Could very well never win a national election again

I usually do my blog writing in the evening. But with two evenings of bell rehearsals a lot of things accumulated in my browser tabs. To catch up I started writing this morning. So this one is longer than usual. Even so, I didn’t get to everything I wanted to. I did take an afternoon break to walking in the park to see the colorful leaves. Before I get to the news and commentary… I cut my hair on Monday. Normally, this wouldn’t be news. But the last time I was to a barber was February. And I still don’t feel comfortable going back. The hair on my neck had gotten long, well onto the collar. I was annoyed with such things as grabbing the back of a sweater to pull it over my head and getting a handful of hair as well. The first step was to hang a handheld size mirror so I could see the back of my neck. The trick was to make it hang not flat against the wall. It had to be at an angle, otherwise it would be directly behind my head. How to get the back straight was solved when I remembered the stories of “bowl haircuts” in which someone scorns another’s haircut, saying it looks like they overturned a bowl on their head and cut off what showed beyond the rim. Which is exactly what I did, at least for the back. For the sides I used my glasses frames as a guide. I think I cut off at least 2½ inches. No, it’s not a great and tidy look. For the circumstances it is just fine. Dartagnan of the Daily Kos community is annoyed with being given advice that Democrats must learn to understand nasty guy supporters. There are many analyses of why the supporters are racist and if we came to terms with their belief system we could bring them around. We need to tell them others beyond the nasty guy can help them feel proud of their white heritage. Dartagnan isn’t buying. Dartagnan says we never see the reverse, appeals to nasty guy supporters to understand or accommodate Democrats. They are taught that Democrats are illegitimate and they should never compromise. So why is it on us? PissedGrunty commented:

I think we understand them just fine, thanks

Patsy Bailey added that when faced with one of these calls she thinks of whether understanding a Nazi will help in them seeing their errant ways. Nah. Joan McCarter of Kos reported that the GOP in Pennsylvania has been challenging allowing election officials to count mail-in ballots that arrive up to three days after Election Day. The GOP went to the state Supreme Court, which ruled against them. They went to the national Supremes. The vote was 4-4, which means the state court opinion stands. It also means there are four justices that are willing to overturn a state’s supreme court, a state’s election laws, and state’s constitution if it will benefit the GOP. They reason they gave was anti-democratic. And Amy Coney Barrett’s arrival on the court – her vote by the full Senate is Monday – would be a fifth. Of course she would be. That’s one reason why the Federalist Society nominated her and one reason why the nasty guy wants the confirmation before the election and why Moscow Mitch is rushing to make it happen. Which means this is a big green light to the GOP to litigate any state with a close result. It also means there is a huge threat to voting rights in the future. McCarter wrote that Sen. Chuck Schumer tried one tactic to slow down proceedings and failed – but then Democrats failed to grab a few other tactics immediately after that. Ian Millhiser, a correspondent for Vox, tweeted:

I just filed my piece on the really scary court order we just got from the Supreme Court. But let me just say that, if Democrats win this election, and they don't pack the Supreme Court, they could very well never win a national election again.

Mark Joseph Stern, a writer for Slate, reinforced the idea:

Ian is right—tonight’s order from the Supreme Court is terrifying. Four conservative justices supported a radical theory that would empower state legislatures to violate election laws and engage in voter suppression with impunity. Only Roberts balked. Tonight four conservative Supreme Court justices indicated their support for a radical, anti-democratic theory that would stop state Supreme Courts from enforcing state election laws to protect the franchise. And Barrett could soon give them a fifth vote. This was unthinkable just a few years ago. I expected the worst but I’m still stunned. The Supreme Court has veered so far to the right that four justices would deny state courts the power to enforce election laws in their own states. Profoundly disturbing. We now know four conservative justices will embrace an extreme, frivolous theory to override state Supreme Courts and suppress the right to vote. Amy Coney Barrett will almost certainly give this bloc a fifth vote. The 2020 election may be in her hands.

Ashton Lattimore of Kos Prism wrote that the courts are already packed – with white men. The courts are held up as the last line of defense for the rights of black, indigenous, women, and LGBTQ folks, shielding us from the whims of white men. But many times the courts’ decisions harm those who aren’t straight white men. Lattimore concluded:

Ultimately the courts are and always have been just as stark an example of minority rule as the Senate, with a composition that skews power toward whiter and less populous states. The federal courts are just as political—the very fact that judges and justices are nominated and then confirmed by the two more nakedly political branches of the U.S. government renders any argument for the courts as neutral bodies absurd on its face. Given that reality, it’s just as illegitimate and undemocratic for the federal judiciary to be demographically captured by white men as it is for any other government body. For an institution that claims to serve and do justice on behalf of the people, expecting it to reflect the composition of those people is the bare minimum. So, if expanding the size of the federal judiciary—from the Supreme Court on down—is what it takes to create a reflective court system, then let’s get packing.

Mark Sumner of Kos reviewed the history of the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Then he has suggestions for what candidate Joe Biden might say when asked if he intends to add justices to the court: Originally, there were six justices, two for each federal circuit court. Since there are now 13 circuit courts there should be 26 justices. Or maybe we keep two for each of the original three circuits and one for each added since 1789, which would be 16. Or we keep to the six as it was originally in 1789 – an originalist would surely agree – and lop off Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Kos of Kos discusses problems in American democracy and a few steps to fix it. * Because of the Electoral College Democrats must win an election by 10 points. * The Senate is flawed when Houston, with 7.1 million people, has more people than 35 states, and each of those states gets two senators. * Low population states insist on the Elector College because otherwise they would be ignored. Jonathan Chait tweeted a map of where the nasty guy and Biden are spending money. Texas and California, the two most populous states, are ignored because they aren’t competitive. * Court packing (see above). * States have different voting rules. That leads to court challenges, which we’ll likely face. On to how to fix this: * Uniform national voting laws, standards for registration, ballot box access, vote by mail, and vote counting. * Because there is no way to fix Senate inequalities through a constitutional amendment (it would need ¾ states to ratify), instead give statehood to DC (it has more people than Wyoming) and Puerto Rico (more people than 19 states). * Ditch the filibuster. * Expand the courts, yeah the Supremes, but also the lower federal courts whose rosters of judges haven’t kept up with the population growth. But wouldn’t the GOP expand the court when they’re back in power? Kos answers:

That’s called democracy. Every election matters, and knowing that the Supreme Court is at stake every election is not a bad thing. Let the victor rule, and the minority power sit helplessly on the side making its case as to why it should win the next time around.

* Finish the census. Laura Clawson of Kos reviewed the efforts to respond if the nasty guy refuses to accept the results of the election. The effort is mostly Democratic (of course) though there are a few Republicans. One part is a legal response by the Biden campaign and other Democratic organizations. Another is the group Protect the Results. I’ve joined this one. They plan to get protesters into the streets. I’ve already been told to reserve 5:00 on Wednesday, November 4. Protests will likely continue for several days. In addition to preparing for the legal battle, the Democrats are talking to news outlets to be careful about what they say, to avoid giving a way for the nasty guy to proclaim a win before definitive results are known. As I’ve written about before Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer was the target of a terrorist attack that was fortunately stopped before it was executed. The planning of the attack has been linked to rhetoric from the nasty guy. Yet, the nasty guy, who feuds with Whitmer on Twitter, accused Whitmer of encouraging assassination attempts on himself. Hunter of Kos explains what is going on:

The conservative response, then, is to put forward an identical claim—however ridiculously premised it is—accusing their enemy-of-the-moment of doing the thing the conservative is accused of doing. The goal is to "both sides" the accusation into a stalemate. It nearly always works, because the collective national press is 1) not as bright as you might think and 2) absolute suckers for a "both sides" narrative, one that can be copy-pasted into articles for a bit of cheap, performative neutrality. It's a gimmick. It's a schtick. It's used relentlessly, part of the alt-right turned right-right embrace of insincerity as policy. … It is not just a dismissal of whatever serious charge has been leveled against them (for example, provoking violence against a state governor), but an expression of contempt towards anyone who would be bothered by such things.

There was a Boogaloo movement protest in at the state Capitol in Lansing, Michigan last Saturday. They were there trying to look harmless after 13 men from similar organizations were arrested for plotting to kidnap the governor. David Neiwert of Kos reported their efforts weren’t working. I read over Neiwert’s report and felt there was something strange going on here. The group is trying to spark a boogaloo – their term for an American race war (I think). Part of the talk was about overthrowing a tyrannical government. Another part of the talk was about welcoming everyone, disavowing racism and disavowing violence. If they disavow violence why do they show up with semi-automatic weapons? Why is their talk of overthrowing the government spoken in such violent terms? As for the racism, one woman was asked by a BLM marcher, “Do you think Black lives matter?” She responded with “Absolutely Black lives matter. All lives matter.” Pivoting so quickly to “All lives matter” seems to me a giveaway. Many conservative groups chant “all lives matter” as a way of saying black lives don’t. In my bicycle trips through a nearby prosperous suburb I’ve seen lots of signs saying “Blue Lives Matter.” Walter Einenkel of Kos explores how that slogan is playing out. He began:

One of the great misuses of power on the right is the reframing of protests for equal justice into attacks on general concepts most people do not have a problem with.

Being for Black Lives Matter is interpreted as being an attack on police, even the good police. It is portrayed as a battle between law and perceived chaos. It is racist, sure, and it also means everyone supporting racial justice is an enemy of police.

An example of how blue lives matter seems to mean no one else’s lives matter was explained by Katie Bement, executive director of a Wisconsin domestic violence organization named Embrace. According to Bement, after posting Black Lives Matter signs at four of their organizations locations, they received “emails from local law enforcement who were disturbed by the signs, interpreting them as anti-police.” ... “As an anti-violence organization, Embrace cannot end one form of violence without addressing the other, and we cannot properly serve all survivors if we do not acknowledge and address the oppression and violence the most marginalized survivors are experiencing.”

That prompted Barron County, Wisconsin to cancel their $25K support of Embrace for 2021. Thankfully, other donors have donated triple that amount. With October two-thirds over thoughts begin to turn to Thanksgiving. I’ve arranged a Thanksgiving hymn for my church bell choir to begin rehearsing next Monday. And I’m wondering if a Thanksgiving gathering is possible. It would be only four of us – me, sister, sister-in-law, and niece. Much of the meal would probably be from the supermarket. But do we risk gathering? Dr. Fauci has become well known as a member of the coronavirus task force, and also known for telling America the truth about the virus while risking the wrath of his boss for doing so. Aysha Qamar of Kos reported that Fauci said we need to rethink family traditions, such as gathering for Thanksgiving. He said:

Given the fluid and dynamic nature of what's going on right now in the spread and the uptick of infections, I think people should be very careful and prudent about social gatherings, particularly when members of the family might be at a risk because of their age or their underlying condition. You may have to bite the bullet and sacrifice that social gathering, unless you're pretty certain that the people that you're dealing with are not infected.

I am not looking forward to a Thanksgiving alone, even if it means getting a drumstick to myself – well, if I’m alone I probably won’t bother with a drumstick.