The midterms shouldn't be a nothing burger. They are important. In many ways control or congress is more important then the Presidency. I do think these mid terms will follow the usual trend and swing towards the party opposed to the incumbent President.

The real political drama is going to be the fight for control of the GOP after the midterms by Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump.
 

"if Republicans win the midterms, democracy in the USA will immediately end." got a link for that? Because what I read on what democrats said was nowhere near that and not even remotely sold as a "fact" as the other side does with "the steal".
 

Link

The terms "democracy at risk", "Republicans a danger to democracy", "Most dangerous Republicans on the ballot", etc. were widely used by Democrats and the press.

Of course Republicans claim that the 2020 election was stolen from them, while Democrats claim that the 2024 election *will be* stolen from them, and you can't present the future as a fact. But the argument is basically the same, it is just different background stories: The Republicans have "dead people voting", while the Democrats have "Secretary of States overriding the will of the people" stories. As if such a move wouldn't immediately be contested in court.
 

> As if such a move wouldn't immediately be contested in court.
But that is exactly the issue of independent state legislature theory: which court holds jurisdiction over cases in which the state legislature interferes with the federal election in a manner violating the state constitution? Rucho v. Common Cause already establishes that the federal court doesn't hold jurisdiction, and with Moore v. Harper going before SCOTUS in 2023, by the time the 2024 election comes around the same could be true for the state court.

Democrats are not simply gesturing at the vague idea of the GOP maybe wanting to steal the 2024 election. Instead, they are pointing to specific things the Republicans are openly doing—nominating overt election deniers for positions throughout the state legislature, while simultaneously pushing independent state legislature theory which would remove any oversight over the state legislature in federal elections—and noting that these things, taken together, create an opening to subvert the electoral processes underpinning democracy in the United States. So, no, "Democracy is on the Ballot" and "Trump Won" are very much not equivalent.
 

There are exactly as many actual cases of Democrats stealing elections as there are actual cases of Republicans stealing elections: Zero. Meanwhile both parties are telling voters that the other side *will* steal the election, which only makes the whole electoral process weaker. Your personal impression on which version is more dangerous will depend on your personal bias, but both are likely to turn future electoral chaos violent.

Furthermore the "democracy is on the ballot" voter encouragement isn't endlessly repeatable. The "Trump is bad" / "Jan 6 Insurrection" / etc. story only works as long as Trump is actually the opposing side. There is a greater than zero probability (growing since the midterm results) that the Republicans will get off the crazy train and go for DeSantis as presidential candidate (age 44). He would trounce Biden (age 80, in a week), because he looks like a saner, younger, and cleverer version of Trump, and has less baggage. The Democrats are spending too much political capital on showing why Trump is bad, and not enough on showing why their policies are better than Republican policies.
 

> There are exactly as many actual cases of Democrats stealing elections as there are actual cases of Republicans stealing elections: Zero.
Not counting 2000, obviously. I'm sure you have good reasons.
> Meanwhile both parties are telling voters that the other side *will* steal the election, which only makes the whole electoral process weaker.
You know what else weakens the electoral process? Actively dismantling the checks and balances of the electoral process.
> Your personal impression on which version is more dangerous will depend on your personal bias [...]
Hmm, yes. Which version of supposed election malfeasance seems more dangerous, the one which proposes a massive conspiracy with absolutely no evidence going for it that has been debunked by people working for both political parties, or the one that has a clear body of evidence openly available as a matter of public record? I'm tending towards the latter, but that is probably just my personal bias manifesting.
> [...] but both are likely to turn future electoral chaos violent.
So... if one party does actually steal the election, the other party should... deliberately ignore it, so as to not foment public unrest? Not gonna lie, "talking about how democracy is being undermined is more harmful than the actual undermining of democracy" is a pretty hot take.

And then you start talking about how the Democrats shouldn't make everything about Trump, even though I wasn't talking about Trump, and the issue isn't about Trump, and I'm not sure why you even brought him up.
 

So... if one party does actually steal the election, the other party should... deliberately ignore it, so as to not foment public unrest?

Who actually stole an election? Nobody did! And any cases of people trying are adequately handled by the legal system, not piblic unrest.
 

Tobold, I have read the links you provided.

If you find them even remotely comparable to the constant stream of garbage which has been provided by Trump and his supporters.... well.... you should reevaluate your reading and comprehension skills.

Seriously.
 

@Helistar: I am not even *making* that comparison. What you are doing, and what is the common mistake most people do, is that you apply some sort of comparative moral judgement. A is much worse than B. The problem with that is that it provides an excuse for B, without looking at B in isolation and checking whether B isn’t already pretty bad. A is worse than B can become B is nearly as bad as A.

Republicans are telling lies about past elections. Democrats are telling lies about future elections. Republican lies are worse than Democrat lies, because Republicans deny facts that already happened, while Democrats only lie about what their opponents “will do” and exagerate the danger. Both parties are telling lies about a very fragile process of democracy, both contributing to making it weaker.
 

> Republicans are telling lies about past elections. Democrats are telling lies about future elections. Republican lies are worse than Democrat lies, because Republicans deny facts that already happened, while Democrats only lie about what their opponents “will do” and exagerate the danger.

Republicans also were telling lies about future elections - about what their opponents “will do” and exaggerate the danger.

Also Trump just recently announced that he will run for president.
If he wins the primary and is indeed the future president candidate, will you still say that the claim "democracy is on the ballot" is a lie?

 

I think you are deluded if you think that any Republican presidential candidate for 2024 will have less authoritarian tendencies than Trump. In fact I believe that the whole “Trump is bad” electoral strategy is a mistake, as it just makes the other GOP candidates look good.

But what is your most likely scenario for the Republicans actually “stealing” an election that will not be immediately contested in court? Trump’s attempts at election stealing were primarily incompetent and any banana republic dictator would have done better. Democracy is *not* in danger in the USA.
 

> I think you are deluded if you think that any Republican presidential candidate for 2024 will have less authoritarian tendencies than Trump.

This sounds a bit like a personal attack. I have never said anything like this. And I think that DeSantis, the favored replacement for Trump, definitely has such tendencies.

And - if other Republican candidates have also authoritarian tendencies, then why exactly is democracy not in danger?


 

On and around January 6th, President Trump tried to persuade Vice President Mike Pence to not certify the election, and tried to "find votes" with several Republican Secretaries of State, like Brad Raffensperger of Georgia. None of them complied, because A) that would have been illegal, and B) it would have been highly visible and likely to end them in trouble with the law. Vice presidents and secretaries of state are *not* in a position to change the results of elections they are in charge of certifying / supervising.

Nothing has changed in that. Nevertheless in the midterms the Democrats claimed that Republicans elected as secretaries of state would steal the 2024 election. Will those actually elected get a phone call from Donald Trump (if he makes it that far)? Very possible. Will they be able to change the results of the elections they are in charge of? Still definitively not, and if they try they will get in trouble with the law.

But the Democrats now have officially taken the *same* position on this issue as Donald Trump, claiming that secretaries of state *would* have the power to change elections. That was complete bullshit when Trump said it, and still is complete bullshit when Democrats say it. Truth is absolute, it doesn't change with the party affiliation of the person who is making the false claims.

What will you propose if a Republican actually wins the 2024 presidential election? That Kamala Harris doesn't certify the election on January 6th 2025?
 

> But the Democrats now have officially taken the *same* position on this issue as Donald Trump, claiming that secretaries of state *would* have the power to change elections

Sorry, but no. Democrats are not saying exactly the same as Trump. While Trump is wanting to do this, his opponents are warning against the risk that it may be done.

> What will you propose if a Republican actually wins the 2024 presidential election? That Kamala Harris doesn't certify the election on January 6th 2025?

Looks like you are trying here to put words in my mouth, which are not something that I have said or even hinted about.

The facts are as follows: Republican ex-president Donald Trump did try to overturn the election that he lost, no matter how ineptly. The majority of Republican party did not disavow his behavior, as Trump continued to have very big influence over both the base and the politicians. Instead, your "hero" Mike Pence, who prevented that, is being punished by the Republican base, considered a traitor by many of them, and being a distant third in a potential presidential candidate race.

That is why I think that the Republican party is a potential danger to democracy - and are much worse than the Democrats.

And you cannot convince me otherwise by presenting false arguments like "in these midterms we have the Two Big Lies: ..."
This argument is false because using that criteria there would be at least Three Big Lies: 1. Democrats saying that if Republicans won, USA is doomed
2. Republicans saying that if Democrats won, USA is doomed
3. The real Big Lie about the stolen elections


Also, the example you have given: " After Nancy Pelosi's husband being attacked with a hammer, next time it might be Mitch McConnell's wife attacked with a knife. "
Are you implying that a left extremist would do that? Because it seems that here you are engaging in exactly the same thing that you accuse Democrats of - "Democrats only lie about what their opponents “will do” and exagerate the danger. "
Considering that Trump publicly attacked Mitch McConnels's wife, and no notable Democrat politician has done so - I think she would be in more danger from right-wing extremism.



 

It is the logical consequence: Democrats warn about the election 2024 being stolen. Republicans might well win that election. Political violence ensues.

Either side can be incited to violence with the argument that an election was stolen from them. January 6th doesn’t prove a monopoly of the right on political violence. It proves that a crowd that believes an election was stolen from them is capable of political violence. Which is exactly why all these claims, from both sides, about stolen elections are so dangerous.
 

You keep talking in these weird false equivalencies, as if the Republicans trying to claim a stolen election without evidence implies that any statement from the Democrats must likewise be without evidence. And that just doesn't hold up, unless your understanding of the issue is predicated purely on news headlines.

So, before I take the time to go into a granular example of what could happen in 2024, let me just make sure you have done any reading on this issue, by having you answer two fairly simple questions: By what mechanism are Democrats suggesting that the 2024 election could be at risk? And what is their explanation as for why that mechanism was not a factor in the 2020 election?
 

@negentropic It seems that I have read more about the issue than you, because I am aware that there is more than one suggested manner of Republican election interference being talked about. But the one where there was the most fake panic was the candidacy of election denying Trump supporters to posts of secretary of state or governor, with one Republican candidate being declared a "danger to democracy" because he said that if he was elected, the Republicans would never lose again. Well, he lost. And if you asked him, he would certainly claim that he meant they would never lose again because he would be such a great governor, not because he planned to do election tampering.

So let me ask you a question in return: Do you actually believe that a Trump supporting / 2020 election denying governor or secretary of state could actually overturn the result of his state in the 2024 presidential election? And if you do, can't you see the irony of that being exactly the idiocy that Trump believes in?
 

So, you posit that you know multiple manners of potential Republican election interference suggested by the Democrats, yet you do not name a single one. Because no, a candidate for the governorship vowing that his opponents will not win another election is not, by itself, a threat to democracy. Nor is that the claim, because this did not happen in a vacuum.

I hope you can see that it harms your stance of "all their claims are wrong," if you cannot even coherently articulate what it is they are claiming. And you will have to forgive me for assuming that you don't know a whole lot about independent state legislature theory, if every other comment from you appeals to the oversight of the courts.
 

@negentropic: You are wrong. Just follow the link I provided, and it clearly says there that the Democratic opponent of the Republican candidate for governor cited exactly that reason when calling him a danger to democracy.

I can't read your mind. The Democrats made so many claims about gerrymandering, preventing minorities from voting, voter identification laws, absentee balloting laws, etc. that whatever I named, you can always say "Oh, that is not the one I was thinking about". That doesn't prove you are more knowledge about the issue, it only proves that you are a dishonest debater.
 

Republicans are telling lies about past elections. Democrats are telling lies about future elections. Republican lies are worse than Democrat lies, because Republicans deny facts that already happened, while Democrats only lie about what their opponents “will do” and exagerate the danger. Both parties are telling lies about a very fragile process of democracy, both contributing to making it weaker.

I agree, but this is not even remotely on the same scale. In case you didn't notice, there's one field which continued repeating that elections were stolen even after it was clearly demonstrated that it was not the case. Trump keeps saying it even now. I don't see Democrats flooding the web with messages that the current midterm was stolen, even if they lost the congress. There's one field which is behind an armed aggression on the state, the other isn't.

The problem is that you're against Democrats and want to show that they are as bad as the Republicans: they aren't, and just looking at their behaviour during the COVID crisis is enough to see that no, they aren't the same, as only one side focalized all the anti-vax / anti-science, while the other side didn't.

You sound like Italy's Salvini: "yes we xenophobes are egotist who just care about our privileges, but it's no different from NGO workers who save the migrants, because they do it only to feed their ego". As a matter of fact, you're doing exactly what you explained in your answer: putting A on the same level as B so that B looks better.
 

> You are wrong. Just follow the link I provided, and it clearly says there that the Democratic opponent of the Republican candidate for governor cited exactly that reason when calling him a danger to democracy.
Again: this did not happen in a vacuum. What relevent context might you be omitting from your analysis?

> I can't read your mind.
I don't expect you to, though I would have hoped you would at least read my comments. So, to be even more clear: Why don't you think that the SCOTUS endorsing independent state legislature theory would notably affect the presidential election? What does independent state legislature theory do, according to your understanding?
 

The problem is that you're against Democrats

If I was American, I would most definitively vote for the Democrats, because they are "less bad" than the Republicans.

want to show that they are as bad as the Republicans

No, they clearly aren't. But read my comment again where I explain the "A is worse than B" doesn't make B good. I don't think that the electoral theory of voting for the lesser evil is a good way to run a Democracy. The Republicans having the worse lies does not make it okay for the Democrats to have little lies.

independent state legislature theory is a fringe electoral theory that will not empower state legislatures to override presidential election results. Also it is false to claim that SCOTUS endorses this theory, they only agreed to hear a case about it on December 7. Come back after they actually made a decision. And, and I feel sorry that I have to explain that to you, SCOTUS was not on the ballot during the midterms. So if you think that is the biggest danger, it certainly wasn't on the congressional ballots.
 

> independent state legislature theory is a fringe electoral theory that will not empower state legislatures to override presidential election results.
Ooh, fun. Good source, I really enjoy that particular rhetoric misdirect, with its focus on the ECA. So, yes, there is an argument that ISL does not technically enable the legislature to overturn results once they are final. But, and hear me out here, what if my biggest worry isn't that after all the counts are tallied the SoS stands up, says: "While the Democrats hold the majority of the vote, I will now instruct the electors to vote Republican regardless. You cannot stop our evil plan! MuhahahaHAHAHA!" and then rips off his face to reveal he was Skeletor all along?
What if I am more worried about additional voter suppression laws in direct violation of the state constitution? What if I am more worried about refusals to certify a couple of the most Democrat-skewing counties, due to "concerns" about "irregularities" in their voting process, changing the statewide outcome? Neither of these is covered by the ECRA, by the way. So, gold star for closing the "failed election" loophole, but I don't think that is a good reason to consider judicial oversight in federal elections unnecessary.
> Also it is false to claim that SCOTUS endorses this theory, they only agreed to hear a case about it on December 7.
Indeed. They agreed to hear it. And, by the way, even the article you linked notes that it is fucking wild that they did that, in light of their own opinion on Rucho v. Common Cause. Taking that into account, we have to take seriously the possibility that they do endorse it, and consider the consequences this would have.
> Come back after they actually made a decision.
Ah, yes, silly Democrats, trying to prepare for problems and preempt upcoming issues.
> And, and I feel sorry that I have to explain that to you, SCOTUS was not on the ballot during the midterms. So if you think that is the biggest danger, it certainly wasn't on the congressional ballots.
No, SCOTUS was not on the ballot. (SCOTUS is never on the ballot, and that is its own whole can of worms.) But you know what was on the ballot? Offices pertaining to the state legislature. And since you apparently cannot see how a legal doctrine that would concentrate political power in the state legislature and an election for positions in the state legislature are connected, I have to regretfully join Helistar in questioning your reading comprehension.
 

I feel this thread has gone full NegentropicAnon, with crazy extremist conspiracy theories being touted as a truth, and findings of respectable centrist institutions being dismissed as not worth listening to. I am therefore closing down the comment section on this thread. I would also invite Negentropic to go back to whatever site he gets his "truths" from, as I will block crazy conspiracy theorists from both sides in the future.

I would also invite everybody to refrain from pretending that somebody who has a different opinion to you is somehow incapable of reading, understanding or is otherwise an idiot. It is perfectly possible for two intelligent people to experience the same reality and to come to different understandings of it. I would recommend watching Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon movie for a deeper understanding of that.