Around the Block

America – The Democratic Republic Where Minority Rules

Commentary

I ran some “Battleground State”numbers…and they’re not pretty.

As we enter the final weekend before Tuesday’s election day, I thought I’d take a break from writing about THE ELECTION and talk, instead, about, uh, elections.

To be clear, this a break from THE ELECTION, but not a break from our broken political system.

I don’t know if you noticed it, but there are three states in the news a lot lately, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In each of these states, every one of the the statewide elected officials, the governor, the lieutenant governor, the attorney general, the secretary of state, etc. are Democrats. And, in each of these states, both houses of the legislature are controlled by Republicans. This is particularly important given the outsized role that state legislatures play in selecting electors to the Electoral College.

(Shirley, I thought he said he wasn’t going to talk about THE ELECTION.)

That got me thinking. Does this mean that in each of these states the majority of voters are Democrats? And that a tiny, little thing called gerrymandering has resulted in a Republican minority allowing Republicans to control the legislature, the branch of government that can block almost anything a Democratic governor wants to get done, and also confirms or rejects the states’ Supreme Court justices, effectively perpetuating the scam.

I wanted to test out this minority rule supposition, so I ran the numbers.

Please be aware, this gets a little wonky, so before you start nodding off, you might want to skip to the final paragraph.

(Seymour, did he say a little wonky???? What does “wonky” mean and what part of “little” doesn’t he understand?)

Michigan

As the chart above shows, in the Michigan statewide elections, Democrats won almost 52% of the vote to 45% for Republicans (3rd party candidates made up the rest). Almost 300,00 more votes were cast for Democrats than Republicans.

The legislative results were similar. In the Senate, Democrats, with a plurality of 91,932, took 51% of the vote, while in the Assembly, it was 52%/48% and a 193,107 vote plurality. Yet Republicans won 22 Senate seats (58%) and 58 Assembly seats (53%).

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania is even more lopsided than Michigan. In the statewide elections Democrats won almost 55% of the vote to 45% for Republicans. Over 510,00 more votes were cast for Democrats than Republicans.

In the Senate and Assembly the results were similar to the statewide results. In the Senate, Democrats, with a plurality of almost 200,540 votes, took 54% of the vote, while in the Assembly, it was Democrats 55%, Republicans 44% and an almost 500,000 Democratic vote plurality. Yet Republicans won 29 Senate seats (58%) and 110 Assembly seats (54%).

Wisconsin

The situation in Wisconsin is slightly, but only slightly, different than Michigan and Pennsylvania. While Democrats took the statewide elections with an almost 300,000 vote margin (51%/48%), and the Assembly by an almost 200,000 vote margin (53%/45%), they fell behind Republicans in the Senate races by 70,000 votes, taking only 47% of the votes. But wait…that 47% of the vote garnered them only 37% of the seats. Oh, by the way, that 53% Assembly majority garnered only 33% of the seats.

Whew! Here comes the final paragraph.

What did we learn from all this? Well, we learned that Democratic voters are solidly in the majority in each of these battleground states. We also learned because of gerrymandering and other arcane rules, each is a state where minority rules and democracy has lost. And finally, we learned that our electoral problem is both serious and ubiquitous. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, “The times SHOULD BE a changin’!”

November 3, November 4 and The Aftermath

Commentary

From a Zoom call to a Times Op-Ed, I believe we are at the precipice of the day/days of reckoning!

Last night, on my regular Thursday Zoom call with a group of my closest friends from Marin County, California, my former home, the conversation focussed almost entirely on the election. While we spent a good part of the call talking about what’s going to happen in the Upper Mid-West battleground states, how Florida will end up – are Hispanics really leaning towards Trump? – the bulk of the conversation revolved around Election Day itself and the aftermath.

What’s going to happen? Will right-wing bullies show up at polling stations with the goal of intimidating voters? How will Trump and his team react to the results? Will a Biden landslide head off Trump-induced catastrophic protests and rioting? Will razor thin results in Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and/or Michigan cause calls for ending vote counting (from the Trump side, if he’s ahead) or keep counting (from either side depending on whether they’re ahead or behind)? Will Election Day and the following days (or weeks) provide no definitive answer? Will this “most consequential election in our lives” end up being decided by the the six conservative Supreme Court justices, not the people (or more accurately, the Electoral College)?

Finally, one of the participants said, “I’m too old, but what should we do? Should we go out and protest? Should we finally say, ‘I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore?'”

I responded that I’ve been thinking about this a lot; that I’m finally at the point where I’m willing and able to go out to wherever to join in the protests, to, in “Les Miserables” terms, “man the barricades.”

When another “Zoomer” said, “I’ve never bought a gun, perhaps it’s time.”

“No wait,” said another, the voice of reason, “no guns, no ammo, if this is going to happen, it needs to be peaceful, we need to be responsible.”

After a pause and some reflection, the conversation turned to the more conventional: “So, what shows are you watching? What books have you read?” Then we adjourned until next week, our first post-Election Day Zoom call.

When I awoke this morning I found this New York Times story in my inbox: “The Day After Election Day” by journalist Ron Susskind.

Susskind sub-heads his story, “Current and former Trump administration officials are worried about what might happen on Nov. 4.”

As you can imagine, the story did not make me feel good about what I’m calling “The Aftermath.” I encourage you to read the story in its entirety (unless you want to have a pleasant day).

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/opinion/trump-election-officials.html?campaign_id=39&emc=edit_ty_20201030&instance_id=23635&nl=opinion-today&regi_id=20138&segment_id=42856&te=1&user_id=2ef6f205f60e02dd41a1490fd290e040

PDF: opinion-what-will-trump-do-after-election-day-the-new-york-times Download

Susskind spends most of the first half of his essay putting “meat on the bones” about what we already know of Trump. How? As he writes about the insiders he spoke with: “You don’t know Donald Trump like we do.”

“That guy you saw in the debate, (the first debate) when the president offered one of the most astonishing performances of any leader in modern American history — bullying, ridiculing, manic, boasting, fabricating, relentlessly interrupting and talking over his opponent. That’s really him. Not the myth that’s been created. That’s Trump.”

“He has done nothing else that’s a constant, except for acting in his own interest. And that’s how he’s going to be thinking, every step of the way, come Nov. 3.”

Susskind learns, first hand, and with details:

“Trump was all but un-briefable.”
“He couldn’t seem to take in complex information about policy choices and consequences.”
“He’d switch subjects, go on crazy tangents, abuse and humiliate people, cut them off mid-sentence. “
“In the middle of a briefing, Mr. Trump would turn away and grab the phone. Sometimes the call would go to Fox television hosts like Sean Hannity or Lou Dobbs.”
“Staffers would ask an array of people — some Trump friends, some members of Congress, assorted notables — to call Mr. Trump and talk to him about key issues, comparing the technique to the manipulations of ‘The Truman Show,’ in which the main character, played by Jim Carrey, does not know that his entire life is being orchestrated by a TV producer.”

There’s more, including details of the frustrations of Trump’s “generals,” particularly Mattis and Kelly.

But that’s all about the past, the facts and the Trump behaviors that will inform November 3, November 4 and God knows how much further into the future.

But how about that future? Some excerpts:

“‘Nov. 4 will be a day,’ said one of the former senior intelligence officials, ‘when he’ll want to match word with deed.’ Key officials in several parts of the government told me how they thought the progression from the 3rd to the 4th might go down.

“They are loath to give up too many precise details, but it’s not hard to speculate from what we already know. Disruption would most likely begin on Election Day morning somewhere on the East Coast, where polls open first. Miami and Philadelphia (already convulsed this week after another police shooting), in big swing states, would be likely locations. It could be anything, maybe violent, maybe not, started by anyone, or something planned and executed by any number of organizations, almost all of them on the right fringe, many adoring of Mr. Trump. The options are vast and test the imagination. Activists could stage protests at a few of the more crowded polling places and draw those in long lines into conflict.

“A group could just directly attack a polling place, injuring poll workers of both parties, and creating a powerful visual — an American polling place in flames, like the ballot box in Massachusetts that was burned earlier this week — that would immediately circle the globe. Some enthusiasts may simply enter the area around a polling location to root out voter fraud — as the president has directed his supporters to do — taking advantage of a 2018 court ruling that allows the Republican National Committee to pursue “ballot security” operations without court approval.

“Under the 12th Amendment, which Mr. Trump has alluded to on several occasions, the inability to determine a clear winner in the presidential election brings the final decision to the House of Representatives. The current composition of the House, in which Republicans control more state delegations even though Democrats are in the majority, favors Trump. But the state count could flip to the Democrats with this election.”

And about those peaceful protests that I’m now willing to participate in? Susskind’s insiders tell him:

“If the streets then fill with outraged people, he (Trump) can easily summon, or prompt, or encourage troublemakers among his loyalists to turn a peaceful crowd into a sea of mayhem. They might improvise on their own in sparking violence, presuming it pleases their leader.

“If the crowds are sufficiently large and volatile, he can claim to be justified in responding with federal powers to bring order. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, have both said they are opposed to deploying armed forces on American soil.

“A senior Pentagon official, though, laid out a back-door plan that he was worried about. It won’t start, he thinks, with a sweeping move to federalize the National Guard, which is within the President’s Article 2 powers; it’d be more of a state by state process. The head of the National Guard of some state ‘starts feeling uncomfortable with something and then calls up the Pentagon.’”

So, now that I made your day, my final ask, again borrowing from “Les Miserables,”

Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again

When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes

Will you join in our crusade?
Who will be strong and stand with me?
Beyond the barricade
Is there a world you long to see?
Then join in the fight
That will give you the right to be free

October Surprise – Jared Kushner Edition

Commentary/News With a Twist

Getting the country back from the doctors? Say, what?

In the 2020 Election version of the “October Surprise,” Bob Woodward released tapes of Jared Kushner saying back in April “…it was almost like Trump getting the country back from the doctors.”

But wait, there’s more:

“The most dangerous people around the president are overconfident idiots.”
“The states have to own the testing. The federal government should not own the testing. And the federal government should not own kind of the rules. It’s got to be up to the governors, because that’s the way the federalist system works.”
“But the President also is very smart politically with the way he did that fight with the governors to basically say, no, no, no, no, I own the opening. Because again, the opening is going to be very popular. People want this country open. But if it opens in the wrong way, the question will be, did the governors follow the guidelines we set out or not?”

We can only hope that the release of these tapes, just five days before the election, might, just might, convince undecided voters that the re-election of Donald John Trump represents an existential threat to the country.

But even if it doesn’t change their minds…and knowing some of these undecideds, that’s a distinct possibility…you might, at least want to know what happened at Javanka’s house after the tapes were released. Needless to say, Ivanka was not happy!

So, imagine if you will, this conversation between Donald’s favorite child and his only son-in-law when Jared arrived home last night.

(Note: As an unintended consequence of their Orthodox Jewish faith, Ivanka and Jared tend to use a fair amount of Yiddish when they’re home. For clarity sake I’ve translated some of the less familiar Yiddishisms.)

Jared: “Mein leibling, ikh bin inderheym!” (Honey, I’m home!)

Ivanka: Don’t call me honey, you “shmendrik.” I can’t believe you said those things. “Nu,” are you a “bolvan,” a blockhead, or something?

Jared: “Antshuldigt” (I’m sorry), my “sheynah meydeleh” (beautiful girl). Who knew Woodward, that “drekkopf” (s**t head) would actually use those tapes? But, you’re right, I’m such a “putz.”

Ivanka: “Putz?” You think you’re a “putz?” I know “putz”. My Papa is a “putz,” and you’re no “putz”. You’re not even a “shmegegge.” You’re a “”shlemiel, a “shlimazel,” a “dumbkopf!” It was bad enough, you “gonniff” (dishonest scoundrel), that you overpaid for that building on Fifth Avenue and I had to use all my “seykhel” (good sense) to get the Chinese to bail you out. “Genug geven!” (I’m fed up!)

Jared: “Genug!” (Enough). I know I’m a “afgefutst” (screw up). But does that mean we can’t “hobn geshlekht heynt nakht” ?

Ivanka: “Hobn geshlekht?” Are you “messhuggah?” I’m “verklept” and you want to have sex tonight?

As you can imagine this went on late into the evening until one of the “kinder,” 9-year old Arabella Rose Kushner came into the room and said, in her best fourth grade Hebrew, “אמה, אבא,” בבקשה תפסיק להילחם. הבנים ואני לא יכולים לישון ויש לנו בית ספר עברי בבוקר” (“Mama, Poppa please stop fighting. The boys and I can’t sleep and we have Hebrew school in the morning.”)

Let me close with this: If we’re really lucky, after election day I’ll never have to write about Javanka again. Unless, of course, I need to cover their…how do you say “perp walk” in Yiddish? (“Perp geyn,” if you’re interested)

Your Tax Dollars At Work

Commentary

U.S. agrees to pay Eli Lilly $375 million for 300,000 doses of coronavirus antibody drug, but…

CNBC reported that the “U.S. government will pay Eli Lilly $375 million to supply 300,00 doses of its experimental antibody drug to treat the coronavirus, the company announced Wednesday.”

“’Lilly has leveraged our deep scientific capability to fight this pandemic and we are proud of our efforts to develop potential medicines to combat COVID-19,’ Eli Lilly’s CEO David Ricks said in a statement.”

A Case for Packing The Court

Commentary

It’s time to stop playing nice and do something!

A despondent reader wrote to me regarding yesterday’s Around the Block entitled, “The Supreme Court is not political. Really?” (https://around-the-block.com/2020/10/27/the-supreme-court-is-not-political-really/).

“It’s all so disgusting and heartbreaking. Even when Biden gets elected, we’ve lost the Supreme Court. Whose country is this?”

The Supreme Court is not political. Really?

Commentary

This is not the end…it is only the beginning! Right Amy?

Multiple news sources reported tonight:

The Supreme Court on Monday night rejected a pandemic-related request from Democrats and civil rights groups to extend the deadline for counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day in the battleground state of Wisconsin.

The vote was 5 to 3, with the court’s liberals in dissent.

“We’re better than this. Aren’t we?”

Commentary

Max Boot of the Washington Post asks the question.

I answer with a question and a comment: But are we? I guess we’ll find out next week.

Max Boot is a historian, best-selling author and foreign-policy analyst who has been called one of the “world’s leading authorities on armed conflict” by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. He is the Jeane J. Kirkpatrick senior fellow for national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, a columnist for The Washington Post and a global affairs analyst for CNN.

Trump: “I’m the least racist person in this room”

Commentary

Trump, White Men and yet another plot to assassinate Joe Biden. Yes, Sondheim, “It could drive a person crazy!”

At last night’s Presidential debate, Donald Trump declared that he was the “least racist person in the room.” He then doubled down, saying, “It makes me sad because I am the least racist person, I can’t even see the audience because it’s so dark, but I don’t care who’s in the audience, I’m the least racist person in this room.”

I don’t know about you, but I’ve never heard of a “racist grading scale.” If there is one, is it based on alphabetical grades (A,B,C,D,F) or numerical (0-100)?

Threat to kidnap Joe Biden and Kamala Harris thwarted

Commentary

Never has Yakov Smirnoff’s tagline been more appropriate: “What a Country”

In today’s “News of the Day – From Across the Nation” section, the San Francisco Chronicle reported:

Trump threatens to leave the country if he loses the election

Commentary

He’s said and done many bizarre things recently, but does he really mean it – Leave the country?

The last few days have been pretty bizarre for President Donald John Trump (I), even by Trump standards:

He abruptly ended a solo interview with CBS News’ “60 Minutes” Tuesday and did not return for an appearance he was supposed to tape with Vice President Mike Pence
He launched an attack against the interviewer, Leslie Stahl, on Twitter for not wearing a mask, and threatened to post the interview before it aired.
He told his adoring, mostly unmasked, supporters at a rally in Erie, PA that he really didn’t want to be there: “”Before the plague came in, I had it made. I wasn’t coming to Erie. I mean, I have to be honest, there was no way I was coming.”
And, at a rally in Georgia on Friday he said, “Running against the worst candidate in the history of presidential politics puts pressure on me. “Could you imagine if I lose? My whole life, what am I going to do? I’m going to say, ‘I lost to the worst candidate in the history of politics.’ I’m not going to feel so good. Maybe I’ll have to leave the country?“

Anger at an interviewer asking “nasty” questions…standard Trump.

Accusing someone else for not wearing a mask…yeah, a little ironic, but not surprising.

Telling supporters in a city that he didn’t want to be there…chalk it up to a Trump (not so funny) joke.

But it was the last thing that caught my attention: “Maybe I’ll have to leave the country?” So, I began to think – has any losing presidential candidate ever left the country?

Even Aaron Burr, who shot and killed his political rival, Alexander Hamilton, for not backing his bid for the presidency in the election of 1800, didn’t leave the country. Facing potential murder charges, Burr fled to the South. The charges were dropped, and he returned to Washington to finish his term as vice president.*

(*In 1800, there was no ticket. The candidate with the most votes became President (Thomas Jefferson) and the one with the second most votes, Vice-President (Aaron Burr).

So let’s play, the “Why would Trump want to leave the country if he lost the election?” game:

a. It was embarrassing to lose to “Sleepy Joe;”

b. The Ex-Presidential Suite at the Trump Tower in Moscow will be the biggest, goldest, most ostentatious suite in the world;

c. He doesn’t want to go to jail;

d. All of the above.

Of course the answer is “d. All of the above” but with special emphasis on “c. He doesn’t want to go to jail.”

But wait, where would he go? C’mon, Mr. Obvious. He would leave and go to a country that doesn’t have an extradition treaty with the United States. This is, by the way, a pretty extensive list to choose from:

Countries without an extradition treaty with the U.S.

So, get ready fellow citizens, MAGA hatters and all. On the morning of January 20, 2021, right before Joe Biden is sworn in as the 46th President of the United States and while he is still the President (and by the way, immune from prosecution), Donald and the rest of the Trumps – Melania, Barron, Don Jr., Eric, and Javanka (but not Tiffany. I mean someone in the family needs to stay home and face the music) will be on a plane headed for…

“Здравствуйте, президент Путин. Спасибо, что приняли нас.”

"Hello President Putin. Thanks for having us."

"習主席，您好。感謝您的光臨." 
"Hello President Xi. Thanks for having us."

안녕하세요, 위대한 지도자 김. 우리를 가져 주셔서 감사합니다!
"Hello Great Leader Kim. Thanks for having us."

مرحبا MBS. شكرا لاستضافتنا.
"Hello MBS. Thanks for having us."

Which one will it be? According my Countdown To Trump’s Last Day clock, in about 103 days, 2 hours, 8 minutes and 3 seconds we’ll have the answer. Can’t wait. The suspense is killing me!