Peter, you’ve been doing a great job of giving us the pertinent and reliable data.Thanks!
Now the question is: are Trump’s numbers enough to overcome the Steal? The Republican Party has been assuring everyone that they have measures in place to ensure a fair election. Substacks such as Omega4America have been saying that the election is going to be stolen by Democrats’ cheating. Which do you think is likely?
The longer answer is that anyone who's paid attention to ballot integrity issues particularly in states like Arizona and Georgia know that, despite the assurance of corporate media that there was "no evidence" of ballot fraud, there has been indisputable proof of numerous ballot irregularities. Whether the proof meets a reasonable doubt threshold or even a preponderance of the evidence threshold to establish that the 2020 election was stolen is problematic; what is not problematic is that there is proof, and more than a few isolated bits of it. Ballot integrity and election integrity are definitely things about which voters need to be concerned.
Certainly Democrat tactics like opposing the SAVE Act, or suing to prevent much-needed cleanup of voter registration rolls points not just to a culture of corruption within the Democratic Party, but an institutional reliance upon it. The coup by which Kamala Harris was installed as their nominee is also proof of that. This again is an issue about which voters need to be concerned, because it makes the concept of a massive ballot fraud operation plausible.
On the flip side, we have to remember that while J6 was absolutely NOT an insurrection, and even as riots go was pretty tame, it absolutely was a reaction to the perception among Trump supporters that there was ballot fraud. We should recall also the public disturbances that followed Trump's election in 2016 by Democrats. In both of the past two Presidential elections there has been a greater than normal degree of political tension and division, reaching levels where direct action and even a degree of political violence becomes tempting.
The Declaration of Independence said it best: men are disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable. Up to a point, people won't fight back against oppression and corruption, but once that threshold is breached, they will inevitably push back. And we only need to look at the example of Romania in December of 1989 to see how quickly that push back can grow into an insurrection which overwhelms the established government: it was roughly three weeks from Lazlo Tokes' arrest in Timisoara to Nicolae Ceausescu's execution--three weeks from Ceaucescu being the man firmly in command of the Romanian Government to being lined up against a wall and shot.
This is the political calculus that goes into not just whether the Democrats will attempt a ballot fraud operation but whether they will succeed with one. If there is a broad enough and deep enough belief that Trump is going to win before election day, a ballot fraud operation--which obviously thwarts that expectation--will trigger a violent protest and pushback. Call it a riot, call it an insurrection, call it standing up for democracy, what it will be is an extralegal means of pursuing a redress of grievance.
At which point the question of sufferable evils reverses, and the Democrats have to weigh which is the worse consequence: Deal with the fall out of such an extralegal action or spend four years in the wilderness while preparing for 2028.
These calculations are made even more complicated by questions about whether or not the Democrats are even aware that they might be risking such consequences. From the time of Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment until today, there are repeated instances of behavior that suggests the Democrats are truly living in their own alternate reality where dissident voices simply do not exist. That's a dangerous mindset, because it's when one stops taking the opposition seriously that the opposition will prove to be at its greatest power.
There are simply too many variables to easily game out all the possible scenarios. I am hoping there won't be any fraud, because I don't want to see an insurrection no matter how righteous it might be. But I'm not ruling either one out.
That's frequently the case throughout the country. The Democrats' strongest support is almost entirely within urban areas. Rural areas are far more likely to lean towards Trump, and suburban communities fall on a spectrum between Trump and Harris.
I have read commentary to the effect that if one split New York into a northern part and a southern part around Albany, the northern part would be far more conservative and likely a GOP stronghold, while the southern part would be more reliably democratic. Likewise California becomes more conservative when one moves inland and off the coast.
Which, incidentally, is the reason the Electoral College is an important part of the mechanism for electing the President. It prevents even a large state like California, New York, or Texas from dominating the election. Presidential candidates are compelled to mount truly national campaigns and build national voter coalitions in order to get elected, rather than leaning on one or two population centers.
(And is also why I cringe every time I read about the "national popular vote". There is no "national" vote for President. There are 50 state votes--a point that was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2020 Chiafolo ruling)
Those who are opposed to the EC love to present the US electorate as a single mass of voters, rather than 50 separate ones.
Indeed, the political rhetoric in this country has largely lost sight of the actual Constitutional order of things, which puts the states in charge of most aspects of government outside of the defined powers of Congress in Article 1 Section 8. Certainly the progressives tend to speak of all power residing in Washington DC, and the political rhetoric of this country has shifted as a result--and not in a good way.
Exactly. Need to remove yourself from the Federal Zone (D.C.) The Declaration says the only thing that government is really charged with is to protect rights. It belongs in the States.
Actually, if you read the Constition carefully, no, the government is not there to protect our rights.
Government doesn’t protect rights, and that’s something everyone needs to understand. From the Levellers’ “Agreement of the People” in 1647 through John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government in 1690 the libertarian depiction of government is NOT about protecting rights. Governments protect persons and protect property, and all the related mercantile and economic interests associated therewith.
Our rights—more specifically, the exercise of our rights—is how we protect ourselves from government.
This is the theme of the book I am writing (working title, “A Case Against Government”) exploring some of the more egregious government missteps of the past 15 years or so (started with Anwar al-Awlaki and am working my way forward from there).
Peter, you’ve been doing a great job of giving us the pertinent and reliable data.Thanks!
Now the question is: are Trump’s numbers enough to overcome the Steal? The Republican Party has been assuring everyone that they have measures in place to ensure a fair election. Substacks such as Omega4America have been saying that the election is going to be stolen by Democrats’ cheating. Which do you think is likely?
The short answer is "I don't know."
The longer answer is that anyone who's paid attention to ballot integrity issues particularly in states like Arizona and Georgia know that, despite the assurance of corporate media that there was "no evidence" of ballot fraud, there has been indisputable proof of numerous ballot irregularities. Whether the proof meets a reasonable doubt threshold or even a preponderance of the evidence threshold to establish that the 2020 election was stolen is problematic; what is not problematic is that there is proof, and more than a few isolated bits of it. Ballot integrity and election integrity are definitely things about which voters need to be concerned.
Certainly Democrat tactics like opposing the SAVE Act, or suing to prevent much-needed cleanup of voter registration rolls points not just to a culture of corruption within the Democratic Party, but an institutional reliance upon it. The coup by which Kamala Harris was installed as their nominee is also proof of that. This again is an issue about which voters need to be concerned, because it makes the concept of a massive ballot fraud operation plausible.
On the flip side, we have to remember that while J6 was absolutely NOT an insurrection, and even as riots go was pretty tame, it absolutely was a reaction to the perception among Trump supporters that there was ballot fraud. We should recall also the public disturbances that followed Trump's election in 2016 by Democrats. In both of the past two Presidential elections there has been a greater than normal degree of political tension and division, reaching levels where direct action and even a degree of political violence becomes tempting.
The Declaration of Independence said it best: men are disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable. Up to a point, people won't fight back against oppression and corruption, but once that threshold is breached, they will inevitably push back. And we only need to look at the example of Romania in December of 1989 to see how quickly that push back can grow into an insurrection which overwhelms the established government: it was roughly three weeks from Lazlo Tokes' arrest in Timisoara to Nicolae Ceausescu's execution--three weeks from Ceaucescu being the man firmly in command of the Romanian Government to being lined up against a wall and shot.
This is the political calculus that goes into not just whether the Democrats will attempt a ballot fraud operation but whether they will succeed with one. If there is a broad enough and deep enough belief that Trump is going to win before election day, a ballot fraud operation--which obviously thwarts that expectation--will trigger a violent protest and pushback. Call it a riot, call it an insurrection, call it standing up for democracy, what it will be is an extralegal means of pursuing a redress of grievance.
At which point the question of sufferable evils reverses, and the Democrats have to weigh which is the worse consequence: Deal with the fall out of such an extralegal action or spend four years in the wilderness while preparing for 2028.
These calculations are made even more complicated by questions about whether or not the Democrats are even aware that they might be risking such consequences. From the time of Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment until today, there are repeated instances of behavior that suggests the Democrats are truly living in their own alternate reality where dissident voices simply do not exist. That's a dangerous mindset, because it's when one stops taking the opposition seriously that the opposition will prove to be at its greatest power.
There are simply too many variables to easily game out all the possible scenarios. I am hoping there won't be any fraud, because I don't want to see an insurrection no matter how righteous it might be. But I'm not ruling either one out.
What an excellent answer, Peter - you’re the best!
Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are blue. The rest of the state is pretty much red through and through.
That's frequently the case throughout the country. The Democrats' strongest support is almost entirely within urban areas. Rural areas are far more likely to lean towards Trump, and suburban communities fall on a spectrum between Trump and Harris.
I have read commentary to the effect that if one split New York into a northern part and a southern part around Albany, the northern part would be far more conservative and likely a GOP stronghold, while the southern part would be more reliably democratic. Likewise California becomes more conservative when one moves inland and off the coast.
Which, incidentally, is the reason the Electoral College is an important part of the mechanism for electing the President. It prevents even a large state like California, New York, or Texas from dominating the election. Presidential candidates are compelled to mount truly national campaigns and build national voter coalitions in order to get elected, rather than leaning on one or two population centers.
(And is also why I cringe every time I read about the "national popular vote". There is no "national" vote for President. There are 50 state votes--a point that was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2020 Chiafolo ruling)
Agreed. Why isn’t getting rid of the electoral college seen as disenfranchising votes?
It's all in the framing.
Those who are opposed to the EC love to present the US electorate as a single mass of voters, rather than 50 separate ones.
Indeed, the political rhetoric in this country has largely lost sight of the actual Constitutional order of things, which puts the states in charge of most aspects of government outside of the defined powers of Congress in Article 1 Section 8. Certainly the progressives tend to speak of all power residing in Washington DC, and the political rhetoric of this country has shifted as a result--and not in a good way.
Exactly. Need to remove yourself from the Federal Zone (D.C.) The Declaration says the only thing that government is really charged with is to protect rights. It belongs in the States.
Actually, if you read the Constition carefully, no, the government is not there to protect our rights.
Government doesn’t protect rights, and that’s something everyone needs to understand. From the Levellers’ “Agreement of the People” in 1647 through John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government in 1690 the libertarian depiction of government is NOT about protecting rights. Governments protect persons and protect property, and all the related mercantile and economic interests associated therewith.
Our rights—more specifically, the exercise of our rights—is how we protect ourselves from government.
This is the theme of the book I am writing (working title, “A Case Against Government”) exploring some of the more egregious government missteps of the past 15 years or so (started with Anwar al-Awlaki and am working my way forward from there).