The (no longer) much too early 2024 election thread

[N.E. Brigand]

In a 2-1 ruling, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's ruling that, contrary to decades of precedent, only the federal government and not states or individual voters can bring suits under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I posted about this result in the 2020 thread (I guess forgetting that I had originally posted about the case here), so I'll my post over here so that they are together, and then comment further.

Oh sorry! I had used the search function to look for the most recent reference to "Wallace," and it brought me here.

No, you were right to post here, and I moved my post over here. As seen in that post, my initial reaction was that it was a weird ruling, but I've given it considerable thought since then and read quite a bit of commentary from others, and my perspective is quite different than that of "Brian Beutler" (about whom I will not comment). As a number of legal observers that I respect have noted, Judge Wallace's ruling actually is close to as good a ruling as she could have made, because the only aspects of her ruling that really matters is the factual determinations that Trump did engage an insurrection under the meeting of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and crucially, that witnesses for Trump such as Kash Patel were not credible, and to some extent her ruling that Trump's First Amendment defense was meritless. Her opinion is very detailed and comprehensive on those points. Her determination that Trump nonetheless can remain on the ballot because as President he was not an "officer of the United States" as that term is used in Section 3 is really irrelevant because that determination is purely a matter of law and so will be reviewed de novo by the appellate courts (which likely will be the Colorado Supreme Court and then the U.S. Supreme Court). However, her factual determinations that he did engage in insurrection, that his witnesses were not credible and (at least to an extent) that the First Amendment defense was meritless would need to be given a high degree of deference, and therefore creates a record that would could require the higher courts to rule that Trump should be barred unless they accept the tortured reasoning that Trump was not an "officer of the United States."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In a 2-1 ruling, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's ruling that, contrary to decades of precedent, only the federal government and not states or individual voters can bring suits under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

As Marc Elias (who I think can be fairly described as the leading advocate for election protection in the U.S.) points out:



Equally importantly, it seems likely that only Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch are likely to agree with this 8th Circuit ruling and that it will not withstand SCOTUS review.

[N.E. Brigand]

NBC reports on trouble in Ron DeSantis's campaign: two top members of his team "nearly came to blows" during a board meeting.

- - - - - - - - - -
I just noticed that Tom Jones, aged 83, has 20 tour dates in Europe, Asia, and the Antipodes over the next six months. It's not unusual?

[N.E. Brigand]

Oh for *&^%^'s sake. (From the New York Times.)

"I know a lot of people get mad about what he said years ago about 'grab them by whatever,'" said Treena Fortney, 51, a wholesaler from Covington, Ga., who supported Mr. Biden in 2020 but now regrets it and is supporting Mr. Trump. "That was kind of aggravating. But, you know, that was years ago. And that's how guys talk in a locker room. I don't think he really would do that. I think he was just saying that."

For one thing, as Jonathan Chait points out, while that's not much of a defense, Trump wasn't even in a locker room. He was wearing a microphone (as he well knew) on a production bus about to do an interview, and there were eight other people on the bus with him, and he was making those remarks about Arianne Zucker, the model he and Billy Bush were about to meet, after having crudely commented about Bush's co-host, Nancy O'Dell. (He admitted that he unsuccessfully "did try and *&^%" O'Dell at a time that he knew she was married. And we can't say for sure, but it's likely that Trump was married at that time too, since he described the occasion of his overture as having been some years before these c. 2005 remarks.)

But more than that: not only would he really do that, but he actually did it! Just this year, a jury found Donald Trump liable for sexual assault, battery, and subsequent of E. Jean Carroll, for having forced himself on her some 30 years earlier and then lied about it during his presidency, and they awarded her $5 million. He's facing a second civil trial, with a claim of $10 million, for further defaming Carroll, and the judge in the case has already ruled that she's proven that he did, so only the amount of the damages will be up for consideration.

Furthermore, in dismissing a later lawsuit Trump filed against Carroll, the judge also ruled that the first jury had indeed found Trump liable for rape, as that term is generally used.

And nearly 20 other women have made similar allegations against Trump.

Does Ms. Fortney really not know this?

Or does she just not want to know this?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This is interesting. From the opening brief of the plaintiff's appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court of the decision not to remove Trump from the ballot despite the finding that he did engage in insurrection because he was not an "officer of the United States" when he was president.

Because the President does not appoint himself, language addressing the Appointment Clause’s phrase “other officers” has no bearing on whether the President is an officer. Trump recently acknowledged as much in a New York case where he argued both that the President is an “officer of the United States” and that the Appointments Clause and related decisions have no bearing on question. See Ex. Z, President Donald J. Trump’s Mem. of Law. in Opp. to Mot. to Remand, New York v. Trump, 1:23-cv-3773-AKH, ECF No. 34, at 2–9 (S.D.N.Y., filed June 15, 2023); 11/3/23 Tr. 252:8-255:16.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

(Note: both sides have appealed different aspects of the ruling.)

[N.E. Brigand]

Matt Yglesias offers "17 Thoughts to Raise with Center-Right Relatives" during Thanksgiving. First he notes that Republican politicians and their die-hard followers seem to sincerely and deeply believe that "legal abortion is a form of socially sanctioned mass murder and/or that low taxes on the rich, while unpopular, are of such enormous long-term benefit to humanity as to be worth fighting for under almost any circumstances," and thus that it's nearly impossible to persuade them that those beliefs are incorrect.

But many people who support Donald Trump, in Yglesias's view, aren't hardcore Republicans for whom those beliefs are central but "are relatively moderate people who are sociologically aligned with the Republican Party (at least four out of the six of white, married, male, religiously observant, non-college, or old) and have exaggerated views about how left-wing the Democratic Party is". And there are multiple things that Joe Biden and Democrats will do or already are doing for those people that Donald Trump and Republicans aren't and won't, but these moderately conservative folks don't know it.

[N.E. Brigand]

Donald Trump yesterday complained that Republicans let him down by not repealing the Affordable Care Act.

He says that if elected to the presidency, he will revive those efforts.

[N.E. Brigand]

Dr. Joseph Ladapo, the surgeon general for the state of Florida, was appointed in 2021 by Florida governor and presidential candidate Ron DeSantis. As Wikipedia notes, "Ladapo promoted unproven treatments, opposed vaccine and mask mandates, questioned the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, and contradicted professional medical organizations." Now Politico reports that Ladapo also "received a coveted tenured professorship at the University of Florida with no vetting and a $262,000 salary to add to his $250,000 salary as surgeon general. He teaches no classes, doesn’t do research, and blows off the school when they ask him to do any work."

[RoseMorninStar]

Dr. Joseph Ladapo, the surgeon general for the state of Florida, was appointed in 2021 by Florida governor and presidential candidate Ron DeSantis. As Wikipedia notes, "Ladapo promoted unproven treatments, opposed vaccine and mask mandates, questioned the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, and contradicted professional medical organizations." Now Politico reports that Ladapo also "received a coveted tenured professorship at the University of Florida with no vetting and a $262,000 salary to add to his $250,000 salary as surgeon general. He teaches no classes, doesn’t do research, and blows off the school when they ask him to do any work."

How is this 'conservative'? (rhetorical question).

[Dave_LF]

How is this 'conservative'? (rhetorical question).

Good point--*real* conservatives would take us back to the hunter-gather stage, not like these RINOs who only want to return to medieval times.

[N.E. Brigand]

In Mississippi, the incumbent Republican governor, Tate Reeves, was always the heavy favorite, although a few weeks ago some analysts moved the race from one that was "solid" to one that "leans" Republican. Reeves won 51.9% to 46.8% in 2019. His Democratic challenger this year, Brandon Pressley (a cousin of Elvis), is running well behind those numbers at the moment, with about 24% of the vote counted. Some of that may be (unintentional?) voter suppression: some polling stations in majority-Black precincts were apparently understocked with ballots, and people have been in line for hours after the polls were officially to have closed.

Dave Wasserman says he's seen enough: Reeves wins reelection in a race where turnout was low.

On the other hand, Wasserman also thinks Democrats will control at least 50 of the 100 seats in the Virginia's House of Delegates, a setback for Republicans.

In the course of winning reelection as Mississippi's governor, Tate Reeves lost among African Americans by 96%-2%.

Also notable: 10% of Mississippi's potential electorate are former felons who are not allowed to vote.

[Alatar]

Also notable: 10% of Mississippi's potential electorate are former felons who are not allowed to vote.

What???

[N.E. Brigand]

Also notable: 10% of Mississippi's potential electorate are former felons who are not allowed to vote.

What???

From the study at the link above:

Reeves won by 26,619 votes. According to a recent study from The Sentencing Project, a racial justice-focused organization, 239,209 people [in Mississippi] are banned from voting for life due to felony convictions. That works out to roughly 11% of the state’s voting-age population, and the study estimates that 54% of those disenfranchised felons are Black. Other analyses place the number even higher (around 60–61%), but for the purposes of our analysis, we will begin with the 54% figure.

Not all of these newly enfranchised voters would vote, of course; according to pollster John Couvillon, overall turnout in Mississippi was roughly 40% of registered voters, and ex-felons tend to have a much lower turnout rate than the rest of the population. Extrapolations of turnout rates from Jeff Manza and Christopher Uggen’s 2006 work would give a turnout estimate of 24% among newly eligible former felons*, which would mean that we would see 31,320 new Black voters and 25,116 non-Black voters (a population that is almost entirely white).

If we projected some margin estimates onto these new electorates, we could, in theory, estimate their effect on the outcome. Split Ticket’s analysis suggests Presley won Black voters by 94 and lost white voters by 54. It is tough to be confident in the leans of ex-felons, as they tend to be a fairly unique group of voters, but using these splits for them would narrow Reeves’ margin to 11,330 votes and 49.96% of the overall vote, which is just under the 50% required to avoid a runoff. Using these assumptions, it is quite plausible that a maximally enfranchised electorate would have denied Tate Reeves an immediate victory and sent the race to a similarly-competitive runoff election.

[N.E. Brigand]

A sheriff's race in Louisiana was decided by just 0.002% of the vote:



Remember that Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election thanks to margins of 0.77% in Wisconsin, 0.72% in Pennsylvania, and 0.23% in Michigan, which works out to just 0.06% of the national vote. If fewer people in those states than voted in that 2023 sheriff's race had flipped from Trump to Hillary Clinton in 2016, she would have won.

[N.E. Brigand]

Is "vermin" better or worse than "deplorables"?

OOOooh.. considering who has used those terms in the past I'd say definitely yes (worse).

The mainstream media arguably doesn't think so:



At the link there are further analyses of other electronic and print media. Even supposedly liberal MSNBC mentioned "deplorables" more than five times as often as "vermin."

The counterargument, I suppose, is that Hillary Clinton's comment happened much closer to the election.

[N.E. Brigand]

AFP Action, a PAC funded by the Koch family, has endorsed Nikki Haley to be the Republican presidential nominee.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Perhaps the positive economic news (and maybe even the brief cease fire in the Middle-east) is having a positive effect. Who the hell knows?

[N.E. Brigand]

Perhaps the positive economic news (and maybe even the brief cease fire in the Middle-east) is having a positive effect. Who the hell knows?

A lot of undecided voters in those polls, though.

Matt Yglesias observes that these Biden-friendly poll results don't seem to be getting as much media attention as the Trump-friendly poll results in prior weeks. I think that's true. I hadn't heard of any of these four results until just before you posted about the most recent one today, but I'd heard lots about the polls earlier this month.

His take is that "it's not an ideological bias against Biden or in favor of Trump — it's just that stories that are better for traffic get more coverage ... [and] by the same token, Trump winning is better for traffic." One riposte I've seen to arguments of this sort is that it's not the reporters and editors but the publishers who most, but I dunno. The working journalists don't want to lose their jobs.