Earlier this week Spain’s Valencia region was hit hard by heavy rains and subsequent flooding, the latest manifestation of climate change as the atmosphere and oceans warm. Some areas in the region received a year’s worth of rain in hours.
The deluge caused flash-flooding that took residents by surprise. With no warning about the severity of the storm, locals had little time to seek safety, leading to a mounting death toll that is already near 100. Electricity and transportation remain affected, and search efforts have been slow. The extent of the damage is still being assessed.
Residents try to clean up after the flood
Several people carry out clean-up work in the La Torre neighborhood of Valencia on October 30, 2024. (Photo By Rober Solsona/Europa Press via Getty Images)
Cars and debris are piled in the streets
Cars are piled in the street with other debris after flash floods on October 30, 2024 in the Sedaví area of Valencia. Spain’s meteorological agency had issued its highest alert for the region due to extreme rainfall. (Photo by David Ramos/Getty Images)
A man walks through the debris
A man walks through a debris-covered street after flash floods on October 30, 2024 in the Sedaví area of Valencia. (Photo by David Ramos/Getty Images)
A man makes a phone call next to a flooded street
A man speaks on the phone beside a flooded street after flash floods on October 30, 2024 in the Sedaví area of Valencia. (Photo by David Ramos/Getty Images)
Vehicles carried by flood waters are stacked on top of each other
Wrecked vehicles in the neighborhood of La Torre de Valencia, on October 30, 2024. (Photo By Rober Solsona/Europa Press via Getty Images)
Mud-covered streets after the flash-flood
A man walks through mud-covered streets amid piled cars after flash-flooding hit the region on October 30, 2024 in Valencia. (Photo by David Ramos/Getty Images)
Train tracks covered with debris
A woman walks along train tracks covered with debris after flash-flooding hit the region on October 30, 2024 in Valencia. (Photo by David Ramos/Getty Images)
Cars suspended on guardrails after the flooding
Vehicles in the vicinity of the V-30 on October 30, 2024 in Valencia. (Photo By Rober Solsona/Europa Press via Getty Images)
Emergency workers clear debris
Emergency workers clear debris after heavy rains hit the region on October 30, 2024 in Letur. (Photo by Mateo Villalba Sanchez/Getty Images)
Residents walk devastated streets
Residents walk in a devastated street following floods in Letur, southwest of Valencia, on October 30, 2024. (Photo by OSCAR DEL POZO/AFP via Getty Images)
A man and his dog are rescued after flash floods hit the region
A man carries a dog after flash floods hit the region on October 30, 2024 in Letur. (Photo by Mateo Villalba Sanchez/Getty Images)
Flood waters receded leaving piles of cars and debris
Cars and other debris are piled near a highway after flash floods and heavy rain hit the area on October 30, 2024 in Valencia. (Photo by Gonzalo Arroyo Moreno/Getty Images)
Streets covered in mud and debris, and a displaced boat
Residents walk next to a boat and debris in a street covered in mud following deadly floods in Sedavi, south of Valencia, on October 30, 2024. (Photo by JOSE JORDAN/AFP via Getty Images)
Street piled with wrecked cars
Pedestrians stand next to piled up cars following deadly floods in Sedavi, south of Valencia, on October 30, 2024. (Photo by JOSE JORDAN/AFP via Getty Images)
The man suspected of setting fires to the ballot boxes in Oregon and Washington earlier this week may be planning additional attacks, authorities said Wednesday.
In the final week of the presidential campaign, the country’s two most prominent newspapers extended into a second day their credulous coverage of Republicans’ fake outrage over President Biden’s “garbage” comment.
The NYT and WaPo each made it a front-page story in Thursday’s editions, with above-the-fold, prime-real-estate treatment:
It wasn’t as if the Trump campaign was subtle about the performative umbrage. On the campaign trail in Wisconsin, Trump donned a orange safety vest (see photo above) and climbed into the cab of a garbage truck bedecked in Trump-Vance livery. It’s in Trump’s political interest to ignore the fact that the “garbage” theme started at his Madison Square Garden rally Sunday as a reference to Puerto Rico, but it shouldn’t be so easy for major newspapers to set aside that fact, too.
As a corrective, CNN ran a mashup of Trump calling Harris supporters things like “scum” and “absolute garbage”:
The satirical New York Times Pitchbot came through in the moment:
Biden calling Trump supporters “garbage” in a webcam interview is a moral outrage. Here’s why Trump calling Harris supporters “garbage” at a rally is not.
TPM’s Josh Kovensky: Some Trump Electors In Swing States Are Primed To ‘Stop The Steal’ Again In 2024
Election Threat Watch
WaPo: GOP leaders in some states move to block Justice Dept. election monitors: “The Justice Department’s ability to monitor local jurisdictions for voting rights irregularities on Election Day, already curtailed by the Supreme Court, is facing a new hurdle: opposition from Republicans who are seeking to block federal authorities from polling sites.”
Politico: “As Election Day nears, police chiefs and sheriffs around the country are bracing themselves for violent threats against election workers, turmoil at voting sites and intimidation of voters.”
AP: According to authorities, the suspect in the Portland Metro ballot box fires (i) is a balding or short-haired white man age 30 to 40; (ii) was driving a black or dark-colored 2001 to 2004 Volvo S-60; and (iii) is an experienced metalworker.
NBC News: “Police arrested an 18-year-old wielding a machete with an 18-inch blade outside a polling station in Florida on Tuesday, saying he was part of a group of teenagers accused of intimidating Democratic supporters.”
Pennsylvania: Ground Zero For Stop The Steal II
WaPo: “Former president Donald Trump on Wednesday lodged claims of voter fraud in Pennsylvania, a state critical to his election prospects. But Democratic officials and voting rights advocates said that Trump’s allegations are wildly exaggerated and that the problems he and Republicans are focused on are not only common, but also proof that election safeguards are working as intended.”
WSJ: “Across Pennsylvania, local and state officials are warning that efforts by Trump and his supporters to call into question the integrity of the presidential election in the crucial swing state are ramping up—before a single ballot has been counted.”
Supreme Court Is At It Again
Without explanation, the Roberts Supreme Court reversed two lower courts and allowed Virginia’s purge of purported non-citizen voters to proceed despite a federal law banning such last-minute election changes and its own (shaky) doctrine against late-in-the-game federal court intervention. The risk is that actual citizens will be caught up in the purge and disenfranchised without enough time to rectify the mistake:
The Disinformation Environment
The Bulwark: Breaking: Sources Say the Story You’re Reading Isn’t Real
NYT: Why the Right Thinks Trump Is Running Away With the Race
WaPo: Elon Musk says X users fight falsehoods. The falsehoods are winning.
I trust Morning Memo readers can gather data points without drawing conclusions yet:
Politico: “Across battlegrounds, there is a 10-point gender gap in early voting so far: Women account for roughly 55 percent of the early vote, while men are around 45 percent, according to a POLITICO analysis of early vote data in several key states. The implications for next week’s election results are unclear; among registered Republicans, women are voting early more than men, too. But the high female turnout is encouraging to Democratic strategists, who expected that a surge in Republican turnout would result in more gender parity among early voters.”
NBC News: “[Swing] state polls are showing not just an astonishingly tight race, but also an improbably tight race. Even in a truly tied election, the randomness inherent in polling would generate more varied and less clustered results — unless the state polls and the polling averages are artificially close because of decisions pollsters are making.”
Politico: “As of Wednesday, Black voters make up 18 percent of the electorate in [North Carolina] early voting, and some Democratic operatives said they must bump that up to about 20 percent for Harris to be competitive statewide. In 2020, Black voters were 19 percent of the electorate, when Donald Trump narrowly won the state. And Democrats acknowledge that without a swing in their favor in the last days of early voting or on Election Day, it may not be good enough.”
Trump: ‘I’m Gonna Do It Whether The Women Like It Or Not’
Trump: "I want to protect the women of our country … I'm gonna do it whether the women like it or not" pic.twitter.com/mfMEpaWEAX
Ratfuckery: “A Republican-aligned super PAC is sending texts in Georgia telling voters to “Join The Movement For Equality” and vote for Jill Stein — a sign some Republicans believe her candidacy could harm Kamala Harris’ chances in the battleground.”–Politico
Trickery: “In Michigan, canvassers and paid door knockers for the former president, contracted by a firm associated with America PAC, have been subjected to poor working conditions: A number of them have been driven around in the back of a seatless U-Haul van, according to video obtained by WIRED, and threatened that their lodging at a local motel wouldn’t be paid for if they didn’t meet canvassing quotas.”–Wired
Monkey business: “After Donald Trump refused to concede the 2020 election, Congress moved to fend off a repeat of the 20 days of chaos that had obstructed the executive branch handover to Joe Biden. But the first test of one little-known change to the presidential transition process is now causing anxiety among government officials as Trump is potentially poised to return to power.”–WaPo
I sat down recently with Joe Ragazzo for an installment of his Inside TPM series. We talked about Morning Memo, my role at TPM, the current political environment, and a bunch of other stuff. I hope it feels transparent and brings you a little closer to what we do here:
If you’re watching the latest polls, make a note of something called “herding.” It could be relevant for discussions of polling after the election. The concept is straightforward. In the final days of an election, poll results tend to trend toward consensus. One possibility is that everyone is finally making up their mind and the picture and reality is coming into focus. But that’s not the only possibility. For a mix of good faith and maybe less than good faith reasons, pollsters can become increasingly leery of publishing an outlier poll. There’s a tendency to “herd” together for extra-statistical reasons.
Let’s say you’re five days out from the election and the polling averages say candidate Jones is up 2 points and you’ve got a poll which says candidate Smith is up 3 points. (Pardon may defaulting to anglo surnames.) Everyone has an outlier result sometimes. But do you really want your final poll to be a weird outlier? In the modern era with aggregators, pollsters are often graded on the predictive accuracy of their final polls. So it kind of matters. If you’re a bit shady maybe you just tweak your numbers and get them closer to the average. If you’re more on the level maybe you take a closer look at the data and find something that really looks like it needs adjusting. Maybe you just decide that you’re going to hold this one poll back.
As I mentioned in this week’s podcast, out today, Kate Riga and I are going to be heavying-up on podcasts next week. In addition to the regularly scheduled Wednesday podcast, we are planning to do “instapods” (quick hits lasting 15-20 minutes) through the week. We’re planning on doing the first late on election night. We don’t know precisely when, but sometime late in the evening when we have at least some broad sense of what the results are looking like. And no, we’re not expecting to know a winner at that point. We’re then going to have the regular episode the following afternoon. Then we plan to record late afternoonish instapods on Thursday and Friday afternoons to hit the big developments of the day. If the winner of the election is clear by the following morning, we’re confident there’s still going to be a lot to discuss on Thursday and Friday.
Of course, it’s possible that there will be additional breaking news at any point over the course of the week that might prompt us to do an additional instapod in addition to this schedule.
A federal judge extended the temporary restraining order he issued earlier this month, blocking the head of the Florida Health Department from lobbing any more threats at local TV stations that air advertisements in support of Amendment 4, the proposal on the ballot in Florida next week that would codify abortion rights in the state constitution.
I told you a week or more ago not to try to interpret early voting data yourself. And don’t put much stock in a hot take on it you see from someone on Twitter. It’s a fool’s errand. If you have access to a lot of data you can draw inferences. That can be real-time modeling data the campaigns have access to or it can be various other datasets that provide context for interpreting the data. Even with all that, the hallmark of someone who actually knows what they’re talking about is a lot of tentativeness and uncertainty. With a lot of knowledge you can point to patterns or a tightened ranges of possibilities, not certainties.
I’m doing this post both because the findings are interesting but also because it’s an illustration of how you can actually pull some signals out of the data when you really know your stuff.
The Trump campaign continued its dance of bamboozlement on where the Republican Party actually stands when it comes to gutting the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on Tuesday night, after House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) acknowledged that Republicans will tackle “massive reform” of Obamacare should Donald Trump win the presidency and the GOP keep the House.
This article first appeared at ProPublica and Wisconsin Watch. ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
Earlier this month, subscribers to the Wisconsin Law Journal received an email with an urgent subject: “Upholding Election Integrity — A Call to Action for Attorneys.”
The letter began by talking about fairness and following the law in elections. But it then suggested that election officials do something that courts have found to be illegal for over a century: treat the certification of election results as an option, not an obligation.
The large logo at the top of the email gave the impression that it was an official correspondence from the respected legal newspaper, though smaller print said it was sent on behalf of a public relations company. The missive was an advertisement from a new group with deep ties to activists who have challenged the legitimacy of recent American elections.
In making its arguments about certification, Follow the Law has mischaracterized election rules and directed readers to a website providing an incomplete and inaccurate description of how certification works and what the laws and rules are in various states, election experts and state officials said.
“Anyone relying on that website is being deceived, and whoever is responsible for its content is being dishonest,” said Mike Hassinger, public information officer for Georgia’s secretary of state.
Certification is the mandatory administrative process that officials undertake after they finish counting and adjudicating ballots. Official results need to be certified by tight deadlines, so they can be aggregated and certified at the state and federal levels. Other procedures like lawsuits and recounts exist to check or challenge election outcomes, but those typically cannot commence until certification occurs. If officials fail to meet those deadlines or exclude a subset of votes, courts could order them to certify, as they have done in the past. But experts have warned that, in a worst-case scenario, the transition of power could be thrown into chaos.
“These ads make it seem as if there’s only one way for election officials to show that they’re on the ball, and that is to delay or refuse to certify an election. And just simply put, that is not their role,” said Sarah Gonski, an Arizona elections attorney and senior policy adviser for the Institute for Responsive Government, a think tank working on election issues. “What this is, is political propaganda that’s dressed up in a fancy legal costume.”
The activities of Follow the Law, which have not been previously reported, represent a broader push by those aligned with Trump to leverage the mechanics of elections to their advantage. The combination of those strategies, including recruiting poll workers and removing people from voting rolls, could matter in an election that might be determined by a small number of votes.
Since Trump lost the 2020 election, at least 35 election board members in various states, who have been overwhelmingly Republican, have unsuccessfully tried to refuse to certify election results before being compelled to certify by courts or being outvoted by Democratic members. Last week, a county supervisor in Arizona pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for failing to perform election duties when she voted to delay certifying the 2022 election. And last month, the American Civil Liberties Union sued an election board member in Michigan after he said he might not certify the 2024 results. He ultimately signed an affidavit acknowledging his legal obligation to certify, and the ACLU dismissed its case. Experts have warned that more could refuse to certify the 2024 election if Trump loses.
Follow the Law bills itself as a “group of lawyers committed to ensuring elections are free, fair and represent the true votes of all American citizens.” It’s led by Melody Clarke, a longtime conservative activist with stints at Heritage Action, a conservative advocacy organization, and the Election Integrity Network, headed by a lawyer who helped Trump try to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia.
This summer, Clarke left a leadership position at EIN to join the Election Transparency Initiative, a group headed by Ken Cuccinelli, a former Trump administration official. The two groups work together, according to Cuccinelli and EIN’s 2024 handbook.
The banner ads that appeared in Georgia and Wisconsin outlets disclosed they were paid for by the American Principles Project Foundation. ETI is a subsidiary of a related nonprofit, the American Principles Project. Financial reports show that packaging magnate Richard Uihlein has contributed millions of dollars to the American Principles Project this year through a political action committee. Uihlein has funneled his fortune into supporting far-right candidates and election deniers, as ProPublica has reported.
Cuccinelli, Clarke and a lawyer for Uihlein did not respond to requests for comment or detailed lists of questions. Cuccinelli previously defended to ProPublica the legality of election officials exercising their discretion in certifying results. “The proposed rule will protect the foundational, one person-one vote principle underpinning our democratic elections and guard against certification of inaccurate or erroneous results,” Cuccinelli wrote in a letter to Georgia’s State Election Board.
The most recent ads appear to be an extension of a monthslong effort that started in Georgia to expand the discretion of county election officials ahead of the November contest.
Certification “is not a ministerial function,” Cuccinelli said at the election board’s August meeting. The law, he argued, “clearly implies that that board is intended and expected to use its judgment to determine, on very short time frames, what is the most proper outcome of the vote count.”
However, a state judge made clear in an October ruling the dangers of giving county board members the power to conduct investigations and decide which votes are valid. If board members, who are often political appointees, were “free to play investigator, prosecutor, jury, and judge” and refuse to certify election results, “Georgia voters would be silenced,” he wrote, finding that this would be unconstitutional. The case is on appeal and will be heard after the election.
Despite that ruling, and another from a different judge also finding both certification rules unconstitutional, Follow the Law’s website section for Georgia still asserts that a State Election Board rule “makes crystal clear” that county board members’ duty is “more than a simple ministerial task” without mentioning either ruling. The state Republican party has appealed the second ruling.
In a Telegram channel created by a Fulton County, Georgia, commissioner, someone shared what they called a “dream checklist” for election officials this week that contains extensive “suggestions” for how they should fulfill their statutory duties. The unsigned 15-page document, which bears the same three icons that appear on Follow the Law’s website, concludes, “Resolve all discrepancies prior to certification.”
On the same day the Georgia judge ruled that county board members can’t refuse to certify votes, Follow the Law began running ads in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin legal publications. The communications argued that certification is a discretionary step officials should take only after performing an investigation to ensure an election’s accuracy, largely continuing the line of argument that Cuccinelli pushed to Georgia’s election board and that the lawyers took before the judge. “Uphold your oath to only certify an accurate election,” said banner ads that ran in WisPolitics, a political news outlet. Another read: “No rubber stamps!” WisPolitics did not respond to requests for comment.
In Pennsylvania, the ad claimed that “simply put, the role of election officials is not ‘ministerial’” and that election officials are by law “required to ensure (and investigate if necessary) that elections are free from ‘fraud, deceit, or abuse’ and that the results are accurate prior to certification.”
Follow the Law’s ads and website overstate officials’ roles beyond what statutes allow, state officials in Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin said.
The group’s Wisconsin page reads: “Canvassers must first ensure that all votes are legally cast and can only certify results after verifying this.” But officials tasked with certifying elections are scorekeepers, not referees, said Edgar Lin, Wisconsin policy strategist and attorney for Protect Democracy, a nonprofit that works to protect the integrity of American elections. Lin and other experts said officials ensure the accuracy of an election’s basic arithmetic, for example, by checking that the number of ballots matches the number of voters, but they are not empowered to undertake deeper investigations.
Gonski said that in addition to overstating certifiers’ responsibilities, Follow the Law’s messaging underplays the protections that already exist. “Our election system is chock-full of checks and balances,” Gonski said. “Thousands of individuals have roles to play, and all of them seamlessly work together using well-established procedures to ensure a safe, accurate and secure election. No single individual has unchecked power over any piece of the process.”
Ads in the Wisconsin Law Journal and the Legal Intelligencer in Pennsylvania also presented the findings of a poll that Follow the Law said was conducted by Rasmussen Reports, a company whose credibility the ad emphasizes. But Rasmussen Reports did not conduct the poll. It was conducted by Scott Rasmussen, who founded the polling company but has not worked there in over a decade.
Both the company and pollster confirmed the misattribution but did not comment further. The Wisconsin Law Journal and ALM, which owns the Legal Intelligencer, declined to comment.
Sam Liebert, a former election clerk and the Wisconsin director for All Voting is Local, said he wants the state’s attorney general to issue an unequivocal directive reminding election officials of their legal duty to certify.
“Certifying elections is a mandatory, democratic duty of our election officials,” he said. “Each refusal to certify threatens to validate the broader election denier movement, while sowing disorder in our election administration processes.”
Do you have any information about Follow the Law or other groups’ efforts to challenge election certification that we should know? Have you seen Follow the Law ads or outreach elsewhere? If so, please make a record of the ad and reach out to us. Phoebe Petrovic can be reached by email at ppetrovic@wisconsinwatch.org and by Signal at 608-571-3748. Doug Bock Clark can be reached at 678-243-0784 and doug.clark@propublica.org.
Roxan Wetzel is a relative newcomer to politics. She began to get involved in 2019, she said, inspired by the start of North Carolina gubernatorial candidate Mark Robinson’s meteoric rise in politics.