The Threat

In a way, it appears that the new, leftist Democratic party is like a person who is drowning. They will grasp at any straw to explain away the simple fact that their ideas do not resonate with the "Normals" who occupy those states that are not blue. The United States constitution requires that every state has a say in our national governance. The genius of this approach is to eliminate the tyranny of the majority where a few populous blue states can dictate national policy to the rest of us. Hence the need, albeit often frustrating, for the filibuster rule in the Senate (a rule, BTW, that is used often by the current Dem minority) or the electoral college which gives every state an equal say in the election. Because the Dems prefer power over our constitution, they are currently advocating the abolishment of both the filibuster (but only if they take the Senate) and the electoral college.

In a number of recent articles in left-leaning media, there is an implied threat associated with this November's election. Here's an example from the left-leaning The Atlantic:

This is the era of expecting the worst while hoping for the merely tolerable. Some might say that the worst is already happening—economic disaster and 190,000 dead from a pandemic—while the president and his surrogates insist, in a feat of self-delusion, that the “best is yet to come.” As someone who has argued against catastrophism—I don’t believe Donald Trump is a fascist or a dictator in the making, and I don’t believe America is a failed state—I find myself truly worried about only one scenario: that Trump will win reelection and Democrats and others on the left will be unwilling, even unable, to accept the result.

A loss by Joe Biden under these circumstances is the worst case not because Trump will destroy America (he can’t), but because it is the outcome most likely to undermine faith in democracy, resulting in more of the social unrest and street battles that cities including Portland, Oregon, and Seattle have seen in recent months. For this reason, strictly law-and-order Republicans who have responded in dismay to scenes of rioting and looting have an interest in Biden winning—even if they could never bring themselves to vote for him.

So ... a win by Donald Trump will "undermine faith in democracy." And as a consequence leftist violence will escalate, and therefore, you better hope Biden wins. Talk about extortion ... vote Dem, or antifa and BLM (quietly cheered on by the Dem elites) will burn your cities and suburbs, threaten your lives, and continue with their "no justice, no peace" leftist 'revolution.'

Imagine for just a moment if a respected conservative media outlet, say The Federalist, published an article that implicitly threatened that the KKK would burn down blue enclaves, say San Francisco, CA or Newton, MA, if Trump loses. The mainstream media would become hysterical and demand that every GOP politician disavow that threat and condemn the KKK outright. Why isn't the media doing the same for the dozens of articles that are similar in substance and tone to The Atlantic's piece quoted here? Why aren't they demanding that Dem politicians condemn antifa and BLM by name? You know the reason ... and so do I.

UPDATE - 1:

Because of the huge population of two blue states—NY and CA—the Dems mantra is that only the popular vote matters. Forget the constitution. Anything that advantages the Dems is good, and our existing constitutional approach is bad.

I think it's worth mentioning that the difference between the overall popular vote for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016 (as if it matters ... It. Does. Not.) was about 2 percent. It's not as if an overwhelming majority of the American people preferred HRC ... They. Did. Not. But according to the Dems, our current constitution is now invalidated and the electoral college should be abolished. The vote of 30 states (a clear majority of 60% - 40%) who preferred Trump should be invalidated and replaced by a slim majority of people (51% - 49%) that preferred Clinton. 

Nathaniel Blake gets it exactly right when he writes:

The framers of our Constitution rightly feared mob rule, and the Electoral College was designed to preclude it in the selection of our presidents. That Democrats are threatening mob violence over the Electoral College shows that it is working as intended by that keeping power away from the mob and forcing candidates to appeal to voters of various regions and factions.

In truth, Democrats’ complaints are less about principled constitutional theory and more about political opportunism. They were quite pleased with the Electoral College back when they thought they had a “blue wall” that would favor them forever in states like Pennsylvania.

The following visual reminder gives you a feel for what happened:

And yet, the Dems disregard the rules and the law, and to this day, refuse to accept the result, threatening to do it all over again in 2020.

I honestly believe that at some level the new Democrats think they can frighten people into voting for a cognitively challenged candidate backed by a party that for four years has refused to accept the results of the last election. 

That isn't going to work. The American people will decide "that keeping power away from the mob" is a very good idea. Pushback is coming.

UPDATE - 2:

I've always believed that the majority of Democrats, even today, are intelligent, well-meaning people who want what is best for the country. The problem is that their "old" Democratic party has been transformed into the "new" Democratic party. A loud leftist minority runs the new Dem party. They are far more interested in power and "transformation" than they are in doing what is best for the United States.

Among the many political commentators who are shills for the new Democratic party is NYT columnist, Michelle Goldberg. Like many out-of-touch leftists, Goldberg seems unaware that defending anarchist and/or Marxist groups like antifa and BLM does NOT help Biden or the Dems win elections.

After ranting about the police killing of a violent antifa member who had previously killed a Trump supporter (in cold blood) during a riot, she writes:

Inasmuch as antifa is conflated with street-fighting, vandalizing anarchists, it does not garner much mainstream sympathy. This popular understanding of antifa isn’t quite correct; some people associated with the movement mainly focus on researching and exposing members of the far right. (I once met a middle-aged woman, the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors, who described herself as “antifa C.I.A.” for the volunteer work she did tracking right-wing extremists for an antifa-aligned organization called the One People’s Project.) Still, there’s obviously overlap between antifa and violent and destructive elements on the far left.

You can't make this stuff up. Goldberg tries to somehow justify or soften antifa by telling us that "the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors" is an active member.

Gosh ... as the son of a holocaust survivor I can only say ... WTF??? 

Is Goldberg too stupid not see the parallels between the tactics employed by antifa fanatics and the actions of brown shirts during Kristallnacht? Is she too ideological to understand that when antifa and BLM members terrorize innocent citizens, they are using the early tactics of the people who perpetrated the Holocaust? Is she too dense to recognize that someone who helps a violent group attain its goals (think: "antifa CIA") is culpable when those goals are achieved?

Nah ... people like Michelle Goldberg aren't good at recognizing irony. She'll keep up her idiocy, but you know what, her unhinged rants will do more to elect Donald Trump than any 10 of his campaign workers. Nice work, Michelle.