[doffs hat]
I’d renew my annual SDMB subscription for having my vocabulary enhanced by that word and context alone!
[/doffs hat]
Now not to down play the possibility and dire impact of this ploy but why would he do something so overt, cack-handed and opposeable when all he needs to do is get a bunch of MAGAs working as postmen for UPS and have them deciding to not to send out or return mail-in ballots from blue districts?
In my state, I can track my individual ballot from when it’s mailed, to when I receive it, to when they receive it back, to when it’s accepted and processed.
People are gonna notice if a couple million ballots just don’t show up.
And what is a “blue district”, anyway? I’ll let you in on a secret - most Republican voters live in big cities too, because that’s where people live. Trump got 1.9 million votes in Manhattan. You can’t win an election off the backs of Spittle County, population 93. They’d be shooting themselves in the foot.
I think you underestimate how difficult preventing a fair election or negating the results of one would be.
Thank you for spilling the beans … appreciated.
Yes, shifting 2% of the US national popular votes would be a labour to test Hercules.
But 45/47 and support crew aren’t trying to win New York District 10.
They want to flip, as an example, Texas District 34.
“difficult preventing a fair election”
It’s so cute, giving the entrenched gerrymander, incumbent bias and mind-numbing cost, that you consider the US conducts fair elections.
A case where the US is exceptional is in the extent that representatives chose their electors. In our less sophisticated sovereign entities it’s the other way around.
If they are going to focus efforts, it won’t be in solidly blue New York, or solidly red Texas. IMO, it’ll be in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, etc., the swing states where the last few presidential elections have been won and lost. Suppressing votes in certain historically liberal districts in those states (Milwaukee and Dane counties in Wisconsin, for example) is all it’ll take.
But in the mid-terms it’s more about winning/holding House seats rather than States is it not?
Democrats only need to flip 2 or 3 seats to win a majority.
For comparison’s sake, in Trump’s first midterm, they flipped 41.
I don’t think it’s realistically possible for Republicans to engage in shenanigans on a scale big enough to stop them from losing the House.
Flipping 4 Senate seats is more of an uphill climb, but not impossible, and control of the House alone will be sufficient to paralyze most of Trump’s agenda for the last two years of his term.
In 1894 the Dems lost 127 out of 356 races.
That would equate to about 155 in 2026’s 435 races.
If the US mid-terms doesn’t reject the Trumpist 2026 policies, practices, agenda and administration to something of that order of magnitude then the rest of us on whom the collective “you” have afflicted might well think that you aren’t really trying.
41 House seats cuts no mustard and butters no parsnips.
This one’s easy—the president directs the USPS not to deliver the mail-in ballots. The Supreme Court ruled three days ago in Postal Service v. Konan that the USPS is not liable for intentional, even malicious, refusal to deliver mail, and of course we all know that in 2024 the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that the president enjoys immunity for official acts.
I look at some of Trump’s proposals as the last desperate act of a madman.
Or the smartest desperate act by a conman.
Time will tell.
For the last 10 years, people have been “translating” Trump’s insane takes for him, extracting coherent meaning where there was none to began with. But let’s look at what he actually said:
He starts by absolute excoriating the justices who sided against the tariffs…
They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation, those justices… they’re just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats. And not that this should have anything at all to do with it, they’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think.
You can write this off as rhetoric, or Trump being Trump, but to do so is to ignore the plain words he spoke and the message it sends – that this court is not legitimate. Coming from the president, this is not nothing.
After rambling about how awesome his tariffs (and himself) are, he makes it clear that nothing is going to change because of this ruling:
All of those tariffs remain. They all remain. I don’t know if you know that or not. They all remain. We’re still getting them and we will after the decision. I guess there’s nobody left to appeal to, but again, those three people, such respect.
He acknowledges that there’s no more legal authority to appeal to, but he plainly states that the ruling will have no actual effect.
But other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected. We have alternatives, great alternatives. Could be more money. We’ll take in more money and we’ll be a lot stronger for it. We’re taking in hundreds of billions of dollars. We’ll continue to do so.
Not, “We’re going to have to go back and re-assess all tariffs to see which ones comply with the ruling and which ones don’t, which ones we can categorize under other laws”, etc. Which is what you’re implying and what other pundits have said. But again, a plain reading here is that the SCOTUS decision is a mere technicality – nothing at all will change, and the mechanism is irrelevant. Regardless of how legal those other mechanisms are, they’re going to be used as justification. This is what he said in plain language.
He then rants about the specifics of the ruling before making it clear that the ruling is actually a victory for him and his tariffs:
As Justice Kavanaugh, whose stock has gone so up. You have to see. I’m so proud of him. Wrote in his dissent, “Although I firmly disagree with the court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a president’s ability to order tariffs going forward.” So I – think that the decision might not substantially constrain, and it doesn’t. He’s right. In fact I can judge much more than I was charging. So I’m going to just start. “Although I firmly disagree with the court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a president’s ability to order tariffs going forward.” That’s because numerous other federal statutes, which is so true, authorized the president to impose tariffs and might justify most, if not all, of the tariffs issued in this case. Even more tariffs, actually. Those statues include – think of that. Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act Of 1962 Section 232. All of these things I know so well. The Trade Act of 1974 Sections 122, 201, 301, and the Tariff Act of 1930 Section 338. All clear. But it’s a little bit longer process. I thought I’d make things simple, but they didn’t let us do that. I would like to thank Justice Kavanaugh for his, frankly, his genius and his – his great ability. Very proud of that appointment. In actuality, why – while I am sure that they did not mean to do so, the Supreme Court’s decision today made a president’s ability to both regulate trade and impose tariffs more powerful and more crystal clear rather than less.
There’s more rambling, but the Q and A that follows just affirms his points – the ruling actually enforces his authoritarian power, the tariffs are all going to remain in place and the details of how don’t actually matter, and refunds are not going to happen because the ruling is ridiculous.
You can look at all of this and say, “Yes, Trump has acknowledged the authority of SCOTUS and is abiding by their ruling,” but I think that’s naive. What he’s clearly saying is “I am king, I can do what I want, this changes nothing.”
So the state contracts with Fedex instead. Or UPS. Or you just go to the courthouse and pick up a ballot.
Will they be concerned? Aggravated? Miffed? Upset? Consternated?
Will they do more than what Congress did (and does) when Trump employees lie and obscure and mock them while under oath?
People will notice, and then…?
FedEx will bend the knee instantly, UPS might hold out until the federal government cuts them off as a vendor.
Meanwhile the federal courts will have issued an injunction barring the Post Office from failing to deliver election mail, which is specifically protected under federal law.
A sternly worded injunction, I’m sure.
How is that any different from voting in person?
You won’t have to stand in line for a booth and can take it home to fill out at your leisure.
Ahem. Excuse me. As pedantry is our group hobby here, I feel obliged to point out that UPS is the United Parcel Service. They wear brown uniforms, drive brown trucks and deliver packages. The USPS is the United States Postal Service. They wear blue uniforms, have better-looking trucks and deliver your letters, packages and mail-in ballots. They are a storied though much-maligned institution older than the country itself.
If a UPS driver offers to deliver your mail-in ballot for you, please get on the phone to your local state rep because you have a case of attempted election fraud there.
And, more importantly, the USPS is an independent agency of the Federal government. They have a legal monopoly on traditional letter delivery, and are under a “universal service obligation.” When we in the U.S. talk about “the mail,” we’re talking about the USPS.
UPS is a publicly-traded package-delivery and logistics company.