So here's the problem. Most (but admittedly not all) of the R reps & sens are signing up for this charade *because they know it will fail*. Their calculus is this gives them a media / primary advantage for doing it, but can safely discount the logical conclusion of their argument

That works for them because there's basically no personal cost to doing it. And in the US system as it is, not at all clear to me that externally-imposed consequences would ever be remotely on the table. Not criminal; no personal consequences; no political costs. So an easy win.
The problem is that this strategy is now the new normal. Next time the political cost of engaging in this strategy will be *far* lower.
That's fine (but obnoxious) so long as it stays in the realm of symbolic political bullshittery.

But one day it won't be. Maybe that'll be in 2025, maybe 2029, maybe later. But eventually this strategy will coincide with majorities in Congress where the strategy isn't doomed
And on that day, America will break in a way that won't resolve without extreme violence. America *will not survive* the direct blow of a democratic election for the highest office being explicitly overruled by the other party.
What Hawley et al are doing right now is not a constitutional crisis because it is doomed and everyone knows it. But thanks to their actions, America is now a dice-roll from a real constitutional crisis every 4 years.
Realistically, the only way to avoid this now is to burn that strategy out of existence with an amendment taking Congress' ceremonial role in presidential elections away from them. They can't be trusted with it anymore, because they turned that ceremony into a constitutional bomb
And for those saying "but amendments are hard", sure, it's true. But the alternative is we'll eventually sleep walk into a fundamental power legitimacy dispute, and when that resolves the constitution will just be whatever the person standing on top of the rubble tells you it is.
"But how do you get red states to vote on this amendment?". Come on folks, that's not even a hard question.

More from For later read

Wow, Morgan McSweeney again, Rachel Riley, SFFN, Center for Countering Digital Hate, Imran Ahmed, JLM, BoD, Angela Eagle, Tracy-Ann Oberman, Lisa Nandy, Steve Reed, Jon Cruddas, Trevor Chinn, Martin Taylor, Lord Ian Austin and Mark Lewis. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut 24 tweet🧵

Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, launched the organisation that now runs SFFN.
The CEO Imran Ahmed worked closely with a number of Labour figures involved in the campaign to remove Jeremy as leader.

Rachel Riley is listed as patron.
https://t.co/nGY5QrwBD0


SFFN claims that it has been “a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate” since 4 May 2020. The relationship between the two organisations, however, appears to date back far longer. And crucially, CCDH is linked to a number of figures on the Labour right. #LabourLeaks

Center for Countering Digital Hate registered at Companies House on 19 Oct 2018, the organisation’s only director was Morgan McSweeney – Labour leader Keir Starmer’s chief of staff. McSweeney was also the campaign manager for Liz Kendall’s leadership bid. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut

Sir Keir - along with his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney - held his first meeting with the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). Deliberately used the “anti-Semitism” crisis as a pretext to vilify and then expel a leading pro-Corbyn activist in Brighton and Hove

You May Also Like