Hey! Happy “Certificate of Ascertainment of Appointment of Electors” Day! I know, it seems like it comes earlier and earlier every election year doesn’t it? We take the festive opportunity on today’s BradCast to discuss a few related points, including a bunch of new state criminal filed charges in the GOP’s 2020 fake Electors plot and whether the convicted felon who is now our incoming President actually won a governing “mandate” (or not) in 2024. [Audio link to full show follows this link.]
FIRST UP… The wildfire we discussed briefly yesterday out here in Malibu, California, amid exceptionally dry and windy conditions, expanded by nearly 40% overnight and was reportedly just 7% contained as of airtime. At least 7,500 structures are threatened and more than 12,000 people are under evacuation orders, including wealthy homeowners and celebrities such as Cher and Dick Van Dkye, students at Pepperdine University, and thousands of middle class and working residents in the community. The area is a geographic haven for such fires for a number of reasons discussed today, all of which has been exacerbated in recent years by our worsening climate crisis.
THEN… FBI Director Christopher Wray, who was appointed by Donald Trump after he fired James Comey for investigating Russia‘s interference in the 2016 election, has decided to “obey in advance” by announcing he will resign in January when Trump takes office again, three years before the official end of his term. The incoming President has threatened to fire Wray and replace him with loyalist stooge and avowed government weaponizer Kash Patel. Still, there are reasons to be critical of Wray’s limp decision to “bow out in advance.”
NEXT… Not all law enforcement officials are willing to roll over. In Wisconsin, state prosecutors added 10 felony charges each to three different Donald Trump accomplices who attempted to help him steal the 2020 election. The new criminal charges [PDF] were filed on Tuesday against 2020 Trump attorneys Jim Troupis and Kenneth Chesebro, as well as Trump’s 2020 Election Day operations director Mike Roman as part of the failed fake Electors scheme in the state that year. Troupis and Chesebro are said to be the original architects of the plot. Each of the Trump dupes had previously faced just one felony count apiece, with their first court appearance set for Thursday. Now they will each face 11 counts and a potential 6-year prison sentence and/or $10,000 fine for each count if found guilty.
FINALLY… In the early morning hours following the November 5th Election, Donald Trump declared he had won an “unprecedented and powerful mandate.” Members of his transition team subsequently claimed a “MAGA Mandate” and “historic mandate for his agenda.” But, Trumpian hyperbole aside, did he actually win any such thing?
Now that all states have certified their results and officially declared which slate of Electors will vote in the Electoral College in each state capital on December 17 — (remember, I told you today was the “Certificate of Ascertainment of Appointment of Electors” Day!) — the final results, with all votes said to be tallied, reveal that Trump defeated Kamala Harris by less than 1.5 percentage points and that a majority of Americans voted for someone other than him.
That doesn’t seem particularly “unprecedented” or “powerful”, much less a “mandate”.
But what is a mandate anyway? Today, we’re joined by JULIA R. AZARI, Professor of Political Science at Marquette University, who happens to have written a book on that very topic, called Delivering the People’s Message: The Changing Politics of the Presidential Mandate.
As Azari warned in a short article posted the day after this year’s election, when Trump’s margin over Harris appeared to be far larger than it actually turned out to be, “Be wary of anyone claiming an election mandate,” given that “talking about mandates flattens public opinion, rather than lifting it up” and “elevates the president above the Constitution and gives him a popular power he was never meant to have.” As she explains today, that goes for Republicans and Democrats alike.
“I’ve been pretty critical of the way that Presidents of both major parties have used that concept,” she tells me. “Although I would also note that, in contemporary times, Republicans have been a lot more focused and ideological in their mandate claiming.”
Azari argues, essentially, that voters vote for and against many different things in an election, and there is no clear way to establish that they have voted for any one particular policy, much less in an election with one of the narrowest margins in modern history and where the winner of the Electoral College actually received a minority of the popular vote.
When any President-elect declares themselves to be the winner of a mandate — or when the media echo that claim — “this gives the President a little bit of extra power, at least in their own minds, that they feel justified in taking,” Azari says, “and it enhances that power over that of Congress, rather than thinking of Congress as a co-equal branch.”
She also notes: “When that power is in the hands of somebody who isn’t really keen on Constitutional constraints, we may see some serious consequences.”
We’ve got much to discuss with Azari on all of those points today. But what about Presidents who actually do win a majority of the popular vote? Do they have justification to claim a governing mandate? How should media report on such claims no matter who makes them? And how have claims of mandates been expanding and changing over the years going all the way back to the first such President to do so, Andrew Jackson in 1832? Please tune in for all of that history, both past and present, and much more on today’s BradCast!…
In 1888, 2000 and 2016, the electoral college winner lost the popular vote.