The only poll that matters.

November 1, 2022

[Apologies for the poor audio quality; equipment malfunction; will fix by tomorrow.]

          State and federal law enforcement agencies released details of David Depape’s plan to kidnap and assault Nancy Pelosi, a plan which resulted in a deadly attack on her husband, Paul Pelosi. Given the baseless conspiracies being circulated on the right (including by Elon Musk), I urge you to read the entire Affidavit in Support of Application for Complaint and Arrest Warrant filed by an FBI agent who interviewed Depape and Paul Pelosi. The information contained in the Application confirms information released by the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office.

          The information released by two law enforcement agencies completely refutes the defamatory and offensive lies spreading through the right-wing media. Despite the complete collapse of the imaginary factual predicate for the conspiracy theories, no one who promoted the lies has retracted their statements, much less apologized to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Paul Pelosi, and their family. (Looking at you, Elon Musk.)

Indeed, the memes on the right continue their descent into unplumbed depths of crassness, indecency, and inhumanity. But not a single voice has been raised in the GOP to condemn the hate spewed by Republicans in response to a savage attack—a situation that would have been unthinkable before Trump utterly debased the Republican Party in four short years. But the surrender of the GOP to Trump was so swift and uncontested that the party must have been primed for depravity.

          At least (and at last) major media outlets are reporting on the essence of what happened—i.e., a politically motivated assault directed at the Democratic Speaker of the House. Depape’s statement to the FBI indicates that he intended to kidnap Nancy Pelosi and break her kneecaps if she did not “confess” to Depape’s preconceived list of crimes. See, e.g., NYTimes, Intruder Wanted to Break Speaker Pelosi’s Kneecaps, Federal Complaint Says, and Republicans Continue to Spread Baseless Claims About Pelosi Attack.

          In response to my suggestion yesterday that responsible commentators remain on Twitter to provide fair, accurate, and important commentary, about half of the readers who commented said they would do so, and half said they were exiting Twitter. Both are reasonable positions, but I continue to believe that those who seek to promote the truth and defend democracy should not surrender Twitter to white nationalists and hatemongers. I acknowledge that there is an emotional cost to staying on Twitter, so those who remain have my respect and gratitude.

Tom Nichols makes this point more eloquently than I did yesterday. In his article, I’m Staying on Twitter - The Atlantic, he writes:

[I]f you believe that it is important to combat disinformation, spread reliable information, and in general try to defend some basic notions of civility, social media is an important arena for doing all of those things. Abandoning this part of the public square to vandals and extremists—who became more vocal on the platform practically from the moment Musk took over—accomplishes nothing.

          I ask readers of this newsletter to help promote reliable, high-quality sources on Twitter. Although I am not an active user, I do check regularly for posts by Professor Laurence Tribe, Andrew Weissman, Dan Rather, Joyce Vance, Jill Wine-Banks, and Jessica Craven. If you follow someone on Twitter who provides helpful, accurate, and important information, please identify that person in the Comments section of this newsletter. Include a sentence or two that describes the topics covered by the person you follow on Twitter. Together, we should be able to identify a core group of Twitter sources to help us navigate an environment in which it is increasingly difficult to know what to believe.

Supreme Court hearing on affirmative action.

          The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases that are challenging the use of race as a factor in the admissions process at two universities—Harvard and North Carolina. The issue is vast and complex, but two observations frame the hypocrisy of the reactionary majority’s manifest hostility to the use of race to help achieve diversity on university campuses.

          First, as Professor Tribe noted on Twitter, the reactionary majority is looking to adopt an approach that repeats Chief Justice Roberts’ “too clever line,’ that “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Roberts’ logic is both simplistic and insulting because it disregards the lingering generational impacts of systemic racism. Harvard, like many universities, grants a preference to “legacy” students—i.e., those applicants who are children or grandchildren of alumni of Harvard.

          Harvard’s legacy preference results in children / grandchildren of alumni being accepted at a rate five times higher than other applicants. But because of historically low rates of acceptance of Black students as late as 1969, the legacy preference disproportionately advantages White students. Ignoring that fact allow would allow historical discrimination to persist for generations—even if Justice Roberts commands us to “stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

          A second observation came from Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who asked a hypothetical question during oral argument. She asked counsel for the University of North Carolina to compare “preferences” for a legacy applicant and an applicant who is the descendant of an enslaved person. The question was summarized by Eugene Robinson in his essay, Ketanji Brown Jackson asks the right question about affirmative action - The Washington Post, as follows:

One applicant writes in his essay that it is important to him that he be admitted because his family has lived in North Carolina since before the Civil War and he would be the fifth generation of his family to proudly attend UNC. Another applicant writes that his family, too, has lived in North Carolina since before the Civil War, and it is important to him that he attend UNC because he is the descendant of enslaved people and his ancestors were barred from attending the university. Was [counsel for UNC] arguing that the university could give preference to the [legacy candidate]but not to the [descendant of enslaved persons]?

          The counsel for the University of North Carolina conceded that the University could grant a preference to the “legacy” student, but not to the descendant of enslaved people. As Robinson notes,

That makes no earthly sense. It is a historical fact that race has mattered massively, decisively and tragically in this country since its founding, and in ways that continue to shape the lives of young people today. If the court decides that race is now irrelevant and must be ignored, it negates that history by pretending it does not still resonate.

          I will not pretend that I have simple answers to the difficult questions raised in the two cases before the Court. But neither should the Court pretend that our nation’s long history of institutional racism can be cured by ignoring race entirely. Indeed, that approach denies the express language and intent of the Fourteenth Amendment—something that the self-proclaimed “originalists” should be loath to do.

Brazil’s election.

          In a much-touted development, the Trump-curious president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, was defeated by Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (“Lula”), a “left-wing” candidate who ran on a “worker’s rights” platform. Lula previously served as Brazil’s president to good effect. Readers have asked me to comment on the election. On the substance, my only comment is that you should read what Professor Heather Cox Richardson says in her column for October 31, 2022. I don’t have the background or knowledge to comment on Brazilian politics, so I will defer to those who do.

          But . . . Trump’s allies in the US are urging Bolsonaro to refuse to concede because they do not want the precedent of a right-wing leader conceding defeat—as that would have obvious implications for Trump in 2024 if he loses (again). See Newsweek, Steve Bannon Says Bolsonaro Can't Concede As He Rails Against Biden and CIA.

In short, Steve Bannon is willing to incite a civil war in Brazil to avoid a precedent involving the peaceful transfer of power by a right-wing strongman. Bannon is forecasting what we should expect from him in 2024—and reminds us that prosecuting Bannon sooner rather than later for his involvement in the 2020 coup should be a high priority for the DOJ.

Concluding Thoughts.

          I will join Jill Wine-Banks on her live podcast on YouTube, iGen Politics w/ Jill Wine-Banks & Victor Shi on Tuesday, November 1, 2022, at 2:00 PM Eastern, 11:00 AM Pacific. The “Election Panel” podcast will feature Rachel Bitcoifer, Joe Walsh, Kurt Bardella, and me as we discuss the midterms with Jill and Victor. The conversation should be interesting and lively—and I am looking forward to it. Although I have appeared before many grassroots organizations and hosted several Zoom fundraisers for Democratic candidates, Jill’s podcast is a new format for me—so be gentle in your reviews!

          Speaking of the election, the noise over competing (and inconsistent) polls is becoming overwhelming. As before, I believe that the volatility is a sign that something different is happening in 2022—as it should be. The “difference” is obvious—Dobbs, January 6th, and Trump’s hostage-taking of the GOP. None of those differences guarantees that Democrats will win, but it means that conventional wisdom is an obstacle to understanding what is happening on the ground in fifty states and 230,000 polling locations.

The time for polling has passed. The only poll that matters has already begun. And this one is different. No one will be extrapolating results based on responses from small samples of voters. We must show up; we must vote; we must make our voice heard in the only poll that matters—the poll that closes on November 8, 2022.

          Talk to you tomorrow!