I didn't want to respond to the Atlantic piece about how Trump can steal the election by flipping electors in states with GOP held legislatures, but I will.
Here's my take.
From the article⤵️ 1/
A few weeks ago, a theory that Trump could steal the election in this manner made the rounds. For this to happen, a string of very unlikely and highly improbable things would have to happen.
The story died down.
The press right now is very bad for Trump.
2/
Next thing we know, a legal advisor to the Trump campaign tells a reporter that this extremely unlikely event WILL happen because the states will line up and do what Trump wants (overturn the will of the people).
The Trump campaign wants this in the headlines.
3/
I'm pretty sure everyone knows Trump would cheat, lie, steal, and even let 200K people die if he thought it would help him win.
There are several ways to respond to this story, but we have to begin by wondering why the "legal advisor" wants us to have this information.
4/
First, remember that each state has rules that govern the certifying of their elections.
Yes, laws still matter.
The Trump legal advisor wants you to think they don't.
Why? Because when enough people lose confidence in democracy, democracy will fail.
5/
That's why, as @selectedwisdom reminds us, a goal of active measures is to get you to lose confidence in democratic processes.
Trump is trying his best to get you to lose confidence in democratic processes.
He is trying to make you think he can pull this off.
6/
New polls came out today showing that Trump is ten points behind nationally.
The Strongman needs you to think he's strong. He doesn't want you talking about the polls.
If he was winning, he'd want you talking about the polls.
He's losing so he needs to present a situation that makes him look strong.
He wants you to think state legislatures will do whatever he tells them to do, including overturning the will of their own constituents because Trump ordered it.
8/
See my Strongman Con post (now on my blog), and this thread.
When enough people believe the con, this amplifies and gives credence to the lies, which then creates a reality based on the lie, which helps bring about the very outcome you don't want.
This is not to say that very real things can't go wrong. Polls showing a close race in Florida worry me. The fact that more than 45% of voters willingly choose Trump, despite everything we know worries me.
10/
The fact that so many people don't vote worries me.
Here's the thing about democracy: If a majority of voters no longer want it, it will cease to exist. If a majority of voters don't put in the work, it will cease to exist.
11/
Another thing to remember: These states with GOP-held legislatures that the Trump advisor wants you to think will do whatever Trump wants are getting hit very hard right now from Covid.
People like @stuartpstevens tell us most GOP officials know Trump is unfit.
For about a dozen reasons, the scenario is highly unlikely. If Biden's win across multiple swing states, getting hit by a meteor is more likely.
But Trump wants the headline to be: Trump can steal the election!
13/
Being rather perverse, my response is, "Trump wants this headline, so let's not give it to him."
Trump's talent is controlling the national conversation. He manipulates everyone.
Look how easy it is. His 'legal advisor' puts something like this forward. . .
14/
Then most of Twitter takes the bait.
Twitter peeps instantly (and obediently) begin discussing whether he can. People begin arguing for why it might be possible.
Then someone says, 'we need to prepare for all of these worst-case scenarios!'
15/
Then everyone starts wondering how to prepare for this worst-case scenario.
And Trump succeeds. Trump manipulated everyone.
He transformed himself from a loser (in the polls) to a scary strongman.
He's a genius at manipulating the media and controlling the conversation.
16/
How do we "prepare" for everything a person might do?
Why is it unlikely? (1) State legislatures do not certify elections. (2) States have laws governing how elections are certified. (3) State legislatures answer to their constituents, not Trump. . .
(4) The election would have to come down to a few states in which the elected officials were willing to go against the will of their voters and against their own laws.
(5) They'd have to break the laws (and defy their voters) for Trump.
(6) The courts would have to allow it.
(7) The Supreme Court along with multiple state legislatures would have to be willing to basically install a dictator.
(8) Remember what @stuartpstevens said⤵️ They would be putting themselves forever at Trump's mercy.
(9) In a close election, like 2000, where the election comes down to a few thousand votes, something like this might work.
(10) We're looking at an election in which Trump loses the popular vote by upwards of 7 percentage points. . .
. . . and multiple states give Biden the electoral college win.
Beginning with the fact that state legislatures have nothing to do with certifying elections, this isn't plausible⤵️
The story is why Trump wants us to think he can pull something like this off.
Let's not pretend that we are at the mercy of Trump, or that we give two hoots about whether he will "respect" the results of the election.
Secret service can escort him out of the White House in January.
Dear those of you who explaining why I'm wrong and that Trump can easily steal this election (and I'm naive to doubt it) let me ask you this: Suppose you succeed in persuading lots of people of this?
What will you accomplish?
Of course: Trump knows he can't win by persuading people to vote for him, so he will try to create chaos.
What you can do: Volunteer to work on the election.
What Biden will do: Put together a top-notch legal team.
In PA, the GOP controlled legislature can’t appoint its own electors without amending the PA electoral code, which Dem Gov Wolf would veto, & the GOP lacks sufficient votes to overcome his veto. Same in MI & WI.
Facts matter.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
For years I was perplexed by what I was seeing on left-leaning Twitter, political blogs, and partisan reporting.
I had the feeling that, in its way, what I was seeing was comparable to Fox: Lots of bad information and even unhinged conspiracy theories.
2terikanefield.com/invented-narra…
Of course, if I suggested that, I was blasted for "both-sidesing."
Then I discovered an area of scholarship: Communications and the overlap between communications and political science.
Another contradiction: when people demanded indictments RIGHT NOW (in 2021 and early 2022) the reason was, "Everyone knows he's guilty! Look at all the evidence!"
We saw the J6 committee findings.
Trump isn't saying "I didn't do it." He's saying, "I had the right to do it."
2
We all know what he did. The question is, "Do people want a president who acts like Trump?"
A lot of people do.
People show me polls that a guilty finding would change minds.
I say rubbish. Use common sense. He lost in 2020 and he lost the popular vote in 2016. . .
3/
. . . because it is designed to keep people hooked. People need to stay glued to the screen for hour after hour.
But to hook people, you need to scare them. The Facebook whistleblower testified that content that produces strong emotions like anger gets more engagement.
2/
Fox does the same thing. There is a few minutes of news, but the facts get lost as commentators and TV personalities speculate and scare their audiences.
Before you yell at me for comparing MSNBC to FOX, read all of this:
If I write another blog post addressing the outrage cycle here on Twitter and in the MSNBC ecosystem, it will be to explore why so many people who believe they are liberal or progressive actually want a police state.
1/
Today alone, a handful of people who consider themselves liberal or progressive told me that the "traitors need to be arrested and prosecuted."
In 2019, back when I wore myself out tamping down misinformation, I explained the legal meaning of treason.
2/
Back then, I now realize, people asked politely: "Can Trump be prosecuted for treason (over the Russia election stuff).
I explained that wouldn't happen.
Now it's different. It's more like fascist chants.
3/