Wendy Caldwell-Liddell is in a race against time, all the time.  She is racing to wrap up her job as a grant-writing consultant. She is racing to get her 10-year-old son logged in to start remote learning at home since a case of coronavirus shut down his school. She is racing to drive her two-year-old daughter over to grandma's house for daycare.  But now on top of that, three times a week, 29-year-old Caldwell-Liddell is racing to get Detroit voters, especially the black community, to, in her words, "wake up."   Four years after Donald Trump became the first Republican to win Michigan since 1988, Caldwell-Liddell is working as a one-woman canvassing machine in downtown Detroit to prevent it from happening again, fighting against what she says is an apathy within the community toward politics.  Trump's Michigan victory was one of the biggest surprises of 2016.  He won the state by just 10,704 votes. Wayne County, which includes Detroit, the largest Black-majority city in the country, was critical to that result. Hillary Clinton still won the county by a large margin -- but she received about 76,000 fewer votes than President Barack Obama did in 2012.  Visit CNN's Election Center for full coverage of the 2020 race.  While Caldwell-Liddell is motivated and focused on preventing Trump's re-election, she also says, "the Democratic Party has not done a good job at all in taking care of communities like ours." And it's she clear she struggles with that burden. "(Democrats) take us for granted because they know that Black women are going to help them get the big wins they need, where it matters. But they also know that they can give us the bare minimum, knowing that we aren't going to choose the other side," she said.  " "It says we still got a long way to go when the backbone of the country is the most neglected piece of the country," she said. She isn't coordinating with any campaign, but she is pounding the pavement at bus stops and outside convenience stores to try to make sure Detroiters are registered to vote and are going to vote. Many of them are disillusioned by the systemic racism they see within their city, the President's response to the coronavirus pandemic that has hit minority communities hardest and the economic inequality that has persisted for decades in Detroit and is only made worse by the pandemic.     "I know for a fact that if just a portion of the folks who sat home in 2016 made it to the polls, had someone to empower them to do it, that could have changed the outcome for Michigan," Caldwell-Liddell said. "On countless days when I go out and canvass, I will go up and talk to someone and they'll say, 'Listen, lady, I know that what you're saying is probably right. I know that you just want me to get out and vote. But I'm sorry. I've got gotta feed my kids. I don't even have time to listen to what you're saying,'" she said. "That's a part of why I started doing this work with Mobilize Detroit...because at this point, this is our survival now. What happens politically is a part of our survival. And there's no escaping that."  Fighting against apathy Amber Davis, 29, is one of those people who sat out the 2016 election after supporting Obama in 2012.  "I didn't like Trump and I didn't like Hillary," Davis said. "I didn't really care who won that election."  Davis, a part-time massage therapist and full-time student pursuing a career in IT, says she cares now. She's voting for Biden, even though she says she doesn't really like him either.  "If I get Trump out of office by voting for Biden, then so be it," she said. Davis adds it is the President's handling of the pandemic that clinched her vote this time. "This coronavirus and everything that's going on, it is horrible. So he got to go." She says she is disillusioned by politics in general because she says no matter which party wins the White House, her life doesn't get any easier.  "We feel like our votes don't matter. We feel like it's just a waste of time," Davis said.  Caldwell-Liddell knows what it is like to not have time for politics, especially presidential politics. In just the past year, she says her family was forced out of a home they had rented for the past four years. Then the next home had plumbing issues and instead of fixing it, the landlord simply just had the water shutoff, requiring Caldwell-Liddell to take them to court to get anything fixed. In the midst of all of this, she lost her pregnancy. "I ended up having a stillbirth at seven months pregnant, living in a house with no water in a city that did not care to take care of me," she said. "And things like that are allowed to happen because when folks like me are too worried about surviving to pay attention to what's happening down at City Hall." She is now turning that apathy into action.  "I know that as a voter and as a Black woman, that there is a job that I have to do in order to get a representative who will come close to protecting my people in office. But I'm not necessarily excited about having another representative there who really does not inherently understand the needs of our community." Caldwell-Liddell is voting for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, spending free time that she doesn't have trying to get others in Detroit to vote for him, but she's not excited about it. This election for her is more a vote against Trump.  "I don't really have many feelings towards Joe Biden one way or the other," she says. "Kamala (Harris) makes me feel a lot better than Joe, to be honest with you."  She says getting Trump out of office means life or death for her community. "Donald Trump is a president that does not care about people that look like me, about people like me, in any shape or form." Sitting out any election is something 63-year-old Markita Blanchard simply does not understand.  "I've always voted straight down the street," she says while sitting in her backyard filled with the plants and flowers she shows off with pride. "There is no justifiable excuse not to." "People died for that right for us to have the opportunity to vote," she added.  Like Caldwell-Liddell, Blanchard has also lived in Detroit her whole life. She and her three brothers still live in the house they grew up in, now all taking care of their 93-year-old mother. Blanchard works as a janitor at a local public school. While she describes her childhood in the westside of Detroit as a "fairytale," she describes life today as a struggle.   "We're not exactly living paycheck to paycheck. I consider myself living paycheck and a half to paycheck," she said.  The main street in her neighborhood looks nothing like how Blanchard describes it from her childhood. A "ghost town" now sits where grocery stores, dry cleaners, Black-owned gas stations and a movie theatre once stood. This economic collapse is one reason Blanchard is voting for Biden. She says she's with him "100%," reserving more colorful language to describe Trump.  "He's full of s***.  I'm saying he has done nothing," Blanchard says with an apology. "It's like we're living in a sitcom and it's not funny. It's not funny at all."   "I've had people say, well, he's not my President. I didn't vote," Blanchard recalls with visible anger. "I say, if you did not vote, you did vote for him."   Impact of coronavirus and police shootings  One critical pursuit of the Biden campaign in Michigan is to turn out those voters who didn't vote in 2016. But the Trump campaign is also taking steps to court those same people, including setting up an office just down the road from the Democratic Party's on Detroit's West side, covered with signs declaring "Black Voices for Trump."  "I've never seen it. I've never seen it ever, ever before," said President Pro Tempore of the Detroit City Council Mary Sheffield. "What that tells me is the importance of not only Michigan but Detroit in the black vote, the importance of the black vote...because both parties need us." Sheffield says she is worried about what she senses is still a lack of enthusiasm this late in the game among Democrats in Detroit. She thinks the coronavirus pandemic is partly to blame. "Joe Biden is not really the most exciting person. And I think, unfortunately, in light of COVID, we lost that personal touch with him that a lot of communities need to get them excited and to get them engaged," Sheffield said. The coronavirus has disproportionally hit Black communities across the country, and Detroit is no exception. African Americans have made up 62.2% of the more than 14,000 confirmed cases in Detroit and 82.9% of the deaths. While coronavirus may have hurt grassroot engagement for the campaigns, Sheffield says a different issue is sure to motivate Black voters. "What we saw with George Floyd did spark a reaction in so many people and I think that's going to help also increase some of the voter turnout that we see in Detroit," she said. Federal action in the police killing of Breonna Taylor is the one thing Davis says could actually swing her vote and convince her to vote for Trump.  "He could get Breonna Taylor's killers arrested, that's what he could do," she said. "I would definitely vote for Trump." Taylor's death also weighs heavily on Wendy Caldwell-Liddell.  "When you're black in America, you know racism is alive and well," she says when asked about it.  She pauses, looks off, and shifts in her chair.  "Now I have to battle with that on top of the thoughts of when I send my son into the world," she said. "And now it's when me and my daughter are at home asleep, minding our business. Now, I've got to think about that, too."

Black women are the backbone of the Democratic Party. And they feel the heavy burden of this election.

President Donald Trump's campaign entered October with just $63.1 million in remaining cash reserves, new filings show, underscoring his financial vulnerabilities as Election Day fast approaches. His Democratic rival, Joe Biden, had nearly three times that amount -- more than $177 million -- remaining in his war chest, highlighting how the former vice president's fundraising success in recent months left him with a substantial money advantage as the fall campaign got underway. Trump's campaign burned through more money than it took in last month, spending more than $91 million on advertising alone, according to a report it filed Tuesday evening with the Federal Election Commission. But the President's campaign has been outspent on television in recent weeks, as Biden has battered him on the airwaves, particularly in three swing states -- Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- that helped Trump secure the White House four years ago. One sign of the President's cash crunch: Over the weekend, he flew to deep-blue California for a high-dollar fundraising event that aides say brought in $11 million for his reelection.  Biden outraised Trump in both August and September and together with the Democratic Party committees started October with $432 million remaining in the bank. In all, Trump's political operation -- including his joint fundraising committees with the Republican National Committee -- was expected to report $251.4 million in available cash on hand. But while the President can rely on the larger pool of Republican cash to fund his broader reelection push, including the ground campaign to turn out voters, his main campaign account generally handles advertising. Television stations must offer lower rates to candidates than to other political players, such as super PACs, so candidate money buys more ads. Trump has trailed Biden in most polling. But Trump campaign officials insist they have sufficient funds to prevail, noting that Democrat Hillary Clinton outraised and outspent Trump in 2016 and still lost the presidency. "The Trump campaign has all the resources we need going into the home stretch of this election," campaign spokeswoman Samantha Zager said in an email Tuesday night. "We're running a comprehensive campaign that incorporates our massive ground game, travel to key states, and ads on digital, TV, and radio." Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien this week announced a $55 million ad buy during the final two weeks of the campaign that he described as "more than sufficient air cover." Campaign aides have argued that a robust ground operation will pay off for the President on Election Day. Trump officials say the campaign has 2.5 million volunteers who have helped make more than 118 million phone calls to voters in this election cycle.

Biden has substantial cash advantage over Trump in final weeks, new filings show

President Donald Trump abruptly ended a solo interview with CBS News' "60 Minutes" Tuesday and did not return for an appearance he was supposed to tape with Vice President Mike Pence, according to multiple sources familiar with what happened.  After camera crews set up at the White House on Monday, Trump sat down with host Lesley Stahl for about 45 minutes on Tuesday before he abruptly ended the interview and told the network he believed they had enough material to use, according to two sources. Trump walked out of the interview because he was frustrated with Stahl's line of questioning, one source said. Another person said the bulk of the interview was focused on coronavirus. CBS News did not immediately respond to a CNN request for comment. When reached for comment, the White House did not dispute CNN's reporting.  The President later accused Stahl of not wearing a mask and tweeted out a brief clip of her without one while at the White House.  A person familiar with the situation told CNN that the image from the tweet shows Stahl with her producers immediately after Trump ended the interview. Stahl had not yet gone back to get her personal belongings to put her mask back on. She had a mask on from the time she entered the White House and just before the interview began. With about two weeks until the election, Trump has spent this week lobbing scatter-shot attacks and growing upset at depictions portraying his campaign as doomed. His truncated taping on "60 Minutes" seemed an extension of what has been Trump's visible irritation as he enters the campaign's final days. Former Vice President Joe Biden and California Sen. Kamala Harris were also interviewed by "60 Minutes" and all four are scheduled to appear in the same program on Sunday. While Biden and Harris taped their interviews separately, Trump and Pence were scheduled to appear on camera together, like they did four years ago, for a walk and talk session. But Trump did not return for the appearance with Pence, sources said.  The interview is slated to air this Sunday. Facing a major national polling deficit against Biden, Trump has grown combative this week, lobbing accusations and insults as time runs out to win back voters. On Monday he called Dr. Anthony Fauci a "disaster" and accused the news media of being "criminals" for not covering unfounded accusations against Biden. On Tuesday morning, Trump demanded his attorney general work "fast" to launch an investigation based on the unfounded accusations before the election. And he accused the panel organizing Thursday's debate of bias after it announced the candidates' microphones would be muted for sections of the event. While Trump remains optimistic about his chances of victory, his road to reelection is narrow as polling in states he won in 2016 show Biden ahead. Trump has appeared furious over stories suggesting his campaign is fated for defeat and has questioned why Republicans are appearing to distance themselves. Standing on a tarmac in Arizona on Monday, Trump acknowledged he was upset. "I'm not running scared," Trump told reporters. "I think I'm running angry." In a 2018 interview, Stahl challenged Trump on his views of climate change and Russian election interference. While it became contentious at times, Trump completed the sit-down. Stahl previously said that during an off-camera conversation with Trump in 2016, when he was running for President, he admitted his attacks on the press were meant to discredit negative stories that emerged about him.  "He said, 'You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you.' He said that," Stahl said.

Trump abruptly ends '60 Minutes' interview before planned taping of joint appearance with Pence

Trump abruptly ends '60 Minutes' interview before taping joint appearance with Pence

Barack Obama had always intended to sit out the first presidential election of his post-presidency, taking heed of the private guidance given to him from Presidents George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush. Obama vastly preferred governing to campaigning, his friends have long known, so they believed him when he said he looked forward to watching from the sidelines. But those plans were tossed aside by the election of President Donald Trump and his first term in office. Obama is poised to return to the campaign trail here on Wednesday, making his first in-person appearance in his effort to help Joe Biden in the waning days of his bid for the White House. If the election of Trump was a reaction to the Obama presidency, the November race offers another opportunity to take the country's measure of the men. "Former presidents tend not to delve too deeply into politics and certainly not the politics of their successors," David Axelrod, a longtime adviser to Obama, said in an interview. "I think that was his plan, but Trump changed that plan." Visit CNN's Election Center for full coverage of the 2020 race. The campaign stop by Obama is the first in a handful of visits to battleground states where voting is already underway, where Obama will try and rally support for Biden, particularly trying to boost enthusiasm among Black men, Latinos and younger voters. "He doesn't view it as a personal grudge match with Trump," said Axelrod, a CNN contributor. "He views it as an existential matter for the country and for democracy." It's been 20 years since Obama lost an election -- at least one with his name on the ballot. Yet his record is far less successful when he is not a candidate himself, a point illustrated most recently in 2016, when he campaigned aggressively for Hillary Clinton and in 2010 and 2014, when he suffered the same fate most sitting presidents do when their party endures a midterm-election drubbing. Obama's appearance here in Philadelphia, following a series of virtual campaign events for Biden throughout the summer, will once again test the power of his appeal and reveal whether his popularity is transferable -- even to his friend and former partner in the White House. "I trust him to be a great president," Obama said in a video message Tuesday night on Twitter. "He's different. He's on the right side of the issues. He'll get the job done." Questions over whether a Biden presidency would effectively be a third Obama term have long ago been overtaken by a broad desire to defeat Trump from all wings of the Democratic Party. The policy differences aired during the primary fight -- from which Obama intentionally worked to keep his distance -- have been set aside, for now at least. Two weeks before Election Day, Obama is injecting himself squarely into not only the presidential campaign, but also key contests that could help Democrats win control of the Senate. He's appearing in four separate television ads for candidates in Maine and Michigan, South Carolina and Georgia, with other contests likely to be added. "Make sure if Joe Biden wins," Obama said in one spot, "he'll have a Senate ready to work with them to move our country forward." The demand for Obama is remarkably high, with some Democrats quietly wondering why he hasn't been even more visible during this high-stakes campaign season, especially after he traveled extensively for Clinton in the closing months of the 2016 election. But even as he worked to finish his biography, which is scheduled to be released two weeks after the election, aides say he has worked aggressively on many virtual efforts from fundraising to taping early-voting videos to endorsing down-ballot candidates. "In terms of his value, it's been smart not to overuse him," Axelrod said. "They've been using him in targeted digital appeals to constituencies that Democrats need to arouse in this election: young people and people of color, who did not come out in the numbers that Hillary Clinton had hoped four years ago." Biden, who speaks regularly with Obama, dismissed questions about whether the former President has been sufficiently active in this race. "He's doing enough for our campaign," Biden told reporters last week. "He'll be out on the trail and he's doing well." To be sure, Obama has picked his spots during the general election, but has steadily ramped up his efforts and his anti-Trump rhetoric. His comments about his successor may stand out, at least in the recent history of presidents, but Trump has targeted Obama like few others, including falsely questioning his American citizenship for years. At the funeral of civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis, the former President delivered an impassioned speech that was, at the time, his more forceful rebuke of Trump to date. "George Wallace may be gone, but we can witness our federal government sending agents to use tear gas and batons against peaceful demonstrators," he said, referring to the racist Alabama governor who ran for president in 1968. A few weeks later, in his primetime address to the Democratic National Convention, Obama said he had hoped Trump "might show some interest in taking the job seriously" and "discover some reverence for the democracy that had been placed in his care." "Donald Trump hasn't grown into the job because he can't," Obama said. "And the consequences of that failure are severe." For the last four years, aides said, Obama has seen a large part of his role as being a unifying figure for the Democratic Party. He stayed almost entirely out of the Democratic primary battle, only entering the fray for a handful of fundraisers where he offered some tough love to the party's left wing by warning candidates to "pay some attention to where voters actually are" and not where activists voices on Twitter would like to push Democrats. Once the primary ended and Biden was the presumptive nominee, Obama used his relationship with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the final Democratic candidate standing against Biden, to help draw the competition to a close. The two spoke multiple times in the weeks leading up to Sanders' decision to get out of the race, sources told CNN at the time. Even after the primary, however, Obama remained careful in the way he went after Trump, hueing to a long-held belief that former presidents should avoid being overly critical of their successors. When Obama officially endorsed Biden in April, he did so by touting his one-time vice president and only criticizing Trump obliquely, without mentioning his name. Yet there is no escaping the animosity and tension between Trump and Obama. At his rallies, Trump continues to vilify Obama and his administration, offering no evidence to back up the unfounded accusations about spying on his campaign four years ago. Trump has repeatedly called for Obama to be indicted, which has fallen flat even to the Justice Department and Attorney General Bill Barr. As popular as Obama is among Democrats and many independent voters across the country, he also remains a motivating force for Trump's base. Given that history, the final two weeks of the campaign are poised to be highly combustible between the 44th and 45th presidents of the United States. "He's always understood if he was out there constantly, people would want to turn this into a Trump-Obama race," Axelrod said. "It wouldn't be fair to Biden and it wouldn't be helpful to Biden." But in the final stretch of the race, Biden aides say, Obama could be the most helpful closer of all.

Obama returns to the campaign trail, rallying support for Biden in hopes of ending Trump's presidency

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

If Trump loses, he'll take this deal

Presidential election: If Trump loses, he'll take this deal (opinion)

President Donald Trump is struggling to find a compelling rationale for his reelection ahead of the final presidential debate, firing off wild, scattershot attacks against an expanding list of perceived political enemies. On a day of vitriol and stunts, the President's base-stoking narrative of anger and personal persecution targeted Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, Lesley Stahl of "60 Minutes," the Commission on Presidential Debates, the Supreme Court and Dr. Anthony Fauci. At an evening rally in Pennsylvania, he even took a shot at "Crooked Hillary." He also intensified pressure on Attorney General William Barr to launch criminal probes into Biden. But Trump's quest for distractions simply underscored how he is ignoring the true and most dangerous adversary facing America -- the pandemic that has buckled his false reelection narrative of a nation on the rebound and has left millions out of work. His frantic efforts to save his presidency lacked the focus of his populist, nationalist economic arguments in 2016 -- and an opponent in Hillary Clinton, who he was conveniently able to cast as a villain for his outsider message. Build your own road to 270 electoral votes with CNN's interactive map This year's Democratic nominee, whose polling lead has survived all Trump's claims that he is corrupt and a Trojan horse for radical leftists, is a more elusive target. The former vice president spent another day huddled in his Delaware home prepping for Thursday's debate -- the last scheduled set-piece event of an often bizarre 2020 campaign. Trump, in the middle of a grueling set of rallies after recovering from the virus, traveled to Erie, where he needs to outperform his strong 2016 showing to cut Biden's current lead in Pennsylvania, potentially the pivotal 2020 swing state. "You guys aren't even open yet. What the hell is going on with your state?" Trump said at the rally, accusing Pennsylvania's Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf of keeping the commonwealth shut down for no reason. After reducing its case and death numbers from its initial bout with the virus early in the year, Pennsylvania is now seeing its cases of Covid-19 rise again, all across the state. The pandemic's haunting presence in the final days of the campaign was underscored when first lady Melania Trump was forced to cancel her own plans to attend the rally, owing to the aftereffects of her Covid-19 infection. And while Trump slams his opponent as soft on China, the latest New York Times report on his own tax records reveals that the President has extensive interests in the country and even maintains a bank account there. The Chinese account, the newspaper said, is controlled by Trump International Hotels Management and it paid $188,561 in taxes in the country from 2013 to 2015. Earlier Times disclosures have shown how the President has paid almost no US federal tax on his fortune for years. Trump insists he has paid millions to the Treasury. Trump creates a scene during '60 Minutes' interview Trump had spent the day performing antics that might appeal to his most loyal voters and provide fodder for conservative media but threaten to further alienate more moderate voters he needs to attract. The President sat for a CBS "60 Minutes" interview -- an age-old staple of campaigns -- but sources said he walked out after 45 minutes and refused to complete a segment with Vice President Mike Pence. Soon afterward, Trump tweeted a gotcha photo of correspondent Stahl not wearing a mask in the White House.  A person familiar with the situation told CNN that the image from the tweet shows Stahl with her producers immediately after Trump had ended the interview, before she had gone back to get her personal belongings to put her mask back on. She had a mask on from the time she entered the White House and just before the interview began. Then, in another sign of frivolity, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany sent out a photo of herself handing Stahl a thick book that she said listed all the President's achievements on health care. Later, Trump, in a show of presidential whining, tweeted that he might release the interview before Sunday's air date to prove what a "FAKE and BIASED interview is all about." The spectacle of a White House ambushing a TV reporter would be extraordinary in normal times, but it shows a profound lack of seriousness in the middle of a domestic crisis that has killed more than 220,000 Americans and as experts say an alarming rise in Covid infections may be a week away. Trump demands action from Barr  Earlier, in a phone call to Fox News, the President called on Barr to open a preelection probe into his false claims that the former vice president is guilty of corruption in Ukraine -- the country that Trump tried to coerce into interfering in the election to damage Biden in an abuse of power that got him impeached. "We've gotta get the attorney general to act. He's gotta act. And he's gotta act fast," Trump said in the interview. "This is major corruption and this has to be known about before the election."  The demand was the latest indication of how Trump has no compunction about using the powers of his office -- meant to be reserved for the American national interest -- to try to damage his political foes in full public view. In the same interview, Trump took another shot at Fauci, the government's top infectious diseases specialist, who is warning that a feared fall and winter spike of Covid-19 is already materializing. On Monday, an unchained Trump described the respected doctor as an "idiot" and a "disaster." He followed up Tuesday by tarnishing the apolitical reputation that Fauci has built in decades of service to six presidents. "He's a nice guy. The only thing I say is he's a little bit, sometimes not a team player. But he is a Democrat and I think that he's just fine," Trump said. Fauci is not registered with any political party. Expert sees rapid escalation in Covid cases  Trump's attacks on Fauci underscore his most intractable problem in his effort to finally settle on an attack that negatively defines Biden and could broaden the President's appeal wider than the fervent support of his most faithful voters. Trump's failure to properly manage the pandemic and his constant denial about its impact on American life means he is at a disadvantage on the issue that appears likely to define the election. Experts are now warning of a fast-worsening situation across almost the entire nation just at the moment the President wants to declare victory over the emergency. Dr. Scott Gottlieb, former commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration, is predicting a swift escalation of infections, which have recently raced back to average around 50,000 a day. "It's going to be a difficult fall and winter. I think we're about two or three weeks behind Europe -- so we're about a week away from starting to enter a period where we're going to see a rapid acceleration in cases," Gottlieb told CNBC's Shepard Smith on Monday. After several days of criticizing NBC's Kristen Welker, who will moderate Thursday's debate in Nashville, Trump is now grumbling about the decision by the presidential debate commission to mute the mics for a portion of the encounter after his boorish interruptions in the first debate. "These are not good people. This commission --  a lot of funny things go on with them," he said on Fox. "I think the whole thing is crazy." A source close to Biden told CNN that the Democratic nominee is getting ready for Trump to "bully and deflect" onstage and is preparing for him to go after his family as well. Throughout this campaign cycle, Trump has tried and failed to disqualify Biden from the presidency. The veteran Democrat has proven remarkably resilient, and Tuesday was another case study in why, as it showed all the ways that the President is limiting his own potential appeal. Biden has a clear path to 270  Another riotous day at the White House unfolded with Trump, who is desperate not to be the first President since George H.W. Bush ousted after a  single term, trailing Biden in enough swing states to cost him the election. CNN Poll of Polls averages across 10 key battleground states suggest tight races heading into the final two weeks of the campaign in seven states and Biden ahead in the other three. Crucially, the averages suggest Biden holds a sizable lead in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, which could form a path for him to get to the magic number of 270 electoral votes. In Pennsylvania, Biden averages 52% support to Trump's 43% in polling conducted between September 20 and October 5. In both Wisconsin and Michigan, the averages show Biden with 51% and Trump with 43%. Trump's hopes in Pennsylvania took a further blow with Monday night's Supreme Court decision that means mail-in ballots -- mostly preferred by Democrats -- can be counted in the Keystone State for up to three days after Election Day on November 3. He called the decision "ridiculous" and "very strange." Across multiple states, voters are not waiting until November 3 to make their choices. Early voting records are tumbling everywhere.  More than 675,000 absentee ballots have been returned in Ohio, nearly double the figure at the same point four years ago.  More than 2 million voters have already cast ballots in North Carolina, a state where Trump tried to raise doubts about the legitimacy of early voting.  More than 27% of registered voters have already cast their ballots in Texas, and New Hampshire has seen nearly double the number of absentee ballots returned in all of 2016.  It is not possible to deduce exactly which candidate may have the advantage in early voting. The eagerness of voters to make their choices does reflect strong support for democracy even in the most extreme circumstances. And it makes one thing clear: The election is beginning to be decided right now, and the capacity of either candidate to change its dynamics is increasingly limited. Still, Trump is putting his hopes in the kind of late surge that helped him beat Clinton in 2016 and is scheduling a flurry of swing state rallies to try to build momentum, even though the events will put his supporters -- and people they will later meet -- at a higher risk of contracting Covid-19.

Trump lashes out wildly as he seeks an election comeback

2020 election: Trump lashes out wildly as he seeks an election comeback

President Donald Trump's tax records show he has pursued expansive business projects in China for years and even maintains a Chinese bank account, The New York Times reported Tuesday, disclosures that deal a blow to the President's efforts to paint Democratic nominee Joe Biden as the presidential candidate who is soft on China.  An analysis of Trump's tax records by the Times shows that the President holds a previously unreported bank account in China that was not included on his public financial disclosures because it is held under a corporate name. Trump also maintains bank accounts in Britain and Ireland.  The Chinese account, the newspaper said, is controlled by Trump International Hotels Management and it paid $188,561 in taxes in the country from 2013 to 2015.  While the tax records don't show how much money has moved through Trump's foreign accounts, the Internal Revenue Service mandates that filers disclose the portions of their incomes coming from foreign countries. Trump International Hotels Management reported only a few thousand dollars from China.  Trump Organization lawyer Alan Garten, who refused to name the Chinese bank that holds the account, told the Times in a statement that the Trump Organization "opened an account with a Chinese bank having offices in the United States in order to pay the local taxes" tied with its push to do business in the country.  Garten specifically said the company had opened the account once an office was opened in China "to explore the potential for hotel deals in Asia." "No deals, transactions or other business activities ever materialized and, since 2015, the office has remained inactive," he told the newspaper. "Though the bank account remains open, it has never been used for any other purpose." While Trump has sought to paint Biden as weak on China throughout the general election, his own financial ties to the country stand in stark contrast with the former vice president, whose income tax returns and financial disclosures show no business dealings or income from China.  The President's tax records show he has invested at least $192,000 in five companies established to pursue projects in China over multiple years, according to the Times.  Since 2010, the companies have claimed at least $97,400 in expenses, the newspaper said.  The new details gleaned from Trump's tax records build on a previous New York Times report that detailed how the President paid no federal income taxes whatsoever in 10 out of 15 years beginning in 2000 because he reported losing significantly more than he made. In both the year he won the presidency and his first year in the White House, Trump paid just $750 in federal income taxes, the Times reported.

New York Times: Tax records show Trump maintains Chinese bank account

It's two weeks to Election Day -- that's Tuesday, November 3. And it's two days from the final presidential debate -- that's Thursday, October 22. It's modified with some rule changes and plans to mute each candidate's microphone during initial replies. Read here. Joe Biden is mostly off the campaign trail, preparing for the debate. Melania Trump is off the campaign trail, without getting back on it. She's canceled a scheduled campaign event due to lingering Covid symptoms. President Donald Trump is everywhere -- In the past week he's held events in Pennsylvania -> Iowa -> North Carolina -> Florida -> Georgia -> Michigan -> Wisconsin -> Nevada -> Arizona.  That includes double-header rallies on Friday, Saturday and Monday. He'll be in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, in Erie County, which flipped from supporting Barack Obama to supporting him in 2016. He'll be in North Carolina again on Wednesday.  He'll need both states again if he's going to win 270 electoral votes. (Keep reading for more on that.)  Trump doesn't discuss Covid much at the rallies, but he's consistently pushed the idea it's about over. Or we're rounding the bend.   Remember when he said it would be done by Easter? Now public health officials are warning Americans against Thanksgiving gatherings. Here's a very long timeline of Trump predicting the end of Covid.  What he does talk about: Hypothetically soliciting bribes from Exxon. I would say "jokes" here because he seemed to be using a hypothetical. Exxon wasn't laughing. The company immediately said its CEO had no contact like this with Trump.  Trump, uncorked, says things like this. We should still take note of them. His words: "So I call some guy, the head of Exxon. I call the head of Exxon, I don't know, you know. I'll use a company," Trump said. " 'Hi, how you doing? How's energy coming? When are you doing the exploration? Oh, you need a couple of permits, huh? OK. ... I'd love you to send me $25 million for the campaign.' " Read more.  There's no filter on what's coming out of his mouth. If there's a strategy in stoking his base and shocking everyone else, there's nothing new in it. If it's a strategy at all.   Key ruling for Pennsylvania votes. The US Supreme Court ruled Monday (with John Roberts as the swing vote siding with liberal justices) that absentee ballots in Pennsylvania can be counted after Election Day even if they don't have legible postmarks.   Swan song for swing votes. It'll be a much different court when Amy Coney Barrett arrives, notes CNN Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic. But here's the argument by a notable conservative formal federal judge that because of a decision in 2009, Barrett should recuse herself to avoid the appearance of impropriety after Trump gave her something of value. The decision is up to her.  Texas can ignore thrown-out ballots. A federal appeals court decision in Texas says the state doesn't have to give voters the chance to fix, or "cure," rejected mail-in ballots.  32 million+ early votes and counting. It's possible that between 20% and 25% of Americans who will vote have already voted. More than 32 million have cast ballots.  "America is under attack from Trump." Among those who already voted is retired Adm. William McRaven, the former head of US Special Forces. He oversaw the Osama bin Laden raid. He describes himself as an anti-abortion rights and pro-Second Amendment conservative in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece and was even more pointed in a CNN interview, explaining why he had voted for Joe Biden.  McRaven's announcement comes after Trump explained last week why he had retweeted a conspiracy theory that the bin Laden raid was a sham.  What about elected Republicans? We've heard this story so many times. There's a big difference between a retired general, no matter how conservative he is, and elected Republicans, who are accountable to voters.  This story by CNN's Manu Raju and Alex Rogers examines the quiet uneasiness of Republicans on Capitol Hill who wish Trump would stop attacking Dr. Anthony Fauci and focus on Biden. You can bet that if Trump loses, these folks will speak their minds a lot more freely. The quiet angst of Republican politicians has become something of a cliche in Washington.

Your election speed read, two weeks out

What Matters: Your election speed read, two weeks out

President Donald Trump faces a large deficit in the polls right now. If the election were held today, he'd very likely lose. But if Trump were to pull off a surprising win, how would he do it?  A look at the electoral map reveals just how narrow Trump's possible paths are at this point. What Trump probably needs right now isn't some magical map, but rather a fundamental shift across the board to move the environment in his direction.  Build your own road to 270 electoral votes with CNN's interactive map  You can see this first by giving him the states he won four years ago by 1.2 points or greater. This includes a number of states where Trump is slightly trailing in the polling averages right now, like Iowa and Georgia, and also gives Trump states such as Arizona, Florida and North Carolina, where he won by less than 5 points four years ago. Trump is down by 3 to 4 points in the polls in all of those states at this point.  Were former vice president Joe Biden to win any of these states, Trump's chances begin to shrink very, very quickly.  But even if Trump won all of these states, he'd still be at only 260 electoral votes. Trump needs to somehow find more votes.  One potential path for Trump to win at least one of the Rust Belt (i.e. Great Lake) battleground states he won by less than a point in 2016. That is, win either Michigan (16 electoral votes), Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes) or Wisconsin (10 electoral votes).  A victory in any of these states gets him to at least 270 electoral votes.  Here's the problem: he's losing by a lot in all of these states right now. As I outlined on Sunday, Trump's down by 7 to 8 points in all of them to Biden.  An alternative path might be to try and win some of the electoral votes that went to Hillary Clinton in 2016. The two most likely suspects are Nevada and New Hampshire. Clinton won those by about 2 points or less last time around, and Trump has spent money on advertisements in both of those states.  If Trump won all the states where he won four years ago by 1.2 points or greater, Nevada and New Hampshire, he'd reach 270 electoral votes.  Again, the issue here is that the polls in neither Nevada nor New Hampshire are particularly close at this moment. Trump's not doing any better in either state than he is in the Great Lake battleground states. Biden's up by 7 points in Nevada and by double-digits in New Hampshire. Indeed, in none of the states that Clinton won in 2016 is Biden's lead less than 7 points.  Trump's electoral map difficulties come down to the fact that it's pretty much impossible for a candidate to win when they're trailing by 10 points nationally. As I have previously noted, the swing state polls look a lot like you'd expect it to with the national polling where it is.  For Trump to have a realistic shot of winning, his national deficit would have to be sliced by at least half in the final result. Most likely, Trump probably can afford to lose by 3 or 4 points nationally in order to replicate the popular vote/electoral college split that he did in 2016. In other words, he probably needs to do 6 to 7 points better nationally than he is currently doing. (Not surprisingly, if Trump does 6 to 7 points better in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin than he currently is, then those states are about even.)  Now, Trump doesn't need to gain back all 6 to 7 points before the election. If he can merely close Biden's advantage by a few points, Trump could hope to get a polling miss that benefits him.  Remember, Trump won in 2016, despite being down by about 4 to 5 points in the final polls of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  Trump, though, still needs to be doing better than he is right now for a polling error to be anything more than a true long shot to give him a second term.  Otherwise, Trump's paths will be possible, but they won't really be realistic. 

Why Trump's road to 270 is narrow

Why Trump's Road To 270 Is Narrow

What, exactly, is the President thinking? With two weeks until voting ends, the polls show Donald Trump trailing behind Joe Biden. Perhaps Trump will recover. But what in the world is his reelection strategy?   Trump is appealing to racism, inciting extremists and conspiracy theorists, and going after Dr. Anthony Fauci, one of the country's most-respected scientists in the fight against a raging pandemic that has infected more than eight million Americans and killed more 220,000. Does that seem like a rational campaign strategy?  Perhaps it does to Trump.   In his rambling, disjointed campaign speeches, Trump spews out a stream of grievances, boasts and warnings. At this stage, you would expect him to try and persuade the undecided; to offer a plan -- any plan -- for his second term; to make an argument that might bring in anyone besides those who already give him their unquestioning loyalty. The people attending Trump's rallies -- virtually the only large-scale gatherings in America in the time of spiking pandemic deaths, occurring despite pleas from public health officials --  were not going to vote for Joe Biden. They don't need to be convinced. Some say they're willing to die for Trump.  So, what is he saying to try to get out the message beyond superspreader events dotted with MAGA hats? The most perplexing theme is his multilevel-marketing pitch to racists of different stripes. There's the light-touch racism, crafted for the "suburban housewife." When Trump tweeted about "the suburban housewives of America" people mercilessly mocked his outdated term so, ever the feminist, now he addresses suburban "women." Then there's the parallel message to hard core racists, anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists. Typical is this riff from Carson City, Nevada, on Sunday. "I think the women from the suburbs are looking for a couple of things," Trump said. "One of them is safety. One of them is good, strong security. And one of them is they don't want to have low-income housing built next to their house. And you know who makes up 30% of your suburbs? Minorities. African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, minorities. Okay?"    Trump's syntax and logic are never completely clear, but it's all there. In another rally, this one in Muskegon, Michigan, he pushed his pitch to women warning darkly, absurdly, that Democrats would fill Michigan with refugees from Syria, Somalia, Yemen and "poorly vetted migrants from jihadist regions." If Trump wanted to reassure Michigan women about their safety, he might have said a few words in support of one Michigan woman whose safety is in peril, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, the target of an alleged kidnapping plot disrupted only days ago by the FBI and state law enforcement. Actually, Trump did have a few words about Whitmer, but they were mostly complaints that the governor abused her power with her pandemic restrictions. Let me repeat that: A group of men have been charged with plotting to kidnap and "overthrow" a sitting American governor. The President of the United States attacked not them, but their target. The crowds went wild with chants of "Lock her up!" Trump added, "Lock them all up!" Trump's relentless attacks on Whitmer, who blames the President for "inspiring and incentivizing and inciting this kind of domestic terrorism," send a message to the hardest of his hard-core supporters, like the ones who grabbed their assault rifles and marched on Michigan's state Capitol in the spring after Trump tweeted "LIBERATE MICHIGAN!"  Attacking Whitmer fits with Trump's refusal -- since walked back -- to condemn White supremacy during his first debate with Joe Biden and telling the far-right Proud Boys to "stand back and stand by." It also matches his energizing message to the outlandish conspiracy theorists of QAnon during last week's town hall. That's also where his attacks on Dr. Fauci come in. On a campaign call, Trump referred to Fauci and other health officials as "idiots," called him a "disaster," and continued slamming a man most Americans trust -- certainly trust far more than they do the President.  These are the kinds of actions that would seem to further erode his support among most Americans. Why is he doing it? There are three possible explanations for a campaign strategy that defies common sense: First, Trump apparently thinks many Americans are frightened racists, scared of anyone who is different in any way, so he may believe that his appeals to xenophobia could win him a majority of the vote.  The second option is that he knows he won't win, but he is using the remaining days of the campaign to stoke the fires of hatred, anger and mistrust, hoping that their smoldering passions will lead his backers to reject the outcome of the election if Biden beats him. This aligns with another theme of the campaign, his continuous, unfounded claims that there is widespread voting fraud.    The final option is that Trump has no strategy. That what we're seeing is the continuation, perhaps the final chapter, of a presidency guided not by logic and thoughtful planning, but instead by Trump's gut, by his instinct, by his inability to curb the expression of his own emotions, now mostly anger, fear and frustration. It's hard to decide which is worst. A President who thinks he governs a country of racists; one who is priming his backers to reject a democratic election or one who is utterly irrational? What a choice. 

Three possible explanations for Trump's bonkers campaign strategy

Opinion: Three possible explanations for Trump's bonkers campaign strategy

For four years, Republican senators have shrugged off President Donald Trump's constant string of controversies and scandals. They've ignored his Twitter outbursts and endless grievances. And they've avoided confronting him, while voting mostly in lockstep for his agenda and protecting him during his impeachment trial.   But two weeks until Election Day, GOP senators are beginning to come to grips that Trump's reign in Washington could soon come to an end.  Publicly and privately, Republicans are now beginning to distance themselves from the President. And the debate over the post-Trump Republican Party is already taking shape, with some eager to emulate his populist style of America-first, slash-and-burn politics -- and others pushing to return to a more moderate, pro-business message to woo disaffected younger voters and women who have been put off by Trump. While Republicans brace for that debate, several influential Republicans are pleading with Trump to abruptly change his tactics in the final two weeks to zero-in on an economic message, stop downplaying the coronavirus pandemic and to quit launching attacks against his public health experts -- namely Dr. Anthony Fauci.  "I would like to see in the closing days of the campaign him prosecute the argument against the Democrats and the difference in policies," said South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the Republican whip, told CNN. "Stay away from personal attacks. Quit attacking the media. Quit attacking Fauci and focus on issues. ... He's got to stay disciplined to do it, and I think that's how you're going to win over the middle people."  In recent weeks, Republicans have been critical of the President and some of his policies.  GOP leaders have strongly opposed calls by Trump to pass a stimulus plan worth more than $2 trillion. Some Republicans, like Texas Sen. John Cornyn, have made clear they haven't always been on the same page with the President on issues like the national debt. And one GOP senator -- Ben Sasse of Nebraska -- launched a scathing attack about the President's treatment of women and flirtation with white supremacists, warning about the ramifications for the Republican Party in a conference call with constituents leaked to the media.  "I think our party is in trouble with young people, increasingly with older people, with minorities. And those young people we were in trouble with five years ago are now voting, and so we've got some real work to do," Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, the party's 2012 presidential nominee who isn't backing Trump's reelection bid, told CNN.   Republicans in tight races, who had hoped to ride the President's coattails to victory, have little desire to align with Trump over his more incendiary attacks, including against Fauci, the respected infectious disease expert whom the President has been undermining in recent days and called a "disaster" during a call with campaign staff Monday.  Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has tied himself closely to Trump amid his neck-and-neck reelection bid in South Carolina, was sympathetic to the President's latest line of scorched-earth attacks against former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, because the President "has been accused of everything under the sun."  But Graham added: "I think in terms of Dr. Fauci, I trust his judgment."  Thom Tillis, a first-term senator from North Carolina and one of the most endangered Republicans, sided with the infectious disease expert when asked if he agreed that Fauci is a "disaster." "I got a lot of confidence in Dr. Fauci," Tillis said. Given the upset that Trump pulled off in 2016, Republicans are careful not to predict that Trump will lose on November 3 -- and many say they believe he will win again. But Republicans are well aware of the narrow path he has to victory -- and how bleak the polls look for the President, who is trailing in nine of 10 states he carried four years ago, according to a CNN average of polls released Tuesday. GOP braces for 'fight' over a post-Trump Washington Republicans say if Trump loses reelection, they expect a furious debate within the party about the direction to take the GOP after the President has rewritten the rules of politics and dramatically reshaped the conservative base to fit his image of America.  "I think there's going to be a fight after this election," said Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, referring to an intraparty debate bound to take place regardless of the electoral outcome. He predicted "the old guard" in the GOP would want "open borders, trade without limits" and will seek cater to Wall Street and "big multinationals" who are pushing to expand globalization. Hawley added: "I just think that will be a disaster for this party."  Sen. Mike Braun, an Indiana Republican who, like Hawley, won his first term in 2018, said voters still distrust government and that the party would need to refocus on the frustration with Washington that got Trump elected in the first place.  "I think in totality even if it doesn't end up good for us, it still reverts back to what was there before Trump," Braun said. Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, who is among those Republicans warning against the high price tag in the stimulus talks that the President has proposed, has been in line with others in his party who have embraced calls to focus again on the ballooning budget deficit -- after years of Congress and the White House ignoring the issue with Trump in office. The annual deficit and total debt has hit levels not seen since World War II. "I came from the tea party: We are concerned," Johnson said, referring to the conservative grassroots movement that powered GOP victories in the Obama years but has been mostly quiet in the Trump era. "At some point in time, the tea party may not be as strong as it once was but there's still plenty of people like me and a lot of people that voted for people like me that are highly concerned about the fact that we're mortgaging our kids' future." Asked if he believes Trump should listen to those concerns, Johnson said: "You'd have to ask him." After Romney lost in 2012 to Barack Obama, the Republican National Committee conducted an extensive autopsy to improve the GOP appeal, looking at ways to diversify and court Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and other minority communities, while wooing women and LGBTQ voters. One of the changes, the RNC suggested, was to "embrace and champion" comprehensive immigration reform.  In 2013, Republicans joined Democrats in pushing a bipartisan immigration overhaul through the Senate -- but the effort never came up for a vote in the GOP-led House. In 2014, Republicans took back the Senate amid GOP promises to be a check on Obama, rein in the deficit and repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. And that was all a prelude to Trump's rise to the Presidency, as he mounted an anti-immigration, anti-trade and anti-Washington campaign.  "I look at my race back in 2012 and there was a postmortem done about what we would do to get our party back in line with more of our voters," Romney said this week in the Capitol. "And we haven't taken that direction." Republican fears Trump's down-ticket impact As he's trailing Biden in crucial battleground states, Trump's standing in the polls has been the cause of alarm among Republicans, who are struggling to hold on to their 53-47 majority as Democrats see their opportunities to pick up seats continue to grow.   Trump, speaking to reporters in Arizona on Monday, said that he believes the Senate races are "very untied" to him.  "I think that's highly overrated," Trump insisted.  And GOP leaders hope that their candidates have established enough of a track record and brand that they can win over Biden voters down the stretch and differentiate themselves from Trump.  Indiana Sen. Todd Young, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told CNN that "the most important dynamic" in the battle for the Senate majority in the final weeks is the "differing agendas" between the parties.  "You have Democratic candidates who are running on this new version of American socialism, which involves major structural changes like packing the Supreme Court, eliminating the legislative filibuster and then adding new states to the union," Young said. "Whereas we're focused instead on returning us to the heights of prosperity."  When asked if Trump should stay on that message to help Senate candidates, Young responded: "I'm not going to advise anyone else how to run their campaigns."  In Maine, Trump has gone after endangered GOP Sen. Susan Collins, who hasn't said if she'd back the President's reelection but has said she'd oppose Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court because the confirmation vote is being pushed up against the election.   "Not worth the work!" Trump tweeted last week after launching a broadside against Collins.  Trump's standing in Maine, a blue state, has hurt Collins, who had developed an independent image for 20 years in the Senate before he took power. When Vice President Mike Pence rallied in Maine on Monday, he failed to mention Collins. Instead, Pence thanked the men who introduced him, Dale Crafts, a GOP House candidate, and former Maine Gov. Paul LePage, who is expected to run again in 2022.   Collins was not at the Pence event, and an aide said she had flown back to Washington on Sunday to attend Monday evening's votes in the Senate. Other Republicans have made remarks that have gotten attention in recent days, including Cornyn, who told the Fort Worth Star Telegram editorial board that he had privately clashed with the administration on several issues, including on budget deficits, trade agreements and redirecting some of the military budget to build Trump's wall. And he compared his relationship to Trump to "maybe like a lot of women who get married and think they're going to change their spouse, and that doesn't usually work out very well."  When asked about those comments on Monday, Cornyn told reporters: "It's the same thing I've been saying for a couple of years now. When I have disagreements with the President, I keep those private conversations, and I found it to be pretty useful in terms of trying to keep things done and manage that relationship." Indeed, Cornyn, who is narrowly leading his race for reelection, has sought to avoid criticizing Trump over the last four years. After Trump's rocky performance at last month's presidential debate, Cornyn was speaking to two reporters about a range of topics. But when asked about Trump's refusal at the debate to disavow white supremacists, Cornyn abruptly ended the back-and-forth.  "I'm done. See ya later," Cornyn said as he walked through the halls of the Russell Senate Office Building. 

Fearing a loss, GOP senators keep distance from Trump and begin to ponder party's future

GOP senators, fearing a loss, keep distance from Trump and begin to ponder party's future

In last week's NBC town hall with President Donald Trump, moderator Savannah Guthrie tried to tell Trump that he's not supposed to be "like someone's crazy uncle." (She made this comment as Trump defended disseminating a conspiracy theory.) We all know the character she was referring to: the unfiltered family member who will say anything to get a rise out of others with no regard for factuality. Ever since, Trump has been acting like he considered Guthrie's quip a challenge, careening around the country saying things you would indeed expect to hear from a crazy uncle.    Most recently the President's remarks were about scientists -- and one in particular: the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci. As one of the government's leading experts on the Covd-19 pandemic, Fauci has held the nation's respect when it comes to the crisis, even as President Trump's leadership has left many fearful for the health of the nation. This may explain why the President's re-election campaign crafted a pro-Trump ad featuring the doctor's "praise" of Trump's work.  After the ad aired, Fauci felt it necessary to publicly state that this praise was taken out of context, which, of course, prompted the President to criticize the doctor, something he hasn't shied away from doing in the past.  "People are tired of hearing Fauci and all these idiots ... If I listened to him, we'd have 500,000 deaths," Trump said on Monday, before stating, "If there's a reporter on, you can have it just the way I said it, I couldn't care less."   Only a crazy uncle type of politician would spend good money on a television ad associating himself with someone and then, with the ad still running, go after the same fellow in a foul-mouthed tirade that he knew would be heard by members of the press and the public.  The "idiots" Trump referred to are presumably the scientists who, on Sunday, he also mocked at a rally in Nevada. "If I listened totally to the scientists, we would right now have a country that would be in a massive depression," said Trump. He also said that if his rival Joe Biden were elected president in November "he'll listen to the scientists" as if it's a bad thing. Rounding out the crazy remarks, Trump warned that with a President Biden, "the Christmas season will be canceled."  Christmas will be canceled? The only people who say this kind of thing are crazy uncles trying to scare children at Thanksgiving. Of course, scaring people has been part of Trump's act since before he became president. He began the 2016 campaign with fearmongering about immigrants and continued the tactic after he took office. More recently he's been trying to make voters afraid of anti-police violence protesters, and newcomers to the suburbs.   But he went full crazy uncle on Saturday as he went after Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.  At his Michigan rally, Trump said that Whitmer should abandon the state's pandemic response policy and re-open society. This came as the state's case-count was rising and Trump's rally, a mass gathering, provoked public health concern. It also followed the arrest of 13 men who had allegedly plotted to kidnap the governor. To add the perfect touch of heedlessness, Trump egged on a crowd that began to chant  "lock her up!"  In addition to playing with fire where Whitmer is concerned, Trump went off on a rant this weekend about water pressure -- in sinks, showers, toilets, dishwashers -- as if this is a serious concern. What's more, according to Trump, a sketchy media report of a possible email scandal involving former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter, are the "REAL DEAL." Much of Trump's remarks have been fueled or amplified by other crazy uncle-like characters, like Trump's personal attorney and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. It's possible that Giuliani and Trump both believe there is something to be gained from playing this role. With two weeks left until Election Day, shameless and provocative comments may be the only thing they think could help them win. Besides, the whole point of the crazy uncle routine is not to be right, but to get attention by getting a rise out of everyone else. And from that perspective, Trump's routine is working.   

What to do about Crazy Uncle Trump

What to do about Crazy Uncle Trump (opinion)

On Monday night, the Commission on Presidential Debates unanimously approved a new rule for Thursday night's final debate that will make it virtually impossible for Donald Trump to be, well, Donald Trump. The rules goes like this: At the start of each new topic area, each candidate will have two minutes of uninterrupted time to talk. During that time, the opposing candidate's microphone will be turned off entirely, making it impossible for them to interject during that time. Which, well, makes sense after the first debate back in late September when Trump interrupted Biden -- and moderator Chris Wallace -- relentlessly, making the entire thing a spectacular failure. The question the new rule prompts, however, is how the heck is Trump going to actually debate under the new rules? Dating back to the primary  and general election debates in the 2016 campaign, Trump's only real strategy appears to be interrupting with jabs -- usually personal -- against his opponent or opponents. His ability to stand and talk about issues for 120 seconds -- or stand and listen as his opponents talk for an uninterrupted two minutes -- is basically zero. Consider this: Trump interrupted Biden or Wallace 128 times in the course of the 90-minute debate, according to a count kept by Slate's Jeremy Stahl. Which is nuts! And Trump interrupted Hillary Clinton 51 times, again according to Stahl. Constant interruption is best understood not as a thing that Trump sometimes does in debates but, essentially, as his entire debate strategy. Trump uses his non-stop interrupting to throw his opponent of their message, to distract from difficult topics for him, to bully his way through things. The truth is that when he is forced into any semblance of an actual debate, Trump struggles mightily -- as his lack of preparation and knowledge about the job is badly exposed. I keep thinking back to a single moment during the 2016 primary campaign that illustrates all of this perfectly. It was a December 2015 Republican primary debate and conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt, one of the moderators, asked Trump about the "nuclear triad," which refers to the three ways that the United States can deploy nuclear weapons (from airplanes, submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles.) Here's what Trump said in response to Hewitt's question: "We have to be extremely vigilant and extremely careful when it comes to nuclear. Nuclear changes the whole ballgame. ... The biggest problem we have is nuclear -- nuclear proliferation and having some maniac, having some madman go out and get a nuclear weapon. That's in my opinion, that is the single biggest problem that our country faces right now." Trump's answer will be familiar to anyone who has ever been called on in English class to answer a question about a book you haven't read a word of. He clearly has NO idea what the "nuclear triad" is or refers to. So he just says some stuff about nuclear weapons like "the biggest problem we have is nuclear -- nuclear proliferation and having some maniac, having some madman go out and get a nuclear weapon." Uh, right. We know from scads of reporting -- in both the 2016 campaign and this one -- that Trump does no real debate preparation. Instead, he brings a small group of people he likes into a room and sort of shoots the bull with them. (The last time Trump did this, a bunch of the people in the room -- including him -- wound up with Covid-19.) Which is a very different thing than the mock debates and studying that most serious candidates for president do in advance of a debate. Biden, for example, has stayed behind closed doors Monday and Tuesday as he prepares for Thursday's debate. Trump's total lack of preparation -- and demonstrated lack of interest in obtaining any in-depth knowledge about things like, well, nuclear weapons -- means that his only option when he stands on the debate stage is to heckle his opponent (and the moderator.) Trump has lots of one-liners, interjections and snarky asides. Which work when he can constantly interrupt and ignore all the rules his campaign has previously agreed to. And to be clear, he will still be able to do some of that in Thursday's debate. While the mics will be muted during each candidates' two-minute opening statement, they will be opened for the longer "discussion" portion of the issue at hand -- meaning Trump will be free to interrupt as much as he can during that time. But he will be able to interrupt far less often than in all of his previous debates. Which means he may actually have to, you know, engage on issues. Which has never been his strong suit.

Donald Trump just lost his go-to debate move

Melania Trump is canceling her first campaign appearance in months because she is not feeling well as she continues to recover from Covid-19. She had been set to join President Donald Trump's rally in Pennsylvania on Tuesday night, but she has decided not to go. "Mrs. Trump continues to feel better every day following her recovery from Covid-19, but with a lingering cough, and out of an abundance of caution, she will not be traveling today," said Stephanie Grisham, the first lady's chief of staff. It would have been the first lady's first in-person appearance at a campaign event, outside of August's Republican National Convention speech at the White House, in more than a year, when she joined the President last June at the official reelection kick-off rally in Florida. Trump in an essay earlier last week said her symptoms of Covid-19, "hit me all at once and it seemed to be a roller coaster." She described having body aches, a cough, headaches and feeling extreme fatigue. The first lady was not expected to give solo remarks at Tuesday's Pennsylvania event nor does she have any upcoming appearances or travel related to the campaign on her calendar for the foreseeable future, a source familiar with Trump's schedule told CNN.  Travel restrictions due to coronavirus throughout the last several months, and her own bout with Covid-19, hindered Trump's work schedule, Grisham told CNN. However, the President, vice president and other members of the Trump family have hit the campaign trail. Melania Trump has not historically been a visible campaign presence, eschewing appearances while other Trump surrogates crisscross the country. In the entire 2016 election cycle, Trump gave only a handful of solo speeches. Her longest in Pennsylvania, was just five days before the 2016 election, and came after a months' long hiatus from the campaign trail.  "I'm an immigrant, and let me tell you that nobody values the freedom and opportunity of America more than me," said Trump at the time, after an introduction by second lady Karen Pence, an active campaigner in both 2016 and 2020.  In 2016, the most the public saw of their future first lady was her presence at the presidential debates, something Trump is doing this time around, as well. She attended Trump's debate against Democratic rival Joe Biden in Ohio, and she is expected to attend the final 2020 presidential debate on Thursday in Nashville, Tennessee. If 2016 showed a hesitant potential first-spouse, 2020 is proving Trump remains ambivalent to the barnstorming ways of her stepchildren, all of whom have been hosting campaign events for the last several weeks in key battleground states.  With few big-name Republican surrogates outside of his family, and lack of participation from his wife, Trump's adult children are doing most of the talking to voters, with the President himself committing in recent days to two to three rallies in a 24-hour period.  This week, Ivanka Trump will make stops in Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Florida; Eric Trump heads to New Hampshire and Michigan, while his wife, Lara Trump, a member of the reelection campaign, goes to Nevada and Arizona; Donald Trump Jr. will be at events in North Carolina and Pennsylvania. 

Melania Trump cancels plans to attend Tuesday rally citing Covid recovery

President Donald Trump is the only modern American president to never release any of his tax returns -- either while running for office or during his time in office. He's offered a series of explanations for why that is, including that he is under audit by the Internal Revenue Service and that his taxes are too complicated for anyone to understand. The questions surrounding Trump's tax returns have only grown more urgent in the wake of a series of New York Times articles based on copies of Trump's returns they were able to obtain, that suggest, among many other things, that Trump has paid little to no federal taxes in the last two decades and that he is personally responsible for more than $400 million in loans that come due over the next four years. Which brings me to Thursday's town hall with Trump -- in which moderator Savannah Guthrie asked the President about his loans and his tax returns. I'm posting the full exchange -- warning: it's very long -- between the two because, well, you have to see it to believe it. Here we go: Guthrie: On the subject of taxes, as you know, The New York Times has obtained, it says, years of your tax returns among other things. It says that you have debts of approximately $421 million that you have personally-- Trump: Yes. Guthrie: -- guaranteed and that will come due in the next four years. The question is on behalf of voters: who do you owe $421 million to? Trump: OK. First of all, let me answer. What they did is illegal, number one. Also the numbers are all wrong with the numbers they released. And just so you understand when you have a lot of real estate. I have real estate. You know a lot of it, OK, right down the road, Doral, big stuff, great stuff. I'm very under -- when I decided to run I'm very under levered fortunately but I'm very under levered. I have a very, very small percentage of debt compared -- in fact some of it I did as favors to institutions that wanted to loan me money. $400 million compared to the assets that I have all of these great properties all over the world and frankly the Bank of America building in San Francisco. I don't love what's happening to San Francisco. Guthrie: Well do I hear you right, it sounds like you're saying-- Trump: 1290 Avenue (inaudible) one of the biggest-- Guthrie: $400 million isn't that much. Trump: -- office buildings. Guthrie: But are you confirming that, yes, you do owe sum $400 million? Trump: What I'm saying is that it's a tiny percentage of my net worth. Guthrie: That sounds like yes. Trump: And you will see that soon because we're doing things. We've given -- I think it's 108 or 112 pages of financial detail to elections and we have to file as the president. As any politician you have to file. Nobody ever looks at that. When they do they see how incredible a company is but more importantly they see where this debt is. No, I don't owe Russia money, I don't owe -- I owe a very, very small -- it's called mortgages. People have a house, they put a mortgage -- Guthrie: Yes. Any foreign bank, any foreign entity? Trump: Not that I know of but I will probably because it's so easy to solve and if you'd like to do -- I will let you know who -- who I owe whatever small amount of money. I want to say two things. Number one, it's a very small amount of money. Number two, it's very straight -- it's very, very straight but it's a tiny percentage of the work. Did you ever hear the expression, under levered? Guthrie: Yes. Trump: I am extremely under levered. Guthrie: Well, here's the thing, you could clear this up tonight by just releasing your tax returns yourself. I mean that's what I don't understand. Trump: Well, I'll tell you what -- Guthrie: I think people are just wondering, you're the only -- Trump: As you know, I'm under audit. It turned out that I am under audit. Guthrie: Yes, but the IRS said -- you are -- Trump: They actually -- excuse me. No, no, but you -- Guthrie: But the IRS says that doesn't stop you from releasing. Trump: But you accused me of not being under audit previously and so did other people at NBC and I am under audit. Guthrie: You are. Trump: So that was solved. That's what -- I am under audit. No person in their right mind would release prior to working out the deal with the IRS. And I'll go a step further. I'm treated very badly by the IRS. They treat me very, very badly. You have people in there from previous administrations that treat me very badly. But we're under audit. It's very routine in many ways but we're under audit. They like to change the game, change the rules, do everything. You saw what they did with the Tea Party people. You saw what they did with the religious groups. Guthrie: But to be clear, there is no law or rule that prohibits you from releasing your tax returns. Trump: No, except common sense and intelligence and having lawyers that say -- because I would love to release them, and as soon as we come to a conclusion I will release them and very gladly. But if you go to elections and if you take a look you'll see 112 -- I think its 112, it talks about the income, which is rather massive. It talks about all of the properties, they have them listed. You can never learn more. But you know what happened; people went there, all the reporters went there. It was like a feeding frenzy. This was originally when I filed it. And I file it every year. I update it every year. My son is here, they run the company. I don't run the company. You know -- you know -- Guthrie: It also says that you paid $750 in taxes in the year you were elected. Is that true or not? Trump: Yes, because that's a statutory number. It's a statutory -- it's not that -- Guthrie: But is that true? Trump: I think it's a filing number. You pay $750, it's a filing -- or a filing fee. Guthrie: But is that all you paid because most people here probably paid more? Trump: No, I don't know. I can't tell you this, if they have my tax returns, as you know, they have to go to jail. It's illegal. But their numbers were wrong. But let me tell you what else. I don't owe money to any of these sinister people. This has been going on for years now. Russia, Russia, Russia. It turned out to be a hoax and it turned out to be that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats were dealing with Russia, not me. It's a whole hoax. So I would not mind at all saying who it is but it's very small. When you look at vast properties like I have and they're big and they're beautiful and they're well located, when you look at that the amount of money, $400 million is a peanut. It's extremely under levered. And it's levered with normal banks, not a big deal. Guthrie: All right. Let's take a break. We'll get more voter questions right after this. Whoa boy. Amid all of the spin and misdirection that Trump attempted in that series of car-crash answers, Guthrie was able to extract a number of admissions from Trump. Let's go through them -- in the order he said them. 1) Trump does have more than $400 million in loans coming due. Yes, he insists that $400 million is nothing compared the immense value of his various properties around the world. But when asked directly by Guthrie whether he owes $400 million, Trump responds: "What I'm saying is that it's a tiny percentage of my net worth." To which Guthrie interjects "that sounds like yes." Which, well, exactly. As for Trump's ability to pay off the loans, it's worth noting here that he appears to have paid off a total of zero on the principal on a $100 million loan he took out on Trump Tower in 2012. 2) Trump won't say whether he has loans with foreign banks or foreign governments. While this isn't definitive proof that Trump does owe money to a foreign government or a foreign bank (or both) you would think that if he didn't owe money to one of these places, he would say it. Right? What you probably wouldn't think he would say is this: "Not that I know of but I will probably because it's so easy to solve and if you'd like to do -- I will let you know who -- who I owe whatever small amount of money." 3) Trump is under audit (still). Trump has used the under-audit excuse since at least early 2016 to explain why he is not releasing any of his taxes. (As Guthrie rightly notes, there is nothing in the law that says a president under audit can't release his taxes anyway; Richard Nixon did just that.) Trump confirmed to Guthrie that he remains under audit as of Thursday night. Which, well, I guess that's possible? 4) Trump seemingly only paid $750 in taxes in 2016. All but confirming the Times report regarding the meager amount he paid in taxes the year he was elected president, Trump told Guthrie that "you pay $750, it's a filing -- or a filing fee." She followed up by asking whether that was all he paid that year in taxes. "No, I don't know," the President responded. Which very likely means yes, because again, if he paid more than $750 in taxes in 2016, don't you think he would have taken the opportunity to say that? Of course he would! Like I said, there was a lot more in Trump's answers than he probably meant there to be. Which is a credit to Guthrie's questions. And to The New York Times' reporting -- the vast majority of which Trump himself confirmed was right on Thursday night.

Donald Trump just revealed *a lot* more than he meant to about his tax returns

Senate Democratic leaders on Tuesday pointedly refused to say if they supported California Sen. Dianne Feinstein staying in her post as the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, sidestepping questions about the veteran party elder after she praised Republicans' handling of the confirmation proceedings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Feinstein's comments, praising Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham last week after four days of confirmation hearings, infuriated Democrats and liberal activists who had been seeking to mount a unified attack over proceedings they deemed a sham. Two progressive groups, including the abortion-rights lobby NARAL, demanded she be removed as the top Democrat on the committee, while GOP leaders have repeatedly highlighted her comments as they race to get Barrett confirmed eight days before Election Day. On Tuesday, the top two Senate Democrats would not say if they had confidence in Feinstein.  "I've had a long and serious talk with Sen. Feinstein," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters when asked if he was looking to make changes atop the powerful committee. "That's all I'm going to say about it right now." Asked by CNN after his news conference if he had confidence in Feinstein, the New York Democrat would not say, referring to his remarks from his news conference. Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, who typically engages in extended exchanges with reporters, also refused to comment to CNN about Feinstein. "I'm not going to comment," Durbin said when asked if he had confidence in her stewardship on the panel. Appearing later on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper," Durbin tried to avoid weighing on Feinstein but ultimately seemed to take issue with Feinstein's comments praising Graham at the end of the hearings. "I thought her opening statement and questions were good throughout," Durbin said of his longtime colleague. "I sat next to her throughout the hearing. I stayed in the hearing during the four days. I think the Democrats really presented a powerful case. The shot at the end may have been misleading as to what the rest of the committee felt about this." Feinstein, 87, has come under growing scrutiny about her role atop the panel given her more genteel style of politics while serving on perhaps the most partisan committee in all of the Senate. But as the oldest senator in the chamber, she also has faced growing questions in the Capitol about whether she can handle the responsibilities of the job. Removing Feinstein from the post won't be an easy task. The Senate operates on a seniority-based system and Feinstein -- who has had a long career, has served on the panel for roughly a quarter century and is revered by many of her colleagues -- would be the first woman to serve as chair of the Judiciary Committee if Democrats gain control of the chamber in next month's elections. Yet Schumer would be under pressure from the left to not give her the chairmanship of the committee, and he likely will face calls to cut a deal and give her a spot atop another influential panel instead. During last week's confirmation proceedings, Feinstein did criticize the GOP's unusually fast time frame pushing for Barrett's confirmation, and she did challenge Barrett to explain her views on abortion rights, gun control and health care, among other issues.  Yet she also repeatedly praised Barrett and her family, irking fellow Democrats, who said such comments helped soften Barrett's image and portray her as a sympathetic nominee. Democrats were particularly incensed at Feinstein's remarks at the end of the hearings, where she turned to Graham and said: "This is one of the best set of hearings that I've participated in." She shook Graham's hand and later hugged the Republican, who is battling in South Carolina to survive reelection in one of the toughest Senate races of his career. When approached in the Capitol on Tuesday, Feinstein declined to comment on Schumer's remark. Several Judiciary Committee Democrats also would not engage about the controversy. Sen. Mazie Hirono, a Hawaii Democrat who sits on the panel, said Feinstein and the rest of the Democrats at the hearing made clear "the danger" that Barrett poses to the Affordable Care Act, among other issues. "At the end, Dianne was being gracious." Asked if she had confidence in Feinstein staying in the post, Hirono said: "That's all I'm going to say about it." "I understand how angry many Democrats are about the Barrett confirmation, I share that anger, but I frankly think folks are taking it out on her (Feinstein)," Sen. Chris Coons said Wednesday on CNN's "New Day." The Delaware Democrat, who also sits on the panel, argued that the "anger" should be "more appropriately focused at the Republicans who are driving through this extreme nominee, who is unqualified to serve because of her extreme views."  Asked if he wants Feinstein to remain the top Democrat on the committee, Coons replied, "I have a lot of respect for Sen. Feinstein and her long record of leadership. And I think this is an issue that's best worked out by the caucus."  This story has been updated with additional developments Wednesday.

Top Democrats refuse to stand by Feinstein after she praised GOP handling of Barrett hearings

Top Democrats refuse to stand by Dianne Feinstein after she praised GOP handling of Barrett hearings

An early declaration of victory for either candidate would sharply lower the risk of a contested election, which recently ranked as the most commonly cited fear by portfolio managers polled by RBC Capital Markets. But a one-two punch of no contested election and a blue wave that paves the way for powerful fiscal stimulus could set off a relief rally on Wall Street, Mills said. "The market will be happy about not having a Bush-Gore 2.0 situation," said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at National Securities Corporation, alluding to the five-week standoff that followed the 2000 election. "The market really abhors a vacuum." Hogan said although markets are probably going to head higher in 2021 no matter who wins, there is probably more "upside" if Joe Biden wins. "This market has been tiptoeing into position for a Biden victory," he said. Read more here. Tuesday's stimulus deal deadline has come and gone, and Mitch McConnell has thrown cold water on Senate approval of any agreement between the House and the Trump administration. Yet investors are still somewhat hopeful that a deal can get done. Stock futures are a bit higher Wednesday morning. Here's where things stand this morning. Dow futures were up 7 points, or 0.2%
S&P 500 futures were 0.09% higher
Nasdaqfutures rose 0.10% Wall Street managed to hang onto some of its gains and closed higher Tuesday. Netflix (NFLX) stock fell around 5% in premarket trading after a mixed earnings report late Tuesday.  The streaming giant posted slowing growth in new subscriptions and lower-than-expected profits, a sign that the streaming giant's pandemic bump may be petering out. Netflix added 2.2 million net memberships in the three months ended September 30, down from 6.8 million new members during the same period in the prior year.  The additions bring Netflix's total subscribers to nearly 195.2 million, lower than the 196.2 million Wall Street analysts had projected. Read more here. The Trump administration on Tuesday sued Google in what is the largest antitrust case against a tech company in more than two decades. In its complaint, the Justice Department makes sweeping allegations that Google (GOOG) has stifled competition to maintain its powerful position in the marketplace for online search and search advertising. Investors apparently weren't alarmed: Shares closed more than 1% higher Tuesday and are flat in premarket trading. Read more here. Snapchat announced late Tuesday it had 249 million daily active users at the end of the third quarter, an increase of 18% compared to the same time a year earlier. That figure also increased compared to the previous quarter. Revenue jumped 52% to $679 million compared to the previous year, hitting a record high and exceeding Wall Street's expectations. The average number of Snaps — or disappearing photos and videos — created by users each day increased 25% compared to a year ago. Users also spent more time watching the company's slate of shows: That figure grew by more than 50% year-over-year. Shares of parent company Snap (SNAP) surged more than 25% in premarket trading.  Read more here.

Wall Street really wants Congress to pass a stimulus package, but it's growing concerned

Stock market news today: Dow and S&P 500 updates

Carlos Garcia feared this moment would never come.  And Justine Okello is feeling emotional about his chance to do something so many people around the world can't: vote.  More immigrants who've become US citizens like them are eligible to vote in 2020 than ever before. And Georgia -- a battleground state in this election -- is where this group is growing the fastest, according to the Pew Research Center.  CNN spoke this month with naturalized US citizens in Georgia as they prepared to cast ballots in a US presidential election for the first time. They told us why voting matters to them, and what issues they're weighing as they head to the polls. Their responses have been edited for length and clarity. Some of these immigrant voters have candidates they support. Others are still considering the options. All of them are ready for you to hear what they have to say. He feels like he's casting his vote for those who don't have a voice  Carlos Garcia, 40 • Rigger • Country of origin: Mexico Once you actually get there and stand in front of the immigration officer and you raise that hand to pledge allegiance to the United States, it's like -- that's why they call it a dream. Yes, it is a dream, because you can't believe it. This is what you've been working for, so hard, for 21 years, and you're there. You made it, but a lot of your friends didn't. You just let out that big sound from deep inside your gut. You exhale. I've been silent for 21 years, without any official representation. I couldn't really come out of the shadows. And at this point, I'm ready to scream from the top of my lungs. I'm going to vote in person. I want to experience for the very first time that feeling, that emotion that I'm casting my vote. And I'm voting against my oppression. I waited 21 years for this moment. I can wait 21 hours in line to cast my vote. I don't care what happens. Nobody's going to stop me from voting.  Most of the people that I know, they can't vote. And that's why I feel like it's crucial for me to cast my vote. I feel like it's not just my vote, but I'm casting the vote for many of us, possibly hundreds, that they have no voice because they just can't. And I understand the need to get out there and express ourselves and our frustration with the way the system works. I was very scrutinized going through the immigration process. I think our elected officials need to be held to the same standards as they hold us. Going through the immigration process, moral character is one of the most important things. If you lie, it can disqualify you. Or if you get caught in a lie. Or because simply you forgot something. Or if your data is not accurate. That's one of the reasons I'm voting against this President, because he has lied to the American people so much. When I vote, I will be very proud, wearing an American flag mask my neighbor gave me as a present when I became a US citizen. They're hardcore (Donald) Trump supporters. I will be wearing the same mask they gave me to vote against Trump. In Afghanistan she didn't think her vote would matter. Here she sees a chance for change Khadija Barati, 43 • Banker • Country of origin: Afghanistan I was a medic soldier in Afghanistan. It was risky. I joined with the American army. Even my family didn't know. I just told them, "I'm working with the clinic." Because it was dangerous. It was not easy to join, but I did it. I said, "I need to feel somewhere that I'm safe." When I joined the American base, I felt I got power and I got respect as a woman. I could walk inside the base without any fear, because I knew our American advisers were behind us and they supported us. When I left my homeland to come here for a better life and safety, I felt like I belonged to America. Here is my home now. This is my first time voting in my whole life. I didn't vote in Afghanistan, because I felt, this is pointless, it's not going to count; they're going to do what they're going to do. But here I believe when you vote, you are going to make some changes, because I believe in justice. I am still listening to the candidates. I'm not going to make any decision by rushing, because as a new citizen, I don't want to just go by what my neighbors say or what my coworkers say or what the TV says or what other people tell me. I will be careful and listen to them. And I'm not going to only think about myself. I am a refugee. I'm not going to focus only on one thing. Being selfish, it's not smart. We need to think about all citizens of the United States, what is going to benefit everybody. I like certain things on both sides -- what Trump says and what (Joe) Biden says. Trump, right now, he's pushing people in my country -- the government and the Taliban to sit together and talk, which has never happened before. I kind of like it. It's not just thinking about destroying. It's not just thinking, fight, fight, fight. And Biden said if he becomes president, he's going to be more open to letting refugees come here. This is good. I like the way he wants to do that. Today America is a powerful country in the world because of the diversity of its people, because of all the good people who come to America. I really want to be careful with my vote. I'm going to listen to my heart and brain and think this over. What they say is important and, of course, what they do.  He sees voting as an act of healing Justine Okello, 35 • Program manager • Country of origin: Uganda Democracy is something to be cherished. And true democracy is actually where people are taken seriously -- where people's voices do matter.  Being a new voter in this country, it is definitely a very emotional feeling. Being able to cast your vote is something that a lot of people around this world are not able to do. The people I serve are refugees, people fleeing countries because their nation is not leading, their nation is not taking care of them. And their voices are not really mattering. Even if they go out and vote, nothing really matters.  So being in a country where democracy is the pinnacle of serving the people, I really feel proud to be a Ugandan American, a citizen of this country, whose voice does matter. It's my first time voting. I was here for the last presidential election, and that was a very tough situation to witness. I couldn't vote, I wasn't a citizen. Now I can actually go out and participate in that civic duty. It feels really good. And I'm excited for it. I'm feeling a sense of hope, hoping that the country can heal from a lot of the pain that it's been going through. Because when people go out and cast their vote, they're actually unburdening a lot of that pain, and putting it into the vote. And saying, "OK, this is my voice, and this is how I'm going to play my part, to make the change that I want." I see that as a way of healing. She says some in her senior community are scared to vote because of the pandemic  Jeum Ran Son, 84 • Retired housewife • Country of origin: South Korea The first impression I have about the election in the United States is it's very difficult, not just because of the language, but having to register, having to find my own polling location. It just seems like the elections in the United States are very difficult to do. I am getting help and I am getting a Korean interpreter at the polls. I will be going to vote in person. Because this is my first time voting for president, I wanted to have that experience. Personally, I did want to vote for Trump. But I'm still learning more about it. Hopefully I'll be able to decide when I get to the polls. I haven't figured everything out. Thinking about the future, not just for myself but for my kids and future generations, I want them to get more help. There were a lot of benefits that happened to me personally when Trump became president, so that's why I'm leaning towards him. But I just want somebody who can make the lives of everyone better. There's a lot of people suffering, especially with Covid-19 happening. I live in senior apartments. I see the effects on my neighbors, my friends and their children. I continue to hear and see their family members suffering. I also see many church members who are losing jobs. They're having really hard times making ends meet, or even getting basic food and supplies.  And before, there were a lot of gatherings and opportunities to go out. Now that the pandemic hit, the senior centers have closed down. It's difficult and I can feel that. It seems to have an effect on my friends as well. They have less energy. The election is a topic of conversation that comes up a lot. There are people who are enthusiastic, who are getting ready to vote. And there are people who are turned off and not interested in the election process, not interested in the election itself. A lot of them, because they are seniors, because of their health issues, they're hesitant, or not as willing to go and vote in person. I talk to them and tell them, it's not just for us. It's about future generations.  She feels like Latinos are forgotten Paola Jesse, 42 • Paralegal • Country of origin: Guatemala After I received my citizenship certificate, one of the first things I did was register to vote. I see the news and I see what's going on and I work with immigrants, so I know the reality of what's going on in the country and in the world. And I said, I need to try to make a difference somehow besides my work. For me the issues are discrimination, equal opportunities and health insurance. I see this segregation that is going on. It includes White people and African Americans. But sometimes I feel like Latinos are forgotten, like we're in the middle, and it feels like no one cares. Latinos need to speak and say what we think and make our voice count. We work hard and we pay taxes and we need to have the same opportunities that the rest of the people have that were born here. As long as we are working hard, I believe that we deserve them, and that's why it's important for me to vote. It's not that Biden is my ideal candidate, but I cannot give my vote to Trump. He goes against all my values and beliefs. Every day I feel like it's worse, the things he says, the way he talks about people and humiliates them and insults them. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with them, you don't need to insult people. You always have to respect them. I see all these fights on TV between the people that are supposed to be an example for us in government and take care of us. It seems like they don't care about the people that really work and pay their salary. The Democrats don't want to pay for something and then the Republicans say yes, or the other way. They fight. And in my mind, it's like, why? They should care about the people and not about their egos, and who says no first and who's trying to get the other one mad. They only care about their fight and who wins. And in the end the people are p

'I waited 21 years for this moment'

How immigrant voters see the 2020 election

As emergency petitions concerning voting rights challenges have raced through the courts in the final weeks of the election, judges and justices have found themselves trying to explain a legal doctrine that was designed to preserve the integrity of the electoral process.   But for a doctrine aimed at clarity, it has, in the age of coronavirus, raised plenty of confusion on its own, and it could swing the presidential election. At issue: When should courts refrain from changing voting rules too close to an election in order to avoid causing voter confusion?  The so-called "Purcell Principle" arises out of a 2006 Supreme Court case concerning a strict voter-identification law. A federal appeals court blocked the law pending appeal. But the Supreme Court stepped in and allowed the law to take effect.  In doing so, the Supreme Court sent a strong message to federal courts: "Court orders affecting elections, especially conflicting orders, can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls." The justices made a point of noting they weren't ruling on the merits of the dispute, but instead seeking to avoid a last-minute change that would confuse voters too close to an election.  "Given the imminence of the election and the inadequate time to resolve the factual disputes, our action today shall of necessity allow the election to proceed without an injunction suspending the voter identification rules," the court held.  In a nutshell: Don't step in and change the status quo too close to an election because it's a disservice to voters.  But the resounding question of late, as Covid has prompted adjustments to voting rules, has been the exact definition of the status quo and the precise timeline for when a change comes too close to an election. Lawyers from both sides of recent disputes have argued that their proposed rules represent the status quo that shouldn't be changed.  To some, Purcell has become a guiding principle to avoid voter confusion. To others, it is an opaque doctrine in need of further clarification.  For instance, in South Carolina, a district court blocked the state's requirement that a witness sign an absentee ballot, citing the pandemic.  The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals eventually affirmed the ruling, but Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote a scathing dissent. Wilkinson said his colleagues were disregarding that the Supreme Court has "repeatedly cautioned us not to interfere with state election laws in the weeks before an election." Wilkinson said he shared concerns about Covid but that the "pandemic does not give judges a roving commission to rewrite state election codes."  The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with Wilkinson and granted a request to reinstate the requirement. Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained his reasoning, which was based in part on Purcell.  "For many years, this Court has repeatedly emphasized that federal courts ordinarily should not alter state election rules in the period close to an election," Kavanaugh said. Left unsaid was that the Supreme Court, by reinstating the witness requirement, was itself changing the status quo.  A case out of Wisconsin concerning an extension of voting deadlines by six days pits Democrats against Republicans, with lawyers on both sides arguing that Purcell works in their favor.  Democratic lawyer Marc Elias urges the court to allow the extension. Quoting Purcell, Elias argues that "confidence in the integrity of our electoral process is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy."  Elias said confidence in Wisconsin's electoral process will be shattered if "tens of thousands of valid, timely cast absentee ballots are not counted because they arrived two or three days after the election due to mail delays and other factors beyond the voters' control."  But Misha Tseytlin, a lawyer for the Republican National Committee, said Purcell works in his favor. "Federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election," he wrote.  The Supreme Court has yet to rule.   Election law expert and CNN contributor Rick Hasen has coined the term "Purcell Principle" and said it needs tweaking.  In a 2016 law review article, Hasen said the court was right in Purcell to "note special considerations in election cases," because voters could be not only confused but also disenfranchised. They could, for example, show up without the right documentation or at the wrong polling place. But he said those interests should not be the sole consideration of a court.   Hasen said courts should also consider factors such as the likelihood of success of the case on the merits, and the potential irreparable harm to both sides.  Early next week, Amy Coney Barrett is set to take the seat left vacant by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death. Her view on Purcell might represent the deciding vote.  Ginsburg spent an all-nighter back in 2014 writing a dissent when the majority allowed a Texas voter-identification law to go into effect, citing Purcell. Joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, Ginsburg said that in her mind the status quo was not the new law, but the fact that for a decade prior a less restrictive law had been in place. And she rejected the notion that the court, by stepping in, could negatively impact the election.  "The greatest threat to public confidence in elections," she wrote, "is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters." 

The legal doctrine that could sway the election

There are a number of states that could prove to be pivotal in the presidential election. Likewise, there are a number of states that could prove to be pivotal in the fight for Senate control. There are, however, few states that could be informative of the ultimate outcome for both.  That's why North Carolina is arguably the most important state to watch on election night, if you want to know which side is winning and which side is losing. The state has become a key battleground and features a close presidential matchup between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden. North Carolina also has a tight Senate race between Republican Sen. Thom Tillis and Democrat Cal Cunningham.  And Trump continues to focus on the state as he heads there Wednesday for a campaign rally.  Build your own road to 270 electoral votes with CNN's interactive map Presidential races have been tight in North Carolina over the last three cycles. No party has won the state by more than 4 points. Barack Obama won it by less than a point in 2008. Mitt Romney took it by 2 points in 2012. And Trump won it by a little less than 4 points in 2016, making it one of only six states Trump won by less than 5 points in 2016.  But unlike a lot of other important swing states, North Carolina has a history of voters casting a lot of ballots early. The state allows those early votes to be processed before Election Day, so it shouldn't take days to count much of the vote. We're not talking about Pennsylvania or Wisconsin, two states that are expecting a wave of absentee voters because of the coronavirus pandemic and have no real experience counting a lot of early votes.  The state does allow votes postmarked by Election Day to be counted, even if they arrive after polls close. Those votes, however, are likely to make up less than 10% of the total pool of voters.  In other words, unless the race is really close (which it could be), North Carolina should give us a fairly good insight into both the presidential and Senate landscapes on Election Night.  Right now, Biden holds a nominal advantage in the average of polls. Depending on what average you look at, he's up by 2 to 3 points.  A Biden win in North Carolina would probably end Trump's chance of taking the Electoral College. According to statistical models from the folks at FiveThirtyEight and Jack Kersting, Biden's chance of winning the election when carrying the Tar Heel state is north of 95%.  In other words, the state is probably a must win for Trump. The reason is pretty simple: other swing states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are more Democratic leaning than North Carolina. If Trump loses North Carolina, there's only the slimmest of hopes that he's going to win other places that are less hospitable to him.  On the other hand, there are a lot of maps where Biden can conceivably win without North Carolina. He's polling about 5 points better in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin than North Carolina, for example. Winning those states, along with the states Hillay Clinton won four years ago, would get Biden to north of 270 electoral votes.  A Trump win in North Carolina merely means that Biden's unlikely to blow Trump completely out of the water. We'll have to see what other states show before having a clear understanding of the electoral landscape.  The state is even more consequential in the battle for Senate control. Democrats need a net gain of 3 seats, if Biden wins the presidency (allowing Kamala Harris to break the tie as vice president). Democrats look likely to lose in Alabama, so they'll need to pick up four Republican-held seats to get to a net gain of 3.  Visit CNN's Election Center for full coverage of the 2020 race When you line up the different Republican seats in terms of their polling averages, Democrats look like they're in the best shape in Colorado, Arizona and Maine. They have 5-point or greater leads in all of these contests. That leaves them with one seat they need to gain a majority.   At this point, the seat that looks most likely to put Democrats over the top is North Carolina. Cunningham, the Democrat, has an average advantage of about 4 points in the polls over Tillis. Now, Democrats do have other paths to get to a majority without winning North Carolina. They are ahead in Iowa and are quite close in a large number of seats including the Georgia regular and special elections. The prospect just becomes dicier for them without North Carolina.  So just like in the presidential race, North Carolina could give us a keen insight into whether it's going to mostly be an Election Day or an Election Week to know who has taken the Senate. No other state can really say that when it comes to both the presidential and Senate side of the ledger. 

Want to see how the landscape is shaping up on election night? Look to North Carolina

As the coronavirus pandemic continues into its eighth month, a growing number of Americans are exhausting their state unemployment benefits and shifting to extended payments funded by the federal government. But this additional cushion won't last much longer for many people. The 13-week benefits extension provided by Congress runs out at the end of the year. And an extended benefit program that triggers on when state unemployment rates soar is winding down in some states as their economies recover. All this could leave millions of people without a financial lifeline at a time when jobs remain hard to land. The number of long-term unemployed experienced its largest monthly increase on record in September. Some 2.4 million Americans -- or nearly one in five -- were out of work for at least 27 weeks, according to the federal jobs report.  That's up from 1.6 million people -- or roughly one in eight -- in this situation in August. Are you struggling financially because of the coronavirus? Share your story. And the ranks are only expected to grow as more and more people who lost their jobs in the early months of the pandemic find themselves unable to return to their old positions or find new ones. "The longer these workers remain unemployed, the greater is the risk that their work skills will atrophy, and they will become disconnected from the labor force," said Bob Schwartz, senior economist at Oxford Economics. When lawmakers passed a historic expansion to the nation's unemployment benefits program as part of a $2 trillion coronavirus relief package in March, they did not think the economic downturn would last very long. A $600 federal boost to weekly benefits ran out at the end of July, and lawmakers have remained at an impasse in extending the provision. This was not the first time the federal government stepped in to temporarily bolster unemployment benefits. It's done so during recessions since 1958, said Stephen Woodbury, senior economist at the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. During the economic crash just over a decade ago, the jobless were able to receive payments for up to 99 weeks -- the longest duration in the history of the program -- for more than two years. Jobless benefits vary by state For now, most of the jobless can access three levels of benefits that can last as long as 59 weeks, depending on when one applied for the program and what state one lives in.  State payments typically last for 26 weeks, but some states slashed their programs after the Great Recession. Florida and North Carolina, for instance, currently provide only 12 weeks of assistance. About 10 million people were filing for at least two weeks of state benefits in a row, as of early October. Once they exhaust these payments, they shift to the pandemic emergency unemployment compensation program, which Congress passed in late March to provide those out of work with another 13 weeks of benefits. Nearly 2.8 million Americans were covered by it in late September, an increase of more than 818,000 in a week. This enhancement, however, runs out at the end of the year. So those who are joining it now will not receive the full amount. Some people who were unemployed before the outbreak began or live in states with skimpier state benefits have already run through this second stage of assistance. In most states, they can then join the extended benefit program -- a standing program that provides the jobless with up to 20 weeks of payments depending on the state and its level of unemployment.  Typically, states and the federal government split the cost, but Congress agreed to pick up the full tab for the rest of the year as part of a coronavirus relief package passed in mid-March. About 355,000 people claimed extended benefits in late September, up from 220,500 in late August. The federal government's involvement will make it more likely that states will provide extended benefits to their jobless residents, said Wendy Edelberg, director of The Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution. States, which are contending with major budget issues and depleted unemployment trust funds, have some flexibility in determining the criteria for providing these extra weeks of assistance. "The more federal help these states are given, the better," she said.  Until mid-August, the unemployment rate in every state but South Dakota was high enough for the extended benefit program to trigger on at some point in the year. But as parts of the nation recover faster than others, at least seven states have already rolled off, and others are shortening the duration of payments. Earlier this month, Tommy Moran received a letter from North Carolina's Division of Employment Security telling him that he would only receive six weeks of extended benefits, instead of 9.6 weeks, because the state's unemployment rate had fallen. The Tar Heel State saw its jobless rate soar to 12.9% in April and then drop to 7.3% in September. The Greensboro, North Carolina, resident left his security job at a retirement home soon after the pandemic began because he has a heart condition that leaves him at high-risk of death if he contracts Covid-19. Plus, his teenage daughter developed a neurological condition and can't be left unattended while she goes to school remotely. His wife, who was furloughed temporarily, is back to work at a medical office. Moran, who already received 12 weeks of state benefits and 13 weeks of pandemic payments, is set to exhaust his extended benefits on November 7. He will then apply for the pandemic unemployment assistance program, which Congress created in March to provide temporary benefits of up to 39 weeks for certain people affected by the coronavirus, as well as those not traditionally eligible, such as freelancers.  But it too runs out at the end of the year, unless lawmakers act to extend it. Though he could go back to his old job, Moran is afraid of catching the virus. So he will try to find a position that allows him to work from home, though he's concerned he won't be able to.  "I'm going to be forced to go back to work, put my life at risk and leave my daughter home alone," said Moran, 50, who depends on his $350 in weekly unemployment benefits to support his family. "But if I don't go back, it's going to be catastrophic. We can't survive on what my wife makes. We'd be homeless and carless."

Long-term unemployed are exhausting state benefits

Unemployment benefits: Long-term unemployed are exhausting state help

With an unprecedented number of mail-in ballots to count, news organizations will probably exercise extreme caution before declaring a winner on the night of the election. Wall Street, on the other hand, isn't known for its patience.  Investors will be closely scrutinizing the results from pivotal battleground states, especially ones on the East Coast that got a head start counting ballots.  Although TV networks may not have enough confidence in the immediate hours after polls close to announce whether President Donald Trump has been reelected, the writing may already be on the wall in financial markets.  "On election night, I think it is very likely the market declares the winner before the news networks," Ed Mills, policy analyst at Raymond James, told CNN Business. Like seasoned poker players, investors will be searching for "tells" of a Democratic sweep that paves the way for trillions of dollars in federal spending that could boost the economy. That would likely boost stocks. A win for President Trump could also be viewed as a positive for markets because it would remove the specter of higher taxes and regulation — and eliminate the risk of a contested election. Markets will be on high alert for signs of a contested election — a nightmare scenario for Wall Street that would send markets tumbling because of the vast uncertainty it would pose.  North Carolina could offer early clue In particular, Mills said that investors will be zeroing in on North Carolina and its 15 electoral votes.  Trump won North Carolina by nearly four percentage points in 2016, but trails Joe Biden there 48% to 46% in the CNN Poll of Polls average. And North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis is in a dead heat with Democratic challenger Cal Cunningham.  Unlike some states, such as Minnesota, where counting mail-in ballots begins after polls close on Election Day, the Tar Heel State started counting votes Tuesday, the 14-day mark before the election. That extra time means the vote count could be known earlier than in other states.  "If Joe Biden is declared the winner in North Carolina on the night of the election and Cal Cunningham has won the Senate seat, it's going to be pretty clear it's a Democratic sweep," said Mills.  He noted that North Carolina is three states beyond Pennsylvania in FiveThirtyEight's list of "tipping point" states that are most likely to deliver the decisive vote in the Electoral College.  In other words, a clear-cut Biden in North Carolina would suggest a big night for the Democrats.  "The markets will say, 'OK if Biden won North Carolina, then he won enough of the swing states to put him over 270,'" said Mills.   Contested election is No. 1 fear An early declaration of victory for either candidate would sharply lower the risk of a contested election, which recently ranked as the most commonly cited fear by portfolio managers polled by RBC Capital Markets. But a one-two punch of no contested election and a blue wave that paves the way for powerful fiscal stimulus could set off a relief rally on Wall Street, Mills said.  "The market will be happy about not having a Bush-Gore 2.0 situation," said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at National Securities Corporation, alluding to the five-week standoff that followed the 2000 election. "The market really abhors a vacuum." Hogan said although markets are probably going to head higher in 2021 no matter who wins, there is probably more "upside" if Biden wins. "This market has been tiptoeing into position for a Biden victory," he said. Goldman Sachs: Blue wave is likely Chris Krueger, policy analyst at Cowen Washington Research Group, said that the most likely scenario is for a "Biden blue wave," with Democrats taking at least 52 seats in the US Senate.  Goldman Sachs is similarly advising its clients to prepare for a potential blue wave — an outcome the Wall Street bank says would lead to faster economic growth. "Public opinion polls, prediction markets, and statistical models used by news organizations imply that Democrats are likely to win control of the White House, House and Senate on November 3," Goldman Sachs economists wrote in a report to clients Monday. Goldman Sachs expects that spending would increase the most under a Democratic sweep — stimulus that would outweigh the negative effects of proposed tax hikes. The Wall Street bank said that includes a massive fiscal stimulus package of around $2.5 trillion (assuming one doesn't pass before the election).  By contrast, if Democrats win the White House but Republicans retain control of the Senate, the stimulus package would likely be "well under" $1 trillion, Goldman Sachs said. From the market's perspective, the silver lining would be a GOP-controlled Senate would prevent a rollback of Trump's 2017 tax cuts.  Lessons from 2016 Of course, there is no guarantee that if Wall Street "calls" the election on November 3, that prediction will be borne out by the facts. Likewise, the initial market reaction could quickly reverse. "2020 could still throw us a curveball," said Mills of Raymond James.  Recall that in 2016, stock futures tanked on election night during the shock of Trump's victory, an outcome that many market gurus predicted would doom stocks. Dow futures dropped 870 points, hitting limit down, shortly after Trump was declared the winner in Florida.  "The overnight trading session was horrendous for several hours. And then life went on and the market adjusted to what appeared to be pro-growth and pro-business policies," Hogan said.  By the opening bell the day after the election, US stocks were firmly in rally mode. And despite the pandemic, the S&P 500 has climbed more than 60% since Trump's surprise victory. If the polls are wrong and Trump wins decisively, investors would be relieved that the specter of higher taxes and regulations are removed. But it would also likely mean smaller fiscal stimulus and more tariffs. "There would be concern that we're going to continue launching trade wars with questionable economic benefits," Hogan said. Bigger picture, getting past the election uncertainty will allow investors to focus squarely on efforts to fight the pandemic, where rising infections threaten to derail the economic recovery. "What really matters is not who is sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," Hogan said, "but how much progress is made in getting a vaccine."

Wall Street could call the 2020 election before the media does

Before you get your flu shot, there's one very important thing experts recommend you do: Get a good night's sleep.  Here's what you need to know to Get Up to Speed and On with Your Day.  (You can also get "5 Things You Need to Know Today" delivered to your inbox daily. Sign up here.) 1. Coronavirus  The US just saw about 60,000 new Covid-19 cases in a day, triple what the daily average was back in June when restrictions began to ease. It's another sign that the US is nearing what experts say is a "rapid acceleration" of the disease. In other words, yes, the fall surge may get worse. Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a former FDA commissioner, says the US is about two to three weeks behind whatever's happening in Europe. And right now, it's pretty bad. The UK's daily coronavirus death toll tripled from Monday to yesterday, and cities like Paris are dealing with curfews and other new restrictions. The Czech Republic seemed to have vanquished the virus in the summer thanks to intense safety measures, but the government is now bringing back a strict mask mandate as daily case counts are far higher than just after the pandemic began. 2. Election 2020 Elections officials in Florida and Alaska contacted law enforcement after dozens of registered voters reported receiving threatening emails telling them to "Vote for Trump or else!" At least 183 people at the University of Florida got them, and at least one voter from a third state, Arizona, reported getting one. Meanwhile, early votes are coming in by the millions. In Ohio, absentee ballots are being returned at nearly double the rate they were in 2016. As for the candidates, President Trump and Joe Biden are preparing their final activities on the campaign trail. Trump raised eyebrows yesterday when he abruptly ended a solo interview with CBS News' "60 Minutes" and did not return for an appearance he was supposed to tape with Vice President Mike Pence. 3. Economy  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin will resume stimulus talks today, even though last evening's self-imposed deadline has come and gone. Pelosi said the sides are close to resolving a key sticking point over money for coronavirus testing and contact tracing. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, however, is not so bullish and has warned the White House that getting behind a proposal with Dems before the election could badly divide Senate Republicans. Meanwhile, the pandemic is accelerating machine automation of tasks normally done by real people like administrative assistants, bookkeepers and payroll clerks. A new World Economic Forum report finds this shift could displace about 85 million jobs by 2025. 4. Nigeria  Anti-police violence protests in Nigeria have been going on for nearly two weeks, and things are getting ugly. Eyewitnesses say multiple demonstrators were shot by soldiers yesterday in the major port city of Lagos, and barriers at the scene prevented ambulances from reaching people. The state's governor has instituted a 24-hour curfew amid the unrest, and on Monday, the Lagos government said it was closing all area schools and urged students to learn using remote technology. The daily nationwide protests are in response to widespread claims of kidnapping, harassment and extortion by a police unit known as the Special Anti-Robbery Squad, or SARS. The group was disbanded on October 11, but dissatisfaction and fear still abound. 5. Google The Trump administration, along with 11 states, just sued Google, alleging the tech giant has stifled competition to remain atop the online search marketplace. The suit claims Google pays billions of dollars to tech companies like Apple and Samsung to operate as their default browsers, often forbidding any dealings with competitors. Google says its deals with other companies are "no different" than, say, a cereal brand paying for a prime spot in a grocery store. This is the largest antitrust case against a tech company in more than two decades, and it follows a year-long probe by DOJ investigators into Google's position in the tech world. It also comes at a critical time, just two weeks before an election in which tech platforms have been scrutinized for their impact on democracy.  BREAKFAST BROWSE Here's what's new and exciting about the iPhone 12  Not exciting? Its $799 base price tag.  Canadian town of Asbestos chooses a new name That's probably for the ... as-best-os.  Yes, you CAN ask for a raise during a pandemic. Here's how Go for it! You've been working hard, and you deserve it, sweetheart!  Nelly is appearing on a line of limited-edition Budweiser cans You know you're truly an icon when you're on a Budweiser can.  Florida's falling lizards are getting used to cold winter temperatures Oh no, they're ADAPTING! TODAY'S NUMBER 545 That's how many children who were separated from their families by US border officials in 2017 and 2018 still haven't made contact with their parents, lawyers say. A new court filing details efforts by the Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union to reunite families separated under the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy.  TODAY'S QUOTE "A piece of primordial rock that has witnessed our solar system's entire history may now be ready to come home for generations of scientific discovery, and we can't wait to see what comes next." Thomas Zurbuchen, associate administrator for NASA's Science Mission Directorate. NASA's OSIRIS-REx spacecraft just successfully touched down and collected a sample from the surface of the near-Earth asteroid Bennu, completing the next step of a mission that began in 2016. The sample will make it back to Earth in 2023 and could help scientists understand how planets formed and life began. TODAY'S WEATHER Check your local forecast here>>> AND FINALLY Behind the seams  The World Series is on, so there's no better time to get familiar with how a baseball is made. (Click here to view.) 

5 things to know for October 21: Coronavirus, election, economy, Nigeria, Google

Judge Amy Coney Barrett submitted written responses to scores of questions from Senate Judiciary Committee members Tuesday night ahead of her expected confirmation to the Supreme Court next week. Barrett repeatedly declined to discuss voting rights, coronavirus and the 2020 election, presidential pardon power, abortion, the Affordable Care Act and other issues that could appear before the Supreme Court in the coming months. In response to a question from Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, mirroring a contentious moment during the hearings, Barrett again declined to say whether she believes "systemic racism" does or does not exist. "I believe that racism persists in our country but, as I explained at the hearing, whether there is 'systemic racism' is a public policy question of substantial controversy, as evidenced by the disagreement among Senators on this very question during the hearing," Barrett wrote. "As a sitting judge and judicial nominee, it would be inappropriate for me to offer an opinion on the matter." As with her two days of sparring with senators last week. Barrett does not offer specific answers to questions, citing the possibility of ongoing litigation and that some queries raised public policy controversies or "abstract legal issues or hypotheticals." In her responses, Barrett repeated a version of an answer to questions about previous Supreme Court rulings nearly 40 times. "It would not be appropriate for me to opine further on this question; as Justice Kagan explained, it is not appropriate for a judicial nominee to 'grade' or give a 'thumbs-up or thumbs-down' to particular cases," she repeatedly states. The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to advance Barrett's nomination Thursday, and the full Senate vote to confirm her to the bench is expected next Monday.  Privacy and climate change Continuing another key theme from last week, Barrett declined to say whether a 1965 Supreme Court ruling striking down a Connecticut law that made it a crime to provide contraception to married couples was settled law. The ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut that personal decisions between spouses were covered by a constitutional right to privacy became a foundation of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide. "As I said at my hearing, because Griswold lies at the base of substantive due process doctrine, an area that remains the subject of ongoing litigation, I cannot opine on it," Barrett wrote. "But I do not think Griswold is in danger of going anywhere." On the climate crisis, Barrett drew criticism from Democrats when she would not say if she agrees with the scientific consensus that climate change is man-made. Several times in her written responses, Barrett says her views on the issue aren't relevant to her job as a judge. "If a case comes before me involving environmental regulation, I will carefully review the record and apply the relevant law to the facts before me," Barrett states in a response to Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat. Barrett also said at several points that the Supreme Court had recently described "climate change" as "controversial" and a "sensitive political topic." She said it therefore would not be appropriate "to opine further on any subject of political controversy." She cited a 2018 case in which the conservative court majority had overturned a nearly 40-year-old Supreme Court ruling that had allowed unions to gather dues even from nonmembers for collective-bargaining activities. That opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, at one point asserted, "Unions can also speak out in collective bargaining on controversial subjects such as climate change, the Confederacy, sexual orientation and gender identity, evolution, and minority religions."

Barrett ducks questions on presidential power and systemic racism in new answers to Senate

Amy Coney Barrett ducks questions on presidential power and systemic racism in new answers to Senate

October 20 coronavirus news

It may soon be illegal to make discriminatory, racially biased 911 calls in San Francisco. The "CAREN Act" (Caution Against Racially Exploitative Non-Emergencies) was introduced in July at a San Francisco Board of Supervisors meeting by Supervisor Shamann Walton.  The ordinance is one step closer to becoming a law. On Tuesday, the board unanimously passed the act on first read. Next week, the bill has to be voted on again by the board, and then it will be sent to Mayor London Breed to sign. The ordinance's name is a twist on "Karen," the name social media gives people making racially biased 911 calls.  And it's not just "Karen." There are also names like "Becky," which has also come to symbolize a stereotype of whiteness. And "Susan." And "Chad." The "CAREN Act" has been met with support and opposition since it was proposed. Several residents wrote letters to the board urging them to reconsider renaming the ordinance, citing it is sexist and targets people with the name of "Karen." "The name of the act places a target on my name as a racist and I am not," one resident wrote in a letter to the board. "By associating the name 'Caren' or anyone elses name with such a law, really is offensive." "I do not have objection to this act; the issue it is trying to address is wrong," wrote another resident. " I do strongly object to the the name. The insensitive choice of many people to use the name Karen as a general purpose term of disapproval for middle age white women needs to stop."  The ordinance is similar to the statewide AB 1550 bill introduced by California Assemblyman Rob Bonta, making it unlawful and accountable for a caller to "fabricate false racially biased emergency reports.". "Using 911 as a tool for your prejudice towards marginalized communities is unjust and wrong!" Bonta tweeted.  Racially motivated 911 calls aren't a new occurrence across the country, in spite of a recent uptick following the death of George Floyd, an unarmed black man killed in police custody in Minneapolis. Earlier this summer, a White hotel employee in North Carolina called the police on a guest, a Black woman and her children, who were using the hotel's swimming pool. And in May, a White woman called 911 on a Black man who was birdwatching in New York's Central Park.  Bonta said the intent of AB 1550 isn't to discourage Californians in real danger from calling 911. "This bill could protect millions of Californians from becoming targets of hate and prevent the weaponization of our law enforcement against communities of color," he said in an online release.  "Racist false reports put people in danger and waste resources," the ordinance's co-author, Supervisor Matt Haney, tweeted.  Though making a false police report is a misdemeanor or felony offense in many states, including California, accountability is lacking for making racially biased calls to law enforcement. Other cities have already begun the process to pass similar legislation. Los Angeles City Councilman Curren Price introduced a similar motion to the City Council in June exploring "criminal penalties, rights of victims to bring private civil actions and cost recovery by the City," he tweeted. In 2019, the City Commission in Grand Rapids, Michigan, held a public hearing on a "proposed human rights ordinance" criminalizing racially motivated calls to 911 with a fine of up to $500.  In 2018, former New York state Sen. Jesse Hamilton proposed a bill after a woman called 911 on him for campaigning, that would require the local district attorney to investigate these incidents as hate crimes. If the calls were deemed racially motivated, a number of consequences such as fines, sensitivity training or jail time would be issued.

San Francisco's 'CAREN Act,' making racially biased 911 calls illegal, is one step closer to becoming a law

San Francisco Board of Supervisors votes on 'CAREN Act,' making racially biased 911 calls illegal

Former President Barack Obama told young Americans their generation "can be the one that creates a new normal in America" in a video message released Tuesday evening before he hits the campaign trail for Democratic nominee Joe Biden.  "Hey, everybody, one of the most inspiring things about this year has been to see so many young Americans fired up, organizing, marching and fighting for change," Obama said in a video posted to his Twitter account.  "Your generation can be the one that creates a new normal in America. One that's fairer, where the system treats everybody equally and gives everybody opportunity," he continued.  "We can come out of this moment stronger than before." The message aimed at young voters comes the night before Obama is set to hit the campaign trail for Biden in the final stretch of the election, starting with a speech in Philadelphia on Wednesday evening.  Obama intends to focus his efforts on early voting states in the final two weeks of the race, Democratic officials previously told CNN.  The former president will not aggressively barnstorm swing states, but rather intends to visit a handful of critical battlegrounds where voting is underway. The events will be socially distanced -- similar to the tactics adopted by the Biden campaign during the coronavirus pandemic -- but are designed to garner local media coverage in key areas. President Donald Trump's campaign has dispatched far more surrogates ahead of the election -- along with the President's rallies -- and the Obama visits are designed to help Biden draw more attention in places where voting is happening. Obama's return to the campaign trail could energize Democratic voters in the final weeks before the election, as the former president remains among the Democratic Party's most popular figures.  The Biden campaign believes Obama can help in three particular areas, officials say: Black men, Latinos and young voters. Turning to Biden in his video message Tuesday, Obama said he knows his onetime partner "better than almost anybody." "I trust him to be a great president. He's different. He's on the right side of the issues," he said.  "He'll get the job done. And Joe and Kamala will want you to keep pushing them to get the job done."

Obama tells young voters they can create a 'new normal in America' as he gears up to hit the campaign trail

Elections officials in Florida and Alaska contacted law enforcement Tuesday after registered voters reported receiving threatening emails that said, "Vote for Trump or else!" The emails came from an address that appeared to be affiliated with a far-right group, though an analyst who reviewed one email obtained by CNN said it had been sent using foreign internet infrastructure. The identity of the person or group behind the messages was unknown, said TJ Pyche, a spokesperson for the Alachua County Supervisor of Elections in Florida. Pyche said his office "got flooded with phone calls and emails" from dozens of voters about the messages Tuesday and immediately reached out to local, state and federal law enforcement, including the FBI.  University of Florida spokesperson Steve Orlando said 183 people, including students, staff and alumni, received the emails.  The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law received about three dozen reports of voters getting similar email messages Tuesday and at least one of those was from Arizona, said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the organization. "Regardless of who is behind this effort it seems the goal is to discourage people from freely casting their ballots," Clarke said. A spokesperson for the Alaska Division of Elections, Tiffany Montemayor, said the state is aware of Alaskans receiving similar emails and said, "We've forwarded that information to the appropriate federal agencies for their review."  The FBI did not respond to a request for comment.  A spokesperson for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency said in a statement that it is aware of the emails. "While we are looking into the emails, we can tell you this: your vote IS secret," the spokesperson said. "These emails are meant to intimidate and undermine American voters' confidence in our elections. Don't fall for sensational and unverified claims. Visit CISA.gov/rumorcontrol to get more facts about elections and election security. #Protect2020" Roxanne Palmer -- a resident of Alachua County, Florida, who is a Democrat -- said she found one of the emails in her spam folder. The email was sent from "info@officialproudboys.com" and demanded that she vote for Trump "or we will come after you," according to a copy she forwarded to CNN.  "I'm not worried about it," said Palmer, who said she interpreted the message to more likely be a scam or stunt than an actual threat. "I'm sure it's just someone taking advantage of a lot of the fear and tension."   Enrique Tarrio, the chairman of the Proud Boys, said the email "is definitely not" from the Proud Boys.  "We have spoken to the FBI and are working with them. I hope whoever did this is arrested for voter intimidation and for maliciously impersonating our group," Tarrio said.  Tarrio said the website Officialproudboys.com is one of their official websites but it has not been updated for weeks and is down because they have migrated to another website. "We don't send emails. This is someone spoofing our emails and website," Tarrio told CNN. Lt. Becky Butscher of the Alachua County Sheriff's Office said her office is "trying to do the best we can to track down the originator" of the messages but she said a deeper investigation of the emails is happening at "a higher level."  CNN asked John Scott-Railton, a senior researcher at the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab, to review metadata contained in the email sent to Palmer.  He said the email had been sent using internet infrastructure in Saudi Arabia. Vice News earlier reported that it had obtained an email that had been sent using infrastructure in Estonia. "This isn't someone with a fake email account sending messages. This is an operation. The questions will be: how big was it, how many were targeted, and how well were tracks covered," he said.  "It appears that the operators likely leveraged multiple insecure servers that they probably didn't own in different countries, including Saudi Arabia, to send messages." He said it would take a careful investigation to determine who might be behind the emails or whether they are operating inside the US or abroad. "To investigate this properly will likely require cooperation between major platforms, researchers, and US law enforcement," he said, noting that a platform like Google, which runs Gmail, would need to track down other messages that were sent. "We have to be careful with hot takes but recognize this for what it is. A warning sign that the shenanigans have begun and that this case needs investigating. Many other things like this may be inbound," he added.


	Joe Biden		53%
	Donald Trump (Incumbent)		42%

Donald Trump

President of the United States

CNN Poll of Polls As Of 10/20/20