The Race For 2024

[lpetrich]

FairVote did ranked-choice-voting polls for the Republican primaries of 2016 and the Democratic primaries of 2020. Will FairVote commission any such polls this time around?

For the 2020 data, I could compare different methods for counting up ranked votes, and they sometimes disagreed. Methods like top-two second-choice runoff, instant runoff (sequential runoff), and head to head (Condorcet, virtual round robin). I always found a Condorcet sequence, one where every candidate beat the one after them in a head-to-head contest.

 

[lostone]

England had many of them over who would be king, and deposed several kings, up until the War of the Roses.

Oddly, this summary misses by almost two hundred years the one civil war in England that historians typically call a civil war, and the only such war that ended with the execution of a king without the immediate accession of a new monarch.

Some might say it did not end until the battle of Culloden in 1745. The Scots still complain about how brutal the English were in 1745. Let's hope the US does not replay that game.

The wars between Scotland and England weren't really civil wars, they were regular wars between neighbouring countries, albeit with a strong "fifth column" in many cases - in some cases, so many Scotsmen (and so few Englishmen) fought on the "English" side that they could reasonably be described as Scottish civil wars, but certainly not as English ones.

True; I don't know why that very significant omission did not come to mind - senior moment?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Just wondering, polls demonstrate if Trump is found guilty of a crime, half of Republican voters will abandon him. But DeSantis is repulsive and repellent to most Republicans. And everybody else running as Republican seems to be as attractive to the Republican voters as Vermin Supreme.

If Trump is convicted and sent to prison, what happens? Republicans sit the 2024 election out? Vote only for Senators and Congressmen but not any president. Riot in the streets until arrested?

I have no idea how this is going to go if Trump is convicted, and it is looking sure he eventually will be. The situation in Ohio looks to indicate lots of people have had it with the GOP.

 

[scombrid]

If RFK Jr. Wants To Be President, He’s Running In The Wrong Primary | FiveThirtyEight

A certain presidential candidate has been very popular lately. He appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast. House Republicans invited him to testify before Congress on censorship. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, also a Republican, has suggested that if he becomes president, he might nominate him to lead the Food and Drug Administration or Centers for Disease Control. GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy said he’d consider him to be his running mate.

The only problem? This candidate is running in the Democratic primary.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been a contradiction ever since he announced his presidential campaign back in April. Though he’s part of the most famous family in Democratic politics and holds some liberal views — like supporting abortion rights — he is best known for his embrace of conspiracy theories most popular on the right, including the idea that vaccines are unsafe. That has made him a celebrity among conservative thought leaders and persona non grata within the Democratic Party. The head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee even called him “unfit for public office.”

Those topsy-turvy opinions of Kennedy extend to voters — he’s quite popular among Republicans, but Democrats are highly ambivalent about him.

The people that believe and peddle unfounded and ridiculous conspiracy theories are just going wherever they feel welcome and/or to whatever audience is the best for the grift. Most were anti-Republican during the Bush years but during the Obama presidency the GOP realized that it had an opportunity to swing that margin into their voter base, knowing full well that normal Republican would pull the R lever no matter what. You see Joe Mercola, Mike Adams, RFK Jr, Gabbard, etc... all heading over to the R column and the GOP managed this without alienating its voters. Worse, its base voters have come to believe these things. Debunk UFO stupidity and you are labelled a libtard. Debunk Chemtrails and you are labelled a libtard shill. Debunk some stupid vaccine myth or ridiculous health claim like homeopathy and well, you get the picture. It is all under the guise of freedom. You hate freedom if you counter stupid.

 

[lpetrich]

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Stirs Mockery With Question About 'Proven' Trump
noting
Marjorie Taylor Greene on Twitter: "Why would ..." / X

Why would President Trump have to debate the other candidates?

He already has a PROVEN track record of the best 4 years in America!!

The American people don’t need to hear his ideas, we’ve already lived his policies, loved them, and want more!!

The primary is over.

Getting responses like
Mike Sorensen #NAFO on Twitter: "@mtgreenee Proven failure, I agree." / X

Dr. Elizabeth Desnoyers-Colas on Twitter: "@mtgreenee You're absolutely right, we don't need to hear ANY of his ideas...." / X

Brenda Frost on Twitter: "@mtgreenee If he truly had the best 4 years in America and a proven track record he would WANT to debate.
But he doesn’t. So he won’t." / X

Jon Lion Fine Art on Twitter: "@mtgreenee For once, I agree with @mtgreenee (pic link)" / X -- "The American people don’t need to hear his ideas"

Patrick D on Twitter: "@mtgreenee Lmfao no. Still waiting on those healthcare and infrastructure plans" / X

David Weissman on Twitter: "@mtgreenee You’re really hoping he picks you for VP aren’t you, or a pardon? That’s the only thing that makes sense of your unhinged blind loyalty." / X

 

[lpetrich]

Seems like neither Donald Trump nor Joe Biden want to do debates, since each one is the frontrunner candidate of his party.

Trump says he won't sign Republican loyalty pledge, flouting debate requirement | AP News

Former President Donald Trump said Wednesday he won’t sign a pledge to support the Republican nominee if he loses the GOP presidential primary, flouting a requirement for appearing in the first debate later this month.

“Why would I sign it?” Trump said in an interview on the conservative cable network Newsmax. “I can name three or four people that I wouldn’t support for president. So right there, there’s a problem.”

He declined to name the candidates he wouldn’t support, saying “there’s no reason to insult them.” But he singled out South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy for praise, saying they “have been very nice.”

GOP presidential debate: A look at which candidates have qualified | AP News

To qualify for the Aug. 23 debate, candidates need to satisfy polling and donor requirements set by the Republican National Committee: at least 1% in three high-quality national polls or a mix of national and early-state polls, between July 1 and Aug. 21, and a minimum of 40,000 donors, with 200 in 20 or more states.

As of August 8,

Qualified: Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, Tim Scott, Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, Chris Christie, Doug Burgum, Mike Pence

Unqualified: Asa Hutchinson (not enough donors), Francis Suarez (not enough donors), Larry Elder (not polling enough, not enough donors?), Perry Johnson (not polling enough), Will Hurd (won't sign the nominee-support pledge)

 

[Copernicus]

I think that Biden is right not to debate. I wouldn't want him to get his blood pressure up, and he gets easily flustered. Like Trump, he has a tendency to ramble, although Biden's ramblings are more often grammatical and coherent. Biden also rides a bicycle, even though he probably shouldn't at his age. Trump needs a golf cart, which is the smarter choice for a doddering senior with bone spurs.

 

[ZiprHead]

Oh good lord! Trump's newest campaign commercial.

 

[lpetrich]

Oh good lord! Trump's newest campaign commercial.

Any further reaction?

Trump’s Republican Opponents Are Still Refusing To Attack Him — Even After Four Indictments | FiveThirtyEight

Potentially competitive contenders mostly focused their ire on the supposed weaponization of the legal system against Trump. “I think it’s an example of this criminalization of politics,” said DeSantis, ...

At a town hall Monday night, Ramaswamy described the Georgia charges as “politicized persecutions through prosecution,” ...

At the Iowa State Fair, Scott called the latest indictment “un-American,” arguing that the law was “being weaponized against political opponents.”

For his part, lower-polling North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum offered a milder version of the same rhetoric, arguing that the fact “people are worried about a two-tiered system of justice” is “a bigger issue than any indictment.”

They must be desperate to get the Trumpie vote.

Some others were less supportive of the now-indicted former president.

On Wednesday, Pence rejected the notion that the 2020 result in Georgia was stolen, although he also employed a line he’s used in the past by noting Trump still has the “presumption of innocence.” Nonetheless, Pence’s reaction comes on the heels of his sterner comments earlier this month after the federal indictment regarding Trump’s 2020 actions. Pence said that Trump pressured him “essentially to overturn the election” and argued that anyone who put himself “over the Constitution” shouldn’t be president.

...
Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said the latest indictment was further evidence that Trump had “disqualified himself” from holding the presidency again, while former Texas Rep. Will Hurd said it was “another example of how the former president’s baggage will hand Joe Biden reelection if Trump is the Republican nominee.” In a departure from his responses to earlier indictments, though, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s initial comments on the Georgia indictment mostly focused on how he viewed it as “unnecessary” given the federal charges Trump faces (which Christie said he didn’t think were “political” at the time).

...
Haley has yet to make a public remark about the Georgia indictment,1 but ahead of the expected charges, she tried to avoid sharp criticism of Trump by mostly sticking to a line that Trump’s legal troubles distract from the many important issues facing the country. Somewhat similarly, Suarez said on Wednesday that the latest indictment is a “victory for Washington” that continues to dominate the news even though he felt voters weren’t interested in it.

 

[lpetrich]

Who’s In, Who’s Out And Who Might Bail On The First Republican Debate? | FiveThirtyEight

How the candidates are doing on the RNC's qualifications for the debate. The pledge is to support whoever gets nominated, a pledge that Trump refuses to take.

• Ron DeSantis -- Polls, Donors, Pledge
• Vivek Ramaswamy -- Polls, Donors, Pledge
• Nikki Haley -- Polls, Donors, Pledge
• Tim Scott -- Polls, Donors, Pledge
• Doug Burgum -- Polls, Donors, Pledge
• Donald Trump -- Polls, Donors
• Mike Pence -- Polls, Donors
• Chris Christie -- Polls, Donors
• Asa Hutchinson -- Polls
• Francis Suarez -- Donors
• Will Hurd -- Donors

Two others who have met the RNC’s polling and contributor prerequisites — former Vice President Mike Pence and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — have signaled they will sign the pledge once it’s presented to them, but as of Thursday afternoon, there was no indication they’d yet signed.

The debate is on Wednesday, August 23, and is to be held in Milwaukee WI.

 

[ZiprHead]

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

Many people are asking whether or not I will be doing the DEBATES? ALL AMERICANS have been clamoring for a President of extremely High Intelligence. As everyone is aware, my Poll numbers, over a "wonderful" field of Republican candidates, are extraordinary. In fact, I am leading the runner up, whoever that may now be, by more than 50 Points. Reagan didn't do it, and neither did others. People know my Record, one of the BEST EVER, so why would I Debate? I'M YOUR MAN. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

 

[pood]

Shall I find the posts in this forum of people happy that it didn't work?

Have you done that yet? I haven’t read this whole thread. I’d be interested in seeing those posts.

Now, of course, in Libertarian La-La Land, it’s all good — ivermectin, horse piss, astrology, prayers to Jesus, eating arsenic, because in Libertarian La-La Land, who the fuck needs an FDA, right? It’s all cavaet emptor, ain’t it?

You need a government to tell you not to eat arsenic? That explains your animosity to a political system in which the government leaves you alone.

You didn’t answere my question. Will you please reproduce the posts of people happy that it didn’t work?

As to the arsenic stuff, are you supporting cavaet emptor in all things? Yes? No?

Aslo, were you plannig to respond to this?

Do you support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the later Voting Rights Act? Yes? No?

 

[robnisch]

Seems to be a growing group of legal scholars pushing the 14 th amendment sec. 3.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Seems to be a growing group of legal scholars pushing the 14 th amendment sec. 3.

And when they start convincing election officials who control the ballots let me know. That’s when it will begin to get interesting.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Seems to be a growing group of legal scholars pushing the 14 th amendment sec. 3.

Yep. It seems pretty damn clear to me:

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

 

[Shadowy Man]

Seems to be a growing group of legal scholars pushing the 14 th amendment sec. 3.

Yep. It seems pretty damn clear to me:

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Sitting on his ass in the White House doing nothing but watching TV while a mob attacked the Capitol is at the very least giving comfort to the enemy.

 

[Elixir]

Sitting on his ass in the White House doing nothing but watching TV while a mob attacked the Capitol is at the very least giving comfort to the enemy.

Hell, he told them he loved them.
I don’t know how fucked up one would have to be to derive any comfort from that, but Cheato’s intent is crystal clear.

 

[Copernicus]

Seems to be a growing group of legal scholars pushing the 14 th amendment sec. 3.

Yep. It seems pretty damn clear to me:

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Sitting on his ass in the White House doing nothing but watching TV while a mob attacked the Capitol is at the very least giving comfort to the enemy.

Given that he set up and coordinated the rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol, urging them to march on it to stop the electoral count, I would say it goes beyond giving them aid and comfort. He was the one organizing the whole thing in the first place. I don't know whether the effort to get this adjudicated in a court has a chance of standing, and I really doubt that the current Supreme Court will let the Constitution be interpreted in a way that blocks Trump's candidacy. There are simply too many Trump supporters out there for politicians and judges to stand in the way of the political stampede towards the edge of the cliff.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Seems to be a growing group of legal scholars pushing the 14 th amendment sec. 3.

Yep. It seems pretty damn clear to me:

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Sitting on his ass in the White House doing nothing but watching TV while a mob attacked the Capitol is at the very least giving comfort to the enemy.

Given that he set up and coordinated the rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol, urging them to march on it to stop the electoral count, I would say it goes beyond giving them aid and comfort. He was the one organizing the whole thing in the first place. I don't know whether the effort to get this adjudicated in a court has a chance of standing, and I really doubt that the current Supreme Court will let the Constitution be interpreted in a way that blocks Trump's candidacy. There are simply too many Trump supporters out there for politicians and judges to stand in the way of the political stampede towards the edge of the cliff.

I’m not saying he didn’t do more. I’m saying that this little bit is enough to disqualify him even if he didn’t do more.

 

[Copernicus]

Seems to be a growing group of legal scholars pushing the 14 th amendment sec. 3.

Yep. It seems pretty damn clear to me:

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Sitting on his ass in the White House doing nothing but watching TV while a mob attacked the Capitol is at the very least giving comfort to the enemy.

Given that he set up and coordinated the rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol, urging them to march on it to stop the electoral count, I would say it goes beyond giving them aid and comfort. He was the one organizing the whole thing in the first place. I don't know whether the effort to get this adjudicated in a court has a chance of standing, and I really doubt that the current Supreme Court will let the Constitution be interpreted in a way that blocks Trump's candidacy. There are simply too many Trump supporters out there for politicians and judges to stand in the way of the political stampede towards the edge of the cliff.

I’m not saying he didn’t do more. I’m saying that this little bit is enough to disqualify him even if he didn’t do more.

True, but I was making the point that they'll need a much stronger case than "gave comfort" to make it look that way to the judges being asked to stick their necks out on an untested constitutional theory. Your point that he sat watching the events unfold and did nothing is better interpreted as minimally giving aid to the insurrection. The political rally beforehand, in which he urged the crowd to march on the Capitol--that was a participatory act that went beyond just giving aid. However, my guess is that SCOTUS would rule that he would have to be at least convicted of seditious conspiracy before he could be barred from taking office. Otherwise, he is entitled to a presumption of innocence.