"Not At This Table" Is Part of The Problem

Fareed Zakaria is right about the first and third point. However, the other guy makes an excellent point about factor #3.

In fact, Trump ran much more on identity politics, but his identities were “white” and “male”. Those are the only two demographics he won.

Of course, those are not regarded as identities by you and others because they are still seen as the default.

— Ali Minai (@barbarikon) November 10, 2024

A year ago, Donald Trump charged that immigrants (not illegal immigrants- immigrants) are "poisoning the blood of our country. That's what they've done..." In October, he said of immigrants "you know, now a murderer, I believe this, it's in their genes. And we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now."

That's pure, unadulterated, classic racism and only two examples of the identity politics Trump traffics in.

Nonetheless, identity politics, central to Donald Trump's message and appeal, is alive and well on the left and on cable television. I had to watch this twice because I couldn't believe the silliness and stupidity:

"I am NOT going to listen to transphobia at this table!"

CNN panelist loses their mind over "slur" used by Republican strategist during trans sports debate. pic.twitter.com/5PXnSJW4A0

— Brigitte Gabriel (@ACTBrigitte) November 9, 2024

If we wanted an example of the role of identity politics which Zakaria believes played a role in the defeat of the Democratic Party in this cycle, you can't do any better than this exchange.It's hard to hear everything while guests are interrupting other guests, as is common on CNN's Abby Phillip Tonight.

Conservative Republican Shermichael Singleton can be heard remarking "I think there a lot of families ut there who don't believe boys should play girls' sports." Openly gay Jay Michaelson, a writer, journalist, professor, and new-age rabbi angrily retorts "They're not boys. I'm not going to listen to transphobia at this table."

There is no such word as "transphobia," except insofar as it was made up for ideological purposes. It has been common to take something we believe in- in this case, trans- and add "phobia" to it to disparage critics or skeptics. Moreover, though "trans," which is cooler than "transsexual" or "transvestite," has become a thing, it is not a word but a prefix. As the absurdly politically correct Merriam-Webster puts it (italics theirs)

While the word trans has been used as a shortened version of both transgender and transsexual, the word transsexual is dated and sometimes offensive. The word transgender is preferred..

Preferred by whom? The answer, evidently, is those who for whatever reason are "offended" by "transsexual." Not that "transsexual" isn't accurate- it makes people feel bad. By contrast, as has been explained

"But crushing truths prish from being acknowledged," (Albert) Camus writes- and what a wise observation. There are so many applications of that statement! Acknowledging something negative about your condition (something you were avoiding) is the same as acknowledging a crushing truth- but only after you acknowledge it can you conquer it. Go to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, and they will tell you that getting past denial is the first and hardest step towards recovery.

Another truth is that transsexualism exists, notwithstanding Merriam-Webster's intent to disappear it. And so does the widespread sentiment that boys now are being invited to play against girls in girls' sports leagues. Whether Shermichael- with whom I typically disagree- believes that they should be allowed to do so, or even whether transgendered individuals are still male- is not his point. 

As it is, it is not at all clear that boys attempting to transition to girls are now female, or that they are yet male, despite Michaelson's apparent certitude. But assuming the unassumable- that these individuals are not boys- the "I'm not going to listen to transphobia at this table" is very problematic.

Not only is it usually self-defeating not to listen to- or rather, to shout down- individuals with whom we disagree, it is particularly reprehensible to do so on Abby Phillips Tonight, which is meant to showcase differing opinions. Unfortunately, the host seemed not to understand the raison d'etre of her own show when she stated

Look, this is a really heated issue, alright? Shermichael, I know you. I know that you understand that people have different views on this. I think out of respect for Jay, let's try to talk about this in a way that is respectful. 

Singleton then assured her "let me rephrase this since I'm being targeted here," (which was obviously the case) and the show went on. Contrary to Phillip's implication, Singleton was disrespectufl by neither manner nor words.  And ironically, his point was in fact that people have different views on this, contrary to the heated Michaelson, who believed either that everyone is of the same view as is he or, more likely, that anyone who disagrees with him is a bigot or dunderhead.

Posing as open-minded, Abby Phillip runs a dishonest program. More importantly, though, the exchange exemplifies the identity politics Fareed Zakaria believes has come to define the Democratic Party in the mind of voters. This wasn't the only, and not even the most important, factor in the awful results from Election Day. And it's unclear how exactly sensible politicians separate themselves from the narrow-minded people who believe sexuality and race must define their own Party. But they must start with an open acknowledgement of the problem.

 

Share |

The Right President, the Wrong Vice President

On the Overtime portion of Real Time with Bill Maher, the host led a discussion with John Heilemann, Sarah Isgur, and Michael Douglas about the recently concluded presidential election. Isgur, who has worked for Carly Fiorina, Mitt Romney, the Republican National Committee, President Trump, and a few media outlets, remarked (at 7:29 of the video below)

And that's what I feel like they did to Kamala Harris. When Biden refused to step aside and not run again, he was supposed to be that bridge. He backed off on that promise due to arrogance and then he dropped out after a catastrophic debate performance and they set up Kamala Harris to fail. 

That was a three month campaign and she was supposed to introduce herself to the American people. No wonder people were Googling "did Joe Biden drop out?" (During the show itself, Maher stated that "Did Joe Biden Drop Out" was a popular search on November 4 among people Maher characterized as "Christmas Eve shoppers.")

 

Isgur is correct that President Biden had a catastrophic debate performance. Otherwise, she was way off-base. Were three months insufficient for the Democratic nominee to "introduce herself to the American public?" Memories are short, but fortunately we do have that Google machine to disabuse ourselves of any thought that Harris was deprived of the time to introduce herself. 

On  August 23, CNN had reported

Vice President Kamala Harris capped one of the most extraordinary months in modern political history Thursday night with a speech that rallied Democrats around themes of patriotism — and cast Donald Trump as the enemy of classic American principles.

“In the enduring struggle between democracy and tyranny, I know where I stand. And I know where the United States belongs,” she said.

With the cadence of a courtroom prosecutor, Harris delivered on the promise many Democrats saw in her when she launched her first presidential campaign five years ago, and when Joe Biden chose her as his running mate in 2020.

Harris went directly at her Republican rival. She laid out the former president’s legal troubles. She blamed him for the horrors some women have faced amid the implementation of strict state-level abortion laws. She issued a reminder of what she called the “chaos and calamity when he was in office.”

Six days later, Brookings commented

Symbols, visuals, and memes have recently overshadowed words and text in political communication. Nonetheless, last week’s Democratic National Convention proved that words still matter, that a 21st century rhetoric can still inspire in a digital-visual world.

Ronald Reagan was called the “great communicator” because he mastered the language of the living room with stories that relayed big ideas and evoked the communal experiences of Americans. A lineup of successful speakers at the DNC did the same, foreshadowing the party’s messaging for the next two months.

Convention speakers used language that invited Americans to remember cherished moments of being together: cheering from the bleachers on Friday night, call and response from pews on Sunday morning, watching Team USA win Olympic gold, and conversations with your best friend on girls’ night out. They reminded us of the words we use when our team wins or loses, when we thank veterans for their service, we celebrate a wedding anniversary, welcome the birth of a child, or mourn the death of a mother.

And they did it in short words and phrases Americans use every day. This was a change for Democrats. Out were abstract ideas, in were muscular verbs and concrete nouns. Out were 10-point policy speeches, in were stories of patriotism and service, sports and teamwork, family and faith.

Harris' acceptance speech "rallied Democrats around themes of patriotism... with the cadence of a courtroom prosecutor" as she "issued a reminder" of the failure of President Trump.  The nominee "proved that words still matter" as she capped off a convention replete of speakers who 

used language that invited Americans to remember cherished moments of being together: cheering from the bleachers on Friday night, call and response from pews on Sunday morning, watching Team USA win Olympic gold, and conversations with your best friend on girls’ night out. They reminded us of the words we use when our team wins or loses, when we thank veterans for their service, we celebrate a wedding anniversary, welcome the birth of a child, or mourn the death of a mother.

Kamala Harris had it going on. The Democratic Party had it going on, and the latter was all in on the former.

The American people liked what they heard. They got to know her much better over the course of the next 75 days and changed their mind, at which time she lost decisively to a fellow with an approval rating of approximately 42%.  We knew that Donald Trump had a high floor but a low ceiling. Then he met Kamala Harris.

After Isgur's foolish remark, Maher responded

No, no. You think three months wasn't long enough? It was too long; it was long enough.... It's not that they didn't have time to introduce. They met someone. They didn't like them.

Nor did Joe Biden ever promise to serve only one term, nor did he "back off" any promise. On March 9, 2024, in a "nod to three people expected to be considered for the vice presidential nomination" (which included Harris), Biden stated "Look, I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else. There's an entire generation of leaders you saw stand behind me. They are the future of this country."

His people refused to say whether he'd serve only one term. However, when Biden finally realized that winning re-election was not plausible, he dropped out and endorsed Harris. The notion that he held out due to "arrogance" reflects a failure to understand that it's difficult for an elderly man (perhaps a woman, also, but that's another issue) to understand when his time is up. When that elderly man has been a President- and a highly effective one- it's even more difficult.

Voters met Kamala Harris, who made a good first impression. They met her again and again, and eventually were turned off by her. They turned against the candidate, a problem time could not cure.   

Admittedly, Joe Biden did make a major mistake. By early summer of 2020, he had decided to select as his running mate a woman, very likely black, who probably would be the leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in either 2024 or 2028. Turns out, he chose the wrong woman. 

Share |

It Was the Candidate

The verdict is in. Kamala Harris lost to Donald Trump and the reason is....

There's no silver medal. You win or lose, and failing to objectively analyze your past performance is the best way to keep losing. Difficult yes, but Trump was very beatable. Harris not breaking off sharply with Biden was a choice. Poorly addressing inflation was a choice. https://t.co/Qmy70zZvR2

— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) November 7, 2024

However, that's not accurate. If the Democratic Party wanted a candidate who would break off sharply from the unpopular Joe Biden, it could have nominated someone who wasn't a part of his Administration.  The universe of individuals which would have qualified would have been..... anyone but Kamala Harris.

Nonetheless, replacing Joe Biden on the ticket, which was virtually unavoidable, could have resulted in victory, and should have against an individual most of the country believes is repugnant.  

Victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan.  Alternatively, victory always finds a hundred fathers but defeat is an orphan, depending upon whether you want to credit (respectively) John F. Kennedy or Benito Mussolini. So no one will be honest enough to admit that the Harris camp ran an excellent campaign. Thus, even though the Harris camp ran an excellent campaign, you won't hear that, even though it was implied repeatedly the last few months by everyone with a last name beginning with any one of 26 letters. 

First, it was the message of joy at the Democratic National Convention, which not only energized supporters but also emitted the scent of momentum, which turned into reality after the convention. The sight of dozens of flags waving at the affair, appearance of country music stars, and periodic chants of "USA! USA!" proved nearly orgasmic among centrists and liberals alike, giving hope that, at last, Democrats had sagely learned to be Republicans.

Harris was declared the indisputable "winner" of the debate with her opponent. She "won" that partly on merit- but also because her team successfully negotiated a smaller podium, thus negating the appearance of a difference in height between the 5'4" or 5'3" Harris and the 6'3" or 6'2" Trump. Also,- and for whatever reason- the lighting at the debate gave clear advantage to the Democratic nominee.

            

The nominee was derided for avoiding interviews or news conferences. Recognizing her own limitations, Harris consented to a few interviews while eschewing news conferences, which would have exposed her to hostile questioning.

One of those interviews was with Brett Baier of Fox News, which can be considered a coup by Harris strategists assuming Baier was truthful (which he was):

During an on-air discussion following the interview, Baier said that Harris arrived to the interview around 5:15 p.m., later than expected, and that Fox was "pushing the envelope" to complete what was expected to be a 25-minute interview before 6 p.m.

 Baier said the following about the end of the interview during a broadcast of Hannity a short time later: "It was cordial, I said, 'thank you so much, Madame Vice President, for the time.' Her people, like probably four people, were wrapping me with big, you know, moving arms. That's why I looked out to the side and said, 'I've got to wrap up.'"

The once unusually unpopular presidential candidate of 2020, current vice president and now "brat," she was riding the wave of a good "vibe." She chose to be interviewed or chat with the friendly Call Her Daddy podcast, moderately liberal Democrat Howard Stern, Oprah Winfrey, and the National Association of Black Journalists. These were excellent choices by the campaign, as was hoisting a beer with Stephen Colbert (phony, sure, but strategically wise).  The once unusually unpopular presidential candidate of 2020 and current vice-president rose in popularity.

            . 

Similarly, the women of The View- each of whom, rather passionately, supported Harris- should have bolstered her popularity. Yet when asked, in a question she had to expect, what she would do differently than President Biden, she answered "there is not a thing that comes to mind."

This was not a slip up by the campaign- or by Joe Biden- but by the candidate herself. Asked a question she could have answered in several ways, she whiffed.

Nonetheless, "blame Biden" has been all the rage. Forbes noted

Atlantic columnist Tyler Austin Harper wrote in a piece bluntly titled “Blame Biden,” that while Harris bears some responsibility, “she had an 81-year-old albatross hanging around her neck: Joe Biden.”

Writer Ross Barkan, who also titled his Substack column “Blame Biden,” wrote that Biden’s “ego blinded him and his myopic advisers enabled a foolhardy campaign,” opining that Biden should have announced his retirement in 2022 and allowed Democrats to hold an open primary.

Franklin Foer, Biden biographer and Atlantic staff writer, wrote "Biden cannot escape the fact that his four years in office paved the way for the return of Donald Trump. This is his legacy. Everything else is an asterisk." David Plouffe, who helped engineer Barack Obama's win in 2008 and was a senior adviser for candidate Harris, claimed the campaign "dug out a deep hole but not enough."  Matt Bennet, an official at Third Way, contended "Harris was dealt a really bad hand. Some of it was Biden's making and some maybe not."

That "bad hand" the candidate was dealt, as well as the hole alleged, was Kamala Harris.

The night before Election Day, Harris held outside the Philadelphia Museum of Art a "star-studded" rally which "featured performances and appearances by pop star Lady Gaga, hip hop artist Fat Joe, hip hop producer DJ Jazzy Jeff, pop star Ricky Martin, hip hop group the Roots, soul singer Jazmine Sullivan and Oprah Winfrey."  This served to remind the voting public that the candidate was promising a celebrity presidency.

Despite an effective campaign strategy, very few people voters wanted a celebrity Commander in Chief, nor a second Biden term.  Still, they did know that Kamala Harris is no Joe Biden. Given her opponent, it is an unfortunate reality that voters unambiguously decided they did not want her to replace him.

Share |

The Old Guy Knows

Dick Van Dyke has made news as on the day before Election Day, the Daily Mail noted

The 98-year-old acting icon — who recently sparked concerns after he was forced to cancel his first appearance outside of Los Angeles in months — addressed the camera in a stark black-and-white clip shared on his Instagram page....

Although his speech did not mention either Vice President Kamala Harris or former President Donald Trump by name, the stage and screen star made it clear that he was supporting Harris by tagging her personal account, the Harris campaign's account, and the official account of the vice president.

Dick Van Dyke endorses Harris 🔥 pic.twitter.com/OBvfFGxWRg

— Faith Back Rub (@FaithRubPol) November 5, 2024

I don't like Kamala Harris for varied reasons. These include, but are not limited to, a 180 degree swing on criminal justice.as an Attorney General who defied the US Supreme Court on releasing from prison non-violent criminals to a cheerleader for the black lives matter movement. Her extreme approach to criminal justice brings to mind an explanation by the late nutritionist, Carlton Fredericks. If you have one foot in a bucket of ice water and the other in a bucket of hot coals, you're experiencing an average temperature. But it's not good.

So I appreciate support for President of the Vice President of the USA by an individual who resists the temptation to make the latter out to be anything beyond what she is. She is a vessel- beginning a few months ago, the only vessel available- to keep Donald Trump from re-occupying the White House.

Van Dyke recognizes that Kamala Harris is not Donald Trump, and that must be all we need. We have been presented with a near- Hobson's Choice and the man with fascist character, rhetoric, and views is no choice at all.

            

Share |

Peril

Welcoming November, on Friday Donald Trump said of former US Representative Liz Cheney, a Republican who was a US Representative from Wyoming and now is Kamala Harris' chief surrogate 

She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let’s see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face.

Though Bill Maher will vote (or already has) for Harris-Walz on Election Day and weeks ago guaranteed a Harris victory, he criticized individuals who charged that Trump had thereby urged Cheney face a firing squad, On the Overtime segment of Friday's Real Time with Bill Maher, the host began (at 3:06) a brief discussion of Trump's comment and at 5:02 remarked

But just don't lie to me. I don't like Donald Trump. Don't lie to me and tell me he wants her in front of a firing squad. He was saying something that by the way, if it came out of the mouth, some of it- not the stupid part- again, sounds like what hippies used to say about not sending people to....

Guest Michael Moynihan, pointing out that the ex-President had specified that Cheney would possess a rifle, agreed that Trump wasn't referring to a firing squad. That may be the case, though the reference to "nine barrels shooting at her" renders Trump's comment ambiguous. In any case, this is not Trump's first rodeo. Four months ago, CNN reported  

Former President Donald Trump amplified posts on social media calling for a televised military tribunal for former Republican Rep. Liz Cheney and the jailing of top elected officials, including President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.

“ELIZABETH LYNNE CHENEY IS GUILTY OF TREASON,” one post created by another user that Trump amplified on his social media website Truth Social on Sunday reads. “RETRUTH IF YOU WANT TELEVISED MILITARY TRIBUNALS.”

Cheney responded on X, “Donald - This is the type of thing that demonstrates yet again that you are not a stable adult—and are not fit for office.”

A separate post Trump amplified on Truth Social Sunday includes photos of 15 former and current elected officials and says, “THEY SHOULD BE GOING TO JAIL ON MONDAY NOT STEVE BANNON!”

In addition to Biden and Harris, the post includes photos of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former Vice President Mike Pence and members of the House select committee that investigated the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol.

Also, referring to chants of “lock her up,” Trump in early June told a Newsmax host

wouldn’t it be terrible to throw the president’s wife and the former secretary of state– you think of it, the former secretary of state, but the president, the president’s wife into jail. Wouldn’t that be a terrible thing? But they want to do it. So, you know, it’s like it’s, it’s a terrible, terrible path that they’re leading us to. And it’s very possible that it’s gonna have to happen to them.

Not only prosecution, though. In September of 2023

Donald Trump, on his social-media network, Truth Social, wrote that Mark Milley’s phone call to reassure China in the aftermath of the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, was “an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH.” 

Liz Cheney and Mark Milley, although specified by name, are not alone in so annoying Donald Trump that the ex-President would threaten execution. Helen Lewis of The Atlantic notes that just yesterday, on Sunday November 3, 2024, when at a rally in Lititz, Pennsylvania

Describing how his open-air podium was mostly surrounded by bulletproof glass, the former president noted a gap in that protection, and added: “To get me, somebody would have to shoot through the fake news, and I don’t mind that so much.” And by “fake news,” he meant the members of the press covering his rally.

Lewis wrote "once again fantasizing about violence against his perceived enemies...."  Fantasizing? Were it only so, Liz Cheney may be thinking.

Share |

Another Trump Campaign Fail

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports 

Hymie’s, a popular Philadelphia Jewish deli, raised some Jewish hackles when it served as the scene of the Republican Jewish Coalition’s closing ad — featuring Jewish actors playing older women who, after supporting Democrats, were switching their votes to Donald Trump.

So 10 days later, a Democratic organization stepped in to film a pro-Kamala Harris ad at the same deli, featuring real Jewish people from Pennsylvania — one of seven swing states both parties are closely focused on ahead of Tuesday’s close-fought election.

Former Gov. Ed Rendell, the state’s Democratic governor from 2003 to 2011,  launches the Harris ad by sitting in a booth and contemplating his favorite Hymie’s offering, a turkey special. “They’re the best,” he says.

 Lita Cohen — who served as a Republican in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives from 1993 to 2002 — says her preference is the lox and bagels, but adds immediately, “I’m very upset with that recent Trump ad that stereotypes Jewish people,” a reference to local unhappiness with the deli for allowing the RJC to use its premises.

The ad does stereotype Jewish people- poorly- with hand gestures, "oy vey," mugs reading "life, liberty, and pastrami," and "amen" at its conclusion, with a pronunciation uncommon to Jews.  Further

The ad is paid for by Patriot Majority USA, a political action committee founded 14 years ago to counter the rise of the Tea Party, which was then in the early stages of becoming very influential within the Republican Party. The PAC did not return requests for comment; nor did Specter, who is now a marketing consultant.

Each ad seeks to identify the other party’s nominee with extremes: the RJC ad ties Vice President Kamala Harris to the anti-Israel protesters roiling campuses. “Oy vey,” one of the three actors says. “Trump I never cared for, but at least he’ll keep us safe.” That ad ends with the three women raising their mugs to a vote for Trump.

The RJC acknowledged that the women, whom it referred to as "bubbies,: are actors but said they were all Jewish and voting for Trump. It would not make them available for interviews.

Not only would many Jews be turned off by the stereotyping but it reinforces what some anti-Semites believe about Jews. Donald Trump probably did not know that this ad was coming but if he did, he likely would have approved it. He has run an awful campaign and is preparing for the excitement of the period between the election, which he believes he will lose, and Inauguration Day.

 

 

Share |

The Election that May Not End on November 5

The debate Donald Trump endured with Kamala Harris on September 11 was not a shining moment in his campaign. Yet, that was only one of the acts of political malpractice by the Republican campaign.

At a rally in Pennsylvania in September, Donald Trump maintained "as President I have to be your protector," a remark which would alienate some women and please only those women who already were determined to vote for the faux macho ex-President. Then he added  "women will be happy, healthy, confident and free. You will no longer be thinking about abortion," thus reinforcing the Democrats' claim that the GOP ticket is weird. 

Recently, at a rally near Green Bay, Wisconsin

"My people told me about four weeks ago, I would say 'no, I want to protect the people. I want to protect the women of our country. I want to protect the women,'" (Donald) Trump said, describing how his advisers said it would be "very inappropriate for you to say."

Inappropriate, patronizing and creepy but then the Republican presidential nominee continued "I said "Well, I'm going to do it, whether the women like it or not, I'm going to protect them.'" The "whether the women like it or not" is akin to bad icing on a terrible cake. It only made it worse. 

Further, if his advisers told him it would be "inappropriate" to say, it should have brought to mind Hillary Clinton's infamous "basket of deplorables" comment in September of 2016, which was immediately preceded by 'You know, to just be grossly generalistic..." Pro tip:  when you suspect you're being "grossly generalistic," stop right there. And when your advisers suggest your words would be "very inappropriate," stop right there.

But that was not Trump's biggest mistake of the week. When comedian Tony Hinchcliffe at the Madison Square Garden rally of the ex-President characterized Puerto Rico as a "floating island of garbage," he sparked inevitable backlash.

The remark itself was not disastrous. It was Trump's reaction to it which was, if not disastrous, obviously self-defeating. The candidate could have absorbed the blowback and let it die out. Or he could hold a rally in majority-Latino Allentown, Pa. and turn it into a Sister Souljah or Sister Souljah-like moment, turning the kerfuffle to his advantage

Continuing a bad campaign, he decided to do neither.

Trump could have denounced the offensive, pejorative remark, a la Bill Clinton's attack on Sister Souljah. Or he might have criticized comedian Hinchcliffe while insisting that this has nothing to do with immigration or the "the border," Republican-speak for "illegal immigration" (or perhaps "immigration," period).  Puerto Ricans, he would have explained, are Americans and are entitled to respect and protection- unlike the hordes of individuals who, in MAGA world, threaten the homeland, take benefits from taxpayers, and vote Democratic.

Instead, he took the weasel's way out and ignored the controversy. Thrown a hanging curve by the intemperate remark of a comedian, Trump took the pitch for a called strike.

As Kamala Harris toured with Liz Cheney, touted endorsements from hundreds of Republicans, and promised to put a Republican into her cabinet and otherwise sought the vote of Republicans skeptical of her opponent, journalists, pundits, and others noted the absence of Nikki Haley in the Trump effort. The nominee would have had to swallow a little pride, but among Republicans, Haley trumps Cheney and then some.

In the past month, the GOP presidential candidate has traveled to California, New York City, and New Mexico: Safe bet: Kamala Harris wins all three states, the first two easily, the third fairly comfortably.

Something very unusual is occurring in the Trump campaign. However, if one is to recognize this and also believe journalist and lawyer Eli Mystal, there may be an explanation, though it is a little complicated.

Set-up:

During the Nazi-throwback rally at Madison Square Garden on Sunday, after Donald Trump and his MAGA cohorts finished insulting pretty much every non-white person who might even think of voting for him, Trump revealed that he doesn’t actually need votes to be installed as president again. Referencing a “secret plan” he has with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Trump said this: “I think with our little secret we are gonna do really well with the House, our little secret is having a big impact, he and I have a little secret, we will tell you what it is when the race is over.”

When pressed, Speaker Johnson released a statement effectively confirming the existence of the plot: “By definition, a secret is not to be shared—and I don’t intend to share this one.”

Constitutional background:

Most educated guesses assume that Trump and Johnson are “secretly” talking about installing Trump as president through a “contingent election,” whereby the House of Representatives, not the Electoral College, determines the president. I think the plot goes deeper than that, but let’s start with the contingent election idea.

To understand how this could work, you have to understand the 12th Amendment of the Constitution. Here’s the key language: “The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote[.]”

This is what people are talking about when they mention a contingent elAs John Roberts and his cabal of antidemocratic goons (and their wives) have repeatedly shown this year, the Supreme Court is willing to do Trump’s dirty work. In 2020, the Supreme Court rejected almost all of Trump’s various nonsensical claims to overturn that election. But I wouldn’t be so sure they’ll do so again, especially because this time the Trump people will not necessarily be asking the court to overturn the results of a state’s election. They’ll just be asking them to delay certification of those results, until some later date. In addition to ruling for the Trumpers outright, the court could simply delay hearing the case for as long as the delay is helpful for Trump. The Supreme Court can put its thumb on the scale for Trump simply by pretending to “stay out of it” and allowing the “process” to play itself out.

If enough states refuse to certify the results of the election and submit a slate of electors—with the Supreme Court’s blessing—the math is not actually hard for Trump. What the amendment means is that, if no candidate wins a majority of the Electoral College, the House gets to decide who the president is. The key here is that the process is based not on a vote of the full House but a vote of House delegations, with each state getting an equal vote. Currently, Republicans control 26 of the 50 House delegations, meaning they could hand Trump the presidency in a contingent election scenario.

Method:

That would be a neat trick for Trump, but I don’t think the Republican plan even requires them to get to a contingent election where the House chooses the president. I think the plan is to steal the Electoral College outright by getting states Trump loses to refuse to certify the results of their election. That’s because the 12th Amendment provides that the president is the person who wins the majority of the “whole number of Electors appointed.” That “whole number” is supposed to be 538. But one potential reading of the amendment is that Trump doesn’t have to win 270 Electoral College votes but just a majority of however many electors show up. Trump’s goal, I believe, is to decrease the number of electors appointed until he wins.

The first step in such a process is to get Republicans in states Trump loses to contest the certification of their own elections. In 2020, Trump and his team illegally tried to get slates of alternate electors submitted in states where Republicans control the state legislatures. They could try that again, but for this scheme to work, they don’t even have to get “fake” electors submitted but just to convince Republican state legislatures or Republican governors not to submit their valid slates of electors before statutorily imposed deadlines. All slates of electors are supposed to be certified by December 11. Those electors are then supposed to vote and submit their results by December 25.

What this means is that Republicans just have to delay long enough to pass those deadlines. They don’t have to win; they just have to stall.

There are currently 27 states with Republican state legislatures, including Arizona, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. There are currently 26 Republican governors running states like Florida, Georgia, Nevada, and Virginia. If some of these people are able to delay certification past the deadline, the “whole number of Electors appointed” would be diminished, lowering the number of electors Trump would need to hold a majority.

Johnson:

The new House isn’t sworn in until January 3. As the violent MAGA people in your family already know, January 6 is when the House certifies the results of the Electoral College, but that is just a ceremonial day. By the time we get to January 6, the electors are supposed to have voted. December 11 is the deadline for appointing electors, December 25 the deadline for voting. Mike Johnson will still be in charge on both of those days.

The odds are against this ensuing because Trump has an approximately 50% chance of winning outright, itself a frightening prospect and damning indictment of the American electorate. However, if Harris wins and without an Electoral College blowout, chances are that Trump and/or Johnson will attempt this maneuver or something very close to it.

The late, great New York-based radio host Barry Gray would frequently assert "I love a hungry fighter."  Trump certainly is a fighter, going even so far as threatening enemies with execution. However, a plan to manipulate the 12th Amendment to his advantage, coupled with the conduct of a very bad campaign, should prompt doubt that Donald Trump is hungry for an actual win at the polls.

 

Share |