|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Nov 10, 2016 20:02:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Don on Nov 10, 2016 20:20:28 GMT -5
True, but less likely than, say, Donald Trump being elected president.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 10, 2016 21:07:32 GMT -5
It's one of those wild, wishful thinking ideas, like the articles proposing that Evan McMullin could take the White House by deadlocking the vote with Utah and then being chosen by the Electoral College. Yeah, it's legally and mathematically possible, but so is winning the lottery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2016 21:19:14 GMT -5
True, but I'm with Amadan and Don.
We've got President Trump. Deal with it. I'm drunk and I still don't believe it, but I'm working my way towards acceptance.
Sure, my investments might tank, I have to listen to his speeches, and I almost certainly will be packed off to a gulag, but on the plus side, I've got four years to come up with creative nicknames relating to his hair, faux tan, and writing style. I can seriously spread myself, at least until they send me off to room 101 to have the rats chew off my face.
(seriously, I don't see much likelihood the electoral college rebels.)
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Nov 10, 2016 22:54:21 GMT -5
Argh, I can't find the article I was on earlier, but it said that electors have only flipped on their party around 160 times. 60-something of those were in a single election, when Horace Greeley died between the general election and the electoral vote. His electors had to choose between remaining candidates.
There are also several instances of electors abstaining altogether, but there's never been an election where enough electors flipped to change the outcome. Of course, anything's possible...but it's highly improbable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2016 23:10:14 GMT -5
It's 2016. Anything is possible. We're in bizarro world now, kids.
That said, while I think some might flip or abstain, I'd be surprised if enough did so.
Another possibility I've heard tossed around -- some huge scandal, larger than any of the previous ones, descends and forces Trump to step down. But though I do think it's likely we'll see a scandal or six emerge before long, I doubt anything will prevent him from becoming president.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Nov 11, 2016 4:41:02 GMT -5
Hopefully Trump will make it through his term. While there's a lot of uncertainty about the shape of a Trump administration, I have no uncertainty about the Pence Theocracy. The Nehemiah Scudder regime should remain a dystopian fantasy, not a become a playbook for a theocracy.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Nov 11, 2016 10:43:48 GMT -5
That's definitely the most worrying part of this mess, IMO. Even if nothing happens to Trump, he's liable to get bored and let Pence do the heavy lifting, putting us essentially in the same leaking ship.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2016 13:44:38 GMT -5
I rather expect Trump will delegate most of the heavy lifting to Pence and others, and focus on twitter, public appearances, his businesses, and gold-plating everything in sight in the White House.
I absolutely share your worries about preserving the separation of church and state, Don and Angie. To be clear, though I am an atheist, I would fight right down to the nubs of my nails for people's right to worship as they please. But it's imperative, in my opinion, that no one gets to force the rest of us to comply with their religious beliefs. (That all should go without saying, but...)
But honestly, the thing that scares me most about Trump is not that he's conservative (indeed, I don't really think he is) -- it's that he's erratic. That 3 am twitter binge about the former Miss Universe pretty much exemplifies my biggest fears -- I don't want my president prone to explosions of rage over his wounded ego, pointlessly spewing venom over petty crap. I want him/her to be steady and cool-headed.
Pence will do things I don't like, I'm sure. But at least he's an adult. He's unlikely to throw a temper tantrum and march troops into some third world country because its leader poked fun at his hair. Trump, on the other hand...
The next four years are going to be difficult for a lot of people. No question about it. And I don't mean to pooh-pooh that at all, to be clear. I am pretty sure Trump and his administration will throw the baby and the tub out with the bathwater with regard to a lot of things (e.g., healthcare), and I fear he'll leave a badly puttied gap. But then, I also think that other than the selection of Supreme Court justices, in many cases, we're looking at shorter term issues that get reversed when the political tide turns again (and it will). At least, that's what I'm hoping. And I'm also hoping he just "forgets" about a lot of his campaign threats promises (e.g., building a wall).
The Supreme Court justice selection DOES really concern me, I admit. It's not just that I don't want a far right court (though I don't). I don't want a screamingly partisan bench on either side. I don't want rah-rah activists on the court. I want judges who interpret the constitution and our laws, not rewrite them, who keep our other two branches in check, and who protect individuals' civil rights. I really don't want them having an agenda other than that. And of course, anything Trump does on the Supreme Court will last a very long time.
The Merrick Garland thing breaks my heart because I think he would be a terrific justice -- just the kind I'd like to see. But alas, he won't get there.
And of course it worries me very much that both houses of Congress are likely to support pretty much whatever Trump does. Some of you will disagree (though I'll bet Don and Robo probably won't), but I don't think it's a bad thing for the presidency and congress to belong to different parties, provided the parties are functioning in a healthy fashion -- i.e., willing to come to reasonable agreement on reasonable things. I'd like them to act as a healthy check on one another, not just rubber stamp each other. Alas, in recent years, it hasn't worked that way -- e.g., the refusal to confirm or even consider Merrick Garland.
But I personally do not like the idea of a congress that acts as a rubber stamp for the president even if I like that president. I hope to god that's not what happens now, but I fear it will.
If we want a check on Trump's power, we're likely going to have to look to the press and to ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Nov 11, 2016 14:59:08 GMT -5
I never thought Trump a Republican or a conservative. He's a product of a crumbling political party. I don't see him getting much support from either side and figure he'll be impeached within two years. But, I do believe Pence is a far greater threat to LGBTs and women's rights. He's far too religiously motivated to consider all aspects of individual freedom. And, with that, the popular vote for Clinton is rising: www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-up-almost-400k-in-popular-vote/ar-AAkbfsf?li=BBnb7KzIt will be interesting to see what the EC does given this.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Nov 11, 2016 15:14:54 GMT -5
I absolutely share your worries about preserving the separation of church and state, Don and Angie. To be clear, though I am an atheist, I would fight right down to the nubs of my nails for people's right to worship as they please. But it's imperative, in my opinion, that no one gets to force the rest of us to comply with their religious beliefs. (That all should go without saying, but...) 100% agreed. Also, I think a lot of people misunderstand the concept of separation, thinking it's only intended to protect the government from the church. When, in fact, it's ALSO meant to protect people's religious beliefs from government. Everyone seems to think it will be THEIR version of religion that will be in power, and don't consider the implications if another sect happens to grab control. I also agree with all of this (for someone I loathe and despise, you sure say a lot of things I agree with ). Having all three branches in lockstep is not a good thing. At all.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 13, 2016 13:13:01 GMT -5
So Trump has 290. If 11 electoral college peeps change their vote, he'd be under the requisite 270, but then, wouldn't it go to the house which is controlled by Hillary? Wouldn't enough of the pledged members of the electoral college members have to rebel, specifically 42, to give the election to Clinton? And they'd all have to do more than not vote Trump, but cast their ballot for Clinton? If they abstained or put in for say Cruz, or Sanders, or Mickey Mouse, then it would still go to the house.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Nov 15, 2016 11:04:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 15, 2016 13:31:12 GMT -5
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13588048/electoral-college-petition-clinton-trumpThis has a pretty good write up. Basically, yes it could happen, but no, it won't. When MI finally gives their votes to Trump, Trump will be ahead by 74 electoral votes. He'll have to lose 37 electors, all of whom are GOP and pledged to Trump, before he's under the 270. Then it goes to the House, and since their republican, they'll opt for Trump. Even if they didn't, they'd opt for another republican if they could get away from it. You would have to get 74 of them to change their vote and vote affirmatively for Clinton, which is just not going to happen. And even if it did, that would result in a loss of all faith in our electoral system, and the Trump supporters would go batcrap crazy.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Nov 15, 2016 13:53:22 GMT -5
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13588048/electoral-college-petition-clinton-trumpThis has a pretty good write up. Basically, yes it could happen, but no, it won't. When MI finally gives their votes to Trump, Trump will be ahead by 74 electoral votes. He'll have to lose 37 electors, all of whom are GOP and pledged to Trump, before he's under the 270. Then it goes to the House, and since their republican, they'll opt for Trump. Even if they didn't, they'd opt for another republican if they could get away from it. You would have to get 74 of them to change their vote and vote affirmatively for Clinton, which is just not going to happen. And even if it did, that would result in a loss of all faith in our electoral system, and the Trump supporters would go batcrap crazy. "Yeah, but there's still a chance! Here, sign this petition! What's faith in the electoral system compared to not coronating Hillary?"
|
|