POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[ReluctantSamurai]

The undemocratic structure of our government has created a one-way ratchet: Republicans win total control and further clamp down on civil society, then government becomes divided, creating an interregnum in which they block any swing in the other direction. Republicans are able to always win either total control or divided control despite barely ever winning a majority of votes. Democrats are only able to win either divided control or lose all control, despite almost always producing a majority of votes.

Isn't this an argument for a more "radical" approach for Democrats? Yes, I know it's not that simple in a political environment where a more radical approach gets labeled as socialism, which scares the hell out of people. I'm also shifting my thinking that such "radicalism" has to happen at the state level rather than the federal level. When you ask yourself how the above agenda gets implemented time and time again, the answer seems to be that Republican control resides in state legislatures and courts continually stacking the system in favor of themselves by voter suppression, and getting state courts packed with conservative judges that more often than not rule in favor of that agenda. It's why Republicans have tried 20 times in the last 10 years to pack state supreme courts, and will continue to do so. When a Democrat does succeed in breaking through that "Red Wall" they get hamstrung by a hostile legislature and unfavorable court rulings. Until Republican power is broken at the state level, it will be nearly impossible to get anything done at the federal level, IMHO.

The perfect example is what we are discussing here about the possibility of rogue electoral voting.

Could be a few more downsides.

Yeah like another 100,000 deaths from COVID-19 by the inauguration date, because there is a refusal of the Trump Administration to transition, leaving our pandemic response still hopelessly adrift. Do not be surprised to see a big military show by China to try to intimidate Taiwan. Especially now that CoviDon has temporarily kneecapped the DoD by firing Mark Esper. I'll be surprised if they don't try and take advantage of the current chaos.

I'm fully expecting some sort of terrorism act by the right-wing. It's been uncannily quiet so far, and that makes me nervous. The longer this horse-shit about a fraudulent vote goes on, the more likely the opportunities for violence. Also, I expect there will be more firings which will likely include Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, Dr. Redfield, and any other medical expert that contradicted the President at one time or another. We have a 4 year old that is not picking up his toys and going home, he's breaking all the toys in a temper tantrum.

[edyzmedieval]

I guess the Georgia runoff campaign will receive as much airwave as the election night, so get ready for more John King and Steve Kornacki telling us every nook & cranny of Georgia's counties.

[rory_20_uk]

Am I correct that, even with the two Senate seats in Georgia, most things would be open to being fillibustered?

So even if Biden wanted to undertake significant change there's a pretty good change it might be stymied by even a small handful of Senators.

[Hooahguy]

Well Senator Manchin (D-WV) said he isnt open to getting rid of the filibuster so it would be difficult no matter what. But with a 50 seat majority other things become possible, such as confirming judges and cabinet positions which is also very valuable.

[Montmorency]

Isn't this an argument for a more "radical" approach for Democrats? Yes, I know it's not that simple in a political environment where a more radical approach gets labeled as socialism, which scares the hell out of people. I'm also shifting my thinking that such "radicalism" has to happen at the state level rather than the federal level. When you ask yourself how the above agenda gets implemented time and time again, the answer seems to be that Republican control resides in state legislatures and courts continually stacking the system in favor of themselves by voter suppression, and getting state courts packed with conservative judges that more often than not rule in favor of that agenda. It's why Republicans have tried 20 times in the last 10 years to pack state supreme courts, and will continue to do so. When a Democrat does succeed in breaking through that "Red Wall" they get hamstrung by a hostile legislature and unfavorable court rulings. Until Republican power is broken at the state level, it will be nearly impossible to get anything done at the federal level, IMHO.

I think it comes down to blue states pursuing a shared regulatory agenda, among other things, which leads to nullification of Supreme Court rulings IMO (if the Democrats can't achieve a trifecta anytime this decade - and 2020 was our very best shot). Nullification would present itself not as some kind of appeal to state's rights or legal philosophy or constitutional formalism, but simply according to an emerging and explicit Democratic consensus against the legitimacy of Republicans to rule over us. If and when that happens, red states will rapidly regress into hybrid regimes, freedom of movement between the states will become a quaint notion, and worst of all upon taking the presidency Republicans will proceed to eviscerate blue states by drawing up the fiscal strings.

The old world is dead but the new can't be born yet.

I guess the Georgia runoff campaign will receive as much airwave as the election night, so get ready for more John King and Steve Kornacki telling us every nook & cranny of Georgia's counties.

Can you say more about these names?

Am I correct that, even with the two Senate seats in Georgia, most things would be open to being fillibustered?

So even if Biden wanted to undertake significant change there's a pretty good change it might be stymied by even a small handful of Senators.

The filibuster would almost certainly be terminated with 50 Democratic senators (the alternative would be a crime against the people). On the other hand, one way or another any given Democratic senator would have sole veto over legislation on the floor.

EDIT: Actually, I would like to retract that. Previously, I had said it would take ~52 senators for a Democratic Senate to be comfortable with filibuster abolition. Given the Pyrrhic victory we've endured, attaining 50 would be a miraculous boon but it's hard to argue that the Senate wouldn't be more conservative than under a landslide scenario. I just hope the senators will recognize the greater urgency of the situation the election has revealed.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I think it comes down to blue states pursuing a shared regulatory agenda, among other things, which leads to nullification of Supreme Court rulings IMO

No idea what you mean by "shared regulatory agenda." You've got Democrats already bickering amongst themselves one week after the election. In fact, I dare say Democratic moderates are going harder after the left-wing portion of the party then they did their GOP opponents. It's no wonder they lost ground to Republicans. Can't imagine there being some kind of unified front to "nullification of Supreme Court rulings."

I just hope the senators will recognize the greater urgency of the situation the election has revealed.

There are, of course many aspects to why it's critical to take both senatorial seats, but the immediate one is the most crucial, IMHO.

Yes, I'm crying wolf here, and the plausibility of the "Faithless Elector" can certainly be overstated---which I admit I'm doing. But....

.....putting what my perception of the deranged individual called the 45th President is, and various other clues, I truly believe "The Steal" is in play and it's not the Democrats. I'll repost this link, but without all the copy/paste I did the last time. Note the eerie prescience of some of the authors statements (made back in September):

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...oncede/616424/

Trump hates to lose. He HATES to lose more than anything else. He stated during the campaign that Biden was the weakest candidate in US history, and there was no possible way he could lose to such a weak candidate....until he did....in front of the entire world. He is seething at the moment, and has not made a public appearance in a week. In keeping with his spoiled brat mentality, he's knocking over the chess board by refusing to concede and by firing people. And there will be more firings to come.

Now there's the smoke screen of fraudulent voting currently ongoing. He knows that isn't going anywhere, but that's not the endgame. Part I of the endgame is the Rogue Elector gambit. If you read The Atlantic link, the author was in contact with GOP representatives in Pennsylvania who were, back in September, having conversations with the Trump election committee about doing just that. There is now just under a month before states have to certify their electoral votes and send them to Congress. The current bluster over fraudulent votes will take at least several weeks to resolve (given that the DoJ is now involved, Barr can use any number ways to drag it out that long).

That gives Trump the time to make deals with the Republican legislatures in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Arizona....all crucial to Biden's victory. In Arizona, the GOP has the trifecta...GOP governor, legislature, and a conservative state Supreme Court. Easy pickings. In Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, the Republicans lack only the governors seat. No worries. Electoral appointments have to be submitted by Dec 8 giving Congress 6 days to verify their credentials. For the three, and possibly four states mentioned, there will be two sets of electoral votes. Which ones are the ones to be counted? Well:

The controlling statute says that if “any controversy or contest” remains after that, then Congress will decide which electors, if any, may cast the state’s ballots for president.

(I lied about no copy-and-paste, so sue me)

Furthermore:

The Trump-campaign legal adviser I spoke with told me the push to appoint electors would be framed in terms of protecting the people’s will. Once committed to the position that the overtime count has been rigged, the adviser said, state lawmakers will want to judge for themselves what the voters intended.


“The state legislatures will say, ‘All right, we’ve been given this constitutional power. We don’t think the results of our own state are accurate, so here’s our slate of electors that we think properly reflect the results of our state,’ ” the adviser said. Democrats, he added, have exposed themselves to this stratagem by creating the conditions for a lengthy overtime.

Enter this cryptic statement by Pennsylvania's Republican Party Chairman:

In Pennsylvania, three Republican leaders told me they had already discussed the direct appointment of electors among themselves, and one said he had discussed it with Trump’s national campaign.


“I’ve mentioned it to them, and I hope they’re thinking about it too,” Lawrence Tabas, the Pennsylvania Republican Party’s chairman, told me. “I just don’t think this is the right time for me to be discussing those strategies and approaches, but [direct appointment of electors] is one of the options. It is one of the available legal options set forth in the Constitution.” He added that everyone’s preference is to get a swift and accurate count. “If the process, though, is flawed, and has significant flaws, our public may lose faith and confidence” in the election’s integrity.


Jake Corman, the state’s Senate majority leader, preferred to change the subject, emphasizing that he hoped a clean vote count would produce a final tally on Election Night. “The longer it goes on, the more opinions and the more theories and the more conspiracies [are] created,” he told me. If controversy persists as the safe-harbor date nears, he allowed, the legislature will have no choice but to appoint electors. “We don’t want to go down that road, but we understand where the law takes us, and we’ll follow the law.”

The next crucial date comes on Jan 6 when the new Congress gets sworn in. Hence the absolutely crucial two seats in Georgia that, should they go to the Dems, crushes this strategy, there and then. If they split, or the GOP gets both, Endgame Part II begins, and the law is extremely murky....extremely murky.

If electoral votes from one or more states get disqualified, and in doing so, shorts Biden from getting the required 270, voting now goes back to the House with one vote per state. Guess what? The GOP holds a majority and hands the presidency to Donald Trump. But there is an endgame Part III....Nancy Pelosi expels all Senators from the House floor, and Pence cannot complete the vote "in the presence of" the House as required by the Constitution. So Pence gets all GOP House members together and holds a separate vote, and all hell breaks loose.

One last item here....why fire Secretary of Defense Mark Esper now? Why not sooner? Think back on "the" singular issue that Esper pissed off the President about....oh yeah, sending federal troops out to quell protesters. Trump got around that for awhile by sending DHS agents into the field under the guise of "protecting Federal buildings." Why not put another lap dog in place that has no qualms about sending in the National Guard to deal with the inevitable riots that will be happening during all of this. I expect there will be more DoD firings to completely secure the acquiescence of military force.

Am I just being paranoid? Yeah, probably. Can you folks just poke fun at me later? OF COURSE! I never take my self that seriously. But these words from the article is what prompted this whole rant:

Let us nothedge about one thing. Donald Trump may win or lose, but he will never concede. Not under any circumstance. Not during the Interregnum and not afterward. If compelled in the end to vacate his office, Trump will insist from exile, as long as he draws breath, that the contest was rigged.

Trump’s invincible commitment to this stance will be the most important fact about the coming Interregnum. It will deform the proceedings from beginning to end. We have not experienced anything like it before.

Maybe you hesitate. Is it a fact that if Trump loses, he will reject defeat, come what may? Do we know that? Technically, you feel obliged to point out, the proposition is framed in the future conditional, and prophecy is no man’s gift, and so forth. With all due respect, that is pettifoggery. We know this man. We cannot afford to pretend.

BTW, a cryptic statement today from the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo:

“The world is watching what’s taking place. We’re gonna count all the votes. When the process is complete, there’ll be electors selected. There’s a process – the constitution lays it out pretty clearly. The world should have every confidence that the transition necessary to make sure that the state department is functional today, successful today and successful with a president who’s in office on January 20 a minute after noon, will also be successful.”

[Montmorency]

One hitch in the scenario, Samurai: It would require total unity within the Republican Party to commit to an auto-coup. As in, an unequivocal declaration of insurgency that can only be adjudicated by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or perhaps the individual consciences of mobilized unit commands. To the extent that remains an open question, replacing a few bureaucrats

I expect there will be more DoD firings to completely secure the acquiescence of military force.

will not be dispositive.

Given the numerous ranking Republicans who have at least tacitly recognized Biden's victory, I think the weight of priorities is to cut Trump loose while continuing to cultivate the base with paranoid delusions. A coup needs unanimity. It needs, for example, a supermajority of Republicans in the state legislatures named to not only condone, but implement, the Trumpian strategy.

I'm not saying it can't happen. Certainly communications like this are more than ominous (expanding on your quote):
https://twitter.com/JoshNBCNews/stat...26043246694402

NEW: Pompeo asked whether the State Department will cooperate with the Biden transition, says:

"There will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration"

"We're in good shape," Pompeo says. He adds that the world is watching

I'm just saying that so far we have reason to believe such an eventuality will not reach fruition on its own. It's a heavy lift, though one that Democrats should respond to by univocally establishing that there is no coming back from this, and that if establishment Republicans do not repudiate Trump - invoke the 25th already - then... (ah, who am I kidding, Dems aren't willing to go that far).

I basically track with the following perspective, though a little more optimistic on the inevitable Untergang.
https://twitter.com/JYSexton/status/1326178439716610048

People keep asking whether Trump and the Republicans attempt to steal the election is legitimate, if it's a coup, if it's a fundraising scheme, if it's posturing, if it's actually all that dangerous.

The answer is yes. All of these things and so much more.

1/
The first thing we have to establish is that Trump is erratic. He flails and rages. But that flailing and raging, paired with his shamelessness, exposes weaknesses in our system.

When Trump finds a weakness, he exploits it until he breaks through.

2/
Right now Trump is defeated. He has no legitimate means of winning this election and so he's throwing everything at it in hopes something will stick. At times, it's laughable, but all he needs is ONE THING to work.

3/
And yes, Trump is using this crisis as a means of fundraising. Sending out alarming emails and messages raises money from angry supporters desperate for hope, but it also continues to establish an escalating crisis.

It does multiple things at once.

4/
Trump is a gambler playing multiple hands. He's a terrible gambler, but his entire life he's just trying so many angles at so many times that he waits until he finds something that even halfway works.

This? Right now? This is multiple hands of badly played poker.

5/
So what are the possible outcomes?

Trump loses but saves face.

Trump loses but raises money.

Trump manages to break through, subvert democracy, and steals the election.

These are all "wins" for him even if it means radicalizing people and a coup.

6/
This is how Trump sees the world. He's not worried about inspiring violence, destroying democracy, hurting the nation or anyone in it.

He's looking for his best possible outcome and doesn't care what he does in the process.

It's a COUP AND A SCAM. Both things at once.

7/
Meanwhile, and this is important, the Republicans are playing their own games.

Some are true believers, nuts who believe the election was stolen. But most understand Trump lost and are playing their own game.

We have to understand why they're doing it.

8/
People like McConnell and Graham are giving voice to Trump for multiple reasons. They need to keep Trumpists active in the GOP, they need to win the special elections in GA, the controversy creates passion, and it leads to fundraising.

But...they're also fine with a coup.

9/
If Trump manages to break through and actually steals the election, the Republicans would be fine with it. That would mean power, and that's their only concern.

This willingness to harness a fascist strongman is why they cannot be trusted with power.

10/
As I mentioned in my article this morning, Fox News is now vying to keep its audience as Trumpists reject it for actually reporting Biden's win.

They'll cover these conspiracy theories to keep viewers loyal if at all possible.

11/


Fox News Created a Monster. And Now That Monster Wants Revenge.
Fox News now “sucks,” election-denying Trumpkins say. And so it’s a race to the bottom for other outlets to appeal to an audience hoping to further remove themselves from reality.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-ne...venge?ref=home

The whole point is this: Trump and the GOP are playing a dangerous game. The coup might not work, but they see an advantage at flirting with a coup.

The coup might work and they see an advantage with grasping power for themselves.

It's a win-win for them while we lose.

12/
I don't think Trump or the GOP truly believe they're going to manage to overturn the election, but peddling these conspiracy theories help them regardless.

But the frightening thing? If it does work and they carry out a coup? They're more than happy to accept that.

13/
This has been theater from the very beginning. Trump played an authoritarian on TV until he BECAME ONE.

You play the role until you are the role. In this case, they're posturing for power and profit until they gain power and profit, one way or another.

14/
Again, this doesn't mean the coup will work. It's haphazard, lazy, and stupid.

But...it COULD work. That's the danger here we have to take seriously.

Not to mention the fact that these people are more than willing to endanger lives and threaten democracy.

15/
If the coup works, we're in a whole world of trouble.

If it doesn't, Trump and the GOP have turned the temperature up, radicalized numbers of supporters, and possibly inspired terroristic acts by their supporters.

It's unconscionable and dangerous on a whole other level.

16/
People are going to tell you there's nothing to worry about. That's absolutely wrong and irresponsible.

You can recognize there's no legal ground here while understanding these people are bad faith actors who rage until they find weakness in the law and systems.

17/
This thing isn't a joke. Trump and the GOP are playing a game, but there's nothing funny about it. We're all in incredible danger right now and pretending like it isn't dangerous, win or lose, only empowers and enables them to continue destroying democracy.

TLDR: Steiner's divisions will probably not relieve Berlin, and Republicans know this, but they're fine with trying and failing. Because to be Republican is to reject the legitimacy and sovereignty (and possibly humanity) of humanswho vote Democratic.

[ReluctantSamurai]

One hitch in the scenario, Samurai: It would require total unity within the Republican Party to commit to an auto-coup.

No, it doesn't. All it requires is the Republican legislatures from 4 states to participate. Doesn't involve Texas, Arkansas, Alabama, or any other deep red state. If any three of those four decide to buy in, it becomes possible...not a certainty, but it's possible. And as you might have read from the article, the GOP legislature from one of those four states, Pennsylvania, was already in conversation with the White House about participating in The Big Steal as far back as September. You've got to figure that Arizona, having the trifecta of control, might be interested, considering Deucy was bold enough to fire three commissioners on the candidate approval board that validates the governor's Supreme Court nominees when they turned down one of his appointees. He appointed three new commissioners, and resubmitted the declined candidate who was then promptly approved to the court. Not a man who gives a crap about the law.

Look, I've already admitted this can be simply fear-mongering, as a lot of things have to fall the Republicans way. But the authors closing statement rings true, and all of us sane people here in the States know it to be true: "We know this man. We cannot afford to pretend [otherwise]." He's unhinged enough to try it because he hates to lose, and he needs the office to protect him from jail for four more years until he can figure out an exit strategy.

[Montmorency]

No, it doesn't. All it requires is the Republican legislatures from 4 states to participate. Doesn't involve Texas, Arkansas, Alabama, or any other deep red state. If any three of those four decide to buy in, it becomes possible...not a certainty, but it's possible. And as you might have read from the article, the GOP legislature from one of those four states, Pennsylvania, was already in conversation with the White House about participating in The Big Steal as far back as September. You've got to figure that Arizona, having the trifecta of control, might be interested, considering Deucy was bold enough to fire three commissioners on the candidate approval board that validates the governor's Supreme Court nominees when they turned down one of his appointees. He appointed three new commissioners, and resubmitted the declined candidate who was then promptly approved to the court. Not a man who gives a crap about the law.

Look, I've already admitted this can be simply fear-mongering, as a lot of things have to fall the Republicans way. But the authors closing statement rings true, and all of us sane people here in the States know it to be true: "We know this man. We cannot afford to pretend [otherwise]." He's unhinged enough to try it because he hates to lose, and he needs the office to protect him from jail for four more years until he can figure out an exit strategy.

Here is a rundown of what it would mean, per "supermajority of Republicans" (and of course we're assuming state leges can appoint slates of electors without executive approval because it's all Calvinball at this point):

Arizona: State Senate - 17 R, 13 D
State House - 31 R, 29 D

Pennsylvania: State Senate - 28 R, 21 D
State House - 109 R, 93 D

Georgia: State Senate - 35 R, 21 D
State House - 103 R, 75 D

Michigan: State Senate - 22 R, 16 D
State House - 58 R, 52 D

Wisconsin: State Senate - 19 R, 14 D
State Assembly - 63 R, 35 D


And yet:

For months, there has been talk swirling that if Joe Biden wins Pennsylvania, Republicans in the state legislature could bypass the popular vote and appoint electors who are favorable to President Trump.

The electors award Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes.

On Friday, State Senate majority leader Jake Corman said Republicans will honor the wishes of the voters.

“Our role is to monitor the process, our role is to provide oversight and call out questions where they might need asked, but certainly want to stay with the tradition of the popular vote winner getting the electors,” Senator Corman said.

Corman says the vote is certified by the state and the governor appoints the electors.

He says the legislature will follow the law.

If you're telling me that we're at the point where in the coming weeks at least: 16/17 + 31/31 Arizona Republican legislators; 16/30 + 102/108 Pennsylvania Republican legislators; 29/35 + 91/103 Georgia Republican legislators; 20/22 + 56/58 Michigan Republican legislators; 17/19 + 50/63 Wisconsin Republican legislators - all agree to go all in on overthrowing our ancient and established form of government, we must presuppose near-unanimity among the Republican party to go through with the thing.

IF there were near-unanimity among a major political party to seize power in such a manner, and they had a good chance of success once they started going through with it, then while dispreferred to civil disobedience it would in fact be morally justified to

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Communicated]

Wouldn't even be as extreme as what John Brown did, and John Brown did nothing wrong. National integrity and self-determination are not to be abandoned easily.

[ReluctantSamurai]

An interesting conversation with Harvard Law professor Larry Lessig:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTU5ruzEyO0

It's roughly a 25 min watch and it makes heavy reference to The Atlantic article by Barton Gellman. Ironically, Lessig represented the plaintiffs in the recent cases this year of Chiafalo v. Washington and Baca v. Colorado, arguing FOR "Faithless Electors." SOB, you might think, until you understand why:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...l-college.html

Harvard Law professor Larry Lessig, who represents the plaintiffs, is aware of that possibility. Indeed, it seems to be his goal. Lessig wants to make the Electoral College so wacky and unpredictable that the entire country turns against it, then adopts a constitutional amendment creating a nationwide popular vote for president. The justices appeared to be aware of this end goal on Wednesday. And they had no apparent interest in facilitating Lessig’s master plan.

And then there's this site prepared by his law students, which, although pre-election day is fun nevertheless:

https://ec-faqs.us/