PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: bflynn on November 03, 2016, 06:27:40 AM
-
There's a legitimate scenario where the electoral vote will tie 269-269 - taking the current predicted map and flipping New Hampshire to red, which is actually reasonable because their last polling showed Trump +2. If there is a tie, then the House of Representatives will elect the next president. Each state delegation will get one vote and it takes 26 votes to win. The state delegations are overwhelmingly republican, so in the event of a tie, a republican will win it.
But who would they elect? I don't believe they would have to vote for Trump. Pence seems reasonable. Kasich?
Who would you suggest?
-
There's a legitimate scenario where the electoral vote will tie 269-269 - taking the current predicted map and flipping New Hampshire to red, which is actually reasonable because their last polling showed Trump +2. If there is a tie, then the House of Representatives will elect the next president. Each state delegation will get one vote and it takes 26 votes to win. The state delegations are overwhelmingly republican, so in the event of a tie, a republican will win it.
But who would they elect? I don't believe they would have to vote for Trump. Pence seems reasonable. Kasich?
Who would you suggest?
It's my understanding that the House of Representatives can only select from the top 3 electoral college vote recipients.
-
It's my understanding that the House of Representatives can only select from the top 3 electoral college vote recipients.
Do the VP candidates qualify? If so, then it would be Pence. (my personal preference) If not, it would either be Trump or Johnson. I would be ok with either of them over Hillary.
-
Do the VP candidates qualify? If so, then it would be Pence. (my personal preference) If not, it would either be Trump or Johnson. I would be ok with either of them over Hillary.
The VP is chosen by the Senate.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxii
-
If Gary Johnson wins a state or the guy running in Utah, can they release their electors to Hillary or Trump to break a tie?
-
The VP is chosen by the Senate.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxii
I must not be as smart as some people give me credit for. That made my head spin.
So,
Is the house limited to the candidates that were running for President, or can they vote for the guy that was running for VP to be President? I will assume they can only choose form Presidential candidates for President and the Senate can only choose from the VP candidates for VP. Is that correct?
-
I must not be as smart as some people give me credit for. That made my head spin.
So,
Is the house limited to the candidates that were running for President, or can they vote for the guy that was running for VP to be President? I will assume they can only choose form Presidential candidates for President and the Senate can only choose from the VP candidates for VP. Is that correct?
No. They can only choose the president from the list of candidates who received presidential votes and the same for vice-president. In other words, your choices are going to be Hillary or Trump for president (unless McMullin or Johnson win a state) and Pence or Kaine for vice-president.
-
If Gary Johnson wins a state or the guy running in Utah, can they release their electors to Hillary or Trump to break a tie?
Each state's electors will cast a singular vote for president if it goes to the House. So the electors of Utah could choose to cast their vote in the House for Trump or Clinton and would not be obligated to McMullin. That's assuming I'm reading the 12th Amendment correctly.
-
There's a legitimate scenario where the electoral vote will tie 269-269 - taking the current predicted map and flipping New Hampshire to red, which is actually reasonable because their last polling showed Trump +2. If there is a tie, then the House of Representatives will elect the next president. Each state delegation will get one vote and it takes 26 votes to win. The state delegations are overwhelmingly republican, so in the event of a tie, a republican will win it.
But who would they elect? I don't believe they would have to vote for Trump. Pence seems reasonable. Kasich?
Who would you suggest?
New polls out today in New Hampshire. One poll shows Trump up 1 and another Trump up 4:
http://www.wbur.org/politicker/2016/11/03/trump-clinton-new-hampshire
The other poll is from the American Research Group but the link is currently down. I'll update this once it's back up.
Edit: It looks like the main site is going in and out and the American Research Group website isn't working at all. If it loads, this will show the break down of the polls I mentioned:
https://politicalwire.com/2016/11/03/state-poll-roundup-thursday-13/
-
I must not be as smart as some people give me credit for. That made my head spin.
I understand the spin (no pun). Apparently lawyers have always had problems writing clearly.
-
Of course all this assumes that the Electoral College elector is "faithful" and votes for the person he/she is pledged to vote for. Really, nothing to prevent an Electoral College elector from saying "Screw this, I'm not voting for x, I'm voting for y." An interesting check against the people going against the establishment and popularly electing a [doofus | criminal]. The house always wins.
-
Of course all this assumes that the Electoral College elector is "faithful" and votes for the person he/she is pledged to vote for. Really, nothing to prevent an Electoral College elector from saying "Screw this, I'm not voting for x, I'm voting for y." An interesting check against the people going against the establishment and popularly electing a [doofus | criminal]. The house always wins.
I knew of a couple faithless electors, but hadn't realized there were so many cases of that happening in U.S. electoral history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector)
A couple cases with the most such faithless electors (not including cases where a candidate died):- 1832 election: Two National Republican Party electors from the state of Maryland refused to vote for presidential candidate Henry Clay and did not cast a vote for him or for his running mate. All 30 electors from Pennsylvania refused to support the Democratic vice presidential candidate Martin Van Buren, voting instead for William Wilkins.
- 1836 election: The 23 electors from Virginia were pledged to vote for Democratic candidates Martin Van Buren (for President) and Richard Mentor Johnson (for Vice President). However, they abstained from voting for Johnson, because of his open (and therefore scandalous) liaison with a slave mistress. This left Johnson with one fewer than a majority of electoral votes. Johnson was subsequently elected Vice President by the Senate.
-
Oh dear God. Let it be decisive Nov 8.
-
If Trump wins look for Obama to declare its an "illegitimate election" and was hacked by the Russians.
-
If Trump wins look for Obama to declare its an "illegitimate election" and was hacked by the Russians.
I can't tell if that is cynical humor or you really believe that is a possibility.
-
I can't tell if that is cynical humor or you really believe that is a possibility.
I'm not surprised.
-
I'm not surprised.
I couldn't tell either.
-
To be clear, in the event of a 269-269 tie, the House would only have Trump and Clinton as options to vote for.
Best case there is that neither can reach 26 states, and Pense is selected by the Senate as the next VP, and would become Acting President on January 20 until such time as the House broke their impasse, potentially the entire term.
-
I ran the numbers on this some weeks ago. On a straight party line vote, as presently constituted Republicans have the clear advantage. Keep in mind that the next Congress, installed Jan 3rd, will count the electoral college votes on Jan 6th, and THEY will decide the election if no candidate has a majority. A swing in power of the House (not presently considered likely, but possible) this election could affect the presumptive outcome.
Then in the specific case of this year's election, consider an --elevated-- possibility that a Republican House, just reinstalled and immune from reelection for two long years at least, could turn on Trump and broker a deal that puts Hillary in the White House. Perhaps something that involves Republican pre-selection of SC justices to replace Scalia, Ginsburg (presumptively; current age 83), Kennedy or Breyer (perhaps; current ages 80, 78)... I wouldn't put it past the GOP leadership, or put it past them to blow such a deal and sell out for less.
-
I ran the numbers on this some weeks ago. On a straight party line vote, as presently constituted Republicans have the clear advantage. Keep in mind that the next Congress, installed Jan 3rd, will count the electoral college votes on Jan 6th, and THEY will decide the election if no candidate has a majority. A swing in power of the House (not presently considered likely, but possible) this election could affect the presumptive outcome.
Then in the specific case of this year's election, consider an --elevated-- possibility that a Republican House, just reinstalled and immune from reelection for two long years at least, could turn on Trump and broker a deal that puts Hillary in the White House. Perhaps something that involves Republican pre-selection of SC justices to replace Scalia, Ginsburg (presumptively; current age 83), Kennedy or Breyer (perhaps; current ages 80, 78)... I wouldn't put it past the GOP leadership, or put it past them to blow such a deal and sell out for less.
Why would they do that? Why not make a deal with The Dealmaker, who has nothing to protect because he will almost ceainly be a one term president? The suggestion that House Republicans would meet in December and install Hillary as the new president is what I would see as a far distant third most likely option (out of three). She isn't trustworthy.
-
Somewhat related, why is information released on early voting?
-
Why would they do that? Why not make a deal with The Dealmaker, who has nothing to protect because he will almost ceainly be a one term president? The suggestion that House Republicans would meet in December and install Hillary as the new president is what I would see as a far distant third most likely option (out of three). She isn't trustworthy.
I think that, being outside the existing power structure, Trump is at least as much a threat to the GOP leadership as Hillary is.
I don't know why there is this recurring presumption that Trump will not stand for re-election. I haven't seen it anywhere before.
Once the House gets the election, they are not beholden to anyone but their voters two long years hence -- anything truly is possible.
As for not trusting Hillary, I agree. However they would still (presumably) have the votes in the Senate to enforce a deal on judicial appointments. And don't forget that the Democrats have set the precedent in using the "nuclear option" to eliminate the filibuster of judicial nominations.
-
Somewhat related, why is information released on early voting?
I don't think they are counting votes or releasing early vote totals, but they do know (and release) where the early votes have been cast. Pundits can extrapolate which candidate likely stands to benefit based on where the votes are coming from.
-
I don't think they are counting votes or releasing early vote totals, but they do know (and release) where the early votes have been cast. Pundits can extrapolate which candidate likely stands to benefit based on where the votes are coming from.
I think they can also tell the registered party of the voters. For instance, if 1,000 vote early, it is possible to tell that 800 of them were registered D and 90 were registered R.
-
I think they can also tell the registered party of the voters. For instance, if 1,000 vote early, it is possible to tell that 800 of them were registered D and 90 were registered R.
Thanks.
Its too bad they're not checking whether 80 voters live in the same 1 bedroom apartment (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/03/voter-fraud-california-man-finds-dozens-ballots-stacked-outside-home.html) -- or whether the voters were able to put their tombstones back in place after filling out their ballots (among other discrepancies). O_o
-
Unfortunately 4 members of my family will be voting democrat, and for Hillary this election.
I love and respect my grandparents decisions, and even though they were life long republicans before passing away 20+ years ago.
-
I don't think they are counting votes or releasing early vote totals, but they do know (and release) where the early votes have been cast. Pundits can extrapolate which candidate likely stands to benefit based on where the votes are coming from.
It can also be used to drive voters one way or the other. Personally, I believe that information should not be released at all.
-
Unfortunately 4 members of my family will be voting democrat, and for Hillary this election.
I love and respect my grandparents decisions, and even though they were life long republicans before passing away 20+ years ago.
Watching game 7 of the World Series Tuesday night, I was struck that no one remembers what it was like in Chicago when the Cubs last won a World Series 108 years ago... except for several thousand Democrat voters.
-
Watching game 7 of the World Series Tuesday night, I was struck that no one remembers what it was like in Chicago when the Cubs last won a World Series 108 years ago... except for several thousand Democrat voters.
that few?
-
Thanks.
Its too bad they're not checking whether 80 voters live in the same 1 bedroom apartment (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/03/voter-fraud-california-man-finds-dozens-ballots-stacked-outside-home.html) -- or whether the voters were able to put their tombstones back in place after filling out their ballots (among other discrepancies). O_o
RACIST!!!!!!!!!