The Interlude

Editors’ note: The Interlude will be updating this blog as information about election results becomes available to our staff. These results are based on projections — official certified election results may not be available for days or even weeks, as states count mail-in and absentee ballots.

Our election team will primarily rely on the Associated Press for accurate updates on poll results. The AP’s team covers 7,000 races around the country and relays vote counts from precincts in all 50 states. This year, the AP is also accounting for a larger influx of mail-in votes than has been seen in previous years. Read more about the AP’s methodology here.

The Interlude will also use a network of other news sources — including the New York Times, NBC News, and CNN — to confirm election results before we share them with you. The 2020 election is unprecedented, but as a reader, you can trust that The Interlude will provide thoroughly-vetted election information to you in a timely manner.

News Outlets Predict Biden Will Win Election, Become President Elect

Posted Nov. 7, 2020 at 11:30 a.m. EST by Cameron Oakes and Izzie Ramirez. Updated again at 12:20 a.m. EST.

With Pennsylvania and Nevada in his favor, the Associated Press and the New York Times have now called Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 election. According to the Associated Press’ count, which includes Arizona, Biden has 290 Electoral College votes. Other outlets such as the Times and NBC have Biden at 279. Certified election results may take additional days and weeks to be completed. The Trump campaign is expected to challenge results with recounts and lawsuits in the coming days.

Biden Wins Michigan

Posted Nov. 4, 2020 at 6:05 p.m. EST by Cameron Oakes

CNN, NBC News, and the Associated Press have called Michigan for Biden, despite swirling threats of lawsuits by the Trump campaign in both Michigan and Pennsylvania. This brings Biden’s Electoral College vote count to 264 to Trump’s 214. Biden only needs six more Electoral College votes to win the election, per the Associated Press’ count.

In Slim Victory, Biden Gets Wisconsin

Posted Nov. 4, 2020 at 2:40 p.m. EST by Cameron Oakes

The AP and CNN have now called Wisconsin for Joe Biden. That leaves Biden with 248 Electoral College Votes to Trump’s 214. (This count includes Electoral College votes from Arizona, which has been called for Biden by the AP and Fox News). The Trump campaign has said that it will request a recount in Wisconsin, and has filed a lawsuit to stop ballot counting in Michigan.

Trump Takes Texas, Biden Wins Arizona and Maine

Posted Nov. 4, 2020 at 8:15 a.m. EST by Izzie Ramirez. Updated at 2:04 p.m. EST.

Overnight, the Associated Press called Texas for President Donald Trump. Biden is projected to win Arizona and Maine. Around 1 p.m., the Associated Press announced that Trump secured one of Maine’s Electoral College votes. That brings the current count to 238-214, favoring Biden. Right now, Fox News is the only other news organization calling a Biden win for Arizona.

Trump Grabs Florida

Posted Nov. 4, 2020 at 1:02 a.m. EST by Cameron Oakes

President Trump is the projected winner of Florida, according to the Associated Press. The race is tightening between Trump and Biden. Biden now has 223 Electoral College votes to Trump’s 174.

Biden Clinches HI and MN While Trump Takes Ohio, Iowa and Montana

Posted Nov. 4, 2020 at 12:25 a.m. EST by Cameron Oakes and Izzie Ramirez

Biden is now predicted to win Hawaii and Minnesota, according to the Associated Press. Trump is projected to take Iowa, Ohio, and Montana. Biden now stands at 223 Electoral College votes compared to Trump’s 145.

Biden Wins CA, NH , WA, OR; Trump Grabs Idaho and Utah

Posted Nov. 3, 2020 at 11:10 p.m. EST by Cameron Oakes

Former Vice President Joe Biden is the projected winner of New Hampshire, California, Washington state, and Oregon, according to the Associated Press. President Trump won Idaho and Utah. Trump now has 118 Electoral College votes to Biden’s 209.

Biden Takes Colorado and DC, Trump Gets Kansas and Missouri

Posted Nov. 3, 2020 at 10:45 p.m. EST by Cameron Oakes

Former Vice President Joe Biden is the projected winner of Colorado and the District of Columbia, according to the Associated Press. President Trump took Kansas and Missouri. Biden now has 131 Electoral College votes, while Trump has 108.

Trump Grabs Seven More States, Biden Takes NY and NM

Posted Nov. 3, 2020 at 9:08 p.m. EST by Cameron Oakes

President Trump is projected to win Arkansas, Indiana, Nebraska, Louisiana, Wyoming, and North and South Dakota, according to the Associated Press. Biden won New York and New Mexico. The race is tightening as Biden holds 119 Electoral College votes to Trump’s 92.

Trump Wins Five Additional States, Biden Cinches Seven

Posted Nov. 3, 2020 at 8:10 p.m. EST by Cameron Oakes

Joe Biden has taken Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, according to the Associated Press. President Trump is now projected to win Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, and Oklahoma. Biden now has 85 Electoral College Votes, while President Trump has 55.

Trump Takes KY and WV while Biden Takes VT and VA

Posted Nov. 3, 2020 at 7:45 p.m. EST by Cameron Oakes

President Donald Trump has won Kentucky and West Virginia while former Vice President Joe Biden Has taken Vermont and Virginia, according to the Associated Press. NBC News also has Biden as the winner of Vermont. Those projections would leave Biden with 16 Electoral College votes, and Trump with 13.

Storefronts and buildings in major cities around the United States boarded up their entrances over the weekend amid fears that unrest and violence could potentially break out on election night. Now, at least one Washington, D.C. area university is telling students to prepare for the same.

Emails obtained by The Interlude, which matched existing student social media posts, show George Washington University told students Friday morning to stock up on nonperishable food items and medication to prepare for “potential disruptions” resulting from the election.

“We suggest preparing for the Election Day period as you would for a hurricane or a snowstorm that would prevent you from going outside for several days to grab food or order takeout,” wrote the GW Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities.

The email goes on to tell students to be vigilant, requesting that students make sure doors are locked behind them and to seek shelter if a “disturbance” unfolds.

One student, whom The Interlude granted anonymity to protect the student from university retaliation, told The Interlude via email that the messaging was anxiety-inducing as students are also grappling with midterms. They said they rushed out to two grocery stores after receiving the email from GW, and said the university’s last-minute email only added to what they described as “chaos” in the city.

“At the end of the day they were just saving their ass if a kid was injured or arrested during this time,” the student told The Interlude. “If the school actually wanted to prepare us for civil unrest they could of [sic] sent it weeks in advance to be more prepared.”

A spokesperson for GW told The Interlude Monday that the email was sent to a “small cohort” of on-campus students, with similar messages going to students, faculty, and staff.

“Our goal is to help our campus community plan ahead for any potential disruption that may happen during the election period,” wrote Assistant Director of Media Relations Crystal Nosal in an email.

GW did designate Election Day as a university holiday, according to two other emails obtained by The Interlude.

Concern over violence in the aftermath of the election isn’t unwarranted. Over the weekend, a Donald Trump-supporting caravan surrounded a Biden/Harris campaign bus on a Texas highway, which Former Vice President Joe Biden called an attempt to run the bus off of the road. The FBI is investigating the incident. In early October, President Trump told the far-right group Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.”

UPDATE: Tuesday, November 3, 2020.

This story has been updated to reflect a comment from George Washington University.

Young voters get a bad rep. Less than half of American voters between the ages of 18 and 29 voted in 2016, and the youth vote is often characterized as being “disillusioned” and “apathetic.”

But fast-forward just a few years, and young voters are breaking records. In 2018, Gen Z, Millennials, and Gen X turned out in higher numbers than older generations. A survey conducted this fall by the Harvard Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics found that 63% of eligible voters between the ages of 18 and 29 would “definitely be voting” this year. In contrast, only 47% of surveyed voters in the same age bloc said they would “definitely be voting” in 2016. Gen Z — those born after 1996 — cares about climate change, racial injustice, and LGBTQ+ issues, and they’re hoping their vote can make a difference for their future.

The Interlude spoke to three Gen Z voters who are either participating in their first presidential election or who are voting for the first time ever. Interviews have been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Cam Rodriguez, 20, Illinois

I’m trying to think of which election I was first eligible for — I think it was in Illinois. I’m from Illinois, so it was a statewide election. It was definitely something that I was excited for. I think [it’s] obviously a little bit of a different situation than now. I was able to vote in person. And so being able to vote in person without all these different contingencies was really fun. I worked as an election judge, and as a poll worker from 2016 until late 2018 because I wasn’t old enough to vote for the last presidential election. And so I have always kind of been involved in the election process. It was really cool to be on the other side of the table and actually get to vote instead of just helping people vote. I definitely felt like it was an obligation; I have the ability to vote and so many people fought for the ability to vote that I felt like it was wrong for me to not vote.

[This year] I definitely was excited about, you know, kind of seeing everything. I was like, “Aw, yeah, I get to vote now.” It’s a presidential race too. But I also, again, just felt fatigued. It’s a really sobering time, I think, and opening up the ballot and just seeing all the different races — not even just for president, but for other races across the state of Illinois — I was just like, “Oh, okay, now I just have to vote.” And then just kind of participating in that process and turning it in. So I was definitely still excited. Deep down in my core, I want to be really optimistic, but definitely more cautious. I have a different understanding of voting now than I did in the past where I was like, “Oh, it’s fun and you get a sticker.” And now I’m like, “No, this is really important. This can have a pretty, pretty drastic impact on the future.”

Marcus Smith, 18, Virginia

While I’m not generally particularly enthusiastic about politicians, really not any politicians in the last several decades, I feel that the current administration has shown a unique and public disdain for civil liberties and for human life. And I think that continued rule by Donald Trump and his administration would prove very harmful for many different groups of people and harmful for liberty as a whole, and that as voters we’re morally obligated to vote for Joe Biden, even if it means we have to kind of plug our nose and close our eyes.

I feel concerned about mail-in voting, about the vote being counted, because we’ve seen an attempt to sabotage the postal service, and there have been things coming out in the news about some mail in votes not being counted properly. And it’s important to me that my vote is counted. However, because I’m concerned about the coronavirus, I didn’t want to vote on Election Day, because I’m concerned it will be too crowded, and I don’t want to spread it to my grandparents.

In this election, specifically, it’s very important that in each state, we see a landslide victory for Joe Biden kind of to show that we reject these authoritarian principles that Trump stands for. As a symbol, it’s very important that people go out there. And that’s my justification for voting, even within a system that I think is very broken.

I certainly think Gen Z is going to turn out to vote in very large numbers. I can only speak anecdotally, but certainly, my circle of peers and the entirety of my social media — which is dominated by people in my age bracket — are very passionate about politics. People are talking about it probably more than any other subject. I don’t know if it will really make the final impact in the election, because a lot of us are still not old enough to vote. But I definitely think there will be a high turnout from our age group.

Pooja Parikh, 20, Georgia

This actually my first time voting at all, because the first election that I could have voted in, I was out of the country, and I actually didn’t really know how to do out-of-country absentee ballots at the time.

[I’m] definitely very excited. I think it’s just something that I didn’t even realize how important it would be to me until kind of over time. I think 2016 was the first election that I was actually following and was old enough to kind of understand, but at the time, I couldn’t vote. And so the fact that I can now, and I really know how tangible that difference is, just is very exciting — and nerve-wracking, for the results as well — but [it’s] exciting that at least I know that I’ve put my say out there.

I think that it was definitely the influence of what happened in 2016, and what’s happened over the years. So my parents are immigrants, and so initially to them, voting in America wasn’t really a big deal in our house. Politics wasn’t something that we talked about. For them, just being in America was enough, and whatever happened, whatever they experienced, they just felt like this is part of being in America, and we’re living better lives because we’re here. So by the time it was 2016, and I was kind of in some of those high school gov classes and actually starting to pay attention to what was going on, I just realized how important paying attention to politics and voting actually is, and then that became something that I have been delving deeper into since.

I think that Gen Z is a lot more intelligent and capable than a lot of kind of older generations like to paint them as. So many young people have figured out ways to use social media to put out actually valid information. And even just seeing the way like Instagram Stories has changed over this quarantine. It started off as the kind of place where it’s like, “Oh, this person went to brunch today.” And it became just kind of a medium where people put out information — and just generally, not even just about the U.S., but just globally, you’ve seen so many young people actually take interest in learning about what’s going on in the world, and what they can do to improve it. So I think just their impact, especially when a lot of them who are probably still too young right now to vote, once they are actually able to put their voices out there too, then I just feel like it’s going to be a huge shift.

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is once again in the news because conservative media pundits are complaining about the expensive clothes she wore for a photoshoot with Vanity Fair. These are, you guessed it, bad-faith arguments made by people who do not understand (or willfully ignore) that designers loan outfits to magazines all the time to promote their brands and that AOC does not own nor did she keep the pricey pantsuits she was photographed in.

The people who point out the cost of AOC’s wardrobe hope to highlight what they consider a hypocrisy of her private spending and public politics. It’s an argument that willfully ignores that the vision she and other democratic socialists have for their country is not one in which everyone is equally poor, but equally prosperous.

On a more frustrating note, these repetitive complaints about how a brown, Bronx-born progressive congressperson spends her money branch off the same twisted tree as racist myths about so-called welfare queens and conspicuous consumption in communities of color. These are arguments critical of individuals rather than the larger economic conditions which leave 1 in 8 Americans below the poverty line. Alongside race, gender plays a role in the continued discussion of AOC’s fashion habits. When billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffet, and the late Steve Jobs wear casual clothes, we say they are humble, redefining what it means to look like a CEO, and that their outfits are indicative of a frugal personality that allowed them to skyrocket to wealth. But women constantly face discrimination in the workplace for appearing “unprofessional” — whether it be white employers telling Black women that their natural hair is unacceptable, unspoken dress codes forced upon broadcast news anchors, or airlines requiring female flight attendants to wear heels and makeup all day.

Hypocrisy in fashion is not designers lending their pricey clothes to Vanity Fair for AOC to briefly model. Hypocrisy in politics is not AOC advocating for tuition-free college and occasionally buying herself a nice coat. Hypocrisy is the multitude of Republican politicians who claim to be anti-abortion but secretly support or actively encourage people in their lives to have abortions. Or the contradiction far more inherent in representatives who engage in same-sex relationships while publicly denouncing them.

Constituents elect representatives knowing that a congressional salary exists, and yet people still feel confident enough to make judgements on how that money is spent. This outrage could be directed towards politicians who accept funding beyond their salaries: from lobbyists, super PACs, and companies that put profit over human rights or environmental protection. It could be directed to wealthy people running for offices they are not qualified for (although I will admit we did simultaneously criticize Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos for her $40 million yacht and her appalling inexperience in the education sector).

But it is much easier to share a picture of a politician appearing to live a life of luxury than to read an article about a politician’s campaign finances. It is much easier to get angry that someone can afford a brand-name pair of shoes than reflect on our own seemingly frivolous spending habits. AOC never claimed she would live like a nun until everyone could go out and buy a Birkin bag. And even if she did show up to work in nothing more than a potato sack or thrifted sweatshirts, she would probably be called performative. Pundits would say she was pretending to be poor.

We should not deify politicians. In the Vanity Fair profile that caused the most recent uproar about her spending habits, AOC herself says, “I don’t want to be a savior, I want to be a mirror.” She has and will make political decisions that anger Americans, by virtue of being an elected official. But her private life should not occupy so much of our political discourse. Wearing expensive clothes does not contradict AOC’s push for initiatives like the Green New Deal or Medicare for All. Even if you dislike every single policy AOC has ever supported, there is nothing to be gained from ignoring them in favor of saying gotcha! about a cover shoot. I will gladly call her a hypocrite if she ever buys stock in ExxonMobil or cuts down a redwood tree, because then she actually would be one.

But beyond AOC, beyond Bernie Sanders’ second home, beyond the never-ending whining that people who want to change society also currently participate in society, this speaks to an America that both celebrates the “treat yo self” scene from Parks and Recreation and derides anyone living a dignified life while in poverty. This America begs people to consume, to buy American products, to fall into the vicious car/college/house debt cycle, but actively defunds public programs meant to assist in these goals.

The late fashion historian and photojournalist Bill Cunningham said, “Fashion is the armor to survive the reality of everyday life.” A lover of street style, Cunningham understood that clothes were not frivolous: they are our first defense, a democratizing force, and our greatest opportunity to tell the world who we are without opening our mouths.

But many Americans still talk big game about equal opportunity and freedom, only to flinch at any outward display of prosperity that does not match some arbitrary socioeconomic status. And they impose this judgement disproportionately on people of color and other women. The America that criticizes AOC’s outfits is the America that loves to tell its most oppressed residents: pull yourself up by the bootstraps, but how dare those boots be name brand!

President Donald Trump and Former Vice President Joe Biden faced off Thursday night on the debate stage in Nashville for the last time before Election Day. After an unbearably chaotic first debate and a canceled second one, the two candidates made a final case to Americans for starkly different futures. While Trump spewed his familiar divisive politics about red versus blue states, Biden’s message was clear: he will be a president for every American, no matter their background or political affiliation.Biden — who leads in national polls by an average of eight percentage points — gave a solid performance that focused on specific policy proposals to tackle health care, the coronavirus pandemic, and climate change. According to an August Pew Research Center study, these are just some of the top issues that voters consistently rank as “very important” to them. Biden managed to touch on most of these issues (with some minor slip-ups), but he also made the case for a more optimistic future. With clarity, confidence, and empathy, he showed what a Biden presidency might look like.

“What is on the ballot here is the character of this country,” he said. “Decency, honor, respect. Treating people with dignity. Making sure that everyone has an even chance. And I am going to make sure you get that. You have not been getting it the last four years.”

Although Trump — who is not famous for his nuance — repeatedly tried to lump Biden in with the more left-leaning side of the Democratic Party and paint him as a radical figure, Biden positioned himself firmly in the center ahead of November’s election.

During one of the most salient exchanges about health care, an issue that 68% of voters consider very important, Trump attempted to tie Biden to “socialized medicine.” He was referring to “Medicare For All,” a platform supported by Senator Bernie Sanders and other progressive Democrats. But, Biden was quick to correct him and noted that he ran against the idea during the primaries. Instead, he touted “Bidencare,” a plan that would protect the Affordable Care Act, create a simple-to-navigate, government-run insurance option that would still leave space for competition between insurance companies. He pressed Trump on his failure to propose a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act which the president has pushed to eliminate. The Supreme Court is set to hear the case for the ACA, or “Obamacare,” one week after election day.

Biden also criticized Trump’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic as the United States’ death toll surpassed 220,000, saying that “anyone who’s responsible for that many deaths should not remain as president of the United States of America.” Although Trump said that he does take responsibility for the crisis, he offered no course correction and instead repeatedly referred to the virus as a “plague” that can be blamed on China. A global pandemic requires global cooperation and many health professionals, citing the successful efforts of other countries, say that the country’s staggering death toll could have been prevented with a swifter, more sweeping plan, akin to the one proposed by Biden during the debate.

“We’re in a circumstance where the president, thus far, still has no plan, no comprehensive plan,” Biden said. “What I would do is make sure we have everyone encouraged to wear a mask all the time. I would make sure we move in the direction of rapid testing, investing in rapid testing. I would make sure that we set up national standards as to how to open up schools and open up businesses so they can be safe, and give them the wherewithal, the financial resources, to be able to do that.”

Their exchange on climate change was another moment of clarity for Biden — whose plan is nowhere near as progressive as Trump suggests. He advocated for a slow and steady transition to renewable energy and repeated his pledge to end federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry. Throughout the exchange, Trump’s face contorted with delight as he suggested that Biden’s statements might bring about political blowback. But, Biden’s plan for a 30-year transition to a carbon-free economy is a $2 trillion proposal far more narrow and less aggressive than the progressive Green New Deal.

Not even Trump’s attempts to paint him as an ineffective career politician could shake the former vice president, who has shown improvements on both the clarity of his policies and the sharpness of his delivery since his win in the Democratic primary. His message, whether you agree with it or not, was strong. And maybe that is exactly what he needs.

NBC announced Wednesday morning, to much dismay, that it would host a town hall with President Donald Trump at the same time as Joe Biden’s town hall at ABC. The announcement came after Trump declined to participate in an online debate despite his positive COVID-19 diagnosis, and was followed by an uproar of concern and condemnation. Journalists around the country, including some who work at the company, criticized NBC for holding a town hall at a competing time, making the event’s main purpose — swaying undecided voters — nearly impossible.

However, the decision to host conflicting town halls may be further proof that presidential debates serve as theatrical boasts of power and knowledge to reinforce partisanship as opposed to persuade the undecided.

Presidential debates weren’t always somewhat meaningless political productions. In 1960, then-Vice President Richard Nixon squared off with Senator John F. Kennedy in the first televised presidential debate. Seventy million people watched the CBS broadcast that night, and while radio listeners gave the win to Nixon, the majority of TV viewers proclaimed the young Senator victorious over his opponent. The fact that Nixon, coming off a hospital stay, was underweight and sullen while the 43-year-old Kennedy was charismatic and affable almost certainly contributed to his victory. Polls showed that more than half of voters were influenced by the debates, with 6% saying they made their voting decision based on the debates alone. Months later, when it came time to cast the ballots, Kennedy secured the presidency, earning 49.7% of votes over Nixon’s 49.5%.

According to Bruce DuMont, a nationally syndicated radio talk show host and president of the Museum of Broadcast Communications, “politics and television changed forever” on the night of the debate. He asserts that, due to televising the political event, it was no longer merely about what a candidate was saying, but also how one looked saying it. “The use of television to transmit an image or idea instantly to millions soon made presidential campaigns more of a spectator sport,” DuMont said. Nearly 50 years later, when Barack Obama dueled John McCain for the Oval Office in 2008, the Pew Research Center found that nearly two-thirds of voters (67%) said the debates were “very” or “somewhat” helpful in their decision-making.

But the year is no longer 1960 or even 2008. A number of larger studies and surveys published since have demonstrated that this is not strictly true anymore. The debates still function as a “spectator sport” but their impact isn’t what one may assume it to be. A 2019 Harvard Business School study that surveyed over 61 elections across nine countries found that debates didn’t shift the election outcomes. In a 2017 study, University of Pennsylvania researchers Mitchell S. McKinney and Benjamin R. Warner analyzed 22 academic studies on U.S. presidential debates held between 2000 and 2012. They found that the majority of voters don’t change their minds about which candidate they support based on their performance in a presidential debate. Instead, the researchers concluded that both Democrats and Republicans tend to view their party candidates more favorably following the debates. This, McKinney and Warner say, “reminds us that campaign debates are not zero-sum for candidates as both or all candidates on the debate stage might benefit from their debate performance.”

This begs the question: Do debates even matter anymore? It seems as though instead of catering to a seemingly undecided voter — one that is increasingly harder to find in 2020 — debates serve almost as extensions of campaign ads, largely providing material to support one’s confirmation bias as opposed to helping voters make a decision. Perhaps that’s part of the reason former Democratic presidential primary candidate Andrew Yang referred to American elections as reality TV during the closing statement of the 2019 Democratic Primary Debate. “With makeup on our faces, and our rehearsed attack lines, playing roles in this reality TV show,” Yang said. “It’s one reason why we elected a reality TV star as our president.”

The 2016 presidential election — one that drew more people to the columns of their newspapers and the news channels of their TVs — as Yang implied, didn’t have an impact on people’s initial assessments of the candidates. It merely increased TV ratings and gifted Trump billions in free advertising. In a University of Pennsylvania study from 2017, researchers Kenneth Winneg and Kathleen Hall Jamieson looked at debate watchers’ surveys to see whether the people who watched the record-breaking 2016 presidential debates between Trump and Hillary Clinton changed their minds about the candidates. Authors found that while the debates increased viewers’ voter knowledge, they had no effect “on assessment of either candidate qualifications or perceptions of whether candidates would threaten the nation’s well-being, if elected.” (Before the third debate, 50.3% of viewers saw Clinton and 63.4% saw Trump as the threat to national wellbeing. After, numbers changed to 50.2% and 63.2% respectively.)

So, if debates don’t have much sway anymore, why do journalists consistently partake in them, giving away free exposure to candidates? Professors Diana B. Carlin and Mitchell S. McKinney argued in their CNN op-ed that, for one, the debates are “the metaphorical equivalent of a presidential job interview.” They disagree with those calling to abolish this practice, as “it is unlikely that anyone would make a hiring decision without interviewing them, based only on some combination of the candidate’s resume, testimonials from family members, social media comments and scurrilous accusations from anonymous critics.” Second, with the 2020 election potentially being as close as it was in 2000 or 2016, every vote counts and even the smallest fraction of potential voters — primarily undecided voters — are important to reach out to.

This is where a town hall debacle comes in. While people have a hard time making decisions in a snappy, back-and-forth debate, a town hall is a unique format that allows bipartisan voters to compare the candidates in a way prepared debates do not. It at least tries to serve the original purpose of the debates by letting the undecided voters formulate questions and interact with the candidates themselves. Instead of listening to edited down talking points, rehearsed and rehashed over and over behind the cameras, voters can see how the candidates respond to questions they may have not necessarily planned for. NBC’s almost undemocratic decision to schedule a competing town hall goes against that purpose. Viewers now have to decide which candidate they’d rather listen to Thursday night.

And news organizations facilitated this highly-successful, polarizing reality television. Trump’s refusal to do a virtual debate had no credible justification to it. Instead, his obsession with ratings, blazing even amidst a pandemic that has killed over 215,000 U.S. residents, is making the news networks into puppets for his lead performance. And NBC is consenting to it. NBC is actively removing even the pretense of debate functionality by scheduling town halls at the same time, pre-enabling a Twitter storm of condescension to come once Trump’s town hall ratings overtake Biden’s. Because that’s what it’s ultimately all about for the president, as The Daily Beast’s Maxwell Tani, Asawin Suebsaeng, and Lloyd Grove write: Higher ratings. “He looks at this the same way he looks at attendance at his rallies versus the [turnout] Biden gets for his events,” one of the sources told The Daily Beast. “He obviously wants to blow Biden out of the water.” And although once there to fact-check and hold accountable, moderators today don’t even call out blatant lies during the debates or town halls anymore — that’s left to the general public to figure out for themselves.

Thus, if journalists and news organizations aren’t providing context during the supposedly most efficient transfer of information, what is the purpose of doing town halls or debates? Instead of letting incorrect facts fly, why don’t journalists fact-check them in real time and not just online or after the fact? Instead of allowing unending interruptions and unrelenting insults, why don’t they have full permission to cut a perpetrator’s microphone? Why bother when a candidate is, subtly or unsubtly, evading a straightforward question? NBC’s complicity in Trump’s refusal to partake in anything he doesn’t have full control over makes it seem more like a PR agency trying to advertise its capricious star client, than a bipartisan news organization serving voters correct information.

This scheduling is perhaps the most obvious proof that debates don’t function as intended. And journalists — knowing full-well how inefficient they are in changing the voters’ minds — are just there to ensure a relative euphony and simply cover an event, as opposed to actually moderating it. Instead of being a source of intelligence, NBC is a host, a provider, a venue, for an 1.5 hour-long one-man show of probable lies, deception, hypocrisy and, perhaps most predictably, incoherence.

Want to hear some organic tea with your Amazon Prime order? Look no further than the Amazon-owned Whole Foods.

Since 2018, Amazon workers across the globe have called for boycotts of Prime Day, the company’s yearly “savings extravaganza” for Amazon Prime members. This year, the usual complaints about working conditions were magnified by the reports that Jeff Bezos — Amazon’s founder, CEO, and president — enjoyed a $73.2 billion increase in overall wealth during the first six months of the global COVID-19 pandemic. But the news of this enormous spike in profits renewed protesters’ calls for a $2 per hour pay raise and more sufficient provision of personal protective equipment for the company’s essential workers.

However, Jeff Bezos isn’t the only CEO to boycott this Prime Day. Enter: Whole Foods founder John Mackey and his complete denial of the country’s growing food inaccessibility problem as well his company’s negligence of worker safety during the beginning of the pandemic.

In a recent Q&A with the New York Times, Mackey made several questionable claims about his company. His statements about food accessibility, market demand, and the nation’s health issues went without being challenged by writer David Gelles. The article was part of Gelles’ Sunday Business column, “Corner Office,” a series of interviews with entrepreneurs and leaders in business. But instead of facilitating a discussion on current issues and potential solutions in our corporate food systems, the Times’ lazy journalism only gave Mackey a platform to promote his company without being held accountable to any of his tone-deaf statements.

First, Mackey praised Whole Foods for keeping its workers safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Morale has been “through the roof,” he said, following a company-wide pay raise. In reality, Whole Foods employees were among the plethora of essential workers who protested unsafe conditions and a lack of sufficient protective measures. In March, workers at Whole Foods called for a strike to demand paid sick leave for employees in quarantine, health care coverage for part-time and seasonal workers, coverage of coronavirus testing and treatment, hazard pay, and adequate sanitation measures at all store locations.

Mackey then elaborated his belief that “the whole world is getting fat,” saying that people with health issues like diabetes, heart disease, and obesity simply don’t make good choices about the food they eat (which is untrue). “I don’t think there’s an access problem,” Mackey said when asked about those who don’t have access to affordable, healthy food. “I think there’s a market demand problem. People have got to become wiser about their food choices. And if people want different foods, the market will provide it.”

Maybe Mackey isn’t aware of the countless citizens being forced to take the matter of severe food insecurity into their own hands by starting community fridges in cities like New York, Las Vegas, Boston, and Philadelphia. Maybe he doesn’t know about the local farmers transforming cities like Detroit, Cleveland, and Washington D.C. into fertile land that can provide for its own people when the government and corporations like Whole Foods refuse to do so. Contrary to Mackey’s claim that there is not enough demand for healthy food among the people who need it most, there is an overwhelming demand that is being trampled by rising food costs.

The Whole Foods CEO goes on to say that when the company has opened locations in “poor areas” and “inner cities,” people still make “poor choices” about the food they consume. In a quick scan of the prices listed online for Whole Foods’ Harlem location on 125th Street, it is easy to see why those “poor choice” foods are more popular. A package of frozen mac and cheese costs about $4. A grilled chicken Caesar salad from the prepared foods aisle costs about $9. Chicken thighs are $2.99 per pound, while a two pound value pack of salmon fillets is about $20. For many Central Harlem residents, where about one quarter of the neighborhood lives below the poverty line, these price differences put the healthiest options out of reach.

Mackey wraps up the interview by stating that redistributing profits is a “win-lose, zero-sum game.” But what if Whole Foods used some of its profits to invest in the communities demonstrating a dire need for access to affordable, healthy food, building a new demographic of customers with valuable buying power? Wouldn’t that be a prime example of the “conscious capitalism” concept that Mackey fervently espouses? These are the questions about true innovation that David Gelles neglected to ask and the questions Whole Foods, and therefore Amazon, continues to ignore.

In a calculated jab that attempted to paint his opponent as a radical leftist during Wednesday’s debate, Vice President Mike Pence alleged that a Biden administration would ban fracking. But his opponent, Senator Kamala Harris, categorically rejected his claim.

“I will repeat,” Harris said. “The American people know that Joe Biden will not ban fracking. That is a fact.”

While Harris’ running mate, Joe Biden, has a climate action plan that is slightly more progressive than that of President Donald Trump, the fossil fuel extraction process of fracking can hardly be labeled as clean energy. Yet, unlike former presidential candidates, Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — who are both proponents of the Green New Deal and have pushed for a complete ban on fracking — the Biden campaign has refused to outright denounce the practice. Harris was castigated post-debate by climate scientists and activists alike, who argue that fracking is incredibly damaging to the environment. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also took to Twitter to say: “Fracking is bad, actually.”

Fracking — or hydraulic fracturing — is a drilling method that blasts a pressurized mixture of water, sand, and chemicals through tight rock formations and releases oil and gas trapped within. The process blasts through anything from shale and sandstone, to limestone and carbonite to unlock these precious fossil fuels. While supporters of the practice argue that natural gas is a better alternative than some dirtier fossil fuels like coal and can act as a “bridge” to more sustainable practices, experts are skeptical. Natural gas is still a fossil fuel capable of warming the planet and a concept of a bridge is much more complicated than it suggests. One study from MIT even suggests that reliance on gas can lead to more greenhouse gas emissions in the future. Fracking also poses a risk to human health, air, and water pollution.

The practice of fracking is nothing new — it dates back to 1862. Civil War veteran Col. Edward A.L. Roberts is credited with its discovery after he applied techniques similar to those of artillery hitting narrow, water-filled channels he saw at war to a design of an “exploding torpedo” that could be lowered into an oil well, detonated, and allow for even more oil to gush out. Since then, fracking has been transformed, modernized, and perfected. And in recent years, companies have found an affordable way to combine methods of fracking and horizontal drilling to extract even more oil and gas from vast shale rock formations, but at the cost of fragile ecosystems, public health, and Indigenous communities.

The “fracking boom” has completely reshaped the U.S. energy landscape and has been largely responsible for the influx of cheap oil and gas since the late 2000s. Domestic production has risen sharply and the price of natural gas has dropped significantly. The growing sector also created more jobs. According to Vox, the oil and gas industry grew 10 times faster than other industries between 2010 and 2012, adding 169,000 jobs.

But despite the Energy Information Administration’s optimistic projections, oil and natural gas resources won’t last long. The EIA anticipates tight oil production will be 38% higher and shale gas production will be 81% higher in 2050 than in 2018. But data has shown that technological improvements have only led to a faster depletion of oil and gas reserves, not a growth in the total amount of oil and gas that can be produced, according to Shalebubble.org, a project of the Post Carbon Institute.

The widespread use of fracking across the U.S. has caused much public ire, as it can have serious negative effects on environmental and human health. One concern is groundwater contamination. In a 2015 study, the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that the chemicals used to blast through rock formations during fracking have at points contaminated drinking waters in Wyoming. Another concern is just the sheer amount of water that is needed for fracking, especially in places such as Texas and California, where clean, drinkable water is scarce.

The reported effects of fracking on air pollution are also bleak. Once an area of shale has been bulldozed, gas starts flowing up to the well — and potentially out of the pipes and into the atmosphere. Methane — the primary component of natural gas — is a greenhouse gas that contributes to the planet’s warming.

Health conditions like respiratory diseases and multiple types of cancer have been increasingly linked to fracking. Ashley McCray of the Indigenous Environmental Network tweeted during Wednesday’s debate: “Fracking has destroyed my home state of #Oklahoma. Entire communities of all kinds torn apart at the seams bc of frackquakes, eminent domain, new cancers + respiratory diseases, & environmental destruction. #BanFracking NOW & keep fossil fuels in the ground!”

McCray’s words are especially poignant as oil and gas companies with interests in the untapped resources of Indigenous lands have been gaining ground for decades. One of the most infamous examples of this kind of exploitation is the Dakota Access Pipeline — an underground oil pipeline that carries the black gold from shale fields in North Dakota to an oil terminal in Illinois.

Environmental activists and Indigenous tribes in the region have been fighting fervently against Dakota Access, LLC — the company that constructed the $3.8 billion, 1,172-mile pipeline which runs through portions of their land.

Despite the mounting evidence that fracking is terrible for the environment, people’s health, and Indigenous communities, Biden has refused to commit to banning it if elected president in November. The decision sticks out like a sore thumb in a climate plan that has otherwise adopted many of the tenets of the Green New Deal, like the goal to reach 100% clean energy economy and net-zero emissions no later than 2050. It is no surprise that the former vice president hammered on this point while campaigning in his native Pennsylvania, where the “fracking boom” helped the state out of the Great Recession. And during a highly tense election year when every vote carries the burden of potentially deciding whether Trump gets another four years in office, Biden’s decision is transparent.

Biden’s climate plan is only an acknowledgment of the Green New Deal, not a full embrace. And while both Trump and Pence try to portray it as a radical leftist overhaul, it has a long way to go to catch up with the most progressive climate change action plans out there.

Last week, the first presidential debate turned Cleveland, Ohio into a contaminated superfund site. Former Vice President Joe Biden and incumbent President Donald Trump sparred over everything from healthcare to Trump’s Supreme Court pick, often drowning each other out and quickly enveloping the debate hall with a cacophony of insults and interruptions.

During Wednesday’s Vice Presidential debate, however, Vice President Mike Pence and Senator Kamala Harris could be heard clearly. The moderator — USA Today’s Susan Page — never had to yell. And no one hurled juvenile snubs. But Pence’s niceties, postulations, and over-the-top formality couldn’t distract from the utter disaster that has swept the nation under the Trump administration.

Early on, Pence said he was “privileged” to be sharing a stage with Harris. A few questions later, he expressed his gratitude for her and Biden’s genuine concern about the president’s condition and the general health of the White House staff. Last week, Trump, multiple state officials, and White House staff members tested positive for the coronavirus. Pence also congratulated Harris on her historic nomination as the first female Black and South Asian vice presidential candidate, a stark contrast from Trump’s relentless insults against Biden.

Pence kept up his “Midwestern nice” during his interactions with the moderator, but dodged accountability for the Trump administration’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the head of the coronavirus taskforce, Pence is largely responsible for the country’s slow response, inadequate funding, and general confusion. And as the vice president, Pence had a unique opportunity to urge President Trump to take COVID-19 seriously. He didn’t. The virus has now taken the lives of more than 210,000 Americans.

Pence is aware of the pandemic’s devastation, yet he doesn’t care. The Trump administration is still in denial about the seriousness of the emergency. The president’s continuous assault on masks, rejection of experts’ guidance, and inability to distribute enough PPE — all the while urging schools and businesses to remain open — have all contributed to how the coronavirus pandemic has unfolded in the U.S. and have left thousands hospitalized.

The vice president avoided Harris’ repeated jabs at Trump’s attempt to downplay the pandemic, fully learning of the virus’ threat back in January, as journalist Bob Woodward recently revealed. Instead, Pence claimed that the White House’s actions saved lives.

“We were able to reinvent testing. More than 115 million tests have been done to date,” he said during Wednesday’s debate. “We were able to see to the delivery of billions of supplies so our doctors and nurses had the resources and support they needed.”

In the past few weeks, Trump has clamored to have a vaccine ready by Election Day. Although Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said that a vaccine could be ready by the end of the year, it is still unclear whether that will become a reality. Even if a vaccine is produced and approved, distribution could take months.

But, America can’t function when its economy and manpower have been hobbled by a preventable tragedy.

Pence’s rhetoric marked a thinly-veiled attempt to lull Americans into overlooking the administration’s failures. It won’t work. No matter how hard the vice president tried, he couldn’t outrun the shadow of the last seven months of Trump’s term.

“And here’s the thing, on January 28, the vice president and the president were informed about the nature of this pandemic,” Harris said. “They were informed that it’s lethal in consequence, that it is airborne, that it will affect young people, and that it would be contracted because it is airborne. And they knew what was happening, and they didn’t tell you.”

His words could still have a deadly impact. Sixteen states have failed to instate a mask mandate. Numerous anti-mask protests have popped up across the country. And concerns over the safety of COVID-19 vaccines have prompted many to say they’d refuse to take it. The continual downplay of the virus’ severity, especially as a second wave approaches, could lead to 200,000 more deaths by year’s end.

The “thoughts and prayers” offered by the vice president on debate night did just as little for the families of the more than 210,000 dead as did his botched response to this crisis. Absolutely nothing. And no amount of calmly uttered niceties can mask that.

Before the explosions started, and before the pandemic hit my community, my uncle would always teasingly say he was ready for whatever apocalypse was soon to come in Bolivia. The last time I was able to visit my extended family was in 2018, when my uncle proceeded to show me his panic room filled with canned goods, protective gear, and a few guns. “You never know what’s going to happen,” he said. “But I want to be ready for anything.”

I used to think that he was crazy. That his required time in the military had made him paranoid.

But, oh, how wrong I was.

Before my visit in 2018, I hadn’t been to Bolivia since I was a child. Going to see family was always difficult due to time and money. I was too young to understand that civil unrest, national protests, and military abuse are a huge part of the country’s past, present, and future.

Fast forward to October 2019, when I FaceTimed my uncle soon after then-President Evo Morales was deemed the winner of the presidential election. Helicopters were roaring in the background so loudly that I could barely hear him. People were screaming both in terror and in anti-government chants. My uncle moved his camera to show me a peek outside his window, where crowds were facing off against military forces and forming barricades. “It’s happening,” he told me. “It’s really happening.”

Opposition parties, such as The Democrat Social Movement (DSM), were claiming that Morales and his party, the Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS), had rigged the election in his favor. Bolivia, Bolivian Elections, Luis Arce, Movement for SocialismMembers of the MAS party collided with opposition protests, with different groups creating barricades in large cities such as Cochabamba, where my family is from. Shots and screams were heard throughout many nights, and food and medicine quickly became scarce. Members of my family contacted friends in neighboring cities to see what was left, only to quickly realize that there were nationwide shortages. For the first time in many years, my uncle had to begin feeding his children food from his panic room.

After nearly a month of civil unrest, Morales was ousted by military and police forces, with the support of opposition parties and right-wing U.S. politicians, in a coup. Almost immediately after, then-leader of the DSM party Jeanine Áñez claimed herself interim president, taking over the government with a cabinet and presidency that were not elected by the Bolivian people. Several family members sent me clips of Morales’ shaky resignation on national television. My classmates — who, of course, were not from Latin America — suddenly became experts on the region, spewing facts about my mother’s home country as if my own family had not been living through an unimaginable hell for the past three weeks. For the first time that I could remember, Bolivia was making headlines in newspapers such as The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times. Suddenly everyone in the United States had an opinion on a country that many of them likely couldn’t even find on a map.

Politics in Latin American countries is very different from what the West makes them out to be. More often than not, Westerners attempt to compare Latin American leftist and right-wing parties to those of the United States, failing to mention that political parties such as those in Bolivia are far more complex than that. Leftists in the United States have been writing think pieces for the last year praising Morales’ legacy, while failing to mention the very real issues with his abuses of power, as well as the times he has sent military forces against anti-government protests, and his part in the burning of the Amazon last year. Right-wing politicians continue to praise Morales’ removal while failing to recognize the U.S.’s deadly history of interfering with Latin American politics, and the racist, anti-Indigenous sentiments held by many members of opposition parties.

I am not an expert on Bolivian politics, nor am I claiming to be one. But at the heart of any political turmoil is the people affected by it. And for the past year, my people have been at the hands of a corrupt, heartless, and cruel government that they did not elect. A leaderless government is an illegitimate one. And that’s exactly what the Bolivian government has been for the past year: illegitimate and tyrannical. Áñez promised to incorporate her Catholic beliefs into Bolivian law during her swearing-in ceremony, marking the beginning of several cruel changes. Dozens of MAS supporters were killed during anti-government protests, and Áñez soon after signed a new proclamation into law granting immunity to all the military forces involved in the civilian deaths.

Her leadership during the pandemic has also led to even more food shortages, deaths, and instability. Despite implementing a strict quarantine at the beginning of March, Bolivia saw a spike in coronavirus deaths during its winter (or summer in the U.S.). Loved ones have been left on the streets after dying of COVID-19. Due to Bolivia’s unreliable health system, families have been encouraged to treat COVID-19 at home, with several people having to line up for oxygen tanks for days on end. Grocery stores have been devoid of food for nearly a year now. My family has had to learn how to ration food and are unable to see each other. My aunt had to give birth to her second child alone. While many of these heartbreaking occurrences are due to the cruelty of the virus, Áñez’s inability to govern and her anti-MAS agenda have also largely played a part in the more than 8,400 COVID-19 deaths Bolivia has seen.

Now, almost exactly a year later, a new leader is on his way to being elected by the Bolivian people. Luis Arce, a member of the MAS party and a former finance minister, has received more than 50% of the vote. Arce has already promised to send COVID-19 relief funds to families in need during his first weeks in office. For the first time since the previous election, there seems to be a glimmer of hope for the future. I don’t know what to expect of this year’s presidential elections; at this point, nothing really surprises me anymore. But I know what I desire: a better country for my sweet nieces and nephews, my ever-paranoid but loving uncle, and my beautiful but ever-changing Bolivia.

There is a cliff on top of a mountain near where my uncle lives. Cochabamba is located in a large valley, surrounded by nature and beauty on all sides. You can look out and see the entire city of Cochabamba: families bustling in the city, farmers working in the countryside, cars zooming past each other, and a gigantic Jesus statue in the middle of it all. You can see just about an entire world, and it is one of the most breathtaking sites I have ever seen. I hope to see Cochabamba soon standing as bright as the last time I saw it. I hope to see a better life for those I hold close to my heart. Democracy, at least for now, feels closer to the horizon.

 

Stephen Miller tests positive for Covid-19

October 6, 2020 7:30 p.m. EST

Stephen Miller, senior advisor to the president, has tested positive for the coronavirus, according to the New York Times.

Miller is now among a growing list of top White House officials who have contracted the coronavirus. At least 18 people close to President Donald Trump have tested positive for the virus.

Yesterday, the president returned to the White House from Walter Reed Medical Center, where he was being treated for Covid-19 symptoms. Today, President Trump falsely claimed that the common flu kills 100,000 people each year, and that Americans should not fear the coronavirus or the flu. The coronavirus has killed at least 200,000 Americans to date, and the flu kills between 25,000 to 69,000 people each year, according to the Scientific American.

President Trump to leave Walter Reed tonight

October 5, 2020 2:55 p.m. EST

President Donald Trump announced via Twitter that he will be leaving the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center at 6:30 p.m. today, saying that he is “feeling really good.”

“Don’t be afraid of Covid,” Trump wrote. “Don’t let it dominate your life. We have developed, under the Trump Administration, some really great drugs & knowledge. I feel better than I did 20 years ago!”

The announcement comes less than 24 hours after medical professionals criticized the president for driving past supporters outside Walter Reed while still receiving treatment for his coronavirus diagnosis. The White House and Trump’s medical team have evaded questions over the exact status of the president’s health and whether he has required more serious treatment, such as whether Trump needed supplemental oxygen or has tested negative for the coronavirus, Business Insider reported.

By Natasha Roy

Here’s what we know about Trump’s condition after the weekend

Weekend recap (Oct. 4)

Confusion over President Trump’s condition stewed over the weekend, as the White House and Trump’s medical team provided half truths, gave mixed signals, and walked back outright lies regarding the president’s status since the decision was made to move him to Walter Reed Medical Center on Friday.

Saturday’s press conference, which projected a rosy picture of the president’s condition, was followed by statements from a White House official, later identified Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, that brought the veracity of the narrative presented by Dr. Sean Conley into question.

Sunday proved to be even more bewildering. Conley more-or-less admitted to the press that he misled the American public, stating that he “didn’t want to give any information that might steer the course of illness in another direction.”

Conley insisted that the president’s condition was improving, despite announcing that the doctors put him on an additional medication, dexamethasone, which is recommended only for patients with more severe cases of COVID-19. Trump was also given a monoclonal antibody infusion and remdesivir, a medical decision which one doctor described as “throwing the kitchen sink.”

It is unclear whether those decisions were influenced by Trump’s condition, or by nature of the fact that he is the president.

Conley also said that decisions would be made as to whether the president would be discharged to the White House, a move that other physicians have said is a mistake. Later in the afternoon on Sunday, Trump did a drive by in the presidential motorcade to thank the supporters who were camped outside Walter Reed offering their support. The stunt received widespread condemnation; one doctor called it “amazingly irresponsible,” and said the Walter Reed medical staff should have refused to allow the president to leave to do it.

Additional questions have been posed about how the White House has handled contact tracing, as concern grows over the health and safety of staffers and support staff that may have been exposed between Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment celebration and the announcement that Trump tested positive. The president’s press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, has now tested positive for COVID-19. She declined to provide reporters with a count of infected White House staff on Sunday afternoon. According to Bloomberg News reporter Jennifer Jacobs, Chad Gilmartin and Karoline Leavitt, who are both White House communications aides, also have coronavirus.

By Cameron Oakes

Source: Next 48 hours will be ‘critical’ for Trump

October 3, 2020 1:30 p.m. EST

A source with knowledge of President Donald Trump’s condition told press pool reporters Saturday that the president’s vitals were “very concerning,” and that the next 48 hours will be “critical” for determining his care, CNN and The New York Times reported.

The news broke shortly after the president’s doctor, Sean Conley, told reporters Trump has been fever-free for 24 hours and is not on supplemental oxygen. However, sources with knowledge of Trump’s condition told ABC News that he received supplemental oxygen on Friday at the White House, as he was having trouble breathing and his oxygen levels dropped.

Conley also told reporters the president is “72 hours into the diagnosis,” though Trump only announced his infection 36 hours ago, suggesting he attended a fundraiser in New Jersey on Thursday knowing he had contracted the coronavirus, according to NBC News.

Hours after the press conference, Trump tweeted his praise of Walter Reed medical staff and said that “tremendous progress has been made over the last 6 months in fighting this PLAGUE,” adding that he is “feeling well.”

Multiple lawmakers have now tested positive for COVID-19 after coming into contact with the president or attending one of his events, including Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), Trump Campaign Manager Bill Stepien, and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI).

By Cameron Oakes and Natasha Roy

Kellyanne Conway tests positive for the coronavirus

October 2, 2020 11 p.m. EST

Kellyanne Conway, former counselor to President Donald Trump, wrote on Twitter Friday night that she tested positive for the coronavirus. Conway said that she had a light cough and has begun quarantining.

“As always, my heart is with everyone affected by this global pandemic,” Conway said.

Conway’s 15-year-old daughter, Claudia Conway, first broke the news that her mother had contracted the coronavirus on TikTok, posting a video of herself wearing a mask with the text, “update my mom has covid.”

Conway adds to the growing list of government officials who were at the Rose Garden last Saturday when the president nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court. Senators Thom Thillis, of North Carolina, and Mike Lee, of Utah, were also in attendance and announced that they contracted the coronavirus, according to NBC News.

By Natasha Roy

President Trump thanks public for well wishes as new COVID-19 cases pop up from Tuesday’s debate

October 2, 2020 8:10 p.m. EST

Cleveland officials announced Friday that 11 positive coronavirus cases can be traced to Tuesday’s presidential debate, according to NBC News.

City officials said in a statement that the 11 cases stemmed from pre-debate planning and setup. Officials also said the Cleveland Department of Public Health will continue contact, which includes reaching out to those who have tested positive to confirm they are Cleveland residents, asking who they live and work with, and asking whether they participated in any mass gatherings.

At this time, no Cleveland residents appear to have contracted COVID-19 from Tuesday’s event, according to the statement. The city reiterated that everyone who had credentials to be on the premises of the debate was tested upon arrival, and only those who tested negative for the virus were allowed inside. Though the CDPH was in contact with anyone in charge of enforcing safety measures at the debate, CDPH was not present on-site.

Early Friday morning, President Donald Trump tweeted that he and First Lady Melania Trump had tested positive for COVID-19. This followed Bloomberg’s report that top aide Hope Hicks, who traveled with President Trump earlier this week, tested positive for the coronavirus. After Trump left for Walter Reed, he tweeted a video thanking those who sent messages of support.

“I think I’m doing very well, but we’re going to make sure that things work out,” Trump said in the video. “The First Lady is doing very well, so thank you very much. I appreciate it.”

By Natasha Roy

President Trump transported to Walter Reed Medical Center

October 2, 2020 5:28 p.m. EST

President Donald J. Trump was transported to Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, D.C., according to NBC News. He was transported via Marine One and is expected to stay at Walter Reed for several days. The move was precautionary according to White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, and comes a few hours after NBC News reported that the president had a low-grade fever.

Trump announced via Twitter in the early hours of Friday morning that he and First Lady Melania Trump tested positive for COVID-19. Just hours before, Bloomberg broke the news that Hope Hicks — a senior advisor and confidant of the president — contracted COVID-19 and was symptomatic. Other world leaders, including U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, have contracted COVID-19 and recovered. Johnson spent three nights in the intensive care unit at a London hospital.

Should Trump be deemed incapacitated, Vice President Mike Pence will temporarily assume the duties of the presidency. Pence tested negative Friday for COVID-19. However, the CDC has said that it typically takes five days for the average person to show symptoms.

By Cameron Oakes

This post will be updated with new developments.

Owen Cordero was among the first Columbia University athletes to lose their athletic seasons to COVID-19 back in March. The virus had just begun to spread in New York when the Ivy League cancelled spring sports, ending his junior rowing season. Cordero and his teammates continued to train separately, hoping for developments in treatment and prevention that would allow him to compete in his senior season. “We’re all trying to remain optimistic and keep training hard in order to try to salvage if there is one,” Cordero said.

But as the U.S. gears up for a second wave of coronavirus cases and college campuses struggle to contain on-campus outbreaks, college athletes, many of whom have trained their entire lives to play college sports, are being forced to imagine the school year — and possibly a future — without sports in it.

The first rumblings of cancellations of fall sports seasons came in early July as multiple NCAA conferences grappled with maintaining the safety of its athletes and spectators. The Ivy League was one of the first conferences to call off fall sports all together. (Decisions about rescheduling fall sports for the spring have not been made.) The Patriot League, A-10, the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference, and the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference soon followed suit. By the time August rolled around, cancellations were rife. Nine other conferences postponed or cancelled fall sports. And later in August, the Big Ten and Pac-12 conferences postponed fall sports. But both organizations have since reversed course, despite a growing number of outbreaks on college campuses.

Some leagues have adopted the practice of pushing back start dates and limiting spectators, hoping to still get a semblance of a fall sports season. The Northeast Athletic Conference was one of the conferences that opted to postpone their season until October, leaving athletes like Sydney Gorski in limbo while they wait for the conference to re-evaluate whether it’s safe to play on Oct. 1. Gorski, who is currently in her fifth year, had to sit out last year’s season due to chronic exertional compartment syndrome. The exercise-induced muscle and nerve condition prevented her from playing the sport she loved pain-free so she decided to get a medical hardship waiver. Her eligibility was extended for an additional year, but the pandemic derailed those plans.

“It has been just a bunch of unknowns,” Gorski said in an interview with The Interlude. “I had to learn to make peace with whatever decision is made. It has been a lot of talking to teammates and coaches and trying to keep on top of all the information. Everything changes day-to-day. We are trying to do the best that we can and each time I think to myself that it could always be worse.”

Tori Bianco, a senior soccer player at New York University, was looking forward to rebuilding her relationship with soccer in her final season. Bianco, who has been playing soccer since she was three, suffered from a stress fracture in her sacrum her sophomore season and didn’t have the junior season she had hoped for as she came back from her injury. Bianco and her coach decided that Bianco’s senior season would be about playing for fun, instead of goals or field time. On July 23, COVID-19 took that opportunity away when NYU decided to cancel all fall sports. “I was just gonna play like I love soccer and not think about any of the logistics or things like that,” she said. “And I think I would have been really good.”

With so many unknowns about the 2020–2021 school year and what that means for winter and spring seasons, athletes in the latter end of college have been forced to reevaluate their post-graduate plans. The Division I Council of the NCAA gave athletes whose spring seasons were cancelled an additional year of eligibility. Playing another season comes with meeting another year of eligibility requirements. DI athletes only need six credit hours per term to be able to play. But DII athletes need 24–36 credit hours a semester to remain eligible. DIII athletes don’t have a credit eligibility requirement. Better funded programs may be able to find money to help stave off the expense of additional credits, but students in smaller programs may be forced to fork over additional tuition to play.

Cordero decided to postpone going to medical school in the hope that he could play one more season. “I was going to apply for medical school this year, but the pandemic cancelled all test dates. So, it forced me to apply for the following cycle,” Cordero said. “I originally was going to start school in the fall of 2021. Now I have to start in the fall of 2022.”

But other athletes felt it was best to cut their losses and move on. Will Braff, a varsity squash player at the University of Virginia, is in his last year of college and likely in his last few months of playing squash competitively. Almost half of his teammates have not returned to campus for the fall semester and have instead opted to take online classes and work part-time.

The start date of Braff’s squash season was pushed to January 2021. But, as a second coronavirus wave looms over the U.S., there is a possibility that spring seasons might be cancelled as well. Braff wasn’t sure that the work he put into training and preparing for a season would pay off. “All the practice and all the expertise and all the training and everything, is it worth it?” he asked.

“Honestly, I’m definitely bummed,” Braff said. “If we get our season we would get a national championship and that would be, that’d be fantastic. We work almost, I’d say 16–17 hours a week, some weeks out of class, which is a lot. And it’s a lot of time to put in if you don’t get to really show it by playing the best teams.”

At the beginning of the summer, Bianco said she was willing to play for NYU in the fall. She had been training with a semi-professional league in Nebraska. She was a little sad when she found out that the season was cancelled, but she also had no intention of taking the extra year offered by the NCAA. “I would not like to spend money just to play more soccer,” Bianco said.

Bianco would, however, like to have the closure of a final game with the seniors to celebrate the end of their college soccer careers.

Even when athletes are willing to rearrange their life plans to play, there isn’t always a guarantee their team will still be there when sports resume. Just as the coronavirus has threatened the health of university budgets, athletic programs are also coping with major budget reductions. More than 50 Division I athletic programs have been cut, including teams at Stanford University, the University of Akron, and the University of Cincinnati. Division II and Division III programs faced a similar number of cuts, according to a running tally compiled by the Associated Press.

Despite conflicting feelings about the cancellation of sports, and the potential end of their athletic careers, the student athletes The Interlude spoke to all echoed appreciation for the lifelong memories and friendships they made through their sports.

“My teammates are just, you know, those guys are my closest friends,” Cordero said. “And those are the guys that I’m going to see at my wedding.”

Yet, for now, Bianco said that she has been able to cope with the loss of her season. She found a silver lining in a year without soccer: the ability to focus on school and be less stressed. “I’ve had to live without soccer before.” Bianco said.

Update: September 24, 2020

Hours after this story was published, the Pac-12 conference also reversed its decision to cancel fall football. It will now play a seven-game season starting in early November, according to ESPN. It is still unclear whether other Pac-12 sports will play a shortened fall season.