Esports During the Pandemic

    Over the past few weekends, the League of Legends World Championships was conducted in Shanghai, China. This annual premier event is usually held in front of an immense crowd, but due to COVID-19 restrictions, the tournament had to follow strict health guidelines. Before the tournament was commenced, players from different regions were quarantined for 14-days, and all individuals were required to wear masks and were given temperature checks prior to their matches. No live crowds were allowed except for a small group during the final round. 

    Yet despite these setbacks, the 2020 World Championships has broken many viewership records with at least 5 matches surpassing 1 million viewers. While the pandemic has largely disrupted sports organizations like the NBA and MLB, esports has thrived due to its online accessibility. In 2018, the industry was worth $906 million, while in 2019 it was expected to reach 1.1 billion, and its reach will only continue to expand. Popular streaming services like Twitch.tv and YouTube allow millions of individuals to watch live gameplay in the comfort of their homes, and the internet remains as a refuge for these games and their now remote tournaments. The initial shutdown in professional sports leagues meant that there was more room for other broadcasting; instead of sports programs, esports was televised widely, growing their audiences further.

    Many individuals have also turned to popular mobile and PC games for entertainment; games such as Among Us and the newly released Genshin Impact (my personal favorite) have captured millions of players, many who had never played video games in the past. The collaborative and co-op nature of these games makes them attractive to individuals who want to enjoy time with their friends while also maintaining social distances. 

The future of esports remains a bright one; professional gaming and game broadcasting has only increased in prior years and will only grow from here. According to investor Michael Ball from Epyllion Industries, "the novel coronavirus will have permanently increased esports' overall economic and cultural trajectory. As a category, it has been popularized and legitimized in an unpredictable and profound way." As more investors, companies, and sponsors join the fray in this ever-growing market, esports will continue to thrive and cement itself as a powerful industry. 

The Washington Post

The Western Front

EsportsBar

Swing State Success

             Joe Biden is leading Donald Trump in the national polls for the presidential election, on account of BBC, The Guardian, NPR, and CNN polls. However, this doesn’t guarantee the Democratic candidate victory. Just four years ago, even though Hillary Clinton had a clear lead over Trump in the polls [for almost the entirety of the 2016 campaign] she ended up losing in the electoral college. The handful of swing states that will probably decide the election and be targeted heavily are being targeted heavily by Biden and Trump. Currently, there are 9 “battleground” states, out of which, Arizona, Texas, Ohio, and Iowa are toss-ups. Montana, Kansas, and Indiana are likely to vote Republican, whereas Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are likely to vote Democrat. 

NPRs final Electoral College map analysis shows Joe Biden going into Election Day with the clear edge, while President Trump has a “narrow but not impossible path” to winning the presidency. Among states leaning or likely to go in a particular candidate’s favor, Biden leads by 279 electoral votes compared to Trump’s 125. If Trump wins all the battleground states and one Biden-leaning state, the map would be exactly 259:259 votes, meaning the House of Representatives would have the responsibility of deciding who wins. Though these numbers seem difficult and daunting to achieve, Trump is still well “within the margin of error in all seven of the toss-up states and the one toss-up congressional district in Maine.”

However, Trump needs to win back some female voters, but he doesn’t realize that insulting them doesn’t get the job done. During a recent rally in Michigan, he told the women that he needed their support, and that in exchange, he would help get their husbands back to work. The Washington Post reported on this, mentioning that women “have suffered greater professional and economic consequences during the [pandemic],” and that Trump’s remark ignored the reality of fallout from the current pandemic: that women also work. In addition to Trump inadvertently digging his own grave, “younger Americans are voting early in droves this cycle, far outpacing their pre-Election Day turnout in several key swing states at this time in 2016,” and according to NBC News Decision Desk/Data for Progress data, triple the voters from ages 18-29 have cast early votes this year compared to the previous election. Among all age demographics, the voters in the youngest group skew most heavily towards Biden, giving him a significant advantage amongst the younger crowd. According to Sean McElwee, a co-founder of the [progressive] polling firm Data for Progress, since “voting is a habitual behavior,” if young Democrats consistently vote at an increased rate in the upcoming elections, the GOP can face unprecedented consequences. 

There is a lot of uncertainty heading into Tuesday, November 3rd, so for now, all we can do is wait for the ballots to be counted (and vote if you’re of age!).

NPR

Washington Post

NBC

BBC (graph)

Misinformation and Its Circulation Before the Election

In our current world that has been so overly saturated with technology and media, news and information are easily accessible from numerous types of outlets. According to a study conducted by Pew Research, 55% percent of adults get their news from social media either "often" or "sometimes." Today, we see that social media can have incredible political influence through popular sites such as Twitter and Instagram. While it does make information more widespread, it allows for misinformation to be propagated easily, affecting citizens and voters who may have stumbled across it. 

This week, researchers at the University of Southern California discovered the presence of Twitter bots to be used to spread misinformation prior to the election. They identified thousands of accounts that were attempting to post information about President Trump and Joe Biden's campaigns, with many trying to spread falsehoods through a flurry of incorrect statements and far-right conspiracy theories. 13% of these accounts were found to be automated, and due to their high tweeting rates, the amount of this misinformation is increased steadily. Emilio Ferrara, who led this study, notes that the most concerning part is that "they are increasing the effect of the echo chamber." With little way to stop these accounts, it becomes difficult to halt the stream of misinformation circulating throughout these sites. 

This year overall has been steeped with controversial and provoking events. From President Trump's impeachment to COVID-19, these sensational events allow for exaggerations, assumptions, and wild statements to circulate easily. It becomes difficult to fact-check all the sources, and as the amount of information only increases, they blend together in a conglomeration of truths, falsehoods, and opinions. As the line between information and misinformation blurs, individuals become more susceptible to having their opinions and decisions manipulated. 

With the current pandemic, individuals have been more likely to turn to social media for their information, and major companies have made greater efforts to curb the influx of misinformation. Recently, Facebook removed ads from the Trump and Biden campaigns that could mislead voters in states where early voting has not started. If this kind of behavior can become a continuous habit for popular media platforms, we can potentially curb some of the detrimental effects of misinformation. 

New York Times

PBS

Forbes

Amy Coney Barrett - Confirmed

                On October 26th, the Senate voted 52-48 to approve Judge Barrett, where the Republicans overcame the unified opposition of the Democrats. Though the vote was really just a formality, it still marks a seismic moment for Trump and his presidency -- she is the third conservative Justice he appointed during his singular term (Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018). Barrett’s appointment sealed the 6-3 conservative majority on the top US judicial body after she was sworn in by her conservative colleague, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. 

Judge Barrett could cast a decisive vote on a number of cases, including the Affordable Care Act, the Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, the census and undocumented immigrants (which could affect allocation of congressional seats), etc. She could easily serve for another 3 decades on the Supreme Court, influencing policy debates significantly.

Democrats have been firing attacks on the Republicans for their decision:

Joe Biden called it “rushed and unprecedented.” 

His running-mate Kamala Harris said that her confirmation was “a disgrace, not only because of what she will do when she gets on the bench, but because of the entire process.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said to his Republican colleagues: "You may win this vote .. But you will never, never get your credibility back. And the next time the American people give Democrats a majority in this chamber, you will have forfeited the right to tell us how to run that majority."

Much of this rancor stems from the fact that four years ago, these same people refused to countenance Barack Obama’s pick for the supreme court “on grounds that the people should decide.” Justice Scalia had passed away 9 months before the election; Justice Ginsburg passed away less than two months before.

 

Possible Discussion Topics:

Court-packing by Democrats -- is it warranted or unwarranted?

Is the Supreme Court inherently partisan, or is it apolitical? If so, should it be politicized?

Sources:

BBC

CNN

The Guardian

Trump's Handling of COVID-19: A Failure?

    President Trump has faced much criticism regarding his handling of the coronavirus. He repeatedly dismissed the severity of the issue at hand, even though the virus has already killed 200,000+ individuals in the US alone and has left millions of citizens jobless. 

    In examining the faults of President Trump's handling of the virus, we can begin by looking at the initial reaction towards the emergency. The federal government provided a weak response towards looking into the disease, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention producing a test that was contaminated and unusable. Yet when this failed, the Trump Administration was slow to act, losing at least a month that could have been used for more research. According to Michael Gerson from the Washington Post, "getting testing right more quickly might have helped curb the spread early, saving many lives in the process. The White House had the ultimate responsibility to make it work. But it didn't."

    Throughout the pandemic, President Trump's attitude toward the virus showed a lack of caution. His administration has harbored an attitude with a severe lack of emergency, downplaying the truth of the effect it has had on citizens. Perhaps he was attempting to limit the amount of bad news for Americans, but it was overly blindsided to our country's detriment. He has filtered incorrect information into our news and has championed hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malaria drug, as a cure for COVID-19. There has been no support for this medicine having any such effect, and time put towards this investigation is time wasted that could have been put towards researching a more viable solution. 

    In his opinion article for CNN, writer Jeffrey Sachs criticizes Trump and his administration's decision-making during the pandemic. He asserts that they are unable to "understand the most basic point: the way to control the pandemic is through systematic public health measures... not an economic shutdown." Trump's lack of reinforcement for face masks is just one of the fatal issues in his handling of the situation. Quarantining and nationwide contact tracing was not launched effectively, yet Trump continues to boast about his administration's efforts. 

    As we near winter, which is suspected to be one of the most difficult times for this pandemic, citizens are becoming increasingly worried about a potentially bleak future. Americans have steadily lost confidence in Trump's handling of the virus as approval rates have reached an all-time low, with a recent Reuter's survey reporting that 37% of Americans approved of his handling while 59% disapproved. As clinical trials for vaccines have seen hopeful but minimal success, the future of the United States will depend on the federal government's future efforts in allocating necessary health guidelines and resources towards the pandemic. 

The Washington Post

Reuters

CNN

    

An Update on the AstraZeneca Vaccine

    AstraZeneca, a British pharmaceutical giant, has been developing its vaccine in collaborating with the University of Oxford. After the Phase 2 study, AstraZeneca has announced that their experimental Covid-19 vaccine has produced an immune response in both older adults (high-risk group) and in younger adults. This announcement led to the 1% rise in shares of AstraZeneca in Monday’s (10/26) US premarket, according to MarketWatch. The potential vaccine, “AZD1222,” triggers protective antibodies and T-cells for at least 56 days. 

    The Wall Street Journal reports that “the vaccine, now in late-stage human trials, aimed at showing its efficacy and safety, is a front-runner in the global spring for a shot to protect lives and jump-start economies hobbled by the pandemic. Trials in the U.K. could produce results before year-end, fueling hopes among scientists and government leaders that a vaccine might be available for high-risk groups here by early 2021.”

    However, although the early-stage interim results suggest that the vaccine is safe and that it triggers promising responses, it doesn’t yet prove that it offers long-term immunity or that it has a confirmed safety profile. For example, AstraZeneca paused its trials for a week when a volunteer in the UK developed an “unexplained illness.” They continued their trials, later saying that unexplained illnesses can happen “by chance” in large trials, and must be independently reviewed.

    Governments around the world are still debating the timeline for offering Covid-19 vaccines to the public, as drugmakers speed up development. The implications of fast-tracking vaccines are real. Bodily functions can be affected adversely, and companies wouldn’t know short and long-term effects until further research.     

    I think the largest repercussion of fast-tracking the Covid-19 vaccines is that people will lose trust, both in the government, and in pharmaceutical companies. They will lose trust in the government for pushing the quick distribution of these vaccines with low efficacy (response of the drug in the body), and they will lose faith in the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture these drugs, as they may start to believe that other medications have been produced and will be produced at an unconventionally fast rate, and that these medications might be unsafe to use. 

Wall Street Journal

MarketWatch

CNBC

Obama Holds Speech in Support of Biden

Former president Barack Obama recently gave a speech in Philadelphia, hoping to support Joe Biden’s presidential election campaign. Much of the material he presented was a criticism of current president Donald Trump and his actions both as a person and as president. Throughout his speech, Obama encouraged voters to take the election seriously, and to vote despite the polls that currently predict Biden winning the election,  saying “We’ve got to turn out like never before.” He added that last election’s polls predicted a Clinton presidency and were wrong, adding to his argument that voter turnout can majorly affect the outcome of this election.

While promoting Biden as a very fit president, Obama criticized Trump for multiple issues, such as only spending $750 in taxes in his last 2 years of presidency, holding hidden bank accounts in China, and what he claims to be weak environmental policies. He especially included an attack for the Trump administration’s response to the coronavirus, saying “Donald Trump isn’t going to suddenly protect all of us. He can’t even take the basic steps to protect himself.” Possibly as an appeal to moderates, he added: “I want to be honest here. This pandemic would have been challenging for any president. But this idea that somehow this White House has done anything but completely screw this up is just not true.” Although politically motivated, these claims aren’t entirely unwarranted. President Trump had supported the reopening of schools, and, directly after their re-opening in early August, the Guardian reported an exponential increase in student infections, forcing many schools to close once more.

It is not surprising that Biden is receiving support currently, as it is only a few weeks from the end of the election and there are key swing states that either candidate must win if they hope to win the election, even if Biden currently has the lead in the polls. Trump campaign communications director, Tim Murtaugh, took Obama’s speech as an opportunity to attack Biden, saying, before the speech, that “Joe Biden is clearly not up to the rigors of campaigning for president, so he's calling in Barack Obama as a reinforcement.” It will be interesting to see what support Trump and Biden receive as the election continues, and to see whether it is more oriented on attacking the other candidate or supporting the image of their own. Obama plans to hold more speeches in support of Biden before the election.

NPR Source

New York Times Source

Guardian Source

 

CPD Announces Final Presidential Debate will Include Muting Microphones

    In response to the previous unorthodox presidential debate, the CPD has decided candidates who speak out of turn will be muted in the final presidential debate. Being so, the rules remain mostly the same, mainly utilizing the muting feature for a candidate who was not given the floor. After each candidate’s 2 minute reply with the other candidate's microphone muted, they will be allowed to continue the debate as normal during the following 15 minutes of debating. Furthermore, the moderator of Thursday’s debate, Kristen Welker, will not have control of the candidates’ microphones, which will be specifically granted to the production crew.

    What specifically is the hope of muting candidates during this debate? The commission states that they believed the first debate had “fallen short,” and that they wanted to better provide viewers with the opportunity to educate themselves with the views of either candidate. Washington Post backed up the idea that the debate had indeed fallen short of providing viewers ample information of the candidates’ beliefs, as a CNN poll they cited found that only 17% of viewers thought that the debate was informative.

    Will it work? Some view that, although it will help encourage an informative debate, muting microphones will lead to the next debate being very similar to the previous one. Although interruptions during the 2 minute candidate introductions were a large issue with the last debate, another large portion of un-informative debate was during the 15 minute segment, which will not undergo any muting during the next debate. This means that a lot of arguments which were subjectively less informative than policy discussion will not necessarily be avoided through the new procedure. That being said, the new procedure will promote some policy discussion because the 2 minutes given to each candidate will be less argument based and more built to display the foundation of the candidates’ beliefs.

    There are those who oppose this change, including President Trump. Although agreeing to the new terms of the next debate, Trump has directly opposed debates with the possibility of muting one’s microphone. This was specifically addressed when he said “...and then they cut you off whenever you want” while discussing his negativity towards a participating in a virtual debate. Trump further stated that it is completely unacceptable for “an unnamed person” to have control over microphone access. That being said, the production crew managing microphone access is regulated to only mute candidates as a means of limiting interruptions during each of their 2-minute talking periods, thus aiming to avoid any possible bias and disproportionate treatment during the debate (as described by the New York Times).

    As shown by the overwhelming majority of people who feel the last unconventional debate was not informative, there is an obvious problem that the current debate format has when trying to create an informative environment for its viewers. Regulated microphone muting aims to allow viewers to get more informational content while avoiding purposefully or inadvertently creating an unfair debate environment. Although not the most extreme solution to make the debate majorly informative, it takes steps necessary to provide an experience for American voters that should better prepare them to make a more educated vote within the next few weeks.

NPR Source

New York Times Source

Washington Post Source

Trump Accuses 60 Minute Reporter of Bias, Continues Disapproval of Media

   

    After only 45 minutes of his interview on 60 Minutes, Trump exited the room, refusing to finish the interview. Insiders claimed that Trump did not believe the questions he was being asked were from a professional standpoint, Trump directly stating that his interview with Lesley Stahl was “Fake and biased,” later threatening to release the tape before it was scheduled to air. He then posted an image of Stahl without a mask at the debate, to which the New York Times has claimed was misrepresentative of her actions, as she had worn a mask up until the start of taping the interview. Furthermore, he stated that his opposing presidential candidate, Joe Biden, had been “treated less harshly by journalistic interlocutors,” as written in the New York Times report on the case.

Trump’s behavior of accusing outside parties of unfair treatment is not out of the ordinary. An example is during the investigations of whether Russia had interfered with the 2016 election, where President Trump accused Robert Mueller of targeting him because he assumed Mueller was biased, as addressed by the Guardian. Interestingly enough, Trump had been on 3 interviews on 60 minutes during the prior presidential election, not accusing any interviewers as he had today. This inconsistency hints that Trump leaving the interview may not have been because he felt it was fake or biased, as he had worked with 60 Minutes before and not felt the need to leave.

This reminds me of how past presidents like Roosevelt would only answer interview questions that they agreed with. They would do this by more deeply planning their interviews and denying questions that they did not want answered. The difference between the 2 events is that Trump is in a time when the people of the US have grown to question people in power, largely due to events such as the Watergate Scandal that caused people to lose trust in their elected officials. A Washington Post report in early 2020 found that a majority of Americans trusted the media’s portrayal of the coronavirus severity more than that of the Trump Administration, and I think it speaks to the fact that the president is one of the officials that the people have lost their trust for. Recalling Roosevelt denying questions, we can refer to a Washington Post reporter from the time, Harlan Miller, who commented that Roosevelt “selects only those [questions] on which he can ring the bell" (according to Reason, a more factual yet conservative news source). Currently I am of the impression that Trump did not like some of the questions he was being asked, and, similarly to Roosevelt, left the interview because of it.

Because this is largely my opinion, I am curious what you think. Did Trump leave the interview because he truly thought it was biased? Was Trump trying to dodge a possible infringement of his image? What other important points are to be made?

Reason Sourcing

The Guardian Sourcing

Washington Post Sourcing

New York Times Sourcing

Supreme Court set to reassess citizenship's role in the 2020 U.S. Census

 

PHOTO: MICHAEL REYNOLDS/SHUTTERSTOCK

Back in 2019, President Trump attempted to add a citizenship question to the 2020 United States Census, this effort was blocked by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote citing "that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross apparently 'contrived' a phony rationale for adding the question, violating federal law that requires transparency and reasoned decisions in policy-making," according to the Wall Street Journal.

Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Still, this block did not stop the Trump Administration from attempting to find other work-arounds to exclude "illegal aliens" from the House of Representatives apportionment part of the census, a key interest to the Republican party and Trump's administration. Should the SCOTUS rule in President Trump's favor, the census for reapportionment "would likely shift representation from urban areas and Democratic-trending states toward more rural and Republican-leaning states with smaller immigrant populations" (WSJ). This change in census reporting would create a lasting impact for at least a decade, when the next U.S. census is set to be completed.

Additionally, to only count legal citizens in the census would change the 200-year plus precedent where U.S. residents included "both citizens and noncitizens, regardless of immigration status" (NPR) since the first census in 1790. Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall has used the term U.S. residents/ inhabitants to further his argument, supporting Trump's push to focus on citizenship, arguing "the term ‘inhabitants’ does not completely bar the President from exercising discretion to exclude illegal aliens” (WSJ). 

Solicitor General Wall's point speaks to a much larger debate, how much power should be left up to the President's "discretion;" should the President have a say in the census is another question that ought to be discussed. After all, the U.S. Census Bureau is under the U.S. Department of Commerce, where its' director is appointed by the President, so maybe the census can be more partisan than many want to believe.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments for Trump v. New York next month, this case could possibly include federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett, as Republicans hope to confirm her as the ninth justice before the November 3rd election, thus "cementing a conservative majority" (Politico) on the Court. Having a conservative majority would most likely impact the ruling of the court on this immigration-centered issue. 

Source 1: WSJ

Source 2: NPR

Source 3: Politico

16 days until the election, and California is already dealing with not so "official" ballot boxes

 As many have probably seen this week/weekend on social media sites and other popular news outlets, California has become one of the first main examples for what many predict is just the beginning for election tampering and possible fraud in the 2020 General Election. 

In Los Angeles, Fresno and Orange Counties more than 50 "deceptively labeled “official” drop boxes for mail-in ballots" have been placed around, with the California Republican Party admittedly responsible. While many were quick to jump to the conclusion that these actions and boxes were illegal and that the state GOP ought to be penalized right away, the true legality behind third-party ballot collection remains a little more complicated. 

CBS News / One of the "official" boxes placed by CA GOP

According to the LA Times, "Republicans assert that they are operating under a 2016 state law that allows an unlimited number of completed ballots to be collected by an individual or political parties and campaigns." However California’s secretary of state Alex Padilla argues, "that the boxes were not covered by legal protections, because they were intended to 'mislead voters and erode the public trust' ” (NYT).

A main reason behind Mr. Padilla's claim is grounded in the fact that many of the boxes were labelled as "Official Ballot Drop off Box[es],” making them "virtually indistinguishable from drop-off sites sanctioned by the state," to an average voter. State sanctioned drop-off sites are under strict regulations to prevent "partisan manipulation of ballots," of which these were not.

Republicans push back against Mr. Padilla, with biased-wording stating “the way Democrats wrote the law, if we wanted to use a Santa bag, we could," (NYT). Thus calling out the Democrats for putting the law into effect, justifying their file-cabinet boxes, and also seemingly attempting to shift the blame and away from their own party.

Officials claim to have removed the "official" wording from the boxes this weekend, nonetheless subpoenas have already been issued, launching an investigation "into how the containers have been used in at least three counties" (LA Times). Therefore the focus should remain on these subpoenas, which will ultimately expose what has gone on in these counties.

ABC7 Los Angeles / GOP box now without the "official" labeling

Every action leading up to election day by both parties seems to be playing into the great animosity between the two, adding to the polarization of American politics. Will there every exist a middle-ground in U.S. politics in the 21st century? Is possible election-tampering going to become the norm leading into all future general elections?

Source 1: NYT
Source 2: LA Times

*This post was written Sunday (10/18) morning, thus changes past that time have not been accounted for in the post, but please feel free to comment new information below

Wildfire Aid Back and Forth

 

On Friday, a wildfire relief package crossed the president’s desk and he rejected it, only to reverse his decision hours later. The Washington Post claims initially, FEMA officials claimed the wildfires did not meet the criteria for federal relief. Trump agreed with this report at then first, but then backtracked soon after a conversation with California Governor Gavin Newsom.

The wildfires themselves have become politicized by President Trump and his administration on multiple fronts. One of them is California’s staunch position as a blue state. Miles Taylor, a former senior Trump administration official was quoted in a New York Times article saying “He told us to stop giving money to people whose houses had burned down from a wildfire because he was so rageful that people in the state of California didn’t support him and that politically it wasn’t a base for him”. Purposefully denying a state and its people aid because it won’t vote for you is unethical. Trump probably realized this because he came around in the end, although the Times article did include that the areas affected by wildfires in the last four years tend to vote Republican. Is this a move of true leadership or a political show for his supporters? (even though Republican≠Trump Supporter)

Another issue connected to the wildfires is climate change. President Trump denies the fires are any indication of climate change and chalks it up to forest management, which is ironic because 60% of California forests are federally managed. If President Trump wants better forest management, why did he propose a cut of 17% (587 million) of the National Parks budget? (National Parks Conservation Association) These wildfires have been a consistent problem throughout the last few years. Do you think that if Trump is re-elected he will put money into the parks budget and clearing the forest floors, or is this banter to deny climate change and exemplify California as a scientific failure to further polarize his support base?  

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Donald Trump's Town Hall Performance

Earlier, a presidential debate was supposed to take place. Instead, Americans received a very different experience from what Alexander Burns and Katie Glueck of The New York Times described as "different universes." During President Donald Trump's town hall on NBC, Donald Trump did not deviate very far from his far right support base while maintaining ambiguity as to not betray this base, but at the same time pull moderate conservatives into his corner.

President Trump danced with Savannah Guthrie on many issues, one being whether he had taken a coronavirus test on the day of the first debate. He said: "Possibly I did. Possibly I didn't." Despite the President's recent case of Covid-19, Trump criticized lockdowns, attacking the Governor of Michigan who was recently marked for kidnapping by a group of anti-government militants. Calling her out further instigates a narrative among his support base that she is a "bad guy", and dog whistles to the far right militias that are willing to take action in Trump's corner. This could give Governor Gretchen Whitmer, amongst other enemies of Trump more to fear. When Guthrie asked him about his income taxes, Trump claimed the reporting was illegal, playing the victim and pushing the "fake news" narrative he has been championing throughout his presidency.

Trump was also asked about Qanon, a far right conspiracy theory that law enforcement has called a "potential domestic terrorism threat". The theory alleges that multiple politicians and celebrities participate in a secret satanic pedophilia cult. Followers lap up Q-drops from a mysterious person known as "Q", who claims to be in the government and working with president Trump to expel the demonic presence from American government. Trump claimed he did not know anything of the group except they were against pedophilia, and when Guthrie pressed him to reject Qanon's more far-fetched views, he reverted back to the "I don't know" stance, similar to when Chris Wallace pressed him about the Proud Boys in the debate a few weeks back. This is because if Trump publicly rejects Qanon, that debunks the whole theory because Q is supposedly working with Trump. If the theory falls, he loses votes, if he rejects far right extremist groups, he loses votes. The whole reason a real debate didn't happen tonight was because when he debates, he loses votes. 

This graphic is from The Washington Post and is based on a CNN poll conducted after the first presidential debate. 60% said Biden won the debate while 28% said Trump won. However, post debate polls are no real indication of who will win. The same poll CNN article says back in 2016, 62% said Clinton won, and 27% said Trump won. And Donald Trump still became our current president. 

One civil and honest gesture the president made was agreeing to a peaceful transfer of power. Granted he only agreed to it under the circumstances that the election is "honest", which is a vague standard that changes in the eye of the beholder. Despite the vague nature of honesty, this is overall a small step in the right direction. In fact, Trump made a few small steps in the right direction, including kind of denouncing white supremacists. But with three weeks until the election, how many more small steps will it take for him to be ahead in the polls? How many small steps can he take in the less than three weeks there are until the election? Or does he even need these small steps? Only time will tell. 

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

The "politically homeless:" Latino support for Trump

     As election day gets closer, both parties are attempting to grab the support of historically divided groups having them vote in their respective favor. Latinos being the projected largest minority to vote in the presidential election, President Trump and former Vice President Biden are both attempting to expand their latino and hispanic voter base. Neither of the two candidates have been overwhelmingly successful in garnering the latino base as a whole, but this has been the case in many past presidential elections, especially for the Republican Party. 

    As seen in a graphic below from Pew Research Center, Republican candidates traditionally achieve about 30% of the Latino Vote. In 2016, Trump won 28% of latino voters support and is hoping to hold onto that base coming into the 2020 election. According to both The New York Times and Wall Street Journal, Trump is focusing on the support of a specific subset of latino voters, the Evangelical or other highly-religious Christian affiliates. 

    While to some it might seem unlikely that Trump could gain support from the same base of people he "attempted to demonize from the outset of his first campaign," these strongly religious voters may overlook some of his policies against immigration, focusing on the party he is affiliated with. This single or couple-issue voting is what Trump and the GOP are relying on to keep their ~30% latino voter base. That said, of those 30% not all are religious with smaller subset falling in the Evangelical religious group.

    These hispanic voters were (rightfully) dubbed as "politically homeless" by Pastor Joe Rivera of a Phoenix, AZ church in an interview with the NYT, earlier this month. He spoke to the reasons why the latino vote has always been so divided, especially when it comes to Hispanic Evangelicals. These voters see the Republican party as upholding their beliefs against abortion and for open economic gain, issues they strongly value. 

    So why is this important? Although Hispanic Evangelicals are only a small portion of the electorate, they are a key part to Mr. Trump's re-election. In the "battleground states including Florida and Arizona" (NYT) their political support will likely make a larger impact. 

Possible discussion topic: How can this single-issue voting be connected to public opinion projects from last week? Religion and politics, are they as separate as America, "land of the free," boasts?

Source 1

Source 2

Pew Graphic

Columbus Day or Indigenous Peoples Day

    In the past decade, the debate over the celebration of Columbus Day has got mainstream attention, however the arguments behind changing the name of the holiday has created many divided groups, starting decades prior. Columbus Day was recognized as a federal holiday in 1934, under Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration, however the holiday had been celebrated in some areas since the mid-1700s. When America gained its independence, "Colombia" became a synonym for the United States, according to NPR. Since then, celebrations commemorating Columbus' discovery of the "New World" have been publicized. 

    There is little debate over whether Columbus should be credited in discovering the Americas, yet the argument over how to appropriately commemorate him as a person has been a decades-long debate. Columbus' actions in the West Indies are challenging to overlook; an explorer who "enslaved and brutalized native inhabitants" maybe should not be glorified and credited as a whole.

    The debate over whether the holiday should exist or not, is not a simple one. The holiday does contain relevant connections to United States history, but the "native inhabitants" are a key part of that story, too.

    So where does the public stand on this issue? For many Italian-Americans, Christopher Columbus' legacy is one that ought to still be celebrated, as they "saw celebrating the life and accomplishments of Christopher Columbus as a way for Italian Americans to be accepted by the mainstream." Following the large wave of Italian immigration in the late 1800s, these newcomers faced much discrimination. Being able to tie their shared heritage to a celebrated "hero" in America was a way they thought to become more accepted in society. Colorado was the first state to recognize the holiday in 1906 due to pressure from a local Italian newspaper, and within five years 14 other states were also celebrating Columbus Day. Many Italian-Americans still the support the holiday today, whether out of support for Columbus or celebration of Italian heritage in America, is still up for debate.

    On the other side of the debate, many Native Americans and non-natives alike are voicing their opinions in opposition to the holiday, citing Columbus' horrible mistreatment of the native populations. Starting in 1970, news reports each October were published on the controversy. In 1992, Sacramento celebrated "Indigenous Peoples Day" alongside Columbus Day and Berkeley, CA took it a step further in replacing Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples Day, according to Forbes. The change in name is a start for many native groups, however Columbus Day is still celebrated by name in around 20 of the 50 states. Some states recognize both Indigenous Peoples Day and Columbus Day making it challenging to find a completely accurate number of states still celebrating.

    This year in particular brings forth another issue concerning the celebration of the controversial holiday, should cities host events which would draw crowds of people- something that is strongly advised against by public health officials amidst a pandemic. Many cities have cancelled parades and other activities, even stores have held off or renamed sales to avoid large rushes and the controversy says Forbes. 

    President Trump adds to the disagreements surrounding the holiday, in voicing his full support of Columbus Day citing arguments similar to those ending "federal agencies diversity training programs" proclaiming "such programs 'are grounded in the same type of revisionist history that is trying to erase Christopher Columbus from our national heritage'" (AP), Mr. Trump's vocal support of the holiday may impact some peoples views on the issue, but is unlikely to end or even slow the movements to change the holiday's name and meaning. 

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Implications of Amy Coney Barrett's Nomination in Addition to Those Posed by Covid

     With the Republic Senate and President Trump looking to push through a Republican leaning justice onto the Supreme Court, there is a significant deal of controversy surrounding this nomination as her hearing approaches and as Republicans look to fill up the court really quickly. While a young face at 48 potentially entering the Supreme Court, Barrett poses a threat to rulings like Roe v. Wade and policy like the Affordable Care Act. In the wake of Covid spreading more and more, Barrett's nomination comes at a dangerous time. She was noted to be unmasked at various gatherings involving the White House and the future of her nomination and success in getting put through to her spot.

                                        

         Republican perspectives are pushing the necessity for this despite 2016's behaviours and results. However, some note that anyone would make this power grab if they could to try and pack the courts. Many are describing how that's simply wrong due to the results and implications of Marbury v. Madison, not seeking to serve a political purpose. In the wake of these issues with Covid and the dangers of making such a close nomination, especially an arguably unpopular one (ahem Federalist 10) Barrett's a strange quantity of support despite the opposition to her.

The course of things and events going forward are going to be unfolding fast as Judge Barrett's hearing approaches.   

Opinion 1 

Opinion 2 

General Bkg (sorry about this formatting it started doing this with the line spacing)

Fatal Shooting in Denver Among Protests

    On October 10th in Denver, Colorado a fatal shooting occurred during a clash of individuals belonging to two different protests with each belonging to a side while the police tried to separate the groups in the middle from direct contact. One was labeled as a “patriot rally” or “muster” due to different wording in sources, and another was more solidly named as a “BLM-Antifa Soup Drive.” The events leading up to the shooting involved the victim, Lee Keltner, a 49-year-old U.S. Navy veteran, appearing to spray Mace, seen in the picture below, at a protester who then drew a gun and shot him. The suspect detained was a third party hired security guard for local news station 9NEWS which was covering the protests. The other problem besides shooting someone in broad daylight was apparently the suspect didn’t even hold a license for their job which then has additional requirements to allow carrying a firearm in plain clothing like they were wearing.

Lee Keltner spraying Mace at the suspect

    It isn’t controversial to think that there is intense division in America but, I find it sad how ridiculous the situation is while still being unsurprising and or expected to a degree. The end of the NPR article also rebrings into light other recent cases of fatal violence during protests which appear to be a trend at this point. Whenever these crazy, sudden or planned acts of violence erupt, I always wonder what the perpetrator seeks to gain every time because I see nothing here. A common question I have with these scenarios revolves around prevention in the future, and again every time I can’t form a well put answer beyond "better education". There are a lot of humans and that guarantees a fraction of them to be intensely irrational at some point or another resulting in these cases. I’d love to hear any answers in regards to prevention. Overall depressing but I do wonder if anything new or ongoing will be sparked by this or if it’ll be overshadowed by next week’s news which feels guaranteed to be just as heated.



Source 1: NYT

Source 2: AP

Source 3: NPR

Trump's First Public Appearence Since Leaving Hospital

    On, Saturday Oct 10, President Donald Trump made his first public appearance at The White House in front of a sizable crowd in the hundreds. While President Trump has been cleared by White House physician Dr. Sean P. Conley as no longer considered a transmission risk to others with improved symptoms, White House officials, however, have declined to answer when Trump last tested negative for the virus. With such a short time frame after diagnosis, some medical experts like are skeptical and feel “they’re really just pushing to get him out of isolation” and back to campaigning.”

Trump removing his mask during his appearance

    Compared to other occasions Trump’s speech was much shorter compared to the general ninety minute baseline. Thus, the event itself didn’t carry much substance in the form of “policy proposals and instead delivered the usual attacks on Democrat Joe Biden while praising law enforcement to supporters” AP news reports. Also, one of the main goals seemed to be just presenting himself at full strength regardless if it was an act or not. It’s also fairly important to note that while most attendees were reported to wear masks during the event, even if Trump ripped his off at the start, social distancing practices weren’t followed as seen in the picture below. I wonder what kind of message and effect the whole event could "spread" to watchers. 

Crowd at the showing

    Personally, even if Trump has some of the best healthcare available, I still find the speedy recovery questionable alongside the refusal to reveal his test results. But giving the benefit of doubt, it’s good a recovery was made. Still, infectious disease specialists experts like Dr. Albert Ko said, “people who have had COVID-19 can continue to test positive for weeks or longer after they are no longer infectious” which may explain some actions or lack of. Overall I wonder if this will have a large effect on the actions of others regarding perception of recovery. I'm also curious as to how these events may morph the coming campaign rallies as election day draws nearer.

Source 1 : AP

Source 2 : NYT

Source 3: Time