TFG or That Florida Guy? Either way, can the GOP win in 2024?

[StringJunky]

10 hours ago, iNow said:

Capable and smart, but cynical and lacking in consistent principles. She’s a very skilled political operator who moves her position swiftly to align with the polls, but even dead leaves can go with the flow. We need leaders who shape it, not just get carried by it. 

At 40-60 points behind, she only stands a chance if Trump is somehow subtracted from the equation, and even then Trump voters are far more likely to flow to DeSantis. 

She's chameleonic.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

She's chameleonic.

Sounds like Gwyneth Paltrows latest body cleanse 

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Sounds like Gwyneth Paltrows latest body cleanse 

Now there's one that flew over the cuckoo's nest.  

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

I do think she and Liz Cheney together on a ticket would be VERY hard to beat in the general election, even though they’d never make it out of the GOP primary. 

That's a curveball suggestion that could work. Cheney for pres.  Out of all the available options, I would vote for her. She's taken the hardest swings and still standing... and not through blind belligerence either.

[iNow]

This doesn’t directly support my claim about where voters will go if Trump vanishes, but it is still insightful. Trump support has only grown in the past 2-3 months, same with DeSantis, yet Haley is flat in first in the nation state Iowa

 

[toucana]

Donald Trump has just been kicked off the GOP primary ballot in Colorado by the Colorado Supreme Court.

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/colorado-trump-14th-amendment-12-19-23/index.html

This reverses a finding by a Colorado District Court  just a couple of weeks ago, where the judge reached the baffling conclusion that Donald Trump *had* engaged in insurrection, but should *not* be disqualified under section III of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, because even though he was the POTUS  at the time, he wasn’t technically deemed to be an ‘Officer of the United States Government” in the sense referred to by the 14th Amendment.

The Colorado Supreme Court made it clear in a 217 page ruling that they regarded this finding by the lower District Court to be a clear and reversible legal error. They also made it clear that the earlier finding that Trump had engaged in an insurrection was correct and factually based on evidence of record, and that Trump’s inflammatory speech which provoked the riot and breach of the Capitol was not protected political speech under the First Amendment.

This latest ruling will undoubtedly be appealed immediately to the SCOTUS by Trump and his lawyers. In reality the Colorado decision by itself will make little difference to the calculus of the electoral college in the 2024 Presidential election, because Trump probably wouldn’t have have won any EC votes in Colorado to start with - but the new ruling does set a very interesting legal precedent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1PySqGo4L0

[TheVat]

Maybe Nikki will pick up some primary wins after all.  😄

[iNow]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Maybe Nikki will pick up some primary wins after all.  😄

Or maybe red states move to convince they’re judges to take Biden off their ballots (or both)

[AIkonoklazt]

Thanks for reminding me to check the depressing polls

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/

[iNow]

*their. Stupid autocorrect 

[CharonY]

I saw another depressing poll (somewhere) showing that folks believe that Trump would be better to handle the Gaza conflict (well actually handling anything would be stretch).

 

Here is a tracker on the litigations, though most likely it all hinges on SCOTUS.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker

 

[toucana]

Quote

 

“A state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” -

(Neil Gorsuch - Sep. 4th 2012 Hassan v. Colorado & Scott Gessler at the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit)

 

The SCOTUS will need to consider this interesting ruling which was penned by none other than Neil Gorsuch back in 2012 when he was a circuit judge on the appellate bench of the Tenth District. This was cited by the Colorado Supreme Court in their ruling this week.

https://www.newsweek.com/neil-gorsuch-could-strike-death-knell-donald-trump-1853993

[iNow]

1 hour ago, toucana said:

penned by none other than Neil Gorsuch

We’ll soon see just how much integrity he really has, and how principled he is. Or, we’ll see how he shapes his judicial philosophy to achieve his personal political preferences by saying, “Naw….THAT was different.”

[J.C.MacSwell]

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

We’ll soon see just how much integrity he really has, and how principled he is. Or, we’ll see how he shapes his judicial philosophy to achieve his personal political preferences by saying, “Naw….THAT was different.”

Trump of course wants it to delay everything and keep it as different as possible...

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/21/politics/trump-legal-chaos-2024/index.html

If you or I had done some relatively minor offence it would of course "drag out" a few months not years if we disputed it.

[TheVat]

Agree that, as @iNow observed, Gorsuch will backpedal on his 2012 ruling.  No doubt he will assert that Trump's conduct was in no way an insurrection and therefore Section 3 would not be applicable.  Hell, the only time Section 3 worked was for a couple years during Reconstruction, and by 1874 the South had managed to elect dozens of representatives who had been prominent rebels.  They should call Section 3 the Swiss Cheese Clause.

[StringJunky]

Do we think most non-committed GOPers will eat Trump alive once it looks like he's on the way out?

[TheVat]

19 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

non-committed GOPers

What is this rare cryptozoological phenomenon you speak of?

[StringJunky]

13 minutes ago, TheVat said:

What is this rare cryptozoological phenomenon you speak of?

Non-MAGA Republican voters.

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Non-MAGA Republican voters.

It was sort of a joke regarding the way Republicans who appear non-committed will still back Trump after they've complained bitterly about his shortcomings.  But maybe they will surprise me and dump him for real this time.  For sure, demographics like suburban women seem poised to divorce him.  

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

31 minutes ago, TheVat said:

It was sort of a joke regarding the way Republicans who appear non-committed will still back Trump after they've complained bitterly about his shortcomings.  But maybe they will surprise me and dump him for real this time.  For sure, demographics like suburban women seem poised to divorce him.  

 

Did he finally say something sexist?

Not to toot my own horn, but I think I might have been the only one here to see that coming...😜

[iNow]

Maine just followed Colorados lead. Their courts have ruled Trump ineligible under the 14th amendment

[geordief]

Not the Court system,I think.

The Secretary of State in this case.

[swansont]

I like that one of the challenges was that TFG’s claim that he won the 2020 election means he’s ineligible under the 22nd amendment. It would be fun to watch him try and respond to that.

[iNow]

13 hours ago, geordief said:

Not the Court system,I think.

The Secretary of State in this case.

Quite right. Thanks for correcting 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

I like that one of the challenges was that TFG’s claim that he won the 2020 election means he’s ineligible under the 22nd amendment. It would be fun to watch him try and respond to that.

If Trump is correct I guess Biden is again eligible in 2028 even if he wins in 2024...or even 2032 if he steals another LOL.

Now if George W. can just find enough extra old Al Gore hanging chad votes to make himself eligible...

[TheVat]

In Maine a SoS ruling has no force until it undergoes court review, so Trump is not booted off yet.  As for the probability that SCOTUS will allow any ballot exclusions, my Bayesian inference is p = 0.  My Bayesian beliefs on the viability of snowballs in Hell are rationally updated every day by the antics of Trump, the number of motions filed in federal courts, and the so-called Supreme Court.

 

 

Edited December 31, 2023 by TheVat
bmrg