Wednesday, November 4, 2020

America’s Panic Attack Could Soon Be Over — But It’s Just The Beginning





Whatever happens in the election, progressives will be either blamed or shamed. Don’t be surprised — be ready for the fight of our lives.

 
David Sirota
Nov 3




This is the second of a two-part Daily Poster series being released just before the election. You can read the first part here.

I woke up at 4am this morning to a panic attack. I get them from time to time ever since living in Washington through 9/11, the anthrax attack and the D.C. sniper. My usual trick is to sit on the floor with my dog, Monty, but that didn’t help so I went for a long walk.

Panic attacks aren’t only about the thing happening when you have them. For me, they tend to be triggered by something — like, say, a really important election — but also an expression of built up anxieties that I’ve white knuckled through but can no longer keep at bay. Eventually, the brain’s motherboard shuts down and demands a reset of the mind’s CPU. It’s not pleasant.

I’m guessing I wasn’t the only one who woke up this morning with the shakes, the palpitations, the sweat and the feeling that the walls are closing in. We’ve all been white knuckling through the last 4 years, and if we’re really honest about it, much longer than that.

In the span of two decades we’ve had 9/11, the Iraq War, the financial crisis, the Great Recession and a global pandemic. We’ve experienced these horrors while the meager social safety net has been weakened at the same time our economy mints billionaires. Politics has so normalized avarice that our policy debate over health care is about whether or not to let insurance companies discriminate against sick people during the outbreak of a lethal virus.

We are surrounded by COVID death and climate destruction, and our government tells us everyday in so many ways that we are all alone — a feeling made worse by the physical isolation of quarantine.

This is a new “normal” — but it isn’t actually normal. It is obscene, it is unacceptable — and it is why our country has been having one giant panic attack for the last 4 years.
The Left Will Be Blamed Or Shamed

During my walk, I kept trying to come up with ways to make myself feel like I know what is about to happen in the election. But, of course, I don’t. Nobody does, including the pundits who are paid to prognosticate about polls. We’re all just going to have to try to keep calm, knowing that nothing is under control.

One thing I can predict with certainty is that no matter the results, the left will be blamed or shamed.

If Biden (godforbid) loses, we will be told that he went too far to the left, which alienated swing voters, but still did not generate enough enthusiasm from disaffected Bernie Sanders voters who can’t get over the outcome of the Democratic primary. If that fantastical tale sounds eerily familiar, that’s because it was the bullshit story told after Hillary Clinton lost the most winnable presidential contest in history.

And yes — it was bullshit then and would be bullshit now.

On everything from climate change to health care to corporate power, Biden is if anything more conservative than the general population. This is a guy who literally promised his donors that “nothing would fundamentally change” and was nonetheless enthusiastically boosted by every wing of the Democratic Party, including progressives. Indeed, while third-party voting was a minuscule phenomenon in 2016, it looks to be even more infinitesimal in 2020.

Though we’re not supposed to admit it aloud, we all know Biden didn’t really earn the lockstep support of Democratic voters with any of his policy proposals. He originally won the nomination mostly because past vice presidents almost always win their party’s presidential nominations. In the general, Biden has been backed by nearly every left-of-center group, but that’s really only because Trump represents an existential threat to the survival of our democracy and the planet’s ecosystem.

An inanimate object should be able to beat this out of control and brazenly corrupt president who has wildly mismanaged a lethal pandemic — and if Biden still somehow manages to lose, he has nobody to blame but himself. Almost everybody looked at his problematic record and his uninspired campaign and nonetheless sucked it up and fell in line for him because we understood the stakes — so if he still somehow manages to shit the bed, it’s on him.

If Biden (hopefully) wins, the narrative will be the opposite — we will be told that he won because he refused to fully embrace a progressive economic agenda. In this mythology, voters were supposedly desperate for a return to the kind of corporatism, incrementalism and neoliberalism that defined the Obama era and that continues to define Beltway Democratic culture amid the economic, public health and climate crises.

It is certainly true that Biden has repeatedly refused to support Medicare for All, promised not to ban fracking and repeatedly boasted about how he defeated democratic socialist Bernie Sanders in the primary. Those were all attempts to contrast himself with the progressive base of his own party — which is what he has tried to do periodically throughout his long political career, and which already has neoconservative Republicans praising his campaign.

However, Biden would win in spite of that triangulation, not because of it.

As millions of Americans lost their private health insurance during the pandemic, a Morning Consult survey showed support for Medicare for All has surged. While the Kaiser Family Foundation’s survey shows that most Americans do not want the Supreme Court to end protections for preexisting conditions, the same group’s survey showed support for the Affordable Care Act has remained relatively weak.

In fact, at key moments during the COVID outbreak, the ACA has actually lost support among the middle-aged, who may have suddenly discovered that Obamacare doesn’t protect them from higher premiums and the loss of job-based medical insurance in an economic downturn.

Similarly, polls show surging support for bold climate action as America has been ravaged by wildfires, droughts and hurricanes. In the battleground state of Pennsylvania — where Biden’s fracking position has been cast as a positive — polls show the majority of the state’s voters oppose the fossil fuel extraction process.

And for all of Biden’s gratuitous football-spiking about beating Sanders in the primary, the Vermont senator remains one of America’s most popular politicians, and more popular than Biden himself, according to YouGov data.

The point here is not merely that Biden is out of step with the public on specific issues — but that it would be patently ridiculous for anyone to depict a Democratic victory as a repudiation of the left.

The election has been an up-or-down vote on Trump, with Biden the recipient of the down vote. He is the quintessential generic Democrat in this race — indeed, a recent Pew poll showed that the majority of Biden voters support him simply because “he is not Trump,” not because of any particular position he has taken.




A new Morning Consult poll shows that almost half of Biden’s voters say they are supporting him more as “a vote against Donald Trump” than an affirmative vote for the Democratic ticket. At the same time, the public broadly supports a progressive economic agenda.

If Biden wins, those with a vested interest in preserving the status quo will try to obscure this reality — but it is a reality.
Darkest Before Dawn

I walked east from my home in southeast Denver — east toward the rising sun, because I know for me it is most difficult to think clearly in the night. It truly is darkest before the dawn — and we are all right now in that darkness, deciding whether or not to wallow or push ahead.

It is easy to succumb to nihilism. My inner voice of negativity is a Rahm Emanuel-esque asshole, and it spent all night screaming a million reasons to give up.

But as the sky turned red and then pink, I saw this little tent on the horizon at the local community center. Cars were driving up as people were dropping off ballots.

As my friend Naomi Klein said in The Daily Poster’s live chat last night, we are taught to see voting as the ultimate form of self-expression, but it isn’t. It is one limited way to participate in civic life. But voting itself is an act of — dare I say it — hope.

Even in a democracy as limited as America’s, we vote because we still believe in the idea of self-governance, and in the idea that things can change. And weirdly enough, in an election offering two of history’s most uninspired presidential choices, we have what could be the biggest opportunity for change in my own lifetime.

Think about it: If Biden wins, we will have a relatively weak thumb-in-the-wind Democratic president who does not command the kind of worshipful fandom that past Democratic presidents have engendered. At the same time there are engaged activists, organizations and movements that are not just going back to brunch when the election is over. From the Sunrise Movement to Demand Progress to the Revolving Door Project to Black Lives Matter, there is more infrastructure than ever ready to pressure a new president — and there are allied lawmakers in Congress ready to amplify their message.

The key thing to understand about this potential future is that Biden does not engender the kind of fawning that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama evoked when they were first elected president. He is rightly seen as a transactional and transitional politician — and that’s actually a good thing.

For too long, Democratic voters have seen their presidents as deities who should be immune from pressure and criticism. But it is far better for a democracy for a president to be perceived not as some pop culture idol or glorified instagram influencer, but instead as an administrator that is supposed to work for us, not the other way around.

Biden’s low-key image makes it much more likely that we will finally view the presidency in those far more healthy and realistic terms — and then confront that White House with pressure rather than genuflection.

Will the pressure work? It is hard to say. But Biden does appear to be making some rhetorical shifts already — in the last presidential debate, he made an argument for deficit spending. It was remarkable to see given that Biden has advocated for budget austerity for decades.

Then again, there’s a difference between words and deed and in recent years, the MSNBC-ization of politics and the rise of Brunch Liberalism means there hasn’t been much pressure on Democratic lawmakers to do much of anything -- other than simply not be Republicans. But with climate, health care and economic emergencies tearing apart our country, we need them to do far more than that. We need to force them to deliver in a way the party hasn’t delivered in more than a half century.

And here’s the thing to remember: Nothing will be given. Campaign promises will not be acted upon on their own — they will only be fulfilled if there is constant pressure. Indeed, to achieve even the most minimal and necessary reforms to prevent more mass casualties and pain, lawmakers will have to face enormous amounts of organizing and pressure and activism. The leaders of both parties in Washington have taught us over and over and over again that they will nonchalantly let us suffer and die — unless they are forced kicking and screaming to do something other than enrich their donors.

I walked back home thinking about how daunting a task this will all be. The pit in my stomach was still there from the panic attack, and thinking about how much work we must do made the pangs a bit worse.

But then I walked into the house and saw two kids — my 6-year-old daughter finishing up her french toast and masking up for first grade, and my 9-year-old son working on his 4th grade essay before yet another day of remote learning because his grades are on lockdown.

In their faces, I see the reason that despair and despondence cannot be our path.

Their lives and the lives of every kid is on the line right now — and our society is in a bad way. Our politics are deeply corrupt, our laws are driven by greed. The cultural and political panic unrest we’ve experienced over the last year is all a predictable result of that.

But with our democracy and our ecosystem on the brink, failure is not an option. Retreat is not an option.

We’ve had our panic attack — now, hopefully, we get one more chance to move forward.




Donald Trump Has Been Good for Democracy?






Election Day, November 3, 2020
Donald Trump Has Been Good for Democracy




Millions of Americans got engaged during this presidency. That’s a positive for the nation








First Ballot





The week before the inauguration in 2017, a group of women decided to sublimate their agitation into a show of strength. They turned out more people than the president did for his swearing-in. Many of the marchers joined chapters of an organization invented by two former legislative staffers who wrote a guide to using peaceful protest to change Congress. Frustrated with the party who enabled the rise of a demagogue, leftists got serious about electoral politics and started recruiting the first batch of ordinary people who could mount a challenge to the ossified Democratic leadership. A week after the inauguration, they all flocked to airports to demonstrate on behalf of foreigners they did not know, trying just to enter the country and reunite with loved ones.

This movement had many contours, many spokes in the wheel. It had its share of opportunists and grifters, as is par for the course in modern America. (The conservative movement, at its essence, is a sophisticated direct-mail targeting program to bilk nervous seniors so movement leaders can afford mansions in the D.C. suburbs.) But at the root, it had millions of ordinary people, white suburban moms and first-generation immigrants, practiced activists and novices who’d never contacted their member of Congress before, teachers and factory regulars standing up for their rights in the workplace, organizers and the organized, Black people tired of having the color of their skin be a direct threat to their existence, all of them using their voice, shouting, participating.

They would not be in these streets, not in these numbers, not with this intensity, if it weren’t for the occupant of the Oval Office. The rise of Donald Trump had an equal and opposite reaction, and it got millions of people acquainted with their democracy again. Tonight we will get the next set of results of that engagement. The process of not only protecting but improving this democracy doesn’t end, and that’s the next step for the movement sometimes called the Resistance. But I can tell you this: Trump’s presence, what it meant and what it signaled, activated this country, in bad ways but also in good ones. You absolutely can say that it restored our democracy for the challenges ahead.








Read all of our Election 2020 news here

It's A Good Time To Donate!





This movement has already proven victorious. It took the House of Representatives and won 40 seats, the largest gain for the Democratic Party since 1974. It has spilled over into a wave of labor action, awakening from a long slumber. It has turned sports leagues into activist collaboratives, downtowns into zones of defiance, and modest homes in the suburbs into organizing hubs. It finally had the strength to build a climate movement that knows how to energize people. It enabled women to lead and reflected America in all its diversity as well as any political movement in my lifetime.

Am I saying that this work would have been impossible in the absence of Donald Trump? I remember the previous eight years, the loss of thousands of legislative races, the insular way in which the Democratic Party operated. It’s not up to parties to build political movements of course, but the rank and file sleepwalked through the Obama years, assuming that their leaders would take care of things. Progressives couldn’t win a primary. Mainstream Democrats couldn’t win an election. And the culture did not reflect the urgency necessary in our politics, to force governance.

Under Trump, people got to work. It’s been hidden because of the pandemic, but I can confidently say that there was more voter mobilization in this election than there was in the very top-down, highly organized Obama year of 2008. We know that the fundraising at the grassroots level broke all records, in support of someone in Joe Biden who was last considered charismatic in 1973. Take a second today and visit mobilize.us, an aggregator for the digital organizing—virtual phonebanks, textbanks, friendbanks—that we’ve been consigned to this election year. There are hundreds of events, on top of the thousands or tens of thousands over the past couple months.








We Depend on Your Donations





You don’t get serious about democracy until you get the sense that it can be taken away. Whether you think that Trump represented a bumbling mistake, a rift in the space-time continuum or an approaching fascism, he concentrated the minds of the nation. He generated all the elements of resistance necessary for a show of political force. And it’s been healthy for all aspects of the left. The only way that real governing change will come to America is through a popular movement. And the only way that change will come at the level commensurate to face our challenges is with a vibrant left. Both have been byproducts of the Trump years.

For all the assaults on norms and expectations and the democratic process, ultimately 160 million or more Americans will vote in this election, shattering the old records. Millions more volunteered, marched, protested, organized, and fought for their rights. Democracy needs energy, and American democracy sorely needed it. Trump’s election provided it.

The hope is that once the switch is turned, once people are activated and engaged in democracy, that they don’t walk away. With the treacherous circumstances right now and the need for restoration, we absolutely cannot have an empty playing field left to a few to clean up after the election. Four years have taught us that democracy is worth fighting for. The future must continue that fight every day.








Read all of our Unsanitized reports here

We Really Can't Do This Without You!





An Election Retrospective





I’m extremely proud of our election coverage this year, and we decided to collect it together in a state-by-state roundup. We covered elections in 37 different states, which is quite incredible given our little staff and tiny budget. You can peruse our state-by-state roundup here, and it will get you up to date before the polls close. Thanks to our superlative writing staff and contributors for all of their work.

Also, the Prospect staff made its predictions on the outcome of the race. You’ll have to go to the link to get mine!






Days Until the Election






It’s today.







Support Independent, Fact-Checked Journalism






Today I Learned







Dixville Notch was a 5-0 sweep for Joe Biden, the first unanimous vote in the first-in-the-nation hamlet since 1960. (CNN)
It’s news that 127,000 cast ballots recorded under a process enacted months ago won’t be tossed in the trash... pending appeal! (Axios)
Educate the voting public and they learn: there are fewer spoiled absentee ballots this year. (New York Times)
Donald Trump has already lost today: he lost Deutsche Bank as a lender. (Reuters)
Turns out it’s boring to be a poll watcher so the Trumpers decided not to do it. (ProPublica)
My projected electoral map. (270 To Win)
Vote! (Vote)




'Nobody Should Fall For It': Sanders Condemns Trump's Reported Plan to Falsely Declare Victory on Election Night






"We will not allow that to happen. Every vote must and will be counted."


Jake Johnson, staff writer



https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/11/02/nobody-should-fall-it-sanders-condemns-trumps-reported-plan-falsely-declare-victory




In the wake of fresh reporting indicating that President Donald Trump is planning to prematurely claim victory if he has a lead Tuesday night and reject as illegitimate ballots counted after November 3, Sen. Bernie Sanders late Sunday characterized the news as "no surprise" given the president's repeated nods toward such a ploy and urged the public to be prepared for the false declaration.

"That has been his strategy for months, and nobody should fall for it," said the Vermont senator, who has been sounding the alarm about this potential "nightmare scenario" in interviews, speeches, and on the campaign trail. "It's why he is demonizing mail-in ballots and sabotaging the Postal Service."


"Trump's team is preparing to falsely claim that mail-in ballots counted after November 3—a legitimate count expected to favor Democrats—are evidence of election fraud," according to Axios. "Many prognosticators say that on election night, Trump will likely appear ahead in Pennsylvania—though the state's final outcome could change substantially as mail-in ballots are counted over the following days."Axios reported Sunday that in the weeks leading up to Tuesday's election, Trump "has privately talked through this scenario in some detail... describing plans to walk up to a podium on Election Night and declare he has won."

While strategizing with his advisers behind the scenes, Trump has also been publicly laying the groundwork for the Election Night plan for months with his lie-filled attacks on the legitimacy of mail-in ballots and other state efforts to expand voting access amid the coronavirus pandemic, which has killed more than 230,000 Americans on the president's watch.

Trump's efforts to sow doubt about the election results, as well as his refusal to commit to a peaceful transition of power, have sparked warnings that the president is emboldening the most dangerous elements of his base, increasing the likelihood of mass chaos on November 3 and the days that follow.

"As I have warned many times, Trump is very likely to declare himself the winner at a moment when a large portion Republican-leaning, in-person votes have been counted, but before a vast number of Democratic mail-in ballots are counted," Sanders said Sunday. "Then he will continue his lies about voter fraud in an attempt to suppress enough votes to win. We will not allow that to happen. Every vote must and will be counted."




Speaking to reporters Sunday evening, Trump dismissed Axios' reporting as "false" before launching into an attack on states that plan to continue counting legally submitted ballots after Election Day—a practice that, contrary to the president's repeated claims to the contrary, is completely normal.


As the New York Times noted Sunday, "Americans are accustomed to knowing who won on election night because news organizations project winners based on partial counts, not because the counting is actually completed that quickly."

With Trump reportedly planning to claim victory if he pulls ahead of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden in early vote counts, news outlets and social media platforms are facing pressure to combat potential Election Night disinformation by the incumbent, who has repeatedly lied that the only way he can lose is if the race is "rigged" against him.

"The press has a crucial role if/when this happens: it's not partisan to condemn this behavior," tweeted Washington Post contributor Brian Klaas. "Nobody should equivocate about it. It's imperative that Americans unite against this authoritarian strategy."

As Common Dreams reported last week, a coalition of progressive advocacy groups is planning nearly 400 rallies across the nation to protest any effort by Trump to falsely claim victory or refuse to accept the election results.

"We think the likelihood of activation is high," the coalition said.

'Huge Victory for Texas Voters': Federal Judge Rules in Favor of 127,000 Drive-Thru Ballots






"This is what democracy looks like," said one ACLU lawyer. "Our justice system did its duty today to ensure voting rights are protected and our democracy remains intact."



by
Brett Wilkins, staff writer










https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/11/02/huge-victory-texas-voters-federal-judge-rules-favor-127000-drive-thru-ballots




In a blow to one of the many Republican attempts to stop people from voting across the country, a federal judge Monday afternoon struck down a GOP attempt to invalidate 127,000 ballots cast at drive-thru voting sites in Harris County, Texas.

NPR reports U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen—a George W. Bush appointee—threw out the suit challenging the legality of the ballots, which were turned in by car at 10 sites throughout the Houston area in the Lone Star State's most populous county.

"Voter suppression doesn't get much more blatant than this outrageous attempt to invalidate the votes of nearly 127,000 Texans," said Anthony Gutierrez, executive director of Common Cause Texas, in response to the decision. "We hope this ruling eliminates some of the anxiety and confusion so many Houstonians were feeling. This should allow the election to be decided by Texas voters and not by a small group of people trying to disrupt our democracy through litigation, suppression and confusion."



The decision came one day after the Texas Supreme Court denied a petition by a Republican activist and three GOP candidates in the state seeking to have the drive-thru votes tossed out for what they claimed was an illegal expansion of curbside voting—which under Texas law is only available for voters with disabilities—by Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins, a Democrat.

County officials had set up the drive-through polling places in order to make voting easier and safer during the Covid-19 pandemic. According to local news station KTRK, about 10% of all early ballots have been cast by car.

The GOP activist who filed the challenge, Steven Hotze, is no stranger to controversy. According to the Texas Tribune:


Hotze is an active GOP donor and is one of the most prolific culture warriors on the right. He's a fierce opponent of same-sex marriage and was a key figure in the unsuccessful push for the 2017 "bathroom bill" in the Texas Legislature. This year, he has filed numerous lawsuits seeking to overturn Gov. Greg Abbott's coronavirus restrictions and block Harris County's efforts to make it easier for people to vote. And he left a voicemail for Abbott's chief of staff this summer telling him to shoot and kill people protesting the in-custody death of George Floyd.




While voting rights advocates hailed the decision as a victory, Halen sounded a warning to any Harris County residents thinking of voting by car on Tuesday: "If I were to vote tomorrow, I would not vote in a drive-thru location out of concern about if it's legal or not," he said.

"I am looking at statue right here," the judge added. "On Election Day, they're supposed to vote in a building."

Nevertheless, Andre Segura, legal director of the ACLU of Texas, applauded Halen's decision.

"This is what democracy looks like," he said in a statement. "This is the third attempt by these individuals to throw out votes legally cast, and once again they've been denied. Our justice system did its duty today to ensure voting rights are protected and our democracy remains intact."


Sophia Lin Lakin, deputy director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, called the ruling "a huge victory for Texas voters."

"The court was right to reject this outrageous attempt to undermine a true and accurate vote count and improperly influence the outcome of the election," she added.



The failed Republican attempt is but one of many GOP voter suppression efforts around the country. Writing in the Washington Post on Sunday, Ben Ginsburg, one of the nation's most prominent conservative election lawyers, said that:


The Trump campaign and Republican entities engaged in more than 40 voting and ballot court cases around the country this year. In exactly none—zero—are they trying to make it easier for citizens to vote. In many, they are seeking to erect barriers. All of the suits include the mythical fraud claim. Many are efforts to disqualify absentee ballots, which have surged in the pandemic.

"This attempted disenfranchisement of voters cannot be justified by the unproven Republican dogma about widespread fraud," added Ginsberg. "Challenging voters at the polls or disputing the legitimacy of mail-in ballots isn't about fraud. Rather than producing conservative policies that appeal to suburban women, young voters or racial minorities, Republicans are trying to exclude their votes."

Civil Rights Group Bashes 'Highly Politicized' Trump DOJ Election Monitoring Plan







"This plan appears to be nothing but a thinly-veiled effort to deploy federal government personnel to communities in so-called 'battleground states.'"

Andrea Germanos, staff writer





https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/11/02/civil-rights-group-bashes-highly-politicized-trump-doj-election-monitoring-plan




President Donald Trump's Justice Department was accused Monday of threatening "the integrity and neutrality of the electoral process" after announcing its plan to send personnel to 44 jurisdictions in 18 states—including key battleground states of Florida, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—to monitor compliance with federal voting rights laws.

"This Justice Department has been missing in action for nearly four years as communities of color have faced voter suppression, voting discrimination, and rising levels of voter intimidation," said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, in a statement.


"Under this administration," she continued, "we have seen virtually no enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and little action, if any at all, to protect and safeguard the rights of Black voters and voters of color."

The department released the plan for the monitoring Monday, noting that its Civil Rights Division is tasked with enforcing federal voting rights laws.

"The work of the Civil Rights Division around each federal general election is a continuation of its historical mission to ensure that all of our citizens can freely exercise this most fundamental American right," Eric S. Dreiband, the assistant attorney general for the division, said in a DOJ statement.

While the Justice Department regularly undertakes such monitoring, Clarke, in her statement, expressed skepticism that its plan is intend to protect voting rights. She asserted that the track record of the Trump aministration and Attorney General William Barr, as well as locations chosen, make clear the motivation for this year's monitoring effort are cause for concern.

"This plan appears to be nothing but a thinly-veiled effort to deploy federal government personnel to communities in so-called 'battleground states,'" said Clarke, urging local offiicals to "refuse to provide voluntary access inside polling places or to vote counting processing to federal officials given the politicized nature of the Justice Department's work."




"Given Attorney General Barr's recent efforts to weaponize the Justice Department during the middle of a presidential election, federal presence at the polls stands to threaten the integrity and neutrality of the electoral process," she said.

"The most striking evidence of the politicized nature of this plan," she added, "is the absence of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, and other states that are home to some of the largest shares of Black voters."

Legal analyst Joyce Vance agreed with Clarke's assessment, calling the plan "a dangerous sign" of the role the DOJ might play on Tuesday and in the days to follow.


The plan also appears to have ruffled the feathers of at least one state election official—the Minnesota secretary of state—and Minneapolis is named as one of the cities where DOJ monitors are being sent.

"When asked for comment," reported local WCCO-TV, "Minnesota's Secretary of State Steve Simon said the state law is very specific and Justice Department personnel won't be allowed inside polling places."




ACLU's Closing Argument: 'Everyone Should Be Able to Vote, and Everyone’s Vote Should Be Counted'






The national civil liberties group says that it "is at the ready to act swiftly and use all of the tools and resources at our disposal to protect the vote."
by
Julia Conley, staff writer










https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/11/02/aclus-closing-argument-everyone-should-be-able-vote-and-everyones-vote-should-be







As the final day of voting in the 2020 election approached, the ACLU on Monday left American voters with a closing argument: "Everyone should be able to vote, and every vote should be counted."

The simple, pro-democracy message was deemed necessary by the national civil liberties organization in a year when President Donald Trump has undermined Americans' ability to vote by mail; federal and state courts have stood in the way of voters who want to cast their ballots early; and the president has repeatedly indicated that he will not accept the election results if he loses and will call for officials to stop counting votes on election night, potentially before millions of legally-cast ballots are tallied.


Last week, the ACLU released a statement detailing its plans to protect voters' right to cast ballots in person, at a drop box, or via mail.

"Just as we've been asking our supporters to make a plan to vote, we at the ACLU have been preparing for months and years for this Election Day: activating volunteers, motivating voters, and fighting for our rights across the country in courts, legislatures, and in the streets," wrote managing attorney Sarah Brannon and voting rights campaign strategist Molly McGrath.




Brannon and McGrath wrote that the organization is working closely with election protection lawyers and volunteers to ensure no voter faces disenfranchisement or intimidation at the polls.

"The ACLU is at the ready to act swiftly and use all of the tools and resources at our disposal to protect the vote," they wrote. "If you have questions about casting your ballot or difficulty voting, remember you have the right to vote and help is a phone call away at 1-866-OUR-VOTE."

The group also released a short audio guide to familiarize voters with what they may face at the polls if they vote in person on Tuesday, including long lines, poll workers who will be able to assist voters who are vulnerable to severe Covid-19 infections and don't want to wait in a large crowd, and possible voter intimidation.

"Voter intimidation is very rare, but, know how to spot it," McGrath told listeners. "No one should make you feel unsafe or interfere with your casting a ballot. Remember, you have the right to vote. No one can impersonate an election official or aggressively question you."

The guide also reminded voters that they should expect a ballot-counting process which stretches past election night this year.

"We likely will not know a winner on election night as more people have cast absentee ballots this year than ever before," McGrath said. "Remember: Some states don't even start counting these ballots until Election Day."

MAYBE IF WE PRETEND THAT SCHUMER IS REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE, HE MIGHT START ACTUALLY DOING IT?


[An interview in which Anand gets a corrupt, lying sack of shit to make some pleasing mouth noises]


Chuck Schumer wants an FDR-style first 100 days
An interview with the Senate minority leader about how Democrats need to change, what he’ll do if Trump tries to steal the election, and whether the filibuster must go


Anand Giridharadas
Nov 3






You’re doomscrolling. You’re stress-eating. You decided to cut today’s intermittent fasting period by six hours. Like me, you forgot to put the cup under the coffee maker. You wish it were 8 p.m. already. You wish you were Canadian. At The Ink, we get it.

Never in my lifetime has an Election Day augured such drastically different futures. Decay or renewal: that’s the news we await.

So first things first — if you haven’t yet voted, please do so today: http://iwillvote.com.

Now, while u wait, we thought you might enjoy a glimpse of the possible future that awaits if we can claw beyond this hellscape.

If Joe Biden indeed becomes president, and the Democrats indeed retake the Senate, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York would become the Robin to Biden’s Batman. Like Biden, Schumer is a moderate, a centrist, a prodigious fundraiser from Wall Street who in many ways symbolizes the modern, business-friendly Democratic Party establishment. Like Biden, Schumer in recent months has hinted at the need for Democrats to chart a new way, reviving the forsaken legacy of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

I interviewed him yesterday by phone, with a hope of understanding what a Trump defeat might usher in. For getting rid of the president is hopefully just the beginning.

Before we get to that, a programming note. I will be doing one of my live video chats for full subscribers today at 1 p.m. New York time, 6 p.m. London time, 10 a.m. Pacific time. The login info will land in subscribers’ inboxes about an hour beforehand.

I will add: If you like tough interviews like this one with important public figures, take a moment to support independent journalism:







“Our job is to create a Rooseveltian-type response”: a conversation with Senator Chuck Schumer

ANAND: So it's election eve, you and Joe Biden are both known as centrists, moderates, but Biden has also talked about an FDR-sized presidency given the circumstances. In the event that Biden is president and you're Senate majority leader in January, should the first 100 days look like the modern, centrist Democratic Party's, or should it look like FDR's?

CHUCK: It ought to look like FDR's.

One area is climate, with a big, strong, aggressive climate agenda that takes into account working people, takes into account racial injustice.

The second is wealth and income inequality. Obviously, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Changing the tax code so it's fairer for labor rather than capital. Strengthening labor unions. One of the reasons working-class incomes have declined is the weakening of the labor movement. We have to strengthen that. We need a big, broad infrastructure bill, and it could create millions of jobs. A lot of those jobs should go to poor people, people who have had prison records. And these are good-paying jobs. Getting rid of student debt. I have a proposal with Elizabeth Warren that the first $50,000 of debt be vanquished, and we believe that Joe Biden can do that with the pen as opposed to legislation.

Then there are issues that don’t seem related to income inequality but are. Immigration reform. Criminal-justice reform is another economic issue. If you have a small conviction for a minor crime, you can never get a good job. I like the idea of paying care workers more.

The third area is democracy. We’ve got to change the structure of society. Making it much easier to vote. We can change America structurally that way.

So it’s a big, bold agenda. My job is to get as much of that passed and get the votes for it, which obviously is not something I can snap my fingers and do. I want the boldest agenda that we can get the votes to pass.

ANAND: To get a lot of those things done, do you think the filibuster needs to go?

CHUCK: We’ve first got to get the majority. Because if we don’t get the majority, all is lost.

ANAND: I know, but I'm saying if you get the majority and you want to do these things, is there any way you could get them done with the filibuster in place?

CHUCK: Everything is on the table. Everything is on the table.

ANAND: But if you have a majority, would you be willing to fight for that at this stage?

CHUCK: What I’ve said to you is you have to get the majority, and then everything is on the table. That is what I said.

ANAND: But that's different from saying this agenda is so important that, come hell or high water, I'm going to fight for that.

CHUCK: We have to get it done. We have to get it done, and I will figure it out. We have to have unity in our caucus, right? I have a leadership team that meets every Monday night. On that team are Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and on that team are Mark Warner and Joe Manchin, and we have had great unity. Every member opposed the Trump tax bill, every member supported impeachment, every member voted to keep healthcare, every member voted against Amy Coney Barrett.

So we’ve got to create a dynamic where we can get these things done, and we're going to figure out the best way to do that.

ANAND: Are you in favor of expanding the Supreme Court at this point?

CHUCK: As I said, everything is on the table.

ANAND: But why only leave things on the table? Why not advocate for things?

CHUCK: Because you have to get the majority, Anand. I can't snap my fingers and make everybody do it, OK? You know that. And I am going to work hard for the boldest agenda we can have, the best way we can, and we’re not eliminating any way.

ANAND: Given what we're seeing from the president, in terms of his statements about lawsuits, given what we're seeing with his cheering on people committing violent acts against the Biden campaign bus, and with Marco Rubio, your colleague, today calling on Floridians to engage in similar violence on highways with cars

CHUCK: He did? Marco Rubio did? This is despicable.

ANAND: It feels like we are now talking about open calls for political violence from the president and others. Do you believe the president is specifically attempting and making plans to sabotage and steal the election as we speak?

CHUCK: I think he will try to do whatever it takes to prevent himself from losing power. I don't know what exactly he will do. I'm not in his head. If we win by a whole lot, it will be a lot harder for him. And we’re preparing for it. I have a group of senators who are looking at all the alternatives should he try to do this — Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Chris Murphy, Tammy Duckworth, and Martin Heinrich. And we’re looking at all eventualities. We’re looking at legal actions. We’re looking at working with governors. We’re working with intelligence agencies — everybody that we can — to prevent him from thwarting democracy, which I have no doubt he will try to do.

ANAND: Inciting violence is actually a crime, as you know. Do you believe Trump has crossed the line into specifically inciting violence?

CHUCK: He has an obligation to say, “No violence. Discourage violence.” When he applauded those people trying to run that bus off the road, it was outrageous and he was encouraging violence.

ANAND: You have been one of the two principal opposition leaders in Trump’s tenure. More than 200 judges got confirmed. A lot of his work of gutting the State Department, rolling back environmental regulations, etc., was able to get done. Is there any day on which you've looked back on your own performance in this time and thought: I should have been tougher as a source of resistance in this or that particular way?

CHUCK: Well, we fought him tooth and nail. And, as I said, on every major issue, we beat him [Editor’s note: ] and had total unity. Once we got the House, we could thwart a lot of bad things he wanted to do legislatively. But we did a good job of fighting him tooth and nail. But the biggest challenge we face now, should we get the majority, is not just stopping him, but creating a big, bold agenda.

ANAND: Do you expect to face a progressive primary challenger in 2022?

CHUCK: Look, I have been in politics a while. I do a good job. The best job I can for the people of New York and the people of the country, and it’s always worked out.

ANAND: You haven't heard any of those murmurs of people looking to run against you?

CHUCK: The answer I gave you is the answer. You do a good job for New York, you do a good job for the country, and it works out.

ANAND: But behind that, the question is when you talk about some of the big things at the beginning of this conversation, the big, bold agenda, some of that represents, frankly, a recognition, it sounds like, that what Democrats stood for in the ’90s and 2000s was often not big and bold enough. Is that a fair statement?

CHUCK: Well, certainly in the ’90s. But the world changed, and income has flowed to the top in the last 15 years. Unions are much weaker than they used to be. Climate is much worse.

ANAND: But don’t Democrats have a lot of responsibility for letting some of those things happen?

CHUCK: No, we fought them when we could, up and down the line. In 2009 and ’10, the last time we had power, we did some good things, but we should’ve done a lot more. The world has changed in ways that make it much harder for average Americans to get ahead, and our job is to create a Rooseveltian-type response to it. I agree with that.

ANAND: But I think that the notion is, whether you read Kurt Anderson's new book, “Evil Geniuses,” or Jane Mayer's book “Dark Money,” a lot why the world changed was because of what folks did on the right. But a lot of it, also, was a Democratic Party that was very solicitous of the donor class, going along with too many things. I just wonder if you agree with that basic thesis or you disagree with it.

CHUCK: Well, you'd have to give me specifics. I mean…

ANAND: Do you think you took too much money from Wall Street?

CHUCK: Pardon?

ANAND: Do you think you've taken too much money from Wall Street, in retrospect?

CHUCK: I think we’ve opposed Wall Street. The people I've appointed to these commissions have been very pro-working people.

ANAND: There’s now a new conversation that's being had about the role of money in politics that may not have been the conversation ten years ago. When you look back on your own fundraising, it's heavily Wall Street. Do you have any regrets about that?

CHUCK: I’ve opposed the Citizens United decision the minute it came out. I don’t want soft money in politics. I’ve always been against that. I’ve always been strongly for campaign-finance reform.

ANAND: But other candidates for office, Bernie Sanders and others, have rejected Wall Street money. You have not rejected Wall Street money. Correct?

CHUCK: Well, I don’t — you know, the bottom line is, I stand by what I propose, what I stand for. The bottom line is, judge me by my actions. Yes, you should.

ANAND: So there’s no source of money that’s corrupting if it doesn’t result in a specific proposal?

CHUCK: I think we have to change campaign-finance law dramatically. Citizens United was one of the worst decisions that we had.

ANAND: Part of bold change involves a recognition in all corners about each of our role in the old normal being bad. So I will say as a media person, there are a lot of ways in which my industry works that, in retrospect, we have huge complicity. We are very complicit. And I just wonder, do you look at your Democratic Party and say, here is where we actually fell short and enabled some of the institutional and economic weakness?

CHUCK: Well, give me an example. I don't, I mean, you know, the bottom line is, I'm fighting for the right things.

ANAND: I mean a simple example is financial deregulation. What I’m saying to you is a lot of people don't necessarily trust the ability to do big, bold change by people who are not forthright about the fact that that was not happening before. And it was not happening for a specific set of reasons.

CHUCK: Well, I will certainly say the change in the last 15 or 20 years has not been big enough or bold enough.

ANAND: What should Americans do if in the next day, two days, three days, Donald Trump actually does attempt to steal the election, declare false victory, try to stop votes being counted?

CHUCK: He can declare false victory, but we’ve talked to the governors of the various states. We cannot allow him to declare victory. We have to fight back and fight him in every way we can. We’re going to have to fight it tooth and nail. I don’t underestimate what Donald Trump might start.

ANAND: Do you think we'll know who's going to be the new president by Tuesday night or not?

CHUCK: Hope so. If Biden wins Florida by a lot, wins North Carolina by a lot, there’s no telling. The goal here is to beat Trump to get something real done. I believe that passionately.