POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[Montmorency]

Two Republican county commissioners for the Wayne County canvassing certification tried to deny certification of the tally this week, on the basis that all votes from Detroit, Michigan, should be tossed out (implicitly flipping the state to Trump). Massive public outcry caused them to walk back their attitude and certify.

Last night, Donald Trump contacted them directly and the commissioners now wish to rescind their reversal.

Latest polling on Republicans and the election:

About half of all Republicans believe President Donald Trump “rightfully won” the U.S. election but that it was stolen from him by widespread voter fraud that favored Democratic President-elect Joe Biden, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll.

...Altogether, 73% of those polled agreed that Biden won the election while 5% thought Trump won. But when asked specifically whether Biden had “rightfully won,” Republicans showed they were suspicious about how Biden’s victory was obtained. Fifty-two percent of Republicans said that Trump “rightfully won,” while only 29% said that Biden had rightfully won. Asked why, Republicans were much more concerned than others that state vote counters had tipped the result toward Biden: 68% of Republicans said they were concerned that the election was “rigged,” while only 16% of Democrats and one-third of independents were similarly worried.

...Altogether, 55% of adults in the United States said they believed the Nov. 3 presidential election was “legitimate and accurate,” which is down 7 points from a similar poll that ran shortly after the 2016 election. The 28% who said they thought the election was “the result of illegal voting or election rigging” is up 12 points from four years ago. The poll showed Republicans were much more likely to be suspicious of Trump’s loss this year than Democrats were when Hillary Clinton lost four years ago. In 2016, 52% of Democrats said Hillary Clinton’s loss to Trump was “legitimate and accurate,” even as reports emerged of Russian attempts to influence the outcome. This year, only 26% of Republicans said they thought Trump’s loss was similarly legitimate.

Yeah, we're going to need an Iron Front, Dems.

In 2016, Chad Mizelle, a 29-year-old first-year associate volunteered for the Trump campaign. Four years later:

- He’s DHS Acting General Counsel
- His wife is a federal judge
- One law school friend and groomsman is Deputy General Counsel at DHS. Another has a DOJ job.

All good gravy trains come to an end. (Tangentially, I wonder if Trump will order the Congressionally-authorized subsidy for post-presidential office space to go toward a lease from a Trump property.)

In new intv with me,
@GaSecofState
says 24,000 GOPs who voted absentee in primary did not vote in General - says Donald Trump cost himself the election by sowing distrust in absentee: "he would have won by 10 thousand votes he actually suppressed, depressed his own voting base"

Anyone have an explanation for the Georgia Secretary of State's unusual candor for a Republican? And yeah, this was mentioned before the election as a potential blowback of Trump's strategy.

The left lose because young journalists, anxious for clicks and search returns, write dramatic articles based on very little?

Hmm.. and there was me thinking it was to do with challenging the establishment, economic and media elites. You learn something every day.

It is inherently, almost definitionally, harder to move an agenda by the proportion of its divergence from the status quo.

Imagine being paid to write about politics and not seeing the danger in nominating two senators from states with Republican governors.

All discussion on merits is moot because Sanders or Warren would never be confirmed by the Senate even following a total victory in Georgia.

I wonder if there's a theory of (American) governance for when and under what circumstances to nominate federal electeds to the Cabinet, since as a rule it creates undesirable complications among a limited pool. In a parliamentary system I am given to understand cabinet officials are (almost?) always also MPs. But we don't have a parliamentary system.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Last night, Donald Trump contacted them directly and the commissioners now wish to rescind their reversal.

They can't. The deadline for results certification expired on Wed. It's already gone to the Board of State Canvassers:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...te/3775246001/

State law sets a deadline of 14 days for every county to certify its election votes and Wayne County's 14-day clock expired Wednesday.

"There is no legal mechanism for them to rescind their vote," said Tracy Wimmer, a spokeswoman for Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. "Their job is done, and the next step in the process is for the Board of State Canvassers to meet and certify."

Board Vice Chairman Jonathan Kinloch, a Democrat, said the affidavits have no meaning, given that the deadline for certifying results in Wayne County has passed. Further, he said, all members of the board approved a motion to waive additional consideration after the certification vote, cementing their decisions.

I seriously doubt the State Republican Committee is willing to risk a racial war trying to overturn election results here, which, even if it were to succeed, wouldn't change the outcome of the presidential election.

[Montmorency]

They can't. The deadline for results certification expired on Wed. It's already gone to the Board of State Canvassers:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...te/3775246001/



I seriously doubt the State Republican Committee is willing to risk a racial war trying to overturn election results here, which, even if it were to succeed, wouldn't change the outcome of the presidential election.

I know, that's been my shtick so far. But the episode highlights both the spiraling degeneracy of rank and file Republicans, as well as the vulnerability of most of our institutions to deliberate monkey wrenching by committed partisans. It'll be worse next time.

[Idaho]

I seriously doubt the State Republican Committee is willing to risk a racial war trying to overturn election results here, which, even if it were to succeed, wouldn't change the outcome of the presidential election.

The weak, passivity of republicans in the face of frothing mania and delusions from their leader and their base are enough to make them utterly complicit. Yes politicians are often craven, but conceding defeat is so fundamental to a functioning democracy and we've all overlooked it's significance. And now America is hostage to frankly barking fringe nutjobs.

[ReluctantSamurai]

The weak, passivity of republicans in the face of frothing mania and delusions from their leader and their base are enough to make them utterly complicit.

I think Republicans are anything but weak. They've managed minority rule for the last 20 years despite winning the popular vote only once. They get their conservative judges appointed, they get gerrymandering done (and with this election cycle that's only going to get worse), and they've consistently blocked the majority of legislation Democrats try to enact.

I think rank and file Republican complicity is just due to utter stupidity, and because the Republican Party has no real platform to advance, other than screwing Democrats, and would be ecstatic if the US was a single party autocracy headed by Republicans.

[Hooahguy]

I think Republicans are anything but weak. They've managed minority rule for the last 20 years despite winning the popular vote only once. They get their conservative judges appointed, they get gerrymandering done (and with this election cycle that's only going to get worse), and they've consistently blocked the majority of legislation Democrats try to enact.

I think rank and file Republican complicity is just due to utter stupidity, and because the Republican Party has no real platform to advance, other than screwing Democrats, and would be ecstatic if the US was a single party autocracy headed by Republicans.

To quote David Frum, "If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy."

And we are seeing them them reject democracy right now.

[Montmorency]

The weak, passivity of republicans in the face of frothing mania and delusions from their leader and their base are enough to make them utterly complicit. Yes politicians are often craven, but conceding defeat is so fundamental to a functioning democracy and we've all overlooked it's significance. And now America is hostage to frankly barking fringe nutjobs.

Your grievous mistake here - and I'm not trying to be unfriendly - is that you assume this is outside the Republican mainstream, that Republicans in any number or of distinct rank somehow privately condemn or detest fascism but are unwilling to confront it.

This is what they want. It is the ideology of 40% of the country, give or take a few percent of badly underinformed or truly passive individuals. (If you're wondering at my neglect of the plutocratic faction, the Krupps of the world are too few in number to count as a voting bloc and are basically fascists themselves. Look at the Murdochs, Kochs, and Thiels and tell me otherwise.)

Foreigners please understand, there is a VERY strong fascist movement here from the grassroots, one of the most feral in history, and we are fighting for our lives.

It can happen to you too.

[Gilrandir]

Your grievous mistake here - and I'm not trying to be unfriendly - is that you assume this is outside the Republican mainstream, that Republicans in any number or of distinct rank somehow privately condemn or detest fascism but are unwilling to confront it.

This is what they want. It is the ideology of 40% of the country, give or take a few percent of badly underinformed or truly passive individuals.
Foreigners please understand, there is a VERY strong fascist movement here from the grassroots, one of the most feral in history, and we are fighting for our lives.

This attitude in no way deepens the division within the country. Us or them. The winner takes it all. Squash the bastards. Mop them on the flat. A surefire recipe to stitch the country together. Way to go!

[Montmorency]

This attitude in no way deepens the division within the country. Us or them. The winner takes it all. Squash the bastards. Mop them on the flat. A surefire recipe to stitch the country together. Way to go!

If your concern is division you might want to take it up with Republicans, kind sir. I hope your commitment to the oppression of Russian-speaking Ukrainians won't prove a disqualifying conflict of interest.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This attitude in no way deepens the division within the country. Us or them. The winner takes it all. Squash the bastards. Mop them on the flat. A surefire recipe to stitch the country together. Way to go!

Concern troll

[Gilrandir]

If your concern is division you might want to take it up with Republicans, kind sir. I hope your commitment to the oppression of Russian-speaking Ukrainians won't prove a disqualifying conflict of interest.

This is a pefect debate tactics. Instead of playing the ball you play the man.

Yet whatever my concerns might be, I realize that Russian-speaking Ukrainians that are so much oppressed (as you think) are a part of our society and will be for quite a time. And we have to win them to our side. While you speak of life-or-death fight. Feel the difference.

[Gilrandir]

Concern troll

A completely inoffensive attitude.

[ReluctantSamurai]

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/504966176945711259/

Just here to piss in your cornflakes.....

[Gilrandir]

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/504966176945711259/

Just here to piss in your cornflakes.....

I may be mistaken, but you offer no solutions either, except of legging it from the fascist state. And my solution is starting to map out a strategy to stitch the nation together.

[ReluctantSamurai]

And my solution is starting to map out a strategy to stitch the nation together.

Currently there are two representatives from my home state that are in Washington presumably to discuss with the President how to subvert democracy by going against the will of the people here in Michigan by submitting our 16 electoral votes for him instead of for Joe Biden. Go ahead and try to map out a strategy for THAT....

[Montmorency]

The polling of Republicans is increasingly ominous. Within just half a month an overwhelming consensus has emerged that Trump won, or did not lose, the election. I actually supposed it would take at least months to reach this level. Say goodbye to hopes of a Republican turnout slump in Georgia?

While 60% of Americans believe Biden won the election fair and square, 32% say he only won it due to voter fraud. Three-quarters (77%) of Trump backers say Biden’s win was due to fraud
[...]
A majority (54%) of Americans believe we have enough information on the vote count to know who won
the presidential election, but a sizable minority (44%) feel we, in fact, do not. Fully 88% of Trump voters
believe we need to wait for more information on the count before we know for sure. They are joined by
38% of voters who backed a third party candidate or refused to reveal their vote choice and 46% of nonvoters.
Just 4% of Biden supporters say more information is needed before we can be certain of the election’s outcome.
[...]
Before the election, 55% of Republican voters expressed confidence in the process. That has dropped to just 22% now.
In fact, a majority (61%) of Republicans are not at all confident in the election’s fairness and accuracy now.
Only 13% expressed that sentiment in late September. Confidence in the election’s fairness went up among
both independents (from 56% to 69%) and Democrats (from 68% to 90%) pre-election to post-election.
“It’s not unusual for backers on the losing side to take a while to accept the results. It is quite another thing
for the defeated candidate to prolong that process by spreading groundless conspiracy theories. This is
dangerous territory for the Republic’s stability,” said Murray. Most Americans (61%) disapprove of how Trump
is handling the presidential transition process. Just 31% approve. One in four (25%) Republicans join
67% of independents and 92% of Democrats in voicing disapproval of the incumbent’s behavior.

How much confidence do you have that the 2020 presidential election was held fairly?
[Trump voters]: Only a little/none at all - 80%

Mail ballots are being manipulated to favor Joe Biden
[Trump voters] Definitely/probably true - 91%

Illegal immigrants voted fraudulently in 2016 and tried again in 2020
[Trump voters] Definitely/probably true - 89%

We will never know the real outcome of this election
[Trump voters] Definitely/probably true - 80%

How much voter fraud do you think occurred in this election?
[Trump voters]: A lot - 79%

Do you think the amount of voter fraud in the election caused Donald Trump to lose any of the states he lost in the election this year, or did it not change who won those states?
[Trump voters]: Enough fraud - 91%

How much voter fraud do you think occurred in this election?
[Trump voters]: Enough to influence - 89%

How much voter suppression do you think occurred in this election?
[Trump voters]: A lot - 33%; A little - 31%
[Biden voters]: A lot - 37%; A little - 42%

Do you think the amount of voter suppression in the election caused Joe Biden to lose any of the states he lost in the election this year or did it not change who won those states?
[Trump voters]: Enough suppression - 40%
[Biden voters]: Enough suppression - 23%

[Ed. HOW THE DO MORE REPUBLICANS THAN DEMOCRATS BELIEVE VOTER SUPPRESSION COST JOE BIDEN STATES?]

Would you say that Joe Biden legitimately won the election, or not?
[Trump voters]: Biden legitimately won - 12%
[Biden voters]: Biden legitimately won - 98%

At the moment it appears that the Senate and the President may be of different parties and favor different policies. Would you rather they...
[Trump voters]: Work together in order and compromise in order to get more done - 94%
[Biden voters]: Work together in order and compromise in order to get more done - 54%

Imagine what Trump and Republicans had in mind for a scenario in which we didn't hold those bridgeheads in Arizona and Georgia, and the margin in Pennsylvania were 0.1% rather than 1%. We're speaing of party-wide war to the hilt. The only good outcome of this scrimmage would be if Republicans are tricked into mistrusting the Electoral College as an institution: In the closest tipping states* of Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin, Biden's cumulative balance of votes is less than 44K, about half of Trump's margin in 2016.

*Awarding those states to Trump results in a 269-269 tie, which would be decided by the House either on terms favorable to Republicans or by Nancy Pelosi going rogue and seating herself as president. To make it an outright Trump victory at 270-268 we would have to account for the Nebraska CD2 single vote, where Biden won by 23K votes. (Add that to the 44K and you more or less reproduce Trump's winning balance in 2016.)


I saw an interesting point made, though I don't fully agree, to the effect that Democrats and Biden should remain low-key and dismissive toward Trump's efforts to overthrow the government because to make a big deal would lend Trump's messaging more power and salience. That, in the absence of concrete progress on one of his schemes, or the finalization of the EC conclave, the Democrats don't have anything concrete to oppose or inveigh against, and that treating everything as normal and Republicans as powerless will redound to our advantage.

There's certainly a logic there, but I've consistently struggled with this ever-present theme that Democratic passivity or - at best - cautious vigilance will win out. At some point the Dem establishment needs to unite in making the case to its own base that we are living in a permanent crisis and that our lives need to shift accordingly. Now seems as good a time as any. It's not just about this election, and it's not just about Trump, it's that this election and Trump are the analytic lens by which public consciousness of our peril can begin to be potentiated. Sure, a sudden ramping up of rhetoric will make Dems look unhinged to an unfriendly media (though they've been doing a better job of covering the profound lawless and tyrannical nature of what Trump and Republicans have been doing anyway), but that's only a transitory artifact and something we need to break in one way or another.


Even David Frum though acknowledges by now that the Republican Party has been grooming itself for authoritarianism and more for decades (generations really, and let's not forget the outright - if sputtered - autocratic impulses of Bush 2 and 2000s Republicans).

No more happy talk about the "uniquely American transition of power." Trump presidency and this post-election period confirm that the US is *less* committed to democratic norms - and has *weaker* institutional safeguards for democracy - than peer wealthy democracies.
I asked a German diplomat friend to detail the safeguards against, say, a German chancellor trying to extend her tenure despite losing an election. He replied that such a thing was utterly impossible, he couldn't begin to enumerate the reasons why. And he was right of course.
Nobody wondered, "Will Gordon Brown or Theresa May leave office if defeated?" Ditto the Netherlands, New Zealand, and newer democracies like Portugal or South Korea. Democratic culture is deep, and election law is administered impartially. For all the boasting, not true in USA
Normally, inauguration day is a day of self-congratulation. This next one should be a day of self-reflection - and commitment to self-improvement. The US not only lags other democracies - it has regressed even by its own standards. Time for a new era of reform.
And reform begins with acceptance of some grim and unwanted realities.

The problems are not "on both sides."

The illiberal authoritarianism of some dean of students somewhere is not equivalent to illiberal authoritarianism by the Attorney General of the United States.
Renewal of democratic institutions in the United States should be *non*-partisan - outside the everyday work of government - but cannot be *bi*-partisan when one party is so committed to (or frightened of) the individual leading the attack on democratic institutions.
And of course it's not just Trump.

As I detail in these 3 related articles

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

even the non-Trump Republican party has committed itself to a program of minority rule

It's hard thus to imagine that Congress can effectively conduct an investigation into Trump-era abuses by itself - since so many Republicans in Congress accepted, protected, and even connived in those abuses - and since so many Republicans in the states are now adding to the list
An independent commission with subpoena power is what is needed instead - tasked to recommend reform measures - and supported by a citizen movement outside the party system to pressure for state and federal reforms for voting rights, fair elections, and an honest Executive branch

A reader registers the below objection to the foregoing.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Now counter-question

How does "liberty" - or more exactly the democratic idea of regulating state power by impartial law - get into the hearts of men and women in the first place?

It's not innate! By nature, we prefer that our tribe dominate. The democratic idea is learned.
Learned how?

Learned by practice, and practice based upon laws and institutions.

(Remember Tocqueville's astute remarks on the importance of jury duty to self-government?)

So we have to build our institutions fair and strong to foster individual commitment to democracy
The Republican thralldom to Trump followed 20 years of undoing voting rights and civil rights. Republicans became acculturated gradually first to minority rule, then to authoritarian rule. Trump's false allegations of fraud rest on carefully nurtured prejudices.
I'm going on too long. But if anybody is still bearing with me, one last point ...
If I've had any one message in everything I've written about Trump and Trumpism since 2015 ... it's that the direct involvement of the people in elections is democracy's LAST line of defense, not its first.

Joe Biden summoned 80 million Americans to defend democracy. Great, but
that massive collective undertaking only followed the internal failure of the checks and balances erected to protect democracy in the long intervals between elections. And as we saw in 2020, malign actors can corrode voting rights during those long intervals between elections
80 million people voted to eject Trump and replace him. One official at the General Services Administration has successfully defied that vote for some 2 weeks. In a more democratic culture, she'd say No. The story of the Trump years is how many like her have said Yes.

This is a pefect debate tactics. Instead of playing the ball you play the man.

Yet whatever my concerns might be, I realize that Russian-speaking Ukrainians that are so much oppressed (as you think) are a part of our society and will be for quite a time. And we have to win them to our side. While you speak of life-or-death fight. Feel the difference.

You don't have a ball. I'm just saying that Russian-speaking Ukrainians merely want a life free from the violent interference of the domineering Ukrainian-speakers, but you won't let them have it, whether as a function of prejudice or jealousy. That strikes me as rather divisive. It's like Abraham Lincoln used to say, when a robber accosts you and you make them shoot you dead, you become a murderer.

I may be mistaken, but you offer no solutions either, except of legging it from the fascist state. And my solution is starting to map out a strategy to stitch the nation together.

You straightforwardly lack the requisite knowledge or sense about the country to conceive of any relevant strategy. As for my part, you are mistaken; the goal I have consistently promoted is to maximize Democratic power and relegate Republicans to as low a sociopolitical profile as is manageable.

[Gilrandir]

Currently there are two representatives from my home state that are in Washington presumably to discuss with the President how to subvert democracy by going against the will of the people here in Michigan by submitting our 16 electoral votes for him instead of for Joe Biden. Go ahead and try to map out a strategy for THAT....

I like that "presumably". And doesn't your electoral law forbid it? Or are those two empowered to do that?

But even if they do, what is your solution? Smash all those who support Republicans to pieces? Take their citizenship from them? Settle them all in Texas? If not, then you are doomed to co-exist with them. As well as to map strategies.

[Montmorency]

I like that "presumably". And doesn't your electoral law forbid it? Or are those two empowered to do that?

But even if they do, what is your solution? Smash all those who support Republicans to pieces? Take their citizenship from them? Settle them all in Texas? If not, then you are doomed to co-exist with them. As well as to map strategies.

They are not doomed to coexist with us.

[Gilrandir]

You don't have a ball. I'm just saying that Russian-speaking Ukrainians merely want a life free from the violent interference of the domineering Ukrainian-speakers, but you won't let them have it, whether as a function of prejudice or jealousy. That strikes me as rather divisive.

I applaud your persistent attempts to derail the thread about America.

But if you think that Ukrainian-speakers dominate in Ukraine it shows that you have even less understanding of Ukraine than I do of the USA.

You straightforwardly lack the requisite knowledge or sense about the country to conceive of any relevant strategy.

You thought that foreigners should conceive any strategy for YOUR country?

I readily admit the absence not only of knowledge, but skills of state planning and the desire to learn it. It is your compatriots that must come up with one. And preferably those who realize that you can't just neglect the sentiment of nigh on half of the nation.

As for my part, you are mistaken; the goal I have consistently promoted is to maximize Democratic power and relegate Republicans to as low a sociopolitical profile as is manageable.

Even if you succeed in it (which will eventually result in the USSR-type of ONE RULING PARTY, won't it?), it can't cancel the senseless American ritual of whole states "traditionally voting" for a candidate of a particular party even if this candidate is a raccoon or a groundhog.

[Gilrandir]

They are not doomed to coexist with us.

You think they will leave? Or secede?

[ReluctantSamurai]

I like that "presumably". And doesn't your electoral law forbid it? Or are those two empowered to do that?

I agree with Monty....you 'straightforwardly lack the requisite knowledge or sense about the country to conceive of any relevant strategy.'

First off, I was simply being nice by saying "presumably" What other reason would they be going there other than to talk strategy on how to subvert the Michigan vote? Certainly not to have coffee and shoot the shit on current world affairs...

As to the electoral law....this is the reason you simply don't have a clue on how the Republican Party operates today. THEY DON'T GIVE A RATS ASS ABOUT THE LAW! Republicans would rather risk civil war by subverting democracy and our constitution, than give up power.

As to whether they have the authority to assign rogue electors, you need to back and read post #524. Read the link to The Atlantic article. Then read post #525. Then read post#530. Watch the whole video. Do these things and you will have accumulated enough information to answer the question yourself. Don't do those things and you can just continue to troll without a clue as to how Republicans are trying to subvert democracy...

[Pannonian]

I agree with Monty....you 'straightforwardly lack the requisite knowledge or sense about the country to conceive of any relevant strategy.'

First off, I was simply being nice by saying "presumably" What other reason would they be going there other than to talk strategy on how to subvert the Michigan vote? Certainly not to have coffee and shoot the shit on current world affairs...

As to the electoral law....this is the reason you simply don't have a clue on how the Republican Party operates today. THEY DON'T GIVE A RATS ASS ABOUT THE LAW! Republicans would rather risk civil war by subverting democracy and our constitution, than give up power.

As to whether they have the authority to assign rogue electors, you need to back and read post #524. Read the link to The Atlantic article. Then read post #525. Then read post#530. Watch the whole video. Do these things and you will have accumulated enough information to answer the question yourself. Don't do those things and you can just continue to troll without a clue as to how Republicans are trying to subvert democracy...

"Own the libs". That sums up the Right in the US.

[spmetla]

Each state has it's own laws about faithless electors and deals with it separately. For Trump to 'win' the electoral college he'd need all the electors of three states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, and anything else) to 'flip' toward him.

In Michigan a faithless electors will essentially be ignored:

Michigan Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.47 No penalty Failure to vote as pledged cancels the vote and replaces the elector

Pennsylvania and Georgia have no laws about faithless electors unfortunately so those are Trump's best shots.

Wisconsin, Nevada, and Arizona have similiar laws to Michigan:

Arizona Ariz. Rev. Stat § 16-212 No penalty Failure to vote as pledged cancels the vote and replaces the elector

Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. § 298.075(2) (Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act) No penalty Failure to vote as pledged cancels the vote and replaces the elector

Wisconsin Wis. Stat. § 7.75(2) No penalty Vote counted as cast

https://www.fairvote.org/faithless_elector_state_laws

It is still 'possible' for the electors and state legislatures to go rogue and put all the electoral votes for Trump though it is highly unlikely. If that happens though in several states then it may take a Supreme Court ruling after all though that's a long shot for happening. Trump only caring about himself will probably still try for this long shot because it's clear he wants to remain in office, norms and elections be damned.

We each made a similar argument to the Supreme Court in May when, in Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado v. Baca, we defended the Framers’ plan for presidential electors. Electors, as we argued—though selected in the “manner” that the state legislatures directed—were given their power by the Constitution, not state legislatures. That power, we argued, could not be constrained by state law, for precisely the same reason that state law could not constrain state legislatures. Electors were above state regulation, just as state legislatures were.

This is not the only context in which the Supreme Court has recognized that state legislatures have superpowers granted to them by the federal constitution. In Leser v. Garnett (1922), the court had held that even a state constitution could not constrain a state legislature when that legislature was ratifying an amendment to the federal constitution. When exercising that ratifying power, the legislature performed a “federal function.” That function could not be constrained by the state in any way, whether by its constitution or, as the Supreme Court had held in an earlier case, Hawke v. Smith (1920), by an express vote of its people.

Such cases do support the theory of legislative superpower birthed by Chief Justice Rehnquist and echoed by Justice Kavanaugh. But that superpower is to the end of selecting electors. The Framers expressly rejected the idea that the state legislatures themselves should choose the president. The corruption of post-election bargaining was obvious to them. They therefore expressly avoided giving any existing entity the power to select a president, so as to avoid that obvious corruption. Instead, the entity that was to make that choice was to be one that was free of any obligation to anyone —that is, the electors themselves.

In Chiafalo, however, the Supreme Court unanimously resolved that history had overtaken the Framers’ design. Nine justices agreed that even if the Framers had assumed that “electors” would be free to cast a vote however they chose, an emerging presumption of democratic control had displaced that original design. Whatever they originally expected, the court held, there was nothing in their words that constrained the power of the state to ensure that it was the choice of the people that would ultimately decide how the electors would vote. Elector discretion had been displaced by democracy. “Here,” as Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the closing line of her opinion, “[w]e the people rule.”

https://www.lawfareblog.com/state-le...nting-electors

[Hooahguy]

Some encouraging news out of Michigan. Coming from Michigan lawmakers, presumably GOP as they met with Trump today:

We have not yet been made aware of any information that would change the outcome of the election in Michigan and as legislative leaders we will follow the law and follow the normal process regarding Michigan's electors, just as we have said throughout this election.

Although the "threats and intimidation" bit really stands out here. To have been a fly on the wall during that meeting with Trump...

[Montmorency]

Florida Governor Rick Scott's daughter has some thoughts about his COVID diagnosis. [VIDEO]
https://twitter.com/blaireerskine/st...44449426468865

@spmetla
Electoral slates are all hardcore partisans, so I'm pretty sure if a Joe Biden slate is certified for each of those states then all the electors will be partisan Democrats. I don't think faithless electors are a factor here, though they would be a sliver of a factor if Republicans overthrew the Biden slates and tried to ram through their own. In that case some, but not enough, Republican electors might manifest a conscience. Also, as a historical matter the EC electors have never had or wielded discretion in a practical way. Recall that the Electoral College in its original form was such an unwieldy contraption that it had to be remade in just a decade. Lessig's arguments have rightly been unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court. To the extent that a state can act unconstitutionally in exercising its authority over electors, it would be in subverting the other constitutionally-enumerated rights of individuals and process, not because electors are wizards. At any rate, even such a paper unconstitutionality is irrelevant to a Republican supermajority, as demonstrated in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) when the Roberts majority acknowledged that gerrymandering imposes injuries to the constitutional rights of citizens and yet declined to do anything to remedy that for raisins. Bottom line: Biden-pledged electoral slates would never want to defect in the first place because they are selected for loyalty, making abstract questions of constitutionality beside the point.


Michigan Republicans reject Trump's entreaty for him a mulligan.

You know, any Republican senators who want to earn major institutional cred and probably the uncritical admiration of the more centrist half of the Democratic Party could just announce, privately or publicly, that unless Republicans unite against Trump they will caucus with Democrats and McConnell will lose his majority and his leadership role. The few milquetoast criticisms we've seen, of the same tenor as have suppurated throughout Trump's term - to no effect - is therefore telling on those who level them without concomitant action. Of course, we knew how this would turn out. Besides impeachment Romney has voted with Trump on pretty much everything. BTW Samurai, this is the kind of lens that might be applied to some of Manchin's record, but in reverse.



On the flipside, I can't shake the feeling that a very loud and persistent alarum from Biden and others about what Republicans have become is needed in both the short and long term, to mobilize the base. Not just mobilize, but prime and educate.

If Donald Trump and Fox News can turn tens of millions of - admittedly psychologically divergent - Americans into raving minions, then arguably an aggressive repudiation of 'disloyal' Republicans by the Dem establishment could help liberals be less complacent.

I applaud your persistent attempts to derail the thread about America.

But if you think that Ukrainian-speakers dominate in Ukraine it shows that you have even less understanding of Ukraine than I do of the USA.



You thought that foreigners should conceive any strategy for YOUR country?

I readily admit the absence not only of knowledge, but skills of state planning and the desire to learn it. It is your compatriots that must come up with one. And preferably those who realize that you can't just neglect the sentiment of nigh on half of the nation.



Even if you succeed in it (which will eventually result in the USSR-type of ONE RULING PARTY, won't it?), it can't cancel the senseless American ritual of whole states "traditionally voting" for a candidate of a particular party even if this candidate is a raccoon or a groundhog.

You think they will leave? Or secede?

You are an intensely and appallingly-obtuse person.

You are the one derailing the thread and I'm bringing it back home. The purpose of the analogy to Ukraine was to throw back your logic in your face. Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians are not obligated to allow foreign-backed seditionists to dominate them on some bad faith theory of equity that misrepresents the nature of the conflict. In Ukraine's case you cannot neglect their sentiment (and operationalization of it) inasmuch as it presents a looming threat to your way of life, but you naturally will oppose and resist it. And you would be right to do so.

The hell of the thing is that the analogy is by design overly generous to you since Republicans hold much more power in America than Russian-speaking Ukrainians do in Ukraine, and a Russian-hostile Ukrainian government poses more of a hindrance to the interests of Russian-speaking Ukrainians than Democratic-led governments do to the interests of Republicans (though in both cases we would expect an erosion of cultural influence, which is probably the sticking point in these types of conflicts).

You think they will leave? Or secede?

Russian-speaking Ukrainians have prioritized the exit option, because they are a minority (in terms of those clearly more loyal to a Russian identity than a Ukrainian one) and geographically-concentrated. American political demographics are not as stable as linguistic ones are, but Republicans are not less than 40% of the population and are well-dispersed throughout the country. The option I am very obviously (obvious enough to be derogatory toward your competence at parsing and reflecting on information that you would overlook it) alluding to is the one where they impose an apartheid regime against us, subjugating us or forcing us out of the country. In the contemporary operation of such schemes it is rarely necessary to kill more than a few thousand of the target groups.

A one-party Democratic state for a generation is a clearly-preferable outcome for those who prioritize stability, human rights, the resolution of collective problems and challenges to the common weal, and not promoting the rise of mafia-like autocracies around the world. Most other democracies have functioned as one-party states for extended periods anyway.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Some encouraging news out of Michigan.

I reserve opinion until I see what they actually do. Rhetoric is pretty cheap these days.

Meanwhile, through all of this, including what Lindsey Graham did, the Democrats are sitting calmly at the dinner table while the house is burning.....

@Monty

Not worth the effort to try and carry on a dialogue. The man has clearly stated his intentions:

1.

I readily admit the absence not only of knowledge, but skills of state planning and the desire to learn it.

2.

You thought that foreigners should conceive any strategy for YOUR country?

3.

Even if you succeed in it (which will eventually result in the USSR-type of ONE RULING PARTY, won't it?), it can't cancel the senseless American ritual of whole states "traditionally voting" for a candidate of a particular party even if this candidate is a raccoon or a groundhog.

#1 shows absolutely no intention of trying to understand the workings of this country (same lack of intention shown back when we were discussing the BLM movement, and systemic racism)
#2 shows a lack of understanding and a certain arrogance over what this thread is about...as if ANYONE of us here in the States was asking for someone outside the country to "figure it all out for us"
#3 shows exactly where his sentiments lie concerning Americans...a bunch of rodents. However, he did get one thing right---if Trump succeeds in subverting democracy, we will get a USSR-type of "ONE RULING PARTY"....Republicans.

But hey, it's all cool. I'll revisit discussions with Gilrandir when QAnon shows up in his backyard......

[Gilrandir]

I agree with Monty....you 'straightforwardly lack the requisite knowledge or sense about the country to conceive of any relevant strategy.'

First off, I was simply being nice by saying "presumably" What other reason would they be going there other than to talk strategy on how to subvert the Michigan vote? Certainly not to have coffee and shoot the shit on current world affairs...

As to the electoral law....this is the reason you simply don't have a clue on how the Republican Party operates today. THEY DON'T GIVE A RATS ASS ABOUT THE LAW! Republicans would rather risk civil war by subverting democracy and our constitution, than give up power.

As to whether they have the authority to assign rogue electors, you need to back and read post #524. Read the link to The Atlantic article. Then read post #525. Then read post#530. Watch the whole video. Do these things and you will have accumulated enough information to answer the question yourself. Don't do those things and you can just continue to troll without a clue as to how Republicans are trying to subvert democracy...

Read spmelta's post on electoral laws. Since no punishment is imminent, there is no law violation.

[Gilrandir]

You are an intensely and appallingly-obtuse person.

And you still claim you don't play the man?

But if you resort to giving personal characteristics I believe that gives me the right to respond in the like manner: you are getting increasingly hysterical. Emotions dim your wit (as it was the case with the previous argument of ours).

You are the one derailing the thread and I'm bringing it back home.

So your mentioning Ukraine for the third time in the POTUS thread brings it back home? Now your logic fails you again.

The purpose of the analogy to Ukraine was to throw back your logic in your face. Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians are not obligated to allow foreign-backed seditionists to dominate them on some bad faith theory of equity that misrepresents the nature of the conflict. In Ukraine's case you cannot neglect their sentiment (and operationalization of it) inasmuch as it presents a looming threat to your way of life, but you naturally will oppose and resist it. And you would be right to do so.

It's a fallacious analogy since in the USA there is no foreign meddler.

The hell of the thing is that the analogy is by design overly generous to you since Republicans hold much more power in America than Russian-speaking Ukrainians do in Ukraine, and a Russian-hostile Ukrainian government poses more of a hindrance to the interests of Russian-speaking Ukrainians than Democratic-led governments do to the interests of Republicans (though in both cases we would expect an erosion of cultural influence, which is probably the sticking point in these types of conflicts).

Russian-speaking Ukrainians have prioritized the exit option, because they are a minority (in terms of those clearly more loyal to a Russian identity than a Ukrainian one) and geographically-concentrated.

You are so wrong (at least about Ukraine) that I don't know where to begin.

You believe that Russian-speakers hold small power in Ukraine. The fact: 4 out of 6 Ukrianian presidents were Russian-speakers (including the current one). They typically brought to power with them their teams of Russian-speakers (including the current one). Most mayors and local authorities in the south and east of Ukraine are Russian-speakers who hold all the power there.

Yet the very term "Russian-speaker" is an ambiguous one, since most Ukrainians (especially under 40) are bilingual and can switch languages (some more easily, some with certain difficulty) at will. Moreover, there are numerous cases when in a conversation one person speaks Ukrainian and the other - Russian. Generally, language isn't an issue in most situations.

The same irrelevance is mostly true as to the identity. Most Ukrainians (both what you call Russian- and Ukrainian-speakers) consider themselves Ukrainians and don't associate themselves with Russia and don't want to move there or secede.

https://www.international-alert.org/..._RU_2017_1.pdf

For instance, my wife is predominantly Russian-speaker (since she is the daughter of a military man who served in military bases all over the USSR and even in GDR, so she had no chance to learn Ukrainian well - which she now does little by little), but she is very critical (to put it mildly) of Russia and its policy towards Ukraine.

The events of 2014 showed that the majority of Russian-speakers in the East and South rooted for Ukraine when Russians invaded. Now about two thirds of the Ukrainian military in Donbas are Russian-speakers. Moreover, there are Ukrainian-speaking people who take the side of Russia in the conflict (at least verbally). So the fact that someone predominantly or exclusively speaks Russian in Ukraine doesn't automatically make him the supporter of the Russian cause. The opposite is true as well.

So before drawing any analogies it is good to learn the subject deeper.

American political demographics are not as stable as linguistic ones are, but Republicans are not less than 40% of the population and are well-dispersed throughout the country.

Not that well since some states are "traditionally" red, and others are "traditionally" blue. A very stupid tradition.

The option I am very obviously (obvious enough to be derogatory toward your competence at parsing and reflecting on information that you would overlook it) alluding to is the one where they impose an apartheid regime against us, subjugating us or forcing us out of the country. In the contemporary operation of such schemes it is rarely necessary to kill more than a few thousand of the target groups.

Unlike you regarding Ukraine, I never pretend to have a deep understanding of current divisions and sentiment in the USA. Yet, I don't have to. Even the most ignorant onlookers can see the almost equal distribution of votes and conclude that about half of the population doesn't like Democrats. But this half will NOT DISAPPEAR after the elections are over. And your talks of subjugating, apartheid, killing, biting throats are too bellicose to let me believe that the peaceful co-existence of the two political Americas looms or is promoted by the winners.

You may be exasperated at my unsolicited opinion, yet you (like in Americans) should try to heal the division not because some ignorant foreigner says so, but for the sake of your own country (and preferably, by sober-minded and less emotional people). What I think or say doesn't matter. And your reaction looks like:
-Excuse me, you have some dirt on your sleeve.
- Who are you to tell me about my clothes? Are you a dry cleaner? Are you a sanitary engineer? Do you live in my neighborhood? If not, beat it and don't poke your nose into the issues that are beyond your understanding.

A one-party Democratic state for a generation is a clearly-preferable outcome for those who prioritize stability, human rights, the resolution of collective problems and challenges to the common weal, and not promoting the rise of mafia-like autocracies around the world.

You are idealizing Democrats. Do I have to remind you what epithets Hillary Clinton has earned even among those who "traditionally" vote for Democrats? "Liar" was the mildest of them.

Most other democracies have functioned as one-party states for extended periods anyway.

Example, please.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Read spmelta's post on electoral laws. Since no punishment is imminent, there is no law violation.

It's not that simple, with all due respect to spmelta. And judging from your statement, and your self-admitted lack of not only knowledge, but skills of state planning and the desire to learn it, you didn't read The Atlantic article linked in post #525. So I'll give you a bonus turn to rectify that, by giving you a link to a paper published in the Loyola University Chicago Law Journal (which was the basis for The Atlantic article):

https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/view...&context=luclj

It's a very, very long read and I'll cut to the chase for a couple of important points (Pennsylvania is being used as a test case, and Elizabeth Warren as the President-elect):

Thus, in the 2020 scenario we are contemplating—where the President of the Senate has received two submissions from Pennsylvania, one with the governor’s certificate and the other based on the purported legislative appointment—if both the Senate and the House accepted the electoral votes bearing the governor’s certificate as the proper ones (because they were cast by electors duly appointed pursuant to an accurate count of the state’s popular vote according to the canvassing and other electoral laws of the state),the controversy would end in terms of what the statute provides.


But what if the Senate and House disagree? What if, in other words, the Pelosi-led House votes to accept the electoral votes for Warren, while simultaneously the McConnell-led Senate votes to accept the electoral votes for Trump?


[...]once the Senate and House have diverged on which submission of electoral votes from Pennsylvania should be counted, the operation of 3 U.S.C. § 15 requires that the submission bearing the governor’s certificate is the one that must be accepted.The Democrats would quote this sentence in the statute: “But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted.”


It is harder, but not impossible, to make the counterargument that the proper reading of the statute as applied to this specific situation requires the rejection of both submissions of electoral votes from Pennsylvania.This counterargument takes the position that a gubernatorial certificate does not act as a tiebreaker when two (or more) certificates of submission of electoral votes from the same state claim “safe harbor” status under another section of the Electoral Count Act of 1887.

It goes on for quite a way explaining all the possible outcomes, but the thing to bear in mind is that CoviDon needs the best case scenario to happen in not just one, but three of the disputed states. Remotely possible, but not likely.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The left lose because young journalists, anxious for clicks and search returns, write dramatic articles based on very little?

Hmm.. and there was me thinking it was to do with challenging the establishment, economic and media elites. You learn something every day.

The two points are not incommensurate.