@NateSilver538 It’s been laid out in a bunch of places pretty plainly and turns on a Kennedy in Bush v Gore opinion (not the holding, crucaillu) that the constitution gives to the state legislatures the exclusive ability to choose electors.
@NateSilver538 This combined with both state law and the Electoral College Act’s provision of what to do if states fail to make a selection was gonna be the plan if the margins were thin enough. Cast doub on the integrity of a batch of possibly deciding ballots, then the state leg
@NateSilver538 Say that essentially there’s no way to trust that vote, ergo “failed to make a selection” and then award electors directly and give it a shot at SCOTUS.
@NateSilver538 If it had been a one state margin (say PA) and a few thousand votes in that state, I think they would have had a decent chance of pulling it off.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Chris Hayes

Chris Hayes Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @chrislhayes

17 Nov
There's a strong case Scott Atlas is responsible for more death than any single policymaker in recent memory.

msnbc.com/all-in/watch/t…
Remember, Atlas has repeatedly said we don't *want* to stop the virus from spreading, in fact we want it to spread! And then, his argument went, we'll protect vulnerable populations (those in long-term care facilities, those with co-morbidities). But guess what happened.
This was all perfectly obvious to everyone. Literally no country has allowed the virus to spread and succeeded in protecting its vulnerable populations from death and severe illness. No one! Countries either control the virus or their people die en masse. That's it.
Read 4 tweets
12 Nov
Let me take a run at this in a less snarky fashion. I think there are some people inside the GOP who are genuinely pushing towards a new consensus on monetary/fiscal policy that views tight labor markets as a good thing that policymakers should aim for. This is good!
These folks have, obviously, *enormous* instutional opponents, both ideological and economic. (Capital tends to like slack labor markets). I truly want them to win and the only way out of disaster in a divided government is *for them to win*.

BUT
Today's announcement on Judy Shelton suggests the institutional GOP will do what it always does and go back to pushing austerity and tight money in order to sabotage a Democratic president, even if it means screwing the same working class it *says* it no proudly reps.
Read 4 tweets
10 Nov
I think it's more more likely we're not going to have lockdowns and instead policy-makers will just let the hospitals melt down and lots of lots of people will die uneccesarily.
It's already happening in some places (South Dakota, El Paso). People will die in ER waiting rooms before they can be treated and people will die at home alone before they even make it to the hospital. Death upon death upon death. An ocean of it before us.
There's a notion that many around the President have, and has fairly wide purchase that "it is what it is." Nothing to be done. Well that's a loser's ideology. If you want to be a winner, if you want to Make America Great then for the love of God save your people.
Read 4 tweets
6 Nov
People should read some 19th century leftist writing to discover that both working class and rural reactionary politics are not, um, exactly new phenomena.

Vanguardism emerged for a reason!
You can find a great intro to these debates via @mikeduncan in his phenomenal Revolutions Podcast on the Russian Revolution. You can skip the Russia-specific stuff and focus on the early stuff about Marx and Bakunin, and then there's a lot more later around Lenin v Kautsky.
Read 4 tweets
5 Nov
Part of what makes so much political analysis so confounding and frustrating is that the deep structural polarization means that almost everything in electoral politics happens on the margins. 1/x
Imagine you’re in a room of 100 people in which 53 are wearing t-shirts and 47 are wearing sweatshirts. You step outside for a moment and when you come back 6 people have put on sweatshirts.
You might not even notice! You sure as hell wouldn’t say “OH MY GOD WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO YOU PEOPLE!?! I THOUGHT THIS WAS A T-SHIRT ROOM AND NOW ITS A SWEATSHIRT ROOM! WTF!?!!?”
Read 5 tweets
4 Nov
One thing that stands out to me is how ubiquitous the notion that Democrats *should* be winning by big margins, and *should* have a durable ruling coalition, is across different ideological factions in the broad center to left coalition.
Now everyone has their different views about What They're Doing Wrong, etc.. Lots of the critiques are good and draw blood, and have merit at the margins. And, look, I get that GOP governance has been an absolute horrifying deadly disaster across two administrations now!
And but also: It's a big, complicated country with lots of conservatives! We're very closely divided, politically. I've noticed, interestingly enough, conservative growing more resigned to that & putting their faith in instutions they can control: state government in red states..
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!