Faithless electors could in theory give us President Gary Johnson. And, though he doesn’t mention it, a Vice President Pence.
The Founders would smile.
[Update late afternoon]
An elector toys with not voting for Clinton. They should all give it some thought.
“The latest Rasmussen Reports White House Watch national telephone and online survey shows Trump with 43% support among Likely U.S. Voters to Clinton’s 41%. Yesterday, Clinton still held a four-point 43% to 39% lead over Trump, but that was down from five points on Tuesday and her biggest lead ever of seven points on Monday. ”
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct13
[linked from drudge]
But it’s still about 3 weeks away- so forever. Though I doubt Johnson will do well, but suppose anything is technically possible.
In article: Bending to Trump’s Star Power
Jonah Goldberg
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440969/donald-trump-video-shows-his-obsession-celebrity-not-just-sexism
Jonah figured out that Trump’s success is related to star power..
But if think about it, once upon time actors and singers were not something most people thought as important and no president has ever been elected without star power.
Which bring us to Johnson or Johnson and Pence they lack star power.
Though I think Pence could possible do well in 2020- because he was Trump’s VP and voters might want someone who appears to be sane.
Face it it’s Hillary. The 538 blog has it 87 to 13 Clinton over Trump. Obviously things haven’t gotten bad enough. Republicans need to amend their rules to prevent this from happening again. If not super delegates then make all contests proportional esp. if your going to start the primaries with a field of sixteen. Then drops outs actually get a chance to push enough pledged delegates to make a difference rather than winner take all at 35% or less of the primary vote. In this regard the Republican Party is severely broken / mathematically challenged. Trumpis Ex Evidentus…
It’s bad, but it’s not over. The voters can still surprise us. The third debate is going to be widely watched.
If Hillary is elected Franklin told us the result. It will not be obvious immediately, but we will see her control reach every level of govt. The only question is will they continue to hold show elections?
Any future republicans elected will be thoroughly vetted by the corruption machine.
Then we become an element of the new world govt. Crisis preceding.
Republicans need to amend their rules to prevent this from happening again.
I recommend that the powers-that-be anoint Republican and Democrat party nominees in December, turn the primaries and conventions into purely celebratory affairs, and then have the public elect the right nominee in November. That’ll prevent a Trump.
Last I checked Lori Garver was still on the Dems good side. With Hill in the House maybe she’ll be the new NASA admin. A laser dot of light in the darkness all round.
You might be right, but wow… how to lose sight of the ball. With civilization literally crashing down (or did you not realize nuclear war is coming?) there isn’t going to be a space program.
Ken, I see now why you feel the way you do about Mars. But consider the possibility of extinction on two planets. The nature of the beast hasn’t changed.
If you really believe this instead of wasting time on Mars we should be deploying a Star Wars style defensive system and building up a pre-emptive first strike capacity again any target here on Earth. Or as you say there isn’t going to be a space program…
Why assume I haven’t thought about extinction on 2 planets? Getting an independent colony on mars is just the beginning to getting people to Kuiper, then Oort, then the next star.
The Russians see star wars as an offensive weapon. They were very comfortable with MAD which was a security blanket to them.
Hillary scares them and current events suggest she scares them a lot. This is incredibly dangerous. I’d give Trump 100 big breasted girls to grope if it kept the world from nuclear war. Stronger conventional forces would cool things down.
I’d give Trump 100 big breasted girls to grope
I’m pretty sure they’re not yours to give.
I’m pretty sure if he wanted to live like that, he already could without anyone’s help. Heck, they’d volunteer. cf. Anna Nicole Smith.
The point being… PRIORITIES.
Doesn’t matter what Gary Johnson does or does not do.
From the Democrat Election Commissioner in NYC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4XK8DGeWgU
I think a plan of doubling nuclear energy in US in next decade could be useful for campaign promise.
The candidate would need to know the issue- I doubt any of candidates
have a clue. But it’s possible Clinton could appear to be knowledgeable
and it be an un-Clinton type of October surprise.
As recall Obama in his first campaign, mentioned increasing US nuclear energy capability. Though also he talked a lot increasing government transparency- and he obviously didn’t do that nor do anything towards
building new nuclear power plants.
Clinton lately has talking about global warming and has dragged Al Gore on stage. And James Hansen has over last year or two has been talking about need to increase nuclear energy as only solution to reducing CO2 [and he had opposition it]. Increasing nuclear energy use is the only way to actually significantly reduce CO2 emission- and the people who believe in global warming that are utterly stupid, know this.
And/or one could say it’s a growing realization.
Really, a major way to lower global CO2 is having China and India use a far greater mix of nuclear energy. 80% of China energy is from coal.
But American Lefties tend to believe that US should lead the world in doing foolish stuff like wind and solar energy, so idea US leading the world [and supposedly causing other countries to follow] makes some kind of sense in terms of nuclear energy.
Also Bill Gates has involved with his idea of using nuclear energy for years. And politically speaking who does Gates talk to in regard to such
plans? I would guess he talked to James Hanson, who talks to Al Gore, who talks to Clinton, and Al Gore joins with Clinton on stage.
Now the Greens tend fear nuclear energy more than global warming,
and question is would talking about increasing nuclear energy use
cause political damage. And it didn’t seem to harm Obama election chances.
As recall Obama in his first campaign, mentioned increasing US nuclear energy capability. Though also he talked a lot increasing government transparency- and he obviously didn’t do that nor do anything towards building new nuclear power plants.
At least he didn’t block previously planned new reactor construction. I would agree with the transparency being worse. It wasn’t good before but ever since 9/11 things only went downhill.
Increasing nuclear energy use is the only way to actually significantly reduce CO2 emission- and the people who believe in global warming that are utterly stupid, know this.
I couldn’t care less about CO2 emissions. I am more concerned about the other things coal power plants spew out which cause actual fatalities.
“Increasing nuclear energy use is the only way to actually significantly reduce CO2 emission- and the people who believe in global warming that are utterly stupid, know this.
I couldn’t care less about CO2 emissions. I am more concerned about the other things coal power plants spew out which cause actual fatalities.”
I don’t care about CO2 emission either, and in additional foolishness is that US emission is actually going down.
In terms killing people, China coal use is fairly serious problem.
Though also there is no argument about US nuclear energy causing less fatalities than US coal power.
If had to choose between wood burning and coal burning, it seems Coal burning has less fatalities and is cleaner in terms of CO2 and having actual real pollutants.
Though of course it’s not matter of me choosing andI am not against coal use [it should be used if and where is economical] but sort of against coal use in terms of thinking of it as global solution and pathway use for future centuries, but wood burning would be an even worst direction than coal..
But with nuclear energy there is essentially a limitless supply- and it’s safer, and it actually true that it a way to lower CO2- unlike any wood burning, windmills and solar energy for electrical power.
Or nuclear energy is an answer to how to lower CO2. A nation could actually powered by nuclear energy and not have as result an
increase in poverty.
The downside of nuclear energy is it seems to requires excessive governmental involvement- or hard to argue against the inevitable and the existing excessive governmental involvement. I think as practical matter, in this one regard, that a goal should not have much more 50% of electrical power of nation using nuclear energy.
US currently it is 19.5%, and as comparison France has 75% of it’s electrical power from nuclear [which is main factor that causes France to have low national CO2 emission]
And SLS could become the key to humans travelling to distant planets and beyond the solar system.
My ribs hurt. 😉
The Founders would smile at disenfranchising EVERYONE? Really?
Yes, really. The Founders never intended that the people would vote for president. He was supposed to be elected by the states. The reason we’re in this mess is that the decision was given to the voters.
Faithless electors aren’t “the states”.
The reason we’re in this mess is that the decision was given to the voters.
Who would you give the decision to?
The state legislatures. As intended.
So you would make it like the Politburo then? Sick.
We have enough problems with that system here in the EU as is with the Council of Ministers having most of the power.
The more layers of separation you have between the citizens and the head of state the more opaque and crony the whole system becomes.
So you would make it like the Politburo then?
No. People elect the state legislatures. The state legislatures vote on who is president.
Rand, having exposure to state and county politics I can assure you it is very crony at that level. I would agree with Godzilla. It would tend to insulate the Federal government far too much given the power it wields today as opposed prior to the 1860’s. Many states are already so gerrymandered at the state level it would likely guarantee one party rule at the federal level. You cite California & I’ll cite Illinois as prime examples.
David,
At least there is accountability on the state level. On the federal level there is far less of a chance to stop cronyism.
And the next year Congress would pass an amendment to abolish the Electoral College.
Congress doesn’t pass amendments on its own.
True. It would go to the states where both Democrats and Republicans would eagerly vote for it, as they would in Congress.
Nope. Takes two thirds of the states. Wouldn’t happen. Very few actual Republicans would support it. It’s a very un-Republican idea.
It takes three fourths of the states.
Yes, right. Even harder.
They don’t need to. Hillary’s carrot and stick would work just as well with electors. Fear and reward are powerful forces.
Hasn’t Obama proved his executive orders have the force of an amendment without the trouble of the constitutional process?
Rand, I don’t know how you can be so blind. Clinton corruption has affected the institutions of this country to such a degree that ONLY Trump has any chance of fixing it. I challenge you to listen to Coulter’s book. I’m listening to part 3 at this very moment and fact checking her in real time (using my current hospital stay to advantage.)
Nobody you can name other than Trump has the slightest chance of making any difference in the corruption machine.
If Trump is a con man, he’s a rank amateur to the Clinton con machine (a network that includes most of the institutions in this country… including some of the FBI we are now learning.)
Coulter has done her research. I’m discovering that Trump is much better than I was even aware. Challenge your own beliefs Rand. That’s true skepticism.
You absolutely right Ken Clinton con machine is truly phenomable. They found a trojan horse con man to make Bill Clinton look good, and make his peccadillo look like nothing and anyone who attacked Clinton on it as Rank hypocrites if they don’t unendorse and attack Trump also.
Just example one of the sites I look at the writer went from Pro Trump and in 5 days of doing the exact same shyte the Clintons made famous into this. Trump is worse than Clinton and dosen’t have the temperament for president
Now Trump is attacking those who unendorse him with VIGOR , and seems to be setting up to take his loyal 30% to build a subscriber funded online media empire (Call it Trump University Part 2 but this time with a large client base) to continue his attacks on Clinton Enemies be it Fox, republicans while maybe throwing some hypocritical shade at Clintons way as a method of keeping the base paying attention and starving others of the attention all the while he has a new revenue source to milk for the next 10 years until he can get his children back on NBC. And who know HRC may changes the laws to help him maybe re-institute the fairness doctrine for TV and Radio.
Yea I saw your response to the previous post, I posted before the debate. Yes Trump did a better job at the debate but it was no knockout punch it was keeping his head above water so the republicans couldn’t come up with a scheme to replace him. Trump whole campaign has been been tax book pandering and attracting 1 individual group that happens to be a majority that is out number by all the other groups combine while intentionally alienating every other group and already built in under 50% in the country. While relying on the fact that in the primary the majority is enough to win. He had already destroyed 1 party and he well on his way of doing it to a 2nd.
Clinton is better than trump? Bullshit. How many people has Trump gotten killed? Trump’s above-board as far as anyone knows, compared to the infinitely corrupt Haggard Queen.
This is why Obama ordered the media not to talk about what is going on in the wars we are waging at the moment.
If people knew of the holocaust level of suffering that is happening because of Hillary and Obama’s bungling in the ME, even Democrats would be against her.
I am Paraphrasing the article the exact quote is “Trump is making Bill Clinton look like a choirboy, and I never thought another man running for president could top Bill’s sexual perversion. ” and she is right. There is more evidence that Trump a letch than Bill , between the videos of things he has said, his behavior , what woman accused him of and he himself bragging about it on tape (the pageant stuff). They both have accusers that they viciously attacked. Bill is still with his 1st wife and only hard evidence of him being a letch is a blue dress. Both are pond Scum.
What do you care if Trump killed a person. He said it himself that he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th ave and his main supporters would still support him and he be right.
And as far as we know Trump hasn’t gotten any one killed but it wasn’t for the lack of trying. He tried to have 5 people executed who have since been exonerated.
I never thought another man running for president could top Bill’s sexual perversion.
No man has. So far all we know is Trump exhibits juvenile behavior even if the unwanted kissing is true. The Clintons raped and murdered.
Your scenario makes no sense to me engineer, but I can see how some might conclude it.
The problem is you describe Trump threading a needle he has given no indication he’s capable of.
The most damning is to listen to his arguments. They aren’t those of a mole.
Faithless electors could in theory give us President Gary Johnson.
But not in practice. Faithless electors would have to vote for Johnson in enough numbers to make him among the three highest electoral vote getters. I can’t see that happening. Faithless Democratic electors will go for another Democrat like Biden. Faithless Republican electors will go with another Republican like Cruz. I think the House would be choosing between Clinton, Trump, and Biden, not Clinton, Trump, or Johnson.
Whatever, as long as it’s not her or Trump. But that particular one sounded like he might go for Bernie. Which would be an amusing choice.
That’s the key point. Trump or Clinton are the only VIABLE choices. Not getting behind one is choosing the other.
Unless it’s close, and McMullin wins in Utah.
Faithless Republican electors will go with another Republican like Cruz.
Probably Jeb but maybe Rubio.
One or two doesn’t matter. The only one they will go for in numbers is the one wielding the carrot and stick.
There are not going to be enough faithless electors to make this silly pipe dream happen. In fact, it sounds like a pot-infused fantasy from a Johnson constituent.
Everybody who whines about how awful the inevitable Clinton presidency is is clearly not taking into account the 5-figure crowds at Trump events and the 5-person crowds at Hillary events.
Why bother leaving the house to rally for Hillary? People don’t need to leave the house to vote.
They don’t even need to vote to vote. They’ve already found several boxes with Hillary already written in. Just waiting for the location needing ballot stuffing.
If the media weren’t part of the conspiracy, her name prewritten on the ballots might be… I don’t know… news worthy?
“the 5-figure crowds at Trump events and the 5-person crowds at Hillary events.”
I just saw someone make nearly the same comment on the Small Dead Animals blog. Based on that, this is a broken-glass election – and nobody’s gonna crawl across broken glass to vote for Hillary.
I can’t reconcile the polls saying Hillary is ahead with the rally turn outs.
Elections are often won and lost on turnout. Rally attendance suggests a record turnout for Trump and anemic turnout for Hillary. Reported poll weighting assumes the opposite.
Regarding these coordinated accusations. Trump claims he has proof that he will reveal at the appropriate time. What time should that be?
Now would be too early because the corruption machine can just pile more on. He can’t do it at the 3rd debate because that puts him on defense when he needs that time to punch hard.
So how many weeks early and how does he put out this evidence for max effect?
The democrat corruption machine is marching out their sexual harassment scandal monger Gloria Allred. In my book that right there is evidence of a manufactured scandal.