OPINION - Capehart and Abernathy 5/13/2022

"Capehart and Abernathy on COVID deaths, pandemic funding and Jan. 6 subpoenas" PBS NewsHour 5/13/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart and Washington Post columnist Gary Abernathy join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including the U.S. marks a million deaths from COVID-19, Congress reached an impasse on pandemic funding, and the Jan. 6 committee issued subpoenas for five Republican lawmakers.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  As the United States marks one million deaths from the pandemic, President Biden has asked Congress to approve new money to fight future coronavirus variants.  That spending has been stalled for weeks.

Meanwhile, Congress' January 6 Committee issued subpoenas to five Republican lawmakers.

And that brings us to the analysis of Capehart and Abernathy.  That is Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post, and Gary Abernathy, a Washington Post columnist.  David Brooks is away tonight.

Hello to both of you on this Friday night.

Jonathan Capehart (Washington Post):  Judy.

Gary Abernathy (Washington Post):  Hi, Judy.

Judy Woodruff:  Very good to see you.

The subject is grim, you won't be surprised to know.

But I want — I do want to start, Jonathan, by asking you about where we are on COVID.  Here we are at a million deaths.  We are all incredibly sobered by that.  We're hearing from the experts that there could be another, what, 100 million infections — or — I'm sorry — yes, 100 million infections coming.

And the administration is saying, we need between $10 million and $20 million — billion dollars — to deal with COVID.  Are there good arguments against that?

Jonathan Capehart:  No.  No.

Can we just pause for a moment and understand we have lost one million Americans?  I don't know what the particular folks on Capitol Hill, what other evidence they need to see for why that funding needs to be — needs to be passed.  Think about just how much pain and death and agony the American people have suffered, not just the one million people who died, but their families and loved ones and colleagues.

There's going to be another variant.  For the United States not to be — to do everything possible to be prepared for that moment, to do everything possible to forestall another 100 million infections, that's — that would be dereliction of duty.

In March 2020, we had no vaccines.  We didn't know what this was.  Everything was shut down just to try to stop this virus, this thing from spreading around.  We know so much more two years later.  We have got vaccines.  We have got boosters.

Why on earth would we not do everything possible to ensure that we don't go back to those to those horrible days two years ago?

Judy Woodruff:  Gary, what is the argument?  Republicans are resisting this funding.  What are the good arguments not to give it?

Gary Abernathy:  Well, it's hard to come up with good arguments not to offer a lifesaving vaccine.

But when you talk about what happened two years ago and how it happened, you have got to remember, we took a one-size-fits-all approach to fighting this thing nationwide.  And I know communities that got a tremendous influx of COVID money and couldn't find out — couldn't figure out how to spend it all.

I mean, it was kind of a, let's just throw a lot of money out there.  And this is not a Republican or Democrat criticism.  Donald Trump was a part of this.  Donald Trump was approving these things too.  Republicans and Democrats did this.

And now some people are kind of starting to say, well, wait a minute, where's our priority list?  Where's this on President Biden's list of priorities?  Is it — is it above Ukraine?  Is it above helping more — with more money for Ukraine?  Is it more important than the Build Back Better program?  Is it more important than forgiving student loans?

Maybe.  To me, I think providing these vaccines is.  But, at some point, we get to a point where this money doesn't exist.  We don't have this money to spend really.  And so I think people are asking — are asking the President, hey, come up with priorities.  And I think he does have a plan that says, OK, now we're going to prioritize people.

We're going to provide vaccines maybe to just the most at-risk people, people 60 and over, people with immune issues.

Judy Woodruff:  What about the argument, Jonathan, that some of this money was spent, and it's not clear where it went, or it went in other directions?

Jonathan Capehart:  Sure.  Sure.

But that's not an argument to do nothing.  You do better the next time.  But the idea that, because some money went somewhere it shouldn't — it shouldn't have gone, that we shouldn't prepare and protect against a future variant, I think, is ridiculous.

Also, this idea of more money for Ukraine, I wrote down politics, because folks are playing politics with money for Ukraine.  And it's clear why that money is needed.  Again, it's for Ukraine, but it's really for the fight for democracy.  So the same firefight — some of the same folks who are who are complaining about the COVID money are some of the same people who are complaining or stalling funding for Ukraine.

This — when — to bring it back to COVID funding, the administration and basically Washington [DC] cannot not do anything, cannot not prepare for what's to come.

Judy Woodruff:  Gary, how much of this is politics, and how much of it is based on a real, legitimate argument?

Gary Abernathy:  In Washington, there's politics?

Judy Woodruff:  Hello.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  I know.  I know.  What kind of a question…

Gary Abernathy:  Yes, right.  All of it.

But even on Ukraine, the Associated Press a couple of weeks ago — and PBS highlighted it, I think — talked about there comes — there's coming a point where, how much can we — how much can we give?  I mean, everybody wants to help Ukraine.  It's the most worthy cause, but we're depleting our own resources.

There's real questions now about our ability to defend ourselves against a North Korea or an Iran if something were to happen, because there's only a limited supply of these things.  So, people are starting to now take a look and say, look, we'd love to do it all, but we have to start prioritizing and figuring out, because, really, this is money that just doesn't exist.

Judy Woodruff:  And, of course, Ukraine, we don't know how long that's going to go.

Gary Abernathy:  Right.

Judy Woodruff:  I mean, the predictions are, it could be months, even years, is what we were hearing this week.

The January 6 Committee, they have issued more subpoenas, Jonathan, this time to five House Republicans.  One of them is the minority leader, Kevin McCarthy.  He's indicated he's not particularly excited about going.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  But what does this lead to, I mean, these high-profile — well, asking for their own membership to come and testify?

Jonathan Capehart:  So, let's keep something in mind here.  When someone is subpoenaed, that's an extraordinary step.  And when that person is a sitting member of Congress in an investigation into an attack on the Capitol, an attack on American democracy, that is a serious step.

But it's not the first step.  The first step was asking House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and some of the others to come in voluntarily and do their duty as a member of Congress, but also as a patriot, to come in and talk about what they know, and to help fill in the gaps, to help that committee and the American people, by extension, to understand what happened on that day as a means of trying to prevent it from happening again.

They refused.  And so the fact that they're being subpoenaed, yes, it's an extraordinary step.  I think it 100 percent should have been done.  It needs to be done.  The attack on the Capitol was an attack on the American people, an attack on our democracy.  And we need answers.

Judy Woodruff:  How do you look on these subpoenas?

Gary Abernathy:  Yes, I agree 100 percent that we need answers, that what happened on January 6 was one of the most horrible things in our nation's history.

And I think we have already had a lot of answers.  I think answers are coming in many ways, including through law enforcement with the people who are charged.  One thing that I know a lot of people are worried about is conflating the peaceful rally that day with the riot.

In other words, there's a lot of talk about, well, who did — did you know, did you help plan this rally?  Did you help?  And planning the rally was perfectly fine, OK?  It's the 100 — a few hundred that broke off and actually invaded the Capitol that are being prosecuted.

But I think the committee does risk some partisan suspicions if it doesn't — it depends on what it finds.  I think that people have already made up their mind about whether this committee is going to uncover anything, without a bombshell revelation.

If this committee comes up with and says, you know what, here's a bombshell revelation about what was really behind this and what the intent was, and it kind of rocks the whole world, both sides of the aisle, that's going to be one thing.

But, short of that, I think people have kind of already settled on their talking points and what they're going to come out with at the end of the day, when this thing eventually wraps up.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, you do have committee members saying there is eye-popping, big information to come from what they have discovered.

Jonathan Capehart:  And I hope it's eye-popping.

But I also hope that the information, even if it's stuff that we already know, even if it's stuff that we have read about, that we have listened to with some of these — these audio — the audio recordings that we have listened to, that we not become numb to the seriousness of the information that we're getting, and that it is important that an investigative body with subpoena power and the ability to write a report, to put on hearings for the American people to see, to bring in witnesses, to show them what people were doing, what people were saying, how this thing got planned.

And, yes, we need to know how the rally got organized, and then how all — how some of these people went to the Capitol and ransacked the Capitol and tried to attack our democracy.  I don't want us to lose sight of the fact that, even if we have read some of this stuff on the front page of The Washington Post, or we have watched news reports here at "PBS NewsHour," that it's not important.

Judy Woodruff:  The fact that it's almost a year and — a year-and-a-half later.

Jonathan Capehart:  Yes.

Gary Abernathy:  Well, here's what we do know.

The rally happened.  And what we know is bad enough.  Donald Trump stood up at a rally and said, if you don't fight for your country, you're not going to have a country, and basically pointed them to the Capitol, where his own vice President was overseeing the count of electoral votes in a constitutional process to certify this election for Joe Biden.

I mean, that's bad enough.  How much more do we need to — how much more bad things do we need to come out to say — for enough people to say, Trump's responsible for what happened?

Jonathan Capehart:  It would be helpful if House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy would tell the American people what he told the President in those moments.

It would be helpful if Jim Jordan, who wants to become the next — I think Judiciary Committee chair in the House, what he said to the President when he talked to him probably multiple times that day.  That's important for us to know.

This is not a partisan issue.  This should be a patriotism issue.  Our country was under attack.  And it could happen again, which is why that commission, that select committee is in place to do this report.

Judy Woodruff:  And his point is that there's maybe culpability on the part of some of these members.

Gary Abernathy:  Yes.

And, again, there's a fine line.  And, again, you're talking about your fellow members of Congress.  There's a fine line between saying things to try to — we know a lot of those conversations that were happening, through what's been leaked, were to try to get Trump to take action to calm things down, to put an end to this thing.

And who knows what they said to try to appeal to him and his ego to make that happen.  But would it be interesting?  Yes.  I just think that a lot of it's being found out in other ways.  And the committee just needs to be careful when it comes to subpoenaing members of Congress.

Republicans are going to control Congress, very likely, very likely, after November.  And what goes around comes around.  And you just got to be careful how you treat your fellow members of Congress.

Jonathan Capehart:  They have already said that, if they come into power in the House, that there are going to be investigations galore.

Gary Abernathy:  Yes.

Jonathan Capehart:  The White House is already preparing for that moment.

Gary Abernathy:  And that's not — we need to back off from those vendettas.

(LAUGHTER)

Jonathan Capehart:  Gary.

Judy Woodruff:  On this Friday night, all right, we thank you both.

Gary Abernathy:  Yes.

Judy Woodruff:  Jonathan Capehart, Gary Abernathy, thank you very much, both of you.

Jonathan Capehart:  Thanks, Judy.  Thank you.

MEMORIAM - Colin Powell

"Remembering ‘warrior statesman’ Colin Powell" PBS NewsHour 11/5/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Friday at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., family, friends and colleagues of the late Secretary of State Colin Powell gathered to memorialize him.  Presidents Biden, Obama and Bush, and another Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, were among the guests.  His loved ones reflected on who he was as a statesman, friend and father.

 

WATCH LIVE:  Colin Powell's funeral at the Washington National Cathedral (3:27:04)

VOTE 2020 - Donald, Even Mike Pence Knows

 

The Lincoln Project

BIDEN - Transition: Economic Team

"What Biden’s choices for his economic team say about his priorities" PBS NewsHour 11/30/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President-elect Joe Biden on Monday named a diverse group to lead his economic team, including Janet Yellen, the former head of the Federal Reserve, as his choice for Treasury Secretary.  Jim Tankersley, who covers economics for The New York Times and is author of the recent book, "The Riches of This Land," joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.

 

 

"Biden’s economic team faces unprecedented crises in shift from Trump" PBS NewsHour 12/01/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President-elect Joe Biden on Tuesday introduced his economic team, which is planning on making a sharp shift from the Trump years and his economic policies.  Lisa Desjardins and Yamiche Alcindor join Judy Woodruff to discuss.

 

 

"Biden’s transition pushes ahead amid grim economic outlook" PBS NewsHour 12/04/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Biden White House transition continues though the president-elect is already facing what may be his greatest challenges, as the pandemic fills hospitals and jars the economy again.  Meanwhile, the Trump campaign continues to lose its legal challenges in moving to dispute the election result.  Judy Woodruff has the story.

AMERICAN POLITICS - Biden Transition Offically Starts

"Transition process formally under way.  GSA action allows briefings, funding for Biden team." by U-T News Services, San Diego Union-Tribune 11/21/2020

NOTE:  This is copied from the e-newspaper, therefore no link to article.

President Donald Trump’s government on Monday authorized president-elect Joe Biden to begin a formal transition process after Michigan certified Biden as its winner, a strong sign that the President’s last-ditch bid to overturn the results of the election was coming to an end.

Trump did not concede, and vowed to persist with efforts to change the vote.  But the President said on Twitter on Monday night that he accepted the decision by Emily Murphy, the administrator of the General Services Administration [GSA], to allow a transition to proceed.

In his tweet, Trump said that he had told his officials to begin “initial protocols” involving the handoff to Biden “in the best interest of our country.”

Murphy’s designation of Biden as the apparent victor provides the incoming administration with federal funds and resources and clears the way for the president-elect’s advisers to coordinate with Trump administration officials.

The decision from Murphy came after several additional senior Republican lawmakers, as well as leading figures from business and world affairs, denounced the delay in allowing the peaceful transfer of power to begin, a holdup that Biden and his top aides said was threatening national security and the ability of the incoming administration to effectively plan for combating the coronavirus pandemic.

And it followed a key court decision in Pennsylvania, where the state’s Supreme Court on Monday ruled against the Trump campaign and the President’s Republican allies, stating that roughly 8,000 ballots with signature or date irregularities must be counted.

In Michigan, the statewide canvassing board, with two Republicans and two Democrats, voted, 3-0, to approve the results, with one Republican abstaining.  It officially delivered to Biden a key battleground that Trump had wrested away from Democrats four years ago, and rebuffed the President’s legal and political efforts to overturn the results.

By Monday evening, as Biden moved ahead with plans to fill out his Cabinet, broad sectors of the nation had delivered a blunt message to the President: His campaign to stay in the White House was nearing the end.

Murphy said she made her decision Monday because of “recent developments involving legal challenges and certifications of election results,” most likely referring to the certification of votes by election officials in Michigan and a nearly unbroken string of court decisions that have rejected Trump’s challenges in several states.

In conversations earlier in the day with top aides — including Mark Meadows, the White House Chief of Staff; Pat Cipollone, the White House Counsel; and Jay Sekulow, the President’s personal lawyer — Trump was told that the transition needed to begin.  He did not need to say the word “concede,” they told him, according to multiple people briefed on the discussions.  But they emphasized that in the United States, transitions are hugely important.

Some of the advisers drafted a statement for the President to issue.  But Trump continued to solicit opinions from associates, including Rudy Giuliani, who told him there were still legal avenues to pursue, the people briefed on the discussions said.

In the end, Trump did not put out a statement, but aides said the tone of the proposed statement was similar to his tweets in the evening, in which he appeared to take credit for Murphy’s decision to allow the transition to a new administration to begin.

“Our case STRONGLY continues, we will keep up the good fight, and I believe we will prevail!” he wrote.  “Nevertheless, in the best interest of our Country, I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols, and have told my team to do the same.”

In a letter to Biden, Murphy rebutted Trump’s assertion that he had directed her to make the decision, saying that “I came to my decision independently, based on the law and available facts.” She said she was “never directly or indirectly pressured by any executive branch official — including those who work at the White House or the GSA.”

“I do not think that an agency charged with improving federal procurement and property management should place itself above the constitutionally-based election process,” she wrote, defending her delay by saying that she did not want to get ahead of the constitutional process of counting votes and picking a President.

Murphy said she had received threats online, by phone, and by mail “directed at my safety, my family, my staff, and even my pets in an effort to coerce me into making this determination prematurely.”

“Even in the face of thousands of threats, I always remained committed to upholding the law,” the letter said.

She did not describe Biden as the “president-elect” in her letter, even as she said the transition could begin.

One associate with knowledge of Murphy’s thinking said that she always anticipated signing off on the transition but that she needed a defensible rationale to do so in the absence of a concession from Trump; the pro-Biden developments in Michigan and Pennsylvania, as well as in Georgia, provided a clear justification for moving ahead.

That decision was part of a cascade of events over the last several days that appeared to signal the end of Trump’s attempts to resist the will of the voters.

Large counties in Pennsylvania were formalizing Biden’s victory in the state.  And in a major break with the President, General Motors announced it would no longer back the administration’s efforts to nullify California’s fuel economy rules.

On Capitol Hill, most of Trump’s Republican allies had stood by his side for the past two weeks as he [Trump] tried to overturn the vote.  But on Monday, some of the Senate’s most senior Republicans sharply urged Murphy to allow the transition to proceed.

Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who is retiring, issued his second call in recent days for a prompt transition.

“Since it seems apparent that Joe Biden will be the president-elect, my hope is that President Trump will take pride in his considerable accomplishments, put the country first and have a prompt and orderly transition to help the new administration succeed,” said Alexander, a close friend of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) the Senate majority leader.  “When you are in public life, people remember the last thing you do.”

Earlier in the day, Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, both Republicans, issued statements breaking from Trump and calling for Biden to begin receiving coronavirus and national security briefings.

“At some point, the 2020 election must end,” Capito said.

The pressure on Trump extended beyond the political sphere.  More than 100 business leaders sent a letter to the administration on Monday asking it to facilitate a transition, and a group of Republican national security experts implored Republican members of Congress to demand that Trump concede.

One of the President’s staunchest supporters, Stephen Schwarzman, the chief executive of the private equity firm Blackstone, did not sign the business leaders’ letter but said in a statement that “the outcome is very certain today and the country should move on.”

The New York Times and The Washington Post contributed to this report.

VOTE 2020 - Rundown Sunday 11/08/2020

"Vice President-elect Harris’ win brings many historic firsts" PBS NewsHour 11/08/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Kamala Harris gave her victory speech wearing all white on Saturday night after her glass ceiling-shattering win as Vice President-elect.  Barbara Perry, Director of Presidential Studies and co-chair of the Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia's Miller Center, joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the historic nature of Harris’ election and the road it took to get here.

 

 

"Dems won the race but the GOP will control the presidency" PBS NewsHour 11/08/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  While Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are headed to the White House, Democrats who were hoping to increase their margins in the House and take control of the Senate, failed to strengthen their position in Congress.  Jeff Greenfield joins to discuss the election results and how the Senate runoff in Georgia will determine the future of Biden’s presidency.

VOTE 2020 - Rundown Saturday 11/07/2020

"Lack of evidence make Trump’s legal challenge an uphill battle" PBS NewsHour 11/07/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump has vowed to challenge the election results, which have declared Joe Biden as the President-Elect.  The legal challenges began well before Election Day with lawsuits over mail-in voting and which ballots were “legally” cast.  Guy-Uriel Charles, professor of law at Duke University and co-director of the Center of Law, Race and Politics joins to discuss.

 

 

"Biden will take over a deeply divided nation in crisis" PBS NewsHour 11/07/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  With news outlets from the Associated Press to Fox News calling the election in favor of Joe Biden on Saturday, President Trump’s camp continued their legal efforts to contest the election results, and many Republican leaders remained silent.  Yamiche Alcindor joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss Trump’s strategy, as well as Kamala Harris’ historic win as the first woman of color to be elected Vice President.

 

 

"Georgia to be ‘center of the American political universe’ during recount, runoff election" PBS NewsHour 11/07/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Nearly 5 million ballots were cast in Georgia, where razor-thin margins in the presidential election mean the state will enter a recount process in the coming weeks, and a January runoff will decide the fate of both the state’s Senate seats.  Georgia Public Broadcasting’s Rickey Bevington joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss why, between now and January’s runoff election, all eyes will be on Georgia.

 

 

"‘More lawsuits are coming:’ Trump’s lawyers layout plans as AP calls race for Biden" PBS NewsHour 11/07/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Shortly after the Associated Press and other TV networks call Pennsylvania and the entire race for Joe Biden, President Trump’s lawyers lay out their plans for a long legal fight over the results.  NewsHour’s Dan Bush joins from Philadelphia to discuss the moment Biden’s victory was called and the Trump campaign's plan of action.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks on Vote 2020

"Shields and Brooks on election results, national divisions" PBS NewsHour 11/06/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including surprises from a very close presidential election whose result is still unknown, which groups of voters increased their support for President Trump, political challenges for the Democratic Party and what national divisions say about the future of the country.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

So, hello to both of you.

We don't have a result yet, but the votes are being counted like mad.  We know the results in a lot of states.

We're waiting.

David, what do you make of what we know so far?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Well, if ever there was a campaign that was going to be a blowout, I thought this was it.  I thought we had an unpopular President that people were ready to get rid of.  I expected a large margin.  And I was wrong.  It's a 2.8 percentage margin nationally.

And so I think what we have learned is that we a very evenly divided nation, two groups of people in non-overlapping universes.  For a time, it seemed — and I think people in both camps thought, well, the people on my team could eventually crush the people on the other team, and my team will get to rule.

I think we now have to face reality.  That's just never going to happen.  The other side is never going to go away.  And we have got to find a way to live with each other.

And so, to me, that's the biggest takeaway of where we are right now.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, divided country.

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Divided country, Judy.

But if you look at it in historical perspective, in the last century, only three presidential challengers, nominees have defeated an elected President seeking reelection.  And it's a pretty impressive group, if you think about it.  It was Franklin Roosevelt, it was Ronald Reagan, and it was Bill Clinton, all of whom were at least two-term presidents.  One was a four-term president, and I think history would say successful Presidents.

So, Joe Biden joins a pretty awesome group of people.  He will end up, in my judgment, with a 52-47 popular vote percentage, decisively, and decisively in the Electoral College.

David's right.  It was close.  We are divided.

What surprised me, as much as anything, was the loyalty and the enthusiasm of Donald Trump's constituency.  They turned out in surprisingly impressive numbers.  And Donald Trump, if he got over his hissy fits and sort of the silly actions since the election, could take credit for the Republicans picking up House seats in 2020 and retaining their majority in the Senate.

With the exception of Susan Collins, every other Republican Senate candidate who won, won with Donald Trump.  Susan Collins had a 17-point split in Maine.  That was the only ticket-splitting state in the country.

Judy Woodruff:  So, David, I know you have also — you have had a chance to look inside some of these numbers, why voters voted, who voted how, and why people voted the way they did.

I mean, even as we're waiting for the final numbers, what does that tell you about the country, about who we are?

David Brooks:  Well, I mean, the surprises were the gains that Republicans made among Latinos and African-Americans.  Donald Trump had a higher share of the non-white vote than any Republican in 60 years, as he said.

And that was a surprise to me.  He doubled his support among the LGBTQ community.  And so a lot of people are voting by different narratives.  There is a certain narrative that he's a racist and that he's just a force for racism.  I think there's a lot of truth to that narrative, but a lot of people clearly have different narratives in their head.

And so I think people — we should be humble about generalizing across groups of people, especially people we have never met.  And so I think that.

The second thing is that the Republican Party really is the party of the — of people without college degrees, much more so than ever before.  We saw swings of moderates, swings of college-educated suburbanites to the Democratic Party.

And I think the Republican Party can — if they're going to be — feel good about this election, they can see the potential of a future party as a multiracial working-class party.  If they can win support across racial lines among those without college degrees, then that's a very viable party, and they should really focus all their attention on, what can we do for people without college degrees of all groups?

Judy Woodruff:  What about that, Mark?

And, as you look at how people voted, which way they went, what do you see?  What does it tell you about us?

Mark Shields:  Picking up on what David said, you can't make generalizations about people you do know, David.  You have to make generalizations about people you don't know.

(LAUGHTER)

But the point is that David touched on it on the white blue-collar male vote, one out of three voters in the country.

This was the backbone of the Democratic coalition that elected Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, and Jack Kennedy.  It was the message of the entire New Deal, Fair Deal, and New Frontier, that government had a responsibility to guarantee jobs, that you weren't the nation of self-reliance and independence completely, especially in the face of a Great Depression.

But the important thing to remember is that the 346 firefighters who walked into the jaws of death and the fires of hell on September 11 to save strangers that never met and gave their lives so doing were white non-college males, for the most part.

Those who volunteer to defend our country, whether it's joining the Marine Corps or the armed forces, and fight and die, it's their families, and they're the families of white, overwhelmingly white, not-college-educated males.

And the Democrats' problem, I think, is one of attitude as much as it is of platform.  I mean, the Democrats, that were once a shot and a beer party have become a Sauvignon blanc party arguing about which wine is more sensitive.

And I really — I really do think this is a problem for Democrats.  And they have to — they have to approach with some humility this very important constituency, which Donald Trump beat them almost 2-1 and beat Joe Biden, I mean, who is really probably the personification of what the New Deal was, in terms of personal style, personal values, and personality.

So, he wasn't beating an elitist Ivy Leaguer.  So I think that's a real problem for Democrats.  And I would add the Hispanics.  I think we have learned painfully, did Democrats, that they're there anything but a monolithic constituency, as most proved by the results in Florida.

Judy Woodruff:  I want to turn you, David, to the president's reaction so far to the results of the lashing out, the accusations of fraud and the rest of it.

How much does all that matter?  I mean, does the delay in announcing — in knowing the result, how much will that matter in the end?

David Brooks:  Yes, well, I thought the President in his press conference last night was awful, horrific, if we weren't used to him, but also wan.  He looked like he was not really fighting; he was just constructing rationalizations for a man who can admit that he can lose at anything.

And I think I have been heartened, I mean, as we heard from William and others, that there is a lot of crazy stuff going around on the Internet, a lot of conspiracy theories, as if the Democrats have this elaborate vote-rigging thing in which they lose the Senate.  Like, it doesn't pass even surface plausibility.

But what has heartened me is that, so far, our system seems to be holding better than many people feared.  A lot of Republicans are happy to see Trump go and are ushering statements or just non-statements and not getting on this train.

And state legislators in places like Pennsylvania have said, we're not getting involved in this.  And the nightmare scenario was that you would get competing slates of electors from places like Pennsylvania.  But that would require the complicity of a lot of the politicians in these states.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.

David Brooks:  And, so far, they don't want to get involved.

So, that's — I think the system is doing way better than we could have feared.

Judy Woodruff:  You do have Lindsey Graham out there echoing what the President is saying.

David Brooks:  Oh, yes, for sure, there are some.  And FOX is divided.  The all-important FOX News seems to be divided.

But, so far, we have not seen violence that much in the streets.  So far, it looks like calmer than many predicted.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, what's your — what is your take on the President and how he is reacting so far and what it says?

(CROSSTALK)

Mark Shields:  David, he's younger and more optimistic.

I have to say, I haven't found that many good Germans among the Republicans who are resisting the — just think, Judy.  The President, before the largest audience in the history of humankind, according to him, took an oath to solidly preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I just wish he would reflect on that for 30 seconds.  What he is doing is undermining confidence and trust in our — in each other, in our country, in our ways.

I have been incredibly impressed by the quality of the secretaries of state who have come on, almost overwhelmingly women, Republicans and Democrats, who have explained what they're doing, have done it in a thoughtful and informed and intelligent way.  I have been impressed by the seriousness of purpose that the people have taken in counting.

But I'm waiting for the Republicans.  I'm waiting for Rob Portman of Ohio, who everybody says is such a good guy.  I'm waiting for him to stand up and say, no, Mr.  President, this is wrong.

And we're hearing from the usual suspects.  Lindsey Graham makes Tonto look like an independent spirit when it comes to President Trump.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, here at the end, I mean, you're not worried about the fact that — I mean, we don't know how long it's going to take.  I mean, there may be a call tonight, for all we know, but it is taking days.

Do you have concern that leaves — casts a pall over this somehow?

David Brooks:  Well, for sure.

I mean, there will be a large number of Americans who — if Biden wins, who think Joe Biden is an illegitimate President.  We're not — we shouldn't pretend that we're ending an age of polarization.

I'm just hopeful.  We're having a different sort of polarization.

Donald Trump was a cultural figure.  He was not a policy person, not a government person.  It was always: My tribe is good.  Your tribe is evil.

And so we have had that kind of polarization.  I'm hopeful, if Donald Trump is off the scene, at least there won't be a guy at the top waging a holy war against another identity group every single day.

And so I'm sticking with my blind and completely unrealistic optimism, no matter what's Mark says.

Judy Woodruff:  All right, we're going to let you do that, David Brooks.  And we're all going to wait and see what happens.

David Brooks, Mark Shields, thank you.

VOTE 2020 - Rundown Friday 11/06/2020

"Biden campaign remains confident as Trump escalates false claims" PBS NewsHour 11/06/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Former Vice President Joe Biden is leading President Trump in three of the five states yet to be called by the Associated Press.  Still, it’s not clear when vote counting will conclude.  Meanwhile, Trump lashed out at the voting process in a Thursday news briefing, and his campaign is filing lawsuits to challenge results.  Yamiche Alcindor reports and joins John Yang and Judy Woodruff to discuss.

 

 

"When election disinformation is a domestic threat" PBS NewsHour 11/06/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The week has seen a flood of disinformation about the election -- much of it coming from President Trump and his allies.  In addition to false claims about voter fraud, there have been allegations that polling firms conspired to discourage Trump supporters from voting, and social media misinformation remains difficult to control.  William Brangham joins Judy Woodruff to discuss facts vs. falsehoods.

 

 

"The data behind some surprising election results" PBS NewsHour 11/06/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  What trends and shifts accounted for unexpected election results this week?  Amna Nawaz and Lisa Desjardins take a look at data from Pennsylvania, Georgia, Iowa, and more states critical to the outcomes of the presidential race and the balance of power in the House and Senate.

VOTE 2020 - Rundown Thursday 11/05/2020

"The stark difference between Trump’s and Biden’s responses to vote counting" PBS NewsHour 11/05/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The outcome of the presidential race is still unknown, as a handful of states continue counting ballots.  In the meantime, legal challenges to the electoral process and protests are being mounted.  Lisa Desjardins reports, and Yamiche Alcindor and John Yang join Judy Woodruff to discuss President Trump’s “misinformation machine” and how the Biden campaign is responding to Trump’s court action.

 

 

"The status of vote counts in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia" PBS NewsHour 11/05/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  What’s happening on the ground in the critical states where ballots are still being counted -- and how many votes remain to be totaled?  Judy Woodruff gets updates from Daniel Bush in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, William Brangham in Detroit, Michigan, and Miles O’Brien in Atlanta, Georgia.

 

 

"Key House and Senate races that have yet to be called" PBS NewsHour 11/05/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Although uncertainty over the presidential race’s outcome is the dominant political story, there are still important congressional contests to settle, as well.  Amna Nawaz and Lisa Desjardins provide an update on electoral votes, key Senate races in Georgia and North Carolina and the shifting balance of power in the House of Representatives.

 

 

"Arizona’s top election official on security of vote-counting process" PBS NewsHour 11/05/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Ballots are still being counted in the battleground state of Arizona, although the Associated Press called the state for Joe Biden on Wednesday.  Officials are set to release more vote totals later Thursday evening.  Arizona’s top election official, Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss processes and progress, the presence of election observers and the threat of litigation.

VOTE 2020 - Rundown Wednesday 11/04/2020

"Trump lashes out at vote counting as Biden urges patience" PBS NewsHour 11/04/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  With votes still being counted in several states, the outcome of the U.S. presidential election remains unknown.  Former Vice President Joe Biden expressed confidence in his chance of winning but urged Americans to be patient for results.  President Trump, meanwhile, launched unfounded attacks on the integrity of the vote.  Yamiche Alcindor reports and joins Judy Woodruff and John Yang to discuss.

 

 

"Presidential election updates from 5 key states" PBS NewsHour 11/04/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Several U.S. states were still counting ballots Wednesday, and some of them will decide the outcome of the presidential race.  We get updates from Daniel Bush in Pennsylvania, William Brangham in Michigan, Zac Schultz of PBS Wisconsin, Miles O’Brien in Georgia, and John Ralston of the Nevada Independent about the election status in those five states.

 

 

"How the GOP unexpectedly gained ground in the House" PBS NewsHour 11/04/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  What shifts in the electoral map drove results in the 2020 presidential and congressional races?  Amna Nawaz and Lisa Desjardins review the data behind outcomes for President Trump, former Vice President Joe Biden and party control of the House and Senate.

 

 

"What happened with the suburban voters Democrats were targeting?" PBS NewsHour 11/04/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report and host of the podcast “Politics with Amy Walter” has been analyzing the results of Tuesday’s election.  She joins Judy Woodruff to provide insights and help us understand why voters made the decisions they did.

 

 

"What we know about vote counting and election-related lawsuits" PBS NewsHour 11/04/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump has made it clear he is willing to challenge the results of state vote counts that have not yet been completed.  What legal recourse do candidates have in this situation?  Amna Nawaz talks to Tammy Patrick, an expert on election administration with the Democracy Fund and a former Arizona election official, and Stanford Law School’s Nate Persily of the Healthy Elections Project.

 

 

"Michigan’s secretary of state on the process of counting votes" PBS NewsHour 11/04/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Former Vice President Joe Biden was declared the winner of Michigan’s electoral votes Wednesday evening by the Associated Press.  Although some votes are still being counted, Jocelyn Benson, Michigan’s Secretary of State, said she has been impressed by the efficiency of election workers in delivering accurate results.  Benson joins Judy Woodruff to discuss Michigan’s process and progress.

VOTE 2020 - Rundown Monday 11/02/2020

"What Trump and Biden are telling supporters as campaigns wind down" PBS NewsHour 11/02/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  As the final hours of the 2020 presidential campaign tick away, nearly 100 million Americans have already cast their ballots -- representing more than two-thirds of all 2016 votes.  Meanwhile, the candidates appealed to voters in swing states, including Pennsylvania, which is shaping up to play a critical role.  Yamiche Alcindor reports and joins Judy Woodruff and Lisa Desjardins to discuss.

 

 

"Why Philadelphia and its surrounding suburbs are ‘absolutely critical’ for Biden" PBS NewsHour 11/02/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Pennsylvania could be a critical milestone in any path to victory during this presidential contest.  Daniel Bush is on the ground in the swing state, and he joins Judy Woodruff to discuss why Philadelphia and its surrounding suburbs are so important to both candidates, how local election officials are preparing for the vote count and when we might have an understanding of the state’s results.

 

 

"Trump and Biden representatives on final campaign strategies" PBS NewsHour 11/02/2020 Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden are making their final pitches to voters in the presidential campaign’s closing hours.  We check in with representatives for each: Erin Perrine, communications director for Trump’s reelection campaign, and Symone Sanders, a senior adviser to Biden.  They join Judy Woodruff to discuss strategies and messages for the lead-up to Election Day.

 

 

"Why some Americans have chosen not to vote this year" PBS NewsHour 11/02/2020 Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In most recent American elections, about four in 10 eligible voters didn’t cast ballots.  Tens of millions are poised to do the same this year.  What are non-voters saying about their rationale for sitting out the election -- one that both candidates and many Americans consider the most important in the country’s modern history?

VOTE2020 - Trump Turns Presidential Debate into a Brawl

 "Trump sets the tone for the worst Presidential debate in living memory" by Dan Balz, The Washington Post 9/2/2020

Excerpt

No one alive has ever seen a Presidential debate like Tuesday night’s unseemly shout fest between President Trump and former vice President Joe Biden — 90 minutes of invective, interruptions and personal insults.  It was an insult to the public as well, and a sad example of the state of American democracy five weeks before the election.

On the margins, the debate probably did more to help Biden than the President, at a moment when Trump needed to change the shape and trajectory of the campaign.  But that’s not what people will remember.  Even partisans locked into their choices were probably dispirited at what they were witnessing.  One can only imagine what the next two debates between the two men will look like.

For decades, general-election debates have provided Americans with the opportunity to measure the candidates in an open forum, with moderators aiming to stay out of the way when possible.  They have always included showmanship and sharp exchanges, but within the boundaries of what people expect of their Presidents.  All of that went out the window Tuesday night.

The tone of the debate was established by Trump in the opening minutes, and it never changed to the end of the evening.  The President constantly ignored moderator Chris Wallace’s repeated pleas to maintain order as he took every opportunity and more to verbally hector Biden, throw his rival off balance and take up as much space as possible.  This was the Trump who lives on Twitter, not someone who occupies the highest office in the land.

Biden, advised to maintain his cool, constantly looked peevish at Trump’s behavior, responding at times with well-prepared rejoinders but also with dismissive verbal broadsides.  Exasperated at one point, he shot back at the President, “Will you shut up, man?”  Biden cleared the low bar of expectations that the Trump campaign had inexplicably set for him but hardly delivered a shining performance.

The dreary debate fittingly ended as it began, in a moment that foreshadowed a tumultuous and divisive end to the election, as Trump pressed his argument, without evidence, that mail ballots are rife with fraud and the election therefore will be invalid.

Trump declined to say that he would ask his supporters to stay calm until a final count had been validated and instead chillingly indicated that he plans to rile up his backers to challenge and contest the counting everywhere possible.  He said he would accept the outcome only if he believed the election had been fair.

Biden said he would accept the outcome and predicted that Trump would too, once the votes were counted, no matter the winner.  Perhaps.

The reality TV star President knows one speed on a debate stage: to attack, to bully his opponent and to ignore the rules.  For Wallace, a tough and skilled interviewer, the debate was a nightmare.

“Mr.  President! Mr. President,” he exclaimed at one point as Trump refused to stay silent when Biden was answering a question.  “Gentlemen!” he said at another moment as the two sparred loudly about Trump’s attack on Biden’s son Hunter.

Rare were the moments when the two nominees actually discussed their differences calmly and clearly in a debate that ranged across several topics, including the coronavirus pandemic, the Supreme Court, the economy, racial justice, and violence in American cities.  More often than not, rather than engaging in exchanges that even bordered on civil, Trump and Biden talked over and past each other.

Judging the debate by traditional standards gives the evening more credit than it deserves.  For most people, this was unwatchable, a grab-the-remote, change-the-channel moment in a forum that in past election years has served the country well.  What two more debates like this will accomplish is hard to imagine, other than to heighten tensions in a country already on edge.

Biden came ready to make his points and at times was far more focused in doing so than was the President.  In an opening question about the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, he touched on the Affordable Care Act, abortion, public health and the 200,000 deaths from COVID-19.  He repeatedly branded Trump a liar who didn’t know what he was talking about.

Trump played a different game, one of attack and belittle.  He hit Biden hard, particularly on law and order in the one moment when he seemed to have a prepared and consistent line of criticism and that his supporters were probably applauding.  He tried repeatedly to hang the socialist label around his rival, and Biden, perhaps to the dismay of some on the left, ran away from any suggestion that he is captive to the liberal wing of the party.

At times, each declined to answer direct questions about his positions and policy proposals.  Biden wouldn’t say whether he would support expanding the Supreme Court if he won the election and Democrats captured the Senate.  Trump wouldn’t answer a direct question about whether, as the New York Times reported, he paid just $750 in federal income taxes for 2016 and 2017.

Trump needed this debate more than did Biden, given the current shape of the race.  Four years ago, he came to the first debate with the polls narrowing and in a year when there was more movement and seeming volatility in his contest with Hillary Clinton.

This year there has been only modest movement in the polls, with Biden steadily leading by an average of nine points before the two national conventions, according to a Washington Post average of polls, and now leading by eight points.

Potentially more troubling for Trump has been his inability to break across a barrier that would move his support into the high 40s.  He has been stuck in poll averages somewhere around 43 percent or 44 percent since the late spring, while Biden has been around 50 percent or above since the beginning of last summer.

Trump’s challenge Tuesday was to change the race from a referendum on his presidency into a clear choice between him and Biden.  That is the goal of any incumbent President but especially for this President, who has used his office to make himself front and center in every way he can but in ways that now are hurting him politically.

Instead he [Trump] chose otherwise, and it could cost him.  Biden may have missed opportunities, but his only real goal was to do nothing to change the race.  On that minimal goal, he succeeded.  But that’s not what will be remembered about Tuesday night.  Instead it will be the degree to which democracy itself has suffered and could suffer more as the election plays out to its conclusion.

This has been called the most important election in generations — some say in the life of the country.  But that’s not what people who tuned in saw.  Partisans will call winners and losers as they see them, and those judgments will be predictable.  Collectively, this was not a night when the country could claim victory.  Instead, it was quite the opposite.

TRUMP FUEL - The Promotion of Violent Imagery

"Trump employs images of violence as political fuel for reelection fight" by Michael Scherer, The Washington Post 9/8/2020

President Trump has reverted to using graphic depictions of violence as a centerpiece of his reelection campaign strategy, using his Twitter account, his stump speech and even the White House podium as platforms for amplifying domestic conflict.

His 2016 focus on radical Islamist terrorism and undocumented-immigrant crime, which he credited with helping him win the Republican nomination, has been replaced by warnings of new threats as he elevates gruesome images of Black-on-White crime, street fights involving his supporters and police-misconduct unrest nationwide.

The pattern continued over the holiday weekend, when he tweeted video of a melee in Texas between protesters and security officers during an event for a Trump-affiliated group and two celebratory videos of a protester in Portland, Ore., with his feet on fire.  One of the videos was scored to the Kenny Loggins song “Footloose,” and the second featured mocking play-by-play commentary by a mixed-martial-arts announcer.

“These are the Democrats ‘peaceful protests,’?” Trump wrote.  “Sick!”  On Monday, he retweeted a prediction that political unrest “could lead to ‘rise of citizen militias around the country.’?”

The strategy echoes the approach that fueled his climb in politics as he shocked the political world with graphic warnings about “rapists” crossing the border illegally from Mexico, welcomed the families of crime victims to speak at his events and said he favored instructing the military to target the families of Islamist extremists, a probable war crime.  He also repeatedly encouraged assaults on protesters at his events.

In each case, the unprecedented focus on violence by a high-profile American politician allowed Trump to attract attention, turning his rallies into unpredictable and raucous affairs that were widely viewed.  It also set the stage for Trump to establish his political persona as a strongman itching to dominate threats foreign and domestic.

Nearly four years after winning that race, Trump is making the same argument, albeit about different dangers, using the specter of violence amid Black Lives Matter protests to claim superior toughness and promising forceful resolution if given the chance.

“These people only know one thing, and that is strength,” he said Wednesday in Wilmington, N.C., of violent street protests in Oregon and Wisconsin.  “That’s all they know — strength.  And we have strength.”

On Monday, Trump retweeted footage of Black protesters in Pittsburgh screaming at White outdoor diners, drinking from their glasses and knocking over their dishes during a protest over the weekend.

“Disgraceful.  Never seen anything like it.  Thugs!” Trump wrote.  “And because of weak and pathetic Democrat leadership, this thuggery is happening in other Democrat run cities and states.  Must shut them down fast.”

Amid a pandemic that has killed more than 186,000 Americans, the jarring political gambit has shifted the focus of the Presidential campaign, forcing Trump’s Democratic opponent, former vice President Joe Biden, to air an ad, titled “Be Not Afraid,” [video link] focused on his own opposition to the recent violence in Oregon and Wisconsin.

“The President is on offense, and that is always a good thing,” said Roger Stone, a former Trump political adviser who received a presidential commutation after seven felony convictions this summer.  “The law-and-order issue really motivates the President’s base, and it also appeals to independents.”

Although Trump has received no big boosts in polling, he unapologetically promoted a video last week of his supporters attacking protesters in Portland, later arguing at the White House that their firing of paintball guns and pepper spray in city streets from the back of pickup trucks was “defensive.”  On Twitter, he said the conflict was a logical response to provocation by liberals.

“The big backlash going on in Portland cannot be unexpected,” Trump wrote in a tweet that included a video of the incident.

He also has returned to using his Twitter account to broadcast falsehoods that perpetuate racial conflict.  For the third time this summer, on Aug. 30 he retweeted a video of a Black man brutally attacking a White person, this time with a caption falsely suggesting that the assailant in a New York subway assault in 2019 was connected to Black Lives Matter or antifa.

The posts echo a 2015 Trump retweet that showed a picture of a Black man with a gun and falsely claimed that Black people commit a majority of homicides against White people, a racist trope for which he never apologized.  The White House argued this month, as Trump did in 2015, that he was not responsible for the accuracy of his retweets.

Politically motivated street fights have become more common during his presidency.  Conflicts at protests have led to injuries in recent weeks in places such as Kalamazoo, Mich.; Bloomington, Ind.; and Weatherford, Tex., as protesters of police misconduct have clashed with counterprotesters who are sometimes dressed in Trump-branded apparel and claim to be helping to keep the peace.  In one case, a gun-wielding Trump supporter in Kenosha, Wis., was charged with murder after allegedly killing two protesters and injuring a third.  (A supporter of a far-right group was fatally shot during a counterprotest by Trump backers in Portland last month.  The suspect, a backer of the far-left antifa movement, was killed by law enforcement Thursday.)

In the face of this violence, Trump has condemned the actions of left-wing rioters but declined to condemn violence by his supporters, even as he falsely claims that Biden is refusing to denounce violence on the left.

“I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point,” Trump said last year in an interview with Breitbart News when asked about fights over free speech on college campuses.  “And then it would be very bad, very bad.”

From his start in politics, Trump has brushed aside the idea that he has a responsibility for any violence that results from his campaign style.  When a reporter asked in 2015 whether he was concerned that his rhetoric against protesters and immigrants might lead to additional violence in American streets, he recoiled at the question.

“People are getting hurt.  People are being decimated by illegal immigrants.  The crime is unbelievable,” he said, an argument belied by statistics.  “Now in my way, I don’t want anybody hurt.  But people are being hurt.  So when you ask that question, it’s very unfair.”

His answer was notable for its zero-sum view: Suffering in the country was inevitable — the question was who suffered more.

Trump’s return to focusing on violent threats and conflict follows summer months in which he appeared politically adrift as the coronavirus pandemic overtook the nation, infecting at least 6.2 million people and dampening the economy.

He initially wavered about whether to focus campaign advertising on touting his pandemic response or on attacking his opponent, before eventually launching attacks on Biden’s ties to China, his mental acuity and his policy positions.  Biden’s polling advantage widened.

When nationwide protests against police misconduct led to violence this summer, Trump’s strategy shifted again.  A July 9 set of talking points distributed around the White House by Stephen Miller, an adviser who wrote Trump’s 2016 nomination speech, previewed the message that Trump would settle on for the final push to the Republican National Convention.

The solution Miller described, which Trump soon incorporated into his rhetoric and advertising, was to portray Biden as a fundamental threat to public safety.  “No one will be safe in Joe Biden’s America,” the document read.  The Democratic nominee, Miller’s document continued, “will surrender America and its citizens to the violent left-wing mob” and “abolish the American Way of Life.”

The shift sought to rehabilitate Trump’s political message of dominance and turn the discussion away from the pandemic, which public polling showed had become a drag on the President’s support.

“You can’t really tell people that there is no COVID crisis, because they are surrounded by it.  The only thing you can do is make something else louder,” said Matthew Baum, a political scientist at Harvard University who studies political persuasion and misinformation.  “You don’t have to persuade people.  All you have to do is say: ‘Don’t look over there.  Look over here.’?”

Biden has argued that Trump is trying to distract Americans from his inability to better address the health, economic and race-relations crises facing the nation.

Trump’s message is, “?‘The whole country is up in flames.  Everything is burning.  Law and order,’ ” Biden said Friday at a news conference in Wilmington, Del., “because he doesn’t want to talk about anything, anything at all, about the job he hasn’t done.”

Biden has mocked Trump’s effort to cast him as responsible for any street violence, no matter the alleged perpetrator.

“Ask yourself: Do I look like a radical socialist with a soft spot for rioters? Really?” Biden asked during a speech on Aug. 31 in Pittsburgh.  “I want a safe America — safe from COVID, safe from crime and looting, safe from racially motivated violence, safe from bad cops.  Let me be crystal clear — safe from four more years of Donald Trump.”

Tim Murtaugh, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, said the President is focused on helping communities affected by the violence.  “These riots are destroying the life’s work of Black, Hispanic and Asian business owners, and they have to stop,” he said.

Expressions advocating violence were central to Trump’s early political endeavors.

“I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you,” Trump said about a protester at an event in Las Vegas.  When a nonviolent Black protester was beaten at a rally in Birmingham, Ala., by a White crowd, Trump responded the next day, “Maybe he should have been roughed up.”

He argued repeatedly at rallies for the extrajudicial abuse or even killing of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who had left his post in Afghanistan.  “Thirty years ago, he would have been shot,” Trump said.  At another event, he said of Bergdahl’s capture by the Taliban, “They beat the crap out of him, which is fine.”

Rather than recoil, his crowds embraced the tough talk, and Trump has delivered more as President.  After Greg Gianforte, then a Montana congressional candidate, physically attacked a reporter in 2017, Trump turned the incident into an applause line.  “Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type!” the President said.

When Trump addressed a law enforcement group in 2017 on Long Island he urged incaution in policing.

“When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon,” he said, “you just see them thrown in, rough.  I said, ‘Please don’t be too nice.’?”

The new threat Trump has focused on is depicted as no less ominous than his previous targets — and it is similarly inflated with rhetoric that mixes descriptions of actual events with conspiracy theories for which he offers no evidence.  In recent days, he has described “rioters, anarchists, agitators and looters” who he claimed in a Fox News interview, without evidence, have been traveling the country in commercial planes to create havoc, funded by “people you have never heard of” who operate in “dark shadows.”

He also has tried to adjust the historical record by claiming federal actions he instigated have proved that his solution of physical toughness and law enforcement domination is responsible for clearing streets of violent protesters.  On a visit to Kenosha, he claimed that his push to deploy the National Guard saved the city from further rioting after the police shooting of Jacob Blake, an unarmed Black man.

“If I didn’t INSIST on having the National Guard activate and go into Kenosha, Wisconsin, there would be no Kenosha right now,” Trump tweeted last week.  Federal officials did work with local law enforcement in quelling the protests, but Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) had ordered the Guard to the city a day before Trump’s public call for their deployment.

Pollsters have noted a shift in polling around the Black Lives Matter movement, which was initially broad and bipartisan in the wake of the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody in May.  Support for the movement in Wisconsin, according to a Marquette University Law School poll, fell from 59 percent to 49 percent between June and August.

But national polls continue to show that Biden leads Trump on questions of which candidate would make the country safer.  A recent national Quinnipiac University poll found that 50 percent of likely voters said Trump made them feel less safe, compared with 35 percent who said he made them feel more safe.

By contrast, 42 percent of voters said Biden would make them feel more safe as President, compared with 40 percent who said they would feel less safe.