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.
No comments:
Post a Comment