Scrutable

dyqik wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2023 1:29 am

lpm wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2023 11:24 pm Lol, nicely done Colorado.

SCOTUS has to rule by Jan 4. Presumably they'll follow their corruption rather than their conscience. But who knows.

Taking the decision from the states could undermine some of their rulings on the Voting Rights Act.

If the Republicans put up a different candidate in Colorado (and potentially other states), how does the voting college cope with different Republican candidates? Is it as though there is a 3rd party (or independent) candidate, or would the college votes for the two Republicans be added together to oppose Biden, and if they won then the Republicans decide which of the two candidates becomes President?

The last time anything like this seemed to happen was 1836, where the Whig party put up 4 combinations against Martin Van Buren, but Van Buren got 56% of the vote anyway.

If no candidate gets 270 or more in the electoral college then the House chooses from the top 3 - but voting as 50 state delegations each with 1 vote.

Currently Republicans have 26 to 22 lead in state delegations (2 tied).

Also applies to a 269-269 tie.

In theory a candidate can become President by winning a single state, with the electoral college voting 269-268-3.

But if SCOTUS rules Trump ineligible he is ineligible in every state. He cannot become President unless the House votes by two thirds to remove the ineligibility. It would only get complicated if SCOTUS declines to hear Trump's appeal - in theory there could be a President who the state of Colorado legally considers ineligible to hold the position.

Martin_B wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2023 4:17 am

dyqik wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2023 1:29 am

lpm wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2023 11:24 pm Lol, nicely done Colorado.

SCOTUS has to rule by Jan 4. Presumably they'll follow their corruption rather than their conscience. But who knows.

Taking the decision from the states could undermine some of their rulings on the Voting Rights Act.

If the Republicans put up a different candidate in Colorado (and potentially other states), how does the voting college cope with different Republican candidates? Is it as though there is a 3rd party (or independent) candidate, or would the college votes for the two Republicans be added together to oppose Biden, and if they won then the Republicans decide which of the two candidates becomes President?

The last time anything like this seemed to happen was 1836, where the Whig party put up 4 combinations against Martin Van Buren, but Van Buren got 56% of the vote anyway.

The electoral college knows nothing about political parties.

In any case, US political parties are significantly less formal than the UK. There's no membership, for a start.

What does it mean to be a "registered" democrat or republican? I had assumed that meant they were party members but I guess I'm wrong.

Fishnut wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2023 1:24 pm What does it mean to be a "registered" democrat or republican? I had assumed that meant they were party members but I guess I'm wrong.

It's part of registering to vote.

It means that you get to vote in the primary for that party, in some states, not all. It also lets the parties know who their supporters are for fundraising, etc.

Not all states ask about party affiliation.

lpm wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2023 4:58 am
But if SCOTUS rules Trump ineligible he is ineligible in every state. He cannot become President unless the House votes by two thirds to remove the ineligibility. It would only get complicated if SCOTUS declines to hear Trump's appeal - in theory there could be a President who the state of Colorado legally considers ineligible to hold the position.

Abraham Lincoln did not appear on the ballot in some states in 1860. That went well.

monkey wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2023 2:01 pm

Fishnut wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2023 1:24 pm What does it mean to be a "registered" democrat or republican? I had assumed that meant they were party members but I guess I'm wrong.

It's part of registering to vote.

It means that you get to vote in the primary for that party, in some states, not all. It also lets the parties know who their supporters are for fundraising, etc.

Not all states ask about party affiliation.

In some states you can only vote in the primary for the party you are registered to. In some states, registered independents can choose which party to vote for ("open" primaries) and in some states they can't vote in the major party primaries ("closed" primaries).

That latter feature also means that your shouldn't take differences in party registration between states entirely seriously. In some states, registering for a party is the only way to vote in the primaries. And party registration often doesn't change even when the voters start voting for the other party in the elections.

Case in point. My mother-in-law is a registered Republican, but has told me that after 2020 she will never vote for a Republican candidate ever again. She has thought about changing affiliation to Independent, but she doesn't want to vote in the primaries, so sees little point. She takes voting in elections seriously, even to the point that last time we visited she was explaining to all the elderly ladies in the coffee shop who were the best candidates for the School District Board in the city election.

Also, when someone says "I'm a registered xxx" on the news or whatever, it's the equivalent of someone saying "I've voted yyy all my life" in the UK, as far as I can tell.

monkey wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 5:05 am Also, when someone says "I'm a registered xxx" on the news or whatever, it's the equivalent of someone saying "I've voted yyy all my life" in the UK, as far as I can tell.

Except it isn't even as strong a statement as that. Quite a few Democrat voters in red closed primary states will be registered Republicans, so that they get a vote to select the likely winning candidate in statewide elections, and vice versa.

Although someone actually saying "I'm a registered xxx" in the context of "I've voted yyy all my life" probably isn't one of those voters.

Oh look, Rudy's bankrupt

FlammableFlower wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 7:07 pm Oh look, Rudy's bankrupt

Nobody could have foreseen that.

Fun times in court yesterday…

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-n ... e67a338f48

I’m sure that’ll make the judge more lenient in a case in which Trump’s guilt has already been decided.

So Joe Biden called him "Donald Hoover Trump". Because only Hoover and Trump increased unemployment during their terms, among republican presidents or some such category.

Seems a bit of a sophisticated joke to me, unlikely to have much effect in important swing states in the midwest. But maybe I'm wrong, and "Hoover" is a well-known harsh insult in the US. But if I'm right, can't his advisors come up with something of the crudity and effectiveness of "Crooked Hilary"? "Adolf Trump", the president who tried to get his brownshirts to storm the Reichstag, is a meme doing the rounds atmo. Can't he recruit something like that? Or would Biden being that crude backfire?

IvanV wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:02 am So Joe Biden called him "Donald Hoover Trump". Because only Hoover and Trump increased unemployment during their terms, among republican presidents or some such category.

Seems a bit of a sophisticated joke to me, unlikely to have much effect in important swing states in the midwest. But maybe I'm wrong, and "Hoover" is a well-known harsh insult in the US. But if I'm right, can't his advisors come up with something of the crudity and effectiveness of "Crooked Hilary"? "Adolf Trump", the president who tried to get his brownshirts to storm the Reichstag, is a meme doing the rounds atmo. Can't he recruit something like that? Or would Biden being that crude backfire?

Coming directly from Biden it would backfire horribly - Trump isn't held to the same standards as Democrats.

But there's plenty of surrogates that can use it to the right voters.

Trump won the Iowa caucus with 51% of the vote. De Santis and Haley distant second and third on 21.2% and 19.1%.

There seems to be a lot of enthusiasm for Trump among Republicans.

There's no real primary contests this year. Trump has won/rigged it already, Biden is unopposed.

The pretence at primaries is just a fiction by the news networks for entertainment and viewers.

Breaking news: Candidate who was well ahead in all the polls wins.

Woodchopper wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2024 9:14 am There seems to be a lot of enthusiasm for Trump among Republicans who caucus.

In the same way there's a lot of enthusiasm among Tory members who elect PPCs.

But the Republican base may well decide that Democracy is worth sacrificing to own the Libs.

Woodchopper wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2024 9:14 am Trump won the Iowa caucus with 51% of the vote. De Santis and Haley distant second and third on 21.2% and 19.1%.

There seems to be a lot of enthusiasm for Trump among Republicans.

Trump won the Iowa caucus with 7% of the Republican vote, and 2.5% of the states voters.

Turnout was way down. How much is due to weather and how much due to general disillusionment isn't knowable.

headshot wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2024 10:11 am

Woodchopper wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2024 9:14 am There seems to be a lot of enthusiasm for Trump among Republicans who caucus.

In the same way there's a lot of enthusiasm among Tory members who elect PPCs.

But the Republican base may well decide that Democracy is worth sacrificing to own the Libs.

The Republican base doesn't turn out for the Iowa caucuses. Only the real freaks do.

Its going to be a Trump landslide.

Herainestold wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2024 10:30 pm Its going to be a Trump landslide.

Has anything you predicted ever happened?

One of the things I hate is people diagnosing others on the internet

One of the other things I hate is Donald Trump.

I hate Donald Trump more than people diagnosing others on the internet.

So what’s up with this picture?

Grumble wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2024 10:54 pm

Herainestold wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2024 10:30 pm Its going to be a Trump landslide.

Has anything you predicted ever happened?

Yes, we all died in the nuclear apocalypse of 2023, remember?