Showing posts with label Time. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Time. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 10, 2020

New top story from Time: Joe Biden Moving Swiftly Ahead with Transition, Despite Donald Trump’s Obstruction



President-elect Joe Biden said Tuesday that he and his team would move steadily ahead with their transition plans, regardless of whether President Donald Trump concedes or he provides the resources traditionally offered to incoming administrations to assist in a transition.

“We’re well underway,” Biden said as he took questions from reporters after delivering remarks about the Affordable Care Act lawsuit. The Trump Administration’s failure to recognize the outcome “does not change the dynamic of what we’re able to do,” he said.”We’re going to be moving along in a consistent manner putting together our administration, our White House, reviewing who we’re going to pick for Cabinet positions, and nothing’s going to stop it.”

The transition is moving steadily ahead even though Biden has not yet been afforded any of the privileges typically offered to a President elect, such as office space in Washington and intelligence briefings. It helps that Biden, as a former Vice President himself, is already intimately familiar with most of the levers of the federal government. “There’s nothing that slows up our effort to put things together,” he said. The additional funding and classified information typically shared with the President-elect would be nice, he said, but aren’t necessary. “We don’t see anything that’s slowing us down, quite frankly.”

Biden said he had not yet spoken to the President, who has so far refused to accept the results of the election, or to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who supports President Trump’s long-shot lawsuits to overturn the results. The General Services Administration, led by Trump appointee Emily Murphy, has not yet certified that Biden is the winner, which is why Biden’s team does not yet have the funding, office space, or access to federal agencies typically offered to a transition team. Biden has also not been given access to the Presidential Daily Brief, the national security briefing that normally gets shared with the President-elect. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence told NBC Biden could not get intelligence briefings until his election was certified by the GSA.

Normally, the incumbent President “has generally seen it in his own interest in terms of his legacy of preserving the presidency as an institution” to ensure a smooth transition of power,” says Martha Kumar, an expert on presidential transitions. ““The tone of the transition is set at the top by the incumbent president.”

Still, the Biden team has forged ahead. Yesterday, Biden and Vice-President elect Kamala Harris met with members of a newly formed COVID-19 Advisory Board, and today the transition team announced the names of “agency review teams” who will be tasked with coordinating the transition of power and the federal government’s biggest agencies.

Except, unlike the Trump Administration “landing teams” formed after the 2016 election, Biden’s “agency review teams” don’t yet have any access to federal agencies until GSA Head Emily Murphy certifies that Biden won the election. “We must be prepared for a seamless transfer of knowledge to the incoming administration to protect our interests at home and abroad,” said Senator Ted Kaufman, a longtime Biden ally and Co-Chair of the Biden-Harris Transition, in a statement. “The agency review process will help lay the foundation for meeting these challenges on Day One.”

Despite the efforts to block his transition, Biden says nothing the Trump Administration does can slow him down. “We’re just going to proceed the way we have,” he said. “We’re doing exactly what we’d be doing if he conceded and said we’d won, which we have. So there’s nothing really changing.”

When a reporter asked what he would say to President Trump, President-elect Biden flashed a grin and said “Mr. President, I look forward to speaking with you.”

Another reporter asked how he would work with Republicans who wouldn’t even acknowledge his win.

Biden seemed unperturbed. “They will,” he said. “They will.”

—With reporting from Tessa Berenson

Saturday, November 7, 2020

New top story from Time: As Biden Wins the Presidency, Trump Digs in for a Fight



Donald Trump lost the presidency while he was at one of his golf courses.

The news came on an unseasonably warm and sunny fall day in Washington, and as major networks and the Associated Press called the presidential race for Joe Biden after nearly five days of vote counting, Trump was playing a round of golf at his course in Sterling, Va. More than five hours after the race was called for Biden, after he had returned to the White House, Trump tweeted, “I WON THE ELECTION,” and perpetuated baseless claims of fraud. Trump then tweeted that he had received nearly 71 million votes, without mentioning that Biden has received nearly 75 million. (The count is ongoing, and it will be weeks until state and local election officials certify the final results.)

A statement from the Trump campaign on Saturday morning suggested their fight will continue. “The simple fact is this election is far from over,” read the statement, attributed to Trump himself. “Joe Biden has not been certified as the winner of any states, let alone any of the highly contested states headed for mandatory recounts, or states where our campaign has valid and legitimate legal challenges that could determine the ultimate victor.” Starting on Monday, the statement read, Trump’s campaign will press forward “prosecuting our case in court to ensure election laws are fully upheld and the rightful winner is seated.”

During the week of the election, the Trump campaign filed roughly a dozen lawsuits in battleground states around the country, but election experts tell TIME that none are likely to change the outcome of the race. Trump’s aides inside the White House are settling in for days of legal challenges to give Trump’s supporters more certainty in the result.

“Do all the court challenges, all the recounts, so that there’s a consensus at the end of the process so everybody says we know for certain that one guy lost and one guy won and we can all be big boys and girls and move on,” says a White House official. “Let’s get this done right, now,” the official says, otherwise “you leave this as a wound to fester.” The official thinks that Trump will concede if he doesn’t win after his legal challenges are exhausted.

For the moment, Trump’s mood is black. “He’s ripsh-t,” a former White House official still in touch with Trump’s inner circle said on Friday, before the race was officially called by the AP. “He thinks that they stole it, and he wants it to play out in the legal fights,” the former official says. Despite Trump’s repeated claims, there is no evidence of wide-spread voter fraud in the election.

A White House spokesperson did not answer when asked Saturday afternoon whether Trump has spoken to Biden today, or whether he plans to concede, instead pointing to the statement the Trump campaign had released earlier in the day. Just before 4 p.m. ET, the White House signaled that Trump would not make any public appearances for the rest of the evening.

When asked about Trump not conceding the race on Saturday, Symone Sanders, senior advisor to Biden’s campaign, said, “Donald Trump does not get to decide the winner of elections. The people decide, voters in the country decide— as we have long said— and voters have made their choice very clear.”

If Trump refuses to concede, it would be historic. “There is no precedent for a defeated candidate in a presidential election to refuse a concession,” says Timothy Naftali, a history professor at New York University. There’s no rule that says a defeated incumbent has to concede, and refusing to concede doesn’t change the outcome of the race. But it has symbolic importance.

“Rituals have a purpose, and traditions have a purpose,” says Naftali. “The reason here is that what you want most of all is for the person who’s elected to be viewed legitimately by all Americans as their head of state. And if you have a candidate who doesn’t concede, it’s as if he’s saying, to in this case over 70 million people, you were cheated.”

While Trump has refused so far to publicly accept the results, the city around him has. Cars honked, music blared and people took to the streets in D.C. around the White House to celebrate his defeat on Saturday.

Fault lines quickly emerged among other Republican leaders over whether to support Trump’s inaccurate claims of a corrupt process and unwillingness to accept the reality of a loss. Ambassador John Bolton, Trump’s former national security advisor, called it a “character test” for Republicans. “Any candidate is entitled to pursue appropriate election-law remedies if they feel there has been misconduct or error,” he said in a statement. “But no one, especially a sitting President, should disparage our electoral system without hard facts.” In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, former White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote that Trump would commit to a peaceful transition of power, but noted that he will “will fight like a gladiator until the election is conclusively determined.”

I’m afraid it could be a long couple of months, but I’m hopeful it won’t be,” says Republican Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan. “If there are legitimate concerns—there’s always going to be a few abnormalities, if it’s within the margin for a recount that’s perfectly legitimate and a part of the process. What we want to avoid is frivolous lawsuits that drag out the result of the election and continue to keep us divided at a time when we need to come together.”

So far, Trump has given no indication that he’ll work to bridge that divide.

-With reporting by Molly Ball/Washington

Thursday, November 5, 2020

New top story from Time: Why It’s A Mistake To Simplify the ‘Latino Vote’



Ten years after political science professor Marisa Abrajano wrote about the false assumptions made towards Latino voters, political pundits and campaigns are still making the same mistakes in this election, she says. The assumption of a singular “Latino vote” is wrong, for one, and actually it should come as no surprise that Cuban Americans in Miami Dade voted for President Trump.

Latinos are not a monolith, and not one unified force. The differences between communities are vast and deep. The U.S. is home to an estimated nearly 61 million Latinos, according to the Pew Research Center, and range in age, race, gender, religion, socio-economic status, political ideology and educational attainment. Most are English proficient, and most were born in the U.S.

Despite these nuances, on Election Day the “Latino vote,” was analyzed as a single, unified entity by some political pundits, journalists and campaign officials without acknowledgment of the complexities of a demographic that makes up an estimated 18% of the U.S. population—a symptom of a wider trend of limited Latino outreach during political elections.

Latinos in the U.S. come from all parts of Latin America, Central America and Mexico. Some Latinos have lived in the U.S. for generations. There’s a variety of Spanish dialects, languages, foods, and traditions. It should come as no surprise that there are also differences in political ideology.

“The assumption is that Latinos are a monolithic group of voters, and the reality is that Latinos make up individuals hailing from more than a dozen different countries,” Abrajano, who teaches at UC San Diego, tells TIME. “The Latino vote in Florida is different from the Latino vote in California, and from Nevada, Arizona—and so to make broad strokes, or using this pan-ethnic term, can be problematic, and the same trend was evident 10 years ago.”

In the aftermath of Election Day, many took to social media to express their concern that analysts were painting Latinos with a broad brush. “It’s laughable that in 2020, this country still needs to be reminded, Sesame Street style, that Latinos are not a monolith & the Latino vote is a mirage,” wrote Los Angeles Times writer Esmeralda Bermudez in a Twitter thread.

“I think the most important thing for people to understand is that there is no ‘Latino vote,'” says Lisa García Bedolla, vice provost for graduate studies and dean of the Graduate Division at the UC Berkeley. “What we call Latinos or the Latino community is made up of folks who are very different in terms of national origin, in terms of generation, in terms of language use, nativity, class, gender, gender identity, sexuality, and then it also really matters where people end up living.”

But though social scientists like García Bedolla and Abrajano have for decades studied and even provided advice for how political campaigns could better engage wide-ranging communities with nuance, not much has changed, including this election year. García Bedolla says what often happens is that campaign managers wait until late into a campaign to begin Latino voter outreach. Often that comes in the form of a campaign ad in Spanish.

“I have been involved for at least a decade in trying to educate [political operatives] about these nuances,” García Bedolla says, but, she adds, often the people in decision-making positions lack the cultural awareness necessary to be effective.

“I literally had somebody ask me in 2016 what’s the bumper sticker that is going to mobilize Latinos?” García Bedolla says. “What we actually needed were mobilization strategies that would talk to the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth generation English monolingual Mexican Americans in San Antonio…That’s the kind of specificity that we need.”

García Bedolla and those who spoke to TIME all say that political campaigners need to engage with Latinos early and often, year-round, to understand the needs of individual communities. What’s important to Puerto Ricans in New York City, for example, will differ from Mexican Americans in the Rio Grande Valley.

Because Latinos nationwide vote for Democrats in larger numbers than they do for Republicans, one misconception is that as the population of eligible Latino voters grows in the U.S., so will votes for Democrats. It’s a myth social scientists refer to as “demography as destiny.” Of the estimated nearly 61 million Latinos in the U.S., Pew estimates 32 million were eligible to vote this year, or 13.3% of all eligible voters.

“Both political parties in this country need to recognize that Latinos are not a given entity, they are a constituency that demands recruitment,” says Antonio Arrellano, interim executive director of Jolt Action, a progressive organization in Texas that aims to increase Latino political engagement. Texas is home an estimated 5.6 million eligible Latino voters, coming in second only to California with an estimated 7.9 million, according to Pew.

For that reason, Arrellano says, campaigns cannot take Latino voters for granted. “We need to recognize that Latinx folks across the country have been here for decades, for centuries and have…for generations been overlooked, neglected and underrepresented,” he says. “It looks like now more than ever before, Latinos are coming to terms with the fact that the political power in this country is rightly in their hands and you have seen that turnout in Arizona, in Nevada, in Texas, where Latinos are engaged like never before because they know that the next chapter of American history will be written by them.”

Party recruitment, Arrellano, Abrajano, and García Bedolla stress, cannot be as simple as speaking Spanish during a political debate, or opening a rally with mariachi music—symbolic cultural messaging to relate to Latino voters that lack substance, which García Bedolla adds, she finds insulting.

Just like all voters, life’s experiences inform the way Latino voters vote, not just ethnic or racial identity. “It makes it seem that, if I’m a Democrat, it’s just because I’m a Latina,” she says. “It’s not because of anything that’s happened to me in my life.”

In fact according to Pew, in 2018, 62% of Latino voters identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party, while 27% leaned toward or identified with Republicans. But this is not something that is widely recognized and political pundits’ surprise at Latino support for Trump on Election Day—the Cuban vote in Florida, for example—points to a lack of understanding of nuances of Latinos in the U.S., says Geraldo Cadava, a professor of history at Northwestern University who wrote “The Hispanic Republican.”

“I mean it really shouldn’t be a surprise,” he tells TIME. “The fact of the matter is that in every presidential election since Richard Nixon won the election in 1972, between a quarter and a third of Latinos have voted for the Republican candidate…by this point you could say that there has been a half-century tradition of Latinos, a significant minority of Latinos, voting for Republican candidates.”

The Cuban American population of Miami-Dade County, for example, has since the 1970s leaned towards the Republican party. But within that community exists nuances as well. Older Cubans who fled from the Castro Regime are still more likely to vote for a Republican than younger generations, Cadava says.

The Trump 2020 Campaign did make attempts to reach Cuban Americans by propagating an anti-socialist message, one that may also resonate with other Latino groups who have their own anti-socialism sentiments, Cadava adds. Venezuelan’s, for example, who take issue with President Nicolás Maduro.

On the other side of the coin, former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders also saw wide support from Latinos in Nevada. Analysts credit that success to the months-long effort to win over Nevada Latinos, who eventually helped him win the state in February. “It’s because he did something that other politicians sometimes forget to do: He asked for their votes,” wrote USA Today’s Ruben Navarrette Jr.

When political campaigns fail to do the robust outreach to individual Latino communities, grassroots organizers are often the one ones to fill the void. In Arizona, a battleground state, grassroots organizers have stepped up to mobilize Black, indigenous and people of color, an effort at least 10 years in the making, since campaigners were not taking the steps to engage with this block of voters.

This year, the state saw a strong turn out for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, something Alejandra Gomez, co-executive director of Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), a grassroots organization that works to support communities of color, credits to long-term mobilization efforts of organizations like hers.

For a decade, the organization has mobilized around campaign season, knocking on doors in neighborhoods that went ignored by party officials. They helped to increase Latino voter registration, hosted community meetings in key locations, and developed relationships within communities. Gomez says they considered how an outreach strategy for Latinos who are newly naturalized citizens could differ from a strategy intended for Latinos who have lived in the U.S. for multiple generations.

“Demographics are absolutely not destiny,” Gomez tells TIME. “We just did something historic…and for us that is incredible, that is the work, that is 10 years of organizing. And those voters, we’re not going to lose them because we’re gonna call them next week and we’re gonna debrief and thank them for having participated.”

Tuesday, November 3, 2020

New top story from Time: ‘I Vote Because’: Americans Are Sharing Stories of How Their Ancestors Overcame Discrimination in Order to Vote



On Election Day, Americans are always reminded of the power of casting a vote. But, as many social-media users have been reminding their followers, some Americans have historically had a harder time than others when it comes to exercising that power.

On Tuesday and the days leading up to it, people have been sharing stories of family members and historical figures who, because of their race, faced and overcame obstacles to vote. The stories in these posts vary, but share a message of inspiration: the idea that voting in 2020 is a way to honor the men and women who did not have that right or could not exercise it due to violence, intimidation, poll taxes and literacy tests.

To keep Black voters from the polls after the franchise was extended in the wake of the Civil War, some states, particularly in the South, passed laws requiring a fee to vote or requiring them to pass literacy tests, some of which featured impossible questions like “How many grains of sand are on a beach?” and “How many bubbles are in a bar of soap?” While these laws did not explicitly mention race, county registrars often applied them unequally, circumventing the law and effectively disenfranchising Black voters. For Black women, who fought for suffrage only to be left behind when the 19th Amendment granted women the vote in 1920, the struggle was doubly painful—and, in many of the cases highlighted on social media, the motivation was doubly powerful.

On Oct. 22, FOX Sports host Coley Harvey shared a story on Instagram about how his grandmother had to quote the Constitution to register to vote in Crawford County, Ga., in 1947—which she did, and was registered.

Jewel Burks Solomon, head of Google for Startups in the U.S., tweeted that her 94-year-old grandmother told her that she had been voting since she was 21, despite having to pay poll taxes and take literacy tests.

Deborah E. McDowell, Director of the Carter G. Woodson Institute at the University of Virginia and a professor of English, was also inspired by her grandmother Viola Gee Williams, who hosted voter meetings in Alabama.

Latinx historian Lori Flores displayed her grandfather and aunt’s poll tax receipts on her Day of the Dead alter, and shared it on Twitter on Nov. 1 to inspire people to vote on Election Day.

And voting-rights historian Martha S. Jones shared that her own grandmother Susie Jones helped Black voters in Greensboro, N.C., register to vote with her classmates and teachers at Bennett College during “Operation Door Knock” in 1960, the same year of the famous lunch counter sit-in that galvanized the civil rights movement.

Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter

Jones also shared a circa 1890 list of “colored voters” registered in Greensboro, N.C., circulated so that white Democrats could challenge their right to vote.

Jones, author of Vanguard: How Black Women Broke Barriers, Won the Vote, and Insisted on Equality for All, was reminded of the chilling document after watching the footage of police officers pepper-spraying protesters marching to a polling place in Graham, N.C.—now the subject of a federal lawsuit, filed Tuesday, alleging voter intimidation by the city’s police chief and the Alamance County Sheriff. (Police and the sheriff’s office have said they did not aim pepper spray at the protesters and that the crowd was told to disperse before the spray was used.)

And, in tribute to the women who paved the way for all these grandmothers hat-tipped on Twitter, Jones also shared stories of figures from Mary McLeod Bethune—a future FDR Administration official who voted in the 1920s even after the KKK showed up at the Daytona Beach, Fla., school where she taught to try to deter her—to Joe Ella Moore, who was turned away from the Mississippi voter rolls seven times before she successfully registered to vote at a Prentiss, Miss., motel in August 1965, days after the Voting Rights Act was signed into law.

Read more: ‘It’s a Struggle They Will Wage Alone.’ How Black Women Won the Right to Vote

Jones says she hopes these images will help give people the courage to go out and vote during a pandemic, and to remind people “why their votes count and why it’s essential to turn out.”

At a time of national conversation about where the U.S. goes from here, she wants to remind people that voting is an essential step in continuing the long march their ancestors started.

As an expert in the history of Black women securing the vote—a decades-long battle that has often been overlooked—she gets a lot of questions about how to persist through difficult times, she says. And to her, there’s nothing like these stories to help show the way.

“The answer for me is in part the history, is that reminder that in the face of unspeakable odds, there were Black women who persisted,” she says. “They bequeathed to us their inspiration, but I think they also bequeathed to us a kind of responsibility to pay it forward. What we’re doing is not only about us, about this moment. It’s about a long tradition, and it’s also about creating the possibilities for the future, for our children and grandchildren.”

New top story from Time: Follow 2020 Election Results Live: First Polls Closing After Calmer Than Expected Voting



With voting underway from Miami to Honolulu, Americans went to the polls today not just to decide who will occupy the White House for the next four years but also to pick the next Congress, governors in 11 states and thousands of state and local leaders who will set trash pick-up schedules, utility rates and school curricula.

The flexing of the United States’ democratic might, coming amid a pandemic of epic proportions, seemed one of the most resolute rejections of a difficult year rocked by coronavirus, the ensuing economic collapse and a reckoning on racial justice.

With TK ballots already banked before the sun rose over polling locations in all 50 states, the day was set to be one for the history books. Despite the challenges of conducting an election in the middle of a medical criss, the mettle of America met the moment.

The marquee race of the day, of course, was President Donald Trump’s re-election bid against former Vice President Joe Biden. Polls showed Trump opening the day at a deficit against his Democratic challenger. But as the two men matched insult for invective, the country was left with the choice of two white men in their 70s as the steward of a diverse nation. Trump pledged to continue his norm-shattering while Biden promised to return to a more staid version of America. Trump pledged to break the mold. Biden cast himself as a transitional figure.

Down-ballot, both parties faced crossroads of their own. The Senate was very much in play as Democrats looked to oust Republican incumbents in North Carolina, Georgia, Maine, Colorado, Arizona and Iowa. Democrats had all but conceded a loss for Sen. Doug Jones in Alabama.

Democrats were expected to keep their majority in the House, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was expected to hold her gavel come January. The question for them, though, was how the party would manage a rowdy Democratic caucus where some were agitating for change.

Election experts have stressed the importance of patience when waiting for the official vote count of all the races. Candidates do not determine who wins the election—regardless of what they may say. The final results are determined by state and local election officials.

Americans have relied more heavily on absentee and mail-in-voting this election because of the coronavirus pandemic, which has made voting access an even bigger issue than normal. Democrats and Republicans have already filed hundreds of election-related lawsuits over whose votes count and how hard it is to access the polls.

Early voting trends suggest that turnout and enthusiasm will be high. Some states, like Hawaii and Texas, surpassed their total vote count from 2016 even before Election Day.

[ap-interactive src=https://ift.tt/3oUopHV height=1000px]

Polls Start Closing After Orderly Day of Balloting

Polls have now closed in Georgia, South Carolina and Kentucky — three states where costly Senate races may determine which party controls the chamber next year. Polls have also closed in Indiana, Vermont and Virginia, where Democrats were heavily favored to keep Sen. Mark Warner in his seat.

The first wave of numbers will tell the world less about specific races than the fact that they’re coming in so orderly. After an election season marred by worries of pandemic delays, corrupted technology and foreign influence, the biggest problems of the day seemed to have been high levels of participation and long lines.

There were, of course, scattered instances of equipment malfunction and software glitches. The Department of Homeland Security is investigating shady robocalls that urged people to stay home and stay safe.

But, to this point, it seems like Americans took this election seriously and prepared for those eventualities. An early snow squall in New Hampshire did more to delay Granite Staters from casting their ballots than the feared efforts at voter intimidation or suppression that kept some local elections officials up at night.

Still, this is 2020. It’s best not to toast America until the very last ballots are cast with Alaska, where polls close at 1 a.m. Eastern.

Monday, October 26, 2020

New top story from Time: Just Over a Week Before Election Day, Amy Coney Barrett Is Confirmed to The Supreme Court



Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to the Supreme Court Monday along a near party-line vote, cementing a strong conservative majority on the nation’s highest court just over one week before Election Day.

With a 52 to 48 vote, Republicans put Barrett on the Supreme Court for a lifetime appointment without the support of a single Democrat. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican to vote against Barrett. The speed of the confirmation process, the stakes for the balance of power on the Supreme Court and the proximity to Election Day are expected to motivate voters on both sides of the aisle to express their support or dismay over the outcome at the ballot box.

Historically, the courts have been a stronger catalyst for Republican voters to head to the polls than for Democrats, conservative and liberal groups agree. But that might change this year. Progressive judicial advocates say the courts are finally becoming as much of a rallying cry for their base as they traditionally have been for conservatives. “With the election so close, a lot of people are channeling their anger and outrage into electoral action,” says Chris Kang, chief counsel of progressive judicial advocacy group Demand Justice.

In 2016, the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death may have been decisive in convincing conservative voters to support Donald Trump. National exit polls showed that 21% of voters said the Supreme Court appointment was “the most important factor” in their decision, and those voters favored Trump over his opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “Supreme Court nominations unite the Republican Party,” says Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project, a group that fights to confirm Trump’s judicial nominees. Now, as Trump trails former Vice President Joe Biden in national polls, “Judge Barrett’s nomination is helping President Trump climb out of the hole and it will put him in a place where he can stun the world again with an upset victory,” Davis says.

In the weeks since Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, a constellation of conservative groups have thrown money and support behind Barrett’s nomination on a larger scale than for either of Trump’s two previous Supreme Court nominees, three communications professionals who helped coordinate the effort say. The major organizations in this ecosystem on the right, including Judicial Crisis Network, Heritage Action for America, Club for Growth and others, spent nearly $30 million in total to support Barrett’s nomination, according to these professionals. “The entire conservative movement, from social issue groups to economic groups, pretty much the whole gamut, was involved,” one of the communications advisers says. The effort this time around was “much, much more energized even than [Brett] Kavanaugh and [Neil] Gorsuch.”

Those involved say that energy was particularly pronounced for Barrett because of the proximity to the election and because Trump has confirmed more than 200 federal judges during his first term, delivering on the vow he made to conservatives during his 2016 campaign. “The enthusiasm is even higher because we know that he keeps his promises and has gone above and beyond expectations,” says Mallory Quigley, Vice President of Communications at Susan B. Anthony List, an organization seeking to end abortion. “With the Barrett nomination coming this close to the election, it’s just incredibly exciting and really fuels the voters that are going to make a difference on the margins in battleground states,” she says.

Susan B. Anthony List has been canvassing voters in key states including North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Heritage Action, a conservative policy advocacy group, has also been on the ground door knocking in North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, as well as in Iowa. Jessica Anderson, executive director of the group, says the swing voters Heritage Action has been talking to in those states have responded to what they perceive as Barrett’s personal integrity, her jurisprudence and her family life, “and they’re associating that with the president,” Anderson says, “which is a good association for a swing voter that we’re trying to turn out for a conservative vote.”

But if the right was prepared for a pitched battle over Barrett’s confirmation, so too was the left. And that, progressives say, could make a difference at the ballot box this year. Barrett is Trump’s third Supreme Court justice confirmed in his first term, after the highly fraught 2018 confirmation of Kavanaugh, who was accused of sexual assault, which he denies. “We are working on this baseline level of activation around the courts that we haven’t had before,” says Kang. “It was sort of built during Kavanaugh and coming to fruition here.”

There’s polling to support the idea that Barrett’s confirmation could help Biden on Nov. 3. While a Politico/Morning Consult poll conducted from October 16-18 found that 51% of voters thought the Senate should vote to confirm Barrett, voters in the same poll said they trusted Biden to handle the Supreme Court over Trump, 46% to 39%. A New York Times/Siena College poll conducted from October 15-18 found voters trusted Biden over Trump by a six-point margin to choose Supreme Court justices. And in a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted September 21-24, nearly half of Biden supporters said the Supreme Court vacancy made it “much more important” that Biden win the election, whereas 62% of Trump supporters said the vacancy made “no difference” in how important it was for Trump to win.

“The Trump Administration assumed that the rightwing base of the party would be galvanized by this nomination to vote, but I think on the contrary, progressives were ready for this fight and understand the huge stakes with her confirmation and are engaged like never before,” says Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice, a liberal judicial advocacy group.

The day after Ginsburg died on Sept. 18, Aron, who has been working on judicial issues for decades, was asked to speak at a rally at the Supreme Court. “I thought, I’ll go, and there will be 100 people there,” he recalls. But when she showed up, she instead saw what she estimates to be about 2,000 people in the crowd. “They were certainly there out of deep reverence for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but also out of fear and anger that the president promised to appoint another justice who everyone knew would undo Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s legacy on the court,” Aron says. “It wasn’t just court watchers who were inspired by her work as a lawyer, a law teacher and a justice, but women throughout the country— and men— who saw that their lives were improved because of her being on the court.”

Now that Barrett has been confirmed, her lifetime tenure on the Supreme Court is assured. Voters still have eight more days to make their decision about whether Trump or Biden should be the next president. Whatever man America chooses, Barrett will outlast him.

Thursday, October 22, 2020

New top story from Time: Key COVID-19 Vaccine Review Committee Promises Science Is Guiding Their Process



As part of its routine review process, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the agency responsible for evaluating and deciding if the handful of COVID-19 vaccines currently being studied are safe and effective enough to use by people around the world, convened a committee on Oct. 22 to allow experts and the public to learn about and comment on the review process.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is responsible for reviewing any applications by manufacturers hoping to get vaccines to market. The 18-member committee includes scientists and doctors with infectious disease, virology, and epidemiology expertise from academia, industry and government. Over a period of four and a half hours, the committee, which met virtually, heard from invited speakers from the government agencies responsible for developing testing and distributing COVID-19 vaccines about the latest plans for evaluating how safe and effective the vaccines are. Experts provided updates from the National Institutes of Health (which provided basic research that led to many of the vaccine candidates), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (which is responsible for working with state and local health departments to lay out plans for distributing the vaccines if and when they are authorized), the FDA (which provides criteria for what makes a vaccine safe and effective), BARDA (a Department of Health and Human Services office overseeing research and development of treatments against public health threats) and the inter-agency Operation Warp Speed (which is coordinating development, testing and distribution efforts).

Marion Gruber, director of the office of vaccines research and review at the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), opened the meeting by saying “I want to take a minute to assure the American public that facilitating the development of safe, effective COVID-19 vaccines is the highest priority of my office, CBER and the agency. Today’s discussion provides transparency about the data we will request and evaluate in support of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.”

The FDA confirmed it will consider a COVID-19 vaccine effective if it achieves 50% effectiveness in protecting against the illness. The members and speakers debated about what this protection means, and raised the possibility that it could indicate that immunized people would still get infected, but then not progress on to serious disease.

Another key question centered around what type of green light the FDA would give vaccines developed and tested on an accelerated timeline. The traditional approval process can take years from development to market, but the leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates sped from development to human testing in a matter of months. Emergency use authorization, or EUA, would further shorten the review process, as it requires shorter follow-up of people in the studies for effectiveness of the vaccines and their potential side effects (EUAs are allowed during public health crises, such as the pandemic, when the urgency of the need for treatments justifies the shorter research and development time). The FDA guidelines for COVID-19 vaccines currently require at least two months of follow up, although some experts questioned whether that was long enough to truly get a sense of a vaccine’s efficacy. That’s especially true since the coronavirus is so new to the world that the vaccine makers aren’t yet sure what immune reactions are needed to constitute a “strong” or
“appropriate” response that would provide protection against infection. FDA scientists reiterated that their guidelines for EUA are generally as stringent as those for full approval, except for the shorter time frame.

Another unresolved issue centers around what will happen to ongoing placebo controlled studies if one or more of the vaccines are given EUA ahead of others. Given that the virus is still spreading in parts of the U.S., participants in ongoing trials may want to drop out of their studies and get vaccinated with an authorized shot, once available. But because the trials are all blinded, neither they, nor their doctors, will know if they received the experimental vaccine or a placebo. Those studies would have be unblinded if volunteers will be allowed to drop out, but that would mean researchers will not get the same high quality data on vaccines still being studied if those trials are stopped.

“Once a decision is made to unblind it can’t be walked back,” said Doran Fink, deputy director in division of vaccines and related products applications at FDA. “That control [group] is lost forever.”

Many speakers also stressed the need to continue to follow trial participants in order to collect more data on the vaccines’ effectiveness and side effects. The FDA noted that all of the participants will be followed for two years even after the trials end. During the public comment period, patient advocates and other infectious disease experts argued that the FDA should consider at least a six month follow-up period before allowing any manufacturer to request authorization or approval. That’s in stark contrast to the Trump Administration’s view; the White House initially opposed even the two month window.

Members and speakers also raised the importance of addressing vaccine hesitancy, and the need to understand and address the many reasons why people have expressed reluctance to get vaccinated if and when COVID-19 shots become available. These range from general vaccine skepticism, to mistrust of the government and science, and more specific concerns about COVID-19 immunizations that have been developed in record time and seem to be rushing through the testing process. Some people may also intentionally wait to get vaccinated because they are skeptical of the first shots to come off the assembly line, which could keep infections percolating for longer.

“People may be waiting to see what the first candidates are, and even waiting for a more ‘favorable’ candidate,” said Dr. Janell Rough, medical officer and program lead in the division of viral diseases at the CDC. “That’s not a message we want to convey.”

Shifting those views may be one of the bigger challenges facing a massive COVID-19 immunization effort. Federal and state pubic health officials are taking this into consideration as they formulate plans for distributing the vaccines when they become available. All 64 state and local health groups in the country have submitted their plans for ordering and distributing vaccines. The CDC is now reviewing those plans and will work with local officials to refine them and provide resources necessary to educate the public about the vaccines themselves as well as the need for getting vaccinated more broadly.

Sunday, October 18, 2020

New top story from Time: Twitter Blocks Post From Trump Science Adviser That Falsely Claimed Masks Don’t Work



(NEW YORK) — Twitter blocked a post Sunday from an adviser to President Donald Trump who suggested that masks do not work to stop the spread of the coronavirus.

Scott Atlas, who joined the White House in August as a science adviser, had tweeted “Masks work? NO,” and said widespread use of masks is not supported.

The tweet violated a Twitter policy that prohibits sharing false or misleading misinformation about COVID-19 that could lead to harm, a company spokesperson said. The policy bans statements that have been confirmed to be false or misleading by experts such as public health authorities.

In such cases, Twitter disables the account until its owner deletes the post in question.

Trump has downplayed the importance of masks in reducing the spread of the virus, even after he contracted the disease, which has killed more than 215,000 Americans.

“I don’t understand why the tweets were deleted,” Atlas said in an email, calling Twitter’s actions censorship. He said his tweet was intended to show that “general population masks and mask mandates do not work,” and he clarified that the correct policy is to use masks when one cannot socially distance. Atlas added that infections exploded even with mandates in Los Angeles County, Miami-Dade County, Hawaii, Alabama, the Philippines, Japan and other places.

Researchers have concluded that masks can control the spread of the virus, and public health experts have urged the public to wear them. But Trump and his team often go without masks while campaigning.

Atlas, the former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center and a fellow at Stanford’s conservative Hoover Institution, has no expertise in public health or infectious diseases. He has criticized the coronavirus lockdowns and campaigned for children to return to classrooms. Some scientists view Atlas as promoting dangerous theories around “herd immunity.”

Last week, Twitter and Facebook moved quickly to limit the spread of an unverified political story published by the conservative-leaning New York Post. The story cited unverified emails from Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s son, and it has not been confirmed by other publications. There have been no new tweets from the Post since Oct. 14, indicating Twitter may still be blocking the newspaper’s tweets.

___

Associated Press Writer Jill Colvin in Washington contributed to this report.

Friday, October 16, 2020

New top story from Time: A Photographer’s Journey Through the Dangerous New Age of Conspiracies in America



In November 2017, the House Intelligence Committee released fake advertisements found on Facebook in the walk up to the 2016 election. As politicians on each side argued over whether the ads changed the election results, the heart of the revelation was way more disturbing. The Russian ads targeted the American public to deepen wounds on divisive issues and spread false information. Facebook said the posts were “ what we saw from these actors was an insidious attempt to drive people apart,” according to Colin Stretch, the general counsel for the company.

In 2020, less than one month before the election, America seems even more divided and deeply fractured after a turbulent year with a deadly pandemic, economic pain, and a chaotic presidency. With many Americans on lockdown, social media has been a vital form of communication — but one that is also driving dangerous conspiracies. From the false QAnon conspiracy, which promotes Trump as the final defense against a “deep state” cabal of Democrats and Hollywood elite who traffic, rape, and cannibalize children, to fake claims that COVID-19 is a hoax, the spread of disinformation on social media is deepening divisions that some fear could lead to a further rise in civil unrest in the coming weeks.

Jamie Lee Curtis TaeteSigns showing various conspiracy theories at a Save Our Children rally in Los Angeles, Aug. 22, 2020.

Convoluted messaging from the White House on these fake theories doesn’t help. During the Oct.15 NBC Town Hall President Donald Trump denied knowing what QAnon was, and then quickly contradicted himself, saying, “What I do know it is they are very much against pedophilia. They fight it very hard but I know nothing about it.”

To combat the spread of false information, on Oct. 15 YouTube announced “efforts to curb hate and harassment by removing more conspiracy theory content used to justify real-world violence.” Facebook also recently said they would ramp up their fight against disinformation, particularly QAnon, by removing pages and groups from the app, but it may not be effective—or it may be too late.

Jamie Lee Curtis Taete, an LA-based photographer originally from England, spent more than a year covering America political rallies and protests he mostly found on Facebook. He began to see the conspiracies manifest themselves through the believers caught in the fervor of misinformation that show the social media platform’s darkest side as a divided reality.

Jamie Lee Curtis TaeteA protester with a Pizzagate and QAnon sign at a Save Our Children rally in Los Angeles, Aug. 22, 2020.

Speaking via Zoom, he recalls how it all began.

When did you start noticing conspiracies in the political landscape?

I always had an interest in documenting people with fringe beliefs; it used to be a lot more difficult to find. I started seeing more of it in the real world in 2019, and there’s been a huge explosion of conspiratorial thinking both online and off since COVID started.

We’ve always lived with conspiracies — like the moon landing was fake, or conspiracies around who killed JFK. I think they’ve gotten worse this year because: A, social media makes it easy for people with the same beliefs to connect more easily, and B, everybody is stuck at home, spending all their time on the internet, which makes it easy to fall down these rabbit holes.

It’s also something you see when the world is in turmoil, and things are unstable. People don’t know what they can trust. I think it’s a lot easier for people to cling on to something like QAnon, which is an easily understood—if imaginary—battle between good and evil, than the complicated reality of the world.

Jamie Lee Curtis TaeteAnti-lockdown rally in Huntington Beach, Calif., May 1, 2020.

Can you tell me about the process of finding conspiracies in the social media landscape?

I’m in a lot of Facebook groups. That’s the only thing I use Facebook for these days. I’ve joined various QAnon, far-right, Three Percenter, and militia Facebook groups. The ‘groups’ tab on Facebook shows a curated newsfeed from the groups you’re in. I use that and Facebook’s events pages to keep up on real world happenings.

Many of the pictures here are from anti-lockdown rallies. But the boundaries between these things have become incredibly blurred. The event might be a Trump Rally, but you’re still going to see a huge anti-lockdown presence and QAnon signs.

Jamie Lee Curtis TaeteA protestor’s sign at a rally calling for the reopening of California from coronavirus lockdown measures in Los Angeles, May 24, 2020.
Jamie Lee Curtis TaeteA QAnon shirt at a Trump rally in Beverly Hills, Calif., Oct. 10, 2020.
Jamie Lee Curtis TaeteA anti 5G sign at a pro-Trump rally in Beverly Hills, Calif., Aug. 8, 2020.

Do you find it hard to question supporters about Trump?

It can be hard to find common ground with people at these events, because many of them refuse to admit Trump is at fault, no matter how trivial the issue is.

Which is by design. I don’t think Trump cares if he’s seen by people as a liar. He just wants to bring reality into question as much as possible because that’s the most convenient thing for him, ultimately.

Jamie Lee Curtis TaeteProtester at a Save Our Children rally in Fayetteville, Arkansas, Sept.r 5, 2020.
Jamie Lee Curtis TaeteProtesters at an anti-lockdown protest in Downtown Los Angeles, July 13, 2020.

I have a family member who started posting “Save the Children” messages about children being trafficked. They believe this is the biggest story that the media is not reporting. As a reporter, I’m like, human trafficking is an important issue, but this is not the same. It’s hard to have a conversation and not seem uncaring.

Yes, it very difficult to have a critical conversation that’s about a campaign to stop child abuse, because you sound like your pro-child abuse. But the type of human trafficking they’re talking about isn’t really happening in this country. Human trafficking exists and is bad, but the reality is more complex and is often linked to abuse, survival sex work, and homelessness. It’s not what you see in Taken and Rambo 5.

Can you tell me what they say is happening?

They think millions of children are being snatched in grocery stores and parks and sold on the internet for people to sexually abuse or cannibalize. Some believe thousands of children are being kept in underground lairs under Central Park and LA’s Getty Center. But the data does not back that up.

Jamie Lee Curtis TaeteA sign at a Save Our Children rally in Los Angeles, Aug. 22, 2020.

In your work on Instagram, I’m shocked by someone holding up a sign about Tom Hanks being a pedophile. When you publish that work, I fear the photographs could be removed from the original context. What’s the best way to present this work?

It’s difficult but I sort of think the rules have gone out of the window a little bit. In the past I’d maybe lean toward not wanting to amplify toxic views or give people more attention, but the ‘Tom Hanks is a pedophile’ thing is a huge narrative in the QAnon world, so there are potentially hundreds of thousands of people who think Tom Hanks is murdering children to cannibalize them or has been executed or replaced by a body double. I think it’s important to look at the specifics of what these people believe, rather than speaking generally about “the QAnon conspiracy theory,” because it shows how ridiculous these things are.

I think a lot of media ignores some of the more out-there sides of these conspiracies because they’re worried about amplifying it. Or it’s difficult to use traditional reporting methods to report on them. Like, if you were to approach Tom Hanks for comment on a story about people accusing him of being a cannibal pedophile, he’s probably not going to respond. And that might lend legitimacy to the theory.

I’m hoping the context and the way I take the photos makes it clear that I think many of these things are absurd. I wouldn’t be posting these conspiracies if I felt there was a chance people were seeing my photos and thinking these things were real. I’m, hopefully, not going to post a sign that has some made-up facts about human trafficking that might seem real if you just stumbled across the picture.

Jamie Lee Curtis TaeteA protester stands on Tom Hanks’ star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, Aug. 22, 2020.

Do you talk to and engage with the people you’re photographing?

Yes. I posted a video recently of a woman I interviewed on Tom Hanks’ star on the Walk of Fame, where she explained that she believes Tom Hanks is killing babies to extract a chemical called adrenochrome, which he uses to keep himself young, and that he’s escaped to Greece to avoid prosecution.

I empathize somewhat. It’s easy to understand how people end up falling for these conspiracies about powerful people if you have Jeffery Epstein and Harvey Weinstein operating in full view of many powerful people, doing a lot of really F-ked up things for years, and that’s true. Is it that much of a stretch to believe that Tom Hanks is killing babies?

What are the other conspiracies that you think are harmful right now?

I’m seeing a lot of anti-Antifa and anti-BLM stuff in the Facebook groups I’m in. “Antifa/BLM riots” are the biggest story on my Facebook right now. If these groups were your main source of information, you would think that the ’94 LA riots have spread across the country and that people are being executed by BLM in the middle of the street. It’s making people extremely scared of these protests, and I think you’re seeing that in the violence that they’re being met with.

These are huge groups that have tens of thousands of members where it’s just a constant feed of those kinds of conspiracies that are met uncritically. A lot of people trust these groups more than they trust mainstream media outlets.

Jamie Lee Curtis TaeteA sign at a Save Our Children rally in Los Angeles, Aug. 22, 2020.

Do you notice Facebook cracking down on this at all?

I think Facebook is mostly dealing with it from a PR perspective. They’ve removed some QAnon groups, but that’s had very little impact on my toxic feed of Facebook groups. The “Save Our Children” groups are still there, “Against Human Trafficking” is still there, which is essentially just QAnon-lite.

I don’t think they have any real interest in stamping out misinformation. That would require a huge investment from them. I don’t think you can use an algorithm to block this stuff. People will find a way around it.

Jamie Lee Curtis TaeteProtesters at a Save Our Children rally in Los Angeles, Aug. 22, 2020.
Jamie Lee Curtis TaeteProtesters at a Save Our Children rally in Los Angeles, Aug. 22, 2020.
[/diptyche]
Jamie Lee Curtis TaeteA man with an anti-antifa sign at a Trump rally in Beverly Hills, Calif., Oct. 10, 2020,
[/diptyche]
Jamie Lee Curtis TaeteThe group Justice 4 Prince protesting outside the Grammy’s in Downtown Los Angeles, Jan. 26, 2020.
Jamie Lee Curtis TaeteSave Our Children protesters walk past an Arby’s restaurant in Los Angeles, Oct. 10, 2020.
Jamie Lee Curtis TaeteA child with a QAnon sign at an anti-lockdown rally in Huntington Beach, Calif., May 1, 2020.