Sidebar

In the run-up to any modern presidential election, assessing a candidate’s successes and failures has served as fodder for political pundits, analysts and campaign advisers. And in part, those assessments of who is winning and which messages are working are drawn from a whole sprawling effort designed to take the pulse of the American voter: political polling.These days, there are public polls, private polls and polling shops out of news organizations, universities and research centers. There’s also internal polling specifically conducted for candidates with a stake in a given race. Each kind of poll serves a different purpose and often a different audience. But they have in common an effort to learn more about how Americans make choices about what issues to value, what causes to believe in and about which candidates to support.Reporting shows that President Trump has been watching polls closely as the November election nears. And, at this point, things are not looking great for Trump, who trails Joe Biden in most national polls. Trump’s team has argued that many polls that show a Biden lead are skewed, that a“silent majority” of voters will turn out for him in the fall, and that 2020 polling is just a repeat of 2016 polling, which showed Hillary Clinton leading nationally.Of course, as 2016 showed, polls aren’t perfect. And the ways they are interpreted can also present problems. But they remain critical to the American electoral process.On this episode of the“Can He Do That?” podcast, The Post’s polling team, Scott Clement and Emily Guskin, delve into conducting and interpreting polls during an election season. How exactly can polls be representative of the electorate? And are polls predictive of how a country will eventually vote?Related episodesWill the Court’s decision on electors prevent(at least some) election mayhem?U.S. elections are being tested like never before. What comes next?How Trump is leveraging the presidency to campaign against Biden

The United States is in search of leadership on many significant challenges we face at this difficult moment in our country.And on two major issues — the handling of the coronavirus pandemic and protests against racism and police brutality — most Americans are dissatisfied with the leadership they’ve seen thus far.As cases rise across the country and fears persist, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 60 percent of Americans disapprove of President Trump’s handling of the virus.Meanwhile, polls also show that a majority of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of protesters and race relations. In fact, a Post-Schar School poll last month showed that a large margin of voters said it was more important to have a president who could heal racial divisions than one who could restore security by enforcing law.Trump started off this week seemingly with hopes of turning polls around. But his strategy has been somewhat perplexing.On the coronavirus, Trump is seemingly attempting to reset, almost start over. He has reintroduced coronavirus-focused press briefings, he’s even put on a mask a few times and tweeted pictures of himself wearing one.But on protests, it seems like the president is doubling down. Trump has sent federal law enforcement officials into Portland, Ore., escalating clashes on the city’s streets between protesters and authorities. And he’s threatening to send more federal agents into Democratic-led cities experiencing spates of crime across the country.So why is Trump taking such different approaches to these two issues, both where he’s met with public disapproval? Can his attempts at a coronavirus do-over help contain the virus? And, on the other hand, how much power does the president have to send federal forces into American cities? As Trump casts himself as a law-and-order strongman, what are the consequences?On this episode of the“Can He Do That?” podcast, White House reporter Ashley Parker explains Trump’s latest messaging on the coronavirus and national security reporter Matt Zapotosky discusses where Trump’s power is limited when it comes to federal force.Want to share your feedback on this show and other Washington Post podcasts? Go to washingtonpost.com/podcastsurveyRelated reading and episodesFacing unrest on American streets, Trump turns Homeland Security powers inwardVirus cases are surging in the U.S. Is our government better prepared now?Public sentiment on police reform has shifted dramatically. Will it matter?

The 2020 presidential nominating conventions will look little like the political mega-events we’ve seen in this country for the past few decades.The novel coronavirus pandemic has made the notion of huge stadiums full of cheering supporters plus countless meetings, rallies and after parties, unadvisable under U.S. public health guidelines.Now, for both parties, rejiggering their conventions has been a significant challenge.Democrats have decided to take a largely virtual approach to their party’s event after initially pushing it from July into August.Republicans, led by urging from President Trump, hoped to hold as close to a normal convention as possible. So much so that they changed the location of the Republican National Convention celebrations from Charlotte, N.C., to Jacksonville, Fla. The original site in Charlotte refused to go along with Trump’s demands for a crowded large-scale event. So Republicans searched for a city that would disregard health guidance and let thousands of people from all over the country gather in one place. They ultimately chose Jacksonville largely because the city’s political leadership aligns with Trump.But that was all back in mid-June. When the RNC chose Florida, coronavirus cases in the state were much lower. Since then, Florida’s case numbers have surged, setting record highs and complicating things for those planning the event.After many iterations, Republicans announced this week that they’ll hold some sort of scaled-back convention in Jacksonville, with a mix of indoor and outdoor events.The whole saga has been a tug of war between the Trump team’s desire to get Trump in front of a large crowd of supporters, where he politically thrives, and the public health restrictions designed to slow the spread of the coronavirus.On this episode of the“Can He Do That?” podcast, reporter Michael Scherer helps tackle some big questions around this year’s conventions: Why has Trump been so adamant about holding a convention that’s at least partially in person, amid a pandemic? Why might his campaign team view the convention moment as so critical this election cycle? Plus, if significantly pared down or virtual versions of conventions can work just fine, what might the parties learn for the future of these events?Want to share your feedback on this show and other Washington Post podcasts? Go to washingtonpost.com/podcastsurveyRelated reading and episodesRepublican convention in Jacksonville will be scaled back next monthThe delegate math questions you were too embarrassed to askHacks, chaos and doubt: Lessons from the 2016 election revisited

Much of American democracy runs on precedent. How things have worked in the past helps us understand how they ought to work now. Many parts of our democracy function because years of established norms guide them.But sometimes that precedent and those standards face the courts — a chance to take long-standing norms and codify them into law. We saw one of those moments at the Supreme Court this week with a vote on the role of electors in our presidential elections.Presidential electors cast a vote in the electoral college that ultimately determines the presidency. These electors usually, almost always, vote for the winner of their state’s popular vote. So if Donald Trump wins the popular vote in Oklahoma, for example, all of Oklahoma’s electors vote for Trump in the electoral college.But in many states, it’s just an assumption that electors will vote as they’ve pledged. And that leaves open a question: What happens if an elector decides to go rogue — to cast a vote in the electoral college for someone else? And furthermore, what happens if those votes go against the people’s votes and alter the outcome of a presidential election?The Supreme Court on Monday weighed in to quash some of these questions before they arise.The court ruled unanimously that states can require presidential electors to support the winner of its popular vote and may punish or replace those who don’t.This decision carries weight for our upcoming presidential election in November, but what exactly are its implications? Who are the winners and losers in this case? And what does it mean for the future of our electoral college system?On this episode of the“Can He Do That?” podcast, election law expert Paul Smith of the Campaign Legal Center unpacks the Supreme Court decision and what it means for November’s election.Related reading and episodesSupreme Court says a state may require presidential electors to support its popular-vote winnerU.S. elections are being tested like never before. What comes next?Hacks, chaos and doubt: Lessons from the 2016 election revisited

Over the past few years making the“Can He Do That?” podcast, a few episodes have stuck with us. In particular, the episodes that keenly capture the role of the U.S. president that offer particular insight into the ways the presidency was designed to work in our country and how that design is incredible and also flawed.Now, we are bringing back one of those episodes.This show, which originally aired on July 4 last year, is a deep look at what the Founding Fathers wanted the American presidency to be. Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center, offers explanations for why there aren’t more limitations on what the president can do, and how the role has evolved over time.RELATED EPISODESA whistleblower. A phone call. A tipping point.What happens when a president asserts executive privilege?How does Attorney General Barr view presidential power?

In the United States, novel coronavirus infections set a single-day national record Wednesday. For now it seems like deaths are not growing at the same pace as cases, but it’s clear that this virus is not contained and this pandemic is far from over.Yet momentum behind a federal response seems to be fading. The task force is convening less often, federal funding to some test sites has been depleted, and President Trump has said that the country will not shut down again, even as some states have paused their reopening plans.On Tuesday, at a hearing on Capitol Hill, top federal health officials including Anthony S. Fauci warned that coronavirus spikes in more than a dozen states could worsen without new restrictions.So now, months into this virus outbreak, where does the federal response stand? What steps are ongoing and are they working? Plus, how does the U.S. response compare with the virus response globally? What can we learn from countries who are seeing smaller-scale spikes and have plans to contain them?On this episode of the“Can He Do That?” podcast, The Post’s health policy reporter Yasmeen Abutaleb discusses what the U.S. response looks like today, several months in and with surging cases in many parts of the country. The Post’s foreign affairs reporter Rick Noack talks about the response in Europe and around the world, and how public health leaders in those countries view the United States’ response.Related episodesThe president’s desperate push to reopen AmericaPublic health partisanship confronts a new reality: The virus is surging in rural AmericaRugged individualism vs. social distancing enforcement: Who can keep us home and how?

John Bolton, former national security adviser to President Trump, wrote a book,“The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir.” The book offers a portrait of President Trump as an erratic and ignorant leader who often places his own personal whims above the national interest.But whether Americans will get to read the book is the subject of an escalating legal battle between Bolton and the Justice Department. The White House says the book contains classified material. Bolton’s attorney says the book doesn’t and that the material underwent a rigorous government review process.First, on Tuesday, the administration filed a civil lawsuit against Bolton, a conservative who has worked in Republican administrations for decades and was a longtime contributor to Fox News. Then late Wednesday, things escalated when the Justice Department sought an emergency order from a judge to block the book’s publication altogether.The Washington Post, meanwhile, obtained a copy of Bolton’s memoir. On this episode of the“Can He Do That?” podcast, White House reporter Josh Dawsey explains what’s in the book, what the fallout has looked like thus far, and whether it will have much political influence as we get closer to the 2020 presidential election.Related readingTrump asked China’s Xi to help him win reelection, according to Bolton bookJustice Department seeks emergency order to block publication of Bolton’s book

Public outcry and calls for police reform have erupted across the country, with movements taking aim at not just policing tactics, but also broader racial inequities embedded in American life.Many of our nation’s leaders are responding to those calls for reform.House and Senate Democrats on Tuesday united behind federal legislation, the Justice in Policing of 2020 Act. The act bans certain tactics such as like chokeholds and would make it easier to hold officers accountable for misconduct.Just a day later, Senate Republicans began drafting their own police reform legislation. That package is expected to include a national police commission that would help determine best practices for law enforcement agencies.But, even with similar goals, there are no guarantees that the Democratic-led House and the Republican-led Senate could agree on the specifics of a police reform bill. There’s also no assurance from the White House that President Trump would sign it.Trump has struggled in his response to policing and protests. He’s tweeted false conspiracies about protesters, and he’s defended law enforcement, while also acknowledging some mistakes. He is now considering an executive order on police reform for actions he can take without Congress.Meanwhile, change is happening at a local level too, with some states, like such as Minnesota, announcing their own police reform legislation.These various efforts across the country, at a federal and local level, raise questions about what’s most effective. Can federal police reform efforts help locally? How much can Congress do to change the culture and practices of local police departments? And what are the president’s goals as the country approaches a third weekend of expected unrest?On this episode of the“Can He Do That?” podcast, White House reporter Seung Min Kim explains the details of the federal police reform efforts we’re seeing out of Congress and the White House. Plus, Lisa Cylar Barrett, policy director at the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, discusses whether current efforts reflect the hopes of reform activists.Related reading and listeningTrump threatened military action to quell protests. Can he do that?Trump’s response to unrest raises concerns among those trained to detect democratic regressionTim Scott, only black GOP senator, seeks to answer national call to fix racist policing

Earlier this week, the country watched as the U.S. president walked across Lafayette Square outside the White House to stand in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church, hold a Bible and take a photo. In a speech from the Rose Garden moments earlier, President Trump threatened to deploy troops to control protests if state and local authorities did not immediately regain control of their streets.For Trump to make that trek to the church, flanked by the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, among others, law enforcement officials forcibly and aggressively cleared peaceful protesters from the area.That moment, which we brought you an episode about on Tuesday, has not faded from the public’s mind as the week has gone on. The president has reiterated his assertion that he has the power to deploy active duty military in the United States, a suggestion that has been met with an increasing chorus of rebukes from former military and public officials. Meanwhile, protests have continued across the country, and while they’ve been largely peaceful, protests in the capital have been met with a significant federal law enforcement response.Taken together, the events of the past week and a half, including the response from our federal government, have painted a picture that raises flags for intelligence officials who’ve been trained to detect countries showing signs of decline or democratic regression.Former intelligence officials told The Washington Post that the unrest and the administration’s militaristic response are among many measures of decay they would flag if writing assessments about the United States for another country’s intelligence service. Historically, the United States has urged restraint or denounced crackdowns against protesters or vulnerable groups in other countries.So the federal response to civil unrest, Trump’s threat to deploy the military inside the United States, aggressive law enforcement tactics to quash protests, all of this presents serious questions about the president’s approach to power. Can Trump use tactics at home that the United States condemns abroad? What are the risks of politicizing the U.S. military? And what insight can we gain from how other countries have emerged from crisis?On this episode of the“Can He Do That?” podcast, national security reporter Greg Miller describes concerns raised by intelligence officials about this moment in the United States and its potential implications.Related reading and listeningTrump threatened military action to quell protests. Can he do that?Pentagon chief balks at Trump’s call for active-duty military force on U.S. citizens, and Mattis rips presidentPolice keep using force against peaceful protesters, prompting sustained criticism about tactics and training

Protests across the United States have intensified since last week over the death of George Floyd, a black man whose final gasps of“I can’t breathe” while in police custody, were caught on video in Minneapolis.Many protests have been peaceful, but in several cities, tensions have escalated and violence has erupted.With unrest growing, President Trump decided to address the nation from the White House’s Rose Garden on Monday in a televised speech.Moments before he spoke, though, police started to forcibly push out a crowd of peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square, just outside the White House. Police fired flash-bang shells, gas and rubber bullets into the crowd.Nearby, in his speech, Trump said,“Mayors and governors must establish an overwhelming law enforcement presence until the violence has been quelled. If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.”The president of the United States threatened to deploy active-duty military personnel to states to help quell violent protests across the country — against the will of state leaders.So, can he do that? Does the president have the power to deploy the military inside the U.S.?On this episode of the“Can He Do That?” podcast, national security reporter Matt Zapotosky answers critical questions about the president’s power to use the military on American soil.Related readingTrump threatens military action to quell protests, and the law would let him do itInside the push to forcibly remove protesters ahead of a Trump photo op