Electoral Map
In ‘Dearly Beloved,’ and in ‘Are Capitalism and Democracy Compatible?‘, I spoke to the inequities of the Electoral College and of the very unrepresentative Senate. In the both, I spoke of how, in 2016, Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million votes yet won the Electoral College, and the presidency, by 80,000 votes in three states. In 2020, Trump lost the popular vote by more than 5 million votes; but this time he lost the Electoral College by only 45,000 votes. So, as soon as they figure this out, will republicans start demanding the Nation get rid of the Electoral College?
How in the hell could 73 million Americans vote for Trump? How many of those 73 million Americans supported Trump because of his Birtherism, Racism, vulgarism, anti-science attitude, self-centeredness, sexism, misogyny, narcissism, habitual lying, …? Did that many Americans always harbor such beliefs, but were to embarrassed to express them? Did the good union man, the good family man, always harbor these thoughts about women, blacks, …? Evidently, many of them did. Is it that they would have been embarrassed in the past for others to know of these thoughts, but felt that they were given license by Trump to express them publicly? Whatever, a very large percentage of Americans are really screwed up. How can we deduce otherwise? The question becomes, how does the Nation address this reality?
The development of the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines for a novel Corona virus, a new way in record breaking time, a culmination of more than sixty years of research, is the stuff of history, of legend; a light at the end of the tunnel, a ray of hope, a godsend, … . As exciting as this is, in the face of all the havoc wreaked by this pandemic; at this time, at least 40% of Americans appear to be more than a little hesitant to get vaccinated with the new vaccines. These are, for the most part, those who did not want to believe in, to follow, the science in combatting the pandemic. Instead, they chose to believe in, to follow the advice of, Donald J. Trump. Many of these are Evangelical Christians who believe in, follow the teachings of, 5,000 year old scriptures. Can the Nation go forward, in this the 21st Century, when such a large proportion of its citizens are looking to the far distant past for answers? Can the Nation, the world, go forward without secular governance? America’s Evangelicals are America’s Taliban. They would impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us. And, there are a lot, a craven lot, of Congress Critters, and a couple, and now more, head-case Supreme Court Justices, more than willing to abet them in doing so. The Evangelicals need to be held to account for their actions to undermine America. The business of Evangelicalism, and it is a business, needs to be held to account. Maybe drag a few of the better known bottom feeder Pastors/Practitioners before a few congressional committees for racketeering? Before the court of Public Opinion. Let’s see if their beliefs, er, sermons, can stand the light of day; a little sun-light over here please. Let’s stand with France; let’s take on theocracy. They and theirs are entitled to their ‘culture’. But, just as AOC and the Squad are not entitled to impose their beliefs, their ‘culture’ on the rest of the Nation, the Evangelicals, science deniers, racists, misogynists, are not entitled to impose their beliefs, ‘culture’ on the rest of the nation. Which, somehow, brings us back, full circle, to the problem of the Electoral College and the most unrepresentative Senate. Somehow, the whole 73 million who voted for Trump need to be held to account.
Do the red states better represent working class America than do the blue? Doubt that. Quick look tells us that the blue states are more productive, more productive per capita, than the red states. Mitch McConnell brags of extorting $17.2 billion from the blue (Yankee) states for his more deserving Kentuckians. Civil War’s over Mitch; has been for a long, long, time.
Culture: The customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group. Also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (such as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time. We hear that maybe there is a culture war going on between the blue states and the red states. The use of the word war implies that at least one, or both, of the two is trying impose their values, beliefs, and practices on the other. Denying a woman the right of choice is imposing your beliefs on others. Allowing a gay couple to marry is not. Denying a gay couple the right to marry is imposing your beliefs on others. Listen up, Justice Alito! The wearing of masks is not about your personal freedom, it is about consideration for others; not wearing a mask is about self-centeredness. Suppressing the vote is not a cultural value. Neither is White Supremacy. Strutting around in camos carrying assault weapons is not a cultural value; it’s unbelievably dangerous, and asinine. Armed militias aren’t culture; they’re stupid, adolescent, and illegal. Willful ignorance is of no cultural value; is nothing to be proud of.
To an extent, I think the red states represent those who like things to stay the same, want to go back to an earlier time. That’s the big desirability, the big reason why they live where they do. Staying the same means ignoring a lot of things that are going on; a lot of facts. A lot of people in those red states voted for Trump because his message, his spiel, harkened back to the past. Perhaps, we on the coasts and in the larger cities, similarly, may live here because we like change, the excitement of change, would find it boring to be around people just like ourselves. Many Americans appear to simply be unable to think anew. Even in these times, when almost everything is changing, has changed, they want to apply solutions from the past to today’s issues; to live in the world in which they grew up, at least in the world they remember growing up in. Tie-hacking’s too hard. So is keeping up. If Dolly Parton can do it, so can we all.
The first big test of Trump’s attempt to steal the electoral college was a failure
Washington Post – November 18
Local Republicans dipped their toe into it and, amid widespread backlash, pulled back
His legal challenges to overturn election results have gone nowhere, so President Trump has floated another way to get around his loss: persuade Republican legislatures in swing states to change state law on how to appoint electors and give them to him rather than President-elect Joe Biden.
It’s a legally dubious long shot. Pulling it off would depend on a chain reaction of events that start with local election officials all raising the specter of election chaos, which is exactly what happened in Detroit on Tuesday night before it fizzled.
Two Republican election officials in Detroit initially refused to certify the largely Black county’s election results. After blowback, they reversed themselves.
Here’s what happened
Tuesday was the first major deadline in Michigan to declare Biden the winner of that state. Counties needed to certify their election results by the end of the day, then give those results to state officials to certify. Once that happens, the election results are official, rather than just projected.
In the state’s most populous county, Wayne County, which covers Detroit, the board of canvassers deadlocked over whether to certify results. Michigan county canvass boards are split — two Democrats, two Republicans. The two Republicans voted against certifying the results, citing concerns about voting errors. It was a surprise to local and state election officials, since the Trump campaign has failed to prove in court a single vote in the area was cast fraudulently.
Republican board chair Monica Palmer explained that she did not “have faith that the poll books are complete and accurate.” Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) disputed that, indicating on CNN that Palmer may have been conflating minor clerical errors with actual fraud.
The Trump campaign immediately jumped on this to try to seize the election: “If the state board follows suit, the Republican state legislator will select the electors. Huge win for @realDonaldTrump,” Trump campaign legal adviser Jenna Ellis tweeted.
Here’s what she was getting at: Had the county board not been able to agree on whether to certify results, it would have gone to a state board of canvassers to decide, which is also split — two Republicans and two Democrats. (A former Michigan elections director told the Detroit News that he wouldn’t expect that board to deadlock, and if they did, a court would tell them “to do their jobs.”)
If for some reason the state board couldn’t agree, the Trump campaign would have found/created enough chaos to open the door for GOP lawmakers to step in and decide who won Michigan.
How that works legally
It doesn’t, say legal experts. As I explained recently:
The Constitution says states get to decide how to allocate their electors. They have all settled on, sensibly, giving electors to whoever wins the popular vote in their state. Lawmakers can change that, but they’d need to do it before the election, not after.
That’s according to experts on law, the Constitution and democracy from a wide ideological range on the cross-partisan National Task Force on Election Crises. Changing how electors are appointed after people vote, they argue, would violate federal law that requires all states appoint their electors based on what happens on Election Day. Any attempt to appoint electors in another way after the election would almost certainly face serious legal challenges in courts.
What’s more, the Trump campaign needs sympathetic legislators to carry this out. That’s a heavy ask. In addition to being legally dubious, what they want these lawmakers to do is pretty brazen and would most certainly lead to massive street protests. That may be why some Michigan Republican lawmakers have said they’re not entertaining the idea of stepping in and deciding who won.
(Some GOP lawmakers in Pennsylvania have been slightly more open to it, but only slightly, saying “under normal circumstances” it’s not their job to assign electors after the election.)
How this ended poorly for the Trump campaign
After widespread pushback, including from election workers and voters in Detroit and also nationally from Democrats and voting-rights advocates who said this was an attempt to disenfranchise Black voters, the two Republican board members changed their votes to yes and came to an agreement to ask the secretary of state to audit the results.
Michigan was the first high-profile state in the Trump campaign’s crosshairs to start certifying its results. Georgia has a deadline of Friday; Arizona and Pennsylvania begin certification on Monday. Nevada is on Tuesday.
Could other election officials in these states decide not to certify results? It’s possible. Republicans in these states are facing sometimes intense pressure to do Trump’s bidding. Most prominently, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) said he’s receiving death threats for counting votes and getting pressure to toss out legal ballots.
But the Trump campaign’s first attempt to muddy election results and steal away Biden’s electoral college win didn’t go so well for Republicans. Local Republicans dipped their toe into it and, amid widespread backlash, pulled back.
Could the electoral college be stolen from Biden?
Washington Post – November 12
Could the electoral college be stolen from Biden?
With legal challenges highly unlikely to change the presidential election results — and not gaining traction in the courts — President Trump’s chances of remaining president increasingly rest on two far-fetched, unprecedented and potentially illegal strategies: convince Republican state legislatures in some states that President-elect Joe Biden won to give electors to Trump instead, or convince electors themselves to change their votes for him. …
It’s enough of a potential threat that Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) felt compelled to acknowledge it. She said she’s concerned Republicans are trying to use baseless claims of voter irregularities to take Biden’s 16 electoral votes away from him, even though he won the state by more than 148,000 votes. “We will do everything we can possibly do in the state of Michigan to ensure that does not occur,” she said on a call with reporters, “and that the slate of electors accurately reflects whoever received the most votes.”
Here’s what new reporting suggests Republicans may be trying to do to help Trump — and what we know about whether it’s legal or feasible.
Convince state legislatures to change the results
We know Trump is floating this. A top Pennsylvania Republican was quoted talking about this with the Atlantic before the election. And in Michigan, the state legislature can step in to decide a county’s dispute on whether to certify results in that county, which The Post reports has some Democrats worried a loophole exists for GOP leaders to assert control over assigning electors.
The Constitution says states get to decide how to allocate their electors. They have all settled on, sensibly, giving electors to whoever wins the popular vote in their state. Lawmakers can change that, but they’d need to do it before the election, not after. That’s according to experts on law, the Constitution and democracy from a wide ideological range on the cross-partisan National Task Force on Election Crises. Doing so, they argue, would violate federal law that requires all states appoint their electors based on what happens on Election Day. …
@ Fred
Yep, to get close enough to cheat was the game plan.
GOP members of Wayne County Board of Canvassers say they want to rescind votes to certify
via Detroit Free Press – November 19
Both Republican members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers signed affidavits late Wednesday saying they want to rescind their votes to certify the county’s election results.
It is not clear what effect, if any, the affidavits have. A spokeswoman for the Bureau of Elections said there is no legal mechanism for board members to rescind their votes.
“It means absolutely nothing,” said Jonathan Kinloch, a Democratic member of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers, who said the affidavits are a ploy to be used in an existing or future lawsuit.
Kinloch said the board even approved a second motion waiving reconsideration of the certification. “We had a definite deadline of 14 days to certify, and they knew that. This is now out of our purview,” he said. …
More: Donald Trump called Monica Palmer after Wayne County Board of Canvassers meeting
The Electoral College
The Electoral College is a unique method for indirectly electing the president of the United States. It was established by Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution and modified by the 12th and 23rd Amendments.
The Electoral College consists of a total of 538 members, one for each U.S. senator and representative, and three additional electors representing the District of Columbia. Each state has a number of electoral votes equal to the combined total of its congressional delegation, and each state legislature is free to determine the method it will use to select its own electors.
Currently, all states select electors through a popular vote (although how that vote works can differ) …
Faithless Electors
There is no federal law or constitutional provision requiring electors to vote for the party that nominated them, and over the years a number of electors have voted against the instructions of the voters. In 2004, a Minnesota elector nominated by the Democratic Party cast a ballot for John Edwards, the vice presidential running mate of John Kerry–thought to be an accident. Electors generally are selected by the political party for their party loyalty, and many are party leaders, and thus not likely to vote other than for their party’s candidate.
In 2016, there were seven faithless electors, the most since 1972—three Democratic electors from Washington state cast their votes for Republican Colin Powell, instead of Democrat Hillary Clinton; one Democratic elector from Washington state cast his vote for Faith Spotted Eagle, a woman who is a member of the Yankton Sioux Nation; one Democratic elector from Hawaii cast his vote for Bernie Sanders, instead of Hillary Clinton; one Republican elector from Texas cast his vote for John Kasich, instead of Donald Trump; and one Republican elector from Texas cast his vote for Libertarian Ron Paul. The last time an elector crossed party lines was in 1972, when an elector nominated by the Republican Party cast his ballot for the Libertarian ticket.
Some states have passed laws that require their electors to vote as pledged. These laws may either impose a fine on an elector who fails to vote according to the statewide or district popular vote, or may disqualify an elector who violates his or her pledge and provide a replacement elector. In July 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional for states to enact this type of law. …
The Electoral College
The Electoral College is a unique method for indirectly electing the president of the United States. It was established by Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution and modified by the 12th and 23rd Amendments.
The Electoral College consists of a total of 538 members, one for each U.S. senator and representative, and three additional electors representing the District of Columbia. Each state has a number of electoral votes equal to the combined total of its congressional delegation, and each state legislature is free to determine the method it will use to select its own electors.
Currently, all states select electors through a popular vote (although how that vote works can differ) …
Faithless Electors
There is no federal law or constitutional provision requiring electors to vote for the party that nominated them, and over the years a number of electors have voted against the instructions of the voters. In 2004, a Minnesota elector nominated by the Democratic Party cast a ballot for John Edwards, the vice presidential running mate of John Kerry–thought to be an accident. Electors generally are selected by the political party for their party loyalty, and many are party leaders, and thus not likely to vote other than for their party’s candidate. …
Some states have passed laws that require their electors to vote as pledged. These laws may either impose a fine on an elector who fails to vote according to the statewide or district popular vote, or may disqualify an elector who violates his or her pledge and provide a replacement elector. In July 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional for states to enact this type of law. …
Just had a thought this morning relevant to the big college/no college dichotomy that is becoming the supposed central difference between anti and pro Trump voters. GERMANY HAS 15% COLLEGE. College isn’t really necessary for an efficient, not to say world dominant, economy. We have to go to college because everybody else is going.
Getting back to my point, Germany has universal unions-plus-sector wide labor contracts. (Germany has only 20% union membership, but it’s unions are all minority unions — German culture of freedom — but those unions are still the exclusive bargaining agents.)
Let’s switch tracks for a moment. Our supposedly racist, etc., etc., fill in the parade of horribles Trump voters, voted for a black man who wasn’t even born in this country (kidding) in 2012 and 2008 against Wall Street Romney and red-white-and-blue war hero McCain — and — for Jesse Jackson over Gephart and Dukakis in the 1988 primary in MIchigan with 54%.
If somewhere along Obama’s time we (he) had instituted SEIU’s Andrew Strom’s suggestion of regularly scheduled union cert/recert/decert elections at every private (non gov) workplace, does anybody doubt that the Fool would never have taken a step into the White House?
DD,
You are beyond tiring. Least you could do is limit that worn out link to open topics or topics that that are relevant.
“How many of those 73 million Americans supported Trump because of his Birtherism, Racism, vulgarism, anti-science attitude, self-centeredness, sexism, misogyny, narcissism, habitual lying, …?”
All of them.
Congress Critters, and a couple, and now more, head-case Supreme Court Justices, more than willing to abet them in doing so. The Evangelicals need to be held to account for
”
in Birmingham they love the governor; true, true, true.
meanwhile in the Far East you can see from the chart that the Chinese added 15316 new cases on the ides of February their top overnight total of new cases on lupercalia. but now what do they have? 31 cases a day but usually Lots less than that. how are they different from us Earnest?
Hemingway:
they have less money than we have, F Scott, less money for precious metals like Palladium and platinum, less money for catalytic converters to be placed on the exhaust of their diesel trucks. this gives them more NOx which the Sun then converts to Ozone, ozone which works well at the business of “ozone cracking”. do you see why people in Brazil put nitrogen into their tires but not air? because they are afraid of the ozone cracking that will attack the double bonds of their tire rubber, rot the tires? do you see how many double bonds there are in the purine and pyrimidine moieties of the covid-19? double bonds that can be attacked by the ozone as the sun gets brighter from January to March bright enough to provide more ozone?
as the covid all but disappeared from China where did it pop up in the US? but of course, it pops up inside the state that has the most stringent governmental regulations againt NOx and other forms of pollution, pops up in Nancy’s state, the Golden State, California.
Boy let me
warn
you
!
@ Justin
Tres bien.
Merci
EMichael,
Relevant? A fully unionized (an easily unionized — see link) USA would never have elected the Fool.
Who did they pick of Mondale?
Ken:
I altered the links to give your presentation a better look(?). If you C&P the format, it will make for a cleaner presentation utilizing links. There is the aspecyt of your wanting a differ format. Let me know if the latter is the preference.
Bill
DD,
White union workers have been voting for Republicans their entire lives.
Try to live in the real world.
Birtherism, Racism, vulgarism, anti-science attitude, self-centeredness, sexism, misogyny, narcissism, habitual lying
Isn’t that basically the Republican platform?
Infidel:
At least with this president, such attributes by Republicans are in full bloom. There is no fear other than for a president who needs his butt handed to him to instill a fear of retribution for his actions. He is little more than a high school bully.
Hey, how have you been?
i have been trying to post some links to articles i think give a more comprehensive understanding of what is going on in America beyond stupid it’s the electoral college… or even sector-wide unions
but i am incompetent with managing links and too feeble minded at present to attempt a useful summary.
when i get a little more time (entirely a function of my laziness, i will try to provide both links and summary.
the only possible excuse for this lame comment is to suggest that you , on your own, try to look for analyses that don’t depend on a single cause du jour.
the electoral college is not the problem. without it, the R’s would just learn how to win the city vote… more expensive for them, but as long as they are smarter than the D’s, they will manage it, and you won’t like the outcome of that either.
and i guess the only thing wrong with sector-wide is that you can’t manage to do it… there are other ways to go about it perhaps?
i am not claiming that I, or any other source has THE answer.
Who am I coberly? Have we lost contact?
Run
apparently.
re deeper understanding?
here is a start:
“30 years ago historian @jackgo warned of “selfish elites,” said the US was “in respect of its state finances and its elites’ attitudes, following the path that led early modern states to crises.” Here’s what he says now: http://www.salon.com/2020/11/2…“
Michael
people are always stupid and always racist, but it takes certain economic conditions and a leader before stupidity and racism drive national policy.
the founders knew this.. some of them… and they tried… out of mutual fear among themselves… to design a system of checks and balances which would prevent the growth of tyranny (rule by some or one). among those checks and balances was the electoral college system… which has since evolved somewhat to be more democratic. the idea was to prevent some faction of elites from using demagoguery to to incite the “masses” to gain ultimate power for themselves as against other elites.
speaking of steps toward “living in the real world.”
the original electoral college benefited small states, NOT slave states. the recent election turned on states that do NOT benefit from the electoral college advantage (pennsylvania, georgia, wisconsin, michigan… not to mention florida and texas. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama, and now Biden… seem to have managed to win despite the electoral college handicap. not to mention Eisenhower, who was a Republican but not of the insane kind, won without the electoral college advantage.
@Coberly,
Glad to see you back and making sense.
However, then it comes to “the original electoral college benefited small states, NOT slave states” then that clarification although true was in reference to a comment I had made “a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away….” which you misconstrued at the time to mean something far different than what I had intended.
The electoral college was designed to prevent the most populous states from having too much power, but inherent in that was the Senate’s proportional electors. The Senate is itself an elitist legislative body, far more so then when Senators were appointed by state legislatures.until 1914.
GA got the most out of the combination sandwich of 3/5ths of man spread on two slices of Senate toast.
Ron,
thanks, I guess, but I always make sense. the thing to do about misconstruing is to keep talking. sometimes it helps. granted that a lot of times it does not… but usually you can tell in a few sentences if it has a chance.
i don’t claim to have a detailed knowledge of the history and politics of the electoral college. i am reasonably sure that the current “it’s the electoral college that cause all our trouble” meme is just the sort of thing the bad guys feed us to keep us from paying attention to the real causes of our trouble.
thing about 3/5 is that without it there would have been no union and britain would have picked us off one by one or two by two within the next twenty years.
as Lincoln said, the founders “set in motion the ultimate extinction of slavery.” note that the international slave trade was abolished by the Constitution… giving the slave owners twenty years to adjust… they adjusted by breeding more at home. hard to hold the founders accountable for not forseeing everything. i’d go further: not smart to hold the founders accountable for anything: that was over 200 years ago. we got different problems today. shh, don’t tell the Supreme Court.
I would say, again, that of course the Senate is an eliteist body. It was intended to be that way by people who feared “the masses” with good reason based on serious study of the history of republics… not, perhaps, the masses so much as the other elitists who would fool the masses and use them to seize absolute power. I am not sure how often that happened in history.: The French Revolution seems to have caught fire without much help from any elites. Jefferson was okay with the “blood of tyrants”, but if the “people” (of France) had caught him they would have chopped off his head. (but, hell, Jefferson would have hanged Aaron Burr if he could only have gotten John Marshall to go along with it, and Burr was no revolutionary, much less a traitor. He was just a political rival.)
or, as my favorite historians said, “let’s not be worryin’ about ‘oo killed ‘oo..”
especially Justice
something else i’d like people who actually want to win elections would think about:
“I feel there are a great number of people in the country that simply feel unseen, and in desperation they reach out to anyone who even appears to care about them. I know it is easier to put people we disagree with into various categories. I do it all the time. It saves a lot of time and energy.”
https://www.salon.com/2020/11/15/understanding-the-trump-voters-heres-why-nobody-is-doing-it-right/
Justin?
i think that was spell-check again insisting it knew better what I wanted to say than I did.
but while we are here: you said:
” The Evangelicals need to be held to account for..”
Just how are you proposing to do that?
last of a series of links and reasons to read articles that i think might be more useful to progressives than “the electoral college..”
this is by Yanis Varoufakis, a real socialist.
The op-ed that The Guardian would have published had Trump won: Compare and contrast
by webmaster YanisVaroufakis
Trump’s victory was not a triumph of rudeness over civility or of chaotic government over competence. It was, rather, a rejection of the liberal establishment’s proposed return to what used to pass as normal or ethical.
Even voters who loathed Trump did not warm to Biden’s promise to restore to the White House normalcy and a modicum of decorum. For them, it was heart breaking to have to choose between Trump’s obscenities and the obscenity of so much concentrated wealth throwing its lot behind Biden.
Obscenities and contempt for the rules of polite society were Trump’s means of connecting with a large section of American society in 2016 and now. As in 2016, with progressive Americans denied a candidate they could vote for, the election brought to the surface the vicious clash between Trump’s motley of angry left-behind supporters and an alliance of megafirms, megabanks and key representatives of the ultra-rich. It proved, again, an ideal terrain for Trump to cultivate the dread with which the majority of Americans have been living after the financial bubble burst in 2008.
The reason 2008 was a momentous year wasn’t just because of the magnitude of the crisis, but because it was the year when normality was shattered once-and-for-all. The original postwar social contract broke in the early-1970s yielding permanent real median earnings stagnation. It was replaced by a promise to America’s working class of another route to prosperity: rising house prices and financialised pension schemes. When Wall Street’s house of cards collapsed in 2008, so did this second postwar social contract between America’s working class and its rulers.
After the crash of 2008, big business deployed the central bank money that refloated Wall Street to buy back their own shares, sending share prices (and, naturally, their directors’ bonuses) through the stratosphere while starving Main Street of serious investment in good quality jobs. A majority of Americans were thus treated, in quick succession, to negative equity, home repossessions, collapsing pension kitties and casualised work – all that against the spectacle of watching wealth and power concentrate in the hands of so few.
By 2016, the majority of Americans were deeply frustrated. On the one hand, they lived with the private anguish caused by the permanent austerity to which their communities had been immersed since 2008. And, on the other, they could see a ruling class whose losses were socialised by the government, which defined the response to the crash.
Donald Trump simply took advantage of that frustration. His tactics, to this day, keep his liberal opponents in disarray. Democrats protested that Trump was a nobody, and thus unfit to be president. That did not work in a society shaped by media which for years elevated inconsequential celebrities, convincing the public that you have to be a real nobody before you can be mistaken for someone.
Even worse for Trump’s opponents, portraying him as incompetent is an own goal: Donald J. Trump is not merely incompetent. George W. Bush was incompetent. No, Trump is much worse than that. Trump combines gross incompetence with rare competence. On the one hand, he cannot string two decent sentences together to make a point, and has failed spectacularly to protect millions of Americans from Covid-19. But, on the other hand, he tore up NAFTA, the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement that took decades to put together.
Remarkably, he replaced it swiftly with one that is certainly not worse – at least from the perspective of American blue-collar workers or, even, Mexican factory workers who now enjoy an hourly wage considerably greater than before.
Moreover, despite his belligerent posturing, Trump not only kept his promise to not start new wars but, additionally, he withdrew American troops from a variety of theatres where their presence had caused considerable misery with no tangible benefits for peace or, indeed, American influence.
Trump’s opponents also frequently called him a liar. But Trump is not simply a liar. Bill Clinton lied. No, Trump is far worse. He has an ability to spew the most incredible untruths, while, at the very same time, telling crucial truths that no President would ever admit to. For example, when accused that he was de-funding the Post Office for electoral gain, he destabilised his accusers by admitting that, yes, he was restricting funding to USPS to make it harder for Democrats to vote.
Trump’s rudeness to his opponents, however disagreeable, might have even brought some relief to the forgotten Americans who associate Biden’s politeness with the gentle mercies that the former Vice-President reserved for Wall Street and the super-rich who bankrolled his campaign. Not unreasonably, they saw Biden as a polite emissary of the bankers who repossessed their homes and, at once, a member of an administration that bailed out – with public money – those same bankers.
They heard Biden’s sleek, well-mannered speeches about unity, respect, tolerance and bringing citizens together across the gaping political divide threatening to engulf America. And they thought “no, thanks, I don’t want to be united with, or tolerant of, those who got rich by shoving me in a hole.” To them, Trump’s behaviour is an ugly but welcome manifestation of solidarity with ordinary folks who feel empowered by the combination of the President’s vulgarity and his evocations of America’s irrepressible greatness – even if, deep down, they never expected their prospects to improve significantly when America becomes “great again”.
Our tragedy as progressives is that Trump’s supporters are not entirely wrong. The Democratic party has demonstrated time and again its determination to prevent any challenge to the powerful that is responsible for the pain, anger and humiliation that propelled Trump to the White House. Democrats can talk u
Back to me: I stopped there. you can, if the link works, find the rest of the article. At the point I stopped Yanis was about to say the dems can talk until the cows come home about [the importance of a woman vice president and other “issues” that distract voters from the real problem…]
@ coberly, & Yanis
Reality check; this ship is sinking. Just now, all hands are needed to get her righted. In a more perfect world, we would be doing a lot of things; just now, we must all do all we can to keep her afloat. Biden’s charge is not to get us back to a time past, can’t be done; suspect he knows this. Competency, please. New approaches are needed, let us pray, but, after we get her righted. Don’t see them on your list.
It might have been that some or all of what you are proposing would have been possible if the nation had been able to come to grips with the economic changes occurring in the last 50 years, but they blew it big time. Still don’t get it. Speaking of don’t get it, how in the hell can either of you look at the 2016 and 2020 Electoral Maps and arrive at the conclusion that a Bernie Sanders could have elected to diddly squat either time? Bernie and his Bros bear a major responsibility for Trump, and Bernie knows it. Trump took advantage alright. Bernie was trying for the same, in much the same way. If you want to change the world, change the way people think. Take another look at the maps. If you want to solve a problem, look to the cause. I see naught but a list of symptoms. Get back to us when you have figured out what is wrong, what the problem is.
Ken:
Bernie disturbed the status quo without filling the void or returning it to where clinton would have won. He left angry people, the anyone but trump or Clinton folk being a part of it. Time to work a solution outside of business addressing the issues of lower living standards, student loan debt, healthcare, etc.
Ken
you sound angry at me, and maybe one of those people with whom it is impossible to overcome misconstruing. Nevertheless
first, Yanis is Yanis Varoufakis. He is not here. He is a prominent politician and economist in Europe.
I would agree that “what to do” is a difficult problem. It seems to me we took the first step by beating Trump… the Left coming out, holding their noses, and voting for Biden. Next step is to find ways to work with Biden for small victories for workers. And maybe going out of our way not to insult them.
Your proposal (among others) was to get rid of the Electoral College. I did not catch how you proposed to do that. I don’t think it is the problem anyway.
I think the problem is the fifty or more years you refer to that we have let the neo-liberal end of history solution slide by, while doing essentially nothing for workers and still managing to scare the filthy rich into thinking we were coming for their jewels and daughters.
Yanis, may he speak for himself, is not interested in a time past. He wrote a book about a possible future… as a way of explaining the impossible present.
You say “new solutions are needed.” didn’t see any explicit examples offered in your last comment [i’ll go re-read your earlier comment just in case i misconstrued it].
I’d agree that all hands are needed. But I have seen too much amateur carpentry to be willing to hand saws and hammers to the passengers on a sinking ship.
For what it’s worth, I warned that i was afraid Bernie’s plans would scare the rich and probably not work as offered. Especially I don’t like turning Social Security into welfare for all seasons. I would have voted for him or Warren anyway, in the hope they were smart enough once elected to work “with” all the other interests. Now I have to hope Biden is, and all his past sins has given him insight into how.
Bernie, being smarter than most, asked his followers to work to elect Biden so as not to enable Trump. So much for major responsibility.
How do you propose to change the way people think? by calling them names?
Can’t say I have all the answers, but I think heated rhetoric directed at anybody, much less your friends, is not one that is going to get very far.
Coberly:
The EC is a bigly reason why trump won. The 1929 Reapportionment Act locked the numbers of EC electors as determined by population in each state. As a result, the EC is no longer functional to represent the nation by population (as determined by the constitution). Population proportionality determining the numbers of congressional representatives and electoral votes is an issue as I wrote in Reign of Witches. Wyoming’s 1 congressional representative = 1 electoral vote for 576.000 citizens. Using the same population numeric, the same 576,000 to determine congressional representatives and electoral votes for Wyoming would translate into 13 additional congressional representatives and 13 more electoral votes for California. California is under represented in Congress and in the Electoral College in relation to Wyoming.
The House no longer properly represents by population as set forth by the Constitution and neither doses the Electoral College represent by population. Beating trump in a second election is a correction of what should have never happened in the first place as a result of the Electoral College. The anybody but “trump or Clinton” gave us trump. In itself, this is “not” a rejecytion of liberal values.
Ken
i went back and re-read your post. I don’t think I missed anything the first time. I did post links and summaries of articles I thought did address some of your claims. They don’t seem to have affected your thinking.
And no, you don’t sound like someone with whom it is possible to correct a misconstruing of each other’s arguments.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/even-after-biden-win-obsolete-electoral-college-must-go
ken
i don’t see where this adds anything to the conversation. is it supposed to be some sort of proof?
Run
here is a problem for me. i don’t want to argue with a friend. not worth it. neither of us is likely to change his mind.
the electoral college was A reason Trump won in 2016. But it didn’t help him in 2020. Why?
I see no rejection of liberal values. I see smarter politicians taking advantage of the Constitution’s attempt to limit “representation by population.” I see the Dem win in 2020 (so far: we haven’t heard from the Supreme Court yet, which is in the hands of the enemy… for the same reason the R’s can take advantage of the Electoral College; they play a smarter game of political chess.)…the Dem win in 2020 as the result of the Dem sufficiently-smart game of chess with the help of the Progressives and enough of a population so disgusted with Trump they are willing to take a chance with the Dems again. This may be our last chance:
when the Dems, in spite of the Progressives, fail to deliver meaningful relief to the “low end” workers, and the R’s offer a presentable candidate, the R’s will win again, and with continued control of the Senate and the Supreme Court, will cement control of the country by the oligarchs they represent for the forseeable future.
Focusing our attention on the Electoral College will not help us. It is PART of the reason the R’s win, but not an important part: the small-state electoral advantage is not nearly as dangerous as the Dem failure to address inequities of “neoliberalism” and the fraud of “meritocracy.”
coberly:
“the electoral college was A reason Trump won in 2016. But it didn’t help him in 2020. Why?”
In 2016: The “anybody but trump or Clinton” gave us trump. In itself, this is “not” a rejection of liberal values.
In 2020: There was no (or very, very little) “anybody but trump or Biden votes.” The votes for others (Libertarians, Communists, Mickey Mouse, etc.) returned to normal.
Those “anybody but trump or Clinton” votes in 2016 determined who won the EC votes in PA, MI, and WI. The system worked.
What I said before: The EC is a bigly reason why trump won. The 1929 Reapportionment Act locked the numbers of EC electors as determined by population in each state. As a result, the EC is no longer functional to represent the nation by population (as determined by the constitution). Population proportionality determining the numbers of congressional representatives and electoral votes is an issue as I wrote in Reign of Witches. Wyoming’s 1 congressional representative = 1 electoral vote for 576.000 citizens. Using the same population numeric, the same 576,000 to determine congressional representatives and electoral votes for Wyoming would translate into 13 additional congressional representatives and 13 more electoral votes for California. California is under represented in Congress and in the Electoral College in relation to Wyoming.
The House no longer properly represents by population as set forth by the Constitution and neither does the Electoral College represent by population. Beating trump in a second election is a correction of what should have never happened in the first place as a result of the Electoral College. The anybody but “trump or Clinton” gave us trump. In itself, this is “not” a rejection of liberal values.
@Coberly,
OK, then. I just wanted to clear up one place where we had appeared to disagree when actually saying the same thing in our own distinctly different ways. Again, I agree you with right down to and especially on “the small-state electoral advantage is not nearly as dangerous as the Dem failure to address inequities of ‘neoliberalism’ and the fraud of ‘meritocracy.’.”
@Coberly,
Believing in “the fraud of ‘meritocracy.’” is a widely held misconception, not because it is true or false, but rather because what most people believe meritocracy to mean, although still false, is actually not is what is meant by meritocracy. Most people believe meritocracy to mean that competency is rewarded, but that is not what it really means on a tangible level.
To some extent on an abstract level if we accept that competency itself refers to paying the academic dues for participation in elitist aspects of the economic system, then one might equate with such a leap of faith that meritocracy is equivalent to competency and thereby justly rewarded. OTOH, if one considers that competency is doing whatever we do with consistency, accuracy, and excellence, then the rewards of meritocracy fade into a devious system of inheritance and patronage.
My dad did excellent work as concrete and block mason and as a state highway construction foreman building roads and bridges. He was also mighty handy, a great hunter, fisherman, and gardener. Yet he was illiterate. He learned what he knew of the trowel end of civil engineering in the CCC Camps and later in the Army combat engineers. Not being a banker or broker then the due rewards of his efforts kept him from ever exceeding median income.
Starting out life with two working parents (mom in pants factory), I was kept during the work week on an uncle’s farm taken for early morning rides on his tractor, seeing calves, puppies, and chicks born, and helping Aunt Minnie kill and dress chickens before reaching school age. By the 7th grade I had rejected the indoctrination of public education and the meritocratic fraud, becoming an autodidact, which eventually served me quite well in the frontier days of tech, which started before the university system had a grip on it. By the time that I was laid off in 2015 by the state’s tech outsource contractor (Northrop Grumman), then the state severance package benefits, paid for by NG for my part. capped off my retirement at age 66 plus SS well enough that I have been able to pay off my mortgage (last year) and finally reach the promised land. I had believed all the crap that I had been taught about retirement investment then I would be in a real hurry to die just so I would not live long enough to be poor.
@Ron,
“…IF I had believed…”
[Stayed too long and got lost in the weeds.]
Ron
I agree with all of that. I would add that meritocracy rewards people who give up their childhoods in the competitive race to get into a “good” school. and then give up their minds in order to agree with the professor, and finally give up their souls in order to “advance their careers.” They are not even necessarily smart in a non-academic, useful sense of the word. Nor does their “merit” assure honesty or what we used to call character.
I think this has been pointed out by others, but it is obvious just from watching the ones who succeed to public notice.
I watched all the things you mention during my own career. Luck and an extreme parsimony enabled me to retire at 52. Not rich, but enough to eat and a roof, and some small luxuries and interests.
Of couse I am still dependent on the continued stabilty and reasonable honesty of the current system, We could all end up fighting each other over scraps in the garbage pits of our betters.
“meritocracy” is no different from “the rich and well born” of Hamilton’s time. Or “the best and brightest,” and you remember where they got us.
hate to rub a sore spot, but (i think) Jackson (for all his faults and crimes) was the first president to put “the rich and well born” fallacy to rest. Of course, so did Lincoln and Grant, but they didn’t talk about it that way.
I am not a hater of the rich as such. Some of them are decent people.And we need them, decent or not. But like the farmer with the prize bull, I am all in favor of rewarding him with the best feed, the best pasture, and the best heifers, after all my income depends on him. But I am not willing to let him make the rules
Run
if the EC helped Trump in 2016 because of the anybody but Trump or Clinton vote (or non vote?), and didn[‘t help him in 2020 because of the absence of that vote… it seems to me the “anybody but” vote is more likely to be the problem than the EC.
as for the votes in PA, WI, and MI… these states are not among those advantaged by the EC.
asfor “popular vote as determined by the Constitution,” it seems to me the Constitution determied exactly the opposite\te: limit the effect of the popular vote by means of the EC… and other restrictions…or at least failure to endorse… [to] popular vote.
the “faithless Electors” provision is much more dangerous than the EC advantage to small states. A faction of very, very rich people can now control elections in enough states to control the country. This was not really forseen by the Framers.. but now, I think, merits a Constitional Amendment… if it’s not too late.
Meanwhile the problem is still not the EC, but the Money Interests, and the failure of the Dems to meaningfully resist it.
small man breaks into your house wearing brass knuckles and carrying a gun… worry about the gun, don’t complain about the brass knuckles.
coberly:
The “anybody but trump or Clinton” which is normally classified at “others” was at a historical or hysterical high in 2016. It was four times higher than in any other presidential election. Since MI, WI and PA were always close and lean Dem, it threw the election to trump.
as for “rejection of liberal values”:
i certainly do not reject liberal values. i am trying to find a way to beat those who reject liberal values.
i think it might help if Liberals actually practiced their liberal values, both in deciding to vote or not to vote, and in dealing with the people who don’t agree with them.
the EC small state advantage is not a real problem unless you are playing against a chess player smart enough to knock out your Queen with a pawn while she is standing there looking.
Run
glad you’re up.
i thought the rather high turnout this time meant that people who did not usually vote, voted. either for Biden (against Trump) or for Trump… though God knows what the Trump voters were thinking.
This suggests to me that if the Progressives can stay in the fight, there is a good chance that Progressive policies will gradually show their worth.
I don’t see how the vote in PA etc shows that the Electoral College is an important factor. I imagine the Democrats are smart enough to get the small state vote if they realize they are going to need it. I KNOW the R;s are smart enough to get the city vote if they see they are going to need it.
I see no chance of the Electoral College small state advantage being eliminated. And because I don’t know what politics is going to look like in the future, I’ll take all the checks and balances I can get.
coberly:
This is the 3rd occurrence over 34 years and it is different than the first two. It is tiring me out and I take naps which are abnormal for me. The hematologist said this is normal.
Of course we can stay in the fight. These three states vote Dem in national elections consistently since 1990. The 2016 vote was based on lies. Understand many of those who vote for trump will do so even it hurts them and just to deny others.
The EC vote is based upon “winner take all” in each state. Each of these states is slowly going more Dem. Dem should work on small states also. Eliminate the 1929 Reapportionment Act and reappoption Congressional Reps by population using Wyoming’s population.
Run
naps are normal for me, but then i don’t sleep at night. Like Napoleon I have 2 a.m. courage. after a wasted youth of late nights and later mornings, i finally learned that when a dog wants to go out in the middle of the night, it’s because her tummy hurts and she is trying to be good. criminal to ignore that.
i don’t understand anything about the people who vote for Trump. Of course the election was based on lies; they all are. What scares me about the Trump voter is the lies he believes, wants to believe… and that there are so many of them.
Staying in the fight means working with Democrats… even if they are neoliberal liars. But it doesn’t mean lying down for them. It means making them pay for support with measures to help the people…. which might, oddly enough help them win elections. even help us win elections.
When people understand that Social Security is not “sociaiism.”
Coberly,
Yep. Good to see you hashing it out with Run. Have fun.
Ron,
having fun. trying not to have an argument with Run, a friend in what matters.
oops, we are arguing about what matters…???
coberly:
I am lucid for a few. Not arguing. I am just providing the mechanics of why we ended where we did in 2016. This had more to do with people who were convinced they did not like either candidate. 2016 voter turnout was more than 2012. Just the numbers sir. Nothing else . . .
Quinn Norton’s @ Emptywheel
Run
I can’t argue with that.
Ken
re empty wheel
thanks for letting us know how you feel. or are you agreeing with the commenters who thought it was garbage?
whatever your feelings about the defects of the Constitution or the evil motives of the people who wrote it, it’s what we have, and you have nothing to replace it and no way to replace it.
Meanwhile the Constitution is designed to be self-fixing. Has been fixed many times, may need to be fixed now (faithless electors, now that we have seen how that could play out in the hands of a strong man in cahoots with a cabal of malefactors of great wealth).
The fault is not in our Constitution, but in ourselves…