Six thoughts about the election and democracy
The Trump problem is not – and never has been – the electoral college
The problem is that Donald Trump is a competitive presidential candidate in the United States, despite his manifest unsuitability for office.
There are various reasons for Trump’s competitiveness. Some of these reasons are structural (the weakness of our parties and our first past the post voting system), some reflect features of Trump (his celebrity, shamelessness, sociopathy, and charisma), and some reflect the cultural, ideational, economic, and political situation in the country (polarization, ethnocentrism, resentment of elites, slow growth etc.). The electoral college is a structural feature of American democracy, but it is not a systematic contributor to Trump’s success.
It is true that Trump’s victory in 2016 depended on the quirks of the electoral college. Trump lost the popular vote. But the electoral college just adds a bit of randomness to the outcome, relative to pure majoritarianism. Under slightly more favorable circumstances Trump could have easily won the popular vote in 2016, and it still would have been a huge threat to democracy and to the rights of disfavored groups. Majoritarianism is no safeguard against Trump and Trumpism.
Trump’s victory this year has made this clear, so perhaps we can now focus on the real question: what can we do to make our democratic system less vulnerable to a populist authoritarian like Trump? The answer to this question is not, “get rid of the electoral college”.
To be clear, I’d probably be happy to get rid of the electoral college. But I’d much rather figure out how to deal with the background cultural, ideational, political and economic issues which make someone like Trump electable.
Economic disappointment may not be the whole story
Several smart commentators have focused on economic dissatisfaction as the key to understanding Trump’s victory. This is certainly a plausible story, as far as it goes. Notably, it seems consistent with Trump’s widespread gains in the popular vote.
But there are two important caveats to this explanation (besides the obvious point that experts still need to roll up their sleeves and look carefully at the data). First, economic dissatisfaction at most explains the shift in the popular vote from 2016 to 2024. It does not explain why Trump was so competitive to begin with. Many people were willing to vote for Trump before the pandemic inflation and most of them would have done so again, despite, well, everything . . .
Second, it does not explain how Harris jumped out to a 3.5 pecentage point advantage in the horse race polls in the weeks after Biden stepped aside, or why she subsequently dropped down to a 1 point advantage. This trajectory at least raises the possibility that Harris had a path to victory, and that campaign and messaging effects were in fact significant.
Consider, for example, the following: 1) Trump regained control of the press narrative following his disastrous debate performance (e.g. by attacking Haitians and shifting attention to immigration, an issue that favored him), 2) Trump moved to limit the damage to his campaign on abortion, but Harris refused to distance herself from Biden, and 3) Trump focused his campaign on a small number of perceived problems that voters trusted him to fix, while Harris was fuzzier on both problems and solutions.
It’s not “it is who we are”
Before the election some hopeful liberal commentators suggested that Trump would not win re-election because “it’s not who we are”. Now many are saying that, well, maybe it is who we are after all.
In a literal sense I suppose this is true – Trump won the election – but this framing is misleading and unhelpful. Many of Trump’s voters did not believe his most extreme rhetoric. They supported him, but they were not endorsing his most autocratic statements – statements which were often ambiguous, or contradicted by other statements Trump made, and which, in any event, Trump deliberately encouraged his potential supporters to take either literally or not, whichever would help him win their vote.
These voters will play a crucial role in restraining Trump over the next 4 years. If Republicans could count on their unwavering support, there would be nothing to hold them in check (okay, maybe the courts, but don’t hold your breath). But some of them will turn against Trump if his policies are too cruel or authoritarian or rekindle inflation, and this will put pressure on elected Republicans to push back against Trump’s worst excesses.
We need to constantly remind people that Trump does not have a mandate for the most extreme and unpopular policies his administration may adopt. Saying “it’s who we are” implies that all of his voters bought into the most extreme interpretation of the Trumpian agenda. This deprives us of one of our most important persuasive strategies going forward. We need to give his cross-pressured voters permission to say “hey, wait a minute, I didn’t vote for that”. And it drives away a critical group of potential allies by insulting the segment of his supporters who (perhaps naively) just wanted Trump to fix the economy or who interpreted his remarks on abortion to mean that he would not take any action to further restrict access. It is “deplorables” in new clothing.
Let’s cool it with the “I am moving to Canada” shtick
The press seems to love stories about liberals threatening to leave the country in response to Trump.
No doubt a few people have legitimate fears that might make emigration attractive. However, leaving is not a realistic option for most, it will not help to safeguard American democracy, and stories about liberals emigrating are politically unhelpful.
For the vast majority of Americans, there is no reason to leave the country. For one thing, this isn’t pre-war Europe, where Jews wanted to emigrate but couldn’t leave or find a place that would accept them. In fact, it’s the opposite. Today we have millions of people who want to live here peacefully but who may be forced out against their will. That is the most immediately looming atrocity of Trumpism.
In addition, if democracy dies here it will be hard to sustain anywhere. If you are worried about your children and grandchildren, your best bet is to stay and fight, or at least hope that things break our way and enough remains of our institutions and traditions to rebuild when Trump leaves the scene. The risk of failure is way higher than it should be, but democrats still have a good chance to prevail.
Talk about leaving the country is also not helpful politically. It just reinforces the belief on the right that democrats are unpatriotic or reject the legitimacy of Trump’s election. We need to respect the legitimacy of Trump’s win, resist where we can, and hope that Trump moderates or overreaches.
Politics is complicated: abortion edition
My understanding is that abortion referenda were supposed to serve two political functions: safeguarding abortion rights, and drawing democratic voters, especially women, to the polls. The actual effect of referenda may be different: they may allow voters to safeguard abortion rights without supporting democratic candidates. Politics is complicated.
The turnout conundrum
Any theory of the election will need to grapple with this:
The dominant story of the election thus far is the turnout. Donald Trump collected 62 million votes in 2016, grew that to 74 million in 2020, and will check in at a bit less than 74 million this year. In other words, to the extent that he won new voters over this year, they were offset by voters who jumped ship. He really does have a pretty hard ceiling. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton collected 66 million votes in 2016, Joe Biden got 81 million in 2020, and this year, Kamala Harris is going to end up with about 68 million. “Where did all those Biden voters go?” is a question that will haunt Democratic operatives, not to mention political commentators, for months or years.
Good news! It’s possible that Democratic operatives and political commentators will be getting some help looking at that turnout conundrum.
Democrats have beaten the abortion issue is beaten to death. Both Clinton and Obama had enough “mandate”. In over 50 years Democrats have not fixed it! The talking points energize the pro life side.
I have nothing against a woman president, neither H nor K are sellable.
Last observation: with the current democrat administration who is running the country?
It is called prejudicial beliefs. You and others do not have the right to determine the rights of others when it comes to others. Your comment about Harris or Clinton is prejudicial. If you had never seen them, heard them, and only read their remarks; you would make the remarks you just did. It is obvious.
Pro Life has been out to beat Roe v Wade for decades.
Clinton, Obama, Biden did what to codify abortion access?
@paddy,
Abortion access was codified by Roe until the SCOTUS Trump majority ignored stare decisis.
Pro-forced birth has been losing ground pretty steadily since Dobbs. A notable exception is Florida, which requires a supermajority.
Pretty sure that codified means legislated rather than decided in a court case. Precedent only lasts until superseded by a later precedent. I told my liberal friends such when Roe v Wade was decided. The only surprise to me was how long it took to overturn.
@rc,
Roe v Wade was codified by a SCOTUS decision, not by legislation.
And yes, the Constitution means exactly what the SCOTUS says it means. In the history of the SCOCUS, stare decisis was a strong tradition. That tradition has been abandoned, not only with RvW, but with the Scalia re-interpretation of the 2nd Amendment reference to a “well regulated militia” as a single person acting alone.
1896: Plessy v. Ferguson
Homer A. Plessy challenged an 1890 Louisiana law that required separate train cars for Black Americans and White Americans in the case Homer Adolph Plessy, Plaintiff in Error v. J.H. Ferguson, Judge of Section “A” Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans. The Supreme Court held that separate but equal facilities for White and Black railroad passengers did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Significance: Plessy v. Ferguson established the “separate but equal” doctrine that would become the constitutional basis for segregation. Justice John Marshall Harlan, the lone dissenter in Plessy, argued that forced segregation of the races stamped Black people with a badge of inferiority. That same line of argument would become a decisive factor in the Brown v. Board decision.
{ Not all traditions are created equal. }
@rc,
And the Roberts court is taking it to a whole new level. Stare decisis is dead.
I could probably write a book on what went wrong for democrats. On the top of the list; men turned out and voted for Trump. Men are tired of having women’s issues shoved down their throats and constantly being told women are better. Biden got bullied into selecting a woman VP and men got the final say on that.
Democrats have not had a fair primary since 2008. Super delegates in 2016. The front runners dropping out in 2020 and supporting a washed up old man to derail Sanders. And of course the anointing of Harris.
I wouldn’t worry too much about Trump. 4 years from now when the same Americans who live paycheck to paycheck realize they are no better off will no doubt vote for change again. This same narrative has been playing out ever since Reagan (although the internet and social media has sped the process up to 4 years instead of 8). Democrats best option is to sit back and let Trump (no doubt) accelerate the process. Short term pain for long term gain. Hopefully the Democrats will wake up and finally do what’s right for working class Americans and men. If not, another 4 and done (JD’s turn… that’s scary!).
@Markg,
Well said. Thanks.
I posted this yesterday in the “Open Thread.” Re-posting here:
Constitutionally-Authorized Dictator
I refer to the referenced article, “Trump’s new world order,” below, and would retitle it, “The Most Powerful Man In The World.” Imagine control of the Executive Office, the Senate, the House (either outright or by bribes or bullying), the U.S. Military, the Supreme Court, topped with total Immunity from laws. With icing included like unlimited funding via the government and/or personal or indirect through the likes of Elon Musk (the richest man in the world) and inroads to the control of major media & information distribution sources e.g. Fox News, “X”, and threats to major media outlets that may disagree. And, the entire government (all agencies) headed and leadership-staffed by loyal followers.
No imagining…. IT’S ALL REAL!!! He is truly a Constitutionally-authorized Dictator, a new form of democracy in America. Not just on “day one,” but 4-years for sure (maybe more). Yes, we still have elections and an opposition party, BUT, would you want to run for office or participate in this system as an opposition player? Yes, we still have free speech & a somewhat free press, BUT, would you want to take on this power structure?
Constitutionally Authorized Dictatorship with the backing of the popular vote is where we are. . . What he does with his new found power I have no idea, but basically it’s whatever he wants…
I would refer readers to the AXIOS, November 7, 2024 publication, entitled, “Trump’s new world order”
Axios AM special edition: Washington’s new world order, by Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen.
See Wikipedia for extensive discussion, analysis and references:
“Unitary Executive Theory” and “Constitutional Dictatorship.”
Trump also was far more vibrant and fun than Harris. It’s great that we did not get to see her shot, but ‘what doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger’ is true. The E-boat versus sharks? Arnold Palmer? Solid Gold dance town hall? In Banyon’s words, “that’s gold, Jerry, gold!”
When Patrick Deneen’s “Why Liberalism Failed” was published in 2016 it was readily dismissed because the author was a known conservative. When Francis Fukuyama’s “Liberalism and Its Discontents” was published in 2022 then it was simply ignored. When I told my liberal friends how their plans were going to go wrong on them over fifty years ago then I was accused of being a reactionary, which seemed incongruent with my past as a civil rights and antiwar grassroots protest organizer. It is easy to see how less educated working class voters might be underwhelmed by the choice between self-interested sociopaths and effete pseudo-intellectual snobs all pandering aside.
@rc,
I grew up in the South at the end of American apartheid. Civil rights, women’s rights and gay rights have made huge strides since then. Also legalization of marijuana.Those were certainly part of the liberal program. Military bases named after treasonous generals have been re-named. Monuments to treason have been torn down. I count those as successes and celebrate them. YMMV.
BTW, if that makes me an effete pseudo-intellectual snob*, I’m happy to embrace that. I prefer it over “anti-intellectual snob.”
*I see you are paraphrasing Spiro Agnew’s invective here.
https://politicaldictionary.com/words/effete-snobs/
The states that secede were within the framework of the Constitution.
Honor is a burden, the competent military officers did not break the oath to the constitution which they held as abused.
Lee, Bragg, Benning, etc. were not traitors in any way.
Going to war then to force the states back in was like most aggressive event. Did the congress that remained declare war.
Patroitism to the beltway is questionable.
@paddy,
There is nothing in the Constitution that permits secession. Secession was treason. It still is.
The military officers of the Confederacy broke their oath. They were traitors. They still are.
Confederate generals served treason and were traitors. The only choice left was war. The Confederacy knew this. They went to war over the right to keep humans in slavery. That’s not patriotism. Shame on anyone who defends that.
The subject of secession was discussed long before it happened and even longer after it happened but never definitively decided and absolutely not explicitly specified in the US Constitution. The implication is that we should defer to the 10th amendment of the US Constitution on this matter. However, any final decision on the matter of treason depends upon who one considers was first to break the law at Fort Sumter, the union troops for not evacuating a fort within a state having seceded from the union or southern troops for firing on a union fort. Failing to recognize secession itself as legal does not make it illegal. It is 160 years too late to resolve this by legal decision and neither your opinion, Paddy’s opinion, nor my opinion matter.
https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment10.html
…..
The Tenth Amendment’s Text and Meaning
The Tenth Amendment states:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Essentially, it reserves to the states (or the people) any powers the Constitution does not grant to the federal government, except for powers the Constitution specifically withholds from the states. It balances the vast powers of the federal government against state sovereignty.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are unique because they do not explicitly grant constitutional rights. Constitutional scholars note that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are companion provisions. They act as rules for interpreting the Constitution:
The Ninth Amendment states that just because the Bill of Rights lists some rights, it is not an exhaustive list. In other words, people may possess other fundamental rights beyond those listed in the Bill of Rights.
The Tenth Amendment’s language implies that the powers the Constitution grants to the federal government are exhaustive. The Amendment also reserves all unenumerated powers to the states.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments clarify that the Bill of Rights does not enumerate all possible rights of the people. However, it does enumerate all the of the federal government’s powers……
@Joel,
FDR’s party supported the working class stiffs, but the liberal finance project that built our modern “service economy” had other ideas. The Club of Rome preferred de-industrialization of the Global North exporting industrial labor jobs rather than providing such advanced technology to the Global South that they might become economically independent. I recall the logic that the interdependence of national economies under the framework of financialized globalization would insure world peace. How did that work out?
The first major blow even before that was Taft-Hartley which began setting the stage. Rescinding the dividends tax credit in 1954 (by Republicans) was the first step in enabling financialization and corporate consolidation, its strange bedfellow in increasing the efficiencies of scale by reducing competition. After that then breaking back the barriers erected by convertibility under Bretton Woods and the elaborate framework of the New Deal Era financial regulation created a world where prosperity was increasingly available only to the privileged few. Certainly one should not fail to appreciate increased civil rights, but one should also appreciate how little those advances in civil rights cost the donor class. It also should come as no surprise that the large number of individuals that have lost to the pressures of financialization and globalization while gaining little in civil rights might be put off a bit by the exchange.
Ah, rc,
Is there much more to be done? Yes, of course. But to make the perfect the enemy of the good is to cede to our enemies whatever territory we’ve gained.
As I’ve said several times here, there is no significant liberal party in the US. The Democratic Party is not the liberal party, despite what the GOP right-wing tells you. And we won’t build a liberal party by pissing on the liberal agenda, which is what they want you to do.
@rc,
Since you are a critic of Bretton Woods, do you believe American workers will be better off if the dollar is no longer the world’s reserve currency?
@Joel,
At this point hysteresis is all that is holding the US dollar as the global reserve currency. That has been the case since Nixon. What we have done since then has only dug us into a deeper hole when events finally happen that will throw the dirt in on top of the US. So, no American workers will not be better off when the US dollar fails, at least in the short term. The cost of oil will skyrocket as will all global commodities which we must import. Establishing a self-sufficient economy will take at least a decade. Eventually American workers might be better off under some sets of conditions, but not nearly all possible scenarios. The US will need a stable government with institutional depth and breadth. We will need a far better educated electorate than we have now.
Large mistakes come at a high cost usually on a long term installment plan with carried interest. The Treaty of Versailles cost global destruction and over six million lives and every nation party to that miscalculation is still in denial. Keynes nailed the Economic Consequences of the Peace in 1919. He attempted to reason with the players over the reserve currency with Bancor notes instead of dollars. US bankers had their way just as they had in 1919.
@rc,
“The US will need a stable government with institutional depth and breadth.”
We seem to be moving in the opposite direction with the Trump GOP in power.
“We will need a far better educated electorate than we have now.”
So a crash federal program in brain transplants? Because I don’t see how that happens otherwise.
@rc,
OK if I turn this comment into an AB post (with full credit to you, of course)?
This question is still outstanding . . . “do you believe American workers will be better off if the dollar is no longer the world’s reserve currency?”
@Bill,
I repeat:
“…So, no American workers will not be better off when the US dollar fails, at least in the short term. The cost of oil will skyrocket as will all global commodities which we must import. Establishing a self-sufficient economy will take at least a decade. Eventually American workers might be better off under some sets of conditions, but not nearly all possible scenarios. The US will need a stable government with institutional depth and breadth. We will need a far better educated electorate than we have now.
Large mistakes come at a high cost usually on a long term installment plan with carried interest. The Treaty of Versailles cost global destruction and over six million lives and every nation party to that miscalculation is still in denial. Keynes nailed the Economic Consequences of the Peace in 1919. He attempted to reason with the players over the reserve currency with Bancor notes instead of dollars. US bankers had their way just as they had in 1919.”
Seems like an answer to me.
@Joel,
Sure thing – post away. Discussion is never a bad thing and I am not embarrassed by debate nor contradiction. I learn something new every day.
@rc,
“I recall the logic that the interdependence of national economies under the framework of financialized globalization would insure world peace.”
I don’t recall who promised world peace and on what credible authority. Refresh my memory, please, and who believed that prophecy. I recall growing up in Oak Ridge TN in the 60’s and early 70’s where everyone had a bomb shelter or fallout shelter. Nobody there was promised world peace. I still have a 7 lb box of civil defense crackers from 1964 in my basement as a testament to the lack of confidence in world peace.
@Joel,
Not sure how you missed the trade for peace claim as it has been ubiquitous all of my life. It is still being discussed. First link I found below but there are thousands the http://WWW. PDF at link & abstract below link.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1043951X23001578
Abstract
Investigating the impact of international trade on global peace assumes paramount significance given the current state of global political and economic instability, which is characterized by growing volatility and increased uncertainty. This paper empirically examines the impact of international trade on peace in the world and among different countries from the perspective of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Using data on interstate conflicts from 1950 to 2000, we find robust evidence that the international trade framework, represented by the WTO, reduces the probability and intensity of militarized interstate disputes, thereby making a significant contribution to the establishment and maintenance of global peace. The magnitude of this impact, however, varies depending on the geographical distance between nations, the extent of tariff concessions made by countries, and the changes in the institutional framework of the World Trade Organization. First, the WTO has the greatest impact on neighboring countries and those in close proximity, where the probability of conflicts is higher. Second, the peace-promoting effect of the WTO is significantly higher for developed countries that make greater tariff concessions compared to developing countries. Finally, changes in the WTO’s institutional framework following the Uruguayan negotiations have diminished its effect in promoting peace. These results suggest that in order to mitigate the current concerns about global security, all countries must insist on expanding openness, deepening common interests, and avoiding engaging in direct military conflicts that would result in significant welfare losses.
@rc,
Looks to me that the authors ignored the effects of nuclear proliferation and MAD on international peace. If you want to mount a serious argument that international trade is the major determinant in reducing the probability and intensity of militarized interstate disputes since 1950, you’ll have to do better than simply wave away the Cold War and the NATO-Warsaw Pact standoff. For those of us who grew up at nuclear ground zero for WWIII, it was a balance of terror, not a balance of trade, that we focused on.
So no, I didn’t miss the arguments about trade and peace. Indeed, I have believed for decades that Castro could have been brought down if the US had promoted, rather than withheld trade. That said, the Cuban Missile crisis was resolved when the USSR backed down from a threat of nuclear exchange, not because of the promise of an exchange of goods and services.
@Joel,
From MAD to Cuba there is nothing there I can disagree with. However, I was not supporting the age old claim although I still agree with you on Cuba because manipulating trade arrangement in either direction is not the best choice.
Long ago the theory was that the advanced economies should promote the self sufficiency of emerging economies via the transfer of technologies. That cut against the intellectual property rights of the wealthy. Using emerging economies for cheap labor and pollution dump sites was a better deal for the ownership class although not the labor class.
Medgar Evers realized that the common interests of the working class should be embraced across racial lines. That was enough to get him killed. MLK came to the same realization only months before his assassination which came on the heels of initiating his poor peoples campaign. Leon Trotsky was a Leninist but not a Stalinist which also got him murdered.
National independence is not a bad thing for any nation’s economy, which is not to say that Russia would be a better global leader than the US, but rather to question whether this planet needs a global leader since any nation in that role will always put their own self-interest ahead of other nations and the planet as well?
Trumps win is obvious to anyone watching. Anyone with the ability to be objective, that is. In short, we are not a progressive country despite the loudest voices in the room they are not in the majority even though their decibel level feels like they are. We are a slightly left and right of center country. As I’ve always said, the democrats insist on asking the wrong question. Instead of wondering what’s wrong with all those people that they would rather a guy like Trump over them, the actual question should be what is so wrong with THEM that people would choose a guy like Trump over them. They ignored this glaring and obvious question to their peril. It takes a certain level of hubris and narcissism to think the only reason why someone would reject you is because they MUST be a stupid Nazi. Well, now we’ll see if the democrats recalibrate and instead of pointing fingers, they take a deep dive into their ideas, platform and policies and try and get a little more in line and in touch with the average American voter. But it’s almost impossible for a narcissist to ever admit it just might be them that’s the problem and that will be the final death blow come the midterms which will put the democrats away for at least the next generation.
@Matt,
” . . . that will be the final death blow come the midterms which will put the democrats away for at least the next generation.”
LOL! Your prophecy is noted.
Much more likely is the demise of the GOP, which is a cult, not a party. When Trump dies, they die.
The Democratic Party today is the Conservative Party.There is no significant liberal party in America. We need one.