Sidebar

The novel coronavirus pandemic has presented some serious challenges to the American electoral process.To solve these new public health challenges, some states have delayed primary voting. Other states have implemented social-distancing measures at polling locations, with mixed results. Others yet have geared up to increase mail-in ballot capacity.Each of these circumstances raise different issues for how voters can choose a candidate in this year’s primary election.Some Democratic primaries, for example, are now scheduled for after the deadline previously set for choosing a Democratic candidate — and only weeks before the Democratic National Convention.Plus, all of these now-complicated primaries lead up to a nationwide voting day in November. Could these primary delays somehow delay America’s choice for the next president? More specifically, can the president himself delay, cancel or change the circumstances of November’s election?And as our electoral process is tested by all of these new voting measures, what new issues might emerge when it comes to ensuring everyone’s vote is counted?On this week’s episode of the“Can He Do That?” podcast, national politics reporter Isaac Stanley-Becker explains what’s been happening at the state primary level, and election law expert Ned Foley of The Ohio State University lays out what can-- and legally can’t-- happen in the general election.Additional coronavirus resources:washingtonpost.com/virusnewsletterwashingtonpost.com/coronaviruswashingtonpost.com/podcastsRelated episodesThe U.S. stumbled at the start of the coronavirus outbreak. Can we make up for lost time?Does the president have much power to control a viral outbreak?

The World Health Organization has declared the novel coronavirus outbreak a global pandemic. The virus has spread in the United States, with new cases reported daily, deaths totaling more than three dozen, and an expanding list of large-scale cancellations, including the NBA, the NCAA tournaments and Broadway shows.In response, the Trump administration has taken various steps to limit the spread of the virus and to help a suffering economy.But those steps haven’t always gone so well. The administration was initially slow to take the virus seriously: The U.S. had an inadequate number of tests available; at times, messages out of the White House conflicted with experts and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and there’s been a lack of centralized guidance around social distancing and other potential public health measures that could help contain the virus.In light of some of these issues, President Trump addressed the nation from the Oval Office on Wednesday night. The president signaled the seriousness of this growing crisis and proposed new ways to curb it — among them a 30-day ban on flights from most of Europe.And yet despite this speech, many questions still surround the administration’s handling of this public health crisis. Why has testing for the virus gone so poorly in the U.S.? Will the president’s travel restrictions work to slow the spread of the virus? And what other solutions or measures could be taken that we haven’t seen action on yet?On this episode of the “Can He Do That?” podcast, The Post’s health policy reporter Yasmeen Abutaleb covers some of the problems with the administration’s response so far and some of the measures we may see in the coming weeks.Related episodes:Does the president have much power to control a viral outbreak?Coronavirus is sparing children. No one knows why.

Since it was first detected on the last day of 2019, coronavirus has infected tens of thousands of people around the world and has killed more than 3,000. The outbreak has triggered unprecedented quarantines, stock market upheaval and dangerous conspiracy theories.Most cases are mild, but health officials say the virus’s continued spread through the United States is inevitable. As the country and our health-care system prepares, a lot is still unknown.President Trump has repeatedly sought to reassure the nation about coronavirus and organized a communications effort to downplay risk. He has appointed Vice President Pence to run a task force and tried to boost an economy faltering in response to fears.He has also suggested closing the Southern border, falsely said a vaccine could be available very soon, falsely suggested the virus could be gone by April and disagreed with the World Health Organization’s mortality rate of 3.4 percent globally.Trump’s overall response to this public health crisis presents a series of questions: Does the president actually have that much power when it comes to controlling a viral outbreak? What exactly has Trump done, what else can he do if he chooses, and which of these things really makes a difference?On this episode of the “Can He Do That?” podcast, our team navigated The Post newsroom, asking expert reporters for their insights on everything from Trump’s economic response to quarantine protocols to the president’s relationship with pharmaceutical companies.Related episodes:Does Trump have the power to declare a national emergency to get border wall funding?Will Trump get emergency response funding for Texas, as promised?

The Republican Party’s 2020 primary season has been pretty straightforward. President Trump has no serious competition for the Republican nomination. But for the Democrats, it’s far less clear who will become their party’s nominee for president of the United States.With so many candidates competing to define the future of the Democratic Party and running on a range of ideologies, it’s been a heated presidential primary season.Candidates have tried to boost their potential and their profile by winning early voting states. But those states offer a very small portion of the total delegates needed to secure the nomination.Things change a bit on Super Tuesday, which falls on March 3. On Super Tuesday, the most states at a time hold nominating contests, the most voters have a chance to go to the polls, and the most delegates will be allotted to candidates. More than a third of all delegates for the Democratic National Convention are up for grabs on this day alone.Despite recent dropouts from Pete Buttigieg and Tom Steyer, the Democratic primary field is still quite large and therefore delegates may be broadly split among candidates. So what happens if no candidate wins the majority of delegates needed to become the nominee at the party convention in July?On this episode of the “Can He Do That?” podcast, “Primary Politics” author Elaine Kamarck answers questions like: How are delegates allocated? What’s a superdelegate anyway? And why is it all so complicated?Related episodes:Hacks, chaos and doubt: Lessons from the 2016 election revisitedIf a president is impeached, can they run for reelection?

In 2016, as the Democratic Party officially selected its nominee, then-candidate Donald Trump saw an opportunity to deepen the schisms that had emerged among Democrats.Four years later, President Trump seems to be embracing a similar opportunity.In tweets, at rallies and in interactions with the press, Trump has suggested that this year’s Democratic primary is rigged against Bernie Sanders.Trump’s assertions about a flawed Democratic primary are just a piece of the story. He’s stoking divisions based in part on information Russia weaponized to highlight those divisions in the first place. And as we confront another election year, recent reports show Russia hopes to interfere again.So, how is Trump strategizing for 2020 in light of recent news? And how are things different this time around, when a president with sizable power over intelligence and election security is seeking to win reelection himself?In this episode of the “Can He Do That?” podcast, Washington Post campaign reporter Sean Sullivan and Laura Rosenberger, who leads the Alliance for Securing Democracy, reexamine what election interference looked like in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary, and how the ghosts of that experience are reappearing today.Related episodes:How far can a president go to get the intelligence chief he wants?‘Problematic is an understatement’: Robert Mueller testifies before CongressDoes a president ever stop campaigning?

Only a few presidential powers are very clearly outlined in the U.S. Constitution. One of those is the president’s power to pardon.We’ve seen President Trump exercise his pardon power at several moments during his tenure in office - sometimes to much controversy.Tuesday, the president continued this trend. He pardoned or commuted the sentences of several convicted white-collar criminals at the center of federal anti-corruption and tax fraud cases.Trump’s choice to grant clemency to this group, combined with a reported desire from the administration to issue more pardons in the coming months, raises questions about who else Trump might pardon. Among them is his longtime adviser and friend Roger Stone, who was sentenced Thursday to serve three years four months for impeding a congressional investigation of 2016 Russian election interference.Trump left this door open when he said at an event in Las Vegas Thursday that while he wasn’t going to grant clemency to Stone right now, Stone “has a very good chance of exoneration.”What do a president’s decisions about who to pardon say about his agenda? How unusual is it really for a president to pardon those close to him? And how much power does the Justice Department have to push back on a president who seeks to pardon for political gain?On this episode, White House reporter Toluse Olorunnipa helps us boil our questions down to this: If a president has sweeping pardon powers — are there really consequences to using them? And … should there be?Related episodesTrump’s view of a unilaterally powerful president goes unchallenged'The Framers would not recognize the modern presidency.'

Since President Trump was acquitted by the Senate in his impeachment trial, there has been a lot of action out of the White House. From firing people in his administration who testified against him in the House Inquiry to compromising the Justice Department’s independence, Trump's actions seem to paint a picture of a president who feels emboldened by the resolution of his months-long impeachment battle. So does this post-acquittal moment reflect a president more emboldened than before? White House reporter Ashley Parker offers insight into President Trump’s perception of power and what we can expect to see from him in an election year.Related episodesA president acquitted. The balance of power tested. If a president is impeached, can they run for reelection?'The Framers would not recognize the modern presidency.’

The United States Senate acquitted President Trump on charges — brought by the House of Representatives — of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.The vote fell largely along party lines, with one exceptions. Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah historically voted with the Democrats to convict the president on the first article: abuse of power. That marked the first time in American history that a member of the president’s own party has voted to remove him. Romney voted with Republicans to acquit Trump on the second article: obstruction of congress.This moment is only the third time in U.S. history that the Senate has held an impeachment trial. The Senate has never voted to convict and remove a president.An impeachment trial in the Senate means Congress is deciding where to draw lines around presidential conduct: What’s acceptable, what’s inappropriate and what rises to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors?”Over the course of the Senate trial, House managers and Trump’s lawyers engaged in arguments for their respective positions. Trump’s acquittal can be interpreted as a reflection of the Senate agreeing with those arguments.And if that’s case, which of the Trump team’s arguments have established new precedent? How might this acquittal embolden not only this president, but future presidents? At the end of this partisan impeachment process, has the balance of power shifted in this country and can the pendulum ever swing back toward equilibrium?Related episodes: A divided Congress and a presidency on the lineWatchdog says the hold on Ukraine aid violated the law. Will it matter in the Senate trial?

The 2020 Iowa caucuses present unprecedented challenges for some top Democratic contenders. Several candidates polling highest in Iowa have been unable to physically spend much time in the state in the final weeks before the vote. Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Michael Bennet have been back in Washington serving as jurors in the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump.Having a presence in those final weeks in Iowa can be the key to wooing any remaining undecided voters. And this year, there are quite a few.What’s more, at least one candidate won’t even appear on the ballot in Iowa. Businessman Michael Bloomberg is opting out of the first four primaries and caucuses, making his entry on Super Tuesday ballots.So, given these new complicating factors, does Iowa matter in a different way than in past elections? How important is this state to the final outcome of the primary? How might the Senators’ scaled-down presence in Iowa the final weeks before the caucuses, affect the results? And really, how much does winning Iowa matter for who eventually earns the nomination .. and the presidency?To answer that question, we set out to learn from the past. Iowa elections expert Cary Covington and campaign reporter Holly Bailey lay out the complex landscape as we head toward the first state’s vote.Read more:Subscribe to The Post's "The Trailer" newsletter for dispatches from the campaign trail https://www.washingtonpost.com/thetrailer/?utm_source=podcasts&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=can-he-do-that

Details of former national security advisor John Bolton’s unpublished book manuscript became public Sunday.These details suggested that Bolton could provide firsthand evidence that President Trump directly tried to deny security assistance to Ukraine until they announced investigations into political opponents, including Joe and Hunter Biden. That assertion from Bolton’s book has renewed the call by Democrats for witnesses in Trump’s Senate impeachment trial.And yet, that interaction between Trump and Bolton, though potentially the most explosive, wasn’t the only conversation alleged in the leaked details of Bolton’s book. Another, was a key interaction between Bolton and Attorney General William Barr shortly after Trump’s now infamous call with Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky.On this episode Matt Zapotosky, The Post’s Justice Department reporter, focuses on that Bolton-Barr conversation: What the purported exchange between Bolton and Barr might tells us about the Attorney General’s role in Ukraine-related events, where it leaves a Justice Department designed to maintain independence from the president and uphold the rule of law, and of course what it all means for Trump’s impeachment trial.Related episodes:How does Attorney General Barr view presidential power?Block witnesses? Allow evidence? The battles ahead for the Senate impeachment trial Congress wants to hear from John Bolton. What might he tell them?