Two years in the making — our last post on the 2020 election before Election Day. In recognition of Election Day, this week we’re making our Monday email—typically reserved for paid subscribers—available to all of our free sign-up readers as well.
Join us at 4 pm today for a live thread for subscribers-only to ask Michael any last-minute, burning questions on the election.
Tomorrow, you can expect election day coverage with special guests like Ryan Burge (Political Scientist), Andra Gillespie (Political Scientist), Joel Searby (Political Strategist), Daniel Bennett (Political Scientist), and others.
Meanwhile, we know there’s a lot of anxiety in general and a lot of questions around voting and what to be watching.
In the last episode of the Faith 2020 podcast, Michael provides a recap of faith and this campaign, makes his prediction and offers some closing thoughts for Christians as we head to the polls.
This piece from Rachel Anderson on political homelessness is a great contribution to the debate. (Breaking Ground)
Michael recently spoke with Pastor Jon Tyson about Christians and politics.
And check out Not Our Faith’s closing ad.
Oh, and if that anxiety is a bit too much, here’s a list of 25 feel-good movies. (The Atlantic)
Finally, we couldn’t have made it here without your support, dear readers. We’re so grateful to you all. If you’re on our free sign-up list, would you consider becoming a subscriber? You’ll support our ongoing work to make sense of US (and sometimes global) religion and politics. We’ll be here to help you make sense of our politics, and how it intersects with faith, no matter who is in The White House next year.
Reclaim hope this week,
Michael and Melissa
If you’re a bit confused about how and when absentee ballots will be counted, we found this graphic helpful:
Speaking of early voting, the Texas Supreme Court has rejected a GOP-led effort to eliminate 125K votes done through drive-through voting. (Texas Tribune) Voter disenfranchisment and suppression is not new, especially for Black communities across the US. (CNN)
Speaking of Black voters, they’re an increasing focus in Florida. (NYT) This op-ed from Rep. Frederica Wilson to Black voters in Florida is some clear evidence there’s concern among some Democrats that the President will win more votes than previously expected. (Miami Herald)
And we know we’ve been covering the Latino voting demographic a lot, and especially in AZ, but here’s another contribution to how Dems are trying to win votes in the state. (Politico) One of the reasons why we focus on this demographic so much is not just the religious angle —Latino Catholics and Latino Evangelicals—but also because it’s really important to understand that Latino voters is a category that covers a great diversity of groups and peoples. If Latinos are viewed simply as a monolith, a category of voters that will inevitably vote Democratic, that can lead to a pretty shoddy understanding of what our politics and election outcomes look like.
Meanwhile, in another red to blue state opportunity, Ryan Lizza thinks Stacey Abrams is the main reason why Georgia is in play for Democrats. (Politico)
But which battleground is the ultimate bellwether for President Trump as his path to victory narrows? Pennsylvania. (Yahoo News) But Trump defectors in PA might help Biden, a lot, if enough of them are out there. (NBC)
Nate Silver also reminds us: despite the polling momentum, it is still possible that President Trump will win reelection. And PA is the crux. (FiveThirtyEight)
As has been suspected, the Trump campaign is prepared to claim an early victory if he’s ahead at some point. (Axios) Campaign advisor Jason Miller is already predicting a Sunbelt (i.e. southern states) sweep. (ABC) The Trump campaign’s closing strategy, according to McKay Coppins, is based on security issues — that Democrats are seeking to steal the election. (The Atlantic)
If you’re sick of thinking about the Presidential election, Brookings has an excellent round-up of all the closest Senate races for tomorrow.
Finally, we know that there’s been a lot of questions around violence and crisis in this election, and Coppins’ article above doesn’t quell those ideas. Yes, some intelligence committee Senators are worried about a constitutional crisis. (Axios) We know many of you have this in the back of your mind. This Olga Khazan article provides some sound arguments about why election day (and post-election) violence is less likely. We get it, though. The fact it’s even being discussed at all is a norm we haven’t seen tested in quite some time.
Still, there are a number of reasons to think this election won’t get violent. In most countries, violence tends to take place before elections, not after. So if we’re not seeing widespread violence now, we might be in the clear.
Another thing protecting America is its wealth. Rich countries tend not to devolve into civil war because the costs of rioting for everyday people are too high. People might get angry for a weekend, but on Monday, they’ll feel obligated to show up for their well-paying accounting jobs.
What’s more, the number of people who are actually in a militia or another extremist group is still quite small.