I wonder what the media reaction would be if Bill Simon were to drop out of the California governor's race this week and be replaced by Bill Jones or Dick Riordan?

Or Ahnuld, perhaps?

Probably be seen as a desperate power grab. Just like this attempt to block the ballot switch will be seen as a desperate power grab.

The Republicans can't win on this one. The damn law keeps getting in the way.

Bob

I think that Rand was trying to point out what the reaction would be if Republicans tried the same thing as demo-gogues. And here we have our answer.
While it may be legal is it ethical? I know, I know, bringing up ethics in an article about Toricelli and his supporters is.. is... well, Clitnesque. (That's not a typo.)

The Republicans can't win on this one. The damn law keeps getting in the way.

How is that exactly?

Sorry, I was unclear.

The law gets in the way for the Democrats, but they've shown time and time again that they will stretch and disregard the law when necessary to achieve electoral victory.

The Republicans will not, or at least they haven't yet. And I certainly hope they don't start. So the law does get in the way for them.

What I was trying to say originally is that the law prohibits the Democrats from doing what they want to do. But they are trying to find a friendly judge to let them do it anyway.

By the media, from the NYTimes on down, this effort to replace Toricelli is being applauded as giving NJ voters a choice.

Once the Republicans file suit to block this, I predict the media will come out against them and portray the effort to enforce election law as a "power-grab," and an effort to circumvent the election process. Even though it's the Dems that are doing the power grab here.

However, if the Republicans did the same thing in California, I doubt you'd have the Times saying that it was a good move. They'd likely call it an attempt to get a losing candidate out of a race.

I got Rand's joke, I just wasn't clear in my reply.

Bob

It's a good thing I didn't see these comments until after Bob had clarified...

What do you mean, Kevin?

Bob

Something I just thought of, and other likely have as well. For all I know, the point has already been raised, but I haven't had the time to read every article on the matter. Wouldn't the easiest way around this situation be to run as a write-in candidate? I'm sure the democrats would cry "unfair advantage" to not having a name printed on the ballot, but at the same time, a democratic win on a write-in candidate with a one-month campaign would greatly legitimize their claim to the seat. Either outcome would have sound bites readily available, too. "Our candidate was not allowed on the ballot, therefore the voters did not know that he was up for election." and, "This write-in campaign's success proves that the voters of New Jersey are intelligent and informed individuals, and greatly legitimizes our claim to this seat in the Senate."

But back to the point, Rand's query hearkens back to the presidential election. The predicted outcome was a popular vote win for Bush, with an electoral college win for Gore, putting Gore in power. When the opposite occurred, well... we know what happened.

The same occurs here. The republicans, in the same position, would likely (hopefully) bow to the prevailing and ruling law in this matter. That is assuming, of course, that they'd even attempt to pull such a stunt. But the Supreme Court of New Jersey best watch itself with the ruling it provides. It would be dangerous to set a precedent allowing this type of behaviour to continue in the United States. After all, why not just scrap the Primaries and let everyone run campaigns for president, and then let the parties pick their candidate on Halloween for the ballots on Election Day?

Just a thought (or two or three...)

John,
Interesting that you bring up the 2000 election and what would have happened had Bush won the popular vote and Gore the electoral vote.

The Saturday before the 2000 election, Rush Limbuagh was on Wolf Blitzer's show on CNN. Wolf asked him what would happen if Bush won the popular and Gore the electoral. Rush said that Bush would accept the law of the land and go back to being governer of Texas.

But then Rush added that if the reverse were true, and Gore won the popular vote and Bush the electoral vote, that the Democrats would drag the election into the courts and do whatever they had to do to get Gore installed as president.

This was three days before the general election.

I think in this case, the Republicans will try to get the state courts to uphold the current election laws, but they won't turn it into a circus.

But the Democrats will do whatever they have to do to win the seat, regardless of the law. This is their new election strategy, win through the courts.

2004 will be a very interesting election. I imagine them fighting every close state outcome in the courts, and dragging it out as long as necessary at a hope of getting their nominee into the presidency.

This is just a trial run.

Bob

"What do you mean, Kevin?"

Only that, like Rand, I didn't catch what you were really trying to say -- and I probably would have been blunt in commenting on my misapprehension of your point.

By clarifying, you saved me an embarrassment.

What would the media reaction be if a congresswoman died, and then party leaders urged
her constituents to vote for her anyway?

And what if it was the same party whining that there was no choice in New Jersey?

Unbelievable.