Trump Was at the Trial, Not on the Trail, Yesterday

Well, OK, Donald Trump wasn't technically on trial yesterday, but he was in a federal courtroom instead of out on the campaign trail. That gives an indication of his priorities. While winning Iowa, especially bigly, would give his campaign a huge boost, being in Club Fed in November would be a downer, so he decided DC was more important than IA yesterday. There, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. began the process of deciding whether presidents can do anything they damn well please or if they have to, you know, follow the law. The technical term is "immunity," but in practice if presidents are "immune," they can't be prosecuted for any federal crimes they commit in office (and maybe not state crimes either, although that was not on the docket yesterday).

As we have noted many times, we are not lawyers. However, reader A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, is, and was kind enough to watch the hearing for us and submit a report. Here it is:

Well, this was a first. Donald Trump's lawyer, D. John Sauer, told the court of appeals that if they didn't rule in Trump's favor on the question of absolute presidential immunity, that would allow the "indictment of [Joe] Biden in the western district in Texas after he leaves office for allegedly mismanaging the border and let a Texas jury and a Texas judge sit in judgment of him." (Cue ominous music.) What an interesting strategy—oral argument by threats and attempted intimidation. By the sound of it, no one on the panel (an all-female panel, by the way) seemed the least bit impressed.

More importantly, the panel was skeptical, to say the least, of the notion of blanket presidential immunity. They seemed much more interested in the procedural hurdle that (Z) wrote about yesterday, which is whether this motion is properly the subject of an interlocutory appeal. Without express statutory or constitutional authority, the judges weren't sure they had jurisdiction at this juncture, in spite of the fact that the DOJ was not contesting the issue. The DOJ argued that the court could still hear the case because the question of presidential immunity is of such significance that no one should have to face a trial if it applies. Interestingly, Trump argued the same thing: that immunity includes the right NOT to be tried, which is destroyed if not addressed before trial. The problem is that if the panel finds they don't have jurisdiction, that decision can be appealed to both an en banc panel and SCOTUS, which could really put a wrench in the gears of getting this case heard by summer or even this year. So, the hope is that this panel reaches the merits and does it quickly.

On the merits, the panel interrogated Sauer pretty thoroughly on each of his arguments and seemed to find most of them wanting. From most implausible to least, at least from the panel's standpoint:

• Absolute and Total Immunity: Trump is arguing that the Court has no authority to review anything a president does; so if he ordered Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, he could not be criminally prosecuted even after he's out of office. Trump's attorney reached back to Marbury v. Madison to argue that the founders contemplated exactly this (not Seal Team 6, but presidents committing crimes) when setting up the office of the president, and there was much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments. The judges disposed of this pretty quickly; they all pointed out that since Marbury was decided, there have been many instances when presidential acts have been scrutinized by the judiciary, such as the Youngstown case where the Court examined whether Harry S. Truman could seize control of the steel mills during the Korean War.
  
  
• (Kind of) Absolute and Total Immunity: Trump's attorneys also argued that he can only be criminally prosecuted if he is first impeached and convicted by the Senate. The panel was openly baffled by this argument. They pointed out that a president could break the law and resign, thus preventing an impeachment and avoiding prosecution. And also that impeachment decisions are based upon political considerations and the public can't rely on that to hold a president accountable for crimes. Moreover, if they find that the impeachment judgment clause (Art. I, Sec. 3, clause 7) acts to bar prosecutions of former presidents, why wouldn't it also bar prosecutions of "all civil officers of the U.S." (Art. II, Section 4)?
  
  During this portion of the discussion, Judge Florence Pan observed that the panel doesn't need to reach broader conclusions about total presidential immunity because Trump has already conceded it doesn't exist: He's not immune if he's been impeached and convicted. Meanwhile, Judge Karen Henderson (George H.W. Bush appointee) asked Trump's attorney why they took the opposite position during Trump's impeachment. There, they said that Trump should not be impeached because the criminal justice system could prosecute him if appropriate. Sauer dodged the question by saying that he's allowed to raise any defense he wants here.
  
  
• Discretionary vs. Ministerial Conduct: Another issue that Henderson raised is whether the question of immunity turns on the nature of the alleged conduct. Should they examine the conduct to determine if the acts were discretionary or ministerial? Ministerial acts are those which the officials are duty-bound to perform, while discretionary acts are judgment calls. The former are not generally covered by qualified immunity, since failure to perform them correctly is generally a conscious and deliberate choice. For example, a judge is obligated to seat a jury, which is a ministerial act. In Ex Parte Virginia, the judge had picked a jury based solely on race, and so he was prosecuted for that.
  
  Henderson then asked whether the Court should remand the case for the district court to determine whether the acts alleged in the indictment are discretionary or ministerial. Naturally, Sauer was perfectly willing to accept that outcome. However, in the same breath, Henderson asked, almost rhetorically, why the "take care clause," which requires the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," wouldn't require presidents to follow the law, so that his acts are never "discretionary." And James Pearce, arguing for the U.S., later said that he doesn't believe those issues apply here; he suggested that a lesser presidential immunity may apply in certain circumstances, such as for time-sensitive national security decisions, like a drone strike. But while there may be some situations where circumstances could necessitate applying immunity, the nature of the conduct alleged here does not warrant that, in his view. While this line of questioning is concerning, it is doubtful the votes are there for remanding the case on that basis.
  
  
• Slippery Slope?: Team Trump has advanced the argument that if presidents are not immune, it will open the doors to all manner of politically motivated prosecutions. This was a particular concern to Henderson. And Sauer hit on this theme hard. According to him, anything less than total immunity would be "republic shattering" and that every president would be "subject to criminal prosecution when my political opponent takes office." Pearce countered with the observation that if that were the case, why hasn't it happened already? According to Pearce, at least since Nixon was pardoned (and why was he pardoned if he couldn't be criminally charged?), it's been understood that a former president is subject to prosecution. Pearce reminded the court of the built-in safeguards in the system: the procedural code and laws prosecutors must follow; the rules for grand and petit juries; and the Article III courts sitting above all that. To reinforce that as a sufficient backstop, he also pointed out there were independent and special prosecutors appointed to look into former presidents, including Reagan and Iran-Contra, and those investigations concluded with no charges being brought.
  
  Pearce also said that the fact that this investigation led to charges does not mean we will have a tit-for-tat; this prosecution "reflects the fundamentally unprecedented nature of the conduct," not the politics of the special counsel. It's also worth noting that this prosecution was not brought by Biden—it was an independent special counsel operating outside the control of the Biden administration, specifically to wall off the special counsel's office from anyone in DOJ or the White House.
  
  Sauer, on the other hand, clearly views every act of a government official as a political act. He genuinely thinks it's appropriate, if this prosecution goes forward, for every future president to be fair game for any kind of corrupt prosecutor with an ax to grind and a score to settle. A failure to find immunity, he said, is "tailor-made to launch cycles of recrimination." And indeed, not 5 minutes after the argument, Trump went before the media to announce that he'll indict Biden once he's elected. Undoubtedly, that is not a coincidence.

Thanks, A.R.!

On that final point, let us reiterate that Trump showed up but didn't actually have to. That was his choice—unlike his August 2023 arraignment, when he was required to be there. Why did he show up? To try to help sell his case, in part, and also to play the victim card and jack up fundraising. Now he can spam all his supporters: "They are after me. I need money to defend myself. If they get me, YOU are next." Trump has had massive turnover among his lawyers the past year. This may be partly due to arguments over billing, partly over disagreements on strategy, and partly because he refuses to follow the advice they give him.

In any case, there is a pretty overwhelming consensus that Trump's lawyers failed to sell his argument yesterday. Here is a selection of headlines:

• Politico: Trump's immunity claim gets frosty reception at appeals court
• MSNBC: Trump immunity appeal shattered by judge Trump doesn't believe should be a citizen
• Time: Judges Express Skepticism of Trump's Sweeping Immunity Claim
• The Atlantic: Trump's Lawyer Walked Into a Trap
• Reuters: Judges skeptical of Trump's immunity claim in election subversion case
• Al Jazeera: US appeals court judges appear sceptical of Trump immunity claim
• BBC News: Trump hearing: Judges sound sceptical of Trump's immunity defence
• Roll Call: Appeals court skeptical of Trump immunity arguments
• NBC News: Judges skeptical of Trump's immunity appeal
• Bloomberg Law: Trump Immunity Claim Gets Chilly Reception From Appeals Court

Meanwhile, here is Fox's front page as it was last night:

As you can see, Fox knows its audience. So, Jeffrey Epstein, NASCAR, space aliens and Chick-fil-A all made the cut, but Trump's court case did not. That's another excellent sign that things did not go his way.

The issues here are so clear-cut, and Trump's side did such a poor job of changing that, that it is likely that a decision is going to come down very soon. Truth be told, it seems very plausible that the judges could rule by the end of the week. (V & Z)

Trump Is Rooting Against America

Presidents are generally upbeat (e.g., "Morning in America"). For the most part, presidential candidates are too, although they are free to say things would be even better with themselves in charge. It is considered gauche to root against the country and hope that millions of people lose their jobs, houses, and more. But Donald Trump doesn't speak French and has no idea what "gauche" means. And even if he did, he still wouldn't understand it (the literal translation is just "left," as in making a left turn at an intersection). So in an interview with Lou Dobbs, Trump said he hopes the economy will crash this year. That way he wouldn't be a repeat of Herbert Hoover.

As usual with so much of what Trump says, particularly when it comes to history, this makes no sense. When Hoover was elected president in 1928, the economy was booming. Then on "Black Monday," Oct 28, 1929, the stock market dropped 12.8%. On "Black Tuesday," Oct. 29, 1929, it dropped another 11.7%. That led to the start of the Great Depression, under Hoover's watch. As a consequence of the depression, Hoover was crushed in the 1932 election, winning only six states: four in New England plus Pennsylvania and Delaware.

There is no way Trump could be Hoover because if the markets crashed this year, Joe Biden would be Hoover and probably be crushed in Nov. 2024. This would indeed be good for Trump, but it would be Biden, not himself, as Hoover. And, in any event, so far, the economy seems to be doing well and Fed Chairman Jerome Powell seems to have managed a soft landing. What Trump didn't say, and could have, is that he was the one who made the genius pick of Powell as Fed chair. He could legitimately take credit for making a very good choice, rather than rooting for misery for millions of people.

As an aside, Trump's skill at making economic predictions is, uh, poor. In 2020, Trump predicted that if Biden was elected, the stock market would crash. Actually, it broke all records and closed the highest in its history during Biden's administration:

Not only that, inflation is down from 9.1% to 3.1% under Biden and 14 million new jobs have been created during his administration. It could yet go south, but at the moment the economy appears to be humming along. Many people don't know this and Fox News continues to tell everyone how awful it is, but if inflation and unemployment stay down until November and most people's 401(k) accounts are way up, voters may finally decide that the economy is doing well. (V)

Haley Is Closing in on Trump in New Hampshire

Did we ever mention that in politics, 2 weeks is a very long time? The New Hampshire primary is just under 2 weeks from now and a new University of New Hampshire poll has Donald Trump's lead down to 7 points. Trump has 39%, Nikki Haley has 32%, and Chris Christie has 12%. On the other hand, a Suffolk University poll has Trump at 46%, Haley at 27%, and Christie at 12%. Averaging the two, Trump is only 13 points ahead and Haley is clearly rising. It is possible that the endorsement of Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH) has helped Haley. Probably Charles Koch's millions didn't hurt either.

Christie has vowed to stay in. However, the UNH poll showed that among the Christie voters, 65% would go to Haley if Christie dropped out. That would add 8 points to Haley and 4 to Trump, narrowing the gap to within the margin of error. If Christie's goal is to stop Trump, the obvious move is to drop out, endorse Haley, and campaign for her. But apparently his ego is too big for that. He'd rather get 12% and have Trump win than be hailed as the guy who made the tough decision that took down Trump (well, in one small state). On the other hand, once the New Hampshire voters see these poll numbers, Christie's voters may make that decision for him.

On the Democratic side, 69% of likely Democratic voters plan to write in Joe Biden, 7% plan to vote for Rep. Dean Phillips (DFL-MN), who is on the ballot, and 6% plan to vote for Marianne Williamson, who is also on the ballot.

Also noteworthy is that the Suffolk poll ran a general-election race with Trump, Biden, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Biden got 42%, Trump got 34%, and Kennedy got 8%. (V)

Democrats Fret Trump-Biden General-Election Debate

Democrats are worriers by nature. Something could go wrong. No matter what is going right, something could go wrong. The worry du jour is Joe Biden debating Donald Trump. A number of senior Democrats are basically warning Biden against debating Trump, who has so far skipped all the primary debates. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) said: "I would think twice about it." Durbin was present at one of Trump's debates with Hillary Clinton in 2016 and is afraid Trump will pull some outrageous trick that might fluster Biden, who is not a particularly confident public speaker or debater. Trump could also yell over him and not let Biden finish a single sentence.

Other Democrats are thinking that the expectations for Trump are so low, that merely beating the expectations would cause the media to declare Trump the "winner." This is what happened to Al Gore in 2000, when George W. Bush didn't make blunder after blunder in the first debate. It is the same effect that happens if Wall Street analysts predict that some company will make $110 billion in a year and then it reports $105 billion: Its stock tanks, even though $105 billion is a lot of money. If Trump actually preps for the debate with competent advisers and memorizes a few talking points, he could beat expectations.

On the other hand, Biden did reasonably well in 2020 and if he debates in 2024 and shows that he is not the doddering fool Fox News says he is, a debate might help him, especially if Trump acts up and doesn't appear presidential. Speaking out of turn and trying to stop Biden from talking might get his base to applaud, but could turn off independents.

The Commission on Presidential Debates has already scheduled three general election presidential debates, in Texas, Virginia, and Utah. However, neither Biden nor Trump has agreed to anything. If Biden wants to get out of debating, he could insist on some rules that Trump might not like. For example, he could insist that all three debates are in swing states like Michigan, Georgia, and Arizona. He could also insist there be no studio audience to start cheering and booing. He could insist that the moderators have buttons to kill both candidates' microphones, and when one candidate is speaking, the other one's mic is off. He could demand that when it is one candidate's turn, the camera does not show the other candidate. He could insist that there is a piece of white tape on the stage halfway between the candidates, and if either candidate crosses the tape, the moderators can call a foul and award the other candidate 2 minutes of extra speaking time. That way, when Biden is speaking and Trump's mic is off and the camera is solely on Biden, the only way for Trump to get attention would be to cross the tape and have the moderators call a foul on him. If Biden made these demands and Trump refused them, many people would probably say that the demands were not unreasonable so Biden was justified in skipping the debates. (V)

New Prediction for the Iowa Caucuses: Blizzard with up to 12 Inches of Snow

It is well known that bad weather can affect turnout for any election. In that case, the Iowa caucuses could be a real humdinger. The weather forecast for Iowa up until next Monday's caucuses is basically a blizzard with 6-12 inches of snow throughout much of the state. Winter storm warnings are up in 92 of Iowa's 99 counties. After the snow, a polar vortex is expected, with daytime temperatures in the single digits Fahrenheit and below-zero temperatures at night. Heavy winds are also expected. How many people are going to drive through half a foot or more snow in zero-degree weather with high winds to hang out for 3 hours to talk politics? The official forecast is that the snow will start Monday afternoon with heavy snow all evening and into Tuesday.

Many politicians are pooh-poohing the weather, saying that Iowans are used to it. Yeah, but you don't have much choice about going to work in freezing weather or a snowstorm, whereas you can skip the caucus. What is very important is the differential effect. It is commonly believed that older voters, who may not like driving in a raging blizzard, might decide that on grounds of personal safety they should skip this one. On the other hand, 20-somethings, all of whom think they are great drivers and immortal, might see this as merely a minor challenge to be overcome.

If the age distribution is skewed on account of the weather, that could affect the results. Polling shows that Donald Trump does especially well among senior citizens. If large numbers of them decide to stay home, that could reduce his totals more than it reduces totals for the other candidates. Consequently, extremely heavy snow might not hand Nikki Haley or Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) a victory, but it could cut into Trump's margin. If Trump wins by 30% when everyone was expecting him to win by 50%, the news the next day will be "Trump wins Iowa but by less than expected." That's never a good story for a candidate.

The Chairman of the Iowa Republican Party, Jeff Kaufmann, has already said that the caucuses will start Monday at 7 p.m. no matter what the weather is doing. There are 1,600 caucus sites throughout the state. It would take hundreds of hours to find new ones. At this late date, that is not going to happen. He said that the subzero weather will be good for national reporters from Florida, because it will build character. In 2016, 186,000 Iowans turned out. That is the benchmark for this year's turnout. On the other hand, this 0.1% of the people who voted in 2020 will have a massive effect on the national election, possibly causing some candidates to drop out. One could ask if this is the best way to choose a president.

The weather is already having an effect, as it is forcing candidates to change their schedules. For example, a snowstorm this week caused Haley to miss a planned event in Sioux City because she couldn't get there. Trump had to cancel an event in Ottumwa; undoubtedly the grandchildren of Radar O'Reilly were devastated. Roseanne Barr couldn't get to a Trump event in Boone. Vivek Ramaswamy skipped an event in Indianola because he couldn't make it. If extreme weather is enough to shut Ramaswamy up, maybe climate change isn't such a bad thing, after all. In any event, the bad weather is expected to continue to Caucus Day. (V)

Ranked-Choice Voting Is on the Ballot

Many political observers think that first-past-the-post elections, especially with no runoff, are driving polarization all over the country. If half a dozen candidates are running in a primary and one of them can turn out the 25-30% who are real zealots, he or she can win. In response, there is a palpable trend toward ranked-choice voting, which helps candidates who can appeal to more than a narrow core of fanatics. Moderate Republicans and Democrats who can pull second-choice votes from the other party tend to do well with ranked-choice voting, as we have seen in Alaska, where Rep. Mary Peltola (D-AK) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) have won ranked-choice elections with help from voters who belong to the other party.

And so, the system is (potentially) spreading. In 2024, initiatives in Nevada and Oregon will let the voters choose ranked-choice voting for future elections if they so desire. Here is a map showing where ranked-choice voting is already in use.

As you can see, while only two states, Alaska and Maine, use it statewide, in many states it is used in some local elections or in specific circumstances. In six states in the South, it is used for overseas ballots because there is no time to send runoff ballots overseas and get them back on time. Ranked-choice voting solves the problem since each ballot is counted in the runoff as a vote for the candidate ranked the highest who is still in the running. The alternative name for ranked-choice voting is instant-runoff voting, which indicates it can be used for runoffs.

In one state that already has RCV, Alaska, opponents of it are working on a ballot initiative to get rid of it. These are right-wing Republicans who don't like the system because with it, candidates who appeal to 30% of the voters on the far right, and no one else, can't win statewide. If RCV is abolished, then that "problem" will be solved, or at least mitigated.

In Nevada, the voters already approved RCV in 2022, but the state Constitution requires citizen-initiated ballot measures to be approved twice, so the voters will be asked again in 2024. The measure has a mixed bag of opponents, including both U.S. senators, the influential culinary union, and several right-wing groups. They argue that the voters are too stupid to be able to mark candidates as 1-2-3. The measure passed with 53% of the vote in 2022, so its passage in 2024 is not a sure thing.

The situation in Oregon is different. It was put on the ballot by the state legislature, which is controlled by the Democrats, indicating broad establishment support. Also, some cities and counties there already use RCV, so those voters are already familiar with the system (V).

House Maps Are Still Unsettled as Primaries Are Fast Approaching

Primary season is almost upon us and the maps aren't settled yet in multiple states. And even where they are settled, in some cases they are different from the ones used in 2022. The idea that just after the census, new maps are drawn and stay that way for 10 years is ancient history.

Since Republicans have just a three-seat majority in the House, every change in a map is really important. So far, post-2022 redistricting has netted the Republicans about 2-3 seats, but the show isn't over yet.

North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama have already drawn new maps and gotten the courts to approve. The Republican-controlled state legislature in North Carolina redrew its map after the majority on the state Supreme Court changed from Democratic to Republican. A 7R, 7D map is likely to now become a 10R, 4D map in a state that is extremely evenly balanced. This is a three-seat pickup for the Republicans. The new map is so bad that three incumbent Democrats—Reps. Jeff Jackson, Kathy Manning, and Wiley Nickel—aren't even going to bother to run because they have no chance. The seat of Rep. Don Davis (D-NC) has become redder, but not hopeless. Gerrymandering at its finest.

Democrats will probably pick up a seat in Alabama due to a Supreme Court ruling that the old map violated the Voting Rights Act. The map will probably go from 6R, 1D to 5R, 2D, with the new Democrat coming from a new majority-Black district. The map in Louisiana is still in flux, but it has the same problem as the Alabama map. A new possibly court-imposed map will probably add one Democratic seat.

The real biggie left is New York. Before 2022, the Democrats drew a hyper-gerrymandered map so bad that the courts threw it out. Now the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, has a liberal majority, and the Democratic-controlled legislature has to decide how aggressive a map it wants. An independent commission gets to try first, but in the end, the legislature gets the final call. If the legislature gets really aggressive, it could try to flip as many as six Republican seats. That would be huge, but that would work only in a substantial Democratic wave in the state. That said, with Donald Trump on the ballot, that wave might well materialize.

There are a couple of court cases still in progress. Democrats claim that SC-01, currently occupied by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), is an illegal racial gerrymander. In Utah, Republicans carved up the traditionally Democratic district around Salt Lake City, creating four safe red districts. The courts could reverse that. In Florida, Ron DeSantis pushed through an extremely partisan map, even more partisan than the legislature wanted. That is being challenged, but the odds of getting it changed are low. Still, with such a small margin in the House, every district counts. (V)

Another Pence Bites the Dust

Mike Pence had unrealistic hopes of somehow being a player in 2024, but it didn't happen. Nobody was surprised by that. In contrast, everyone was surprised by the announcement yesterday by his brother, Rep. Greg Pence (R-IN), that three terms is enough and he won't run for reelection. His district, IN-06, is R+19. At 67, he could have served another 20 years if he wanted to. Explaining himself, he made some vague statement about having served in the Marine Corps. As far as we know, the Marine Corps does not have a policy that former Marines can serve only 6 years in Congress. More likely is that Pence smells a Democratic takeover of the House and knows that being in the House minority is no fun at all.

So how did Pence frère vote on the electoral votes when they were counted? Remember, his brother was on the ballot, but also the guy doing the counting. The answer is that Greg approved the Arizona electoral votes but objected to the electoral votes of Pennsylvania, even though Mike wanted them both counted. Must have made for interesting table talk at Thanksgiving in 2021. (V)

Get Ready for Stop the Steal, 2024 Edition

Jonathan V. Last, over at The Bulwark, which is written by a bunch of Trump-hating Republicans, has a very interesting column about the American political system. He says that Donald Trump's great insight was that the system is not about governance, but about getting and using power. Elections are part of it, but not all of it.

What Trump understood is that if he won in 2020, he would say everything was over, the Democrats would agree, and he would take over. However, if he lost, as he did, then that merely initiated the second phase of the process. That consisted of filing dozens of lawsuits (and losing all but one), trying to get state legislatures to appoint their own electors, riling up a mob to attack the Capitol, trying to get the vice president to stop counting the electoral votes, and then getting many members of Congress to try to discard electoral votes from states he lost. Finally, he kept saying he won long enough that a third of Republicans still believe it.

Was this a one-off sequence of events or the new normal? Guess what. In MAGAworld, this is the script for all future elections: If you win, it is over; if you lose, you just keep fighting every way you can. Here is the evidence. Over the weekend, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), a one-time moderate Republican from the hinterlands of upstate New York, but now an embodiment of Trumpism, appeared on Meet the Press. When moderator Kristin Welker asked Stefanik if she would accept the results of the 2024 election, she said: "We will see if this is a legal and valid election." That is not an idle threat. She voted against certifying Pennsylvania's electoral votes in 2021 and has now essentially said that certifying or not certifying states' electoral votes depends on which party takes control of the House on Jan. 3, 2025. It's heads we win, tails we move to the next phase. And note carefully, she is no longer some random backbencher shooting off her mouth. She is the #4 Republican in the House leadership and what she says is party policy. Make no mistake about that.

Trump has been a great teacher. The Republican Party has learned a lot from him. The first lesson is that shattering rules and norms doesn't bring much of a penalty. The second is that while one scandal can be devastating, a hundred of them are just white noise. The third—and most important one—is that elections are not the end points about who achieves power. They are just way stations where the process changes to a different mode.

Republican leaders were shocked by what happened in 2020. They expected that when their candidate lost, he would just gracefully concede, like John McCain did in 2008 and Mitt Romney did in 2012. Now they realize that in 2024, they don't have to accept defeat. They can continue trying to acquire power by any means they can, legal or otherwise. If they are lucky, the Supreme Court might even back them up. And most important, there really isn't any downside to trying, so it is a no-brainer to try.

Stefanik has shown that while Trump was somewhat alone in his quest to overturn the 2020 election, in 2024, the Republican Party will stand behind him, united. Votes in the House on certifying states might end up 220-215 strictly along party lines. Control of the House might determine control of the White House. This is a parliamentary system via the back door. The party that controls the House gets to pick the person who heads the government. Of course, the Senate gets to chime in too, but it might well be 50-50 and completely deadlocked.

This could be the new normal. Get ready for it. With all of this said, if election deniers don't actually gain office (and thus far they haven't) while the people who tried to overthrow the 2020 presidential contest (e.g., Trump) end up in prison, that could put the brakes on things. (V)

---

If you have a question about politics, civics, history, etc. you would like us to answer on the site, please send it to questions@electoral-vote.com, and include your initials and city of residence. If you have a comment about the site or one of the items therein, please send it to comments@electoral-vote.com and include your initials and city of residence in case we decide to publish it. If you spot any typos or other errors on the site that we should fix, please let us know at corrections@electoral-vote.com.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger