And more, if you sign up for Ask Questions Later
The 2024 U.S. presidential election stands out as a critical moment in American and even world history. With both candidates commanding extraordinary levels of disdain, and in Donald Trump’s case even hatred, this election has polarized sentiment to levels rarely seen. We cannot rule out a messy and contested outcome.
The moment needs clarity of thought. It calls for cooler heads. It requires responsible journalism. And at Ask Questions Later, we have strived to provide fair and balanced — but not dishonestly neutral — analysis of the race, and we shall do so in the coming days. To maximize exposure to our work as well as to the past year’s articles (which are behind an archive paywall), we’re offering a special rate for paid subscriptions. It’s good for the next week in the runup to Nov. 5, the Super Bowl of politics.
Yes! Please sign me up! Click here.
Consider what’s at stake.
The absurdity of a potential Trump re-presidency is undeniable. Here is a former president, twice impeached, a convicted felon with accusations of sexual assault and a record of public falsehoods that defies comparison in modern politics. Trump’s unsettling admiration for dictators — his former chief of staff calls him a fascist — reveals a mindset at odds with democratic ideals (to say the least). His xenophobic exaggerations — like alleging that immigrants eat people’s pets — stoke division and fear, and his return as a serious candidate reflects a deep-seated political dysfunction, raising questions about the very standards of leadership America is willing to accept.
On the Democratic side, the scenario troubling too. After Joe Biden won the primary, he was compelled to step aside because of concerns about senility. The party elevated VP Kamala Harris, a candidate who, despite being in the national spotlight, has never won a primary election for president — the first such scenario in over a half century. This ascent, not through direct mandate but as the result of internal party dynamics, left the Democrats with a nominee whose legitimacy is fragile and who walked into trouble with unpolished appearances. That this is the best the Dems can do to prevent the danger of Trump is odd.
The unprecedented polarization raises serious concerns about whether either party will accept the results. Many fear that heightened mistrust, intensified by allegations of fraud, voter intimidation, and foreign interference, could result in a crisis of legitimacy that leaves Americans in a political stalemate. That Trump would not accept a loss is a given: He would spew conspiracy narratives incessantly; he’s a bad sport and it’s just what he does.
But one can imagine the Democrats contesting the results as well this time as well (as opposed to 2000, when Al Gore gracefully accepted what was the Supreme Court-sanctioned theft of decisive Florida). If this happens, it would be in the genuine belief that Republican operatives implanted in state electoral bureaucracies simply disqualified the real vote through transparent ruses, criminal disqualifications and fabricated nonsense.
Here’s how it might look: As reports surface of widespread voter intimidation tactics in key Democratic-leaning urban areas, credible intelligence emerges indicating foreign actors, including Russia and possibly Iran, are actively meddling through social media disinformation campaigns and even cyberattacks targeting voter registration systems. On Election Day, technical issues in Democratic strongholds delay voting or even result in certain polling stations closing early, and when the results come in, they show a narrow win for the Republican candidate, but exit polls and preliminary data suggest significant irregularities. The Democratic Party argues that this is not just an unfair loss, but an attack on American democracy. Grassroots Democratic organizations, certain elected officials, and even state governors claim the election’s results are illegitimate. Amid certification crises, two competing claims to the presidency emerge. The standoff could spiral, with blue states openly challenging the federal government, creating a dangerous constitutional crisis.
It could be a modern version of the story of the two popes, also known as the Great Western Schism, which unfolded in the late 14th century and led to two competing lines of papal authority, with Urban VI in Rome and Clement VII in Avignon, each claiming to be the rightful leader of the Catholic Church. For nearly 40 years, Europe was divided. In America, the next election would only be four years away.
It actually could happen. And in a coming article this week, we will examine the very real flaws in America’s unique (and uniquely twisted) Electoral College system that have laid the foundation for the anger and mistrust.
YES! SIGN ME UP.
Here is a quick survey (and, for longtime readers, reminder) of some of our coverage to date.
- We examined the case for both Harris and Trump — and for anyone who thinks the issues don’t matter we outlined how the Democrats would rule if they controlled 60 Senate seats.
- On Biden, we were way ahead of most media in identifying the problematic aspect of his candidacy and laid it out on Feb. 29, and may have been the first to predict he will step down in the wake of his disastrous debate performance (doing so on July 3 when the official narrative was still deep denial).
- On Harris, Ask Questions Later asked tough questions about the viability of a candidacy that is in fact a coronation, and predicted correctly that she would have trouble connecting with enough voters to put the race away because of personality and presentation issues (examining the value of oratory in politics). On the other hand, we also tipped the hat to the gratifying prospect of the first woman US president. Foreseeing the problems with Tim Walz, we advised her to run with a team of the talented Democratic bench — advice that was ignored to disastrous effect.
- We offered an analyses by Col. (ret.) Robert Hamilton of the Foreign Policy Research Institute on the post-election scenarios for the world order — and on the idea that the Democrats need a more muscular approach abroad. In recent days we analyzed how the election is affected the simmering war between Israel and Iran — and what the US could actually do in the region once freed of electoral constraints.
- We offered a discussion with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, who tried to shake up the presidential race and ended up supporting trump — and a discussion with Daniel Pipes, who is the model for a NeverTrumper who has somehow been tempted to abandon the first part of that label.
- We examined how progressive concerns are handing Trump a win on immigration, and how the UK’s Labour Party won after course-correcting a lurch to the far left, and what the Democrats might learn.