‘Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden could earn an even bigger popular vote margin than Hillary Clinton did in 2016 and still lose to President Trump.’

[AdamSmith]

https://theweek.com/speedreads/935516/nate-silvers-analysis-bidens-electoral-college-chances-renews-calls-repeal-altogether

[stevenkesslar]

The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states

“In a direct election system, the South would have lost every time.”

Quote

So what's the real answer? In my view, it's slavery. In a direct election system, the South would have lost every time because a huge percentage of its population was slaves, and slaves couldn't vote. But an Electoral College allows states to count slaves, albeit at a discount (the three-fifths clause), and that's what gave the South the inside track in presidential elections. And thus it's no surprise that eight of the first nine presidential races were won by a Virginian. (Virginia was the most populous state at the time, and had a massive slave population that boosted its electoral vote count.)

If the goal is to dump the Electoral College, this analysis makes it both easier, and harder, I think.

It makes it harder because Republicans are for the Electoral College.  For the obvious reason that it delivered them a minority President twice in a century.  "Minority" in this case meaning someone who lost the popular vote by hundreds of thousands to millions of votes. 

It matters to me that the Presidents who got elected this way did particularly harmful and divisive things to the nation, compared to most other Presidents.  And that the public ultimately rejected what they did.  W. gave us Iraq, The Great Recession, and the loss of 5 million manufacturing jobs on his watch.  2008 was a massive repudiation of his leadership.  Those lost manufacturing jobs are a great explanation of the pain and resentment that led to Trumpism.  The verdict is out on President Toxic.  But nobody feels 2020 is a great year.  

Then add that this whole racist edifice of the Electoral College is built on enslaving Blacks.  Republicans just don't want to hear it.  That's been my experience for a very long time.  

Meanwhile, if this is one of the points in American history where we're going to be open-minded about the legacy of slavery, as well as related issues about democracy and racial equality and income inequality that disproportionately hurts Blacks, this is a perfect time to have the discussion.  As a practical matter, I doubt there is any hope of dumping the Electoral College until there is a solid Democratic majority, anyway.  

Republicans will make the point that there are lots of good things about the Electoral College.  It protects minority rights (except for Blacks, of course) and small states.  As does the US Senate, by the way.  That was by design as well.  If the Electoral College were history, the idea that small states have an outsized voice through the US Senate is still built in to the system.  The argument that makes the most sense to me is that if we want to call ourselves a democracy, the person who wins by millions of votes should win the Presidency.  Period.

I think we are living in something like The New Civil War.  It is not as deadly as the last one.  But there is a lot of violence.  And, like in the 19th century, there is a deepening reality of irreconcilable differences.  The practical comparison that cuts for me is that in both civil wars there was a group who wanted to hold on tight to things that needed to go ............. and did actually go.  In the 19th century, that was slavery.  What needs to go now is everything that President Toxic is putting a face on. 

Biden has now used the word "toxic" to describe Trump.  No one supports slavery anymore.  But to me "Make America Great Again" has always been a way of putting a nice face on what has always been the toxic part of America.  The part that gave us slavery, Jim Crow, and systemic racism.

I don't think there is any simple or quick solution to this problem.  Every follower of President Toxic is hoping that he gets four more years by winning a few states based on the "cultural anxiety" or racism or whatever you want to call it of a relatively small group of Americans.  Who are primarily old, White, and male.  If President Toxic loses by millions of votes again, they don't give a shit.  And yet they want to argue that they are the true voices of democracy.  What bullshit.  They just want to hold on to power, and America as they know it.  And any means justifies that end.

I feel like they are shoving their racism and hate and inability to move forward down my throat.  It doesn't matter that I'm in a majority that actually won in 2016.  They just want to shove their racism down my throat and say, "This is the America we want.  Shut the fuck up and deal with it."

If you buy the idea that there is a New Civil War, I don't think I declared it.  I don't think Barack Obama declared it.  I think they declared it, and found their perfect leader in President Toxic.  Although I know for a fact, based on the words coming out of their mouths, that they feel that Obama declared it ............. by being a Black man who, in their view, soiled their beautiful Constitution.  You know, all that stuff that men who were 100 % men and 100 % White came up with centuries ago.  In part to explicitly support slavery.   Even the 100 % White 100 % men who were against slavery knew they had to somehow manage the deep political conflict slavery caused.  That's a big part of the reason why we have an Electoral College.

That's why they will fight to the death - in some cases, literally, given COVID-19 - for President Toxic and what he stands for.  They know the economy is in bad shape.  They know he was wrong when he said that the virus would miraculously go away.  They know that we're much worse off than just about every other country on the planet.  They know 1000 people are dying a day.  But in the bigger picture, they also know that he is fighting for the America they believe in.  I'll post it again here.  This is their America:

 

Freeze frame a few of the images.  The face of the criminal mob is a dark-skinned Muslim woman.  Can you believe, these criminal mob people actually got her elected to the US House?  What the fuck happened to America?  The face of order and jobs is 100 % White 100 % men, in the image where you see the word "jobs".  That's just a coincidence, right?  It doesn't mean anything, right?

My read is this is why Never Trump Republicans  like Stewart Stevens and Rick Wilson bailed on the conservative party they helped build. That tweet is not the America they planned on.  Or the America they want. Part of the reason I think this is a New Civil War is guys like that, hardly radicals, are saying it's worth burning their ex-party down to the ground for.  That's pretty strong stuff.

I'm not 100 % sure I buy Nate Silver's analysis.  He's good at projecting past trends into the future.  But trends change.  Lichtman has been more accurate, I think, because he focuses on historical forces that are far more stable - like the economy.  As opposed to poll numbers or even election results from any particular election.

This is a great article from Ron Brownstein that goes to the heart of this.  He's one of my favorite journalists.  He's a data whore, like me.  And he is better than most at using data in the service of trying to figure out what's really going on below the surface.  He wrote this a few days before the election in 2016.  For anyone who says the polls were wrong, and no one saw it coming, read this.  He even specifically names Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania as the "loosest bricks in the blue wall."  His key point relative to this discussion is that Team Hillary was "betting that the surest path to victory is to fight mostly on terrain that Clinton can win without".  Oops!

It must have been in some other article he wrote before the election, but there was a poignant image I recall him using of how he thought Hillary could lose.  The idea was that she could be crushed in a very narrow passage between the future of the Democratic Party, and its past.  That's exactly what I think happened.  Arizona and Georgia and even swing state Florida were a bridge too far.  Meanwhile, those bricks in the Rust Belt were just loose enough to bring The Blue Wall down.  Lichtman would argue that Republicans were poised to win in  2016, anyway, based on the fundamentals.  So I tend to view it as a victory that President Toxic almost fucked up.  Not that he's some political genius.

Part of the reason I think President Toxic almost fucked 2016 up for Republicans is that there have not been many Republican victories since.  Larry Sabato helpfully lists close House races that have incumbents who are the opposite party of who won the Presidential vote in 2016.  So there are 6 close races with Republican incumbents in districts that voted for Hillary in 2016.   There are 30 close races with Democratic incumbents in districts that voted for President Toxic in 2016. Most were new pick ups in 2018, like Lucy McBath in suburban Atlanta and Lauren Underwood in suburban Chicago. 

The graceful way to remember Hillary is how we remember MLK.  He pointed us to the mountaintop, even though he never got there himself.  Hillary pointed us to the future Democratic Party she will never lead.  Some of which actually arrived in 2018.

It is possible that 2020 will be the opposite of 2016, where pretty much every close call broke wrong for Democrats. 

Sinema won Arizona in 2018, and Biden and Kelly are way ahead in the polls in 2020.   Meanwhile, moderate pundits like Morning Joe are saying that right now Pennsylvania looks like the wobbliest of the three loose bricks in the old Blue Wall Biden is trying to rebuild.  I suspect there is a tug of war between Black Lives Matter types and those older factory workers, or ex-factory workers, who just don't like what the Democrats are saying.  It's possible that Biden could lose Pennsylvania and win Arizona and Florida, and be President.  Or, it's looking quite possible that "Scranton Joe" could patch up the Blue Wall, at least with him on the ticket in 2020, and be the one that anchors Arizona and North Carolina and maybe Georgia into the new Democratic majority.  When Jeff Flake came out for Biden, he said if Republicans do nothing Democrats are poised to win Texas by 2024.  Flake is not a flake.  

Something very similar to this happened in 2016 and 2018.  In 2016 Republicans got 49.1 % of the House vote, and Democrats got 48.0 %.  Yet Republicans got 241 seats to the Democrats' 191 seats.  There was a logical argument that Democrats would need to have a 3 or 4 or even 5 % margin of victory just to get a one vote House majority.

In 2018, Democrats won 53.4 % of all House votes cast.  They ended up with 235 seats, which is 54.0 % of the total.  Part of the reason why is that Republicans used gerrymandering to create "safe" Republicans seats in suburbs that were not viewed as Democratic prospects around 2010.  But because they were suburban, they were not as safe as conservative rural areas where Republicans usually win in landslides.  So the same thing that happened with the House in 2018 could happen on the Senate side.  Arizona and Georgia, once fairly safe Republican strongholds, could tip.

Discussions about the Electoral College will be even more divisive than where we are at now.  They won't go anywhere anytime soon.  Not until there is a solid Democratic majority.  Which will be accused of being ................wait for it .......................................un-democratic.  So I think we all need to ask our conscience this question.  Is it un-democratic to say Hillary should be President because she actually won by millions of votes?  Who is being un-democratic now?

There's another thing Republicans need to forced to own up to, I think.  I'm very used to the dogma that says that I don't own slaves, my parents didn't own slaves, and my grandparents didn't own slaves.  So what the fuck does all this slavery bullshit have to do with me?  Get over it.  If some Black guy got shot in the back, it's because he's a thug.  They sexually assault women and deal drugs.  What did they expect?  This has nothing to do with slavery.   The argument usually goes something like that. Black conservative ex-cops support this analysis.

If we want to get rid of the Electoral College, my own view is that we'll have to force Republicans to face facts.   It exists because lots of White men wanted to own lots of Black men and women.  If Black men and women didn't agree, they were brutally tortured and murdered.  So, sorry.  Republicans can't divorce the Electoral College from the fact that the whole idea was to own, torture, and brutally murder Blacks.  That is what the Electoral College is.  That is what the Electoral College actually did for a big chunk of US history.

It's easier to argue that Blacks like Jacob Blake are just today's Willie Horton ............. a thug.  But it's harder to sell the argument that these Black thugs and Muslim radicals are actually electing Marxists and radicals like Rep. Omar and soon-to-be Rep. Cori Bush to the US House.  Who's being un-democratic now?  I don't think it's a coincidence that all this is happening when the Electoral College, not the popular vote, was kind enough to hand us a racist and hateful man like President Toxic.  The Electoral College is still doing what it is there for.  It may not be slavery.  But I believe it's still dishing out the vicious torture and murder of Blacks.  It's still undermining democracy with a small "d".

Quote

At Philadelphia, the leading lawyer in America, James Wilson, proposed direct elections. Wilson was one of only six people to sign the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He wrote the words "We the people" in the document. He's one of the first five associate justices on the Supreme Court. And he was for a direct election.

When he advocated this, James Madison's immediate response was: In principle, you're right, but the South won't go for it because they'll lose every time because they won't be able to count their slaves.

In conversations with Republicans, I have tried to take another approach.  I'd actually quote the statements of the Founding Fathers, like from the article above.  Some of them did clearly state that they put the Electoral College in place to support slavery.  In theory, conservative Constitutionalists who think Obama pissed all over the Constitution should at least be willing to listen to the words written by The Founding Fathers.  But they won't.  It may be hypocrisy.  But the easiest way to think of it, for me, is that any means justifies their end.  They want to hold on to power, and their America.  So arguing about what The Founding Fathers said or meant is useless. 

I think what we need to focus on is the hate and lies and racism their leader is spouting today.  Including the defense of torturing and killing Black men like Jacob Blake and George Floyd. You can of course argue these men were no saints.  But neither was the White vigilante who took out peaceful protesters.  President Toxic says the White kid "probably would have been killed" if he didn't defend himself.  After all, as Morning Joe pointed out, some of those protesters were armed with skateboards.  Again, I think they'll use any means necessary to justify their end.  Including White vigilantes who love weapons of war and are good with killing people who believe in their right to protest.

If the MAGA conservatives are good with vigilantes using assault rifles to kill protesters, I very much doubt they will be open to compromise on the Electoral College.  Any more than the South was open to compromise on slavery.  That's not quite true, because the Electoral College actually was THE compromise on slavery.  But what I mean is that it did allow The South to hold on to power, and their slaves.  Just like today it's helping MAGA conservatives hold on to power, President Toxic, and an America where systemic racism is alive and well.

We are just going to have to take power.  And to win this debate, after we take power, we are going to have to be very clear about what The Electoral College was built for.  And what it has actually done through US history.  We'll especially have to be clear about the election of President Toxic, and the racism and hate and division he has promoted and thrived on.

I was going to post this YouTube video on another thread.  But I think I'll post it here as an afterthought.  If only to avoid starting yet another long-winded post. 

 

 

I stumbled on that yesterday when I was wandering around YouTube.  It's about 6 1/2 hours of live election coverage from 1980.  I scanned through maybe 30 minutes of it.  Partly it was fun to see what the computers and clothes looked like back then.  And to see a young Chris Wallace (covering Reagan) and a young Judy Woodruff (covering Carter).  

I was going to post this on the prediction thread.  The interesting point is that people didn't know history was happening, even in the moment it was happening.  Pat Caddell, Carter's pollster, always thought it was the last minute turn in hostage negotiations.  Even Reagan, in his victory speech, said he thought it would be a "cliffhanger".  George H.W. Bush said he was surprised, because he thought it would be close.  In the last minutes before sign off, Garrick Utley announced that the Republicans won surprise Senate victories in New York and Florida.  No one saw that coming.  The Democrats had a 9 seat Senate majority before the election.  The Republicans had a 3 seat majority after.

At one point, David Brinkley said this wasn't a complete surprise, because Reagan had a huge lead in the polls after the convention that year.  But while many of the polls showed Reagan leading, none called the margin.   And there was none of the "wisdom" around why things were shaping up that way.  It's quaint that someone as smart as Brinkley would use the words "wisdom" and "polls" in the same sentence.

The only person I heard that had a sense of the historical bigger picture was - this ain't a shocker - historian Teddy White.  (At about 42:00 in the video.)  He was interviewed early in the coverage, before any of the Senate surprises were called. So he said it's a bit too early to say.  But some elections are the end of an era, when a big historical wave comes in.  Most elections are just ripples.  He cited 1932, and 1964.  And maybe 1980.  He of course turned out to be right.  1980 was the end of an era, and the beginning of the Reagan Revolution.

Lichtman is a sort of Teddy White.  His critics might say he is Teddy White revisited as a snake oil salesman.  He is not calling for revolutionary change in 2020.  He's saying the election will be close.  And that while President Toxic should lose, voter suppression and Russian interference could change the outcome.

I was going to post this in the Lichtman thread.  But it fits here, I think.  If we're going to dump the Electoral College, it would take something like the Reagan Revolution.  And I don't mean one dramatic election, necessarily.  From the vantage point of history, we know that what happened in 1980 foreshadowed what happened in 1984.  The even bigger landslide in 1984 confirmed that the Minnesota liberalism of Humphrey and Mondale was, in fact, history.  That's still playing out.  If President Toxic does win Minnesota, it will be because of those blue collar Iron Rangers who once voted for Paul Wellstone, but now vote for President Toxic.

What the polls seem to be saying today is the opposite.  If Biden wins Wisconsin, it presumably will be because people simply rejected President Toxic's fear and racism and hate.  Not because they are for looting, fires, and radicalism.  And, of course, because they care about the economy, stupid.  And the soon to be 200,000 dead.

All I feel I can do is send money to people running for Senate in places like Arizona and Georgia and North Carolina.  If they win, history may show that it was one big nail in the coffin of the Electoral College.  And in the toxic and racist parts of American history is was designed to support.  And has in fact supported up to and including today.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 4, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[tassojunior]

1 hour ago, stevenkesslar said:

 

 

We are just going to have to take power.  And to win this debate, after we take power, we are going to have to be very clear about what The Electoral College was built for.  And what it has actually done through US history.  We'll especially have to be clear about the election of President Toxic, and the racism and hate and division he has promoted and thrived on.

I was going to post this YouTube video on another thread.  But I think I'll post it here as an afterthought.  If only to avoid starting yet another long-winded post. 

 

 

The National Popular Vote Compact (to elect the popular vote winner), which I lobby for a lot, is close to going into effect (with the Supreme Court's recent blessing in the faithless elector case). It's all been done grassroots by the people against the party interests in various states. Ordinary people approve of it overwhelmingly while both parties would rather people not hear about it because it's so popular. And this is where the political bullshit of political parties hits the fan. Both parties depend on the Electoral College to stay relevant. Most people can't stand Republicans or Democrats but that's the only real  choice in November, largely because of the Electoral College. Most Republicans will make lame excuses for the EC when, in fact, states can choose their presidential electors any way they want ("Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct") they don't even have to be elected.. While Democratic party hacks will say "abolish the electoral college through Constitutional amendment," knowing that is near impossible. Political bullshit of the first order. 

You can't depend on political parties to reform the duopoly they are co-owners of.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2020 by tassojunior

[stevenkesslar]

First, let me say this about third parties.

My hunch is you and I would agree about 90 % about third parties in general.  And about all the value they could add to the US political system, in theory. 

In practice, in Presidential elections, there is no such thing as a third party in the 21st century.  Sure, Ralph Nader can run.  That elected W.  Sure, Jill Stein can run.  That elected President Toxic.  (I'm adding their vote totals to the Democrats, which would have meant victory in Florida in 2000, and the three Rust Belt states in 2016.)  So there is the Democratic Party on the one hand.  And the Republican Party and all the others like Nader and Stein that elect shitty Republican Presidents on the other hand.  In practice, those are my two choices.

So speaking as either a Democrat or a liberal, the great thing about third parties is they elect incompetent Republican Presidents who do really shitty things I abhor.

Beyond that, we have a number of huge fucking messes on the national plate.  So a discussion of third parties is a luxury I don't feel I can afford.  The main reason I'm sending the most money to the Democratic Senate candidates I agree with least is so we can have a Democratic majority and actually govern.  Implicit in that is the idea that centrist or arguably center-right Democrats (you could call Steve Bullock center-right) can agree on center-left laws, and pass them, and make sure they actually make huge problems less bad. 

If we can do that - which is actually a collection of really big "if's" - maybe Democrats can withstand the barrage of Republican attacks, much like in 2010, about how [fill in the blank] Democratic initiative is the end of civilization.  That worked for McConnell's attack on Obamacare in 2010.  I have full faith he'll try it again.

So for at least the next few years, anybody who wants to talk up third parties is basically shilling for President Toxic or McConnell, I think.  Even if their intentions are the best.

Second, I think most of what you said, and the map you posted,  confirmed my main point.  We're not going to have the power to get rid of the Electoral College until we have a very solid Democratic majority.

Again, this is something where you and I, and in fact most Americans, would agree in theory.  The electoral college should go.

In practice, it doesn't work that way.  After W. won there was still majority support for dumping the Electoral College.  But Republicans opposed it.  And since Republicans were in power, what they thought kind of mattered. 

Whatever their viewpoint, they got over it by the time Obama was President.  But when it worked for them again in 2016, they shifted so dramatically that it was, at best, a 50/50 split in America.  This also reinforces my point.  Part of the Trumpist doctrine is that power is the end, and any means is justified to attain it.  So Republicans may have stuck to their principles after W. won, and still felt that the Electoral College was an anachronism.  By 2016 principles didn't matter.  They could, and did, flip flop on a dime. Ironically, some of them see all this nonsense about the Electoral College as just another Democratic attempt to destroy democracy.

I think I should add something about what I posted above.  You might conclude from what I wrote that I think Democrats should make the argument, to Republicans, that if they support the Electoral College they are racists.  I don't believe that at all.

My point is that Democrats pretty much have to win this on our own, with the help of Independents.  Republicans are a lost cause.  I do think we should argue, to put it dramatically, that the Electoral College always was and always will be drenched in the blood of slavery and the hate of racism.  Republicans won't agree.

That said, I think we may have an opportunity starting in 2021.  But only if President Toxic loses.  Especially if he loses badly. 

My argument would be that the people who got fucked the most by this are Republicans.  In the short term, they won.  But look at what you won.  Two Presidents who never had popular support.  And who did their level best to destroy their party.  The Iraq War.  The Great Recession.  5 million factory jobs gone missing.  200,000 dead Americans from COVID-19.  Two glorious and spectacular electoral humiliations in 2008 and 2020.  (If, again, that is what happens.)   My line would be, "Hey, Mr. Republican.  Thanks to the Electoral College, it really sucks to be you, doesn't it?"

The other part of the argument is that if you win and govern with a view that you have to actually get 50 % of the vote, you end up with Republican Governors like Kasich, or [fill in the name of any Republican Governor in New England].  If President Toxic loses re-election, this argument is much easier to make.  Republican  Governors who are popular and competent, like Kasich and [fill in the name of any Republican Governor in New England] can actually win re-election, and not take the whole party down the shit hole to Hell like Trump did.

My best guess is that a significant minority of Republicans have secret time machines.  So if President Toxic loses, they will all hightail it straight back to Summer 2016.  Back then, they were all whining about how their party was being hijacked.  Then, when they realized that meant winning and conservative SCOTUS justices and tax cuts, they liked that whole hijack/hate-mongering thing well enough.  After President Toxic, some of them will go back to blaming it all on the hijackers.

Mostly, I don't think there's any value in trying to persuade Republicans at all.  Mostly, these days, I just don't see the logic in putting words like "persuasion" or "compromise" in the same sentence as the word "Republican".  I hope that changes after the election.  But I would not count on it. 

Even if they get their asses kicked in 2020, they might do what Democrats did in 1980 and 1984.  Go from the humiliating defeat of Jimmy Carter to the even more humiliating defeat of Walter Mondale.  In this case, I'd guess the Republicans - if they actually go that way  - would be more likely to nominate Donald Trump, Jr. than Mike Pence in 2024.   There is always, of course, Mike Pompeo.

Back to the real world we actually live in, to me Democrats just have to win.  If Democrats can't do that, forget about changing the Electoral College.  And even if Democrats do win, we have to have the power to bring the baby home.

Almost every state on the map you posted is solid Democratic.  California and New York being the treasure troves.  As blue states that would have more power if we bagged the Electoral College, why am I not shocked California and New York are for this?

I checked on Ohio and South Carolina, where it is "pending", based on your map.

I know nothing about this effort in Ohio.  But with Governors like Kasich and DeWine, I doubt this will pass.  Here's the main story I could find about Ohio, from Spring 2019:

Organizers Withdraw National Popular Vote Proposal

So it may be "pending", but it is hardly imminent.  You actually argued that the anti-labor right-to-work fight in Ohio proved that people like Kasich.  I was the one who quoted Wikipedia about how the people of Ohio disagreed with him, overturned the law by popular initiative, and Kasich basically got his ass kicked.  So I could see how Ohio could enact this through a ballot initiative.  But it would probably be over the dead body of Republicans.  Probably including Never Trump Republicans like Kasich, who may still harbor the idea of being elected President after they clean up the wreckage of Toxic Trumpism.

In South Carolina, a bill was filed in the State Legislature.  I won't hold my breath for that to pass and be signed by the Governor.  There is this from the website:

Quote

A survey of 800 South Carolina voters conducted on January 17–19, 2011 showed 72% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. Voters were asked "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?" By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 64% among Republicans, 81% among Democrats, and 68% among others. By gender, support was 81% among women and 59% among men.

If I go by the chart I posted above, about 55 % of Republicans were ready to bag the Electoral College in Obama's first term.  After President Toxic won, that plummeted to 20 %.  So if they are going off 2011 poll data in South Carolina, they might be surprised how Republicans would vote if this did actually get on the ballot.

Now let's play out my fantasy.  Jaime Harrison wins in South Carolina, and Rev. Warnock wins in Georgia.  You now have powerful Black voices in red states to argue why the Electoral College needs to go.  And if guys like that can win statewide elections, in theory you could get a majority of voters to kick the Electoral College into the trash heap.  Maybe even some Republicans.

They'd still be states that are mostly run by Republicans.  But Republicans that are losing power rapidly.  And if they have half the smarts of Jeff Flake, they know that this all happened after they received the gift of President Toxic.  Not through God's grace.  But thanks to the Electoral College.

In my 20's, when I was helping to choreograph a big redlining fight between Blacks and a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist and the Atlanta banks, I remember going to meet with whoever ran the SCLC at the time, at MLK's old church, which Rev. Warnock is now the pastor of.  Somehow, I don't remember why, we got into a discussion about B'rer Rabbit and "don't throw me into the brier patch" as a political strategy.  Only half jokingly, there may be some value in that today on this issue.  Arguably, if President Toxic loses and takes the Senate majority down with him, that should be our play. 

If Rev. Warnock wins, which will only happen in a massive blue wave, he needs to profess the most solemn belief in the beauty and dignity and glory of the Electoral College, passed down to us from our Founding Fathers.  Because whatever the goal was back then, when men were men and Black men were slaves, it now just elects Blacks to the White House and US Senate.  That's what I'd want Warnock to say. 

You gave us W, through the Electoral college, and you got President Obama and a massive Democratic landslide in 2008.  You did it again in 2016 with President Toxic, and you got me in the US Senate in 2020.  And, if that happens, probably Stacey Abrams as Georgia's first Black Governor.  So this works out great for Democrats.  Every time you use the Electoral College to get an unpopular President in power, you take one step forward, and two steps back.  Whatever else you do, please don't get rid of the Electoral College.  It's a great way to build real Democratic governing majorities that an actual majority elect and re-elect, like  Obama.

If President Toxic gets his ass kicked, I think that chart above is predictive.  For Republicans, the Electoral College won't look so good after all.  I think that's when we have our best chance.

Edited September 4, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[tassojunior]

@stevenkesslar

The National Popular Vote Compact goes into immediate effect with passage by states having 270 electoral votes. In just over a year it has been passed by states with almost 200 electoral votes. Anther state passes it almost monthly. 270 minus 200 = it will become effective with passage by states having 70 electoral votes. There are states with that many votes considering it right now. Yes, Republicans in South Carolina don't want it voted on and that's the tactic in every state. Not to vote against it but to deny it a vote. There are referendums (like Colorado) where it has been passed and in Ohio and Pennsylvania it could pass by referendum without the legislatures. The stage is actually coming where referendums may be used to get the final states if needed. But it is amazingly close to passage. (as opposed to an amendment which would require 2/3 of each house and 2/3's of state legislatures; a virtual impossibility). 

And why are 3rd parties always stuck in people's minds? Are we that conditioned to believe everything has to be in parties? Which party did Caesar or Aristotle belong to? People really are sick of political parties (check their unfavorables) and want independents to have a chance and for us to get away from political parties. Does it elect Republicans in California as feared? They don't even make the runoffs. Non-partisan elections are the trend now for good reason. And a government with two parties running it is a duopoly, not remotely a democracy. 

When people are asked if the popular vote winner should win they say yes by large margins. It's just a matter of getting a vote in a few more states. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[stevenkesslar]

12 hours ago, tassojunior said:

Anther state passes it almost monthly. 270 minus 200 = it will become effective with passage by states having 70 electoral votes. There are states with that many votes considering it right now. Yes, Republicans in South Carolina don't want it voted on and that's the tactic in every state. Not to vote against it but to deny it a vote.

I think we agree.  To oversimplify what you said, it is being passed in states the Democrats have majorities in.  It is being obstructed by Republicans in states like South Carolina.  It's a highly partisan issue, as that poll I posted above shows.  So I'm pretty sure the only way to get to 270 is to have a solid Democratic majority. 

If President Toxic loses badly, I do think that Republicans will at least soften their opposition, as they did in the early Obama years.  The key argument that may work, with some of them, is that taking power this way tends to result in the same thing.  You take one step forward, and two steps back.  If President Toxic loses badly, that's happened twice in a row.

And even during that one step forward you're stuck with unpopular leaders who bungle things  (W. in Iraq, President Toxic and COVID-19).  While Republicans are taking the one step forward they won't want to hear this.  They'd rather focus on appointing more conservative judges.  After they realize they've actually fallen two steps back, and helped open the liberal floodgates in reaction to their unpopular and inept leaders, some of them may be a bit more open-minded.  That's at least what the poll data shows happened with Republicans after Obama won.  It became less partisan for a while.

This will be a test of how permanent the damage caused by President Toxic  is.  I have no clue.  It could be in 2024 John Kasich, or someone like him, will be the Republican nominee.  If I had to bet, I'd bet on Donald Trump. Jr. - if those were my two choices.   All these people that stand behind President Toxic are not going to go away.  At least until they die.  So I hope I'm wrong.  But I see it as a solid wall of opposition that will just get harder, and more bitter, about "losing" their America. 

In that context, they will see this whole debate about dumping the Electoral College and letting the person who wins by millions of votes actually be President as a Deep State plot to destroy democracy.  It's not rational.  But who ever said that reason was these people's strong point?

Edited September 4, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[tassojunior]

3 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

I think we agree.  To oversimplify what you said, it is being passed in states the Democrats have majorities in.  It is being obstructed by Republicans in states like South Carolina.  It's a highly partisan issue, as that poll I posted above shows.  So I'm pretty sure the only way to get to 270 is to have a solid Democratic majority. 

If President Toxic loses badly, I do think that Republicans will at least soften their opposition, as they did in the early Obama years.  The key argument that may work, with some of them, is that taking power this way tends to result in the same thing.  You take one step forward, and two steps back.  If President Toxic loses badly, that's happened twice in a row.

And even during that one step forward you're stuck with unpopular leaders who bungle things  (W. in Iraq, President Toxic and COVID-19).  While Republicans are taking the one step forward they won't want to hear this.  They'd rather focus on appointing more conservative judges.  After they realize they've actually fallen two steps back, and helped open the liberal floodgates in reaction to their unpopular and inept leaders, some of them may be a bit more open-minded.  That's at least what the poll data shows happened with Republicans after Obama won.  It became less partisan for a while.

This will be a test of how permanent the damage caused by President Toxic  is.  I have no clue.  It could be in 2024 John Kasich, or someone like him, will be the Republican nominee.  If I had to bet, I'd bet on Donald Trump. Jr. - if those were my two choices.   All these people that stand behind President Toxic are not going to go away.  At least until they die.  So I hope I'm wrong.  But I see it as a solid wall of opposition that will just get harder, and more bitter, about "losing" their America. 

In that context, they will see this whole debate about dumping the Electoral College and letting the person who wins by millions of votes actually be President as a Deep State plot to destroy democracy.  It's not rational.  But who ever said that reason was these people's strong point?

It passed Democratic states very fast for sure but the polls show in deeply Republican states it is in fact very popular with the people, even Republicans. Just as marijuana legalization has passed lately in very Republican states, it's just a matter of forcing it to referendums in a couple Republican states or having an on-record vote in legislatures. Example: passage by Florida in a referendum would probably put it over the 270 needed with a couple small states. Passage by referendum by almost any 2 decent-sized states will put it over the top.  Like marijuana legalization, it's just a matter of common sense and fairness to most ordinary people. We need more referendums. 

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status

""The bill will take effect when enacted by states possessing an additional 74 electoral votes.  

The National Popular Vote bill has now passed a total of 41 state legislative chambers in 24 states. It has also passed at least one legislative chamber in 9 states possessing 88 electoral votes (AR, AZ, ME, MI, MN, NC, NV, OK, VA).  It has been unanimously approved at the committee level in 2 states possessing 27 more electoral votes (GA, MO). The National Popular Vote bill has been introduced in various years in all 50 states.""

""nearly 75 percent of all Pennsylvanians support the idea of a national popular vote to elect the president"".

""A survey of 800 South Carolina voters conducted on January 17–19, 2011 showed 72% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.""

""A survey of 800 Florida voters conducted on January 9-10, 2009 showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President. ""

[stevenkesslar]

There's something else I like about the idea, as an intermediate term political strategy.

I like the idea that the message it sends certain (Tea Party/Trumpist) Republicans is, "Fuck off.  You have no say.  Shut the fuck up.  What you think doesn't matter.  In other words, fuck off."

Now let me walk that back.

Some parts of the US political system are clearly designed to foster moderation and protect the interests of minorities.  We know, of course, that the Founding Fathers weren't particularly interested in "minority rights" if that meant their slaves.  But smaller states having the same number of Senators who serve six years terms, and the Electoral College, fall in this category.   So does the filibuster.  In theory, it makes sense to say if we're going to make some big change like Medicare or Obamacare it ought to be able to get 60 votes.

All that depends on the notion that compromise and getting things done is a priority.  Or, it depends on the notion that the goal is the opposite.  We're just looking for ways to obstruct and get nothing done.

So I'll give a short rendition of a few pieces of history that I think most Democrats would agree with.

Some Republicans blame Bill Clinton for poisoning the well.   If they argue that Bill Clinton's cock poisoned the well, I'd agree with them.  If we're talking politics, they're dead wrong.   It's the opposite, I think.  Clinton was a master at making offers Republicans could not refuse.  When Kasich and other Republicans (Morning Joe) talk wistfully about that time like it was a Golden Age, I agree.  A lot of important shit got done.  It involved lots and lots of compromises.  So my vote for Asshole Of The Decade who poisoned the well back then goes to Newt Gingrich.

I view Tea Party the same way.  Democrats can say that Mitch McConnell was already vowing complete obstruction the night Obama won.  Republicans can say Obama was arrogant and he sucked at schmoozing or even tolerating people who disagreed.  My view is all you have to do is follow the laws. 

Immigration reform passed 68-32 in the US Senate in 2013.  Meaning McConnell didn't vote for it, but he didn't obstruct it.  Obama said publicly that he didn't like some parts of the law, but that's what compromise was about.  He wanted to sign it.  It died in the House.  And that was all on the Tea Party's Freedom Caucus.  That's fact.  The theory I buy is that by around that time Republicans like Boehner were starting to understand that they could no longer control their base.  One Republican Senator expressed it this way:  "We used to be the party of the Chamber of Commerce.  Now we're the truck driver party."

My personal breaking point was Justice Rapist. By that point I'd heard a mouthful of attacks by supposedly sensible Republicans against "RINOs" like Kasich and McCain, some of which I've posted here.  I know why Justice Rapist was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.  Having fought good fights for good laws on Capitol Hill, I saw that nomination as a complete abortion of both process and truth.  They lied, they lied, and they lied.  In any other Presidency, they would have withdrawn the nominee for another conservative.  

So when I say "Fuck off", I don't mean the Kasichs and the McCains - or the Republican Govenors like DeWine or Hogan.  I mean the Toxic Trump wing of the Republican Party.

After what I feel is decades of lies and obstruction, I don't give a flying fuck what they think, or how they feel.  Even though I feel like I'm right, I actually don't even give a shit if I'm right.

The # 1 rule of organizing to me is, "the action is in the reaction".  These assholes spent several decades getting me (and, I think, the majority of Americans) to this point.  So if they don't like it, they only have themselves to blame.

This is not a good political argument to make to moderates.  And there is no assurance that we can steamroll who I view as the assholes in the room.  But I've eliminated working with them and compromise as an option.  I'd rather take the risk of trying something else.

And I'll mention in closing.    The idea that it's okay to steamroll most Republicans, including ones like Kasich, through things like ballot initiatives makes more sense to me given the nature of this fight.  To me, it is a fight for democracy itself.  Moving to a popular vote could in fact have some unintended negative consequences.  But the idea that the candidate who gets 2 million more votes than the other one is the winner is not an obviously bad idea.  

I think it's actually important to let Republicans know that the lesson we've learned is there is just no point in working with or talking to some of them.  The ones who want unity and compromise - like Kasich, and Hogan - are quite capable and quite good at letting people know that's the kind of Republican they are.

Edited September 6, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[JKane]