POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[Montmorency]

The trope that politicians need to "earn" votes is a narcissistic one. Politicians are tools toward our political objectives, which it is our civic duty to rationally contemplate and contextualize. This isn't like finding a restaurant on Yelp.

On the Biden platform for the first weeks of his term, if anyone cares to know. Aspirationally Reaganite in a good way. The bigger the Congressional majorities, the more that gets done. Vive la disjonction.
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/pol...cession-harris

This ticket would have been competitive against Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz. Would have struggled against Marco Rubio or Chris Christie.

Seamus' feeling is difficult to assess, but this is straight unsubstantiated. Yet, the 2016 primary process demonstrated that the once-rising stars Cruz and Rubio just aren't well-received by the Republican base. That's the data we do have.

Republicans would never nominate Jeb Bush or Chris Christie to anything.

Is it really any surprise? We've already know that the base shifts at the slightest hint that Trump decides a certain idea or policy is no longer in his best interest.
Were you thinking that this would be the lone case that the hard truth convinces Republicans that mail-in voting has never hurt either political party?

Anything to own the libs man. As soon as Trump says something is bad, Republicans will immediately disavow it and anyone who says otherwise.

Not surprising, but shocking.

To develop what we discussed privately, by the morning of November 4th almost no states will have counted their absentee ballots (most will not even have begun), therefore most states will remain uncalled, countless millions of ballots will remain outstanding, based on in-person returns alone Trump will appear to lead Biden by Lukashenko margins, and he will declare victory on the spot and litigate everything up to the Supreme Court to prevent counting of mail ballots.

If Roberts calls the election for Trump and/or the rest of the Republican slate, we launch the national liberation front and watch the Joint Chiefs's response.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Seamus' feeling is difficult to assess, but this is straight unsubstantiated. Yet, the 2016 primary process demonstrated that the once-rising stars Cruz and Rubio just aren't well-received by the Republican base. That's the data we do have.

Seamus's scenario could only take place in an alternate reality where Trump didn't win. When does anyone see the GOP returning back to the middle against Trumpism?

Republicans would never nominate Jeb Bush or Chris Christie to anything.

IF Trump wasn't in the race, Jeb had a chance. Christie not so much. I think Rubio would have overtaken the pack if it wasn't for the whole Christie dismantling him moment.

Not surprising, but shocking.

To develop what we discussed privately, by the morning of November 4th almost no states will have counted their absentee ballots (most will not even have begun), therefore most states will remain uncalled, countless millions of ballots will remain outstanding, based on in-person returns alone Trump will appear to lead Biden by Lukashenko margins, and he will declare victory on the spot and litigate everything up to the Supreme Court to prevent counting of mail ballots.

If Roberts calls the election for Trump and/or the rest of the Republican slate, we launch the national liberation front and watch the Joint Chiefs's response.

If SCOTUS rules another election, this country falls apart into chaotic violence. There is no national organization to mobilize the public unless the Democratic Party quickly takes on a leadership role as the democratic resistance to the political coup.
Per our previous convo, only a national strike would work to facilitate change in the absence of democratic channels in politics.

[Hooahguy]

Seamus's scenario could only take place in an alternate reality where Trump didn't win. When does anyone see the GOP returning back to the middle against Trumpism?

Exactly this. I think the Never Trumper's fantasy of "reclaiming the party" from the trumpists is just that, a fantasy. I dont know how anyone who can look at the cult of personality around Trump and still think that these people are going to go back to your garden-variety republican. My prediction is that every GOP presidential candidate for the foreseeable future is going to be a flavor of Trump and potentially more dangerous. We got lucky that Trump is a total moron, but we might not get that lucky again.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Seamus' feeling is difficult to assess, but this is straight unsubstantiated. Yet, the 2016 primary process demonstrated that the once-rising stars Cruz and Rubio just aren't well-received by the Republican base. That's the data we do have.

Republicans would never nominate Jeb Bush or Chris Christie to anything.

I think ACIN is on track as to how the tickets he noted would fare in a general election against this Dem ticket. I was noting that this Dem ticket was pretty "stock" in many ways.


As 2016 demonstrated, and as you rightly assert, however, the GOP of 2016 through the present would not nominate such a ticket as none of those named are they kinds of leaders who want victory without negotiation and aggression across the board against anything labeled as "liberal." Inculcated by Limbaugh and Hannity with the mantra that compromise means the liberals won, this GOP base sees any form of negotiation over substance as anathema.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Exactly this. I think the Never Trumper's fantasy of "reclaiming the party" from the trumpists is just that, a fantasy. I dont know how anyone who can look at the cult of personality around Trump and still think that these people are going to go back to your garden-variety republican. My prediction is that every GOP presidential candidate for the foreseeable future is going to be a flavor of Trump and potentially more dangerous. We got lucky that Trump is a total moron, but we might not get that lucky again.

We will get a smarter Trump, but even a smarter Trump will be 'less bad' in a practical way. Much of the damage Trump has caused has come at his own incompetence and inability to achieve his goals in a productive manner.

A smart fascist would have seen the pandemic for the PR opportunity it was and jumped on it. Democracy would have been for the worse, but we wouldn't have 170,000 dead at this point.

[Hooahguy]

We will get a smarter Trump, but even a smarter Trump will be 'less bad' in a practical way. Much of the damage Trump has caused has come at his own incompetence and inability to achieve his goals in a productive manner.

A smart fascist would have seen the pandemic for the PR opportunity it was and jumped on it. Democracy would have been for the worse, but we wouldn't have 170,000 dead at this point.

I guess thats one way to look at it, if you aren't a POC or immigrant of course.

[Hooahguy]

If anyone had any doubts about the direction of Trump's GOP, infamous alt-right troll Laura Loomer won the GOP nomination for Florida's 21st district election. Of course, Trump tweeted his support for her. Thankfully its a very safe Dem seat so she wont be coming to Congress anytime soon. Same can't be said though of Qanon conspiracist Marjorie Taylor Greene who is unfortunately very likely be elected as she is in a very republican district (dammit Georgia). Assuming that the House stays in Dem control, Im not really sure how someone like Greene can be contained from further spreading her bat views but in a more official capacity especially as GOP leadership has shown zero willingness to stifle such nuttery. I just have no hope anymore for a GOP thats even slightly resembling a passably sane party. With Trump refusing to criticize Qanon and going after Goodyear Tire today and no Republican speaking against it, theres nothing left of what the party was even four years ago.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I guess thats one way to look at it, if you aren't a POC or immigrant of course.

POC's are the worst hit by this pandemic.

Problem with having someone this fucking dumb is that burning everything down due to sheer ignorance also hurts POC and immigrants just as much as a Ted Cruz in office.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If anyone had any doubts about the direction of Trump's GOP, infamous alt-right troll Laura Loomer won the GOP nomination for Florida's 21st district election. Of course, Trump tweeted his support for her. Thankfully its a very safe Dem seat so she wont be coming to Congress anytime soon. Same can't be said though of Qanon conspiracist Marjorie Taylor Greene who is unfortunately very likely be elected as she is in a very republican district (dammit Georgia). Assuming that the House stays in Dem control, Im not really sure how someone like Greene can be contained from further spreading her bat views but in a more official capacity especially as GOP leadership has shown zero willingness to stifle such nuttery. I just have no hope anymore for a GOP thats even slightly resembling a passably sane party. With Trump refusing to criticize Qanon and going after Goodyear Tire today and no Republican speaking against it, theres nothing left of what the party was even four years ago.

Ben Sasse is a term used for cats.

[edyzmedieval]

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/

Leaving this here.

[Hooahguy]

POC's are the worst hit by this pandemic.

Problem with having someone this fucking dumb is that burning everything down due to sheer ignorance also hurts POC and immigrants just as much as a Ted Cruz in office.

I dont disagree, just pointing out that for vulnerable groups, the difference between Cruz and Trump is like being shot or set on fire. Both do harm even though arguably one might hurt less. Though this point is now moot as Cruz is among the worst of the Trump toadies.

Ben Sasse is a term used for cats.

He did speak out against Trump's comments today but considering he's helped enabled Trump for most of the past 3.5 years I dont buy it.

[Idaho]

Bannon being nicked by the post office - really put me in a good mood. This is hopefully the start of the collapse of the trumpian world.

[Hooahguy]

It certainly was a great way to start the day, but I am super skeptical that anything will come of it as I think Trump will end up giving out more pardons before too long.

[Montmorency]

We will get a smarter Trump, but even a smarter Trump will be 'less bad' in a practical way. Much of the damage Trump has caused has come at his own incompetence and inability to achieve his goals in a productive manner.

A smart fascist would have seen the pandemic for the PR opportunity it was and jumped on it. Democracy would have been for the worse, but we wouldn't have 170,000 dead at this point.

Right-wing leaders have not had a good record on pandemic response this year. The classic fascists themselves actually ran their countries awfully - they were incompetent administrators. I think a fascist who has what it takes to gain and hold control of a nation cannot achieve technocratic success by the nature of the attributes that delivered him to power. One factor is that authoritarianism in itself is incompatible with the observance or iteration of scientific or evidence-based policymaking.

Trump is a particularly harsh case because he is both a narcissist and a lackwit, but you see the same sorts of impulses in less psychologically-deviant rulers.

[Pannonian]

Right-wing leaders have not had a good record on pandemic response this year. The classic fascists themselves actually ran their countries awfully - they were incompetent administrators. I think a fascist who has what it takes to gain and hold control of a nation cannot achieve technocratic success by the nature of the attributes that delivered him to power. One factor is that authoritarianism in itself is incompatible with the observance or iteration of scientific or evidence-based policymaking.

Trump is a particularly harsh case because he is both a narcissist and a lackwit, but you see the same sorts of impulses in less psychologically-deviant rulers.

The alt right puppet masters are experts at peddling dreams. They understand the system. Then when they're elected, they run all sorts under the umbrella of democracy. Unfortunately, democracy doesn't solve everything. For instance, when reality has to be faced, no amount of appealing to a democratic mandate will change reality.

However, you lot have at least woken up and look set to turf out your set of alt righters. Over on our side of the water, our alt righters are still going strong.

[Montmorency]

However, you lot have at least woken up and look set to turf out your set of alt righters.

On net hardly anyone's woken up in this sense, though in the sense of the Great Awokening many people who were already liberals... many Republicans have admittedly been swayed to a degree by the tide of social liberalism, but that doesn't seem to affect their preferences in Republican politicians.

George W. Bush's approval rating moved in a range from ~90% to ~25% (65). Obama's range was within ~60% to ~40% (20). Trump's range has been within 46% to 36% (10). Trump has basically never been below 40% since the Republicans passed their tax bill at the end of 2017. His current approval rating is about where he was a year ago - despite, you know, everything.

It is possible that Trump as a personality commands uniquely stronger loyalty from the Republican base than a generic Republican would even now, but that's not testable for a long time, and the fact remains that around 40% of the electorate are unshakable partisans of a death cult, and these people will still exist come January. There is no reason to think they won't continue to degenerate, indeed, along the same monotonic trend of many years.

[Hooahguy]

If anyone hasn't watched Biden's acceptance speech from tonight, I'd highly recommend people watch it. Its really superb. Even Republicans are saying its a great speech.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As far as I know, this was Biden's best ever.

[Crandar]

Firstly, I just wanted to say that the level of the discussion here is probably one of the highest in the Internet sphere. The difference in quality becomes even starker, when compared to the usual alt-right troll fests that some of the forums (including TWC's mudpit) have devolved into.

Secondly, just my personal thoughts on the possible implications of mail voting, time delays, legal challenges, polarisation and the rest. I don't think that the republican institutions are at any risk, despite the recent decline of the political discourse, social cohesion and income equality. They are rooted deeply enough to easily resist the relatively minor crisis the pandemic, the unbalanced recovery since 2008 and Donald represent.

In my opinion, what Trump and his staff are trying to achieve is the construction of a post-election narrative that will keep safe the myth of his invincibility. We didn't lose the approval of the absolute majority, no, we were defeated, because the establishment, media, Chinese and the rest conspired against us. He had tried something similar in 2016, although in the end Hillary managed to get stomped by one of the most unpopular candidates in history, which rendered Trump's strategy redundant.

Thirdly, the paranoid part: If he loses the 2020 elections, provided he establishes a convincing stab-at-the-back myth, he could use it to nominate himself successfully in 2024. After all, given the solidity of his base, his presidential past and his vulgar rhetoric, he can easily dominate the Republican primaries. So, focusing on 2020 but aiming at 2024?

[Hooahguy]

I'm a bit skeptical that Trump would try to run again if he loses in November. I just dont see what he would gain from putting himself out there again when he can run his own news channel and be able to rant all day every day. Probably super lucrative too. I could definitely imagine that he could become the new "party boss" that anoints the next GOP nominee by the virtue of endorsing candidates. Assuming he loses in November and doesnt run in 2024 (and is still alive), there is no way that the nominee becomes the nominee without the approval of Trump himself.

[ReluctantSamurai]

when he can run his own news channel and be able to rant all day every day. Probably super lucrative too. I could definitely imagine that he could become the new "party boss" that anoints the next GOP nominee by the virtue of endorsing candidates.

I'm betting he'll have to do that from jail.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Firstly, I just wanted to say that the level of the discussion here is probably one of the highest in the Internet sphere. The difference in quality becomes even starker, when compared to the usual alt-right troll fests that some of the forums (including TWC's mudpit) have devolved into.

Secondly, just my personal thoughts on the possible implications of mail voting, time delays, legal challenges, polarisation and the rest. I don't think that the republican institutions are at any risk, despite the recent decline of the political discourse, social cohesion and income equality. They are rooted deeply enough to easily resist the relatively minor crisis the pandemic, the unbalanced recovery since 2008 and Donald represent.

In my opinion, what Trump and his staff are trying to achieve is the construction of a post-election narrative that will keep safe the myth of his invincibility. We didn't lose the approval of the absolute majority, no, we were defeated, because the establishment, media, Chinese and the rest conspired against us. He had tried something similar in 2016, although in the end Hillary managed to get stomped by one of the most unpopular candidates in history, which rendered Trump's strategy redundant.

Thirdly, the paranoid part: If he loses the 2020 elections, provided he establishes a convincing stab-at-the-back myth, he could use it to nominate himself successfully in 2024. After all, given the solidity of his base, his presidential past and his vulgar rhetoric, he can easily dominate the Republican primaries. So, focusing on 2020 but aiming at 2024?

He's done once he is no longer president, too many enemies in New York. This is a total fight for his survival. If he loses, watch him attempt to pardon himself sometime Jan 2021 so that he doesn't have to fight off Biden's DOJ.

[ReluctantSamurai]

If he loses, watch him attempt to pardon himself sometime Jan 2021

Interesting weigh-ins by legal counsel:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/here...n-himself.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...imself/578074/

[Montmorency]

Re: Biden speech, in Eric Levitz' words, "Joe Biden is a normal human who knows what he’s doing. This was the core message of the final night of the Democratic National Convention... [T]he Democratic nominee has now set a standard that his rival can’t possibly meet."

Secondly, just my personal thoughts on the possible implications of mail voting, time delays, legal challenges, polarisation and the rest. I don't think that the republican institutions are at any risk, despite the recent decline of the political discourse, social cohesion and income equality. They are rooted deeply enough to easily resist the relatively minor crisis the pandemic, the unbalanced recovery since 2008 and Donald represent.

In my opinion, what Trump and his staff are trying to achieve is the construction of a post-election narrative that will keep safe the myth of his invincibility. We didn't lose the approval of the absolute majority, no, we were defeated, because the establishment, media, Chinese and the rest conspired against us. He had tried something similar in 2016, although in the end Hillary managed to get stomped by one of the most unpopular candidates in history, which rendered Trump's strategy redundant.

Preface: Much of the functioning and integrity of institutions is psychological and normative. A president spending years attacking their legitimacy and taking steps to degrade their administration and operation is always injurious to these aspects, even if their total usurpation or subversion has not yet been achieved. It makes it harder for individuals who actually constitute these institutions as organizations to have a sense of 'doing the right thing' and following the rules, especially if they are punished for doing so. Our institutions are almost certainly more resilient and better-developed than those in Belarus or Mali, for example, but the damage sustained is already deep and durable. Much of Biden's task will be trying to start cleaning up Trump's mess within the government, re-recruiting/replacing thousands purged or driven away by Trump, purging hundreds emplaced by Trump, and trying to restore a measure of accountability and legitimacy to the civil service. If Trump remains in power, then the institutions we have already observed not to be exceptionalistic or invincible will continue to be corroded in both measurable and intangible ways. As Bernie Sanders said in his DNC address this week, "the price of failure is too high to imagine."

Prologue: Almost all states do not begin counting mail ballots until at least the day after election day, in general not for days after, and they take longer to complete. Mail ballots are therefore not reflected in the ongoing vote counts we have always been familiar with. Usually this is not a problem because mail ballots have not typically been decisive to the outcome of elections at any level (see the 2019 New York District Attorney race for an election that hinged on mail ballots). The 2020 election promises to be one in which the number of mail ballots submitted is at least an order of magnitude higher than ever before due to the expansion of eligibility and the incentives of a human environment conditioned by high disease risk. It will not be possible to certify results for many states accurately without having these counted, which could take weeks (see the debacle of the New York 2020 Democratic primary, which occurred June 23 but was not certified until August). The President has relentlessly eroded public confidence in the legitimacy of the election in general, and in the particulars of the mail voting method (though he insists on a distinction between the bad fraudulent mail voting and the good absentee voting, by mail, that has sometimes been favored by Republican voters.) Polling is strongly suggestive as to a bifurcation in expected voting behavior (see my earlier post):

The majority of Democrats will vote by mail and the majority of Republicans will vote in-person.* There is a significant chance that the vote count opens with a Lukashenko-sized lead for Trump over Biden that will diminish and eventually flip in a stepwise manner under normal circumstances.


So. Trump is by his own admission, and with years of his own priming, attempting to potentiate rejection of an outcome where he loses, that much is indisputable and well-known among political observers. There is a certain sense in which your intuition about our institutions's resilience is narrowly correct, or presumably so. We can identify the relevant institutions here to start:

Electoral - tabulating, assembling, counting, votes. These systems are unique for all the states and is subject to minimal/nonexistent central control and oversight. Because there are so many battleground states, many of which have put their electoral infrastructure under the control of Democrats, it's still a somewhat sound assumption that the process will not be outright subverted in any of the battleground states (although in the midterms Republicans in one House district in North Carolina, currently a battleground state, were formally found to have engaged in the electoral fraud of misappropriating mail ballots; the election was court-ordered to be redone!). NOTE: Due to hundreds of billions in 2020 budget shortfalls, states and counties will have a harder time ensuring the timely administration of electoral functions even absent criminal interference. Aid to states and municipalities is one of the impasses preventing the implementation of a new pandemic relief program; Republicans don't want it.

Postal - facilitates movement of mail applications and mail ballots between voters and election officials. Due to billions in budgetary shortfalls and statutory liabilities, the postal service is already having a hard time carrying out its normal operations even absent criminal interference, 2 months before the election. Funding for the post office is one of the impasses preventing the implementation of a new pandemic relief program; Republicans don't want it. But there is interference on top of this, as the Trump-loyalist administration of the postal service has been limiting its operations in a way that is apt to produce delays, especially in such a high-volume situation as the presidential election. Delays in the timely delivery of mail ballots to election officials will result in the invalidation of many, perhaps millions, of ballots. AFAIK none of the battleground states accept the delivery of ballots past election day, even if the ballots are postmarked.

Supreme Court - mediates legal and constitutional disputes predicated on harm. On November 4th, the day after the election, if Trump maintains large but inconclusive majorities in many states, and the counting of mail ballots threatens this status, then by all presentation he would be prepared to sue for their counting to be declared improper or fraudulent, or at least delayed fatally. There could be a Supreme Court case as to whether real or imagined irregularities should prompt states to halt or discard their counts. And if that means a critical number of states are certified for Trump, well...

So the crux of the election comes down to this: will the Republican-controlled Supreme Court seize an opportunity to extra-legally hand deliver the presidency to Donald Trump? There is precedent for this in the notorious case of the 2000 election, where the Republican-controlled Supreme Court halted vote tallying in Florida and gave Bush the state, tipping him into victory. That decision was explicitly rendered as somehow being non-precedential (which didn't stop the Trump admin from citing it in their case against Nevada voting laws this month, see my earlier post), but the very fact that it happened at all and the polity accepted it as valid means the only question of whether or not it could happen again is one of power.

The current Supreme Court is stocked with 5 reactionaries, all of whom have a record of being hostile to voting rights and friendly to Republican interests. Chief Justice John Roberts is the more moderate of the group, making him the likeliest candidate for swing vote toward the 4 liberal justices. Roberts' jurisprudence is marked by, besides hostility to voting rights and market regulation, a concern for the legitimacy of the SCOTUS in public image (see his negotiation with liberal justices in 2013 over which provisions of Obamacare to spare and which to declare unconstitutional), and a tendency to be more considerate of long-term consequences and peripheral matters than his copartisans (see his spate of centrist major decisions this summer, joining the liberals in the midst of unprecedented national protests). He has been known to reject at least some Trump administration arguments that are nakedly pretextual power grabs, such as when Trump illegally attempted to impose a citizenship question onto the census last year for the purpose of driving immigrants into hiding and reducing the formal representation of the Democratic states in national government.

If Donald Trump comes to the Supreme Court demanding that they stay or order halted counting in key states - say, with the effect of freezing counts such that Trump is ahead of Biden - would he have 5 votes for his argument? Based on what is relayed above on John Roberts' mentality and record, I do not believe he will side with Trump. If he does not side with Trump, the counts will go on, with the overwhelming eventual likelihood of a Biden majority or plurality in enough states to award him with an Electoral College majority - and thus the presidency. For Roberts to do otherwise would genuinely push the country to the brink of civil rupture, as Republicans would have no choice but to ride full steam ahead on the fascism train, Joe Biden would reject the decision and absolutely refuse to concede, tens of millions would flood the streets of American cities, the paramilitaries would be emboldened in response, and this country would look a lot like Lebanon, Belarus, Mali have this summer. Whereas if Roberts declines to rescue Trump (in the short-term), a contentious election would galvanize the Republican electorate, demoralize Democrats and centrists, and hopefully (from Republicans' perspective) sufficiently weaken or cripple the Biden government/Congress to the point where they cannot govern effectively, with the result that a neutered Democratic government would be rejected by feckless voters in 2022 and 2024 without Trump as a locus of popular rage.

It all comes down to the character of John Roberts, and I think we know enough about him to come to a prospective conclusion.

So my perspective ultimately aligns with yours, or runs into the same direction, but I think it's clear that there will be a lot of institutional and social damage along the way. There will be physical violence here and there. The chaos will be protracted over weeks at least. There is even a possibility that the election will be thrown to the House, who are empowered constitutionally to select the President if the Electoral College cannot produce one; this might occur if counts are so protracted that the deadline for convening the Electoral College (in late November) is passed and no one has been assigned a majority of EC votes. This election is set to be the most institutionally and constitutionally challenging in our entire history, even if hypothetically crazier shit has happened at other times in other countries. Moreover, millions of ballots lost or invalidated through shenanigans and delays could have consequences in down-ballot races, reducing the size of Biden's ultimate working majorities in Congress, even if he himself skirts by. If Biden doesn't have strong working majorities, he will deliver no results on his progressive manifesto or even on basic pandemic relief (overly-conservative economic stimulus in 2009 is one of the things that, among other effects, damaged Democrats electorally all through 2016). If Biden cannot govern in 2021, the Republicans will have their revenge in 2022 and 2024, this time even more unified against liberal democracy and multiculturalism, and even more rabidly unhinged in their epistemology.

But yes, unless the entire Republican Party decides to unify around Trump as the front of a coup against the Republic, he will ultimately leave office in January 2021.


*I expect whatever cohort of late-deciding voters there are to swing heavily Democratic, and to the extent these are voting by mail, their ballots are at a very elevated risk of being discarded consequent to aforementioned issues of timing and delivery.

Thirdly, the paranoid part: If he loses the 2020 elections, provided he establishes a convincing stab-at-the-back myth, he could use it to nominate himself successfully in 2024. After all, given the solidity of his base, his presidential past and his vulgar rhetoric, he can easily dominate the Republican primaries. So, focusing on 2020 but aiming at 2024?

We've touched upon this in the thread as a potentially-overdetermined consequence of this cycle and his character, but if Trump is planning for it he's been doing a very bad job in developing a political base of patronage among the constantly-rotating pool of lackeys in the White House he always betrays, or a convincing link between himself and the Republican elites he can never seem to coordinate well with (e.g. almost all productive negotiations on pandemic response since March have been between Congressional Democrats and the White House, bypassing McConnell's Senate majority). It's unclear what he can count on from any allies in the context of a private citizen being hunted by state and federal justice after his term. Now, just because he's bad at something doesn't have to mean he isn't planning it, but it's hard to imagine because Trump never seems to plan anything ahead of time. The simplest explanation is that he reacts impulsively to assuage the blows to his ego (e.g. tweeting in all-caps about Biden and Obama during Obama's DNC speech condemning Trump) and since he's a narcissist he will always have the inclination to devalue anything that doesn't further his own self-importance or personalistic authority. "Planning" also implies he's either been planning to destroy his chances of winning this election, or his behavior now is somehow rational but it wasn't in the past, he having acquired some peculiar rationality only in the past months. He really kind of just does the same shit all the time and pushes it further when he sees his base likes it; it's a conditioning loop. The strongest argument against a Trump in cognitive decline, really, is that Trump in 2020 is the same as Trump 2016, just intensified to be more egregious, entitled, and paranoid.

It will certainly be interesting, however, to see how the reception of Trump the man evolves among the Republican base, and to what extent his supporters may have only rallied around him while he has been the formal standard bearer of their movement and in an actual position to deliver them the psychological wages they demand. Trump is a whiny loser, but it's a lot easier to see him that way even if you like him if he's been pushed out of office by "Sleepy Joe."

[Hooahguy]

I agree with your post completely. The delay for counting mail-in ballots is part of the reason why I think Trump has a good chance of winning re-election. Wouldnt matter who was the Dem candidate- Biden, Bernie, Kamala, Yang, whoever. All would have this same fundamental issue. If he does win due to stopping counting ballots, there will be violence like we have never seen. I just cant see it ending in any other way. With early voting beginning in just a couple weeks or so in some places, the Biden campaign absolutely needs to start emphasizing to go out and vote in person early. And I dont mean putting out little ads on Instagram or Facebook posts, I mean concentrated tv and radio ads plastering the airwaves in all 50 states, or at least the battleground states. Or, and this is harsh, we just have to take the risk and encourage people to stand in the voting lines on election day. Take that risk for the sake of our democracy.

Edit: Boris Shcherbina's speech to the Chernobyl workers in the HBO miniseries is surprisingly relevant.

You'll do it because it must be done. You'll do it because nobody else can. And if you don't, millions will die. If you tell me that's not enough, I won't believe you. This is what has always set our people apart. A thousand years of sacrifice in our veins. And every generation must know its own suffering. I spit on the people who did this, and I curse the price I have to pay. But I'm making my peace with it, now you make yours. And go into that water. Because it must be done.

Except instead of going into that water, its standing in line to vote for potentially hours during a pandemic.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Or, and this is harsh, we just have to take the risk and encourage people to stand in the voting lines on election day. Take that risk for the sake of our democracy.

I think the Wisconsin spring elections show that people are willing to do just that...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This election's results will be finalized in court just before the college meets.

[Montmorency]

I agree with your post completely. The delay for counting mail-in ballots is part of the reason why I think Trump has a good chance of winning re-election. Wouldnt matter who was the Dem candidate- Biden, Bernie, Kamala, Yang, whoever. All would have this same fundamental issue. If he does win due to stopping counting ballots, there will be violence like we have never seen. I just cant see it ending in any other way. With early voting beginning in just a couple weeks or so in some places, the Biden campaign absolutely needs to start emphasizing to go out and vote in person early. And I dont mean putting out little ads on Instagram or Facebook posts, I mean concentrated tv and radio ads plastering the airwaves in all 50 states, or at least the battleground states. Or, and this is harsh, we just have to take the risk and encourage people to stand in the voting lines on election day. Take that risk for the sake of our democracy.

Edit: Boris Shcherbina's speech to the Chernobyl workers in the HBO miniseries is surprisingly relevant.

Except instead of going into that water, its standing in line to vote for potentially hours during a pandemic.

In February one would have had to be a freaking visionary to see this whole scenario playing out like it has. Even on Super Tuesday I still had some latent expectation that we would kind of, you know, handle the pandemic. And without a raging pandemic, mail voting isn't a flashpoint or major factor.

The Obamas and IIRC other DNC speakers did mention voting early.


An addendum to my post on the election and mail voting: I can't believe I overlooked this earlier, but due to the strict and complicated rules of the process, mail ballots are frequently invalidated even in the best of times (unrelated to delivery time)! Granted that nullifying a million votes in New York and California wouldn't affect the presidential race (it could matter a lot in House or local races upstate!), but for the swing states the baseline attrition rate alone on mail ballots would be of major concern even if electoral administration were on the level and the postal service were up to the task.

That alone is bad, but of course it gets worse. A massive partisan imbalance in mail voting just when mail voting becomes a major, if not majority, component of a national election, is an unmitigated disaster-in-waiting regardless of the circumstances surrounding it. But the circumstances make this the most important election of our lives (so far)! Promoting the absentee alternative seemed to make sense in the spring, but logistics and bureaucratic hurdles AND partisan imbalance make it a fool's errand. This is where the hard-left critiques of the Democratic establishment's constitutional mildness and understatement may prove meritorious, if Dem leaders don't go apeshit on this point right about now. Like this sort of thing, but much more:



I'm not going to bother with mail voting again until we transition to proper all-mail elections like some of the Western states. My polling place is a damn 15-minute walk from my home. Why go to *extra* trouble and delay just to have the opportunity of doing something wrong or the administrators doing something wrong and having your vote rubbished (like mine probably was in July)? Having time to review and research the ballot is nice, but you can usually get the full slate for your locality ahead of time on various resource websites. If a normal person needs a nerd reviewing their ballot and envelope to guarantee they're up to standard, just vote in-person. If you do vote by mail, you can do so early and you can torture your county officials into looking up whether your ballot was received, but they can't divine beforehand if your ballot has any defects that will lead to its nullification.

And I also forgot to mention that the baseline of voter suppression in states under Republicans, that old standby, is going to be elevated as well. Voter rolls, polling locations... forget about access or early voting for AAs in North Carolina or Georgia.

We're facing a lot of problems.

The Republican Embrace of QAnon Goes Far Beyond Trump

Late last month, as the Texas Republican Party was shifting into campaign mode, it unveiled a new slogan, lifting a rallying cry straight from a once-unthinkable source: the internet-driven conspiracy theory known as QAnon. The new catchphrase, “We Are the Storm,” is an unsubtle cue to a group that the F.B.I. has labeled a potential domestic terrorist threat. It is instantly recognizable among QAnon adherents, signaling what they claim is a coming conflagration between President Trump and what they allege, falsely, is a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophile Democrats who seek to dominate America and the world. The slogan can be found all over social media posts by QAnon followers, and now, too, in emails from the Texas Republican Party and on the T-shirts, hats and sweatshirts that it sells. It has even worked its way into the party’s text message system — a recent email from the party urged readers to “Text STORM2020” for updates. The Texas Republicans are an unusually visible example of the Republican Party’s dalliance with QAnon, but they are hardly unique. A small but growing number of Republicans — including a heavily favored Republican congressional candidate in Georgia — are donning the QAnon mantle, ushering its adherents in from the troll-infested fringes of the internet and potentially transforming the wild conspiracy theory into an offline political movement, with supporters running for Congress and flexing their political muscle at the state and local levels.
[...]
Fearful of inviting similar blowback, few other elected Republicans have been willing to speak out publicly. Mostly, they avoid questions about it, demonstrating the thin line some officials are trying to walk between extreme elements among their base who adore Mr. Trump and the moderate voters they need to win over.

According to CNN, "Over four days, roughly 122 million people watched the [Democratic National] convention – including 85.1 million on television and 35.5 million livestream views." That's more than I expected. But it doesn't matter. Over the past year my greatest misfire of political analysis was in watching the Democratic primaries. I overlooked the fundamentals of the electorate as apparent from the outset, and focused too much on the weft and slew of the process over time. Biden beat Sanders because his floor of support was similarly high but his ceiling was higher, and the number of people who preferred Sanders was always less than the number of people who preferred someone other than Sanders. Knock together any sort of optimality model with these facts, and to the extent they don't change significantly - they didn't - then the model would announce a Biden victory over all other competitors was always the most plausible outcome from April 2019. Personalistic speculation has to justify itself against fundamentals. (Though on that count, many on the left overlooked that while Biden isn't a good leader, he's a good politician.)

By the same tokens, Trump almost always loses on paper because the fundamentals are stacked against him; more people are always against him than are for him, and he's only ever bled support on net. But in this race the process takes on a hardly-imaginable importance. That it would come to matter so much is... I'm just slow to put pieces together, though I'm far from alone. I didn't think the confluence of terribles could get this bad!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Levitz' line on Biden speech. LOL


Yes. The GOP that Trump has enacted over the past 4 or so years, following the long efforts of Limbaugh and Hannity in shaping the mindscape of the non-"country club" republicans, is a party that considers conspiracy theories as something that need to be seriously considered and according them the same mental "weight" as hard-won intelligence and confirmed facts.

Just one of the reasons that the house-cleaning needs to be so thorough (though I fear it will not be thorough enough).

[ReluctantSamurai]

Ehhh, you folks might want to redo this a bit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/u...-platform.html

“The survival of the internet as we know it is at risk,” the platform reads. “Its gravest peril originates in the White House, the current occupant of which has launched a campaign, both at home and internationally, to subjugate it to agents of government.”

“The Middle East is more dangerous now than at any time since the Second World War,” the platform reads. “Whatever their disagreements, presidents of both parties had always prioritized America’s national interests, the trust of friendly governments, and the security of Israel. That sound consensus was replaced with impotent grandstanding on the part of the current President and his Secretaries of State. The results have been ruinous for all parties except Islamic terrorists and their Iranian and other sponsors.”