That's a very plausible 2028 match up.Biden is the better man of the two but I would much prefer seeing a Newsome vs Haley run for the Whitehouse. I would still cheer for Gavin but wouldn't be overly worried for the US if Haley won.
That's a very plausible 2028 match up.Biden is the better man of the two but I would much prefer seeing a Newsome vs Haley run for the Whitehouse. I would still cheer for Gavin but wouldn't be overly worried for the US if Haley won.
They may understand how the system works but just have different priorities than you, valcazar.How much "anyone but Trump" vote is there is unknown.
After 4 years of him being President, it was very high, but with time people forget and are annoyed at the things of the moment.
Sure, seeing him on TV all the time could bring it back, but maybe not.
The other aspect to keep in mind is about your first sentence. As the forum here on TERB has shown repeatedly, lots of people cling to the idea that their vote is about "who they support" and not "who they prefer".
That drives a lot of people to stay home or otherwise vote against their interests because they don't understand how the system works.
they say trump is the threat to democracy yet they think they can tell the american people who or who not your allowed to vote forNot looking good for Lefties who wanted to get Trump off the ballot
whos the real threat to democracythey say trump is the threat to democracy yet they think they can tell the american people who or who not your allowed to vote for
Not the ones who think "my vote is about who I support".They may understand how the system works but just have different priorities than you, valcazar.
Yes, it sounds much better if you say they have 'different priorities' rather than they don't understand the system.Not the ones who think "my vote is about who I support".
That's just misunderstanding what voting is actually doing and clinging to a myth of what they "want it to do".
The people who understand that but vote Third party for other tactical or messaging reasons but understand the consequences just have different priorities.
Most people actually paying attention figured the Supreme Court would overturn it - the question has always been on what grounds and with what new guidance.Not looking good for Lefties who wanted to get Trump off the ballot
If the use the third can't the dems come back and say he was impeached twice and if that's not the process what is?Most people actually paying attention figured the Supreme Court would overturn it - the question has always been on what grounds and with what new guidance.
Will they go with a narrow technical ruling that dodges the issue - knocking down this Colorado case but leaving the 14th amendment section 3 unresolved? (Something like the Colorado process wasn't proper due to some technical issue, or it can only apply to the general election and not primaries)
Or will they go with something that basically makes Section 3 non-viable in reality - saying it has to be a federal criminal conviction of insurrection, or the whole "this oath is different so it doesn't count" or "The President isn't an officer as specified in this passage".
Or will they try to put together some kind of clarification of the process going forward? - "Congress needs to pass a law specifying how the states or federal government can determine this" or "it must be state courts following a specific process" or "federal offices need to be decided in federal circuit courts" or whatever?
I'd like it to be the third, and hopefully in a process that makes sense.
(Ideally, I would like this to be a blow to federalism for elections and slowly start a move to real national voting for national office, but that's not likely.)
I kind of figure it will be the second, although I think there is a good chance it ends up with everyone agreeing to overturn Colorado but three or four different explanations why so nothing concrete is solved.
But that's a small minority.Yes, it sounds much better if you say they have 'different priorities' rather than they don't understand the system.
No, he shouldn't.Sounds like the SC won't let the states take rump off the ballot.
Biden should announce that if coups are ok he'll starting planning one for next J6.
No.If the use the third can't the dems come back and say he was impeached twice and if that's not the process what is?
That's supposition on your part, you don't actually know what those people are thinking but assume you do with your personal opinions on morality and pragmatism.But that's a small minority.
The vast majority of people voting third party or refusing to vote don't understand the system.
The clue is usually when they say "I just can't support X person" - that is a clue they've got it wrong.
I know, the SC is deciding whether states can eject a candidate for starting a coup, or any reason at all.No, he shouldn't.
Also, that's not what the SC is deciding here. (I suspect they won't engage in any way with whether or not Trump did it.)
No.That's supposition on your part, you don't actually know what those people are thinking but assume you do with your personal opinions on morality and pragmatism.
Not really.I know, the SC is deciding whether states can eject a candidate for starting a coup, or any reason at all.
They do.It would be worthwhile for the SC to understand the repercussions of this decision,
Not at all.I know the MAGA crowd here will talk about the rights of voters and the possibility that this can weaponize states to make candidates ineligible. But if it goes through it means candidates can never be removed for criminal acts, doesn't it?