POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[spmetla]

The Pence filing is amusingly-trenchant, but in the end his staff might as well have saved their time; every last one of these Trump suits is organized around the principle of drawing headlines and building the narrative, not legal reasoning. They might as well be scrawled in crayon.

Sadly this is probably going to be the longest lasting legacy of Trump's, that drawing headlines and building a narrative is more important than facts for everything outside a courtroom. It's frightening how many completely believe the narrative that Trump has built and how paralyzing it has been to the Republicans that would love to ditch Trump but fear the wrath of his mob.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Manchin won't be a particular obstacle to a Biden-esque climate plan should we ever regain a sniffable majority in the Senate

Perhaps. We'll see which way he leans when more substantial legislation involving big energy comes along...

The Pence filing is amusingly-trenchant, but in the end his staff might as well have saved their time

Well...you can't just ignore a lawsuit...

every last one of these Trump suits is organized around the principle of drawing headlines and building the narrative, not legal reasoning

Disagree...well, sort of. It's been about raising money...

It's frightening how many completely believe the narrative that Trump has built

It's going to get worse for the mid-terms in 2022. It could be catastrophic for the presidential election in 2024. When you see GOP candidates that lose by overwhelming margins claiming voter fraud, it doesn't bode well. I expect to see Republican led state legislatures, particularly in all the states Trump filed suits, to introduce legislation designed to tilt the board in their direction....

[ReluctantSamurai]

Second to last nail in the coffin:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...lection-result

A US judge has rejected a lawsuit from a Republican congressman that sought to allow vice president Mike Pence to reject electoral college votes for Joe Biden when Congress meets on Wednesday to certify his victory over president Donald Trump. The latest long-shot attempt by Trump’s Republican allies to overturn the November election result was dismissed by one of Trump’s own appointees to the federal bench, Jeremy Kernodle.

He ruled that representative Louie Gohmert of Texas and a slate of Republican electors from Arizona could not show they suffered any personal harm “fairly traceable” to Pence’s allegedly unlawful conduct and, therefore, lacked legal standing to bring the case.

The standing requirement “helps enforce the limited role of federal courts in our constitutional system. The problem for plaintiffs here is that they lack standing,” Kernodle wrote.

A hint at what's in store for 2024:

Gohmert and his fellow plaintiffs said they would appeal. In an interview with the broadcaster Newsmax, the congressman said the ruling was “an example of when the institutions that our constitution created to resolve disputes so that you didn’t have to have riots and violence in the streets, it’s when they go wrong.”

“All this stuff about it [election fraud] being debunked, unsubstantiated, those are absolute lies,” he said, without evidence. “Basically in effect the ruling would be that you got to go to the streets and be as violent as antifa and BLM [Black Lives Matter].”

"Riots and violence in the streets"...."you got to go to the streets and be as violent as antifa and BLM". Yep. Expect to see more politically motivated violence. Sooner or later there will be folks killed...

[Montmorency]

Disagree...well, sort of. It's been about raising money...

It's tomato-tohmahtoe really. Trump only raises half a billion or whatever since the election by leaning into the "steal" narrative. For Trump it's about ego management and personal benefit, which can range from collecting tithes to longshot overthrowing the government. For Republican elites it's about riding the Trump train for their own benefit and delegitimizing Democrats, though they too increasingly buy into the mythology for its own sake. The long-term effect is as you discuss.

"Riots and violence in the streets"...."you got to go to the streets and be as violent as antifa and BLM". Yep. Expect to see more politically motivated violence. Sooner or later there will be folks killed...

I've been a little surprised at the minimal post-election violence so far. Maybe Trump supporters and/or Americans in aggregate are just too passive to take the plunge.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I've been a little surprised at the minimal post-election violence so far. Maybe Trump supporters and/or Americans in aggregate are just too passive to take the plunge.

Rebellions tend to occur at the end of some crisis, as things are starting to rebuild and not during the crisis wherein folks are more focused on personal survival etc. See Davies, Gurr, etc. on Rebellion/Disorder patterns.

The conditions faced by the Trumpeteers do not rise to this level. So that vast majority will not go to the barricades.


The BLM post-Floyd flareup WAS an example. Conditions (at least prior to covid) had improved in terms of jobs etc., lessening survival worries, but the larger inequity concerns still persisted (and still do).

[Hooahguy]

I've been a little surprised at the minimal post-election violence so far. Maybe Trump supporters and/or Americans in aggregate are just too passive to take the plunge.

Well that remains to be seen, the Proud Boys are planning violence on Wednesday.

"Trump diehards from across the country have organized their travel to Washington on 'The Donald' forum," the Beast's report states. "One of the hottest topics on the site is how protesters can bring guns to D.C., which would count as a local crime in nearly all circumstances under Washington's strict gun laws. Others have talked about breaking into federal buildings or committing violence against law enforcement officers who try to stop them from storming Congress."

One comment that received approving nods stated, "I'm thinking it will be literal war on that day. Where we'll storm offices and physically remove and even kill all the D.C. traitors and reclaim the country."

The report notes that noted Trump supporter Proud Boy Joe Biggs, boasted on Parler, "Watch out, January 6 — you ain't gonna know who the f*ck it is standing beside you."

The Beast also reports that Trump fans are discussing dressing up as Antifa protesters so the anti-fascist group will be blamed for any violence.

I plan on not leaving my apartment for anything that day if at all possible. I am also nervous about counter-protesters. If it was a large and unified counter-protest effort I'd be ok with it as the Proud boys in the past have backed down in the face of significant numbers, but from what I have seen, its been small groups counter-protesting and they get overwhelmed by fascists (which I think contributed to the four stabbings last time), so I think in this case it might be best to hang back and dont let the fascists control the narrative.

[Montmorency]

John Quincy Adams was an underrated president. 1828 campaign materials:

Now, “gentle reader,” prepare yourself to receive a shock, which I fear will prove more than you
can bear! Shortly after these unfortunate American Militiamen had been consigned to the earth, a peremptory order arrived from the monster Jackson, directing Col Pipkin to have them sent off immediately to him at New Orleans, nailed up in their coffins, or incur the penalty of having his head severed from his body, the first time he (Jackson) came in reach of him.—They were accordingly disinterred, and upon their arrival at head quarters—I shudder whilst I relate it! Would you believe it, “gentle reader,” this monster, this more than cannibal, Gen. Andrew Jackson, eat the whole Six Militiamen at one meal!!! Yes, my shuddering countrymen, he swallowed them whole, coffins and all, without the slightest attempt at mastication!!!!!! If you are disposed to doubt this statement, I can refer you to many of the most respectable officers, who were in service with him at New Orleans. And can you, my deluded countrymen, even think of making this horrible anthropophagian monster President of the United States? If you place him at the head of the government, what pledge can you have, that if he should at any time he displeased with his cabinet, that he will not have all four of his secretaries roasted, and eat them for his dinner!!!!

At least Republicans didn't say Hillary Clinton was literally Baba Yaga. (Though I heard we can't find Seth Rich's body because she swallowed it whole, bones and all, just like she did with her email server.)

Rebellions tend to occur at the end of some crisis, as things are starting to rebuild and not during the crisis wherein folks are more focused on personal survival etc. See Davies, Gurr, etc. on Rebellion/Disorder patterns.

The conditions faced by the Trumpeteers do not rise to this level. So that vast majority will not go to the barricades.


The BLM post-Floyd flareup WAS an example. Conditions (at least prior to covid) had improved in terms of jobs etc., lessening survival worries, but the larger inequity concerns still persisted (and still do).

Right, but that's an extreme end of the spectrum where status quo regimes get dissolved (e.g. perestroika and Soviet collapse). Why haven't there been any attacks by individuals or small cells? I can think of two reasons:

1. Shootings in many cities are way up this year, as previously observed, but they are petty street violence and not the mediatized mass shootings that have become prominent in the 21st century. In fact, there have been zero of those this year, to my knowledge. This is probably because of pandemic-related constraints on behavior that pare the target environment or otherwise problematize opportunities for attacks. On the other hand, there have still been plenty of mass gatherings this year, protests and counterprotests, including after the election.

2. Serious planned attacks have all been disrupted/dissuaded by law enforcement, such as with the plot against Governor Whitmer.
2.a. Plots against elected officials are some of the likeliest to be interdicted before fruition, so I'm not surprised we haven't seen those.


The only instance of mass violence so far (the DC street scuffles don't count) has AFAIK been the Nashville bombing, which from the information I have seen was apolitical crazy person stuff that doesn't reflect much on or from contemporary events.

[Gilrandir]

I've been a little surprised at the minimal post-election violence so far. Maybe Trump supporters and/or Americans in aggregate are just too passive to take the plunge.

Or wiser than some squash-the-bastards here. Like I said, the electoral frenzy is dying down and people are returning to normalcy. And would return quicker if it were not for those who mentally still live on the next day after voting and are surprised that there are more adequate people around them.

[Montmorency]

Every word of what you just said was wrong.




In other news, the Georgia government appears to have leaked an hour-long recording of the president trying to shake down the governor for 11,000 Trump votes.

[ReluctantSamurai]

@Monty

The content provided in the link (and any other journalistic source dealing with the very same topic) is the proof of why your opening sentence in the above post, is true. And you can bet the farm that Trump knew he was being taped, and therefore the oft-discussed self-pardon will be forthcoming before 20 Jan...

Like I said, the electoral frenzy is dying down and people are returning to normalcy

Oh, you mean like these folks:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...48c_story.html

Formal rallies are planned most of the day and will draw pro-Trump demonstrators to the Washington Monument, Freedom Plaza and the Capitol. But online forums and encrypted chat messages among far-right groups indicate a number of demonstrators might be planning more than chanting and waving signs.

Threats of violence, ploys to smuggle guns into the District and calls to set up an “armed encampment” on the Mall have proliferated in online chats about the Jan. 6 day of protest. The Proud Boys, members of armed right-wing groups, conspiracy theorists and white supremacists have pledged to attend.

Earlier this month, a day of largely peaceful demonstrations descended into violent chaos as night fell and small bands of Proud Boys dressed in the group’s signature black and gold garb roamed downtown looking for a fight. Several people, including passersby who said they did not know about planned protests that day, were injured.

I guess we'll see how "adequate" and "wise" the behavior of these folks will be...

In other news:

www.politico.com/news/2021/01/03/congress-rules-electoral-college-count-454023

And Roy went further on Sunday evening, forcing a vote on whether to allow Speaker Nancy Pelosi to seat the House members in the states Trump is challenging. The move forced Republicans on the record validating the results of the House elections that occurred on the same ballots that resulted in Biden's win in November. The result was a 371-2 vote in favor of seating all of the members.

Credit where credit is due. Chip Roy (R) Texas, called their bluff. If Biden's election is a fraud, so is yours. I'd be curious as to who cast the two nay votes.....

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I am beginning to believe that he more or less HAS to try a self pardon. I do not see Biden taking a Jerry Ford approach to the issue -- especially as Trump does not seem to be willing to quietly fade from the scene as did RN. I do not see a 25th amendment letter working as I do not believe Pence would sign such a pardon as he wants to be President himself someday and I think pardoning Trump would ruin such an effort.


If Trump does self-pardon we will be in for an interesting SCOTUS decision. The SCOTUS, in the past, has generally taken a fairly consistent stance supporting pretty broad powers under the pardon section of the Constitution. In contrast of course is the principle that one cannot stand as a judge in one's own case which suggests that self pardons would be impossible. So is the pardon a form of judicial review exercised by the President (acting as a "judge") or a specific executive power independent of "judge" status?

My guess is the SCOTUS would rule against a self pardon, though not unanimously.

As to the Constitution's relevant portion:

...and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

[rory_20_uk]

Looks like he's going for some sort of Lawsuit Bingo - now he's decided to break the State Law in Georgia.

And of course the Federal government isn't going to do anything since punishing crimes isn't really their thing at the moment. Will Georgia also turn a blind eye and just murmur something about moving on and it's all in the past, possibly throwing in something about healing as well. Yes, there might be evidence that is approaching irrefutable but so what?

As an aside, may I say how wonderful it is to finally be able to say that relatively speaking the Government in the UK is doing a great job and has hardly any corruption.

[Pannonian]

Looks like he's going for some sort of Lawsuit Bingo - now he's decided to break the State Law in Georgia.

And of course the Federal government isn't going to do anything since punishing crimes isn't really their thing at the moment. Will Georgia also turn a blind eye and just murmur something about moving on and it's all in the past, possibly throwing in something about healing as well. Yes, there might be evidence that is approaching irrefutable but so what?

As an aside, may I say how wonderful it is to finally be able to say that relatively speaking the Government in the UK is doing a great job and has hardly any corruption.

It's the most financially corrupt UK government in living memory, as the NYT has shown. The only consolation is that it hasn't yet felt the urge to engage in electoral corruption. Plenty of grift, but not yet any attempt at defying elections.

[Pannonian]

I am beginning to believe that he more or less HAS to try a self pardon. I do not see Biden taking a Jerry Ford approach to the issue -- especially as Trump does not seem to be willing to quietly fade from the scene as did RN. I do not see a 25th amendment letter working as I do not believe Pence would sign such a pardon as he wants to be President himself someday and I think pardoning Trump would ruin such an effort.


If Trump does self-pardon we will be in for an interesting SCOTUS decision. The SCOTUS, in the past, has generally taken a fairly consistent stance supporting pretty broad powers under the pardon section of the Constitution. In contrast of course is the principle that one cannot stand as a judge in one's own case which suggests that self pardons would be impossible. So is the pardon a form of judicial review exercised by the President (acting as a "judge") or a specific executive power independent of "judge" status?

My guess is the SCOTUS would rule against a self pardon, though not unanimously.

As to the Constitution's relevant portion:

Would a substantial portion of the Repubs rule on the principle, or would they vote consistent with faction? Are they still united behind Trump?

FWIW, I've been looking up some prepper type sites and channels. They've got some strange interpretation of defending the country and constitution that means standing behind Trump. There was a particularly intriguing video on what to do with prisoners they capture during the breakdown. How common is this kind of thinking? Over here, one such video would probably put you in the nutter to be monitored by the MI6 category.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Would a substantial portion of the Repubs rule on the principle, or would they vote consistent with faction? Are they still united behind Trump?

Of late, Trump's appointees to the various federal benches have been just as likely to strike down the various frivolous election fraud lawsuits as have any other set of judges. The only time SCOTUS addressed the issue was to kybosh the Texas AG suit as having no standing (as in not worthy of sitting in judgement over at all). Once appointed to the bench (for life, barring impeachment) most take their jobs pretty seriously and with an emphasis on the law and on history -- not political games play. J.P Stephens was self identified as a conservative and a republican when appointed to the SCOTUS. His record trended toward the "liberal" side for many of his decisions. Warren, CJ nominee by Eisenhower, was Dewey's GOP running mate in 1948, a known fiscal conservative, though considered moderate on social issues. On the court he voted with the majority in Brown v Board, Miranda, and loving v Virginia. He led what many consider the most progressive/liberal SCOTUS in history. I would not look for the SCOTUS to pick party over the Constitution at Trump's desire.

FWIW, I've been looking up some prepper type sites and channels. They've got some strange interpretation of defending the country and constitution that means standing behind Trump. There was a particularly intriguing video on what to do with prisoners they capture during the breakdown. How common is this kind of thinking? Over here, one such video would probably put you in the nutter to be monitored by the MI6 category.

That kind of thing quickly gets you on the FBI's "let's keep tabs on these folks" list. And yes, the core 20% of Trumps supporters are fringer nut jobs who really do equate defending the Constitution with the curtailment of Socialism or near socialism. They also interpret anything a European [or a Brit ] would think of as a Social Democrat (Centrist, minimally to the left of center) as a Commie Socialist who is out to destroy the country. Trump is their hero because he is the "outsider" fighting back against all the bureaucrats -- really, you cannot make this stuff up. I've read fiction by Nuttall and Kratman that are less distorted and less lauding of reactionary conservatism. Sadly, Limbaugh and Hannity have swayed many who are ignorant but not outright nutjobs in support of this agenda as well. And it is THAT coalition -- nutjobs and dittoheads -- who are the active elements of the current GOP.

One of the reasons why I am no longer a member of that party.

[Montmorency]

Would a substantial portion of the Repubs rule on the principle, or would they vote consistent with faction? Are they still united behind Trump?

So far it seems as though the majority of House Republicans will side with Trump on Jan. 6, but only a minority of Senate Republicans. It will be as good a poll of our politics as the runoff elections in Georgia tomorrow.

Of late, Trump's appointees to the various federal benches have been just as likely to strike down the various frivolous election fraud lawsuits as have any other set of judges. The only time SCOTUS addressed the issue was to kybosh the Texas AG suit as having no standing (as in not worthy of sitting in judgement over at all).

While technically true, we shouldn't take this as evidence for their jurisprudential integrity in general. Of the dozens of Trumpist election suits so far, I believe all but one of them were dropped, rejected, or dismissed. IIRC the one ruling in Trump's favor was on a narrow technical question. In other words, if (effectively) every Trump-appointed judge and every non-Trump appointed judge rules against Trump on a particular category of question, all we can take away is that we should be comparing Trump judges to non-Trump judges in other respects, where they are not univocal. Posing a matter like 'I am injured that the court will not suck my dick' will always find the same result, and that makes the like minimally-informative.

The limit of legal realism as an interpretive framework is that judges won't do literally anything for their team, especially where (see below) the team and the individual are distinguished. With what Trump was giving them to work, a partisan strategy might as well have gone to the heart of the matter and declared the existence of Democrats unconstitutional.

Once appointed to the bench (for life, barring impeachment) most take their jobs pretty seriously and with an emphasis on the law and on history -- not political games play. J.P Stephens was self identified as a conservative and a republican when appointed to the SCOTUS. His record trended toward the "liberal" side for many of his decisions. Warren, CJ nominee by Eisenhower, was Dewey's GOP running mate in 1948, a known fiscal conservative, though considered moderate on social issues. On the court he voted with the majority in Brown v Board, Miranda, and loving v Virginia. He led what many consider the most progressive/liberal SCOTUS in history.

Republicans loathed Warren, Souter, and Stevens! That's why the conservative movement made sure no further Republican appointees would replicate their defections. "Impeach Earl Warren" was before your time, but...

Judges like Warren, Souter, Stevens, and so on, can't exist any longer and haven't since the 20th century, because the Federalist Society selects for and inculcates reliability.

I would not look for the SCOTUS to pick party over the Constitution at Trump's desire.

The critical thing is that we can observe Republican judges will and do pick party over Constitution/law, or minimally ideology over Constitution, but they are agents of the institutional elite of the GOP - they are not quite the nutjobs and dittoheads who identify God and country with the person of Trump.

If there is a McConnell/Roberts faction of the GOP, they are very much independent of Trump the man. The judges know that fruitlessly exhausting institutional and political capital on assuaging Trump's insecurities (or worse, committing to violent power struggle) will damage the long-term interests of their movement.

That kind of thing quickly gets you on the FBI's "let's keep tabs on these folks" list.

Not quickly enough. And as we know the Trump administration has for its part kept its thumb on the scale of law enforcement when it comes to white supremacists. But the phenomenon Pann happened upon has proliferated since the Clinton era in particular, in no small part due to Limbaugh's agitations.

[Montmorency]

Oh, Seamus, I just recalled that in Wisconsin the state Supreme Court would have been in a position to award the state to Donald Trump, had a liberal justice not won one of the seats up for election in the past 2 years. The decision against Trump was 4-3 in the event. (This is all separate from the handful of Republican bureaucrats who were in a genuine position to withhold certification of tabulated votes in Michigan.)

All our circumstances are highly contingent. If Republicans could repeat Florida 2000 (even Sandra Day O'Connor was on board there), they would do it instantly. As we'll have opportunity to discuss in the next few days, the only question is how much further they will go of their own initiative the next time.

[Hooahguy]

I dont want to get anyone's hopes up just yet, but things are looking good in Georgia right now.

The first heavily-Democratic county, Macon County, has fully reported its results. Dems are doing about four points better than in November and turnout is better than in heavily-Republican counties.

I have no idea how this is going to go, I think its still a tossup but I guess we will see by tomorrow morning.

Edit: the totals arent in yet, but its looking like a Dem sweep now, which means that the Dems will be retaking the Senate with a 50-50 split and VP Harris the tie-breaking vote. Wild. Super proud of my home state right now.

[Montmorency]

It looks like there will be 4.5 million recorded votes in this runoff. There were 5 million in the general. There were 4.1 million in the 2016 general.

As of now R-Perdue is up 3 points and R-Loeffler by 2.2 points, but at every point from the early early voting returns to the political geography of the remaining ballots, Dems have hit every milestone they have needed to. Which is not to say it's certain that they will win, but that everything has happened that one would expect to happen if the final result were to be at least one victory.

[Hooahguy]

I am being super cautious about this as anything can happen, but goddamn is it hard not to be at least a bit giddy at the thought of Dems winning both Senate seats.

[Montmorency]

I've seen enough (lol): Dem sweep. From 538:

Want to see what a realignment looks like? Cobb County (94 percent of the expected vote reporting) and Gwinnett County (98 percent reporting) — both in the Atlanta suburbs — voted for Mitt Romney by 12 points and 9 points respectively. Tonight, they are voting for Warnock by 16 points and 21 points, respectively.

Warnock is the first Black Democratic senator ever from the South.

And the victories won't even be that narrow by all accounts. Someone give Stacey Abrams more power in the party. She knows how to reach black voters in the South, but the ideal is of course a 50-state strategy.


Nate Silver has mathematically-determined that a Dem presidential candidate needs at least 3% popular vote margin against a Republican to have a better-than-even shot at winning in the Electoral College. After 2020, winning less than 3% over the Republican will almost certainly translate to a loss, as Republicans are sure to double down on voter suppression for 2024; all their incentives align against honest administration, which we have basically seen in Georgia this cycle. Kemp and Raffensperger could well be defeated in primaries in 2022 for their troubles. The needle moves a little closer toward state Republicans embracing para-electoral fraud.

Biden won by 4.5%. No one else has exceeded that this century - did you know we're more than 20 years into the 21st century? We're all old. - other than Obama's +7D in 2008. Obama 2012 was +4D. Clinton 2016 was +2D.

Lot of opportunities for the country to get

2024 prediction: Trump will run in the Republican primary, but he can't (or won't be allowed to) win. He will, however, distort the process significantly, which can have either positive or negative repercussions for Democrats. Regardless, explicitly Trumpist candidates (putatively the likes of Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton, now maybe including Ted Cruz) in the 2024 Republican primary will flame out in his wake. Same goes for Trump's sons/daughter in his place, though to a much lesser effect.

Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump competing against each other in 2024 would be a Lovecraftian obscenity.

Governor Kristi Noem is sadly one to watch.


Meanwhile, the best thing Biden can do with his 50 Senators is to confirm all his judges and civil servants and govern as hard as he can from the White House. Beyond that, 2021 will likely see a pandemic relief bill passed through reconciliation, featuring much-needed aid for states at last. Other than that we'll have to wait for the midterms.

[a completely inoffensive name]

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status...95657357250560

Turnout are as a share of general by type of precinct:
>80% Trump: 88%
>80% Biden: 92%
>80% Black: 93%
>50% college: 92%
>80% no college&white: 87%
Urban 91%
Suburban 90%
Rural 88%

The change in strategy paid off. Glad to see Georgia Dems use its resources for door to door ground coverage and not on endless TV ads.
CA 25th came down to just 500 votes, if only the Dems had paid a skeleton crew knocking on doors and registering voters we would have had one more in the House.

Expand the lower courts as a matter of scale (there are too few judges, too many cases) and reverse McConnell's project. SCOTUS will need a replacement for Breyer, but otherwise the composition remains the same.
New Voting Rights Act, courts have given carte-blanche for redistricting as a political question, so pass a law there as well before the lines are drawn.

Other than that...$2000 stimulus checks and just govern as best we can.

[Hooahguy]

I think the initial priorities will be judges, more Covid relief, expansion of voting/civil rights, and a policing bill. Climate will be trickier as Manchin is a potential roadblock when it comes to things like coal, but on the other hand, I am struggling to think of any instance where Manchin was the deciding vote on something and voted against the Dems. IIRC, in the instances when he voted with the GOP they had the 50 votes needed anyways. But I might be wrong on this, time will tell what part Manchin plays in all this. He might fall in line, he might not.

Also LOL about VP-elect Harris leaving her job as senator to essentially become the 101st senator. Does bode well for a future presidential run for her though.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Like I said, the electoral frenzy is dying down and people are returning to normalcy

Yep, they sure are....

https://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/watch/protestors-breach-capitol-steps-as-congress-debates-vote-count-98934853819

https://abcnews.go.com/

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status...98433689399297

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I am hopeful that the moderate bloc of the Senate -- those folks not rabidly Trump or hyper-progressives -- can get some legislation through, at least on practical concerns like infrastructure and the like.

You know, infrastructure, like The Donald claimed was a key focus but for which he actually achieved little aside from exec orders favoring fossil fuels.

[Hooahguy]

Trump traitors have stormed the Capitol complex after overwhelming Capitol Police. Guns Drawn in the House Chamber. At least one shot. The Pentagon denied DC's request for National Guard support. This is a coup. I am sick to my stomach.

[Pannonian]

What's this about Trump supporters storming the Capitol and causing business to be suspended?

[Hooahguy]

Where to even begin. Trump encouraged his supporters to take action earlier this morning. And a couple hours ago they started storming the Capitol complex, overwhelming Capitol Police. Its a huge area so its unreasonable that everything can be locked down completely. I wonder if there will be more support now to impeach again this week. He certainly deserves a second impeachment.

If it was BLM doing this they would have been shot at ages ago.

[Crandar]

It was the Antifa all along and they would have gotten away with it, hadn't been for Congressman Mo Brooks!

Yep, they sure are....

Girlandir's contributions have aged as well Ukraine's occupation of Crimea.

[Xantan]

Shocking, shocking scenes. Incredible.

They broke into the Capitol, the House floor, the offices of the Congressmen and Congresswomen. I'm surprised the Capitol police was nowhere to be seen.