Posted on 09/11/2016 7:20:32 PM PDT by LS
There is a great deal of consternation among both Democrats and Republicans tonight over the health condition of Cankles. There are (unverified) reports that the DNC is holding an "emergency meeting" to look into replacing her if her health deteriorates.
Many Republicans fear a bait and switch with Joe Bite-me, thinking he would be a tougher candidate. I don't think so, but assume the Dems WANT to do this in the first place. There are many, many reasons why it's just impossible and/or so suicidally impractical they will drop the idea.
1) Early voting has already begun in 26 states + DC and and absentee ballots are mailed in almost all. Many have already been returned. Hillary's was the only D name in the presidential slot. Anyone voting for Cankles, and NOT wanting to vote for Tim Kaine or Bite-me would have a lawsuit---and these could be in the thousands. (We'll follow the legality a little later).
2) In ALL the states, ballots are already printed. Only Hillary is on there. It would be possible to recall all these ballots and reprint them, but imagine the chaos. If Palm Beach can't design a basic ballot, how well do you think all 50 states would do at yanking ALL their ballots and replacing them? Even a margin of error of 10% would elect Trump easily (assuming he won't already be elected, which I will assume just for the purposes of argument).
3) As a matter of state law, it is too late for anyone NEW to get ON the state ballots in many states. Not all of these are D states, so many would NOT agree to allow any new name on the ballot.
4) Even allowing for numbskull neverTrumper governors like John Kay-sick, most GOP governors would fight the process tooth and nail if only because in most states the GOP candidates are ahead, especially in the senate races in FL, NC, PA, and elsewhere. In other words, Richard Burr, Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, and scores of other Republicans who are safely LEADING would not want to risk a "re-vote" and start all over again.
5) Cankles will not be tossed out like waste paper. She would fight, and people might die. There is no way she will just hand this over to Kaine or Bite-me.
6) Practically speaking, I think the Bernie people would tolerate Kaine being substituted, but no one else. After all, he was "legitimately" nominated. But Bite-me over Bernie? No way. Even if this were pulled off, I'd wager that a solid 50% of the Bernie voters (or 25% of the total D vote) would vote for Stein or stay home.
7) But there is no way to put Bernie on either, for reasons listed above. Thus, only Kaine is an even remotely possible choice to replace Cankles.
8) Someone mentioned the Mel Carnahan situation, where he won election even though he died earlier. But he didn't have some other name substituted on the ballot for his, and the state Ds agreed his widow would take his place. A Carnahan for a Carnahan. The matter of "name confusion" did not exist. Herding people to the polls to vote (or worse, early vote) once is tough enough and we already knew that this year's turnout for the Ds would be well below 2012. But twice? Not gonna happen.
9) All this assumes there is no pushback. But Donald Trump is no Minion Romney. Trump would battle this at every level---legally, psychologically, and in terms of propaganda.
10) Ultimately, I predict that two things would happen: practically speaking, whoever might replace Cankles would suffer from the split vote so massively that he would only get, possibly, 35% of the vote, and maybe not even 80% of the D voters. Second, legally, there would be so many lawsuits immediately that it would be expedited to the USSC . . . which is 50/50. I don't think even the traitorous justices on our side would go along with a bait and switch. They would do the safe thing: rely on precedent.
And the precedent? Bush v. Gore, one man, one vote. Wouldn't it be ironic if George W. Bush, who wouldn't endorse Trump, became his unwilling ally and provided the margin of victory in 2016?
What is YOUR problem? I keep referring-—since you apparently are too dense to do the research-—to the Palm Beach ballot of 2000, which was just as clearly written as the AZ election laws (I am here in AZ, by the way).
The Palm Beach ballot’s LANGUAGE was ignored by the courts to go with the “will of the public” and the “spirit of the law.” Not once, but several times, both courts and election boards.
What I’m telling you and what you are apparently too dense to get is that the language of the law as YOU read it doesn’t count. It’s only what a court says, and courts are heavily influenced by public opinion. So, for the umpteenth time, regardless of what the LANGUAGE of the Arizona law says, the court can and based on historical precedence WILL interpret that to say what the court wants it to say. And in a Republican state, I seriously doubt that they would uphold the precise language of the law and would instead go with Bush v. Gore that says that you cannot have multiple elections, multiple vote counts. It’s either who is on the ballot (not the “electors”, but the person named) or it isn’t a valid election. But you can have it your way and see what the courts rule.
I don’t give a pinch of shit what you have to say about the courts. You keep blathering about Palm Beach and all sorts of other crap, and I just don’t care what you have to say about that. Don’t tell me I’m too dense to do research, or what I’m too dense to get, you miserable asshole.
Hillary is not, and never was, a Golda Meier or a Lady Thatcher. Neither character nor class.
She is a chronic liar & degenerate criminal. She should be in prison.
Good, that’s it. Name calling, the final indicator you’ve lost the argument, spiced with a few clever swear words. Glad we resolved that. By the way, any more of that and we’ll let the moderators know.
They tend to take a dim view of such behavior.
So calling people dense isn’t name calling. Right. Tattle to the moderators if you want. I really don’t care.
It is still idiotic of you to assert that anyone could be successful in a lawsuit by claiming that they had not voted for electors when the ballot had clearly stated that they were voting for those electors. Idiotic, as in put forth by an idiot. Now run crying to the moderators, because I was mean to poor little you. Talk about an indicator that you’ve lost an argument.
Glad you calmed your tone. So back to the point: how did the lawsuits regarding the very clearly written Palm Beach ballots go?
It won. It sent all the way to the USSC, meaning, for the fourth time, just like disclaimers-—CLEARLY WRITTEN DISCLAIMERS-—do not protect you from judgments, neither do clearly written statements about voting for electors rather than people mean anything. It is a court that decides and in America anyone can find courts to rule for them.
It then ends up in the USSC which, unless you can find another justice between now and December, would be 4-4 and case remanded to lower court-—which would be the same court that allowed the person to get to the USSC in the first p,ace (I.e., the one that said that langauge doesn’t matter).
Or, for some reason the USSC could cite Bush v. Gore and say you cannot have multiple elections/vote counts-—regardless of the language on the ballot.
There is no scenario in which a court would just allow electors to be “assigned” because a party ways it so OR because “that’s what the language say”. In our legal world, the specific language of documents means nothing (remember Roberts’ Obamacare decision?)
Just because you can find cases in which a court, or even a series of courts, rules wrongly, does not mean that every court will always ignore plain language. Arizona does not require the electors for whom a voter votes to then vote for the candidate who is preferred by the voter. Such a voter might be thoroughly ticked off, but it would require a court to disregard the incontrovertible fact that the voter did vote for the electors, and not the candidate, for the voter’s suit to have any chance of winning.
Perhaps such a thing might happen, and perhaps it did in this Palm Beach whatever you keep going on about. Or perhaps, as I suspect, Palm Beach addressed something other than my point that Arizona voters do not vote directly for Presidential candidates and that that is clearly stated on the ballot. (I freely admit that I do not come home from a typical 12+ hour workday and research political lawsuits.)
I do not know why you are bringing up Bush v. Gore, nor mentioning some mythical scenario in which a party assigns electors, other than your obvious penchant for irrelevance. Those things have nothing to do with what I pointed out in the first place.
Anyway, I’ve spent far too much time trying to make a really simple point. I apologize for the earlier profanity, but I find it really annoying when people drag in a lot of off-topic nonsense and think they’re making an argument.
Enjoy the election in November, and let me know how it works out if you decide to sue because you aren’t happy with the result of your vote.
I will be thrilled with my vote for Trump. Sorry you couldn’t follow the bread crumbs to get why Palm Beach ballots and Bush v. Gore would, if anyone tries to switch out any other candidate for Cankles, will fail.
Irrelevant again. Give it a rest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.