Sherlock Holmes, In General

 

Sherlock Holmes

I really do want to do any number of posts on Sherlock Holmes.  He was written before the convention had been established for mysteries that the reader had to be able to solve the mystery with just the clues provided. Sherlock Holmes violates this all the time, partly with his trademarked Sherlock scan to figure out all sorts of things that Watson never noticed.  And he often presents the answer to the mystery by investigation off-stage that we learn about only after the fact. And, of course, he also violates the accepted convention that the mystery has to be about a murder.  

Still, there are little glimpses, now and then, of the requirement to stick to the clues in the story, especially in mysteries that Holmes solves (mostly) from the comfort of his own study, and with no more information that Watson has.  There is the famous dog that did not bark, for instance. 

In A Case of Identity, Holmes recognizes that the missing fiance's desperate pleas to be faithful no matter what do not mean he knew he was in danger.  Rather, his conspicuous muttonchop whiskers and glasses, his speaking in a whisper, his meeting his girlfriend only in dim light, her poor eyesight, and his refusal to give his address or sign his type-written letters could only indicate that the man was actually the girl's step-father in disguise.  

In The Speckled Band, Holmes observes the bed bolted to the floor, the ventilation shaft to the step-father's bedroom, the bell cord not attached to a bell, and the collection of exotic animals from India to figure out how his client's sister was murdered in her locked bedroom -- by a poisonous snake.  

In The Red-Headed League, Holmes figures out that the pawn broker's assistant's willingness to work for half-pay and his insistence that the pawn broker joint the Red-Headed League, which pays his to write from the Encyclopedia Britannica, indicates that he is in on the plot and that the Red-Headed League was simply a ruse to get the pawn broker out of the shop during the sinister activity.  The proximity of the pawn shop to a bank and the assistant constantly taking photographs and disappearing into the basement to develop them allows Holmes to deduce that the assistant is actually digging a tunnel to the bank.

And in The Sussex Vampire, Holmes solves the mystery of why his client's South American second wife is beating her stepson and sucking on wounds in her baby.  Observing South American weapons collected in the house, a suddenly paralyzed dog, and the older child's extraordinary attachment to his father, Holmes figured out that the boy tried to kill the baby with one of the poisoned darts and the mother was sucking the poison out.  (No wonder she hit him!).  

But I will confess to not having read most of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries, and would have to read a lot more of them to see just how large a role Arthur Conan Doyle had in developing later mystery conventions.  In the meantime I am strangely drawn to one that Holmes did, indeed solve, with only the clues available to the reader.  It is Doyle's attempt at a Gothic novel -- Adventure of the Copper Beeches.

Too Much News

 So, a new COVID variant is out (but not the nu variant, the omicron variant) that appears to be both extremely contagious and vaccine-resistant.  Vaccine makers are on it but expect it to take 100 days (i.e., till early March) to start getting out vaccines, and who knows how far it will spread in that time.  Merck's COVID pill is looking less effective than expected.  Russia is preparing to invade Ukraine. And Donald Trump is expected to win by a landslide in 2024.

At some point, I just can't take any more news.  So I think it is time to give political blogging a rest for a while (barring further developments that give me no choice) and write a little more about Arts and Entertainment.

Do I Actually See Glimmers of a Sensible Center-Right?

Looking for hopeful signs from the recent election, I see three.  First, as I understand it, the main target of really hardcore MAGA types were school boards, and they seem to have had quite limited success there.  Second, where Republicans did lose, they conceded defeat, even if some delayed more than would be ideal (see New Jersey). And finally, Republicans winning (as in Virginia) put a crimp stories of rigged elections. So there is some room to hope that Donald Trump's behavior is the product of a deranged personality, rather than a general new tactic.

And now I am seeing some faint glimmers of a sensible center-right in Congress.  Some are reaching out on immigration.  The article mentions Maria Elvira Salazar, a Cuban-American freshman Representative proposing legal status, though not citizenship; Dan Newhouse, a Republican Representative from Washington State, co-sponsoring legal status for farm laborers with progressive Democrat Zoe Lofgren; and on the Senate side Republican Michael Crapo of Idaho working on a similar bill and John Cornyn proposing legal status for DREAMers.  

Obviously, Republicans are motivated by self-interest, in this case, the hope to attract more Hispanic voters to the Republican side.  But so what?  That is normal politics, after all.  Senate Republicans agreed to cooperate with Democrats on infrastructure in hopes of thwarting Build Back Better.  Democrats denounced such attempts as evil, but really they were just ordinary politics.  Offering the other side some of what it wants in hopes of persuading it to settle for less than everything is well within normal behavior for a loyal opposition. Nor should it be surprising that Republicans are softening their opposition to giving citizenship to Latin American immigrants once they can expect more of them to vote Republican.

My advice to Democrats, honestly, is to take it. The immigration provisions are sure to be stripped out of Build Back Better by the Senate parliamentarian, and Joe Manchin may spike the whole thing anyhow.  Settling for part of what you want is better than holding out for everything and getting nothing. It give Joe Biden and Democrats a win on an issue that is broadly popular.  It may, indeed, win more Hispanic/Latino votes for Republicans, but it will also serve to split the party and provoke quarrels between the hardcore nativist base and the more immigration-friendly moderate.  The cries of outrage from Marjorie Taylor Green alone make such a measure worth supporting.

The other article deals with climate change and the growing realization that it is real and has to be dealt with and reports that "scores of Republicans" are seeking to claim a middle ground between Trump and Biden on greenhouse gases.

In a conservative caucus founded by Republican Rep. John Curtis of Utah, the Republicans say they know how to move voters off fossil fuels and argue for a climate policy that continues use of natural gas in particular.

They emphasize trees, as well as carbon capture technology that has yet to be developed to scale, to capture climate-damaging emissions.

“We know we must reduce emissions. Now let's have a thoughtful conversation about how we go about it,” Curtis said in a panel with other U.S. lawmakers at Glasgow. “And that's, that's a new place, I think, for us.”

Indeed, it is.  As the article comments, it goes against Republican policy as recently as the Trump Administration.  

Unlike proposals on immigration, these appear to be addressed to the indefinite future, but should be promoted as far as possible in the here and now.  Republicans have complained, with considerable justification, that the Green New Deal is more a grab bag of Democratic priorities than a serious attempt to address climate change.  What they have not offered is a sensible center-right alternative, just denial.  Jonathan Chait has proposed that a sensible center-right climate policy might mean more emphasis on nuclear power and expansion of carbon-capture technology.  If select Republicans are proposing natural gas and carbon capture instead -- well a debate on how to save the planet is a whole lot healthier than a debate on whether the save the planet, and the same political considerations apply to this as to immigration.

Granted, I would still have preferred Republicans willing to take the truly radical step of acknowledging the results of the 2020 election and denouncing any attempt to overturn it.  And I still believe that the (substantive) issues are not the issue; the survival of democracy is.*  Nonetheless, the more (select) Republicans are willing to cooperate with Democrats, the more they legitimate Democrats' presence in the government.  That alone is important.  And if (as I believe) we need as broad a coalition as possible of pro-democracy forces, then it makes sense to cooperate with Republicans to the extent possible, even if it means getting less than we want.  That, too, is normal politics.

_________________________________________________

*Although, of course, the survival of the planet is even more important that the survival of democracy.

Swing Voters in Virginia

 Here is an interesting piece on some researchers who did focus groups of Biden-to-Youngkin voters in Virginia.  Major findings:

It's still the economy, stupid.  The economy isn't actually that bad.  Growth has been healthy and job recovery has been impressive, and people are shopping fit to beat the band.  But that is the problem. We do appear to have overstimulated the economy, so that people's consumption is outrunning our capacity to produce or even import and is causing inflation and shortages.  Help wanted signs are everywhere, but businesses are curtailing hours for lack of workers. Swing voters don't see Democrats as focused on the economy, or as doing anything about it.  They also saw Democrats as focused only on advancing marginalized groups and not on people like themselves.

Two things you don't want to see made -- laws and sausages.  Democrats have responded to winning the triple crown by trying to pass as much legislation as possible, on the assumption that nothing will pass once the Republicans win the midterms.  The result is much the same as what happened when Democrats focused on passing Obamacare -- voters got a good look at sausage making and wanted none of it.  The substance of what is being passed just doesn't matter.  These voters just saw endless fighting instead of doing anything about the economy.

Education was important, especially school shutdowns.  Education was the primary local issue, but swing voters' biggest concern was not Critical Race Theory, but school shutdowns and general resentment of schools for not not taking parents into account.  That made McAuliffe's comment about not letting parents tell schools what to do bad -- but not necessarily decisive.  It just encapsulated what they believed anyhow.  They did also see schools as being politicized in general and CRT as part of that, although they did not blame either side exclusively.

They still disliked Trump, but it was personal and did not apply to all Republicans.  Presumably some o the nuttier Republicans would not go over with these voters, but Glen Youngkin seems likeable and relatable.  Not asked -- whether it bothered them that Youngkin would not say outright that he accepted the results of the 2020 election.  In short, Youngkin was successfully doing what so many Democrats in Republican-leaning districts did in 2018 -- he personalized the election and localized it.  He also proposed to fight rising prices by removing the tax on groceries, and to increase school funding and give parents more say.

So my general advice to Biden would be -- quietly and discretely work on getting out tests and treatment for COVID.  (This includes reclassifying home tests to free them from the FDA).  Work loudly and publicly on supply chain issues and make sure everyone sees it.  My advice to Congress is -- raise the damn debt ceiling.  Nothing else matters.

Also of note:  Megan McArdle is warning Democrats that inflation and COVID restrictions can cost them the Black, Hispanic, and Asian working class and leave only college educated voters -- no more than a third of the population.  In short, McArdle thinks Republicans will soon outnumber Democrats by 2-1.  I am somewhat skeptical.  Warnings to Democrats that Black and Hispanic voters, who they see themselves as representing, are actually more moderate than the party's white, upscale base are well-taken.  But I think the same will apply to Republicans. I expect Republicans to find Black and Hispanic voters also to be more moderate than the MAGA base, and a program consisting mostly of being performatively obnoxious, offending liberals as much as possible, banning abortion, and flooding the streets with ever more guns will also have its limits.

The Claremont Institute's Wargame, Continued

 

A few more things stand out about the Claremont Institute's wargame of the election.  Claremont writes several highly resentful proposed announcements by social media suppressing right-wing opinions and relying solely on the mainstream media, which Claremont (naturally) sees as hopelessly liberally biased.  It also has social medial cooperating with law enforcement to track down and arrest left-wing disruptors converging on DC.  Go figure.

Claremont went into greater detail than TIP on anticipated post-election litigation and writes .  Despite Trump's open avowals that he would sue to overturn the election if he lost, Claremont does not address that issue. It has one suit in what the Republican Party of Michigan seeks to compel the governor to seat electors.  The court refuses, saying that under Michigan law there is no timetable for the electors to be certified.  I think Claremont intends to endorse this opinion. If so, it would clearly give Republican governors the option of refusing to certify Biden as winner regardless of the vote outcome, but Claremont does not address that possibility.  What Claremont focuses on most of all is suits by Democrats to require and Republicans to block counting of ballots received after the election.  Or, as Claremont puts it, "[T]he Biden team seeking to negate state election law to maximize the counting of late or flawed mail-in ballots while the Trump team sought to have state election law followed."  It has opinions going both ways.

I read the opinions with some interest to see how much the emphasized what Trumpsters since the election have decided is their most sacred principle, Article II, Section i, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . " (emphasis added).  Thus, the argument goes, any change in voting rules must be passed by the state legislature, which cannot delegate its power or be struck down by state courts.  Thus all changes in election procedures made to accommodate COVID are unconstitutional because they were not passed by the state legislatures.  Republicans tried to overturn numerous elections on those grounds.  So how important a principle was that before the election?

Several of Claremont's "decisions" ruling against a counting ballots

ceived after election day cite state law and one says:

The federal Constitution makes clear that the “Manner” for choosing electors shall be directed by the Legislature. U.S. Const. Art. II, § 1, cl. 2. The Michigan legislature as determine that vote-by-mail ballots must be received by the close of polls on election day. To allow a low-level court of claims judge, rather than the legislature itself, to alter that “manner” of election, with apparent complicity from the executive officials of the state, is to ignore those basic structural requirements.

No other opinion is so emphatic on the matter. But probably the most significant "opinion" prepared by Claremont is is proposed Supreme Court decision upholding this ruling:

[T]his Court has repeatedly treated late challenges to long-standing election rules as deeply suspect.. . .  What happened in the district court below is even worse. Its order, reversed by the Court of Appeals, was not a change in the rules close to the election; it was a change in the rules after the election had ended, while the ballots were still being counted. I cannot think of anything that would undermine our faith in the ballot more than were we to allow changes in the rules after the game had been played, when partisans can target rules of long-standing for a temporary political gain.

How true!  And this viewpoint would come back to haunt Trump supporters in numerous cases filed after the election seeking to challenge changes in rules a unconstitutional because the changes were not made by the legislatures. The courts invariably ruled that the challengers should have made their challenges before the election, and that overturning a result after the fact was not an allowable remedy.

I also found one of the players in Claremont's wargame strangely passive.  Their scenario has a great deal of activity by left-wing rioters, by police and right-wing vigilantes, by state parties and by state and federal courts, by social media, by members of Congress of both parties (always with Democrats as the villains), and even a little activity by Joe Biden (calling his supporters out into the streets) and Mike Pence (presiding over the Senate in the vote count).  But Donald Trump does absolutely nothing during the entire wargame!  He never so much as tweets!  Does this seem even remotely plausible?

Finally, I think Claremont shows a serious misunderstanding of Antifa/Black Lives Matter, which may itself be an example of the mirror image fallacy.  I saw the same error in a tweetstorm by a Trump supporter which (mercifully) I can no longer find.  The tweeter acknowledged that most of the allegations of vote fraud were false, but that underlying sense of unfairness was legitimate.  I read it over with great interest to see if it was finally a reasonable argument supporting Trump's position.  It was not, simply an ever-growing font of paranoia.  But what stuck with me in particular the tweetstorm's dismissal of all the federal court rulings dismissing challenges of the election.  These could not be counted on, the tweeter said, because federal judges were probably intimidated by the Antifa/BLM crowd.

First of all, both Claremont and this tweeter are seriously underestimating their own side's potential for violence.  Both assume that the potential for violence lies solely on the left, which the right is strictly for law and order, even as voting officials were being deluged with threats and harassment from Trump supporters, even as a Trump supporter looking for voter fraud force an air conditioner repairman off the road to search for forged ballots. And, of course, Claremont got quite wrong who was going to revolt when the vote was counted.

None of this is to deny that a violent left exists.  Antifa is certainly real  Black Lives Matter has its violent precincts.  Riots in the summer of 2020 are fairly described as left-wing.  Our side needs to acknowledge the reality of a violent left and take a strong stand against it.  But the violent Left is not interested in electoral politics.  It regards the whole spectrum of elected politicians as simply part of the same system of oppression.  Until recently, the more extreme precincts of the Right took that same viewpoint.  Part of what makes Trump so dangerous is that he brought the far Right into electoral politics.

Consider the targets of violence in 2020.  The bulk of the violence was senseless destruction of property, some of it directed toward police stations (clearly a political target) and some toward looting stores (not a political target).  Soon after, there was a wave of violence against statues and monuments, which was clearly political.  Protesters in Seattle seized several blocks and attempted to create their own autonomous zone outside the control of the state -- a thing to be condemned whether it happens in downtown Seattle or on Bundy Ranch.  And Portland rioters besieged the federal courthouse night after night.  All of this deserves to be condemned.  All of it is properly seen as political and left-wing.  All the targets except the stores looted (but bulk of targets, after all), are properly seen as "political" targets.  

But none of it targeted the election system.  Attacks on the election system have been the province of the right.  When TIP commented that the Biden team did not control Antifa/Black lives matter, they did not primarily mean that protests by these groups might escalate out of hand (although that was certainly a possibility).  What TIP meant above all was that Antifa/BLM might not show up when Biden called.  If Claremont and other Trump supporters do not understand this, then they are missing important political realities.

The Claremont Institute's Wargame

So, with that out of the way, on the Claremont Institute's wargaming of the 2020 election.  It dismisses the TIP wargame as an attempt to make Donald Trump look bad and accuses TIP of the mirror image fallacy, i.e., the assumption that one's opponents think the same way as oneself.  Presumably they meant that the TIP wargamers assumed that Trump and Republicans would engage in nefarious behavior just because Trump's opponents were willing to do so.

That is clearly not true to begin with.  TIP presupposed an asymmetry between the parties, based on the input of participants who had actual insight into how the participants might behave (i.e., Democratic consultants giving opinion on how the Democrats might behave; Republican consultants giving opinions on how the Republicans might behave).  TIP did not have a similar diversity of opinion and experience.  

The Claremont Institute criticized TIP for encouraging Biden to bring his supporters out into the streets. Concerned that Black Lives Matter were outside the Democrats' control and might not respond when called, TIP encouraged the Democrats to forge stronger ties.  The Claremont Institute warned (correctly, in my opinion) that this might get out of hand.  Indeed the Claremont Institute regarded "left-wing street violence as a near-certainty."  In fact, much of the Claremont Institute's wargame consists of fantasies about out-of-control leftwing violence that failed to materialize in real life.

The Claremont Institute gamed out a uncertain result similar to TIP's -- everything coming down to the result in Michigan, Trump being ahead by a few hundred votes, when a fire of unknown origin destroyed ballots in Detroit, i.e., ones likely to be for Biden. The Democratic governor then refused to certify electors for Trump and a constitutional crisis ensued.

Except that didn't quite get Claremont the riots they wanted.  Claremont postulated, not completely unreasonably, that the thing most likely to cause left-wing riots was a win declared on election night and then taken back.  But how to achieve such a result?  After all, the Claremont Institute acknowledged, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to vote by mail.  Mail-in ballots would take time to count.  Many swing states did not even allow mail-in ballots to be counted until election day.  Therefore, it was far more likely that election day would create the false impression of a large Trump victory, only to see it fade away.  Claremont did not add that in many cases the ban on counting mail-in ballots until election day was done in a deliberate attempt to create a false impression of a Trump landslide.  They also describe the push for mail-in ballots as the result of "political stoking of fears of contracting COVID."  But they also acknowledge that mail-in ballots have a much higher rejection rate that in-person ballots, as high as one in twenty.  Why would Democrats encourage voters to use a method more likely to result in rejection unless their fears of COVID were sincere?

So given that Claremont's own analysis shows that the most likely result on election night was a seeming Trump victory being eroded, and the most likely catalyst for widespread left-wing riots was a seeming Biden victory being stripped away, how do you get from here to there?  Claremont implausibly postulated a hack of the Texas vote counting to create the false impression of a Biden win. It seems far-fetched, but they wanted riots. Claremont proceeds to describe riots in implausible detail.  The report justified the details as merely attempts at "realism" and not intended to be predictive, but mostly just goes to show that the more details you use in a prediction, the more wrong the prediction is apt to go.  The report has not only mass riots in the downtown area of all major US cities, but riots spilling over into residential area.  Civilian authorities resist the crackdown.  Police bypass civilian authorities and go rogue. Federal forces and right-wing paramilitaries come to their aid.

As the vote count draws nigh, Antifa and Black Lives Matter prepare to descend on Washington DC.  The city is placed under martial law.  Texas, Michigan and Florida state capitols also raise security and place barriers to prevent leftwing attacks. Major police departments, the FBI and Homeland Security start tracking and arresting people congregating in various cities to head to Washington for the showdown.*  Federal, state, and local law enforcement coordinate to arrest over 1000 ringleaders on "the barest minimum of probable cause on the lowest charges."  This is not only an extraordinary degree of projection, it also reveals just how narrow and particular MAGA's current commitment to civil liberties is.

But not to fear, Claremont tells us, the Constitution will get us through the crisis.  And by "the Constitution," Claremont means the narrow and technical provisions of the Twelfth Amendment dealing with an uncertain result.  Those provisions read:

[I]f no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.  [Emphasis added].

We see here some of John Eastman's view that Congress certifying the electoral votes is not a mere formality, but a serious exercise of discretion.  Claremont also takes care to have Democrats be the sole nefarious actors.  Michigan has not certified electors in this scenario, and Biden is ahead by a vote of 262-260.  To win, a candidate does not need a majority of the total electoral votes, but only a majority of electoral votes cast, which appears to make for a Biden win. Despite this apparent win, Nancy Pelosi considers refusing to seat Republican members of the House (technically legal, but an outrageous violation of accepted norms) to prevent a quorum, which would prevent certification of any candidate and make Pelosi the President.  Republicans mobilize public opinion and Pelosi backs down. It turns out that one "faithless" elector voted for Bernie Sanders, making the vote 261 Biden, 260 Trump and 1 for Sanders.  Without a majority, the House must decide, voting by states. Republican states outnumber Democratic states 26-24, so Democrats attempt to walk out to thwart a quorum.  The Sergeant-at-Arms brings them back by force. Antifa riots and causes life-threatening injuries to a Republican from an at-large delegation (i.e., a state with only one Representative -- Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, or Wyoming), but the delegate heroically leaves his hospital bed and is brought, with IV's and blood transfusions being administered, to cast the deciding vote.  The Constitution triumphs!

This degree of specificity is quite simply not a serious attempt to game out what is likely to happen, but a work of fiction.  The appendix on the supposed riots that will take place actually imply that the at-large delegate will be from Wyoming, based on its reference to an attempted assassination of the Wyoming Congressman and "his" aid.  Yes, that's right, Claremont has the deciding vote for Trump cast by Liz Cheney!

To be continued.

________________________________________________
*I do recall right-wing chatter before the vote about Antifa/Black Lives Matter congregating and getting on planes, headings to Washington, always without identifying details. In hindsight, this looks like some serious level projection.

Review of TIP's Wargaming of the Election, Preliminary to Claremont Institute's Wargames

I have discussed the Transition Integrity Project’s (TIP) wargaming of the 2020 election in the past .  It appears that the Claremont Institute did its own wargame (available only through reviews) that is, um, interesting.  The Claremont Institute accuses TIP of just wanting to make Donald Trump look bad and touts their own analysis as showing the Constitution can get us through any crisis.  Their own interpretation of the Constitution, that is, and a crisis that exists only in their imagination.

This is not to deny that TIP got some serious things wrong.  TIP foresaw Trump attempting to mobilize his supporters in the streets, and also to use the machinery of the federal government to sway the election in his favor.  Biden also sought to mobilize supporters in the streets, meaning the "racial justice movement," i.e., Black Lives Matter. The Democratic players warned that the Democratic Party had no control over Black Lives Matter and other such organizations and could not guarantee their mobilization.  TIP also warned that such mobilization might not remain peaceful, especially if provoked by Trump supporters.  Its advice was for the Biden campaign to cultivate stronger ties with Black Lives Matter and the like to ensure their turnout.  In the clear light of hindsight, TIP was almost certainly wrong about that.  The summer riots were an extremely recent memory and any recurrence was more likely to turn public opinion against Democrats than in their favor.  Biden kept it off the streets, and wisely so.

Some of TIP’s direst warnings did not pan out.  Trump did not seize mail-in ballots, federalize the National Guard, deploy the military domestically, launch investigations into opponents and freeze their assets, etc.  It is not clear to what extent this was for lack of trying and to what extent it was due to resistance by the “deep state.” Information is coming out that may shed some light on this. 

In other ways, TIP underestimated just how desperate Trump could be. Certainly, TIP failed to foresee a violent insurrection to overturn the vote count in case of a clear Biden victory.  In fact, Trump behaved more the way TIP anticipated in case of a narrow Biden win (i.e., about 278 electoral votes, as opposed to the 306 that Trump called a “landslide” when he won them).  He denounced the result as illegitimate (true), had William Barr investigate “voter fraud” (true), state legislatures to send an alternate set of electors (true), and Congress not to certify (true).  TIP even had Mitch McConnell end the standoff by privately signaling to Republican Senators that they should certify the results.  On the other hand, TIP had Michigan and Pennsylvania actually choose alternative slates (false), Barr try to stop ballot counting (false), massive demonstrations by Biden supporters with some violence (false) and a Trump forcibly escorted from the White House.  Again, it failed to foresee an insurrection.

TIP's most alarming proposal was actually if Trump won the Electoral College but not the popular vote and featured separate slates of electors sent by Democratic governors, threats of secession to pressure Republicans into making reforms to strengthen popular majorities, and a split in Congress over which candidate to certify as the winner.  But it is the ambiguous result that makes the most interesting contract because it was the ambiguous result that the Claremont Institute decided to wargame. TIP postulated a 2000-like outcome.  Everything came down to one state (Michigan) which was too close to call.  A rogue individual destroyed a large number of ballots believed to have supported Biden, creating a narrow Trump win.  The governor sent an alternate slate of electors.  The election came down to a dispute whether the Vice President could decide which slate of electors to recognize.  True!

This was more or less the scenario the Claremont Institute also used.  Except that it wasn’t.