What would be the main factors affecting the outcome of a Clinton vs. Rubio election?

Politics & Elections
81

Perhaps, but it would be the first time, so he might not be very good at it even if she tried. All of the GOP candidates are getting tested in ways similar to how they’ll be tested in the general election. Nothing is being held back. The Democrats are pulling their punches a little. Starting to mix it up a little, but nothing like it’s going to be in the general election.

It is a huge relief that Christie cornered Rubio that way and not Clinton. And we know Clinton has a weakness. When she gets off script and in trouble, it’s always over her scandals, which tells me that her inner circle isn’t preparing her for such questions.

82

Still sounds like wishful thinking. We’ll see.

83

No, but the legislature of WI or wherever would not know that the Republicans won the popular vote and lost the electoral college until the votes were actually cast, at which point it’s a little late to be changing the rules.

84

It’s not really changing the rules to lobby electors. Who knows, maybe a couple of them are anti-electoral college and would change their votes to the popular vote winner. You never know.

85

I interpreted **septimus **to say that if the national popular vote in the general election went, say, blue, then the Wisconsin legislature would introduce legislation to require their state’s electors to vote their electoral college votes all blue, rather than however they were pledged to vote under the Wisconsin electoral law that was in effect on Election day.

If I misunderstood what septimus’ rather cryptic comment meant, then my comment may be off-base.

86

I’m curious as to what anyone thinks the penalty for electors not voting according to the elections results could be. Prison? Huge financial penalty? IANAL, but I imagine that there would be some serious constitutional issues involved in forcing Presidential electors to vote a particular way.

87

According to this wikipedia article, 21 states do not require electors to be faithful, and the 29 that do have never actually enforced any penalties. I imagine if a state is controlled by Republicans but sends Democratic electors to the College, that they would not complain at all if a few of them changed their vote.

88

Except that doing so would end our political system and essentially be an attempt at a coup.

No big deal, really. Your guys recommend worse things every day.

89

My post #74 caused confusion. Many of you seem to think the U.S.A. remains a country of law and justice. I hope you’re right, but see no evidence that the right wing supports any law or justice that they don’t like.

Some think that Gore won the 2000 election but was subverted by corrupt legal chicanery. Are marriage registrars obeying the law yet in Kim Davis’ county? Like the apocrophal frog who didn’t notice the water warming until it was too late, many Americans don’t seem to realize that their democracy is being subverted.

Just today, there was a contemptible Scotus ruling considered illegal by the 4 Justices appointed by decent Presidents, but which passed by a 5-4 vote.

Note that the Michigan House has already passed a bill requiring (under specified circumstances) the electors to vote according to the national popular vote. Of course I undestand that’s not the current Michigan law, but do you think that matters to the Right? I won’t predict what legal chicanery would be used, but if it gets to Scotus it will have four sure votes; the Presidency would then be dictated by Justice Kennedy, the only remaining Justice appointed by a GOPper from the pre-deranged era, Ronald Reagan.

:confused: The side that supports corruption and injustice did do this in 2000. Are you asking why don’t the Democrats sink to the same level?

90

Like I said, it would have to involve an extraordinary set of circumstances. Probably the Republican candidate would have to win the popular vote, AND the state involved would have to have a razor thin margin in which there is evidence that some kind of fraud tipped the election to the Democrat. That would be enough to make some lobbying of electors look understandable to most impartial observers.

91

There are armed nuts ready to fight for the right to burn down public forest in Oregon, and huge numbers of right-wingers supporting them. Can you imagine the uproar that will be stirred up by Limbaugh, Rove, FauxNews etc. if Rubio wins the popular vote but is denied the Presidency by the electoral college system? Michigan is one state which will vote Democratic but whose government is controlled by right-wingers. Remember that the stakes are extremely high. Demographics are turning against the GOP: if they lose this election they’ll never win another until they moderate their stances. But if they do win it, they’ll eviscerate all regulatory bodies and take measures to perpetuate their power.

Don’t forget that among the many ways the GOP stole the 2000 election, they shamed the Democrats into counting servicemen’s illegal votes. (Can you imagine the GOP allowing a group of illegal votes on grounds of “fairness” if those votes would favor Demorats?)

If the electoral college goes Blue while the popular vote is Red – which has a fairly likely chance of happening – you can bet that the right-wing will be screeching and calling for action. The news shows and blogs will be prattling about nothing else. Many naive Americans will agree with them. Bloggers will call for armed citizens to rise up. I’m not predicting with any certainty that the right-wing would orchestrate a form of coup (as they did in 2000 Florida) but the possibility is real.

92

I think your opinion is a bit over the top.

A state choosing to vote its electors per the national popular vote, rather than the state’s popular vote is a decision to lose state “sovereignty”, and to essentially let 49 other states decide how your voters should have voted. That’s true even if your a big state like CA, FL, or NY. And it’s vastly more true if you’re a small state like WI, or increasingly, MI.

IOW, it’s exactly opposite to state’s rights, state individuality, and all the other anti-federalist stuff the Right believes in.

You do have a point that the right has had a history of favoring various politically motivated rule tweaks that benefitted them when they were the minority party, and they’re now concerned and back-pedaling those same tweaks because those tweaks are hurting them now that they’re in the majority.

E.g. state legislature term limits were excellent for pushing out the entrenched Ds. But now that they have entrenched Rs running out of time, the necessity for fresh faces is seen as a problem, not a solution to a problem.

If indeed the R legislature in a mildly D-for-Prez state tried to alter the rules during this election they’re gonna get stopped in court. And them voting in changes for 2020 is implausible. As you say, demographics is against them. What Rs want is system that respects the popular vote less, not more.
Compared to the Ds, the R primary system has more instances of winner-take-all, as is their elector selection system for the electoral college.

Which has the effect of focusing more support earlier at the leading R candidate n both races. There certainly have been years when the D race was full of contenders running on proportional delegate allotments, all unfocused and full of internecine warfare, while meantime the Rs had already coalesced around their standard-bearer.

Bottom line:

Proportionality has one set of features; winner-take-all has another. Each is advantageous in different circumstances. Only someone ignorant of history maintains that either is good or bad.

A state choosing to award its delegates to the national popular winner is the limit-case of winner take all: A president who got *one *measly vote more nationwide would be elected in the electoral college by a 100% to zero% vote. That does not sound like something a beleaguered and back-pedaling R group would back for the future.

93

:confused: right back atcha.

The Florida legislature did attempt to halt the many recounts at a time when the results would be favorable to Bush. They never tried to put any pressure on the electors. And why would they? The electors were Republican, which was what they wanted.

To satisfy your scenario, a couple of states with Democratic legislatures where the popular vote went for Bush would have had to pressure the electors to vote for Gore and make the Electoral College reflect the overall popular vote. That never happened, and it never happened in any of the earlier elections in which the popular vote and Elector College results differed.