Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Presidential Election 2024: 11/5/24- Democracy Dies or Survives


88Comrade2000

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

Colorado isn’t a swing state.

 

The election will be fought in these states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada. All Trump needs to do is win the states he won in 2020 and then flip 3 of those 6 states that nets him around 40evs. That will get him to 270.  Trump won’t be flipping Minnesota and Joe won’t be flipping North Carolina.  It’s can be a close and concentrated election.

Trump flipping Arizona, Nevada, and GA only gets him to 268, I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fergasun said:

@PeterMP
And then how does that not Constitute yet another Constitutional crises?

 

So just because half the country sympathizes with the "insurrectionist" side it's okay?  

 

 

There is an implication here that I don't think we have a Constitutional crises and/or think it is okay.

 

I've said before, we have at least one Supreme Court Justice that should be impeached and removed from office (Thomas and I've said AT LEAST).  When you have people on your Supreme Court that shouldn't be there almost by definition (to me) you have a Constitutional crises.

 

(Now I will say, that I think for large amounts of time our government has "functioned" in less than ideal way and out of the bounds of the Constitution.  There's evidence that the Republicans prior to the 1968 election were talking to the N. Vietnamese to prevent a peace settlement.  There's evidence that Republican operatives undermined Iran-US negotiations with respect to the 1980 election by having the Israelis ship arms to Iran.  (I believe the Nixon/N. Vietnam is better supported than the Reagan/Iran case).  But both cases could be rightly considered treason.  Certainly, the FBI was conducting illegal searches and seizures of Civil Rights leaders and other leftist groups/organization going back to the 1960s and earlier.  Going back to "separate but equal", even if you buy/bought that logic nobody living in the post-Reconstruction but pre-end of segregation South thought that things were actually equal, and the Federal Courts didn't care.

 

Through most of the US history (to me) we've been in various stages of a Constitutional Crisis, and for the most part, we keep trudging forward.  I think maybe some things are becoming more obvious now than at least in the recent past.  But unless there becomes some critical mass that cares enough to support violence, I think we'll keep trudging forward.

 

I think we've reached a point where a lot of people care more about the politician system and some of those people are less concerned about ethics and the Constitution and just want to achieve their goals.  On the other hand, I think we have more people that just don't really care.  So you end up with this polarity in the American public between people that have goals but don't really care about the Constitution, people that care about the Constitution, and people that just don't care that hasn't existed in the past.  I think you see that with the Reagan Supreme Court nominees.  To get elected, he did and had to appeal to the far right.  But when it came to appointing Supreme Court justices there wasn't enough organized people caring from the far right that he was able to appoint pretty moderate justices.  The days of a Republican President that wants to get re-elected appointing moderate Supreme Court justices is over.  Then you have others that care, see the ethical issues/nonconstitutional issues and say this awful.  And then you have a group of people that as long as they have enough money to go out to eat when they want, go on vacation, get what they want on tv, they don't care.  And when those things get threatened they sort of tune in, but not enough to actually see the larger history and what's happening.  Many/most of the people on this board fit into the "that care, see the ethical issues/unconstitutional issues and say this awful", but in reality we're a small percent of the population.)

Edited by PeterMP
  • Thumb up 2
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ball Security said:

Trump flipping Arizona, Nevada, and GA only gets him to 268, I believe.

Are you using 2020 numbers or post census 2024 numbers.  Remember, some of the states he won last time; got more electoral votes after the census.  I haven't done the math; but it's possible those 3 states you mention would be all he needs.  Whatever combination of 3 states gets him over 270, is all he needs.  Biden has to not give ground to Trump, to keep Trump from getting 270.  So, the election will be fought in those states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

Are you using 2020 numbers or post census 2024 numbers.  Remember, some of the states he won last time; got more electoral votes after the census.  I haven't done the math; but it's possible those 3 states you mention would be all he needs.  Whatever combination of 3 states gets him over 270, is all he needs.  Biden has to not give ground to Trump, to keep Trump from getting 270.  So, the election will be fought in those states.

I was using 270toWin. They have Michigan as D, but the other five as tossups. If you convert AZ, NV, and GA to red it only gets to 268. I’m pretty sure they are up to date as that’s their whole gig.

 

https://www.270towin.com

Edited by Ball Security
  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

Fwiw I do wonder what Trump not being on a ballot would mean for other GOPers and Dems in Colorado.  Would it depress the turnout there for GOPers? Or maybe even both parties? 

 

I'd think if he is off the ballet due to disqualification:

 

Some R's would stay home.

Some R's would vote for the on ballot candidates.

Some R's would show up and write in Trump... which would be meaningless and a waste of a vote.

 

I gotta imagine some voters who were only motivated to stop Trump and not necessarily vote Dem likely stay home too.

 

 

End result:  Republican presidential votes would be monumentally fractured. Probably a bit of a down tick in Democratic voting too.

Overall greatly favors Dems.

Edited by FootballZombie
  • Thumb up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to have break away from this thread because my mind can't handle the permutations of what may happen. 

 

Traditionally, this question (candidate eligibility) has been untouched by the courts (I am thinking mainly of the Obama cases).  I think the Federal courts said it was a political question.  At the time in my mind I questioned whether that meant the Constitutional eligibility requirements may themselves be unenforceable.  

 

I don't think the answer is for the Supreme Court to determine his eligibility.  But any method they use to wiggle out, like of they say "14A is too vague, let's strike it down." Well that opens a hole in their 2nd Amendment jurisprudence. And I don't think them upholding CO means that he's off the ballot everywhere.  

 

That would mean each state holding a trial similar to CO.  And maybe the stipulation is that there is "due process" by providing the option to have a jury trial.  So the GOP/Trump will have to defend him on every state and hope they win enough to secure a path to victory.  And I think this is an appropriate answer.  As absurd and as whiny as the GOP / Trump will be.  Don't nominate an insurrectionist. 

 

I think it would be wholly inappropriate for SCOTUS to be the arbitrators of the facts regarding whether or not someone engageed in insurrection.  And by the plain text I agree a conviction is not warranted. 

 

But, we shall see.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

I think leaving each and every state the " option " to determine what the definition of " engaged in insurrection " is ..

Is a terrible idea.

 

I get that.  If only we had one court that could hear all of this for the country.  Like one that the state courts could defer to.  One court to rule them all!  It would be....

 

SUPREME!!!!!

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Hahaha.  What?

They can't do it and claim they are non-partisan.  It will be Bush v. Gore all over again, except worse.  The Supreme Court interprets LAW.  They shouldn't be determining the FACTS of whether or not Donald Trump committed insurrection.  Or let me say - I don't think any court can consider themselves non-partisan enough to determine the FACTS.  Or my head is just spinning. I feel like Vizzini during the battle of wits in Princess Bride.  It literally spins my head.       

 

This is the exact type of case that SCOTUS tries to avoid.  Again, in my mind, since the states run the elections (Federalism), it's up to State Courts to determine the appropriate procedures for disqualifying candidates for insurrection.  But also, in my mind that means confederate courts after the Civil War cold deem their candidates to have not engaged in insurrection?    

 

So to me, the best our SCOTUS should do is determine that the state courts have interpreted the facts and law correctly and not egregiously.  

 

But then I see your argument.  The SCOTUS should deem him eligible or not.  But how can they do that without pissing off half the country or looking like insurrectionist themselves?  It would be like in the Civil War if you had a bunch of southern apologists determining "insurrection" as well.  That's why I said, the best they can do in my mind is leave it up to states and ensure that states aren't unfairly throwing insurrectionists off the ballots.  

 

See, I'm gonna duck out because this breaks my brain.  That Colorado could deem Trump ineligible and California or Texas or some other state say he's eligible.... it's going to have to be more than just a regular SCOTUS case.  

  • Thumb up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Spearfeather said:

I think leaving each and every state the " option " to determine what the definition of " engaged in insurrection " is ..

Is a terrible idea.


They aren’t determining what the definition is…they’re determining if a person’s actions meet that definition. And that’s pretty much done for all crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...