David and Sgt. Mom have done an excellent job expressing their concerns about the upcoming election. Accordingly, I will express mine.
We are on the precipice of a disaster.
There are several reasons for my belief.
The first is our voting system. Our system with the proliferation of mail-in balloting and lack of auditable controls seems purpose-designed to breed mistrust and corruption. Also while we talk about how voting now occurs before Election Day, we do not discuss the implications that in many jurisdictions it takes days if not weeks to count the ballots, which presents opportunities for mischief.
The second is the level of rhetoric from the Left over the past week, call it the “Hitler Gambit.”
There has been a lot of criticism from the Right regarding Jeffrey Goldberg’s article in The Atlantic “revealing” Trump’s affinity for Hitler. The critics says that the revelations are old and thinly sourced. The critics miss the point, which is that Goldberg’s article wasn’t so much meant to be an “October Surprise” as it was to give the Democrats the news hook they needed to launch their final argument that Trump is a fascist.
The Goldberg article was merely the starter’s gun for that final argument. Keep in mind that the owner of The Atlantic is Kamala’s “first friend.” On the same day that Goldberg’s article dropped, as if it was a coincidence, we had both the White House confirming that Biden believes Trump is a fascist, and Kamala remarking that Trump was a fascist and, given that and his affinity for Hitler, could not ever be trusted to return to the White House.
Just in case anyone missed the point, Kamala delivered her remarks not as a presidential candidate with an off-the-cuff comment, but in her official capacity with a prepared statement in front of the Vice President’s Residence at the U.S. Naval Observatory.
After delivering her remarks, Kamala turned and left without answering any questions. That is most curious, because if she thought that Trump was within a few weeks of bringing a dark, fascist night onto America, what did she think her and every American’s moral responsibility would be to stop him? Would President Biden, and she as Vice President, in good conscience ever turn over the keys of the White House, even with a clear electoral result, to a man they thought would destroy the Republic? As Justice Robert Jackson once said, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”
The third is the Democrats’ declining belief in our Constitution.
As David points out, the Democrats don’t much like the Constitution itself, and he cites numerous books and articles by academic and media elites to that effect. It’s not just the elite either, with 49% of all Democrats thinking the document “should be mostly or completely rewritten.” The reasons vary, some Democrats believing that the document is tainted by its racist writers, other Democrats seeing it as a hindrance to the type of social change they wish to enact, and others just believing that a 240-year-old document is an archaic relic in need of a re-write.
So the question I have asked those on the Right who see the 2024 Election through a normality bias is, on what basis do they believe that the Democrats will accept a Trump victory? The Democrats have spent the past eight years dismissing him as a legitimate part of the political system. They have turned that notion up to “11” over the past several years by explicitly calling him a threat to democracy and a fascist, and they have little attachment (among both elite and party identifiers) to the existing Constitutional order.
The explicit use of the historical terms “Nazi” and “fascist” by Democrats and the media in the days before the election is just the culmination of that process.
By the way, I haven’t even delved into the vast array of dirty, norm-breaking tricks that the Democrats have either engaged in or had revealed over the past four years, including lawfare, indictments, FBI raids, censorship, spying on campaigns by the security agencies, electoral chicanery, etc… All of which would lead to the understandable fear of the Democrats not relinquishing the White House to Trump.
Take a step back and you see that every warning light is flashing red.
Each of my three reasons has the potential to interact with the other ones synergistically.
Not only will there be a delay in declaring a winner in those jurisdictions that will take many days to count ballots, but the vague and sloppy system of mail-in balloting almost guarantees lengthy court battles by one party or another. If you think things are testy now, wait until you get to a post-Election Day environment where all of that energy is focused on specific operational and legal issues stemming from the flawed system I described above.
There’s been a lot of head scratching on the Right concerning what the Democrats are trying to accomplish with their “Hitler Talk.” In reality the Right is missing the point of the exercise: it isn’t to convince the undecided but rather to set the framework for the post-Election Day battle. While Republicans and the Right in general see an election as being composed of discrete phases of before and after, the Democrats and the Left see it as an integrated whole and their communications strategy now reflects that view.
That’s not to say there aren’t immediate benefits for the Democrats with their “Hitler Talk.” It could strengthen their base and prevent defections. But the primary target is the post-election.
Given the existing conditions of the undecided nature of the post-election environment, a narrowing of the stakes for victory and scope onto a select number of actions, and the apocalyptic rhetoric of the Democrats, you will have the potential for a catastrophe. If you can claim that you are trying to stop Hitler, then you have permission to let your freak flag fly, and there will be plenty of opportunities to do it.
The third reason acts as the removal of a boundary for action. If the electoral system provides the terrain, the Hitler talk provides the motive. Then, the third reason — the decline of belief among Democrats in the Constitution — increases the scope of possible action by the Democrats.
When I state this situation to friends, their primary objection to it is that it is too fantastic; what course of action would the Democrats actually take that would amount to more of a Jamie Raskin-led hissy fit? I find this objection to be a weak reed, and state that the experience of the past 40 years — from the sudden collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, to the various color revolutions — has shown that my friends’ sentiments lack a certain degree of imagination given underlying realities.
In 2020 there was an exercise called the Transition Integrity Project which was conducted to game out various post-election scenarios. It involved a veritable who’s who of the Washington establishment such as David Frum, John Podesta, and Donna Brazile. While most of the attention focused on the scenarios which gamed out a Trump defeat, there was one scenario (Game 3) where Trump achieved a clear win but lost the popular vote.
Did the Democrats playing Game 3, representatives of the DC establishment, accept the Trump win?
“The most consequential action of the first turn was the Biden Campaign’s retraction of its election night concession. It capitalized on the public’s outrage that for the third time in 20 years a candidate lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College. They also capitalized on concern about widespread voter suppression before and on Election Day. The Biden Campaign began the game 18 by encouraging three states with Democratic governors—North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Michigan—to ask for recounts. As the game developed, governors in two of the three (Wisconsin and Michigan) sent separate slates of electors to counter those sent by the state legislature.”
Public outrage? Concern about widespread voter suppression? Hmmm…
The Democrats’ next move in Game 3:
“The Biden Campaign encouraged Western states, particularly California but also Oregon and Washington, and collectively known as “Cascadia,” to secede from the Union unless Congressional Republicans agreed to a set of structural reforms to fix our democratic system to ensure majority rule. With advice from President Obama, the Biden Campaign submitted a proposal to 1) Give statehood to Washington, DC and Puerto Rico; 2) Divide California into five states to more accurately represent its population in the Senate; 3) Require Supreme Court justices to retire at 70; and 4) Eliminate the Electoral College, to ensure that the candidate who wins to (sic) the popular vote becomes President.”
Fantastic, perhaps, but keep in mind that you have a group of establishment Democrats who have provided a roadmap for what a post-election aftermath could look like; from the generation of “outrage,” to specific courses of action including secession, to a proposed solution involving measures that would basically gut the Constitution. In other words, provoke a crisis in order to overturn a legal electoral outcome in order to enact Constitutional change. Call it the American color revolution.
Post-election uncertainty, propaganda of the threat of a dark fascist night by an illegitimate insurrectionist and convicted felon, and the lack of belief in the Constitution. You have the predicate for action.
Nothing is certain. This particular result could be avoided. The Democrats may simply be bluffing playing the “Trump overturning democracy card.” The Democrats may collapse over the next week. The post-election environment, while uncertain, may tilt too strongly in Trump’s favor with, say, wins in places like Virginia and New Hampshire. Accordingly the Democrats may not be able to pull off a 2024-version of “Game 3.” We’ll get some rioting, a bunch of Jamie Raskin-led no votes on Jan. 6, but in general the lines will hold.
However that seems to be more than a wish and prayer. Sometimes you’ve just got to take what people are telling you as the gospel truth.
A friend of mine just sent this piece by Lee Smith.
https://tomklingenstein.com/is-the-left-preparing-for-war-if-trump-wins/
Thank you! I’ve been trying to express this to friends for awhile.
Because if you don’t prepare for an eventually, then you’ll be caught flat footed by it. What is the plan if the Dems cheat so bad it is undeniable by everyone? What if they just flat out go for broke and refuse to relinquish power?
I don’t want these things to happen, but I’d feel a lot better if I heard leaders on the Right at least preparing for such things.
And mostly I wonder what the court jesters (you broke my heart, Jonah Goldberg) are going to do when it happens. Will they finally break ranks or will they keep inventing more elaborate reasons for “the conservative case for communism” or something?
All possible — but remember that famous expression “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face”. Lefties are particularly bad at anticipating the responses to their actions. There will likely be unanticipated serious consequences to whatever they do.
Watch particularly for the economic consequences of the Far Left triggering chaos in a US which is very heavily dependent on imports for everything from clothes to medications — imports paid for by IOUs issued on the full faith & credit of a government which would obviously be falling apart. Imports stop arriving; FedGov collapses; NATO implodes;
immigrants rioting; Zelensky switches sides. Hey! I think I am going to enjoy this!
I get the sense that if Trump actually takes office a lot of events will occur that will not only end the regime but destroy the lives of many leftists.
So no, I don’t think they’ll give up power willingly.
Their problem is that the Trump movement isn’t just Trump, his supporters, and a few Uniparty defectors like Paul Manafort. It’s now much larger and has attracted people like RFK jr, Tulsi Gabbard, and Elon Musk.
I don’t think it will be quite as easy to steal this election as it was in 2020.
But what if they do, or attempt?
This is The Fourth Turning. Failing regimes try every trick in their book to avoid oblivion. That doesn’t mean they succeed. Our failing regime plainly is nerving itself up to use violence against Trump supporters, because Nazi.
In other words, they’re planning on what can only be described as civil war, against a rather large and heavily armed fraction of the public. And in war, the enemy always gets a vote.
They’re relying on their position- socially, legally, economically- to enable them to tell the masses of people they despise what to do- masses of people who vastly outnumber them.
We’ll see how that works out.
So Kamala Harris as Vice President is going to certify Donald Trump as the winner of the Presidency for the 2024 election? Mike Pence is unavailable for comment. LOL
I was going to post this net week after a number of supporting posts but I decided to go with it first. The main criticism I have gotten is that it is too fantastic, conspiratorial, lacks the proper implementation mechanism between intent and action. All true. The problem with analysis is that it is never clear what you are looking at;; the entire principle of induction, taking observations and drawing larger conclusions, is problematic.
However it becomes a bit clearer when use as heuristic the concept of “capability” as opposed to “intent”by which I mean the capability of the system to act, taboos and emotional boundaries crossed, rather than individual abilities.
For the past several Democrats have been acting like a bunch of kids in a horror movie reading from the Necronomicon as a lark, in this case calling Trump as a fundamental threat to democracy and explicitly linking him to the most bloodthirsty characters in history. That seems fine as a political tactic but all human actions have a tradeoff and in this case reading from the book of Hitler, they have summoned the old gods of existential fears which are not simple to pit back into their grave. There was a chance in September the Democrats wouldn’t go there, but they did right before the election. Now they are facing the other side of their bet, like a school yard miscreant being asked to own up to his taunts or slink away humiliated, are the Demos just going to say :my bad” and let the reincarnation of fascism come to power? Once you summon the Old Gods, breaking political norms, you just cannot throw a switch and put them back.
We don’t do ourselves any favors by focusing on “Trump Derangement Syndrome”, the anti-Trump movement is largely synonymous with the anti-American phenomena in our society and has a deep metaphysics of almost a religious nature. A proverbial paradise, the Fall, and the Devil; that and a comprehensive critique of American society all with its own symbols. Within this, embedded in that ½ of the Democrats who want to change the Constitution, is little sense of legitimacy pf or loyalty to our political or even social system. While those on the Right might see extraordinary action as necessary to restore the system, our ancient rights, the Left seeks its overthrow and dismantlement. Given that why would they be constrained if they saw the man they think is Hitler coming to power? He;s not only a threat but a product of a system they feel has no legitimacy.
Our system of holding elections is an utter disgrace, especially in its ability to produce a quick and clear winner in a decisive manner. That’s worth another post in light of the problems in Maricopa County in 2020 and 2022. What it means going forward is that we will be on escalation ladder in which events and actions will be judged not as part of some grand pre-existing strategy but in response to those immediately preceding it; things have the potential for getting out of control very quickly.
The final element of the environment is one I didn’t cover, the the position of the larger political establishment. Trump wasn’t supposed to be here and I’m not talking about just Butler. This was a man who everybody was in his political grave after Jan. 6 and its manipulation, Then when it looked like he would declare there was the FBI raid and then after he declared the indictments. Those legal actions, more than the talk about his being a threat, marked the Democrats crossing the political Rubicon because they legitimated political persecutions. Then we had the revelation of FBI involvement in spying on his campaign, lying on FISA forms, manipulation of the Hunter laptop. Alot of dirty laundry at risk if man motivated like Trump returned to office.
Then there was RFK, Jr. and Elon joining his campaign; this was a formal declaration of war on the Washington establishment, a raising of the stakes. RFK was going to get access to the archives and Elon the opportunity to take a chainsaw to government. Alot more dirty laundry
Put the data points together, but then ask the organizing question from a different perspective. Can the Left allow Trump to come back? There’s a tremendous amount of \danger involved, not only directly from him but also to their own credibility. Also the potential downside, destroying the current political system, is discounted because they all think it needs to go anyway.
The other criticism I get is by what mechanism this would take shape. I was chilled when The Transition Integrity Project’s report came out four years ago because 1) it showed a mechanism for revolution and 2) it showed a certain emotional/psychological barrier had been crossed in terms of a political party willing to overthrow the system. Theoretically of course, but the filing cabinets of the world’s defense ministries are full of ops plans for theoretical action and once devised they become the possible basis of action. All of the demands outlined in Game 3 were echoed in later years by figures on the Left; to be honest if the Democrats had gotten the larger majorities in Congress that they expected pre-2020 Election hey might have gone for it anyway
So the terrain is mapped, possible motive for action ascertained, and possible ops plan determined. Fantastic? Perhaps. However plausible and only fantastic if you have normality bias and you don’t judge by capability. Also who would have thought back in 2016 we would have had the events of the past 8 years? From Crossfire Hurricane to Russia Hoax to COVID-19 conspiracy to lawfare, etc…
If you take a step and think from two, and not mutually exclusive, organizing principles. The first is the ground is prepared for America’s version of a Color Revolution. I’ll spin it for you, the ground is prepared for mass action to prevent the assumption of power by a fascist produced by an illegitimate, repressive system. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/24/opinion/democracy-defense-us-authoritarian.html or https://www.foxnews.com/media/harvard-professors-argue-america-needs-militant-democracy-stop-trump
Also in reality any American color revolution would function as a coup. In the best example of a Boydsian action, the Left would move fast enough to detach the Right from its ability to engage with external reality.
Cohesion, speed, tempo,
I bet there a lot of folks who draw a paycheck either from the feds or USAID who have experience in that sort of thing.
Like I said there are some scenarios where this doesn’t materialize. The Democrats may just decide to have their bluff called and turn away, The Left may collapse sufficiently, see the W Post and LA Times turn away. However you have to prepare by capability
That does leave the question of what does the Right do should the election be stolen?
We won’t be rioting, but what can we do to reject the election? It would seem to hinge on key conservative state governors leading the way in not accepting the results.
While that would almost certainly lead to a civil war and likely a break-up of the country, it beats the alternative, which is submitting to a North American SSR.
I’ve had many the same thoughts as you, Mike, though I probably come down on the side of thinking we’re going to go through a rough 60-90 days after the election if Trump wins the EV and popular votes but that we’ll generally come out ok.
I could have easily seen the Color Revolution you describe happening if Trump had pulled the EC inside straight again in 2020. All the elements were primed and ready at that point. I still think J6 was a repurposed attack on the Capitol to prevent certification of a Trump EC win.
There’s just enough different this year than 2020 and 2016 to make me think the Democrats will make a lot of noise but ultimately will accept, however grudgingly, that Trump won. While you can always say you beat the cheat, it’s going to be hard for the people who have claimed that our system produced the cleanest most fairest election evaaaah to do an immediate about-face to claim Trump is guilty of cheating and be believed outside of the folks guzzling the kool-aid. I do think it’s significant that you have major media like the WaPo, LA Times, and now all Gannet (USA Today) papers not officially bending their knee to the Regime candidate. While it may have happened w/o reporting I have not heard of one instance (other than Butler) where people attending a Trump rally were attacked or obstructed. In addition to Musk you’ve got Wall Street guys like Bill Ackman, and various other sports and media celebrities that are openly supporting Trump (despite the best efforts of the media to hid them). Another conspicuous silence is Jamie Daimon. Other than the usual suspects the vast majority of GOP officeholders appear to be backing Trump.
It may not have been the intent of the Trump’s MSG rally but that should have been a clear signal to the Democrats that there are thousands of Trump supporters even in the deepest blue areas.
I’m just hoping that the election produces a fairly clear winner both in EC and popular vote, and that if it is Harris then Trump steps aside. The more muddled and delayed a resolution is the more opportunities arise for the kind of actions you described above. The blue hell claims that they’ll need weeks to count ballots is not helping things at all.
Another possibility is that on Day One of Trump’s second term is when the lawfare goes into high gear.: every one of Trump’s Executive Orders is stopped in one court of another, if the Senate is tied again and EVERY nomination is blocked. Which assumes there actually a decision in the election.
We talk about courts and judges stopping stuff. Let me pose a question. How many divisions do judges have? How many thousands has any judge gotten to rally for them? Appears to me that a lot of judges need to be removed, in the middle of the night, as their behavior in court appears unstable, unbalanced, and clearly mental.
The issue with the so called Cascadia secession is that half of those three states have already declared that they want to secede from their own states. So if California, Oregon, and Washington secede as states then the folks within those states that want to secede may very well rise up on their own.
Small typo: “…dismissing him as a legitimate part of the political system.”
Pretty sure you meant to say “…as an illegitimate part…”
The response to a clearly stolen election followed by leftist repression and retaliation is a general strike. The working class in particular supports Trump or more accurately what Trump stands for. Trucker stop trucking; railroads stop running; airlines grounded for lack of maintenance. Ports shut down. Flyover country stops shipping food to the coastal enclaves. Plumbers, electricians, power line workers stop answering calls except from allies.
So what do the incompetent, soft handed would be commissars do then? Call out the Army, the sons and daughters of the strikers? The police whom they have vilified and defunded? Without the veneer of legitimacy, the emperor really does have no clothes.
It will take some organization and a bit of prepping by individual strikers, but Americans have a genius for spontaneous organization and self help. And yes there will be some violence as the left tries to make some examples to cow the rest, but these are destined to fail against a well armed, determined and truculent population. The goal is not armed rebellion, but passive but armed resistance against a corrupt and tyrannical regime. We will not work for you any more!
If California wants to leave, that’s fine. Democrats shouldn’t be able to leverage that threat again us. The rest of us would be better off (and likely CA would be, too).
Why do so many people think it requires a war to rearrange our borders? That notion is real obstacle to resolving our problems. If a couple can’t get along, they divorce. They don’t kill each other.
@John The reason so many people think it would require a war to rearrange borders, is it did the last two times in the US. Stepping back a bit though, there are plenty of examples internationally where it didn’t. Much of decolonization was like that. Czechoslovakia and even the Soviet Union managed without a civil war.
“… I probably come down on the side of thinking we’re going to go through a rough 60-90 days after the election if Trump wins the EV and popular votes but that we’ll generally come out ok.” (From Christopher B, above).
That is a reasonable outcome if one presumes that Democrats respect and honor the Constitutional foundation on which this country was founded and operates.
They do not.
Democrats – which has become a one-word shorthand label for “power-based radical Leftists” – do not believe in the sanctity of the Constitution nor the benefits it provides as an operational document, much less the structure, and operation, of the country created under its auspices.
They believe only in Power, Power administered by whomever they approve to assume it, in whatever manner most effective to accomplishing their goals.
I seriously doubt America will be able to rationally and reasonably navigate this crisis and emerge relatively unscathed; too many people do not want that and will refuse to accept that path. Power can be resisted only with Power, and that is the definition of conflict; our conflict may begin with words reverently delivered in Hallowed Halls but it will not stay there, nor will it end there, because in the face of Power words constitute only a weak, inadequate response and at best, are only a delaying action. Power must be applied and it must be applied forcefully and ruthlessly against those who would destroy the structure and function of the country. The “Right” has been, and is, extremely reluctant to acknowledge that truth.
If the Constitution is an incorrect solution to the challenges of governance, there is a mechanism within it to implement change, albeit in a gradual and difficult manner; that such is tempered by the requirement of widespread acceptance of such changes which demands a degree of patience for which The Left is notably lacking is considered a fatal flaw in the document.
America – that is, “the rational non-Leftist and non-radical America” – has ignored what The Left has been doing for nearly a century to undermine our Constitutional foundation; patience and tolerance are considered hallmarks of America and Americans, and we practice them to a fault. When a camel’s nose appeared under the tent edge we practiced our patented “Patience and Tolerance” and forgave the intrusion; we are now faced with the entire herd inside the tent, consuming our sustenance, defecating upon everything else, and reproducing like rabbits.
This will not be an “Andy Hardy in Grover’s Corners” moment, our survival as a Constitutional Republic will be dependent upon our ability to administer Power in response to the Power long applied by The Left. Denial of that basic requirement is a hallmark of The Right, and potentially a nationally fatal trait.
At the very least it will require firm courts delivering the staunch application of severe, non-negotiable and non-reversible prison terms for violators of law and the public trust; at very worst, it will require gunfire, rope and lots of both. Sarah Hoyt, from time to time, speaks of a la lanterne, and I suspect our moment of that may be approaching, as much as we may dislike it.
We, whether we like it or not, whether we accept it or not, are right where we were in 1776, and the choice is just as simple: Resist or Submit. Resist with words, resist with votes, resist with actions, resist with application of established and fair laws, resist with whatever is necessary to preserve the only true Constitutional Republic on this planet that stands for individual Liberty and Freedom, and if we fail let it not be for lack of trying.
”Cascadia seceding unless Republicans agree to a set of structural reforms? …..This is supposed to be a threat?….. Say goodbye to 74 electoral votes. Why would the other states agree to eliminating the electoral college if Cascadia secedes? It only makes their votes stronger. New York, Illinois, and New Jersey would have to live in Red-State America forever.
Not only that – without Cascadia the Dems lose 15% of the popular vote. Not to mention that outmigration of conservatives to the remaining United States will only make things worse for the Dems. The remaining Dem states get to live in Red-State America forever AND have to stop whining about the popular vote.
Republicans might just call that bluff.
Mark Weinburg is correct about the general strike being a weapon. There is only one man in America who could call a general strike and make it stick.
C J Lee is correct about the realignment of the West Coast states. In the event of a California secession, however farfetched it may be, we should let it go and be prepared to admit New California (along the lines of West Virginia’s secession from Virginia) consisting of northern and eastern California, San Diego and Orange Counties. Hard borders and pay for everything the Republic of California imports.
If you assume the secession of California, then you have to plan for what happens after it collapses.
Gina Marie Wylie: I agree, it’s not over on Election Day or even Inauguration Day. The struggle is going to continue in various ways. We’ll see Hawaiian judges trying to run the country again.
John “If a couple can’t get along, they divorce. They don’t kill each other.”
John has clearly never read any Decisions from family law court hearings. There is a appreciable number of divorce hearings which disclose that one party would actually kill the other if they thought that they could get away with it. Instead the lawfare is limited only by the resources available, and the gullibility of the judge to allow the most transparent of lies to be litigated as if those lies were the truth. (Finding parallels or analogies to leftist arguments is left to the student as an exercise).
What Christopher B said. It’s difficult to predict outcomes, but the revealed preferences of societal weathervanes in Silicon Valley, Wall St, etc. give cause for hope.
[Comment deleted by Jonathan for violating our comments policy.]
I was stunned at how many seemingly intelligent people believed in 2020 that our elections were generally honest. This despite a couple of centuries of blatant and outrageous election fraud from Democrats.
This has changed. Far fewer conservatives continue to have this delusion. The evidence has penetrated.
Another thing we saw in the aftermath of the 2020 theft was that millions of people who understood the fraud were optimistic that the system would work to correct the blatant and obvious fraud. Those people won’t be fooled again.
Democrats lie, steal, slander and cheat. Everyone now knows this. There are very, very few fools who still trust elections or the system. The people aren’t going to accept it again.
If they try again, I think will be blown away by the response of the people.
Sorry about that. Although I am not sure what part of the policy I transgressed. Was it the inclusion of the link? If so, my apologies.
[Jonathan replies: From our comments policy: Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.]
Our system of holding elections is an utter disgrace, especially in its ability to produce a quick and clear winner in a decisive manner. That’s worth another post in light of the problems in Maricopa County in 2020 and 2022.
If I recall, in a post a long while ago, you mentioned that something like 40,000 Maricopa residents weren’t able to cast ballots in 2022 due to “problems.” I may not actually recall, so apologies if I’m misremembering or somehow putting words in you mouth.
Faulty memory aside, I was pretty steamed by that, especially after listening to endless caterwauling from left that their voters are being suppressed if you actually ask them to actually bother to vote or even actually exist. Plus, I follow someone named Abe Hamadeh on X who was a candidate in Arizona in 2022. He has stated that 8,000 votes weren’t counted in his race, which was decided by a margin of 500.
Thus, I think I can guess how they’re going to steal this election, or try to at least: Simply prevent people in red-leaning areas from voting entirely, and then declare the contest over.
I note this worked in Arizona, and according to commentary on X it appears to already be happening in Pennsylvania. There are claims that long lines of likely Trump supporters were left waiting in line for hours and then told to go home, while buses full of non-English speaking were rushed to the head of the line.
I hope those claims are incorrect and will be shown to be incorrect, because that sort of thing is another ugly step on the road to civil war.
Why do so many people think it requires a war to rearrange our borders? That notion is real obstacle to resolving our problems. If a couple can’t get along, they divorce. They don’t kill each other.
I don’t think it would work that way. I think the only reason the left threatens secession of California is to convince the GOP to back down again, as they always have. And if the GOP didn’t back down and told California to sod off into the sunset, then they’d immediately demand Illinois and New York secede as well. And so on, etc.
They want to rule the entire country, not just the parts they presently control. That’s why they’re flying in so many foreigners to obscure towns in red-state America- to turn us into a minority so they can better oppress us.
In any case, if Cali and the rest of the left somehow did manage to secede or get booted out, I’d bet there would be Chinese military bases popping up lickety split, because Gavin Newscum wouldn’t want a more functional United States to came and stomp on him. But of course the US wouldn’t want foreign military bases on North America, so it would be war.
That’s how secession would end: War, just like the last time, for roughly the same reasons.
I was stunned at how many seemingly intelligent people believed in 2020 that our elections were generally honest.
I never would have thought that the Deep State could have successfully stolen a presidential election.
My bad.
My guess now is that not only have democrats been stealing every sort of election up to and including for the US Senate going back decades, but also the 2012 presidential election.
I admit I might be the only person crazy enough to think that the hapless Mitt Romney actually won that election, but I get stuck when I recall that Romney was able to get people to show up for his campaign events and very often the left could not.
Shrug. Water under the proverbial bridge.
In the event of a California secession, however farfetched it may be, we should let it go and be prepared to admit New California (along the lines of West Virginia’s secession from Virginia) consisting of northern and eastern California, San Diego and Orange Counties.
I’ve already expressed my opinion about secession, but I’d like to add that there is no reason why a country with more than 100 times the population it had at the founding to have less than 4 times the number of state-level administrative units.
Bluntly, we need more states, and it follows that we need a mechanism to enable the creation of more states.
I understand how and why California ended up with 30+ million people and only 2 Senators, but the leftist solution of given that state more Senators is obviously self-serving and certainly won’t happen without Texas getting more Senators also.
We are in our present situation because our present regime simply isn’t representative enough for the present population, plainly by the design of our ruling oligarchy.
This needs to change. Obviously.
Secession — the underlying problem is that FedGov has transgressed the boundaries originally set for it. It was supposed to deal with the borders, a common currency, and a few other items. It was never supposed to be in charge of how much water a toilet flushes, or be paying out money to millions of people.
Rather than secession, what we need is to cut FedGov back to the role it was intended to have — pre-Lincoln, pre-Wilson, pre-FDR, pre-Obama. “Drain the Swamp”, so to speak.
To both Gavin’s and Xenndady’s points above regarding secession/break-up, thank you.
I have a somewhat different take on the issue, but the suggested ways of both reining in the federal government and better representation (in the form of more states) are good solutions.
Sorry about that. Although I am not sure what part of the policy I transgressed. Was it the inclusion of the link? If so, my apologies.
[Jonathan replies: From our comments policy: Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.]
My abject apologies. I did transgress that line. Not quite inadvertently but stupidly. Brain not working properly. Well, not working at least.
I have a somewhat different take on the issue, but the suggested ways of both reining in the federal government and better representation (in the form of more states) are good solutions.
Maybe a simpler way to do this would be by greatly increasing the number of Congressional districts.
“Maybe a simpler way to do this would be by greatly increasing the number of Congressional districts.”
Here’s all the gory details. The data is tied to the census so I believe you can rely on the numbers. It’s a pretty good article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment
The top line is that we went from a little fewer than 35,000 per congressman to more than 791,000 now. The number was semi frozen at 433 in 1911 with the increase to 435 to accommodate the admission of Arizona and New Mexico. Congress is empowered to determine the total number of districts as long as there are at least 200 and each no more than 1 for every 50,000 persons. So the maximum number of congressmen is around 6,900 and the minimum is 200.
So the question is what’s the right number. Personally, I doubt that more quantity will make up for poor quality. To say that 50,000 person districts is obviously the “original” answer ignores context and this is where the founders explicitly empowered congress itself to determine the proper number. At the time, there were very few cities with as many as 50,000 population. So that while the intent was that a congressman was expected to be somewhat local, he wasn’t likely to be down-the-street neighbors with many of his constituents. By that measure, a district size larger than many good sized cities isn’t impossibly disproportionate.
There’s also an argument that has appeal: that a smaller number would be easier to keep an eye on.
Considering the phenomenally poor productivity of congress, regardless of which party is in “control” I find it hard to believe that 3 or 4 times more members would do anything useful.
Personally, I doubt that more quantity will make up for poor quality.
TLDR: I disagree with you MCS and behold this wall of text as I explain why.
The only time I’ve ever heard of anyone seeing their local congressthing was when a coworker happened to see our rep in a local restaurant. His much younger but still old wife was leading him around by the hand and spoonfeeding him soup. She occupies that seat now. The economy of that district was based on heavy industry, which has mostly disappeared, and neither of them ever did anything about that disappearance or even noticed it, as far as I could tell.
I’d bet if more people knew their rep was that feeble, fewer would be willing to vote for him. That might inspire more interest from potential challengers, perhaps even including some who still retained the ability to feed themselves. In my case I knew the guy was old but I had no idea that he was basically a walking turnip- and I think I pay more attention to politics than most people.
U. S. Grant casually mentioned in his memoirs that had met his representative personally and I think I recall that he helped Grant get back in the army. But the point there is that it wasn’t so crazy to imagine that the person who represented you in Congress would be someone you’d talked to and might even know.
When each congresscritter represents something near a million people, I do think it a bit crazy to expect so today. Shawn Ryan had a couple congressmen on his show and they were both lamenting that people in their districts weren’t very involved in politics. Well, if districts had fewer people and reps had to actually mingle with their constituents more often than never, maybe that would be different.
There’s also an argument that has appeal: that a smaller number would be easier to keep an eye on.
How would I have been able to keep an eye on my senile rep when he was never challenged on his obvious incapacity and the friendly media would never be so nasty as to point out that he couldn’t feed himself? I’m pretty sure his handlers including his wife would keep him from wandering off into a Walmart where he might find an unfriendly audience not hoping to get special favors from his congressional staff.
Considering the phenomenally poor productivity of congress, regardless of which party is in “control” I find it hard to believe that 3 or 4 times more members would do anything useful.
The defects of congress are a function of the regime. That is, if the regime was functional, congress wouldn’t be so inept. If the regime wasn’t so inept- and actually wanted to have the American people represented in a way the Founders intended- the productivity would be better. And I’d bet it would have long since ditched the limit on the number of reps and quite likely arranged for a functional mechanism for the creation of more states as well.
But since I don’t think the present regime has much of a future, pondering ways to reform it is like figuring out the best way to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic
>i>”Maybe a simpler way to do this would be by greatly increasing the number of Congressional districts.
Try calling your CongressCritter. The mere citizen finds himself facing the whims of some staffer. If you demand to speak to your “Representative” herself, very quickly the conversation turns to a form of the question “Are you a major donor?” No, more CongressScum won’t help.
Sir Watler Scott in his novel “The Heart of Midlothian” made the point about the benefits of having government close to hand, so that we can throw stones at them. The treatment for dysfunctional democracy is to get back to the idea of local government, with higher levels of government having strictly limited powers and very tightly controlled finances — sort of like the US Constitution. Among other benefits, that gives the citizen the opportunity to vote with his feet and move easily to another jurisdiction if his local government goes off the rails.
Creating more Congressional districts would dilute the power of individual Congressmen, which might be a good thing. OTOH committee chairmen might still wield vast power. Ultimately, the optimal size for Congress may be an empirical question. Certainly it’s worth considering, as is the idea of subdividing individual states.
If each Congressman feels he has to justify his presence, a legislative body with a couple of thousand members would tend to be choked with proposals. For the body to actually do things, either, as Jonathan says, the committee chairs would have to have greater control, or the party whips would have to be stronger. And would the power of the permanent staff be magnified?
It might be instructive for somebody to fund a project to game out what an optimal size is — but only if the rules involve realistic incentives, and the constituencies the players represent have realistically different needs.
Another approach to reforming seriously dysfunctional “democracy” would be to expand upon an earlier Westminister idea — every law has to be read aloud three times in the chamber before the final vote on adopting that law. Also require that 100% of the CongressCritters have to sit in the Chamber and listen as the law is read. Maybe allow 2% of the Critters to miss the readings to allow for illness etc, but those who do fail to attend would be counted as votes against the law.
Add to that an iron-clad provision that citizens may be compelled only by a properly-passed law, with no regulatory agency being allowed to make & enforce regulations.
Make CongressCritters work for their living! It is ridiculous in a nominally democratic system that Congress is competing with the media for the least respected institution in our society. Even used car salesmen get more respect.
If the Democrats win (or cheat successfully again), how long will it be before they sentence Trump to life in prison in NY?
And if/when they do, what happens then?