Jumat, 30 Oktober 2020

‘Somewhere Between Dangerous and Devastating’: Imagining Trump’s Post-Presidential Life

Being an ex-president can be a cushy and quiet life for the most part. Jimmy Carter builds homes; George W. Bush paints. After leaving the White House, Barack Obama went kite-surfing with Richard Branson on his private island in the British Virgin Islands.

None of that, though, seems likely to be in the cards for Donald Trump if he loses reelection Tuesday and in just 80-odd days leaves the White House.

A restless figure with few interests outside his own business and political career, no hobbies besides playing golf at his own properties and few traditional friends, Trump thrives on public attention and disruption; this, after all, is a man who couldn’t even spend an entire weekend cooped up inside a hospital while ill with Covid-19 earlier this month and had to take a joyride around Walter Reed Medical Center to wave to supporters.

So if he loses the White House, what new phase would begin on January 21?

In interviews, historians, government legal experts, national security leaders and people close to the administration have a prediction that will disquiet his critics: The Trump Era is unlikely to end when the Trump presidency ends. They envision a post-presidency as disruptive and norm-busting as his presidency has been—one that could make his successor’s job much harder. They outline a picture of a man who might formally leave office only to establish himself as the president-for-life amid his own bubble of admirers—controlling Republican politics and sowing chaos in the U.S. and around the world long after he’s officially left office.

“Can he continue to make people not trust our institutions? Can he throw monkey wrenches into delicate negotiations? Absolutely,” one former Trump administration official says. “He can be a tool. He’ll be somewhere between dangerous and devastating on that extent.”

A president unwilling to respect boundaries in office is almost certain to cross them out of office. Experts envision some likely scenarios—a much-rumored TV show and plans to use his properties to profit off his lifetime Secret Service protection, perhaps even continuing to troll the Biden administration from his hotel down Pennsylvania Avenue—and some troubling if less certain ones, like literally selling U.S. secrets or influence to foreign governments.

Trump has already mused that maybe he’ll leave the country if he loses, but few expect him to willingly depart the American public stage. He would leave the White House with one of the largest social media platforms in the world—including 87 million Twitter followers—and a large campaign email list with a demonstrated small-dollar fundraising capability that could be used to aid other MAGA-friendly politicians—or, just as likely, to sell Trump’s own wares. And he’s presumably going to need every dollar he can squeeze from his businesses and the office he will have just left. As the New York Times has been documenting, Trump has $421 million in debt coming due in the years ahead. If he leaves office, he’ll have to be busy raising the cash to pay it off.

Yes, Trump will probably grab the low-hanging fruit favored by ex-presidents pasts: profiting off the White House with a memoir—though many in the publishing industry don’t think he’ll get that much money for it—and living off a spigot of government money as he settles into the post-presidency. But those presidential traditions will provide just a fraction of the hundreds of millions Trump needs, and are unlikely to satisfy his entertainer’s ego.

“He’s still the leader of a movement,” says Nancy Gibbs, a journalist and historian who co-wrote The Presidents Club about the lives of former presidents. “I’m hard pressed to recall a past president who left office with a movement intact that wasn’t transferred to someone else. I don’t see him giving it up.”

Which means, from even those first minutes, Trump’s post-presidency would almost certainly be unlike anything America—or the world—has ever experienced. Assuming he’s able to settle any legal challenges arising from the presidency and doesn’t spend the rest of his days in tax court in New York state, Trump as a 74-year-old man has a normal life expectancy of around 11 years, and most former presidents actually far outlive the average American, so he might have a couple decades to disrupt the world’s most exclusive club of ex-presidents.

“It’s a safe bet that many of the rules and patterns of past presidents will not apply to him,” says Gibbs. “I long ago stopped putting limits on what he might do or sell. There are no boundaries.”

A career salesman will find himself with more connections around the world than he’s ever had before—and also with more grievances against people he feels mistreated him and forced him from office prematurely. “I put two years as the over-under on groundbreaking for Trump Tower Moscow,” says one former national security official. “It’ll be a huge F.U. to all the Russia coup plotters.”

Here’s what might be in store—both the traditional and the very untraditional—for a former President Donald J. Trump—and the unique worries it may raise for the country:

The Memoir: As a defeated Trump weighs his post-presidential paydays, a memoir from the bestselling author of Art of the Deal and 14 other books might be the most obvious move—albeit not quite the record-breaking check he might hope.

Usually, presidential memoirs are some of publishing’s most predictable home runs. Even George W. Bush, who sold his presidential memoir for a relatively modest $10 million, a sign of his unpopularity upon leaving office, ended up with a massive bestseller, selling more than two million copies in just over a month. Barack and Michelle Obama, together, received north of $60 million for their memoirs; the first installment of his, which is scheduled to be released on Nov. 17, will likely dominate the weeks after the election this year.

Donald Trump sign's new book

In conversations with a half-dozen publishing insiders this week, they predicted that a publishing house would pay “mid-seven figures” for Trump’s memoir, closer to the Bush range than the Obama range and a fact that surely would rankle the competitive Trump. Why the comparatively low estimate? While books about Trump have proven some of the year’s biggest sellers—from John Bolton to Bob Woodward to Mary Trump—the ones criticizing him have dramatically outsold the ones praising him. A Trump book would still be a major draw for his devoted fan base, with a potential for seven-figure sales, but it’s unlikely to become the blockbuster of Michelle Obama’s memoir—which might be the bestselling memoir of all time.

Also, Trump’s unpopularity and divisiveness are likely to make prospective publishers think twice before rushing to participate in a major auction for the book. The insiders I spoke to all squirmed at the possibility of their own houses tackling a Trump memoir. “There’d be walkouts, protests galore,” one editor said, pointing to the controversy earlier this year when publishing giant Hachette announced it would publish a memoir from Woody Allen. It backed down after widespread criticism and a staff revolt.

“I think a lot of publishers would stay away from it,” said one senior editor. “You wouldn’t have 10 publishers bidding—you’d have two and at that point, they can pay whatever they want,” says another.

Many publishers have dedicated conservative imprints, which might find a Trump title irresistible, but the clearest route for Trump might be to follow his son’s model and self-publish. Donald Jr., after publishing a bestseller last year that sold more than 280,000 copies but attracted controversy because of the bulk purchases by groups like the Republican National Committee, decided to self-publish his follow-up book earlier this year—a move that usually guarantees more uncertainty in distribution but a higher percentage of the underlying sales.

Trump’s bald-faced record of deceit, lies and spin in the White House and on the campaign trail—he’s averaging one false or inaccurate statement every 45 seconds at reelection rallies—might give him an even better reason to skip the traditional publishing houses and self-publish: He’d be able to say anything he wants, exactly how he wants to say it, with no pressure from an editor or a publisher’s skittish corporate lawyers.

The Government Dole: As he leaves office, Trump would have the chance to decide how and where to set up his post-presidential life—and where to direct a spigot of taxpayer dollars that will continue to flow to him for the rest of his life. Former presidents are eligible for a range of taxpayer-paid benefits, including a roughly $200,000-a-year pension for life, about a million-dollars-a-year for travel and office expenses, and so-called “franking privileges,” the ability to send mail postage-free. The law does stipulate that such offices have to be inside the U.S., so that would prohibit Trump from using the funds to set up his office in, say, a non-extradition country.

Trump would even have the right to use a special government-owned townhouse on Lafayette Square, across from the White House, reserved exclusively for former presidents visiting Washington, although it seems hard to imagine Trump foregoing the chance to stay in his own hotel just down Pennsylvania Avenue.

Trump exits the Trump International Hotel in D.C. after attending the MAGA Leadership Summit on Jan. 28, 2019.

He’ll also inform the Secret Service what homes and offices he’ll want secured on an ongoing basis as a former president. Unlike other former presidents, Trump could presumably direct much of spending intended to protect him back to his own properties and own businesses, just as he’s done while in office—charging the Secret Service $17,000 a month for a cottage at his Bedminster golf course, $650 a night for his room at his Mar-a-Lago resort, and even $130,000-a-month for the military to run a command center out of Trump Tower in New York, a place he’s rarely visited at all as president. The Secret Service even paid $179,000 to rent golf carts and other vehicles this summer at his New Jersey resort.

Where Trump will set up “home” is an open question: He moved his voting residence from New York to Florida last year—so it seems unlikely he’ll return to set down roots in Manhattan—but in converting the 17-acre Mar-a-Lago into a private club, he agreed years ago that he couldn’t live there year-round and the club closes for the unpleasant Florida summer, so he’ll have to find a second home elsewhere. If he declares that he’ll be living permanently at some combination of Mar-a-Lago, Bedminster, Trump Tower in New York, and the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C., the Secret Service might well be paying millions of dollars to the Trump Organization for years to come.

The Donald J. Trump Presidential Library (and Theme Park?): Another area that will be top of mind as Trump leaves office will be his plans for a presidential library and associated taxpayer-paid archives. Such endeavors usually become the centerpiece of a former president’s world—part-educational center, part-shrine, part-day job. Carter’s work around the globe through his Carter Center in Georgia even earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, a prize that Trump clearly covets himself. Presidential libraries are always grandiose and expensive projects—Obama’s in Chicago is expected to require half-a-billion dollars raised from private funders, despite having nearly all-digital archives—intended to bolster and cement a president’s legacy in exactly the way the president wants. While every president is focused on shaping a historical legacy, no former president seems likely to eclipse Trump’s interest in restarting his personal brand immediately.

Trump’s ambitions for his library seem likely to exceed past imagination; presidential libraries and their associated centers usually are arranged as nonprofits or have related foundations that support the government-paid work of the National Archives and Records Administration, which technically runs the library and archives. Most see a few hundred thousand visitors a year.

“As a matter of ego, you can imagine why it would be in his nature to have it be the biggest, largest, goldest, and most visited presidential library—more theme park than library,” Gibbs says.

Trump could easily reimagine the very essence of such an endeavor, turning his presidential library into a for-profit arm of the Trump Organization that becomes a mecca for his devoted MAGA fans the country (and world) over—a “Trumpland” Florida tourist attraction to rival Disney, SeaWorld or Universal Studios, complete with regular guest appearances from his family members, live broadcasts from Trump’s own media endeavors and no shortage of Trump-branded merchandise. It’s not hard to imagine, at least in near-term years, attendance in the low millions—a potentially rich branding exercise. (Most of the presidential libraries have annual attendance of a few hundred thousand tourists and researchers.) Having the Trump Organization bankroll a for-profit Trumpland might also skirt an embarrassing situation for Trump: Most presidential libraries receive large corporate and foundation donations, but post-presidency Trump’s divisiveness would presumably limit normally controversy-averse corporations from pitching in.

Left: Make America Great Again hats sit on a table in the real Oval Office on Feb. 12, 2020. Right: A wax figure of Donald Trump stands in a replica Oval Office in London on Jan. 18, 2017.

Many presidential libraries contain scale or even full-size replicas of the Oval Office; imagine the possibilities for MAGA tourism of renting out the full-size replicas of the Oval Office and Lincoln Bedroom at Trumpland—complete, perhaps, with Trump’s own upgrades: Gold gilt and improvements like the high-pressure showerheads he so loves in the bathroom.

A grand undertaking like a presidential library might also allow some opportunity for self-dealing—think Trump choosing to put his library on land he already owns and then overpaying himself for it—and given the Trump family’s propensity for misdirecting charitable funds and the bizarre ways that tens of millions of dollars disappeared into his overfunded inaugural and reelection campaign funds, fundraising for the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library would seem to present a unique opportunity for further enrichment or payments to family members.

Tensions have existed between past presidents and their official archival records before; the caretakers of Nixon’s image spent decades in dispute with the National Archives over the portrayal of his presidency, and Bill Clinton famously glossed over his Monica Lewinsky scandal in his library, where it was labeled as the “Politics of Persecution.” It’s not hard to imagine similar—and worse—disputes arising between professional archivists and historians and Trump loyalists over how the “Russia Coup” and the “perfect” Ukraine call will be portrayed in official history, not to mention Trump’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic—all another reason that Trump may abandon the traditional model to tell his own story in his own way.

The GOP’s Mega-MAGA-phone: It’s possible that, if he loses reelection, Trump may wake up January 21 in Mar-a-Lago and find himself exiled and forgotten by a Republican Party eager to move past him. It’s possible too that Trump will decide to forget about Twitter, bury @realDonaldTrump and live out his days quietly golfing with his friends and admirers and holding court at the Mar-a-Lago buffet in the evenings, before settling in to watch Sean Hannity’s show in peace and silence.

Possible, but unlikely. Trump, unloved by his father, has spent his entire life craving public adulation and attention and possesses a unique—almost algorithmic—understanding of how to maximize the spotlight shining on himself. Almost everyone agrees he seems likely to want to remain in the public eye—setting up a novel circumstance where a new president might assume office while being critiqued publicly minute-by-minute or hour-by-hour by his predecessor.

Ex-presidents of both parties usually go out of their way to stay quiet, at least for some period of time after leaving office. In March 2009, in his first speech as a former president, George W. Bush said he wouldn’t critique Obama at all. “He deserves my silence,” Bush said. Eight years later, in their first meeting post-election, Obama told Trump, “We now are going to want to do everything we can to help you succeed because if you succeed, then the country succeeds.” Later, explaining why he’d stayed almost silent even as the Trump administration unraveled so much of his legacy, Obama said in 2018 as he eased back onto the public stage, “Truth was, I was also intent on following a wise American tradition of ex-presidents gracefully exiting the political stage and making room for new voices and new ideas. We have our first president, George Washington, to thank for setting that example.”

It’s nearly impossible to imagine Trump’s abiding by any of those sentiments—it’s hard to even imagine Trump’s Twitter fingers staying still all the way through a Joe Biden inaugural address.

Meanwhile, there’s reason to believe the Republican Party may not be quick to turn on Trump, even if he’s badly defeated on Tuesday.

In fact, ironically, the bigger the GOP wipeout that accompanies a Trump defeat, the more Trump would likely continue to control the remnants of the party. Trump’s ascendency since 2016 has dramatically rearranged the ranks of the Republican Party in Washington and nationally; roughly half of the 241 Republicans who were in office in January 2017 at the start of his term are already gone or retiring. Any sort of broad loss on Tuesday would further wash away the very swing districts and candidates most inclined to move beyond Trump, leaving just the most solidly Republican districts—GOP areas where Trump’s approval ratings remain sky-high and whose representatives would conceivably be the last to risk abandoning him. Republican candidates even far down the ballot are competing over who loves Trump more, and Trump’s scattershot approach to policy-making and betrayal of long-held conservative beliefs means the only ideology that unifies his party today is adulation of him (and, perhaps, the QAnon conspiracy theory). The intellectual inconsistency of the current party was made all too clear by the summer decision at the Republican National Convention to forego a traditional party platform and simply offer a blanket endorsement of whatever Trump wanted to do in a second term.

Supporters of President Donald Trump cheer and hold a shirt that says Trump 2024 at a rally on February 19, 2020, in Phoenix, Arizona. If Trump does not win re-election this year, he could run again in four years.

Instead, Trump—and his all-powerful Twitter feed and fundraising list—might become the party’s most reliable megaphone and kingmaker, akin to the role Sarah Palin played in 2010 amid the rise of the Tea Party after her 2008 defeat as John McCain’s running mate. In that sense, it’s possible that the 2022 midterms and the 2024 presidential race would actually be the most MAGA-friendly GOP primaries yet, conducted almost entirely on a stage designed by Trump himself, with supplicants parading through Mar-a-Lago to kiss the ring and an entire generation of GOP stars molded in his image. And that’s even before considering the Trump family’s direct influence—say a titanic Ivanka vs. AOC campaign in New York for Chuck Schumer’s Senate seat in 2022 or Donald Jr.’s campaign for Congress (or even the presidency) in 2024, as he becomes the next-generation MAGA standard-bearer.

This path of influence might prove one of the most stable visions ahead, assuming a relative level of normalcy from a man who has time and again demonstrated anything but. In fact, this entire piece and its imagined premise of a Trump post-presidency assumes that Trump and those around him at least superficially, if not graciously, accept a loss and that he is content to just grumble loudly from the political balcony à la Statler and Waldorf in The Muppets.

There are darker visions and scenarios in which Trump never does accept a 2020 defeat, is pushed reluctantly from the White House in January, and moves to assume some more explicit mantle of a wronged leader-in-exile. Al Gore, after his acrimonious defeat, traveled across Europe and grew a beard, rather than setting up an opposition government in the lobby of the Willard Hotel across from the White House. But imagine if he had wanted to contest the election long past inauguration day?

Imagine that on January 21st Kayleigh McEnany begins broadcasting regular press briefings from the Trump Hotel a few blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House; picture the 45th president hosting congressional leaders in a replica Oval Office reconstructed inside his hotel to plot GOP strategy and rail against the injustices done his supporters, using Twitter to stoke ongoing protests and MAGA-nation resistance across the country and touring to show up at boat parades and host his signature rallies. What if Trump wakes up each day attempting to explicitly—not just passively—undermine a Biden domestic policy at home and foreign policy overseas? He could go as far as even appointing his own “shadow cabinet,” fundraising off his aggrieved fan base as they underwrite his most loyal aides like Mike Pompeo and Mike Pence, who would also be out of office alongside Trump and casting about for how to chart their own political future. They could hold their own political meetings, press conferences and appear every night on Fox to stir the national political pot.

Rather than being able to focus on combating the pandemic and restarting the economy, Biden could find himself consumed on a daily basis by responding and batting away Trump’s latest conspiracies and complaints, and the nation consumed by an unprecedented roiling, low-grade political insurgency unlike anything the country has ever experienced. One open question, though, is how much hold does a defeated Trump end up having on the nation’s attention as time goes by? What seems wild on January 21 might become background noise by late February. As one media expert said to me, “The question is how much people stop listening to him?”

A Media Venture (But Not An Empire): Almost no matter his approach to his successor—merely disgruntled or actively hostile—Trump will surely want to be listened to, which is why he might look for a platform to keep himself in steady communication with the national movement of the disaffected he's fostered over the last two years as he seized and remade the Republican Party.

“He should go where his genius takes him,” says one expert. “He’s a genius about attention. Where is that most easily monetized? He’s a man in constant need for attention and exceptionally good at commanding and holding it.”

Rumors have long circulated that the Trump family would try to build its own media empire. Some have speculated that in 2016 Trump had been planning to launch “Trump TV” if, as even he expected, he lost the presidency to Hillary Clinton; one reporter even swore to me he saw a sign on the camera riser at Trump’s election night victory celebration reserving a spot for “Trump TV.” Earlier this year, there was conjecture that the Trump family and its backers might be interested in boosting and formally partnering with One America News (OAN), the upstart Fox challenger that has become an all-but unofficial Trump TV.

But many around Trump doubt that’s where his ambitions truly lie. Starting a media company would be tremendous work and capital-intensive, and unless he was set up as the front man for deep-pocketed investors willing to do the heavy-lifting, it hardly seems like the type of project a man who spent nearly a year of his presidency golfing would take up.

At the same time, establishing some sort of regularized media engagement will almost certainly be necessary as part of a unified brand-building and cross-promotion exercise—just as he used campaign appearances in 2016 to promote his branded wares before it became clear he’d actually win the nomination. In the future, think a Trump talk radio or TV show where the commercials are hawking Trump steaks. Even as president, the Trump family has continued to apply for additional trademarks around the world, presumably for future projects and products.

“Whatever he does, he’ll be a bad actor in the media environment,” says one political observer. “Even if the Republican Party abandons him and says ‘Trump who?’ he still has enormous reach to people who are disaffected and violent. ‘Stand back and stand by.’ I’d imagine he’d want to stay public in the same way he did with birtherism—but dialed up a notch. He wants to be relevant. He’s been very successful creating this dark and chaotic political environment. That makes him powerful even if he’s not holding office.”

As another expert says, “He’s going to do whatever it takes to stay in the conversation—and it’s going to take being ever more outrageous to stay there.”

One particular challenge Trump might pose domestically is if he becomes a nexus for disaffected, hawkish military or intelligence officers who want an outlet to criticize the Biden administration—just as former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani became a conduit during the 2016 campaign for disgruntled New York FBI agents unhappy with the bureau’s treatment of Hillary Clinton. (Yes, you read that right: Ironically, national security experts fear that Trump might become his own player in the “Deep State” resistance to his successor that he’s long railed against as president.)

“If a President Biden takes us back to a worse version of the Obama administration—an apologizing version of America that pulls back from aggressive action overseas—I can totally see him becoming that pathway,” says a former Trump administration official. As another intelligence professional says, “It’s Rudy on steroids in terms of introducing disinformation.”

One reason it will be likely be important for Trump to build and maintain his own megaphone and media platforms is that it seems unlikely Trump will benefit as much as his predecessors from what has become one of the most lucrative outlets for former national leaders: The cushy, high-priced paid corporate and university speaking gigs. Hillary Clinton made more than $22 million in speaking fees, addressing corporate groups (Gap paid $225,000 and Goldman Sachs paid $675,000 for three speeches), trade associations (the National Association of Chain Drug Stores paid $225,000), civic gatherings (the World Affairs Council of Oregon paid $250,000) and colleges and universities (UCLA paid $300,000). Still, while he might not exactly become a regular on college campuses and at Wall Street retreats, Sun Valley or other elite haunts, there are plenty of foreign governments, universities or companies that would have little compunction about welcoming Trump with open arms and presenting him with a hefty paycheck.

The Trump Brand on Steroids: The simple truth is that six-figure speaking gigs probably wouldn’t get Trump where he needs to be financially; the Trump Organization will need to be prioritizing seven-, eight-, and even nine-figure business deals. As Trump surveys his earning opportunities, it seems almost certain that—as troubling and stubborn as he may prove in domestic politics—his real chance to upend presidential tradition and American government lies overseas, the place where his richest business deals are likely to go down too.

Trump could choose to become the post-presidential equivalent of Dennis Rodman, globe-trotting at whim to advance his own interests, collect checks and tout his own ongoing relevance. Once he leaves office, there’s nothing to stop him from entering into lucrative and questionable business deals the world over—and he’d likely find a certain type of country or company all too eager to engage with him. “His mischief is much more international than national as an ex,” says a former senior Trump administration official. “There’s nothing [about leaving office] that diminishes his utility as an instrument of a foreign power.”

Trump towers in (left to right) Manila, Istanbul and Baku.

Trump’s past business practices already illustrate the possibilities: A hotel in Baku, Azerbaijan, which the New Yorker labeled “a corrupt operation engineered by oligarchs tied to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard”; recently revealed questionable business deals in China; and of course the Trump Tower Moscow project that he evidently pursued even as he ran for president. The possibilities for such deals post-presidency will expand exponentially and likely prove particularly necessary to secure the cash-flow necessary to hold off the Trump Organization’s $421 million in debt.

In the years before the White House, the Trump Organization had largely become a branding entity—licensing the Trump name to products and projects rather than owning them outright or developing them himself. That may continue to be a smart play post-presidency, providing steady cash without a lot of the headaches of running enterprises.

Trump As Strongman Validator: Even more lucrative than the Trump brand, though, would be selling Trump himself. Look for Trump not to be wooed by the nation’s top adversaries or allies, but instead by the secondary and tertiary global powers who want the imprimatur of U.S. recognition and respect and are willing to roll out the red carpet for state-visit-esque celebrations, perhaps all under the guises of fancy ribbon-cuttings of new Trump-branded projects.

Intelligence professionals can envision, for instance, Trump standing on the world stage alongside his favorite global strongmen—say Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, Hungary’s Viktor Orban or Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro—bragging about his new joint development deals and the world leaders willing to host him even as they reject entreaties from President Biden. Think “Trump Tower Damascus will be a new start for my peace-loving friend Bashar al-Assad.” Or even imagine Trump, Rodman-style, turning up courtside at North Korean basketball games with his buddy Kim Jong Un in Pyongyang, just as Joe Biden turns up the pressure on the Hermit Kingdom’s nuclear program.

A TV from a local clock store shows the summit between U.S President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un on February 28, 2019, in Hanoi, Vietnam.

Current presidents often deploy former presidents as roving global diplomats par excellence, ambassadors without portfolio but due the highest level of respect. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, for example, have both been sent to North Korea to work out delicate negotiations. But it’s unlikely that a President Biden would ever turn to Trump for help on touchy geopolitical problems. And it’s unlikely Trump would give it. Instead, experts imagine Trump as free chaos agent—more or less what he’s been inside the White House, but with even less staffing, process or official restraints.

“Undermining our will, effectiveness and attempts to reassert our values and effectiveness? He’d be 100 percent willing to mess with that 100 percent for personal gain and continued notoriety,” says a former Trump administration official. “Imagine you don’t have Jimmy Carter out there doing your bidding, you have Donald Trump sitting down with these guys and offering them a stage to sell themselves.”

Trump, who has brokered what he sees as a historic opening between Israel and other Middle Eastern countries largely by excluding Palestinians from the process, might be particularly inclined to undermine any attempts by future presidential administrations to restore their voice or rebalance power in the Middle East. Similarly, if a President Biden moves aggressively against any of the regimes Trump befriended as president, Trump wouldn’t necessarily stand on the sidelines.

“He could become the best friend, underminer, impediment to re-establishing any kind of normalized relationships the United States seeks in the future. He’s able to be there offering a different perspective. You’ve now created in him a negative-pressure relief valve,” says the former Trump administration official.

As another expert told me, “When it was his job to put the country’s interests first, he didn’t put the country’s interests first. Why would we expect anything different after?”

There is no precedent for a former president’s conducting his own freelance foreign policy—and certainly not one that would go against the expressed policy of his successor. (Perhaps the closest analogue is the complex plot by former vice president—and Hamilton killer—Aaron Burr to form a breakaway republic in then-southwestern United States with perhaps himself as emperor.) While the U.S. does have laws against citizens attempting to carry out their own foreign policy—it was concerns about that so-called Logan Act that helped launch the investigation of incoming Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn as he spoke to the Russian ambassador about Obama administration sanctions—the law has never been used in American history. As president, Trump has said he thought that former Secretary of State John Kerry violated the Logan Act in his one-man diplomacy to preserve the Iran deal as it was under attack from the Trump White House. The bar to deploy the Logan Act against a former government leader would be presumably high and prove as much a thorny political question as a criminal one. “We all shit all over the Logan Act [as useless], but at what point does that cross over into a legal issue? If he’s going to be trying to obstruct the foreign policy of the United States, what does that mean?” wonders the intelligence professional. “Talk about a complex investigation and case to bring.”

Most helpful to America’s adversaries overseas, though, would be that Trump’s ongoing tweeting and public appearances would simply serve as a constant reminder of America’s political instability. One of the reasons that Russia originally interfered in the 2016 election was simply to undermine the legitimacy of western democracies, and Trump’s ongoing tradition-shattering continues to underscore that message and lead other countries to doubt the moral superiority of American democracy.

Trump as Official (or Unofficial) International Consultant: Engaging with a former president offers other potential benefits for foreign powers. There does not appear to be anything beyond a sense of patriotism that would stop a former president from offering up the nation’s geopolitical, surveillance and intelligence secrets to the highest bidder and signing, say, a $10 million-a-month consulting deal with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia—a regime Trump has assiduously courted in office while brushing aside its most egregious actions, like the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. In certain ways, he could even use his final weeks and months in office to aid certain foreign countries that promise to pay him or his company later.

Presidents and vice presidents, as constitutional officers, are exempt from the normal security clearances and nondisclosure agreements that come with access to the nation’s most secret information. In fact, the entire classification system derives from presidential authority and the president is legally allowed to declassify anything at any moment for any reason. Trump has from time-to-time appeared to either make public unique American capabilities or reference even more secret ones, and he famously revealed highly secret foreign intelligence during an Oval Office meeting with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

As president, Trump has surely learned secrets worth literally trillions of dollars—information about U.S. espionage capabilities, intelligence assets on earth and in outer space and nuclear and war plans, as well as the quirks, perversions and predilections of leaders and politicians the world over. Normally, former presidents have remained tight-lipped about these secrets after leaving office, but that’s more about tradition, integrity and their own sense of duty than it is about the law. It would pose an uncertain legal question whether such freedom to share secrets continues on post-presidency. While the technical answer would almost certainly be “no,” the sensitivity of prosecuting a former president would make the bar enormously high—and presumably require a deeply egregious (and known) violation of government secrecy to even consider any action. “Can an ex-president be prosecuted for exposing classified information? There would be obstacles,” says one senior former government attorney. “It would be a novel argument that criminal laws apply to him.”

President Donald Trump in the Cabinet Room of the White House, April 3, 2020.

There might be some hoops for a former president to go through to do specific types of business with a foreign power—like registering as a foreign agent, under the Foreign Agents Registration Act law that tripped up Paul Manafort and others in Trump’s orbit previously. But as long as Trump files the correct paperwork, he would be as free to work with foreign governments as any other private citizen. As a former intelligence leader says, “His ability to lobby for the Saudi nuclear deals or Goya beans, if it’s got a dollar sign attached, he’ll try for it.”

Pumping Trump for secrets, though, wouldn’t necessarily come as part of a paid consulting gig. In fact, intelligence leaders and officers who have been around him in the White House doubt he’s paid enough attention to details or retained enough information to be that useful in turning over secrets. “He really doesn’t know that much,” says the former Trump official. “I don’t really believe he’s got the depth of knowledge to go explain to a foreign power the level of penetration that the NSA has gotten into various systems. I don’t think he can undermine the sources and methods of U.S. intelligence. He doesn’t know enough with enough fidelity to be actually destructive.”

Instead, the secrets most likely to leak out of Trump’s mind are exactly the examples we’ve already seen in public: Places where the U.S. possesses a unique weapon, capability or protective measure that fascinates him and that a foreign power could glean from wining, dining and coddling him amid a long-term business engagement or friendship. “In the eight-year-old kid that inhabits him, the things that would stick with him are details that he would think are neat or powerful,” assesses one former counterintelligence officer. “It’s going to be someone who hits his buttons, someone who can play him and make him blurt it out that way. Like ‘Oh, you the U.S. aren’t all that powerful,’ and he goes, ‘Oh yeah? We can do X!’ [I worry] there are infrastructure things and security details—this beautiful armored vehicle, they’ve got jetpacks in the presidential limo!—in the context of boasting that he would give up—details about continuity programs, resilience or security of the U.S. government.”

But it might not all be about money for Trump. Another reason that a Trump who loses reelection might mostly look inward to his existing supporters and outward to friendly foreign nations for friendship and admiration is that he’ll likely be excluded at home from the normal celebrations and honorary roles that typically flow to presidents.

When Kate Andersen Brower interviewed Trump in the Oval Office for her new book on former presidents, Team of Five: The Presidents Club in the Age of Trump, he fully admitted he expects to be ostracized by his predecessors. “I don’t think I’ll fit in very well,” he told her. “I’m a different kind of president.” Even as president, he’s largely eschewed the moral leadership aspects of the office and the role of the nation’s healer-in-chief, skipping most of the high-profile funerals and memories during his presidency—and even panning the legacies of people like John Lewis and John McCain—and it’s hard to imagine him hitting the state-funeral circuit as a former. Nor does it seem likely that he’ll pursue humanitarian projects, akin to the Carter Center or the Clinton Foundation, or invest his time in mentoring future generations of leaders and Americans, as the Obamas are, or tending privately to causes like wounded warriors, as George W. Bush does.

“None of those are things you imagine him having the slightest interest in—or being invited to participate in,” Gibbs says. “He likes being around the people who like him.”

Not even the most ardent West Wing fan fiction writer would stage Trump and Obama teaming up on future endeavors, as Clinton has done with both his predecessor Bush 41 and his successor Bush 43, leading W. to call Clinton his “brother with a different mother.”

Whenever—and if ever—Trump becomes a former president, he will pursue the job just as he’s pursued being president itself: On his terms, answering only to himself and keeping only his own counsel, reinventing almost every aspect of what Americans think of the office and its traditions. As Brower says, “President Trump is an island.”

Don Jr. dismisses coronavirus deaths: ‘The number is almost nothing’

Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, falsely claimed on Thursday that the number of Americans dying from the coronavirus amounts to “almost nothing.”

More than 8.9 million people in the United States have been infected with Covid-19, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University, resulting in more than 228,000 deaths. The U.S. tallied a single-day record of more than 83,000 coronavirus cases last Friday and reported a new daily peak of more than 88,000 cases on Thursday. Deaths, an indicator that typically lags behind the number of cases, have also been on the rise.

Deaths have indeed declined relative to last spring, in part because doctors have learned to manage the disease better and because of drugs that have proven to be helpful in combating it. Nursing homes, where thousands of Americans have died from the coronavirus, have also done a better job in slowing infection, although they face challenges protecting their highly vulnerable residents as Covid-19 continues to spread across the country.

But the deaths are not “almost nothing” — and they are rising. Roughly 1,000 Americans died from the disease on Thursday, as Trump Jr. appeared on Fox News host Laura Ingraham’s show to downplay the U.S. death toll. And among those who survive coronavirus, many have long-term damage to vital organs and lingering chronic symptoms.

“The reality is this: If you look, I put it up on my Instagram a couple days ago, because I went through the CDC data, because I kept hearing about new infections,” Trump Jr. said. “But I was like, ‘Well, why aren’t they talking about deaths?’ Oh, oh, because the number is almost nothing,” he continued. “Because we’ve gotten control of this and we understand how it works.”

Those remarks resemble other misleading or outright untrue rhetoric put forth in recent days by President Donald Trump, who has been increasingly dismissive of the pandemic’s threat ahead of Election Day. “More Testing equals more Cases. We have best testing. Deaths WAY DOWN,” he tweeted on Friday morning.

Trump has repeatedly said the U.S. is “rounding the turn” in its fight against Covid-19 — an assertion disputed by the administration’s coronavirus testing czar, who pointed to the growing number of deaths to correct the president. “The cases are actually going up. And we know that, too, because hospitalizations are going up,” Adm. Brett Giroir told NBC’s “Today” show on Wednesday, adding: “We do know that deaths are increasing, unfortunately.”

Public health experts predict an even greater death toll throughout the fall and winter months, as the U.S. coronavirus outbreak collides with the annual flu season. “If things do not change, if they continue on the course we’re on, there’s going to be a whole lot of pain in this country with regard to additional cases and hospitalizations and deaths,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, told CNBC on Wednesday.

How to watch election night like a pro

Nov. 3 is barreling toward us, but don't expect that to be the day we'll know who won the presidency. POLITICO's Zach Montellaro and Nerdcast host Scott Bland decode how to watch Election Day — and the days that follow — like a pro.

Subscribe and rate Nerdcast on Apple Podcasts.

Rabu, 28 Oktober 2020

New York’s largest nurses union rocked by internal political fights

NEW YORK — As nurses in New York City battled on the front lines of Covid-19, the union that represents them was locked in an internal political fight that staffers and members say has isolated the group from lawmakers and created a rift between leadership and longtime members.

The dispute at the 42,000-member New York State Nurses Association centers on key leadership of the union trying to pull the already-liberal group further to the left, in the model of the democratic socialist movement that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez kicked off in New York City and that has since spread throughout local labor and electoral politics.

The escalation in the state’s largest nurses union has brought allegations of cronyism, misappropriation of union funds, a whistleblower’s report with the federal Labor Department and a growing rift among NYSNA’s board of directors, staffers and membership, according to interviews with more than a dozen members and lawmakers, and a review of internal documents.

It’s also exacerbated fears that the union is losing its cachet in Albany at a time when nurses are being praised as heroes after facing the onslaught of the coronavirus in New York, an early national epicenter of Covid-19. The union lost its pandemic push to improve hospital staffing ratios after the state said in August the request was unattainable. And the group spent close to $200,000 on three failed lawsuits — against two hospitals and the state — amid the pandemic that were dismissed for legal flaws.

“They're eating their own,” a Cuomo administration official told POLITICO, requesting anonymity to speak freely. “They went from being major players to bit players because their leadership does one thing and their membership does the other.”

In an interview with POLITICO, union President Judy Sheridan-Gonzalez said the union was more united than ever, and the complaints within the group were the natural byproduct of an evolving mission.

“Our organization right now is very different than it was a year ago,” she said. “We’re beloved.”

The rift has been percolating for at least two years, but it came to the fore in December, when former Executive Director Jill Furillo was forced out of her post after securing safe-staffing ratios at the city’s public hospital system — a core agenda item for nurses. Furillo had won national recognition for her work in gaining favorable contracts and helped steer California's Legislature to establish the nation's first patient-to-nurse staffing ratios. But members who spoke to POLITICO said she frequently clashed with Sheridan-Gonzalez over the union's approach to lawmakers.

Furillo was replaced by Sheridan-Gonzalez's ally, Patricia Kane.

Sheridan-Gonzalez has overseen a leftward shift in the union as the New York City branch of the Democratic Socialists of America has attempted to build a stronghold there. State officials that work closely with the union as well as nine members, staffers and union leaders who spoke to POLITICO say the new approach is diluting NYSNA’s ability to advocate for its members.

“It’s been a year from hell, as a staffer,” one person said.

Sheridan-Gonzalez, who worked at Montefiore Medical Center for about 30 years as a registered nurse, is credited with overhauling NYSNA in 2011 to begin politically aligning it with left-wing policies like minimum nurse-patient ratios and a call for universal health care. She then took over as president in 2013, an elected role. About 2,500 to 4,000 NYSNA members vote in officer elections in any given year, according to the most recent records and interviews with members.

With the growing popularity of DSA's agenda in New York City, a dozen individuals said Sheridan-Gonzalez, who had earned a reputation as a reformer against cronyism and corruption, was pushing that agenda within the union.

Individuals interviewed by POLITICO who have worked with Sheridan-Gonzalez said she is attempting to flip union leadership posts to DSA-affiliated members, according to several people familiar with the situation.

The ideological push has meant a more militant approach toward politicians the union doesn’t consider progressive, including Gov. Andrew Cuomo, despite their reliance on Albany support for passing laws that will benefit members.

“[The union’s] job is to work with all lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to deliver on the agenda for the members. NYSNA has a really good way of being able to do that work,” said one NYSNA staffer. “The DSA does not deal with their politics that way.”

Sheridan-Gonzalez dismissed the allegation, saying the union endorses politicians who support health care for all, increased access to inpatient mental health services and keeping health care facilities like Mount Vernon Hospital open, among other issues.

“Safe staffing belongs to NYSNA,” she said. “It doesn’t belong to any other organization. NYSNA, safe staffing is like one word.”

State officials say the approach has been short-sighted and has been worsened by growing internal dysfunction which makes it harder for the union to grow its membership and secure better working conditions, especially amid the pandemic.

Two high-profile leaders within the union also left their roles around the time Furillo exited, prompting concerns that the union had lost some influence in Albany.

Tara Martin, state political director, and Karen Jarrett, downstate political director, were tasked with running the union’s political strategy and courting politicians in Albany to support legislation that helped nurses and health care workers. Martin declined to comment and Jarrett did not return a request for comment.

“The political team is one of the only places where women of color are in charge,” a NYSNA staffer said, referring to Martin and Jarrett who are Black. “Leadership remains all white and getting whiter, there seems to be this mass exodus of women of color.”

Under Sheridan-Gonzalez and Kane, “the political team has no direction and clear leadership,” she added.

“Our policy and platform are pretty clear,” Sheridan-Gonzalez said. “It hasn’t changed that much over the years.”

That policy and platform is aligned with the DSA’s politics, but the crossover within the union has alarmed some members and staffers.

The group, which since the rise of Ocasio-Cortez has increasingly dominated electoral politics in New York City, recognized that it needed to “make a concerted effort to expand organizing efforts in sectors dominated by communities not currently represented in DSA,” according to a DSA memo, first reported by POLITICO and issued in 2018.

“New York City nurses are predominantly women of color, a minority in NYC-DSA,” according to a blurb about NYSNA in the memo, co-authored by Marsha Niemeijer, a NYSNA staffer and DSA member. “DSA has described itself as committed to maintaining an active and diverse membership but is primarily composed of middle-class white people.”

Niemeijer did not return requests for comment.

The exits, coupled with culture clashes and a formal complaint lodged with NYSNA and the U.S. Department of Labor, prompted an anonymous group of individuals within the union to air their grievances with NYSNA on a blog called “NYSNA I See You.”

Fifteen NYSNA members, including two board members, signed off on a complaint to federal regulators that accused Sheridan-Gonzalez and Kane of “receiving improper financial benefits in the forms of ‘salaries’, stipends, or other remuneration, which they have arranged for themselves, with zero oversight or accountability.”

“This conduct is injurious to the organization because it not only misappropriates union funds, unfairly utilizes the resources of the organization, and compromises the judgement of the leadership, but it has also tarnished the reputation of the organization,” according to the eight-page complaint shared with POLITICO.

The Office of Labor-Management Standards at the U.S. Department of Labor declined to comment on the complaint through a spokesperson. Sheridan-Gonzalez denied the accusations and said if the complaint had merit, OLMS would have notified her that it was conducting an investigation, which it has not.

An executive committee within NYSNA — which includes Sheridan-Gonzalez, Kane, First Vice President Anthony Ciampa, Second Vice President Karine Raymond and Secretary Tracey Kavanagh — reviewed the allegations and dismissed them as being “untimely” and showing “insufficient” evidence, according to a written response to the 8-page complaint.

Valerie Burgos-Kneeland, a nurse who is vice president of the bargaining unit at Mount Sinai, said an investigation carried out by the accused was not likely to be very rigorous.

“Self-investigation is not unbiased or thorough and our union members are entitled and deserving of an independent investigation,” she wrote in an email about NYSNA’s dismissal of the complaint, a copy which was shared publicly on the blog.

“I do not see how either Patricia Kane or Judy Sheridan-Gonzalez ever expect themselves to be truly cleared in the eyes of members without an independent investigation,” she continued. “There will always be a dark cloud over their heads and doubts in member’s minds. That is not leadership.”

NYSNA has settled with several other staffers who threatened lawsuits, according to three people familiar with the settlements.

It is also facing pending lawsuits over accusations of racial discrimination and a whistleblower suit that alleged Kane — who ran for the state Assembly representing Staten Island’s North Shore in 2018 — had NYSNA hire her campaign manager to cover unmet compensation, according to two staffers. They requested anonymity to avoid retaliation.

“I’m not aware of any specific lawsuits that have been filed,” Sheridan-Gonzalez said. “Maybe they want a golden parachute to leave.”

When pressed about the whistleblower suit, Sheridan-Gonzalez said “some things are confidential to the organization” and said it was determined to be unjustified.

Terry Alaimo — the Mount Sinai System area director who was fired from her union position in May after sending an email to NYSNA leadership about the nurse who took the infamous “trash bag over PPE” photo at Mount Sinai was published in the New York Post — said she’s planning to sue NYSNA, according to the blog.

“Under advice of counsel at this point, I can’t discuss it,” Alaimo said.

NYSNA also spent more than $200,000 to sue the state health department, Westchester Medical Center and Montefiore Medical Center — where Sheridan-Gonzalez organized a no-vote on ratifying the nurses’ contract in a thwarted attempt to lead a strike in 2019 — over alleged inadequate levels of personal protective equipment and policies that harmed frontline workers.

All three of the suits have been thrown out by state and federal judges, who argued that they were beyond judicial review and did not have jurisdiction to implement the workplace protections NYSNA sought.

“We won,” Sheridan-Gonzalez said, noting the lawsuits were a tactic “to get things done” and prompted hospitals and the state health department to meet their demands.

Yet members said they saw it as a publicity stunt and pointed to the union’s growing inefficacy under Sheridan-Gonzalez and Kane, the latter who several people described as lacking the muscle that Furillo had. Sheridan-Gonzalez defended Kane as a “major, major brain in the transformation of NYSNA into a socially responsible organization,” and said that “under her leadership this union has thrived and grown.”

Under Kane’s leadership, NYSNA was given a seat on Covid-19 task forces by the governor and Mayor Bill de Blasio; helped shepherd NY A375, a whistleblower bill introduced by NYSNA member Assemblymember Karines Reyes; and became more visible to legislators, said Sheridan-Gonzalez when asked for examples.

Others, however, said NYSNA has not been able to achieve larger legislative goals compared to other unions that represent health care workers like 1199 SEIU and DC37. Some legislators said the union has been difficult to work with under Kane’s leadership.

NYSNA’s seeming decline in influence was illustrated most recently by the state health department’s long-awaited “safe staffing” study, which determined that minimum nurse-to-patient ratios at hospitals and nursing homes were not feasible in New York. Nurses have long pushed for better ratios, arguing proper care requires fewer patients per nurse.

The Cuomo administration report, which was released Aug. 14, determined the state would need to hire 70,000 more nurses and other caregivers at an annual cost of $3.7 to $4.7 billion to reach the ratios nurses were looking for — a cost the state deemed prohibitive in a defeat for the nurses.

“The Department of Health’s shoddy report is a slap in the face to frontline nurses who sacrificed so much during this crisis,” Kane said in a statement at the time. “Safe staffing could have saved lives during the COVID pandemic.”

For the 2020 primary, NYSNA members interviewed politicians in a manner described by three individuals as “humiliating” and “hostile.”

“I left there so angry,” said one veteran lawmaker. “I never felt so disrespected in a room in my whole career.”

The NYSNA convention will take place on Oct. 20, where members can vote on bylaw changes and the organization’s structural modifications, and adopt new rules — an occasion some members fear will further entrench the union's leftward swing.

“NYSNA has built itself into a fairly powerful political organization,” said one former staffer. “It was — I fear it is no longer.”

NYC, Seattle and Portland sue Trump over 'anarchist' designation

NEW YORK — New York and its fellow cities branded anarchist jurisdictions by the Trump administration filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging a move to pull their federal funds.

The Justice Department last month slapped the label on New York, Seattle, and Portland, saying they could lose federal funding because the administration believes they have failed to rein in “violence and destruction of property” on their streets. The “anarchist jurisdiction” designation came after President Donald Trump ordered the DOJ to identify cities that, in his view, were not responding aggressively enough to protests and crime — amid a larger rhetorical attack on blue states the president has deemed politically unsupportive.

The three cities filed a joint complaint Thursday in federal district court in Seattle seeking to block the move.

“In an act offensive to both the Constitution and common sense, President Trump has called on the Attorney General to formally identify certain American cities as ‘anarchist jurisdictions’ — an oxymoronic designation without precedent in American jurisprudence,” the three cities said in court papers filed in federal district court in Seattle. “The Defendants’ actions violate bedrock principles of American democracy: separation of powers, federalism, and due process.”

The cities argue that their finances are already strained by the Covid-19 pandemic — in New York’s case, with $9 billion in lost revenue — and losing their federal aid would be “devastating.”

New York City stands to lose as much as $12 billion if the threat were fully implemented.

“It’s morally wrong. It’s legally unacceptable. It’s unconstitutional, and we’re going to fight it,” Mayor Bill de Blasio said at a press briefing.

De Blasio at first dismissed the move as an election-year ploy. But officials said they’re taking it seriously after the Federal Transit Administration issued a notice of opportunity for cities to apply for a grant this month — and specified that “anarchist” cities could not participate.

The lawsuit will charge that the Trump administration is illegally infringing on Congress’s power to dictate how federal funds are spent. It will also claim that the designation is arbitrary, and is a violation of cities’ rights to decide how to police their streets and spend their own funds.

In subjecting New York to the label, DOJ cites a recent rise in shootings in the city as well as a purported $1 billion cut to the NYPD, and the decision by some district attorneys not to prosecute protesters arrested for minor offenses.

“It is made up out of whole cloth,” Corporation Counsel Jim Johnson said of the “anarchist jurisdiction” label. “There’s no statutory basis for it. There’s clearly no constitutional basis for it, and a court will see that it should make really short work of this and reject the characterization.”

De Blasio scoffed at the idea that anarchy had taken over city streets.

“This is a figment of Donald Trump’s troubled imagination," he said.

S&P 500 sinks 3.5% as surging virus cases lead to shutdowns

The Dow Jones Industrial Average sank 943 points Wednesday as surging coronavirus cases forced more shutdown measures in Europe and raised fears of more restrictions in the U.S.

The S&P 500 slid 3.5%, its third straight loss and its biggest drop since June. The benchmark index is already down 5.6% this week, on track for its biggest weekly decline since March. That's when the market was in the midst of selling off as strict lockdowns around the world choked the economy into recession.

Investors are growing increasingly anxious that the economy will lose momentum should more shutdowns be imposed just as prospects for more economic support from Washington have dwindled as Election Day nears.

“Many people had come to believe we were at least stable, and now we’re having a second uptick, which throws potential GDP and everything else up in the air,” said Randy Frederick, vice president of trading & derivatives at Charles Schwab. ”I did not expect this level of volatility or this degree of a sell-off.”

The S&P 500 lost 119.65 points to 3,271.03. The Dow lost 943.24 points, or 3.4%, to 26,519.95. The Nasdaq composite slumped 426.48 points, or 3.7%, to 11,004.87. The selling was widespread, and 96% of stocks in the S&P 500 fell.

The selling in U.S. markets followed broad declines in Europe, where the French president announced tough measures to slow the virus’ spread and German officials agreed to impose a four-week partial lockdown. The measures may not be as stringent as the shutdown orders that swept the world early this year, but the worry is they could still hit the already weakened global economy.

Coronavirus counts are also climbing at a troubling rate in much of the United States, and the number of deaths and hospitalizations due to COVID-19 are on the rise. Even if the most restrictive lockdowns don’t return, investors worry that the worsening pandemic could scare away customers of businesses regardless and sap away their profits.

Crude oil tumbled on worries that an economy already weakened by the virus would consume even less energy and allow excess supplies to build higher. Benchmark U.S. crude dropped 5.7% to $37.39 per barrel. Brent crude, the international standard, fell 5.4% to $39.12 per barrel.

Instead, investors headed into the safety of U.S. government bonds. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note fell to 0.77% from 0.79% late Tuesday. It was as high as 0.87% last week.

A measure of fear in the stock market touched its highest level since June, when the market suddenly tumbled amid concerns that a “second wave” of coronavirus infections had arrived. The VIX measures how much volatility investors expect from the S&P 500, and it climbed 20.8% Wednesday.

Even the continued parade of better-than-expected reports on corporate profits for the summer failed to shift the momentum.

Microsoft, the second-biggest company in the S&P 500, reported stronger profit and revenue for its latest quarter than expected. That’s typically good for a stock, but Microsoft nevertheless slumped 5%. It gave a forecast for the current quarter that was relatively in line with Wall Street forecasts, but analysts noted some caveats in it.

UPS fell 8.8% after also reporting better-than-expected earnings, though it said the outlook for its business is too cloudy due to the pandemic to offer any forecasts for its revenue or profits in the current quarter.

Companies broadly have not been getting as big a pop in their stock prices as they typically do after reporting healthier-than-expected profits. Analysts say that suggests good news on profits has already been built into stock prices and that the market’s focus is elsewhere.

Investors' hopes that Congress and the White House could soon offer more big support for the economy as it struggles through the pandemic have largely faded. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have continued their talks, but investors see little chance of a deal happening before Election Day next week.

Economists say the economy likely needs such aid after the expiration of the last round of supplemental unemployment benefits and other stimulus approved by Washington earlier this year.

Uncertainty about the upcoming presidential election has also been pushing markets around.

“The market never likes uncertainty," said Stephanie Roth, portfolio macro analyst at J.P. Morgan Private Bank. "People are just taking profits ahead of the election, to some extent.”

The race seems be getting tighter than it was just a few weeks ago, said Jamie Cox, managing partner for Harris Financial Group. “It has markets somewhat unnerved that the prospects of a contested election are back in the mix,” he said.

Cox said he expects more calm in the markets in November after the election passes and some of the uncertainty over a new aid package fades.

“Aid is coming regardless. There’ll be no political motivation to hold it back after the election,” he said. “There’s plenty of desire to get money out to people so I think it will happen one way or another in November.”

Ratcliffe went off script with Iran remarks, officials say

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe went off script when he alleged during a press conference last week that Iran was sending intimidating emails to Americans in order to “damage President Trump,” according to two senior administration officials with knowledge of the episode.

The reference to Trump was not in Ratcliffe’s prepared remarks about the foreign election interference, as shown to and signed off by FBI Director Chris Wray and senior DHS official Chris Krebs, the director of the department’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency.

Wray and Krebs stood behind Ratcliffe as he addressed the public, supportive of the general intention to alert voters to a malicious influence operation. But they were surprised by Ractliffe’s political aside, which had not appeared in the prepared text, the officials said.

The press conference centered around menacing emails that had been sent to Democratic voters warning them to vote for Trump “or we will come after you.”

Ratcliffe attributed the emails to Iran but said they were “designed to intimidate voters, incite social unrest, and damage President Trump,” raising immediate questions about how threatening Democrats to vote for Trump could be aimed at damaging the president’s re-election bid — and how the intelligence community had made that determination within 24 hours of the messages.

Ractliffe also contrasted Iran’s actions with those of Russia, adding, “although we have not seen the same actions from Russia, we are aware that they have obtained some voter information just as they did in 2016.”

Ratcliffe, who has come under fire from Democrats since his confirmation in May, had decided on his own earlier on in the day to hold the press conference about the spoofed emails, the officials said. The FBI and CISA joined in on the briefing so that the warning about Iranian and Russian interference in the presidential election would be seen as independent and apolitical.

Journalists were given a roughly 30-minute warning about a forthcoming “election security” announcement. The seven-minute briefing, during which the officials didn’t take any questions, was hastily arranged and rushed, officials said, to avoid conflicting with a rally Trump was scheduled to give that night.

The unusual announcement prompted days of leaks and counterleaks over whether Iran or Russia represented the greater election threat, and set off a fresh round of criticism from Democratic lawmakers.

It wasn’t the first time Ratcliffe has raised hackles on Capitol Hill: He received bipartisan criticism last month when he declassified a Russian intelligence assessment that was previously rejected by Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee as being potential Russian disinformation. He also scaled back election security briefings to lawmakers over the summer because of leaks, prompting outrage from Democrats. And earlier this month he appeared to reveal that the FBI was investigating a matter related to Joe Biden’s son Hunter in remarks that some law enforcement veterans deemed inappropriate.

Last week’s briefing about Iran and Russia was meant to be a kind of victory lap — government analysts and private sector investigators had been able to attribute the influence operation to Iranian hackers within a matter of hours, whereas it usually takes months for investigators to confidently determine the origins of a foreign cyberattack. The attribution was aided by a series of clumsy mistakes the hackers made, Krebs told reporters in a separate briefing last week.

In their intimidating emails, the Iranian hackers had posed as the Proud Boys, a far-right group that gained national notoriety at last month’s first presidential debate when Trump, asked to denounce white supremacists, instead told the Proud Boys to “stand down and stand by.”

That is another area where Ratcliffe went off script, the officials said: He omitted any references to the Proud Boys during last week’s briefing, even though the group was named in his prepared remarks.

A senior intelligence official said that Ratcliffe’s remarks were being edited “until mere moments before he went on stage” and that “the broad strokes were shared with agencies who had equities in the press conference to make sure everyone was on the same page.”

Officials at the FBI and CISA referred questions to ODNI. DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“Literally no one is disputing the 100 percent factual accuracy of the DNI’s remarks,” said Amanda Schoch, the assistant DNI for strategic communications. “The rest of this is just pointless process noise, most of which is inaccurate or taken out of context.”

Schoch noted an Aug. 7 statement by Bill Evanina, the director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center.

Evanina said the intelligence community had assessed that Iran “seeks to undermine U.S. democratic institutions, President Trump, and to divide the country in advance of the 2020 elections.”

“What the DNI made clear last week is that Iran is executing activities to influence the U.S. election,” Schoch said. “The [intelligence community] has not changed our assessment on Iran’s intent.”

In the wilds of Arizona, a hunt for bipartisanship

YUMA, Ariz. — Down a long dusty track, the Dunn family homestead appears like an oasis, shielded by a thick patch of palm trees from the parched expanse and nearly triple-digit temperatures.

The wheat farm operated by state Rep. Timothy Dunn, a conservative Republican from a district along the U.S.-Mexico border, is also a refuge from the partisan wars being waged across this battleground state and reshaping the national political map.

Five Democratic elected officials trekked to this corner of the Grand Canyon State in early September to join five Republicans for the opening of dove hunting season. The overnight outing, billed as “barbeque, burritos, and birds,” was a rare celebration of bipartisanship: The group talked over a friendly dinner before setting out at dawn for their prey, in all spending nearly a full day getting to know each other out of sight of the cameras and the raucous debates back in Phoenix.

The meeting was all the more extraordinary because the tectonic plates of Arizona politics are shifting: Republicans are still calling the shots, but they may not be for long in the face of a Democratic resurgence. “I trolled them about us being in the majority come January,” quipped Alma Hernandez, a Democratic state representative from Tucson who attended the hunt for the second year in a row with her brother Daniel, who is also a member of the Arizona House of Representatives.

Arizona’s steady transformation in recent elections from a solidly red state into a battleground is fast becoming a political axiom. And this year is poised to leave little doubt about which way it’s leaning. Democrats have a shot at taking control of the statehouse for the first time in more than half a century while sending two U.S. senators to Washington for the first time since the 1950s. President Donald Trump, who carried the state by nearly four points in 2016, could also become the first Republican presidential candidate to lose here in nearly 25 years.

The statewide shift also means the strengthening of political extremes as parts of the state live vastly different lifestyles. The urban liberal bastions — strengthened by an influx of Latinos and other new arrivals to the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas — now sit amid solidly conservative strongholds where evangelicals, Catholics and Mormons represent Trump’s core base of support.

It is a state where a lawmaker recently declared that requiring child vaccinations is akin to forcing the populace to be tattooed like the victims of the Holocaust, but where its second-most populous city has adopted some of the most liberal policies in the nation to protect illegal immigrants from police sweeps. It’s also a place where legislators representing adjacent legislative districts from opposing parties can share government office space but barely speak to each other for two years.

But while many politicians are busy drawing sharp lines and stirring up their bases with harsh rhetoric, there’s also a new generation of leaders who are attempting — often to the dismay, even ire, of party elders and rank-and-file colleagues alike — to be dealmakers in governing one of the most divided electorates in the nation. They don’t necessarily define themselves as centrists. Dunn, the representative from Yuma who hosted the dove-hunting party, lists his first three priorities as “Border Security, Protecting the Second Amendment, and Defending Life,” but he separates himself from some of his colleagues by preaching that liberals care about the future of Arizona, too. He’s looking for common ground on state issues.

"We differ politically, but we all have our passions and are trying to represent our constituencies,” Dunn said. “Anytime you can talk to people across the aisle and understand where they’re coming from, you’re able to better represent those folks you don’t necessarily align with ideologically.”

Other emerging dealmakers — some of whom were along on the dove hunt — are a diverse set of political players with a complicated mixture of motives: T.J. Shope is a third-generation elected official from a rural swath of the state that’s one of the few expanding Republican bastions. He insists his party, the GOP, must evolve or it could see its statewide influence wane further. He fears that Arizona is on a path toward becoming another Colorado, which went from solidly red to solidly blue in a few election cycles.

Another member of the group, state Rep. César Chávez — named in honor of the famed labor leader — is an openly gay but more culturally conservative Democrat from the inner city and a former undocumented immigrant. And there is state Rep. Walt Blackman, a political neophyte who became the first black Republican in the state legislature last year. He is now fighting for reelection in his deeply divided district in northern Arizona by attempting, with mixed success, to keep one foot planted on the middle ground.

The sibling insurgents in the state legislature, Alma and Daniel Hernandez, and their sister Consuela, a school board member in greater Tucson, have come to be known collectively as the “Hernandi.” They are well on their way to toppling the liberal Democratic order in the state’s second-most populous city and are eyeing new territory for their more moderate brand of progressive politics.

Left: “We don’t have time to be ideological,” says Jenn Daniels, the former mayor of Gilbert, Ariz., who is now advising the campaign of U.S. Sen. Martha McSally. Right: “Anything that has been accomplished that has positively influenced either the American people, or the people of Arizona, has been implemented by bipartisanship,

Jenn Daniels recently completed three-and-a-half years as the Republican mayor of Gilbert, a Phoenix suburb that has recently been transformed into a humming economic engine, who sums up her governing style like this: "We don't have time to be ideological."

There is also the first-term sheriff of Maricopa County, Paul Penzone. He said he is working to convince his four and half million constituents — which make up more than half the state’s population — to forget he’s a Democrat as he tries to depoliticize one of the state’s most powerful elected positions after a generation of abuse by the infamous Joe Arpaio.

Taken together, these political personalities represent a small but influential group carrying on Arizona’s tradition of independent-minded politicians who don’t always fall in line with party orthodoxy and can work across the aisle. Think John McCain. But they also carry a message for other states struggling to contend with polarized parties and electorates: There is more goodwill in the hearts of individual politicians than in the collective atmosphere in which they operate.

T.J. Shope, the speaker pro tempore of the Arizona House of Representatives, has emerged as a leader of the “governing Republicans” who says his party must evolve. “Evolving doesn't always mean a change of ideology. Sometimes it means a change in tone … Some people are here for show.”

“It was my very first time hunting,” Chávez, who represents a poor urban district that covers West Phoenix and has the highest population of Latinos in Arizona, said of the recent dove hunt. “Bipartisanship is probably the most crucial strategy in policy making. We’d be remiss if we didn’t at least try.”

‘Some folks are here for show’

Shope, donning his signature cowboy boots but trading his telltale ten-gallon hat for a mask emblazoned with the Arizona state flag, sat in the luncheonette in the corner of his family’s IGA grocery store in Coolidge, about an hour’s drive southeast of Phoenix.

“Not everybody has cotton fields in the backyard,” said the 35-year-old speaker pro tempore of the Arizona House, the body’s second-ranking position, describing some of the features of his rural district, which boasts the highest gun ownership in the state and which Trump carried by more than 15 percentage points in 2016.

Shope, whose father was mayor of Coolidge and grandmother a city councilwoman, was elected to the state house in 2012 after serving on the local school board. He is expected to easily move up to the state Senate in November.

He has witnessed the ground shift beneath his feet. A decade ago, the Democratic Party had a 9 percent advantage in voter registration in his legislative district. Today it's 3 percent in favor of the GOP, making it one of the few areas in the state trending Republican.

Garrett Archer, who until last year was the senior elections analyst for the Arizona secretary of state, says Shope’s district is emblematic of the flip side of the influx of Democratic voters in the state: the exodus of conservatives to the outer suburbs.

“As the inner suburbs turn purple and newer families are moving in, families who are more conservative are relocating out to the farther suburbs,” Archer explained. “Those areas are swiftly becoming more Republican.”

And nowhere is that more pronounced, he said, than in Pinal County, which makes up much of Shope’s district.

In the process, Shope has emerged as a leader of a tight group of Republicans who believe the levers of government can be made to work for the voters and have gained a reputation for seeking out Democratic allies.

Kirk Adams, the former state House speaker and chief of staff to Gov. Doug Ducey, refers to Shope as one of the leaders of the “governing Republicans."

But they are still far outnumbered by their Tea Party-affiliated brethren who came to power a decade ago on an anti-government plank and who remain a force to be reckoned within GOP politics.

Shope, who jokes that he is the “token Mexican” in the Republican caucus (his mother’s family is from Mexico), has built a record of trying to bridge the gap with Democrats – and giving both sides a fair hearing when he often holds the gavel.

Part of it is driven by his broader political ambitions. For the second year in a row the Arizona Capitol Times recently named Shope as the most likely to run for the U.S. Congress in 2022, after redistricting is widely expected to grant Arizona an additional congressional seat.

But in several conversations, Shope reenforced what he sees as the need for the Republican Party here to evolve if it is going to remain relevant.

“Evolving doesn't always mean a change of ideology,” he explained in an interview in the statehouse.“Sometimes it means a change in tone and a change in the way that you address an issue with the same principles. Some folks are here for show. You can sit here for a day or two and you can pick out who's trying to get recorded, or get their viral video, so they can make that a plank of their next campaign.”

“I don't know that I've wavered,” he added. “If you look at my voting record, it's pretty darn conservative. But I'm viewed not with the hardliners, I guess you would call them, and more so with folks that are kind of a middle-of-the-road type of person.”

For example, he is one of the only members of the Republican caucus that is openly supportive of decriminalizing marijuana. “I think that’s where people are,” he contends.

Shope has also bucked the more conservative elements of his party on other issues. “You go back to the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage," he said. "I was one of the very first people to tweet out my congratulations. ... Some of these things that we have held onto are not where the populace is.”

The challenge now, he said, is to find new ways to join forces with Democrats to overcome the extreme elements in both parties.

He bemoaned how members who support legislation emanating from across the aisle are often bullied into blocking passage by their own leaders, simply to preserve partisan talking points to vilify the other side.

"Everything has been in a sense nationalized," he complained. "And we have groups on their side, for sure, who don't want to make any deals. And then the same thing happens on our side."

‘I don’t want to keep people in poverty’

Chávez says that his friends joke that if he lived in neighboring California he’d be a Republican.

But the 32-year-old mariachi singer turned state rep credits his Catholic and culturally conservative Latino background for compelling him to listen to both sides and to espouse what he calls his “conservative values,” even as a rising Democrat on the Arizona political scene.

On a recent morning at Press Coffee Roasters in central Phoenix, Chavez explained why he is not always viewed as a team player among Democratic party stalwarts.

Dressed in a striped blue button-down shirt and a mask and clutching copies of The Wall Street Journal and The Arizona Republic, he's come far fast from Maryvale, an inner-city Phoenix neighborhood known in past decades for having a cancer cluster and rampant gang warfare. That's where Chávez grew up as an undocumented immigrant.

“I don't want to keep people in poverty,” he said. “How are we moving the ball forward, getting money in their pockets, creating jobs, opportunities?”

Archer, the former aid to the Arizona secretary of state, said he sees Chávez as a leader of the “chamber Democrats,” as in the business-minded Chamber of Commerce, which tends to find common ground with Republicans on fiscal matters.

But Chávez credited bipartisanship with birthing some of the most far-reaching policies to benefit his constituents. He said Democrats and Republican worked together on the legislation that transformed his own life — the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. It was passed by a Democratic House and signed by Republican President Ronald Reagan. It gave his family a path to citizenship.

“Anything that has been accomplished that has positively influenced either the American people, or the people of Arizona, has been implemented by bipartisanship," he said. "Medicare, Medicaid, education policy, you name it.”

Walt Blackman, the first Black Republican elected to the state legislature, is struggling to hang on to his deeply divided northern Arizona district by pledging to bring the two parties together.

‘No one should die that way’

On Sept. 11, Blackman, maskless and wearing a dark suit and a bright red tie, stood in front of Flagstaff City Hall where 3,000 American flags had been planted in the grass to honor victims of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The first-term state representative and 21-year Army veteran who earned a Bronze Star in Iraq waved at the passing cars as he milled among a small group waving large American flags, including several with a blue line across expressing support for the police. One woman carried a sign declaring “Veterans Lives Matter.”

A steady number of passing cars honked their horns in support. A few drivers shouted, “f--- you.”

“We are as divided as the nation,” remarked Blackman, 54, who lives in the conservative bastion of Snowflake. That seems especially true in his northern Arizona legislative district, which is widely considered the key race in determining who controls the statehouse come January.

The district leans Republican in voter registration but has a large population of snowbirds — Northerners who fled to Arizona for the weather — and college students. Much will depend on turnout. And this year is expected to see record numbers of voters cast their ballots.

His Republican colleague Shope describes Blackman’s district this way: The left half consists of the Subaru drivers and the right of Ford F-150 pickup truck drivers.

“It is a hardened constituency,” Archer said. “You've got wholly liberal enclaves of Flagstaff, Sedona, you've got kind of a 50-50 spot like Cottonwood, and then basically Camp Verde and Show Low, which are the heart of Trump country in Arizona. You've got a tale of two vastly different districts with almost equal population.”

“It is a purple district numerically but you are either very liberal or very conservative," he added. "There is very little middle ground there.”

But one area where Blackman has successfully bridged the divide is on criminal justice reform. He was was able to get legislation passed with broad bipartisan support earlier this year that will give felons more opportunities to reduce their sentences, such as by completing drug treatment programs.

“On the right, we have the hardliners, the folks that actually wrote [the] truth-in-sentencing [law],” Blackman explained. “On the left, we have those who want to let everybody out."

Arizona Rep. Walt Blackman — the first black Republican elected to the state legislature — greets a security official while walking around the state capital photographed Sept. 16, 2020 at the Arizona Capitol in Phoenix, Ariz. (M. Scott Mahaskey/Politico)

“I was saying, ‘If we don't fix the criminal justice system and we continue to try to be so conservative and we don't do anything, we're going to continue to have the problems that we're having,'” he continued.

Blackman’s situation, trying to bridge a divided district, illustrates the importance of seeking bipartisan solutions but also its limits. He isn’t going to be a darling of the left any time soon, as evidenced by his response to the Black Lives Matter movement — and the fierce backlash from some of his Democratic colleagues.

“A thousand Black babies die every single day,” he told POLITICO. “A thousand babies will die today due to abortion. I don't hear one word from Black Lives Matter. There are more planned Parenthoods in Black communities than anywhere else in the United States.”

As for George Floyd, who died in police custody and set off nationwide protests, he said, “No one should die that way."

“But we are sending a message to young black kids that that is a hero?" he asked. "It is not a hero. He had at least seven drug offenses. He held a gun to a pregnant woman's stomach. George Floyd died a long time ago because the system killed him. A lot of that was the community. A lot of that was his own decisions that he made. How about if we would have taken care of George Floyd when he started in the criminal justice system, making sure that he had the drug treatment?”

If he wins a second term, Blackman said, he thinks his approach to governing may translate more widely and he will consider running for statewide office in the future.

"I think I am able to bridge this gap, bring people closer to the middle," he said.

Arizona Democrat Rep. Alma Hernandez greets a facilities worker Sept. 16, 2020 at the Arizona State Capitol in Phoenix, Ariz.

‘Our parents taught us to question things’

Alma, 27, Consuela, 28, and Danny, 30, each outfitted with matching masks stenciled with "Vote Hernandez," took sips of their Eegee's, a frozen fruit drink local to Tucson.

Sitting at a safe distance around a picnic table on a recent morning in the courtyard of the government center on Congress St., the sibling trio shared a status report on their insurgency against the entrenched establishment in one of the strongest Democratic strongholds in the state.

"Our parents taught to question things," Daniel said. "They taught the three of us the importance of digging deeper."

Daniel said his politics were heavily shaped by a health crisis in his teens when the family lacked adequate health insurance. He said he and his sisters have been viewed as "troublemakers" since he was first elected to the Sunnyside school district's governing board at the age of 21, after he helped save the life of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in the 2011 shooting spree in Tucson in which she was critically injured.

Once in local office he swiftly proceeded, with the help of Alma and Consuela, to gather signatures and ultimately recall two longtime Democratic school board members.

"When I first got there, there was a lot of problems within the district leadership, with nepotism and corruption," he said. "I aligned myself with a libertarian and he and I worked closely to really dismantle the problems and really try and improve things for the staff and the students. But the easiest thing would have been for me to just toe the party line."

Consuela, who followed in her brother's footsteps by winning a seat on the school board and focusing heavily on fairness in contracting, said that was the moment they all began to emerge as the vanguard of a new, more independent-minded generation of Democrats.

"I think that was moment where people started to really realize, 'Oh, these kids are going to do whatever they think and not what we're telling them,'" she recalled.

At times that has meant not always endorsing Democratic dogma, especially for Daniel, who was elected to the state legislature in 2016, and Alma, who followed in 2018. (The Arizona legislature has term limits; members can only serve four consecutive terms in each chamber.)

The Hernandezes are undoubtedly staunch progressives — Daniel, who is openly gay, is a leading voice on LGBTQ rights and gun control legislation — but they refuse to be pigeonholed on any given policy or legislative proposal.

"Sometimes I have made a few folks in our caucus upset over votes or stances I have taken," Alma explained. "I just feel strongly we shouldn't support a bill just because it's a Democratic or Republican bill. We should support it because we feel it's the right thing to do."

Alma, who at 14 was brutally attacked by police officers, worked with Ducey, the Republican governor, to secure $1 million for training police officers in deescalation tactics. She also recently prevailed on Republicans to support $60 million for a number for her policy priorities, including more social services for the elderly, even though she ultimately voted against the final GOP-crafted budget bill.

And Alma, who converted to Judaism, pulled off something else rare: pushing through a bill earlier this year mandating that the Holocaust be taught in Arizona schools. The measure garnered nearly unanimous support in both chambers.

All three siblings, who are currently studying for their master's degrees in legal studies together at the University of Arizona, also bristle at the toxic political atmosphere in which party leaders pressure the rank and file not to work with the other side so they can attack them as unreasonable at election time.

Alma, Daniel and Consuela Hernandez have formed a powerful trio of rising Democrats in state and local politics who have bucked party orthodoxy by working with Republicans.

Daniel said he experienced it when he worked with Republicans to improve the data reporting system underpinning background checks for gun purchases, and when he sought to join forces in ending workplace discrimination against LBGTQ people before the U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier this year settled the issue.

His response to one senior Democrat who asked him to stop working with Republicans on the latter issue: "So what you're telling me is it's more important that you win an election than I get my rights or protections?

"And she said, 'Why are you so difficult? Everybody else was on board with this plan.'"

"I try and find out what are the things that bring us together and what are those things that we agree on," he added. "Not focusing on the things that we disagree on, because there's plenty of time and plenty of other people to fight that fight."

Added Consuela: "Even between us, we don't always agree on everything. But we've always done what we think is the right thing, not what we are told we should be doing. Because we like to hold our own people accountable, we ruffle feathers. And we of course do the same for Republicans."

‘Super passionate about local government’

Many across the political divide identify Daniels, a 41-year-old mother of four, as an example of how to govern effectively in a state where the ideological divisions are as deep as ever.

Daniels, who was first elected to the Gilbert City Council in 2008, has seen the Republican-leaning Phoenix suburb grow from 190,000 to 260,000 residents in little more than a decade.

In the process, she has played a major role in helping to transform what not long ago was a rural, mostly Mormon enclave into a growing high-tech hub and one of the most attractive job markets and bedroom communities in the state.

She has an enviable list of accomplishments to point to, and many in the GOP see her as the future of the party in Arizona if she decides to run for higher office.

In addition to its thriving economy, Gilbert has been rated in several surveys as one of the safest cities in the nation. It boasts a long-range infrastructure plan that’s funded and a balanced budget. And growing partnerships between the business community, educational institutions and faith and nonprofit groups are seen as a model for other municipalities.

“I’m super passionate about local government because it’s a place where we don’t have time to be ideological,” she said on a recent afternoon in Postino, an open-air eatery on a restaurant row, Gilbert Ave., which was revitalized into a prospering commercial district. “We don’t have time to be philosophical about how we govern."

But Daniels, who is now advising the uphill reelection campaign of Republican U.S. Sen. Martha McSally, says the most passionate partisans on both sides are making it exceedingly difficult to make progress.

“I have had to deal with the ideological conversations but those don’t get you very far,” she said. “We need to shift our thinking when it comes to politics. We've got 10 percent fringe right, we’ve got 10 percent fringe left. The 80 percent in the middle probably aren't that far apart on 90 percent of the things we are trying to solve. These two groups are so loud, the volume is turned up so loud and they have platforms they have never had before."

They can't be quieted, she said, but they need to be countered.

"People care more about the practical approach and the solution than they really care about the R or the D," she said. "I think that’s why you see people switching who they are voting for.”

‘No place for politics’

Penzone's office in downtown Phoenix is festooned with a host of keepsakes and mementos, from a signed poster of the movie "Rocky" to a copy of the late Sen. Barry Goldwater's (R-Ariz.) trailblazing manifesto, "Conscience of a Conservative." And there are several crosses, testaments to his abiding religious faith.

But what stands out the most is the large quote hanging on the wall from philosopher Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Penzone, the 53-year-old former Phoenix police sergeant who was elected sheriff of Maricopa County as a Democrat in 2016, said he is steadily working to exorcise the ghost of his predecessor, Arpaio, who for nearly a quarter century notoriously used the office to advance his extreme anti-immigrant and racist agenda. Known for bringing back chain gangs, Arpaio became a hero to anti-immigration extremists before being convicted of criminal contempt for failing to follow a court order in a racial profiling case. Trump pardoned him in 2017.

"When it comes to this office, there's no place for politics," Penzone said in a recent interview. "I just think that historically this office has been abused in that way. And I'm not going to repeat that behavior. My predecessor was abusing people of color and rounding them up."

How does he measure success? One is the vast reduction in lawsuits filed against his department for the actions of his deputies over the past four years.

"You know, when you see lawsuits down by 60 to 75 percent, that tells me that the men and women understand that the bad behaviors of the past were unacceptable," Penzone explained.

Another measure, he related, is less tangible: when constituents come up to him and say, "Thank you for not being on the news."

"It is this perception of a positive relationship, or perception of safety," he explained.

But Penzone is the first to admit that his mission is far from complete, in an institution that still includes some officers who are part of what he terms the Old Guard. He is currently in the heat of a reelection campaign against Jerry Sheridan, who was Arpaio's No. 2.

"I'm running against 2.0 of the last regime," Penzone said of his challenger. "So for that little faction, they're like, 'Oh my gosh, are we going to go back to where we were? At least a chance?' So they become more empowered."

He added: "All of a sudden we get closer to an election and it's noisy again by a small faction that is trying to be disruptive, trying to toxify and trying to influence their peers to buy into this mentality that, you know, 'We shouldn't be accountable to anyone.'"

By all accounts, Penzone, whose campaign slogan is "Leadership Over Showmanship," is widely expected to easily secure another term in what would amount to a resounding repudiation of the policies of the past.

But he said he sees this election as a turning point for the country as well, where both parties must restore public faith in order to quell rising extremism and conspiracy-mongering on both sides of the political spectrum.

"If a group is intent on pushing hate or violence," he said, "that is not a group that should ever be accepted in the United States of America. It's like that saying on the wall right there. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men or women do nothing. We have some leaders who speak in support of [hate]. And we have other leaders who say nothing or do nothing. And that breathes life into those groups and gives them power."

“I truly believe that as a nation we hit this juncture of instability," Penzone added. "People don't know what to expect from leadership because it is so inconsistent. Politics has made it okay for people to go out and be misleading or do something that they know is inappropriate. But they act like that because they're trying to protect their party. That makes it acceptable."

But it’s not what he thinks the majority of his constituents want.

"I truly think that on both sides of the political aisle the majority of people yearn to see leaders that they know that when you speak that they can trust your words."

Worker cleaning floors to entrance of House side of the Arizona Capitol photographed Sept. 16, 2020 at the Arizona State Capitol in Phoenix, Ariz. (M. Scott Mahaskey/Politico)

‘Building relationships’

Building trust among elected officials from opposing political camps is considered a critical first step for a number of up-and-coming Arizona pols.

That was the main goal of the GOP-hosted hunting expedition on the Dunn family farm in Yuma last month. It was attended by Daniel and Alma Hernandez and Chávez, as well as fellow Democrat and centrist Aaron Lieberman. He represents a suburban section of north Phoenix that had a 10,000-voter advantage for Republicans when he was elected two years ago but is now down to about 2,500.

"I won by 2,000 votes. I probably won because of the Republicans who voted for me," Lieberman said. "I appreciate members like Tim Dunn who reach across the aisle and care about building relationships. It is what we need to get back to as a state."

“We can do something that’s not political," Dunn seconded.

Barrett Marson, a GOP political consultant, has also seen the statewide shift toward the Democrats as giving rise to more practical players in both parties.

"I think you are seeing more of the T.J. Shopes and the Jenn Danielses, who can be pragmatic conservatives and still retain conservative values but also not dig their heels in," he said.

And even as the Democratic Party lurches further to the left, there is a reality here they cannot ignore.

"Democrats in Arizona haven't been in the majority for two or three generations," Marson said. "The most successful Democrats in this state have been centrist Democrats and attempted to work with Republicans, or at least do some things that Republicans have advocated."

Arizona Rep. Walt Blackman - the first black Republican elected to the state legislature - greets Republican Rep. T.J. Shope - Speaker Pro Tempore of the Arizona House of Representatives - photographed Sept. 16, 2020 at the Arizona Capitol in Phoenix, Ariz.

"At the end of the day," he added, "this is still a somewhat conservative but also somewhat libertarian state. So any politician to some extent has to bend to that will."

Daniel Hernandez also said he sees another political strategy at play on the part of some Republicans ahead of what could be a major turning point at the polls.

"They are preparing for being in minority for the first time in 54 years" he said of Arizona Republicans. "I think there is a faction within the Republican caucus [that is] very much trying to figure out how do work effectively across party lines and try and get things done."

"They are preparing for being in minority for the first time in 54 years" he said. "I think there is a faction within the Republican caucus that’s very much trying to figure out how to work effectively across party lines and try and get things done."

But, he cautioned, "There is also, I think, an even larger faction that's horrified that we might take the majority and already planning to do nothing but be obstinate and difficult and make everything painful, because it wants to try and take the majority back."

“There is going to be a settling-in period,” added Shope, the Republican leader, looking to the aftermath of the highly contested election. “It is my responsibility to work across the aisle.”