Embrace it, or be scared of it.
Don’t get me wrong; when I spoke to Republican-voting men, they were generally enthusiastic about voting against Trump, but not necessarily about voting for Biden. John Chapman, a 36-year-old who interned for the Republican National Committee and spent a summer working for the Bush administration, told me he felt lukewarm about voting for Biden but he couldn’t get himself to vote for Trump because he was a "symptom” of the toxic masculinity so many have grown up with and emulated. For Chapman, and a lot of other men, casting a vote for Biden isn’t about endorsing Biden’s brand of masculinity, it’s about having the agency to choose their own.
This election pushed Trump's masculinity into the spotlight. And if nothing else, it may have made some men rethink what kind of men they really want to be — and the kind of man they want sitting in the Oval Office.
CORRECTION (Nov. 5, 2020, 9:25 p.m. ET): A previous version of this article misstated the decade when beer companies launched ad campaigns for lite beer targeted at male consumers. It was the 1970s, not the 1990s.


msnbc--2020-11-05--MSNBC reporter confronts Trump campaign's Ric Grenell on allegations of Nevada voter fraud

Nicolle Wallace watched Trump ’ s latest speech so you didn ’ t have to .
Here ’ s why @ @ @ @ @ of his most dangerous yet .
’

Full Sen. Alexander: 'When it’s over, it’s over. And it should be over Monday’ 32:32


msnbc--2020-11-06--Arizona secretary of state: No illegal votes are being counted

MSNBC's Chief Legal Correspondent Ari Melber talks with Arizona's Secretary of State Katie Hobbs about the state's ballot counting process, what would happen if a court intervenes to alter or exclude votes and how Trump supporters are endangering the safety of workers. Hobbs asserts there are no illegal votes being counted in the state of Arizona, and that such disinformation undermines the election process.Nov. 6, 2020


msnbc--2020-11-05--Biden: We have 'no doubt' we will be declared the winners

Biden: We have 'no doubt' we will be declared the winners
Former Vice President Joe Biden says he has "no doubt" that he and running mate Sen. Kamala Harris will be declared the winners of the presidential election after all the remaining ballots have been counted.Nov. 5, 2020


msnbc--2020-11-05--Nevada election official: 'I am concerned for the safety of my staff'

Joe Gloria, Registrar of Voters for Clark County, Nevada says "we are putting measures into place to make sure that we have the security that is necessary. We are going to begin to monitor the vehicles as they come in.”Nov. 5, 2020


msnbc--2020-11-05--'A bit like sour grapes': Rep. Slotkin on Trump Mich. lawsuit

Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., discusses winning her re-election bid and why she says the president's handling of the coronavirus and health care played a part in how her district voted in 2020. Rep. Slotkin also discusses Trump lawsuits on voting results.Nov. 5, 2020


msnbc--2020-11-05--State of the race: Tight in Georgia, opportunities for Biden in Pennsylvania

Steve Kornacki compares how the vote count is shaping up in Georgia, where Joe Biden is steadily eating into Donald Trump's lead but the race remains close, and in Pennsylvania, where much of the uncounted vote is expected to favor Biden.Nov. 5, 2020


msnbc--2020-11-06--Kornacki: Philadelphia could be 'more than enough' to vault Biden over Trump in statewide lead

Kornacki: Philadelphia could be 'more than enough' to vault Biden over Trump in statewide lead
Steve Kornacki breaks down the latest ballots coming in for Pennsylvania. Kornacki says that if mail-in ballots continue to follow the trend of favoring Vice President Joe Biden, then "Philadelphia itself would be more than enough to vault Biden over Trump in that statewide lead."Nov. 6, 2020


msnbc--2020-11-06--Joy Reid: Trump allies feed ‘fantasy’ of forcing officials into declaring him the winner

Joy Reid: Trump allies feed ‘fantasy’ of forcing officials into declaring him the winner
Joy Reid notes that President Donald Trump's supporters in the media are suggesting that illegal legislative processes and acts of intimidation could help Trump retain the presidency.Nov. 6, 2020


msnbc--2020-11-06--Rep. Gallego: Turnout effort, investment in Latino community helping Biden in Arizona

Rep. Ruben Gallego talks with Rachel Maddow about the Democratic strategy in Arizona, trying to reach a broader range of voters, including extensive outreach to the Latino community, and focusing on turnout to counter large numbers of Republican voters in the state.Nov. 6, 2020


msnbc--2020-11-05--Ari Melber fact checks Trump’s latest false claims about ‘illegal votes’

Without evidence of any illegality, President Donald Trump claims that ‘if you count the legal votes, I easily win.’ MSNBC Senior Legal Analyst Ari Melber says that’s false: “The votes that have been lawfully apportioned, meaning what we’ve been following in each of these states, do not show that. They actually show what we’ve found, which is some states going in both directions, no one to 270."Nov. 5, 2020


msnbc--2020-11-05--What would a Biden-McConnell relationship look like?

Meacham: Pence probably saved the republic, but I don't always want to count on one person to do it 08:18


msnbc--2020-11-04--Trump's election night lie was infuriating. It also reflects the GOP's 2020 strategy.

We are in the weeds now with this election , counting the ballots as they come in for the remaining counties and states .
But as we focus on the numbers , the ups and downs , and the ultimate winners , we should not lose sight of the philosophy that has animated the president and his supporters in this election cycle so far , which is to try and keep the ballots cast by people who vote against them from being counted .
Voter suppression has been a consistent strategy of the Trump administration .
What ’ s new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s coming direct from the Oval Office .
That in itself should be shocking and people of all political stripes who are committed to our form of representative government should be outraged .
But Trump seems to have so dulled our national sensibilities that we are unable to muster much collective outrage over even the most undemocratic behaviors .
A president who seems to claim the ability to select his voters instead of letting the voters choose him should not have even a pretense of legitimacy .
But Trump has run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being cast and counted .
He came out and acknowledged it in late March when he reacted to a proposal that would have provided resources for absentee and mail-in voting during the pandemic by saying that if you had high levels of Democratic voting “ you ’ d never have a Republican elected in this country again.
” The strategy of voter suppression was apparent in a spate of cases brought by Republicans ahead of the election to challenge common-sense safety accommodations designed to make voting safer during the pandemic , in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Where Democrats sought additional days for ballots to be received in the mail when Postal delivery slowed , Republicans went to court to try and block the new rules , arguing ballots received after Election Day shouldn ’ t count .
Provisions for drive-thru voting were challenged as well .
With Election Day behind us , Republicans now seem prepared to continue this effort to keep Democrats ' votes from counting , seeking to challenge each individual ballot instead of statewide rules in some cases .
Before the election , there were already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on election night before all of the votes could be counted .
So , it came as no surprise that , moments after former Vice President Joe Biden counseled Americans to have patience and keep the faith as state vote counts continued , Trump tweeted : “ I will be making a statement tonight .
A big WIN !
” Hours later , he subsequently took to the White House 's flag-encrusted podium to claim victory , falsely insisting he had won states where all of the votes were yet to be counted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials .
That shameless lie is reprehensible .
What makes it worse is the context .
Trump has often worked harder to make sure ballots from Biden supporters weren ’ t counted than he has to win over people to vote for his policies and his leadership .
That fundamentally flawed approach , which erodes Americans ’ fundamental right to vote , is one more norm unacceptably shattered by Trump .
Voter suppression has been a long-term problem in America , but having a president publicly invoke it is something altogether unprecedented .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that 21st century politicians have explicitly embraced .
Democrats and people in the civil rights community denounced and fought against it — such is the legacy of John Lewis and Selma — and while politicians who engaged in questionable practices have defended themselves by saying they were using legitimate techniques to prevent voter fraud , they never openly embraced the suppression of votes .
That ’ s a new development with Trump , who has openly advocated for it .
Any post-election litigation on his behalf should be evaluated in light of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the courts and by the country .
A look at Wisconsin , where the race seems likely to come down to mail-in ballots , tells this story .
Ahead of the election , Republicans challenged a federal court ’ s decision allowing additional days after the election for mailed-in ballots to be received .
That decision was based on evidence that Justice Elena Kagan noted established “ unusually ” slow mail delivery meant as many as 100,000 voters who had fully complied with the rules would be disenfranchised .
And yet , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours after the polls had closed , he charged that the continued counting of votes was in some way disenfranchising people who had voted for him , charging that the continued counting of votes that had arrived in the mail amounted to stealing the election from him .
Republicans are also challenging the “ management and monitoring ” of ballot drop-boxes in Michigan , Minnesota , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin , demanding that those ballots be separated so they can be challenged after election results are in .
In Nevada , the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and prevent mail-in ballots from being counted and are prosecuting an appeal to permit them to review signatures .
There are other lawsuits in these states where votes are critical to the outcome of the election , designed to prevent American ’ s ballots from being counted , because the president doesn ’ t want them to have any say .
Moreover , a federal judge in Washington , D.C. , has set a hearing for Wednesday after the Postal Service , which was previously found to be engaging in deliberate conduct to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comply with a court order that would have put those ballots in election officials ’ hands before the close of Election Day .
A reported 300,000 ballots that were entrusted to the Post Office lacked a scan showing they had been delivered and states including Arizona , Florida , Georgia , Michigan , North Carolina , Ohio , and Pennsylvania fall within the court ’ s order .
The suppression has been widespread and at least partially successful .
It is worth pointing out that this is not an issue where both sides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of criticism .
While the Republican party has tried to narrow the number of eligible voters who get to vote — whether by restricting registration , requiring identification or limiting voting days — Democrats and their allies in the civil rights community have sought to expand opportunities for eligible voters .
They have sued and advocated for policies that make it easier to register and to vote , while pushing back against a false narrative of voter fraud that the president has pushed to try to restrict those who can exercise the franchise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrictions that favor their base .
Democrats have advocated for measures that open up the vote to all qualified citizens .
Achieving full voting rights in this country continues to be an aspirational goal .
But permitting a president to call , without opposition , for Americans to lose their right to vote to ensure his re-election is unacceptable .
There is something unsavory about an official who is supposed to serve the people waging a war to keep some of them from voting .
Trump thinks that only his supporters deserve to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out .
We ’ re at risk of becoming a country that works that way , in the tradition of other banana republics , if he ’ s not stopped .

We are in the weeds now with this election, counting the ballots as they come in for the remaining counties and states. But as we focus on the numbers, the ups and downs, and the ultimate winners, we should not lose sight of the philosophy that has animated the president and his supporters in this election cycle so far, which is to try and keep the ballots cast by people who vote against them from being counted.
Trump seems to have so dulled our national sensibilities that we are unable to muster much collective outrage over even the most undemocratic behavior.
Voter suppression has been a consistent strategy of the Trump administration. What’s new is that it’s explicit and it’s coming direct from the Oval Office. That in itself should be shocking and people of all political stripes who are committed to our form of representative government should be outraged. But Trump seems to have so dulled our national sensibilities that we are unable to muster much collective outrage over even the most undemocratic behaviors.
A president who seems to claim the ability to select his voters instead of letting the voters choose him should not have even a pretense of legitimacy. But Trump has run a campaign grounded in keeping ballots from being cast and counted. He came out and acknowledged it in late March when he reacted to a proposal that would have provided resources for absentee and mail-in voting during the pandemic by saying that if you had high levels of Democratic voting “you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”
The strategy of voter suppression was apparent in a spate of cases brought by Republicans ahead of the election to challenge common-sense safety accommodations designed to make voting safer during the pandemic, in an effort to prevent ballots from counting.
Where Democrats sought additional days for ballots to be received in the mail when Postal delivery slowed, Republicans went to court to try and block the new rules, arguing ballots received after Election Day shouldn’t count. Provisions for drive-thru voting were challenged as well. With Election Day behind us, Republicans now seem prepared to continue this effort to keep Democrats' votes from counting, seeking to challenge each individual ballot instead of statewide rules in some cases.
Where Democrats sought additional days for ballots to be received in the mail, Republicans went to court to try and block the new rules being put in place to make it easier to vote during the pandemic.
Before the election, there were already reports that Trump intended to claim victory on election night before all of the votes could be counted. So, it came as no surprise that, moments after former Vice President Joe Biden counseled Americans to have patience and keep the faith as state vote counts continued, Trump tweeted: “I will be making a statement tonight. A big WIN!” Hours later, he subsequently took to the White House's flag-encrusted podium to claim victory, falsely insisting he had won states where all of the votes were yet to be counted, according to the states’ election officials.
I will be making a statement tonight. A big WIN! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 4, 2020
That shameless lie is reprehensible. What makes it worse is the context. Trump has often worked harder to make sure ballots from Biden supporters weren’t counted than he has to win over people to vote for his policies and his leadership. That fundamentally flawed approach, which erodes Americans’ fundamental right to vote, is one more norm unacceptably shattered by Trump.
Voter suppression has been a long-term problem in America, but having a president publicly invoke it is something altogether unprecedented.
Voter suppression is not typically a strategy that 21st century politicians have explicitly embraced. Democrats and people in the civil rights community denounced and fought against it — such is the legacy of John Lewis and Selma — and while politicians who engaged in questionable practices have defended themselves by saying they were using legitimate techniques to prevent voter fraud, they never openly embraced the suppression of votes. That’s a new development with Trump, who has openly advocated for it. Any post-election litigation on his behalf should be evaluated in light of this context and rejected, hopefully by both the courts and by the country.
A look at Wisconsin, where the race seems likely to come down to mail-in ballots, tells this story. Ahead of the election, Republicans challenged a federal court’s decision allowing additional days after the election for mailed-in ballots to be received. That decision was based on evidence that Justice Elena Kagan noted established “unusually” slow mail delivery meant as many as 100,000 voters who had fully complied with the rules would be disenfranchised. And yet, when Trump made remarks in the early morning hours after the polls had closed, he charged that the continued counting of votes was in some way disenfranchising people who had voted for him, charging that the continued counting of votes that had arrived in the mail amounted to stealing the election from him.
Wisconsin is now very close. Justice Kagan pointed out that without extra time for ballots, which USPS was handling unusually slowly, to be received in the mail, as many as 100,000 voters who had fully complied with the rules could be disenfranchised. https://t.co/LO56yjCgnR — Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) November 4, 2020
Republicans are also challenging the “management and monitoring” of ballot drop-boxes in Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, demanding that those ballots be separated so they can be challenged after election results are in. In Nevada, the Trump campaign filed an emergency motion to try and prevent mail-in ballots from being counted and are prosecuting an appeal to permit them to review signatures. There are other lawsuits in these states where votes are critical to the outcome of the election, designed to prevent American’s ballots from being counted, because the president doesn’t want them to have any say.
Moreover, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., has set a hearing for Wednesday after the Postal Service, which was previously found to be engaging in deliberate conduct to slow delivery of ballots, declined to comply with a court order that would have put those ballots in election officials’ hands before the close of Election Day. A reported 300,000 ballots that were entrusted to the Post Office lacked a scan showing they had been delivered and states including Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania fall within the court’s order. The suppression has been widespread and at least partially successful.
Trump has often worked harder to make sure ballots from Biden supporters weren’t counted than he has to win over voters of his own.
It is worth pointing out that this is not an issue where both sides of the political divide are equally deserving of criticism. While the Republican party has tried to narrow the number of eligible voters who get to vote — whether by restricting registration, requiring identification or limiting voting days — Democrats and their allies in the civil rights community have sought to expand opportunities for eligible voters. They have sued and advocated for policies that make it easier to register and to vote, while pushing back against a false narrative of voter fraud that the president has pushed to try to restrict those who can exercise the franchise. Republicans have tried to impose one-sided restrictions that favor their base. Democrats have advocated for measures that open up the vote to all qualified citizens.
Achieving full voting rights in this country continues to be an aspirational goal. But permitting a president to call, without opposition, for Americans to lose their right to vote to ensure his re-election is unacceptable. There is something unsavory about an official who is supposed to serve the people waging a war to keep some of them from voting.
Trump thinks that only his supporters deserve to vote, and Republican strategies bear that out. We’re at risk of becoming a country that works that way, in the tradition of other banana republics, if he’s not stopped.


msnbc--2020-11-07--Watch MSNBC live election night coverage

Kornacki : Biden takes the lead in Georgia , further gains possible


msnbc--2020-11-06--Kornacki: Biden takes the lead in Georgia, further gains possible

IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.


msnbc--2020-11-06--Stacey Abrams instrumental in Democratic success in Georgia

Tia Mitchell of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution explains how Stacey Abrams’ efforts over the past 2 years working to protect voter rights and access in Georgia has helped make possible the state could be a win for Democrats.Nov. 6, 2020


msnbc--2020-11-06--Even as we await the final election result, hot takes for Democrats abound

After what has felt like several lifetimes of lead-up , Election Day 2020 has now come and gone .
The votes are being tallied , and at least we can say with certainty that an election has , indeed , happened — but not much more than that .
Democrats , being the stalwart and pragmatic folks that they are , have spent the last three days vacillating between feeling certain the election has been a complete and utter failure , and holding on to fleeting shreds of hope .
In this time of jubilation and/or utter despair , heaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Party has begun to pour in based on the votes cast , counties won , and — most importantly — fear that the data will never fully shift in their favor .
As we wait , it seems like a good time to aggregate some of those takeaways that have been gleaned from the 2020 election process so far .
Is it too soon to make any solid judgements about the results of an election that hasn ’ t been fully decided ?
Yes .
Do these facts contradict each other ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ America , in a way , the biggest contradiction of them all ?
I figured we could use some satire and irony to help process the slowly unfolding developments of this election .
And so , here are the nine most important takeaways from the defining event of the year , according to me .
1 .
Black voters turned out overwhelmingly for Biden and show the deep bond between Democrats and the black community Biden went all-in on the Black vote in South Carolina in the Democratic primaries in the first step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks like Black voters , especially Black women , will have propelled him to the White House if he wins , thanks to massive shows of support in major cities like Detroit and Atlanta .
Black turnout didn ’ t quite reach the levels it did when former president Barack Obama was on the ticket , but it definitely beat out the numbers that went to the ballot box for Hillary Clinton in 2016 .
With Sen. Kamala Harris on course to be the first Black woman to be vice president , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easy knowing that the Black community is on his side forever and nothing can change that — ever .
2 .
Trump doing better with minorities than in 2016 shows that minorities are abandoning Democrats Yes , Trump is a known racist .
But NBC News ’ poll of early and Election Day voters showed that 80 percent of Black men supported Joe Biden this time around , compared to 82 percent who went for Hillary Clinton four years ago .
He worked hard to get Black luminaries like Ice Cube and Lil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that those efforts paid off .
And in Texas and Florida , Trump did way better with Latino voters — who should totally be grouped together as a uniform voting bloc — than expected .
That shows that Democrats should go into overdrive trying to win back these voters — or give up the idea of ever winning 100 percent of a demographic — one of the two .
3 .
A Biden win will be because of white voters leaving Trump , so he should ignore the left wing of the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time around , especially members of the working class and people living in conservative suburbs , as Politico Magazine ’ s Tim Alberta wrote in a recent article .
Biden appealed to them enough to pull off a win in crucial Wisconsin by just 20,000 votes , according to NBC News ’ latest tally .
Democrats can ’ t afford to let that demographic slip away again , and Biden should tailor his policies to keeping their votes locked in for 2024 .
That includes working closely with conservatives in the Senate and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in any potential Biden cabinet .
4 .
A Biden win will be because of progressive turnout and he should swing to the left in response Biden absolutely needed to win a string of states in the Midwest for a shot at victory , including Michigan and Minnesota .
Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar unquestionably delivered those states for Biden , running up the score in their districts .
Tlaib , who represents Detroit , beat her Republican challenger by about 200,000 votes .
And Omar did the same in Minneapolis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than her opponent .
If these two overtly progressive members of The Squad can win big , so can Democrats around the country , even in deeply conservative areas .
Biden should definitely govern with them in mind and go big on projects like the Green New Deal .
5 .
Democrats shouldn ’ t focus so much on identity politics over economics Democrats have spent the last decade and a half leaning heavily on the fact that they ’ re not racist bigots , but that may be off-putting to some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some analyses , the decision to focus on things like Black Lives Matter and LGBTQ rights distracted from any effective economic message .
Claire McCaskill , former senator from Missouri , said in an appearance on MSNBC on Wednesday that the GOP had “ adroitly ” chosen cultural issues as their main focus : '' As we circled those issues , we left voters behind and Republicans dove in with a vengeance and grabbed those voters .
I ’ ve seen it in the South , I ’ ve seen it in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve got to the meat and potatoes issues , we ’ ve got to get back to the issues where we ’ re taking care of their families . ''
( McCaskill apologized via Twitter on Wednesday for her word choices during that segment , including referring to “ transsexuals.
” ) But failing to completely crush the GOP in the middle of an economic crisis clearly shows that that Democrats aren ’ t highlighting economic policies that would make inroads to working-class voters .
Constant screaming into a metaphorical megaphone about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following the model of the New Deal , is exactly what the Democrats need .
Thursday ’ s call between members of the House Democratic Caucus was … rough .
In what was supposed to be a blowout year , Democrats actually seem on track to lose as many as a dozen seats in the lower chamber , keeping the majority but by a smaller margin .
Rep. Abigail Spanberger reportedly implored her colleagues to stop talking about socialism and called the House ’ s strategy a “ failure.
” ( She also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same strategy in 2022 , Democrats will be “ f -- -ing torn apart again.
” ) Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell agreed .
She lost her seat after her opponent called her a socialist , dragging her down among Cuban and Venezuelan voters despite her denunciations of Communism .
Democrats need to move wholeheartedly away from leftist policies and big spending if they want a chance of holding onto the House in 2022 .
7 .
Moderate Democrats lost seats because they didn ’ t stand for anything Many of the House Democrats who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where they ran as solid moderates , barely distinguishing themselves from their opponent .
Both Rep. Kendra Horn and her challenger , state senator Stephanie Bice , played up their moderate credentials in the race to represent Oklahoma City ’ s congressional district .
Bice won her primary by noting that she was more moderate than her opponents , before attacking Horn as not being an independent voice in Congress .
Horn , as The New York Times wrote , “ had also upheld her moderate credentials and her willingness to break with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposals for being too costly and partisan.
” In the end , Horn lost after winning the seat in 2018 , leaving Democrats with no representatives from the state once again .
Democrats can ’ t lean on centrism if they hope to win races in the 2022 midterms .
8 .
Moderate Democrats won their seats because they were national security focused National Journalist columnist Josh Kraushaar pointed out on Twitter that Democratic congresswomen with national security backgrounds outperformed the rest of their counterparts .
Moderates like Michigan ’ s Elissa Slotkin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Virginia ’ s Spanberger serve as a “ model ” for the Democratic Party going forward , Kraushaar noted .
Sure , Slotkin went out and campaigned in her district and championed health care and held socially distant events unlike some of her counterparts , but that CIA service ?
I mean , it had to do something good there , right ?
Democrats clearly need to focus more on getting women who were in the security services to run for office .
9 .
Senate Democrats didn ’ t win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run the right candidates Democrats were supposed to be cruising toward January with control of the Senate returned for the first time since 2014 .
Instead , they ’ re left hoping that two seats in Georgia go to a run-off that maybe , maybe gets them to 50 members in the 117th Congress .
Clearly , this has more to do with the candidates that the Democrats ran than any deficiency in the structure of the Senate itself .
That includes Amy McGrath , who lost in her race against Senate Majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone knows that a moderate woman who ’ s a former Air Force pilot isn ’ t going to fly in that state .
The same is true in Montana , where Sen. Steve Daines kept his seat : Why would you expect a popular governor with moderate policies to do well against an incumbent Republican who most people outside the state would need a name tag to identify ?
This failing is clearly on the shoulders of the candidates themselves — the Senate .
As you can see , the path for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to stop doing bad things during elections and start doing smart things .
With an abundance of discordant lessons like the above , how could the Democrats possible go astray ?
Onward to 2024 !

After what has felt like several lifetimes of lead-up, Election Day 2020 has now come and gone. The votes are being tallied, and at least we can say with certainty that an election has, indeed, happened — but not much more than that.
Do these facts contradict each other? Absolutely. But — isn’t America, in a way, the biggest contradiction of them all?
Democrats, being the stalwart and pragmatic folks that they are, have spent the last three days vacillating between feeling certain the election has been a complete and utter failure, and holding on to fleeting shreds of hope. In this time of jubilation and/or utter despair, heaps of wisdom and sage advice for the Democratic Party has begun to pour in based on the votes cast, counties won, and — most importantly — fear that the data will never fully shift in their favor.
As we wait, it seems like a good time to aggregate some of those takeaways that have been gleaned from the 2020 election process so far. Is it too soon to make any solid judgements about the results of an election that hasn’t been fully decided? Yes. Do these facts contradict each other? Absolutely. But — isn’t America, in a way, the biggest contradiction of them all?
I figured we could use some satire and irony to help process the slowly unfolding developments of this election. And so, here are the nine most important takeaways from the defining event of the year, according to me.
1. Black voters turned out overwhelmingly for Biden and show the deep bond between Democrats and the black community
Biden went all-in on the Black vote in South Carolina in the Democratic primaries in the first step to winning the nomination. It likewise looks like Black voters, especially Black women, will have propelled him to the White House if he wins, thanks to massive shows of support in major cities like Detroit and Atlanta. Black turnout didn’t quite reach the levels it did when former president Barack Obama was on the ticket, but it definitely beat out the numbers that went to the ballot box for Hillary Clinton in 2016. With Sen. Kamala Harris on course to be the first Black woman to be vice president, it’s clear that Biden can rest easy knowing that the Black community is on his side forever and nothing can change that — ever.
2. Trump doing better with minorities than in 2016 shows that minorities are abandoning Democrats
Yes, Trump is a known racist. But NBC News’ poll of early and Election Day voters showed that 80 percent of Black men supported Joe Biden this time around, compared to 82 percent who went for Hillary Clinton four years ago. He worked hard to get Black luminaries like Ice Cube and Lil Wayne in his corner and it appears that those efforts paid off. And in Texas and Florida, Trump did way better with Latino voters — who should totally be grouped together as a uniform voting bloc — than expected. That shows that Democrats should go into overdrive trying to win back these voters — or give up the idea of ever winning 100 percent of a demographic — one of the two.
3. A Biden win will be because of white voters leaving Trump, so he should ignore the left wing of the party
Trump slipped hard with white voters this time around, especially members of the working class and people living in conservative suburbs, as Politico Magazine’s Tim Alberta wrote in a recent article. Biden appealed to them enough to pull off a win in crucial Wisconsin by just 20,000 votes, according to NBC News’ latest tally. Democrats can’t afford to let that demographic slip away again, and Biden should tailor his policies to keeping their votes locked in for 2024. That includes working closely with conservatives in the Senate and the very canny plan to include Republicans in any potential Biden cabinet.
4. A Biden win will be because of progressive turnout and he should swing to the left in response
Biden absolutely needed to win a string of states in the Midwest for a shot at victory, including Michigan and Minnesota. Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar unquestionably delivered those states for Biden, running up the score in their districts. Tlaib, who represents Detroit, beat her Republican challenger by about 200,000 votes. And Omar did the same in Minneapolis, pulling in more than 150,000 more votes than her opponent. If these two overtly progressive members of The Squad can win big, so can Democrats around the country, even in deeply conservative areas. Biden should definitely govern with them in mind and go big on projects like the Green New Deal.
Democrats have spent the last decade and a half leaning heavily on the fact that they’re not racist bigots, but that may be off-putting to some of the voters they clearly need.
5. Democrats shouldn’t focus so much on identity politics over economics
Democrats have spent the last decade and a half leaning heavily on the fact that they’re not racist bigots, but that may be off-putting to some of the voters they clearly need. In some analyses, the decision to focus on things like Black Lives Matter and LGBTQ rights distracted from any effective economic message. Claire McCaskill, former senator from Missouri, said in an appearance on MSNBC on Wednesday that the GOP had “adroitly” chosen cultural issues as their main focus:
"As we circled those issues, we left voters behind and Republicans dove in with a vengeance and grabbed those voters. I’ve seen it in the South, I’ve seen it in the rural areas of my state. We’ve got to the meat and potatoes issues, we’ve got to get back to the issues where we’re taking care of their families."
(McCaskill apologized via Twitter on Wednesday for her word choices during that segment, including referring to “transsexuals.”) But failing to completely crush the GOP in the middle of an economic crisis clearly shows that that Democrats aren’t highlighting economic policies that would make inroads to working-class voters. Constant screaming into a metaphorical megaphone about big-budget investment in the American people, following the model of the New Deal, is exactly what the Democrats need.
6. House Democrats lost seats because of "socialism"
Thursday’s call between members of the House Democratic Caucus was … rough. In what was supposed to be a blowout year, Democrats actually seem on track to lose as many as a dozen seats in the lower chamber, keeping the majority but by a smaller margin.
Rep. Abigail Spanberger reportedly implored her colleagues to stop talking about socialism and called the House’s strategy a “failure.” (She also reportedly said that if they ran the same strategy in 2022, Democrats will be “f---ing torn apart again.”) Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell agreed. She lost her seat after her opponent called her a socialist, dragging her down among Cuban and Venezuelan voters despite her denunciations of Communism.
Also earlier in the call Debbie Mucarsel-Powell who lost her race was crying , and mentioned how people can’t pronounce her name, and said stop being negative on Twitter — Erica Werner (@ericawerner) November 5, 2020
Democrats need to move wholeheartedly away from leftist policies and big spending if they want a chance of holding onto the House in 2022.
7. Moderate Democrats lost seats because they didn’t stand for anything
Many of the House Democrats who lost their seats did so in districts where they ran as solid moderates, barely distinguishing themselves from their opponent. Both Rep. Kendra Horn and her challenger, state senator Stephanie Bice, played up their moderate credentials in the race to represent Oklahoma City’s congressional district. Bice won her primary by noting that she was more moderate than her opponents, before attacking Horn as not being an independent voice in Congress.
Horn, as The New York Times wrote, “had also upheld her moderate credentials and her willingness to break with her party, including rejecting Democratic stimulus proposals for being too costly and partisan.” In the end, Horn lost after winning the seat in 2018, leaving Democrats with no representatives from the state once again. Democrats can’t lean on centrism if they hope to win races in the 2022 midterms.
Democrats can’t lean on centrism if they hope to win races in the 2022 midterms.
8. Moderate Democrats won their seats because they were national security focused
National Journalist columnist Josh Kraushaar pointed out on Twitter that Democratic congresswomen with national security backgrounds outperformed the rest of their counterparts. Moderates like Michigan’s Elissa Slotkin, New Jersey’s Mikie Sherrill, and Virginia’s Spanberger serve as a “model” for the Democratic Party going forward, Kraushaar noted.
Some of the strongest Dem downballot performers -- in a disappointing night for Congressional Dems -- were the Dem women w/ national security backgrounds.
Slotkin, Spanberger, Luria, Sherrill re-elected with big wins in tough districts. They're a model for D party going forward. — Josh Kraushaar (@HotlineJosh) November 5, 2020
Sure, Slotkin went out and campaigned in her district and championed health care and held socially distant events unlike some of her counterparts, but that CIA service? I mean, it had to do something good there, right? Democrats clearly need to focus more on getting women who were in the security services to run for office.
9. Senate Democrats didn’t win the majority because they didn’t run the right candidates
Democrats were supposed to be cruising toward January with control of the Senate returned for the first time since 2014. Instead, they’re left hoping that two seats in Georgia go to a run-off that maybe, maybe gets them to 50 members in the 117th Congress. Clearly, this has more to do with the candidates that the Democrats ran than any deficiency in the structure of the Senate itself.
That includes Amy McGrath, who lost in her race against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky. Because everyone knows that a moderate woman who’s a former Air Force pilot isn’t going to fly in that state. The same is true in Montana, where Sen. Steve Daines kept his seat: Why would you expect a popular governor with moderate policies to do well against an incumbent Republican who most people outside the state would need a name tag to identify? This failing is clearly on the shoulders of the candidates themselves — the Senate .
As you can see, the path for Democrats moving forward is clear: They need to stop doing bad things during elections and start doing smart things. With an abundance of discordant lessons like the above, how could the Democrats possible go astray? Onward to 2024!


msnbc--2020-11-06--Gadi Schwartz debunks 'Sharpiegate' election conspiracy theory

NBC News correspondent Gadi Schwartz explains why some Trump supporters in Arizona are upset about the use of Sharpie markers to mark ballots, and why those concerns, despite the stoking by Donald Trump and his allies, are unwarranted.Nov. 6, 2020


msnbc--2020-11-06--Trump reportedly defied aides with his chaotic election attacks

In a move criticized by many in his own party, Trump issued a slew of false and damaging attacks on the integrity of the election defying the advice of White House staff. Ashley Parker and Alexi McCammond share what they've learned from their sources.Nov. 6, 2020


msnbc--2020-11-06--Kornacki: Pennsylvania vote counts continue to eat into Trump’s lead over Biden

“If [counties] are all continuing to report, or most of them are continuing to report, the vote out...it’s possible, it's conceivable that some time in these overnight hours, Joe Biden would pass Donald Trump in this vote in Pennsylvania,” Steve Kornacki says.Nov. 6, 2020


msnbc--2020-11-05--The solution to Trump-Biden polarization may be easier (and cheaper) than we think

In this most discordant election , a lot has gone awry , but not necessarily in the ways for which we ’ ve braced ourselves : There was nothing close to the Election Day violence we had been warned to prepare for .
There was one coordinated national telephonic misinformation campaign , but it was swiftly recognized and dealt with .
For the most part , the social media platforms have handled false and misleading content with dispatch .
State and local election officials — my heroes and heroines — did their jobs well in the middle of a deadly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ integrity of the vote remains intact .
Still , no matter what is being reported in the news , it seems , nothing will convince a significant number of Americans that the press is on the side of truth , and certainly not that it is on their side .
Conspiracy theories and growing mistrust in establishment outlets are testament to this .
Even if the social platforms are stepping up their misinformation prevention , it ’ s too late , because Americans have lost faith in them ; and the internet is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persuade the more-than 50 percent of Americans convinced that the national press does not share their interests and concerns , and certainly nothing seems to move them to believe that the national press sees them as capable participants in our democracy .
In this void of mistrust and misinformation , a counter-majoritarian party , which the Republican Party has become , hangs together by creating enemies out of the majority .
It will , on principle , reject the majority ’ s claim to know what ’ s right for them .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , retrenchment and the creation of alternative narratives , has become a bond of will for these Americans .
It ’ s helped carve out a place for them to belong .
And , no matter who wins the election , this trend will get worse .
As it worsens , it will be harder for the national media to cover these Americans — polling will get even worse — and to hold it accountable , and to understand what might be done to reverse it .
The infodemic will get worse .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ know of one way to pierce this epistemic steel trap , even if it sounds counterintuitive : More news .
Specifically , more independent , local news .
Trust will not come out of a top-down reappraisal of how the media covers people outside of cosmopolises .
Remember in 2016 , when liberals seized on placing correspondents in red areas as a solution to the early warning problem that led so many to misjudge President Donald Trump ’ s strength ?
Those reporters did great work .
And Democrats , buoyed by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , now say they trust the media more than they did then .
But the rest of the country has almost no point of reference to even begin to trust the media .
Since 2009 , the number of reporters working in newsrooms around the U.S. has dropped by 27,000 or so .
And most of those losses came from newspapers .
You ’ re familiar with the story : Craigslist , Google and Facebook gobbled up all of the advertising revenue ; newspapers collapsed because they couldn ’ t ( and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viable alternative business model ; native digital became a thing ; people pivoted to video , then regretted it .
The point is , our counter-disinformation army of local truth-seekers and truth-tellers has been vitiated .
And this matters most in times like the present , because there is a direct correspondence between the closing of newspapers and the polarization of people formerly served by those newspapers .
If you live in a town with a thriving local news ecosystem , you are more likely to vote .
If we want a society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and behaviors of everyone , we need more local journalism .
Journalism models the pursuit of truth ; we know already that Americans trust local news sources more than national ones .
An energetic local news revival would create models of engagement ; it would allow newspapers ( in digital form ) to intervene in social conversations before misinformation spreads .
Local news outlets are an early warning system that benefits everyone , and over time , might increase the level of comfort that mistrustful Americans have with the reporting process .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most people are about to ask : Where will the money come from ?
Well , the Lincoln Project spent $ 67 million to create nifty ads that had little effect and didn ’ t change votes .
But it did turn it into a media company .
Imagine what $ 67 million worth of investment in , say , Sumter county , Florida , or Mahoning county , Ohio , or through Appalachia could do to seed the groundwork for nonprofit local news sources .
Don ’ t get me started on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , do , actually .
Stop spending money on political candidates and start spending it on civic infrastructure .
There are successful models : The Texas Tribune , run by Evan Smith , and The Nevada Independent , run by Jon Ralston , are successful , self-sustaining digital news enterprises .
One media-doubting reader of mine summed it up well : “ When you read The New York Times , you realize you are being force fed DNC propaganda 24/7 ...
So , you have to go with the alternative.
” In most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether the national media actually does condescend to these folks by treating them as objects of study is kind of irrelevant , because the perception is that we do .
Pre-pandemic , when I traveled the country helping teach state and local election officials how to combat misinformation , I advised them to “ work the refs ” — to plan ahead , with their local media , to set ground rules for the types of harmful information that , if amplified , could cause real problems .
Almost uniformly , they told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a good idea , but outside of a political reporter for a TV station in a major market , there was no ref to work .
That means that rumors spread quickly .
On Wednesday , for example , you might have seen a post on Twitter about how 40,000 ballots in DeKalb Cunty needed to be “ cured ” by Friday , or else they would be thrown out .
A ProPublica reporter , Jessica Huseman , intervened : There were only about 3,000 rejections across the entire state , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ProPublica is investing in state reporting , which is excellent .
To combat misinformation , we need engaged local reporters with audiences who trust them to report in real time .
We can not cure systemic mistrust of media elites from establishment outlets , or hope to completely tame our information disorder as long as the internet exists .
But we can recapitalize local news , and we need to make it a national priority .

In this most discordant election, a lot has gone awry, but not necessarily in the ways for which we’ve braced ourselves: There was nothing close to the Election Day violence we had been warned to prepare for. There was one coordinated national telephonic misinformation campaign, but it was swiftly recognized and dealt with. For the most part, the social media platforms have handled false and misleading content with dispatch. State and local election officials — my heroes and heroines — did their jobs well in the middle of a deadly pandemic. Civil society functions; the integrity of the vote remains intact.
Our counter-disinformation army of local truth-seekers and truth-tellers has been vitiated.
Still, no matter what is being reported in the news, it seems, nothing will convince a significant number of Americans that the press is on the side of truth, and certainly not that it is on their side. Conspiracy theories and growing mistrust in establishment outlets are testament to this. Even if the social platforms are stepping up their misinformation prevention, it’s too late, because Americans have lost faith in them; and the internet is vast and uncontainable.
Nothing seems to persuade the more-than 50 percent of Americans convinced that the national press does not share their interests and concerns, and certainly nothing seems to move them to believe that the national press sees them as capable participants in our democracy.
In this void of mistrust and misinformation, a counter-majoritarian party, which the Republican Party has become, hangs together by creating enemies out of the majority. It will, on principle, reject the majority’s claim to know what’s right for them. A rejection of elites, marked by resentment, retrenchment and the creation of alternative narratives, has become a bond of will for these Americans. It’s helped carve out a place for them to belong.
And, no matter who wins the election, this trend will get worse. As it worsens, it will be harder for the national media to cover these Americans — polling will get even worse — and to hold it accountable, and to understand what might be done to reverse it. The infodemic will get worse. Conspiracy theories will become cults.
I know of one way to pierce this epistemic steel trap, even if it sounds counterintuitive: More news. Specifically, more independent, local news.
Trust will not come out of a top-down reappraisal of how the media covers people outside of cosmopolises. Remember in 2016, when liberals seized on placing correspondents in red areas as a solution to the early warning problem that led so many to misjudge President Donald Trump’s strength? Those reporters did great work. And Democrats, buoyed by the national media’s aggressive coverage of Trump, now say they trust the media more than they did then.
Stop spending money on political candidates and start spending it on civic infrastructure.
But the rest of the country has almost no point of reference to even begin to trust the media.
Since 2009, the number of reporters working in newsrooms around the U.S. has dropped by 27,000 or so. And most of those losses came from newspapers. You’re familiar with the story: Craigslist, Google and Facebook gobbled up all of the advertising revenue; newspapers collapsed because they couldn’t (and still can’t) find a viable alternative business model; native digital became a thing; people pivoted to video, then regretted it. The point is, our counter-disinformation army of local truth-seekers and truth-tellers has been vitiated.
And this matters most in times like the present, because there is a direct correspondence between the closing of newspapers and the polarization of people formerly served by those newspapers. If you live in a town with a thriving local news ecosystem, you are more likely to vote.
If we want a society where we can accurately understand the preferences and behaviors of everyone, we need more local journalism. Journalism models the pursuit of truth; we know already that Americans trust local news sources more than national ones. An energetic local news revival would create models of engagement; it would allow newspapers (in digital form) to intervene in social conversations before misinformation spreads. Local news outlets are an early warning system that benefits everyone, and over time, might increase the level of comfort that mistrustful Americans have with the reporting process.
And for the question I’m sure most people are about to ask: Where will the money come from? Well, the Lincoln Project spent $67 million to create nifty ads that had little effect and didn’t change votes. But it did turn it into a media company.
The Lincoln Project spent $67 million to persuade Republicans and Biden filled up the Dem convention with GOP speakers.
The result: Biden lost ground with voters of color and Trump won more Republicans than he did in 2016. https://t.co/l64coiGGhA https://t.co/aTFXVSfr4x — David Sirota (@davidsirota) November 4, 2020
Imagine what $67 million worth of investment in, say, Sumter county, Florida, or Mahoning county, Ohio, or through Appalachia could do to seed the groundwork for nonprofit local news sources. Don’t get me started on Mike Bloomberg’s billions! Or, do, actually. Stop spending money on political candidates and start spending it on civic infrastructure.
There are successful models: The Texas Tribune, run by Evan Smith, and The Nevada Independent, run by Jon Ralston, are successful, self-sustaining digital news enterprises.
One media-doubting reader of mine summed it up well: “When you read The New York Times, you realize you are being force fed DNC propaganda 24/7 ... So, you have to go with the alternative.”
In most places, no alternative exists. And whether the national media actually does condescend to these folks by treating them as objects of study is kind of irrelevant, because the perception is that we do.
Pre-pandemic, when I traveled the country helping teach state and local election officials how to combat misinformation, I advised them to “work the refs” — to plan ahead, with their local media, to set ground rules for the types of harmful information that, if amplified, could cause real problems. Almost uniformly, they told me that, yes, that’s a good idea, but outside of a political reporter for a TV station in a major market, there was no ref to work. That means that rumors spread quickly.
On Wednesday, for example, you might have seen a post on Twitter about how 40,000 ballots in DeKalb Cunty needed to be “cured” by Friday, or else they would be thrown out. A ProPublica reporter, Jessica Huseman, intervened: There were only about 3,000 rejections across the entire state, she said, based on her reporting.
This is *false*. This county had 170,856 mail ballots requested — 40K rejected would be insanely high for Georgia, which rejected only 1 percent of ballots during the primary.
The secretary of state's office tells me they expect around 3,000 rejections across the whole state. https://t.co/x37iytIDzA — Jessica Huseman (@JessicaHuseman) November 4, 2020
ProPublica is investing in state reporting, which is excellent. To combat misinformation, we need engaged local reporters with audiences who trust them to report in real time. We cannot cure systemic mistrust of media elites from establishment outlets, or hope to completely tame our information disorder as long as the internet exists. But we can recapitalize local news, and we need to make it a national priority.


msnbc--2020-11-04--The GOP has to decide: save Trump or save America?

President Donald Trump has made it clear that he intends to challenge and discredit the results of Tuesday ’ s election .
But if he does , in fact , lose when the votes are all finally tallied , Republicans will face their final — and most important — test of the Trump Era : How far will they let him go ?
The stakes were already rising by the time the polls closed .
For months , Trump has stoked false claims about massive fraud .
On Sunday , he declared that “ we 're going to go in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that election is over , we 're going in with our lawyers , ” suggesting that he would push to stop the counting of votes .
Early Wednesday morning , he followed through on that , announcing that “ we 'll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court ” to try to halt the ballot counting in states where he was ahead at the end of the night .
He also tried to claim that because he was ahead in states like Wisconsin and Michigan as the night ended , “ frankly we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the first line in the sand that Republicans have to decide if Trump is allowed to cross .
Will they push back against Trump ’ s prematurely declaration of victory ?
Then the next line : Will they challenge his attacks on the legitimacy of the result ?
And the next : What about his endorsement of vigilantism and voter intimidation ?
Will GOP elected officials publicly stand up against attempts to suppress the vote , or lawsuits that try to throw out votes that have already been cast ?
Will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ orderly , peaceful transition of power ?
Will they allow him to break the government on his way out ?
In other words , will Republicans take one last chance to put country over party ?
If history is any guide , we are likely to be disappointed .
The Republican Party as it is currently structured is unsustainable .
In turn , the GOP is increasingly committed to limiting the number of people who vote .
Republicans have internalized the idea that it is in their interest to make it as hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots , and Trump is more than willing to say that out loud .
During negotiations over a pandemic stimulus package , Trump complained , “ The things they had in there were crazy .
They had things , levels of voting that if you ’ d ever agreed to it , you ’ d never have a Republican elected in this country again.
” The efforts in the courts so far to shrink the electorate haven ’ t been much more subtle .
In Texas , Republicans tried ( and failed ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toss out 127,000 ballots in Harris County .
Republicans have also tried to disqualify absentee and other mail-in ballots in multiple states , taking their cases all the way up to the Supreme Court several times .
As longtime GOP lawyer Ben Ginsberg noted in a scathing op-ed in The Washington Post , the Trumpified GOP is now “ engaged in more than 40 voting and ballot court cases around the country this year .
In exactly none — zero — are they trying to make it easier for citizens to vote .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ erect barriers.
” “ This is not about finding fraud and irregularities , ” wrote Ginsberg .
“ It ’ s about suppressing the number of votes not cast for Trump.
” But , he warned , the strategy of suppression puts the GOP “ on the wrong side of demographic changes in this country that threaten to make the GOP a permanent minority.
” That threat will only get worse if Republicans get behind Trump ’ s post-election ballot challenges and refuse to speak out against Trump ’ s incitement of violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incident in Texas where a caravan of trucks carrying Trump flags harassed a Biden-Harris campaign bus , causing a collision and forcing the cancellation of a campaign event .
The episode was ugly , shocking , and dangerous , but Trump tweeted out his support for the aggressors , while scorning the FBI investigation and appearing incite similar shows of force .
So far , few Republican leaders have objected to any of this .
To the contrary , Florida Senator Marco Rubio seemed to praise the effort to swarm the Biden bus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these people in Texas , ” Rubio said at a Trump rally Sunday .
“ Did you see it ?
All the cars on the road , we love what they did .
But here 's the thing they do n't know : We do that in Florida every day.
” The effort at intimidation also drew praise from Fox News host Jeanine Pirro , who described it as “ ordinary Americans just taking this election into their own hands and — and getting out there and being real clear on what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of this is magnified by the fact that millions of Americans will be susceptible to claims that something terrible has happened if Trump is not resoundingly re-elected .
Over the weekend , Trump supporters blocked freeways and bridges in New Jersey and elsewhere , perhaps providing a preview of what we can expect after the election .
His own administration could even reportedly become the target of his anger in the months between the election and Inauguration Day .
What if he moves to fire the FBI director , or the head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or even the Secretary of Defense , all of whom have been named as targets ?
Will Republicans oppose attempts to remove science advisors during the pandemic , or to retaliate against critics like Dr. Anthony Fauci , whose job may also be on the line even if Trump comes up short in the final tally ?
This moment will require both political courage and statesmanship , both of which have been in shockingly short supply lately in the Republican Party .
To their credit , some members were quick to denounce Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s former national security adviser , John Bolton , called them “ some of the most irresponsible comments that the president of the United States has ever made.
” Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie also pushed back : “ All these votes have to be counted that are in now .
… Tonight was not the time to make this argument .
I disagree with what he did tonight.
” Even right-wing commentator Ben Shapiro warned on Twitter that “ Trump has not already won the election , and it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has.
” But unless more Republicans finally draw a line they have so far failed to draw , they may doom their party to a generation of infamy .
More important , they may help plunge the nation into chaos .
Even after a Trump defeat , many of them will still be afraid of offending the base and being the one left out on a limb .
As a result , it would probably take a critical mass of Republican leaders to tell Trump that it was time for him to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been willing to put country over party in the Trump era has been vanishingly small .
In the days ahead they may have one last chance .
But tell me : Why do I suspect they will blow it ?

President Donald Trump has made it clear that he intends to challenge and discredit the results of Tuesday’s election. But if he does, in fact, lose when the votes are all finally tallied, Republicans will face their final — and most important — test of the Trump Era: How far will they let him go?
The stakes were already rising by the time the polls closed. For months, Trump has stoked false claims about massive fraud. On Sunday, he declared that “we're going to go in the night of, as soon as that election is over, we're going in with our lawyers,” suggesting that he would push to stop the counting of votes.
Early Wednesday morning, he followed through on that, announcing that “we'll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court” to try to halt the ballot counting in states where he was ahead at the end of the night. He also tried to claim that because he was ahead in states like Wisconsin and Michigan as the night ended, “frankly we did win this election.”
And there’s the first line in the sand that Republicans have to decide if Trump is allowed to cross. Will they push back against Trump’s prematurely declaration of victory? Then the next line: Will they challenge his attacks on the legitimacy of the result? And the next: What about his endorsement of vigilantism and voter intimidation?
Will GOP elected officials publicly stand up against attempts to suppress the vote, or lawsuits that try to throw out votes that have already been cast?
Will they push Trump to agree to an orderly, peaceful transition of power? Will they allow him to break the government on his way out?
In other words, will Republicans take one last chance to put country over party?
If history is any guide, we are likely to be disappointed.
Will Republicans take one last chance to put country over party? If history is any guide, we are likely to be disappointed.
The Republican Party as it is currently structured is unsustainable. In turn, the GOP is increasingly committed to limiting the number of people who vote. Republicans have internalized the idea that it is in their interest to make it as hard as possible for some Americans to cast ballots, and Trump is more than willing to say that out loud.
During negotiations over a pandemic stimulus package, Trump complained, “The things they had in there were crazy. They had things, levels of voting that if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”
The efforts in the courts so far to shrink the electorate haven’t been much more subtle. In Texas, Republicans tried (and failed) to get state and federal judges to toss out 127,000 ballots in Harris County. Republicans have also tried to disqualify absentee and other mail-in ballots in multiple states, taking their cases all the way up to the Supreme Court several times.
As longtime GOP lawyer Ben Ginsberg noted in a scathing op-ed in The Washington Post, the Trumpified GOP is now “engaged in more than 40 voting and ballot court cases around the country this year. In exactly none — zero — are they trying to make it easier for citizens to vote. In many, they are seeking to erect barriers.”
“This is not about finding fraud and irregularities,” wrote Ginsberg. “It’s about suppressing the number of votes not cast for Trump.” But, he warned, the strategy of suppression puts the GOP “on the wrong side of demographic changes in this country that threaten to make the GOP a permanent minority.”
That threat will only get worse if Republicans get behind Trump’s post-election ballot challenges and refuse to speak out against Trump’s incitement of violence.
The FBI is reportedly investigating the incident in Texas where a caravan of trucks carrying Trump flags harassed a Biden-Harris campaign bus, causing a collision and forcing the cancellation of a campaign event.
The episode was ugly, shocking, and dangerous, but Trump tweeted out his support for the aggressors, while scorning the FBI investigation and appearing incite similar shows of force.
In my opinion, these patriots did nothing wrong. Instead, the FBI & Justice should be investigating the terrorists, anarchists, and agitators of ANTIFA, who run around burning down our Democrat run cities and hurting our people! https://t.co/of6Lna3HMU — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 2, 2020
So far, few Republican leaders have objected to any of this. To the contrary, Florida Senator Marco Rubio seemed to praise the effort to swarm the Biden bus. “I saw yesterday a video of these people in Texas,” Rubio said at a Trump rally Sunday. “Did you see it? All the cars on the road, we love what they did. But here's the thing they don't know: We do that in Florida every day.”
The effort at intimidation also drew praise from Fox News host Jeanine Pirro, who described it as “ordinary Americans just taking this election into their own hands and — and getting out there and being real clear on what they stand for.”
Fox News' Jeanine Pirro praised the pro-Trump caravan that attempted to run a Biden campaign bus off the road: "It is ordinary Americans just taking this election into their own hands." https://t.co/JhCMFTywYS — Eric Hananoki (@ehananoki) November 1, 2020
The danger of all of this is magnified by the fact that millions of Americans will be susceptible to claims that something terrible has happened if Trump is not resoundingly re-elected. Over the weekend, Trump supporters blocked freeways and bridges in New Jersey and elsewhere, perhaps providing a preview of what we can expect after the election.
His own administration could even reportedly become the target of his anger in the months between the election and Inauguration Day. What if he moves to fire the FBI director, or the head of the Centers for Disease Control, or even the Secretary of Defense, all of whom have been named as targets? Will Republicans oppose attempts to remove science advisors during the pandemic, or to retaliate against critics like Dr. Anthony Fauci, whose job may also be on the line even if Trump comes up short in the final tally?
Unless more Republicans finally draw a line they have so far failed to draw, they may doom their party to a generation of infamy
This moment will require both political courage and statesmanship, both of which have been in shockingly short supply lately in the Republican Party. To their credit, some members were quick to denounce Trump’s Wednesday morning comments. Trump’s former national security adviser, John Bolton, called them “some of the most irresponsible comments that the president of the United States has ever made.” Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie also pushed back: “All these votes have to be counted that are in now. … Tonight was not the time to make this argument. I disagree with what he did tonight.” Even right-wing commentator Ben Shapiro warned on Twitter that “Trump has not already won the election, and it is deeply irresponsible for him to say he has.”
But unless more Republicans finally draw a line they have so far failed to draw, they may doom their party to a generation of infamy. More important, they may help plunge the nation into chaos.
Even after a Trump defeat, many of them will still be afraid of offending the base and being the one left out on a limb. As a result, it would probably take a critical mass of Republican leaders to tell Trump that it was time for him to go.
The number of Republicans who have been willing to put country over party in the Trump era has been vanishingly small. In the days ahead they may have one last chance. But tell me: Why do I suspect they will blow it?


msnbc--2020-11-04--Voters are finally paying attention to the judges they're electing

Alexander Hamilton referred to the judiciary as our government 's `` least dangerous branch , '' but after the 2020 election especially , its potency should not be underestimated .
Courts decide some of the most important issues in society , like voting rights , marriage equality and , in cases of capital punishment , even matters of life and death .
And while a great deal of recent focus has been on the Supreme Court , advocates for change should focus on the lower federal courts and state courts .
For many people , voting never felt as important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the polls draw to a close , we 're coming away with the fact that not only more people want to vote , but also that many people have shifted their perceptions of what , and whom , they are voting for .
And that means paying more attention to the down-ballot vote , to the lower court and state supreme court judges responsible for so many of our laws and liberties .
In 37 states , supreme court justices are elected by voters .
But when you ask voters whom they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , all too often the response is a blank stare .
State supreme court candidates are rarely household names .
In states that permit straight-ticket voting , the nonpartisan part of the ballot , including judges , may not even be included in that selection .
There 's another hurdle : Learning about judicial candidates ' backgrounds , experiences and worldviews takes considerable work .
As a result , we see a sizable drop-off in voting in these races compared to the number of votes cast in the presidential race , as voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Or worse , they guess .
I 've had friends tell me that when in doubt , they vote for the woman .
In Michigan , it has been reported that having an Irish surname helps judges get elected .
Despite my own Irish American heritage , I know that a name alone is a foolish reason to vote for a judge .
State courts may become the new venue of choice for advocates of change .
President Donald Trump 's appointment of more than 200 judges to the federal bench , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Society , have made federal courts a less hospitable place to advance progressive causes .
As a result , state courts are becoming even more attractive choices for impact litigation .
The selection of judges for these courts has become more important than ever .
Recently , some have suggested that the next administration should `` pack '' the Supreme Court by expanding its current composition of nine justices .
The proposal to expand the Supreme Court has some merit .
The current number of justices is not etched in stone or even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Judiciary Act of 1869 .
Before that , the court had anywhere from five to 10 justices .
Another act of Congress could expand the membership .
Expanding to 13 justices makes some sense , reflecting the current total of 13 circuits to which justices are assigned additional procedural duties as circuit justices .
But another place to look to expand the judiciary is in the federal district courts and circuit courts of appeal .
Litigants are far more likely to have their cases decided in these lower courts than in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a limited number of cases to decide novel issues of federal law , address important constitutional questions or resolve circuit splits .
In 2018 , circuit courts of appeal , the intermediate appellate level , handled about 50,000 cases .
District courts , the trial courts , handled about 350,000 cases .
The Supreme Court , in contrast , handled only 76 in its October 2018 term .
The Judicial Conference of the United States , the policymaking body of the federal judiciary , is advocating for 78 more seats at the circuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expanding caseloads across the country .
More judges , it argues , are needed to reduce delays in deciding cases .
The next president would have the opportunity to fill these seats with judges who reflect his worldview .
In addition to federal courts , another potential focus for change is in state courts , which decide vastly more cases than federal courts .
According to a Brennan Center report , state courts decide 95 percent of all cases in the United States .
State supreme courts decide 10,000 cases annually , compared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Supreme Court decides every year .
And these cases are of great significance .
In recent years , state supreme courts have decided cases involving reproductive rights , medical malpractice and gerrymandering .
In the absence of information about judicial candidates , special interests have filled the void .
In the 2017-18 campaign cycle , special interest groups outspent individual state supreme court candidates and , in some states , their political parties , accounting for 27 percent of spending .
Lower-level state courts make important decisions , as well .
Trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more cases than state supreme courts , which often take cases only as a matter of discretion instead of as a matter of right .
As in federal court , far more litigants in state court will have the final decisions in their cases decided at the trial or intermediate appellate level than at a supreme court .
And yet , voters are likely to know even less about the candidates for these lower court judgeships .
Voters and advocacy groups would be well-served to focus on state judicial races , identifying and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisions in cases that can have profound impacts on their lives .
The time to begin that work is now , so that by the next election , a slate of well-qualified candidates is positioned for election .

Alexander Hamilton referred to the judiciary as our government's "least dangerous branch," but after the 2020 election especially, its potency should not be underestimated. Courts decide some of the most important issues in society, like voting rights, marriage equality and, in cases of capital punishment, even matters of life and death. And while a great deal of recent focus has been on the Supreme Court, advocates for change should focus on the lower federal courts and state courts.
State courts may become the new venue of choice for advocates of change.
For many people, voting never felt as important as it has this election. But as the polls draw to a close, we're coming away with the fact that not only more people want to vote, but also that many people have shifted their perceptions of what, and whom, they are voting for. And that means paying more attention to the down-ballot vote, to the lower court and state supreme court judges responsible for so many of our laws and liberties.
In 37 states, supreme court justices are elected by voters. But when you ask voters whom they are supporting in state supreme court races, all too often the response is a blank stare. State supreme court candidates are rarely household names. In states that permit straight-ticket voting, the nonpartisan part of the ballot, including judges, may not even be included in that selection.
There's another hurdle: Learning about judicial candidates' backgrounds, experiences and worldviews takes considerable work. As a result, we see a sizable drop-off in voting in these races compared to the number of votes cast in the presidential race, as voters often choose to leave these slots blank. Or worse, they guess. I've had friends tell me that when in doubt, they vote for the woman. In Michigan, it has been reported that having an Irish surname helps judges get elected. Despite my own Irish American heritage, I know that a name alone is a foolish reason to vote for a judge.
State courts may become the new venue of choice for advocates of change. President Donald Trump's appointment of more than 200 judges to the federal bench, selected with input from the conservative Federalist Society, have made federal courts a less hospitable place to advance progressive causes. As a result, state courts are becoming even more attractive choices for impact litigation. The selection of judges for these courts has become more important than ever.
State supreme courts decide 10,000 cases annually, compared to the 70 to 80 cases the U.S. Supreme Court decides every year.
Recently, some have suggested that the next administration should "pack" the Supreme Court by expanding its current composition of nine justices. The proposal to expand the Supreme Court has some merit. The current number of justices is not etched in stone or even in the Constitution — it was set by the Judiciary Act of 1869. Before that, the court had anywhere from five to 10 justices. Another act of Congress could expand the membership. Expanding to 13 justices makes some sense, reflecting the current total of 13 circuits to which justices are assigned additional procedural duties as circuit justices.
But another place to look to expand the judiciary is in the federal district courts and circuit courts of appeal. Litigants are far more likely to have their cases decided in these lower courts than in the Supreme Court, which accepts only a limited number of cases to decide novel issues of federal law, address important constitutional questions or resolve circuit splits. In 2018, circuit courts of appeal, the intermediate appellate level, handled about 50,000 cases. District courts, the trial courts, handled about 350,000 cases. The Supreme Court, in contrast, handled only 76 in its October 2018 term.
The Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body of the federal judiciary, is advocating for 78 more seats at the circuit and district court levels to address the expanding caseloads across the country. More judges, it argues, are needed to reduce delays in deciding cases. The next president would have the opportunity to fill these seats with judges who reflect his worldview.
The Judicial Conference of the United States is advocating for 78 more seats at the circuit and district court levels to address the expanding caseloads across the country.
In addition to federal courts, another potential focus for change is in state courts, which decide vastly more cases than federal courts. According to a Brennan Center report, state courts decide 95 percent of all cases in the United States. State supreme courts decide 10,000 cases annually, compared to the 70 to 80 cases the U.S. Supreme Court decides every year. And these cases are of great significance. In recent years, state supreme courts have decided cases involving reproductive rights, medical malpractice and gerrymandering.
In the absence of information about judicial candidates, special interests have filled the void. In the 2017-18 campaign cycle, special interest groups outspent individual state supreme court candidates and, in some states, their political parties, accounting for 27 percent of spending.
Lower-level state courts make important decisions, as well. Trial courts and intermediate courts of appeal handle more cases than state supreme courts, which often take cases only as a matter of discretion instead of as a matter of right. As in federal court, far more litigants in state court will have the final decisions in their cases decided at the trial or intermediate appellate level than at a supreme court. And yet, voters are likely to know even less about the candidates for these lower court judgeships.
Voters and advocacy groups would be well-served to focus on state judicial races, identifying and supporting candidates whose experiences would inform their decisions in cases that can have profound impacts on their lives. The time to begin that work is now, so that by the next election, a slate of well-qualified candidates is positioned for election.