HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Land Shark » Journal
Page: 1

Land Shark

Profile Information

Member since: Thu Dec 30, 2004, 05:48 PM
Number of posts: 6,344

Journal Archives

With turnout up 50%, Sanders wins 69% of vote from Democrats Abroad, awarded 125% delegate lead

Sanders 69%
Clinton 31%

That is more than double, all over the world!

Sanders 9
Clinton 4

That is a 125% lead in delegates!

Source: http://www.democratsabroad.org/global_presidential_primary_results

Democrats abroad and around the world, as well as domestic Democrats who have either traveled or else learned about other countries, sure as hell know that education and health care are not luxurious "freebies" in the modern world!

On edit: Sanders also scored 4 out of 4 superdelegates, on top of the above. For those counting supers, today's total is this 13-4 in favor of Sanders. See http://www.democratsabroad.org/global_presidential_primary_results

On second edit: ambiguity in the source document between two groups of four delegates (supers and at large) may mean supers are not fully determined yet so to be safe.let's go back to original 9-4 margin in the original, unedited post.

"Constitutional Responsibility" Means Senate Defeats Nominee But House Decides Prez

Today the Repubs say they will stop Trump "by any means necessary" whether he has delegates or not, via floor votes. To heck with democracy! Apparently the Constitution is on their side, with Lopez-Torres v. NEW YORK BD OF ELECTIONS holding that candidates need not get a "fair shot" and have no right to a fair process.

If they screw Trump they may or may not get Trump's promised riots, bit we will get an independent run by Trump. And if we get an independent run by Trump, it is entirely possible.or even fairly likely that trump.could veer somewhat more left and pick up, say, Democratic states - just a couple or a few. Enough to make it hard to get a pure majority.

Without a real majority, the Republican House of Representatives picks our next president, on a one state one vote basis per the 12th amendment. That means a losing Republican is president.

So if everyone is going to go against the Republicans purported invite to be more.democratic and let the voters decide SCOTUS opening, in favor of lobbying to DO THE SENATE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, the Republicans easiky dodge the bullet by voting down every nominee. So easy for them.

But come November, if there is a three way race we are in danger of having the House pick the President because of the 12th amendment. So HARD for us -- because we would be hypocrites to oppose the House it if we urge the Senate this Particular way.

And if that hapoens, how will all the Democrats who screamed for the Senate to do their constitutional responsibility object to the House doing their constitutional responsibility and installing a Republican who most likely lost the popular vote AND lost the elector college and even lost their own party's primary elections as the next PRESIDENT??

It is simple for the Republicans to vote down a nominee, while dedicating ourselves to constitutional responsibility could mean the least popular Republican is in stalled as the next President.

I do not guarantee no candidate with a majority. I don't think replies that attempt to say it won't happen are particularly necessary. I'm just saying that there is a Constitutional sinkhole if no one gets a majority and everybody should be aware of that gaping hole in democracy so we don't accidently fall into it.

Under the circumstances where the likelihood of 3 major candidates rises every day, it is dumb to get everyone rushing to commit themselves to "constitutional responsibility" of the Senate unless we can show why the Senate has to do its responsibility but the House doesn't. "CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY" DOESN'T GIVE US ANYTHING, JUST A VOTE, BUT IT MAY GIVE THE REPUBLICANS THE WHITE HOUSE AFTER WE BEAT THEM.

On Trump, there is "No Virtue in Silence:" Someday we will be asked what we did in this Moment

Lawrence O'Donnell brings us the powerful thought of Elizabeth Warren, combines it with Edward R. MURROW, and builds to a powerful conclusion:

On Trump, someday we will be asked what we said and did during this historic moment. Will our answers be good? Please watch this video!

[link:http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/on-trump-protests-no-virtue-in-silence-644549699686| http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/on-trump-protests-no-virtue-in-silence-644549699686

Three delegate contests post-Chicago, TRUMP EPIC FAILS in all three. Coverage?

Results of the Rep. GUAM delegate election Saturday (9 delegates total): 1 Cruz, 8 uncommitted

Results of Rep. Wyoming Caucus (12 delegates): Cruz 9 delegates, Rubio 1 delegate, uncommitted 1 delegate, Trump 1 delegate. (Wyoming awards more delegates later)

Results in Rep. Washington, D.C. (19 delegates): Rubio 10 delegates, Kasich 9 delegates.


CRUZ: 10
TRUMP: 1[ /B]

So out of three contests post-Chicago, Trump only got one out of 40 delegates, which is a new low for him. Yet, the media claims to be against Trump but it still presents this as a Cruz or Rubio victory without even mentioning Trump. This allows Trump to go into Tuesday as strong as possible and stronger than he deserves.

Can you imagine if Bernie, or even Hillary, got only one delegate in three contests on the same day with a respectable 40 delegates in play.
They would definitely be talk about candidate weakness, whether justified or not. I don't see that talk about Trump, does anybody?

I am not saying that Trump has no arguments that these areas are not his strengths, blah blah blah, but why isn't anybody arguing the other side in the media?

Personally I think the media supports Trump much more than they let on, and they are especially keen to divide up the otherwise powerful potential anti-TPP alliance between Sanders and Trump supporters on the basis of racial tensions.

Why do people act like primaries are winner take all, when they are not?

Shouldn't ideas of winning and losing be directly related to the actual rules of Delegates awarded by the votes?

People on both sides claim entire states in their column when it just isn't so. Except maybe Vermont.

How Establishment Repubs LOSE popular vote, LOSE electoral college, & STILL WIN THE PRESIDENCY, 2016

Establishment Republicans like Republican officeholders in Washington, DC, are probably the most hated political group in the country, hated even by their own Republican grassroots. It's therefore the year of the Outsider.

But barring something bordering on divine intervention, establishment Republicans in the House of Representatives will choose the next President, because no candidate will be likely to get a majority in the electoral college. Thus, under the 12th amendment this throws the election to the House of Representatives for an immediate vote, with each state's delegation getting one vote.

For the sake of this analysis, I'm going to assume a couple things that are pretty reasonable, but, if they don't turn out to be true, would change my analysis. First, I'm assuming Trump does well tonight in Super Tuesday and is on a near glide path to the Republican Nomination. I am also assuming what has been publicly threatened already also comes true: Establishment Republicans drop Trump "like a hot rock" and submit a third party candidate. Finally, there is one further semi-assumption. The third party candidate would need to win at least one electoral college elector in order to be in the top three vote-getters, because the House is restricted to voting amongst the top 3 vote getters.

There is a way to virtually guarantee that a third party Republican establishment candidate gets at least one or more electoral college votes. Remember McPherson v. Blacker? It was the basis on which the US Supreme Court vacated the Palm Beach canvassing board case in the first of its three major 2000 election rulings related to Bush v. Gore. (the other two being the stay of the recount, and the Bush v. Gore opinion itself). McPherson v. Blacker is an 1800s US Supreme Court case that held in prominent dicta that states have "plenary power" to choose the method of selecting electors for the Presidency. It is the basis upon which Bush v. Gore (in Scalia's opinion) recites that there is no constitutional right to vote FOR PRESIDENT.

NOTE: One should add that this is true only from a perspective well ahead of the election, but once a presidential election is in progress, one can certainly sue for violation of their constitutional right to vote if they are prevented from voting in a presidential election. But beforehand, a legislature could dispense with elections for the presidency entirely, and appoint a list of electors instead. Or do any manner of other things, like provide for proportional representation, or representation by whoever wins congressional districts.

As you can see from the following December 2012 article, Republicans have threatened to use Republican control of state legislatures in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and other states to change allocation of presidential electors to congressional district. https://web.archive.org/web/20130108131314/http://nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the-trail/the-gop-s-electoral-college-scheme-20121217

And McPherson v. Blacker would back that threat up:

The Constitution does not provide that the appointment of electors shall be by popular vote, nor that the electors shall be voted for upon a general ticket, nor that the majority of those who exercise the elective franchise can alone choose the electors. It recognizes that the people act through their representatives in the legislature, and leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method of effecting the object.

So if a Republican third party candidate can get one or more electoral votes, and there is no majority winner in the electoral college, the currently Republican House (not currently expected to change) would decide who is the next President on a one state/one vote basis. And the problem is, as the link above points out, that if states like Pennsylvania had been awarded on a congressional district basis, Romney would have won Pennsylvania as well as a majority of the congressional districts in Michigan.

Establishment Republicans don't need to win the popular vote, or even the electoral college, in order to install a President opposed by the vast majority of the American people. All they need is to divide up the electoral college, and have 26 states that, after the coming elections, have a majority of their congressional districts electing republicans. They can let the other 24 be 100% blue, for these purposes, and it won't change anything about the Presidency.

This could even mean that the Dems regain control of the House but STILL CAN'T STOP establishment republicans from installing their favored candidate.

1. Ya think the Republicans will run a third party candidate for President?

2. Ya think the Republicans, with the Supreme Court now also on the line, will STOP TRYING TO CHANGE electoral college rules, given they tried last time?

3. Ya think the Republicans control enough state legislatures to cram through electoral college changes before November to give a Republican third party candidate at least one electoral college vote, and make it difficult or impossible for anyone else to get a clear majority of the electoral college, so the Presidency is decided by the 12th amendment and the House of Representatives?

4. Ya think Republicans would obstruct the presidential process like they've obstructed the Supreme Court process?

5. Ya think Republicans hope that a Supreme Court vacancy will drive up turnout enough to make it unnecessary to pull out the knife and change the electoral college in some states?

Yeah, I think so, too.

Now, let's see if Trump wins tonight. And then we shall see the Constitution pitted against the will of the People by the Republicans. Again.
Go to Page: 1