How Trump can lose and stay on. Opinions?

[Hari_Seldon]

I’m not sure what forum this belongs in. Today’s votemaster column gives a way that Trump could lose the election and still win. PA, FL, MI, and WI have Republican legislatures. The constitution gives the state legislatures complete freedom as to how they choose electors. The fathers anticipated that presidential electors would be chosen by the state legislatures. It didn’t work out that, but if the Dems win, say, PA, the legislature could simply substitute the Republican slate for the Democratic one. It would be sufficient to deny the Dem candidate of a majority of the electoral vote for in the case, HR would make the choice, but each state would have exactly one vote. So the Democratic vote from California would be canceled by the Republican vote from Wyoming and the Dems would not have a chance.

But I want to know how the voters, even the Republicans of PA, would react to such a scenario. What do you think?

[CarnalK]

They couldn’t ‘simply’ do that. They would have to pass legislation that changes their elector selection process, in the space of time between the vote and delivering their votes to Congress and survive the inevitable court challenges about legislation that baldly overturns said election.

[HurricaneDitka]

@CarnalK

They couldn’t ‘simply’ do that. They would have to pass legislation that changes their elector selection process, in the space of time between the vote and delivering their votes to Congress and survive the inevitable court challenges about legislation that baldly overturns said election.

Not to mention that the governors of PA, MI & WI are dems, so they could veto the bill.

[That_Don_Guy]

@HurricaneDitka

Not to mention that the governors of PA, MI & WI are dems, so they could veto the bill.

In fact, I can see the other way around - where Trump appears to get a majority of the electoral votes but ends up losing - happening, and Democratic governors play a major role in this.

Remember, if the Republicans try to “rig” a state’s votes, the Democrats can challenge it when they are counted on January 6, and keep in mind that is after the newly elected Congress is seated; if, say, the House votes to accept the electoral votes for the Democrat and the Senate votes for Trump, it goes to “the executive of the state” to decide which to count.

[Shodan]

@CarnalK

They couldn’t ‘simply’ do that. They would have to pass legislation that changes their elector selection process, in the space of time between the vote and delivering their votes to Congress and survive the inevitable court challenges about legislation that baldly overturns said election.

Obviously it wouldn’t stand up for twenty minutes to any kind of a court challenge, but could the legislature pass that kind of ex post facto law?

@The US Constitution

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

The laws that control an election are the laws in force at the time of the election.

Regards,
Shodan

[HurricaneDitka]

@That_Don_Guy

In fact, I can see the other way around - where Trump appears to get a majority of the electoral votes but ends up losing - happening, and Democratic governors play a major role in this.

Remember, if the Republicans try to “rig” a state’s votes, the Democrats can challenge it when they are counted on January 6, and keep in mind that is after the newly elected Congress is seated; if, say, the House votes to accept the electoral votes for the Democrat and the Senate votes for Trump, it goes to “the executive of the state” to decide which to count.

Unfortunately, what you outline does not strike me as impossible. It would trigger a real Constitutional crisis. There’s already a crazy dem running around the country telling everyone she “won” her race in Georgia (she did not).

[Kent_Clark]

Remember, if something like that were to happen, Democrats would seek revenge. Bigly.

And no matter how much Trump and his supporters might try to keep him in office forever, some day he WILL die.

And Democrats will be waiting.

[Czarcasm]

@HurricaneDitka

Unfortunately, what you outline does not strike me as impossible. It would trigger a real Constitutional crisis. There’s already a crazy dem running around the country telling everyone she “won” her race in Georgia (she did not).

From “Democrats” to “Dems” to “dems”? I can’t wait to see the next step.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Czarcasm

From “Democrats” to “Dems” to “dems”? I can’t wait to see the next step.

What are you talking about? I referred to them as “dems” in post #3. There are no “steps” here.

[Czarcasm]

@HurricaneDitka

What are you talking about? I referred to them as “dems” in post #3. There are no “steps” here.

Are you claiming that you didn’t use to refer to them as “Democrats”, switching to “Dems” later in your posting history, and most recently “dems”?

[CarnalK]

Oh for god’s sake, dude. Are you seriously seeing insult because someone is typing “dems” instead of “members of the Democratic party”?

[HurricaneDitka]

@Czarcasm

Are you claiming that you didn’t use to refer to them as “Democrats”, switching to “Dems” later in your posting history, and most recently “dems”?

I use all three interchangeably. For example, here’s a post from 2012 where I use “Dems”:

@HurricaneDitka

Dems now complaining about poll over-sampling?

And here’s one from a few days ago using “Democrats”

@HurricaneDitka

I suppose he’s making the point that only a relatively small % of our population serve in the military. but the same sort of accusation could be made against, for example, Democrats:

"Of course, the vast majority of [Obama] supporters haven’t and don’t intend to volunteer for the military, so many of them won’t have any qualms about " fighting in Libya, or Somalia, or Syria, Yemen, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan.

Looked at in that light, it (iiandyiii’s lame chickenhawk-ish argument) loses most of its relevance.

Are you upset about the lower-case “d”?

[HurricaneDitka]

@CarnalK

Oh for god’s sake, dude. Are you seriously seeing insult because someone is typing “dems” instead of “members of the Democratic party”?

That’s my understanding of the current situation.

[Shodan]

It’s just faux outrage, like “Democrat party” being insulting. Anything to try to change the subject.

Regards,
Shodan

[Ravenman]

@CarnalK

Oh for god’s sake, dude. Are you seriously seeing insult because someone is typing “dems” instead of “members of the Democratic party”?

Right, let’s save the outrage for things like saying “happy holidays” to Christians or news reporters who describe the SKS used at a school shooting as an AK-47.

[CarnalK]

@Ravenman

Right, let’s save the outrage for things like saying “happy holidays” to Christians or news reporters who describe the SKS used at a school shooting as an AK-47.

Are you saying the outrages are equally stupid or equally justified?

[Velocity]

@HurricaneDitka

Unfortunately, what you outline does not strike me as impossible. It would trigger a real Constitutional crisis. There’s already a crazy dem running around the country telling everyone she “won” her race in Georgia (she did not).

It hasn’t affected things, though - Stacey Abrams’ wild claims haven’t put her one inch closer to being the actual governor of Georgia.

Likewise, Trump can claim whatever he wants, but if he loses in 2020, he is getting evicted in January 2021 from the White House no matter what.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Velocity

It hasn’t affected things, though - Stacey Abrams’ wild claims haven’t put her one inch closer to being the actual governor of Georgia.

Likewise, Trump can claim whatever he wants, but if he loses in 2020, he is getting evicted in January 2021 from the White House no matter what.

I agree with all of this, but what That Don Guy posted about was the opposite: a scenario where President Trump actually wins in 2020, but is denied the presidency through some post-election shenanigans along the lines of what the dems tried the first time he won.

[RitterSport]

@Shodan

It’s just faux outrage, like “Democrat party” being insulting. Anything to try to change the subject.

Regards,
Shodan

“Democrat Party” is meant to be insulting by those who use it. Cite:

Democrat Party (epithet)

Democrat Party is an epithet for the Democratic Party in the United States, used in a disparaging fashion by the party’s opponents. While historical and occasional current usage includes non-hostile appearances, the term has grown in its negative use since the 1940s, in particular by members of the Republican Party—in party platforms, partisan speeches, and press releases—as well as by conservative commentators.[1]

However, HD’s usage of lower case “d” and shortening of Democratic Party to dems seems fine to me. It doesn’t seem disparaging in any context nor does it seem to be the intent here.

[Velocity]

@HurricaneDitka

I agree with all of this, but what That Don Guy posted about was the opposite: a scenario where President Trump actually wins in 2020, but is denied the presidency through some post-election shenanigans along the lines of what the dems tried the first time he won.

Ah, ok. I see.