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.
No comments:
Post a Comment