Quo Vadis GOP?

[Eddie Teach]

Or less enigmatic.

[Oexmelin]

I get that wokeism has become the bee in your bonnet, but I think the people you'd associate with the tendency are actually acutely aware of the danger and have been banging that drum for a while. Your blame is misplaced.

If they are acutely aware of the danger, then it's even more inexcusable.  When faced with a great danger, one should become more pragmatic rather than more dogmatic.

I am not sure who you are referring to. Actual progressists in Congress? Actual activists? Twitter mobs? And what would pragmatism look like, right now?

The actual progressists and activists I know continuously push against the complacency and apathy of establishment democrats for Republican shenanigans. Is that a refusal for pragmatism?

I think you'd be hard pressed to find some woke thinker or propagandist that has as much influence as Tucker Carlson has on the Republican agenda and talking points, which I think is indicative of your misplaced blame. Republicans have entrenched positions of power, with real legislative legitimacy. I don't think you can point to similar power for progressists activists. Dislike wokes all you want. They are not responsible for the GOP's slide into autocracy. Otherwise, it's a bit of a variation of the old argument that it's anti fascism that forces you to become a fascist.

[Eddie Teach]

"Wokes" may be more receptive to his arguments than Republicans are.

[Syt]

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/559298-graham-calls-voting-right-bill-biggest-power-grab-in-history

Graham calls voting rights bill 'biggest power grab' in history

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Sunday that a sweeping Democratic-backed election reform bill was "the biggest power grab in the history of the country."

"In my view, S.R. 1 is the biggest power grab in the history of the country. It mandates ballot harvesting, no voter ID. It does away with the states being able to redistrict when you have population shifts. It's just a bad idea, and it's a problem that most Republicans are not going to sign — they're trying to fix a problem most Republicans have a different view of," Graham said on "Fox News Sunday."

Graham also said he would not support a compromise offered last week by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)

"Well, one, I like Joe Manchin a lot, but we had the largest turnout in the history the United States, and states are in charge of voting in America, so I don't like the idea of taking the power to redistrict away from the state legislators," Graham said.

"You're having people move from blue states to red states. Under this proposal, you'd have some kind of commission redraw the new districts, and I don't like that," he added. "I want states where people are moving to have control over how to allocate new congressional seats."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said late last week that Republicans would oppose Manchin's compromise proposal.

"I would make this observation about the revised version. ... All Republicans, I think, will oppose that as well if that were to be what surfaced on the floor," McConnell told reporters.

McConnell's comments are the latest signal that the election bill will fail during a procedural vote this week due to a GOP filibuster.

[The Brain]

Graham said on "Fox News Sunday."

So, according to Fox lawyers, no reasonable person would believe that he actually said this?

[grumbler]

"Wokes" may be more receptive to his arguments than Republicans are.

But there could be an advantage to using just (or, if you prefer, "woke") laws to provoke the Republicans into an over-hasty coup attempt.  It seems unwise of me to counsel that justice should be delayed so as to allow the Republicans to time their coup for the maximum probability of success.  I'm with Oex on this one.  Justice delayed is justice denied.

[grumbler]

Graham said on "Fox News Sunday."

So, according to Fox lawyers, no reasonable person would believe that he actually said this?

They might have restricted that argument to Tucker Carlson.

[Eddie Teach]

"Wokes" may be more receptive to his arguments than Republicans are.

But there could be an advantage to using just (or, if you prefer, "woke") laws to provoke the Republicans into an over-hasty coup attempt.  It seems unwise of me to counsel that justice should be delayed so as to allow the Republicans to time their coup for the maximum probability of success.  I'm with Oex on this one.  Justice delayed is justice denied.

Is that something Guller is advocating here?

I was responding to Oex's "blame Republicans, not us" comment by noting that they aren't listening.

[Razgovory]

I spent the day yesterday playing poker in Atlantic City, and inadvertently getting an up close and personal look at the mindset of Trumpists.  I was surrounded by three middle-aged white guys at my table who seemed to be middle class, and being a bald approaching-middle-age guy myself, they probably assumed I was one of them, or didn't care if I wasn't.  I was planning on taking a stand and letting them know that I was the disdained lefty, and then stay there and take the abuse, but the golden opportunity never came up.  I did push back on the joke about the black people and the sandbox, at which point one of them mumbled "a lefty" under their breath.  At least I took most of my day's profit off of them, so that's something.

After yesterday, I came away convinced that a real coup of some kind is brewing in this country, and people like Manchin as well as the progressives overly preoccupied with imposing new woke facts on society are enabling them.  They aren't nearly as bad as the frankly despicable dregs of society I was sitting with yesterday, but they're the only ones who can modulate their actions to try to avert a catastrophe.  I really don't think they get how precarious the situation is.  Given the right opportunity, the right wing will take power, and not care to justify it with anything more than a nonsense uttered with a Putin smirk; "yeah, we both know this is nonsense, but what are you going to do about it?  "

I wonder what it would look like if a state legistlauture overturned a presidential election.

[The Minsky Moment]

I wonder what it would look like if a state legistlauture overturned a presidential election.

Pretty straightforward. the state authorities would refuse to certify the results by the safe harbor date (e.g. do what those 2 Michigan commissioners considered doing).  The legislature would meet and vote to appoint a slate of Electors.  Those Electors would prepare a certificate and send it to the state governor. The governor would sign it and send the certificate to Congress. Under the Electoral Count Act, the certificate that bears the governor's signature is presumptively valid if there is a dispute.

[Berkut]

I wonder what it would look like if a state legistlauture overturned a presidential election.

Pretty straightforward. the state authorities would refuse to certify the results by the safe harbor date (e.g. do what those 2 Michigan commissioners considered doing).  The legislature would meet and vote to appoint a slate of Electors.  Those Electors would prepare a certificate and send it to the state governor. The governor would sign it and send the certificate to Congress. Under the Electoral Count Act, the certificate that bears the governor's signature is presumptively valid if there is a dispute.

What is interesting about that is that the process allows for over-turning the outcome of an election with zero reason, evidence, or legal justification. The consequences to stop that are simply political, and most of the time would presumably be adequate.

But now we actually live in a world where that is VERY easy to contemplate. Indeed, I will actually be surprised if something like this doesn't happen. One party has expunged itself of anyone who would suffer such a political consequence, and has doubled down on straight minority rule through exploitation of non-representative mechanics.

[The Minsky Moment]

I wouldn't say that the process allows for it; although the procedure I just mentioned would fall within the letter of the Count Act, it would violate 2 USC 7 and the principle that the rules for selecting electors can't be changed after the election.  But the discussion of laws and principles is academic if people in power decide to ignore them.  We got through 2020 without catastrophe because there were enough GOP state level officials still committed to democracy and the rule of law, and willing to court the death threats, abuse and destruction of political careers that resulted from that commitment.  Will that still be true in 2024?

[The Brain]

the Count Act,

It regulates Hot Wheels tracks and Asian women?

[Berkut]

I wouldn't say that the process allows for it; although the procedure I just mentioned would fall within the letter of the Count Act, it would violate 2 USC 7 and the principle that the rules for selecting electors can't be changed after the election.  But the discussion of laws and principles is academic if people in power decide to ignore them.  We got through 2020 without catastrophe because there were enough GOP state level officials still committed to democracy and the rule of law, and willing to court the death threats, abuse and destruction of political careers that resulted from that commitment.  Will that still be true in 2024?

Given that there is a concerted effort to replace those very officials, it would be stupid to assume that was true.

I think if the setup the Georgia GOP put in place since the election were in place before the election, Georgia goes to Trump.

[The Minsky Moment]

Given that there is a concerted effort to replace those very officials, it would be stupid to assume that was true.

I think if the setup the Georgia GOP put in place since the election were in place before the election, Georgia goes to Trump.

That is probably true but irrelevant.  Count-related problems won't be an issue in Georgia because unless Manchin and Sinema give the Justice Department the power to protect voting rights, a bunch of people who voted for Biden-Warnock-Osoff will be tossed off the rolls or otherwise suppressed.  You don't have to worry about cooking the vote count if you can make sure only your people vote.  It's Iranian style democracy.