Nate Cohn

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

I think this is basically common sense, fwiw, given the origin, purpose, and scope of the bill. But you can glean it out of the reporting, too. The bill is plainly regarded as an unserious messaging bill; Manchin's instinct is to demand a suggest a totally different direction — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Now that's not to say that either HR1 or the GND are bad. It's just to say that neither can even be the starting point of a negotiation that has even the slightest chance of becoming an actual law, at least not in this Congress. The other side just walks out. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

But if you read the articles about HR1 in Congress, it's fairly clear that it's not on track to even serve this limited purpose. It's basically DOA, and it is not poised to serve as the basis for serious negotiations. It's more like the Green New Deal than a $2 tn infra. offer — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

At first, it's easy to see why you could think of HR1 as a broad bill that's the basis for a negotiation that eventually gets to something viable--like Biden starting off at $2 trillion on something in hopes of $1 trillion. In this view, narrowing is a premature concession. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

This is one of the clearest summaries of one of the more interesting critiques of the NYT call for a narrower, targeted and viable HR1. But to me, it's very hard to read the reporting on HR1 and think it's the right interpretation of the politics here https://t.co/lKOIsCvVdk — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

AFAIK, this is the first example of a group pivoting away from HR1 after endorsing it. I doubt the activists groups pushing HR1 will pivot quickly, but lawmakers will force them down that road eventually and it's been to their detriment that they're behind the curve — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

NYT editorial board reaching the more or less inescapable conclusion about HR1: "poorly matched to the moment," as it at once fails to address the clearest threats to democracy and attempts to do far more than what's feasible and necessary https://t.co/A0hnT3CC2E — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @rickhasen: #ELB: In Calling for Immediate Congressional Action to Stem Risk of Election Subversion, NY Times Editorial Board Calls for… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @emmabgo: Last spring, when Covid was surging in New York, a group of medical students graduated early to help the hospitals under siege… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @DLeonhardt: College baseball and softball offer a telling look at gender equity in sports because they attract audiences of similar siz… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Anyway, I'm not a lawyer. There are undoubtedly more potential risks and more potential remedies--it was even suggested on here by @ProfNickStephan that you could just have a total takeover of federal elections, though obviously that's not passing. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

--Safeguard against subversive acts, once attempted. Say, DOJ preclearance of noncertification of a federal election, just as a conceptual example. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

In all three categories, I think you can imagine three ways to respond: --Change who is in power. Can you mandate nonpartisan/bipartisan election admin, for ex.? --Change what they can do. Can you bar subversion with standards for certification, disqualification, etc? — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Third is election administration, in general. Whatever people fear the GA board of elections might do to Fulton County elections would fall into this category. Eligibility challenges, purges, precinct closures are obvious ex. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

I'd note, for what it's worth, that reformists have made this task a lot harder for themselves by creating so many classes of ballots (provisionals, vote by mail, in-person) which are subject to different kinds of legal challenges that partisans and campaigns can target — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Second is tabulation: could partisan officials disqualify ballots on a pretextual basis, like matched lists or allegations about Fulton County? (This is sort of like decertification, but here subversion effects the tabulated count) — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

One is certification: could partisan officials find a pretextual basis to ignore election results, like un- or poorly- evidenced fraud or theft allegations, whether it's about Diabold in Ohio '04 or Trump's claims in '20? — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

A successful act of election subversion would be legal by definition--while an illegal act of subversion would basically be a coup--so you can't prohibit it as such. But it seems to me that there are several categories of subversion and possible remedies https://t.co/Q1gw0MAA4n — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @billscher: @Nate_Cohn FYI Stacey Abrams expects anti-subversion amendments to HR1 but didn’t make any proposals as to what they should… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @maggieNYT: Oh https://t.co/SZcbqDQsOx — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @JStein_WaPo: Huge news on Biden infrastructure negotiations from @seungminkim @TonyRomm https://t.co/SchNf2aDm1 https://t.co/q2hoqQM37G — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

CA/AZ/NM/TX is a bold one, though there's something about including both CA and TX on opposite ends of a nation that feels like a mistake https://t.co/DGiiRxByP2 — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

To my mind, there are four strong combinations: WA/CA/OR + either HI/AK if contiguous for this purpose, or NV AZ/UT/CO/NM ME/VT/NH/MA VA/NC/MD/DC (SC too if DC doesn't count) https://t.co/yiFIL1b0QC — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

My replies are full of professors who alternately assert 'subversion is easy to fix!' and 'subversion can't be fixed' Through I have a lot of respect for both groups, I am sad to report that their 240 character assertions don't suffice and they should actually write about it — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @BCAppelbaum: The question this raises for me (and I would love any links to writing on this): What does federal protection against subv… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

i've always assumed the anti-wokeness agenda would be to go after the model of four-year universities with boarding, and i'm surprised no one's gone there yet https://t.co/syaW6G23YU — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@billscher i don't think it's close to sufficient (and i don't think fradulent tabulation is the issue). some ex. here https://t.co/ibJ0BovSrN — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@jholbo1 is there a dataset of sundown law jurisdictions? — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @NateSilver538: There's little chance you'd end up with this bill if you'd started drafting something freshly in Jan. 2021, accounting f… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Subversion is more threatening than suppression. Whether it's more threatening than various electoral biases is another interesting question, but it's not a terribly important if they're not in competition to be addressed in new election legislation https://t.co/H3hO1Vaq7d — PolitiTweet.org