theintercept--2020-11-04--Oregon’s Decriminalization Vote Might Be Biggest Step Yet to Ending War on Drugs

Thanks to voters , Oregon will be the first state in the country to decriminalize the personal possession of all drugs , including heroin and cocaine .
Oregonians passed Ballot Measure 110 , also known as the Drug Decriminalization and Addiction Treatment Initiative , with 59 percent of the vote ; it ’ s the most far-reaching of numerous successful drug-related measures on ballots nationwide , including the legalization of recreational marijuana in New Jersey , Arizona , Montana , and South Dakota .
Every one of these victories constitutes a long overdue challenge to the racist , carceral logic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a historic step in recognizing that if a carceral approach to drug use is harmful , it is harmful regardless of the drug in question .
In a general election between two candidates proudly committed to “ law and order ” politics and aggressive policing — regardless of Joe Biden ’ s minimal gestures towards marijuana reform — Oregon ’ s ballot decision offered a glimmer of hope for those interested in significant criminal justice changes .
The success of Measure 110 , alongside other decriminalization and legalization efforts , is a rebuke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uses illegalized drugs , no matter what the substance , is best served by an interaction with the police and prison system .
“ This is part of how we reform policing : by getting them out of the drug business , ” wrote Brooklyn College sociology professor Alex Vitale , author of “ The End of Policing , ” on Twitter .
Vitale was referring to the four states that voted to legalize recreational marijuana , but he added that “ Measure 110 in Oregon is even better.
” Oregon ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the legalization of all drugs ; it instead entails the removal of criminal penalties for the possession of small amounts of illegal substances .
After February 1 , the penalty for drug possession will be akin to a hefty traffic ticket : a $ 100 fine .
Those who can not or do not want to pay can choose to agree to a “ health assessment ” at an addiction recovery center .
The ballot measure also includes the expansion of access to recovery treatments , housing , and harm reduction services , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tens of millions of dollars from Oregon ’ s cannabis tax .
Money saved by not arresting , prosecuting , and caging people found with drugs will also be redirected to a fund for treatment services .
would reduce convictions for drug possession by nearly 90 percent : from 4,057 convictions in 2019 to an estimated 378 in the coming year , according to the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission .
The same report found that racial disparities in drug arrests could drop by 95 percent , and that convictions of Black and Indigenous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent .
These figures alone show the unerringly racist bent of drug arrests and convictions — just further proof of an insupportable system .
Writing for The Appeal last month , Zachary Siegel argued that Oregon ’ s approach “ would mark a momentous shift in favor of a public health-focused approach to substance use , and a turn away from policies that incarcerate people or at least saddle them with a criminal conviction over behaviors tied to addiction.
” The decriminalization campaign received strong endorsements from members of the state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have observed firsthand the failure of the brutal status quo to help victims of the country ’ s ongoing opioid epidemic .
According to the Measure 110 campaign , one in 10 Oregonians reportedly struggle with substance use .
“ We have seen what happens to families and patients in the wake of the opioid epidemic , ” Marianne Parshley , the governor of the American College of Physicians Oregon chapter , told Oregon Public Broadcasting .
Parshley said that the risk of deadly overdose is significantly increased when a person dealing with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of highest risk is in the two weeks post discharge from correctional institutions.
” “ Measure 110 is arguably the biggest blow to the war on drugs to date , ” said Kassandra Frederique , executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance , in a statement .
The advocacy group spearheaded the Measure 110 campaign and drafted the Drug Policy Reform Act as model legislation , to be taken up in statehouses and ballot measures nationwide following its success in Oregon .
Frederique added that “ as we saw with the domino effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victory to inspire other states to enact their own drug decriminalization policies that prioritize health over punishment.
” first step in the U.S. , all-drug decriminalization is not an untested experiment .
The Drug Policy Alliance , among other decriminalization and legalization advocates , point to Portugal , where all drugs have been decriminalized for the last two decades .
Drug use rates in Portugal have remained lower than the average use rates in Europe , and far lower than those in the U.S. — even while Portugal has suffered through years of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unemployment .
Meanwhile , rates of HIV infection have fallen , from 1,575 cases in 2000 to 78 cases in 2013 .
Following decriminalization , arrest rates for drug-related offenses dropped by 60 percent , while the number of people enrolled in drug treatment programs increased by 60 percent in turn .
The number of annual drug overdose deaths has plummeted .
“ Usually the focus is on the decriminalization itself , but it worked because there were other services , and the coverage increased for needle replacement , detox , therapeutic communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use drugs , ” Ricardo Fuertes , a Lisbon-based project coordinator with an outreach organization founded by people living with HIV , told Vice News in 2016 .
“ It was the combination of the law and these services that made it a success .
It ’ s very difficult to find people in Portugal who disagree with this model.
” The fact that so few other nations have followed Portugal ’ s successful lead in passing all-drug decriminalization speaks to the entrenchment of the war on drugs , and the historic support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poor people of color .
Yet in Oregon and beyond this election , U.S. voters have made clear that , in great numbers , people reject carceral responses to drug use .
Like so many issues relating to public welfare and human dignity , it should come as no surprise that this progressive victory was secured directly by the voting public , rather than political leaders presuming to act on our behalf .

Photo: Courtesy of Yes on Measure 110
Thanks to voters, Oregon will be the first state in the country to decriminalize the personal possession of all drugs, including heroin and cocaine. Oregonians passed Ballot Measure 110, also known as the Drug Decriminalization and Addiction Treatment Initiative, with 59 percent of the vote; it’s the most far-reaching of numerous successful drug-related measures on ballots nationwide, including the legalization of recreational marijuana in New Jersey, Arizona, Montana, and South Dakota. Every one of these victories constitutes a long overdue challenge to the racist, carceral logic of drug criminalization. Oregonians have taken a historic step in recognizing that if a carceral approach to drug use is harmful, it is harmful regardless of the drug in question.
In a general election between two candidates proudly committed to “law and order” politics and aggressive policing — regardless of Joe Biden’s minimal gestures towards marijuana reform — Oregon’s ballot decision offered a glimmer of hope for those interested in significant criminal justice changes. The success of Measure 110, alongside other decriminalization and legalization efforts, is a rebuke to the notion that any person who uses illegalized drugs, no matter what the substance, is best served by an interaction with the police and prison system.
In an election between two candidates committed to “law and order” and policing, Oregon’s ballot decision offered a glimmer of hope for significant criminal justice changes.
“This is part of how we reform policing: by getting them out of the drug business,” wrote Brooklyn College sociology professor Alex Vitale, author of “The End of Policing,” on Twitter. Vitale was referring to the four states that voted to legalize recreational marijuana, but he added that “Measure 110 in Oregon is even better.”
Oregon’s decriminalization measure should not be confused with the legalization of all drugs; it instead entails the removal of criminal penalties for the possession of small amounts of illegal substances. After February 1, the penalty for drug possession will be akin to a hefty traffic ticket: a $100 fine. Those who cannot or do not want to pay can choose to agree to a “health assessment” at an addiction recovery center. The ballot measure also includes the expansion of access to recovery treatments, housing, and harm reduction services, to be funded through the reallocation of tens of millions of dollars from Oregon’s cannabis tax. Money saved by not arresting, prosecuting, and caging people found with drugs will also be redirected to a fund for treatment services.
Measure 110 would reduce convictions for drug possession by nearly 90 percent: from 4,057 convictions in 2019 to an estimated 378 in the coming year, according to the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. The same report found that racial disparities in drug arrests could drop by 95 percent, and that convictions of Black and Indigenous Oregonians could drop by a staggering 94 percent. These figures alone show the unerringly racist bent of drug arrests and convictions — just further proof of an insupportable system.
Photo: Courtesy of Steve Dipaola/Yes on Measure 110
Writing for The Appeal last month, Zachary Siegel argued that Oregon’s approach “would mark a momentous shift in favor of a public health-focused approach to substance use, and a turn away from policies that incarcerate people or at least saddle them with a criminal conviction over behaviors tied to addiction.” The decriminalization campaign received strong endorsements from members of the state’s medical and health care communities, which have observed firsthand the failure of the brutal status quo to help victims of the country’s ongoing opioid epidemic. According to the Measure 110 campaign, one in 10 Oregonians reportedly struggle with substance use.
“We have seen what happens to families and patients in the wake of the opioid epidemic,” Marianne Parshley, the governor of the American College of Physicians Oregon chapter, told Oregon Public Broadcasting. Parshley said that the risk of deadly overdose is significantly increased when a person dealing with addiction is incarcerated: “The time of highest risk is in the two weeks post discharge from correctional institutions.”
“Measure 110 is arguably the biggest blow to the war on drugs to date,” said Kassandra Frederique, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, in a statement. The advocacy group spearheaded the Measure 110 campaign and drafted the Drug Policy Reform Act as model legislation, to be taken up in statehouses and ballot measures nationwide following its success in Oregon. Frederique added that “as we saw with the domino effect of marijuana legalization, we expect this victory to inspire other states to enact their own drug decriminalization policies that prioritize health over punishment.”
While a first step in the U.S., all-drug decriminalization is not an untested experiment. The Drug Policy Alliance, among other decriminalization and legalization advocates, point to Portugal, where all drugs have been decriminalized for the last two decades. Drug use rates in Portugal have remained lower than the average use rates in Europe, and far lower than those in the U.S. — even while Portugal has suffered through years of heightened economic crisis and extreme spikes in unemployment. Meanwhile, rates of HIV infection have fallen, from 1,575 cases in 2000 to 78 cases in 2013. Following decriminalization, arrest rates for drug-related offenses dropped by 60 percent, while the number of people enrolled in drug treatment programs increased by 60 percent in turn. The number of annual drug overdose deaths has plummeted.
It should come as no surprise that this progressive victory was secured directly by the voting public, rather than political leaders presuming to act on our behalf.
“Usually the focus is on the decriminalization itself, but it worked because there were other services, and the coverage increased for needle replacement, detox, therapeutic communities, and employment options for people who use drugs,” Ricardo Fuertes, a Lisbon-based project coordinator with an outreach organization founded by people living with HIV, told Vice News in 2016. “It was the combination of the law and these services that made it a success. It’s very difficult to find people in Portugal who disagree with this model.”
The fact that so few other nations have followed Portugal’s successful lead in passing all-drug decriminalization speaks to the entrenchment of the war on drugs, and the historic support for and normalization of policies that criminalize poor people of color. Yet in Oregon and beyond this election, U.S. voters have made clear that, in great numbers, people reject carceral responses to drug use. Like so many issues relating to public welfare and human dignity, it should come as no surprise that this progressive victory was secured directly by the voting public, rather than political leaders presuming to act on our behalf.


theintercept--2020-11-04--Election 2020: The Day After

Election 2020: The Day After

Wait !
Before you go on about your day , ask yourself : How likely is it that the story @ @ @ @ @ been produced by a different news outlet if The Intercept hadn ’ t done it @ @ @ @ @ of media would look like without The Intercept .
Who would hold party elites accountable @ @ @ @ @ to have ?
How many covert wars , miscarriages of justice , and dystopian technologies @ @ @ @ @ reporters weren ’ t on the beat ?
The kind of reporting we do is @ @ @ @ @ it is not easy , cheap , or profitable .
The Intercept is an independent @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t have ads , so we depend on our members — 35,000 and @ @ @ @ @ hold the powerful to account .
Joining is simple and doesn ’ t need to @ @ @ @ @ can become a sustaining member for as little as $ 3 or $ 5 a @ @ @ @ @ all it takes to support the journalism you rely on .

U.S. Official Hints at Possible Plea Deal for Julian Assange
The U.S. ambassador to Australia said there could be a “resolution” to the Justice Department’s pursuit of Assange.


theintercept--2020-11-04--U.S. Withdrawal From Paris Agreement Casts the Stakes of Election in Planetary Terms

officially withdrew from the Paris Agreement on Wednesday , casting the stakes of the still-undecided presidential election in planetary terms .
With the completion of the formal withdrawal process , which Trump began in June 2017 , the U.S. became the only country in the world not to participate in the global effort to fight the climate crisis .
Trump , who has dismissed climate change as a hoax and rolled back dozens of environmental regulations designed to protect the environment and stave off climate change , decided to exit the international agreement early in his term .
But because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to begin the formal withdrawal process until three years after it went into effect , the yearlong process officially began on November 4 , 2019 .
Joe Biden has promised to reenter the climate accord on the first day of his presidency .
The process of rejoining would take just 30 days , enabling the country to be readmitted as a party as soon as February 19 , 2021 .
The agreement , named for the city where the United Nations Conference of Parties struck it in 2015 , aims to limit the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels .
President Barack Obama pushed hard for the agreement , which his administration officially entered in September 2016 .
That year was the warmest year on record , although 2020 may soon top it .
During the past four years , the Earth ’ s temperature has continued to soar and unprecedented wildfires , flooding , droughts , sea level rise , and scorching temperatures have beset the world .
According to an October poll from Pew Research Center , 68 percent of registered voters who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change was very important to their vote , while only 11 percent of Trump supporters said the same .
While leaders from around the country have committed themselves to fighting climate change even without federal leadership , and the market has driven an increase in the use of renewable energy , a second Trump administration could immeasurably set back the fight .
“ The consequences would be catastrophic , ” said Thomas McGarity , a law professor at the University of Texas .
“ If Trump wins , it will allow him to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Plan , the auto standards , the EPA ’ s new source performance standards for oil and gas drilling , the Department of Energy ’ s limitations on methane emissions from oil and gas drilling on public lands , ” McGarity said , ticking off only a partial list of efforts the Trump administration has already begun that will result in increased release of greenhouse gases .
While U.S. has moved backward in the fight to address the climate crisis , Europe has announced a plan to become the first carbon neutral continent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have also committed to going carbon neutral by 2050 , and China has set a goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2060 .
Despite Trump ’ s example , no other country withdrew from the international accord .
“ It ’ s important to note that no other followed the lead of the U.S. , ” said Pamela McElwee , associate professor of human ecology at Rutgers , who emphasized that states and localities can continue to make some progress on limiting emissions even if the federal government continues to have no climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ onto the presidency , the ability of the U.S. to limit emissions will continue to be hamstrung .
“ That will be especially true if the Senate remains Republican , ” said McElwee .
At press time , the control of the Senate also hangs in the balance .

The United States officially withdrew from the Paris Agreement on Wednesday, casting the stakes of the still-undecided presidential election in planetary terms. With the completion of the formal withdrawal process, which Trump began in June 2017, the U.S. became the only country in the world not to participate in the global effort to fight the climate crisis.
Trump, who has dismissed climate change as a hoax and rolled back dozens of environmental regulations designed to protect the environment and stave off climate change, decided to exit the international agreement early in his term. But because the accord didn’t allow countries to begin the formal withdrawal process until three years after it went into effect, the yearlong process officially began on November 4, 2019.
Joe Biden has promised to reenter the climate accord on the first day of his presidency. The process of rejoining would take just 30 days, enabling the country to be readmitted as a party as soon as February 19, 2021.
The agreement, named for the city where the United Nations Conference of Parties struck it in 2015, aims to limit the global temperature rise to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. President Barack Obama pushed hard for the agreement, which his administration officially entered in September 2016. That year was the warmest year on record, although 2020 may soon top it. During the past four years, the Earth’s temperature has continued to soar and unprecedented wildfires, flooding, droughts, sea level rise, and scorching temperatures have beset the world.
According to an October poll from Pew Research Center, 68 percent of registered voters who planned to vote for Biden said climate change was very important to their vote, while only 11 percent of Trump supporters said the same.
While leaders from around the country have committed themselves to fighting climate change even without federal leadership, and the market has driven an increase in the use of renewable energy, a second Trump administration could immeasurably set back the fight.
“The consequences would be catastrophic,” said Thomas McGarity, a law professor at the University of Texas. “If Trump wins, it will allow him to finalize the rollback of the Clean Power Plan, the auto standards, the EPA’s new source performance standards for oil and gas drilling, the Department of Energy’s limitations on methane emissions from oil and gas drilling on public lands,” McGarity said, ticking off only a partial list of efforts the Trump administration has already begun that will result in increased release of greenhouse gases.
While U.S. has moved backward in the fight to address the climate crisis, Europe has announced a plan to become the first carbon neutral continent by 2050. South Korea and Japan have also committed to going carbon neutral by 2050, and China has set a goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2060.
Despite Trump’s example, no other country withdrew from the international accord. “It’s important to note that no other followed the lead of the U.S.,” said Pamela McElwee, associate professor of human ecology at Rutgers, who emphasized that states and localities can continue to make some progress on limiting emissions even if the federal government continues to have no climate plan.
Still, if Trump holds onto the presidency, the ability of the U.S. to limit emissions will continue to be hamstrung. “That will be especially true if the Senate remains Republican,” said McElwee. At press time, the control of the Senate also hangs in the balance.


theintercept--2020-11-04--In Iowa, as in Other Red States, Hopeful Democrats Failed to Make Gains

, a small town of about 5,000 residents , Dr. Ron Zoutendam put a large LED sign up in his front yard during the month leading up to the election .
It featured a rotating series of political messages — such as “ ‘ Right to life ’ does not mean lies and hate ” and “ All lives matter .
Therefore , black lives matter ” — beneath a call to support Joe Biden and Kamala Harris ’ s Democratic presidential ticket .
The sign also rallied support for Democrats ’ down-ballot candidates , J.D .
Scholten for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate .
Zoutendam , who is 88 years old , is an evangelical Christian and considers himself a longtime Republican .
He told a N ’ West Iowa Review reporter that his faith would not allow him to support the current president and that he was throwing his support behind Biden specifically “ because he ’ s not Donald Trump.
” Zoutendam is exactly the kind of voter Biden , Greenfield , and Democrats across Iowa were counting on in 2020 : a conservative swing state resident who ’ s had a change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s message of unity appealing and his platform inoffensive enough to make switching sides bearable .
Along with the focused push underway from various get-out-the-vote groups to raise a higher turnout among under-represented rural populations , like young people and Latino communities , and a greater turnout from their deep blue urban centers , like Des Moines and Iowa City , Democrats counted on the unification of disparate demographics to reverse course from the 10-point loss they suffered in 2016 .
Though the margins were slightly closer in 2020 and voter turnout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zoutendam weren ’ t enough for either Biden or Greenfield to break through .
Greenfield lost to Republican incumbent Sen. Joni Ernst by about 109,000 votes , with 99 percent of votes counted on Tuesday night , a 6.6-point loss .
In the presidential race , Biden lost to Trump by just over 8 points , while Scholten lost his House race to Republican Randy Feenstra by about 24 points .
In Iowa , as in Texas and Ohio , Democrats poured a lot of energy and money into flipping the red state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ midnight , Greenfield , speaking in a room sparsely filled with just media and some support staff , said she had called Ernst to concede the race and that she was proud of the race she had won .
“ We always knew this race was going to be one of the closest in the country , ” she said .
“ We knew it was going to be a donnybrook .
And it was.
” A few blocks away , Ernst celebrated her win in a room full of supporters , along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the two parties to the pandemic made visible in their respective loss and triumph .
Greenfield ’ s loss to Ernst came despite outfundraising her 4 to 1 in the third quarter .
Ernst arrived in the 2014 midterms , going from relative anonymity to a win on a wave of grassroots conservative indignation , Koch money , and viral advertising featuring pig castration .
She was supposed to be untouchable .
As her star rose in a political party that came to be dominated by Trump , though , it seemed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election drew closer .
A last-minute surge , along with an assist from the president , brought her back .
deeply conservative Republican who spent most of the past year floating ideas about withdrawing federal aid from West Coast cities and downplaying the number of deaths due to the coronavirus pandemic , citing conspiracy theories .
Greenfield , for her part , is as conservative as Democrats come , a lifelong real estate executive with no prior political experience .
She promised to expand the Affordable Care Act and supported a $ 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ center , with a promise to work with Republicans , and touted a business record that showed a commitment to the real estate world from which she came .
She proved far more representative of the 26 percent of Iowa Democrats who supported Pete Buttigieg in the long-ago Iowa caucus than the 26 percent who supported Bernie Sanders ( Biden garnered about 16 percent of that vote back in February ) .
Both campaigns flooded Iowa TV markets with ad dollars , mostly urging voters to not cast their ballots for the opposing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 235 million spent , it was the most expensive U.S. Senate campaign in Iowa history and the second-most expensive campaign in U.S. history .
Ernst enjoyed the financial backing of Iowa ’ s corporate agriculture businesses and conservative PAC money , but Greenfield received huge donations from the pharmaceutical ( $ 232 million ) and real estate ( $ 94 million ) industries .
The candidates ’ credentials in farm country became the contentious point of debate toward the end of the race .
Though both received oil industry money , they fought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry more .
Though Ernst received backing from the powerful conservative group Iowa Farm Bureau , she went viral late in the election after she couldn ’ t accurately name the price of soybeans , even after Greenfield flexed her familiarity with commodities markets by listing the price of corn to the decimal point .
National Republicans worked hard to hold their ground in Iowa , where they risked losing one of the most conservative members of the Senate and a possible reversal of 2016 ’ s presidential election results .
Trump flew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fire up his base in mid-October , then touched down in Dubuque just days before the election , reminding them on each occasion of the billions of dollars he had allocated to farmers .
Terry Branstad , the former ambassador to China and immensely popular , longest-serving governor of Iowa , seemed to have resigned from his ambassador post with the explicit purpose of returning to the state in order to stump for Republicans ahead of Election Day .
His successor , Gov .
Kim Reynolds , has been campaigning seemingly full-time for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kept Iowa open during the pandemic and even generated a state surplus , all while the number of coronavirus cases , hospitalizations , and deaths continue to pile up .
( In the week leading up to the election , there was an average of 2,211 coronavirus cases per day in the state , according to a New York Times analysis . )
Ernst herself was present at many of these events and was also a central figure in the televised confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett — a great reminder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the country of her political utility .
Ernst ’ s attacks sharpened in the waning days of the race , attempting to paint Greenfield as the far-right ’ s nightmare , someone who believes in systemic racism within police departments , and as a socialist — despite the fact that Greenfield has emphatically claimed she “ does not support defunding the police.
” Progressive Democrats in Iowa saw Greenfield ’ s loss as an indication that the party is too devoted to corporate interests and too divorced from workers in rural communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked not to be named to be able to speak freely about intra-party disagreements , said Greenfield “ went down because she took her cues from ” former Democratic Iowa Gov .
Tom Vilsack , who was President Barack Obama ’ s agriculture secretary and currently a dairy lobbyist .
“ Her decision to rely on Vilsack & Co. — who reek of the corporate-friendly policies that looted most of Iowa in the first place — was a huge mistake , ” the party activist said .
“ Instead of focusing on challenging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iowa workers and farmers , she cozied up to the big ag industry.
” “ This loss is another failure that reflects badly on the Democratic Party ’ s old guard , ” the activist continued .
“ Iowans know that their problems require more than a status quo campaign with the same tired talking points on ethanol and free trade.
” Ernst ’ s victory came thanks to a deeply entrenched conservative base in Iowa , the base that gave Trump his victory in 2016 , and further solidified Iowa ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This particular election may prove to have been the Democrats ’ last , best chance to prevent Ernst ’ s Senate seat — which was previously held by Democrat Tom Harkin from 1984 until his retirement in 2014 — from becoming fully locked in by the GOP .
The state ’ s other Senate seat , held by Republican Chuck Grassley , has remained untouched since he entered the office in 1981 .
Despite the money spent and polls that called the races a toss-up , Biden and Greenfield couldn ’ t win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump and Ernst .

In Sheldon, Iowa , a small town of about 5,000 residents, Dr. Ron Zoutendam put a large LED sign up in his front yard during the month leading up to the election. It featured a rotating series of political messages — such as “‘Right to life’ does not mean lies and hate” and “All lives matter. Therefore, black lives matter” — beneath a call to support Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’s Democratic presidential ticket. The sign also rallied support for Democrats’ down-ballot candidates, J.D. Scholten for the House of Representatives and Theresa Greenfield for Senate.
Zoutendam, who is 88 years old, is an evangelical Christian and considers himself a longtime Republican. He told a N’West Iowa Review reporter that his faith would not allow him to support the current president and that he was throwing his support behind Biden specifically “because he’s not Donald Trump.”
In Iowa, Democrats poured a lot of energy and money into flipping the red state, but fell short.
Zoutendam is exactly the kind of voter Biden, Greenfield, and Democrats across Iowa were counting on in 2020: a conservative swing state resident who’s had a change of heart since 2016 and finds Biden’s message of unity appealing and his platform inoffensive enough to make switching sides bearable.
Along with the focused push underway from various get-out-the-vote groups to raise a higher turnout among under-represented rural populations, like young people and Latino communities, and a greater turnout from their deep blue urban centers, like Des Moines and Iowa City, Democrats counted on the unification of disparate demographics to reverse course from the 10-point loss they suffered in 2016.
Though the margins were slightly closer in 2020 and voter turnout at a record high, voters like Zoutendam weren’t enough for either Biden or Greenfield to break through. Greenfield lost to Republican incumbent Sen. Joni Ernst by about 109,000 votes, with 99 percent of votes counted on Tuesday night, a 6.6-point loss. In the presidential race, Biden lost to Trump by just over 8 points, while Scholten lost his House race to Republican Randy Feenstra by about 24 points.
In Iowa, as in Texas and Ohio, Democrats poured a lot of energy and money into flipping the red state, but fell short.
At around midnight, Greenfield, speaking in a room sparsely filled with just media and some support staff, said she had called Ernst to concede the race and that she was proud of the race she had won. “We always knew this race was going to be one of the closest in the country,” she said. “We knew it was going to be a donnybrook. And it was.” A few blocks away, Ernst celebrated her win in a room full of supporters, along with staff and media — the approaches of the two parties to the pandemic made visible in their respective loss and triumph.
Greenfield’s loss to Ernst came despite outfundraising her 4 to 1 in the third quarter. Ernst arrived in the 2014 midterms, going from relative anonymity to a win on a wave of grassroots conservative indignation, Koch money, and viral advertising featuring pig castration. She was supposed to be untouchable. As her star rose in a political party that came to be dominated by Trump, though, it seemed to waver in the polls as the election drew closer. A last-minute surge, along with an assist from the president, brought her back.
Ernst is a deeply conservative Republican who spent most of the past year floating ideas about withdrawing federal aid from West Coast cities and downplaying the number of deaths due to the coronavirus pandemic, citing conspiracy theories.
Greenfield, for her part, is as conservative as Democrats come, a lifelong real estate executive with no prior political experience. She promised to expand the Affordable Care Act and supported a $15 minimum wage but hewed close to the center, with a promise to work with Republicans, and touted a business record that showed a commitment to the real estate world from which she came. She proved far more representative of the 26 percent of Iowa Democrats who supported Pete Buttigieg in the long-ago Iowa caucus than the 26 percent who supported Bernie Sanders (Biden garnered about 16 percent of that vote back in February).
Both campaigns flooded Iowa TV markets with ad dollars, mostly urging voters to not cast their ballots for the opposing candidate. With a total of $235 million spent, it was the most expensive U.S. Senate campaign in Iowa history and the second-most expensive campaign in U.S. history. Ernst enjoyed the financial backing of Iowa’s corporate agriculture businesses and conservative PAC money, but Greenfield received huge donations from the pharmaceutical ($232 million) and real estate ($94 million) industries.
The candidates’ credentials in farm country became the contentious point of debate toward the end of the race. Though both received oil industry money, they fought over who supports Iowa’s ethanol industry more. Though Ernst received backing from the powerful conservative group Iowa Farm Bureau, she went viral late in the election after she couldn’t accurately name the price of soybeans, even after Greenfield flexed her familiarity with commodities markets by listing the price of corn to the decimal point.
National Republicans worked hard to hold their ground in Iowa, where they risked losing one of the most conservative members of the Senate and a possible reversal of 2016’s presidential election results. Trump flew into Des Moines in an attempt to fire up his base in mid-October, then touched down in Dubuque just days before the election, reminding them on each occasion of the billions of dollars he had allocated to farmers.
Terry Branstad, the former ambassador to China and immensely popular, longest-serving governor of Iowa, seemed to have resigned from his ambassador post with the explicit purpose of returning to the state in order to stump for Republicans ahead of Election Day. His successor, Gov. Kim Reynolds, has been campaigning seemingly full-time for the party, bragging about how she kept Iowa open during the pandemic and even generated a state surplus, all while the number of coronavirus cases, hospitalizations, and deaths continue to pile up. (In the week leading up to the election, there was an average of 2,211 coronavirus cases per day in the state, according to a New York Times analysis.)
Ernst herself was present at many of these events and was also a central figure in the televised confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett — a great reminder to her base in Iowa and conservatives across the country of her political utility.
Ernst’s attacks sharpened in the waning days of the race, attempting to paint Greenfield as the far-right’s nightmare, someone who believes in systemic racism within police departments, and as a socialist — despite the fact that Greenfield has emphatically claimed she “does not support defunding the police.”
Progressive Democrats in Iowa saw Greenfield’s loss as an indication that the party is too devoted to corporate interests and too divorced from workers in rural communities.
“Iowans know that their problems require more than a status quo campaign with the same tired talking points on ethanol and free trade.”
An Iowa Democratic activist, who asked not to be named to be able to speak freely about intra-party disagreements, said Greenfield “went down because she took her cues from” former Democratic Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who was President Barack Obama’s agriculture secretary and currently a dairy lobbyist. “Her decision to rely on Vilsack & Co. — who reek of the corporate-friendly policies that looted most of Iowa in the first place — was a huge mistake,” the party activist said. “Instead of focusing on challenging the power of multinational corporations that harm Iowa workers and farmers, she cozied up to the big ag industry.”
“This loss is another failure that reflects badly on the Democratic Party’s old guard,” the activist continued. “Iowans know that their problems require more than a status quo campaign with the same tired talking points on ethanol and free trade.”
Ernst’s victory came thanks to a deeply entrenched conservative base in Iowa, the base that gave Trump his victory in 2016, and further solidified Iowa’s position as a reliable red state. This particular election may prove to have been the Democrats’ last, best chance to prevent Ernst’s Senate seat — which was previously held by Democrat Tom Harkin from 1984 until his retirement in 2014 — from becoming fully locked in by the GOP. The state’s other Senate seat, held by Republican Chuck Grassley, has remained untouched since he entered the office in 1981.
Despite the money spent and polls that called the races a toss-up, Biden and Greenfield couldn’t win on the strength of simply not being Trump and Ernst.


theintercept--2020-11-04--Democrats Underperformed Among Voters of Color — Except in Arizona. Here’s Why.

in Starr County , Texas , one of the poorest areas of the country and 96 percent Latino , Hillary Clinton cleaned up , winning it 79 to 19 percent .
Four years later , Joe Biden won that same county by just 5 points .
Yet the votes for Clinton and Biden were roughly similar : 9,246 in 2016 for Clinton and 9,099 for Biden in 2020 .
It was Donald Trump ’ s numbers that surged , from just over 2,000 in 2016 to more than 8,000 this election .
The county is home to around 43,000 voting-age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Somehow , Trump managed to quadruple his vote total while Biden managed to lose a small amount of ground , even as turnout was up overall .
It was a stark instance of a trend that dogged Biden across the country : Even as Democrats ran up big numbers among suburban and college-educated voters , their support among voters of color eroded .
On Fox News , Tucker Carlson crowed that Starr County ’ s shift was symbolic of an emerging populist Republican Party .
“ People who make less are voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , saying the GOP was “ the party of wage earners.
” The exception was Arizona , a state called early on Tuesday night by that same Fox News , giving hope to Democrats that the race was far from over .
Clinton won 61 percent of the Latino vote in the state in 2016 , while early reports show Biden reaching 70 percent .
And , in Arizona , there ’ s a lesson for Democrats as they confront the erosion of what they expected to be their emerging coalition .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizing campaign against Sheriff Joe Arpaio pulled together a political constituency with its own motivations , community , and sense of identity .
That constituency was primed not just to get out the vote but to flip Arizona blue .
Chuck Rocha , the architect of the Bernie Sanders campaign ’ s Latino strategy and founder of the pro-Biden Nuestro PAC , said that Biden ’ s success in Arizona was “ the perfect storm.
” The Biden campaign started spending big on TV ad buys early on and , though they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the state , groups like Living United for Change in Arizona , or LUCHA , were doing the work on the ground .
Rocha also believes that marijuana legalization being on the ballot was “ another driving force ” for Latino turnout .
“ The Latino outreach started late , ” Rocha said .
“ It could have been better , and we ’ re lucky that Joe Biden caught up with his spending when he did , because the outside spending was not comparable .
What we ’ re seeing is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to white persuadable voters and less than $ 24 million talking to Latinos for outside orgs.
” Trump ’ s support among Latinos , specifically Cuban Americans , helped him in Miami-Dade County , the most populous in Florida .
Early 2020 exit polls found that Biden won a little over half of Latino voters in the state , down from Clinton ’ s 62 percent .
In Georgia , Biden was up 16 percentage points among Latinos , compared with Clinton ’ s 40 percent , and similarly down with Latino voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Groups of voters have moved in and out of parties for decades , yet leaders in both parties tend to think of groups that are part of their coalition as static .
In the early 1900s , the Great Migration saw millions of Black people leave the South for northern cities .
Once they arrived , Democratic machine bosses looked to tap into this new voting bloc , creating the beginnings of an awkward coalition .
Republican leaders insisted that African Americans would never vote for a party of former slave owners , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
By 1936 , a majority of African American votes were cast for Democrats .
Democratic leaders today , meanwhile , argue that Trump ’ s rhetoric around race is so toxic that it ’ s inconceivable voters of color could move his way .
But voters who are not actively engaged can ’ t be counted on for decades .
LUCHA , a Latino-run grassroots group , was formed in 2009 in response to the state ’ s “ show me your papers ” immigration law and Arpaio ’ s brutal 24-year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s officially known , was the most punitive immigration law in the nation and led to a seismic shift in the politics of the state .
“ [ SB 1070 ] was a watershed moment for the state of Arizona , in the sense that it was so raw and so politically motivated in terms of making the immigrant community and Latinos , by obvious association , the target that it backfired , ” Rep. Raúl Grijalva , D-Ariz. , told The Intercept a few days before the election .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it politicized a lot of people and energized a generation of activists.
” LUCHA has knocked on hundreds of thousands of doors in neighborhoods in South Phoenix , South Tucson , and West Phoenix since its inception .
“ You see just a tremendous force of young people that you ’ ve seen throughout this decade really leading the fight here in Arizona , ” Abril Gallardo , LUCHA ’ s communications director , told The Intercept last week .

In 2016, in Starr County, Texas, one of the poorest areas of the country and 96 percent Latino, Hillary Clinton cleaned up, winning it 79 to 19 percent. Four years later, Joe Biden won that same county by just 5 points.
Yet the votes for Clinton and Biden were roughly similar: 9,246 in 2016 for Clinton and 9,099 for Biden in 2020. It was Donald Trump’s numbers that surged, from just over 2,000 in 2016 to more than 8,000 this election. The county is home to around 43,000 voting-age eligible people, according to the census.
Somehow, Trump managed to quadruple his vote total while Biden managed to lose a small amount of ground, even as turnout was up overall. It was a stark instance of a trend that dogged Biden across the country: Even as Democrats ran up big numbers among suburban and college-educated voters, their support among voters of color eroded. On Fox News, Tucker Carlson crowed that Starr County’s shift was symbolic of an emerging populist Republican Party. “People who make less are voting Republican in bigger numbers,” Carlson said, saying the GOP was “the party of wage earners.”
The exception was Arizona, a state called early on Tuesday night by that same Fox News, giving hope to Democrats that the race was far from over. Clinton won 61 percent of the Latino vote in the state in 2016, while early reports show Biden reaching 70 percent. And, in Arizona, there’s a lesson for Democrats as they confront the erosion of what they expected to be their emerging coalition. Particularly in Maricopa County, a long-running organizing campaign against Sheriff Joe Arpaio pulled together a political constituency with its own motivations, community, and sense of identity. That constituency was primed not just to get out the vote but to flip Arizona blue.
Chuck Rocha, the architect of the Bernie Sanders campaign’s Latino strategy and founder of the pro-Biden Nuestro PAC, said that Biden’s success in Arizona was “the perfect storm.” The Biden campaign started spending big on TV ad buys early on and, though they were slow to ramp up Latino outreach efforts in the state, groups like Living United for Change in Arizona, or LUCHA, were doing the work on the ground. Rocha also believes that marijuana legalization being on the ballot was “another driving force” for Latino turnout.
“The Latino outreach started late,” Rocha said. “It could have been better, and we’re lucky that Joe Biden caught up with his spending when he did, because the outside spending was not comparable. What we’re seeing is a billion dollars that was spent talking to white persuadable voters and less than $24 million talking to Latinos for outside orgs.”
Trump’s support among Latinos, specifically Cuban Americans, helped him in Miami-Dade County, the most populous in Florida. Early 2020 exit polls found that Biden won a little over half of Latino voters in the state, down from Clinton’s 62 percent. In Georgia, Biden was up 16 percentage points among Latinos, compared with Clinton’s 40 percent, and similarly down with Latino voters in Ohio, according to CNN.
https://twitter.com/MattBruenig/status/1323825846365396992
Groups of voters have moved in and out of parties for decades, yet leaders in both parties tend to think of groups that are part of their coalition as static. In the early 1900s, the Great Migration saw millions of Black people leave the South for northern cities. Once they arrived, Democratic machine bosses looked to tap into this new voting bloc, creating the beginnings of an awkward coalition. Republican leaders insisted that African Americans would never vote for a party of former slave owners, and took the Black vote for granted. By 1936, a majority of African American votes were cast for Democrats.
Democratic leaders today, meanwhile, argue that Trump’s rhetoric around race is so toxic that it’s inconceivable voters of color could move his way. But voters who are not actively engaged can’t be counted on for decades.
LUCHA, a Latino-run grassroots group, was formed in 2009 in response to the state’s “show me your papers” immigration law and Arpaio’s brutal 24-year reign. Senate Bill 1070, as it’s officially known, was the most punitive immigration law in the nation and led to a seismic shift in the politics of the state.
“[SB 1070] was a watershed moment for the state of Arizona, in the sense that it was so raw and so politically motivated in terms of making the immigrant community and Latinos, by obvious association, the target that it backfired,” Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., told The Intercept a few days before the election. “And it backfired in the sense that it politicized a lot of people and energized a generation of activists.”
LUCHA has knocked on hundreds of thousands of doors in neighborhoods in South Phoenix, South Tucson, and West Phoenix since its inception. “You see just a tremendous force of young people that you’ve seen throughout this decade really leading the fight here in Arizona,” Abril Gallardo, LUCHA’s communications director, told The Intercept last week.


theintercept--2020-11-04--In Maine, Ranked-Choice Voting Was a Reaction to GOP Wins. Susan Collins Might Be Its First Victim.

of Susan Collins is hanging by a thread in Maine , yet the lifeline she previously had to cling to won ’ t be there for her .
For years , Republicans relied on the state ’ s independent streak to syphon votes away from Democrats and toward third-party candidates .
But Maine voters approved ranked-choice voting in 2016 , making the state the first in the nation to use the procedure for federal elections .
Massachusetts and Alaska voters are considering implementing ranked choice in tonight ’ s elections , and a number of municipalities in states around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ races .
Ranked-choice voting allows a voter to choose their favored candidate , even if they ’ re a third-party candidate with no shot , without risking accidentally electing somebody they despise .
To do so , a voter can rank their candidates , rather than vote for just one .
The system has come under criticism from across the political spectrum , especially in Maine .
The system faced legal challenges earlier this year from opponents who sued Gov .
Janet Mills over the “ confusing ” nature of the process .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , that ’ s hardly the case : “ according to FairVote , 75 % of all Maine voters—including Democrats AND Republicans—surveyed said they found voting under RCV to be ‘ easy . '
” Republicans in Massachusetts have been opposed to the commonwealth ’ s ballot measure .
A committee formed in August against ranked choice voting included state GOP member Anthony Amore , who told Commonwealth Magazine in August that the system “ sounds beautiful in a mathematical equation but practically speaking it ’ s disastrous ” because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lisa Savage , an unenrolled independent with ties to the Maine Green Independent Party , ran her Senate campaign explicitly asking voters to rank her first in their preference and Sara Gideon , a Democrat and the speaker of the Maine House of Representatives , second .
Under ranked-choice voting , if no candidate wins an outright majority , the lowest vote-getter ’ s votes are redistributed and so on , until there is a winner .
“ Certainly we all would like to see Susan Collins retire , ” Savage explained to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parties have been hostile to ranked-choice voting and have tried to block it from going into effect , as it allows third-party candidates to compete in elections without being tarred as spoilers .
An Emerson College poll conducted between October 29 and 31 showed Gideon with a 48 percent to 42 percent lead over Collins , and 61 percent of supporters of both Savage and independent Max Linn , polling at 5 percent and 1 percent , respectively , would back Gideon on their second choice .
Collins entered the Senate in 1997 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independently minded Republican women senators alongside Olympia Snowe .
The junior senator survived in the New England state as a politically savvy member of the GOP in a liberalizing region by touting her independence and reasonableness , but the tension between her party and constituents met its match in her support of President Donald Trump .
Gideon ’ s run focused as much on portraying Collins as out of touch with Mainers as it did on health care and a higher minimum wage .
The incumbent ’ s vote for Trump Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coney Barrett last week was a decisive moment in her career , allowing Gideon to paint Collins as more beholden to the president than her constituents .
“ Lisa Savage is absolutely right , ” said Kat Calvin , founder and executive director of Spread the Vote .
“ Ranked-choice voting is actually something that a lot of us want.
” Collins recognized the danger the runoff system presented to her candidacy early on , telling the New York Times on Sunday that she was fighting for a clear majority on Election Day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choices being a factor in the race .
“ My goal is to get 50 percent on Election Day , and ranked-choice voting would not come into play , ” said Collins .
“ So that ’ s what I hope.
” The Maine system was put in place partly in response to former Republican Gov .
Paul LePage winning the governorship twice without a majority .
He took advantage of third parties to govern with 37.6 percent and 48.2 percent of the vote in the 2010 and 2014 elections .
In 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear majority on the first round , and the second choices did not trigger .
Savage told The Intercept that she is a fan of the procedure and finds it best for democracy .
“ As a school teacher — I just retired from 25 years of teaching school — I used to use it for things like the all-important day before vacation , ” said Savage .
“ What movie shall we watch ?
Because if you just do a first-past-the-post on a decision like that , you are very likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority support , and you don ’ t want that.
” “ It ’ s a much better structure for expressing the will of the majority of voters , ” she added .
The race was one of the most expensive in the country and the most expensive in Maine ’ s history .
Data from the Center for Responsive Politics shows that Gideon raised a staggering $ 68,577,474 , while Collins took in $ 26,511,555 .
The amount of cash in the race was reportedly so high , with a total of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were included , that both candidates struggled to spend what they raised in the waning weeks of the campaign .
As BuzzFeed News reported last week , the media spending has saved a number of local media outlets .
Gideon met Savage in the town of Brunswick earlier Tuesday , where the two shared a friendly elbow bump .
Savage said that although she and Gideon have political differences , she shares the desire to see Collins gone .
“ We want to be perceived as being on the let ’ s-retire-Susan Collins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We don ’ t want confused Democrats thinking , Oh she ’ s a spoiler for Sara Gideon .
You know , in a ranked-choice voting race , I really can ’ t be a spoiler .
But people are still kind of buying into the false dichotomy.
” Nathan Bernard , a journalist at the Mainer News Co-op and longtime statewide political observer , said that in his view , Savage ’ s votes show that the Democratic Party should be looking to Maine for guidance in winning elections going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote your conscience and brings disaffected people into the electoral process , ” said Bernard .
“ The system allowed Savage to run an issue-based campaign focused on Medicare for All and a Green New Deal , while still promoting her cohort to rank the less progressive Gideon second .
If Democrats pushed to expand ranked-choice voting , they would grow the Democratic electorate and actually win elections like tonight in Maine.
” Savage ’ s move to campaign in part on the decision showed strength of character , Spread the Vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I think Lisa Savage here is showing that she is in solidarity with the party , that she really wants the vote of people ’ s voices to be heard , that we don ’ t always have to run in direct opposition and animosity with other candidates , ” said Calvin .
“ I think that what Lisa Savage is doing shows a lot of class , ” Calvin added .
“ It shows a lot of integrity .
”

The Senate career of Susan Collins is hanging by a thread in Maine, yet the lifeline she previously had to cling to won’t be there for her.
For years, Republicans relied on the state’s independent streak to syphon votes away from Democrats and toward third-party candidates. But Maine voters approved ranked-choice voting in 2016, making the state the first in the nation to use the procedure for federal elections. Massachusetts and Alaska voters are considering implementing ranked choice in tonight’s elections, and a number of municipalities in states around the country already use the system for local races.
Ranked-choice voting allows a voter to choose their favored candidate, even if they’re a third-party candidate with no shot, without risking accidentally electing somebody they despise. To do so, a voter can rank their candidates, rather than vote for just one.
The system has come under criticism from across the political spectrum, especially in Maine. The system faced legal challenges earlier this year from opponents who sued Gov. Janet Mills over the “confusing” nature of the process. As journalist Shawn Griffiths wrote in July, however, that’s hardly the case: “according to FairVote, 75% of all Maine voters—including Democrats AND Republicans—surveyed said they found voting under RCV to be ‘easy.'”
Republicans in Massachusetts have been opposed to the commonwealth’s ballot measure. A committee formed in August against ranked choice voting included state GOP member Anthony Amore, who told Commonwealth Magazine in August that the system “sounds beautiful in a mathematical equation but practically speaking it’s disastrous” because of the small differences between some candidates.
Lisa Savage, an unenrolled independent with ties to the Maine Green Independent Party, ran her Senate campaign explicitly asking voters to rank her first in their preference and Sara Gideon, a Democrat and the speaker of the Maine House of Representatives, second. Under ranked-choice voting, if no candidate wins an outright majority, the lowest vote-getter’s votes are redistributed and so on, until there is a winner.
“Certainly we all would like to see Susan Collins retire,” Savage explained to The Intercept.
Establishment politicians in both parties have been hostile to ranked-choice voting and have tried to block it from going into effect, as it allows third-party candidates to compete in elections without being tarred as spoilers.
An Emerson College poll conducted between October 29 and 31 showed Gideon with a 48 percent to 42 percent lead over Collins, and 61 percent of supporters of both Savage and independent Max Linn, polling at 5 percent and 1 percent, respectively, would back Gideon on their second choice.
Collins entered the Senate in 1997 as one of Maine’s two independently minded Republican women senators alongside Olympia Snowe. The junior senator survived in the New England state as a politically savvy member of the GOP in a liberalizing region by touting her independence and reasonableness, but the tension between her party and constituents met its match in her support of President Donald Trump.
Gideon’s run focused as much on portraying Collins as out of touch with Mainers as it did on health care and a higher minimum wage. The incumbent’s vote for Trump Supreme Court nominees Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 and Amy Coney Barrett last week was a decisive moment in her career, allowing Gideon to paint Collins as more beholden to the president than her constituents.
“Lisa Savage is absolutely right,” said Kat Calvin, founder and executive director of Spread the Vote. “Ranked-choice voting is actually something that a lot of us want.”
Collins recognized the danger the runoff system presented to her candidacy early on, telling the New York Times on Sunday that she was fighting for a clear majority on Election Day to head off any chance of second choices being a factor in the race.
“My goal is to get 50 percent on Election Day, and ranked-choice voting would not come into play,” said Collins. “So that’s what I hope.”
The Maine system was put in place partly in response to former Republican Gov. Paul LePage winning the governorship twice without a majority. He took advantage of third parties to govern with 37.6 percent and 48.2 percent of the vote in the 2010 and 2014 elections. In 2018, incumbent Sen. Angus King won a clear majority on the first round, and the second choices did not trigger. Savage told The Intercept that she is a fan of the procedure and finds it best for democracy.
“As a school teacher — I just retired from 25 years of teaching school — I used to use it for things like the all-important day before vacation,” said Savage. “What movie shall we watch? Because if you just do a first-past-the-post on a decision like that, you are very likely to pick a movie that does not have majority support, and you don’t want that.”
“It’s a much better structure for expressing the will of the majority of voters,” she added.
The race was one of the most expensive in the country and the most expensive in Maine’s history. Data from the Center for Responsive Politics shows that Gideon raised a staggering $68,577,474, while Collins took in $26,511,555. The amount of cash in the race was reportedly so high, with a total of $120 million spent when outside groups were included, that both candidates struggled to spend what they raised in the waning weeks of the campaign. As BuzzFeed News reported last week, the media spending has saved a number of local media outlets.
Gideon met Savage in the town of Brunswick earlier Tuesday, where the two shared a friendly elbow bump.
https://twitter.com/LisaForMaine/status/1323690996446711809
Savage said that although she and Gideon have political differences, she shares the desire to see Collins gone.
“We want to be perceived as being on the let’s-retire-Susan Collins team,” Savage told The Intercept. “We don’t want confused Democrats thinking, Oh she’s a spoiler for Sara Gideon. You know, in a ranked-choice voting race, I really can’t be a spoiler. But people are still kind of buying into the false dichotomy.”
Nathan Bernard, a journalist at the Mainer News Co-op and longtime statewide political observer, said that in his view, Savage’s votes show that the Democratic Party should be looking to Maine for guidance in winning elections going forward.
“Ranked-choice voting allows you to vote your conscience and brings disaffected people into the electoral process,” said Bernard. “The system allowed Savage to run an issue-based campaign focused on Medicare for All and a Green New Deal, while still promoting her cohort to rank the less progressive Gideon second. If Democrats pushed to expand ranked-choice voting, they would grow the Democratic electorate and actually win elections like tonight in Maine.”
Savage’s move to campaign in part on the decision showed strength of character, Spread the Vote’s Calvin told The Intercept.
“I think Lisa Savage here is showing that she is in solidarity with the party, that she really wants the vote of people’s voices to be heard, that we don’t always have to run in direct opposition and animosity with other candidates,” said Calvin.
“I think that what Lisa Savage is doing shows a lot of class,” Calvin added. “It shows a lot of integrity.”


theintercept--2020-11-03--White House Security Wall Provided by Same GOP Firm That Managed Trump's Tulsa Rally

security and event management company founded by former aides to President Donald Trump , received a last-minute government contract to provide protection to the White House for the election .
The contract comes as there is growing concern around riots or other forms of political turmoil in the wake of the 2020 presidential election results .
The U.S. Secret Service , an arm of the Department of Homeland Security , provided Arcus Group with the contract to set up “ perimeter security ” to protect the “ White House complex on Election Night.
” The contract , signed last Friday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s not the first time the Arcus Group has provided security for the White House .
Last summer , following protests sparked by the police killing of George Floyd , the same company was contracted by the Secret Service to provide vehicle gates , pedestrian gates , and other fencing solutions for the area around the White House grounds .
That contract cost $ 434,700 .
Yesterday , media outlets reporting from outside of the White House noted that the fence appears to be the same style of multilayer security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests .
NBC News reported over the weekend that construction crews began work on a “ non-scalable ” fence to secure parks around the White House , including Lafayette Square .
Washington , D.C. , police may be assisted by as many as 250 National Guard members that have been told to stand ready for potential violence .
The Arcus Group was founded by Anna Reahl and P.J .
O ’ Neil , two former GOP aides who provided production and security for the Republican National Convention in 2016 and Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ records show Reahl has received payments directly from the Trump campaign since 2018 , for advance work and event consulting .
O ’ Neil ’ s professional biography lists work for a number of Republican politicians , including Trump and former presidents George H.W .
Bush and George W. Bush .
The company bills itself as “ a woman-owned , minority-owned , full-service event management company specializing in event design and production , event programming , internal and perimeter security.
” In June , the firm provided event production work for a Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provoked controversy as the first major indoor campaign event since the coronavirus pandemic began .
Federal Election Commission records show the firm received $ 673,905 from the Trump campaign for its services for the event , which cost about $ 2.2 million .
The Arcus Group did not respond to a request for comment .
The Secret Service , which provides protection services for presidential candidates , also appears to be providing special election-night security services for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden .
Last month , the agency entered into a $ 1.6 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another event management and security firm , to provide perimeter security for election night in Biden ’ s hometown of Wilmington , Delaware , where he will be speaking tonight .
Four years of increasing political polarization , a destabilizing pandemic , rising unemployment , several instances of mass looting and violent confrontations between demonstrators and police over the last five months , and an incumbent president who has signaled that he may take unprecedented efforts to dispute the election result have many on edge for the potential of another round of unrest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the country have put into place new private security measures over fears of that mass looting may erupt over the election-related chaos .
The new White House fencing comes after officials were caught off guard from the protests that developed following Floyd ’ s death .
In May , Trump was rushed to an emergency underground bunker as demonstrators , some of whom threw bricks and bottles , gathered outside the gates of the White House .
Trump denied he was sheltering and claimed it was a brief “ inspection , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was never in any danger .

Arcus Group, a security and event management company founded by former aides to President Donald Trump, received a last-minute government contract to provide protection to the White House for the election.
The contract comes as there is growing concern around riots or other forms of political turmoil in the wake of the 2020 presidential election results.
The U.S. Secret Service, an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, provided Arcus Group with the contract to set up “perimeter security” to protect the “White House complex on Election Night.” The contract, signed last Friday, will cost the government $988,788.
Read Our Complete Coverage Election 2020
It’s not the first time the Arcus Group has provided security for the White House. Last summer, following protests sparked by the police killing of George Floyd, the same company was contracted by the Secret Service to provide vehicle gates, pedestrian gates, and other fencing solutions for the area around the White House grounds. That contract cost $434,700.
Yesterday, media outlets reporting from outside of the White House noted that the fence appears to be the same style of multilayer security barrier that went up after the Floyd protests. NBC News reported over the weekend that construction crews began work on a “non-scalable” fence to secure parks around the White House, including Lafayette Square. Washington, D.C., police may be assisted by as many as 250 National Guard members that have been told to stand ready for potential violence.
The Arcus Group was founded by Anna Reahl and P.J. O’Neil, two former GOP aides who provided production and security for the Republican National Convention in 2016 and Trump’s inauguration the following year. Campaign finance records show Reahl has received payments directly from the Trump campaign since 2018, for advance work and event consulting. O’Neil’s professional biography lists work for a number of Republican politicians, including Trump and former presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. The company bills itself as “a woman-owned, minority-owned, full-service event management company specializing in event design and production, event programming, internal and perimeter security.”
In June, the firm provided event production work for a Trump rally in Tulsa, a moment that provoked controversy as the first major indoor campaign event since the coronavirus pandemic began. Federal Election Commission records show the firm received $673,905 from the Trump campaign for its services for the event, which cost about $2.2 million.
The Arcus Group did not respond to a request for comment.
The Secret Service, which provides protection services for presidential candidates, also appears to be providing special election-night security services for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. Last month, the agency entered into a $1.6 million contract with Showcall Security Services, another event management and security firm, to provide perimeter security for election night in Biden’s hometown of Wilmington, Delaware, where he will be speaking tonight.
Four years of increasing political polarization, a destabilizing pandemic, rising unemployment, several instances of mass looting and violent confrontations between demonstrators and police over the last five months, and an incumbent president who has signaled that he may take unprecedented efforts to dispute the election result have many on edge for the potential of another round of unrest this week. Retailers and other businesses around the country have put into place new private security measures over fears of that mass looting may erupt over the election-related chaos.
The new White House fencing comes after officials were caught off guard from the protests that developed following Floyd’s death. In May, Trump was rushed to an emergency underground bunker as demonstrators, some of whom threw bricks and bottles, gathered outside the gates of the White House. Trump denied he was sheltering and claimed it was a brief “inspection,” and White House officials later said he was never in any danger.