Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

How “The Queen’s Gambit” is inspiring a wave of new chess fans, especially women

The day after Netflix’s ode to fluidity “The Queen’s Gambit” premiered, Google searches for the term “chess” spiked to nearly double what they had been the year prior. There had already been what Levy Rozman — an international chess master and instructor who streams under the name GothamChess — calls a “pandemic bump” in interest, but the series has cemented the game’s status as one of the “it” activities of 2020, alongside baking banana bread and hoarding toilet paper.  

“I think it was the best representation of chess that you could present to an audience that doesn’t know, or doesn’t really think about chess on a day-to-day basis,” Rozman said. “I tried to make an effort to see it within the first week, first of all, to get some content out about it, but at the same time, it was because I think one in every 10 messages during streams was, ‘Have you seen it? What do you think about it?'” 

As Salon’s Hanh Nguyen wrote, the series, which stars Anya Taylor-Joy, “begins with nine-year-old Beth in a Kentucky orphanage, where she is raised after her mother’s tragic death. There, a taciturn janitor (Bill Camp) introduces her to chess, for which she has an astounding aptitude. After her adoption, Beth’s unique Bildungsroman begins in earnest as she travels the country and then the world to earn prize money at chess tourneys and seek the respect from mostly male peers.” 

Rozman began playing chess when he was young, too. 

“I played my first tournament when I was seven, and I’ve been just playing ever since,” he said. 

He began streaming instructional videos and chess commentary in 2018. It was a grind; he started with fewer than 10 followers and would be online from 9 p.m. to 4 a.m. some days. Then there was a noticeable uptick in November 2018 when the World Chess Championship streamed on Twitch, and American Fabiano Caruana went head-to-head against Norwegian chess Grandmaster Magnus Carlsen, who is one of the greatest players of all time. Online chess’ popularity saw some ups and downs throughout 2019, then the pandemic hit, followed by the release of “The Queen’s Gambit.” 

Rozman’s viewership numbers exploded as suddenly everyone wanted to learn to play the game, including celebrities. 

“I gave a chess lesson to an NBA player less than a month ago,” Rozman said. “And then I started experiencing ‘The Queen’s Gambit effect’ a few weeks ago. I had a video called ‘How to play the Queen’s gambit’ that I made on August 31st . . . It’s now the most-viewed video I have. It gained 150,000 views in two weeks. My average for views was like 70,000 a day. I’m now at half a million.” 

This isn’t just an American phenomenon. Antonio Radić is a Croatian chess player who currently has the most popular chess channel on YouTube, with more than 805,000 subscribers. 

“More people are subscribing to my channel than usual,” Radić said. “I can’t say for sure if it is related to the show, but a video I made on [“Queen’s Gambit” character] Elizabeth’s final game against Borgov [released Oct. 25] is already at 1.6 million views, so I would definitely say there is a connection.” 

Both Rozman and Radić also have seen an uptick in the number of women subscribing to and watching their content. 

“Normally my viewership is 98% male, 2% female,” Rozman said. “Right now, as we’re experiencing this boom, it’s now up to 3.6% female, so nearly doubled.” 

Radić’s numbers are similar. On paper it’s a small shift of an even smaller demographic, but as depicted in the show, women aren’t a majority in the world of professional chess — not even close. As Emma Baccellieri wrote for Sports Illustrated in 2018, “women aren’t disproportionately outnumbered just at the top of the leaderboard. They’re disproportionately outnumbered everywhere, from youth competition up. Just 14% of U.S. Chess Federation members are female; that might seem low, but it’s a record high, reached just this year. Most female players consistently find themselves surrounded by men.” 

That’s one of the reasons that “The Queen’s Gambit” is such a breath of fresh air. It shows a young woman dominating in a space that is historically male-dominated. It’s also potentially paving the way for women and girls to become more involved in the game. 

Jennifer Shahade is a two-time United States Women’s Chess Champion, a Woman Grandmaster and author of the books “Chess Bitch” and “Play Like a Girl.” She is also the women’s program director for the U.S. Chess Federation and said, since the release of the series, her inbox has been flooded with messages about learning to play. 

This is encouraging because scholastic chess has become more popular with girls over the last decade, but there is a sharp drop-off in young women playing chess after graduation. 

“I’m seeing a big rise in the number of girls — but also especially the number of teens and adult women who are signing up for our various programs,” Shahade said. “For example, we have 150-plus women registered for a combination chess lesson and book club Friday. And a lot of them are very well-known outside chess but are not really test players. We have writers, actresses, influencers.” 

Shahade continued: “So that’s very exciting. I think that maybe that glamour from ‘The Queen’s Gambit’ can create a bridge for people to maintain their interest beyond the younger ages, as that’s where we have a lot of drop off. I think that’s where we’re really going to see ‘The Queen’s Gambit’ effect.”

 

The far right is cracking up, as their violent fantasies of Trump’s fascist takeover evaporate

The far right had a dream: That one day, people who had been exiled to the unacceptable margins of American political life could play the role of Donald Trump’s brownshirts.

In the weeks leading up to the election, excitement was rising among those Americans who convinced themselves that Trump would be the glorious leader in a national purge of their perceived enemies. QAnon fans buzzed with excitement that “the storm” — their term for their belief that the entire Democratic establishment, as well as many popular celebrities, would be rounded up into prison camps — was coming soon. The Proud Boys, a neofascist group that claim to defend “Western civilization,” were also riled up after Trump told them to “stand by” during a presidential debate in September. The menagerie of white supremacists and militia groups were stepping up recruitment efforts, stoked about what they believed would soon be the eruption of a new civil war. 

Then came the election. Trump lost. This has been very difficult for those people to accept. 

People with fanatical and delusional beliefs famously don’t give them up just because they’ve been hit over the head with reality, of course. The various subcultures of crackpots that have sprung up under Trump are no exception.

Still, the election results have sent these groups reeling. All of them have spent the past four years growing their ranks and orbiting around Trump, convinced that he was a savior figure who would crush their perceived enemies.

For believers in QAnon, that belief manifested in a fantasy that Trump was going to round up all the members of the “deep state,” their imaginary shadowy conspiracy of Democrats, Hollywood celebrities and progressive activists that they believe both secretly runs the world and is also a network of Satan-worshipping cannibal pedophiles. Trump, they told themselves, was secretly organizing “the storm” to round up and destroy this sinister global conspiracy.


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


But since Trump’s election,  Q — a user account that started on 8chan and drifted over to 8kun after 8chan was disbanded — has fallen silent. QAnon faithful believe the account is run by a current or former U.S. intelligence agent and Trump loyalist. In fact, it’s probably run by the father-and-son duo Jim and Ron Watkins, who are conspiracy theorists and definitely not U.S. intelligence agents. Without Q’s guidance, the QAnon cult appears to be confused and angry. 

“They were not expecting him to lose, and they were not expecting Fox News to call it,” Fredrick Brennan, the founder of 8chan — who has spent the past few months giving interviews accusing the Watkinses of running Q’s account — told the New York Times. “It was really psychologically damaging.”

Q believers haven’t given up the faith yet, of course. But without guidance from its leader, the QAnon community is adrift and very likely to fracture into competing and antagonistic splinter sects, as is common in these kinds of communities. 

Witness, for instance, what’s happening to the Proud Boys, which started off largely as a male chauvinist group but has morphed into what looks very much like a neofascist organization that purports to defend “Western civilization.” The Proud Boys had their proudest moment in September, when Trump refused to denounce them during a debate and instead told them to “stand down and stand by,” clearly implying that they should be at the ready to defend his grip on the White House if he felt it was under threat. 

But even though Trump is half-heartedly still trying to steal the election, he has so far disappointed the Proud Boys by not calling on them to commit violence against his enemies in a glorious coup. (Mostly, Trump is hiding from public view, tweeting out articles from fringe right-wing sites and playing golf.) So, as often happens with marginal subcultures full of deeply unpleasant people, the Proud Boys are breaking apart, torn asunder by infighting. 

At heart is a fight between two figureheads, Kyle Chapman and Enrique Tarrio, over whether the Proud Boys should stick by their dubious claim that there is nothing racist about the ideology of “Western chauvinism,” or should openly embrace white nationalism and anti-Semitism. Chapman is representing the blatant-racism side, declaring himself the new president of the splinter group calling themselves, no kidding, the “Proud Goys.” Tarrio is insisting that Chapman is a flunkey, failing to understand that the same can be said of anyone associated with the Proud Boys. 

Other right wing militia and white nationalist groups, such as the Three Percenters and the Oath Keepers, spent the weeks before the election firing themselves up for what they believed was an upcoming civil war. Now that Trump’s presidency is deflating like a day-after birthday balloon, they’re not quite ready to give up the fantasy. 

On Wednesday, Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers, appeared on Infowars with Alex Jones and promised the faithful that the violence against hated liberals is still coming

“We have men already stationed outside D.C. as a nuclear option in case they attempt to remove the president illegally, we will step in and stop it,” Rhodes declared, swearing that his forces are armed and “prepared to go in, if the president calls us up.”

As with most of the threats made by far-right figures, this is both a fantasy and a dangerous one. It’s just plain silly to imagine that a handful of middle-aged and badly organized conspiracy theorists, no matter how many guns they have, could manage the task of seizing the federal government in a paramilitary coup.

It’s dangerous, of course, because these people do have guns. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen with mass shootings like those in El Paso and Pittsburgh, the car attacks on Black Lives Matter protesters, and the shooting in Kenosha, Wisconsin, men who have been radicalized by such talk are fully capable of acts of domestic terrorism against civilians. 

On Saturday, these various groups of extremists are planning to descend on Washington for a demonstration in support of Trump’s fading effort to steal the election, which they of course spin as preventing Democrats from stealing the election. (As always with right-wingers, everything is projection.) As usual, far-right figures are over-hyping their efforts, calling the supposed rally the “Million MAGA March” or the “March for Trump.” 

In reality, almost none of the groups who claim they plan to show up have even applied for a permit, suggesting that they know what’s likely to happen: An underwhelming display by a handful of loudmouths with angry signs, whose demands are incoherent and who have no plan of action to achieve their goals anyway.

As I witnessed in Philadelphia, even when the far right had a solid target and goal — stopping election officials from counting ballots — they could barely muster up a handful of people. The ones who showed up were easily run off by a group of leftists armed with cardboard signs and a boombox. Washington, D.C., doesn’t permit the open carry of weapons, taking away yet another incentive to show up for the deeply insecure men of this movement. There’s nothing they can do to save Donald Trump. All they have left is impotent flailing. 


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


None of which is to say that we can just wash our hands of the far right and never think about them again. Far from it: The right-wing fringe has been enormously successful in recruiting conservatives to their way of thinking. Surveys suggest that more than 80% of Trump voters believe Joe Biden’s victory was illegitimate, and about half of all Republican voters buy into the QAnon conspiracy theories to some degree. What were once whacked-out “far-right” beliefs are now just mainstream conservatism. 

The difference between the fringe and the mainstream of the Republican Party now is less about belief and more about a willingness to take action. That fringe — the ones who’ve actually joined far-right groups and may actually show up at Saturday’s “rally” — is scrambling now. But such people never really go away. They’ll find some other cause to latch onto, some other justification for their fascist impulses. Some, unfortunately, will continue to seek violence or even to commit acts of terrorism. 

But for now, Trump’s defeat is a mighty blow to the far right. Their dreams of crushing the people they view as “the left” and of “reclaiming” the culture of America were always ludicrous, no matter how much tear gas Trump sprayed at Black Lives Matter demonstrators. But now, with Trump on his way to Palm Beach exile, they’ve lost their lodestar. The process of fracture and dispersal for these self-appointed warriors of the right has begun. We must hope they don’t find another figurehead to rally around anytime soon.  

Justice Samuel Alito called out for highly “partisan” speech on COVID-19 rules and same-sex marriage

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito prompted stark warnings from legal scholars about the politicization of the nation’s highest court after he aired a laundry list of conservative grievances during a Thursday speech before the Federalist Society.

Alito, who was appointed to the bench by former George W. Bush, addressed the annual conference held by the Federalist Society, the shadowy dark-money conservative group which has bankrolled and guided President Donald Trump’s deeply conservative judicial picks, via Zoom.

The justice made unusually incendiary remarks about contraception, coronavirus restrictions and the threat he believes religious freedom faces from advocates of same-sex marriage. Alito claimed that the court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which effectively legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, bred intolerance for those who believe marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

“Until very recently, that’s what the vast majority of Americans thought,” he said. “Now, it’s considered bigotry.”

Alito also downplayed a controversial case in which a Colorado baker refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, arguing that the pair won the support of “celebrity chefs” and was later “given a free cake by another bakery.”

The justice also criticized state responses to the coronavirus pandemic as “unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty,” slammed a brief filed by Democratic senators in a gun rights case and chastised the Obama administration’s “protracted campaign” and “unrelenting attack” against the Little Sisters of the Poor, who sued to block the administration from enforcing its birth control health coverage requirement.

“In certain corners,” he claimed, “religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right.”

Alito did not make any mention of Trump repeatedly overstepping his own legal authority nor his frequent attacks on the judiciary. However, the justice did seem to hit back at Democratic calls to expand the court by warning that the party wanted to see the judiciary “restructured.”

Some legal scholars suggested that Alito’s staunchly political remarks were as good an argument for restructuring the court as any.

“Alito’s speech is actually making the best argument for Court reform,” Dan Epps, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said on Twitter. “There’s just no good justification for a system that gives an angry partisan like this a veto on legislation.”

“Justice Alito is one-sixth of the furthest-right 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court in a century…and he spoke tonight as if conservatives are an embattled minority under liberals’ cruel thumbs,” Steven Mazie, a Supreme Court expert at Bard College, wrote.

Along with his comments about same-sex marriage and abortion advocates, Alito repeatedly claimed that religious liberty was under attack, including by governors responding to the pandemic.

“The pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty,” he said. “The COVID crisis has served as a sort of constitutional stress test, and in doing so, it has highlighted disturbing trends that were already in evidence before the pandemic struck.”

Alito went on to criticize a group of Democrats who filed a brief urging the court last term to reject a gun rights case or risk allegations that it was motivated by politics. The five Democrats said the “Supreme Court is not well,” and they suggested it might need to be “restructured.”

“This little episode, I’m afraid, might provide a foretaste about what the court will face in the future,” he said, “and therefore I don’t think it can simply be brushed aside.”

Legal scholars were stunned that Alito disregarded Supreme Court norms to publicly speak out on politically-charged issues facing the court.

“I’m not surprised that Justice Alito believes any of those things. One need only read his written opinions to see most of them,” Steve Vladeck, a federal court expert at the University of Texas School of Law, tweeted. “I’m surprised that he decided to *say* them in a public speech that was livestreamed over the internet.”

“As politically partisan a speech as I’ve ever seen from a justice: arrogant, tendentious, and sloppy,” Harry Litman, a former U.S. Attorney who now teaches constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law and UC San Diego, wrote.

“Justice Alito seems to be following Trump’s pathetic foray into self-pity,” Harvard constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe said.

“This speech is like I woke up from a vampire dream,” Kim Wehle, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches law at the University of Baltimore, added. “Unscrupulously biased, political, and even angry. I can’t imagine why Alito did this publicly. Totally inappropriate and damaging to the Supreme Court.”

Can Trump spin his crushing defeat into a new business venture? Don’t bet against it

One of the many overlooked stories during the run-up to this election was the New York Times series based upon Trump’s tax documents. Sure, we heard about it, but I don’t think the full scope of it sunk in. Trump didn’t pay federal income taxes for years, he got a multi-million dollar lifeline from “The Apprentice,” he owes vast sums to banks — which he has personally guaranteed — and he played fast and loose with tax write-offs for his alleged philanthropy, which don’t always add up. It was an unprecedented indictment of a sitting president.

That series was a sequel to the Times’ earlier award-winning series on Fred Trump’s tax fraud scheme which set Trump and his siblings up for life and cheated the taxpayers of millions of dollars. It showed how Donald went on to waste his inheritance on failed business ventures and kept coming back to the trough for more each time he got into trouble. He even cheated members of his own family out of their rightful inheritances — his niece Mary Trump, the psychologist and author of a bestselling family memoir, recently filed a lawsuit based on some of the information revealed in those reports.

Although we’ve known for many years that Donald Trump was a failed businessman and con artist, these two series provided a fuller picture of his finances and business practices than we’d seen before. What becomes obvious when you review the whole story from the beginning is that Trump has been dancing as fast as he can for many years, always on the verge of total collapse and somehow surviving by getting through life one day at a time.

The most recent Times report disappeared almost immediately because it came in the last two weeks before the election and there just wasn’t any bandwidth availabl for it. It was the story of Trump Tower Chicago and how Trump mismanaged the entire development, as usual. When the financial crisis hit in 2008, he found himself on the hook to Deutsche Bank and a hedge fund for hundreds of millions of dollars. The creditors tried to work with him but finally hit their limit, at which point Trump went into his usual “fight back” mode and sued the bank for allegedly causing the financial crisis, which he claimed was force majeure, meaning he didn’t have to pay back the loans. He became such a pain in the ass, with bad-faith negotiations and lawsuits, that the institutions ended up writing down the loans just to get him off their backs. That’s how he works, whether with a small vendor who sold him some carpeting or a major multinational bank.

The Chicago tower was just one of many examples of Trump’s ability to escape responsibility throughout his life. He’s run that game going all the way back to the 1970s when the Trumps were sued for discrimination against potential Black and Hispanic tenants and Trump took the audacious step of suing the government for defamation. Rather than deal with him, regulators chose to settle the case.

He’s lied to banks for years about how wealthy he is, while telling the government in virtually the same breath that he was nearly broke. Banks kept lending to him and kept losing money, until he was finally left with only Deutsche Bank. According to a Reuters report last week, that relationship may finally have reached the end of the line as well:

Deutsche Bank AG is looking for ways to end its relationship with President Donald Trump after the U.S. elections, as it tires of the negative publicity stemming from the ties, according to three senior bank officials with direct knowledge of the matter. Deutsche Bank has about $340 million in loans outstanding to the Trump Organization.

These loans are coming due within two years and are personally guaranteed by Trump. The bank would apparently like to sell the loans on the secondary market — but it’s likely no one will want to buy them. And that the $340 million is just a portion of the enormous debt he reportedly owes to entities we still can’t identify.

The fact that Trump was a terrible businessman and worse dealmaker was something once kept on the QT among the financial elite (probably to cover their own ineptitude in repeatedly lending him money) but everyone knows what he is now. They know what his family is. His “brand” is no longer something anyone can sell as luxury. (Remember, he was dropped by a whole bunch of his sponsors during the first campaign.) Everything Trump has done as president has only made his name more toxic.

Meanwhile, his political game has been run in similar fashion. Trump paid off his porn-star mistress and evaded the lawsuits brought by various players both professional and personal, not the least of which are the women who have sued him for defamation and assault. His henchmen in the Republican Party have covered for his corruption and incompetence every step of the way.

But now the American people have finally held him accountable and his presidential immunity from prosecution is about to come to an end. That is why we’re all watching this unprecedented spectacle of a president who lost re-election wildly flailing about in hopes of fending off the reckoning he’s avoided his whole life. He’s still dancing.

Back in 2018 just before the midterm election, Trump was at one of his rallies musing about the fact that Republicans might lose. He told his adoring crowd, “And you know what you do? My whole life, you know what I say? ‘Don’t worry about it, I’ll just figure it out.'”

But there is no way out of this defeat. He has been repudiated by a clear majority of the electorate and there’s nothing he can do about it. He can’t sue his way out of it or renege on his promises. But he can certainly lie about it, say he was cheated and reinvent himself as a martyr to the MAGA movement. He’s got about 70 million people ready to believe him.

This is yet another reason why I believe Trump will announce he’s running for president again in 2024, and will find ways to monetize that possibly-fictional campaign and keep GOP donors and others spending money to remain in his favor. Maybe he’ll get some sucker to pay for him to start a media company of some sort. 

Trump may not be able to sell condos anymore, or a perfume called “Success.” But he’s got a new brand anyway, and millions of deluded customers. I suspect he’ll be out there selling that for quite some time.  

Time to discuss potentially unpleasant side effects of COVID shots? Scientists say yes

Drugmaker Pfizer is expected to seek federal permission to release its COVID-19 vaccine by the end of November, a move that holds promise for quelling the pandemic, but also sets up a tight time frame for making sure consumers understand what it will mean to actually get the shots.

This story also ran on NBC News. It can be republished for free.

This vaccine, and likely most others, will require two doses to work, injections that must be given weeks apart, company protocols show. Scientists anticipate the shots will cause enervating flu-like side effects — including sore arms, muscle aches and fever — that could last days and temporarily sideline some people from work or school. And even if a vaccine proves 90% effective, the rate Pfizer touted for its product, 1 in 10 recipients would still be vulnerable. That means, at least in the short term, as population-level immunity grows, people can’t stop social distancing and throw away their masks.

Left out so far in the push to develop vaccines with unprecedented speed has been a large-scale plan to communicate effectively about those issues in advance, said Dr. Saad Omer, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health.

“You need to be ready,” he said. “You can’t look for your communication materials the day after the vaccine is authorized.”

Omer, who declined to comment on reports he’s being considered for a post in the new administration of President-elect Joe Biden, called for the rollout of a robust messaging campaign based on the best scientific evidence about vaccine hesitancy and acceptance. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has created a strategy called “Vaccinate with Confidence,” but it lacks the necessary resources, Omer said.

“We need to communicate, and we need to communicate effectively, and we need to start planning for this now,” he said.

Such broad-based outreach will be necessary in a country where, as of mid-October, only half of Americans said they’d be willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Initial doses of any vaccine would be limited at first, but experts predict they may be widely available by the middle of next year. Discussing potential side effects early could counter misinformation that overstates or distorts the risk.

“The biggest tragedy would be if we have a safe and effective vaccine that people are hesitant to get,” said Dr. Preeti Malani, chief health officer and a professor of medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Pfizer and its partner, the German firm BioNTech, on Monday said their vaccine appears to protect 9 in 10 people from getting COVID-19, although they didn’t release underlying data. It’s the first of four COVID-19 vaccines in large-scale efficacy tests in the U.S. to post results.

Data from early trials of several COVID-19 vaccines suggests that consumers will need to be prepared for side effects that, while technically mild, could disrupt daily life. A senior Pfizer executive told the news outlet Stat that side effects from the company’s COVID-19 vaccine appear to be comparable to standard adult vaccines but worse than the company’s pneumonia vaccine, Prevnar, or typical flu shots.

The two-dose Shingrix vaccine, for instance, which protects older adults against the virus that causes painful shingles, results in sore arms in 78% of recipients and muscle pain and fatigue in more than 40% of those who take it. Prevnar and common flu shots can cause injection-site pain, aches and fever.

“We are asking people to take a vaccine that is going to hurt,” said Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. “There are lots of sore arms and substantial numbers of people who feel crummy, with headaches and muscle pain, for a day or two.”

Persuading people who experience these symptoms to return in three to four weeks for a second dose — and a second round of flu-like symptoms — could be a tough sell, Schaffner said.

How public health experts explain such effects is important, Omer said. “There’s evidence that suggests that if you frame pain as a proxy of effectiveness, it’s helpful,” he said. “If it’s hurting a little, it’s working.”

At the same time, good communication will help consumers plan for such effects. A COVID-19 vaccine is expected to be distributed first to health care staffers and other essential workers, who may not be able to work if they feel sick, said Dr. Eli Perencevich, a professor of internal medicine and epidemiology at the University of Iowa Health Care.

“A lot of folks don’t have sick leave. A lot of our essential workers don’t have health insurance,” he said, suggesting that essential workers should be granted three days of paid leave after they’re vaccinated. “These are the things a well-functioning government should provide for to get our economy going again.”

Making sure consumers know that a COVID-19 vaccine likely will require two doses — and that it could take a month for full effectiveness to kick in — is also crucial. The Pfizer phase 3 trial, which has enrolled nearly 44,000 people, started in late July. Participants received a second dose 21 days after the first. The reported 90% efficacy was measured seven days after the second dose.

Communicating effectively will be vital to ensuring that consumers follow through with the shots and — assuming several vaccines are approved — that their first and second doses are from the same maker. Until full protection kicks in, Omer said, people should continue to take measures to protect themselves: wearing masks, washing hands, social distancing. It’s important to let people know that taking appropriate action now will pay off later.

“If we just show them the tunnel, not the light, then that results in this mass denial,” he said. “We need to say, ‘You’ll have to continue to do this in the medium term, but the long term looks good.”

The best communication can occur once full data from the Pfizer trial and others are presented, noted Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccinologist at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia who sits on the federal Food and Drug Administration’s advisory board considering COVID-19 vaccines.

“When you look at those data, you can more accurately define what groups of people are most likely to have side effects, what the efficacy is, what we know about how long the efficacy lasts, what we know about how long the safety data have been tested,” he said. “I think you have to get ready to communicate that. You can start getting ready now.”

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Centrists lose again — and mainstream media blames the left again

Joe Biden hadn’t even been declared the victor of the 2020 election before establishment Democrats, in the face of poorer-than-expected results in House and Senate races, began pointing fingers at the left — with corporate media giving them a major assist.

Democrats had been hoping for big wins on election night, with the possibility of winning not only the presidency but also the Senate, and increasing their majority in the House. But while Biden has come out on top, the party’s most optimistic outcome in the Senate would be a 50/50 split (if they win both Georgia runoff seats), giving them a majority with the vote of Vice President Kamala Harris. Rather than gaining in the House, Democrats have lost several seats, perhaps 10 or more.

In the wake of these disappointments, the right wing of the party immediately blamed its left wing for the poor showing, airing their grievances in a private conference call among House Democrats that was leaked to reporters.

In a write-up about the call, the Washington Post’s Rachael Bade and Erica Werner (11/5/20) quoted and paraphrased 14 sources blaming those who “endorse far-left positions” for Democrats’ losses, counterbalanced by only four sources defending the left. All the progressive sources were named; half of the establishment sources were either quoted anonymously or presented as unspecified “moderates” — or, twice, simply as “Democrats,” committing the exasperatingly common journalistic sleight-of-hand that erases progressive Democrats as legitimate members of their party.

In addition to quoting a handful of participants on the call, Bade and Werner interviewed numerous “moderates” for the article (“Several moderate Democrats said in interviews…”), but only managed to interview two progressives: Alexandra Rojas, head of the leftist PAC Justice Democrats, along with Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus — who took the side of the centrists.

Huffman’s contrary position, while perhaps surprising to some readers, and serving to portray the “centrist” view as even more of a consensus position, would have been less surprising to Bade, who had quoted Huffman just a few days earlier (11/1/20) about his opposition to leftists’ efforts to exert more influence within the party. In other words, the reporters appeared to seek out only one source who could have been expected to offer a forceful defense of bold leftist ideas, to balance a whole parade of attackers.

In its piece on the dust-up, in which “Democrats traded excuses, blame and prognostications,” the New York Times (11/5/20) quoted South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, who “cautioned against running on ‘Medicare for all or defunding police or socialized medicine,’ adding that if Democrats pursued such policies, ‘we’re not going to win.'” What the article didn’t mention was that Clyburn has taken more money from the pharmaceutical industry in the past decade than any other member of the House or Senate (Post and Courier, 12/16/18).

The piece then quoted Rep. Marc Veasey, who “warned his fellow members against anti-fracking talk.” Veasey ranked fourth among House Democrats in taking oil and gas industry money in the 2020 election cycle, and got 70% of his total campaign contributions from PACs. (To put that into perspective, the two progressives quoted in the Times piece, Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, got 13% and 3% of their campaign contributions from PACs, respectively.) Readers might have found such information useful in analyzing the motivations behind those quotes.

CNN’s Chris Cillizza (11/6/20) jumped into the fray as well, praising Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia, a former CIA official (another piece of relevant context not mentioned by Cillizza) who had some of the harshest words for progressives, for speaking “some hard truth to her party” — like, “We need to not ever use the words ‘socialist’ or ‘socialism’ ever again,” as if the McCarthy era had never ended (FAIR.org, 10/9/20).

After quoting Spanberger extensively and then printing some of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s rebuttal (“You can’t just tell the Black, brown and youth organizers riding in to save us every election to be quiet or not have their reps champion them when they need us”), Cillizza wrote:

What’s beyond debate is that Republican strategists took comments made by liberals within the Democratic Party and used them to blast everyone from Spanberger on down.

Though all these pieces offered plenty of suggestions that the left wing’s vocal support for things like socialism, Medicare for All, the Green New Deal and defunding the police cost the party seats in 2020, they failed to provide any actual data that might have helped readers evaluate the veracity of those statements.

It’s an important point, because understanding Democrats’ lackluster performance should help guide their platform and messaging moving forward. But these articles aren’t shedding light on the data — perhaps because it would thoroughly undermine the anti-progressive framing.

As the New York Times’ Jim Tankersley (10/14/20) reported just last month in an unusually frank assessment of the popularity of left-wing ideas, the right’s wall-to-wall attempts to bring down Democrats with the “socialist” label haven’t been very effective, despite Cillizza’s suggestion to the contrary. That’s in part because Biden and other centrists deny them so forcefully, but in part because “many of the plans favored by the most liberal wing of Democratic leaders remain popular with wide groups of voters, polling shows.” Tankersley pointed to a recent Times poll that found two in three respondents support a wealth tax, three in five favor Medicare for All (including two of three independent voters), and even higher numbers support free college tuition.

The Green New Deal is likewise broadly popular: One poll specifically of swing House districts (YouGov/Data for Progress, 9/19) found that respondents supported the idea by a 13-point margin, 49% to 36% — even when informed that it will cost trillions of dollars.

And with some races still not called, it’s safe to say that Medicare for All and the Green New Deal didn’t sink the Dems. Ocasio-Cortez pointed out (Twitter, 11/7/20) that every Democratic co-sponsor of Medicare for All in a swing district won re-election. And Gizmodo’s Brian Kahn (11/9/20) found that of 93 Democratic incumbents who co-sponsored the Green New Deal — including five in swing districts — only one lost their race.

On the question of calls to “defund the police,” it’s important to clarify — as did the Intercept (11/6/20), but none of these establishment media reports — that such calls grew out of the Black Lives Matter protests, not the platform of progressive congressmembers, and that that movement led to a massive spike in Democratic voter registration. In other words, without the movement that gave us the slogan “defund the police,” the Democrats would almost certainly have witnessed even greater losses — including, quite probably, the White House.

As the Intercept also pointed out, it appears likely that left-wing organizing in Minnesota, Michigan and Pennsylvania resulted in decisive Democratic gains in key cities and suburbs in those swing states. And Ocasio-Cortez named many other problems with the establishment’s campaign strategies, running from underinvestment in digital campaigning to a lack of a ground game to a lack of recognition of or outreach to communities of color.

Clearly the 2020 election contains many lessons for the 2022 midterms, but it’s unlikely the right conclusions will be drawn from the fact-free centrist narrative presented by corporate media.

We’ve been on Donald Trump’s road for a long, long time

It was summer almost half a century ago when I got into that Volkswagen van and began my trip across country with Peter, a photographer friend. I was officially doing so as a reporter for a small San Francisco news service, having been sent out to tap the mood of the nation in a politically fraught moment. The Vietnam War, with all its domestic protests and disturbances, was just ending. North Vietnamese troops would soon enough enter Saigon, the South Vietnamese capital; the president of the United States, Richard Nixon, was then trapped in an escalating scandal called “Watergate.”

And here was the odd thing. I felt trapped, too. In some way, I felt lost. As I put it then (and this should have a familiar ring to it, even if, in 1973, I was only referring to the TV version of the news), “That screen haunted my life. Somehow I wanted to shatter it and discover new, more human reference points, a true center of gravity.” I had the urge to break out of that world of mine and do the all-American thing, the Jack Kerouac thing: go “on the road.”

So Peter and I set out on that famed American road, traveling from campgrounds to fast-food restaurants, carnival midways to Old Faithful, only to find ourselves trapped in what I called “the increasing corporate control not just of people on the job, but on their vacations, in their leisure hours.” I found myself interviewing, and him photographing, what I came to think of as a “population of disoriented nomads” — mostly lower-middle-class and working-class Americans, confused and angry, “pushed aside,” as I wrote then, by “forces they feel are beyond their control.” We were, it turned out, on someone else’s road entirely.

In Milwaukee, we would be joined by Nancy, who later became my wife, and then would spend weeks following those all-too-unromantic highways (without a Jack Kerouac in sight), interviewing anyone who would talk to us. In the end, that attempt of a 29-year-old to break free from his own life, to figure out “where (or whether) I fit into American society” became my first book, Beyond Our Control: America in the Mid Seventies. In retrospect, that book about our strange journey into a country being reorganized for eternal consumption and the wellbeing of giant corporations became my own — as I would then call it — “dream-document excavated from our recent past.”

And yes, even so long ago, it was already a troubled moment in a troubled land. I must admit, though, that I hadn’t looked at Beyond Our Control in years, not until a friend recently found a copy, read it, and emailed, quoting my own ancient text back to me to point out how eerily relevant it still was, how — in a sense — Trumpian parts of that 1973 America already were.

He highlighted, in particular, an interview near the end of that book with “Frank Nelson” — I changed all the names, so who knows now what his real one was — about which more in a moment. That missive startled me. I had forgotten all those Frank Nelsons and perhaps as well the Tom Engelhardt who interviewed them so long ago.

So, curious about that long-lost self of mine and the world I then inhabited, I picked up that old book and reread it in order to meet the young Tom Engelhardt on the road in another American universe. And how strange that journey back into my own — and — past proved to be.

The right wind sweeping in off the plain

So, if you have the patience for a little time travel, return with me to July 1973 and let me tell you about Frank Nelson, whom I met at a trailhead in Yellowstone National Park with his wife and three children. He was “a responsible, likeable family man” with — regardless of how hard I pressed him — “no vision of a better future.” A plumber and union shop steward from Cleveland, as well as the chairman of the union bargaining committee in his factory, he proudly told me: “I have really dedicated myself to the labor movement all my life and I believe in it.”

Yet he was already talking back then about the growing “conservative approach” of the trade union movement and the possibility that it would be destroyed, he believed, by “the race issue.” He was clearly both anti-Semitic and racist. (“Being white, I would prefer the continued supremacy of the white race instead of this homogenization that’s coming.”) And while discussing what he felt was a growing American crisis with me, he also told me that “your liberals believe in one world government… and your conservatives” — which he clearly believed himself to be — “believe in America first, American domination.”

And remember, this was July 1973, not July 2019. It was Richard Nixon’s America, not Donald Trump’s.

Frank and his wife Helen were open, chatty, and so pleased with the interview experience that she gave me their address and asked me to send them a copy of anything I wrote. In other words, he said nothing he felt was out of the range of propriety. My reaction, on leaving him, was: “For me, this interview seemed like the crescendo towards which the bits and pieces of our trip have been building.”

As I had discovered in those weeks of interviewing, Nelson, like so many others on that vacation loop, was filled to the brim with half-spoken and unspoken fears about a future in which, as I put it then, “the [corporate] pushers will survive, maybe even profit. It’s these people we’ve talked with, the vast mass of middle people who have barely eked out a toehold in the system, who will be cut off at the knees. And, being hooked [on that system], they don’t know what to do.”

Then, thinking about Nelson (and others like him we had met), I added,

“The next step for Frank Nelson, however, may be out of this passivity and into the streets… The motivation, the frustration, the anger is there. Even a new ideology, the ideology of race and nationalism is emerging. All that’s missing is the right wind sweeping in off the plain, a combination of forces at the top of the society willing to mobilize Frank Nelson.

“…Sinking people don’t usually have a trenchant analysis of reality. All they require is the promise that their hard-won sense of status will not go down the drain; and an explanation, any explanation, on which to hang their hopes. American society leaves people so confused and reality so disjointed that almost any formula which pretends to put the pieces together and appeals to what people think of as their self-interest may prove acceptable.”

In those pages, I had already brought up Weimar-era Germany — the moment, that is, before Hitler rose to power — and then I added:

“In Germany in the thirties, the formula that worked was anti-Semitism, anti-communism, and a rabid nationalism combined with full employment and a return to domestic stability. If Frank Nelson’s any criterion, the formula may not be that much different here… Nationalism could well be the banner under which the struggle and the inevitable sacrifices will come, and race the bogeyman just as Jews were in Germany. The identifiable (Black) poor are the symbol for Frank Nelson of what he has to lose, what could be ripped out of his hands. And he’ll defend himself against that even if he has to ally himself with ‘the Jews and rich Gentiles’ to do it.

“Frank Nelson and millions of other Americans are set up for the picking, if a group at the top sees profit in the crop.”

Welcome to a more extreme world

In the age of Donald Trump, the Proud Boys, and the Wolverine Watchmen, much of this should feel strangely familiar. If, however, my reporting was in any way prophetic, I have to admit that I didn’t realize it all these years — not until my friend wrote me. Still, it should be obvious, in retrospect, that, bizarre as the present moment may seem, it didn’t come out of the blue, not faintly. How could it have?

For that matter, Donald Trump didn’t exactly arrive out of the blue either. As a start, just a couple of months after I got back to San Francisco from that cross-country jaunt of ours, he made his first appearance on the front page of the New York Times. He was 27, two years younger than me, and already the president of the Trump Management Corporation. The headline, shades of the future Donald and the white nationalism that’s accompanied him, was: “Major Landlord Accused of Antiblack Bias in City.” The Justice Department was then charging his father Fred and him with refusing “to rent or negotiate rentals ‘because of race and color'” in the buildings they then owned and managed. And his first words quoted in that paper about those charges were, appropriately enough: “They are absolutely ridiculous… We never have discriminated and we never would.” Of course not! And what hasn’t been increasingly, ridiculously Trumpian about our all-American world ever since?

When you think about it, with that moment in 1973 in mind, Trump himself might be reimagined as some extreme combination of Richard Nixon (a man with his own revealing tapes just like The Donald) and George Wallace. The racist governor of Alabama and a third party candidate the year Nixon slipped by Democrat Hubert Humphrey to first win the White House, Wallace was a man best known for the formulation “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

Nixon took the presidency in 1968 and again in 1972 with his own form of racism, the “southern strategy,” first pioneered by Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964 (and then called, far more redolently, “Operation Dixie“). In a racially coded and distinctly nationalist fashion, Nixon brought southern whites in the formerly Democratic bastions of the South definitively into the Republican fold. By 1980, Ronald Reagan wouldn’t think twice about launching his own presidential election campaign with a “states’ rights” speech (then still a code phrase for segregation) near Philadelphia, Mississippi, just miles from the earthen dam where three murdered civil rights workers had been found buried in 1964. And in the intervening years, the Republican Party, too, has gone south (so to speak) big time and into a form of illiberality that was, even in the Nixon era, striking enough.

By 2016, of course, that southern strategy had become something more like a national strategy in the (pussy-grabbing) hands of Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, the corporatization — I might, then, have thought of it as the fast-foodization — of the country that Peter, Nancy, and I were traveling across was already well underway. At the same time, a new kind of all-American inequality was, in those years, just beginning to make itself felt. Today, with the first billionaire in the White House and other billionaires, even in the midst of a pandemic, continuing to make an absolute mint while so many Americans suffer, the inequality that left Frank Nelson and his peers so desperately uneasy has never stopped rising to truly staggering levels

Believe me, even if Donald Trump has to leave the Oval Office on January 20, 2021, we’ll still be in his America. And 47 years after my long, strange trip, I think I can guarantee you one thing: if it weren’t for the pandemic that has this country in its grasp and has swept so many of us off any path whatsoever, some young reporter, stir crazy and unhappy, would still be able to head out onto a twenty-first-century “road” and find updated versions of Frank Nelson galore (a surprising number of whom might be well-armed and angry).

Welcome to America! There’s no question that, so long after Peter, Nancy, and I travelled that not-so-open road, our lives and this country are way beyond our control.

Writing about the people I had interviewed then (about whom — with the single inspirational exception of a museum director I met in Twin Falls, Idaho — I knew nothing more), I said: “I don’t doubt that they, like me, are still heading reluctantly toward a future that will make the summer of 1973 seem truly unreal and leave us all wondering: Could life ever have really been that way?”

In Covid-19 America, with the West Coast still burning, Colorado in historic flames, a record 11 storms hitting the Gulf Coast and elsewhere this hurricane season, and heat of every sort rising everywhere, don’t for a second believe that the phrase “beyond our control” couldn’t gain new meaning in the decades to come.

Welcome to a more extreme version of the world Frank Nelson and I already inhabited in 1973.

Copyright 2020 Tom Engelhardt

To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.

COVID explodes in Newark: Tragic result of a long legacy of urban abuse and neglect

New Jersey’s largest city has become ground zero in the next wave for the coronavirus pandemic that’s now raging across the country and setting new records every day.

On Monday, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka did his best to sound the alarm on Facebook, confirming that Newark’s overall coronavirus infection rate had hit 19 percent, more than twice New Jersey’s infection rate of 7.74%.

Baraka reported that one COVID hotspot in his community had a positive rate of more than 35 percent. These data points are as alarming as what’s been reported across the country in Native American communities.

“The people who live in this community are more likely to catch COVID-19 than anybody else and are more likely to die,” Baraka warned in his Facebook post. He has added new restrictions on businesses in three zip codes in the city where the infection rate had spiked. NJ.com reported the area “encompassed all of the East Ward (including Newark Airport or the highways) and North Newark.”

In the targeted zip code zones, all businesses were directed to close by 9 p.m. on weekdays and 10 p.m. over the weekend.  “All businesses are shut down. We want it completely shut down in those zip codes,” Baraka mandated.

Newark’s horrific COVID reality got lost in the news, which is no surprise. Media has always ignored the Brick City unless there’s something sensational to report, like the August 2007 gang execution shooting of four promising Newark college students.

Even in defeat, President Trump’s machinations to hold on to power by any means necessary has swallowed up all of the media’s oxygen as huge swaths of our nation, including Newark, grow dark under the shadows of this killer virus he lied about, ignored and then helped spread.

And while we listen to hours upon hours of corporate media speculation about just what the great white malefactor’s next move will be, our cities slip deeper and deeper into an undertow of death and disease.

In the reporting earlier this week, we heard bad news from New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy about the state’s aggregate COVID data, showing that the state had registered nearly 4,000 new cases, rivaling totals not seen since the initial peak of the pandemic back in April. This new wave of infections has translated into 1,645 hospitalizations, the most in a single day since June. State officials confirmed 21 deaths.

Murphy took to Twitter to describe the state numbers as “devastating,” going on to remind the public “we are still in the midst of a pandemic. Wear a mask. Social distance. Stay safe.”

It just seems there’s somewhat of a disconnect between Murphy’s tone and the five-alarm fire admonitions from Baraka, who is communicating as an engaged leader in the midst of a once-in-a-century humanitarian crisis which the power structure in this country, even now, still seems to be in denial about.

Consider all the idle happy talk about a Pfizer vaccine and advances in COVID care blend in with Trump’s strongman message of “I beat it! So, can you!”

Buried beneath the cacophony of sponsor-paid social media content are the devastating disclosures in medical journals about studies on the long-term consequences of being lucky enough to survive this disease.

Last month, Dr. Andrew Budson, writing for the Harvard Medical School blog, described findings by Chicago physicians that 40 percent of  their COVID 19 patients showed lingering neurological symptoms, with 30 percent suffering from impaired cognition.

Similar long-term health consequences have been well documented for both coronary and respiratory systems. We are not even publicly discussing the massive wave of long-term disability that awaits us on the other side of this next death mountain we are starting to climb.

And while the media likes to do occasional segments about a first responder or health care worker who left it all on the field battling COVID, while also putting their entire family at risk, nobody is discussing just how many of these folks will have long-term health consequences.

There’s a willful blindness to it all, as we saw with our country’s refusal to deal with the long-term consequences of lead-based paint on children of color.

Laura Bliss, in her article for Bloomberg’s CityLabThe Long, Ugly History of the Politics of Lead Poisoning,” documents how for decades the “longest-lasting childhood epidemic in U.S. history wasn’t ever treated like one,” a pattern that continues to this day with the lead contamination in the drinking water of Flint, Michigan.

Bliss recounts how for years public health officials documented lead’s “irreversible effects for young people who ingested even trace amounts” yet it was “still seen as a problem that ‘belonged’ to poor people of color.”

There’s been a lot of liberal rhetoric about the massive racial disparities, including grotesque wealth and income inequality, that the COVID pandemic has laid bare. Yet these observations, from comfortable corners have taken on the form of anthropological musings: Yeah, that’s a real shame … somebody should really do something about that! Oh, and remember to wear your mask.

As long-time Newark-area housing activist Fredrica Bey sees it, this lack of urgency regarding what’s happening in places like Newark goes back decades, and was manifest even throughout the years of the Obama presidency when Wall Street was bailed out even as it continued to prey on homeowners of color in places like Newark and the surrounding communities of Essex County.

As New Jersey’s cities do their best to prepare for this next COVID wave, Bey notes “the list of urban hospitals that have been closed in my lifetime is a long one — you can easily lose count.”

Years after the so-called recovery, which bypassed communities like Newark entirely, Bey’s group, the New Jersey Coalition for Due Process of Law, continues to demand that the state of New Jersey stand up to the banks and “require they actually document they own the property and have legal standing to foreclose in the first place.”

Bey’s group has documented predatory practices throughout the state’s 21 counties, all too often enabled by the state’s court system and politicians who have looked the other way. Across the river in New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo has actually tried to address this issue, she points out. “Why haven’t we done it in New Jersey?” she asked.

“People have no idea what it means to lose a family’s home and how this kind of systematic displacement and disorientation was part of the stress that has killed the parents and the grandparents of so many Black and brown children,” she said.

All that has been playing out for years. The COVID pandemic has made it many times worse.

Watchdog group calls for SEC probe: Pfizer CEO dumped $5.6M in stock on day of vaccine news

A watchdog group called for the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate stock sales by Pfizer chief executive Dr. Albert Bourla on the day the pharmaceutical giant announced that its coronavirus vaccine was more than 90% effective.

In a press release on Monday that made worldwide headlines, Pfizer claimed that study data indicates that the company’s experimental coronavirus vaccine is highly effective at preventing infection. Scientists warned that data from Pfizer’s clinical trial and specific details on the vaccine were not yet available. But President Trump and others touted the report, which lifted the company’s stock price by nearly 8%.

Bourla unloaded 132,506 shares of Pfizer stock at $41.94, near the company’s peak, for a total of nearly $5.6 million on the same day, SEC filings show. The transaction appeared to be Bourla’s first public sale of stock since 2016, though he has made non-market transactions, according to federal filings.

The stock sale raised questions after Bourla told CNN’s Sanjay Gupta that he learned of the positive trial results a day before they were publicly announced.

Amy Rose, the company’s vice president of global media relations, told Salon that the sale was prearranged through an SEC-compliant trading plan in August.

“The sale of these shares is part of Dr. Bourla’s personal financial planning and a pre-established (10b5-1) plan, which allows, under SEC rules, major shareholders and insiders of exchange-listed corporations to trade a predetermined number of shares at a predetermined time,” Rose said in an email. “Through our stock plan administrator, Dr. Bourla authorized the sale of these shares in February and renewed that authorization in August with the same price and volume terms. After being with the company for more than 25 years, Albert owns a substantial amount of Pfizer stock under our qualified and nonqualified savings plans. He now holds approximately nine times his salary in Pfizer stock after the sale this week.”

Sally Susman, the company’s executive vice president, also sold 43,662 shares for a total value of around $1.83 million under a pre-arranged plan, according to filings.

The company did not respond to questions about the impression conveyed to regulators or the public by these sales, or about whether it would freeze future stock sales by executives.

The prearranged plans are a common way to “shield corporate executives from allegations of illegal insider trading” but they have also become “increasingly controversial” given the “billions of dollars the government has promised Pfizer if its vaccine meets the approval of federal regulators,” NPR reported.

While such plans are intended only to be used when executives are not “in possession of inside information” that could affect a company’s stock price, the timing of Bourla’s plan raised questions because it was implemented on Aug. 19, a day before Pfizer announced that it was “on track to seek regulatory review” by October, NPR added.

Daniel Taylor, an insider trading expert at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, told NPR that the timing of the stock plan appeared “very suspicious.”

“It’s wholly inappropriate for executives at pharmaceutical companies to be implementing or modifying 10b5-1 plans the business day before they announce data or results from drug trials,” he said.

A spokesperson for the company told NPR that it did not believe the Aug. 20 announcement had any material nonpublic information, adding that the company previously announced its plan to seek approval by October and was merely confirming the timeline.

Accountable Pharma, a progressive watchdog group, has called for Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies to freeze the sale of stocks by executives “to prevent the kind of insider profiteering off of positive news that we’ve seen across the industry over the last few months.”

Eli Zupnick, a spokesman for the group, on Thursday called on the SEC to investigate the Pfizer sales.

“This appears to be another example of a shameless pump-and-dump and egregious pandemic profiteering that, if nothing else, is a terrible look for a drug industry that is desperately trying to rehabilitate its image,” he said in a statement to Salon. “We called on Pfizer to freeze all insider sales for exactly this reason, and now we’re calling on the SEC to investigate these trades to determine if these executives’ trading plans were inappropriately adjusted or if their options were exercised based on inside information.”

Zupnick added in a press release that Pfizer “should immediately release their study data for full independent review.”

“Given the billions of guaranteed taxpayer dollars that supported and incentivized the development of this vaccine, Pfizer must now explain how much they intend to profiteer off of this vaccine and what they intend to charge patients and the federal government beyond the initial doses,” he said.

Other pharmaceutical companies receiving funding from taxpayers have also come under fire for their executives’ stock trades. Executives at the pharmaceutical giant Moderna have sold off tens of millions in stock ahead of announcements about its vaccine development while receiving large contracts from the Trump administration.

“It’s troubling to me that the general counsel or the internal controls of these companies would consider it legitimate to adopt a 10b5-1 plan one day before a major vaccine announcement,” Taylor told NPR. “If this isn’t a wake-up call for the SEC and a wake-up call that we need to reform these 10b5-1 plans, I don’t know what it is.”

SEC Chairman Jay Clayton warned back in May that pharmaceutical firms should avoid these types of stock sales.

“We’ve said for a long time: In this volatile time, please practice good corporate hygiene,” he told CNBC. “Why would you want to even raise the question that you were doing something that was inappropriate?”

The biggest environmental wins and losses of the 2020 election

Election Day 2020 — the day before the United States officially left the Paris climate agreement — didn’t deliver an immediate rebuke to President Trump or relief for environmentalists.

That would have to wait.

“The election hasn’t produced the outcome that the planet badly needed,” Bill McKibben of 350.org summed up in The New Yorker the following day.

But as the votes continued to be counted in battleground states, the mood shifted from despair to hope, and finally, on Nov. 7, to celebration when Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were pronounced victors.

So much was riding on this election — and not just in the United States.

“There is no pathway to meaningful global climate action without our federal government playing a prominent part,” wrote Mary Annaïse Heglar in TheNew Republic just before the election.

A Biden-Harris victory doesn’t undo all the environmental harm caused by the Trump administration and its 125 rollbacks of environmental protections, but it provides a much-needed opportunity to restore scientific integrity and take action on climate change, environmental justice, biodiversity and other pressing concerns.

That’s good news. And looking down the ballot there were also other environmental victories — as well as some places where ground was lost. Here are the biggest takeaways:

The good stuff

Few big-ticket wins were clear early except for the fact that Democrats held onto the House of Representatives — an expected but not inconsequential victory. And although their majority slimmed, several new additions will be a boon for environmental issues.

One of those is progressive Cori Bush, who cruised to victory in Missouri’s 1st congressional district. She’s the first Black woman from the state to be elected to Congress. The nurse, pastor and Black Lives Matter activist is also a Green New Deal supporter.

In gubernatorial fights, Washington’s climate champion Jay Inslee won re-election. So did Democrat Roy Cooper in North Carolina, which E&E News called a significant victory in the state’s push for clean energy.

Mark Kelly flipped a Senate seat blue in Arizona, and so did John Hickenlooper in Colorado.

Hickenlooper, a booster of the fracking industry during his time as Colorado governor, is not exactly beloved by environmentalists in the state. But his defeat of Cory Gardner was hailed by the League of Conservation Voters, which called Gardner one of “worst anti-environmental candidates” running this year. It was also the first time in 84 years that Democrats swept all statewide races in Colorado.

Along with those victories came one for wolves, too. Colorado voters passed Proposition 114, which will require the state Parks and Wildlife department to develop a restoration and management plan for the reintroduction of gray wolves. It comes less than a week after the Trump administration removed federal protection from gray wolves across the country.

In other statewide races, Nevada’s Question 6, which would require electric utilities to get 50% of their electricity from renewables by 2030, was approved by voters. But how much that helps the state’s clean energy future is a matter of debate. Nevada has already passed similar legislation. Enshrining this benchmark into the state constitution could help protect it from future rollbacks — or it could make efforts to raise the target even harder.

Much further down the ballot, climate champions made gains in city council positions in major cities such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco and Portland.

Denver also approved an increase in sales tax to help fund climate and clean energy initiatives. And Columbus, Ohio passed a measure that would help the city secure more locally sourced renewable energy.

“City leadership is important for advancing climate action but new research finds U.S. cities falling behind,” Daniel Melling, communications manager for the UCLA Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, wrote for Legal Planet.

The bad stuff

An anticipated, decisive retaking of the Senate by Democrats never materialized, and whether it remains in Republican hands won’t be decided for bit. Two Georgia races are headed to a January runoff.

If Republicans do hang on to the Senate, that will mean any bold new climate legislation — or likely any meaningful environmental legislation at all — coming out of the House will be stymied, especially if Mitch McConnell retains his role as Senate leader.

Meanwhile several Republican senators with dismal environmental records will be back, including Iowa’s Joni Ernst, Mississippi’s Cindy Hyde-Smith, Alabama’s Tommy Tuberville and Roger Marshall from Kansas. Lindsay Graham, who has a mixed at best record when it comes to climate legislation, also returns.

While Colorado may have seen a blue wave, Montana was awash in red. A Republican sweep across the state included a victory by coal-industry ally Greg Gianforte, who took the governor’s mansion out of control of Democrats for the first time in 16 years.

Gianforte previously said he “would advocate as governor for increased port capacity on the West Coast to get coal to market,” reported E&E News. Montana coal production fell 21% during the pandemic.

“Montana didn’t just go Republican on Tuesday,” wrote Gwen Florio in The Nation. “It went deeply conservative Republican.” The effect of that will be felt not just on energy policy, but the fate of public lands and wildlife, including sage grouse and grizzlies.

In a new low, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia became the first QAnon conspiracy theory believer elected to Congress. In addition to a record of racist statements, she ran on a platform that included blocking the Green New Deal.

Democrats had hoped to make a small gain in Texas. But even $2.5 million in backing from Michael Bloomberg couldn’t get Democrat Chrysta Castañeda elected to the Texas Railroad Commission, which oversees issues related to oil and gas — a state race that has worldwide impact.

The race was won by Jim Wright, whom the Huffington Post describes as “a hardcore climate change denier and owner of an oil-field services company.”

The oil industry may have also garnered a victory in Alaska. There Measure 1, which would raise taxes on some North Slope oil companies, is trailing by a wide margin.

But when you tally it all up at the end of the day — or week, really — even McKibben had to concede that overall things are looking up.

“It could have gone much better,” he wrote on Nov. 7. “(Specifically, a deadlocked Senate will make action on the dominant issue of our lifetimes, climate change, more difficult to address than it should be.) But it went.”

Republicans are encouraging people to report voter fraud for up to a $1 million reward

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said Tuesday he is offering up to $1 million to “incentivize, encourage and reward” people for reports of voter fraud in Texas, even as there’s been no evidence of mass voter fraud and experts say it’s rare.

The Republican state leader’s crusade for proof of election problems in Texas comes as members of his own party dominated up and down the ballot.

Patrick said that anyone who provides information that leads to a conviction will receive at least $25,000. The money will come from Patrick’s campaign fund, according to spokesperson Sherry Sylvester.

“I support President Trump’s efforts to identify voter fraud in the presidential election and his commitment to making sure that every legal vote is counted and every illegal vote is disqualified,” Patrick said in a statement. “The delays in counting mail-in ballots in other states raises more questions about voter fraud and potential mistakes.”

He did not provide any evidence of mass voter fraud. His press release cited three recent arrests, including that of a social worker in Mexia, Texas, on counts of election fraud over allegations that the worker registered to vote 67 residents of a supported living center without their consent.

An unprecedented number of mail-in ballots during the coronavirus pandemic slowed ballot counting in a handful of states, including the key battleground state of Pennsylvania, where election officials were barred from processing them before Election Day. The Republican-controlled legislature shot down a request from Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar that would’ve allowed election officials to start counting mail-in ballots before polls closed.

“These people want to delegitimize votes in order to appeal to their Trumpian base,” said Abhi Rahman, a spokesperson for the Texas Democratic Party. “We know that there’s a lot of work to do here in Texas and Dan Patrick is in our sights in 2022.”

Texas Republicans managed to stave off Democratic gains, particularly in down-ballot congressional and state legislative races where Democrats hoped to shrink the ruling party’s margin. President Donald Trump carried Texas by nearly 6 percentage points, according to Decision Desk HQ.

Patrick, in an October interview with “The Mark Davis Show,” claimed that Democrats were trying to “steal the election.”

“If the president loses Pennsylvania or North Carolina, Mark, or Florida, they’ll lose it because they stole it,” he said, without evidence.

Trump’s campaign has filed a barrage of legal challenges in key states — including Georgia and Wisconsin — in an attempt to close the widening gap between the president and Joe Biden, who was declared president-elect on Saturday.

Those lawsuits, however, have so far failed to pan out. Judges tossed out cases in Nevada and Michigan because the Trump campaign failed to prove allegations of fraud, NPR reported.

Yet some of Texas’ most prominent Republicans, including U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, jumped to the president’s defense in recent days, amplifying baseless conspiracy theories or spreading misinformation.

“The right standard is that every single vote that was legally cast should be counted, but any votes that were illegally cast shouldn’t be counted,” Cruz said on Fox News’ “Hannity,” though he offered no evidence of fraud.

The Texas Tribune is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues. 

Trump campaign presents 238 pages of ridiculous GOP poll watcher affidavits

Political observers reacted with amusement as well as alarm late Wednesday after the Trump campaign presented a federal judge in Michigan with what it called “shocking” evidence of rampant so-called voter fraud—and what turned out to be a collection largely of poll watchers’ affidavits describing unpleasant encounters at ballot-counting centers on Election Day and in the days after. 

As part of its lawsuit asking a federal court to block the state of Michigan from certifying its election results—in which President-elect Joe Biden leads President Donald Trump by 148,000 votes—the campaign produced 238 pages of the affidavits which described poll watchers’ experiences of being stared at, disturbed by loud noises at the polls, and in some cases simply not understanding ballot counting procedures. 

Washington Post reporter David Farenthold summed up the affidavits as detailing “loud noises, mean stares, and a big man”—but no election fraud. 

A number of poll watchers reported feeling “intimidated” while observing voting and the tallying of ballots at the TCF Center in Detroit, the majority-Black city where Biden won 94% of the vote and Trump won only 5%. One affidavit described a group of union members coming across as intimidating to a poll watcher, while another woman said a “man of intimidating size” walked too closely to her and that she observed poll watchers wearing Black Lives Matter gear. 

“A generous way of stating it is that a lot of these Republican challengers seemed pretty uncomfortable around Black people,” HuffPostreporter Ryan J. Reilly tweeted.  

One observer complained that a public address system in the ballot counting center emitted loud messages from time to time, disrupting his concentration, while another found reason to suspect fraud after observing an unspecified, large number of ballots from military service members which cast votes for Biden.

“I had always been told that military personnel tended to be more conservative, so this stuck out to me as the day went on,” the poll watcher wrote.

“This really is the whole thing right here,” tweeted Isaac Saul, author of politics newsletter Tangle. “Just disbelief that Trump could lose.”

Polls taken in the run-up to the election found Trump’s popularity declining steadily among members of the military. Two months before Election Day, The Atlantic published an article describing comments the president made in which he called Americans who died in wars “losers” and “suckers.” 

The president’s numerous legal challenges to the election results have largely failed so far, with Trump lawyers forced to admit in a Pennsylvania court Tuesday that although the campaign wanted a judge to stop the Montgomery County Board of Elections to stop the counting of mail-in ballots, they could not argue that 592 ballots they were disputing were actually fraudulent.

The campaign and state-level Republican officials have even offered cash rewards to poll watchers and others who can present evidence of fraud, to no avail. 

“This is an effort to find a problem when one does not exist,” Roopali Desai, an attorney for Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D), said Monday in court in Arizona, where the campaign disseminated a false rumor that went viral on social media, alleging that ballots were rejected because voters used Sharpie pens to fill them out. 

In Michigan, some of the poll watchers who filed affidavits appeared unaware of standard ballot-counting procedures and safety protocols that have been put in place to avoid the spread of the coronavirus. 

One poll watcher noted that some absentee ballots were in “pristine condition” and suspected that they had not gone through the U.S. Postal Service—entirely possible, because Michigan allowed voters to drop off absentee ballots in drop boxes this year due to the pandemic. 

Others raised concerns about the ballot duplication process, in which election workers duplicate a ballot, marking the same selections made by the voter, if a counting machine is unable to read the document. Detroit officials confirmed that the duplication process was done correctly, according to the Post. 

“Really the themes that we see, that persist, are this: Black people are corrupt, Black people are incompetent, and Black people can’t be trusted,” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel told the Detroit Free Press on Wednesday of the campaign’s lawsuits alleging fraud. “That’s the narrative that is continually espoused by the Trump campaign and their allies in these lawsuits.” 

Trump plans “vote-count rallies” to “wreck” Fox News in bid to launch competing network: report

President Donald Trump plans to hold “vote-counting rallies” with a focus on attacking Fox News after telling allies he wants to start a digital media company that would “clobber” the conservative news outlet, according to a new report.

Trump intends to bring back his rallies after his election loss, and he is “going to spend a lot of time slamming Fox,” a source told Axios. Trump has long been rumored to want his own cable news outlet to compete with the network, but Axios reports that he is now considering a “cheaper” digital streaming network, which would more directly compete with the Fox Nation streaming platform.

Though the president has reportedly considered “promptly” announcing a 2024 presidential bid, rumors have swirled for years that he wants to use his conservative popularity to launch a Trump-branded media network. Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner floated the launch of such a network ahead of the election, according to Business Insider, and discussions about launching a “Trump TV” network have continued this year, according to The New York Times.

Trump has often complained that Fox News’ coverage is no longer as fawning as it once was even as hosts like Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson push baseless claims to sow doubt in the election results.

“Fox has changed a lot,” Trump said during an interview on “Fox & Friends” ahead of the election. “Somebody said, ‘What’s the biggest difference between this and four years ago?’ And I say Fox. I’m not complaining — I’m just telling people. It’s one of the biggest differences this season compared to last.”

More recently, Trumpworld has been particularly incensed at Fox News for its early call of Arizona. Fox News, along with the Associated Press, projected President-elect Joe Biden to win the once deep red state on election night. Trump demanded that his team “get that result changed,” according to The Washington Post. White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and top aide Hope Hicks, who previously worked as chief communications officer for the parent company of Fox News, repeatedly called the network to “get the call reversed,” the outlet reported. Kushner even called Fox News chief Rupert Murdoch to ask for the network to retract its call, The Times revealed. 

Fox News’ decision desk doubled down on its call in the face of mounting pressure, prompting Hannity, an informal adviser said to have pillow talk with Trump, to publicly lash out at his own colleagues. 

“Many people have not called Arizona,” Hannity said on Monday. “Those that called early made a huge mistake.”

But while Trump allies and Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, insisted that there were enough votes left to count for Trump to catch up, there now appears to be “no path back” for Trump to win Arizona, according to the Cook Political Report’s Dave Wasserman.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, told the Fox Business Network on Wednesday that Biden would win Arizona. Trump’s lawsuit in the state, which challenges just 180 ballots, would not “make a difference,” he added. 

But Trump still intends to use the Arizona call to attack the network at his upcoming events, according to Axios.

“He plans to wreck Fox,” a source told the outlet. “No doubt about it.”

In true Trump fashion, however, Trump TV does not actually appear to be headed to cable, because getting picked up by providers “would be expensive and time-consuming,” Axios reported. Instead, Trump would likely launch a digital network that would “charge a monthly fee to MAGA fans” akin to Fox Nation, which charges viewers $5.99 a month. Trump is expected to use his massive database of supporters’ emails and phone numbers to promote the launch, according to the outlet.

Fox News executives do not appear to be worried about Trump’s desire to launch a competitor.

“We love competition. We have always thrived with competition,” Fox Corp. CEO Lachlan Murdoch reportedly said on an earnings call earlier this month. “Fox News has been the number one network, including broadcast networks . . . from Labor Day through to Election Day.”

Though Fox News has hit its highest ratings in the Trump era, “they don’t tend to back losers,” a longtime Rupert Murdoch confidant told The Times.

Some of the president’s most loyal supporters have already switched from Fox, whose news side anchors have increasingly pushed back on the president’s baseless claims of fraud and irregularities, to Newsmax TV, which has pushed the president’s dubious legal effort, according to CNN. Hosts like former White House press secretary Sean Spicer have seen their ratings rise nearly eightfold since the election.

“Newsmax’s sudden gains are about demand meeting supply. There is a demand for content that swears Biden is not president-elect; that Trump is not a loser; that Trump might even win a second term,” CNN’s Brian Stelter reported. “. . . The five stages of grief are on full display in the pro-Trump universe. The first two stages, denial and anger, are the most perceptible. There are some signs of bargaining and depression too. So far, there aren’t many signs of the final stage, acceptance.”

Stelter predicted Trump might launch a competitor to Fox News during an appearance on Salon Talks earlier this year. However, the chips may not fall as planned. 

“He might become a rival. And in that case, I think Fox is bigger than Trump. I do. I may be proven wrong. Now I’m on the record saying this, but I think that Fox is bigger than Trump,” Stelter told Salon’s Dean Obeidallah. “He would have a hard time launching a Fox rival. It would be one thing to start what he’s doing for his campaign, which is web video shows. But for him to launch a widely distributed television network in 80 million homes and get a Nielsen rating on it, I think would be very, very difficult. It’s possible, but I think it’d be very difficult.”

Al Schmidt, the Republican city commissioner of Philadelphia, who has spent days debunking Trump-backed conspiracy theories about the vote in Pennsylvania, warned that Trump supporters pushing the baseless claims of voter fraud were being misled by “bad actors who are lying.”

“One thing I can’t comprehend,” he told CNN, “is how hungry people are to consume lies and to consume information that is not true.”

Joe Biden considering Hillary Clinton for United Nations ambassador post: report

President-elect Joe Biden is continuing to prepare to assume office on January 20th despite Donald Trump’s refusal to concede after losing the 2020 election.

“The president-elect on Thursday also traveled to Rehoboth Beach, Del., where he has a vacation home and where he is expected to stay through part of the weekend. Biden, who on Wednesday named Washington veteran Ronald A. Klain as his incoming White House chief of staff, is not expected to formally announce other administration personnel this week,” The Washington Post reported Thurday evening. “But behind-the-scenes conversations between Capitol Hill and the transition team continued to occur, and Biden’s team has also tapped a coterie of senior House and Senate Democratic officials to serve as liaisons to Hill offices until Biden officially assumes the presidency, according to congressional aides.”

“One intriguing name being discussed privately is former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, according to the person familiar with the chatter who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The thinking behind the move was that it would be a way for Biden to highlight the importance of that position in his administration, and that placing her there would raise the prestige of the U.N. itself at a time when global cooperation, and the U.S. role on the world stage, has ebbed,” the newspaper reported.

Read the full report.

Trump tells aides “he will announce a 2024 campaign” after election is certified for Biden: report

Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times correspondent Maggie Haberman on Thursday evening reported on what has been going on inside the White House since Joe Biden was declared president-elect.

“There is no grand strategy at play, according to interviews with a half-dozen advisers and people close to the president. Mr. Trump is simply trying to survive from one news cycle to the next, seeing how far he can push his case against his defeat and ensure the continued support of his Republican base,” Haberman reported. “By dominating the story of his exit from the White House, he hopes to keep his millions of supporters energized and engaged for whatever comes next.”

Haberman reported Trump’s “mood is often bleak” as he watches television coverage of Biden’s victory.

“Some advisers had hoped that Mr. Trump would accept the state of the race by the end of this week, but a looming recount in Georgia may delay that. The president has told some advisers that if the race is certified for Mr. Biden, he will announce a 2024 campaign shortly afterward,” Haberman reported. “The president’s goal for now is to delay certification of the election results, a process that has begun in some states. But his approach to lawsuits aimed at delaying that certification has been as scattered as his own thinking about the future.”

Zuckerberg said Bannon’s calls for beheadings on Facebook “clearly did not cross the line”: report

On Thursday, Reuters reported that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told staff that former Trump adviser Steve Bannon has not violated enough rules to be banned from the site.

“We have specific rules around how many times you need to violate certain policies before we will deactivate your account completely,” said Zuckerberg. “While the offenses here, I think, came close to crossing that line, they clearly did not cross the line.”

Bannon, who is currently facing criminal charges for his role in a scam fund to build a border wall that appears to have been funneled into his pocket, caused controversy when he posted a video calling for FBI Director Christopher Wray and COVID-19 task force expert Anthony Fauci to be beheaded. Facebook took down the video — and removed a set of Bannon-controlled pages spreading disinformation about the election — but left up Bannon’s main page.

 

Kamala Harris names herself and seeks redemption, empowering so many of us to do the same

Mary J. Blige’s “Work That” set the tone as Vice President-elect Kamala Harris approached the stage to make her victory speech on Nov. 7. She became the first woman, Black person, and person of South Asian heritage elected vice president of the United States. She broke the highest glass ceiling of her life, while willing her way to the White House.

Despite accomplishing so much, Sen. David Perdue of Georgia, who worked alongside Harris for three years willfully misnamed her at a rally last month. “Kah-mah-lah? Kah-MAH-lah? Kamala-mala-mala,” he said, “I don’t know. Whatever.” Comedian and writer Amber Ruffin, who now has her own Peacock show, took to Twitter to address the entrenched racism in mispronouncing Black and non-Anglo names, “When Black folks got off slaves ships white people renamed us, so when we finally got some freedom we decided to take our names back. We took our power back,” she said. In that same vein, when Harris made her victory speech, the proud Howard University alum cited her mother Shyamala coming to America and the generations of women who paved the way for her. Harris was metaphorically naming herself, telling her story the way she sees fit.

When I heard that speech I thought about “I Am,” the seventh episode of HBO’s “Lovecraft Country” in which interdimensional being Seraphina AKA Beyond C’est (Karen LeBlanc) challenges Hippolyta Freeman (Aunjanue Ellis) to name herself. “Where do you want to be? Name it. Who do you want to be? Name it,” Beyond C’est says.

Harris has been making that name for herself and establishing her place in America for decades. She became the first Black woman to be elected district attorney in California history, the first woman to be California’s attorney general, first South Asian American senator. Being a trailblazer requires a far-reaching vision and sense of purpose. Her familiarity with fighting begins from a young age, growing up in liberal Oakland and Berkeley, and going to civil rights marches as a child with her parents, she says she had a “stroller-eye view of the Civil Rights Movement.” This helped inspire her from a young age and inform her of what it means to fight for a more equitable future. 

During a special election day event honoring Harris on the campus of Howard University, Salon spoke with Dr. Elaine Witter, one of the line sisters initiated in 1986 along with Harris. She noted good-natured optimism as a key aspect of how Harris has been able to accomplish so much, especially as a leader.

“One thing that balances her out is that she has a wonderful sense of humor. She’s very friendly; while we’re getting the work done, we are always having fun. It’s not surprising that her hard work has paid off and she’s prepared. She is ready to take on challenges as she sees it, and when she’s faced with it,” Witter said. 

Harris’ triumph allows women, especially Black women, to expand the way that we see ourselves and name ourselves in a society that more often than not casts us into roles and decides the value of our lives. There are so many fights we’ve waged and lost. It’s easy to succumb to a series of circumstances, wrongdoings, injustices, and tether who you are to them. The ability to name yourself a victor instead of a victim is essential to Harris’ rise in leadership. 

Part of naming yourself is also taking responsibility and accounting for the actions that are attached to your name. In moving forward, Harris has the chance to continue to write her legacy and put to rest all the things she’s been called outside of her name, like a “top cop,” the lingering narrative of Harris “locking up Black people in California.” She had served as San Francisco’s District Attorney from 2011 to 2017, and one of her top priorities during this time was to fight federal policies that she believed put many Black people in prison. Unfortunately, she also found procedural grounds to keep innocent people locked up, contradicting herself.

In this year especially, everyone including Harris must look at how the police and our prison systems have perpetuated unfair, racist practices. Recently, she commented on Biden’s 1994 Crime Bill, acknowledging that it did “contribute to mass incarceration in our country. It encouraged and was the first time that we had a federal three-strikes law. It funded the building of more prisons in the states. So, I disagree, sadly.” 

Along her presidential campaign trail she emphasized the importance of ending mass incarceration, cash bail, and the death penalty; creating a national police systems review board; and making attending historically Black colleges and universities debt-free for students. It’s a series of strong promises that seek to rewrite some of the ways she maneuvered the criminal justice system. Although we know all of these things may not be accomplished over the span of four years, this opportunity should be seen as her chance at redemption.

In “Lovecraft,” Beyond C’est grants Hippolyta’s first wish – to be dancing in Paris with Josephine Baker, an American-born French entertainer, French Resistance agent, freemason, and civil rights activist. However, Hippolyta’s jaunt into Baker’s life reveals the full realm of possibilities available to Black women outside of America. “I see what I was robbed of back there [in my America],” Hippolyta says. “I feel like they just found a smart way to lynch me without me noticing the noose.” Sometimes it takes someone else showing you your limitlessness, how boundless your vision should be.

This is what Vice President-elect Harris’s historic win represents, after four long years of an endless assault on democracy. As a Black woman, her win feels like the ultimate victory, a moment the ancestors pushed so hard towards. The hundreds of years standing on the frontlines for our communities, and losing more, but fervently staying the course. The work is paying off. I feel parts of myself heal. I feel reinvigorated, to expand the ways I see myself, despite the endless fight.

The “I Am” episode of “Lovecraft Country” ends with Hippolyta fighting, despite her newfound liberation. Despite our advances in this country, there’s still work to be done and we’re fighting for ourselves to know the same sense of freedom Hippolyta felt when she allowed herself to envision where and who she wanted to be . . .  but she was also given the space, access, and support to do so. This is the plight of many Black women who work to foster change not only for themselves but for future generations. Collectively, we have the opportunity to rename ourselves.

Why Biden’s free childcare plan is a worthy feminist reform

Joe Biden wasn’t the first choice for many women during the Democratic presidential primaries, yet the president-elect’s social agenda has proven to be surprisingly feminist in its orientation. Nowhere is this clearer than in his proposal for subsidizing toddler-age childcare, a progressive platform that has earned plaudits from feminists and which has been a local success story in local jurisdictions in which it has been implemented. 

According to the Biden-Harris transition website, the administration plans to make it “far easier to afford child care and to ensure aging relatives and people with disabilities have better access to home and community-based care.” The new administration also promises to “elevate the pay, benefits, and professional opportunities for caregivers and educators; to create millions of good-paying new jobs in these areas with a choice to join a union; and to free up millions of people to join the labor force and grow a stronger economy in return.”

This refers to the $775 billion plan Biden announced while campaigning in Delaware in July, when Biden proposed a national pre-K for all children ages 3 and 4. In that proposal, families earning less than $125,000 a year would receive an $8,000 child care tax credit per child, up to $16,000. Parents earning less than 1.5 times the median income in their state could subsidize child care and would pay no more than 7 percent of their income. Those with a very low income would pay nothing.

Notably, the pandemic’s economic affects are seriously setting back gender equality, as I’ve previously written. Large swaths of women in America left the workforce or cut down their hours to be a stay at home caregiver during the pandemic. As of May 2020, women account for 54 percent of initial coronavirus-related job losses. According to the Women in the Workplace report, Black women said they were more likely to consider stepping away from their careers due to the pandemic. One in four women are thinking of either leaving the workforce of downshifting their careers—a move that would have been dubbed “unthinkable” last year.

This is all to say that the Biden-Harris administration’s focus on reviving the economy will largely hinge on whether it prioritizes making it easier to get women back to work, and that means universal childcare.

Research shows that universal preschool can have a big impact on the economy. For example, Washington D.C. has been running what is arguably the most comprehensive universal childcare for three and four-year olds since 2009; it spends an estimated $17,545 per child enrolled in preschool, which is the highest any state (or district, in this case) pays in the country. A Center for American Progress study found that this program increased the city’s maternal labor force participation by 12 percentage points. In D.C., the labor participation rate for mothers with 3- and 4-year-olds is now about the same as it is for mothers with kids in elementary school, which is already free and compulsory. These positive trends were observed among both low-income and high-income families; the largest participation increases were among mothers without a high school degree, according to the study.

“These results suggest that two years of universal, full-day preschool is associated with a large positive effect on maternal labor supply—comparable in magnitude to the impact found in studies of universal preschool programs in other countries,” the Center for American Progress study noted. “On a national scale, policies that support maternal labor force attachment could contribute to faster growth in gross domestic product (GDP); stronger financial security for young families; and fewer career sacrifices by women, who assume a disproportionate share of their families’ care responsibilities.”

As Vox explained in 2018, the D.C. program has had some unintended consequences, specifically on private child care business, which became less likely to take infants and toddlers at subsidized rates.

Yet the Biden-Harris plan doesn’t just focus on making it easier for families to afford childcare. It is also a jobs plan. First, it proposes a bailout for child care centers, many of which are at risk of closing due to the pandemic. A survey of California providers by the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment (CSCCE) found that 80 percent of open child care programs face higher costs associated with pandemic cleaning requirements; in some cases, these centers are funding the additional costs themselves. The survey found that 77 percent of that state’s child care centers lost income due to the pandemic, and it warned that without more public funding “the California child care industry will continue to collapse.”

In July, when Biden revealed his plan, he also called for an increase in pay for child care workers, along with health benefits and freedom to unionize. A CSCCE report found that 57 percent of pre-K teaching staff report household incomes of less than $30,000 a year. Many caregivers in general aren’t paid, and hence, the Biden-Harris plan proposes to give these unpaid caregivers a $5,000 tax credit in addition to Social Security credits.

The inclusiveness and intersectionality of the Biden-Harris plan makes it effectively a feminist reform. Three-fourths of American teachers are women, while over half of the country’s family or informal caregivers are women. Meanwhile, women are more likely to sacrifice their careers when a crisis hits home, as they generally make less money than men. A workforce without affordable childcare and one that treats caregivers less than they deserve is the modern-day equivalent of the dire conditions faced by impoverished seamstresses in the late nineteenth century: long hours, no bathroom breaks, unsafe working conditions. These conditions kept many women out of the workforce. I’d argue that today’s economic climate is not too dissimilar, in that it stresses mothers, their families, and oft-underpaid and undervalued professional female caregivers.

Besides D.C., a few other American cities and counties have enacted subsidized or universal childcare policies. Last week, Multnomah County, home of Portland, Oregon, passed one of the most progressive universal preschool policies in the nation, Measure 26-214. Universal preschool advocates in Portland won by assembling a coalition of parents, teachers, unions, and progressive groups like the Democratic Socialists of America; the newly-passed measure is funded by a progressive income tax. “By making preschool free for every 3- and 4-year-old and guaranteeing preschool workers a living wage, Measure 26-214 gives Multnomah County families options, lets kids thrive, and addresses the deep inequities in our community,” the proposition’s boosters in Oregon argued. Now, Biden’s similar plan may see such progressive feminist reforms grow beyond local communities like Portland and D.C., with resounding economic effects. 

As winter approaches, America’s racist produce distribution system makes food insecurity worse

In late July, a group of Kentucky gardeners and farmers marched through downtown Louisville, pushing wheelbarrows and demanding justice for Breonna Taylor, the 26-year-old unarmed Black woman who was fatally shot by Louisville Metro Police Officers in March. 

They started at a local farmer’s market and moved 1-1/2 miles westward, towards Jefferson Square Park — now called Injustice Square, after serving as the nightly gathering place for protesters — where they had planted Breonna’s Roots, an edible garden that was bursting with summer produce like ruby red tomatoes and peppers, deep purple eggplants and bunches of kale, dill, rosemary and parsley.

According to volunteer Jody Dahmer, the vegetables were harvested and transported a few miles further west to be distributed in Russell, one of Louisville’s historically Black neighborhoods that is also one of the city’s most barren food deserts. There are only two accessible major supermarkets to serve nearly 60,000 residents (and there’s a longstanding rumor among food access advocates in the community that the nearest Kroger will eventually close permanently, after it shuttered sporadically amid protests, leaving only one option). 

But now, the weather is snapping cold. Temperatures dip into the low 30s overnight, and soon, Injustice Square will be blanketed with morning frost, so the garden volunteers are having to pivot. 

“With frost dates approaching, we are focusing on cole crops,” Dahmer said, referring to a designation of cruciferous vegetables like broccoli and brussels sprouts that grow better in cooler temperatures. “But [we] also have garlic and onions planted between.” 

This isn’t a unique conversation — all across the country, community garden leaders are having to adapt their plots for the winter or, in some cases, simply latch the garden gates behind them until early spring. But in food insecure neighborhoods, those decisions can have a community-wide impact on produce access, a sad reality that is particularly evident during the colder months. 

“It becomes a real scarcity over winter,” said Cordia Pugh, the founder of Hermitage Community Gardens in Chicago. “A real scarcity as we race through the winter, waiting for spring to come when we can get back in the gardens to get fresh produce.” 

Pugh spoke with Salon earlier this year about her community gardens, which are located in Englewood, where, according to municipal data, nearly 95% of the neighborhood’s residents are non-Hispanic Black, and nearly 80% of that population lives with low or volatile access to fresh produce. 

“This is not hobby gardening, this is food security for us,” Pugh said at the time. “This is food insurance in the epicenter of a food desert. If we did not grow this fresh produce, we would not have fresh produce accessible to us. There is no accessible big box store in this community — or if we bought it through those venues, it would be from vendors that would quadruple the price.” 

Typically, Pugh works with garden volunteers over the spring and summer to preserve fresh produce for the colder months, but the pandemic lockdowns and social distancing recommendations drastically impacted that initiative. There is very little produce stockpiled, as a result, and Pugh said that she’s currently in the midst of attempting to get fresh produce boxes to her garden members. 

“I’m speaking out of my own desperation this year, because I’m really scrambling now to get the resources in place for fresh produce food distribution over the course of November through April of next year,” Pugh said. “Especially because some of our members don’t have access — financially or otherwise — to those big box stores.”

And even if they can get to the store, Pugh said, there’s no guarantee that the quality of the produce available will be the same as in stores in more affluent or mixed-race areas. 

This is a well-documented phenomenon. In 2010, The Food Trust, a Philadelphia-based food access nonprofit, and the Oakland-based PolicyLink published “The Grocery Gap,” a comprehensive paper that detailed how, in hundreds of lower-income communities of color, access to healthier foods like high-quality produce, high-fiber bread and low-fat milk was compromised. 

In Louisville, Shauntrice Martin has taken the last several months to examine these disparities, focusing specifically on the city’s food deserts, like Russell. Martin is the founder and director of #FeedTheWest, a community food justice initiative that advocates for a Black-owned, fresh food source for residents. 

She published her findings under the title, “The Bok Choy Project,” wherein she compared five Krogers across five different zip codes, assessing four characteristics: the number of organic produce options available, the presence of police officers, the Black population of said zip code, and the availability of bok choy. 

According to Martin, she chose bok choy as a stand-in for “premium produce” because it was an item that she only saw on shelves once she moved out of West Louisville to Maryland when she was in her 20s. Now that she’s back, she definitely sees discrepancies in selection and quality between the supermarkets in the zip code with 11%  Black population — 11 organic produce options — compared to the one with 92%, which had only three organic options. 

“When you walk into that store, there is an ‘organic section,'” Martin said. “But it usually only has pears and apples. The rest of it is conventional produce. It’s wilted, some of it is rotten or expired on the shelf.” 

These are the options that are available, Martin and Pugh said, for food insecure communities, which statistically tend to be lower-income communities of color. And while community gardens like Hermitage Community Gardens and Breonna’s Roots serve as a stopgap in warmer months, they aren’t a replacement for equitable food access and distribution systems. 

In Toronto, the food access nonprofit FoodShare spends a lot of time thinking about what food security actually means and what food sovereignty would look like in Northern climates that experience winter. According to Natalie Boustead, the organization’s community gardens leader, a lot of our current eating habits are reliant on expensive greenhouse production and imported items to maintain a level of consistency in our diets throughout the year. 

“Which, if we were actually eating locally, seasonally [and] within a framework of true self-reliance here in Northern climates, would not be possible,” Boustead said. “If we were to shift our cultural expectations around eating seasonally to involve only eating dried fruits, and fermented, salted and sugared foods from summer harvest . . . we may have a shot at actual food sovereignty and self-sufficiency.”

Not to mention, she said, there would need to be a complete overhaul of North America’s racist food distribution system. 

“Until all of that begins to shift, there are very few deeply meaningful ways that those experiencing food insecurity in an urban setting can do to lessen their systematically entrenched relationship to an unfair food system, especially in winter months,” she said. 

Obama: Trump “promised an elixir” for the “racial anxiety” of Americans spooked by a Black president

Former President Barack Obama‘s post-presidency memoir directly confronts the tide of racism that swept President Donald Trump into office, casting his successor’s candidacy as a salve for millions of Americans who were “spooked” by a Black man in the White House.

“It was as if my very presence in the White House had triggered a deep-seated panic, a sense that the natural order had been disrupted,” Obama writes in the new book. “Which is exactly what Donald Trump understood when he started peddling assertions that I had not been born in the United States and was thus an illegitimate president. For millions of Americans spooked by a Black man in the White House, he promised an elixir for their racial anxiety.”

In the first volume of the memoir, which is titled “A Promised Land” and scheduled for release on Nov. 17, Obama reflects on his youth, political rise, 2008 presidential campaign and first few years in office. The 768-page tome culminates in the raid on Osama Bin Laden’s Pakistan compound, according to a copy of the book obtained by CNN. (A release date for the second volume has not been set.)

CNN reports that Obama’s “most thoughtful examination” is his condemnation of the Republican Party’s evolution during his presidency — an open embrace of the right wing’s darkest qualities in response to his election, beginning with 2008 Republican nominee John McCain’s decision to share his ticket with former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

“Through Palin, it seemed as if the dark spirits that had long been lurking on the edges of the modern Republican Party — xenophobia, anti intellectualism, paranoid conspiracy theories, an antipathy toward Black and brown folks — were finding their way to center stage,” Obama writes.

The former president adds that he “wonder(s) sometimes” about whether McCain would have picked Palin if he knew that “her spectacular rise and her validation as a candidate would provide a template for future politicians, shifting his party’s center and the country’s politics overall in a direction he abhorred.”

Obama ultimately lands on McCain’s side: “I’d like to think that given the chance to do it over again, he might have chosen differently. I believe he really did put his country first.”

But the former president does not spare Trump, beginning with his eventual successor’s propagation of the racist lie that Obama was not born in the U.S.

Obama’s White House first viewed birtherism as something of a joke, according to the former president. However, Obama soon saw the racist movement in a larger context — a part of the Republican Party’s appeal to white voters’ “visceral” reaction to the first Black president. That view “had migrated from the fringe of GOP politics to the center an emotional, almost visceral, reaction to my presidency, distinct from any differences in policy or ideology,” Obama writes.

In Obama’s telling, Trump did not exist as an aberration even then. Instead, he fit into the mainstream Republican Party’s overall devaluation of truth.

“In that sense, there wasn’t much difference between Trump and [former House Speaker John] Boehner or [Senate Majority Leader] McConnell. They, too, understood that it didn’t matter whether what they said was true,” Obama writes. “In fact, the only difference between Trump’s style of politics and theirs was Trump’s lack of inhibition.”

“We’re better than this,” Obama told his aides after he eventually released his long-form birth certificate against their advice.

The former president also writes about his relationship with then-Vice President Joe Biden. Obama says he picked Biden, now president-elect, in part because he would be “more than ready to serve as president if something happened to me.”

“What mattered most, though, was what my gut told me — that Joe was decent, honest, and loyal. I believed that he cared about ordinary people, and that when things got tough, I could trust him,” Obama writes. “I wouldn’t be disappointed.”

Obama also reflects positively on the transition from former President George W. Bush’s administration, saying that “I promised myself that when the time came, I would treat my successor the same way.”

That successor, of course, was Trump, a figure who rode to the White House on a wave of politicized racial resentment, which began to rise during Obama’s first term.

At one point, Obama recalls how his wife, Michelle Obama, reacted when she “caught a glimpse” on TV of a rally promoting the hyper-conservative Tea Party movement.

“She seized the remote and turned off the set, her expression hovering somewhere between rage and resignation,” Obama writes. “‘It’s a trip, isn’t it?’ she said . . . ‘That they’re scared of you. Scared of us.'”

Arizona’s Republican attorney general sees “no evidence” of voter fraud: Voters backed GOP—not Trump

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich refuted President Donald Trump’s baseless claims that the election was stolen from him, adding that the numbers show President-elect Joe Biden will carry the once deep red state.

Brnovich, a Republican, said Trump’s lawsuit in the state alleging that poll workers in Maricopa County did not follow protocols in letting voters fix ballot mistakes would not affect more than 200 votes.

“Even if it was possible that those votes flip — those 200 votes — I cannot think it will make a difference in Arizona just because of the numbers,” Brnovich told the Fox Business Network. “There is no evidence — there [are] no facts that will lead anyone to believe that the election results will change.”

Biden currently leads Trump by more than 11,000 votes in Arizona, which both the Associated Press and Fox News projected him to win on Election Day. With fewer than 50,000 votes left to count from primarily Biden-leaning counties, the Cook Political Report’s Dave Wasserman said there appeared to be “no path back” for Trump to win the state.

“It is mathematically possible that the president could win 65% of the (remaining) votes,” Brnovich said. “But — I’m just saying — if you talk to political people, pollsters, mathematicians, statisticians, they’ll say that based on the trend line, that’s not likely to happen.”

Brnovich pointed out that Republicans held on to the state legislature and won key local races in Maricopa County, where Biden leads Trump.

“In Arizona, there was a prediction that the Legislature would flip; it didn’t. There was some congressional districts that supposedly leaned Democratic; they didn’t flip. The county recorder here — oversees elections — went from Democrat to Republican. The county attorney remained Republican,” Brnovich said. “If, indeed, there was some great conspiracy, it apparently didn’t work, since the county election official who is a Democrat lost and other Republicans won.”

Brnovich said that there was no evidence that voters rejected Republicans — only Trump and Sen. Martha McSally, R-Ariz., who previously lost her race for the Senate in 2018 before being appointed to fill the late Sen. John McCain’s seat.

“What really happened . . . was people split their ticket. People voted for Republicans down-ballot, but they didn’t vote for President Trump or Martha McSally. That’s the reality,” he said. “Just because that happened doesn’t mean it’s fraud.”

The attorney general added that Republicans should respect the “rule of law.”

“There was a time not that long ago — we, as Republicans, talked about [how] we need to make sure the rule of law means something,” he said. “To me, the rule of law is about having consistency and certainty in the application of law. We know what the rules are — and those rules stay the same, and they apply to everyone.”

Though some Republican lawmakers have echoed Trump’s unfounded claims of fraud and irregularities out of fear they will alienate his base of support ahead of the run-off elections for Georgia’s two Senate seats, which will determine the balance of power in the upper chamber, Republican officials who actually oversee elections have strongly pushed back on the claims.

The New York Times called election officials from both parties in all 50 states. The outlet found “no evidence that fraud or other election irregularities played a role in the outcome of the presidential race.” 

Though there were individual instances of illegal double voting and technical glitches, there has been zero evidence of any widespread fraud.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who was assailed by fellow Republicans as the state’s vote total tipped toward Biden, claimed that there were instances of illegal voting well short of the “numbers or margin necessary to change the outcome.”

“We were literally putting releases of results up at a minimum hourly. I and my office have been holding daily or twice-daily briefings for the press to walk them through all the numbers,” he said, adding allegations that vote counting had not been transparent were “laughable.”

Former George W. Bush strategist Karl Rove said Trump was well within his right to file lawsuits over “concerns about fraud and transparency” but warned that “the president’s efforts are unlikely to move a single state from Mr. Biden’s column, and certainly they’re not enough to change the final outcome.”

“There is no evidence” of fraud, Rove wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. “TV networks showed jubilant crowds in major cities celebrating Mr. Biden’s victory; they didn’t show the nearly equal number of people who mourned Mr. Trump’s defeat . . . Closing out this election will be a hard but necessary step toward restoring some unity and political equilibrium. Once his days in court are over, the president should do his part to unite the country by leading a peaceful transition and letting grievances go.”

Don’t panic: Trump’s coup will fail — but he’s turning GOP voters against democracy

Over the past week, Donald Trump has successfully sent a large chunk of the 78 million-plus Americans who voted for President-elect Joe Biden — the actual winner of the actual presidential election — into an emotional tailspin. Trump is still doing what the mainstream media gently describes as “refusing to concede”, but is in fact better described is throwing the world’s biggest and most childish tantrum, screaming “WE WILL WIN!” on Twitter and floating an endless stream of baseless conspiracy theories about the election.

Trump tantrums more than a roomful of tired toddlers, so this is no surprise. But what terrifies so many Biden voters — an astonishing number of people are complaining of panic attacks or lost sleep on social media — are the real moves Trump’s team and many Republican politicians are taking that make this less like a typical tantrum and more like a genuine attempted coup.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has trolled reporters by talking about Trump’s “second term”. General Services Administration head Emily Murphy, a Trump appointee, is refusing to sign paperwork that would allow the Biden transition team to begin work. Trump’s campaign is continuing to file relentless and frivolous suits, even though they’re getting promptly thrown out of court, making false allegations of “voter fraud.” Relatively few Republican elected officials will even admit that Biden won, and a healthy number are backing Trump’s false accusations that Democrats stole the election

But what really sent a lot of people around the bend was Trump’s petulant firing of various leaders at the Pentagon and in U.S. intelligence services, replacing them with loyalists apparently trained at Rep. Devin Nunes’ Camp for Incompetent Conspiracy Theorists. This triggered a fear response, largely due to outdated American notions of what a “coup” looks like, borne from half-remembered ’70s-era news footage of tanks and military fatigues in foreign countries. 


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


So let’s rest assured: Trump is going to leave office, one way or another, on Jan. 20. Sadly, it almost certainly won’t be because he forces the Secret Service to drag him out, since he knows better than anyone what would happen to his combover in such a situation. Trump’s one shot to invalidate the election required him to act before the ballots were counted, and now that’s over, there’s really nothing he can do.  No doubt he has some faint hope that yelling a lot is enough to steal an election, but he’s bound to fail. 

Mostly, the public chest-thumping and administrative tricks are designed to trick people into believing that some election reversal is still possible, both to troll the left and, perhaps more importantly, so Trump — who is anywhere from $425 million to over $1 billion in debt — can shake down his gullible supporters for more cash before he’s pushed out the door. 

Coups are hard, and they tend to fail. Donald Trump and a bunch of Nunes toadies sure aren’t organized and focused enough to pull it off in the face of nearly insurmountable obstacles. 

Trump will be slinking out of the White House in about nine weeks. But that doesn’t mean his reality TV-style failed coup isn’t dangerous. It’s very much is — because Trump is pushing his already vitriolic and authoritarian followers further down the path towards rejecting democracy entirely. 

“NOW 73,000,000 LEGAL VOTES!” Trump tweeted late Wednesday evening, only slightly exaggerating his vote haul, which is indeed a depressing 72.4 million people. 

Of course, Biden has 77.6 million votes and counting, putting him well over 5 million votes ahead. But of course the implication of all Trump’s prattling about “legal” and “illegal” votes — language that is being picked up by all manner of Republican politicians — is that Democratic votes are somehow not legal.

This is, it should go without saying, preposterous. But it’s the clear message being sent by all the outrage from Trump and his minions at the pedestrian fact that Democrats voted and that those votes are being counted. This outrage is being fueled, unsurprisingly, by racism, as evidenced the way the rage is focused especially on cities like Philadelphia and Detroit, which are far bluer than the bright red rural districts that surround them. 

The result is that Trump is no closer to securing a second term than he was on Nov. 4, but he is likely driving his supporters to feel even more hostile to the very concept of democracy, and especially of the right to vote being extended to Americans they see as less American than they are

A poll released Wednesday by the Economist and YouGov shows that 86% of Trump voters believe that Biden did not legitimately win the election. Biden did win, of course — and won by overcoming a significant Republican-directed efforts at both making it harder to vote and harder to count the votes. 


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


Trump’s fans don’t hold this illogical belief because of any evidence that Biden ran anything but a squeaky clean campaign. Unlike the incumbent, after all, Biden didn’t have the power to cheat by doing things like slowing down the mail. After thoroughly canvassing election officials in every state, the New York Times found no evidence of voter fraud. The “evidence” being presented by Trump’s lawyers so far is so laughable the cases are getting bounced out of court almost immediately. Trump’s people are so desperate to find someone, anyone, who will claim there was fraud that they’ve been floating million-dollar rewards and cold-calling voters at random, begging them to say that their own vote was illegal. (I got such a phone call on Thursday morning.) 

No, the reason that Trump voters are clinging to this idea that Biden’s win is “illegitimate” is the not-remotely-subtle implication that Biden’s voters are “illegitimate” — because they’re disproportionately not white, because they disproportionately live in cities, or just because they’re liberals. Trump fans are sharing memes that show that Democratic voters tend to be more concentrated in cities than Republican voters, as if “more people per square mile” should mean less of a right to vote. 

Trump will leave office, but this notion that Republican votes should be the only “legal” and official ones, will linger on after he’s gone. Bitteer resentment about having to share power with people who aren’t white, Christian or conservative is what fueled Trump’s rise in the first place. He has spent the past five years encouraging his supporters in their bigoted belief that they’re the only Americans who count — and therefore the only Americans whose votes should count. His last weeks in office look like they will be defined by his bitter, pugnacious insistence that any vote, anywhere, that wasn’t for him should be illegal. 

Kayleigh McEnany refers questions to White House in Fox News appearance as Trump campaign adviser

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, who has supplemented her taxpayer-funded government work with a role as a senior adviser to President Donald Trump’s failed re-election campaign, referred questions to the White House during a Fox News appearance in her campaign role.

McEnany, who in late October drew criticism for the dual roles, declined to tell “Fox & Friends” co-host Brian Kilmeade whether her boss would give President-elect Joe Biden access to the highly classified President’s Daily Brief — which Trump rarely reads, according to multiple reports.

“I haven’t spoken to the president about that. That would be a question more for the White House,” McEnany said before addressing the issue from the White House’s perspective. “But I will say that all laws are being followed with regard to an expected transition, though we expect to continue on as the Trump administration. We will see how our litigation goes.”

McEnany spoke in front of an image of the White House. McEnany’s network appearances in her personal capacity potentially violate the Hatch Act, the federal law which bars federal employees from engaging in political activity in their official roles, according to government ethics watchdogs.

McEnany, who in April left her job as Trump campaign spokesperson to join the administration, was introduced in a Fox Business segment last month as “Trump 2020 senior adviser and White House press secretary.” During another appearance on the same day, with McEnany in front of images of both the White House and the Trump campaign logo, Fox Business Network host Stuart Varney told viewers that she was “serving now as adviser for the Trump campaign.”

A Trump campaign spokesperson told Salon at the time that cable news shows had been instructed not to refer to McEnany by her White House title, a directive which Kilmeade appeared not to fully adhere to on Thursday.

“Kayleigh McEnany joins us. She’s got a dual role. Here, she’s on as a Trump 2020 campaign adviser,” Kilmeade said, referring abstractly to the press secretary’s administration role.

“She’s playing a delicate balancing act,” national security attorney Bradley Moss told Salon. “In a normal administration, this would never be tolerated. With this one, we know they only care about the Hatch Act whenever it’s convenient.”

“Kayleigh McEnany’s salary is being paid by American taxpayers. Rather than doing that job, she spends her time volunteering on the president’s already-lost campaign,” Jordan Libowitz, communications director for government ethics watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told Salon.

“She walks a very tight line not to violate the Hatch Act,” Libowitz continued. “It could be completely avoided if she just focused on the job she was paid to do — something you’d expect when more than 1,000 Americans are dying a day in a pandemic, and the president hasn’t made public comments in a week.”

McEnany attempted to defend her latest “Fox & Friends” appearance by falsely claiming it was protected by the Constitution on Twitter.

“When you enter government, you do not lose First Amendment rights,” she tweeted later on Thursday. “Hatch Act says to separate govt & political activity, which I diligently work to do. Reporters (who ironically have freedom of press embedded in the 1st Amendment), are complaining about my 1A right to speech!”

Despite that diligence, McEnany — speaking in front of an image of the White House — still spoke with White House authority, assuring “Fox & Friends” viewers that the administration was following “all laws” and “we” expect to have a second term.

The White House appears to bask in Hatch-related controversies. Former counsel to the president Kellyanne Conway was accused of violating the rule 50 times on Twitter alone — before 2019 — a pattern so flagrant that the Office of Special Counsel recommended her removal. (Trump did not remove Conway.)

But while some see McEnany’s cable news appearances as an extension of the same behavior, others smell desperation.

“They’re scrambling to get competent people in front of the cameras,” Moss said. “After four years, this administration has such a thin bench of sycophants willing to defend their position that they’ll use whomever is willing.”

So-called “Latino vote” is 32 million Americans with diverse political opinions and national origins

Pundits are expressing surprise that so many Latinos voted for Donald Trump.

But pollsters who specialize in the Latino vote knew for months before the election that Latino support for Biden was soft, with many Latinos — especially in Florida — undecided. In Florida 57% of Latinos ultimately supported Biden, compared to roughly 70% nationwide.

These numbers are reliable because they come from exit polls designed to capture Latino political preferences. National exit polls have been mostly wrong about Latino voting patterns since they first began including Latinos in the 1980s.

The 60.6 million Americans lumped together under the umbrella term “Latino” are a racially, ethnically and geographically diverse group, as my research on Latino identity shows. And they have equally diverse political opinions.

Florida: Not just Cubans

Latino-focused tracking polls from Equis Research conducted in May showed that Latino support for Trump ranged widely, from 15% in Wisconsin to 31% in Florida.

Latino voting patterns in Florida are heavily influenced by Cuban Americans. About three-fifths of Florida’s 1.4 million eligible Cuban Americans voters identify as Republican.

Cubans arrived in the U.S. fleeing Fidel Castro’s communist regime, giving them a strong antipathy toward anything labeled socialism. Ronald Reagan was the first presidential candidate to travel to Florida and appeal directly to this community, in 1980, winning them over with a strong anti-communist message.

This year, Trump capitalized on Cuban Americans’ gut-level fear of communism in his Latino advertising in Florida, claiming Joe Biden would bring socialism to the U.S.

“This idea that every Democrat is now socialist…we know it to be false,” Randy Pestana, a researcher at Florida International University, told CBS Miami. “But in these communities that’s actually lived through socialism, like in Cuba and Venezuela and Nicaragua, it has a personal effect on how you and your family will vote.”

Cubans make up only about 29% of Florida’s eligible Latino voters. Florida has long been home to a large Puerto Rican population, whose numbers only grew after Hurricane Maria in 2017; Puerto Ricans now comprise 27% of Florida’s Latino vote. Mexicans are 10%. Venezuelans, too, have flocked to Florida in recent years.

Today Florida Latinos are split in terms of partisanship. About 26% are registered Republicans and 38% are Democrats. Another 36% have no party preference.

In other words, “the Latino vote” in Florida has complex and shifting party attachments. That said, the Miami-area Latino political culture is still strongly influenced by the media environment that Cubans built there over the past six decades.

This year a large-scale disinformation campaign targeted Florida’s Latino voters. On the radio, WhatsApp and Facebook, baseless conspiracy theories about the “deep state” and Biden’s supposed plan to put America under the control of “Jews and Blacks” were shared widely — and seemed to have some effect on voters.

Arizona’s grassroots Dems

In contrast, Joe Biden’s narrow win in Arizona is thanks in large part to Latinos. About 70% of them voted Democratic, pushing Biden over Trump by just a few thousand votes and gaining the Democrats a Senate seat with the election of former astronaut Mark Kelly.

Arizona, like Florida, has long been a conservative stronghold, home to large numbers of “snowbirds” — older people drawn to the warm climate and golf courses. Arizona Latinos are changing that. Most are of Mexican descent.

Mexican Americans are the United States’ largest Latino group. Arizona was actually part of Mexico until 1848. So some Latino families there were Mexican before they were Mexican American. Others migrated from Mexico more recently.

These Latinos live a different political reality than the Cubans of Florida. In 2010 Arizona passed SB 1070, requiring local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration policy by checking the immigration status of anyone they had a “reasonable suspicion” of being undocumented. Latinos, predictably, became the targets of racialized, aggressive policing.

The discriminatory effects of SB 1070 led to an upsurge in Latino youth organizing. This decade-long mobilization eventually led to the ouster of Maricopa County’s notoriously anti-immigrant Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who had a well-documented friendship with Trump. And it put Arizona in play for Democrats this year.

Biden’s team did not focus on Latino outreach in Arizona until the last weeks of the campaign. But young, U.S.-born Latinos were politically engaged there anyway, because of their sustained political organizing since SB 1070. Latino-led organizations like LUCHA turned Arizona Latinos out for Biden in droves.

“Mariachi politics”

Florida and Arizona clarify some major differences among Latinos in the United States, and how that effects their politics.

The race, gender, class and age of U.S. Latinos also influences their political leanings and levels of incorporation into U.S. politics. So do the places they live, the opportunities available to them there, how they are treated under U.S. immigration policy — indeed, whether they are immigrants at all.

If political parties want Latinos’ support, it would require culturally competent outreach that speaks to their real lives and everyday experiences. Instead, campaigns generally settle for Spanish-language television ads — even though the majority of Latino eligible voters speak English as their main language.

These ads are much more likely to be symbolic than substantive, research by political scientist Marisa Abrajano shows. Campaigns use cultural symbols like traditional Mexican music or tacos to connect with Latino voters rather than presenting concrete policy proposals about issues they care about, whether that’s health care, immigration policy or the economy.

I call this “mariachi politics.” In Florida, it might be called “cafecito politics” — a reference to Cubans’ tendency to argue politics over coffee. Both Republicans and Democrats do this every electoral cycle, 2020 included, homogenizing and flattening what are complex populations.

Pollsters do the same thing, which is why they keep getting Latinos wrong.

Lisa García Bedolla, Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and Dean of the Graduate Division, Professor of Education, University of California, Berkeley

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.