The Republican Party doesn’t have a lot of opportunities to grow its electorate. Their older white base is dying off, suburbanites are fleeing to the Democratic Party, voters of color are heavily liberal, and young voters are solidly progressive … mostly.
Republicans’ sole growth opportunity is young men
—the worst-performing voting demographic.
And so far, they’re not performing any better this year.
As of early Thursday morning, roughly 13.5 million
have voted already in the battleground states, according to data firm TargetSmart, which works with Democratic candidates. Of those, the gender breakdown is 54% women and 44% men
, with the rest unknown. That’s a great sign for Democrats since women lean left
.
Of that number, 8.9%
of early voters in battlegrounds are 18- to 29-year-olds. It makes sense that younger voters are more likely to be underrepresented in the early vote since older, busier people and/or those with health issues will be more motivated to vote early or by mail. For context, in 2020, 18- to 29-year-olds were about 17% of the electorate, according to exit polls
.
As Donald Trump speaks in the background, a group of young men leave a Sept. 29 campaign event in Erie, Pennsylvania.
Of those early-voting 18- to 29-year-olds, women were ahead 52-43
, with the rest unknown.
But here is where it gets fun: More Democratic young men than Republican young men have voted—by a margin of 45-42
. (Caveat: This is using modeled party identification, which does not mean these men are for sure members of the indicated party, but TargetSmart’s data is generally reliable.)
And the raw number of young Republican men who are voting early? Just 220,694 out of the total 13.5 million early battleground-state votes cast.
That’s 1.6% of the total.
A supporter of Donald Trump looks at his phone at a campaign event in Racine, Wisconsin, on June 18.
These are the weird, young, MAGA incel types
whom Republicans expect will bail them out of their demographic cul-de-sac.
They better hope their numbers dramatically improve through Election Day because so far, they’re barely visible.
Vice President Harris shared what her late mother would tell her to do in her fight against former President Trump during the final days of the 2024 presidential election.
“Just go beat him,” Harris said during her Thursday interview
with NBC News. “That’s probably what she’d say. Yeah, that’s my mother.”
The Democratic nominee spoke with NBC News’ Yamiche Alcindor right before her Thursday rally in Phoenix where she also said that her first priority if elected in November is to bring down prices.
“My first priority, which will be probably the package of bills, is about bringing down the cost of living,” Harris said during the nearly 6-minute interview. “So it’s about housing, it’s about child care, it’s about what we need to do to deal with grocery prices. So it’s not one, but it’s a package that is, with one singular purpose, bringing down the cost of living.”
Harris’s mother, Gopalan Harris, a biomedical scientist, died in February 2009 of cancer.
Harris was
in Arizona on Thursday where she looked to rally voters in the battleground state. There, she was introduced by Senate hopeful Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) who is facing off against Trump-backed Republican Kari Lake.
“Five days Arizona, it’s time to get the job done,” Gallego said. “If we fight together we can, number one, beat Kari Lake. Number two, defeat Donald Trump. Number three, fight for a better future.”
The Republican nominee currently leads Harris in Arizona by 1.9 percent, 49 percent to 47.1 percent, according to the latest The Hill/Decision Desk HQ’s tally
of polls.
After Arizona, Harris went to Reno and Las Vegas as part of her effort to reach Latino voters less than seven days before the election.
A judge gave a man probation and a suspended sentence Thursday after he pleaded guilty to attacking a former U.S. senator as she was running along a riverside park in western Iowa.
Trump held a big rally at Madison Square Garden yesterday. All indications are that it did a great job of stoking the flames of the politics of Us versus Them.
“There’s a lot going on. I don’t know if you know this but there’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico” pic.twitter.com/IXbXqDijyU
That’s Tony Hinchcliffe
, whose website describes him as a “world-renowned comedian.” He apparently tours with Joe Rogan. He is also a podcaster. I think I have heard his name before, but that’s about it.
He went on Twitter
not long after his comments went viral to complain that it was just a “joke,” stating that “these people have no sense of humor.”
But, of course, labeling a US territory populated by Hispanics as “literally a floating island of garbage” is unlikely to be funny to many people, the least of which being Puerto Ricans. Moreover, such language is clearly racially coded and fits into Trump’s broadening “othering” language.
And of course, as Ben Meiselas notes, Trump has been talking a lot about garbage of late in the contest of immigration.
By the way, understand how Miller’s rhetoric would be appealing to a lot of listeners, as well as. I mean, I get it: if the gangs, cartels, and “criminal migrants” are all “gone,” who would argue with that? But, of course, one suspects that to Miller pretty much all migrants from the south are “criminal migrants.” Even if we assume that he is fine with non-criminal migrants (spoiler: he isn’t), then we know that all of this talk about crime and the border is part of a broad othering that is linked to other fascistic rhetoric
from Trump
and his supporters that I have recently noted.
At a minimum, the fear-mongering (Rudy’s Palestinian bit) and racist-coded/misogynistic (e.g., the Black woman has “pimp handlers”) language was strong.
“They’re on the side of the terrorists!” — Rudy Giuliani is now on stage fear-mongering about Palestinians pic.twitter.com/swku6cZA0Q
And as Rupar noted on the attached Tweets (that I cannot avoid for some reason), the valorization of Trump based on the assassination attempt, and the nebulous usage of “they” is very much part of the politics of “us v. them” that is at the core of fascistic politics
.
Indeed, it is hard to listen to these clips and not see what Stanley noted in his book, How Fascism Works.
“In the rhetoric of the extreme nationalist, such a glorious past has been lost by the humiliation brought on by globalism, liberal cosmopolitanism, and respect for ‘universal values’ such as equality” (4).
The whole “garbage” thing above fits, especially the notion that people from the outside (immigrants, Palestinians, etc.) are a range to “us.”
And on the front of degrading values such as “equality,” we get this:
The whole thing is a non sequitur, insofar as concerns about diversity, equity, and inclusion are not antithetical to hard work. But, of course, the mythology is needed that people with jobs and wealth got there solely because of hard work and so things like DEI (and affirmative action before it) are simply designed to help lazy persons of color get ahead when they don’t deserve it.
So, look, on the one hand, campaign rallies can be weird and will certainly be off-putting to opposing partisans. But all this (and more) is well beyond that. The valorization of Trump in a thoroughly unhealthy way, it is full of racist attacks, and it is, above all else, very much the politics of Us versus Them.
One last one from Tucker.
Tucker Carlson: “There’s not one moment I’ve ever been with him off camera where he’s spending his time grousing about people he hates. Ever … Trust me.”
Carlson then invokes the great replacement conspiracy theory that has inspired numerous right-wing mass shooters. pic.twitter.com/y4FiAYZmnn
Hey, Tucker, this you?
Remarkably, Tucker also claimed that Trump had liberated him
from having to tell lies. I will say, he is making an effective rhetorical appeal to stoke fear in the population. But, of course, it is more fascistic Us v. Them with a sprinkling of replacement theory to boot. The liberation of which he speaks is the ability of your racist uncle to be racist and feel like he has been freed from any criticisms for being such.
If Tucker feels “liberated” it is simply because he is free to spout his white nationalist garbage. And let’s not forget the ironic fact that he lost his job at Fox News for lying about the 2020 elections.
(And if anything thinks RFK, Jr. should be anywhere near health care policy…well, ugh).
The depressing part about all of this is that there is a substantial percentage of the country that loves and buys it all. And then there is another large slice that ignores all this nonsense because they can’t fathom voting for the other team.
Bonus Clip.
Let me note this Mike Johnson clip, if anything to make the following observation: I guarantee you that “your father’s Democratic Party” was also being accused of being Marxist. So, at a minimum, his rhetoric is close to “normal.” It does contain the typical lazy lack of ability to figure out whether to call them “Marxists” or “socialists.”
In the back and forth the last couple of days over the billionaire owners of the LAT and WaPo preventing their editorial boards from endorsing Kamala Harris, it struck me that the objections were mostly driven by a sense 1) that the papers had a duty to stand up against Donald Trump in the latest Most Crucial Election In The History Of The Republic; 2) that editorial independence should prevail over the wishes of the owners; 3) that the owners are simply feckless cowards kowtowing to Trump; and 4) that this is just the latest example of how billionaires are ruining the country.
While I’m sympathetic to all of these to varying extents, none of the individual arguments dissuade me from my overall reaction of Meh. But the combination of them is indeed problematic.
The decision by Mr. Bezos had been in the making for weeks. It is not clear what motivated his final determination or its timing.
Mr. Bezos has clashed repeatedly with Ms. Harris’s electoral opponent, former President Donald J. Trump, who for years has been openly hostile to him on social media. In 2019, Amazon sued the Trump administration, blaming Mr. Trump’s animosity toward Mr. Bezos for its loss of a $10 billion cloud computing contract.
The businesses Mr. Bezos founded, including Amazon and Blue Origin, his aerospace company, still compete regularly for lucrative government contracts. Blue Origin executives met with Mr. Trump on Friday, and the company has a $3.4 billion contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to build a lunar lander.
The rest of the report contains some speculation from staffers, most damning of which is former editor-at-large Robert Kagan (who resigned over the matter) claiming it was “clearly a sign of pre-emptive favor currying” with Trump. Ditto former editor Marty Barron’s calling it “cowardice, with democracy as its casualty.”
Longtime Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch
goes even further in “Billionaire cowards at Washington Post, L.A. Times show what life under a dictator is really like.”
If this looks like the latest saga of open corruption in a nation that’s become a billionaire kleptocracy, it is — but this moment is also so much more than that. America is witnessing the raw power of dictatorship some nine days before voters even decide if that will truly be our future path. The cowardly Bezos can spend billions to erect a manmade projectile that sends him into space, but he’ll never have the cojones of a Katharine Graham. He is obeying fascism in advance, and he is not alone.
[…]
The message here is clear. The cowardice of the news organizations controlled by Bezos and Soon-Shiong has already taught Trump — in the words of Yale’s [Timothy] Snyder, a leading U.S. expert on fascism — what power can do, and if he prevails in next week’s election, he plans to bring that hammer down in full force. What happened at the Post and the L.A. Times was a stunning betrayal of journalism’s moral values, but in a strange way the papers did perform a public service: showing American voters what life under a dictator would feel like.
But these reversals, coming now and coming from the poisoned heart of American oligarchy, have instead confirmed the worst fears among an anxiety-wracked electorate that the core institutions that once saved U.S. democracy under the life-or-death pressures of Watergate — the Supreme Court, Congress, and an aggressive media — have morally imploded into empty shells.
While the hysteria here is understandable, it’s predicated on facts not in evidence: that the owners were in fact currying favor with Trump and/or afraid of reprisals in the event of a second Trump presidency. While plausible there is, at least in Bezos’ case, the matter of his having stood up against Trump multiple times during his presidency, both in terms of backing a rather aggressive editorial and reportorial stance against him (the whole “Democracy Dies in Darkness” motif) as well as on the business front. Indeed, the photo atop this post was borrowed from a June 2017 essay titled “Meet Jeff Bezos: the Amazon billionaire daring to take on Trump and the White House.” See also Chris Cillizza’s February 2019 piece, “Donald Trump’s long and dramatic history with Jeff Bezos.”
A couple of readers pointed me to an essay by Bulwark editor Jonathan V. Last, “Bezos, Trump, and the Failure of Democracy,” that brings the multiple threads together in a way that resonates with me.
ON FRIDAY, after the Washington Post’s publisher announced that the paper was suddenly abandoning the practice of the editorial page endorsing presidential candidates, news leaked that—on the very same day—Donald Trump met with executives from Blue Origin.
Blue Origin, of course, is the rocket company owned by Jeff Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post.
This was neither a coincidence nor a case of Bezos and Trump being caught doing something they wished to keep hidden. The entire point of the exercise, at least for Trump, was that it be public.
While Last offers no direct evidence that the two events were linked, it strains credulity that they weren’t. Indeed, it’s otherwise quite odd—even by Trump standards—for a presidential candidate to be taking meetings unrelated to getting out swing voters in the final days of what appears to be another nailbiter of an election.
What we witnessed on Friday was not a case of censorship or a failure of the media. It had nothing to do with journalism or the Washington Post. It was something much, much more consequential. It was about oligarchy, the rule of law, and the failure of the democratic order.
When Bezos decreed that the newspaper he owned could not endorse Trump’s opponent, it was a transparent act of submission borne of an intuitive understanding of the differences between the candidates.
Bezos understood that if he antagonized Kamala Harris and Harris became president, he would face no consequences. A Harris administration would not target his businesses because the Harris administration would—like all presidential administrations not headed by Trump—adhere to the rule of law.
Bezos likewise understood that the inverse was not true. If he continued to antagonize Trump and Trump became president, his businesses very much would be targeted.
So bending the knee to Trump was the smart play. All upside, no downside.
Again: we have no direct evidence of Bezos’ motives here. But we do know that he bought the Post in August 2013 and that it has endorsed candidates in every election until suddenly announcing that it wouldn’t be doing so this cycle. The explanation proferred by its editor, that it was returning to its pre-1976 stance that newspapers should be neutral, while reasonable (indeed, Bunch acknowledges that he’s made that argument himself in the past), strains credulity given the timing.
What Trump understood was that Bezos’s submission would be of limited use if it was kept quiet. Because the point of dominating Bezos wasn’t just to dominate Bezos. It was to send a message to every other businessman, entrepreneur, and corporation in America: that these are the rules of the game. If you are nice to Trump, the government will be nice to you. If you criticize Trump, the government will be used against you.
Which is why Trump met with Blue Origin on the same day that Bezos yielded. It was a demonstration—a very public demonstration.
Again: this is conjecture without evidence. But it’s certainly in keeping with Trump’s mindset.
After quoting a Russia expert on the parallels of this situation with 1990s Russia, Last asserts:
The Bezos surrender isn’t just a demonstration. It’s a consequence. It’s a signal that the rule of law has already eroded to such a point that even a person as powerful as Jeff Bezos no longer believes it can protect him.
So he has sought shelter in the embrace of the strongman.
Bezos made his decision because he calculated that Trump has already won—not the election, but his struggle to break the rule of law.
[…]
What should change is our understanding of where our democracy currently sits on the continuum. We are not teetering at the precipice of a slide into autocracy. We are already partway down the slope. And that’s evenif Harris wins.
If Trump wins? Well, I suppose we’ll burn that bridge when we come to it.
But Bezos and Trump have just taught America’s remaining small-d democratic leaders: The time for normal politics, where you try to win bipartisan majorities by focusing on “kitchen-table” issues is past. The task in front of us will require aggressive, systemic changes if we are to escape terminal decline.
The hour is later than we think.
While this sounds histrionic—How can a guy who lost the last election and subsequently been found guilty of multiple felonies in court be an autocrat?—there’s something to it. At the very least, it’s a reminder that the guardrails that protected us from the worst of Trump’s excesses last go around likely won’t be there if there’s another.
Circling back to the issue at hand, though, this all amplifies a point that my friend and co-blogger, Steven Taylor
, made early in the conversation: “the notion that billionaires are making all these decisions just adds to the un-democratic nature of the moment.”
As I reflect on it, I don’t think the fact that Bezos and LAT owner Patrick Soon-Shiong are billionaires per se is the problem. The Ochs-Sulzberger families have owned the NYT for a very long time and the Grahams owned WaPo until they sold to Bezos and, by and large, they exercised strong support for press freedoms. While not billionaires, they were certainly rich.
More problematic is that, for Bezos at least, the Post is not even a rounding error in his net worth. During standoffs like Watergate and the Pentagon Papers cases, the Ochs-Sulzbergers and Grahams stood firm because they believed they were protected by the First Amendment and their papers’ reputations were at the core of the family business. For Bezos, the Post is a money-losing sideshow. He’s not about to lose government contracts worth billions for Amazon Web Services or Blue Origin over a little thing like a presidential endorsement.
This is rather ironic in that the best argument for someone like Bezos owning a great newspaper is that he can afford to lose $77 million a year—as WaPo reportedly did last year—indefinitely. He likely couldn’t tell you within $77 million how much he’s got liquid right now.
Still, to the extent he can be intimidated by threats of retaliation in the event of a second Trump presidency, it’s to his core business interests, not his vanity project. It’s likely not good for the country that one of its top two newspapers is owned by someone who sees it that way.
Warning that
“[a] second Trump term comes with unacceptable risks,” The Economist continued:
By making Mr Trump leader of the free world, Americans would be gambling with the economy, the rule of law and international peace. We cannot quantify the chance that something will go badly wrong: nobody can. But we believe voters who minimise it are deluding themselves…
America’s economy is the envy of the world, but that rests on it being an open market which embraces creative destruction, innovation and competition. Sometimes it seems as if Mr Trump wants to return to the 19th century, using tariffs and tax breaks to reward his friends and punish his enemies, as well as to finance the state and minimise trade deficits. Politics could yet wreck the foundations of America’s prosperity.
Another reason to fear a second Trump term is that the world has changed. In 2017-21 it was largely at peace… But as the next president takes office, two wars will be endangering America’s security. In Ukraine Russia has the upper hand, putting Vladimir Putin in a position to threaten further aggression in Europe. In the Middle East a regional war creeping towards Iran could yet suck in the United States…
The risks for domestic and foreign policy are amplified by the last big difference between Mr Trump’s first term and a possible second one: he would be less constrained.
Former Sen. Gordon Humphrey, former Rep. and former New Hampshire Supreme Court Justice Chuck Douglas and former New Hampshire Attorney General Thomas Rath condemned Trump as a divisive and unstable candidate in statements declaring their support for Harris.
News organizations that have endorsed Harris
include Lincoln (NE) Journal Star, Rolling Stone, The Atlantic, The Boston Globe, The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer, The Houston Chronicle, The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Seattle Times and Vogue.
~~~~
The stakes in November have never been more urgent, nor the choices more extreme.
Remember: you are not voting for one person. You are voting for a team.
I’m voting for Team America not Team Russia-Hungary-North Korea.
With the Nov. 5 presidential election
fast approaching, I’m reminded of my family’s journey to American citizenship and the duties and privileges associated with it. Namely, voting.
When I was 3 years old, I moved to the U.S. with my parents as legal immigrants, all our belongings packed away in suitcases and with a couple of hundred dollars in cash.
It would take a little over 15 years for me to become an American citizen. I am casting my ballot for the first time this Election Day.
Voting is a powerful way in which citizens may voice their opinions. When Americans vote for a candidate, they are not just voting for the person to take a position in office, they’re primarily voting for the policies that the candidate supports. These policies will radically shape how our nation functions.
Over two-thirds (66.8%) of U.S. citizens 18 and older voted in the 2020 presidential election, according to the U.S. Census Bureau
. So, roughly 1 in 3 Americans allowed their fellow citizens to determine who would represent them.
Prior to becoming a U.S. citizen, I held different visas. At one point, I had a green card saying I was a “permanent resident.” It basically meant that I could do anything a citizen could, except vote
.
I didn’t think I would ever apply for U.S. citizenship. Since India doesn’t offer dual citizenship, I would have to give up my Indian citizenship to become an American citizen.
I was born in India, and I wanted to preserve as much of my Indian heritage as possible, citizenship and all.
But, after talking to my parents, we decided that it didn’t make sense for us to remain Indian citizens if we were going to spend the rest of our lives in America. So, we decided to start the lengthy process of becoming American citizens.
The website of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
s calls the U.S. a representative democracy.
In Plato’s “Republic,” the philosopher Socrates says that, in a democracy, people are so busy with their private affairs—going to work, taking care of their families, embarking on new adventures—that they have no time or energy to engage in political matters. Thus, they vote for representatives to speak in their stead.
When Americans vote, we vote for a representative—someone who shares a similar conscience to our own.
Conscience means “with knowledge.” Thus, when we vote for a candidate, we vote with the knowledge that the candidate will represent us.
If you choose not to vote, you are giving the government
one less reason to fight for your beliefs. To fight for your conscience.
As a Christian
, I vote not only because it is my civic duty, but also because voting is a God-ordained way of picking a representative who most closely represents my views on the matters of my conscience.
The idea of representative government comes from the Bible
. In Exodus 18, Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro, offers a novel model of leadership: representative government. Jethro tells Moses to select capable men who can serve as judges for the people.
Why wouldn’t you capitalize on the opportunity to choose your representative?
Many Christians “check out” of politics because they claim their “citizenship is in heaven.” A study
released Oct. 7 by Arizona Christian University found that an estimated 32 million regular churchgoers will abstain from voting in this year’s presidential election. Placing your citizenship in heaven does not give you the right to ignore the political sphere in the here and now.
In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus teaches his disciples to pray, saying to God the Father, “your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” God’s will
is being done on earth right now, but Christians must decide whether they want to participate in it.
Acknowledging your heavenly citizenship is a reminder that a better place awaits us. Until we reach heaven, however, Christians must keep working to advance God’s kingdom in a place that isn’t their final destination.
Psalm 33:12 says: “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage!”
How can Christians fulfill this when they choose to dissociate from political life altogether?
In Jesus’ famous Sermon on the Mount, he says, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” As Christians, we should strive to bring peace. That may look like voting for a candidate whose policies best match this mission.
This Election Day, let your voice and conscience be heard.
Photo by Jevone Moore/Icon Sportswire) (Icon Sportswire via AP Images
Los Angeles Lakers star Lebron James endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for president on Thursday while sharing a video about former President Donald Trump’s “hate.”
“What are we even talking about here??” wrote James in a social media post
. “When I think about my kids and my family and how they will grow up, the choice is clear to me. VOTE KAMALA HARRIS!!!”
What are we even talking about here?? When I think about my kids and my family and how they will grow up, the choice is clear to me. VOTE KAMALA HARRIS!!! pic.twitter.com/tYYlTmQS6e
James attached the endorsement to a video compilation of some of Trump’s most controversial remarks, which also included comedian Tony Hinchcliffe’sjoke
at a Trump rally about African Americans carving watermelons for Halloween.
“Hate takes us back,” the video concluded.
James’s endorsement received nearly 100,000 likes on X.
James has been vocal about his political beliefs, endorsing former President Barack Obama in 2008, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016
, and President Joe Biden in 2020
.
The NBA player praised
Harris on social media in 2020, criticized
the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, and expressed
support for Israel in 2023.
In 2022, Trump invited
James to join his women’s basketball team, while in 2018, Trump attacked
James for taking part in an interview with Don Lemon.
“Lebron James was just interviewed by the dumbest man on television, Don Lemon. He made Lebron look smart, which isn’t easy to do. I like Mike!” he wrote.
Aaron Nelson and Aaron Nelson Jr., 5, go trick-or-treating in the Englewood neighborhood of Chicago on Thursday. (Armando L. Sanchez/Chicago Tribune)Jo Bugg, 3, trick-or-treats dressed as Wonder Woman on Halloween in the Roscoe Village neighborhood of Chicago on Oct. 31, 2024. (Tess Crowley/Chicago Tribune)
Hope Griffin resets a giant spider after it was blown over in the wind while waiting for trick-or-treaters in the Englewood neighborhood Oct. 31, 2024. (Armando L. Sanchez/Chicago Tribune)Kathy Sellman hands candy to a trick-or-treater as Chris Krall plays music in the background on Halloween in the Roscoe Village neighborhood of Chicago on Oct. 31, 2024. (Tess Crowley/Chicago Tribune)Mike Cross puts his 6-year-old son Sammy Wilson’s Batman mask on while trick-or-treating in the Englewood neighborhood on Oct. 31, 2024. (Armando L. Sanchez/Chicago Tribune)
Ladale Coleman, 11, left, and Serenity Morrison, 13, go trick-or-treating in the Englewood neighborhood, Oct. 31, 2024. (Armando L. Sanchez/Chicago Tribune)Oliver Fansler, 1, trick-or-treats dressed as Mike Wazowski on Halloween in the Roscoe Village neighborhood of Chicago on Oct. 31, 2024. (Tess Crowley/Chicago Tribune)Peter Westergaard, 6, dressed as a tiger, and sister Alice Westergaard, 4, dressed as Elsa, trick-or-treat on Halloween in the Roscoe Village neighborhood of Chicago on Oct. 31, 2024. (Tess Crowley/Chicago Tribune)
Kathy Minneci and dog Sadie wait for trick-or-treaters on Halloween in the Roscoe Village neighborhood of Chicago. (Tess Crowley/Chicago Tribune)Lisa Johnson takes her 5-year-old daughter Heaven Randall trick-or-treating in Chicago’s Englewood neighborhood, Oct. 31, 2024. (Armando L. Sanchez/Chicago Tribune)A child trick-or-treats dressed as a pumpkin on Halloween in the Roscoe Village neighborhood of Chicago on Oct. 31, 2024. (Tess Crowley/Chicago Tribune)
