The Race For 2024

[Elixir]

Before Trump or any other elected or appointed officials (not civilian citizens who are not listed) are removed/disqualified from the I think there needs to be a conviction, vote by congress

Uh, yes. That’s s why Congress voted to disqualify insurrectionists. There were a lot of them, and not even J Davis was prosecuted. But they were all disqualified who had sworn an oath to support the Constitution and participated, aided, abetted gave comfort etc to an insurrection. Do you think any of the other insurrectionists from J6, had they sworn an oath to the Constitution, should be allowed to hold office, even if they were in the Capitol on J6, as long as they weren’t charged?

The difference is that now there are insurrectionists in the Union Congress, and they control one Chamber. The money is behind them, and they are behind The Star Who Gropeth, to take control of the entire government. There is much money to be made pandering to the powerful herd magnetism of MAGAtism, and media interests are first in line to scoop it up …
The good news is that the armed factions have not yet been defined. But betcher ass they WILL be if Orange is elected.

 

[scombrid]

A handful of huge corporations control the means of production, distribution, and communication. They need only solidify control of the executive branch. They've got the other two locked down.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Before Trump or any other elected or appointed officials (not civilian citizens who are not listed) are removed/disqualified from the I think there needs to be a conviction, vote by congress or a top court ruling that Trump committed insurrection or rebellion.

The issue is that the 14th doesn't require a conviction. What I think should be required is Congress or a court defining the relevant action as an insurrection.

Not sure how this would work, but it should be well thought out enough that if it were tried by a fascist like Trump or Republicans that they would need very powerful evidence to remove their enemies from the ballot.

Now perhaps the proactive removal from the ballots can happen, but only if this can be contested VERY QUICKLY and not found to be invalid but too late for it to matter.

Also, waiting to remove under Amendment 14 part 3 provision until there is no time left to contest is dangerous banana republic bullshit. There needs to be a deadline.

Yup--however it's set up you end up with the problem of removal without time to verify. Same thing the Republicans keep doing with voter registrations.

 

[Swammerdami]

Three weeks later, I look at Betfair again. (It's probably as good a predictor as anything now.)
Trump re-election has risen to 42.5%. Biden re-election is 29%.

Which is not that good this far out

The 2020 election as EXTREMELY close. What do you epect? That predictions should be like Biblical prophets or Nostredamus, and know the unknowable?

Wrong. When an election is EXTREMELY close, like 2020 was, a GOOD predictor will show the red and blue lines running neck-and-neck.

The 2024 election is likely to be extremely close, also. Neither I nor Betfair punters have suggested differently.

You've badly missed the point. To repeat, it was not a good predictor this far out. Look how far off it was in January. What month is it now?

Thanks for helping me make MY point. Again, real-world predictors are NOT like alleged soothsayers. Real-world predictors react to PAST and PRESENT events, but not FUTURE events.

(And by the way, if you post a graph to make a "point" it is often good to STATE what that point is. How was I to guess that you were surprised predictions fluctuate over time?)

So: Biden's winning chance seems to have improved about the 2nd week of March. Was there a "reason" for this? Or is it just "noise" from faulty predictors. There IS a noise component of course; detailed quantitative analysis comparing predictor reliability is beyond our scope here. But let's see what we can learn simply:

Predictions react to polls. What's a good website to find polls from early 2020? I dunno, but did find some poll results from fivethirtyeight.com via the Wayback Machine:

In very early February, two national polls found Biden up +2 (average) against Trump. Because of GOP electoral-college advantage, this is NOT enough for Biden to win, if the election was held then. In mid-April, three national polls found Biden up +5.7 (average) against Trump This is a pretty big jump from +2.

I did NOT cherry-pick these results. I spent several minutes at the Wayback Machine just to find these two.

So: Were there real-world events in March 2020 that affected Americans' inclination to vote for the incumbent? Maybe:

March 9

• COVID-19 pandemic: Italy becomes the first country to implement a nationwide quarantine in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.[51][52]
• International share prices fall sharply in response to a Russo-Saudi oil price war and the impact of COVID-19. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) plunges more than 2,000 points, the largest fall in its history up to that point.[53] Oil prices also plunge by as much as 30% in early trading, the biggest fall since 1991.[54][55]

March 11 – COVID-19 pandemic: The World Health Organization declares the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic.[56]
March 12 – Global stock markets crash due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the United States travel ban on the Schengen Area. The DJIA goes into free fall, closing at over −2,300 points, the worst losses for the index since 1987.[57]
March 13 – COVID-19 pandemic: The government of Nepal announces that Mount Everest will be closed to climbers and the public for the rest of the season due to concerns from the COVID-19 pandemic in Asia.[58]
March 16 – The Dow Jones Industrial Average falls by 2,997.10, the single largest point drop in history and the second-largest percentage drop ever at 12.93%, an even greater crash than Black Monday (1929). This follows the U.S. Federal Reserve announcing that it will cut its target interest rate to 0–0.25%.[59]

Is it your contention that a good predictor would have foreseen the Covid pandemic and the "second-largest percentage drop [of the DJIA] ever"? (And if you think voters don't blame the incumbent for events beyond his control, let me sell you a bridge!)

 

[Swammerdami]

Predictions about the future become less reliable the farther ahead they look. If that tautology was the point, I did indeed miss it.

But we do and should constantly make predictions in our lives despite uncertainty. I consider likely January weather and replace my broken umbrella despite that no rain is forecast for the rest of the month. We encourage our child to practice English, despite not knowing that the child will catch the eye of a successful Anglophone 15 years from now. We draft a football kicker despite not knowing his 4th-quarter field goal will win the big Thanksgiving Game.

And we should certainly react NOW to the likelihood of QOPAnon victory next November. For some, this will mean updating their passport. For Hollywood producers it may mean pushing particular types of political thrillers. I wish I had better advice to offer but "Yawn. Predictions of Trump victory in November are too far in the future to matter" -- that ain't it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Will Trump provoke a crisis of legitimacy for the US supreme court? | Sidney Blumenthal

The court can only rescue Trump from the Colorado ruling by shredding originalism and textualism. Will it?

www.theguardian.com

Donald Trump’s packing of the supreme court, to which he appointed three members, to create a reliable conservative majority, has been hailed by the right as his greatest achievement. The Wall Street Journal editorial page has stated that the most important prospect of a second Trump term would be his appointment of federal judges in their mold. But Trump’s candidacy for that second term now poses an existential threat to the legitimacy of the court’s conservative majority.

The decision earlier this week by the Colorado supreme court disqualifying Trump from the state ballot strikes at more than Trump’s eligibility. It cuts to the core of the ideological doctrines of originalism and textualism that underpin the conservative majority’s entire jurisprudence. Originalism claims to divine the original intent of the country’s founders and interprets the constitution along those lines. Using cherry-picked, false and bad-faith history, originalism has been the pure pretext for overturning Roe, dismantling commonsense gun regulations, ending environmental regulation, gutting consumer protection and voiding voting and civil rights.

Originalism is a recent contrivance, patched together as part of the “gameplan”, as Trump’s court whisperer, the Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo, describes it, of the capture of the courts to entrench the right’s agenda beyond the threat of adverse political tides for generations to come.

Textualism is the sister doctrine of originalism, providing snatches of text from the constitution divorced from social and legislative context as if in scriptural fundamentalism to undergird the reversal of rights. It claims that to interpret a law, a judge may examine the plain meaning of its text but nothing else. It works hand in hand with originalism to exclude inconvenient portions of the historical record from judicial consideration.

But now this politicized jurisprudence has turned on its inventors. If ever there is a legal ruling of ironclad constitutional reasoning that can be defended on originalist and textual grounds it is in Anderson v Griswold, the decision issued last week by the Colorado supreme court. The decision holds that Trump engaged in insurrection on 6 January 2021, and that he is therefore barred for running for president under section three of the 14th amendment.

 

[ZiprHead]

Michigan Supreme Court rejects ‘insurrectionist ban’ case and keeps Trump on 2024 primary ballot

The Michigan Supreme Court has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 primary ballot based on the US Constitution’s “insurrectionist ban.”

The outcome, which was generally expected, is a victory for the former president, though an effort to remove him could be renewed for the general election. Wednesday’s decision contrasts with the recent ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court, which kicked Trump off its primary ballot because of his role in the January 6 Capitol riot. That decision has been paused pending an appeal.

Crap.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Will Trump provoke a crisis of legitimacy for the US supreme court? | Sidney Blumenthal

The court can only rescue Trump from the Colorado ruling by shredding originalism and textualism. Will it?

www.theguardian.com

Donald Trump’s packing of the supreme court, to which he appointed three members, to create a reliable conservative majority, has been hailed by the right as his greatest achievement.

More like McConnell’s achievement. Any Republican President would have achieved this.

 

[ZiprHead]

Michigan Supreme Court rejects ‘insurrectionist ban’ case and keeps Trump on 2024 primary ballot

The Michigan Supreme Court has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 primary ballot based on the US Constitution’s “insurrectionist ban.”

The outcome, which was generally expected, is a victory for the former president, though an effort to remove him could be renewed for the general election. Wednesday’s decision contrasts with the recent ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court, which kicked Trump off its primary ballot because of his role in the January 6 Capitol riot. That decision has been paused pending an appeal.

Crap.

So according to the legals on tv, the Michigan decision only applies to the primaries. If Trump wins, the case for disqualification can be refiled.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Michigan Supreme Court rejects ‘insurrectionist ban’ case and keeps Trump on 2024 primary ballot

“The anti-Trump challengers “have identified no analogous provision in the Michigan Election Law that requires someone seeking the office of President of the United States to attest to their legal qualification to hold the office,” Justice Elizabeth Welch wrote, comparing Michigan law to Colorado’s election code.”

That seems like a big hole in the state law. Why would they want to go through an entire primary only to then support a candidate who doesn’t qualify for the position? Would they have to hold another if that’s the outcome? Would their electoral votes have to go to someone who is qualified? And thus disenfranchise voters who might have picked someone other than who the electors pick?

 

[lpetrich]

Media Vultures Death Watch Of Ron DeSantis Campaign For President.
noting
A Little Holiday Cheer For You – Digby's Hullabaloo - "Ron DeSantis’ epic failure"
noting
What Went Wrong for Ron DeSantis - The New York Times - "The Florida governor entered the year flush with cash and momentum. In the months since, internal chaos and Donald Trump’s indictments have sapped even his most avid supporters."

Kos author Merlin196360 says about it that

... it reads like an early political obituary. I’ve seen stories like this one before, and it is why I categorize it as the “media vulture watch.” It’s all over except for the pronouncement of the time of death and certificate being issued. There is a lot of talk about the disarray inside the campaign and the so called “independent” PAC that DeSantis set. However, the lengthy article finally gets around to what I think is the real issue with Ron DeSantis: he sucks as a campaigner.

and notes from the NYT

Beating Mr. Trump was always going to require a candidate with extraordinary talents. But Mr. DeSantis has hardly generated his own momentum on the campaign trail.

In speaking with voters, the governor reverts to a word-salad of acronyms — D.E.I., COLA, C.R.T. — and rushes through the moments when crowds burst into applause. He delivers a stump speech filled with conservative red meat but has not shown the empathic instinct to make deeper connections. ...

Right-wing culture warriors might be interested in DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) and CRT (critical race theory), but not many other people.

Someone asked RdS about the free-speech rights of anti-trans people, and he got 4 minutes of something else. His questioner:

“He lacks charisma,” Mr. Scaer said in an interview later. “He just doesn’t have that.”

RdS was supposed to be Donald Trump without the baggage, but Mitt Romney campaigner Stuart Stevens says that he is instead

"Ted Cruz without the personality.”

“There was a superficial impression that DeSantis was in the mode of big-state governors who had won Republican nominations and been successful — Reagan, Bush, Romney — but DeSantis is a very different sort of creature,” Mr. Stevens said. “These were positive, expansive, optimistic figures. DeSantis is not."

Digby noted from the NYT

Ryan Tyson, Mr. DeSantis’s longtime pollster and one of his closest advisers, has privately said to multiple people that they are now at the point in the campaign where they need to “make the patient comfortable,” a phrase evoking hospice care. Others have spoken of a coming period of reputation management, both for the governor and themselves, after a slow-motion implosion of the relationship between the campaign and an allied super PAC left even his most ardent supporters drained and demoralized.

Digby him/herself:

DeSantis is as bad as Trump in most ways and worse in others in terms of his philosophy and intentions. But he doesn’t have that celebrity glamour that really gets Trump over. He and his wife thought they could create it by flaunting their youth and pretending to be some kind of Florida version of JFK and Jackie. But their personalities are so weird (in his case) and grating (in hers) that none of that played with the crowd. Also, they don’t have the trappings of wealth that really make that work for certain people.

Then saying that RdS's campaign has become "an epic flame out" like those of Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, and Rick Perry.

 

[lpetrich]

Vivek Ramaswamy's campaign stops all TV ad spending less than a month before Iowa and New Hampshire - "A spokesperson for the GOP candidate’s presidential campaign said it has "the ability to be nimble and hyper targeted" in ad spending going forward."

As recently as the first full week of December, the GOP entrepreneur’s campaign spent more than $200,000 on TV ads. Last week, it spent just $6,000 on ads — all of it on TV — figures from the firm AdImpact show.

Ramaswamy’s campaign says it is still spending money on ads, just not on TV.

Nikki Haley makes no mention of slavery when asked to name cause of Civil War

At a New Hampshire town hall, a voter bluntly asked Haley, “What was the cause of the Civil War?”

Haley, the former South Carolina governor and former U.N. ambassador who is aiming to present herself as the top Republican alternative to former President Donald Trump, gave a lengthy answer but did not mention slavery — the primary cause of the war.

“I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run — the freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do,” Haley said at the beginning of her response.

She went on to say: “I think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are. And I will always stand by the fact that I think government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. It was never meant to be all things to all people.

“Government doesn’t need to tell you how to live your life. They don’t need to tell you what you can and can’t do. They don’t need to be a part of your life. They need to make sure that you have freedom,” she said. “We need to have capitalism. We need to have economic freedom. We need to make sure that we do all things so that individuals have the liberties so that they can have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do or be anything they want to be without government getting in the way.”

After the voter responded by saying he found it “astonishing” that Haley had not used the word “slavery” at any point in her answer, she asked, “What do you want me to say about slavery?”

She seems like ChatGPT - babbling about irrelevant things. After getting a lot of criticism, her campaign responded

“Yes, we know the civil war was about slavery,” Haley said in the interview. “But more than that, what’s the lesson in all this? That freedom matters. And individual rights and liberties matter for all people. That’s the blessing of America. That was a stain on America when we had slavery. But what we want is never relive it. Never let anyone take those freedoms away again.”

Was this ChatGPT?

Haley blames a 'Democratic plant' for Civil War question that tripped her up - POLITICO

“It was definitely a Democrat plant,” said Haley. “That’s why I said, what does it mean to you? And if you notice, he didn’t answer anything. The same reason he didn’t tell the reporters what his name was.”

She seems unwilling to take responsibility for her actions.

 

[Politesse]

Vivek Ramaswamy's campaign stops all TV ad spending less than a month before Iowa and New Hampshire - "A spokesperson for the GOP candidate’s presidential campaign said it has "the ability to be nimble and hyper targeted" in ad spending going forward."

As recently as the first full week of December, the GOP entrepreneur’s campaign spent more than $200,000 on TV ads. Last week, it spent just $6,000 on ads — all of it on TV — figures from the firm AdImpact show.

Ramaswamy’s campaign says it is still spending money on ads, just not on TV.

Nikki Haley makes no mention of slavery when asked to name cause of Civil War

At a New Hampshire town hall, a voter bluntly asked Haley, “What was the cause of the Civil War?”

Haley, the former South Carolina governor and former U.N. ambassador who is aiming to present herself as the top Republican alternative to former President Donald Trump, gave a lengthy answer but did not mention slavery — the primary cause of the war.

“I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run — the freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do,” Haley said at the beginning of her response.

She went on to say: “I think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are. And I will always stand by the fact that I think government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. It was never meant to be all things to all people.

“Government doesn’t need to tell you how to live your life. They don’t need to tell you what you can and can’t do. They don’t need to be a part of your life. They need to make sure that you have freedom,” she said. “We need to have capitalism. We need to have economic freedom. We need to make sure that we do all things so that individuals have the liberties so that they can have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do or be anything they want to be without government getting in the way.”

After the voter responded by saying he found it “astonishing” that Haley had not used the word “slavery” at any point in her answer, she asked, “What do you want me to say about slavery?”

She seems like ChatGPT - babbling about irrelevant things. After getting a lot of criticism, her campaign responded

“Yes, we know the civil war was about slavery,” Haley said in the interview. “But more than that, what’s the lesson in all this? That freedom matters. And individual rights and liberties matter for all people. That’s the blessing of America. That was a stain on America when we had slavery. But what we want is never relive it. Never let anyone take those freedoms away again.”

Was this ChatGPT?

Haley blames a 'Democratic plant' for Civil War question that tripped her up - POLITICO

“It was definitely a Democrat plant,” said Haley. “That’s why I said, what does it mean to you? And if you notice, he didn’t answer anything. The same reason he didn’t tell the reporters what his name was.”

She seems unwilling to take responsibility for her actions.

Like, she also just doesn't understand how interviews work...

 

[ZiprHead]

The state of Maine has kicked Trump off the ballot, the same as Colorado.

 

[TSwizzle]

Another fascist attempting to "save democracy";

Maine's secretary of state has said she would welcome the Supreme Court reviewing her decision to disqualify Donald Trump from the primary ballot, admitting the move was unprecedented. Sheena Bellows on Thursday ruled that Trump could not be on their ballot, in a move which mirrored the December 19 decision made by Colorado's Supreme Court.

Daily Mail

The USA is starting to resemble Iran.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Another fascist attempting to "save democracy";

Maine's secretary of state has said she would welcome the Supreme Court reviewing her decision to disqualify Donald Trump from the primary ballot, admitting the move was unprecedented. Sheena Bellows on Thursday ruled that Trump could not be on their ballot, in a move which mirrored the December 19 decision made by Colorado's Supreme Court.

Daily Mail

The USA is starting to resemble Iran.

Any comments on the substance of the decision? Can you point out where in Maine’s Secretary of State’s ruling she got it wrong?

 

[Politesse]

Another fascist attempting to "save democracy";

Maine's secretary of state has said she would welcome the Supreme Court reviewing her decision to disqualify Donald Trump from the primary ballot, admitting the move was unprecedented. Sheena Bellows on Thursday ruled that Trump could not be on their ballot, in a move which mirrored the December 19 decision made by Colorado's Supreme Court.

Daily Mail

The USA is starting to resemble Iran.

I'm not saying you're full of shit, but perhaps you could cite an example of when an analogous incident happened in Iran?

 

[TSwizzle]

Another fascist attempting to "save democracy";

Maine's secretary of state has said she would welcome the Supreme Court reviewing her decision to disqualify Donald Trump from the primary ballot, admitting the move was unprecedented. Sheena Bellows on Thursday ruled that Trump could not be on their ballot, in a move which mirrored the December 19 decision made by Colorado's Supreme Court.

Daily Mail

The USA is starting to resemble Iran.

I'm not saying you're full of shit, but perhaps you could cite an example of when an analogous incident happened in Iran?

In Iran, only candidates vetted and approved by the clergy can stand for presidential elections. This is what is going on in the state of Maine and Colorado. Trump displeases them.

 

[Elixir]

Another fascist attempting to "save democracy";

Maine's secretary of state has said she would welcome the Supreme Court reviewing her decision to disqualify Donald Trump from the primary ballot, admitting the move was unprecedented. Sheena Bellows on Thursday ruled that Trump could not be on their ballot, in a move which mirrored the December 19 decision made by Colorado's Supreme Court.

Daily Mail

The USA is starting to resemble Iran.

I'm not saying you're full of shit, but perhaps you could cite an example of when an analogous incident happened in Iran?

You misunderstand. “Iran” is a magic incantation that casts impenetrable darkness upon the subject of the spell. Which in this case, is the Constitution, which if adhered to, would disqualify Swizzle’s Party mascot from office.
Of course Swiz isn’t going to argue the facts, but it’s his 1st Amendment right to cast whatever magic spells he can conjure.

 

[Rhea]

Any comments on the substance of the decision? Can you point out where in Maine’s Secretary of State’s ruling she got it wrong?

I mean, that’s kind of answered already by the fact that he did not choose to comment on the substance of the decision.
He chose namecalling and attempting to poison the well as his argument.
Which is to say, he could find nothing wrong with her ruling that he could talk about.

So, there’s your sign.