Share this page!

Nate Cohn Profile picture
Twitter logo
13 Oct, 4 tweets, 1 min read
Have to agree that the focus on the Electoral Count Act seems to have come at the expense of other subversion risks.
The most serious subversion threats start much earlier in the process, with certification standing out as the key nexus point
democracydocket.com/news/how-the-g…
My April piece on subversion is not exhaustive by any stretch, but it does surprise me how often some of these threads--certification, eligibility challenges, partisan boards--are overlooked, given how they simply follow from actual 2020 efforts nytimes.com/2021/04/06/ups…
None of this is to say that the Electoral Count Act is irrelevant, but my pretty strongly held view is that the dangers were already allowed to progress to a far, far more dangerous place than 2020 for the ECA to become the relevant factor
One possible middle ground in framing--though not really in substance: certification standards could be construed as an element of whether electoral votes are 'regularly given'

• • •

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

Keep Current with Nate Cohn

Nate Cohn 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 @Nate_Cohn

Nate Cohn Profile picture
14 Oct
A simple thought-experiment. What happens if you simply run the 2012 to 2020 trendline forward to 2028?
Obviously there's no reason to expect this, but it is something to consider given the case that recent electoral trends are an unmitigated catastrophe for Democrats ImageImage
The downside for the Democrats--part of the 'apocalypse Senate' case--is that the Democrats only win 23 states here, down from 25. That said, they're above 49 in two more states so it's not hugely different than the status quo.
The better news for Democrats: the electoral college-popular vote gap basically evaporates, as Texas becomes a singularly important near-US average tipping point state, sort of like NY at various points pre-New Deal
Read 4 tweets
Nate Cohn Profile picture
12 Oct
A lot of the conversation about the fate of the Dems centers on the post-12 era, but this is a reminder that 08 was an inflection point as well--when Dems really did choose the relatively liberal, activist-backed candidate (even if he was tactful about it)
Obama won a decisive enough victory, with a great Dem showing downballot. So there's not a lot of reason for Democrats to dwell on how things might have gone differently there.
But choosing the mobilization candidate at that moment is a real historical turning point
Even crazier is that the actual 'persuasion' alternatives--Clinton and Edwards--clearly posed some huge risks for Democrats of their own in hindsight!
Read 8 tweets
Nate Cohn Profile picture
11 Oct
One thing that's interesting to consider is how changing demographics have undermined the traditional way of thinking about racial gerrymandering.
The traditional thinking is premised on a world where nonwhite voters are a distinct minority.
As a result, vote dilution claims center on a district-by-district analysis, where you look for areas where nonwhite voters could represent a majority, identify cracking/packing, etc
Today the demographic picture is a lot different.
Now, nonwhite voters--collectively--represent a majority or near majority of some states.
That district level analysis winds up making it harder to state the obvious about a racial gerrymander.
Read 5 tweets
Nate Cohn Profile picture
10 Oct
Since it's @davidshor weekend here on Twitter, I thought I'd add some focused thoughts on one way of thinking about the Shor case: what would happen if the Democrats tried to go back to 2012?
It's oversimplified, but in the absence of a fuller program I think it's one of the clearer lenses for thinking about what his ideas mean in practice.
And I think it's fair: he's clear about wishing to go back to 2012 edu. polarization--it's explicit in his power sim Image
He's also clear in believing that the Obama '12 campaign is the model for Democrats. As far as he's concerned, that was the last time Democrats thought in a popularist--tactical--way, including about salience/messaging on race, immigration, culture
Read 31 tweets
Nate Cohn Profile picture
9 Oct
Two pieces from NYT Opinion worth reading in tandem on, more or less, how individualism is shaping the current debate over the Biden agenda
nytimes.com/2021/09/14/opi…
nytimes.com/2021/10/08/us/…
Read 5 tweets
Nate Cohn Profile picture
8 Oct
Strange piece and report, perhaps reflecting some of the inconvenience of Trump's gains among nonwhite voters in a high turnout election.
But I'd like to note some of the numbers in the report, which speak to real '20 data challenges
To take an obvious case, this report appears to think that Democrats made gains among Hispanic voters in most states--including Florida!
This is clearly based on pre-2020 voter file partisanship modeling, like party registration or primary vote history, without any effort to incorporate polling or results from 2020
Read 8 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!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @Nate_Cohn has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @Nate_Cohn!

Read all threads by @Nate_Cohn

:(