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 do the goobers at DU say about this?
I gotta hope there’s enough decency among the Bernie-ites that they would reject DNC’s replacement after they were lied to and the entire party disgraced itself by propping her up like this. Her VP mate is in on this complete fraud - the Bernie-ites should hate him as much as we do because he is betraying our country with this farce. Leave it to DNC to claim that the constitutional requirements are now an obsolete “living document” that needs to be rewritten in order for the media and the DNC to select our next “ruler.”
Remember that? Obama’s staff said he was “ready to rule.”
I wrote a response on the thread. I don’t think it works. This isn’t a dead candidate AFTER an election. This would be replacing someone in the MIDDLE of an election, after votes had been counted.
Just one singe person could bring a successful suit saying, “No, I didn’t vote for the D ‘electors,’ I voted for Cankles.” And he’d have a point.
Obama staying just isn’t gonna happen.
It seems like it’s new territory, and in a lawless time, that’s not good.
The practical problems are already too immense, especially when you consider that Dem voters aren’t the brightest (see 2000 Palm Beach County).
True, but what is good is that there are so many people at so many levels who have a stake in NOT changing the process, it won’t happen. Ds who are now leading, but in danger of slipping would oppose. R governors who aren’t total wimps would oppose (say Doucey in AZ, Abbot in TX). Just too many people with too much to lose on both sides.
The problem with the electoral college vote, and I have also written that it is actually determined by the electors themselves, is that it is only an issue with Hillary if Hillary wins the majority of electors in the election itself.
If she does, I find it hard to believe that she will willingly release them to vote for someone other than herself who will have just won an election.
Additionally, I agree with LS that this kind of situation will so depress/change the democrat turnout that it’s unlikely a democrat would win.
My real concern is some obscure clause in the constitution or some law that I might be missing regarding the president calling for new elections in the event of disruption of this election.
Is there any such thing that anyone knows of?
Also, read this very closely and imagine how a legal beagle could distort it:
“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.”
I do not see it saying that a person cannot HOLD the office of president more than twice. It says they cannot be elected to that office more than twice.
We shall see. Unfortunately, these are Interesting Times.
DJT better have personal independent security. No doubt in my mind Obamatons infest the SS and would “neutralize” the threat to the Obama revolution.
“The practical problems are already too immense . . .”
You might be right about that (you make a good case in the post), and you’re certainly right about the level of sophistication of the average Dem voter, BUT what’s really the deciding factor is what the puppet-masters think. If Hilary starts to tank in the polls, who knows if Soros, the Wall Street insiders, the DNC apparatchiks, and the rest of that corrupt crew will start to panic - and people will resort to desperate measures once panic sets in.
Obama getting a third term would be such an open violation of the Constitution that it would not stand. Even Obama knows that.
That you for a very comforting analysis and I also look forward to hearing what the Great One has to say tomorrow
This is going to go to the USSC but Ginsburg is going to be forced to recuse
There is NO WAY,Hillary gives this up unless she`s dead....Annnnnnd even then
It’s late. That should have been Thank you for...
Really well thought out. Good read.
BEST ELECTION EVER..!!!
Well, not THAT late but it’s been a long day anyway.
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.