Skip to comments.Why the Dems are Stuck with Cankles
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?
The best situation is for Cankles and her many MSM lackeys to simply continue to deny what it is becoming obvious to the world.
They do not have to change the ballot.
They only have to convince the electors to switch from Hillary to someone else.
But in that case, enough people would have to vote for Hillary electors to win.
Not going to happen if she is gravely ill.
Wow! Talk about a thorough post. This covers all scenarios!!
The scenario you only hinted at-- a "do-over"-- would have profound Constitutional separation-of-powers ramifications. Constitutionally, there are no "do-overs".
I pray you are correct....but...who knows....the one worlders want this REAL BAD
The technicality in all of this is the electoral college system. We don’t really vote for a candidate. We vote for electors who then vote on the candidate.
I’m not sure of the legal side at all, but the constitution would let those electors for Hillary vote for whomever they wished.
They aren’t stuck with her, but it isn’t good for them no matter what happens.
Very good analysys, and witty too. I dont see Queen Cankles going anywhre.
Heres a technicality.
The militia is all able bodied males ages 18-42.
One worlders better fricking remember that.
THE WOMAN HAS TO HAVE AIDES STANDING BY HER AT ALL TIMES OF THE DAY TO CATCH HER IF SHE FALLS, STUMBLES, FAINTS, BOBBLES HER HEAD, FREEZES AT THE MICROPHONE, GETS DIZZY, IS CONFRONTED WITH STAIRS, GOES BLANK, OR CANT SEE THE CURB. Good Lord have you no sense of shame in your entire bodies? Why are you continuing to do this? Can't you SEE what you are doing?
I mean it. SHAME on you DEMOCRATS. Let the poor woman RETIRE....Please! It's painful to watch. Give her back her dignity. Stop carting her around and propping her up like a wind-up doll. Move on, it's time to get someone else. I mean, FACE IT...she just isn't physically fit enough to perform such a difficult and demanding job as the President of the United States...PERIOD!
Your legal analysis is wrong.
The President is not chosen by the popular vote but by electors to the electoral college.
The state Democrat party would just notify the Electoral College that the name at the top of the ticket had been changed.
A similar situation happened in on if the Grant elections as I recall...
As usual, excellent analysis, and a calming influence on all the FR worrywarts.
The Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. They were hoping to drag her across the finish line before people realized how sick she was...but it unraveled. I don’t think they have a viable option, barring something unforeseen happening, they are going to lose badly.
I agree with that. However, you can correct me, but I can’t think of a militia call up since the frontier colonial Indian wars. Can you?
Chaos if she is replaced before the election from now on, unless she becomes room temp, where as you suggest Kaine would be the only one that would avoid a Bernie revolt.
They wouldn't have to convince millions of Americans to vote for the new candidate, just a few hundred Democrat faithful who would be easy to threaten, cajole, and/or bribe.
What the Dems would have to do is convince the voters to vote for Hillary not necessarily knowing who would be swapped for her. This is the interesting choice: whether to specify someone as a replacement before or after the election. Either alternative has advantages and disadvantages.
Still, I think any uncertainty, would tend to take some votes away from Hillary. She might get some Dems to get off their couches to make a sympathy vote, but they could lose many more votes to those Bernie voters who would feel totally burned by a system that propped up an unhealthy candidate that couldn't even make it through the summer.
“Stuck with Hilary” was my thought from the moment she got the nomination - they’re stuck with a weak candidate with a boatload of baggage, any bit of which could explode at any minute (as the health issue may be exploding now).
But what they’re really stuck with is a dilemma in timing. If they force her out too soon, all their bull-pucky about her as the best qualified candidate ever, about how we absolutely positively must have a female president, about how talk of all her deficiencies was just alt-right propaganda - all that is exposed as a load of partisan manure, the expected product of establishment lies.
If they wait too long, the practical problems (ballot presentation, choice of a replacement, campaign efforts to make the replacement candidate viable, etc) - all that gets exponentially more difficult the longer they wait.
There probably is no perfect time to dump her fat derriere from the ticket, so the donkeys are stuck with a really, really tough choice as to how to move forward from here.
No, but as this election debacle would be a singular event, so would the reaction to attempting to steal/corrupt/manipulate it.
Can you speak to his accuracy? I intend to base an editorial on it.
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.