By continuing to break democratic norms on judicial nominations, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has harmed the administration of the 2020 election.McConnell has boasted proudly that he has filled every federal appellate judicial vacancy in the country. After refusing to consider numerous Obama nominees, McConnell and President Donald Trump have acted with zeal to nominate and confirm dozens of federal judges that McConnell brazenly left open during the Obama presidency. Content by Mastercard Helping Women Entrepreneurs of Color Survive and Thrive in the Digital Economy The Mastercard Center for Inclusive Growth s partnership with the non-profit Grameen America has helped women-owned small businesses survive — and now thrive — in Harlem. A Pew analysis of data from the Federal Judicial Center found that Trump has appointed more federal appeals judges, 53, than any president since Jimmy Carter as of July 7. Trump also appointed three justices to the US Supreme Court. A significant number of those judges are issuing restrictive rulings that have impacted how some states run the election, harming voters in the process. In at least 18 cases this year, federal trial courts ruled in favor of plaintiffs and put on hold various election rules, often due to the challenges of voting during the pandemic, only to see federal appeals courts reverse those pro-voter rulings. Twelve of those decisions included at least one Trump-appointed judge. Seven of those 12 cases were 2-1 decisions with a Trump appointee in the majority; an eighth case was a 6-4 decision by the entire Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, with five Trump-appointed judges in the majority.These cases obviously had merit given that lower courts had issued pro-voter opinions. But the appeals courts reversed -- with Trump appointees often casting one of the deciding votes. Instead of protecting the right to vote, federal appeals courts have refused to invalidate laws that force voters to jump through numerous hoops to cast their ballots. The goal of these restrictive laws seems to be to try to depress turnout among some voters and make it easier for Republicans to win re-election. Trump even admitted this idea earlier this year, saying that if it was easy to vote, "you d never have a Republican elected in this country again." To be sure, a few Trump-appointed judges have ruled in favor of voting rights plaintiffs on occasion. But the trend shows that those wishing to make voting easier have more often been unsuccessful. These decisions have involved witness signatures for absentee ballots, ballot delivery mechanisms, deadlines for returning absentee ballots and paying for voter transportation to the polls, among other things. In short, the lawsuits sought to make it easier to cast a ballot, particularly given the unique circumstances of holding an election during a pandemic. And although numerous federal district courts have agreed with plaintiffs to vindicate the constitutional right to vote, the appeals courts, increasingly filled with conservative judges, instead have unduly deferred to states on how to run the election.Of course, Trump-appointed judges are not driving all decisions. A few Clinton- or Obama-appointed judges have ruled against plaintiffs in certain cases. But in the aggregate, the ideological trends are clear. These rulings are piling one on top of another, with some courts looking at what other courts are doing to reject the plaintiffs claims, thereby creating a snowball effect for this narrow view of the right to vote. For instance, the Eighth Circuit, over a vigorous dissent, relied on restrictive rulings from the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits to reject a challenge to a new Missouri law that forbids some voters from dropping off their ballots in person, requiring them to use the mail. Even where plaintiffs have found rare success from the federal circuit courts of appeals, the Supreme Court has sometimes reversed. For example, the full Fourth Circuit voted 9-5 to suspend South Carolina s witness requirement for absentee ballots (with two Trump appointees both in dissent), but the Supreme Court reversed. Similarly, the Eleventh Circuit had ruled, 2-1, (with Trump appointee Judge Barbara Lagoa in dissent), to let Alabama counties have curbside voting even though Alabama s Secretary of State sought to ban the practice, but the Supreme Court again reversed. Trump s Supreme Court appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, agreed with the rulings both times.The Supreme Court last week refused to put on hold decisions from Pennsylvania and North Carolina that extended the absentee ballot deadlines, which initially seem like wins for voters who, as of now, can have their ballots arrive a few days after Nov. 3 in these states. But separate opinions from Justices Samuel Alito and Gorsuch, along with signals from Justices Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas in other cases, suggest that the Court might not rule favorably on voting rights in the future. New Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate in these cases. Alongside these restrictive rulings, voting rights advocates have seen some success, both in state courts and when defending states that have eased voting rules due to the pandemic. And some cases haven t been appealed. But voting rights plaintiffs have generally not done as well, especially on appeal, when challenging states that refused to alter their rules to make it easier to vote. Restrictive jurisprudence from Trump-appointed judges is one key reason. These cases, which fail to protect the constitutional right to vote, have a direct lineage from McConnell s strategy to block Obama nominees and then confirm Trump nominees. McConnell has skewed the federal courts to a conservative viewpoint that fails to protect voters. And McConnell is not done, saying that he plans to "clean the plate" of every remaining judicial nominee after the election, even if Republicans lose the Senate.The solution? Turn out to vote anyway, even if you have to jump through unnecessary hoops to do so. Use the reality of voter suppression to create a backlash against this undemocratic tactic. Protest McConnell s demolition of norm after norm. Ultimately, we must demand fidelity to a universal truth: In a democracy that values the fundamental right to vote, the voters themselves, not election rules or restrictive judicial rulings, must dictate the outcome.

When they go to the polls to cast their ballot for President of the United States, 59% of Arab Americans say they will vote for Democratic candidate Joseph Biden with only 35% supporting the reelection of President Trump. This is one of the findings of a nationwide poll of 805 Arab American voters conducted by the Arab American Institute during the second week of October 2020. Overall, Joseph Biden is viewed favorably by 74% of Arab American voters and unfavorably by only 25%, while President Trump’s favorable/unfavorable ratio is a lukewarm 48% to 51%. Even a majority (55%) of Arab American Republicans have a favorable view of Biden. One of the few positive signs for Donald Trump is the fact that he has galvanized support among Arab American Republicans and brought home some of those who, during the first two decades of this century, had stopped self-identifying with the GOP. The 40% Democrat/33% Republican split among Arab American voters represents a narrowing of the gap between the two parties. The partisan divide of 40% to 38% in 2000 had grown each election cycle since then. By 2016, it had become 52% to 26%. Today’s party identification numbers are similar to 2002 and 2004 when it was 39% to 31%. As a result, while Biden holds a significant lead over Trump in this year’s poll, the margin is somewhat less than the gap that separated Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Back in 2016, Clintons margin over Trump was 58% to 25%, with a significant number of Arab American Republicans not voting. In this 2020 poll, the Democratic candidate Joseph Biden wins among almost all demographic groups, but by a somewhat smaller margin than former President Barack Obama in 2008. Biden leads among Catholics (55% to 43%), Muslims (60% to 30%), and naturalized citizens (64% to 23%). Where Biden’s margins are largest are among younger Arab American voters (67% to 27%) and senior citizens (66% to 26%). When provided a list of 14 policy concerns and asked to identify the issues they feel are most important in determining their votes in this election, 40% of Arab Americans said their number one concern was “deteriorating race relations in the US today.” This was followed by jobs and the economy (23%), health care (21%), the environment and climate change (17%), and Social Security and Medicare (10%). On all of these issues, except for “jobs and the economy,” Biden was favored over Trump by a significant margin. The issue of deteriorating race relations looms large for Arab American voters with 70% saying they have a positive view of the nationwide demonstrations supporting Black lives and 74% holding critical views of policing practices in the US. Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the only foreign policy issue mentioned in the above list of overall concerns and was listed as a top priority by only 5% of Arab American voters. But when it comes to identifying their major issues of concern in the Middle East, 45% of Arab Americans said that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was one of their top concerns. This was followed by “meeting the humanitarian concerns of the Syrian people” and “addressing the ongoing political and economic crises in Lebanon.” By a margin of two to one President Trump was seen as having been more ineffective than effective in handling of each of these critical concerns. And by margin of 49% to 33%, Arab American voters said they believe that Biden would be better than the sitting president at improving US relations with the Arab world. Turnout will be very high in this election with slightly more than 80% of Arab Americans saying they are very likely to vote. Most Democrats say they are either voting early in person or by mail (52%), while most Republicans are waiting until election day to cast their votes (62%). Interestingly, more Trump voters (75%) are concerned that their ballots might not be counted than Biden voters (63%). The Arab American vote will be most critical in the key battleground states of Michigan (where they can be as much as 5% of the vote), and Ohio and Pennsylvania (where they are between 1.7 to 2% of likely voters).

On Friday, 23 October, the Libyan Joint Military Commission, known as 5+5, reached a promising agreement on a permanent ceasefire in Libya after five days of talks in Geneva. The Geneva Agreement built on a previous meeting of the commission in Hurghada, Egypt. The successful talks capped international and regional efforts throughout the last two months after the ceasefire the Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli and the self-styled Libyan National Army (LNA) of Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar agreed on in early August. The international community and the United Nations had exerted diplomatic pressure to make this ceasefire permanent. The agreement announced Friday still needs the final approval of the GNA in Tripoli and that of the Libyan House of Representatives chaired by Aguila Saleh. The Secretary General of the United Nations Antonio Guterres, said that the Security Council would discuss the Geneva Agreement shortly and added that it is based on Security Council Resolutions 2510 and 2542 on the situation in Libya. Moreover, he promised to set up in the very near future a United Nations “monitoring mechanism” that would be approved by the Security Council. In this respect, the 5+5 Commission requested that the agreement be adopted in a resolution by the Security Council. The UN secretary general called on the international community to support the Libyans in carrying out the agreement, and in particular to respect the UN-mandated arms embargo on Libya. The agreement stressed that the ceasefire does not apply to groups designated as terrorist groups by the United Nations, namely Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State group. Meanwhile, the commission agreed that all “mercenaries” should leave Libyan territories within three months effective the day the agreement entered into force. Furthermore, it also stipulated the freezing of all agreements pertaining to military training by foreign powers on Libyan soil. According to the agreement, a tallying of all militias in Libya would take place so its armed men would become members in the future Libyan army. In the same vein, the two sides agreed to set up a joint military force, limited in numbers, to deal with any violations of the ceasefire. In the meantime, the agreement included guiding principles for a new Libya, such as respect for human rights as well as international humanitarian law. It also stated that fighting terrorism is considered a national policy to be implemented by the future Libyan government. The Geneva Agreement won worldwide support that augurs well for the future. The Egyptian government endorsed it, stressing in a Foreign Ministry statement that “this success” comes in the wake of the results of the Hurghada meeting in September. The ceasefire agreement is a promising and serious step forward and comes after two successful meetings in Morocco between the Tripoli State Council and the House of Representatives in the last few weeks, and two weeks before the convening in Tunisia of a Forum for Political Dialogue that would include the GNA and the House of Representatives. From an Egyptian point of view, the agreement has dealt positively with its major national security concerns as far as the Libyan situation is concerned, be it fighting terrorism, or sending home “mercenaries” and the disbanding of armed militias. On 19 January, Germany had hosted the Berlin Summit on Libya with its security-military, financial-economic and political tracks. The Geneva Agreement of 23 October could prove a “historic achievement”, as the UN Mission in Libya characterised it. If everything goes as planned, drawing on the Berlin Summit Declaration and Security Council Resolution 2510, Libya should have a constitution and an elected government before the end of 2021. One can only hope.

The 2020 presidential election is one of the most crucial in American history. Political pundits have taken to discussing past presidential elections, especially those that have been politically controversial and close, searching for a historical precedent.The so-called Revolution of 1800 put Jeffersonian Republicans in charge and drove the Federalist Party to extinction. In the presidential election of 1820, supporters of Andrew Jackson, who won the popular vote, claimed that John Quincy Adams became President through what many of them called a "corrupt bargain" with Henry Clay, when Clay got his electors to support Adams. The contested elections of 1876 marked the formal end of Reconstruction in the former Confederacy because of yet another shady deal that put a Republican in the White House but gave southern Whites free rein to install a brutal regime of racial subordination and terror. None of these elections however bear the same weight as the presidential election of 1860, which decided the fate of the American republic. And in 2020, the stakes seem almost as high. Historical analogies rarely work in simple parallel ways. 2020 is not 1860 even though we may find some resonance of our current condition in the past. There is no active secession movement ready to take states out of the Union in case Joe Biden is elected to the presidency. While some may threaten or incite violence, we can ill imagine a long drawn out Civil War over the results of the presidential elections. The real fear among many Americans today is the possibility of widespread electoral fraud and interference, something that never entered the political equation in 1860.The one underlying commonality that binds these two historic presidential elections is the conviction that it is American democracy -- rather than just opposing presidential candidates -- that is on the ballot. The election of 1860 that elevated Abraham Lincoln to the presidency was no ordinary election. For the first time, a President was elected on an antislavery platform, though not one that called for complete abolition. It also marked the last time in American history that a new political party, founded in 1854, was successful in winning the presidency. Slaveholders and their political allies had dominated the federal government since the founding of the republic in large part due to the three fifths clause of the US Constitution that allowed southern states to count three fifths of their slave population for purposes of representation in Congress. Most American presidents had been slaveholders or northern "doughfaces," northern men with southern principles. By the mid-19th century, however, slaveholders were starting to lose their grip on Congress, as northern population increased along with the prospective entry of free states into the Union. In 1860, four men ran for the presidency, the Republican Abraham Lincoln on the non-extension of slavery, the northern Democrat Stephen Douglas on the right of White men to vote slavery up or down, the southern Democrat John Breckinridge on a proslavery, anti-democratic platform, and John Bell of the Constitutional Union party that simply promised fealty to the American Union and Constitution. American citizens had the choice of voting for the status quo by picking Douglas or Bell, to make the American republic a slaveholding republic in perpetuity even if it entailed violating democratic principles by choosing Breckinridge, or of voting for Lincoln and putting slavery into a course of what he called "ultimate extinction."The Democrats tried to discredit Lincoln and the Republican Party by using scare tactics and race baiting, an art they had perfected in the years before the Civil War. They called the Republicans "Black Republicans" and Southern newspapers contended that Lincoln s vice presidential candidate, Hannibal Hamlin, who was swarthy, was actually a "mulatto" or of mixed race. Recently Donald Trump has doubled down on racist appeals to galvanize his supporters and stooped -- in a troubling echo of the past -- to calling Senator Kamala Harris a "monster," evoking stereotypes of Black women. In 1860, Southern Democrats like proslavery ideologue George Fitzhugh even argued that the Republican Party was a front for socialism and feminism, all the dread "isms" along with abolitionism. Similarly, current Republicans claim that radical socialists hold Vice President Joe Biden hostage. Upon Lincoln s election, plots to kidnap him abounded, much like the conspiracy by right-wing domestic terrorists to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan. The threat of violent reprisal hung heavy over the 1860 elections as it does today. A younger generation of enthusiastic young men organized "Wide Awakes," street demonstrations in support of Lincoln and the Republican Party, much like the so-called "woke" generation of Americans who have flooded the streets demanding racial justice in the Movement for Black Lives.In 1860, Lincoln received the greatest number of votes, an overwhelming majority in the north with every county in New England voting for him, though he was not even on the ballot in most slave states. This translated into a decisive victory in the Electoral College. Rather than accept the results of a democratic election, most of the slave south seceded from the Union and took up arms against the American republic. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell recently remarked on the history of presidential elections, "There will be an orderly transition just as there has been every four years since 1792." He must have missed the presidential elections of 1860, the subsequent secession of eleven southern states, and the start of the Civil War. The 2020 presidential election is certainly as consequential as that of 1860. It is, as Biden is fond of saying, a battle for the "soul of America." The fate of the American republic once again hangs in the balance. Like the slaveholders of the 1850s, Trump, his followers and enablers are in a position to pose an existential threat to American democracy. Like many slaveholders, Trump refuses to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses. Four words can save America: Donald Trump, you're fired Four words can save America: Donald Trump, you re fired If history appears first as tragedy, then as farce, the counterparts of southern secessionists and proslavery theorists today are QAnon conspiracy theorists, neo Confederates, and the right-wing Boogaloo boys. Much of the contemporary Republican Party that refuses to repudiate Trump is like those southern Whites who may not have had a direct stake in slavery but went with their states, who ultimately chose slavery before the republic. The choice -- as the Republicans of the Lincoln Project, who have broken with their party, put it -- is between America and Trump. Given America s expanded role and importance in the world since the mid-19th century, one could argue that the impact of the present American presidential elections could be even greater than it was in 1860. Lincoln s election and emancipation did have international significance, fortifying forces of democracy in Europe, abolition in Brazil and Cuba, and anti-casteism in faraway India.Trump s foreign policy of cozying up to dictators all over the world and rejecting democratic allies while embracing Russia s autocrat, Vladimir Putin, is a singular repudiation of American democratic ideals. Trumpism has given oxygen to far-right groups including neo Nazis in Europe and authoritarianism all over the world. If he loses, Trump s defeat will surely signal the renewal of democracy at home and abroad. The American republic is at a crossroads today just as it was in 1860 and the future of "the last best hope of earth," as Lincoln said it, lies in the hands of American voters.

Like a UNC Tar Heels-Duke Blue Devils basketball matchup, North Carolina was always going to come down to the wire. After North Carolina went blue in the 2008 election and red in the 2012 election, each by narrow margins, Trump carried the state in 2016 with a super slim majority of 50.5% of the vote.Already, this year, more than 3 million North Carolinians have voted -- about 67% of 2016 s total turnout -- and if the state polls are any indication, we could expect another tightly won race. As a North Carolinian who has worked three Republican Senate races in my home state, Republican fervor for President Donald Trump still leaves me scratching my head. Trump is not a traditional conservative. He is largely non-confrontational with Russia, for instance. This is particularly striking given that anti-communist rhetoric was an important part of former President Ronald Reagan s closing message in his 1976 North Carolina primary win, keeping Reagan s political hopes alive for 1980 and of Republican Sen. Jesse Helms entire career. And he isn t offering solutions to some of the big issues his party must address -- including health care. In fact, after four years as president, he has not been able to offer any real specifics on health care, much less pass a law to prevent a government takeover of health care and provide greater patient choice, control and affordability -- health care principles conservatives should rally behind. Despite all of this, Trump maintains solid support among the Republican base -- a stark contrast to then-nominee Trump s 2016 experience. Visiting the state a few times before that election, I saw few materials and no enthusiasm for Trump at my hometown GOP headquarters in Winston-Salem. At two political rallies for down ballot races, candidate speeches in the days after the Access Hollywood tape did their best to avoid mention of Trump altogether. And yet, four years later, Trump is in a dead heat with Biden -- and North Carolinian Republicans seem eager to get him reelected. Three factors could determine if GOP enthusiasm is enough to help Trump win my home state a second time around. 1. The state s population is growing. North Carolina has outpaced growth in the rest of country over the past 30 years, going from 6.7 million to 10.4 million residents. Much of that growth has been in the suburban areas outside of Charlotte, like Matthews, whose population has doubled since 1990, and Raleigh suburb Cary, which some joke stands for "Containment Area of Relocated Yankees" and whose population has quadrupled in that same time.Places with rapidly growing populations are trending more and more Democratic, while rural areas are trending more Republican. It s a trend we re seeing nationwide -- and has become more and more pronounced in North Carolina over the last generation. These changes influence where candidates campaign -- or where campaigning may be most effective. And, by and large, the campaigns are going to different places. North Carolina campaigns used to almost exclusively battle over the eastern part of the state -- in mid-sized and small towns east of Interstate 95, where tobacco farming reigned supreme. For decades, Republican hopes were pinned to winning over enough of the eastern "Jesse-crats" -- conservative Democrats who would hand Republicans, like Helms, victories. The east is still important, which is why in recent days Trump visited Greenville and Vice President Mike Pence visited Selma. And when the Trump campaign is not in the east, it s focusing its effort on other rural communities, where it has traditionally succeeded in running up high margins, or GOP strongholds. The Biden campaign has a different plan. Stopping in cities or nearby suburbs, Biden is pinning hopes on those new to the state, while also engaging African-Americans, including the state s Historically Black Colleges and Universities, which were turnout machines for former President Barack Obama, but did not have the same enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton. Expect an Obama appearance in the state to help push Biden over the finish line. 2. Whither the undecided voter? An ABC/Washington Post poll earlier this week shows not only Biden leading the race by a mere point, but also that only 3% of voters appear undecided.This makes voter identification and turnout all the more critical for both campaigns, as there just aren t that many undecided, or pursuable, voters out there. For Trump, his campaign is much better funded and staffed than in 2016, when county party chairs often did not hear from a short-staffed, disorganized campaign. Given Trump s 3.7-point margin last time, having a better funded, more robust team should, in theory, give Trump a significant advantage. But this is no normal political environment -- with a raging pandemic and the increasing economic uncertainty it has brought. And Biden has a key difference with Hillary Clinton. Namely, that he is not her. 3. Pro-Trump vs. Anti-Clinton In 2016, Clinton put together an impressive team in the state, devoting more people and resources than the Trump campaign even tried to do. It should have put her over the top, but voters just did not like her. That unpopularity had a long and deep history -- the all-Southern Bill Clinton/Al Gore ticket never carried the state, and Hillary Clinton was a GOP target throughout the 1990s. National and local headlines were brutal. "A record number of voters now dislike Hillary Clinton," an August 2016 Washington Post article read. One month earlier, Slate profiled individual voters who loathed Clinton, including a Raleigh voter, in a piece headlined, "The Hillary Haters." Joe Biden does not have that baggage. A June 2016 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed Clinton s favorability 22 points underwater, with 33% positive and a massive 55% negative. Four years later, the June 2020 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found Biden with only a 38% negative rating. And given the lightning road that Clinton had been for years, it s reasonable to conclude the disdain for Clinton was not just larger, but more intense. A good example of this? My father, who was a registered independent in North Carolina. The last time I visited my father before he passed away was just before the 2016 election. In our conversation, he told me he voted for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the primary (North Carolina independents may vote in either party s primary) and then Trump in the general election. Why? So, he could vote against Clinton twice."But I sure wish Joe Biden were running," he said. North Carolina became a true battleground when Obama s campaign caught everyone, including a lethargic North Carolina Republican Party, by surprise. Many dismissed it as fluke sure to go Republicans in 2012. It did, but just by over 2 points. Trump s 3.7-point win was no landslide. As a wounded incumbent who carried the state as much because of who he wasn t -- Clinton -- than who he was, Trump faces perhaps his toughest challenge in the Tar Heel state now. The result may come down to who makes the buzzer-beater shot to win.

There was little more than a week to go. Polls showed him losing to a man he called "the worst candidate in the history of politics." But the President had one last chance to reach a vast number of Americans with his message. What did he do with this great opportunity? He entered whining -- and left in a huff. In the traditional end-of-campaign interview with "60 Minutes," Donald Trump showed that his comfort zone is still his bad boy stage persona. He insulted Lesley Stahl, a mild-mannered interrogator if there ever was one, by trying to cast her as a villain. He accused her and her program of being mean to him and favoring his opponent. "You re so negative, you re so negative," Trump groused at one point. At another, he complained, "You re really quite impossible to convince," as if he was there to make a sale instead of discussing the pandemic, the economy and his other responsibilities. Then, after 37 minutes of this, he abruptly declared "that s enough" and left. As drama, Trump s schtick was stale to the point of pathetic. Echoing the days after his inauguration, he offered nonsense about the size of his rally crowds. He aired rabbit-hole theories about his opponent, Joe Biden. He even tried to revive a supposed scandal involving Hillary Clinton, as if summoning her name would energize his supporters. Energizing the most rabid element of his base seemed to be Trump s only purpose and to do that he sought to pose as a warrior. "You have to fight back," he said. "And if you don t fight back, you re not sitting here very long. You go back home. You go back home to mommy." With this he sounded more like an angry boy in the schoolyard than like someone we should trust with very adult problems. The adult on the program turned out to be Biden, who was interviewed by Norah O Donnell during the same show. Despite what Trump claimed, she did not toss Biden "softball after softball." In fact, she pressed him on his age, 78, and whether he was up to the job. She asked about the controversial question of adding more justices to the Supreme Court and how Biden would manage taxes and spending as he dealt with the economic effects of the pandemic. In each response, Biden did sound quite like the conventional politicians whom many assume to represent a sclerotic system. But he did actually answer the questions. Asked about unfounded suggestions that he has dementia, Biden said: "Look at me. Compare our physical and mental acuity. I m happy to have that comparison." He explained his plan to raise taxes on high earners, and on expanding the Supreme Court, he promised no precipitous action but rather a commission to study the matter. The commission idea might be a classic political dodge, but there is something reassuring about this go-slow approach to a controversy. Biden was clearly trying to turn down the heat, and after four years of red-hot rhetoric from Trump, this approach seemed less hackneyed than mature. In the end, the difference between the Biden and Trump interviews was not the quality of the questions but the tenor of the replies. Trump established a tone of conflict, refusing to truly dialogue. And in his usual fashion he produced a string of misleading statements and out-and-out falsehoods, according to fact checkers. Biden may have dodged at times and CBS fact-checked claims that were somewhat askew. However, Biden generally engaged in the conversation, as if he respected the role of journalists who ask questions that could help voters make their choices. "I think the contrast between Donald Trump and me is about as stark as it can get in terms of our value set and how we view the world," Biden said. As if to prove his point, Trump s press secretary Kayleigh McEnany came into the room after Trump s interview to hand Stahl a giant, bound book. She said it was Trump s long-awaited health care plan. It was, as Stahl told viewers, nothing of the sort. It was just a pile of papers -- executive orders, legislative initiatives -- not a plan at all. Like the crowd-size discussion, the bogus book echoed past Trump performances when he has presented stacks of blank papers and empty files that supposedly indicate he has the facts and evidence to back up his claims. This is stagecraft, not statecraft, and at this point the method only calls attention to the president s shortcomings. The blessing in Trump s "60 Minutes" performance is that it did help make the voters choice clear. Both men are, in a sense, offering more of the same. Trump assures more drama. Biden promises a return to the steady and familiar. One extremely well-informed observer apparently thinks that Biden s message is working. In remarks on Russian state TV Sunday about Trump s attacks on Biden and his family, Vladimir Putin appeared to come down on the former vice president s side. It was perhaps an olive branch offering that indicates that he thinks the Trump Show has entered its final act and the curtain is about to come down.

What is haunting the campaign of 2020? The ghost of 2016, when Donald Trump overcame dismal mid-October polls and eked out a surprise Electoral College victory over Hillary Clinton to become president. Trump s supporters are hoping it will happen again, that the polls aren t registering the full degree of his support among voters. At the same time, many of Joe Biden s backers are nervously eying his lead in key swing state polls, worried it won t endure for the next nine days. But it s not 2016 anymore. So much has changed in four years: Trump is no longer the new disrupter, he s a president trailing multiple incendiary controversies as he seeks four more years. And Biden isn t Hillary Clinton: He carries far lower negatives and higher support in the Rust Belt states that put Trump in the White House -- whether that s enough to win him the White House remains to be seen. The biggest difference? They re running in an America surging with Covid-19, where more than 224,000 people have died and millions have lost their jobs. The pandemic cast a huge shadow over Thursday s presidential debate. "Trump did not lay out any kind of real plan to mitigate the worst public health crisis in the United States in a century," wrote Peter Bergen. "If he had done so, he might have won over some undecided voters, but he seems incapable." Nayerra Haq observed, "In the face of the crisis facing American families right now, Trump didn t offer a plan or even words of comfort." I m immune Three weeks ago, Trump announced he had contracted the disease. At Thursday s debate, he said, "I got better very fast or I wouldn t be here tonight. And now they say I m immune." His words dismayed Roxanne Jones: "As someone who has lost loved ones to the virus, the President s words felt disrespectful. Imagine how many of those 220,000 lives may have been saved if those Americans had Trump-care: completely free, top quality medical care, helicopter ambulances to the hospital, the best team of medical doctors around the clock, and a private wing at the hospital." Lanhee Chen recalled that "Trump closed well in 2016" and his debate performance Thursday was "much more disciplined and on-message than he has been at any point in the last few weeks." He added, "Trump managed to embrace the mantle of the disrupter again, even though he s the incumbent president. His indictment of Biden as a politician who s been in office for 47 years but accomplished little during that time continued to be his most effective sustained line of attack." But will that be enough to reverse the President s fortunes? "Trump did his best, and it was not good enough," Van Jones wrote. "It was the same message delivered at a significantly lower volume. But there was no plan for the next four years and no apology for his failures -- just a lot of attacks on his opponent, Joe Biden." Bill McGowan and Juliana Silva praised Biden and faulted Trump on a key facet of the debate: connecting with the television audience. Trump s "lack of eye contact validated perhaps one of the biggest raps against him: His total inability to empathize with the plight of average Americans. Imagine the points Trump could have scored had he looked directly into the camera and spoke about the frequency with which his thoughts turn to those families who have been impacted by the pandemic and how his heart aches for what they ve been through." The missed opportunity for Trump to speak truth to American voters about the pandemic stood in sharp relief to the op-ed by another Covid-19 survivor, Trump ally Chris Christie, in the Wall Street Journal. Christie, who suffers from asthma, spent a week in the intensive care unit and had plenty of time to reflect. "When you get this disease, it hits you how easy it is to prevent," he wrote. "We are asked to wear cloth over our mouth and nose, wash our hands and avoid crowds. These minor inconveniences can save your life, your neighbors and the economy. Seldom has so little been asked for so much benefit. Yet the message will be broadly heeded only if it is consistently and honestly delivered by the media, religious leaders, sports figures and public servants." Christie pointedly failed to note that Trump, for whom he has been an adviser, has been central in sowing confusion over mask-wearing. Barrett on the verge Republican control of one-and-a-half branches of government — the Presidency and the Senate — is at risk on November 3, but whatever happens, the party is on the verge of cementing a 6-3 conservative majority on the top level of the third branch, the US Supreme Court. At 48, Judge Amy Coney Barrett could spend decades on the highest court if and when she is confirmed this coming week. That is profoundly alarming to economist Jeffrey D. Sachs, who remarked on Barrett s description of global climate change as "a very contentious matter." By refusing to acknowledge the science, Sachs wrote, Barrett fits neatly into Donald Trump s world. "What the United States is really facing in the November election and in Amy Coney Barrett s Supreme Court nomination is whether the country will become a post-truth society," Sachs observed. "Trump, of course, is a post-truth President, lying relentlessly to evade taxes, coddle polluting industries, and protect racist groups from accountability ... Barrett showed that she too is a post-truth nominee and, therefore, a danger to our future." After ducking the question of whether he would favor expanding the Supreme Court, Biden said this week that, if elected, he would appoint a bipartisan commission to study potential court changes. W. Kamau Bell argued that adding more justices is crucial if Democrats win control of the Senate and White House. "Why start with something so impossible sounding with all the crises we have on our plates? Because everything that is essential to our democracy — from protecting voting rights to literally ensuring the survival of this planet by combating climate change — depends on it..." "Conservatives on the Supreme Court know just like Republicans in Congress know and just like the current White House knows that they depend on minority rule for their power," he said. In her confirmation hearing, Barrett didn t tip her hand on how she might rule in the Trump-backed lawsuit to overturn Obamacare, which comes up for oral arguments a week after the election. But her prior skepticism over the court s backing of the Affordable Care Act strikes fear in those dependent on its guarantee of insurance coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. "I ve spent decades fighting to ensure that my disabled children will not face the same obstacles as my disabled parents," wrote Rebecca Cokley. "With Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court, everything and everyone I ve ever fought for could be at risk." Jeneva Stone, of Bethesda, Maryland, wrote that her "son Rob is 23 years old. He follows politics, enjoys sips of whiskey, and loves baseball. He also has a rare form of dystonia, a feeding tube, and a tracheostomy, among other pre-existing medical conditions. He uses a speech-generating computerized device to communicate with us." If the ACA is struck down, "Rob would be uninsurable, like so many of his disabled peers." Freedom for peace? President Trump s complaints about mail-in ballots and his talk of a "rigged" election have raised fears that he might refuse to surrender power if he loses the election. Joe Lockhart isn t convinced they would play out. It s not because Trump is committed to the fundamentals of democracy, he wrote, but because "the President will put his own interests ahead of the country s, as he always does. And that may actually guarantee a peaceful transition of power." Trump s company is under investigation by prosecutors, and he has personally guaranteed hundreds of millions in debt coming due in the next few years, according to the New York Times. "Trump is good at recognizing the personal risks he faces and staying one step ahead of his personal demise," Lockhart wrote. Blowing up US democracy would vastly complicate any effort to make a deal. "What can Trump give prosecutors, creditors and potential investors to allow him to live his life freely and build the kind of media empire he so craves? What he can give them is — wait for it — a peaceful transition of power. Freedom for peace." For more on the election: Joshua Douglas: The scary part of the Supreme Court s ruling on Pennsylvania s mail-in ballots James Moore: The new Texas "Spindletop" might be ready to blow Jon Talton: Republicans may be losing their grip on Arizona Richard L. Hasen: What if there s no winner on November 4? Anushay Hossain: Let s not pretend David Perdue wasn t being racist about Kamala Harris Joseph Jimmy Sankaituah: I survived Liberia s civil wars. Here s my advice to American voters Jiang Xueqin: Why China doesn t care who wins the White House Peniel Joseph: Why Ice Cube s political logic is so dangerous Covid-19 in small-town America The overall national statistics on Covid-19 don t fully tell the tale of its spread. Infectious disease expert Dr. Kent Sepkowitz pointed out that the "surges across the nation ... are occurring in different areas than the initial spring months of the pandemic, which was most pronounced in large Northern cities, or the summer increase among Southern states." It s "being felt most acutely by small-town America." No one knows for sure why this is happening, but a contributing factor could be the presence of prisons in many areas with lower populations. "Many prisons are overcrowded, provide uneven access to medical care, lack capacity to isolate, and are the object of societal neglect. In addition, prison employees may both introduce infection to the facilities or else catch Covid-19 at work and bring it into the community," Sepkowitz wrote. Alyssa Klein s 41-year-old brother David, who died in March from a drug overdose, won t be officially counted as a victim of the pandemic. He should be, she argued. "Though he faced substance use disorder throughout his adult life, David was sober nearly the entire year leading up to the pandemic. When I saw him over dinner and donuts last November on a visit to Los Angeles, he was crushing life. I was proud of him. My handsome, charming big brother finally had it together." A personal trainer, he "loved being a dad and absolutely adored his little girl." When the pandemic struck, he lost not only his expected promotion but his job. His support network was suddenly gone. Are you ready to be frightened? In the world before the pandemic, the playful spookiness of Halloween came as a welcome diversion for many. And, as Holly Thomas noted, "back in early March, when Covid-19 was still a new concept that hadn t materially affected so many people s lives, many people started obsessively watching the 2011 thriller Contagion, in which Gwyneth Paltrow plays patient zero in a pandemic that ravages the globe. Lists were published of similar disease disaster-themed movies to enjoy, and for some at least, the idea of an actual global pandemic clearly still felt abstract enough to proffer an odd frisson of excitement while watching a fictional one on screen." But now, "little on our entertainment screens has provoked as much noise as the saccharine, candy floss-light, Emily In Paris. We ve maxed out on dread, and are investing instead in the glossy, culturally-insensitive adventures of a hot social media manager." "Halloween-as-usual embodies the spirit of both these cultural benchmarks. You get the thrill of a temporary fright, and the silly, sugary kick of all the trimmings that go alongside it. But put them together in the new world we re living in, and the whole thing feels out of sync." Don t cancel this year s Halloween for kids, Thomas wrote. But maybe for adults, it s time for a rethink.

President Trump has repeatedly refused to commit to leave office peacefully if he loses the election. Instead he rails about voter fraud and a rigged election. His untruths and obstinacy are by now an old story, but they remain both dangerous to our democracy and maybe to our lives if the President continues on this path.Many law enforcement and homeland security experts have raised the alarm about possible violence after a contested election. Nothing in the President s words or behavior suggests that he will be a calming force or will leave the White House without a fight, either in the courthouse or the streets. We all know, after four years of this, that it s a pretty good bet he will make a bad situation worse. I share many of these worries. But I m not expecting the worst. Not because Trump will have an attack of conscience -- I don t think he has a conscience. And not because he will put the country ahead of his own personal interests -- that fantasy is no longer even debatable. I simply assume, as you should, that if he loses next month, the President will put his own interests ahead of the country s, as he always does. And that may actually guarantee a peaceful transition of power. Donald J. Trump has a powerful survival instinct. Recent news reports have exposed what a terrible businessman he is, over many decades. His presidency has been an international calamity, alienating our allies and empowering dictators and other enemies. America is stumbling through the worst pandemic in 100 years, with an economy that is teetering on the brink. At the center of these tragedies is our President, a member of the survival Hall of Fame. He has survived multiple bankruptcies of his companies, massive legal judgments and a business instinct that can best be described as "How to lose money without even trying."But somehow, every time, after every colossal failure, he has always been able to repackage himself and sell the next version of Donald Trump to the public. Real estate developer. Casino mogul. Reality TV star. President of the United States. This pattern has been noted by the President s biographer Michael D Antonio, who says that Trump in times of peril has always found a way to protect the thing he values most -- his self-image. "It s not success as others see it, or achievement as others define it," D Antonio told me recently. "What matters to him is the story he can tell himself, or sell to himself, in order to feel like he prevailed. That instinct is one of many that allows him second, third and fourth chances at escape and reinvention." And it s those very instincts that may lead a defeated Trump to just leave town. Trump is good at recognizing the personal risks he faces and staying one step ahead of his personal demise. That skill seems likely to kick in right about now, because Trump has a lot to be really worried about. First, even if he pardons himself for all federal crimes, the state of New York and the district attorney of Manhattan are reportedly well along in investigations into his business practices. And since pardoning himself is not yet a tested constitutional right, the Department of Justice could drop a legal anvil on his head next year on multiple issues including obstruction of justice, tax fraud and defrauding the Treasury through payments to the Trump Organization.The second worry is purely financial. He owes hundreds of millions of dollars, according to The New York Times. He will need some flexibility from his creditors and a new business venture to make that money quickly Paid speeches will help, but won t generate a billion dollars. Here s where the survival instinct will kick in. What can Trump give prosecutors, creditors and potential investors to allow him to live his life freely and build the kind of media empire he so craves? What he can give them is -- wait for it -- a peaceful transition of power. Freedom for peace. To avoid violence in the streets, prosecutors of all stripes may decide it is in their -- and the country s -- interest to cut a deal. Trump may agree to go quietly to save his own skin. There is the basis of the win-win. And the same goes for creditors and investors. There is not a bank in the world whose shareholders would allow any renegotiation of credit terms with a man who s promoting violence on the American streets and creating international instability in the capital markets. No one is going to bankroll the Trump media network if our cities are burning and Trump is lighting the match.So, all sides in theory will have incentive to make a deal. As much as it might pain our new president, peace may be better for the country than revenge. The same goes for politicians of both parties and every institution involved with Trump. In the end, the one thing that has severely damaged this country from Day One -- Trump s utter devotion to himself -- may serve all of us in the end. We know he only cares about himself and will believe whatever he tells himself. That form of narcissism may just be the disease that allows all of us, especially our democracy, to survive this grave threat.

Anybody who knows the history of the United States knows that this country requires big, impossible-sounding ideas to make it live up to its promises of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Freeing enslaved Africans: A big, impossible sounding idea. Giving women the right to vote was -- until 100 years ago -- also a big, impossible sounding idea. So impossible sounding that at first America only gave it to White women. Marriage equality becoming the law of the land was a big, impossible sounding idea up until the moment it popped up as a news alert on your phone. Well, today, saving our democracy is the big and urgent task in front of us. We have a President using the debate stage to riff off some new election conspiracy theories, encourage his base to engage in voter intimidation, give white supremacist and far-right groups a new slogan and making us all afraid that he won t leave office peacefully. We have the unthinkable loss of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg weeks before the election, and Mitch McConnell determined to overturn his own rule to race a nominee through this month to fill her seat. And we have a Supreme Court in a position to overturn the Affordable Care Act in November and a nation being shaken to its core by social unrest. But with the stakes this high, there is momentum to finally act -- to do big things to save our democracy. And the game plan, if Joe Biden wins the White House and Democrats take the Senate, is clear: we must expand the Supreme Court to make it more representative of America. And before you toss this idea aside as a load of balderdash and blame it on the fact that I ve been sheltering in place for too long, hear me out. Actually just hear history out. The Supreme Court s numbers have changed before ... six times, in fact. SIX TIMES! Once with the help of a president named Thomas Jefferson. And it would not even take a constitutional amendment to expand the court. (I know how much some of you hate those for some reason.) It would only take Congress passing a bill. And Schoolhouse Rock taught me that isn t hard to do. Why start with something so impossible sounding with all the crises we have on our plates? Because everything that is essential to our democracy -- from protecting voting rights to literally ensuring the survival of this planet by combating climate change -- depends on it. And just like all the other impossible dreams this nation has made a reality -- like landing on the moon and watching "Citizen Kane" on a rectangle you keep in your pocket -- the sooner we start working on it, the sooner we get there. Take Back The Court (disclosure: I m on the Board of this organization) released a study detailing how legislation granting statehood to Washington DC would likely be struck down by the current majority-conservative court. The inequity of that is evident when you consider that DC is a bright blue Democratic spot that is so Black, proud, and powerful that it earned the nickname "Chocolate City". A small, overwhelmingly White and conservative group telling a large group of Black folks what to do wasn t a good look in 1820 -- and it s still not in 2020. Take Back The Court also has a study showing this Court would likely invalidate H.R.1., legislation which includes essential and common sense provisions to end gerrymandering, register every eligible American voter automatically, reduce the influence of big money in federal elections and prohibit voter purges. If you are against any of those ideas then congratulations, you are against democracy. This research reflects the landscape before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the all-but-guaranteed confirmation of President Trump s nominee, Amy Coney Barrett. It s even more grim now. Court expansion is the only way we can ensure these policies can survive judicial review. And these are just two of the many republic-altering potential cases that are heading the Supreme Court s way. Let s not forget about the Affordable Care Act, reproductive justice and on and on. Just look at how Senate Republicans handled the last few Supreme Court seats. They wouldn t give Merrick Garland a hearing, but they were so excited to give Amy Coney Barrett a hearing that some of them were even willing to risk getting the coronavirus. Senate Republicans have stolen the court as part of their effort to destroy democracy itself. They know they re a minority party. They know that a truly level playing field would mean that they likely wouldn t win a presidential election again, at least until they pried the party out of the GOP s old, White hands. And leading Republicans care about their power much more than they care about democracy, much more than they care about logic, much more than they apparently care about humanity, much more than they care about science, much more than they care about you or me -- even if you happen to be a Republican. Don t believe me? Then why were so many of them so excited to see Trump do his dictator cosplay taking off his mask on the balcony after he was released from the hospital? It didn t look Jeffersonian. It looked Kim Jong Un-ian. Conservatives on the Supreme Court know just like Republicans in Congress know and just like the current White House knows that they depend on minority rule for their power. Republicans have lost the popular vote in six presidential elections since 1992 -- but they ve chosen 15 of the last 19 Supreme Court justices (and trying to make that 16 as we speak). And this is all happening in a country that our kids are being taught every day is a democracy. And that teaching is occurring mostly over Zoom (because of the US s failure to stem the coronavirus pandemic and without adequate support from the government) -- again, the GOP doesn t believe in science or humanity. The result of all this will be an activist conservative Court that represents a narrow minority of Americans. And the court works hand-in-hand with Republican politicians to sustain their own power and thwart the will of the American people -- of course that means turning back DC statehood and expanded voting rights. Let me be very clear: The big picture of America doesn t work well for most Americans. It works best for White men with extreme wealth and privilege. And this is a wealth and privilege that is expanding during the pandemic while many Americans lives are collapsing. And White, wealthy and privileged describes the makeup of most of our current Court. The way we get America to be the equitable, just and great place it claims to be — but has never quite been -- is by expanding the Supreme Court. It s been done before and we can do it again. And don t worry, even when we expand the Court, rich, White guys will still do just fine. I promise.

The course of the US presidential elections, which will be held on 3 November, have changed unexpectedly in recent months, as the Covid-19 pandemic has strongly disrupted the campaign of current US President Donald Trump. His campaign team was almost sure of his ability to win the presidential race nine months ago against the background of a strong economic performance and declining unemployment rate in the US. But the coronavirus has given the Democrats an irreplaceable opportunity to return to the White House in January 2021, despite the many areas of weakness in the performance of their candidate Joe Biden and his unusually confused campaign that many consider to be a shadow of that of former US president Barack Obama. After leaving hospital last week, Trump addressed a speech to the American nation that relied on two clear strategies, the first being to maximise “fear”, especially among undecided voters who tend to vote for the Republican Party, and to emphasise that the American left under Biden would launch a crackdown on the police. Biden had betrayed law-enforcement and African-American and Hispanic voters, and he would not be the best option to lead the nation, Trump said. In his second strategy, Trump touched on the Democratic Party candidate’s economic programme and began attacking Biden’s economic doctrines. He said that the Democrats’ programme was “socialist” and may be “communist”. Talking about his proposals for healthcare in the wake of the Covid-19 crisis, Trump said that he would present a new programme that was better than Obama’s. In an effort to contain voters’ anxiety about unemployment, Trump also said that unemployment rates among blacks and young people had fallen to unprecedented levels. But he did not pay attention to the violence and strikes that have broken out in a number of states due to the police killing of citizens in recent months, and he said that crime rates had decreased. These statements reflect Trump’s fear that the economic situation, ethnic unrest and losses due to the spread of the coronavirus could mean he will lose the elections in November. The American electoral scene over the span of 50 states can be difficult to comprehend in all its difficult details outside the United States and perhaps within it as well due to the great diversity and disparity in positions between ethnic, religious, and ideological groups and the difficulty of understanding the electoral system itself and the fact that it is the focus of attack today in an unprecedented way. This is for two main reasons. The first is that voting by mail represents a major factor in determining the winner of the elections, and it is being criticised by the Republicans and Trump because of their scepticism over the states’ ability to oversee a fair voting and counting process based on previous experiences in presidential elections. The second reason is that the Democrats are making a remarkable effort to undermine the credibility of the Electoral College system, which has been in place throughout US history without major change. The system gives Republican candidates and conservative blocs an advantage even if they lose the popular vote, on the most recent occasion in 2016 when Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party candidate, won by three million votes and nevertheless lost the elections because of the Electoral College system. The Republicans say they oppose ending the Electoral College or amending its current form because it gives small states the opportunity to participate in deciding the new incumbent of the White House in the face of the votes of the large states and urban areas that traditionally vote for Democratic Party candidates. The Republicans also base their rejection of any amendment to the Electoral College on the claim that Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 with the votes of only one sixth of the US states, concentrated in the Northeast and Northwest, without winning a majority of the rest of the states. The process of questioning the voting system and the indirect voting by delegates in the Electoral College appears to be a prelude to a turbulent scene after 3 November, unless one candidate wins the elections in an overwhelming manner. BATTLE OVER INDEPENDENT VOTERS With the electoral system continuing as it is, there is a battle going on between the Democratic and Republican candidates in the swing states, which are the states in which the result of the vote can be decided by a small difference in numbers. The number of such states has increased significantly in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, although the largest battle will take place in three swing states. These states, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, narrowly won by Trump four years ago, could decide the results of the November elections. Today, independent voters in these states feel the burden of poor economic conditions and of the chaos in the country due to the rhetoric used by the US far-right, one of the main supporters of the Trump campaign. Trump has not succeeded in achieving what he promised four years ago, when he promised the so-called “Rust Belt” states in parts of the American Midwest and Northwest witnessing difficulties in reviving their stalled industries that he would combat competition from China and stop the exit of American investment to foreign markets. There is a race against time within the Trump campaign over how to win the various “belts” for which American politics are known, such as the “Rust Belt” and the “Bible Belt”, for the Republican candidate, the latter being made up of states in the southeast from Virginia to Florida, Oklahoma, Texas and Missouri. BIDEN’S WEAKNESSES Biden’s weaknesses also cannot be overlooked in the context of the race for votes in the swing states. In the light of the health of the Democratic Party candidate, there are concerns among independent voters regarding a possible Biden presidency. Many of them may turn to the difficult choice of voting for Trump instead, as a section of the electorate fears that Biden will disappear from the scene during his presidency, which means that his deputy Kamala Harris will replace him as president. Biden and Harris have been unable to overcome the trust gap with the progressive camp in the Democratic Party. Supporters of former Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders have levelled sharp criticisms at their unclear or indecisive positions in the election debates. Biden’s apparent health problems have also settled the positions of undecided voters in the swing states, and these voters may decide the decision of the Electoral College by a narrow margin. Three issues that have crystallised the gap between what progressives and moderates in the Democratic Party want are taxes, the Supreme Court and the climate issue. The lack of clarity of the party’s candidates on these issues has led some Democratic-leaning parts of the electorate to lose their motivation to participate on election day. Moreover, receiving more points in public-opinion polls does not necessarily mean much for the final result. Winning the popular vote, unless it is translated into votes in the Electoral College, could mean a new loss for the Democrats, and this is a lesson that is looming again as it did in 2016. The next 20 days will witness escalating excitement and a new urgency in winning the votes of voters in a number of swing states in the South and Midwest in contrast to the voters in the Northeastern and Northwestern states that have already decided. It is difficult to verify the ability of either of the candidates to achieve an advantage in the former states in their favour. The ghost of the 2016 scenario thus appears once again, this time with changes in the circumstances and details.

On September 24, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a new policy that, if enacted, would limit international student visas for those born in several Middle Eastern, Asian, and African countries associated with high visa overstay rates -- including Iran, Nepal, and Sierra Leone -- to either two or four years. A student born in Iran who is a British citizen, for example, could still get only a two-year visa, meaning that they would have to reapply to complete a four-year degree in the United States. Numerous American universities have strongly criticized the plan, with many leaders noting that institutions of higher education have already suffered from Donald Trump s anti-immigration policies. These institutions, unfortunately, are not alone. Trump s approach has also undercut the United States economically and strategically, ultimately undermining Washington s attempts to fend off an illiberal and what many have called an increasingly assertive China s attempts to seize global leadership. Since Trump took office, the number of international students enrolled in the United States has dropped precipitously. In recent months, some students abandoned plans to study here because of Trump s Covid-19-related immigration restrictions; others reconsidered their plans because of our inability to get the virus under control. One Vietnamese student studying in California put it simply: "The United States is no longer a safe place." And while visa overstays are broadly a problem, DHS s new plan to address them is so heavy-handed that it promises to diminish both the number of international students in the United States and America s reputation, which Trump has already damaged greatly. Indeed, this potential restriction, along with others that the Trump administration floated over the summer, reinforces the notion that the US is hostile to foreigners and that international students would be better off pursuing opportunities in the United Kingdom, Canada, or even China. But without international students, universities will lose millions in revenue, the US economy will lose billions, and the United States will be deprived of the significant contributions that foreign students make in many fields. Losing international students, or even proposing barriers to keep them out, is also disastrous from a strategic perspective. By welcoming international students -- over 1 million in 2019 -- the United States advances its soft power abroad. Students come to the United States, generally view the country positively, and then take their approval back home. These students are also prone to advance American interests, if given the chance. The number of other international leaders who studied in and were later geopolitically friendly to the United States is many, including Jordan s King Abdullah and Singapore s Lee Hsien Loong, as well as the leaders of Cote d Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, and Somalia -- some of our closest African partners. Opening our doors to the world s best and brightest clearly serves American interests. The Department of State once seemed aware of this, maintaining a web page titled "foreign students yesterday, world leaders today." That page has since been removed. Trump is so blinded by xenophobia that he cannot see the benefits international students offer. Instead, his "America First" administration at best considers them leeches on the American system, and, at worst, deems them nefarious spies to be kept out of fortress America. This hostile approach undermines American efforts to fend off China s growing influence in the developing world. While Secretary of State Mike Pompeo rails righteously against the authoritarian Chinese Communist Party, his boss pushes forward with moves that undermine America s global standing and prompt more countries to look towards China: alienating allies, demanding deference from partners, imposing travel bans on friendly countries, and now, potentially imposing visa restrictions on foreign students. Trump administration officials bizarrely think that they can convince the developing world to join some anti-China coalition while denigrating them, picking fights with their leaders, and targeting their students. Washington s hard line on Beijing may be welcome in certain countries, but it is not enough to win them over or repair the damage Trump has done to the United States reputation. It is certainly not enough to convince them to refute Chinese offers: China has already become the top destination for English-speaking African students and is both Africa s largest trading partner and creditor. Trump s approach is irrational, to say the least. His expectation that developing countries will defer to the United States, rather than bristle at our unfriendliness when comes to issues like international students, makes little sense in a world where China presents itself as a benevolent alternative flush with cash. Trumpism is incompatible with US global leadership; paradoxically, though, it meshes well with China s hopes to seize that mantle and construct a new world order free from Western influence and values. Trumpism too often inflicts too much damage on the United States to serve Americans best interests. The US would be better served by leaders who recognize the need to welcome and cultivate the world s talent -- both for their benefit and America s.

President Donald Trump is a consistent creature in a lot of respects, especially when it comes to helping Russia and hurting the US. For years, Trump has engaged in behavior that makes Russian President Vladimir Putin s job of sowing discord, spreading disinformation and undermining our democracy a lot easier -- especially when Trump thinks it might benefit him. Trump has also signaled that he s open to receiving dirt on a political rival from a foreign country. What s more, no other President has a friends-and-family list so littered with people with connections to Russia. Trump associates "presented attractive targets for foreign influence, creating notable counterintelligence vulnerabilities," according to a Senate Intelligence Committee report released in August. But Trump has refused to change his own behavior -- let alone tell his team to clean up their counterintelligence posture. That s why new reports that US intelligence agencies warned the White House last year that Trump s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was being targeted by Russian intelligence come as no surprise. US intelligence officials-- according to four former officials, cited by the Washington Post as familiar with the matter-- were concerned that Giuliani, who was interacting with people linked to Russian intelligence, would act as a foot soldier in Moscow s information warfare against the US and feed misinformation back to Trump. Despite these direct warnings, however, Trump didn t tell Giuliani to cease and desist. Instead, Trump simply shrugged and kept him close. Every American should remember what this means: Trump has given Russia a free pass to attack our democracy. Trump should know full well what Russia is up to. For four years, the President has been briefed on malign Russian activities. He has access to detailed, classified information, and the FBI alerted Trump to foreign intelligence threats back in 2016, when he was still a candidate. His own administration has publicly imposed sanctions against Russian entities and individuals for their election interference. The Special Counsel report also detailed ways Russia targeted Trump campaign officials as part of a wider influence campaign, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report did the same in even greater detail. Last year, news reports indicated that Rudy Giuliani was the subject of an FBI counterintelligence probe, which reportedly looked into whether foreign governments were trying to take advantage of his business ties in Ukraine and with wealthy foreigners. While we don t know the status of this investigation, we do know one thing: If the FBI was investigating Giuliani as a potential counterintelligence risk, he should not have gone anywhere near the President or the White House. Any patriotic President would want to steer clear of an individual who could be doing double duty for a foreign government, including Russia. We also learned just this week that the FBI is now investigating whether unverified emails, which the New York Post said were provided to the paper by Giuliani, about Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden are linked to a foreign intelligence operation. To make matters worse, Rudy Giuliani has had close ties to Andrii Derkach, a Russian intelligence agent, and acted as a megaphone for Derkach s anti-Biden campaign late last year. In a statement announcing new sanctions against Derkach in September, the Treasury Department said he waged a "covert influence campaign" centered on "cultivating false and unsubstantiated narratives concerning US officials in the upcoming 2020 Presidential Election." Well before this public announcement was made, President Trump would have been privately briefed on Derkach s real activities. And yet, Trump didn t back away from Giuliani -- or Derkach. In fact, Trump even retweeted material in August that Derkach released, amplifying alleged audio recordings of Biden which the US government labeled as Russian propaganda. There is no chance that Trump doesn t know what he is doing. While he likes to play the implausible ignorance card on issues like QAnon, it s impossible that Trump doesn t know that he s helped Russia by siccing Giuliani on Biden, retweeting Russian propaganda or spreading lies that Trump s own senior intelligence official says our foreign adversaries are taking advantage of. The fact is, that s likely why so many Trump team members have been targeted by Russian intelligence: At this point it seems Trump and his inner circle are willing to help Russia as long as there is some perceived personal, financial or political gain on the table. Giuliani has been laundering Russian propaganda that s helpful to Trump, and Trump uses the presidential podium to push out Russian propaganda to service his political needs. (Giuliani told NPR, "I never tried to influence the election, and my work with [Derkach] was over months ago well before the election.") The Russians likely know that the President doesn t mind being surrounded by counterintelligence risks (former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats thought Trump himself may be compromised and an active counterintelligence concern, according to Bob Woodward s book "Rage") as long as he gets what he thinks he needs to stay in power. We are used to hearing the phrase "useful idiot" thrown around when discussing Soviet intelligence operations - it references westerners who were manipulated by the Soviets. Last month, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman called Trump Putin s useful idiot. And while I agree that Trump and Giuliani may be useful to Russia, they aren t idiots on this front -- no one is duping them. Trump and Giuliani clearly know the impact of their actions on our democracy. It seems they just don t care.

The afterglow of an idyllic late summer walk with my love around Walden Pond was shattered when my best friend texted that she was bawling because of the news. I opened my news app, saw the name RUTH and the word DEAD, and was instantly, searingly, shattered.My thoughts tumbled and rushed -- to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg s beloved grandchildren, to reproductive rights, to the Supreme Court possibly deciding the outcome of the 2020 presidential election without her. I was terrified. RBG pioneered the interpretation of women s equality under the Constitution. Over the course of decades, led by her towering jurisprudence and unflinching vision, we Americans have fought together to improve the system that was conceived of and designed to place women, especially women of color, below white, propertied men. Because of RBG, we now take for granted that women can open bank and checking accounts and apply for credit cards without a man signing for them. Women can rent apartments and buy homes. We can attend the colleges we choose. Modern womanhood is vastly different because of her. This week, we are hearing directly from Amy Coney Barrett -- President Donald Trump s conservative pick for Ginsburg s seat -- during her confirmation hearings. The Affordable Care Act and women s health and reproductive choice are all on the line, and I have every expectation that this confirmation would haul us back in time.After RBG s passing, I keened and reflected upon her legal mind and jargon-free words. She was our voice in the room who steadily, unflinchingly, defended the equal dignity, rights and protections under the law of women and men. She often used clever reverse logic to show how social constructions of gender roles constrained men, too. She led us every step of the way. If her duty and desire was to make society better, then we surely have ours: to carry on where her small shoulders and giant legacy left off. To honor her, we must fight like hell for a more just, equal, fair and decent society. After watching Trump s spectacularly imbecilic performance at the presidential debate and his reckless and endangering behavior following his coronavirus diagnosis, it is clear that we are in the fight of our lives. We women want a pretty simple thing, one that society has made so hard and convoluted: to be free from discrimination based on sex. Many of us would also like to be able to plan our families and space the births of our children. To have privacy from the state about if and when to terminate a pregnancy. (This mattered to me when I was raped by someone I had known since second grade. Not only did I not want to bring the pregnancy to term, I did not want this rapist to have paternal rights, which were accorded to those accused of rape in many states-- including the one where I was raped -- unless there was a conviction. This is still the law in many states.) What an obscenity, and what would have been my chances, given that only1% of rape cases result in a felony conviction?Equal pay for equal work for all races of women seems pretty darn intuitive. In a democracy, unencumbered voting rights sounds straightforward. To love whom we love, and to have the right to marry them. To manifest our God-given gifts in a society of equal opportunity. To be free from harassment, violence and retaliation at home, in public spaces, and at work. To be able to feed our families. To have guaranteed health care. All of these rights just make sense. Even as Justice Ginsburg was struggling with her own health, she stayed on the court to ensure others would have access to quality health care. The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to strike down the Affordable Care Act, and with Ginsburg s passing, the next justice may determine whether nearly 20 million Americans lose their health care. The case is being considered even as the Covid pandemic rages, with a disproportionate impact on Black and Brown Americans. The number of vulnerable Americans with pre-existing conditions and with financial insecurity is increasing every day. Should Barrett be confirmed, she will have the chance to render enormously consequential decisions for American women for generations to come. Based on her record, we should be profoundly alarmed. Yesterday during her confirmation questioning, she had to be pressed before she would indicate that she believes in the peaceful transfer of power as laid out by the US Constitution. One of Ginsburg s final requests was that her seat remain open until after the election. In yet another galling example of Trump era cynicism -- and only two Tuesdays before the election -- Senate Republicans are rushing forward to install Barrett in RGB s seat.They are not only violating the very standard they themselves set in 2016 when they refused even to consider former President Barack Obama s Supreme Court pick for nine months before the election, they are also flagrantly disregarding the votes of more than 10.5 million Americans who have already cast their ballots and who want the next president to nominate the new justice. The hypocrisy is thick. Former Vice President Joe Biden made a historic decision in choosing Sen. Kamala Harris to be his running mate. This is our new era for American women. It honors a commitment to full equality for women and people of color. Sen. Harris, like Justice Ginsburg, is guided by her deep and abiding desire for justice and equality "for the people." No one can take RBG s place, but certain women among us strive to follow her path. Who does, and who does not, is as clear as the difference between chalk and cheese. Sen. Harris is a trusted leader, truth-teller, long-time champion for women and children, LGBTQ+ rights, voting rights and civil rights. I especially value her record fighting childhood sexual abuse. As Vice President, Kamala Harris will bring backbone, character, policy chops and the good, moral fight. We owe a mighty mountain of gratitude to Justice Ginsburg for leading the way, and now we must move her legacy forward. The smart way we can honor Ginsburg now is turn out the vote in massive waves and to vote for Biden and Harris.

The course of the US presidential elections, which will be held on 3 November, have changed unexpectedly in recent months, as the Covid-19 pandemic has strongly disrupted the campaign of current US President Donald Trump. His campaign team was almost sure of his ability to win the presidential race nine months ago against the background of a strong economic performance and declining unemployment rate in the US. But the coronavirus has given the Democrats an irreplaceable opportunity to return to the White House in January 2021, despite the many areas of weakness in the performance of their candidate Joe Biden and his unusually confused campaign that many consider to be a shadow of that of former US president Barack Obama. After leaving hospital last week, Trump addressed a speech to the American nation that relied on two clear strategies, the first being to maximise “fear”, especially among undecided voters who tend to vote for the Republican Party, and to emphasise that the American left under Biden would launch a crackdown on the police. Biden had betrayed law-enforcement and African-American and Hispanic voters, and he would not be the best option to lead the nation, Trump said. In his second strategy, Trump touched on the Democratic Party candidate’s economic programme and began attacking Biden’s economic doctrines. He said that the Democrats’ programme was “socialist” and may be “communist”. Talking about his proposals for healthcare in the wake of the Covid-19 crisis, Trump said that he would present a new programme that was better than Obama’s. In an effort to contain voters’ anxiety about unemployment, Trump also said that unemployment rates among blacks and young people had fallen to unprecedented levels. But he did not pay attention to the violence and strikes that have broken out in a number of states due to the police killing of citizens in recent months, and he said that crime rates had decreased. These statements reflect Trump’s fear that the economic situation, ethnic unrest and losses due to the spread of the coronavirus could mean he will lose the elections in November. The American electoral scene over the span of 50 states can be difficult to comprehend in all its difficult details outside the United States and perhaps within it as well due to the great diversity and disparity in positions between ethnic, religious, and ideological groups and the difficulty of understanding the electoral system itself and the fact that it is the focus of attack today in an unprecedented way. This is for two main reasons. The first is that voting by mail represents a major factor in determining the winner of the elections, and it is being criticised by the Republicans and Trump because of their scepticism over the states’ ability to oversee a fair voting and counting process based on previous experiences in presidential elections. The second reason is that the Democrats are making a remarkable effort to undermine the credibility of the Electoral College system, which has been in place throughout US history without major change. The system gives Republican candidates and conservative blocs an advantage even if they lose the popular vote, on the most recent occasion in 2016 when Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party candidate, won by three million votes and nevertheless lost the elections because of the Electoral College system. The Republicans say they oppose ending the Electoral College or amending its current form because it gives small states the opportunity to participate in deciding the new incumbent of the White House in the face of the votes of the large states and urban areas that traditionally vote for Democratic Party candidates. The Republicans also base their rejection of any amendment to the Electoral College on the claim that Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 with the votes of only one sixth of the US states, concentrated in the Northeast and Northwest, without winning a majority of the rest of the states. The process of questioning the voting system and the indirect voting by delegates in the Electoral College appears to be a prelude to a turbulent scene after 3 November, unless one candidate wins the elections in an overwhelming manner. BATTLE OVER INDEPENDENT VOTERS With the electoral system continuing as it is, there is a battle going on between the Democratic and Republican candidates in the swing states, which are the states in which the result of the vote can be decided by a small difference in numbers. The number of such states has increased significantly in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, although the largest battle will take place in three swing states. These states, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, narrowly won by Trump four years ago, could decide the results of the November elections. Today, independent voters in these states feel the burden of poor economic conditions and of the chaos in the country due to the rhetoric used by the US far-right, one of the main supporters of the Trump campaign. Trump has not succeeded in achieving what he promised four years ago, when he promised the so-called “Rust Belt” states in parts of the American Midwest and Northwest witnessing difficulties in reviving their stalled industries that he would combat competition from China and stop the exit of American investment to foreign markets. There is a race against time within the Trump campaign over how to win the various “belts” for which American politics are known, such as the “Rust Belt” and the “Bible Belt”, for the Republican candidate, the latter being made up of states in the southeast from Virginia to Florida, Oklahoma, Texas and Missouri. BIDEN’S WEAKNESSES Biden’s weaknesses also cannot be overlooked in the context of the race for votes in the swing states. In the light of the health of the Democratic Party candidate, there are concerns among independent voters regarding a possible Biden presidency. Many of them may turn to the difficult choice of voting for Trump instead, as a section of the electorate fears that Biden will disappear from the scene during his presidency, which means that his deputy Kamala Harris will replace him as president. Biden and Harris have been unable to overcome the trust gap with the progressive camp in the Democratic Party. Supporters of former Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders have levelled sharp criticisms at their unclear or indecisive positions in the election debates. Biden’s apparent health problems have also settled the positions of undecided voters in the swing states, and these voters may decide the decision of the Electoral College by a narrow margin. Three issues that have crystallised the gap between what progressives and moderates in the Democratic Party want are taxes, the Supreme Court and the climate issue. The lack of clarity of the party’s candidates on these issues has led some Democratic-leaning parts of the electorate to lose their motivation to participate on election day. Moreover, receiving more points in public-opinion polls does not necessarily mean much for the final result. Winning the popular vote, unless it is translated into votes in the Electoral College, could mean a new loss for the Democrats, and this is a lesson that is looming again as it did in 2016. The next 20 days will witness escalating excitement and a new urgency in winning the votes of voters in a number of swing states in the South and Midwest in contrast to the voters in the Northeastern and Northwestern states that have already decided. It is difficult to verify the ability of either of the candidates to achieve an advantage in the former states in their favour. The ghost of the 2016 scenario thus appears once again, this time with changes in the circumstances and details.

If recent history is any indicator, one can no longer be sure what to anticipate in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for a Supreme Court nominee. Admittedly, as a vocal fan of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, I feared the worst on the opening day of the confirmation hearings.And yet, ironically, we heard far more about the possibility of Americans losing their health care insurance under a Justice Barrett than about Barrett s qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court. Ironic because many constitutional law experts in recent weeks -- right, left and center -- have said that the high court case challenging the Affordable Care Act this term has little chance of success, with or without a Justice Barrett. (And as the years pass, reliance interests -- the legal interests that institutions and individuals have in the Court maintaining stability in its decision-making -- on the ACA will grow as institutions and individuals structure their affairs on its existence, a concern that would undoubtedly shape Barrett s view of a future challenge as well.) Given the strength of Judge Barrett s record, perhaps playing to the fears of the American public -- who aren t likely to be reading commentaries on the upcoming Supreme Court term but are voting soon -- was the Democrats only play. Well, almost the only play. Of course, we have also heard plenty from Democrats in recent weeks about how there ought not be a confirmation hearing this close to Election Day because the GOP-controlled Senate denied Judge Merrick Garland one in the 2016 election year.The truth is that Democrats would have this seat now if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had retired before President Barack Obama s final year in office. That she chose not to is not the GOP s fault, it s not Judge Garland s, and it sure isn t Judge Barrett s. One cannot help but conclude by the actions on the part of the Democrats on Monday that the case against confirming Judge Barrett is a very poor one, indeed. Let s face it: Her qualifications are impeccable, her originalist philosophy now quite mainstream, and her dispassionate and self-possessed temperament the very best one could hope for in a judge. And she will bring real diversity to the Court, too. Not only would she be the only justice who hails from outside the Eastern Seaboard and Ivy League schools, but the fact that she is the mother of seven children may well give rise to a way of approaching the law that is both consistent with that of her mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia, and unusually sensitive to the perspective of the litigants.She said a bit about this perspective in her opening statement: "When I write an opinion resolving a case, I read every word from the perspective of the losing party. I ask myself how would I view the decision if one of my children was the party I was ruling against: Even though I would not like the result, would I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in law?" Barrett does not wield a cold judicial philosophy that seeks only to determine the original public meaning of the law. Rather, she recognizes the impact the law has upon ordinary people, while also possessing the humility to see that which the great judges of our constitutional tradition have always seen: In our republic, it s not the Court s role to, in Barrett s words Monday, "solve every problem or right every wrong."That task is properly one undertaken by political (and non-governmental) bodies who are closest to and ought to be the most responsive to the needs of the people, diverse as they are. Yet this task in recent decades has been all too readily relinquished to a high court far too eager to enter into the most contentious political questions of the day, with little warrant from constitutional text or tradition. It may well take a seasoned mother to teach the nation once more that it is possible for one to enforce the rule of law while simultaneously lamenting the result.

There s no way Hillary Clinton should have lost Michigan in 2016. And there s no way Donald Trump should win it again in 2020. But Clinton did lose, and Trump could win once more. That s why Joe Biden is continuing to pour resources into the state, despite recent polls that indicate he has a comfortable eight-point lead over the President in Michigan heading into the final month of campaigning. Michigan, a once reliably Democratic presidential state, is suddenly unpredictable. The lesson learned from the last election is don t quit running here until you ve crossed the finish line. "Democrats are taking Michigan seriously this time," Rep. Debbie Dingell of Dearborn told me. Dingell screamed into the wind in the final days of the 2016 contest that her state was slipping away. Trump ultimately won by less than a quarter of a percentage point. I was among those who missed the building Trump wave in 2016. It made no sense. Although Michigan has run anti-establishment in past primaries -- it picked Trump and Bernie Sanders in 2016, in general elections it prefers moderate presidential candidates. Trump seemed an impossible fit. And he seems so again this year, following a 2018 midterm Democratic election sweep that booted a Republican Party whose tax and regulatory reforms helped end a 10-year recession. That was taken as a resounding anti-Trump statement, and a bad omen for Republicans heading into the next presidential contest. But caution is the guidance for prognosticators assessing where Michigan will go on Election Day. In Biden s favor should be the increased activism by African American voters, inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement. Nearly 42,000 fewer voters in Detroit, a city that is more than 75% Black, cast ballots for president in 2016 compared to 2012. Clinton lost the state by less than 11,000 votes. But even with an African American running mate, Karen Dumas, a communications strategist and veteran of Detroit politics, tells me that Black voters still aren t as excited as they were when Biden was on the ticket with Barack Obama. "While a lot of people don t like what they have seen come out of the Trump administration, I don t think Biden and Harris have ignited them as well as they should have," Dumas said. "People are doing their research and remember Biden s role in the crime deal in 94 and Harris prosecutorial record and are again looking at this as the lesser of two evils. "I see increased voter apathy. People are asking what difference does it really make? Black people have been asking for the same thing for 50 years and are still waiting." Democrats in Michigan are also hurt by the disarray in the once politically potent United Auto Workers union, which has served as the Democratic Party s get-out-the-vote engine. With much of the UAW s recent leadership either indicted or in jail amid a federal corruption probe, the union is less politically active this year. And, with trust broken with the membership, it s less influential. (The UAW is cooperating with investigators, and several of the indicted officials have pleaded guilty.) Industrial workers in general are expected to break for Trump in Michigan; the Democratic environmental and economic agenda is seen as just too extreme for workers whose livelihoods depend on a strong manufacturing base. "I remember well when Hillary Clinton pounded her fist and said we are going to put a lot of coal mines out of business," says Terry Bowman, a union Ford worker and Republican Party volunteer, told me. "West Virginia completely flipped and started supporting Republicans. "We asked, How long is it going to be until they come after us? Now we know it s the Green New Deal that treats autoworkers and automakers as the enemy. Very few people I work with trust Joe Biden on this; but they do trust Donald Trump." Republicans insist those increasingly conservative blue-collar voters are moving the state in Trump s favor. They complain polls, which give Biden a clear lead, are missing the trend just as they did in 2016 because they re again oversampling Democrats. "Internal Republican polling has the race dead even," explained GOP strategist Saul Anuzis to me. "The general environment is as good or better as it s ever been for Republicans at this point in the cycle." Democrats must be seeing some truth in that claim. Biden has made Michigan a regular stop on his small, in-person campaign schedule. Vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris has also swung through, heeding those like Dingell who are certain the state is still play. "It will be competitive until Election Day," the congresswoman told me. My political instincts are influenced by what I see on front lawns. Drive around metro Detroit and yards are sprouting Trump signs. Giant Trump flags cover the sides of houses and wave from the beds of pick-ups and the decks of boats. There are more Biden signs than there were for Clinton in 2016, but still far fewer, it seems, than for Trump. Maybe that suggests a stronger enthusiasm among Trump voters for their candidate. Or maybe it reflects the reality that this election, in Michigan at least, has almost nothing to do with Biden. Trump is the only issue, and he s motivating voters of both parties. Michigan voters I have interviewed either want Trump -- or want him gone. Those who want the President, says Anuzis, are convinced he can keep the economy growing by supporting American manufacturers and the blue-collar jobs they produce. But there s something more important to them that Trump represents. They see him as the last line of defense against what they view as a radical minority intent on remaking the country in a way that leaves out the vast American middle. Despite his erraticism, they still consider Trump a stabilizing force. Every image of an American city on fire or protesters harassing senior citizens creates another Trump voter or solidifies an old one. "The riots have produced a lot of movement that has been helpful for Trump," says Anuzis, who is also a former state GOP party chair. For those who don t want Trump, Biden could be anybody whose name is on the ballot opposite from his. They hate the President with every fiber of their being. So, Michigan comes down to whether love or hate is a more powerful motivator for voters. Anuzis, who believes Trump will perform better in Michigan than he did in 2016, rightly describes this as a turnout election. "Whoever does the better job of motivating their voters will win," he says. Heavy turnouts in Michigan tend to favor Democrats, since there are more of them -- had Democrats voted in their typical number in 2016, Michigan would have been safely in the Clinton column. Pollster Richard Czuba of Glengariff Group, a nonpartisan research firm, tells me that while enthusiasm to vote is at historic levels for both parties, it is particularly so for moderate voters in Michigan who lean Democratic. And yet, there s something in the air that smells familiar, something most of us didn t recognize four years ago. We d be smart not to ignore it as this campaign closes in Michigan.

In a recent webinar on the Muslim Brotherhood, I was asked to speak about the future of this organisation nearly nine decades after its birth. Naturally, I focused on the Muslim Brotherhood’s origins and ideological formation before turning to how it interacted with the Arab Spring upheavals that led to civil warfare and strife, collapsed states and other disasters during the past 10 years. There are any number of ideological, social and economic perspectives from which to broach this subject. I chose the political because, as important as the other perspectives are in shedding light on the Muslim Brotherhood, when all is said and done the movement is a consummately political phenomenon.

Anything would have been better than the first debate between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden. So, Wednesday night s vice presidential debate, in some respects, had a lower bar to clear.But from the perspective of a debate coach (which I am) evaluating how well the candidates accomplished this, there was still a lot to work with here. I ll take Sen. Kamala Harris and Vice President Mike Pence one at a time using two main categories: defending the top of your ticket while attacking the other and proving your capability to lead our nation. I ll close with a grade for moderator Susan Page. ----- Kamala Harris Defending the top of your ticket, attacking the top of theirs: A- Harris let Pence get her off track too often by taking his bait and talking about topics he, not the moderator, originated. I coach my teams to always debate on our ground, not the other team s. While Harris adequately defended Biden (actually better than he defended himself in many of the primary debates) -- on climate change and his economic plan, for example -- she still lost focus a bit too often. However, this was the only major flaw in her performance. For a debate coach, there was much to love in her speech about foreign policy being like relationships. I teach interpersonal communication and I use the inverse analogy: that the international relations concept of "threat construction" is true in interpersonal communication. That is, if you treat someone like an enemy, they often become that enemy, causing a self-fulfilling prophecy. The fact that Harris used a similar analogy to attack Trump s foreign policy was gratifying -- and an effective passage in her answer to a question on the role of the US in global leadership. Harris asserted that in relationships you should be loyal to your friends, but that Trump has "betrayed our friends and embraced dictators." Her example of our own allies respecting China s Xi Jinping more than they do the Commander in Chief of the United States was a breathtakingly potent argument against the President. Proving your capability to become president: A In a long campaign season, this was Harris best debate yet. Last year, she gained attention by attacking Biden in an early primary debate, but that multi-candidate encounter didn t have the depth of a two-person affair. Plus, Harris was unable to sustain the bounce for her primary campaign after that one excellent performance.Last night, time and again, I thought Harris conveyed an absolutely presidential form in her answers and her demeanor. As a speech teacher, I gave her points for personality and appreciated how she showed complex emotions in her expressions while bringing a dignified deportment. Beyond that, Harris actually answered most of the questions. In this, the contrast with Pence was sharp. Harris didn t shy away from her record as the Attorney General of California (in fact, she came back strongly at her adversary when he challenged her on this), her readiness as a leader or her foreign policy experience. Overall grade for Harris: A- ----- Mike Pence: Defending the top of your ticket, attacking the top of theirs D Pence did a nice job of hitting Biden on issues important to Trump s base. The President s Supreme Court nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, his moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani on his watch and Pence s law enforcement remarks were all right down the middle for Trump s supporters. Over and over, he painted Biden as someone who will raise taxes with his social programs, dismantle the country s energy-producing infrastructure (and associated jobs) and support taxpayer funding of abortion, so overall Pence was above average in this category. However, his defense of Trump on topics like the coronavirus and international relationships left a lot on the table. But it was mostly Pence s failure to answer the questions that really hurt him in this category. Pence sounded exactly like Trump s physicians this week evading reporters questions outside Walter Reed National Medical Center on the President s Covid-19 infection. Like the President s doctor Dr. Sean Conley, Pence did a poor job of answering a direct question. Proving your capability to become president: F This was part of the framing of the second topic of the evening brought up by the moderator. And Pence never answered the part of the question about how he is qualified and ready to lead the country, particularly when the inevitable issue of the President s age and affliction with coronavirus was raised. It was unbelievable for a sitting vice president to whiff on such an easy question. But he never answered it. Ironically, I gave Pence much higher marks four years ago in this very category.Let me make this clear: You cannot lie and win debates. This fact "trumps" all other categories. That Pence had blatantly lied about issues like Trump s so-far nonexistent health care plan and protections for preexisting conditions and then breathlessly followed his own falsehood with a version of the famous quote, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts," was outrageous. Indeed, that quote is from the late Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, who is currently rolling over in his grave. "Stop playing politics with people s lives" when talking about the pandemic was another line Pence took straight from the upside-down world. Debate is not about telling "believable sounding" lies. You fail a debate if you lie, no matter how well you deliver the stolen goods. Overall grade for Pence: F ------ Moderator Susan Page: F Just because the debate didn t create chaos doesn t mean it was a success. Page had an easier job with these two than Chris Wallace had moderating the first presidential debate, but she failed in it nonetheless. She committed three basic Moderating 101 mistakes: First, Page failed to make Pence answer the questions she asked. Second, Page failed in her main job: truth seeking. Make the debaters prove their claims. Asking simple follow up questions, such as "can you list examples to prove your point" or "what proof do you have for that claim," is so easy. Not even the most partisan viewer should have a reasonable objection to that line of questioning. Finally, Page let Pence interrupt too much (while ignoring her entreaties to stop) and turn the questions onto different topics, sometimes ending his responses by asking Harris a question himself. If a moderator is going to sit out her duties for the entire debate, then it always advantages the person who excessively talks, lies, interrupts and changes the topic.

The United States has faced an extraordinary set of challenges in 2020. Foreign election interference, an impeachment trial, a global health pandemic, natural disasters, economic instability, mass protests and civil unrest have plagued the country. Against this backdrop, President Donald Trump has intensified his rhetoric undermining the electoral process, stating that "the only way we re going to lose this election is if this election is rigged." Add a dose of intense political polarization and a potentially close election and we have a recipe for yet another disaster before the end of the year. No wonder a majority of Americans do not have confidence the election will be conducted fairly, according to recent polling from NBC/Survey Monkey.Although former Vice President Joe Biden continues to lead in the polls, slightly more voters believe that President Trump will win a second term, according to Gallup poll data published in August. Memories of Trump s surprise victory over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are undoubtedly on the minds of many voters. Trump s 2016 victory reminded many Americans that the Electoral College process, not the overall popular vote, determines who wins or loses a presidential election. Although Clinton garnered nearly three million more votes than Trump, he was able to claim slim margins of victory in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, which was enough to obtain an Electoral College majority. If fewer than 40,000 voters in those states (just 0.0028% of all votes cast among these states) had changed their minds, Hillary Clinton would have won the presidency. Given that as many as 13% made their minds up the day of the election or planned to vote for a third-party candidate, such a scenario is not farfetched. This underscores just how close the election was. In reality, most presidential elections are close. In fact, half of all elections have come down to a change in 75,000 votes or less scattered across the country; 40% of elections have come down to a change in 30,000 votes or less; and one-in-five elections have come down to a change in just 10,000 votes or less. Consider that in any election, around 4% of voters make their mind up the day of the election and one can see how many presidential outcomes could have turned out quite differently. Close elections are the rule, not the exception. As bizarre as this election cycle has been, we should consider a scenario that, while unlikely, is one we should be prepared to encounter, especially in the current environment of distrust and polarization: an electoral vote tie. The only tie in the Electoral College occurred in 1800, after which the 12th Amendment was added to the Constitution. The tie arose from the unforeseen establishment of party tickets. Originally, electors cast two votes and did not distinguish between a presidential and a vice presidential candidate. In 1800, electors supporting Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr cast one ballot for each of them, resulting in a tie. Consequently, the winner was decided by the House of Representatives in our first contingent election. The 12th Amendment was adopted prior to the 1804 election and it required electors to cast one vote for president and one vote for vice president. Close observers of presidential elections recognize that there have been many cases where a tie was narrowly averted. Based on election data, we estimate that the US has been within a hairbreadth of an Electoral College tie in over 20% of the last 18 presidential elections.It does not take much imagination to envision a map where a tie could happen this November, and given the current state of affairs, the country is ill-prepared for such an occurrence. A quick glance at the electoral map shows that if everything remains the same as 2016 with the exception of Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona going blue, the result would be a 269-269 tie. Alternatively, if the parties were to claim the exact same states as four years ago, but Biden wins the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and the one electoral vote of Nebraska s Second Congressional District, the 2020 election would also end in a deadlock. It would also be the first election settled by the US Congress since the election of 1876. Although this is a remote possibility, it is useful -- and quite unsettling -- to examine what would likely happen next. When Americans vote for the presidential and vice presidential candidate of their choice, either by mail or in-person, this November, they will actually be casting a vote for a slate of electors, equal to the number of a state s electoral votes, who will cast a vote on their behalf in their respective state capitals on December 14. This process hinges on presidential electors remaining faithful to their pledged candidates. The Supreme Court sought to avoid chaos caused by so-called "faithless electors" (electors who do not cast their electoral vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged) in their ruling earlier this summer in Chiafalo v. Washington. The Court found that states that had "binding laws" that either punished or removed electors who did not vote as anticipated were indeed constitutional. For many, this was heralded as the end of faithless electors. However, while 33 states and the District of Columbia require pledges of electors, only 14 states have consequences which actually result in the removal of a faithless elector. These 14 states account for just 121 electoral votes, meaning that there is no legal means to bind the remaining 417 electoral votes. Research on electors finds that a surprisingly large number often consider casting rogue votes and an Electoral College tie could create great incentives for them to do so. Although few go rogue, a record number cast faithless votes in 2016, including five Democratic and two Republican electors. In the event of an Electoral College tie between Biden and Trump, a faithless elector could decide to vote for the other candidate, thus giving that candidate 270 electoral votes and potentially ending the election in a wave of controversy. However, on January 6 in a joint session of Congress, all electoral votes received from the states are read aloud and tabulated. At that point, it is likely that the faithless vote would be challenged and debated among members of Congress. Notably, all previous faithless votes have been counted by Congress in the manner they were received. The Court s ruling in Chiafalo could provide support to nullify a rogue vote if one were cast, but that outcome is uncertain.Supposing all electors vote as expected and no candidate receives a majority of Electoral College votes, the election would move to the contingency process, which has been utilized three times in American history, all in the 19th century. In a contingent election, the House of Representatives is charged with determining the winner of the presidency while the Senate selects the vice president. Potentially adding further intrigue, there is also nothing in the Constitution requiring members of the House or Senate to hold their deliberations or cast their votes in public. During the 1825 contingent election, votes were cast in secret. In the House, members must choose among the top three candidates who won electoral votes for the presidency. Each state delegation gets one vote, regardless of the size of their delegation. This process emphasizes the power of statehood and small states have as much say regarding the next president as the most populated ones. Thus, Wyoming (population, 580,000) and California (population, 40 million) have equal clout in this process. Currently, 26 state U.S. House delegations are majority Republican, 23 states are majority Democrat, and 1 state has divided party control. We won t know until after Election Day, and perhaps considerably long after, how many state House delegations are controlled by which parties in the incoming 117th Congress. If delegation control were to remain unchanged, it may well be that Joe Biden could win the popular vote by millions and have the House controlled by his own party only to lose the presidency because Republicans controlled more House delegations. While this all may seem far-fetched, Donald Trump has floated the idea that he could win the presidency in a contingent election. In response, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi urged her fellow Democratic members of the House to redouble their efforts to ensure Democrats win a majority of House delegations. Clearly, scenarios of this sort are on the minds of our nation s leaders. The choice of the vice president falls to the Senate and each senator would have a single vote. Senators would choose among the top two candidates who won electoral votes for the vice presidency. While Republicans may hold on to their majority in the Senate, it is quite possible that Democrats could have a slim majority in the 117th Congress. Thus, in a contingency scenario, it is entirely possible that Donald Trump could win reelection and Kamala Harris would be his vice president.And if that is not bizarre enough, if the House is unable to agree on a winner by January 20, 2021, at noon, the vice president would become acting president provided the Senate could agree on a vice president. If neither body can decide on a winner by the January 20 deadline, the Presidential Succession Act would kick in and Pelosi, once she resigned her seat in Congress, would act as president until the election were finally resolved. Though this outcome may appear improbable, if 2020 has taught us anything, it is to expect the unexpected and prepare for any and all scenarios. Should an electoral vote tie occur, we believe that America, and the world, will not be prepared for the bedlam which would ensue.

Throughout this star-crossed year, Donald Trump has routinely misled the country about the coronavirus. He stood on a debate stage Tuesday and mocked Joe Biden for wearing a mask. Now it has to be asked: Did Trump hope to cover up his own Covid-19 infection?It s a harsh question as the President received treatment in the Walter Reed military medical center. Yet it is begged by his own dubious track record of disclosure and the White House s characteristically murky handling of facts surrounding his illness. In the first public briefing on Trump s condition Saturday, White House physician Dr. Sean Conley offered general assurances that the President is doing well. (His upbeat assessment was quickly disputed by White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, sowing confusion about the President s condition.) But despite his tortured efforts to avoid answering specific questions, which continued at a second briefing Sunday, Conley said just enough to provoke a controversy that would have been inconceivable at any other time and with any other President.Conley pointedly and without explanation refused to discuss when the President s last negative Covid test occurred. But his assertion on Saturday -- later walked back -- that Trump had begun treatment for the virus 72 hours earlier set off alarms. That timetable would mean that Trump lied to a national TV audience late Thursday when he concealed that he had already had a positive test (The Wall Street Journal reported late Sunday that Trump had, indeed, withheld his first positive Covid test during that interview). It could mean he was contagious at the presidential debate on Tuesday. Most disturbingly, it would mean he knowingly attended a fundraising event Thursday with donors at his Bedminster Golf Club after testing positive for Covid. Understanding the explosive nature of that timeline, the White House later issued a brief statement from Conley saying he had spoken "incorrectly" and that the President, indeed, was diagnosed on Thursday. But questions have abounded since Thursday afternoon, when it was disclosed by Bloomberg News -- not the White House -- that Hope Hicks, one of the President s closest aides, had tested positive for Covid-19. Hicks had traveled with Trump to Tuesday s debate in Cleveland and a rally Wednesday night in Minnesota, where she fell ill. She was said to have been quarantined on Air Force One on the trip home. So, the White House knew of Hicks Covid-19 infection before the President left for the fundraiser Thursday morning. He had been exposed, yet he went anyway.If Hicks illness had not been outed by Bloomberg, and Trump had not developed symptoms, would the White House even have shared news of his positive test? Or would they have simply tried to ride it out, hoping he could continue as usual. The 74-year-old President has been about as forthcoming with his medical records as he has his tax returns and there are many reasons he would have wanted to stifle his Covid test in the final weeks of a tough reelection campaign. To admit he had Covid-19 would undermine Trump s downplaying of the virus, dismissal of masks and expose as irresponsible his insistence on holding large in-person events. To admit he tested positive would sideline him and force him off the campaign trail in the final, critical weeks of the campaign. To admit he had the virus would spoil the caricature of the race he has tried so hard to draw: Trump, the relentless, indefatigable warrior versus Biden, an enfeebled and malleable shut-in. To admit he was sick would make a mockery of his mockery of Biden for wearing a mask in public and for following the guidance of Trump s own coronavirus task force -- guidance that Trump, himself, has routinely flouted. Trump s candidacy was already in deep jeopardy because of his deceptions from the start about the severity of the virus. He famously told author Bob Woodward in February that the virus was deadly and highly contagious, even as he downplayed it in public as no more threatening than the flu.The President, who was counting on a strong economy as the lynchpin of his reelection campaign, resisted until he could resist no more the partial shutdown required to try and stop the spread of the virus. And he pushed too soon and too fast for a reopening that led to a new spike of cases in states where Republican governors followed his lead. He has routinely undermined the public health experts on his own coronavirus task force, and placed communications on the virus in the hands of his political apparatchiks who worked to water down the guidance backed by science. Now more than 209,850 Americans are dead, with projections that the toll could nearly double within months. The US, with just 4% of the world s population, has more than 20% of the Covid deaths. That sorry record and the President s malfeasance has justly cost him in his reelection campaign. It is a major reason why he has been unable to close the significant edge Biden continues to enjoy in national polls. It is the record Trump was hoping to outrun in the closing weeks. Now he is facing a serious battle with the very virus he has downplayed for so long.If the White House is proven to have engaged in a grotesque and dangerous cover-up by delaying news of Trump s positive Covid test, the only concern the President should focus on right now is his health.