U.S. Politics: Some Of Us Did Warn You, But It Can't Happen Here...

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, Horza said:

This is plausible for motivation but if it were the case why does he keep making it easier for Republican states to suppress the vote? 

Because he's still a Republican.  He's still naively hoping that Trump and Trump-like politicians are a brief aberration, rather than the new normal for the Republican party.  

[Fez]

16 minutes ago, Horza said:

This is plausible for motivation but if it were the case why does he keep making it easier for Republican states to suppress the vote? 

Because, as an actual conservative, he generally wants to minimize what the federal government can do. And he, as stated in his decisions, thinks things like Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act are no longer necessary to ensure the vote, so it's time to minimize federal involvement in state-run operations.

I think he's hopelessly wrong, but I don't think he's working backward from the outcome that he wants. That's much more Alito's thing.

 

[Freshwater Spartan]

I think that  Trump's delay threat has more to do with getting the media to talk about something other than the latest economic news than a real plan of action.

[DMC]

So just saw 538' slack chat on the main topic at hand.  Here's Julia Azari who, full disclosure is a close (professional) friend of my dissertation chair, I've met multiple times, and has advised me on some of my work:

Quote

I have a hard time imagining that Trump refuses to leave office. I don’t want to be complacent, but like a lot of people on Twitter, Trump seems to be comfortable tweeting out bold ideas and not as great at standing firm under political pressure.

So as I see it, there would be a couple of components needed for this to actually happen. There would be the political pressure — what are advisors, including Jared and Ivanka, telling him to do? This would help us understand if there are people who have influence over Trump who have some interest in seeing the system remain intact and legitimate.

The second thing would be the actual formal power — does the Secret Service force him out? Does the military gets involved? These are wild scenarios.

I would be surprised if these institutions don’t have plans for this somewhere, even if they are not publicly known.

 

2 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

I think that  Trump's delay threat has more to do with getting the media to talk about something other than the latest economic news than a real plan of action.

Yup.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Yep we need to be trumpeting 33% decline in GDP and just ignore Trump's silly misdirects. He does not want folks talking about the economic numbers. So of course the economics are exactly what we should be worrying over.

Frankly I'd love to see him try to hole up in W.H. and have his ass cuffed and perp walked out of office as a trespassing riot incitor. Straight to jail with the bum.

[Fez]

Well, if there are still free, fair, and open elections and Democrats do well, Obama has laid down quite a marker for the party for 2021:

Also, on the issue of elections, I do think it's notable that this morning's Trump tweet was the rare time that Republicans didn't go "I didn't see it." They are much more on record saying the election will happen on time, as the law says it will.

 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

Well, if there are still free, fair, and open elections and Democrats do well, Obama has laid down quite a marker for the party for 2021

Damn, that's surprising.  Appears the broad consensus within the party will be to abolish the filibuster.  I may be one of the last holdouts on that.  I do think his characterization of the filibuster as "a Jim Crow relic" is inaccurate.  It was used frequently during the CRM era sure - but mostly unsuccessfully.  And the normalization of the routine filibuster started happening well after the Jim Crow era ended.  It's a feature of more recent polarization, not a major way in which governments oppressed/subjugated minorities throughout history.

[Kalbear]

Again, the point isn't to change the election date - that would take some absurd things. The point is to be able to say 'if you don't do this, the ELECTION IS RIGGED!!!!!!1one" and set up that argument for whatever chaos there is. To be able to say that if a state doesn't have the totals in place on election night, it's obviously rigged. To be able to sue to accept the 'now' results and not count any more ballots. 

So yeah, if Trump is refusing to leave office? Probably not as likely, though I contend he has enough secret police to make that an issue. But to make the election completely contested and tied up in courts for months, and meanwhile who is actually ruling? That article @Horza linked was a good one on that, in that there are a lot of norms around elections that we haven't pushed on too hard yet, but they aren't laws, and often possession is indeed 9/10ths of the law.

[Kalbear]

Meanwhile right on cue, the sycophants say that they'll make that determination, not that it's actually not possible:

 

 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, the point isn't to change the election date - that would take some absurd things. The point is to be able to say 'if you don't do this, the ELECTION IS RIGGED!!!!!!1one" and set up that argument for whatever chaos there is. To be able to say that if a state doesn't have the totals in place on election night, it's obviously rigged. To be able to sue to accept the 'now' results and not count any more ballots. 

And again, just because it's obvious that's the tack he's going to take does not mean many if not most states are going to abide by his whining in the tallying and certification of the results - particularly the people that hold most of the power in many of the likely competitive states.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

And again, just because it's obvious that's the tack he's going to take does not mean many if not most states are going to abide by his whining in the tallying and certification of the results - particularly the people that hold most of the power in many of the likely competitive states.

In this case, he has a LOT of options. Florida is held by Republicans across the board, including their governor and their courts. Ohio the same. Michigan is (right now) a Democratic governor - and conservative court. Wisconsin is split, but the court would have first crack and could overrule the governor (as they already have on masks). Penn is Dem court/governor, so that is at least something. Arizona is Republican gov/court. That...doesn't look so great as far as who holds the power in those states. 

 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

In this case, he has a LOT of options. Florida is held by Republicans across the board, including their governor and their courts.

As we've gone over before, I agree with you on Florida, but that's basically it.  Moreover, you can't just look at the partisan composition.  What you're talking about what not be something many Republican officeholders are inclined to allow - including DeWine in Ohio and Ducey in Arizona - let alone many conservative justices throughout the state and federal courts at every level.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

As we've gone over before, I agree with you on Florida, but that's basically it.  Moreover, you can't just look at the partisan composition.  What you're talking about what not be something many Republican officeholders are inclined to allow - including DeWine in Ohio and Ducey in Arizona - let alone many conservative justices throughout the state and federal courts at every level.

You don't think Ducey will roll over on his belly? The guy who went with Trump in not wanting people to wear masks last time Trump held a rally in Arizona? Hell, the court in Michigan just said that the executive orders Whitmer gave were unconstitutional and told businesses that it was totally cool to open in the middle of a pandemic. 

And while you're right you can't just look at the partisan composition, it remains the single best predictor of behavior we have by a very large margin. If you have reasons to not think partisanship is going to work as a predictor I'd love to hear them, but right now I think that's a far safer assumption than 'people will follow the norms'. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

You don't think Ducey will roll over on his belly? The guy who went with Trump in not wanting people to wear masks last time Trump held a rally in Arizona? Hell, the court in Michigan just said that the executive orders Whitmer gave were unconstitutional and told businesses that it was totally cool to open in the middle of a pandemic. 

As Azari mentioned in the 538 chat mentioned above, officeholding/seeking politicians will not be inclined to along with a Trump attempt to subvert the clear will of the people because the vast majority of them have presidential, or at least more lofty, electoral ambitions for themselves.  It's not about ignoring partisanship or thinking the GOP will "respect norms."  It's about self-interest.  I think you're position has always been based on the erroneous assumption that just because GOP officials kow-tow to Trump or refrain from standing up to him means they'd be willing to put their own interests on the line.  And that's what they'd be doing if the media, every Democrat, most independents, and 60% of the electorate thinks Joe Biden won the election.  I also have no idea why you're deputizing court decisions on covid procedure into the argument.  It's entirely irrelevant to how justices will react to Trump contesting state certified election results.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, DMC said:

Damn, that's surprising.  Appears the broad consensus within the party will be to abolish the filibuster.  I may be one of the last holdouts on that. 

It's unfortunate how the process has devolved. I also think the filibuster isn't necessarily a bad idea, but the way it's being abused...idk, abolishing will have many unwanted consequences. 

[Paladin of Ice]

4 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Herman Cain has died of COVID.  

One of the founders of the Republican PAC Turning Points USA also just died. Social media was amusing itself last night by comparing the headlines about his death with his memes about taking joy in taunting leftists by refusing to wear a mask.

[Kalbear]

A surprise, but a welcome one

 

 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's unfortunate how the process has devolved. I also think the filibuster isn't necessarily a bad idea, but the way it's being abused...idk, abolishing will have many unwanted consequences. 

The filibuster hasn't "devolved," it's never been anything but an undemocratic tool in an already undemocratic chamber, most famous for its use by Southern segregationists seeking to thwart Civil Rights legislation in the 60s. 

 

[Ran]

Feels like a tactical error to me, this push to talk about the filibuster now. Filibuster front-and-center is going to make it easier for the GOP to use it as a stick to terrify undecideds who lean independent/conservative.

I'm not saying it needs to stay. I'm saying people don't need to be giving the GOP soundbites. Especially at a time when it's still not certain the Senate will slip into Democratic hands. Feels like counting your chickens before they've hatched.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

The filibuster hasn't "devolved," it's never been anything but an undemocratic tool in an already undemocratic chamber, most famous for its use by Southern segregationists seeking to thwart Civil Rights legislation in the 60s. 

The abuse of the filibuster certainly has "devolved," albeit I'm not sure that's the right word.  Maybe simply just worsened.  And that plainly happened after the Civil Rights era - see here.

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

Feels like a tactical error to me

Good point.  Even if you're planning on abolishing it, I don't think this gets Dems any more votes than they were already going to get - and the GOP can use it as a way to try and scare those on the fence about a "broad and dangerous liberal agenda."