Cromwell

Mitch didn’t invent the Electoral College, of course; it was designed by the Founding Fathers to be a group of grandees who would use their independent judgment to pick presidents. Things didn’t work out that way, of course. Today, the Electoral College is usually criticized for being anti-democratic; the winner of the popular vote is by no means assured of prevailing in the election. But is there more to the story than that?

Yes. The biggest problem with the Electoral College under today’s circumstances is that the outcomes in over 40 states are already known long before the election, so the entire focus of the campaign is on the swing states. That has two important implications: first, the residents of those states receive a disproportionate amount of attention, while the rest of the country is ignored; and second, winners are determined by a handful of votes in a few states, so there is enormous pressure on election officials in those states. That is unhealthy both for the states in question and for the nation as a whole.

The Constitution does not require states to award all of their electoral votes to the overall winner of the state. It would be much healthier for American liberal democracy if all of the states would agree to a proportional representation scheme. That would eliminate the pressure on the current swing states and require presidential candidates to campaign vigorously for votes throughout the entire country, thereby making the system far more democratic.

The referendum was created during the Progressive Era to work around heavily gerrymandered state legislatures that were dominated by business interests–most notably railroads. Could the same thing be done today at the federal level?

Yes, with a caveat; the Constitution does not contemplate the adoption of new legislation through referenda, so the outcome of the election could only be advisory. That said, it would take a brave or foolhardy legislator to disregard the clearly expressed will of the entire nation, so it would definitely be worth a try.

According to an article in this morning’s NYT, Trump has been advised that we do not have enough Patriots to deal with Iranian countermeasures if we escalate. For once, he is taking that advice and not doubling down. What happens next?

If nukes are off the table, Trump can either try to make an Obama deal as quickly as possible or he can rely on the blockade to bring the Iranians to their knees. The latter course will undoubtedly take months–possibly even years. It means higher oil prices, with everything that entails, for the foreseeable future.

Will the Iranians even agree to an Obama deal at this point? A significant faction within the regime appears to want to rub Trump’s nose in it. We’ll see.

For a man who portrays himself as the tribune of the people jousting with the evil elites, Donald Trump has certainly adopted a lot of unpopular policies. His mass deportations are loathed by Hispanic swing voters; his tariffs are driving up prices for everyone; and his war is increasingly disliked even by MAGA voters. What should we make of this? Is Trump actually an elitist or a man of principle, fighting for what he thinks is right regardless of the odds against him?

Two things are relevant here. First, Trump has never been a populist on economic issues; his mercantilist deviations from Reaganite orthodoxy are purely his own invention and have minimal support from either the party establishment or the base. Second, for Trump, populism only applies to the “real Americans” in the base. As long as he retains their support, as far as he is concerned, he still speaks for the American people, polls and popular majorities be damned.

If you assume that Trump can’t find a magic escalation formula that will solve his Iran problems at an acceptable price, he will be caught in a classic dilemma. On the one hand, he doesn’t want to make an Obama deal, because that would make him a loser. On the other hand, if the war continues much longer, he will take a beating in the midterms, with everything that portends for his future. Which is worse–Scylla or Charybdis?

If he asked me for advice, which he won’t, I would tell him to rely on his incomparable ability to lie. Make the Obama deal and pretend it’s something better. Sure, lots of people won’t buy into it, but the base will, and that’s what matters.

1. If Donald Trump orders you, as the AG, to open an investigation of a prominent Democratic politician, and you know there is no reasonable basis for the investigation, will you follow his order?
2. If Trump orders you to violate protocol and disclose the existence of the investigation to the media for blatantly political reasons, will you do it?
3. If you investigate someone on his order and find there is no basis for filing charges, but Trump tells you to do it anyway, will you comply with his order?

This is where the rubber hits the road on the issues of prosecutorial ethics and DOJ independence. I would love to hear his answers, even though I might not believe them.

I saw an ad for Byron Donalds while watching a Rays game yesterday. The gist of the ad is that “Washington” is overreaching by trying to preempt state regulation of AI, and that Byron is fighting fearlessly for our right to keep the bad guys under control.

The ad somehow manages to ignore two facts: “Washington” is actually Donald Trump, Donalds’ principal patron; and data center developers and tech companies are pouring money by the boatload into his campaign. It wouldn’t surprise me if they paid for the commercial. It’s a tactic they have used in other states.

I follow several teams on MLB Extra Innings, so I have the privilege of watching political commercials from a variety of states–some of them swing states. What I have noticed thus far is that, while the election has to be a referendum on Trump, the commercials aren’t playing that way. I haven’t seen a single ad talking about immigration, threats to liberal democracy, or the war.

Why is this? Maybe the candidates are just holding back for now. Maybe they think the issues are so obvious they don’t require further discussion. Maybe the Democrats don’t want to annoy Trump voters, and the Republicans aren’t proud of their record. I’m not really sure. We’ll see.

Data center ads are starting to pop up, however. More on one of those in my next post.

In that same interview, Colby insists that the war with Iran is not a stalemate, partly because time is on our side, and partly because Trump has lots of options to escalate if necessary. As to the latter point, I would simply ask: (a) what are those options? and (b) if they exist, why haven’t we already used them?

In reality, you know the options–nukes, conventional terror bombing, and a ground invasion. Colby makes it clear that the last of these is not on the table. That leaves the other two, even if he doesn’t admit it.

In a Ross Douthat interview in today’s NYT, Elbridge Colby takes a victory lap for increased European defense spending, which is probably justified. When asked questions about Trump’s bullying tactics and predatory behavior, however, Colby essentially says that the Europeans and Canadians have nowhere else to go, so even if their citizens don’t appreciate the bullying, they will have to fall into line. Is he right?

No, for two reasons. First of all, public opinion in Europe and Canada does, in fact, matter; their voters ultimately direct policy, unlike residents of Xi’s China and Putin’s Russia. That Colby thinks it is irrelevant tells you a great deal about the mindset of the current administration. Second, the case against Canada and the EU becoming more independent or even throwing their support to China is based largely on the authoritarian nature of the Chinese regime. If interests always prevail over values in foreign affairs, why wouldn’t the Canadians and Europeans prefer a faraway, benevolent lord to one that constantly threatens to take their territory?

According to an article in The Atlantic, a 2024 poll showed Biden with a 49-point lead over Trump among people who read newspapers. What does that mean?

When Trump says he loves the poorly educated, he has reason to mean it.

Ross Douthat responds to attacks on populists by arguing they didn’t support the Iran war. Is he right?

Iran is not Iraq; there was no foreign policy elite consensus in favor of the war. Responsibility for it rests with one man, Donald Trump, who owes his position primarily to a base full of populists. As a result, if you have to attach blame to one side or the other instead of a single dude, it belongs to the populists, even though a few of them don’t support the war.

Life in the time of Trump.

His Iran war drags on.

An easy win, the great man thought

But all such hopes are gone.

We command the air and sea

But they control the Strait.

Which side will surrender first?

For now, it’s a stalemate.

Article III of the Constitution doesn’t really say much about the Supreme Court. It tells us that its members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate; it lays out some jurisdictional parameters; and it sets a “good behavior” standard for removal of justices. That’s it. Everything else is negotiable.

Donald Trump’s legacy is largely a matter of luck; he was able to make three appointments to the Court in his first term as a result of timely retirements and the death of RBG. Obama had fewer appointments than that in two terms in office. By any reasonable standard, that was an unjust result.

Packing the Court is legally possible, but practically inappropriate, as it would invite retaliation and eliminate whatever residual respect the Court continues to enjoy. The best option would be to subject justices to term limits, but that would require a constitutional amendment, which isn’t going to happen. Personally, I think it would be a good idea to enact legislation that guarantees each president one appointment per term. The number of justices would consequently fluctuate with deaths and retirements. So what?

Trump has been demanding defense budget increases from our allies for years. You would think, then, that he would welcome efforts on the part of the Europeans to create their own defense industries. But no! Elbridge Colby is telling them not to duplicate American manufacturing capabilities. What does this mean?

It means, as I’ve said many times before, that Trump doesn’t really want Europe to pay more and police its own continent, regardless of what he says in public. He wants it to be an American vassal state–to acknowledge him as the boss and pay America for its protection. The defense budget issue is just a smokescreen.