Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump's Card

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • anton pulisov
    replied
    <snigger>

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    Generally, everything is provided by the state or local government, with no reimbursement.

    US parties cum parties don't have a lot of money (no members, no dues, no real fundraising apparatus).

    The money is held by other entities (campaign committees, PACs, SuperPacs, individual campaigns, etc.)

    Leave a comment:


  • NHH
    replied
    When a state has a primary, how much does the state's electoral machinery provide (machines, officials to count and verify) and how much is run by the state party itself? And of the former, is the party expected to contribute to costs?

    Leave a comment:


  • San Bernardhinault
    replied
    The difference between the various states and also how the various states run their primaries is why New Hampshire has a chance (although not a great one) of Haley beating Trump. They let independents vote in the primary, and independents have tended to vote in primaries in New Hampshire, so there's a relatively substantial non-Trumpy bloc voting.

    In Iowa I think you have to register as a Republican to vote, but you also have to go to a caucus and sit with lots of Angry White Republicans in a cold school hall listening to them being racist and Q-Anon-y, and no self-respecting person would choose to do that to themselves and also open themselves up to being accused by these angry idiots of being part of the establishment, and abused and shouted at. So Iowa is always going to go to a more extreme, more conservative candidate, even if the state itself was once relatively moderate.

    In South Carolina, next up, it's a more right wing state than New Hampshire but there's no party registration and any of the public can vote in either Democratic or Republican primary (but not both). This makes it less extreme than Iowa but Trump is still going to romp away with the win.

    Meanwhile, the delegate allocation is really, really weird and - certainly in the Republican case - different in almost every state:

    In order of the first few:

    In Iowa the 40 delegates are split proportionally to the vote

    In New Hampshire the 22 delegates are awarded proportionally among candidates who get over 10% of the total

    In South Carolina there are some state-wide, and some by congressional district, but in each case they are winner takes all (so, I think, if Trump wins state wide he gets all 29 statewidedelegates, but could still lose in some districts if someone else wins specific districts)

    In Nevada we're back to proportional again (among candidates with over 4.3% of the statewide vote)

    In Michigan - this is where it gets really daft - there are some statewide and some district: in the statewide one, you get two delegates for getting to 12.5% and one extra delegate for each 6.25%; and leftover state delegates go to the statewide winner. Then in the district races, each district gives 3 delegates if you get over 50%; otherwise the delegates are split 2:1 among the top two finishers.


    The winner-take-all aspects of some of these races (or, winner takes all if the winner gets over 50%) makes it even more likely (from an already very high baseline) that Trump will win the nomination.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1974ddr
    replied
    Wow, the US is even stranger than I thought! Thanks for the detailed response, one day I'll get to grips with it all

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    No worries.

    A couple of things.

    The US doesn't have party "membership" in a way that would be familiar to those from other developed democracies.

    In most states, one can "register" as being affiliated with a party with one's state election apparatus, but doing so doesn't cost anything (there are no dues or membership cards), nor does it provide greater access to party meetings, conventions, nominations or anything else. It can also be changed as many times as one likes. Trump, for example, has changed his party affiliation at least five times.

    Nor is one required to register as being affiliated as a member of any party. In many states, the unaffiliated (aka "independents") represent a plurality of registered voters. 19 states don't even collect information on party affiliation.

    As of October 2022, there were approximately 48 million "registered Democrats", 36.4 million "registered Republicans" and 35.3 million "registered Independents".

    There is a host of data on this here:

    https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_aff...istered_voters

    Traditionally, the one tangible "benefit" of being registered in a party (in the states that allow it) was the right to participate in its primaries or caucuses. That is still the case for some traditional states like New York, but increasingly it is the case that "independents" can participate and some states allow anyone to participate. California, for instance, has done away with party-specific primaries for most offices, which can (and has) resulted in the general election being between two representatives of the same party. Even in states that restrict primaries or caucuses to those "registered" with the party, one can usually "register" on the day of contest in which one wants to participate. In Iowa, for instance, one can just show up to a caucus, register on the spot, and participate to the same extent and with the same voting privileges as people who have been registered for 50 years.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1974ddr
    replied
    Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
    Your assumption is wrong.

    The nomination is made by delegates to the national party convention, who are (generally) obligated to vote for candidates in accordance with votes in their state's primary or caucus.

    Itis of course possible that Trump will lose the popular election, as he has each time he has run.
    Thanks ursus
    I've been labouring under a misapprehension it seems; I'd always assumed that the state primaries and caucuses (cauci?) were restricted to party members, I didn't realise they were open public votes.

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    As many did during the pandemic.

    And even more are willing to engage in violence.

    Which is important to keep in mind, along with MAGA's impact on state and local decisions that can have a tremendous impact on people's daily lives and its continued ability to paralyze action in Congress.

    Leave a comment:


  • Plodder
    replied
    Not to mention there are many Trumpians who would be glad to die for the cause.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick Thistle
    replied
    Originally posted by Ginger Yellow View Post

    Might be tricky to find a second presidential candidate to nominate him, too.
    Nope. They always think the leopard won't eat their face

    Leave a comment:


  • Ginger Yellow
    replied
    Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
    Very much so, as long as he avoids being impeached and convicted for any of the assassinations.
    Might be tricky to find a second presidential candidate to nominate him, too.

    Leave a comment:


  • caja-dglh
    replied
    1974ddr - while selected by party members there is plenty of polling across all members of society on Trump vs Biden, Haley v Biden etc. That is partly what informs the positioning of Trump as near-certain favorite. Obviously were he taken out of the mix numbers for other Republicans would shift, like Brits in support of Charles being King.

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    Your assumption is wrong.

    The nomination is made by delegates to the national party convention, who are (generally) obligated to vote for candidates in accordance with votes in their state's primary or caucus.

    Itis of course possible that Trump will lose the popular election, as he has each time he has run.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1974ddr
    replied
    Time for me to ask another dumb question. Assuming that Trump is allowed to stand, and endorsed by the Republican party as their candidate, is there no possibility that the majority of USians who aren't Republican party members are sufficiently averse to Trump that he loses the election (obviously not in his mind, but you know, in reality)? I assume that the nomination is made by balloting party members, who are probably not a cross-section of society as a whole. For example, in the UK the Conservative party elected Liz Truss as their leader and therefore Prime Minister, which anyone could see was going to be a disaster, as indeed it proved. Maybe we're all underestimating the intelligence/decency of the USian electorate, and worrying unduly?

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    Very much so, as long as he avoids being impeached and convicted for any of the assassinations.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ginger Yellow
    replied
    So you could be VP, assume office 1 year and 364 days before the election, get elected, get re-elected, stand on the ballot as VP, 1 week after the new president is sworn in a tragedy befalls and you are president again for the duration. And repeat. I don't think there is a limit to how many times you can be on the ballot as VP.


    Technically, per Team Trump's legal arguments, he could be nominated as VP, assassinate the president, become president, be nominated as VP, assassinate the president...

    Leave a comment:


  • Plodder
    replied
    Originally posted by Patrick Thistle View Post

    You could be VP again, so if Presidents kept having accidents and you keep getting asked to be VP for the next guy then there isn't a limit to how many times you could be president.

    So you could be VP, assume office 1 year and 364 days before the election, get elected, get re-elected, stand on the ballot as VP, 1 week after the new president is sworn in a tragedy befalls and you are president again for the duration. And repeat. I don't think there is a limit to how many times you can be on the ballot as VP.
    Well that's my 2 day-ago optimism about being finished with Trump gone, anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eggchaser
    replied
    I understood that wading through an ocean of blood to sit atop a throne of skulls was the accepted method.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick Thistle
    replied
    Originally posted by anton pulisov View Post

    Would a tragedy be necessary? I suppose the elected president could simply resign.
    Sure, go the bloodless route...

    Leave a comment:


  • anton pulisov
    replied
    Originally posted by Patrick Thistle View Post

    You could be VP again, so if Presidents kept having accidents and you keep getting asked to be VP for the next guy then there isn't a limit to how many times you could be president.

    So you could be VP, assume office 1 year and 364 days before the election, get elected, get re-elected, stand on the ballot as VP, 1 week after the new president is sworn in a tragedy befalls and you are president again for the duration. And repeat. I don't think there is a limit to how many times you can be on the ballot as VP.
    Would a tragedy be necessary? I suppose the elected president could simply resign.

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    The VP ruse would indeed work given the current text.

    It is reminiscent of the workaround for self pardons, which has

    1) the President declare himself temporarily incapable of discharging his duties pursuant to the 25th Amendment

    2) the Vice President assume his duties and immediately issue a full pardon to the disabled President

    3) the President "recover" and re-assume the office.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick Thistle
    replied
    Originally posted by WOM View Post

    That was one of his stupidest ones ever. I can only imagine the Maga crowd googling for definitions.
    Oh they'd know the word was an insult even if they didn't know what it meant.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick Thistle
    replied
    Originally posted by anton pulisov View Post

    Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

    Can be elected twice max. Only way to get more than eight years is having been inaugurated as president as VP when a sitting president croaks. Then you can do ten years max.​ But still only two elections max.
    You could be VP again, so if Presidents kept having accidents and you keep getting asked to be VP for the next guy then there isn't a limit to how many times you could be president.

    So you could be VP, assume office 1 year and 364 days before the election, get elected, get re-elected, stand on the ballot as VP, 1 week after the new president is sworn in a tragedy befalls and you are president again for the duration. And repeat. I don't think there is a limit to how many times you can be on the ballot as VP.

    Leave a comment:


  • WOM
    replied
    Originally posted by caja-dglh View Post
    Let’s remember that it did for Ron DeSanctimonius.
    That was one of his stupidest ones ever. I can only imagine the Maga crowd googling for definitions.

    Leave a comment:


  • caja-dglh
    replied
    Originally posted by WOM View Post
    Shockingly, Trump held off until last night before dropping the bombshell that Nikki Haley is 'actually' Nimrata Randhawa. Gotta say that I'm amazed he kept that in his vest pocket this long, which means he's superficially worried about her. (I didn't actually watch the clip, but I've no doubt that he repeated Nimrata three or four times, pronouncing it slightly differently each time, to drive the point home.)
    He started to test out names for her a few weeks ago. Let’s remember that it did for Ron DeSanctimonius.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X