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?
My point though is if she leaves they lose. If she stays, they probably lose big.
“It has been said part of the reason she is running is to assure she stays out of prison.”—Question of escaping punishment through a Presidential pardon becomes neccessity if a change of the guard occurs.
“There are always alternatives.”—Spock...What form of retribution when partisanship negates rule of law???
If a remember it correctly,The Supremes ,to paraphrase said Bush v.Gore was a ‘one off’.No precedent.
If Democrats were capable of shame, they wouldn’t be Democrats.
Hillary is going to hang in there as long as possible. For one thing, she knows Trump's going to prosecute her, and that's a biggie.
On second thought, keep her on life support until December 19.
Don't put it past the Democrats, and Hillary KNOWS IT!
That's why I say keep her on life support.
Trump offers Hillary a pardon in return for her throwing the election to him and spilling the goods on Obama, Bill, News Media cons, and other top Dems. He could also let her keep the cash in the Clinton Foundation.
Hey, Donald! How about it?
I can see it now!
“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.”
As I recall, ballots here (AZ) state that the vote is, in fact, for a slate of electors. Therefore, such a case would be thrown out instantly.
IIRC, I believe that would be the simplest issue to solve. If the President-elect dies before the inauguration, the Vice President elect would be sworn in as VP at 1200 on Inauguration day, then immediately succeed the deceased President elect, and be sworn in as President.
He/She would then nominate a VP and the Senate would have to confirm them in office.
I guess you missed the thousands of successful suits against companies/products that have very clear disclaimers: courts rule as they wish, especially if it is toward “democracy” or “social justice”.
The public nature of this would be unrelenting. No, I don’t care what the “law” says, this would be a “reverse Roberts” especially in a Republican state.
He’s leaving January 20th, 2017. The manner in which he leaves would be his choice.
I believe the DNC KNOWS already that the ballots don’t count! The elecion is a sham as they intend to flasify the results anyway!
Because they don’t want to commit Arkancide?
that sounds logical, thanks
The other aspect to this is the write-in factor.
More than a few 'Rat voters may write-in their POTUS/VPOTUS candidate, knowing that Canky was at or near room temperature.
Those write-in votes would NOT be tied to 'Rat electors.
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.