Trump's Coup d'état.

[Pixel42]

It's people voting for "name I recognize", not somebody they "love".

That could be called a problem with the election process, but it's really more of a problem with voters: voting without paying any attention.

I know the conventional wisdom is that citizens of a democracy have a duty to vote, but I do sometimes wonder if the most responsible thing a voter can do, if they don't have the time and/or inclination to educate themselves about the people and issues in contention, is opt out. At the moment most seem to either vote the way they/their family always have, without regard to the current situation, or - even worse - blindly swallow whichever lies most appeal to their prejudices. Which is how we got Trump and Brexit.

 

[angrysoba]

Maybe this has been posted already, but one of Trump's lawyers, Lin Wood, signed a declaration "under plenty of perjury" rather than "under penalty of perjury".

Link

Maybe it's some special legalistic ruse ("I said I did the perjury, so you can't arrest me, like inviting Dracula into your house, or something!")

Or maybe he is even smarter than that, which is why he signs his name "Lin Woods"

Link

 

[angrysoba]

Wait, so Lin Wood is a man, and Sidney Powell is a woman. Is that, right?

 

[Firestone]

Wait, so Lin Wood is a man, and Sidney Powell is a woman. Is that, right?

Yes, but the really amazing thing is that they are actual lawyers.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I know the conventional wisdom is that citizens of a democracy have a duty to vote, but I do sometimes wonder if the most responsible thing a voter can do, if they don't have the time and/or inclination to educate themselves about the people and issues in contention, is opt out. At the moment most seem to either vote the way they/their family always have, without regard to the current situation, or - even worse - blindly swallow whichever lies most appeal to their prejudices. Which is how we got Trump and Brexit.

For the down-ticket candidates that I don't know much about I find sources I trust and go with their opinions.

 

[Ladewig]

When there's no chance it'll work?

Sure, the situation is ripe for disaster porn, but the army isn't going to march in and get Trump elected.

Yes. They will support Trump as he makes his plans that could never ever succeed. Look at everything they have done for thee past four years. Why would they suddenly decide that it is irrational to continue supporting Trump.



I could be wrong. I guess it is possible that an appropriate analogy is a madman is holding a revolver and a crowd is trying to subdue him. No one wants to be the first guy to charge forward, but hundreds of people want to be the seventh guy who charges forward.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The Military will support Trump right up to the moment his term is up.
And then pretend that he no longer exists.

 

[eerok]

Yes. They will support Trump as he makes his plans that could never ever succeed. Look at everything they have done for thee past four years. Why would they suddenly decide that it is irrational to continue supporting Trump.

The army? How have they been supporting Trump? They wouldn't march against state governments or Congress itself, because that would obviously be illegal. I don't think the American military is run by idiots.

Even Mitch has signalled he's done with it. He was ominously silent as the court challenges proceeded, and he would've taken a cheap, questionable victory if one had magically appeared, but an Insurrection Act stunt could never be a win. Mitch plays the long game, and this ain't it.

I could be wrong. I guess it is possible that an appropriate analogy is a madman is holding a revolver and a crowd is trying to subdue him. No one wants to be the first guy to charge forward, but hundreds of people want to be the seventh guy who charges forward.

Maybe one day someone could pull off a big election scam in the US, but I'm confident that it won't be now and it won't be Trump.

ETA: Arguably there have been plenty of election shenanigans to date, but I'm talking about a more direct intervention.

 

[Horatius]

I don't doubt that many in the GOP despise Trump, but it's a sign of how few principles they have that they suck up to him for favors. It's rather disgusting.

I can understand sucking up to Trump while he was president - like it or not, he really was the president, and had demonstrated a willingness to veto legislation over trivialities, and to use the Bully Pulpit as an actual bully. When the voters throw you a curve ball like that, you've got to deal with it.

But now that he's lost, it makes no sense to keep sucking up to him. Go along to get along when you have to, but once the wicked witch is dead, you sing the goddamned "ding dong the wicked witch is dead!" song.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I can understand sucking up to Trump while he was president - like it or not, he really was the president, and had demonstrated a willingness to veto legislation over trivialities, and to use the Bully Pulpit as an actual bully. When the voters throw you a curve ball like that, you've got to deal with it.

But now that he's lost, it makes no sense to keep sucking up to him. Go along to get along when you have to, but once the wicked witch is dead, you sing the goddamned "ding dong the wicked witch is dead!" song.

Trump doesn't get his power from being President - as evidenced by the fact that he doesn't actually use his powers as President but instead relies on Twitter.
I think that if Trump had lost in 2016, he would have had just as much power over the GOP has he has now.

 

[Cavemonster]

The whole idea that only people in Wyoming should care about Wyoming Congresspeople is part of the problem.

Congress makes decisions for the whole nation, not just the states they represent.

We don't get to just go "LOL I don't care about this Senator because I live in another state."

I've never set foot in Kentucky but Mitch McConnell has effected my life more in the last 4-5 years than Florida's Senators probably have or even could.

The whole point of the senate is that it represents the states.

I'm not sure there's a way to resolve your issue here other than dissolving the senate.

 

[Cavemonster]

Trump doesn't get his power from being President - as evidenced by the fact that he doesn't actually use his powers as President but instead relies on Twitter.
I think that if Trump had lost in 2016, he would have had just as much power over the GOP has he has now.

I agree that his power is his psychological sway over his base at least as much as his legal power in office.

But his cult following was not nearly so large before he won the office. His voters in 2016 weren't all true believers, many were Republicans just falling in line and dumb people enjoying the idea that he was an outsider.

It was only by winning that he converted so many voters into his followers.

Remember, 8 years before his run, he was a registered democrat, a friend of the Clinton's. Ivanka and Chelsea used to hang out.

His sway over a swath of needed voters is a very recent thing.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Sure, but he could have been on Fox and other shows 24/7 on top of his Twitter deluge.
And he would have had Clinton to rant against, something that would also give him space on more reputable shows.

 

[gnome]

The whole point of the senate is that it represents the states.

I'm not sure there's a way to resolve your issue here other than dissolving the senate.

I think the item to look at is the massive power of the Majority Leaders. A single chronic incumbent from one state seemingly has the ability to unilaterally block any vote in that chamber which he wants. That seems like too much power. It frustrates me because I would like to consider more than party when voting for my senators and House members, but this system makes the stakes of majority leadership so high that nothing else matters--which further entrenches incumbents.

 

[trustbutverify]

Yes, but the really amazing thing is that they are actual lawyers.

Evidence?

 

[JoeMorgue]

The whole point of the senate is that it represents the states.

*********. The Senate exists because the founding fathers, as forward thinking as they generally were for the time, were absolutely terrified of pure democracy and wanted a "Gentleman Ruling Class" as a bulwark.

And yeah I sort of lost my "But duh states!" hardon right about the time half of them went to war because they were butthurt at the possibility of not being able to own other human beings so...

 

[cosmicaug]

Sure, but he could have been on Fox and other shows 24/7 on top of his Twitter deluge.
And he would have had Clinton to rant against, something that would also give him space on more reputable shows.

Absolutely not. Cavemonster is right. Scratch almost any Trump sycophant today & you will find someone who was publicly contemptuous of Trump 4 years ago (including folk like Kelly Anne Conway). You are still correct in saying that the power is not just a matter of holding the presidency but holding the presidency is not a small thing and winning the presidency was how Trump "proved" himself.

Trump was too boring for 24/7. Trump 24/7 can only happen now after he has established a cult of personality —which was not the case before his successful 2016 presidency run.

 

[Cavemonster]

I think the item to look at is the massive power of the Majority Leaders. A single chronic incumbent from one state seemingly has the ability to unilaterally block any vote in that chamber which he wants. That seems like too much power. It frustrates me because I would like to consider more than party when voting for my senators and House members, but this system makes the stakes of majority leadership so high that nothing else matters--which further entrenches incumbents.

The supposed power of Mcconnell is partly an illusion. He's there doing what he's doing because the 53 Republicans want it that way.

If enough of them wanted to, they could go around him and take a votes, they could replace him.

The issue is with their majority, Mitch is an ass, and very good at what he does, but the power is being exercised as 53 of them want.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I agree that it's a counterfactual, but if Trump got very close to beating HRC, closer than Romney or McCain came to beating Obama, then I think Republicans would have been fine with keeping him around, especially after the trouncing the other candidates got from him.

 

[cosmicaug]

I agree that it's a counterfactual, but if Trump got very close to beating HRC, closer than Romney or McCain came to beating Obama, then I think Republicans would have been fine with keeping him around, especially after the trouncing the other candidates got from him.

Or, if in addition to losing by almost 3 million votes he had somehow also lost in the EC, Republicans would have seen it as confirmation of the Republican establishment having been correct in not backing Trump (a 'never again' moment rather than a 'we need to do this again but try harder next time' moment).

But I suppose there's no way to know how it would have turned out. It's clear that by the time the election had run its course, we already had a strong cult of personality dynamic going on. There's a good chance that you might very well be right. The emotional bonding to the leader had already taken place by then. The cat was already out of the bag by that point.