Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

“I do not plan to concede”: GOPer who lost by 20 points vows to “investigate strange occurrences”

Michael Peroutka, the pro-secession nominee to be Maryland’s attorney general, is refusing to concede his race despite getting blown out by more than 20 points on Tuesday.

In a statement flagged by Decision Desk HQ’s Derek Willis, Peroutka alleged that there were “many odd and suspicious incidents” reported by his poll watchers on Tuesday and he said that they are gathering “more reports” of such purported incidents right now.

Because of this, he concluded, “I plan to investigate these strange occurrences and I do not plan to concede the race.”

Peroutka also took a swipe at his Democratic opponent Anthony Brown, whom he accused of being “presumptuous” for claiming victory in a race he won by more than 300,000 votes.

Peroutka is well known for his past embrace of radical positions, as he is a former board member of the neo-Confederate League of the South who says he’s “still angry” that Maryland was not able to secede during the American Civil War.

Additionally, Peroutka believes that LGBTQ marriage and abortion should be outlawed for going against “God’s law,” and he has also criticized the entire concept of public education as a communist plot whose goal is to “transform America away from a Christian worldview.”

“American Horror Story: NYC” is going nowhere, slowly

The horror genre affords itself a big luxury in that everyday rules and logic don’t apply to what’s being presented to you, and isn’t supposed to. In “American Horror Story,” the cornerstone of Ryan Murphy‘s career, he and his team of writers have relied on this as a given while crafting 11 seasons of FX’s popular horror series, meshing together true crime cases and historical references with bizarre and shocking scenarios and imagery that shift from creepy to murderous to paranormal, and often all in the same season.

The “What the hell is going on right now?” aspect of “AHS” has always been a main element of what makes the show so fun because Murphy’s loyal fan base has put their faith in the show’s ability to sacrifice making any sort of sense for what feels like the more valued outcome, which is walking away from a season having experienced something visually and thematically rattling. No fan of this show expects to go in with a clear map from point A to point B. We don’t even necessarily want one. And it’s never felt like Murphy has taken our suspension of disbelief for granted by just making things up as he goes along, and never really arriving anywhere. Until now.

There was potential for this to become something that, with only two episodes left in the season, it does not seem logical for it to become.

This entire season of “American Horror Story: NYC” has been going nowhere, slowly. The initial setup of a handful of dangers zeroing in on New York’s queer community in the early ’80s did not feel altogether fresh to begin with, but there was potential for it to become something that, with only two episodes left in the season, it does not seem logical for it to become.

There’s that word again. Logical. Does logic even factor in to trying to piece together larger meaning from a storyline built on the backs of several killers and vague mutating diseases snuffing out queers while there’s a tickle planted in our minds that this is all a mournful dark fairy tale about the AIDS epidemic? Or worse yet, could it very possibly be explained away in the end with the trite and lazy move of making us realize that the characters were all already dead and/or having a shared nightmare and/or stuck in purgatory? No. That would not be logical. But what’s even less logical is how it could be that I, now a week away from the season’s finale, have not arrived at a firm decision on whether or not this season is good, or my least favorite of them all. And that’s really saying something because, as I’ve mentioned in the past, I thought Season 6, “Roanoke,” and Season 9, “1984,” were real stinkers.

If all this season is doing is giving the gays some big gift by breaking up kills with shots of hot guys almost f**king and then not, on account of all the killing . . . do more. 


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


In a recent interview with ET, Leslie Grossman, an “AHS” alum who plays Barbara, ex-wife to gay cop Patrick (Russell Tovey) this season, hints that “AHS: NYC” requires several viewings to really pick up on all the nuances, and I really hope that ends up being true.

“This is a season that, in my opinion, deserves two watches,” Grossman says. “There’s gonna be things that maybe didn’t resonate when you first saw it, that when it’s all done, the complete story will be very interesting to see from a different angle of knowing what you know.” 

This statement tricks me into feeling excited about the possibility of a shocking twist coming around the corner next week. Something that will pull everything together and cause me to change my mind about the decision I am regretful to make about the season. It also screams “It was all a dream!” Or some such thing that I’m hoping upon hope will not happen. Having something end in that way is such a “because I said so” method of storytelling. And Murphy is better than that. Or, at least, he was.

“I will say there is a fate that is waiting for everyone and that fate is inevitable,” Grossman says further on in her interview. “No matter how hard everybody tries to out run it, it’s this thing that’s looming and waiting.”

Make all of this suffering have been worthwhile. S**t or get off the pot, Murphy.

As a gay person watching this season, which has primarily focused on gay people being killed or, at the very least, being made to suffer in seemingly endless ways, it could be that “looming and waiting” that Grossman mentions that’s making this latest installment of “AHS” so unenjoyable. For once, can’t our inevitable fate be something other than the impetus for horror? But even as I say that, I’m crossing my fingers that these next two episodes either double down on that horror, killing us in ways that even we could have never imagined, or come out with something really unexpected to make all of this suffering have been worthwhile. S**t or get off the pot, Murphy. 

In Episode 7, “The Sentinel,” one of the season’s main villains gets pushed off the page with the death of the Mai Tai Killer, aka Mr. Whitely (Jeff Hiller). Setting out to rescue Henry (Denis O’Hare), who’d been abducted by the killer last week, Patrick and Gino (Joe Mantello) find him mutilated, but still alive, in a makeshift chop shop that’s reminiscent of something from “Hostel,” or the “Saw” franchise. While gawking at the centerpiece of the room — the killer’s “Sentinel,” a Frankenstein creation of seven different dead men’s body parts intended to, somehow, be a beacon of justice for the gay community — the Mai Tai Killer sneaks up behind Patrick and Gino and bonks them on the head with a meat tenderizer, then shackles them to operating tables. 

After a brief but gory sequence where Henry saws off his own hand to free himself, and then free Gino, the duo interrupt the killer in his attempt to cut out Patrick’s heart to be added to his “Sentinel” and then Patrick shoots him in the head. The headline of The Native the next day reads “Hero Gay Cop Tells All.” So there. That’s done. But, with the Mai Tai Killer out of commission, what is left for these characters to overcome? Oh, just everything the hell else. 

Big Daddy, the leather-clad angel of death immune to everything and afraid of nothing aside from a lesbian with a switchblade, is still out there lurking around, as well as the mutating virus, murderous dick with a checkbook Sam (Zachary Quinto), horned ghost gays, and Patrick himself, who is behaving strangely.

In both Episode 7 and Episode 8, “Fire Island,” Patrick sees visions of his dead ex-wife, Barbara, which, to me, hints at the fact that Patrick is behind more of this than we think. Maybe there is no Big Daddy at all. Maybe there’s just Big Patrick. 

And while Theo (Isaac Powell) gets ushered into some gay nether realm after being roofied by Sam and offered up to the spirits of Fire Island like a queer Jesus, dying for the sins of the community, we’re left where we were. Wondering. 

Villains and viruses aside, I’m placing my bet on Hannah (Billie Lourd) as being the key to whatever mystery this ends up being. She’s pregnant, she’s sick, and in “Fire Island” – while these preyed-upon and prayed for gays take a break from being hunted to hunt each other during a little getaway – we see her make a phone call to her mom and ask to come over. Maybe the mom character will give us an unexpected cameo from Jessica Lange! Or, if not that, maybe Sandra Bernhard will emerge as the star of the season and her character Fran will use her Tarot cards to papercut everyone to death. As is the norm, we could go anywhere from here. Please let that anywhere be somewhere. 

Trump melts down on Truth Social over report that he blames Melania for Dr. Oz endorsement

Former President Donald Trump continues to lash out on his Twitter knockoff app Truth Social over reports that he became enraged when candidates whom he endorsed lost their elections in Tuesday’s midterm contests.

On Wednesday, New York Times correspondent Maggie Haberman reported that Trump was beside himself because Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis – his most likely competitor for the 2024 presidential nomination – easily won a second term.

Trump posted, “There is a Fake Story being promulgated by third rate reporter Maggie Hagaman of the Failing New York Times, that I am blaming our great former First Lady, Melania, and Sean Hannity, that I was angry with their pushing me to Endorse Dr. Oz. First of all Oz is a wonderful guy who really worked hard and was a very good candidate, but he WAS LONG IN THE RACE before I ever Endorsed him, they had NOTHING to do with it, he was not a ‘denier’ (his mistake!), & I was not at all ANGRY. Fake News!”

The former president also said, “I’d like to apologize to Melania and Sean Hannity for all of the Fake News and fictional stories (made up out of thin air, with no sources despite them claiming there are!), being dumped on you by reporters and ‘News’ Organizations who know these stories are not true. The Fake News Media is ‘Crazed’ and totally out of control. I only wish the public could understand how really corrupt and crooked they are. They MAKE UP stories and then push them down your throats. Our Country is in big trouble!”

Trump even attacked right-wing Fox News during his rant.

“Despite having picked so many winners,” Trump posted, “I have to put up with the Fake News. For me, Fox News was always gone, even in 2015-16 when I began my ‘journey,’ but now they’re really gone. Such an opportunity for another media outlet to make an absolute fortune, and do good for America. Let’s see what happens?'”

The former president complained, “For those many people that are being fed the fake narrative from the corrupt media that I am Angry about the Midterms, don’t believe it. I am not at all angry, did a great job (I wasn’t the one running!), and am very busy looking into the future. Remember, I am a ‘Stable Genius.'”

Drawing on his familiar voter fraud themes, Trump also ranted about two key races in western states: Arizona’s gubernatorial race, and the U.S. Senate race in Nevada. And he mentioned Kari Lake, Arizona’s GOP gubernatorial nominee, and Adam Laxalt, Nevada’s Republican Senate hopeful.

Trump posted, “Clark County, Nevada, has a corrupt voting system (be careful Adam!), as do many places in our soon to be Third World Country. Arizona even said ‘by the end of the week!” – They want more time to cheat! Kari Lake MUST win!”

“He’s never been weaker”: Republicans “rage at Trump” as he tries to declare victory in midterms

Although some of the Republican candidates that former President Donald Trump campaigned for were victorious in the 2022 midterms — for example, U.S. Senate candidates J.D. Vance in Ohio and Ted Budd in North Carolina — many others weren’t. The candidates who were endorsed by Trump but lost ran for the Senate (Dr. Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania, Don Bolduc in New Hampshire), governor (Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania, Tudor Dixon in Michigan, Tim Michels in Wisconsin, Lee Zeldin in New York State) or secretary of state (Kristina Karamo in Michigan).

Trump, true to form, is giving himself credit for the victories that some MAGA candidates enjoyed on Election Night. When his candidates lose, he typically attributes their loss to either voter fraud or claims that they lost because they weren’t MAGA enough. But in an article published by Fox News’ website on November 9, journalist Anders Hagstrom reports that some conservatives are blaming Trump for the lack of a red tsunami.

“Many conservative commentators took the election results as a sign it was time for the GOP to move on from Trump,” Hagstrom reports. “Commentators argued that Trump had endorsed outlandish candidates who turned easy victories into close races, and close races into losses. Others compared Trump’s failure to secure wins across the country with the huge wave of support for Republicans in Gov. Ron DeSantis’ Florida.”

On Twitter, the National Review’s Michael Brendan Dougherty posted, “All the chatter on my conservative and GOP channels is rage at Trump like I’ve never seen. The one guy he attacked before Election Day was DeSantis — the clear winner, meanwhile, all his guys are s—ing the bed.'”

RealClearPolitics’ Phil Wegmann posted, “GOP Source tells me after tonight, with Trump candidates underperforming and DeSantis winning by double digits, 2024 is a ‘free for all.’ Everybody in the water. If you want to take on Trump, he’s never been weaker.'”

Conservative Twitter user @ReaganBattalion posted, “Time to move on from Trump.” And another Twitter user on the right, @MaxNordau, wrote, “Trump’s big November 15 announcement should be an endorsement of Ron DeSantis for president in 2024. We can do better.”

Meanwhile, in an article published by Politico on November 9, journalist Meredith McGraw describes November 8 as a “night of missed opportunities and disappointments” for the GOP.

“Trump had spent the past year acting as a political kingmaker, picking and choosing his preferred candidates — party leadership be damned,” McGraw explains. “Over the course of the midterm elections, he endorsed over 330 candidates, held 30 rallies and raised millions of dollars. Tuesday was meant to be an exhibit of his muscle — a chance to celebrate Republican wins but, more importantly, witness the seeding of the party with his acolytes. A slate of his endorsed candidates prevailed, including J.D. Vance in Ohio, Ted Budd in North Carolina, Katie Britt in Alabama and Eric Schmitt in Missouri.”

McGraw continues, “But by the early hours of Wednesday morning, Republicans were down a seat in the Senate, and the House remained too close to declare a winner. And in those contests, as well as some prominent gubernatorial elections, Trump’s overall record contained many notable misses. Several prominent Trump-backed candidates lost without much of a whimper, including MAGA gubernatorial candidates Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania and Dan Cox in Maryland, House candidates J.R. Majewski in Ohio, Karoline Leavitt in New Hampshire and Yesli Vega in Virginia, and Don Bolduc, who he endorsed in the New Hampshire Senate race. The biggest blow of the evening came in Pennsylvania as Democrat John Fetterman defeated Trump-backed Mehmet Oz in the most expensive Senate race in the country…. On Tuesday night, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ decisive win over Democrat Charlie Crist fueled even more speculation that he wasn’t just a serious 2024 contender, but a safer bet for the party than Trump.”

Despite all of the losses among MAGA candidates, Trump posted, “174 wins and 9 losses. A GREAT EVENING, and the Fake News Media, together with their partner in crime, the Democrats, are doing everything possible to play it down. Amazing job by some really fantastic candidates!”

Lauren Boebert breaks 36-hour silence as she remains locked in razor-tight race

Update: Boebert took a 433-vote lead after this article was published as counting continues, The Denver Post reported. But there are still about 7,000 votes to be counted in Pueblo County.

“The remaining votes could give Frisch a chance to regain the lead: So far, Pueblo County voters leaned toward the Democratic candidate from Aspen 54% to Boebert’s 46%,” the outlet reported, adding that the race would go to an automatic recount if the margin of victory is within 0.5%.

 

Original story:

Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., is locked in a tight reelection race in Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District, trailing Democrat Adam Frisch by 64 votes with more than 95% of the votes counted, according to The Associated Press.

The hardline conservative, who was elected to Congress in 2020, has remained one of the loudest voices within the Republican Party amplifying former President Donald Trump’s false claims of widespread election fraud and promoting QAnon conspiracy theories. 

But, unlike her normal presence on social media, where Boebert often posts tweets attacking Democratic policies or going after President Joe Biden, the MAGA Republican congresswoman fell silent on Twitter for 36 hours as she fell behind in a race she was expected to win by double-digits.

She finally broke her silence Thursday morning, tweeting: “Good morning! Jesus is Lord.” 

Like other Republicans, she had predicted a “red wave” of GOP wins on Election Day after raising about $2 million for her campaign.

In a conversation with her supporters Tuesday evening, Boebert said she was waiting for “same-day voting ballots” to be counted.

“We know that a lot of Republicans have waited for today to vote,” Boebert said. “They’re doing that in Mesa County. They’re doing it all over Colorado’s third district.”

Frisch still holds a narrow lead, with 156,746 votes to Boebert’s 156,682, though the race remains too close to call. 

Compared to her 2020 results, Boebert has been underperforming in many counties even though she won her seat with just 51 percent of votes. The Trump-backed candidate failed to even win her home county.

“Those who know her best don’t care for her, and a lot more people know more now than they did in 2020 and not for good reason,” said Frisch in an interview with Semafor

Discovering this data point convinced him to run against her, he added.

“I started to see some tea leaves that maybe the Trumpism is starting to go down,” Frisch said. “But for better or worse, the only place in the entire country where there’s any mathematical chance to see one of these extremists defeated is Colorado-3. And I knew that somehow there’s a way to make this an emotional win for the country and send a message of enough of the hate, enough of the yelling and screaming.”


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Unlike Boebert, whose first term in Congress was marked by controversy, Frisch’s political career has been rather low-key. He was a former Aspen City Council member, who is now running as a relatively conservative Democrat. 

When Boebert arrived in Washington, D.C. as a freshman lawmaker, she made headlines for saying she’d carry a gun at the Capitol. Throughout her two years in Congress, she drew criticism for refusing to wear a mask on the House floor defying COVID rules, tweeting on Jan. 6 that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had left the chamber while a mob was breaking into the capitol and objecting to the certification of the 2020 presidential election results. She later heckled President Joe Biden during the State of the Union.

Prior to winning her seat in Congress, the gun-toting congresswoman ran Shooters Grill, a gun-themed restaurant, where she encouraged staff members to carry firearms. She also defied Garfield County’s restrictions by staying open during the Covid pandemic. The restaurant has since shut down after being evicted.

Did Christian nationalism lose in the midterms? Sort of — but it’s not going away

Amid conservatives’ disappointed hopes for a “red wave” in the midterm elections, one of the biggest losses appeared, at first, to be the ideological movement of Christian nationalism. In Pennsylvania, Republican gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano — who rejects the label “Christian nationalist” but perhaps best exemplifies it, with his campaign full of prophets, shofars and spiritual warfare — was trounced at the polls by Democratic Attorney General Josh Shapiro. In Colorado, far-right Rep. Lauren Boebert, who just this summer declared she was “tired of this separation of church and state junk,” narrowly trails her Democratic opponent (in one of this election’s biggest surprises) and ended Tuesday night with the sour-grapes prayer, “Jesus, it doesn’t matter who is in office because you are king.” 

Former congresswoman Michele Bachmann, an early advocate of Christian nationalist policies, called the election results “crashingly disappointing” after two years of pastors mobilizing their congregants to vote for “biblical values.” 

“This really should have been a wave election,” said Bachmann, “and now it doesn’t even look like we’re dog-paddling.” 

None of this seemed especially likely just weeks ago, given the increasingly explicit embrace of Christian nationalism by many leading Republican politicians and religious leaders. At the National Conservatism conference in September, numerous speakers embraced the term overtly. Daily Wire talk show host Michael Knowles used his speech to argue that “the traditional political order of the United States is Christian nationalism.” Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley declared, “Without the Bible, there is no America.” Another speaker titled his talk, “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Christian Nationalism.”

That in itself marked a shift. As journalist Katherine Stewart noted at the New Republic, Mastriano has claimed the media “fabricated” the term Christian nationalist; more recently, right-wing advocacy group Family Research Council declared it a slur designed to suppress the Christian vote. Former Trump staffer William Wolfe echoed that charge in October, tweeting that “Cynical, secular & anti-God progressive academics” had tried to weaponize the label against pro-Trump Christians, but conservatives had taken “that slur & turned it into a rallying cry for a movement.” 

Indeed, in recent months Texas megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress said that if insisting America was founded as “a Christian nation” and should be one again amounted to Christian nationalism, then “count me in”; leading Southern Baptist theologian Albert Mohler announced that he was “not about to run from” the label; and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., began using the slogan “Proud Christian Nationalist” on campaign merch.

Two recent books by far-right authors explicitly extolling the ideology — Gab CEO Andrew Torba’s “Christian Nationalism: A Biblical Guide to Taking Dominion and Discipling Nations” and podcaster Stephen Wolfe’s “The Case for Christian Nationalism” — have gained significant attention, even though the authors have, respectively, promoted antisemitism or argued against interracial marriage and women’s right to vote. 

These explicit endorsements of a previously verboten term sparked its own reaction, led largely by moderate, progressive and even other conservative Christians. As Jack Jenkins and Emily McFarlan Miller reported at Religion News Service last week, a group of prominent Christian leaders called on the House Jan. 6 committee to investigate how Christian nationalism helped “motivate and intensify the insurrection.” Last month, around 80 Pennsylvania clerics published an open letter denouncing Christian nationalism as “inseparable from the idol of white supremacy.” 

Nonetheless, in a new national survey, scholars of Christian nationalism Samuel Perry and Andrew Whitehead found that 45 percent of Republicans — representing an estimated 50 million Americans — say the term fits them well.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


So what happened Tuesday night? 

In part, argues Brian Kaylor, editor of the Baptist news outlet Word & Way, “The midterm results suggest Christian nationalism is an electoral drag for the GOP in swing states,” even as it helped candidates in red states, like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Arkansas governor-elect Sarah Huckabee Sanders, “cruise to easy victories.”

One indication of that was visible in the last-minute campaign ad DeSantis released just days before the election, casting himself as part of the biblical story of creation: After creating the world and taking a day of rest, according to the ad, God had also created “a fighter” — DeSantis, clearly — to defend what he had made.

As journalist Sarah Posner, author of “Unholy: How White Christian Nationalists Powered the Trump Presidency and the Devastating Legacy they Left Behind,” noted, the ad’s premise that DeSantis is a divine instrument of salvation seems “so ham-handed that one could imagine DeSantis later claiming it was tongue-in-cheek.” And yet, Posner continued, it follows a summer of DeSantis invoking scripture to urge followers to “put on the full armor of God” to fight the left.

As Posner elaborated in an interview with the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent, the ad also amounted to a challenge for turf Donald Trump has long claimed as his own, with many Trump supporters seeing him as a God-anointed “messianic figure who alone can rescue America.” Until DeSantis’ ad, Posner said, “None of Trump’s potential rivals have so blatantly tried to claim that divine blessing.”

Trump responded by firing the first overt salvo in what had been a simmering cold war between himself and DeSantis for control over the future of the GOP. At a campaign rally in Pennsylvania on Saturday night (ostensibly to support Mastriano’s campaign), Trump bestowed a new nickname on his fellow Floridian, calling the governor “Ron DeSanctimonious.” 

That rally, as well as another for DeSantis in Florida Sunday night, illustrates some of the contours of how Christian nationalism may function in the Republican Party to come. In Pennsylvania, Trump’s rally featured a prayer by Kenneth Copeland, a charismatic “prosperity gospel” televangelist best known for his fleet of private jets. In Florida, DeSantis’ rally included a comparatively staid invocation by Southern Baptist pastor Tom Ascol, the runner-up in last June’s election to lead the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. 

“Trump’s choices look suspect and his embrace of Mastriano makes him look like a religious loser,” said Anthea Butler. “Will regular evangelical leaders want to be seen with him? Probably not.”

By Monday morning, conservative Christians were contrasting the two invocations, and two preachers, in terms of what each said about the candidates they’d blessed, demonstrating what Christian publication ChurchLeaders called “growing fissures” in the “once impassable unity” of white evangelicals’ support for Trump. For many, the verdict was summed up in the words of Ascol’s daughter, Hannah Ascol Ellis, who runs communications for her father’s ministry. “Trump chose Copeland. DeSantis chose Ascol,” she tweeted. “One choice was better than the other.” 

After the midterm results — and growing Republican anger over Trump’s perceived role in their losses — that assessment echoes the larger takeaway that DeSantis may be replacing Trump as the standard-bearer of the right. 

“Trump’s choices look suspect and his embrace of Mastriano makes him look like a religious loser,” said Anthea Butler, chair of religious studies at the University of Pennsylvania. “Will regular evangelical leaders want to be seen with him? Probably not.”

But that doesn’t mean that Christian nationalism is going away, Butler added. Rather, it might just look different going forward, in a way that reflects the Trump-DeSantis split. 

“A key to Trump’s previous success was his strong support from two conservative Christian blocs that haven’t always trusted each other: traditional white evangelicals and Pentecostal/charismatic Christians,” Kaylor told Salon. The charismatic faction, from Copeland to the sorts of “prophets” who became central to Mastriano’s campaign, “remains firmly in Trump’s camp.” But, Kaylor continued, “If DeSantis can gain support from Southern Baptists and other evangelicals” — a much larger pool of voters — “he could find a path to victory in the presidential primaries.” 

But in terms of the durability of Christian nationalism more broadly, perhaps there’s no real contest, only a question of branding.

Ascol’s prayer for DeSantis on Sunday was less partisan (and, for many, less bizarre) than much of what we’ve heard from evangelical pastors during the Trump era; on the surface, it sounded so benign that conservatives on Twitter shared it as a challenge, asking whether this was the Christian nationalism the left is so worked up about.

Faced with the choices of “secular nationalism, Muslim nationalism” or “globalism,” conservative Southern Baptist leader Voddie Baucham concluded he’d prefer “scary Christian nationalism.”

Yet Ascol is no moderate. His candidacy to lead the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) centered on arguments that the denomination had become too “woke” and secular. He’s retweeted “stolen election” claims and called Vice President Kamala Harris a “Jezebel” who was “going to hell.” In August, he argued in his podcast, “There ought to be a separation between church and state, but not between Christ and state… Governors, presidents, senators — everyone is obligated to Christ.” 

Ascol’s fellow conservative SBC leader Voddie Baucham, who campaigned alongside him as part of a right-wing leadership slate, embraced the concept of Christian nationalism outright in an interview last month. “If you don’t want Christian nationalism, what other kind of nationalism do you want?” Baucham asked. Faced with the choices of “secular nationalism, Muslim nationalism” or “globalism,” Baucham concluded, his preference was for “scary Christian nationalism.” Ascol’s ministry is currently promoting a January conference where he and Baucham will talk more about exactly that “scary Christian nationalism.” 

This week, after never-Trump conservative David French tweeted his relief over the defeat of the “dangerously unhinged” Mastriano, Ascol denounced French’s version of Christianity as unrecognizable. And in his victory speech Tuesday night, DeSantis invoked scripture again, describing Florida as “the promised land” for conservatives undertaking a “great exodus” from liberal states. 

All that is to say, “It’s not one or the other,” as Posner told Salon. Rather, both versions of Christian nationalism “can work in tandem with each other, and will.” The charismatic movement that has long supported Trump “is too sprawling and unleashed for it to go anywhere,” while the more respectable version of Christian nationalism represented by Ascol is a cornerstone of the conservative base. “Maybe they’re not going to go as crazy as Mastriano, with his prophet or the ReAwaken America crew, but people like Copeland have huge audiences and that’s not going to change,” Posner added. “Any Republican would need to patch together all of those constituencies of the Christian right to win.”

Christian nationalism “has always been there, and it will remain an organizing principle,” added Butler. “It’s just like ‘American exceptionalism’ or ‘Make America Great Again’: catchwords for gaining power and connecting with the base.” 

The origins and evolution of the ongoing “Best Chris” debate

Prior to the aftermath of this year’s midterm elections, the nation received word of a far more pressing — and dare we say, thirsty — matter at hand. On Monday, People Magazine announced its highly anticipated Sexiest Man Alive and dethroned Paul Rudd of his 2021 title to bestow it on Chris Evans.

The recent accolade subsequently reignited the internet’s long-standing obsession with ranking Hollywood actors named Chris, also known as the “Best Chris Debate.” Alongside Evans, the main contenders usually include Chris Hemsworth, Chris Pine and Chris Pratt. On Twitter, fans and stans pledge allegiance to a specific Chris on the basis of a number of factors. 

How did we get to this point where the Chris wars continue to dominate so many cultural conversations online? Here’s a closer look at the origins of the “Best Chris Debate,” along with its evolution and relevance today:

Which Chris qualifies?

The discourse first began in 2014 when each of the aforementioned Chrises were getting attention in pop culture for their various projects. While the shows and movies on their resumes have ebbed and flowed, they’ve all continued to work and therefore have remained relevant – albeit with one frequently discounted – through today.

Among the four, three Chrises — Evans, Hemsworth and Pratt — have starred in a Marvel Cinematic Universe film franchise. Evans plays Captain America, a World War II Super-Soldier, alongside Hemsworth as his fellow Avenger, the God of Thunder, Thor, in numerous films, sometimes as the headliners or part of the “Avengers” film ensembles. Although not an Avenger, former “Parks and Recreation” star Pratt is known for potraying Peter Quill in the “Guardians of the Galaxy” films.

Outside of Marvel, Pratt has also starred in the “Jurassic Park” franchise.

As for Pine, the fourth Chris was involved in the reboot series of the “Star Trek” franchise, in which he plays a younger James T. Kirk.  While he’s appeared in a number of disparate roles, he most recently appeared in Olivia Wilde’s oddly controversial thriller “Don’t Worry Darling.”

It’s to be noted that these four white Chrises are the ones most frequently in contention. Since it is a popular name, however, occasionally other Chrises break through as honorable mentions: “Mindy Project” star Chris Messina, “Crazy Rich Asians” star Chris Pang, Chris Rock, Chris Tucker and Chris O’Dowd. Despite this, they never really stick around as one of the official Chrises.

The evolution of the debate

Depending on who’s doing the judging, each Chris may be evaluated on the basis of their looks, personality (both on and off-screen), charisma or careers. As explained in a 2018 The Ringer article, “In determining the preeminent Franchise Chris, we used to evaluate each Chris’s ability to carry big IP through a combination of well-toned pectoral muscles and exemplary comedic timing.”

“Those factors are still in play, but in this final battle we must also consider endurance and the sheer commitment to being a Franchise Chris.”

Evans has thus far pulled ahead and his recent Sexiest Man Alive title only reaffirms his standing as the “Best Chris.” Back in 2016 and 2017, Evans took home the top award twice as the internet thirsted over his Marvel projects and sweet summer romance with Jenny Slate. But Evans’ 2017 reign was short-lived — in the middle of the year, Pine was deemed the King of Chrises, thanks to his buzz cut and flirtatious relationship with Gal Gadot, while Hemsworth claimed the title toward the end of that year.   

Judging from critical success in their careers, the Chrises have all played an array of roles — from lovable goofballs to cold-hearted menaces — and starred in box office hits and box office flops. Although the Chrises starred in films that were rated favorably by critics, it was Evans and Pine who secured the top ranks. Evans’ 2013 post-apocalyptic film “Snowpiercer” earned a 94% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and his 2019 mystery/crime hit “Knives Out” earned an astounding 97% rating. In comparison, Pine’s 2009 “Star Trek” film received a 94% rating on the Tomatometer while his 2016 western film “Hell or High Water” and 2019 documentary “Love, Antosha” both received ratings of 97%.

The Chris-ona non grata

Despite the ongoing debate, there is one Chris who frequently is discounted among the foursome. On October 17, 2020, screenwriter and television producer Amy Berg posted headshots of the four on Twitter and captioned it, “One has to go.”

It didn’t take long for the post to garner both likes and retweets — 10,100 likes and 1,051 retweets to be exact — along with a slew of responses, the majority of which named Pratt.

One commenter wrote, “Pratt. This wasn’t difficult at all. Pratt isn’t even in the same universe as the other three” while another simply said, “Always Pratt.” A select few expressed sympathy for Pratt and some even named Pine as the odd one out.

Pratt’s lack of popularity, despite his box office success heading two major franchises, is generally chalked up to his personal reputation, mainly for expressing views that many have found problematic.

In November of last year, Pratt was criticized for his Instagram post dedicated to wife Katherine Schwarzenegger, in which he thanked her for giving him a “gorgeous healthy daughter.” Fans were quick to deem it as insensitive to Pratt’s ex-wife Anna Faris and their son Jack, who was born prematurely and with severe brain bleeding.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CVynGLRp_ju/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=790ff553-0bf3-46e2-8fab-93245a4cd5d9

Just a few days after the hoopla, BuzzFeed published a list that outlined the many times Pratt was called out for being problematic. Among them were Pratt’s glamorization of hunting, ableist remarks, pro-cop sentiments and affiliation with the Hillsong Church, a notoriously anti-LGBTQ organization.

Earlier this year, Pratt denied ever belonging to the church, saying in his 2022 Men’s Health profile, “I never went to Hillsong. I’ve never actually been to Hillsong. I don’t know anyone from that church.”

That, of course, didn’t do much for his reputation and Pratt, to this day, still remains “The Worst Hollywood Chris.”

The “Best Chris Debate” today

Earlier this year, Pine had a slight edge with his new, short “silver fox” look which he debuted at the “Don’t Worry Darling” premiere. But for now, Chris Evans remains in the lead as fans celebrate his Sexiest Man Alive title and await his upcoming feature in the “Knives Out” sequel. 

As long as there are Hollywood stars named Chris, and people have time on their hands, the “Best Chris Debate” will prevail. 

Trump demanded his supporters stage “protest” over Detroit ballots — but “no one showed up”

Donald Trump’s efforts to get his supporters into the streets of Detroit on election day was dissected by The Washington Post on Wednesday.

At 2:28 p.m. eastern, Trump took to his Truth Social microblogging website to complain about voting in Michigan.

“The absentee ballot situation in Detroit is really bad,” Trump posted. “People are showing up to vote only to be told, ‘sorry, you have already voted.’ This is happening in large numbers, elsewhere as well. Protest, Protest, Protest!”

Trump’s call was not answered by his MAGA base.

“Unlike in 2020, when similar cries from the then-president drew thousands of supporters into the streets — including to a tabulating facility in Detroit and later to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — this time, no one showed up,” the newspaper reported. “After two years of promises from Trump and his supporters that they would flood polls and counting stations with partisan watchers to spot alleged fraud, after unprecedented threats lodged against election workers, after calls to ditch machines in favor of hand counting and after postings on internet chat groups called for violent action to stop supposed cheating, a peaceful Election Day drew high turnout and only scattered reports of problems.”

While the election went smoothly, the outcome was not good news for Trump, who received brutal headlines while appearing politically vulnerable.

“The 45th president no longer held the megaphone of the White House, or even Twitter, to carry his message to supporters in real time. And the election results suggest the number of people inclined to respond to Trump’s exhortations has continued to fall since he lost the 2020 election,” the newspaper reported. “Election officials said nationally that fewer partisan challengers showed up than they had thought likely, given pre-election rhetoric from figures like former Trump adviser and popular podcaster Stephen K. Bannon, who boasted of a massive new network of ‘election integrity’ activists.”

Read the full report.

Whoopi Goldberg has taken flight from Twitter. But how much does her departure matter?

On Monday’s episode of “The View,” Whoopi Goldberg alerted the world that she was leaving Twitter.

“I’m getting off today because I just feel like it’s so messy, and I’m tired of now having certain kinds of attitudes blocked now getting back on,” Goldberg said during a segment. “So I’m gonna get out, and if it settles down enough and I feel more comfortable, maybe I’ll come back. But as of tonight, I’m done with Twitter.”

No time was wasted in deactivating her account, although whether that was done by Goldberg’s hand or a Twitter minion is unclear. Either way, the comedian and daytime talk show host no longer has a personal perch on Elon Musk’s flailing bird app, abandoning her estimated 1.6 million followers (according to an archival figure).

As for the extent of the loss to matters of public discourse that her departure represents, that’s up for debate. This is not an agreement with the radioactive pile-on from right-wing toads and goblins celebrating Goldberg’s flight from Twitter, by the way. It simply acknowledges that she didn’t actively engage with followers or other users that frequently to begin with.

A cursory search for instances where Goldberg’s tweets made headlines primarily yields reminders of her misguided comments about Jewish people and the Holocaust on “The View” and on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” Although she apologized – via tweet, as is the celebrity way – she was also suspended from appearing on “The View” for two weeks.

Aside from that, and a spirited request to Disney’s theme park division to create a Wakanda-themed experience, Goldberg seems to have used the app in the same way most folks do. She promoted whatever project she was working on, shared a few photos and probably doomscrolled.

Even so, Goldberg’s exit from Twitter differs from the announced goodbyes of celebrities such as Ken Olin, Shonda Rhimes, Sara Bareilles, Toni Braxton, Gigi Hadid and, understandably, Amber Heard. She may not be blue check official or active, but as a host on “The View,” she’ll continue showing up in the app’s stream regularly. The ABC talk show’s reach and relevance are fueled by its clips’ virality and whatever frenzy results from the day’s discussions.

Those will remain the bread and circuses of news sites that cover “The View” along with apoplectic right-wing hecklers, regardless of whether Goldberg has an account. As long as “The View” has wings, Goldberg’s influence is secure in the old media kingdom of daytime broadcast; what need does she have for Musk’s increasingly disordered coop?

Indeed, Goldberg’s decampment from Twitter may someday be regarded as a part of an already-in-progress realignment of the influencer firmament in stronger favor of other social media platforms.

As my colleague Amanda Marcotte cited in her story about the app’s implosion, Twitter is the 15th most popular social network. To those working in creative fields that aren’t celebrity-focused – including authors, screenwriters and visual arts – Twitter is still the best option for interacting with fans or sharing information about live appearances and other matters vital to their careers. Even so, the Pew Research Center revealed that journalists use Twitter more frequently than most of the general public, mainly to do their jobs.

Among people who don’t work in news, it’s the third most popular social media site for seeking information, ranking behind Facebook and YouTube. That means Goldberg, whose public Facebook page has two million followers, already possesses a means of interacting with her audience in social spaces that are a better fit, albeit in venues that aren’t exactly under more benevolent management, only ones that aren’t as overtly messy.

Instagram and TikTok are increasingly the stars’ personal megaphones of choice, save for the rare and special birds blessed with devastating wit and the ability to slay trolls in fewer than 280 characters. And believe it or not, many celebrities thrive without having fallen into Twitter’s clutches, including Daniel Radcliffea fact Weird Al Yankovic used to prank users over the Chief Twit’s ridiculous new rules about parody accounts.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Whether the platform’s management remains under Musk or some lesser stinker yet to be thought of, many Twitter users, famous ones included, still view the platform as their primary means of promoting and strengthening their brands.

That could rapidly change if Musk’s choice to gut the existing content moderation teams that kept the vilest, most abusive and offensive content off the platform isn’t replaced with an equally robust system. Few expect it to be, which is why Goldberg turning her back on those “attitudes” trying her patience is sensible.  

Even the most stalwart – your George Takeis, your Kathy Griffins, Yvette Nicole Browns, Jeffrey Wrights and other brave souls – are bound to be tested by Musk’s “free speech absolutism,” that crackpot term which amounts to flinging open Pandora’s Box, mainly for the lolz. If Twitter’s value is only as strong as its legitimacy as an influential forum, its health depends on keeping the users that make it interesting.  

The stars who choose to leave or let their accounts go dormant will be fine without it, but if enough abandon ship along with advertisers and the constituencies that make it interesting, it won’t be fine for long. So: Good for Whoopi for bailing out for her sanity’s sake, along with everyone else making that choice. Anyway, the real canary in this coal mine is Dionne Warwick. If everybody’s favorite aunt announces she’s done, so goes our nation.

McEnany issues stark warning to Trump on 2024 after midterm collapse: “He needs to put on pause”

Kayleigh McEnany, former White House Press Secretary under the Trump administration, has a clear warning for former President Donald Trump.

According to McEnany, now a Fox News television personality, the former president should hold off on announcing his 2024 presidential bid.

As midterm elections come to a close, Trump has danced around the possibility of a “major announcement” being shared on Nov. 15. However, Trump’s remarks came prior to the Republican Party’s overall midterm election performance, which is a bit worse than anticipated.

Because of the unexpected outcome, McEnany weighed in on the impending announcement saying she believes Trump should “put it on pause.”

Instead of turning the party’s focus to Trump, McEnany believes the main focus should be the upcoming Senate run-off between Sen. Raphael Warnock (D) and Trump-backed Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker (R), which is scheduled for Dec. 6.

“There’s a very real likelihood it could all come down to Georgia. And what does that give you heebie-jeebies of? It gives you the heebie-jeebies of last time around in 2020,” said McEnany.

“Every ounce of Republican energy, every last ounce needs to go into that Georgia race because it could potentially be what makes or breaks the Senate,” she continued. “Getting Herschel Walker over the finish line, I know there’s a temptation to start talking about 2024. No, no, no, no, no. 2022 is not over.”

McEnany went on to make her stance clear saying, “I think he (Trump) needs to put it on pause. Absolutely.”

However, McEnany admitted that she is aware that the former president would ultimately “make his own decision.”

“But if I’m advising any contender, (Florida GOP Gov. Ron) DeSantis, Trump, whomever … no one announces 2024 until we get through Dec. 6.”

Speaking to the Associated Press, Jason Miller, a former advisor for Trump, admitted he agrees. “I’ll be advising him that he move his announcement until after the Georgia runoff,” he told the news outlet. “Georgia needs to be the focus of every Republican in the country right now.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

“Coordinated effort across Fox News, WSJ and NY Post”: Rupert Murdoch dumps “biggest loser” Trump

Right-wing billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s media outlets are pleading for the Republican Party to move on from former President Donald Trump after a disappointing midterm showing by the GOP.

Murdoch’s outlets — which include Fox News, The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal — have blasted Trump with a barrage of negative headlines while boosting Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis as the future of the party.

The New York Post, which dubbed the Florida governor “DeFuture” on Wednesday, followed up on Thursday with a brutal cover labeling him “Trumpty Dumpty.”

“After three straight national tallies in which either he or his party or both were hammered by the national electorate, it’s time for even his stans to accept the truth: Toxic Trump is the political equivalent of a can of Raid,” columnist John Podhoretz wrote in an accompanying editorial. “What Tuesday night’s results suggest is that Trump is perhaps the most profound vote-repellant in modern American history. The surest way to lose in these midterms was to be a politician endorsed by Trump. This is not hyperbole.”

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board was even harsher, branding Trump as “the Republican Party’s biggest loser,” knocking him for flopping in elections in 2018, 2020, 2021 and 2022.

“What will Democrats do when Donald Trump isn’t around to lose elections? We have to wonder because on Tuesday Democrats succeeded again in making the former President a central campaign issue, and Mr. Trump helped them do it,” the editorial said.

Fox News pundits have also increasingly blasted Trump and touted DeSantis as the future of the GOP.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


If Republicans ultimately fail to win control of the Senate, “Donald Trump costs us the Senate twice in a row,” conservative pundit Marc Thiessen complained on Fox News Tuesday night. “In 2020, voters didn’t reject Trumpism. They rejected Trump,” he added, slamming the party for nominating unelectable 2020 deniers and “squandering a historic opportunity.”

Even former Trump White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany urged Trump to delay his “big announcement” later this month to avoid interfering with Republicans’ chances of winning the Senate runoff in Georgia and suggested that DeSantis should be the one to campaign for Republican nominee Herschel Walker.

“I think we’ve got to make strategic calculations,” she said on Fox News. “Governor DeSantis, I think he should be welcome to the state given what happened last night. You’ve got to look you got to look at the realities on the ground. And Herschel Walker, we’ve got to win the Senate. That’s it, guys. Got to win the Senate.”

That message has been echoed across Fox stations since the midterms, according to The Washington Post.

“Trump is the past,” said Fox Business Network host Stuart Varney.

Fox News digital headlines have similarly called Trump the “biggest loser” while hailing DeSantis as “the new Republican Party leader.”

Fox News contributor Jason Chaffetz, a longtime Trump ally, declared DeSantis “probably one of the front-runners — if not the front-runner — to become the next president of the United States of America.”

Chaffetz dinged Trump for calling the Florida governor “Ron DeSanctimonious” at a pre-midterm rally.

“Even before the votes were closed, to start to take shots at Ron DeSantis?” Chaffetz asked. “Donald Trump’s not going to like this, but I’ve got to tell you, the people I talk to, they say: ‘We love Donald Trump. … But, you know what, we don’t like all the drama. We like Ron DeSantis.’ That’s what I hear.”

The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman called the message a “coordinated effort across Fox News, WSJ and the NY Post.”

“Murdoch holdings are going all in for DeSantis,” she tweeted.

“It’s not an accident,” a person familiar with how Murdoch runs his empire told CNN.

“They have turned on him,” MSNBC host Joe Scarborough said Thursday, listing the barrage of headlines attacking Trump from the right, adding, “They want this guy gone.”

Joe Biden exhales as “red wave” runs dry: And he can’t wait for Trump-DeSantis grudge match

I begin with a simple question: Would you want to hold public office?

This year’s elections make clear that the overwhelming majority of us say no. We all know why. Why do you think politicians suck so bad? Nobody worth a shit wants the job. Or at least few do. Of course, the opposite may be true: Maybe we’re all full of shit and politicians do represent the best of us. 

I’m an optimist, however. I think there are people worth a shit who don’t want to be involved in politics. 

The same can be said of the press. We attract the best and brightest, in a certain sense. We’re a First Amendment necessity that makes democracy possible. It’s a potentially exciting profession — being on the front lines, witnessing and reporting on history.

But there’s no money in that, folks. So the modern press is nothing more than a money weathervane. Wherever we find the most money, we will be there. And since we’re worried about budgets and bottom lines, we don’t waste a lot of money hiring decent reporters. Posers? Yes. Ignorant? Yes. But if we get a good hire these days, it’s usually by mistake.

In both cases, high-caliber people often avoid these arenas because of money. You have to grovel for it to run for office, and you don’t get paid much of it if you’re a member of the press. 

Both careers still attract people who are ambitious and committed. Committed to what? I have no idea. We can’t field candidates better than high school reprobates and reporters can’t report facts worth a damn, but can produce fiction at an alarming rate. You cannot have a functioning democracy without a well-informed electorate — and now you know why politicians don’t want you well-informed.

As George Carlin famously pointed out, they want you just smart enough to run the machines.

Watching and reporting on this year’s midterm elections — as I have every election since 1984 — was a unique experience for too many reasons to mention. But, underlying all of it is a sense of tiredness among an electorate that knows something is wrong, but because of our voting record in the last half-century, we haven’t yet learned what that is.

As a result of our inability to grasp the obvious, we are now in the middle of several fights we thought were over. “The dark times are there. We’re making life what it was again in the 1950s,” Norm Ornstein said on Mary Trump’s show Tuesday night. 

We’re fighting for civil rights, women’s rights, voters’ rights and minority rights. Again? 

Meanwhile, Ron DeSantis announced from Florida Tuesday night that Florida is where wokeism goes to die. He said it with the zeal of a Christian zealot who claims he’s a prophet from God. Or at least a prophet who’s come to profit.

For you zealots out there, remember your gospel according to Matthew: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” Or in some cases, beware of the bully who wields power for his own benefit by exploiting you. Watching Donald Trump and DeSantis taking each other on in a potential race for the 2024 Republican nomination will be like watching two shoeless mud wrestlers beating each other in the head while rolling around in the muck. Can’t say it won’t be entertaining.

Either way, if it’s a horse race, we’ll cover it. With the lack of experience in today’s press, that’s about the only thing left that we can cover — and as this midterm election shows, we can’t even get that right. The polls were wrong. The reporting was shallow and driven by politicians and issues were ignored. Issues should drive coverage, not polls. But we haven’t figured that out yet. We’re stuck “wallerin’ in the mud,” as my country cousin would say, with the politicians.

We’re loving the horse race, baby — because we have devolved into being barely capable of anything else.

Steve Bannon said the media is the battleground. He’s not wrong. He’s a craven coward, but he’s not wrong. And we continue to fail at doing the job, thereby making the battle more problematic and a greater threat to democracy than it reasonably ought to be.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


One thing abundantly clear from the midterm elections is we need better politicians and better reporters.  If Herschel Walker, Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz can run for office, then the bar is low enough for anyone to do it. Give it a try. I’d trust a crack-dealing Wiccan before I’d trust Lauren Boebert.

The midterms, as it turns out, reflected what many of us already knew: We remain a divided nation. Few politicians are trying to resolve that particular problem and many in the press have no idea how we contribute to it.

No matter — and there’s no time for reflection. Joe Biden, who hasn’t had a press conference in the White House in 10 months, decided he’d address the midterms Wednesday. Tuesday had been a light day there, with staffers sitting around munching on pizza and furtively glancing about, anxiously speculating on the Democrats and their candidates. By Wednesday morning, the staff was ebullient and hopeful. Tim Ryan’s loss in Ohio, along with Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ win in Arkansas, gave them cause for concern, but everyone seemed to be enraptured with the possible defeat of Boebert (who as of Thursday morning trails her Democratic opponent by fewer than 100 votes) and the slowly dawning realization that there had been no “red wave.” In short, the West Wing was in far better spirits.

The question of which party will lead Congress probably won’t be settled for days, but the current administration decided, even with things undecided, that the fact Democrats hadn’t gotten slaughtered in the midterms made a presidential victory lap inevitable. Early in the morning, it was obvious the White House staffers were as giddy as a teen on nitrous oxide, but it became obvious the president joined his staff in that elation when he agreed to meet with reporters in a press conference from the State Dining Room. 

Biden’s first press conference in 10 months revealed both the best and worst of his administration — and the White House press corps. He was relaxed and funny — and said almost nothing meaningful.

Standing near the infamous brooding portrait of Abraham Lincoln, Biden spoke for about an hour. He wasn’t exactly high-energy, but he wasn’t boring either. Biden’s press conference exposed the best and the worst of both his administration and the White House press corps. Just 10 people were hand-picked to ask him questions. I encouraged him, when I interrupted his reading of the card of hand-picked reporters, to stick around and take a few more from the rest of us who weren’t chosen. He smiled and laughed, and then declined, saying he had to make some phone calls. 

Biden’s first press conference in 10 months was restricted, shallow and, with few exceptions, devoid of meaning. He reread his stump speech. He acted presidential. He smiled. He made a few jokes. The press played along, for the most part. Part of it was that we’ve been so starved for direct information from the president that those few reporters who got the chance to ask a question had to cover a lot of ground.

But the differences between Biden and Trump were never more apparent than in his answer to one question. After Trump’s midterm losses in 2018, I asked him whether, knowing that impeachment was likely coming, he could put that aside and work with a hostile Congress for the good of the country. He declared he would be at war with Congress. When asked by a reporter nearly the same question on Wednesday — about the prospect of endless GOP investigations into his administration — Biden said he would work with Congress, and that he had no control over what Republicans did. He was there to serve the country.

But follow-ups were tough, because those chosen reporters made sure they took up as much time as possible with their questions. Unfortunately, some of them were inane or insipid (Steve Holland from Reuters being a notable exception). More than 90 other reporters in the room had no input. Biden criticized the press for crucial reporting errors in the run-up to the midterm elections and clearly enjoyed the banter with those who had made those errors, feeding their egos while subtly making fun of them as he did so. He is not Donald Trump. Biden has a sense of humor and a deft touch I’ve seen him employ many times over the years as he eviscerates those who put him off. He did that on at least two occasions Wednesday.

The highlight of the afternoon was when Biden was asked if he had any plans to investigate Elon Musk after his acquisition of Twitter. Without directly saying yes, Biden said he would definitely support examining Musk, his multiple business interests and his interaction with other countries. I couldn’t help but ask, “How?” Although I wasn’t on the favored list, he took that one. “Oh, there are a lot of ways,” he responded with a hint of glee.

I wonder if Musk soiled himself when he heard that response.

Biden admitted he might enjoy the spectacle of Trump and DeSantis beating each other up if they both vie for the Republican nomination in 2024. As will I! He described the potential wrestling match as “fun to watch.”

Biden suggested he’d support examining Elon Musk’s multiple business interests and his interactions with other countries. How exactly, I inquired. “Oh, there are a lot of ways.”

No kidding. Someone will sell tickets — probably Trump. He’s already selling greeting cards, T-shirts, hats, wine glasses, footballs, placemats and Christmas ornaments, along with raffling off tickets to see him perform. He’s a regular sideshow with a fascist dog whistle, who makes his followers howl.

The one question Biden faced that truly mattered for American politics — other than the implied threat dropped on Musk’s doorstep — was when Holland asked whether he intended to run for a second term. 

Biden said yes, he did intend to, but — looking at his wife, who sat in the first row watching the press conference — added that he’d like to get a week off during the holidays and make a final decision, with the aim of announcing his intentions in the early part of 2023.

As it turns out, Biden is seriously considering the question I posed at the beginning of this column. The bottom line is that no, the Democrats didn’t get slaughtered, but they had a tough time fielding decent candidates against misanthropic and fascist competitors who openly defied the Constitution and campaigned on destroying Medicare and Social Security.

You have to wonder how tired Biden is of all of this and how much he’s got left for a second term. Then again, when a reporter pointed out that a good two-thirds of the country are not in favor of his policies, he doubled down and said he was still intent on running. 

“Watch me,” he said. 

We are.

After the midterms, Trump faces a possibly fatal setback for his 2024 coup plans

In the run-up to the midterm elections, President Joe Biden gave not one but two speeches: “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic,” he warned, and “we’re often not faced with questions whether the vote we cast will preserve democracy, or put us at risk, but this year we are.” The response from the centrist Beltway punditry was twofold: Biden is speaking the honest truth, but also, he shouldn’t have. 

Former Republican commentator Josh Barro wrote a widely shared Substack column arguing that only hardcore Democratic partisans who were already locked in as voters cared about this. For everyone else, he argued, Biden was practically “telling voters that they have already lost their democracy” by arguing that they only had one choice if they wanted to save it.

The argument is well-constructed to flatter the punditry: It’s too clever by half and also assumes that ordinary voters are idiots. But it rested on a terrible interpretation of Biden’s rather plain-spoken speech. Biden repeatedly said he believes Republicans are capable of becoming a pro-democracy party again, but only if they rid themselves of the MAGA goons. Voters, he believes, are smart enough to understand this can only happen if Republicans lose so hard they finally cut Trump and the insurrectionists loose. 


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


Barro’s pretzel logic was widely embraced, as well, because of a New York Times poll showing that while voters understand the threat to democracy, they also don’t rank it highly as an issue. There were complex reasons for this, but mostly the reasons were ignored by a Beltway media that prefers the “voters are dummies” narrative. And so by Election Day it had hardened into common wisdom that Biden is a foolish old man for thinking voters would turn out to save their democracy from Trump’s unsubtle machinations to steal the 2024 election

Then, on Tuesday, Americans voted in an astonishingly high turnout election. They also did serious damage to Trump’s best — and possibly only — path toward illegally installing himself in the White House in 2024. 

The mainstream media tends to focus on national over state politics, and so most election coverage has centered on congressional elections. As I write this, party control of Congress is still a question mark. Many Senate races were close. It does seem like Republicans will gain control of the House. Not because they won fair and square, mind you, but because the cheating on that front long predates Trump’s more hamfisted anti-democracy efforts. 

For the purposes of stopping Trump’s long-simmering coup plans, however, we must turn to the state governments. Not to get too deep into the weeds, but recall that in 2020, Trump had what the January 6 committee called a “sophisticated seven-part plan to overturn the presidential election.” Most of his strategies, such as begging federal courts to believe his lies about a “stolen” election or inciting a mob to storm the Capitol, were dead on arrival. But one of his ideas has taken off in the Republican party: Get political leadership in states that voted for Biden to throw out or falsify the election results, so that illegal Trump electors can use the Electoral College to simply make him president, instead of the rightful winner.  

That plan failed in 2020 because several of the states Trump needed to make the plan work — predominantly swing states like Pennsylvania, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia — either had Democratic leaders or the few remaining honest Republican ones. These leaders simply wouldn’t play along with the “fake electors” scheme, even in places where the GOP-controlled state legislatures were gunning for it. So, for the past year, Trump has been focused — with surprising intensity, considering how many other legal battles he has cooking — on trying to remove them from office. He’s been championing replacements the media euphemistically calls “election deniers” — that is, Republicans who reject the results of the 2020 election and who wink at 2024 plans to invalidate election results they don’t like. 


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


As the Brennan Center noted, seven battleground states had GOP election deniers campaigning for governor. Four of those had secretary of state nominees who are election deniers, plus another, Amy Loudenbeck of Michigan, who flirts openly with the Big Lie. As of writing, four of the seven gubernatorial candidates have lost. Two others, Arizona and Nevada, are in races still too close to call. Only one of the seven, incumbent Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, coasted to an easy win. (And Florida is almost certainly voting Trump outright in 2024 anyway.) Three of the five sketchy would-be secretaries of state have already lost, while the other two are in elections currently too close to call. 

In other words, Trump tried to install people into powerful offices who could steal the election for him. And most of them have lost. It doesn’t mean we’re out of the woods yet. If it’s close enough in 2024, he may only need to steal one state in order to pull off a coup. (Or, heaven forbid, he could legally win, though that remains less likely.) But voters just built a firewall of honest state officials who will not let Trump tell them — as he tried to tell Georgia’s secretary of state in 2020 — to simply “find” the votes necessary to steal the election. This setback should also send a larger message to the GOP: The public does not want insurrectionist politics. That could scare off some of Trump’s allies from helping him, too. 

Maybe it’s all a coincidence. Maybe Biden’s speech didn’t make a difference. Maybe the pundits were right to say Americans wouldn’t vote to save democracy. But the data suggests otherwise. As the New York Times reported, Democratic turnout was remarkably high — it may beat the midterm record set in 2018 — driven by voter fears of Republican extremism. As Politico reported, an Edison Research exit poll shows that despite many Democratic voters feeling underwhelmed by Biden, they turned out anyway, driven by something other than enthusiasm about his performance when it comes to economic recovery. 

Maryland Democrat and January 6 committee member Rep. Jamie Raskin is not surprised. As he told the New York Times, “pundits sometimes project onto the public a crude materialism, where all people care about is pocketbook issues in the narrowest sense.” But, he believes, voters “understand how precarious and precious a thing constitutional democracy is, and they don’t want to lose it.”

After all, if you don’t have a democracy, there’s no way to fix all those other pressing problems we’re all worried about: Jobs, inflation, crime, health care, education. Giving up our power to a bunch of autocratic self-dealers like Trump is a surefire way to give up all hope of any progress on any of the issues voters say they care about. Pundits may not believe voters are smart enough to understand this. Biden, however, had faith that large numbers of people get it. They know that, without democracy, we can’t even begin to fix everything else that is broken. 

Can cannabis help us win the war against antibiotic resistance?

Cannabis sativa plants are essentially chemical factories that pump out tons of fascinating molecules, which we call cannabinoids. Humans have been making use of these compounds for thousands of years, as well as gorging on the plant’s nutritious seeds and using its fibers to make textiles.

But due to decades of stigma and the plant’s restricted legal status, there’s still a lot we don’t know about cannabis, especially its unique chemistry. A growing body of research suggests cannabinoids could make potent medications such as antibiotics, which is good news considering pathogens like bacteria, viruses and fungi are quickly evolving resistance to most of our defenses.

A recent analysis in The Lancet estimates that around 1.27 million people died from antibiotic resistant infections in 2019, with the authors concluding that these stubborn infections are “a health problem whose magnitude is at least as large as major diseases such as HIV and malaria and potentially much larger.” Climate change and the COVID pandemic seem to be making antibiotic resistance worse, with many experts anticipating this problem accelerating rather than slowing.

We’ve known that cannabis has antibiotic properties since the late 1950s, but their application in medicine has been largely ignored until recently. As antibiotic resistance grows as a problem, scientists are taking a closer look at cannabinoids. In a new review in the journal Pharmaceuticals, a team of Malaysian chemists stacked the evidence for how effective these plant compounds might be at fighting infections where other drugs fail.

C. sativa is a plant with an untapped potential,” the authors write. “This versatile plant can be used for various purposes. Given its complex metabolic profile and excessive use as a recreational substance, its therapeutic benefits should not be ignored or overshadowed.”

Cannabis didn’t evolve these chemicals to benefit humans — in fact, the plant emerged about 28 million years before the first humans did. Cannabis makes compounds like THC and CBD to protect itself against pests, but to also attract pollinators. The fact that we can get stoned from these chemicals — or make useful medicines from them — is just a coincidence. So what are they and what can they do?

The most familiar cannabinoid to most people is, of course, THC (delta-9-tetrahydracannabinol) which people seek out because it can cause a stoney, high feeling. THC isn’t just for euphoria, however. It has medicinal properties as well, being great at addressing nausea and certain types of pain.

There’s also CBD (cannabidiol), another psychoactive cannabinoid, only it doesn’t intoxicate people like THC. It is generally seen as having a more medicinal side, useful in treating some forms of epilepsy, insomnia, anxiety and even reducing cravings for tobacco or heroin.

CBD has some impressive antibiotic properties as well. A 2021 study in the journal Communications Biology tested CBD and found it to be effective against more than 20 types of bacteria, many of them with drug-resistant properties. “Importantly, we also demonstrate that CBD does not lead to resistance after repeated exposure,” the authors wrote, indicating that this drug may remain useful over time, whereas the efficacy of some antibiotics can fade in just two years or less.

They reported for the first time that CBD can selectively kill Neisseria gonorrhoeae, which causes the sexually-transmitted disease gonorrhea. Left untreated, gonorrhea can lead to permanent health problems, including infertility, long-term pelvic pain, increased risk for HIV and in rare cases, even death.

For eight decades, scientists have studied how so-called “super gonorrhea” is rapidly becoming impervious to a whole host of drugs, each with unique mechanisms of action or methods for killing bodily invaders. The World Health Organization reported in August that 82 million cases of gonorrhea were contracted in 2020, underlining the growing severity of this problem.

So how does CBD fight a pathogen that other drugs cannot? The Communications Biology research suggests that CBD can damage the membranes of cells, causing them to malfunction, but experts still aren’t sure how exactly it targets these weaknesses. Some research also suggests that CBD can interfere with how bacteria communicate with each other, especially when used in combination with other antibiotics.

Using cannabinoids in combination with other drugs seems to be one of the most favored routes for the future of cannabinoid-based medicine, with the Pharmaceuticals review authors noting, “The results of previous studies suggest that cannabinoids can potentially improve the efficacy of existing antibiotics.” It’s unlikely that cannabinoids will totally replace antibiotics, but they can be complementary tools for keeping stubborn illnesses at bay.

Pharmaceutical companies may also develop analogs of cannabinoids, which are drugs that are chemically similar but may be more effective than naturally-derived cannabinoids. Improving on nature is par for the course with biotech research, and the next generation of cannabis-based antibiotics could be tailored to specifically target the most obstinate pathogens. For example, a company called Skye Bioscience is developing a drug called CBD-Val-HS that may help dissolve better in water than CBD, but research is still in early stages. For now, it’s too early to tell how effective or widespread these drugs will be, only that their potential is worth exploring.

The biggest obstacle to developing cannabinoids into medications isn’t their effectiveness. It’s their Schedule 1 status, which treats these cannabis derivatives as highly dangerous, making them expensive and tedious to study. Cannabis is more difficult to study than cocaine or methamphetamine, for example.

“Due to the difficulty of complying with these regulations’ legal requirements, researchers and funding organizations may be less inclined to examine innovative products,” the Pharmaceuticals review authors lament. But in October, the Biden Administration announced plans to review this relationship, which would be a big deal for cannabis researchers. As antibiotic resistance accelerates in the microbial world, changes to marijuana laws could open doors to developing better defenses — and assembling a more effective arsenal can’t happen soon enough.

Polling experts on the red trickle: “The death of polling has been greatly exaggerated”

At the time of this writing, a number of prominent Republicans are refusing to accept their declared or potentially looming defeats.

From candidates for governor like Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania, Lee Zeldin in New York and Kari Lake in Arizona to a former president with a lot on the line (Donald Trump himself), the party of Abraham Lincoln continues to buck the previously unbroken American tradition of conceding after losing an election. Yet after consulting several polling experts, Salon repeatedly heard the same view expressed over and over again, with some variation but little meaningful deviation. In the words of one of those experts, Joshua Dyck, who is a political science professor and Director of the Center for Public Opinion at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell:

“The death of polling has been greatly exaggerated.”

W. Joseph Campbell — a professor at American University and author of the book “Lost in a Gallup: Polling Failure in U.S. Presidential Elections” — elaborated on exactly what happened in the 2022 contests.

“It may still be emerging, but as of this morning, I’d say polling performance overall was not bad,” Campbell observed. “It certainly wasn’t the embarrassment or the surprise that we saw in 2020. The presidential election polls collectively were well off the mark in terms of the Biden-Trump race, and also had problems down-ticket with certain Senate and gubernatorial races. This year, it’s not quite as dramatic, at least as it stands now, although there were a number of pollsters who quite clearly overestimated Republican candidates and prospects.”

By overturning the half-century of precedent that existed after Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s Republicans … galvanized voters who felt their rights were at stake.

David Barker, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies and a professor of government at American University, reflected to Salon that it was “somewhat surprising” to him that “the polls seemed to nail it.” Initially describing Tuesday evening as “a good night for pollsters,” Barker quickly revised his language.

“I guess I should say it was a quite a good night for traditional pollsters who use ‘gold standard’ traditional methods of polling [such as dialing people up on the phone], which most pollsters have kind of given up on because of incredibly low response rates and have moved to various other machinations that sometimes seem to work,” Barker explained.

Barker’s comments underscore the key issue involved in polling of all kinds – namely, the fact that the mechanics of actually conducting a poll are extremely complicated. There are so many variables involved that even competent pollsters face a not-insignificant chance of being totally wrong after the ballots are counted.

“For effectively predicting the result in advance, the main challenges for pollsters are identifying voters, reaching those would-be voters and then getting them to respond,” Christopher Wlezien, a professor of government at the University of Texas in Austin, told Salon. “The first of these has been a problem for a long time but the latter two have grown in importance in recent years, and in ways that may be associated with candidate preferences, possibly the reaching aspect more than the other.”

In 2022, that last variable did not seem to have been a factor, given that the polls aligned with the election results more closely than many pundits expected. Yet even if there had once again been noteworthy discrepancies between the polls and the results, that would not necessarily discredit the pollsters.

“Some of these candidates declared allegiance to Donald Trump and that does not seem to be going over well this cycle.”

“Almost all polls, because of the cost and so on, are presented at the 95% confidence level,” top election expert Larry Sabato of Sabato’s Crystal Ball explained. “That is the margin of error applies at the 95% confidence level. That means 5% don’t. That means one out of every 20 polls has results beyond the margin of error, the listed margin of error, simply for statistical reasons. They could be wrong even if they did everything right. Nobody ever mentions that.”

While no one is arguing that the polls did everything right in 2022, they clearly came closer to hitting the mark than many skeptics believed would be the case. To be fair to those skeptics, however, historically the party which holds the White House loses a lot of seats during midterm elections. While exceptions have applied when a sitting president is particularly popular, Joe Biden’s approval rating is stuck in the low 40s while he struggles with inflation and rising gas prices. During the normal course of events, the so-called “red wave” that Republicans had anticipated would have materialized.

The 2022 elections, apparently, were abnormal. A big reason why that happened (as Salon’s Amanda Marcotte recently pointed out) is that the Supreme Court overturned abortion rights in America with its controversial ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson. By overturning the half-century of precedent that existed after Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s Republicans simultaneously galvanized voters who felt their rights were at stake and made it seem as if the Republican-controlled Supreme Court was the “in-party” while Democrats were the “out-party.”

“That radically changed public policy in a particular direction, which is what you usually see out of a president or the Congress,” Barker mused. “Therefore it created a psychology on the part of Democrats that made them feel like the out-party. It made them feel like they were losing something based on the current dynamics in Washington and wanted to get out there and try to do something to change that. In that case, that meant electing more Democrats.”


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.


In addition to feeling as if the Supreme Court had rendered Democrats into the “out-party,” voters seemed to have felt like the out-party because of Trump. Although the former president was not on the ballot this year, his repeated pushing of a Big Lie — namely, falsely claiming that he won the 2020 election — likely combined with the Jan. 6 insurrection and his many other scandals to keep him front of mind.

“We typically see punishment given out by voters to administrations that have had, at best, uneven economic performance,” Campbell pointed out. “The Biden government has fared very poorly on those fronts, but the voters are not punishing the Biden administration for its failings. That encourages one to look elsewhere” for voting motivations. Noting that “not all midterms are alike,” Campbell speculated that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell may have “identified a real flaw” in Republicans’ 2022 strategy when he commented weeks ago on low candidate quality, a veiled swipe at the many electoral duds endorsed by Trump during the primaries.

“Some of these candidates declared allegiance to Donald Trump and that does not seem to be going over well this cycle,” Campbell observed. “Their ties to Trump are not necessarily going to help them in the general election. It may help them win the primary, but it doesn’t seem to be translating into wide popular support in the general election. I think candidate quality may be a factor here as well, and then related to that is Trump’s shadow.”

Other factors may have also played a role in the midterm elections aligning with the polls instead of conventional wisdom. For instance, Generation Z turned out to vote in higher numbers than expected, and some pundits believe this surge could be attributed to Biden’s student loan forgiveness program. Yet it is also important to recall that not all polls are made equal. If anything, the greatest shortcoming of the polls in 2022 was that so-called gold standard polls were mixed in with surveys by firms biased toward Republicans. By flooding the zone with polls skewed to make it seem like Republicans had massive advantages, these firms may have inadvertently caused their own side to make political miscalculations that could have been avoided if they had relied on neutral firms. Indeed, to the extent that polling averages veered from reality, the trend was in the direction of them overestimating Republican support because of those partisan polls.

By flooding the zone with polls skewed to make it seem Republicans had massive advantages, these firms may have inadvertently caused their own side to make political miscalculations.

“One side floods the zone, the Republicans, and affect the polling averages,” Sabato told Salon. “You can’t really trust them anymore.” He specifically cited Trafalgar and co/efficient as examples of companies that produce these types of polls.

Dyck, who referred to the Republican poll-flooded environment as filled with “noise and garbage,” described it as “either an overreaction to partisan non-responsiveness or to perceived right-wing bias in the polling industry” that can lead to “outward attempts by Republican and right-leaning firms to essentially create their own polling narratives.” As one clue that this played a role in the surprising results, Dyck pointed out that the RealClearPolitics polling average and FiveThirtyEight polling average were different because the former gave pro-Republican polls more weight than the latter.

“RealClearPolitics essentially decided to include every single poll, regardless of which firm conducted it, and there’s a little bit more of a correction for bias that exists in the FiveThirtyEight modeling,” Dyck explained. As such, RealClearPolitics characterized races like the Senate contests in New Hampshire and Washington as close even though they wound up being won easily by the Democratic candidates. Ultimately RealClearPolitics predicted that Republicans would pick up three Senate seats, an outcome that is already impossible. Other polls, as Barker pointed out, offered ludicrous predictions such as Kari Lake blowing out her Democratic opponent in the Arizona gubernatorial election.

“Because they were the lion’s share of polls this cycle, they actually had a heavy presence in these kind of polling averages that you see,” Barker explained.

Finally, the experts who spoke to Salon all pointed out that presidential elections and midterm elections have fundamentally different dynamics. Indeed, while the 2016 and 2020 election polls were off, the 2018 midterm election polls wound up being pretty accurate. It could very well be that, for unknown reasons, the polling dynamics that added unpredictability to the two races where Trump ran for president did not apply in midterm election years. For that matter, even the dynamics behind the polling errors in the 2016 and 2020 contests were radically different.

“The 2016 error was a split,” Dyck explained, meaning that some traditional polling methods worked and others fell short. By contrast, he added, “In 2020 we just had a messed up election because of COVID-19, and so you had differential partisan non-response bias that was caused by COVID-19. Pollsters were seeing higher response rates throughout the year because people were at home and bored, but there were differences between the people who were home and bored,” with Democrats more likely than Republicans to answer pollsters. “That was not a Trump-caused phenomenon, as so many people attributed it to this ‘Shy Trump voter’ phenomenon. It had to do with actual underlying behavior about the COVID-19 pandemic; some people were going on as if life was normal, and so they had lower response rates and surveys.”

It remains to be seen if the anti-Trump and pro-choice trends revealed in both the 2022 polls and elections will continue to shape politics or prove to be as anomalous as Trump’s 2016 election victory. If nothing else, however, there is little doubt that the polls celebrated a big win on Tuesday night even if Democrats and Republicans continue to figure out the exact shape of what happened for them politically speaking.

As Sabato himself put it, “Nerds are good.”

Biden to release transcripts from Bush and Cheney 9/11 commission

President Joe Biden is expected to release the transcript of interviews with former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney from their interviews with the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission.

The Wall Street Journal reported that it could happen as early as Wednesday.

The commission was a bipartisan one that was fashioned to research specifics from all levels of government and examine failures on Sept. 11, 2001 and leading up to it and make recommendations.

“The April 2004 interview with the bipartisan 9/11 commission, which took place in the Oval Office, included discussion of intelligence warnings before the attacks and the events that unfolded on the day of Sept. 11, according to the copy of the 31-page document,” the Journal explained. “It also describes Mr. Bush acknowledging that Air Force One had poor communications while he was on the plane shortly after the attacks began—and Mr. Bush’s assertion that he gave Mr. Cheney the authority to shoot down commercial airliners that were unresponsive.”

“‘Yes, engage the enemy,'” Bush is described as saying to Cheney. “‘You have the authority to shoot down an airplane.'”

At another point, the documents quote Cheney telling Bush over and over again not to come back to Washington and he agreed.

Bush was in Florida at an elementary school while a teacher was reading with him. The incident was captured live on camera when an aide leaned over and whispered to the president what was happening. His face noticeably changed as he remained quiet. He later told biographers that he didn’t want to scare the children.

The interview wasn’t recorded or filmed, there was nothing more than a note-taker present, and neither man was under oath, the report explained.

Mike Pence called out for blaming Jan. 6 on The Lincoln Project

Rick Wilson, co-founder of the Never Trumper group The Lincoln Project, attacked former Vice President Mike Pence after an excerpt of his new book was published in the Wall Street Journal.

As part of the book, Pence talks about an ad in which the Lincoln Project taunted Pence and Trump after the election.

“In a Dec. 5 call, the president for the first time mentioned challenging the election results in Congress,” wrote Pence. ‘By mid-December, the internet was filled with speculation about my role. An irresponsible TV ad by a group calling itself the Lincoln Project suggested that when I presided over the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress to count the electoral votes, it would prove that I knew ”it’s over,’ and that by doing my constitutional duty, I would be ‘putting the final nail in the coffin’ of the president’s re-election.”

Pence said that it was the “first time anyone implied I might be able to change the outcome. It was designed to annoy the president. It worked. During a December cabinet meeting, President Trump told me the ad ‘looked bad for you.’ I replied that it wasn’t true: I had fully supported the legal challenges to the election and would continue to do so.”

What was already afoot was an organization trying to change the electoral and get “fake electors” submitted to Pence that day, forcing him to choose. That plan began Nov. 18, when the first memo was sent from attorney Kenneth Chesebro to attorney James Troupis. It was long before the Lincoln Project dropped its ad. The Financial Times did an article on the Jan. 6 certification on Nov. 18 as well.

By Dec. 4, 2020, the Washington Post was reporting that members of Congress were going to protest the certification on Jan. 6.

The Lincoln Project ad dropped on Dec. 8, 2020, well after Pence’s own party was pushing for the Jan. 6 protests.

In his tweet, Wilson said he “cannot get over Mike Pence blaming the Lincoln Project for Jan. 6. Cannot.”

Herschel Walker and Raphael Warnock set for a runoff

After failing to tip the scales in Tuesday’s midterm elections, Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) and Republican candidate Herschel Walker are officially set for a runoff in their fight to Trump (or not Trump) the U.S. Senate.

With Warnock at 49.4%, having earned 1,941,499 votes, and Walker at 48.5% with 1,906,246 as of Wednesday, the two will face off after four more weeks of campaigning, ramping up to December 6.

As Politico points out, the additional campaigning will “likely draw tens of millions more in campaign spending to a state that’s weathered five years of non-stop, history-making elections.”

If, during this four week stretch, Trump makes his big announcement that he will, in fact, be running for president in 2024, “there’s a chance that it turns the runoff into a referendum on Trump rather than on Warnock,” says Georgia Republican strategist Brian Robinson in a quote obtained from Politico.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


“Warnock has a successful record of posting up on Trump, which is how he got to the Senate, so he’d love to repeat that formula,” Robinson says. “It’s probably best for everyone thinking about 2024 to begin after the 2022 cycle, which isn’t over yet.”

As of now, the Senate majority hangs in the balance with only 31 out of 35 seats called.

“I’m telling you right now, I didn’t come to lose,” Walker said on Tuesday night as the votes trickled in.

“Here’s what we know, when they’re finished counting, we are going to have received more votes than my opponent,” Warnock said in his own statement, made to Twitter on Tuesday night. “And whether we need to work all night, through tomorrow, or for four more weeks, we will do what we need to and bring this home.”

Talking turtles? A new study reveals that, in their own special way, turtles chat with each other

There is a new study out about how turtles and other amphibious species previously thought to be mute actually vocalize with each other. Yet the study did not focus entirely on the shelled animals known for such oddities as breathing through their butts or being exploited for car advertisements and Dana Carvey comedies.

Along with the mata mata turtle and a reptile known as the tuatara, among the other animals studied were caecilians, a slithery type of amphibian with an outward appearance akin to snakes. Instead of having a body covered in scales, however, a caecilian’s body is covered in skin with ring-shaped folds. Located primarily in the tropics of Africa, Asia and Latin America, one would not expect caecilians to be particularly vocal. Yet as University of Zurich researcher Gabriel Jorgewich-Cohen studied caecilians to see if they could produce vocalizations, he found they were not only vocal — they were comical.

“While recording animals, caecilians were the species I expected to be the one that would not vocalize at all,” Cohen admitted to Salon by email. “It was a great surprise to discover that they not only vocalize but also do so very often, producing very funny sounds. When I first heard it, I sent it to a friend who was helping me during fieldwork and he could not believe me. He thought it was me making the sounds and making fun of him.”

“It was a great surprise to discover that they not only vocalize but also do so very often, producing very funny sounds.”

Jorgewich-Cohen’s friend had no reason to feel self-conscious, as the paleontologist had joined a team of international researchers to produce a landmark new study for the journal Nature Communications. Seeking to learn about the evolutionary origins of acoustic communication in vertebrates, the scientists recorded 53 species from four major clades — turtles, tuatara, caecilians and lungfish — to analyze what they heard. In the process, they learned that there are turtles, tuataras, and caecilians that engage in vocal communication, even though those clades had previously been perceived as non-vocal.

“When put in perspective, these findings show that vocal behavior is an evolutionary innovation that first appeared in the common ancestor of tetrapods (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) and lungfish,” Jorgewich-Cohen explained.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.


To be clear, this vocal behavior does not resemble anything as magnificent as a wolf howling or a bird tweeting. The Cayenne caecilian, in this journalist’s opinion, produced sounds a bit like exaggerated yet strangely half-hearted armpit farts, while the mata mata turtle almost came across like a purring cat. Yet despite these seemingly alien vocalizations, the new study reveals that these creatures have much more in common with human beings than we had previously assumed. Rather than making these animals more exotic when compared to us, the new study discloses the extent to which we are part of the same family tree.

“Acoustic communication, broadly distributed along the vertebrate phylogeny, plays a fundamental role in parental care, mate attraction and various other behaviours,” the authors explain in their study. “Despite its importance, comparatively less is known about the evolutionary roots of acoustic communication.”

“Acoustic communication, broadly distributed along the vertebrate phylogeny, plays a fundamental role in parental care, mate attraction and various other behaviours.”

Regardless of the revelations from this paper, there is plenty of more work necessary.

“New research is needed to better understand the usage of these sounds by these animals, together with their social behavior and cognitive functions,” Jorgewich-Cohen pointed out. “Studies focused on vocal behavior during the transition from water (fish) to land (tetrapods) can also help to clarify if this behavior appeared 400 [million years before the present], like we suggest, or if this is actually a much older behavior that we may share with some lineages of bony fish.”

In addition to helping researchers better understand humanity’s relationship with the animal kingdom, the study also opens up pathways for deepening our comprehension of the origins of human speech.

“The common ancestral origin of acoustic communication provides further justification for the use of choanate animals as models in the study of the origins of human language and speech,” the authors write.

What was so captivating about the “rotisserie chicken guy” who ate 40 whole birds in 40 days?

Food has a unique place in the social media realm. What was once held “sacred” on Food Network is now performed by any person who desires to do so across social media, from Twitch to TikTok. Whether making a full-fledged layer cake or merely a grilled cheese, there is food being prepared by someone on a social media platform at nearly every minute of the day. There’s a cacophony of buzz words, of terminology, of cooking vessels and of “trendy” ingredients. Every once in a while, though, something breaks through: negroni….spagliatto….with prosecco, corn kid, dalgona coffee. 

Just over forty days ago, though, a Twitter user set out with a humble goal: over the course of nearly two months, he would consume one rotisserie chicken per day, documenting this on Twitter as the days went by. What began as a modest exercise culminated in a convivial, jovial celebration of a man sitting at a small table, cheering while an applauding, beaming crowd varnished heaps of adoration onto him. To anyone unacquainted, this seemed like a truly bizarre moment. And even to those who are acquainted, it is unquestionably still a bizarre moment. But something about those videos stirred a real reception across Twitter.

In a landscape of overtly wasteful “cooking videos” crafted for nothing other than gross-out humor and clout — not to mention cringeworthy recipe videos like Paula Patton’s fried chicken — a certain wholesomeness came through, breaking through the sardonic, hard-edged shell of the internet’s collective consciousness. Was it the natural, organic means in which this all came together? The rotisserie chicken guy’s no-frills attitude and approach? The aligning synchronicity of the Philadelphia ethos? Inadvertent thirst? His glib, no-frills nonchalance? The RCG’s insistence on always consuming a large bottle of seltzer with his requisite rotisserie chicken?

To set the scene, the guy’s name is Alexander Tominsky and he’s a 30-year-old server from Philadelphia. It wasn’t until day 11 of his quest that he shared it on social media, noting “I would like to Invite you all on a journey that I am on. I am eating a rotisserie chicken every day for 30 days. Today is day 11. I will keep you all updated as I get closer to my goal.” As the project progressed and his followers grew, he extended the challenge to 40 days.

This past Sunday, he reached day 40, and the climax was one for the record books. 

As Jake Nivens writes for Interview Magazine, “On Sunday, the morning after the Phillies lost to the Houston Astros in the World Series, he lifted the spirits of some hundreds of Philadelphian who gathered at an abandoned pier behind a Walmart to watch Tominsky eat his 40th and final chicken.”

But what led to this moment, complete with a red carpet?

While the origins of this feat seem blurry (Tominsky tells multiple outlets that he would pick up a rotisserie chicken to eat before work because of its price and convenience, but it’s unclear when exactly he decided to turn it into a challenge of sorts), it is clear that he knew he was onto something once he made that initial post.

 One particularly noteworthy aspect of Tominsky’s quest is that it was entirely self-imposed, with no promise of money, attention, followers, or clout — though they did come and in hordes, at that. VICE notes that he went from about 400 to 40,000 followers on Twitter over the past month and a half.

As far as the chicken itself, Tominsky shared with multiple outlets that he opted only for plain, un-sauced chicken, but he did purchase from multiple grocers. In an interview with The Takeout, Tominsky states that he’s tried rotisserie chicken from Acme, Rittenhouse Market, Giant (which smokes their chickens), Shop Rite, Walmart and Boston Market. In case you were wondering, none of the 40 chickens were from Costco because Tominsky doesn’t have a membership. In some interviews, he notes that he ate nothing but chicken for the past few weeks. In other interviews, though, he notes that he sometimes ate raw vegetables: radish, broccoli, a comically a large carrot which you can see in many of his Twitter photos. 

In speaking about the chicken, Tominsky told Nivens that he chose rotisserie chickens because they’re “kind of like a sensory bomb. You have the smell, you have the warmth, the slimy texture, the sound it makes when you pull the skin off the flesh.”  As far as how he felt after all of that chicken, Tominsky told Newsweek that he felt “cramps, dizziness, constant heartburn. I think from the sodium,” and he told The New York Times that he actually wound up losing 16 pounds. 

In his own words — and in a more verbose moment than usual — he tells VICE why he thinks there was such a sudden surge of interest in him, stating “I think it’s because it’s not a bunch of bullshit: I’m not doing this for any reason but to do it and I think a lot of people do things that are with other intentions or motivations. Also, people eat, everyone or hopefully eats, so I guess people can relate? And it’s just a positive thing that isn’t hurting anyone.” 

He also mentioned to Mashable that he’s looking to hopefully get supporters to donate to Philabundance, which is a Philadelpha-based organization that works with the food insecure. 


Want more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food’s newsletter, The Bite.


There’s a bit of a tongue-in-cheek appeal to most of Tominky’s interviews and interactions, in addition to his dryness on social media, but as noted, the uproarious crowd was captivated by something that went deeper than any sort of food-induced irony or PR schemes. In some interviews, Tominsky taps into a more existential realm, such as in The New York Times when he notes that he “must do something that brings him pain [in order] to make others smile.” In another interview, he stated that his journey was “microscopic in comparison to what the world lives with and sees everyday.” 

His glib simplicity is certainly a selling point and his Twitter bio is a perfect example: it reads “I ate chicken.” The bulk of all of his photos (aside from the triumphant moment in which he ate the final bites of the last chicken on Sunday) are all brooding and serious, nary a smirk in sight. This same tone comes through in his response to Purdue on Twitter, when he replied with one word to their inquiring over whether he’d be interested in doing a chicken taste test of sorts, ostensibly turning down an offer of free chicken. 

Tominsky claims that he really enjoyed the old-school act of putting up fliers throughout the Philadelphia area for his final act of chicken consumption. According to Mashable, Tominsky believes about 500 people came to watch him finish that final chicken. As Tominsky was about to finish the last bites of his final chicken on Sunday, Bruce Springsteen played, the crowd sang and chanted, cheering him on as he finished. 

A Philadelphia resident named Sarah Skochko — who was in attendance at Sunday’s event — told Billy Penn that due to the current state of the world, “we’ve all become nihilists. And something like this — that’s not done with a profit motive, or really any meaning at all — is refreshing.” Conversely, another attendee said “I don’t think there’s anything to take out of it as far as a moral lesson,” they said. “It’s just a guy eating chicken.” No matter how you take it, there’s an unvarnished appeal of some sort. 

After taking the final bites, Tominsky told the crowd “I ate the chicken. I did the best I can. I just thank you all for being here, and thanks for watching me consume.”

For better or for worse, for far-reaching reasonings that touch on the state of the world, or perhaps, for no reason whatsoever, Alexander Tominsky ate 40 rotisserie chickens in 40 days, amassing a following and a fandom as he did so. And that was that. Now, with greasy fingers, a distended stomach and a newfound “fanbase,” Tominsky’s challenge has come to a close. But for a fleeting, ephemeral moment, his adherents were able to forget about the midterms, a World Series loss, or other personal doldroms and instead focus on a simple man eating a singular chicken per day. 

‘Separate and unequal’: Critics say Newsom’s pricey Medicaid reforms leave most patients behind

It wasn’t exactly an emergency, but Michael Reed, a security guard who lives in Watts, had back pain and ran out of his blood pressure medication. Unsure where else to turn, he went to his local emergency room for a refill.

Around the same time, James Woodard, a homeless man, appeared for his third visit that week. He wasn’t in medical distress. Nurses said he was likely high on meth and just looking for a place to rest.

In an overflow tent outside, Edward Green, a restaurant cook, described hearing voices and needing medication for his bipolar disorder.

The three patients were among dozens who packed the emergency room at MLK Community Hospital, a bustling health care complex in South Los Angeles reincarnated from the old hospital known as “Killer King” for its horrific patient care. The new campus serves the 1.3 million residents of Willowbrook, Compton, Watts, and other neighborhoods — a heavily Black and Latino population that suffers disproportionately high rates of devastating chronic conditions like diabetes, liver disease, and high blood pressure.

Arguably, none of the three men should have gone, on this warm April afternoon, to the emergency room, a place intended to address severe and life-threatening cases — and where care is extremely expensive.

But patients and doctors say it is nearly impossible to find a timely medical appointment or receive adequate care in the impoverished community, where fast food is easy to come by and fresh fruits and vegetables are not. Liquor stores outnumber grocery stores, and homeless encampments are overflowing. A staggering 72% of patients who receive care at the hospital rely on Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program for low-income people.

“For some people, the emergency room is a last resort. But for so many people who live here, it’s literally all there is,” said Dr. Oscar Casillas, who runs the department. “Most of what I see is preventable — preventable with normal access to health care. But we don’t have that here.”

The community is short 1,400 doctors, according to Dr. Elaine Batchlor, the hospital’s CEO, who said her facility is drowning under a surge of patients who are sicker than those in surrounding communities. For instance, the death rate from diabetes is 76% higher in the community than in Los Angeles County as a whole, 77% higher for high blood pressure — an early indicator of heart disease — and 50% higher for liver disease.

But dramatic changes are afoot that could herald improvements in care — or cement the stark health disparities that persist between rich and poor communities.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is spearheading a massive experiment in Medi-Cal, pouring nearly $9 billion into a five-year initiative that targets the sickest and costliest patients and provides them with nonmedical benefits such as home-delivered meals, money for housing move-in costs, and home repairs to make living environments safer for people with asthma.

The concept — which is being tested in California on a larger scale than anywhere else in the country — is to improve patient health by funneling money into social programs and keeping patients out of costly institutions such as emergency departments, jails, nursing homes, and mental health crisis centers.

The initiative, known as CalAIM, sounds like an antidote to some of the ills that plague MLK. Yet only a sliver of its patients will receive the new and expensive benefits.

Just 108 patients — the hospital treats about 113,000 people annually — have enrolled since January. Statewide, health insurers have signed up more than 97,200 patients out of roughly 14.7 million Californians with Medi-Cal, according to state officials. And while a growing number of Medi-Cal enrollees are expected to receive the new benefits in the coming years, most will not.

Top state health officials argue that the broader Medi-Cal population will benefit from other components of CalAIM, which is a multipronged, multiyear effort to boost patients’ overall physical and mental health. But doctors, hospital leaders, and health insurance executives are skeptical that the program will fundamentally improve the quality of care for those not enrolled — including access to doctors, one of the biggest challenges for Medi-Cal patients in South Los Angeles.

“The state is now saying it will allow Medicaid dollars to be spent on things like housing and nutritious food — and those things are really important — but they’re still not willing to pay for medical care,” Batchlor said.

Batchlor has been lobbying the Newsom administration and state lawmakers to fix basic health care for the state’s poorest residents. She believes that increasing payments for doctors and hospitals that treat Medi-Cal patients could lead to improvements in both quality and access. The state and the 25 managed-care insurance plans it pays to provide health benefits to most Medi-Cal enrollees reimburse providers so little for care that it perpetuates “racism and discrimination,” she said.

Batchlor said the hospital gets about $150, on average, to treat a Medi-Cal patient in its emergency room. But it would receive about $650 if that patient had Medicare, she said, while a patient with commercial health insurance would trigger a payment of about $2,000.

The hospital brought in $344 million in revenue in 2020 and spent roughly $330 million on operations and patient care. It loses more than $30 million a year on the emergency room alone, Batchlor said.

Medicaid is generally the lowest payer in health care, and California is among the lowest-paying states in the country, experts say.

“The rates are not high enough for providers to practice. Go to Beverly Hills and those people are overdosing on health care, but here in Compton, patients are dying 10 years earlier because they can’t get health care,” Batchlor said. “That’s why I call it separate and unequal.”

Newsom in September vetoed a bill that would have boosted Medi-Cal payment rates for the hospital, saying the state can’t afford it. But Batchlor isn’t giving up. Nor are other hospitals, patient advocates, Medi-Cal health insurers, and the state’s influential doctors’ lobby, which are working to persuade Newsom and state lawmakers to pony up more money for Medi-Cal.

It’ll be a tough sell. Newsom’s top health officials defend California’s rates, saying the state has boosted pay for participating providers by offering bonus and incentive payments for improvements in health care quality and equity — even as the state adds Medi-Cal recipients to the system.

“We’ve been the most aggressive state in expanding Medi-Cal, especially with the addition of undocumented immigrants,” said Dustin Corcoran, CEO of the California Medical Association, which represents doctors and is spearheading a campaign to lobby officials. “But we have done nothing to address the patient access side to health care.”

The hospital previously known as Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center was forced to shut down in 2007 after a Los Angeles Times investigation revealed the county-run hospital’s “long history of harming, or even killing, those it was meant to serve.” In one well-publicized case, a homeless woman was writhing in pain and vomiting blood while janitors mopped around her. She later died.

MLK Community Hospital rose from its ashes in 2015 as a private, nonprofit safety-net hospital that runs largely on public insurance and philanthropy. Its state-of-the-art facilities include a center to treat people with diabetes and prevent their limbs from being amputated — and the hospital is trying to reach homeless patients with a new street medicine team.

Still, decades after the deadly 1965 Watts riots spurred construction of the original hospital — which was supposed to bring high-quality health care to poor neighborhoods in South Los Angeles — many disparities persist.

Less than a mile from the hospital, 60-year-old Sonny Hawthorne rattled through some trash cans on the sidewalk. He was raised in Watts and has been homeless for most of his adult life, other than stints in jail for burglary.

He hustles on his bike doing odd jobs for cash, such as cleaning yards and recycling, but said he has trouble filling out job applications because he can’t read. Most of his day is spent just surviving, searching for food and shelter.

Hawthorne is one of California’s estimated 173,800 homeless residents, most of whom are enrolled in Medi-Cal or qualify for the program. He has diabetes and high blood pressure. He had been on psychotropic medicine for depression and paranoia but hasn’t taken it in months or years. He can’t remember.

“They wanted me to come back in two weeks, but I didn’t go,” he said of an emergency room visit this year for chronic foot pain associated with diabetes. “It’s too much responsibility sometimes.”

Hawthorne’s chronic health conditions and homelessness should qualify him for the CalAIM initiative, which would give him access to a case manager to help him find a primary care doctor, address untreated medical conditions, and navigate the new social services that may be available to him under the program.

But it’s not up to him whether he receives the new benefits.

The state has yielded tremendous power to Medi-Cal’s managed-care insurance companies to decide which social services they will offer. They also decide which of their sickest and most vulnerable enrollees get them.

One benefit all plans must offer is intensive care management, in which certain patients are assigned to case managers who help them navigate their health and social service needs, get to appointments, take their medications regularly, and eat healthy foods.

Plans can also provide benefits from among 14 broad categories of social services, such as six months of free housing for some homeless patients discharged from the hospital, beds in sobering centers that allow patients to recover and get clean outside the emergency room, and assistance with daily tasks such as grocery shopping.

L.A. Care Health Plan, the largest Medi-Cal managed-care insurer in Los Angeles County, with more than 2.5 million enrollees, is contracting with the hospital, which will provide housing and case management services under the initiative. For now, the hospital is targeting patients who are homeless and repeat emergency room visitors, said Fernando Lopez Rico, who helps homeless patients get services.

So far, the hospital has referred 78 patients to case managers and enrolled 30 other patients in housing programs. Only one has been placed in permanent housing, and about 17 have received help getting temporary shelter.

“It is very difficult to place people,” Lopez Rico said. “There’s almost nothing available, and we get a lot of hesitancy and pushback from private property owners not wanting to let these individuals or families live there.”

Patrick Alvarez, 57, has diabetes and was living in a shed without running water until July, when an infection in his feet grew so bad that he had several toes amputated.

The hospital sent him to a rehabilitation and recovery center, where he is learning to walk again, receiving counseling, and looking for permanent housing.

If he finds a place he can afford, CalAIM will pay his first month’s and last month’s rent, the security deposit, and perhaps even utility hookup fees.

But the hunt for housing, even with the help of new benefits, is arduous. A one-bedroom apartment he saw in September was going for $1,600 a month and required a deposit of $1,600. “It’s horrible, I can’t afford that,” he said.

Hawthorne needs help just as badly. But he’s unlikely to get it since he doesn’t have a phone or permanent address — and wouldn’t be easy for the hospital to find. The homeless encampments where he lives are routinely cleared by law enforcement officials.

“We have so many more people who need help than are able to get it,” Lopez Rico said. “There aren’t enough resources to help everyone, so only some people get in.”

L.A. Care has referred about 28,400 members to CalAIM case managers, roughly 1% of its total enrollees, according to its CEO, John Baackes. It is offering housing, food, and other social services to even fewer: about 12,600 people.

CalAIM has the potential to dramatically improve the health of patients who are lucky enough to receive new benefits, Baackes said. But he isn’t convinced it will save the health care system money and believes it will leave behind millions of other patients — without greater investment in the broader Medi-Cal program.

“Access is not as good for Medi-Cal patients as it is for people with means, and that is a fundamental problem that has not changed with CalAIM,” Baackes said.

Evidence shows that basic Medi-Cal patient care is often subpar.

Year-over-year analyses published by the state Department of Health Care Services, which administers Medi-Cal, have found that, by some measures, Medi-Cal health plans are getting worse at caring for patients, not better. Among the most recent findings: The rates of breast and cervical cancer screenings for women were worse in 2020 than 2019, even when the demands that covid-19 placed on the health care system were factored into the analysis. Hospital readmissions increased, and diabetes care declined.

“The impact of covid is real — providers shut down — but we also know we need a lot of improvement in access and quality,” said State Medicaid Director Jacey Cooper. “We don’t feel we are where we should be in California.”

Cooper said her agency is cracking down on Medi-Cal insurance plans that are failing to provide adequate care and is strengthening oversight and enforcement of insurers, which are required by state law to provide timely access to care and enough network doctors to serve all their members.

The state is also requiring participating health plans to sign new contracts with stricter quality-of-care measures.

Cooper argues CalAIM will improve the quality of care for all Medi-Cal patients, describing aspects of the initiative that require health plans to hook patients up with primary care doctors, connect them with specialty care, and develop detailed plans to keep them out of expensive treatment zones like the emergency room.

She denied that CalAIM will leave millions of Medi-Cal patients behind and said the state has increased incentive and bonus payments so health care providers will focus on improving care while implementing the initiative.

“CalAIM targets people who are homeless and extremely high-need, but we’re also focusing on wellness and prevention,” she told KHN. “It really is a wholesale reform of the entire Medicaid system in California.”

A chorus of doctors, hospital leaders, health insurance executives, and health care advocates point to Medi-Cal reimbursement rates as the core of the problem. “The chronic condition in Medi-Cal is underfunding,” said Linnea Koopmans, CEO of the Local Health Plans of California.

Although the state has restored some previous Medi-Cal rate cuts, there’s no move to increase base payments for doctors and hospitals. Cooper said the state is using tobacco tax dollars and other state money to attract more providers to the system and to entice doctors who already participate to accept more Medi-Cal patients.

When Newsom vetoed the bill to provide higher reimbursements primarily for emergency room care at MLK, he said the state cannot afford the “tens of millions” of dollars it would cost.

MLK leaders vow to continue pushing, while other hospitals and the powerful California Medical Association plot a larger campaign to draw attention to the low payment rates.

“Californians who rely on Medi-Cal — two-thirds of whom are people of color — have a harder time finding providers who are willing to care for them,” said Jan Emerson-Shea, a spokesperson for the California Hospital Association.

For Dr. Oscar Casillas at MLK, the issue is critical. Although he’s a highly trained emergency physician, most days he practices routine primary care, addressing fevers, chronic foot and back pain, and missed medications.

“If you put yourself in the shoes of our patients, what would you do?” asked Casillas, who previously worked as an ER doctor in the affluent coastal city of Santa Monica. “There’s no reasonable access if you’re on Medi-Cal. Most of the providers are by the beach, so emergency departments like ours are left holding the bag.”

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Haven’t seen your doctor in a few years? You may need to find a new one

When Claudia Siegel got a stomach bug earlier this year, she reached out to her primary care doctor to prescribe something to relieve her diarrhea. The Philadelphia resident was surprised when she received an online message informing her that because she hadn’t visited her doctor in more than three years, she was no longer a patient.

And since he wasn’t accepting new patients, she would have to find a new primary care physician.

“I think it’s unconscionable,” Siegel said, noting that many patients may have stayed away from the doctor’s office the past few years because of the COVID pandemic. “There was no notification to patients that they’re on the verge of losing their doctor.”

Though it is dismaying to learn you’ve been dropped from a physician’s practice because a few years have passed since your last visit, the approach isn’t uncommon. Exactly how widespread the experience is, no one can say. But specialists also do this.

The argument for dropping the occasional patient makes some sense. Since many primary care doctors have a waiting list of prospective patients, removing those they rarely see opens up patient slots and improves access for others.

“Most primary care practices are incredibly busy, in part due to pent-up demand due to COVID,” said Dr. Russell Phillips, director of Harvard Medical School’s Center for Primary Care and a general internist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

“Even though continuity of care is important, if the patient hasn’t been in and we don’t know if they’re going to come in, it’s hard to leave space for them,” he said.

Patients often move away or find a different doctor when their insurance changes without notifying the practice, experts say. In addition, physicians may seek to classify people they haven’t seen in a long time as new patients since their medical, family and social history may require a time-consuming update after a lengthy break. Patient status is one element that determines how much doctors get paid.

Still, the transition can be trying for patients.

“I can completely understand the patient’s perspective,” said Courtney Jones, a senior director of case management at the Patient Advocate Foundation. “You believe you have a medical team that you’ve trusted previously to help you make decisions, and now you have to find another trusted team.”

Siegel said she rarely went to the doctor, adhering to her physician father’s counsel that people shouldn’t go unless they’re sick. Although she hadn’t been to her doctor’s office in person recently, Siegel said she had corresponded with the practice staff, including keeping them up to date on her COVID vaccination status.

After receiving the online dismissal through the patient portal for the Jefferson Health system, Siegel called the family medicine practice’s patient line directly. They told her three years was the protocol and they had to follow it.

“I asked, ‘What about the patient?'” Siegel said. “They didn’t have an answer for that.”

It was a month before Siegel, who has coverage under Medicare’s traditional fee-for-service program, could see a doctor who was accepting new patients. By that time, her stomach virus symptoms had resolved.

Jefferson Health doesn’t have a policy that patients lose their doctor if they’re not seen regularly, according to a statement from spokesperson Damien Woods.

However, he said, “patients not seen by their provider for three years or more are classified in the electronic medical records as new patients (rather than established patients), per Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) guidance. Whenever possible, Jefferson works with these patients to keep them with their primary care provider and offers options for new providers in certain circumstances.”

American Medical Association ethics guidelines recommend that physicians notify patients in advance when they’re withdrawing from a case so they have time to find another physician.

But the organization, which represents physicians, has no guidance about maintaining a panel of patients, said AMA spokesperson Robert Mills.

The American Academy of Family Physicians, which represents and advocates for family physicians, declined to comment for this story.

A primary care physician’s panel of patients typically includes those who have been seen in the past two years, said Phillips, of Harvard. Doctors may have 2,000 or more patients, studies show. Maintaining a workable number of patients is crucial, both for effective patient care and for the doctors.

“Practices realize that a major contributor to physician burnout is having more patients than you can deal with,” Phillips said.

Demand for physician services is expected to continue to outstrip supply in the coming decades, as people age and need more care at the same time the number of retiring physicians is on the upswing. According to projections from the Association of American Medical Colleges, by 2034 there will be a shortage of up to 48,000 primary care physicians.

Maintaining a regular relationship with a primary care provider can help people manage chronic conditions and promptly identify new issues. Regularly checking in also helps ensure people receive important routine services such as immunizations and blood pressure checks, said Dr. David Blumenthal, a former primary care physician who is president of the Commonwealth Fund, a research and policy organization.

Health care organizations increasingly focus on requiring doctors to meet certain quality metrics, such as managing patients’ high blood pressure or providing comprehensive diabetes care. In this environment, “it could be problematic for physicians to be accountable for the health of patients who do not see them,” Blumenthal said.

Money also figures into it. Steady visits are good for a practice’s bottom line. Practices may also decide to avoid new Medicare patients or those with certain types of insurance because the payments are too low, said Owen Dahl, a consultant with Medical Group Management Association, an organization for health care managers.

In general, doctors aren’t obligated to continue seeing a patient. A doctor might dismiss patients because they aren’t following clinical recommendations or routinely cancel or miss appointments. Belligerent or abusive behavior is also grounds for dropping a patient.

In certain instances, physicians may be legally liable for “patient abandonment,” a form of medical malpractice. State rules vary, but there are common elements. Those rules generally apply when a doctor harms a patient by dropping them abruptly at a critical stage of treatment. It would generally not apply if a patient has not seen the physician for several years.

Even though quietly dropping a seldom-seen patient might not have an immediate medical consequence, patients ought to be informed, experts said.

“It’s really good customer service to explain the situation,” said Rick Gundling, senior vice president at the Healthcare Financial Management Association, an organization for finance professionals. As for Siegel, he said, “this woman should not be left hanging. If you’re the patient, the physician should be proactive.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Democrat Summer Lee pulls off win after pro-Israel AIPAC spent millions trying to defeat her

A number of newly elected progressives from across the country are poised to join the “Squad” of left-wing champions in the U.S. House following Tuesday’s midterm elections, with Reps.-elect Summer Lee of Pennsylvania, Maxwell Frost of Florida, and others crediting their working people-focused campaigns for their victories.

Voters “care about how much their basic needs cost,” Lee told WESA in Pittsburgh after winning in Pennsylvania’s 12th District. “Their groceries and their gas bills. They care about a living wage. These are things that truly connect us. And I believe that’s actually what makes progressives and our progressive messaging resonate.”

Lee faced attacks from the United Democracy Project, a well-funded, anti-Palestinian rights super PAC founded by AIPAC, which spent more than $1 million campaigning against the state House member. The group had also poured money into ads targeting Lee during the Democratic primary earlier this year.

“Almost one-quarter” of the $17 million AIPAC spent during the midterm elections “was wasted trying to defeat Summer Lee,” tweeted journalist Akela Lacy of The Intercept.

Lee focused her campaign on her support for Medicare for All, protecting reproductive rights, and other economic justice issues, as did Frost in Florida’s 10th District.

Frost, who is 25, will be the first member of Generation Z to join Congress, and says he began his political organizing career after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012. He survived gun violence three years later and served as national organizing director for March for Our Lives, the group started by survivors of the 2018 Parkland, Florida school shooting. 

“Just a few months ago, the leading cause of death for children went from automobile accidents to gun violence,” Frost told CNN on Tuesday night, adding that the broadly popular proposal of universal background checks for gun purchases is “something that we need to pass.”

Other newly elected progressive Democrats include Reps.-elect Delia Ramirez in Illinois’ 3rd District, Greg Casar in Texas’ 35th District, and Becca Balint in Vermont’s At-Large District.

Lee’s and Casar’s victories were the 11th and 12th by candidates endorsed by the Justice Democrats, which recruits progressives to primary establishment Democrats and which one anonymous party leader dismissed as a group of “nerds” without the ability to defeat longtime House members just three years ago.

The group has also supported the candidacies of Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Pramila Jayapal D-Wash., Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and other influential progressives in recent years.

“Rage like I’ve never seen”: Right-wingers turn on Trump after his candidates “s**t the bed”

Conservatives are starting to blame Donald Trump after a Republican “red wave” failed to materialize during the midterm elections.

After years of Trump choosing candidates and demanding parties back them, conservatives are starting to question whether hitching their wagon to the former president is worth it after all.

Commentators have taken the election results as a sign, Fox News reported Wednesday.

“Commentators argued that Trump had endorsed outlandish candidates who turned easy victories into close races, and close races into losses,” wrote reporter Anders Hagstrom.

The contrast between Trump and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is one that conservatives are also seeing. DeSantis won in traditionally blue areas of Florida. Granted, Democrats all but abandoned the state for other candidates around the country.

“All the chatter on my conservative and GOP channels is rage at Trump like I’ve never seen,” said Michael Brendan Dougherty, a senior writer at National Review “‘The one guy he attacked before Election Day was DeSantis — the clear winner, meanwhile, all his guys are s—ing the bed.'”

“GOP Source tells me after tonight, with Trump candidates underperforming and DeSantis winning by double digits, 2024 is a ‘free for all,'” said RealClearPolitics reporter Phil Wegmann. “‘Everybody in the water. If you want to take on Trump, he’s never been weaker.'”

The popular Reagan Battalion Twitter account argued it was time to “move on” from Donald Trump.

“If DeSantis in Florida wildly overperforms all the handpicked and Trump-supported Republicans in other swing states (particularly if they *lose* close races), well then gosh that is going to be a fascinating new narrative that will be commented upon by positively no one,” explained National Review podcast host Jeffrey Blehar.

Trump has already warned DeSantis that if he runs in 2024 it could hurt him “very badly.” But DeSantis will be able to argue he can do what Trump can’t.