Trump's first strategy for autogolpe was "Stop the count!!!". It failed.
❌
His second strategy was to sue to have votes thrown out. That is in the process of failing.
❌
So what are his remaining strategies? I can think of three...
2/One strategy is trying to persuade electors to be "faithless electors".
That's doomed to failure, since electors are very hard to persuade to flip, Biden's lead is quite large, and many states have laws against faithless electors.
❌
3/Another strategy, of course, is to do the traditional state-of-emergency, tanks-in-the-streets sort of thing.
But even if Trump were brave enough to do that, there's no way that would succeed. The military won't have it.
❌
5/This is probably illegal, and as @greg_doucette has explained in a long series of threads, it would probably end up with Acting President Nancy Pelosi.
I think he'll still try it, because has to try something, and this is the only thing he can try that won't obviously and quickly end in failure.
Also it uses the only real tool in his arsenal: Bullying Republicans into falling in line.
7/Faithless electors require Trump to bully Dem-selected electors, which he can't.
Tanks-in-the-streets requires him to bully the military, which he can't.
Lawfare requires he bully courts, which he can't.
But elected Republicans? Those he can definitely bully. So he will.
8/Now, I don't know whether he'll be able to bully GOP-controlled state legislatures into seating fake electors. The Pennsylvania State Senate Majority Leader, for example, said he wouldn't do this. (Hopefully he won't change his mind.)
9/Of states that Biden won, five -- Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Arizona -- have GOP-controlled state legislatures. Of those, GA and AZ have Republican governors as well.
10/Now, as I mentioned above, there's a very good chance this strategy will fail.
BUT: 1. If it fails it will not fail immediately 2. It's not 100% guaranteed to fail, given the vagueness of election law 3. It only requires bullying elected Republicans.
11/Thus, unless Trump wants to throw in the towel or rely on a strategy that he knows 100% will fail (faithless electors), he'll try the "fake electors" strategy.
In fact, Lindsey Graham and Ron DeSantis have already been kinda-sorta calling for this.
12/Assuming that Trump's rule is "push wherever it's easiest to push", and that his main tactic is bullying elected Republicans, I think we can expect the "fake elector" strategy to be the main focus of the autogolpe from here on out.
And if it fails, the autogolpe fails.
(end)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
While I don't have a position on @Peter_Turchin's theories overall, I do think that the idea of reducing immigration in order to raise wages makes no sense. Data shows immigration has little effect on wages, and skilled immigration actually raises wages.
If @Peter_Turchin wanted to make an anti-immigration argument, his "elite overproduction" thesis would be a more natural fit. He might argue that skilled immigration is displacing educated native-born Americans from the elite positions they had expected to inherit...
In fact, I think there is something to that argument. And I think it's a low-key, little-discussed reason why Dems will probably allow Trump's cuts in legal skilled immigration to stand...
It sounds like a trivial and obvious thing to simply carry out the law. But when many thousands of very scary, very crazy people are screaming for your head, and the President of the United States is trying to bully you into knuckling under, it's scary and it's hard. For anyone.
Remember, even though the autogolpe is currently failing, it could still succeed. Trump's people are trying to persuade Republican state legislatures in states Biden won to pick the wrong electors, thus stealing the election for Trump.
This would almost certainly be illegal, by the way.
Biden has called Xi Jinping a "thug", and has called the Uighur repression "genocide"!
Biden's approach to confronting China - build up alliances and strengthen the U.S. technologically and economically -- seems extremely reasonable and smart.
It's to give everyone a fair and equal stake in the system.
And most of all, it's to create a modus vivendi. A way people with opposing views can live together.
Electoral democracy - by which I mean secret-ballot majority rule - is not a perfect system, which for example is why we have courts to protect minority rights.
But it's a crucial bulwark against the possibility of the few ruling over the many.
1/Regardless of the election outcome, Trump's inroads with Hispanic voters kills the idea that the Democrats are the Inevitable Party of the Demographic Future.
2/This idea was always based on the false belief that future ethnic voting patterns would be similar to past patterns -- that "Latinos vote like such-and-such" was a stable property of the Universe that would remain constant through the decades.
3/Ignoring the lessons of history, some Democrats believed that Hispanics would always be a reliable 70-30 voting bloc, so that all Democrats had to do was sit and wait for their numbers to swell, and the GOP would vanish like morning mist.