Coup or counter?
December 9, 2020 6:55 AM Subscribe
Turkey, Poland, or America? Zeynep Tufekci argues that Trump is attempting a coup to stay in power after losing last month's election. She then invites MetaFilter's own Maciej Ceglowski to offer an opposing perspective and hosts his rebuttal in her same Substack transmission.
"It’s well worth-reading as he’s making a strong argument—even though I obviously disagree with it!"
"It’s well worth-reading as he’s making a strong argument—even though I obviously disagree with it!"
I'm firmly on Tufekci's side of the argument.
Check out question 4 and the crosstabs.
Democracy is being stretched to its partisan limits.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:13 AM on December 9, 2020 [14 favorites]
Check out question 4 and the crosstabs.
Democracy is being stretched to its partisan limits.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:13 AM on December 9, 2020 [14 favorites]
It seems to me that these arguments are not mutually exclusive — Tufekci warns that future coups will likely be more competent, while Ceglowski argues that Republicans have a legitimate path to electoral victory available to them. These both seem clearly true, and clearly worth worrying about, the only question is how much effort to spend on preventing one versus the other.
posted by wesleyac at 8:06 AM on December 9, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by wesleyac at 8:06 AM on December 9, 2020 [9 favorites]
I don't really get Ceglowski's take. He's certainly correct that Democrats should worry about losing in a fair fight to Republicans and should change strategy to address their legitimate losses. He's also right that we have to find new strategies to address the extreme polarization of the electorate. But neither of these arguments contradicts Tufekci's point. All 3 threats to our politics can exist at once!
The biggest lesson I think we should all learn from the last 4 years of politics is: events don't just happen - they are made - by motivated actors. Wild shit can be pulled off by people who work hard at it. Our choices shape outcomes, and as norms we'd grown accustomed to bend wildly in unpredictable directions, we have proof that we can't predict the future - so therefore are obligated to try to bend the future toward safety and justice. We don't have to be alarmist - to cry wolf - but we can still stand up against Trump's ham-handed attempts at a coup. And the Democratic Party's refusal to even acknowledge that it's happening is a bet that could be wrong. Trump, as we know, will do whatever he can get away with. If we do nothing to oppose him, he is more likely to get away with it.
I really like Tufekci's project here of hosting respectful disagreement with her position on her own site.
posted by latkes at 8:09 AM on December 9, 2020 [32 favorites]
The biggest lesson I think we should all learn from the last 4 years of politics is: events don't just happen - they are made - by motivated actors. Wild shit can be pulled off by people who work hard at it. Our choices shape outcomes, and as norms we'd grown accustomed to bend wildly in unpredictable directions, we have proof that we can't predict the future - so therefore are obligated to try to bend the future toward safety and justice. We don't have to be alarmist - to cry wolf - but we can still stand up against Trump's ham-handed attempts at a coup. And the Democratic Party's refusal to even acknowledge that it's happening is a bet that could be wrong. Trump, as we know, will do whatever he can get away with. If we do nothing to oppose him, he is more likely to get away with it.
I really like Tufekci's project here of hosting respectful disagreement with her position on her own site.
posted by latkes at 8:09 AM on December 9, 2020 [32 favorites]
That the current political situation (a minority party threatens the Union in order to preserve power over the majority) has played out in the US before, during the run-up to the Civil War, suggests that the current circumstances should be treated seriously. The forces at work here are larger than individual actors.
posted by SPrintF at 8:14 AM on December 9, 2020 [19 favorites]
posted by SPrintF at 8:14 AM on December 9, 2020 [19 favorites]
that is some stunning rhetorical power - a five-star essay. I'd suggest huxley would bestow his approval, even.
a clear warning that we shouldn't fall into the same trap as the political scribes, imho.
posted by j_curiouser at 8:24 AM on December 9, 2020 [5 favorites]
a clear warning that we shouldn't fall into the same trap as the political scribes, imho.
Coup may not quite capture what we’re witnessing...Punditry can tend to focus too much on decorum and terminology...conflating the ridiculous with the unserious.[my bold, ed.]Terrific post, ty.
posted by j_curiouser at 8:24 AM on December 9, 2020 [5 favorites]
I don't see how there can be any question now that if the election was closer that Trump would have a real shot at pulling this off, and the entire Republican party would have backed it like they are doing now.
Also, if it had been closer, his competent lawyers would not have dropped off the cases in embarrassment.
posted by BungaDunga at 9:01 AM on December 9, 2020 [20 favorites]
Also, if it had been closer, his competent lawyers would not have dropped off the cases in embarrassment.
posted by BungaDunga at 9:01 AM on December 9, 2020 [20 favorites]
These Trump lawsuits are badly written and doomed to fail, yes, but they are still serious.
Totally agree. Because a lot of the narrative has highlighted the incompetence, comedy and futility of the lawsuits it's tempting to see them as not serious.
But by the same token, were one or more of these long-shots to pay off, do we think that Trump et al would actually say, "Nah, we're good, Joe can have the White House - we weren't actually serious".
No, these fuckers are playing for real. Not playing well thankfully, but they are doing this for real.
posted by jontyjago at 9:04 AM on December 9, 2020 [24 favorites]
Totally agree. Because a lot of the narrative has highlighted the incompetence, comedy and futility of the lawsuits it's tempting to see them as not serious.
But by the same token, were one or more of these long-shots to pay off, do we think that Trump et al would actually say, "Nah, we're good, Joe can have the White House - we weren't actually serious".
No, these fuckers are playing for real. Not playing well thankfully, but they are doing this for real.
posted by jontyjago at 9:04 AM on December 9, 2020 [24 favorites]
I'm also in the choir that finds (one of) Ceglowski's core points that Democrats desperately need to do better at downballot fights is very painfully true...but doesn't actually counter or refute Tufekci's points about the attempted coup, and the roadmap that's being right-out-there drafted for even marginally more competent would-be autocrats down the road (and probably not very far down that road).
Sidenote: it wasn't so much a record-scratch as an ugly chord, but:
"Calling anything a 'coup' in these circumstances—even if you search for just the right Inuit word to capture its nuance—seems a little extravagant"
is...well, that ugly chord. My own inner Shame Homunculus (you know the one; the little guy in your brain who likes to suddenly poke at you right when you're falling asleep to remind you about that time when) has some experience with wanting a clever turn of phrase and not recognizing how ugly it could land, so I get it. Still, minor yikes.
posted by Drastic at 9:09 AM on December 9, 2020 [8 favorites]
Sidenote: it wasn't so much a record-scratch as an ugly chord, but:
"Calling anything a 'coup' in these circumstances—even if you search for just the right Inuit word to capture its nuance—seems a little extravagant"
is...well, that ugly chord. My own inner Shame Homunculus (you know the one; the little guy in your brain who likes to suddenly poke at you right when you're falling asleep to remind you about that time when) has some experience with wanting a clever turn of phrase and not recognizing how ugly it could land, so I get it. Still, minor yikes.
posted by Drastic at 9:09 AM on December 9, 2020 [8 favorites]
At this point, I have to ask myself, is this really a coup, or just a con on Trump's fan base to steal their money?
Some sort of unreality show?
posted by nickggully at 9:11 AM on December 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
Some sort of unreality show?
posted by nickggully at 9:11 AM on December 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
The stream of comically bad lawsuits cannot be intended to win in court. Rather, they are an attempt to 1) somehow create an appeal to the Supreme Court out of being told repeatedly that they don't have standing, or have no evidence, or seek a remedy that the court cannot provide, and 2) legitimize the allegations of fraud by repetition, and create a stab-in-the-back narrative from the courts throwing out or denying their lawsuits, to provide cover for GOP legislatures to overturn results and appoint Trump electors.
posted by thelonius at 9:16 AM on December 9, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by thelonius at 9:16 AM on December 9, 2020 [7 favorites]
No, these fuckers are playing for real. Not playing well thankfully, but they are doing this for real.
You can easily imagine a counterfactual reality where Biden did not win Arizona and Georgia, so that the election turned on Michigan and Pennsylvania. Rather than lawyers who wouldn't sign their names to affidavits with no hope to change an election, Trump would have an army of socially legitimized "legal scholars" lining up behind him to dig up more affidavits, more irregularities, more nickel-and-dime errors that could be shoved into a legal coin roll conveniently labeled with a value 100x any possible truth. In doing this, we would see an apparently legitimate court case, and Republicans would dutifully and uniformly decry the election as foul.
Only the magnitude of the win has insulated us from this outcome. We essentially saw this play out in Florida in 2000, but with a hint of decorum attached, so that we all decided (in essence), Well sure, we have to pick a president at some point, and I guess the Supremes have done that for us and we'll just roll with it.
They've only got the B/C team out there because it seems pointless to back this particular effort at this particular time. Down 42 in the 4th quarter, trying to intentionally hurt players on the opposing team just seems pointless. But if it's a 4-point game and you have a chance to win? Blindside blocks, hits to the head, and a well-placed trip or two might make all the difference, especially if the refs are on your side.
posted by ptfe at 9:21 AM on December 9, 2020 [35 favorites]
You can easily imagine a counterfactual reality where Biden did not win Arizona and Georgia, so that the election turned on Michigan and Pennsylvania. Rather than lawyers who wouldn't sign their names to affidavits with no hope to change an election, Trump would have an army of socially legitimized "legal scholars" lining up behind him to dig up more affidavits, more irregularities, more nickel-and-dime errors that could be shoved into a legal coin roll conveniently labeled with a value 100x any possible truth. In doing this, we would see an apparently legitimate court case, and Republicans would dutifully and uniformly decry the election as foul.
Only the magnitude of the win has insulated us from this outcome. We essentially saw this play out in Florida in 2000, but with a hint of decorum attached, so that we all decided (in essence), Well sure, we have to pick a president at some point, and I guess the Supremes have done that for us and we'll just roll with it.
They've only got the B/C team out there because it seems pointless to back this particular effort at this particular time. Down 42 in the 4th quarter, trying to intentionally hurt players on the opposing team just seems pointless. But if it's a 4-point game and you have a chance to win? Blindside blocks, hits to the head, and a well-placed trip or two might make all the difference, especially if the refs are on your side.
posted by ptfe at 9:21 AM on December 9, 2020 [35 favorites]
At the risk of conflating the ridiculous with the unserious, I´m confused as to why it isn´t treason for Trump to ask government officials to disenfranchise millions of voters ? A serious question, not sarcasm. Isn´t he asking for the overthrow of the legally elected government of the U.S.?
posted by olykate at 9:22 AM on December 9, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by olykate at 9:22 AM on December 9, 2020 [5 favorites]
And while some GOP lawmakers have acknowledged Biden’s victory, most prefer to keep quiet, letting the process play out “organically,” as one aide put it, into January.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 9:24 AM on December 9, 2020
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 9:24 AM on December 9, 2020
At this point, I have to ask myself, is this really a coup, or just a con on Trump's fan base to steal their money?
Por que no los dos?
Ignoring the whole "he never even wanted to win the election in 2016 to begin with" aspect, I think you can con people for their money and simultaneously play legal Calvinabll on the off chance that something sticks and you, I don't know, stay out of prison or whatever.
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.
posted by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug at 9:45 AM on December 9, 2020 [11 favorites]
Por que no los dos?
Ignoring the whole "he never even wanted to win the election in 2016 to begin with" aspect, I think you can con people for their money and simultaneously play legal Calvinabll on the off chance that something sticks and you, I don't know, stay out of prison or whatever.
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.
posted by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug at 9:45 AM on December 9, 2020 [11 favorites]
I especially love when taking seriously the possible outcomes of a generational stacking of the courts with right-wing zealots coupled with a fascist desperate to cling to power (in a world where the SC has already stolen an election at least once) results in getting scolded as being a "certain type of liberal" .
posted by lazaruslong at 9:51 AM on December 9, 2020 [14 favorites]
posted by lazaruslong at 9:51 AM on December 9, 2020 [14 favorites]
I'm reminded of an observation from decades ago that the Trump regime was trying to treat COVID-19 like a human enemy that could be intimidated and demotivated, and therefore keeping calm, carrying on, and not hiding at home, was the best response. I think this is a similar thing, but with more foundation, where it's treating the election like a negotiation which is being conducted on many levels to decide which firm will be awarded the big Government contract for the next 4 years. At the moment, preliminary views don't look favourable, but if they can persuade a few key stakeholders to change their minds on it, they might still land it, and if they don't it's looking pretty bad financially, so they need to throw everything they can at it.
He fundamentally doesn't understand that COVID-19 is barely a form of life, and he definitely doesn't understand that the outcome of the election is already determined by the votes already cast (the lawsuits refer to votes cast, but that's just the form of negotiation at present: the real thinking is "win the lawsuit, land the contract").
The disturbing thing is, while virions of COVID-19 remain implacable in the face of Republican defiance, a lot of people in America seem to be buying in to the idea that the election is the midpoint of a presidential campaign, and a big indicator of who might finally sit in the Oval Office. And Ceglowski is right - there wasn't a ridiculous amount of violence or intimidation from "Poll Watchers" on the day, and the votes put in the boxes came from actual voters and were counted. And judges are so far treating the serious negotiations as if they were frivolous lawsuits (addressing the form rather than the content), and dismissing them. But future judges will be selected by the survivors of 2020, principally by the losing side, and there is a huge bias against smacking this sort of thing down with the custodial banhammer it deserves, and little appetite for nerfing the role of president (a bit of long-overdue game-balancing).
posted by Wrinkled Stumpskin at 9:59 AM on December 9, 2020 [11 favorites]
He fundamentally doesn't understand that COVID-19 is barely a form of life, and he definitely doesn't understand that the outcome of the election is already determined by the votes already cast (the lawsuits refer to votes cast, but that's just the form of negotiation at present: the real thinking is "win the lawsuit, land the contract").
The disturbing thing is, while virions of COVID-19 remain implacable in the face of Republican defiance, a lot of people in America seem to be buying in to the idea that the election is the midpoint of a presidential campaign, and a big indicator of who might finally sit in the Oval Office. And Ceglowski is right - there wasn't a ridiculous amount of violence or intimidation from "Poll Watchers" on the day, and the votes put in the boxes came from actual voters and were counted. And judges are so far treating the serious negotiations as if they were frivolous lawsuits (addressing the form rather than the content), and dismissing them. But future judges will be selected by the survivors of 2020, principally by the losing side, and there is a huge bias against smacking this sort of thing down with the custodial banhammer it deserves, and little appetite for nerfing the role of president (a bit of long-overdue game-balancing).
posted by Wrinkled Stumpskin at 9:59 AM on December 9, 2020 [11 favorites]
Isn't the obvious point here that no matter how transparently ridiculous many of the Trump challenges to the election results may be.. No matter how farcical his tweets may be.. isn't it obvious by now that there are millions of people who don't care? And social media (and the media environment in general) is rapidly filling any space to budge that needle, and fueling the willful ignorance?
Isn't it obvious? How is it not obvious that this is not both distressingly stupid and incredibly dangerous?
posted by elkevelvet at 10:02 AM on December 9, 2020 [14 favorites]
Isn't it obvious? How is it not obvious that this is not both distressingly stupid and incredibly dangerous?
posted by elkevelvet at 10:02 AM on December 9, 2020 [14 favorites]
well, yes. but not to the ignorant, or willfully ignorant. or the press, who easily pretended everything was fine for four years.
posted by j_curiouser at 10:20 AM on December 9, 2020
posted by j_curiouser at 10:20 AM on December 9, 2020
Trump became president by accident in 2016 trying to drum up excitement for his brand and indulging his ego.
It would deeply hilarious if he became president for life doing the exact same thing in 2020.
posted by Reyturner at 10:27 AM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
It would deeply hilarious if he became president for life doing the exact same thing in 2020.
posted by Reyturner at 10:27 AM on December 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
I´m confused as to why it isn´t treason for Trump to ask government officials to disenfranchise millions of voters ? A serious question, not sarcasm. Isn´t he asking for the overthrow of the legally elected government of the U.S.?
The US Constitution explicitly limits what counts as treason: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
Morally speaking it's closer to sedition, though it's probably not criminal sedition. However, conspiring to throw out votes is a state crime in (at least) Georgia, so Trump's pressure campaign to have votes summarily thrown out is plausibly a crime under Georgia law.
posted by BungaDunga at 10:32 AM on December 9, 2020 [11 favorites]
The US Constitution explicitly limits what counts as treason: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
Morally speaking it's closer to sedition, though it's probably not criminal sedition. However, conspiring to throw out votes is a state crime in (at least) Georgia, so Trump's pressure campaign to have votes summarily thrown out is plausibly a crime under Georgia law.
posted by BungaDunga at 10:32 AM on December 9, 2020 [11 favorites]
That is to say: just asking for the overthrow of the USG happens all the time and is protected speech and not illegal. Actually doing something about it is probably sedition, but usually you have to use force for it to be criminal, and it's not exactly a law designed to be used against the sitting president. Also, Bill Barr would be in charge of prosecution, and besides, the US DoJ has a position of not prosecuting a sitting president. And Trump could self-pardon as his last act in office, so even if he committed sedition or treason, he could plausibly claim to have immunized himself against any criminal penalty.
posted by BungaDunga at 10:37 AM on December 9, 2020
posted by BungaDunga at 10:37 AM on December 9, 2020
At this point, I have to ask myself, is this really a coup, or just a con on Trump's fan base to steal their money?
I think kayfabe is a helpful lens to look at this current period. The key thing about kayfabe is it's both transparently fake and yet also meaningfully real at the same time. Every politician and lawyer associated with Trump understands he has no chance of winning the election via these lawsuits. They all understand Trump lost. At the same time, they are all also fully committed to expressing the idea that the election was stolen and that if they just push the case hard enough they will win.
In wrestling kayfabe's unreality ultimately works because the show is fully scripted. If the script says Roman Reigns is going to have a heel turn, lose a match, then come back as a hero and win that's what will be made to happen. In politics though that's not quite true. Trump has been successful at bending reality to his insane fantasies many times, but not this time. However the kayfabe still serves a purpose. It gives for the Trump people a script to go out fighting on. One that accomplishes their goal of undermining American democracy. One that's raised at least $170M for him and the Republicans to spend how they want. One that sets him up for continued destruction of our country during the Biden presidency and possibly a run in 2024. The fact that their actions are literally destroying the country doesn't matter to them, because they are committed to the kayfabe and its payoff.
(Trump and kayfabe is not an original idea. Trump himself was briefly a WWW cast member.)
posted by Nelson at 10:38 AM on December 9, 2020 [19 favorites]
I think kayfabe is a helpful lens to look at this current period. The key thing about kayfabe is it's both transparently fake and yet also meaningfully real at the same time. Every politician and lawyer associated with Trump understands he has no chance of winning the election via these lawsuits. They all understand Trump lost. At the same time, they are all also fully committed to expressing the idea that the election was stolen and that if they just push the case hard enough they will win.
In wrestling kayfabe's unreality ultimately works because the show is fully scripted. If the script says Roman Reigns is going to have a heel turn, lose a match, then come back as a hero and win that's what will be made to happen. In politics though that's not quite true. Trump has been successful at bending reality to his insane fantasies many times, but not this time. However the kayfabe still serves a purpose. It gives for the Trump people a script to go out fighting on. One that accomplishes their goal of undermining American democracy. One that's raised at least $170M for him and the Republicans to spend how they want. One that sets him up for continued destruction of our country during the Biden presidency and possibly a run in 2024. The fact that their actions are literally destroying the country doesn't matter to them, because they are committed to the kayfabe and its payoff.
(Trump and kayfabe is not an original idea. Trump himself was briefly a WWW cast member.)
posted by Nelson at 10:38 AM on December 9, 2020 [19 favorites]
coupfabe
posted by chortly at 10:49 AM on December 9, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by chortly at 10:49 AM on December 9, 2020 [11 favorites]
When the House meets on Jan 6, Dems should nominate Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson as Speaker. If the Senate Republicans try to flip the table, then they'll have to taste what Acting President The Rock is cookin'.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 10:53 AM on December 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 10:53 AM on December 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
This has all been quite disheartening for me, though I don't know why I would have expected better. If virtually no Republicans have the courage to speak up now, when it doesn't really matter, why would anyone expect them to stick their neck out next time if there's a chance it might work and the stakes are higher?
posted by ghharr at 10:59 AM on December 9, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by ghharr at 10:59 AM on December 9, 2020 [11 favorites]
>And Trump could self-pardon as his last act in office, so even if he committed sedition or treason, he could plausibly claim to have immunized himself against any criminal penalty.
A pardon has to erase the consequences of fact-in-law criminal/civil charges and it doesn't erase the admission of those crimes. There's something of Schrodinger's Cat to a pre-emptive pardon: it must admit there was a crime to bring leniency for the consequential incarceration, fines or other sentencing*. I don't see any space in the Work for President Trump to admit it was a Work, grift, con or other scam.
*: justice isn't solely punitive but pardons are mostly about reprieve from punishment.
posted by k3ninho at 11:29 AM on December 9, 2020
A pardon has to erase the consequences of fact-in-law criminal/civil charges and it doesn't erase the admission of those crimes. There's something of Schrodinger's Cat to a pre-emptive pardon: it must admit there was a crime to bring leniency for the consequential incarceration, fines or other sentencing*. I don't see any space in the Work for President Trump to admit it was a Work, grift, con or other scam.
*: justice isn't solely punitive but pardons are mostly about reprieve from punishment.
posted by k3ninho at 11:29 AM on December 9, 2020
In private, I suspect many (most?) Republicans despise Trump. But, they also recognize that he's exactly the guy who can bring them everything they've ever wet-dreamed of; burning the federal government to the ground. So, they're holding their noses and following in lockstep with him, come hell or high water. That Trump is also siphoning millions in tax dollars into his own pockets is a non-issue for them.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:31 AM on December 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Thorzdad at 11:31 AM on December 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
Seventeen states filed an amicus at SCOTUS in support of the Texas AG's request to throw out votes in four other states. Filing incoherent lawsuits is the new Benghazi.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 12:15 PM on December 9, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 12:15 PM on December 9, 2020 [6 favorites]
One thing I have noticed over the past four years is that a lot of people - especially relatively comfortable people in positions where their privilege shields them from direct consequences - have a frequent tendency to view actions by Trumpists or other fascists/authoritarians worldwide as "grifts" or "distractions" or "incompetence," and then shrug off the seriousness of them. But these actions are never without aims, and never purely one thing. There is often a primary aim and then bundled tertiary aims. The Republican strategy remained the same before and after election night, but the primary/tertiary aims changed somewhat. I think the primary aim of the lawsuits is not to actually win any of these cases in court (though Republicans do want this, eventually - as long as Trump's justices remain on the SC, they can afford to be patient; and we all know that they would gleefully accept any court victories) but to sow distrust of the electoral process and judicial systems and cast the election results into doubt, for the purpose of mobilizing violence via stochastic terrorism and likely directly overthrowing democracy further down the road. In that, they have been alarmingly successful. The largely apathetic response from people in positions of power has quite frankly made me escalate some personal contingency plans. We avoided the nightmare scenario, for which I am grateful, but if we cannot even publicly acknowledge the risks inherent in what Republicans are doing as a party, then we are going to be in for a bad time. It's not an exaggeration to say that I hope every day the US manages to deescalate from this situation and recover, but I am not exactly optimistic when many otherwise intelligent people refuse to see the obvious. Anyone who doesn't see it by now never will.
posted by Lonnrot at 12:48 PM on December 9, 2020 [31 favorites]
posted by Lonnrot at 12:48 PM on December 9, 2020 [31 favorites]
So, I wanted to add a quick link to the above comment about how many Trump voters have stated they believe the election was rigged for Biden. I just did a quick search and the first result in Google is from Breitbart which in itself makes my point for me. Silence means propagandists win, unfortunately.
Anyway, it's most of them:
Anyway, it's most of them:
Fifty-two percent of Republicans said that Trump “rightfully won,” while only 29% said that Biden had rightfully won.posted by Lonnrot at 12:55 PM on December 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
Asked why, Republicans were much more concerned than others that state vote counters had tipped the result toward Biden: 68% of Republicans said they were concerned that the election was “rigged,” while only 16% of Democrats and one-third of independents were similarly worried.
I also think many are conflating the ridiculousness of the attempt—which I concede, too—with unseriousness or lack of danger
Can we delineate the difference between "ridiculous," "(un)serious" and "(not) dangerous?"
I would argue if it is a ridiculous effort it is inherently not in and of itself a dangerous effort. I suspect that when the smoke clears this effort will appear fairly clearly to have been doomed from the start, in the context of the actual election. There are counterfactuals, but they require, well, a different election. And there was already some precedent from a different election. I think it's fair to say that recent weeks set new precedents in a sense, illustrate previously untried ways to attempt to overturn the legitimate results of an election... but if none of them work is the lesson really "whew that was a close one?" If one views it more akin to a pentest of the election system, I think more than anything it suggests that the strongest protection is avoiding one-party control of local/state government - which is to say it basically ends up supporting Maciej's priorities anyway.
I would argue that what makes an effort serious is that the people behind it believe it is going to work. In which case it certainly is serious to an extent, although obviously some people are playing along. Seriousness can be dangerous, in a more abstract and long-term way, because people believing outlandish things seriously can be dangerous. One can argue that the seriousness of the effort to overturn this election is more a symptom of increasing polarization and insularity and the right-wing information bubble than it is a cause, however. That's definitely dangerous! But then we already knew that, didn't we?
posted by atoxyl at 1:19 PM on December 9, 2020
Can we delineate the difference between "ridiculous," "(un)serious" and "(not) dangerous?"
I would argue if it is a ridiculous effort it is inherently not in and of itself a dangerous effort. I suspect that when the smoke clears this effort will appear fairly clearly to have been doomed from the start, in the context of the actual election. There are counterfactuals, but they require, well, a different election. And there was already some precedent from a different election. I think it's fair to say that recent weeks set new precedents in a sense, illustrate previously untried ways to attempt to overturn the legitimate results of an election... but if none of them work is the lesson really "whew that was a close one?" If one views it more akin to a pentest of the election system, I think more than anything it suggests that the strongest protection is avoiding one-party control of local/state government - which is to say it basically ends up supporting Maciej's priorities anyway.
I would argue that what makes an effort serious is that the people behind it believe it is going to work. In which case it certainly is serious to an extent, although obviously some people are playing along. Seriousness can be dangerous, in a more abstract and long-term way, because people believing outlandish things seriously can be dangerous. One can argue that the seriousness of the effort to overturn this election is more a symptom of increasing polarization and insularity and the right-wing information bubble than it is a cause, however. That's definitely dangerous! But then we already knew that, didn't we?
posted by atoxyl at 1:19 PM on December 9, 2020
Re laughable things also being dangerous: Unfortunately Gandhi’s “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” cuts both ways.
posted by anshuman at 1:23 PM on December 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by anshuman at 1:23 PM on December 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
State house majorities that seemed ours for the taking in Iowa, North Carolina, Arizona, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania instead got redder. We couldn’t even flip two seats in the Minnesota senate, where Democrats control both the state house and the governor’s mansion, and Walter Mondale roams the earth.
We didn’t lose these state races because of gerrymandering, or lack of money, or any kind of Republican tampering with the electoral process. Our failure was political, and all the more inexcusable because it took place in a year when the opposing party had failed at governing so badly that it had racked up a body count. And still we couldn’t make the case.
I think they both make a good case, and we have too damn much to worry about. Great post, thanks.
posted by Bella Donna at 1:59 PM on December 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
We didn’t lose these state races because of gerrymandering, or lack of money, or any kind of Republican tampering with the electoral process. Our failure was political, and all the more inexcusable because it took place in a year when the opposing party had failed at governing so badly that it had racked up a body count. And still we couldn’t make the case.
I think they both make a good case, and we have too damn much to worry about. Great post, thanks.
posted by Bella Donna at 1:59 PM on December 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
Also voting for "coup": former Republican, former Republican House member from Florida Joe Scarborough, also now one half of the MSNBC version of the Punch and Judy Show, Morning Joe.
posted by Charles Bronson Pinchot at 2:54 PM on December 9, 2020
posted by Charles Bronson Pinchot at 2:54 PM on December 9, 2020
to sow distrust of the electoral process and judicial systems and cast the election results into doubt, for the purpose of mobilizing violence via stochastic terrorism and likely directly overthrowing democracy further down the road
Perhaps more immediately, Republican dominated state legislatures and executives will use this "doubt" and "uncertainty" as an excuse to create and pass even more restrictive voting laws. For example, Cobb County, Georgia, has already been monkeying with the number of early-voting sites available for the January Senate runoff.
posted by soundguy99 at 3:10 PM on December 9, 2020 [6 favorites]
Perhaps more immediately, Republican dominated state legislatures and executives will use this "doubt" and "uncertainty" as an excuse to create and pass even more restrictive voting laws. For example, Cobb County, Georgia, has already been monkeying with the number of early-voting sites available for the January Senate runoff.
posted by soundguy99 at 3:10 PM on December 9, 2020 [6 favorites]
Isn't Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson a republican?
All I know is that he's Bob the Sentient Trash Island's running mate, and is now vice-president elect, in some dimension.
posted by jb at 3:44 PM on December 9, 2020
All I know is that he's Bob the Sentient Trash Island's running mate, and is now vice-president elect, in some dimension.
posted by jb at 3:44 PM on December 9, 2020
I'm only half-kidding about The Rock. Give Republicans a choice: Choose the winner of the popular vote, or we'll body-slam Trump's TV ratings with a younger, handsomer strongman. Plus, he already got COVID.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 3:57 PM on December 9, 2020
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 3:57 PM on December 9, 2020
The Rock is a registered Independent but he endorsed Biden/Harris this year.
posted by rogerroger at 4:01 PM on December 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by rogerroger at 4:01 PM on December 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
For example, Cobb County, Georgia, has already been monkeying with the number of early-voting sites available for the January Senate runoff.
Republicans, in the South? Why, I never...
posted by atoxyl at 4:43 PM on December 9, 2020
Republicans, in the South? Why, I never...
posted by atoxyl at 4:43 PM on December 9, 2020
A pardon has to erase the consequences of fact-in-law criminal/civil charges and it doesn't erase the admission of those crimes. There's something of Schrodinger's Cat to a pre-emptive pardon: it must admit there was a crime to bring leniency for the consequential incarceration, fines or other sentencing*. I don't see any space in the Work for President Trump to admit it was a Work, grift, con or other scam.
Flynn's pardon is not going to be treated by any of his followers to be an admission that he did anything wrong. The pardon is incredibly broad (anything arising out of facts known to the Mueller investigation, or something like that). It doesn't itemize the crimes. Trump could pardon himself for all federal crimes during his term and sign it the morning of the inauguration. It worked for Nixon.
posted by BungaDunga at 5:59 PM on December 9, 2020
Flynn's pardon is not going to be treated by any of his followers to be an admission that he did anything wrong. The pardon is incredibly broad (anything arising out of facts known to the Mueller investigation, or something like that). It doesn't itemize the crimes. Trump could pardon himself for all federal crimes during his term and sign it the morning of the inauguration. It worked for Nixon.
posted by BungaDunga at 5:59 PM on December 9, 2020
By pardoning Flynn, didn’t Trump render his 5th Amendment right to silence null and void? Haul that fucker into a grand jury and make the little birdie sing about his co-conspirators.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 7:31 PM on December 9, 2020
posted by Big Al 8000 at 7:31 PM on December 9, 2020
I think a lot of people are missing Maciej's point here. I'd paraphrase it as "If there were no coup attempt at all, we'd still be in deep shit, because our system encourages minority rule and that minority is insane."
posted by zompist at 8:08 PM on December 9, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by zompist at 8:08 PM on December 9, 2020 [5 favorites]
>Seventeen states filed an amicus at SCOTUS
if SCOTUS were to somehow nullify the election we'd have a great starting line for division of the country.
Fine, you can have Trump, but pack yo' shit because DC is ours.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:30 PM on December 9, 2020
if SCOTUS were to somehow nullify the election we'd have a great starting line for division of the country.
Fine, you can have Trump, but pack yo' shit because DC is ours.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:30 PM on December 9, 2020
The stream of comically bad lawsuits cannot be intended to win in court.
Team Kayfabe is perfectly aware of that, which is why they've also been staging these TV-oriented "hearings" where "witnesses" and their "legal" team can just lie and lie and lie and face no penalties whatsoever.
It's all about putting on a show for the marks, as it has been from Day 1. And whether or not the present shenanigans can fairly be described as a coup attempt (narrator voice: they can), Maciej is perfectly correct to draw attention to the point that there are now enough willing marks to pose an existential threat to anything resembling a workable democracy.
posted by flabdablet at 8:31 PM on December 9, 2020 [9 favorites]
Team Kayfabe is perfectly aware of that, which is why they've also been staging these TV-oriented "hearings" where "witnesses" and their "legal" team can just lie and lie and lie and face no penalties whatsoever.
It's all about putting on a show for the marks, as it has been from Day 1. And whether or not the present shenanigans can fairly be described as a coup attempt (narrator voice: they can), Maciej is perfectly correct to draw attention to the point that there are now enough willing marks to pose an existential threat to anything resembling a workable democracy.
posted by flabdablet at 8:31 PM on December 9, 2020 [9 favorites]
Trump could pardon himself for all federal crimes during his term and sign it the morning of the inauguration. It worked for Nixon.
Nixon didn't pardon himself -- his successor pardoned him. Legitimacy of a self-pardon has never been tested and is far from guaranteed to hold up, even in front of the Roberts court.
The 100% guaranteed way for Trump to get a free and clear pardon would be to resign moments before noon on Inauguration Day and have Pence do it.
posted by Hollywood Upstairs Medical College at 12:05 AM on December 10, 2020
Nixon didn't pardon himself -- his successor pardoned him. Legitimacy of a self-pardon has never been tested and is far from guaranteed to hold up, even in front of the Roberts court.
The 100% guaranteed way for Trump to get a free and clear pardon would be to resign moments before noon on Inauguration Day and have Pence do it.
posted by Hollywood Upstairs Medical College at 12:05 AM on December 10, 2020
Seventeen states filed an amicus at SCOTUS in support of the Texas AG's request to throw out votes in four other states.As an Alaska resident I'm relieved to find Alaska missing from that list but also pretty sure that we would have been on it but for the fact that our AG was forced to resign recently (after the governor's office's efforts to keep a lid on his sexual harassment of a junior staffer failed.) We currently don't have a permanent AG, just a temporarily appointed acting replacement.
But hey, at least we didn't join as the 18th state to be peddling this nonsense.
posted by Nerd of the North at 1:41 AM on December 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
Keep in mind is that GWB stole an election by Republicans in Florida staging a clearly and ridiculously fake riot made up of professional Republican political operatives and lawyers many of home still hold powerful positions in the Republican party today. This was enough to sway the Supreme Court into making a deliberately partisan hasty decision to halt vote counting "for the sake of peace and order".
Ridiculous clownery has succeeded in overturning a vote before.
posted by srboisvert at 5:18 AM on December 10, 2020 [7 favorites]
Ridiculous clownery has succeeded in overturning a vote before.
posted by srboisvert at 5:18 AM on December 10, 2020 [7 favorites]
Can we delineate the difference between "ridiculous," "(un)serious" and "(not) dangerous?"
in my mind, it's pretty much summed up in the phrase, "fuck around and find out!".
"ridiculous" is whether or not something makes any logical sense. the texas lawsuit is ridiculous, because its arguments are weak.
"(un)serious" is whether or not something is done for the lulz/just trollin' or if there's earnestness behind it. who the fuck really knows with the texas lawsuit, but it can be a superposition of being both serious and unserious.
"(not) dangerous" is whether or not there are lasting repercussions. the texas lawsuit, just by having been filed, sets a dangerous precedent.
texas, and trump, are fucking around with the tattered remains of our democracy, and we're gonna find out very soon how dangerous it is, whether or not they were being serious and/or deliberately ridiculous.
posted by i used to be someone else at 7:41 AM on December 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
in my mind, it's pretty much summed up in the phrase, "fuck around and find out!".
"ridiculous" is whether or not something makes any logical sense. the texas lawsuit is ridiculous, because its arguments are weak.
"(un)serious" is whether or not something is done for the lulz/just trollin' or if there's earnestness behind it. who the fuck really knows with the texas lawsuit, but it can be a superposition of being both serious and unserious.
"(not) dangerous" is whether or not there are lasting repercussions. the texas lawsuit, just by having been filed, sets a dangerous precedent.
texas, and trump, are fucking around with the tattered remains of our democracy, and we're gonna find out very soon how dangerous it is, whether or not they were being serious and/or deliberately ridiculous.
posted by i used to be someone else at 7:41 AM on December 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
if SCOTUS were to somehow nullify the election we'd have a great starting line for division of the country.
Same result if SCOTUS decides against Texas et.al., too. The court is in a no-win position on this one. No matter what they decide, shit is going to hit the fan. It's going to be far messier if they decide against Texas, of course. Trump's supporters are already armed and accosting state officials outside their homes. God knows what they'll do next if SCOTUS decides against Texas. That said, they absolutely must tell Texas to go pound sand, for the sake of the nation's future.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:38 AM on December 10, 2020
Same result if SCOTUS decides against Texas et.al., too. The court is in a no-win position on this one. No matter what they decide, shit is going to hit the fan. It's going to be far messier if they decide against Texas, of course. Trump's supporters are already armed and accosting state officials outside their homes. God knows what they'll do next if SCOTUS decides against Texas. That said, they absolutely must tell Texas to go pound sand, for the sake of the nation's future.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:38 AM on December 10, 2020
That said, they absolutely must tell Texas to go pound sand, for the sake of the nation's future.
They almost certainly will pitch the Texas case out on its ear, but for different "sake of the nation's future" reasons.
Copying an article I linked in another thread, U. Texas law professor Steve Vladeck writes: 17 states and Trump join Texas' lawsuit. It's still a doomed Supreme Court stunt.
The TL:DR being that ruling in favor of Texas establishes a precedent where states can sue other states over pretty much anything. They really really really really don't want to do this, not least because they will be inundated with nonsense cases they'll have to consider. The SC judges, maybe especially the conservative ones, are insulated by wealth and power - they'll be just fine under a Biden presidency and will have plenty of opportunities to advance a conservative agenda, so giving Trump a second term by strewing hidden landmines across the legal landscape is a non-starter.
posted by soundguy99 at 8:58 AM on December 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
They almost certainly will pitch the Texas case out on its ear, but for different "sake of the nation's future" reasons.
Copying an article I linked in another thread, U. Texas law professor Steve Vladeck writes: 17 states and Trump join Texas' lawsuit. It's still a doomed Supreme Court stunt.
The TL:DR being that ruling in favor of Texas establishes a precedent where states can sue other states over pretty much anything. They really really really really don't want to do this, not least because they will be inundated with nonsense cases they'll have to consider. The SC judges, maybe especially the conservative ones, are insulated by wealth and power - they'll be just fine under a Biden presidency and will have plenty of opportunities to advance a conservative agenda, so giving Trump a second term by strewing hidden landmines across the legal landscape is a non-starter.
posted by soundguy99 at 8:58 AM on December 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
From TFA: Unfortunately, the Senate is the one institution that the Constitution prohibits us from amending, meaning we’d have to amend the Constitution twice over to be rid of it.
Anyone know what that’s about?
posted by sjswitzer at 9:13 AM on December 10, 2020
Anyone know what that’s about?
posted by sjswitzer at 9:13 AM on December 10, 2020
sjswitzer...I have to think it's in reference to the idea of making the Senate more proportionately representational. Bigger states get more Senators, etc.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:19 AM on December 10, 2020
posted by Thorzdad at 9:19 AM on December 10, 2020
> sjswitzer: "Anyone know what that’s about?"
That part comes immediately after this observation:
That part comes immediately after this observation:
I’m also not the first observer to point out that it makes no sense to have a democratic institution that treats California, the world’s fifth-largest economy, on an equal basis with a big rectangle of nothing like Wyoming.The apportionment of senators -- two per state, regardless of size -- is encoded in Article 1, Section 3 of the US Constitution:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.posted by mhum at 9:30 AM on December 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
Article V:
2/3 of both houses, including the Senate
3/4 of states, including the states that would lose power
and you still can’t do it because it’s expressly prohibited
posted by Huffy Puffy at 9:38 AM on December 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, [...]which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, [...] provided that no amendment [can abolish the slave trade before 1808]; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.You’d need:
2/3 of both houses, including the Senate
3/4 of states, including the states that would lose power
and you still can’t do it because it’s expressly prohibited
posted by Huffy Puffy at 9:38 AM on December 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
Oh I get that the senate is a problem but I was wondering how the senate is specially protected in the constitution so that it would need to be amended twice. I don’t remember ever hearing of anything like that before. I’m sure he’s right but I don’t understand it.
posted by sjswitzer at 9:40 AM on December 10, 2020
posted by sjswitzer at 9:40 AM on December 10, 2020
Oh, the answer came in just as I was typing. Thanks!
posted by sjswitzer at 9:41 AM on December 10, 2020
posted by sjswitzer at 9:41 AM on December 10, 2020
Ok, so the TX filing claims that any alteration of election rules by courts, such as altering deadlines for mail-in ballots, is unconstitutional, because of that clause that says the Legislature of each State alone sets the manner of choosing electors, and that such alterations by courts did occur in the defendant States. Then they want the whole vote in these States to be cancelled because the whole thing is contaminated by this very bad unconstitutionality. Is that what they are on about? They don't make it easy to tell!
posted by thelonius at 9:47 AM on December 10, 2020
posted by thelonius at 9:47 AM on December 10, 2020
Nelson: kayfabe
chortly: coupfabe
Ctrl-F "kayfefe"
no results
Metafilter I am disappoint
posted by tzikeh at 10:54 AM on December 10, 2020 [3 favorites]
chortly: coupfabe
Ctrl-F "kayfefe"
no results
Metafilter I am disappoint
posted by tzikeh at 10:54 AM on December 10, 2020 [3 favorites]
>>These Trump lawsuits are badly written and doomed to fail, yes, but they are still serious.
>Totally agree. Because a lot of the narrative has highlighted the incompetence, comedy and futility of the lawsuits it's tempting to see them as not serious.
Another reason they are serious is that it is an attempt to normalize lawsuits over conceding if you lose an election. I'm beginning to think the sheer number of lawsuits is intended more for the normalization than any chance of actually winning.
This won't end well.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 11:39 AM on December 10, 2020 [4 favorites]
>Totally agree. Because a lot of the narrative has highlighted the incompetence, comedy and futility of the lawsuits it's tempting to see them as not serious.
Another reason they are serious is that it is an attempt to normalize lawsuits over conceding if you lose an election. I'm beginning to think the sheer number of lawsuits is intended more for the normalization than any chance of actually winning.
This won't end well.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 11:39 AM on December 10, 2020 [4 favorites]
PA's response has arrived. They are not happy.
Texas’s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact. The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 11:50 AM on December 10, 2020 [11 favorites]
Is that what they are on about?
Pretty much, yeah, AFAICT, although add "bureaucrats" to courts in your synopsis. (Governors or secretaries of state or other election officials having in some cases made the initial changes to the election process (often under emergency pandemic powers) that the courts then upheld as legit.)
posted by soundguy99 at 12:46 PM on December 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
Pretty much, yeah, AFAICT, although add "bureaucrats" to courts in your synopsis. (Governors or secretaries of state or other election officials having in some cases made the initial changes to the election process (often under emergency pandemic powers) that the courts then upheld as legit.)
posted by soundguy99 at 12:46 PM on December 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
Another reason they are serious is that it is an attempt to normalize lawsuits over conceding if you lose an election. I'm beginning to think the sheer number of lawsuits is intended more for the normalization than any chance of actually winning.
If the lawsuits are roundly rejected, hardly even really slow down the process, what malign example is being set, exactly? Are they exhausting every path to miserable failure so that the only lawsuits that haven’t been tried are the ones that are going to work in four years? Again as far as I can tell the main hole in the system that is illustrated by recent proceedings is that if one party ever managed to stock the whole government, across our federal system, with enough pure loyalists (not even just regular ideologues, really corrupt or deluded folks) they could declare the winner to be whoever the hell they want. Which takes it back to an issue of a 50 state strategy and not letting the Republicans do that!
posted by atoxyl at 12:46 PM on December 10, 2020
If the lawsuits are roundly rejected, hardly even really slow down the process, what malign example is being set, exactly? Are they exhausting every path to miserable failure so that the only lawsuits that haven’t been tried are the ones that are going to work in four years? Again as far as I can tell the main hole in the system that is illustrated by recent proceedings is that if one party ever managed to stock the whole government, across our federal system, with enough pure loyalists (not even just regular ideologues, really corrupt or deluded folks) they could declare the winner to be whoever the hell they want. Which takes it back to an issue of a 50 state strategy and not letting the Republicans do that!
posted by atoxyl at 12:46 PM on December 10, 2020
Which is to say the two sides of the argument arguably converge but Maciej’s perspective seems like the practical one by far. I mean, the lesson for Democrats should be - norms aren’t what holds back the Republicans. Republicans not holding seats is what holds back the Republicans!
posted by atoxyl at 12:49 PM on December 10, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 12:49 PM on December 10, 2020 [4 favorites]
106 House Republicans sign on to an Amicus brief in support of Texas.
Jesus tapdancing fucking Christ. How exactly are we supposed to start coming back from this?
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:53 PM on December 10, 2020 [12 favorites]
Jesus tapdancing fucking Christ. How exactly are we supposed to start coming back from this?
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:53 PM on December 10, 2020 [12 favorites]
(Not to say there aren’t cases of norms holding back Republicans here. My point is more that if you actually want to take the maximally cynical view of where our institutions are going that’s not gonna be the thing you want to rely on.)
posted by atoxyl at 1:03 PM on December 10, 2020
posted by atoxyl at 1:03 PM on December 10, 2020
what malign example is being set, exactly?
This morning Ohio AG Dave Yost (R) filed an amicus brief in the Texas case wherein he disagrees with the idea that votes should be thrown out in this election but he still wants a ruling from the SC at some point to "clarify" the power of state legislatures vs state executive branch for the next election.
IOW, he's pretty blatantly calling on the SC to "set up our next round of vote suppression and legal arguments for when the vote suppression makes the vote closer."
And that's the "moderate" Republican position.
posted by soundguy99 at 1:05 PM on December 10, 2020 [5 favorites]
This morning Ohio AG Dave Yost (R) filed an amicus brief in the Texas case wherein he disagrees with the idea that votes should be thrown out in this election but he still wants a ruling from the SC at some point to "clarify" the power of state legislatures vs state executive branch for the next election.
IOW, he's pretty blatantly calling on the SC to "set up our next round of vote suppression and legal arguments for when the vote suppression makes the vote closer."
And that's the "moderate" Republican position.
posted by soundguy99 at 1:05 PM on December 10, 2020 [5 favorites]
Jesus tapdancing fucking Christ. How exactly are we supposed to start coming back from this?
Well I think the idea is, we aren't.
posted by thelonius at 2:13 PM on December 10, 2020 [6 favorites]
Well I think the idea is, we aren't.
posted by thelonius at 2:13 PM on December 10, 2020 [6 favorites]
IOW, he's pretty blatantly calling on the SC to "set up our next round of vote suppression and legal arguments for when the vote suppression makes the vote closer."
An evisceration of voting rights is, I think, a likely consequence of Republican dominance of the Supreme Court (and one that people have been warning about for years).
Thats not “normalization,” though. It’s a concrete change to the law. Or in this case, an attempt to change the law (going back to my point about counting shots taken versus points scored) though I do think that this kind of thing (using this manufactured controversy as a convenient launching point for their anti-voting-rights agenda) is one of the more plausibly successful directions for Republicans in the near term.
posted by atoxyl at 2:38 PM on December 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
An evisceration of voting rights is, I think, a likely consequence of Republican dominance of the Supreme Court (and one that people have been warning about for years).
Thats not “normalization,” though. It’s a concrete change to the law. Or in this case, an attempt to change the law (going back to my point about counting shots taken versus points scored) though I do think that this kind of thing (using this manufactured controversy as a convenient launching point for their anti-voting-rights agenda) is one of the more plausibly successful directions for Republicans in the near term.
posted by atoxyl at 2:38 PM on December 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
106 out of 435... isn't that down to the 'crazification' that's been spoken of in these parts? Also, this is some pretty hot House coffee/tea.
Wow
posted by JoeXIII007 at 3:07 PM on December 10, 2020
Wow
posted by JoeXIII007 at 3:07 PM on December 10, 2020
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables."
106 / 196 = 54% of House R's supporting this (about half)
She should get credit for being so on the money.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 3:24 PM on December 10, 2020 [9 favorites]
106 / 196 = 54% of House R's supporting this (about half)
She should get credit for being so on the money.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 3:24 PM on December 10, 2020 [9 favorites]
Zoe Tillman from BuzzFeed News: "A thing to note is that some of the House reps who signed this just won races in the states that they're now arguing were so rife with fraud that SCOTUS should invalidate the results."
posted by soundguy99 at 6:41 PM on December 10, 2020
posted by soundguy99 at 6:41 PM on December 10, 2020
Your Childhood Pet Rock > PA's response has arrived. They are not happy.
More like OUTRAGED, to put it mildly. The PA court’s entire Preliminary Statement against Texas is worth quoting:
posted by cenoxo at 12:28 AM on December 11, 2020 [12 favorites]
More like OUTRAGED, to put it mildly. The PA court’s entire Preliminary Statement against Texas is worth quoting:
Since Election Day, State and Federal courts throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election. The State of Texas has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims. Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees. Its request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an afront to principles of constitutional democracy.Amen. May we hear similar language from SCOTUS.
What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this Court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about problems with the election that have already been considered, and rejected, by this Court and other courts. It attempts to exploit this Court’s sparingly used original jurisdiction to relitigate those matters. But Texas obviously lacks standing to bring such claims, which, in any event, are barred by laches, and are moot, meritless, and dangerous. Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four other states run their elections. Nor is that view grounded in any precedent from this Court. Texas does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it.
The cascading series of compounding defects in Texas’s filings is only underscored by the surreal alternate reality that those filings attempt to construct. That alternate reality includes an absurd statistical analysis positing that the probability of President-Elect Biden winning the election was “one in a quadrillion.” Bill of Complaint at 6. Texas’s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact. The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.
posted by cenoxo at 12:28 AM on December 11, 2020 [12 favorites]
I was glad to see Pennsylvania make the laches argument because that's one of the fun things I've learned about this year following all these democracy-destroying lawsuits. Laches is the no-takebacks clause in our legal system, or really more "if you waited too long you can't file a lawsuit, you dumbass". In this context it's saying "Texas, if you really had a problem with election procedure you needed to say so before the election. You don't get to wait until after, see it doesn't go your way, then file a lawsuit". I had no idea that was a legal principal.
posted by Nelson at 7:35 AM on December 11, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by Nelson at 7:35 AM on December 11, 2020 [10 favorites]
As Benjamin Franklin [didn't] say, “He who Snoozeth, Loseth.”
posted by Huffy Puffy at 8:20 AM on December 11, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 8:20 AM on December 11, 2020 [4 favorites]
Yeah, that quote is often misattributed to Franklin, but obviously Oscar Wilde said it.
(Thanks for the link/explanation, Nelson, that is interesting.)
posted by Lonnrot at 10:33 AM on December 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
(Thanks for the link/explanation, Nelson, that is interesting.)
posted by Lonnrot at 10:33 AM on December 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
Many laughed off the prospects of a Trump presidency four years ago, and yet here we are. Are Dems organizing, getting together to sign their own letter, publicly calling every relevant Republican out by name, and spelling out what the consequences will be for having participated in this official act of sedition? Pennsylvania aside, the silence in the face of so many frivolous lawsuits is worrying.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:40 AM on December 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:40 AM on December 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
Maybe I missed it (I haven’t read every post in this thread), but has anyone discussed that Tufecki and Cieglowski are discussing different aspects of the same phenomena? I’m reminded of the story of the blind men and the elephant...
posted by Big Al 8000 at 12:42 PM on December 11, 2020
posted by Big Al 8000 at 12:42 PM on December 11, 2020
has anyone discussed that Tufecki and Cieglowski are discussing different aspects of the same phenomena
I have! Though I’m also explicitly arguing that, since what is practically required to steal an election is nearly identical to what is required to “win at politics” normally, Ceglowski’s framing stands on its own as a concept of things that have to be done in a way Tufceki’s doesn’t.
posted by atoxyl at 1:13 PM on December 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
I have! Though I’m also explicitly arguing that, since what is practically required to steal an election is nearly identical to what is required to “win at politics” normally, Ceglowski’s framing stands on its own as a concept of things that have to be done in a way Tufceki’s doesn’t.
posted by atoxyl at 1:13 PM on December 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
Dark. And true, unfortunately.
As Zeynep points out in her essay, these newly-elected Republican legislatures will now have the opportunity to redraw Congressional districts based on the 2020 census. Even with no change in the vote, this redistricting process would net the Republican party a House majority in 2022. And we know from history that the midterm vote is likely to favor them. So not only can Republicans expect to win a House majority in 2022, but they have a fair shot at winning it with a plurality of the national vote.posted by xammerboy at 8:42 PM on December 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
Justices throw out Texas lawsuit that sought to block election outcome, SCOTUSblog, Amy Howe, 12/11/2020 7:50 pm:
posted by cenoxo at 9:33 PM on December 11, 2020
The Supreme Court on Friday rebuffed Texas’ request to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in four states – Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – that provided key electoral votes to President-elect Joe Biden. In a brief order [PDF, 1 page] issued just before 6:30 p.m., the justices explained that Texas lacked a legal right to sue, known as standing, and did not have a legal interest in how other states carried out their elections. As a result, the court rejected Texas’ lawsuit without considering the merits of the state’s case....More details in the article.
posted by cenoxo at 9:33 PM on December 11, 2020
It's helpful that Alito and Thomas wrote the order. It's kind of hard to question their bonafides as conservatives, though I'm sure the right will now paint them as RINOs, if not deep-state leftists.
So, what will Needy Amin do now? Other than a non-stop tweetstorm, that is. Is there any logistical way he can try and block the electors from doing their job on Monday? I assume they meet together, but I don't really know. Sure, it would only be a day or two delay, but it's something for his ego to hang on to.
posted by Thorzdad at 3:51 AM on December 12, 2020
So, what will Needy Amin do now? Other than a non-stop tweetstorm, that is. Is there any logistical way he can try and block the electors from doing their job on Monday? I assume they meet together, but I don't really know. Sure, it would only be a day or two delay, but it's something for his ego to hang on to.
posted by Thorzdad at 3:51 AM on December 12, 2020
Texas GOP chair floats secession for 'law-abiding states' after Supreme Court defeat
posted by Thorzdad at 3:58 AM on December 12, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Thorzdad at 3:58 AM on December 12, 2020 [1 favorite]
The electors all meet in their respective state capitals. States have offered security assistance just in case somebody tries something sketchy.
[Also if we have to fight another civil war we are damn sure going to kick the Cowboys out of the NFC East. CHOOSE WISELY, TEXAS.]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 7:38 AM on December 12, 2020 [1 favorite]
[Also if we have to fight another civil war we are damn sure going to kick the Cowboys out of the NFC East. CHOOSE WISELY, TEXAS.]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 7:38 AM on December 12, 2020 [1 favorite]
Angry Trump supporters flocked to Washington to protest the election results, a day after the Supreme Court rejected a Texas lawsuit that appeared to be Trump’s last best attempt to wrest the election away from President-elect Joe Biden.posted by transitional procedures at 1:54 PM on December 12, 2020
A group of roughly 100 Proud Boys and their supporters attempted to march to an area outside the White House that’s been dubbed “Black Lives Matter Plaza,” but were blocked by police. The Daily Beast witnessed a man in Proud Boys clothing getting arrested, but it wasn’t clear what prompted the arrest.
Former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn appeared at rallies across the city, insisting that, despite all evidence, the election wasn’t over.
“The truth will prevail!” Flynn told a crowd on the National Mall.
At a separate protest a few blocks away, angry speakers called on supporters to destroy the Republican Party. Nick Fuentes, the far-right, anti-immigration pundit who hosts a podcast called America First, lead a crowd in chanting “destroy the GOP!”
“We are done making promises,” Fuentes said into a megaphone. “It has to happen now, we are going to destroy the GOP.”
deerhoof: people in texas want trump to be the president of the country they want to secede from
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 3:47 PM on December 12, 2020
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 3:47 PM on December 12, 2020
Destroy the GOP!
From our America First! specials today, may we suggest the Republican Coup, the Counter Coup, or the Coup du Jour?
posted by cenoxo at 3:09 AM on December 13, 2020
From our America First! specials today, may we suggest the Republican Coup, the Counter Coup, or the Coup du Jour?
posted by cenoxo at 3:09 AM on December 13, 2020
According to NPR this morning, one of the Proud Boys leaders got a special guided tour of the White House yesterday, too. They also reported PB members beating a black man who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:56 AM on December 13, 2020
posted by Thorzdad at 8:56 AM on December 13, 2020
Steve Schmidt of the Lincoln Project is begging AOC to form a joint coalition against the Trump faction. Newsweek story; original tweet thread.
posted by Sublimity at 9:13 AM on December 13, 2020
posted by Sublimity at 9:13 AM on December 13, 2020
According to NPR this morning, one of the Proud Boys leaders got a special guided tour of the White House yesterday
Do you have a reference for that? All the reporting I've seen is that it was an ordinary public tour, not "special". (All public tours are guided.) This NPR story says
posted by Nelson at 11:28 AM on December 13, 2020
Do you have a reference for that? All the reporting I've seen is that it was an ordinary public tour, not "special". (All public tours are guided.) This NPR story says
On Saturday morning, a White House spokesman confirmed that as the group gathered in D.C., one of its leaders, Enrique Tarrio, took a public tour of the White House. Tarrio posted about his visit to the right-wing social media app Parler. The White House says that Tarrio did not meet with the president, nor was he specifically invited. Tarrio said the visit "shows we've come a long way."That same article talks about how the Proud Boys and other Trump seditionists' stupid rally turned into a stabbing festival.
posted by Nelson at 11:28 AM on December 13, 2020
Ceglowski's larger point seems to be that Republicans will shortly have no need to steal the election because they will win legitimately. I'm not sure I would characterize the systemic advantage they've constructed as legitimate, but he has a point. What to do about it though? He says:
posted by xammerboy at 2:41 PM on December 13, 2020 [5 favorites]
The path out of this trap will be unpleasant. It requires turning down the drama, because it doesn’t advance our cause. It will mean learning to empathize with voters we have come to loathe, and competing for their vote on their own turf. It means playing by an unfair set of rules that will sometimes require us to win landslide victories just to secure a bare majority. And it means staying united while finding ways to split the Republican coalition.In other words, some sort of deep triangulation may be required on the part of Democrats where they embrace some truly reprehensible Republican positions. But it seems to me like we've already been there and done that when Obama embraced fiscal responsibility and tackling the debt as high priority. Did it matter? Did Republicans ever even really care about that? If Democrats were to embrace, say, funding the police or something, would Republicans even care about that issue down the road? What is the point of trying to sway voters who only care about an issue for as long as they're told to?
posted by xammerboy at 2:41 PM on December 13, 2020 [5 favorites]
Obama embraced fiscal responsibility and tackling the debt as high priority. Did it matter?
Does this actually have a big voting constituency? Or is it just something Republican politicians and their big donors like? People presumably have different ideas about what positions are worth compromising on (that also work as wedges right now) but I’ll give gun control as an example of one where a.) the electoral map is weighted heavily against it and b.) it’s not clear how much Democrats have ever practically accomplished in trying to pursue it.
posted by atoxyl at 10:43 AM on December 14, 2020
Does this actually have a big voting constituency? Or is it just something Republican politicians and their big donors like? People presumably have different ideas about what positions are worth compromising on (that also work as wedges right now) but I’ll give gun control as an example of one where a.) the electoral map is weighted heavily against it and b.) it’s not clear how much Democrats have ever practically accomplished in trying to pursue it.
posted by atoxyl at 10:43 AM on December 14, 2020
(And yes Matt Yglesias just wrote an article about this but believe me I didn’t get it from him.)
posted by atoxyl at 10:45 AM on December 14, 2020
posted by atoxyl at 10:45 AM on December 14, 2020
Worrying about the debt, especially when they have power, is the closest thing the Democrats have to a genuine ethos. How else do you explain Pelosi's love of pay-go rules.
posted by Reyturner at 3:50 PM on December 15, 2020
posted by Reyturner at 3:50 PM on December 15, 2020
« Older This Person Exists | Covid vaccines set to begin rollout Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Gonna stop Maciej right at the start of his response. "The few petulant lawsuits Trump managed to file". So far he's filed 50 lawsuits. All aimed at throwing out votes or otherwise subverting the election. That's a huge number, unprecedented. Maciej does his argument no services with some silly rhetoric trying to diminish that. He keeps going on with the downplaying with "the only serious attempt to subvert a Federal election in 2020". These Trump lawsuits are badly written and doomed to fail, yes, but they are still serious. Maciej also ignores how 90% of the Republican leadership has so far refused to acknowledge the election of our next president. How can than not be worrisome?
I agree with the realpoltik of most of the rest of his article though, the need for strategies to win future elections and for the Democrats to be effective politicians. Redistricting is a hugely important coming topic and one that the Democrats failed to address very effectively in this most recent election. (The big one for choosing state legislatures that then approve the district plans.)
But I strongly disagree that the Republican legal strategy of trying to subvert the 2020 election is irrelevant. It's doomed to fail, it seems, and I'm thankful for that. But how does America continue to be a democracy when one of the two political parties is denying the very idea of elections?
posted by Nelson at 7:09 AM on December 9, 2020 [55 favorites]