People should be clear on what happened. The reason, the number one reason, there wasn’t a deal sooner, with a higher price tag, was that Trump *completely* ignored the entirety of the negotiations.1/x
It was always clear he could get a deal at a number closer to Pelosi’s if he actually cared and wanted to lean on Senate R’s. But he didn’t! Because he didn’t care. And post-election he has spent literally all of his political capital attempting to overturn American democracy
On that task he has been quite focused! There’s no official too low-level to lobby! So why did he just decide to suddenly pay attention? I think the Occam’s razor is *to screw McConnell*.
He’s pissed that McConnell acknowledged Biden’s victory and this is his revenge. The most stalwart opposition to $2000 checks is McConnell’s own caucus. This blows up McConnell’s deal and screws Loeffler and Purdue who’ve now been wrong footed.
Pelosi is right to call the bluff. Push as far as you can and force a showdown between Trump and McConnell because ultimately that’s big battle that has to happen before this era ends.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!?!!?”