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

[npts2020]

10 hours ago, iNow said:

Exactly correct. Let’s use this opportunity now to review these exchanges with this in mind:

 

YOU: I don’t see why getting kicked off a ballot in certain states is a big deal. The major parties go to court all the time to remove lesser known candidates from ballots. 

ZAP: Winning is impossible if you’re not on the ballot, so it actually is a big deal if you have any desire to actually win. 

YOU: Ah… so you’re saying 3rd parties aren’t trying to win?

EVERYONE ELSE: What the AF are you talking about?!??

YOU: It’s happened before.

ZAP: Yep, but precedence doesn’t mean it’s somehow not a big deal. How is this not self-evident?

YOU: More moot blather and blunder…

Nice summary. Too bad you couldn't see fit to use the actual quotes in order of exchange instead of your summaries of what you wanted to see me saying but it isn't worth quibbling over. I understand that, you, like most others unfamiliar with ballot access requirements, feel that this is a way bigger deal than the many times similar ballot denial cases have been brought up. In the few cases SCOTUS has bothered to hear, they have generally sided with states over feds and even parties over states; see "Tashjian v Rep Party of Ct." and "California Democratic Party v Jones". Both struck down open primary rules in those states and not ballot access per se, except that in both cases non-party members were excluded from the primary ballot. Interestingly, the party in Connecticut wanted open primaries and SCOTUS struck down a state law not allowing it, whereas, in California the state wanted to impose open primaries on the parties and the parties managed to have the court allow closed primaries. While there is no telling what the current SCOTUS is likely to do, it seems to me, precedence would lead an impartial court to defer to states and parties unless they are in conflict with each other, which I am unsure if is really the case with Mr. Trump.

IMO, if they take any of the cases, they will weasel a decision to make Mr. Trump appear on the primary ballot by claiming voters in the 9 states that don't allow write-in votes are "disenfranchised" by not having any means of voting for their candidate if efforts to remove his name occur there. Burdick v Takushi upheld Hawaii's right to not allow write-in votes but SCOTUS also wrote in its opinion that there was sufficient means for Burdick to have had gotten his name on the ballot, a point that I am sure will be brought up at any trial. Unless, SCOTUS is going to overturn this or better define what "sufficient means" is they might not take any of the cases and just allow whatever state supreme courts rule to stand.

[zapatos]

47 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

I understand that, you, like most others unfamiliar with ballot access requirements, feel that this is a way bigger deal than the many times similar ballot denial cases have been brought up.

So you are saying I would not think this is a big deal if only I better knew ballot access requirements. I would counter that you are ignoring the candidate that this issue is about.

Similarly a little old lady with advanced cancer would not be as big a deal as advanced cancer in a person who has the potential in the future to impact the lives of hundreds of millions of people. Context matters. Again, it is a bit shocking that you cannot see that.

[npts2020]

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

ignoring the candidate that this issue is about.

That is the ONLY reason it is a big deal. In a world with equality Mr Trump's complaints would be ignored or swept aside like EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE that some political party wanted to exclude from the ballot. Eugene Debs ran his final campaign for President from a jail cell in 1920 with the only outside communication allowed being a single letter each week to his wife. More recently, the Green Party has had to go to court to get or maintain ballot status in multiple states every election since they have existed, the only difference being it hasn't been for a primary election since third parties generally are prevented from running them by the states.

[swansont]

13 hours ago, zapatos said:

So if while reviewing the Colorado SC decision in the ballot case, the US Supreme Court rules that the 14th Amendment is not relevant to the particular set of facts regarding Trump's actions, and that the Colorado SC made a mistake, isn't that deciding an issue of fact? That Trump DID NOT engage in an insurrection as described in the Constitution?

What their ruling ends up as is speculation. Is there some legal mind saying that this could be the ruling? What, specifically is the legal challenge before the court?

edit: it’s possible they could rule that primary elections are not for a government office - you don’t hold office if you win - so the 14th doesn’t apply. The question of whether he engaged in an insurrection isn’t addressed.

They could rule that the 14th prevents you from holding office, not running for office. That just kicks the can down the road, but it would only matter if TFG wins the presidential election in the state. Otherwise he doesn’t get electoral votes and there’s no issue.

[iNow]

12 hours ago, npts2020 said:

I understand that, you, like most others unfamiliar with ballot access requirements

You assume I’m unfamiliar. You know what they say about people who assume, right? Stop acting like an ass. You said being removed from a ballot doesn’t matter. It very clearly does to anyone seeking to win. This is remedially true and self-evident. Move along. 

There’s a separate issue about whether he’ll stay removed from said ballot or get removed from others. Maybe try focusing there instead of speculating about what me and other posters here understand about US presidential election processes and primaries.

[npts2020]

13 hours ago, iNow said:

You assume I’m unfamiliar. You know what they say about people who assume, right? Stop acting like an ass. You said being removed from a ballot doesn’t matter. It very clearly does to anyone seeking to win. This is remedially true and self-evident. Move along.

Stop F-ing misrepresenting what I have said Mr. Knowitall and post the quote where I have ever stated that being removed from the ballot doesn't matter or isn't a big deal. What I actually said was that it SHOULDN'T be big deal because of previous instances of people being kicked off the ballot. I don't have to assume anything about your knowledge of ballot access laws and their history...it's pretty obvious.

[Airbrush]

Trump will win in 2024 IF Biden does not deal significantly with the border issue.  If Biden would deal with the border, that will neutralize the GOP's biggest weapon against him.  Or they will call him "Open Borders Biden."

Edited January 2 by Airbrush

[iNow]

53 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

2024 IF Biden does not deal significantly with the border issue.  If Biden would deal with the border

What specifically do you propose? He presented his plan to congress that would’ve expanded personnel and enhanced technology and improved efficiency, but they refuse to even bring it up for a vote. Without congressional sign off, the best he can do is deprioritize existing resources and work with border nations… which he’s also doing. 

Facts matter not to voters in the same way vibes do. Nobody grasps that congress is the bottleneck and wouldn’t give Biden credit even if immigration were magically made perfect. 

Education and critical thinking are the only ways to neutralize what’s happening. Nobody cares about policy right now. It’s totally tribal and you aren’t 100% in lockstep with the tribe you get death threats. 

They’d keep calling him open borders Biden even if he closed them completely.

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

Trump will win in 2024 IF Biden does not deal significantly with the border issue.  If Biden would deal with the border, that will neutralize the GOP's biggest weapon against him.  Or they will call him "Open Borders Biden."

The GOP biggest weapon is web-borne propaganda which grossly misrepresents his performance as president, the obstructions of Congress, and the globally driven nature of problems like inflation, war, and surges of refugees.

38 minutes ago, iNow said:

Education and critical thinking are the only ways to neutralize what’s happening. Nobody cares about policy right now. It’s totally tribal and you aren’t 100% in lockstep with the tribe you get death threats. 

Yup.  Having US public schools dial back their social studies requirements has been lethal to our politics.

Edited January 2 by TheVat
bmrg

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

If Biden would deal with the border, that will neutralize the GOP's biggest weapon against him.

The GOP's biggest weapon is people like you. You ignore the ball & chain Congress put on Biden, and instead wonder why he's hobbling along. Did you ever question the numbers FOX News was throwing at you? When they claim the CBP "encountered" 250,000 migrants in November 2023, they're talking about people who walk up to the Port of Entry, people who cross irregularly but wait for BP to come collect them, as well as those irregulars who don't want to get caught. It's a TOTAL number, but when they phrase it like a Border Patrol encounter, the average viewer assumes it's all illegals.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Trump will win in 2024 IF Biden does not deal significantly with the border issue.  If Biden would deal with the border, that will neutralize the GOP's biggest weapon against him.  Or they will call him "Open Borders Biden."

Are there any polls saying that this is a big issue with voters not already going to vote for TFG?

“68% of Americans say immigration is good for the country today”

27% say it’s bad, but if they are already in TFG’s camp, it’s not going to sway the election.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/508520/americans-value-immigration-concerns.aspx

And, as Phi has suggested, the do-nothing GOP can be blamed for not passing legislation; the president can’t pass laws by himself.

It might also be pointed out that this is a manufactured concern (surprise!) seeing as the number of immigrants in 2021 was about 1.5 million, lower than any pre-pandemic year this century. It was ~2.5 million a year under TFG, pre-pandemic

https://usafacts.org/state-of-the-union/immigration/

[Phi for All]

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

It might also be pointed out that this is a manufactured concern (surprise!) seeing as the number of immigrants in 2021 was about 1.5 million, lower than any pre-pandemic year this century. It was ~2.5 million a year under TFG, pre-pandemic

https://usafacts.org/state-of-the-union/immigration/

The party apparatus that spread lies about the 2020 election being stolen is using the same technique to spread lies about their opponents in 2024. They desperately want the White Public to think there are hordes of dark-skinned migrants crossing without inspection and overwhelming Border Patrol. And with that typical conservative put-that-out-with-gasoline mentality, trying to force Biden to shut down the asylum system just guarantees there will be an increase in illegal border crossings. 

I sincerely hope the entire planet can survive the death throes of the GOP. The ones calling the shots for the party right now are quite simply the scum of the Earth.

[Bufofrog]

A new poll came out that said 7 out of 10 republicans are morons.  Specifically, the poll said 67% of the republicans say Biden's election was not legitimate, which is the same thing as saying they are morons. 

[geordief]

11 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

A new poll came out that said 7 out of 10 republicans are morons.  Specifically, the poll said 67% of the republicans say Biden's election was not legitimate, which is the same thing as saying they are morons. 

It is understood that the 7th out of every ten gave as a reason that number 6 had told them so.

It is not known who was the original source  of the information.

[iNow]

One of the best things congress could do would be to accelerate processing of asylum claims and worker permits instead of making people who cross wait 5-9 years just for a hearing, but that’s for another thread.

[Airbrush]

22 hours ago, swansont said:

Are there any polls saying that this is a big issue with voters not already going to vote for TFG?

“68% of Americans say immigration is good for the country today”

27% say it’s bad, but if they are already in TFG’s camp, it’s not going to sway the election.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/508520/americans-value-immigration-concerns.aspx

And, as Phi has suggested, the do-nothing GOP can be blamed for not passing legislation; the president can’t pass laws by himself.

It might also be pointed out that this is a manufactured concern (surprise!) seeing as the number of immigrants in 2021 was about 1.5 million, lower than any pre-pandemic year this century. It was ~2.5 million a year under TFG, pre-pandemic

https://usafacts.org/state-of-the-union/immigration/

Topics of most interest to GOP voters:

1  Controlling Inflation - 53%  US inflation has been trending downward and GOP need to be made aware of this.  Unusually high worldwide inflation followed the Covid pandemic broken supply chains.  Worldwide inflation averaged over 8% for the year 2022 (US averaged only 6.5%.  US averaged 3.9% for 2023 so far, and down to an average of 3.3% over the past 6 months.)

Inflation Rate - By Country (tradingeconomics.com)

Historical Inflation Rates: 1914-2023 (usinflationcalculator.com)

2  Controlling Immigration - 36%

3  Fighting Liberalism & Woke Agenda - 25%

4  Able to Beat Biden - 25%

"Of the topics that we asked about, [GOP] voters were most concerned about “getting inflation or increasing costs under control” (53 percent of respondents selected this issue),...Other issues that were top of mind for voters were “controlling immigration” (36 percent), “someone fighting against liberalism and the woke agenda” (25 percent) and “ability to beat Joe Biden” (25 percent)."

Republican debate highlights and analysis: Fiery faceoff on Trump, Ukraine and more - ABC News (go.com)

Edited January 3 by Airbrush

[TheVat]

8 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

3  Fighting Liberalism & Woke Agenda - 25%

These seem to be the Right's favorite conceptually empty attack phrases.  I have no idea what they really mean, nor do most people who use them.   It's impressive that politicians can get a quarter of the GOP to rank fighting these chimeras at the top of their concerns.

I'll bet if you actually defined the real meanings of woke and liberalism and presented them (minus those hot button words, or following them with "agenda") to your polled sample, you would get a much smaller group that wanted to "fight" them.  

For example, here is the actual definition of woke from Merriam Webster:

"aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)"

Yeah, my God, let's fight this looming threat of people attentive to important facts and issues, especially where racial bias in concerned!  This could destroy the basic fabric of American life and drain our precious bodily fluids!

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

Topics of most interest to GOP voters:

Well, there you go. Complete idiots. 

1. The US has the lowest rate of inflation in the G7 countries. The GOP voters aren't being told this.

2. Immigration is vital to any growing democracy. The GOP voters are being misled about this.

3. The objection is basically, "I don't want to hear how I've been manipulated as an American!" GOP voters don't seem to understand this perspective.

4. This is a two-party system problem, another thing the GOP voters are constantly misled about.

It's very sad and frustrating. Like watching Lennie with the rabbit, and trying to explain that he shouldn't hug it so hard, knowing he's not listening.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Topics of most interest to GOP voters:

I asked “Are there any polls saying that this is a big issue with voters not already going to vote for TFG?”

So items of interest to GOP voters doesn’t answer this question. Most/all of them are voting for TFG. They are not the ones who will be convinced by facts, anyway. They’re too far into the cult to be deprogrammed.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

They are not the ones who will be convinced by facts, anyway. They’re too far into the cult to be deprogrammed.

And perhaps somewhat interestingly, they tend to say the same thing about “the left.” 

[Airbrush]

21 hours ago, TheVat said:

These seem to be the Right's favorite conceptually empty attack phrases.  I have no idea what they really mean, nor do most people who use them.   It's impressive that politicians can get a quarter of the GOP to rank fighting these chimeras at the top of their concerns.

I'll bet if you actually defined the real meanings of woke and liberalism and presented them (minus those hot button words, or following them with "agenda") to your polled sample, you would get a much smaller group that wanted to "fight" them.  

For example, here is the actual definition of woke from Merriam Webster:

"aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)"

Yeah, my God, let's fight this looming threat of people attentive to important facts and issues, especially where racial bias in concerned!  This could destroy the basic fabric of American life and drain our precious bodily fluids!

Yes, "woke" as opposed to unconscious.  Dictators thrive on unconsciousness.  The level of mind-control is astounding.  Time to vilify education and awareness.  

18 hours ago, swansont said:

I asked “Are there any polls saying that this is a big issue with voters not already going to vote for TFG?”

So items of interest to GOP voters doesn’t answer this question. Most/all of them are voting for TFG. They are not the ones who will be convinced by facts, anyway. They’re too far into the cult to be deprogrammed.

So GOP voters will CLAIM items of interest because they can't state the truth, that they are simply enthralled by an entertaining celebrity, who struts around like a pro wrestler, and cracks wise about the evil other party.  If TFG were to state "inflation is not an issue, and the thousands at the border is nothing, and wokeness is no big deal" his cult of personality will turn on a dime to not care about those things either.  They can't be deprogrammed because their source of news is narrow, by choice.

Edited January 4 by Airbrush

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

So GOP voters will CLAIM items of interest because they can't state the truth, that they are simply enthralled by an entertaining celebrity, who struts around like a pro wrestler, and cracks wise about the evil other party.  If TFG were to state "inflation is not an issue, and the thousands at the border is nothing, and wokeness is no big deal" his cult of personality will turn on a dime to not care about those things either.  They can't be deprogrammed because their source of news is narrow, by choice.

I don’t think they know the actual truth, because they accept whatever fiction TFG, or FOX news, etc., peddles, as truth.

I’m not sure what would happen if they stopped making stuff up, but why would they?

Also not sure what this has to do with answering my question.

[AIkonoklazt]

I have this impression that "GOP" is really "Trump Party" and thus "GOP voters" are "TP voters."

"Non-Trump GOP" would be "independent" or "unaffiliated" since the GOP is basically no more.

The "issue(s) that GOP voters care most about" would be "is Trump gonna own the libs," If they say they care about other stuff, uh well maybe, but that's not really what they care most about... It doesn't actually matter what Trump does or doesn't do or will do or won't, and it doesn't actually matter what Biden does or doesn't or will or won't, either.

Trump will own the libs as the next "boss," from jail cell or not.

I wonder if they'd let him out of jail for meetings, or would foreign dignitaries have to have meetings with him behind bars?

[AIkonoklazt]

Oh forgot the actual topic... Of course "GOP" can win the Presidential election. Look at the polls, it's a coin flip.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

[StringJunky]

Trump's eligibility case is up for SC review on February 8th.