Get ready Kamala fans...this is just the beginning

[y2kmark]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1817820787694288947

..

Especially cheated on your mother, Ivana. Forget which hole he buried her on. With little Jr, Eric and Ivanka at home, model husband Donald went and knocked up Marla Maples. Gets better, Marla told Daddy and he strongly encouraged, some would even say pressured, her to have the fetus (hereafter known as Tiffany) surgically terminated. She, of course, refused and became Mrs. #2. Maybe Tiff and Farticus will go on the stump for the anti abortion platform...

 

[y2kmark]

I hate to say this, but it kills me to admit this but I agree with Wyatt that polls should be taken with a grain of salt until September, mid-September to be exact.

If then. Mid November if you wanna be sure...

 

[squeezer]

If then. Mid November if you wanna be sure...

Polls show Kamala Harris moving ahead of Donald Trump in 2024 US election

Recent national head-to-head polls favor Harris, but polls in battleground states present a more mixed picture

www.theguardian.com

Trump Vs. Harris 2024 Polls: Deadlocked Race In Final Surveys And Forecasts—As Voting Ends In First States

Most polls indicate a tight race between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

www.forbes.com

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4813418-harris-lead-trump-new-york-poll/

AHHHHHHHHHH, feels so good.

 

[y2kmark]

The fact the right keeps pushing Shapiro is enough to know she made a good choice.

Both candidates doubled down with their VP picks. Kamala picked a fellow liberal guaranteed to piss off the right: pro choice, fully funded school meals programs, fighter for veteran's benefits and so on. Cheeto Mussolini picked the hillbilly (NOT, actual hillbillys quickly disowned him) heartthrob. It's gonna be a regular weird-a-thon . Polls do mean one thing: the more Farticus trails, the loonier things are going to become...

Polls show Kamala Harris moving ahead of Donald Trump in 2024 US election

Recent national head-to-head polls favor Harris, but polls in battleground states present a more mixed picture

www.theguardian.com

Trump Vs. Harris 2024 Polls: Deadlocked Race In Final Surveys And Forecasts—As Voting Ends In First States

Most polls indicate a tight race between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

www.forbes.com

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4813418-harris-lead-trump-new-york-poll/

AHHHHHHHHHH, feels so good.

Remember what Abe Lincoln, the forgotten Republican, said about the hen being the wisest of all beasts?

 

[squeezer]

Agreed, but @squeezer seems to think Kamaltoe has this election already wrapped, so I have to bring him back down to reality

Phil, why is Trumpy bashing the polls now?? I'm confused, please help me understand.


Now that Trump is losing, the polls are "rigged"

 

[Valcazar]

However, we've never been in this situation. We have had Presidents die and resign. The VP becomes the President and that's that. Vice Presidents have also run for the Presidency and had to earn it through the primary process.

Not true.
Last time this happened was 1968.
Humphrey won no primaries.

 

[Valcazar]

We don't have a parliamentary system where the party members decide who will be the party leader.

Yes, the party members decide who will be the party nominee in the US as well.
Specifically, the delegates.

Those are the only people who get to vote on the nominee.

Both parties have put rules in place that the delegates will vote (at first) according to the proportion of votes won in the primary or caucus vote. (And, of course, those rules are different party to party and even state to state.)

These rules include "what to do if the person you were obligated to vote for withdraws".

 

[Valcazar]

If Trump collapses from a stroke or a coronary in early September, won't the same situation propel JD Vance into the presidential nomination?

What happens depends on the GOP party rules.

 

[WyattEarp]

Not true.
Last time this happened was 1968.
Humphrey won no primaries.

Technically, you are correct. However, Humphrey did compete for delegates against other contenders in more closed processes that existed at the time. The Democratic nomination was not bestowed on him.

Now what happened to Humphrey in November 1968? My memory escapes me.

 

[WyattEarp]

Yes, the party members decide who will be the party nominee in the US as well.
Specifically, the delegates.

Those are the only people who get to vote on the nominee.

Both parties have put rules in place that the delegates will vote (at first) according to the proportion of votes won in the primary or caucus vote. (And, of course, those rules are different party to party and even state to state.)

These rules include "what to do if the person you were obligated to vote for withdraws".

Yes, all true.

However, our system currently differs greatly from Canada (and the U.K. and other parliamentary systems) in that almost everyone can have influence on the two major parties' nominee in the primary process. I'm sure Canadians can have influence on the leader a party selects. I don't sense it's as easy or direct.

As far as rules for "what to do if the person you were obligated to vote for withdraws", no one is saying that the Democratic party is doing anything illegal or in violation of their own rules. It's more of a matter of calling into question carrying Biden across the finish line and then giving the trophy to Kamala. What transpired is not explicitly wrong. It's implicitly questionable.

 

[WyattEarp]

Polls show Kamala Harris moving ahead of Donald Trump in 2024 US election

Recent national head-to-head polls favor Harris, but polls in battleground states present a more mixed picture

www.theguardian.com

Trump Vs. Harris 2024 Polls: Deadlocked Race In Final Surveys And Forecasts—As Voting Ends In First States

Most polls indicate a tight race between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

www.forbes.com

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4813418-harris-lead-trump-new-york-poll/

AHHHHHHHHHH, feels so good.

I agree it feels good. Kamala feels very good. It's like she's an entirely, new person. Not one we know or will ever know until the election is over.

On some level, it's like Kamala and the party sucked the good feels for Biden out of him and left his decaying corpse.

 

[mandrill]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821021929924440481

No regrets on my part.

 

[Valcazar]

The fact the right keeps pushing Shapiro is enough to know she made a good choice.

Nah.
They would have picked one of the people she didn't choose and hype them no matter what.
It's an easy PR play.

 

[Valcazar]

Technically, you are correct. However, Humphrey did compete for delegates against other contenders in more closed processes that existed at the time. The Democratic nomination was not bestowed on him.

Not materially different.
There were unbound delegates and Humphrey petitioned them and won.
Same as what happened with Harris here.

Remember, both back then and now only delegates vote for the candidate.

Now what happened to Humphrey in November 1968? My memory escapes me.

He lost.
The convention was chaotic.
There was a rare massive third party vote in a region which one a significant number of delegates.
It also provoked a massive reform to the nomination system.

We will see if any of those 4 things happen this time.

 

[mandrill]

 

[Valcazar]

Yes, all true.

However, our system currently differs greatly from Canada (and the U.K. and other parliamentary systems) in that almost everyone can have influence on the two major parties' nominee in the primary process. I'm sure Canadians can have influence on the leader a party selects. I don't sense it's as easy or direct.

No, it is not.
Or rather, it is more direct in Canada if you are a member of the party.
In the US, it is much less direct because the primary process is so patchwork.
More of the population can participate in the Presidential candidate selection, though.
(Of course, the debate on who is selecting the candidates has its own issues, as seen by the various arguments over what type of primary or caucus to have. Most Americans have a very confused view of what role they play in the process.)

As far as rules for "what to do if the person you were obligated to vote for withdraws", no one is saying that the Democratic party is doing anything illegal or in violation of their own rules. It's more of a matter of calling into question carrying Biden across the finish line and then giving the trophy to Kamala. What transpired is not explicitly wrong. It's implicitly questionable.

I continue to find it bizarre that many people think a candidate is required to accept the nomination, but yes, it does seem some people have a really weird view on this.
Like I said, most Americans are very confused about the actual process.

 

[Burldude]

View attachment 348968

Is it too late for the Republicans to replace Trump?

 

[Valcazar]

Is it too late for the Republicans to replace Trump?

Nope.


Rule 9 of The Rules of the Republican Party provides guidance on how to fill presidential and vice presidential vacancies.

It says that the Republican National Committee (RNC) is authorized to select a new candidate by majority vote or by reconvening the national convention to fill the vacancy. In the former process, the three RNC members from each state—comprised of a state chair, a national committeeman, and a national committeewoman—would be able to cast the same number of votes as the entire delegation from that state to the convention.[9] Under Rule 9(c), if the three RNC members did not all support the same candidate, their votes would be proportionately distributed.[9] For example, each RNC member would cast 13 of Kansas' 39 delegate votes

 

[WyattEarp]

Not materially different.
There were unbound delegates and Humphrey petitioned them and won.
Same as what happened with Harris here.

Humphrey entered the race in April 1968. If you feel party insiders determining the nominee is the norm, that's fine. However, it's very well documented that the 1968 nomination process was reformed to give "Democratic" voters more direct determination of the nominee. Of course, it's not a popular vote process. We do know Kamala received zero votes in a Democratic primary.

In my opinion, LBJ's decision to not run in March 1968 was a more honest and realistic reaction to the situation than what transpired this spring and early summer.

So no, not the same.

Remember, both back then and now only delegates vote for the candidate.

Yeah, so. Comparing today's process to the process fifty-six years ago is more than extraneous.

 

[Burldude]

Nope.


Rule 9 of The Rules of the Republican Party provides guidance on how to fill presidential and vice presidential vacancies.

It says that the Republican National Committee (RNC) is authorized to select a new candidate by majority vote or by reconvening the national convention to fill the vacancy. In the former process, the three RNC members from each state—comprised of a state chair, a national committeeman, and a national committeewoman—would be able to cast the same number of votes as the entire delegation from that state to the convention.[9] Under Rule 9(c), if the three RNC members did not all support the same candidate, their votes would be proportionately distributed.[9] For example, each RNC member would cast 13 of Kansas' 39 delegate votes

It would wise for the Republicans to select someone else... the ship is sinking and Trump will be the first one to escape and spend his time golfing in his pro league where he wins every tournaments.