Poll
Question:
Will the United States of America experience a coup in 2020?
Option 1: I am the Senate! (Yes)
Option 2: It's treason then! (No)
Option 3: A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one (Jaron)
In light of the presidential election this year, will there be some sort of coup or attempted coup by Donald Trump or some other political entity? How will it occur?
I don't think so :hmm:
I mean who would want to take charge at a time like this anyway?
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2020, 03:30:32 PM
I mean who would want to take charge at a time like this anyway?
An evil retard? :hmm:
My guess is that the US will not experience a coup or a real* coup attempt in 2020.
*Will Trump tweet a coupish message and then kinda backpedal because he's a little bitch? Quite possibly, and I don't count that as an attempted coup here.
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2020, 03:30:32 PM
I don't think so :hmm:
I mean who would want to take charge at a time like this anyway?
Joe Biden, hopefully.
This needs an option for "attempted coup".
Quote from: alfred russel on June 01, 2020, 03:36:20 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2020, 03:30:32 PM
I don't think so :hmm:
I mean who would want to take charge at a time like this anyway?
Joe Biden, hopefully.
Yeah. Boy is he screwed if he wins.
grumbler is right in the other thread. There are so many political norms and political structures, it seems unlikely that Trump could pull off a way to stay in power without winning the election. It would take a notable or successful stroke or move (in other words, a coup).
Quote from: alfred russel on June 01, 2020, 03:46:35 PM
grumbler is right in the other thread. There are so many political norms and political structures, it seems unlikely that Trump could pull off a way to stay in power without winning the election. It would take a notable or successful stroke or move (in other words, a coup).
I don't think Trump will try to hold on to power without winning an election, but the definition of winning an election may be flexible. Just imagine how you would act if Trump were re-elected as a result of something that you don't have 100% confidence in being on the up and up, and then imagine that's at very least how GOP sympathizers might feel in the flip case. They wouldn't be supporting a coup attempt by sticking with Trump, they would be fighting a coup attempt, a Democratic plot to falsify the election results in the Midwest. Let's also not discount the Russians, I imagine they would be going all-in on putting as many powder kegs under the US foundation as possible, using all means at their disposal.
Quote from: The Brain on June 01, 2020, 03:33:54 PM
My guess is that the US will not experience a coup or a real* coup attempt in 2020.
*Will Trump tweet a coupish message and then kinda backpedal because he's a little bitch? Quite possibly, and I don't count that as an attempted coup here.
This seems most likely.
I think there may be attempted coups in some of the states. Trump loses, his supporters occupy a state capital building and claim to be setting up a new government that will prevent the state from sending electors to the electoral college. Trump will praise these people and the state leaders be hesitant to call national guard or law enforcement to clear out the the pro trump militia guys. The result will be months long standoff.
This was interesting. From December 2019:
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/12/17/half-of-active-duty-service-members-are-unhappy-with-trump-new-military-times-poll-shows/
(https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/ptYbYgSRSKUf-yxI_aw8n__GNiM=/800x0/filters:quality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/MML6POYA7REHPNX6XMMD32RPJQ.png)
Of course not.
I should add that, in the extremely unlikely scenario where a coup does happen, it is ultra important for everybody to keep calm and carry on as usual.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 01, 2020, 03:46:35 PM
grumbler is right in the other thread. There are so many political norms and political structures, it seems unlikely that Trump could pull off a way to stay in power without winning the election. It would take a notable or successful stroke or move (in other words, a coup).
I haven't heard that line since 2016
Not a coup, but further grave damage to political institutions and questions on legitimacy of election outcomes are possible, even likely.
Quote from: FunkMonk on June 01, 2020, 05:20:48 PM
This was interesting. From December 2019:
But how many of them like Joe Biden?
Coup is probably not the right word here...
I'd point out that my argument in the other thread was not that Trump would not try to pull something, just that cancelling elections would gain him nothing, under any of the scenarios presented. He cannot be president after 12:00 noon on January 20, 2021 without winning the election, and the rest of the US government knows it and won't follow him in some suicide pact to pretend that he is still president.
Before the last few days I would have said no, certainly not. I'm thinking now though that he and his people are pretty far gone down some sort of cult mindset and while I wouldn't anticipate a coup in the traditional sense, I think there will likely be some pretty far fetched shenanigans that Republicans will support. I'm not looking forward to November.
I'd say around 5% chance. Which is insanely high.
Quote from: FunkMonk on June 01, 2020, 05:20:48 PM
This was interesting. From December 2019:
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/12/17/half-of-active-duty-service-members-are-unhappy-with-trump-new-military-times-poll-shows/
(https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/ptYbYgSRSKUf-yxI_aw8n__GNiM=/800x0/filters:quality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/MML6POYA7REHPNX6XMMD32RPJQ.png)
This is so wonderfully heartening.
Quote from: FunkMonk on June 01, 2020, 03:28:27 PM
In light of the presidential election this year, will there be some sort of coup or attempted coup by Donald Trump or some other political entity? How will it occur?
Eh, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
Yeah right? Let's see if Joe can win the election first.
I have said in the other thread why I think waiting for things to happen to start thinking about them is a bad idea. It's a recipe for paralysis, apathy, or being taken completely aback by the normalization of what was once unthinkable.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 01, 2020, 11:31:08 PM
I have said in the other thread why I think waiting for things to happen to start thinking about them is a bad idea. It's a recipe for paralysis, apathy, or being taken completely aback by the normalization of what was once unthinkable.
I mean I expect him to act like an idiot and boast and bluster and do very little because he has a 30 year track record of that sort of thing. Will it be damaging and immensely destabilizing and leave a long negative legacy on the body politic? Yes. But ultimately he will not actually take action to seize power if he loses.
That is what I expect.
But it is not like Joe is guaranteed to win.
Quote from: FunkMonk on June 01, 2020, 05:20:48 PM
This was interesting. From December 2019:
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/12/17/half-of-active-duty-service-members-are-unhappy-with-trump-new-military-times-poll-shows/
(https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/ptYbYgSRSKUf-yxI_aw8n__GNiM=/800x0/filters:quality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/MML6POYA7REHPNX6XMMD32RPJQ.png)
Ouch! Is this real? So more than 40% had a favorable view after almost 3 years of Trump demonstrating complete ineptitude and taking huge dumps on America and being Russia's bitch? OK a coup may be likelier than I thought...
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 01, 2020, 11:31:08 PM
I have said in the other thread why I think waiting for things to happen to start thinking about them is a bad idea. It's a recipe for paralysis, apathy, or being taken completely aback by the normalization of what was once unthinkable.
Is striking that people fall back on the logic that it cannot happen because US political norms and institutions are strong enough to withstand the challenge. Have the people making those arguments missed the last 3.5 years?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2020, 11:52:16 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 01, 2020, 11:31:08 PM
I have said in the other thread why I think waiting for things to happen to start thinking about them is a bad idea. It's a recipe for paralysis, apathy, or being taken completely aback by the normalization of what was once unthinkable.
Is striking that people fall back on the logic that it cannot happen because US political norms and institutions are strong enough to withstand the challenge. Have the people making those arguments missed the last 3.5 years?
Try 26 years. Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh started this stupid populist ball rolling.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 02, 2020, 12:17:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2020, 11:52:16 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 01, 2020, 11:31:08 PM
I have said in the other thread why I think waiting for things to happen to start thinking about them is a bad idea. It's a recipe for paralysis, apathy, or being taken completely aback by the normalization of what was once unthinkable.
Is striking that people fall back on the logic that it cannot happen because US political norms and institutions are strong enough to withstand the challenge. Have the people making those arguments missed the last 3.5 years?
Try 26 years. Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh started this stupid populist ball rolling.
Actually it goes back a little further. The dinosaurs developed the first walnut-sized brains.
Quote from: The Brain on June 02, 2020, 12:19:19 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 02, 2020, 12:17:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2020, 11:52:16 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 01, 2020, 11:31:08 PM
I have said in the other thread why I think waiting for things to happen to start thinking about them is a bad idea. It's a recipe for paralysis, apathy, or being taken completely aback by the normalization of what was once unthinkable.
Is striking that people fall back on the logic that it cannot happen because US political norms and institutions are strong enough to withstand the challenge. Have the people making those arguments missed the last 3.5 years?
Try 26 years. Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh started this stupid populist ball rolling.
Actually it goes back a little further. The dinosaurs developed the first walnut-sized brains.
And the Dinosaurs created America! :cool:
Quote from: The Brain on June 02, 2020, 12:19:19 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 02, 2020, 12:17:49 PM
Try 26 years. Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh started this stupid populist ball rolling.
Actually it goes back a little further. The dinosaurs developed the first walnut-sized brains.
:lol: All 6,000 years ago, yep.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 02, 2020, 12:17:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2020, 11:52:16 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 01, 2020, 11:31:08 PM
I have said in the other thread why I think waiting for things to happen to start thinking about them is a bad idea. It's a recipe for paralysis, apathy, or being taken completely aback by the normalization of what was once unthinkable.
Is striking that people fall back on the logic that it cannot happen because US political norms and institutions are strong enough to withstand the challenge. Have the people making those arguments missed the last 3.5 years?
Sure, but before Trump there was at least a plausible argument that American liberal democratic institutions would withstand the lunacy. But nope.
Try 26 years. Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh started this stupid populist ball rolling.
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2020, 03:30:32 PM
I don't think so :hmm:
I mean who would want to take charge at a time like this anyway?
Well, Lenine did a coup in 1917, things weren't much brighter then. Maybe Bernie Sanders wants the job?
Quote from: viper37 on June 02, 2020, 02:38:20 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2020, 03:30:32 PM
I don't think so :hmm:
I mean who would want to take charge at a time like this anyway?
Well, Lenine did a coup in 1917, things weren't much brighter then. Maybe Bernie Sanders wants the job?
Bernie lacks a loyal nearby unit of marines.
That would be weird. An entire USMC unit of fanatical Bernie supporters.
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2020, 11:36:10 PM
But ultimately he will not actually take action to seize power if he loses.
That is what I expect.
But it is not like Joe is guaranteed to win.
He could contest the election. All the lowers courts and the Supreme courts are packed with Republican sympathizers loyal to him, first and foremost. We've already seen some tenuous legal decisions favoring the Republicans over the last year.
He doesn't have to seize power to make trouble, he only has to try and some people will follow. Very fine people armed to the teeth.
Quote from: garbon on June 02, 2020, 12:20:00 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 02, 2020, 12:19:19 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 02, 2020, 12:17:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2020, 11:52:16 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 01, 2020, 11:31:08 PM
I have said in the other thread why I think waiting for things to happen to start thinking about them is a bad idea. It's a recipe for paralysis, apathy, or being taken completely aback by the normalization of what was once unthinkable.
Is striking that people fall back on the logic that it cannot happen because US political norms and institutions are strong enough to withstand the challenge. Have the people making those arguments missed the last 3.5 years?
Try 26 years. Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh started this stupid populist ball rolling.
Actually it goes back a little further. The dinosaurs developed the first walnut-sized brains.
And the Dinosaurs created America! :cool:
Dinosaurs are a myth created by liberals to distract you from God's truth.
Quote from: Valmy on June 02, 2020, 02:41:21 PM
Bernie lacks a loyal nearby unit of marines.
True, but everyone has guns in the US. Even untrained, in urban warfare, they stand a good chance of keeping their ground.
Quote
That would be weird. An entire USMC unit of fanatical Bernie supporters.
ugh. What a thought. I sur won't sleep right again tonight.
Pretty awesome myth though.
(https://www.vallartadaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Dinosaurs.jpg)
Fuck yeah!
Quote from: viper37 on June 02, 2020, 02:46:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 02, 2020, 12:20:00 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 02, 2020, 12:19:19 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 02, 2020, 12:17:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2020, 11:52:16 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 01, 2020, 11:31:08 PM
I have said in the other thread why I think waiting for things to happen to start thinking about them is a bad idea. It's a recipe for paralysis, apathy, or being taken completely aback by the normalization of what was once unthinkable.
Is striking that people fall back on the logic that it cannot happen because US political norms and institutions are strong enough to withstand the challenge. Have the people making those arguments missed the last 3.5 years?
Try 26 years. Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh started this stupid populist ball rolling.
Actually it goes back a little further. The dinosaurs developed the first walnut-sized brains.
And the Dinosaurs created America! :cool:
Dinosaurs are a myth created by liberals to distract you from God's truth.
Jesus totally rode on dinosaurs :angry:
Yes absolutely.
There's many ways. If come November, Trump thinks he can't win the election, there are many things he can do. I use the word "can" lightly, but I'll get to that. Primarily, as his son-in-law has already indicated, Trump may say that the situation is too volatile (COVID/Riots whatever is happening then) to have safe elections and he is postponing them until a safer time. Now, I hear you say, he can't do that. To which I say "watch him". He has the senate and the supreme court on his side.
As others have mentioned, there may be more of a structural coup. He loses, and in some states people rise up, seize the capitol building refuse to let the electoral college voters vote.
Trump loses. Argues the election "is rigged." Refuses to leave. Election victory doesn't get ratified.
Other scenarios only Trump can think up. I've said before democracy is broken in the USA
I just don't put anything past Trump and his Trumpists any more. He can and will do anything to stay in power, and he is not going to leave wihtout causing riots in America that will make the last week look like foreplay.
It may be moot though, cause I still think he's gonna win the election.
He'll win on election night & the Generals/Admiral will have to stop it from happening.
Quote from: Josephus on June 03, 2020, 07:33:39 AM
Yes absolutely.
There's many ways. If come November, Trump thinks he can't win the election, there are many things he can do. I use the word "can" lightly, but I'll get to that. Primarily, as his son-in-law has already indicated, Trump may say that the situation is too volatile (COVID/Riots whatever is happening then) to have safe elections and he is postponing them until a safer time. Now, I hear you say, he can't do that. To which I say "watch him". He has the senate and the supreme court on his side.
As others have mentioned, there may be more of a structural coup. He loses, and in some states people rise up, seize the capitol building refuse to let the electoral college voters vote.
It doesn't even need to go that far. They can "lose" absentee and vote-by-mail ballots, shut down voting centers in cities and use the police to intimidate and arrest voters, purge voter rolls, and all of the actions that Republicans have been doing for years. Even if the state has a Dem governor, the police in major cities are generally Trump supporters, and shutting down voting in a few major cities might be enough to swing states that are close.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on June 03, 2020, 08:00:35 AM
Quote from: Josephus on June 03, 2020, 07:33:39 AM
Yes absolutely.
There's many ways. If come November, Trump thinks he can't win the election, there are many things he can do. I use the word "can" lightly, but I'll get to that. Primarily, as his son-in-law has already indicated, Trump may say that the situation is too volatile (COVID/Riots whatever is happening then) to have safe elections and he is postponing them until a safer time. Now, I hear you say, he can't do that. To which I say "watch him". He has the senate and the supreme court on his side.
As others have mentioned, there may be more of a structural coup. He loses, and in some states people rise up, seize the capitol building refuse to let the electoral college voters vote.
It doesn't even need to go that far. They can "lose" absentee and vote-by-mail ballots, shut down voting centers in cities and use the police to intimidate and arrest voters, purge voter rolls, and all of the actions that Republicans have been doing for years. Even if the state has a Dem governor, the police in major cities are generally Trump supporters, and shutting down voting in a few major cities might be enough to swing states that are close.
But then that's a rigged election which is very different from the notion that he can unilaterally prevent states from holding elections.
Is it just me but trust in the election process is in something of a freefall at both sides of the political spectrum?
Quote from: Tamas on June 03, 2020, 08:09:16 AM
Is it just me but trust in the election process is in something of a freefall at both sides of the political spectrum?
I think Democrats would note that Republicans are doing all they can to rig election outcomes, as well as have concerns about how Trump will react to a loss (/if he will lose), but I'm not sure it goes further than that. I don't think Dems distrust the election process, after all, it is our one point of hope.
Quote from: Tamas on June 03, 2020, 08:09:16 AM
Is it just me but trust in the election process is in something of a freefall at both sides of the political spectrum?
Is that why the Democrats ran a set of no-hopers and has-beens in their primaries before settling on the candidate least likely to beat Trump?
[No, I am not impressed with Joe Biden.]
Quote from: Josephus on June 03, 2020, 07:33:39 AM
Yes absolutely.
There's many ways. If come November, Trump thinks he can't win the election, there are many things he can do. I use the word "can" lightly, but I'll get to that. Primarily, as his son-in-law has already indicated, Trump may say that the situation is too volatile (COVID/Riots whatever is happening then) to have safe elections and he is postponing them until a safer time. Now, I hear you say, he can't do that. To which I say "watch him". He has the senate and the supreme court on his side.
Again, the Federal government runs no elections. Trump can "cancel" the elections, but he cannot stop them from happening.
QuoteAs others have mentioned, there may be more of a structural coup. He loses, and in some states people rise up, seize the capitol building refuse to let the electoral college voters vote.
The electors from a state don't have to vote in the state's capital building.
QuoteTrump loses. Argues the election "is rigged." Refuses to leave. Election victory doesn't get ratified.
The process of election certification can theoretically be stopped by the Senate or House refusing to meet as required by law, but this is the newly-elected Senate and House that we are looking at, and they'll almost certainly be both Democratic (even if there are no ratified Senate elections, the Democrats will control the senate once the Republican seats are vacated). There is no way that I can see that the election doesn't get certified.
QuoteOther scenarios only Trump can think up. I've said before democracy is broken in the USA
It's certainly not possible to "prepare for" scenarios that cannot be imagined in advance.
QuoteI just don't put anything past Trump and his Trumpists any more. He can and will do anything to stay in power, and he is not going to leave wihtout causing riots in America that will make the last week look like foreplay.
The relationship between riots and foreplay escapes me, but, while I agree that Trump and his supporters will engage in all sorts of election shenanigans, there isn't a whole lot that they can do given that the process is largely out of his hands.
QuoteIt may be moot though, cause I still think he's gonna win the election.
If he wins the election, then he wins and doesn't need a coup. I think that unlikely, but I think it far more likely than the other outlandish scenarios you propose.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on June 03, 2020, 08:00:35 AM
It doesn't even need to go that far. They can "lose" absentee and vote-by-mail ballots, shut down voting centers in cities and use the police to intimidate and arrest voters, purge voter rolls, and all of the actions that Republicans have been doing for years. Even if the state has a Dem governor, the police in major cities are generally Trump supporters, and shutting down voting in a few major cities might be enough to swing states that are close.
The problem with this scenario is that it is only likely in states that trump would win anyway. Stopping some democratic voters from voting in those states isn't going to change the electoral college vote.
The police are not going to shut down elections in major cities, even if (and I don't think this is true) they are all trump supporters. How could they? They aren't independent actors, they are city employees.
Quote from: garbon on June 03, 2020, 08:14:32 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 03, 2020, 08:09:16 AM
Is it just me but trust in the election process is in something of a freefall at both sides of the political spectrum?
I think Democrats would note that Republicans are doing all they can to rig election outcomes, as well as have concerns about how Trump will react to a loss (/if he will lose), but I'm not sure it goes further than that. I don't think Dems distrust the election process, after all, it is our one point of hope.
:yes:
Quote from: Agelastus on June 03, 2020, 08:18:05 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 03, 2020, 08:09:16 AM
Is it just me but trust in the election process is in something of a freefall at both sides of the political spectrum?
Is that why the Democrats ran a set of no-hopers and has-beens in their primaries before settling on the candidate least likely to beat Trump?
[No, I am not impressed with Joe Biden.]
I think that there is zero evidence that Biden is the candidate least likely to beat Trump, and tons of evidence to the contrary. The very last quality I would value in a democratic candidate is that he impress some random Brit.
Quote from: garbon on June 03, 2020, 08:02:50 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on June 03, 2020, 08:00:35 AM
Quote from: Josephus on June 03, 2020, 07:33:39 AM
Yes absolutely.
There's many ways. If come November, Trump thinks he can't win the election, there are many things he can do. I use the word "can" lightly, but I'll get to that. Primarily, as his son-in-law has already indicated, Trump may say that the situation is too volatile (COVID/Riots whatever is happening then) to have safe elections and he is postponing them until a safer time. Now, I hear you say, he can't do that. To which I say "watch him". He has the senate and the supreme court on his side.
As others have mentioned, there may be more of a structural coup. He loses, and in some states people rise up, seize the capitol building refuse to let the electoral college voters vote.
It doesn't even need to go that far. They can "lose" absentee and vote-by-mail ballots, shut down voting centers in cities and use the police to intimidate and arrest voters, purge voter rolls, and all of the actions that Republicans have been doing for years. Even if the state has a Dem governor, the police in major cities are generally Trump supporters, and shutting down voting in a few major cities might be enough to swing states that are close.
But then that's a rigged election which is very different from the notion that he can unilaterally prevent states from holding elections.
True. But there's very little practical difference because both lead to the same end. Venezuela, Hungary, and many others are no longer democracies not because of an outright coup, but because of rigged elections and fraud that gives just a thin veneer of legality.
The problem is that most things involved in coups or self-coups require a judgment call. You think elections are rigged? You think, or you know? Are you confident enough to engage in actions that would amount to a coup if unjustified, and will other people consider it justified?
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2020, 08:30:37 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on June 03, 2020, 08:00:35 AM
It doesn't even need to go that far. They can "lose" absentee and vote-by-mail ballots, shut down voting centers in cities and use the police to intimidate and arrest voters, purge voter rolls, and all of the actions that Republicans have been doing for years. Even if the state has a Dem governor, the police in major cities are generally Trump supporters, and shutting down voting in a few major cities might be enough to swing states that are close.
The problem with this scenario is that it is only likely in states that trump would win anyway. Stopping some democratic voters from voting in those states isn't going to change the electoral college vote.
The police are not going to shut down elections in major cities, even if (and I don't think this is true) they are all trump supporters. How could they? They aren't independent actors, they are city employees.
In states that are on the margin (Wisconsin, Florida, etc.), it could be enough to swing the vote.
Yes, they are city employees. Are they following the city's orders when they use excessive force against non-violent protestors, destroy private property, shoot and arrest the press, and choke black people to death?
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2020, 08:34:32 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on June 03, 2020, 08:18:05 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 03, 2020, 08:09:16 AM
Is it just me but trust in the election process is in something of a freefall at both sides of the political spectrum?
Is that why the Democrats ran a set of no-hopers and has-beens in their primaries before settling on the candidate least likely to beat Trump?
[No, I am not impressed with Joe Biden.]
I think that there is zero evidence that Biden is the candidate least likely to beat Trump, and tons of evidence to the contrary. The very last quality I would value in a democratic candidate is that he impress some random Brit.
"Random Brit"...and after all we've been through together... :cry:
Seriously, though, the impression I have is that of all the candidates Biden had both the most experience and the most baggage; he was the Democrat challenger with the most ammunition available for Republican attack ads to work on.
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2020, 08:25:45 AM
If he wins the election, then he wins and doesn't need a coup. I think that unlikely, but I think it far more likely than the other outlandish scenarios you propose.
You're way too optimistic. Everything you said only holds true if a rational person was president and had a rational group of people in his posse (senate/judiciary).
Let's say this: Trump loses. REfuses to concede. Refuses to leave the WH.
What next?
Quote from: Tamas on June 03, 2020, 08:09:16 AM
Is it just me but trust in the election process is in something of a freefall at both sides of the political spectrum?
Not so sure. Although they don't say it out loud Republicans know that they can't maintain their structural advantage or win elections talking openly about their actual policies in the face of a much more moderate general population, so they have become increasingly antagonistic to democracy in general and energized Republicans with fictions about fraud and so on, which they lap up.
People on the left of the Democratic party, people like me essentially certainly express frustration about the lack of candidates and policy platforms and so on, but I am under no illusion whatsoever that the ballot box is the only hope of pulling the US out of it's current and ongoing circling of the drain.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on June 03, 2020, 08:54:03 AM
In states that are on the margin (Wisconsin, Florida, etc.), it could be enough to swing the vote.
But those are the states where it isn't likely to happen, and where police will be punished if they engage in illegal activity. Derek Chavin is in jail because he broke the law in Minnesota, one of the states that you think will have a cop coup.
QuoteYes, they are city employees. Are they following the city's orders when they use excessive force against non-violent protestors, destroy private property, shoot and arrest the press, and choke black people to death?
They are generally following the letter of the law, if not the spirit. Where they fail to follow the letter of the law (as you propose they will all do, for... "reasons") they can get arrested and charged. The officer accused of choking Floyd to death is charged with murder, and his three accomplices have, as a minimum, lost their career in law enforcement (and may be charged as well). Yet you think that for.. reasons... all the police in these major cities will sacrifice their careers and maybe their freedom for.... stuff and whatnot.
Quote from: DGuller on June 03, 2020, 08:52:34 AM
The problem is that most things involved in coups or self-coups require a judgment call. You think elections are rigged? You think, or you know? Are you confident enough to engage in actions that would amount to a coup if unjustified, and will other people consider it justified?
That's a tougher question, of course, but I haven't seen a scenario where intentional rigging might succeed on the scale needed to ensure a trump victory. Even in the infamous 2000 Florida presidential election, the results were botched, not rigged.
Quote from: Josephus on June 03, 2020, 09:55:18 AM
You're way too optimistic. Everything you said only holds true if a rational person was president and had a rational group of people in his posse (senate/judiciary).
Let's say this: Trump loses. REfuses to concede. Refuses to leave the WH.
What next?
We've gone over this. Trump refuses to concede and refuses to leave the WH, and then the Secret Service ejects or maybe even arrests him. It's not like he has any power just because he says so. Even a compliant judiciary isn't going to let him remain president when he isn't legally entitled to do so.
I know that these scary scenarios are fun, like telling ghost stories around the campfire, but they have to be credible to be scary, and so far no one has told a credible ghost story about trump and the election. because I don't believe in ghosts doesn't make me "way too optimistic."
It may well be possible for someone to come up with a trump ghost story that has me shivering. I just haven't heard one yet.
Yep, you have been over this Grumbler. Problem is a lot of people find your trust in American political institutions at this moment in time a bit naive.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 03, 2020, 10:29:24 AM
Yep, you have been over this Grumbler. Problem is a lot of people find your trust in American political institutions at this moment in time a bit naive.
People who want to believe in scary stories for the thrill of being scared, yes.
My trust is in logic and evidence, not in peoples' gut feelings that something bad is going to happen. I know that seems a bit naive to the emo crowd, but I can live with that.
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2020, 10:36:21 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 03, 2020, 10:29:24 AM
Yep, you have been over this Grumbler. Problem is a lot of people find your trust in American political institutions at this moment in time a bit naive.
People who want to believe in scary stories for the thrill of being scared, yes.
My trust is in logic and evidence, not in peoples' gut feelings that something bad is going to happen. I know that seems a bit naive to the emo crowd, but I can live with that.
I think the problem is that many, including myself, have been taken by surprise and proven wrong about what we thought we knew about the US political situation over the last few years. So we are genuinely unsure about what could happen and shaken in faith in the robustness of the system.
In my case, I'm willing to defer to those who know more about it and who are closer to the facts. Plus, I'd be delighted if the system proves, despite the last few years, robust.
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2020, 10:36:21 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 03, 2020, 10:29:24 AM
Yep, you have been over this Grumbler. Problem is a lot of people find your trust in American political institutions at this moment in time a bit naive.
People who want to believe in scary stories for the thrill of being scared, yes.
My trust is in logic and evidence, not in peoples' gut feelings that something bad is going to happen. I know that seems a bit naive to the emo crowd, but I can live with that.
I don't think people are disagreeing without out of emo necessarily, though I imagine it's possible that some are. I think the point of disagreement is the different degree of expectation that legalism would hold up when the shit hits the floor.
Quote from: Malthus on June 03, 2020, 10:55:31 AM
I think the problem is that many, including myself, have been taken by surprise and proven wrong about what we thought we knew about the US political situation over the last few years. So we are genuinely unsure about what could happen and shaken in faith in the robustness of the system.
There's no question but what there have been any number of unpleasant surprises, but from the legislative branch (where Lindsey Graham went from calling trump a disaster to cravenly kissing his ass and choosing to serve Trump rather than his own oath of office. There have been judges who have made the wackiest, lest-legally-sound judgement I can recall, like ruling that the House can only subpoena documents from suspected criminals if the suspects agree.
Yet, many of the wacky Trump policies and pronouncements either simply died out without action, or are tied up in the courts (where he has generally lost). Not a mile of his wall has actually been built. Trump's claim of immunity against the emoluments clause has been rejected. His tax records will be opened, despite his claim that he is immune to investigation. So there's some life left in the ol' Constitution, after all.
QuoteIn my case, I'm willing to defer to those who know more about it and who are closer to the facts. Plus, I'd be delighted if the system proves, despite the last few years, robust.
I am perfectly willing to discuss realistic possibilities in terms of Trump shenanigans, but just can't accept the idea that Trump will be able to overturn an election because reasons that are so obvious they can't even be articulated.
Quote from: DGuller on June 03, 2020, 11:02:53 AM
I don't think people are disagreeing without out of emo necessarily, though I imagine it's possible that some are.
My statement was that the emo ones are the ones saying that the evidence-based logical approach is "naive," not the ones disagreeing with me. It is possible to argue against a point without making your argument about the author of the point.
QuoteI think the point of disagreement is the different degree of expectation that legalism would hold up when the shit hits the floor.
And I think that there could be an interesting intellectual discussion of a plausible scenario where Trump hijack the election, if it is possible for anyone to actually create such a scenario.
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2020, 10:23:46 AM
We've gone over this. Trump refuses to concede and refuses to leave the WH, and then the Secret Service ejects or maybe even arrests him. It's not like he has any power just because he says so. Even a compliant judiciary isn't going to let him remain president when he isn't legally entitled to do so.
I just think you're being naive. If Trump argues that the election was "rigged" and "unfair" and "unlawful" he very well may have the judiciary agreeing with him. And don't forget if he loses, he is still presdient until January, giving him plenty of time to rally support. The impeachment trial has totally emboldened him.
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2020, 11:37:01 AM
And I think that there could be an interesting intellectual discussion of a plausible scenario where Trump hijack the election, if it is possible for anyone to actually create such a scenario.
If such a scenario plays out, it may not sound plausible until it happens. It would be definition be "holy fuck, I didn't believe that this could actually happen here". But I do get your point that we can't just throw out every implausible-sounding scenario out there, because then there is just nothing substantial to debate.
Quote from: Josephus on June 03, 2020, 11:41:28 AM
I just think you're being naive. If Trump argues that the election was "rigged" and "unfair" and "unlawful" he very well may have the judiciary agreeing with him. And don't forget if he loses, he is still presdient until January, giving him plenty of time to rally support. The impeachment trial has totally emboldened him.
I just think you can't come up with an actual plausible scenario, so simply repeat that something bad could happen over and over to cover the lack. There's no point discussing this until you have an argument that foes beyond "maybe the bad man will do something bad."
Why is Jos scenario not plausible?
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2020, 12:02:33 PM
Quote from: Josephus on June 03, 2020, 11:41:28 AM
I just think you're being naive. If Trump argues that the election was "rigged" and "unfair" and "unlawful" he very well may have the judiciary agreeing with him. And don't forget if he loses, he is still presdient until January, giving him plenty of time to rally support. The impeachment trial has totally emboldened him.
I just think you can't come up with an actual plausible scenario, so simply repeat that something bad could happen over and over to cover the lack. There's no point discussing this until you have an argument that foes beyond "maybe the bad man will do something bad."
I've mentioned it before - I think the scenario goes something like this.
Trump is defeated: broadly in the popular vote, but more narrowly in the electoral college. Trump goes on an epic rant about how the election was fraudulent and stolen. One or two states are dominated by Republicans, but narrowly go for Biden. The Secretary of State refuses to ratify those results, citing Trump's claims of fraud. The state legislature then meets and passes a Trump slate of electors. This actually happened in Florida in 2000, but became moot when Bush v Gore came out. This would in fact appear to be constitutional, although wildly undemocratic. It gets challenged in the courts, but in a USSC with a conservative majority, it's upheld.
And there you go. That's how Trump steals the election. It's probably not exactly a coup as it would appear to be constitutional, but it's pretty close.
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2020, 12:19:53 PM
And there you go. That's how Trump steals the election. It's probably not exactly a coup as it would appear to be constitutional, but it's pretty close.
So not at all what has been raised as a concern then.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 03, 2020, 12:08:29 PM
Why is Jos scenario not plausible?
Because it isn't a scenario, it is just "Orange Man Bad." A scenario describes a specific possibility, not "suppose Spartacus had a Piper Cub."
Ok, so you are looking for details of a conspiracy.
One thing I can say about this topic is that I'm less skeptical now than I was a week ago of the possibility of Maidan here in US in case GOP pushes their democratic legitimacy to the breaking point. Hopefully Roberts and his ilk get the same impression, before they do anything stupid.
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2020, 12:19:53 PM
I've mentioned it before - I think the scenario goes something like this.
Trump is defeated: broadly in the popular vote, but more narrowly in the electoral college. Trump goes on an epic rant about how the election was fraudulent and stolen. One or two states are dominated by Republicans, but narrowly go for Biden. The Secretary of State refuses to ratify those results, citing Trump's claims of fraud. The state legislature then meets and passes a Trump slate of electors. This actually happened in Florida in 2000, but became moot when Bush v Gore came out. This would in fact appear to be constitutional, although wildly undemocratic. It gets challenged in the courts, but in a USSC with a conservative majority, it's upheld.
And there you go. That's how Trump steals the election. It's probably not exactly a coup as it would appear to be constitutional, but it's pretty close.
The fly in the ointment of this scenario is that state legislatures cannot change the rules on selecting electors after the election. The Constitution requires all electors to be selected on the same day. If a state cannot certify its electors by the method they have chosen for election day, then they don't have any electors at all.
Quote from: DGuller on June 03, 2020, 12:36:40 PM
One thing I can say about this topic is that I'm less skeptical now than I was a week ago of the possibility of Maidan here in US in case GOP pushes their democratic legitimacy to the breaking point. Hopefully Roberts and his ilk get the same impression, before they do anything stupid.
You misspelled Maidanek.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 03, 2020, 12:31:17 PM
Ok, so you are looking for details of a conspiracy.
Call it what you want, I am looking for the scenario (like BB proposed above).
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2020, 12:43:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2020, 12:19:53 PM
I've mentioned it before - I think the scenario goes something like this.
Trump is defeated: broadly in the popular vote, but more narrowly in the electoral college. Trump goes on an epic rant about how the election was fraudulent and stolen. One or two states are dominated by Republicans, but narrowly go for Biden. The Secretary of State refuses to ratify those results, citing Trump's claims of fraud. The state legislature then meets and passes a Trump slate of electors. This actually happened in Florida in 2000, but became moot when Bush v Gore came out. This would in fact appear to be constitutional, although wildly undemocratic. It gets challenged in the courts, but in a USSC with a conservative majority, it's upheld.
And there you go. That's how Trump steals the election. It's probably not exactly a coup as it would appear to be constitutional, but it's pretty close.
The fly in the ointment of this scenario is that state legislatures cannot change the rules on selecting electors after the election. The Constitution requires all electors to be selected on the same day. If a state cannot certify its electors by the method they have chosen for election day, then they don't have any electors at all.
But the electors are never selected on Election Day. It's not unusual to not even have the final counts done on election day, never mind the possibility of recounts. My recall from 2000 (which was about Florida, and other states may do the mechanics of it differently) is that the electors are only, finally, selected, when the Secretary of State certifies the result.
I'm not saying that such a scheme wouldn't be open to quite serious legal challenges, but if you think conservative judges are "all in" for Trump (which I'm not sure they are) there is a path to tyranny.
It's not that the state legislature goes ahead and has a second vote. It's just they assert that on election day Trump would have won without the nonexistent fraud, and use that as the basis to select a slate of Trump electors.
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2020, 01:02:09 PM
But the electors are never selected on Election Day. It's not unusual to not even have the final counts done on election day, never mind the possibility of recounts. My recall from 2000 (which was about Florida, and other states may do the mechanics of it differently) is that the electors are only, finally, selected, when the Secretary of State certifies the result.
I'm not saying that such a scheme wouldn't be open to quite serious legal challenges, but if you think conservative judges are "all in" for Trump (which I'm not sure they are) there is a path to tyranny.
It's not that the state legislature goes ahead and has a second vote. It's just they assert that on election day Trump would have won without the nonexistent fraud, and use that as the basis to select a slate of Trump electors.
I am not sure that I believe that the electors are no selected on election day. It is true that the results of the selection are not known until the election is certified, but the selection has occurred. Otherwise, it is the Secretary of State that actually selects them by certifying the vote, and that occurs on different days in each state, contrary to the Constitution's requirement that all selections occur on the same day.
You have given me the idea for a more plausible scenario in the same vein, though; suppose that Trump, believing that he will lose the vote in State X (or States X, Y, and Z) simply directs a complaisant legislature or legislatures to change the method of selecting electors
before the election so that the state legislatures select pro-Trump electors on election day, giving Trump the victory. that would not be a coup nor even a violation of the spirit of the Constitution. If he has the power to control the state legislatures after the election, he surely has it before the election. There is no need for any sort of conspiracy at all.
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2020, 12:19:53 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2020, 12:02:33 PM
Quote from: Josephus on June 03, 2020, 11:41:28 AM
I just think you're being naive. If Trump argues that the election was "rigged" and "unfair" and "unlawful" he very well may have the judiciary agreeing with him. And don't forget if he loses, he is still presdient until January, giving him plenty of time to rally support. The impeachment trial has totally emboldened him.
I just think you can't come up with an actual plausible scenario, so simply repeat that something bad could happen over and over to cover the lack. There's no point discussing this until you have an argument that foes beyond "maybe the bad man will do something bad."
I've mentioned it before - I think the scenario goes something like this.
Trump is defeated: broadly in the popular vote, but more narrowly in the electoral college. Trump goes on an epic rant about how the election was fraudulent and stolen. One or two states are dominated by Republicans, but narrowly go for Biden. The Secretary of State refuses to ratify those results, citing Trump's claims of fraud. The state legislature then meets and passes a Trump slate of electors. This actually happened in Florida in 2000, but became moot when Bush v Gore came out. This would in fact appear to be constitutional, although wildly undemocratic. It gets challenged in the courts, but in a USSC with a conservative majority, it's upheld.
And there you go. That's how Trump steals the election. It's probably not exactly a coup as it would appear to be constitutional, but it's pretty close.
What he said.
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2020, 12:26:14 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 03, 2020, 12:08:29 PM
Why is Jos scenario not plausible?
Because it isn't a scenario, it is just "Orange Man Bad." A scenario describes a specific possibility, not "suppose Spartacus had a Piper Cub."
No. that's not true. I laid out a general example of how Trump can say the election was rigged, unfair and unlawful and then uses his support in the senate and judiciary to declare the election null and void. BB, being a lawyer, argued my point for me better. You should see the bill he just sent me.
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2020, 11:37:01 AM
My statement was that the emo ones are the ones saying that the evidence-based logical approach is "naive," not the ones disagreeing with me. It is possible to argue against a point without making your argument about the author of the point.
:lmfao:
Not on Languish it isn't.
Actually, the problem with my scenario is it only works for Florida. Florida is the only swing state where Republicans control all three levels of state government ((legislature, senate, governor).
There are 20 other states where Republicans control the government, but they're all states Trump should win anyways.
I'm playing around with this map: https://www.270towin.com/
I mean sure there's some talk a Texas or Georgia could be in play (which are Republican controlled). But if Trump loses those states he's losing in a lot of other places too and wouldn't be remotely close to 270.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/6/3/21257133/trump-2020-election-meltdown-lawrence-douglas?fbclid=IwAR1UrmeiljANflo8qRRCzs3IE24uRV9IXw8om_pIFAHPUqBczY9HB4d4lxQ (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/6/3/21257133/trump-2020-election-meltdown-lawrence-douglas?fbclid=IwAR1UrmeiljANflo8qRRCzs3IE24uRV9IXw8om_pIFAHPUqBczY9HB4d4lxQ)
QuoteImagine that it's November 3, 2020, and Joe Biden has just been declared the winner of the presidential election by all the major networks except for Fox News. It was a close, bitter race, but Biden appears to have won with just over 280 electoral votes.
Because Election Day took place in the middle of a second wave of coronavirus infections, turnout was historically low and a huge number of votes were cast via absentee ballot. While Biden is the presumptive winner, the electoral process was bumpy, with thousands of mail-in votes in closely fought states still waiting to be counted. Trump, naturally, refuses to concede and spends election night tweeting about how "fraudulent" the vote was.
We knew this would be coming; he's been previewing this kind of response for a while now.
One day goes by, then a few more, and a month later Trump is still contesting the outcome, calling it "rigged" or a "Deep State plot" or whatever. Republicans, for the most part, are falling in line behind Trump. From that point forward, we're officially in a constitutional crisis.
This is the starting point of a new book by Amherst College law professor Lawrence Douglas called Will He Go? Trump and the Looming Election Meltdown in 2020. According to Douglas, a scenario like the one above is entirely possible, maybe even probable. And if nothing else, we've learned in the Trump era that we have to take the tail risks seriously. Douglas's book is an attempt to think through how we might deal with the constitutional chaos of an undecided — and perhaps undecidable — presidential election.
RELATED
Trump's push for "law and order" only led to more chaos in DC Monday night
I spoke to Douglas by phone about why he thinks our constitutional system isn't prepared for what might happen in November and why he's not worried about a stolen election so much as an election without an accepted result. "If things go a certain way," he told me, "there's a Chernobyl-like defect built into our system of presidential elections that really could lead to a meltdown."
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
Sean Illing
What worries you most about the November election?
Lawrence Douglas
To say that we're facing a perfect storm is clichéd, but it does strike me that there are a lot of things coming together that could spell for a chaotic election.
Foremost among them is the fact that we have a president of the United States who has pretty consistently and aggressively telegraphed his intention not to concede in the face of an electoral defeat, especially if that electoral defeat is of a very narrow margin. And it looks like it probably will be a narrow margin. In all likelihood, the 2020 election is going to turn on the results in probably the three swing states that determined the results in 2016: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
The other concern is that if we do fall into an electoral crisis and we start seeing the kinds of challenges to the results that we saw back in year 2000, during Bush v. Gore, then we could really see a meltdown because our contemporary political climate is so polarized. That's what led me to start asking, what types of federal laws do we have in place? What kind of constitutional procedures do we have in place to right the ship?
And what I found is that they just don't exist.
Sean Illing
What does that mean, exactly? Are we racing toward a constitutional crisis?
Lawrence Douglas
In a word, yes.
What makes our situation particularly dangerous is it's not simply the statements that come out of Trump. We're pretty used to Trump making statements that leave us all gobsmacked at this point. What worries me is that if there are going to be any guardrails protecting us from his attacks on the electoral process, it would have to come from the Republican Party. And we've seen that Republican lawmakers simply are not prepared to hold this guy to account.
We saw that in the impeachment proceeding, where it was really astonishing that you have Mitt Romney as the only Republican voting in the Senate to remove the president. And it was only, what, eight years ago that Mitt Romney was the standard-bearer of the party in the national election.
It's a pretty disturbing erosion of democratic norms.
Sean Illing
If you're right that the Republican Party isn't going to stand up for the rule of law, where does that leave us legally and politically?
Lawrence Douglas
If you have a president who is really pushing the argument that fraud cost him the election, he really does have the opportunity to push things to Congress. And what I mean by that is that Congress is the body that ultimately tallies Electoral College votes.
It's not inconceivable that you have states that submit competing electoral certificates. And I won't go into the nitty-gritty about how that happens, but it can happen. And if that happens and you have a split Congress between the Senate Republicans and the House Democrats, there is basically no way to resolve the dispute.
Sean Illing
Let's say that happens and we enter January 2021 without a political consensus on who won the election. What then?
Lawrence Douglas
I'm not trying to be an alarmist here, but it's possible to imagine, come January 20, that we don't have a president. By the terms of the 20th Amendment, Trump ceases to be president at noon on January 20 and [Mike] Pence likewise ceases to be vice president.
At this point, by the terms of the presidential succession act of 1947, the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, could become acting president, but only if she resigns her House seat. But what if Trump continues to insist that he has been reelected and is the rightful president? Imagine if, come January 20, Trump stages his own inauguration ceremony with Clarence Thomas issuing the oath of office.
Then we might have Nancy Pelosi and Trump both claiming to be the commander in chief. This is a world of hurt.
Sean Illing
What about the Supreme Court?
Lawrence Douglas
I think a lot of people assume the Supreme Court would step in and end things before they got too chaotic. This is more or less what happened in 2000.
But it's very misleading to think that it was the Supreme Court that settled the 2000 election. It really wasn't the Supreme Court in the decision Bush v. Gore that ended things — it was Al Gore. Al Gore, for the good of the country, decided to accept the Supreme Court's ruling. I'd say it's impossible to imagine Trump doing anything like that.
Besides, if it did intervene, I'm not sure that Congress would abide by a court ruling. Because so many experts [here and here] say the Court really doesn't have jurisdiction to resolve an electoral dispute once it hits Congress.
Sean Illing
Let's imagine that the election happens and Biden wins convincingly enough that the vast majority of the country, even most Republicans, accept the outcome. In that case, Trump — and a small wing of hardliners — may refuse to concede, but both parties basically accept the results.
What happens then? Would federal marshals have to go in and drag Trump out of the White House?
Lawrence Douglas
Here's the thing: That's not the scenario I'm worried about. If Trump loses decisively, I think his opportunities for creating mayhem will be dramatically curtailed
What worries me is that I don't see him losing in that fashion. I could certainly imagine him losing decisively in the popular vote, as he did in 2016, but I can't imagine him losing that decisively in the Electoral College. And everything will turn on what happens in these swing states.
This is going to be an election that is conducted under very unusual circumstances. There are going to be potentially chaotic scenes at polling stations, and god forbid there's a fresh outbreak of Covid-19 in the fall. Then you're also going to have millions of people voting by mail-in.
Sean Illing
Why is that a problem?
Lawrence Douglas
Well, these mail-in ballots are not going to get counted by November 3. That gives someone like Trump space to create incredible chaos.
Imagine a swing state like Michigan. Imagine the November 3 popular vote appears to go to Trump by a small margin. So he declares that he's won Michigan. And Michigan defines the margin of victory in the Electoral College, so he declares that he's been reelected.
Well, as these write-in ballots and these mail-in ballots are counted in the next days, there's this phenomenon that we've seen in the last several elections called the "blue shift." It tends to be the case that mail-in ballots break Democratic. It's typically the case that mail-in ballots come from urban areas, which are predominantly Democratic in their voting patterns.
And so in this case, it's entirely possible that Trump is trailing once all the votes are counted. But then he says, "Those votes are bogus. They shouldn't be counted." And if you look at the political profile of Michigan, again, you find this kind of perfect storm brewing, because the Republicans control the statehouse in Lansing. So let's say they all support Trump, and they all say, "Yeah, we're going to go with the Election Day results. We're going to give our electoral votes all to Trump."
Then we've got total chaos.
Sean Illing
But the governor of Michigan is a Democrat, and my understanding is that it's the governor, along with the secretary of state and the board of electors, who sends the electoral certificate to Congress.
Is that right?
Lawrence Douglas
That's correct. It's the governor who is responsible under federal law to send the electoral certificate of the state to Congress. But that is not to say that the state legislature is barred from sending its own certificate to Congress. You might say, "Well, then, isn't the governor's certificate the proper certificate?" and the answer is that it's up to Congress to make that determination. And if one House accepts the governor's certificate and the other accepts the legislature's certificate, then we're in a stalemate.
Sean Illing
So your main worry is not that the election will be stolen so much as we'll be left without a result?
Lawrence Douglas
Exactly.
Sean Illing
The situation you're describing is almost unthinkable: We have an election and there's simply no binding result.
Lawrence Douglas
Again, I'm not trying to be an alarmist.
Sean Illing
This is pretty damn alarming, Lawrence.
Lawrence Douglas
Look, one of the main points of my book was to say, "Hello, people. If things go a certain way, there's a Chernobyl-like defect built into our system of presidential elections that really could lead to a meltdown."
Sean Illing
Are there any precedents for this?
Lawrence Douglas
We came very close to having something like this happen back in 1876. There was this Hayes-Tilden election, in which three separate states submitted competing electoral certificates to Congress. Congress was likewise divided between House Democrats and Senate Republicans, and they couldn't figure anything out. It was a total stalemate. They eventually jerry-rigged a solution, but that solution only worked because Samuel Tilden, the Democratic candidate, agreed to concede.
Again, I don't see Trump doing that.
Sean Illing
This is an astonishing hole in our Constitution. It's another example of our reliance on norms, not laws or institutions, to keep things humming along.
Lawrence Douglas
It's such a great point. When I was researching the book, I was asking myself, well, what does the Constitution and the federal law do in order to secure the peaceful transition of power? And one of the things that I realized is they don't secure the peaceful succession of power. They presuppose it. They assume that it's going to happen. So if it doesn't happen, well, no one knows ...
Sean Illing
Now, on to another worry: Could the election be postponed?
Lawrence Douglas
No, I don't think so. The president can't do that, because Election Day is set by federal law. You could have Congress change the election, but that would require bicameral support and bipartisan support, and that seems highly unlikely.
Sean Illing
It feels almost pointless to ask this question, but I'll do it anyway: Are you confident that our constitutional system can handle what's potentially coming in November?
Lawrence Douglas
No. I have incredible respect and admiration for our constitutional system, but I'll go back to one of the points you made, which is that the system really assumes that political actors have absorbed the norms that make the system work. But if you have a president who ignores those norms; if you have a party that ignores those norms, that continues to facilitate the rejection of those norms; and if you have a fractured media universe that rewards the president for rejecting those norms, then we're in a very dangerous situation.
The only real way to avoid this is to make sure we don't enter into this scenario, and the best way to do that is to ensure that he loses decisively in November. That's the best guarantee. That's the best way that we can secure the future of a healthy constitutional democracy.
Interesting article Raz.
Yeah, Raz, that's a good article, and presents an interesting scenario. The part that works is the part where states can submit competing slates of electors with different results. 3 USC 15 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15) provides that the governor's list shall be the official list, but it is possible that a governor may submit two different lists, for whatever reason, and the Congress has to decide which to accept (or neither, or both!). Since any given list is only rejected if both houses vote to reject it, it seems to me quite possible that each house votes to accept a different one, in which case both lists would seem to be accepted (provided no law has been made in the state to resolve this kind of issue). The key here is that nothing is rejected unless both chambers vote to reject it.
I don't think that the part about the legislature of the state voting post hoc to accept the results only from election day and not from mail-in ballots works, though. The legislatures don't have that power, and I cannot see John Roberts voting in an appeal to retroactively give them that power. Again, however, if it is argued that Trump has that power to compel states and the courts, he doesn't need to wait until the election to wield it. He can change the election law in the state he holds in thrall before the election and avoid the controversy.
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2020, 03:09:50 PM
Yeah, Raz, that's a good article, and presents an interesting scenario. The part that works is the part where states can submit competing slates of electors with different results. 3 USC 15 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15) provides that the governor's list shall be the official list, but it is possible that a governor may submit two different lists, for whatever reason, and the Congress has to decide which to accept (or neither, or both!). Since any given list is only rejected if both houses vote to reject it, it seems to me quite possible that each house votes to accept a different one, in which case both lists would seem to be accepted (provided no law has been made in the state to resolve this kind of issue). The key here is that nothing is rejected unless both chambers vote to reject it.
I don't think that the part about the legislature of the state voting post hoc to accept the results only from election day and not from mail-in ballots works, though. The legislatures don't have that power, and I cannot see John Roberts voting in an appeal to retroactively give them that power. Again, however, if it is argued that Trump has that power to compel states and the courts, he doesn't need to wait until the election to wield it. He can change the election law in the state he holds in thrall before the election and avoid the controversy.
As I understand it, the idea isn't that the states gain this power, it's that it's up to Congress to resolve any dispute.
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2020, 04:05:02 PM
As I understand it, the idea isn't that the states gain this power, it's that it's up to Congress to resolve any dispute.
His scenario has the state legislature seizing the power to retroactively invalidate write-in votes:
QuoteAnd so in this case, it's entirely possible that Trump is trailing once all the votes are counted. But then he says, "Those votes are bogus. They shouldn't be counted." And if you look at the political profile of Michigan, again, you find this kind of perfect storm brewing, because the Republicans control the statehouse in Lansing. So let's say they all support Trump, and they all say, "Yeah, we're going to go with the Election Day results. We're going to give our electoral votes all to Trump."
Then we've got total chaos.
Sean Illing
But the governor of Michigan is a Democrat, and my understanding is that it's the governor, along with the secretary of state and the board of electors, who sends the electoral certificate to Congress.
Is that right?
Lawrence Douglas
That's correct. It's the governor who is responsible under federal law to send the electoral certificate of the state to Congress. But that is not to say that the state legislature is barred from sending its own certificate to Congress. You might say, "Well, then, isn't the governor's certificate the proper certificate?" and the answer is that it's up to Congress to make that determination. And if one House accepts the governor's certificate and the other accepts the legislature's certificate, then we're in a stalemate.
The law says explicitly that, barring state provisions to the contrary (which Michigan does not have), the governor's certificate is the authentic one:
QuoteIf more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed... 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
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15) (my bold)
Both houses would have to agree that the governor's vote tally was invalid in order to make the Republican challenge stick.
Here's what to watch for:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/donald-trump-election-disruption-2020-294721
QuoteThe point is that today's Republican Party wouldn't object to a Trumpian power grab, even if it amounted to a military coup. On the contrary, the party would cheer it on
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/opinion/trump-nixon.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
I have to wonder whether all this talk may be a self fulfilling prophecy. Spell out tactics trump can use to keep hold of power and how little can be done and he will be pushed towards giving it a try
Quote from: Josephus on June 05, 2020, 07:33:35 AM
Here's what to watch for:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/donald-trump-election-disruption-2020-294721
That is worrisome tactics but, as the article points out, this is what Republicans have been doing for years. The CDC itself says that it only has power (delegated by the president to the Secretary of HHS, and by him to the CDC) to act when dealing with "persons arriving into the United States and traveling between states"
QuoteUnder 42 Code of Federal Regulations parts 70 and 71, CDC is authorized to detain, medically examine, and release persons arriving into the United States and traveling between states who are suspected of carrying these communicable diseases.
https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html (https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html)
An attempt by the Trump administration to stop intrastate travel for the purposes of voting would, at a minimum, be stayed by the state courts when challenged by state officials. Presumably, state officials in states dominated by Republicans would obey trump's order, but that would just give more power to the states that are dominated by Democrats. Appeals to federal courts would, as the article says, take forever and not likely impact the elections.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2020, 09:11:00 AM
QuoteThe point is that today's Republican Party wouldn't object to a Trumpian power grab, even if it amounted to a military coup. On the contrary, the party would cheer it on
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/opinion/trump-nixon.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/opinion/trump-nixon.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage)
Krugman mentions and incident that I've been thinking of quite a bit. One night Nixon just left the White House and talked to protesters at the Lincoln Memorial. It was a very strange event, and was probably brought on, in part, by the mental strain Nixon was under. Nixon was ruthless and dishonest but he still gave a shit. He acted the way he did because he thought it benefited the country. He did things that were wrong, often illegal, but he had a reason for doing them. With Trump there is only Trump. He does things because it either benefits him or it just amuses him. Sometimes the things he says or does don't appear to serve any purpose. Policy is frequently changed to match what ever loopy shit that Trump has said that day.
Example: Nixon ended the Vietnam war (or at least the US portion of it) because it was clear the war could not be won and the continued fighting was tearing the US apart. Trump has given his blessing to ending the Afghan war but immediately scrapped it when he thought he wouldn't get a photo-op.
I mean Nixon was also meddling to scupper the Paris peace talks to win an election, I mean how many lives did that cost (ignoring the expansion of Vietnam)? He maybe thought he really needed to win over Humphrey for the good of the country, but it was also for his own benefit.
It's pretty common for high level politicians to conflate whats good for them as being what's good for the country.
But with Trump the good of the country never seems to figure into his thinking at all.
Yeah my point is Nixon actually colluded with foreign politicians to undermine peace negotiations involving the US. Let's not go crazy in the Nixon revisionism.
Trump colludes with foreign politicians because he gets a funny feeling in his vagina when he thinks they approve of him. Nixon did it to get an advantage.