[EL] [Lawcourt-l] My attempt at political fiction/a real short story/ An American Coup

Mon Jul 4 13:53:50 PDT 2016

Oh, agreed! I'm assuming that there are notes in the Secret Secessionists Playbook for how to deal with the next potential liberal from Illinois in the White House....

Ronald Keith Gaddie, Ph.D.
President's Associates Presidential Professor
Chair, Department of Political Science
Senior Fellow, Headington College
Associate Director, Center for Intelligence & National Security
General Editor, Social Science Quarterly
The University of Oklahoma

p: 405.325.2061  | e: rkgaddie at ou.edu<mailto:rkgaddie at ou.edu>  | t: @GaddieWindage<https://twitter.com/gaddiewindage>

________________________________
From: Levinson, Sanford V <SLevinson at law.utexas.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2016 3:52 PM
To: Finkelman, Paul
Cc: Gaddie, Ronald K.; lawcourt-l at legal.umass.edu; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [Lawcourt-l] My attempt at political fiction/a real short story/ An American Coup

The popular vote "does not matter" re determining who becomes president. But let me suggest that it may be relevant to determining the popular legitimacy of the winner, including any prospects for success. As Buchanan suggested, the southern states were simply stupid in seceding, as they could likely have torpedoed the Lincoln presidency and returned to power in 1865. It always helps when your political enemies decide to leave the building!

Sandy

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:20 PM, Finkelman, Paul <Paul.Finkelman at albanylaw.edu<mailto:Paul.Finkelman at albanylaw.edu>> wrote:

I assume Sandy was too, since he won a huge electoral victory.  But, as I noted, the popular vote does not matter.

Paul Finkelman
Ariel F. Sallows Visiting Professor of Human Rights Law
University of Saskatchewan College of Law
518-605-0296 (c) (US number)
paul.finkelman at yahoo.com<mailto:paul.finkelman at yahoo.com>
paul.finkelman at albanylaw.edu<mailto:paul.finkelman at albanylaw.edu>

From: lawcourt-l-bounces at legal.umass.edu<mailto:lawcourt-l-bounces at legal.umass.edu> [mailto:lawcourt-l-bounces at legal.umass.edu] On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 4:20 PM
To: Gaddie, Ronald K.
Cc: Finkelman, Paul; lawcourt-l at legal.umass.edu<mailto:lawcourt-l at legal.umass.edu>; law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [Lawcourt-l] My attempt at political fiction/a real short story/ An American Coup

Thanks. I was thinking of the overall popular vote.

Sandy

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:13 PM, Gaddie, Ronald K. <rkgaddie at ou.edu<mailto:rkgaddie at ou.edu>> wrote:

There is every evidence that Lincon would win in Condorcet pairings, given the electoral college. 169 of his EVs came from states where he won with an outright majority -- more than enough surpass the threshold in a 303 EV election.

Ronald Keith Gaddie, Ph.D.
President's Associates Presidential Professor
Chair, Department of Political Science
Senior Fellow, Headington College
Associate Director, Center for Intelligence & National Security
General Editor, Social Science Quarterly
The University of Oklahoma

p: 405.325.2061  | e: rkgaddie at ou.edu<mailto:rkgaddie at ou.edu>  | t: @GaddieWindage<https://twitter.com/gaddiewindage>

________________________________
From: lawcourt-l-bounces at legal.umass.edu<mailto:lawcourt-l-bounces at legal.umass.edu> <lawcourt-l-bounces at legal.umass.edu<mailto:lawcourt-l-bounces at legal.umass.edu>> on behalf of Levinson, Sanford V <SLevinson at law.utexas.edu<mailto:SLevinson at law.utexas.edu>>
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2016 2:51 PM
To: Finkelman, Paul
Cc: lawcourt-l at legal.umass.edu<mailto:lawcourt-l at legal.umass.edu>; law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [Lawcourt-l] My attempt at political fiction/a real short story/ An American Coup

I regard Paul's reference to 1860 as a friendly amendment. Among other things, of course, there's no particular reason to think Lincoln would have been the winner in a set of Condorcet pairings. He received, after all, less than 40% of the popular vote.

Sandy

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 4, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Finkelman, Paul <Paul.Finkelman at albanylaw.edu<mailto:Paul.Finkelman at albanylaw.edu>> wrote:
1860 was pretty vicious and the losers did not accept the outcome.  It was finally decided by the case of Grant v. Lee (Appomattox Court House, 1865).

Paul Finkelman
Ariel F. Sallows Visiting Professor of Human Rights Law
University of Saskatchewan College of Law
518-605-0296 (c) (US number)
paul.finkelman at yahoo.com<mailto:paul.finkelman at yahoo.com>
paul.finkelman at albanylaw.edu<mailto:paul.finkelman at albanylaw.edu>

From: Levinson, Sanford V [mailto:SLevinson at law.utexas.edu]
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 2:00 PM
To: Finkelman, Paul
Cc: Schultz, David A.; lawcourt-l at legal.umass.edu<mailto:lawcourt-l at legal.umass.edu>; law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [Lawcourt-l] My attempt at political fiction/a real short story/ An American Coup

Paul makes many astute observations, and we'll never know if an untarnished Petraeus might have attracted Mike Bloomberg's support for an independent "above politics" candidacy. But the problem may be applying "normal" political science to what may be a near-singularity. This will undoubtedly be the most vicious presidential campaign in our history, including the "hermaphrodite" campaign of 1800. As I've argued T length on Balkinization, I think there is real reason to believe that the losers won't accept the legitimacy of the winner, on both substantive and procedural grounds. Imagine, for example, that the completely unqualified and frightening Donald is elected by an electoral vote majority that is based on Republican-initiated voter suppression in North Carolina, Ohio, or Texas (and a 4-4 Supreme Court declines to intervene re the voting procedures).

Sandy

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 4, 2016, at 12:36 PM, Finkelman, Paul <Paul.Finkelman at albanylaw.edu<mailto:Paul.Finkelman at albanylaw.edu>> wrote:
I cannot imagine Petraeus or any recent general running successfully.  Admiral McCain, medal of honor winner, failed and he had a long political career before his utter failure to get the nomination and then when he got it, to win.  McCain was no Ike.   No leader in the war.  According to his own autobiography he was a hot shot fly boy who was shot down in part because he deviated from this flight pattern.  Not following orders cost him dearly.  This is not the record of Ike, or Grant, or for that matter, even Zach Taylor or Andy Jackson.

We have had very few  military leaders become president.   Only three men have gone from the military to the presidency without any other political experience:  Eisenhower, Grant, and Taylor.  I would argue that the recent adventures in the Middle East are hardly WW II or the Civil War (or for that matter, even the Mexican War). For one thing, Ike, Grant and Taylor were successful generals.  They won their wars.  Not so with Petraeus.  We are still at war and not doing all that well.

All of the other general-presidents (Washington, Jackson, WH Harrison, Pierce, Hayes, Garfield, Benj. Harrison) had pretty extensive political careers before becoming president (with the possible exception of Jackson who was only in the Senate a short time).  Washington, was chair of the Constitutional Convention and had served in the VA legislature before the War.

Other “military” presidents – Maj. McKinley, Col. Roosevelt, Capt. Truman, Lt. Kennedy – simply used their service as a campaign tool.

Ike had been commander of some 7,000,000 men and women.  He had a huge reserved of support.  He was very famous throughout the war.  After I send this message I will to try to send to the list a war bond poster from 1944 with Ike on it . This was pretty good national publicity for a 4 star general.  By 1944 (as well as in 1952) most Americans knew what Ike looked like and who he was.  He even had  clothing named for him, the famous “Eisenhower Jacket” he wore in Europe.  Can anyone on this list pick out Petraeus  from a line-up?  I doubt it.

.

Paul Finkelman
Ariel F. Sallows Visiting Professor of Human Rights Law
University of Saskatchewan College of Law
518-605-0296 (c) (US number)
paul.finkelman at yahoo.com<mailto:paul.finkelman at yahoo.com>
paul.finkelman at albanylaw.edu<mailto:paul.finkelman at albanylaw.edu>

From: lawcourt-l-bounces at legal.umass.edu<mailto:lawcourt-l-bounces at legal.umass.edu> [mailto:lawcourt-l-bounces at legal.umass.edu] On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 11:52 AM
To: Schultz, David A.
Cc: lawcourt-l at legal.umass.edu<mailto:lawcourt-l at legal.umass.edu>; law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [Lawcourt-l] My attempt at political fiction/a real short story/ An American Coup

I note for the record Charles Dunlap's 1992 (I think) essay on "the military coup on 2012."  It's a fascinating thought experiment.

Does anyone doubt that David Petraeus might well be waltzing to the presidency right now if he had not been so incredibly stupid?

Sandy

Sent from my iPhone

_______________________________________________
Lawcourt-l mailing list
Lawcourt-l at legal.umass.edu<mailto:Lawcourt-l at legal.umass.edu>
https://list.umass.edu/mailman/listinfo/lawcourt-l
_______________________________________________
Lawcourt-l mailing list
Lawcourt-l at legal.umass.edu<mailto:Lawcourt-l at legal.umass.edu>
https://list.umass.edu/mailman/listinfo/lawcourt-l
_______________________________________________
Lawcourt-l mailing list
Lawcourt-l at legal.umass.edu<mailto:Lawcourt-l at legal.umass.edu>
https://list.umass.edu/mailman/listinfo/lawcourt-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160704/cb41adc4/attachment.html>