How to Watch the Election

 

 The evening is fast approaching when we will all sit by the television and get ready to watch the returns from the U.S. Presidential election.  In the past this was often done by way of “watch parties” and there would be the flipping of channels to see if one or the other of the networks had made a call ahead of the others. It was mostly a night for political junkies to revel in terms like “upstate returns”, “the Roosevelt coalition”, “…if the current trend continues” and so on.

This year will be a bit different.  We all know that “watch parties” aren’t really the best thing to hold this time. Besides the obvious disease related reasons – there simply may not be much to watch.  Due to the different ways that States tally votes, the prevalence of mail-in ballots in this Covid impacted year and recent history the chances are that networks will be EXTREMELY reluctant to make any calls unless they are absolutely certain about what they are predicting.  This stems less from the results of the 2016 election (where the networks essentially had things right for most States, but the pre-election polls had things wrong) than it does from the lingering impacts of the 2000 election, where the networks royally screwed up the call based upon an incorrect reading of the data.  This year, with the fragmentation of that same data, the feeling is that no one is going to go up the tree too early, let alone out on a limb.

That’s not going to be much help to the casual viewer who will want to know what the hell is going on.  The anticipation surrounding this year’s election results might be the highest ever.  Just read the posts on any social media outlet – “I’m a nervous wreck”…”I don’t care what the odds say, I can’t relax”…”I won’t sleep until I know for sure”…. The whole country is like an eighteen-year old high school kid waiting to hear about his girlfriend’s pregnancy test. 

I’m no exception.  I’m pretty sure most people know my political leanings, so suffice to say that if the results skew one way I anticipate sipping a civilized glass of the fine offerings of the Emerald Isle drawn from the bottle on the left, whereas if they go the other way I will probably down the contents of the bottle of Le Fèe Verte on the right in one pull. Either way, we’re keepin’ it green.

 

The problem, of course, is that if no one is willing to make a call on election night (likely) and there is only so much liquor available (also a true statement) – how the hell is anyone supposed to tell whether to pop champagne, coolly sip whiskey or chug absinthe until madness overtakes you?  Here is where I step in to try and guide everyone through the expected torture of Tuesday night and Wednesday morning – I’m not going to go over the obvious things, like “If Florida gets called for Biden it’s probably all-over” or “If Trump wins Georgia then North Carolina is still in play” – those are the easy things to know. I’m assuming that we’re going to be in for a long night and that there is a very good chance that everyone will go to bed not knowing for sure who won.  Instead what I’m trying to go for here are the sort of subtle hints that might give away what the people on the networks are REALLY thinking – even if they aren’t willing or able to come out with a flat-out projection on the night of or morning after the election. First, let’s review some of the basics.

A Few Simple Tools:

You are going to need a strong remote-control finger, a laptop, phone or tablet and the ability to jump around.  Keep at least the following stops on your regular rounds so that you can see if there are differing approaches from the various networks:  ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, MSNBC, CNBC and CNN.  Each will take a slightly different approach but all will try to maintain their overall journalistic integrity.  Even Fox, when forced to defend their projections, was willing to go up against key Republican operatives like Karl Rove to justify their actions.  This does not mean that you won’t see slants and biases in the various coverages – just that when it comes to making definitive “calls” the networks won’t do it unless they are satisfied that a standard has been met.  Given the likelihood that those standards will be quite difficult to meet this year the tone of the various networks will be important to discern – and that will mean jumping around a good bit. 

I would also recommend checking out a few of the overseas networks to see what their takes might be.  I’ll be watching Sky News, the BBC and RTE to see what their slants are – in the U.S. you should take advantage of being able to get firsthand accounts from some of the local news reports for the bigger stations in places like Boston, New York, Chicago and, if possible, some of the swing States like Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin and Georgia.  So, switch from station to station and listen for some of the clues that we’ll discuss below.

Know the Timings

The 538 website has posted a very comprehensive guide to the various timings of when States will close the polls, when they will count their various ballots (absentee, mail-in and day of election), what the likelihood of being able to make a projection will hinge upon and whether there could be a shift from late-arriving results. You can find it here:  https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-results-timing/

It is a VERY useful tool for knowing where to be ready to turn your attention.  This year in particular the review of when to expect to have definitive results will be quite telling.  This is partly because you’ll know when to not get your hopes up too high (no matter what candidate you are supporting) – but it is also in order to know when a given projection might have even more importance than you might expect. 

For example, if you look at this list you’ll see that Indiana closes its polls at 7 pm Eastern time but that it is expected that it will “take a few days” to count all the votes.  Most of those uncounted votes are expected to result in a “blue shift”, as per the notes in the left-hand column.  Still, despite that, Indiana is considered a relatively safe Red state and you would think that if results go as would ordinarily be expected the networks would still be able to call the State for Trump after a review of the returns on the night.  The one thing that probably keeps people from simply assuming that will happen is this – in the 2008 election Barack Obama’s most unlikely win was that of Indiana – a result that was completely out of left field.  Knowing that – there may be some reluctance to call things too early in the night.  If that reluctance drags on – if the networks are unable or unwilling to treat the possibility of the expected “blue shift” as something other than a narrowing of the margin – but instead feel that it might actually impact the result – that is a real indication that Biden has eaten into some of Trump’s strength.  Watch for that – if it doesn’t happen it’s no big deal, but if Indiana remains uncalled – that’s the sort of thing that could be significant. 

A more focused assessment of how the night might play out is located in another 538 article, found here. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/both-candidates-might-fall-short-of-270-electoral-votes-on-election-night-but-how-close-might-they-get/  This is more in the nature of analysis and, while very good it has as its premise the idea that by tracking electoral votes you might, if things fall right, be able to know who won by late Tuesday night, early Wednesday morning.  The key word there is “might” – the article itself acknowledges that this is a somewhat remote possibility given the methodology used to count votes in certain key states, this year’s prevalence of mail-in ballots and, as noted, the likely reluctance to call a State that most network’s will have.  Instead, if you want to understand how things are actually progressing you’ll have to engage in the sort of tea-leaf reading that is described above in relation to Indiana.  Is the State closer than it’s supposed to be?  Is it revealing any trends that might apply to the nation as a whole?  Would either of the two campaign’s look at the results and say “holy shit!” for any particular reason?  More than the traditional projection - it may be that you’ll have to watch for those kinds of clues.

Here’s what I mean - another State to watch is Virginia.  In the drama that came to surround Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida in 2016 it is forgotten that the first sign that things were not going well for Hillary Clinton was when the networks were unable to simply put Virginia in her win column.  In fact – it was not until well into the evening that Virginia finally went blue – and that was despite the fact that a native son, Tim Kaine, was on the damn ticket.  (Remember Tim Kaine?  Yeah, me not so much either – I had to double-check the spelling of his last name again.  It’s with a “K”.  How quickly we forget).  I was at a party with the U.S. ambassador in attendance last election – I was watching his face when this news was announced – he looked like he had swallowed a bad clam.

This year if Virginia creates the same problem it could be indicative that there is, again, a significant polling error that under counts Trump voters.  On the other hand – if this time Virginia gets placed into the Democratic bucket early on there may be some greater degree of integrity to the approach toward polling this election.  The last State polls showed Biden with an 11 point lead – so there would have to be a five point shift to really make the State appear competitive.  In 2016, just so you know – there was about a five point shift. 

To get those polling numbers you might again want to go to yet another page on the 538 website, located here:  https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/?cid=rrpromo 

There are also similar tools you may want to check out at:  https://www.270towin.com/  and https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president

I’m picking 538 for my main source in this article because I’m most familiar with their model and because I know that if they get things wrong too often their entire reason for existing goes away – so they have a bit more at stake when it comes to being right. 

To use the tool just find the State that is being reported on the telly, click on its space on the 538 “winding road” and you’ll see data on what the polls SAID the result would be.  You might then want to compare it against what you are seeing on the day to determine if there are any trends.  Are the polls consistently correct this time?  Is there going to be a plethora of “shy Trump” voters?  Is the Biden lead indicative of a blowout?  This makes even the States where the final result was expected meaningful. For instance – we all know Biden will win Massachusetts – but are the margins living up to expectations?  Don’t over analyze but watching these sorts of things will allow you to read more into what the networks are telling you even if they don’t want to call a State or make early projections.  However, there is one thing that everyone should definitely be on the lookout for.  Given how reluctant the networks are likely to be when it comes to making projections – if there is a clear upset that everyone agrees on – if New Hampshire were to flip to Trump or South Carolina to Biden – that’s obviously going to be huge.  Watch for those.  The other thing you’ll want to watch is to be found not necessarily in what the networks are saying – but in the way they are saying it.

 The Language of Diplomacy 

The turn of a phrase can often tell a great deal about what is really being said. When reporting on a diplomatic meeting the various Ministers and Secretaries say a great deal without explicitly saying, well, anything.  For example, when you are told that a meeting was “frank and open” it generally means “The parties were at each other’s throats the entire meeting and we removed all sharp objects from the room”.  When things are said to have been “genial and productive” it means “we all got along and we might even get an agreement out of this thing”.  And, when talks are said to be “continuing” it can be taken to mean “we popped our heads in to see how things were going and they told us to fuck off”.

The same dynamic applies to network election reporting. Some of the things that are going to be said will be self-explanatory, even if they don’t come right out and tell you the result. For instance, if any candidate’s election night mood is said to be “somber” – either their dog just passed away or, more likely, they lost.

Here are some other key words and phrases:

Upbeat and Confident:  They are pretty sure they won.

Guardedly Optimistic:  Still in this thing.

Carefully Reviewing the Results:  They think there could be trouble ahead.

Anxiously Reviewing the Results:  Pretty sure there is trouble ahead.

Aware That They Face an Uphill Climb:  Are updating their resumé cause they’re gonna be “entering the dreaded private sector” real soon.

Those are all things that relate to what the various campaigns might be saying.  There is a whole other art to interpreting what the various anchors might be telling you.  For instance – CNN is well known for its “magic wall” and anchor John King’s use of it.  Up until now the 2020 wall has been used in this manner:

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/10/25/trump-biden-electoral-map-magic-wall-john-king-ip-vpx.cnn

That’s nice, but the wall is really useful when it gets to the day of the election and King is able to break things down to the precinct level in the various States.  That’s when you’ll hear things like “We aren’t prepared to call this State but, when you look at the map you have to wonder where those votes are going to come from”.  The use of a term like “you have to wonder” is a giveaway and can most often be taken to mean “they haven’t got a chance to make this up”.

Over on Fox the sorts of magic words you’ll be looking for if things are going blue would be “the polls seem to be standing up”, “there do not appear to be any surprises on the cards”, “will not be a repeat of the swing seen in 2016”.  If they are going the other way, or are truly up in the air, watch for things like “silent majority”, “deep reserve of support” and the aforementioned “shy Trumpers”.  The term “egg on their face” would come up as well.

You also want to watch for the demographic breakdowns.  Networks are typically less restrained when it comes to discussing their data in these areas, mainly because no electoral votes are directly tied in to how “college educated white women” vote.  Nonetheless – those numbers can be critical, and if you hear the desks referring to “enormous gender gaps”, “Trump’s ability to close the gap with Hispanics”, “the collapse of the evangelical vote” or similar changes in demographics then be assured that these are designed to send you a message.  One caveat – those demographics should be universally applicable.  For example, if “closing the gap with Hispanics” comes up only in respect of Florida – that’s likely not going to be as telling as if the same effect is noted nationwide – Florida has by far the largest Cuban population in the country and their voting patterns are typically quite different from other populations that are designated Hispanic.  The same could apply to groups like “college age”, “blue-collar” or “suburban” in any given jurisdiction.

Here’s another thing to avoid – you should not go too far down the road of trying to “read” intangibles.  For instance, unless it is obvious don’t count on body language or facial expressions meaning that much.  These people have probably been up for a long time, are wearing lots of equipment, are trying to hear people both screaming and whispering in their ear while talking to a camera – it’s a wonder more of them don’t break down in tears by the time this is over.

So – as you set up your refreshments, both solid and liquid, and get ready for a long night and morning of watching the returns here are the five key things I would watch for:

1.     How quickly does Virginia get called?

2.    Are the polls holding up or is there a standard error being made one way or the other?

3.    Are there any key demographics that would be universally applicable?

4.    Any clear upsets one way or the other?

5.    What are the words on the lips of the anchors REALLY saying?  

That said, I sure hope I’m sipping Jameson’s, and not guzzling absinthe, in the early hours of Wednesday morning.

GAMES PEOPLE PLAY

 In a development that should be surprising to nobody the Supreme Court, newly packed with a Trump majority, made a number of moves in the past couple of days that increase the likelihood of an undemocratic attempt to manipulate the Presidential election. Because that is the election that is currently capturing most eyeballs the additional consequences of these rulings, footnotes and pronouncements might be lost.

As I’ve previously written the misuse of the Constitution's Article 2 terms as a means to subvert the result of our elections is something that the Republican war machine has been maneuvering to introduce for some time. From a series of misleading memes that attempt to downplay the validity of popular elections (“we’re not a democracy, we’re a republic”) this effort has now moved on to Brett Kavanaugh pronouncing that Article 2 is meant to so empower the various State legislatures that even State courts, in the case of federal elections, may not intervene. He appears to state that this is true EVEN IF THE ROLE OF THE COURT IS TO INTERPRET STATE LAW. So – even if the actual constitution of (for example) Iowa was to say that their State legislature must accept ballots postmarked on or before the day of an election, Kavanaugh seems to indicate that an act of the Iowa State legislature contravening that clause would, in a federal election, still be superior to any finding by a State court that such a law was unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court could therefore simply negate the actions of the State’s own judicial authorities. Kavanaugh would read the ambiguous language of the U.S. Constitution as being strong enough to overcome even the clearest of State attempts to limit the power of their own legislatures. This is the ultimate extension of the superiority clause – despite the fact that it is propounded by a “conservative” justice.

For true conservatives, who have long railed against the expansion of Federal power, this has to be incredibly galling, but, let’s be honest, there are very few true conservatives left out there. The justices who would vote for this concept of the law are little more than followers of a cult of personality. Why it would be somehow wrong to count votes that had been clearly cast properly, on time and via an accepted means of voting is a mystery. It seems Justice Kavanaugh simply wants to know the morning after the election who won, unless, of course, his guy didn’t win in which case he is perfectly willing to allow a State legislature or Federal court to overturn the result weeks later.

This has been quickly highlighted in a number of articles and brought to light by other posters on Facebook and similar social media (shout out to

Mary Mcginn Tambor

who was right on top of this travesty of “justice” and

Mary Alice Brink Schulte

and

Greg Schulte

who are busting their backsides to secure victory and overcome this type of manipulation). What I’m a bit more worried about is the fact that in focusing on the implications for the Presidential election (understandable) – people are missing that most if not all Kavanaugh’s dicta is careful to reference “federal” elections. This may be because many Republicans who are not card-carrying members of said cult of personality are beginning to steel themselves for the possibility that the Presidential election may already be lost. There are, however, other “federal” elections that could be close enough to hinge upon those postmarked ballots or State legislative actions. Using this approach to save the seat of a John Cornyn, Joni Ernst, Susan Collins or Lindsey Graham is also a distinct possibility.

The best way to combat this threat? Unfortunately – it’s not through the courts. It’s at the ballot box. “Winning” isn’t likely to be enough – in any race. The only viable alternative is “winning big” – voting yourself, getting out the vote, helping others get to the polls, delivering ballots via a method that is not dependent upon the mail – all of these things can counter the continuing voter suppression efforts of those who fear democracy.

PATRIOTS MORNING AFTER TOUCHDOWNS (PATS MATS) - Week 6

 Another tough week for Patriot's fans. Time to start fantasizing about who your ideal replacement quarterback might be. But, given the season that's in it this week's musings stray into the area of horror - "what players would you least like to see in a Boston team uniform". Read on if you dare...

OK – this is no longer funny. The continuing inability of Cam Newton to throw a pass the required distance is starting to be more than the sort of thing that you figure he’ll get over. Ten yard outs are nine-yard shoe-toppers. Anything over twenty yards down field has the receivers stopping in their tracks and reacting more like defensive backs than the actual DB’s covering the routes. Worst of all – the throws are making the receivers vulnerable to injury. N’Keal Harry, who was actually rounding into a threat earlier in the season, was hammered a couple of times because he had to reach back for or wait on balls that should have been delivered much more crisply.

So, what’s the answer? Typically this would be when you start to have a quarterback controversy – except on the Patriots roster there really is nobody good enough to give rise to that type outcry. Even assuming there was someone in the stands to start booing and raising the alarm - I still don’t see much chance of there ever being a huge “We want Stidham” or “Where the hell’s our Hoyer” chant washing over Gillette Stadium.

So, are there any other QB’s around who have some credentials? Anyone who has led a team to the Super Bowl, has some mobility, arm strength, can learn a new system? Anybody available to be signed who has that resumè?

Anyone?

Oh – don’t tell me you haven’t thought about it. Like that Friends episode where Ross hits on his cousin – you’ll say that could never happen – but, c’mon – if your cousin was Denise Richards you would at least think about it.

OK – we’re all aware of the fact that currently the Vegas odds on anyone with the initials “C.K.” making a professional comeback are slightly favoring Louis (yeah, at about 1000-1, but still…), and having already tried to capture the Camback Player of the Year award the Patriots are never going to go that route again – but, still, you have to have at least thought about the possibility.

Don’t. That way lies madness. But this sort of speculation is exactly what this space is all about so, just for the fun of it, let’s pick other “least likely candidates to ever join a Boston sports team”.

Remember – none of these ever happened – and there is good reason why not.

The Celtics – There are lots of players who are so associated with other teams that having them on the Celtics would be unthinkable, starting with Wilt Chamberlain, who was the flip side of the Wilt v. Bill debate for over a decade. That would be the winner except that Wilt, while on the short end of most every tussle with Russell was almost a sympathetic figure. “Imagine what Auerbach would have done with Wilt” is something all Celtics fans contemplated and did not automatically dismiss. As to the other franchise players like Kareem, Magic, Hakeem, and, of course MJ – they just appeared to belong somewhere else – certainly more than the idea that they didn’t belong on the Celtics.

No – there is only one guy whose presence in a Celtic uniform would require an entire change of mind set to contemplate. That person is Bill Laimbeer. Yes, I know he played to win, was a fierce competitor, had a decent outside shot – blah, blah, blah. But he also suffered from the unavoidable fact that he was, at the end of the day, Bill Laimbeer.

And Bill Laimbeer was an asshole.

The Bruins – Of all the teams to be considered the Bruins come closest to having actually signed player(s) who would have received strong consideration for making the list. The first instance of that arose in 1975 when not one, but two players who had long been considered “Anti-Bruins” were added to the roster. It has receded somewhat in people’s memories but the trade that sent Phil Esposito (and defenseman Carol Vadnais) to the New York Rangers for Jean Ratelle and Brad Park was probably one of the seminal events for an entire generation of young Bruins fans. Ratelle was a member of the hated Rangers, one of their captains for crying out loud. That was bad enough. But Brad Park was someone who had the temerity to be spoken of in the same breath as Bobby Orr. That had been, up until the moment of the trade, grounds for considering Park to be like the Joker to Bobby’s Batman, the Lex Luther to his Superman, the Frank Burns to Bobby’s Hawkeye Pierce.

But the trade had greater implications - if the Bruins could trade away PHIL ESPOSITO the world of the 1970’s was suddenly very unsafe - anything could happen. Mars could attack. Bigfoot could show up in your back yard. A great white shark could devour you during your summer vacation at the beach. Bobby Orr could leave the Bruins.

Well, maybe not that last one.

Eventually, everyone got to like Brad Park and Jean Ratelle. Some of the same things came in to play when the Bruins signed Ken “The Rat” Linseman some years later. You’d be surprised what you could live with. However, the one guy that could never have been a Bruin follows much the same career path as Bill Laimbeer. “Ulfy” is and will remain a four-letter word in all Bruins fans’ vocabularies. Park and Ratelle – OK. The Rat – yeah, sure. But if you tried to put that Swedish POS into a Bruins uniform, even today in an old-timers game – Bruins fans would tear the building down and burn any sweater that had ever touched the flesh of that demon in human form. Don’t believe me? Here is one of the opening paragraphs of Samuelsson’s Wikipedia page:

“During his playing career, Samuelsson was viewed by NHL stars as "the most hated man in hockey"; he was described to the New York Times as "the lowest form of human being" and someone whose play is all about "trying to hurt you and knock you out of the game".[1] He is also infamous for his knee-to-knee hit on Boston Bruins Cam Neely during the 1991 playoffs that completely ended Neely's career five years later.”

The only thing I question in that description is the use of the term “human being”.

The Red Sox – This turned out to be tougher than I thought. While my mind turned immediately to the Yankees (where else?) there were a number of countervailing considerations that were brought to bear. Reggie Jackson? Reggie could be charming, in a Reggie sort of way. Billy Martin? In the end Billy was just pathetic. Thurman Munson? Tragic. Graig Nettles? He was a dick, but really not of much consequence. Derek Jeter – overrated, perhaps, but not a villain. Aaron Boone – nope, it turns out he was just the prelude to the glorious chapter to come.

I kind of resisted making my final choice, mainly because I hate even acknowledging the protagonist’s place in history. Here’s a little story to back that up.

Back in 2019, while we were all living in a parallel universe, the Sox and Yankees met in London to play a couple of regular season games. Yes, they travelled overseas. I had tickets, and so did I. What a concept! As is detailed in one of the chapters of my book “Hello Out There” (available at Amazon on-line) I managed to finagle my way in to the VIP section, where a number of former players for both teams were circulating, taking pictures and signing autographs. I had found a fellow Red Sox fan who was about my age and so knew just how good Reggie Smith was and why it was a thrill to get his picture and signature. Then one of the ex-Yankees walked by.

“You gonna ask for his autograph”? I asked the guy I had just met.

“Not even if he signed it with his middle name” was the quick response.

If you haven’t sussed it already that reply is a dead giveaway for most Red Sox fans as to who was being referred to. Russell Earl Dent is never called by his given name. In and around New England he is, and always will be, Bucky Bleeping Dent, or Bucky F. Dent for those who need a further clue as to the bleep. There is, I believe, a deeper reason than mere frustration behind Dent’s three name moniker. After hitting the single most painful, excuse me, wind blown home run in baseball history Dent earned the extra name in order to join the ranks of other assassins. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman – they are all referred to in this way because, in the end, it seems impossible that such puny, inconsequential, weak, dull people could have had such a dramatic effect on history. So, we have to add a name to their everyday designation. How can someone who is the equivalent of Daniel Baldwin eliminate the greatest President ever? How can some guy who couldn’t hold a job as a packing clerk kill JFK? How could a failed camp counsellor erase John Lennon? How could a career .247 hitter, who never hit more than 8 home runs in an entire season, bring down the team with Rice, Fisk, Lynn, Evans, Tiant and Yaz?

Bucky Fucking Dent could never be a Red Sox.

PATRIOTS MORNING AFTER TOUCHDOWNS (PATS MATS) - Week 5

 

Ouch.  No way to sugar coat this one as a “good loss” – it’s just a loss, and one that is exceptionally worrying at that.  I support Dr. Fauci and all, but when did we name him starting QB?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eD5xkn4WLA

Look, every game in the NFL (even those involving the Jacksonville Jaguars) gets analyzed TO DEATH so I’m not going to belabour the obvious points to be gleaned from a game in which the Patriots were able to prevent the other team from scoring a single touchdown but somehow managed to lose convincingly.  There are problems there folks – and if this was a normal year you would be saying something like “Wow, I’d hate to be those guys when Belichick goes through the films with them” – but that ain’t easy to do when you can’t have everyone in the same room for a meeting.

What we do here is go through the esoterica that might be picked up from a given week’s events – book reviews, “good loss” analysis, historical musings – that’s what you get when you follow this space.  In that vein I have picked up on what I think are a few significant changes in NFL practices as the result of watching a few of this week’s games.

1.        Rules is Rules

First – how about that Mike Vrabel?  The NFL’s newest poster boy coach has actually been killing it for some time now, but this past week may have been his greatest moment so far – even bigger than beating up on his one time mentor Bill Belichick in last year’s playoffs (the second time he’s done that).  Vrabel factors in all three of this week’s topics, which, as a rough description, concern “Under the Radar” areas where the NFL has seen some important changes over the last number of years. 

By this I don’t mean the obvious things like rule changes to protect the QB even more or revisions in the use of instant replay.  Those changes (and others, like “helmet to helmet” contact) were heavily touted and publicized.  I’m talking more about alterations where a rule change or the manipulation of the same has had unforeseen but significant impact.  Since both Vrabel and Belichick have come up already let’s start with one of my favorite things – the use of “rule bending”.

Until Vrabel came along the absolute master of these sorts of intentional acts was Belichick.  Some of the greatest of these are simply known by a phrase – most Pats fans will know what is meant when you say something like “the intentional safety” or “the Hoomanawanui plays”.  The former was taken against the Denver Broncos in order to secure possession of the ball in better field position.  The latter involved lining up an ineligible receiver away from the offensive line so that the Patriot’s tongue twister tight end could make a couple of crucial catches in a playoff game.

But Belichick has done other, similar things – my personal favorite being when he took not one but two intentional penalties in order to burn time off the clock against the Jets during a blowout win.  It is my favorite because the videos of the event show Belichick cracking the tiniest bit of a smile as he realizes that the Jets were falling for what he was doing, and, of course – because it was the Jets.

Vrabel actually used the same rule against the Patriots (with a bit less success but in much more impactful circumstances) last year.  However – this past week the pupil may have surpassed the master even further when Vrabel seems to have intentionally sent an extra man on to the field in order to draw a flag for too many men.  This forced Romeo Crennel to decide between accepting the penalty and taking the resulting first down, or risking a loss, turnover or inability to gain a yard when having a second and 1.  Crennel took the penalty, the clock stopped as a result, the field was shortened giving Houston less chance to burn the clock – and even though the Texans scored there was still enough time for Vrabel’s Titans to come back down and tie the game before winning in overtime. More on this game later. 

In basketball intentionally breaking the rules (which is, after all, what fouling as time runs out really is) is an accepted part of the game.  To a lesser extent the same is true of hockey and soccer – if you’re going to get beaten you might as well bring the opponent down.  But in football the manipulation of the extremely complex set of rules is an art – and Vrabel and Belichick are two of the coaches most worth watching just for their encyclopaedic knowledge of how to practice that art.

Bonus Points (Advanced Math Version)

Another area that has experienced a change in importance, one that becomes more apparent with every season, is the evolution of the extra point from a rote exercise in automatic conversion to one of the more important decision areas in the NFL.  This stems largely from the 2015 decision to move the PAT back to the fifteen for kicks.  Anyone who has watched the career of Stephen Gostkowski, particularly in Super Bowls and playoff games, understands that this has reduced the conversion rate to a material, and often a substantial, degree. 

This change, when coupled with the 1994 change in the rules that brought the two-point conversion into play has made the extra point interesting again. There is a percentage sheet that coaches routinely use to decide when it is best to attempt to go for two which is somewhat misleading.  Part of the percentage review is based upon how easy it is to gain two yards from a standard line of scrimmage on a third or fourth down play.  That is actually not a like for like measure.  The other version of the chart simply looks at the conversion rate for two-point attempts – which can also vary due to circumstance.  Still, the decision on whether to go for two should most often (but not always) be driven by a percentage consideration.  In this week’s Titan’s/Texan’s match up we saw another instance where this is not always the case. 

Remember the intentional penalty above?  The Texans actually scored on that same drive – to go up 7 points with only 1:50 left.  This left Romeo Crennel with a decision on whether to go for two, making the game a two-possession one or settle for the kick and make it a requirement that the Titans score both a touchdown and a two-point conversion to even force overtime.

This is the kind of decision that calls for more than just percentages.  You also have to assess your own defense’s ability to make a stop.  If you believe that there is a risk of actually having the opposition drive the length of the field and score with less than two minutes on the clock – you probably think there is an equal risk that they’d surrender two points from the two yard line.  Obviously, Crennel had no confidence in his defense – so he went for the two – and failed.

The rest is history.  Houston’s offense never touched the ball again (discounting the kickoff following Tennessee’s game-tying drive), and the Titan’s won in overtime. 

I think I speak for the vast majority of football fans when I say that I think these PAT changes are really entertaining.  However, when Stephen Gostokowski missed the extra point against the Eagles in Super Bowl LII I wouldn’t have been quite so vocal in expressing that opinion.

Swiss Army Knives

One of the primary criticisms of football, particularly the NFL, over the years has been the tendency to specialize more and more as the game progressed.  George Will made this charge explicit when he was quoted in Ken Burn’s “Baseball” documentary saying “What mother raises her son to be a “short yardage third down run stopping tackle””? 

The criticism has some legitimacy.  Running fat men on and off the field depending upon the situation was often comical at best, boring and counterproductive at its worst.  The good news is that in recent years the game has evolved away from this model (somewhat) and has encompassed the possibility that a single player could perform more than one role effectively.  Players that can be “Swiss Army Knives” are at a premium.  Once again we’re going to look to our two favorite examples – Belichick and Vrabel – to explain how this has happened.

Before getting into that – let’s just take a second to marvel at the fact that there is an army whose signature weapon is a pocket sized accessory that includes scissors, awls, filleting tools and screwdrivers.  Stealth bombers are great but they are a bitch to carry when hiking.  I just think it’s a sign that the world is a good place when, in the middle of a war, a platoon can stumble on to a house with a fully stocked wine cellar and, when someone says “Damn, I wish we had a corkscrew” the Swiss corporal assigned as an observer can raise his hand and say “Well, now that you mention it…”.

Mike Vrabel is, of course, perhaps the best example of the football player as Swiss Army knife.  As every New England schoolboy knows (or should know) Vrabel, during his career, had 12 receptions all 12 of which went for touchdowns.  This would be noteworthy for someone whose job it was to catch the football, but is even more remarkable when it is considered that Vrabel was a linebacker whose day job it was to stop touchdowns, not score them.

The primary architect of this philosophy of players doing more than one thing is, unsurprisingly, Belichick – who has made this one of his primary considerations when signing players, particularly free agents.  Troy Brown, one of my favorite Patriots of all time, should simply have “football player” next to his name when they list what position he played. A receiver by trade, he also returned punts (most famously for a touchdown in the 2002 AFC Championship game) and played defensive back for another Super Bowl championship team, just, because – well the team needed a DB.

In this past week’s game when the Patriots needed to keep drives alive and were worried about Dr. Fauci (sorry, Cam Newton) being able to effectively throw they went to Julian Edelman, the latest version of a Patriot’s multi-use player. Edelman is the latest Troy Brown, and is perhaps an even better version.  Everyone loves Jules – and they should.  Here’s the thing - the best use of a Swiss Army knife is when you find yourself in an emergency – and the real tool isn’t around.  Then you break out the screwdriver, tooth pick, can opener or corkscrew and make due with the alternative.

The Patriots are finding themselves in a few too many emergencies lately.

WHATEVER IT IS...

 

It’s getting so you can’t know what you’re supposed to be for or against these days. There is, of course, the tried and true Groucho Marx approach, which has also been cited as the actual Republican plan for health care reform: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHash5takWU

But, despite Groucho’s obvious academic credentials what I’m talking about is the confusing series of charges and counter-charges that have arisen out of the recent Presidential debate and town halls.  Donald Trump is asked if he condemns “White supremacy” and the “Proud Boys” – what’s the difference?  Joe Biden is asked if he condemns violence, recent protests and Antifa – what’s the difference?  Can (or should) you condemn one and not the other?  What’s the distinction between a “group” and a “movement”?  What is the line between an ideology that can be condemned and a “political leaning” that should not?  When is something “cancel culture” as opposed to, well, “culture”?

Maybe the best way to go through this is to set up a hypothetical – and compare that with what is going down in the campaign. So – let’s say that instead of jumping straight into terms like “Antifa” and “far right” we construct something to give the terms some context?

Imagine, if you will, that there is a major controversy arising over a given topic – for the sake of argument we’ll say that it is something that is maybe not super controversial but does have some aspects that give rise to issues.  Let’s go with “hunting”.

Asking someone if they are against “hunting” is like asking if they are against “protests”.  Ninety-nine percent of the candidates/respondents will say that they are NOT against hunting, so long as it is done within the parameters of the law.  That’s really  not that controversial -  both “hunting” and “protests” are generic terms used to cover a wide variety of activities.  Hell, people use dogs to hunt for certain types of very expensive mushrooms – it’s still hunting.

However, when you get into specifics - that’s when you start to have problems.  Let’s say that in our review of “hunting” related activity there is a movement to do away with the concept of “seasons”.  People who advocate for this type of approach to hunting say that having a deer season that runs for a couple of weeks is inherently interfering with what should be their right to hunt when they want for what they want.  We’ll call these people members of the “OSH” or “Open Season Hunting” movement.  Being a believer in all or some of the tenets of “OSHism” isn’t a crime in and of itself.  Of course, if the law currently says that there ARE actual hunting seasons in place and you get caught jacking deer in July – it’s not a defense to say “I’m an OSHer”.

Individual candidates can be asked whether they back the goals of OSH and should be able to give an answer that makes sense.  For instance, let’s say you are against the overall idea of getting rid of hunting seasons where firearms are used but do believe that for certain animals/activities, such as bowhunting for deer, a year-round season is acceptable.  So, if someone running for office is asked “Do you renounce OSH?” an answer might look like this:

“If you ask me if I believe in OSH and its goals as a whole the answer is no.  I also do not believe anyone should ignore an existing law just because they don’t like it – there are avenues to pursue those goals which don’t involve breaking the law.  However – I do think there are certain aspects of OSH that deserve a closer look, like bowhunting”.

That’s a decent answer.  A bad answer would be more like this:

“Sure, but the anti-hunters are the one’s causing the trouble.  There are a lot of good OSHers out there and they love the outdoors.  They’re really good people and misunderstood”.

That’s someone trying to have everything their own way – they can point to the one word “Sure” at the beginning of the answer and claim that they have “renounced” OSHism, but then the entire balance of the answer is a full-throated defense of OSH. This is the type of answer that people who hate politicians point to when they explain why. 

In this example “OSH” is the equivalent of “White supremacy” and “Antifa”.  This is because OSH is more in the nature of a movement than a defined group – it represents a set of goals pursued by people who share a philosophy but don’t belong to a defined group or organization.  This is what many people do not understand about “Antifa” in particular – it SOUNDS like it is an actual dues-paying unit, where the name is an anagram and each letter stands for something like “Anarchist Neoteric Terror Instigation Facilitation Association” (yeah, I know, I was winging it).  In truth, it’s not.  “Antifa” stands for “anti-fascist” and, as the FBI has confirmed it isn’t a distinct group but a loose description of groups or individuals that share a rough view of how to combat things they see as representing a fascist point of view.  In truth – I’m anti-fascist (and you probably are as well) since fascism was what was on the other side of World War II.  However, I don’t lump capitalism, corporate entities, police forces and traditional political parties in with the definition of “fascism” – which many of those who identify with the Antifa movement do.  I agree that corporates can easily slip in to fascist territory if they aren’t regulated, watch my wallet very closely when dealing with political parties and want to make sure police forces don’t become the building block of a police state – but that’s in the nature of the guy who thinks bowhunting might be OK year round even if you shouldn’t be allowed to grab your shotgun and go after Bambi whenever the mood strikes.  Still – the larger point is that Antifa is more like a philosophy than an association.

People on the right often don’t like to hear that – but people on the left like to face up to this even less.  You see, the same rules need to apply to “White supremacy”.  To be honest – I can’t think of a single thing about White supremacy that I would point to as being something that I even “roughly” agree with, whereas I can find a good few things about Antifa for which I have at least SOME sympathy. But that doesn’t mean that the nature of the term changes – it is still a philosophy and not a defined group.  That’s why it is not permissible, in a free society, to outlaw it.

It’s also why asking something along the lines of “Do you think Antifa should be declared a terrorist organization?” or “Do you believe members of the White supremacists should be thrown in jail?” are nonsense questions.  There is no “Antifa” organization against which you could make such a declaration and you don’t become a “member” of the White supremacists – those aren’t groups, they are movements.

Let’s carry our example a little further so that this distinction becomes a bit more meaningful.  Let’s say that there is a group of OSHers that decide simply advocating for open season hunting is not enough.  They want to force the issue and create a group subtly called “Killers for Open Season Hunting” or “KOSH”.  This group has regular clandestine meetings which seek to go into the woods and hunt whenever they want – and in order to avoid being stopped they block roads, phone in threats against bridges, set fires in adjoining counties, etc.  Law enforcement groups recognize these guys as a distinct organization and have gathered intelligence to back that conclusion up.  If a politician is asked “Do you support KOSH” the answer should be much more direct – it can be “yes” or “no”, with maybe some qualifications such as “so long as they don’t hurt any humans physically” – but we are no longer talking about an ideology or conceptual movement – now we’re dealing with a tangible group.  On the left, “Antifa” side there are a few of these type groups, such as “By Any Means Necessary” – and there are such groups on the right as well, the most recently discussed such organizations being the “Proud Boys” and “QAnon”.  I have a real problem with a politician of either side supporting avowed lawbreakers but, my view on this is not necessarily the only one.  I suppose it is possible that a candidate could actually be in favor of this sort of activity and, should that be the case, they should truthfully admit that fact.  Thus, even though I might not like it an honest answer to the question of “Do you believe KOSH should be declared a terrorist organization?” might be “No, I do not support that because I don’t feel they seek to terrorize anyone but are simply trying to carve out a way in which they can exercise their rights”.  I wouldn’t agree with such a response, I’d try to present a strong counter-argument - but I’d have a bit of respect for someone who could answer so forthrightly. 

You know what would not be a valid response?  Something like “I don’t know anything about KOSH.  I hear some good things about them, like they love the outdoors, and I love the outdoors, but other than that – couldn’t tell ya”.  That, of course, is approximately what Donald Trump responded when asked about QAnon, a group who he has tacitly endorsed, that had been the subject of many of his re-tweets, that forms a core belief of congressional candidates whom he supports, and that holds him out as a messianic figure sent to save the world from a satanic cult of Democratic pedophiles.  He actually said he “didn’t know much about them, other than they are against pedophiles”. 

Now, myself, if I’m named as the messianic figurehead performing the work of an anonymously led collective of anti-deep state operatives whose beliefs I perpetuate on social media – I’m gonna check that group out.  I know – you might say that’s probably overly cautious given how that sort of shit happens to the average person every day – but, well, that’s just me.  Donald Trump – he just knows that those folks are against pedophilia, a brave stand that he backs one hundred percent.  The satanic cult, deep state, anonymous insider, pizza shop Democratic party front bits – well, why sweat the small stuff?

Yeah, right.

On both the right and the left there is a tendency to believe that all this could be put to bed if we just condemn everything that offends the sensibilities of those who are seeking to combat oppression.  Of course, there isn’t anyone out there who will not tell you that they are seeking to combat oppression, regardless of whether they are on the left or the right.  As a result you get the phenomenon of “cancel culture”, which leads to you being told by various people that you should stop watching John Wayne movies, boycott anything Jane Fonda appears in, not laugh at Bill Burr’s jokes, turn off Rosie O’Donnell or Whoopie Goldberg when they appear on screen, swear off SNL because Alec Baldwin is doing Donald Trump, swear off SNL because Jim Carrey is doing Joe Biden, condemn a given late night talk show host because he talked about his newborn’s medical procedure, swear off a late night talk show host because he asked to touch Donald Trump’s hair, criticize a team because they call themselves “Redskins” (agree), then criticize a team because they call themselves “Indians” (agree, unless they are from India), criticize teams because they call themselves “Braves” (umm – aren’t “braves” good?) criticize teams because they call themselves “Chieftains” (wait, chieftains are Irish), criticize teams because they call themselves “Yankees” (OK – gotta go along with that one since the Yankees suck). 

Speaking about sucking, this type response is a black hole that really has little to do with the core question of whether something has the right to exist or not. I don’t care if you want to advocate to change the Chicago hockey team from “Blackhawks” to “Hawks” – you may have a great argument – please make it.  I DO want to stop anyone who says that a government appointed group will have to pass on the legitimacy of all private naming conventions.  I think opposing a group’s position on something is fundamentally different from deciding on its right to exist.  I also think the timidity of certain politicians when it comes to knowing when to make that call is at the heart of many of our current problems.

Look – movements, groups, associations, ideologies, belief systems, religions, granfalloons – they all have characteristics that we might agree or disagree with.  Sorting through each of those involves different aspects of analysis, some being broadly based and loosely coordinated while others are narrowly defined and highly organized.  Your response to each will be dictated by those characteristics.  If you are a public figure you have to understand that how people view you may be impacted by those associations.  Still, there is a basic equation that should be followed when making those assumptions.  Here’s how it works:

1.        There IS a fundamental difference between supporting a group’s beliefs and supporting its right to exist.  It comes down to this – is the core rational for the group’s existence something that you believe is a question of being correct/incorrect or something that is explicitly and properly disallowed?  Here is how that plays out:

 

A.       If you believe the former (group is correct/incorrect in its position), then there needs to be a split between the answers you give relating to support versus those relating to existence.  So, the question “Do you condemn White supremacy?”  leads to a variety of possible answers.  The one I would give is “Yes I do – it is a vile and improper philosophy that has no place in rational discourse”.  However, if some deluded soul said “No, I sympathize with those holding that belief”, or “No, that is too broad a generalization” – I’d completely disagree with those positions but not the fact that the answer itself has the right to be given.  That is because if I had been asked the question “Should all groups advocating White supremacy be outlawed and made criminal because they espouse a position that should, by its nature, be illegal” – then I would have to answer “No – even though I think that position is wrong I cannot agree that every person who espouses it should be treated as a criminal”.  Philosophy – NO – Existence – YES.

 

B.      If you believe the latter (a given group by its very nature should be disallowed) then the answer must change and you must advocate for the group’s dissolution.  This becomes easier to do once the group becomes smaller and more well defined both by its activities and its beliefs.  “Should the group that planned the kidnap and murder of Michigan Governor Whitmer be declared a terrorist organization?”  “Yes, it should”.  It gets a bit harder as the group’s goals become more diffuse, but it is still essentially a yes/no proposition.  “Should the Proud Boys be deemed a terror organization?” Well, you tell me.  I say yes, because I feel the group only exists to foment revolt via illegal actions. You might say “no” for your own reasons but the proposition is still binary in nature.  The tougher tests come along when you start to try to apply the same test to associated groups.  You think America has a problem?  Go back and see what went on in Ireland at the peak of the Troubles when you had Republicans, Nationalists, Loyalists, Unionists, Sinn Fein, SDLP, DUP, UUP, Provisional IRA, Traditional IRA, Real IRA, Red Hand Militia, Catholics, Protestants, Guinness drinkers, Beamish drinkers and the odd Murphy’s aficionado all trying to share the same island. That leads to some harder analysis – but when you talk about the question of a group’s existence the answer is up or down, not shades of gray.

 

C.       These aren’t easy questions – but if you are seeking to lead you shouldn’t be able to constantly plead ignorance lest you become viewed as ignorant.  This is a fundamental problem I have with Trump – he is continually being touted by his supporters as someone who “says what he thinks” or “isn’t a politician” but who really hardly ever says what he thinks or acts in a way other than that of the crassest politician.  I mean c’mon – “Do you reject QAnon?” “Sorry, I don’t know anything about that” – that’s a dodge, a dog whistle answer that is beneath the dumbest high schooler, let alone the President of the United States. Of course he knows what QAnon is, just as he knew who the Proud Boys were and knew who was behind the protests in Charlottesville.  Playing dumb too often eventually leads to the conclusion that you aren’t playing.

The days are winding down towards the election, and, when you consider the fact that many are already voting, what we are really winding down towards is the blessed hour when the election can finally be declared over.  The harsh truth of all elections will then become most immediately apparent – they don’t settle ANYTHING other than who can try to settle SOMETHING.  The odds of the person elected going on to actually achieve a result is directly reflected in their willingness to express an opinion on a topic, group, philosophy or concept.  As the final debate looms keep an eye out for which candidate professes to “not know”, “have been misquoted”, “not have control over that”, “not be aware” “not remember”, “not be sure”, “not say that, though a lot of people are saying that” and so on. 

Then vote for the other guy.

LIES, DAMN LIES AND MEMES

 

Any of you who read any of the things I post will, first of all, have my complete sympathy. Secondly – they will know that I hate memes with the fiery passion of a thousand suns. I consider them the height of intellectual laziness – and I also think they represent the evolution of one of social media’s more dangerous manifestations. They not only allow people to pretend they have considered something deeply when they haven’t considered the matter at all – they allow the perpetuation of untruths in a way that spreads the lie like – dare I say it – an insidious virus.

Sometimes the shallowness of the post is easy to pick up. Just today I saw someone re-post a meme that stated the Lincoln Project is made up of ex-Republicans who are all (and I quote exactly) “Traders and Hypocrites”. I immediately recalled an old Star Trek episode where that scandalous old trader Cyrano Jones got the crew in trouble with a batch of tribbles. Is this the kind of trader that launched the Lincoln Project? Perhaps it was more in the line of an old fur trapper from the Wild West? Maybe a bunch of day traders attempting to short the market? 

What’s that you say? Oh “Traitor”...now I get it – an autocorrect problem, no doubt. Yeah – that one was pretty easy to pick out as not having originated from the brightest lighthouse on the rocky shore. But there are others that are not always quite so easy to spot – that hide their falsehoods under a veneer of authenticity – but which are, in fact, designed to wreak a little bit of havoc as well as lay the groundwork for even more. To, in essence, groom the populace for something truly evil.

I ran in to just such an example earlier today while going through Facebook. I’ve seen these sort of things before and I won’t have to spend a great deal of time to show you how it is wrong and misleading, but I do want you to spend some time understanding WHY you are seeing so many of these sorts of things now and why they are a harbinger of danger. This picture of a kid being bullied will show what I’m talking about:

Now, at first glance, the words in that picture sound almost smart.

Almost.

It’s actually drivel. There is nothing that is mutually exclusive or incompatible between democracy and a republican government. “Republics” were not established to protect the minority from the tyranny of democratic rule or the express will of the majority. While constitutions have that as ONE of their goals (at least the good ones) – they also have as a primary goal the preservation of the rights of an articulated and legal majority. That’s why the concept of elections (a key component of democracies) are also an integral part of most, if not all, republics. Indeed – if a republic is anything at its most basic level it is the ascendancy of public rights (hence the term rePUBLIC) over the private claims of a monarch, an oligarchy or an autocracy.

I was born, raised and am a citizen of one proud republic, the United States of America. I reside, raise my children and vote in another – The Irish Republic. Both of them are also democracies and neither has ever attempted to take my bicycle away. You don’t have to be a republic to be a democracy – although in the instance of both my homes they thought it best to take that route. That’s because neither wanted to have to live with the fact that in a monarchy – well, technically EVERYTHING belongs to the monarch. You know that stamp you put on a letter earlier. Well, that’s the Queen’s once it enters the Royal Mail. Oh, she’s agreed not to interfere – but she could if she really wanted to. The money has her picture on it – and that stamp does too. Just look at the attached example:

That is the Queen of Hearts – but that person up in the corner – that ain’t Alice. The lands of Britain are hers, the waters, the fish and the wildlife. There is a network of laws in a constitutional monarchy to paper that fact over – but they weren’t always there. Republics arose to address the all-pervasive powers of that sort of minority – not to guard against the “tyranny” of democratic voters. In fact, democracy was brought in as a tool to help address that concern.

Democracies can be “direct” (as in the town meetings that exist in many of the New England villages where I grew up) or “representative” such as is evidenced in bodies ranging from school committees to the United States House of Representatives. In neither case are those bodies established to blunt the force of democracy, but to express it. 

Yes, constitutions and other limiting legislation includes minority protections – but those too are not put in place to thwart democracy but to establish boundaries for its operation. So, bottom line, the United States is BOTH a democracy and a republic – and that’s not contradictory. Theoretically – I suppose a determined majority could still take your bike – but they’d have to amend the constitution to do it (or have the legislature declare your bike forfeited in a manner that stands up to constitutional scrutiny). But either way it’s not democracy that would be the culprit.

So, there you go with the “why this meme is misleading” analysis. But – what about the IMPORTANT part – the part that addresses WHY we’re seeing this sort of drivel now, in such increased numbers?

The answer is what should really scare you. These memes are designed to set the stage for disputing the upcoming election and using an illegal tool to overturn a legitimate result. THESE POSTS ARE THE VANGUARD OF A MOVEMENT TO MAKE THE UNTHINKABLE SEEM REASONABLE.

Here’s what the real motivation is. The U.S. Constitution, in Article 2, gives State legislatures the power to “appoint” in “such manner as they shall direct” the electors who will cast the votes for the offices of President and Vice President. Theoretically the State legislatures could, PRIOR TO ANY ELECTION, declare that the means of selecting electors for their State will be conducted solely by a vote of the legislature. They could, effectively, take the vote away from the citizens of their States.

This would, of course, lead to the burning to the ground of any legislature that attempted to do it. Can you imagine New Hampshire’s representatives saying, back in July – “Hey, voters, don’t worry about turning out on the 3rd of November – we got this”. Still, there is an argument that says this could happen. I think there is a better argument to say that it cannot, and an essentially irrefutable argument that says that any legislature which attempts to do so should have to stand for election themselves BEFORE any such decision would become effective.

But let’s say that the State had already gone through the exercise of holding an election and voting for a slate of electors the way that has been done for 200 years. Surely no one would claim that a State legislature could step in AFTER THE FACT and negate an election that had already been “directed” as the means by which electors would be appointed?

Would they?

Oh yeah – somebody would – and that is why you are seeing those memes all over the place.

The proliferation of “the purpose of a republic is to protect the minority” posts stems from a projected scenario where Republican controlled State legislatures effectively negate the results of State elections and appoint their own slate of electors (which would obviously vote Republican). So, under this scenario, if Texas were to spring a surprise and go for Biden the Republican majority legislature would simply find some way to dispute that result and appoint Republican electors. This could be based on a number of factors, such as “there was voter fraud”, “there are questions about whether the mail-in ballots received were valid” or “we simply don’t have time to count ALL the ballots so therefore we have to make a call at the legislative level”. There are multiple ways in which someone could seek to justify the act – but the bottom line is that they are all just excuses for overriding the will of the people as expressed through the democratic process. That would ordinarily be seen as a damning accusation – so these memes seek to lay the groundwork for countering that argument by damning that same process in advance.

All of the excuses listed above are outrageous and go against accepted norms – so that is why these memes seek to alter the norms. Anticipating that the acts of State legislatures attempting to do something like this will be deemed “undemocratic” these posts seek to undermine the concept of “democracy” itself. Suddenly, magically, the United States isn’t a “democracy” at all – it’s a “constitutional republic” (even though there is no real difference). Suddenly, “democracy” is not the bedrock of our government but is some sort of foreign construct that is designed to justify taking your property – so hold on to your bicycles against that threat of democracy folks. Those folks who won the vote aren’t just out to elect the candidate of their choice, they’re out to take your stuff. Those people who want to deny the results of the election? Well, they’re just trying to help you keep what’s yours. So, calm down and let your “Republican” (this time with a capital “R”) friends protect your interests by subverting the will of that oppressive majority.

The thing that disturbs me the most is that I do not believe that most of the people posting these memes currently support anti-democratic positions, I do not believe that these people wish to undo the time honored role of elections in our republican form of government, I do not believe they want to grant a small group of legislators the power to override the results of an election. I think they probably feel that this is just a way of expressing a legitimate position, which is that the constitution should seek to protect the rights of minorities against the oppression of majorities. That, in and of itself, is a correct and proper stance to take.

The problem is that the meme isn’t really expressing that view – it is getting at something much more radical and wrong-headed – that democracy and republics are incompatible and that it is therefore OK to seek to ignore the results of popular elections. That has nothing to do with the persecution of minorities. Elections aren’t oppressive, republics aren’t designed to override the majority and constitutions differentiate between protecting the rights of minorities and allowing the will of the people to express itself.

However, having once posted the meme my experience is that people then tend to feel that any backtracking from what it says is not a clarification but a surrender – and people hate to surrender. The meme, almost involuntarily, becomes the default position – even though, as I’ve stated thousands of times – memes are the most mindless, unthinking, lazy, stupid and unproductive means of expression there is. Yet they have become the primary means of conveying political thought – which is sort of like defending a Hallmark card as being better literature than a Shakespearean sonnet. 

The bottom line is this – do not fall for this nonsense. By believing it you are being groomed in the same fashion that a pedophile goes after kids. Those things that you were raised to believe in – the value of democracy, the sanctity of elections, the idea that the form of government we have supports those propositions – those were and are correct. Don’t get fooled, don’t get played and don’t get set up.

Don’t take your political philosophy from a greeting card.